Around The NBA - Regular Season version (Harden traded...now what?)

[god shammgod]

Read on Twitter

nurk is washed

[cgmw]

I'm asking you what does player development look like to you regardless of outcome.

You seem to know what it is and what it's not.

So how would the Knicks develop their players?

By having them start and receive limitless opportunities from day 1, or by being brought along slowly or asked to earn their minutes?

By expecting them to contribute to winning or by detaching any expectation to impact winning from their development?

By playing with win-now players, or only with fellow young players also looking to earn their place in the NBA or non-threatening NBA vets? A mix of both?

What's the environment for optimal development?

Dude, it’s a moot point. All that matters is the Inick franchise is not and has not been committed to the draft, including developing its own players.

As I said in my last message, my profession is not managing basketball teams. I don’t need to figure out the “right way” to do it. But as a fan, I’m not blind. The Leon mafia is not trying to draft and develop the top talent coming out of college.

I like what they’re doing in Orlando and Houston taking shots over and over at the top of the draft and then once they establish core pieces surrounding them with vets. That makes sense. Presti down in OKC seems to have cracked the code too.

Seems to me the Knicks never should have signed Randle in the first place. They could have taken another shot or two at the top of the draft and maybe lucked out with a Lamelo or Mobley, and THEN gone after supporting stars in FA or trade.

But the mandate is playoffs year in and year out despite how delusional and counter-productive. I’m actually very happy with the way Leon has appeased Dolan and we haven’t made any Quixotic trades for fake MVPs like we did with Marbury and Carmelo.

How is it a moot point when it's the foundation of your argument?

You essentially said the Knicks don't develop their talent properly and ruin whomever they draft, yet you don't have any opinion of what player development should look like?

I'm not sure either Lamelo or Mobley's a better player than Randle by the way. And the Knicks easily could've drafted Wiseman or Cade or Suggs. Where does that lead you.

And it doesn't matter because they could have drafted a player who's easily better than all of them when they landed at #8 in 2020 (Haliburton).

But since your argument is that the Knicks can't develop anybody - for reasons that yourself can't even identify - why does it matter. Why do you then think that drafting Mobley or Lamelo would've made a difference since the Knicks would've ruined them? Your arguments are not consistent. Don't you see the contradiction?

All I’ve done is identify reasons why. What I refuse to do is pretend I’m some kind of player personnel expert who knows better than the professionals.

I hated the original Randle signing because it put us on a treadmill, not to mention handed the reigns to a ball-dominant lefty who occupies exactly the same space as our 19 year old #3 overall pick.

Idk what the correct plan was, but I sure as sh*t thought what they did was what they always do — devalue the draft in favor of delusional “win now” veterans to justify ticket prices and appease the head weasel’s ego.

To their great credit, they have successfully developed a reputable team around the strategy of paying veteran FAs while developing internal role players via the draft. Where it’s headed is anyone’s guess, and I wish them nothing but luck… but it’s certainly not how I would have done it.

[god shammgod]

all roads lead to dolan being the problem in cgmw's world view. he will find a way to trace anything that went wrong back to him. it's quite a singular obsession. that's all that's happening here.

[Chanel Bomber]

Dude, it’s a moot point. All that matters is the Inick franchise is not and has not been committed to the draft, including developing its own players.

As I said in my last message, my profession is not managing basketball teams. I don’t need to figure out the “right way” to do it. But as a fan, I’m not blind. The Leon mafia is not trying to draft and develop the top talent coming out of college.

I like what they’re doing in Orlando and Houston taking shots over and over at the top of the draft and then once they establish core pieces surrounding them with vets. That makes sense. Presti down in OKC seems to have cracked the code too.

Seems to me the Knicks never should have signed Randle in the first place. They could have taken another shot or two at the top of the draft and maybe lucked out with a Lamelo or Mobley, and THEN gone after supporting stars in FA or trade.

But the mandate is playoffs year in and year out despite how delusional and counter-productive. I’m actually very happy with the way Leon has appeased Dolan and we haven’t made any Quixotic trades for fake MVPs like we did with Marbury and Carmelo.

How is it a moot point when it's the foundation of your argument?

You essentially said the Knicks don't develop their talent properly and ruin whomever they draft, yet you don't have any opinion of what player development should look like?

I'm not sure either Lamelo or Mobley's a better player than Randle by the way. And the Knicks easily could've drafted Wiseman or Cade or Suggs. Where does that lead you.

And it doesn't matter because they could have drafted a player who's easily better than all of them when they landed at #8 in 2020 (Haliburton).

But since your argument is that the Knicks can't develop anybody - for reasons that yourself can't even identify - why does it matter. Why do you then think that drafting Mobley or Lamelo would've made a difference since the Knicks would've ruined them? Your arguments are not consistent. Don't you see the contradiction?

All I’ve done is identify reasons why. What I refuse to do is pretend I’m some kind of player personnel expert who knows better than the professionals.

I hated the original Randle signing because it put us on a treadmill, not to mention handed the reigns to a ball-dominant lefty who occupies exactly the same space as our 19 year old #3 overall pick.

Idk what the correct plan was, but I sure as sh*t thought what they did was what they always do — devalue the draft in favor of delusional “win now” veterans to justify ticket prices and appease the head weasel’s ego.

To their great credit, they have successfully developed a reputable team around the strategy of paying veteran FAs while developing internal role players via the draft. Where it’s headed is anyone’s guess, and I wish them nothing but luck… but it’s certainly not how I would have done it.

Julius Randle is not the reason why Frank and Knox busted, or why RJ isn't a good shooter, doesn't pass or doesn't defend (for most of his career anyway). Randle certainly didn't hurt his usage or his opportunities. The only player who suffered from Randle was Obi who succeeded Randle - but even without Randle Obi would've never been as good as Haliburton who the Knicks were in a position to draft.

And again, if the Knicks can't develop talent, why does it matter if they'd drafted Mobley, or Lamelo?

There's no denying that the Knicks under Dolan have generally undervalued the draft. But they had 5 top 10 picks over the span of 6 years. They now have 3 players drafted in their starting lineup, plus their 6th man. I'm not saying that they're the kings of the draft by any stretch of the imagination, but they have invested in the draft.The reason they didn't draft a star comes down to scouting and talent evaluation.

The Knicks didn't ruin a star. They did pass on a few in the draft though.

[Chanel Bomber]

all roads lead to dolan being the problem in cgmw's world view. he will find a way to trace anything that went wrong back to him. it's quite a singular obsession. that's all that's happening here.

It's a valid argument to some extent as I do believe it starts with ownership and trickles down to management. But to boil everything down to Dolan as if talent doesn't matter and players aren't their own entities with their personal trajectories is just overly simplistic.

[god shammgod]

all roads lead to dolan being the problem in cgmw's world view. he will find a way to trace anything that went wrong back to him. it's quite a singular obsession. that's all that's happening here.

It's a valid argument to some extent as I do believe it starts with ownership and trickles down to management. But to boil everything down to Dolan as if talent doesn't matter and players aren't their own entities with their personal trajectories is just overly simplistic.

but even that can be explained. frank was not developed because the coach was bad who was hired by the gm who was bad who was hired by dolan who was bad.....or.......frank was bad because the scouts were bad who was hired by the gm who was bad who was hired because dolan was bad. you can't win.

[cgmw]

all roads lead to dolan being the problem in cgmw's world view. he will find a way to trace anything that went wrong back to him. it's quite a singular obsession. that's all that's happening here.

Thanks for the ego check, Sham. Your consistency as unofficial mod is (and I mean this with all respect) remarkable.

But yes, I place 100% of the blame on the head of the snake, and that holds true in just about any industry where a big corporation is run primarily by one person. If you don’t agree with that, then it is my opinion that you haven’t had much exposure to the way life works in these big companies.

I’m not obsessed with Dolan. I am convinced through life experience and just good old fashioned fundamental values that the the buck stops with the boss. Our boss just happens to be the petty son of a rich guy who is universally and without exception loathed inside his own industry.

[cgmw]

all roads lead to dolan being the problem in cgmw's world view. he will find a way to trace anything that went wrong back to him. it's quite a singular obsession. that's all that's happening here.

It's a valid argument to some extent as I do believe it starts with ownership and trickles down to management. But to boil everything down to Dolan as if talent doesn't matter and players aren't their own entities with their personal trajectories is just overly simplistic.

but even that can be explained. frank was not developed because the coach was bad who was hired by the gm who was bad who was hired by dolan who was bad.....or.......frank was bad because the scouts were bad who was hired by the gm who was bad who was hired because dolan was bad. you can't win.

Here I’ll do it for you —

Dolan was publicly shamed into hiring Phil, but that was primarily a public PR stunt for Dolan and a massive sellout payday for Phil’s Montana retirement plan.

My read on the Porzingis and Frank picks was that Phil was trying to go the conventional route of swinging for the fences on developmental picks, but his team of internal Dolan moles (which he accepted as part of his ridiculous salary) continued to undercut him with “win now” mandates which came to a head with Melo’s NTC, among other bonehead moves.

Was Dolan responsible for signing Joakim Noah? Not directly, no. But he was responsible for installing a politically dysfunctional sh*tshow executive team who couldn’t agree on a direction and therefore had a snowball’s chance in hell of success? Idk how anyone could possibly argue otherwise.

[Chanel Bomber]

It's a valid argument to some extent as I do believe it starts with ownership and trickles down to management. But to boil everything down to Dolan as if talent doesn't matter and players aren't their own entities with their personal trajectories is just overly simplistic.

but even that can be explained. frank was not developed because the coach was bad who was hired by the gm who was bad who was hired by dolan who was bad.....or.......frank was bad because the scouts were bad who was hired by the gm who was bad who was hired because dolan was bad. you can't win.

Here I’ll do it for you —

Dolan was publicly shamed into hiring Phil, but that was primarily a public PR stunt for Dolan and a massive sellout payday for Phil’s Montana retirement plan.

My read on the Porzingis and Frank picks was that Phil was trying to go the conventional route of swinging for the fences on developmental picks, but his team of internal Dolan moles (which he accepted as part of his ridiculous salary) continued to undercut him with “win now” mandates which came to a head with Melo’s NTC, among other bonehead moves.

Was Dolan responsible for signing Joakim Noah? Not directly, no. But he was responsible for installing a politically dysfunctional sh*tshow executive team who couldn’t agree on a direction and therefore had a snowball’s chance in hell of success? Idk how anyone could possibly argue otherwise.

On Phil, I agree that Dolan had a hand in the Frank debacle because he hired an amateur and a mad man in Phil Jackson to run basketball operations and make basketball decisions, such as drafting Frank.

But Frank sucked because he sucked (by NBA standards ok).

There's no realistic scenario where Frank gets drafted by another team and he becomes this successful NBA player. He didn't have the talent and it was obvious for anyone to see from the moment he stepped foot on an NBA court, and I reckon even before that by just looking at his production in the French league.

And that's the part you should accept at some point.

[cgmw]

but even that can be explained. frank was not developed because the coach was bad who was hired by the gm who was bad who was hired by dolan who was bad.....or.......frank was bad because the scouts were bad who was hired by the gm who was bad who was hired because dolan was bad. you can't win.

Here I’ll do it for you —

Dolan was publicly shamed into hiring Phil, but that was primarily a public PR stunt for Dolan and a massive sellout payday for Phil’s Montana retirement plan.

My read on the Porzingis and Frank picks was that Phil was trying to go the conventional route of swinging for the fences on developmental picks, but his team of internal Dolan moles (which he accepted as part of his ridiculous salary) continued to undercut him with “win now” mandates which came to a head with Melo’s NTC, among other bonehead moves.

Was Dolan responsible for signing Joakim Noah? Not directly, no. But he was responsible for installing a politically dysfunctional sh*tshow executive team who couldn’t agree on a direction and therefore had a snowball’s chance in hell of success? Idk how anyone could possibly argue otherwise.

On Phil, I agree that Dolan had a hand in the Frank debacle because he hired an amateur and a mad man in Phil Jackson to run basketball operations and make basketball decisions, such as drafting Frank.

But Frank sucked because he sucked (by NBA standards ok).

There's no realistic scenario where Frank gets drafted by another team and he becomes this successful NBA player. He didn't have the talent and it was obvious for anyone to see from the moment he stepped foot on an NBA court, and I reckon even before that by just looking at his production in the French league.

And that's the part you should accept at some point.

The only interesting part of this entire dialogue is that you somehow think that I think Frank would have been a star elsewhere. I never said that; I don’t believe it; and it doesn’t change a damn thing about the 10,000 words you just made me write defending myself.

Good day to you, Sir Chanel. I look forward to our next total waste of time procrastinating real life argument where we both type forever while ignoring what the other is actually trying to say.

[Chanel Bomber]

Here I’ll do it for you —

Dolan was publicly shamed into hiring Phil, but that was primarily a public PR stunt for Dolan and a massive sellout payday for Phil’s Montana retirement plan.

My read on the Porzingis and Frank picks was that Phil was trying to go the conventional route of swinging for the fences on developmental picks, but his team of internal Dolan moles (which he accepted as part of his ridiculous salary) continued to undercut him with “win now” mandates which came to a head with Melo’s NTC, among other bonehead moves.

Was Dolan responsible for signing Joakim Noah? Not directly, no. But he was responsible for installing a politically dysfunctional sh*tshow executive team who couldn’t agree on a direction and therefore had a snowball’s chance in hell of success? Idk how anyone could possibly argue otherwise.

On Phil, I agree that Dolan had a hand in the Frank debacle because he hired an amateur and a mad man in Phil Jackson to run basketball operations and make basketball decisions, such as drafting Frank.

But Frank sucked because he sucked (by NBA standards ok).

There's no realistic scenario where Frank gets drafted by another team and he becomes this successful NBA player. He didn't have the talent and it was obvious for anyone to see from the moment he stepped foot on an NBA court, and I reckon even before that by just looking at his production in the French league.

And that's the part you should accept at some point.

The only interesting part of this entire dialogue is that you somehow think that I think Frank would have been a star elsewhere. I never said that; I don’t believe it; and it doesn’t change a damn thing about the 10,000 words you just made me write defending myself.

Good day to you, Sir Chanel. I look forward to our next total waste of time procrastinating real life argument where we both type forever while ignoring what the other is actually trying to say.

I read every word you said.

I never used the word "star" and never said he would've been a "star" elsewhere in your mind. Another caricature.

You did mention how the Knicks set back the career of whomever they draft, suggesting that they would've been better off elsewhere. You mentioned Frank in this paragraph just a couple posts ago: "My read on the Porzingis and Frank picks was that Phil was trying to go the conventional route of swinging for the fences on developmental picks, but his team of internal Dolan moles (which he accepted as part of his ridiculous salary) continued to undercut him with “win now” mandates which came to a head with Melo’s NTC, among other bonehead moves." which seems to suggest that the Frank pick was inherently reasonable but set back by Dolan and the environment he created.

It is indeed difficult to have a discussion with you and from my experience one of the reasons why is you never actually engage on any counterpoint to your arguments. You dodge anything that contradicts your view and move to something else, like a moving target.

In any case, I mentioned this to actually agree with you that it starts at the top. I just think the way you frame it (especially these draft picks) is entirely simplistic, and conveniently lazy.

Have a good one though.

[cgmw]

On Phil, I agree that Dolan had a hand in the Frank debacle because he hired an amateur and a mad man in Phil Jackson to run basketball operations and make basketball decisions, such as drafting Frank.

But Frank sucked because he sucked (by NBA standards ok).

There's no realistic scenario where Frank gets drafted by another team and he becomes this successful NBA player. He didn't have the talent and it was obvious for anyone to see from the moment he stepped foot on an NBA court, and I reckon even before that by just looking at his production in the French league.

And that's the part you should accept at some point.

The only interesting part of this entire dialogue is that you somehow think that I think Frank would have been a star elsewhere. I never said that; I don’t believe it; and it doesn’t change a damn thing about the 10,000 words you just made me write defending myself.

Good day to you, Sir Chanel. I look forward to our next total waste of time procrastinating real life argument where we both type forever while ignoring what the other is actually trying to say.

I read every word you said.

I never used the word "star" and never said he would've been a "star" elsewhere in your mind. Another caricature.

You did mention how the Knicks set back the career of whomever they draft, suggesting that they would've been better off elsewhere. You mentioned Frank in this paragraph just a couple posts ago: "My read on the Porzingis and Frank picks was that Phil was trying to go the conventional route of swinging for the fences on developmental picks, but his team of internal Dolan moles (which he accepted as part of his ridiculous salary) continued to undercut him with “win now” mandates which came to a head with Melo’s NTC, among other bonehead moves." which seems to suggest that the Frank pick was inherently reasonable but set back by Dolan and the environment he created.

It is indeed difficult to have a discussion with you and from my experience one of the reasons why is you never actually engage on any counterpoint to your arguments. You dodge anything that contradicts your view and move to something else, like a moving target.

In any case, I mentioned this to actually agree with you that it starts at the top. I just think the way you frame it (especially these draft picks) is entirely simplistic, and conveniently lazy.

Have a good one though.

I fail to see where you contradicted anything I said. Frank, like any Knick draftee, had an uphill climb against the silly dysfunction of the Knick (read: Dolan) organization.

That doesn’t mean he’d be an All Star if Popovich drafted him, but as I’ve said before I don’t presume to own a crystal ball into alternate universes. I find it highly unlikely, but who the hell knows how good any of these prospects can become under the right circumstances. Clearly, New York was not the right circumstance for Frank, just as it hasn’t been for 9 out of 10 Knick draftees for generations now. That kind of longtail generational data set seems to offer plenty insight into likely outcomes for the Knicks and their draftees.

I respect that you think RJ would have busted anyplace. I hope you can respect that I think the Knicks did him no favors by starting him off sprinting on the Julius Randle treadmill under a 40-mpg high-usage isolation coach.

[Chanel Bomber]

The only interesting part of this entire dialogue is that you somehow think that I think Frank would have been a star elsewhere. I never said that; I don’t believe it; and it doesn’t change a damn thing about the 10,000 words you just made me write defending myself.

Good day to you, Sir Chanel. I look forward to our next total waste of time procrastinating real life argument where we both type forever while ignoring what the other is actually trying to say.

I read every word you said.

I never used the word "star" and never said he would've been a "star" elsewhere in your mind. Another caricature.

You did mention how the Knicks set back the career of whomever they draft, suggesting that they would've been better off elsewhere. You mentioned Frank in this paragraph just a couple posts ago: "My read on the Porzingis and Frank picks was that Phil was trying to go the conventional route of swinging for the fences on developmental picks, but his team of internal Dolan moles (which he accepted as part of his ridiculous salary) continued to undercut him with “win now” mandates which came to a head with Melo’s NTC, among other bonehead moves." which seems to suggest that the Frank pick was inherently reasonable but set back by Dolan and the environment he created.

It is indeed difficult to have a discussion with you and from my experience one of the reasons why is you never actually engage on any counterpoint to your arguments. You dodge anything that contradicts your view and move to something else, like a moving target.

In any case, I mentioned this to actually agree with you that it starts at the top. I just think the way you frame it (especially these draft picks) is entirely simplistic, and conveniently lazy.

Have a good one though.

I fail to see where you contradicted anything I said. Frank, like any Knick draftee, had an uphill climb against the silly dysfunction of the Knick (read: Dolan) organization.

That doesn’t mean he’d be an All Star if Popovich drafted him, but as I’ve said before I don’t presume to own a crystal ball into alternate universes. I find it highly unlikely, but who the hell knows how good any of these prospects can become under the right circumstances. Clearly, New York was not the right circumstance for Frank, just as it hasn’t been for 9 out of 10 Knick draftees for generations now.

A lot of players get drafted in suboptimal circumstances. It rarely happens that they start their career in optimal situations. In many cases, their teams are dysfunctional, or they have better, more established players playing ahead of them.

Frank wanted to play point guard and he had no NBA-caliber point guard to beat for the spot. His spot as a 3&D player - a role that he resisted according to Hahn - was also right there for the taking. If anything, he had his opportunity on a silver platter. He just wasn't good enough. And you conveniently "leave it to the professionals" to have any opinion on the skill level of NBA prospects, but I would think that if you follow basketball you could recognize that he lacked NBA talent (at the very least in hindsight). And this is not a shot at anyone who thought highly of Frank at the time, for we all make mistakes. But it was glaringly obvious from day 1 that he simply lacked the talent and the mental attributes to play the position he wanted to play. And if you want to delegate that assessment, then delegate that assessment. But you're not really doing that because you're assuming by default that there might have been a player there who would've fared better in a different environment.

Not once have I mentioned the term "star" or "All-Star". Never said you thought that.

[cgmw]

I read every word you said.

I never used the word "star" and never said he would've been a "star" elsewhere in your mind. Another caricature.

You did mention how the Knicks set back the career of whomever they draft, suggesting that they would've been better off elsewhere. You mentioned Frank in this paragraph just a couple posts ago: "My read on the Porzingis and Frank picks was that Phil was trying to go the conventional route of swinging for the fences on developmental picks, but his team of internal Dolan moles (which he accepted as part of his ridiculous salary) continued to undercut him with “win now” mandates which came to a head with Melo’s NTC, among other bonehead moves." which seems to suggest that the Frank pick was inherently reasonable but set back by Dolan and the environment he created.

It is indeed difficult to have a discussion with you and from my experience one of the reasons why is you never actually engage on any counterpoint to your arguments. You dodge anything that contradicts your view and move to something else, like a moving target.

In any case, I mentioned this to actually agree with you that it starts at the top. I just think the way you frame it (especially these draft picks) is entirely simplistic, and conveniently lazy.

Have a good one though.

I fail to see where you contradicted anything I said. Frank, like any Knick draftee, had an uphill climb against the silly dysfunction of the Knick (read: Dolan) organization.

That doesn’t mean he’d be an All Star if Popovich drafted him, but as I’ve said before I don’t presume to own a crystal ball into alternate universes. I find it highly unlikely, but who the hell knows how good any of these prospects can become under the right circumstances. Clearly, New York was not the right circumstance for Frank, just as it hasn’t been for 9 out of 10 Knick draftees for generations now.

A lot of players get drafted in suboptimal circumstances. It rarely happens that they start their career in optimal situations. In many cases, their teams are dysfunctional, or they have better, more established players playing ahead of them.

Frank wanted to play point guard and he had no NBA-caliber point guard to beat for the spot. His spot as a 3&D player - a role that he resisted according to Hahn - was also right there for the taking. If anything, he had his opportunity on a silver platter. He just wasn't good enough. And you conveniently "leave it to the professionals" to have any opinion on the skill level of NBA prospects, but I would think that if you follow basketball you could recognize that he lacked NBA talent (at the very least in hindsight). And this is not a shot at anyone who thought highly of Frank at the time, for we all make mistakes. But it was glaringly obvious from day 1 that he simply lacked the talent and the mental attributes to play the position he wanted to play. And if you want to delegate that assessment, then delegate that assessment. But you're not really doing that because you're assuming by default that there might have been a player there who would've fared better in a different environment.

Not once have I mentioned the term "star" or "All-Star". Never said you thought that.

Ok now I see where we disagree. Somebody whose actual job it is to evaluate talent thought Frank was good enough to be drafted top 10 based on his skill, physical, mental etc. I was not one of those people. I just trust as a fan that that’s their job not mine.

With the benefit of hindsight it sure looks like they were wrong on Frank, but that doesn’t magically mean he couldn’t have had a more productive career had another team and coach drafted him. You don’t know that any more than I do. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong. There’s literally no way of knowing or “proving” it.

I’m not dodging anything except to say “ok” when you insist that you have magic insights into alternate universes. Good for you.

[Gravy]

I appreciate that there are many amateur scouts on this board. Honestly, I think it's cool and I enjoy reading their stuff. Personally, my skillsets in life lie elsewhere and I prefer to leave it up to the paid professionals to decide these things. Never been my bag, never will.

Do I know whether SGA or Haliburton would have been stars here? No, and neither do you.

I'm more into pointing out the futility of being both a Knicks fan and a geeky draftnick. If your thing is amateur scouting, go follow the Thunder or any number of teams who actually care about the thing that lights you up. Knick fans in the age of Dolan should be concerned with the trade and FA markets for veterans. Period. End of story.

Of course SGA or Haliburton would have been stars here, especially under Thibs. Thibs developed D Rose and Butler into stars. Randle and Brunson are having the best years of their careers here. If you go back KP had his best year with the Knicks and we had Jeremy Lin come out of nowhere. RJ has started from day 1 even though he terrible.

You are trying to find a reason why so many of our top ten picks were busts and it’s simply because the draft sucks for getting superstars. On average maybe one or two guys the most each draft will be a franchise player. 1 out of 30 is not good odds. Haliburton became a star...did all the other players picked before him become stars too? Did the Knicks fail to develop all the other busts? Is Dolan secretly trying to prevent our draft picks from becoming stars because you said so

Disagree 100%.

Why would they have done anything different than what they did with Knox and so many others?

First of all, at no point were the Knicks starting a rookie at PG. They would have found a journeyman like they always did pre-Brunson.

Second, they would have featured him in a high usage, low-efficiency system with the pressure of a playoff mandate despite a roster not built for that.

Third, they would have targeted veteran “stars” like Brunson at the same position. Same story as always.

Fourth, they hired a coach who believes in grinding out wins via selfish iso-ball.

I find it very hard to believe that either Haliburton or SGA would have become the players we’re seeing today, but hey I can’t see into alternate dimensions any better than you can. So to each his own.

You're making lots of assumptions based on the awful picks we drafted. RJ, Grimes and Mitch are all starting. Kp started also started right away. Because they were good. RJ isn't even that good and he's starting. Also sga and Brunson were from the same draft so why would thibs like Brunson and not sga?

I don't know what win now mandates has anything to do with this. Haliburton had been on competitive teams since he's been in the NBA. Any coach would want him to eventually start especially thibs

[3toheadmelo]

@guan0

Read on Twitter

[3toheadmelo]

monty williams dying on the hill of killian hayes over jaden ivey is wild

Read on Twitter

[cgmw]

Of course SGA or Haliburton would have been stars here, especially under Thibs. Thibs developed D Rose and Butler into stars. Randle and Brunson are having the best years of their careers here. If you go back KP had his best year with the Knicks and we had Jeremy Lin come out of nowhere. RJ has started from day 1 even though he terrible.

You are trying to find a reason why so many of our top ten picks were busts and it’s simply because the draft sucks for getting superstars. On average maybe one or two guys the most each draft will be a franchise player. 1 out of 30 is not good odds. Haliburton became a star...did all the other players picked before him become stars too? Did the Knicks fail to develop all the other busts? Is Dolan secretly trying to prevent our draft picks from becoming stars because you said so

Disagree 100%.

Why would they have done anything different than what they did with Knox and so many others?

First of all, at no point were the Knicks starting a rookie at PG. They would have found a journeyman like they always did pre-Brunson.

Second, they would have featured him in a high usage, low-efficiency system with the pressure of a playoff mandate despite a roster not built for that.

Third, they would have targeted veteran “stars” like Brunson at the same position. Same story as always.

Fourth, they hired a coach who believes in grinding out wins via selfish iso-ball.

I find it very hard to believe that either Haliburton or SGA would have become the players we’re seeing today, but hey I can’t see into alternate dimensions any better than you can. So to each his own.

You're making lots of assumptions based on the awful picks we drafted. RJ, Grimes and Mitch are all starting. Kp started also started right away. Because they were good. RJ isn't even that good and he's starting. Also sga and Brunson were from the same draft so why would thibs like Brunson and not sga?

I don't know what win now mandates has anything to do with this. Haliburton had been on competitive teams since he's been in the NBA. Any coach would want him to eventually start especially thibs

Sure, maybe. I’m not saying they couldn’t have blossomed here. I’m saying the Knicks wouldn’t have made it easy, which makes it less likely than had they developed elsewhere.

I believe that individuals will either thrive or die in certain environments on a sliding scale of their fitness (talent) level compared to the obstacles presented by their environment. Stronger individuals can survive harder environments with more frequency than weaker individuals. And sometimes there’s just a good fit between a weird individual and a weird environment. Each case is different.

My observations above tell me the Knicks would have made it more difficult for SGA and Hali than the teams that actually developed them. I really don’t know if their natural talent would have shown through, but I just tend to believe that the actual work they put in during those first couple years with their first coaches and first teams actually mattered in the direction and expression of their talent.

Neither of them seems like a Lebron or Duncan-level can’t miss prospect to me but what do I know?

[KnicksGadfly]

@guan0

Read on Twitter

Melo trying hard to save this thread - I appreciate you sir but I want to read more essays about Frank and Dolan!

[DaGawd]

clippers gotta be real with themselves and realize this roster ain’t it