View Single Post
07-18-2013, 04:24 AM
Registered User
Zil's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,310
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
I love the "model franchise" is now a "possible title contender" part after missing the playoffs two offseasons ago.

Hmmm. Could you be talking about the Knicks? The Knicks were a playoff team two offseasons ago, and in two seasons won 54 games, won a division and lost in the 2nd round.

The "model" Rockets?

2009 -- 53-29 5th seed lost in 2nd round
2010 -- 42-40 no playoffs
2011 -- 43-39 no playoffs
2012 -- 34-32 no playoffs
2013 -- 45-37 8th seed/lost in 1st round

The Rockets have actually regressed as a franchise for four straight years, made massive changes to their payroll and roster, and all it did was give them the 8th seed and a 1st round loss in 2013.

The Knicks on the other hand went from being a 29-53 in 2010 to 54-28 in 2013. It took them two offseasons to do what Houston is still trying to do.

And what constitutes being a "possible title contender" and being a "title contender"?

Hmmmm. So you're basically saying the Knicks, who were the No. 2 seed in the east last season and improved their team this offseason are neither contenders nor "possible title contenders", but the "model" Rockets, who used trading 1st rounders and overpaid free agents to design their current roster are "possible title contenders" event though they were the 8th seed and a 1st round knockout in 2013.

Nice logic.
A team built around Harden and Howard conceivably has a chance winning a playoff series against the likes of Miami, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, the LA Clippers, etc. I don't think the Knicks could handle the Bulls if Rose regains his form, let alone the Heat. You can keep saying 54 wins until you're blue in the face. Last year's Knicks team was not winning a series against any of Miami, San Antonio, or Oklahoma City pre-Westbrook injury. A team with no shot of knocking off those teams isn't a title contender.

Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
The Knicks will have more cap space than Houston in 2015. Knicks have 9 million commited in 2015. Houston has 40 million commited in 2015. So I don't know what you mean by "flexibility". Chandler "franchise' Parsons is a free agent the same year as Asik and Lin (who was bested by "misfit" Felton this season, and unlike Lin, actually played in the postseason LOL)
Who cares who has more cap space in 2015? Houston doesn't need to add another max player when they already have Harden and Howard. Over the next two seasons they could realistically win a championship. Meanwhile, the Knicks have the chance to make the playoffs a few times and line Dolan's pockets and that's about it.

Between now and 2015 Houston has: 1) A better core 2) Access to the full MLE because it's not paying the luxury tax 3) Trade chips in Asik and Lin to continue to acquire talent

Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
Lin's Salary flexes to 15 million in 2015. That's one of the reason's why the Knicks didn't match Houston's offer, which would have cost them 42 million in luxury tax. Asik makes 15 million after 2014-15. Lin makes 15 million.

The fact that those two players in actual salary make a combined 30 million will not make them as attractive as you think.
I'm not saying the Knicks should've kept Lin.That would've been dumb. But Houston's getting them at a reasonable cap hit for every year of their deals. From their end, they were extremely savvy pickups. Asik especially, has value regardless of the actual money owed him because he's a very good, above average starter caliber NBA center.

Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
Are you even a Rockets fan? You spend more time talking about the Rockets, Spurs and Knicks than any other team? Who do you root for? The Heat? The Lakers?
I find your constant interest in people's fandom hilarious. It has nothing to do with objective analysis. You automatically equate someone disagreeing with a team's direction to hating that franchise. My only interest in arguing with you comes as someone who's fascinated with how roster construction works in the NBA, just as I am in the NHL and MLB.

You seem to think I have a problem with the Knicks. I don't. I have a problem with how they go about their business. They've been making the same dumb personnel moves since their championship teams broke up in the mid-70s. They pass up Dr. J when the Nets offer him. They take Michael Ray Richardson over Larry Bird. They give up a shot to pair Scottie Pippen or Reggie Miller with Ewing so they can deal for Gerald Henderson. They chase mediocre pseudo-star after mediocre pseudo-star all the way into the modern era while flushing away chance after chance to build a real contender in the process (the Curry trade stands out as particularly heinous).

This is a team that's always antsy to add the best of whatever's out there, but they always do it in the most short term manner possible. Or they fixate on a single avenue. Free agency is not the end all, be all of improving your roster. But the Knicks continually box themselves into where that's all they've got. They're too quick to flush picks on guys like Bargnani, rather than holding them for guys who are actually valuable. If some young stud hits the the trade market, they have nothing to deal for him. Shumpert is their only attractive piece and if they deal him it creates another hole to plug up.

You make me angry, not because I hate the Knicks (how could someone hate the franchise of Walt Clyde Frazier?), but because your ideas are fundamentally flawed and lacking in nuance. You keep claiming late round picks have no value, but a huge number of contenders feature them:

San Antonio: Tony Parker (28), Manu Ginobili (58), George Hill (26) gets turned into Kawhi Leonard, Tiago Splitter (28) is another contributor

Oklahoma City: Serge Ibaka (24)

Chicago: Jimmy Butler (30)

Indiana: Roy Hibbert (17), Lance Stephenson (40), plus if he's healthy Danny Granger (17)

Houston: Chandler Parsons (38), Patrick Beverly (42)

There's always talent to be had. It's just a matter of having the scouting acumen to find it. Whether you keep the talent or deal it for a bigger piece is irrelevant. The key is that the draft can provide crucial flow of talent no matter where you're picking. That's why giving up a first rounder to land Bargnani is idiotic even with 2015 in mind. Toronto was trying to dump him. It's not like there was a huge line of suitors waiting to grab him.

Zil is offline   Reply With Quote