Isiah Liked Gordon over Gallinari

At least Gallinari doesn’t have to rely on his athleticism to play well, his qualities being great basketball IQ, great ball-handling skills and a great shot.

But Donnie Walsh knew that he was going to dump Crawford and he knew that Marbury was not a part of his plans. Had the Knicks taken Gordon, dumping Robinson with Jeffries would have been a great decision. The fact that we had a lot of guards is not a valid justification – Gallinari’s talent is one but the fact that they didn’t see that bad back issue coming is really suspect.

I have to believe that the Knick trainers are not up to par. Guys like Jared Jeffries and Eddy Curry have been battling through injuries still. And they can’t even help Gallinari. Too bad Mike D’Antoni didn’t bring along the athletic trainers staff with him from Phoenix. Their keeping an aging Shaq and Grant Hill looking like all-stars out there.

suspect?

man you are funny, mucha.

i’m sure their first pick was important enough to them that they did their due diligence.

and let’s not get crazy about the 08 guards, Gordon is 6’3 and is shoot first.

Walsh had NO IDEA he could move Crawford at the time.

Things are very clear for you in hindsight, my friend- no disrespect.

you make a good point bmatthews.

The Knicks training and medical staffs are abominable. From the diagnosis and treatment of Lee’s shin/leg to the Evaluation of Curry’s heart condition and his lack of off season conditioning to Gallo’s back situation.

They OBVIOUSLY didn’t the see bad back coming, and picking Gallinari was a gamble because A. People knew he had had injuries in the past B. They had never even seen that kid play in front of their eyes before the workout. That pick WAS a gamble, I liked it but this bad back issue proves that they could have done a better job.

Maybe Gordon will have to score 80 points to prove that he’s a future All-Star. That guy is a scorer, what’s wrong with that? He gets the job done, and that’s what matters. And I really don’t care about the undersized factor, he’s not Nate Robinson and both Charles Barkley and Allen Iverson were undersized. Gallinari has more upside and Hall of Fame potential – I always said it – but we have to recognize that Gordon will be an excellent player, Clippers fans know that but we still don’t know what kind of player Gallinari will become.

Donnie Walsh came here with a capspace plan, it’s pretty obvious that he had to dump Crawford and Randolph from that standpoint. He wanted to do that, we all knew that Crawford wasn’t a very good player but you got some trade value whenever you average 20 ppg and you have a 45% fgp from outside.

And the Knicks already had Quentin Richardson and Wilson Chandler playing at the shooting forward spot (proving that the overcrowded backcourt argument is not valid).

Mucha- stop dismissing my points as not valid. How many ball dominating guards did you want on the roster? he didn’t fit a need and would have got ZERO minutes early on in favor of Nate Crawford and Richardson. that’s valid. just because they ended up doing things doesn’t mean they knew they could get done.

Gordon is good, but again, you’re not the only one who likes him.

But again, why are you forgetting that all drafts are crap shoots?

You have your points, I have mine, both are valid to us.

Once Gallo comes back healthy, I do not think he will be a flop. He showed signs of being a very good scorer and a gamer on the court.

Gallo is shooting 44.4% from 3 point range and shot a staggering 26-27 from the line this year. The dude can shoot. I think we just have to chill out about last year’s draft.

For what it’s worth, I did not want Gallo before the draft. I wanted Mayo, then Gordon, then Bayless. I felt we needed a point guard (this was before Duhon).

But Gallo can play and he shows passion on the floor. He is more than just a talented player.

Given the shots, Gallo will average 15 points per game one day, and that is a low ball estimate. If he winds up averaging 15 ppg, I will be fine with that.

This is a discussion board and I talk in respectful (and rational) fashion so why should I “stop dimissing your points” when I think that they are not valid?

We already had Nate Robinson and Jamal Crawford at the shooting guard spot – OK – but we also had Richardson/ Chandler at the shooting forward spot and Randolph/Lee at the power forward spot. The pick was legitimate because he (Gallo) was the most talented player left at the 6th spot but saying that they didn’t draft Gordon because the backcourt was already packed doesn’t make sense.

He didn’t even look comfortable in his body, he’ll be a lot better next year if his back allows him to play. He’ll be a very good player if we’re not talking about a career-ending injury.

What I like is the intangibles he brings to the table. He has a high basketball IQ, he’s very unselfish and he’s a tough kid – which is something I knew before the draft. He would have made Nowitzki’s free throw.

How does that not make sense? He would never have played early on and they gave Nate the chance to show what he could do in his contract year.

Gallo gave them a shooter, someone who didn’t have to pound it 100 times before getting it off.

It’s a dimension they didn’t have, or as execs like to say,
“Need.”

Gordon didn’t fit an immediate need in their estimation. But if you think you can tell me why walsh didn’t take him I’m all ears.

And don’t say because his dad played with D’Antoni.

Please.

I NEVER SAID THAT. I was the first to defend that pick because Gallinari was the most special player out of last year’s draft class with Rose and Randolph IMO.

Donnie Walsh understood that, that’s why he picked him. The shooting guard spot was packed but so were the forward spots – so the simple fact that Gordon is a two could not be a factor IMO. And Eric Gordon is great shooter as well, Gallinari’s more special because he’s a walking mismatch (and THAT was the key) but Eric Gordon can flat out shoot as well.

I agree with Mucha’s statements about the draft. Both the foward positions as well as the guard positions were filled as far as starter and first man off the bench. So I don’t consider it as big of a factor as some others might have.

Donnie’s plan was to get under the cap. So regardless of position he was going to trade away the big contracts. He may not have known he could have trade Crawford as soon as he did, but he knew that was one of the players he would attempt to move, along with the others.

As far as Gallinari is concerned, I don’t believe the Knicks did their “due diligence” examining him medically before drafting him. This wasn’t something that just happened out of no where. There were reports that he had a history of this. Even if there weren’t reports, they should have done a better job.

Health is the biggest issue IMO. Not drafting Gallo or Gordon. Rose,Mayo, and Westbrook are the only guards to go crazy about IMO.

if your first to defend the pick (which your not, you are the first to criticize the pick… which is a big difference) then what is your issue here?

yes. Gorden is good. congratulations, you saw it early and proved a bunch of GMs wrong.

If you look at the guards we had and the thinking at the time of the draft: Nate, Duhon, Marbury and Crawford. Nate and Du were going to be here. they are guys that had potential to be knicks for a while. Marbury was on the way out and everyone knew it. Crawford had a very large contract and there was hope his style of play would explode under coach d. Plus, i think most thought other then curry his contract would be one of the toughest to move. Gordens skills also are very similar to Nates.

At the forward we had Zach, Chandler, Q, Rose, Lee. None of which give you anything at all like the Rooster. I think Walsh felt he could move Zach, as he has had very good numbers, was healthy, and appeared motivated. Q and Rose are not part of this, as they are no way part of the future. Chandler had not really played, and nobody knew what we had in him. Lee is very different from Gallinari.

So the need for a quick shooter off the bench was there.

Also, maybe Walsh/Coach D valued high basketball IQ more then just talent. In a system like ours, it pays to have smart players. Guys that are willing to share and not just look for shots. Gallinari fits it VERY well. Maybe the back was new (dude is only 20…) or they did a great job of covering it. Who knows.

The problem about looking back at this is that at the time, tons of sports writers and blogs said Crawford was a no-doubt all star in D’Antoni’s system, but he ended up falling into the dog house. That made him very expendable and ended up (along with the Mobley situation) crippling our guards depth. Going into the season we were somewhat stacked with ball dominating guards.

What Mucha is saying is correct in a way: The fact that Gordon would have sat due to all the shooters can’t be used as a defense because Gallo was behind many forwards. But what Tommy’s saying is pretty much that, Gallo has more chances to get into games due to his versatility and the fact that, while being a forward, is a different kind of forward than what we have.

Truthfully, it is retarded to argue should haves and could haves in drafts because we arent in the same mind set we were pre-season and we dont know all the stuff our GMs knew, but I would like to know what kind of diligence was payed to Gallos back because its unnacceptable to me the way it has played out.

@ gbaked

I defended Gallinari on draft night – unlike many others – and I have done that ever since. I said it a few months ago, Gallinari has more potential than Michael Beasley IMO – and he’s the most talented player out of last year’s draft class with Anthony Randolph and Derrick Rose.

Zach Randolph was coming off a disappointing season and nobody thought that he was going to be successful under D’Antoni – so his trade value was really down before the season. Donnie Walsh knew that Crawford would have some trade value because he was supposed to accumulate great statistics on the offensive end. And he was obviously not a part of the long-term plan because he was already 28 years old.

Like I said, Gallinari’s talent was a legitimate justification for that pick so I’m not arguing about could or should haves from a basketball standpoint. But like you said, the situation the Knicks are in now proves that something was obviously wrong “the way it has played out”. They basically took a gamble, and the reality pushes me to think that they should have done better.

Mucha- I think you’re doing a good job here on this thread.

Another aspect of Gallo’s game is that he can serve as a more versatile player than Gordon. Gallo, based on what we saw and how he projects to develop, will be able to play multiple positions and stretch out defenses with his shooting ability. Gordon might be more of a one dimensional (which is not a bad thing) player. Gallo might also be more of a glue player than simply just a scorer.

And with Donnie having created roster spots for next year, I would like to see him work some magic in this upcoming draft. If there is strong talent in the second round, then Donnie should work to purchase the picks. Hell, if there is a strong player at the end of the first round and a team is looking to sell out of the spot (in this economy, it is possible), then I hope Donnie does that.

Thank you Chris. You are right.

But The Knicks won’t be able to make a significant move on draft night unless Donnie Walsh tries to trade Wilson Chandler (or maybe “I get buckets”). David Lee and Nate Robinson will be RFA’s, the Knicks won’t be able to trade them to climb in the lottery or just to get another pick – maybe I’m wrong but I doubt it. And we won’t be able to use our expiring contracts to make a move on draft night. Expiring contracts are not a comparative advantage anymore unless we take a longer contract in return and we can’t afford do that (franchise players like Anthony, Paul or Howard being exceptions).

Patience is not always a virtue, and I really don’t like the way Donnie Walsh is handling this franchise – D’Antoni was a great aquisition and dumping Crawford and Randolph was a great feat but that’s it. He should have been more active but a lot of doors are closing now.

I saw a “Walsh dickriding” in another comment section from Mucha so it would seem that he’s needling Donnie a bit. That is fine, just not really in this case because as we all know drafts are a crapshoot and this kid hasn’t been murdered.

Mucha- I’ll take your argument at face value, but it seems you are being more critical of walsh on this than at face value in this post.

ANd let’s be clear on something.

I really value your opinion as I am for all those here.

I talked about “Walsh ****riders” but it was nothing personal – at least that was not against you – but it seems like a lot of people believe that he’s turning this franchise around by dumping salaries. That’s good but that is not enough.

He has done some great things (signing D’Antoni, dumping Crawford and Randolph for Harrington and Larry Hughes, bringing Knicks history back to life) and I always recognize that but the bad outweighs the good in my opinion. This franchise not going anywhere IMO, hopefully time will prove me wrong. I make rationnal criticism, “needling” is exagerated.

I don’t know, it’s all good at the end of the day but you said “And don’t say because his dad played with D’Antoni” which is something that I never said – and I’m intelligent enough not to even think about it. “Man you are funny” was quite disrespectful but it is your house, you do what you do but I don’t know what is funny about questionning the way the Knicks handled their lottery pick.

I apologize if you take “needling” the wrong way.

And I don’t mean to misinterpret it just seems that your points on gallinari were backhanded and that you said the fact they didn’t know was “suspect.”

I believe they did their due diligence because it was an incredibly important pick.

You said “The fact that we had a lot of guards is not a valid justification – Gallinari’s talent is one but the fact that they didn’t see that bad back issue coming is really suspect.”

I disagreed. and this was on the heels of the “d**kriding” comment.

“man you are funny” was not mean to be disrespectful at all.