Wouldnt be surprised if Phil traded the pick unless Okafor/Russell/Towns is available, just dont want to have a Laydenesque draft night deja vu. That would be a real kick in the cojones.
nixluva wrote:I can guarantee that it's not easy for an 18 yr old kid to lead a team in a place as foreign as China. I mean come on people. He put up respectable numbers in an impossible environment for a kid. If you think it wouldn't have had a drag on any other 18 yr old in the NCAA to play their 1st yr in China then you are kidding yourself. It's a huge deal. Bynum is a grown ass man with experience. It's stupid to hold that against an 18 yr old. Why do we have such a problem with keeping things in perspective?If Mudiay is deemed the best option by Phil i'd have no problem with it. I personally don't think he's going to go in that direction but if he did I could understand. I'm thinking Phil is looking for a partner to trade down and take WCS and get another asset. It seems to me the most logical move if he doesn't believe Mudiay is a franchise talent.
I take it proper "perspective" means "entirely ignore that Will Bynum outplayed him"
I've granted that it's hard to know how to interpret those 12 games. It's too alarming for me to get excited about drafting him at #4 though. If he slips to mid/late lottery and we get him and something else nice too, that's wonderful.
why trade down and get screwed by another GM?
The safest thing to do is put away the gun and just pick where we are.
mreinman wrote:why trade down and get screwed by another GM?The safest thing to do is put away the gun and just pick where we are.
So we screw ourselves instead of another GM screwing us?
Obviously whatever we do (trade out, down, no trade), the decision making has to be better than in the past.
Bonn1997 wrote:If the big the 3 aren't available (Russell, Okfaor, Towns), I think the best options are to trade down later in the lottery or out of the draft.
Trading Down
It's a basic investment strategy: Diversification. The fact that we've had a dozen "case for" threads already shows that there are many OK and roughly equal choices. So it makes more sense to invest in many rather than one of them. The only time one investment rather than many diverse ones is a better bet is if it's obviously superior - like when the Cavs picked Lebron. That doesn't apply here. We also don't have any of our own second round picks the rest of this decade and don't have our own 1st rounder next year. If we could get a few productive young players here, that would begin to make up for the lack of future picks. Trading Out for an established player or players
Assuming we will have almost half the cap dedicated to Melo and Calderon next year and still a sizeable chunk in future years, it doesn't make sense to wait many years for these first round picks to develop. Half rebuilding, half win now is likely not a good way to turn around a .200 team. My guess is that most guys who are solid NBA starters right now will still be playing better than most of the guys we could draft will be in the near future. So we could get better production during Melo's remaining prime and Calderon's remaining prime presence from established players.
I realize that trading lottery picks hasn't worked well for the Knicks but the last several times they kept their lottery picks (Sweetney, Frye, Hill, Gallo) were at least disappointments if not failures too. (Actually, the only thing that has worked out OK was investing in multiple later picks, which brought in guys like David Lee, Trevor Ariza, and more.)
One caveat is that none of this applies if Russell, Okafor, or Towns is somehow available. Then grab that player.
Bonn-if I could get Kaminsky Mickey Fuzaro and Connughton--Id hand in my 4 pick and Cleanthony Early and Thansis tomorrow.
mreinman wrote:why trade down and get screwed by another GM?The safest thing to do is put away the gun and just pick where we are.
Who do you want to draft at 4?
mreinman wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:mreinman wrote:why trade down and get screwed by another GM?The safest thing to do is put away the gun and just pick where we are.
Who do you want to draft at 4?
Russell ... oh wait
Seriously, if he's gone who would you pick
I am starting to think the knicks are going to trade down to #6 or #7.
Between the statements from the lakers and the rumors in general that indicated both Denver and Sacremento are looking to move up
To the rumors that say the knicks like Winslow and WCS who are both in the #6 or #7 range (with WCS even lower on some boards)
My only hope is the knicks get some picks back along with a player if they do move down. If Phil could draft Winslow and maybe get back the knicks 2016 pick (or denvers depending on the record) I think it would be a great way to make the best of a bad situation with us falling out the chase for Towns, Okafor, and Russell.
mreinman wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:mreinman wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:mreinman wrote:why trade down and get screwed by another GM?The safest thing to do is put away the gun and just pick where we are.
Who do you want to draft at 4?
Russell ... oh wait
Seriously, if he's gone who would you pick
Winslow
really, what do you like about him? I think he got a boost playing the 4 in a spread offense. He shot the ball well but I don't know where to put him. He is the same size as Shump and I never liked him at the 3 and I'm not sure Winslow has the handles to play 2.
yellowboy90 wrote:mreinman wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:mreinman wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:mreinman wrote:why trade down and get screwed by another GM?The safest thing to do is put away the gun and just pick where we are.
Who do you want to draft at 4?
Russell ... oh wait
Seriously, if he's gone who would you pick
Winslow
really, what do you like about him? I think he got a boost playing the 4 in a spread offense. He shot the ball well but I don't know where to put him. He is the same size as Shump and I never liked him at the 3 and I'm not sure Winslow has the handles to play 2.
he is a really smart player with a high motor that can really defend many positions and play team basketball.
I agree that the 4th pick really sucks.
if we get back any veterans that cuts into our cap space that would be a bad deal for us... esp from denver...
also if winslow is the target moving down... that's not a guarantee that he lasts that long to denver's pick... the magic(SF) or the kings (huge SG need) could very well take him.. in fact you would probably have to be prepared for them to take both winslow and stein... and there's a pretty big drop from winslow to stein...
so if you're gonna trade down to the denver pick... you'd have to be prepared to take either porzingis or kaminsky... both options are very scary....
the best option i think to move down is just to swap with the magic but with the caveat that they cannot choose winslow... and pick up a future lottery protected first in the process...
that's the only scenario that makes sense in my eyes... leaving this draft without any of the top 4 would be a massive mistake..
When people say Mudiay was out played by Bynum, was Bynum completely hopeless?? Didn't he play NBA??
Also in last years finals, Kahwai outplayed LeBron...
bynum was useful... he was a good backup/bad starter type of pg/sg...
if you're a mudiay fan.. the scary part is that.. besides rebounding... bynum was better than him across the board... stl rate, ftr, ts%, a/to... it's not just a shooting thing.. these are all facets of the game...
it wasn't by much across the board... and it was only 12 games.. and it is china... but... it's enough to give you some pause...
FistOfOakley wrote:bynum was useful... he was a good backup/bad starter type of pg/sg... if you're a mudiay fan.. the scary part is that.. besides rebounding... bynum was better than him across the board... stl rate, ftr, ts%, a/to... it's not just a shooting thing.. these are all facets of the game...
it wasn't by much across the board... and it was only 12 games.. and it is china... but... it's enough to give you some pause...
You gotta put in perspective. Bynum was journeyman with years of NBA and overseas experience. That counts for a lot. I remember games where Derek Harper used to make Penny Hardaway look like an amateur early in is career. Harper wasn't more talented, but he knew the ropes. Remember how much Tracy McGrady got abused his rookie season? You have to compare Mundiay to his peers and try and project where his game can go. Who cares how he compares to Will Bynum right now?
BigDaddyG wrote:FistOfOakley wrote:bynum was useful... he was a good backup/bad starter type of pg/sg... if you're a mudiay fan.. the scary part is that.. besides rebounding... bynum was better than him across the board... stl rate, ftr, ts%, a/to... it's not just a shooting thing.. these are all facets of the game...
it wasn't by much across the board... and it was only 12 games.. and it is china... but... it's enough to give you some pause...
You gotta put in perspective. Bynum was journeyman with years of NBA and overseas experience. That counts for a lot. I remember games where Derek Harper used to make Penny Hardaway look like an amateur early in is career. Harper wasn't more talented, but he knew the ropes. Remember how much Tracy McGrady got abused his rookie season? You have to compare Mundiay to his peers and try and project where his game can go. Who cares how he compares to Will Bynum right now?
Good observation.
Similar to something I read about how Kentucky would have done in Europe this year, and the fact that playing against grown men when you are a year out of HS makes a big difference.
Too bad Mudiay didn't get to play the full season. Might have had an impact on who will get picked and when.
Bonn1997 wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:I agree with Bonn, the knicks should trade out. What if the BPA is ranked as high as 4 other players and you are certain you can get one of those player if you drop back?On knickerblogger they were discussing the scenario of trading back for a pick swap and a 2016 1st. That would then also potentially put the 2017 pick back into play with trades. Also, trading back gives the knicks a little more room in FA.
I've actually been wondering if we could get one or more of Toronto's better players and our 2016 pick back. (On a side note, how funny would it be if they put protection on our own pick after we didn't?)
It's pretty much impossible to get our pick back- we double traded it, so you'd have to trade with two different teams, one to remove the right to switch places, and the other one for the actual pick. Thanks Dolan and Grunnie- you really screwed us!
smackeddog wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:I agree with Bonn, the knicks should trade out. What if the BPA is ranked as high as 4 other players and you are certain you can get one of those player if you drop back?On knickerblogger they were discussing the scenario of trading back for a pick swap and a 2016 1st. That would then also potentially put the 2017 pick back into play with trades. Also, trading back gives the knicks a little more room in FA.
I've actually been wondering if we could get one or more of Toronto's better players and our 2016 pick back. (On a side note, how funny would it be if they put protection on our own pick after we didn't?)
It's pretty much impossible to get our pick back- we double traded it, so you'd have to trade with two different teams, one to remove the right to switch places, and the other one for the actual pick. Thanks Dolan and Grunnie- you really screwed us!
A scenario where we get our pick back is if we trade #4 to Denver for #7 and get their 2016 pick (which might be an option since they have 3 1st rounders) we would be able to either keep the Denver pick or switch it for our own 2016 pick depending on the 2016 season record. The Raptors would then receive the worse of the 2 picks.
