Knixkik wrote:If you strike out in free agency you just build around Barrett, Knox, and Mitch. So trading back is not a good option. We would need to gamble on Barrett becoming a superstar wing. We can’t build around future role players by trading back.

Who says guys like D.Garland, D.Hunter, J.Culver, C.White, C.Reddish and some others are role players? "Draft experts" and fans? I think each one i mentioned and a few others could turn into really good starters in the NBA and would bet that most if not all of them will be. I get all the talk of this being a 3 player draft but anyone who pays attention to the draft knows that these "draft experts" are wrong about players and what they'll be in the NBA every single year. There's always players drafted in the lottery that end up busts and there's always players drafted later in the 1st round or even the 2nd round (M.Robinson) that end up really good NBA players.

knicks1248 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:I don't think striking out is an option.

In a loaded FA class, a top 3 pick and more cap space than this franchise has seen in over 20 yrs, and you strikeout..we will be looking at a new Front office by december when we are 15 games below 500.

They haven't prove they can develop anyone, the past trades have been lukewarm at best, and more players have been asked to be traded away than any other regime..

This off season is clearly the biggest the franchise has had since signing Houston, LJ and childs then trading Oak for camby. I don't think striking out is an option..

Remember, we are coming off of our 5th lottery season

Thats what gets you Amar'e and his uninsurable knees. Its still true that sometimes the best deal is the one you walk away from. We need stars, veteran role players in their prime. And younger players to fill in the gaps until they become either one or the other.

If the stars available dont look like they will be a good fit, find a quality role player, like a Morris. Develop the recent draft picks.

Forcing a square peg in a round hole isnt the answer. Not the last free agent class the Knicks will see. The idea is to build a team that wont be back in the lotto, in a couple of seasons.

Amare wasn't a bad signing, his biggest issue was never his knees, it was his back and punching fire extinguishers..the problem came when they added melo, out of shape felton, and Tyson chandler(to play in a MDA system).

The knicks make one good move and 4 bad ones usual follow, like drafting shumpert, or not trading up 2 spots for Kawhi, or drafting Tobias or Butler.

KD and Kyrie have too much connections to NY, if you can't seal the deal with them (both are very interested in playing here) then why should i believe in the FO and coach.

KD, kawhi, Kyrie, have all missed significant time in their careers because of injury, and quite frankly injuries can happen to anyone at any time..

So it sounds like you're good with us giving out two max contracts to any of the bigger names out there even if it doesn't start with one of the true stars in KD, Kawhi or AD which is taking a huge chance at the Knicks making another huge mistake that could hold us back for another 4 years. I'm not alright with that and think we have to have at least one of those 3 true stars first and if not then i'm good with keeping with the rebuild and signing players to one year contracts this offseason. It's funny that some want to complain about all the bad decisions the Knicks have made over the years but have no problem with them taking another huge chance of blowing our money and it hurting us again but as soon as it does hurt us those same people will be the first ones to hate on the Knicks for doing it one or two years down the road.

Knixkik wrote:If you strike out in free agency you just build around Barrett, Knox, and Mitch. So trading back is not a good option. We would need to gamble on Barrett becoming a superstar wing. We can’t build around future role players by trading back.

No we don't. There are more future disgruntled stars to come, which is why there is no need for us to HAVE to draft a superstar. Our current focus should be on developing the talent we have, while getting as many swings at first round picks. If we follow smackeddog's plan, we could develop an entire rotation of guys on cost control while maintaining enough cap space to attract a star. Remember that Giannis' contract is set to expire in a few years....

ankurk wrote:

smackeddog wrote:Teams likely to be looking to dump salary with picks:

OKC (Schroeder or maybe Adams, or maybe some of their smaller contracts)
Rockets
Twolves
Heat
Charlotte

If Kemba goes back and we strike out i'm looking at Biyombo and Marvin and thinking if they want to keep kemba happy they'll neeed to try for that second star. Open up 30 mil more for the hornets to make their moves and revamp the team. Give me 2 firsts and miles bridges.

Two firsts and Miles Bridges is unrealistic. That's a godfather type offer teams only offer for actual talent at the level of an all-star. I doubt they move Bridges who is a pretty good young piece. A pick for an expirer might be in play though.

smackeddog wrote:Starting to get 2010 PTSD flashbacks, but the key is not to repeat the mistakes we made then. My strike out plan is:

1)Three team trade: the 3rd pick to the Cavs for their 5th (Hawks give it them back) plus next years first, then send the 5th to the Hawks for their three first rounders- draft role players

The idea behind this is picking up a second high first rounder for next year and targeting next years draft (which ill be deeper) as the year we add franchise player type talent. I have my doubts about RJ, where as I think this draft is deep for role players.

2) If the Hornets sign Kemba, take back some of their one year expirings (whoever out of Biyombo's $17mil, Williams' $15mil, MKG's $13mil) for 2 first rounders.

3) Sign Rubio for $10mil per, we need a good passing PG to maximise our young players, plus if DSJ takes a step forward, Rubio can move to the bench

That would leave us with 3 first round picks this year, cap space, plus the Cavs next year, plus 2 firsts from the Hornets, plus 2 from Dallas. Put's us in great shape to develop the young players, and either use or trade the future firsts depending on opportunities.

I'm not sure why you'd be having PTSD. The widely discussed plan of signing both KD and Kyrie has massive drawbacks that gets overlooked because of what they were/are; not necessarily what they will be by years 3, 4 and possibly 5 (if a sign-and-trade happens) of their contracts. Factor in their mercurial, tempermental ways and you have a powder keg, set to go off. The prudent thing to do is to continuing building a base, while maintaining optionality until a clear, sustainable path to contention provides itself. I don't think Kyrie and KD is that, especially if/when the Raptors win the title.

What you describe as a Plan B is actually appealing to me as a Plan A, provided we build an infrastructure for actually developing players. It feels that too often our scouting staff does an amazing job in finding talent, only to see that talent marginally improve from whatever they were as rookies. Teams like the Heat, Spurs and Clippers- on the other hand- are turning G-league talent into rotation players and then into borderline all-stars. But I digress...

I don't think the Cavs give up a future first without heavy protections. They'll be dog**** for the remainder of time and will rely heavily on draft picks to sell hope to their fans. Then again, I wouldn't mind a deal that converts the promise of a first rounder into future second round picks, which would be pretty valuable coming from them. Would you be amendable to a deal under those circumstances?

I also think that demanding two first round picks for an expiring contract from the Hornets is also unreasonable. The only time you see that many picks moved, a credible talent that can improve is being returned or an all-star (e.g. Taureen Prince). What cost-controlled player could we give the Hornets back that they'd even want?

I also love the idea of adding Rubio. He might be the best PG we've had since Marbury i.e. 15-20 years ago. He'd be a pretty good placeholder until we find a long-term solution as our floor general.

As a side, would you trade up in this draft? I was a huge proponent of Ja Morant before the draft seeding and would love the opportunity to get him at 2. Rubio would be a great mentor to him and Morant, a great understudy until he learns to shoot and becomes a starter. Would no.3 and DSJr be enough? Would you be willing to take on Chandler Parsons if it meant the difference to making a trade.

Kyrie to the Nets.

Kawhi Leonard, Walker, Thompson, Butler all stay put.

Durant may have a career debilitating injury. This is thin ice for anyone attempting to sign him. Guess wrong and you may as well have traded for John Wall. Even if Durant passes the physical, there will be doubt and a hush in the crowd every time he winces.

In which case, the least riskiest Plan B is to close an Anthony Davis deal asap - no mucking around.

That way the Knicks lock up a premier talent regardless of the free-agency fallout. An AD trade will certainly thin the ranks but not clean out the cupboard as many suggest. By striking out on the big names the Knicks could and should invest in FAs who will sign shorter term contracts that could flip into longer commitments a year or two out.

Names being kicked around in UK that make a lot of sense are Satoransky, Rubio, Rozier, Morris, Beverly, Danny Green... sign one or two, draft well, and identified an undrafted gem or two and go to war.

Knixkik wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

newyorker4ever wrote:

Knixkik wrote:If you strike out in free agency you just build around Barrett, Knox, and Mitch. So trading back is not a good option. We would need to gamble on Barrett becoming a superstar wing. We can’t build around future role players by trading back.

Who says guys like D.Garland, D.Hunter, J.Culver, C.White, C.Reddish and some others are role players? "Draft experts" and fans? I think each one i mentioned and a few others could turn into really good starters in the NBA and would bet that most if not all of them will be. I get all the talk of this being a 3 player draft but anyone who pays attention to the draft knows that these "draft experts" are wrong about players and what they'll be in the NBA every single year. There's always players drafted in the lottery that end up busts and there's always players drafted later in the 1st round or even the 2nd round (M.Robinson) that end up really good NBA players.

Exactly. 2013 was rumored to be a weak draft through-and-through. Giannis went 14th in it. Gobert went like 23rd. Steven Adams was like 12th. So clearly this isn't an exact science.

I'm not a proponent of Barrett. As much as the rest of the draft may be dicey? I'd be willing to trade down if it gave us multiple bites at the proverbial apple in this and future drafts. #TheHinkiePrinciple #TrustTheProcess

And if you trade back and Barrett becomes a star, the franchise is set back another 5 years. It’s a gamble either way.

Yeah but smackeddog's suggestion hedges risk more effectively because it gives us more opportunities to find a franchise-changing talent. Putting all your eggs into one basket is never a good idea. And one huge advantage as a big market franchise is that we don't need to draft a superstar; free agency will always be a viable option to acquire one. So why not build the Indiana Pacers on cost-control and then just try to sign the centerpiece we need?

CrushAlot wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

smackeddog wrote:Starting to get 2010 PTSD flashbacks, but the key is not to repeat the mistakes we made then. My strike out plan is:

1)Three team trade: the 3rd pick to the Cavs for their 5th (Hawks give it them back) plus next years first, then send the 5th to the Hawks for their three first rounders- draft role players

The idea behind this is picking up a second high first rounder for next year and targeting next years draft (which ill be deeper) as the year we add franchise player type talent. I have my doubts about RJ, where as I think this draft is deep for role players.

2) If the Hornets sign Kemba, take back some of their one year expirings (whoever out of Biyombo's $17mil, Williams' $15mil, MKG's $13mil) for 2 first rounders.

3) Sign Rubio for $10mil per, we need a good passing PG to maximise our young players, plus if DSJ takes a step forward, Rubio can move to the bench

That would leave us with 3 first round picks this year, cap space, plus the Cavs next year, plus 2 firsts from the Hornets, plus 2 from Dallas. Put's us in great shape to develop the young players, and either use or trade the future firsts depending on opportunities.

I'm not sure why you'd be having PTSD. The widely discussed plan of signing both KD and Kyrie has massive drawbacks that gets overlooked because of what they were/are; not necessarily what they will be by years 3, 4 and possibly 5 (if a sign-and-trade happens) of their contracts. Factor in their mercurial, tempermental ways and you have a powder keg, set to go off. The prudent thing to do is to continuing building a base, while maintaining optionality until a clear, sustainable path to contention provides itself. I don't think Kyrie and KD is that, especially if/when the Raptors win the title.

What you describe as a Plan B is actually appealing to me as a Plan A, provided we build an infrastructure for actually developing players. It feels that too often our scouting staff does an amazing job in finding talent, only to see that talent marginally improve from whatever they were as rookies. Teams like the Heat, Spurs and Clippers- on the other hand- are turning G-league talent into rotation players and then into borderline all-stars. But I digress...

I don't think the Cavs give up a future first without heavy protections. They'll be dog**** for the remainder of time and will rely heavily on draft picks to sell hope to their fans. Then again, I wouldn't mind a deal that converts the promise of a first rounder into future second round picks, which would be pretty valuable coming from them. Would you be amendable to a deal under those circumstances?

I also think that demanding two first round picks for an expiring contract from the Hornets is also unreasonable. The only time you see that many picks moved, a credible talent that can improve is being returned or an all-star (e.g. Taureen Prince). What cost-controlled player could we give the Hornets back that they'd even want?

I also love the idea of adding Rubio. He might be the best PG we've had since Marbury i.e. 15-20 years ago. He'd be a pretty good placeholder until we find a long-term solution as our floor general.

As a side, would you trade up in this draft? I was a huge proponent of Ja Morant before the draft seeding and would love the opportunity to get him at 2. Rubio would be a great mentor to him and Morant, a great understudy until he learns to shoot and becomes a starter. Would no.3 and DSJr be enough? Would you be willing to take on Chandler Parsons if it meant the difference to making a trade.

I think the 2010 PTSD is from trades made with youth and picks to create cap space to sign LBJ and another star. When that didn’t work out Walsh’s approach was geared at making as big a splash as he could by signing Amare with his uninsureable knees and the knowledge that the Suns medical staff did not think Amare could play on his knees for 4 more years. The threat of another Amare signing is scared vthere is a lot of media pressure for the Knicks to make a splash this offseason. In the past that has resulted in dumb moves that handicapped the future for years. I can tell you where I was and what I was doing when the decision happened. That just sucked and I didn’t expect LeBron to go to the Knicks.

Gotcha. I follow now. I definitely have my concerns about this management team as well. It's pie-in-the-sky now but these are the same people that made bone-headed decisions with the cap this past season by stretching Joakim Noah and not giving Trier a multi-year, iron-clad contract to avoid having to pay him market value next season. It still feels like the bad decision-makers of yore but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

And yeah, I remember The Decision (as well as the fallout) all too well. I thought the Amare signing was awful to begin with but I was also able to overlook it because of how charismatic Amar'e was. And with the looming labor talks, I figured we'd have an opportunity to dump the contract using the pending amnesty clause. But those idiots bungled that as well, which made the Amar'e gamble a complete disaster. All that money we spent that offseason was also a nightmare and we would have been better served just picking up draft picks/prospects with expiring contracts that teams like the Heat, Pelicans/Hornets, Bulls and Wolves were looking to move. Maybe that would've given us enough ammunition to trade for BOTH Melo and Chris Paul instead of just Melo. I think the direction of the franchise would've been radically different had that been the case.

Knixkik wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

newyorker4ever wrote:

Knixkik wrote:If you strike out in free agency you just build around Barrett, Knox, and Mitch. So trading back is not a good option. We would need to gamble on Barrett becoming a superstar wing. We can’t build around future role players by trading back.

Who says guys like D.Garland, D.Hunter, J.Culver, C.White, C.Reddish and some others are role players? "Draft experts" and fans? I think each one i mentioned and a few others could turn into really good starters in the NBA and would bet that most if not all of them will be. I get all the talk of this being a 3 player draft but anyone who pays attention to the draft knows that these "draft experts" are wrong about players and what they'll be in the NBA every single year. There's always players drafted in the lottery that end up busts and there's always players drafted later in the 1st round or even the 2nd round (M.Robinson) that end up really good NBA players.

Exactly. 2013 was rumored to be a weak draft through-and-through. Giannis went 14th in it. Gobert went like 23rd. Steven Adams was like 12th. So clearly this isn't an exact science.

I'm not a proponent of Barrett. As much as the rest of the draft may be dicey? I'd be willing to trade down if it gave us multiple bites at the proverbial apple in this and future drafts. #TheHinkiePrinciple #TrustTheProcess

And if you trade back and Barrett becomes a star, the franchise is set back another 5 years. It’s a gamble either way.

Yeah but smackeddog's suggestion hedges risk more effectively because it gives us more opportunities to find a franchise-changing talent. Putting all your eggs into one basket is never a good idea. And one huge advantage as a big market franchise is that we don't need to draft a superstar; free agency will always be a viable option to acquire one. So why not build the Indiana Pacers on cost-control and then just try to sign the centerpiece we need?

Maybe you get more opportunities but each opportunity is less likely. It’s quality of prospect vs quantity. I’ll always lean towards quality but this is an age old argument in all facets of life.

If we were the Cavs, I'd defer to that chain of thinking. They've been God-awful with the draft unless the league gift-wraps them the no.1 overall pick and even that is no gaurantee they can draft a competent player (see Anthony Bennett). But we've actually done a pretty good job in identifying talent throughout the draft, which is why I think having more opportunities is more advantageous to our ends. And like I said, we're mother****ing NYC: players will want to play here if we have a foundation in place. The problem is that all too often we have nothing but cap space to offer incoming players.