Future is now for Thomas
BY FRANK ISOLA
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER
Friday, January 19th, 2007

James Dolan still has not explained exactly what he means by "evident progress," that vague term the chairman of Madison Square Garden has used since last June when discussing Isiah Thomas' future employment.

With tonight's game against the Nets, Thomas will have reached the midway point of his make-or-break season. Regardless of the result, the Knicks (17-23) will have a losing record after 41 games. But they do seem to be making progress.

Under Thomas, the Knicks clearly are better than last year's disastrous 23-win team and likely will exceed that victory total by 10. But is that good enough?

Thomas, now the Knicks' president/coach, set the bar high for himself by firing Hall of Fame coach Lenny Wilkens two years ago despite Wilkens' 40-41 record. And the team Wilkens inherited didn't have nearly the talent Thomas has at his disposal. Plus, the Eastern Conference was stronger two years ago.

Thomas should be held to the same standard. But that's where things get tricky. Larry Brown now becomes Thomas' strongest ally because Thomas is being judged against his predecessor.

Barring an unforeseen collapse and taking into account how smitten Dolan is with Thomas, once the Knicks crack 30 wins, Thomas is a lock to receive an extension. Some believe that Dolan already has made the decision to keep Thomas.

There are many reasons why the Knicks have enjoyed more success under Thomas. I'm just not buying the theory that it all comes down to better team chemistry. The Knicks opened 2006 with a six-game winning streak, beating Phoenix and Dallas along the way. Stephon Marbury had bought into Brown's system and was playing at a high level before suffering a left shoulder injury.

Marbury also sat out with a bum knee. From Jan.18 through the end of the season, the Knicks' best player missed 22 games and the team went 5-17 without him.

Chemistry had nothing to do with Eddy Curry showing up grossly out of shape and missing 10 games due to injury and illness. The Knicks went 3-7 without Curry. Is chemistry the reason why David Lee is so valuable to the Knicks or is it that he is stronger, better and a year wiser? Obviously if Thomas knew what to expect from Lee, he never would have given Jared Jeffries $30 million.

And it is impossible to measure how much easier it is for a coach to perform his duties when he has the full support of management. The mistrust between Thomas and Brown first surfaced in November 2005 and the situation deteriorated from there. Neither one handled himself well.

All that matters now is where Thomas takes the team from here. The Knicks, owners of the league's highest payroll, should be one of the top eight teams in the Eastern Conference. Right now you can rank them anywhere between third and sixth, with Detroit and a healthy Miami the only clubs that are head-and-shoulders above the rest.

Thomas' strength thus far is that his players give him effort every night. That is the least you should expect from millionaire ballplayers, but that is not always the case.

The jury is still out as to how far Thomas can take this group. With the Pacers, Thomas' teams never advanced out of the first round of the playoffs despite being the higher seed in two of the three series.

Defensively, his team still has a lot to prove. Yes, the Knicks shut down Gilbert Arenas on Wednesday, but they also gave up a go-ahead layup to Antawn Jamison with 20 seconds left, followed by Caron Butler's uncontested dunk with 2.2 seconds to play. That is something you rarely see. Who knows if the Knicks will ever be an above-average defensive team?

Perhaps the single greatest task facing Thomas is finding a bona fide superstar within the next two to three years. Think about what Ray Allen could do for the Knicks. Kevin Garnett is probably a pipe dream. But there must be someone out there who can take the Knicks deep into the playoffs and maybe even to a title.

Now that would be evident progress.

isola's stealing from me. i'm suing.

And it is impossible to measure how much easier it is for a coach to perform his duties when he has the full support of management.

It must be impossible to measure how much easier it is to win when you have a coach trying to win too! What was Brown's quote? Something like "I'm not concerned with wins and losses"

Posted by oohah:

The Knicks have had more injury problems this year. And suspensions to boot

injuries are a role of the dice. not sure how it was originally referenced (i.e. not singling you out oohah) but it happens to everyone and is impossible to quantify, so no point arguing over it.

suspensions are our own fault though. no one to blame but ourselves. if we miss the playoffs by a few games, the suspensions are NOT an excuse.

I am still waiting for any evidence, rather than speculation that Isiah didn't support Brown. We have plenty of evidence he did support Brown:

Exhibit A: Steve Francis
Exhibit B: Jalen Rose
Exhibit C: Public vote of confidence "We're rolling with the coach."

at risk of "getting into it" with oohah...

what evidence would convince you that IT didn't support LB? trades that didn't happen (i.e. eric snow/other LB types)? trades LB would have had to come out publically against? are statements to the press actually evidence? of what people are really thinking?

But we know very factually that Brown did not support Isiah.

it really seems like you hold people who disagree with you to higher standards of proof than yourself...

for example, i couldn't tell you what the above facts are. rumors and quips in the press are NOT facts. i follow this team pretty good. if i cannot think of a *fact* myself that shows Brown did not support IT, it's probably not as convincing as you think. or maybe i need to start with the coffee.

[a few minutes later...]

having thought more about it, the best i can come up with are the *reports* that LB was making trade proposals behind IT's back. ignoring the reliability of those reports, is that clear evidence that LB didn't support IT? or the other way around?

Posted by djsunyc:

isiah took a powder, didn't talk to the press for 2 months and let lb and steph wage a PR war. yeah, he was supportive.

That to me is what doomed everything. Our superstar PG is fighting and rebelling. Our hall of fame coach is bickering back and rebelling as well. And our GM is sitting by watching it all as his team crumbled. All the while everyone is pointing fingers blaming someone. Talk about a leadership vaccuum.

That's why I'm so confused as to why I'm so confused as to why people are comparing this year to last year. If that were to happen again you would have to get rid of everyone. In no way did I think somehting that drastic was possible. So when I said 35-38 wins this is the type of ball I expected. It's very similar to what I expected last year as well. It's amazing to me that last year is included in any conversation that doesn't end with "better not happen again"

Toughness

Isiah should be fined for every minute that he plays Jerome.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 01-20-2007 10:08 PM]

injuries are a role of the dice. not sure how it was originally referenced (i.e. not singling you out oohah) but it happens to everyone and is impossible to quantify, so no point arguing over it.

suspensions are our own fault though. no one to blame but ourselves. if we miss the playoffs by a few games, the suspensions are NOT an excuse.

Who is making excuses? The fault of the suspensions is immaterial. It is adversity. And the Knicks responded well to it, so no excuse could be made in regards to the suspensions. My point is that they responded instead of folded.

at risk of "getting into it" with oohah...

what evidence would convince you that IT didn't support LB? trades that didn't happen (i.e. eric snow/other LB types)? trades LB would have had to come out publically against? are statements to the press actually evidence? of what people are really thinking?

I'm kind of lost on what you mean here.

I'd have to say I am tired of these conversations that state that IT did not support LB because he didn't make every single trade LB wanted. A coach getting every player he desires is simply not realistic, regardless of who is GM'ing or what their relationship is.

I don't know what would convince me, but I would at least entertain the idea that IT did not support LB if there was any evidence other than what we might speculate about. Even if it was LB making the statement, but he hasn't made any statements to that effect. Again, any evidence from persons who were actually involved, anecdotal or otherwise might at least suggest that there might be some proof to saying that IT did not support LB.

And why wouldn't IT support LB? Is there anything about an LB meltdown that benefits IT? Wasn't the coach signed for 5 years/50 million? Wouldn't LB winning actually benefit IT?

it really seems like you hold people who disagree with you to higher standards of proof than yourself...

That is simply out of left field. I support my arguments with tangible evidence more than most around here. If you can show me how I hold others to a higher standard of proof than I hold myself to when presenting my arguments, I sure would like to see it.

it really seems like you hold people who disagree with you to higher standards of proof than yourself...

for example, i couldn't tell you what the above facts are. rumors and quips in the press are NOT facts. i follow this team pretty good. if i cannot think of a *fact* myself that shows Brown did not support IT, it's probably not as convincing as you think. or maybe i need to start with the coffee.

[a few minutes later...]

having thought more about it, the best i can come up with are the *reports* that LB was making trade proposals behind IT's back. ignoring the reliability of those reports, is that clear evidence that LB didn't support IT? or the other way around?

It isn't "just a report" when the owner or GM of a team publicly states that a coach breeched his contract, by for example repeatedly initiating trade talks behind the GM's back, then the coach never denies it, then loses badly in the following contract dispute.

In addition, LB's constant tearing at the individual players on the team in the press in violation of his contract is pretty factual. Then when you add in that the owner GM of the team state this fact then beat the coach badly in a contract dispute, we can pretty much call it factual. While we were not *actually there*, it holds a lot more water than merely stating that Isiah did not support LB with nothing, not even anecdotal evidence from parties that are involved.

***

It seems pretty obvious to me that these Isiah did not support LB arguments contradict themselves (I am not singling you out here either.). Here is how they go: Isiah is a fool because the buck stops with him and he should have not gotten Steve Francis and Rose even though LB asked for them (LB stated this in the press, as did Dolan and Isiah, so I think we can accept this as fact, yes?). Isiah should have known better.

However, Isiah did not support LB because he did not make every trade that LB wanted happen, such as Ratliff or Snow(By the way, how often does a GM make 4-5 trades in a season?) And such trades would have been very short-sighted, as Snow and Ratliff have never been exceptional players and are well on the downside of their career.

In addition, I would say that a GM publicly stating that his players will have to adjust to the coach factually constitutes support to me.

oohah

Posted by djsunyc:

isiah took a powder, didn't talk to the press for 2 months and let lb and steph wage a PR war. yeah, he was supportive.

Really, that's how you remember it? Here is how I remember it:

LB publicly took shots at Marbury for 2 months at least with out Marbury firing back, then Marbury finally lost his cool and shot his mouth of to the press, then a day or two later made conciliatory remarks and clammed up with the hostility, obviously having been disciplined by Knicks management.

And I believe not long after that IT made his "rolling with the coach" comments.

Does that sound about right or do you remember it a different way?

oohah

Just improve (and win) baby