SI.com: Five Alive: Jonathan Macri’s Perfect Knicks 2020-21 Starting Five

with okc heading for the playoffs it’s hard to imagine them letting go of both cp3 and gallo when the off season finally hits…having a quality product each year seems to be a more valuable thing to a smaller market franchise…

with those two, a couple of promising young players, all those draft picks and cp3 off the books in a couple of years – they seem to be doing just fine without having to do business with us…

Yea..I like that starting 5 idea, but I think it’s less likely for OKC to accept Randle with Adams already manning the paint. And I’d think they’d rather have Adams’ defense and rebounding more than Randle’s chucking. That’s also why I believe that if we make the trade for CP3, we need to pick up Portis’ option and move him. He’s a better fit. Then we add Payton to get SGA, Gallo(if he re-signs), and Portis the ball while throwing lobs to Adams. Maybe they can ink Trier to add some scoring off the bench as well. I see a real opportunity there for both teams. I know CP3 has an astronomical last 2 years on his deal, but we have plenty cost controlled talent to not be a player in free agency after next season. So..F it..take that swing

Oh..and let me add..we still need to move Randle. Somebody wants him..just not OKC lol

There is no reason to bring CP3 in here unless there is adequate draft compensation attached.

I looked for possible contending team that would want CP3 and we could facilitate a trade to and the only one that is far enough under the cap that off loading 30M in salaries would fit CP# in is Miami. Riley would die for him and Andre I and Olynck are on the books for around 28.5M. But Miami has nothing to offer us back (I don’t think they would consider BAM obv).

If OKC needs to move CP# we are the only game in town.

And if we do a deal without an avalanche of picks we are dumber than I think……

I don’t like the thought of giving up even a second rounder for Paul. Picks should be coming in, not going out. But if they do it, I have to admit that it would not upset me all that much. We’re probably not getting anyone as good as Paul will be during his contract. I’m optimistic that he will play reasonably well for 2 years, not vintage Paul but somewhere between the top 5-15 PG in the league. And the joy of never seeing Randle or Smith Jr. wearing the orange and blue again is a major selling point for me.

Will say it again. moar picks for Paul.

And I still don’t understand why Chris Paul is going to want to play out the last productive years of his NBA career not chasing a ring.

The whole point of hiring a guy like Rose is to get guys like Chris Paul. I’m imagining the issue isn’t whether Rose is giving up enough assets, but whEther Paul would want to come here.

The more I think about it, the more I realize hiring Rose can only mean one type of rebuild

Wetbandit, I agree and the thought is depressing. It’s not that I don’t want a great player to come here as a free agent, it’s just that I think it’s an un doable strategy for the Knicks.

I just don’t get all the press about trading Paul. I don’t know of any indication OKC is shopping him. Also, they were willing to go way over the cap with Westbrook in order to have a competitive team. Now they have a competitive team for those same dollars by paying Paul instead. What is it that makes people think they aren’t happy to stand pat with Paul?

CP3 isn’t a superstar anymore, he’s a pretty good point guard if things go well. 2 firsts is what we need from OKC to take that contract

I definitely don;t want to do that. And I don’t think that is our plan. Just saying that the idea CP3 wouldn’t want to come here is not necessarily true. I laid it out before in the last thread.

Our win curve under Miller is a team that barely misses the playoffs.

CP3 would push us into the playoffs in the East. The East is weak enough that we could even win a first round matchup depending on who it was.

CP3 would get to play in the media center of the world at the most famous arena. Even bringing the Knicks to respectability would be a huge boost for his brand (see Amare in 2010).

He would have a new DeAndre Jordan to throw lobs to with Mitch.

Our team has 6 first rounders over the next 4 years to continue to build with and we could get a top pick this year to draft a back up PG that he could mentor.

There would be good role players/veterans out there that would probably find the idea of playing with CP3 on a good Knicks team appealing. See 2011 with Tyson Chandler joining The Knicks and 2012 with Jason Kidd joining the Knicks. JR, Kmart, Sheed…when we were halfway decent, good veterans wanted to play for us.

So you want to fill out the roster with older veterans who are more about playing next to a 36-year-old. That sounds like pushing in the chips on a 36-year-old supermax player, to me.

Here’s a fun question: who would you rather have the next two years, CP3 or Kyrie? My vote is CP3

The only good scenario for the Knicks involves Chris Paul getting hurt BEFORE a trade. Then he becomes an albatross and the Knicks can absorb him and a lot of those OKC picks into their cap space.

But healthy yet aging Chris Paul is too good for them to need to sell and, as Owen stated, Paul kicking it up and down the court for two years for a scrub team trying to squeeze the revenue of four playoff games out of the season just doesn’t seem like the way he’ll want to end it.

>So you want to fill out the roster with older veterans who are more about playing next to a 36-year-old. That sounds like pushing in the chips on a 36-year-old supermax player, to me.<

If you were asking me, I don't want Paul at all. But depending on the conditions I might be able to sign off on it. I could live with Paul, but I probably won't be able to live with whatever else these pinheads do instead. I'm almost willing to do a mediocre/bad deal to avoid an even worse one if you understand what I am saying. That's how bad I think there guys are at understanding basketball (other than Miller who incidentally I believe came via Phil).

Would we be better off with Rich Paul as POBO and a trade for Derrick Rose?

Or 60 wins after a trade-down for Precious, Kira, and Nesmith?

As far as the larger conversation around tanking goes, I think two things are being conflated.

It’s true that there are multiple ways to skin the cat of becoming a contender, but I don’t think that’s true until a team has reached a certain baseline of talent.

For example, after OKC drafted Durant they decided the best way for them to eventually contend was to try to keep getting players from the top of the draft, because those guys give you the best chance at getting the single most valuable asset in the NBA: a productive player on a rookie-scale contract. They didn’t look to add significant salary from outside of the team until they had KD, Westbrook, and Harden in place and won 50 games. This might just be because free agency wasn’t really available to them, being in Oklahoma City and all, but for the record I think they were correct to do this and I still think it’s the correct approach.

If it was up to me, we wouldn’t even be thinking about free agency outside of rare circumstances until we had a drafted core that constituted a decent team on its own. This is the approach that gives you the best chance at becoming a truly dominant team, IMO.

However, I recognize that for varying reasons (impatience, discomfort with the optics, etc.) not everyone is on board with that approach. The other option for OKC was to start looking to free agency immediately after drafting Durant, recognizing that they had their baseline level of production in Durant alone and now it was time to add.

Who knows how successful this would’ve been? Like I said, I personally prefer the approach they actually took. However, it’s possible this still would’ve worked out for them. I can also see the argument that this would be a more attractive option for the Knicks, because free agency is more available to us.

You see the commonality in both approaches, though? Nothing was possible until they had their baseline level of talent in Kevin Durant. Continued…

thenoblefacehumper: I could go on, but pointing out that we shouldn’t care that the Clippers’ current success started with an all-out tank because they benefitted from some luck is silly.

But this is not what people are saying. We are generally saying that for every team that benefitted from a 1-season all-out tank, 1) there are many who didn’t because they didn’t get lucky or they did it in a year when the best player was readily identifiable as a franchise changer, 2) there are many who successfuly rebuilt without tanking simply by being either smarter of more lucky than tanking teams, 3) even teams that got lucky after an all-out tank don’t necessarily get better after hitting on a franchise player, and most importantly, 4) many teams did not go into a season planning to tank, only doing so after their initial plans to win fell through (see: Knicks circa 2014-15).

The luck that the Clippers experienced as a result of a 1-season tank was no less lucky than the luck the Bucks had in landing Giannis, or the Spurs had in landing Kawhi, or the Raptors had in landing Siakam. It wasn’t part of some multi-year grand strategy. Your proposition that “Hey, the bumbling 2008 Clippers management team pulled it off is evidence that all teams in our position should do it” is ludicrous. This is even more true when you consider the effect of odds-flattening in the lottery WHICH WAS INTENDED TO DISCOURAGE TANKING!!!

Another thing is, if you are muddling along with a 35-win team and you actually do find the next Mitch, or Kawhi, or Siakam, or Giannis, or Adebayo, or Harrell, or Turner, or Clarke, or Jokic (i.e. anywhere from an impact player to a superstar) you jump from a fringe playoff team to a contender in one fell swoop, or you can bring the player along without force-feeding him to the detriment of his development. You have a team that FAs looking for a team to take over will consider, especially here in NYC. You don’t have to spend a bunch more years stinking up your arena like Minny or the Pels to build a winning team, not to mention SAC and yes, the NYK.

At the end of the day, no one is saying that you are wrong, as much as saying that there are multiple paths of equal risk and viability, all of which depend on shrewd management and some good fortune.

***Do you really think that any of the non-tankers on this board can put together a satisfactory answer to this question? Complete with a pro forma roster constructed of real players at real salaries?***

I understand what Z-Man is saying, and I think both he and TNFH have good points.

If you draft Jokic in the 2nd round and he becomes a generational player within two years, your rebuild is set. You don’t need to have lost meaningless games on purpose, or even have had any sort of rebuild plan at all. You certainly didn’t need the #1.

But, most later picks don’t turn out to be that good. Which is why you want to have as many picks as possible over that period. It’s a quantity vs quality situation, and one you can control (quantity) and one you can’t control because there are too many variables (quality). So clear cap space, use it to acquire a diverse portfolio of picks and young assets over a three year period, TRY TO IMPROVE, and good things will happen.

(Edited to add: *and one of the two “pieces” that the Knicks have was actually obtained via the ”Jokic method”, so the Knicks are actually ahead of the accidental rebuild curve:)

As to what constitutes a good move, there is room for discussion if we can step out of narrow, rigid models for successful team building. If you only accept one path to contending and that path requires not signing any free agents, knowing full well that there is zero chance of the FO taking that path, it sounds like a broken record (ok boomer, what’s a record?) after a while.

I’m fine with drafting smartly a bit lower down, finding low-risk, high-reward free agents and signing them to team-friendly contracts, and keeping max contract space availability going into each summer.

The reason we are not moving down this path is that we drafted 18yo projects over older, more productive players, signed several unproductive and overpaid FAs, and swung and missed on Randle. It’s not because of Morris, Payton or Bullock. In other words, it’s not the path, it’s the decision-making along the path. You can easily fuck up the tanking path too with bad decision- making.

It would have been nice to trade up for those guys like Cuban traded up for Doncic. Alas…

For the baseball fans among you ESPN is showing live Korean Baseball

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/sports/coronavirus-korea-baseball-opening.html

Apparently it’s live at 5:25am Eastern time today, tomorrow and more on the weekend.

In 2008 Walsh wanted Westbrook at #6, made it public, and he was taken at #4. In 2009 Walsh wanted Curry at #8, made it public, and he was taken at #7. In 2011, as BBA reports, Walsh wanted Kawhi at #17. He DIDN’T make it public, perhaps because he learned his lesson. But it is interesting that the team that took Kawhi moved up to just in front of the Knicks to grab him. So, maybe he wasn’t keeping it secret enough.

Anyway, it’s interesting to look back at 2011. Our Robert Silverman used the #17 pick to draft Klay Thompson in the bloggers mock draft. The stat crowd wanted Faried. It was considered a weak draft by KBers. (There was even talk of buying the Bulls #30 pick, which, of course, was used to draft Jimmy Butler).

So much of success in the NBA is dictated by “missing by inches”, both on the court and in the front office. And, as it relates to the conversation here, in 2011 it didn’t matter a whole lot where a team drafted as most of the really good players were found later in on. But other years, it matters immensely. Like in 2009. And 2008. And 2019. And all the other years the Knicks have a decent pick, it seems.

NahNah: Our basketball discussions just aren’t that interesting anymore. We spend so much time explaining and re-explaining how this optimal strategy works. Every counter almost always involves “gut” or “eyes” or “scouting”. How do we have conversations at the margins that materially challenge the assumptions built into our optimal strategy?

Oh, the basketball conversations aren’t that interesting? Only a masochistic moron would keep wasting time willingly engaging in uninteresting conversations. So why don’t you find something more interesting to do with your time? No reason for you to lower yourself arguing with the likes of me.

My guess is that you will stick around like the troll that you are. But I wonder, given that you are so above the fray yet keep coming back for mote, what does that say about you? That you’re a complete loser with nothing else to do?

(Bingo!)

I’m fine with drafting smartly a bit lower down, finding low-risk, high-reward free agents and signing them to team-friendly contracts, and keeping max contract space availability going into each summer.

*sigh*

See, I’m really trying to have this conversation in good faith, but this just boils down to “instead of prioritizing the quality and quantity of our draft picks, we should simply be smarter than all of the other teams, all of the players, and all of the agents.”

Every team in the NBA wants to sign “low-risk, high-reward free agents and sign them to team-friendly contracts.”

Every player and their agent wants to prevent this from happening.

As a result, about 98% of the best contracts in the NBA fall into one of three categories:
1) contractually limited max/near-max deals
2) contractually limited rookie-scale deals
3) contractually limited minimum deals

So the conversation just goes like this, over and over again:

“The Knicks suck right now, I think they should try to get better via a strategy that maximizes the quality and quantity of their draft picks”

“No, instead they should use both draft picks and free agents”

“Huh, okay, well which free agents are a realistic and and smart option for them?”

*crickets*

It’s easy to say “the strategy is fine, the execution has been bad.” It’s a lot harder to articulate what good execution of the strategy looks like, because the players with multiple max contract offers on the table obviously won’t go to a bad team, and everyone else would *rather* not go to a bad team but will if they’re overpaid (both on a years and AAV basis).

I mean, what’s the best example of a team with as bad a future core as the Knicks right now signing a multiyear non-max/non-rookie scale/non-minimum deal and it actually working out better than taking on salary dumps and filling out the roster with rookie-scale deals would have?

These opportunities do exist at the margins…

This is even more true when you consider the effect of odds-flattening in the lottery WHICH WAS INTENDED TO DISCOURAGE TANKING!!!

This keeps coming up so I should point out that I think it’s being overstated. On the morning of March 11, 2020, the Knicks had a 48% chance at a top-4 pick in this draft.

By nightfall of the same day, they had a 37% chance a top-4 pick in the draft.

One win did that. Under the current, allegedly hugely reformed, system.

Was it worth it?

thenoblefacehumper: *sigh*

See, I’m really trying to have this conversation in good faith, but this just boils down to “instead of prioritizing the quality and quantity of our draft picks, we should simply be smarter than all of the other teams, all of the players, and all of the agents.”

I know I am going to sound like a dick, but screw it. This is not a matter of good faith. Certain posters cannot connect the dots here. That simple.

thenoblefacehumper: I’ve been thinking about switching my screen name on here to one that I didn’t make at age 13 or whatever it was, and this seems like a decent compromise between doing that and still paying homage to my illustrious knickerblogger history. Hmmm.

do it

thenoblefacehumper: This keeps coming up so I should point out that I think it’s being overstated. On the morning of March 11, 2020, the Knicks had a 48% chance at a top-4 pick in this draft.

By nightfall of the same day, they had a 37% chance a top-4 pick in the draft.

One win did that. Under the current, allegedly hugely reformed, system.

Was it worth it?

A better question is, how much of a difference is it likely to make if we 1) have good management or 2) have bad management? Or alternatively, was it really about the players we acquired? Should we have not fired Fizdale, knowing that Miller was a better coach and would try to win as many meaningless games as possible to prove hmself NBA-worthy? Or put another way, would having that 48% chance at top 4 in a draft with no consensus #1 picks (your personal #1 is likely to be available well outside the top $) be better than having a 37% chance along with an additional first, a future second, bird rights on a decent rotation player and a eurostash player? You can’t have it both ways.

I’ve been thinking about switching my screen name on here to one that I didn’t make at age 13 or whatever it was, and this seems like a decent compromise between doing that and still paying homage to my illustrious knickerblogger history. Hmmm.

don’t you dare TNFH…your shit is branded now, just like THCJ…be proud…stand tall…wear that moniker nobly…let your words speak for themselves…from then to forever – be the noble face humper…your younger, cooler self knew what they were doing…

thenoblefacehumper: But as a general rule, non-max/non-minimum/non-rookie scale contracts are a suckers market, and the people who claim we can pull off a strategy that utilizes them rarely, if ever, actually name players, years, and AAV.

This is a reasonable point. It takes a good eye and pounding the pavement skills to acquire good value this way. Christian Wood is pretty much who Julius Randle was last off-season, and is likely to get a similar contract. Were we wrong to sign Randle? (who probably won several meaningless games for us…)

It’s a really good question. Neither fits in with the “avoid marginal wins at all cost, sign zero FAs” strategy. Both fit in with the “take an expensive but recoverable flyer on a young player on the upswing that can be part of a good team if he develops” strategy. It’s a good real world conversation to have, even if it doesn’t fit your theoretical optimal strategy.

For the baseball fans among you ESPN is showing live Korean Baseball

i started watching…til i figured out i didn’t really care about korean baseball…desperation though kept me glued to it for a good three minutes or so…

UFC goes live saturday with some great fights…

Well Z-Man, if we must limit discussion to strategies the Knicks might actually pursue, you know which one should be the first one on the chopping block?

The one where they build a contender without fully utilizing the draft, because the New York Knicks were simply smarter than the other 29 teams.

You never have to worry about being wrong (except when you rank lottery picks…then, look out!)

I’ll let folks judge for themselves whether or not these are the utterly disqualifying rankings Z-Man, who I don’t believe has ever gone on record in similar fashion, makes them out to be.

2019
2018
2017

Looks like if the Knicks followed them to a tee without any regard whatsoever for fit, etc. they’d have Zach Collins instead of Ntilikina, Robert Williams instead of Knox, and would still have RJ.

Impossible to determine who the second rounders would’ve been, but I am quite happy with my 2018 honorable mentions for an obvious reason 😉

Or put another way, would having that 48% chance at top 4 in a draft with no consensus #1 picks (your personal #1 is likely to be available well outside the top $) be better than having a 37% chance along with an additional first, a future second, bird rights on a decent rotation player and a eurostash player? You can’t have it both ways.

By the time we won that game Marcus Morris was long gone so this is irrelevant.

Anyway I wasn’t trying to make a point about the Knicks shitty 2019 offseason strategy. I was just demonstrating that even under the new system there’s plenty of incentive to avoid marginal wins. All they really did was flatten the #1 overall pick odds for the 3 worst teams, there are still plenty of drastic odds drop offs across the board.

thenoblefacehumper: By the time we won that game Marcus Morris was long gone so this is irrelevant.

It really isn’t irrelevant. He’s a major part of the “chase marginal wins” discussion, as he was the best of the vets we signed and probably was responsible for more wins than any other single player on the team. You don’t sign him at all if you pursue your strategy. I cite him as an example of at signing that makes sense even if it means a couple more wins.

The guys most responsible for the ATL win are Julius Randle (last year’s Christian Wood), Mitch and RJ Barrett. The vets were largely a wash. Ironically, had you only played the vets, we probably lose that game. Does your strategy include not playing young guys like Mitch because he might win games for you?

Just to clarify, I think discussing the merits of trading for CP3 is useful because it’s possible that we either do it or don’t do it. Same with Christian Wood, or Bertans. Same with re-signing Melo or Lin. Same with drafting LaMelo or Hayes.

Discussing whether we should not sign any FAs or trade for anything other than incoming picks is pretty pointless, since it’s almost impossible that we won’t. Discussing whether we will full-out tank is pretty pointless, since it’s almost impossible that we will, unless as a plan B after plan A fails.

Discussing whether we should hold out hope for Knox and Frank or should cut bait is also useful and interesting, since it is a decision the Knicks are considering as we speak and we don’t know the answer for sure yet.

Since everyone is on record about how we feel philosophically, why don’t we stick to discussing things that can actually happen in the foreseeable future within given constraints, especially this offseason? Is that too much to ask?

DRed:
“probably was responsible for more wins than any other single player on the team”

He was absolutely not as good as Mitchell Robinson, the only good player on the Knicks

Yeah, what were we thinking, playing him and messing up the tank?!

It’s easy to look at the Knicks and say “Dolan is an idiot” and scream that they are doing it all wrong. But they aren’t just looking at wins:

2003: 37 wins / $398,000,000 franchise value
2004: 39 wins / $401,000,000 franchise value
2005: 33 wins / $494,000,000 franchise value
2006: 23 wins / $543,000,000 franchise value
2007: 33 wins / $592,000,000 franchise value
2008: 23 wins / $608,000,000 franchise value
2009: 32 wins / $613,000,000 franchise value
2010: 29 wins / $586,000,000 franchise value
2011: 42 wins / $655,000,000 franchise value
2012: 36 wins / $780,000,000 franchise value
2013: 54 wins / $1,100,000,000 franchise value
2014: 37 wins / $1,400,000,000 franchise value
2015: 17 wins / $2,500,000,000 franchise value
2016: 32 wins / $3,000,000,000 franchise value
2017: 31 wins / $3,300,000,000 franchise value
2018: 29 wins / $3,600,000,000 franchise value
2019: 17 wins / $4,000,000,000 franchise value
2020: 21 wins / $4,600,000,000 franchise value

There is no correlation between column A and column B. So if they are looking for incentive to change their philosophy, they aren’t going to be convinced by a bunch of nerd humpers.

Face it. You guys are investing in a team that hasn’t changed, and has no reason to change. A leopard CAN change his spots– it just requires millions of years of evolution to do so. Darwinistically speaking, Dolan isn’t going to evolve unless he is forced to adapt, migrate, or die. As the owner of the most valuable franchise in the league he laughs at all those other teams and their 3-to-5-year-plans, their win curves, and their rings.

And he is fiercely loyal to Steve Mills, Isiah Thomas, and Carmelo Anthony. Why?

Because column B says WE are being the stupid ones.

Z-man — as so often happens on this site (and in real life), there are two completely different and totally appropriate (and interesting) conversations happening at the same time. What’s the best thing to do, and what’s the more likely thing to happen.

These are both great topics to discuss. The problem comes from confusing one with the other. That’s where you get people (including you) slinging shit at each other. They are really different topics. Please pay attention to whether someone’s arguing what we SHOULD do, versus what we are LIKELY to do. I don’t mind us getting testy with each other, but when it’s about arguing past each other on different topics, it gets a bit tiresome.

It really isn’t irrelevant. He’s a major part of the “chase marginal wins” discussion, as he was the best of the vets we signed and probably was responsible for more wins than any other single player on the team. You don’t sign him at all if you pursue your strategy. I cite him as an example of at signing that makes sense even if it means a couple more wins.

This is not true. I’ve said a bunch of times, if there’s a free agent out there who can clearly be flipped for an asset, go ahead and sign him. I said it the day Morris was signed. I’ve repeated it a bunch of times in this discussion.

Having said that, these situations are exceedingly rare. Most players who can be signed and flipped are good enough to have multiyear offers on the table from contenders (as Morris did), and thus will not be signing with us. As you know, the Morris situation was very, very unique. Without looking, I don’t think a single other player who was signed this past offseason was flipped at the deadline for a first. I don’t think it happened least season, either.

So yes, we should absolutely sign every good player who agrees to a multiyear deal with the Spurs that he soon regrets, using the cap space we open up when a different player we sign fails his physical. No argument there!

To be fair, when they woke up, they didn’t know that the season would be over by the time they went to bed. It’s a lot easier sell to not play the starters in a game in April vs a game in early March. The team that’s out there should always TRY to win the game they’re playing.

I guess instead of using a specific example I should’ve just posted the new odds, because people are getting too hung up on this.

All I meant to convey was that even under the new system, it’s pretty easy to see marginal wins are disincentivized. In fact, at some positions in the draft they’re actually more disincentivized than they were under the old…

The Morris deal and trade are an example of something most posters here are assuming the Knicks can never do, I.e. make smart management moves when opportunities arise. And, the PBO actually got fired partially for opposing part of that smart management move. I find it weird saying this, but even though it’s only one example of a smart move and there’s not much else to applaud, it actually makes the “have smart management” strategy more likely for the Knicks than the “Hinkie” strategy.

The Knicks are never going to do the Hinkie strategy. I would have they would never have smart management either, but now there are signs of the latter.

I see no reason why Danilo Gallinari wouldn’t want to extend his time playing with the best point guard of his generation, so let’s say he comes back home to play the four on a two-year deal (second year partially guaranteed for $5 million)

I don’t really know this Macri guy. Is what he said here credible? I never considered Gallo as someone you can get for that low. If that’s realistic, and we can dump Randle and Smith in a Paul trade, then you can add Paul, Gallo, and FVV in one summer.

I know, I know: 35 y/o Paul will be only 15% as effective as 34 y/o Paul was, because math or something. But honestly how much worse is this team than the 40-24 Thunder?

G Paul, Hayes or Halliburton
G FVV, Barrett
F Bullock, Barrett
F Gallo, Knox
C Robinson

Plus Frank, Iggy, the LAC pick, the Charlotte pick, and the room exception available to sign a veteran. If I get a pick from the Thunder (and I agree, we should, I just don’t believe it will happen), even better.

37 wins? 9 seed? Yeah, I’ll take the over on that. That’s arguably better than the Melo/Chandler team that made the 2nd round.

Macri is kind of like a sports blog writer that happened to be signed by SI. Not huge on advanced stats but miles better than say Bondy. He’s been ok in breaking news too. But not an insider at the moment. I do like his podcast but he’s more of an eyeball with some supporting advanced stats kinda guy. (Again, worlds better than the dregs we get in the rest of the beat)

The guarantee of the 2nd year is not the important thing to me. I’m stunned by the estimated AAV of $5mm!

Brian Cronin: No, he’s saying that Gallo will get, like, 2 years/$45 million, but only $5 million of the second year would be guaranteed. That’s the part that’s wishcasting. It’s more likely to be a straight 2/$45 million.

Ahhhh.

That makes much more sense. I was amazed bc I misread.

Never mind then. Yeah, that’s a mediocre team that we should not sign up for unless the Thunder give us many picks.

The Paul idea without picks only works if you can trade for him, sign FVV, and add a stretch 4. Hard to do, but not impossible.

I don’t know where my original comment went, to the ether and to return later, I dunno, but –

Z’s post is exactly what I’ve been thinking about later. Dolans making money making the same crappy win-now moves as he’s been making for the past 20 years. There’s absolutely NO evidence that he’s EVER been interested in short term losses for long term gains. (And he has the bank account to support his side) Isiahs moves, Amare, MeloTrade, MegaMelo, hiring Phil, even signing Randle and Elf… straight to hiring a super agent who ONLY brings to the table the same shit we’ve been dealing with – superstar connects.

Rose will do what all the others have done. He’s just the Neo of this iteration of the Matrix, and there’s no evidence he has the makeup to be disruptive.

The question isn’t will he Do the Hinkie- there’s no shot. It’s is he smart enough to Do a Donnie… or Morey.

So talk about the Franks and Dotsons and Triers… but my feeling is he’s thinking about the Lillards.

While the value of the team has gone up every year, it does seem like from 2009 to 2013, the value of the team went up more than other years. And 2011 win total is VERY misleading because that was the lock out shortened season. It was also the year of Linsanity.

There is definitely the argument to be made that he doesn’t care about winning bc the value of the team goes up regardless. But another argument could be made to Dolan that we should be able to put in place a long term rebuilding strategy because the fan base will tolerate it and the value of the team has gone up even after seasons where we won only 20 or 17 games. And if the value goes up when we’re bad, imagine how much MORE money he could make if we were consistently good.

And outside of the Jazz Linsanity game I got to see live, Gallo vs. Melo in 2010 at The Garden was one of my favorite live Knicks games ever. THey were going toe to toe and The Knicks won that game. The crowd was going crazy. I remember this one dude a few rows in front of me keeping screaming “GIVE THE BALL TO GALLO!”

> He’s (Morris) a major part of the “chase marginal wins” discussion, as he was the best of the vets we signed and probably was responsible for more wins than any other single player on the team. You don’t sign him at all if you pursue your strategy. I cite him as an example of at signing that makes sense even if it means a couple more wins.<

Thank God Z-Man gets it.

The idea behind signing players that perhaps don't fit exactly into some "idealistic win curve" where everyone is under 25 and expected to peak on the same curve is that other players are also ASSETS that can be used in trades for picks (like Morris was) or that can be combined with picks and/or other players later into the star players you need to win championships.

Now of course some nameless troll is going to ask for specific names to sign.

The reality is you NEVER KNOW who is going to be available, at what price, and whether he would be willing to sign in NY anyway (especially when you tank and suck every year). The market dictates that. Furthermore, as fans we never know who was actually available as a FA or in a trade because half of what the media reports is bullshit rumors. We can only evaluate the deals we did after the fact unless management comes out and says "we could have signed or traded for player x but didn't".

We are trusting management to identify good players, pay the right price, and fit them together correctly.

We are trusting management to slowly make the team better so it's more attractive to STAR free agents and also because if some good players are signed to fair/attractive contracts those players can be used as trade chips if better opportunities present themselves later that season, the following year etc..

Our failing is not the approach. It's the competency of management to identify good players, pay them fairly, fit them together well, and slowly improve enough to make the team more attractive.

Has Iggy shown one iota of anything to be excited about, outside of Summer League and doing decent in Westchester?

Nope. But hey, better to be decent in Westchester than not be decent in Westchester! And Iggy was actually good in college, unlike Knox, so that’s something, too. But yes, odds are Iggy sucks, too.

Hey Brian, am I the only one worried about Bruno? He hasn’t posted in a while and the shit is hitting the fan in Brazil. Can you shoot him an email?

Hey Brian, am I the only one worried about Bruno? He hasn’t posted in a while and the shit is hitting the fan in Brazil. Can you shoot him an email?

Sure thing.

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our execution,
But in our strategy, that we are underlings.”

Dolan is a starfucker. He likes players and executives that he has heard of, and who are famous. This is all he cares about, period.

That’s why there’s no rebuild. It’s not that he doesn’t want to rebuild because he’s afraid of losing games. He doesn’t want to rebuild because he doesn’t want a roster full of a bunch of guys nobody has heard of. Every single thing he does fits in with this mindset. It’s why Isiah Thomas was here for so long— Isiah Thomas is very famous! It’s why Leon Rose was hired— he knows famous people!

There is nothing about win curve or even wins and losses period that has anything to do with it.

NahNah: I don’t think your past quote says what you think it says. We were not moderately competitive. You were flat wrong.

Obviously you have a serious reading comprehension issue, and are just blindly lashing out at me. Where did I say that the team would be moderately competitive?

Here’s what I actually did say at the time, corroborating my position that it wasn’t the strategy that was at fault, but the bumbling execution of it:

“Getting above the 30-win mark will be a very tough task if everyone basically stays on their college/career trajectory.”

I know you don’t like me, kid, that’s all good. But you need to up your game in executing the “be a petty asshole to Z-man” strategy. You’re like Mills-level dumb at it.

Brian Cronin: Wilson Chandler is a free agent, too!

Ha! And Mozgov is only 33, we could use a backup to Mitch…Mike K could pull the tee shirts out of the attic!

I think Melo and Lin are very real possibilities to get signed by us this off season cause both can probably be had now for the minimum of mini-mid level in Melo’s case. I think Melo was all ready a real possibility as a way for him to end his career and also as kind of an olive branch/mea culpa on both sides to garner good will. You can make all sorts of critiques of Melo, how he became a Knick, his contract, etc…but he also took ALL of the heat when the team started doing poorly after the 54 win season and I think especially by the end of the Phil era, he was treated kind of poorly by the organization. This isn’t an excuse. But it felt like Phil was trying to blame all of the failings on Melo when he was the one who gave him that contract and then tried to “win now” with Noah and Rose, etc.

So I think Melo coming back on a one year small deal is a very real possibility. And I think Lin coming back too is a real possibility. Both as more role players. But I think Rose is looking to A)mend fences and B) seeing the new financial landscape and looking for any small thing that can generate fan excitement.

Who are these people that care about getting Melo and Paul on the same team. That has to be one of the most durable dumb ideas in the history of the NBA.

I remember that Gallo game. As someone who thought, and still think, that Gallo was a better player than Melo it was pretty bittersweet.

Re the value of the team, it’s a function of interest rates and the stratification of wealth in America. Revenues are more sensitive to winning and losing but given how many multi-billionaires would love to own the Knicks they don’t matter that much.

Good to hear from Bruno!

I guess a part of me would like to see Gallo or Lin suit up for the Knicks again; that might be a bit of fun. But if it is part of a larger “try to win now” effort including Paul and Melo, naaaah.

Actually, I would much rather have Gallo man the four than Randle.

Zach and Jamal might have something left in the tank (no pun intended).

good to hear you’re well bruno 🙂

It’s been a really dark time around here, we all knew that this is what would happen anyway with this government, but seeing a large part of the population still supporting this shit while the death numbers rise is just disheartening.

we’re seeing the same here in the states…sadly this image says it all…

I’m in the last year of my phD

if i remember correctly your field of focus was on assisting traditionally under-served segments of society?

good for you sir…no doubt there are way too many folks whom need your efforts and passion to serve…

I’m trying to use the quarantine time to work as much as I can, at least to do something productive with it.

what in the world can be more productive than imagining a starting line up of cp3, RJ, melo, gallo and mitch…oh yeah, just about anything i guess 🙂

I told you all that he was a winner

Speaking of free agents, isn’t Jordan Bell on the table this year? If we’re moving on from two of Portis, Randle and Taj (which we really should be doing), Bell might be worth a flier. I haven’t been following the situation much, but it doesn’t seem like the Wolves value him highly and he’s young enough to be given anothet shot, I’d think.

thenoblefacehumper: What you don’t see to understand is that this is an insanely narrow category of free agents. Most players who could be flipped this way will have multiyear deals available to them, as Morris did.

Who else has been signed to a one-year deal and then flipped at the deadline for a first in the past few years? The Morris situation was such an anomaly. I’m happy to capitalize on similar situations when they arise. They simply do not arise very often.

Agreed, but why does the category have to be that narrow? Why is Payton a signing not worth the marginal wins? His cap-friendly deal with a team option potentially could have been moved, maybe not for the haul that Morris brought in, but for a couple of seconds. He is a decent asset whether we keep him or move him. Same with Bullock on the re-worked deal.

Then there’s Randle. It was the first move made and you were sort of positive on that one, trying to balance the fair value of the deal with the specter of marginal wins. Problem is, when you sign him, it pretty much throws the all-out tank out the window. It’s clear from the time that he didn’t fit the “avoid marginal wins at all cost” strategy, but definitely fit the “build the team by making cost-effective transactions regardless of the impact on wins” strategy.

And that’s my point. When you considered that move in a vacuum before all the rest of the cap-squandering signings (specifically Portis, Taj, Ellington, and at first, Bullock) it didn’t seem like a bad first move at all. I actually liked that move less than you, and we completely agreed on the Morris move, as a good one within the real world of possibilities. We also agreed that the off-season taken as a whole was a big shit sandwich executed by an incompetent FO.

>Hahahahaha, this is the retconning I was talking about earlier. Strat was thirsty to lock Morris up for his age 31-34 seasons before we traded him.<

Not only are you are a troll that knows absolutely nothing about basketball. you are also a liar.

I expressed a variety of views on Morris. I thought he was good player (could not sustain his 3p%), but I thought the pick we could get for him was probably going to be of less value than he was as a player. That means I doubted the Clipper pick (or a similar one) was ever going produce a player as good as Morris and we'd have to wait many years for that player to get to his peak. So my view was I would be OK with it "IF" we ultimately used that pick has part of a deal to acquire a better player than Morris or moved up in the draft, but not to select some late first round 18-19 year old scrub that's going to hopefully be a decent player in 2027.

So basically I was on the 50 yard line depending on what we could get for him.

I was thrilled with the deal because we also got Harkless. Harkless fits well, is younger, and is the type of underrated defensive role player that has had success on good teams that we should be looking to acquire and either keep or trade later. But I still think we should use that pick to move up in the draft or as part of deal to get a player that makes us better. I don't give a crap about some 18 year old that if we are very lucky will be playoff ready in 2027.

Now go back to trolling and being wrong abut virtually everything,

I was thrilled with the deal because we also got Harkless. Harkless fits well, is younger, and is the type of underrated defensive role player that has had success on good teams that we should be looking to acquire and either keep or trade later.

I have so much respect for this move. This is hilarious. Strat was ardently opposed to trading Morris for “a late first,” which is exactly what we did. Now that the trade was obviously beneficial, my man is pretending the only reason that’s true is because of the expiring salary filler that came our way.

Not the first-round pick. Not the second-rounder from a bad team in Detroit. Nope–Moe Harkless, whose Knicks career will likely consist of 12 games, changed everything.

Never, ever change Strato.

I apologize to the group for the outburst, but dude, you are moron, a liar, an incompetent and a troll.

You make everything about this forum experience worse.

If we allow Harkless to leave, imo it will another of what seems like an endless series of bad moves that you don’t understand. He’s exactly the kind of player we should be trying to accumulate because he’s undervalued.

We don’t need any more garbage can picks for kids that are many years away from being playoff ready role players unless our goal is to die of old age before we win a championship, Their value is in trading to move up for a possible star player or acquiring a better player (as I was qualifying for much of the time of the discussion).

If you are going to trade Morris for a pick, then be smart enough to trade the pick as part of a deal for a better player than Morris or to move up. Otherwise, just keep Morris on a contract that makes sense given his quality and age and see what happens later.

Strat has a fatalistic view of late first rounders because, historically, so many teams are obsessed with “upside” at that point in the draft, being that those late-selecting teams already have superstars in place.

It’s literally just because Frank Ntilikina hasn’t been remotely good. So he feels the need to pretend that’s actually completely normal, and all young prospects have to suck for at least 3 seasons before showing even back-of-rotation level production. He has never, ever backed this up with anything resembling empirics but he’s not going to stop saying it.

If we allow Harkless to leave, imo it will another of what seems like an endless series of bad moves that you don’t understand. He’s exactly the kind of player we should be trying to accumulate because he’s undervalued.

To what contract should we sign him? I know, I know, it’s a total TROLL move to ask for anything more than the most vague nonsense imaginable.

If you are going to trade Morris for a pick, then be smart enough to trade the pick as part of a deal for a better player than Morris or to move up. Otherwise, just keep Morris on a contract that makes sense given his quality and age and see what happens later.

Props for retconning your retcon of the Morris deal, I guess. So what you’re saying is, if we make a selection with the Clippers’ pick and add that player to our roster, the Morris trade will have been bad, correct?

Strat, I would say that you get a lot of outrage about your positions because many people don’t value defense as much as you do. They only judge by stats that are mostly based on offense. This explains why you value KP, Frank and Harkless more than they do. I understand why they disagree, but not why they get so angry. Arguing offense versus defense is as old as time, and perfectly normal for a sports blog.

I agree with you that defense is important, but I think the late first rounder is worth something even if it’s not traded right away. Such picks are often over valued, but still there is a small but real chance you get a usable player right away. And it could be very useful if you want to trade to move up in the draft.

>To what contract should we sign him? I know, I know, it’s a total TROLL move to ask for anything more than the most vague nonsense imaginable.<

I think Harkless's 11.5m contract was OK in the pre Covid environment, but we don't know yet what the environment will look like next year and in the years after. I realize you can't process this reality, but environments and markets change and therefore the values change. So I can't give you a number, You can't responsibly put a price on Harkless until we have a better idea of what the economics are going to look like when we have to make a decision and other deals are being made.

In relative terms 11.5m was tolerable last year. If salaries start falling overall, then less. If salaries for players like him fall more or less than average, you adjust. If he gets relatively expensive you let him walk. But first you have to understand that he's a very good role player you should want on your team now so we get better and then possibly eventually to move to get a better player.

>I agree with you that defense is important, but I think the late first rounder is worth something even if it’s not traded right away. Such picks are often over valued, but still there is a small but real chance you get a usable player right away. And it could be very useful if you want to trade to move up in the draft.<

I don't think any 1st rounder is worthless.

I think picks in general have become overvalued in the era of drafting very young players and tanking has become a worse option for rebuilding than it used to be because of that and because the lottery odds have been flattened. As a result I have a philosophical difference on the right way to rebuild in this environment.

I think you should be wide open to wherever the values are, but that's a dynamic thing.

You don't start with an approach to rebuilding and try to force it.

I also disagree with how to value individual players because imo all the public models are so ridiculously and obviously bad at some things, they shouldn't even be part of a serious discussion. They obviously aren't in the real world of trading and valuing players where staffs of statistical experts with better data and scouts are used. When I see a player that's clearly overvalued or undervalued on those bogus metrics I always explain why I think that and sometimes know that to be true. .

“Has Iggy shown one iota of anything to be excited about, outside of Summer League and doing decent in Westchester?”

You mean in his 53 minutes of garbage time in the NBA?

His Michigan metrics were superior to Barrett’s at Duke…… amazingly….he can actually shoot a basketball!

I believe Trevor Ariza was recently signed to a one year deal by Phoenix who then flipped him at the deadline for a pick. Not sure what they got out of it but I believe it was the season before this one.

Not quite. They traded him essentially for Kelly Oubre’s RFA rights. I’d say those were worth less than a pick. They ultimately signed Oubre to a pretty pointless (considering their place on the win curve) 2/$30M deal that they probably could’ve signed him to without the trade.

Still, not a bad comparison.

What I don’t understand about the “there’s no rigid path” crowd is, if you’re going with a general strategy that emphasizes the quantity and quality of your draft picks…there’s still nothing preventing you from signing a free agent if for whatever reason it makes sense to do so.

Like, let’s say the Knicks took on the salaries of Harkless and Iguodala for two first-round picks instead of signing Bobby Portis, Taj Gibson, and Wayne Ellington (yes, those two things amazingly cost the same amount cap space).

They still could’ve signed Morris when the Spurs deal fell through! They would not have had to be like “aw shucks, we have the cap space to sign Morris, but we are generally committed to stockpiling picks, so we are barred from signing him :(“

thenoblefacehumper:What I don’t understand about the “there’s no rigid path” crowd is, if you’re going with a general strategy that emphasizes the quantity and quality of your draft picks…there’s still nothing preventing you from signing a free agent if for whatever reason it makes sense to do so.

Like, let’s say the Knicks took on the salaries of Harkless and Iguodala for two first-round picks instead of signing Bobby Portis, Taj Gibson, and Wayne Ellington (yes, those two things amazingly cost the same amount cap space).

They still could’ve signed Morris when the Spurs deal fell through! They would not have had to be like “aw shucks, we have the cap space to sign Morris, but we are generally committed to stockpiling picks, so we are barred from signing him :(”

This goes back to picking a strategy; specifically whether it’s one that you can actually execute.

“Taking on bad contracts for picks” is the type of deal that is always on the table every season. A guaranteed win from an asset management perspective. Picks always have a positive value (you may not hit on them, but they still represent a positive value from an NPV basis).

“Singing veteran with hopes to trade him” is a risky strategy. It’s not on the table every season. This is not a guaranteed path to a win from an asset management perspective. The NPV is arguably negative. You don’t know if you will be able to trade the veteran (see Lee, Courtney).

No star with a functioning brain looks at the Knicks and says I want to go to NY because they have the Clipper’s 1st round pick. They say, “A kid like that won’t be ready until I’m retired even if he winds up being a decent NBA player, which is not assured”.

What they want to say is “The team won 40 games, they have some veterans I want to play with, a few young pieces with upside, and if I go there we are on the clear road to contention”.

When you suck every year they don’t come even if it’s NY.

Walsh learned that.
Phil learned that.
Mills/Perry learned that.

Getting good enough to attract those players can be done via draft only over many years with some luck, but why limit yourself? It’s just plain dumb to not take advantage of every possible deal that improves your team and it’s position.

When did I start to agree with you? Strange.
I feel caught between the two schools. Build with kids or take on the big contracts?
What I seem to agree with most is achieving a baseline of competence, accumulating draft assets and trying to acquire a star. We have a lot of picks. Good. Keep them. Outside of the draft, how do we get a player here that is playing at or near all-star level?

It’s a reminder that the last time the Knicks made the playoffs it was because they signed Amare. It was the first piece. It wasn’t a great piece since he was broken, but it elevated the team from the abyss.

The hell with David Lee and Wilson Chandler — Langston Galloway has a much better name, AND he shot 39.9% from three this year (way #1 on the Knicks now that Mercury Morris is gone). AND he’d be the highest PTZ/game for a guard on the team this year (since I consider RJ to be an abused 3).

Maybe we could pry Melton away this offseason? He could still become a pretty good point guard IMO.

I like this idea, but I think Memphis will be matching any offers that aren’t insane.

PG — LaMelo Ball
SG — De’Anthony Melton
SF —
PF — Carmelo Anthony
C — Fab Melo (I’m sure he’d come back)

So close to a Fab Five…

having a good organization/owner which promotes success and a solid coaching staff would help a bunch…

i don’t know – how do you overcome terrible ownership without getting incredibly lucky in the draft or having the nba steer an all-time great point guard in your direction…

thenoblefacehumper: What I don’t understand about the “there’s no rigid path” crowd is, if you’re going with a general strategy that emphasizes the quantity and quality of your draft picks…there’s still nothing preventing you from signing a free agent if for whatever reason it makes sense to do so.

Like, let’s say the Knicks took on the salaries of Harkless and Iguodala for two first-round picks instead of signing Bobby Portis, Taj Gibson, and Wayne Ellington (yes, those two things amazingly cost the same amount cap space).

They still could’ve signed Morris when the Spurs deal fell through! They would not have had to be like “aw shucks, we have the cap space to sign Morris, but we are generally committed to stockpiling picks, so we are barred from signing him :(”

Yes, for sure, that would have been a better way to go that what we did. Most of us pretty much said so at the time! Thing is, Harkless and Iguodala are also good players. These kind of dumps are less common, and there is sometimes competition for them. But yeah, absolutely!

Just admit that this is a separate conversation from whether one should abjectly tank or not. Taking on these two guys instead of Portis, Gibson and Ellington wouldn’t affect our win total. That’s what I mean by it being more about good management than the actual plan.

***well at least he won’t generate any marginal wins…***

We are officially entering Major League territory here.

Owner: This is a list of players that I want to invite to Spring Training this year.
POBO: I’ve never heard of half of these guys and the ones I do know are way past their prime.
GM: Most of these guys never had a prime.
Coach: This guy here is dead.
Owner: Cross him off then.

(Wow, that fake Indians team was really ahead of the tanking curve, weren’t they. While everybody else was laughing watching that scene, Hinkie was like “turn that into a five year plan!)

NahNah: Again, it’s not really a separate conversation. First, salary dumps for statistically sound players come up quite often (organizations fall out of love with players for all sorts of non-statistical reasons). Second, taking on the salary dump is usually beneficial regardless of the expected statistical production of the inbound player. In fact, it’s typical to immediately waive the inbound player, and that’s actually part of the optimal strategy because you should give the roster spot to a cheap g-league stand-out.

I know you are trying to save face by saying, “Eh, we are basically saying the same thing”, but you still aren’t fully accepting the fundamentals of the optimal strategy.

I’m shocked that you keep responding to my posts, considering you just said that you were bored with the conversation. Man, your life must really suck.

you still aren’t fully accepting the fundamentals of the optimal strategy.

“What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.”

geo: “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.”

Yes, GEO, the truly enlightened centrist, coming down from his ivory tower of neutral goodness. Yes, my authority is learning from the smarter posters on this board for the last decade. I try never to make subjective basketball claims. I watch plenty of basketball just like every schmuck on this board. But at least I have the discipline to refrain from claiming my ability to evaluate a player is better than anybody else’s ability. Cause that is just lazy analysis.

So yea, I have nothing better to do.

sounds like the answer to all your problems are porn, video games and drugs…i’m just kidding, i would never knowingly advocate the use of porn or video games…they’re dangerous…

“Boredom is the conviction that you can’t change … the shriek of unused capacities.”

you working from home?

sounds like a perfect time to perfect – you…a good opportunity to spend your energy and time on yourself…no one is more deserving of your focus than yourself…

heck, you could do like bob get you some young ‘uns, and chase two toddlers around the house all day at 90 years old…betcha bob doesn’t get bored…

speaking of bob, can’t believe he didn’t know who tom platz was…i’m so disappointed…as an old power lifting dude, i was positive he would have known that name…

there is soooo much i don’t know nah nah…i do know though that:
A). you are not alone
B). you are not alone
C). you are not alone

you got skills, just think what you can do with them (porn, video games, drugs 🙂

geo: sounds like the answer to all your problems are porn, video games and drugs…i’m just kidding, i would never knowingly advocate the use of porn or video games…they’re dangerous…

“Boredom is the conviction that you can’t change … the shriek of unused capacities.”

you working from home?

sounds like a perfect time to perfect – you…a good opportunity to spend your energy and time on yourself…no one is more deserving of your focus than yourself…

heck, you could do like bob get you some young ‘uns, and chase two toddlers around the house all day at 90 years old…betcha bob doesn’t get bored…

speaking of bob, can’t believe he didn’t know who tom platz was…i’m so disappointed…as an old power lifting dude, i was positive he would have known that name…

there is soooo much i don’t know nah nah…i do know though that:
A). you are not alone
B). you are not alone
C). you are not alone

you got skills, just think what you can do with them (porn, video games, drugs 🙂

Yea, I’m not really bored. I was just being self-deprecating. I have a two-year-old and four-year-old, and I run my own business with about ten employees. I mostly just find it fascinating that anyone who has been on this board this long can continue to debate the optimal strategy. Truly flabbergasted. Like, all available evidence points in the same direction.

Thing is, Harkless and Iguodala are also good players. These kind of dumps are less common, and there is sometimes competition for them. But yeah, absolutely!

I don’t understand this point at all. I would feel the exact same way if all else was equal, but Harkless and Iguodala were the worst two players in NBA history. Their contracts being attractive to us had nothing to do with their potential contributions to the 2019-2020 New York Knicks.

In fact, the reason I think Iguodala could’ve been available to us if we inquired is I think the Warriors would’ve wanted to do him a solid and trade him to a team that would immediately waive him. We should’ve offered to do that.

thenoblefacehumper: I don’t understand this point at all. I would feel the exact same way if all else was equal, but Harkless and Iguodala were the worst two players in NBA history. Their contracts being attractive to us had nothing to do with their potential contributions to the 2019-2020 New York Knicks.

In fact, the reason I think Iguodala could’ve been available to us if we inquired is I think the Warriors would’ve wanted to do him a solid and trade him to a team that would immediately waive him. We should’ve offered to do that.

Have you ever watched a game of basketball in your life? Iguodala is a defense-first, team-oriented, NBA Finals MVP with a really nice wingspan. He is a champion and proven winner. Every scout says so. You can’t teach that. His presence alone would make everyone else on the team better players, and he would make every one in the locker room better human beings. And he could even convince the superstars, like the literal corpse of Thad Melo, to join the team.

“Watching game 7 from 1970. Why can’y this team play like that? And talk about a physical game.”

That Walt Frazier dude was a pretty good player, ehhhh…….

optimal starting five:

LSD version- modern day twin towers with two shooters and a real pg
Robinson – turns into some hybrid of Stoudemire in his prime with the relentlessness of Moses
Anthony Davis – bolts LA and comes to NYC
barrett – uses covid 19 break to correct broken jumper and turns into outside threat
knox – see barrett
ball – first round pick….better than his bro

Decent mushroom version –
robinson – see above
randle – sees the light/transforms into oakley like performer
draft pick – small forward who can shoot
barret – see above
payton or frank transform into serviceable pg

Bong hit version
robinson – incremental improvement but cannot hit a shot outside of the paint
randle – ditto
first round pick actually can contribute
barret – practices during covid break but it doesn’t help much
dsj gets covid takes remsvidir and it cures that and his shooting issues

reality – assumes cole anthony selection and he nevers gets on the court playing behind payton, frank and dsj
robinson – see above
randle – whirling dirvish
barret – bricks away
payton – brings back that funky hairdo to help with the outside shot
bullock – wtf?

you up in that same neck of the woods pepper – are you a dead fan?

i’m going for the bong hit…we’re due for a little luck on a draft pick…

i tell you dad, just finished feeding godson a couple of chili dogs up in his room, tonight that was the best i could do…god daughter is out in the garage with her equally underage boyfriend drinking a modelo…

time is like water on a stone, after a while it’ll wear you down…one of things i admire most about z-man, strat, bob and some of the other old farts here – the fire and resoluteness they have…right or wrong, don’t matter…

as a small business owner and leader, don’t compromise on your expectations…as a son, sibling, partner, father, friend – as a wise grocer once said – diminished expectations seem to be a key component to happiness…

That Walt Frazier dude was a pretty good player, ehhhh…….

He should’ve won the MVP, even though it was the “Willis Reed game”.
Frazier wasn’t just good, he was ideal. He did everything you want a point guard to do. On offense he organized the team on the floor. He broke down the defense driving the lane. He was 2nd in the NBA in assists and made his teammates better. He could could hit a jumper from anywhere on the floor. He was money at the line. On defense he shut down his opponent. He had quick hands and was a ball thief. More than anything, he was calm and cool.
That’s what I want at the point. He spoiled me.

Even with the bad hip, Willis was able to use his strength to keep Wilt from getting all the way to the basket before the double-teams came. In todays game where 5’s need to be more mobile, no way he could have played.

The hand-checking was so good to see, I wish they allowed more of it today…