Posted by BlueSeats:

How come LB is in Philly's front office ant they've yet to bring in Francis, Jalen, Miles, Ratliff, Snow, et al?

Posted by iyamwutiam:

Because this time he went hat in hand - unlike when he 'arrived' to the Knicks. We'll see- I think even LB has understood that he has badly damaged his reputation (first with the whole Detroit/Cleveland Fiasco and then the Knicks). Also - as executive VP - he is actually RESPONSIBLE for the cap- something he never had to deal with his whole career.

As all 'smart' guys - he will lay low awhile and then go back to his tricks. I would not be surprised to see Theo in Philly after his contract expires this year. We'll see- --

Posted by oohah:

But Isiah was?

But Isiah was what? I'm afraid I don't understand.

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by oohah:

Posted by BlueSeats:

How come LB is in Philly's front office ant they've yet to bring in Francis, Jalen, Miles, Ratliff, Snow, et al?

Because Phillie's owners aren't crazy enough to make LB the GM.

oohah

But Isiah was?

I'm clearly asking if you think Isiah was the "crazy" one who effectively made Brown the GM, since you seem to be blaming Brown for the trades Isiah made while he was here.

It's amazing with all this franchise hsa been through under Isiah that you can still blame Brown for his mistakes.

Is this going to be one of those times where you say I said something I never did say?

oohah

I didn't say you said that, but it's implied by what you did say, which was this:

Posted by oohah:


You're absolutely right. That is why I don't want to hear the "let LB shop for his own groceries" nonsense. That is what got us Francis and Jalen Rose.

Posted by oohah:

Posted by BlueSeats:

How come LB is in Philly's front office ant they've yet to bring in Francis, Jalen, Miles, Ratliff, Snow, et al?

Because Phillie's owners aren't crazy enough to make LB the GM.

oohah

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by oohah:

Posted by BlueSeats:

How come LB is in Philly's front office ant they've yet to bring in Francis, Jalen, Miles, Ratliff, Snow, et al?

Because Phillie's owners aren't crazy enough to make LB the GM.

oohah

And LB wasn't the GM of the Knicks but that doesn't stop people, like yourself, from blaming him for certain Knicks trades.

At least you do understand the simple concept that you have to be the GM in order to make trades. You just choose to be a hypocrite in it's usage.

I'm clearly asking if you think Isiah was the "crazy" one who effectively made Brown the GM, since you seem to be blaming Brown for the trades Isiah made while he was here.

It's amazing with all this franchise has been through under Isiah that you can still blame Brown for his mistakes.

Is this going to be one of those times where you say I said something I never did say?

oohah


[quote]

I didn't say you said that, but it's implied by what you did say, which was this:

Posted by oohah:


You're absolutely right. That is why I don't want to hear the "let LB shop for his own groceries" nonsense. That is what got us Francis and Jalen Rose.

Posted by oohah:

I'm clearly asking if you think Isiah was the "crazy" one who effectively made Brown the GM, since you seem to be blaming Brown for the trades Isiah made while he was here.

Yes, that was exactly what I meant when I told TKF he was "exactly right" that the decisions and blame lie with Zeke so the "Let the coach shop for his own groceries" argument should be put to rest.

Now is the part where you trot out the analogy where Brown is a child asking for heroin and Thomas gives it to him against his better judgement.

It's amazing with all this franchise has been through under Isiah that you can still blame Brown for his mistakes.

Is this going to be one of those times where you say I said something I never did say?

oohah


[quote]

I didn't say you said that, but it's implied by what you did say, which was this:

Posted by oohah:


You're absolutely right. That is why I don't want to hear the "let LB shop for his own groceries" nonsense. That is what got us Francis and Jalen Rose.

You didn't say I said what?

Let me just make it clear so you don't run away with "the spirit" of what I said, or what I "implied", yet again:

If the sole responsibility and blame or praise of player acquisitions lies with the GM, then those posing that argument should not be posing another one in which a coach should be able to "shop for his own groceries".

If you do think that the coach should be able to "shop for his own groceries", then the blame no longer lies solely with the GM, and quite possibly more so with the coach who is being allowed to "shop for his own groceries".

The arguments are mutually exclusive. What I mean by that is: you can't make both arguments at once because they contradict each other.

By the way you have made both those arguments. They are mutually exclusive.

oohah

Oohah, you strip my quotes of context so that you can't follow them. You screw up the quote formatting while asking me what I meant when I said I didn't say you said something, when the sequence made it obvious what I was talking about. You portray yourself as a victim, as if trying to ascertain the meaning behind your words is a disservice to you. And that's all before you even introduce your false, if not hypocritical, notion of others playing both sides of a mutually exclusive argument at once.

I find Knick talk tiresome enough these days, but with you constantly feeling slighted, and bogging us down in dramatics and diversions, it makes it close to impossible.

----

It's actually you who are trying to play two arguments at once. On the one hand you've argued that Isiah was just doing Brown's bidding, and that's why we got Rose and Francis, and on the other hand you say Brown really wanted guys like Lynch, Snow and Ratliff.

If Isiah were doing what Brown wanted, and he really wanted his old Sixer players, then why is it we got Francis and Rose?

We all know that the blame does not lie solely with Brown or Isiah, which would entail the "mutually exclusive" dilemma you propose. That's a false construct all your own. We all understand that the moves were a function of the dynamic between Isiah and Brown, and might not have been made by either man alone. The difference between us is the degree of blame we apply to either party.

Your assumption seems to be that isiah diligently went about getting the players Brown most wanted for him (letting him choose his own groceries) while I've always speculated that Isiah gave Brown the players he did, not because they were who Brown wanted most, but because he could get them on the cheap while retaining his own preferred players. So Rose and Francis were had as a result of Isiah's power, not Brown's. While Brown wanted to change the roster Isiah only wanted to add "assets," and the disagreement over the direction of the team resulted in a poor compromise that suited nobody's interests. Isiah won the power struggle, and Rose and Francis were the result.

Try as you might to portray it as such, there is nothing mutually exclusive about that.

On a side note, I happen to find it humorous that people were more fearful of the boogeyman-Brown that people like you created (who, gasp, might want motivated, team-oriented role players) than the god-awful reality that Isiah has been (who did bloat the roster with redundancies of unmotivated, self-oriented, castoff, pseudo-stars.)

----------

And to get back to the point of this thread, let me present some old trade rumors to remind you guys that Darius Miles was in fact on Isiah's radar well Brown arrived:

Here we see within his first month on the job, in 2004, Isiah tried to trade Frank Williams for Miles:

Thomas is inclined to trade Williams, according to several officials in the league. He offered Williams earlier last month as part of a package deal to Cleveland for Darius Miles that was rejected.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E5DA163BF931A35751C0A9629C8B63

---------

A year later, during the lenny Wilkens/Herb Williams season, we again see Miles resurface in Knicks trade speculation:

Darius Miles
Trailblazers

Feb. 7 - Would the Knicks be interested in Miles, who's in the Trail Blazers' doghouse just months after signing a multi-year contract extension for more than $40 million?

In reviewing possible Knicks' trading options, the New York Daily News speculates the Trail Blazers want to trade Miles. He recently was suspended after an argument with coach Mo Cheeks. The Daily News writes that Knicks president Isiah Thomas covets Miles, but the newspaper figures that the Knicks would be better off acquiring Blazers' free-agent-to-be Shareef Abdur-Rahim.

http://sports-boards.net/forums/showthread.php?t=22899
__________________

And just for giggles, from 2004, Isiah's first offseason we can recall that isiah was in pursuit of a Rose/Francis type player like Antoine Walker. Not to mention Brown types, like Malik Rose and Aaron Mckie.

Isiah on the Phone to Charlotte
June 22, 2004 - 3:16 am
New York Post -
It is being widely reported that the Knicks are after Antoine Walker and are discussing how to get the Charlotte Bobcats to draft him and then ship him to New York for veterans in the final years of their deals.

"I've had conversations with Isiah, but we can't get to the point where we've had an agreement," Bobcats GM Bernie Bickerstaff said.

Among other unprotected players the Knicks have interest in are shooting guard Aaron McKie and Malik Rose. Both have long-term deals.

Bickerstaff has said that the Knicks have attractive assets to deal so discussions may continue up until the expansion draft.


-----------

This has been Isiah's team since day one and holding him accountable for his selection of coaches, his interactions with them, and the roster he assembled lands squarely at his feet.

Should Isiah have worked closely with Brown to get him the kind of players he needed to be successful? Yes, and if he had done so sincerely, rather than begrudgingly, I beleive we would have ended up with different players than Francis and Rose.

Oohah, you strip my quotes of context so that you can't follow them. You screw up the quote formatting while asking me what I meant when I said I didn't say you said something, when the sequence made it obvious what I was talking about. You portray yourself as a victim, as if trying to ascertain the meaning behind your words is a disservice to you. And that's all before you even introduce your false, if not hypocritical, notion of others playing both sides of a mutually exclusive argument at once.

I find Knick talk tiresome enough these days, but with you constantly feeling slighted, and bogging us down in dramatics and diversions, it makes it close to impossible.

It's actually you who are trying to play two arguments at once. On the one hand you've argued that Isiah was just doing Brown's bidding, and that's why we got Rose and Francis, and on the other hand you say Brown really wanted guys like Lynch, Snow and Ratliff.

If Isiah were doing what Brown wanted, and he really wanted his old Sixer players, then why is it we got Francis and Rose?

We all know that the blame does not lie solely with Brown or Isiah, which would entail the "mutually exclusive" dilemma you propose. That's a false construct all your own. We all understand that the moves were a function of the dynamic between Isiah and Brown, and might not have been made by either man alone. The difference between us is the degree of blame we apply to either party.

Your assumption seems to be that isiah diligently went about getting the players Brown most wanted for him (letting him choose his own groceries) while I've always speculated that Isiah gave Brown the players he did, not because they were who Brown wanted most, but because he could get them on the cheap while retaining his own preferred players. So Rose and Francis were had as a result of Isiah's power, not Brown's. While Brown wanted to change the roster Isiah only wanted to add "assets," and the disagreement over the direction of the team resulted in a poor compromise that suited nobody's interests. Isiah won the power struggle, and Rose and Francis were the result.

Try as you might to portray it as such, there is nothing mutually exclusive about that.