Phil Jackson is prepared to see through his rebuilding project with the New York Knicks.
We’ll let you decide whether that’s a good thing.
The Zen Master sat down to talk with ESPN.com’s Jackie MacMullan, and when asked about the opt-out clause in his contract with the Knicks, he made it clear he isn’t going anywhere—not even Los Angeles:
JM: You have an opt-out clause in your contract after this season. Do you plan to exercise it?
PJ: I have not entertained that. I’m looking for this Knicks team to get back into a situation where they are competitive. Do I have to win a championship before I feel I’ve done the job I’ve been asked to do, which is to bring this group back to that competitive level? No, I don’t. We’re starting to make progress. I like a lot of the things we are doing here. But we’ve got more to do.
JM: Lakers executive vice president of basketball operations Jim Buss said if the Lakers didn’t make it to the Western Conference finals by 2017, he would step down. It’s unlikely the Lakers will meet that goal. Why not go back and run your old team?
PJ: They’re moving forward in the right direction. Luke (Walton) has them engaged, Brian (Shaw) is an associate head coach; they have a core group of guys that will get it done. It was never important to me to go back and be a part of that. Especially not now. I have this job, this commitment.
JM: Then why bother to include the opt-out clause?
PJ: The real issue with the opt out was simply my rationale regarding the (potential) lockout. If it was going to happen in December and everybody chose to walk away, there was no way I was going to sit in New York for three, four months when I didn’t have a job, because (the players) aren’t even allowed to show up to work. So, in that case, I would go back to L.A.
Jackson’s opt-out clause always seemed a tad overblown to me. Like, players have options on their deals all the time. It allows them to get more money or shop around or evaluate where they are in life and decide what to do next. That’s not weird for them, and it shouldn’t be weird for an executive. Team presidents and general managers don’t need to stick with a franchise until they are fired or let go; they can manufacture leverage of their own.
The Jackson-to-the-Lakers narrative, which was used to justify the hoopla over his opt-out clause, never made sense, either.
Sure, he’ll always have ties to the organization; he won five championships with them. But leaving the Knicks in disarray, by choice, would be a stain on Jackson’s legacy. And while it’s sometimes unclear whether he’s in New York to reinvent the Knicks or validate his beloved triangle offense, willingly torching a part of his reputation doesn’t seem like something Jackson would do.
For better or worse, bet on him finishing his deal with the Knicks.
