Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by PresIke:
Kam's logic underlines a key point; how fans and critics are reaching solutions to the situation.
Interestingly, as I and others have mentioned before, my contention is that a good number of those who have supported Isiah for longer than others may have done so based on the conclusion that ownership approach would not change. Thus deciding to support "what we have" and hope for the best. This doesn't mean that this is what "should" happen, but it may explain where some fans were coming from.
I believe similar logic is behind the notion of removing Isiah as coach, with the expectation of him remaining as GM.
We are faced with really tough questions about what is the best course of action. This is primarily due to concerns regarding the Knicks as an organization, and their readiness for change (which by the way there is even scholarly literature about i.e. the Transtheoretical Model of Change -- which might suggest the Knicks aren't ready for change yet).
There are many ways fans and critics can interpret a course of action.
Primarily, it comes down to how one views the prospects of the Knicks as a team and organization in de facto ("reality") versus de jure ("should happen") terms. Thing is many don't even agree on what "reality" is nor what "should happen."
[Edited by - PresIke on 12-18-2007 3:22 PM]
I didn't even know that was your contention. Would you care to name some posters who fit into that theoretical category, because from what I've seen the vast majority of supporters did so because they thought the product would win. They thought all the drama and disfunction was fabricated by people like myself, or the media, and largely irrelevant to our needs as fans, which, as was put forth, is to watch "entertaining" basketball.
I saw very few intellectualize that even if this sucks, it's the best we can hope, for so it makes sense to force oneself to love it. That's a stoic position few people possess the will for. How do I know this? Because as soon as the product looks irretrievable, like now, we see no such philosophizing. We now see those people exhibit no such stoicism, they want the same kinds of changes us doubters have been clamoring about for years.
Attributing optimism to a sense that the situation will never change, no matter how bad, really doesn't make sense. It should lead to negativity and dispair. If anything, this cult of optimists you speak of only used the situation as an excuse to buy more time for the team before inevitably jumping on the so called "unrealistic" things-must-change bandwagon.
[Edited by - blueseats on 12-18-2007 5:32 PM]
Blue, to be fair, I don't mean to suggest that this was the only factor behind my past support of Isiah. Like kam I think that there may still be the possibility that the players are not this bad and a different coach could make some difference in terms of at least being respectable. Yet I always recognize that the roster has been significantly flawed under Isiah. I would also argue that Layden, Checketts and even Van Gundy left marks on the Knicks which we are still paying for. Isiah later contributed to this as well, but each of these individual's decisions relates to the overarching problem of Dolan's refusal to sacrifice short term gains for the long term. Which is the stereotypical corporate capitalist approach to "manufacturing" improvement rather than doing so genuinely.
A good number of us former NY Times Forum posters were very much in support of a poster named chelu (aka "The Cap Doctor") who advocated after the '99 run to blow up the roster. I thought that was drastic at the time, but by the end of 2001-02 more than a few had changed their minds (including me) and were in support of "rebuilding" in the sense that many here advocate, by getting under the cap to sign free-agents and accumulate draft picks. We felt that Allan, Camby and Spree were very good, but not going to take us far enough because they weren't superstars, and Allan and Spree weren't getting any younger.
Little did many of us realize then that Dolan was not going to allow it, but as it became clear near the end of Layden's tenure that we weren't going to blow it up, especially with the McDyess deal. Many of us, like knicksbabyyeah here, were excited about drafting an Amare, Wilcox or Nene. Only one of those became a star, but the point is we then started also looking back at the Ewing deal as more evidence of this approach, and I argue, developed the beginnings of a coping mechanism which was to believe that the Knicks would NEVER rebuild like an Orlando or Denver then. We then rationalized it more by seeing those teams not become what they had hoped and felt that many NY fans may not be patient enough either.
The best solution to that problem, given this "reality" seemed to be to support Isiah. He was a charismatic Hall of Fame player who had a good rep with young players, and seemed like an actual role model for young black players in the league, which after Layden's awkward moment with LJ and Camby when Marcus got into that MLK Day Danny Ferry fight seemed like a nice change. He was a deal maker that seemed like the anti-LAyden. Instead of dealing for overpaid vets who were either gimpy or had little visible potential, like Layden did and Van Gundy seemed to want (don't forget he has a bad rep for playing young guys, even Camby and Spree), he made moves for players who were "younger and more athletic" and either seemed to have a lot of potential, or had already displayed it. Marbury, Tim Thomas, Crawford, Curry, Francis, Zach, etc. were all guys who fit this bill. They may have all had HIGH salaries, but using the argument that Dolan won't allow for a rebuild this sounded like the best we could get, which also included the best drafting (as it seemed) that the Knicks have done since 1987.
In hindsight I feel that it wasn't the best approach, clearly, but it again boils down to finding a way to convince Dolan, if what I believe is the case is true, to change his approach or sell the team. That's why I clamor for criticizing Dolan more than Isiah as well, because he is just a symptom of the problem. An agent representing the real problem, but is more like the fall guy, than the one who should be held accountable, but sits behind the scenes. That's what makes me most depressed is the coping mechanism for this is hard to figure out. I guess hoping that a coaching change is the next phase, especially if you think Isiah is staying, or if not, pray that Dolan will finally see the errs of his ways, and makes amends with fans who have stuck through for almost a decade of ineptitude, and false promises.
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
12/18/2007 9:26 PM