Quick Fix

Mike D'Antoni to the Knicks -- just when you thought the Dolans couldn't devise any new, extremely costly quick-fix solutions to their franchise's problems. Chad Ford calls is "an improbable home run that could immediately turn the fortunes of a franchise in desperate need of optimism" and says "D'Antoni will bring a pedigree of exciting, winning basketball that should inject new life into a tired Knicks franchise." Why, yes, this is exactly the thing to turn around a franchise that hasn't seen a marquee coach since, well, Larry Brown just a little while back.

Seriously, at this point isn't it obvious that it's the search for improbable home runs that's the problem here? When your roster doesn't contain good players, you can't win. And when the roster contains lots of players on bad contracts, it's hard to trade for better ones. The only solution is to admit that this is the kind of problem that it would take several seasons to solve and to stop trying to create an atmosphere of optimism.

Comments

It's a four-year deal; I think everyone realizes that there's a couple of years of suffering ahead.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | May 11, 2008 2:51 PM

Apparently, the Knicks were a lot more trusting and open to D'Antoni than the Bulls. It sort of sounds like a rebound relationship to me.

Posted by ben | May 11, 2008 2:58 PM

It's a weird pick in that it seems a coach in D'antoni's position seemingly wouldn't want to deal with what is obviously a rebuilding situation, but before we dump on Walsh, he's set forth a pretty clear plan focused on shedding contracts, stockpiling draft picks, and making a run at LeBron, CP3, Wade, etc. in a few years. D'antoni's being hired doesn't necessarily mean the plan is being thrown out. Indeed, now that Walsh has the green light to enter full out rebuilding mode, D'antoni's system might be a good thing, allowing the Knicks to take a long-term approach of stocking the roster with players that fit into the Suns run-and-gun rather than Isiah's approach of bringing in whatever looks shiny and expensive at the moment with no regard for the future or any kind of master plan for the team's playing style.

Posted by Dan Panorama | May 11, 2008 2:59 PM

When your roster doesn't contain good players, you can't win.

It's hard to make sense of "good players" without reference to the system within which they play. The problem with Brown was that his system and the one that seemed to be envisioned by Isiah were antithetical to one another. D'Antoni will turn the Knicks around, primarily because pretty much anyone would: the Knicks underperformed. He might also make watching the Knicks more exciting.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 11, 2008 2:59 PM

So your argument is that they should have hired a mediocre coach in order to discourage fans?

Obviously the Knicks have many problems to fix. Presumably they are going to trade some players. That might take some time. But in the meantime, there's nothing wrong with hiring the best coach on the market. You take your opportunities as they arise.

Posted by knicks fan | May 11, 2008 3:08 PM

Zach Randolph, Eddy Curry, Jamal Crawford, and Jared Jefferies will eat up $44 Million of the Knicks salary cap in 2011.

Posted by BasketballMe | May 11, 2008 3:22 PM

The only solution is to admit that this is the kind of problem that it would take several seasons to solve...

Hey, this is a business. The business isn't winning games -- it's putting butts in the seats and advertising around the arena. So you need to do something that will make the ticket-buyers think there's a reason to buy tickets next season. Once you have the money, it doesn't matter quite so much whether your team actually improves or not.

I write this as someone who will not be renewing my seasons tickets to the Clippers next year. (Yeah, that's right -- I said "Clippers.")

Posted by Roddy McCorley | May 11, 2008 3:41 PM

Roddy: If the Knicks were purely about making money, they wouldn't have the highest payroll in the league. They'd be more like, say, the Clippers.

I really don't care about the D'Antoni signing one way or the other except, as I said, I'd have liked to see Herb Williams get a shot. But it's no skin off my nose if they suck more expensively. It's at least a sign that they'd like to unload Eddy Curry (though who wouldn't like to unload Curry? that's a big load).

Posted by Antid Oto | May 11, 2008 3:55 PM

A very unusual and, I would say, bad choice as coach for the Knicks. Not because D'Antoni is a bad coach, he's a good coach, but he's a good coach with a very specific approach for a specific type of team (one which the Knicks is not) - and he's known for giving defense a lick and a promise, and not practicing that much.

So a team that doesn't practice much already (Knicks nearly set the record for little to no practice) and doesn't defend hires a coach who likes to run, even though there are few runners on the team.

Makes no sense. I know they're planning to rebuild, but even with that in mind, it doesn't make sense. They're gonna be stuck with some of these guys for a few years, no matter what.

A tough coach who demanded the players work hard for their pay would have been better.

Avery Johnson or Mark Jackson would have been better, in particular Jackson.

Word is, Mark Jackson wasn't chosen because he's close to Jeff Van Gundy, and Dolan doesn't like Van Gundy.

What a mess.

And for the record, the papers keep saying Walsh fired Thomas.

Thomas wasn't fired. He still works for the Knicks. Just not as coach or team President.

They should have fired him.

Posted by Joshua James | May 11, 2008 4:03 PM

This move is the opposite of a quick fix. To the contrary, it's an acknowledgment that the Knicks aren't close to winning and that the roster needs to be turned over, except for Lee, Robinson, Balkman, and Chandler, who can flourish as support players in D'Antoni's system.

Posted by Rich | May 11, 2008 4:16 PM

The Larry Brown comparison doesn't really hold water. Yes he was hired to turn the team around but he chose to sabotage it instead. Sure Thomas brought in all the players, but Brown asked for and got Jalen Rose and Steve Francis, and he would have traded David Lee for Theo Radliff. So yeah, if D'Antoni decides to try and lose as many games as possible and bring in mediocre aging veterans in order to force Dolan to fire either him or Walsh then it will have been a bad move.

Posted by Tim | May 11, 2008 4:25 PM

There is nothing wrong with Knicks hiring a good coach. Other guys may have been better choices. The problem I have is, who does D'Antoni trust Dolan to be a good owner? Either this is about the money or D'Antoni is making a bad decision. Yes, the Knicks could turn it around, but is that the bet you want to make?

Posted by mpowell | May 11, 2008 4:41 PM

yes, matt, why urge hope? That's exactly the message we should try to kill, and I'm assuming, you would suggest that to Sen. Obama as well as the Dolan's.

I mean, the country is in deep trouble as well - an endless war, budget deficit, recession, malaise at home and disrespect abroad, and yet here's this Obama guy, with the audacity to peddle hope. it would be much better that we settle for someone else with a more realistic approach I guess.

Posted by DCWolverine | May 11, 2008 5:06 PM

Despite being my least favorite coach in history, a Hubie Brown type is more what the Knicks need. A guy who can take a bunch of lousy players, install a rigid defensive system that stiffles talent and is totally boring to watch, and get somewhere close to .500 Or take a bunch of so-so players, do the same thing, and get them into the playoffs where they exit early. This was criminal when Brown did it with Patrick Ewing -- when I saw them the next year under, iirc, Rick Pitono my first thought was "God I hope they never let Hubie coach again" -- but given that there's zero talent on the Knicks to stiffle, anyone who could get them close to .500 would be a miracle worker.

Posted by Gene | May 11, 2008 5:54 PM

The only solution is to admit that this is the kind of problem that it would take several seasons to solve and to stop trying to create an atmosphere of optimism.

Hmmm... this sounds like something that could have been in a New Republic editorial on Iraq in about November of 2003. Looks like the Knicks have a long hard slog ahead of them.

Posted by JB | May 11, 2008 6:02 PM

The Dolan ownership is as bad as Donald Sterling for the Clippers, except they spend money - and lot of it - to be even worse. Advantage: Sterling.

Posted by Eric | May 11, 2008 8:37 PM

The arguments against the D'Antoni hiring are pretty silly. From what I can see, there are two main strands of anti-D'Antoni logic:

1) The Knicks roster is awful. Mike D'Antoni's style does not fit the Kicks roster. They should have hired a coach better suited to the awful roster.

2) Mike D'Antoni is a good coach. The Knicks are a bad team. A good coach doesn't suit the Knicks at this point in time.

It would be great if the Knicks could tank for two years, get great draft picks, reform the roster and then hire the perfect coach in 2010. But you might not be able to find your pony in 2010. You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If the Knicks were on the cusp of a championship and were looking for a coach to work with the current roster and take them over the top, then you might be more concerned with coaching styles and fit. But the Knicks are a disaster and need a long term plan. I can't see any reason not to hire the best coach available to a long term contract.

Posted by bill | May 11, 2008 9:53 PM

I am glad this was worthy of Matt's attention. Hiring D'Antoni will give the Knicks an idea of what kind of players to shoot for in the draft and will encourage fan interest for another season. Per NYT either Curry or Randolph is likely to go and they will let Marbury go.

Posted by 4jkb4ia | May 11, 2008 10:09 PM

The Knicks need to take the long view. Hubie's (he's over 70, btw) philosophy runs counter to that goal.

He's also a terrible judge of talent.

OT: He coached at my high school some years before I attended, and I am no longer young.

Posted by Rich | May 11, 2008 10:30 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR THE KNICKS!!!

Posted by C | May 11, 2008 10:37 PM

As a Suns fan who has watched D'Antoni coach quite a bit up close, I can assure you that he is not a good coach. Not even close. He's quite bad when it comes to managing games, which is a significant portion of what coaches must do. He's really just good at implementing his system and then letting someone like Nash handle the game. That won't work in New York or anywhere else (other than maybe New Orleans and Utah).

I don't expect D'Antoni to do well at all, but he'll at least be able to blame his struggles on Isiah, so it's a good place for him to make the leap. Low risk, high reward.

Posted by Mike | May 11, 2008 10:55 PM

OTOH, Nash's stock only skyrocketed once D'Antoni became his coach.

Posted by Rich | May 11, 2008 11:58 PM

He's quite bad when it comes to managing games, which is a significant portion of what coaches must do. He's really just good at implementing his system and then letting someone like Nash handle the game.

This strikes me as strange criticism. A giant part of coaching is getting the team to buy into a certain system to the extent that they're able to make in-game decisions without the coach having to bark out every play. Obviously, having Nash as a PG was key, but getting 12-15 guys to buy into the most radical offensive system in the NBA is no small feat.

That said, the Knicks stink. Nothing and nobody can save them.

Posted by baseballhead | May 12, 2008 12:47 AM

D'Antoni already inherited one rebuilding situation in Phoenix and he seemed to do all right with that. People forget how irrelevent the Suns were during the dark dark years between Barkley and Nash.

The Nash signing was widely panned by the league since Nash was too old and couldn't play defense and so on, and the 2004 pre-season expectations were hoping they would squeak into the playoffs. They had a good run, and D'Antoni deserves a lot of the credit, just as he deserves a lot of the blame that they couldn't get over the hump.

This Hornets team is reminscent of the that 2004 Suns team.

Posted by Curtis | May 12, 2008 10:13 AM

If signing D'Antoni makes it more likely that the Knicks can sign strong free agents in 2009-10, then it is worth the two year investment for a team that can go nowhere.

I hope that D'Antoni and Walsh will do whatever it takes to get under the salary cap for 2009-10, even if it means fielding a 15 win team and/or trading away David Lee, Renaldo Balkman, Nate Robinson and Jamal Crawford (the only four players who have positive value). Do not trade Marbury or Rose; let those contracts come off the cap. If it costs David Lee to get Curry, Jeffries, Richardson and/or James off of the team so be it. I hope that Randolph could be dumped for an expiring contract, particularly if he puts up good offensive numbers for the first half of this year.

The only goal for this team should be cap space. D'Antoni should have the job security to be willing to go along with that.

Posted by Ephus | May 12, 2008 10:57 AM

This move is part of the Knicks strategy to get Lebron when he becomes a free agent. It has nothing to do with winning now. The Knicks will allow their big contracts to expire so they will be able to offer Lebron a decent contract. Then Lebron will have a choice: continue to play for the defensive-minded Mike Brown, or go play for D'Antoni where he'll play in a wide-open offensive system that will only elevate his statistics. He's already wearing Yankee hats! I'm not a Knick fan so this isn't some kind of wishful thinking on my part.

Posted by bum | May 12, 2008 3:04 PM