Uptown wrote:NardDogNation wrote: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.
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 referenced the Celtics and Sixers because they both placed an emphasis on maximizing optionality, which is what I think we should be doing. They each took as many swings as they could get before unearthing the talents they did. And yes, their best players may have been taken 3rd but could just have easily come at any point during the draft. Kawhi Leonard was drafted 15th, Paul George was drafted 11th, Giannis 14th, etc. So while I like that we finally got a top 3 pick, I'd prefer to sacrifice it if it can give us the kind of optionality to pick players throughout this AND future drafts. We don't have just one season to build this team, afterall.
And while Barrett seems like a can't miss, surefire prospect....there has been a phletora like him throughout NBA history that have been labelled as such who ended up devastating franchises. People like Michael Beasley, Greg Oden, OJ Mayo, Marvin Williams, ANDREW WIGGINS, Jahlil Okafor, Jabari Parker and Markelle Fultz immediately come to mind. What makes you so certain that Barrett isn't one of them? And those players were in a class by themselves in a DEEP draft whereas Barrett's appeal partially comes from being a big fish in a small pond.
As I said before, I'm more comfortable hedging the risk because of this reality. That doesn't mean I'm against picking in the top 3. I just prefer we position ourselves to get top 3 picks and multiple first round picks in multiple drafts like the Sixers and Celtics have. And I think a good place to start that process is now, in this draft.
6/14/2019 5:33 PM