Moderators: HerSports85, NoLayupRule, GONYK, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23, Deeeez Knicks, mpharris36, j4remi
KnicksGod wrote:Other than the fact that he’s a 1 or small 2, I don’t see any ceiling on Quickley’s game.
Might be the first draft pick we can say that about AFTER he started playing real regular season NBA games since ... Pat Ewing.
Fury wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:GnarlsOakley wrote:
Knicks fans need to get away from this mentality
Yeah, it is a giant waste of time. That's when you get the very definition of a treadmill team that people complain about now.
The way we are now is almost perfectly positioned for continued growth and development as a franchise. We would just throw that away if we settle now.
We wouldn’t be settling. We’d be creating a team. Then NY would become an attractive destination. You have to take these steps. Trading for a 25 shooting guard isn’t stunting development or growth.
Knick4Real wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:If Thibs keeps it up with IQ now he has a legit shot at ROY
I love that Quick's name is in the conversation. However, the league is going to give it to LaMelo because of his name and his draft position. Also, they want him to be a "star."
DaGawd wrote:jvsimonetti0514 wrote:DaGawd wrote:I mean can we at least just enjoy being mediocre for awhile? No team jumps from the dumps to championship contenders overnight.. unless they make a huge splash in FA/trades like the Miami Heat in 2010 or the 08 Celtics
I don’t really want to be the magic but I wouldn’t mind being the Pacers or raptors before Kawhi. We’ve been bad for so long that being at 5 seeds and randomly ending up in the second round a couple time’s would be pretty enjoyable compared to what we’ve been doing. Clearly the market is still desirable cuz of what Brooklyn pulled off. So if we can be consistently decent that will make it easier to attract top tier stars.
Basically this. Stop being so worried about being Orlando. We need to be decent for awhile so FAs wanna come here. This is NY. If we can maintain some type of decent for a prolonged period FAs will take notice and want to come here
Clyde_Style wrote:Fury wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:
Yeah, it is a giant waste of time. That's when you get the very definition of a treadmill team that people complain about now.
The way we are now is almost perfectly positioned for continued growth and development as a franchise. We would just throw that away if we settle now.
We wouldn’t be settling. We’d be creating a team. Then NY would become an attractive destination. You have to take these steps. Trading for a 25 shooting guard isn’t stunting development or growth.
IQ can be a 20+ PPG scorer. I'd prioritize a long-term PG solution to play next to him instead.
Fury wrote:GnarlsOakley wrote:Fury wrote:We are a Beal or LaVine away from being a nice 2nd round team
Knicks fans need to get away from this mentality
You have to make incremental improvements to become a title team because no superstar is coming here and tanking for 10 years isn’t gonna work. We have to build a team, man.
wtf does he know how to win other than getting his shots up and calling it a night? you don't trade for beal that sports a 35% usage rating the past 2 seasons. 
blueNorange wrote:Fury wrote:GnarlsOakley wrote:
Knicks fans need to get away from this mentality
You have to make incremental improvements to become a title team because no superstar is coming here and tanking for 10 years isn’t gonna work. We have to build a team, man.
agreed, but acquiring lavine isn't even a lateral move.
it's a mistake the knicks have routinely done the past 20 years, putting the eggs in the basket of a guy that's done more losing than winning
trading it all for crawful
trading it all for marbury
trading it all for curry
trading it all for melo*
melo was the first time they traded it all for a player that was on winning teams but even then at the time all melo has done was bounce out of the 1st round up for the most part. the other players aren't on the same level but it's still putting faith in a player that's never experienced what winning feels like and expects them to change the team's losing culture into a winning culture.
which is what the knicks have done for years, they target only losing players that never won and expect them to become winning players when they don't even know how to win. it's why thibs has these guys at 13-15, he's a winning coach and knows how to win.
tyson chandler was the last free agent the knicks targeted that came from a winning organization and low and behold, knicks were a playoff team once he came here.
want to change the culture? you get winners, not zach lavine that's been on loser ball clubs like the timberwolves and then the bulls
focus on winning players. iq is a winning player.
Montmorencie wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:TheDavinciCHODE wrote:
Last week people were saying RJ was untouchable in a Beale trade.
It's crazy how up and down we are on him.
Before this season, I said that Mitch was our only bona-fide NBA prospect. Meaning he was the only guy you could point to and say "that guy is going to be a starter on a playoff team".
RJ still has a long way to go to be a high-level NBA player. A good stretch here or there doesn't change that.
I'm not saying we have to trade him. But I agree with you that he shouldn't be untouchable. Right now Mitch and Quickly are the only 2 young players on this team that should be untouchable moving forward.
Also, RJ is a tough player to build around. Mitch and IQ fit with literally anyone. And they have 1 elite skill that translates to any situation. RJ has no elite skills. In fact, I don't know if RJ even has 1 star level skill for his position yet.
I'm not giving up, but RJ should definitely be at least available for the right deal.
Not saying that's definitely Lavine, but just saying he shouldn't be untouchable.
Like imagine if Washington called us tomorrow and said "hey, we'll take RJ, Knox, Frank, Dallas pick, and your pick next year for Beale".
I think we'd be stupid not to take that. None of those players are really any good right now, and the Dallas pick will probably be late lotto. Our pick next would be high too.
Imagine
Quick/Rose
Bullock/Burke
Beale/Burke
Randal/Obi
Mitch/Noel
That's a really solid on both ends.
RJ is definitely not a good enough prospect to be untouchable as much as I like him.
Beal isn't going to want to play in NY, he's going to want to go to a contender, and that team isn't beating the Sixers, Bucks, Celtics or Heat in a playoff series. Why does everyone want to hastily throw some mediocre team together that might win 45-48 games at best.
This year we are not beating them. But next season, older Quick and Mitch + another potential star, it's in the realm of possibility that we beat everyone but Nets if they build chemistry.
Reign23 wrote:blueNorange wrote:Fury wrote:
You have to make incremental improvements to become a title team because no superstar is coming here and tanking for 10 years isn’t gonna work. We have to build a team, man.
agreed, but acquiring lavine isn't even a lateral move.
it's a mistake the knicks have routinely done the past 20 years, putting the eggs in the basket of a guy that's done more losing than winning
trading it all for crawful
trading it all for marbury
trading it all for curry
trading it all for melo*
melo was the first time they traded it all for a player that was on winning teams but even then at the time all melo has done was bounce out of the 1st round up for the most part. the other players aren't on the same level but it's still putting faith in a player that's never experienced what winning feels like and expects them to change the team's losing culture into a winning culture.
which is what the knicks have done for years, they target only losing players that never won and expect them to become winning players when they don't even know how to win. it's why thibs has these guys at 13-15, he's a winning coach and knows how to win.
tyson chandler was the last free agent the knicks targeted that came from a winning organization and low and behold, knicks were a playoff team once he came here.
want to change the culture? you get winners, not zach lavine that's been on loser ball clubs like the timberwolves and then the bulls
focus on winning players. iq is a winning player.
Melo was a losing player when we traded for him? I mean, he never missed the playoffs, made the conference finals in 2009 and had a college championship, but sure, other than that...
oh and Beal is not a winning player but IQ is? the wizards would then trade beal for IQ easily, right?
blueNorange wrote:rajajackal wrote:just wanna say i've been paying attention to this knox/obi chemistry since preseason. it would be a sin for our team not to give this a closer look as the season progresses
knox is going to be out of the league in 2 years, he's simply not good at anything.
Chanel Bomber wrote:Reign23 wrote:blueNorange wrote:agreed, but acquiring lavine isn't even a lateral move.
it's a mistake the knicks have routinely done the past 20 years, putting the eggs in the basket of a guy that's done more losing than winning
trading it all for crawful
trading it all for marbury
trading it all for curry
trading it all for melo*
melo was the first time they traded it all for a player that was on winning teams but even then at the time all melo has done was bounce out of the 1st round up for the most part. the other players aren't on the same level but it's still putting faith in a player that's never experienced what winning feels like and expects them to change the team's losing culture into a winning culture.
which is what the knicks have done for years, they target only losing players that never won and expect them to become winning players when they don't even know how to win. it's why thibs has these guys at 13-15, he's a winning coach and knows how to win.
tyson chandler was the last free agent the knicks targeted that came from a winning organization and low and behold, knicks were a playoff team once he came here.
want to change the culture? you get winners, not zach lavine that's been on loser ball clubs like the timberwolves and then the bulls
focus on winning players. iq is a winning player.
Melo was a losing player when we traded for him? I mean, he never missed the playoffs, made the conference finals in 2009 and had a college championship, but sure, other than that...
oh and Beal is not a winning player but IQ is? the wizards would then trade beal for IQ easily, right?
The Melo hate defies any logic. It's visceral, not rational.
And I understand that some may not like his personality or his game. But to distort the facts is a different exercise entirely.
Chanel Bomber wrote:cgf wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:Edit: it literally can happen though. From the NBA:
"At the conclusion of the regular season, the team with the seventh-highest winning percentage in each conference will host the team with the eighth-highest winning percentage in its conference in a Play-In Game (the “Seven-Eight Game”). The winner of the Seven-Eight Game in each conference will be the seventh seed in the playoffs for its conference.
The team with the ninth-highest winning percentage in each conference will host the team with the tenth-highest winning percentage in its conference in a Play-In Game (the “Nine-Ten Game”). The loser of the Seven-Eight Game will host the winner of the Nine-Ten Game in a Play-In Game, and the winner of that game will be the eighth seed in the playoffs for its conference."
The 7th seed can miss the playoffs and also not be compensated with a lottery pick. Adam Silver's injustice, not mine.
If you lose the play-in, you get a lottery pick.
I stand corrected if this is true, but what's your source? I can't find any information on it. My understanding is that the draft order will follow the regular season standings outside of the lottery.
Capn'O wrote:We're the recovering meth addict older brother. And we've been clean for a few years now, thank you very much. Very uncouth to bring it up.
louisorr wrote:booyaka_jones wrote:I do wanna just quickly say something about this fan base's need to dookie all over other teams "star" players cuz their teams don't win. Guys like Lavine aren't lebron. There's only one Lebron. You guys are holding these young star players like Lavine or Beal to ridiculous standards that don't even make sense. A great player is simply a great player, nothing more nothing less. Is the rest of the team any good? Is the coach any good? Moaning about a player like Lavine who's having a historically great offensively efficient season because it doesn't lead to winning is miopic, his team stinks. His coach stinks. Beal is a beast, that team is disgusting and been disgusting. We really need to chill out with holding up star players to Lebron's level of greatness around here. There are like 3 guys in this entire league that could change the fortune of your team regardless of how bad they are, that's it. Is Beal or Lavine a 1A guy on a championship team? Who is beside like, Lebron, Luka, KD, Curry? Cut that out man. These guys are all great players in bad situations, who in a better situation with better players and coaches can win. You can absolutely be a great team with a multiple B+ star players and great role players and coaching.
Some people are so infatuated with TS and other offensive stats that they are they are ready to give up 3FRP for a Lavine level player. It's not crapping on the player to have doubts that he will actually be great on a new team. Doncic, Butler, Morant, Donovan Mitchell etc. all have lower TS than Lavine or Beal, but they instantly make their teams winners. That is something to consider. We just went through the Melo fiasco. The leaguewide narrative was he couldn't win ( without AI or Billups) but we said, "oh look at his offensive numbers, let's give up every asset we can"
Some guys don't seem to impact winning as much as others and a lot of factors go into that. other than offense, the obvious ones are Defense, but also personality, work ethic, clutchness, effort. If a fanbase isn't buying a guy as a star, then maybe there's a reason that they're picking up on beside their slash line.
DaGawd wrote:jvsimonetti0514 wrote:DaGawd wrote:I mean can we at least just enjoy being mediocre for awhile? No team jumps from the dumps to championship contenders overnight.. unless they make a huge splash in FA/trades like the Miami Heat in 2010 or the 08 Celtics
I don’t really want to be the magic but I wouldn’t mind being the Pacers or raptors before Kawhi. We’ve been bad for so long that being at 5 seeds and randomly ending up in the second round a couple time’s would be pretty enjoyable compared to what we’ve been doing. Clearly the market is still desirable cuz of what Brooklyn pulled off. So if we can be consistently decent that will make it easier to attract top tier stars.
Basically this. Stop being so worried about being Orlando. We need to be decent for awhile so FAs wanna come here. This is NY. If we can maintain some type of decency for a prolonged period FAs will take notice and want to come here
booyaka_jones wrote:louisorr wrote:booyaka_jones wrote:I do wanna just quickly say something about this fan base's need to dookie all over other teams "star" players cuz their teams don't win. Guys like Lavine aren't lebron. There's only one Lebron. You guys are holding these young star players like Lavine or Beal to ridiculous standards that don't even make sense. A great player is simply a great player, nothing more nothing less. Is the rest of the team any good? Is the coach any good? Moaning about a player like Lavine who's having a historically great offensively efficient season because it doesn't lead to winning is miopic, his team stinks. His coach stinks. Beal is a beast, that team is disgusting and been disgusting. We really need to chill out with holding up star players to Lebron's level of greatness around here. There are like 3 guys in this entire league that could change the fortune of your team regardless of how bad they are, that's it. Is Beal or Lavine a 1A guy on a championship team? Who is beside like, Lebron, Luka, KD, Curry? Cut that out man. These guys are all great players in bad situations, who in a better situation with better players and coaches can win. You can absolutely be a great team with a multiple B+ star players and great role players and coaching.
Some people are so infatuated with TS and other offensive stats that they are they are ready to give up 3FRP for a Lavine level player. It's not crapping on the player to have doubts that he will actually be great on a new team. Doncic, Butler, Morant, Donovan Mitchell etc. all have lower TS than Lavine or Beal, but they instantly make their teams winners. That is something to consider. We just went through the Melo fiasco. The leaguewide narrative was he couldn't win ( without AI or Billups) but we said, "oh look at his offensive numbers, let's give up every asset we can"
Some guys don't seem to impact winning as much as others and a lot of factors go into that. other than offense, the obvious ones are Defense, but also personality, work ethic, clutchness, effort. If a fanbase isn't buying a guy as a star, then maybe there's a reason that they're picking up on beside their slash line.
Yea I wanna make it clear - I'm not advocating specifically for lavine or beal, those just happen to be some guys on radars. It was more of a general example. I wouldn't give up the farm for Lavine either. I'm just saying there's way too much griping about other teams star players on here when winning is a contextual/circumstantial thing outside of having Lebron on your team. True franchise changers like that are once in a generation, at best. Tankers believing that this upcoming draft has generational superstars are not doing themselves or these kids a solid. Putting all this pressure and projection on these 19 year old's is silly. No one here, or anywhere knows what they will or won't be in the NBA. When none of them bring their respective teams out of the dredges, what will you say then?
And a note on this treadmill term. Any team not named the lakers or the clippers, is by definition a treadmill team. Getting bent out of shape because you don't want this team to be a 5th seed, or be like the Pacers is hilarious. None of the players that we've passed on that you guys get all pissy about like Mitchell have won a chip, or come close to it. The Jazz are a treadmill team in the west and SGA ain't winning anything of note with OKC. Also, someone call me out when Zion or Ja win chips with their respective teams (they won't) but those guys are pretty generational talents, yes?
cgf wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:cgf wrote:If you lose the play-in, you get a lottery pick.
I stand corrected if this is true, but what's your source? I can't find any information on it. My understanding is that the draft order will follow the regular season standings outside of the lottery.
On one of the Lowe Post pods they were talking about it & said that the lottery teams would be the ones who didn't qualify for the playoffs, after the play-in. Which made sense, so I never looked into it any further
NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Montmorencie wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:
Beal isn't going to want to play in NY, he's going to want to go to a contender, and that team isn't beating the Sixers, Bucks, Celtics or Heat in a playoff series. Why does everyone want to hastily throw some mediocre team together that might win 45-48 games at best.
This year we are not beating them. But next season, older Quick and Mitch + another potential star, it's in the realm of possibility that we beat everyone but Nets if they build chemistry.
Chemistry doesn't overcome talent, and there are no free agent stars in the next two years that will come to the Knicks. That team is a mid level squad, like the Pacers, it would be good enough to win 44-49 games, and be nothing more than a bump in the road for the top half of the conference in a series.
