KNICKS - Houston PG

[thebuzzardman]

I stand corrected if this is true, but what's your source? I can't find any information on it. My understanding is that the draft order will follow the regular season standings outside of the lottery.

On one of the Lowe Post pods they were talking about it & said that the lottery teams would be the ones who didn't qualify for the playoffs, after the play-in. Which made sense, so I never looked into it any further

Zach Lowe is credible enough, for sure.

It's weird that none of this is clarified in any of the official communications from the NBA.

It's seem simple enough that the team that "Played in" but failed is a lottery pick.

I'd look at it this way.
14 teams make the lottery
16 teams don't.

14 teams will still make the lottery. I think the math is the team(s?) that don't make it into the playoffs, as usual.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

This year we are not beating them. But next season, older Quick and Mitch + another potential star, it's in the realm of possibility that we beat everyone but Nets if they build chemistry.

Chemistry doesn't overcome talent, and there are no free agent stars in the next two years that will come to the Knicks. That team is a mid level squad, like the Pacers, it would be good enough to win 44-49 games, and be nothing more than a bump in the road for the top half of the conference in a series.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that for a couple of seasons IF there is a path to improve after a couple of years of it. Like, cap space is free again, team has it's own picks moving forward and maybe even some additional ones.

There are ways to compete, be in the playoffs, and still improve or not be stuck with the same team for next 5 years.

If we're trading for Beal, we're giving him the max, that's like 40% of the cap gone, Randle getting resigned takes us over 60% of the cap used on two non-top 10 players. There are a lot of paths to competing, but trading your assets for Beal, resigning Randle and then hoping on some unknown FA isn't the right way.

My problem is the rush to build these meh teams, in his lineup he still has Bullock, and Beal is playing the 3 Also, we're playing in a conference where the best teams are still fairly young, so you can't even wait them out.

[dakomish23]

Knicks fans need to get away from this mentality

Yeah, it is a giant waste of time. That's when you get the very definition of a treadmill team that people complain about now.

The way we are now is almost perfectly positioned for continued growth and development as a franchise. We would just throw that away if we settle now.

We wouldn’t be settling. We’d be creating a team. Then NY would become an attractive destination. You have to take these steps. Trading for a 25 shooting guard isn’t stunting development or growth.

I think a lot of ppl want our kids developing and leading to the w’s, thus making us a more attractive destination.

Which is kind of happening right now. RJB IQ Mitch Obi showing promise and Randle having an all star caliber year while being still fairly young makes us a lot more attractive than we’ve been in the past

[thebuzzardman]

Chemistry doesn't overcome talent, and there are no free agent stars in the next two years that will come to the Knicks. That team is a mid level squad, like the Pacers, it would be good enough to win 44-49 games, and be nothing more than a bump in the road for the top half of the conference in a series.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that for a couple of seasons IF there is a path to improve after a couple of years of it. Like, cap space is free again, team has it's own picks moving forward and maybe even some additional ones.

There are ways to compete, be in the playoffs, and still improve or not be stuck with the same team for next 5 years.

If we're trading for Beal, we're giving him the max, that's like 40% of the cap gone, Randle getting resigned takes us over 60% of the cap used on two non-top 10 players. There are a lot of paths to competing, but trading your assets for Beal, resigning Randle and then hoping on some unknown FA isn't the right way.

My problem is the rush to build these meh teams, in his lineup he still has Bullock, and Beal is playing the 3 Also, we're playing in a conference where the best teams are still fairly young, so you can't even wait them out.

I wouldn't trade for Beal for the exact reason what he costs now and what he'll cost in picks and even young assets, even though it's the picks that the Wiz will be after.

I MIGHT be interested in LaVine, in an "it depends" kind of way, but I'd say he costs too much in draft capital as well.

I know I've said this before, but feels like the Knicks are a year away from doing moves like this, where they have a good draft (assumption here) and then still have an extra pick (2023) and maybe use some combination from the group of Randle/Knox/RJ/Mitch/Obi to try and make that "upgrade" trade next year. I left out IQ and RJ as fan favorites, but basically I'm listing the players that might interest a team with a good player.

The rub is, Knicks no longer have 2 extra picks, but 1, and a "star" might cost 2, which might mean dealing one of their own. Unless they get another by this deadline and that doesn't feel likely with their roster.

[Richard4444]

Melo was a losing player when we traded for him? I mean, he never missed the playoffs, made the conference finals in 2009 and had a college championship, but sure, other than that...
oh and Beal is not a winning player but IQ is? the wizards would then trade beal for IQ easily, right?

The Melo hate defies any logic. It's visceral, not rational.

And I understand that some may not like his personality or his game. But to distort the facts is a different exercise entirely.

yeah and the we traded too much for melo that I‘ve read so many times is one of the funniest things ever. a good prospect (gallo) decent role players (felton, chandler) filler (mosgov) and picks for a top 10 player in his prime and a good vet (billups). you do that trade 100 times out of a 100. just because we didn‘t make the right moves following to that doesn‘t mean the trade was not good.

Face it. It was a big failure. You cant trade unprotected picks and nice prospects and be ok to be an average team. Especially in the East.

We can argue if our fate was predictable. If a healthy Stat would have made a big difference or a team with only 2 good scorers without a reliable playmaker, a reliable rin protector, other valuable players on the roster, without picks or cap space would go far. (By the way, I think a healthy Stat would not save us from mediocrity).

But the result of the deal was bad. At least, the timing was bad. We got a very average team without perspectives of improving. If we dont have a good roster to pair with him, dont trade for a star.

[Chanel Bomber]

This year we are not beating them. But next season, older Quick and Mitch + another potential star, it's in the realm of possibility that we beat everyone but Nets if they build chemistry.

Chemistry doesn't overcome talent, and there are no free agent stars in the next two years that will come to the Knicks. That team is a mid level squad, like the Pacers, it would be good enough to win 44-49 games, and be nothing more than a bump in the road for the top half of the conference in a series.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that for a couple of seasons IF there is a path to improve after a couple of years of it. Like, cap space is free again, team has it's own picks moving forward and maybe even some additional ones.

There are ways to compete, be in the playoffs, and still improve or not be stuck with the same team for next 5 years.

The Knicks will have to decide if they want to resign Mitch and Randle next year, and then RJ the year after, which will eat up much of our cap space. Or we renounce them or trade them away for cheaper assets, which then probably hurts our ability to win games and stay competitive (the draw for free agents).

We're in cap heaven today but it's not going to last forever. Knicks need to be careful about not hard-capping themselves with a treadmill team the way you defined it earlier.

If Randle makes another leap, RJ becomes a good shooter, or Quickley turns out to be a franchise talent, then there's a clear pathway to contention. If not, then our best hope is signing a 29 year-old Beal or a 27 year-old Lavine as a FA in 2022, assuming they haven't signed their extensions ahead of free agency like the best 2021 free agents already have. This probably means we need to get them via trade.

[Chanel Bomber]

The Melo hate defies any logic. It's visceral, not rational.

And I understand that some may not like his personality or his game. But to distort the facts is a different exercise entirely.

yeah and the we traded too much for melo that I‘ve read so many times is one of the funniest things ever. a good prospect (gallo) decent role players (felton, chandler) filler (mosgov) and picks for a top 10 player in his prime and a good vet (billups). you do that trade 100 times out of a 100. just because we didn‘t make the right moves following to that doesn‘t mean the trade was not good.

Face it. It was a big failure. You cant trade unprotected picks and nice prospects and be ok to be an average team. Especially in the East.

We can argue if our fate was predictable. If a healthy Stat would have made a big difference or a team with only 2 good scorers without a reliable playmaker, a reliable rin protector, other valuable players on the roster, without picks or cap space would go far. (I think a healthy Stat would not save us from mediocrity).

But the deal was bad. At least, the timing was bad. We got a very average team without perspectives of improving. If we dont have a good roster to pair with him, dont trade for a star.

Completely disagree. The Knicks had the assets to build a good team around Melo (and they did, for a time), the issue is that they were too attached to Amar'e when he was clearly the problem.

The Knicks were good only when Amar'e was hurt and couldn't play.

[rajajackal]

i'm annoyed that there isn't a knick game every single night

[K_ick_God]

Can’t imagine anything happening without Quickley going. We’re not getting Beal or LaVine for a Mavs and top defensive team Knicks picks.

[Richard4444]

yeah and the we traded too much for melo that I‘ve read so many times is one of the funniest things ever. a good prospect (gallo) decent role players (felton, chandler) filler (mosgov) and picks for a top 10 player in his prime and a good vet (billups). you do that trade 100 times out of a 100. just because we didn‘t make the right moves following to that doesn‘t mean the trade was not good.

Face it. It was a big failure. You cant trade unprotected picks and nice prospects and be ok to be an average team. Especially in the East.

We can argue if our fate was predictable. If a healthy Stat would have made a big difference or a team with only 2 good scorers without a reliable playmaker, a reliable rin protector, other valuable players on the roster, without picks or cap space would go far. (I think a healthy Stat would not save us from mediocrity).

But the deal was bad. At least, the timing was bad. We got a very average team without perspectives of improving. If we dont have a good roster to pair with him, dont trade for a star.

Completely disagree. The Knicks had the assets to build a good team around Melo (and they did, for a time), the issue is that they were too attached to Amar'e when he was clearly the problem.

The Knicks were good only when Amar'e was hurt and couldn't play.

Our payroll was too attached to Amare (who was untradable). We have no cap space and no high picks to get talent. We had to overpay to get Chandler. Our team was only Melo and Chandler versus everybody.

We episodically got some good players for cheap. But we could not hold them for long. Houston took Lin from us. The food took Felton from us. Father time took Kidd, Wallace and Davis.

[3toheadmelo]

We wouldn’t be settling. We’d be creating a team. Then NY would become an attractive destination. You have to take these steps. Trading for a 25 shooting guard isn’t stunting development or growth.

Put Lavine with Thibs and watch him transform into a winning player like Randle. Lavine just makes too much sense for us

I just don‘t see the trade tho w/o giving up RJ, Mitch or IQ (I think Randle stays as well in this scenario)

I’d add in Obi if it comes to that

[HarthorneWingo]

Yeah, his stats are good but he fails the eye test for me. I don't see him as a winning player.

Guys who put up big numbers on bad teams should be treated as suspects rather than saviors, at least until proven otherwise. You might trade something of value for a suspect but not the amount their statistics would suggest you give up.

For instance, if a guy puts up terrific offensive numbers but doesn't play much defense, his impact on your team winning games is always going to less than hoped.

Knicks have an opportunity to use their upcoming team status as a lure in free agency, certainly over the next 1-2 years. Why give up both cap space and a truckload of futures to bypass that opportunity?

the answer is obvious

when you don't get to see a player play everyday and only watch highlights, you assume the player is good.

here's a fun fact, lavine has never been on a winning team and he's one of the reasons why.

We just got to see him the other game. It's like Lavine + 4 other Bulls. No chemistry.

[louisorr]

This team as it’s presently constructed with 40 more games of internal development. Pick up the option on Randle, let Frank walk and draft 2 extremely promising rookies. I’m cool with that. The rest is honestly just brain crazies

[cgf]

I stand corrected if this is true, but what's your source? I can't find any information on it. My understanding is that the draft order will follow the regular season standings outside of the lottery.

On one of the Lowe Post pods they were talking about it & said that the lottery teams would be the ones who didn't qualify for the playoffs, after the play-in. Which made sense, so I never looked into it any further

Zach Lowe is credible enough, for sure.

It's weird that none of this is clarified in any of the official communications from the NBA.

Yeah. Makes me wonder if the league sent out a memo to teams & media people, that they forgot to ever actually publicize, or if that was something Lowe was had heard from some league official.

[cgf]

On one of the Lowe Post pods they were talking about it & said that the lottery teams would be the ones who didn't qualify for the playoffs, after the play-in. Which made sense, so I never looked into it any further

Zach Lowe is credible enough, for sure.

It's weird that none of this is clarified in any of the official communications from the NBA.

It's seem simple enough that the team that "Played in" but failed is a lottery pick.

I'd look at it this way.
14 teams make the lottery
16 teams don't.

14 teams will still make the lottery. I think the math is the team(s?) that don't make it into the playoffs, as usual.

Yeah, that logic is why I never questioned it. The way I see the play in, the league just added a step to qualifying for the playoffs, they didn't actually change the lottery-/playoff-team ratio.

[Chanel Bomber]

Face it. It was a big failure. You cant trade unprotected picks and nice prospects and be ok to be an average team. Especially in the East.

We can argue if our fate was predictable. If a healthy Stat would have made a big difference or a team with only 2 good scorers without a reliable playmaker, a reliable rin protector, other valuable players on the roster, without picks or cap space would go far. (I think a healthy Stat would not save us from mediocrity).

But the deal was bad. At least, the timing was bad. We got a very average team without perspectives of improving. If we dont have a good roster to pair with him, dont trade for a star.

Completely disagree. The Knicks had the assets to build a good team around Melo (and they did, for a time), the issue is that they were too attached to Amar'e when he was clearly the problem.

The Knicks were good only when Amar'e was hurt and couldn't play.

Our payroll was too attached to Amare (who was untradable). We have no cap space and no high picks to get talent. We had to overpay to get Chandler. Our team was only Melo and Chandler versus everybody.

We episodically got some good players for cheap. But we could not hold them for long. Houston took Lin from us. The food took Felton from us. Father time took Kidd, Wallace and Davis.

The Knicks could've amnestied Amar'e instead of Billups.

The Knicks could've matched the offer for Lin.

We didn't overpay to get Chandler, we just paid a lot of money for a DPOY. That was a reasonable thing to do.

Shumpert and JR were decent contributors, at least for a time. They were rotation players on a championship team. JR, of course, quit on us.

Dolan forced the FO to trade a first round pick for Bargnani.

The Knicks had a trade for Lowry but Dolan vetoed it.

The Knicks had the flexibility to build a contender, just not enough to afford to make too many mistakes. They just made a lot of bad decisions. The first mistake was amnestying Billups instead of Amar'e. That's the original sin that torpedoed the Melo era. The Knicks were mediocre at best, bad at worst whenever Amar'e was playing. That's a fact. Dolan vetoing the Lowry trade just as he was entering his prime was the nail in the coffin.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

I don't think there is anything wrong with that for a couple of seasons IF there is a path to improve after a couple of years of it. Like, cap space is free again, team has it's own picks moving forward and maybe even some additional ones.

There are ways to compete, be in the playoffs, and still improve or not be stuck with the same team for next 5 years.

If we're trading for Beal, we're giving him the max, that's like 40% of the cap gone, Randle getting resigned takes us over 60% of the cap used on two non-top 10 players. There are a lot of paths to competing, but trading your assets for Beal, resigning Randle and then hoping on some unknown FA isn't the right way.

My problem is the rush to build these meh teams, in his lineup he still has Bullock, and Beal is playing the 3 Also, we're playing in a conference where the best teams are still fairly young, so you can't even wait them out.

I wouldn't trade for Beal for the exact reason what he costs now and what he'll cost in picks and even young assets, even though it's the picks that the Wiz will be after.

I MIGHT be interested in LaVine, in an "it depends" kind of way, but I'd say he costs too much in draft capital as well.

I know I've said this before, but feels like the Knicks are a year away from doing moves like this, where they have a good draft (assumption here) and then still have an extra pick (2023) and maybe use some combination from the group of Randle/Knox/RJ/Mitch/Obi to try and make that "upgrade" trade next year. I left out IQ and RJ as fan favorites, but basically I'm listing the players that might interest a team with a good player.

The rub is, Knicks no longer have 2 extra picks, but 1, and a "star" might cost 2, which might mean dealing one of their own. Unless they get another by this deadline and that doesn't feel likely with their roster.

LaVine is fine if he's signed in free agency, anything that requires assets is just foolish, like you pointed out, you have to keep draft capital to get the next star. You don't want a situation like the Bucks had, when Harden listed them as a team he'd play for but they already blew everything they had on getting Holiday.

We'd be building around non top 10 players, so we'd never have a shot at a title.

[newyorker4ever]

You can only rebuild through the draft so long. Rookie deals expire and you have to either pull the trigger and waste cap flexibility on middle of the road guys that you just keep recycling every few years. Thats called treadmilling just like DET, ORL, MIN, WAS, NO who have stayed in that "rebuild" mode for decades. Despite some, maybe all, of those teams drafting all-stars at certain points.

You dont jump from a lottto team to a championship team merely by drafting unless your getting a Lebron or Kobe. You gradually get better like we are doing and attract stars that may want to join a team on the rise making us into a contender. I swear this board would rather lose with Rookies than win period.

Or you can get some luck and hit big on your picks and you can build through the draft and be successful like GSW, Phoenix, Utah, Denver, Boston, Philly and others have done or are doing. You add the vets when you already have a good young core that you've built through the draft like Phoenix did by adding CP3 and some of the others have done. GSW became a championship team by drafting Steph, Klay and Dray.

If the Knicks would of hit with SGA over Knox or D.Mitchell over Frank or if we got a higher pick in some past drafts then we'd be a good team built through the draft right now.

I never said to build through the draft only, i want to build through the draft and keep getting better and then when that right free agent comes available to us and the Knicks are actually a destination that big names are once again looking at you get that player or those players to sign with us and the same with if we can trade for one. We're slowly getting to where we could become an attractive destination again, but we aren't there yet.

You are reaching hard with a lot of "If's". "If's" are irrelevant when they are hypothetical. Yes GS did it for a season before Durant. Those other teams haven't won anything. And as I said rookie deals don't last forever so how do you keep those rooks while maintaining flexibility for FA's??. There is a window between drafting and signing FA's. We have a nice young core already thats going to continue to develop. You make moves that will help that process and further our progress. Counting on "Luck" to build a contender is not smart basketball management.

It's not a lot of "If's" it's a lot of truth. What's it matter how many seasons GSW did it when the fact is they did it and they did it through the draft. A "If" would be that we don't know if they would of won another without KD or not. I would lean towards a yes that they would of. Adding KD just made it an easier path for them.

I never said any of those teams won a championship besides GSW, i was simply saying that those are all good teams that have built through the draft. Only one team wins the championship every year.

We have a few good young players and only a few and to trade for a star or super star level player we'll need a hell of a lot more than a few good young players. You think a super star will want to come play with K.Knox, Frank and whatever other bench type players we have after we trade Randle, RJ, Obi and draft picks to get him here?

We don't have to re-sign every young player we have. Right now we have Mitch, RJ, Obi, IQ and Randle that are really worth keeping and then a bunch of bench pieces that can be replaced easily. Adding two more good young pieces in next years draft will do nothing but help whther that's help our future in winning games or if it's to help with more valuable assets to use in a trade.

[newyorker4ever]

The fact that we're competing now and sailing away from a top 5 pick puts a lot of pressure on:

- RJ or Quickley to become a star as an on-ball player.
- The FO to sign or trade for a legitimate superstar like Kawhi.

Without either happening, and without any chance at acquiring a high-end talent at the top of the draft, the Knicks will be stuck in mediocrity, much like the Orlando Magic or the Indiana Pacers. It sure seems this is the direction we're moving.

The best-case scenario for the Knicks is that they end up with the 9th or 10th best record in the East, win the play-in tournament and make the playoffs as the 8th seed, and still retain their lottery pick and move up in the draft and get a top 4 pick. Wishful thinking, but that would (potentially) turn this franchise around completely.

The Magic spent the last 5 years making bad trades and drafting busts at the top of the draft. Drafting high picks didn't save them. They are more proof that getting high picks wont automatically make you a great team.

Some Disappointing Top10 drafted players by unlucky tanking teams in last decade:

Magic (Gordon, Payton, Mario, Injured Isaac, Bamba) Exception: Oladipo
Kings (Fridette, Thomas Robinson, Ben Mclemore, Nik Stauskas, WCS, Bagley) Exception: Fox
Charlotte (Byombo, MKG, Zeller, Vonleh, Kaminsky) Exception: Kemba
Suns (Len, Bender, Marquese, Josh Jackson). Exception: Ayton and Mikal.
Sixers (Noel, Okafor and Fultz). Exception: Simmons and Embiid.
Cavs (Waiters, Benett, Wiggins). Exception: Irving, Tristan and Sexton. Maybe Garland.
Wolves (Derrick Williams, Dunn, Culver).
Utah (Kanter, Burke, Exum)
Detroit (Knight, Stanley Johnson) Exception: Drumond
Bucks (Jabari, Thon Maker)
Pelicans (Rivers, Hayes). Exception: Zion
Knicks (Frank, Knox) Exception: KP. Maybe RJ

A Top 10 pick does not guarantee talent. Only a few teams like Lakers (Randle, DLo, Ingram, Lonzo), Boston (Smart, Brown, Tatum), Portland (CJ, Lillard), Atlanta (Trae, Hunter and maybe Cam), Memphis (JJJ and Morant), Dallas (Doncic despite DSJr) and Wizards (Beal, maybe Rui, despite Vasey) had a positive retrospective in drafting Top 10 past decade.

We don't need to rush to make a team better. We can delay major trades and can wait for injured players to get 100% before use them. But making the team worse just to pick higher picks can be a bad move.

So having lottery picks are worthless because a lot of them end up as busts....got it. I'll go ahead and take my chances that we hit with a S.Curry or K.Durant or P.Pierce or Dirk or B.Simmons or Zion or Ja or Kyrie or J.Wall or AD or P.Ewing or T.Duncan or...................................................

[prophet_of_rage]

How many more bad games till the “is RJ a bust” thread gets bumped. 1 more? 2? 3?

I'm surprised it hasn't been already

RJ needs to commit himself to th me gym and work on his game everyday like iq does. He needs that work ethic to build his driving strength snd mid range jumper as well as his three point shooting. He should only take three pointer in spots that he favors like iq does. You don’t see iq shooting threes from the right and left corners because he knows his money balls are from the high wing three point line snd close to the top of the key three point line.

Or those are his spots in the offence.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk