This analogy fails b/c you don't need a new girlfriend, you DO necessarily need a new coach.
You talk about paying a replacement for one year...who are we going to get for one year to replace D'Antoni, who is willing to sign on, take the heat of the NY press, accept the high expectations of having Amar'e and Carmelo and Billups on your starting roster, in the biggest NBA market, for ONE year at low cost? DOLAN, not MDA, would be doing this team a serious disservice if he DIDN'T go after Phil Jackson next year...and if he doesn't we are in a lot bigger trouble than "Who is on the payroll" and "Who is the coach".
The fact is - it feels like you are blaming D'Antoni for him not being fired...This is on DOLAN, who has made it pretty clear to everyone much more in the know about the team than you or I that he does not want to pay two head coaches with a lockout looming. You are mad at the wrong party, in my opinion.
If I told you we could wait this year out with MDA to throw big money at Jackson or find a replacement from the pool of replacement-level coaches out there, or start this year with a replacement-level coach...why not wait out the year, especially if there is a chance no basketball is played at all? Any coach we get will be available next year AND next year we can gun for Jackson, on the 40th anniversary of this team's last title win.
Notice how you didn't answer the question, which is ok because the answeris clear, but more importantly it illustrates the point...
HAVING A REPLACEMENT is INDEPENDENT of making moves that are beneficial to the team.
In your response... you clearly intimate something that is not present in reality, that being...
THERE IS NO GAURANTEE WHO EXACTLY IS BETTER. Thus there is NO argument as to why a move should not be made, because NO TEAM EVER has ANY gaurantee that a new coach is better.
IN reality, a decision based on philosophy, outlook, planning and execution and the probabilities of such, is what goes into SPECULATING who is the best fit- NOT figuring who financially fits the bill.
To James Billionaire Dolan, "money ain't-a-thing".
Yes we would ONLY be responsible for paying two seperate coaches FOR ONE YEAR, because obviously MDA would be gone after that. NOT that we rent a coach for one year.
I think you knew exactly what I was saying. Then again for some reason you feel it's better to continue down an already proven bad road INSTEAD of cutting your losses...
With the, all too often, manufactured excuse that some how the "unknown" factor will miraculously disappear once we are a year removed and D'Antoni is gone.
Newflash*** its the "unknown" it will never change. No matter the circumstance, it will remain the "unknown" and is a moot point.
And again, Mike won't be the first coach to be paid and not be an active employee, its happened many times with players and coaches. By waiting for NOTHING to happen, in hopes that a clear known commodity will surface, and by rather sacrificing another year instead of paying extra money and cutting losses
Really is contrary to our goals, non-business savvy, and again counter-intuitive and miscalculating when the reason is there currently isn't a known coach available. The known coaches just like the pipe dream perfect D'Antoni roster is a mythical theoretical falesy.
I'm not buying it, or your excuses for why we will struggle and fall short of our goals before we even hit the battle field. That's not me. I don't do excuses and certainly don't entertain a defeatist attitude. I find logic and reason and pull the trigger considering a pattern has been established that only pulling the trigger will resolve.
Now is the opportunity. Extra time to gel and become familiar while realizing Stat and Melo won't exist forever. Now is the time, and realize one year of paying MDA and another coach means absolutely nothing.
That's not even a valid excuse.
And btw, I've already explained why its necessary to make a distinction between "blame" and realizing what's best for the organization.
