http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/i...New York Knicks ($1,304,071; 28th); Los Angeles Lakers ($1,428,173; 29th)Finally, we have two of the league's flagship franchises, who threaten to become cautionary tales for NBA executives. These teams suggest that while the road of excess might lead to the palace of wisdom, it doesn't necessarily lead to the playoffs. However, there are big differences between the Knicks and Lakers. L.A. gambled with aging, Hall of Fame talent and was undercut by the injury pitfalls that come with that strategy. The Knicks, on the other hand, tried to spend their way to a roster worthy of Carmelo Anthony's talents, and the resulting mess is what Phil Jackson is currently trying to mop up. In the process, New York might lose the one player it was trying to please.
Thanks BigDaddyG, thought they would gave gone into more detail but that about sums it up. We gambled on all those older vets, and lost, most of them didn't last more than a handful of games.
Yes it's a disease. Randomly overpaying one dimensional players under the delusion that they are "superstars" needed to win championships. The results of course speak for themselves. Melo, Amare, Bargs what a complete nightmare. Somehow the promised championship is as elusive as ever. It is never Melos fault or never the right supporting cast of never the right coach. So the solution from the wise ones is we keep overpaying these guys. When in a hole, keep digging. Makes complete sense.
I wasn't too crazy with the methodology used, but the article sums up what we've been witnessing for the past decade and a half.
lock.....no need to make a buzz kill thread when we are currently crawling out from under this bullshit....lock this
EnySpree wrote:lock.....no need to make a buzz kill thread when we are currently crawling out from under this bullshit....lock this
Could say the same about your Josh Smith trade idea 
lifelong Knicks fan, but how anyone could equate the lakers and NYK "two flagship franchises" is amazing. Laker's appearances in Finals over 50 years makes them arguably the most successful franchise in team sports - well beyond Yanks.
Let's hope Phil gets this on track. Max-ing out a 30 year old isn't the way to go, hopefully we start afresh.
Knicks22 wrote:lifelong Knicks fan, but how anyone could equate the lakers and NYK "two flagship franchises" is amazing. Laker's appearances in Finals over 50 years makes them arguably the most successful franchise in team sports - well beyond Yanks.Let's hope Phil gets this on track. Max-ing out a 30 year old isn't the way to go, hopefully we start afresh.
Might be talking more about the Knicks being one of the first franchises and the most valuable according to Forbes. Unfortunately its been a long time since they have been known for anything else but futility.
The solution is to give Melo $130 mil!
GustavBahler wrote:EnySpree wrote:lock.....no need to make a buzz kill thread when we are currently crawling out from under this bullshit....lock this
Could say the same about your Josh Smith trade idea
Blah lol...
We're not overspending anymore. Even that Josh Smith idea isn't overspending. Am are still comes off the books so they'll be money to pay with still
BigDaddyG wrote:http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/i...New York Knicks ($1,304,071; 28th); Los Angeles Lakers ($1,428,173; 29th)Finally, we have two of the league's flagship franchises, who threaten to become cautionary tales for NBA executives. These teams suggest that while the road of excess might lead to the palace of wisdom, it doesn't necessarily lead to the playoffs. However, there are big differences between the Knicks and Lakers. L.A. gambled with aging, Hall of Fame talent and was undercut by the injury pitfalls that come with that strategy. The Knicks, on the other hand, tried to spend their way to a roster worthy of Carmelo Anthony's talents, and the resulting mess is what Phil Jackson is currently trying to mop up. In the process, New York might lose the one player it was trying to please.
How? They already gave Amare 100mil and instead of spending money on a PG they spent it on a Center even though Carmelo isn't a creator?
newyorknewyork wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/i...New York Knicks ($1,304,071; 28th); Los Angeles Lakers ($1,428,173; 29th)Finally, we have two of the league's flagship franchises, who threaten to become cautionary tales for NBA executives. These teams suggest that while the road of excess might lead to the palace of wisdom, it doesn't necessarily lead to the playoffs. However, there are big differences between the Knicks and Lakers. L.A. gambled with aging, Hall of Fame talent and was undercut by the injury pitfalls that come with that strategy. The Knicks, on the other hand, tried to spend their way to a roster worthy of Carmelo Anthony's talents, and the resulting mess is what Phil Jackson is currently trying to mop up. In the process, New York might lose the one player it was trying to please.
How? They already gave Amare 100mil and instead of spending money on a PG they spent it on a Center even though Carmelo isn't a creator?
The so called need at the time was for a consistent second scorer and for whatever reason the Knicks thought Andrea Bargnani was it. You don't need a PG for a Mike Woodson offense. You need someone to walk the ball up the court and hand it to Melo. The team try to get what the"need" was. Did a terrible of it.
was this the same situation when we won 50+ games?
We took a step back last year - and I certainly was not one that wanted to go all in in 2010. I wanted to let bad deals come off the books, keep our own draft picks, and try to keep talent.
We'd probably have a really good roster right now - and who knows, we might have been players for Melo & Lebron if we hadn't screwed things up, starting prior to 2010 up til now.
meloshouldgo wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/i...New York Knicks ($1,304,071; 28th); Los Angeles Lakers ($1,428,173; 29th)Finally, we have two of the league's flagship franchises, who threaten to become cautionary tales for NBA executives. These teams suggest that while the road of excess might lead to the palace of wisdom, it doesn't necessarily lead to the playoffs. However, there are big differences between the Knicks and Lakers. L.A. gambled with aging, Hall of Fame talent and was undercut by the injury pitfalls that come with that strategy. The Knicks, on the other hand, tried to spend their way to a roster worthy of Carmelo Anthony's talents, and the resulting mess is what Phil Jackson is currently trying to mop up. In the process, New York might lose the one player it was trying to please.
How? They already gave Amare 100mil and instead of spending money on a PG they spent it on a Center even though Carmelo isn't a creator?
The so called need at the time was for a consistent second scorer and for whatever reason the Knicks thought Andrea Bargnani was it. You don't need a PG for a Mike Woodson offense. You need someone to walk the ball up the court and hand it to Melo. The team try to get what the"need" was. Did a terrible of it.
That wasn't spending, they traded 3 contracts on the books already for Bargs. Spending is Amnestying Billups expiring contract to sign Tyson Chandler.
