Moderators: Deeeez Knicks, dakomish23, mpharris36, j4remi, NoLayupRule, GONYK, Jeff Van Gully, HerSports85
johnnywishbone wrote:Fury wrote:Wait, did someone say Novak could be a valuable 2nd option? Steve Novak? That dude that played for us last year?
45% from 3 over the past two seasons that's better than Bargs from 2 for his career. And I believe he rebounds at a higher rate.
The Golden State Warriors made a legitimate impression on Dwight Howard during their meeting and have become a factor in his decision.
The Los Angeles Lakers would have to agree to a sign-and-trade for Howard to be acquired by the Warriors.
The most likely scenario would be for the Warriors to send the expiring contract of Andrew Bogut and either Klay Thompson or Harrison Barnes to the Lakers for Howard.
johnnywishbone wrote:Fury wrote:
Novak doesn't have a higher rebounding rate. But the reason Novak has a better shooting percentage is because he only takes open shots. There's a difference between a number 2/3 option and a guy who comes off the bench to ONLY shoot 3s.
On a team that has a guard who can break down defenses and find open players that is a valuable commodity.
GONYK wrote:johnnywishbone wrote:Fury wrote:Wait, did someone say Novak could be a valuable 2nd option? Steve Novak? That dude that played for us last year?
45% from 3 over the past two seasons that's better than Bargs from 2 for his career. And I believe he rebounds at a higher rate.
Neither of those 2 statements are accurate
You really do need a vacation if you're making the case that Steve Novak can be a 2nd option in the NBA
Rasho Brezec wrote:The Golden State Warriors made a legitimate impression on Dwight Howard during their meeting and have become a factor in his decision.
The Los Angeles Lakers would have to agree to a sign-and-trade for Howard to be acquired by the Warriors.
The most likely scenario would be for the Warriors to send the expiring contract of Andrew Bogut and either Klay Thompson or Harrison Barnes to the Lakers for Howard.
If this actually happens, we need to make it a 3-way trade and swap Bargnani for Lee. They'll want to space the floor for Dwight and he can cover for him on the boards. I bet we could even get a draft pick out of it.
Rasho Brezec wrote:The Golden State Warriors made a legitimate impression on Dwight Howard during their meeting and have become a factor in his decision.
The Los Angeles Lakers would have to agree to a sign-and-trade for Howard to be acquired by the Warriors.
The most likely scenario would be for the Warriors to send the expiring contract of Andrew Bogut and either Klay Thompson or Harrison Barnes to the Lakers for Howard.
If this actually happens, we need to make it a 3-way trade and swap Bargnani for Lee. They'll want to space the floor for Dwight and he can cover for him on the boards. I bet we could even get a draft pick out of it.
vallen wrote:johnnywishbone wrote:Fury wrote:
Novak doesn't have a higher rebounding rate. But the reason Novak has a better shooting percentage is because he only takes open shots. There's a difference between a number 2/3 option and a guy who comes off the bench to ONLY shoot 3s.
On a team that has a guard who can break down defenses and find open players that is a valuable commodity.
but first you need to open up the floor, and after that the shooter becomes valuable. if not he becomes invisible. which is where he was most of the season.
tdouglas23 wrote:Rasho Brezec wrote:The Golden State Warriors made a legitimate impression on Dwight Howard during their meeting and have become a factor in his decision.
The Los Angeles Lakers would have to agree to a sign-and-trade for Howard to be acquired by the Warriors.
The most likely scenario would be for the Warriors to send the expiring contract of Andrew Bogut and either Klay Thompson or Harrison Barnes to the Lakers for Howard.
If this actually happens, we need to make it a 3-way trade and swap Bargnani for Lee. They'll want to space the floor for Dwight and he can cover for him on the boards. I bet we could even get a draft pick out of it.
Why would we take Lee contract on it makes no sense.
BOOMbip wrote:I'm off in my own little world doing whatever it is a BOOMbip does to keep himself a happy bipper and decide to check in on the forum to see what trade/FA news is brewing for the Knicks... low and behold I stumble upon a nearly 300 page thread about a trade for .... gasp... Barg! W!T!F! ....and with 1st rounders traded away... *grumble*
I aint got time for all this thread someone just give me the facts....
JustaKnickFan wrote:For some teams, the draft is a crapshoot. However, for other teams (Spurs come to mind as first, but GSW and Rockets are good drafting as well) it is a way to find young talent that can produce. I just looked back on the 2008 2nd round draft, and 6 of the 30 drafted in the 2nd round are solid-good starters in the league. That's 20% and that rate is only going up with all of the international talent being recognized now.
When I said competing with other teams I meant for undrafted guys. What if another team signs the undrafted guy you wanted first(Idk how this process works, just assuming)?
Bargs motivated? How much motivation does he need. He went through the worst stretch in his career, yet his team continues to start him, until he became injured. Hell, even when he got back from injury, the team still started him. How is that not motivation?
Bargs was so bad, and FO wanted him to start so badly, that one time the coach of the Raptors said he played Bargs in order to matchup with Luke Walton for rebounding. Think about that for a second.
Anyway, you guys are underrating draft picks. The chance to get a solid starter, for a bench player price is so crucial for building a team, especially in the new CBA. To compete, you need young guys that can be like that, and that is why I dislike how the Knicks threw in draft picks like that. And for the player they got? I think I already made my stance on him clear
GONYK wrote:Deeeez Knicks wrote:GONYK wrote:
We would have wasted the same season if we kept those players and picks.
We know what those guys provide...nothing. In Novak's case, it was worse than nothing. It was a loss.
At least now we have a chance of improvement. We definitely got more talented.
Is it enough by itself? No. Not even close. But that package wasn't going to provide significant improvement either on the court or through trade.
Everyone is downplaying what we gave up. But an expiring (Camby), picks and cash can be valuable.
Nobody really knows who will become available, but players always become available. That was our trade chips for the season and we gave it all up on the first day of free agency for someone who I dont think is built for the playoffs.
Then at the deadline when a team steals a player or a pick or something, and everyone complains that we never make those deals and wonders why....its because we give up these "meaningless" assets like expirings, picks and cash the first chance we get. That happens every year.
How is just lying in wait with a team that we know is not good enough not wasting a season? Especially when we are doing so in the hopes somebody wants a package that weak?
I mean really, those players couldn't even net us a 2nd rounder in the draft 4 days before.
Rasho Brezec wrote:tdouglas23 wrote:Rasho Brezec wrote:
If this actually happens, we need to make it a 3-way trade and swap Bargnani for Lee. They'll want to space the floor for Dwight and he can cover for him on the boards. I bet we could even get a draft pick out of it.
Why would we take Lee contract on it makes no sense.
Because he fills more holes than Bargnani makes.
GONYK wrote:JustaKnickFan wrote:Anotha Knicks fan wrote:
There are (30) 2nd round draft picks in any given year. Of the thirty that are chosen every year, a small portion seldom make it past the 2nd/3rd year. Of that group, an even smaller group make an impact. The Manus, Gilbert Arenas, Marc Gasol and such are the exception and not the rule. While 2nd rounders shouldn't be frivolously discarded as nothing, they aren't something to cry over if they are used as trade fodder to 1) possibly improve the team, and 2) to reduce cap for a goal.
IMO the hope anyone can have for a second rounder to come in and produce is trumped by the hope that Bargnani can provide, based on what he showed in during the first portion of his career. The injuries he had aren't as debilitating as Amare's nor Shumpert's and he is still relatively young. Add onto that the motivation he lacked while playing in T-Dot, and we may have someone of a decent caliber.
I can understand the precautionary hate he is getting based on his production the last couple of years, and what he does not do... but I at least have optimism on what can provide.
The thing is, it's easier to find this talent in the 2nd round than as undrafted. Yeah Knicks can still find undrafted talent, but it's much better to have second rounders so you have priority over the remaining talent, and can sign these guys without competing with 29 other teams.
I personally feel like the amount of picks given up is not worth the player in return.
Bargs is 27, has an awful work ethic, and is lazy. Idk about you, but I don't feel like this is the guy the Knicks should be going after. He's one of the worst 1st round picks in league history, and is the worst rebounding 7fter in league history.
I'd take what the Raptors got over what we got 10 times out of 10. I've watched quite a few Raptors games, and have seen how bad he was last year. Maybe I'm wrong (I hope), but I seriously doubt it. I'd rather have 3 motivated young guys on this team, than 1 lazy, 7fter who can't even rebound.
He's still more productive than 90% of all picks taken after the 25 pick, and he has had a longer career than most picks taken after that range. He is also way more productive than Novak and Camby could ever hope to be for us.
Your hyperbole is not allowing for objectivity
Deeeez Knicks wrote:
I’d rather be lying in wait with that expiring, picks and cash ready just in case. I think that gave us more flexibility and if we stayed patient we could have eventually gotten better pieces or better assets. Something always comes up around the deadline. I’m not a believer in what we are building here either with the style of team so that is a big part of it.
But have to agree with johnnywishbone once again....I hope it works out and I eat crow on this
JustaKnickFan wrote:At least Novak was very reliable from 3.
JustaKnickFan wrote:GONYK wrote:He's still more productive than 90% of all picks taken after the 25 pick, and he has had a longer career than most picks taken after that range. He is also way more productive than Novak and Camby could ever hope to be for us.
Your hyperbole is not allowing for objectivity
The 2006 draft was an awful draft, one of the worst. So it's not that much of an accomplishment to be around that long.
Anyway, in 2009 members of the FO wanted to get rid of Bargs, yet the GM, Colangelo didn't want to just yet.
Yeah he may be more productive than Novak (their PERs are incredibly close) which may even be a stretch at this point, but I seriously doubt he'll be more productive than one of the picks the Knicks gave up.
At this point, Bargs is a negative on the floor, along with Novak. He cannot rebound(worst rebounding 7fter in history), he cannot defend(starter of one of the worst defenses of all time), and he is losing his shooting abilities(40% fg 31% 3pt). At least Novak was very reliable from 3.
GONYK wrote:Deeeez Knicks wrote:
I’d rather be lying in wait with that expiring, picks and cash ready just in case. I think that gave us more flexibility and if we stayed patient we could have eventually gotten better pieces or better assets. Something always comes up around the deadline. I’m not a believer in what we are building here either with the style of team so that is a big part of it.
But have to agree with johnnywishbone once again....I hope it works out and I eat crow on this
We probably would have gotten Bargnani at the deadline
I mean really guys, this package couldn't get us picks in a draft where teams were done drafting seriously after 11 picks. It couldn't even get us a 2nd rounder.
What superstar was it supposed to deliver in February. What PF that defends, rebounds, and hits the 3 was going to be available? How many players like that even exist?
JustaKnickFan wrote:The 2006 draft was an awful draft, one of the worst. So it's not that much of an accomplishment to be around that long.
Anyway, in 2009 members of the FO wanted to get rid of Bargs, yet the GM, Colangelo didn't want to just yet.
Yeah he may be more productive than Novak (their PERs are incredibly close) which may even be a stretch at this point, but I seriously doubt he'll be more productive than one of the picks the Knicks gave up.
At this point, Bargs is a negative on the floor, along with Novak. He cannot rebound(worst rebounding 7fter in history), he cannot defend(starter of one of the worst defenses of all time), and he is losing his shooting abilities(40% fg 31% 3pt).
At least Novak was very reliable from 3.
GONYK wrote:JustaKnickFan wrote:For some teams, the draft is a crapshoot. However, for other teams (Spurs come to mind as first, but GSW and Rockets are good drafting as well) it is a way to find young talent that can produce. I just looked back on the 2008 2nd round draft, and 6 of the 30 drafted in the 2nd round are solid-good starters in the league. That's 20% and that rate is only going up with all of the international talent being recognized now.
When I said competing with other teams I meant for undrafted guys. What if another team signs the undrafted guy you wanted first(Idk how this process works, just assuming)?
Bargs motivated? How much motivation does he need. He went through the worst stretch in his career, yet his team continues to start him, until he became injured. Hell, even when he got back from injury, the team still started him. How is that not motivation?
Bargs was so bad, and FO wanted him to start so badly, that one time the coach of the Raptors said he played Bargs in order to matchup with Luke Walton for rebounding. Think about that for a second.
Anyway, you guys are underrating draft picks. The chance to get a solid starter, for a bench player price is so crucial for building a team, especially in the new CBA. To compete, you need young guys that can be like that, and that is why I dislike how the Knicks threw in draft picks like that. And for the player they got? I think I already made my stance on him clear
So you want us to mourn the loss of a pick that has an 80% chance of being useless?
