I really just want them to stop giving gimps like Allan Houston 20mil a year for 7yrs. Everything else is manageable

As long as the money is spent on good players that can help the team win in the future (Marbury, Crawford), I don't mind.

The main issue is not payroll per se, but what you're getting for payroll. In other words: it ain't about the bucks, it's about the bang for the buck. Isiah's long term goal should be to settle the payroll such that we have players whose salary is not out of whack with respect to their performance or ability on the court. The benefit of this would be being able to trade any player on the roster without salary considerations being prohibitive, thus boosting flexibility for changing the roster.

Thus far, Isiah has been doing a pretty good job of that, with some steps forward (Marbury, JC, perhaps Taylor), some steps backward (Rose, perhaps Taylor), and some lateral moves (TT's production per salary vis a vis KVH, taking on Penny's contract to get Marbury). Taylor is a nebulous case, because although he obviously has a bad contract which lasts a year longer than those of the players he was traded for, the ratio of his production on the court vs. his salary is still much higher than the combined ratios of Baker and Moochie.

Our really big problems at the moment are Houston (max contract for almost no return nowadays), Shandon (~$8mm for nothing), TT (max-esque for up and down play), and Penny (max-esque for role playing). These are all expiring in the next season or two, so much of NY's future production-per-salary standings will be determined in the next couple of years.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by Bonn1997:

As long as the money is spent on good players that can help the team win in the future (Marbury, Crawford), I don't mind.

yeah, that's how i look at it...of course, i don't want them to spend money irresponsibly by signing garbage players like Shandon & Spoon to obscenely overpaid contracts, as i'm sure no one here does either...if the player being traded for or signed can make a noticeable IMPACT to help this team improve & make a run at contention, then i'm all for it.

I agree and (as you guys know) I don't mind taking back one bad contract (Penny, JYD deals) if we're also getting a player who can make a noticeable impact or getting multiple (late) 1st rd draft picks (Rose deal).

Posted by franco12:

Posted by tomverve:

The main issue is not payroll per se, but what you're getting for payroll. In other words: it ain't about the bucks, it's about the bang for the buck. Isiah's long term goal should be to settle the payroll such that we have players whose salary is not out of whack with respect to their performance or ability on the court. The benefit of this would be being able to trade any player on the roster without salary considerations being prohibitive, thus boosting flexibility for changing the roster.

Thus far, Isiah has been doing a pretty good job of that, with some steps forward (Marbury, JC, perhaps Taylor), some steps backward (Rose, perhaps Taylor), and some lateral moves (TT's production per salary vis a vis KVH, taking on Penny's contract to get Marbury). Taylor is a nebulous case, because although he obviously has a bad contract which lasts a year longer than those of the players he was traded for, the ratio of his production on the court vs. his salary is still much higher than the combined ratios of Baker and Moochie.

Our really big problems at the moment are Houston (max contract for almost no return nowadays), Shandon (~$8mm for nothing), TT (max-esque for up and down play), and Penny (max-esque for role playing). These are all expiring in the next season or two, so much of NY's future production-per-salary standings will be determined in the next couple of years.

This is right on!

The cap issue is about flexibility- being able to trade or sign players.

So, then is your prediction that the Knicks won't be able to make any significant trades or signings this offseason or before next year's trade deadline because of their lack of cap flexibility? (That's a prediction we can easily test by seeing what happens over the next 11 months.)

Posted by Allanfan20:

I have a feeling Isiah might severely overpay for Eddie Curry which is nto a move I'm willing to do.

What would be severely overpaying in your opinion for a 22 year old with his skills? (Just wondering) Keep in mind that guys like Adonal Foyle, Brian Cardinal, etc. are getting MLE contracts ($40 mil)

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 03/18/2005 11:41:21]

I KNOW that. But Tim Thomas and Keith Van Horn are also extremely skilled. Thing is, he's a notorious slacker, doesn't play defense and isn't a good rebounder, yet. Those are 3 things that scare me out of a starting big man, especially one getting big bucks. If he'd remain that way, it could set the franchise back for years, if we gave him a contract that would make him UNTRADABLE. I would rather stick with Sweetney. Undersized, but works his ars off, grabs boards and is doing everything in his power to get better.

Posted by Bonn1997:
So, then is your prediction that the Knicks won't be able to make any significant trades or signings this offseason or before next year's trade deadline because of their lack of cap flexibility? (That's a prediction we can easily test by seeing what happens over the next 11 months.)

The Knicks will be getting a big, somewhat artificial boost in cap flexibility over the next 11 months since TT's and Penny's contracts will be expiring. Of course, that's a good thing, and Isiah should take advantage if the right opportunity presents itself. The key issue is what Isiah will get back for those expirings. Depending on the caliber of players he gets back, we could see long term flexibility boosted by acquiring players who earn their money; or we could see a long term drop in flexibility if we trade for more overpaid guys; or we could come to something of a compromise, as we did by taking on Penny to get Marbury.

The important thing is that, ideally, you don't want a lot of your players to only be valuable trade fodder during their expiring years. That restricts your window of opportunity for trading them for a good return by a lot. You'd like to get players with reasonable contracts, so you could trade them at any point in time and get something good. That scenario presents a much wider window of opportunity. And of course, a lot trades are largely opportunistic-- in the best ones, you luck into a situation where a team feels like trading a guy that, under most circumstances, they would probably rather keep. For instance, we lucked out that Marbury happened to be on the market while we had McDyess in his expiring year. If you offset Dyess's expiring year or Marbury's being put on the block by even just one season, that trade likely never happens. You don't have to be so lucky when you have a trade asset that endures for years, instead of having one that shoots up in value for one particular season.

I watch about half the games since you asked. Sweetney works hard on the court, but he's still fat and out of shape. Having the right attitude includes being in propper playing condition rather than being fat.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 03/18/2005 13:05:02]

Tom said it perfectly... its about bang for your buck and about flexibility. When Mo Taylor and his contract hurt your chances or options to make a trade then payroll is a problem. When Cablevision has zero flexibility to the point where they cant negotiate a deal with the cable provider in their biggest market then payroll is a problem. When the new CBA penalizes teams that hit the "excessive" tax braket then payroll is a problem.

Posted by fishmike:

Tom said it perfectly... its about bang for your buck and about flexibility. When Mo Taylor and his contract hurt your chances or options to make a trade then payroll is a problem.

So, are you predicting that Isiah won't have any options because of the payroll and won't be able to make trades over the next 11 months that upgrade the roster significantly? We can easily test that prediction by seeing what happens