Team's potential vs the East

[dakomish23]

OKC is the only team outside of SAS that I could think of that really thrived by purposely building through the draft for their core. They didn't get a title.

Ask CHA how having 7 top 5 picks in 10 years worked out for them. Or SAC with all their top 10 picks.

There's no formula that's guaranteed to get you a ring. We're just going to have to hope that we continually make smart moves using all 3 conduits - draft FA trade - to build a team that could finally end this ring less drought. 43 years and counting.

There is a formula actually. It's: get more good players than the other team + good coaching = win.

Now there's 3 ways to get good players: draft, trade, or free agency. Trading is hard because you have to give up something to get something, and teams are very reluctant to trade good players except for contract years. Free agency is damn near impossible as well. The superstars like Lebron and Durant rarely leave, and if they do, then you only have 1 : 30 chance.

That leaves drafting as the best way to acquire talent. Think about all the greats. Magic, Bird, Jordan, Duncan, Russell, etc. They all won with their original drafting team. Of the top 10, only Shaq and Lebron won their first ring with a team that didn't draft them.

Couldn't disagree more. Living in the draft exclusively has gotten 1 team championships since the MJ Bullls - and it took them drafting the greatest PF of all time, to pair with a top 10 C of all time who was 1 year removed from being MVP.

I was all for adding another lottery pick when our season ended. I wanted to keep cap flexibility to go all in on 2017 & 2018. If we failed, so be it, we get another lottery pick. Didn't happen. Doesn't mean the way we built things now can't achieve high level success.

[blueNorange]

I'm an advocate for getting a top pick in the 2017 draft...a Markelle Fultz to go along with KP would have us set for the next decade. We're clearly not going in that direction tho so it's pointless to think about

there's a higher chance of the knicks having a losing season than a winning season, i'm starting to think people don't know just how undependable noah and moreso rose are.

people also don't know that ennings, who's going to get a lot of playing time is an actual walking talking pile of hot garbage.

The chance of getting a top 3 pick/superstar is not good either even if we went in that direction.

what's your point? this is a terrible justification.

[Sark]

OKC is the only team outside of SAS that I could think of that really thrived by purposely building through the draft for their core. They didn't get a title.

Ask CHA how having 7 top 5 picks in 10 years worked out for them. Or SAC with all their top 10 picks.

There's no formula that's guaranteed to get you a ring. We're just going to have to hope that we continually make smart moves using all 3 conduits - draft FA trade - to build a team that could finally end this ring less drought. 43 years and counting.

There is a formula actually. It's: get more good players than the other team + good coaching = win.

Now there's 3 ways to get good players: draft, trade, or free agency. Trading is hard because you have to give up something to get something, and teams are very reluctant to trade good players except for contract years. Free agency is damn near impossible as well. The superstars like Lebron and Durant rarely leave, and if they do, then you only have 1 : 30 chance.

That leaves drafting as the best way to acquire talent. Think about all the greats. Magic, Bird, Jordan, Duncan, Russell, etc. They all won with their original drafting team. Of the top 10, only Shaq and Lebron won their first ring with a team that didn't draft them.

Couldn't disagree more. Living in the draft exclusively has gotten 1 team championships since the MJ Bullls - and it took them drafting the greatest PF of all time, to pair with a top 10 C of all time who was 1 year removed from being MVP.

I was all for adding another lottery pick when our season ended. I wanted to keep cap flexibility to go all in on 2017 & 2018. If we failed, so be it, we get another lottery pick. Didn't happen. Doesn't mean the way we built things now can't achieve high level success.

Just about every Finals MVP in that period was drafted by the original team, except Shaq in LA, and Lebron in Miami, and I already said they are the exception to the rule. Duncan, Wade, Pierce, Kobe (traded on draft day), Dirk (traded on draft day too), Parker, Kawhi.

Only Shaq, Lebron, Billups, Iggy (weird scenario - Curry was best player) were the free agents to win FMVP with a team that didn't draft them.

[Deeeez Knicks]

there's a higher chance of the knicks having a losing season than a winning season, i'm starting to think people don't know just how undependable noah and moreso rose are.

people also don't know that ennings, who's going to get a lot of playing time is an actual walking talking pile of hot garbage.

The chance of getting a top 3 pick/superstar is not good either even if we went in that direction.

what's your point? this is a terrible justification.

Point is it is pointless to complain about tanking.

[Jeff Van Gully]

Just an outsider's perspective, if we're talking strictly about this season, I think Rose/Noah are much bigger keys than Porzingis. Even in a worst case scenario (excluding injury), you know Porzingis will probably be pretty good. The floors for Rose and Noah are much lower. Rose hasn't really been good or even average since 2012, and if Noah plays like he did last year, he's probably a decent downgrade from RoLo.

I think it's at least possible Noah gets back to the way he played two years ago, in which case you guys are probably a low-seeded playoff team. With Rose, I think the days of him being even a borderline all-star are gone, but if he can simply be productive, that, combined with the Noah of two years ago and some progress from KP could make you guys a 4 or 5 seed.

In all likelihood though, you guys should be more focused on the development of Porzingis than anything else. Rose, Noah, and Melo will probably all be gone before the Knicks are a title contender again, but if Porzingis turns into a franchise cornerstone like he could, it'll all be worth it for you guys.

I'm not a Knicks fan, but I do live in New York, so I get to see pretty much all of your games; it should be a really interesting year for you guys, certainly better than the last few years.

thanks for the post.

my thoughts on this are that winning now and developing KP are not mutually exclusive. it's better that he be a starter and top contributor to a team that is trying to win. learning good habits from good veteran pros. and maybe even sniffing the playoffs, even if at a low seed.

some talk about "developing" KP like he is going to improve by being on a laughing stock lottery pick collector. those children grow up in the dark... like bane.

Look at Cousins

he is EXACTLY who i had in mind. i stopped short of writing "demarcus cousins is the bane of the NBA." could he thrive surrounded by high-character vets? maybe. but it's a shame that he is a vet today and no one would trust him to lead a group of young men because he hasn't been raised himself.

[Sark]

Demarcus Cousins was a known head case coming out of college. Losing in Sacramento is not the reason for him being a head case. He would be a head case on any team in the league. That's the reason he fell in the draft. Everyone knew he was a head case and didn't want to take a chance on him. Sacramento constantly loses because he is a head case.

[Jeff Van Gully]

greenie... people really act like phil has been president for the whole post-ewing era. no one wants to let that boy cook.

we razed the foundation LAST offseason. and for what that suicide squad was, it was .500 for a minute before the bottom fell out.

we didn't have a pick, but have come into this season with clean books. we still have pretty clean books going into next offseason... and we have NBA starters. a star for now. a star for the future. dog mentality on deck. all our picks (and some extras). we're on our way.

but some will always find a way to complain because we didn't win the championship. but few people have rational thoughts on how to get there.

i can understand the appeal of tank squad, but i have yet to see a situation where perpetual losing begets winning. the spurs took one season off and got luckier than life. bottom feeders end up high lottery every year and make no traction, just end up in a vicious cycle of losing and showing a losing culture to young talent.

this season looks like a real shot to make an upward trajectory.

Oklahoma.

Minnesota is about to turn that corner too.

That's one team.

Do you know how long Minnesota has been rebuilding? Almost 10 years. They have been the fuqing pits since they traded Garnett to the Celtics in 2008. I'm not here for that at all.

sark, good call on seattle/OKC... except, KD and russ and harden didn't raise that group. they had some vet leadership in time to turn the corner. you want guys like malik rose, etan thomas, kevin ollie, nazr mohammed on that bench to show them how to be pros. minnesota brought in KG. philly has never had anyone.

it's not just about sucking. it's about getting extremely lucky in the lottery multiple times, and then shaping that team into something. OKC is a very rare and lucky example, but even it didn't do it with young talent alone.

[Jeff Van Gully]

Demarcus Cousins was a known head case coming out of college. Losing in Sacramento is not the reason for him being a head case. He would be a head case on any team in the league. That's the reason he fell in the draft. Everyone knew he was a head case and didn't want to take a chance on him. Sacramento constantly loses because he is a head case.

i'm with you save for the last sentence. sometimes kids come in as... kids. when there is no veteran leadership, there's no shot at development. cousins was always nasty and obnoxious, but he never had a chance to learn different.

everyone grows up. cuz is still a man-child. he's lucky he's so talented that he did not wash out of the league, which is what usually happens.

[Jeff Van Gully]

Also, for all the praise you wish to give Minny who's in their full starting lineup? Who's the starting PF? Who's the second starting wing player? Are they moving on from Rubio for Dunn? ...and how will Dunn turn out?

They have plenty of holes as well.

nah, minnesota is on their way. i don't like their guard situation, but wiggins/dieng/KAT is something you can roll with. rubio, lavine... that does not inspire confidence. dunn maybe can be a difference maker. i like him as the future PG.

[Sark]

Demarcus Cousins was a known head case coming out of college. Losing in Sacramento is not the reason for him being a head case. He would be a head case on any team in the league. That's the reason he fell in the draft. Everyone knew he was a head case and didn't want to take a chance on him. Sacramento constantly loses because he is a head case.

i'm with you save for the last sentence. sometimes kids come in as... kids. when there is no veteran leadership, there's no shot at development. cousins was always nasty and obnoxious, but he never had a chance to learn different.

everyone grows up. cuz is still a man-child. he's lucky he's so talented that he did not wash out of the league, which is what usually happens.

He's a Dennis Rodman level head case. He would need Michael Jordan level leadership to keep him straight. And you saw what happened to Rodman when he first lost Isiah. Then he went to SA, and even D Robinson couldn't control him. Only Jordan could keep his head straight. Cousins is the same way. He will be a child in perpetuity till he plays with someone like Lebron.

[Jeff Van Gully]

Oklahoma.

Minnesota is about to turn that corner too.

That's one team.

Do you know how long Minnesota has been rebuilding? Almost 10 years. They have been the fuqing pits since they traded Garnett to the Celtics in 2008. I'm not here for that at all.

You guys against the tank constantly build a straw man. No one is advocating for a perpetual tank. The idea is to tank for 1 season, because the upcoming draft is so goddamn good, and we have virtually 0 chance to win it all.

A 1 time tank would be far more beneficial for the organization in the long run than another first round loss on Melo's resume.

i see the potential benefit of sucking now. but there's no guarantee you get the right pick or the right guy. it should never be a goal.

we think drafts are deep before the college season. people thought skal labissiere was going to be the #1 or #2 overall. we never know anything until it plays out.

if we landed a duncan, awesome. but let's not forget where duncan landed. not to say he wouldn't have been a cornerstone player elsewhere, but that was a damn good team that caught a bad break.

are you suggesting the knicks could catch a bad break and benefit from the pick and get right back in it? it's possible. it's also possible you draft a bad basketball player in the high lottery.

orlando got two transcendent talents, but also had some nice vets and underrated coaching. getting a shaq and flipping a webber into a penny is so rare. but even then, they were ready with the right infrastructure. you throw talent into chaos and you still have problems.

you make a very good point that free agency is just as much a crap shoot when it comes to the transcendent talent. but at least you can make a case for your squad when you've established a direction. it soooo much easier for nothing to go right for you when you lay down and die hoping for a miracle.

[Jeff Van Gully]

but i have yet to see a situation where perpetual losing begets winning.

lmaoooooooo

knicks have been perpetual losing for over 15 years now except they've never kept their picks because they would trade it for losers like marbury, curry, and melo and then constantly trade draft picks to appease losers like marbury, curry, and melo.

that is another example of perpetual losing not begetting winning.

when does perpetual losing beget winning?

[dakomish23]

There is a formula actually. It's: get more good players than the other team + good coaching = win.

Now there's 3 ways to get good players: draft, trade, or free agency. Trading is hard because you have to give up something to get something, and teams are very reluctant to trade good players except for contract years. Free agency is damn near impossible as well. The superstars like Lebron and Durant rarely leave, and if they do, then you only have 1 : 30 chance.

That leaves drafting as the best way to acquire talent. Think about all the greats. Magic, Bird, Jordan, Duncan, Russell, etc. They all won with their original drafting team. Of the top 10, only Shaq and Lebron won their first ring with a team that didn't draft them.

Couldn't disagree more. Living in the draft exclusively has gotten 1 team championships since the MJ Bullls - and it took them drafting the greatest PF of all time, to pair with a top 10 C of all time who was 1 year removed from being MVP.

I was all for adding another lottery pick when our season ended. I wanted to keep cap flexibility to go all in on 2017 & 2018. If we failed, so be it, we get another lottery pick. Didn't happen. Doesn't mean the way we built things now can't achieve high level success.

Just about every Finals MVP in that period was drafted by the original team, except Shaq in LA, and Lebron in Miami, and I already said they are the exception to the rule. Duncan, Wade, Pierce, Kobe (traded on draft day), Dirk (traded on draft day too), Parker, Kawhi.

Only Shaq, Lebron, Billups, Iggy (weird scenario - Curry was best player) were the free agents to win FMVP with a team that didn't draft them.

That's 7 MVPs out of 17 or 41%. That's a significant portion of the MVPs to non drafted players.

Just because they didn't win the MVP, doesn't mean guys like Shaq in 06, Garnett and Allen in 08, Bosh in 12&13, weren't cornerstones of championship teams that wouldn't of won it without them.

We can argue this all day. I say use every method possible. I don't believe in building your foundation one way

[HEZI]

There is a formula actually. It's: get more good players than the other team + good coaching = win.

Now there's 3 ways to get good players: draft, trade, or free agency. Trading is hard because you have to give up something to get something, and teams are very reluctant to trade good players except for contract years. Free agency is damn near impossible as well. The superstars like Lebron and Durant rarely leave, and if they do, then you only have 1 : 30 chance.

That leaves drafting as the best way to acquire talent. Think about all the greats. Magic, Bird, Jordan, Duncan, Russell, etc. They all won with their original drafting team. Of the top 10, only Shaq and Lebron won their first ring with a team that didn't draft them.

Couldn't disagree more. Living in the draft exclusively has gotten 1 team championships since the MJ Bullls - and it took them drafting the greatest PF of all time, to pair with a top 10 C of all time who was 1 year removed from being MVP.

I was all for adding another lottery pick when our season ended. I wanted to keep cap flexibility to go all in on 2017 & 2018. If we failed, so be it, we get another lottery pick. Didn't happen. Doesn't mean the way we built things now can't achieve high level success.

Just about every Finals MVP in that period was drafted by the original team, except Shaq in LA, and Lebron in Miami, and I already said they are the exception to the rule. Duncan, Wade, Pierce, Kobe (traded on draft day), Dirk (traded on draft day too), Parker, Kawhi.

Only Shaq, Lebron, Billups, Iggy (weird scenario - Curry was best player) were the free agents to win FMVP with a team that didn't draft them.

So is Porzingis not qualified to win a Finals MVP if the Knicks win a championship?

How many of those teams had a supporting cast where the 2nd or 3rd best player was also drafted by the same team? Let's see, you got GSW, San Antonio Spurs,......well I guess that's it.

[GONYK]

People seem to be glossing over that there is a difference between losing and tanking.

Losing is just losing games. Tanking is purposefully setting up your personnel to lose as many games as possible.

I don't think anyone would be mad if the Knicks lost games for whatever reason and the consolation prize was a high draft pick in a reasonably talented looking draft class.

I think people should be rightfully mad if the organization set itself to tanking simply to pin their hopes on 19 yr olds every year. That has proven to be destructive more often than not.

[cool007]

Disclaimer: Bulls fan chiming in.

I would be shocked if Knicks are not in the top 4-5 in the East at least if they are fairly "healthy" for most of the season. I really think Rose is going to have a HUGE year. Last year he was good and got better every month but he was still trying to not get hurt and get by as many games as he could - he was saving it for this year (final year of the contract).

I see multiple reasons why he would have a great year - 1) Contract year, 2) No more Chicago hometown distraction (after 2012-13 season, you could only hear Negatives mostly from all chicago media/fans), 3) Motivation to show Chicago front office that they made a huge mistake by letting him go.

Noah - he played bad for a last 2 years mainly coz he was playing out of position. After getting Gasol, Bulls put him in the PF position and so many times, Noah had to cover for not only his own man but also Gasol's and we all know that there is no other center in the NBA worse than Gasol at defending. Also, freak injuries also never gave any rhythm to Noah. His energy feeds off not only himself but also all other players and the fans in the stadium. He will be also HUGE for Knicks this year.

I really think Knicks players in Melo/KP will fit in so well with Rose and Noah so I don't even see any chemistry issues there. Yes, it might take a month for them to figure out what's best for everyone but once they do, I don't see them looking back.

Anyway, I really think Knicks will be damn good and fun to watch this year and if I have to put my money, I would put them as top 4 in the East.

Good Luck Knicks fans. I will surely be watching many Knicks games this year for sure and rooting for your team right after Bulls.

[Sark]

People seem to be glossing over that there is a difference between losing and tanking.

Losing is just losing games. Tanking is purposefully setting up your personnel to lose as many games as possible.

I don't think anyone would be mad if the Knicks lost games for whatever reason and the consolation prize was a high draft pick in a reasonably talented looking draft class.

I think people should be rightfully mad if the organization set itself to tanking simply to pin their hopes on 19 yr olds every year. That has proven to be destructive more often than not.

Straw man again. No one wants to do it every year. Just 1 time in a loaded draft so that we can set ourselves up for a decade.

[GONYK]

People seem to be glossing over that there is a difference between losing and tanking.

Losing is just losing games. Tanking is purposefully setting up your personnel to lose as many games as possible.

I don't think anyone would be mad if the Knicks lost games for whatever reason and the consolation prize was a high draft pick in a reasonably talented looking draft class.

I think people should be rightfully mad if the organization set itself to tanking simply to pin their hopes on 19 yr olds every year. That has proven to be destructive more often than not.

Straw man again. No one wants to do it every year. Just 1 time in a loaded draft so that we can set ourselves up for a decade.

How do you tank for 1 year? You wipe the roster clean of talent, draft one 19-21 year old, and then immediately resume winning?

Follow up question, how are the Knicks supposed to do that now?

[dakomish23]

People seem to be glossing over that there is a difference between losing and tanking.

Losing is just losing games. Tanking is purposefully setting up your personnel to lose as many games as possible.

I don't think anyone would be mad if the Knicks lost games for whatever reason and the consolation prize was a high draft pick in a reasonably talented looking draft class.

I think people should be rightfully mad if the organization set itself to tanking simply to pin their hopes on 19 yr olds every year. That has proven to be destructive more often than not.

Straw man again. No one wants to do it every year. Just 1 time in a loaded draft so that we can set ourselves up for a decade.

the thing you keep ignoring is that once you start down the path of rebuilding that way, you could be on it for more a long time.

[Sark]

People seem to be glossing over that there is a difference between losing and tanking.

Losing is just losing games. Tanking is purposefully setting up your personnel to lose as many games as possible.

I don't think anyone would be mad if the Knicks lost games for whatever reason and the consolation prize was a high draft pick in a reasonably talented looking draft class.

I think people should be rightfully mad if the organization set itself to tanking simply to pin their hopes on 19 yr olds every year. That has proven to be destructive more often than not.

Straw man again. No one wants to do it every year. Just 1 time in a loaded draft so that we can set ourselves up for a decade.

How do you tank for 1 year? You wipe the roster clean of talent, draft one 19-21 year old, and then immediately resume winning?

Follow up question, how are the Knicks supposed to do that now?

That's exactly what you do