Knicks · Pelicans on the verge of signing Galloway (page 5)

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:The more I think about it the more I'm okay with it. I think Galloway was a great find. It will really be hard to find another player as good as he was off the scrap heap. But do we really want to allocate $6 mil (or whatever) to him? I think thats fair but he's not really valuable anymore at that price.

Well, we don't really have anyone other than KP who is valuable at their salary.

you just come up for air? Maybe you have not been watching what has happened in FA.

We'll see. In the past you've always thought our teams would be a lot better than they were. What matters is whether Phil's spending buys a good team, not whether his spending is on par with other teams that have made mistakes this offseason. I'll wait til the actual models come out but this looks like a .470 team to me.

are you a robot incapable of just using your eyes and making a judgment? Thanks for bringing your thoughts to the table. Let us know what the models tell you and enough data to actually say something.

As for me thinking the Knicks would be a lot better than they were that is not really true. I did think they would win 45 last season. They were what? 22-22 and trending upward. Melo got hurt and they tailspinned. Lance went out shortly after and that sir was the season. I suppose your models predicted that? Cmon man.

It makes more sense to use the eyeball test and metrics rather than only one. You're behind the thinking of every successful NBA team if you don't think evaluations should incorporate the metrics.

But he didn't say that, mostly he just said stop being such a robot and take your balls out and make a gut guess.

I did make a guess. I reserve the right to adjust the guess when new information comes out. I'm the only here who's even made a tentative prediction as far as I can tell. You ready to take your balls out?

47 wins, just to fuck with you and match your .470. Already stated in another thread that I thought Cavs were a first tier team and then there was a dropoff to the next, which would include TOR, BOS, IND, NY. All based on the plus health of Rose, Noah.

What type of stat dude comes up with 47%? It's either 46% or 48% depending on how many wins you like.

So you won't stick your balls out and make a real prediction

oh 47 is also my real prediction

Fair enough. That's a legit possibility but most of our key players would have to play better and/or be healthier than they were in recent seasons.

It's not just about health and playing better by stats though. Knicks are a balanced roster with players that compliment each other. I feel like the Knicks also have 3 "dogs" now, term used by Rose in his initial press conference. Rose, Melo on the O end and Noah on the D end. Those guys can carry you, lead you and prod others along (Melo could only do so much last year). KP will have had a full year in him, no feel out stage. Knicks have a bench this year, Gallo, DWill, Grant were not pieces that you could rely on from night-to-night or at all, Jennings makes everything much more aligned and easier (akin to what Randle magically did for our SL team the last few games). Coach is much better. And we have some wild card guys that have a bit of potential.

See Bonn? Roster thoughts...
Bonn your good with 38.5 wins? (sorry.. 38.54 to be exact. Don't want to hold you to something not accurate )

We'll say 39. I recognize the high upside if everything works out well, though. They could win 50+ but I think the downside is that the team is much worse than last year. I stay away from the extremes and think slightly below .500 is a middle ground prediction.

OK.. opinion time!

So you admit the Knicks have a legit 50+ win potential. Did the team have that before the trades and FA signings? Are you saying you would prefer consistant but lower ceiling team vs. a higher ceiling but more risk?

Also keep in mind that the Knicks own their own first round picks moving forward, so while the downside may be lower there is upside in that as well

Legit 50? Yes, but I'd give it a very low probability. I'd prefer to be building toward a team that actually will attract the top FAs. You're right we still have our pick. But a lottery team with half it's cap spent on Melo, Noah, and Rose doesn't make sense. That's not moving us towards a roster that really could attract guys like KD, Curry, James, etc.. We'd be dependent on the lottery pick and KP becoming superstars. It's too low a probability. You can take a safer approach that gets you within a few years to a stable .600+ roster for many years and has more potential to attract legit top FAs but it requires be willing to add just 5 to 10 wins each year. Instead, we have hope of a 50 win team but a high probability of moving backwards and just hoping our lottery pick becomes a superstar. It's the hope trap. Most teams don't think of having your own draft pick as being solid insurance for a bad plan. It's risky insurance. What percentage of lottery picks become more than average starters? Not many. We're just not used to having our own picks.

what % of stars go to teams without other stars? Again.. have you not paid attention to FA? The more talent the team already has the better the players that sign there.. so how does your safe approach lure Westbrook or KD? Do you show them how reliable Lopez was or show top tier FAs how good his WS/48 are? Think they care? How are you getting the top tier talent to attract more top tier talent in FA?

So you're saying KP and our lottery pick next year can't become stars? Fine, then we keep incrementally rebuilding. (How do you define star anyway? If we incrementally build towards a .700 team, our top players will be perceived as stars.) You can incrementally build and get to the point where 2nd tier FAs like Kyle Lowry want to come here, and that moves you towards the top stars. It's one approach I'd endorse. If they wanted to chase immediate winning but appeared to be using a balanced eye-ball/metric approach, I'd have more faith in it. I don't want to be taking steps backwards while having most of our cap spent on overpaid veterans and the only insurance being that we have our own pick. Every bad team has its own pick.

I don't understand your first bold statement. I believe KP will be a star.

The second bolded statement is the same problem I have with all your posts. You say you don't like the approach, but offer no alternatives. We should sign better players, have a better approach... OK so who are the guys? I am open to a better approach also, so what is it?

Scratch the Rose trade and the Noah signing... what is Bonn's plan for enough incremental improvement to lure top talent?

FYI galloway's deal with the pelicans is for 2 years at 10 million which to me is crazy considering his inconsistency but hey he's a good guy and good locker rooms guys can be hard to find. There is an opt out available after year 1 if he does well

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:The more I think about it the more I'm okay with it. I think Galloway was a great find. It will really be hard to find another player as good as he was off the scrap heap. But do we really want to allocate $6 mil (or whatever) to him? I think thats fair but he's not really valuable anymore at that price.

Well, we don't really have anyone other than KP who is valuable at their salary.

I guess my point is that in years past we would not have resisted the temptation to sign Jerome James oe Clarence Weatherspoon to an MLE style type of deal which is what Lang was going to get here.

And contract value is pretty relative thing... I like the chances that Billy becomes a valuable contract and I think that it's in our odds that either Rose or Jennings recovers and is signed long term. I certainly don't think we overpaid for Lee or Thomas. While that's not "value" neither will be referred to as a "bad contract"

Ron Baker could very well assume Lang's "valuable contract" position. Who knows? We will see. All I know is that the only "risky contract" is Noah's, but even then I feel like he will help KP evolve into a complete defensive stud. I mean KP is going to have both Melo and Noah to learn from... that makes me more comfortable with the risk. But even if Noah plays 25 games next year I do not think his contract would be impossible to trade and would rather him then Mozgov at the $

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:The more I think about it the more I'm okay with it. I think Galloway was a great find. It will really be hard to find another player as good as he was off the scrap heap. But do we really want to allocate $6 mil (or whatever) to him? I think thats fair but he's not really valuable anymore at that price.

Well, we don't really have anyone other than KP who is valuable at their salary.

you just come up for air? Maybe you have not been watching what has happened in FA.

We'll see. In the past you've always thought our teams would be a lot better than they were. What matters is whether Phil's spending buys a good team, not whether his spending is on par with other teams that have made mistakes this offseason. I'll wait til the actual models come out but this looks like a .470 team to me.

are you a robot incapable of just using your eyes and making a judgment? Thanks for bringing your thoughts to the table. Let us know what the models tell you and enough data to actually say something.

As for me thinking the Knicks would be a lot better than they were that is not really true. I did think they would win 45 last season. They were what? 22-22 and trending upward. Melo got hurt and they tailspinned. Lance went out shortly after and that sir was the season. I suppose your models predicted that? Cmon man.

It makes more sense to use the eyeball test and metrics rather than only one. You're behind the thinking of every successful NBA team if you don't think evaluations should incorporate the metrics.

But he didn't say that, mostly he just said stop being such a robot and take your balls out and make a gut guess.

I did make a guess. I reserve the right to adjust the guess when new information comes out. I'm the only here who's even made a tentative prediction as far as I can tell. You ready to take your balls out?

47 wins, just to fuck with you and match your .470. Already stated in another thread that I thought Cavs were a first tier team and then there was a dropoff to the next, which would include TOR, BOS, IND, NY. All based on the plus health of Rose, Noah.

What type of stat dude comes up with 47%? It's either 46% or 48% depending on how many wins you like.

So you won't stick your balls out and make a real prediction

oh 47 is also my real prediction

Fair enough. That's a legit possibility but most of our key players would have to play better and/or be healthier than they were in recent seasons.

It's not just about health and playing better by stats though. Knicks are a balanced roster with players that compliment each other. I feel like the Knicks also have 3 "dogs" now, term used by Rose in his initial press conference. Rose, Melo on the O end and Noah on the D end. Those guys can carry you, lead you and prod others along (Melo could only do so much last year). KP will have had a full year in him, no feel out stage. Knicks have a bench this year, Gallo, DWill, Grant were not pieces that you could rely on from night-to-night or at all, Jennings makes everything much more aligned and easier (akin to what Randle magically did for our SL team the last few games). Coach is much better. And we have some wild card guys that have a bit of potential.

See Bonn? Roster thoughts...
Bonn your good with 38.5 wins? (sorry.. 38.54 to be exact. Don't want to hold you to something not accurate )

We'll say 39. I recognize the high upside if everything works out well, though. They could win 50+ but I think the downside is that the team is much worse than last year. I stay away from the extremes and think slightly below .500 is a middle ground prediction.

OK.. opinion time!

So you admit the Knicks have a legit 50+ win potential. Did the team have that before the trades and FA signings? Are you saying you would prefer consistant but lower ceiling team vs. a higher ceiling but more risk?

Also keep in mind that the Knicks own their own first round picks moving forward, so while the downside may be lower there is upside in that as well

Legit 50? Yes, but I'd give it a very low probability. I'd prefer to be building toward a team that actually will attract the top FAs. You're right we still have our pick. But a lottery team with half it's cap spent on Melo, Noah, and Rose doesn't make sense. That's not moving us towards a roster that really could attract guys like KD, Curry, James, etc.. We'd be dependent on the lottery pick and KP becoming superstars. It's too low a probability. You can take a safer approach that gets you within a few years to a stable .600+ roster for many years and has more potential to attract legit top FAs but it requires be willing to add just 5 to 10 wins each year. Instead, we have hope of a 50 win team but a high probability of moving backwards and just hoping our lottery pick becomes a superstar. It's the hope trap. Most teams don't think of having your own draft pick as being solid insurance for a bad plan. It's risky insurance. What percentage of lottery picks become more than average starters? Not many. We're just not used to having our own picks.

what % of stars go to teams without other stars? Again.. have you not paid attention to FA? The more talent the team already has the better the players that sign there.. so how does your safe approach lure Westbrook or KD? Do you show them how reliable Lopez was or show top tier FAs how good his WS/48 are? Think they care? How are you getting the top tier talent to attract more top tier talent in FA?

So you're saying KP and our lottery pick next year can't become stars? Fine, then we keep incrementally rebuilding. (How do you define star anyway? If we incrementally build towards a .700 team, our top players will be perceived as stars.) You can incrementally build and get to the point where 2nd tier FAs like Kyle Lowry want to come here, and that moves you towards the top stars. It's one approach I'd endorse. If they wanted to chase immediate winning but appeared to be using a balanced eye-ball/metric approach, I'd have more faith in it. I don't want to be taking steps backwards while having most of our cap spent on overpaid veterans and the only insurance being that we have our own pick. Every bad team has its own pick.

I don't understand your first bold statement. I believe KP will be a star.

The second bolded statement is the same problem I have with all your posts. You say you don't like the approach, but offer no alternatives. We should sign better players, have a better approach... OK so who are the guys? I am open to a better approach also, so what is it?

Scratch the Rose trade and the Noah signing... what is Bonn's plan for enough incremental improvement to lure top talent?

What more could you possible need? I listed several criteria I'd use when rebuilding (a through d above were some of them), stated which specific players I think got reasonable deals I'd endorse for minor roles (Gallo, Aldrich, Jennings, etc.), and stated which players I'd trade to try to rebuild. Years of bad decisions have boxed us into a corner where there are no quick fixes and I don't think we could do anything that was a smart gamble and involved adding more than role players this off-season.

Interesting post on KB:

http://knickerblogger.net/knicks-morning...

DRed
July 7, 2016 at 1:35 pm

So you’re Phil and you’ve read the market and decided we need to have a healthy amount of cap space next year. You also need a SG. Your internal option is Langston Galloway, and your #1 target is Courntey Lee. Galloway can be had for 12 million or so over 2 years, Lee will cost you 50 million over 4 years. Galloway is 24, Lee is 30. Here’s what the crude publicly available advanced stats say they were worth last year:

ESPN’s house metrics have Lee at 3.9 wins, Galloway at 3.2

Win Share has Galloway producing 3.3 win shares, and Lee with 3.9

Wins Produced (lol) has Lee producing 5.6 and Galloway 3.9 wins

Let’s be really generous and say having Lee on the team will help us win 3 more games next season due to interaction effects. Is that worth the difference?

yellowboy90 wrote:Interesting post on KB:

http://knickerblogger.net/knicks-morning...

DRed
July 7, 2016 at 1:35 pm

So you’re Phil and you’ve read the market and decided we need to have a healthy amount of cap space next year. You also need a SG. Your internal option is Langston Galloway, and your #1 target is Courntey Lee. Galloway can be had for 12 million or so over 2 years, Lee will cost you 50 million over 4 years. Galloway is 24, Lee is 30. Here’s what the crude publicly available advanced stats say they were worth last year:

ESPN’s house metrics have Lee at 3.9 wins, Galloway at 3.2

Win Share has Galloway producing 3.3 win shares, and Lee with 3.9

Wins Produced (lol) has Lee producing 5.6 and Galloway 3.9 wins

Let’s be really generous and say having Lee on the team will help us win 3 more games next season due to interaction effects. Is that worth the difference?

Is that generous or unreasonable? If you take the average of those 3 stats, you're at 1.0 wins. Then you have to factor in that a 24 year old typically improves and a 30 year old typically worsens.

yellowboy90 wrote:Interesting post on KB:

http://knickerblogger.net/knicks-morning...

DRed
July 7, 2016 at 1:35 pm

So you’re Phil and you’ve read the market and decided we need to have a healthy amount of cap space next year. You also need a SG. Your internal option is Langston Galloway, and your #1 target is Courntey Lee. Galloway can be had for 12 million or so over 2 years, Lee will cost you 50 million over 4 years. Galloway is 24, Lee is 30. Here’s what the crude publicly available advanced stats say they were worth last year:

ESPN’s house metrics have Lee at 3.9 wins, Galloway at 3.2

Win Share has Galloway producing 3.3 win shares, and Lee with 3.9

Wins Produced (lol) has Lee producing 5.6 and Galloway 3.9 wins

Let’s be really generous and say having Lee on the team will help us win 3 more games next season due to interaction effects. Is that worth the difference?

In context, that's would be entirely dependent on how many additional wins what the difference in salary nets you.

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:The more I think about it the more I'm okay with it. I think Galloway was a great find. It will really be hard to find another player as good as he was off the scrap heap. But do we really want to allocate $6 mil (or whatever) to him? I think thats fair but he's not really valuable anymore at that price.

Well, we don't really have anyone other than KP who is valuable at their salary.

you just come up for air? Maybe you have not been watching what has happened in FA.

We'll see. In the past you've always thought our teams would be a lot better than they were. What matters is whether Phil's spending buys a good team, not whether his spending is on par with other teams that have made mistakes this offseason. I'll wait til the actual models come out but this looks like a .470 team to me.

are you a robot incapable of just using your eyes and making a judgment? Thanks for bringing your thoughts to the table. Let us know what the models tell you and enough data to actually say something.

As for me thinking the Knicks would be a lot better than they were that is not really true. I did think they would win 45 last season. They were what? 22-22 and trending upward. Melo got hurt and they tailspinned. Lance went out shortly after and that sir was the season. I suppose your models predicted that? Cmon man.

It makes more sense to use the eyeball test and metrics rather than only one. You're behind the thinking of every successful NBA team if you don't think evaluations should incorporate the metrics.

But he didn't say that, mostly he just said stop being such a robot and take your balls out and make a gut guess.

I did make a guess. I reserve the right to adjust the guess when new information comes out. I'm the only here who's even made a tentative prediction as far as I can tell. You ready to take your balls out?

47 wins, just to fuck with you and match your .470. Already stated in another thread that I thought Cavs were a first tier team and then there was a dropoff to the next, which would include TOR, BOS, IND, NY. All based on the plus health of Rose, Noah.

What type of stat dude comes up with 47%? It's either 46% or 48% depending on how many wins you like.

So you won't stick your balls out and make a real prediction

oh 47 is also my real prediction

Fair enough. That's a legit possibility but most of our key players would have to play better and/or be healthier than they were in recent seasons.

It's not just about health and playing better by stats though. Knicks are a balanced roster with players that compliment each other. I feel like the Knicks also have 3 "dogs" now, term used by Rose in his initial press conference. Rose, Melo on the O end and Noah on the D end. Those guys can carry you, lead you and prod others along (Melo could only do so much last year). KP will have had a full year in him, no feel out stage. Knicks have a bench this year, Gallo, DWill, Grant were not pieces that you could rely on from night-to-night or at all, Jennings makes everything much more aligned and easier (akin to what Randle magically did for our SL team the last few games). Coach is much better. And we have some wild card guys that have a bit of potential.

See Bonn? Roster thoughts...
Bonn your good with 38.5 wins? (sorry.. 38.54 to be exact. Don't want to hold you to something not accurate )

We'll say 39. I recognize the high upside if everything works out well, though. They could win 50+ but I think the downside is that the team is much worse than last year. I stay away from the extremes and think slightly below .500 is a middle ground prediction.

OK.. opinion time!

So you admit the Knicks have a legit 50+ win potential. Did the team have that before the trades and FA signings? Are you saying you would prefer consistant but lower ceiling team vs. a higher ceiling but more risk?

Also keep in mind that the Knicks own their own first round picks moving forward, so while the downside may be lower there is upside in that as well

Legit 50? Yes, but I'd give it a very low probability. I'd prefer to be building toward a team that actually will attract the top FAs. You're right we still have our pick. But a lottery team with half it's cap spent on Melo, Noah, and Rose doesn't make sense. That's not moving us towards a roster that really could attract guys like KD, Curry, James, etc.. We'd be dependent on the lottery pick and KP becoming superstars. It's too low a probability. You can take a safer approach that gets you within a few years to a stable .600+ roster for many years and has more potential to attract legit top FAs but it requires be willing to add just 5 to 10 wins each year. Instead, we have hope of a 50 win team but a high probability of moving backwards and just hoping our lottery pick becomes a superstar. It's the hope trap. Most teams don't think of having your own draft pick as being solid insurance for a bad plan. It's risky insurance. What percentage of lottery picks become more than average starters? Not many. We're just not used to having our own picks.

what % of stars go to teams without other stars? Again.. have you not paid attention to FA? The more talent the team already has the better the players that sign there.. so how does your safe approach lure Westbrook or KD? Do you show them how reliable Lopez was or show top tier FAs how good his WS/48 are? Think they care? How are you getting the top tier talent to attract more top tier talent in FA?

So you're saying KP and our lottery pick next year can't become stars? Fine, then we keep incrementally rebuilding. (How do you define star anyway? If we incrementally build towards a .700 team, our top players will be perceived as stars.) You can incrementally build and get to the point where 2nd tier FAs like Kyle Lowry want to come here, and that moves you towards the top stars. It's one approach I'd endorse. If they wanted to chase immediate winning but appeared to be using a balanced eye-ball/metric approach, I'd have more faith in it. I don't want to be taking steps backwards while having most of our cap spent on overpaid veterans and the only insurance being that we have our own pick. Every bad team has its own pick.

I don't understand your first bold statement. I believe KP will be a star.

The second bolded statement is the same problem I have with all your posts. You say you don't like the approach, but offer no alternatives. We should sign better players, have a better approach... OK so who are the guys? I am open to a better approach also, so what is it?

Scratch the Rose trade and the Noah signing... what is Bonn's plan for enough incremental improvement to lure top talent?

What more could you possible need? I listed several criteria I'd use when rebuilding (a through d above were some of them), stated which specific players I think got reasonable deals I'd endorse for minor roles (Gallo, Aldrich, Jennings, etc.), and stated which players I'd trade to try to rebuild. Years of bad decisions have boxed us into a corner where there are no quick fixes and I don't think we could do anything that was a smart gamble and involved adding more than role players this off-season.

Clarity... so your plan to lure top tier caliber talent is sign guys like Cole Aldridge, Langston and Jennings? That moves the Knicks closer to become a desired destination for elite talent?

Starting to see why I could possibly need more details?

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:Interesting post on KB:

http://knickerblogger.net/knicks-morning...

DRed
July 7, 2016 at 1:35 pm

So you’re Phil and you’ve read the market and decided we need to have a healthy amount of cap space next year. You also need a SG. Your internal option is Langston Galloway, and your #1 target is Courntey Lee. Galloway can be had for 12 million or so over 2 years, Lee will cost you 50 million over 4 years. Galloway is 24, Lee is 30. Here’s what the crude publicly available advanced stats say they were worth last year:

ESPN’s house metrics have Lee at 3.9 wins, Galloway at 3.2

Win Share has Galloway producing 3.3 win shares, and Lee with 3.9

Wins Produced (lol) has Lee producing 5.6 and Galloway 3.9 wins

Let’s be really generous and say having Lee on the team will help us win 3 more games next season due to interaction effects. Is that worth the difference?

Is that generous or unreasonable? If you take the average of those 3 stats, you're at 1.0 wins. Then you have to factor in that a 24 year old typically improves and a 30 year old typically worsens.

Wow.. a spreadsheet can tell me how human basketball players will play together? Maybe I need another refresher on the brilliance of Hinkey and Morey.

I love when guys all talk about how important metrics are and how every franchise values these #s. Then the offseason starts.

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:Interesting post on KB:

http://knickerblogger.net/knicks-morning...

DRed
July 7, 2016 at 1:35 pm

So you’re Phil and you’ve read the market and decided we need to have a healthy amount of cap space next year. You also need a SG. Your internal option is Langston Galloway, and your #1 target is Courntey Lee. Galloway can be had for 12 million or so over 2 years, Lee will cost you 50 million over 4 years. Galloway is 24, Lee is 30. Here’s what the crude publicly available advanced stats say they were worth last year:

ESPN’s house metrics have Lee at 3.9 wins, Galloway at 3.2

Win Share has Galloway producing 3.3 win shares, and Lee with 3.9

Wins Produced (lol) has Lee producing 5.6 and Galloway 3.9 wins

Let’s be really generous and say having Lee on the team will help us win 3 more games next season due to interaction effects. Is that worth the difference?

Is that generous or unreasonable? If you take the average of those 3 stats, you're at 1.0 wins. Then you have to factor in that a 24 year old typically improves and a 30 year old typically worsens.

Maybe you should look deeper into their respective advanced stats. Maybe there is something that gives Lee more of an edge, don't know. Lee might be considered a more reliable option in the playoffs because of his experience, which Galloway doesn't have.

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:The more I think about it the more I'm okay with it. I think Galloway was a great find. It will really be hard to find another player as good as he was off the scrap heap. But do we really want to allocate $6 mil (or whatever) to him? I think thats fair but he's not really valuable anymore at that price.

Well, we don't really have anyone other than KP who is valuable at their salary.

you just come up for air? Maybe you have not been watching what has happened in FA.

We'll see. In the past you've always thought our teams would be a lot better than they were. What matters is whether Phil's spending buys a good team, not whether his spending is on par with other teams that have made mistakes this offseason. I'll wait til the actual models come out but this looks like a .470 team to me.

are you a robot incapable of just using your eyes and making a judgment? Thanks for bringing your thoughts to the table. Let us know what the models tell you and enough data to actually say something.

As for me thinking the Knicks would be a lot better than they were that is not really true. I did think they would win 45 last season. They were what? 22-22 and trending upward. Melo got hurt and they tailspinned. Lance went out shortly after and that sir was the season. I suppose your models predicted that? Cmon man.

It makes more sense to use the eyeball test and metrics rather than only one. You're behind the thinking of every successful NBA team if you don't think evaluations should incorporate the metrics.

But he didn't say that, mostly he just said stop being such a robot and take your balls out and make a gut guess.

I did make a guess. I reserve the right to adjust the guess when new information comes out. I'm the only here who's even made a tentative prediction as far as I can tell. You ready to take your balls out?

47 wins, just to fuck with you and match your .470. Already stated in another thread that I thought Cavs were a first tier team and then there was a dropoff to the next, which would include TOR, BOS, IND, NY. All based on the plus health of Rose, Noah.

What type of stat dude comes up with 47%? It's either 46% or 48% depending on how many wins you like.

So you won't stick your balls out and make a real prediction

oh 47 is also my real prediction

Fair enough. That's a legit possibility but most of our key players would have to play better and/or be healthier than they were in recent seasons.

It's not just about health and playing better by stats though. Knicks are a balanced roster with players that compliment each other. I feel like the Knicks also have 3 "dogs" now, term used by Rose in his initial press conference. Rose, Melo on the O end and Noah on the D end. Those guys can carry you, lead you and prod others along (Melo could only do so much last year). KP will have had a full year in him, no feel out stage. Knicks have a bench this year, Gallo, DWill, Grant were not pieces that you could rely on from night-to-night or at all, Jennings makes everything much more aligned and easier (akin to what Randle magically did for our SL team the last few games). Coach is much better. And we have some wild card guys that have a bit of potential.

See Bonn? Roster thoughts...
Bonn your good with 38.5 wins? (sorry.. 38.54 to be exact. Don't want to hold you to something not accurate )

We'll say 39. I recognize the high upside if everything works out well, though. They could win 50+ but I think the downside is that the team is much worse than last year. I stay away from the extremes and think slightly below .500 is a middle ground prediction.

OK.. opinion time!

So you admit the Knicks have a legit 50+ win potential. Did the team have that before the trades and FA signings? Are you saying you would prefer consistant but lower ceiling team vs. a higher ceiling but more risk?

Also keep in mind that the Knicks own their own first round picks moving forward, so while the downside may be lower there is upside in that as well

Legit 50? Yes, but I'd give it a very low probability. I'd prefer to be building toward a team that actually will attract the top FAs. You're right we still have our pick. But a lottery team with half it's cap spent on Melo, Noah, and Rose doesn't make sense. That's not moving us towards a roster that really could attract guys like KD, Curry, James, etc.. We'd be dependent on the lottery pick and KP becoming superstars. It's too low a probability. You can take a safer approach that gets you within a few years to a stable .600+ roster for many years and has more potential to attract legit top FAs but it requires be willing to add just 5 to 10 wins each year. Instead, we have hope of a 50 win team but a high probability of moving backwards and just hoping our lottery pick becomes a superstar. It's the hope trap. Most teams don't think of having your own draft pick as being solid insurance for a bad plan. It's risky insurance. What percentage of lottery picks become more than average starters? Not many. We're just not used to having our own picks.

what % of stars go to teams without other stars? Again.. have you not paid attention to FA? The more talent the team already has the better the players that sign there.. so how does your safe approach lure Westbrook or KD? Do you show them how reliable Lopez was or show top tier FAs how good his WS/48 are? Think they care? How are you getting the top tier talent to attract more top tier talent in FA?

So you're saying KP and our lottery pick next year can't become stars? Fine, then we keep incrementally rebuilding. (How do you define star anyway? If we incrementally build towards a .700 team, our top players will be perceived as stars.) You can incrementally build and get to the point where 2nd tier FAs like Kyle Lowry want to come here, and that moves you towards the top stars. It's one approach I'd endorse. If they wanted to chase immediate winning but appeared to be using a balanced eye-ball/metric approach, I'd have more faith in it. I don't want to be taking steps backwards while having most of our cap spent on overpaid veterans and the only insurance being that we have our own pick. Every bad team has its own pick.

I don't understand your first bold statement. I believe KP will be a star.

The second bolded statement is the same problem I have with all your posts. You say you don't like the approach, but offer no alternatives. We should sign better players, have a better approach... OK so who are the guys? I am open to a better approach also, so what is it?

Scratch the Rose trade and the Noah signing... what is Bonn's plan for enough incremental improvement to lure top talent?

What more could you possible need? I listed several criteria I'd use when rebuilding (a through d above were some of them), stated which specific players I think got reasonable deals I'd endorse for minor roles (Gallo, Aldrich, Jennings, etc.), and stated which players I'd trade to try to rebuild. Years of bad decisions have boxed us into a corner where there are no quick fixes and I don't think we could do anything that was a smart gamble and involved adding more than role players this off-season.

Clarity... so your plan to lure top tier caliber talent is sign guys like Cole Aldridge, Langston and Jennings? That moves the Knicks closer to become a desired destination for elite talent?

Starting to see why I could possibly need more details?

I think that does keep us in line with the 5 to 10 win annual increments I mentioned and the team would make it to 37 to 43 wins next year. Years of bad decisions that I wouldn't have made boxed the team into a bad place this off-season. Again, this is only one approach. I'd be OK with a full rebuild or chasing immediate wins if criteria a through d were met in the decisions being made. I'm only describing the middle ground gradual improvement approach. I think it's the most realistic since Dolan likely won't allow a rebuild and legit top talent that meets criteria a through d doesn't want to come to the team that Phil and Dolan created (though again it is not a roster I would have ever assembled). I'd prefer tearing it down and rebuilding with just KP, Grant, Galloway, Willy, the assets we got from trading our veterans, a fresh roster, and patience. I think that approach would actually get us to contention the quickest, though it would still take a long time.

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:Interesting post on KB:

http://knickerblogger.net/knicks-morning...

DRed
July 7, 2016 at 1:35 pm

So you’re Phil and you’ve read the market and decided we need to have a healthy amount of cap space next year. You also need a SG. Your internal option is Langston Galloway, and your #1 target is Courntey Lee. Galloway can be had for 12 million or so over 2 years, Lee will cost you 50 million over 4 years. Galloway is 24, Lee is 30. Here’s what the crude publicly available advanced stats say they were worth last year:

ESPN’s house metrics have Lee at 3.9 wins, Galloway at 3.2

Win Share has Galloway producing 3.3 win shares, and Lee with 3.9

Wins Produced (lol) has Lee producing 5.6 and Galloway 3.9 wins

Let’s be really generous and say having Lee on the team will help us win 3 more games next season due to interaction effects. Is that worth the difference?

Is that generous or unreasonable? If you take the average of those 3 stats, you're at 1.0 wins. Then you have to factor in that a 24 year old typically improves and a 30 year old typically worsens.

Maybe you should look deeper into their respective advanced stats. Maybe there is something that gives Lee more of an edge, don't know. Lee might be considered a more reliable option in the playoffs because of his experience, which Galloway doesn't have.

I like Lee but I don't love Lee. He is an average to below average player that is 30 years old. If it was a 2 yr deal I'd probably be more on board. He plays passable defense at times but struggles against more physical players. He shoots it well but doesn't shoot it enough. He doesn't rebound or ast enough either. The gained immediate efficiency with Lee but lost rebounding, passing, and lead ball defense.

I love that Lee finishes around the rim. That is something greatly needed from the guard position when you consider Rose and Jennings(especially) are not that great around the rim.

yellowboy90 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:Interesting post on KB:

http://knickerblogger.net/knicks-morning...

DRed
July 7, 2016 at 1:35 pm

So you’re Phil and you’ve read the market and decided we need to have a healthy amount of cap space next year. You also need a SG. Your internal option is Langston Galloway, and your #1 target is Courntey Lee. Galloway can be had for 12 million or so over 2 years, Lee will cost you 50 million over 4 years. Galloway is 24, Lee is 30. Here’s what the crude publicly available advanced stats say they were worth last year:

ESPN’s house metrics have Lee at 3.9 wins, Galloway at 3.2

Win Share has Galloway producing 3.3 win shares, and Lee with 3.9

Wins Produced (lol) has Lee producing 5.6 and Galloway 3.9 wins

Let’s be really generous and say having Lee on the team will help us win 3 more games next season due to interaction effects. Is that worth the difference?

Is that generous or unreasonable? If you take the average of those 3 stats, you're at 1.0 wins. Then you have to factor in that a 24 year old typically improves and a 30 year old typically worsens.

Maybe you should look deeper into their respective advanced stats. Maybe there is something that gives Lee more of an edge, don't know. Lee might be considered a more reliable option in the playoffs because of his experience, which Galloway doesn't have.

I like Lee but I don't love Lee. He is an average to below average player that is 30 years old. If it was a 2 yr deal I'd probably be more on board. He plays passable defense at times but struggles against more physical players. He shoots it well but doesn't shoot it enough. He doesn't rebound or ast enough either. The gained immediate efficiency with Lee but lost rebounding, passing, and lead ball defense.

I love that Lee finishes around the rim. That is something greatly needed from the guard position when you consider Rose and Jennings(especially) are not that great around the rim.

Im not doing cartwheels either. If Phil is going to build a contender with a limited shelf life, he might as well put the foot to the firewall.

this stood out for me in the other Lee thread I created:

Last season in Charlotte, Lee ranked first among qualified players on the Hornets in offensive rating (111.4), net rating (+6), true shooting percentage (57.6 percent) and assist ratio (18.9 percent). In the playoffs, Lee contested 12.1 shots per game, which not only ranked first among all Hornets but ninth among all postseason players. Charlotte’s top three lineups in terms of plus/minus in the playoffs all had one thing in common: Lee playing on the perimeter, either at shooting guard or small forward (when they went small). In fact, Charlotte had two of the top five lineups of the 2016 postseason and both featured Lee.

Gallo would never do this, and Lee did it as a starter.

martin wrote:this stood out for me in the other Lee thread I created:

Last season in Charlotte, Lee ranked first among qualified players on the Hornets in offensive rating (111.4), net rating (+6), true shooting percentage (57.6 percent) and assist ratio (18.9 percent). In the playoffs, Lee contested 12.1 shots per game, which not only ranked first among all Hornets but ninth among all postseason players. Charlotte’s top three lineups in terms of plus/minus in the playoffs all had one thing in common: Lee playing on the perimeter, either at shooting guard or small forward (when they went small). In fact, Charlotte had two of the top five lineups of the 2016 postseason and both featured Lee.

Gallo would never do this, and Lee did it as a starter.

I'm not sure where that info. is coming from. According to bball reference, his offensive rating in Charlotte was 108. His offensive rating for the season was 109 and so was his defensive rating. His true shooting percentage was .540, while league average is in the mid .540s. His assist % was 10.9. I'm not sure what net rating they're referring to. His net production on 82games.com is -2.0. I can't verify any of the numbers in your quote. They all look wrong.

martin wrote:this stood out for me in the other Lee thread I created:

Last season in Charlotte, Lee ranked first among qualified players on the Hornets in offensive rating (111.4), net rating (+6), true shooting percentage (57.6 percent) and assist ratio (18.9 percent). In the playoffs, Lee contested 12.1 shots per game, which not only ranked first among all Hornets but ninth among all postseason players. Charlotte’s top three lineups in terms of plus/minus in the playoffs all had one thing in common: Lee playing on the perimeter, either at shooting guard or small forward (when they went small). In fact, Charlotte had two of the top five lineups of the 2016 postseason and both featured Lee.

Gallo would never do this, and Lee did it as a starter.

You know Gallo will never do this because...

How good did Shump close the season when he came off his ACL and how well did he play in the playoffs to start? That just says he had a good run. He is an pretty goof player so it should be expected but he is just another role player like Gallo. Sometimes Lee starts and other times he comes off the bench it has been that way his entire career.

yellowboy90 wrote:

martin wrote:this stood out for me in the other Lee thread I created:

Last season in Charlotte, Lee ranked first among qualified players on the Hornets in offensive rating (111.4), net rating (+6), true shooting percentage (57.6 percent) and assist ratio (18.9 percent). In the playoffs, Lee contested 12.1 shots per game, which not only ranked first among all Hornets but ninth among all postseason players. Charlotte’s top three lineups in terms of plus/minus in the playoffs all had one thing in common: Lee playing on the perimeter, either at shooting guard or small forward (when they went small). In fact, Charlotte had two of the top five lineups of the 2016 postseason and both featured Lee.

Gallo would never do this, and Lee did it as a starter.

You know Gallo will never do this because...

How good did Shump close the season when he came off his ACL and how well did he play in the playoffs to start? That just says he had a good run. He is an pretty goof player so it should be expected but he is just another role player like Gallo. Sometimes Lee starts and other times he comes off the bench it has been that way his entire career.

And I don't think any of those #s are right anyway. If you look on basketball reference, there is no player on CHO with a 111 offensive rating or a .576 true shooting percentage.

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

martin wrote:this stood out for me in the other Lee thread I created:

Last season in Charlotte, Lee ranked first among qualified players on the Hornets in offensive rating (111.4), net rating (+6), true shooting percentage (57.6 percent) and assist ratio (18.9 percent). In the playoffs, Lee contested 12.1 shots per game, which not only ranked first among all Hornets but ninth among all postseason players. Charlotte’s top three lineups in terms of plus/minus in the playoffs all had one thing in common: Lee playing on the perimeter, either at shooting guard or small forward (when they went small). In fact, Charlotte had two of the top five lineups of the 2016 postseason and both featured Lee.

Gallo would never do this, and Lee did it as a starter.

You know Gallo will never do this because...

How good did Shump close the season when he came off his ACL and how well did he play in the playoffs to start? That just says he had a good run. He is an pretty goof player so it should be expected but he is just another role player like Gallo. Sometimes Lee starts and other times he comes off the bench it has been that way his entire career.

And I don't think any of those #s are right anyway. If you look on basketball reference, there is no player on CHO with a 111 offensive rating or a .576 true shooting percentage.

That is interesting, I was thinking maybe they were combining his playoff numbers too but then I see he had a .521 TS% and a WS/48 of .045. The year before in Memphis he had a great run in the playoffs though.

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

martin wrote:this stood out for me in the other Lee thread I created:

Last season in Charlotte, Lee ranked first among qualified players on the Hornets in offensive rating (111.4), net rating (+6), true shooting percentage (57.6 percent) and assist ratio (18.9 percent). In the playoffs, Lee contested 12.1 shots per game, which not only ranked first among all Hornets but ninth among all postseason players. Charlotte’s top three lineups in terms of plus/minus in the playoffs all had one thing in common: Lee playing on the perimeter, either at shooting guard or small forward (when they went small). In fact, Charlotte had two of the top five lineups of the 2016 postseason and both featured Lee.

Gallo would never do this, and Lee did it as a starter.

You know Gallo will never do this because...

How good did Shump close the season when he came off his ACL and how well did he play in the playoffs to start? That just says he had a good run. He is an pretty goof player so it should be expected but he is just another role player like Gallo. Sometimes Lee starts and other times he comes off the bench it has been that way his entire career.

And I don't think any of those #s are right anyway. If you look on basketball reference, there is no player on CHO with a 111 offensive rating or a .576 true shooting percentage.

82 games has some telling #s for those who view EF% stats as the end all be all. Go look at his on/off court stats, as well as his EFG% vs. his opponents EFG%
Team/Lee/Opponent
Memphis +5.9/.528/.496
Char +4.2/.527/.468

So on two diff teams we see Lee is plus player on both, and has a far superior EFG% than those he lines up against.

All that being said I an not huge fan of the Lee signing, but again.. I get it. Good veteran, stable player, hits his jumpers and is a very good defender. I don't like what we paid but he fills an important need and role. Also if you look at opposing SGs vs. Gallo last year he got lit up.

As a SG this year:
Gallo's EFG% .436 vs. opponents EFG% .543

But yea... Galloway gets us just as many wins as Lee because the metrics say so.

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

martin wrote:this stood out for me in the other Lee thread I created:

Last season in Charlotte, Lee ranked first among qualified players on the Hornets in offensive rating (111.4), net rating (+6), true shooting percentage (57.6 percent) and assist ratio (18.9 percent). In the playoffs, Lee contested 12.1 shots per game, which not only ranked first among all Hornets but ninth among all postseason players. Charlotte’s top three lineups in terms of plus/minus in the playoffs all had one thing in common: Lee playing on the perimeter, either at shooting guard or small forward (when they went small). In fact, Charlotte had two of the top five lineups of the 2016 postseason and both featured Lee.

Gallo would never do this, and Lee did it as a starter.

You know Gallo will never do this because...

How good did Shump close the season when he came off his ACL and how well did he play in the playoffs to start? That just says he had a good run. He is an pretty goof player so it should be expected but he is just another role player like Gallo. Sometimes Lee starts and other times he comes off the bench it has been that way his entire career.

And I don't think any of those #s are right anyway. If you look on basketball reference, there is no player on CHO with a 111 offensive rating or a .576 true shooting percentage.

82 games has some telling #s for those who view EF% stats as the end all be all. Go look at his on/off court stats, as well as his EFG% vs. his opponents EFG%
Team/Lee/Opponent
Memphis +5.9/.528/.496
Char +4.2/.527/.468

So on two diff teams we see Lee is plus player on both, and has a far superior EFG% than those he lines up against.

All that being said I an not huge fan of the Lee signing, but again.. I get it. Good veteran, stable player, hits his jumpers and is a very good defender. I don't like what we paid but he fills an important need and role. Also if you look at opposing SGs vs. Gallo last year he got lit up.

As a SG this year:
Gallo's EFG% .436 vs. opponents EFG% .543

But yea... Galloway gets us just as many wins as Lee because the metrics say so.

Statistically Gallo played much better at PG and most of his time was at PG. Those #s are based on about 1600 min at PG and 400 at SG.
Regardless, some of the stats look better for Lee and some for Gallo. If they were the same age and same price, I'd pick Lee. At 6 years younger and a quarter the price, Gallo is the much better value IMO. I think you get more wins out of Gallo (likely entering his prime) plus $38 mil spent well elsewhere than Lee (likely leaving or at the tail end of his prime) alone.

These endless quotation ladders are very repetitive and quite annoying.