Want me to mention more b/c I have a whole list, and that whole list is keeping us from being a GOOD team, and no, I don't think being a .500 team AT BEST is being a GOOD team. Even if we are .500, we still suck until we change our course.

^Someone gets it. Not to mention cheap young talent and if they don't workout, we can always trade them and any other team will think they can work with them. WE CAN'T trade Jerome and a lot of the other guys though, and they aren't cheap and they aren't young and they aren't even talented for that matter, and they aren't playing.

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by BigC:

The only thing Larry saw was piss stains in his depends.

Big C you're wrong about LB no matter what the 23 win season showed you. The guy did other things besides coach this team that wasn't right but his assessment, his vision, and requests fell on deaf ears. He saw what was up and tried a little sabatoging if you will but not without a purpose to expose. Probably not the way he should have done things wasn't professional about it and definitely tarnished his rep but he was right. He needed a leader, an ear, and support in I SAY UGH like fashion but never got it and now we're set back once again.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 11-11-2007 8:47 PM]

yea, Isiah ran lenny out of town and lenny went quietly.. Larry brown is stubborn and wasn't going so quietly...

Larry saw and spoke the truth.

dolan could not handle it, and it made Isiah look bad.

Larry got paid for his year of hell.

There's no need to bellyache if it doesn't suit you but, as you admitted yourself, the talent surrendered isn't always so marginal. Moreover, if you are in fact willing to "bellyache" over the release of Barnes and Carroll, you're mostly in agreement with the others who criticize Isiah's mode of operation. And your vehemence in pardoning Nichol's dismissal then seems like a trivial distraction from your own point of view.

Hmm, I don't think so. I am don't criticize or praise his mode of operation so much as individual moves. I don't feel the need to make sweeping statements that often. Anyway, as I stated in another thread, I guarantee you much of what Isiah does is affected by Dolan.

You're way off base that I am "vehemently pardoning Nichol's dismissal" I am saying it doesn't matter. Ain't nothin' to pardon. Like Butler. I agree with you that it is trivial. I guess that is my point. It's trivial, and that may be an overstatement.

As an adjunct, lets also not forget that the relative importance of that marginal or not so marginal talent is magnified when other avenues of talent accrual have simultaneously been walled off.

Other avenues of talent acrual were walled off well before Isiah got here. If Isiah is fired tomorrow the next GM finds himself in 100 times a better situation than Thomas did because at least some of these young players have value.

oohah

By "vehemently pardoning," I mean you've made it a point to argue it in multiple threads. When, to me atleast, its quite obvious that the pattern of Isiah's transactions is what is disturbing to most.

Actually, I was called out on this thread on the topic of Nichols. I don't think about Nichols. I did argue it when it was a hot topic the day or two after he was cut. Other than that, I really haven't been all that vehement.

A "sweeping generalization" is, of course, distinct from an evaluation based on a mountain of evidence. Are you claiming that its too early to evaluate Isiah? Or that an evaluation of Isiah is unnecessary because its merely a reflection of Dolan's unremitting influence? I'd say either of those are misfires.

Yes, it is too early to finish evaluating Isiah. There, I said it!

If this season is a disaster, then I say he should probably go. If the Knicks keep getting better as they did last year, I'd say keep him.

Of everyting said, this is perhaps the biggest overstatement. But, arguing it is not too interesting to me. I know that blaming LB and Dolan is the default but it should be clear that Isiah has cast aside multiple options that would have placed us in considerably better standing.

It's too bad you are not interested in arguing that point. I'd like to hear about all the moves that would have put us in considerably better standing, and I am talking about W's and L's.

I'd like the argument to go like this: If Curry wasn't acquired for 2 picks, Tim Thomas, Jermaine Jackson, and Mike Sweetney, we'd still have those picks, and we could have picked X player who would have yielded better results over the past 2 years.

I am in no way stating that Isiah has made no mistakes, I just would like to know the realistic other avenues he could have pursued that would have shown better results thus far.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 11-11-2007 11:59 PM]

Posted by oohah:

By "vehemently pardoning," I mean you've made it a point to argue it in multiple threads. When, to me atleast, its quite obvious that the pattern of Isiah's transactions is what is disturbing to most.

Actually, I was called out on this thread on the topic of Nichols. I don't think about Nichols. I did argue it when it was a hot topic the day or two after he was cut. Other than that, I really haven't been all that vehement.

A "sweeping generalization" is, of course, distinct from an evaluation based on a mountain of evidence. Are you claiming that its too early to evaluate Isiah? Or that an evaluation of Isiah is unnecessary because its merely a reflection of Dolan's unremitting influence? I'd say either of those are misfires.

Yes, it is too early to finish evaluating Isiah. There, I said it!

If this season is a disaster, then I say he should probably go. If the Knicks keep getting better as they did last year, I'd say keep him.

Of everyting said, this is perhaps the biggest overstatement. But, arguing it is not too interesting to me. I know that blaming LB and Dolan is the default but it should be clear that Isiah has cast aside multiple options that would have placed us in considerably better standing.

It's too bad you are not interested in arguing that point. I'd like to hear about all the moves that would have put us in considerably better standing, and I am talking about W's and L's.

I'd like the argument to go like this: If Curry wasn't acquired for 2 picks, Tim Thomas, Jermaine Jackson, and Mike Sweetney, we'd still have those picks, and we could have picked X player who would have yielded better results over the past 2 years.

I am in no way stating that Isiah has made no mistakes, I just would like to know the realistic other avenues he could have pursued that would have shown better results thus far.

oohah

[Edited by - oohah on 11-11-2007 11:59 PM]

Haven't got the time for it. I've posted on the topic before and updating it seems unnecessary because, to me, Isiah's removal should be a foregone conclusion. In any event, the argument would not be a simple binary analysis of trade vs. no trade scenarios and their effects on the current record, as you've requested. The reasons are 1) it assumes a baseline of passive management, 2)the talent disparity between the individual players traded is grossly misleading of the future team outlook and 3) it ignores the accelerated asset accumulation of bad teams facilitated by a graded draft (in other words Isiah should have allowed us to sink fast to quickly make up the talent differential).

As with the other thread, you seem quite certain about your stance and I have no interest in changing your opinion. Lets hope that Isiah does better from this point forward.

[Edited by - codeunknown on 11-12-2007 01:28 AM]

1) it assumes a baseline of passive management

Passive management is why everybody hated Layden.

2)the talent disparity between the individual players traded is grossly misleading of the future team outlook

That might be true, but that sounds more like opinion than fact to me.

3) it ignores the accelerated asset accumulation of bad teams facilitated by a graded draft (in other words Isiah should have allowed us to sink fast to quickly make up the talent differential).

Allowing the team to sink fast without trying to shore up/improve was never a possibility. It probably won't be a possibility as long as Dolan is owner.

When Isiah got here, Dolan and everybody else wanted him to do something, anything, rather than the Layden "do nothing" approach. I bet there is not one post on this board from when Isiah was hired that said: "I hope he breaks it all down and starts from scratch."

It was a different situation when Isiah took over as well. Allan Houston was supposed to be part of the team. That did not work out. What we are actually seeing now is Plan B, or Plan C if you count LB as a plan. Again, Dolan stated in no uncertain terms that he told Isiah to hire LB.

There is not one poster on this board that is calling for the blow-it-up approach that I believe has the stomach for what blowing it up really entails. Like 3 seasons in the teen and 20 win territory.

So I am willing to wait and see what this season brings.

oohah

1) it assumes a baseline of passive management

Passive management is why everybody hated Layden.

That has zero bearing on the point that evaluating Isiah using a passive baseline is inappropriate. If anything, the Layden standard is what we should be getting away from.

2)the talent disparity between the individual players traded is grossly misleading of the future team outlook

That might be true, but that sounds more like opinion than fact to me.

The point of emphasis here is that the evaluation of Isiah is only complete when one looks beyond some of the irrelevant talent discrepancies in trades. The results of those discrepancies are evident in our mediocre/sub-mediocre win column, as is the fact that they've further botched our ability to improve through the draft and free agency. Once again, the individual talent differences are a tremendously shallow estimation of Isiah's work; many of those players were acquired for short-term gain that never materialized. What we're left with is a reckless sacrifice of cap space, a dramatic decline in trade value of certain players as they've progressed here, and the acquisition of "cornerstone" players with asynchronous "primes" who don't play well with each other. Thus, the value, championed by many, of the many players for whom we traded is reduced, either as pieces that are kept or traded. And these issues, of course, are in addition to the squandering of draft picks, the absurd cap and roster mismanagement etc. So Oohah, regardless of your opinion of each of those factors, their analysis, over and above the bare bones of the trades, is necessary in order to objectively evaluate Isiah. And that's a fact.

3) it ignores the accelerated asset accumulation of bad teams facilitated by a graded draft (in other words Isiah should have allowed us to sink fast to quickly make up the talent differential).

Allowing the team to sink fast without trying to shore up/improve was never a possibility. It probably won't be a possibility as long as Dolan is owner.

Now this sounds more like opinion than fact to me. As far as I'm concerned, Isiah at the very least shares the blame here. But, again, I don't have time to elaborate. I will not be back until next week, at which point I will more thoughly adress your questions.