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

Picture of a healthy cap/Reality check
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
3/14/2009  11:58 PM
arkrud, for years people have been screaming for this flawed roster to be completely overhauled & blown up, & now after a season when Lee & Nate are putting up some numbers your focus moves towards rewarding loyalty to the franchise? let me ask u something, what are u trying to build here? a team of players who don't have enough talent to contend for any championships but are all glad to be NY Knicks, or do u want to put together a team that u know can contend for championships year after year?
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
AUTOADVERT
30andOverClub
Posts: 20108
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/1/2005
Member: #876
3/15/2009  12:13 AM
Posted by JohnWallace44:

Lee and Nate should be rewarded for their efforts and they're loyalty to this franchise, but I can't imagine a different answer now that we've passed the 09 trade deadline.

You need to bring in some serious players to compliment either Lee or Nate and if you have them both on the floor as much as we do, to win a championship you would need KG and LeBron, forget Bosh and Bron in order to make the other parts work.

We're playing a specific system, and Nate and Lee have specific deficiencies that require specific types of players to cover up the deficiencies while at the same time fitting into the system.

I think it's just time to rebuild. It seems like the stars are aligned for it.

I just worry that Donnie will let these guys walk without doing a sign and trade.

Doesn't "rebuilding" basically throw out the 2010 plan, however? Why are LeBron or Wade leaving their playoff teams to come to a Knicks team that would win 25-30 games if they rebuild next year?

While I'm not against trading both Lee and/or Nate, you have to bring back more than just 2009 draft picks, because if they don't mesh and the Knicks have a terrible year next year, you've blown your shot at getting a real difference maker in 2010. IMO. You could get Bosh, Stoudamire, Joe Johnson or some such, but neither excite me much. Would we be playoff teams? Sure. Championship contenders? No.

I feel it's better to do the best job you can to build a playoff team for next year while creating some cap space. For example, if Lee won't agree to a cap-friendly contract, then sign and trade him for a good to great player who ALREADY HAS a cap-friendly contract. If we finish over .500 and make the playoffs next year with the likes of Hughes and Harrington, LeBron might just think, "Hey, imagine how good the Knicks would be if I was on this team!"
TheGame
Posts: 26651
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/15/2006
Member: #1154
USA
3/15/2009  9:57 AM
The bottomline is at this point, we need to forget about the being under the cap by $16 million plan. The chance that Lebron signs here is probably 25% at best. We have to make tough decisions on Nate and Lee. Lee worries me because of his lack of defense, but I think that has more to do with him trying to boost his numbers for a new contract rather than a lack of ability to play defense. Nate is probably never going to be a starting pg, but he will be a perennial 6th man, and is really good in his role as scorer off the bench. Given the state of the economy, I doubt any team offers Lee more than $10 million and no one is going to offer Nate more than $8 million. If we can resign Lee for $9 million and resign Nate for $7 million, then I think we may have to do it. We should also look to trade Duhon and sign Sessions in the offseason to a full mid-level contract.

That would leave our team as:

PG Sessions/Nate
SG Hughes/Q
SF Chandler/DG
PF Harrington/Lee/DG
C Lee/Curry (who hopefully will be in decent enough shape to play 10 minutes by next season).

This is a fairly solid team. Sessions is a more well-round pg than Duhon. If DG can get his back situation resolved over the summer and improve his ball-handling, he will be a big boost for our bench. Hughes is playing better than I thought he could. His game seems to fit this offense. Chandler should make another jump in his game after a summer of training. Lee will have his contract, so he can start playing defense again. All in all, this is a fairly competitive squad. Plus, we will add a 1st round draft pick.

Now you say, what about signing Lebron in 2010. Well, by January 2010, we will have a better guage on whether Lebron or someone else might actually leave their current team. If we think they will, we can alway make a trade for an expiring contract. I mean Nate at $7 mil is tradeable as is Lee at $9 million. If Curry's fat butt is playing decent, we can probably package him with DG or Chandler and move him to another team. Simply put, even with resigning Lee and Nate, we will still have options. Walsh should not give those two up without getting back major assets.
Trust the Process
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
3/15/2009  10:24 AM
Am I the only one who thinks we can re-sign Nate and Lee and still have very good FLEXIBILITY? We'd have some solid players to build with should we decide against the max FA route and go the "Fish" route. Or we could move one of the two big contracts (Jeffries/Curry) by throwing in sweeteners (1st rd picks, for example). Of course, no one wants to throw in sweeteners--no one wants to give up anything valuable--but if you have a strong chance at a top FA, you do it. The Zach/Jamal trades gave me tremendous optimism about our flexibility. Given how far we are from the 2010 off-season, I think worrying about the exact dollar amounts of our current roster and about salary/payroll/cap projections will be about as useful as doing so 1 year ago when we still had Zach and Jamal would have been. (I don't mean that as a personal attack, JW.) We have flexibility for the first time in like a century. Be happy.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 03-15-2009 10:24 AM]
JohnWallace44
Posts: 25119
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 6/14/2005
Member: #910
USA
3/15/2009  3:15 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:

Am I the only one who thinks we can re-sign Nate and Lee and still have very good FLEXIBILITY? We'd have some solid players to build with should we decide against the max FA route and go the "Fish" route. Or we could move one of the two big contracts (Jeffries/Curry) by throwing in sweeteners (1st rd picks, for example). Of course, no one wants to throw in sweeteners--no one wants to give up anything valuable--but if you have a strong chance at a top FA, you do it. The Zach/Jamal trades gave me tremendous optimism about our flexibility. Given how far we are from the 2010 off-season, I think worrying about the exact dollar amounts of our current roster and about salary/payroll/cap projections will be about as useful as doing so 1 year ago when we still had Zach and Jamal would have been. (I don't mean that as a personal attack, JW.) We have flexibility for the first time in like a century. Be happy.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 03-15-2009 10:24 AM]

I don't take it personally at all. I was saying that we should have traded Marbs and Rose to help get rid of Curry and JJ or to aquire pieces before the break, but we passed a threshold at the deadline where it really gets unlikely that you could deal JJ and or Curry since they are ineffective and we don't have an ability to save teams money in an overall deal anymore.

If you assume JJ and Curry are stuck on the roster and that we want to be able to have a shot at LeBron and Co, then we have a tight $12 million dollar window to work within.

On top of the financials, there are some cold hard truths about the Knicks ability to win games with Nate and Lee being the lead contributors, and having had major roles for the last few years.

Nate could fit easier than Lee. His game at PG against Minny wasn't spectacular like the Clippers game, but he did look to get shooters in position to take good shots in the 2nd half. That's what the Knicks have to see to make him a big part of the future plans. The idea that we make Nate an AI type with the rest of the players just standing around is not a solid plan. We're not going to win like that, so to me, he has to show PG abilities to hold onto him.

The thing with Lee is that we're probably going to tend to have at least a couple of guys playing that are not good perimeter defenders in this system. We'd gain so many wins if we had better help defense. Nate could actually be a real defensive factor pressing people if we had an interior presence. Lee just doesn't fit that plan if you watch the games. He's taken out sometimes when we're getting burnt inside. MikeD knows that he can't keep doing that long term. You can't give the guy a huge deal if that's the case.

Look, they're great players. If OKC signed Lee and Nate as supersubs, I bet they'd make the Western finals next year. Trying to make them starters and front-line starters on a team like the Knicks with no other major parts is completely different. We're not going to get up to a 60% winning percentage with that.

Alan Hahn: Nate Robinson has been on a ridonkulous scoring tear lately (remember when he couldn't hit Jerome James with a Big Mac in early January?)
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
3/15/2009  5:25 PM
25 year old players making 8-9mm that give you 17/12 and 57% and 70 double doubles a year are easy to move. There should be no, none, zero concern about being stuck with a guy like Lee who is super productive. I know the defense thing bothers a lot of people but the Jazz are one of the best teams in the West and they start perhaps the worst defensive frontcourt in Okur/Boozer of any winning team.

If we are hell bent on siging a max FA this offseason we should find a constructive way to buyout Curry and package JJ Skinny with our pick for a garbage player with one less year on his deal.

That would put us here:
Lee $8mm (5 years $50mm)
Nate $6.5mm (5 years $42mm)
Gallo $3.3mm
Chandler $2.1mm
2009 MLE player (Nash, Odom, Artest, Rasheed Wallace, Zaza Pachulia $5.5mm

Thats 5 players (we owe JAzz our 2010 pick and assume we traded our 2009 pick w/ JJ to move him)
total is $25mm

plus 2 second rounders at $800k and $1.2mm

thats 7 players at $27mm

plus 2 guys making veteran minimum or about there $1.5 and $1.5 (your Nichols types)

thats 9 guys at under $30mm

That leaves you about $25mm to offer a big FA like Lebron $17mm

thats $47mm

and about $8mm to offer a 2nd tier guy

I think if you hell bent on cap space that is your only logical path.

Based on those numbers if your stuck with either JJ or Curry (not both) you can still offer max or close to max space to a FA but have to pass on the 2nd guy


[Edited by - fishmike on 15-03-2009 5:26 PM]
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
JohnWallace44
Posts: 25119
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 6/14/2005
Member: #910
USA
3/15/2009  5:43 PM
Fish - I think buying out Curry should be possible, but these Unions always shock me with how bad they completely screw the franchises their players are on.

If dude is so hard up for money, and he's got two option years left, I don't know why you can't combine the two years salary into one and let him walk next year.

I'm sure, somehow, some way there's a union rule or a league rule that won't let it happen, but it should be allowed.

[Edited by - johnwallace44 on 03-15-2009 5:45 PM]
Alan Hahn: Nate Robinson has been on a ridonkulous scoring tear lately (remember when he couldn't hit Jerome James with a Big Mac in early January?)
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
3/15/2009  5:51 PM
Posted by JohnWallace44:

Fish - I think buying out Curry should be possible, but these Unions always shock me with how bad they completely screw the franchises their players are on.

If dude is so hard up for money, and he's got two option years left, I don't know why you can't combine the two years salary into one and let him walk next year.

I'm sure, somehow, some way there's a union rule or a league rule that won't let it happen, but it should be allowed.

[Edited by - johnwallace44 on 03-15-2009 5:45 PM]
we owe him $22mm if he takes both player options (he has one for 09 and 2010)

Someone suggest that because he's got his bird rights here he could opt out then take a one year $17mm deal from us which gives him 80% of his money.

Its also possible we get him playing reasonably well and trade him like we did with Zach. When he's healthy he will score in bunches. If he's really got money issues taking the $17mm in one year might float. I wonder if Stern could nix that deal as its a blatant attempt to fudge with the cap.

At least there are some options. Dont see many w/ JJ aside from him opting out which he wont do.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
3/15/2009  9:53 PM
Posted by fishmike:

If we are hell bent on siging a max FA this offseason we should find a constructive way to buyout Curry and package JJ Skinny with our pick for a garbage player with one less year on his deal.

i'm not really getting why you're advocating that plan now when u were so against moving down 10 slots in the draft to dump Zach Randolph's contract last year, which was so much more of an albatross to unload at the time.

but anyway, i think what it all boils down to is whether or not u think u can find a player on Lee or Nate's level w/the lottery pick when it's all said & done... i guess that depends on where we end up finishing this year record wise... if we make the playoffs then i agree, i'd rather trade off the draft pick to dump Fishlips or Curry's contract rather than use Nate or Lee to accomplish that, but if we end up in the top 10, i'll take my chances w/the pick & try to move up to the top portion of the draft using Lee or Nate or nab another lottery pick.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Panos
Posts: 30545
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
3/16/2009  1:02 AM
Why does no one talk about the possibility of signing Nate and Lee to reasonable contracts and either have them continue to grow or trade them. We don't have to sign them to albatross contracts that noone will be willing to trade for.

Just MAINTAIN FLEXIBILITY to make moves. That's all.
No more Houston contracts. No more Marburys. No more MoT's. No more Zach Randolfs. No more JJ's.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
3/16/2009  1:16 AM
if we end up signing D Lee to a Troy Murphy type contract his contract will be a huge albatross... i think that's the fear that drives this discussion... at this point we all have to keep our fingers crossed & hope Donnie pulls some magic outta his hat & signs him to a 5 year $40-42 mil deal.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
3/16/2009  8:12 AM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by fishmike:

If we are hell bent on siging a max FA this offseason we should find a constructive way to buyout Curry and package JJ Skinny with our pick for a garbage player with one less year on his deal.

i'm not really getting why you're advocating that plan now when u were so against moving down 10 slots in the draft to dump Zach Randolph's contract last year, which was so much more of an albatross to unload at the time.

but anyway, i think what it all boils down to is whether or not u think u can find a player on Lee or Nate's level w/the lottery pick when it's all said & done... i guess that depends on where we end up finishing this year record wise... if we make the playoffs then i agree, i'd rather trade off the draft pick to dump Fishlips or Curry's contract rather than use Nate or Lee to accomplish that, but if we end up in the top 10, i'll take my chances w/the pick & try to move up to the top portion of the draft using Lee or Nate or nab another lottery pick.
because Zach is a productive player plain and simple. You can see the difference? JJ doesnt produce. Zach puts out 20 points 10 rebounds every night. Thats not the kind of production you should using draft picks to get rid of. I think that should be pretty clear.

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
3/16/2009  8:15 AM
Posted by TMS:

if we end up signing D Lee to a Troy Murphy type contract his contract will be a huge albatross... i think that's the fear that drives this discussion... at this point we all have to keep our fingers crossed & hope Donnie pulls some magic outta his hat & signs him to a 5 year $40-42 mil deal.
a huge albatross? Thats a prediction? Seriously... Lee is a good player and is getting better and does things Murphy doesnt do and he's still in his rookie deal.

Here is my prediction. Lebron wont be a Knick in 2010. Lets not let good players walk for nothing and build a great team instead.

Just a thought
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
3/16/2009  8:16 AM
Also... this draft sucks.

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
3/16/2009  1:02 PM
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by TMS:

if we end up signing D Lee to a Troy Murphy type contract his contract will be a huge albatross... i think that's the fear that drives this discussion... at this point we all have to keep our fingers crossed & hope Donnie pulls some magic outta his hat & signs him to a 5 year $40-42 mil deal.
a huge albatross? Thats a prediction? Seriously... Lee is a good player and is getting better and does things Murphy doesnt do and he's still in his rookie deal.

Here is my prediction. Lebron wont be a Knick in 2010. Lets not let good players walk for nothing and build a great team instead.

Just a thought

relax dude, i dunno why ur getting so testy on this one... u seriously don't think Lee's contract would be an albatross if he signed a T Murph level contract? he only plays on 1 end of the floor & they're very similar players... sure he does some things Murph doesn't do, & Murph does things Lee doesn't do either, but neither player is the type that u can build around & expect to be successful... that's the point... if u get Lee on an $8-9 mil annual deal he's a much more valuable commodity & easier to trade if u decide to go that route.
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
3/16/2009  1:06 PM
Posted by fishmike:

Also... this draft sucks.

i bet u there will a few players just as good if not better than Lee or Nate that are drafted after the top 10 in this year's draft.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
TheGame
Posts: 26651
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/15/2006
Member: #1154
USA
3/16/2009  1:43 PM
Our only hope is that, with the economy and the possibly constricting salary cap, no one offers Lee more than $10 million. I am not sure if I would want Lee at 6 yr/74 million, but we might be able to talk him into 5yr/50 million. Walsh really missed an opportunity in not resigning these guys this past summer. We could have resigned Lee for $8 mill and resigned Nate for $5.9 million.
Trust the Process
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
3/16/2009  2:24 PM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by TMS:

if we end up signing D Lee to a Troy Murphy type contract his contract will be a huge albatross... i think that's the fear that drives this discussion... at this point we all have to keep our fingers crossed & hope Donnie pulls some magic outta his hat & signs him to a 5 year $40-42 mil deal.
a huge albatross? Thats a prediction? Seriously... Lee is a good player and is getting better and does things Murphy doesnt do and he's still in his rookie deal.

Here is my prediction. Lebron wont be a Knick in 2010. Lets not let good players walk for nothing and build a great team instead.

Just a thought

relax dude, i dunno why ur getting so testy on this one... u seriously don't think Lee's contract would be an albatross if he signed a T Murph level contract? he only plays on 1 end of the floor & they're very similar players... sure he does some things Murph doesn't do, & Murph does things Lee doesn't do either, but neither player is the type that u can build around & expect to be successful... that's the point... if u get Lee on an $8-9 mil annual deal he's a much more valuable commodity & easier to trade if u decide to go that route.
No.. I dont think one player that shoots 45% and another that shoots 55% are very similar at all. Troy Murphy is a white Kurt Thomas without the defense. He's a jumpshooting 6'10 guy that rebounds very well. Lee is in his rookie contract and already a better rebounder. His scoring is much better. He's developing post moves. He's a good passer and yes he's a lousy defender.

And why Troy Murphy? The only thing they have in common is they are white. If you want to compare Lee to someone else who is a lousy defender but scores at 50% + and gets you 10-12 board compare him to Boozer, who I think Lee has more upside than.

not testy... just dont like giving away good pieces for nothing when we dont have to. Lee's current value is 8-10mm but people want him for half that. Sometimes you get what you pay for. Resign Wilcox for $5mm, let Lee walk and we are 8 games worse next year.

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
3/16/2009  2:57 PM
ur getting way too hung up on Troy Murphy here... the only reason i bring up his name is because IMO they're similar level players in terms of overall production on the floor... the point i'm focusing on here is not comparing Lee's game to Troy Murphy & saying he's a direct clone, but that if u sign Lee to a T Murph level contract then it will become an albatross just like it... u'r not gonna win by having Lee making big bucks on this roster, i'm telling u right now... it limits so much what u can do w/the rest of ur roster that it becomes prohibitive to winning if we're talking those level dollars for what Lee brings to the table.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
JohnWallace44
Posts: 25119
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 6/14/2005
Member: #910
USA
3/16/2009  3:26 PM
Posted by TheGame:

Our only hope is that, with the economy and the possibly constricting salary cap, no one offers Lee more than $10 million. I am not sure if I would want Lee at 6 yr/74 million, but we might be able to talk him into 5yr/50 million. Walsh really missed an opportunity in not resigning these guys this past summer. We could have resigned Lee for $8 mill and resigned Nate for $5.9 million.

I guarantee you that we will not go past $8 million for Lee this Summer. That's not happening. Marion, AI, 'Sheed - they're not getting 8, so Lee's not getting 8 because there aren't that many buyers.

I have no idea how Donnie values Nate. Could be mid-level, could be $10 per. Probably depends on how he runs the point during this stretch.
Alan Hahn: Nate Robinson has been on a ridonkulous scoring tear lately (remember when he couldn't hit Jerome James with a Big Mac in early January?)
Page 2 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Picture of a healthy cap/Reality check
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