PG: KNICKS 'Swat' The Hornets (fans overtake the arena)

[cgmw]

You're rewriting history now. At minimum being conveniently selective.

The optimism in that plan was also rooted in the confidence that the kids would turn out good. We saw that with Frank, RJ and Obi. Less so with Knox. Significant portions of the fanbase thought at different moments in time that these players were going to become stars, or much better than they've turned out to be.

Sure, the other pillar of the pro-tank argument was to keep being bad until you draft a star, but draft position doesn't guarantee a star, especially if your FO is incompetent. And the plan of building through the youth makes no sense if the draft picks don't pan out at some point.

The Knicks showed no ability to find a star in the draft through multiple years. Knicks fans didn't either, seeing their confidence in the RJs and Obis of the world.

Play the kids and live with the results was the battle cry for people who were sick and tired of landing the 7-8-9 picks in the draft because we kept playing tired old vets for NO REASON. They won a few more games and hurt our draft picks EVERY SINGLE TIME. Obviously there is hope that they get better but, the logic is that if they don't we have a better shot at landing a star with a HIGHER PICK than 7-8-9. I didn't rewrite any history. It's simple logic. You are talking nonsense here.

You act like picking late lottery is trying to land a star? It's not. It's the worst approach to drafting that there is BUT, there would have been no complaints if we played the kids to those same results. Which we didn't.

Is it the worst approach?

The Pacers seem to be doing just fine with Haliburton, who was drafted after Obi, but also after Wiseman and Lamelo, these surefire stars that you seemingly would have died to pick at the top of that draft.

Tanking is meaningless if you don't draft well. Sure, you have slightly higher odds at the top of the draft vs on the backend of the lottery but it doesn't make up for poor talent evaluation.

That's the issue with your take. Your argument is based on "simple logic" as you said. But team building is complicated with different pathways, and the same pathways may have different outcomes. "Simple logic" doesn't answer complicated questions.

In the end, the draft pick who was drafted 3rd held the team back, and the (young) vet who you maligned so often and who contributed to us having a worse draft position in 2020, has been a star for this team in 3 of the last 4 seasons, and a driving force behind the success of this team. Things have not gone the way you expected them to.

That’s one version of history, Chanel.

An equally valid version is the Knicks refused to commit to building around the 19 year old number three pick, instead committing to outside veteran acquisitions under a vet-centric coach on a bullsh*t timeline of “right now.”

RJ’s first four years were just the Knicks FO biding their time to create the veteran team they wanted to begin with. Randle and RJ never should have been on the same team and it took almost 5 years to end the charade.

[Jalen Bluntson]

You're rewriting history now. At minimum being conveniently selective.

The optimism in that plan was also rooted in the confidence that the kids would turn out good. We saw that with Frank, RJ and Obi. Less so with Knox. Significant portions of the fanbase thought at different moments in time that these players were going to become stars, or much better than they've turned out to be.

Sure, the other pillar of the pro-tank argument was to keep being bad until you draft a star, but draft position doesn't guarantee a star, especially if your FO is incompetent. And the plan of building through the youth makes no sense if the draft picks don't pan out at some point.

The Knicks showed no ability to find a star in the draft through multiple years. Knicks fans didn't either, seeing their confidence in the RJs and Obis of the world.

Play the kids and live with the results was the battle cry for people who were sick and tired of landing the 7-8-9 picks in the draft because we kept playing tired old vets for NO REASON. They won a few more games and hurt our draft picks EVERY SINGLE TIME. Obviously there is hope that they get better but, the logic is that if they don't we have a better shot at landing a star with a HIGHER PICK than 7-8-9. I didn't rewrite any history. It's simple logic. You are talking nonsense here.

You act like picking late lottery is trying to land a star? It's not. It's the worst approach to drafting that there is BUT, there would have been no complaints if we played the kids to those same results. Which we didn't.

Is it the worst approach?

The Pacers seem to be doing just fine with Haliburton, who was drafted after Obi, but also after Wiseman and Lamelo, these surefire stars that you seemingly would have died to pick at the top of that draft.

Tanking is meaningless if you don't draft well. Sure, you have slightly higher odds at the top of the draft vs on the backend of the lottery but it doesn't make up for poor talent evaluation.

That's the issue with your take. Your argument is based on "simple logic" as you said. But team building is complicated with different pathways, and the same pathways may have different outcomes. "Simple logic" doesn't answer complicated questions.

In the end, the draft pick who was drafted 3rd held the team back, and the (young) vet who you maligned so often and who contributed to us having a worse draft position in 2020, has been a star for this team in 3 of the last 4 seasons, and a driving force behind the success of this team. Things have not gone the way you expected them to.

If you think that aiming for the late lottery is a good plan, then I don't know what to tell you. It's not. You are really arguing just to argue right now. No one said tanking guarantees anything. The odds are DRASTICALLY higher in the top 3-5 picks than the 8th pick. Knock it off. It is ridiculous to say so. Simple logic. In hindsight, they missed on picks. So that negates things? NO. Play the kids and live with the results was a better plan than playing vets who suck and weren't part of the future.

As for Randle...HE SUCKED most of his time when I was going in on him. Who is rewriting history now? He was catching flak because of his effort and attitude. I stopped going in on him last year unless it was in battle with his Stan's early this season when he was HISTORICALLY bad. Even then it was hoping he could turn it around.

Argue just to argue with someone else.

[Chanel Bomber]

Play the kids and live with the results was the battle cry for people who were sick and tired of landing the 7-8-9 picks in the draft because we kept playing tired old vets for NO REASON. They won a few more games and hurt our draft picks EVERY SINGLE TIME. Obviously there is hope that they get better but, the logic is that if they don't we have a better shot at landing a star with a HIGHER PICK than 7-8-9. I didn't rewrite any history. It's simple logic. You are talking nonsense here.

You act like picking late lottery is trying to land a star? It's not. It's the worst approach to drafting that there is BUT, there would have been no complaints if we played the kids to those same results. Which we didn't.

Is it the worst approach?

The Pacers seem to be doing just fine with Haliburton, who was drafted after Obi, but also after Wiseman and Lamelo, these surefire stars that you seemingly would have died to pick at the top of that draft.

Tanking is meaningless if you don't draft well. Sure, you have slightly higher odds at the top of the draft vs on the backend of the lottery but it doesn't make up for poor talent evaluation.

That's the issue with your take. Your argument is based on "simple logic" as you said. But team building is complicated with different pathways, and the same pathways may have different outcomes. "Simple logic" doesn't answer complicated questions.

In the end, the draft pick who was drafted 3rd held the team back, and the (young) vet who you maligned so often and who contributed to us having a worse draft position in 2020, has been a star for this team in 3 of the last 4 seasons, and a driving force behind the success of this team. Things have not gone the way you expected them to.

That’s one version of history, Chanel.

An equally valid version is the Knicks refused to commit to building around the 19 year old number three pick, instead committing to outside veteran acquisitions under a vet-centric coach on a bullsh*t timeline of “right now.”

RJ’s first four years were just the Knicks FO biding their time to create the veteran team they wanted to begin with. Randle and RJ never should have been on the same team and it took almost 5 years to end the charade.

I'm sorry but I'm tired of this nonsense.

The Knicks gave everything to RJ for him to "develop". The minutes, the shots, and limitless opportunities.

The veterans around him didn't hurt his development. Neither did this "win-now" mandate, which btw never affected his minutes in his developmental years. He just wasn't good. All the metrics that extract context showed it. And if RJ can't play with other good players like Randle, maybe that's a RJ problem. Because JB and IQ had no issues playing with Randle.

The Knicks are much better without RJ. You constant snarkiness about me has proven to be unwarranted.

The Knicks are markedly better with their free agent acquisitions (Randle, Brunson, DDV, iHart) and players they traded the youth for (OG) than with their youth. Your whole approach to team building was proven wrong. Which was predictable because it is entirely dogmatic and overly simplistic. There is no template answer to team building.

[Gravy]

Play the kids vs play the vets?

They all sucked and were awful too watch. Did anyone really want to watch Tim Hardaway, Elf, and Freedom Kanter?

Personally, I would have rather bottomed out and see if there was a chance the youth would pan out or hope for a top pick. But management was so incompetent they would have messed up no matter what

Just glad those days are over. It's unbelievable how much better shape we are in.

In the end it took all avenues to build this....picks panning out, good free agent signings and trades

The draft lottery screws us as much as anything else about the draft too. We have not moved up since 1984 and that makes it much harder to choose when you're picking in that 7-12 range.

Cant blame the coaches much for playing vets when their job is on the line based on wins. Even the fans wanted Thibs fired after making the 4th seed a year before.

[Chanel Bomber]

Play the kids and live with the results was the battle cry for people who were sick and tired of landing the 7-8-9 picks in the draft because we kept playing tired old vets for NO REASON. They won a few more games and hurt our draft picks EVERY SINGLE TIME. Obviously there is hope that they get better but, the logic is that if they don't we have a better shot at landing a star with a HIGHER PICK than 7-8-9. I didn't rewrite any history. It's simple logic. You are talking nonsense here.

You act like picking late lottery is trying to land a star? It's not. It's the worst approach to drafting that there is BUT, there would have been no complaints if we played the kids to those same results. Which we didn't.

Is it the worst approach?

The Pacers seem to be doing just fine with Haliburton, who was drafted after Obi, but also after Wiseman and Lamelo, these surefire stars that you seemingly would have died to pick at the top of that draft.

Tanking is meaningless if you don't draft well. Sure, you have slightly higher odds at the top of the draft vs on the backend of the lottery but it doesn't make up for poor talent evaluation.

That's the issue with your take. Your argument is based on "simple logic" as you said. But team building is complicated with different pathways, and the same pathways may have different outcomes. "Simple logic" doesn't answer complicated questions.

In the end, the draft pick who was drafted 3rd held the team back, and the (young) vet who you maligned so often and who contributed to us having a worse draft position in 2020, has been a star for this team in 3 of the last 4 seasons, and a driving force behind the success of this team. Things have not gone the way you expected them to.

If you think that aiming for the late lottery is a good plan, then I don't know what to tell you. It's not. You are really arguing just to argue right now. No one said tanking guarantees anything. The odds are DRASTICALLY higher in the top 3-5 picks than the 8th pick. Knock it off. It is ridiculous to say so. Simple logic. In hindsight, they missed on picks. So that negates things? NO. Play the kids and live with the results was a better plan than playing vets who suck and weren't part of the future.

As for Randle...HE SUCKED most of his time when I was going in on him. Who is rewriting history now? He was catching flak because of his effort and attitude. I stopped going in on him last year unless it was in battle with his Stan's early this season when he was HISTORICALLY bad. Even then it was hoping he could turn it around.

Argue just to argue with someone else.

No, you were wrong about Randle. And his effort was obviously affected by his recovery from ankle surgery. You were just blinded by your rage.

- The Knicks could have drafted SGA in 2018 when they drafted Knox. He was drafted two spots after Knox. SGA's arguably a better player than any player drafted BEFORE Knox (close between him and Luka).

- The Knicks could have drafted Haliburton in 2020 when they drafted Obi. He was drafted four spots after Obi. Haliburton's arguably a better player than any player drafted BEFORE Obi (close between him and Edwards).

- The Knicks could not have drafted any higher than third in 2019 when they drafted RJ. They had the worst record in the draft that year. They just had poor lottery luck.

So the Knicks would not necessarily have been better off drafting higher in 2018 or 2020, and they couldn't have drafted higher in 2019. One could argue they were actually closer to drafting the best player in each class where they landed.

In reality, very few successful franchises have done what you advocate - play the kids and just live with the results. The only example I can think of is the OKC Thunder and they are exceptional at talent evaluation in the draft. Otherwise? The vast majority of contenders aren't built that way. And in fact, the Knicks may be building one now, and they certainly didn't do it that way.

As you said, you're using simple logic but you can't use simple logic to solve complex problems.

[Capn'O]

The Knicks could have drafted SGA in 2018

Why do people have to remind me of this

[thebuzzardman]

Wow, did this post game thread turn into sucking the Pacer's dicks?

Some posters just can't get past the tank and "develop" the youth schtick.

[Deeeez Knicks]

Play the kids vs play the vets?

They all sucked and were awful too watch. Did anyone really want to watch Tim Hardaway, Elf, and Freedom Kanter?

Personally, I would have rather bottomed out and see if there was a chance the youth would pan out or hope for a top pick. But management was so incompetent they would have messed up no matter what

Just glad those days are over. It's unbelievable how much better shape we are in.

In the end it took all avenues to build this....picks panning out, good free agent signings and trades

The draft lottery screws us as much as anything else about the draft too. We have not moved up since 1984 and that makes it much harder to choose when you're picking in that 7-12 range.

Cant blame the coaches much for playing vets when their job is on the line based on wins. Even the fans wanted Thibs fired after making the 4th seed a year before.

The past blame falls on management and ownership. They were awful. They tried to win games but they just were not good at putting teams together. Then they were also bad at drafting, bad all around. The vets were mediocre, no real upside with youth. It was hell and the worst place to be.

Just thankful we were able to move past that.

[Chanel Bomber]

This notion that Randle hurt RJ's development needs to die. It's a fallacy that is not backed by any statistical evidence. It's a fabrication that is used solely to preserve an outdated dogma (on "tanking") that is too simplistic to answer a complex reality.

Brunson and Quickley had no issues whatsoever playing with Randle. Randle didn't stunt their growth as players. They could play with him because they were skilled and effective.

RJ didn't play well with Randle because he wasn't good. That was a RJ problem, not a Randle problem.

Just like Randle's 2021-22 season was a Randle problem.

Just stop the madness.

[Capn'O]

Watch on YouTube

Props to Leon Rose

They're really well run right now.

We were moving that way with Pills and to a lesser extent Phil. Leon's group's execution has >>> previous regimes but we moved towards having all our picks and clean books under those two. It's been a long haul towards solvency, which was needed for so long. Now we have a really good group in charge.

Phil and Pills were both completely incompetent but you're right that they at least didn't ruin our future by trading away future picks.

Leon pretty much started with a blank slate (plus Randle) without inheriting any debt from the previous regimes.

Amid the catastrophe, it still constituted as progress over the Isiah years.

Pills also cleared the books, which was helpful.

But yeah, this hit after hit that this group keeps doing. Resigning Randle, Brunson, DDV, OG, iHart, Resigning Mitch, selling off on RJ/IQ, fixing the Cam mistake with Hart, resigning Deuce, Precious?, Grimes (still a good pick in the 20s)... hell, even Jokubaitus is probably good... I haven't seen anything like it. Certainly not from my Knicks.

Which, to get to the point of the other convo you're having, it's not really about the approach but the execution. Lotta ways to get there. Lotta ways to go wrong.

[Jalen Bluntson]

Is it the worst approach?

The Pacers seem to be doing just fine with Haliburton, who was drafted after Obi, but also after Wiseman and Lamelo, these surefire stars that you seemingly would have died to pick at the top of that draft.

Tanking is meaningless if you don't draft well. Sure, you have slightly higher odds at the top of the draft vs on the backend of the lottery but it doesn't make up for poor talent evaluation.

That's the issue with your take. Your argument is based on "simple logic" as you said. But team building is complicated with different pathways, and the same pathways may have different outcomes. "Simple logic" doesn't answer complicated questions.

In the end, the draft pick who was drafted 3rd held the team back, and the (young) vet who you maligned so often and who contributed to us having a worse draft position in 2020, has been a star for this team in 3 of the last 4 seasons, and a driving force behind the success of this team. Things have not gone the way you expected them to.

If you think that aiming for the late lottery is a good plan, then I don't know what to tell you. It's not. You are really arguing just to argue right now. No one said tanking guarantees anything. The odds are DRASTICALLY higher in the top 3-5 picks than the 8th pick. Knock it off. It is ridiculous to say so. Simple logic. In hindsight, they missed on picks. So that negates things? NO. Play the kids and live with the results was a better plan than playing vets who suck and weren't part of the future.

As for Randle...HE SUCKED most of his time when I was going in on him. Who is rewriting history now? He was catching flak because of his effort and attitude. I stopped going in on him last year unless it was in battle with his Stan's early this season when he was HISTORICALLY bad. Even then it was hoping he could turn it around.

Argue just to argue with someone else.

No, you were wrong about Randle. And his effort was obviously affected by his recovery from ankle surgery. You were just blinded by your rage.

- The Knicks could have drafted SGA in 2018 when they drafted Knox. He was drafted two spots after Knox. SGA's arguably a better player than any player drafted BEFORE Knox (close between him and Luka).

- The Knicks could have drafted Haliburton in 2020 when they drafted Obi. He was drafted four spots after Obi. Haliburton's arguably a better player than any player drafted BEFORE Obi (close between him and Edwards).

- The Knicks could not have drafted any higher than third in 2019 when they drafted RJ. They had the worst record in the draft that year. They just had poor lottery luck.

So the Knicks would not necessarily have been better off drafting higher in 2018 or 2020, and they couldn't have drafted higher in 2019. One could argue they were actually closer to drafting the best player in each class where they landed.

In reality, very few successful franchises have done what you advocate - play the kids and just live with the results. The only example I can think of is the OKC Thunder and they are exceptional at talent evaluation in the draft. Otherwise? The vast majority of contenders aren't built that way. And in fact, the Knicks may be building one now, and they certainly didn't do it that way.

As you said, you're using simple logic but you can't use simple logic to solve complex problems.

Randle didn't have an ankle injury for 3 years when I was going in on him. Earlier this season there was NO mention of his ankle until after he sucked. I haven't said anything about him since we found out and, I kept saying hope he turns it around. Dude was bad good bad good for ENTIRE SEASONS before this year when he finally turned it around. So stop lying.

Simple logic. PEOPLE WANTED A YOUTH MOVEMENT!!! They were sick and tired of watching Elfrid fuggin Payton and his ilk winning meaningless games and hurting our drafts. Why are you acting like it's anything different. Hindsight that they missed on the 7-8-9th pick in the draft has nothing to do with anything. YOU WANT BETTER ODDS and FIRST SHOT at whoever is in the draft. That's why people wanted to play the kids and live with the results. SIMPLE LOGIC. I never said a tank guarantees anything but what we were doing was flat out ridiculous!!

Instead of denying truth/facts...ask around. EVERYONE will tell you that I am right about what Play the kids and live with the results meant. It's not rocket science. I can't dumb it down any more for you to understand. No one is that stupid.



You trying to come off like a genius here is pretty sad. No one said the tank guarantees anything. They just wanted to watch a young team try to win and if they didn't it would most likely lead to better draft status and possibly hitting on a star the next year. Which was much better than watching old washed players lead us to the late lottery. That's what was happening for the majority of the last two decades.

[Chanel Bomber]

They're really well run right now.

We were moving that way with Pills and to a lesser extent Phil. Leon's group's execution has >>> previous regimes but we moved towards having all our picks and clean books under those two. It's been a long haul towards solvency, which was needed for so long. Now we have a really good group in charge.

Phil and Pills were both completely incompetent but you're right that they at least didn't ruin our future by trading away future picks.

Leon pretty much started with a blank slate (plus Randle) without inheriting any debt from the previous regimes.

Amid the catastrophe, it still constituted as progress over the Isiah years.

Pills also cleared the books, which was helpful.

But yeah, this hit after hit that this group keeps doing. Resigning Randle, Brunson, DDV, OG, iHart, Resigning Mitch, selling off on RJ/IQ, resigning Deuce, Precious?, Grimes (still a good pick in the 20s)... hell, even Jokubaitus is probably good... I haven't seen anything like it. Certainly not from my Knicks.

Which, to get to the point of the other convo you're having, it's not really about the approach but the execution. Lotta ways to get there. Lotta ways to go wrong.

Exactly. It's largely about execution.

This team in its current form was built primarily through free agency and through trades. Their draft picks? As you said, they were sold off for another young vet in OG and two 2nd-round picks. Only Mitch, Grimes, McBride and Sims remain.

The Knicks have played well and seem to be in a strong position to improve the roster further. I hear no one complain about the outcome. So why obsess about tanking as if it would have necessarily generated a better outcome?

I suspect that some people revert to this simple tanking dogma because they don't want to accept the level of detail and unpredictability that come into team building. You have to assess and evaluate talent. You have to make projections based on statistical patterns. You have to build the culture of the organization. You have to develop positive habits. You have to account for the psychological impact of winning and losing. You have to consider the reputational damage of potentially being one of the worst teams in the league for years. You have to accept that luck plays a role.

It's easy to say play the youth and tank without any regard for these considerations. In reality, it's much harder to actually make the right calls that would lead to a satisfactory outcome.

This reminds me so much of some of the political dogmas in the 20th century which claimed to have these simple answers that ultimately couldn't capture the complexity of society and its economy.

[Capn'O]

Phil and Pills were both completely incompetent but you're right that they at least didn't ruin our future by trading away future picks.

Leon pretty much started with a blank slate (plus Randle) without inheriting any debt from the previous regimes.

Amid the catastrophe, it still constituted as progress over the Isiah years.

Pills also cleared the books, which was helpful.

But yeah, this hit after hit that this group keeps doing. Resigning Randle, Brunson, DDV, OG, iHart, Resigning Mitch, selling off on RJ/IQ, resigning Deuce, Precious?, Grimes (still a good pick in the 20s)... hell, even Jokubaitus is probably good... I haven't seen anything like it. Certainly not from my Knicks.

Which, to get to the point of the other convo you're having, it's not really about the approach but the execution. Lotta ways to get there. Lotta ways to go wrong.

Exactly. It's largely about execution.

This team in its current form was built primarily through free agency and through trades. Their draft picks? As you said, they were sold off for another young vet in OG and two 2nd-round picks. Only Mitch, Grimes, McBride and Sims remain.

The Knicks have played well and seem to be in a strong position to improve the roster further. I hear no one complain about the outcome. So why obsess about tanking as if it would have necessarily generated a better outcome?

I suspect that some people revert to this simple tanking dogma because they don't want to accept the level of detail and unpredictability that come into team building. You have to assess and evaluate talent. You have to make projections based on statistical patterns. You have to build the culture of the organization. You have to develop positive habits. You have to account for the psychological impact of winning and losing. You have to consider the reputational damage of potentially being one of the worst teams in the league for years. You have to accept that luck plays a role.

It's easy to say play the youth and tank without any regard for these considerations. In reality, it's much harder to actually make the right calls that would lead to a satisfactory outcome.

This reminds me so much of some of the political dogmas in the 20th century which claimed to have these simple answers that ultimately couldn't capture the complexity of society and its economy.

Also, in the case of the Knicks, they legitimately did need to tear it down and recoup their picks for a really long time. Other routes _could_ have gotten you there but would have been very tough in a competitive environment. They just didn't have the resources for a sustainable build through trades/FA because their trade/FA execution and planning were so poor they kept handcuffing our options. At this point though, their options are multitudes because they did go through that process... kicking and screaming and full of missteps I might add... but they went through it.

The point in our case wasn't necessarily to draft that generational savior, though that certainly would have helped. It was to get back to solvency where you had both financial and draft capital and a fallback plan if your building phase goes awry. It would have helped a LOT if RJ really hit. But he hit just enough to help make a good move with a guy we did hit hard on for where he was drafted.

This reminds me so much of some of the political dogmas in the 20th century which claimed to have these simple answers that ultimately couldn't capture the complexity of society and its economy.

I'm not going to veer further here but wanted to call it out to say... that's 100% on the nose. And yet we still have so many people clinging to those security blanket approaches.

[Richard4444]

The "hard tanking" dogma when you try to be as bad as possible to ensure a top pick brings a lot of problems.

1) You must give up team building and competing to ensure more losses. You end up locking up good players (usually exaggerating injuries) and avoid giving minutes to interesting players to ensure more defeats.

2) It's hard to keep/get good role players on good contracts because these players would prefer to play for contenders/pretenders rather than be babysitters. Unless you overpay.

3) The losing environment is awful to teach the young players how to play collectively on an NBA level. You need high-level vets to teach you how to defend and when to pass the ball.

4) The investment often does not return as expected. You are giving the future of the franchise to inexperienced teenagers. The young players can develop character/attitude problems like Ja, Zion, and Ayton or be mediocre or worse like RJ or Wiseman.

5) Eventually you have to pay your drafted players and if they are not superstars they will cost pretty much the same price as FAs.

[cgmw]

Is it the worst approach?

The Pacers seem to be doing just fine with Haliburton, who was drafted after Obi, but also after Wiseman and Lamelo, these surefire stars that you seemingly would have died to pick at the top of that draft.

Tanking is meaningless if you don't draft well. Sure, you have slightly higher odds at the top of the draft vs on the backend of the lottery but it doesn't make up for poor talent evaluation.

That's the issue with your take. Your argument is based on "simple logic" as you said. But team building is complicated with different pathways, and the same pathways may have different outcomes. "Simple logic" doesn't answer complicated questions.

In the end, the draft pick who was drafted 3rd held the team back, and the (young) vet who you maligned so often and who contributed to us having a worse draft position in 2020, has been a star for this team in 3 of the last 4 seasons, and a driving force behind the success of this team. Things have not gone the way you expected them to.

That’s one version of history, Chanel.

An equally valid version is the Knicks refused to commit to building around the 19 year old number three pick, instead committing to outside veteran acquisitions under a vet-centric coach on a bullsh*t timeline of “right now.”

RJ’s first four years were just the Knicks FO biding their time to create the veteran team they wanted to begin with. Randle and RJ never should have been on the same team and it took almost 5 years to end the charade.

I'm sorry but I'm tired of this nonsense.

The Knicks gave everything to RJ for him to "develop". The minutes, the shots, and limitless opportunities.

The veterans around him didn't hurt his development. Neither did this "win-now" mandate, which btw never affected his minutes in his developmental years. He just wasn't good. All the metrics that extract context showed it. And if RJ can't play with other good players like Randle, maybe that's a RJ problem. Because JB and IQ had no issues playing with Randle.

The Knicks are much better without RJ. You constant snarkiness about me has proven to be unwarranted.

The Knicks are markedly better with their free agent acquisitions (Randle, Brunson, DDV, iHart) and players they traded the youth for (OG) than with their youth. Your whole approach to team building was proven wrong. Which was predictable because it is entirely dogmatic and overly simplistic. There is no template answer to team building.

You’re so easy to troll

Been a rough week in cgmw land, and I genuinely appreciate the laugh out loud today.

Spoiler:

I stand by every last word of my statement

[Gravy]

Not giving away all those resources for Donovan Mitchell and instead giving up less for OG was such a wise decision that lets you know this regime is different. It would have been the Melo trade all over again that capped us with a 2nd round ceiling.

[Richard4444]

Most successful franchises in recent years did not have top 5 picks or at least they were not essential for their success.

Denver: Jokic was a Second round pick. Jamal helped but he was a former 7th pick. MPJ 15th.
Raptors: Siakam, Lowry were late FRPs. Fred undrafted. Leonard was got by trading DeRozen that was a 9th pick
GSW: Curry was 7th pick. Klay 11th pick. Dray Second Round. Wiggins was dumped there.
LAL: LeBron was FA. You can say their top-drafted players (Lonzo, Ingram, and Hunter) were important in the AD trade. But their value was not so great. Lonzo was not viewed as a top player. Ingram had very concerning health issues. Hunter's draft was very weak after the Top3 players.
Miami: Bam was 14th. Butler FA. Herro 13th.
Suns: Booker 13th. Mikal 10th. Ayton and a lot of top 10 picks they had were disappointing.
LAC: Got stars via FA and trades. Their best asset was 13th pick Shai.

Jazz and Nets had good seasons lately and they also do not had Top5 picks.

[Chanel Bomber]

That’s one version of history, Chanel.

An equally valid version is the Knicks refused to commit to building around the 19 year old number three pick, instead committing to outside veteran acquisitions under a vet-centric coach on a bullsh*t timeline of “right now.”

RJ’s first four years were just the Knicks FO biding their time to create the veteran team they wanted to begin with. Randle and RJ never should have been on the same team and it took almost 5 years to end the charade.

I'm sorry but I'm tired of this nonsense.

The Knicks gave everything to RJ for him to "develop". The minutes, the shots, and limitless opportunities.

The veterans around him didn't hurt his development. Neither did this "win-now" mandate, which btw never affected his minutes in his developmental years. He just wasn't good. All the metrics that extract context showed it. And if RJ can't play with other good players like Randle, maybe that's a RJ problem. Because JB and IQ had no issues playing with Randle.

The Knicks are much better without RJ. You constant snarkiness about me has proven to be unwarranted.

The Knicks are markedly better with their free agent acquisitions (Randle, Brunson, DDV, iHart) and players they traded the youth for (OG) than with their youth. Your whole approach to team building was proven wrong. Which was predictable because it is entirely dogmatic and overly simplistic. There is no template answer to team building.

You’re so easy to troll

Been a rough week in cgmw land, and I genuinely appreciate the laugh out loud today.

Spoiler:

I stand by every last word of my statement

I hope things soon get better for you. Wish you the best as you navigate whatever it is you're going through.

[Chanel Bomber]

Pills also cleared the books, which was helpful.

But yeah, this hit after hit that this group keeps doing. Resigning Randle, Brunson, DDV, OG, iHart, Resigning Mitch, selling off on RJ/IQ, resigning Deuce, Precious?, Grimes (still a good pick in the 20s)... hell, even Jokubaitus is probably good... I haven't seen anything like it. Certainly not from my Knicks.

Which, to get to the point of the other convo you're having, it's not really about the approach but the execution. Lotta ways to get there. Lotta ways to go wrong.

Exactly. It's largely about execution.

This team in its current form was built primarily through free agency and through trades. Their draft picks? As you said, they were sold off for another young vet in OG and two 2nd-round picks. Only Mitch, Grimes, McBride and Sims remain.

The Knicks have played well and seem to be in a strong position to improve the roster further. I hear no one complain about the outcome. So why obsess about tanking as if it would have necessarily generated a better outcome?

I suspect that some people revert to this simple tanking dogma because they don't want to accept the level of detail and unpredictability that come into team building. You have to assess and evaluate talent. You have to make projections based on statistical patterns. You have to build the culture of the organization. You have to develop positive habits. You have to account for the psychological impact of winning and losing. You have to consider the reputational damage of potentially being one of the worst teams in the league for years. You have to accept that luck plays a role.

It's easy to say play the youth and tank without any regard for these considerations. In reality, it's much harder to actually make the right calls that would lead to a satisfactory outcome.

This reminds me so much of some of the political dogmas in the 20th century which claimed to have these simple answers that ultimately couldn't capture the complexity of society and its economy.

Also, in the case of the Knicks, they legitimately did need to tear it down and recoup their picks for a really long time. Other routes _could_ have gotten you there but would have been very tough in a competitive environment. They just didn't have the resources for a sustainable build through trades/FA because their trade/FA execution and planning were so poor they kept handcuffing our options. At this point though, their options are multitudes because they did go through that process... kicking and screaming and full of missteps I might add... but they went through it.

The point in our case wasn't necessarily to draft that generational savior, though that certainly would have helped. It was to get back to solvency where you had both financial and draft capital and a fallback plan if your building phase goes awry. It would have helped a LOT if RJ really hit. But he hit just enough to help make a good move with a guy we did hit hard on for where he was drafted.

This reminds me so much of some of the political dogmas in the 20th century which claimed to have these simple answers that ultimately couldn't capture the complexity of society and its economy.

I'm not going to veer further here but wanted to call it out to say... that's 100% on the nose. And yet we still have so many people clinging to those security blanket approaches.

I agree with basically everything you said.

And to be clear, I do agree that there were a few moments in the last 10-15 years where tanking was the best course of action. They did actually tank in two of those seasons (2013-14 and 2018-19), where the Knicks ended with the worst record in the league.

I think the most problematic season was probably 2017-18 where - as you said - there was no pathway to building the foundation for a contender unless Tim Hardaway had a Julius Randle career trajectory arc, which he obviously did not. Tanking made the most sense but the Knicks ended with a 29-53 record that led to the Kevin Knox pick. But again, the devil (the ChaHell?) is in the details. What was worse, passing on SGA drafted two picks later at #9, or not being in a position to draft Luka without any actual guarantee that Pills would've picked him at the top of the draft? I don't know. But those meaningless wins didn't actually prevent the Knicks from being in a position to draft a future MVP candidate.

Of course, you can also make the case that they should have traded Melo and tanked earlier, but Phil foolishly gave him a NTC, so the Knicks were stuck on two timelines with KP and Melo. He only stayed two more years after the Knicks drafted KP. He admittedly was painful to watch then.

2019-20 turned out to be not so disastrous. Randle has become one the franchise's best players since Ewing. Morris led to IQ who helped get OG. A couple of these "win-now" moves, which in the short-term hurt our draft position, actually set the table for the rebuild as we know it now. And I was a critic of them keeping Randle around that time, but I have to admit that he was the first domino. And again, they could've still drafted Haliburton.

My point is, for me, the Knicks drafting busts when future stars where actually still on the board for them is much more consequential and therefore damning than them not tanking in some of those years. Better draft position would not have brought them any closer to drafting the SGAs and the Haliburtons who they decided to pass on. Personally, I think the pattern of drafting busts (I don't count RJ as a bust, just as a disappointment) over literal All-NBA-caliber players to be much more infuriating.

[Capn'O]

My point is, for me, the Knicks drafting busts when future stars where actually still on the board for them is much more consequential and therefore damning than them not tanking in some of those years. Better draft position would not have brought them any closer to drafting the SGAs and the Haliburtons who they decided to pass on. Personally, I think the pattern of drafting busts (I don't count RJ as a bust, just as a disappointment) over literal All-NBA-caliber players to be much more infuriating.

2018 is particularly painful. SGA, yes. But I don't think we even looked at him and as much as I loved him always and forever... superstardom wasn't obvious and even nerd sites like The Ringer and The Stepien were kinda down on him. I was thinking an Andre Miller type, who I loved. We had Mikal right in front of us and in a Knicks jersey and we dropped the ball because Knox beat Miles Bridges in a 1v1 workout. Like, what the actual ****? I've had a ton of draft misses but a dude that just lolligags around through college for a whole year and turns up the gas in a single workout... you don't need to be TS% Eliot to see that we should have gone any of a myriad of different ways.