Waiving Rose would seem to be a strange move for a variety of reasons

1) Isiah just traded for him

2) He is one of our most experienced playoff performers

3) He is one of our best defenders.

If we ever have a PF who worthy of a starting spot, or a starting C who is an offensive force (a la Duncan) Rose would be a perfect backup. He's "overpaid," and will turn 31 early this year but he is a useful veteran, which most good teams have.

Shandon would seem to be a much better choice. Is one more roster spot really that important?

Posted by Knight:

Posted by Rich:

Yeah, being objective is tantamount to being a hater. Not.

If saying the owner of a team spending millions of dollars doesn't want to win is objective then we have a different idea about objectivity.

Spending money stupidly does not equate to wanting to winning championships. The Knicks have had the highest payroll in the NBA over the last few seasons and haven't even made the playoffs. Why? Because Dolan is more concerned with quick fix solutions, which appear to be an easy way to get the Knicks in the playoffs, but it would do so at the expense of putting a long term plan in place that would be more likely to yield championships.

Case in point: Layden traded Camby and the rights to Nene for an injured McDyess. Why? Because Dolan wanted a name player that he thought would ensure making the playoffs, rather than having two young big men who could be the foundation for a championship team in a few years.

Two years ago, the Knicks passed on Larry Brown because Dolan "liked" Don Chaney.

The same poor plan has also failed in the NHL. The Rangers have had the highest payroll in hockey and haven't made the playoffs in seven years.

It's about having a plan, not merely about throwing money at a problem.

Waiving Rose would seem to be a strange move for a variety of reasons
1) Isiah just traded for him

Isiah didn't trade for him. He traded for 2 late 1st rd draft picks. (Rose just happened to come along in the deal.)

I don't get it, if we're not contending for a championship then why does anyone care if Dolan wants to pay Houston to sit on the bench? But if we are trying to make a playoff push, great shooters are invaluable. Not to mention it doesn't hurt to have veteran leadership in the locker room, in practice, and on the court. I don't want to hear that the younger guards couldn't benefit from Allan's experience and the example he sets.

If you (a) care 100% about winning, (b) believe expiring contracts are valuable trade assets, and (c) truly have close to unlimited spending, you use the clause on Shandon's contract and keep Houston b/c he'll have a huge expiring contract in 11 months.

when asked why he traded nazr for rose at the q&a, isiah responded "...AND...", the response was 2 #1 picks to which isiah said "thank you". it's possible that rose was never part of the plan but the two #1's were (like bonn said). so rose may be the one cut. oh well, a few more hours.

Posted by djsunyc:

it'll be malik.

i'd rather it be mo but that would mean isiah trade 2 expiring deals AND a #2 for nothing.

waiving shandon does not do anything for us but save money.
at least waiving malik will give us a roster spot AND clear a glut in the same time. malik can't be moved for another year or two unless we throw in picks.

A good gm has to know when to push his ego aside and fold his hand. Isiah needs to realize he made a mistake with Mo T and cut him. He doesn't add anything we need and he will clash with Larry Brown.

The only reason I would consider keeping him is if Isiah wants to cut Rose. Although I really like his game, we have similiar players in JYD and Lee. He has the longest contract out of all the power forwards and Mo T's expiring contract next year will be very valuable to acquire draft picks or a solid player at the deadline.

I'm just waiting for an official report before speaking at length about this... The suspense is almost over...

Posted by Rich:

If expiring contracts are so valuable, why did the Knicks trade shorter contracts for Mo Taylor?

The Knicks traded a total of zero expiring contracts for Mo Taylor.

We should waive Malik Rose...please do it.

Posted by Silverfuel:

Posted by Bonn1997:

The Knicks traded a total of zero expiring contracts for Mo Taylor.

The contracts they traded were shorter than Mo's contracts. This move does not go along with the expiring contract theory.

The expiring contract theory? No.

The better talent theory for contracts of comparable length? Yes.

well, they are going to keep penny to hopefully trade since his contract is up next summer along with timmy. as far as dolan goes, he is an idiot who is making dumb decisions again. with this, i envision isaih walking away as well as brown in a few years. dolan should let thomas do his job. he knows he should cut houston and was prepared for it. why do you think he traded to get q rich? now we will have another unbelievable log jam at the 2 guard. as far as releasing jyd and sating it will relieve the logjam at the 4, jyd is the only one out of the other pf that can play both forward positions well. that is an asset. the only other player who can do that is tim thomas. malik, sweetney, mo and lee can not play any other position so the log jam would still be there. this is not going to solve ANY roster problems.

I cannot figure the strategy behind this, but I can guess. By keeping Houston, the Knicks want one of two conclusions:

-He returns to the sweet shooting offf-guard he once was. I think this is an extreme longshot. I don't think he'll ever play near his level. Bad, bad knees!!!

-He retires and the insurance policy on his contract kicks in. So, they'd save $52mm (Houston's contract + JYD).
Just a guess.