I love the idea of addressing specific weaknesses but if you do that with one dimensional players all you do is shift that weakness to another spot. It just feels like something the Knicks do because they are the Knicks as opposed because it's the best way to improve.
Robinson plays defense in a way that doesn't leave him in position to rebound. I don't think that gets address with a defensive rebounding center. It has to be addressed by someone who can play with him.
I like Millsap, even at that age on the one year deal you mention. I like CP3 unless we decide 40 million a year isn't enough and we have to bump the actual cost to 100 million over two years by throwing additional assets at a desperate seller when there are no other bidders. What I like about them is that they are vets who play right and fill positions of need and who will make the players around them better now and in the future. Not because of the playoff appearance they might lead us to in the best draft year we can remember. Point being, I like the idea of some leadership vets filling holes and teaching but I don't want them blocking development or discouraging the drafting and acquisition of projects with legit upside.
Not a fan of the passing percentage stuff as presented. Looking for underappreciated assets in a pool of players that is chosen using high usage players seems to be looking for hidden gems in plan sight instead of gems that are actually hidden. Are teams actually blind to good play on the floor? I can see good players that haven't proven it yet but this seems like a low payoff rate. I'm not saying they'll turn into bad players just that they'll probably play worse if they do come from passing teams and that they wont be difference makers.
I love the idea of addressing specific weaknesses but if you do that with one dimensional players all you do is shift that weakness to another spot. It just feels like something the Knicks do because they are the Knicks as opposed because it's the best way to improve.
Robinson plays defense in a way that doesn't leave him in position to rebound. I don't think that gets address with a defensive rebounding center. It has to be addressed by someone who can play with him.
I like Millsap, even at that age on the one year deal you mention. I like CP3 unless we decide 40 million a year isn't enough and we have to bump the actual cost to 100 million over two years by throwing additional assets at a desperate seller when there are no other bidders. What I like about them is that they are vets who play right and fill positions of need and who will make the players around them better now and in the future. Not because of the playoff appearance they might lead us to in the best draft year we can remember. Point being, I like the idea of some leadership vets filling holes and teaching but I don't want them blocking development or discouraging the drafting and acquisition of projects with legit upside.
Not a fan of the passing percentage stuff as presented. Looking for underappreciated assets in a pool of players that is chosen using high usage players seems to be looking for hidden gems in plan sight instead of gems that are actually hidden. Are teams actually blind to good play on the floor? I can see good players that haven't proven it yet but this seems like a low payoff rate. I'm not saying they'll turn into bad players just that they'll probably play worse if they do come from passing teams and that they wont be difference makers.