martin wrote:franco12 wrote:martin wrote:franco12 wrote:martin wrote:franco12 wrote:Nalod wrote:If we play the and they don't develop fast enough. We are not good enough.
If we play our guys too many minutes, and we fall short, we are not good enough.
WE are not good enough to contend. Live with it. Last year Randle got hurt, iHart surged and it was great.
This year our starters are as good as any. But our bench is not.
Might want to ask yourselves what does Thibs know about his yoot that we don't.
Calling for his head as if some magic man coach will develop them faster is a nice thought.
I think our bench is fine. Thibs won’t play them because any number of reasons. I’m not looking for him to develop guys, I’m looking for Thibs to lessen the minute load on guys that we need for a play off run. If we can’t win with Kolek getting 5-10 minutes, then we’re not that good.
We saw Hukporti play and he looked decent- better than Sims, yet- zero time when Kat was out.
And here is the thing- we lost going with the starters for big minutes- they’re tired- next up, they will be sidelined with injuries.
What kind of nonsense is this? And why do you think that would be any coach's or FO's or team's prevailing thought or how they operate?
Be frustrated with the minutes thing but as soon as you get whacky, that's pure nonsense.
it's not nonsense. What I mean by it is - whether these players develop or not doesn't matter to me- of course, if they do, great.
What I am critically concerned with is the players we have not being driven into the ground and getting injured.
I don't need Kolek to become a better player- because I think he is fine for 5-10 minutes a night to keep Brunson from being over played. If he does, great- that is a seperate issue and I think less important than keeping Brunson fresh and uninjured for the play offs.
I don't see that has nonsense. We're not in develop players mode- we're in win now mode- and regular season wins are only so important.
That's not how any well run organization anywhere runs. Baseball, football, soccer, or the ones we work in. That's how organizations fail or become stale.
Players on other teams are already getting injured or burnt out. The Knicks have been lucky so far? Or perhaps they are doing something different.
Knicks have not played Deuce very much this year and he is the one that is constantly injured this year.
Let us know what you think about the prospects of second round picks and how they develop over 2-5 minutes spans in their rookie year versus what the Knicks have done with their GLeague team and the like over the past years. That's the key differences.
Honest question: Is Denver playing Jokic a lot and driving him into the ground this year? Is that your take? Cause it seems like a lot of the better players in the league fall into that same category.
We’re just going to have to disagree because I see this differently.
Yes- Denver might be taking a risk.
Of course, better players are going to play more minutes. And players will always be happy to play and do whatever is asked. That is why I think coaches need to hold them back, sometimes for their own good, and also sometimes to benefit the organization.
There is no doubt that minutes can slow down any type of player. Or parent.
What's the cost of not doing so? You OK if the Knicks potentially have a worse record? Cause that is definitely one of the downside risks.
OK with being without home court advantage and possibly be in the play-in territory? Cause that is definitely one of the downside risks.
Phoenix is doing exactly what you'd like, playing Dunn. They are less healthy and have a worse record. That's an example of the flip side of things in extreme.
Would you rather have home court and be missing OG and Kat or the play in with everyone healthy?
The last time the Knicks made it to the finals - pretty sure you are old enough to remember but not too old to forget- what seed were they?
I don’t mind playing on the road - there is so much pressure on the home team to win- as the underdog, you just have to win one road game and hold your court to advance.
The image I have in my head is the roster is a horse and Thibs is the jockey.
Maybe this is Thibs finding out what his horse can do, and he’ll let up over the next stretch and give guys less minutes and find a balance, but I worry this is Thibs and he, for better or worse, only knows one way- and that is petal to the metal with his top guys.
franco12 wrote:Would you rather have home court and be missing OG and Kat or the play in with everyone healthy?The last time the Knicks made it to the finals - pretty sure you are old enough to remember but not too old to forget- what seed were they?
I don’t mind playing on the road - there is so much pressure on the home team to win- as the underdog, you just have to win one road game and hold your court to advance.
The image I have in my head is the roster is a horse and Thibs is the jockey.
Maybe this is Thibs finding out what his horse can do, and he’ll let up over the next stretch and give guys less minutes and find a balance, but I worry this is Thibs and he, for better or worse, only knows one way- and that is petal to the metal with his top guys.
Thibs doesn't develop players. Thibs doesn't know how to coach an offense and is a defensive only coach. Thibs only plays one way? At what point do with stop making ridiculous assumptions and just look around to what is going on and evaluate it on it's own? The Knicks consolidated talent and are top heavy. Did we miss that?
All the top players play heavy minutes. This is not unique to Thibs or the Knicks. Just go look it up. All the best coaches lean on their best players. So most all coaches only know how to play petal to the medal? All. Of. Them.
When you don't have expectations of deep playoffs, you operate differently.
To original poster - all 3 of your initial trades the other team would never consider (need to remove Knicks colored glasses)
jskinny35 wrote:I think Precious has to stay... especially if we are parting with Mitch.Personally I think we should hold on and not make a move (given the options being reported).
I think mixing up the lineups to help the bench would be my suggestion. Hart back to the 2nd unit with Shamet as the 2 guard or Precious at the 4. Hart can still play with the starters to close out but Shamet would give more outside shooting... or Precious helps with size and switching against bigs. Either way we didn't lose last night because of the bench issues (even with Deuce out).
I wonder how Precious being an expiring is viewed by Knicks and the league
- do Knicks like that because they don't have to commit $ to him next year?
- do other teams who maybe could be some salary cap troubles view the expiring as a positive way to remove multi-year deals off their cap
Not clear to me if Knicks would prefer to replace Precious expiring with say a fixed cost player on a 2-year deal (cost certainty)
or if the preference is to just play the year out and allow Precious to test market again
Given cap situation around the league - Precious isn't breaking any records on his next deal
Same thing with Mitch.
Do Knicks prefer to keep Mitch because his salary declines a few $M next season (potentially freeing more space below apron) and also offering cost certainty or do they use his declining deal to entice other teams.
Dazed and confused what the plan will be but we ain't getting Herb for Mitch straight up and 2 2nd aren't going to help either when other teams could blow that out of the water.
Panos wrote:Knicks need a version of last year's playoff Alec Burks.
Burks would be a solid add - we know him, he knows NY, good size and been under NY playoff pressure cooker (cheap deal).
My downside on Burks is that he tends to get his buckets in come from behind situations where we are uncomfortably behind and the game is helter skelter -- games we ultimately fall short on. At least that has been my impression of him - always feels like when need him to just make simple play/bucket in big spots he clanks a layup.
Still Burks would be very good add.
LivingLegend wrote:jskinny35 wrote:I think Precious has to stay... especially if we are parting with Mitch.Personally I think we should hold on and not make a move (given the options being reported).
I think mixing up the lineups to help the bench would be my suggestion. Hart back to the 2nd unit with Shamet as the 2 guard or Precious at the 4. Hart can still play with the starters to close out but Shamet would give more outside shooting... or Precious helps with size and switching against bigs. Either way we didn't lose last night because of the bench issues (even with Deuce out).
I wonder how Precious being an expiring is viewed by Knicks and the league
- do Knicks like that because they don't have to commit $ to him next year?
- do other teams who maybe could be some salary cap troubles view the expiring as a positive way to remove multi-year deals off their cap
Not clear to me if Knicks would prefer to replace Precious expiring with say a fixed cost player on a 2-year deal (cost certainty)
or if the preference is to just play the year out and allow Precious to test market again
Given cap situation around the league - Precious isn't breaking any records on his next deal
Same thing with Mitch.
Do Knicks prefer to keep Mitch because his salary declines a few $M next season (potentially freeing more space below apron) and also offering cost certainty or do they use his declining deal to entice other teams.
Dazed and confused what the plan will be but we ain't getting Herb for Mitch straight up and 2 2nd aren't going to help either when other teams could blow that out of the water.
The one takeaway that I got from reading what is out there is that Precious really wants to be in NY. Brooklyn born? I can't remember but there are close ties.
I think the Knicks and Precious both know the free agent market is limited - last year and this coming one.
Precious play rest of year will set his market value.
Uptown wrote:I like each player you are targeting, especially Jones. Unfortunatly, I think the Pels, Hornets and Blazers all say no to your trade proposals. I do think Richards and possibly Martin could be had for Mitch plus other assets.
I would go for Mitch for Richards/Josh Green (who I like defensively guarding 1-3) - not a big fan of Richards as so far been any empty stats kind of guy on sucky team and not so sure he's actually a good defender/rim protector either.
With Green yes - I like that and with Martin instead (wish he could shoot) but I might consider it.
I think Thibs would play Green but not sure about Martin. Green could be Thibs new Grimes before Grimes went south - Green can't shoot much either (
)
Looking back, the times I made minutes arguments were solely because there were players getting heavy minutes with solid younger guys on the bench and the vet minutes felt like they were holding up yoot progress. Quickley behind Walker and Rose. Grimes behind Fournier. Toppin behind Randle. In retrospect, my concern wasn't the toll on players getting heavy minutes but the lack of availability of minutes for younger players. My tongue in cheek joke is that the Knicks will never find a Jokic under Thibs cause a 41st pick Jokic would never get minutes.
5 years of Thibs later, I see this.
1) Players he trusts will get minutes among the highest percentile in the league and will get a long leash even when they are playing poorly.
2) Usage will be a pecking order that the players seem to know where they are in the food chain. Brunson > Towns > Bridges > Hart > OG (this might be swapped), but the higher the pecking order, the more likely they are able to just call "ball". Some might refute this and I'm not making it a hard and fast rule. Just a generality of the way shots are allocated. It was Randle > Brunson > RJ > Grimes > Mitch for a while and you would see RJ call priority over Grimes regularly.
3) Thibs plays GAMES to win, not to develop players. This is a clever variant on the statement that he doesn't develop players. We have seen the growth in McBride, Quickley.. maybe a few others that speaks to players being developed. It just doesn't happen during GAMES. You aren't seeing Dadiet getting reps. Young guys get a taste to understand what the game feels like and then once their weaknesses are exposed they seem to be relegated to practice reps or GLeague to work out their issues. Now. I for one think that IQ and Deuce's development may have been more tied to Johnnie Bryant than Thibs, but that's me.
4) This speaks to my next point. I see Thibs as a guy that can really prepare for games better than most coaches. He seems to have a plan coming into games that often stifles the best player. In game, I don't really see changes to the gameplan quickly. I think he trusts his gameplans and lets them play (much like his trust of players. More often than not, he wins with this mentality, but when it fails it is easily viewed as an inability to adapt. We saw Utah school us with Markannen going off. Thibs switched OG on him in the 4th too little to late leading to an embarrassing loss. Next game, OG had Markannen the whole game and Lauri had a game he will try to forget.
Where does that leave me? Giving credit to Thibs for being a defensive strategist. Confused because the offense started pretty well but is starting to stifle and I am not seeing any changes. I am a little concerned that a lot of the efficiency arguments on the court I attributed to Johnnie Bryant and I see Cleveland working really well with those concepts and us faltering. I'm not anti-Thibs. Just missing Johnnie Bryant during a losing streak - remembering how he would run over to Thibs and whisper to him with some gameplay change which would alter the dynamic of the game. I don't really see that anymore. Just the pure Thibsian desire to win every minute of every game.
Thibs has evolved as it has been written.
A true pro has a methodical disciplined process.
The offense this year is in response to the players on the court. Im sure Johnny Bryant is missed, but knicks have a slew of other guys on the court.
Thibs winning % as a coach speaks for itself.
A 3 game losing "Streak" is not one to freak out and indict him for what he is or is not.
The bench is weak. Dadiet and Huk have holes in there game. The team is 24-13, a .650 percentage.
all Teams hit rough spots.
The bench? Yeah, its an issue. Was the moment we got KAT. no easy fix's. Shamet was an unsigned FA for a reason. He did not have a good season last year.
We all know the minutes are an issue. We all know what can happen. We all see the games.
This is not 1999. That team really underperformed and JVG was to be fired.
We don't have much to trade can we assure the replacements will be much better. Bit of a quandary I'd say.
Where is Noreen's Noel when you need him.
