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

isiah by the dollars
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Panos
Posts: 30443
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
8/22/2005  8:34 AM
Personally, the $200 aggregate number to me means nothing.
In order for me to even comment on this, I need to see how much
he added for each year in the future. I don't care if he took on
a billion dollars in the next 2 years, if we don't continue paying
stupid overpaying contracts after that. Unfortunately, don't think
that's the case.
AUTOADVERT
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/22/2005  8:56 AM
If he worked any normal business he would be out the door, but for whatever reason in the NBA you can get by for years on hope and faith.
Not really; if he worked in any business, I'm sure that being a smart individual, he would make sure he had an agreement with his supervisor that there would be a reasonable time period of evaluation (not one full season in this case). I'm sure the supervisor would want a reasonable time period of evaluation too so that he or she could make an informed rather than rushed decision.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/22/2005  9:00 AM
If you are interested in hurried judgements based on spending and a brief evaluation period, at least list how much the other teams added over the same time period to help put this in some kind of conext. For example, the Lakers added more payroll than the Knicks but turned a championship level team into a lottery team during that time period.
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
8/22/2005  9:13 AM
when they first announced IT was taking over for layden, I thought 'couldn't they have gotten someone better'- I mean he doesn't exactly have a great track record.

But, from the beginning, I largely gave him a pass on stuff because the roster he inherited was garbage.

Now, seeing all this stuff laid out like this, it gives me pause to consider.

Regardless of who we might be able to get, we had better not trade TT or Penny- both those deals must expire.
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
8/22/2005  10:18 AM
Posted by fishmike:

The bottom line is ISiah ADDED over $200mm in players and it resulted in 33 wins.

The salary he added is spread out over a number of years, and last season's 33 win effort was only one season. Does not compute. If you want to put last season in context in terms of salary added, it should be relative to what the salary structure would have been had no roster moves been made. Some salary was added, but not a prohibitive amount. The $200+ million figure can only be used to evaluate the team over the duration of time in which the $200m is actually distributed.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
BasketballJones
Posts: 31973
Alba Posts: 19
Joined: 7/16/2002
Member: #290
USA
8/22/2005  11:02 AM
Attaboy Zeke! Way to spend Dolan's money!
https:// It's not so hard.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/22/2005  11:20 AM
Posted by tomverve:
Posted by fishmike:

The bottom line is ISiah ADDED over $200mm in players and it resulted in 33 wins.

The salary he added is spread out over a number of years, and last season's 33 win effort was only one season. Does not compute. If you want to put last season in context in terms of salary added, it should be relative to what the salary structure would have been had no roster moves been made. Some salary was added, but not a prohibitive amount. The $200+ million figure can only be used to evaluate the team over the duration of time in which the $200m is actually distributed.
Exacly. The argument is flawed on so many levels that it's hard to know what to comment on first. If you want to talk about last year's win total, you have to talk about *last year's* increase in salary. I think he increased the team's salary by about 20%, which was above average but not the most in the league. You shouldn't even be evaluating a GM who's rebuilding with young players based on how many Ws the team gets in his first full season.

Nalod
Posts: 71897
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
8/22/2005  11:45 AM
The team was very servely flawed last season. If your gonna suck, at least do it right. We did not.

This off season was much better in terms of builing assets. Last summer there was all kinds of hype and bravado about how we were gonna take first place, how TT was kicking his way back in shape, how sweets was breaking out, Vin got a new heart, how penny was in the best shape of his life, marbs and Lenny with a camp would be great, and Craw was gonna grow up!

THe bright spot was Reezy, a ROOKIE! That was a nice surprise, and we did see that Sweets can play!

The chemistry was awful!

I don't expect nearly what was expected last summer, but infusion of youth is exciting. This team won't win right away, but I find it very interesting.
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
8/22/2005  12:16 PM
Posted by tomverve:
Posted by fishmike:

The bottom line is ISiah ADDED over $200mm in players and it resulted in 33 wins.

The salary he added is spread out over a number of years, and last season's 33 win effort was only one season. Does not compute. If you want to put last season in context in terms of salary added, it should be relative to what the salary structure would have been had no roster moves been made. Some salary was added, but not a prohibitive amount. The $200+ million figure can only be used to evaluate the team over the duration of time in which the $200m is actually distributed.
its not flawed at all. The players he spent that money on are all here, and they have failed to translate into wins. The $200 *future* is MUCH MORE significant to me than current salary. Current salary represents 1 year.. the fact that Isiah added almost $250 in FUTURE contracts means we are commited to what we have. What we have won us 33 games. Yes yes.. I know Q is the savior and our rookies will all compete for ROY. Hope and faith baby... hope and faith


"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
8/22/2005  12:26 PM
Posted by fishmike:

its not flawed at all.

Maybe you don't want your analysis to be flawed, but it is-- obviously so. Maybe the team won't improve at all over the next 5 years, maybe it'll improve a lot. No one knows until those seasons actually happen and all the games are played. Until the results are in, no conclusions can be made about the long term salary that's been added. All we can do at this point is speculate and assume, which is notoriously hard to do well in basketball. In many cases it's hard to predict what a team is going to do in a given season when you already know their roster and coach. Predicting what's going to happen 3 or 4 or 5 years down the line is just an exercise in futility.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
rvhoss
Posts: 24943
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2004
Member: #777
Switzerland
8/22/2005  12:30 PM
everyone knows looking at total dollars in a present value perspective and applying it to last year is just twisting the stats.

Everyone...yes, that include you too fish.

[Edited by - rvhoss on 08-22-2005 12:30 PM]
all kool aid all the time.
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
8/22/2005  12:47 PM
Posted by tomverve:
Posted by fishmike:

The bottom line is ISiah ADDED over $200mm in players and it resulted in 33 wins.

The salary he added is spread out over a number of years, and last season's 33 win effort was only one season. Does not compute. If you want to put last season in context in terms of salary added, it should be relative to what the salary structure would have been had no roster moves been made. Some salary was added, but not a prohibitive amount. The $200+ million figure can only be used to evaluate the team over the duration of time in which the $200m is actually distributed.


Yeah and that makes it even worse since Isiah is operating under a salary cap. The fact that the $200m is distributed over several years means that we're going to be over the cap that much longer.

You want to put last year in context? We won 33 games. Period. And now we're committed to hundreds of millions in salary over the next few years and we're praying that "potential" turns into something tangible because that's all we have left.
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
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
8/22/2005  12:52 PM
well Tom, there are some results arent there? Or is it unfair to judge the value of the current roster until 6 years from now when every contract has expired? Is it unfair to say last year that $110+ yielded 33 wins? Pretty sure thats a fact. The problem is compounded by the fact that many of the contracts are increasing.

Think about it... in order to get a payroll as high as it was last year (33 wins, just in case you forgot) he actually had to commit to taking on more in future salary.

There's a flaw there alright...
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
8/22/2005  12:53 PM
Posted by rvhoss:

everyone knows looking at total dollars in a present value perspective and applying it to last year is just twisting the stats.

Everyone...yes, that include you too fish.

[Edited by - rvhoss on 08-22-2005 12:30 PM]


What are you talking about? Last year the Knicks had the highest payroll in the league and had 33 wins to show for it. The ones who are pretending that that doesn't mean anything are the ones who are twisting things.
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
rvhoss
Posts: 24943
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2004
Member: #777
Switzerland
8/22/2005  1:16 PM
I agree with you here, it is fair to just last year that $110+ yielded 33 wins.
However, I believe that we are talking about the amount of salary Isiah Brought in.

What was the difference in salary?
Posted by fishmike:

well Tom, there are some results arent there? Or is it unfair to judge the value of the current roster until 6 years from now when every contract has expired? Is it unfair to say last year that $110+ yielded 33 wins? Pretty sure thats a fact. The problem is compounded by the fact that many of the contracts are increasing.

Think about it... in order to get a payroll as high as it was last year (33 wins, just in case you forgot) he actually had to commit to taking on more in future salary.

There's a flaw there alright...


all kool aid all the time.
rvhoss
Posts: 24943
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2004
Member: #777
Switzerland
8/22/2005  1:16 PM
see fish response
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by rvhoss:

everyone knows looking at total dollars in a present value perspective and applying it to last year is just twisting the stats.

Everyone...yes, that include you too fish.

[Edited by - rvhoss on 08-22-2005 12:30 PM]


What are you talking about? Last year the Knicks had the highest payroll in the league and had 33 wins to show for it. The ones who are pretending that that doesn't mean anything are the ones who are twisting things.


all kool aid all the time.
rvhoss
Posts: 24943
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2004
Member: #777
Switzerland
8/22/2005  1:17 PM
Posted by rvhoss:

I agree with you here, it is fair to just last year that $110+ yielded 33 wins.
However, I believe that we are talking about the amount of salary Isiah Brought in.

What was the difference in salary?

If anything, we bought losses.
Posted by fishmike:

well Tom, there are some results arent there? Or is it unfair to judge the value of the current roster until 6 years from now when every contract has expired? Is it unfair to say last year that $110+ yielded 33 wins? Pretty sure thats a fact. The problem is compounded by the fact that many of the contracts are increasing.

Think about it... in order to get a payroll as high as it was last year (33 wins, just in case you forgot) he actually had to commit to taking on more in future salary.

There's a flaw there alright...



all kool aid all the time.
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
8/22/2005  1:26 PM
Posted by rvhoss:

see fish response
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by rvhoss:

everyone knows looking at total dollars in a present value perspective and applying it to last year is just twisting the stats.

Everyone...yes, that include you too fish.

[Edited by - rvhoss on 08-22-2005 12:30 PM]


What are you talking about? Last year the Knicks had the highest payroll in the league and had 33 wins to show for it. The ones who are pretending that that doesn't mean anything are the ones who are twisting things.



How about $20-30m more and even more than that in terms of future dollars and years which in turn limits our financial flexibility to make moves down the road.
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
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
8/22/2005  1:47 PM
to me, we can't isolate the dollars spent with the current product on the floor or what's being built for the future. everything is tied in hand to hand. there is youth on this team. but damn, we sure had to spend for it. we are operating pretty much like no other franchise, possibly, in league history. so far, operating like this since 2001, we have ZILCH to show for it. layden killed us. the players isiah brought in are definitely sexier but we won't know if what he's doing now will kill us as well since it hasn't happened yet.

last year, as many said, we spent over $100 mil and it yielded us 33 wins. forget spin control on injuries to craw, and h20 b/c that just goes to show you how UNTALENTED we were for the money spent.

we are rebuilding, just not doing it using the convential definition of rebuilding that we're used to. isiah is chartering on new ground here and we just won't know if his plan will work or not.

i ask you guys this - would you be satisfied if he puts together a perennial 50 win team but just not good enough to get to the ECF or finals? (like the hawks and cavs all those years in the late 80's, early 90's)

i don't like the way the money is being spent, especially for sub par players BUT i also see that isiah is trying to "rebuild" in a completely new way that nobody has done before.

maybe we have to see how it all plays out?

people that don't like it have legitimate gripes.
people that just blindly accept it have a right to as well.

then there's some that aren't sure what to think - i think i fall into that category. it's a mixed bag for me b/c i like some players, i don't like some players, and i don't know if this spend spend spend can ever work.
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
8/22/2005  1:48 PM
none of that matters.. according to Tom and RV since nobody can predict the future, nobody can say it will be bad. Therefore, despite the fact that this collosal investment has yeilded nothing in the short term and represents a commitment that crushes flexibility for the next 3-4 years, you cant say the choices or plan were suspect, because after all... you never know, its the future.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
isiah by the dollars
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©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