BREAKING **** NEWS: Deal #done Knicks acquire Bargnani

[DLTGWH]

to me this argument over how you beat a team is kinda silly. there isn't one way. you beat a team however you can. can the knicks beat the pacers by having a superior defense and rebounding better then them ? probably not. they probably have to beat them with offense. and to do that you gotta get hibbert out of the lane. we'll have to see if it works.

AND1

[Thugger HBC]

that's hard to argue

still, if we only gave up the 2nds, not too many people would care about this trade. at least there wouldn't be the same level of outrage.

Depends on how you view the team.

Based on the playoffs, Bargnani should not be the marquee addition.

I honestly didnt want the dude for free.

i didn't want him either but he's not replacing anyone useful really. so if he wasn't useful it really wouldn't matter. but when you give up the 1st round pick, you want it to work out.

to me it seems like they wanted him. they pursued him and they think he can be useful. i honestly think this was a reaction to indiana. he guards the post ok and you can put him out at the 3 point line on offense. if he does his job well, he can remove hibbert from the lane which opens it up for everyone else.

to me this argument over how you beat a team is kinda silly. there isn't one way. you beat a team however you can. can the knicks beat the pacers by having a superior defense and rebounding better then them ? probably not. they probably have to beat them with offense. and to do that you gotta get hibbert out of the lane. we'll have to see if it works.

This deal is a head scratcher, and normally i dont get pissed over the teams moves and remain positive even if I dont particularly care for it.

But this one I just cant seem to do it in any positive way, and thats probably how I've viewed bargnani over his career so far....he's my second most hated active nba player, mainly because dude is garbage and really just does not care.

Of course, I'd rather eat the crow, but I have no reason to think he's capable of making me do so where it matters most.

As far as Indy goes, Hibbert isnt leaving the paint to guard Bargnani unless he plays center.

And I hope when Bargnani is playing center we're by 10 or something close.

[StephNYKurry]

Would you or would you not like the deal a lot more if the same package was traded for Eric Gordon?

Bargnani has never averaged more than Eric Gordon.

Even played more games than bargnani last year too.

How do you get away with posts like these as a mod?

First of all, it's factually incorrect as Bargnani averaged 17.2 in 09-10 while Gordon averaged 16.9

Second of all, who freaking gives a crap? Over the last 4 years, Gordon has averaged 18.9 on 43% shooting, while Bargs has averaged 18 on 45%.

Third of all, you toss out the meaningless "he played more games that Bargs last year, as if his 42 games is appreciably different than Bargs' 35 games and as if Eric Gordon didn't damn near miss the entire season prior to this past one.

Both have been injured.

Both have had their competitiveness questioned by their organizations.

There's nothing appreciably different between Bargnani and Gordon besides the fact that one is a black man and the other guy is European.

[JustaKnickFan]

Would you or would you not like the deal a lot more if the same package was traded for Eric Gordon?

Bargnani has never averaged more than Eric Gordon.

Even played more games than bargnani last year too.

How do you get away with posts like these as a mod?

First of all, it's factually incorrect as Bargnani averaged 17.2 in 09-10 while Gordon averaged 16.9

Second of all, who freaking gives a crap? Over the last 4 years, Gordon has averaged 18.9 on 43% shooting, while Bargs has averaged 18 on 45%.

Both have been injured.

Both have had their competitiveness questioned by their organizations.

There's nothing appreciably different between Bargnani and Gordon besides the fact that one is a black man and the other guy is European.

Except for the fact that Bargs is 7ft yet only averages (for his career) 2 more rebounds than Gordon.

[Deeeez Knicks]

Because we shot the basketball like absolutely crap and don't say that it had something to do with the Pacers defense either, because it really didn't.

We missed wide open jump shots that we had been knocking in all year long.

Simple as that.

Exactly. Thats the flaw of the Knicks philosophy. They rely on making a ton of jumpers to win games. When they can't make them they have little chance to win. And eventually over the course of the playoffs they will go cold. Its easy to stop because the Knicks don't have great ways to get good looks from 3. Its not like they play much inside/outside ball. Its more chuck and duck.

The other really good teams in the league are much more versatile offensively and they all play better defense then the Knicks. They can get better shots and can have a consistent offense. Being a great/good defensive team gives you another way to win even when your shooting is off. Pacers won plenty of games when they shot bad because of there defense. Knicks are not built that way so when there shot is off they lose. They were a mediocre defensive team during the season.

Give me a team thats built around defense over a team thats built around 3's anyday.

Huh?

1) They're built around jumpers out of necessity. Not choice. They don't have any post threats and don't have anyone who can consistently penetrate

2) They were one of the best defensive teams in the playoffs. The rebounding margins against the Pacers were buoyed by the Knicks inability to hit a freaking shot. I've done the math. The Knicks missed shots should shoulder more responsibility for the rebounding margin in Games 3 and 4. Not to mention the fact that the guy who averaged 11 rebounds/game for them, was out there getting 3 and 4 rebounds.

There's no way to overcome that.

On your point #2, the playoff stats are deceiving because its a small sample size and no team is playing the same team. Its reliant on how the series is going. That Boston team was terrible and we played them 6 games when it should have been done in 4.. They had Avery Bradley running point.

On your point #1, thats where I prefer the Knicks to go different. I'd prefer if they focused more on defense. We already have Amare who's a liability that we can't depend on, now we add Bargs who's an even worse defensive liability that we can't depend on. This just isn't a formula that works.

There's a lot of factors that go into defense besides rebounds. The Knicks only have one guy that can protect the paint on the entire team. I'm not even sure if anyone else is willing to step in the lane and take a charge. Chandler can't do it alone and Bargs isn't going to help.

As for Gordon, contract aside I'd take him over Bargs. He isnt nearly the liability that Bargs is and it also might mean less JR which would be a good thing.

[Context]

My new line on the Bargs situation: I can't wait for the season to start!

[Thugger HBC]

Would you or would you not like the deal a lot more if the same package was traded for Eric Gordon?

Bargnani has never averaged more than Eric Gordon.

Even played more games than bargnani last year too.

How do you get away with posts like these as a mod?

First of all, it's factually incorrect as Bargnani averaged 17.2 in 09-10 while Gordon averaged 16.9

Second of all, who freaking gives a crap? Over the last 4 years, Gordon has averaged 18.9 on 43% shooting, while Bargs has averaged 18 on 45%.

Both have been injured.

Both have had their competitiveness questioned by their organizations.

There's nothing appreciably different between Bargnani and Gordon besides the fact that one is a black man and the other guy is European.

Nope, the difference is one player gets a garbage package traded for him because he is garbage, the other got the best pg in the league at that time.

and apparently you care, I commented on YOUR post.

[Thugger HBC]

My new line on the Bargs situation: I can't wait for the season to start!

Playoffs will be my true judging moment.

I expect the team to score well regardless of Bargnani.

[god shammgod]

Depends on how you view the team.

Based on the playoffs, Bargnani should not be the marquee addition.

I honestly didnt want the dude for free.

i didn't want him either but he's not replacing anyone useful really. so if he wasn't useful it really wouldn't matter. but when you give up the 1st round pick, you want it to work out.

to me it seems like they wanted him. they pursued him and they think he can be useful. i honestly think this was a reaction to indiana. he guards the post ok and you can put him out at the 3 point line on offense. if he does his job well, he can remove hibbert from the lane which opens it up for everyone else.

to me this argument over how you beat a team is kinda silly. there isn't one way. you beat a team however you can. can the knicks beat the pacers by having a superior defense and rebounding better then them ? probably not. they probably have to beat them with offense. and to do that you gotta get hibbert out of the lane. we'll have to see if it works.

This deal is a head scratcher, and normally i dont get pissed over the teams moves and remain positive even if I dont particularly care for it.

But this one I just cant seem to do it in any positive way, and thats probably how I've viewed bargnani over his career so far....he's my second most hated active nba player, mainly because dude is garbage and really just does not care.

Of course, I'd rather eat the crow, but I have no reason to think he's capable of making me do so where it matters most.

As far as Indy goes, Hibbert isnt leaving the paint to guard Bargnani unless he plays center.

And I hope when Bargnani is playing center we're by 10 or something close.

you absolutely would have to put him at center. and he'd have to do a decent job on d. that worries me too.

i'd love to see the head to head numbers. maybe they saw them and his d wasn't that bad.

[StephNYKurry]

Nope, the difference is one player gets a garbage package traded for him because he is garbage, the other got the best pg in the league at that time.

and apparently you care, I commented on YOUR post.

Oh...we're talking about prior accomplishments that have absolutely ZERO predictive value on their future performance? Cool.

[Deeeez Knicks]

Would you or would you not like the deal a lot more if the same package was traded for Eric Gordon?

Bargnani has never averaged more than Eric Gordon.

Even played more games than bargnani last year too.

How do you get away with posts like these as a mod?

First of all, it's factually incorrect as Bargnani averaged 17.2 in 09-10 while Gordon averaged 16.9

Second of all, who freaking gives a crap? Over the last 4 years, Gordon has averaged 18.9 on 43% shooting, while Bargs has averaged 18 on 45%.

Third of all, you toss out the meaningless "he played more games that Bargs last year, as if his 42 games is appreciably different than Bargs' 35 games and as if Eric Gordon didn't damn near miss the entire season prior to this past one.

Both have been injured.

Both have had their competitiveness questioned by their organizations.

There's nothing appreciably different between Bargnani and Gordon besides the fact that one is a black man and the other guy is European.

The big difference is that one is a SG and the other is supposed to be a big man. But they both play like SGs. And that explains a lot on why many don't like Bargs. I prefer a big man that plays like a big man, and not a SG.

[Thugger HBC]

i didn't want him either but he's not replacing anyone useful really. so if he wasn't useful it really wouldn't matter. but when you give up the 1st round pick, you want it to work out.

to me it seems like they wanted him. they pursued him and they think he can be useful. i honestly think this was a reaction to indiana. he guards the post ok and you can put him out at the 3 point line on offense. if he does his job well, he can remove hibbert from the lane which opens it up for everyone else.

to me this argument over how you beat a team is kinda silly. there isn't one way. you beat a team however you can. can the knicks beat the pacers by having a superior defense and rebounding better then them ? probably not. they probably have to beat them with offense. and to do that you gotta get hibbert out of the lane. we'll have to see if it works.

This deal is a head scratcher, and normally i dont get pissed over the teams moves and remain positive even if I dont particularly care for it.

But this one I just cant seem to do it in any positive way, and thats probably how I've viewed bargnani over his career so far....he's my second most hated active nba player, mainly because dude is garbage and really just does not care.

Of course, I'd rather eat the crow, but I have no reason to think he's capable of making me do so where it matters most.

As far as Indy goes, Hibbert isnt leaving the paint to guard Bargnani unless he plays center.

And I hope when Bargnani is playing center we're by 10 or something close.

you absolutely would have to put him at center. and he'd have to do a decent job on d. that worries me too.

i'd love to see the head to head numbers. maybe they saw them and his d wasn't that bad.

Cant say I've seen them play each other in the playoffs.

Tyson played Hibbert well in the regular season from my memory.

[Thugger HBC]

Nope, the difference is one player gets a garbage package traded for him because he is garbage, the other got the best pg in the league at that time.

and apparently you care, I commented on YOUR post.

Oh...we're talking about prior accomplishments that have absolutely ZERO predictive value on their future performance? Cool.

Isnt that all we can talk about?

[NY2TheBay]

i hate when people include first round picks and 2nd round picks as the same thing though.

They are only different by contract guarantees, other than that there really is no difference.

What is going on here?

[StephNYKurry]

The big difference is that one is a SG and the other is supposed to be a big man. But they both play like SGs. And that explains a lot on why many don't like Bargs. I prefer a big man that plays like a big man, and not a SG.

WHO GIVES A CRAP????

1) His role on this team is to score and Gordon's would have been the same.

2) People would have loved the Gordon move even though it does NOTHING to solve our rebounding woes, on the premise that Gordon is a scorer, when he in fact isn't a better scorer than Bargnani

3) Most of you haters of Small Ball, would be committing to small ball AGAIN, with a guy with bad knees, average/below average defense, and inefficient scoring, while not addressing our biggest issues.

You're punishing Bargs for not being as good as you think he can be, while you think that Gordon is more of what he should be (which he isn't).

That's ridiculous.

[ORANGEandBLUE]

Why did the Knicks lose to the Pacers?

Because we shot the basketball like absolutely crap and don't say that it had something to do with the Pacers defense either, because it really didn't.

We missed wide open jump shots that we had been knocking in all year long.

Simple as that.

Bargs is not a reliable spot-up shooter. He's just another guy who hits difficult shots better than most but not well enough to be a true 2nd option. Basically another JR, another streaky iso player who we will have to waste possessions on by giving him heat check shots.

[god shammgod]

to me it's always dangerous to hope for a guy to change. but i am, i'm hoping. what else can i do ?

[ORANGEandBLUE]

Exactly. Thats the flaw of the Knicks philosophy. They rely on making a ton of jumpers to win games. When they can't make them they have little chance to win. And eventually over the course of the playoffs they will go cold. Its easy to stop because the Knicks don't have great ways to get good looks from 3. Its not like they play much inside/outside ball. Its more chuck and duck.

The other really good teams in the league are much more versatile offensively and they all play better defense then the Knicks. They can get better shots and can have a consistent offense. Being a great/good defensive team gives you another way to win even when your shooting is off. Pacers won plenty of games when they shot bad because of there defense. Knicks are not built that way so when there shot is off they lose. They were a mediocre defensive team during the season.

Give me a team thats built around defense over a team thats built around 3's anyday.

It can work when you have elite shooters i.e. 40% or better. We don't have shooters. We have "scorers," i.e. guys who's specialty is hitting difficult shots. In fact, in going after players our FO is willing to sacrifice shooting for scoring.

[StephNYKurry]

Why did the Knicks lose to the Pacers?

Because we shot the basketball like absolutely crap and don't say that it had something to do with the Pacers defense either, because it really didn't.

We missed wide open jump shots that we had been knocking in all year long.

Simple as that.

Bargs is not a reliable spot-up shooter. He's just another guy who hits difficult shots better than most but not well enough to be a true 2nd option. Basically another JR, another streaky iso player who we will have to waste possessions on by giving him heat check shots.

Now this is a fair assessment and it is one that I've made in the past in reference to Bargnani, but I'd rather have a 7 foot JR than Steve Novak and Marcus Camby.

My only issue about Bargnani was not giving up a first and not giving up Amare for him. We went 1 for 2. The first bothers me, but not enough to understand that we got a 7 foot JR Smith for Steve Novak and Marcus Camby. That's a win for this team.

[Thugger HBC]

to me it's always dangerous to hope for a guy to change. but i am, i'm hoping. what else can i do ?

I know we've had trades that some hated.

But has there been a significant trade that everyone hated before?

No because of who was traded but the acquired player.

I have to go back pretty far to find one.