# Just saw an interesting statistic



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The 2-5 Knicks only have 5 dunks this year as a team. 

FIVE 

This team is bad and they are boring. The Cavs lead the league with 40. Man I have never seen a pro team not dunk at least once a game.


----------



## digital jello (Jan 10, 2003)

Um.

Wow. 

Booooooooooooooooooooooring.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*verically challenged*

But thats the good news.....The bad news is for the last 3 years in a row we have the fewest dunks in the league...


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

For me it's not the fact that the Knicks don't dunk. It's that we have a boring product, plus the team doesn't win. 

Which makes me wonder why should anyone pay to watch this team? 

Could it be, to see other teams play? I want the Knicks to win if they are not going to be fun to watch. It pains me to watch the Knicks play, because you can see them trying but they just aren't very good. 

5 dunks through 7 games. Dunks are the highest percentage shot you can take in the NBA and the fact that we only have 5 shows that we have problems getting to the rim and finishing.


----------



## hatnlvr (Aug 14, 2003)

I have been a die hard Knicks fan since the Bernard King days (good and bad)!!!

I have tried to watch all 7 of their games this season and unfortunately I have caught myself changing the channel a lot!!! This has to be one of the most boring teams I have ever had to endure watching!!! They have no identity and the coaching is absolutely terrible!!!

Chaney needs to go because the team isn't playing for him (they never have!!)


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

The dunks we got are mostly, if not all, from Keith Van Horn. Last year he had like none....


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

take a dive and pick up a couple high fliers in the next few drafts. i'd love for the knicks to pick up a couple exciting players as they are currently my least favourite team.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Dunks do not = excitement.

Good basketball = excitement.

I'll take a winner that doesn't dunk over a loser that dunks all the time and can't do anything else.


----------



## GONYK (Aug 14, 2002)

u mean the clippers?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> Dunks do not = excitement.
> 
> Good basketball = excitement.
> ...


Well... we have a problem don't we. The team is a loser that doesn't dunk or play fast exciting ball. 

There is something and the fact that we have professional players that don't finish at the rim is very disconcerting. I actually want to be a Knick fan, but I find it very hard to watch complete games because they are downright horrible. 

Unless you see some silver light in a bowl of crap that I'm not seeing.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Unless you see some silver light in a bowl of crap that I'm not seeing.


What about the 3pt shot? Most people rank that below the dunk in terms of excitement. The Knicks hit lots of threes.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> What about the 3pt shot? Most people rank that below the dunk in terms of excitement. The Knicks hit lots of threes.


Now your just being facetious. You know this team isn't pleasing to watch.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Rashidi*

i do admire your loyalty and ability to see the knicks as half full ..But i have to tell you,not only do the knicks sukk today,they will probably sukk tomorrow and whats even worse they are absolutely painful to watch..they are old,overpaid and not very athletic...I didnt think much could be worse than watching spree and houston backing down defenders,but this team is brutal...at a basement bargain payroll of 85 million big ones...

Could you please tell me what you like about this squad???


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

Romain Sato can dunk, I want the Knicks to draft him.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NYKBaller</b>!
> Romain Sato can dunk, I want the Knicks to draft him.


I honestly don't see Sato as being anything more than a back-up in the NBA. He is no sure fire first round pick. He is very timid because of his likeable personality and he just isn't that great off the dribble or from the perimeter. He is what I would call solid and I expect him to be more a defensive specialist in the NBA. 

I think the Knicks should draft Antoine Wright from Texas A&M. Now he has star-potential or Julius Hodge to groom as Houston's replacement.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> i do admire your loyalty and ability to see the knicks as half full ..But i have to tell you,not only do the knicks sukk today,they will probably sukk tomorrow and whats even worse they are absolutely painful to watch..they are old,overpaid and not very athletic...I didnt think much could be worse than watching spree and houston backing down defenders,but this team is brutal...at a basement bargain payroll of 85 million big ones...
> 
> Could you please tell me what you like about this squad???


Like I say, It could be a lot worse. Just ask the Warriors or Clippers.

I've always liked players who can shoot for some reason (possibly because shooting is the weakest part of my game). Starks, Harper, and Hubert Davis were my favorites on the 94 team. Allan Houston is the best shooter in NY history, and he won me over when he hit that shot against Miami. He's a lot like Reggie Miller, just quieter. Always comes up big in the playoffs.

1. "The Shot"
2. With LJ and Mourning suspended, Houston outguns Tim Hardaway in deciding game.
3. In Conference Finals vs Pacers, torched Reggie Miller on 10-11 FG in the 3rd quarter.
4. Year Knicks lost to Heat in suspension riddled series, played well in his game 7 return, even though Knicks lost the game.

It's a shame he's spent some of his prime years out of the playoffs. That is probably why they are paying him so much in NY, because he knew he was giving up his prime to a sub .500 team, and wanted some form of compensation.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*warriors lineup vs knicks*

wouldnt you take the warriors lineup over ours any say of the week???

thats a talented squad,though i have no idea why theyt drafted petrius..the are athletic,dampier has finally decided to show up,dunleavy looks like hes gonna be a player and NicK, J.R. and Murphy can play...

Even the clips lineup is more talented than us.....

I admire your loyalty


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

And how about before this year? The Warriors haven't been to the playoffs in 10 years, and they have had the worst drafting record in the NBA.

93-94: 50-32
94-95: 26-56
95-96: 36-46
96-97: 30-52
97-98: 19-63
98-99: 21-29
99-00: 19-63
00-01: 17-65
01-02: 21-61
02-03: 38-44

I find it very hard to believe that you're trying to make the Warriors out to have a better situation than the Knicks. Yes, the Warriors have gotten good recently, but then they lost their best two players, Jamison and Arenas.

They traded Chris Webber, thier first glimmer of hope in a long time, for Tom Gugliotta. They then traded Tom Guglotta for Donyell Marshall. They then traded Donyell Marshall for Danny Fortson and Adam Keefe. They just traded Fortson WITH Jamison for Van Exel.

And you say Layden is bad?

Then there was the whole Latrell Sprewell fiasco, which ended with the Warriors trading Sprewell, a former all-NBA 2nd team guy for pretty much nothing in return.

They gave Jamison a fat contract. The Knicks can get away with that because they have money. The Warriors don't have money. They were unable to retain Arenas because they gave Jamison such a large contract.

The Warriors have Van Exel, Richardson, Dunleavy, and Murphy.

Van Exel has become overrated due to his season in Dallas. He is still a shoot first PG that shoots a low percentage, pouts when the team does bad, and is not the most durable player.

Murphy is a bit overrated. He did average a double double, but he is by no means a tough PF. Which is why he is expected to come off the bench instead of Cliff Robinson.

The most promising player they have left, Jason Richardson, is looking to bolt ASAP. But don't worry, the Warriors have a better situation than the Knicks, right?

Now, for their drafts.
2003: Mickeal Pietrus 11th
2002: Mike Dunleavy 3rd
2001: Jason Richardson 5th, Troy Murphy 14th, Gilbert Arenas 30th
2000: No first rounder. They lost the 5th pick in a trade with Orlando. The 5th pick was rookie of the year Mike Miller.
1999: Jeff Foster (ahead of Andrei Kirilenko). Foster was traded for Vontego Cummings. VC is out of the league.
1998: Drafted and traded Vince Carter for Jamison. That sure turned out well.
1997: Adonal Foyle taken 8th. McGrady was taken 9th.
1996: Todd Fuller 11th. Fuller is out of the league.
1995: Joe Smith taken with the 1st pick, ahead of Antonio McDyess, Jerry Stackhouse, Rasheed Wallace, Kevin Garnett, and Michael Finley. Smith isn't even better than Kurt Thomas, who was taken 10th.
1994: Cliff Roizer 16th (Out of league)

While the Warriors struck gold in 2000, the rest of their draft years have been rather wretched.

If you want to go back further, they also traded Mitch Richmond for Billy Owens. They also traded Tim Hardaway AND Chris Gatling for KEVIN WILLIS AND BIMBO COLES.

But yeah, the Warriors DEFINITELY have a better situation than the Knicks...

Unless of course, you consider that Allan Houston is a better player than anybody on Golden State, while Van Horn probably is too for now. Kurt Thomas is as good or better than any big man on the Warriors, Troy Murphy included. The Knicks also have 3 promising players, Mike, Maciej, and Milos on the horizon, while most feel that the Warriors erred in drafting Mickeal, but they kinda had to since J-Rich is likely gone soon.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Further, the Warriors won 38 games last year, *in what was considered their most promising season in 10 years.*

The Knicks won 37 games last year, *in what was considered their 2nd most disappointing season in 10 years.*

How can you possibly say that the Warriors are better off than the Knicks?


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Just remembered - they also drafted and traded Jason Terry for Mookie Blaylock.


----------



## NYCbballFan (Jun 8, 2003)

Rashidi, I always enjoy your posts. Keep it up.

Winning basketball is fun to watch. Good execution is fun to watch. A team that plays with heart and aggression is fun to watch. I would settle for just one of these criteria to cheer on the Knicks. Unfortunately, the Knicks don't fulfill any of these criteria.

I don't need run-and-dunk basketball to be excited. In last season's play-offs, I thought the Mavs were the most enjoyable team to watch and they didn't build their system on above-the-rim And1 style basketball. They had players who could and did dunk, of course, but it was the crisp ball movement, the heart and the blending of versatile offensive players that made the Mavs fun. If I had to choose one defining feature to characterize the Mavs offense, it would be the jump shot.

With the advent of the zone, I think rebuilding teams are moving towards versatile units (eg, Kings and Mavs) rather than the one dominant scorer with complementary parts (eg, Magic and Raptors). The Knicks are moving in the new direction, but they need a major change-over in the roster.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Are you serious??????*

rashidi,I also love your posts,but can you seriously tell me you wouldnt trade the Golden State roster for our roster today????

And keep in mind you shouldnt be comparing apples to oranges..You make very valid points,but don forget.the knicks have the HIGHEST payroll in the league...You can not discount that..Plain and simple,the Knicks are the worst team as far as wins/payroll....

George steinbrenner spends big dollars and deems it a total failure if the yanks dont win it all....The knicks are the basketball equivalant of the yanks and DONT make the playoffs in the weaker division....

Name a team in the NBA who spends as much money as the knicks and has a worse record..The Knicks are terrible Rashidi...You can rationalise,analyse and speculate all you like,and you make valid points,but the simple fact is the Knicks have the highest payroll,are in the eastern conference and cant make the playoffs...Numbers dont lie..Sorry


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*are you serious Part 2*

I just crunched the numbers and the Knick payroll is 60% higher than the Warriors...Not only do the Warriors have a better team,they are doing it with cap space as opposed being well over the cap...And to top it the warriors are young while the Knicks are old.....Are you sure you like the Knicks roster at almost twice the price??


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> rashidi,I also love your posts,but can you seriously tell me you wouldnt trade the Golden State roster for our roster today????


Hard to say. It's not that the Warriors don't have a young, but mediocre roster at the moment. But where will they be in 2 years? J-Rich will likely be gone via free agency, Dampier will likely be gone via free agency, and Van Exel will be 34.

That is because Golden State has no cash. Suppose that Golden State and NY swapped rosters last year. The Knicks would not have had to deal Jamison and would have re-signed Arenas. They probably would have re-signed Boykins too.

The Warriors are similar to the Expos. They get decent players, but they can never keep them.



> And keep in mind you shouldnt be comparing apples to oranges..You make very valid points,but don forget.the knicks have the HIGHEST payroll in the league...


Technically you are correct, but I would say the Knicks are 2nd. The Blazers are 1st. The Blazers are paying Shawn Kemp 14 million dollars this year. That is money that counts against the cap, just like it did for LJ and Longley.



> You can not discount that..Plain and simple,the Knicks are the worst team as far as wins/payroll....


But at the same time, they also make a lot of money, which means they can afford to be over the cap. Being under the cap is very overrated, as few teams ARE under the cap.

Also, 13 million is going to McDyess this year. If he comes back well, the Knicks are a playoff team. If he doesn't come back well, his contract comes off at the end of the year, meaning, the Knick payroll drops significantly.

Even more money comes off when Ward is gone next year. Vujanic won't command 6 million.

Currently the Knick payroll is 82 million. Subtract McDyess and Ward and it's 63 million. Kurt Thomas will also probably be gone either via trade or by free agency when he opts out. That's down to 58 million. So clearly the Knicks aren't as bleak as you make them out to be - they have a lot of money coming off the books this season.



> George steinbrenner spends big dollars and deems it a total failure if the yanks dont win it all....The knicks are the basketball equivalant of the yanks and DONT make the playoffs in the weaker division....


The Yankees are inexcusable because unlike basketball, baseball is not restricted by a salary cap. Also, the Yankees are leaps and bounds higher in payroll than their competition. They had a 180 million payroll last year, which was more than twice that of about half the teams in baseball. The Knicks are one of 4 teams with a payroll higher than 70 million. They don't compare to the Yankees. They are much more similar to the Mets.



> Name a team in the NBA who spends as much money as the knicks and has a worse record


The Atlanta payroll was 69 million last year, that's why they gave Glenn Robinson away for nothing in return.

Also, I don't think Portland has a much more promising situation than the Knicks either. They have the highest payroll in the league, and while they have talent, they have the most cancerous personalities carrying that talent. They are trying to dump Rasheed Wallace, Bonzi Wells, Derek Anderson, Ruben Patterson, and Damon Stoudamire. The Blazers used to be young, but now they are at the middle of their careers. It's hard to believe that next year will be Rasheed Wallace's 10th year in the pros. Same goes for Stoudamire. Anderson will be entering his 8th year, Wells his 7th. These guys aren't going to improve very much, their only young player with any value is Zach Randolph.



> ..The Knicks are terrible Rashidi...You can rationalise,analyse and speculate all you like,and you make valid points,but the simple fact is the Knicks have the highest payroll,are in the eastern conference and cant make the playoffs


A claim like "Can't make the playoffs" means very little in the eastern conference.

Orlando was the 8th seed and they look like they're going to miss the playoffs this year. They're 1-7 and about to begin a west coast trip. Doc Rivers will probably be fired at the end of it if it goes badly, and I wouldn't expect the team to do well in the middle of the season with a new head coach, as few teams do.

The Bucks were the 7th seed last year, and while they're doing well now, they are still looking to dump players like Kukoc and Joe Smith. Don't expect them to keep up their over acheiving pace forever.

The Heat, Wizards, Cavs, and Bulls are not any better than the Knicks.

The Bulls were the trendy pick to make the playoffs this year, but they have too many selfish players that can't play defense. The way things are going, Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawford are likely to be traded.

The Knicks without McDyess still have a shot at making the playoffs. In case you forgot, the Knicks were a .500 team with Latrell Sprewell, and Keith Van Horn has proven to be just as good, if not a slight upgrade. The Knicks with McDyess have a strong shot at making the playoffs.



> ...Numbers dont lie..Sorry


You're right. The Knicks were 37-45 last year without McDyess, and have improved the quality of their roster.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*You are a tuff nut to crack*

You do love your Knickerbockers..let me address some of your points...

We can only compare the current Knick roster to the current golden state roster..you only solidify my view that the knicks are CURRENTLY in shambles since they can outspend other teams,arent limited by smaller market revenues and they still stink up the joint.Layden and Dolan cant put out a competitive product while blowing thru the cap and not having to worry about free agency and losing players...

P.S. Dont be suprised in Van X is a knick one day

CMON,the blazers are way better than the Knicks.lOOK AT THEIR RECORD..Admit it...Wallace is a head case,but hes a top 10 player....Randolph is a total stud and is gonna be awesome...Bonzi is a very good ballplayer..The Blazers play in a tougher division and are flat out better than the knicks

Having the financial capacity and revenues to have the highest payroll in the league is one thing..Its embarrasing to have the highest payroll and stink..The Knicks are bad...Their record indicates they spend money less wisely than any other team in basketball..Stas dont lie

I cant predict tomorrow..Dyss may come back and then again he may get injured again..I can tell you with 100% certainty,the knicks have the 4th WORST record in the league and the HIGHEST payroll...Someone is doing a very very bad job


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Admit it...Wallace is a head case,but hes a top 10 player...


Wallace is barely even a top 10 power forward.

1. Duncan
2. Garnett
3. Webber
4. Nowitzki
5. O'Neal
6. Brand
7. Malone
8. Walker
9. Abdur-Rahim
10. Wallace... that's Ben Wallace, since Elden Campbell is starting at center.

This is without even mentioning the likes of Pau Gasol, Kenyon Martin, Amare Stoudemire, or Juwan Howard, who all had similar seasons to Wallace last year. Wallace gets few rebounds and blocks at PF compared to others in his class.

Wallace averaged 7.4 rpg last year, and has never averaged more than 8.2 boards. His career average is 6.8. Wallace only averaged 1.2 blocks last year, his career average is 0.9.

And I'm the one that's overly loyal to my team? You are making Wallace sound like he is MVP material. He's a 2 time all-star, like a certain Allan Houston.

Wallace is putting up 17/7 this season at small forward. A fellow named Keith Van Horn is also putting up 17/7 at small forward this season. Top 10 indeed...


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*top 10*

malone and walker?????

malone is still a very good ballplayer,but Sheed is better at this point in their perspective careers..Antoine walker???No way...Ben Wallace???Guy has no offensive game whatsoever,Great Devensive ballplayer

Hey I am a Knick fan..I dont like the blazers..But clearly the Blazers are MUCH better than the Knicks....

You claimed that pORTLAND was worse than the Knicks wins/payroll and I was just comparing players which is subjective..THE RECORDS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES....If the season ends today,the Blazers are the 5th seed in the west..The Knicks pick 4th in the lottery....Facts are facts


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> malone and walker?????
> 
> malone is still a very good ballplayer,but Sheed is better at this point in their perspective careers..Antoine walker???No way...Ben Wallace???Guy has no offensive game whatsoever,Great Devensive ballplayer


What does Wallace do that Walker doesn't?

Wallace is a weak rebounder, like Walker. Wallace is a weak defender, like Walker. Wallace shoots threes, like Walker. Walker is a much better ball-handler and more versatile.

Since you seem willing to talk about "numbers not lying" and mentioning standings 8 games in (when the blazers haevn't even played the Lakers or Spurs yet), let's bring up Walker's stats and compare them to Wallace.

Antoine Walker
16.3 ppg (2nd on team behind Dirk, ahead of Finley, Jamison, Nash)
9.2 rpg (13th in league)
4.8 apg (2nd on team behind Nash)
0.6 spg
0.8 bpg
.463 fg%
.324 3pt% (12-37)
.733 ft%

21.8 pp48m
13.1 rp48m
6.4 ap48m
0.8 sp48m
1.0 bp48m

Rasheed Wallace
17.0 ppg (2nd on team behind Randolph, ahead of Wells,
7.4 rpg
3.3 apg
1.0 spg
1.4 bpg
.461 fg%
.500 3pt% (14-28)
.571 ft%

20.6 pp48m
8.9 rp48m
3.9 ap48m
1.2 sp48m
1.7 bp48m

Right now Walker is better in the 3 main categories - points, rebounds, and assists. While his 3pt% is currently much lower than Wallace's don't expect that to last. Despite the gap in their 3pt%, Walker still has a higher fg% - which doesn't bode well once Wallace goes down back to earth on his threes.

As for Ben Wallace, I find it hard to believe that you don't take the best defensive player and best rebounder in the league at PF over a second tier offensive power forward.

Ben Wallace
10.0 ppg
13.0 rpg (2nd in league, behind Dampier)
1.8 apg
2.8 spg (4th in league, behind Baron Davis, Iverson, Kittles)
3.4 bpg (2nd in league, behind Theo Ratliff)
.384 fg%
.000 3pt%
.586 ft%

12.6 pp48m
15.7 pp48m
2.1 pp48m
3.3 sp48m
4.1 bp48m

Rasheed is clearly not even a top 5 power forward, and by a large margin. Duncan, KG, Dirk, Webber, and O'Neal are CLEARLY superior to him. So are you trying to say, that since there are 4 other positions, that Wallace is better than the 2nd best at each of those positions? He would need to be, for him to rank at number 10.

Shaq
Kobe
Kidd
McGrady
Pierce

Well, there goes your top 10 theory. I didn't even have to invoke the names of Iverson, Francis, Marbury, or Marion.

Wallace is currently 5th in scoring among SFs, behind Rashard Lewis, Peja Stojakovic, Corey Maggette, Ron Artest, and Carmelo Anthony. Van Horn is 10th

Wallace is currently 3rd in rebounding among SFs, behind Shawn Marion, and Keith Van Horn.

These are not the numbers of a top 10 player.

Karl Malone is still in the same class as Wallace. Malone scores and rebounds at the same rates Wallace does, and he averaged as many assists as Walker last year. He's still as good or better than Wallace on defense. Malone has also been incredibly durable. The only time he misses games is to suspension, never to injury. Even at his age, he is still as good as Wallace. Does he have as much "future value" as Wallace? No, obviously not, but Wallace isn't good enough to play until he is 40 either.

And most importantly, unlike Walace, Malone is NOT a cancer. He is a team player. He does not hurt his team with off the court antics and technical fouls. He is a leader in the lockerroom. Wallace is none of these things. You can't measure those things with stats. So maybe the numbers DO lie, after all.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

You are right about the Blazers. Numbers don't lie. I've always prided myself on being able to analyze statistics better than other people.

The Blazers are 5-3. They're also 5-1 at home, 0-2 on the road. And they are only 2-2 against their conference. Which means they are 3-1 against the Least, err, East.

Golden State is 4-4. They are 1-4 in the west, and 3-0 against the east.

The Lakers are 4-1 against the west.

The Timberwolves are 5-5. They are 0-4 against the west.

The Blazers have had a VERY easy schedule so far.

They beat the Cavs, Grizzlies, Hawks, and Raptors, none of whom is a playoff team. They lost to the Jazz, Sixers, and Sonics. They beat the Webber-less Kings at home in OT last night, a game I thought they lost because they were getting blown out in the 1st quarter when he turned it off.

The Knicks ALSO beat the Webber-less Kings at home. They also lost to the Spurs and Nets on the road. Meaning, not only have the Knicks already played more contenders than the Blazers, they've also played more road games than the Blazars, and more road games against contenders.

I think calling the Blazers the 5th seed is a bit of a hasty determination, no? Especially since they are a volatile team looking to dump half of their roster?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*5th seed*

I only seeded them 5 because if the season ended today,thats where they would be...Making predictions and speculating is fun,but as we all know ANYTHING can happen throughout the course of a year...My feelings with the Knicks is they NEVER develop their young talent assuming they ever draft smart...As much as Portland is an insane asylum,they somehow manage to draft young studs and they become stars though not necessarily for the blazers..i.e. Jermaine Oneal.....


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> My feelings with the Knicks is they NEVER develop their young talent assuming they ever draft smart...As much as Portland is an insane asylum,they somehow manage to draft young studs and they become stars though not necessarily for the blazers..i.e. Jermaine Oneal.....


The Knicks never HAVE young talent to develop, so they don't compare to the Blazers. Hard to develop talent when you trade it away.

Last year Frank Williams missed training camp. Considering he plays the hardest position to learn in the NBA, that wasn't a good thing, and it showed last season.

Donnell Harvey, Walter McCarty, John Wallace, and Monty Williams have turned into decent backups on other teams. Hubert Davis, and Greg Anthony were productive backups as Knicks, and were productive backups for other teams. As I've said before, the Knicks traded all their draft picks for better players, so it's hard to fault them. None of the other teams were able to turn the bust rookies (John Thomas, Dontae Jones) into good players, so how can one fault the Knicks? Those busts never played a minute in NY. The best rookie the Knicks drafted who didn't play in NY was Nene, who was a lottery pick playing for the worst team in the league last year.

Marcus Camby joined the Knicks at 24. Did they do a bad job with him? He left NY a better player than when he came to NY.

Considering Camby was 24 years old, it really puzzles me why the Raptors took Oakley in the first place. That was a really lopsided trade.

The Knicks certianly don't have any Ed O'Bannons or Yinka Dare's on their draft resumes. Well, except for Frederic Weis, who supposedly was drafted by Ed Tapscott on purpose to get back at the organization. Even that isn't the case, it was a pick made by an interim GM who had the job for 3 months, and knew he was on his way out.

The 99 draft was not particularly deep anyway. The Raptors also took a bust european center with the 12th pick, Alek Radeocevic. They also gave him a big contract, something the Knicks never did with Weis.

The top 10 in that draft was as good as it gets
1 Chicago Elton Brand 6-8 260 PF Duke So. 
2 Vancouver Steve Francis 6-3 194 SG Maryland Jr. 
3 Charlotte Baron Davis 6-2 190 PG UCLA So. 
4 LA Clippers Lamar Odom 6-10 220 SF Rhode Island Fr. 
5 Toronto Jonathan Bender 6-11 210 SG Picayune (MS) H.S 
6 Minnesota Wally Szczerbiak 6-8 243 SF Miami OH Sr. 
7 Washington Richard Hamilton 6-6 185 SF Connecticutt Jr. 
8 Cleveland Andre Miller 6-2 204 PG Utah Sr. 
9 Phoenix Shawn Marion 6-7 210 SF UNLV Jr. 
10 Atlanta (a) Jason Terry 6-2 172 PG Arizona Sr. 

Toronto was able to trade Bender for Antonio Davis, so the top 5 was incredibly solid, perhaps the most solid of any draft. But after that...

11 Cleveland Trajan Langdon 6-3 195 SG Duke Sr. 
12 Toronto Alek Redojevic 7-3 245 C Barton Co. JC (Kan.) So. 
*13 Seattle (b) Corey Maggette 6-6 220 SG Duke Fr. *
14 Minnesota William Avery 6-2 185 PG Duke So. 
15 New York Frederick Weis 7-1 240 C France 
*16 Chicago Ron Artest 6-7 233 SF St. Johns So. *
17 Atlanta Cal Bowdler 6-10 253 PF Old Dominion Sr. 
*18 Denver James Posey 6-8 210 SF Xavier Sr. *
19 Utah Quincy Lewis 6-7 215 SF Minnesota Sr. 
*20 Atlanta Dion Glover 6-5 235 SG Georgia Tech Fr. 
21 Golden State (c) Jeff Foster PF 6-10 260 SW Texas St.Sr. 
22 Houston Kenny Thomas 6-8 255 PF New Mexico Sr. 
23 LA Lakers Devean George 6-7 225 SF Augsburg College (MN) Sr. 
24 Utah Andrei Kirilenko 6-9 205 SF Russia 1981 *
25 Miami Tim James 6-7 221 SF Miami Sr. 
26 Indiana (c) Vonteego Cummings 6-5 190 PG Pittsburgh Sr. 
*27 Atlanta (d) Jumaine Jones 6-8 210 SF Georgia So. 
28 Utah Scott Padgett 6-9 240 PF Kentucky Sr. *
29 San Antonio (e) Leon Smith 6-10 237 PF Martin Luther King High 

We're sort of short on star players. And most importantly, notice that not one of these players was a center. In fact, Weis was the last center taken in the first round, which says that the Knicks probably took the best prospect available. They needed a center, so taking Artest or Kirilenko would not have made sense.

The centers taken in the 2nd round were Evan Eschmeyer, Wang Zhi Zhi, and Todd MacCulloch. None of whom are a major upgrade over what Weis gives the Knicks (which is nothing).

As for the Blazers, and their drafts...

2003: Travis Outlaw
2002: Qyntel Woods
2001: Zach Randolph
2000: Erick Barkley
1999: No Pick
1998: No Pick
1997: Chris Antsey
1996: Jermaine O'Neal
1995: Gary Trent
1994: Aaron McKie
1993: James Robinson

What exactly are you basing your statement on? What draft picks do the Blazers develop? They haven't done a good job with a 1st round pick other than Zach Randolph. They did an absolute HORRIBLE job with Jermaine O'Neal. Good for them, they drafted him early. They never played him. Period. They KNEW he was good, but instead they gave PT to guys like Shawn Kemp, and they thought so highly of him that they traded him for Dale Davis. O'Neal played FEWER minutes in his 4th year than he did in his 1st year. Thats a lot worse than the Knicks did with any of their draft picks. They didn't draft any studs, but they also didn't trade any away. I could see your gripes if the Knicks HAD a young guy and DIDN'T play them, but that's just not the case. Portland had the same exact philosphy as NY, they were playing for now, and not later. O'Neal was the only young player they had, and they never played him. Between 1996 and 2000 the Blazers had 0 good 1st rounders, so it's not like he was fighting off other youngsters.

As for Randolph, the Blazers already have Rasheed Wallace, but unlike the mistake they made with O'Neal, they're deciding to trade Wallace and keep their youngster. That is the biggest difference between Randolph/Wallace and O'Neal/Wallace.

Qyntel Woods has done nothing yet, and Travis Outlaw is viewed by most people as a bad pick (which I would have to agree with, since Woods is also a SF).

What players did Portland never drafted Rasheed Wallace. They never drafted Bonzi Wells or Derek Anderson. Never drafted Stoudamire or Patterson.

They TRADED for them.

They were able to rip off teams via trade. They got Wallace via rip off in two ways. They traded Rod Strickland for Wallace.

1. They traded old for young.
2. They traded small for big.

What's even worse is Strickland was a locker room cancer at the time. Washington ended up waiving him after 3 years.

The Wizards traded Chris Webber, Rasheed Wallace, and Ben Wallace. They got Mitch Richmond, Rod Strickland, and Issac Austin in return. Had they not made those terrible trades (Webber for Richmond was just as bad and for the same reasons) then they would be at the top of the east right now.

They ripped off the Spurs for Derek Anderson. How badly? Steve Smith fell out of the San Antonio rotation last year. Of course, Steve Kerr was also part of the trade, and his playoff heroics helped the Spurs to a championship, so it wasn't a complete ripoff.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Novels*

You are quite the prolific writer...

The fact that the Knicks never have young talent is one of two things...Either they cant draft for you know what,which up to now has been proven,or they cant develop it...

As for Marcus Camby,they did a TERRIBLE,TERRIBLE job with him..He was benched,never getting PT until ewing got hurt..The ONLY reason Van Gundy played camby is due to that...Thru sheer luck,or ewings bad luck Van Gundy played Camby..Dont get me started on that.....Ask Ernie Grunfeld why he couldnt stand Van Gundy...So,NO the knicks did not intentionally develop camby.

Your rationale for why we chose Weis over Artest is flawed...We needed a center?????..If thats the case,and Layden proclaims Dyss is healthy,why did we draft,Sweetney and lampe,when we have Dyss,Harrington,Weatherspoon,Kurt Thomas,and Van Horn who you will say is a small foward..Are we cornering the market on power fowards??

By looking at your portland draft list,i would say they do a hell of a job drafting compare to the Knicks...


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> The fact that the Knicks never have young talent is one of two things...Either they cant draft for you know what,which up to now has been proven,or they cant develop it...


What has been proven? Nothing. Like I've been saying, they traded all their picks away to get better players. They traded THREE of their first round draft picks for Chris Mills, and traded him to bring in Sprewell. They also essentially traded Donnell Harvey for Othella Harrington, which has also been a good trade thus far.



> As for Marcus Camby,they did a TERRIBLE,TERRIBLE job with him..He was benched,never getting PT until ewing got hurt..


Which is STILL a better job than the Blazers did with O'Neal. O'Neal got more PT as an 18 year old than he did as a 20 year old. Camby got PT, and he earned the respect of his coaches to get that PT. Otherwise his PT would have dissappeared when Ewing came back.

O'Neal never earned the respect of the coaches, and they significantly downgraded their team when they traded him for Dale Davis.



> The ONLY reason Van Gundy played camby is due to that...Thru sheer luck,or ewings bad luck Van Gundy played Camby..Dont get me started on that.....


O'Neal
Age 18: 10.2 mpg
Age 19: 13.2 mpg
Age 20: 8.9 mpg
Age 21: 12.3 mpg
Age 22: 32.6 mpg (w/Pacers)
Age 23: 37.7 mpg

Camby
Age 22: 30.1 mpg
Age 23: 31.8 mpg
Age 24: 20.6 mpg (w/Knicks)
Age 25: 26.2 mpg
Age 26: 33.8 mpg
Age 27: 34.7 mpg
Age 28: 21.2 mpg (w/Denver)

Sorry, but Camby in no way compares to O'Neal.

It didn't help Camby that early on in the season he missed a few games due to bad conditioning, but even then he still played more 50-60% more minutes in his first season in NY than O'Neal did in any year in Portland.



> So,NO the knicks did not intentionally develop camby.


Intentionally or not, they still developed him. Just like the Blazers intentionally traded O'Neal. Why do you not credit the Knicks for developing Camby, and give the Blazers a free pass for trading O'Neal? The O'Neal trade is a worse trade than any transaction the Knicks have made in the last 5 years under Scott Layden, or even before that. 

The best Davis did for the Blazers was 9.5 ppg and 8.8 rpg in 01-02. Compare that to O'Neals 20.8 ppg (among the top 20) and his 10.3 rpg. He was top 20 in the league in scoring, and top 5 in rebounds and blocks, and he is only 24. Not only that, but he has begun to exhibit 3 point range. He was 7-21 last season. O'Neal is definitely one of the top 5 PFs in the league (#5, behind Duncan, KG, Webber, and Dirk), which bodes quite well for him in 5 years. In 5 years, he'll be 29. The rest of the top 5 wil be 31 (the age players begin to decline), except Webber, who will be 34, (and he is already injury prone). If you were wondering, Charles Barkley became injury prone when he hit 30, and he ended up retiring at 36, logging a total of 62 games over his last 2 seasons.

When is the last time the Knicks traded a star for nothing in return? (And the Ewing trade does not count, because they got plenty in return).



> Your rationale for why we chose Weis over Artest is flawed...


The Knicks already had Houston and Spree, and also had Rice at the time I think... They did not need another swingman. They needed a center. They still do.

Artest developed into the player he did because he got PT, something the Knicks could not guarantee. You can't do that on 5 minutes per game.



> We needed a center?????..If thats the case,and Layden proclaims Dyss is healthy,why did we draft,Sweetney and lampe,when we have Dyss,Harrington,Weatherspoon,Kurt Thomas,and Van Horn who you will say is a small foward..Are we cornering the market on power fowards??


1. Like I said, Layden didn't draft Weis.
2. Harrington will be traded before the end of the season.
3. Van Horn is starting at SF, whether you like it or not.
4. Thomas is going to be traded this year. Either that or he is gone via free agency.
5. If McDyess does not pan out, then he won't be re-signed.

That leaves the Knicks with Weatherspoon. And McDyess, if healthy. Sweetney has played more games than Weatherspoon this season (5-4) so I wouldn't worry about him beating out Spoon on the depth chart, and Lampe is very young, so I wouldn't worry about his PT right now. There will be PT for these young guys, believe it or not.



> By looking at your portland draft list,i would say they do a hell of a job drafting compare to the Knicks...


You might want to explain that, because the Blazers have traded away every other draft pick they've had, much like the Knicks. How do you think they got all the veterans they had in 2000?

They traded Robinson, who scrubbed out
They traded McKie, currently a career backup
They traded Trent, currently a career backup
They traded O'Neal for Dale Davis, one of the worst moves in the last 5 years.
They traded Antsey, who scrubbed out
They traded Barkley, who scrubbed out
Woods has done nothing, can't be evaluated yet
Outlaw has done nothing, can't be evaluated yet

Their only good pick they didn't trade was Randolph.

Considering the Knicks took Sweetney and Lampe this year, who both should be better than Woods and Outlaw when all is said and done, I don't really see much difference between the Knicks' draft record and the Blazers draft record other than Randolph.


----------



## 2PacFan4Life (Aug 4, 2003)

Contract the Knicks


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

> originally posted by *NYCbballFan*!
> Winning basketball is fun to watch. Good execution is fun to watch. A team that plays with heart and aggression is fun to watch. I would settle for just one of these criteria to cheer on the Knicks. Unfortunately, the Knicks don't fulfill any of these criteria.


In comparison, in hockey, the most boring aspect of the game is the trap in center ice. The trap basically means pass the puck around between the blue lines to kill time until you can manage to get it into the opponents zone. This style of play was completely dead until the Devils brought it out. The Devils are masters at this style of play. The Devils win a lot of games, However, when was the last time you saw a Devils game sold out? Even in the playoffs, some seats are empty. Ask any Devils fan when the last time they were able to tune into a game and keep it on, many of them won't even be able to tell you when it was. In many cases, people you see wearing the Devils apparell just claim to like them because they are a supposed dynasty. The Devils aren't the only guilty party, however, there are other teams that utilize successful yet boring tactics, just like there are many teams that use a variation of exciting tactics. Teams like Colorado have guys that go out and create fast-breaks, while teams like Toronto use a more physical style of play to wear their opponents out.

The same holds true for basketball. Many teams just go and grab a large enough lead and go and stick in the best defenders possible, _a la_ Detroit Pistons. However, teams like the Nets run the floor really well and create fast breaks and consistantly are on just about every highlight reel in America, while teams like the Spurs and Lakers have big men that knock people around inside, and also make plenty of highlight reels. 

In conclusion, it is possible to win and still have a boring team. Half of the Knicks are veterans and half are currently in a stage of growth and development. While it might be possible to hunker down into defense even though they are a really bad defensive team, the younger players wouldn't learn how to become that exciting team that everyone longs to see, they wouldn't be able to replace the veterans offensively when their time to leave comes, and we'd basically be stuck in the same situation we're in now for an even longer period of time.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> However, teams like the Nets run the floor really well and create fast breaks and consistantly are on just about every highlight reel in America


It is borderline hilarity that you mention the Nets, *because they can't even sell out their home games*. Which basically contradicts the entire point you were trying to make.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*thats pretty funny*

Good point Rashidi.....He had me a believing until he brought up the NETS..Bottom line......doesnt matter what you do in the meadowlands,if its a long season(not football),it aint selling....

Its a shame to see the Nets play there in a half full arena..What was Jason Kidd thinking:no:


----------

