[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

There is no way the Knicks
Author Thread
King1
Posts: 22993
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/2/2005
Member: #998
USA
4/9/2008  11:21 AM
are going to trade on draft night a double-double player for a player with a high ceiling. Everyone on this board wanted Taft and Blatche instead of Lee and that would have gotten the Knicks no where. You already know what your getting with Lee paying him 3 years 27 million and see how he develops. He has had zero coaching and played with total morons for 3 years. He doesnt demand the ball and a part of his game improves each year. You can trade him at anytime but to want a Randolph or McVale that hasnt proved anything for a guy that has is bad business.
AUTOADVERT
EnySpree
Posts: 44919
Alba Posts: 138
Joined: 4/18/2003
Member: #397

4/9/2008  11:26 AM
Correct as usual King Friday.



[Edited by - enyspree on 09-04-2008 11:30 AM]
Subscribe to my Podcast https://youtube.com/c/DiehardknicksPodcast https://twitter.com/DiehardknicksPC https://instagram.com/diehardknickspodcast
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
4/9/2008  11:37 AM
Posted by King1:

are going to trade on draft night a double-double player for a player with a high ceiling. Everyone on this board wanted Taft and Blatche instead of Lee and that would have gotten the Knicks no where. You already know what your getting with Lee paying him 3 years 27 million and see how he develops. He has had zero coaching and played with total morons for 3 years. He doesnt demand the ball and a part of his game improves each year. You can trade him at anytime but to want a Randolph or McVale that hasnt proved anything for a guy that has is bad business.

King 1---who is going to play C for the Knicks long term? What is your solution? Has the defensive threesome of Randolph Lee and Curry worked out? What happens if a team offers David Lee 5 years and 47mm--will David Lee leave 20mm on the table? He could set his whole family up for life. IF the Knicks true goal is getting under the cap to have a shot at Lebron--something has to give somewhere in terms of the $$$$--instead of the criticisms of possible solutions--at least offer up your own solution.
Right now we have Marbury 6-2 Jones 6-3 Crawford 6-4 Nate 5-7 under contract--do we really need another smallish offensive-minded guard? The only smallish guard that makes sense is Westbrook who is still physically two years and a refined jumpshot away from being a player. The reason why he is different from Gordon Bayless etc... is defense. Somewhere down the line we need atleast one player who can help protect the rim with shot blocking--where is that coming from---we've been the worst at it for the last 4-5 years--and look at our record--we dont protect the basket and w edont guard the ball. The one thing that I did see over the last few games was with the insertions of Chandler and jefferiues--it improved our length and our defense looked better.
RIP Crushalot😞
King1
Posts: 22993
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/2/2005
Member: #998
USA
4/9/2008  12:01 PM
Then if you dont get the top 2 picks trade down and get one of the guys you want. I would rather have McVale at 10 then Lopez at three. If you sign him to three years you can get under the cap. Getting rid of Curry and Randolph are the keys to the whole rebuilding. Having Zach on this team sets rebuilding back 2 extra years.
King1
Posts: 22993
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/2/2005
Member: #998
USA
4/9/2008  12:07 PM
Briggs Lee hasnt been taught anything in three years. They dont have practice. There is no accountability on this team. Get a new coach and things will change.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/9/2008  12:12 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by King1:

are going to trade on draft night a double-double player for a player with a high ceiling. Everyone on this board wanted Taft and Blatche instead of Lee and that would have gotten the Knicks no where. You already know what your getting with Lee paying him 3 years 27 million and see how he develops. He has had zero coaching and played with total morons for 3 years. He doesnt demand the ball and a part of his game improves each year. You can trade him at anytime but to want a Randolph or McVale that hasnt proved anything for a guy that has is bad business.

King 1---who is going to play C for the Knicks long term? What is your solution? Has the defensive threesome of Randolph Lee and Curry worked out? What happens if a team offers David Lee 5 years and 47mm--will David Lee leave 20mm on the table? He could set his whole family up for life. IF the Knicks true goal is getting under the cap to have a shot at Lebron--something has to give somewhere in terms of the $$$$--instead of the criticisms of possible solutions--at least offer up your own solution.
Right now we have Marbury 6-2 Jones 6-3 Crawford 6-4 Nate 5-7 under contract--do we really need another smallish offensive-minded guard? The only smallish guard that makes sense is Westbrook who is still physically two years and a refined jumpshot away from being a player. The reason why he is different from Gordon Bayless etc... is defense. Somewhere down the line we need atleast one player who can help protect the rim with shot blocking--where is that coming from---we've been the worst at it for the last 4-5 years--and look at our record--we dont protect the basket and w edont guard the ball. The one thing that I did see over the last few games was with the insertions of Chandler and jefferiues--it improved our length and our defense looked better.
If a team offers him 5 yrs, $47 mil, I could see the Knicks countering with a 3 year max contract deal. That would be smarter than losing him for nothing and wouldn't affect the cap meaningfully. As to center, let's work on one position at a time. If we lose D Lee, then we have zero centers AND zero PFs worth keeping in the long-term.

BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
4/9/2008  12:25 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by King1:

are going to trade on draft night a double-double player for a player with a high ceiling. Everyone on this board wanted Taft and Blatche instead of Lee and that would have gotten the Knicks no where. You already know what your getting with Lee paying him 3 years 27 million and see how he develops. He has had zero coaching and played with total morons for 3 years. He doesnt demand the ball and a part of his game improves each year. You can trade him at anytime but to want a Randolph or McVale that hasnt proved anything for a guy that has is bad business.

King 1---who is going to play C for the Knicks long term? What is your solution? Has the defensive threesome of Randolph Lee and Curry worked out? What happens if a team offers David Lee 5 years and 47mm--will David Lee leave 20mm on the table? He could set his whole family up for life. IF the Knicks true goal is getting under the cap to have a shot at Lebron--something has to give somewhere in terms of the $$$$--instead of the criticisms of possible solutions--at least offer up your own solution.
Right now we have Marbury 6-2 Jones 6-3 Crawford 6-4 Nate 5-7 under contract--do we really need another smallish offensive-minded guard? The only smallish guard that makes sense is Westbrook who is still physically two years and a refined jumpshot away from being a player. The reason why he is different from Gordon Bayless etc... is defense. Somewhere down the line we need atleast one player who can help protect the rim with shot blocking--where is that coming from---we've been the worst at it for the last 4-5 years--and look at our record--we dont protect the basket and w edont guard the ball. The one thing that I did see over the last few games was with the insertions of Chandler and jefferiues--it improved our length and our defense looked better.
If a team offers him 5 yrs, $47 mil, I could see the Knicks countering with a 3 year max contract deal. That would be smarter than losing him for nothing and wouldn't affect the cap meaningfully. As to center, let's work on one position at a time. If we lose D Lee, then we have zero centers AND zero PFs worth keeping in the long-term.

It doesnt work like that. If a team signs an offer sheet with Lee--the Knicks only option is to match or make a deal with the team to get a litle back. The Knicks need to purge a contract--that is the bottom line if they want to Keep Lee long term and have cap space--easier said than done.

It would probably take giving up a high lottery pick with Zach Randolph to get rid of him--that is the price--and that is very expensive.
RIP Crushalot😞
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
4/9/2008  12:44 PM
the solution is so simple... just frontload Lee's contract like Denver did. I really dont have a problem giving Lee 5 years and $48mm. Just make it like this: $13, $11, $8, $8, $8. That accomplishes two things. It make it more cap friendly for when we want the cap space, and makes it more trade friendly when we might want that option.

If we have picks 1-2 we are taking Rose or Beasley. There is no doubt about it. If we have 4-5 its up in the air. Who knows if they fall in love with a guy like Mayo during workouts. I do think they can buy some later picks, or use some of the younger players to get some as well.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
Elite
Posts: 26372
Alba Posts: 23
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #510

4/9/2008  1:01 PM
Posted by King1:

He has had zero coaching and played with total morons for 3 years.


HAHAHAHAHA LOLOLOL SO TRUE!!!!
Andrew
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #1
USA
4/9/2008  1:34 PM
This whole notion about getting under the cap is a bit overblown. Walsh stated he wants flexibility in the cap. I'm not sure what that means exactly, but to me it means having guys with appropriate contracts. I don't think we are going to try and get 10 -20 Million in space so we can land a big free agent. The alternative is to have good assets at market $ that other teams want. Signing Lee to an appropriate contract gives us that.
PURE KNICKS LOVE
Nalod
Posts: 72123
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
4/9/2008  1:37 PM
I want the coach and the GM to decide the direction of the team and decide who stays and who goes.

If Dlee will be a role player on our team then who plays center becomes paramount. Does Dlee with Curry get it done?

If you have a long paremeter shooter at the 3 that can get kicked out to would help.

Eddy with the right players around him could be very effective.

But Eddy with ZDumb and no long threat at the 3 devalues Curry.

I don't think all is lost with this team. We need to remove Marbury, ZSh!T and bring Q off the bench.
Cosmic
Posts: 26570
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1115
USA
4/9/2008  1:47 PM
Posted by Nalod:




I don't think all is lost with this team. We need to remove Marbury, ZSh!T and bring Q off the bench.

As long as you're thinking that some of this core can remain and be used to build a future winner I have one more for your list:

Jamal Crawford: Must stop the constant and-1 stuff. Must stop the constant desire to go 1-1. Must to used in more of a reserve role in 25mpg and not as a 41mpg top gun. Must stop gunning so often. Must drive to the rim more often. Must stop chucking so many 18ft+ shots and get better looks. Must at least ATTEMPT to play defense even if it means picking up quick fouls.

He can do it, he's just never chosen to. We saw a little bit of that under Larry but that was the end of that when Isiah got the nod as coach.



http://popcornmachine.net/ A must-use tool for NBA stat junkies!
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/9/2008  2:17 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by King1:

are going to trade on draft night a double-double player for a player with a high ceiling. Everyone on this board wanted Taft and Blatche instead of Lee and that would have gotten the Knicks no where. You already know what your getting with Lee paying him 3 years 27 million and see how he develops. He has had zero coaching and played with total morons for 3 years. He doesnt demand the ball and a part of his game improves each year. You can trade him at anytime but to want a Randolph or McVale that hasnt proved anything for a guy that has is bad business.

King 1---who is going to play C for the Knicks long term? What is your solution? Has the defensive threesome of Randolph Lee and Curry worked out? What happens if a team offers David Lee 5 years and 47mm--will David Lee leave 20mm on the table? He could set his whole family up for life. IF the Knicks true goal is getting under the cap to have a shot at Lebron--something has to give somewhere in terms of the $$$$--instead of the criticisms of possible solutions--at least offer up your own solution.
Right now we have Marbury 6-2 Jones 6-3 Crawford 6-4 Nate 5-7 under contract--do we really need another smallish offensive-minded guard? The only smallish guard that makes sense is Westbrook who is still physically two years and a refined jumpshot away from being a player. The reason why he is different from Gordon Bayless etc... is defense. Somewhere down the line we need atleast one player who can help protect the rim with shot blocking--where is that coming from---we've been the worst at it for the last 4-5 years--and look at our record--we dont protect the basket and w edont guard the ball. The one thing that I did see over the last few games was with the insertions of Chandler and jefferiues--it improved our length and our defense looked better.
If a team offers him 5 yrs, $47 mil, I could see the Knicks countering with a 3 year max contract deal. That would be smarter than losing him for nothing and wouldn't affect the cap meaningfully. As to center, let's work on one position at a time. If we lose D Lee, then we have zero centers AND zero PFs worth keeping in the long-term.

It doesnt work like that. If a team signs an offer sheet with Lee--the Knicks only option is to match or make a deal with the team to get a litle back. The Knicks need to purge a contract--that is the bottom line if they want to Keep Lee long term and have cap space--easier said than done.

It would probably take giving up a high lottery pick with Zach Randolph to get rid of him--that is the price--and that is very expensive.
You're right; my bad. Hopefully they won't let it get to that stage where he's signing with another team.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-09-2008 2:22 PM]
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/9/2008  2:21 PM
Posted by fishmike:

the solution is so simple... just frontload Lee's contract like Denver did. I really dont have a problem giving Lee 5 years and $48mm. Just make it like this: $13, $11, $8, $8, $8. That accomplishes two things. It make it more cap friendly for when we want the cap space, and makes it more trade friendly when we might want that option.

If we have picks 1-2 we are taking Rose or Beasley. There is no doubt about it. If we have 4-5 its up in the air. Who knows if they fall in love with a guy like Mayo during workouts. I do think they can buy some later picks, or use some of the younger players to get some as well.
That's still gonna put us in jeopardy of being over the cap in 2010/11. We'd have $53 mil wrapped up in just five players then. I think that would be worth it, though, and if there's a legit chance to get under the cap, then in 2009 you may have to offer something extremely enticing to get a team to take the final two years of Zach's contract in exchange for an expiring contract (like our lottery selected player this year if that player develops into something good). I'd try to front-load it even more than that, though. I'm sure Lee would accept it--it just means you're getting more immediate cash!
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172

4/9/2008  3:46 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by fishmike:

the solution is so simple... just frontload Lee's contract like Denver did. I really dont have a problem giving Lee 5 years and $48mm. Just make it like this: $13, $11, $8, $8, $8. That accomplishes two things. It make it more cap friendly for when we want the cap space, and makes it more trade friendly when we might want that option.

If we have picks 1-2 we are taking Rose or Beasley. There is no doubt about it. If we have 4-5 its up in the air. Who knows if they fall in love with a guy like Mayo during workouts. I do think they can buy some later picks, or use some of the younger players to get some as well.
That's still gonna put us in jeopardy of being over the cap in 2010/11. We'd have $53 mil wrapped up in just five players then. I think that would be worth it, though, and if there's a legit chance to get under the cap, then in 2009 you may have to offer something extremely enticing to get a team to take the final two years of Zach's contract in exchange for an expiring contract (like our lottery selected player this year if that player develops into something good). I'd try to front-load it even more than that, though. I'm sure Lee would accept it--it just means you're getting more immediate cash!


I'm pretty sure you can only frontload up to a certain amount. I believe it's the combined total of raises the player receives over the duration of the contract. Let's say for example Lee receives a 5yr/$50mil contract from us. He receives 10% raise each yr. $8mil would be his first yr starting salary, 2nd yr $9mil, 3rd yr $10mil, 4rth yr $11, and 5th yr $12mil. Basically if Lee agreed to a frontload you invert the contract and $12mil would be his first yr starting salary.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 04-09-2008 2:51 PM]
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/9/2008  3:48 PM
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by fishmike:

the solution is so simple... just frontload Lee's contract like Denver did. I really dont have a problem giving Lee 5 years and $48mm. Just make it like this: $13, $11, $8, $8, $8. That accomplishes two things. It make it more cap friendly for when we want the cap space, and makes it more trade friendly when we might want that option.

If we have picks 1-2 we are taking Rose or Beasley. There is no doubt about it. If we have 4-5 its up in the air. Who knows if they fall in love with a guy like Mayo during workouts. I do think they can buy some later picks, or use some of the younger players to get some as well.
That's still gonna put us in jeopardy of being over the cap in 2010/11. We'd have $53 mil wrapped up in just five players then. I think that would be worth it, though, and if there's a legit chance to get under the cap, then in 2009 you may have to offer something extremely enticing to get a team to take the final two years of Zach's contract in exchange for an expiring contract (like our lottery selected player this year if that player develops into something good). I'd try to front-load it even more than that, though. I'm sure Lee would accept it--it just means you're getting more immediate cash!


I'm pretty sure you can only frontload up to a certain amount. I believe it's the combines total of raises the player receives over the duration of the contract. Let's say for example Lee receives a 5yr/$50mil contract from us. He receives 10% raise each yr. $8mil would be his first yr starting salary, 2nd yr $9mil, 3rd yr $10mil, 4rth yr $11, and 5th yr $12mil. Basically if Lee agreed to a frontload you invert the contract and $12mil would be his first yr starting salary.

I see. That makes sense.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
4/9/2008  6:28 PM
Posted by King1:

Then if you dont get the top 2 picks trade down and get one of the guys you want. I would rather have McVale at 10 then Lopez at three. If you sign him to three years you can get under the cap. Getting rid of Curry and Randolph are the keys to the whole rebuilding. Having Zach on this team sets rebuilding back 2 extra years.

+1
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Queeniepop
Posts: 20640
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/29/2006
Member: #1233

4/10/2008  12:57 PM
Three years at $27M is steep...check out some of the players that make around $9M...David should make about $6 or $7M...like $18M to $21M over three years

Sam Dalembert $9M
Andre Miller $9M
TJ Ford $8M
Andres Nocioni $8.5M
Big Z $10M
Tayshaun Prince $8.7M
Troy Murphy $9.2M
Caron Butler $8.2M
Josh Howard $9M
Mike Miller $8.2M
David West $10M
Tyson Chandler $10M
Manu Ginobili $9M
Mehmet Okur $8.5M
Chris Kaman $8.6M
Boris Diaw $9.0M
Panos
Posts: 30583
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
4/10/2008  1:51 PM
Posted by Queeniepop:

Three years at $27M is steep...check out some of the players that make around $9M...David should make about $6 or $7M...like $18M to $21M over three years


Sam Dalembert $9M Overpaid
Andre Miller $9M Prob Overpaid
TJ Ford $8M Fair value(?)
Andres Nocioni $8.5M Prob Overpaid
Big Z $10M Overpaid
Tayshaun Prince $8.7M GREAT value
Troy Murphy $9.2M Overpaid
Caron Butler $8.2M Good value
Josh Howard $9M Good value
Mike Miller $8.2M Overpaid
David West $10M Good Value
Tyson Chandler $10M Overpaid
Manu Ginobili $9M Great Value
Mehmet Okur $8.5M Great Value
Chris Kaman $8.6M Fair value
Boris Diaw $9.0M Overpaid

islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
4/10/2008  1:57 PM
Is there any way to renegotiate Randolph's contract and front load it drastically next year?
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
There is no way the Knicks

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy