Around The NBA - Regular Season version (Harden traded...now what?)

[cgmw]

Knox is still oozing with talent as we speak. Frank was an incredible defender from the start. No one ever taught him not to wet his pants. That’s all and at some point it is too late.

If only Frank went to SA with pop he would have been a star.

And lucky for Hali he didn't end up here or his career would have been ruined.

Didn't Pop draft that weird kid who was flashing women. How do the nature vs nurture folks explain that

Here are some basic truths:

• Every human (player) is different;
• Every system (team) is different;
• The only certainty in life is guessing at probability;
• There is no evidence that Player A would have been good in Situation X;
• There is no evidence that Player B would have been bad in Situation Y;
• Time is an arrow and Newton's Second Law is undefeated;
• If multiple dimensions exist, no human on this Earth can perceive them;
• Some people need to believe in certainty for their egos and/or mental health;
• RealGM posters aren't in-fact Real General Managers;
• It is fun to play pretend fortuneteller, pick sides, and form online cliques;
• Therefore; the draft will always generate debate;
• There are no answers; however:
• 3totheheadMelo will always drum up trouble; and
• Sham will always call him on it.

There you go. Hope that helps.

[3toheadmelo]

If only Frank went to SA with pop he would have been a star.

And lucky for Hali he didn't end up here or his career would have been ruined.

Didn't Pop draft that weird kid who was flashing women. How do the nature vs nurture folks explain that

Here are some basic truths:

• Cgmw will always be obsessed about Dolan
• Every system (team) is different;
• The only certainty in life is guessing at probability;
• There is no evidence that Player A would have been good in Situation X;
• There is no evidence that Player B would have been bad in Situation Y;
• Time is an arrow and Newton's Second Law is undefeated;
• If multiple dimensions exist, no human on this Earth can perceive them;
• Some people need to believe in certainty for their egos and/or mental health;
• RealGM posters aren't in-fact Real General Managers;
• It is fun to play pretend fortuneteller, pick sides, and form online cliques;
• Therefore; the draft will always generate debate;
• There are no answers; however:
• 3totheheadMelo will always drum up trouble; and
• Sham will always call him on it.

There you go. Hope that helps.

fixed for first one for you also for accuracy.

[Gravy]

If only Frank went to SA with pop he would have been a star.

And lucky for Hali he didn't end up here or his career would have been ruined.

Didn't Pop draft that weird kid who was flashing women. How do the nature vs nurture folks explain that

Here are some basic truths:

• Every human (player) is different;
• Every system (team) is different;
• The only certainty in life is guessing at probability;
• There is no evidence that Player A would have been good in Situation X;
• There is no evidence that Player B would have been bad in Situation Y;
• Time is an arrow and Newton's Second Law is undefeated;
• If multiple dimensions exist, no human on this Earth can perceive them;
• Some people need to believe in certainty for their egos and/or mental health;
• RealGM posters aren't in-fact Real General Managers;
• It is fun to play pretend fortuneteller, pick sides, and form online cliques;
• Therefore; the draft will always generate debate;
• There are no answers; however:
• 3totheheadMelo will always drum up trouble; and
• Sham will always call him on it.

There you go. Hope that helps.

Also:
-Frank would have sucked on any team he was drafted

[Chanel Bomber]

If only Frank went to SA with pop he would have been a star.

And lucky for Hali he didn't end up here or his career would have been ruined.

Didn't Pop draft that weird kid who was flashing women. How do the nature vs nurture folks explain that

Here are some basic truths:

• Every human (player) is different;
• Every system (team) is different;
• The only certainty in life is guessing at probability;
• There is no evidence that Player A would have been good in Situation X;
• There is no evidence that Player B would have been bad in Situation Y;
• Time is an arrow and Newton's Second Law is undefeated;
• If multiple dimensions exist, no human on this Earth can perceive them;
• Some people need to believe in certainty for their egos and/or mental health;
• RealGM posters aren't in-fact Real General Managers;
• It is fun to play pretend fortuneteller, pick sides, and form online cliques;
• Therefore; the draft will always generate debate;
• There are no answers; however:
• 3totheheadMelo will always drum up trouble; and
• Sham will always call him on it.

There you go. Hope that helps.

Evidence? No.

But you also have to be reasonable in imagining how a player might have fared in a different environment.

But it's more convenient for you to eurostep the trouble of evaluating talent (a risky enterprise wherein even the best scouts can be proven wrong) and to resort to a template answer about nurture where any discussion about who the Knicks could've drafted is pointless because the Knicks would've ruined them regardless. I'm sorry, but this is not a reasonable view, not only because it can easily be debunked, but also because it's incredibly convenient for you.

Is there any evidence that I wouldn't be able to average 20 in the NBA? No. But see me shoot hoops at the park and you can safely project that I wouldn't be able to (actually F that I know I'm better than RJ Bennett).

[Richard4444]

How many times will we play against Bucks and Celtics this season?

[cgmw]

Didn't Pop draft that weird kid who was flashing women. How do the nature vs nurture folks explain that

Here are some basic truths:

• Every human (player) is different;
• Every system (team) is different;
• The only certainty in life is guessing at probability;
• There is no evidence that Player A would have been good in Situation X;
• There is no evidence that Player B would have been bad in Situation Y;
• Time is an arrow and Newton's Second Law is undefeated;
• If multiple dimensions exist, no human on this Earth can perceive them;
• Some people need to believe in certainty for their egos and/or mental health;
• RealGM posters aren't in-fact Real General Managers;
• It is fun to play pretend fortuneteller, pick sides, and form online cliques;
• Therefore; the draft will always generate debate;
• There are no answers; however:
• 3totheheadMelo will always drum up trouble; and
• Sham will always call him on it.

There you go. Hope that helps.

Evidence? No.

But you also have to be reasonable in imagining how a player might have fared in a different environment.

But it's more convenient for you to eurostep the trouble of evaluating talent (a risky enterprise wherein even the best scouts can be proven wrong) and to resort to a template answer about nurture where any discussion about who the Knicks could've drafted is pointless because the Knicks would've ruined them regardless. I'm sorry, but this is not a reasonable view, not only because it can easily be debunked, but also because it's incredibly convenient for you.

Is there any evidence that I wouldn't be able to average 20 in the NBA? No. But see me shoot hoops at the park and you can safely project that I wouldn't be able to (actually F that I know I'm better than RJ Bennett).

Relax, nobody’s trying to ruin your fun as the Great All-Knowing Chanel. In fact, scholars widely agree that TS% would have been Newton’s 6th Law had he lived long enough to meet Naismith.

Twenty some-odd years on this board, and the only draft prognostication I’ve ever made is to point out over and over and over again that Dolan J. Trump’s Knicks have no interest in the draft other than butts in seats and delusional get-rich-quick pyramid schemes to land a superstar.

In my debatably humble opinion, getting drafted by the Knicks therefore lowers the probability of any player’s chances of making it in this league.*

*The notable exception of late-round role players who fit exactly the coach’s rigid system and happily below the GM’s veteran FA acquisitions in the pecking order.

[Chanel Bomber]

Here are some basic truths:

• Every human (player) is different;
• Every system (team) is different;
• The only certainty in life is guessing at probability;
• There is no evidence that Player A would have been good in Situation X;
• There is no evidence that Player B would have been bad in Situation Y;
• Time is an arrow and Newton's Second Law is undefeated;
• If multiple dimensions exist, no human on this Earth can perceive them;
• Some people need to believe in certainty for their egos and/or mental health;
• RealGM posters aren't in-fact Real General Managers;
• It is fun to play pretend fortuneteller, pick sides, and form online cliques;
• Therefore; the draft will always generate debate;
• There are no answers; however:
• 3totheheadMelo will always drum up trouble; and
• Sham will always call him on it.

There you go. Hope that helps.

Evidence? No.

But you also have to be reasonable in imagining how a player might have fared in a different environment.

But it's more convenient for you to eurostep the trouble of evaluating talent (a risky enterprise wherein even the best scouts can be proven wrong) and to resort to a template answer about nurture where any discussion about who the Knicks could've drafted is pointless because the Knicks would've ruined them regardless. I'm sorry, but this is not a reasonable view, not only because it can easily be debunked, but also because it's incredibly convenient for you.

Is there any evidence that I wouldn't be able to average 20 in the NBA? No. But see me shoot hoops at the park and you can safely project that I wouldn't be able to (actually F that I know I'm better than RJ Bennett).

Relax, nobody’s trying to ruin your fun as the Great All-Knowing Chanel. In fact, scholars widely agree that TS% would have been Newton’s 6th Law had he lived long enough to meet Naismith.

Twenty some-odd years on this board, and the only draft prognostication I’ve ever made is to point out over and over and over again that Dolan J. Trump’s Knicks have no interest in the draft other than butts in seats and delusional get-rich-quick pyramid schemes to land a superstar.

In my debatably humble opinion, getting drafted by the Knicks therefore lowers the probability of any player’s chances of making it in this league.*

*The notable exception of late-round role players who fit exactly the coach’s rigid system and happily below the GM’s veteran FA acquisitions in the pecking order.

You're more convinced by this take of yours - which I find borders on caricature - than I am in any of my opinions. It's funny how projection works.

It's the only prognostication you have ever made because it doesn't require any effort and it doesn't require you to put yourself in a position to be wrong. Because you already have your exit strategies if a player pans out, like your asterisk for IQ and Mitch, or - as I remember - the notion that a successful player would've "overcome" it.

It answers all questions even if it doesn't. If that's not all-knowing, I don't know what is.

[cgmw]

Evidence? No.

But you also have to be reasonable in imagining how a player might have fared in a different environment.

But it's more convenient for you to eurostep the trouble of evaluating talent (a risky enterprise wherein even the best scouts can be proven wrong) and to resort to a template answer about nurture where any discussion about who the Knicks could've drafted is pointless because the Knicks would've ruined them regardless. I'm sorry, but this is not a reasonable view, not only because it can easily be debunked, but also because it's incredibly convenient for you.

Is there any evidence that I wouldn't be able to average 20 in the NBA? No. But see me shoot hoops at the park and you can safely project that I wouldn't be able to (actually F that I know I'm better than RJ Bennett).

Relax, nobody’s trying to ruin your fun as the Great All-Knowing Chanel. In fact, scholars widely agree that TS% would have been Newton’s 6th Law had he lived long enough to meet Naismith.

Twenty some-odd years on this board, and the only draft prognostication I’ve ever made is to point out over and over and over again that Dolan J. Trump’s Knicks have no interest in the draft other than butts in seats and delusional get-rich-quick pyramid schemes to land a superstar.

In my debatably humble opinion, getting drafted by the Knicks therefore lowers the probability of any player’s chances of making it in this league.*

*The notable exception of late-round role players who fit exactly the coach’s rigid system and happily below the GM’s veteran FA acquisitions in the pecking order.

You're more convinced by this take of yours - which I find borders on caricature - than I am in any of my opinions. It's funny how projection works.

It's the only prognostication you have ever made because it doesn't require any effort and it doesn't require you to put yourself in a position to be wrong. Because you already have your exit strategies if a player pans out, like your asterisk for IQ and Mitch, or - as I remember - the notion that a successful player would've "overcome" it.

It answers all questions even if it doesn't. If that's not all-knowing, I don't know what is.

I appreciate that there are many amateur scouts on this board. Honestly, I think it's cool and I enjoy reading their stuff. Personally, my skillsets in life lie elsewhere and I prefer to leave it up to the paid professionals to decide these things. Never been my bag, never will.

Do I know whether SGA or Haliburton would have been stars here? No, and neither do you.

I'm more into pointing out the futility of being both a Knicks fan and a geeky draftnick. If your thing is amateur scouting, go follow the Thunder or any number of teams who actually care about the thing that lights you up. Knick fans in the age of Dolan should be concerned with the trade and FA markets for veterans. Period. End of story.

[Chanel Bomber]

Relax, nobody’s trying to ruin your fun as the Great All-Knowing Chanel. In fact, scholars widely agree that TS% would have been Newton’s 6th Law had he lived long enough to meet Naismith.

Twenty some-odd years on this board, and the only draft prognostication I’ve ever made is to point out over and over and over again that Dolan J. Trump’s Knicks have no interest in the draft other than butts in seats and delusional get-rich-quick pyramid schemes to land a superstar.

In my debatably humble opinion, getting drafted by the Knicks therefore lowers the probability of any player’s chances of making it in this league.*

*The notable exception of late-round role players who fit exactly the coach’s rigid system and happily below the GM’s veteran FA acquisitions in the pecking order.

You're more convinced by this take of yours - which I find borders on caricature - than I am in any of my opinions. It's funny how projection works.

It's the only prognostication you have ever made because it doesn't require any effort and it doesn't require you to put yourself in a position to be wrong. Because you already have your exit strategies if a player pans out, like your asterisk for IQ and Mitch, or - as I remember - the notion that a successful player would've "overcome" it.

It answers all questions even if it doesn't. If that's not all-knowing, I don't know what is.

I appreciate that there are many amateur scouts on this board. Honestly, I think it's cool and I enjoy reading their stuff. Personally, my skillsets in life lie elsewhere and I prefer to leave it up to the paid professionals to decide these things. Never been my bag, never will.

Do I know whether SGA or Haliburton would have been stars here? No, and neither do you.

I'm more into pointing out the futility of being both a Knicks fan and a geeky draftnick. If your thing is amateur scouting, go follow the Thunder or any number of teams who actually care about the thing that lights you up. Knick fans in the age of Dolan should be concerned with the trade and FA markets for veterans. Period. End of story.

No, but I did prognosticate that Haliburton could become an all-timer and that he would be the best player from that draft.

I'm barely an amateur scout - I have mostly had an interest when the Knicks had a top 10 pick. And I've obviously been wrong in several instances. As have paid professionals. It's an inexact science.

My point is it's rich of you to call anyone - even jokingly - a know-it-all when it applies perfectly to you when you pull this template explanation that answers all questions even when it doesn't.

You apply this nurture argument with broad brushstrokes as a truism but if you care to look into the details you realize it's much more complicated than that - for different reasons. The nurture argument doesn't hold in the case of Winslow and Adebayo, who I mentioned earlier, and this is just one example among many.

[cgmw]

You're more convinced by this take of yours - which I find borders on caricature - than I am in any of my opinions. It's funny how projection works.

It's the only prognostication you have ever made because it doesn't require any effort and it doesn't require you to put yourself in a position to be wrong. Because you already have your exit strategies if a player pans out, like your asterisk for IQ and Mitch, or - as I remember - the notion that a successful player would've "overcome" it.

It answers all questions even if it doesn't. If that's not all-knowing, I don't know what is.

I appreciate that there are many amateur scouts on this board. Honestly, I think it's cool and I enjoy reading their stuff. Personally, my skillsets in life lie elsewhere and I prefer to leave it up to the paid professionals to decide these things. Never been my bag, never will.

Do I know whether SGA or Haliburton would have been stars here? No, and neither do you.

I'm more into pointing out the futility of being both a Knicks fan and a geeky draftnick. If your thing is amateur scouting, go follow the Thunder or any number of teams who actually care about the thing that lights you up. Knick fans in the age of Dolan should be concerned with the trade and FA markets for veterans. Period. End of story.

No, but I did prognosticate that Haliburton could become an all-timer and that he would be the best player from that draft.

I'm barely an amateur scout - I have mostly had an interest when the Knicks had a top 10 pick. And I've obviously been wrong in several instances. As have paid professionals. It's an inexact science.

My point is it's rich of you to call anyone - even jokingly - a know-it-all when it applies perfectly to you when you pull this template explanation that answers all questions even when it doesn't.

You apply this nurture argument with broad brushstrokes as a truism but if you care to look into the details you realize it's much more complicated than that - for different reasons. The nurture argument doesn't hold in the case of Winslow and Adebayo, who I mentioned earlier, and this is just one example among many.

It’s not “nature or nurture” it’s very much “nature AND nurture.” My argument is the Knicks are one of if not THE most likely team in the league to F up the nurture part of the equation. Your position which I’ve heard many many times before is that they ALSO tend to F up the “nature” evaluation part. On that much we agree.

But for fans to lament players we passed on is to wholesale ignore the rather glaring issue of the Knicks not giving a sh*t about the draft or player development. Their evaluation is wrong to begin with because their priorities are screwed up. And their development process is sh*t for the same reasons. I don’t see where the disagreement between our positions lies except maybe in your faith and my skepticism that Haliburton or SGA’s natural talent would have risen above the stinking pile of Dolan manure.

[Chanel Bomber]

I appreciate that there are many amateur scouts on this board. Honestly, I think it's cool and I enjoy reading their stuff. Personally, my skillsets in life lie elsewhere and I prefer to leave it up to the paid professionals to decide these things. Never been my bag, never will.

Do I know whether SGA or Haliburton would have been stars here? No, and neither do you.

I'm more into pointing out the futility of being both a Knicks fan and a geeky draftnick. If your thing is amateur scouting, go follow the Thunder or any number of teams who actually care about the thing that lights you up. Knick fans in the age of Dolan should be concerned with the trade and FA markets for veterans. Period. End of story.

No, but I did prognosticate that Haliburton could become an all-timer and that he would be the best player from that draft.

I'm barely an amateur scout - I have mostly had an interest when the Knicks had a top 10 pick. And I've obviously been wrong in several instances. As have paid professionals. It's an inexact science.

My point is it's rich of you to call anyone - even jokingly - a know-it-all when it applies perfectly to you when you pull this template explanation that answers all questions even when it doesn't.

You apply this nurture argument with broad brushstrokes as a truism but if you care to look into the details you realize it's much more complicated than that - for different reasons. The nurture argument doesn't hold in the case of Winslow and Adebayo, who I mentioned earlier, and this is just one example among many.

It’s not “nature or nurture” it’s very much “nature AND nurture.” My argument is the Knicks are one of if not THE most likely team in the league to F up the nurture part of the equation. Your position which I’ve heard many many times before is that they ALSO tend to F up the “nature” evaluation part. On that much we agree.

But for fans to lament players we passed on is to wholesale ignore the rather glaring issue of the Knicks not giving a sh*t about the draft or player development.

What does player development entail to you regardless of the outcome (player panning out or not)

[cgmw]

CB, huh? Lost me.

[Gravy]

Relax, nobody’s trying to ruin your fun as the Great All-Knowing Chanel. In fact, scholars widely agree that TS% would have been Newton’s 6th Law had he lived long enough to meet Naismith.

Twenty some-odd years on this board, and the only draft prognostication I’ve ever made is to point out over and over and over again that Dolan J. Trump’s Knicks have no interest in the draft other than butts in seats and delusional get-rich-quick pyramid schemes to land a superstar.

In my debatably humble opinion, getting drafted by the Knicks therefore lowers the probability of any player’s chances of making it in this league.*

*The notable exception of late-round role players who fit exactly the coach’s rigid system and happily below the GM’s veteran FA acquisitions in the pecking order.

You're more convinced by this take of yours - which I find borders on caricature - than I am in any of my opinions. It's funny how projection works.

It's the only prognostication you have ever made because it doesn't require any effort and it doesn't require you to put yourself in a position to be wrong. Because you already have your exit strategies if a player pans out, like your asterisk for IQ and Mitch, or - as I remember - the notion that a successful player would've "overcome" it.

It answers all questions even if it doesn't. If that's not all-knowing, I don't know what is.

I appreciate that there are many amateur scouts on this board. Honestly, I think it's cool and I enjoy reading their stuff. Personally, my skillsets in life lie elsewhere and I prefer to leave it up to the paid professionals to decide these things. Never been my bag, never will.

Do I know whether SGA or Haliburton would have been stars here? No, and neither do you.

I'm more into pointing out the futility of being both a Knicks fan and a geeky draftnick. If your thing is amateur scouting, go follow the Thunder or any number of teams who actually care about the thing that lights you up. Knick fans in the age of Dolan should be concerned with the trade and FA markets for veterans. Period. End of story.

Of course SGA or Haliburton would have been stars here, especially under Thibs. Thibs developed D Rose and Butler into stars. Randle and Brunson are having the best years of their careers here. If you go back KP had his best year with the Knicks and we had Jeremy Lin come out of nowhere. RJ has started from day 1 even though he terrible.

You are trying to find a reason why so many of our top ten picks were busts and its simply because the draft sucks for getting superstars. On average maybe one or two guys the most each draft will be a franchise player. 1 out of 30 is not good odds. Haliburton became a star...did all the other players picked before him become stars too? Did the Knicks fail to develop all the other busts? Is Dolan secretly trying to prevent our draft picks from becoming stars because you said so

[Woodsanity]

Relax, nobody’s trying to ruin your fun as the Great All-Knowing Chanel. In fact, scholars widely agree that TS% would have been Newton’s 6th Law had he lived long enough to meet Naismith.

Twenty some-odd years on this board, and the only draft prognostication I’ve ever made is to point out over and over and over again that Dolan J. Trump’s Knicks have no interest in the draft other than butts in seats and delusional get-rich-quick pyramid schemes to land a superstar.

In my debatably humble opinion, getting drafted by the Knicks therefore lowers the probability of any player’s chances of making it in this league.*

*The notable exception of late-round role players who fit exactly the coach’s rigid system and happily below the GM’s veteran FA acquisitions in the pecking order.

You're more convinced by this take of yours - which I find borders on caricature - than I am in any of my opinions. It's funny how projection works.

It's the only prognostication you have ever made because it doesn't require any effort and it doesn't require you to put yourself in a position to be wrong. Because you already have your exit strategies if a player pans out, like your asterisk for IQ and Mitch, or - as I remember - the notion that a successful player would've "overcome" it.

It answers all questions even if it doesn't. If that's not all-knowing, I don't know what is.

I appreciate that there are many amateur scouts on this board. Honestly, I think it's cool and I enjoy reading their stuff. Personally, my skillsets in life lie elsewhere and I prefer to leave it up to the paid professionals to decide these things. Never been my bag, never will.

Do I know whether SGA or Haliburton would have been stars here? No, and neither do you.

I'm more into pointing out the futility of being both a Knicks fan and a geeky draftnick. If your thing is amateur scouting, go follow the Thunder or any number of teams who actually care about the thing that lights you up. Knick fans in the age of Dolan should be concerned with the trade and FA markets for veterans. Period. End of story.

There's really nothing to suggest that the Knicks as they are NOW is particularly bad at developing players. In the past sure.

I would say most of our players are reaching their potential but they just simply aren't very talented....

Now could you argue that guys like Hali and SGA won't be as good? Maybe. But they won't go from superstars to regular players. Maybe at most they would be marginally worse players.

[Chanel Bomber]

CB, huh? Lost me.

I'm asking you what does player development look like to you regardless of outcome.

You seem to know what it is and what it's not.

So how would the Knicks develop their players?

By having them start and receive limitless opportunities from day 1, or by being brought along slowly or asked to earn their minutes?

By expecting them to contribute to winning or by detaching any expectation to impact winning from their development?

By playing with win-now players, or only with fellow young players also looking to earn their place in the NBA or non-threatening NBA vets? A mix of both?

What's the environment for optimal development?

[3toheadmelo]

Read on Twitter

[cgmw]

You're more convinced by this take of yours - which I find borders on caricature - than I am in any of my opinions. It's funny how projection works.

It's the only prognostication you have ever made because it doesn't require any effort and it doesn't require you to put yourself in a position to be wrong. Because you already have your exit strategies if a player pans out, like your asterisk for IQ and Mitch, or - as I remember - the notion that a successful player would've "overcome" it.

It answers all questions even if it doesn't. If that's not all-knowing, I don't know what is.

I appreciate that there are many amateur scouts on this board. Honestly, I think it's cool and I enjoy reading their stuff. Personally, my skillsets in life lie elsewhere and I prefer to leave it up to the paid professionals to decide these things. Never been my bag, never will.

Do I know whether SGA or Haliburton would have been stars here? No, and neither do you.

I'm more into pointing out the futility of being both a Knicks fan and a geeky draftnick. If your thing is amateur scouting, go follow the Thunder or any number of teams who actually care about the thing that lights you up. Knick fans in the age of Dolan should be concerned with the trade and FA markets for veterans. Period. End of story.

Of course SGA or Haliburton would have been stars here, especially under Thibs. Thibs developed D Rose and Butler into stars. Randle and Brunson are having the best years of their careers here. If you go back KP had his best year with the Knicks and we had Jeremy Lin come out of nowhere. RJ has started from day 1 even though he terrible.

You are trying to find a reason why so many of our top ten picks were busts and it’s simply because the draft sucks for getting superstars. On average maybe one or two guys the most each draft will be a franchise player. 1 out of 30 is not good odds. Haliburton became a star...did all the other players picked before him become stars too? Did the Knicks fail to develop all the other busts? Is Dolan secretly trying to prevent our draft picks from becoming stars because you said so

Disagree 100%.

Why would they have done anything different than what they did with Knox and so many others?

First of all, at no point were the Knicks starting a rookie at PG. They would have found a journeyman like they always did pre-Brunson.

Second, they would have featured him in a high usage, low-efficiency system with the pressure of a playoff mandate despite a roster not built for that.

Third, they would have targeted veteran “stars” like Brunson at the same position. Same story as always.

Fourth, they hired a coach who believes in grinding out wins via selfish iso-ball.

I find it very hard to believe that either Haliburton or SGA would have become the players we’re seeing today, but hey I can’t see into alternate dimensions any better than you can. So to each his own.

[cgmw]

CB, huh? Lost me.

I'm asking you what does player development look like to you regardless of outcome.

You seem to know what it is and what it's not.

So how would the Knicks develop their players?

By having them start and receive limitless opportunities from day 1, or by being brought along slowly or asked to earn their minutes?

By expecting them to contribute to winning or by detaching any expectation to impact winning from their development?

By playing with win-now players, or only with fellow young players also looking to earn their place in the NBA or non-threatening NBA vets? A mix of both?

What's the environment for optimal development?

Dude, it’s a moot point. All that matters is the Inick franchise is not and has not been committed to the draft, including developing its own players.

As I said in my last message, my profession is not managing basketball teams. I don’t need to figure out the “right way” to do it. But as a fan, I’m not blind. The Leon mafia is not trying to draft and develop the top talent coming out of college.

I like what they’re doing in Orlando and Houston taking shots over and over at the top of the draft and then once they establish core pieces surrounding them with vets. That makes sense. Presti down in OKC seems to have cracked the code too.

Seems to me the Knicks never should have signed Randle in the first place. They could have taken another shot or two at the top of the draft and maybe lucked out with a Lamelo or Mobley, and THEN gone after supporting stars in FA or trade.

But the mandate is playoffs year in and year out despite how delusional and counter-productive. I’m actually very happy with the way Leon has appeased Dolan and we haven’t made any Quixotic trades for fake MVPs like we did with Marbury and Carmelo.

[Chanel Bomber]

CB, huh? Lost me.

I'm asking you what does player development look like to you regardless of outcome.

You seem to know what it is and what it's not.

So how would the Knicks develop their players?

By having them start and receive limitless opportunities from day 1, or by being brought along slowly or asked to earn their minutes?

By expecting them to contribute to winning or by detaching any expectation to impact winning from their development?

By playing with win-now players, or only with fellow young players also looking to earn their place in the NBA or non-threatening NBA vets? A mix of both?

What's the environment for optimal development?

Dude, it’s a moot point. All that matters is the Inick franchise is not and has not been committed to the draft, including developing its own players.

As I said in my last message, my profession is not managing basketball teams. I don’t need to figure out the “right way” to do it. But as a fan, I’m not blind. The Leon mafia is not trying to draft and develop the top talent coming out of college.

I like what they’re doing in Orlando and Houston taking shots over and over at the top of the draft and then once they establish core pieces surrounding them with vets. That makes sense. Presti down in OKC seems to have cracked the code too.

Seems to me the Knicks never should have signed Randle in the first place. They could have taken another shot or two at the top of the draft and maybe lucked out with a Lamelo or Mobley, and THEN gone after supporting stars in FA or trade.

But the mandate is playoffs year in and year out despite how delusional and counter-productive. I’m actually very happy with the way Leon has appeased Dolan and we haven’t made any Quixotic trades for fake MVPs like we did with Marbury and Carmelo.

How is it a moot point when it's the foundation of your argument?

You essentially said the Knicks don't develop their talent properly and ruin whomever they draft, yet you don't have any opinion of what player development should look like?

I'm not sure either Lamelo or Mobley's a better player than Randle by the way. And the Knicks easily could've drafted Wiseman or Cade or Suggs. Where does that lead you.

And it doesn't matter because they could have drafted a player who's easily better than all of them when they landed at #8 in 2020 (Haliburton).

But since your argument is that the Knicks can't develop anybody - for reasons that yourself can't even identify - why does it matter. Why do you then think that drafting Mobley or Lamelo would've made a difference since the Knicks would've ruined them? Your arguments are not consistent. Don't you see the contradiction?

[Richard4444]

IMO, Frank, Knox, Jarian Grant, and Obi (not so much in his case) were crap players and they would be crap rookies whatever they play. It could be true if they started playing better for other teams after leaving the Knicks. Even Obi, who was not all bad playing for the Knicks, is not a different player now but he is a perfect fit for Indiana" 's up-tempo and no-defense style.

There is no evidence that the Knicks can not develop players. Gallo, KP, RJ, IQ, Grimes play/played well for the Knicks because they have talent.

It is a kind of rationalization "We did not have a bad draft because anyone who we pick would be a bust". No, we failed at the drat when we got Frank, Knox, and Obi. Just that. These guys got solid minutes, and plenty of opportunities here.

How do you think our coaching staff could have undermined the evolution of the players? Did they refuse to share some basketball secrets? Did they teach them a bad shooting mechanic or to dribble into traffic to always lose the ball? By the end, the training should be pretty similar in all of the thirty teams.