CrushAlot wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:We can all say we'd hire Jackson in retrospect but if you had a 23 win, $100+ million roster in the media capital of the world, would you hire a rookie head coach with no coaching experience AT ALL? Unlikely.

Absolutely but Mark is one of my favorite knicks and I think his character and knowledge were underrated at the time. I also think Walsh would have hired him. Mark is from NYC, was a Knick twice, and was broadcasting Net games at the time. Walsh had a chance to do something a little risky that would have most likely turned out great.

Smarts don't always translate to success in any respective field. Some of the smartest people I know I functionally retarded. It takes a combination of intellect and resourcefulness to get anything done. Clearly, Jackson had what it takes to be a solid NBA coach but he could very well be the aberration to the rule and could've had much different results in NYC. This place has eaten Hall of Fame coaches alive (see Larry Brown, Lenny Wilkins, Hubie Brown, etc.) so I'd be hesitant to hand things over to a rookie coach without coaching experience, especially one that I like as a person (or at least who I assume he is as a person).

Walsh knew him from his time in Indiana and wanted him before D'Antoni became available. The guy had quite a pedigree. He played point guard for JVG in three places because Jeff was so impressed with him as a player and high character guy. I think he was as close to a sure thing as there was but I have always been a big fan of Mark.

To each his own I suppose. Some solid NBA coaches that had coaching experience beforehand, got off to really rocky starts in their head coaching career like Mike D'Antoni. He ended up getting fired in Denver and sent adrift before resurrecting his career/reputation in Phoenix. Because of the nature of the game, coaches are always the first to be sacrificed when things go south and often times it isn't even their fault. I think the averaging coaching career for a coach with a franchise is only 2-3 seasons, which isn't enough time to learn on the job especially with so much competition for only 30 spots. I think Jackson was able to beat the odds in GS because the expectations were so low and he so well liked, that they were willing to grow with him. I doubt that happens in NY.

I always wondered if Mark would have brought Pat in as an assistant. I also wondered if Pat would take an assistant job under Mark.

I don't think so, since Patrick's been job hunting ever since Stan Van Gundy got fired and has gotten no bites. It still perplexes me though that we haven't gone after Patrick now that we're building a more conventional lineup. Tyson and Amar'e, IMO, could learn a lot about post moves from him.

And for all the talk about Chandler not having an offensive game, he came into the league as a Kevin Garnett prototype. I suppose its unfair to think that anything he did in high school would translate to the NBA but the tools were definitely there. I personally think that the NBA forces guys to specialize their skills to a role as opposed to developing their games uniformly, unless they are a star of course. There is no reason why a guy that athletic should not have a move or two that he can go to in order to score.

NardDogNation wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:We can all say we'd hire Jackson in retrospect but if you had a 23 win, $100+ million roster in the media capital of the world, would you hire a rookie head coach with no coaching experience AT ALL? Unlikely.

Absolutely but Mark is one of my favorite knicks and I think his character and knowledge were underrated at the time. I also think Walsh would have hired him. Mark is from NYC, was a Knick twice, and was broadcasting Net games at the time. Walsh had a chance to do something a little risky that would have most likely turned out great.

Smarts don't always translate to success in any respective field. Some of the smartest people I know I functionally retarded. It takes a combination of intellect and resourcefulness to get anything done. Clearly, Jackson had what it takes to be a solid NBA coach but he could very well be the aberration to the rule and could've had much different results in NYC. This place has eaten Hall of Fame coaches alive (see Larry Brown, Lenny Wilkins, Hubie Brown, etc.) so I'd be hesitant to hand things over to a rookie coach without coaching experience, especially one that I like as a person (or at least who I assume he is as a person).

Walsh knew him from his time in Indiana and wanted him before D'Antoni became available. The guy had quite a pedigree. He played point guard for JVG in three places because Jeff was so impressed with him as a player and high character guy. I think he was as close to a sure thing as there was but I have always been a big fan of Mark.

To each his own I suppose. Some solid NBA coaches that had coaching experience beforehand, got off to really rocky starts in their head coaching career like Mike D'Antoni. He ended up getting fired in Denver and sent adrift before resurrecting his career/reputation in Phoenix. Because of the nature of the game, coaches are always the first to be sacrificed when things go south and often times it isn't even their fault. I think the averaging coaching career for a coach with a franchise is only 2-3 seasons, which isn't enough time to learn on the job especially with so much competition for only 30 spots. I think Jackson was able to beat the odds in GS because the expectations were so low and he so well liked, that they were willing to grow with him. I doubt that happens in NY.

I always wondered if Mark would have brought Pat in as an assistant. I also wondered if Pat would take an assistant job under Mark.

I don't think so, since Patrick's been job hunting ever since Stan Van Gundy got fired and has gotten no bites. It still perplexes me though that we haven't gone after Patrick now that we're building a more conventional lineup. Tyson and Amar'e, IMO, could learn a lot about post moves from him.

And for all the talk about Chandler not having an offensive game, he came into the league as a Kevin Garnett prototype. I suppose its unfair to think that anything he did in high school would translate to the NBA but the tools were definitely there. I personally think that the NBA forces guys to specialize their skills to a role as opposed to developing their games uniformly, unless they are a star of course. There is no reason why a guy that athletic should not have a move or two that he can go to in order to score.

ewing never developed footwork so what could he teach? he shunned pete newell while both hakeem and shaq went to be coached.

ewing has stunted dwight howard's career, who finally saw the light and tried, perhaps too late, to learn from hakeem.

stoudemire went to hakeem.
bryant went to hakeem.
lebron went to hakeem.
hibbert went to duncan.

nobody is seeking out ewing for help with a post game so why would the knicks or anyone else. if ewing should be sought out for anything it would be to develop a baseline fadeaway jump shot.

the reason why chandler is so limited is for one thing he has bad hands. and he may well lack the coordination to develop proper footwork anyway.

dk7th wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:We can all say we'd hire Jackson in retrospect but if you had a 23 win, $100+ million roster in the media capital of the world, would you hire a rookie head coach with no coaching experience AT ALL? Unlikely.

Absolutely but Mark is one of my favorite knicks and I think his character and knowledge were underrated at the time. I also think Walsh would have hired him. Mark is from NYC, was a Knick twice, and was broadcasting Net games at the time. Walsh had a chance to do something a little risky that would have most likely turned out great.

Smarts don't always translate to success in any respective field. Some of the smartest people I know I functionally retarded. It takes a combination of intellect and resourcefulness to get anything done. Clearly, Jackson had what it takes to be a solid NBA coach but he could very well be the aberration to the rule and could've had much different results in NYC. This place has eaten Hall of Fame coaches alive (see Larry Brown, Lenny Wilkins, Hubie Brown, etc.) so I'd be hesitant to hand things over to a rookie coach without coaching experience, especially one that I like as a person (or at least who I assume he is as a person).

Walsh knew him from his time in Indiana and wanted him before D'Antoni became available. The guy had quite a pedigree. He played point guard for JVG in three places because Jeff was so impressed with him as a player and high character guy. I think he was as close to a sure thing as there was but I have always been a big fan of Mark.

To each his own I suppose. Some solid NBA coaches that had coaching experience beforehand, got off to really rocky starts in their head coaching career like Mike D'Antoni. He ended up getting fired in Denver and sent adrift before resurrecting his career/reputation in Phoenix. Because of the nature of the game, coaches are always the first to be sacrificed when things go south and often times it isn't even their fault. I think the averaging coaching career for a coach with a franchise is only 2-3 seasons, which isn't enough time to learn on the job especially with so much competition for only 30 spots. I think Jackson was able to beat the odds in GS because the expectations were so low and he so well liked, that they were willing to grow with him. I doubt that happens in NY.

I always wondered if Mark would have brought Pat in as an assistant. I also wondered if Pat would take an assistant job under Mark.

I don't think so, since Patrick's been job hunting ever since Stan Van Gundy got fired and has gotten no bites. It still perplexes me though that we haven't gone after Patrick now that we're building a more conventional lineup. Tyson and Amar'e, IMO, could learn a lot about post moves from him.

And for all the talk about Chandler not having an offensive game, he came into the league as a Kevin Garnett prototype. I suppose its unfair to think that anything he did in high school would translate to the NBA but the tools were definitely there. I personally think that the NBA forces guys to specialize their skills to a role as opposed to developing their games uniformly, unless they are a star of course. There is no reason why a guy that athletic should not have a move or two that he can go to in order to score.

ewing never developed footwork so what could he teach? he shunned pete newell while both hakeem and shaq went to be coached.

ewing has stunted dwight howard's career, who finally saw the light and tried, perhaps too late, to learn from hakeem.

stoudemire went to hakeem.
bryant went to hakeem.
lebron went to hakeem.
hibbert went to duncan.

nobody is seeking out ewing for help with a post game so why would the knicks or anyone else. if ewing should be sought out for anything it would be to develop a baseline fadeaway jump shot.

the reason why chandler is so limited is for one thing he has bad hands. and he may well lack the coordination to develop proper footwork anyway.

Nalod wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Nalod wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Silverfuel wrote:Wow, just read a page of posts where NardDogNation is schooling posters. Walsh definitely hurt the Knicks. That Amare contract is going to kill the next 2 years.

Really think Walsh was the driver to bring in Amare? You really think this is a signiture Walsh move? With everything you know about Dolan, the starphuch manifest, and impatience that this is the kind of contract he would build his legacy on to return to new york and bring a championship?

Everyone entitled to his opinion.

Yes. He(Walsh) even stated as so, back in 2010 that he was going to sign 1 maybe 2 free agents with the cap space HE freed up for the Knicks the last few years. He said Lebron was one Plan A, then he said he Plan B etc.

Plan A) Lebron B)Wade C)Bosh or Boozer D)Nowitzki E)Kobe F)Joe Johnson etc....Z)Amare Stoudemire

All his contingency plans fell through the sewer as everyone shafted the Knicks...Walsh signed STAT in desperation to save face.

Lets be clear, the record speaks for itself so Im not here to defend the legacy, just my interpretation.

I am forever thinking that an owner is the ultimate driver of a team. Nobody signs a 100million player with the health issues and insurance issues without the owners blessing. There are countless owners who are involved in many phases of decisions and I would have to say that the one constant thru the Jimmy era is the starphuch.

Ultimately the job of a president or GM is to take the hit for owner becuase the brand identity has to continue when a change is made. We celebrated Layden departure, Isiah's arrival, his departure, Donnie, and all the coach's over the years because we love our team. When the owner becomes the defacto face of the franchise there is a bigger problem because he won't go away so fast. Cube has made a positive impact and he has his trophy, as did Al Davis of the Raiders, but when it goes bad its hard to wipe the image away unless you hire people around you and fade away.

LIke Steinbrenner did. After a great run in the late 70's George had pissed off Reggie, made the whole Winfield debacle a mess and when he stepped away and let baseball people run things they became a modern dynasty!

Dolan is awful and he won't put his face on the franchise which is a good thing, but that does not mean he does not have big imput thru the organization.

NY and the Knicks have to take a big approach to be successful. Knicks have to compete with other entertainment to attract the $. There are 3 NHL teams, another NBA team, Two NFL teams, Two MLB teams, and minor league baseball and pro soccer. Indy has the Colts and the Pacers. Portand has the Blazers. OKC is also a one team city.

Back to Walsh and the job he did, my take is if you look at the way the Pacers were constructed over the many years there were few where they were bad. Even Isiah as the coach was a regular season success. Walsh's teams were tough and home grown and while no championships, in teh same time frame we did not win either.

So the real question is "who to blame" becomes the real focus? Since Checketts was let go we as fans love to blame the coach's (a long list) and Grunfeld, Layden, Isiah, Donnie and in time Grunfeld will get his. The one constant has been the owner. Dolan made the presentation to Lebron, Dolan was the one who finished the Melo trade when Walsh was resisting the price. Im going to guess Dolan had his hand in Amare. Donnie is long gone.

I started this thread not to rub in the face the knicks were going down but the view that Donnie/Bird have had a long vision and system to which their teams are built. Even bringing in Vogel, the youngest NBA coach and one without the star power is much different than what the knicks do. Woodson was not a starphuch but MDA and to me was a solid addition. The kind of non star moves we should be making!

With Hill's concussion its a sudden turn that gives a glimmer of hope that maybe we can turn this around and in the end the knicks will prevail and Walsh won't have the laugh.

Walsh was at the helm when we signed Amare so if you want to pin it on him I guess its fair game. He has proven to be an organizational kind of guy who never said a bad word about the team or Dolan. He played the MSG game as it is written.

A guy like that I defend because he returned order to the team and paved the way for what we have now. Love my knicks but don't love this roster. That don't make me a hater, its just my take.

I am discouraged the knicks fiscal health is not consistant with what hard core fans want.

So your call is that it's was Dolan's idea to bring in Amare and not Walsh's idea...Or Since Dolan has to sign off on a 100 mil contract, it is ultimately his decision???

Im inclined to think so.

Teflon Donnie...

Nalod wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Nalod wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Nalod wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Silverfuel wrote:Wow, just read a page of posts where NardDogNation is schooling posters. Walsh definitely hurt the Knicks. That Amare contract is going to kill the next 2 years.

Really think Walsh was the driver to bring in Amare? You really think this is a signiture Walsh move? With everything you know about Dolan, the starphuch manifest, and impatience that this is the kind of contract he would build his legacy on to return to new york and bring a championship?

Everyone entitled to his opinion.

Yes. He(Walsh) even stated as so, back in 2010 that he was going to sign 1 maybe 2 free agents with the cap space HE freed up for the Knicks the last few years. He said Lebron was one Plan A, then he said he Plan B etc.

Plan A) Lebron B)Wade C)Bosh or Boozer D)Nowitzki E)Kobe F)Joe Johnson etc....Z)Amare Stoudemire

All his contingency plans fell through the sewer as everyone shafted the Knicks...Walsh signed STAT in desperation to save face.

Lets be clear, the record speaks for itself so Im not here to defend the legacy, just my interpretation.

I am forever thinking that an owner is the ultimate driver of a team. Nobody signs a 100million player with the health issues and insurance issues without the owners blessing. There are countless owners who are involved in many phases of decisions and I would have to say that the one constant thru the Jimmy era is the starphuch.

Ultimately the job of a president or GM is to take the hit for owner becuase the brand identity has to continue when a change is made. We celebrated Layden departure, Isiah's arrival, his departure, Donnie, and all the coach's over the years because we love our team. When the owner becomes the defacto face of the franchise there is a bigger problem because he won't go away so fast. Cube has made a positive impact and he has his trophy, as did Al Davis of the Raiders, but when it goes bad its hard to wipe the image away unless you hire people around you and fade away.

LIke Steinbrenner did. After a great run in the late 70's George had pissed off Reggie, made the whole Winfield debacle a mess and when he stepped away and let baseball people run things they became a modern dynasty!

Dolan is awful and he won't put his face on the franchise which is a good thing, but that does not mean he does not have big imput thru the organization.

NY and the Knicks have to take a big approach to be successful. Knicks have to compete with other entertainment to attract the $. There are 3 NHL teams, another NBA team, Two NFL teams, Two MLB teams, and minor league baseball and pro soccer. Indy has the Colts and the Pacers. Portand has the Blazers. OKC is also a one team city.

Back to Walsh and the job he did, my take is if you look at the way the Pacers were constructed over the many years there were few where they were bad. Even Isiah as the coach was a regular season success. Walsh's teams were tough and home grown and while no championships, in teh same time frame we did not win either.

So the real question is "who to blame" becomes the real focus? Since Checketts was let go we as fans love to blame the coach's (a long list) and Grunfeld, Layden, Isiah, Donnie and in time Grunfeld will get his. The one constant has been the owner. Dolan made the presentation to Lebron, Dolan was the one who finished the Melo trade when Walsh was resisting the price. Im going to guess Dolan had his hand in Amare. Donnie is long gone.

I started this thread not to rub in the face the knicks were going down but the view that Donnie/Bird have had a long vision and system to which their teams are built. Even bringing in Vogel, the youngest NBA coach and one without the star power is much different than what the knicks do. Woodson was not a starphuch but MDA and to me was a solid addition. The kind of non star moves we should be making!

With Hill's concussion its a sudden turn that gives a glimmer of hope that maybe we can turn this around and in the end the knicks will prevail and Walsh won't have the laugh.

Walsh was at the helm when we signed Amare so if you want to pin it on him I guess its fair game. He has proven to be an organizational kind of guy who never said a bad word about the team or Dolan. He played the MSG game as it is written.

A guy like that I defend because he returned order to the team and paved the way for what we have now. Love my knicks but don't love this roster. That don't make me a hater, its just my take.

I am discouraged the knicks fiscal health is not consistant with what hard core fans want.

So your call is that it's was Dolan's idea to bring in Amare and not Walsh's idea...Or Since Dolan has to sign off on a 100 mil contract, it is ultimately his decision???

Im inclined to think so.

Teflon Donnie...

When you have different faces with different failures yet Dolan is the one constant lacking patience, one has to make assumptions.

I don't absolve Layden or Donnie for the misdeeds but in retrospect the organizational failures to me are the cause for bad decisions to be made. They are symptoms for dysfunction.

The Marbury trade has been chronicled as one that was on Laydens desk and Isiah pulled the trigger as his first move. This is a very curious moment and one I'd love to know more about how the decision was made. Few GM's are fired mid year which Dolan did and bought in Isiah in December. Very strange. Then he rids himself of Chaney with no replacement lined up. He goes to negotiations with Fratello and when he get it done.

CrushAlot wrote:

Nalod wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Nalod wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Nalod wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Silverfuel wrote:Wow, just read a page of posts where NardDogNation is schooling posters. Walsh definitely hurt the Knicks. That Amare contract is going to kill the next 2 years.

Really think Walsh was the driver to bring in Amare? You really think this is a signiture Walsh move? With everything you know about Dolan, the starphuch manifest, and impatience that this is the kind of contract he would build his legacy on to return to new york and bring a championship?

Everyone entitled to his opinion.

Yes. He(Walsh) even stated as so, back in 2010 that he was going to sign 1 maybe 2 free agents with the cap space HE freed up for the Knicks the last few years. He said Lebron was one Plan A, then he said he Plan B etc.

Plan A) Lebron B)Wade C)Bosh or Boozer D)Nowitzki E)Kobe F)Joe Johnson etc....Z)Amare Stoudemire

All his contingency plans fell through the sewer as everyone shafted the Knicks...Walsh signed STAT in desperation to save face.

Lets be clear, the record speaks for itself so Im not here to defend the legacy, just my interpretation.

I am forever thinking that an owner is the ultimate driver of a team. Nobody signs a 100million player with the health issues and insurance issues without the owners blessing. There are countless owners who are involved in many phases of decisions and I would have to say that the one constant thru the Jimmy era is the starphuch.

Ultimately the job of a president or GM is to take the hit for owner becuase the brand identity has to continue when a change is made. We celebrated Layden departure, Isiah's arrival, his departure, Donnie, and all the coach's over the years because we love our team. When the owner becomes the defacto face of the franchise there is a bigger problem because he won't go away so fast. Cube has made a positive impact and he has his trophy, as did Al Davis of the Raiders, but when it goes bad its hard to wipe the image away unless you hire people around you and fade away.

LIke Steinbrenner did. After a great run in the late 70's George had pissed off Reggie, made the whole Winfield debacle a mess and when he stepped away and let baseball people run things they became a modern dynasty!

Dolan is awful and he won't put his face on the franchise which is a good thing, but that does not mean he does not have big imput thru the organization.

NY and the Knicks have to take a big approach to be successful. Knicks have to compete with other entertainment to attract the $. There are 3 NHL teams, another NBA team, Two NFL teams, Two MLB teams, and minor league baseball and pro soccer. Indy has the Colts and the Pacers. Portand has the Blazers. OKC is also a one team city.

Back to Walsh and the job he did, my take is if you look at the way the Pacers were constructed over the many years there were few where they were bad. Even Isiah as the coach was a regular season success. Walsh's teams were tough and home grown and while no championships, in teh same time frame we did not win either.

So the real question is "who to blame" becomes the real focus? Since Checketts was let go we as fans love to blame the coach's (a long list) and Grunfeld, Layden, Isiah, Donnie and in time Grunfeld will get his. The one constant has been the owner. Dolan made the presentation to Lebron, Dolan was the one who finished the Melo trade when Walsh was resisting the price. Im going to guess Dolan had his hand in Amare. Donnie is long gone.

I started this thread not to rub in the face the knicks were going down but the view that Donnie/Bird have had a long vision and system to which their teams are built. Even bringing in Vogel, the youngest NBA coach and one without the star power is much different than what the knicks do. Woodson was not a starphuch but MDA and to me was a solid addition. The kind of non star moves we should be making!

With Hill's concussion its a sudden turn that gives a glimmer of hope that maybe we can turn this around and in the end the knicks will prevail and Walsh won't have the laugh.

Walsh was at the helm when we signed Amare so if you want to pin it on him I guess its fair game. He has proven to be an organizational kind of guy who never said a bad word about the team or Dolan. He played the MSG game as it is written.

A guy like that I defend because he returned order to the team and paved the way for what we have now. Love my knicks but don't love this roster. That don't make me a hater, its just my take.

I am discouraged the knicks fiscal health is not consistant with what hard core fans want.

So your call is that it's was Dolan's idea to bring in Amare and not Walsh's idea...Or Since Dolan has to sign off on a 100 mil contract, it is ultimately his decision???

Im inclined to think so.

Teflon Donnie...

When you have different faces with different failures yet Dolan is the one constant lacking patience, one has to make assumptions.

I don't absolve Layden or Donnie for the misdeeds but in retrospect the organizational failures to me are the cause for bad decisions to be made. They are symptoms for dysfunction.

The Marbury trade has been chronicled as one that was on Laydens desk and Isiah pulled the trigger as his first move. This is a very curious moment and one I'd love to know more about how the decision was made. Few GM's are fired mid year which Dolan did and bought in Isiah in December. Very strange. Then he rids himself of Chaney with no replacement lined up. He goes to negotiations with Fratello and when he get it done.

I disagree because each of the previous 3 gms had very different styles. Layden chased high character role player types, especially guys from Utah. Isiah was a flavor of the month gm making constant moves and acquiring talented guys with bad contracts and character flaws. Walsh cleared guys out. If they didn't get along with the coach they were moved faster. He had an endgame in mind and when it failed signed Amare. I actually think Dolan is pretty hands off in his approach to running the team. I don't think he liked being told he had to hire Donnie and relieve Isiah of his duties but I think the moves Walsh made were his own.

if walsh was behind the d'antoni hire then i would say that was his biggest mistake, because your first move has a ripple effect on all that follows. it makes me wonder why he didn't pursue mark jackson, a point guard who actually played for walsh. and with that it makes me now question after all this time, whether he was actually behind the d'antoni hire and not dolan, the latter being a notorious name chaser. until walsh writes his memoir we will never know.

dk7th wrote:"teflon" is a very negative spin for a guy like walsh. he practiced law so he has a practiced neutrality to the way he conveys information, which comes across perhaps even as a sort of non-commitment. i know you may find that maddening but it does not mean that you can equate his work for the knicks as crap.

you also need to remember that walsh came on board with the understanding that dolan would not be allowed to meddle as the franchise simultaneously demolished and remade. you can't do that in anything less than two years, and with that, any expectations of the knicks being a winning team had to be suspended. yet some of you guys want to excoriate poor d'antoni for those first two seasons. very unfair.

eventually dolan, once the poo-poo that he and isiah was cleaned up by a competent adult, could not help himself. dolan is our version of kim jong un.

The following is a list of the Pacers record the four seasons before Walsh came to New York:
2007-2008: 36-46
2006-2007: 35-47
2005-2006: 41-41
2004-2005: 44-38

As we can clearly see, the Pacers were nothing special under Walsh, drafting/signing familiar rookie busts David Harrison (over Anderson Varejao), Saranus Jasikevicius and Shawne Williams (over RAJON RONDO, Kyle Lowry and Paul Millsap) during that span. Dude was nothing great at this point in his career, which was reflected in the Pacers piss poor record. It took Larry Bird 3 seasons and 3 coaches to clean that mess up, so lets stop pretending that Walsh is some sage guru playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers. His tenure here in New York was similarly mediocre and was only saved because Melo wanted to come to New York.

CrushAlot wrote:I agree about Walsh hiring D'Antoni. Trying to make that hire work and seem like the right one ruined his tenure in NY in my opinion.

I still think D'Antoni was the right hire under the circumstances. That gimmicky offense of his artificially inflates players' market value, which is huge for a roster coming off a 23 win season AND $100+ million payroll. Just to piggyback off of my last post, Shawne Williams has been a bust for all intents and purposes. The ONE productive season he ever had came under Mike D'Antoni during that 2010-2011 season. On that same note, Chris Duhon is one of the worst PG's in the entire league and currently owns a $3million/yr, multi-year contract because of two good seasons: one came during his rookie year and the other came during his first season in NY, where he currently holds the title for most assists in a game as a Knick (22). D'Antoni has a long history of rehabilitating guys careers and making fool's gold look better than they are (see Eddie House, Tim Thomas, Boris Diaw, etc.).

I don't think he was the right coach for us if we wanted to win a title but Rome isn't built in a day. We were a bottom dwelling lottery team and needed to take a few steps to even entertain that notion. D'Antoni is perfect as a good transitionery coach to help move bad contracts and attract players to serve as our core. But, he is no doubt the "jump off" equivalent of a NBA coach. Our main problem is that we hired another "jump off" coach after D'Antoni, when we should've been looking for the cream of the crop.

CrushAlot wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:I agree about Walsh hiring D'Antoni. Trying to make that hire work and seem like the right one ruined his tenure in NY in my opinion.

I still think D'Antoni was the right hire under the circumstances. That gimmicky offense of his artificially inflates players' market value, which is huge for a roster coming off a 23 win season AND $100+ million payroll. Just to piggyback off of my last post, Shawne Williams has been a bust for all intents and purposes. The ONE productive season he ever had came under Mike D'Antoni during that 2010-2011 season. On that same note, Chris Duhon is one of the worst PG's in the entire league and currently owns a $3million/yr, multi-year contract because of two good seasons: one came during his rookie year and the other came during his first season in NY, where he currently holds the title for most assists in a game as a Knick (22). D'Antoni has a long history of rehabilitating guys careers and making fool's gold look better than they are (see Eddie House, Tim Thomas, Boris Diaw, etc.).

I don't think he was the right coach for us if we wanted to win a title but Rome isn't built in a day. We were a bottom dwelling lottery team and needed to take a few steps to even entertain that notion. D'Antoni is perfect as a good transitionery coach to help move bad contracts and attract the players to serve as our core, moving forward. But he is no doubt the "jump off" equivalent of a NBA coach. Our main problem is that we hired another "jump off" coach after D'Antoni, when we should've been looking for the cream of the crop.

I disagree about D'antoni being the right hire but I also have a hard time being objective in discussions about him. In regards to the guys you mentioned I believe Williams had ankle problems and later legal troubles again that have derailed his career. Duhon's tenure in NY did not end well so I am surprised that he got a 3 million dollar deal. Wasn't he M.I.A. for awhile this past season? I think you are right about guys he had in Phoenix.

I can understand that because D'Antoni makes it easy not to like him. He seems way too arrogant for a guy that's been a blimp in NBA history and it is going to cause his demise wherever he goes. But, D'Antoni's legacy here is still alive and well. We still run many of the same sets that he did when he was coaching in 2011-2012; I actually think our entire offense is still centered around what he came up with during that. I personally think that is why Woodson is so terrible at making adjustments; you can't adjust what you didn't create.

As for Shawne Williams, legal trouble or not, the NBA doesn't care. Results are the only thing that matter, which is why guys like Lance Stephenson, who pushed his girlfriend down some stairs,is still employed. Williams isn't around because he can't play unless he's in D'Antoni's system. He had his shot in New Jersey and Portland and blew both opportunities for that reason. Duhon sucked his last year here too but he got a little lucky admittedly. He had a fair amount of interest in free agency from what I remember; I think conventional wisdom thought that his slump was the result of him being a starter and that he'd be alright as a backup, with limited minutes. They were wrong.

dk7th wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

dk7th wrote:if walsh was behind the d'antoni hire then i would say that was his biggest mistake, because your first move has a ripple effect on all that follows. it makes me wonder why he didn't pursue mark jackson, a point guard who actually played for walsh. and with that it makes me now question after all this time, whether he was actually behind the d'antoni hire and not dolan, the latter being a notorious name chaser. until walsh writes his memoir we will never know.

Let me ask you a serious question, what DID Walsh actually do here in NY? Because according to you, he apparently wasn't behind the D'Antoni hire. He apparently didn't want to sign Amare. He apparently, didn't want to trade for Melo. It seems like Walsh was not integral to any significant move during his entire tenure here so did he actually do anything or did Dolan bring him in for his boyish good looks?

the overarching issue for me is that the fish rots from the head down. anybody working for dolan is performing a thankless task. dolan is an inferior human being with deep character issues and... deeper pockets.

because both walsh and dolan are not forthcoming this discussion becomes an exercise in studying human nature and deriving the simplest explanations based on what we respectively believe about the two individuals-- i say "individuals" because i don't regard dolan as a "man."

whoever was the driving force behind hiring d'antoni made a mistake.

if dolan was the driving force behind stoudemire's hire i would not be surprised, just as i would not be surprised that walsh was under pressure from both dolan and dolan's fanbase to acquire a name, any name, after two years of roster flush. stoudemire was signed on july 5th 2010.

this forces us to ask the question: does anyone remember the thinking behind the stat signing? oh yeah-- he was brought on as a "lure" for lebron james. his inherent worth was questionable but the whole enterprise that was begun in 2008 was to land lebron james. the "decision" took place on july 8th 2010.

this is conveniently forgotten in so much recent back and forth.

so did walsh really have a choice to NOT sign a big name?

You're stretching the truth a bit. Yes, "The Decision" took place on the 8th but players were able to negotiate their contracts from July 1st. Most if not all of the "stars" in the market had already come to some kind of verbal agreement with a team by that point in time. When we came to terms with Amare, the well had already dried up which is why we threw a Hail-Mary that turned into Amare, in a last ditch effort to lure LeBron here who was the last big star left. I still wasn't sure why we did it because even with him, we were woefully outclassed by the Bulls who had Rose, Deng, Noah, just added Boozer and had enough money to sign LeBron to a max deal; not to mention the Heat with Wade and Bosh. So lets not pretend that Amare was anything more than a futile attempt to save face for an ill-conceived plan.

Did Walsh have a choice? He did and chose the easier of the two options which we're stuck with for the next 2 seasons.