Knicks · How can we keep Fields Smith Lin and Novak formula anyone? (page 4)

That's what I thought too. Knicks can match any offer for Lin through the "Gilbert Arenas Provision"

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:This team has yet to peak.

Melo has at least 4-5 years of play left
Amare has at least 2 years of play left
Chandler has another 3-5 years of play left

We just need Shumpert and Lin to live up to expectations and we should be a top 4 team in the West.

That's conventional wisdom. However, the average player peaks statistically at ages 24 to 25 and gradually goes downhill after that. Our big 3 definitely can have good seasons ahead but they likely will go slightly downhill each year.
The one source of optimism is that we may have Lin available for far more games next year than this year.

that's also conventional wisdom, or at least not well stated. Physical peak versus effectiveness.

As far as I'm aware, no one has provided evidence for some form of overall effectiveness that improves later. (And even if my comment were wrong, I definitely don't see how it could be labelled "conventional wisdom")

Celtics and Spurs are still pretty effective no?

Yes, I never said there were no exceptions. I'm discussing what the most common and probable outcomes are. Certainly if a player is regularly in outstanding shape and has had very few injuries, he has a better chance to be an exception.

Andrew wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:If we have to use the MLE and LLE on these guys (none come just with Bird's rights), then it's Lin for the MLE and the LLE offered to Novak. If he declines, then it's the LLE for Fields.

Fields gets signed with the early bird exception. He doesn't need the MLE or LLE.

You and your facts- Thanks Man!
I can live w/out Smith in the future- I think we were lucky to get him this year- but Fields is the perfect swingman off the bench with Lin and Shump starting- and I hope Novak wants to stay- maybe he can get a big endorsement from a dental equitment company to supplement his income

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:This team has yet to peak.

Melo has at least 4-5 years of play left
Amare has at least 2 years of play left
Chandler has another 3-5 years of play left

We just need Shumpert and Lin to live up to expectations and we should be a top 4 team in the West.

That's conventional wisdom. However, the average player peaks statistically at ages 24 to 25 and gradually goes downhill after that. Our big 3 definitely can have good seasons ahead but they likely will go slightly downhill each year.
The one source of optimism is that we may have Lin available for far more games next year than this year.

that's also conventional wisdom, or at least not well stated. Physical peak versus effectiveness.

As far as I'm aware, no one has provided evidence for some form of overall effectiveness that improves later. (And even if my comment were wrong, I definitely don't see how it could be labelled "conventional wisdom")

that's because you've never played a team sport outside of a recreational level

BUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!

When you think about it, I really hope this team can go on that "magic carpet" and end up in the finals some how. Maybe they get it done right now before anybody can go?!!

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:This team has yet to peak.

Melo has at least 4-5 years of play left
Amare has at least 2 years of play left
Chandler has another 3-5 years of play left

We just need Shumpert and Lin to live up to expectations and we should be a top 4 team in the West.

That's conventional wisdom. However, the average player peaks statistically at ages 24 to 25 and gradually goes downhill after that. Our big 3 definitely can have good seasons ahead but they likely will go slightly downhill each year.
The one source of optimism is that we may have Lin available for far more games next year than this year.

that's also conventional wisdom, or at least not well stated. Physical peak versus effectiveness.

As far as I'm aware, no one has provided evidence for some form of overall effectiveness that improves later. (And even if my comment were wrong, I definitely don't see how it could be labelled "conventional wisdom")

that's because you've never played a team sport outside of a recreational level

Incorrect

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:This team has yet to peak.

Melo has at least 4-5 years of play left
Amare has at least 2 years of play left
Chandler has another 3-5 years of play left

We just need Shumpert and Lin to live up to expectations and we should be a top 4 team in the West.

That's conventional wisdom. However, the average player peaks statistically at ages 24 to 25 and gradually goes downhill after that. Our big 3 definitely can have good seasons ahead but they likely will go slightly downhill each year.
The one source of optimism is that we may have Lin available for far more games next year than this year.

that's also conventional wisdom, or at least not well stated. Physical peak versus effectiveness.

As far as I'm aware, no one has provided evidence for some form of overall effectiveness that improves later. (And even if my comment were wrong, I definitely don't see how it could be labelled "conventional wisdom")

that's because you've never played a team sport outside of a recreational level

Incorrect

then how come you can't connect the very simple dots to figure out that experience, etc would count towards effectiveness? Maybe cause of you very small sample size of playing on a team sport?

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:This team has yet to peak.

Melo has at least 4-5 years of play left
Amare has at least 2 years of play left
Chandler has another 3-5 years of play left

We just need Shumpert and Lin to live up to expectations and we should be a top 4 team in the West.

That's conventional wisdom. However, the average player peaks statistically at ages 24 to 25 and gradually goes downhill after that. Our big 3 definitely can have good seasons ahead but they likely will go slightly downhill each year.
The one source of optimism is that we may have Lin available for far more games next year than this year.

that's also conventional wisdom, or at least not well stated. Physical peak versus effectiveness.

As far as I'm aware, no one has provided evidence for some form of overall effectiveness that improves later. (And even if my comment were wrong, I definitely don't see how it could be labelled "conventional wisdom")

that's because you've never played a team sport outside of a recreational level

Incorrect

then how come you can't connect the very simple dots to figure out that experience, etc would count towards effectiveness? Maybe cause of you very small sample size of playing on a team sport?

Haha - Martin getting a "small sample size" dig in on Bonn!!

Love it!

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:This team has yet to peak.

Melo has at least 4-5 years of play left
Amare has at least 2 years of play left
Chandler has another 3-5 years of play left

We just need Shumpert and Lin to live up to expectations and we should be a top 4 team in the West.

That's conventional wisdom. However, the average player peaks statistically at ages 24 to 25 and gradually goes downhill after that. Our big 3 definitely can have good seasons ahead but they likely will go slightly downhill each year.
The one source of optimism is that we may have Lin available for far more games next year than this year.

that's also conventional wisdom, or at least not well stated. Physical peak versus effectiveness.

As far as I'm aware, no one has provided evidence for some form of overall effectiveness that improves later. (And even if my comment were wrong, I definitely don't see how it could be labelled "conventional wisdom")

that's because you've never played a team sport outside of a recreational level

Incorrect

then how come you can't connect the very simple dots to figure out that experience, etc would count towards effectiveness? Maybe cause of you very small sample size of playing on a team sport?

I never said experience did not count. I never said, for example, that players peak as rookies. (And for that matter, most rookies probably have 10+ years of experience.) The issue here is how much experience is ideal. The reason I can't connect the dots here is that you have not provided any dots. (Or you have provided too small a sample of dots, n = 0.) Provide evidence against my claim and I will connect the dots.

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:This team has yet to peak.

Melo has at least 4-5 years of play left
Amare has at least 2 years of play left
Chandler has another 3-5 years of play left

We just need Shumpert and Lin to live up to expectations and we should be a top 4 team in the West.

That's conventional wisdom. However, the average player peaks statistically at ages 24 to 25 and gradually goes downhill after that. Our big 3 definitely can have good seasons ahead but they likely will go slightly downhill each year.
The one source of optimism is that we may have Lin available for far more games next year than this year.

that's also conventional wisdom, or at least not well stated. Physical peak versus effectiveness.

As far as I'm aware, no one has provided evidence for some form of overall effectiveness that improves later. (And even if my comment were wrong, I definitely don't see how it could be labelled "conventional wisdom")

that's because you've never played a team sport outside of a recreational level

Incorrect

then how come you can't connect the very simple dots to figure out that experience, etc would count towards effectiveness? Maybe cause of you very small sample size of playing on a team sport?

I never said experience did not count. I never said, for example, that players peak as rookies. (And for that matter, most rookies probably have 10+ years of experience.) The issue here is how much experience is ideal. The reason I can't connect the dots here is that you have not provided any dots. (Or you have provided too small a sample of dots, n = 0.) Provide evidence against my claim and I will connect the dots.

Bonnie, you're a waste of time. Snit away.

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:This team has yet to peak.

Melo has at least 4-5 years of play left
Amare has at least 2 years of play left
Chandler has another 3-5 years of play left

We just need Shumpert and Lin to live up to expectations and we should be a top 4 team in the West.

That's conventional wisdom. However, the average player peaks statistically at ages 24 to 25 and gradually goes downhill after that. Our big 3 definitely can have good seasons ahead but they likely will go slightly downhill each year.
The one source of optimism is that we may have Lin available for far more games next year than this year.

that's also conventional wisdom, or at least not well stated. Physical peak versus effectiveness.

As far as I'm aware, no one has provided evidence for some form of overall effectiveness that improves later. (And even if my comment were wrong, I definitely don't see how it could be labelled "conventional wisdom")

that's because you've never played a team sport outside of a recreational level

Incorrect

then how come you can't connect the very simple dots to figure out that experience, etc would count towards effectiveness? Maybe cause of you very small sample size of playing on a team sport?

I never said experience did not count. I never said, for example, that players peak as rookies. (And for that matter, most rookies probably have 10+ years of experience.) The issue here is how much experience is ideal. The reason I can't connect the dots here is that you have not provided any dots. (Or you have provided too small a sample of dots, n = 0.) Provide evidence against my claim and I will connect the dots.

Bonnie, you're a waste of time. Snit away.

My goal in life is to waste your time. I feel like a success now.

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:This team has yet to peak.

Melo has at least 4-5 years of play left
Amare has at least 2 years of play left
Chandler has another 3-5 years of play left

We just need Shumpert and Lin to live up to expectations and we should be a top 4 team in the West.

That's conventional wisdom. However, the average player peaks statistically at ages 24 to 25 and gradually goes downhill after that. Our big 3 definitely can have good seasons ahead but they likely will go slightly downhill each year.
The one source of optimism is that we may have Lin available for far more games next year than this year.

that's also conventional wisdom, or at least not well stated. Physical peak versus effectiveness.

As far as I'm aware, no one has provided evidence for some form of overall effectiveness that improves later. (And even if my comment were wrong, I definitely don't see how it could be labelled "conventional wisdom")

that's because you've never played a team sport outside of a recreational level

Incorrect

then how come you can't connect the very simple dots to figure out that experience, etc would count towards effectiveness? Maybe cause of you very small sample size of playing on a team sport?

I never said experience did not count. I never said, for example, that players peak as rookies. (And for that matter, most rookies probably have 10+ years of experience.) The issue here is how much experience is ideal. The reason I can't connect the dots here is that you have not provided any dots. (Or you have provided too small a sample of dots, n = 0.) Provide evidence against my claim and I will connect the dots.

Bonnie, you're a waste of time. Snit away.

My goal in life is to waste your time. I feel like a success now.

dude your humor is like 5th grade level and you connect the dots like an 8th grader. I am still utterly shocked you have a PhD

lol, this is nothing new. i had a very similar experience with bonn when i asked him to provide some evidence (i don't even remember what we were "discussing" now) but all i would get from him were "sample sizes" and shit like "n = 0" i then lost interest and wondered how the hell he had a phD and vowed to never engage with him again. glad i'm not the only one.

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:This team has yet to peak.

Melo has at least 4-5 years of play left
Amare has at least 2 years of play left
Chandler has another 3-5 years of play left

We just need Shumpert and Lin to live up to expectations and we should be a top 4 team in the West.

That's conventional wisdom. However, the average player peaks statistically at ages 24 to 25 and gradually goes downhill after that. Our big 3 definitely can have good seasons ahead but they likely will go slightly downhill each year.
The one source of optimism is that we may have Lin available for far more games next year than this year.

that's also conventional wisdom, or at least not well stated. Physical peak versus effectiveness.

As far as I'm aware, no one has provided evidence for some form of overall effectiveness that improves later. (And even if my comment were wrong, I definitely don't see how it could be labelled "conventional wisdom")

that's because you've never played a team sport outside of a recreational level

Incorrect

then how come you can't connect the very simple dots to figure out that experience, etc would count towards effectiveness? Maybe cause of you very small sample size of playing on a team sport?

I never said experience did not count. I never said, for example, that players peak as rookies. (And for that matter, most rookies probably have 10+ years of experience.) The issue here is how much experience is ideal. The reason I can't connect the dots here is that you have not provided any dots. (Or you have provided too small a sample of dots, n = 0.) Provide evidence against my claim and I will connect the dots.

Bonnie, you're a waste of time. Snit away.

My goal in life is to waste your time. I feel like a success now.

dude your humor is like 5th grade level and you connect the dots like an 8th grader. I am still utterly shocked you have a PhD

I thought I was 4th grade level. I am flattered.

nyk4ever wrote:lol, this is nothing new. i had a very similar experience with bonn when i asked him to provide some evidence (i don't even remember what we were "discussing" now) but all i would get from him were "sample sizes" and shit like "n = 0" i then lost interest and wondered how the hell he had a phD and vowed to never engage with him again. glad i'm not the only one.

The irony is that I am the one imploring for evidence.

Bonn1997 wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:lol, this is nothing new. i had a very similar experience with bonn when i asked him to provide some evidence (i don't even remember what we were "discussing" now) but all i would get from him were "sample sizes" and shit like "n = 0" i then lost interest and wondered how the hell he had a phD and vowed to never engage with him again. glad i'm not the only one.

The irony is that I am the one imploring for evidence.

notice how much evidence you provided in your original claim: none.

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:lol, this is nothing new. i had a very similar experience with bonn when i asked him to provide some evidence (i don't even remember what we were "discussing" now) but all i would get from him were "sample sizes" and shit like "n = 0" i then lost interest and wondered how the hell he had a phD and vowed to never engage with him again. glad i'm not the only one.

The irony is that I am the one imploring for evidence.

notice how much evidence you provided in your original claim: none.

You did not ask for any and I did not think in text citations were the norm for this forum! Probably the most thorough analysis on the topic is summarized in pages 126 to 129 of Berri & Schmidt's "Stumbling on Wins."

Your turn to provide or direct me to some evidence.

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:lol, this is nothing new. i had a very similar experience with bonn when i asked him to provide some evidence (i don't even remember what we were "discussing" now) but all i would get from him were "sample sizes" and shit like "n = 0" i then lost interest and wondered how the hell he had a phD and vowed to never engage with him again. glad i'm not the only one.

The irony is that I am the one imploring for evidence.

notice how much evidence you provided in your original claim: none.

You did not ask for any and I did not think in text citations were the norm for this forum! Probably the most thorough analysis on the topic is summarized in pages 126 to 129 of Berri & Schmidt's "Stumbling on Wins."

Your turn to provide or direct me to some evidence.

seriously, you're a fuckin idiot

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:lol, this is nothing new. i had a very similar experience with bonn when i asked him to provide some evidence (i don't even remember what we were "discussing" now) but all i would get from him were "sample sizes" and shit like "n = 0" i then lost interest and wondered how the hell he had a phD and vowed to never engage with him again. glad i'm not the only one.

The irony is that I am the one imploring for evidence.

notice how much evidence you provided in your original claim: none.

You did not ask for any and I did not think in text citations were the norm for this forum! Probably the most thorough analysis on the topic is summarized in pages 126 to 129 of Berri & Schmidt's "Stumbling on Wins."

Your turn to provide or direct me to some evidence.

seriously, you're a fuckin idiot

I have been demoted from 5th grade level to fuckin idiot? Bummer.

Back on topic lol...

Killa4luv wrote:From where i sit, JR smith is the most important piece. He's the best defender and scorer of that bunch. And he is a lock down defender. Him and shump in backcourt is ferocious. I'd be training Shump to be a pg and roll like that. And it would be perfect if we get the zen master.

I agree. My top priority is bringing JR back.

Anji wrote:Let's see what Lin get's offered. Im sorry, but the guy is coming off a knee injury and he couldn't stick in the league for a reason.

Let's see who is throwing money at Lin at the end of the season. I wouldn't sign him for the full MLE.

I agree 100%. I think we hold out on Lin but I doubt that will happen.