mreinman wrote:main gripes that people have with phil up to this point:

1. Hiring Fisher
2. Forcing the triangle even though it most view it as dated or inefficient
3. resigning melo though he may not have had the choice (but that is his problem)
4. not being a hands on GM
5. not making melo a better player
6. sticking his foot in his keyboard

Many may not agree with any of these but this is what many have issues with

Fisher - unless the expectation was that the Knicks were going to contend with last year's roster or that there was not any kind of attempt to tank - the grade needs to be incomplete.

Triangle - How people view the Triangle has little to do with if it will actually work with this team or not. Further, regardless of the system, you still need more than D-League players. This item is also a TBD.

Resigning Melo - Also a TBD. It depends on how an injury free Melo performs or if he is traded for assets down the line.

Hands on GM - this is a style gripe - not a performance gripe.

Melo a better player - not sure why it is the GM's job to make a player better. It would be a GM's job to build a team where the pieces fit in order to enhance individual and overall performance. It is ultimately up to the player to perform or not.

Social Media - again, a style issue, not a performance issue.

When you make posts like this calling style into play and then in other posts, bring up the guy's salary......both of which have little to do with performance......it makes others believe you have issues against the guy and lessens your opinion's cred.

foosballnick wrote:

mreinman wrote:main gripes that people have with phil up to this point:

1. Hiring Fisher
2. Forcing the triangle even though it most view it as dated or inefficient
3. resigning melo though he may not have had the choice (but that is his problem)
4. not being a hands on GM
5. not making melo a better player
6. sticking his foot in his keyboard

Many may not agree with any of these but this is what many have issues with

Most of these items are either graded as an incomplete or have little to do with Phil's job performance. Perhaps people griping about these issues have a different sense in what a GM should be doing?

Fisher - unless the expectation was that the Knicks were going to contend with last year's roster or that there was not any kind of attempt to tank - the grade needs to be incomplete.

Triangle - How people view the Triangle has little to do with if it will actually work with this team or not. Further, regardless of the system, you still need more than D-League players. This item is also a TBD.

Resigning Melo - Also a TBD. It depends on how an injury free Melo performs or if he is traded for assets down the line.

Hands on GM - this is a style gripe - not a performance gripe.

Melo a better player - not sure why it is the GM's job to make a player better. It would be a GM's job to build a team where the pieces fit in order to enhance individual and overall performance. It is ultimately up to the player to perform or not.

Social Media - again, a style issue, not a performance issue.

When you make posts like this calling style into play and then in other posts, bring up the guy's salary......both of which have little to do with performance......it makes others believe you have issues against the guy and lessens your opinion's cred.

do you think that your post comes off more objective than mine? Its not even close so if you are worried about your opinions cred ...

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:main gripes that people have with phil up to this point:

1. Hiring Fisher
2. Forcing the triangle even though it most view it as dated or inefficient
3. resigning melo though he may not have had the choice (but that is his problem)
4. not being a hands on GM
5. not making melo a better player
6. sticking his foot in his keyboard

Many may not agree with any of these but this is what many have issues with

1. Fish is a good coach and really its not about him as much as it is just fixing the roster. The things he's teaching the team to do are the exact same things Phil would teach but with a few tweaks. The fundamentals are all the same and serve the same purpose.

2. The Triangle is a tried and true system and was literally winning titles and layoff games as recent as 2011. Phil's 1st season came in 2014. It's pure idiocy to think the game has passed it by in just 3 years. This is a media trope that is PURE GARBAGE. The offense isn't lacking in efficiency given that as i've pointed out many times it was just as efficient as the GS Warriors were this year.

2014-2015 Warriors Off Rtg: 111.6 (2nd of 30) 
2010-2011 Lakers   Off Rtg: 111.0 (6th of 30)

3. Having Melo this next few years is going to accelerate the process of this team contending. I know some don't want to believe that but when you put good players around Melo it makes for a playoff team. That's the history.

4. Phil is actually the team PRESIDENT. His role is not the same as a pure GM. I have no issues with how he's running things. He has his staff in order and they're working as a team.

5. We'll see about Melo being a better player or not from here on. He's gotta be healthy and the team around him needed to be better.

6. Phil has always made strange comments. He's a quirky guy. No biggie. If the team starts winning no one will really care.

1. You have no idea if fisher is a good coach. At best, you can say that it can't be determined at this point

2. The triangle needs to be proven when you don't have 2 of the top HOFers of all time on your team(s). That is probably what Phil is here to prove. Many (or even most) believe that it is dated.

3. Are these players around Melo good enough to get them to the playoffs? You probably say yes though most (or everyone else) would say no

4. That is your right to feel that way.

5. Melo needs to change his game. Thats on Phil. No other excuses.

6. I can get over the silly comments if he is doing a good job here

1. My view on Fish is based on how he handled this trying season. He never cracked even with the tough start and his team kept playing hard and executing as best as they could given their talent level. That showed in the last season wins and more competitive games. He did actually tweak things as the season moved along and those tweaks did get some results. He would most certainly have won a lot more games with a bit more talent.

2. This is pure BS. Proven with no talent? In 1993-94 after Jordan retired the Bulls won 55 games. His last Lakers team was good but not quite like having Mj and Pippen or Kobe and Shaq. Besides all good teams have tons of talent. The argument is really silly. Either the offense is efficient or it's not.

3. I actually think it's possible that this roster could be a playoff team. I could care less what analysts think. Most are really that focused on the team yet. If the top 6-7 rotation players are productive then it's surely possible that this team can make a run. The key is gonna be just how much improvement they can make on D.

you thought that last years team would be a playoff team too.

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:main gripes that people have with phil up to this point:

1. Hiring Fisher
2. Forcing the triangle even though it most view it as dated or inefficient
3. resigning melo though he may not have had the choice (but that is his problem)
4. not being a hands on GM
5. not making melo a better player
6. sticking his foot in his keyboard

Many may not agree with any of these but this is what many have issues with

1. Fish is a good coach and really its not about him as much as it is just fixing the roster. The things he's teaching the team to do are the exact same things Phil would teach but with a few tweaks. The fundamentals are all the same and serve the same purpose.

2. The Triangle is a tried and true system and was literally winning titles and layoff games as recent as 2011. Phil's 1st season came in 2014. It's pure idiocy to think the game has passed it by in just 3 years. This is a media trope that is PURE GARBAGE. The offense isn't lacking in efficiency given that as i've pointed out many times it was just as efficient as the GS Warriors were this year.

2014-2015 Warriors Off Rtg: 111.6 (2nd of 30) 
2010-2011 Lakers   Off Rtg: 111.0 (6th of 30)

3. Having Melo this next few years is going to accelerate the process of this team contending. I know some don't want to believe that but when you put good players around Melo it makes for a playoff team. That's the history.

4. Phil is actually the team PRESIDENT. His role is not the same as a pure GM. I have no issues with how he's running things. He has his staff in order and they're working as a team.

5. We'll see about Melo being a better player or not from here on. He's gotta be healthy and the team around him needed to be better.

6. Phil has always made strange comments. He's a quirky guy. No biggie. If the team starts winning no one will really care.

1. You have no idea if fisher is a good coach. At best, you can say that it can't be determined at this point

2. The triangle needs to be proven when you don't have 2 of the top HOFers of all time on your team(s). That is probably what Phil is here to prove. Many (or even most) believe that it is dated.

3. Are these players around Melo good enough to get them to the playoffs? You probably say yes though most (or everyone else) would say no

4. That is your right to feel that way.

5. Melo needs to change his game. Thats on Phil. No other excuses.

6. I can get over the silly comments if he is doing a good job here

1. My view on Fish is based on how he handled this trying season. He never cracked even with the tough start and his team kept playing hard and executing as best as they could given their talent level. That showed in the last season wins and more competitive games. He did actually tweak things as the season moved along and those tweaks did get some results. He would most certainly have won a lot more games with a bit more talent.

2. This is pure BS. Proven with no talent? In 1993-94 after Jordan retired the Bulls won 55 games. His last Lakers team was good but not quite like having Mj and Pippen or Kobe and Shaq. Besides all good teams have tons of talent. The argument is really silly. Either the offense is efficient or it's not.

3. I actually think it's possible that this roster could be a playoff team. I could care less what analysts think. Most are really that focused on the team yet. If the top 6-7 rotation players are productive then it's surely possible that this team can make a run. The key is gonna be just how much improvement they can make on D.

you thought that last years team would be a playoff team too.

Besides, I still think the team should've been better last year, but now you and the media are acting like we didn't have any injuries and players resisting the system to start the year, which was a critical time. We needed a good and healthy start to have a chance for success. Let me remind you that we started the season with Larkin rather than Jose and Jose never got 100% healthy. Bargs was out too. Shump was out at one point. Melo was hurt. JR's brain was broken. We lost a TON of close games early on.

the Knicks have been within five points in the final five minutes 19 times, but they are just 3-16 in those games.

Last years team had some players who surely should've played much better and none more so than Jose, JR., THJ and to a lesser degree Shump. that's really where the team lost the season. At the guard position. With a healthy Jose that should've been a very good guard platoon along with Melo that should've been the bulk of the scoring. Regardless perhaps nothing could've saved last season. It has NOTHING to do with this year and this roster tho.

foosballnick wrote:

mreinman wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

mreinman wrote:main gripes that people have with phil up to this point:

1. Hiring Fisher
2. Forcing the triangle even though it most view it as dated or inefficient
3. resigning melo though he may not have had the choice (but that is his problem)
4. not being a hands on GM
5. not making melo a better player
6. sticking his foot in his keyboard

Many may not agree with any of these but this is what many have issues with

Most of these items are either graded as an incomplete or have little to do with Phil's job performance. Perhaps people griping about these issues have a different sense in what a GM should be doing?

Fisher - unless the expectation was that the Knicks were going to contend with last year's roster or that there was not any kind of attempt to tank - the grade needs to be incomplete.

Triangle - How people view the Triangle has little to do with if it will actually work with this team or not. Further, regardless of the system, you still need more than D-League players. This item is also a TBD.

Resigning Melo - Also a TBD. It depends on how an injury free Melo performs or if he is traded for assets down the line.

Hands on GM - this is a style gripe - not a performance gripe.

Melo a better player - not sure why it is the GM's job to make a player better. It would be a GM's job to build a team where the pieces fit in order to enhance individual and overall performance. It is ultimately up to the player to perform or not.

Social Media - again, a style issue, not a performance issue.

When you make posts like this calling style into play and then in other posts, bring up the guy's salary......both of which have little to do with performance......it makes others believe you have issues against the guy and lessens your opinion's cred.

do you think that your post comes off more objective than mine? Its not even close so if you are worried about your opinions cred ...

You created a list of 6 points representing views of "people" without any back up .......which essentially represents an anecdotal straw man to back up the opinion you had already personally formed about Phil. I responded to it with my personal opinion, and never represented that it was the opinion of many "people". So not only is your post subjective, but it also is potentially a misrepresentation of facts.

As far as my own Cred.....I don't post enough to care. I'm here purely because I love the Knicks....unlike others who seem to be here to drive some kind of agenda, be constantly judgemental or try to impress others with how much they know about building an NBA roster.

I don't know how to build an NBA roster but I know when it fails.

The points that I made do not represent my opinion, its the gripes that people seem to have issues with. Which one don't you think is an issue that has been widely discussed and reported?

As far as my own opinion, as I mentioned in my OP, I will go into the season with an open mind and withhold premature judgement.

I think that Phil is a brilliant basketball mind but these days there are many brilliant (young) basketball minds. How will he do? Lets see. He had a pretty good offseason ... lets see how it plays out.

I fear that him not spending 15 hours a day due to his age may be a problem.

I love the knicks too and being positive does not mean that you need to be blind. All positive and all negative are both pretty silly.

meloshouldgo wrote:This board is so obsessed with passing judgment using hindsight. It's amazing.
Makes no sense at all.

VORP

VALUE OVER REPLACEMENT PLAYER

It's why "superstar" players are valued the way they are and are treated the way they are treated.

It's also why "value" across the spectrum of cost vs production can be broken down into tiers of efficiency.

Why are rookie contracts in any of the sport so valuable? You get young players, some of whom enter their primes, at cost controlled years, who are outpeforming the market value of said contract. If a Yankee hitter is blasting 30 homers a year but is making less than a million as a 2nd year rookie out of the draft, that's massive value.

It's at the player's 2ND CONTRACT or his post rookie contract, where a MARKET CORRECTION happens. You are paid to the perception of your value against your production and your perceived future production while factoring in market forces and issues like positional value.

What does this have to do with Phil Jackson?

Could you get a guy making 2 million a year to give you what Bargnani or STAT gave the Knicks this year in total production? 3 million? 4 million?

In the same way, could the Knicks have HIRED ANYONE BUT PHIL JACKSON and GOTTEN THE SAME OR BETTER RESULT?

Could Dolan have spent 59 million LESS and gotten a GM candidate who could do more given the same situation and have a long term future upside?

VALUE OVER REPLACEMENT SPORTS EXECUTIVE

Right now on winning teams like the Warriors, Spurs, Rockets, Mavericks, etc and such are front offices with YOUNG guys grooming to be future GMs. Guys who have paid their dues in blood. Who have experience scouting. Who have experience with analytics and the salary cap and CBA. Who have relationships with other front office personnel on other teams. Who have networked relationships with agents, the media, owners, players, refs, league officials and other critical contact points from a very SPECIFIC GM side of the equation. These are guys who could give the Knicks, if they worked out, maybe 10-20-30-35 years of stability and future elite GM work.

Anyone here want the Yankees or Mets to sign a 37 year old aging power hitter in his decline to a 5 year massive contract? The Jets to sign a 38 year old aging QB1 to a massive 5 year deal? Why not? Because the risks are so obvious, that the methodology behind the decision can only be considered insanity.

You don't hire a first time rookie GM, pushing 70, with no other front office experience, to take over a team with limited asset base and installing a complicated offense no one else in the league is using and see that as reward over risk.

As for sympathy for Phil Jackson's learning curve, he called this a "clumsy roster and team" before he signed on. He knew what he was getting into, if he didn't want to be judged on a limited set of moves, then he shouldn't have taken the fat checks to be hired by a team in such a complicated rebuild situation. Where the franchise core is a one dimensional selfish chucker with zero leadership skills and won't play defense.

What makes "no sense at all" is the idea that Phil Jackson is some kind of front office savant/swami going to pull magic rabbits out of his ass.

Do you really need a 60 million dollar aging decision maker to tell you the Knicks needed to get a defensive center this offseason?

Some 35-45 year old in some league front office right now could have made those same moves, or maybe a few even better.

Don't judge Phil Jackson on just a few moves?

The NBA is a league with GUARANTEED CONTRACTS and with a tax system that works as an informal but universally recognized "cap", with a draft only lasting two rounds, with trades often needing a complex salary match.

YOU ONLY GET A FEW MOVES EACH YEAR AS AN NBA DECISION MAKER, ON ANY TEAM. Of course you should be judged on them.

It's amazing how anyone can see what is happening as anything other than a double fisted money grab.

What's the counter argument? Look at where he took the team now versus before? How hard is it to take a team and make it better than last year's disaster? The only direction is up. And he was a major hand in why last year's disaster happened in the first place.

OK, he's a "better choice", how hard is that compared to Zeke? But is he the "right choice"?

If he was the right choice, the Knicks wouldn't be able to get close to the same results or BETTER at a cost of 59 million less.

In FA he mostly likely already knew that he wasn't likely to get one of the top guys given the roster and losing record. I think what he did with the roster was actually pretty good. He's sticking with his principles and getting the kind of players he feels will work in a team concept. However, it's a process. You add players who you think might fit and some will work out and some won't. You keep that process up and in a little while you have the kind of team you want filled with the kind of players you want.

He has to also hope that his draft picks and UDFA's work out. No one is hits 100% but if a few reach acceptable levels of the potential they have it can really setup a nice future for the team. It's gonna be fun watching how this comes together. This roster is all Phil and that's what will make this really interesting to watch over the next few years.

CrushAlot wrote:

holfresh wrote:We are paying GMs 12 mil per year and "no" GM with cred will come here??..Like the myth no coach will come here and when we trade our players they have no value...

Not sure if this was in response to my post but if it was my point was that the owner wouldn't respect other candidates like he does Phil Jackson. Do you think he gives others autonomy? If so a name or two would be great because I disagree. There isn't a salary cap for execs so what Phil makes doesn't have anything to do with what players the team can acquire.

CrushAlot wrote:

holfresh wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

holfresh wrote:We are paying GMs 12 mil per year and "no" GM with cred will come here??..Like the myth no coach will come here and when we trade our players they have no value...

Not sure if this was in response to my post but if it was my point was that the owner wouldn't respect other candidates like he does Phil Jackson. Do you think he gives others autonomy? If so a name or two would be great because I disagree. There isn't a salary cap for execs so what Phil makes doesn't have anything to do with what players the team can acquire.

So you don't think there is another quality GM out there who would work for Dolan at 12 mil per?..Isiah had autonomy, he just had a mandate..He couldn't rebuild..

I don't think there is another guy that would be allowed to do the job right. Isiah was not and is not a quality gm. Isiah and Phil were both champions as players. Phil has been a champion 11 times after his playing career. Isiah's tenure with the Knicks was a disaster.

Stay tuned..

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/135376764/phil-jackson-knicks-free-agency-shrewd-moves

Time to Start Trusting Phil Jackson

Phil Jackson has made a series of moves that maintain roster flexibility, even if they won't win with Carmelo Anthony as a focal point. (Getty Images)

At one point, not too long ago, many believed Phil Jackson embodied the vanguard of basketball philosophy. As an NBA head coach, he had the Midas touch, extracting peak production from role players who couldn't hack it elsewhere and leading stars to the promised land.

Four years removed from his most recent sideline stint, times have changed. The overwhelming view on this brazen 69-year-old is of a man who let the sport pass him by. NBA basketball is constantly evolving, and certain aspects deemed important half a decade ago are now invaluable. On numerous occasions, in various public forums, Jackson has scoffed at the league's increasing infatuation with the three-point line, pick-and-roll-based offense and other incontrovertible traits commonly associated with success.

It suggests the New York Knicks president might not be up for the incredibly difficult task of building a championship-contending team. Most who can't distinguish popular trends from useful ones can't. All this fueled critics who believe Jackson is stuck in the past, in it for the money, tied to the tracks of his antiquated triangle offense.

But, as Bleacher Report's Howard Beck wrote last month, all of it's unfair and not true.

Jackson took a wrecking ball to New York's roster with the idea of building a group in his own vision; one that revolves around versatile players with interchangeable skillsets. Molding this type of roster is much easier said than done, but merely saying aloud that it's what he desires is important. Transparency can go a long way in a place like New York City.

Last week, after striking out on several stars in free agency -- Greg Monroe, LaMarcus Aldridge and DeAndre Jordan -- the Knicks made a string of sensible decisions typically associated with wiser teams who understand and accept where they stand. None will generate overnight change and some may even fail. But for a franchise so use to blindly swinging for the fences -- devastating aftermath be damned! -- Jackson stopped the madness.

We'll start with his worst decision, a move that gave Knicks fans nightmarish flashbacks to a time thought to permanently reside in their rearview mirror: Derrick Williams for two years and $10 million. The former No. 2 overall pick is a musty 24-year-old who's yet to find an effective role in the NBA. Is he a small-ball power forward? Maybe, but he'll never be a good one without improving his outside shot, and he definitely doesn't fit beside Carmelo Anthony (one of the better small-ball power forwards in basketball, when healthy).

It's a short-term deal, which is good news. But when Jonas Jerebko signed the exact same contract with the Boston Celtics and was given a non-guaranteed second year instead of a player option, it made New York look bad. Jerebko is better, and the option makes Williams harder to trade.

In a best-case scenario, Williams has an awesome season, re-enters free agency next summer when the cap jumps to $90 million and lands a massive contract. In other words, there is no best-case scenario.

Next up is Arron Afflalo, who signed a two-year, $16 million deal with a player option in year two. The best-case scenario here is similar to what I just wrote about Williams, but Afflalo is a much better player who can actually help New York win games. I like his defense more than most, particularly as a massive upgrade from what the Knicks had last season. Effort is not a problem. Afflalo can cover more than one position, score in the post and knock down spot-up threes. He turns 30 this year, which doesn't exactly fit into the timeline of a looming rebuild, but if New York's season goes south before the trade deadline, Jackson could wrest away an asset or two from a contender who thinks Afflalo can push them over the top.

Robin Lopez at four years and $54 million? Not cheap, but this is the type of player New York should target: a starting-caliber center who's competent on both ends. At 27 years old, the Knicks will pay Lopez through his prime, too. A bonus. There's your starting center from this era to the next.

The Knicks then crafted a sign-and-trade with the Orlando Magic for Kyle O'Quinn, giving the backup big man a four-year, $16 million deal for practically nothing. It's by far the shrewdest signing of Jackson's tenure. O'Quinn and Lopez are two centers who can shoot, protect the rim and fit nicely beside Anthony in small lineups. They're also more than capable of handling dirty work down low until rookie seven-footer Kristaps Porzingis puts a little meat on his bones.

(Speaking of the draft, the moves Jackson made on that day were symbolical strides into a potentially blissful future. Taking Porzingis with the fourth overall pick was brave. Trading the one-dimensional Tim Hardaway Jr. for All-American Jerian Grant was a spoonful of sugar.)

None of these moves will send seismic shockwaves through the five boroughs, but that's exactly why they're remarkable. Jackson wanted Monroe, Aldridge and Jordan. Of course. Everyone wants those guys. But his willingness to hit singles and doubles, play the long game and finally give New York reason to hope for the bright future it deserves is slowly turning him into one of the most underestimated executives in the league. He didn't cripple the Knicks cap space in 2016 and stopped letting Anthony's presence dictate personnel decisions. There has been nothing desperate about New York's summer so far.

This brings us to another discussion that deserves its own column but will get briefly mentioned here: Anthony may not be on the trade block -- unloading any 31-year-old coming off knee surgery who's guaranteed about $100 million over the next four seasons is impossible -- but it's hard to envision a scenario where Melo spends the rest of his career in the Big Apple. Anthony clashes too much with the stylistic purity Jackson envisions.

Maybe he'll become a low usage, high efficiency flame thrower. But Anthony is forever too costly for that role. He's not the foundation of this team and never will be. Signing him to that deal was a mistake, but it's a relief to see Jackson subconsciously acknowledge it and put himself in a position to move on if need be instead of doubling down into a deeper grave. For the most part, Jackson acquired young players. This is good!

New York doesn't have its first-round pick next year, but after that it has them all. They should also have max cap room next summer, and will field a roster with several tradable pieces. Only on the job 16 months, Jackson's quietly infusing self-awareness in an organization that's had its head stuck in sand for most of the last decade. This summer went a long way to correct the perception that Phil was bordering on delusional senility. Instead, the Knicks finally appear to be in the hands of a genuine caretaker. They'll be modestly competitive this season. But more important than that, Jackson's set them on a promising path where celebratory events can happen in June instead of July.