knickstorrents wrote:Actually, if you want to limit the damage a front office can do, draft picks are the way to go. With free agent signings and bad contracts, you can hamper a team for years (see Allan Houston). A rookie contract is very favorable for a team. If the rookie is a bust, it does not affect the salary cap that much.It seems that our front office goes out of its way to things most damaging to a team.
I guess you didn't read earlier post, a team full of youth can't handle all the pressure in NY. like in Oklahoma.
knickstorrents wrote:Actually, if you want to limit the damage a front office can do, draft picks are the way to go. With free agent signings and bad contracts, you can hamper a team for years (see Allan Houston). A rookie contract is very favorable for a team. If the rookie is a bust, it does not affect the salary cap that much.It seems that our front office goes out of its way to things most damaging to a team.
It depends on how your front office drafts. For instance the Walsh regime seemed to be able to consistently find border line rotation guys in the second round. Something that is hard to do but they struggled to make the right first round pick (i.e. the Gallo draft was the year of the big man and the Hill draft was the year of the point guard and late first round second round value guys not named Toney Douglas). Also, there is a lot of noise about the Knicks trading picks. Not much of that has happened recently. Grunwald only traded one first round pick during his tenure in ny and that pick was already compromised. Also, the flip side to the Bargs trade is that three guys were moved for one. The spots that opened up are occupied by Tyler and Murry. Both guys are second round type picks and young. I don't think the Knicks could do better drafting with what is currently the 56th pick in next years draft then either of those guys. I feel the same way in 2015 when it is the Knicks second rounder.
People are still talking about draft picks for the knicks SMH.
We should be discussing what veterans we will bring aboard once these older guy contracts run out, young draft picks don't last in NY.
All facets of building a team are important--it seems as if the Knicks have rejected for the most part this angle. But the real success the team has had in its history is based on drafting Willis Reed Clyde Frazier Patrick Ewing etc.. our championships were based on drafting the core players and our run to the finals was all based around Patrick Ewing that whole run. We dont have a drafted Bill Cartwright to trade for Charles Oakley--we only trade the pick. We have a smaller avenue for improvement and 0 chance to get a Paul George type because if you dont have the pick--you have no chance on finding players like that.
Please take a look at the Pacers core
Roy Hibbert #17
Paul George #10
Lance Stephenson#40 and we had the two picks before them!
A 10-a 17 and a 40 has built them the best team in the league.(we couldve done that??) Look at Portland --there is so much overwhelming evidence that it doesnt need to be argued or debated. We essentially do not put enough into what is the most important process of building a team.
BRIGGS wrote:All facets of building a team are important--it seems as if the Knicks have rejected for the most part this angle. But the real success the team has had in its history is based on drafting Willis Reed Clyde Frazier Patrick Ewing etc.. our championships were based on drafting the core players and our run to the finals was all based around Patrick Ewing that whole run. We dont have a drafted Bill Cartwright to trade for Charles Oakley--we only trade the pick. We have a smaller avenue for improvement and 0 chance to get a Paul George type because if you dont have the pick--you have no chance on finding players like that.Please take a look at the Pacers core
Roy Hibbert #17
Paul George #10
Lance Stephenson#40 and we had the two picks before them!
A 10-a 17 and a 40 has built them the best team in the league.(we couldve done that??) Look at Portland --there is so much overwhelming evidence that it doesnt need to be argued or debated. We essentially do not put enough into what is the most important process of building a team.
So in short, in theory, all the talents that could have been our picks
WITH DRAFT picks alone, that were owned by us, or drafted by us
Roy Hibbert
Aldridge
Noah
Paul George
Lance Stephenson
in addition to
Wilson Chandler, David Lee, Nate, Crawford, Trevor Ariza
of course no need for both Roy Hibbert and Noah, as one would be moved for assets (likely PG)
That is some team above, with great versatility, and depth, you put the right coach in there, and that is a CHAMPIONSHIP contender although I question if some would have developed to the players they are now have they been Knicks or stayed Knicks...
franco12 wrote:Knicks22 wrote:
financial issue as well, obviously.
free agent signings usually much more expensive than drafted retained players. (see: David Lee vs Amare).Teams can't build only through draft, but, building only through FA/trades isn't going to work either, especially in league where only way to move a player is to take a bad contract back.
How much better would we be right now if we had kept David Lee? Hindsight is 20/20, but patience is needed when trying to build a roster. I think I could argue that we are where we are because Dolan has been impatient.
Ours is a team that lives for the big names. Sure David Lee was a good, homegrown talent, but he wasn't enough compared to Stat. We will constantly go for the big name over our own unless they show a glimpse of stardom.
playa2 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:playa2 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:playa2 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:playa2 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:playa2 wrote:Still trying to figure out in 2014 Why all these posters keep clamoring about we need our draft picks to play for the NY Knicks. You've been watching too many other small media market teams on league pass or internet to still have this outcry for them.
We will never have a team of youngsters we draft on this roster unless they are super high draft picks or #1 overall.
This MSG arena is the most media and fan frenzied pressure cooker for a home team to play in, arguably in the NBA.
The management has never valued draft picks because there is too much going on here (another reason we didn't draft Ron Artest and Brandon Jennings)
JR Smith is the example of a NJ (TRI-STATE KID) who got a lot of money,that was so hardheaded and immature that it ruined his potential earnings in the NBA.
Because there is precedent for the best NY players being drafted (see Derek Jeter, Patrick Ewing, Mariano Rivera, Eli Manning, etc.). Why did they succeed and others can't?
There will always be exceptions of mature individuals with people looking out for them (John Thompson)and EWING WAS #1 overall , be we are talking pro basketball here. Michael Ray Richardson comes to mind, guys would get so hooked that dealers were able to get them into shaving points in games.
I'm talking in 2014 from here out, why the outcry for draft picks for the NEW YORK KNICKS. ? This isn't Oklahoma !
That makes no sense. What makes the NY basketball so fundamentally different from the other major sports? And why can't we draft the same quality a person/player that the other NY franchises do?
If the knicks had people with basketball knowledge & integrity when it comes to drafting and choosing young players like Pat Riley and the GM now in Washington then there would be some hope.The knicks don't have anyone with those credentials making those kind of important decisions.
Isiah and Dolan Mills = Anucka Gate
Then the issue isn't drafting players. The issue is with our front office.
And this is why valuing draft picks are for other franchises , not named the New York Knicks
If they screw up picks, then they'll screw up trades and free agent signings just the same. By your reasoning, we shouldn't do anything with the team, ever.
No I didn't say that.
What I am saying is we need some integrity in the decision making process who you can trust to do the right thing. They have to build a team with guys who fulfill roles like the 1994 and 99 teams did. Guys who can still play who aren't injury prone, and they only purpose is to win and not just get paid the big bucks.
Melo is only hustling and doing everything (reb) because he wants the knicks to pay him well , just like JR did. This ain't rocket science. When he told the team he was testing free agency at the beginning of the season what player wanted to play with him as their leader.
Guys come to NY to pimp Dolan for his money, we need somebody like Allan Houston who has some integrity to play a role in the knicks resurgence to relevancy.
I like your idea of front office integrity, I just do't back the idea of Allan Houston as the guy with his finger on the button. I haven't seen anything from him that suggests that he is a b-ball savant, in either player development or managing skills. Maybe if he could do something with the D league team he's running I might feel more secure with his management chops. Right now, he's drawing a DNP.
RonRon wrote:BRIGGS wrote:All facets of building a team are important--it seems as if the Knicks have rejected for the most part this angle. But the real success the team has had in its history is based on drafting Willis Reed Clyde Frazier Patrick Ewing etc.. our championships were based on drafting the core players and our run to the finals was all based around Patrick Ewing that whole run. We dont have a drafted Bill Cartwright to trade for Charles Oakley--we only trade the pick. We have a smaller avenue for improvement and 0 chance to get a Paul George type because if you dont have the pick--you have no chance on finding players like that.Please take a look at the Pacers core
Roy Hibbert #17
Paul George #10
Lance Stephenson#40 and we had the two picks before them!
A 10-a 17 and a 40 has built them the best team in the league.(we couldve done that??) Look at Portland --there is so much overwhelming evidence that it doesnt need to be argued or debated. We essentially do not put enough into what is the most important process of building a team.
So in short, in theory, all the talents that could have been our picks
WITH DRAFT picks alone, that were owned by us, or drafted by us
Roy Hibbert
Aldridge
Noah
Paul George
Lance Stephenson
in addition to
Wilson Chandler, David Lee, Nate, Crawford, Trevor Ariza
of course no need for both Roy Hibbert and Noah, as one would be moved for assets (likely PG)
That is some team above, with great versatility, and depth, you put the right coach in there, and that is a CHAMPIONSHIP contender although I question if some would have developed to the players they are now have they been Knicks or stayed Knicks...
When I revisit things like this I have to wonder where the Knicks would be if they hired mjax instead of D'ANtoni. I think Jax would have had a better chance of making things work with Marbs. Jax would have wanted a center to anchor his team in 06. Knicks probably draft Bropez and take Jennings in the Hill draft. Also, I think Jax wouldn't have shied away from Stephenson's character/maturity issues and would have pushed for Walsh to take him. With a core of Lee, Chandler, Stephenson, Bropez, Jennings, a good coach and cap space the Knicks would have been a very attractive place for free agents to sign.
RonRon wrote:BRIGGS wrote:All facets of building a team are important--it seems as if the Knicks have rejected for the most part this angle. But the real success the team has had in its history is based on drafting Willis Reed Clyde Frazier Patrick Ewing etc.. our championships were based on drafting the core players and our run to the finals was all based around Patrick Ewing that whole run. We dont have a drafted Bill Cartwright to trade for Charles Oakley--we only trade the pick. We have a smaller avenue for improvement and 0 chance to get a Paul George type because if you dont have the pick--you have no chance on finding players like that.Please take a look at the Pacers core
Roy Hibbert #17
Paul George #10
Lance Stephenson#40 and we had the two picks before them!
A 10-a 17 and a 40 has built them the best team in the league.(we couldve done that??) Look at Portland --there is so much overwhelming evidence that it doesnt need to be argued or debated. We essentially do not put enough into what is the most important process of building a team.
So in short, in theory, all the talents that could have been our picks
WITH DRAFT picks alone, that were owned by us, or drafted by us
Roy Hibbert
Aldridge
Noah
Paul George
Lance Stephenson
in addition to
Wilson Chandler, David Lee, Nate, Crawford, Trevor Ariza
of course no need for both Roy Hibbert and Noah, as one would be moved for assets (likely PG)
That is some team above, with great versatility, and depth, you put the right coach in there, and that is a CHAMPIONSHIP contender although I question if some would have developed to the players they are now have they been Knicks or stayed Knicks...
We lost out on the ability to construct such a squad a while back. when we sent off the two first rounders for Curry, it started habit of trading the future for a "right now" solution. Hopefully, the 2016 first rounder for Bargs will end the trading of our future assets and a steadier course of action will be. Related.
BRIGGS wrote:All facets of building a team are important--it seems as if the Knicks have rejected for the most part this angle. But the real success the team has had in its history is based on drafting Willis Reed Clyde Frazier Patrick Ewing etc.. our championships were based on drafting the core players and our run to the finals was all based around Patrick Ewing that whole run. We dont have a drafted Bill Cartwright to trade for Charles Oakley--we only trade the pick. We have a smaller avenue for improvement and 0 chance to get a Paul George type because if you dont have the pick--you have no chance on finding players like that.Please take a look at the Pacers core
Roy Hibbert #17
Paul George #10
Lance Stephenson#40 and we had the two picks before them!
A 10-a 17 and a 40 has built them the best team in the league.(we couldve done that??) Look at Portland --there is so much overwhelming evidence that it doesnt need to be argued or debated. We essentially do not put enough into what is the most important process of building a team.
Good post. Im sure if we look hard we can see indy wiffed as well, but its not the misses that count, its the ones you get. Nalod long says you increase your odds with more "at bats". INdy also traded what was the 8th pick that became Kwai Leonard for George hill. Hill is solid, and while Kwai might have the upside this was a win-win for both teams in trade.
Fact is Stephanson was developed and on a balanced good team he blends in well. we do that? Nope. Hibbert did not set the world on fire for a few years. See the pattern?
Portland core is drafted. Batum was developed, Lilliard and Aldridge drafted and who was the missing piece? RoPez!!! Robin freaking Lopez!!! OKC? Draft and patience. Spurs? Built around duncan but managed his minutes and got him pieces to play with. Guys like Splitter are not great but important. We had one, his name was Mozgov. He should have been developed, maybe not a star but a quality cog.
Little moves add up and when you do that you don't have to bank on enabling bad seeds like JR smith.
Nalod wrote:BRIGGS wrote:All facets of building a team are important--it seems as if the Knicks have rejected for the most part this angle. But the real success the team has had in its history is based on drafting Willis Reed Clyde Frazier Patrick Ewing etc.. our championships were based on drafting the core players and our run to the finals was all based around Patrick Ewing that whole run. We dont have a drafted Bill Cartwright to trade for Charles Oakley--we only trade the pick. We have a smaller avenue for improvement and 0 chance to get a Paul George type because if you dont have the pick--you have no chance on finding players like that.Please take a look at the Pacers core
Roy Hibbert #17
Paul George #10
Lance Stephenson#40 and we had the two picks before them!
A 10-a 17 and a 40 has built them the best team in the league.(we couldve done that??) Look at Portland --there is so much overwhelming evidence that it doesnt need to be argued or debated. We essentially do not put enough into what is the most important process of building a team.
Good post. Im sure if we look hard we can see indy wiffed as well, but its not the misses that count, its the ones you get. Nalod long says you increase your odds with more "at bats". INdy also traded what was the 8th pick that became Kwai Leonard for George hill. Hill is solid, and while Kwai might have the upside this was a win-win for both teams in trade.Fact is Stephanson was developed and on a balanced good team he blends in well. we do that? Nope. Hibbert did not set the world on fire for a few years. See the pattern?
Portland core is drafted. Batum was developed, Lilliard and Aldridge drafted and who was the missing piece? RoPez!!! Robin freaking Lopez!!! OKC? Draft and patience. Spurs? Built around duncan but managed his minutes and got him pieces to play with. Guys like Splitter are not great but important. We had one, his name was Mozgov. He should have been developed, maybe not a star but a quality cog.
Little moves add up and when you do that you don't have to bank on enabling bad seeds like JR smith.
Nalod--- first you should never trade a draft pick unrestricted EVER--that should be policy 1. A draft pick hedges your team against injury and or bad seasons--when you give away the protection on it to let it go at any cost--you lose the entire hedge--leaving your self open for disaster. Next you should not have to trade 1st round picks in almost any cae ANYWAY(unless a deal is to good to be pass up)--we have free agency every year(LLE and MLE)Summer league D league trades and then some years we get the big cap space. We should be a team that acquires picks--so we have excess--AND if opportunity arises where you want to use excess to make a move--then you can utilyze it. This needs to be a new policy going forward--its going to take atleast 3 years to feel effect--as we have sold off everything.
Sangfroid wrote:playa2 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:playa2 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:playa2 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:playa2 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:playa2 wrote:Still trying to figure out in 2014 Why all these posters keep clamoring about we need our draft picks to play for the NY Knicks. You've been watching too many other small media market teams on league pass or internet to still have this outcry for them.
We will never have a team of youngsters we draft on this roster unless they are super high draft picks or #1 overall.
This MSG arena is the most media and fan frenzied pressure cooker for a home team to play in, arguably in the NBA.
The management has never valued draft picks because there is too much going on here (another reason we didn't draft Ron Artest and Brandon Jennings)
JR Smith is the example of a NJ (TRI-STATE KID) who got a lot of money,that was so hardheaded and immature that it ruined his potential earnings in the NBA.
Because there is precedent for the best NY players being drafted (see Derek Jeter, Patrick Ewing, Mariano Rivera, Eli Manning, etc.). Why did they succeed and others can't?
There will always be exceptions of mature individuals with people looking out for them (John Thompson)and EWING WAS #1 overall , be we are talking pro basketball here. Michael Ray Richardson comes to mind, guys would get so hooked that dealers were able to get them into shaving points in games.
I'm talking in 2014 from here out, why the outcry for draft picks for the NEW YORK KNICKS. ? This isn't Oklahoma !
That makes no sense. What makes the NY basketball so fundamentally different from the other major sports? And why can't we draft the same quality a person/player that the other NY franchises do?
If the knicks had people with basketball knowledge & integrity when it comes to drafting and choosing young players like Pat Riley and the GM now in Washington then there would be some hope.The knicks don't have anyone with those credentials making those kind of important decisions.
Isiah and Dolan Mills = Anucka Gate
Then the issue isn't drafting players. The issue is with our front office.
And this is why valuing draft picks are for other franchises , not named the New York Knicks
If they screw up picks, then they'll screw up trades and free agent signings just the same. By your reasoning, we shouldn't do anything with the team, ever.
No I didn't say that.
What I am saying is we need some integrity in the decision making process who you can trust to do the right thing. They have to build a team with guys who fulfill roles like the 1994 and 99 teams did. Guys who can still play who aren't injury prone, and they only purpose is to win and not just get paid the big bucks.
Melo is only hustling and doing everything (reb) because he wants the knicks to pay him well , just like JR did. This ain't rocket science. When he told the team he was testing free agency at the beginning of the season what player wanted to play with him as their leader.
Guys come to NY to pimp Dolan for his money, we need somebody like Allan Houston who has some integrity to play a role in the knicks resurgence to relevancy.
I like your idea of front office integrity, I just do't back the idea of Allan Houston as the guy with his finger on the button. I haven't seen anything from him that suggests that he is a b-ball savant, in either player development or managing skills. Maybe if he could do something with the D league team he's running I might feel more secure with his management chops. Right now, he's drawing a DNP.
Who else has a close relationship with Dolan with integrity, Mills, Isiah ?
The team won't keep draft picks unless they are high picks, but in order to receive high picks we must finish low in the standings. The business side is you can't charge the astronomical price for teams with no big names and no proven talent in the association in NYC.
This isn't a small media market where nobody cares, why do you think Brooklyn went all out with Garnett & Pierce.
Change who you root for because the knicks aren't going to appease you, with growing a team with mostly draft picks that season is over under James Dolan !
playa2 wrote:Still trying to figure out in 2014 Why all these posters keep clamoring about we need our draft picks to play for the NY Knicks. You've been watching too many other small media market teams on league pass or internet to still have this outcry for them.
We will never have a team of youngsters we draft on this roster unless they are super high draft picks or #1 overall.
This MSG arena is the most media and fan frenzied pressure cooker for a home team to play in, arguably in the NBA.
The management has never valued draft picks because there is too much going on here (another reason we didn't draft Ron Artest and Brandon Jennings)
JR Smith is the example of a NJ (TRI-STATE KID) who got a lot of money,that was so hardheaded and immature that it ruined his potential earnings in the NBA.
I get teh sense from readin your posts that you have kind have overrated this team. the fcat is that this team isnt any good and wont be a contender. I understand draft picks and rebuilding doesnt seem fun BUT in the longrun it might be betetr for the franchise. The Knicks have pretty much forgotten about the draft and over the past 14 years have been pretty terrible. Im sorry but one 54 win season(bad playoffs results) doesnt exactly mkae me jump for joy. I would rather trade soem assets stockplile picks, young pieces and get some cap space to sign new FA in 2015
Nalod wrote:BRIGGS wrote:All facets of building a team are important--it seems as if the Knicks have rejected for the most part this angle. But the real success the team has had in its history is based on drafting Willis Reed Clyde Frazier Patrick Ewing etc.. our championships were based on drafting the core players and our run to the finals was all based around Patrick Ewing that whole run. We dont have a drafted Bill Cartwright to trade for Charles Oakley--we only trade the pick. We have a smaller avenue for improvement and 0 chance to get a Paul George type because if you dont have the pick--you have no chance on finding players like that.Please take a look at the Pacers core
Roy Hibbert #17
Paul George #10
Lance Stephenson#40 and we had the two picks before them!
A 10-a 17 and a 40 has built them the best team in the league.(we couldve done that??) Look at Portland --there is so much overwhelming evidence that it doesnt need to be argued or debated. We essentially do not put enough into what is the most important process of building a team.
Good post. Im sure if we look hard we can see indy wiffed as well, but its not the misses that count, its the ones you get. Nalod long says you increase your odds with more "at bats". INdy also traded what was the 8th pick that became Kwai Leonard for George hill. Hill is solid, and while Kwai might have the upside this was a win-win for both teams in trade.Fact is Stephanson was developed and on a balanced good team he blends in well. we do that? Nope. Hibbert did not set the world on fire for a few years. See the pattern?
Portland core is drafted. Batum was developed, Lilliard and Aldridge drafted and who was the missing piece? RoPez!!! Robin freaking Lopez!!! OKC? Draft and patience. Spurs? Built around duncan but managed his minutes and got him pieces to play with. Guys like Splitter are not great but important. We had one, his name was Mozgov. He should have been developed, maybe not a star but a quality cog.
Little moves add up and when you do that you don't have to bank on enabling bad seeds like JR smith.
Good post nalod.. I agree..
tkf wrote:Nalod wrote:BRIGGS wrote:All facets of building a team are important--it seems as if the Knicks have rejected for the most part this angle. But the real success the team has had in its history is based on drafting Willis Reed Clyde Frazier Patrick Ewing etc.. our championships were based on drafting the core players and our run to the finals was all based around Patrick Ewing that whole run. We dont have a drafted Bill Cartwright to trade for Charles Oakley--we only trade the pick. We have a smaller avenue for improvement and 0 chance to get a Paul George type because if you dont have the pick--you have no chance on finding players like that.Please take a look at the Pacers core
Roy Hibbert #17
Paul George #10
Lance Stephenson#40 and we had the two picks before them!
A 10-a 17 and a 40 has built them the best team in the league.(we couldve done that??) Look at Portland --there is so much overwhelming evidence that it doesnt need to be argued or debated. We essentially do not put enough into what is the most important process of building a team.
Good post. Im sure if we look hard we can see indy wiffed as well, but its not the misses that count, its the ones you get. Nalod long says you increase your odds with more "at bats". INdy also traded what was the 8th pick that became Kwai Leonard for George hill. Hill is solid, and while Kwai might have the upside this was a win-win for both teams in trade.Fact is Stephanson was developed and on a balanced good team he blends in well. we do that? Nope. Hibbert did not set the world on fire for a few years. See the pattern?
Portland core is drafted. Batum was developed, Lilliard and Aldridge drafted and who was the missing piece? RoPez!!! Robin freaking Lopez!!! OKC? Draft and patience. Spurs? Built around duncan but managed his minutes and got him pieces to play with. Guys like Splitter are not great but important. We had one, his name was Mozgov. He should have been developed, maybe not a star but a quality cog.
Little moves add up and when you do that you don't have to bank on enabling bad seeds like JR smith.
Good post nalod.. I agree..
Sure, Let's go the draft pick route. Im sure there will be a Duncan or James sitting right there for us to pick.
meloanyk wrote:tkf wrote:Nalod wrote:BRIGGS wrote:All facets of building a team are important--it seems as if the Knicks have rejected for the most part this angle. But the real success the team has had in its history is based on drafting Willis Reed Clyde Frazier Patrick Ewing etc.. our championships were based on drafting the core players and our run to the finals was all based around Patrick Ewing that whole run. We dont have a drafted Bill Cartwright to trade for Charles Oakley--we only trade the pick. We have a smaller avenue for improvement and 0 chance to get a Paul George type because if you dont have the pick--you have no chance on finding players like that.Please take a look at the Pacers core
Roy Hibbert #17
Paul George #10
Lance Stephenson#40 and we had the two picks before them!
A 10-a 17 and a 40 has built them the best team in the league.(we couldve done that??) Look at Portland --there is so much overwhelming evidence that it doesnt need to be argued or debated. We essentially do not put enough into what is the most important process of building a team.
Good post. Im sure if we look hard we can see indy wiffed as well, but its not the misses that count, its the ones you get. Nalod long says you increase your odds with more "at bats". INdy also traded what was the 8th pick that became Kwai Leonard for George hill. Hill is solid, and while Kwai might have the upside this was a win-win for both teams in trade.Fact is Stephanson was developed and on a balanced good team he blends in well. we do that? Nope. Hibbert did not set the world on fire for a few years. See the pattern?
Portland core is drafted. Batum was developed, Lilliard and Aldridge drafted and who was the missing piece? RoPez!!! Robin freaking Lopez!!! OKC? Draft and patience. Spurs? Built around duncan but managed his minutes and got him pieces to play with. Guys like Splitter are not great but important. We had one, his name was Mozgov. He should have been developed, maybe not a star but a quality cog.
Little moves add up and when you do that you don't have to bank on enabling bad seeds like JR smith.
Good post nalod.. I agree..
Sure, Let's go the draft pick route. Im sure there will be a Duncan or James sitting right there for us to pick.
That is as myopic a comment as I heard. The Pacers, Grizzlies, Spurs and Blazers largely built themselves into contenders with middling picks. Clearly you don't necessarily need a LeBron or Duncan to acquire major cogs for a team. I'm not sure how many other ways that point needs to be said or made.
Nobody is denying taking draft choices and developing them isn't a good route, what I am saying is it won't happen under Dolan watch so just stop it !
We are only going for proven vets, so what we should hope for is that we get guys who can still play the game the right way and launch us into a 1999 scenario.
This is James Dolans team, not fans on the Ultimateknicks site SMH, because some of you still don't get it.
playa2 wrote:Nobody is denying taking draft choices and developing them isn't a good route, what I am saying is it won't happen under Dolan watch so just stop it !We are only going for proven vets, so what we should hope for is that we get guys who can still play the game the right way and launch us into a 1999 scenario.
This is James Dolans team, not fans on the Ultimateknicks site SMH, because some of you still don't get it.
True it is James Dolan's team...however the past 14 years have been a embarassment which shows how bad he is at going the "veteran route"
StarksEwing1 wrote:playa2 wrote:Nobody is denying taking draft choices and developing them isn't a good route, what I am saying is it won't happen under Dolan watch so just stop it !We are only going for proven vets, so what we should hope for is that we get guys who can still play the game the right way and launch us into a 1999 scenario.
This is James Dolans team, not fans on the Ultimateknicks site SMH, because some of you still don't get it.
True it is James Dolan's team...however the past 14 years have been a embarassment which shows how bad he is at going the "veteran route"
The Knicks have missed a lot in the draft as well.
CrushAlot wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:playa2 wrote:Nobody is denying taking draft choices and developing them isn't a good route, what I am saying is it won't happen under Dolan watch so just stop it !We are only going for proven vets, so what we should hope for is that we get guys who can still play the game the right way and launch us into a 1999 scenario.
This is James Dolans team, not fans on the Ultimateknicks site SMH, because some of you still don't get it.
True it is James Dolan's team...however the past 14 years have been a embarassment which shows how bad he is at going the "veteran route"
The Knicks have missed a lot in the draft as well.
True but we have also given up a ton of picks without much results. i mean friends of mine who are bulls fans have actually thanked isiah for helping them lol
StarksEwing1 wrote:playa2 wrote:Nobody is denying taking draft choices and developing them isn't a good route, what I am saying is it won't happen under Dolan watch so just stop it !We are only going for proven vets, so what we should hope for is that we get guys who can still play the game the right way and launch us into a 1999 scenario.
This is James Dolans team, not fans on the Ultimateknicks site SMH, because some of you still don't get it.
True it is James Dolan's team...however the past 14 years have been a embarassment which shows how bad he is at going the "veteran route"
Do you remember the owner of the Clippers Mr Sterling, all he did was go for the young rookies for years and grabbed all the money he could. Those teams just became a farm system for other teams in the association looking for young talent.
