put it this way. If the Clippers offered Paul for Melo who says no? Would anyone on here say no?
In a vacuum I wouldn't say no, but I'd prefer making it a 3 team deal where we could cash in on young pieces for CP3. Even if he defies the norm for PGs declining in their 30s, I still think you're another solid scorer and a 3 and D away from being a real threat before you even get to the decimated bench.
give me Oladipo and Hez or the Lakers 2018 pick for Melo. I'd prefer Hez, but I'll admit that it is mostly based on pre-draft scouting. I didnt see him outside of odd minutes this year. Grant and VO as two triangle "Guards" with neither as the anointed PG. Hez as 6th man or the starting 3. That's a long, athletic lineup. Which could become a top 5 defensive lineup as guys mature. Everyone there has the potential to be a plus defender (VO and KP can be special defenders).
like to see Phil Jackson show an ability/nose for moves like Portland signing Ed Davis for 3 years 20. Talented kid, takes a while to develop, breaks out on a bad team (always risky). Portland gives him 3 years 20 (very cheap deal in hindsight but a risk) and it looks like an absolute bargain. Things like that are more appealing than hoping Batum at max or close to max is going to turn this ship around.
paying big bucks to anyone this summer puts you all in on building through FA. That was really my point. The Knicks have to declare their intentions this summer - will this team be built around Melo and KP through free agency, or will it be built around KP through the draft (and without Melo)? We have reached that crossroads, and credit goes to Phil for at least giving the franchise a choice of the two.
which is my favorite all in stat, mainly because you can add up the WS for players on a team and you're almost always within 1 or 2 of the actual # of wins a team got.
Just under .100. That suggests he's not a difference maker. A good starter. Not more. Notably he was in the 120s earlier in his career when he was being hyped as a possible next Pippen type.
I have no illusions about Batum being a difference maker. I don't think he is, but I do think he is extremely versatile at a position of major need for the team. Normally paying him a max would be a bad idea, but taking into account another cap rise and the needs of the team, I think he's a great fit.
Let me put it this way. Say the Knicks land Batum. Say the improvement from adding him lets you bring in another good FA next year. For shits and giggles, let's say it's Kyle Lowry. Batum basically becomes the #4 on the team, and the #5 would be RoLo.
What are your feelings on that team in terms of competing?
like to see Phil Jackson show an ability/nose for moves like Portland signing Ed Davis for 3 years 20. Talented kid, takes a while to develop, breaks out on a bad team (always risky). Portland gives him 3 years 20 (very cheap deal in hindsight but a risk) and it looks like an absolute bargain. Things like that are more appealing than hoping Batum at max or close to max is going to turn this ship around.
That's what he tried to do with Derrick Williams. He's done it a bunch with the Lakers too. Phil has a very good eye for playing talent. Just not coaching talent.
which is my favorite all in stat, mainly because you can add up the WS for players on a team and you're almost always within 1 or 2 of the actual # of wins a team got.
Just under .100. That suggests he's not a difference maker. A good starter. Not more. Notably he was in the 120s earlier in his career when he was being hyped as a possible next Pippen type.
I have no illusions about Batum being a difference maker. I don't think he is, but I do think he is extremely versatile at a position of major need for the team. Normally paying him a max would be a bad idea, but taking into account another cap rise and the needs of the team, I think he's a great fit.
Let me put it this way. Say the Knicks land Batum. Say the improvement from adding him lets you bring in another good FA next year. For shits and giggles, let's say it's Kyle Lowry. Batum basically becomes the #4 on the team, and the #5 would be RoLo.
What are your feelings on that team in terms of competing?
A Lowry-Batum-Melo-KP-Lopez team would be a ton of fun to watch, but ultimately they aren't beating the Cavs, and that's pretty much their ceiling. If they time it right with a total rebuild, they'll have a good young team in 2018-2019 just as the Warriors and Spurs are declining.
like to see Phil Jackson show an ability/nose for moves like Portland signing Ed Davis for 3 years 20. Talented kid, takes a while to develop, breaks out on a bad team (always risky). Portland gives him 3 years 20 (very cheap deal in hindsight but a risk) and it looks like an absolute bargain. Things like that are more appealing than hoping Batum at max or close to max is going to turn this ship around.
Well he did. KOQ. It didnt work out as well as Davis, be it because they're different people or situation etc. Also to a lesser extent Rolo, whose advanced stats (PER, WS48...) suggest was a much bigger contributor than his ex-teammate Batum.
The thing is that the only bargain in the modern NBA is the traditional big man. No one wants that player. You're very unlikely to find a bargain among guards or any forward/center who can shoot from range or gallop down the court and protect the rim.
like to see Phil Jackson show an ability/nose for moves like Portland signing Ed Davis for 3 years 20. Talented kid, takes a while to develop, breaks out on a bad team (always risky). Portland gives him 3 years 20 (very cheap deal in hindsight but a risk) and it looks like an absolute bargain. Things like that are more appealing than hoping Batum at max or close to max is going to turn this ship around.
That's what he tried to do with Derrick Williams. He's done it a bunch with the Lakers too. Phil has a very good eye for playing talent. Just not coaching talent.
Disagree on Williams. Davis is liking an emerging player and having the guts to "gamble" on your belief. Williams was a 0 upside move for the Knicks. If he broke out he would opt out and if he didn't we'd be stuck with him. Davis was coming off a solid season and Portland decided to "roll the dice" on a team friendly (but risky for any 1 year) guy and now they have Ed Davis locked up for 3 years 20 million.
line is Ed Davis put up 6.5 points, 7.4 boards 0.9 blocks with a 18.76 PER. He shot 61% from the field and Portland has him on the cheap. That's a really nice move.
RE: RE: RE: Batum was 87th in WS/48 (min 50 starts)
which is my favorite all in stat, mainly because you can add up the WS for players on a team and you're almost always within 1 or 2 of the actual # of wins a team got.
Just under .100. That suggests he's not a difference maker. A good starter. Not more. Notably he was in the 120s earlier in his career when he was being hyped as a possible next Pippen type.
I have no illusions about Batum being a difference maker. I don't think he is, but I do think he is extremely versatile at a position of major need for the team. Normally paying him a max would be a bad idea, but taking into account another cap rise and the needs of the team, I think he's a great fit.
Let me put it this way. Say the Knicks land Batum. Say the improvement from adding him lets you bring in another good FA next year. For shits and giggles, let's say it's Kyle Lowry. Batum basically becomes the #4 on the team, and the #5 would be RoLo.
What are your feelings on that team in terms of competing?
A Lowry-Batum-Melo-KP-Lopez team would be a ton of fun to watch, but ultimately they aren't beating the Cavs, and that's pretty much their ceiling. If they time it right with a total rebuild, they'll have a good young team in 2018-2019 just as the Warriors and Spurs are declining.
That's where I would disagree. Lebron is better than Melo, yes. Kyrie is better than Batum, yes. Love currently is better than KP, but that gap will get smaller over the next couple of years. But Lowry and RoLo are better than the respective players at each position on the Cavs.
And each of those 5 on the Knicks have shown that they can be difference makers in a single game based on gameplan. With a good coach, that lineup's versatility has a decent chance to beat the Cavs in a playoff series.
but I've been watching a few Balencesto Sevilla games with KP and Hernangomez recently just to get a little Knicks fix, and came away far more impressed with Willy than I thought I'd be. Very polished post game, pretty good passer, hard-nosed competitor. Obviously the concern is his lateral movement on the defensive end, but he's definitely a player. Brings a lot to the table offensively, is a load on the low block on both ends of the court, and has great chemistry with KP. Hope we lock him in for next season. His attitude alone with be a refreshing change from O'Quinn and Seraphin.
so who knows how he's progressed. Very limited playing time with Real Madrid (which is common for young guys over there), but he's certainly productive in the minutes he gets.
but I've been watching a few Balencesto Sevilla games with KP and Hernangomez recently just to get a little Knicks fix, and came away far more impressed with Willy than I thought I'd be. Very polished post game, pretty good passer, hard-nosed competitor. Obviously the concern is his lateral movement on the defensive end, but he's definitely a player. Brings a lot to the table offensively, is a load on the low block on both ends of the court, and has great chemistry with KP. Hope we lock him in for next season. His attitude alone with be a refreshing change from O'Quinn and Seraphin.
I don't think attitude is the problem with either KOQ or Seraphin. KOQ just plays dumb, and Seraphin was a black hole in the beginning of the year. Since losing weight, he's actually been pretty good in a backup role. That being said, having all 3 would be a waste of resources.
I've actually come 180 on Seraphin, and would prefer him as the backup over KOQ, despite KOQ's great contract. If they could resign Seraphin and put together a package or do something and get picks in return for KOQ, I'd be all for it.
I LOVE KOQ's nastiness though. He got a ton of flagrants, but I have no issues with that. The team needs some of that toughness. Plus, he has Kurt Thomas' crazy eyes, which is always a good thing.
which is my favorite all in stat, mainly because you can add up the WS for players on a team and you're almost always within 1 or 2 of the actual # of wins a team got.
Just under .100. That suggests he's not a difference maker. A good starter. Not more. Notably he was in the 120s earlier in his career when he was being hyped as a possible next Pippen type.
I have no illusions about Batum being a difference maker. I don't think he is, but I do think he is extremely versatile at a position of major need for the team. Normally paying him a max would be a bad idea, but taking into account another cap rise and the needs of the team, I think he's a great fit.
Let me put it this way. Say the Knicks land Batum. Say the improvement from adding him lets you bring in another good FA next year. For shits and giggles, let's say it's Kyle Lowry. Batum basically becomes the #4 on the team, and the #5 would be RoLo.
What are your feelings on that team in terms of competing?
Yes, Lowry and Batum would be good pickups. If the best argument for Batum is that he'll get you a Lowry, there are a lot of responses. Obviously, that's really speculative. Lowry is not a Westbrook/Durant type. And it's not such an argument for Batum per se.
The Batum nets you an allstar bet is just a bet. The odds are against it. Frankly, I dont think we even have much of a shot at Batum. The better percentage play is to cash in the Melo chip when all the big UFAs stay put this year. Build around KP with guys his age and a goal of being a playoff team in his 3rd or 4th season, title window starting in his 6th or 7th season most likely. Maybe a little earlier if UFAs really feel us in Summers of 2018-2020.
How lebron impacts a game and how Melo impacts a game so comparing player by player just doesn't illustrate how much more dominant a lebron led team is over a Melo+KP+Rolo+ any non KD FA addition.
Huh? Who is harping on him? I mentioned him once. Jon and Deej responded and I responded to both of them. Where is the harping? 3 for 20 is a bargain rate for a 7/8 player on a good team. You just made my point.
fact if Phil Jackson signs a player this off-season who is 25-26 years old to a similar money/years deal, the player goes on to be a "7/8th" player on a contending team I would suggest most if not all BBI Knicks fans will be openly lauding the move.
which is my favorite all in stat, mainly because you can add up the WS for players on a team and you're almost always within 1 or 2 of the actual # of wins a team got.
Just under .100. That suggests he's not a difference maker. A good starter. Not more. Notably he was in the 120s earlier in his career when he was being hyped as a possible next Pippen type.
I have no illusions about Batum being a difference maker. I don't think he is, but I do think he is extremely versatile at a position of major need for the team. Normally paying him a max would be a bad idea, but taking into account another cap rise and the needs of the team, I think he's a great fit.
Let me put it this way. Say the Knicks land Batum. Say the improvement from adding him lets you bring in another good FA next year. For shits and giggles, let's say it's Kyle Lowry. Batum basically becomes the #4 on the team, and the #5 would be RoLo.
What are your feelings on that team in terms of competing?
Yes, Lowry and Batum would be good pickups. If the best argument for Batum is that he'll get you a Lowry, there are a lot of responses. Obviously, that's really speculative. Lowry is not a Westbrook/Durant type. And it's not such an argument for Batum per se.
The Batum nets you an allstar bet is just a bet. The odds are against it. Frankly, I dont think we even have much of a shot at Batum. The better percentage play is to cash in the Melo chip when all the big UFAs stay put this year. Build around KP with guys his age and a goal of being a playoff team in his 3rd or 4th season, title window starting in his 6th or 7th season most likely. Maybe a little earlier if UFAs really feel us in Summers of 2018-2020.
Well, they're all bets, really. As I've mentioned before, I like the Hinkie approach, and think it's a smart way to go. But the Hinkie approach doesn't work if all that tanking doesn't net you a transcendental type player, which I think the Knicks already have in KP.
With a higher pick, you have a better chance at a great player, sure. But if you look at Philly, they haven't gotten that type of player from all their tanking. MCW? Nope. Nerlens Noel? Nope. Okafor? Nope. Embiid in theory, but they were unlucky that his foot is screwed.
If you look at the Spurs, their reign started with getting lucky and having Duncan fall into their laps. They've been competitive for 19 years, developing lower picks into solid players to surround Duncan. And then, with all of their picks at their disposal, they got another franchise player in Leonard. Who they didn't even draft - he was acquired via a trade for George Hill. And with that sustained success, they've been able to bring in premier FAs like Aldridge, and solid veterans like David West.
I guess my point is that tanking for a higher draft pick shuts down FA as an avenue for improvement more than acquiring good to very good FAs shuts down the draft as an avenue for improvement when you already have a cornerstone piece, which I think the Knicks have in KP.
Jackson has been very upfront about how pleased he was with Rambis, despite the Knicks going 9-19 under his guidance. Rambis is good friends with Jackson and his willingness to use the triangle and let the Knicks president influence his coaching philosophy has given him a leg up on any other coaching candidates.
Blatt may have just been a perfunctory interview by Jackson, who seems to be leaning toward giving Rambis the job with the Knicks. Link - ( New Window )
Phil could probably get 98% of the prospective head coaches to run the triangle.
I can pretty much accept anything that Phil has done EXCEPT for bringing back Rambis. If that happened, I can't wait for Isola's "Why didn't Dolan stop Phil?" article after so many "Dolan is meddling with Phil" articles.
How lebron impacts a game and how Melo impacts a game so comparing player by player just doesn't illustrate how much more dominant a lebron led team is over a Melo+KP+Rolo+ any non KD FA addition.
Lebron has much more of an impact because it's his job to have more of an impact due to how his teams play. He's a good defender, ridiculously athletic and the best passer his position has ever seen. But his entire team's offense is run through him.
With the Triangle or the Princeton or any system offense, that responsibility is shared throughout the team. That's why I compare player for player. I'd do the same if I were comparing the Spurs to the Cavs. I take the Spurs 100 times out of 100. And in fact, the Spurs have pretty much proved that they're better than any Lebron-led team, and they were unlucky with that Ray Allen 3 in game 6 a few years ago.
I'm just talking about lebron because that's who the Knicks have to top in their own conference. We're not even talking about the real threat to the Knicks semblance of a title window within the next 3 years. If they can't field a team that outdoes lebrons in 2 years how the hell do you compete with whoever is coming out the west???
Jr smith had a higher W/S 48 this past year tha Batum. So we're still arguably beat at 4 of the 5 positions vs the cavs. And the one in our favor is robin Lopez over Tristan Thompson. Gonna go out on a limb and say that's not gonna be the difference maker matchup. Still would get swept. Maybe 5 push it to 5.
So you're saying the triangle is the solution to beat lebron??
Between your passive aggressive comments about PG/Kawhi and misinterpretation of my posts as "LOL U LUV THE ISOSCELES", you make it tough to have an educated debate on the topic.
My point is this: Lebron is a once-in-a-lifetime player. Banking on getting one or more ultra-superstars and utilizing an offense that relies on them is a bad way of building a team, because unless you have the best player in the league, you'll never win.
Now, if you have a sound system in place, with good to great players surrounding a franchise player, you have a much better chance of being a championship contender because you can utilize the various weapons on your roster to capitalize on the weaknesses of other teams.
we saw it. Love is way too short to defend KP. And isnt athletic enough to get KP out of position. That's a matchup that in year 2 will easily favor the Knicks.
But yeah, the Cavs would smoke us. As they say, it's easy to get from bad to good (overstated). What's really hard is to get from good to great. I'd sign Batum, dont get me wrong. But he's not a guy who takes you from good to great. And we're not even good yet.
Jr smith had a higher W/S 48 this past year tha Batum. So we're still arguably beat at 4 of the 5 positions vs the cavs. And the one in our favor is robin Lopez over Tristan Thompson. Gonna go out on a limb and say that's not gonna be the difference maker matchup. Still would get swept. Maybe 5 push it to 5.
And that's just the east.
Player for player, what are your thoughts on how the current Spurs match up against the current Cavs?
My point is this: Lebron is a once-in-a-lifetime player. Banking on getting one or more ultra-superstars and utilizing an offense that relies on them is a bad way of building a team, because unless you have the best player in the league, you'll never win.
Evidence strongly suggests that you need a guy who is right up there in the convo as being the best player or top few players to win. 2004 Pistons notwithstanding. Titles are won by Shaqs, Kobes, Lebrons, and Duncans. KG, Dirk, Wade. Steph is either in that first group or second group.
we saw it. Love is way too short to defend KP. And isnt athletic enough to get KP out of position. That's a matchup that in year 2 will easily favor the Knicks.
But yeah, the Cavs would smoke us. As they say, it's easy to get from bad to good (overstated). What's really hard is to get from good to great. I'd sign Batum, dont get me wrong. But he's not a guy who takes you from good to great. And we're not even good yet.
Agreed - if you sign Batum this year, it's still a bad matchup. But next year, if you're able to sign a good player at PG, who will most likely be better than Batum, then I think that team is absolutely competitive with the Cavs.
My point is this: Lebron is a once-in-a-lifetime player. Banking on getting one or more ultra-superstars and utilizing an offense that relies on them is a bad way of building a team, because unless you have the best player in the league, you'll never win.
Evidence strongly suggests that you need a guy who is right up there in the convo as being the best player or top few players to win. 2004 Pistons notwithstanding. Titles are won by Shaqs, Kobes, Lebrons, and Duncans. KG, Dirk, Wade. Steph is either in that first group or second group.
Agreed. And I think KP will eventually be in that tier. That's my point.
Which is why tanking and hoping to get another top-tier talent or two to go with Porzingis is the only way to truly have a shot at a title. Signing some decent players to win 45-50 games and lose in the second round of the playoffs only puts you in basketball purgatory.
that underplays its talent. Maybe Love and Kyrie are overrated. But whatever it is, the chemistry on that team is terrible, and LeBron is not blameless. The whole is less than the sum of the parts there. OTOH, guys like Mozgov and Thompson are probably made better by being afterthoughts.
we saw it. Love is way too short to defend KP. And isnt athletic enough to get KP out of position. That's a matchup that in year 2 will easily favor the Knicks.
But yeah, the Cavs would smoke us. As they say, it's easy to get from bad to good (overstated). What's really hard is to get from good to great. I'd sign Batum, dont get me wrong. But he's not a guy who takes you from good to great. And we're not even good yet.
This gets at my point. Adding Melo, KP, and RoLo added 15 wins to a 17 win team. I don't think we should be banking on Batum (minus the players we have to let walk in order to sign him) to add another 15 in order become the competitive team that attracts big time FAs (and that's assuming a 47 win team even sends off vibes of a title contender to big time FAs).
I just look at teams that have turned around the ship or built a team in place that attracts the better coaches in the league. The Celtics, wolves and Blazers come to mind. They all cashed in on vets at the right time (Blazers maybe more of a surprise/exception I'll concede that). And I look at teams that try to build through FA with middle tier players (hornets come to mind) and that route doesn't seem optimal.
what you have to accept is how ludicrously hard it is to break into
the NBA champions level. Since 1980, a grand total of 10 franchises have won titles. 10 franchises in 36 seasons, and the top three of them have won more than the other seven combined:
we saw it. Love is way too short to defend KP. And isnt athletic enough to get KP out of position. That's a matchup that in year 2 will easily favor the Knicks.
But yeah, the Cavs would smoke us. As they say, it's easy to get from bad to good (overstated). What's really hard is to get from good to great. I'd sign Batum, dont get me wrong. But he's not a guy who takes you from good to great. And we're not even good yet.
This gets at my point. Adding Melo, KP, and RoLo added 15 wins to a 17 win team. I don't think we should be banking on Batum (minus the players we have to let walk in order to sign him) to add another 15 in order become the competitive team that attracts big time FAs (and that's assuming a 47 win team even sends off vibes of a title contender to big time FAs).
I just look at teams that have turned around the ship or built a team in place that attracts the better coaches in the league. The Celtics, wolves and Blazers come to mind. They all cashed in on vets at the right time (Blazers maybe more of a surprise/exception I'll concede that). And I look at teams that try to build through FA with middle tier players (hornets come to mind) and that route doesn't seem optimal.
Well Im a trade Melo guy, but in fairness those three SHOULD add more wins next season. Melo was a win player last season. 2.9 in his injury-shortended 2014-15 season. 9.5 & 10.7 the previous seasons. He can easily get back to 8-9. Rolo struggled the first half. His WS48 of 126 was significantly down over his prior 2 seasons (150, 176 respectively). So he was a 5.8 win player last year, but 9.5 win player his previous full season, 2013-14. KP was a 4.3 win player last year in 72 games. He should easily hit 7 wins next year (Dirk went .8 to 8.1). Figure with health there could be 8 or more increased wins out of those three next year. Or not, of course.
8 more wins from those 3, you are expecting about 7 more from the Batum over Afflalo improvement alone to get in the middle of the pack of the eastern conference. Which really gets at why Batum would come to NY to make them a 47 win team when he's already on a 48 win team.
And...that still leaves us arguing about trying getting out of the eastern conference when that's not even the real problem with trying to win now.
RE: what you have to accept is how ludicrously hard it is to break into
the NBA champions level. Since 1980, a grand total of 10 franchises have won titles. 10 franchises in 36 seasons, and the top three of them have won more than the other seven combined:
21 for the Lakers, Bulls and Spurs, 15 for everyone else.
That's the one thing that really sucks about the current NBA. It is a league driven by a handful of stars and a handful of smart teams who consistently are able to orchestrate themselves and their teams to being considerably better than most of the league.
I half think the league would be better served as a whole if they made some drastic changes and thought outside of the box. Maybe something like not allowing any draft picks nor players with less than three years of service from being traded, which at first thought sounds plenty dumb maybe would possibly help save teams from themselves and force more teams to actually rebuild while also helping team building and chemistry instead of the annual "star" swapping and just shuffling of the deck chairs the seems to be what the league has become.
Maybe something even totally different than that but I think the league would benefit from something being done to change the way the NBA is currently structured.
RE: RE: what you have to accept is how ludicrously hard it is to break into
That's the one thing that really sucks about the current NBA. It is a league driven by a handful of stars and a handful of smart teams who consistently are able to orchestrate themselves and their teams to being considerably better than most of the league.
I half think the league would be better served as a whole if they made some drastic changes and thought outside of the box. Maybe something like not allowing any draft picks nor players with less than three years of service from being traded, which at first thought sounds plenty dumb maybe would possibly help save teams from themselves and force more teams to actually rebuild while also helping team building and chemistry instead of the annual "star" swapping and just shuffling of the deck chairs the seems to be what the league has become.
Maybe something even totally different than that but I think the league would benefit from something being done to change the way the NBA is currently structured.
I'd argue the issue is much simpler: You need an upper echelon HOFer to win multiple titles and there are a finite number of those guys. Yes you need more than that. But were the Bulls brilliant for drafting Jordan? The Spurs for drafting Duncan? Because Tony Parker and Manu dont win squat without TD.
Notably, only the Lakers have really built it twice in the 25 years Im watching basketball. They had showtime and then the Kobe era (and frankly the Kobe era was a bit lucky -- they got him because he refused to play for the Nets, and they had to dump Vlade to sign Shaq). The Bulls havent replicated. The Rockets havent replicated. It's not at all clear that the Lakers know some secret sauce. Byron Scott suggests otherwise.
In a vacuum I wouldn't say no, but I'd prefer making it a 3 team deal where we could cash in on young pieces for CP3. Even if he defies the norm for PGs declining in their 30s, I still think you're another solid scorer and a 3 and D away from being a real threat before you even get to the decimated bench.
No need to be snarky.
Just under .100. That suggests he's not a difference maker. A good starter. Not more. Notably he was in the 120s earlier in his career when he was being hyped as a possible next Pippen type.
I have no illusions about Batum being a difference maker. I don't think he is, but I do think he is extremely versatile at a position of major need for the team. Normally paying him a max would be a bad idea, but taking into account another cap rise and the needs of the team, I think he's a great fit.
Let me put it this way. Say the Knicks land Batum. Say the improvement from adding him lets you bring in another good FA next year. For shits and giggles, let's say it's Kyle Lowry. Batum basically becomes the #4 on the team, and the #5 would be RoLo.
What are your feelings on that team in terms of competing?
That's what he tried to do with Derrick Williams. He's done it a bunch with the Lakers too. Phil has a very good eye for playing talent. Just not coaching talent.
Quote:
which is my favorite all in stat, mainly because you can add up the WS for players on a team and you're almost always within 1 or 2 of the actual # of wins a team got.
Just under .100. That suggests he's not a difference maker. A good starter. Not more. Notably he was in the 120s earlier in his career when he was being hyped as a possible next Pippen type.
I have no illusions about Batum being a difference maker. I don't think he is, but I do think he is extremely versatile at a position of major need for the team. Normally paying him a max would be a bad idea, but taking into account another cap rise and the needs of the team, I think he's a great fit.
Let me put it this way. Say the Knicks land Batum. Say the improvement from adding him lets you bring in another good FA next year. For shits and giggles, let's say it's Kyle Lowry. Batum basically becomes the #4 on the team, and the #5 would be RoLo.
What are your feelings on that team in terms of competing?
A Lowry-Batum-Melo-KP-Lopez team would be a ton of fun to watch, but ultimately they aren't beating the Cavs, and that's pretty much their ceiling. If they time it right with a total rebuild, they'll have a good young team in 2018-2019 just as the Warriors and Spurs are declining.
Well he did. KOQ. It didnt work out as well as Davis, be it because they're different people or situation etc. Also to a lesser extent Rolo, whose advanced stats (PER, WS48...) suggest was a much bigger contributor than his ex-teammate Batum.
The thing is that the only bargain in the modern NBA is the traditional big man. No one wants that player. You're very unlikely to find a bargain among guards or any forward/center who can shoot from range or gallop down the court and protect the rim.
Quote:
like to see Phil Jackson show an ability/nose for moves like Portland signing Ed Davis for 3 years 20. Talented kid, takes a while to develop, breaks out on a bad team (always risky). Portland gives him 3 years 20 (very cheap deal in hindsight but a risk) and it looks like an absolute bargain. Things like that are more appealing than hoping Batum at max or close to max is going to turn this ship around.
That's what he tried to do with Derrick Williams. He's done it a bunch with the Lakers too. Phil has a very good eye for playing talent. Just not coaching talent.
Disagree on Williams. Davis is liking an emerging player and having the guts to "gamble" on your belief. Williams was a 0 upside move for the Knicks. If he broke out he would opt out and if he didn't we'd be stuck with him. Davis was coming off a solid season and Portland decided to "roll the dice" on a team friendly (but risky for any 1 year) guy and now they have Ed Davis locked up for 3 years 20 million.
Quote:
In comment 12924190 Deej said:
Quote:
which is my favorite all in stat, mainly because you can add up the WS for players on a team and you're almost always within 1 or 2 of the actual # of wins a team got.
Just under .100. That suggests he's not a difference maker. A good starter. Not more. Notably he was in the 120s earlier in his career when he was being hyped as a possible next Pippen type.
I have no illusions about Batum being a difference maker. I don't think he is, but I do think he is extremely versatile at a position of major need for the team. Normally paying him a max would be a bad idea, but taking into account another cap rise and the needs of the team, I think he's a great fit.
Let me put it this way. Say the Knicks land Batum. Say the improvement from adding him lets you bring in another good FA next year. For shits and giggles, let's say it's Kyle Lowry. Batum basically becomes the #4 on the team, and the #5 would be RoLo.
What are your feelings on that team in terms of competing?
A Lowry-Batum-Melo-KP-Lopez team would be a ton of fun to watch, but ultimately they aren't beating the Cavs, and that's pretty much their ceiling. If they time it right with a total rebuild, they'll have a good young team in 2018-2019 just as the Warriors and Spurs are declining.
That's where I would disagree. Lebron is better than Melo, yes. Kyrie is better than Batum, yes. Love currently is better than KP, but that gap will get smaller over the next couple of years. But Lowry and RoLo are better than the respective players at each position on the Cavs.
And each of those 5 on the Knicks have shown that they can be difference makers in a single game based on gameplan. With a good coach, that lineup's versatility has a decent chance to beat the Cavs in a playoff series.
I don't think attitude is the problem with either KOQ or Seraphin. KOQ just plays dumb, and Seraphin was a black hole in the beginning of the year. Since losing weight, he's actually been pretty good in a backup role. That being said, having all 3 would be a waste of resources.
I've actually come 180 on Seraphin, and would prefer him as the backup over KOQ, despite KOQ's great contract. If they could resign Seraphin and put together a package or do something and get picks in return for KOQ, I'd be all for it.
I LOVE KOQ's nastiness though. He got a ton of flagrants, but I have no issues with that. The team needs some of that toughness. Plus, he has Kurt Thomas' crazy eyes, which is always a good thing.
Quote:
which is my favorite all in stat, mainly because you can add up the WS for players on a team and you're almost always within 1 or 2 of the actual # of wins a team got.
Just under .100. That suggests he's not a difference maker. A good starter. Not more. Notably he was in the 120s earlier in his career when he was being hyped as a possible next Pippen type.
I have no illusions about Batum being a difference maker. I don't think he is, but I do think he is extremely versatile at a position of major need for the team. Normally paying him a max would be a bad idea, but taking into account another cap rise and the needs of the team, I think he's a great fit.
Let me put it this way. Say the Knicks land Batum. Say the improvement from adding him lets you bring in another good FA next year. For shits and giggles, let's say it's Kyle Lowry. Batum basically becomes the #4 on the team, and the #5 would be RoLo.
What are your feelings on that team in terms of competing?
Yes, Lowry and Batum would be good pickups. If the best argument for Batum is that he'll get you a Lowry, there are a lot of responses. Obviously, that's really speculative. Lowry is not a Westbrook/Durant type. And it's not such an argument for Batum per se.
The Batum nets you an allstar bet is just a bet. The odds are against it. Frankly, I dont think we even have much of a shot at Batum. The better percentage play is to cash in the Melo chip when all the big UFAs stay put this year. Build around KP with guys his age and a goal of being a playoff team in his 3rd or 4th season, title window starting in his 6th or 7th season most likely. Maybe a little earlier if UFAs really feel us in Summers of 2018-2020.
Huh? Who is harping on him? I mentioned him once. Jon and Deej responded and I responded to both of them. Where is the harping? 3 for 20 is a bargain rate for a 7/8 player on a good team. You just made my point.
Quote:
In comment 12924190 Deej said:
Quote:
which is my favorite all in stat, mainly because you can add up the WS for players on a team and you're almost always within 1 or 2 of the actual # of wins a team got.
Just under .100. That suggests he's not a difference maker. A good starter. Not more. Notably he was in the 120s earlier in his career when he was being hyped as a possible next Pippen type.
I have no illusions about Batum being a difference maker. I don't think he is, but I do think he is extremely versatile at a position of major need for the team. Normally paying him a max would be a bad idea, but taking into account another cap rise and the needs of the team, I think he's a great fit.
Let me put it this way. Say the Knicks land Batum. Say the improvement from adding him lets you bring in another good FA next year. For shits and giggles, let's say it's Kyle Lowry. Batum basically becomes the #4 on the team, and the #5 would be RoLo.
What are your feelings on that team in terms of competing?
Yes, Lowry and Batum would be good pickups. If the best argument for Batum is that he'll get you a Lowry, there are a lot of responses. Obviously, that's really speculative. Lowry is not a Westbrook/Durant type. And it's not such an argument for Batum per se.
The Batum nets you an allstar bet is just a bet. The odds are against it. Frankly, I dont think we even have much of a shot at Batum. The better percentage play is to cash in the Melo chip when all the big UFAs stay put this year. Build around KP with guys his age and a goal of being a playoff team in his 3rd or 4th season, title window starting in his 6th or 7th season most likely. Maybe a little earlier if UFAs really feel us in Summers of 2018-2020.
Well, they're all bets, really. As I've mentioned before, I like the Hinkie approach, and think it's a smart way to go. But the Hinkie approach doesn't work if all that tanking doesn't net you a transcendental type player, which I think the Knicks already have in KP.
With a higher pick, you have a better chance at a great player, sure. But if you look at Philly, they haven't gotten that type of player from all their tanking. MCW? Nope. Nerlens Noel? Nope. Okafor? Nope. Embiid in theory, but they were unlucky that his foot is screwed.
If you look at the Spurs, their reign started with getting lucky and having Duncan fall into their laps. They've been competitive for 19 years, developing lower picks into solid players to surround Duncan. And then, with all of their picks at their disposal, they got another franchise player in Leonard. Who they didn't even draft - he was acquired via a trade for George Hill. And with that sustained success, they've been able to bring in premier FAs like Aldridge, and solid veterans like David West.
I guess my point is that tanking for a higher draft pick shuts down FA as an avenue for improvement more than acquiring good to very good FAs shuts down the draft as an avenue for improvement when you already have a cornerstone piece, which I think the Knicks have in KP.
Blatt may have just been a perfunctory interview by Jackson, who seems to be leaning toward giving Rambis the job with the Knicks.
Link - ( New Window )
I can pretty much accept anything that Phil has done EXCEPT for bringing back Rambis. If that happened, I can't wait for Isola's "Why didn't Dolan stop Phil?" article after so many "Dolan is meddling with Phil" articles.
Lebron has much more of an impact because it's his job to have more of an impact due to how his teams play. He's a good defender, ridiculously athletic and the best passer his position has ever seen. But his entire team's offense is run through him.
With the Triangle or the Princeton or any system offense, that responsibility is shared throughout the team. That's why I compare player for player. I'd do the same if I were comparing the Spurs to the Cavs. I take the Spurs 100 times out of 100. And in fact, the Spurs have pretty much proved that they're better than any Lebron-led team, and they were unlucky with that Ray Allen 3 in game 6 a few years ago.
And that's just the east.
Between your passive aggressive comments about PG/Kawhi and misinterpretation of my posts as "LOL U LUV THE ISOSCELES", you make it tough to have an educated debate on the topic.
My point is this: Lebron is a once-in-a-lifetime player. Banking on getting one or more ultra-superstars and utilizing an offense that relies on them is a bad way of building a team, because unless you have the best player in the league, you'll never win.
Now, if you have a sound system in place, with good to great players surrounding a franchise player, you have a much better chance of being a championship contender because you can utilize the various weapons on your roster to capitalize on the weaknesses of other teams.
But yeah, the Cavs would smoke us. As they say, it's easy to get from bad to good (overstated). What's really hard is to get from good to great. I'd sign Batum, dont get me wrong. But he's not a guy who takes you from good to great. And we're not even good yet.
And that's just the east.
Player for player, what are your thoughts on how the current Spurs match up against the current Cavs?
My point is this: Lebron is a once-in-a-lifetime player. Banking on getting one or more ultra-superstars and utilizing an offense that relies on them is a bad way of building a team, because unless you have the best player in the league, you'll never win.
Evidence strongly suggests that you need a guy who is right up there in the convo as being the best player or top few players to win. 2004 Pistons notwithstanding. Titles are won by Shaqs, Kobes, Lebrons, and Duncans. KG, Dirk, Wade. Steph is either in that first group or second group.
But yeah, the Cavs would smoke us. As they say, it's easy to get from bad to good (overstated). What's really hard is to get from good to great. I'd sign Batum, dont get me wrong. But he's not a guy who takes you from good to great. And we're not even good yet.
Agreed - if you sign Batum this year, it's still a bad matchup. But next year, if you're able to sign a good player at PG, who will most likely be better than Batum, then I think that team is absolutely competitive with the Cavs.
Quote:
My point is this: Lebron is a once-in-a-lifetime player. Banking on getting one or more ultra-superstars and utilizing an offense that relies on them is a bad way of building a team, because unless you have the best player in the league, you'll never win.
Evidence strongly suggests that you need a guy who is right up there in the convo as being the best player or top few players to win. 2004 Pistons notwithstanding. Titles are won by Shaqs, Kobes, Lebrons, and Duncans. KG, Dirk, Wade. Steph is either in that first group or second group.
Agreed. And I think KP will eventually be in that tier. That's my point.
But yeah, the Cavs would smoke us. As they say, it's easy to get from bad to good (overstated). What's really hard is to get from good to great. I'd sign Batum, dont get me wrong. But he's not a guy who takes you from good to great. And we're not even good yet.
This gets at my point. Adding Melo, KP, and RoLo added 15 wins to a 17 win team. I don't think we should be banking on Batum (minus the players we have to let walk in order to sign him) to add another 15 in order become the competitive team that attracts big time FAs (and that's assuming a 47 win team even sends off vibes of a title contender to big time FAs).
I just look at teams that have turned around the ship or built a team in place that attracts the better coaches in the league. The Celtics, wolves and Blazers come to mind. They all cashed in on vets at the right time (Blazers maybe more of a surprise/exception I'll concede that). And I look at teams that try to build through FA with middle tier players (hornets come to mind) and that route doesn't seem optimal.
Lakers - 10
Bulls - 6
Spurs - 5
Celtics - 4
Pistons - 3
Heat - 3
Rockets - 2
Sixers - 1
Mavericks - 1
Warriors - 1
21 for the Lakers, Bulls and Spurs, 15 for everyone else.
Quote:
we saw it. Love is way too short to defend KP. And isnt athletic enough to get KP out of position. That's a matchup that in year 2 will easily favor the Knicks.
But yeah, the Cavs would smoke us. As they say, it's easy to get from bad to good (overstated). What's really hard is to get from good to great. I'd sign Batum, dont get me wrong. But he's not a guy who takes you from good to great. And we're not even good yet.
This gets at my point. Adding Melo, KP, and RoLo added 15 wins to a 17 win team. I don't think we should be banking on Batum (minus the players we have to let walk in order to sign him) to add another 15 in order become the competitive team that attracts big time FAs (and that's assuming a 47 win team even sends off vibes of a title contender to big time FAs).
I just look at teams that have turned around the ship or built a team in place that attracts the better coaches in the league. The Celtics, wolves and Blazers come to mind. They all cashed in on vets at the right time (Blazers maybe more of a surprise/exception I'll concede that). And I look at teams that try to build through FA with middle tier players (hornets come to mind) and that route doesn't seem optimal.
Well Im a trade Melo guy, but in fairness those three SHOULD add more wins next season. Melo was a win player last season. 2.9 in his injury-shortended 2014-15 season. 9.5 & 10.7 the previous seasons. He can easily get back to 8-9. Rolo struggled the first half. His WS48 of 126 was significantly down over his prior 2 seasons (150, 176 respectively). So he was a 5.8 win player last year, but 9.5 win player his previous full season, 2013-14. KP was a 4.3 win player last year in 72 games. He should easily hit 7 wins next year (Dirk went .8 to 8.1). Figure with health there could be 8 or more increased wins out of those three next year. Or not, of course.
And...that still leaves us arguing about trying getting out of the eastern conference when that's not even the real problem with trying to win now.
Lakers - 10
Bulls - 6
Spurs - 5
Celtics - 4
Pistons - 3
Heat - 3
Rockets - 2
Sixers - 1
Mavericks - 1
Warriors - 1
21 for the Lakers, Bulls and Spurs, 15 for everyone else.
That's the one thing that really sucks about the current NBA. It is a league driven by a handful of stars and a handful of smart teams who consistently are able to orchestrate themselves and their teams to being considerably better than most of the league.
I half think the league would be better served as a whole if they made some drastic changes and thought outside of the box. Maybe something like not allowing any draft picks nor players with less than three years of service from being traded, which at first thought sounds plenty dumb maybe would possibly help save teams from themselves and force more teams to actually rebuild while also helping team building and chemistry instead of the annual "star" swapping and just shuffling of the deck chairs the seems to be what the league has become.
Maybe something even totally different than that but I think the league would benefit from something being done to change the way the NBA is currently structured.
That's the one thing that really sucks about the current NBA. It is a league driven by a handful of stars and a handful of smart teams who consistently are able to orchestrate themselves and their teams to being considerably better than most of the league.
I half think the league would be better served as a whole if they made some drastic changes and thought outside of the box. Maybe something like not allowing any draft picks nor players with less than three years of service from being traded, which at first thought sounds plenty dumb maybe would possibly help save teams from themselves and force more teams to actually rebuild while also helping team building and chemistry instead of the annual "star" swapping and just shuffling of the deck chairs the seems to be what the league has become.
Maybe something even totally different than that but I think the league would benefit from something being done to change the way the NBA is currently structured.
I'd argue the issue is much simpler: You need an upper echelon HOFer to win multiple titles and there are a finite number of those guys. Yes you need more than that. But were the Bulls brilliant for drafting Jordan? The Spurs for drafting Duncan? Because Tony Parker and Manu dont win squat without TD.
Notably, only the Lakers have really built it twice in the 25 years Im watching basketball. They had showtime and then the Kobe era (and frankly the Kobe era was a bit lucky -- they got him because he refused to play for the Nets, and they had to dump Vlade to sign Shaq). The Bulls havent replicated. The Rockets havent replicated. It's not at all clear that the Lakers know some secret sauce. Byron Scott suggests otherwise.