Do you still think Jennings would be good in NYC

[GONYK]

well no matter what you think he'd be looked as here, he'd still have more value the jordan hill who's value was so low that although we gave him away just for a team to pay jared jeffries's mle salary for one year we still had to include a first round pick and the right to swap another.

That kind of thinking is a hindsight thing. When you are on the clock during the draft, you consider who is the best player for your needs, not who would have the most value in a midseason trade.

Jennings was not the PG for this team.

[Capn'O]

I think we can agree, the moves for the second max slot have been everything short of a failure. It all depends on Melo/2011.

So you think they were a failure? That combination of words doesn't mean anything.

Also, do you not realize that the 2nd max moves were the reason we were able to

A) sign and trade Lee and
B) get such value out of the Lee trade (iirc a TPE from us was involved... we took back much less salary)?

Our second max slot essentially turned into

Randolph
Turiaf
Azubuike
Felton
Mosgov
Resigning Bill Walker

I have a difficult time calling that a failure by any stretch.

The problem is that you're assuming Hill was necessary to dump Jefferies.

I actually consider Hill part of the dump. Hill was viewed as a liability towards our ability to have two maxes. Not an asset. Hill is slated to make 2.7 million this season... that is essentially the money we are paying Mosgov now... also it would really limit what we would have been able to throw around a LeBron/Bosh if that situation had materialized.

Where I always rip Donnie... actually Mike D... is that Houston considered Hill an asset and we made it clear that we did not. It helped THEIR negotiation.

I believe that the Knicks not pumping Hill's value cost us a future pick... not the other way around.

[god shammgod]

well no matter what you think he'd be looked as here, he'd still have more value the jordan hill who's value was so low that although we gave him away just for a team to pay jared jeffries's mle salary for one year we still had to include a first round pick and the right to swap another.

That kind of thinking is a hindsight thing. When you are on the clock during the draft, you consider who is the best player for your needs, not who would have the most value in a midseason trade.

Jennings was not the PG for this team.

you never draft on need. you take best player available even if he doesn't fit. you trade him or somebody else to make it work.

[ORANGEandBLUE]

I think we can agree, the moves for the second max slot have been everything short of a failure. It all depends on Melo/2011.

So you think they were a failure? That combination of words doesn't mean anything.

Also, do you not realize that the 2nd max moves were the reason we were able to

A) sign and trade Lee and
B) get such value out of the Lee trade (iirc a TPE from us was involved... we took back much less salary)?

Our second max slot essentially turned into

Randolph
Turiaf
Azubuike
Felton
Mosgov
Resigning Bill Walker

I have a difficult time calling that a failure by any stretch.

The problem is that you're assuming Hill was necessary to dump Jefferies. When you look at the Hinrich deal, this is 100% wrong in hindsight, and even in foresight, arguably a panic move by Donnie. If we had say, Lawson instead of Hill, the Rockets may have realized that he'd be too valuable for us to throw in, and settled for the two picks. Now, since we would have kept our 09 pick (e.g. Lawson), we would have had $3m less in cap space this summer. That could mean no Mosgov (although arguably Mosgov is a better prospect than Lawson. Or maybe we could have dumped Douglas (Lawson > Douglas), or we could have passed on Felton and just went forward with Lawson and TD at the point (Lawson + $4m >>> Felton).

And the really painful part about the 09 draft is that I've heard commentators say that we lost out on Curry because we hyped him up to the point that GS could feel comfortable taking him without too much media backlash. I don't know the facts too well, but Curry could have swung the Lebron race in our favor, sooo....

Yeah, 09 draft was a fail.

Alright, I retract the part about outbidding Washington to unload Jefferies on them, given that a big part of that was getting useless Hinrich's veteran leadership.

But, I'll add another possibility, which is that, assuming Houston does demand whoever we pick in 09, being able to offer them Lawson instead of Hill probably allows us to keep a pick.

well no matter what you think he'd be looked as here, he'd still have more value the jordan hill who's value was so low that although we gave him away just for a team to pay jared jeffries's mle salary for one year we still had to include a first round pick and the right to swap another.

That kind of thinking is a hindsight thing. When you are on the clock during the draft, you consider who is the best player for your needs, not who would have the most value in a midseason trade.

Jennings was not the PG for this team.

"On the clock?" A GM should not be on the clock. He should have EVERY possibility worked out in advance.

[GONYK]

you never draft on need. you take best player available even if he doesn't fit. you trade him or somebody else to make it work.

Then Collison or Lawson should have been the pick

[Capn'O]

well no matter what you think he'd be looked as here, he'd still have more value the jordan hill who's value was so low that although we gave him away just for a team to pay jared jeffries's mle salary for one year we still had to include a first round pick and the right to swap another.

That kind of thinking is a hindsight thing. When you are on the clock during the draft, you consider who is the best player for your needs, not who would have the most value in a midseason trade.

Jennings was not the PG for this team.

We actually picked the best player for our offseason moves (Lee) but I digress...

Donnie really doesn't seem to put much stock in the draft though. I really think he looks at pro prospects (Kelenna, Randolph, Walker) and trades much more seriously.

[GONYK]

We actually picked the best player for our offseason moves (Lee) but I digress...

Donnie really doesn't seem to put much stock in the draft though. I really think he looks at pro prospects (Kelenna, Randolph, Walker) and trades much more seriously.

If you look at my previous posts in this thread, you'll see that I agree with you.

[god shammgod]

you never draft on need. you take best player available even if he doesn't fit. you trade him or somebody else to make it work.

Then Collison or Lawson should have been the pick

fine but we still **** up in the draft no matter how you look at it. anyone saying otherwise is being a homer.

[Capn'O]

We actually picked the best player for our offseason moves (Lee) but I digress...

Donnie really doesn't seem to put much stock in the draft though. I really think he looks at pro prospects (Kelenna, Randolph, Walker) and trades much more seriously.

If you look at my previous posts in this thread, you'll see that I agree with you.

Yeah yeah... that's right, that was you.

In any event - let's bring it back and help your argument here. Donnie always thinks beyond the situation at hand. The team as a composit, not a collection of players.

[OooSplendiforous]

This is the situation....

Regardless if youre a fan of Brandon Jennings' game or not, there is no denying that he has a lot more talent and potential than Jordan Hill could dream of.

So let's say we pick him, and he's a chucker and doesn't fit into our offense. Fine. BUT he most definitely would've been good enough to crack D'Antoni's rotation and I'm sure the GMs around the league would've saw the talent this kid had and therefore if we had included him in the T-Mac trade we wouldn't have had to give up any draft picks for sure.

So the main thing is, like him or not, he is worth more than Jordan Hill and has more talent so regardless if he fit well on the team or not he would've been more valuable to us asset wise.

[GONYK]

fine but we still **** up in the draft no matter how you look at it. anyone saying otherwise is being a homer.

In hindsight, yes. Only if we are looking at the draft in a vacuum though. If we take into account the trade we made involving Hill that gave us the cap this summer to build the team we have now, it softens the blow.

[god shammgod]

This is the situation....

Regardless if youre a fan of Brandon Jennings' game or not, there is no denying that he has a lot more talent and potential than Jordan Hill could dream of.

So let's say we pick him, and he's a chucker and doesn't fit into our offense. Fine. BUT he most definitely would've been good enough to crack D'Antoni's rotation and I'm sure the GMs around the league would've saw the talent this kid had and therefore if we had included him in the T-Mac trade we wouldn't have had to give up any draft picks for sure.

So the main thing is, like him or not, he is worth more than Jordan Hill and has more talent so regardless if he fit well on the team or not he would've been more valuable to us asset wise.

thank you. damn, some of you are hard headed.

[god shammgod]

fine but we still **** up in the draft no matter how you look at it. anyone saying otherwise is being a homer.

In hindsight, yes. Only if we are looking at the draft in a vacuum though. If we take into account the trade we made involving Hill that gave us the cap this summer to build the team we have now, it softens the blow.

no, not in hindsight. it's not like jennings was an unknown player who happened to break out. the knicks made a conscious decision not to take him. and we could have traded him with jeffries and not used any picks/ swap because he's more valuable. to tell you the truth, he's even too valuable for that. we might have got a pick from them.

[KnicksScholar24]

Brandon Jennings would have done fine in NYC. He would have been hated on because of his Marbury-esque behavior and mouth, but he definitely has the talent to be a good PG in this league.

He just needs to stop getting his "Jamal Crawford on." Sick handles, inconsistent offensively, shoots under 40% inside the arc, shoots a decent % from beyond it, and at least once every 2 or 3 years he'll put up a 50+ point game and look great. Sounds familiar?

If he facilitated more and shot less he could have real have success, in New York or otherwise. Off-the-court issues have far less of an effect on me than other people. What I care about is what they do on the court. Crawford was a saint off the court, but I still rather not seem him in a Knicks uniform again.

I thought Marbury was blamed way more than he should have been, and a lot of it had NOTHING to do with playing basketball. It was a lot of crap small-minded people would find a problem with. "Oh no, he's mopping on the bench with a towel on his head. That loss was all his fault." He hasn't played a game for the Knicks the last two years and they still a late-20s/early-30s win team.

[thehandler3]

I have to defend Jennings here a little bit (which for me is a change since I am normally anti-Jennings when debating my dad in the Jennings debate). I agree that there are things in his game and in his character that raise eyebrows to say the least, but I don't see how he would have been SUCH a bad fit for the Knicks. You guys forget he is still only 21 years old, he has a lot of learning to do and much room for improvement. He's a streaky shooter, but from what I see its more of a lapse in focus on repeatig the same form on his rather than an inability to hit open shots (ala Rondo and Rose from 3). No body with as bad a jumper as someone of you guys are saying could drop 55 points in a game in which he basically scored on jumpshots exclusively. Now I've been down on Jennings because I feel as gifted a passer as he is (seem him play a lot in high school) for some reason right now he only appears to be a pure gunner. Part of that could be the fact that the Bucks had virtually no scorers outside of Bogut before the trade deadline. I was very down on him towards the end of the season but he showed me a lot in the playoffs. The Hawks had flaws, but without a doubt they should have beat that Bucks team in no more than 5 games, but Jennings single-handley kept them in game 1 and was by far the best player on the court (including Joe Johnson) for the first 5 games of that series, go look at the numbers. It shows great intagibles for a rookie to lead his team in a playoff series in which they should have had no chance and almost win it, purely on his play. How good Jennings will be is basically a flip of the coin for me due to some of the good things in his game and some of the bad things, but I think some of you guys who are completely writing him off are being way too harsh

[OooSplendiforous]

Some of you people are so conservative and boring. I would hate to hang out with someone like that...those "politically correct" types. You guys just hate on Brandon Jennings because you dont like his personality. I say...you guys are boring and have no flare, no pizazz, no bravado, swagger, whatever you want to call it. I'd want a player with Jennings personality over the demure, unassuming, stoic Tim Duncan anyday of the week.

[j4remi]

I don't mind BJ's personality, but I don't think he's a good fit for the Knicks. I said it before the draft, during the season and now. Mike wouldn't have given him any more time than TD got, we loved what TD did early on and he wound up inexplicably on the bench. I think Steph Curry is the only pick that would have got immediate burn and I still think our best bet was trading down and picking Lawson.

[HEZI]

Some of you people are so conservative and boring. I would hate to hang out with someone like that...those "politically correct" types. You guys just hate on Brandon Jennings because you dont like his personality. I say...you guys are boring and have no flare, no pizazz, no bravado, swagger, whatever you want to call it. I'd want a player with Jennings personality over the demure, unassuming, stoic Tim Duncan anyday of the week.

Flare? Pizazz? Bravado? Swagger?



More like ignorance, cockiness, immaturity, arrogance

[OooSplendiforous]

Some of you people are so conservative and boring. I would hate to hang out with someone like that...those "politically correct" types. You guys just hate on Brandon Jennings because you dont like his personality. I say...you guys are boring and have no flare, no pizazz, no bravado, swagger, whatever you want to call it. I'd want a player with Jennings personality over the demure, unassuming, stoic Tim Duncan anyday of the week.

Flare? Pizazz? Bravado? Swagger?



More like ignorance, cockiness, immaturity, arrogance

the NBA just like all other sports are in the ENTERTAINMENT business. You want an emotional connection with the player. You want a guy who after he hits the big shot, embraces the crowd, gets animated with his body language. You like a guy like T.O. who signs the ball after a touchdown pass. It all adds to the game and ticket sales.

I'd rather watch prime KG goto work than Tim Duncan or Chris Bosh anyday of the week.


No offense but you're probably a little older because I've always noticed that. The older guys are always more reserved and what not. Believe me I'm all for fundamental basketball but you don't have to suck the life out of the game.

[dk7th]

Some of you people are so conservative and boring. I would hate to hang out with someone like that...those "politically correct" types. You guys just hate on Brandon Jennings because you dont like his personality. I say...you guys are boring and have no flare, no pizazz, no bravado, swagger, whatever you want to call it. I'd want a player with Jennings personality over the demure, unassuming, stoic Tim Duncan anyday of the week.

what part of leading your team to 4 titles and being the top player at the pf position all-time do you not understand?

i don't find winning boring.