Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

How Everything Turned Out

We went over various scenarios, well, here is how everything actually turned out, on the last night of the NBA regular season.

PLAYOFFS

EASTERN CONFERENCE

#1 Boston will play
#8 Atlanta

#2 Detroit will play
#7 Philadelphia

#3 Orlando will play
#6 Toronto

#4 Cleveland will play
#5 Washington

WESTERN CONFERENCE

#1 Los Angeles Lakers will play
#8 Denver

#2 New Orleans will play
#7 Dallas

#3 San Antonio will play
#6 Phoenix

#4 Utah will play
#5 Houston (with Houston having home court)

DRAFT POSITIONS

#1 Miami (25% chance of getting the 1st pick in the lottery)
#2 Seattle (19.9% chance)
#3 (tie) Minnesota
#3 (tie) Memphis (each will have at least a 14.4% chance, with a random drawing determining which one will have a 14.5% chance, and a random drawing to determine which one will be in the official #3 position – meaning #6 would be the worst they could pick, and which one will be in the official #4 position – meaning #7 would be the worst they could pick)
#5 (tie) New York
#5 (tie) Los Angeles Clippers (each will have at least a 7.5% chance, with a random drawing determining which one will have a 7.6% chance, and a random drawing to determine which one will be in the official #5 position – meaning #8 would be the worst they could pick, and which one will be in the official #6 position – meaning #9 would be the worst they could pick)
#7 Milwaukee (4.3% chance)
#8 Charlotte (2.8% chance)
#9 Chicago (1.7% chance)
#10 New Jersey (1.1% chance)
#11 Indiana (0.8% chance)
#12 Sacramento (0.7% chance)
#13 Portland (0.6% chance)
#14 Golden State (0.5% chance)

So there you go.

A couple of notes:

1. Since the Shaq trade, the Suns have owned San Antonio, so you can bet that the Spurs are not happy to see them in the first round of the playoffs, although I am sure San Antonio is happy about having the home court, at least.

2. The whole “Division winners do not get home court automatically” rule is idiotic. If you want to reward division winners, fine, but you can’t reward them and then not reward them.

3. I know why they’ll never do it, but boy would I like to see some re-seeding during the playoffs.

88 comments on “How Everything Turned Out

  1. WIzzle

    3. I know why they’ll never do it, but boy would I like to see some re-seeding during the playoffs.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but dont they reseed after every round? If they do not, then I agree with point #3.

    From the “I know they’ll never do it category again, I would love to see just the top 16 teams no matter what conference go at it. Talk about a real play off structure where you dont have 500. teams making it. Thats good stuff.

  2. nj hoop

    They don’t reseed in the NBA.

    I thought only the 5 or 6 worst teams are allowed to be in the running the first pick? Your percentages for getting #1 pick go all the way down to GS, which I don’t think is right

  3. Mulligan

    Memphis and Minnesota are tied at 22-60 – shouldn’t that mean there’s a tie for 3rd place too?

  4. Mulligan

    nj hoop: All the teams have a chance – hence the term “lottery pick” GS does have .5% of a chance to win the pick. If you play around with ESPN’s draft simulator, you’ll see some movement down there – the biggest jump I’ve seen when playing with it is Chicago getting the #1 or #2 pick…

  5. Sunil

    Wizzle,
    You are wrong.

    Ray,
    You are right. enough with the complaing, everyone.
    you get steak, you want lobster, you get lobster, you want steak again. come on.

  6. bfellow

    That is kind of humorous if a 48-34 GS team or 41-41 Portland team gets top 3 pick. Portland would be then adding Greg Oden and a lottery pick to a team thats 41-41 with Brandon Roy and Lamarcus Aldridge in the mix.

  7. tdm

    Sportsline is reporting that isiah is gone as coach. He was notified last week. Still no word on whether he’ll be back in a lesser capacity.

  8. MJG

    What would be sick is if Seattle ends up with the #1 pick and adds Michael Beasley to Durant and Jeff Green…and then becomes OK City.

    Hypothetical question: Suppose Knicks end up with the #1 pick. Are there any circumstances under which you’d entertain a trade? What if you could trade the pick plus the 3 worst contracts for, say, a bunch of expiring ones? Would it be worth getting rid of Zack & company?

  9. villainx

    “That is kind of humorous if a 48-34 GS team or 41-41 Portland team gets top 3 pick. Portland would be then adding Greg Oden and a lottery pick to a team thats 41-41 with Brandon Roy and Lamarcus Aldridge in the mix.”

    It would be fitting for teams are near terminally mismanaging, and tanking.

    It is worth discussing whether the worst teams should always be in the best position to get the next generation of stars.

  10. W.C.

    I have a funny feeling the Knicks are going to do surprisingly little this off season except change coaches.

    1. I think they will give Curry one more season to get in shape and deliver an effort on both ends. That goes double if Jackson is the coach and Ewing is brought in as an assitant.

    2. Zach is going to be extremely difficult to move this year, but will be much easier to move next year or the year after as the length of his contract comes down.

    3. I don’t think any of the PG’s in the draft
    are ready to lead the team. So we are going to keep Marbury for his last year.

    I think we start next year with virtually the same exact team except that Wilson Chandler is the starting SF and we have a draft pick “at some postion” to replace someone off the bench (Mardy Collins, Balkman, Robinson) etc…

    The real change will begin the following year.

    1. Marbury and Maik Rose come off the cap.

    2. It gets easier to move Zach and we’ll have one more year to evaluate Curry with the benefit of a good coach (and perhaps Ewing guiding him)

    3. Even contracts like Crawford, Qrich, James, Jeffries etc… can start being moved.

    If we trade anyone, I think it will be Balkman or Robinson because they both still have some value, are tradeable, and we may not need them after the draft.

  11. Thomas B.

    Take a moment to read what B. Simmons wrote about KG. Why can’t we get a guy like that?

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080416

    The Knicks have lost the last game they will lose this season. The draft lottery is a month away. Unless a coach and/or GM is named, I am taking a break from the Knicks and Knickerblogging until the draft lottery (My wife does not think i can do it. “You are hooked on that Knick site.” Yeah, well I’ll consider what you’ve said after you finish watching the third consecutive hour of Law and Order on TNT.)

    Anyway barring a coach, GM or some other change of substance, I am on Knick vacation.

    Post you later.

  12. Kikuchiyo

    What’s taking so long? The champagne is in the fridge and I’m waiting by the radio, the phone, the TV, the computer. When will Isiah be fired?

    And I don’t want to hear that he still has a spot in the organization. The only role I’ll accept for Isiah is as a player, in Mardy Collins’ space, where he could certainly do as well. Otherwise…

    Let’s get on this, Donnie!

  13. ari

    from Chad Ford’s chat: basially says Rose is the ONLY player worth drafting by the Knicks, if they don’t get top pick, they should trade it:

    Chad Ford: (1:42 PM ET ) If I was Donnie and I was trying to turn around the Knicks … here would be my top 5 for New York.

    1. Derrick Rose
    2. Michael Beasley
    3. Jerryd Bayless
    4. O.J. Mayo
    5. Brook Lopez

    But honestly … if it’s not Rose … I’d trade the pick if I was the Knicks.

  14. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

    Oh and Thomas B – the summer gets dog-dayish around here, so there’s always a chunk of time to take off. Other than the occasional trade, the draft, and summer league, there isn’t much to talk about. I expect with the Knicks we might have a week to talk about the new coach as well, but probably not much else.

    But once October rolls around… you’ll be back (I hope!)

  15. W.C.

    What does trading the pick accomplish?

    If the idea is to get rid of Randolph or another bad contract, IMO we would be WAY better off just waiting a year or two and then moving him when the contract duration is a lot shorter and he will become more attractive.

    The probability of us having a top team next year is ZERO. So what’s the big deal if we keep Randolph or another bad contract for another year and pick a draft choice that might be good in a couple of years when it matters. The key is to get under the cap in time for all the star free agents in 2010. The key is not to do potentially foolish things now to reduce payroll ASAP.

    Suppose we get rid of Randolph or another big contract next year and that pick turns out to be an all-star?

    Then we are screwed.

    We will get rid of Randolph and all the other big contracts in time for 2010. It just may not all come next year (and shouldn’t).

    We brought Walsh here to put togther a long term plan that will turn the Knicks around. Let’s not start rooting for him to do rush job things that might make us a little better next year but set us back long term. We tried that approach with Isiah and it doesn’t work.

    If we can move Zach or another bad contract and bring in shorter ones, that’s great. But IMHO, giving up a high draft pick is crazy unless we get a good young player without a long contract back.

  16. o_boogie

    im sure you guys will flame me for this:

    lets say we get the 5th pick. we take brook lopez. then we trade d.lee and q-rich for like the 20th pick and cap relief. with the 20th pick we take robin lopez. its a stretch but it would be entertaining to see them on the same team in the nba.

  17. Renaldo Balkman's Agent

    “(each will have at least a 7.5% chance, with a random drawing determining which one will have a 7.6% chance, and a random drawing to determine which one will be in the official #5 position – meaning #8 would be the worst they could pick, and which one will be in the official #6 position – meaning #9 would be the worst they could pick)”

    There should be no tie in draft positioning!

    Draft position should be decided the same way the playoff positions are. The Knicks lost twice to the Clippers. Therefore, the Knicks get the higher position.

    Or it should be done by way of the NCAA selection committee: a panel reviews just how bad the teams are and positions them accordingly, taking into account the conference they play in and strength of schedule. In each game the Knicks played against the Clippers they looked like a D-league team. Plus, the Knicks were the worst team in the least competitive division. Therefore, they should get a higher seed.

    The Knicks should get the 5 position– no coin flip, no random drawing, no buts about it. We suffered through too horrible of a season to get a mediocre draft pick!!!!!

  18. dave crockett

    “‘You are hooked on that Knick site.’ Yeah, well I’ll consider what you’ve said after you finish watching the third consecutive hour of Law and Order on TNT.)”

    Oh, you’ll be back. You know you love us.

    And what is it with women and Law & Order? My girlfriend can’t get enough of that show.

  19. dave crockett

    WC

    I don’t have a position on trading a pick that’s not #1, but at least in the abstract there is some reason to consider it.

    Apart from attempting to unload a bad deal as you mentioned, in this draft you can probably pick up as good a player at #10, maybe even 15, as you can at 5. So I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of the right deal coming along. (I wouldn’t count on it either.)

  20. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

    I have to say this last installment of Law & Order has been pretty good. I like McCoy as acting DA, and I think the cases have been pretty good. For broadcast television, you could do worse.

    What I’m tired of is SVU – it’s like there are two types of SVU episodes: the ones where they save the little child from the abuser at the last moment and the ones where the writers go “how sick can we make this episode?”.

    Recently I went back & watched the Wire from season 1. The first time around I started mid 3rd season – so now a lot of things make more sense. What an incredible show. I’m not thrilled with this current season, and I wish they went out stronger. But at least they won’t finish as weakly as OZ (great first few seasons, but boy did it go downhill).

  21. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

    Hmmm maybe in the offseason when there’s nothing going on in the NBA we can have totally off-topic threads that last the week? I am a TV buff, so that’s a topic that I can go on about. I’d rather not talk sports (there are plenty of good baseball/football blogs), but I could do MLS. ANy other ideas?

  22. Owen

    How about a thread on “the worse beat I ever took in poker.” That, I guarantee, would be a huge traffic generator…. :-)

  23. Kikuchiyo

    I expect this site to go old school when Isiah is fired. I want to see a flashing headline, circa 1996, in full Netscape Composer glory: “Bye-Siah!”

  24. Brian Cronin

    Memphis and Minnesota are tied at 22-60 – shouldn’t that mean there’s a tie for 3rd place too?

    You’re absolutely right, Mulligan. I remember just assuming Minnesota would get the #3 pick, because all they had to do was lose their last two games, but instead, they won their finale!

    Man, if the Knicks did that, I would be royally pissed off.

  25. jon abbey

    “Man, if the Knicks did that, I would be royally pissed off.”

    if we had lost two of the three games in that ridiculous winning streak, we would have finished third instead of tied for fifth. Isiah’s last fuck you…

  26. Ben Bow

    to tell you the truth, i’d be fine even if we got a pick around 6 or 7. their is the top 2, beasley and rose, which would be great, but after that theres a whole chunk i like.

    3.brook lopez
    4.jarryd bayless
    5.eric gordon
    6. o.j. mayo
    7. that guy from LSU

    any one of them is pretty close. i personally really want rose, even if we have to trade up for it. you think a team like the heat would do something like,

    heat give up: number one/two pick and long salary
    knicks give up: number 5/6/7 pick and little shorter salary.

    i think the heat would like a young playe in the 5/6/7 range like brook lopez over beasley. they really dont need a scorer. they live off wade and marion now. i think they need a strong center in the middle, and the small downgrade from beasley, to something they need more would be worth it if they got lower salary.

    after that our goal would be under salary by the time rose has to resign. do whatever it takes, and then build the team around him.

  27. JD90388

    ISIAH THOMAS WILL NOT RETURN NEXT YEAR!!! I just heard it on ESPN news. supposedly he’s known since last week he wouldn’t be back. Now the healing may begin…

  28. TDM

    Eric Gordon would be a mistake. The guy is JCraw-Lite. Shoot first mentality, not good at distributing the ball, inconsistent. He is undersized for a sg, and is not a pure pg. His ass/to ratio was .68. We need a pass-first pg.

  29. Count Zero

    Assuming we pick a G with PG possibilities, and assuming Rose is gone when we pick, who would you take?

    Bayless
    Gordon (combo)
    Westbrook
    Augustin
    None – trade the pick

    There’s a part of me that says Westbrook is the next best PG in the draft based on pure talent. I like Augustin but his size concerns me. Then again, you could probably trade down to get him. I think if I had the 7th pick and he was still available, I would take Westbrook.

    That said, I would trade anything for the chance to take Rose. Lee, Nate, Chandler…whatever. I am burning offerings to the NBA Lottery Gods every night.

  30. IMissBernardKing

    I think Mayo and Lopez are impact players (think Brad Daugherty for Lopez, not too shabby). But its unlikely we get a top 3 pick and unless OJ Mayo slides to number 6 (and i doubt he gets by the Clips) we will end up with a good but not great player. Lots of potential to screw up with a pick later than 6 also. the idea that we can get the 9th pick (however unlikely) makes me throw up.

    If we end up with the 6th (we didnt tank as badly as the Clips so I figure good karma and David Stern are on our side here) we probably get the 6th or 7th pick (cause our luck stinks). But like I said, if good karma and David Stern are worth anything, we get the 5th spot which means we are likely to pick either 5th or 6th.

    Mayo could still be there at number 5 and I like him alot. I said a few weeks ago my feeling was he would be a Knick (that was before the 3 game winning streak).

    I have a weird feeling though we will still be talking about the 3 game Isiah winning streak years from now here — you know kind of “if the Knicks didnt have that stupid 3 game winning streak they would have gotten [insert stud player] and instead drafted [insert bust].

    actually, Im tired of expecting anything good to happen and just assume its going to remain crap with this franchise. I thought getting Larry Brown was a great thing for us. Sigh.

  31. tdm

    I like Augustin also, but agree size is an issue. I also like Ty Lawson a lot, but he could probably be had with a mid to late first round pick. I’d love to trade our pick and some dead weight to get Lawson and a future pick.

  32. Ray

    I think if we cant get one of the elite guards in this draft we get that kid out of LSU. He can score rebound and block some shots. Hes very athletic and would bring some energy out the PF position. Other then that i hope we get Mayo or Bayless. Bayless reminds me of Devin Harris.

  33. Ted Nelson

    “I don’t have a position on trading a pick that’s not #1, but at least in the abstract there is some reason to consider it.
    Apart from attempting to unload a bad deal as you mentioned, in this draft you can probably pick up as good a player at #10, maybe even 15, as you can at 5. So I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of the right deal coming along. (I wouldn’t count on it either.)”

    Strong point, Dave.

    In principle, I don’t think moving Zach Randolph (or whoever) is worth sacrificing draft position. I’m all for cap flexibilty, I just think getting some strong young players is more of a priority.
    However, with such a wide open draft, it would be stupid not to trade down to unload a contract if you could still get the guy you were going to pick anyway (obviously a bit of a risk).

    Depending on where the Knicks pick and whose on the board, I also wouldn’t mind trading down to get more picks/players. As someone pointed out in a previous thread, the Nets have a lot of desirable assets: 2 1st round picks, and early 2nd rounder, Marcus Williams, Sean Williams, Josh Boone, Stromile Swift’s expring deal… The Knicks might be able to do something similar to the Eddie Griffin for RJ/Jason Collins/Brandon Armstrong deal the Nets pulled themselves in a similarly wide open 2001 draft.

    nbadraft.net has an interesting commentary on Beasley vs. Rose
    http://www.nbadraft.net/draftbuzz073.asp
    After a really strong analysis of both players, Aran Smith concludes that Rose is the better prospect…

    I still don’t understand everyone’s obsession with drafting a PG (other than Rose, anyway): The Knicks were the the NBA’s 7th worst offense and 2nd worst defense this season, even if they could get Phil Jackson as coach instead of Mark they need more than just a PG!!!
    Around picks 5 through 9 I think Mayo, Bayless, Westbrook, and even Eric Gordon are some of the top prospects, but I’d rather see the Knicks take the guy they feel will help them the most over the long-term than someone who can come in and run the point… especially because not one of those guys screams floor vision! pass first PG!

  34. Ted Nelson

    Ray,

    Anthony Randolph in an intriguing prospect; although, I don’t think he’ll play the 4 in the NBA for a few years, if ever.
    As long as I’m on the subject, he’s got a long way to go to approach his potential, I think you’d really have to consider his work ethic in taking him. If Walsh is trying to rebuild long-term, which I hope he is, Randolph probably has one of the five highest ceilings in the draft, if he’s looking to continue the Knicks tradition of rushed rebuilding attempts than taking Randolph seems unlikely.
    I know that I can’t make such a huge generalization about similar prospects from the same school, but both Stromile Swift and Tyrus Thomas had similar promise coming out of LSU and, while Ty is still young and did improve his FT shooting, neither has shown any significant imporvement since entering the league. Neither had the guard skills that Randolph does, but both were similarly athletic guys who sort of came out of nowhere and shot up draft boards… On the other hand he also reminds me of a tall, lanky Joe Johnson, or a more skilled, more athletic Tayshaun Prince.

    When I think Devin Harris I think suffocating defense, and when I think Jared Bayless I think instant offense… Out of curiousity, what about Bayless reminds you of Harris?

  35. caleb

    Tyrus Thomas is actually a pretty good player (go ahead, mock me) and I think still just 21 years old. It doesn’t show up that obviously because he doesn’t play big minutes, and also because a lot of his value is on the defensive end. But I bet if they re-did the draft today he’d still go 3-5 (behind Roy and Gay, maybe Rondo and Aldridge).

    But I’m a big fan of Anthony Randolph – he’s younger than Tyrus was when he came out (TT was a redshirt), he’s taller and I haven’t heard anyone call him a jerk. I’d call him about an equal prospect to Lopez, but given our needs (defense, rebounding) I’d prefer Randolph. (If we’re talking the 3-7 range. I also like Bayless and Westbrook, but honestly… most of those guys are a bit of a stretch in that range. That’s why trading down is a solid option.

    Gordon and (to a lesser extent) Mayo will disappoint everyone..

  36. caleb

    For all you inquiring minds who think Tyrus Thomas sucks…

    He only played 18 minutes a game this year… and he is not a very good offensive player. He scores 15 points/40 minutes, with a TS% of only 48.6% (a distressing drop from his rookie mark of 52.1%)

    On the other hand, he did improve his assist/turnover ration from horrible (1 to 2.4) to above average (1.2 to 1).

    He’s an okay rebounder — 10.3 per 40, rate of 14.5.

    But he’s good on the defensive end. He needs to get stronger, but he looks decent on the ball.. and he blocks more than 2 shots per 40, with 1.3 steals.

    If you’re a doubter, you’d point out that he played worse his second year than his rookie year — always a bad sign. And you constantly hear about attitude problems. But maybe it was just the mess in Chicago (and having too many similar players), the way the mess in NYK (I think) contributed to Lee and Balkman taking a step back.

    On the other hand, TT is already a good defender and solid rebounder, and still just 21, so you’d expect a lot of improvement. He was supposed to be a junior in college this year, so those are his real peers for sake of comparison.

    I hope that the Bulls will somehow miss all this and consider him expendable… I’d be happy to see us trade (for example) the #5 pick (or even #3) for Chicago’s #10 and Ty Thomas.

  37. Ted Nelson

    Caleb,

    I like Tyrus Thomas, too. I’d say he’s a better player than Swift already, he’s just similar in that he’s a raw athletic freak who has yet to reach his potential on a consistent basis. Thankfully Thomas has shown more basketball instinct and dedication.
    I’d also like to see him in a Knicks’ uni, and I think that he’s more valuable on a team besides Chicago. I don’t know what his value’s like around the league, but I have to think there’s a chance they move him. He would be a huge addition for the Knicks’ sorry D, and if the they could somehow find a way to get both he and Rose over the offseason they could really turn it around as an up-tempo team.

    My point was a huge stretch: a fairly baseless conspiracy theory that maybe LSU recrtuits/produces atheltic freaks with poor work ethics… Doesn’t make much sense, I was just thinking about the downside of taking Anthony Randolph, who I wouldn’t mind seeing the Knicks pick depending on who else is on the board, and the names Swift and Thomas popped into my head. A more reasonable point to make is just that he’s going to have to work hard to reach his considerable potential and the Knicks might have to wait at least a few seasons for that to happen (if it ever does happen).
    There are a few reasons I’d compare him with Joe Johnson. Both are highly skilled playmakers with great size/athleticism, and both are said to be somewhat shy guys. Both are from Little Rock, Arkansas, and Randolph is projected to be drafted around the same position as Johnson was (#10). Whoever picks Randolph might have to show the patience that Boston lacked with Johnson.

    Anyone think any teams that might end up picking 8-12 or so would trade their pick and something else (preferably an expiring deal for Jamal Crawford? Before Walsh came to NY I was thinking Indy might be the lottery team with the most need to “win now”. I would assume Walsh has a good idea of what Bird’s goals are as well as his opinion on Crawford… if Bird’s interested the Pacers have two expiring deals in Marquis Daniels and Jeff Foster.

  38. caleb

    I think most GMs would consider Crawford a trade liability as opposed to an asset — but you never know. Indy needs a 2-guard so they’re as good an option as any. How about this Indy trade, no draft pick involved… Crawford and Q (or even Jerome James) for Foster and Daniels?

  39. caleb

    Or this:
    Crawford and Jeffries and the #5 pick for Foster, Daniels and #10?

    That would go a long way toward clearing post-2010 cap space; I don’t see a huge dropoff between #5 and #10 and Jeff Foster is pretty good – an immediate upgrade at the 5.

  40. DS

    Caleb – Sadly, I don’t think Indy wants to be saddled with Crawford and JJ through 2011, lose foster and daniels just to move up 5 spots.

    I think the Knicks are really going to have to bite the bullet and take a huge downgrade (if they don’t break into the top 3 or 4) in the draft in order to make someone take those contracts.

  41. caleb

    DS, you’re probably right, but I wouldn’t give away the farm to unload long contracts, at least not yet. If we haven’t been able to move them in the next 12-18 months, though…

  42. TDM

    If Indy is going to trade anyone it will likely be O’Neal which is intriguing. Although he is injury prone, his deal comes off the books in 2010. If healthy, he could provide some defense.

    Also, looks like isiah will be kept on in some recruitment capacity according to Berman at the Post. Mark Jackson quit the YES network yesterday leading to speculation that he may be coming to coach the Knicks.

  43. Ben Bow

    if we can get derrick rose, pick him and do work. if we cant get derrick rose, i’m all for trading down. i like the idea of unloading crawford as part of the deal. i think we should trade crawford and our pick(5-9) to a team that needs to get a scorer, but is already a playoff team. they would give us an expiring contract and their pick (20-25). i’m not sure when people think D.J. augustin is going in the draft, but if its around there i’m all for it. i dont think his size is as big a problem as lots of people think, and he is a really good pass first point guard. i think he would fit well, giving us the NBA’s smallest backcourt(him and nate). anyway, someone want to tell me where he’s expected to fall to?

  44. Alec

    Our only hope is that some other team hires I. Thomas as a GM and Walsh can swindle and talk him into taking his horrible GM mistakes.
    I’m not sure if we make any trades this offseason, but I am hoping for Z. Randolph or E. Curry to have a great start next season and maybe increase their value into fooling someone into taking them.

  45. Ben Bow

    i found a good trade personally.
    NY gives up: jamal crawford, our draft pick, and ronaldo balkman( talent, but we dont play him anyway)
    Cleveland gives up: eric snow, joe smith, and their pick(i’m not sure where it is, but i think it’s like 15-20).

    i think cleveland does this because they can see they aren’t a finals caliber team, and they need more scoring around LeBron. they were always looking for a scottie pippin to be his MJ, and i think jamal can do that. all they give up is two players they dont really use, and still they go up in the draft, get jamal, and balkman as a bonus. i think they have to be thinkin win now, before lebron leaves, and jamal will give them the scoring they need. i/m/o if jamal took less shots, and only took open good looks, he would have a pretty good shooting percent and still score in the 15-18 range, instead of taking all those runners. he wouldn’t have to, because lebron is there to take those last second things when the offense isnt creating. sure when they put crawford in their defense would take a small hit, but they still can make up for it.

    with the trade, we would get 2 contracts that end in 2 years, and give up one that ends in 4 years. i see that as in improvement. we need to make trades like this to clear up our cap space by 2010.

    another trade i see is this:
    quentin richardson and david lee(9 mil)
    for
    mikki moore and shelden williams and draft pick(second round) (9 mil)

    we do it, because we get quentin richardsons contract off a year earlier(2010 baby). they do it because all they lose is 2 players they wont use, and the pick up david lee, some real talent. mikki moore has been a dissapointment for them, and shelden williams will never be anything. lee is better then both right now. they might even make use of q-rich, but probably not.

  46. mase

    alec,
    dont shoot the messenger!
    Isiah is not the only one at fault for this situation, it was bad when he started!
    lets be honest Walsh is not the guy who is going to turn this this thing around, at least not while the same ownership exists.

  47. Ray

    Its hard to go with those trades. I wouldnt give up our young talent to Clev.(This years pick). Although cutting cap is important. Its a tough call.

  48. DS

    i like that we’re brainstorming but cleveland also wants to re-sign lebron. if they want more shooting they’d prob look for a cheaper option.

    crawford can score, but would prob need to take touches away from LBJ.

  49. mase

    ben,
    #1. I know you didnt just compare Scottie Pippen to Crawford(aka mr. no defense)?
    …come on man your better than that!

    #2. the only reason to include Lee in any trade is for another big time talent. David Lee is the most marketable player the Knicks have!

  50. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

    I don’t think you can drop from the 5th pick to 25th unless you’re sure to get cap space for 2010 in that one deal. I’d drop from 5 to 10 to get rid of some space, but it’s not worth 20 spots to get rid of just one contract.

  51. mase

    russel westbrook, he seems perfect for us..PG with range, excellent defender and finisher.
    anyone else like him?

  52. tdm

    Did Westbrook declare yet? I saw that Love declared, and heard that Westbrook was supposed to, but no official announcement yet.

  53. caleb

    I like Westbrook, in the 10-range.

    DS, our cap situation boils down to this — to have cap space by summer 2010, we need to dump about $25 million of the 2011 contracts. That means Randolph and one other, or Curry, Crawford AND Jeffries. But we have 2 years to do it – like Mike says, you don’t have to panic and give up 20 draft slots right now. (plus it will be easier to trade those white elephant contracts, when they’re shorter, in a year or two).

    More immediately, we need to decide (well, Donnie Walsh needs to decide) whether to sign Nate and Lee to extensions. Personally, I’d let go of Nate — not let him walk, but try and trade for a pick or younger players. It’s a sacrifice, but in the end, he’s not that hard to replace.

    David Lee, on the other hand – just bite the bullet. Even at $10-11 million, it won’t be easy to find a player as good on the FA or trade market. If it really comes down to needing to dump Lee for cap space, even at $10 million per he’ll be completely tradeable in 2010.

    There are a few other tricks we can pull, to clear dollars… like trade the 2009 pick for a 2011 pick, trade Chandler, etc… but at this point, obviously you want to focus on the big ones – Randolph, Curry, Crawford, Jeffries…

    And of course, don’t take on any new (long) contracts.

  54. jon abbey

    “NY gives up: jamal crawford, our draft pick, and ronaldo balkman( talent, but we dont play him anyway)
    Cleveland gives up: eric snow, joe smith, and their pick(i’m not sure where it is, but i think it’s like 15-20).”

    this trade is ludicrous. I wouldn’t give up any one of those three assets (and yes, Crawford is an asset) for those three.

    one thing to remember is that Crawford can opt out after 2009 if he wants, and unlike the other Knicks who have that choice, he might actually do it, so he’s not definitely on the cap through the end of his deal.

  55. caleb

    No way Crawford opts out – doubt he’d get have his $11m salary on the open market. And I would trade him for shorter-salaried crap, which that offer amounts to…

    BUT aside from that JA is right – thrown in Balkman and a #5 and that would be the most lopsided trade in a long, long time.

  56. Ted Nelson

    I think Crawford is viewed around the league as the Knicks best or maybe 2nd best player (not saying much but considering minutes he was probably their most productive player this season), and a trade ASSET. I’ve read plenty of articles which say that scouts/executives around the league think Crawford would be a great 6th man on a winning team. I wouldn’t say “great”, but he’s not a bad player if he’s not shooting too much and the fact that he had a relatively strong season under a demanding coach like Larry Brown bodes well for him in my mind. For better or worse, he’s the Knicks’ leader and you don’t hear the crap about him that you do about the rest of the Knicks’ organization.

    “i like the idea of unloading crawford as part of the deal.”

    I’m not a Crawford fan, but he’s one of the guys the Knicks don’t have to worry about “unloading.” He can’t shoot (consistently) or play D, but he’s been their best (meaning most consistently not completely terrible) player over the last 4 seasons. The one thing that remained constant throughout Isiah’s tenure was that no coach could resist playing Crawford 40 mpg. He’s not cheap, but I don’t hear many people calling Crawford ridiculously overpaid, either. Remember that a lot of decision makers around the NBA seem to look at per game stats, if they consider stats at all and Crawford is good for 20 ppg and 5 apg as a starter.

    “i found a good trade personally.
    NY gives up: jamal crawford, our draft pick, and ronaldo balkman( talent, but we dont play him anyway)
    Cleveland gives up: eric snow, joe smith, and their pick(i’m not sure where it is, but i think it’s like 15-20).”

    You don’t have to give someone a top 7 pick for them to take Crawford: if Cleveland has any interest in Crawford I’d expect that they’d give up an expiring contract straight up (I’d say that even if they threw in their pick the Knicks could still do better, but I know others disagree).In this scenario, you’re giving away the pick and the Knicks’ most productive player and solving absolutely nothing… i.e. it wouldn’t make any real dent in the payroll. If Cleveland takes Zach Randolph, Q, Jeffries, and James for expiring contracts (of which they have many) maybe I’d consider giving them our pick, but that’s about as unlikely as your trade…
    I would like to see the Knicks target Cleveland’s expiring deals this summer (Wallyworld, Damon Jones, Snow, Joe Smith, not sure if I missed any). Who knows, maybe they think that they can get a productive 20 mpg out of Curry if he’s playing with LeBron and alongside Ben Wallace?

    “quentin richardson and david lee(9 mil)
    for mikki moore and shelden williams and draft pick(second round) (9 mil)”

    This is also a ridiculously bad trade for the Knicks… Cap flexibility is a great thing, but not an end in itself. At this point, with GM Ben Bow the Knicks have traded their two best players and their lottery pick (leaving maybe Robinson as their best player). They’ve barely changed their cap situation, will be giving a top 3 pick to Utah in a couple years, and won’t be competitive for LeBron/Wade because they’re such a bad team… Bring back Isiah!

    “If Indy is going to trade anyone it will likely be O’Neal which is intriguing.”

    It’s definitely possible, but with guys like Murphy, Dunleavey, Tinsley… Indy’s not really in a position to rebuild. Last offseason Bird thought Indy was one shooter away from contention. He seemed to really believe that Kareem Rush and Travis Deiner were the answer… I could definitely see him going for Crawford to give the team immediate help in the backcourt rather than trying his luck in the draft. If the Knicks could get Foster’s expiring deal they’d also have a good man defender and rebounder to help out inside.
    Keep in mind that Mookie Blaylock got Atlanta the #10 pick (Jason Terry) and Sebastian Telfair got the Blazers the #7 pick (they traded up and took Brandon Roy).

    “russel westbrook, he seems perfect for us..PG with range, excellent defender and finisher.
    anyone else like him?”

    Westbrook has no range and played more off the ball in college. I like him, but wouldn’t say he’s a perfect fit. He might have a hard time adjusting to playing PG in the NBA. Reminds me a bit of Chauncey Billups, which is a very good thing of course, but remember that Billups bounced around his first few years and (despite solid play in Minnesota) only got the MLE as a free agent before really breaking out in Detroit.

    Caleb,

    Hate to be such a Crawford fan, but if Mike James can get the MLE I would assume Crawford can get more (not 11 mill, granted, but maybe 8).

    Good commentary on the cap situation… no real rush if you concentrate on cleaing up the cap you can get it done by 2010 or so. Just have to be patient and wait for the right situations to emerge (a.k.a. a GM desperate to win now and keep his job or a team desperate for inside scoring).

  57. caleb

    Ted, I hope you’re right about Crawford’s value around the league.

    From NYK standpoint, I don’t think we’d lose a beat if Craw disappeared and Nate & Marbury got his minutes… but even if you disagree, does it really matter if we’re a couple of games worse, the next two seasons? Then if you’re going to be spending that $11 million in 2010-2011, in the universe of free agents and trade options, does anyone really think Crawford is the best choice?

  58. DS

    I’ll try not to “panic.” I just think it will be REALLY hard to find a playoff or rebuilding team to sandbag itself with either JJ’s $6mm/yr, or Jamal’s, Zach’s, Eddy’s $10+mm/yr through 2011 to move up 5 slots in the draft this or next year.

  59. Nick

    I tend to agree with DS. Based on their careers to date Zach, Eddy and Jamal with Steph for good measure are sort of the NBA poster children for makign a team worse by their addition and adidtion by subtraction for the fortunate team that unloaded them.

  60. Ray

    I would take Westbrook if Mayo and Bayless are off the board. He’s 6-4 with a handle…quick 1st step…lockdown defender. What more could you ask for. Give him a year under Starbury and see what happens. I wouldnt mind swinging a trade down for him either. Maybe we could dump Zach. Hope that makes sense…im tired.

  61. Nick

    That’s the last thing I’d want. we’ve had 5 years of giving up picks and countless years before that dating back to maybe Mark Jackson or Strickland of wasted draft picks. That pick, Lee and depending on your point of view Chandler, Balkman or Nate may be the only assets the team has winning basketball wise.

  62. Ted Nelson

    Caleb,

    I’m not against trading Crawford. In fact, I would be all for it, I would just like to see the Knicks get a good (preferably young) player for him or at least unload an “untradeable” contract with him.

    I agree that Robinson/Marbury would pick up any slack from Crawford’s departure, and as you say the Knicks can’t get any worse.

    “I’ll try not to “panic.” I just think it will be REALLY hard to find a playoff or rebuilding team to sandbag itself with either JJ’s $6mm/yr, or Jamal’s, Zach’s, Eddy’s $10+mm/yr through 2011 to move up 5 slots in the draft this or next year.”

    “Based on their careers to date Zach, Eddy and Jamal with Steph for good measure are sort of the NBA poster children for makign a team worse by their addition and adidtion by subtraction for the fortunate team that unloaded them.”

    I don’t totally disagree, but I also don’t think most GMs would just lump all 4 of those guys together and say I’m not taking any of them.

    Crawford’s attitude has always been pretty good (other than his selfish shot selection). He’s been a favorite of basically every coach he’s had, and I think some would view him as a victim of his circumstances. No one’s expecting him to become one of the league’s best PGs anymore (or a PG period), just a combo-guard off the bench.

    I think the bottom line to a lot of GMs is that Jamal Crawford can put up something like 15 ppg and 4 apg coming off their bench. Some would look at the opportunity cost of taking on a salary like Crawford’s, but others probably have no idea what opportunity cost means and would be willing to give up a less productive guy with a shorter contract and first rounder in a pretty wide open draft for a solid rotation player who can score in bunches. I think if you look at preious trades, there’s plenty of precident to think the Knicks could get some value for Crawford…

    Randolph is not at all attractive with his huge deal and terrible attitude: he’s the only one between Crawford, he, and Curry I would say is almost garuanteed to ruin your team’s chemistry. The Knicks are definitely not getting much value for him. However, I wouldn’t call him untradable because he’s a 20, 10 guy. The Knicks might be able to get a Larry Hughes or Kenyon Martin (not saying that either Chicago or Denver want Randolph, although I guess they’re as likely as anyone) type of contract or a bunch of bad contracts, some of which end a year or two earlier. They could also try packaging him with something attractive, but I think that would just equate to giving away that attractive asset.

    Curry hasn’t produced as consistently (per game stats) as the other two, is clearly not very motivated, and his heart (I mean the condition he has) might be an issue. Still he doesn’t seem to be a disruptive guy personality wise and he has one really valuable skill: inside scoring. The Knicks might be able to get the shorter contract of a worthless player, or a similar length deal of a guy who’s not great but could be useful (say a big who can’t score but is a solid defender).

    I just look back at all the trades that have been made over the years and feel confident that these guys are tradeable. I mean the Wizards traded Chris Webber and Rasheed Wallace for Mitch Richmond and Rod Strickland. Chauncey Billups was basically traded for Kenny Anderson, and I don’t even remember the trades that sent him to Denver and Minnesota. I’d say washed up Mitch Richmond, Rod Strickland, or Kenny Anderson is no more valuable than a Jamal Crawford whose about to enter his prime. 10 million isn’t really that much to pay a 6th man, let alone a starter. Guys like Jason Kapono and Matt Carroll get 5,6 mill.

  63. Z

    Thank god 82 games are finally over and the healing can begin.

    Glad to see Caleb and Ted Nelson haven’t given up on fixing the Knicks. With Isiah gone (is it official yet?), and the 2007-2008 season gone, I’m back to caring about the Knicks (at least back to caring about my favorite internet site…)

    “No way Crawford opts out – doubt he’d get have his $11m salary on the open market.”

    This from the NY Times a few days ago: “Crawford is also eligible for an extension this summer and is expected to seek it. He can opt out of his deal in 2009.”

    If Walsh doesn’t give him an extension this summer, that may preclude his final year with the Knicks. I got excited when I read that.

    I was happy to hear Walsh set the main goal for 2010 flexibility. He’d been reading Knickerblogger from Indiana…

  64. jon abbey

    Crawford could be a good sixth man/Vinnie Johnson/JR Smith type for the right team. it’s pretty sad, but he’s one of the better assets we have right now, bad contract and all.

  65. Ken "The Animal" Bannister

    This just in…

    Isiah fired! But!…Wait for it..will remain in the organization as an “advisor” to Walsh. Swedet creeping Jesus, Isiah is Raspitin, Deng Xiaoping, and Freddy Krueger all rolled up into one. He. Just. Can’t. Be. Killed.

    Ugh.

  66. Frank

    But at least no one will be reporting to him, according to Walsh!

    But at long last, the coaching/GM rein is over!

  67. jon abbey

    yeah, that’s been pretty clear for a while, no reason to fire him completely as long as he’s being paid anyway, I’m happy to have his input in the draft room at least.

    for me, it doesn’t feel that good, Dolan still owns the team, the roster still blows, and we’re in salary cap hell for the next three seasons. better players would feel good, let’s see what actually happens going forward.

  68. W.C.

    I have to say something at this point.

    Cap flexibility is a LONG TERM goal. It’s not critical goal to be accomplished ASAP.

    Many of our bad contracts will come off in the books in next couple of years. In addition, the closer they get to expiring the easier it will be to move them. There is no downside to waiting a year or two. Our team sucks and will continue to suck for at least another 2 years. What we want to do now is accumulate and develop some young players while we look out to 2010-2011 and slowly rid outselves of the bad contracts OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARs!

    If you start with the assumption that we have to remove every bad contract ASAP, all the Knicks will do is get a boatload of horrible players in return or have to package some good assets with them. That would be a huge mistake. We can’t give away any young assets to get rid a bad contract we will be able to get rid of in another year or two anyway without ruining our future.

  69. Marc R

    Does anyone know if the Knicks won or lost the coinflip or whatever with the Clippers for the 5th position? It was supposed to happen today.

  70. James

    Reseeding would be great. Although there are very few upsets in the NBA playoffs. Kind of kills the idea of an office pool like in the NCAA’s

    If Miami gets the first pick and resigns the Matrix, they might rebuild in 1 year. There are some great college players coming out this year, Rose, Beasley, Mayo, etc.

  71. jon abbey

    it’s the initial seeding that’s much more of a problem than the reseeding. take the top 16 teams leaguewide and seed them 1-16 regardless of conference or division, that would make for a much fairer tournament. as it is, Boston (or Miami, or Detroit in years past) has a HUGE advantage.

Comments are closed.