Knicks Roster : Who stays, who goes

[And100]

Turnover isn't a virtue. You don't replace roster spots and get better merely for having turned them over.

never implied that, what I have clearly implied is that few of these guys are worth keeping, they dont provide upside in some cases and even the ones who might are limited at best.

From my POV, that's exactly what you're implying. Unless you're making a specific comparison to a player and who you want to replace him with, "not worth keeping" is implying they can be replaced with players of greater quality. This is the crux of what we disagree about.

I don't dispute you CAN sign 10 new players. I dispute whether you'll accomplish anything tangible by doing that.

You want to argue WHO you want to sign in their place, that's one discussion. But you don't seem to be arguing that.

I just don't see some of your ideas as being practical, for the reasons I specifically detailed. The APPEAL of your ideas is beside the point.

Looking and signing undrafted, or a euro, or through sl and training camp is unrealistic? Signing 2-3 vets is unrealistic? One or two free agents is unrealistic? All those things can happen, likely have to if even making the playoffs in the East is even discussed.

No. Finding players better than the ones the Knicks have is the issue.

then expect to fork over a top pick in 2016 to Toronto. The choices are simple...improve the team to playoff status or keep the garbage you have.

Then why doesn't every team who don't make the playoffs do the same thing? Scrouge the bottom of the barrel to find 2/3s of a playoff roster?

You make it sound like the movie Major League.

Never said it was, what I said is that it also needs upgrading. Lou's and Lance for instance are bit players, there's a reason why they dont stick to teams...they are easily replaceable. there's an "early" in every draft, and they'll be one undrafted.

And they players available to replace them with with be the same kind of players. The ones who haven't stuck to teams. Made out a team out preseason.

This team was assembled WITHOUT flexibility, and Phil actually did turn over that many. ironically there is only 1 player from even TWO seasons ago. So thinking 10 player moments is unheard actually isnt. We've done that already.

To what effect?

THAT's my point.

Again, I don't doubt the Knicks will be sign 10 new players, the question is the quality of the players in the pool available to them.

[Thugger HBC]

From my POV, that's exactly what you're implying. Unless you're making a specific comparison to a player and who you want to replace him with, "not worth keeping" is implying they can be replaced with players of greater quality. This is the crux of what we disagree about.

these guys are replaceable in talent, thats why guys in the case of Lou Amundson are ALWAYS replaced.

I don't dispute you CAN sign 10 new players. I dispute whether you'll accomplish anything tangible by doing that.

You want to argue WHO you want to sign in their place, that's one discussion. But you don't seem to be arguing that.

Actually I can tell you who I "WOULDN'T'. Outside of Galloway and maybe Shevd, the rest can go.

No. Finding players better than the ones the Knicks have is the issue.

You cant be serious with this post.

Then why doesn't every team who don't make the playoffs do the same thing? Scrouge the bottom of the barrel to find 2/3s of a playoff roster?

Every team in the league doesnt have a roster like this, but every team does do exactly what I suggested. You can look on ANY NBA roster and find a Euro/foreign talent, undrafted player and a vet or two. My goodness man, step outside of the Knicks team and look out a window.

Again, I don't doubt the Knicks will be sign 10 new players, the question is the quality of the players in the pool available to them.

I get it, you want to invest in a 17 win team or you believe a 17 win team with 2-3 additions instantly makes them good. Sorry I dont share such thinking.

[And100]

these guys are replaceable in talent, thats why guys in the case of Lou Amundson are ALWAYS replaced.

Yes, and they're replaceable by guys who are utterly replaceable themselves, which is why they'd be available to a 17 win team in the first plac.

Every team in the league doesnt have a roster like this, but every team does do exactly what I suggested. You can look on ANY NBA roster and find a Euro/foreign talent, undrafted player and a vet or two. My goodness man, step outside of the Knicks team and look out a window.

Again, it's not a matter of can they be replaced. Every NBA team will have a 12-15 man summer league team, a small fraction of which are guys who'll have jobs in October.

The point isn't are they 10 warm bodies elsewhere, of course there are. The point is are there ten warm bodies out there worth the turnover?

Amundson keeps getting jobs for a reason. Because 12 NBA teams liked him better than who else was available at the time.

Your argument is the grass is greener ANYwhere else, and that's just not true.

I get it, you want to invest in a 17 win team or you believe a 17 win team with 2-3 additions instantly makes them good. Sorry I dont share such thinking.

No, I don't. I think it'll be extremely difficult for the Knicks to turn it around in one year. I have a realistic expectation for what they can accomplish in one summer and it might not be the postseason.

BUt I outlined what the most important factors are - Melo, two significant free agents, the draft pick, and the progression of a handful of guys on the roster. This Major League-like discovery of 7 new gems plucked from the island of misfit toys isn't just unrealistic, and their effect even if found would be negligible.

[Thugger HBC]

these guys are replaceable in talent, thats why guys in the case of Lou Amundson are ALWAYS replaced.

Yes, and they're replaceable by guys who are utterly replaceable themselves, which is why they're available to a 17 win team.

Every team in the league doesnt have a roster like this, but every team does do exactly what I suggested. You can look on ANY NBA roster and find a Euro/foreign talent, undrafted player and a vet or two. My goodness man, step outside of the Knicks team and look out a window.

Again, it's not a matter of can they be replaced. Every NBA team will have a 12-15 man summer league team, a small fraction of which are guys who'll have jobs in October.

The point isn't are they 10 warm bodies elsewhere, of course there are. The point is are they ten warm bodies out there worth the turnover?

Amundson keeps getting jobs for a reason. Because 12 NBA teams liked him better than who esle was available.

Your argument is the grass is greener ANYwhere else, and that's just not true.

I get it, you want to invest in a 17 win team or you believe a 17 win team with 2-3 additions instantly makes them good. Sorry I dont share such thinking.

No, I don't. I think it'll be extremely difficult for the Knicks to turn it around in one year. I have a realistic expectation for what they accomplish in one summer and it might not be the postseason.

BUt outlined what the most important factors are - Melo, two significant free agents, the draft pick, and the progression of a handful of guys on the roster. This Major League-like discovery of 7 new gems plucked from the island of misfit toys isn't just unrealistic, their effect even if found would b negligible.

I see terrible teams revamp their rosters all the time, this is nothing new, we've done it even after winning quite a few games just 2 years ago.

there's really no point in discussing something neither will bend on. We'll revisit later. If I'm wrong I'll admit so.