Chanel Bomber wrote:Capn'O wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:Phil and Pills were both completely incompetent but you're right that they at least didn't ruin our future by trading away future picks.
Leon pretty much started with a blank slate (plus Randle) without inheriting any debt from the previous regimes.
Amid the catastrophe, it still constituted as progress over the Isiah years.
Pills also cleared the books, which was helpful.
But yeah, this hit after hit that this group keeps doing. Resigning Randle, Brunson, DDV, OG, iHart, Resigning Mitch, selling off on RJ/IQ, resigning Deuce, Precious?, Grimes (still a good pick in the 20s)... hell, even Jokubaitus is probably good... I haven't seen anything like it. Certainly not from my Knicks.
Which, to get to the point of the other convo you're having, it's not really about the approach but the execution. Lotta ways to get there. Lotta ways to go wrong.
Exactly. It's largely about execution.
This team in its current form was built primarily through free agency and through trades. Their draft picks? As you said, they were sold off for another young vet in OG and two 2nd-round picks. Only Mitch, Grimes, McBride and Sims remain.
The Knicks have played well and seem to be in a strong position to improve the roster further. I hear no one complain about the outcome. So why obsess about tanking as if it would have necessarily generated a better outcome?
I suspect that some people revert to this simple tanking dogma because they don't want to accept the level of detail and unpredictability that come into team building. You have to assess and evaluate talent. You have to make projections based on statistical patterns. You have to build the culture of the organization. You have to develop positive habits. You have to account for the psychological impact of winning and losing. You have to consider the reputational damage of potentially being one of the worst teams in the league for years. You have to accept that luck plays a role.
It's easy to say play the youth and tank without any regard for these considerations. In reality, it's much harder to actually make the right calls that would lead to a satisfactory outcome.
This reminds me so much of some of the political dogmas in the 20th century which claimed to have these simple answers that ultimately couldn't capture the complexity of society and its economy.
I don’t think there’s a right way to build a team, but I do agree with you about your point that it’s ultimately execution, or better put, leadership and decision making.
You’re right about the drawbacks about tanking, but I think the one thing you weren’t right about is that the Knicks suffered all those negative consequences you listed for a long time - we had all of that without any of the benefits of tanking.
I think the reason for the frustration is because we had many execs who wanted to not tank for the sake of building a winning culture, when it became apparent they didn’t know how to win. Scott Perry comes to mind especially. When an executive holds to that dogma, but can’t pull it off, it comes across as frustrating and arrogant. It’s also frustrating when players who don’t have a future with the Knicks are able to ruin the Knicks’ future.
Obviously, tanking still requires execution, but when done right, it can seriously idiot-proof a franchise. The Sixers really come to mind. They had a series of really awful GMs after Hinkie and a series of disastrous failures, and it’s actually pretty impressive they’re still where they are, after all the damage they did to themselves. Imagine if they had actually used all their resources well.
I guess my point is, if you have an idiot running your franchise, you better root for them to tank. If you have a smarter guy, any route would be viable, although those smart guys are hard to find.