New York and D'Antoni

Paying some ridiculously large sum of money to Mike D'Antoni does seem like the kind of expensive, won't-work quick fix that would appeal to the New York Knicks management, so I kind of hope that happens. Remember when Larry Brown was going to cure what ails the team? Well that didn't work, and helping a listing team learn how to play defense is the sort of thing Brown has done well in the past.

D'Antoni's a good coach in my view, but what the Knicks really need to do is focus on the fact that their roster doesn't have enough good players. Absent canny draft choices, good free agent signings, or a lucky trade the team is just bound to be terrible. Under the circumstances, they may as well save money and hire a caretaker coach while trying to rebuild the team.

Comments

I don't even see it as a quick fix. More likely, it will be a quick implosion, unless D'Antoni gets assurances that any players who he thinks could undermine his authority would be bought out (see Randolph, Zach and Marbury, Stephon).

btw, It's not only that the Knicks don't have enough good players, it's also that too many of the players they have don't fit D'Antoni's fast break style of play.

Posted by Rich | May 9, 2008 10:54 AM

As a lifelong Knick fan (where have you gone Jerry Lucas the nation turns a lonely eye to you) a would rather lose 60 games and average 105ppg than lose 55 games and average 82ppg. Also, it is easier to get a bunch of nut cases to pull together shoot in seven seconds than it is to get them to help out on defense, so maybe D'Antoni is the anti-Larry Brown.

Posted by phg | May 9, 2008 10:58 AM

The Knicks don't have the shooters needed for D'Antoni's system. It won't work. They'll need to dismantle the whole team before he could even start implementing his system. And he's actually one of the worst coaches in the league when it comes to actually handling in-game situations. This will only make things worse.

Posted by Mike | May 9, 2008 11:02 AM

As another Knick fan: let 'em, I don't care. It's not my money and there's no salary cap on coaches.

The only reason I'd get behind the "caretaker coach" idea is if that coach were Herb Williams, who really deserves his shot, dammit.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 9, 2008 11:02 AM

D'Antoni must go to the Raptors. It would be spectacular to watch. Who doesn't want to see a team average 125 points a game with a .550 record?

Posted by nolaboyd | May 9, 2008 11:03 AM

Sorry, that was unclear. I don't care if they hire a caretaker coach either. The only positive desire I have is for them to give the job to Herb Williams, and that's faint.

Frankly, at this point I'm so disgusted with the Knicks that I'm considering becoming a Nets fan when they move to Brooklyn. I could just about walk to the new stadium.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 9, 2008 11:04 AM

Part of what makes D'Antoni's system run well is passing and a good point guard. The Knicks don't pass and don't have anything even approaching a competent point guard. As a Knick fan, I've come to accept that they won't be good for at least another 5 years; as a basketball fan, I hope and pray that D'Antoni's system isn't wasted on these idiots. At this point the Knicks should focus on not making their situation any worse, not on trying to win anything meaningful.

Posted by another knick fan | May 9, 2008 11:07 AM

This is completely OT, and will likely hijack the thread, but I just can't resist:

Hey Petey, check it out!

Posted by Brautigan | May 9, 2008 11:09 AM

Good point on the no coach salary cap. And with D'Antoni they may have better luck in the free agent market than they would with an obvious caretaker.

Posted by AJ | May 9, 2008 11:18 AM

The Knicks need to petition the NBA for another "salary amnesty" deal similar to when they paid off Allan Houston - except the Knicks need to dump about 5 players. . . D'Antoni would be nuts to go to the Knicks (for the money) if the Bulls want him (for less money.) The Bulls roster is made for the running game while the Knicks are made - for the glue factory.

Posted by Wisconsin Reader | May 9, 2008 11:23 AM

They'll need to dismantle the whole team before he could even start implementing his system.

They need to dismantle the whole team anyway.

Posted by right | May 9, 2008 11:23 AM

there are a lot of problems with the knick roster (in my estimation, only david lee could start for a championship team, although the likes of crawford, robinson, richardson, blackman, and maybe, maybe curry, could occupy spots 6-8 on a championship roster), but the reason they were so abysmal this year is they didn't have a point guard at all.

put a real 1 on the same roster and it probably wins 35-38 games; absent a real 1, why would any sane coach want to be there?

Posted by howard | May 9, 2008 11:25 AM

Hey, where's my Celtics thread?

Posted by Walter Crockett | May 9, 2008 11:26 AM

Does it matter whether the Knick players don't fit the Phoenix system? How many teams do? Isn't the sign of a good coach to build a system around the players rather than vice versa?

I don't understand why coaches or players almost always go for the highest bid. Wouldn't accepting 4.5 million for a decent chance of having success in Chicago beat accepting 6 million for the hopeless situation in New York?

Posted by asl | May 9, 2008 11:34 AM

I hear Isiah Thomas is available.

Posted by steve duncan | May 9, 2008 11:38 AM

Frankly, at this point I'm so disgusted with the Knicks that I'm considering becoming a Nets fan when they move to Brooklyn.

I see I'm not the only one considering this.

Back to the question at hand: it makes no difference whatsoever who the coach is next year or the year after that. The team as constructed is some kind of anti-team. You could pay five bloggers to play 48 minutes a night and miss the playoffs just as consistently.

I say they keep David Lee and Crawford and then fill in the roster with Yglesias, Atrios, and Josh Marshall. They can't miss the playoffs any more than the current squad does. I would even pay to see it.

Posted by Cakesniffer | May 9, 2008 11:42 AM

They probably do need to make drastic roster moves, but how realistic is it that they'll accomplish this anytime soon? Their path back to respectability will probably involve a few years' worth of lottery picks. That's why it would make more sense to take on a caretaker coach and then bring on another coach later on when they're ready to take the next step.

Posted by Mike | May 9, 2008 11:42 AM

The Knicks are kidding themselves. No name coach is going to sign on for that nightmare until they're able to clear the junk out of the garage in 2010. The good news is that once that happens they'll become a desirable destination for coaches and players again. But until then, I don't care if you lured away Phil Jackson or Gregg Popovich--nobody's winning with that personnel and the contracts are too unspeakably awful to trade.

Posted by Jake H. | May 9, 2008 11:45 AM

Wouldn't accepting 4.5 million for a decent chance of having success in Chicago beat accepting 6 million for the hopeless situation in New York?

Even for rich people, $1.5M per year is a lot of money.

In any case, the only sensible plan for the Knicks is to become the most attractive possible destination for LeBron when he hits free agency in 2010. Hiring a high profile coach like D'Antoni would help, and it's not about winning in the near term; it's about clearing cap room and finding the right supporting players (e.g., Lee, Balkman, etc.)

Posted by right | May 9, 2008 11:46 AM

The new GM, Donnie Walsh, will need to completely redo the team regardless of who is coach. He will obviously build a team that suits the coach he hires. If he decides D'Antoni is the man, then it provides a blueprint for his personnel moves. An interim coach provides no focus.

D'Antoni is from WV, so I'll use a WV (sort of) example. Rich Rodriquez (see money grubbing, traitor, and good riddance) inherited the ponderous Michigan football team of Lloyd Carr. Rodriquez will rebuild it to his style, even though the current personnel are largely unsuitable.

As much as I despise the Knicks, hiring D'Antoni will give Walsh focus and provide increasingly exciting basketball in NY. If they are good at what they do, Walsh and D'Antonicks will improve the Knicks.

Posted by Mudge | May 9, 2008 11:48 AM

I say they keep David Lee and Crawford and then fill in the roster with Yglesias, Atrios, and Josh Marshall.

Atrios would be a mortal lock to lead the league in techs and flagrants. Book it.

Posted by Jake H. | May 9, 2008 11:51 AM

In any case, the only sensible plan for the Knicks is to become the most attractive possible destination for LeBron when he hits free agency in 2010.

LeBron is going to the Nets. Couldn't be more obvious.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 9, 2008 12:23 PM

He'd make a good Mike Woodson replacement in Atlanta.

Posted by Sam Hutcheson | May 9, 2008 12:51 PM

The NBA should have a "franchise exception" that allows you to flush $50 or $100 million dollars off the cap in exchange for reduced league marketing and TV revenues over time. That's a win/win business plan for teams and the league. It's easier for fans to swallow Dallas trading the retired Keith Van Horne to NJ for salary cap or why 76er assistant coach Aaron McKie was included in the Pau Gasol trade. It's a lot easier to live with sunk costs on your spreadsheet then Jerome James sitting on your bench.

Posted by joejoejoe | May 9, 2008 1:00 PM

LeBron is going to the Nets. Couldn't be more obvious.

Even given that likelihood, the Knicks should still try. If they get their house in order they should be able to compete with NJ/Brooklyn for him.

Posted by right | May 9, 2008 1:02 PM

As much as it pains me to say this, the Knicks need to trade David Lee in order to free up cap space. More specifically, they need to use David Lee, Nate Robinson, Renaldo Balkman and/or Jamal Crawford (the only four players who have positive value) as sweeteners to trade away Jeffries, Curry, Randolph, Richardson and/or James. No matter how bad the talent the Knicks get back, they should make any trade to get out from under the bad contracts for the 2009-10 season.

Posted by Ephus | May 9, 2008 1:05 PM

LeBron is going to the Nets. Couldn't be more obvious.

Doubt it. When's the last time the Nets or the Knicks had a major marketing star? For some reason, NY is where NBA marketing-related careers go to die.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 9, 2008 1:07 PM

"I say they keep David Lee and Crawford and then fill in the roster with Yglesias, Atrios, and Josh Marshall."

Josh is now known as THE COMMISSAR.

Posted by Andruw | May 9, 2008 1:12 PM

My bet: LeBron goes to Dallas.

It's a Cuban type move.

Posted by Mudge | May 9, 2008 1:33 PM

Doubt it. When's the last time the Nets or the Knicks had a major marketing star? For some reason, NY is where NBA marketing-related careers go to die.

huh? Just b/c the Knicks have been too poorly run to acquire talent doesn't mean talent wouldn't flock to a well run NYC franchise. If the Nets move to Brooklyn, that's a great destination for LBJ. What young players do the Nets have anyways? Devin Harris, right? who else?

Posted by mpowell | May 9, 2008 1:40 PM

I wouldn't write the Knicks off yet, they may be challenged right now, and at $90 million in salary for next season, but by cutting loose Marbury and Rose (among others), their cap situation is looking excellent for 09-10, so that's what you play for, building into that.

Combined with a likely very high pick in the draft, and the Knicks may not be in as bad a shape as we thought, especially since they have an interesting mix of talent in terms of offense/defense.

For instance, let's say the Knicks cut loose Marbury, since he won't be around the season following anyway, sign Chris Duhon with the MLE to be their starting point guard, sign Melvin Ely with the BAE, and draft OJ Mayo in the NBA Draft.

Here's the team:

1 - Duhon/Robinson/Collins
2 - Crawford/Mayo (Robinson/Chandler/Richardson)
3 - Balkman/Richardson/Chandler
4 - Randolph/Lee/Jeffries
5 - Curry/Ely/James

At least you've got something to work with here, and a balance of offense/defense.

At guard, Jamal Crawford can score, you know that, so you balance him with Chris Duhon, an excellent defender and very decent playmaking point guard, with scoring punch off the bench in Robinson and Mayo and combo wings Richardson and Wilson Chandler. Throw in Collins along with Duhon as a bigger PG option to play next to the smaller Mayo and Robinson, and I don't mind that guard rotation at all.

At forward, you similarly have little problem, and I'd go again with a mixture of offense/defense, giving Renaldo Balkman the starting 3 job to balance out Zach Randolph's offensive focus. David Lee is your uber 6th man PF as usual and Quentin Richardson and Wilson Chandler get the bulk of the backup minutes at SF. I don't mind that rotation, and you still have Jared Jeffries to plug in if you need him. I'd probably sign one more useful veteran getting later in his career to the vet minimum to shore up my depth here, in case Q suffers from the injury bug again.

Center is your biggest issue, unless you resolve yourself to making the best of the Curry situation, which is what I'd do, and why I'd put two quality defenders in the starting lineup alongside him, Zach and Crawford. Eddy can get it done on the offensive end, and you sign Melvin Ely with the bi-annual exception to give yourself a legit backup C who can do a little bit of everything, including score in the post. I don't know much about Randolph Morris, but obviously you consider resigning him and also figure out if Jerome James can possibly be motivated, which would be a plus if yes, if even only for 10-12 minutes per game.

Even if you don't win that much, kinda kick the can down the street another year by being very loose and experimental with the lineups and minutes, giving as much time as possible to the young players to develop, you end up with another good draft pick in 2009 and then the favorable salary cap situation as well, giving you the chance to sign a star player (perhaps like Ron Artest, who will be free from his contract then), as well as another solid role player (MLE), while Jerome James finally comes off the books for that season.

2010/11

1 - Mayo/Duhon
2 - Crawford/Robinson/Chandler
3 - Artest/Balkman/Chandler
4 - Randolph/Lee
5 - Curry/Ely/2009 #1 pick

Especially if Mayo emerges as a star, which is very likely, this would be a very formidable squad. If you can somehow trade Randolph at some point before Lee needs to resign, that's a plus too since it's not a given he'll resign to be a bench player (though the Knicks could get a great return for Lee too, which might be necessary to do given Randolph is signed for so long).

Posted by Jimm | May 9, 2008 3:03 PM

Wait, wait, wait, back the truck up a minute, Jimm. Did you just call Zach Randolph a "quality defender"?

The fact is, no team can win playing Randolph and Curry together. Anybody can score at will against that front line.

Posted by too many steves | May 9, 2008 3:08 PM

Oh wait, I'm sorry, I misread, you said you'd need two quality defenders alongside Z-bo and Curry and Crawford. I don't think that will do it. You need at least one interior defender who isn't horrible.

Posted by too many steves | May 9, 2008 3:26 PM

Jimm, I suggest you count the number of times the word "if" appears in your scenario, remember James Dolan is still ultimately in charge, and rein in your hopes.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 9, 2008 4:11 PM

I'm a Lakers fan, I have no hopes for the Knicks, could care less really, that was just a speculative exercise for Knicks fans, and there are always a lot of "if's" in any such exercise, especially when dealing with the Knicks, I agree.

Posted by Jimm | May 9, 2008 5:04 PM

No team with Zach Randolph will ever win.

If you can somehow trade Randolph at some point before Lee needs to resign

I like the unintended dual meaning here.

Posted by Cakesniffer | May 9, 2008 6:16 PM