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

Let's Put this Cap Nonsense to Rest
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
misterearl
Posts: 38786
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/16/2004
Member: #799
USA
7/1/2007  9:01 AM
nyk4ever - When is Isiah going to be done?

nyk4ever - never. he's always gonna be wheelin' and dealin'. Just liike any other genaral manager. You never stop trying to make your squad better whether you are San Antonio or Washington.

I don't see a problem with him being a hard worker
once a knick always a knick
AUTOADVERT
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/1/2007  9:55 AM
Posted by sebstar:

how many major free agent signings have their been in the last 5 years???...only one I can think of is Nash.

I'd add Boozer and Okur to that list. both finally healthy along with Deron led the Jazz to the WCFs and have likely added a shooter in Morris that can propel them into the finals in the next couple of years
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
fishmike
Posts: 53903
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
7/1/2007  10:53 AM
lets put this winning games nonsense to rest as well :)
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
Vmart
Posts: 31800
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/23/2002
Member: #247
USA
7/1/2007  11:20 AM
Suppose if the KNicks got under the cap. What would the KNicks do they would look to get more talent via free agency. If that is the case they probably would have gone for players like LeBron, Kobe, Melo, KG, JO or Randolph. Whats the point of this getting under the cap if the players you want are available to them right now. There are enough peices there for the Knicks to get Kobe here it maybe slight but it would have been slight even if the Knicks were under the cap. And they already got Randolph. So if Isiah is getting this done without waiting two years in the pipeline I don't see what the problem is. I like what Isiah is doing and I think deep down a lot of people here like what he is doing but what I noticed about the Knicks fans is that they root for the individual players not the team.
COSSUCKS
Posts: 20984
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/15/2007
Member: #1569
7/1/2007  11:34 AM
The getting under the cap is the great unknown. The implication being that once you get under the cap you will always be able to get a Lebron or a Duncan.
Ignoring the reality that Superstars rarely move via FA, that you would have to be 20mill under the cap not just under it, and their home teams can always offer them more money than we could.
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
7/1/2007  12:17 PM
Larry hughes, Joe johnson, and Ben Wallace are a few more.

But what people miss is not the call to recklessly deplete the roster and dive waaay below the cap, but to have the flexibility to make moves if/when opportunities present themselves - (prime example being Phoenix's ability to dump Hardaway, Marbury and Googs to get Nash) - to not be stuck in an endless tar pit of waste.

Keep in mid that when a team is under the cap they also don't have to match salaries in trades and they can offer capspace to other teams in the form of trade exceptions. This again adds layers of flexibility to what teams can offer for the players they want.
Vmart
Posts: 31800
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/23/2002
Member: #247
USA
7/1/2007  12:25 PM
Posted by BlueSeats:

Larry hughes, Joe johnson, and Ben Wallace are a few more.

But what people miss is not the call to recklessly deplete the roster and dive waaay below the cap, but to have the flexibility to make moves if/when opportunities present themselves - (prime example being Phoenix's ability to dump Hardaway, Marbury and Googs to get Nash) - to not be stuck in an endless tar pit of waste.

Keep in mid that when a team is under the cap they also don't have to match salaries in trades and they can offer capspace to other teams in the form of trade exceptions. This again adds layers of flexibility to what teams can offer for the players they want.


Yeah thats all great but how many Nash type players moved via free agency. They usually move via trade. Teams want to be compensated for players now a days. You think LeBron or Melo would just come via free agency there respective teams will out bid you everytime and guess what once they resign them then they might consider trading them if they are not happy with the teams direction. Free Agency is a crap shoot but for some reason people on the board think once you are under the cap you are guaranteed to get a high quality superstar type of free agent. There is no guarantee of landing a big time superstar via free agency.
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
7/1/2007  12:32 PM
Posted by Vmart:
Posted by BlueSeats:

Larry hughes, Joe johnson, and Ben Wallace are a few more.

But what people miss is not the call to recklessly deplete the roster and dive waaay below the cap, but to have the flexibility to make moves if/when opportunities present themselves - (prime example being Phoenix's ability to dump Hardaway, Marbury and Googs to get Nash) - to not be stuck in an endless tar pit of waste.

Keep in mid that when a team is under the cap they also don't have to match salaries in trades and they can offer capspace to other teams in the form of trade exceptions. This again adds layers of flexibility to what teams can offer for the players they want.


Yeah thats all great but how many Nash type players moved via free agency. They usually move via trade. Teams want to be compensated for players now a days. You think LeBron or Melo would just come via free agency there respective teams will out bid you everytime and guess what once they resign them then they might consider trading them if they are not happy with the teams direction. Free Agency is a crap shoot but for some reason people on the board think once you are under the cap you are guaranteed to get a high quality superstar type of free agent. There is no guarantee of landing a big time superstar via free agency.


Has being waaay over the cap guaranteed us anything? It's all a crap shoot, flexibility simply enhances your odds.
COSSUCKS
Posts: 20984
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/15/2007
Member: #1569
7/1/2007  12:33 PM
Posted by BlueSeats:

Larry hughes, Joe johnson, and Ben Wallace are a few more.

Larry Hughes was not a superstar and he signed a huge deal for a borderline starter.

Joe Johnson is a very good player who did a sign and trade. He did not sign as a FA with the Hawks.

Ben Wallace is an overrated 32 year old center that has had his statistics decline for like 4-5 straight years. He signed a contract that his own team could have matched or even paid more for but it was such a bad contract the Pistons wanted nothing to do with it.

Lets hear about the superstars in their prime that switched teams via FA the last 30 years. I can think of 2-3.
Vmart
Posts: 31800
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/23/2002
Member: #247
USA
7/1/2007  12:50 PM
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by Vmart:
Posted by BlueSeats:

Larry hughes, Joe johnson, and Ben Wallace are a few more.

But what people miss is not the call to recklessly deplete the roster and dive waaay below the cap, but to have the flexibility to make moves if/when opportunities present themselves - (prime example being Phoenix's ability to dump Hardaway, Marbury and Googs to get Nash) - to not be stuck in an endless tar pit of waste.

Keep in mid that when a team is under the cap they also don't have to match salaries in trades and they can offer capspace to other teams in the form of trade exceptions. This again adds layers of flexibility to what teams can offer for the players they want.


Yeah thats all great but how many Nash type players moved via free agency. They usually move via trade. Teams want to be compensated for players now a days. You think LeBron or Melo would just come via free agency there respective teams will out bid you everytime and guess what once they resign them then they might consider trading them if they are not happy with the teams direction. Free Agency is a crap shoot but for some reason people on the board think once you are under the cap you are guaranteed to get a high quality superstar type of free agent. There is no guarantee of landing a big time superstar via free agency.


Has being waaay over the cap guaranteed us anything? It's all a crap shoot, flexibility simply enhances your odds.

Yes it gives some flexability no doubt about it, but who here is gonna want to sit pat until two years are gone by to get under the cap. Hell man I live day to day I want to see something positive happen here sooner rather than later I think we have all waited long enough since 1999. What people here fail to understand is Isiah is bringing in players via trade what diference would it make to you guys if he brings in player through free agency or by trade its all one and the same as long as Isiah can increase the talent level of the team.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
7/1/2007  1:30 PM
Posted by fishmike:

lets put this winning games nonsense to rest as well :)

along with that whole winning championships drivel... who cares about all that stuff when you can have a mediocre team to enjoy every year?
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
7/1/2007  1:40 PM
Posted by Vmart:
Posted by BlueSeats:

Larry hughes, Joe johnson, and Ben Wallace are a few more.

But what people miss is not the call to recklessly deplete the roster and dive waaay below the cap, but to have the flexibility to make moves if/when opportunities present themselves - (prime example being Phoenix's ability to dump Hardaway, Marbury and Googs to get Nash) - to not be stuck in an endless tar pit of waste.

Keep in mid that when a team is under the cap they also don't have to match salaries in trades and they can offer capspace to other teams in the form of trade exceptions. This again adds layers of flexibility to what teams can offer for the players they want.


Yeah thats all great but how many Nash type players moved via free agency. They usually move via trade. Teams want to be compensated for players now a days. You think LeBron or Melo would just come via free agency there respective teams will out bid you everytime and guess what once they resign them then they might consider trading them if they are not happy with the teams direction. Free Agency is a crap shoot but for some reason people on the board think once you are under the cap you are guaranteed to get a high quality superstar type of free agent. There is no guarantee of landing a big time superstar via free agency.


& you're equating getting a player like Zach Randolph as akin to getting a top notch stud player via trade? i don't understand your point here... the entire point as illustrated by BlueSeats is that being under or at least CLOSE to being under the cap expands your team's flexibility to make other deals... pawn off a few players to get under the cap here to get a player you want... this is how championship contending teams do business these days... teams like the Suns, Spurs, Pistons, Heat... they are all cap conscious because they know that getting bogged down with huge longterm contracts, unless it's for a franchise calibre talent, is not the way to win over the long haul... this allows them to make moves to improve their team every year... teams like the Knicks & Blazers have been capped out to oblivion for the past several years with a collection of players that all carry with them extreme amounts of baggage & aren't elite calibre talent for the money they make... how many championships have they contended for over that span?

yes, there haven't been many superstars who've switched teams via free agency over the past few decades, but when a big market team like the Lakers had the cap space to sign someone, they nabbed themselves the biggest free agent catch of most of our lifetimes in Shaq... who's to say the Knicks couldn't have done the same a couple years down the road w/Lebron or Kobe? now of course, we won't have to worry about that because we got the guy who's going to be the foundation of a championship run in Zach Randolph? sorry if i'm not jumping up & down over that prospect.

[Edited by - TMS on 07-01-2007 1:59 PM]
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
7/1/2007  1:41 PM
Posted by COSSUCKS:
Posted by BlueSeats:

Larry hughes, Joe johnson, and Ben Wallace are a few more.

Larry Hughes was not a superstar and he signed a huge deal for a borderline starter.

Joe Johnson is a very good player who did a sign and trade. He did not sign as a FA with the Hawks.

Ben Wallace is an overrated 32 year old center that has had his statistics decline for like 4-5 straight years. He signed a contract that his own team could have matched or even paid more for but it was such a bad contract the Pistons wanted nothing to do with it.

Lets hear about the superstars in their prime that switched teams via FA the last 30 years. I can think of 2-3.

What about flexibility don't you understand? And who are the superior "superstars" who were traded? Shaq is the only major difference maker I can think of and he as moved via trade and FA, so it's a wash.

As far as the knicks, what I can tell you is aside from the drafting of Ewing, the biggest change of our fortunes came when we went under he cap to obtain LJ, Houston and Childs in one offseason.
COSSUCKS
Posts: 20984
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/15/2007
Member: #1569
7/1/2007  1:52 PM
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by COSSUCKS:
Posted by BlueSeats:

Larry hughes, Joe johnson, and Ben Wallace are a few more.

Larry Hughes was not a superstar and he signed a huge deal for a borderline starter.

Joe Johnson is a very good player who did a sign and trade. He did not sign as a FA with the Hawks.

Ben Wallace is an overrated 32 year old center that has had his statistics decline for like 4-5 straight years. He signed a contract that his own team could have matched or even paid more for but it was such a bad contract the Pistons wanted nothing to do with it.

Lets hear about the superstars in their prime that switched teams via FA the last 30 years. I can think of 2-3.

What about flexibility don't you understand? And who are the superior "superstars" who were traded? Shaq is the only major difference maker I can think of and he as moved via trade and FA, so it's a wash.

As far as the knicks, what I can tell you is aside from the drafting of Ewing, the biggest change of our fortunes came when we went under he cap to obtain LJ, Houston and Childs in one offseason.

We didnt have to be under the cap to trade for Camby and Sprewell and they did just as much for us as Childs, LJ and H20.

What about Flexibility do you not understand? Is that supposed to be an intelligent argument of some kind?

If Shaq is the only difference maker that moved via FA what does that say about the salary cap? If only 2-4 teams were under the cap last season what does that say about the cap?

Do you honestly expect us or any team to get 20-25 mill under the cap and sign Lebron or Dwade? Who are the superstars you expect to switch teams this year, next year and the year after via FA?

Do you realize that their home teams under the cba can always offer more money and more years without being under the cap?

If being under the cap is so improtant how come so few teams are?

The Bulls were like 18 mill under the cap last off season. Is a 32 year old declining Ben Wallace at 15 mill a year this unreal reward you get for being under the cap?
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
7/1/2007  2:16 PM
Posted by COSSUCKS:
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by COSSUCKS:
Posted by BlueSeats:

Larry hughes, Joe johnson, and Ben Wallace are a few more.

Larry Hughes was not a superstar and he signed a huge deal for a borderline starter.

Joe Johnson is a very good player who did a sign and trade. He did not sign as a FA with the Hawks.

Ben Wallace is an overrated 32 year old center that has had his statistics decline for like 4-5 straight years. He signed a contract that his own team could have matched or even paid more for but it was such a bad contract the Pistons wanted nothing to do with it.

Lets hear about the superstars in their prime that switched teams via FA the last 30 years. I can think of 2-3.

What about flexibility don't you understand? And who are the superior "superstars" who were traded? Shaq is the only major difference maker I can think of and he as moved via trade and FA, so it's a wash.

As far as the knicks, what I can tell you is aside from the drafting of Ewing, the biggest change of our fortunes came when we went under he cap to obtain LJ, Houston and Childs in one offseason.

We didnt have to be under the cap to trade for Camby and Sprewell and they did just as much for us as Childs, LJ and H20.

We needed them all to be effective and we couldn't have gotten them all without getting under the cap.
What about Flexibility do you not understand? Is that supposed to be an intelligent argument of some kind?

Yes, because you keep trying to frame the proposition as you EITHER get under the cap OR you make trades, neglecting that sound fiscal management enhances BOTH propositions.
If Shaq is the only difference maker that moved via FA what does that say about the salary cap? If only 2-4 teams were under the cap last season what does that say about the cap?

Teams shouldn't, IMO, choose to operate perennially under the cap, but those still struggling/rebuilding and still seeking their franchise player or difference maker should not loose site of the cap, especially in years when major players (some who even have major market endorsement incentives) loom.

Imagine the situation that Lebron's agent lets it be known to Isiah that he'd love to come to NY if they had the money and Isiah couldn't get him because he's bogged down in bloated contracts. I think it happens more times than we know.
Do you honestly expect us or any team to get 20-25 mill under the cap and sign Lebron or Dwade? Who are the superstars you expect to switch teams this year, next year and the year after via FA?

Do you realize that their home teams under the cba can always offer more money and more years without being under the cap?

If being under the cap is so improtant how come so few teams are?

Not every team needs to be under the cap at the same time. teams need to pick their spots, but mediocre teams who've been waaay over the cap typically sooner or later rebuild, and clearing the unwanted veteran contracts and getting value in the lottery takes a long time. Lets hope in 5 years we're not still wishing we'd done so sooner rather than later.
The Bulls were like 18 mill under the cap last off season. Is a 32 year old declining Ben Wallace at 15 mill a year this unreal reward you get for being under the cap?

What you may not realize is that the Bulls are still under the cap while still being prime players on the trades-for-stars scene that you're so enthusiastic about. Being able to not match salaries and/or offer trade exceptions only enhances their ability in that area. They're a fine example of the kind of flexibility most teams covet.
COSSUCKS
Posts: 20984
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/15/2007
Member: #1569
7/1/2007  2:30 PM
All I hear is spin spin spin. If the Bulls are so great with the cap and flexibility where are all their Superstar FA signings and Superstar FA trades? They do not have 1 current all star on their team despite 11 lottery picks in the last 8-9 years.
IF IF IF thats all you pretty much are saying in reality. The teams in the talks for Garnnet are not under the salary cap. That would be Boston, Phoenix and the Lakers. A big reason why the Bulls can not get Kobe is they do not have the salary flexibility that some of our over priced contracts allowed.
They either have to package too many of their younger lesser paid players for their liking or include 3 years of an over paid Ben Wallace that nobody wants.
I saw somebody post that they could sign PJ Brown to a only 1 year deal at high money and include him. Sadly the CBA does not allow sign and trades like that.

[Edited by - COSSUCKS on 07-01-2007 8:31 PM]
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
7/1/2007  2:37 PM
Posted by COSSUCKS:

All I hear is spin spin spin.
IF IF IF thats all you pretty much are saying in reality.

No sir, what I've been doing is explaining how sound fiscal management enhances options through flexibility.

Perhaps you like to do me better and evidence the mediocre teams swimming in bloated contracts who are better advantaged?
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
7/1/2007  2:38 PM
to those who keep harping on the "name the last stud free agent that switched teams & won a championship" question, could you guys please name the last superstar stud to be obtained via trade that helped vault a team to a championship? i believe the answer to both questions would be Shaq... these types of deals don't go down everyday in either case, but it's always good to have the cap flexibility to at least entertain the thought of making an offer or being in the discussion i would think... but who cares, as long as we keep going after players like Stephon Marbury & Zach Randolph, i'm sure we're well on our way towards building a championship contender.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
7/1/2007  2:51 PM
Posted by TMS:

to those who keep harping on the "name the last stud free agent that switched teams & won a championship" question, could you guys please name the last superstar stud to be obtained via trade that helped vault a team to a championship? i believe the answer to both questions would be Shaq... these types of deals don't go down everyday in either case, but it's always good to have the cap flexibility to at least entertain the thought of making an offer or being in the discussion i would think... but who cares, as long as we keep going after players like Stephon Marbury & Zach Randolph, i'm sure we're well on our way towards building a championship contender.

Well you don't really know what this team is gonna be able to accomplish now do you? You can't sit here and say right now that you KNOW FOR A FACT that adding Zach won't get us to the ECF's. I'm pretty darned confident that he'll help us get to the playoffs tho and right now that's really all we need is a shot to be in the playoffs and take it from there.

Do you really stop to consider just how close most teams in the NBA really are to each other? That's why adding one player can often make such a huge difference to teams. Now in our case we did more than add jsut one player and we've got other players who will factor into how improved we'll be next year and beyond. Or did you forget that this isn't the end of the matter? Yes we can do more to improve the team beyond just adding Zach. Honestly I don't know what to say about the negativity around here. We just added a 20-10 guy!!! TWENTY AND TEN!!! Do you think that's nothing? With the talent we already have all the good role players we have and you still aren't even a little bit optimistic about what this team can do? SHAME ON YOU and all of the fans around here that can't see what's going on with this team. Don't be a late rider on the bandwagon when they're winning games. Use some insight and just look at what we've been adding to this team and the possibilites of internal growth as well.

Not only did we add a stud, but we already have several young studs who are only gonna get better!!! Just imagine how much more effective Lee and Balkman will be with less attention being paid to them?
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
7/1/2007  2:53 PM
Posted by Vmart:

Suppose if the KNicks got under the cap. What would the KNicks do they would look to get more talent via free agency. If that is the case they probably would have gone for players like LeBron, Kobe, Melo, KG, JO or Randolph. Whats the point of this getting under the cap if the players you want are available to them right now. There are enough peices there for the Knicks to get Kobe here it maybe slight but it would have been slight even if the Knicks were under the cap. And they already got Randolph. So if Isiah is getting this done without waiting two years in the pipeline I don't see what the problem is. I like what Isiah is doing and I think deep down a lot of people here like what he is doing but what I noticed about the Knicks fans is that they root for the individual players not the team.

i have no idea where you got that last observation from... everyone on this board roots for the team to succeed... we have differing views on how that success should be achieved though... just because i'm a Knicks fan doesn't mean i have to automatically sign off on this deal & be happy with adding a maxed out player who doesn't have maxed out value & doesn't address any of our biggest needs at this point... i personally think we would have found much better longterm success if we'd have just let Francis' contract expire rather than taking on Zach's deal... of course, this can all change IF Isiah makes another big splash move to get Kobe obviously, but unless that happens, i don't like this move because i think it follows right along on the same line of thinking that got Stephon Marbury & Steve Francis here to begin with, & history tells us neither of those moves have worked out in our favor... at some point, you have to learn from past mistakes, don't you?
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Let's Put this Cap Nonsense to Rest
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