Knicks · Fire sale (page 4)
Knixkik wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Knixkik wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Knixkik wrote:Antetokounmpo, Turner, Winslow, Booker, LaVine, Hood, Jokic, McCollum, Gobert. That's 9 players in 3 recent drafts 2013, 2014, 2015 who were taken #10 or later and are future stars or at least have significant upside. In 2013, the best players were taken outside of the top 10. Enough of this tanking crap. Go out and draft a good player outside of the top 10 and build the right way. Play competitive basketball and use our picks effectively and we will build a nice team around Porzingis.
Rare exceptions in previous drafts don't tell us what picks are more likely to lead to the best player in the upcoming draft. Should we always trade our first round pick for pick #57 since that's where Manu Ginobili was drafted?No, you missed the point. You don't tank to draft a few slots higher, because talent is available after the top 10. It's not rare. This happens literally every draft. I am not minimizing the value in high picks, just saying there is value throughout the 1st round every draft. You don't need a top 10 pick to build thru the draft.
OK fair enough. I think this depends on what tanking means. Does tanking mean lose on purpose? Like you tell the guys to miss shots? Or tell the coach to play the worst players? Of course, I don't want to do that. But I want to get rid of these veterans and get future assets. That likely would worsen the record this year, which might be called tanking.What type of value do we get for our vets? I don't see us getting 1st round picks, or anything of real value. If we are out of playoff contention, i just shut down Melo and Rose for the year, and let the young guys play. I guess that could be considered tanking. But I still don't see Melo going anywhere. I think starting fresh next year with the similar group is more than likely. Learning to compete is still more valuable for a guy like KP, than playing on a team like Philly or Minnesota.
If whats being reported is true it will be a complete disgrace if Rose ever wears a Knicks jersey again. Regardless I'd trade him as he is a terrible influence on the team.
HofstraBBall wrote:With this thinking....everyone in the east except the Cavs, Raptors and Celts should also tank. Everyone else flirting with .500, like the Knicks.
Hofstra, you know I went to Hofstra U. Anyway this thinking is for vet teams going nowhere fast. If it's a young team with young starters and pushing for playoffs as a growth it's a different scenario. That's a growing team ask yourself are the Knicks a growing team. It's vet team with one young piece getting full time duty.
If you told me the Knicks are trying to get to the playoffs and their starters were KP, Willie, Kuz and Baker and hey are pushing for the 8th spot. Knicks fans would be estatic about this scenario. As opposed to the team the Knicks have now.
This tanking or fire sale isn't for all teams.
Vmart wrote:Teams that start Willie, Kuz and Baker don't sniff the playoffs. However, Willie, Kuz and now Baker are in the rotation and this team could definitely get the 8th seed. Five rookies, a second year player isn't a team loaded down with vets. The Knicks have 4 players in their early thirties if you count Sasha. With the cba set up the way it is the only guy there is a market for from that group is Courtney Lee. I don't think he is the guy you want to move.HofstraBBall wrote:With this thinking....everyone in the east except the Cavs, Raptors and Celts should also tank. Everyone else flirting with .500, like the Knicks.Hofstra, you know I went to Hofstra U. Anyway this thinking is for vet teams going nowhere fast. If it's a young team with young starters and pushing for playoffs as a growth it's a different scenario. That's a growing team ask yourself are the Knicks a growing team. It's vet team with one young piece getting full time duty.
If you told me the Knicks are trying to get to the playoffs and their starters were KP, Willie, Kuz and Baker and hey are pushing for the 8th spot. Knicks fans would be estatic about this scenario. As opposed to the team the Knicks have now.
This tanking or fire sale isn't for all teams.
Knick fire sales usually result in young players being traded for vets. That could happen but I doubt that it fixes anything.
franco12 wrote:I pray we end up like Ewing's Knicks with the exception of having a GM capable of acquiring that one missing piece to get us over the hump. Remember, we were one John Starks jump shot for the title. Suppose we drafted Ron Harper instead of Kenny Walker? Or Dale Davis instead of Greg Anthony? Or packaged our three 1st round picks and moved up in that loaded 1996 draft and got one of the 10 all-stars or four hall of famers available that year?Knixkik wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Knixkik wrote:Antetokounmpo, Turner, Winslow, Booker, LaVine, Hood, Jokic, McCollum, Gobert. That's 9 players in 3 recent drafts 2013, 2014, 2015 who were taken #10 or later and are future stars or at least have significant upside. In 2013, the best players were taken outside of the top 10. Enough of this tanking crap. Go out and draft a good player outside of the top 10 and build the right way. Play competitive basketball and use our picks effectively and we will build a nice team around Porzingis.
Rare exceptions in previous drafts don't tell us what picks are more likely to lead to the best player in the upcoming draft. Should we always trade our first round pick for pick #57 since that's where Manu Ginobili was drafted?No, you missed the point. You don't tank to draft a few slots higher, because talent is available after the top 10. It's not rare. This happens literally every draft. I am not minimizing the value in high picks, just saying there is value throughout the 1st round every draft. You don't need a top 10 pick to build thru the draft.
Yes - but.
I don't want to end up like Ewing's Knicks - just good enough to just not make it all the way. Always one piece away, but never able to find it.
There is talent throughout the draft, but we need to gather more talent, more impact players - more that are young and cost controlled. Being ok means we're not really ever going to move forward.
CrushAlot wrote:Vmart wrote:Teams that start Willie, Kuz and Baker don't sniff the playoffs. However, Willie, Kuz and now Baker are in the rotation and this team could definitely get the 8th seed. Five rookies, a second year player isn't a team loaded down with vets. The Knicks have 4 players in their early thirties if you count Sasha. With the cba set up the way it is the only guy there is a market for from that group is Courtney Lee. I don't think he is the guy you want to move.HofstraBBall wrote:With this thinking....everyone in the east except the Cavs, Raptors and Celts should also tank. Everyone else flirting with .500, like the Knicks.Hofstra, you know I went to Hofstra U. Anyway this thinking is for vet teams going nowhere fast. If it's a young team with young starters and pushing for playoffs as a growth it's a different scenario. That's a growing team ask yourself are the Knicks a growing team. It's vet team with one young piece getting full time duty.
If you told me the Knicks are trying to get to the playoffs and their starters were KP, Willie, Kuz and Baker and hey are pushing for the 8th spot. Knicks fans would be estatic about this scenario. As opposed to the team the Knicks have now.
This tanking or fire sale isn't for all teams.
Knick fire sales usually result in young players being traded for vets. That could happen but I doubt that it fixes anything.
The level of reliance is important. This team is still heavily reliant on vets. I'm using the Knicks young as an example. If I used T-Wolves as an example you might feel better about it. But the point being is that the Knicks are in trouble because if the vets are playing for an 8th spot the room for growth is nonexistent.
Welpee wrote:franco12 wrote:I pray we end up like Ewing's Knicks with the exception of having a GM capable of acquiring that one missing piece to get us over the hump. Remember, we were one John Starks jump shot for the title. Suppose we drafted Ron Harper instead of Kenny Walker? Or Dale Davis instead of Greg Anthony? Or packaged our three 1st round picks and moved up in that loaded 1996 draft and got one of the 10 all-stars or four hall of famers available that year?Knixkik wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Knixkik wrote:Antetokounmpo, Turner, Winslow, Booker, LaVine, Hood, Jokic, McCollum, Gobert. That's 9 players in 3 recent drafts 2013, 2014, 2015 who were taken #10 or later and are future stars or at least have significant upside. In 2013, the best players were taken outside of the top 10. Enough of this tanking crap. Go out and draft a good player outside of the top 10 and build the right way. Play competitive basketball and use our picks effectively and we will build a nice team around Porzingis.
Rare exceptions in previous drafts don't tell us what picks are more likely to lead to the best player in the upcoming draft. Should we always trade our first round pick for pick #57 since that's where Manu Ginobili was drafted?No, you missed the point. You don't tank to draft a few slots higher, because talent is available after the top 10. It's not rare. This happens literally every draft. I am not minimizing the value in high picks, just saying there is value throughout the 1st round every draft. You don't need a top 10 pick to build thru the draft.
Yes - but.
I don't want to end up like Ewing's Knicks - just good enough to just not make it all the way. Always one piece away, but never able to find it.
There is talent throughout the draft, but we need to gather more talent, more impact players - more that are young and cost controlled. Being ok means we're not really ever going to move forward.
Remember Jordan retired too. Twice for that matter.
Vmart wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:With this thinking....everyone in the east except the Cavs, Raptors and Celts should also tank. Everyone else flirting with .500, like the Knicks.Hofstra, you know I went to Hofstra U. Anyway this thinking is for vet teams going nowhere fast. If it's a young team with young starters and pushing for playoffs as a growth it's a different scenario. That's a growing team ask yourself are the Knicks a growing team. It's vet team with one young piece getting full time duty.
If you told me the Knicks are trying to get to the playoffs and their starters were KP, Willie, Kuz and Baker and hey are pushing for the 8th spot. Knicks fans would be estatic about this scenario. As opposed to the team the Knicks have now.
This tanking or fire sale isn't for all teams.
Did not attend Hofstra. Can you point to a team that has been succesful by tanking and going with a complete youth movement? It's like playing the Lotto or buying a shit load of penny stocks. You cant guarantee results but you can point to one out of a million as a smart investment. Can you also point to what stat makes Kuz, Willy, Baker good NBA all around players or even among top rookie prospects? Its just funny to me how people are so enamored by long shots. Fact of the matter is, we dont even know how KP will play as the main target of defenses. Will he develop a down low game? Will he just be a 7'3 three point shooter? Will he ever be able to defend a legit NBA center? Lots of questions. Point is, its easy to say scrap this or start over but what guarantee do you have that once you do you wont be saying it all over again every couple of years, if you dont like the results? Keep asking people that want to just trade all our vets for draft picks, to name a star pick the Knicks have had from the draft since Patrick Ewing? All I hear is crickets.
Noah can stay. Not that he can be moved easily, but I think he can be a good influence and be a good player under different roster and rotation.
HofstraBBall wrote:Vmart wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:With this thinking....everyone in the east except the Cavs, Raptors and Celts should also tank. Everyone else flirting with .500, like the Knicks.Hofstra, you know I went to Hofstra U. Anyway this thinking is for vet teams going nowhere fast. If it's a young team with young starters and pushing for playoffs as a growth it's a different scenario. That's a growing team ask yourself are the Knicks a growing team. It's vet team with one young piece getting full time duty.
If you told me the Knicks are trying to get to the playoffs and their starters were KP, Willie, Kuz and Baker and hey are pushing for the 8th spot. Knicks fans would be estatic about this scenario. As opposed to the team the Knicks have now.
This tanking or fire sale isn't for all teams.
Did not attend Hofstra. Can you point to a team that has been succesful by tanking and going with a complete youth movement? It's like playing the Lotto or buying a shit load of penny stocks. You cant guarantee results but you can point to one out of a million as a smart investment. Can you also point to what stat makes Kuz, Willy, Baker good NBA all around players or even among top rookie prospects? Its just funny to me how people are so enamored by long shots. Fact of the matter is, we dont even know how KP will play as the main target of defenses. Will he develop a down low game? Will he just be a 7'3 three point shooter? Will he ever be able to defend a legit NBA center? Lots of questions. Point is, its easy to say scrap this or start over but what guarantee do you have that once you do you wont be saying it all over again every couple of years, if you dont like the results? Keep asking people that want to just trade all our vets for draft picks, to name a star pick the Knicks have had from the draft since Patrick Ewing? All I hear is crickets.
Your missing the point of this I'm using Knicks young players as an example it could be any young team making a push for the playoffs. Young teams they have upside on their side as opposed to a vet team fighting to make the playoffs.
And yes tanking does work. Cleveland ranked to get LeBron so did Spurs for Duncan. It's a part of NBA strategy. Draft positions are important as a spot difference can be the difference between Jordan Hill or Steph Curry.
Vmart wrote:OK, now name the multitude of other teams that failed using this strategy. And the only thing that constituted the Spurs "tanking" was David Robinson getting hurt and missing the entire season.HofstraBBall wrote:Vmart wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:With this thinking....everyone in the east except the Cavs, Raptors and Celts should also tank. Everyone else flirting with .500, like the Knicks.Hofstra, you know I went to Hofstra U. Anyway this thinking is for vet teams going nowhere fast. If it's a young team with young starters and pushing for playoffs as a growth it's a different scenario. That's a growing team ask yourself are the Knicks a growing team. It's vet team with one young piece getting full time duty.
If you told me the Knicks are trying to get to the playoffs and their starters were KP, Willie, Kuz and Baker and hey are pushing for the 8th spot. Knicks fans would be estatic about this scenario. As opposed to the team the Knicks have now.
This tanking or fire sale isn't for all teams.
Did not attend Hofstra. Can you point to a team that has been succesful by tanking and going with a complete youth movement? It's like playing the Lotto or buying a shit load of penny stocks. You cant guarantee results but you can point to one out of a million as a smart investment. Can you also point to what stat makes Kuz, Willy, Baker good NBA all around players or even among top rookie prospects? Its just funny to me how people are so enamored by long shots. Fact of the matter is, we dont even know how KP will play as the main target of defenses. Will he develop a down low game? Will he just be a 7'3 three point shooter? Will he ever be able to defend a legit NBA center? Lots of questions. Point is, its easy to say scrap this or start over but what guarantee do you have that once you do you wont be saying it all over again every couple of years, if you dont like the results? Keep asking people that want to just trade all our vets for draft picks, to name a star pick the Knicks have had from the draft since Patrick Ewing? All I hear is crickets.
Your missing the point of this I'm using Knicks young players as an example it could be any young team making a push for the playoffs. Young teams they have upside on their side as opposed to a vet team fighting to make the playoffs.
And yes tanking does work. Cleveland ranked to get LeBron so did Spurs for Duncan. It's a part of NBA strategy. Draft positions are important as a spot difference can be the difference between Jordan Hill or Steph Curry.
Vmart wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:Vmart wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:With this thinking....everyone in the east except the Cavs, Raptors and Celts should also tank. Everyone else flirting with .500, like the Knicks.Hofstra, you know I went to Hofstra U. Anyway this thinking is for vet teams going nowhere fast. If it's a young team with young starters and pushing for playoffs as a growth it's a different scenario. That's a growing team ask yourself are the Knicks a growing team. It's vet team with one young piece getting full time duty.
If you told me the Knicks are trying to get to the playoffs and their starters were KP, Willie, Kuz and Baker and hey are pushing for the 8th spot. Knicks fans would be estatic about this scenario. As opposed to the team the Knicks have now.
This tanking or fire sale isn't for all teams.
Did not attend Hofstra. Can you point to a team that has been succesful by tanking and going with a complete youth movement? It's like playing the Lotto or buying a shit load of penny stocks. You cant guarantee results but you can point to one out of a million as a smart investment. Can you also point to what stat makes Kuz, Willy, Baker good NBA all around players or even among top rookie prospects? Its just funny to me how people are so enamored by long shots. Fact of the matter is, we dont even know how KP will play as the main target of defenses. Will he develop a down low game? Will he just be a 7'3 three point shooter? Will he ever be able to defend a legit NBA center? Lots of questions. Point is, its easy to say scrap this or start over but what guarantee do you have that once you do you wont be saying it all over again every couple of years, if you dont like the results? Keep asking people that want to just trade all our vets for draft picks, to name a star pick the Knicks have had from the draft since Patrick Ewing? All I hear is crickets.
Your missing the point of this I'm using Knicks young players as an example it could be any young team making a push for the playoffs. Young teams they have upside on their side as opposed to a vet team fighting to make the playoffs.
And yes tanking does work. Cleveland ranked to get LeBron so did Spurs for Duncan. It's a part of NBA strategy. Draft positions are important as a spot difference can be the difference between Jordan Hill or Steph Curry.
You forgot to mention Jordan. You just proved my point. For every Duncan there were a hundred duds. And San Antonio drafted Duncan and paired him with who? Hint, pretty good vets. And Lebron did not win until he was paired with who? Not a good example for the start a youth movement argument.
But the most obvious argument, against tank and count on draft, is our Knicks. In case you haven't noticed we haven't exactly been killing it the last 16 years or more. Have received pretty high draft picks. And we drafted how many stars that have made a difference?
HofstraBBall wrote:Vmart wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:Vmart wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:With this thinking....everyone in the east except the Cavs, Raptors and Celts should also tank. Everyone else flirting with .500, like the Knicks.Hofstra, you know I went to Hofstra U. Anyway this thinking is for vet teams going nowhere fast. If it's a young team with young starters and pushing for playoffs as a growth it's a different scenario. That's a growing team ask yourself are the Knicks a growing team. It's vet team with one young piece getting full time duty.
If you told me the Knicks are trying to get to the playoffs and their starters were KP, Willie, Kuz and Baker and hey are pushing for the 8th spot. Knicks fans would be estatic about this scenario. As opposed to the team the Knicks have now.
This tanking or fire sale isn't for all teams.
Did not attend Hofstra. Can you point to a team that has been succesful by tanking and going with a complete youth movement? It's like playing the Lotto or buying a shit load of penny stocks. You cant guarantee results but you can point to one out of a million as a smart investment. Can you also point to what stat makes Kuz, Willy, Baker good NBA all around players or even among top rookie prospects? Its just funny to me how people are so enamored by long shots. Fact of the matter is, we dont even know how KP will play as the main target of defenses. Will he develop a down low game? Will he just be a 7'3 three point shooter? Will he ever be able to defend a legit NBA center? Lots of questions. Point is, its easy to say scrap this or start over but what guarantee do you have that once you do you wont be saying it all over again every couple of years, if you dont like the results? Keep asking people that want to just trade all our vets for draft picks, to name a star pick the Knicks have had from the draft since Patrick Ewing? All I hear is crickets.
Your missing the point of this I'm using Knicks young players as an example it could be any young team making a push for the playoffs. Young teams they have upside on their side as opposed to a vet team fighting to make the playoffs.
And yes tanking does work. Cleveland ranked to get LeBron so did Spurs for Duncan. It's a part of NBA strategy. Draft positions are important as a spot difference can be the difference between Jordan Hill or Steph Curry.
You forgot to mention Jordan. You just proved my point. For every Duncan there were a hundred duds. And San Antonio drafted Duncan and paired him with who? Hint, pretty good vets. And Lebron did not win until he was paired with who? Not a good example for the start a youth movement argument.
But the most obvious argument, against tank and count on draft, is our Knicks. In case you haven't noticed we haven't exactly been killing it the last 16 years or more. Have received pretty high draft picks. And we drafted how many stars that have made a difference?
You got it wrong yes they had vets but Pop with held Robinson who was ready to come back from his injury because he wanted a shot at Duncan. It worked for the Knicks they could have easily tried to win more games and walk out with a player other than KP.
Vmart wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:Vmart wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:Vmart wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:With this thinking....everyone in the east except the Cavs, Raptors and Celts should also tank. Everyone else flirting with .500, like the Knicks.Hofstra, you know I went to Hofstra U. Anyway this thinking is for vet teams going nowhere fast. If it's a young team with young starters and pushing for playoffs as a growth it's a different scenario. That's a growing team ask yourself are the Knicks a growing team. It's vet team with one young piece getting full time duty.
If you told me the Knicks are trying to get to the playoffs and their starters were KP, Willie, Kuz and Baker and hey are pushing for the 8th spot. Knicks fans would be estatic about this scenario. As opposed to the team the Knicks have now.
This tanking or fire sale isn't for all teams.
Did not attend Hofstra. Can you point to a team that has been succesful by tanking and going with a complete youth movement? It's like playing the Lotto or buying a shit load of penny stocks. You cant guarantee results but you can point to one out of a million as a smart investment. Can you also point to what stat makes Kuz, Willy, Baker good NBA all around players or even among top rookie prospects? Its just funny to me how people are so enamored by long shots. Fact of the matter is, we dont even know how KP will play as the main target of defenses. Will he develop a down low game? Will he just be a 7'3 three point shooter? Will he ever be able to defend a legit NBA center? Lots of questions. Point is, its easy to say scrap this or start over but what guarantee do you have that once you do you wont be saying it all over again every couple of years, if you dont like the results? Keep asking people that want to just trade all our vets for draft picks, to name a star pick the Knicks have had from the draft since Patrick Ewing? All I hear is crickets.
Your missing the point of this I'm using Knicks young players as an example it could be any young team making a push for the playoffs. Young teams they have upside on their side as opposed to a vet team fighting to make the playoffs.
And yes tanking does work. Cleveland ranked to get LeBron so did Spurs for Duncan. It's a part of NBA strategy. Draft positions are important as a spot difference can be the difference between Jordan Hill or Steph Curry.
You forgot to mention Jordan. You just proved my point. For every Duncan there were a hundred duds. And San Antonio drafted Duncan and paired him with who? Hint, pretty good vets. And Lebron did not win until he was paired with who? Not a good example for the start a youth movement argument.
But the most obvious argument, against tank and count on draft, is our Knicks. In case you haven't noticed we haven't exactly been killing it the last 16 years or more. Have received pretty high draft picks. And we drafted how many stars that have made a difference?
You got it wrong yes they had vets but Pop with held Robinson who was ready to come back from his injury because he wanted a shot at Duncan. It worked for the Knicks they could have easily tried to win more games and walk out with a player other than KP.
KP? Out of how many years of draft picks that didn't work out? And btw, has KP changed things around for us?