Rose good trade, bad ending result. Noah was a stretch for sure. As for what Phil is thinking, priority life style of working, distractions, etc.....we really don't know other than what media slams him for.

That said I agree that his detractors think he is some old fool who is delusional about his triangle. Its entirely possible. I mean, who'd ever thought we'd have a moron president with bad brain health to boot as our leader. We do.

And in the epicenter we have the best player Melo, who is committed to the city, but not a style of ball. We all know the rest.

Chandler wrote:Let me start off by saying that I think one can be a Phil fan (e.g., me) and still admit to the fact that he has made bona fide flubs along the way. Guys like Crush and Nardog have raised a number of very legitimate criticisms (even if I don't share the same feeling of egregiousness of certain decisions). That doesn't mean Phil should be fired, and it doesn't mean that the same exact thing hasn't happened with the greatest GMs ever or even in the present (putting aside for the moment that Phil is not a GM)

The biggest flub Phil has made and one he can easily correct (and i think is doing at the moment) is he got distracted from (and needs to get back to) his root thinking: He wants the team to be transformative not transactional.

In the real world this is the difference between building or investing in a company, versus being a stock trader

i happen to think that is the right strategy in basketball and in life. While there are many rich traders there are also a lot of bankrupt ones. Regardless, the richest people are the ones who built companies or invested in them.

I think this is what he wanted to do, and intends to do, by drafting and developing. His biggest flubs have been in the transactional side. Trying to trade his way into success

to be sure, there are some teams (just as there are some stock traders) who are very good at the trade game. Boston is probably the best (They used to say back in the day when Red was running their show, that the smart GMs hung up the phone whenever Red called; Ainge has had some similar heists - eg. KG, Brooklyn). Phil has to get back to realizing that trading is not his plan,his DnA and frankly not his strong suit (and that's a good thing).

he needs to get back to looking at players and not ask "who he is" but "what can he become". This is the right way. This is what spurs do. They scour the globe for their investments, and find players who fit their investment/player profile and they let them develop. They end up with players on decent deals, who are happy to play there (often feeling indebted to the team for their individual success) and get extra return through team chemistry. They're true warriors (no pun intended) not mercenaries (who jump ship when they feel at risk)

The next thing Phil needs to do is decide whether he's supposed to be a visionary or whether he's going to execute a plan and which part. Idzik had a great plan for the Jets; but he was atrocious at execution. Phil is not Idzik and I don't want to create the impression that I'm equating them. But it should be clear that a great plan and execution of the plan are different skills and in the real world there are many people who are good at one but not both. He needs to decide what he can do and should do and as President make sure he hires the right people for the other tasks.

It is a huge mistake on the part of Phil's critics to think that he doesn't know the game at an absolute elite level, and to disrespectfully IMO attribute his success to just having the greatest players. Many of this players were great before and after Phil but not the greatest. The greatest was when they were with Phil. Many of those teams won it all with Phil but not without (and one can remember how close the Bulls were [a bad call to the Knicks benefit] when he didn't have MJ)

Great observations. Unfortunately critics are playing a blame game that's not only easy to do in retrospect but also in fantasy.

I never hear criticism of the kind Phil gets from any of the other losing teams that says something to the effect, "If only management had surrounded our star player with the talent he needed to...". This is magical thinking whether it is a fan or former player.

I interpret Phil's team development process as a set of calculated risks that thus far allowed and honored his commitment to Melo to get able and willing and affordable pros to start seasons with. I think if by the mid-season trade deadline any of those teams looked to be poised for the playoffs he would have added more veteran talent. Sans that, stick with youth.

And when you measure his work by legitimate risk you can't come back with blame. Instead, we have some poor returns on certain risks and better returns on others.

Transformation and transaction are both forms of continued risk taking. So far I think Phil has been breaking even or better.

Sinix wrote:Phil is in a decent position going forward and has weathered a storm. Yes the Noah contract is bad but are the Knicks contending in the coming years that they need full cap space?

Theoretically the worst should be over for Phil.

Logical fallacy.

As if signing Noah versus nothing were the only two choices on the table at all times.

Noah's contract is arguably the WORST CONTRACT in the entire league right now. And there are some true stinkers out there. The contract hurts the Knicks for THREE MORE YEARS. If the Knicks do something crazy and use the stretch provision, it lasts for SEVEN MORE YEARS.

Every dollar spent poorly is a dollar not used to help this team.

Every MINUTE given to a player with no future on this team is a minute not used to help this team ( at least a 2nd round pick or a UDFA who is young with upside might develop into something, the chance is there)

Every moment Noah inhabits a ROSTER SPOT for the next 3 years is a roster spot not used to help this team.

THREE TO SEVEN YEARS - It's like a PRISON SENTENCE.

It's like getting herpes and saying, well at least she didn't cut off my junk while I was asleep and toss it out the car window on the freeway like the Bobbit dude. Yes, dude, your lips look like a panoramic shot of the lunar surface but nothing is wrong.

Phil Jackson was/is a geriatric guy in his 70s with NO PREVIOUS FRONT OFFICE EXPERIENCE pushing a complicated offense onto the team and had built enemies over time in the press and with other teams and coaches and front offices.

The Knicks take something incredibly simple and make it incredibly hard. All Phil Jackson had to do was hire a young and upcoming guy who had enough lifespan left to offer the Knicks potentially 10-15-20-25 years of GM future, someone who had trained for the job and built a rapport with agents, other GMs and owners and the media and just get out of the way. How hard is that? The inane Rose deal only happened because Jackson has a deep history with Rose's agent, BJ Armstrong, and the Bulls current GM, Paxton.

The Knicks are not in a position to eat the mistakes of a first time front office guy who needs a learning curve on how to do the basics of the job ( please do not push Steve Mills is actually the GM BS) and has no long term future on this team.

An early point NBA rebuild literally WRITES ITSELF. There are literally no market mechanisms in place to truly deviate from the basic correct marketplace decisions at this stage. How Jackson and the Knicks keep screwing this up is beyond mind boggling.

Then again if I spent all year deciding if Phil Jackson was awesome compared to the ideas of Briggs/nixluva/EnySpree that keep coming up with on this board, well I suppose Jackson does look sort of like a genius then. But then again getting herpes doesn't seem so bad compared to getting your junk cut off in your sleep. Yes, yes, Jackson's decisions and their half decade to possible near a decade long impact can have the page turned on them very quickly, yes, yes, here's some Valtrex, everyone be happy.