Chanel Bomber wrote:KnicksGod wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:I think it has been true for the last decade.
Durant turned us down twice. Kyrie didn't want to come. Jimmy didn't want to come. Kawhi didn't want to come. No big name player forced a trade here the way Harden, PG13 did, for instance. The Knicks have become a complete non-factor in those stories. They're on the sidelines.
And I think it's a disgrace that the Knicks - who have the luxury and the comparative advantage of playing in NY - haven't been able to attract any of these players.
I agree with you that they would be in good position to acquire guys without the constant losing. The latter is the essence of my point, however.
I'm not a big fan of just yelling that things are a disgrace. Sort of implies bad faith which I don't think has ever been the case.
I think it's gross negligence on Dolan's part, and gross incompetence by the people he has hired. I consider those things disgraceful for how repetitive these patterns have been, though I take your point.
Phil Jackson didn't take his job seriously, ran the team like a triangular sect and dragged his best player through the mud in public because someone had to be held accountable for his own mistakes. Mills was so delusional that he thought he could attract MVP-level free agents with the worst record in the NBA. Meanwhile, the standards for this franchise have sunk to the bottom of the ocean. MSG celebrates the achievements of players from other teams now. NBA players have openly mocked the Knicks. They are culturally the symbol of losing. I think it's a disgrace what these people have done to the Knicks from this perspective, though yes, I don't think Dolan does it on purpose either.
I hear you. I'd only depart on the point that sports is a roulette wheel largely. Being made fun of, or being hated or talked about, comes with the territory. The Braves were a "terrible organization" for a long time, and then they were one of the best. I'm sure there was some mismanagement during the bad times and good management during the good times, but I'm sure there was also some luck involved in both.
I think you're not wrong but hiding, to an extent, the fact that this is a business with no real center to it. No real way of managing it in a way that ensures results. You can mismanage it and still win.
This is not like some industry where you can study it, hire competent people, fund it, and cut costs, etc., and succeed. It's a much, much, much crazier thing than that. Totally high risk, wouldn't be insurable by any company, isn't moored to any real principles or precepts. You're talking about it too normally for me to buy in.
You're mostly spinning the wheel. There could have been some smarter decisions though, or just choosing certain things. Mike D'Antoni looked great coming over from the Suns, and of course LeBron would want to play that style in NYC ... not a dumb theory ... but didn't work at all.
Then again, had the Cavs won the title before LeBron decides, then the Knicks' record may not have mattered at all. The Knicks didn't have an effect on the Cavs winning or not.
But yes, this has snowballed in perceptions and you can def spotlight things that seem/were incompetent.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
