Also winning culture means our picks can develop faster. nikkas underestimate how being trash affects a team. Look at the kings they CONSTANTLY kill their own players development. Tanking isn't 100 proof and we already got a future hofer. Getting him playoff experience wouldn't be a horrible idea especially if we draft good. Great players can be found late in the draft you just need to ACTUALLY DEVELOP THEM. I think a winning culture must be established
I agree, but people see teams like Milwaukee & Philly & get hard ons for tanking. Their is no guarantee that 1) the high draft pick will be good, 2) the draft pick will stay in NY after their rookie deal is done. We've seen it over the years with big name free agents spurning us, playing in NYC isn't as enticing as it once was.
The only thing that develops a
winning culture is
talent, because talent is what wins. Rebuilding a roster takes time, and while Philly may not be contending any time soon... neither will anybody aside from GSW and Cleveland.
I'm not advocating tanking, I don't think this roster is bad enough to get a top 5-8 pick right now. But all of this "you can find great players late in the draft" shyt is silly and ahistorical. While you CAN find great players in the back of the draft... you are far more likely to find them at the top of the draft. The higher your pick, the higher the chance you have of getting the most talented player possible. The numbers bear it out.
So while "there is no guarantee that a high pick gets a you a star" there is a guarantee that a higher pick gets you a better chance at a star. And the knicks roster, as currently constructed -- has exactly one player who will be a star two years from now. That isn't enough to win.
And BECAUSE "over the years big name free agents have spurned us" and considering the way the CBA has been updated to help teams keep the stars they draft -- you have to bank on building from within, which means drafting those stars yourself.
These points are not up for debate. They are facts. Now, if you want to argue that you'd prefer to watch a team that is scraping and scrapping for 25-38 wins, rather than one that is getting its face kicked in for 72 losses. That is a fair and valid argument to make. But it is an argument of your taste -- not what is best for acquiring talent.
I think more than anything, this is what I have argued over in this thread with fans. I think people easily mix up their feelings about watching a team, with what is best for the team's long term success. And they like to talk about "playoff experience for the players" when what they really mean is "I want to watch my team in the playoffs."
I want to see Porzingis in the playoffs, too.
The fact is the Knicks have needed to go through a full rebuilding for almost 15 years now, and they won't do it. And we give Phil Jackson shyt for making short-sighted decisions (whatup Joakim) -- but the reality is, if you read through this thread most of the fans here are just as impatient as Phil. We tanked one year, and got Porzingis. We now have a player that will still be a star talent in 3 years. But fans panic and want to see the playoffs now, just like Phil did this summer.
This isn't a direct attack on either of the posters I quoted. They represent a feeling among some fans. And some GMs, too, it turns out. But if you can't see the cycle there, or at least the parallel, then you should probably not bother responding.
No they will not be in the same place as the Knicks. The 76'ers have their main piece (Embiid) his probable sidekick (Simmons) young tradeable assets that can return good value in the future(Okafor and Noel) and two lottery picks in the next draft. The Bucks have their main piece (Greek Freak) his sidekick (Parker) and young players that are already good and still improving (Brogdon, Middleton). The Knicks currently do not have KP's sidekick, have two horrible K's (Melo and Noah), and getting to the playoffs has them picking outside the lottery.
