2015 Scenarios (what the hell, it's July?)

[TKF]

Jerome James, Marbury, Francis, Rose. Thomas.

I think only Crawford and Curry truly qualify for the distinction you're trying to make.

zach randolph was only 25 when acquired, jared jeffries... both lottery pick players, still pretty darn young at the time.. Q richardson was only 25 and coming off a good season with the suns... again, much different than what we are doing now...

Bargnani is 27.

great you named one, I gave you 3 in addition to the two you mentioned.... and we traded a 26 year old player to get him.. Bargnani has been a bust, really no value except to the knicks of course.... this is my point, we exactly... we either obtain what no one else wanted, or could afford and we pay dearly, either with younger players, and/ or picks... as I said, isiah didn't do a great job here at all, but at least he infused this team with young players. I understood exactly what he was trying to do, his execution was not good... right now, I have no idea what the hell the knicks are doing, what they have plans on doing... honestly, and I don't think the knicks have a plan, except to keep pushing the fools gold we call carmelo and sticking lipstick on this pig we call the knicks.. as long as the ticket sales keep rolling in... the lip stick wearing pig and the barrels of fools gold will be the order of the day..

[GONYK]

zach randolph was only 25 when acquired, jared jeffries... both lottery pick players, still pretty darn young at the time.. Q richardson was only 25 and coming off a good season with the suns... again, much different than what we are doing now...

Bargnani is 27.

great you named one, I gave you 3 in addition to the two you mentioned.... and we traded a 26 year old player to get him.. Bargnani has been a bust, really no value except to the knicks of course.... this is my point, we exactly... we either obtain what no one else wanted, or could afford and we pay dearly, either with younger players, and/ or picks... as I said, isiah didn't do a great job here at all, but at least he infused this team with young players. I understood exactly what he was trying to do, his execution was not good... right now, I have no idea what the hell the knicks are doing, what they have plans on doing... honestly, and I don't think the knicks have a plan, except to keep pushing the fools gold we call carmelo and sticking lipstick on this pig we call the knicks.. as long as the ticket sales keep rolling in... the lip stick wearing pig and the barrels of fools gold will be the order of the day..

For who?

[ORANGEandBLUE]

Huh?

You wanted the Knicks to amnesty Stat in 2011, after emerging as the team's leader, finishing in the Top 10 in the MVP voting, so he could go play for another team on the Knicks $100m dime for 4 more years?

C'mon fellas.

Pretty much. Let's also mention that he was still recovering from a non-contact injury that had occurred roughly six months prior, and that everybody on the planet other than homer knicks fans knew that he was damaged goods.

[TKF]

Bargnani is 27.

great you named one, I gave you 3 in addition to the two you mentioned.... and we traded a 26 year old player to get him.. Bargnani has been a bust, really no value except to the knicks of course.... this is my point, we exactly... we either obtain what no one else wanted, or could afford and we pay dearly, either with younger players, and/ or picks... as I said, isiah didn't do a great job here at all, but at least he infused this team with young players. I understood exactly what he was trying to do, his execution was not good... right now, I have no idea what the hell the knicks are doing, what they have plans on doing... honestly, and I don't think the knicks have a plan, except to keep pushing the fools gold we call carmelo and sticking lipstick on this pig we call the knicks.. as long as the ticket sales keep rolling in... the lip stick wearing pig and the barrels of fools gold will be the order of the day..

For who?

my bad, novak is 30....

[seren]

Kerr was openly talking about why they only offered him three year guaranteed and it had nothing to do with Amare the player. There was a reason the contract was uninsurable.

That's a reason not to sign him. Not a reason not hold the amnesty. And I'm sorry, I know I'll get brush-back on that but again, I think you guys are doing selective math. There was never a chance the Knicks were going to hold their exceptions in their pockets for 2 years, and sit on making trades using the new 150% trade rule. It was always probable this team, like almost ALL the other teams realistically competing in the postseason, were going to find themselves WAY over the cap in short order.

At this stage, amnestying Stat wouldn't even produce ANY cap space.

So when you argue the Knicks should have held onto the amnesty, you're arguing TWO things. You're arguing they should have held onto the amnesty AND stayed close enough to the cap in subsequent year whereas using it would actually create usable cap space.

Amnesty is a tax provision. That the Knicks were going to hover around a cap figure JUST in case when they had just acquired Melo is again, a valid fan fantasy but utterly disconnected to any realistic expectation.

I think they shouldn't have signed him given injury concerns. That is not the point, however. At the time we signed him or traded for Melo, there was not an amnesty provision.

I don't think I am arguing for any kind of selective math. Heck, I am not even arguing that we had to hold onto a max spot forever.

Every of our moves since then are dictated by the amnesty decision. We lost our starting PG who was on a massive expiring contract. Now you can say that he got injured anyways, but that would be indeed hindsight. We lost a second round pick. We lost another active body in Turiaf who would be an expiring as well. That winter (due to lockout), we only had the 2.5 million exception instead of a mid-level plus a bi-annual exception. Five days after the move CP3 took himself out of the market for the following year accepting to pick up his player option to go to Clippers.

[seren]

Huh?

You wanted the Knicks to amnesty Stat in 2011, after emerging as the team's leader, finishing in the Top 10 in the MVP voting, so he could go play for another team on the Knicks $100m dime for 4 more years?

C'mon fellas.

Pretty much. Let's also mention that he was still recovering from a non-contact injury that had occurred roughly six months prior, and that everybody on the planet other than homer knicks fans knew that he was damaged goods.

Realistically, there was no way for that to happen.

[ORANGEandBLUE]

[

Realistically, there was no way for that to happen.

I understand. I'm just saying that from a pure bball standpoint, it was not only sensible, but a flat-out no-brainer. And hindsight is overwhelmingly on my side.

[cgmw]

Huh?

You wanted the Knicks to amnesty Stat in 2011, after emerging as the team's leader, finishing in the Top 10 in the MVP voting, so he could go play for another team on the Knicks $100m dime for 4 more years?

C'mon fellas.

Pretty much. Let's also mention that he was still recovering from a non-contact injury that had occurred roughly six months prior, and that everybody on the planet other than homer knicks fans knew that he was damaged goods.

Who said anything about actually exercising amnesty on Amare in 2011???

The cautious approach would have been to play the year out with Billups and Amare, see how his health/chemistry panned out, and retain the amnesty for use on a future deal.

The fact that Grunny ignored the red flags, ditched Billups in his final year, and jumped on Tyson indicates more about Knicks management than it does the value of Tyson Chandler.

It shows a team dedicated to loading up right now no matter the cost later. Expect more of the same.

[ORANGEandBLUE]

[
Who said anything about actually exercising amnesty on Amare in 2011???

The cautious approach would have been to play the year out with Billups and Amare, see how his health/chemistry panned out, and retain the amnesty for use on a future deal.

The fact that Grunny ignored the red flags, ditched Billups in his final year, and jumped on Tyson indicates more about Knicks management than it does the value of Tyson Chandler.

It shows a team dedicated to loading up right now no matter the cost later. Expect more of the same.

This would have been the best time to do it. The longer we waited, the less cap space it would have generated. and I'm pretty sure I was defending this approach at the time it was all going down.

[GONYK]

Huh?

You wanted the Knicks to amnesty Stat in 2011, after emerging as the team's leader, finishing in the Top 10 in the MVP voting, so he could go play for another team on the Knicks $100m dime for 4 more years?

C'mon fellas.

Pretty much. Let's also mention that he was still recovering from a non-contact injury that had occurred roughly six months prior, and that everybody on the planet other than homer knicks fans knew that he was damaged goods.

Who said anything about actually exercising amnesty on Amare in 2011???

The cautious approach would have been to play the year out with Billups and Amare, see how his health/chemistry panned out, and retain the amnesty for use on a future deal.

The fact that Grunny ignored the red flags, ditched Billups in his final year, and jumped on Tyson indicates more about Knicks management than it does the value of Tyson Chandler.

It shows a team dedicated to loading up right now no matter the cost later. Expect more of the same.

This is the approach I would have taken. Just play out the year with Billups and backpocket the amnesty.

Then again, I wasn't too high on paying Tyson. I was all for saving our chips and making a run at Paul.

[cgmw]

Again, I'm not pretending to know the right or wrong way to do things. All I'm pointing out is a consistent pattern of acquire-now, pay-later.

[suicidedeuce]

[

Realistically, there was no way for that to happen.

I understand. I'm just saying that from a pure bball standpoint, it was not only sensible, but a flat-out no-brainer. And hindsight is overwhelmingly on my side.

And this is the rub. When I evaluate the Glen Gruwald, I'm scruntinizing him with realistic expectations, I don't filter the criticism through my own fantasies.

I judge him on how he's doing the job he's been given to do, and not MY PERSONAL fantasy version of his job description.

The Chandler move was perfectly reasonable considering the ACTUAL circumstances.

To suggest Knicks would use the amnesy of Stat a couple of months after getting Melo is ridiculous from any pragmatic standpoint, not matter how much you want to defend it from a purely basketball perspective.

[suicidedeuce]

Again, I'm not pretending to know the right or wrong way to do things. All I'm pointing out is a consistent pattern of acquire-now, pay-later.

And I'd argue that's relatively consistent with how the NBA does business.

The Bulls paid Boozer and may even may Deng again.

The Heat knew they were looking at mini MLE and vet min signings for as long as their big 3 are on their roster.

The Celtics made their big move getting the big 3.

Nets are getting a LOT of credit for doing it to the EXTREME.

In order to truly compete in the postseason, you usually have to go ALL in. I understand how fans LOVE the idea of perpetual flexibility and a roster made to constantly turn over, I just don't see the evidence that this can co-exist with being a genuine postseason contender.

Is the Knicks ALL-IN going to result in a title? I perfectly understand the skepticism, but we seem not to arguing the success of their all-in, we seem to be arguing against going all-in at all.

Knicks went all-in for Melo, Stat and Chandler and it HAS been designed to some degree to have an out/reset in 2015.

The success of that move is certainly up to debate (I only stipulate it will continue to be open to debate until 2015).

But criticizing thm for going all-in at all seems disconnected to NBA reality to me.

[suicidedeuce]

Then again, I wasn't too high on paying Tyson. I was all for saving our chips and making a run at Paul.

What chips?

Billups expiring and...?

[cgmw]

Deuce, again, the point isn't that he should have amnestied amare.

The point is he chose to give up a future asset (the flexibility to amnesty amare later) in the name of acquiring a player he wanted right now. Same thing for Bargnani. He gave up 3 future picks for a player he wanted right now.

In reality (not fantasy) I think it's safe to predict a similar pattern in 2014 and beyond so long as Carmelo is still a Knick.

[GONYK]

Then again, I wasn't too high on paying Tyson. I was all for saving our chips and making a run at Paul.

What chips?

Billups expiring and...?

Mainly deferred cap. I'm speaking from the perspective I had at the time, before CP3 officially went to the Clips.

We tried to trade for CP3, and that fell through. That is why we cashed in Billups' value (his contract was the most valuable thing about him) and got Tyson.

[suicidedeuce]

The point is he chose to give up a future asset (the flexibility to amnesty amare later) in the name of acquiring a player he wanted right now. Same thing for Bargnani. He gave up 3 future picks for a player he wanted right now.

In reality (not fantasy) I think it's safe to predict a similar pattern in 2014 and beyond so long as Carmelo is still a Knick.

My question to you is, when is it EVER okay to try to win "right now"?

Again, I perceive your point to be criticism of EVER trying to win now.

That seems like a blanket criticism that would KILL the Nets for what they did.

KILL the Celtics for what they did in 2008.

KILL the Bulls for signing Boozer in 2010.

And we KNOW a reset is being designed for 2015.

yes, the Knicks are TRYING to maximize their odds for this 2011-2014 WINDOW. I don't at all disagree with this assessment.

I just don't understand the criticism of it.

Is it NEVER "right now" in the NBA? Does tomorrow never come?

[ORANGEandBLUE]

Yeah, I mean this notion that a GM who goes all in once, will always go all in, is pretty clearly refuted by what Ainge did this summer.

[Capn'O]

Again, I'm not pretending to know the right or wrong way to do things. All I'm pointing out is a consistent pattern of acquire-now, pay-later.

And I'd argue that's relatively consistent with how the NBA does business.

The Bulls paid Boozer and may even may Deng again.

The Heat knew they were looking at mini MLE and vet min signings for as long as their big 3 are on their roster.

The Celtics made their big move getting the big 3.

Nets are getting a LOT of credit for doing it to the EXTREME.

In order to truly compete in the postseason, you usually have to go ALL in. I understand how fans LOVE the idea of perpetual flexibility and a roster made to constantly turn over, I just don't see the evidence that this can co-exist with being a genuine postseason contender.

Is the Knicks ALL-IN going to result in a title? I perfectly understand the skepticism, but we seem not to arguing the success of their all-in, we seem to be arguing against going all-in at all.

Knicks went all-in for Melo, Stat and Chandler and it HAS been designed to some degree to have an out/reset in 2015.

The success of that move is certainly up to debate (I only stipulate it will continue to be open to debate until 2015).

But criticizing thm for going all-in at all seems disconnected to NBA reality to me.

I think this is right. I heavily questioned the Melo move as I don't think he's a guy that can carry a deep playoff run. But once you commit... Commit hard. We've done that and given an out. If Melo jets (which presumably takes JR and Ray with him)I sincerely hope the Knicks do an asset build as their next move rather than go for an immediate free agent retool. Use the flexibility to acquire guys in a position like Bledsoe and stockpile picks via trade. Wait for the right guy to become available.


As for Bargs - even though we gave up future considerations, I felt this was a very under the radar move rather than a response to what the Nets did. Outside of Toronto, this isn't really a guy that the casual fan knows about. Not really a strict marketing ploy. It's a big risk, but one that was made for basketball reasons.

MWP was a splash... But at the right price, for sure.

[cgmw]

Yeah, I mean this notion that a GM who goes all in once, will always go all in, is pretty clearly refuted by what Ainge did this summer.

Unlike Ainge, the Knicks have Carmelo. Unlike the Celtics, the Knicks are in "win now" mode. Can Grunny pull a 180 in philosophy and exercise restraint? Sure. But nobody seriously thinks he'll blow it up a-la Boston.

OP, I thought this thread was about discussing future scenarios, not criticizing or praising the past. If you're asking for my evaluation of Knicks management over the past 14 years, I would need time to compose a short dissertation on short-sighted arrogance and cold-blooded capitalism.