Knicks · Countdown to the lottery: Tuesday, May 16th 2017 (page 2)
crzymdups wrote:holfresh wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:You need at least 2, or better yet 3, superstars to win a championship. You either sign them, even if it costs you $30-40m, or draft them. It's that simple. People like Kuz or KOQ do not make or break championship teams.
Superstars yes. There are probably only 5 superstars in the league but they're definitely worth that. I might even stretch it to 10 players, but a superstar is definitely not the same as an ordinary all-star.
I'd agree about Kuz and KOQ. The purpose of getting players like that would be to help build the team towards a respectable level that good players might even consider coming to.I really can't understand the philosophy of why getting bad players on the cheap is such a good thing..
It's not great, but it's better than overpaying overrated players.
If it's about winning, you are trying to get players to put you over the top and you may have to overpay..If it's about just fielding a team then you don't pay up and you continue losing..ex. Our bench..
holfresh wrote:crzymdups wrote:holfresh wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:You need at least 2, or better yet 3, superstars to win a championship. You either sign them, even if it costs you $30-40m, or draft them. It's that simple. People like Kuz or KOQ do not make or break championship teams.
Superstars yes. There are probably only 5 superstars in the league but they're definitely worth that. I might even stretch it to 10 players, but a superstar is definitely not the same as an ordinary all-star.
I'd agree about Kuz and KOQ. The purpose of getting players like that would be to help build the team towards a respectable level that good players might even consider coming to.I really can't understand the philosophy of why getting bad players on the cheap is such a good thing..
It's not great, but it's better than overpaying overrated players.
If it's about winning, you are trying to get players to put you over the top and you may have to overpay..If it's about just fielding a team then you don't pay up...
Paying the wrong guy to a max for multiple years means you can't sign the right guy though, not until the old contract is up.
I'd prefer the Knicks didn't try to give out a max for a while... maybe til it's time to pay KP.
crzymdups wrote:holfresh wrote:crzymdups wrote:holfresh wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:You need at least 2, or better yet 3, superstars to win a championship. You either sign them, even if it costs you $30-40m, or draft them. It's that simple. People like Kuz or KOQ do not make or break championship teams.
Superstars yes. There are probably only 5 superstars in the league but they're definitely worth that. I might even stretch it to 10 players, but a superstar is definitely not the same as an ordinary all-star.
I'd agree about Kuz and KOQ. The purpose of getting players like that would be to help build the team towards a respectable level that good players might even consider coming to.I really can't understand the philosophy of why getting bad players on the cheap is such a good thing..
It's not great, but it's better than overpaying overrated players.
If it's about winning, you are trying to get players to put you over the top and you may have to overpay..If it's about just fielding a team then you don't pay up...
Paying the wrong guy to a max for multiple years means you can't sign the right guy though, not until the old contract is up.
I'd prefer the Knicks didn't try to give out a max for a while... maybe til it's time to pay KP.
True..At least until Phil is gone and we have a GM with a gameplan..
But if you want to win, you will have to overpay at some point..You might end up overpaying your own players..Most players not named LeBron will be overpaid..
crzymdups wrote:Agreed. Build through the draft and add as we go along unless its a no brainer like a Lebron/Curry type of player.holfresh wrote:crzymdups wrote:holfresh wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:You need at least 2, or better yet 3, superstars to win a championship. You either sign them, even if it costs you $30-40m, or draft them. It's that simple. People like Kuz or KOQ do not make or break championship teams.
Superstars yes. There are probably only 5 superstars in the league but they're definitely worth that. I might even stretch it to 10 players, but a superstar is definitely not the same as an ordinary all-star.
I'd agree about Kuz and KOQ. The purpose of getting players like that would be to help build the team towards a respectable level that good players might even consider coming to.I really can't understand the philosophy of why getting bad players on the cheap is such a good thing..
It's not great, but it's better than overpaying overrated players.
If it's about winning, you are trying to get players to put you over the top and you may have to overpay..If it's about just fielding a team then you don't pay up...
Paying the wrong guy to a max for multiple years means you can't sign the right guy though, not until the old contract is up.
I'd prefer the Knicks didn't try to give out a max for a while... maybe til it's time to pay KP.
crzymdups wrote:holfresh wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:You need at least 2, or better yet 3, superstars to win a championship. You either sign them, even if it costs you $30-40m, or draft them. It's that simple. People like Kuz or KOQ do not make or break championship teams.
Superstars yes. There are probably only 5 superstars in the league but they're definitely worth that. I might even stretch it to 10 players, but a superstar is definitely not the same as an ordinary all-star.
I'd agree about Kuz and KOQ. The purpose of getting players like that would be to help build the team towards a respectable level that good players might even consider coming to.I really can't understand the philosophy of why getting bad players on the cheap is such a good thing..
It's not great, but it's better than overpaying overrated players.
Yeah, getting decent players on the cheap is better than getting worse players who are more expensive. The only thing guys like Melo and Rose are helping us do this year is get a higher draft pick.
holfresh wrote:crzymdups wrote:holfresh wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:You need at least 2, or better yet 3, superstars to win a championship. You either sign them, even if it costs you $30-40m, or draft them. It's that simple. People like Kuz or KOQ do not make or break championship teams.
Superstars yes. There are probably only 5 superstars in the league but they're definitely worth that. I might even stretch it to 10 players, but a superstar is definitely not the same as an ordinary all-star.
I'd agree about Kuz and KOQ. The purpose of getting players like that would be to help build the team towards a respectable level that good players might even consider coming to.I really can't understand the philosophy of why getting bad players on the cheap is such a good thing..
It's not great, but it's better than overpaying overrated players.
If it's about winning, you are trying to get players to put you over the top and you may have to overpay..If it's about just fielding a team then you don't pay up and you continue losing..ex. Our bench..
Overpay? I'm gonna guess that only about 10% of the players on championship contending teams are overpaid. They didn't get to where they are by overpaying.
Bonn1997 wrote:holfresh wrote:crzymdups wrote:holfresh wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:You need at least 2, or better yet 3, superstars to win a championship. You either sign them, even if it costs you $30-40m, or draft them. It's that simple. People like Kuz or KOQ do not make or break championship teams.
Superstars yes. There are probably only 5 superstars in the league but they're definitely worth that. I might even stretch it to 10 players, but a superstar is definitely not the same as an ordinary all-star.
I'd agree about Kuz and KOQ. The purpose of getting players like that would be to help build the team towards a respectable level that good players might even consider coming to.I really can't understand the philosophy of why getting bad players on the cheap is such a good thing..
It's not great, but it's better than overpaying overrated players.
If it's about winning, you are trying to get players to put you over the top and you may have to overpay..If it's about just fielding a team then you don't pay up and you continue losing..ex. Our bench..
Overpay? I'm gonna guess that only about 10% of the players on championship contending teams are overpaid. They didn't get to where they are by overpaying.
That's 1 to 2 players per team getting overpaid sounds about right..But you are presenting a chicken or the egg first argument..If a player doesn't play up to his contract then he is overpaid and his team likely are losing...If he and others outplays his/their contracts then he is good value and likely his team is winning...So if they win it all, good value?..it's subjective..
holfresh wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:holfresh wrote:crzymdups wrote:holfresh wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:You need at least 2, or better yet 3, superstars to win a championship. You either sign them, even if it costs you $30-40m, or draft them. It's that simple. People like Kuz or KOQ do not make or break championship teams.
Superstars yes. There are probably only 5 superstars in the league but they're definitely worth that. I might even stretch it to 10 players, but a superstar is definitely not the same as an ordinary all-star.
I'd agree about Kuz and KOQ. The purpose of getting players like that would be to help build the team towards a respectable level that good players might even consider coming to.I really can't understand the philosophy of why getting bad players on the cheap is such a good thing..
It's not great, but it's better than overpaying overrated players.
If it's about winning, you are trying to get players to put you over the top and you may have to overpay..If it's about just fielding a team then you don't pay up and you continue losing..ex. Our bench..
Overpay? I'm gonna guess that only about 10% of the players on championship contending teams are overpaid. They didn't get to where they are by overpaying.
That's 1 to 2 players per team getting overpaid sounds about right..
OK but I went back and put in bold a key part. They didn't get to where they are by overpaying. They win despite occasional mistakes like JR Smith, Iman Shumpert, etc. The portion of the roster helping them contend is the 90% that's well spent.
But you are presenting a chicken or the egg first argument..If a player doesn't play up to his contract then he is overpaid and his team likely are losing...If he and others outplays his/their contracts then he is good value and likely his team is winning...So if they win it all, good value?..it's subjective..
You can get a good sense in advance as to how likely a contract is to be good value. Sites like 538 do this for all new contracts before the start of the season. It's rare that a bad contract wasn't clear right away. All of Phil's large contract deals were clearly bad before day 1.
Bonn1997 wrote:holfresh wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:holfresh wrote:crzymdups wrote:holfresh wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:You need at least 2, or better yet 3, superstars to win a championship. You either sign them, even if it costs you $30-40m, or draft them. It's that simple. People like Kuz or KOQ do not make or break championship teams.
Superstars yes. There are probably only 5 superstars in the league but they're definitely worth that. I might even stretch it to 10 players, but a superstar is definitely not the same as an ordinary all-star.
I'd agree about Kuz and KOQ. The purpose of getting players like that would be to help build the team towards a respectable level that good players might even consider coming to.I really can't understand the philosophy of why getting bad players on the cheap is such a good thing..
It's not great, but it's better than overpaying overrated players.
If it's about winning, you are trying to get players to put you over the top and you may have to overpay..If it's about just fielding a team then you don't pay up and you continue losing..ex. Our bench..
Overpay? I'm gonna guess that only about 10% of the players on championship contending teams are overpaid. They didn't get to where they are by overpaying.
That's 1 to 2 players per team getting overpaid sounds about right..
OK but I went back and put in bold a key part. They didn't get to where they are by overpaying. They win despite occasional mistakes like JR Smith, Iman Shumpert, etc. The portion of the roster helping them contend is the 90% that's well spent.But you are presenting a chicken or the egg first argument..If a player doesn't play up to his contract then he is overpaid and his team likely are losing...If he and others outplays his/their contracts then he is good value and likely his team is winning...So if they win it all, good value?..it's subjective..
You can get a good sense in advance as to how likely a contract is to be good value. Sites like 538 do this for all new contracts before the start of the season. It's rare that a bad contract wasn't clear right away. All of Phil's large contract deals were clearly bad before day 1.
Mistakes like JR???..Cleveland doesn't win without JR..Cleveland also "over payed" for Tristan..The can't win without him either..
holfresh wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:holfresh wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:holfresh wrote:crzymdups wrote:holfresh wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:You need at least 2, or better yet 3, superstars to win a championship. You either sign them, even if it costs you $30-40m, or draft them. It's that simple. People like Kuz or KOQ do not make or break championship teams.
Superstars yes. There are probably only 5 superstars in the league but they're definitely worth that. I might even stretch it to 10 players, but a superstar is definitely not the same as an ordinary all-star.
I'd agree about Kuz and KOQ. The purpose of getting players like that would be to help build the team towards a respectable level that good players might even consider coming to.I really can't understand the philosophy of why getting bad players on the cheap is such a good thing..
It's not great, but it's better than overpaying overrated players.
If it's about winning, you are trying to get players to put you over the top and you may have to overpay..If it's about just fielding a team then you don't pay up and you continue losing..ex. Our bench..
Overpay? I'm gonna guess that only about 10% of the players on championship contending teams are overpaid. They didn't get to where they are by overpaying.
That's 1 to 2 players per team getting overpaid sounds about right..
OK but I went back and put in bold a key part. They didn't get to where they are by overpaying. They win despite occasional mistakes like JR Smith, Iman Shumpert, etc. The portion of the roster helping them contend is the 90% that's well spent.But you are presenting a chicken or the egg first argument..If a player doesn't play up to his contract then he is overpaid and his team likely are losing...If he and others outplays his/their contracts then he is good value and likely his team is winning...So if they win it all, good value?..it's subjective..
You can get a good sense in advance as to how likely a contract is to be good value. Sites like 538 do this for all new contracts before the start of the season. It's rare that a bad contract wasn't clear right away. All of Phil's large contract deals were clearly bad before day 1.Mistakes like JR???..Cleveland doesn't win without JR..Cleveland also "over payed" for Tristan..The can't win without him either..
Well, now we're getting side-tracked. They won a championship because of JR? I'm calling BS on that. They could have gotten more out of most $15 mil per contracts. We could debate this and the Thompson contract (I wouldn't call him overpaid) but that's more of a tangent. They definitely didn't overpay for their most critical players. And it's bad to use them as a model anyway because we don't have anyone near Lebron. The general point is that it's the exception rather than the rule that players on championship contenders are overpaid. You have many people describing it as if it was the reverse (you usually overpay in free agency and it's rare to get good value). These people aren't looking closely at the salaries of the majority of players on the contending teams.