ImageImageImageImageImage

NYK: Changing the Culture

Moderators: Jeff Van Gully, j4remi, NoLayupRule, mpharris36, King of Canada, Thugger HBC, GONYK, Capn'O, mrpoetryNmotion, K-DOT, Deeeez Knicks

User avatar
br7knicks
Knicks Forum The Professor
Posts: 28,866
And1: 5,750
Joined: Dec 01, 2008
     

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#21 » by br7knicks » Wed Jun 5, 2019 7:36 pm

Chanel Bomber wrote:
br7knicks wrote:
Chanel Bomber wrote:D-Lo and Brogdon would be good signings imo. Still quite young, would add shooting and playmaking to our team.

Russell / DSJ
Brogdon / Frank / Trier
Barrett or Culver / Dotson
TBD / Knox
Mitch

This line-up needs one more veteran at the 4 but this team would be quite exciting imo.

As I've said many times, KD and Kyrie will only bring drama and disappointment at the Garden. I've had enough of that personally.


I think Durant would be a problem for culture change, too.


Melo brought great scoring talent, but he also brought defensive liability, inability to change and adapt game to help the team win vs getting his own numbers and shots, poor leadership, and an incredible amount of difficulty to build around one player.

Durant is more of an off the court, mental problem tho.

Melo was a net negative, in that his negatives didn't make up for his positive in scoring. Is Durant that much of a negative for culture change, and is it worth it for the Knicks? That's a big question.

I disagree that Melo was a net negative but he certainly didn't change the culture at the Garden with his leadership (or lack thereof). There was always a cloud hanging over the franchise with Melo, not a dark cloud (that was JR Smith, whom I loved regardless) but more like a grey stratus cloud.

His inability to change under Mike D'Antoni and after his injury also hurt the franchise, no doubt about it. And I'll never forget how he ran J-Lin out of town. But he brought the franchise back to relevance, he gave us one great season where we should've gone to the ECF, never flopped or cheated the game and handled Phil's nonsense like a man so I am also thankful for those years.


He did bring some positives. As you said, it helped NY look better than previously, as ticket prices sky rocketed.

But I was just trying to bring up the point of, at what point do we think Durant will be worth his deficiencies. Talent is not his problem.

But I see him as too mentally weak to handle NY. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll need to see proof that he's not soft before I can change my mind
Rest in Peace, magnumt. 2019
Cookies4Life
Pro Prospect
Posts: 846
And1: 945
Joined: Dec 08, 2016
       

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#22 » by Cookies4Life » Wed Jun 5, 2019 7:48 pm

Mills and Perry have been saying the same things for 2 years- they want to build a culture here and build this teams through the draft. Steve was saying this even before Perry was here that the fanbase is fine with a rebuild and that they weren't going to take any shortcuts. They both preach about the idea of sustaining a long term contender here.

They've mentioned all of that ad nauseum which is a great thing to hear as a fan. So it seems very odd to me that there's this notion they'll be trading the farm to acquire a potential 3rd star if they're able to secure 2 max FA's. It would seem very counterproductive as all our young talent outside of Robinson would be getting traded with their value at an all time low. If the staff prides themselves on player development, they should be working diligently on improving the games of Knox, DSJ and Frank, 3 mid lottery guys from the last 2 seasons.
User avatar
FlashFlood
Rookie
Posts: 1,060
And1: 258
Joined: Feb 08, 2005

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#23 » by FlashFlood » Wed Jun 5, 2019 8:01 pm

Teams, in general, take on the personality of their leader or leaders. If the Knicks bring on KD, they'll take on a prickly short temperedness, like GS took on. A team with Lebron takes on a fake 'show everyone we love everyone' persona. And a team with Melo, well, lets not beat a dead horse.

The implication of Mills and Perry saying culture change this, or Phil Jackson culture change that, is they're still looking for leaders on the team. You change the culture by having the right players.
1999
Junior
Posts: 362
And1: 197
Joined: Apr 25, 2012

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#24 » by 1999 » Wed Jun 5, 2019 8:11 pm

Deeeez Knicks wrote:Every GM that comes here talks about building culture. When Dolan first took over as owner he wanted to get rid of all the headaches and bad seeds. Ewing, Spree, Camby gone. Passed on Artest, max'd Houston and brought in good character players like Eisley, Weatherspoon, Shannon Andreson and Scott Layden. Everyone played hard, went to bed on time but we sucked ass and had one of the most boring teams ever. It was bad.


Those were sad days indeed. I’m pretty sure the entire team probably had 10 dunks on the season.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app
1999
Junior
Posts: 362
And1: 197
Joined: Apr 25, 2012

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#25 » by 1999 » Wed Jun 5, 2019 8:19 pm

Knicks have no on court culture yet. We haven’t seen anything resembling consistency on either side of the ball yet. Off court the Knicks have at the very least become palatable for free agents and incoming draftees. Knicks also have quietly been developing players very well for the past few years. The problem is keeping the talent.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
User avatar
NoLayupRule
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 47,567
And1: 10,181
Joined: Dec 06, 2002
Location: Playoffs Fool!
Contact:

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#26 » by NoLayupRule » Wed Jun 5, 2019 10:33 pm

Hes_On_Fire wrote:
NoLayupRule wrote:
rrosario35 wrote:So I've been wondering, when Phil Jackson came on board there was all this talk about changing the culture of the team... It started to happen and Perry preached the same when he got here.
The teams culture definitely seems to have changed, the divas are gone, the drama is gone and I personally enjoyed watching the young kids and dreaming of the potential.
With the Summer quickly approaching I'm trying to figure out how things would look if Kyrie and KD came on board... I mean if KP was a diva, what's KD and KI going to be like? It's gonna be weird as f***.
So having said that... which top free agents do you think fit in best with the "culture" of this team... Still KD & Kyrie?

https://www.nba.com/freeagents/2019/tracker

Am I crazy for hoping Vince Carter gets a spot as the wise vet on the team?

I think it’s the culture of losing they talked about changing.

And part of losing was the style. ISO ball. Constant turnover. No defense.


If that's the case then culture hasn't changed at all yet.

You might be kidding

Perhaps not

Clearly culture has changed in terms of commitment to a long term growth plan and the kids of players were courting

But it might do yet another switcharoo this summer
User avatar
NoLayupRule
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 47,567
And1: 10,181
Joined: Dec 06, 2002
Location: Playoffs Fool!
Contact:

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#27 » by NoLayupRule » Wed Jun 5, 2019 10:33 pm

1999 wrote:Knicks have no on court culture yet. We haven’t seen anything resembling consistency on either side of the ball yet. Off court the Knicks have at the very least become palatable for free agents and incoming draftees. Knicks also have quietly been developing players very well for the past few years. The problem is keeping the talent.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

That’s well said
User avatar
Meat
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,062
And1: 2,504
Joined: Jun 30, 2013
       

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#28 » by Meat » Wed Jun 5, 2019 11:17 pm

Cookies4Life wrote:Mills and Perry have been saying the same things for 2 years- they want to build a culture here and build this teams through the draft. Steve was saying this even before Perry was here that the fanbase is fine with a rebuild and that they weren't going to take any shortcuts. They both preach about the idea of sustaining a long term contender here.

They've mentioned all of that ad nauseum which is a great thing to hear as a fan. So it seems very odd to me that there's this notion they'll be trading the farm to acquire a potential 3rd star if they're able to secure 2 max FA's. It would seem very counterproductive as all our young talent outside of Robinson would be getting traded with their value at an all time low. If the staff prides themselves on player development, they should be working diligently on improving the games of Knox, DSJ and Frank, 3 mid lottery guys from the last 2 seasons.

I tell my girl she’s my soulmate... till I win the mega millions and learn I have a shot at “insert famous person.” This Knicks have an unprecedented chance to acquire 3 top 10-15 players in the league. Of course you change gears
User avatar
thebuzzardman
RealGM
Posts: 32,405
And1: 23,635
Joined: Jun 24, 2006
Location: WINGSPANDIA

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#29 » by thebuzzardman » Thu Jun 6, 2019 10:48 am

Jeff Van Gully wrote:this thread can survive the merge if it stays about the culture concept.

i think every leadership group has to identify and implement its own culture. the multi-billion dollar question: is it truly possible to separate him from the "culture?"

sounds like merry pills is definitely trying to keep a barrier, as did phil. but pills also have a tangible and obvious commitment to human resources that i have never really seen before. looks more like the standards you would see in place at successful companies in general.


I'd agree with this take.

Also, a question. Did the McKinsey consultation predate Phil? Actually, I'll look it up and answer

McKinsey
https://nypost.com/2013/11/30/can-the-mba-crowd-save-the-knicks-rangers/

Phil Hire
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/10607795/phil-jackson-deal-new-york-knicks-finalized

So, it appears that the McKinsey hire predates Phil.

Phil's tenure is the transitional culture period, between Dolan Hands On Starph*cking and Dolan Hands Off Let the Pros Run Things

Who convinces Dolan to hire McKinsey though? THAT person is one of the unsung heros.

I'm pretty sure McKinsey laid out the blueprint of how successful franchises run their teams, and Dolan, for both the Rangers (though he was alway more hands off there) and the Knicks, listened.

He still starph*cked when his Eagles managing buddy got Phil into the mix, but for the most part, other than maybe the power struggle inherent in having Mills in the mix as GM to Phil calling the shots as POBO, Dolan stayed away.

Obviously the mistake here is mistaking Phil's coaching chops for GM chops and MAYBE (since it's conjecture) Mills kind of working against Phil to some degree.

Once Phil gets pushed aside due to a combination of hubris, managerial incompetence and ?Mills machinations?, Mills gets the promotion he wants and MILLS is also comfortable letting a basketball lifer like Perry run things. Also, Mills and Perry more simpatico in personality etc, so it's just a better fit, so far.

Here's an aside from CapnO, circa 2014, which came up in my google search:

Capn'O wrote:http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/234494/Ujiri-Luckily-For-Raptors-Kyle-Lowry-To-Knicks-Trade-Didnt-Happen

"Dolan hired those business consultants [McKinsey & Company] last summer," said the source with knowledge of the Raptors' plans. "They had sold him on this whole thing about, 'You've been exploited by giving away first-round picks.' Could the deal have gotten done? Absolutely."


I had wondered if the change in outlook had come from McKinsey. So, the Knicks value draft picks now? I doubt they go in the tank anytime soon, but now they'll have a bit of a safety hatch if things go awry and avenues for maintaining cheap talent on the roster.

Passing on Lowry was an interesting symbolic move as Lowry's a bit better than some of the targets the Knicks have ponied up for in the past. Still, a very nice exercise in patience. If the Knicks have a decent season this year with some of the young players finding their roles, they'll be an attractive offseason destination for something bigger than Lowry.


Phil is the transition as it's the first instance of Dolan "Hands Off"
McKinsey's suggestion of keeping picks has held since then.

Phil gets the boot but Mills seeks out a basketball professional with strong contacts and relationships around the league(opposite of Phil), which is either a McKinsey suggestion again or kudos to Mills. No reason why Mills may not have made that call.

Pills continue the McKinsey/Sound Franchise Advice of valueing picks and culture, where culture, in this instance, is knowing what you want to accomplish as an organization and enabling the things and people that accomplish that. And I think it's been shown via clips etc that they knew MSG had a bad rep as a place to work and the org known as dysfunctional, and they've set out to alleviate that, top to bottom. So they value talented workers, but cooperative ones - not yes men, but people of character. It seems to be what they look for in players - a certain pedigree to go with, obviously, talent.

I'd assume that's to ensure there is a culture where the players like each other, which is generally cited as what MOST (not all) successful teams have. I also think character is important to them in the young players because the league is about drafting mostly 19 year olds now and will soon be 18 year olds. So you have to have really good scouts but also have to know how to pick character, as those are the guys most likely to maximize their talent.

The Knicks have also emphasized player development more in the past, which again, is what good teams do and also a function of most players being drafted so young. Hell, even when 22 year olds got drafted, it took at LEAST 1.5 years before they really rounded into form. 3 years older than most players now. It's not an accident that Trier looked the most ready as a rookie.



To the larger question of what is "basketball culture".

Lets compare it to the term "morale" in the military. A lot of people, including young guys in the military, assume "good morale" is people are happy. They are wrong. "Morale" is the state of things getting done. "Good morale" means things are getting done. "Bad morale" is a less than adequate amount of stuff is getting done. Period. Are happy feelings possibly included? Sure, but not necessary. It's possible for a unit to be full of guys constantly complaining, but proud of what they do and well trained and getting stuff done to a high degree. In fact, my experience was that was more common.

Basketball "culture" and a "winning culture" is similar, in that everyone doesn't have to be "happy" or even a "nice person" but they have to "buy in" to what's going on, basically akin to the military in that "do they have discipline - executing the plan and orders and acting right" leading to a state of "winning culture" or, lets say "positive morale"

Where leadership matters, is the org setting the tone of expectations, but that's a little distant - it's like Battalion level - but the players are aware it exists. It's up to the GM (probably like a company captain/1st sgt) setting a more obvious tone and having daily impact, but the real day to day impact is more directly felt at the platoon level - and the coach is probably most like a good platoon sgt - really sets the standard of discipline and standards of execution.

So what is the star player?
He's that kick ass squad leader that everyone knows, even in other squads, that is the best, most experienced soldier in the platoon, and who further sets the example, by DOING\LEADING, that everyone emulates.

And that squad leader/star player can be an acerbic prick - that doesn't always help - but if that person demands defense, willingly shares the ball and cares about executing the offense, then it will tend to flow down hill from there. And yes, that guy will care about getting guys OFF the team who aren't with the program.

Can a team win some games and be a playoff team where the best player isn't quite as interested in that stuff and sort of has to be lead there by the coach and lesser players? Sure. Will they have really good success? I say no.

Ok, end of ebook.
User avatar
thebuzzardman
RealGM
Posts: 32,405
And1: 23,635
Joined: Jun 24, 2006
Location: WINGSPANDIA

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#30 » by thebuzzardman » Thu Jun 6, 2019 10:51 am

Asking a question, because I know it was discussed on here within the last couple of years.

There was a guy, one of the McKinsey employees, who apparently was a big time Knick fan - but he was a more junior guy, but apparently he was really laying down the suggestions.

Does anyone remember where this was quoted from? Was it Reddit? THAT guy is the unsung hero of this moment on the cusp of historic FA for the Knicks.
User avatar
thebuzzardman
RealGM
Posts: 32,405
And1: 23,635
Joined: Jun 24, 2006
Location: WINGSPANDIA

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#31 » by thebuzzardman » Thu Jun 6, 2019 11:10 am

nyknicks2k2 wrote:Most good to great teams have at least one "diva" or strong personality. I'm really confused as to how people want to get rid of the idea of acquiring Irving or even KD but are cool with Butler?

Changing culture is all about winning. That's where it starts. We can discuss "great teammates", "great attitudes" and all that load of crap but if we aren't winning, it eventually doesn't matter. If in two years the Knicks are still fighting for that 14%, it won't be about culture change. It'll be "Knicks haven't changed".


I'll pick your comment, but I'm not "picking on" your comment.

I just disagree about "diva players" are ok or "winning" is culture. I mean, disagree to a degree.

Look back at my ebook. I think I explain it.

But lets separate what a player is "off the court" or even his general personality, to what he does and is on the court, and what his bball personality is.

Player could be a bit of a headcase, arrogant etc, but if his bball personality is about playing hard defense, demanding it from his teammates and shares the ball some along with being a go to scorer, then that player is fine for "culture".

Also, sure, winning cures a lot of ills, but I'm going to draw a distinction between teams that win because they have some talent, but sort of a sh*tty culture, vs teams that win and have a chance at something bigger and more sustainable. Sure, it might be impossible to tease out, but what I'm really getting at is trying to discern between 20/20 hindsight, which is massive in sports reporting and commentary, where they'll bestow all kinds of undeserved kudos on a team if they won that night or a series or it all.

TLDR:
Basketball winning culture: Actions on the court by the players matter most, in terms of basketball execution and effort.

Players can be sort of pricks or unhappy but still win if they do the above
Sh*tty attitude players with all sorts of talent can also torpedo teams - Boogie Cousins early in his career, for example. Derrick Coleman. The Portland TrailBlazers JailBlazer era. etc.

Winning at times can be confused with the team actually really having it's sh*t together and maximizing what it has - like a really talented born musician who can't be bothered to practice much

Talent matters. But it's not all that matters. It's the primary concern - that's a given. No one cares about culture on a 20 win team. It's also possible to assemble "talent" that is ultimately not really going anywhere, either.
Jeff Van Gully
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 19,503
And1: 12,688
Joined: Jul 31, 2010
     

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#32 » by Jeff Van Gully » Thu Jun 6, 2019 11:36 am

thebuzzardman wrote:
Spoiler:
Jeff Van Gully wrote:this thread can survive the merge if it stays about the culture concept.

i think every leadership group has to identify and implement its own culture. the multi-billion dollar question: is it truly possible to separate him from the "culture?"

sounds like merry pills is definitely trying to keep a barrier, as did phil. but pills also have a tangible and obvious commitment to human resources that i have never really seen before. looks more like the standards you would see in place at successful companies in general.


I'd agree with this take.

Also, a question. Did the McKinsey consultation predate Phil? Actually, I'll look it up and answer

McKinsey
https://nypost.com/2013/11/30/can-the-mba-crowd-save-the-knicks-rangers/

Phil Hire
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/10607795/phil-jackson-deal-new-york-knicks-finalized

So, it appears that the McKinsey hire predates Phil.

Phil's tenure is the transitional culture period, between Dolan Hands On Starph*cking and Dolan Hands Off Let the Pros Run Things

Who convinces Dolan to hire McKinsey though? THAT person is one of the unsung heros.

I'm pretty sure McKinsey laid out the blueprint of how successful franchises run their teams, and Dolan, for both the Rangers (though he was alway more hands off there) and the Knicks, listened.

He still starph*cked when his Eagles managing buddy got Phil into the mix, but for the most part, other than maybe the power struggle inherent in having Mills in the mix as GM to Phil calling the shots as POBO, Dolan stayed away.

Obviously the mistake here is mistaking Phil's coaching chops for GM chops and MAYBE (since it's conjecture) Mills kind of working against Phil to some degree.

Once Phil gets pushed aside due to a combination of hubris, managerial incompetence and ?Mills machinations?, Mills gets the promotion he wants and MILLS is also comfortable letting a basketball lifer like Perry run things. Also, Mills and Perry more simpatico in personality etc, so it's just a better fit, so far.

Here's an aside from CapnO, circa 2014, which came up in my google search:

Capn'O wrote:http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/234494/Ujiri-Luckily-For-Raptors-Kyle-Lowry-To-Knicks-Trade-Didnt-Happen

"Dolan hired those business consultants [McKinsey & Company] last summer," said the source with knowledge of the Raptors' plans. "They had sold him on this whole thing about, 'You've been exploited by giving away first-round picks.' Could the deal have gotten done? Absolutely."


I had wondered if the change in outlook had come from McKinsey. So, the Knicks value draft picks now? I doubt they go in the tank anytime soon, but now they'll have a bit of a safety hatch if things go awry and avenues for maintaining cheap talent on the roster.

Passing on Lowry was an interesting symbolic move as Lowry's a bit better than some of the targets the Knicks have ponied up for in the past. Still, a very nice exercise in patience. If the Knicks have a decent season this year with some of the young players finding their roles, they'll be an attractive offseason destination for something bigger than Lowry.


Phil is the transition as it's the first instance of Dolan "Hands Off"
McKinsey's suggestion of keeping picks has held since then.

Phil gets the boot but Mills seeks out a basketball professional with strong contacts and relationships around the league(opposite of Phil), which is either a McKinsey suggestion again or kudos to Mills. No reason why Mills may not have made that call.

Pills continue the McKinsey/Sound Franchise Advice of valueing picks and culture, where culture, in this instance, is knowing what you want to accomplish as an organization and enabling the things and people that accomplish that. And I think it's been shown via clips etc that they knew MSG had a bad rep as a place to work and the org known as dysfunctional, and they've set out to alleviate that, top to bottom. So they value talented workers, but cooperative ones - not yes men, but people of character. It seems to be what they look for in players - a certain pedigree to go with, obviously, talent.

I'd assume that's to ensure there is a culture where the players like each other, which is generally cited as what MOST (not all) successful teams have. I also think character is important to them in the young players because the league is about drafting mostly 19 year olds now and will soon be 18 year olds. So you have to have really good scouts but also have to know how to pick character, as those are the guys most likely to maximize their talent.

The Knicks have also emphasized player development more in the past, which again, is what good teams do and also a function of most players being drafted so young. Hell, even when 22 year olds got drafted, it took at LEAST 1.5 years before they really rounded into form. 3 years older than most players now. It's not an accident that Trier looked the most ready as a rookie.



To the larger question of what is "basketball culture".

Lets compare it to the term "morale" in the military. A lot of people, including young guys in the military, assume "good morale" is people are happy. They are wrong. "Morale" is the state of things getting done. "Good morale" means things are getting done. "Bad morale" is a less than adequate amount of stuff is getting done. Period. Are happy feelings possibly included? Sure, but not necessary. It's possible for a unit to be full of guys constantly complaining, but proud of what they do and well trained and getting stuff done to a high degree. In fact, my experience was that was more common.

Basketball "culture" and a "winning culture" is similar, in that everyone doesn't have to be "happy" or even a "nice person" but they have to "buy in" to what's going on, basically akin to the military in that "do they have discipline - executing the plan and orders and acting right" leading to a state of "winning culture" or, lets say "positive morale"

Where leadership matters, is the org setting the tone of expectations, but that's a little distant - it's like Battalion level - but the players are aware it exists. It's up to the GM (probably like a company captain/1st sgt) setting a more obvious tone and having daily impact, but the real day to day impact is more directly felt at the platoon level - and the coach is probably most like a good platoon sgt - really sets the standard of discipline and standards of execution.

So what is the star player?
He's that kick ass squad leader that everyone knows, even in other squads, that is the best, most experienced soldier in the platoon, and who further sets the example, by DOING\LEADING, that everyone emulates.

And that squad leader/star player can be an acerbic prick - that doesn't always help - but if that person demands defense, willingly shares the ball and cares about executing the offense, then it will tend to flow down hill from there. And yes, that guy will care about getting guys OFF the team who aren't with the program.

Can a team win some games and be a playoff team where the best player isn't quite as interested in that stuff and sort of has to be lead there by the coach and lesser players? Sure. Will they have really good success? I say no.

Ok, end of ebook.


Image

this is exactly what i think this thread is getting after. EXCELLENT call with the mckinsey connection.
RIP magnumt

all we got iz us szn(s)
User avatar
dakomish23
RealGM
Posts: 33,702
And1: 19,506
Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Location: Empire State
     

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#33 » by dakomish23 » Thu Jun 6, 2019 12:21 pm

Meat wrote:
rrosario35 wrote:So I've been wondering, when Phil Jackson came on board there was all this talk about changing the culture of the team... It started to happen and Perry preached the same when he got here.
The teams culture definitely seems to have changed, the divas are gone, the drama is gone and I personally enjoyed watching the young kids and dreaming of the potential.
With the Summer quickly approaching I'm trying to figure out how things would look if Kyrie and KD came on board... I mean if KP was a diva, what's KD and KI going to be like? It's gonna be weird as f***.
So having said that... which top free agents do you think fit in best with the "culture" of this team... Still KD & Kyrie?

https://www.nba.com/freeagents/2019/tracker

Am I crazy for hoping Vince Carter gets a spot as the wise vet on the team?

you know what creates and changes culture? winning. Jordan was a massive piece of **** but no one talks about the bulls bad culture


Bingo. I don’t remember much “culture” talk when we won 54 games.

Winning cures everything
Read on Twitter
Juco24
Veteran
Posts: 2,654
And1: 1,754
Joined: Feb 12, 2013

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#34 » by Juco24 » Thu Jun 6, 2019 12:22 pm

Meat wrote:
Cookies4Life wrote:Mills and Perry have been saying the same things for 2 years- they want to build a culture here and build this teams through the draft. Steve was saying this even before Perry was here that the fanbase is fine with a rebuild and that they weren't going to take any shortcuts. They both preach about the idea of sustaining a long term contender here.

They've mentioned all of that ad nauseum which is a great thing to hear as a fan. So it seems very odd to me that there's this notion they'll be trading the farm to acquire a potential 3rd star if they're able to secure 2 max FA's. It would seem very counterproductive as all our young talent outside of Robinson would be getting traded with their value at an all time low. If the staff prides themselves on player development, they should be working diligently on improving the games of Knox, DSJ and Frank, 3 mid lottery guys from the last 2 seasons.

I tell my girl she’s my soulmate... till I win the mega millions and learn I have a shot at “insert famous person.” This Knicks have an unprecedented chance to acquire 3 top 10-15 players in the league. Of course you change gears


While I wouldn't go that far, Lol... you're exactly right! The successful ones diagram a plan and implement it -- however, along the process if an opportunity or even a roadblock presents itself -- then you have to know how to divert from the initial and move forward with what has changed in the current. Evolution
User avatar
dakomish23
RealGM
Posts: 33,702
And1: 19,506
Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Location: Empire State
     

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#35 » by dakomish23 » Thu Jun 6, 2019 12:29 pm

Chanel Bomber wrote:
br7knicks wrote:
Chanel Bomber wrote:D-Lo and Brogdon would be good signings imo. Still quite young, would add shooting and playmaking to our team.

Russell / DSJ
Brogdon / Frank / Trier
Barrett or Culver / Dotson
TBD / Knox
Mitch

This line-up needs one more veteran at the 4 but this team would be quite exciting imo.

As I've said many times, KD and Kyrie will only bring drama and disappointment at the Garden. I've had enough of that personally.


I think Durant would be a problem for culture change, too.


Melo brought great scoring talent, but he also brought defensive liability, inability to change and adapt game to help the team win vs getting his own numbers and shots, poor leadership, and an incredible amount of difficulty to build around one player.

Durant is more of an off the court, mental problem tho.

Melo was a net negative, in that his negatives didn't make up for his positive in scoring. Is Durant that much of a negative for culture change, and is it worth it for the Knicks? That's a big question.

I disagree that Melo was a net negative but he certainly didn't change the culture at the Garden with his leadership (or lack thereof). There was always a cloud hanging over the franchise with Melo, not a dark cloud (that was JR Smith, whom I loved regardless) but more like a grey stratus cloud.

His inability to change under Mike D'Antoni and after his injury also hurt the franchise, no doubt about it. And I'll never forget how he ran J-Lin out of town. But he brought the franchise back to relevance, he gave us one great season where we should've gone to the ECF, never flopped or cheated the game and handled Phil's nonsense like a man so I am also thankful for those years.


Agreed on everything but the Lin thing.

The organization seemed determined to keep him until he went back for that 2nd offer, regardless of how Melo or anyone else felt.




Read on Twitter
User avatar
thebuzzardman
RealGM
Posts: 32,405
And1: 23,635
Joined: Jun 24, 2006
Location: WINGSPANDIA

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#36 » by thebuzzardman » Thu Jun 6, 2019 12:53 pm

dakomish23 wrote:
Meat wrote:
rrosario35 wrote:So I've been wondering, when Phil Jackson came on board there was all this talk about changing the culture of the team... It started to happen and Perry preached the same when he got here.
The teams culture definitely seems to have changed, the divas are gone, the drama is gone and I personally enjoyed watching the young kids and dreaming of the potential.
With the Summer quickly approaching I'm trying to figure out how things would look if Kyrie and KD came on board... I mean if KP was a diva, what's KD and KI going to be like? It's gonna be weird as f***.
So having said that... which top free agents do you think fit in best with the "culture" of this team... Still KD & Kyrie?

https://www.nba.com/freeagents/2019/tracker

Am I crazy for hoping Vince Carter gets a spot as the wise vet on the team?

you know what creates and changes culture? winning. Jordan was a massive piece of **** but no one talks about the bulls bad culture


Bingo. I don’t remember much “culture” talk when we won 54 games.

Winning cures everything


It cures a lot, but that statement is wrong.

There were plenty of guys who didn't like the way Melo played, in spite of the wins coming.

There was real concern that it was older vets, who couldn't be counted on their career lasting, who drove the change, both in talent, and in attitude/playing the right way.

The last point was borne out when most of those players either couldn't stay healthy even the year they were acquired, particularly in the playoffs, and especially into the following season.

Winning doesn't "cure everything". Sometimes it does a good job of masking the underlying illness. For a little while.

Don't mistake this post to mean "culture is everything".
Talent is first and foremost.
Talent leads to winning.
There are plenty of talented teams that didn't do much.
Culture is about maximizing any slice in time of a team - an individual group of players on a team within one season. It can also be about a sustainable model of playing a certain way, emphasizing certain kinds of players (besides their talent - duh), and having, I'm not exactly sure - an organizational approach to how the team wants to play and how the organization will support that, in what coaches it hires - head coach, assistants, developmental coaches, training staff, scouts, international scouts - whatever.

The better organizations seem to have an approach to what they want to do and generally try to get players that fit that BUT they don't get so cute as to pass up really talented players or fail to adapt their system SOMEWHAT to the players at hand.

The Spurs changed tactically, if you will, to Derozean and Aldridge. They didn't abandon their core strategic values as an organization for them. As an example. I'm speaking broad concepts.

And I'll address that Jordan concept.

Jordan was a massive POS but he was also a massive driven to win POS, who was one of the best players to ever play the game AND who was super committed to playing defense.
So, even though he was a prick who'd berate teammates, he was absolutely driven to win.

But for all that drive, he didn't win until Pippen came along and Phil became his coach.
Talent, plus culture.
And Jordan drove a lot of the culture, because he was so committed to winning and so committed to defense. Phil/Tex Winters provided a framework of basketball fundamentals, which helps execution, and the triangle, which Phil is ON RECORD of saying the most important thing about it is it makes players share the ball, which makes the role players feel involved, which leads to them trying harder on defense.
And Phil the head coach demanded defense as well. And Jordan and Pippen, the stars, provided it and set the example for everyone else.
And Phil used Horace Grant as designated "taker of abuse" as Phil knew he came from a military family and could "take it", for the team, and in large part, by proxy for Jordan, who could be a little sensitive to criticism.

So yeah, culture mattered to the Bulls winning and particularly to winning a championship many times. Jordan brought a lot of the "culture" himself.

I think the issue is people mistake what "culture" is in basketball.
And I'll say again, it doesn't matter without talent, but it's a mistake to think talent alone is getting a team anywhere, other than, sure, .500 records or even somewhat better but really no chance to advance.

Then again, a team could have a solid culture, pretty good players, but just not enough talent to beat out some more talented teams. Say hello the the Cavs of the mid 80's to early 90's. Maybe the D'Antoni Suns. Who had a culture, but maybe not quite the right one? Not quite enough talent?

Both are important. Talent matters most.
User avatar
dakomish23
RealGM
Posts: 33,702
And1: 19,506
Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Location: Empire State
     

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#37 » by dakomish23 » Thu Jun 6, 2019 1:20 pm

thebuzzardman wrote:
dakomish23 wrote:
Meat wrote:you know what creates and changes culture? winning. Jordan was a massive piece of **** but no one talks about the bulls bad culture


Bingo. I don’t remember much “culture” talk when we won 54 games.

Winning cures everything


It cures a lot, but that statement is wrong.

There were plenty of guys who didn't like the way Melo played, in spite of the wins coming.

There was real concern that it was older vets, who couldn't be counted on their career lasting, who drove the change, both in talent, and in attitude/playing the right way.

The last point was borne out when most of those players either couldn't stay healthy even the year they were acquired, particularly in the playoffs, and especially into the following season.

Winning doesn't "cure everything". Sometimes it does a good job of masking the underlying illness. For a little while.

Don't mistake this post to mean "culture is everything".
Talent is first and foremost.
Talent leads to winning.
There are plenty of talented teams that didn't do much.
Culture is about maximizing any slice in time of a team - an individual group of players on a team within one season. It can also be about a sustainable model of playing a certain way, emphasizing certain kinds of players (besides their talent - duh), and having, I'm not exactly sure - an organizational approach to how the team wants to play and how the organization will support that, in what coaches it hires - head coach, assistants, developmental coaches, training staff, scouts, international scouts - whatever.

The better organizations seem to have an approach to what they want to do and generally try to get players that fit that BUT they don't get so cute as to pass up really talented players or fail to adapt their system SOMEWHAT to the players at hand.

The Spurs changed tactically, if you will, to Derozean and Aldridge. They didn't abandon their core strategic values as an organization for them. As an example. I'm speaking broad concepts.

And I'll address that Jordan concept.

Jordan was a massive POS but he was also a massive driven to win POS, who was one of the best players to ever play the game AND who was super committed to playing defense.
So, even though he was a prick who'd berate teammates, he was absolutely driven to win.

But for all that drive, he didn't win until Pippen came along and Phil became his coach.
Talent, plus culture.
And Jordan drove a lot of the culture, because he was so committed to winning and so committed to defense. Phil/Tex Winters provided a framework of basketball fundamentals, which helps execution, and the triangle, which Phil is ON RECORD of saying the most important thing about it is it makes players share the ball, which makes the role players feel involved, which leads to them trying harder on defense.
And Phil the head coach demanded defense as well. And Jordan and Pippen, the stars, provided it and set the example for everyone else.
And Phil used Horace Grant as designated "taker of abuse" as Phil knew he came from a military family and could "take it", for the team, and in large part, by proxy for Jordan, who could be a little sensitive to criticism.

So yeah, culture mattered to the Bulls winning and particularly to winning a championship many times. Jordan brought a lot of the "culture" himself.

I think the issue is people mistake what "culture" is in basketball.
And I'll say again, it doesn't matter without talent, but it's a mistake to think talent alone is getting a team anywhere, other than, sure, .500 records or even somewhat better but really no chance to advance.

Then again, a team could have a solid culture, pretty good players, but just not enough talent to beat out some more talented teams. Say hello the the Cavs of the mid 80's to early 90's. Maybe the D'Antoni Suns. Who had a culture, but maybe not quite the right one? Not quite enough talent?

Both are important. Talent matters most.


The ppl complaining when we were winning are probably the same ppl trying to blame him for stuff now.

I’m not saying culture isn’t important. It is. But the endgame is the W column. And as we agree, talent and how that talent fits together matters most when it comes to W’s.




Read on Twitter
User avatar
thebuzzardman
RealGM
Posts: 32,405
And1: 23,635
Joined: Jun 24, 2006
Location: WINGSPANDIA

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#38 » by thebuzzardman » Thu Jun 6, 2019 1:24 pm

dakomish23 wrote:
thebuzzardman wrote:
dakomish23 wrote:
Bingo. I don’t remember much “culture” talk when we won 54 games.

Winning cures everything


It cures a lot, but that statement is wrong.

There were plenty of guys who didn't like the way Melo played, in spite of the wins coming.

There was real concern that it was older vets, who couldn't be counted on their career lasting, who drove the change, both in talent, and in attitude/playing the right way.

The last point was borne out when most of those players either couldn't stay healthy even the year they were acquired, particularly in the playoffs, and especially into the following season.

Winning doesn't "cure everything". Sometimes it does a good job of masking the underlying illness. For a little while.

Don't mistake this post to mean "culture is everything".
Talent is first and foremost.
Talent leads to winning.
There are plenty of talented teams that didn't do much.
Culture is about maximizing any slice in time of a team - an individual group of players on a team within one season. It can also be about a sustainable model of playing a certain way, emphasizing certain kinds of players (besides their talent - duh), and having, I'm not exactly sure - an organizational approach to how the team wants to play and how the organization will support that, in what coaches it hires - head coach, assistants, developmental coaches, training staff, scouts, international scouts - whatever.

The better organizations seem to have an approach to what they want to do and generally try to get players that fit that BUT they don't get so cute as to pass up really talented players or fail to adapt their system SOMEWHAT to the players at hand.

The Spurs changed tactically, if you will, to Derozean and Aldridge. They didn't abandon their core strategic values as an organization for them. As an example. I'm speaking broad concepts.

And I'll address that Jordan concept.

Jordan was a massive POS but he was also a massive driven to win POS, who was one of the best players to ever play the game AND who was super committed to playing defense.
So, even though he was a prick who'd berate teammates, he was absolutely driven to win.

But for all that drive, he didn't win until Pippen came along and Phil became his coach.
Talent, plus culture.
And Jordan drove a lot of the culture, because he was so committed to winning and so committed to defense. Phil/Tex Winters provided a framework of basketball fundamentals, which helps execution, and the triangle, which Phil is ON RECORD of saying the most important thing about it is it makes players share the ball, which makes the role players feel involved, which leads to them trying harder on defense.
And Phil the head coach demanded defense as well. And Jordan and Pippen, the stars, provided it and set the example for everyone else.
And Phil used Horace Grant as designated "taker of abuse" as Phil knew he came from a military family and could "take it", for the team, and in large part, by proxy for Jordan, who could be a little sensitive to criticism.

So yeah, culture mattered to the Bulls winning and particularly to winning a championship many times. Jordan brought a lot of the "culture" himself.

I think the issue is people mistake what "culture" is in basketball.
And I'll say again, it doesn't matter without talent, but it's a mistake to think talent alone is getting a team anywhere, other than, sure, .500 records or even somewhat better but really no chance to advance.

Then again, a team could have a solid culture, pretty good players, but just not enough talent to beat out some more talented teams. Say hello the the Cavs of the mid 80's to early 90's. Maybe the D'Antoni Suns. Who had a culture, but maybe not quite the right one? Not quite enough talent?

Both are important. Talent matters most.


The ppl complaining when we were winning are probably the same ppl trying to blame him for stuff now.

I’m not saying culture isn’t important. It is. But the endgame is the W column. And as we agree, talent matters most when it comes to that.


Ok Vince Lombardi. :D

Ha - just playing around.

Yes, of course winning is what matters. It's chicken or the egg territory though. Does the culture help bring about the wins or vice versa?

I'd say it's talent, but again, does culture help in assembling talent? Is it talent (in scouting and GM'ing) that gets talent? Luck? Both? In that luck favors the prepared? All of the above? It's not none of the above.

Mostly it's about competence and talent. If that can also be vaguely defined as "culture" then we agree totally. But we're basically in the ballpark. I just find it interesting to talk about the impact of a good team culture in sports (and anywhere) - but no org or team is going anywhere without talent. I'll leave it with the fact that well run places attract talent because talent wants to be around other talent, both managerial and co-workers (teammates)
User avatar
Capn'O
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 50,086
And1: 36,424
Joined: Dec 16, 2005
Location: Let's stop and get a hot dog
 

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#39 » by Capn'O » Thu Jun 6, 2019 1:57 pm

thebuzzardman wrote:
Jeff Van Gully wrote:this thread can survive the merge if it stays about the culture concept.

i think every leadership group has to identify and implement its own culture. the multi-billion dollar question: is it truly possible to separate him from the "culture?"

sounds like merry pills is definitely trying to keep a barrier, as did phil. but pills also have a tangible and obvious commitment to human resources that i have never really seen before. looks more like the standards you would see in place at successful companies in general.


I'd agree with this take.

Also, a question. Did the McKinsey consultation predate Phil? Actually, I'll look it up and answer

McKinsey
https://nypost.com/2013/11/30/can-the-mba-crowd-save-the-knicks-rangers/

Phil Hire
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/10607795/phil-jackson-deal-new-york-knicks-finalized

So, it appears that the McKinsey hire predates Phil.

Phil's tenure is the transitional culture period, between Dolan Hands On Starph*cking and Dolan Hands Off Let the Pros Run Things

Who convinces Dolan to hire McKinsey though? THAT person is one of the unsung heros.

I'm pretty sure McKinsey laid out the blueprint of how successful franchises run their teams, and Dolan, for both the Rangers (though he was alway more hands off there) and the Knicks, listened.

He still starph*cked when his Eagles managing buddy got Phil into the mix, but for the most part, other than maybe the power struggle inherent in having Mills in the mix as GM to Phil calling the shots as POBO, Dolan stayed away.

Obviously the mistake here is mistaking Phil's coaching chops for GM chops and MAYBE (since it's conjecture) Mills kind of working against Phil to some degree.

Once Phil gets pushed aside due to a combination of hubris, managerial incompetence and ?Mills machinations?, Mills gets the promotion he wants and MILLS is also comfortable letting a basketball lifer like Perry run things. Also, Mills and Perry more simpatico in personality etc, so it's just a better fit, so far.

Here's an aside from CapnO, circa 2014, which came up in my google search:

Capn'O wrote:http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/234494/Ujiri-Luckily-For-Raptors-Kyle-Lowry-To-Knicks-Trade-Didnt-Happen

"Dolan hired those business consultants [McKinsey & Company] last summer," said the source with knowledge of the Raptors' plans. "They had sold him on this whole thing about, 'You've been exploited by giving away first-round picks.' Could the deal have gotten done? Absolutely."


I had wondered if the change in outlook had come from McKinsey. So, the Knicks value draft picks now? I doubt they go in the tank anytime soon, but now they'll have a bit of a safety hatch if things go awry and avenues for maintaining cheap talent on the roster.

Passing on Lowry was an interesting symbolic move as Lowry's a bit better than some of the targets the Knicks have ponied up for in the past. Still, a very nice exercise in patience. If the Knicks have a decent season this year with some of the young players finding their roles, they'll be an attractive offseason destination for something bigger than Lowry.


Phil is the transition as it's the first instance of Dolan "Hands Off"
McKinsey's suggestion of keeping picks has held since then.

Phil gets the boot but Mills seeks out a basketball professional with strong contacts and relationships around the league(opposite of Phil), which is either a McKinsey suggestion again or kudos to Mills. No reason why Mills may not have made that call.

Pills continue the McKinsey/Sound Franchise Advice of valueing picks and culture, where culture, in this instance, is knowing what you want to accomplish as an organization and enabling the things and people that accomplish that. And I think it's been shown via clips etc that they knew MSG had a bad rep as a place to work and the org known as dysfunctional, and they've set out to alleviate that, top to bottom. So they value talented workers, but cooperative ones - not yes men, but people of character. It seems to be what they look for in players - a certain pedigree to go with, obviously, talent.

I'd assume that's to ensure there is a culture where the players like each other, which is generally cited as what MOST (not all) successful teams have. I also think character is important to them in the young players because the league is about drafting mostly 19 year olds now and will soon be 18 year olds. So you have to have really good scouts but also have to know how to pick character, as those are the guys most likely to maximize their talent.

The Knicks have also emphasized player development more in the past, which again, is what good teams do and also a function of most players being drafted so young. Hell, even when 22 year olds got drafted, it took at LEAST 1.5 years before they really rounded into form. 3 years older than most players now. It's not an accident that Trier looked the most ready as a rookie.



To the larger question of what is "basketball culture".

Lets compare it to the term "morale" in the military. A lot of people, including young guys in the military, assume "good morale" is people are happy. They are wrong. "Morale" is the state of things getting done. "Good morale" means things are getting done. "Bad morale" is a less than adequate amount of stuff is getting done. Period. Are happy feelings possibly included? Sure, but not necessary. It's possible for a unit to be full of guys constantly complaining, but proud of what they do and well trained and getting stuff done to a high degree. In fact, my experience was that was more common.

Basketball "culture" and a "winning culture" is similar, in that everyone doesn't have to be "happy" or even a "nice person" but they have to "buy in" to what's going on, basically akin to the military in that "do they have discipline - executing the plan and orders and acting right" leading to a state of "winning culture" or, lets say "positive morale"

Where leadership matters, is the org setting the tone of expectations, but that's a little distant - it's like Battalion level - but the players are aware it exists. It's up to the GM (probably like a company captain/1st sgt) setting a more obvious tone and having daily impact, but the real day to day impact is more directly felt at the platoon level - and the coach is probably most like a good platoon sgt - really sets the standard of discipline and standards of execution.

So what is the star player?
He's that kick ass squad leader that everyone knows, even in other squads, that is the best, most experienced soldier in the platoon, and who further sets the example, by DOING\LEADING, that everyone emulates.

And that squad leader/star player can be an acerbic prick - that doesn't always help - but if that person demands defense, willingly shares the ball and cares about executing the offense, then it will tend to flow down hill from there. And yes, that guy will care about getting guys OFF the team who aren't with the program.

Can a team win some games and be a playoff team where the best player isn't quite as interested in that stuff and sort of has to be lead there by the coach and lesser players? Sure. Will they have really good success? I say no.

Ok, end of ebook.


Yeah Buzz - that's exactly how I've always looked at the McKinsey hire. It was a point of organizational culture change. Then they starphucked with their management hire (Phil) to turn the eye from the roster churning they were gonna do to get back to par on assets. Even the Rose trade was symbolic of that in that it was an attention grabbing move that ultimately didn't hurt the team's long term prospects.

We did sign Noah and Hardaway in this span. Old habits die hard? In any event, those were really bad.
BAF Clippers
PG: SGA/Payton/Napier
SG: G. Harris/THT/Korkmaz
SF: Little/KCP/Dekker
PF: Isaac/M. Leonard/Vanderbilt/
C: Nurkic/M. Gasol/Holmes

RIP Mags :beer:
User avatar
dakomish23
RealGM
Posts: 33,702
And1: 19,506
Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Location: Empire State
     

Re: NYK: Changing the Culture 

Post#40 » by dakomish23 » Thu Jun 6, 2019 2:01 pm

thebuzzardman wrote:
dakomish23 wrote:
thebuzzardman wrote:
It cures a lot, but that statement is wrong.

There were plenty of guys who didn't like the way Melo played, in spite of the wins coming.

There was real concern that it was older vets, who couldn't be counted on their career lasting, who drove the change, both in talent, and in attitude/playing the right way.

The last point was borne out when most of those players either couldn't stay healthy even the year they were acquired, particularly in the playoffs, and especially into the following season.

Winning doesn't "cure everything". Sometimes it does a good job of masking the underlying illness. For a little while.

Don't mistake this post to mean "culture is everything".
Talent is first and foremost.
Talent leads to winning.
There are plenty of talented teams that didn't do much.
Culture is about maximizing any slice in time of a team - an individual group of players on a team within one season. It can also be about a sustainable model of playing a certain way, emphasizing certain kinds of players (besides their talent - duh), and having, I'm not exactly sure - an organizational approach to how the team wants to play and how the organization will support that, in what coaches it hires - head coach, assistants, developmental coaches, training staff, scouts, international scouts - whatever.

The better organizations seem to have an approach to what they want to do and generally try to get players that fit that BUT they don't get so cute as to pass up really talented players or fail to adapt their system SOMEWHAT to the players at hand.

The Spurs changed tactically, if you will, to Derozean and Aldridge. They didn't abandon their core strategic values as an organization for them. As an example. I'm speaking broad concepts.

And I'll address that Jordan concept.

Jordan was a massive POS but he was also a massive driven to win POS, who was one of the best players to ever play the game AND who was super committed to playing defense.
So, even though he was a prick who'd berate teammates, he was absolutely driven to win.

But for all that drive, he didn't win until Pippen came along and Phil became his coach.
Talent, plus culture.
And Jordan drove a lot of the culture, because he was so committed to winning and so committed to defense. Phil/Tex Winters provided a framework of basketball fundamentals, which helps execution, and the triangle, which Phil is ON RECORD of saying the most important thing about it is it makes players share the ball, which makes the role players feel involved, which leads to them trying harder on defense.
And Phil the head coach demanded defense as well. And Jordan and Pippen, the stars, provided it and set the example for everyone else.
And Phil used Horace Grant as designated "taker of abuse" as Phil knew he came from a military family and could "take it", for the team, and in large part, by proxy for Jordan, who could be a little sensitive to criticism.

So yeah, culture mattered to the Bulls winning and particularly to winning a championship many times. Jordan brought a lot of the "culture" himself.

I think the issue is people mistake what "culture" is in basketball.
And I'll say again, it doesn't matter without talent, but it's a mistake to think talent alone is getting a team anywhere, other than, sure, .500 records or even somewhat better but really no chance to advance.

Then again, a team could have a solid culture, pretty good players, but just not enough talent to beat out some more talented teams. Say hello the the Cavs of the mid 80's to early 90's. Maybe the D'Antoni Suns. Who had a culture, but maybe not quite the right one? Not quite enough talent?

Both are important. Talent matters most.


The ppl complaining when we were winning are probably the same ppl trying to blame him for stuff now.

I’m not saying culture isn’t important. It is. But the endgame is the W column. And as we agree, talent matters most when it comes to that.


Ok Vince Lombardi. :D

Ha - just playing around.

Yes, of course winning is what matters. It's chicken or the egg territory though. Does the culture help bring about the wins or vice versa?

I'd say it's talent, but again, does culture help in assembling talent? Is it talent (in scouting and GM'ing) that gets talent? Luck? Both? In that luck favors the prepared? All of the above? It's not none of the above.

Mostly it's about competence and talent. If that can also be vaguely defined as "culture" then we agree totally. But we're basically in the ballpark. I just find it interesting to talk about the impact of a good team culture in sports (and anywhere) - but no org or team is going anywhere without talent. I'll leave it with the fact that well run places attract talent because talent wants to be around other talent, both managerial and co-workers (teammates)


When we’re this bereft of talent, would you pass on one of these guys who could potentially bring some drama? Especially after everything we’ve done to get here?

I think we would be foolish to do so.




Read on Twitter

Return to New York Knicks