I'm gonna do this quick and dirty, because you're boring.
My goodness dude... you take one sentence out of everything I say and just run with it. I know he doesn't literally want them to be Portland, lol. Is that really what you think I meant?
No, it's not... but you keep arguing as if it is... a trend that continues in the next sentence.
My point is... Portland has chosen one philosophy (which hasn't won them anything, by the way... and they still probably won't win anything in the near future)...
Hey! An attack on portland! Well, here's a little nugget of important info: Portland has been better than the Knicks for a decade. Better at identifying talent in the draft, better at developing it, better at winning basketball.
the Knicks have chosen a different philosophy, which has been in progress really for about 2 1/2 years now.
The knicks have not had a "philosophy" for two and a half years. They had no first round picks, and one lottery pick, and no picks at all. Before that they sold off assets to acquire melo, then stupidly used their best flexibility to get ride of chauncey and acquire Tyson. That team flamed out brutally, and they have been just trying to recover since.
At some point you have to concede that your team isn't doing it how Portland is trying to do it and judge them based on the philosophy they've chosen.
Again, you're still talking about portland. But he doesn't want to be portland, he just wants them to use a strategy similar to what portland has used. A strategy that other teams have used also... The pacers, Detroit, Jazz -- teams that have gone from also-rans, to the cusp of being good playoff teams, building around their young talent, and making smart gambles on young free agents with room to improve.
Complaining about their philosophy year after year is pointless. Put it this way... the way they've done things as of late have people predicting that Westbrook would actually want to sign here next year... and of he did want to, the Knicks would actually be in a position to do it.
Yeah, I guess? But before that we had eyes on durant. Before that we had eyes on LeBron... we've been praying for great players to sign for a while. In the mean time, it would be nice to see the team build from within, rather than tying their hopes to aging and injured players, hoping that they somehow stay healthy and THAT lures free agents.
In my opinion, that's productive fan talk... not complaining that Knicks haven't blown it up 3 years in a row or complaining about Carmelo's contract 3 years in a row.
Trip wasn't specifically complaining about Melo in these posts. You're straying from the point. Which seems to be a trend...
Edit: you also implied i said things that I didn't. I didnt say support everything they do. And by philosophy, I'm referring to how they've chosen to build the team, not how they play on the court.
This is a stupid "edit" to add in here. By the same measure: You should not have to support the way they play, or the way they build the team... you can root for your team to get better across the board and still be a fan.
You can be frustrated and still be a fan. You can want players traded and coaches and GMs fired and still be a fan.
Play on the court is a lot more fluid than building a roster. You could try to change style of play tomorrow if you want to. You could fire and hire a coach tomorrow if you want. You're arguing things and defending points I didn't even bring up.
Yea you're last point is maybe the worst part of this whole dumpster fire of a post.
You can't just switch style of play, actually breh. I mean, you can have guys start shooting a bunch of threes, in theory... but in reality: unless you have shooters... you're not really following that philosophy.
In the end, more often than not: The most talented teams are the most successful. So you have to gather as much talent as you can. You have limited resources to pay for that talent... so the best ways to get them for the cheapest... is to either draft somebody, or sigh somebody young and underrated, and hope they improve.
I would argue that the WORST way to do it, is to invest a long term deal for a lot of money, in a player who is passed his physical/playing prime, and historically injured.
The Knicks have historically decided to bank on older/injured players for long term deals... and it has not been pretty.
Trip, myself, really all of us, have a right to be upset that they appear to be following that path again.
You don't get to tell somebody to "just get on board" with what they're doing,
because they're a fan of the franchise.
If you wanna
root root root for the hometeam, that's your shyt. Go for it. But somebody else being analytical or critical of the team doesn't make them less of a fan. Trip and I don't always agree, just like
@DPresidential and
@KnickstapeCity @Rev @ikbm @storyteller @JMurder @Mr. Jack Napier and I don't always get along.
But I would never tell them to just get on board with some shyt, just because. Reasonable minds are supposed to disagree.
No. What I meant was, that their were posters in this thread who tried to downplay Melo's positive effect on KP's game even when KP himself admitted that Melo made the game easier for him, and that he wanted him around.
At this point, based off last season -- you can't reasonably argue that playing with Melo is bad for KP.
You can only argue that trading Melo for younger players/assets might be better for KP. That does not appear to be where we're going.
Ugh.
With Baker and Randle around, I really don't wanna hear that Sasha got signed. I'm not sure what he does for the locker room, but it'd need to be pretty damned spectacular.
Yeah. I mean i guess we'll see.