Knicks · Man the draft is really a crap shoot. (page 1)
I know what we need but if a Jonathan Issac falls into our spot and he is atop our board you have to go for it.
In fact, there can be a team that values the hell out of him and might want to trade.
It's interesting that 8 of the 15 all-nba team players this year were selected 15th or later. More of them were selected after than before 14th! Many of them were mid to late 1st round picks. The more draft picks you can get, the better your odds obviously.
knickscity wrote:You got a few potential all-stars, but no generational talents. It's a decent draft at best. Not truly sure why it's so hyped as it is.
The overall quality of players is high even without having a GREAT player at the top. A team can find a useful player just about anywhere in this draft.
Magic have to make decisions on Gordan or Payton. Because they either need a stud scoring PG and move on from Payton or they need more a forward that can provide higher offensive output with the ball in his hands. Maybe they target Monk and slide "Never Google" to SF. Which makes sense given that Monk and Fournier and Vucevic can drop buckets while Payton and Gordan can do the little things.
Kings could use everything though Heild played very well for them. They will take whoever drops to them out of Fox & Tatum.
Suns have Bledsoe who has been injured a lot lately and they aren't winning. As well as Booker. Alan Williams and Marqiss Chriss came on very very strong toward the end of the year and they have TJ Warren SF spot. Alan most likely isn't viewed as a starger due to being a 6'8 bull. They also drafted Dragon Bender last year who they probably want to play in between Chriss and Williams and they have Len who they probably are about ready to give up on. They could draft Fox and trade Bledsoe to upgrade he wing or keep Bledsoe and draft Tatum and probably trade Warren done the line.
Philly has a lot of young wings. Anderson, Covington, Stuaskas, Caborrott, Simmons. They make a lot of moves so they probably will still take best available and look to move pieces around later. But they need guard help. Simmons will be their point forward and run the point from the SF position. Saric was a ROY candidate as the stretch 4. Embild played well but is injury prone. Josh Jackson is an elite talent but would play the same positions of strength and depth that Philly already has. But Philly in the past have taken best player available and made trades later. They either will look to trade up, down or take Jackson and make other trades.
#3 will take Jackson whoever it is
Suns will take Tatum
Kings will take Fox
Magic will take Monk
Wolves will take Isaac
I think that is the order. Some trades may happen but these players will be targeted and end up being gone by 8.
That will leave Smith jr & Nitty
nixluva wrote:knickscity wrote:You got a few potential all-stars, but no generational talents. It's a decent draft at best. Not truly sure why it's so hyped as it is.The overall quality of players is high even without having a GREAT player at the top. A team can find a useful player just about anywhere in this draft.
That can be said of a lot of drafts.
GustavBahler wrote:As long as the Knicks draft the best player available with the 8 pick, Im confident the pick will be a good one, even if it might not be my choice. Confident that Gaines will have some input. "System player" picks should be made in the second round, if no one really stands out talent wise.
If you can play in the triangle, you can play in any system. All it requires is high basketball IQ to make the correct reads and a ability to contribute to winning without needing the ball in your hands. Its harder to find triangle type of players then it is to mold players who play in the triangle into another system.
newyorknewyork wrote:GustavBahler wrote:As long as the Knicks draft the best player available with the 8 pick, Im confident the pick will be a good one, even if it might not be my choice. Confident that Gaines will have some input. "System player" picks should be made in the second round, if no one really stands out talent wise.If you can play in the triangle, you can play in any system. All it requires is high basketball IQ to make the correct reads and a ability to contribute to winning without needing the ball in your hands. Its harder to find triangle type of players then it is to mold players who play in the triangle into another system.
Some of the smartest guys who ever played in the league have said (almost unanimously) that the Triangle is a hard system to learn. NY is notoriously impatient with their draft picks.
I would much rather see NY draft the best player available, and get him acclimated to the NBA asap. Better that than weighing him down with the task of learning a difficult system at the same time he's learning about the league.
All the star players who gave Phil all those rings had a few years (or more) to learn the game in a more conventional system. Would prefer to see our draft pick(s) learn the same way.
newyorknewyork wrote:... but nobody really knows who is going to be the one that the NBA game just clicks for them. That they develop their weaknesses putting it all together or get exposed by their weaknesses. Or their strengths don't translate.
GMs first priority is to protect their jobs. It's sad, but it's understandable.
If you look back, why would anyone take Darius Miles? Stromile Swift? Patrick O'Bryant?
If you pick a player who busts that EVERYONE thought could be something, you can defend your choice and your job. You can say everyone else would have made the same mistake.
If you go completely off book, your job rests with that player ( i.e. Anthony Bennett)
One of the major problems is that the NBA's talent pool is so shallow and the logistics made winning almost impossible for most teams. This is why Adam Silver talked about incorporating a 4 point shot. Widen and lengthen the floor, raise the rim, make starting lineups 6 player instead of 5, shorten the shot clock.
The NBA desperately needs to make more talent NBA capable. Jimmer Fredette is a pretty interesting player. He did not have the base athleticism to play in the NBA. The NFL and MLB are interesting because rosters are larger, transactions are more frequent and the talent base is more diverse.
7 On 7 might seem a little insane, but it opens up the ability to exploit more of the talent base that simply cannot play in the current NBA.
Larger rosters, larger starting lineups, more ways to build a team, it would dramatically change the game. The draft would be more rounds, there would be more ways to actually compete. Most teams now know that only 2-3 teams have a chance any given year to win a ring, the rest are burning time until the owner fires the coach and GM in place.
Guaranteed contracts kill this league. Its a players league and the players ignorance and behavior drive away a large number of potential fans. ( When Kobe rapes a girl in Colorado, do you think the critical female audience that supports the NFL and college football are going to want to view the NBA?) That audience is so desirable the NBA is propping up the mind numbingly boring WNBA anyway, despite being a true snoozer that no one cares about. ( But hey, yeah FEMINISM right!)
Vmart wrote:I feel bad for the guy. He is gonna get wated being On the Wolves. I guarantee situations determine greatness. He won't get much chance on that team. Players should have a right to refuse to play for certain teams.
Worked for Eli Manning.
GustavBahler wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:GustavBahler wrote:As long as the Knicks draft the best player available with the 8 pick, Im confident the pick will be a good one, even if it might not be my choice. Confident that Gaines will have some input. "System player" picks should be made in the second round, if no one really stands out talent wise.If you can play in the triangle, you can play in any system. All it requires is high basketball IQ to make the correct reads and a ability to contribute to winning without needing the ball in your hands. Its harder to find triangle type of players then it is to mold players who play in the triangle into another system.
Some of the smartest guys who ever played in the league have said (almost unanimously) that the Triangle is a hard system to learn. NY is notoriously impatient with their draft picks.I would much rather see NY draft the best player available, and get him acclimated to the NBA asap. Better that than weighing him down with the task of learning a difficult system at the same time he's learning about the league.
All the star players who gave Phil all those rings had a few years (or more) to learn the game in a more conventional system. Would prefer to see our draft pick(s) learn the same way.
All things have to be taken into a consideration. What good does it do if we draft the most talented player but we play him in an offense where he's useless? His value is lowered, he's unhappy and we end up trading him for pennies on the dollar. Look at what Orlando is going through with Mario Hezonja. You have to take ball IQ and fit into account as well. That said, I wouldn't advocate reaching for Justin Jackson just because he's familiar with a system and he has good head on his shoulders.
BigDaddyG wrote:GustavBahler wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:GustavBahler wrote:As long as the Knicks draft the best player available with the 8 pick, Im confident the pick will be a good one, even if it might not be my choice. Confident that Gaines will have some input. "System player" picks should be made in the second round, if no one really stands out talent wise.If you can play in the triangle, you can play in any system. All it requires is high basketball IQ to make the correct reads and a ability to contribute to winning without needing the ball in your hands. Its harder to find triangle type of players then it is to mold players who play in the triangle into another system.
Some of the smartest guys who ever played in the league have said (almost unanimously) that the Triangle is a hard system to learn. NY is notoriously impatient with their draft picks.I would much rather see NY draft the best player available, and get him acclimated to the NBA asap. Better that than weighing him down with the task of learning a difficult system at the same time he's learning about the league.
All the star players who gave Phil all those rings had a few years (or more) to learn the game in a more conventional system. Would prefer to see our draft pick(s) learn the same way.
All things have to be taken into a consideration. What good does it do if we draft the most talented player but we play him in an offense where he's useless? His value is lowered, he's unhappy and we end up trading him for pennies on the dollar. Look at what Orlando is going through with Mario Hezonja. You have to take ball IQ and fit into account as well. That said, I wouldn't advocate reaching for Justin Jackson just because he's familiar with a system and he has good head on his shoulders.
Knicks have one of the highest rates of roster turnover since Phil took the job. Some of it was understandably due to the lack of draft picks. But there were also quite a few acquisitions who were thought to be "Triangle ready players". How many players have actually fit the bill in 3 years?
Finding players for a system with a steep learning curve, in addition to trying to predict if a college, or a foreign player's talent will translate into the NBA, is making things unnecessarily complicated. Its tough enough just to find talented players who will stick.
If Phil quits or is fired down the road, and someone has to pick up the pieces if he fails, other teams arent going to care if these players are pitched as being "Triangle ready". Knicks need to draft the best players they can find. If it doesn't work out, at least they have a better chance of being a moveable asset than someone who is drafted primarily because of the system.
knickscity wrote:You got a few potential all-stars, but no generational talents. It's a decent draft at best. Not truly sure why it's so hyped as it is.
It's mainly because all guys 1-10 have all-star potential. No superstars, but a lot of potential in the lottery. More than most years, where you only get a couple of all-stars.
knickscity wrote:You got a few potential all-stars, but no generational talents. It's a decent draft at best. Not truly sure why it's so hyped as it is.its extremely rare to have a draft with multiple generational talents. I agree after 10 the draft is more of a mystery and dropoff. But the lottery teams will have a good chance of picking a good player a lot better than last year thats for sure
GustavBahler wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:GustavBahler wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:GustavBahler wrote:As long as the Knicks draft the best player available with the 8 pick, Im confident the pick will be a good one, even if it might not be my choice. Confident that Gaines will have some input. "System player" picks should be made in the second round, if no one really stands out talent wise.If you can play in the triangle, you can play in any system. All it requires is high basketball IQ to make the correct reads and a ability to contribute to winning without needing the ball in your hands. Its harder to find triangle type of players then it is to mold players who play in the triangle into another system.
Some of the smartest guys who ever played in the league have said (almost unanimously) that the Triangle is a hard system to learn. NY is notoriously impatient with their draft picks.I would much rather see NY draft the best player available, and get him acclimated to the NBA asap. Better that than weighing him down with the task of learning a difficult system at the same time he's learning about the league.
All the star players who gave Phil all those rings had a few years (or more) to learn the game in a more conventional system. Would prefer to see our draft pick(s) learn the same way.
All things have to be taken into a consideration. What good does it do if we draft the most talented player but we play him in an offense where he's useless? His value is lowered, he's unhappy and we end up trading him for pennies on the dollar. Look at what Orlando is going through with Mario Hezonja. You have to take ball IQ and fit into account as well. That said, I wouldn't advocate reaching for Justin Jackson just because he's familiar with a system and he has good head on his shoulders.
Knicks have one of the highest rates of roster turnover since Phil took the job. Some of it was understandably due to the lack of draft picks. But there were also quite a few acquisitions who were thought to be "Triangle ready players". How many players have actually fit the bill in 3 years?
Finding players for a system with a steep learning curve, in addition to trying to predict if a college, or a foreign player's talent will translate into the NBA, is making things unnecessarily complicated. Its tough enough just to find talented players who will stick.
If Phil quits or is fired down the road, and someone has to pick up the pieces if he fails, other teams arent going to care if these players are pitched as being "Triangle ready". Knicks need to draft the best players they can find. If it doesn't work out, at least they have a better chance of being a moveable asset than someone who is drafted primarily because of the system.
You can still be triangle ready and washed up lol knowing Dolan's track record, I think it's safe Phil is here for at least two years. I'm not saying to ignore talent completely. But it has to fit. We've seen Rose, Grant, BJ fail here. You have to consider that DSJ will most likely fail if brought in. It still might be worth the gamble, but we already have a good idea of the end result. If you argue that we should trade, I can see that. I like the French kid, but if the staff works him out and doesn't see it, I can accept that. But you definitely have to subtract points for DSJ's lack of fit, unless the brain trust has mapped out a way to make it work. Scouting is complicated work. But as New Yorkx3 pointed out, if they think a player can work in the triangle, he can probably figure out most other systems.