I’m not talking about the Hill trade, just about playing him while he was in NY and getting the most out of him instead of misusing him. Maybe starting the season better than 3-14 and actually looking like an NBA team and not the Nets. Not that that was the whole key to the season, but one miscue.

It’s unfair to use hindsight, I know. However, some of the knicks biggest issues were ones D’Antoni continued to compound: Duhon, Lee at the 5 defensively, not playing talented rookies. Looking at how the knicks’ season went I don’t know how people can say it couldn’t have gone better simply by playing the most talented guys.

Regarding Lee, I believe both Walsh and D’Antoni have both publicly stated that Lee is out of position at the 5. The insights about playing him at the 4 come from a media source that talks to management and the well established goals of the PF within this system.

Ideally, this system requires a stretch PF with 3 point range. Lee does not have that kind of range (at least yet).

Each NBA system ideally has a handful of different requirements.

The Triangle does not need a really good PG, but a pick and roll offense like D’Antoni’s or Sloan’s does.

In and out basketball ideally wants a dominant post scorer to draw double teams, but ideally D’Antoni doesn’t want a post player clogging up the middle. He wants rollers and slashers that can use space to finish well or kick it out.

Here’s one excerp from Isola: “However, sources close to the Knicks president say that Walsh is concerned about the team’s defensive woes. The best way to solve the problem is to acquire defensive-minded players. But the culture also needs to change, and yesterday D’Antoni, who has a reputation for being rigid, made it clear that his system works.”
I just don’t think it’s clear that Walsh is going to cow-toe to whatever D’Antoni wants. The winning team is more important than D’Antoni’s system. Pops and Sloan keep their jobs because they make the most of the talent on hand and win. If the Knicks bring in LeBron/Bosh and D’Antoni can’t make it work… he’ll be looking for work. He’s not coach for life. You make it seem like Donnie Walsh is on his hands and knees in front of D’Antoni. Walsh has a much longer history of success in this league than D’Antoni.
As I said previously, Walsh himself has never been known for building his teams around his coachs’ systems. His coach changed every few seasons in Indiana. Maybe he’s trying a new strategy, but he could also abandon it at any time.

2. A lot of people think Bosh would be a better complement to LeBron than Wade. That’s pretty much the conventional wisdom on the subject. I tend to disagree as well, but most people feel there would be diminishing returns if you pair LeBron and Wade. (I see MJ/Pippen II, though am concerned a little about how Wade will age.) I don’t think that has much of anything to do with D’Antoni’s magical system. Plenty of people with no affiliation to D’Antoni’s system whatsoever have said the same thing.

3. “As I said, the Knicks feel it will be tougher to fit Lee into the system.” Where did you come up with this? Have you had conversations with Walsh or D’Antoni on the subject? If it’s your interpretation and not their words you are not the messenger. You are the analyst.
You can just as easily see it as: they can get a better player, so they will try to get that better player. Just about any team would do that. If the Nets go out and upgrade at the 2, 3, or 4 positions via free agency this offseason it will not be because the new guy fits their system better, it will be because they think the new guy is better. It’s not that Yi doesn’t fit their system, it’s that he stinks.

“Maybe they should just hire you to make all personnel and coaching decisions and forget about everything else. Then we woudn’t need to have this conversation.”

Again, I don’t see why you insist that A. you have a telepathic connection with both Donnie Walsh and Mike D’Antoni and B. that any coach whose team wins only 29 games is beyond repproach. I have as much right as you to interpret Walshtoni’s thinking and if you don’t see possible errors in what the Knicks did last season you’re not looking very hard…

It’s hard for me to respond to eveything because you went off on a few tangents. I’ll try to be concise and stay with the major points I’ve been making.

1. I’m not questioning whether Walsh is the boss is or not. I’m not even sure where you got that idea.

What I am saying is that Walsh bought into D’Antoni’s system when he hired him. He understands D’Antoni’s system and the types of players he wants at each position. He has repeatedly said that he both evaluates talent and evaluates how those players would fit into the system (repeatedly).

Perhaps some teams don’t do it that way, but that’s what some of the leading management teams do, including those at San Antonio and Utah. They’ve said as much.

In any event, this is a different situation. Had Walsh inherited a talented team of players that did not fit D’Antoni’s style, perhaps he would have gone in a different direction when selecting a coach. Teams do that also.

2. Here is an interesting note that helps make the point.

It was leaked that the Knicks Plan “A” is Lebron/Bosh and Plan “B” is Lebron/Wade.

IMHO Wade is a much better player than Bosh. He plays a different position than Lebron.

So why go with the inferior player?

The story suggested that Lebron/Bosh is plan “A” because the Knicks feel they fit together better within their system. It went on to describe how they would use both players.

3. I agree that the Knicks also want Bosh over Lee because he’s a better player, a few million doesn’t matter much (I made that point last week in another thread) and they also want to attract James. But it goes beyond that with Lee. As I said, the Knicks feel it will be tougher to fit Lee into the system. Right now they may have an opportunity to get an equal or better player that fits better. So that is part of the thinking assuming Lebron is unavailable.

Everything else seems to come down to you disagreeing with D’Antoni’s coaching, whether players fit, whether they should even be considering whether players fit.

I’m just the messenger. lol

Maybe they should just hire you to make all personnel and coaching decisions and forget about everything else. Then we woudn’t need to have this conversation. lol

You can have the last word and I’m sure you’ll take it. lol

I mostly agree.

“The Knicks were compiled of really really really bad players. A Red Holtzman/John Wooden cyborg couldn’t have coached more than 40 wins out of this group.”

This where I sort of disagree. The Knicks roster was composed of bad players, but I wouldn’t say really, really, really bad players. They finished tied for the 9th worst record. 17th offense and 27th defense. It is pretty unimportant since I would call 40 wins the absolute best case, but I think he could have gotten close to 40 wins. Maybe there will be a D’Antoni report card, but until then here are my big problems where D’Antoni cost them wins:

1. They started horrifically. D’Antoni had all of last season and all offseason to get ready to start this season. He should have known what he had and put a system in place that would work, and he should have had his guys ready to start the season. I give him a lot of credit for switching it up mid-season, but it should have never been necessary.

2. Point guard. Nate was maybe his best player last season (as in 08-09), so D’Antoni cut his minutes, benched him, and alienated him. Nate is a fringe rotation guy on the Celts, but he was as good as any Knick in 08-09. He was a better scorer, better playmaker, and less TO prone than Duhon. Not a huge defensive downgrade, IMO, because Duhon is a slow drunk on defense. D’Antoni simultaneously cost the Knicks wins and desacrated Nate’s trade value. Bill Walker was a nice find, but if Nate got 35 mpg instead of 25 (at Duhon’s expense) I’ll bet the Knicks win 5 more games AND have more to show for Nate than Bill Walker. Douglas also should have played more, but I’ll get to that in #3. I cannot get on board with the idea that Duhon was the best “fit” because D’Antoni’s offense needs spacing. Spacing is created by actually making shots and the realistic threat of making more shots. Duhon missed all his shots and there was never ANY threat of him driving to the basket and actually making a lay-up. Both Nate and Douglas can score inside and out and go off for 20 points at any moment. That creates spacing. Nate was a better playmaker than Duhon as a Knick this season anyway, with a way lower TO%. If your great offensive genius is that you use the pick-and-roll… you’re not an offensive genius. That’s the oldest play in the book.

3. Rookies. On a team like D’Antoni’s Suns, I can see why unproven rookies are not given the benefit of the doubt: there are better players ahead of them. On a team with talent issues like the Knicks, you give the lottery pick and the late 1st you were so high on the chance to prove they cannot play. When D’Antoni defensively stammered on about why Hill didn’t play he listed Wilson Chandler and Darko as options ahead of him at the 4 going into the season… You’ve got to be Fing kidding me… They take a kid who reminds them of Amare, only to use him strictly as a jump shooter??? Then say he didn’t play because of Darko who also didn’t play? If D’Antoni’s offensive system is so rigid that it can’t integrate two bigmen on the court together, it’s useless in my opinion. The way Douglas played on the season and the way Hill played in Houston made D’Antoni look dumb for not playing them.
Douglas was the best defensive 1 the Knicks had–besides maybe Hughes–and the best scoring 1, so they didn’t play him. Makes sense. For all his rawness and shortcomings, Douglas was too productive and too promising to sit. If you have no hope of winning more than 29 games, as you suggest, play the bloody rookies.

4. He integrated trade acquisitions pretty poorly. Bill Walker shot the lights out and at least made an effort to guard guys he had no business guarding on D, but otherwise Rodriguez had a career low in ast% when you’d expect him to thrive, House (a “D’Antoni guy”) was flat and useless, and it’s hard to expect much from T-Mac so I’ll give him that one… though he and/or Walsh reportedly expected a lot more.

You look at those four D’Antoni related problems and I think the Knicks could have won 10 more games. They started the season 3-14. They had a 3-9 stretch after the Nate trade. They finished the season 3-8. They lost plenty of games to bad teams (2 to the Nets, 1 each to Wash and Minn, 0-4 against the Raps). There was a lot of room for improvement. A little more offense here, a little more defense there… Chicago won 41 games and made the playoffs as the 27th offense and 11th defense in the league.

1. It’s best to have the best players.

2. The best coaches have great players.

3. Ted likes to argue.

In defense of D’Antoni, look at what he had to work with this year. Larry Hughes. Jared Jeffries. Al Harrington. Chris Duhon. And these were his starters! Compare that to names like Patrick Ewing, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade, David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Tony Parker. Hell, look at some of the secondary players: Alonzo Mourning, Ron Harper, John Starks, Horace Grant, Glen Rice, Robert Horry, Manu Ginobli…

The Knicks were compiled of really really really bad players. A Red Holtzman/John Wooden cyborg couldn’t have coached more than 40 wins out of this group. Yes, he misused Nate a bit. Maybe he could’ve tried a bust 7 footer next to Lee, squeezed out 1 or 2 more wins, maybe he could’ve started his rookies 15 games earlier… but when you look at ‘Finals’ teams, you realize it really doesn’t make a difference. It’s completely marginal.
I do agree that a few mil makes no difference to get a better player. Go after the best player. And obviously D’Antoni was brought in because of the team USA players, so if those players ultimately want someone else, I’m sure Walsh would be happy to oblige. But I don’t think there are (or were at the time) any amazing alternatives to D’Antoni, aside from everyone trying to woo Jax or possibly bringing back van Gundy.

As soon as Walsh is done with D’Antoni he can fire him. D’Antoni cannot fire Walsh. Walsh is D’Antoni’s boss. If he talks to LeBron tomorrow and LeBron tells him to fire D’Antoni and that Coach X is the guy he wants to come to NYC to play for, Walsh will probably do it. Walsh hired D’Antoni because he thought he was the best head coach on the market and the best head coach to build a contender (i.e. lure LeBron/Wade/etc.). If at some point Walsh decides that’s not the case, D’Antoni is out the door.

No head coach during the Walsh regime in Indiana kept his job for more than 4 seasons. There’s no indication that Walsh bows down to his coaches that I know of. I’m sure he’s on the same page as D’Antoni and they’re working together, I’m just saying that it’s Walsh who has the power to turn the page.

@44

“In other words, the choice between Lee and Bosh is a marginal decision at the probable salaries. If anything you can make a better case that Lee is the better value.”

I disagree. 1st because the difference of a few million at that level makes no real difference. The difference between signing an Earl Watson for $3-5 mill this offseason and signing another player for the MLE next offseason. 2nd because Bosh potentially brings a little guy named LeBron along with him. 3rd because Bosh is better. The Knicks need talent. Bosh has been the centerpiece of multiple top 5 offenses. Lee cannot make that same claim.