KD doesnt depend on his athleticism his athleticism makes him one of the best players of all time alongside Bron. Without athleticism he just turns into Steph Curry who is still a max player in everybody's book. If Knicks were a team like Miami or Lakers then yeah they should be leery of signing KD. But a team like Knicks who have been losers forever, taking a chance on KD should have been a no brainer.
They were spending it on Bobby Portis and Randle regardless. Id rsther pay KD to sit on the bench then those 2 guys at least if KD cant play you can tank for lotto talent to pair with him.
I get the serve crow thing and I'm fine to eat it but that was never my argument. Knicks FO said basically they were taking a patient approach and not just trying to grab stars because that's never worked for them despite their worldwide market. They are building through the draft and collecting assets, that means their rebuild will take awhile, but if they are committed to it, select the right players, it will pay off and cap wise they'll be much better for it.
If that was your main argument why were you talking about KD's age and how Bobby Portis and Julius Randle are better use of capspace? Building through the draft and collecting assets can be done alongside signing KD. Lotto picks take minimal salary so capwise it is irrrelevant as well.
And what if KD was good but not elite anymore and it makes you a mediocre team? That makes it harder to build through the draft. I brought up age because age is always relevant in sports. Of course if KD was 25 they'd do it, but he's 32 coming off a major injury. Signing him doesn't make sense for a rebuilding team, it just doesn't. Just like Harden going to the Bulls makes no sense, Durant going to the Knicks would have put butts in the seats (Knicks never have an issue with fans) but it would not have bought them closer to a championship, hoping he attracts another star is a risk. What if he's all-star level or what if carrying that team is even too much for prime Durant? Yall think Giannis would have gone there? How many other stars are even coming up in the FA? Does Kawhi go there? If not then is a duo of KD + Blake, Lowry, Derozan, Oladipo...2nd and 3rd tier stars really going to get them a championship? I'm never going to call a team stupid that just wants to build through the draft and take their time. It can often pay off big for cap space and moving forward and a lot of the actual multi-year dynasties come from building your team naturally through the draft. It's harder, it takes longer, but the rewards are basically what the Warriors pulled off or what OKC almost pulled off or what the Spurs did for years.
My only point is that the Knicks didn't need to take this risk and it was a risk. Even if you implant Durant on the Knicks they aren't very good. The Nets were a playoff team before even adding Kyrie and Durant, they weren't a rebuilding team with nothing and this is factoring in an injury that has destroyed most careers statistically, this was a bigger risk for a team like the Knicks while for the Nets it wasn't at all because they were already on the mediocrity treadmill so making a big move to get off of it is a no brainer.
As soon as you put Durant on the Knicks they are a contender. You have picks and young talent that you can trade for good role players in the East. It would be stupid if you have a chance to not go all in for certain players. Durant is one of them.
We'll just have to agree to disagree then because I don't think Durant makes them a contender. That's a bad team. They'll be a little better this year (but it won't be noticeable or matter) because I like Toppin and I think RJ can ball and will only get better year to year and the guy is 20 but their situation was just different than the Nets. Nets made the playoffs the year before. They were a solid team thanks to finally stopping their star chasing get rich quick schemes...which...has never worked for either New York team. I don't think dropping a great player on a terrible team makes them a contender. It makes them much better, sure but...You put Harden on the Bulls maybe they get to 8th seed but those are a lot of bad players he would have to carry. Same for Durant. I also don't believe Durant is the carrying type but that's another convo. Knicks fans for years have wasted their future on these get rich schemes, trading prospects and picks to try and either get below cap to get a superstar or build around some Amare or Carmelo and it's just never worked out for them. Besides, what other superstars are out there to be traded for? If they had Durant is there anything you want from that team for Harden? I think they are finally on the path to doing right. Build around RJ and hope you keep drafting well. Hopefully (For Knicks) Barret turns into a perennial all-star talent AND THEN you start looking for who to pair him with.
The Lakers were awful before they got Lebron. Superstars bring superstars and star talent and you shift your gears from gathering young talent/assets to getting solid role players.
Don't judge too fast. Let's see how Durant holds up. That said. If Tilman did the same thing, CF would have a huge uproar.
Not hard to imagine an owner that would rather pay payers modest and traceable contracts and be on the court than roll the dice and not have a product at all. Sure they could have taken a risk — if KD was ever even going to consider them — but I completely understand passing on a max contract for a 33 year old who just returned from a torn Achilles. Difference of strategy.
You mean clutchfans would be happy? It never even occured to me that he wouldnt be KD. Injuries happen and it just seems so stupid to not take a chance on a generational type MVP champion. What exactly is the alternative for Knicks and Houston. If KD was here Harden wouldnt be trying to leave and if KD was with the Knicks Harden would be trying to go there LOL. I just dont see the point here.
The Lakers with Lebron only were a forgettable team. They got AD but it took a 'lucky' draft lottery for that to happen. If the Lakers were just Lebron and some guys then they aren't even better than the rockets.
In my short time on this page I see you as a good poster so im really not tryna give you a hard time but I think you are missing the point. Kyrie and KD wanted to play together New York was one of the destinations they wanted to go. Stars want to contend so where one goes another one will follow. This is how we got Dwight for instance. Dwight would not have come to Houston without Harden being here. This is why when a top 5 player is on the table you swing for the damn fences. The reason Harden wants to go is because Tilman is not swinging for the fences in his opinion and he wants to contend and get a ring.
But didnt you just say the strat was build through the draft? If the product wasnt there at all that means lotto pick which wouldve fit into their supposed strat to begin with. So now again you come back to your original argument that 33 yr old KD wasnt worth the max. Thats why you deserve the crow man. Its not about the strat its you thought Bobby Portis and Julius Randle were better than KD. There is literally no risk there as Bobby Portis and Julius Randle actual wins produced werent much different from No KD. Case in point Knicks let both go for nothing as they were not worth trading for by other teams.
AD only wanted to go to LA cuz Lebron was there. NO didnt want to trade AD and esp for top 4 lotto in a perceived 3 man draft, Ball who was considered a bust at no 2 and Ingram who just got diagnosed with blood clot and could end up retiring early like Chris Bosh. Its one of the rare instances both teams won the trade but at the time NO would rather AD resigned for the super max.
In part, remember, it was a trade. NOP didn't have to trade AD and were refusing to do so until AFTER the draft lottery worked out for LA and NOP. But your point about how one player can transform a bad team into a contender was wrong. The Lakers with just Lebron weren't contenders. Just like the Knicks with just KD wouldn't be contenders...and building through FA has never worked for NYK. You can't be too surprised that they decided to quit with that strategy after it's given them decades of irrelevance. Well, all this is rumored. Kyrie wanted to go to the Nets all along and the story according to parties involved is that he convinced KD the Nets would be better. I mean they were already a playoff team so it wouldn't have been that hard for him to convince him. I don't think Knicks fans at the time even really believed reports that they were both going there.
Right, NOP were taking the same approach we are with Harden. They planned on keeping him for the right deal and the lakers getting...'lucky' in the draft made the right deal come along. My point was that getting Durant alone would not have transformed the Knicks into a contender. They just wouldn't have had the depth and KD would have had to carry the weight of an elephant just to get them home court much less the playoffs. I'm not saying that they would have been stupid for getting durant but I think they aren't dumb for not taking that risk...because they have taken that risk so many times before and its burned them basically every time.
