Knicks · This is who the Knicks are (page 1)

They are a very solid team when fully intact. The five man starting unit is for real, and one of the better in the game. It’s definitely not the most talented, but the pieces fit together great. The bench is good if the starting lineup is intact. But this team doesn’t have enough firepower to withstand any injuries to the starting five. There’s no plug and play as far as moving guys up the ladder. Rose looks done. Quickley will put up numbers but has less impact as a starter. Grimes is the glue that holds it all together, the connecting piece, but he’s not yet going to take over games in a more advanced role consistently. And his defensive responsibilities are too great to carry an offensive load too. Fournier could be the guy but seems uninterested in a role as a bench spark, and is just too much of a liability on the defensive end. Knicks need a talent boost off the bench. A guy like Kelly Oubre for example. Anyways this isn’t a thread about who we should add, just a recognition that this team is exactly what they seem to be over the last month. A really good team when the starting 5 is intact, but a team who can lose to anyone when just one piece is missing. A .500 team is about what can be expected in this type of situation. The goal now is to figure out how to fill the gaps when needed so injuries can be managed.

Knixkik wrote:They are a very solid team when fully intact. The five man starting unit is for real, and one of the better in the game. It’s definitely not the most talented, but the pieces fit together great. The bench is good if the starting lineup is intact. But this team doesn’t have enough firepower to withstand any injuries to the starting five. There’s no plug and play as far as moving guys up the ladder. Rose looks done. Quickley will put up numbers but has less impact as a starter. Grimes is the glue that holds it all together, the connecting piece, but he’s not yet going to take over games in a more advanced role consistently. And his defensive responsibilities are too great to carry an offensive load too. Fournier could be the guy but seems uninterested in a role as a bench spark, and is just too much of a liability on the defensive end. Knicks need a talent boost off the bench. A guy like Kelly Oubre for example. Anyways this isn’t a thread about who we should add, just a recognition that this team is exactly what they seem to be over the last month. A really good team when the starting 5 is intact, but a team who can lose to anyone when just one piece is missing. A .500 team is about what can be expected in this type of situation. The goal now is to figure out how to fill the gaps when needed so injuries can be managed.

All true.

My take is if we are going to be a .500 team why give RJ the bag? I don’t think .500 was the thinking of the FO. I’m sure like all of us, after locking down 4 players in your starting unit with longterm contracts and paying EF 18mil to sit on the bench. I doubt anybody said this is only a .500 team. So clearly there’s some blame to go around.

But as fans, knowing we have an average team, it reduces the expectations. Now the question is how do we become better than a .500 team? Based on the long term contracts, the 3 players we are built around can all score 20 or more. Best shot blocking rebounding rim protector in the league. Top PG and a PF that teams need to double. Best bench for the last 3 seasons. A coach with more experience than most current nba coaches. A FO who knows how to find gems and won’t allow the Knicks to get fleeced in any team trades. And finally an owner with an open purse.

We should be playing better than what we have scene. With all those contracts I mentioned and the team falls apart when Grimes is out?

blkexec wrote:

Knixkik wrote:They are a very solid team when fully intact. The five man starting unit is for real, and one of the better in the game. It’s definitely not the most talented, but the pieces fit together great. The bench is good if the starting lineup is intact. But this team doesn’t have enough firepower to withstand any injuries to the starting five. There’s no plug and play as far as moving guys up the ladder. Rose looks done. Quickley will put up numbers but has less impact as a starter. Grimes is the glue that holds it all together, the connecting piece, but he’s not yet going to take over games in a more advanced role consistently. And his defensive responsibilities are too great to carry an offensive load too. Fournier could be the guy but seems uninterested in a role as a bench spark, and is just too much of a liability on the defensive end. Knicks need a talent boost off the bench. A guy like Kelly Oubre for example. Anyways this isn’t a thread about who we should add, just a recognition that this team is exactly what they seem to be over the last month. A really good team when the starting 5 is intact, but a team who can lose to anyone when just one piece is missing. A .500 team is about what can be expected in this type of situation. The goal now is to figure out how to fill the gaps when needed so injuries can be managed.

All true.

My take is if we are going to be a .500 team why give RJ the bag? I don’t think .500 was the thinking of the FO. I’m sure like all of us, after locking down 4 players in your starting unit with longterm contracts and paying EF 18mil to sit on the bench. I doubt anybody said this is only a .500 team. So clearly there’s some blame to go around.

But as fans, knowing we have an average team, it reduces the expectations. Now the question is how do we become better than a .500 team? Based on the long term contracts, the 3 players we are built around can all score 20 or more. Best shot blocking rebounding rim protector in the league. Top PG and a PF that teams need to double. Best bench for the last 3 seasons. A coach with more experience than most current nba coaches. A FO who knows how to find gems and won’t allow the Knicks to get fleeced in any team trades. And finally an owner with an open purse.

We should be playing better than what we have scene. With all those contracts I mentioned and the team falls apart when Grimes is out?

We don’t have one player making max and we have only 3 guys making real money. No one really got the bag by todays standards.

All good points. Feel we are a good team with good pieces. However, we are missing a franchise player. We had a chance with DM. But thought he cost too much. We now missed on him twice. My expectations have always been for this team to be good enough to have a winning record. Until we find a way to get a top player in the NBA, that is all I expect. Anyone else expecting more and blaming our good but not great pieces for less, is just unrealistic. Adding a few glue pieces may help but does that really allow us to compete against teams with KD, Greek, Embid, Harden, Irving, Luka, Jokic, DM, etc etc. I am okay with keeping proven producers and developing youngins until we get someone at that level that can raise my expectations.

Knixkik wrote:They are a very solid team when fully intact. The five man starting unit is for real, and one of the better in the game. It’s definitely not the most talented, but the pieces fit together great. The bench is good if the starting lineup is intact. But this team doesn’t have enough firepower to withstand any injuries to the starting five. There’s no plug and play as far as moving guys up the ladder. Rose looks done. Quickley will put up numbers but has less impact as a starter. Grimes is the glue that holds it all together, the connecting piece, but he’s not yet going to take over games in a more advanced role consistently. And his defensive responsibilities are too great to carry an offensive load too. Fournier could be the guy but seems uninterested in a role as a bench spark, and is just too much of a liability on the defensive end. Knicks need a talent boost off the bench. A guy like Kelly Oubre for example. Anyways this isn’t a thread about who we should add, just a recognition that this team is exactly what they seem to be over the last month. A really good team when the starting 5 is intact, but a team who can lose to anyone when just one piece is missing. A .500 team is about what can be expected in this type of situation. The goal now is to figure out how to fill the gaps when needed so injuries can be managed.

This is not and has not been a really good team. Sorry. We peaked at .500 and the coming schedule will make it challenging to maintain being an even average team as currently constituted.

What we can legitimately like about this team is the addition of Brunson, the development of Grimes, and the play of MR, Randall, and Barrett. The rest is a mixed bag.

To say we have a solid starting unit is only true if you are talking about a team that can challenge itself to be uncritically, acceptably average. Average will make the playoffs - so there's that.

And Thibs loves being a Knicks coach under any circumstances, many of his own design and making. This team, as currently constituted, isn't going to become above average under any other coach.

The fact of the matter is that it is precisely the constitution of the team itself that is the problem the challenge. And the challenge isn't patience for youth to develop, its the absence of talent. Yes, Thibs is playing "the youth" but this doesn't look like a team developing talent at all, its a team playing over-achieving, second-round talent. We don't look like OKC or Utah or Detroit. And that's our burden.

Either we up the ante for talent (e.g. trade Randall, Quickley, Barrett, picks) for upgrades and keep Thibs OR truly prune the roster and acquire high risk, high reward orphaned players (keep Cam) and get a true development coach who will not only play youth but cull the roster of dross. Cam is the canary in the coal mine. He's a brain-dead, undependable but high-reward player who is the NBA poster-boy for "needs development" and is obviously someone Thibs has no stomach for (and probably rightfully so given Thibs is there to Win, first and, oh yeah, "play the kids (because the FO has given him no choice)).

As an eternal Knicks fan (since the early 60's) I have no illusion that the Knicks will develop anyone (bye, Cam). And I know I sound like an armchair GM but Leon Rose needs to gut this roster sooner than later. Not for over-the-horizon picks but for better talent around Grimes, Brunson, and MR. Name a legitimate prospect sitting on our bench 6 -15. In fact name anybody sitting near the bench 11-15 that belongs in the NBA.

We are a Loooong way from Kansas, my friend.

fwk00 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:They are a very solid team when fully intact. The five man starting unit is for real, and one of the better in the game. It’s definitely not the most talented, but the pieces fit together great. The bench is good if the starting lineup is intact. But this team doesn’t have enough firepower to withstand any injuries to the starting five. There’s no plug and play as far as moving guys up the ladder. Rose looks done. Quickley will put up numbers but has less impact as a starter. Grimes is the glue that holds it all together, the connecting piece, but he’s not yet going to take over games in a more advanced role consistently. And his defensive responsibilities are too great to carry an offensive load too. Fournier could be the guy but seems uninterested in a role as a bench spark, and is just too much of a liability on the defensive end. Knicks need a talent boost off the bench. A guy like Kelly Oubre for example. Anyways this isn’t a thread about who we should add, just a recognition that this team is exactly what they seem to be over the last month. A really good team when the starting 5 is intact, but a team who can lose to anyone when just one piece is missing. A .500 team is about what can be expected in this type of situation. The goal now is to figure out how to fill the gaps when needed so injuries can be managed.

This is not and has not been a really good team. Sorry. We peaked at .500 and the coming schedule will make it challenging to maintain being an even average team as currently constituted.

What we can legitimately like about this team is the addition of Brunson, the development of Grimes, and the play of MR, Randall, and Barrett. The rest is a mixed bag.

To say we have a solid starting unit is only true if you are talking about a team that can challenge itself to be uncritically, acceptably average. Average will make the playoffs - so there's that.

And Thibs loves being a Knicks coach under any circumstances, many of his own design and making. This team, as currently constituted, isn't going to become above average under any other coach.

The fact of the matter is that it is precisely the constitution of the team itself that is the problem the challenge. And the challenge isn't patience for youth to develop, its the absence of talent. Yes, Thibs is playing "the youth" but this doesn't look like a team developing talent at all, its a team playing over-achieving, second-round talent. We don't look like OKC or Utah or Detroit. And that's our burden.

Either we up the ante for talent (e.g. trade Randall, Quickley, Barrett, picks) for upgrades and keep Thibs OR truly prune the roster and acquire high risk, high reward orphaned players (keep Cam) and get a true development coach who will not only play youth but cull the roster of dross. Cam is the canary in the coal mine. He's a brain-dead, undependable but high-reward player who is the NBA poster-boy for "needs development" and is obviously someone Thibs has no stomach for (and probably rightfully so given Thibs is there to Win, first and, oh yeah, "play the kids (because the FO has given him no choice)).

As an eternal Knicks fan (since the early 60's) I have no illusion that the Knicks will develop anyone (bye, Cam). And I know I sound like an armchair GM but Leon Rose needs to gut this roster sooner than later. Not for over-the-horizon picks but for better talent around Grimes, Brunson, and MR. Name a legitimate prospect sitting on our bench 6 -15. In fact name anybody sitting near the bench 11-15 that belongs in the NBA.

We are a Loooong way from Kansas, my friend.

Statistically the starting 5 has been one of the best in basketball. The issue is it has been barely intact other than the hot stretch. It fell back apart when grimes hurt his ankle. Then Brunson and Barrett got hurt. It’s better than average, just can’t make up for it when anyone is out.

In the end it's going to be a 38-43 win team depending on health, luck and how we recover from the Dallas choke. But I've always expected this to be a play-in team and a (hopefully) tough out in the playoffs. Still expect a major trade in February so expectations and ceiling can change but if everything stays the same, it's an average team. Not good, not terrible, just right in the middle.

SergioNYK wrote:In the end it's going to be a 38-43 win team depending on health, luck and how we recover from the Dallas choke. But I've always expected this to be a play-in team and a (hopefully) tough out in the playoffs. Still expect a major trade in February so expectations and ceiling can change but if everything stays the same, it's an average team. Not good, not terrible, just right in the middle.

Unfortunately, I don't really see any major trades on the horizon. At least not yet. The front office needs to stay pay and resist the urge to waste assets on vets who only slight raise the floor. Talent acquisition is a long process.

fwk00 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:They are a very solid team when fully intact. The five man starting unit is for real, and one of the better in the game. It’s definitely not the most talented, but the pieces fit together great. The bench is good if the starting lineup is intact. But this team doesn’t have enough firepower to withstand any injuries to the starting five. There’s no plug and play as far as moving guys up the ladder. Rose looks done. Quickley will put up numbers but has less impact as a starter. Grimes is the glue that holds it all together, the connecting piece, but he’s not yet going to take over games in a more advanced role consistently. And his defensive responsibilities are too great to carry an offensive load too. Fournier could be the guy but seems uninterested in a role as a bench spark, and is just too much of a liability on the defensive end. Knicks need a talent boost off the bench. A guy like Kelly Oubre for example. Anyways this isn’t a thread about who we should add, just a recognition that this team is exactly what they seem to be over the last month. A really good team when the starting 5 is intact, but a team who can lose to anyone when just one piece is missing. A .500 team is about what can be expected in this type of situation. The goal now is to figure out how to fill the gaps when needed so injuries can be managed.

This is not and has not been a really good team. Sorry. We peaked at .500 and the coming schedule will make it challenging to maintain being an even average team as currently constituted.

What we can legitimately like about this team is the addition of Brunson, the development of Grimes, and the play of MR, Randall, and Barrett. The rest is a mixed bag.

To say we have a solid starting unit is only true if you are talking about a team that can challenge itself to be uncritically, acceptably average. Average will make the playoffs - so there's that.

And Thibs loves being a Knicks coach under any circumstances, many of his own design and making. This team, as currently constituted, isn't going to become above average under any other coach.

The fact of the matter is that it is precisely the constitution of the team itself that is the problem the challenge. And the challenge isn't patience for youth to develop, its the absence of talent. Yes, Thibs is playing "the youth" but this doesn't look like a team developing talent at all, its a team playing over-achieving, second-round talent. We don't look like OKC or Utah or Detroit. And that's our burden.

Either we up the ante for talent (e.g. trade Randall, Quickley, Barrett, picks) for upgrades and keep Thibs OR truly prune the roster and acquire high risk, high reward orphaned players (keep Cam) and get a true development coach who will not only play youth but cull the roster of dross. Cam is the canary in the coal mine. He's a brain-dead, undependable but high-reward player who is the NBA poster-boy for "needs development" and is obviously someone Thibs has no stomach for (and probably rightfully so given Thibs is there to Win, first and, oh yeah, "play the kids (because the FO has given him no choice)).

As an eternal Knicks fan (since the early 60's) I have no illusion that the Knicks will develop anyone (bye, Cam). And I know I sound like an armchair GM but Leon Rose needs to gut this roster sooner than later. Not for over-the-horizon picks but for better talent around Grimes, Brunson, and MR. Name a legitimate prospect sitting on our bench 6 -15. In fact name anybody sitting near the bench 11-15 that belongs in the NBA.

We are a Loooong way from Kansas, my friend.

Just a few points.
Detroit looks like crap.
OKC looks like crap.
Jazz took on several vets, reason why they are one game above .500.
Have no idea what you are talking about.
Where was this lack of development talk a week ago?
Young guys stepped in very nicely with guys being hurt. Should have beat a Luka 60 click if not for massive collapse and one missed rebound.
You have been watching since the 60's.
That's a lot of pessimism built up. Now I see.

HofstraBBall wrote:All good points. Feel we are a good team with good pieces. However, we are missing a franchise player. We had a chance with DM. But thought he cost too much. We now missed on him twice. My expectations have always been for this team to be good enough to have a winning record. Until we find a way to get a top player in the NBA, that is all I expect. Anyone else expecting more and blaming our good but not great pieces for less, is just unrealistic. Adding a few glue pieces may help but does that really allow us to compete against teams with KD, Greek, Embid, Harden, Irving, Luka, Jokic, DM, etc etc. I am okay with keeping proven producers and developing youngins until we get someone at that level that can raise my expectations.

Do you think Donovan Mitchell would have been this good if the Knicks had drafted him? I’m of the belief that the Knicks organization ruins the draft pick rather than the draft pick ruining their chances.

Vmart wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:All good points. Feel we are a good team with good pieces. However, we are missing a franchise player. We had a chance with DM. But thought he cost too much. We now missed on him twice. My expectations have always been for this team to be good enough to have a winning record. Until we find a way to get a top player in the NBA, that is all I expect. Anyone else expecting more and blaming our good but not great pieces for less, is just unrealistic. Adding a few glue pieces may help but does that really allow us to compete against teams with KD, Greek, Embid, Harden, Irving, Luka, Jokic, DM, etc etc. I am okay with keeping proven producers and developing youngins until we get someone at that level that can raise my expectations.

Do you think Donovan Mitchell would have been this good if the Knicks had drafted him? I’m of the belief that the Knicks organization ruins the draft pick rather than the draft pick ruining their chances.

I pretty much agree. Certainly prior to the current FO. I think you also have to add in trying to find your game in the New York market. You know, fans that want a hall of famer yesterday and the media who tosses them the raw meat. Fortunately we are seeing development now in spite of.

Vmart wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:All good points. Feel we are a good team with good pieces. However, we are missing a franchise player. We had a chance with DM. But thought he cost too much. We now missed on him twice. My expectations have always been for this team to be good enough to have a winning record. Until we find a way to get a top player in the NBA, that is all I expect. Anyone else expecting more and blaming our good but not great pieces for less, is just unrealistic. Adding a few glue pieces may help but does that really allow us to compete against teams with KD, Greek, Embid, Harden, Irving, Luka, Jokic, DM, etc etc. I am okay with keeping proven producers and developing youngins until we get someone at that level that can raise my expectations.

Do you think Donovan Mitchell would have been this good if the Knicks had drafted him? I’m of the belief that the Knicks organization ruins the draft pick rather than the draft pick ruining their chances.

Don't know. Draft is a Lotto ball floating around. Most picks make just as much sense as others. Never sure what you will get. We picked Obi,best available.
What I don't get and never will is how guys can blame a FO for not picking the winning lottery numbers. No one is cursing out their husband for not winning Powerball every Wednesday.
For those pointing to "Our" FO for not getting it right, I want them to tell me which team have consistently "developed" all their draft picks? Imo, unless you pick the top 2, you have just as good a chance at picking someone that will fail than anyone else. And btw, top 2 are no guarantees either.

Some other guys, Fwk00, was shitting on the Knicks for having a couple of second rounders that have been able to get to the level of starting on most NBA teams. Smh

Fans that should be complaining are teams like Timberwolves,Sixers, Cavs, Sac Town, Utah, Detroit, OKC, etc. Teams that have had top picks for years and still have nothing to show for it.

Vmart wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:All good points. Feel we are a good team with good pieces. However, we are missing a franchise player. We had a chance with DM. But thought he cost too much. We now missed on him twice. My expectations have always been for this team to be good enough to have a winning record. Until we find a way to get a top player in the NBA, that is all I expect. Anyone else expecting more and blaming our good but not great pieces for less, is just unrealistic. Adding a few glue pieces may help but does that really allow us to compete against teams with KD, Greek, Embid, Harden, Irving, Luka, Jokic, DM, etc etc. I am okay with keeping proven producers and developing youngins until we get someone at that level that can raise my expectations.

Do you think Donovan Mitchell would have been this good if the Knicks had drafted him? I’m of the belief that the Knicks organization ruins the draft pick rather than the draft pick ruining their chances.

Vmart. Agree 1000%

HofstraBBall wrote:

fwk00 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:They are a very solid team when fully intact. The five man starting unit is for real, and one of the better in the game. It’s definitely not the most talented, but the pieces fit together great. The bench is good if the starting lineup is intact. But this team doesn’t have enough firepower to withstand any injuries to the starting five. There’s no plug and play as far as moving guys up the ladder. Rose looks done. Quickley will put up numbers but has less impact as a starter. Grimes is the glue that holds it all together, the connecting piece, but he’s not yet going to take over games in a more advanced role consistently. And his defensive responsibilities are too great to carry an offensive load too. Fournier could be the guy but seems uninterested in a role as a bench spark, and is just too much of a liability on the defensive end. Knicks need a talent boost off the bench. A guy like Kelly Oubre for example. Anyways this isn’t a thread about who we should add, just a recognition that this team is exactly what they seem to be over the last month. A really good team when the starting 5 is intact, but a team who can lose to anyone when just one piece is missing. A .500 team is about what can be expected in this type of situation. The goal now is to figure out how to fill the gaps when needed so injuries can be managed.

This is not and has not been a really good team. Sorry. We peaked at .500 and the coming schedule will make it challenging to maintain being an even average team as currently constituted.

What we can legitimately like about this team is the addition of Brunson, the development of Grimes, and the play of MR, Randall, and Barrett. The rest is a mixed bag.

To say we have a solid starting unit is only true if you are talking about a team that can challenge itself to be uncritically, acceptably average. Average will make the playoffs - so there's that.

And Thibs loves being a Knicks coach under any circumstances, many of his own design and making. This team, as currently constituted, isn't going to become above average under any other coach.

The fact of the matter is that it is precisely the constitution of the team itself that is the problem the challenge. And the challenge isn't patience for youth to develop, its the absence of talent. Yes, Thibs is playing "the youth" but this doesn't look like a team developing talent at all, its a team playing over-achieving, second-round talent. We don't look like OKC or Utah or Detroit. And that's our burden.

Either we up the ante for talent (e.g. trade Randall, Quickley, Barrett, picks) for upgrades and keep Thibs OR truly prune the roster and acquire high risk, high reward orphaned players (keep Cam) and get a true development coach who will not only play youth but cull the roster of dross. Cam is the canary in the coal mine. He's a brain-dead, undependable but high-reward player who is the NBA poster-boy for "needs development" and is obviously someone Thibs has no stomach for (and probably rightfully so given Thibs is there to Win, first and, oh yeah, "play the kids (because the FO has given him no choice)).

As an eternal Knicks fan (since the early 60's) I have no illusion that the Knicks will develop anyone (bye, Cam). And I know I sound like an armchair GM but Leon Rose needs to gut this roster sooner than later. Not for over-the-horizon picks but for better talent around Grimes, Brunson, and MR. Name a legitimate prospect sitting on our bench 6 -15. In fact name anybody sitting near the bench 11-15 that belongs in the NBA.

We are a Loooong way from Kansas, my friend.

Just a few points.
Detroit looks like crap.
OKC looks like crap.
Jazz took on several vets, reason why they are one game above .500.
Have no idea what you are talking about.
Where was this lack of development talk a week ago?
Young guys stepped in very nicely with guys being hurt. Should have beat a Luka 60 click if not for massive collapse and one missed rebound.
You have been watching since the 60's.
That's a lot of pessimism built up. Now I see.

https://www.tankathon.com/power_rankings

HofstraBBall wrote:

fwk00 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:They are a very solid team when fully intact. The five man starting unit is for real, and one of the better in the game. It’s definitely not the most talented, but the pieces fit together great. The bench is good if the starting lineup is intact. But this team doesn’t have enough firepower to withstand any injuries to the starting five. There’s no plug and play as far as moving guys up the ladder. Rose looks done. Quickley will put up numbers but has less impact as a starter. Grimes is the glue that holds it all together, the connecting piece, but he’s not yet going to take over games in a more advanced role consistently. And his defensive responsibilities are too great to carry an offensive load too. Fournier could be the guy but seems uninterested in a role as a bench spark, and is just too much of a liability on the defensive end. Knicks need a talent boost off the bench. A guy like Kelly Oubre for example. Anyways this isn’t a thread about who we should add, just a recognition that this team is exactly what they seem to be over the last month. A really good team when the starting 5 is intact, but a team who can lose to anyone when just one piece is missing. A .500 team is about what can be expected in this type of situation. The goal now is to figure out how to fill the gaps when needed so injuries can be managed.

This is not and has not been a really good team. Sorry. We peaked at .500 and the coming schedule will make it challenging to maintain being an even average team as currently constituted.

What we can legitimately like about this team is the addition of Brunson, the development of Grimes, and the play of MR, Randall, and Barrett. The rest is a mixed bag.

To say we have a solid starting unit is only true if you are talking about a team that can challenge itself to be uncritically, acceptably average. Average will make the playoffs - so there's that.

And Thibs loves being a Knicks coach under any circumstances, many of his own design and making. This team, as currently constituted, isn't going to become above average under any other coach.

The fact of the matter is that it is precisely the constitution of the team itself that is the problem the challenge. And the challenge isn't patience for youth to develop, its the absence of talent. Yes, Thibs is playing "the youth" but this doesn't look like a team developing talent at all, its a team playing over-achieving, second-round talent. We don't look like OKC or Utah or Detroit. And that's our burden.

Either we up the ante for talent (e.g. trade Randall, Quickley, Barrett, picks) for upgrades and keep Thibs OR truly prune the roster and acquire high risk, high reward orphaned players (keep Cam) and get a true development coach who will not only play youth but cull the roster of dross. Cam is the canary in the coal mine. He's a brain-dead, undependable but high-reward player who is the NBA poster-boy for "needs development" and is obviously someone Thibs has no stomach for (and probably rightfully so given Thibs is there to Win, first and, oh yeah, "play the kids (because the FO has given him no choice)).

As an eternal Knicks fan (since the early 60's) I have no illusion that the Knicks will develop anyone (bye, Cam). And I know I sound like an armchair GM but Leon Rose needs to gut this roster sooner than later. Not for over-the-horizon picks but for better talent around Grimes, Brunson, and MR. Name a legitimate prospect sitting on our bench 6 -15. In fact name anybody sitting near the bench 11-15 that belongs in the NBA.

We are a Loooong way from Kansas, my friend.

Just a few points.
Detroit looks like crap.
OKC looks like crap.
Jazz took on several vets, reason why they are one game above .500.
Have no idea what you are talking about.
Where was this lack of development talk a week ago?
Young guys stepped in very nicely with guys being hurt. Should have beat a Luka 60 click if not for massive collapse and one missed rebound.
You have been watching since the 60's.
That's a lot of pessimism built up. Now I see.

Thibs is merely playing the hand he was dealt, little more. Call that development if you like but its not in my book.

Development involves something along the lines of what Phil Jackson attempted to establish - bring in youth while you surround them with players who (in his words) Get after it.

It also involves establishing a predictable, uniform, sustainable system of play and an expectation that you leave it on the floor when you are called - Gleague through bottom of the bench to top of the lineup.
This is different from the "holding them accountable" rhetoric as if the players were school children who needed hall monitors.
The way that Mike Miller took over and immediately could establish a winning inertia is testament to the void left behind when he was let go.

Leon Rose, Thibs and his Sesame St. neighborhood of coaches aren't doing that. They are grocery clerks and accountants looking to squeeze an extra second round draft pick out of a deal at the expense of welfare of the team itself. The players pander to Thibs. Thibs is the system. His way or a lonely doghouse or the end of the bench where you can distribute gatorade and wave a towel.

Within two years Detroit, Utah, and OKC will be powerhouses and we will be debating why we are losing games late in the fourth quarter.

I am not a pessimist. I have advocated for over a year's time to trade Barrett, Fournier and Randle, trade for hungry, hustle players, stop chasing BullSh2t superstar fumes... - play to win with players who are here to win.

Your selective statistical anomaly is unsustainable from a Mavs game to playing the worst team in the NBA 2 nights later. After three years of Thibs, fans can rightfully be surprised by what to expect the next game as Forrest Gump is by a box of chocolates - we never know what we'll get.

HofstraBBall wrote:

Vmart wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:All good points. Feel we are a good team with good pieces. However, we are missing a franchise player. We had a chance with DM. But thought he cost too much. We now missed on him twice. My expectations have always been for this team to be good enough to have a winning record. Until we find a way to get a top player in the NBA, that is all I expect. Anyone else expecting more and blaming our good but not great pieces for less, is just unrealistic. Adding a few glue pieces may help but does that really allow us to compete against teams with KD, Greek, Embid, Harden, Irving, Luka, Jokic, DM, etc etc. I am okay with keeping proven producers and developing youngins until we get someone at that level that can raise my expectations.

Do you think Donovan Mitchell would have been this good if the Knicks had drafted him? I’m of the belief that the Knicks organization ruins the draft pick rather than the draft pick ruining their chances.

Don't know. Draft is a Lotto ball floating around. Most picks make just as much sense as others. Never sure what you will get. We picked Obi,best available.
What I don't get and never will is how guys can blame a FO for not picking the winning lottery numbers. No one is cursing out their husband for not winning Powerball every Wednesday.
For those pointing to "Our" FO for not getting it right, I want them to tell me which team have consistently "developed" all their draft picks? Imo, unless you pick the top 2, you have just as good a chance at picking someone that will fail than anyone else. And btw, top 2 are no guarantees either.

Some other guys, Fwk00, was shitting on the Knicks for having a couple of second rounders that have been able to get to the level of starting on most NBA teams. Smh

Fans that should be complaining are teams like Timberwolves,Sixers, Cavs, Sac Town, Utah, Detroit, OKC, etc. Teams that have had top picks for years and still have nothing to show for it.

Sorry, you got that wrong. Plenty of fine second round picks overachieve and have long, winning NBA careers.

Maybe I'm blind to it but an NBA starter is not code for a co-incidental player who starts because he's needed there for few games but one who has some years there.

Name the two we have that fit that bill? I'll grant you that's TBD but you're being awfully sure about players who our FO would swap out in a heartbeat. Not sure what others teams they would slide into but, sure, send them there at the right price.

fwk00 wrote:Thibs is merely playing the hand he was dealt, little more. Call that development if you like but its not in my book.

Development involves something along the lines of what Phil Jackson attempted to establish - bring in youth while you surround them with players who (in his words) Get after it.

It also involves establishing a predictable, uniform, sustainable system of play and an expectation that you leave it on the floor when you are called - Gleague through bottom of the bench to top of the lineup.
This is different from the "holding them accountable" rhetoric as if the players were school children who needed hall monitors.
The way that Mike Miller took over and immediately could establish a winning inertia is testament to the void left behind when he was let go.

This is literally what is happening. What you seem to be referencing in a perfect, in-a-vacuum, straight-line type result which is far from the up and down reality of development and other simple team and roster dynamics that every organization deals with.

martin wrote:

fwk00 wrote:Thibs is merely playing the hand he was dealt, little more. Call that development if you like but its not in my book.

Development involves something along the lines of what Phil Jackson attempted to establish - bring in youth while you surround them with players who (in his words) Get after it.

It also involves establishing a predictable, uniform, sustainable system of play and an expectation that you leave it on the floor when you are called - Gleague through bottom of the bench to top of the lineup.
This is different from the "holding them accountable" rhetoric as if the players were school children who needed hall monitors.
The way that Mike Miller took over and immediately could establish a winning inertia is testament to the void left behind when he was let go.

This is literally what is happening. What you seem to be referencing in a perfect, in-a-vacuum, straight-line type result which is far from the up and down reality of development and other simple team and roster dynamics that every organization deals with.

Pass the bong, man.

Vmart wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:All good points. Feel we are a good team with good pieces. However, we are missing a franchise player. We had a chance with DM. But thought he cost too much. We now missed on him twice. My expectations have always been for this team to be good enough to have a winning record. Until we find a way to get a top player in the NBA, that is all I expect. Anyone else expecting more and blaming our good but not great pieces for less, is just unrealistic. Adding a few glue pieces may help but does that really allow us to compete against teams with KD, Greek, Embid, Harden, Irving, Luka, Jokic, DM, etc etc. I am okay with keeping proven producers and developing youngins until we get someone at that level that can raise my expectations.

Do you think Donovan Mitchell would have been this good if the Knicks had drafted him? I’m of the belief that the Knicks organization ruins the draft pick rather than the draft pick ruining their chances.

Mitchell would have become a star here even despite Fizz trying to ruin him

(fwkoo) Development involves something along the lines of what Phil Jackson attempted to establish - bring in youth while you surround them with players who (in his words) Get after it.

That’s the problem with the development of this team, it’s the opposite. The players that get after it (deuce, grimes, IQ) are the yoots. The main vets are scorers. But when you have vets that “Get after it” and draft some young high pick players, they will improve and potentially become a 2 way player.

And sometimes during this (my pipe dream) 2 way player culture, which is aligned with thibs defensive mindset, we might strike gold and draft a young d.rose surrounded by vets that “Get after it” Verses playing around in the later 1st or 2nd rounds just to find solid roll players.

blkexec wrote:

(fwkoo) Development involves something along the lines of what Phil Jackson attempted to establish - bring in youth while you surround them with players who (in his words) Get after it.

That’s the problem with the development of this team, it’s the opposite. The players that get after it (deuce, grimes, IQ) are the yoots. The main vets are scorers. But when you have vets that “Get after it” and draft some young high pick players, they will improve and potentially become a 2 way player.

And sometimes during this (my pipe dream) 2 way player culture, which is aligned with thibs defensive mindset, we might strike gold and draft a young d.rose surrounded by vets that “Get after it” Verses playing around in the later 1st or 2nd rounds just to find solid roll players.

Yeah. That's a pretty fair assessment.

We do have some kids that leave it all on the floor but as an unknown KFTV commentator once opined, "When you are playing .500 ball AND your players are playing at their utmost, you have a talent issue." (I paraphrased this but...).

In other words, this particular roster (and its a big assumption) IS giving its all just to tread water. AND, as you note, there are no vets to tell these kids how to pace themselves, how to responsibly chill out between games, and so on. Living like a gym rat is not a life. Once these guys get a bag, things change.

Look at other teams that blow it up. Utah had Gobert AND Mitchell, competed hard, but at the end of the day *that* talent had peaked. Ainge didn't say, "let's see what happens in the off season". This is true of many teams.

Look at what we have. What can we possibly build around? And build with what? Picks in the teens?

My working theory and advocacy for years has been to identify teams that ARE contending for a ring, figure out what will help them win it all, and make that trade for better value than what you have. Randle, Fournier, Barrett can all add legitimate value to teams whose window of opportunity to win is closing. Listen to LeBron's cry for help. What about Embid? Phoenix? Hartenstein would look good in a Mavs uniform, no?

And Toronto could realize they're toast and have a reorg.

We have a handful of sand right now. IMO, shake it up - act decisively.

I have no idea why eternally waiting for Basketball Jones to show up is a plan.