Knicks Looking To Deal Pick Six?

[LUKE23]

-= original quote snipped =-



Yes, i'm aware. Are you saying the #6 pick will turn into Garnett or a 20-25ppg scorer who has plenty of years left in his tank that would be an excellent piece to the bigger puzzle?

My point is that we tend to look to the potential of a draft pick and think the grass is greener. It's not.

Can someone name one team that has succesfully built themselves through years in the lottery? I can't. Maybe I'm wrong. But all the currently good teams built through mid draft picks, maybe one super high pick, and smart trades and FA acquisitions. I can't think of one team with more than 3 lottery lottery picks making that is good.

Atlanta (Horford, Childress, Smith, Williams)
Boston (Jefferson, Green, Green turned into KG, Ray)
Cleveland (LeBron from lottery, he's basically their whole team)
Chicago (Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Chandler, Curry, Thomas)

The real question is, how many teams DIDN'T build their team through the draft (Kobe's Lakers, Howard's Magic, Paul's Hornets, Williams' Jazz, LeBron's Cavs, Duncan's Spurs, etc).

You either draft talent and it develops into a great piece moving forward, or you draft talent, it doesn't fit what you want to do, and you can make moves with it (see Boston). The draft is about as integral as it gets when building a team.

[smooth 'lil balla]

You didn't answer the question. Tell me teams with more than 3 lottery picks on their squad that are currently successfu. I would never argue the draft isn't an integral part.

Atlanta is the only team that could possibly consider themselves to be a success through spending years and years in the lottery, and to call them a success is a BIG stretch.

Boston traded their lottery pick to get better! Chicago is hardly a team to call a success. The only lottery pick on Cleveland is Lebron, and that's dumb luck, not intelligent GM'ing.

I think your response exactly proved my point.

[LUKE23]

You didn't answer the question. Tell me teams with more than 3 lottery picks on their squad that are currently successfu. I would never argue the draft isn't an integral part.

Atlanta is the only team that could possibly consider themselves to be a success through spending years and years in the lottery.

Boston traded their lottery pick to get better! Chicago is hardly a team to call a success. The only lottery pick on Cleveland is Lebron, and that's dumb luck, not intelligent GM'ing.

I think your response exactly proved my point.

Yes, they traded it to get better, but they needed to have a pick that high to land a player of Ray's caliber. If they were sitting at pick 13 last year, no way they can land Ray and then the KG deal maybe doesn't happen either.

Cleveland was in the lottery for years and years. They landed one stud and now are semi-contenders because of it.

Atlanta, already mentioned.

I guess my main point is that almost every contending team now (Lakers, Spurs, Jazz, Hornets, Cavs, Magic) got their main piece via the draft, and more specifically, extremely high in the draft. It's simply impossible to land those types of players in trades/FA because teams never let them get away.

Pistons and Celtics are the two exceptions to this. But the Celtics acquired Pierce via the lottery, Ray because they were in the lottery, and then KG because Ray and PP were already there. Pistons are an anomaly, since they only drafted one of their key pieces via the draft (Prince), and didn't give up any lottery picks for Sheed, Billups, Rip, or McDyess.

[emunney]

-= original quote snipped =-



Yes, i'm aware. Are you saying the #6 pick will turn into Garnett or a 20-25ppg scorer who has plenty of years left in his tank that would be an excellent piece to the bigger puzzle?

Uh, no. You sarcastically said that trading the pick for Allen worked out poorly for the Celtics. You just conveniently left out the fact that they were also able to get Garnett for Al Jefferson and scraps, which affected the outcome of the Boston team a lot more than just adding Allen. In other words, if the Celtics had not subsequently dealt for Garnett after acquiring Allen, how good would the Allen trade look on its own? The Celtics would probably be around .500 and their two best players would be perimeter-based and 30+.

I'm just asking you to consider context when you're evaluating these moves.

[Simulack]

I disagree..it would take some shrewd moves from a good GM but it wouldn't have to take that long, especially if YI becomes a player. I think Randolph is 50/50 at best to be anything considered very good by NBA standards.

What you said is basically meaningless: ANY team in the NBA can say they are "close to competing" if their GM makes "shrewd" moves and if some prospect(s) really pans out. I'm close to having 60 million dollars because I "might" win the lottery tomorrow.

When judging whether or not we are ready to compete, we need to measure the Bucks relative to other teams particularly in the East. Right now we are near the bottom both in terms of current level of success and potential for improvement through young player improvement/trading assets.

Even the late playoff seeds like Atlanta and Philly are both currently better than us AND have more desirable young players/potential. Non-playoff teams like Miami and Chicago were also arguably in more desirable positions than us and now have a good shot of adding franchise players.

Of all the non-playoff teams in the East, the Bucks realistically have the one of the worst chances of turning things around quickly. Bad contracts, few really desirable assets.

[ReasonablySober]

The key to the Bucks success in the future really is Yi Jianlian. He's the only player on the team with the tools to be special.

If he doesn't pan out the Bucks are probably going to be a relatively high lotto team again next season.

[WEFFPIM]

Hasn't it already been to discussed that the Knicks are trying to clear salary, not put them in even more cap hell?

[rilamann]

Without Garnett Boston was likely a 45 win team ousted by Lebron in round 1 or 2.

Haha nice Sig.

[Johnny Newman]

I'm gonna get flamed, but:

Redd
Gadzuric
Mason
#8

to NY for

Marbury (expiring)
Rose (expiring)
#6

No thanks. Expiring contracts does nothing for us. All the good stuff is gone at #6 too.

[ReasonablySober]

-= original quote snipped =-


No thanks. Expiring contracts does nothing for us. All the good stuff is gone at #6 too.

Just like a large expiring contract did nothing for LA this spring.

[Johnny Newman]

-= original quote snipped =-



Just like a large expiring contract did nothing for LA this spring.

So you saying trade for expirers now. Then trade them at the deadline to a team that is even more desperate then us? Cause you know damn well we wont land no studs here. Last summer we got Dez,Ruffin,Voskul. Not much worth talking about.

[ReasonablySober]

-= original quote snipped =-

So you saying trade for expirers now. Then trade them at the deadline to a team that is even more desperate then us? Cause you know damn well we wont land no studs here. Last summer we got Dez,Ruffin,Voskul. Not much worth talking about.

Yes, I'm saying we trade for expiring picks now and if something comes up, we flip them at the deadline in February. All the better if the player is semi-useful like Mike Bibby. He'd make a great 6th man for a contender next spring.

[aaprigs311]

CV, Flint, #8, second rounder for David Lee, #6. Not enough or too much? I can't decide. I'd do it. I think Lee is incredibly underrated. Him and Bogut would be a nice tandem.

[Chapter29]

I'm gonna get flamed, but:

Redd
Gadzuric
Mason
#8

to NY for

Marbury (expiring)
Rose (expiring)
#6

I would start punching babies.

[Mecca]

kill yourselves no

[Johnny Newman]

Knicks really have nothing other then Lee that I want.........

[Buck You]

kill yourselves no

Do these trade offers really offend you that much?