Posted by 4949:
Posted by Cosmic:
Let's see.
We have neither of those at any position at all. What we do have a lot of out of shape low percentage 1 on 1 style chuckers. It would be an absolute failure.
The sooner people realize this roster is uncoachable the better.
So then you'll hire jax? Isn't that a little insulting to him, to know that he's a rook coming in to coach junk? And how does that help our future starting in two years?
I don't see how it's insulting. In fact I think it'd be more insulting to bring in a veteran coach to try to make sense of this roster.
I think this team needs to be committed to getting rid of these terrible veterans and in the mean time commit to playing the kids more and more. In that I think a young new coach is the perfect marriage.
If we were smart we could probably get Mark Jackson or an equal peer on a 2 year contract with a team option for a 3rd. This would outright mirror our goal of cap flexibility by the summer of 2010 - of which can also be called a goal of purging ourselves of Isiah's 2011 "franchise cornerstone" mistakes.
You couldn't get an Avery or DAntoni and Skiles or Calipari or Carlisle (etc...) for any less than 5 years, 30M to come to New York and that would be a very dangerous mistake to repeat - locking yourself into a coach who is well set in his ways - when your roster is a very big questionmark.
I'd much rather hire a young coach on a short term deal to work with the kids and stomach the vets while they are found new addresses ---- than ---- hire a coach that will come in headstrong and attempt to find a way to win with this team thus bumping heads from the start, creating instant and continued drama (something we dont need any more of), then after the failure of trying to win with the vets fades and an attempt to rebuild in 2010 (inevitable) begins, we're still locked into this high paid coach that we now need to tailor our roster to - and that yet again is another poor way to build a team - get stuck committed to a coach, or even a player, then have to tailor the roster to THAT person's abilities. That's just a terrible road to take.
Posted by nyk4ever:
I don't necessarily want D'Antoni but I don't know why everyone is analyzing our roster as if it matters in his decision to come here or not. When D'Antoni arrived in Phoenix, that roster was not conducive to his style, yet he worked with the GM to bring in players that fit his style, case in point, immediately shipping out Marbury.
D'Antoni is going to goto whatever team's GM says they want to play his style.
Good point yet here's why. It will take 2 to 3 years to tailor our roster to a DAntoni's style. Even then I think people over estimate what DAntoni can do with certain rosters. He was in a unique and perfect situation in Phoenix that got the most out of his style of play. Nash, Amare, Marion made that system work to near perfection. Now I think we can all concede that Crawford, Q, Zach will ensure it fails to epic levels - and we'd need to swap our roster for a DAntoni type roster - I ask you: Where are the next Nash, Marion, Amare and how can we get all three?
So, while we could ignore the current roster, snatch up what we perceive to be a top level coach and then spend time tailoring the roster to his system, there's little to no guarantee we could achieve that 3 years from now - and would more than likely as fans be presiding over yet another melodramatic 2 seasons of terrible play - and then - in years 3-5 have a team that's not even half as good as those Phoenix Suns, being guided to 1st round exits by DAntoni.
To me, that'd be a very big waste of everyone's time.
There are so many problems and questions with this team that it serves no purpose to lock ourselves into a big name coach.
We are best served biting the bullet of Isiah's mistakes, end up committed to getting rid of them, in the mean time play the kids while this process takes shape over the next 2-3 years, and I think a new coach like Jackson, a promotion for a guy like Hanners, or a coach like say Terry Porter looking for chance #2, would be the correct choices to pilot that ship. They'd all probably be good with the kids. We wouldn't be locked into any of them when we reach a likely defining moment for the team in the summer of 2010 when the old direction is finally wiped out and the new direction takes shape (of which we have no idea what that will be and what kind of players will be a part of it). We'd have the ultimate flexibility at hand.
If the new coach worked out, you extend him. If he didn't or the new roster that will guide us through the 2010-2015 era does not fit his style? We're free to part ways and search for that new coach yet again.
.
.
.
.
.
This is really all about flexibility here. Going for the big name coach, who will want big time job security, puts you on a path to attempt to win now (which is a very bad situation with this roster) and commits you to shaping the roster in that coach's style ---WHEREAS--- going for a new face keeps your flexibility intact while also giving your new coach a chance to show what he has and possibly prove himself as your man all along for the future.
