Knicks · Going into this season with an open mind about Phil (page 1)

He had a decent offseason and he has also taken some big chances which I like (though it puts him on the hotseat).

Taking Derrick Williams seems insane but if phil ends up being right about him since he can see what we can't, then he will get huge props. If he is wrong, then he will never live it down.

We cannot judge Kristaps next season but we would like to see positive signs of growth and high potential to warrant the pick.

I would really get excited if Phil can actually get Melo to change his game but I have given up hope on that after last year. Melo is not changing his game so Phil will have to work with what he's got.\

I would like to see the triangle incorporate a more modern approach and FAR fewer long 2's.

I don't care how many wins we get as long as I see signs of building a strong foundation.

Phil is on the clock now, lets see what happens this year.

He is changing the type of players around Melo. He is giving Melo help.

He has added Defense and 2 way players.

Additionally, IF KP can score, and Afflalo can score and Ledo improves off his audition last season and add JGrant to the mix, this team all of a sudden has weapons offensively.

Melo will adapt because he will have the help he needs.

Stealing a Mets phrase, "Ya Gotta Believe!"

mreinman wrote:Phil did a pretty bad job last year at almost everything. He was also a rookie GM and he made many rookie mistakes.

He had a decent offseason and he has also taken some big chances which I like (though it puts him on the hotseat).

Taking Derrick Williams seems insane but if phil ends up being right about him since he can see what we can't, then he will get huge props. If he is wrong, then he will never live it down.

We cannot judge Kristaps next season but we would like to see positive signs of growth and high potential to warrant the pick.

I would really get excited if Phil can actually get Melo to change his game but I have given up hope on that after last year. Melo is not changing his game so Phil will have to work with what he's got.\

I would like to see the triangle incorporate a more modern approach and FAR fewer long 2's.

I don't care how many wins we get as long as I see signs of building a strong foundation.

Phil is on the clock now, lets see what happens this year.

Makes no sense at all.

meloshouldgo wrote:This board is so obsessed with passing judgment using hindsight. It's amazing.
Decisions are made using partial information. They should be judged using the same. To say I will withhold till I have seen it play out is the same as taking a cop out. Is like saying i will buy a "new" house after its been on the market for 5 years to see if it appreciates in value.

Makes no sense at all.

really? You want us to predict that he will do/did a good job?

Should a GM not be judged based on the job that they did?

I dont see the horrible mistakes some do. Maybe he misjudged Tyson's value but that was exasperated by Calderon getting hurt out of the gate and giving us nothing last year. I dont see the massive opportunities that Phil failed to jump on, and that includes FA.

Im enamored with the draft, including getting Willy in the 2nd round. He's not going to play hee next year but if you read about his situation his role is going to expand so he's getting valuable experience. He will be a nice add next year in a draft where we dont have a pick.

I dont get too excited about anything good or bad the Knicks do these days, but I wont lie. when I heard we traded for Grant I jumped off the couch and pumped my fist... for probably the first time since the playoffs 3 years ago. What does give me hope is that its clear Phil is invested in high ceiling talent. That he can make deals (THjr for Grant = steal). That this is not about CAA or Dolan, its about developing players and getting guys who fit.

This is supposedly a great basketball guy. Lets see what he builds.

fishmike wrote:Agree with the premis of the topic... Everyone on the roster was signed by Phil, so its his squad now. One must be fair and understand the talent level was very low with what he took on, but on paper that has certainly improved.

I dont see the horrible mistakes some do. Maybe he misjudged Tyson's value but that was exasperated by Calderon getting hurt out of the gate and giving us nothing last year. I dont see the massive opportunities that Phil failed to jump on, and that includes FA.

Im enamored with the draft, including getting Willy in the 2nd round. He's not going to play hee next year but if you read about his situation his role is going to expand so he's getting valuable experience. He will be a nice add next year in a draft where we dont have a pick.

I dont get too excited about anything good or bad the Knicks do these days, but I wont lie. when I heard we traded for Grant I jumped off the couch and pumped my fist... for probably the first time since the playoffs 3 years ago. What does give me hope is that its clear Phil is invested in high ceiling talent. That he can make deals (THjr for Grant = steal). That this is not about CAA or Dolan, its about developing players and getting guys who fit.

This is supposedly a great basketball guy. Lets see what he builds.

Nice post and i agree. I also don't see any big mistakes Phil has made. Did the Tyson trade work out well for us?? No but Phil has cleaned this team up and has us heading in the right direction.
I'm excited about how this team is shaping out and looking forward to next season and next summer.

meloshouldgo wrote:This board is so obsessed with passing judgment using hindsight. It's amazing.
Decisions are made using partial information. They should be judged using the same. To say I will withhold till I have seen it play out is the same as taking a cop out. Is like saying i will buy a "new" house after its been on the market for 5 years to see if it appreciates in value.

Makes no sense at all.

This is the most ridiculous comment I've seen in a while. So you should judge someones performance base on how you guess they will do rather than wait until after they have done it?

BROUSSARD: RIVALS ENJOY PHIL'S STRUGGLE
Chris Broussard on Mike & Mike: "He thought he would walk right in, 'I'm Phil Jackson, I've got 11 rings, who wants to play for the Knicks?' ... There are front office guys that ... take a sense of satisfaction from guys like that struggling."

mreinman wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:This board is so obsessed with passing judgment using hindsight. It's amazing.
Decisions are made using partial information. They should be judged using the same. To say I will withhold till I have seen it play out is the same as taking a cop out. Is like saying i will buy a "new" house after its been on the market for 5 years to see if it appreciates in value.

Makes no sense at all.

really? You want us to predict that he will do/did a good job?

Should a GM not be judged based on the job that they did?

When you judge someone in hindsight it completely overlooks millions of variables that could affect what he "did", that are completely outside his control. This is true for any decision.
So people who judge the McDyess trade as a failure because he got injured are ignoring the fact that the GM could not have known or acted on that. Mostly they are using revisionist bias to pass judgment on somebody who made a trade for a player that had an unfortunate injury. So in effect the GM is paying the price for McDyess' bad luck. That's probably the easiest to understand example. But once you make a decision what transpires is impacted much more by luck than the impact of your decision. Unless you can magically filter the impact of luck your judgement will be clouded by the revisionist bias.

knicks1248 wrote:wow

BROUSSARD: RIVALS ENJOY PHIL'S STRUGGLE
Chris Broussard on Mike & Mike: "He thought he would walk right in, 'I'm Phil Jackson, I've got 11 rings, who wants to play for the Knicks?' ... There are front office guys that ... take a sense of satisfaction from guys like that struggling."

meloshouldgo wrote:

mreinman wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:This board is so obsessed with passing judgment using hindsight. It's amazing.
Decisions are made using partial information. They should be judged using the same. To say I will withhold till I have seen it play out is the same as taking a cop out. Is like saying i will buy a "new" house after its been on the market for 5 years to see if it appreciates in value.

Makes no sense at all.

really? You want us to predict that he will do/did a good job?

Should a GM not be judged based on the job that they did?

When you judge someone in hindsight it completely overlooks millions of variables that could affect what he "did", that are completely outside his control. This is true for any decision.
So people who judge the McDyess trade as a failure because he got injured are ignoring the fact that the GM could not have known or acted on that. Mostly they are using revisionist bias to pass judgment on somebody who made a trade for a player that had an unfortunate injury. So in effect the GM is paying the price for McDyess' bad luck. That's probably the easiest to understand example. But once you make a decision what transpires is impacted much more by luck than the impact of your decision. Unless you can magically filter the impact of luck your judgement will be clouded by the revisionist bias.

McDyess was injured and out a year before the trade, so he should have known the risks based on his past injury...

meloshouldgo wrote:

mreinman wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:This board is so obsessed with passing judgment using hindsight. It's amazing.
Decisions are made using partial information. They should be judged using the same. To say I will withhold till I have seen it play out is the same as taking a cop out. Is like saying i will buy a "new" house after its been on the market for 5 years to see if it appreciates in value.

Makes no sense at all.

really? You want us to predict that he will do/did a good job?

Should a GM not be judged based on the job that they did?

When you judge someone in hindsight it completely overlooks millions of variables that could affect what he "did", that are completely outside his control. This is true for any decision.
So people who judge the McDyess trade as a failure because he got injured are ignoring the fact that the GM could not have known or acted on that. Mostly they are using revisionist bias to pass judgment on somebody who made a trade for a player that had an unfortunate injury. So in effect the GM is paying the price for McDyess' bad luck. That's probably the easiest to understand example. But once you make a decision what transpires is impacted much more by luck than the impact of your decision. Unless you can magically filter the impact of luck your judgement will be clouded by the revisionist bias.

well ... who knew that Amare was injury prone and that Bargs would stink?

As far as the draft, if the players don't turn out well then I really can't blame him since its a crapshoot and you really need many many draft picks and the knicks never have any. He did the best that he could have IMHO. Kristaps is a high risk high reward choice.

When you pay a guy 60 million because of his vision and acumen, you assume that he sees many things that we don't (though many think that they do (which is insanely ridiculous)) and that he will move us forward. You assume that he will do things that a 20 million dollar GM can't.

Lets see. If he fails, he will get crucified (comes with the dough) and if he succeeds (even mildly) then they he can avoid defiling his unblemished legacy.

1. Hiring Fisher
2. Forcing the triangle even though it most view it as dated or inefficient
3. resigning melo though he may not have had the choice (but that is his problem)
4. not being a hands on GM
5. not making melo a better player
6. sticking his foot in his keyboard

Many may not agree with any of these but this is what many have issues with

mreinman wrote:main gripes that people have with phil up to this point:

1. Hiring Fisher
2. Forcing the triangle even though it most view it as dated or inefficient
3. resigning melo though he may not have had the choice (but that is his problem)
4. not being a hands on GM
5. not making melo a better player
6. sticking his foot in his keyboard

Many may not agree with any of these but this is what many have issues with

1. Fish is a good coach and really its not about him as much as it is just fixing the roster. The things he's teaching the team to do are the exact same things Phil would teach but with a few tweaks. The fundamentals are all the same and serve the same purpose.

2. The Triangle is a tried and true system and was literally winning titles and layoff games as recent as 2011. Phil's 1st season came in 2014. It's pure idiocy to think the game has passed it by in just 3 years. This is a media trope that is PURE GARBAGE. The offense isn't lacking in efficiency given that as i've pointed out many times it was just as efficient as the GS Warriors were this year.

2014-2015 Warriors Off Rtg: 111.6 (2nd of 30) 
2010-2011 Lakers   Off Rtg: 111.0 (6th of 30)

3. Having Melo this next few years is going to accelerate the process of this team contending. I know some don't want to believe that but when you put good players around Melo it makes for a playoff team. That's the history.

4. Phil is actually the team PRESIDENT. His role is not the same as a pure GM. I have no issues with how he's running things. He has his staff in order and they're working as a team.

5. We'll see about Melo being a better player or not from here on. He's gotta be healthy and the team around him needed to be better.

6. Phil has always made strange comments. He's a quirky guy. No biggie. If the team starts winning no one will really care.

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:main gripes that people have with phil up to this point:

1. Hiring Fisher
2. Forcing the triangle even though it most view it as dated or inefficient
3. resigning melo though he may not have had the choice (but that is his problem)
4. not being a hands on GM
5. not making melo a better player
6. sticking his foot in his keyboard

Many may not agree with any of these but this is what many have issues with

1. Fish is a good coach and really its not about him as much as it is just fixing the roster. The things he's teaching the team to do are the exact same things Phil would teach but with a few tweaks. The fundamentals are all the same and serve the same purpose.

2. The Triangle is a tried and true system and was literally winning titles and layoff games as recent as 2011. Phil's 1st season came in 2014. It's pure idiocy to think the game has passed it by in just 3 years. This is a media trope that is PURE GARBAGE. The offense isn't lacking in efficiency given that as i've pointed out many times it was just as efficient as the GS Warriors were this year.

2014-2015 Warriors Off Rtg: 111.6 (2nd of 30) 
2010-2011 Lakers   Off Rtg: 111.0 (6th of 30)

3. Having Melo this next few years is going to accelerate the process of this team contending. I know some don't want to believe that but when you put good players around Melo it makes for a playoff team. That's the history.

4. Phil is actually the team PRESIDENT. His role is not the same as a pure GM. I have no issues with how he's running things. He has his staff in order and they're working as a team.

5. We'll see about Melo being a better player or not from here on. He's gotta be healthy and the team around him needed to be better.

6. Phil has always made strange comments. He's a quirky guy. No biggie. If the team starts winning no one will really care.

1. You have no idea if fisher is a good coach. At best, you can say that it can't be determined at this point

2. The triangle needs to be proven when you don't have 2 of the top HOFers of all time on your team(s). That is probably what Phil is here to prove. Many (or even most) believe that it is dated.

3. Are these players around Melo good enough to get them to the playoffs? You probably say yes though most (or everyone else) would say no

4. That is your right to feel that way.

5. Melo needs to change his game. Thats on Phil. No other excuses.

6. I can get over the silly comments if he is doing a good job here

mreinman wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

mreinman wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:This board is so obsessed with passing judgment using hindsight. It's amazing.
Decisions are made using partial information. They should be judged using the same. To say I will withhold till I have seen it play out is the same as taking a cop out. Is like saying i will buy a "new" house after its been on the market for 5 years to see if it appreciates in value.

Makes no sense at all.

really? You want us to predict that he will do/did a good job?

Should a GM not be judged based on the job that they did?

When you judge someone in hindsight it completely overlooks millions of variables that could affect what he "did", that are completely outside his control. This is true for any decision.
So people who judge the McDyess trade as a failure because he got injured are ignoring the fact that the GM could not have known or acted on that. Mostly they are using revisionist bias to pass judgment on somebody who made a trade for a player that had an unfortunate injury. So in effect the GM is paying the price for McDyess' bad luck. That's probably the easiest to understand example. But once you make a decision what transpires is impacted much more by luck than the impact of your decision. Unless you can magically filter the impact of luck your judgement will be clouded by the revisionist bias.

well ... who knew that Amare was injury prone and that Bargs would stink?

As far as the draft, if the players don't turn out well then I really can't blame him since its a crapshoot and you really need many many draft picks and the knicks never have any. He did the best that he could have IMHO. Kristaps is a high risk high reward choice.

When you pay a guy 60 million because of his vision and acumen, you assume that he sees many things that we don't (though many think that they do (which is insanely ridiculous)) and that he will move us forward. You assume that he will do things that a 20 million dollar GM can't.

Lets see. If he fails, he will get crucified (comes with the dough) and if he succeeds (even mildly) then they he can avoid defiling his unblemished legacy.

So yes. If a player had injury history and major doubts and you give him a 100 mil. That can and should be held against you. So Walsh gets the blame for the Amare contact.

We agree on Porzingus. My position was BPA at the 4 th. I think that's what he did. It may not pan out but I would never judge him on that. That's really the point I am trying to make.

Giving Melo that contact knowing about his baggage is also on him.

meloshouldgo wrote:

mreinman wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

mreinman wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:This board is so obsessed with passing judgment using hindsight. It's amazing.
Decisions are made using partial information. They should be judged using the same. To say I will withhold till I have seen it play out is the same as taking a cop out. Is like saying i will buy a "new" house after its been on the market for 5 years to see if it appreciates in value.

Makes no sense at all.

really? You want us to predict that he will do/did a good job?

Should a GM not be judged based on the job that they did?

When you judge someone in hindsight it completely overlooks millions of variables that could affect what he "did", that are completely outside his control. This is true for any decision.
So people who judge the McDyess trade as a failure because he got injured are ignoring the fact that the GM could not have known or acted on that. Mostly they are using revisionist bias to pass judgment on somebody who made a trade for a player that had an unfortunate injury. So in effect the GM is paying the price for McDyess' bad luck. That's probably the easiest to understand example. But once you make a decision what transpires is impacted much more by luck than the impact of your decision. Unless you can magically filter the impact of luck your judgement will be clouded by the revisionist bias.

well ... who knew that Amare was injury prone and that Bargs would stink?

As far as the draft, if the players don't turn out well then I really can't blame him since its a crapshoot and you really need many many draft picks and the knicks never have any. He did the best that he could have IMHO. Kristaps is a high risk high reward choice.

When you pay a guy 60 million because of his vision and acumen, you assume that he sees many things that we don't (though many think that they do (which is insanely ridiculous)) and that he will move us forward. You assume that he will do things that a 20 million dollar GM can't.

Lets see. If he fails, he will get crucified (comes with the dough) and if he succeeds (even mildly) then they he can avoid defiling his unblemished legacy.

So yes. If a player had injury history and major doubts and you give him a 100 mil. That can and should be held against you. So Walsh gets the blame for the Amare contact.

We agree on Porzingus. My position was BPA at the 4 th. I think that's what he did. It Mai not pan out but I would never judge him on that. That's really the point I am trying to make.

Giving Melo that contact knowing about his baggage iPAalso on him.

so we pretty much agree then :-)

mreinman wrote:main gripes that people have with phil up to this point:

1. Hiring Fisher
2. Forcing the triangle even though it most view it as dated or inefficient
3. resigning melo though he may not have had the choice (but that is his problem)
4. not being a hands on GM
5. not making melo a better player
6. sticking his foot in his keyboard

Many may not agree with any of these but this is what many have issues with

Fisher - unless the expectation was that the Knicks were going to contend with last year's roster or that there was not any kind of attempt to tank - the grade needs to be incomplete.

Triangle - How people view the Triangle has little to do with if it will actually work with this team or not. Further, regardless of the system, you still need more than D-League players. This item is also a TBD.

Resigning Melo - Also a TBD. It depends on how an injury free Melo performs or if he is traded for assets down the line.

Hands on GM - this is a style gripe - not a performance gripe.

Melo a better player - not sure why it is the GM's job to make a player better. It would be a GM's job to build a team where the pieces fit in order to enhance individual and overall performance. It is ultimately up to the player to perform or not.

Social Media - again, a style issue, not a performance issue.

When you make posts like this calling style into play and then in other posts, bring up the guy's salary......both of which have little to do with performance......it makes others believe you have issues against the guy and lessens your opinion's cred.