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?

NardDogNation 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.

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....

NardDogNation wrote:

fwk00 wrote:Right now the vibe I'm getting is this.

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.

I wouldn't be opposed to this either, if it also brought back Jrue Holiday. That might not be enough in the West but it is a good enough start to make us a Semi-Conference Finals team. With their contracts only totalling $50 million, it leaves another $60 million to flesh out a roster around them, which is more than feasible with the depth of talent available in free agency.

Yeah, I missed Holiday. There are likely a few restricted FAs who we might be able to nab. Vonleh another who I would love to see resigned.

The point is not that these guys are superstars but that coupled with a premiere talent we begin hardening a team and next year still have the flexibility to fine tune the details.

We are, no matter how lucky we are or aren't, a year or two from being contenders. No need to panic or rush it. Next step - playoffs.

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.

Well of course it is but as anyone should know every single draft is a gamble from the 1st pick to the last pick. Say we did do a trade with Atl and we got 8-10 from them for 3 and Barrett became a good/great player but both players we draft also become good/great players as well. Say we draft C.White at 8 and N.Little at 10 so now we have two starters instead of one and if we strike out in free agency then getting two good/great players will help this rebuild move quicker than one will obviously.

Like nardog said the draft is not an exact science so none of us know what any player will be when they get to the next level of the NBA so we just have to trust our GM and his scouts get it right.

BigDaddyG 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?

I'm not as high on the lower picks as others. But if we work out someone like Garland and he impresses, I wouldn't have a huge a problem trading down. Stuff like that can't really be finalized until the draft is taking place. Even if the front office thinks Culver is better than Barrett, just draft Culver at 3. Again, I think there's enough separation between Barrett and everyone else that it makes sense to stand pat.

I'm not terribly thrilled with any of the players in this draft aside for Ja Morant. Provided Morant isn't available to us, I wouldn't mind settling on Cam Reddish who is projected to go mid-to-late lottery, which is why I wouldn't mind trading down.

As for Barrett, I recollect listening to a Dunc'd on podcast where they threw out a statistic that said Barrett had more missed shots than Zion Williamson had attempts, 2 or so months into the season. That combined with his subpar shooting makes me super-squimmish about him and more inclined to hedge the risk associated with him.

fwk00 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?

Last year was a year for a volume of young players. This year, assuming the pick is not in play for a non-lottery trade, you stick with #3. There are only 5 starting slots and the well is far from dry We also have a second-rounder and players who drop through to look at.

Such is the popular opinion but the popular opinion is often wrong. I'm a little dicey about the talent in this draft so if a package of Anthony Davis and Jrue Holiday is unattainable, I'd settle on a deal that nets us future assets as well. We have to stop playing this game in which we only think about immediate goals/splashes and instead develop a bigger, longer-term vision for this team. We're not morphing into a contender overnight but the decisions we make now can make the path to success surer and steadier.

fwk00 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

fwk00 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?

Last year was a year for a volume of young players. This year, assuming the pick is not in play for a non-lottery trade, you stick with #3. There are only 5 starting slots and the well is far from dry We also have a second-rounder and players who drop through to look at.

Such is the popular opinion but the popular opinion is often wrong. I'm a little dicey about the talent in this draft so if a package of Anthony Davis and Jrue Holiday is unattainable, I'd settle on a deal that nets us future assets as well. We have to stop playing this game in which we only think about immediate goals/splashes and instead develop a bigger, longer-term vision for this team. We're not morphing into a contender overnight but the decisions we make now can make the path to success surer and steadier.

Well, I think you're missing some of the details involved. Drafting 3 first rounders means you *have to* sign them. You still have last year's and the year before and you have multiple picks coming for the next few years. That's a lot of bodies - good, bad, indifferent. The most desirable players are draft picks form four years ago who for whatever reason are available. Year five is when they have their court sense and can play.

This draft is being underestimated, IMO. For all we know it will be a strong one. What's most important this year is to make the pivot from losing to winning. And that pivot requires creating some team chemistry.

The Celtics and Sixers both implored strategies that got multiple first round picks in recent drafts and they've been the better for it. Why would it be so dramatically different for the Knicks? And why can't we draft and stash players if there is a roster crunch.

I want to keep 3 or 4 of the best promising young players (which IMO) Barret, Mitch, Dotson and DSJ, bring in a couple of All stars, and fill the roster with veteran specialist on 2 or 3 yr deals.

Uptown wrote:The two best young players on the Celts roster, Tatum and Brown were both picked 3RD in the draft!! It makes zero sense to trade down in a weak draft for multiple picks when there's an 18 year old who averaged 23, 8 and 4 on Duke playing against the best competition the NCAA has to offer! No need to outsmart ourselves, this one is easy.

You also failed to mention how many swings at bat Philly got before they got it right! For every Embiid and Simmons, there is a Noel, and Fultz, and Okafor and Carter-Williams. It's different because this years draft is different!

I think you are arguing against yourself here..... The Ainge Celtics accumulated tons of draft picks, and your second paragraph pretty much says we should be trying to get multiple picks at the draft to have a decent chance at finding a star.

Even a 3rd pick is no guarantee. Ayton went first last year, and I know I'd rather have Robinson at 35 then spending a first pick at Ayton.

From what I gather, the current FO thinks the same, so don't be surprised if we trade down to accumulate more assets. We are NOT a KD+Kyrie signing away from a chip. The FO promised not to skip any steps. We are still in the asset accumulation phase, we need to get a star or 2 or 3 through the draft first, then we can try to round out the roster with high profile free agents. I think signing KD would be premature for us.

knickstorrents wrote:

Uptown wrote:The two best young players on the Celts roster, Tatum and Brown were both picked 3RD in the draft!! It makes zero sense to trade down in a weak draft for multiple picks when there's an 18 year old who averaged 23, 8 and 4 on Duke playing against the best competition the NCAA has to offer! No need to outsmart ourselves, this one is easy.

You also failed to mention how many swings at bat Philly got before they got it right! For every Embiid and Simmons, there is a Noel, and Fultz, and Okafor and Carter-Williams. It's different because this years draft is different!

I think you are arguing against yourself here..... The Ainge Celtics accumulated tons of draft picks, and your second paragraph pretty much says we should be trying to get multiple picks at the draft to have a decent chance at finding a star.

Even a 3rd pick is no guarantee. Ayton went first last year, and I know I'd rather have Robinson at 35 then spending a first pick at Ayton.

From what I gather, the current FO thinks the same, so don't be surprised if we trade down to accumulate more assets. We are NOT a KD+Kyrie signing away from a chip. The FO promised not to skip any steps. We are still in the asset accumulation phase, we need to get a star or 2 or 3 through the draft first, then we can try to round out the roster with high profile free agents. I think signing KD would be premature for us.

I kind of agree.
I also understand when Lebron went to lakers he in a way lowered the bar and was not about winning a chip right away.
Understanding the gap in the time line I an also torn between the win now, and perhaps reality in any scenario is contend in year two. For all we know Durant might be thinking this annual trip to finals is a career shorting event. Not saying its not worth it, but There has to be a joy about playing besides just chips. Not a black or white thing. Even so we'll never hear the truth. He signs here and says all the right things. Maybe this youth movement is all about his preference to mentor over a few years. Not just have his own team, but incubate it too??? I don't know. Logic usually us into the starphuch realm of "Win now".

Get Kawhi Too?? Maybe that changes things. Maybe great players make everyone better too??? I can see a hybrid of sorts, get those two in and then make smaller trade(s) and fill it in.

Its all about expectations!!!!!