Knicks · Knicks trying to get another 1st rnd pick from Portland (page 5)
BRIGGS wrote:Can't happen due to contract not matchingNardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?I'm sure Portland would live to get out of salary cap he'll for swapping 44 for 19 and dropping two max contracts on us? No way would I consider that-- that's an isiah thomas moveWith the Blazers positioned to be well over the cap next season, I could see them being willing to dump BOTH Turner and Crabbe who provide them marginal utility at $35 million combined salary per year. For that hefty a pricetag, I can't help but think they'd be willing to pony up that 15th pick. The only holdup would be the fact that Justin Jackson would likely be available at 15th and he would fit the Blazers wonderfully. But as far as Turner and Crabber are concerned, I think they'd be willing to dump both.
That being said, could Crabbe live up to that contract with us?
TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?
IMHO, the best litmus test on the trade value of any individual Knicks, against the current NBA marketplace, comes down to this series of questions,( Lets use Lance Thomas as an example)
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in the rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in their rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?
Ron Baker was available to the Knicks because there are plenty of teams who simply did not have room for him on their roster. Their 2nd and 3rd unit guys either had more pedigree or more potential. If Ron Baker is a starter on the Knicks and he would not even be on a playoff team's roster, nor on a non playoff teams rotation, what does that say? ( I like Ron Baker personally, as a fan, he's great, I like how he plays, but objectively, his desirability and value derive from working against a different teams range of full options)Could someone like Lance Thomas be useful to a team like the Warriors as a minimum contract guy? Sure, but he's not a minimum contract guy.
With a guy like Evan Turner, other teams are going to just not find anything on the FA market, lots of teams can carve out cap space or will have cap space, when options dry out, his desirability will go up. There's a massive difference between a BAD PLAYER and a BAD CONTRACT. Bargnani on the Knicks was a bad player on a bad contract. Joe Johnson on the Hawks as a good player on a bad contract. Johnson wasn't producing at the level to justify that kind of salary, but it's not like he was a net negative player.
Lance Thomas IMHO is an energy guy/fringe D League talent who is a grinder and has no business getting a 4 year contract. He does not play with actual discipline. The more minutes you give him, the more his limitations come to bear in games. He doesn't shoot 3 pointers at a volume to justify his salary. He is only going to give you set shot open three pointers. His value comes in the contrast of playing with some truly douchebag selfish teammates who don't give energy and don't care and don't play defense. When the bar is closing at 2AM, the girl who is kind of cute with chipped teeth and a muffin top doesn't start to look so bad. That's Lance Thomas, a 2AM compromise after a crappy week.
The Knicks have massive talent problem. Part of the bias is that fans here see these players all the time. They are going to overestimate their value based on exposure, and to some degree, recency bias.
There are a ton of teams where Lance Thomas does not even make the other teams roster. There are a lot of teams where he would not sniff their basic rotation. So why would they trade for him?
When people say, Lance Thomas has VALUE!, they are looking at his value to the Knicks. His value to other teams is much more simple ( baseline test for roster hold and rotation placement), but also much more complicated ( looking past home town bias)
If a team can do better, it would. And it will. The Knicks only get a deal if they are the best option out of all options out there, and if Lance Thomas wouldn't even make another teams rotation, why would they trade for him? Apply many Knicks as a fill in the blank for Lance Thomas, and you start to see a pattern.
Let me simply address some of the bolded items in your analysis.
One of the questions you forgot to ask was what the Knicks record was last season while Lance was playing and what was their record after he was injured.
Funny thing is that the Knicks were squarely in the playoff pack looking at second or third place in the East and even sniffing first. Now, yes lots of things contributed to the collapse, but seasoned announcers from many teams commented on his absence as being significant. So the question is, based on your claim that he's so valuable to the Knicks only, why was Lance so effective given his non-NBA-Star profile. Could it be great teammate, great attitude, understands his role in a system concept, makes his teammates better counts? Let's answer yes to those questions and then ask the same of say Melo who much was expected of.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... so that's why a guy like Lance Thomas not only gets the contract he deserves but also earns the money by doing exactly what he should be doing.
So let's compare him to Crabbe or Turner who got contracts they could never earn during a FA auction frenzy. Would they be getting that kind of cash based on their team contributions this year? What team would swap out whoever they had underperforming for a more highly paid underperformer like Crabbe or Turner?
You can look at any of the playoff wannabe teams and find plenty of players far more highly compensated than Thomas who were far less productive.
But what your criticism really comes down to is whether or not Thomas is a game-changer - does he move the needle as a player for a team like Portland? Empirically, he moved the needle for the Knicks who were a far more functional unit with him on the floor than him injured on the bench. What makes Portland so special that he couldn't do the same for them?
Look, philosophically you believe the Knicks suck, ERGO the players suck, ERGO nobody would want them, ERGO its Phil's fault, ERGO nothing will ever break our way,... - losing turtles all the way down. You need to take a deep breath and open your mind a crack and let some light in.
One more thing, Baker is one of Phil's success stories and not some "everybody else knew about baker but, but, but.." stories. There are dozens of Bakers out there. Phil found the one who could play, signed him, Horny gave him the ball, and there was sunshine. Give credit where credit is due... kudos to Phil, Horny, and Baker.
NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?With the Blazers positioned to be well over the cap next season, I could see them being willing to dump BOTH Turner and Crabbe who provide them marginal utility at $35 million combined salary per year. For that hefty a pricetag, I can't help but think they'd be willing to pony up that 15th pick. The only holdup would be the fact that Justin Jackson would likely be available at 15th and he would fit the Blazers wonderfully. But as far as Turner and Crabber are concerned, I think they'd be willing to dump both.
That being said, could Crabbe live up to that contract with us?
I think where discussions about potential trades go off the tracks is when they get too complicated or too large. IMO, swallowing an expensive contract to get a draft pick or two is fine as long as the Knicks aren't painted into a corner doing so. I think either the Crabbe or Turner contracts could be safely absorbed uncomfortable as that may be.
I've written plenty as to Portland's considerations. Here's why I think the Knicks are more likely to trade for Crabbe.
First I think they cash in on Courtney Lee so Crabbe basically takes that spot. With Turner I see no such opportunity. Randle and Baker are both coming on strong and assuming the Knicks draft a high-profile PG, why do they need a high-priced PG like Turner? Trading for Turner not only absorbs cap space but playing time as well.
Secondly, lots of fans want to simply flip rosters whether its Crabbe AND Turner or some combination of the rest of Portland's team. While its usually theoretically possible to do that, it pretty much puts the Knicks in the position Portland's in - not very good, capped out, and shit out of luck in terms of flexibility.
Furthermore I think the Knicks have options - Detroit is looking to trade its pick and others will also inevitably trade/swap/whatever before during and after the draft. The Knicks may be looking for only one pick in which case neither Turner nor Crabbe's contract justify a deal. The Knicks today only have Melo and Noah as problem contracts. The rest are reasonable AND desirable for that reason and because the players are not assholes.
And if a single pick [AND Harkless] is the target then the speculation about a lower cost contract like Harkless is theoretically reasonable. Pragmatically, the problem is matching enough value to whoever is being traded [LThomas most obviously] to make it worthwhile for Portland. I think a future, protected first would be a minimum and I'm not sure the Knicks do that.
And again we're back to the chicken and egg problem with Portland's draft picks. Other teams [like Dallas] will compete for those same picks. Portland isn't trading for the sake of trading, they'll want SOMEBODY to eat Crabbe, Turner, or more for a handful of lottery tickets. Any Harkless trade that gets in the way of that main objective will be treated like unnecessary noise.
fwk00 wrote:TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?
IMHO, the best litmus test on the trade value of any individual Knicks, against the current NBA marketplace, comes down to this series of questions,( Lets use Lance Thomas as an example)
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in the rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in their rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?
Ron Baker was available to the Knicks because there are plenty of teams who simply did not have room for him on their roster. Their 2nd and 3rd unit guys either had more pedigree or more potential. If Ron Baker is a starter on the Knicks and he would not even be on a playoff team's roster, nor on a non playoff teams rotation, what does that say? ( I like Ron Baker personally, as a fan, he's great, I like how he plays, but objectively, his desirability and value derive from working against a different teams range of full options)Could someone like Lance Thomas be useful to a team like the Warriors as a minimum contract guy? Sure, but he's not a minimum contract guy.
With a guy like Evan Turner, other teams are going to just not find anything on the FA market, lots of teams can carve out cap space or will have cap space, when options dry out, his desirability will go up. There's a massive difference between a BAD PLAYER and a BAD CONTRACT. Bargnani on the Knicks was a bad player on a bad contract. Joe Johnson on the Hawks as a good player on a bad contract. Johnson wasn't producing at the level to justify that kind of salary, but it's not like he was a net negative player.
Lance Thomas IMHO is an energy guy/fringe D League talent who is a grinder and has no business getting a 4 year contract. He does not play with actual discipline. The more minutes you give him, the more his limitations come to bear in games. He doesn't shoot 3 pointers at a volume to justify his salary. He is only going to give you set shot open three pointers. His value comes in the contrast of playing with some truly douchebag selfish teammates who don't give energy and don't care and don't play defense. When the bar is closing at 2AM, the girl who is kind of cute with chipped teeth and a muffin top doesn't start to look so bad. That's Lance Thomas, a 2AM compromise after a crappy week.
The Knicks have massive talent problem. Part of the bias is that fans here see these players all the time. They are going to overestimate their value based on exposure, and to some degree, recency bias.
There are a ton of teams where Lance Thomas does not even make the other teams roster. There are a lot of teams where he would not sniff their basic rotation. So why would they trade for him?
When people say, Lance Thomas has VALUE!, they are looking at his value to the Knicks. His value to other teams is much more simple ( baseline test for roster hold and rotation placement), but also much more complicated ( looking past home town bias)
If a team can do better, it would. And it will. The Knicks only get a deal if they are the best option out of all options out there, and if Lance Thomas wouldn't even make another teams rotation, why would they trade for him? Apply many Knicks as a fill in the blank for Lance Thomas, and you start to see a pattern.
Let me simply address some of the bolded items in your analysis.
One of the questions you forgot to ask was what the Knicks record was last season while Lance was playing and what was their record after he was injured.
Funny thing is that the Knicks were squarely in the playoff pack looking at second or third place in the East and even sniffing first. Now, yes lots of things contributed to the collapse, but seasoned announcers from many teams commented on his absence as being significant. So the question is, based on your claim that he's so valuable to the Knicks only, why was Lance so effective given his non-NBA-Star profile. Could it be great teammate, great attitude, understands his role in a system concept, makes his teammates better counts? Let's answer yes to those questions and then ask the same of say Melo who much was expected of.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... so that's why a guy like Lance Thomas not only gets the contract he deserves but also earns the money by doing exactly what he should be doing.
So let's compare him to Crabbe or Turner who got contracts they could never earn during a FA auction frenzy. Would they be getting that kind of cash based on their team contributions this year? What team would swap out whoever they had underperforming for a more highly paid underperformer like Crabbe or Turner?
You can look at any of the playoff wannabe teams and find plenty of players far more highly compensated than Thomas who were far less productive.
But what your criticism really comes down to is whether or not Thomas is a game-changer - does he move the needle as a player for a team like Portland? Empirically, he moved the needle for the Knicks who were a far more functional unit with him on the floor than him injured on the bench. What makes Portland so special that he couldn't do the same for them?
Look, philosophically you believe the Knicks suck, ERGO the players suck, ERGO nobody would want them, ERGO its Phil's fault, ERGO nothing will ever break our way,... - losing turtles all the way down. You need to take a deep breath and open your mind a crack and let some light in.
One more thing, Baker is one of Phil's success stories and not some "everybody else knew about baker but, but, but.." stories. There are dozens of Bakers out there. Phil found the one who could play, signed him, Horny gave him the ball, and there was sunshine. Give credit where credit is due... kudos to Phil, Horny, and Baker.
How is Baker a Phil success story? He's done less than Phil's so called lottery pick jerian grant who looks like a pure bust
BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?
IMHO, the best litmus test on the trade value of any individual Knicks, against the current NBA marketplace, comes down to this series of questions,( Lets use Lance Thomas as an example)
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in the rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in their rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?
Ron Baker was available to the Knicks because there are plenty of teams who simply did not have room for him on their roster. Their 2nd and 3rd unit guys either had more pedigree or more potential. If Ron Baker is a starter on the Knicks and he would not even be on a playoff team's roster, nor on a non playoff teams rotation, what does that say? ( I like Ron Baker personally, as a fan, he's great, I like how he plays, but objectively, his desirability and value derive from working against a different teams range of full options)Could someone like Lance Thomas be useful to a team like the Warriors as a minimum contract guy? Sure, but he's not a minimum contract guy.
With a guy like Evan Turner, other teams are going to just not find anything on the FA market, lots of teams can carve out cap space or will have cap space, when options dry out, his desirability will go up. There's a massive difference between a BAD PLAYER and a BAD CONTRACT. Bargnani on the Knicks was a bad player on a bad contract. Joe Johnson on the Hawks as a good player on a bad contract. Johnson wasn't producing at the level to justify that kind of salary, but it's not like he was a net negative player.
Lance Thomas IMHO is an energy guy/fringe D League talent who is a grinder and has no business getting a 4 year contract. He does not play with actual discipline. The more minutes you give him, the more his limitations come to bear in games. He doesn't shoot 3 pointers at a volume to justify his salary. He is only going to give you set shot open three pointers. His value comes in the contrast of playing with some truly douchebag selfish teammates who don't give energy and don't care and don't play defense. When the bar is closing at 2AM, the girl who is kind of cute with chipped teeth and a muffin top doesn't start to look so bad. That's Lance Thomas, a 2AM compromise after a crappy week.
The Knicks have massive talent problem. Part of the bias is that fans here see these players all the time. They are going to overestimate their value based on exposure, and to some degree, recency bias.
There are a ton of teams where Lance Thomas does not even make the other teams roster. There are a lot of teams where he would not sniff their basic rotation. So why would they trade for him?
When people say, Lance Thomas has VALUE!, they are looking at his value to the Knicks. His value to other teams is much more simple ( baseline test for roster hold and rotation placement), but also much more complicated ( looking past home town bias)
If a team can do better, it would. And it will. The Knicks only get a deal if they are the best option out of all options out there, and if Lance Thomas wouldn't even make another teams rotation, why would they trade for him? Apply many Knicks as a fill in the blank for Lance Thomas, and you start to see a pattern.
Let me simply address some of the bolded items in your analysis.
One of the questions you forgot to ask was what the Knicks record was last season while Lance was playing and what was their record after he was injured.
Funny thing is that the Knicks were squarely in the playoff pack looking at second or third place in the East and even sniffing first. Now, yes lots of things contributed to the collapse, but seasoned announcers from many teams commented on his absence as being significant. So the question is, based on your claim that he's so valuable to the Knicks only, why was Lance so effective given his non-NBA-Star profile. Could it be great teammate, great attitude, understands his role in a system concept, makes his teammates better counts? Let's answer yes to those questions and then ask the same of say Melo who much was expected of.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... so that's why a guy like Lance Thomas not only gets the contract he deserves but also earns the money by doing exactly what he should be doing.
So let's compare him to Crabbe or Turner who got contracts they could never earn during a FA auction frenzy. Would they be getting that kind of cash based on their team contributions this year? What team would swap out whoever they had underperforming for a more highly paid underperformer like Crabbe or Turner?
You can look at any of the playoff wannabe teams and find plenty of players far more highly compensated than Thomas who were far less productive.
But what your criticism really comes down to is whether or not Thomas is a game-changer - does he move the needle as a player for a team like Portland? Empirically, he moved the needle for the Knicks who were a far more functional unit with him on the floor than him injured on the bench. What makes Portland so special that he couldn't do the same for them?
Look, philosophically you believe the Knicks suck, ERGO the players suck, ERGO nobody would want them, ERGO its Phil's fault, ERGO nothing will ever break our way,... - losing turtles all the way down. You need to take a deep breath and open your mind a crack and let some light in.
One more thing, Baker is one of Phil's success stories and not some "everybody else knew about baker but, but, but.." stories. There are dozens of Bakers out there. Phil found the one who could play, signed him, Horny gave him the ball, and there was sunshine. Give credit where credit is due... kudos to Phil, Horny, and Baker.
How is Baker a Phil success story? He's done less than Phil's so called lottery pick jerian grant who looks like a pure bust
Here's where the negative Nancy's get my goat. Grant cost us all of Hardaway who was and remains a pure bust. Grant still has time to develop.
Baker doing "less than" Grant? The Knicks played damn well with Baker on the floor. I'm not claiming Baker is an All-Star but he is a solid second-team PG who started last season as a bench-warmer. And he projects into next season as a tag-team starter with whoever Phil picks in a few weeks.
fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?
IMHO, the best litmus test on the trade value of any individual Knicks, against the current NBA marketplace, comes down to this series of questions,( Lets use Lance Thomas as an example)
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in the rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in their rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?
Ron Baker was available to the Knicks because there are plenty of teams who simply did not have room for him on their roster. Their 2nd and 3rd unit guys either had more pedigree or more potential. If Ron Baker is a starter on the Knicks and he would not even be on a playoff team's roster, nor on a non playoff teams rotation, what does that say? ( I like Ron Baker personally, as a fan, he's great, I like how he plays, but objectively, his desirability and value derive from working against a different teams range of full options)Could someone like Lance Thomas be useful to a team like the Warriors as a minimum contract guy? Sure, but he's not a minimum contract guy.
With a guy like Evan Turner, other teams are going to just not find anything on the FA market, lots of teams can carve out cap space or will have cap space, when options dry out, his desirability will go up. There's a massive difference between a BAD PLAYER and a BAD CONTRACT. Bargnani on the Knicks was a bad player on a bad contract. Joe Johnson on the Hawks as a good player on a bad contract. Johnson wasn't producing at the level to justify that kind of salary, but it's not like he was a net negative player.
Lance Thomas IMHO is an energy guy/fringe D League talent who is a grinder and has no business getting a 4 year contract. He does not play with actual discipline. The more minutes you give him, the more his limitations come to bear in games. He doesn't shoot 3 pointers at a volume to justify his salary. He is only going to give you set shot open three pointers. His value comes in the contrast of playing with some truly douchebag selfish teammates who don't give energy and don't care and don't play defense. When the bar is closing at 2AM, the girl who is kind of cute with chipped teeth and a muffin top doesn't start to look so bad. That's Lance Thomas, a 2AM compromise after a crappy week.
The Knicks have massive talent problem. Part of the bias is that fans here see these players all the time. They are going to overestimate their value based on exposure, and to some degree, recency bias.
There are a ton of teams where Lance Thomas does not even make the other teams roster. There are a lot of teams where he would not sniff their basic rotation. So why would they trade for him?
When people say, Lance Thomas has VALUE!, they are looking at his value to the Knicks. His value to other teams is much more simple ( baseline test for roster hold and rotation placement), but also much more complicated ( looking past home town bias)
If a team can do better, it would. And it will. The Knicks only get a deal if they are the best option out of all options out there, and if Lance Thomas wouldn't even make another teams rotation, why would they trade for him? Apply many Knicks as a fill in the blank for Lance Thomas, and you start to see a pattern.
Let me simply address some of the bolded items in your analysis.
One of the questions you forgot to ask was what the Knicks record was last season while Lance was playing and what was their record after he was injured.
Funny thing is that the Knicks were squarely in the playoff pack looking at second or third place in the East and even sniffing first. Now, yes lots of things contributed to the collapse, but seasoned announcers from many teams commented on his absence as being significant. So the question is, based on your claim that he's so valuable to the Knicks only, why was Lance so effective given his non-NBA-Star profile. Could it be great teammate, great attitude, understands his role in a system concept, makes his teammates better counts? Let's answer yes to those questions and then ask the same of say Melo who much was expected of.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... so that's why a guy like Lance Thomas not only gets the contract he deserves but also earns the money by doing exactly what he should be doing.
So let's compare him to Crabbe or Turner who got contracts they could never earn during a FA auction frenzy. Would they be getting that kind of cash based on their team contributions this year? What team would swap out whoever they had underperforming for a more highly paid underperformer like Crabbe or Turner?
You can look at any of the playoff wannabe teams and find plenty of players far more highly compensated than Thomas who were far less productive.
But what your criticism really comes down to is whether or not Thomas is a game-changer - does he move the needle as a player for a team like Portland? Empirically, he moved the needle for the Knicks who were a far more functional unit with him on the floor than him injured on the bench. What makes Portland so special that he couldn't do the same for them?
Look, philosophically you believe the Knicks suck, ERGO the players suck, ERGO nobody would want them, ERGO its Phil's fault, ERGO nothing will ever break our way,... - losing turtles all the way down. You need to take a deep breath and open your mind a crack and let some light in.
One more thing, Baker is one of Phil's success stories and not some "everybody else knew about baker but, but, but.." stories. There are dozens of Bakers out there. Phil found the one who could play, signed him, Horny gave him the ball, and there was sunshine. Give credit where credit is due... kudos to Phil, Horny, and Baker.
How is Baker a Phil success story? He's done less than Phil's so called lottery pick jerian grant who looks like a pure bust
Here's where the negative Nancy's get my goat. Grant cost us all of Hardaway who was and remains a pure bust. Grant still has time to develop.
Baker doing "less than" Grant? The Knicks played damn well with Baker on the floor. I'm not claiming Baker is an All-Star but he is a solid second-team PG who started last season as a bench-warmer. And he projects into next season as a tag-team starter with whoever Phil picks in a few weeks.
What???? Tim Hardaway is WAY better than Jerian Grant--not close. Lets give baker some time here before we say success---lets be real.
BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?
IMHO, the best litmus test on the trade value of any individual Knicks, against the current NBA marketplace, comes down to this series of questions,( Lets use Lance Thomas as an example)
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in the rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in their rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?
Ron Baker was available to the Knicks because there are plenty of teams who simply did not have room for him on their roster. Their 2nd and 3rd unit guys either had more pedigree or more potential. If Ron Baker is a starter on the Knicks and he would not even be on a playoff team's roster, nor on a non playoff teams rotation, what does that say? ( I like Ron Baker personally, as a fan, he's great, I like how he plays, but objectively, his desirability and value derive from working against a different teams range of full options)Could someone like Lance Thomas be useful to a team like the Warriors as a minimum contract guy? Sure, but he's not a minimum contract guy.
With a guy like Evan Turner, other teams are going to just not find anything on the FA market, lots of teams can carve out cap space or will have cap space, when options dry out, his desirability will go up. There's a massive difference between a BAD PLAYER and a BAD CONTRACT. Bargnani on the Knicks was a bad player on a bad contract. Joe Johnson on the Hawks as a good player on a bad contract. Johnson wasn't producing at the level to justify that kind of salary, but it's not like he was a net negative player.
Lance Thomas IMHO is an energy guy/fringe D League talent who is a grinder and has no business getting a 4 year contract. He does not play with actual discipline. The more minutes you give him, the more his limitations come to bear in games. He doesn't shoot 3 pointers at a volume to justify his salary. He is only going to give you set shot open three pointers. His value comes in the contrast of playing with some truly douchebag selfish teammates who don't give energy and don't care and don't play defense. When the bar is closing at 2AM, the girl who is kind of cute with chipped teeth and a muffin top doesn't start to look so bad. That's Lance Thomas, a 2AM compromise after a crappy week.
The Knicks have massive talent problem. Part of the bias is that fans here see these players all the time. They are going to overestimate their value based on exposure, and to some degree, recency bias.
There are a ton of teams where Lance Thomas does not even make the other teams roster. There are a lot of teams where he would not sniff their basic rotation. So why would they trade for him?
When people say, Lance Thomas has VALUE!, they are looking at his value to the Knicks. His value to other teams is much more simple ( baseline test for roster hold and rotation placement), but also much more complicated ( looking past home town bias)
If a team can do better, it would. And it will. The Knicks only get a deal if they are the best option out of all options out there, and if Lance Thomas wouldn't even make another teams rotation, why would they trade for him? Apply many Knicks as a fill in the blank for Lance Thomas, and you start to see a pattern.
Let me simply address some of the bolded items in your analysis.
One of the questions you forgot to ask was what the Knicks record was last season while Lance was playing and what was their record after he was injured.
Funny thing is that the Knicks were squarely in the playoff pack looking at second or third place in the East and even sniffing first. Now, yes lots of things contributed to the collapse, but seasoned announcers from many teams commented on his absence as being significant. So the question is, based on your claim that he's so valuable to the Knicks only, why was Lance so effective given his non-NBA-Star profile. Could it be great teammate, great attitude, understands his role in a system concept, makes his teammates better counts? Let's answer yes to those questions and then ask the same of say Melo who much was expected of.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... so that's why a guy like Lance Thomas not only gets the contract he deserves but also earns the money by doing exactly what he should be doing.
So let's compare him to Crabbe or Turner who got contracts they could never earn during a FA auction frenzy. Would they be getting that kind of cash based on their team contributions this year? What team would swap out whoever they had underperforming for a more highly paid underperformer like Crabbe or Turner?
You can look at any of the playoff wannabe teams and find plenty of players far more highly compensated than Thomas who were far less productive.
But what your criticism really comes down to is whether or not Thomas is a game-changer - does he move the needle as a player for a team like Portland? Empirically, he moved the needle for the Knicks who were a far more functional unit with him on the floor than him injured on the bench. What makes Portland so special that he couldn't do the same for them?
Look, philosophically you believe the Knicks suck, ERGO the players suck, ERGO nobody would want them, ERGO its Phil's fault, ERGO nothing will ever break our way,... - losing turtles all the way down. You need to take a deep breath and open your mind a crack and let some light in.
One more thing, Baker is one of Phil's success stories and not some "everybody else knew about baker but, but, but.." stories. There are dozens of Bakers out there. Phil found the one who could play, signed him, Horny gave him the ball, and there was sunshine. Give credit where credit is due... kudos to Phil, Horny, and Baker.
How is Baker a Phil success story? He's done less than Phil's so called lottery pick jerian grant who looks like a pure bust
Here's where the negative Nancy's get my goat. Grant cost us all of Hardaway who was and remains a pure bust. Grant still has time to develop.
Baker doing "less than" Grant? The Knicks played damn well with Baker on the floor. I'm not claiming Baker is an All-Star but he is a solid second-team PG who started last season as a bench-warmer. And he projects into next season as a tag-team starter with whoever Phil picks in a few weeks.
What???? Tim Hardaway is WAY better than Jerian Grant--not close. Lets give baker some time here before we say success---lets be real.
Please, Tim Hardaway - if it wasn't for NBA nepotism he wouldn't even sniff the D-League.
fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?
IMHO, the best litmus test on the trade value of any individual Knicks, against the current NBA marketplace, comes down to this series of questions,( Lets use Lance Thomas as an example)
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in the rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in their rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?
Ron Baker was available to the Knicks because there are plenty of teams who simply did not have room for him on their roster. Their 2nd and 3rd unit guys either had more pedigree or more potential. If Ron Baker is a starter on the Knicks and he would not even be on a playoff team's roster, nor on a non playoff teams rotation, what does that say? ( I like Ron Baker personally, as a fan, he's great, I like how he plays, but objectively, his desirability and value derive from working against a different teams range of full options)Could someone like Lance Thomas be useful to a team like the Warriors as a minimum contract guy? Sure, but he's not a minimum contract guy.
With a guy like Evan Turner, other teams are going to just not find anything on the FA market, lots of teams can carve out cap space or will have cap space, when options dry out, his desirability will go up. There's a massive difference between a BAD PLAYER and a BAD CONTRACT. Bargnani on the Knicks was a bad player on a bad contract. Joe Johnson on the Hawks as a good player on a bad contract. Johnson wasn't producing at the level to justify that kind of salary, but it's not like he was a net negative player.
Lance Thomas IMHO is an energy guy/fringe D League talent who is a grinder and has no business getting a 4 year contract. He does not play with actual discipline. The more minutes you give him, the more his limitations come to bear in games. He doesn't shoot 3 pointers at a volume to justify his salary. He is only going to give you set shot open three pointers. His value comes in the contrast of playing with some truly douchebag selfish teammates who don't give energy and don't care and don't play defense. When the bar is closing at 2AM, the girl who is kind of cute with chipped teeth and a muffin top doesn't start to look so bad. That's Lance Thomas, a 2AM compromise after a crappy week.
The Knicks have massive talent problem. Part of the bias is that fans here see these players all the time. They are going to overestimate their value based on exposure, and to some degree, recency bias.
There are a ton of teams where Lance Thomas does not even make the other teams roster. There are a lot of teams where he would not sniff their basic rotation. So why would they trade for him?
When people say, Lance Thomas has VALUE!, they are looking at his value to the Knicks. His value to other teams is much more simple ( baseline test for roster hold and rotation placement), but also much more complicated ( looking past home town bias)
If a team can do better, it would. And it will. The Knicks only get a deal if they are the best option out of all options out there, and if Lance Thomas wouldn't even make another teams rotation, why would they trade for him? Apply many Knicks as a fill in the blank for Lance Thomas, and you start to see a pattern.
Let me simply address some of the bolded items in your analysis.
One of the questions you forgot to ask was what the Knicks record was last season while Lance was playing and what was their record after he was injured.
Funny thing is that the Knicks were squarely in the playoff pack looking at second or third place in the East and even sniffing first. Now, yes lots of things contributed to the collapse, but seasoned announcers from many teams commented on his absence as being significant. So the question is, based on your claim that he's so valuable to the Knicks only, why was Lance so effective given his non-NBA-Star profile. Could it be great teammate, great attitude, understands his role in a system concept, makes his teammates better counts? Let's answer yes to those questions and then ask the same of say Melo who much was expected of.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... so that's why a guy like Lance Thomas not only gets the contract he deserves but also earns the money by doing exactly what he should be doing.
So let's compare him to Crabbe or Turner who got contracts they could never earn during a FA auction frenzy. Would they be getting that kind of cash based on their team contributions this year? What team would swap out whoever they had underperforming for a more highly paid underperformer like Crabbe or Turner?
You can look at any of the playoff wannabe teams and find plenty of players far more highly compensated than Thomas who were far less productive.
But what your criticism really comes down to is whether or not Thomas is a game-changer - does he move the needle as a player for a team like Portland? Empirically, he moved the needle for the Knicks who were a far more functional unit with him on the floor than him injured on the bench. What makes Portland so special that he couldn't do the same for them?
Look, philosophically you believe the Knicks suck, ERGO the players suck, ERGO nobody would want them, ERGO its Phil's fault, ERGO nothing will ever break our way,... - losing turtles all the way down. You need to take a deep breath and open your mind a crack and let some light in.
One more thing, Baker is one of Phil's success stories and not some "everybody else knew about baker but, but, but.." stories. There are dozens of Bakers out there. Phil found the one who could play, signed him, Horny gave him the ball, and there was sunshine. Give credit where credit is due... kudos to Phil, Horny, and Baker.
How is Baker a Phil success story? He's done less than Phil's so called lottery pick jerian grant who looks like a pure bust
Here's where the negative Nancy's get my goat. Grant cost us all of Hardaway who was and remains a pure bust. Grant still has time to develop.
Baker doing "less than" Grant? The Knicks played damn well with Baker on the floor. I'm not claiming Baker is an All-Star but he is a solid second-team PG who started last season as a bench-warmer. And he projects into next season as a tag-team starter with whoever Phil picks in a few weeks.
What???? Tim Hardaway is WAY better than Jerian Grant--not close. Lets give baker some time here before we say success---lets be real.
Please, Tim Hardaway - if it wasn't for NBA nepotism he wouldn't even sniff the D-League.
? Tim Hardaway avg 15 points on 46% shooting?
BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?
IMHO, the best litmus test on the trade value of any individual Knicks, against the current NBA marketplace, comes down to this series of questions,( Lets use Lance Thomas as an example)
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in the rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in their rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?
Ron Baker was available to the Knicks because there are plenty of teams who simply did not have room for him on their roster. Their 2nd and 3rd unit guys either had more pedigree or more potential. If Ron Baker is a starter on the Knicks and he would not even be on a playoff team's roster, nor on a non playoff teams rotation, what does that say? ( I like Ron Baker personally, as a fan, he's great, I like how he plays, but objectively, his desirability and value derive from working against a different teams range of full options)Could someone like Lance Thomas be useful to a team like the Warriors as a minimum contract guy? Sure, but he's not a minimum contract guy.
With a guy like Evan Turner, other teams are going to just not find anything on the FA market, lots of teams can carve out cap space or will have cap space, when options dry out, his desirability will go up. There's a massive difference between a BAD PLAYER and a BAD CONTRACT. Bargnani on the Knicks was a bad player on a bad contract. Joe Johnson on the Hawks as a good player on a bad contract. Johnson wasn't producing at the level to justify that kind of salary, but it's not like he was a net negative player.
Lance Thomas IMHO is an energy guy/fringe D League talent who is a grinder and has no business getting a 4 year contract. He does not play with actual discipline. The more minutes you give him, the more his limitations come to bear in games. He doesn't shoot 3 pointers at a volume to justify his salary. He is only going to give you set shot open three pointers. His value comes in the contrast of playing with some truly douchebag selfish teammates who don't give energy and don't care and don't play defense. When the bar is closing at 2AM, the girl who is kind of cute with chipped teeth and a muffin top doesn't start to look so bad. That's Lance Thomas, a 2AM compromise after a crappy week.
The Knicks have massive talent problem. Part of the bias is that fans here see these players all the time. They are going to overestimate their value based on exposure, and to some degree, recency bias.
There are a ton of teams where Lance Thomas does not even make the other teams roster. There are a lot of teams where he would not sniff their basic rotation. So why would they trade for him?
When people say, Lance Thomas has VALUE!, they are looking at his value to the Knicks. His value to other teams is much more simple ( baseline test for roster hold and rotation placement), but also much more complicated ( looking past home town bias)
If a team can do better, it would. And it will. The Knicks only get a deal if they are the best option out of all options out there, and if Lance Thomas wouldn't even make another teams rotation, why would they trade for him? Apply many Knicks as a fill in the blank for Lance Thomas, and you start to see a pattern.
Let me simply address some of the bolded items in your analysis.
One of the questions you forgot to ask was what the Knicks record was last season while Lance was playing and what was their record after he was injured.
Funny thing is that the Knicks were squarely in the playoff pack looking at second or third place in the East and even sniffing first. Now, yes lots of things contributed to the collapse, but seasoned announcers from many teams commented on his absence as being significant. So the question is, based on your claim that he's so valuable to the Knicks only, why was Lance so effective given his non-NBA-Star profile. Could it be great teammate, great attitude, understands his role in a system concept, makes his teammates better counts? Let's answer yes to those questions and then ask the same of say Melo who much was expected of.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... so that's why a guy like Lance Thomas not only gets the contract he deserves but also earns the money by doing exactly what he should be doing.
So let's compare him to Crabbe or Turner who got contracts they could never earn during a FA auction frenzy. Would they be getting that kind of cash based on their team contributions this year? What team would swap out whoever they had underperforming for a more highly paid underperformer like Crabbe or Turner?
You can look at any of the playoff wannabe teams and find plenty of players far more highly compensated than Thomas who were far less productive.
But what your criticism really comes down to is whether or not Thomas is a game-changer - does he move the needle as a player for a team like Portland? Empirically, he moved the needle for the Knicks who were a far more functional unit with him on the floor than him injured on the bench. What makes Portland so special that he couldn't do the same for them?
Look, philosophically you believe the Knicks suck, ERGO the players suck, ERGO nobody would want them, ERGO its Phil's fault, ERGO nothing will ever break our way,... - losing turtles all the way down. You need to take a deep breath and open your mind a crack and let some light in.
One more thing, Baker is one of Phil's success stories and not some "everybody else knew about baker but, but, but.." stories. There are dozens of Bakers out there. Phil found the one who could play, signed him, Horny gave him the ball, and there was sunshine. Give credit where credit is due... kudos to Phil, Horny, and Baker.
How is Baker a Phil success story? He's done less than Phil's so called lottery pick jerian grant who looks like a pure bust
Here's where the negative Nancy's get my goat. Grant cost us all of Hardaway who was and remains a pure bust. Grant still has time to develop.
Baker doing "less than" Grant? The Knicks played damn well with Baker on the floor. I'm not claiming Baker is an All-Star but he is a solid second-team PG who started last season as a bench-warmer. And he projects into next season as a tag-team starter with whoever Phil picks in a few weeks.
What???? Tim Hardaway is WAY better than Jerian Grant--not close. Lets give baker some time here before we say success---lets be real.
Please, Tim Hardaway - if it wasn't for NBA nepotism he wouldn't even sniff the D-League.
? Tim Hardaway avg 15 points on 46% shooting?
Yep. He's a gunner. Even though the last game of the season is over he's still out on the court looking for the player he was supposed to cover. Hopeless.
fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?
IMHO, the best litmus test on the trade value of any individual Knicks, against the current NBA marketplace, comes down to this series of questions,( Lets use Lance Thomas as an example)
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in the rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in their rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?
Ron Baker was available to the Knicks because there are plenty of teams who simply did not have room for him on their roster. Their 2nd and 3rd unit guys either had more pedigree or more potential. If Ron Baker is a starter on the Knicks and he would not even be on a playoff team's roster, nor on a non playoff teams rotation, what does that say? ( I like Ron Baker personally, as a fan, he's great, I like how he plays, but objectively, his desirability and value derive from working against a different teams range of full options)Could someone like Lance Thomas be useful to a team like the Warriors as a minimum contract guy? Sure, but he's not a minimum contract guy.
With a guy like Evan Turner, other teams are going to just not find anything on the FA market, lots of teams can carve out cap space or will have cap space, when options dry out, his desirability will go up. There's a massive difference between a BAD PLAYER and a BAD CONTRACT. Bargnani on the Knicks was a bad player on a bad contract. Joe Johnson on the Hawks as a good player on a bad contract. Johnson wasn't producing at the level to justify that kind of salary, but it's not like he was a net negative player.
Lance Thomas IMHO is an energy guy/fringe D League talent who is a grinder and has no business getting a 4 year contract. He does not play with actual discipline. The more minutes you give him, the more his limitations come to bear in games. He doesn't shoot 3 pointers at a volume to justify his salary. He is only going to give you set shot open three pointers. His value comes in the contrast of playing with some truly douchebag selfish teammates who don't give energy and don't care and don't play defense. When the bar is closing at 2AM, the girl who is kind of cute with chipped teeth and a muffin top doesn't start to look so bad. That's Lance Thomas, a 2AM compromise after a crappy week.
The Knicks have massive talent problem. Part of the bias is that fans here see these players all the time. They are going to overestimate their value based on exposure, and to some degree, recency bias.
There are a ton of teams where Lance Thomas does not even make the other teams roster. There are a lot of teams where he would not sniff their basic rotation. So why would they trade for him?
When people say, Lance Thomas has VALUE!, they are looking at his value to the Knicks. His value to other teams is much more simple ( baseline test for roster hold and rotation placement), but also much more complicated ( looking past home town bias)
If a team can do better, it would. And it will. The Knicks only get a deal if they are the best option out of all options out there, and if Lance Thomas wouldn't even make another teams rotation, why would they trade for him? Apply many Knicks as a fill in the blank for Lance Thomas, and you start to see a pattern.
Let me simply address some of the bolded items in your analysis.
One of the questions you forgot to ask was what the Knicks record was last season while Lance was playing and what was their record after he was injured.
Funny thing is that the Knicks were squarely in the playoff pack looking at second or third place in the East and even sniffing first. Now, yes lots of things contributed to the collapse, but seasoned announcers from many teams commented on his absence as being significant. So the question is, based on your claim that he's so valuable to the Knicks only, why was Lance so effective given his non-NBA-Star profile. Could it be great teammate, great attitude, understands his role in a system concept, makes his teammates better counts? Let's answer yes to those questions and then ask the same of say Melo who much was expected of.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... so that's why a guy like Lance Thomas not only gets the contract he deserves but also earns the money by doing exactly what he should be doing.
So let's compare him to Crabbe or Turner who got contracts they could never earn during a FA auction frenzy. Would they be getting that kind of cash based on their team contributions this year? What team would swap out whoever they had underperforming for a more highly paid underperformer like Crabbe or Turner?
You can look at any of the playoff wannabe teams and find plenty of players far more highly compensated than Thomas who were far less productive.
But what your criticism really comes down to is whether or not Thomas is a game-changer - does he move the needle as a player for a team like Portland? Empirically, he moved the needle for the Knicks who were a far more functional unit with him on the floor than him injured on the bench. What makes Portland so special that he couldn't do the same for them?
Look, philosophically you believe the Knicks suck, ERGO the players suck, ERGO nobody would want them, ERGO its Phil's fault, ERGO nothing will ever break our way,... - losing turtles all the way down. You need to take a deep breath and open your mind a crack and let some light in.
One more thing, Baker is one of Phil's success stories and not some "everybody else knew about baker but, but, but.." stories. There are dozens of Bakers out there. Phil found the one who could play, signed him, Horny gave him the ball, and there was sunshine. Give credit where credit is due... kudos to Phil, Horny, and Baker.
How is Baker a Phil success story? He's done less than Phil's so called lottery pick jerian grant who looks like a pure bust
Here's where the negative Nancy's get my goat. Grant cost us all of Hardaway who was and remains a pure bust. Grant still has time to develop.
Baker doing "less than" Grant? The Knicks played damn well with Baker on the floor. I'm not claiming Baker is an All-Star but he is a solid second-team PG who started last season as a bench-warmer. And he projects into next season as a tag-team starter with whoever Phil picks in a few weeks.
What???? Tim Hardaway is WAY better than Jerian Grant--not close. Lets give baker some time here before we say success---lets be real.
Please, Tim Hardaway - if it wasn't for NBA nepotism he wouldn't even sniff the D-League.
? Tim Hardaway avg 15 points on 46% shooting?
Yep. He's a gunner. Even though the last game of the season is over he's still out on the court looking for the player he was supposed to cover. Hopeless.
Yeah Thansis is looking for the bullet stuck in Cleanthony Early's leg because he couldnt even fit that in a basket--jerian grant with the assit while Louis Laybardie looks on.
BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?
IMHO, the best litmus test on the trade value of any individual Knicks, against the current NBA marketplace, comes down to this series of questions,( Lets use Lance Thomas as an example)
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in the rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in their rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?
Ron Baker was available to the Knicks because there are plenty of teams who simply did not have room for him on their roster. Their 2nd and 3rd unit guys either had more pedigree or more potential. If Ron Baker is a starter on the Knicks and he would not even be on a playoff team's roster, nor on a non playoff teams rotation, what does that say? ( I like Ron Baker personally, as a fan, he's great, I like how he plays, but objectively, his desirability and value derive from working against a different teams range of full options)Could someone like Lance Thomas be useful to a team like the Warriors as a minimum contract guy? Sure, but he's not a minimum contract guy.
With a guy like Evan Turner, other teams are going to just not find anything on the FA market, lots of teams can carve out cap space or will have cap space, when options dry out, his desirability will go up. There's a massive difference between a BAD PLAYER and a BAD CONTRACT. Bargnani on the Knicks was a bad player on a bad contract. Joe Johnson on the Hawks as a good player on a bad contract. Johnson wasn't producing at the level to justify that kind of salary, but it's not like he was a net negative player.
Lance Thomas IMHO is an energy guy/fringe D League talent who is a grinder and has no business getting a 4 year contract. He does not play with actual discipline. The more minutes you give him, the more his limitations come to bear in games. He doesn't shoot 3 pointers at a volume to justify his salary. He is only going to give you set shot open three pointers. His value comes in the contrast of playing with some truly douchebag selfish teammates who don't give energy and don't care and don't play defense. When the bar is closing at 2AM, the girl who is kind of cute with chipped teeth and a muffin top doesn't start to look so bad. That's Lance Thomas, a 2AM compromise after a crappy week.
The Knicks have massive talent problem. Part of the bias is that fans here see these players all the time. They are going to overestimate their value based on exposure, and to some degree, recency bias.
There are a ton of teams where Lance Thomas does not even make the other teams roster. There are a lot of teams where he would not sniff their basic rotation. So why would they trade for him?
When people say, Lance Thomas has VALUE!, they are looking at his value to the Knicks. His value to other teams is much more simple ( baseline test for roster hold and rotation placement), but also much more complicated ( looking past home town bias)
If a team can do better, it would. And it will. The Knicks only get a deal if they are the best option out of all options out there, and if Lance Thomas wouldn't even make another teams rotation, why would they trade for him? Apply many Knicks as a fill in the blank for Lance Thomas, and you start to see a pattern.
Let me simply address some of the bolded items in your analysis.
One of the questions you forgot to ask was what the Knicks record was last season while Lance was playing and what was their record after he was injured.
Funny thing is that the Knicks were squarely in the playoff pack looking at second or third place in the East and even sniffing first. Now, yes lots of things contributed to the collapse, but seasoned announcers from many teams commented on his absence as being significant. So the question is, based on your claim that he's so valuable to the Knicks only, why was Lance so effective given his non-NBA-Star profile. Could it be great teammate, great attitude, understands his role in a system concept, makes his teammates better counts? Let's answer yes to those questions and then ask the same of say Melo who much was expected of.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... so that's why a guy like Lance Thomas not only gets the contract he deserves but also earns the money by doing exactly what he should be doing.
So let's compare him to Crabbe or Turner who got contracts they could never earn during a FA auction frenzy. Would they be getting that kind of cash based on their team contributions this year? What team would swap out whoever they had underperforming for a more highly paid underperformer like Crabbe or Turner?
You can look at any of the playoff wannabe teams and find plenty of players far more highly compensated than Thomas who were far less productive.
But what your criticism really comes down to is whether or not Thomas is a game-changer - does he move the needle as a player for a team like Portland? Empirically, he moved the needle for the Knicks who were a far more functional unit with him on the floor than him injured on the bench. What makes Portland so special that he couldn't do the same for them?
Look, philosophically you believe the Knicks suck, ERGO the players suck, ERGO nobody would want them, ERGO its Phil's fault, ERGO nothing will ever break our way,... - losing turtles all the way down. You need to take a deep breath and open your mind a crack and let some light in.
One more thing, Baker is one of Phil's success stories and not some "everybody else knew about baker but, but, but.." stories. There are dozens of Bakers out there. Phil found the one who could play, signed him, Horny gave him the ball, and there was sunshine. Give credit where credit is due... kudos to Phil, Horny, and Baker.
How is Baker a Phil success story? He's done less than Phil's so called lottery pick jerian grant who looks like a pure bust
Here's where the negative Nancy's get my goat. Grant cost us all of Hardaway who was and remains a pure bust. Grant still has time to develop.
Baker doing "less than" Grant? The Knicks played damn well with Baker on the floor. I'm not claiming Baker is an All-Star but he is a solid second-team PG who started last season as a bench-warmer. And he projects into next season as a tag-team starter with whoever Phil picks in a few weeks.
What???? Tim Hardaway is WAY better than Jerian Grant--not close. Lets give baker some time here before we say success---lets be real.
Please, Tim Hardaway - if it wasn't for NBA nepotism he wouldn't even sniff the D-League.
? Tim Hardaway avg 15 points on 46% shooting?
Yep. He's a gunner. Even though the last game of the season is over he's still out on the court looking for the player he was supposed to cover. Hopeless.
Yeah Thansis is looking for the bullet stuck in Cleanthony Early's leg because he couldnt even fit that in a basket--jerian grant with the assit while Louis Laybardie looks on.
There isn't enough time in the day to list all the players you've advocated over the years as the next big thing who are out in the world wheeling grocery carts.
Phil gives high-character guys an opportunity to have an opportunity. It's up to them. You are wrong about Grant though. Assuming good health he will blossom around year five like most PGs do in the NBA. He's got the tools and the talent.
Nothing in life is a sure-thing. Which one of the top seven picks in this year's draft will be the inevitable bust? The karmic wheel is in spin.
fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fwk00 wrote:TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?
IMHO, the best litmus test on the trade value of any individual Knicks, against the current NBA marketplace, comes down to this series of questions,( Lets use Lance Thomas as an example)
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in the rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in their rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?
Ron Baker was available to the Knicks because there are plenty of teams who simply did not have room for him on their roster. Their 2nd and 3rd unit guys either had more pedigree or more potential. If Ron Baker is a starter on the Knicks and he would not even be on a playoff team's roster, nor on a non playoff teams rotation, what does that say? ( I like Ron Baker personally, as a fan, he's great, I like how he plays, but objectively, his desirability and value derive from working against a different teams range of full options)Could someone like Lance Thomas be useful to a team like the Warriors as a minimum contract guy? Sure, but he's not a minimum contract guy.
With a guy like Evan Turner, other teams are going to just not find anything on the FA market, lots of teams can carve out cap space or will have cap space, when options dry out, his desirability will go up. There's a massive difference between a BAD PLAYER and a BAD CONTRACT. Bargnani on the Knicks was a bad player on a bad contract. Joe Johnson on the Hawks as a good player on a bad contract. Johnson wasn't producing at the level to justify that kind of salary, but it's not like he was a net negative player.
Lance Thomas IMHO is an energy guy/fringe D League talent who is a grinder and has no business getting a 4 year contract. He does not play with actual discipline. The more minutes you give him, the more his limitations come to bear in games. He doesn't shoot 3 pointers at a volume to justify his salary. He is only going to give you set shot open three pointers. His value comes in the contrast of playing with some truly douchebag selfish teammates who don't give energy and don't care and don't play defense. When the bar is closing at 2AM, the girl who is kind of cute with chipped teeth and a muffin top doesn't start to look so bad. That's Lance Thomas, a 2AM compromise after a crappy week.
The Knicks have massive talent problem. Part of the bias is that fans here see these players all the time. They are going to overestimate their value based on exposure, and to some degree, recency bias.
There are a ton of teams where Lance Thomas does not even make the other teams roster. There are a lot of teams where he would not sniff their basic rotation. So why would they trade for him?
When people say, Lance Thomas has VALUE!, they are looking at his value to the Knicks. His value to other teams is much more simple ( baseline test for roster hold and rotation placement), but also much more complicated ( looking past home town bias)
If a team can do better, it would. And it will. The Knicks only get a deal if they are the best option out of all options out there, and if Lance Thomas wouldn't even make another teams rotation, why would they trade for him? Apply many Knicks as a fill in the blank for Lance Thomas, and you start to see a pattern.
Let me simply address some of the bolded items in your analysis.
One of the questions you forgot to ask was what the Knicks record was last season while Lance was playing and what was their record after he was injured.
Funny thing is that the Knicks were squarely in the playoff pack looking at second or third place in the East and even sniffing first. Now, yes lots of things contributed to the collapse, but seasoned announcers from many teams commented on his absence as being significant. So the question is, based on your claim that he's so valuable to the Knicks only, why was Lance so effective given his non-NBA-Star profile. Could it be great teammate, great attitude, understands his role in a system concept, makes his teammates better counts? Let's answer yes to those questions and then ask the same of say Melo who much was expected of.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... so that's why a guy like Lance Thomas not only gets the contract he deserves but also earns the money by doing exactly what he should be doing.
So let's compare him to Crabbe or Turner who got contracts they could never earn during a FA auction frenzy. Would they be getting that kind of cash based on their team contributions this year? What team would swap out whoever they had underperforming for a more highly paid underperformer like Crabbe or Turner?
You can look at any of the playoff wannabe teams and find plenty of players far more highly compensated than Thomas who were far less productive.
But what your criticism really comes down to is whether or not Thomas is a game-changer - does he move the needle as a player for a team like Portland? Empirically, he moved the needle for the Knicks who were a far more functional unit with him on the floor than him injured on the bench. What makes Portland so special that he couldn't do the same for them?
Look, philosophically you believe the Knicks suck, ERGO the players suck, ERGO nobody would want them, ERGO its Phil's fault, ERGO nothing will ever break our way,... - losing turtles all the way down. You need to take a deep breath and open your mind a crack and let some light in.
One more thing, Baker is one of Phil's success stories and not some "everybody else knew about baker but, but, but.." stories. There are dozens of Bakers out there. Phil found the one who could play, signed him, Horny gave him the ball, and there was sunshine. Give credit where credit is due... kudos to Phil, Horny, and Baker.
How is Baker a Phil success story? He's done less than Phil's so called lottery pick jerian grant who looks like a pure bust
Here's where the negative Nancy's get my goat. Grant cost us all of Hardaway who was and remains a pure bust. Grant still has time to develop.
Baker doing "less than" Grant? The Knicks played damn well with Baker on the floor. I'm not claiming Baker is an All-Star but he is a solid second-team PG who started last season as a bench-warmer. And he projects into next season as a tag-team starter with whoever Phil picks in a few weeks.
What???? Tim Hardaway is WAY better than Jerian Grant--not close. Lets give baker some time here before we say success---lets be real.
Please, Tim Hardaway - if it wasn't for NBA nepotism he wouldn't even sniff the D-League.
? Tim Hardaway avg 15 points on 46% shooting?
Yep. He's a gunner. Even though the last game of the season is over he's still out on the court looking for the player he was supposed to cover. Hopeless.
Yeah Thansis is looking for the bullet stuck in Cleanthony Early's leg because he couldnt even fit that in a basket--jerian grant with the assit while Louis Laybardie looks on.
There isn't enough time in the day to list all the players you've advocated over the years as the next big thing who are out in the world wheeling grocery carts.
Phil gives high-character guys an opportunity to have an opportunity. It's up to them. You are wrong about Grant though. Assuming good health he will blossom around year five like most PGs do in the NBA. He's got the tools and the talent.
Nothing in life is a sure-thing. Which one of the top seven picks in this year's draft will be the inevitable bust? The karmic wheel is in spin.
Jerian grant will be in the d league sometime next year. Book that
WaltLongmire wrote:newyorker4ever wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:HOLY SHIT... I didn't realize that Portland has the second highest payroll in the league and next year it will be #1... Their payroll will be
over $137mm... WOWhopefully we can fleece them by handing out Jimmy D's money
C.J. McCollum contract balloons from about $3M to about $24M next year...Crabbe and Turner about $19m & $17m respectively...Nurkic with a qualifying offer after the upcoming season.KOQ, our #2s (or just our #2 for 2018, if we own it)and $3M for Turner, #15 and #26 would seem feasible.
A.Crabbe also has a trade kicker if he's traded just like Melo.
Wos...Hard to believe a minor player like Crabbe could get this kind of deal...hard to imagine what Portland was thinking of when agreeing to this contract.
I'm not sure how it works but i wonder if that's how the Nets made their offer to Crabbe and because Portland matched that offer they had to do it that way as well or if that's something they added??
Who says no? Cavs end up with Kyrie, CJ, Lebron, Melo, Tristin which can actually challenge GS. Portland gets their salary dump and pairs Love with Lillard for a more balanced max pairing than CJ. Knicks shed Melo and get picks.
Cavs
Kyrie
CJ McCollum
Melo
Lebron
Tristin
Blazers
Lillard
Crabbe
Harkless
Love
Nurkic
Knicks
---??
---??
Turner
Porzingis
Hernangomez
+Picks 8, 15 & 20.
Sinix wrote:Any comments? This is my favorite deal yet for this offseason. Everyone gets what they want. Cavs get a super team that can play with GS. Portland takes a step up to Rockets level while shedding salary. Knicks lose Melo and gain draft picks.Cavs
Kyrie
CJ McCollum
Melo
Lebron
TristinBlazers
Lillard
Crabbe
Harkless
Love
NurkicKnicks
---??
---??
Turner
Porzingis
Hernangomez+Picks 8, 15 & 20.
That is a very good package. This deal can only happen if GS totally demolishes the Cavs.
nykshaknbake wrote:NardDogNation wrote:nykshaknbake wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?With the Blazers positioned to be well over the cap next season, I could see them being willing to dump BOTH Turner and Crabbe who provide them marginal utility at $35 million combined salary per year. For that hefty a pricetag, I can't help but think they'd be willing to pony up that 15th pick. The only holdup would be the fact that Justin Jackson would likely be available at 15th and he would fit the Blazers wonderfully. But as far as Turner and Crabber are concerned, I think they'd be willing to dump both.
That being said, could Crabbe live up to that contract with us?
I bet Portland would do it. It would be a bad one for us. Crabbe and Turner have bad contracts. Turner isn't a shooter and Crabbe is just bad. Absorbing Turner or Crabbe should be enough by itself to get the 15th pick and even then I don't know if it's really something the team should do.
Why not? It is a net gain of $28 million to our payroll over the next 3 years BUT we should be able to handle that just fine. We have no major players we would have to re-sign during this period and would be building through the draft, which offers rotation players on cap controlled contracts. Moving forward, we should still have cap flexibility to make similar moves ESPECIALLY if Carmelo is inevitably traded. So give me that pick over any bogus cap space, anyday.
And a plus is that Allen Crabbe and Evan Turner might actually look a lot better in our system, which could help justify some of their expense. I wouldn't be surprised if by year 2 or 3, Allen Crabbe becomes a piece that a playoff wants at the trade deadline since the risks in his contract would be so heavily mitigated by its impending expiration. It's happened before where once bad contracts become appealing/acceptable under these circumstances (see Jose Calderon, Raymond Felton , Steve Novak and JR Smith).
28 million is a lot...Usually that kind of relief gets you better than the 15th pick..let alone the 15th pick minus 2 other draft picks. It's just a bad value.
Name me two instances when a team assumed $28 million of salary and got a better return.
NYKBocker wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Can't happen due to contract not matchingNardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?I'm sure Portland would live to get out of salary cap he'll for swapping 44 for 19 and dropping two max contracts on us? No way would I consider that-- that's an isiah thomas moveWith the Blazers positioned to be well over the cap next season, I could see them being willing to dump BOTH Turner and Crabbe who provide them marginal utility at $35 million combined salary per year. For that hefty a pricetag, I can't help but think they'd be willing to pony up that 15th pick. The only holdup would be the fact that Justin Jackson would likely be available at 15th and he would fit the Blazers wonderfully. But as far as Turner and Crabber are concerned, I think they'd be willing to dump both.
That being said, could Crabbe live up to that contract with us?
....we would have cap space...contracts wouldn't have to match.
fwk00 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?With the Blazers positioned to be well over the cap next season, I could see them being willing to dump BOTH Turner and Crabbe who provide them marginal utility at $35 million combined salary per year. For that hefty a pricetag, I can't help but think they'd be willing to pony up that 15th pick. The only holdup would be the fact that Justin Jackson would likely be available at 15th and he would fit the Blazers wonderfully. But as far as Turner and Crabber are concerned, I think they'd be willing to dump both.
That being said, could Crabbe live up to that contract with us?
I think where discussions about potential trades go off the tracks is when they get too complicated or too large. IMO, swallowing an expensive contract to get a draft pick or two is fine as long as the Knicks aren't painted into a corner doing so. I think either the Crabbe or Turner contracts could be safely absorbed uncomfortable as that may be.
I've written plenty as to Portland's considerations. Here's why I think the Knicks are more likely to trade for Crabbe.
First I think they cash in on Courtney Lee so Crabbe basically takes that spot. With Turner I see no such opportunity. Randle and Baker are both coming on strong and assuming the Knicks draft a high-profile PG, why do they need a high-priced PG like Turner? Trading for Turner not only absorbs cap space but playing time as well.
Secondly, lots of fans want to simply flip rosters whether its Crabbe AND Turner or some combination of the rest of Portland's team. While its usually theoretically possible to do that, it pretty much puts the Knicks in the position Portland's in - not very good, capped out, and shit out of luck in terms of flexibility.
Furthermore I think the Knicks have options - Detroit is looking to trade its pick and others will also inevitably trade/swap/whatever before during and after the draft. The Knicks may be looking for only one pick in which case neither Turner nor Crabbe's contract justify a deal. The Knicks today only have Melo and Noah as problem contracts. The rest are reasonable AND desirable for that reason and because the players are not assholes.
And if a single pick [AND Harkless] is the target then the speculation about a lower cost contract like Harkless is theoretically reasonable. Pragmatically, the problem is matching enough value to whoever is being traded [LThomas most obviously] to make it worthwhile for Portland. I think a future, protected first would be a minimum and I'm not sure the Knicks do that.
And again we're back to the chicken and egg problem with Portland's draft picks. Other teams [like Dallas] will compete for those same picks. Portland isn't trading for the sake of trading, they'll want SOMEBODY to eat Crabbe, Turner, or more for a handful of lottery tickets. Any Harkless trade that gets in the way of that main objective will be treated like unnecessary noise.
How is this trade too large? There are only 3 players and two teams involved in it.
That aside, how many of these journeymen/undrafted "projects" are we going to hype before realizing that their best case scenario is a 2nd or 3rd string player? Jeremy Tyler, Tourre Murray, Ricky Ledo, Derrick Brown, Travis Wear...shall I go on? I'm not passing on an opportunity to improve this team or its cache of assets to accomodate a dime-a-dozen talent.
Besides, Crabbe and Turner only have 3 years left on their contract, which is something we can live with. And more importantly, both are legitimate NBA players. This rebuild would take about 3 years anyway, so we shouldn't be looking to sign any big-ticketed during this period anyway. And when you consider that we'd be drafting young players on cost controlled contracts, that $28 million net gain, should be no major impediment to our financial flexibility.
Sinix wrote:How about some sort of combination 3 way trade where its Melo to the Cavs, CJ McCollum to the Cavs, Love to the Blazers, Picks and salary dump to the Knicks.Who says no? Cavs end up with Kyrie, CJ, Lebron, Melo, Tristin which can actually challenge GS. Portland gets their salary dump and pairs Love with Lillard for a more balanced max pairing than CJ. Knicks shed Melo and get picks.
I think that McCollum is more valuable to the Blazers than Kevin Love at this juncture of their career. I've got a sneaky suspicion that Love's about to fall off a cliff due to his health.