TripleThreat wrote:fwk00 wrote:Trip, I think where we disagree is in the metrics that every once in a while get published about the turning point for an NBA point guard (other positions vary). And the magic number of NBA years is 5 for point guards. There are obviously notable exceptions on either side of that number.My observation on this is that it may be more of an indication of front office stability than anything the player can control.
Teams stuck in the perpetual mediocrity cycle have a profile.
My point is that the Knicks by dedicating themselves to an implicitly painful rebuild process are taking advantage of the by-product of this talent turnstile. That is, quite specifically, that other teams have already paid the front-loaded cost of these lottery picks.
As far as I can tell, rolling the dice on former top ten picks is just as inexpensive and effective as running second-rounders on the floor.
I don't think the Knicks are as bereft of talent as you think. They are loaded.
I see your point. You are making good points.
Something to consider is these other point guards who needed five years to realize their full skill set, I'd still argue many offered at least a passable floor of production to stay in the rotation and give indication that the then current floor still held value. Billups was used as an example ( I don't think he's a good cross example though) Billups was always a good defender. That was at least a bedrock to build upon. Mudiay offers zero 3 And D value.
If team gives up on a player during the timeline of his rookie contract ( by either low value trade or simply not picking up the 3rd/4th year option, that player is just not very good. ( Or to point, he was not very good with that team) We can mince the outer circumstances of the overall franchise, but the player was just not productive. This is where the question of major injury or limited minutes come into play. ( Both these things applied to Billups)
Here is where we are going to diverge.
-snip-
But even at 4.3 for this last year, you could get , with a little more, FOUR YEARS of the top pick in the 2nd round on your squad. Someone who is still in their prime developmental window.
Your arguments are sound. My observations are not about the financials however (and, yes, they are important). I'm looking at this "development year" strictly on the basis of the strategy for building a roster. To your last point - "FOUR YEARS of the top pick in the 2nd round" - I would argue that as persuasive as that argument may sound - the historical evidence would suggest that the vast majority of second-rounders never make it anywhere and the ones that do aren't necessarily the topmost picks.
I would still argue that the strategy the FO is experimenting with is plenty risky but still a shade more sensible than throwing darts with second-rounders. And I think they are tempering their risk with the fact that this year's salary cap makes no difference whatsoever.
TripleThreat wrote:
Here's the other problem, when the Knicks get a guy in his 4th year, they must make a contract assessment on him quickly. He could flame out ( most) but in the rare case he does well, it's a question of betting against one solid season against the previous three where the lack of production is why he was available in the first place. You are NOT getting the full benefit of the cost control aka COST CERTAINTY with the rookie deal. 'The Knicks are NOT taking advantage of anything. They are getting a player outside of his prime developmental window, who has flamed out somewhere else before, at a greater cost and risk question than a 2nd round pick.
Here we are speculating more about the long term blueprint for building a team than isolating the value of a player being given a trial run.
Early in the season, no one expected any of these players to stick or even play as well as they have (under the circumstances). An argument could be made that the Knicks FO was gaming the roster to lose.
But as the season progressed even Wally and Alan Hahn began to wonder aloud if the Knicks might be better off signing the players who have done well rather than concentrate exclusively on the star-puck FA signing this summer.
I'm guessing that the Knicks were sincerely on a talent hunt and scored wildly more successfully than anticipated. MR, Dotson, Vonleah, Knox, and Trier all show rotation worthy potential. The Knicks' two unicorns, KP and Frankie, have yet to deliver consistent results in line with the demands expected of them. But one can't argue that its not a talent gap slowing them down. So just speaking of those 7 players, we're talking about half-a-roster of pretty intriguing talent and players.
Now, you are correct in saying that this assessment is a bit of a snap judgement. We're talking about a small window of observation under soul-sucking circumstances. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Next year, add a top ten pick and a FA or two and we're looking at 9 or 10 rotation spots being accounted for.
And the evaluation of a handful of others is yet to be talked about.
TripleThreat wrote:
The reason the Knicks didn't give the roster spot to a 2nd round pick was because PHIL JACKSON KEPT TRADING THEM OFF. LIKE AN IDIOT. Yes, they got MRob with a 2nd, but they could have had way more 2nds available over time if they did not trade them off.
-snip-
I think your argument goes off the track here. The Knicks made room for Trier, an undrafted player and would have made room for others had they made the grade.
Phil Jackson had nothing to do with it - that rabbit hole ain't worth jumping down.
TripleThreat wrote:
The Knicks are not loaded, they have one very elite prospect ( Zinger) in his prime developmental window. They have a bunch of other guys in their prime developmental window. They are not loaded with talent. They are in a better direction than before. But how hard is that?
"How hard is that?"
You're talking to an educated fan who has argued since the days of Scott Layden to rebuild through the draft. In fact, in NY, it's so hard that this rebuild may get short-circuited at any time due to rabid media and fan pressure. Many of us have seen this act before.
On a side note, Porzingis is no longer an elite prospect. He's an unusually gifted front-court talent who has yet to play a winning season or even a healthy full season. Given the severity of his injury, he is a very risky asset.
The elite prospect you fail to mention is Frankie who holds just as much promise with far less risk.
TripleThreat wrote:
Now if Mudiay was a better player, I'd see the argument working more in line with what you are saying. He's ... -snip-
A 2nd round pick might, and likely would bust. But is he gonna give you less than Mudiay if you gave said rookie 30 plus minutes a night and 20 plus shots a night plus allowed to be ball dominant and call his own number at will?
But will that 2nd round pick give you possibly more in a ROLE, like only playing 10 minutes a night or only getting five shots in a game?
A 2nd round pick does not need to equalize Mudiay. If he gave 50 percent of Mudiays RELATIVE production at a fraction of the cost, he's a massive value over Mudiay.
My guess is that the FO would love to see Mudiay succeed. My guess is that he (and Burke, among others) will be moved before the trading deadline. They will likely be replaced by exchanged players, 10 day contracts, or G-League call-ups. Just a hunch. More than a few teams will be looking to shore up their benches for the playoff run.
TripleThreat wrote:
It is NOT AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY. You know what is an effective strategy? DUMPING SUNK COSTS. Orlando saw Hezonja as a sunk cost and dumped him. Not worth the 5 percent chance of being something else to risk the 95 percent chance he'd still suck for them. Give the minutes, roster spot and cap space to someone else who might develop.
Phil Jackson took a bad situation and made it horrible. He ****ed up the cap sheet. And he dumped out 2nd round picks that were insanely valuable. That's it. This is why Mudiay is on the roster.
I'm a Phil fan. It wasn't pretty but he saved this franchise.
Whether the strategy is effective or not won't unfold for a year or two.
If I had my druthers, Elfrid Payton would have been the PG to acquire, not Mudiay (who I advocated for in the initial draft).
Mudiay and Hezonja (another player I had hopes for) are on Perry, not Phil.