Just take a look at the Sacramento Kings. He helped acquire several highly paid veterans for the sake of "culture", on a rebuilding team. And yet, a few weeks ago those same veterans were reported to be disgruntled and wanted trades to contenders because they were under the impression they'd be competitng for a playoff spot. But what rebuilding team competes for a playoff spot in year 1 of a rebuild plan? Someone is lying bere and misleading others. And now George Hill is supposedly already on his way to the Cavs for cents on the dollar, with efforts being made to dump Vince Carter, Zach Randolph and Kostas Koufus. What was the point of a few months of "culture" when that money would've been invaluable in acquiring more picks and/or leveraging bad contracts to move up in the draft?

To get to my point, I've thought management was full of **** the moment the dust settled this offseason. We've done, exactly what the Kings were trying to do: get curb-stomped in the first round of the playoffs to the detriment of a youth movement. So I am skeptical of any substantive change that this front office promised. This is the same old Knicks, with the same culture that promotes the short-term to the detriment of the long-term. So expect a Kemba Walker to the Knicks for a Frank Ntilikina. Because this team is more concerned with headlines than the machinations of building a winner.

NardDogNation wrote:Many here have a high opinion of Scott Perry. They say he's a talented GM, who has a record of success, so we should trust his judgment in how he helps build this team. They believe him about his desire to rebuild and how "culture" is key, which is used to justify us keeping highly paid veterans on the team. And I've never understood why any of that is the case.

Just take a look at the Sacramento Kings. He helped acquire several highly paid veterans for the sake of "culture", on a rebuilding team. And yet, a few weeks ago those same veterans were reported to be disgruntled and wanted trades to contenders because they were under the impression they'd be competitng for a playoff spot. But what rebuilding team competes for a playoff spot in year 1 of a rebuild plan? Someone is lying bere and misleading others. And now George Hill is supposedly already on his way to the Cavs for cents on the dollar, with efforts being made to dump Vince Carter, Zach Randolph and Kostas Koufus. What was the point of a few months of "culture" when that money would've been invaluable in acquiring more picks and/or leveraging bad contracts to move up in the draft?

To get to my point, I've thought management was full of **** the moment the dust settled this offseason. We've done, exactly what the Kings were trying to do: get curb-stomped in the first round of the playoffs to the detriment of a youth movement. So I am skeptical of any substantive change that this front office promised. This is the same old Knicks, with the same culture that promotes the short-term to the detriment of the long-term. So expect a Kemba Walker to the Knicks for a Frank Ntilikina. Because this team is more concerned with headlines than the machinations of building a winner.

Can't speak for the Kings situation. But for the Knicks the only knocks on him are moves that he hasn't done which we don't know what has been available for him. Only speculation, can't knock somebody due to speculation on what they could be doing. If he makes a move with his name on it that hurts the franchise then we can knock him for that. But knocking him for not trading someone like Lee or KOQ when we don't know what teams are offering in return isn't fair.

Finding guys like Beasley & Burke & Jack for vet min and getting out of Melo's NTC were all home runs given the situation he came into.

fishmike wrote:

MS wrote:The two worst franchises in the NBA are the Knicks and Kings.

DeMarcus Cousins is a top 10 NBA player and the Kings traded him for a late draft pick and a guy that’s not good enough to start. There franchise was drowning and they needed to legitimize the franchise and help its young players along. It made sense to bring in veterans, they will be able to move them easily, so not a disaster by any means.

Since he’s been here he’s executed four exceptionally strong moves.

Jack - finding a starting point guard in the scrap heap to stabilize the position, virtually impossible at that late in the game.

Beasley - one of the best value signings of the offseason, behind Evans

Melo for Kanter/Dougy - two serviceable rotation pieces without adding salary that fit into a culture.

Burke - developing someone in the G league and potentially turning them into a rotation piece very impressive.

At worst that’s a B+

While Perry was not here you need to add Tim Hardaway into that list as well. That's 5 moves this FO has made that are very good, and the TH move was something nobody here supported and he was spot on in that signing.

Paris907 are there moves NBA GMs make that dont have risk?

To answer that question is relatively easy. Resigning your star players falls under the no brainer category. Likewise, securing the services of expiring contracts requires relatively little risk as well. Let’s not forget 10 day contracts. Hope that answers your question

Paris907 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

MS wrote:The two worst franchises in the NBA are the Knicks and Kings.

DeMarcus Cousins is a top 10 NBA player and the Kings traded him for a late draft pick and a guy that’s not good enough to start. There franchise was drowning and they needed to legitimize the franchise and help its young players along. It made sense to bring in veterans, they will be able to move them easily, so not a disaster by any means.

Since he’s been here he’s executed four exceptionally strong moves.

Jack - finding a starting point guard in the scrap heap to stabilize the position, virtually impossible at that late in the game.

Beasley - one of the best value signings of the offseason, behind Evans

Melo for Kanter/Dougy - two serviceable rotation pieces without adding salary that fit into a culture.

Burke - developing someone in the G league and potentially turning them into a rotation piece very impressive.

At worst that’s a B+

While Perry was not here you need to add Tim Hardaway into that list as well. That's 5 moves this FO has made that are very good, and the TH move was something nobody here supported and he was spot on in that signing.

Paris907 are there moves NBA GMs make that dont have risk?

To answer that question is relatively easy. Resigning your star players falls under the no brainer category. Likewise, securing the services of expiring contracts requires relatively little risk as well. Let’s not forget 10 day contracts. Hope that answers your question

CrushAlot wrote:I have been following things a little in Sac and it hasn't worked out as he planned it to. But, before Perry the Kings couldn't get guys to work out for them before the draft and free agents would not consider the team. The Knicks had become that same type of organization by the time Phil left (i.e. Dennis Smith jr.). Perry brought credibility back to the team/organization. Jack, Burke, and Beasley all came in part because of Perry. Beasley also has a Rambis connection but guys committed to the Knicks because of Perry. He also brought in his own guys. Not sure what Perry is supposed to do to convince others that he isn't concerned with building a winner and just wants headlines. Not trading for Kemba, bringing in Burke definitely seems like the type of move a guy building and not chasing headlines.

Right, and you know this how?