NBA Discussion Thread Pt. II
View Single Post
07-18-2013, 06:57 AM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Originally Posted by
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.
"I don't think"
Thanks for clearing that up.
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
Really going out on a limb there. Another winner.
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.
Lin was such a savvy pickup he was benched in the 4th quarter for the better part of the 1st half of the season in favor of Brooks, and played as much in the postseason as Prigioni despite Prigioni -- a back-up -- outperforming him in every area.
So I get it -- it's "savvy" if a team like Houston grossly overpays for a two-week wonder like Lin and a back-up center like Asik, but when the Knicks replace Lin with a guy who they perviously used to trade for Melo, and save a million bucks in the process, they're "flawed".
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 know what's "fascinating"? How the Lakers, Celtics, mavs and Heat all built NBA champions via trades and free agency.
How many titles did Kobe win without Shaq? How many did he win prior to getting Gasol, Odom and Artest?
How many titles did Paul Pierce win without Allen and Garnett?
How many titles did Nowitzki win without Kidd, Chandler and Terry?
How many titles did Lebron win without Bosh and wade?
How many titles did Wade win without Shaq?
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 classic quote (paraphrased a tad) right here: "I don't have a problem with the Knicks.....except their draft history, their current roster, their previous rosters, their trades, their front office..."
Really narrowing it down with that one. I'm guessing you like the team colors and Mike Breen.
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.
Silly Knicks for not holding on to Glass Jaw Gallo, David Lee, Wilson Chandler, Landry Fields, Jordan Hill and Andy Rautins. They should have kept them and stayed a 25-win team.
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:
They're not "my ideas". They're Grunwald's and Woodson's "ideas", and i agree with what they have done. Since firing Dantoni, the Knicks are 72-34.
San Antonio: Tony Parker (28), Manu Ginobili (58), George Hill (26) gets turned into Kawhi Leonard, Tiago Splitter (28) is another contributor
Annnnnnnd this guy Tim Duncan and that guy David Robinson -- two of the greatest players in NBA history at their position. Shocking they were both 1st overall picks.
Oklahoma City: Serge Ibaka (24)
Stupid Knicks. If they didn't trade their 1st rounders, they could have ended up with Kevin Durant, Westbrook and James harden in three straight drafts. Oh, wait. I forgot. The Knicks never would have had the chance to draft them.
But I agree. OKC is a title contender because of Ibaka.
Chicago: Jimmy Butler (30)
Stupid Knicks. Can't believe in 2011 they didn't draft an athletic perimeter defender who can shoot 3's. They could really use a guy like Butler, or even that guy Iman.....wait a minute? Hmmm.
Indiana: Roy Hibbert (17), Lance Stephenson (40), plus if he's healthy Danny Granger (17)
Hibbert wasn't drafted by Indiana. They traded their franchise center (albeit injured)to acquire him. Stephenson was picked after Landry Fields, who became expendable because of Shumpert and grossly overpaid by Toronto.
Granger was picked 13 spots ahead of David Lee. David Lee is arguably the worst defensive power forward in the game, and was even worse at center for the Knicks. he was replaced by Tyson Chandler.
The Knicks had a combined .350 winning percentage in the 5-years of the David Lee dynasty.
Houston: Chandler Parsons (38), Patrick Beverly (42)
Wait a minute. You just called Houston "possible contenders" earlier. Nice to see them graduate to "contenders" in the span of an hour and two HFBoards posts LOL.
Houston's an 8th seed. Don't even see how they fit into this picture. The Lakers added Howard and Nash to a division-winning 2012 team with Kobe and Gasol, and sucked all season.
You also said the Clippers and Grizzlies are title contenders, in addition to the Spurs and Thunder.
That's great. The WC has five teams before opening night who are contending. Six if you count Denver. I'm going to assume you'll count them too?
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.
More!!!!! You're on a roll, man. So let me get this straight:
According to you, It doesn't matter if you keep draft picks or trade draft picks for talent, but in the Knicks case, they aren't "possible contenders" because they keep trading draft picks for "bigger pieces" after they went about six seasons of losing miserably with the draft "talent" they kept.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DM23BK30