TripleThreat wrote:The Knicks in their current position should not be trading draft picks of any kind moving forward. Esp 2nd round picks. NBA 1st round picks are vested wtih two years of GUARANTEED MONEY and then two options years in the first four years of team control. 2nd round picks are guaranteed ZERO MONEY of any kind. This makes player control more difficult but the salary cap issues more manageable for 2nd round picks. As more and more teams are at the cap threshold or into the tax zone, those 2nd round picks become more valuable over time. The market shift for the rise in the valuation of 2nd round picks was somewhat predictable two offseasons ago. That the Knicks did not prepare as such was a poor market based decision for the long term. Free agency is incredibly easy and incredibly hard. The Knicks will not get Tier 1 and Tier 2 free agents. Zero chance. Guys with the options to get max money and go to a winning/contending situation will not pick the Knicks. Tier 3 guys will be overpays of some kind. Max years and above market AAV will the only enticements. By nature, these will be poor market based decisions. In Tier 4 and Tier 5, the Knicks will have to look for bargains. Only there can the Knicks assess if any good market based contracts are possible. In most cases the the cap space would be better preserved to "rent in trades" to take in bad contracts packaged with some kind of asset or assets.
The Knicks have tried to trade everyone on that roster not named Zinger/Hernangomez/Frank N. Many of the contracts are players teams don't want anymore or their market cost is too prohibitive or they are poor market based values for their rosters. This is the tax on a poor market based decision. That player is stuck on your roster. For a reason.
Trading Hernangomez would be a poor market based decision. He's young and cost controlled. He's had sophomore regression but that's not unusual for many players.
It would take more than a single 1st round pick to dump Noah. He's a dead contract and the Knicks are stuck with him.
If the Knicks fire Hornacek, they run the real risk of being a job considered toxic for any coach with actual options. He's not Erik Spolestra, but Spolestra could not get this team into the playoffs. He's a veteran coach and this team is playing defense most of the time, which for the Knicks is pretty rare. The reality is that the Knicks, like a few other teams, should have NEVER let Kenny Atkinson go. The guy is just a flat out great coach. He's one of the best developmental coaches in the league. Erik Spolestra was stuck in a film room before Pat Riley groomed him. If the Knicks don't have a young successor in place, they are better off leaving some kind of stability on the team.
The Knicks have and are trying to sell. No one wants what they have right now. This team is in a tricky position. Tanking will only further demoralize the mercurial Zinger. But it should have been done to start. The problem is the East is gutted, so even a busted Knicks squad is a treadmill team.
There's nothing to buy. The things the Knicks have to trade that teams want, the Knicks want to keep. The things the Knicks want to trade, the reason the Knicks want to dump them is the SAME REASON those teams don't want to acquire them.
The Knicks are not getting Aaron Gordon. Period.
Playing younger players, rookies like Frank N and Dotson have never played this kind of volume before, with this kind of competition. It's not even the All Star break yet. Pushing them too hard now risks them to injury. Guys here clamoring to see young and raw players being overexposed is kind of insane.
It's not hard. It sucks but it's not hard. At each juncture, evaluate all options and make the best market based decision given the time and place.
When teams are actually making the BEST MARKET PLACE DECISION, their options are quite limited in scope. The draft is very short. FA doesn't have many options. Their are no market inefficiencies in the NBA market structure. Contracts are guaranteed. Most of what I post on this site is market based on evaluation. Meaning what I post is usually in line with the thought process of an actual NBA front office. Well, a functional one. I recognize many people don't agree with me at times, but more critically, the market CONCEPTS I bring up, are really the key issue. These concepts are often universal in the current environment.
Taking the best market based choice is not a guarantee of results, it's a guarantee to have the most options and opportunity given the situation. These are different concepts. Many people see a failure of results as a total failure. Given the imbalance of how the NBA actually operates within it's own market, all you can do is seek relative opportunity and hope for the best. In essence, a slim chance is better than no chance at all and many decisions lead to a no chance at all scenario.
Trip - excellent post. You frame the Knicks eternal dilemma beautifully in all its glory. At face value, you are spot on. But what you describe is a never-ending cycle of futility UNLESS and IF and ONLY IF (IFF) the Knicks somehow continue to strike gold in the draft AND the attrition of good players isn't decimated by injury or whatnot. In other words, we're on a treadmill of mediocrity for the foreseeable future.
I've spent thirty odd years as a systems analyst of one kind or another and just for grins would like to suggest a few things that might disrupt or break this pattern of futility.
First, an inventory of assets; Untouchables, short-timers, G-Leaguers, and yes, future draft picks.
Second, an honest assessment of the likelihood of succeeding in following the formula you describe in winning games. Here I'm speaking to your accurate business analysis of managing budgets and so on which is largely ambivalent on the subject of winning games.
So we have two untouchables, Frankie and Porzingis though I would trade Porzingis for the right package in a heartbeat.
Everybody else could be considered a short-timer. Our two signed G-Leaguers are dubious talents but fishing around the G-League might be a worthwhile exercise if the roster needs bodies.
And to speak to your first point, the Knicks first-rounder should be made available *because* of the guaranteed money. At this trade deadline what we should be stock-piling is second-round picks who, as you say, have no strings attached AND who stick with the team not because of draft reputation but because they show they can play.
Furthermore, in a weak draft, the Knicks would have to be uncanny in repeating their luck in the last few drafts.
And lastly, holding that draft pick is an excuse to lose instead of win and this team needs to nurture a winning, not losing, culture.
So we have a shiny, desirable asset #1 AND our scouting attention is now not on the first-rounders this year but on the second-rounders AND players who were highly regarded in previous drafts who could be acquired in small trades.
We agree completely on the FA market. Until the Knicks start winning games, no one of consequence is coming in this direction.
To speak to your assertion that our tradeable assets aren't because they are "players teams don't want anymore or their market cost is too prohibitive or they are poor market based values for their rosters". Okay. Let's break that down.
We know, KOQ and Willie *ARE* being inquired about. The question with both is what they could return either one-for-one or bundled with our first-rounder. Two more shiny assets.
We also have Kanter, Thomas, and CLee who we don't hear much about but who presumably must fit a playoff contender niche somewhere. In the case of these two, any trade would likely be lop-sided in favor of the buyer. Here, the pain factor and desirability of the incoming asset determine the decision.
Now where we part ways is in your assertion that there's nothing to buy. I disagree. And my disagreement is based on the idea that the NBA system can't be broken. I think it can be and the goal in the next week and in the summer is to beat it. In other words the Knicks need too operate like a disruptive agent rather than a passive victim.
First, the Knicks should not be buyers or sellers. The Knicks have to be looking to exchange assets for *the best value they can get*. This doesn't mean winning trades, it means satisfying a thirst.
Okay, so how to break the system? In agreeing that we're trading [this year's first-rounder only!] draft pick, we internally gain nothing by tanking. This does two things. Teams that are tanking become easier games to win and, in doing so, the Knicks at least look and play more respectively. And, YES, it matters.
Now, the other criticism I hear all the time on these boards is that this expendable player or that "is only worth" a second-round pick. Let's turn that maxim on its head. Let's ask for two second-round picks in separate years. While we won't be drafting the sexy first-rounders who are tied to big buck commitments, we will have a nice reservoir of hungry second-rounders who fight for roster spots on the big club or for the Westchester Knicks. Let's own that market.
So what have we done. Well, those players who seemed too expensive to other teams suddenly are quite affordable. We move a redundant asset and refill that role with an up-and-coming signing from the G-league, overseas player, or NBA orphan needing a second-chance. It doesn't matter because we're fishing for talent we couldn't get any other way. Useful vets get moved, kids/second-lifers get promoted. All we're doing is improving the talent pool even if by a hair.
We also know there are sellers and tankers. They won't be interested in our vets unless we take back a lop-sided contract. Seems to me that we should stop fighting lop-sided trades and contracts. If our goal is to win and our chances of ever getting better are locked in an existing system meant to keep us down, we need to take some risks.
So again, stop trying to 'win' trades and start disrupting the system. The goal is to strategically identify talent that's useful to constructing a winning team rather than worry about spreadsheets or trade grades. For example, is having a Batum better than having a Noah? The accountants gag at the thought but...
The other way to disrupt the system is to offer our shiny object assets to playoff contenders who are underdogs first. Greed motivates a better return. And rather than barter, be willing to be satisfied. If an underdog has an asset to trade that we like, get it. Be happy. A bird in hand is worth two in Free Agency.
The best market decisions are what got us here. We need to start constructing a winning team. That means taking chances, working with a riskier spreadsheet, and being less predictable. We aren't wining anything playing it safe.
2/3/2018 5:01 AM