Enes Kanter interview with Howard Beck

[Hes_On_Fire]

in general, human beings have a hard time accepting the randomness of life. people like to think they manifest their own destiny when so much is actually chance. life on this planet is likely itself a random event.

Watch on YouTube

There is no me, I don't exist.

[god shammgod]

you guys are totally missing the point. you keep talking about the past, i'm talking about the future. if we don't hit big on rj or mitch, or randle or dennis or whoever, than doing everything right will still lead to us tearing it down again or paying them and being mediocre. you can keep all your picks, not sign anyone stupid to long deals and still get nowhere. in fact, that's the more likely outcome.

It's very unlikely to be consistently good in short order period. "Doing everything right" involves a longer tack. Some lesser teams that I think do it right include the Jazz, Pacers, and Rockets. Morey took about 6 years to revamp from TMac/Yao before he found the Harden trade and then Mike D to go with him. Maybe that was lucky but they were always in position to make a move and never too terrible. That was by design. The latter two are just always solid teams. Never more than a 2 year drought or so from the playoffs in decades. The point being here, those team are always in position to do something for thing being right. And if the Jazz or Pacers were in a different market they'd be more likely to make the moves that could push them over the top. Though with different pressures to move more quickly.

I don't think or expect that you can do better than that but you have to be in position. If you're capped out with no picks AND you suck there are fewer outs. Far fewer ways to get lucky. And that's where ownership and managers matter.

the jazz are a great example, they are run well and never really get anywhere. haven't been a contender since they drafted stockon and malone. have never won. and their current success is mostly based on the luck of drafting mitchell. would you really want to be them ?

and being in a small market is a disadvantage for sure. it's not a coincidence that all the best players in free agency went to the two big media markets. and another 2, george and ad, were traded there.

this is all your fault by the way. you know the point i'm making but you're arguing against it because you're an optimist and you've encouraged others to take your side. everything just doesn't work out because you do the right things and try hard. life's not fair and you'll like it.

[Capn'O]

would you really want to be them ?

Have you watched the **** Knicks the past 20 years?! Oh my **** god yes. Every year there's a point where I just say "**** it" and watch Portland the rest of the year. How the Hell do you think I stay so optimistic. "It ain't really that bad..." stems from not watching what you're watching

I edited later but here's where I think we disagree.

i'm not arguing against good management and making smart decisions though. i'm not. you guys keep pushing me onto that side of the discussion. that's a given. i'm arguing that without luck that won't amount to much.

Correct me if I'm wrong on where you currently stand but you have been on the side that ownership doesn't really matter. I disagree entirely. I do agree that no magic formula = championship but the Knicks haven't just been unlucky and ownership has absolutely played a role in the teams extended poor performance.

[Capn'O]

It's like this joke. You can do everything right and not get the big prize but...

Watch on YouTube

Spoiler:

You can't be a goatfcker and win!

[KnicksGod]

Luck is huge. I think possibly even saying skill and a plan are also big ... is overrated. It’s very largely luck.

How else could you explain Colangelo doing that magic trick with the Nash team and then after it not being able to do anything right?

Also injuries and stuff that’s close to impossible to know about any player. Only thing I’d concede is that there are a few land mines you need to avoid as GM, and some general temptations that should be resisted. That’s not clear either but there are things that lower your odds a little.

I actually even think a Pat Riley is nothing special in reality. All he does is talk big and try to make a splash. He wants to get the deal done, which is risky and has been a mark of ours previously.

Still that too can work — it worked for Toronto to get a title, and the Heat too. Long term it’s probably less sound to be eager.

[god shammgod]

would you really want to be them ?

Have you watched the **** Knicks the past 20 years?! Oh my **** god yes. Every year there's a point where I just say "**** it" and watch Portland the rest of the year. How the Hell do you think I stay so optimistic. "It ain't really that bad..." stems from not watching what you're watching

I edited later but here's where I think we disagree.

i'm not arguing against good management and making smart decisions though. i'm not. you guys keep pushing me onto that side of the discussion. that's a given. i'm arguing that without luck that won't amount to much.

Correct me if I'm wrong on where you currently stand but you have been on the side that ownership doesn't really matter. I disagree entirely. I do agree that no magic formula = championship but the Knicks haven't just been unlucky and ownership has absolutely played a role in the teams extended poor performance.

well of course it matters but it doesn't matter more than luck. no. the ownership of cleveland sucks but they drafted lebron, who was born there, and they did all they could to f*ck it up and still succeeded in spite of themselves. the miami heat looked like this great run organization until wade got old and lebron left and now they look absolutely terrible. they make nothing but bad decisions. it's the same people.

at the end of the day, it comes down to having one of the top 4 or 5 players in the nba more than anything else. ownership, management, coaching, whatever. it's absolutely better that all of that is good, but you can still overcome all of that if you have one of those players. and without one of them, all of that doesn't mean nearly as much.

the more i say in this thread, the more i'm realizing we should have tanked again this year.

[Capn'O]

How else could you explain Colangelo doing that magic trick with the Nash team and then after it not being able to do anything right?

Well, for starters his father was advising the league on rule changes that specifically benefit the 7 seconds approach

[Jalen Bluntson]

i'm not arguing against good management and making smart decisions though. i'm not. you guys keep pushing me onto that side of the discussion. that's a given. i'm arguing that without luck that won't amount to much. that's how this discussion started. luck is the genesis of all these success stories. sure, they had to not f*ck it up and lots of people do f*ck it up. but without that initial spark of luck it's meaningless.

Proper preparation prevents poor performance. Luck...has been said to be a bi product of this. If teams aren't doing the right things...luck can be meaningless more often than not. So...yeah....chicken or egg. I would prefer we were a well run organization whenever that luck pops up.

nobody is arguing against that. do you believe i am arguing for a badly run organization ? that i would prefer that.

all i did, days ago before someone decided to bump this (not you), is argue that we can do everything right, as we seemingly are right now, and it could still lead nowhere all that great. in fact, that's the more likely outcome.

i'm not saying not to do it or that's there's some better alternative. just that there's no easy to follow path to winning it all. the most likely outcome for all nba franchises, whether they are run well or badly, is failure.

Then you're just playing devils advocate. Failure is not the result of well run organizations. I mean...look at the Craptors. Luck helped them win. They were lucky to stumble into the Kawhi trade...and the injuries to GSW won them a title. So...by being in a position to succeed...and knowing how to get there...resulted in success once the luck came their way. So...pointing out they were lucky is not telling the whole story.

[god shammgod]

jerry west has an unfair advantage by the way, he never leaves california. go on, make north carolina a success jerry, i dare you. lol

[god shammgod]

Proper preparation prevents poor performance. Luck...has been said to be a bi product of this. If teams aren't doing the right things...luck can be meaningless more often than not. So...yeah....chicken or egg. I would prefer we were a well run organization whenever that luck pops up.

nobody is arguing against that. do you believe i am arguing for a badly run organization ? that i would prefer that.

all i did, days ago before someone decided to bump this (not you), is argue that we can do everything right, as we seemingly are right now, and it could still lead nowhere all that great. in fact, that's the more likely outcome.

i'm not saying not to do it or that's there's some better alternative. just that there's no easy to follow path to winning it all. the most likely outcome for all nba franchises, whether they are run well or badly, is failure.

Then you're just playing devils advocate. Failure is not the result of well run organizations. I mean...look at the Craptors. Luck helped them win. They were lucky to stumble into the Kawhi trade...and the injuries to GSW won them a title. So...by being in a position to succeed...and knowing how to get there...resulted in success once the luck came their way. So...pointing out they were lucky is not telling the whole story.

it's not playing devils advocate because i'm not arguing against anything. i'm simply stating that luck is the most important factor.

[Capn'O]

would you really want to be them ?

Have you watched the **** Knicks the past 20 years?! Oh my **** god yes. Every year there's a point where I just say "**** it" and watch Portland the rest of the year. How the Hell do you think I stay so optimistic. "It ain't really that bad..." stems from not watching what you're watching

I edited later but here's where I think we disagree.

i'm not arguing against good management and making smart decisions though. i'm not. you guys keep pushing me onto that side of the discussion. that's a given. i'm arguing that without luck that won't amount to much.

Correct me if I'm wrong on where you currently stand but you have been on the side that ownership doesn't really matter. I disagree entirely. I do agree that no magic formula = championship but the Knicks haven't just been unlucky and ownership has absolutely played a role in the teams extended poor performance.

well of course it matters but it doesn't matter more than luck. no. the ownership of cleveland sucks but they drafted lebron, who was born there, and they did all they could to f*ck it up and still succeeded in spite of themselves. the miami heat looked like this great run organization until wade got old and lebron left and now they look absolutely terrible. they make nothing but bad decisions. it's the same people.

I don't know what to make of the Heat. The Rat's magic box finally ran out or something. Pop seems to be doing something similar. He's gotten long in the tooth and I think at some point said **** it and just started making win now moves instead of trying to build again.

I don't disagree with you about being great. But being consistently good... you need skill for that. Hands down.

at the end of the day, it comes down to having one of the top 4 or 5 players in the nba more than anything else. ownership, management, coaching, whatever. it's absolutely better that all of that is good, but you can still overcome all of that if you have one of those players. and without one of them, all of that doesn't mean nearly as much.

the more i say in this thread, the more i'm realizing we should have tanked again this year.

I'd allow it.

[Hes_On_Fire]

nobody is arguing against that. do you believe i am arguing for a badly run organization ? that i would prefer that.

all i did, days ago before someone decided to bump this (not you), is argue that we can do everything right, as we seemingly are right now, and it could still lead nowhere all that great. in fact, that's the more likely outcome.

i'm not saying not to do it or that's there's some better alternative. just that there's no easy to follow path to winning it all. the most likely outcome for all nba franchises, whether they are run well or badly, is failure.

Then you're just playing devils advocate. Failure is not the result of well run organizations. I mean...look at the Craptors. Luck helped them win. They were lucky to stumble into the Kawhi trade...and the injuries to GSW won them a title. So...by being in a position to succeed...and knowing how to get there...resulted in success once the luck came their way. So...pointing out they were lucky is not telling the whole story.

it's not playing devils advocate because i'm not arguing against anything. i'm simply stating that luck is the most important factor.

The problem with the luck argument is that you’re putting such an importance on that factor that you can make the same argument for anything.

Michael Jordan hits the game winner against Bryon Russell In 98 - luck

Starks goes 2-for whatever in Game 7 - luck

Kobe and Shaq beat Blazers in Game 7 after being down 15 in the 4th to advance to their first NBA Finals - luck

If everything is luck that the point of game planning, scouting, coaching, etc? Might as well spin a wheel and have a cardboard cutout of Red Holzman on the sidelines. Let’s flip a coin to see who wins. Same thing. Luck is the most important, everything else is a distant second.

[Jalen Bluntson]

nobody is arguing against that. do you believe i am arguing for a badly run organization ? that i would prefer that.

all i did, days ago before someone decided to bump this (not you), is argue that we can do everything right, as we seemingly are right now, and it could still lead nowhere all that great. in fact, that's the more likely outcome.

i'm not saying not to do it or that's there's some better alternative. just that there's no easy to follow path to winning it all. the most likely outcome for all nba franchises, whether they are run well or badly, is failure.

Then you're just playing devils advocate. Failure is not the result of well run organizations. I mean...look at the Craptors. Luck helped them win. They were lucky to stumble into the Kawhi trade...and the injuries to GSW won them a title. So...by being in a position to succeed...and knowing how to get there...resulted in success once the luck came their way. So...pointing out they were lucky is not telling the whole story.

it's not playing devils advocate because i'm not arguing against anything. i'm simply stating that luck is the most important factor.

But it's not the most important factor. It's just another factor. It has been pointed out...well run teams...in positon to succeed...benefit greater from luck than poorly run teams. We lucked into KP...and he's gone after 2 years. Craptors lucked into Kawhi..and won a title. It could be argued luck is not as important as being a well run team.

Scout well...draft well...make smart trades and FA deals...have a good coach. That's usually the foundation for success. Lottery luck is involved. Teams staying healthy is a big plus. If you don't do anything well...players don't want to come....the team most likely sucks. Then when luck comes along...its usually bad. Look at this franchise since the Ewing trade.

Sure luck is a part of it. So is knowing how to run a team. So is knowing how to coach a team.

[KnicksGod]

I’d previously say a good coach is an art that some have. Then Thibs didn’t do anything which shocked me. Maybe that too is just a random event.

[Thugger HBC]

jerry west has an unfair advantage by the way, he never leaves california. go on, make north carolina a success jerry, i dare you. lol

Correct me, but wasn't West in Memphis when they gifted Pau to the lakers?

[Thugger HBC]

Lucking into top tier talent is a huge factor for any teams success. it definitely makes it easier to be successful. There is way too many examples that support this.

[god shammgod]

jerry west has an unfair advantage by the way, he never leaves california. go on, make north carolina a success jerry, i dare you. lol

Correct me, but wasn't West in Memphis when they gifted Pau to the lakers?

yep.forgot about that.

edit- looked it up. actually they did it the year after jerry resigned.

they never got out of the 1st round under jerry and were swept every time.

[god shammgod]

I’d previously say a good coach is an art that some have. Then Thibs didn’t do anything which shocked me. Maybe that too is just a random event.

there is an art to coaching, but a bad coach with lebron in his prime is gonna beat a good coach with, say, joe johnson in his prime every time.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

Then you're just playing devils advocate. Failure is not the result of well run organizations. I mean...look at the Craptors. Luck helped them win. They were lucky to stumble into the Kawhi trade...and the injuries to GSW won them a title. So...by being in a position to succeed...and knowing how to get there...resulted in success once the luck came their way. So...pointing out they were lucky is not telling the whole story.

it's not playing devils advocate because i'm not arguing against anything. i'm simply stating that luck is the most important factor.

But it's not the most important factor. It's just another factor. It has been pointed out...well run teams...in positon to succeed...benefit greater from luck than poorly run teams. We lucked into KP...and he's gone after 2 years. Craptors lucked into Kawhi..and won a title. It could be argued luck is not as important as being a well run team.

Scout well...draft well...make smart trades and FA deals...have a good coach. That's usually the foundation for success. Lottery luck is involved. Teams staying healthy is a big plus. If you don't do anything well...players don't want to come....the team most likely sucks. Then when luck comes along...its usually bad. Look at this franchise since the Ewing trade.

Sure luck is a part of it. So is knowing how to run a team. So is knowing how to coach a team.

I think you are both making decent points, but it still feels like there are some factors that aren't really being revealed.

Try it this way? Take any football (soccer) league around the world. The #1, overriding determining factor is 'amount of money spent on salaries'. (Basically player salaries, because the salaries for the coach, FO, physios, tea-ladies, gate-staff pale into insignificance .. but actually those also fall in line with wealth.)

Same thing for rugby. Sort of the same thing for cycling. Surely the same thing for Euro-basket.

Now. The NBA has the salary cap, and caps on players wages. But having the team that in an cap-free market would have the highest total salary is, presumably, going to *on average* be the most important thing.

Question is: how to achieve that, even if you are the NYK and actually do have the most financial resources of any team in the league.

Subsidiary question: let's posit that Houston is the equivalent of Bayern Munich. If Harden was a soccer player would he want to be traded (transferred) to Real Madrid (LALakers) (ignoring who the other players on the Lakers actually are - just taking it as storied and not a worse situation - even though this particular year that might not be 100% true) more than he would as a basketball player or less?

[Capn'O]

Memphis actually got Marc in the Pau deal. Kinda worked out for both teams in the end.

West was solid before that. Brought the Grizz from the perennial worst team in the league to a team that is often decent. Definitely didn't have the advantages he has in Cali.