If 3 years later you leave the same team with Porzingis, Frank, Willy, Dotson, 20 million in cap space, and all your picks going forward, you have left the team in a better position to rebuild than it has been in many many years.

“Left the team in a better position to rebuild” categorically does not equal “left them in a good position,” which was what we were discussing.

Vlade Divac has done a terrible job in Sacramento, but the Kings are in “a better position to rebuild” than they were when he got there. They’re not in a good position by any stretch of the imagination, but they’re in a better position than they were in 2015.

“Left the team in a better position to rebuild” can be achieved by simply “don’t trade your first round picks when you suck.” So long as you do that when you take over a shitty team, you’re going to be better off after a few years than you were when you started, no matter what other moronic moves you make, just by virtue of adding high draft picks.

“Good shape.” Oh man, that is the best.

People here say they want to rebuild primarily by tanking and getting draft picks. Fine. I get it. I just want to point out that when you draft 19 year old kids you should be ready for a 6-8 year rebuild. That’s how long it takes for a series of kids like that to mature mentally and as basketball players so they can actually contend. Frank is not going to be really good for another 4-5 years. Whoever we draft this year will be ready 4-5 years after that. By 2025-2027 we might have a good enough team to contend ASSUMING we draft very well.

We just went through a 3 year period where we were missing 2 1st round picks. That hurt our rebuild badly. If we had those picks we would be where the T-Wolves were last year.

I’m not happy with where we are either, but we are in WAY BETTER shape now than we’ve been for many years. This is how rebuilds work.

submit and agree that Phil Jackson was actually a good GM go for it but don’t assume everyone who disagrees just needs to read cialdini.

I don’t recall ever saying that Phil was a good GM. I’ve only said the discussion here on Phil and the Knicks is rarely close to balanced. So I do my part to try to drag it there by pointing out the other side. You would think people would appreciate me saying we are in decent shape compared to the past.

“Good shape.” Oh man, that is the best.

I obviously disagree with you (and most in the media) on a number of matters and strategies related to Phil. We have been down this path before.

I would simply suggest the mentality here about Phil (at times) was much like the mentality towards Trump on CNN/MSNBC. If the man cured lung cancer they would call him a sexist because he didn’t cure breast cancer first. It’s pointless to debate someone that can only find one side of everything.

When you take over a team that missed the playoffs, that had a couple of players with legal/behavioral issues, a couple with bad contracts, an excellent C that wanted out, you are missing 2 1st round picks in the next 3 years, and you are capped out, you have been dealt about as bad a hand as you can possibly be dealt. That’s a bad position to be in in a high pressure market.

If 3 years later you leave the same team with Porzingis, Frank, Willy, Dotson, 20 million in cap space, and all your picks going forward, you have left the team in a better position to rebuild than it has been in many many years.

Sure, he made mistakes as they all do (though some moves considered mistakes were low risk cap space rollovers and not mistakes). Noah was a big mistake. We could clearly be further along if he did some things differently, but to argue he didn’t leave us in good shape is borderline delusional.

Stranger things have happened.

Agreed, but “Stranger things have happened” =/= “Left in good position going forward.”

Oh sure, add a couple of good starters (including one All-Star) and this is a good team. That’s also true for pretty much every team in the NBA.

True, but the knicks have a good, young nucleus.
And it’s really one guy. One All-Star to replace Lee or Jack vaults them to #2 – #4 in the East.

Stranger things have happened.

You know, OQ for Randle matches up. With OQ almost sure to opt out, might that interest LA?

Looking at the stats, I would say that O’Quinn is somewhat better than Randle and not a head case and likes it here. I can’t tell from the stats, but I suspect he defends better than Randle. But Randle is younger, so it’s a reasonable even swap, but LA won’t see it that way. The Lakers are getting offers that include a pick (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2756992-lakers-trade-rumors-1st-round-pick-offered-for-julius-randle-jordan-clarkson), so I think they would want some sort of pick too. I don’t think I would do that, but who knows.