mr front row: Its no secret that our beloved teams lacks a few things.

Mostly good players, so hopefully Shumpert is one.

mura2337: the problem is, we took him in the 1st round. you never take a 2nd rounder in the 1st when there are other players available that fit needs that we have.

You are jumping to a huge conclusion that no one would have drafted Fields in the 2nd or Shumpert in the 1st. It’s not a fact, it’s just your speculation. And I’m going to guess it’s largely because you’ve never heard of either. Fields was the Pac-10 POY and Iman Shumpert was a top 20 recruit at GTech… trust me that NBA scouts had heard of them. Shumpert was in the 1st round of just about every mock draft I saw (as high as 14)… so I don’t know where you’re coming up with 2nd rounder.

There’s something to be said for drafting “Value,” but there’s a lot more to be said for getting the best player on the board. Whether they’re right or wrong, the Knicks’ seemed to think Fields and Shumpert were the best players.

I am wondering why nobody seems upset that we passed on Motiejunas.

He has a big, fast, strong, athletic body
He jumps as high as Nate Robinson and is 8 inches taller
He has PG ball-handling and passing skills (just OK, not great)
He can go to the rack with either hand
He goes to the line a lot
He makes his FTs at 80%
He was an elite defender in a top conference
He is an elite rebounder for a guard
He was on a lousy team with a lousy coach
His problems seem very correctable (shot selection, ball distribution)
He doesn’t need to score to be effective on this team
His new team has excellent offensive coaches
His new team has a perfect mentor who is also a big, physical PG
He doesn’t have a 40mpg all-star ahead of him at his position
He has no defined character issues
He fills a glaring need (perimeter defense vs. big, athletic guards and wings)

I keep hearing about what a bad shooter he is, how inefficient he is. I remember the same arguments being made to criticize Wilson Chandler. (Ted, you were adamant in predicting that WC would never be a solid player or shooter, especially from 3, and that he needed to cut down on his 3-point shooting; yet last year he put up good numbers for us, especially from 3 despite increasing his volume.) Shumpert’s athleticism and shot are better for his position than Chandler’s were. Why is it such a stretch to imagine that his shot and efficiency will improve with better coaching, better teammates, and practice?

Almost all of the guys drafted before Shumpert have huge questions marks about aspects of their games. You could argue that Shumpert’s issues are the most correctable of all of them, and that our situation is tailor-made for his rapid development. Maybe he doesn’t pan out, but if he does, he could wind up making teams that passed on him wish they hadn’t.

adrenaline98:
I like the pick. Look, I agree with THCJ that Faried is probably the safer pick. Rebounds translate well, but that’s a different story.

Now, granted, he has some bad habits, which Ted mentioned during the draft thread. He’s inefficient at scoring, and maybe that’s a product of him having to score too much in college. Look at the GA. Tech team, they didn’t have another NBA quality player in this weak draft. [...]

I just wrote this long-winded diatribe that I lost. So I’ll just respond to this. Agreed, adrenaline98. I can’t get mad at anyone who is disappointed that NY passed on Faried. (I do think it’s been a tad melodramatic.) My impression, and someone mentioned this elsewhere, is that the FO/MDA sees Shumpert as Raja Bell 2.0.

I’d agree that Faried is likely the better short-term play, but I think Shumpert will age better if he can get his efficiency up from awful to respectable. That’s a big if. But… It’s not like he has a major mechanical flaw. He took lots of bad shots. He’s a high usage player on an untalented team where the coach couldn’t bench him for taking bad shots. I doubt he’ll ever be a high-efficiency player (3 years of ACC data strongly suggest otherwise). But, I think with lower usage–and if like Bell, he develops a reliable corner jumper–Shumpert can become efficient enough not to undermine us on offense while potentially growing into a superior perimeter defender.

He’s a 6’6 in shoes, with a 6’10 wingspan. He’s athletic as hell, with a 42″ max vert, and a 36.5″ standing vert. He’s defensive minded, which means he has a good motor.

And according to Walsh, at the workouts, he was lights out with his shot. If you watch his videos, he has good form. I think there’s a ton of potential here and he has the motor.

Now, granted, he has some bad habits, which Ted mentioned during the draft thread. He’s inefficient at scoring, and maybe that’s a product of him having to score too much in college. Look at the GA. Tech team, they didn’t have another NBA quality player in this weak draft. This team needs some perimeter defenders. Chauncey isn’t that person anymore at 35. Melo has never proven to be consistent. But if we need a lockdown defender at a crucial moment, and Melo steps up, TD hustles, and Shumpert closes out, it may be an important element next year.

The real debate was whether Faried, a need, was more of a need than Shumpert, also a need. Shumpert has way more upside on the offensive end. It came down to offensive upside vs rebounding, and the FO must have thought the fit at 3 and 4 was weak, because we have 2 all-stars there already.