122 Responses to “Mocking the Knicks’ Draft Pick”

1. justin o - Jun 19th, 2008 at 11:14 am i think we should trade down and pick up an extra pick such as the 6 to nj for the 10 and the 21, or to indi for the 14th and a future first rounder this way we could pick up a point gurd such as augustine Reply to this comment.

2. Alec - Jun 19th, 2008 at 11:38 am I agree Justin. We should see if we can package the pick and a bad contract. If not, I like Westbrook cause because of his defense. I hope he can learn the point and become the new and improved Charlie Ward that can score. Reply to this comment.

3. Thomas B. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 11:57 am RE: Knicks’ team needs. When you can’t win 30 games, you need everything. But the pressing needs are a shot blocking, rebounding, defensive center, and a solid PG. I do not think we need a PF-we need to get rid of the starting PF and replace him with the backup. Mike K. I think the team needs question is an invitation for you to do another player by player team evaluation. Maybe even a position evaluation. Here, I’ll get you started. Centers: Curry, James, Morris Grade: D- By far the center position is the Knicks’ weakest. Even before the injury, Curry had statically the worst season of his pro career. His production dropped in every major category and he looked lost playing next to Randolph. James had tremendous per 40 minute numbers, 32 ppg, and 24 rebounds. Of course, he played a total of 5 minutes in 2 games. That’s only $1,160,000 per minute. Randolph Morris played sparingly even with Curry and James out. Morris showed little more than former Knick Jackie Butler showed as a reserve center. Morris was far from the “Thoroughbred” Mark Aguirre described in the preseason. The only reason this group does not get an F is because Curry’s injury kept his ineffective butt on the bench and that is worth something. Power Forwards: Randolph, Lee, Rose Grade: C Sadly, the power forward position was the Knicks’ most productive. Randolph’s debut season resulted in what most people would call solid stats. 17 ppg, 10 rebounds. But any Knicks fan who watched the games could tell you that Randolph 17 and 10 do not make up for what he lacks. Randolph is an indifferent defender. I recall a game against the Pacers in which he simply walked away from Troy Hudson-who was behind the 3 point line-to wait for a rebound. Hudson promptly drained the triple. This wait for the rebound crap may play at a YMCA pick up game, but it is inexcusable at the pro level. Randolph holds the ball and takes a number of bad shots. Of greatest concern is his reliance on the perimeter shot, including the 3, as the season went on. Lee turned in a solid season, even if his numbers were down slightly from his sophomore campaign-understandable considering the minutes Randolph logged in front of him. Lee showed some offensive improvements while retaining the rebounding and hustle he showed last year. Rose gave you what he could. But at his age, he can’t o much but provide an example of how to work hard and remain ready to play. Anybody want to pick up with the SFs, SGs, or Pgs? Reply to this comment.

4. Brendan - Jun 19th, 2008 at 11:57 am With a team like the Knicks, I almost wouldn’t even look at them in terms of positional need. It’s like you said in regards to Memphis- the first question to be asked for a team in this category of bad is, how many, if any, of the guys on the current roster are likely to be part of the next meaningful team you assemble? With the Knicks, the number is, if you squint at it, maybe 3 (Balkman, Lee, maybe Nate), and two of those three are probably either backups or medium-minutes rotation players on a contender. With that as my understanding, I’d say the team is due for 3 or 4 years of pure best player available drafting, at minimum. I’m torn on trading this year’s pick as part of a salary cap dump for that reason, since I think this team needs foundational help more than a few positional upgrades. To make it worthwhile you’d have to be fairly certain that you could turn the space into a player better than you could get with this pick, and for that I’d assume you’d have to have an ear to the ground for the rumors and whisperings of agents and so forth. Fans pretty much have to trust the GM in that area…. Reply to this comment.

5. daaarn - Jun 19th, 2008 at 12:08 pm I’d be okay with Westbrook but Gordon is a no-no. He’s simply an undersized SG and that’s simply not going to cut it. Reply to this comment.

6. Ted Nelson - Jun 19th, 2008 at 12:35 pm What’s up with everyone talking about team needs? Would you really pass on a SG because the great Jamal Crawford is holding down the spot? I wouldn’t even shy away from taking a PF, although I agree it’s the strongest position for the Knicks. I like David Lee a lot, but he’s not Tim Duncan. Then again, forget that, even if he was Tim Duncan, do you pass on Kevin Garnett in the draft if you have TD, or do you play them together and win multiple championships? Say the Knicks had the #6 pick in the 2002 draft, do they pass on PFs like Nene, Wilcox, and Amare and Caron Butler at SF because they want a PG? If so, do they take Dejuan Wagner (sort of the Eric Gordon of that draft with character issues to boot) or go for the “best PG available”: Juan Dixon? Frank Williams? Dan Dickau? If it were 2006, do they pass on Brandon Roy for the draft’s great defensive inforcers: Saer Sene and Hilton Armstrong… Jerry West said something like: you don’t fill needs in the draft, you add talent. You fill needs in trades. Reply to this comment.

7. stingy d - Jun 19th, 2008 at 12:35 pm i thought of a good nickname for zack randolph” physical syrup Reply to this comment.

8. ess-dog - Jun 19th, 2008 at 12:42 pm How about this trade? Knicks send #6 and Randolph and Balkman to NJ for #10, #21 and Richard Jefferson and throw in some extra contract… NJ can draft Gallinari @6. Knicks can draft Jordan @10 and Chalmers @21. Then we have Chalmers, Crawford, Jefferson, Lee, and Jordan to grow as a unit. Sit or ship the rest. Or… Knicks #6 and Randolph to Denver for Melo, #20 and Kenyon Martin. Then we have Chalmers, Crawford, Melo, Lee and um, Curry for now. Or… #6, Nate and Randolph to Sacto for #12, Artest, Moore and Udrih. Reply to this comment.

9. Loki1963 - Jun 19th, 2008 at 12:47 pm This only proves no one has any idea who the Knicks are taking. Even if Mayo fell to the Knicks I’m not sure they’d take him. They already have under size shooting guards why would they want another? The best options as mention by others are to trade the pick and get a couple of picks, or move down and use the pick to get rid of some of the ridiculous contracts (Randolph, Curry, James, Jefferies, Q etc..). Reply to this comment.

10. Dan Panorama - Jun 19th, 2008 at 1:24 pm I agree on the need to go for best player available on this draft in the Knicks’ case, though not in all cases. Championship contenders like Detroit or San Antonio can go for team needs almost every year, as they are trying to get that one little tweak or role player to improve the team at the margins. When it comes to the cellar teams where every starter’s future is in question, you have to grab whatever will have the highest value down the road. D’antoni may need an engine, but he also needs a machine that it can power and right now he’s got jack squat that will be on a future playoff team. If Westbrook is truly the best player at 6 (which is possible) then go for it, but don’t hesitate to go for Joe Alexander or Anthony Randolph say just because we have some half-decent players at those spots. Reply to this comment.

11. Z - Jun 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pm Thanks for the assemblage of mocks, KB– It’s interesting how Westbrook, Randolph, Augustin, and Gallinari are projected 6-12, 6-12, 6-13, and 6-15 respectively, and Mayo is projected 3-6. Seems like 6 is the cut-off spot, and your matrix illustrates how much sense it makes to trade down, especially if Mayo is no longer on the board at 6. Even if Zach Randolph isn’t included in a trade with the Sixers, perhaps a trade can be worked out where they get #6 this year and we get their #16 this year and one of their 2009 first rounders (they have two, courtesy of the Kyle Korver trade, whereas the Knicks have none courtesy of Stephon– the gift that keeps on giving…) p.s.– wasn’t Webster already grown? Reply to this comment.

12. aceofspades - Jun 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pm Are there any “name” (ie- good) players/recruits that could be in next year’s draft? I’m getting the feeling that next year’s draft will be a weak one, and because it will most likely be another lame duck year for the Knicks, I’m thinking they will get another early pick. Reply to this comment.

13. Thomas B. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 1:38 pm Ted Nelson, I somewhat agree with what you said because I am a big supporter of drafting the player not the position. But I dont think there is a PF available at 6 that is worth the 6th spot. Of the positions available at 6, I think PG is the strongest. So i advocate taking a point, even if it is a small reach. Reply to this comment.

14. Thomas B. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 1:49 pm Z, The Knicks do have a 2009 pick. The pick is top 22 protected. I don’t see any way the Knicks will have a top 8 record next year, so we can pretty much count on having that pick available to us. But we have no pick protection in 2010, so kiss the 2010 pick goodbye. That said, I wouldnt mind securing a second first rounder in 2009 to brace ourselves against the 2010 pick leaving. Watching Chicago win the draft with a 1.9% chance makes me worry about how bad it would be to give a lottery pick to Utan and have that pick go #1. It could happen. Reply to this comment.

15. Thomas B. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 1:51 pm aceofspades, try this link for possible 2009 draftees. http://www.nbadraft.net/index.asp?content=mock2009# Reply to this comment.

16. W.C. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 1:54 pm The biggest problem the Knicks have is balance. To be a winning team you need a balance of inside scoring, outside shooting, passing rebounding, defense (shot blocking, steals, man to man, help), speed, leadership etc… It’s incredibly difficult to floor a Knick team that is balanced with the players they have now because every one of them has a big hole in their game. It would be possible to build a championship team with a few of these players, but you’d have to bring in complimentary players to fill the gaps. I think the Knicks FIRTST need to identify which players they are probably going to keep in order to identify the skill sets they would like to bring in among new players (trade and draft). I don’t think the Knicks are going to draft a PG unless it’s one of the team’s first or second choices (perhaps 3rd if it’s really close). We need a PG with specific skills. If there’s no one available, Marbury is going to be the man at the start of the year. Then we will continue looking to trade for one or sign one next year. It’s an urgent need longer term, but not this year because we aren’t going anywhere anyway. Assuming we don’t get a PG, I think Gallinari is the man. I haven’t even seen the kid play, but his stats are pretty good. That means a lot because the one thing I am certain of is that the Italian League is SUPERIOR to the NCAA. So if he is putting up good numbers in the Italian League at 19 or so, he can definitely play in the NBA. It’s just a matter of how good he will get. Reply to this comment.

17. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger) - Jun 19th, 2008 at 1:57 pm Author Comment Just had to share this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPcXV5m-jFE Reply to this comment.

18. Thomas B. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 1:59 pm Lots of GM make poor trades. Take a look at this gem Riley worked out in the Ricky Davis trade. “Minnesota receives Miami’s 2009 first round pick (lottery protected in 2008, top 10 in 2009, top 6 in 2010, beyond: unprotected. )(Ricky Davis trade 102407).” Miami likely wont be much better in 2009 or 2010, so Minny could secure a lottery pick in one of the next two years. They get that for moving Ricky Davis. Is that much worse-money aside-than the Marbury deal? Reply to this comment.

19. ess-dog - Jun 19th, 2008 at 2:20 pm Ford today on Westbrook: “We have, it appears, our first known promise of the draft. Multiple sources say that UCLA’s Westbrook has shut down all workouts and has a promise in the mid-lottery range. Apparently the promise isn’t coming from the Knicks. They like Westbrook at No. 6, but they’re also looking at Mayo, Bayless, Alexander and Eric Gordon. The promise isn’t coming from the Bucks or Pacers; neither team was able to get him in for a workout. That leaves the Clippers at No. 7 and the Bobcats at No. 9. As noted above, the Clippers are trying to move up to get Mayo, so I doubt it’s them. That leaves the Bobcats as the most likely to have made a promise to Westbrook” Reply to this comment.

20. o_boogie - Jun 19th, 2008 at 2:32 pm “This only proves no one has any idea who the Knicks are taking. Even if Mayo fell to the Knicks I’m not sure they’d take him. They already have under size shooting guards why would they want another?” This isn’t even a point of discussion. If Mayo falls to 6, every team would take him. “Knicks send #6 and Randolph and Balkman to NJ for #10, #21 and Richard Jefferson and throw in some extra contract…NJ can draft Gallinari @6. Knicks can draft Jordan @10 and Chalmers @21.” Not a bad thought. I think we could do better than Jordan at 10. Maybe Augustin or Alexander or Lopez will still be available. I would prefer to shed Z-bo for a contract that does not run past 2010, but if this is the best we could potentially do, so be it. I think the best thing possible is to acquire as many 1st rounders as possible. A while ago someone posted a link where it showed Walsh’s draft picks as GM of the pacers. Almost all of his picks were in the league for 10 years or more, which is a good sign. This draft class is pretty deep and if we give Walsh the chance to work his magic I trust he will find some serviceable players or maybe even a gem in the rough. Reply to this comment.

21. TDM - Jun 19th, 2008 at 2:42 pm As I posted yesterday, I read that the Clips are very interested in Westbrook. I think No. 7 isn’t necessarily too high for Westbrook considering the alternatives. Brook Lopez is dropping like a bag of dirt, Gallinari isn’t impressive that high, etc. The question is whether the Clips would give up anything to move up to 6 if they thought the Knicks were going to take Westbrook. Also, the Nets wouldn’t trade up to 6 to get Gallinari because he’ll most likely be there at 10. Rumor has it that the Nets have given him a promise that if he is there at 10, they will select him. Reply to this comment.

22. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger) - Jun 19th, 2008 at 2:43 pm Author Comment From this post: http://www.knickerblogger.net/index.php/2008/03/25/if-true-walsh-move-a-step-forward/ “During Walsh’s tenure, the Pacers rarely went for the big move. The early ’90s Pacers were built primarily through the draft. Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, Antonio Davis, and Dale Davis were taken in successive years.” And Brian Cronin’s remarks: “Walsh’s draft picks from 1987-1991 were basically amazing (excluding the gimme choice of Rik Smits at #2 in 1988, Walsh made four picks in those years, and while 1989’s pick of George McCloud at #7 was bad, the other three were Reggie Miller at #11, Antonio Davis at #18 and Dale Davis at #13 - yes, that’s right, he used three double-digit picks to make up the nucleus of the great mid-90s Pacers teams), Walsh’s draft record is still pretty good. Note that since 1992, he’s been picking only in the double digits (except the HORRIBLE HORRIBLE trade he made when he sent Antonio Davis to Toronto for Jonathan Bender at #5 - YEUCH), so here is what he ended up with in the first round: Malik Sealy at #14 - Decent pick Scott Haskin at #14 - Terrible pick Eric Piatkowski at #15 - Decent pick Travis Best at #23 - Very good pick Erick Dampier at #10 - Good pick Austin Croshere at #12 - Decent pick Al Harrington at #25 - Very good pick Vonteego Cummings at #26 which became Jeff Foster at #21 - Good pick Primoz Brezec at #27 - Good pick Jamison Brewer at #13 - Terrible pick Fred Jones at #14 - Okay pick James Jones at #20 - Decent pick David Harrison at #29 - Decent pick Danny Granger at #17 - Great pick Shawne Williams at #17 - Bad pick That seems like a very solid draft record for a guy who was only picking in the double digits every year. Lots of guys who stayed in the league for a long time.” Reply to this comment.

23. Ted Nelson - Jun 19th, 2008 at 2:45 pm Thomas, “Miami likely wont be much better in 2009 or 2010″ Yeah, Dwayne Wade, Shawn Marion, Mayo/Beasley, Udonis Haslem, Cook, may resign Zo and Dorrell Wright… they’re really going to suck. re: the draft I’m pretty confident that the best player(s) (long-term) of a group that will include 7 of the following 10 is going to be an important piece of a very good team: OJ Mayo, Anthony Randolph, Russell Westbrook, Danilo Gallinari, Kevin Love, Jarryd Bayless, Brook Lopez, Eric Gordon, and Joe Alexander. I have some opinions, but I wouldn’t be upset with any of those 10 (at least not right away). I’m hoping Donnie Walsh makes the right call, whatever that is. Like I said, I’ll trust Donnie Walsh (I also trusted Isiah, by the way), but here’s my opinion anyway: First, I wouldn’t trade down unless I knew the guy I wanted was available. Adding a very good player is way more important at this point, in my mind, than shedding contracts. Trading down to 16, for example, is a completely different part of the draft. Maybe the best player available at 6 is still on the board, but I’ll bet you the guys who’ve historically gone, say, 16-20 are not as good as those who’ve gone 6-10. (Donnie Walsh has taken Jonathan Bender 5 and Danny Granger 16, so maybe it’s not a bad idea.) I personally wouldn’t take Augustin almost over any of those 10, maybe Gordon or Danilo or even Bayless if I thought Augustin was going to work out. I think they can’t pass on Mayo. To me he has the highest floor of the 10 and probably as high a ceiling as anyone, too. He can shoot, finish at the basket, and defend: even if he doesn’t live up to his middle school hype, he should be a good NBA player as long as he doesn’t have a Francis/Marbury attitude. He also seems like a leader, someone who can set the tone for a team and isn’t going to follow the Knicks’ lesser influences. After Mayo I don’t have a clear favorite. At the moment I’d say either Love or Anthony Randolph. I guess I’m in the minority these days, but I have to question whether Love is anything more than a great passing bigman, good rebounder, and adaquate scorer at the NBA level. Maybe his skills transfer, but it seems he’s off the board at 6 anyway and I’m warming to Randolph. He can do a bunch of things: possibly defend inside and out providing shot blocking and rebounding, run the break, finish in traffic, and score a bit. I think he could be a solid 2nd or 3rd best player, while Lee can be a solid 3rd or 4th best player on a contender. The Knicks are, of course, missing #1 and maybe #2… I’m also intrigued by Alexander, although I haven’t seen much of him and think his hype is so high right now he has to dissapoint to some extent. Westbrook I’ve commented on at length: I think he can be a good NBA player, but might struggle off the bat in too large a role. Lopez definitely has some bust potential and doesn’t look like he’s going to dominate the paint defensively, but he seems like a pretty solid pick. I think he’s a bit underrated at this point. I’m not a huge fan of small score first guards, but Bayless and Gordon both seem to light it up. If they can score efficiently in the NBA they should be good players. Gallinari might have the IQ, shooting ability, and passing ability to have a good NBA career despite his lack of athleticism. Reply to this comment.

24. Thomas B. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 2:45 pm Knicks send draft rights to 6th pick, Curry and Lee to Charlotte for Okafor (sign and trade) and 9th pick? Reply to this comment.

25. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger) - Jun 19th, 2008 at 2:54 pm Author Comment You know looking at this draft, it’s clear that after the top 2, there’s a lot of debate on who is going to make a good NBA player. As Jon Abbey said yesterday who isn’t a risk after the top 2? With that kind of depth my first instinct is to hope the Knicks trade down, since you might get as good a player at #10 as you would at #6. But actually I think the opposite is true. Let’s assume that players 3-13 in the draft all have a 20% risk of being busts. Wouldn’t you rather select a guy higher up rather than selecting one that the 8 guys in front of you rejected? Reply to this comment.

26. Owen - Jun 19th, 2008 at 2:59 pm “But actually I think the opposite is true. Let’s assume that players 3-13 in the draft all have a 20% risk of being busts. Wouldn’t you rather select a guy higher up rather than selecting one that the 8 guys in front of you rejected?” Well, if they all have an equal 20% chance of being busts you should probably be indifferent to where you pick 3-13. The most important factor would seem to be what we can get for trading down. Reply to this comment.

27. TDM - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:00 pm How about trading Big Snacks and the 6 to New Jersey for Marcus Williams, KVH and the 10? Buy out KVH, pick one of the bigs at 10, and get Williams ready to take over for Marbs in 09. Reply to this comment.

28. Thomas B. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:03 pm Ted Nelson, I cant tell if you are being sarcastic. If not, then thanks! If you are, let me just say….. Wade may not be healthy. Marion did not make things much better for them when he came over. Marion is not a good half court offense player. Haslem is a role player. ZO will be playing on a bad leg, a borrowed kidney, and a body well past its prime. Dequan Cook is marginal at best. You have no clue what Beasely/Mayo will do. They have a rookie coach, no post scoring, and no PG. They lack outside shooting and outside of ZO-who may not be able to play-they dont have a shot blocker. Yes, that team WILL suck. They won 15 games last season. Even if they double the win total, they are still a lottery team. They would need to win about 38 games to make the playoffs. Wade is nice but he cant do it alone, especially if he isnt healthy. Oh and Dorrell Wright? Who the hell is that? Reply to this comment.

29. W.C. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:06 pm >But actually I think the opposite is true. Let’s assume that players 3-13 in the draft all have a 20% risk of being busts. Wouldn’t you rather select a guy higher up rather than selecting one that the 8 guys in front of you rejected?< That depends on how much weight you put on the opinions of the other teams. I think without question you are better off selecting sooner because even if you rate 3-13 as equal prospects (for arguments sake), you will still have postional/need preferences to use to seperate them. I think it makes sense to categorize the players like “A+”, A, A-, B+ etc…. When you select, you always select the highest rated player. If there are multiple players in the same category left, then you choose by team need. I don’t think it makes much sense to trade down unless you can stay within the same rating category and still fill a need or land a player that will help you via the trade. I’m not even sure 2 players of a lower category are as valuable 1 player at a higher category. I guess it depends on the gap between the players. Reply to this comment.

30. Thomas B. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:08 pm “How about trading Big Snacks and the 6 to New Jersey for Marcus Williams, KVH and the 10? Buy out KVH, pick one of the bigs at 10, and get Williams ready to take over for Marbs in 09.” How about getting Doc brown to fire up the Delorian and go back to the 2006 draft. Take Marcus Williams at 20, then get Balkman at 29. While we are there, we take Mardy Collins back to Willmington, NC circa 1977. We make Mardy Collins the offensive instructor for a 13 year old player named Mike Jordan. MJ never learns to score, never plays for the Bulls and hence does not beat the Knicks in the 1993 playoffs. Yay! Reply to this comment.

31. Frank O. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:10 pm Whatever the Knicks can get at six likely won’t fill a core need. They need a true point guard, not another shooting guard. They need a shot blocking, physical center. They need to get rid of Zach and that ridiculous contract, and they can with Lee there as a low-cost, capable option. To me this is a no-brainer. Take the six, package it with Zach and try to land a point guard, and get a few inexpensive pieces in return. Anyone they get at six will have a great, big question mark next to them. The Knicks have plenty of those already. What they know is they need a point and a center, and they need to shed contracts. Pie in the sky hasn’t world at MSG for some time now. I hope the new powers understand that. Reply to this comment.

32. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger) - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:11 pm Author Comment “Well, if they all have an equal 20% chance of being busts you should probably be indifferent to where you pick 3-13.” Not if you’re better at someone at detecting whether or not said player is going to be a bust. Consider you have a 75% chance of predicting a bust - you’d rather select first because the guys that you think are going to be solid NBA players may be taken by the other team. The other way around you’re betting on someone else’s incompetence. Reply to this comment.

33. Frank O. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:11 pm Whatever the Knicks can get at six likely won’t fill a core need. They need a true point guard, not another shooting guard. They need a shot blocking, physical center. They need to get rid of Zach and that ridiculous contract, and they can with Lee there as a low-cost, capable option. To me this is a no-brainer. Take the six, package it with Zach and try to land a point guard, and get a few inexpensive pieces in return. Anyone they get at six will have a great, big question mark next to them. The Knicks have plenty of those already. What they know is they need a point and a center, and they need to shed contracts. Pie in the sky hasn’t worked at MSG for some time now. I hope the new powers understand that. Reply to this comment.

34. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger) - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:13 pm Author Comment I wouldn’t bet on Miami having a top 10 pick in next year’s draft. Reply to this comment.

35. ess-dog - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:14 pm Here’s an idea: Draft Alexander at #6. If Brandon Rush is still around at #13 trade Alexander to Portland for Fernandez and Rush. I think those 2 would make a wicked backcourt of the future. And I hear Portland is drooling over Alexander, and he wants to go there. and Thomas, after that Curry to Charlotte trade, I just pictured Larry Brown waking up at 3 am in a cold sweat and saying… “Tell me it’s just a dream!” Reply to this comment.

36. ess-dog - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:15 pm I mean TDM… sorry Thomas. Reply to this comment.

37. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger) - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:16 pm Author Comment “Anyone they get at six will have a great, big question mark next to them. The Knicks have plenty of those already.” Yeah but those aren’t the good kind of question marks. For instance - our backup center is Jerome James??? I think the opposite is true. We know what we have with a majority of our roster: Marbury, Curry, Crawford, Jeffries, Richardson, Randolph, etc. We only have a few question marks: Balkman, Chandler, Morris, and to a lesser extent Nate & Lee. To tell you the truth I like the question marks better. Reply to this comment.

38. ess-dog - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:19 pm Frank O…. “glass is half empty” Mike K…. “glass is half full” Reply to this comment.

39. Frank O. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:24 pm Yeah, but Mike, we’re stuck with Curry, Crawford, Jeffries, Richardson, and Marbury. No one will take those guys in a trade. Randolph has some value in the league, as does the pick. The question marks to me are Lee, Balkman, and Robinson, who I think should play a bigger role this year. I think also Marbury is a question mark to a degree because in a contract year he might actually be really good…or not. I’m only suggesting, my humble opinion, that the Knicks control their fate more by shedding contracts and picking up a NBA-level guard with experience. Reply to this comment.

40. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger) - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:28 pm Author Comment ess-dog: That’s a compliment. I’m usually called a pessimist. Reply to this comment.

41. Frank O. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:28 pm ess-dog: This franchise has given me every reason to feel half empty. I remember the hope on this board last year around this time as they Knicks prepared for the draft. I remember the hope after they got Zach. The fact that I still care at all indicates there still is hope for me, but I reserve the right to feel a little down on this franchise right now… Reply to this comment.

42. Thomas B. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:29 pm and Thomas, after that Curry to Charlotte trade, I just pictured Larry Brown waking up at 3 am in a cold sweat and saying… “Tell me it’s just a dream!” LOL! I forgot Larry went the Charlotte. Well, we can forget about that trade. That was funny. ————- Mike K. You dont see Miami having a top ten pick; I agree. But that does not mean they will be much better than last year. I dont see them in the playoffs either, which gives Minny a good shot at a lottery pick-which is just what I said they were likely to get. Reply to this comment.

43. ess-dog - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:33 pm Oh that was you, Thomas… I think Miami could have a lottery pick in ‘09. New coach, hurt star etc. Reply to this comment.

44. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger) - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:49 pm Author Comment “Yeah, but Mike, we’re stuck with Curry, Crawford, Jeffries, Richardson, and Marbury. No one will take those guys in a trade.” I’m not convinced of this. First off we don’t want to trade Marbury, since his contract is going to expire soon. Second I think a team would trade for Crawford. And Jeffries. And maybe even a Curry. Finally, I wouldn’t think it to be so bad to trade down in this draft if we had all our picks. We’re going to lose our first round pick in 2010. So we have this year & the next to get two good young players. I’d rather grab the best player available at #6, take my lumps next year to get another high pick & grab another young player in 2009. Hey even if a year from now if the Knicks still have a big contract, they can package that pick to get rid of one. Additionally those players will be worth more since their contract will be one year shorter. Reply to this comment.

45. Frank O. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:54 pm Boy, you are half full right now. Someone will take Curry? Jeffries? Maybe you’re more confident that there are idiot GMs out there who might take them. The problem with that is there are idiot GMs out there who are risk averse as hell. You might have a chance moving Crawford, however. Except that his style of play may fit the new coach. It’s my long-held believe that the Knicks need to do as much as they can as soon as they can to get cap-healthy. You could move later to package a contract with a pick later on, but what if you’re in a better position or a better draft in the future? There’s not much that impresses people after 5. Reply to this comment.

46. W.C. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 4:00 pm One thing I keep repeating (but it is essential to do so) is that we don’t have to worry about next year. Everyone in management already knows that “AT BEST” we are an 7th/8th seed next year and will be blown out in the first round. There is no need to rush to get rid of specific bad contracts or fill specific roles. This is more like a 3-4 year plan. Year one is going to be the transition year. If a deal comes along where we can move a bad contract and get good overall value back, we should do it. But we don’t “have to” move anyone yet. We have time and gets easier as the contract durations shorten up. IMO, we should draft the best player available. If the choice is between 2 players of equal quality and one is a PG that can run an offense, then take the PG. The rest is a matter of exploring options and being exceptionally patient. Reply to this comment.

47. T-Mart - Jun 19th, 2008 at 4:07 pm I don’t know if anyone picked up on this in the news today, I was unware of these proceedings, but the NHL is apparently threatening to “get rid of the NY Rangers owners.” And we all know who that refers to. MSG filed an anti-trust suit against the NHL for micro-managing apparrel sales on the rangers website at an excessive level, supposedly even taking over the website at one point. The NHL is responding by a threat to eliminate the Rangers owners on account of a breach of their contract with the NHL. Im not sure how they plan on accomplishing that exactly, the article doesn’t give enough information, possibly a suit in equity for the breach, who knows. Regardless, if that did somehow occur, that could have some interesting implications carrying over to the Knicks. I know that might seem like a stretch with such little information, but Im allowed to day dream. Maybe it will be possible to get rid of the Dolans once and for all. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369287,00.html Reply to this comment.

48. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger) - Jun 19th, 2008 at 4:34 pm Author Comment Wow this preview of Anthony Randolph just rips him to shreds. Reply to this comment.

49. Thomas B. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 4:35 pm Frank O…. “glass is half empty” Mike K…. “glass is half full” jon abbey. “The glass is half full but there is a huge crack in the bottom.” Thomas B. “The glass is half empty so lets trade it.” TDM. “The glass is half full so lets trade it now before it’s empty.” ess-dog. “Glass, what glass?” Reply to this comment.

50. TDM - Jun 19th, 2008 at 4:50 pm Thomas B is here every Wednesday — try the veal. You’re killing me today. Reply to this comment.

51. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger) - Jun 19th, 2008 at 4:54 pm Author Comment “Boy, you are half full right now. Someone will take Curry? Jeffries? Maybe you’re more confident that there are idiot GMs out there who might take them.” I think Jeffries can be moved - but probably not until next summer. Right now he has 3 years left at about $6.5M/yr. Next year it’ll only be a much more palatable 2 year deal. As for Curry, he’s got 3 years left with about $10.5/yr. So I’m hoping for a team with an idiot GM. But seriously a team out there might be desperate for scoring and grab him. Reply to this comment.

52. W.C. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 5:07 pm I think any team that needs some inside scoring and that already has a rebounding, defense oriented, shock blocking PF would be very interested in Curry. There is nothing wrong with Curry that a complimentary player at PF and a good coach couldn’t cure. People hate him so much because he came with a lot of hype, the Knicks gave up too much for him, and he’s lazy. But he’s not that bad. Last year was bogus and everyone in the NBA knows that. Reply to this comment.

53. ess-dog - Jun 19th, 2008 at 5:22 pm Here’s my new Top 13 (Chad Ford, eat your heart out.) As you can see, I have Love as the #6 best talent, which means we should definitely trade up or down… 1. Rose 2. Beasley 3. Mayo 4. Bayless 5. Gordon 6. Love 7. Alexander 8. Westbrook 9. Augustin 10. Rush 11. Greene 12. Randolph 13. Jordan Reply to this comment.

54. Frank O. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 5:34 pm Curry has been soft as a Knick and there is the pesky heart issue and no insurance. I would doubt they can move him, though I would applaud if they did. Man, this board is falling into that hopeful mode just like last year. Some even wrote that a best case scenario for the Knicks would be a 7th or 8th seed!!! Which is what a lot of guys, even me, said last year… Dantoni is a good coach - I’m glad we got him - but he’ll be lucky to get 40 wins. As of right now, there is no substantive difference between last year’s team and this year’s team. And draft picks rarely have significant impact in their first year, unless you have a 1 or 2, and not much even then. And remember, they have a coach whose offense depends on ball movement, smart decisions and speed of foot. I’ll remind everyone that our big men are slow and sloppy on D, and don’t pass well. Our guards are not great sharing guards, and are more prone to shoot. And our young players, talented as they might be, did not show significant improvement last year v. the year before, and even regressed. I’m not getting sucked in until the Knicks show a winning record after the first 25 games. Otherwise, I’m setting up for a let down… Reply to this comment.

55. ess-dog - Jun 19th, 2008 at 5:51 pm Oops I forgot Gallinari. He sneaks in at #12 bumping out Jordan. 1. Rose 2. Beasley 3. Mayo 4. Bayless 5. Gordon 6. Love 7. Alexander 8. Westbrook 9. Augustin 10. Rush 11. Greene 12. Gallinari 13. Randolph Reply to this comment.

56. ess-dog - Jun 19th, 2008 at 6:02 pm I think there’s a shelf at 5 or 6 and another and 9 or 10. I would maybe even replace Randolph with Speights at this point and then Koufos and B. Lopez after that. I’m starting to think Augustin is underrated and could be a good pick-up for us if we can trade down to 9 or 10. Or trade up to 3 or 4 to get OJ or Bayless. Reply to this comment.

57. jon abbey - Jun 19th, 2008 at 6:06 pm “How about getting Doc brown to fire up the Delorian and go back to the 2006 draft. Take Marcus Williams at 20, then get Balkman at 29.” as long as we’re doing that, can we please take Rondo this time? Reply to this comment.

58. W.C. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 7:23 pm >>Some even wrote that a best case scenario for the Knicks would be a 7th or 8th seed!!! << I wrote that. There is a huge difference between the best case scenario and the most likely result. The most likely result is some improvement because we had more than our share of injuries last year, we’ve upgraded the coach sharply, there shouldn’t be any distractions like the sexual harrassment case on the coaching staff or players, if Marbury even belches in the wrong direction he’ll be out the door before he poisons the locker room, we have a #6 pick which should upgrade the team etc… How much that’s all worth is anyone’s guess because teams like Miami and Chicago will also be a LOT better etc… Reply to this comment.

59. W.C. - Jun 19th, 2008 at 7:28 pm I think it’s almost 100% that Gallinari winds up in either NY or NJ. He doesn’t want to go anywhere else, he has very lucrative options to stay in Milan, but he’s acting like he’s staying in the US. To me that strongly suggests he has a guarantee from one or both teams “depending”. In other words, if Mayo, Bayless, and perhaps the Knicks 3rd choice for PG are gone, they guarantee him they will select him. If they can get one of their preferred guards, they pass on him, but the Nets guarantee him they will take him. That’s what it smells like to me. Reply to this comment.

60. George from Scottsdale - Jun 19th, 2008 at 7:43 pm Thomas B. ,your post of earlier today said it all,shotblocking and inside defensive presence and rebounding.Trade down for a low teens, mid 20’s and take Robin Lopez and a pick next year. Trade Crawford and either Zach or Curry, preferably EC for expiring contracts.Send Chandler and Collins to the Vegas league and see if that’s the starting backcourt.Starting team-Lopez,who will cover for Lee’s and Zach’s less than stellar D and Chandler and Collins.Balkman, Jeffries, N8 off the bench. Still like Butler from OSU in FA market,recently MVP of Portsmouth league, haven’t seen him on any boards. Next issue, is Steph, he has to go!!!but that’s tomorrows issue!! Reply to this comment.

61. daaarn - Jun 19th, 2008 at 7:44 pm at our draft position, i feel that whoever we pick will be good, but not great. that being said, as long as we dont take guys like Lopez, i think i’ll be “okay” with the pick. i don’t think we’ll get a star at #6, but i want someone that’s here for the long run (and not just as a contract we cant get rid of) Reply to this comment.

62. jon abbey - Jun 19th, 2008 at 7:56 pm just to confuse things, the new SI mock draft has Westbrook going 4th and Bayless dropping to us. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/ian_thomsen/06/19/mock.draft/index.html?eref=T1 we haven’t talked too much about Bayless, I don’t think, because it’s seemed unlikely he’ll still be around at 6. but if he is, what do people think? from what I’ve seen, I think I’d prefer Westbrook, Bayless seems in the mold of Jamal Crawford/Ben Gordon, not sure we need someone else like that. Reply to this comment.

63. T-Mart - Jun 19th, 2008 at 8:04 pm The one thing everyone on this board agrees on is that the Dolan’s are the worst thing to ever happen to the Knicks and are our biggest problem, they might be getting the boot from the NHL, this doesn’t resonate with one single person? Reply to this comment.

64. TDM - Jun 19th, 2008 at 8:11 pm If he’s there at 6, I’d take Bayless over Westbrook. He may not be as good on defense, but his offense and ability to distribute the ball look promising at the next level. Although I am a bit gun-shy given our last Arizona prospect… Reply to this comment.

65. jon abbey - Jun 19th, 2008 at 8:15 pm “The one thing everyone on this board agrees on is that the Dolan’s are the worst thing to ever happen to the Knicks and are our biggest problem, they might be getting the boot from the NHL, this doesn’t resonate with one single person?” hell, that would be really exciting, but I’ll believe it when I see it. Reply to this comment.

66. George from Scottsdale - Jun 19th, 2008 at 8:17 pm T-Mart, just read that piece, got Stern’s phone number?? daaarn, not Brook Lopez, Rob