Knicks · Imagine tanking (page 2)

jrodmc wrote:Tanking? We talkin bout tanking? Tanking?

How's Philly doing? Like Simmons last season? How's those thirty whole Embid games you got to see? Looking good? MCW is heading to China now, right? He was your first round pg of the great 5 year plan...

This:

GustavBahler wrote:We arent going to lose our way into a ring, no matter how hard we try.

And some of us are too freaking old to watch the Knicks tank for the next few years as well, lol.

For me it isn't about tanking. Its about the Knicks putting themselves in position to acquire multiple quality pieces. If Melo(if he isn't traded) & KOQ opt out that would free up 32mil(not sure what that is in cap space). Stay patient use the season to give KP, Willy, Hardaway more responsibility. If that leads to a lotto pick then so be it. Then we add a lotto pick. Then use available resources like the cap space, Lee and multiple future draft picks to target stud players. They can also stretch Noah if nessesary for more space if the right player is available. Which means Knicks could add lotto pick, FA signing, &/or use package future picks with a LEE & Thomas to possibly add 3 impact players next off season. This to go along with the young talent already on the roster. Or they can trade the lotto pick at the draft for a proven stud. And since FA period is practically over or dried up to be precise. Only way to make this current squad a playoff one would be to make a trade. Which again if there are no-brainers out there then lets do it. If its only to try and sneak into the playoffs this year while giving up future assets then no. If its overpaying for a player then no.

If the Knicks are to win we want them to win with something sustainable. Not have to make trades every yr or 2 years to try to keep the team afloat. The key is being able to add more talent without having to sacrifice the talent currently on the roster. While being smart with the cap space so its available to land a stud that can help us for a multi year run.

awe1028 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:Tanking For a few yrs, and the Bold names were the guys we picked, would we be any closer to contending after 4 seasons..

Aside from TOWNS, KP, AND MAYBE SIMMONS(JURY STILL OUT) these are all decent role players that you could trade for or wait until they become FA

That's why I can never understand the tanking logic for a role player

2013 top 6

Bennett
olapido
potter
zeller
len
noel

2014

wiggens
embiid
parker
Gordon
exum
smart

2015

towns
russel
okafor
kp
hezonja
cauley stein

2016

simmons
ingram
j brown
dragon bender
dunn
heild

Imagine not building through the draft and these were the guys the Knicks signed or traded for instead: Noah (70+ Million), CLee (50+ Million)and DRose (20+ Million. You don't have to imagine because that's exactly what the Knicks did and are they any closer to contending?

An argument could be made that the Knicks are actually closer to contending than they otherwise would be because though Phil was foolish to acquire those bloated contracts he was smart enough to simultaneously keep the picks so the rebuild continue.

Regarding your comment about role players and the draft you seemed to have forgotten Steph, Klay Draymond, KD, Lebron, Kyrie, Westbrook, Harden Blake Griffin.... Have you forgotten that we missed out on Steph by one pick and ended up with the immortal Jordan Hill because we won some meaningless games in 2009.

That's why I can never understand advocating not building through the draft in order to bring in bloated budget and cap killing contracts.

Still could of picked Derozan I almost smashed my tv when he picked Hill. I had 5 guys I would of taken before him

GustavBahler wrote:Brilliant idea! We can spend the next 3 years tanking, KP/ Willy, anyone worth their salt, will be running for the door when their contract is up, because they want to contend.

But what about the Knicks getting amazing draft picks that will fall into our lap? What about the fact that we have drafted below where we were supposed to pick 2 years in a row? I guess we can sort that out while the Knicks wait for 3-4 more years for those picks to develop.

Sure, lets kick the can down the road for another 5-6 years, then we'll be really ready. SMDH.

F losing, I want to see the Knicks compete again. I want a championship as much as anyone. Was in grammar school the last time they won. I loved the late 80s and early 90s Knicks, and they didnt win a damned thing, outside a conference championship.

We arent going to lose our way into a ring, no matter how hard we try.

Thats why we should of moved Porzingis

Jmpasq wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Brilliant idea! We can spend the next 3 years tanking, KP/ Willy, anyone worth their salt, will be running for the door when their contract is up, because they want to contend.

But what about the Knicks getting amazing draft picks that will fall into our lap? What about the fact that we have drafted below where we were supposed to pick 2 years in a row? I guess we can sort that out while the Knicks wait for 3-4 more years for those picks to develop.

Sure, lets kick the can down the road for another 5-6 years, then we'll be really ready. SMDH.

F losing, I want to see the Knicks compete again. I want a championship as much as anyone. Was in grammar school the last time they won. I loved the late 80s and early 90s Knicks, and they didnt win a damned thing, outside a conference championship.

We arent going to lose our way into a ring, no matter how hard we try.

Thats why we should of moved Porzingis

We could be lucky enough to have 3-4 first round picks and not find a player with his skill set. If KP goes, Willy probably bails well. We waited decades to find a player with KP's skill set, good young players, and you want to flush the roster for a series of crap shoots that wouldn't pay off for another 5 years, if we're lucky.

Its something I would expect in Vegas.

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:F losing, I want to see the Knicks compete again.

You wanting the Knicks to win, and the Knicks being in position to win have no relationship to one another.

Best-case, long-odds scenario is the Knicks are first round fodder.

Overwhelmingly the odds favor a another lottery selection.

The argument is mostly between people who want to mathematically enhance the Knicks odds of getting a difference maker in the draft, and those who think there is some significant long-term benefit to going from 31 wins to a 37 give or take a couple.

The topic at hand is the Knicks intentionally tanking, losing, for the next few years to acquire draft picks. Thats what my comment was in reference to. You are talking about something entirely different.

Not really.

Get rid of Melo (we take back a good younger player if offered), let nature take its course.

I don't believe anyone here advocates manipulating the roster any further than that in order to lose.

Hell, the so-called 'tankers' are probably more prepared to let Ntilikina play a lot than the 'competers' are.

All you are saying is that the Knicks will be so bad next season that tanking wont make much of a difference.

And you're offering no rebuttal.

Yes, the assumption, based on all available evidence and logic is the 2017-18 Knicks are a lottery team.

The thread is about the benefits of tanking for the next few years, not just next season

No.

The OP asks to imagine a scenario in which the Knicks tanked the last 4 years and the picks that would have been available to them.

It does not address any specific timeframe for tanking from here forward.

And for good reason. Nobody on this forum is proposing such a strategy.

Some posters here (not 1248) believe we can tank our way to prosperity. F that, I want to see the Knicks win.

Once again, what you want has no relation to what the Knicks are in position to do this season.

GustavBahler wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Tanking? We talkin bout tanking? Tanking?

How's Philly doing? Like Simmons last season? How's those thirty whole Embid games you got to see? Looking good? MCW is heading to China now, right? He was your first round pg of the great 5 year plan...

This:

GustavBahler wrote:We arent going to lose our way into a ring, no matter how hard we try.

And some of us are too freaking old to watch the Knicks tank for the next few years as well, lol.

You may have to watch them lose and qualify for the lottery regardless of their intent, is the point.

jrodmc wrote:Tanking? We talkin bout tanking? Tanking?

How's Philly doing? Like Simmons last season? How's those thirty whole Embid games you got to see? Looking good? MCW is heading to China now, right? He was your first round pg of the great 5 year plan...

This:

GustavBahler wrote:We arent going to lose our way into a ring, no matter how hard we try.

This is rhetorical running in place.

Anyone can easily show teams that went all in on free agency and teams that have taken a more balanced approach with nothing to show for it as well.

That fact is the last 40 years show in any given year, 22-28 teams don't have a shot, and the teams that do generally hang around for a while.

Naming a team that didn't (yet) succeed with the method you oppose does nothing to advance any argument and attempting it undermines yours.

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:F losing, I want to see the Knicks compete again.

You wanting the Knicks to win, and the Knicks being in position to win have no relationship to one another.

Best-case, long-odds scenario is the Knicks are first round fodder.

Overwhelmingly the odds favor a another lottery selection.

The argument is mostly between people who want to mathematically enhance the Knicks odds of getting a difference maker in the draft, and those who think there is some significant long-term benefit to going from 31 wins to a 37 give or take a couple.

The topic at hand is the Knicks intentionally tanking, losing, for the next few years to acquire draft picks. Thats what my comment was in reference to. You are talking about something entirely different.

Not really.

Get rid of Melo (we take back a good younger player if offered), let nature take its course.

I don't believe anyone here advocates manipulating the roster any further than that in order to lose.

Hell, the so-called 'tankers' are probably more prepared to let Ntilikina play a lot than the 'competers' are.

All you are saying is that the Knicks will be so bad next season that tanking wont make much of a difference.

And you're offering no rebuttal.

Yes, the assumption, based on all available evidence and logic is the 2017-18 Knicks are a lottery team.

The thread is about the benefits of tanking for the next few years, not just next season

No.

The OP asks to imagine a scenario in which the Knicks tanked the last 4 years and the picks that would have been available to them.

It does not address any specific timeframe for tanking from here forward.

And for good reason. Nobody on this forum is proposing such a strategy.

Some posters here (not 1248) believe we can tank our way to prosperity. F that, I want to see the Knicks win.

Once again, what you want has no relation to what the Knicks are in position to do this season.

I dont care if the Knicks wont be much worse even if they try. I dont care if we are talking about the last 5 years, or the next 5 years. I dont want to see the Knicks tank. I want the Knicks from top to bottom to try to win every game. And the message that sends to the players.

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Tanking? We talkin bout tanking? Tanking?

How's Philly doing? Like Simmons last season? How's those thirty whole Embid games you got to see? Looking good? MCW is heading to China now, right? He was your first round pg of the great 5 year plan...

This:

GustavBahler wrote:We arent going to lose our way into a ring, no matter how hard we try.

And some of us are too freaking old to watch the Knicks tank for the next few years as well, lol.

You may have to watch them lose and qualify for the lottery regardless of their intent, is the point.

Thanks for the bulletin.

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:F losing, I want to see the Knicks compete again.

You wanting the Knicks to win, and the Knicks being in position to win have no relationship to one another.

Best-case, long-odds scenario is the Knicks are first round fodder.

Overwhelmingly the odds favor a another lottery selection.

The argument is mostly between people who want to mathematically enhance the Knicks odds of getting a difference maker in the draft, and those who think there is some significant long-term benefit to going from 31 wins to a 37 give or take a couple.

The topic at hand is the Knicks intentionally tanking, losing, for the next few years to acquire draft picks. Thats what my comment was in reference to. You are talking about something entirely different.

Not really.

Get rid of Melo (we take back a good younger player if offered), let nature take its course.

I don't believe anyone here advocates manipulating the roster any further than that in order to lose.

Hell, the so-called 'tankers' are probably more prepared to let Ntilikina play a lot than the 'competers' are.

All you are saying is that the Knicks will be so bad next season that tanking wont make much of a difference.

And you're offering no rebuttal.

Yes, the assumption, based on all available evidence and logic is the 2017-18 Knicks are a lottery team.

The thread is about the benefits of tanking for the next few years, not just next season

No.

The OP asks to imagine a scenario in which the Knicks tanked the last 4 years and the picks that would have been available to them.

It does not address any specific timeframe for tanking from here forward.

And for good reason. Nobody on this forum is proposing such a strategy.

Some posters here (not 1248) believe we can tank our way to prosperity. F that, I want to see the Knicks win.

Once again, what you want has no relation to what the Knicks are in position to do this season.

I dont care if the Knicks wont be much worse even if they try. I dont care if we are talking about the last 5 years, or the next 5 years. I dont want to see the Knicks tank. I want the Knicks from top to bottom to try to win every game. And the message that sends to the players.

Then you're debating a boogeyman of your own invention. The flashpoint of this argument is keeping or jettisoning Melo, pretty much exclusively. I've never seen anyone here argue they should lose games on purpose with the core of KP/Hernangomez/Hardaway/Ntilikina in place.

knicks1248 wrote:

awe1028 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:Tanking For a few yrs, and the Bold names were the guys we picked, would we be any closer to contending after 4 seasons..

Aside from TOWNS, KP, AND MAYBE SIMMONS(JURY STILL OUT) these are all decent role players that you could trade for or wait until they become FA

That's why I can never understand the tanking logic for a role player

2013 top 6

Bennett
olapido
potter
zeller
len
noel

2014

wiggens
embiid
parker
Gordon
exum
smart

2015

towns
russel
okafor
kp
hezonja
cauley stein

2016

simmons
ingram
j brown
dragon bender
dunn
heild

Imagine not building through the draft and these were the guys the Knicks signed or traded for instead: Noah (70+ Million), CLee (50+ Million)and DRose (20+ Million. You don't have to imagine because that's exactly what the Knicks did and are they any closer to contending?

An argument could be made that the Knicks are actually closer to contending than they otherwise would be because though Phil was foolish to acquire those bloated contracts he was smart enough to simultaneously keep the picks so the rebuild continue.

Regarding your comment about role players and the draft you seemed to have forgotten Steph, Klay Draymond, KD, Lebron, Kyrie, Westbrook, Harden Blake Griffin.... Have you forgotten that we missed out on Steph by one pick and ended up with the immortal Jordan Hill because we won some meaningless games in 2009.

That's why I can never understand advocating not building through the draft in order to bring in bloated budget and cap killing contracts.

wasn't kp picked higher then curry and Kla,y a lower pick than frank

if we have frank, willy, kp and Kuz and still suck, are we going to keep hoping to find that curry/labron, harden in the draft every yr..there's gotta be a better way or a better strategy

Your point about Curry and Klay's draft positions compared to KP and Frank's actually supports the argument of building through the draft/lottery because it shows even when not having the very highest of picks a team can still select a great player. It is obvious however a higher pick increases the probability significantly

If the knicks are losing with KP Frank Willie they are actually in better shape than if they are losing with Noah, CLee and Rose if for no other reason they have cap flexibility to do exactly what you want: bring in bloated contracts

They are also better off because teams are more likely to trade a significant player for younger players as the younger players are making less money and are young enough to still have upside. In short the knicks would not be stuck with undesirable contracts like they are now.

Finally if you are right and the Knicks are losing with KP Frank and Willie they are still better off because it means they will get a higher pick in the draft increasing the odds of drafting a more/very talented player.

Surely you realize that it takes time for young players to develop into champions. Steph was drafted in 2009 and it took him 6 years before he finally became a champion. Why do you expect it to be any different for the Knicks?

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:F losing, I want to see the Knicks compete again.

You wanting the Knicks to win, and the Knicks being in position to win have no relationship to one another.

Best-case, long-odds scenario is the Knicks are first round fodder.

Overwhelmingly the odds favor a another lottery selection.

The argument is mostly between people who want to mathematically enhance the Knicks odds of getting a difference maker in the draft, and those who think there is some significant long-term benefit to going from 31 wins to a 37 give or take a couple.

The topic at hand is the Knicks intentionally tanking, losing, for the next few years to acquire draft picks. Thats what my comment was in reference to. You are talking about something entirely different.

Not really.

Get rid of Melo (we take back a good younger player if offered), let nature take its course.

I don't believe anyone here advocates manipulating the roster any further than that in order to lose.

Hell, the so-called 'tankers' are probably more prepared to let Ntilikina play a lot than the 'competers' are.

All you are saying is that the Knicks will be so bad next season that tanking wont make much of a difference.

And you're offering no rebuttal.

Yes, the assumption, based on all available evidence and logic is the 2017-18 Knicks are a lottery team.

The thread is about the benefits of tanking for the next few years, not just next season

No.

The OP asks to imagine a scenario in which the Knicks tanked the last 4 years and the picks that would have been available to them.

It does not address any specific timeframe for tanking from here forward.

And for good reason. Nobody on this forum is proposing such a strategy.

Some posters here (not 1248) believe we can tank our way to prosperity. F that, I want to see the Knicks win.

Once again, what you want has no relation to what the Knicks are in position to do this season.

I dont care if the Knicks wont be much worse even if they try. I dont care if we are talking about the last 5 years, or the next 5 years. I dont want to see the Knicks tank. I want the Knicks from top to bottom to try to win every game. And the message that sends to the players.

Then you're debating a boogeyman of your own invention. The flashpoint of this argument is keeping or jettisoning Melo, pretty much exclusively. I've never seen anyone here argue they should lose games on purpose with the core of KP/Hernangomez/Hardaway/Ntilikina in place.

The subject is tanking. I added my opinion on the subject. I dont care if it was precisely within the white lines, or not, for your liking.

If it was a boogeyman of my own creation, at least it was original. You seem unable to offer anything but your opinion of other poster's opinions.

Take a chance....

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:F losing, I want to see the Knicks compete again.

You wanting the Knicks to win, and the Knicks being in position to win have no relationship to one another.

Best-case, long-odds scenario is the Knicks are first round fodder.

Overwhelmingly the odds favor a another lottery selection.

The argument is mostly between people who want to mathematically enhance the Knicks odds of getting a difference maker in the draft, and those who think there is some significant long-term benefit to going from 31 wins to a 37 give or take a couple.

The topic at hand is the Knicks intentionally tanking, losing, for the next few years to acquire draft picks. Thats what my comment was in reference to. You are talking about something entirely different.

Not really.

Get rid of Melo (we take back a good younger player if offered), let nature take its course.

I don't believe anyone here advocates manipulating the roster any further than that in order to lose.

Hell, the so-called 'tankers' are probably more prepared to let Ntilikina play a lot than the 'competers' are.

All you are saying is that the Knicks will be so bad next season that tanking wont make much of a difference.

And you're offering no rebuttal.

Yes, the assumption, based on all available evidence and logic is the 2017-18 Knicks are a lottery team.

The thread is about the benefits of tanking for the next few years, not just next season

No.

The OP asks to imagine a scenario in which the Knicks tanked the last 4 years and the picks that would have been available to them.

It does not address any specific timeframe for tanking from here forward.

And for good reason. Nobody on this forum is proposing such a strategy.

Some posters here (not 1248) believe we can tank our way to prosperity. F that, I want to see the Knicks win.

Once again, what you want has no relation to what the Knicks are in position to do this season.

I dont care if the Knicks wont be much worse even if they try. I dont care if we are talking about the last 5 years, or the next 5 years. I dont want to see the Knicks tank. I want the Knicks from top to bottom to try to win every game. And the message that sends to the players.

Then you're debating a boogeyman of your own invention. The flashpoint of this argument is keeping or jettisoning Melo, pretty much exclusively. I've never seen anyone here argue they should lose games on purpose with the core of KP/Hernangomez/Hardaway/Ntilikina in place.

The subject is tanking. I added my opinion on the subject. I dont care if it was precisely within the white lines, or not, for your liking.

That's fine, but then arguing the OP was about tanking the next 4 years was both a swing and a miss and irrelevant at the same time.

If it was a boogeyman of my own creation, at least it was original. You seem unable to offer anything but your opinion of other poster's opinions.

Take a chance....

Now you're just trying too hard. A number of my posts in just the last few hours makes my position clear.

- The Knicks most likely won't be a postseason team this season.

- The higher your lottery selection, the much higher your odds of getting an impact player.

- There is NO proven method of building a championship roster other than acquiring a Hall of Fame caliber star.

- The Knicks should divest themselves of a veteran who will not be here for their next genuinely competitive team.

But by all means, keeping trying.

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:F losing, I want to see the Knicks compete again.

You wanting the Knicks to win, and the Knicks being in position to win have no relationship to one another.

Best-case, long-odds scenario is the Knicks are first round fodder.

Overwhelmingly the odds favor a another lottery selection.

The argument is mostly between people who want to mathematically enhance the Knicks odds of getting a difference maker in the draft, and those who think there is some significant long-term benefit to going from 31 wins to a 37 give or take a couple.

The topic at hand is the Knicks intentionally tanking, losing, for the next few years to acquire draft picks. Thats what my comment was in reference to. You are talking about something entirely different.

Not really.

Get rid of Melo (we take back a good younger player if offered), let nature take its course.

I don't believe anyone here advocates manipulating the roster any further than that in order to lose.

Hell, the so-called 'tankers' are probably more prepared to let Ntilikina play a lot than the 'competers' are.

All you are saying is that the Knicks will be so bad next season that tanking wont make much of a difference.

And you're offering no rebuttal.

Yes, the assumption, based on all available evidence and logic is the 2017-18 Knicks are a lottery team.

The thread is about the benefits of tanking for the next few years, not just next season

No.

The OP asks to imagine a scenario in which the Knicks tanked the last 4 years and the picks that would have been available to them.

It does not address any specific timeframe for tanking from here forward.

And for good reason. Nobody on this forum is proposing such a strategy.

Some posters here (not 1248) believe we can tank our way to prosperity. F that, I want to see the Knicks win.

Once again, what you want has no relation to what the Knicks are in position to do this season.

I dont care if the Knicks wont be much worse even if they try. I dont care if we are talking about the last 5 years, or the next 5 years. I dont want to see the Knicks tank. I want the Knicks from top to bottom to try to win every game. And the message that sends to the players.

Then you're debating a boogeyman of your own invention. The flashpoint of this argument is keeping or jettisoning Melo, pretty much exclusively. I've never seen anyone here argue they should lose games on purpose with the core of KP/Hernangomez/Hardaway/Ntilikina in place.

The subject is tanking. I added my opinion on the subject. I dont care if it was precisely within the white lines, or not, for your liking.

That's fine, but then arguing the OP was about tanking the next 4 years was both a swing and a miss and irrelevant at the same time.

If it was a boogeyman of my own creation, at least it was original. You seem unable to offer anything but your opinion of other poster's opinions.

Take a chance....

Now you're just trying too hard. A number of my posts in just the last few hours makes my position clear.

- The Knicks most likely won't be a postseason team this season.

- The higher your lottery selection, the much higher your odds of getting an impact player.

- There is NO proven method of building a championship roster other than acquiring a Hall of Fame caliber star.

- The Knicks should divest themselves of a veteran who will not be here for their next genuinely competitive team.

But by all means, keeping trying.

Dont have to. Your opinions come almost exclusively as a rebuttal to something someone else said. Nothing wrong with rebutting someone's argument, but try posting your opinion of something on your own.

Did you post anything about your opinion of the THJ deal when it happened? Biggest deal of the offseason. These exchanges rarely have to do with the game.

Players are playing to win.
Tanking is myth, and excuse for team who suck to justify their futility.
If Knicks will suck they will get a high pick.
And players will knew that they suck.
If our new young core will play well they will be in the middle of the pack and this will be a huge step forward.
We will not get high pick but we will have space to bring in more good players who see that we have improving young talent.
All we need to do is just maintain business as usual - grow the talent we have and be aware of opportunities which will surely present themselves.

jrodmc wrote:Tanking? We talkin bout tanking? Tanking?

How's Philly doing? Like Simmons last season? How's those thirty whole Embid games you got to see? Looking good? MCW is heading to China now, right? He was your first round pg of the great 5 year plan...

This:

GustavBahler wrote:We arent going to lose our way into a ring, no matter how hard we try.

it is impossible to tank and develop players at the same time

The problem is the Knicks din't have their 2016 draft pick so they lost one year of adding to their core with Porzingis. I believe the best way to build your team if you can't sign star FA's is to try to get 5 or 6 first round picks in a 3 year span. I just don't see how the Knicks will be able to build a contender around Porzingis unless we get our number 1 guy through the 2018 draft. Adding him through FA is out because we spent our wad on Noah and Hardaway jr.

KEEPCAMBYNY wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Tanking? We talkin bout tanking? Tanking?

How's Philly doing? Like Simmons last season? How's those thirty whole Embid games you got to see? Looking good? MCW is heading to China now, right? He was your first round pg of the great 5 year plan...

This:

GustavBahler wrote:We arent going to lose our way into a ring, no matter how hard we try.

Philly's first round lotto picks missed an enormous amount of games over several years, entire seasons, which led to more high draft picks. Do we go that route as well? "The process" was cashing in on players who couldn't stay healthy. I doubt that was Hinkie's master plan.

We have our own picks, not all top of the lottery. Doesn't mean they arent good enough to try and build around. Tanking will drive good players away.

Jmpasq wrote:The problem is the Knicks din't have their 2016 draft pick so they lost one year of adding to their core with Porzingis. I believe the best way to build your team if you can't sign star FA's is to try to get 5 or 6 first round picks in a 3 year span. I just don't see how the Knicks will be able to build a contender around Porzingis unless we get our number 1 guy through the 2018 draft. Adding him through FA is out because we spent our wad on Noah and Hardaway jr.

How many high lottery choices did Spurs have to build around Timmy?

You desire to trade KP is lunacy. I would tune out that voice, its not sane. Where was Willy drafted? No.. trading KP and tanking makes no sense. Commit to drafting and developing players. You look at the long sustained winning in the league and its almost always supplemented by quality players in the draft, often selected well out of the lottery. Like the whole Spurs roster.

You need player to pop. Look how good Ariza has been over the years. Dotson is a guy I am really high on to have nice potential for that type of high end role player you surround your big guns with.

Gudris wrote:it is impossible to tank and develop players at the same time

This. Mills spelled it out in the blog. The #1 thing is developing the players here.