Around the NBA - Offseason Dregs Edition

MaseInYourFace · Post #121 » by **MaseInYourFace** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 11:39 am

Money seems to be really drying up for vets. Do you guys think this will be a long term trend?

MaseInYourFace · Post #122 » by **MaseInYourFace** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 11:41 am

KnicksGod wrote:I'm not a Laker hater really but it'd be funny if Ball sucks -- just Magic and Pelinka crashing & burning when at least 2 or 3 other guys behind him will turn out to be very good players.

Ingram looked good but who knows. Goose eggs on DR and LB would be quite the disaster.

Ball's problems could be similar to DR. College game that doesn't translate in his passing and shooting, and a lack of body and explosiveness so finishing at the rim at the NBA level is a weakness.

I think Ball will be an ok player but considering where he was drafted he'll be considered a bit of a bust. I really don't see his game translating to nba.

WesleyExChiFan · Post #123 » by **WesleyExChiFan** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 12:01 pm

MaseInYourFace wrote:Money seems to be really drying up for vets. Do you guys think this will be a long term trend?

Yup, I sure do. Management around the league has gotten smarter over the last 10 years.

BKlutch · Post #124 » by **BKlutch** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 12:04 pm

MaseInYourFace wrote:
KnicksGod wrote:I'm not a Laker hater really but it'd be funny if Ball sucks -- just Magic and Pelinka crashing & burning when at least 2 or 3 other guys behind him will turn out to be very good players.

Ingram looked good but who knows. Goose eggs on DR and LB would be quite the disaster.

Ball's problems could be similar to DR. College game that doesn't translate in his passing and shooting, and a lack of body and explosiveness so finishing at the rim at the NBA level is a weakness.

I think Ball will be an ok player but considering where he was drafted he'll be considered a bit of a bust. I really don't see his game translating to nba.

We could be entering a new era where great players and coaches become poor judges of talent when they join the front office. A lot of posters here on this board seem to be as good or better. :lol:

knicksNOTslick · Post #125 » by **knicksNOTslick** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 12:56 pm

GettinitDone wrote:
EchelonNYK wrote:
Shoryuken wrote:
i was about to say the same thing who the hell wore that number before?

Ron Artest wore 96 at one point.

And 91 with Bulls

I think 99 is his way of saying he's a 99 in 2K rating... I could sort of read his mind lol

Artest wore 96 for a good reason, it stood for "qb" ... aka Queensbridge

thebuzzardman · Post #126 » by **thebuzzardman** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 1:06 pm

BKlutch wrote:
MaseInYourFace wrote:
KnicksGod wrote:I'm not a Laker hater really but it'd be funny if Ball sucks -- just Magic and Pelinka crashing & burning when at least 2 or 3 other guys behind him will turn out to be very good players.

Ingram looked good but who knows. Goose eggs on DR and LB would be quite the disaster.

Ball's problems could be similar to DR. College game that doesn't translate in his passing and shooting, and a lack of body and explosiveness so finishing at the rim at the NBA level is a weakness.

I think Ball will be an ok player but considering where he was drafted he'll be considered a bit of a bust. I really don't see his game translating to nba.

We could be entering a new era where great players and coaches become poor judges of talent when they join the front office. A lot of posters here on this board seem to be as good or better.

That era has been around for a while. Check out the FO records of Elgin Baylor, Wes Unseld and Willis Reed, to name a few.

Post #127 » by **Deeeez Knicks** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 1:20 pm

I hate the way we manage our cap. We look at it year to year, rather then looking ahead and projecting.

We unnescessaryily put ourselves in a bad position when we could have set ourselves up nicely.

Post #128 » by **DOT** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 1:44 pm

knicksNOTslick wrote:
GettinitDone wrote:
EchelonNYK wrote:
Ron Artest wore 96 at one point.

And 91 with Bulls

I think 99 is his way of saying he's a 99 in 2K rating... I could sort of read his mind lol

Artest wore 96 for a good reason, it stood for "qb" ... aka Queensbridge

And when Rodman was on the Mavericks he wanted to wear 69, but Stern said he couldn't

EchelonNYK · Post #129 » by **EchelonNYK** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 2:12 pm

Read on Twitter

thebuzzardman · Post #130 » by **thebuzzardman** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 2:20 pm

EchelonNYK wrote:

Read on Twitter

Good thing the Knicks were a little too competitive to land him

Post #131 » by **DOT** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 2:29 pm

thebuzzardman wrote:
EchelonNYK wrote:

Read on Twitter

Good thing the Knicks were a little too competitive to land him

The team that got him won more games than us

We weren't competitive enough

thebuzzardman · Post #132 » by **thebuzzardman** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 2:31 pm

K-DOT wrote:
thebuzzardman wrote:
EchelonNYK wrote:

Read on Twitter

Good thing the Knicks were a little too competitive to land him

The team that got him won more games than us

We weren't competitive enough

We didn't lose enough games to get into the worst 3 which pretty much guarantees top 5.

Post #133 » by **DOT** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 2:36 pm

thebuzzardman wrote:
K-DOT wrote:
thebuzzardman wrote:
Good thing the Knicks were a little too competitive to land him

The team that got him won more games than us

We weren't competitive enough

We didn't lose enough games to get into the worst 3 which pretty much guarantees top 5.

The Kings got the 3rd pick with more wins than us, so if we have the 8th worst odds, our odds of getting the third pick are 100%

thebuzzardman · Post #134 » by **thebuzzardman** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 2:40 pm

K-DOT wrote:
thebuzzardman wrote:
K-DOT wrote:The team that got him won more games than us

We weren't competitive enough

We didn't lose enough games to get into the worst 3 which pretty much guarantees top 5.

The Kings got the 3rd pick with more wins than us, so if we have the 8th worst odds, our odds of getting the third pick are 100%

Ok, we would have missed out on Fox and picked 4th? Really my point is the Knicks never tank hard enough to get a difference maker, outside of KP, and even then tanking more would have increased the chances of Towns, clearly the superior player.

BKlutch · Post #135 » by **BKlutch** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 3:00 pm

thebuzzardman wrote:
K-DOT wrote:
thebuzzardman wrote:
We didn't lose enough games to get into the worst 3 which pretty much guarantees top 5.

The Kings got the 3rd pick with more wins than us, so if we have the 8th worst odds, our odds of getting the third pick are 100%

Ok, we would have missed out on Fox and picked 4th? Really my point is the Knicks never tank hard enough to get a difference maker, outside of KP, and even then tanking more would have increased the chances of Towns, clearly the superior player.

I believe the purpose of creating the lottery, instead of drafting in reverse order of finish, was to reduce the incentive to tank. Clearly, this has become a game that's even more opaque. While I'd still like to see the best draft picks assigned to the worst teams, I really want the NBA to end this race to the bottom. I don't know what formula could be used to do this, but what they do now isn't really working that well.

thebuzzardman · Post #136 » by **thebuzzardman** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 3:02 pm

BKlutch wrote:
thebuzzardman wrote:
K-DOT wrote:The Kings got the 3rd pick with more wins than us, so if we have the 8th worst odds, our odds of getting the third pick are 100%

Ok, we would have missed out on Fox and picked 4th? Really my point is the Knicks never tank hard enough to get a difference maker, outside of KP, and even then tanking more would have increased the chances of Towns, clearly the superior player.

I believe the purpose of creating the lottery, instead of drafting in reverse order of finish, was to reduce the incentive to tank. Clearly, this has become a game that's even more opaque. While I'd still like to see the best draft picks assigned to the worst teams, I really want the NBA to end this race to the bottom. I don't know what formula could be used to do this, but what they do now isn't really working that well.

You are right. So instead of guaranteeing reward for losing, it just means teams instead play the odds. And the odds are still best when a team loses the most.

I'm sure the Knicks are lining up to win more games next year, but hey, it's a lottery! They could pick 1st! A team with a better record might draft ahead of them. Hell, if that's true, Knicks should shoot for 15th worst record.

BKlutch · Post #137 » by **BKlutch** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 3:15 pm

thebuzzardman wrote:
BKlutch wrote:
thebuzzardman wrote:
Ok, we would have missed out on Fox and picked 4th? Really my point is the Knicks never tank hard enough to get a difference maker, outside of KP, and even then tanking more would have increased the chances of Towns, clearly the superior player.

I believe the purpose of creating the lottery, instead of drafting in reverse order of finish, was to reduce the incentive to tank. Clearly, this has become a game that's even more opaque. While I'd still like to see the best draft picks assigned to the worst teams, I really want the NBA to end this race to the bottom. I don't know what formula could be used to do this, but what they do now isn't really working that well.

You are right. So instead of guaranteeing reward for losing, it just means teams instead play the odds. And the odds are still best when a team loses the most.

I'm sure the Knicks are lining up to win more games next year, but hey, it's a lottery! They could pick 1st! A team with a better record might draft ahead of them. Hell, if that's true, Knicks should shoot for 15th worst record.

That's one kind of improvement - they would be shooting to finish 15 places higher than last year. LOL. We wouldn't feel so bad when we beat the Nets, the Sixers, or this year's equivalent of pathetic teams. Fans wouldn't have had to hate N'Dour for hitting a bucket at the end of a game, and TH Jr wouldn't have been hated by our fans for years for winning a game. And we might have drafted Fox this year.

Dr. Detfink · Post #138 » by **Dr. Detfink** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 6:12 pm

Atlanta Hawks seem to be intent on doing their own version of Philly's rebuild.

3toheadmelo · Post #139 » by **3toheadmelo** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 8:27 pm

expect to see me butthurt in 5 minutes

bishnykfan · Post #140 » by **bishnykfan** » Sat Jul 8, 2017 8:27 pm

4 year extension guaranteeing $228M for Harden.

http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=1-19919923

Almost $46M/year.

$877K a week...wow