Nalod wrote:What is not presentable is the alternative contrast had Knicks not hired him.
They could have easily done what needed to be done from the start.
Hire a progressive YOUNG ( relative to Phil Jackson's age) GM who had
A) Success in other winning organizations
B) Had a background working in an actual NBA front office ( i.e. someone groomed for the job)
C) Someone not with an incentive to defend a past legacy
D) Someone who could give the Knicks a future at the position if he worked out
E) Preestablished relationships with other GMs, owners, scouts, agents and the league office
The Knicks could have hired Scott Perry YEARS AGO. And the Knicks would be that much further along.
What I list above is PAINFULLY SIMPLE.
And had someone else been hired, the Knicks might still have ended up with Zinger anyway ( it's not like he was such a touted guy he was going to go first overall in his draft)
Phil Jackson f**ked this team up. No, everything is not his fault. But he didn't help himself. At all. Not trading off draft picks, sorry, under the Stepien Rule, it's not like he was in a wealth of options there.
The same BS that people do with Melo is what they do with Phil Jackson - Saying if you can't blame him for everything, then you can't blame him for anything. What the flying f**k does that kind of logic come from?
Newsflash. It's not logic at work. Jackson was a painfully horrible hire. Aging. No previous front office experience. Going to shove a complicated and controversial offense onto the team. Had preexisting enemies around the league. Saying Jackson is some kind of genius for getting Zinger is like saying the Colts were elite brain trust material for drafting Andrew Luck. He got a lottery pick and made the best of it given what was already off the board. He went for positional value. There are interns in the NBA who would have and could have done the same thing.