franco12 wrote:

JohnWallace44 wrote:How would you whiners like it if you were hired to do a job, but the owners weren't committed to putting any resources into your group for 2 years, and your HR department kept sending you rejects? If you were judged by the performance of that group, would you consider that fair? Let's say you came in as a proven success before that. Does that sound reasonable?

Dude's a good coach. He'd be snapped up immediately if we ever let him go.

People need to calm down about the coach and point their angst at the GM.

I don't think any of the critics are judging D'Antoni or Walsh based on performance. We all recognize they've had crap to deal with.

However, we are judging them based on what they've done with crap.

For D'Antoni, we're asking reasonable questions that I have yet to see any of his supporters here answer in any logical, reason based way.

For instance, why has Kurt Rambis been able to get production out of Darko, when D'Antoni couldn't? Our lack of size has been an issue for the last several years. Darko was a big many of us thought could fit in D'Antoni's rather rigid system.

Somehow, D'Antoni couldn't co-exist with him.

Likewise, Larry Hughes who now seems to be getting along with Larry Brown.

Again, our biggest need for several years, going all the way back to Isiah, has been perimeter defense. Larry might shoot like crap, but he is one of the better wing defenders in the league.

Larry had had Hughes in last night in the final minutes of a close game against the Bulls last night. We can throw Brown under the bus for what he did here during his stay, but the fact is, Charlotte is currently the 7th seed.

As for D'Antoni's next stop after he gets **** canned next year, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up as an offensive assistant coach somewhere. Yes, he may get 1 more shot at head coaching, and might go back to Europe before stepping down to that level.

Disclaimer: I defended MDA for his first year, and perhaps the start of this season. However, I've seen enough evidence with my own eyes to change my opinion.

Also, I'm willing to extend both guys some slack based on ownership, and I'm starting to realize that as long as Dolan is the owner, we may never field a winning team, no matter who the Coach, GM or players are.

I am on board with you on this.
Mike is not a good coach to manage the crappy team. He was hired for the future because this 2 years were irrelevant.
And yes - this team will never win the chip with Dolan making decisions. But they can be respectable for some streach.

Cosmic wrote:Learning to manage expectations.

Well, it's a tough thing to do for some.

For me, this is what I think:

Isiah's roster was a disaster. It needed to be torn down. It was 146M of trash that did not mix. There was no more "just one trade" or "just one mle signing" and all would be fine. You HAD to tear it down. End of story.

Whatever happens this offseason... well, happens. But to me even if this summer is a complete failure (Like the post-MJ-Bulls failure) where they tried to woo Hill and TMac and ended up paying Jalen Rose the MAX instead? It still remains that the roster had to be torn down. I will never waver from that point of view that Isiah's roster was NEVER a player away from being a good team. It wasn't. So no matter what? The correct thing to do was to purge everyone and start over.

Now, we've done that (sans curry).

So now we sit and wait and watch what we can build. Maybe all the top names pass us by. It's a possibility they do. Personally I think we wind up with Bosh and Joe Johnson. Sometimes I think we flunk and we end up with David Lee and Al Harrington. (And I'll stop watching right there).

We don't know what is going to happen but we do know we have given ourselves a chance to build a winner from scratch and that is all that matters at this point in time.

It had to be torn down, but what was the point of paying the price we did just to move JJ early? If we are looking to build for the future, we should have kept our own draft picks, kept Jordan Hill, because if we miss out on the top FA's this off season, chances are we're going to suck next season as well, to strive for a maybe high 30 win team.

I agree with what TMS has said on a number of occasions, that we certainly gave up a whole lot just to clear that extra $9 million.

We all know why Walsh did it though. If he didn't, our chances at landing LeBron would be dramatically lower. By clearing that extra $9 million though, Walsh has put the Knicks in a much better position to possibly land a player that can go down as the best of all time when his career is said and done. It's risky as hell because we gave up a ton of assets but we have so much flexibility as far as the cap goes that even if we don't get LeBron, we can still build a pretty good team in the process and gradually add to it to get to the next level.

If we don't get LeBron or land something like Bosh + Joe Johnson, then I agree with everyone that says the McGrady trade didn't accomplish what Donnie needed to accomplish. With that said though, I think it was a risk we had to take. Even if LeBron passes on NY, we had to put ourselves in a position to lure him. Donnie has done exactly that because come July 1st, he can essentially hand him the keys to the franchise and have LeBron bring another superstar with him in an attempt to build a dynasty. That is the key part about all of this that I think everyone forgets.

Before the McGrady trade, we didn't really have any legitimate reasons for LeBron to come to NY from a pure basketball standpoint. We couldn't offer a 2nd max and we couldn't even guarantee LeBron a sidekick like David Lee at worst. Now, we have made it as attractive as possible and I think we actually have a legitimate shot at him. Last summer, I did not think this was the case at all.

So in the end, it all comes down to whether or not you agree with Walsh taking a chance at a once in a lifetime player like LeBron James. Personally, I'm all for it because NY has never put itself in a position to do this. Some might disagree and that is fine. I just think if it doesn't work out with LeBron, Walsh is a smart enough guy that he can still keep this team going in the right direction.

nixluva wrote:Why is the development of Hill such a lynchpin in arguements against MDA? He is a nice prospect but he's also replaceable! To be able to use him in a trade to gain 10mil more in cap space in a year when the best FA crop is available makes perfect sense. Hill is at this time only a prospect. But we can possibly replace him and Jared with a stud!

With reference to Darko being productive, who cares? He didn't fit what MDA wanted to do. Rambis isn't our coach! Darko works for Rambis, great! That has no bearing on how Darko fit here or anywhere else. Every coach is different and MDA is really different in how he approaches the game. Now we go about building a team with more guys that fit. TD, Gallo, Lee and Chan fit! Now we go and add more guys that fit and make this a better team. Stop obssessing over scrubs and unproven prospects!!! Great teams start with great players, plain and simple. That's what we're trying to bring in.

people are upset that we wasted a #8 lottery pick on a player that never got any run in NY... what is so damn difficult to understand? your favorite coach played a scrub like Jonathan Bender who had zero business even being out there on the floor over a #8 lottery prospect & you have no logical explanation for it, but instead of questioning the coach on this you instead question why people have a problem with it... it's completely mindboggling... if you think Jordan Hill is replaceable, what is Bender? dude won't even be in the NBA next season... yeah, it really did this franchise a whole lotta good to play him over our rookie prospect this season... also did us a whole lotta good to play Jared Jeffries 35+ minutes a night this season, he was really the glue to all those awesome Knick victories this year like u projected he would be... thank goodness MDA had the foresight to make sure we featured him this year & raised his trade value, it really paid off for us.

s3231 wrote:I totally understand why people didn't like the McGrady trade.

I agree with what TMS has said on a number of occasions, that we certainly gave up a whole lot just to clear that extra $9 million.

We all know why Walsh did it though. If he didn't, our chances at landing LeBron would be dramatically lower. By clearing that extra $9 million though, Walsh has put the Knicks in a much better position to possibly land a player that can go down as the best of all time when his career is said and done. It's risky as hell because we gave up a ton of assets but we have so much flexibility as far as the cap goes that even if we don't get LeBron, we can still build a pretty good team in the process and gradually add to it to get to the next level.

If we don't get LeBron or land something like Bosh + Joe Johnson, then I agree with everyone that says the McGrady trade didn't accomplish what Donnie needed to accomplish. With that said though, I think it was a risk we had to take. Even if LeBron passes on NY, we had to put ourselves in a position to lure him. Donnie has done exactly that because come July 1st, he can essentially hand him the keys to the franchise and have LeBron bring another superstar with him in an attempt to build a dynasty. That is the key part about all of this that I think everyone forgets.

Before the McGrady trade, we didn't really have any legitimate reasons for LeBron to come to NY from a pure basketball standpoint. We couldn't offer a 2nd max and we couldn't even guarantee LeBron a sidekick like David Lee at worst. Now, we have made it as attractive as possible and I think we actually have a legitimate shot at him. Last summer, I did not think this was the case at all.

So in the end, it all comes down to whether or not you agree with Walsh taking a chance at a once in a lifetime player like LeBron James. Personally, I'm all for it because NY has never put itself in a position to do this. Some might disagree and that is fine. I just think if it doesn't work out with LeBron, Walsh is a smart enough guy that he can still keep this team going in the right direction.

i will tell u now, if we end up getting Lebron or Wade this summer i won't care how much we gave up in that T-Mac trade, but i'm really not confident we'll be getting either one of those guys without assets to offer up in sign & trade scenarios... i understand why u think it was worth the risk, i can see the obvious upsides in making this deal, but the way we completely mismanaged the draft selection to begin with & how we never gave the selection a fair chance to show his skills is something that u just can't sweep under the rug & pretend that it didn't happen... do u think if we had managed that draft selection correctly that we would have had to give up so much to get rid of Jared Jeffries' contract to begin with?

nixluva wrote:

TMS wrote:

nixluva wrote:Why is the development of Hill such a lynchpin in arguements against MDA? He is a nice prospect but he's also replaceable! To be able to use him in a trade to gain 10mil more in cap space in a year when the best FA crop is available makes perfect sense. Hill is at this time only a prospect. But we can possibly replace him and Jared with a stud!

With reference to Darko being productive, who cares? He didn't fit what MDA wanted to do. Rambis isn't our coach! Darko works for Rambis, great! That has no bearing on how Darko fit here or anywhere else. Every coach is different and MDA is really different in how he approaches the game. Now we go about building a team with more guys that fit. TD, Gallo, Lee and Chan fit! Now we go and add more guys that fit and make this a better team. Stop obssessing over scrubs and unproven prospects!!! Great teams start with great players, plain and simple. That's what we're trying to bring in.

people are upset that we wasted a #8 lottery pick on a player that never got any run in NY... what is so damn difficult to understand? your favorite coach played a scrub like Jonathan Bender who had zero business even being out there on the floor over a #8 lottery prospect & you have no logical explanation for it, but instead of questioning the coach on this you instead question why people have a problem with it... it's completely mindboggling... if you think Jordan Hill is replaceable, what is Bender? dude won't even be in the NBA next season... yeah, it really did this franchise a whole lotta good to play him over our rookie prospect this season... also did us a whole lotta good to play Jared Jeffries 35+ minutes a night this season, he was really the glue to all those awesome Knick victories this year like u projected he would be... thank goodness MDA had the foresight to make sure we featured him this year & raised his trade value, it really paid off for us.

We didn't lose because of playing Jared or not playing Hill or Darko or Hughes. Besides Hill may still have been traded along with Jared regardless of his role this year. The idea isn't to hold on to #8 picks but to do everything you can to get guys who are top tier. We're talking about being in a position to add 2 guys that are better than anyone we have, including our #8 pick. People have suggested trading Gallo if it meant bringing in a top tier player that guarantees success. Why!?! Cuz proven winners are valued more than unproven talent.

If you want to say that LB, Adelman or even Rambis might get more out of scrub filled lineups then that's fair. Here's the thing tho, we had a team full of expirings for a reason! At best I was hoping we could win Half our games and be a playoff team, but not cuz there was any attachment to the roster. That's just positive fan stuff at the start of a season. I like most Knick fans knew that this group was destined to be gone so we could put together our new team that had a real shot to contend.

Now do you really think MDA or any coach is gonna look bad when he has a great roster? Do you think MDA or LB or even Zeke is gonna look lost if he's got studs like Lebron or Wade to work with? I promise u that MDA will not fail with an improved team next year. The guy can coach talent.

so MDA's mindboggling decision to play Bender & Fishlips over a #8 lottery pick is justified by simply saying we didn't lose games by playing those guys? are u serious? the reason people are up in arms over it has nothing to do with the W-L totals this year, i think that's pretty basic & doesn't need any explanation... mismanagement of assets is why people are pissed off about how things were done this year... don't talk to me about next year & how MDA is going to look with a tremendous roster, that has nothing to do with why people are pissed off at MDA right now.

TMS wrote:

s3231 wrote:I totally understand why people didn't like the McGrady trade.

I agree with what TMS has said on a number of occasions, that we certainly gave up a whole lot just to clear that extra $9 million.

We all know why Walsh did it though. If he didn't, our chances at landing LeBron would be dramatically lower. By clearing that extra $9 million though, Walsh has put the Knicks in a much better position to possibly land a player that can go down as the best of all time when his career is said and done. It's risky as hell because we gave up a ton of assets but we have so much flexibility as far as the cap goes that even if we don't get LeBron, we can still build a pretty good team in the process and gradually add to it to get to the next level.

If we don't get LeBron or land something like Bosh + Joe Johnson, then I agree with everyone that says the McGrady trade didn't accomplish what Donnie needed to accomplish. With that said though, I think it was a risk we had to take. Even if LeBron passes on NY, we had to put ourselves in a position to lure him. Donnie has done exactly that because come July 1st, he can essentially hand him the keys to the franchise and have LeBron bring another superstar with him in an attempt to build a dynasty. That is the key part about all of this that I think everyone forgets.

Before the McGrady trade, we didn't really have any legitimate reasons for LeBron to come to NY from a pure basketball standpoint. We couldn't offer a 2nd max and we couldn't even guarantee LeBron a sidekick like David Lee at worst. Now, we have made it as attractive as possible and I think we actually have a legitimate shot at him. Last summer, I did not think this was the case at all.

So in the end, it all comes down to whether or not you agree with Walsh taking a chance at a once in a lifetime player like LeBron James. Personally, I'm all for it because NY has never put itself in a position to do this. Some might disagree and that is fine. I just think if it doesn't work out with LeBron, Walsh is a smart enough guy that he can still keep this team going in the right direction.

i will tell u now, if we end up getting Lebron or Wade this summer i won't care how much we gave up in that T-Mac trade, but i'm really not confident we'll be getting either one of those guys without assets to offer up in sign & trade scenarios... i understand why u think it was worth the risk, i can see the obvious upsides in making this deal, but the way we completely mismanaged the draft selection to begin with & how we never gave the selection a fair chance to show his skills is something that u just can't sweep under the rug & pretend that it didn't happen... do u think if we had managed that draft selection correctly that we would have had to give up so much to get rid of Jared Jeffries' contract to begin with?

Totally agree with you TMS that we mismanaged the draft selection.

Personally, I'm not as high on Hill as you are but I think if Donnie knew he was willing to trade him to unload Jeffries, then we probably should have played him more minutes at least so that we would not have had to add picks to that deal. I don't think Hill will be a great big, but I do think he can be an effective big and after force feeding him minutes, I think he would have eventually showed more value.

I do think that we gave Hill chances early on to show his skills though. I was at a few of the games where Hill did get minutes and he just looked absolutely lost out there. I mean the ball would go to him and he would just shoot every time. I think at that point, we were still trying to possibly fight for a playoff spot, so I understand why D'Antoni didn't give Hill big minutes. During that stretch in December, we were playing awfully well and it would have been difficult to justify giving Hill minutes there. When Hill did start to show improved play, D'Antoni started to work him into the rotation.

The problem is, I think Walsh was against trading Hill before the season and then reluctantly changed his mind after realizing Hill would take more time to develop (not shocking as bigs usually need some time).

If the pick was Steph Curry or Brandon Jennings, we all know Donnie would not have included him in the deal. Unfortunately we couldn't get Curry but Jennings was there in our grasp and we messed up by not taking him. Keep in mind that Donnie reportedly lashed out at the scouts for missing out on Jennings. The McGrady trade was done to clear cap but in my mind, it was also an admission that we screwed up in the draft.

It sucks that we didn't get more value out of that pick, but there's nothing we could do at this point. It was either trade Hill to have a good shot at LeBron or keep Hill and potentially regret missing out on one of the best players of all time for a guy like Hill. It's a shame because I think Hill is a good guy and he seems to be a player willing to put the work in to get better. I don't like losing young athletic bigs that are willing to improve, but I just don't see him being the impact big that will make us regret taking a shot at LeBron and I'm guessing Walsh feels the same way. Hopefully Donnie doesn't end up being wrong because that would definitely suck, but I think as is right now, it was a gamble worth taking.

nixluva wrote:This was directed at TMS - Let's not act like things were perfect for a kid like Hill to get a better look. He was lost early on and we were in crisis. Finally the team was playing better and then it made sense to get him on the floor but even if he got more minutes it doesn't mean he was a lock to look good with more time. Just cuz he's had a few decent games in Houston doesn't mean his value would be substantially more than it was if we had played him more. You just want to make that assumption cuz it fits your argument. It could be that not exposing him kept his value high enough for Houston to want him. He may have struggled in our unsettled situation. In the end if DW felt he was really destined to be a star he wouldn't trade him. It's ok to bash the pick if people wanna say DW messed up taking him, but let's not make it that we gave up the key to a title. His value is still with us in the form of cap space we can use to build a better team.

as i've told u several times before, it doesn't make a difference if Hill was ready or not... it made absolutely no sense to be playing Jeffries 35+ a night & Bender 10 a night when neither of them were going to factor into our future plans... there was zero upside in playing those guys... u made the argument that playing Jeffries would serve to increase his trade value before the deadline, u were clearly wrong... at least by playing the rookie you are giving him invaluable experience he needs to develop his game... for that reason alone Jordan Hill should have been seeing minutes... i told u from the very beginning it made no sense to be playing Jeffries & Bender over Jordan Hill & yet you stuck to the theory that Jeffries was a glue player that would help us win games... u consistently made the argument that Hill was not ready to contribute yet have consistently failed to explain why a gimp like Bender was seeing minutes instead... u accuse me of only cherry picking points that fit my argument but you have yet to address either of those questions with any logical explanation.

Cosmic wrote:

franco12 wrote:

Cosmic wrote:Learning to manage expectations.

Well, it's a tough thing to do for some.

For me, this is what I think:

Isiah's roster was a disaster. It needed to be torn down. It was 146M of trash that did not mix. There was no more "just one trade" or "just one mle signing" and all would be fine. You HAD to tear it down. End of story.

Whatever happens this offseason... well, happens. But to me even if this summer is a complete failure (Like the post-MJ-Bulls failure) where they tried to woo Hill and TMac and ended up paying Jalen Rose the MAX instead? It still remains that the roster had to be torn down. I will never waver from that point of view that Isiah's roster was NEVER a player away from being a good team. It wasn't. So no matter what? The correct thing to do was to purge everyone and start over.

Now, we've done that (sans curry).

So now we sit and wait and watch what we can build. Maybe all the top names pass us by. It's a possibility they do. Personally I think we wind up with Bosh and Joe Johnson. Sometimes I think we flunk and we end up with David Lee and Al Harrington. (And I'll stop watching right there).

We don't know what is going to happen but we do know we have given ourselves a chance to build a winner from scratch and that is all that matters at this point in time.

It had to be torn down, but what was the point of paying the price we did just to move JJ early? If we are looking to build for the future, we should have kept our own draft picks, kept Jordan Hill, because if we miss out on the top FA's this off season, chances are we're going to suck next season as well, to strive for a maybe high 30 win team.

Well, if we win 30-something games next year what is our draft pick going to be? Another Hill/Frye/Sweetney. Nothing to worry about.As to paying the price? We paid it for a chance at the greatest player of this era. You cannot land him with a single max slot. You only land him if you tell him you can also sign anyone he wants to play with at the same time.

If we don't trade Hill/JJ (10M) then we can't do that.

Also, if we don't trade Hill/JJ we can't even sign say Joe Johnson and also keep David Lee.

We HAD to do the trade.