Knicks · When the Knicks were good (page 1)
It may have morphed a few times as some players changed abd as the core got older -/ but the recipe for longer term success is grabbing 4-5 players 25 and younger — keeping them together and then finding the vet pieces to integrate
Looking at players like love gallo c paul is short sighted
Abd will quickly bring us back to the scrap yard
BRIGGS wrote:What they had was a core of guys 25 and under who essentially stayed together
It may have morphed a few times as some players changed abd as the core got older -/ but the recipe for longer term success is grabbing 4-5 players 25 and younger — keeping them together and then finding the vet pieces to integrate
Looking at players like love gallo c paul is short sighted
Abd will quickly bring us back to the scrap yard
Agreed... unless you can get Gallo for cheap... otherwise, Bertans is a better choice.
BRIGGS wrote:What they had was a core of guys 25 and under who essentially stayed together
It may have morphed a few times as some players changed abd as the core got older -/ but the recipe for longer term success is grabbing 4-5 players 25 and younger — keeping them together and then finding the vet pieces to integrate
Looking at players like love gallo c paul is short sighted
Abd will quickly bring us back to the scrap yard
The salary floor is a problem with you have widespread use of guaranteed contracts and you want to climb out of the cellar.
Teams do need to draft better, when possible but a larger issue is the zero tolerance structure of the current game. There is close to no margin of error in personnel moves when trying to build an NBA roster. Should NBA teams get off penalty free for poor choices? No, but fans can't be expected to last 3-4 years to let a bad contract fall off the books.
When you have a shortage of quality NBA talent against the salary structure, you need more player movement.
Shumpert isn't thinking about some album track or reality show if hes thinking about being cut at any point off an NBA roster and not getting a lionshare of his salary.
The rules changed way back when George Mikan was too dominant. The rules need to change again to widen the acceptable level of talent that contribute to an NBA team. The "Space And Pace" revolution is a way to circumvent the limits of the current system.
People out in the world have more entertainment options than ever. The NBA has to compete and it's not helping itself with things like a tone deaf Rondo bitching about hotel food. Honestly the best thing the NBA could do is to find black sportscasters who have no problem telling someone like Rondo to go fuck himself in public. Because whites in the media can't do it and won't do it. No one should be immune to being told to go fuck themselves when they do dumbass shit. Sports is only valuable when it's seen as a form of meritocracy. That blows up when you have idiots like Rondo and Kenyon Martin talking.
First things first, just try to play fundamental team basketball. Baby steps first. The Knicks haven't really done that since Linsanity. The problem is there are lots of carrots, but no stick. A guy like Trier sees being a ball hog and not listening to his coach and not rolling with the game plan is the best way to get a new contract or a shoe deal or a rap album made or a reality show made.
Chris Paul as a Knick is not short sighted. It's the best out of a bunch of shitty choices in league with clear systematic dysfunction in terms of balance of play. Chris Paul and his shitty contract is worth more to the Knicks than a couple of offseasons of Randles/Gibsons/Morris/Bullock type deals. Paul is a useful player who is vastly overpaid, but he's the best of the bad contract options out there.
Tilman Fertitta has just started a legal war with major insurance over the loss of revenue for the Rockets and their arena. This is a big fucking deal that is being underplayed in the sports media. Owners are going to take huge financial hits and teams are going to not want to hand out huge deals. For a Klay Thompson or a Greek Freak sure, but not anyone else. You'll see more teams under the cap floor looking to make inseason/deadline trades to reap a cash hit savings against their bottom line. The fallout will be a demand for ugly overpaid contracts that will reap some kind of useful value. Players will be incentivized to sign big one year deals outside of market value then quietly kick back some of that money to the owner to circumvent the cap. For a team like the Atlanta Hawks, cap circumvention might be a necessity for survival.
The argument a year from now might be signing two guys about the talent of Taj Gibson for 1 year/20 million each or just getting a Chris Paul for 40 million. There are more teams sort of fucked talent wise like the Knicks than there are teams like the Warriors who don't have enough cap space for their needs. This means bad contracts take on a different value and there might be a shifted demand for them.
Chris Paul contract made no sense a year ago. It makes a baffling ton more sense today. It might be actually considered the best tradeoff situation a year from now.
There is a "new normal" coming. The Knicks have to be ahead of it and take advantage of being a cash rich team to survive it all.
TripleThreat wrote:BRIGGS wrote:What they had was a core of guys 25 and under who essentially stayed together
It may have morphed a few times as some players changed abd as the core got older -/ but the recipe for longer term success is grabbing 4-5 players 25 and younger — keeping them together and then finding the vet pieces to integrate
Looking at players like love gallo c paul is short sighted
Abd will quickly bring us back to the scrap yard
The salary floor is a problem with you have widespread use of guaranteed contracts and you want to climb out of the cellar.Teams do need to draft better, when possible but a larger issue is the zero tolerance structure of the current game. There is close to no margin of error in personnel moves when trying to build an NBA roster. Should NBA teams get off penalty free for poor choices? No, but fans can't be expected to last 3-4 years to let a bad contract fall off the books.
When you have a shortage of quality NBA talent against the salary structure, you need more player movement.
Shumpert isn't thinking about some album track or reality show if hes thinking about being cut at any point off an NBA roster and not getting a lionshare of his salary.
The rules changed way back when George Mikan was too dominant. The rules need to change again to widen the acceptable level of talent that contribute to an NBA team. The "Space And Pace" revolution is a way to circumvent the limits of the current system.
People out in the world have more entertainment options than ever. The NBA has to compete and it's not helping itself with things like a tone deaf Rondo bitching about hotel food. Honestly the best thing the NBA could do is to find black sportscasters who have no problem telling someone like Rondo to go fuck himself in public. Because whites in the media can't do it and won't do it. No one should be immune to being told to go fuck themselves when they do dumbass shit. Sports is only valuable when it's seen as a form of meritocracy. That blows up when you have idiots like Rondo and Kenyon Martin talking.
First things first, just try to play fundamental team basketball. Baby steps first. The Knicks haven't really done that since Linsanity. The problem is there are lots of carrots, but no stick. A guy like Trier sees being a ball hog and not listening to his coach and not rolling with the game plan is the best way to get a new contract or a shoe deal or a rap album made or a reality show made.
Chris Paul as a Knick is not short sighted. It's the best out of a bunch of shitty choices in league with clear systematic dysfunction in terms of balance of play. Chris Paul and his shitty contract is worth more to the Knicks than a couple of offseasons of Randles/Gibsons/Morris/Bullock type deals. Paul is a useful player who is vastly overpaid, but he's the best of the bad contract options out there.
Tilman Fertitta has just started a legal war with major insurance over the loss of revenue for the Rockets and their arena. This is a big fucking deal that is being underplayed in the sports media. Owners are going to take huge financial hits and teams are going to not want to hand out huge deals. For a Klay Thompson or a Greek Freak sure, but not anyone else. You'll see more teams under the cap floor looking to make inseason/deadline trades to reap a cash hit savings against their bottom line. The fallout will be a demand for ugly overpaid contracts that will reap some kind of useful value. Players will be incentivized to sign big one year deals outside of market value then quietly kick back some of that money to the owner to circumvent the cap. For a team like the Atlanta Hawks, cap circumvention might be a necessity for survival.
The argument a year from now might be signing two guys about the talent of Taj Gibson for 1 year/20 million each or just getting a Chris Paul for 40 million. There are more teams sort of fucked talent wise like the Knicks than there are teams like the Warriors who don't have enough cap space for their needs. This means bad contracts take on a different value and there might be a shifted demand for them.
Chris Paul contract made no sense a year ago. It makes a baffling ton more sense today. It might be actually considered the best tradeoff situation a year from now.
There is a "new normal" coming. The Knicks have to be ahead of it and take advantage of being a cash rich team to survive it all.
Why do we want C Paul? He’s gonna be 35.5 years old before he’d touch a basketball for the Knicks. The law of avg says he has little time remaining. Why would I even bother unless it came with a lottery pick? That’s now how u build a team— that’s how u keep it a mess.
It was also a better owner, better coaches, a winning culture, Direction, Leadership, players that fit from a mental and physical stand point (like LJ, harper, KT) and more importantly, we had a HOf player to build around.
Todays NBA is sooooo much different from then because players are Buddy buddy now, they are signing much shorter deals to give themselves and the team flexibility.
Leon has hired guys that know the CAP inside out, that know the true value of the players. We suck so bad a drafting and developing that it's hard to look at that as a first option.
You only have a 3 yrs window
BRIGGS wrote:Why do we want C Paul? He’s gonna be 35.5 years old before he’d touch a basketball for the Knicks.
If Chris Paul was a Rhodesian Ridgeback, he'd be 4 years old. So I'd say looking at it that way, he's still quite spry. He can work on getting his drivers license and take a nice Rat Terrier from good genetic stock to the Winter Ball.
BRIGGS wrote:
Why do we want C Paul? He’s gonna be 35.5 years old before he’d touch a basketball for the Knicks. The law of avg says he has little time remaining. Why would I even bother unless it came with a lottery pick? That’s now how u build a team— that’s how u keep it a mess.
When the salary cap gets adjusted to the loss of revenue and when teams begin to project future caps against the new COVID19 normal, the tax line is going to fall. Previous projections on where the tax line were going to be under normal conditions are going to blow up. Combine this with franchises losing a massive amount of revenue and no team will want to be anywhere near the tax zone.
Chris Paul is a leader and he makes the players around him better. He's very fundamental and knows how to be at the right place and right time. He does have flaws beyond his aging. He's kind of a control freak who likes to flop. He's also a poor fit for the way the game has changed, he's not an ideal mold for the Attack Guard principle and his lack of size will create a multiplier effect on his decline when he loses yet another step.
However the OKC Thunder have been tax payers for a while and they have a very large warchest of picks to trade. Lottery picks? No, the Knicks won't get lottery picks. But possibly useful picks? Probably.
The Knicks are not getting a Van Fleet or a Harris in FA. They'll be stuck looking at overpaying guys like Alec Burks. A lot of guys won't see long term deals so the guys with player options will opt in and guys who've made good money are incentivized to just ring chase.
Chris Paul can get you into the playoffs. He can carry a team on his back ( not night after night like when he was in his prime) on occasion and gives you a marketing boost. You'll have a real locker room enforcer for the first time in a very long time. Guys like Trier don't pull their bullshit with Paul on the roster. He's very overpaid but he's not without some uses.
Knicks will need to get to the cap floor and it's going to be hard to find value contracts in their situation ( Their only competitive advantage is more years and higher AAV )
Chris Paul and his contract would be a bad fit on nearly every other team, but on the Knicks, he bizarrely makes some sense.
You build a team by dynamically looking at opportunities as they come to you given your situation.
But you have the floor Briggs, look at the FA market and tell us how you would spend the Knicks open cap space.
TripleThreat wrote:BRIGGS wrote:
Why do we want C Paul? He’s gonna be 35.5 years old before he’d touch a basketball for the Knicks. The law of avg says he has little time remaining. Why would I even bother unless it came with a lottery pick? That’s now how u build a team— that’s how u keep it a mess.
When the salary cap gets adjusted to the loss of revenue and when teams begin to project future caps against the new COVID19 normal, the tax line is going to fall. Previous projections on where the tax line were going to be under normal conditions are going to blow up. Combine this with franchises losing a massive amount of revenue and no team will want to be anywhere near the tax zone.Chris Paul is a leader and he makes the players around him better. He's very fundamental and knows how to be at the right place and right time. He does have flaws beyond his aging. He's kind of a control freak who likes to flop. He's also a poor fit for the way the game has changed, he's not an ideal mold for the Attack Guard principle and his lack of size will create a multiplier effect on his decline when he loses yet another step.
However the OKC Thunder have been tax payers for a while and they have a very large warchest of picks to trade. Lottery picks? No, the Knicks won't get lottery picks. But possibly useful picks? Probably.
The Knicks are not getting a Van Fleet or a Harris in FA. They'll be stuck looking at overpaying guys like Alec Burks. A lot of guys won't see long term deals so the guys with player options will opt in and guys who've made good money are incentivized to just ring chase.
Chris Paul can get you into the playoffs. He can carry a team on his back ( not night after night like when he was in his prime) on occasion and gives you a marketing boost. You'll have a real locker room enforcer for the first time in a very long time. Guys like Trier don't pull their bullshit with Paul on the roster. He's very overpaid but he's not without some uses.
Knicks will need to get to the cap floor and it's going to be hard to find value contracts in their situation ( Their only competitive advantage is more years and higher AAV )
Chris Paul and his contract would be a bad fit on nearly every other team, but on the Knicks, he bizarrely makes some sense.
You build a team by dynamically looking at opportunities as they come to you given your situation.
But you have the floor Briggs, look at the FA market and tell us how you would spend the Knicks open cap space.
Complete focus on draft. I think we can get two or three good players. I know who I like in free agency but draft first. And lastly I’m not just gonna spend the money if I don’t get what I want. That’s one big reason why I wouldn’t want paul. He’s not part of the plan but he uses gross amounts of cap for longer than I’d be happy with
BRIGGS wrote: And lastly I’m not just gonna spend the money if I don’t get what I want. That’s one big reason why I wouldn’t want paul. He’s not part of the plan but he uses gross amounts of cap for longer than I’d be happy with
Briggs,
I'll be real here. You've been on this board for years and years. How many guys have you touted that the Knicks should sign to large dollar contracts?
I've been on this board for years and years, but less than you. How many times have I said trade for this guy who still has 20 plus million OR MORE AAV on multiple years left on his deal? I don't. I just really don't do that kind of stuff. If I do it, it's for a reason. Multiple reasons. But let's hear what the other guys think. If you want, start a new thread asking "Should The Knicks Trade For Chris Paul Or Not?"
Rarely does one get what they want in free agency. When LBJ signed with the Heat, everyone else didn't get what they wanted. Grant Hill with the Magic. Shaq with the Lakers. Durant with the Warriors.
There is no "plan", no well run team has a plan. Teams have some broad concepts based on established trends and dealing with market forces and then they just take each individual situation as it comes, do the best they can and sort of wing it.
TripleThreat wrote:BRIGGS wrote: And lastly I’m not just gonna spend the money if I don’t get what I want. That’s one big reason why I wouldn’t want paul. He’s not part of the plan but he uses gross amounts of cap for longer than I’d be happy with
Briggs,I'll be real here. You've been on this board for years and years. How many guys have you touted that the Knicks should sign to large dollar contracts?
I've been on this board for years and years, but less than you. How many times have I said trade for this guy who still has 20 plus million OR MORE AAV on multiple years left on his deal? I don't. I just really don't do that kind of stuff. If I do it, it's for a reason. Multiple reasons. But let's hear what the other guys think. If you want, start a new thread asking "Should The Knicks Trade For Chris Paul Or Not?"
Rarely does one get what they want in free agency. When LBJ signed with the Heat, everyone else didn't get what they wanted. Grant Hill with the Magic. Shaq with the Lakers. Durant with the Warriors.
There is no "plan", no well run team has a plan. Teams have some broad concepts based on established trends and dealing with market forces and then they just take each individual situation as it comes, do the best they can and sort of wing it.
Triple— let’s focus on the draft. We have some good young players. Let’s add to that and evaluate free agency after the draft.
I think we can do very well at 27-38. Top 5 pick should be good. I’m assuming no top 3 so my guy is going to likely be Aaron Nesmith. I’m also hot for Payton Pritchard at 27 or 38.
BRIGGS wrote:TripleThreat wrote:BRIGGS wrote: And lastly I’m not just gonna spend the money if I don’t get what I want. That’s one big reason why I wouldn’t want paul. He’s not part of the plan but he uses gross amounts of cap for longer than I’d be happy with
Briggs,I'll be real here. You've been on this board for years and years. How many guys have you touted that the Knicks should sign to large dollar contracts?
I've been on this board for years and years, but less than you. How many times have I said trade for this guy who still has 20 plus million OR MORE AAV on multiple years left on his deal? I don't. I just really don't do that kind of stuff. If I do it, it's for a reason. Multiple reasons. But let's hear what the other guys think. If you want, start a new thread asking "Should The Knicks Trade For Chris Paul Or Not?"
Rarely does one get what they want in free agency. When LBJ signed with the Heat, everyone else didn't get what they wanted. Grant Hill with the Magic. Shaq with the Lakers. Durant with the Warriors.
There is no "plan", no well run team has a plan. Teams have some broad concepts based on established trends and dealing with market forces and then they just take each individual situation as it comes, do the best they can and sort of wing it.
Triple— let’s focus on the draft. We have some good young players. Let’s add to that and evaluate free agency after the draft.
I think we can do very well at 27-38. Top 5 pick should be good. I’m assuming no top 3 so my guy is going to likely be Aaron Nesmith. I’m also hot for Payton Pritchard at 27 or 38.
I think they are going to trade some of those picks, according to a lot of experts this draft is a 90% role player draft
knicks1248 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:TripleThreat wrote:BRIGGS wrote: And lastly I’m not just gonna spend the money if I don’t get what I want. That’s one big reason why I wouldn’t want paul. He’s not part of the plan but he uses gross amounts of cap for longer than I’d be happy with
Briggs,I'll be real here. You've been on this board for years and years. How many guys have you touted that the Knicks should sign to large dollar contracts?
I've been on this board for years and years, but less than you. How many times have I said trade for this guy who still has 20 plus million OR MORE AAV on multiple years left on his deal? I don't. I just really don't do that kind of stuff. If I do it, it's for a reason. Multiple reasons. But let's hear what the other guys think. If you want, start a new thread asking "Should The Knicks Trade For Chris Paul Or Not?"
Rarely does one get what they want in free agency. When LBJ signed with the Heat, everyone else didn't get what they wanted. Grant Hill with the Magic. Shaq with the Lakers. Durant with the Warriors.
There is no "plan", no well run team has a plan. Teams have some broad concepts based on established trends and dealing with market forces and then they just take each individual situation as it comes, do the best they can and sort of wing it.
Triple— let’s focus on the draft. We have some good young players. Let’s add to that and evaluate free agency after the draft.
I think we can do very well at 27-38. Top 5 pick should be good. I’m assuming no top 3 so my guy is going to likely be Aaron Nesmith. I’m also hot for Payton Pritchard at 27 or 38.
I think they are going to trade some of those picks, according to a lot of experts this draft is a 90% role player draft
Which means we don't get great value in return unless unless you think your smarter than many GM's in the league.
I think we all know this is not a great draft.
TripleThreat wrote:BRIGGS wrote:
Why do we want C Paul? He’s gonna be 35.5 years old before he’d touch a basketball for the Knicks. The law of avg says he has little time remaining. Why would I even bother unless it came with a lottery pick? That’s now how u build a team— that’s how u keep it a mess.
When the salary cap gets adjusted to the loss of revenue and when teams begin to project future caps against the new COVID19 normal, the tax line is going to fall. Previous projections on where the tax line were going to be under normal conditions are going to blow up. Combine this with franchises losing a massive amount of revenue and no team will want to be anywhere near the tax zone.Chris Paul is a leader and he makes the players around him better. He's very fundamental and knows how to be at the right place and right time. He does have flaws beyond his aging. He's kind of a control freak who likes to flop. He's also a poor fit for the way the game has changed, he's not an ideal mold for the Attack Guard principle and his lack of size will create a multiplier effect on his decline when he loses yet another step.
However the OKC Thunder have been tax payers for a while and they have a very large warchest of picks to trade. Lottery picks? No, the Knicks won't get lottery picks. But possibly useful picks? Probably.
The Knicks are not getting a Van Fleet or a Harris in FA. They'll be stuck looking at overpaying guys like Alec Burks. A lot of guys won't see long term deals so the guys with player options will opt in and guys who've made good money are incentivized to just ring chase.
Chris Paul can get you into the playoffs. He can carry a team on his back ( not night after night like when he was in his prime) on occasion and gives you a marketing boost. You'll have a real locker room enforcer for the first time in a very long time. Guys like Trier don't pull their bullshit with Paul on the roster. He's very overpaid but he's not without some uses.
Knicks will need to get to the cap floor and it's going to be hard to find value contracts in their situation ( Their only competitive advantage is more years and higher AAV )
Chris Paul and his contract would be a bad fit on nearly every other team, but on the Knicks, he bizarrely makes some sense.
You build a team by dynamically looking at opportunities as they come to you given your situation.
But you have the floor Briggs, look at the FA market and tell us how you would spend the Knicks open cap space.
The only way Id want to see Chris Paul on the team, is with 2 other stars, in their prime. Dont want to see a roster where Paul is expected to carry the team too often. Not at his age. We've seen what happens when an aging star tries to do too much.
CP3 is a first rate floor general. Thats where he can have the most impact.
GustavBahler wrote:TripleThreat wrote:BRIGGS wrote:
Why do we want C Paul? He’s gonna be 35.5 years old before he’d touch a basketball for the Knicks. The law of avg says he has little time remaining. Why would I even bother unless it came with a lottery pick? That’s now how u build a team— that’s how u keep it a mess.
When the salary cap gets adjusted to the loss of revenue and when teams begin to project future caps against the new COVID19 normal, the tax line is going to fall. Previous projections on where the tax line were going to be under normal conditions are going to blow up. Combine this with franchises losing a massive amount of revenue and no team will want to be anywhere near the tax zone.Chris Paul is a leader and he makes the players around him better. He's very fundamental and knows how to be at the right place and right time. He does have flaws beyond his aging. He's kind of a control freak who likes to flop. He's also a poor fit for the way the game has changed, he's not an ideal mold for the Attack Guard principle and his lack of size will create a multiplier effect on his decline when he loses yet another step.
However the OKC Thunder have been tax payers for a while and they have a very large warchest of picks to trade. Lottery picks? No, the Knicks won't get lottery picks. But possibly useful picks? Probably.
The Knicks are not getting a Van Fleet or a Harris in FA. They'll be stuck looking at overpaying guys like Alec Burks. A lot of guys won't see long term deals so the guys with player options will opt in and guys who've made good money are incentivized to just ring chase.
Chris Paul can get you into the playoffs. He can carry a team on his back ( not night after night like when he was in his prime) on occasion and gives you a marketing boost. You'll have a real locker room enforcer for the first time in a very long time. Guys like Trier don't pull their bullshit with Paul on the roster. He's very overpaid but he's not without some uses.
Knicks will need to get to the cap floor and it's going to be hard to find value contracts in their situation ( Their only competitive advantage is more years and higher AAV )
Chris Paul and his contract would be a bad fit on nearly every other team, but on the Knicks, he bizarrely makes some sense.
You build a team by dynamically looking at opportunities as they come to you given your situation.
But you have the floor Briggs, look at the FA market and tell us how you would spend the Knicks open cap space.
The only way Id want to see Chris Paul on the team, is with 2 other stars, in their prime. Dont want to see a roster where Paul is expected to carry the team too often. Not at his age. We've seen what happens when an aging star tries to do too much.
CP3 is a first rate floor general. Thats where he can have the most impact.
Chris Paul is a walking time bomb. And I mean with a short timer.
Anything you get on the floor with him should be considered a bonus but really he is cap fodder OKC can’t afford.
My sense is tax wise league will do some sort of cap adjustment either an amnesty or be able to NOT count one big salary toward a shrinking cap. In some form. A player making 43mil say has just half toward the cap. Just an opinion.
IF true he won’t come with a no. 1 draft pick. Idea is not to enrich cash laden teams but give relief to smaller market ones and maintain a balance. League protects the value of those franchises.