Knicks · Microcosm of Knicks strategies Jordan Hill (page 1)
fishmike wrote:as a starter.... 19ppg 12rebs 1.8 blocks 62% FGs Lakers are 2-2
MDA pick and roll, it brought the best from Lee and Stat. Now Hill benefitting say what you want about MDA but Melo sabotaged his stint here refused to buy in. One thing about MDA offense he gets the best looks and gets the players with the highest FG% shots. Easy opps that is the name of the game. Hero balers need not apply.
Finestrg wrote:He was a good player at Arizona. Unlike a lot of people on here, I had no problem with that pick at the time.
I didn't have a problem with it either.
Vmart wrote:Finestrg wrote:He was a good player at Arizona. Unlike a lot of people on here, I had no problem with that pick at the time.I didn't have a problem with it either.
The pick in itself was fine. It was the players available after him and our need of a PG that was the issue. There were so many good PGs available.
Knixkik wrote:Vmart wrote:Finestrg wrote:He was a good player at Arizona. Unlike a lot of people on here, I had no problem with that pick at the time.I didn't have a problem with it either.
The pick in itself was fine. It was the players available after him and our need of a PG that was the issue. There were so many good PGs available.
I agree with you after curry was off the board I wanted Gordon.
Vmart wrote:fishmike wrote:as a starter.... 19ppg 12rebs 1.8 blocks 62% FGs Lakers are 2-2MDA pick and roll, it brought the best from Lee and Stat. Now Hill benefitting say what you want about MDA but Melo sabotaged his stint here refused to buy in. One thing about MDA offense he gets the best looks and gets the players with the highest FG% shots. Easy opps that is the name of the game. Hero balers need not apply.
Where is the proof? Melo did everything MDA asked including playing "point foward" which, we can all agree, was a stupid idea.
MDA ran himself out...maybe if he gave Hill this attention when he drafted they would both still be here.
Vmart wrote:Knixkik wrote:Vmart wrote:Finestrg wrote:He was a good player at Arizona. Unlike a lot of people on here, I had no problem with that pick at the time.I didn't have a problem with it either.
The pick in itself was fine. It was the players available after him and our need of a PG that was the issue. There were so many good PGs available.
I agree with you after curry was off the board I wanted Gordon.
Are you thinking Eric Gordon from the 2008 draft? The PGs drafted in 2009 after our pick were Jennings, Holiday, Lawson, Teague, Collinson, and Maynor. Obviously the first 4 i mentioned would have been instant contributors and filled a need right away. Jennings went crazy out of the gate his rookie season, but his loose cannon style has gotten the best of him. But add Holiday or Lawson to this team and it would be completely different.
Swishfm3 wrote:Vmart wrote:fishmike wrote:as a starter.... 19ppg 12rebs 1.8 blocks 62% FGs Lakers are 2-2MDA pick and roll, it brought the best from Lee and Stat. Now Hill benefitting say what you want about MDA but Melo sabotaged his stint here refused to buy in. One thing about MDA offense he gets the best looks and gets the players with the highest FG% shots. Easy opps that is the name of the game. Hero balers need not apply.
Where is the proof? Melo did everything MDA asked including playing "point foward" which, we can all agree, was a stupid idea.
MDA ran himself out...maybe if he gave Hill this attention when he drafted they would both still be here.
This is exactly right. He wanted to turn Melo into a pippen type and take him out of his sweet spots.
Knixkik wrote:Vmart wrote:Knixkik wrote:Vmart wrote:Finestrg wrote:He was a good player at Arizona. Unlike a lot of people on here, I had no problem with that pick at the time.I didn't have a problem with it either.
The pick in itself was fine. It was the players available after him and our need of a PG that was the issue. There were so many good PGs available.
I agree with you after curry was off the board I wanted Gordon.
Are you thinking Eric Gordon from the 2008 draft? The PGs drafted in 2009 after our pick were Jennings, Holiday, Lawson, Teague, Collinson, and Maynor. Obviously the first 4 i mentioned would have been instant contributors and filled a need right away. Jennings went crazy out of the gate his rookie season, but his loose cannon style has gotten the best of him. But add Holiday or Lawson to this team and it would be completely different.
Yeah I wanted Gordon over Gallo. I was ok with the Hill pick because everything I wanted was off the board. Rubio, Flynn and Curry.
BRIGGS wrote:We stunk all year in 2009 and were afford the 8th pick in the draft. We took Jordan Hill who had a lot of potential and was polished coming into the league. He played very well for our SL team yet started off somewhat raw--like many rookies do. He gets dumped in year 1 for salary cap relief along with Jared Jefferies. He has some moments with Houston but was not afforded an opportunity to consistently start. He finally gets his opportunity 4 games ago with the Lakers and at 26 years old--hes looking pretty darn good since he was inserted. We value our draft picks as conduits to get existing players--this is the only strategy that we have used since Dolan became boss. Maybe if we kept Jordan Hill and cultivated him--maybe when he was 24-25 he couldve been our slotted starting PF for the next 6-8 years. Instead we paid Amare 100mm who played spectacular in yr 1 but has been on a serious downslope ever since. One thing I keep seeing over and over again in sports--if you give a vet big money after the age of 30--my bet is you will regret atleast half the contract. Jordan should be our PF making 5-6mm per and if it took him 3 years to grow into what it look s like he might be now--whats wrong with that?
I've been thinking the same thing to myself. I thought he was able to contribute from day 1, in a limited capacity. The problem was that the Knicks had vets at the position that they wanted to showcase for trades that never materialized. We set Hill up for failure, knowing what our priorities were and I think it is yet another black mark on Walsh's legacy here and part of a trend with him.
If Donnie was going to continue to put such a heavy emphasis on cap space in 2010, we should've looked to trade down in that draft by using Hill's potential as bait. That could've helped us move Jared Jefferies' contract while also keeping our 2009 pick AND 2012 pick. With guys like Ty Lawson, Jrue Holiday and Darren Collision available with later picks, it would've been a shrewd move in the immediacy AND future.
Unfortunately, shrewd is something that Walsh had never been for us. We made a similarly foolish error in 2008 by picking Gallo. He was CLEARLY not the best player available and could've been selected as late as 10th by the Nets. After all, LAC wanted Eric Gordon at 7th; MIL was already sold on Joe Alexander since he spoke Mandarin and could placate a malcontent Yi Juinlian, who was a lottery pick the year before; while CHA, run by MJ and Larry Brown, had never shown an affinity for foreign players, not to mention that Brown loved DJ Augustin, who he thought fit an immediate need.
With all of that in consideration, we should've picked Brook Lopez at 6th, who WAS the best player available and then moved him to the Nets for Gallo at 10th and their 21st pick who could've been Ryan Anderson, Serge Ibaka, Nicolas Batum, George Hill, Nikola Pekovic, Deandre Jordan, Omer Asik or Goran Dragic. Just imagine the world of difference those players could've made for us then and in the future!
Swishfm3 wrote:your right. There is no proof that the reason Melo refused to play hard or put forth any effort was because he didnt like MDA's coaching. It could have been anything. However he did stop trying and went on an epic tear the day he was fired.Vmart wrote:fishmike wrote:as a starter.... 19ppg 12rebs 1.8 blocks 62% FGs Lakers are 2-2MDA pick and roll, it brought the best from Lee and Stat. Now Hill benefitting say what you want about MDA but Melo sabotaged his stint here refused to buy in. One thing about MDA offense he gets the best looks and gets the players with the highest FG% shots. Easy opps that is the name of the game. Hero balers need not apply.
Where is the proof? Melo did everything MDA asked including playing "point foward" which, we can all agree, was a stupid idea.
MDA ran himself out...maybe if he gave Hill this attention when he drafted they would both still be here.
BRIGGS wrote:We stunk all year in 2009 and were afford the 8th pick in the draft. We took Jordan Hill who had a lot of potential and was polished coming into the league. He played very well for our SL team yet started off somewhat raw--like many rookies do. He gets dumped in year 1 for salary cap relief along with Jared Jefferies. He has some moments with Houston but was not afforded an opportunity to consistently start. He finally gets his opportunity 4 games ago with the Lakers and at 26 years old--hes looking pretty darn good since he was inserted. We value our draft picks as conduits to get existing players--this is the only strategy that we have used since Dolan became boss. Maybe if we kept Jordan Hill and cultivated him--maybe when he was 24-25 he couldve been our slotted starting PF for the next 6-8 years. Instead we paid Amare 100mm who played spectacular in yr 1 but has been on a serious downslope ever since. One thing I keep seeing over and over again in sports--if you give a vet big money after the age of 30--my bet is you will regret atleast half the contract. Jordan should be our PF making 5-6mm per and if it took him 3 years to grow into what it look s like he might be now--whats wrong with that?
This isn't just a Knicks problem. Looks at guys like Greivis Vasquez, Kris Humphries, Jordan Crawford, Gerald Green,Joe Johnson, etc. Teams can't afford to sit on young talent and pay for guys to develop like in the old days. By the time they look like they can be decent, you wind up being forced to pay them. That's why it pays to stay on the lookout for young free agents. As for Jordan Hill, he's proven that he's a legitimate backup the past three years. Not sure if he's going to keep up his current pace, but maybe he's just figured things out. I think he took to the game later than most prospects.
BigDaddyG wrote:BRIGGS wrote:We stunk all year in 2009 and were afford the 8th pick in the draft. We took Jordan Hill who had a lot of potential and was polished coming into the league. He played very well for our SL team yet started off somewhat raw--like many rookies do. He gets dumped in year 1 for salary cap relief along with Jared Jefferies. He has some moments with Houston but was not afforded an opportunity to consistently start. He finally gets his opportunity 4 games ago with the Lakers and at 26 years old--hes looking pretty darn good since he was inserted. We value our draft picks as conduits to get existing players--this is the only strategy that we have used since Dolan became boss. Maybe if we kept Jordan Hill and cultivated him--maybe when he was 24-25 he couldve been our slotted starting PF for the next 6-8 years. Instead we paid Amare 100mm who played spectacular in yr 1 but has been on a serious downslope ever since. One thing I keep seeing over and over again in sports--if you give a vet big money after the age of 30--my bet is you will regret atleast half the contract. Jordan should be our PF making 5-6mm per and if it took him 3 years to grow into what it look s like he might be now--whats wrong with that?
This isn't just a Knicks problem. Looks at guys like Greivis Vasquez, Kris Humphries, Jordan Crawford, Gerald Green,Joe Johnson, etc. Teams can't afford to sit on young talent and pay for guys to develop like in the old days. By the time they look like they can be decent, you wind up being forced to pay them. That's why it pays to stay on the lookout for young free agents. As for Jordan Hill, he's proven that he's a legitimate backup the past three years. Not sure if he's going to keep up his current pace, but maybe he's just figured things out. I think he took to the game later than most prospects.
Hill didn't start playing basketball until high school, so the steeper learner curve was to be expected. Even so, his talent was pretty evident in college and pre-draft workouts. That being said, I could understand your argument concerning a strain on resources to be relevant for a small market team but not us. We've spent (close to) $100 million per season on a lottery team and should be able to build a program to develop a $1-$3 million prospect. All well run franchises do.
NardDogNation wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:BRIGGS wrote:We stunk all year in 2009 and were afford the 8th pick in the draft. We took Jordan Hill who had a lot of potential and was polished coming into the league. He played very well for our SL team yet started off somewhat raw--like many rookies do. He gets dumped in year 1 for salary cap relief along with Jared Jefferies. He has some moments with Houston but was not afforded an opportunity to consistently start. He finally gets his opportunity 4 games ago with the Lakers and at 26 years old--hes looking pretty darn good since he was inserted. We value our draft picks as conduits to get existing players--this is the only strategy that we have used since Dolan became boss. Maybe if we kept Jordan Hill and cultivated him--maybe when he was 24-25 he couldve been our slotted starting PF for the next 6-8 years. Instead we paid Amare 100mm who played spectacular in yr 1 but has been on a serious downslope ever since. One thing I keep seeing over and over again in sports--if you give a vet big money after the age of 30--my bet is you will regret atleast half the contract. Jordan should be our PF making 5-6mm per and if it took him 3 years to grow into what it look s like he might be now--whats wrong with that?
This isn't just a Knicks problem. Looks at guys like Greivis Vasquez, Kris Humphries, Jordan Crawford, Gerald Green,Joe Johnson, etc. Teams can't afford to sit on young talent and pay for guys to develop like in the old days. By the time they look like they can be decent, you wind up being forced to pay them. That's why it pays to stay on the lookout for young free agents. As for Jordan Hill, he's proven that he's a legitimate backup the past three years. Not sure if he's going to keep up his current pace, but maybe he's just figured things out. I think he took to the game later than most prospects.Hill didn't start playing basketball until high school, so the steeper learner curve was to be expected. Even so, his talent was pretty evident in college and pre-draft workouts. That being said, I could understand your argument concerning a strain on resources to be relevant for a small market team but not us. We've spent (close to) $100 million per season on a lottery team and should be able to build a program to develop a $1-$3 million prospect. All well run franchises do.
Yeah. Unfortunately our problems go much deeper than that of the average team.
BigDaddyG wrote:NardDogNation wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:BRIGGS wrote:We stunk all year in 2009 and were afford the 8th pick in the draft. We took Jordan Hill who had a lot of potential and was polished coming into the league. He played very well for our SL team yet started off somewhat raw--like many rookies do. He gets dumped in year 1 for salary cap relief along with Jared Jefferies. He has some moments with Houston but was not afforded an opportunity to consistently start. He finally gets his opportunity 4 games ago with the Lakers and at 26 years old--hes looking pretty darn good since he was inserted. We value our draft picks as conduits to get existing players--this is the only strategy that we have used since Dolan became boss. Maybe if we kept Jordan Hill and cultivated him--maybe when he was 24-25 he couldve been our slotted starting PF for the next 6-8 years. Instead we paid Amare 100mm who played spectacular in yr 1 but has been on a serious downslope ever since. One thing I keep seeing over and over again in sports--if you give a vet big money after the age of 30--my bet is you will regret atleast half the contract. Jordan should be our PF making 5-6mm per and if it took him 3 years to grow into what it look s like he might be now--whats wrong with that?
This isn't just a Knicks problem. Looks at guys like Greivis Vasquez, Kris Humphries, Jordan Crawford, Gerald Green,Joe Johnson, etc. Teams can't afford to sit on young talent and pay for guys to develop like in the old days. By the time they look like they can be decent, you wind up being forced to pay them. That's why it pays to stay on the lookout for young free agents. As for Jordan Hill, he's proven that he's a legitimate backup the past three years. Not sure if he's going to keep up his current pace, but maybe he's just figured things out. I think he took to the game later than most prospects.Hill didn't start playing basketball until high school, so the steeper learner curve was to be expected. Even so, his talent was pretty evident in college and pre-draft workouts. That being said, I could understand your argument concerning a strain on resources to be relevant for a small market team but not us. We've spent (close to) $100 million per season on a lottery team and should be able to build a program to develop a $1-$3 million prospect. All well run franchises do.
Yeah. Unfortunately our problems go much deeper than that of the average team.
Agreed. It still baffles me that with all our resources, we can't even put together a capable medical staff that rivals the Phoenix Suns. Those people consistently resurrect zombies and turn them into iron men (see Grant Hill, Steve Nash, Amar'e Stoudemire, Raja Bell, Jason Richardson and the like). We could certainly use capable professionals like that considering how frequently injured our key players are. Cap space does not effect our spending in that capacity, which shows just how inept this franchise is at the top.
NardDogNation wrote:Dagger wrote:Vmart wrote:Finestrg wrote:He was a good player at Arizona. Unlike a lot of people on here, I had no problem with that pick at the time.I didn't have a problem with it either.
How can you say that when Steph Curry was on the board?
..because he wasn't. Curry was picked 8th by Golden State, while Hill was picked 9th.
Yeah I realized that after I posted, deleted my comment.