We are working with probabilities.

But you’re overestimating the probability that we’ll be a top 10 team in 2027.

A team’s fortunes can change drastically in a few seasons. We’ve seen it happen so many times.

The Thunder drafted Jalen Williams with the Clippers lottery pick one year after LA was in the WCF.

The Lakers gave the 8th pick in the 2022 draft to the Pelicans two years after Anthony Davis led them to a championship.

The Nets just gave up the #3 pick in the most recent draft three years after Durant’s toe was all that stood between them and the finals.

There is no way to project today that the Knicks’ pick in 2027 is probably in the 20s. The range of possibilities is very wide.

Bargnani was laughable, but, again, there was some sense to it as we were coming off a 54 win season and “the east was big, man” and the plan was to get bigger and spread the floor.

You’re right about the rest but the Bargs trade was more nonsense than sense. If the East was big, a 7-footer who averaged under 5 RPG for his career wasn’t gonna help with that. If we needed to spread the floor, a guy who shot .303 from deep in the prior two years wasn’t gonna help with that (somehow he was even worse for us at .278).

The irony of that team is that we were good in the season by going small and putting guys like Chris Copeland at the 4 or 5, but that turned out to be a complete accident. Mike Woodson didn’t understand the advantages that gave us, and conceded to Roy Hibbert’s size by going big in the playoffs. A series that should have been us playing him off the floor was instead defined by him blocking our guys at the rim a hundred times due to some bullshit ‘verticality’ rule that was only in effect for like one month.

Then the rest of the NBA caught on to spacing and Hibbert was out of the league before age 30. Where was D’Antoni when we needed him?

Eddy Curry at least made sense because he was young and big and skilled. It just turned out horribly because we invested too much in him and it crapped out.

Bargnani was laughable, but, again, there was some sense to it as we were coming off a 54 win season and “the east was big, man” and the plan was to get bigger and spread the floor.

The Francis trade just made no sense for a 15-37 team that already had a max player at PG. It was bonkers. He wasn’t even that good when he was “good”, and by 2007 he was clearly on an irreversible downhill trajectory into badness. But, sure, empty the cupboard for him, why not!

I don’t think Berri was wrong about shot creation .

I think he’s wrong, but it doesn’t have a lot of impact given the way teams are constructed. On any team there will be players that can’t create for themselves, but there will be a few that can. If you lose 1 of the players that can, there’s usually someone else that can step into that role or up their volume a bit without much loss of efficiency. That doesn’t mean that skill is not valuable. It means managements/coaches are typically smart enough to have several shot creators on the team. When there is a shortage though, you will see the problems.

I remember feeling conflicted about Noah. I loved him as a player at Florida and in Chicago. But it was also very clear he didn’t have a lot of career left. We got like one great game out of him.

I was bit conflicted also because Pau Gasol was similarly thought to be done at one point because of age, injuries and a decline in his production but he wound up recovering and having several more very good years. Noah was insisting his shoulder was OK.

It was a bet on whether Noah could do the same thing, but giving him the 4th year was a terrible error. 2 + a team option might have been an OK gamble.

The main problem though was the guy got paid and was out partying and getting laid every night intead of focusing on basketball. The problem was as much about his personality flaws as it was about what he had left.

Pags is premature but there is very high risk.

There’s always a risk in these things. We are working with probabilities.

If I was doing this kind of thing I woud create a range of likely outcomes, assign a probability to each likely outcome and then try to value the whole thing. Then I would never think about it again no matter how things work out and how the draft goes. I’d only be concerned with the accuracy of my original valuation and not the results.

The Nets have risk too. Instead of getting solid picks they could wind up with a couple of picks in the 26-30 range and wind up drafting 2 busts and bench 2 role players.

first and foremost – holy cow – that is crazy awesome al…

second, thank you so much for asking about me cyber…

not a thing to be taken for granted, not at all…and much appreciated…

pretty bummed at the moment, seems I received a failing grade on my partnering up attempt…

I’m distant and disconnected to begin with, put some some distance in the relationship… no bueno…I know I’m not the easiest person to deal with…sorry I made my friend feel sad…

I don’t know…disappointed with myself…understandable though…

I’m okay, on active dad duty over the Thanksgiving holiday- got a turkey thawing in the fridge…

Thanksgiving food is the best 😊