Re: strategy for the future

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>]

Some good, interesting, and funny commentary out there!

> It's not clear that the free agent class that you mention, including
> Hughes, Jamison, LaFrentz, etc. will actually be available because of
> the structure of the new rookie contracts. The really good ones will
> get extensions, and the marginal ones (like Anderson and Taylor this
> year) will be covered by right of first refusal, which will make it
> hard to pry away from their teams without overpaying.

Good set of caveats, Alex. This is true, Stern et. al. have really made it
difficult for rookies to leave via free agency (re-introducing restricted
free agency after the 4th team option year). However, although certainly not
the case with each and every member of the '98 class, there will always be
situations in which a player wants to exit a dismal situation and his agent
will find a way to do so. The degree to which the new CBA protects teams
from "defections" also protects us with PP, so it may take until year 2004
or '05, but the overall point is the same: to build a young up-and-coming
team around PP - with enough cap room available that it would represent an
option to potential free agents of PP's class - so that PP himself doesn't
decide to bail. Hope for the future is really the key. If Duncan cuts loose
after this year it will not be because Orlando is currently so great or that
SA is currently so bad - it will because the *potential future* (due to
youth, cap room, coach) in Orlando looks much brighter than in SA. Thanks
for helping me clarify this point.

> I think the two trades you propose have a side benefit that you don't
> mention though - we'll be so bad that we'll be getting some really good
> draft picks. Seriously, I think that is an important part to any
> rebuilding project, picking up some good draft picks, especially under
> the new rookie contracts.

Yes, another good point. We should draft for talent, not position. After the
20 or so last games however, I'm beginning to wonder if we will be all THAT
worse off. . . ;(

> I don't like the Walker trade because my
> feeling is that by the time you get to use the cap space from trading
> him, he'll probably be better than what you get in free agency, unless
> you can somehow grab a great big man.

I understand your point regarding Walker being potentially better than any
other free agent that may be out there in a few years - that is certainly a
risk - but that kind of comparison doesn't fully encompass all the benefits
that being under the cap could entail. Not only can trades be consummated
without capology, but the cap room itself could become a magnet for the
players. Let's see if I can do a better job explaining this: what if Duncan
AND Hill decide to go to Orlando? They are friends and have reportedly
kicked the idea around. I'm sure if I were lucky enough to be one of them
I'd wonder to myself "gee, if only I could play with X, we'd really have the
core of an a$$kicking team". Some view Orlando as nothing other than an
overachieving team of scrubs - but they have the CAP SPACE to accommodate
BOTH Duncan and Hill's salaries (if indeed this is their wish), unlike SA or
Detroit. The next few seasons may tell us a lot about the value of cap
space.

> I'd rather get good draft picks
> for him if I'm going to get rid of him.

That's fine too. I threw out my scenario in part to vent and in part to get
people thinking (and see what they were thinking). The particulars of my
scenario are less important than the general thrust. If you don't like
Fortson and would rather keep Battie, fine. If you don't like Derek A and
would rather have picks, that's OK too. The key is the need to get under the
cap, so certain folks have to go: the big salaried players (primarily Kenny
and Antoine, who together eat up nearly half our cap), and the long-term
contract non-performers (in my book Eric W and Tony B although others might
put Vitaly in this category).

The options other than the one I outlined (cutting the payroll and building
through youth from the draft with a strategic entry into the FA market at a
later date) seem to be:

2) To stand pat - which I endorsed until this last weekend when it finally
hit home (after watching the road trip follies) that 50 games into the
season we are not progressing but actually regressing. This is despite
having a full training camp and a roster that Pitino has endorsed through
most of the year. I don't see the situation getting any better now or in the
future. The team chemistry does not seem to be there - lack of shot
blocking, lack of perimeter defense (which exacerbates the lack of shot
blocking), lack of rebounding, terrible shooting, no fast break, headless
chickens etc.

3) Blowing the team up, but in exchange for "veterans". This is the option
that Pitino has threatened for the end of the season. I envision this as a
selling out the future in order to obtain immediate - though ultimately
mediocre - results. For example, imagine trading Pierce and Vitaly (plus
fodder) for Mutombo. We'd certainly improve in the short term, but would we
ever contend for the title? I agree that every player has a price and no one
is untouchable, but that price has to be calculated over the course of a
player's career and not just a three year window for a coach to make the
playoffs. Sure, we can look at the Knicks and say to ourselves "if THEY made
the finals last year..." but making the finals is quite different from
contending for the crown once you get there. I don't think we can afford to
overlook Portland, LA, SA etc. in planning for a championship.

> Toronto is actually 5th in the league in team blocked shots (6.64). Many
> of these come off of Carter and McGrady but Antonio Davis blocks 1.3 a
> game too. Boston blocks 3.6 a game, 28th in the league. And they are a
> below average team in FG% allowed. I believe that their media complains
> about their lack of a true center on defense too.

I would never have guessed Toronto was so high up the list. McGrady has 95
all by himself!! - 10th in the league in bpm (Boston as a team only has 199
led by Battie with 48 - 27th in bpm). Carter has 58 and Antonio D. 69, so
Toronto's top three shot blockers stand 6-8, 6-9, and 6-7 (in order of most
to least) and together have more shots blocked than our entire team!

All I can say is that you've got to play with the personnel you have, put
your most talented five on the floor (if at all possible), and play to their
strengths. Unfortunately, none of our top five can be relied upon to block
attempted lay-ups so for that reason we should gamble all the less on
defense. Instead, focus the perimeter defense on preventing penetration even
at the cost of allowing jump shots. Given our personnel I'd rather take the
risk on a guy taking a jumper with a hand in his face than on the other team
running lay-up drills. This is an old thread, however, so I'll let it lie.

> Both of the trades that you mention don't need to be made
> right now; in fact the contracts that we'd be getting rid of get more
> palatable to other teams as time goes on.

A key reason why our contracts become more palatable over time is because
other teams want to get out from under THEIR contract burdens. Trading the
contracts later rather than sooner would likely NOT get us under the cap
because we would still have to accept contracts back - more than likely even
longer contracts (this follows if the reason our contracts are more
palatable is precisely that they are closer to expiring). For example, the
ONLY reason why Orlando would even contemplate trading for Pervis, so they
could get his short contract in exchange for Derek Strong's longer one. As I
see it we can't have it both ways, we either have to take the short end with
regards to talent now (in order to shed contracts and get under the cap) or
we wait to get a better deal talent-wise (but never get under the cap). The
former strategy is riskier but the potential payoff is much higher. The
latter is more conservative and hence more appropriate for a consistently
successful team, such as the Knicks.

> For what it's worth, I don't think that we are going to get Derek Anderson
> for 4.5 million.  I think he wants more, and someone else is bound to
> overpay for him.  If not, I say get him though.  Kandi-man I'm not so sure
> of, as I've not seen him play.  My gut tells me no, though.  The question
is
> will he be like Hakeem, or Yinka Dare?  I remember Hakeem was rough at
> first, but you could see that he had more tools than simply physical
tools.
> Heck, he and Ralph Sampson made the finals in their second year, right?
Has
> anyone seen that much promise in Olowakandi, other than athleticism?

Rob might well be right about this one, DA probably wants a LOT more than
4.5 mil, but the interesting question is where does he think he can get it.
. . I share Rob's doubts about Kandi as well - if nothing else, watching a
Pitino coached team for three years has taught me not to confuse athleticism
with Bball talent.

> I disagree with your assessment of the season if we make the playoffs.  If
we
> make the playoffs, THIS SEASON NEVER HAPPENED.  The Chicago losses didn't
happen.
> The Milwaukee and Atlanta losses never happened.  The Fortson debacle --
never happened.
> We went into the season with the plan of making the playoffs.  If we make
them, we have
> done what we needed to do.  And since to make them we need to play two
months of consistent
> basketball, there is no way any of us will be ragging on the team come
playoff team if they have
> pulled it off.
>
> In fact, game one of the season starts tonight:  Beat the Mavericks!

The problem with this line of reasoning Josh is that little word "if". I am
only contemplating another rebuilding effort because this season (like the
one before it) has been one of regression. This is despite the fact that
this year Rick has had things mostly his own way - his roster was set (as
set as it ever will be for Rick, I guess), his players came into camp in
shape (for the most part), he had a full training camp, we played lots of
home games early in the season etc. Even our most serious injury (to
Fortson) had a silver lining - the discovery of Adrian Griffin. The other
minor injuries the team has endured along the way are only what one should
expect during a full NBA season.

I don't understand why Rick engaged in his little bout of "magical thinking"
over the weekend other than to suppose that he really does believe in the
power of positive thought to change certain realities. In other words, he's
starting to believe his own press releases. Otherwise he would realize that
spouting such optimistic nonsense would backfire eventually (I don't think
any of us expected it would backfire so soon). Rick would have been a great
one during the "great leap forward" - "you're not wishing hard enough, you
bourgeois running dog hooligans!".

-TomM