classic "what have you done for me lately" kind of statement
phil isn't the coach you bring in if you need to rebuild young talent. he doesn't really coach rookies. those gigs are for guys like brad stevens or mark jackson. he also has limited GM/president experience and most of it is from the coach's perspective.
all coaches have different strengths. not all get the opportunity to coach a team that is a true contender. hence why there are so few qualified coaches. spoelstra, carlisle, pop, lue, rivers, and kerr are the only active ones with rings.
you can stick with a coach and it will certainly build a great legacy and culture if you pick the right guy, ie. sloan. and don't get me wrong, i think he's an excellent coach would be among top 20% of today's class as he's hall of famer, but at the end of the day these franchises are hungry for rings. they don't want to be like a utah jazz; they want to be winners. and quite frankly it's hard to argue with using one coach to develop a team, then bringing in another to take down the ring. i think there are very few coaches who can build a team AND win a ring like pop, who has set the gold standard (dude was GM and coach at the same time at one point). i don't think phil's inability to get the knicks going especially in such a short term is really his fault. i think those expectations are unrealistic. if after a decade they aren't contenders then sure.
phil isn't the coach you bring in if you need to rebuild young talent. he doesn't really coach rookies. those gigs are for guys like brad stevens or mark jackson. he also has limited GM/president experience and most of it is from the coach's perspective.
all coaches have different strengths. not all get the opportunity to coach a team that is a true contender. hence why there are so few qualified coaches. spoelstra, carlisle, pop, lue, rivers, and kerr are the only active ones with rings.
you can stick with a coach and it will certainly build a great legacy and culture if you pick the right guy, ie. sloan. and don't get me wrong, i think he's an excellent coach would be among top 20% of today's class as he's hall of famer, but at the end of the day these franchises are hungry for rings. they don't want to be like a utah jazz; they want to be winners. and quite frankly it's hard to argue with using one coach to develop a team, then bringing in another to take down the ring. i think there are very few coaches who can build a team AND win a ring like pop, who has set the gold standard (dude was GM and coach at the same time at one point). i don't think phil's inability to get the knicks going especially in such a short term is really his fault. i think those expectations are unrealistic. if after a decade they aren't contenders then sure.
carmelo is at the end of his career
also he will never win a ring unless he's a 1b, and there is no 1a in this league that can excel at peak performance while carmelo is running isos
the only way he can then win is being a 2a player, but he is already way too expensive and he would be very frustrated.
phil knows he has no trade value with melo, period. he would be trading him for pennies on the dollar before the trash talk. melo generates revenue, which is the only reason for keeping him. they are going to keep him until his contract ends.
also he will never win a ring unless he's a 1b, and there is no 1a in this league that can excel at peak performance while carmelo is running isos
the only way he can then win is being a 2a player, but he is already way too expensive and he would be very frustrated.
phil knows he has no trade value with melo, period. he would be trading him for pennies on the dollar before the trash talk. melo generates revenue, which is the only reason for keeping him. they are going to keep him until his contract ends.
Can`t even beat the Nuggets
Pathetic
Pathetic
