Knicks · Simple Yes or No: Do Knicks Make The Playoffs Next Season? (page 5)

StarksEwing1 wrote:

misterearl wrote:"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

nixluva wrote:
Can we cut the BS? Every time we talk about the future someone has to bring up the past. The season is over and this team is on a path to rebuild the roster. Going back to the moves before the season is pure BULL ISH. MOVE THE F ON ALREADY. Here's what matters. Top 5 draft pick. Millions in Cap Space. Now we get to see what Phil does with the roster. These are the moves that will have the most impact on the team's future.

nixluva - painting a rosy watercolor future is a wonderful hobby. Bringing up the past informs what level of success the NBA franchises, starting from the bottom, have had in changing course - how to move forward, the and the time it will take to reach the promised land of an NBA Championship.

There is nothing wrong with being a cheerleader. We all want the Knicks to succeed. You trumpet the first round pick and extra cash as having the most impact on the team's future. Wrong. Those are just assets. They are no guarantee of anything. In the hands of a novice like Phil Jackson, there will be mistakes. There is no guaranteed formula. It is trial and error.

Agree 100% Earl.

Well put. If you're not allowed to look at the past, you would never have had a reason to fire Layden, Isiah, or anyone else. You could say Phil's history of success should make us more patient but then you're bringing up the past!

StarksEwing1 wrote:

misterearl wrote:"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

nixluva wrote:
Can we cut the BS? Every time we talk about the future someone has to bring up the past. The season is over and this team is on a path to rebuild the roster. Going back to the moves before the season is pure BULL ISH. MOVE THE F ON ALREADY. Here's what matters. Top 5 draft pick. Millions in Cap Space. Now we get to see what Phil does with the roster. These are the moves that will have the most impact on the team's future.

nixluva - painting a rosy watercolor future is a wonderful hobby. Bringing up the past informs what level of success the NBA franchises, starting from the bottom, have had in changing course - how to move forward, the and the time it will take to reach the promised land of an NBA Championship.

There is nothing wrong with being a cheerleader. We all want the Knicks to succeed. You trumpet the first round pick and extra cash as having the most impact on the team's future. Wrong. Those are just assets. They are no guarantee of anything. In the hands of a novice like Phil Jackson, there will be mistakes. There is no guaranteed formula. It is trial and error.

Agree 100% Earl.

That's bs Earl wrapped in a cliched quote. You basically just said "If we don't remember that we sucked, we will continue to suck". Every jerk on this board can remember how badly we sucked. We were all there.

How about this one "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". Its now time to apply some history and build a team with a high draft pick, some cap space, a concept of team basketball and a leader with 11 rings. I'll stand on the shoulders of PJax and condemn myself to his history.

I'm looking forward to this off season. Literally and figuratively. You can quote me on that.

Theme Music: We're A Winner - Curtis Mayfield

EwingsGlass - your interpretation is narrow, defensive and negative. Allow me to make it more plain for you. If you don't remember the 1963 Knicks, you have no context for how the 1969 Knicks were assembled, or how long it took a legendary executive, Eddie Donovan.

EwingsGlass wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

misterearl wrote:"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

nixluva wrote:
Can we cut the BS? Every time we talk about the future someone has to bring up the past. The season is over and this team is on a path to rebuild the roster. Going back to the moves before the season is pure BULL ISH. MOVE THE F ON ALREADY. Here's what matters. Top 5 draft pick. Millions in Cap Space. Now we get to see what Phil does with the roster. These are the moves that will have the most impact on the team's future.

nixluva - painting a rosy watercolor future is a wonderful hobby. Bringing up the past informs what level of success the NBA franchises, starting from the bottom, have had in changing course - how to move forward, the and the time it will take to reach the promised land of an NBA Championship.

There is nothing wrong with being a cheerleader. We all want the Knicks to succeed. You trumpet the first round pick and extra cash as having the most impact on the team's future. Wrong. Those are just assets. They are no guarantee of anything. In the hands of a novice like Phil Jackson, there will be mistakes. There is no guaranteed formula. It is trial and error.

Agree 100% Earl.

That's bs Earl wrapped in a cliched quote. You basically just said "If we don't remember that we sucked, we will continue to suck". Every jerk on this board can remember how badly we sucked. We were all there.

How about this one "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". Its now time to apply some history and build a team with a high draft pick, some cap space, a concept of team basketball and a leader with 11 rings. I'll stand on the shoulders of PJax and condemn myself to his history.

I'm looking forward to this off season. Literally and figuratively. You can quote me on that.

Referring to phils 11 rings doesn't mean anything..Jordan had 6 rings and drafted kwame brown. I'm more worried than i am confident, base on all the suspect moves he's made already. Plus he's not saying with any kind of conviction, that he's hell bent on building a team that can make the playoffs next season, by any means.

I have been thinking about this for awhile. It really isn't a simple yes or no. It all depends on when and who we pick in the draft. The path in free agency is different depending on who we get. The 2 bigs have 2 diff strengths and weaknesses so their bookend big will be different. If you get one of the perimeter players they are also quite different and we need to take a diff path as well. Right now, I am on Big Chief Triangles camp. I need to believe that or I will go crazy. I need to know that a tank season can work and since we have all this cap room we are setup to actually go from zero to hero in one season.

misterearl wrote:Theme Music: We're A Winner - Curtis Mayfield

EwingsGlass - your interpretation is narrow, defensive and negative. Allow me to make it more plain for you. If you don't remember the 1963 Knicks, you have no context for how the 1969 Knicks were assembled, or how long it took a legendary executive, Eddie Donovan.

I am defensive. I suggest my view is the optimist's view, though, MisterEarl. Without relying on a non-sequitur quote or pop culture reference --meaning, using your own words, what would you suggest "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" means in the context of a Knicks re-build? Make sure we do not Starphuch ourselves? Agreed.

That said, people are swinging at Nix for being excited for the opportunity to build a team this year...better yet, a franchise. What I see is a poster that is excited by both advanced metrics and salary cap considerations. This is the kind of fan I want to chat with.

Your response is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Thanks for the neoclassical philosophy lesson. I'll remember not to re-sign Stephon Marbury.

So, no. I do not remember the 1963 Knicks. Or the 1969 Knicks. I would suggest that the change in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the creation of the NBPA has changed the way teams are built since 1963. 1963 still had the territorial rule for instance (thank you for Bill Bradley). That said, a 5th draft pick and a forced trade from a lesser team seems somewhat familiar to me. Today, a combination of free agency and drafting well are necessary.

With the rookie scale contract limiting teams to 4 unrestricted years with their draft picks, the timeline to develop young players has changed. You basically need to have your franchise built within 4 years of drafting your franchise player so that when you cap out on the young star (limiting your free agent flexibility), you have your supporting cast in place. Even then, your team is subject to the collusive actions of players on teams like the Celtics and Heat where multiple superstars eschew the economic modeling to chase rings together.

You have to do more than remember the past. You have to predict the future in this league. I am not sure I need context for the 1969 Knicks so much as an understanding of how to beat teams like the Warriors, Cavs etc..

Context

With the rookie scale contract limiting teams to 4 unrestricted years with their draft picks, the timeline to develop young players has changed. You basically need to have your franchise built within 4 years of drafting your franchise player so that when you cap out on the young star (limiting your free agent flexibility), you have your supporting cast in place. Even then, your team is subject to the collusive actions of players on teams like the Celtics and Heat where multiple superstars eschew the economic modeling to chase rings together.

Excellent point. You may not need to understand how the 1969 Knicks were built, or the 1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers for that matter, but the new formula may not be so simple as having lottery picks and cash to burn. The game is different. Heck, by 2017 the triangle may be outlawed.

You gotta have an empowered executive to run things. And that base must stay intact for at least five years to see the plan through.

You gotta have heart and soul, and plenty of luck.

Ain't nobody got a problem with nixluva.

EwingsGlass - if you only wanted to chat with people who shared your opinions, that only helps define those who dare disagree with you as the enemy.

EwingsGlass wrote:

misterearl wrote:Theme Music: We're A Winner - Curtis Mayfield

EwingsGlass - your interpretation is narrow, defensive and negative. Allow me to make it more plain for you. If you don't remember the 1963 Knicks, you have no context for how the 1969 Knicks were assembled, or how long it took a legendary executive, Eddie Donovan.

I am defensive. I suggest my view is the optimist's view, though, MisterEarl. Without relying on a non-sequitur quote or pop culture reference --meaning, using your own words, what would you suggest "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" means in the context of a Knicks re-build? Make sure we do not Starphuch ourselves? Agreed.

That said, people are swinging at Nix for being excited for the opportunity to build a team this year...better yet, a franchise. What I see is a poster that is excited by both advanced metrics and salary cap considerations. This is the kind of fan I want to chat with.

Your response is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Thanks for the neoclassical philosophy lesson. I'll remember not to re-sign Stephon Marbury.

So, no. I do not remember the 1963 Knicks. Or the 1969 Knicks. I would suggest that the change in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the creation of the NBPA has changed the way teams are built since 1963. 1963 still had the territorial rule for instance (thank you for Bill Bradley). That said, a 5th draft pick and a forced trade from a lesser team seems somewhat familiar to me. Today, a combination of free agency and drafting well are necessary.

With the rookie scale contract limiting teams to 4 unrestricted years with their draft picks, the timeline to develop young players has changed. You basically need to have your franchise built within 4 years of drafting your franchise player so that when you cap out on the young star (limiting your free agent flexibility), you have your supporting cast in place. Even then, your team is subject to the collusive actions of players on teams like the Celtics and Heat where multiple superstars eschew the economic modeling to chase rings together.

You have to do more than remember the past. You have to predict the future in this league. I am not sure I need context for the 1969 Knicks so much as an understanding of how to beat teams like the Warriors, Cavs etc..

Very good post, Ewing. Cogent, clear and thoughtful. Nice (brief) analysis on what's changed and where we need to be.

I'm not saying that the past has no value. As usual this is an exaggeration of my point. Looking back can have it's purpose but not without perspective. My posting WS/48 for players THIS YEAR is not looking back!!! That is current information!

Current - adjective
The definition of current is something that is happening now or something that is up to date.
An example of current is today's newspaper.

Going back to the 1960's is overkill in looking back. There are far more recent examples of teams improving in an off season we can use for reference. CrushAlot mentioned how Rod Thorn was able to make major improvements with the Nets.

2001-2002 Nets
26-56, .317, in 2000-01; 52-30, .634, in 2001-02

The Nets added Jason Kidd and Kerry Kittles (back from a knee injury) to their lineup in '01-02. Also new to the team were center Todd MacCulloch, rookie Richard Jefferson, and guard Lucious Harris, who combined for 28 points, 13 rebounds, and 4.7 assists per game. The Nets registered their first 50-win season and first trip to the NBA finals.

2003-04 Nuggets
17-65, .207, in 2002-03; 43-39, .524, in 2003-04

Carmelo Anthony
Even Carmelo Anthony needed help as a rookie in Denver.
Two words: Carmelo Anthony. The rookie averaged 21 points, 6.1 rebounds, 2.8 assists, and 1.2 steals a game, finished second in Rookie of the Year voting, and energized both the team and the Denver fan base. Meanwhile, free agent Juwan Howard, the team's leading scorer in 2002-03, took off for Orlando

Point guard Andre Miller arrived from the Clippers and led the team in assists and steals and was the Nuggets' second-leading scorer. Marcus Camby, who'd played a total of 58 games in the previous two seasons, was good for 72 games and a team-leading 10.1 rebounds. And Earl Boykins, coming off the bench, averaged 10.2 points and 3.5 assists in about 22 minutes a game. The Nuggets lost to the Timberwolves in the first round of the playoffs.

2003-04 Grizzlies (22-game improvement)

Those examples are rare but do show that it's possible. That's all i'm saying. I've made no guarantees on success.

I think looking towards the off season makes the most sense right now. We are no longer in the same situation we were at the start of this season. Now we're looking at the Draft Lottery and Free Agency. The Knicks will have very important decisions to be made, which will impact the future of the franchise.

As for Phil, he's not alone in making his decisions. He's even stated how much help he's gotten from Mills, Mark Warkentien an Executive of the Year winner and John Gabriel in planning for this summer. On top of that the things Phil has stated he wants to get done this off season are sound basketball moves. There are no guarantees of success, but we have waited for years to be in a position like this. A top pick and cap space with a very big Free Agent Market. It's nonsensical to be pessimistic about those options to rebuild and put a new core in place.

nixluva wrote:I'm not saying that the past has no value. As usual this is an exaggeration of my point. Looking back can have it's purpose but not without perspective. My posting WS/48 for players THIS YEAR is not looking back!!! That is current information!

Current - adjective
The definition of current is something that is happening now or something that is up to date.
An example of current is today's newspaper.

Going back to the 1960's is overkill in looking back. There are far more recent examples of teams improving in an off season we can use for reference. CrushAlot mentioned how Rod Thorn was able to make major improvements with the Nets.

2001-2002 Nets
26-56, .317, in 2000-01; 52-30, .634, in 2001-02

The Nets added Jason Kidd and Kerry Kittles (back from a knee injury) to their lineup in '01-02. Also new to the team were center Todd MacCulloch, rookie Richard Jefferson, and guard Lucious Harris, who combined for 28 points, 13 rebounds, and 4.7 assists per game. The Nets registered their first 50-win season and first trip to the NBA finals.

2003-04 Nuggets
17-65, .207, in 2002-03; 43-39, .524, in 2003-04

Carmelo Anthony
Even Carmelo Anthony needed help as a rookie in Denver.
Two words: Carmelo Anthony. The rookie averaged 21 points, 6.1 rebounds, 2.8 assists, and 1.2 steals a game, finished second in Rookie of the Year voting, and energized both the team and the Denver fan base. Meanwhile, free agent Juwan Howard, the team's leading scorer in 2002-03, took off for Orlando

Point guard Andre Miller arrived from the Clippers and led the team in assists and steals and was the Nuggets' second-leading scorer. Marcus Camby, who'd played a total of 58 games in the previous two seasons, was good for 72 games and a team-leading 10.1 rebounds. And Earl Boykins, coming off the bench, averaged 10.2 points and 3.5 assists in about 22 minutes a game. The Nuggets lost to the Timberwolves in the first round of the playoffs.

2003-04 Grizzlies (22-game improvement)

Those examples are rare but do show that it's possible. That's all i'm saying. I've made no guarantees on success.

I think looking towards the off season makes the most sense right now. We are no longer in the same situation we were at the start of this season. Now we're looking at the Draft Lottery and Free Agency. The Knicks will have very important decisions to be made, which will impact the future of the franchise.

As for Phil, he's not alone in making his decisions. He's even stated how much help he's gotten from Mills, Mark Warkentien an Executive of the Year winner and John Gabriel in planning for this summer. On top of that the things Phil has stated he wants to get done this off season are sound basketball moves. There are no guarantees of success, but we have waited for years to be in a position like this. A top pick and cap space with a very big Free Agent Market. It's nonsensical to be pessimistic about those options to rebuild and put a new core in place.

So then the team's performance this year is current information, right?

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:I'm not saying that the past has no value. As usual this is an exaggeration of my point. Looking back can have it's purpose but not without perspective. My posting WS/48 for players THIS YEAR is not looking back!!! That is current information!

Current - adjective
The definition of current is something that is happening now or something that is up to date.
An example of current is today's newspaper.

Going back to the 1960's is overkill in looking back. There are far more recent examples of teams improving in an off season we can use for reference. CrushAlot mentioned how Rod Thorn was able to make major improvements with the Nets.

2001-2002 Nets
26-56, .317, in 2000-01; 52-30, .634, in 2001-02

The Nets added Jason Kidd and Kerry Kittles (back from a knee injury) to their lineup in '01-02. Also new to the team were center Todd MacCulloch, rookie Richard Jefferson, and guard Lucious Harris, who combined for 28 points, 13 rebounds, and 4.7 assists per game. The Nets registered their first 50-win season and first trip to the NBA finals.

2003-04 Nuggets
17-65, .207, in 2002-03; 43-39, .524, in 2003-04

Carmelo Anthony
Even Carmelo Anthony needed help as a rookie in Denver.
Two words: Carmelo Anthony. The rookie averaged 21 points, 6.1 rebounds, 2.8 assists, and 1.2 steals a game, finished second in Rookie of the Year voting, and energized both the team and the Denver fan base. Meanwhile, free agent Juwan Howard, the team's leading scorer in 2002-03, took off for Orlando

Point guard Andre Miller arrived from the Clippers and led the team in assists and steals and was the Nuggets' second-leading scorer. Marcus Camby, who'd played a total of 58 games in the previous two seasons, was good for 72 games and a team-leading 10.1 rebounds. And Earl Boykins, coming off the bench, averaged 10.2 points and 3.5 assists in about 22 minutes a game. The Nuggets lost to the Timberwolves in the first round of the playoffs.

2003-04 Grizzlies (22-game improvement)

Those examples are rare but do show that it's possible. That's all i'm saying. I've made no guarantees on success.

I think looking towards the off season makes the most sense right now. We are no longer in the same situation we were at the start of this season. Now we're looking at the Draft Lottery and Free Agency. The Knicks will have very important decisions to be made, which will impact the future of the franchise.

As for Phil, he's not alone in making his decisions. He's even stated how much help he's gotten from Mills, Mark Warkentien an Executive of the Year winner and John Gabriel in planning for this summer. On top of that the things Phil has stated he wants to get done this off season are sound basketball moves. There are no guarantees of success, but we have waited for years to be in a position like this. A top pick and cap space with a very big Free Agent Market. It's nonsensical to be pessimistic about those options to rebuild and put a new core in place.

So then the team's performance this year is current information, right?

Ah see you failed to use PERSPECTIVE in your assessment. The proper perspective regarding our team's performance this season is that Phil gutted the team and thus it's less relevant as a data point for what kind of team they'll be next season. We will go into the off season with very few signed players. So the current roster provides less value in determining what it can be next year with new additions. It wasn't useful to dwell on the previous season with the 2000-01 Nets, since they made substantial improvement the following season. This is my point.

misterearl wrote:Ain't nobody got a problem with nixluva.

EwingsGlass - if you only wanted to chat with people who shared your opinions, that only helps define those who dare disagree with you as the enemy.

You didn't give an opinion. You gave a quote that implied doom and gloom.

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:I'm not saying that the past has no value. As usual this is an exaggeration of my point. Looking back can have it's purpose but not without perspective. My posting WS/48 for players THIS YEAR is not looking back!!! That is current information!

Current - adjective
The definition of current is something that is happening now or something that is up to date.
An example of current is today's newspaper.

Going back to the 1960's is overkill in looking back. There are far more recent examples of teams improving in an off season we can use for reference. CrushAlot mentioned how Rod Thorn was able to make major improvements with the Nets.

2001-2002 Nets
26-56, .317, in 2000-01; 52-30, .634, in 2001-02

The Nets added Jason Kidd and Kerry Kittles (back from a knee injury) to their lineup in '01-02. Also new to the team were center Todd MacCulloch, rookie Richard Jefferson, and guard Lucious Harris, who combined for 28 points, 13 rebounds, and 4.7 assists per game. The Nets registered their first 50-win season and first trip to the NBA finals.

2003-04 Nuggets
17-65, .207, in 2002-03; 43-39, .524, in 2003-04

Carmelo Anthony
Even Carmelo Anthony needed help as a rookie in Denver.
Two words: Carmelo Anthony. The rookie averaged 21 points, 6.1 rebounds, 2.8 assists, and 1.2 steals a game, finished second in Rookie of the Year voting, and energized both the team and the Denver fan base. Meanwhile, free agent Juwan Howard, the team's leading scorer in 2002-03, took off for Orlando

Point guard Andre Miller arrived from the Clippers and led the team in assists and steals and was the Nuggets' second-leading scorer. Marcus Camby, who'd played a total of 58 games in the previous two seasons, was good for 72 games and a team-leading 10.1 rebounds. And Earl Boykins, coming off the bench, averaged 10.2 points and 3.5 assists in about 22 minutes a game. The Nuggets lost to the Timberwolves in the first round of the playoffs.

2003-04 Grizzlies (22-game improvement)

Those examples are rare but do show that it's possible. That's all i'm saying. I've made no guarantees on success.

I think looking towards the off season makes the most sense right now. We are no longer in the same situation we were at the start of this season. Now we're looking at the Draft Lottery and Free Agency. The Knicks will have very important decisions to be made, which will impact the future of the franchise.

As for Phil, he's not alone in making his decisions. He's even stated how much help he's gotten from Mills, Mark Warkentien an Executive of the Year winner and John Gabriel in planning for this summer. On top of that the things Phil has stated he wants to get done this off season are sound basketball moves. There are no guarantees of success, but we have waited for years to be in a position like this. A top pick and cap space with a very big Free Agent Market. It's nonsensical to be pessimistic about those options to rebuild and put a new core in place.

So then the team's performance this year is current information, right?

Ah see you failed to use PERSPECTIVE in your assessment. The proper perspective regarding our team's performance this season is that Phil gutted the team and thus it's less relevant as a data point for what kind of team they'll be next season. We will go into the off season with very few signed players. So the current roster provides less value in determining what it can be next year with new additions. It wasn't useful to dwell on the previous season with the 2000-01 Nets, since they made substantial improvement the following season. This is my point.

Well you've toned it down a bit. It's one thing to say it's "less relevant." Before you were treating it as if it was absurd to pay attention to this year's performance.

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:I'm not saying that the past has no value. As usual this is an exaggeration of my point. Looking back can have it's purpose but not without perspective. My posting WS/48 for players THIS YEAR is not looking back!!! That is current information!

Current - adjective
The definition of current is something that is happening now or something that is up to date.
An example of current is today's newspaper.

Going back to the 1960's is overkill in looking back. There are far more recent examples of teams improving in an off season we can use for reference. CrushAlot mentioned how Rod Thorn was able to make major improvements with the Nets.

2001-2002 Nets
26-56, .317, in 2000-01; 52-30, .634, in 2001-02

The Nets added Jason Kidd and Kerry Kittles (back from a knee injury) to their lineup in '01-02. Also new to the team were center Todd MacCulloch, rookie Richard Jefferson, and guard Lucious Harris, who combined for 28 points, 13 rebounds, and 4.7 assists per game. The Nets registered their first 50-win season and first trip to the NBA finals.

2003-04 Nuggets
17-65, .207, in 2002-03; 43-39, .524, in 2003-04

Carmelo Anthony
Even Carmelo Anthony needed help as a rookie in Denver.
Two words: Carmelo Anthony. The rookie averaged 21 points, 6.1 rebounds, 2.8 assists, and 1.2 steals a game, finished second in Rookie of the Year voting, and energized both the team and the Denver fan base. Meanwhile, free agent Juwan Howard, the team's leading scorer in 2002-03, took off for Orlando

Point guard Andre Miller arrived from the Clippers and led the team in assists and steals and was the Nuggets' second-leading scorer. Marcus Camby, who'd played a total of 58 games in the previous two seasons, was good for 72 games and a team-leading 10.1 rebounds. And Earl Boykins, coming off the bench, averaged 10.2 points and 3.5 assists in about 22 minutes a game. The Nuggets lost to the Timberwolves in the first round of the playoffs.

2003-04 Grizzlies (22-game improvement)

Those examples are rare but do show that it's possible. That's all i'm saying. I've made no guarantees on success.

I think looking towards the off season makes the most sense right now. We are no longer in the same situation we were at the start of this season. Now we're looking at the Draft Lottery and Free Agency. The Knicks will have very important decisions to be made, which will impact the future of the franchise.

As for Phil, he's not alone in making his decisions. He's even stated how much help he's gotten from Mills, Mark Warkentien an Executive of the Year winner and John Gabriel in planning for this summer. On top of that the things Phil has stated he wants to get done this off season are sound basketball moves. There are no guarantees of success, but we have waited for years to be in a position like this. A top pick and cap space with a very big Free Agent Market. It's nonsensical to be pessimistic about those options to rebuild and put a new core in place.

So then the team's performance this year is current information, right?

Ah see you failed to use PERSPECTIVE in your assessment. The proper perspective regarding our team's performance this season is that Phil gutted the team and thus it's less relevant as a data point for what kind of team they'll be next season. We will go into the off season with very few signed players. So the current roster provides less value in determining what it can be next year with new additions. It wasn't useful to dwell on the previous season with the 2000-01 Nets, since they made substantial improvement the following season. This is my point.

Well you've toned it down a bit. It's one thing to say it's "less relevant." Before you were treating it as if it was absurd to pay attention to this year's performance.

I haven't changed my stance. I'm saying the same thing now that I did in my 1st response. This year's Knicks are not predictive of what next year's team could be. We will most likely see an influx of talent this summer. Why bring up the past as in the moves made last summer in reference to what is ahead of this team this summer? It's 2 completely different scenarios. They have nothing in common in terms of options to improve the team. I'm not saying anything controversial here. We all knew this summer was going to be a much better opportunity to revamp the roster with a pick and cap space.

Phil gutted the team AFTER he realized the team he built wasnt a playoff team. That is proper perspective about this season. But no matter what the past will always be relevant because Phil will ALWAYS bring it up.

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:I'm not saying that the past has no value. As usual this is an exaggeration of my point. Looking back can have it's purpose but not without perspective. My posting WS/48 for players THIS YEAR is not looking back!!! That is current information!

Current - adjective
The definition of current is something that is happening now or something that is up to date.
An example of current is today's newspaper.

Going back to the 1960's is overkill in looking back. There are far more recent examples of teams improving in an off season we can use for reference. CrushAlot mentioned how Rod Thorn was able to make major improvements with the Nets.

2001-2002 Nets
26-56, .317, in 2000-01; 52-30, .634, in 2001-02

The Nets added Jason Kidd and Kerry Kittles (back from a knee injury) to their lineup in '01-02. Also new to the team were center Todd MacCulloch, rookie Richard Jefferson, and guard Lucious Harris, who combined for 28 points, 13 rebounds, and 4.7 assists per game. The Nets registered their first 50-win season and first trip to the NBA finals.

2003-04 Nuggets
17-65, .207, in 2002-03; 43-39, .524, in 2003-04

Carmelo Anthony
Even Carmelo Anthony needed help as a rookie in Denver.
Two words: Carmelo Anthony. The rookie averaged 21 points, 6.1 rebounds, 2.8 assists, and 1.2 steals a game, finished second in Rookie of the Year voting, and energized both the team and the Denver fan base. Meanwhile, free agent Juwan Howard, the team's leading scorer in 2002-03, took off for Orlando

Point guard Andre Miller arrived from the Clippers and led the team in assists and steals and was the Nuggets' second-leading scorer. Marcus Camby, who'd played a total of 58 games in the previous two seasons, was good for 72 games and a team-leading 10.1 rebounds. And Earl Boykins, coming off the bench, averaged 10.2 points and 3.5 assists in about 22 minutes a game. The Nuggets lost to the Timberwolves in the first round of the playoffs.

2003-04 Grizzlies (22-game improvement)

Those examples are rare but do show that it's possible. That's all i'm saying. I've made no guarantees on success.

I think looking towards the off season makes the most sense right now. We are no longer in the same situation we were at the start of this season. Now we're looking at the Draft Lottery and Free Agency. The Knicks will have very important decisions to be made, which will impact the future of the franchise.

As for Phil, he's not alone in making his decisions. He's even stated how much help he's gotten from Mills, Mark Warkentien an Executive of the Year winner and John Gabriel in planning for this summer. On top of that the things Phil has stated he wants to get done this off season are sound basketball moves. There are no guarantees of success, but we have waited for years to be in a position like this. A top pick and cap space with a very big Free Agent Market. It's nonsensical to be pessimistic about those options to rebuild and put a new core in place.

So then the team's performance this year is current information, right?

Ah see you failed to use PERSPECTIVE in your assessment. The proper perspective regarding our team's performance this season is that Phil gutted the team and thus it's less relevant as a data point for what kind of team they'll be next season. We will go into the off season with very few signed players. So the current roster provides less value in determining what it can be next year with new additions. It wasn't useful to dwell on the previous season with the 2000-01 Nets, since they made substantial improvement the following season. This is my point.

Well you've toned it down a bit. It's one thing to say it's "less relevant." Before you were treating it as if it was absurd to pay attention to this year's performance.

I haven't changed my stance. I'm saying the same thing now that I did in my 1st response. This year's Knicks are not predictive of what next year's team could be. We will most likely see an influx of talent this summer. Why bring up the past as in the moves made last summer in reference to what is ahead of this team this summer? It's 2 completely different scenarios. They have nothing in common in terms of options to improve the team. I'm not saying anything controversial here. We all knew this summer was going to be a much better opportunity to revamp the roster with a pick and cap space.

No, it is very radical to say forget the past year and a half. It's *possible* that the past will not be predictive of the future, and you have outlined some reasons why it is *possible.* But to just say, "forget about that year and a half where $150 mil was added in commitments and everything backfired" is radical. I can't think of any parallel in the past.

Nix, you know full well if Thanasis actually becomes an NBA player your gonna shout from the hills screaming how great the Tyson trade was. We talk about Phil having full autonomy because in the PAST GM's didnt have it. We talk so much about the lottery upcoming because in the PAST we trade so many picks. We talk about the possibility of free agents wanting to come here because once again in the PAST they wanted no parts of the Knicks.

The PAST is relevant...always will be.

Again, my point was that you can't predict how successful the Knicks will be next season by focusing on the past. I've said this over and over and you guys keep going on about other things that have nothing to do with what i've been talking about.

Before this season started we all knew this summer was going to be very important to the teams future and not last summer when Phil didn't have the same options for upgrading the roster. This is why they called this season a transition year. Just doing a simple comparison of what Phil had as options last summer verses this summer, it's clear he has more to work with this summer and major upgrades are possible.

Analytics R Us

Are there any available metrics (from the last two decades) on the average number of seasons required for an NBA franchise to make the leap from worst to Conference Finals?

EwingsGlass wrote:

misterearl wrote:Theme Music: We're A Winner - Curtis Mayfield

EwingsGlass - your interpretation is narrow, defensive and negative. Allow me to make it more plain for you. If you don't remember the 1963 Knicks, you have no context for how the 1969 Knicks were assembled, or how long it took a legendary executive, Eddie Donovan.

I am defensive. I suggest my view is the optimist's view, though, MisterEarl. Without relying on a non-sequitur quote or pop culture reference --meaning, using your own words, what would you suggest "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" means in the context of a Knicks re-build? Make sure we do not Starphuch ourselves? Agreed.

That said, people are swinging at Nix for being excited for the opportunity to build a team this year...better yet, a franchise. What I see is a poster that is excited by both advanced metrics and salary cap considerations. This is the kind of fan I want to chat with.

Your response is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Thanks for the neoclassical philosophy lesson. I'll remember not to re-sign Stephon Marbury.

So, no. I do not remember the 1963 Knicks. Or the 1969 Knicks. I would suggest that the change in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the creation of the NBPA has changed the way teams are built since 1963. 1963 still had the territorial rule for instance (thank you for Bill Bradley). That said, a 5th draft pick and a forced trade from a lesser team seems somewhat familiar to me. Today, a combination of free agency and drafting well are necessary.

With the rookie scale contract limiting teams to 4 unrestricted years with their draft picks, the timeline to develop young players has changed. You basically need to have your franchise built within 4 years of drafting your franchise player so that when you cap out on the young star (limiting your free agent flexibility), you have your supporting cast in place. Even then, your team is subject to the collusive actions of players on teams like the Celtics and Heat where multiple superstars eschew the economic modeling to chase rings together.

You have to do more than remember the past. You have to predict the future in this league. I am not sure I need context for the 1969 Knicks so much as an understanding of how to beat teams like the Warriors, Cavs etc..

well.....at the end of the first contract the player is an RFA; all the team has to do is match. What's more, given that the max such a player can make is 25% under the cap, three or even four max players could fit on the roster without crossing the luxury tax line. The key is to keep the costs of the other players down, which is what the Knicks are learning to do.