Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Vmart:

Posted by VDesai:

Ideally I would sign Lee to 5 yrs/37.5 mil and backload the deal.
Year 1: 5.5
Year 2 (2010): 6.5
Year 3: 7.5
Year 4: 8.5
Year 5 9.5

I wouldn't even bother with resigning Lee or Nate for that matter. Can't take a chance on missing out on a big time FA signing all dollars and cents must be accounted for.

I'd let Lee and Nate walk I find nothing spectacular about these guys that they need to be a part of the Knicks.

I'd make the exception for Lee since he doesn't need the ball to be effective. In 2010, you're going to be looking to sign guys who can score and need the ball. Lee can be a nice complement to that. Nate isn't and isn't worth the cap space.

Keep Lee Isles, you talk about defense well Lee is not very good defender. Why would you give him contract. I wouldn't touch lee unless he took a very very friendly contract towards the cap. 5 years 25 million.

[Edited by - Vmart on 11-24-2008 12:53 PM]

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Vmart:

Posted by VDesai:

Ideally I would sign Lee to 5 yrs/37.5 mil and backload the deal.
Year 1: 5.5
Year 2 (2010): 6.5
Year 3: 7.5
Year 4: 8.5
Year 5 9.5

I wouldn't even bother with resigning Lee or Nate for that matter. Can't take a chance on missing out on a big time FA signing all dollars and cents must be accounted for.

I'd let Lee and Nate walk I find nothing spectacular about these guys that they need to be a part of the Knicks.

I'd make the exception for Lee since he doesn't need the ball to be effective. In 2010, you're going to be looking to sign guys who can score and need the ball. Lee can be a nice complement to that. Nate isn't and isn't worth the cap space.

I disagree. Nate is already a great sixth man. The Knicks have a better second unit than a lot of teams and the reason--almost exclusively--is Nate. That will remain his role in 2010.

What's DAvid lee's role now? Hustle and energy? I guess that will be his role in 2010 too, which I think is easier to find a cheap replacement for than what Nate brings.

For Lee to take the qualifying offer in order to become a UFA in 2010 is going to require him to take some risk. He would be playing that year for a very small amount of money (2.6M), and an (major) injury would be very bad for him.

Posted by SupremeCommander:

Posted by VDesai:

Ideally I would sign Lee to 5 yrs/37.5 mil and backload the deal.
Year 1: 5.5
Year 2 (2010): 6.5
Year 3: 7.5
Year 4: 8.5
Year 5 9.5

I'm sure Lee's agent understands the concept of time value of mmoney.

thats the contract we should sign Nate to. I really like Lee. I think he's a terrific player. I just dont think paying Lee $8-$10mm a year in the summer of 2010 fits into the plan we think DW is trying for. Trading Lee for picks or a player still in his rookie contract does

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Vmart:

Posted by VDesai:

Ideally I would sign Lee to 5 yrs/37.5 mil and backload the deal.
Year 1: 5.5
Year 2 (2010): 6.5
Year 3: 7.5
Year 4: 8.5
Year 5 9.5

I wouldn't even bother with resigning Lee or Nate for that matter. Can't take a chance on missing out on a big time FA signing all dollars and cents must be accounted for.

I'd let Lee and Nate walk I find nothing spectacular about these guys that they need to be a part of the Knicks.

I'd make the exception for Lee since he doesn't need the ball to be effective. In 2010, you're going to be looking to sign guys who can score and need the ball. Lee can be a nice complement to that. Nate isn't and isn't worth the cap space.

Nate at the right price is a great player off the bench. Perfect sixth man on a contender, so he becomes an important player to sign as part of the 2010 plan. The same goes for Lee but if the price is too much the best thing is to trade him and get his value in another prospect establishing himself to the league.

My feeling is that someone out there will sign Lee to a lucrative offer sheet that Donnie will elect not to match. Lee's a good player but between the two, he and Nate, Nate's the one you wanna hold onto IMHO. I'm confident we'll be able to find another cost-effective backup PF/C who will supply the same things more or less that Lee provides (all we'll ever need out of a good backup 4/5 is toughness, hopefully some more size than Lee himself both height and girth, rebounding, better interior defense & garbage points inside -- heck Justin Williams can give us that for minimun dollars right now if we called him in) in the event he signs an offer sheet with another team that doesn't make sense for us. Nate, to me, just has more of that 'something special' to him out of the two.

Having said that, if they can bring them both back at money that makes sense and money that won't impact 2010 free agency, you do it...



[Edited by - finestrg on 11-24-2008 2:52 PM]

Posted by NYKBocker:

Do you trade Curry for expiring or or try to hold out for a homerun type deal? We can probably send Curry to Miami right now for Blount straight up.

An expiring would be a homerun type deal! I'd trade him for anyone with one less year on their contract.

Posted by Finestrg:

My feeling is that someone out there will sign Lee to a lucrative offer sheet that Donnie will elect not to match. Lee's a good player but between the two, he and Nate, Nate's the one you wanna hold onto IMHO. I'm confident we'll be able to find another cost-effective backup PF/C who will supply the same things more or less that Lee provides (all we'll ever need out of a good backup 4/5 is toughness, hopefully some more size than Lee himself both height and girth, rebounding, better interior defense & garbage points inside -- heck Justin Williams can give us that for minimun dollars right now if we called him in) in the event he signs an offer sheet with another team that doesn't make sense for us. Nate, to me, just has more of that 'something special' to him out of the two.

Having said that, if they can bring them both back at money that makes sense and money that won't impact 2010 free agency, you do it...



[Edited by - finestrg on 11-24-2008 2:52 PM]

he's getting traded for a pick or a prospect. book it

Posted by Knicksfan:

Posted by Bonn1997:

If you want to sign two big FAs in 2010, you cannot re-sign Lee or Nate. Trade them for whatever draft picks and players on rookie contracts you can get.

Not if we trade Curry for an expiring contract

Fair enough but I don't see that happening. I didn't see this Zach deal ever happening either though!

2. Trade Jeffries

impossible because of his trade kicker... no one would take him... that's why u gotta trade D Lee for a pick now.