but we have to push Mitch to 30-33 minutes a game. If in his 3rd year he cant do that for whatever reason then i think we need to accept that he will be a solid player with great spurts and nothing more.
He’s the type that will leave at the line, but he just gives points away.
He desperately needs to improve his shooting, period, from everywhere. He has the potential to be a Melo-type scorer but only if he can develop a shot like Melo. It's possible, but I can't say I'm certain that he will be able to. He simply isn't a good enough athlete to be a true top player without being at least a pretty good shooter.
to second guessing with all these candidates - you know at least one or two of these young assistants will be good head coaches in the near future, and I don't think we've had an open mind about hiring them. Even if we convince one to be "associate head coach" or something, he'll have one foot out the door.
need to give Mitch more overall responsibility both on the offensive end and keeping himself out of foul trouble. More minutes please.
Hopefully Mitch can learn how to spot up shoot. Maybe even put the ball on the floor and create. We had that rim protecting Dynamic big but felt compelled to trade him for fuck all, hopefully Mitch can become that kind of talent. I think Mitch is a better defender than KP but he has a long way to go on the other end of the floor.
His history of backstabbing in only a few years as head coach, not to mention the domestic violence and DWI incidents. He’d have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do if I were interviewing him. Also, the teams he coached didn’t exactly overachieve. Feels like this would be Wes + a Giannis pipe dream.
Feels like Strickland’s been hovering for awhile now.
It's not a coincidence that a guy as good as him played for nine different teams, never staying in one place longer than five years. Drafting him in the first place was odd because they had just drafted Mark Jackson the year before. The Cheeks trade was bad but it was born of their decision to keep Jackson over Strickland.
Maybe there was a money dispute involved? Maybe he and Riley didn't get along? Dunno. I do remember being really angry about it, though. Didn't help that Charles Smith was a disappointment, either.
Seemed like a good pair with Ewing and seemed like they were building something
They wanted guys who could ease the scoring burden which was all Ewing at the time and thought Smith and Blackman would provide that and push them over the top. Knicks had also drafted Greg Anthony or year or two first in the first round and felt like he could fill Jackson’s shoes.
Tillman going back to school, I'm very surprised. I liked him as high as the Knicks pick via LAC
I guess the positive spin is it adds another good player to next year's stacked draft class. We have two firsts and potentially two high seconds, IF we don't make a significant trade before then.
Tillman going back to school, I'm very surprised. I liked him as high as the Knicks pick via LAC
I guess the positive spin is it adds another good player to next year's stacked draft class. We have two firsts and potentially two high seconds, IF we don't make a significant trade before then.
Fair take. I just liked Tillman's profile as another rotation piece to add to what we are trying to build. He's one to watch for me. Not a future star at all but a nice player.
Seemed like a good pair with Ewing and seemed like they were building something
Riley wanted more of a defender at PG. And the front office became enamored with Charles Smith who was a good stats on a bad team kinda guy. So they ended up with great defenses year after year but below average offenses. They botched quite a few moves after they drafted Ewing. Contrast that with the Bulls who immediately surrounded MJ with Grant and Pippen.
RE: Strickland always had a rep as difficult to work with though
It's not a coincidence that a guy as good as him played for nine different teams, never staying in one place longer than five years. Drafting him in the first place was odd because they had just drafted Mark Jackson the year before. The Cheeks trade was bad but it was born of their decision to keep Jackson over Strickland.
Cheeks trade was more about Bianchi trying to save his job with a win-now move. Mark Jackson barely played in the playoffs that year after they got Cheeks. As for Strickland, you're overstating his travels around the league. He spent his prime with basically two team, and the Blazers only moved on him because they were committing highway robbery by getting Sheed for him.
continually tried to recreate the Dave D trade. It never worked out, they also tried to remake the Cazzie for Lucas trade, and those haven't worked.
I agree overall but had Smith been able to put the ball in the hoop in '93 the Knicks very possibly (if not likely) win it all and we might be talking about that trade very differently today.
continually tried to recreate the Dave D trade. It never worked out, they also tried to remake the Cazzie for Lucas trade, and those haven't worked.
I agree overall but had Smith been able to put the ball in the hoop in '93 the Knicks very possibly (if not likely) win it all and we might be talking about that trade very differently today.
even if he had made that shot, he was still a bad fit on a team that was already loaded with bigs.
even if he had made that shot, he was still a bad fit on a team that was already loaded with bigs.
Yeah, I agree. I'm just saying a Knicks championship would've made people forget that and the value they got in return for Jackson. IE, a lesser version of the Cubs trading Gleyber Torres for a half season of Chapman but a WS win.
shouldn't have played a 6'10" power forward at small forward so much if they wanted him to reach his Clippers scoring figures especially since they were using anti-fastbreak offense as well. Anyway, his four year per 36 average as a Knick was 15.5. So he was a good player on a good team for his first three years as a Knick at least Charles Smith stats - ( New Window )
Seemed like a good pair with Ewing and seemed like they were building something
Riley wanted more of a defender at PG. And the front office became enamored with Charles Smith who was a good stats on a bad team kinda guy. So they ended up with great defenses year after year but below average offenses. They botched quite a few moves after they drafted Ewing. Contrast that with the Bulls who immediately surrounded MJ with Grant and Pippen.
Yup. In my view The GM that really shit the bed was bianchi. He inherited ewing and bad team with numerous draft and FA and trade chances to truly stock the shelves around Ewing. He blew it. When checketts and Riley came along the damage or lack of roster progress, other than ewing and Oakley was too much to overcome, in the end. Checketts and the front office had really one big chAnce to make the right move when the dealt Jackson and more away for smith. Most of the other moves, even the Xman signing one year prior were sort of lower cost under the radar types. Mason and starks were found off the scrap heap. Traded late first rounders for guys like Blackmon. But the big trade, the one where they traded legit deep assets and money, was the one for Smith. It shouldn’t have been THAT difficult to give ewing a great supporting cast. Very little margin for error. Bianchi did nothing.
Hey, stop trying to insert things like that into a Knicks thread
Jason Kidd and Mike Woodson "are also highly regarded by influential people at Madison Square Garden”
via @IanBegley
Obviously it is different if you add a ball dominant vet..
He desperately needs to improve his shooting, period, from everywhere. He has the potential to be a Melo-type scorer but only if he can develop a shot like Melo. It's possible, but I can't say I'm certain that he will be able to. He simply isn't a good enough athlete to be a true top player without being at least a pretty good shooter.
What makes you so sure? so far have done very well with front office hires
And we know rose will listen to Wes, many thought once Wes was hired it was given Thibs would be the hire..
Hopefully Mitch can learn how to spot up shoot. Maybe even put the ball on the floor and create. We had that rim protecting Dynamic big but felt compelled to trade him for fuck all, hopefully Mitch can become that kind of talent. I think Mitch is a better defender than KP but he has a long way to go on the other end of the floor.
Knicks: So, Jason, sell yourself...
Kidd: I’m close with Giannis. He may consider coming if I’m hired.
Knicks: WOW!!! Great interview, Jason! We’ll be in touch!
If Calipari was ever going to go to the NBA this would be it..
Rod Strickland for Maurice Cheeks might be the worst trade in the history of the franchise - and for the Knicks that's really saying something.
Quote:
replacing craig robinson.
Rod Strickland for Maurice Cheeks might be the worst trade in the history of the franchise - and for the Knicks that's really saying something.
I am not old enough to know thr back story to that trade..
My earliest memories are 94 to present
They wanted guys who could ease the scoring burden which was all Ewing at the time and thought Smith and Blackman would provide that and push them over the top. Knicks had also drafted Greg Anthony or year or two first in the first round and felt like he could fill Jackson’s shoes.
I guess the positive spin is it adds another good player to next year's stacked draft class. We have two firsts and potentially two high seconds, IF we don't make a significant trade before then.
Quote:
Tillman going back to school, I'm very surprised. I liked him as high as the Knicks pick via LAC
I guess the positive spin is it adds another good player to next year's stacked draft class. We have two firsts and potentially two high seconds, IF we don't make a significant trade before then.
Fair take. I just liked Tillman's profile as another rotation piece to add to what we are trying to build. He's one to watch for me. Not a future star at all but a nice player.
Riley wanted more of a defender at PG. And the front office became enamored with Charles Smith who was a good stats on a bad team kinda guy. So they ended up with great defenses year after year but below average offenses. They botched quite a few moves after they drafted Ewing. Contrast that with the Bulls who immediately surrounded MJ with Grant and Pippen.
Cheeks trade was more about Bianchi trying to save his job with a win-now move. Mark Jackson barely played in the playoffs that year after they got Cheeks. As for Strickland, you're overstating his travels around the league. He spent his prime with basically two team, and the Blazers only moved on him because they were committing highway robbery by getting Sheed for him.
MJ: "Rolando Blackman"
Knicks get Rolando put him 1:1 vs MJ and were like "We just got F'd"
I agree overall but had Smith been able to put the ball in the hoop in '93 the Knicks very possibly (if not likely) win it all and we might be talking about that trade very differently today.
Quote:
continually tried to recreate the Dave D trade. It never worked out, they also tried to remake the Cazzie for Lucas trade, and those haven't worked.
I agree overall but had Smith been able to put the ball in the hoop in '93 the Knicks very possibly (if not likely) win it all and we might be talking about that trade very differently today.
even if he had made that shot, he was still a bad fit on a team that was already loaded with bigs.
even if he had made that shot, he was still a bad fit on a team that was already loaded with bigs.
Yeah, I agree. I'm just saying a Knicks championship would've made people forget that and the value they got in return for Jackson. IE, a lesser version of the Cubs trading Gleyber Torres for a half season of Chapman but a WS win.
he was fed the ball a lot on a bad team and put up some numbers. Happens all the time.
Charles Smith stats - ( New Window )
Quote:
Seemed like a good pair with Ewing and seemed like they were building something
Riley wanted more of a defender at PG. And the front office became enamored with Charles Smith who was a good stats on a bad team kinda guy. So they ended up with great defenses year after year but below average offenses. They botched quite a few moves after they drafted Ewing. Contrast that with the Bulls who immediately surrounded MJ with Grant and Pippen.
Yup. In my view The GM that really shit the bed was bianchi. He inherited ewing and bad team with numerous draft and FA and trade chances to truly stock the shelves around Ewing. He blew it. When checketts and Riley came along the damage or lack of roster progress, other than ewing and Oakley was too much to overcome, in the end. Checketts and the front office had really one big chAnce to make the right move when the dealt Jackson and more away for smith. Most of the other moves, even the Xman signing one year prior were sort of lower cost under the radar types. Mason and starks were found off the scrap heap. Traded late first rounders for guys like Blackmon. But the big trade, the one where they traded legit deep assets and money, was the one for Smith. It shouldn’t have been THAT difficult to give ewing a great supporting cast. Very little margin for error. Bianchi did nothing.