CrushAlot wrote:He wasn't allowed to trade a first round pick until 2018 so not trading that pick should not be considered a legacy move He drafted well but it was after he accidenally tanked (3x). The contracts he gave out, his trades, coaching hires, and communication skills were all bad.

Yeah, Briggs said it was the right path but didn't say what the path was. I guess the path was to make terrible signings and trades so that we get very good draft picks!

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:He wasn't allowed to trade a first round pick until 2018 so not trading that pick should not be considered a legacy move He drafted well but it was after he accidenally tanked (3x). The contracts he gave out, his trades, coaching hires, and communication skills were all bad.

Yeah, Briggs said it was the right path but didn't say what the path was. I guess the path was to make terrible signings and trades so that we get very good draft picks!

The path was obvious. He tried to do what he could with little to work with to provide players around Carmelo to compete while acquiring young guys who he felt he could build a future team around. Perfect no--but if you look at our roster his name is attached to Baker Dotson KP Willy Frank Oquinn Kuz. In the last 20 years--we ve never had that.

I give Beasley THJ to Steve Mills and hopefully its just a continuation of what was going on. The Kanter Doug M deal was a purge--cant say anything bad about that. Were going to have pick 31 next year

Paris907 wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Question....How can anyone be on the right path when every decision made was based on the F..in TRIANGLE? Sighhhhh.
You guys are talking bout draft picks, signings, NTC clause? Who cares? Every Prez can't bat 1000. However, NO Prez makes all his player, coaching decisions based on an antiquated system which he tries to force feed, to all his player's and coaches, regarsless of their natural strengths or styles.

Biggest issue I had with Phil is that he was not here to build a winning team. He was here to expand his Triangle legacy.

This 100x

Have to add the way he handled Melo. It was never his *phil* fault...he had to blame someone and unfortunately, that led to Melo stock dropping in the trade market.

Regarding Phil dropping Melos stock value. I think that’s bogus!!!
The truth of it as NY Knick fans and GMs know, Father Time dropped Melo’s value. Melo not playing D dropped Melo’s value, Melo’s piss poor shooting in the 4th quarter and for the season overall dropped Melo’s value. Phil didn’t drop it Pil just states the obvious and he was and is better off elsewhere. What Phil saw is that Melo isn’t a winner and rubbed poor influence on KP and others. Melo won the battle but Phil the war.

CrushAlot wrote:

Paris907 wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Question....How can anyone be on the right path when every decision made was based on the F..in TRIANGLE? Sighhhhh.
You guys are talking bout draft picks, signings, NTC clause? Who cares? Every Prez can't bat 1000. However, NO Prez makes all his player, coaching decisions based on an antiquated system which he tries to force feed, to all his player's and coaches, regarsless of their natural strengths or styles.

Biggest issue I had with Phil is that he was not here to build a winning team. He was here to expand his Triangle legacy.

This 100x

Have to add the way he handled Melo. It was never his *phil* fault...he had to blame someone and unfortunately, that led to Melo stock dropping in the trade market.

Regarding Phil dropping Melos stock value. I think that’s bogus!!!
The truth of it as NY Knick fans and GMs know, Father Time dropped Melo’s value. Melo not playing D dropped Melo’s value, Melo’s piss poor shooting in the 4th quarter and for the season overall dropped Melo’s value. Phil didn’t drop it Pil just states the obvious and he was and is better off elsewhere. What Phil saw is that Melo isn’t a winner and rubbed poor influence on KP and others. Melo won the battle but Phil the war.

I disagree. Phil had an asset and acted like he was done with that asset and would do almost anything to get rid of it. He did this in other trades as well. Teams knew that it would not take much to get Melo and that the best route to get him might be to just wait for Phil to buyout Melo. I don't think you could weaken a team's position much more than Phil did. Perry/Mills did a nice reset and made the best of a bad situation.

In the end what happened. He double dog dared Melo to seek winning. Unless he publicly called out Melo, he would not leave.
Im I wrong? Dude was content to put up numbers, sell hats, hang with his kid, and enjoy "La La Married, Not Melo".
Knicks tried to build around Melo. Noah, good idea on paper but a stretch. Maybe if Noah is healthy this year it obsolves phil. Why? Noah might have needed surgery but dudes that do that don't get good contracts, right? Noah made a good biz decision. Rose trade, Knicks paid little for him for a one year test drive. Phil failed, but then look at it all now, its a rebuild. All but Noah. at under 18mil, he has the biggest contract.

But this notion that phil words did more harm is BS. Every GM knows exactly what melo can do, can't do, and his lockerroom rep. HE is not a bad guy. What was he supposed to do, say to the world how great he is and we want to trade him? Melo needed a push out the door. For him to stay would call him out as him playing for his own reasons. Money and Family. Not terrible, but its not team first.

33 years old, still can put up points and low value because of NTC.
Melo is in freaking OKC. Not LA, not Miami, not Houstan but in ****ing Oak La Homer!!!!!
Knicks stuck to their guns and got good value back. Not great, but that was never going to happen.
Just like Melo was never going to be a free agent for us to sign 7 years ago. He had an opt out, needed some easy surgery and was a strike looming.
What other fiction do we fabricate?
Phil sucked at some things, did some others very well. Dolan at least respected him enough to listen. That alone is worth 60 mil. Is it? Hell yea, its Dolans money!!!!
Y'all can hate on Phil all you want, and some of you hate Mills already as if he is the architect of our pain. Just enjoy the kids and hope for the best.

Nalod wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Paris907 wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Question....How can anyone be on the right path when every decision made was based on the F..in TRIANGLE? Sighhhhh.
You guys are talking bout draft picks, signings, NTC clause? Who cares? Every Prez can't bat 1000. However, NO Prez makes all his player, coaching decisions based on an antiquated system which he tries to force feed, to all his player's and coaches, regarsless of their natural strengths or styles.

Biggest issue I had with Phil is that he was not here to build a winning team. He was here to expand his Triangle legacy.

This 100x

Have to add the way he handled Melo. It was never his *phil* fault...he had to blame someone and unfortunately, that led to Melo stock dropping in the trade market.

Regarding Phil dropping Melos stock value. I think that’s bogus!!!
The truth of it as NY Knick fans and GMs know, Father Time dropped Melo’s value. Melo not playing D dropped Melo’s value, Melo’s piss poor shooting in the 4th quarter and for the season overall dropped Melo’s value. Phil didn’t drop it Pil just states the obvious and he was and is better off elsewhere. What Phil saw is that Melo isn’t a winner and rubbed poor influence on KP and others. Melo won the battle but Phil the war.

I disagree. Phil had an asset and acted like he was done with that asset and would do almost anything to get rid of it. He did this in other trades as well. Teams knew that it would not take much to get Melo and that the best route to get him might be to just wait for Phil to buyout Melo. I don't think you could weaken a team's position much more than Phil did. Perry/Mills did a nice reset and made the best of a bad situation.

In the end what happened. He double dog dared Melo to seek winning. Unless he publicly called out Melo, he would not leave.
Im I wrong? Dude was content to put up numbers, sell hats, hang with his kid, and enjoy "La La Married, Not Melo".
Knicks tried to build around Melo. Noah, good idea on paper but a stretch. Maybe if Noah is healthy this year it obsolves phil. Why? Noah might have needed surgery but dudes that do that don't get good contracts, right? Noah made a good biz decision. Rose trade, Knicks paid little for him for a one year test drive. Phil failed, but then look at it all now, its a rebuild. All but Noah. at under 18mil, he has the biggest contract.

But this notion that phil words did more harm is BS. Every GM knows exactly what melo can do, can't do, and his lockerroom rep. HE is not a bad guy. What was he supposed to do, say to the world how great he is and we want to trade him? Melo needed a push out the door. For him to stay would call him out as him playing for his own reasons. Money and Family. Not terrible, but its not team first.

33 years old, still can put up points and low value because of NTC.
Melo is in freaking OKC. Not LA, not Miami, not Houstan but in ****ing Oak La Homer!!!!!
Knicks stuck to their guns and got good value back. Not great, but that was never going to happen.
Just like Melo was never going to be a free agent for us to sign 7 years ago. He had an opt out, needed some easy surgery and was a strike looming.
What other fiction do we fabricate?
Phil sucked at some things, did some others very well. Dolan at least respected him enough to listen. That alone is worth 60 mil. Is it? Hell yea, its Dolans money!!!!
Y'all can hate on Phil all you want, and some of you hate Mills already as if he is the architect of our pain. Just enjoy the kids and hope for the best.

Bonn1997 wrote:

reub wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:He gets killed by the media and some fans--but he set the best foundation I have seen in 25 years.

Trading for Carmelo with all of our assets to play with a bunch of 36 years old teammates--thats not a foundation--thats shooting all your bullets.

When have we had more quality youthful depth? We were littered with mediocre vets for 20 years.

BRIGGS wrote:Were going to absolutely stink without a solid pro pg-- melo here or not. Our team is so unbalanced and if we have to rely on baker and Frank--25 wins tops.

We have barely changed a bad team. We added a Sg who just takes the place of basically the same thing while we lost our vet pg.

They can play ring around the Rosie with Carmelo who cares-- were going to be a top 10 lottery team again with this roster-- even in the shtty east

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=57050

What does building a foundation of youthful players have to do with this post in July? We added some vets as well to compliment the youth Sessions Kanter Beasley--still has nothing to do with this post? We may stink--Im not sure but it doesnt change the foundation

Phil is going to go down as the greatest GM/President in our history. We should all be apologizing to him for not respecting his greatness. You can say what you want about his veteran signings but he never sacrificed our future one iota. We have all of our draft picks as far as the eye can see. We have three (maybe more) great young pieces because of him. Thanks, Phil!

Nothing he did sacrificed our future one iota? You can't be serious. So if he hadn't committed $250 mil to Melo, Lee, and Noah, we would not be in position to make the future even one iota better than it looks now? If that money were available and to be used on FAs in their 20s, the future would not be one iota better?

Can you list the top 10 free agent acquisitions in the Dolan era? You are stats got right? What is the probability that if he hadn't given 250 million to those three pieces of **** Mills/Perry would have given it to three others? I would say around, 90%

Not saying what he did on Melo/Noah/Lee was rational outside of the Lee signing. But the opportunity cost was being way overstated here.

BRIGGS wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

reub wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:He gets killed by the media and some fans--but he set the best foundation I have seen in 25 years.

Trading for Carmelo with all of our assets to play with a bunch of 36 years old teammates--thats not a foundation--thats shooting all your bullets.

When have we had more quality youthful depth? We were littered with mediocre vets for 20 years.

BRIGGS wrote:Were going to absolutely stink without a solid pro pg-- melo here or not. Our team is so unbalanced and if we have to rely on baker and Frank--25 wins tops.

We have barely changed a bad team. We added a Sg who just takes the place of basically the same thing while we lost our vet pg.

They can play ring around the Rosie with Carmelo who cares-- were going to be a top 10 lottery team again with this roster-- even in the shtty east

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=57050

What does building a foundation of youthful players have to do with this post in July? We added some vets as well to compliment the youth Sessions Kanter Beasley--still has nothing to do with this post? We may stink--Im not sure but it doesnt change the foundation

Phil is going to go down as the greatest GM/President in our history. We should all be apologizing to him for not respecting his greatness. You can say what you want about his veteran signings but he never sacrificed our future one iota. We have all of our draft picks as far as the eye can see. We have three (maybe more) great young pieces because of him. Thanks, Phil!

Nothing he did sacrificed our future one iota? You can't be serious. So if he hadn't committed $250 mil to Melo, Lee, and Noah, we would not be in position to make the future even one iota better than it looks now? If that money were available and to be used on FAs in their 20s, the future would not be one iota better?

Can you list the top 10 free agent acquisitions in the Dolan era? You are stats got right? What is the probability that if he hadn't given 250 million to those three pieces of **** Mills/Perry would have given it to three others? I would say around, 90%

Not saying what he did on Melo/Noah/Lee was rational outside of the Lee signing. But the opportunity cost was being way overstated here.

The players that Perry/Mills want to build the team with are all Phil's. Again Phil NOT perfect in anyway--but lets look at the roster today. He started a good foundation. Phil had no win situation from start and anything he said can and would be brought against him and it was! If Mills was calling shots we would have Mudiay and not KP. Mills called shots when we were 24 win team with Jerome James. Thank God we have Perry and Phils man still here to hold his hand or we would be doomed.

martin wrote:

lurts wrote:If Frank turns out to be the player we hope, that is on Phil,too.

I've a theory on the "trade Porzingis" bidness. It was a Zen move, the obvious intent being to show who was the boss, but more.

I think the real point of broadcasting that Phil would listen to offers, though, had to do with all the rumors days before the draft about Dallas' interest in Frank, not the least of which was flipping their picks with Minnesota from nine to seven, ahead of the Knicks at eight.

Minnesota was thought to be interested in Markkanen and generally in need of a big and, thus, could confidently drop behind the Knicks with the assumption NY would take Monk or Smith if Frank was gone.

By putting out that "crazy Phil" notion that Porzingis might be sent out of town, Phil established the possibility that Markkanen might be the natural replacement and therefore not available at the ninth pick.

Of course, matters evolved. Markkanen was picked by Minnesota at seven but then sent off to Chicago in the draft day deal. Whether or not Minnesota actually entertained thoughts of trading with Dallas before the Butler trade developed is not clear. But it would have made sense for Phil to be proactive if he really wanted Frank.

dude! took you 7 years to make a first post! Nice

It was supposed to be the Alba post to end all Alba posts, but the somebody beat me to it.

A) He has previous experience actually DOING the job of being in or running a front office.
B) He has experience with scouting/cap management/dealing with agents/personnel/building relationships with other GMs, and did so with WINNING FRANCHISES
C) He's young enough to actually give the Knicks potential long term stability while on the job, if he works out
D) He has not created a base of enemies in various front offices, agents, owners, other coaches, players and the media like Jackson did
E) He has no "legacy" to protect, he's pretty much a no name outside of inner NBA circles
F) He is NOT trying to push a complicated and controversial offensive system onto the team in place

For EACH AND EVERY REASON THAT THE ABOVE IS DIFFERENT FROM JACKSON IS WHY JACKSON WAS A BAD HIRE IN THE FIRST PLACE

There is NOTHING Jackson did that most entry level NBA interns anywhere in the league could have done, and likely done better.

Some intern could literally walk into the Houston Sloan Sports Conference, zerox everything, interview a few people hoping to get a job, steal their ideas, implement a few and still have done a better job than Jackson.

This is not the NFL or MLB where you have to scout 750 players at a time. The NBA draft is a couple of rounds. Practical free agent targets are limited to probably 6-7 guys max per offseason.

Everything bad is not all his fault, but he did not help himself much, or at all. The Knicks have sucked for so long, Jackson's mediocre job is going to look good to some people.

TripleThreat wrote:Why is Scott Perry a good hire?

A) He has previous experience actually DOING the job of being in or running a front office.
B) He has experience with scouting/cap management/dealing with agents/personnel/building relationships with other GMs, and did so with WINNING FRANCHISES
C) He's young enough to actually give the Knicks potential long term stability while on the job, if he works out
D) He has not created a base of enemies in various front offices, agents, owners, other coaches, players and the media like Jackson did
E) He has no "legacy" to protect, he's pretty much a no name outside of inner NBA circles
F) He is NOT trying to push a complicated and controversial offensive system onto the team in place

For EACH AND EVERY REASON THAT THE ABOVE IS DIFFERENT FROM JACKSON IS WHY JACKSON WAS A BAD HIRE IN THE FIRST PLACE

There is NOTHING Jackson did that most entry level NBA interns anywhere in the league could have done, and likely done better.

Some intern could literally walk into the Houston Sloan Sports Conference, zerox everything, interview a few people hoping to get a job, steal their ideas, implement a few and still have done a better job than Jackson.

This is not the NFL or MLB where you have to scout 750 players at a time. The NBA draft is a couple of rounds. Practical free agent targets are limited to probably 6-7 guys max per offseason.

Everything bad is not all his fault, but he did not help himself much, or at all. The Knicks have sucked for so long, Jackson's mediocre job is going to look good to some people.

We had to have Phil Jackson to get to the place we are today. As painful and costly as it was I wouldn't take it back. He was an imperfect bridge to where we are now.

nixluva wrote:We had to have Phil Jackson to get to the place we are today. As painful and costly as it was I wouldn't take it back. He was an imperfect bridge to where we are now.

No, actually the Knicks did not. Scott Perry has been waiting a long time for his shot. He's 53 now. He was a good candidate for this job at 49 as much as he was at 53.

The place the Knicks are today is based on many instances where Jackson took a bad situation he inherited ( not his fault) and then proceeded to make it worse for no reason ( his own damn fault)

Perry would NOT HAVE traded away positive assets in Robin Lopez (fantastic value contract, actually wanted to be here, helped in every facet) and Jerian Grant ( not a factor that Grant did not pan out, there is a principle issue of immediately trading cost controlled drafted players when it's unclear yet what you have with them) for an injury prone off the court distraction and no defense / no 3 ball shooting ball hog. Perry would not have signed Noah. Perry would probably not have signed Lee. Perry would not have given Melo a NTC. On and on and on.

Perry would have had this franchise in an infinitely better place if he started without Phil Jackson's legacy.

Why are people immediately assuming Jackson = Porzingis?

The variability if Jackson was not here could have been worse but it also could have been better. I'd lay ODDS that a guy actually TRAINED FOR THE FREAKING JOB would probably do better.

Only Dolan can be this stupid. Hire someone who was ACTUALLY TRAINED FOR THE JOB. How hard is that?

I need a brain surgeon here, or this person on the table will die. Oh, you are install window panes? HIRED. Oh, you deal with the stock market? HIRED ON THE SPOT. Oh, you are a runaway model? SIGN HERE FOR MILLIONS TO TAKE OVER!

Only the Knicks can take something difficult and simply MAKE IT HARDER FOR NO REASON AT ALL. INSANELY HARDER THAN IT HAS TO BE.

Everyone has a right to their opinion and fandom. But are people here going to really argue that a 70-ish egomaniac with NO PREVIOUS FRONT OFFICE EXPERIENCE, with built in enemies around the league and pushing a complicated and controversial offense onto the team was the absolute best choice to run personnel on this team after an agonizing long stretch of losing and suffering?

I have a neighbor who got married at 45 years old. He was lonely, he was tired, he didn't have much luck with women. But he was weary of the prospect of dying alone. So he married the first aging rode out chick who showed some interest in him. Mostly because he had a house and a pension. ( Trick to golddigging whores, you don't need to be a billionaire like Warren Buffet, you just need way more than them) Before he got divorced and cleaned out and got kicked out of the house he paid for, he told me, as he was packing his 4 boxes of stuff to shove in his car, so he could probably live out of his car on the free way, that he ignored all the red flags, but it all looked pretty good back then, because it was BETTER THAN WHAT HE THOUGHT HE HAD AT THE TIME.

Not just an NBA concept, not just a pro sports concept, but a life concept. You don't make a big decision based on it just happening to be better than the crap festival you've had so far up to that point. Just because Jackson was better than Zeke ( how hard is that really?) doesn't mean he was the right choice. The Knicks needed the RIGHT ANSWER, not the slightly better answer at the time.

The RIGHT ANSWER is not about absolute results, it's about putting the odds in your favor and creating opportunity. Hiring a 49-53 year old over a 70ish guy is putting the odds in your favor. Hiring a guy who won't shove a complicated and controversial offense onto you is putting the odds in your favor. Hiring a guy who actually was TRAINED FOR THE JOB is putting the odds in your favor.

"Phil Jackson was the only choice we had ever!"

No, no, he was not.