Posted by King1:

How is Wilson a must keep and Lee isnt. David his second year averaged a 10.7 points and 10.4 rebounds. Wilson in his second year averaged 11 and 3 remember the inflated stats on the MDA circus offense if you do it to Lee you have to do it for Chandler. He is younger but he really doesnt have a great feel for the game and he isnt a great shooter 32% from three. Please explain how Wilson is a rising star and Lee isnt

king a lot of it for me is the economics. wilson's still on rookie contract and david's not. i want cap space maxed in '10 while retaining as much young talent as possible. it's a numbers game.

The timing and order of asset acquisition is key here; a mis-step means you waddle in mediocrity with your hands tied. So, whether you retain Lee/Nate or trade them for equally priced counterparts, neither route should prevent the option of signing 2 max-free agents from 2010 onwards. One premier offensive player, surrounded by heaps of cap-consuming ordinary talent leaves you handcuffed both with regard to future draft position and free agency; the latter is especially unfortunate given the formidable bait that we have to work with, including MDA, endorsement opportunities and willing interns.

Lee and Nate at an estimated combined 13-16 million is not affordable; even one alone at 6 million raises the 2010 salary total to roughly 27 million after the Hill signing and regretably limits the scope of the free agency bonanza over the next few years. On the other hand, trading one of them along with another financial obligation (Jeffries or Curry) in return for expiring conracts affords us the space to do what we please with the other. Alternate scenarios involve a combination Natelee package in which we either receive expirings + medium range picks or a marginal star that may or may not justify the sacrifice in cap space; of the above, the former is prefereable as it affords us greater foresight in using our cap space in tandem on players whom we deem the most complimentary. This is in addition to any draft picks we recieve.

Its unclear to me what either Lee or Nate can fetch in the open market. Of the outcomes above, I'd prefer to 1) use one to get rid of Jeffries/Curry and then either keep or trade the other for a pick/rotation player 2) deal both for expirings + picks or 3) let both leave without compensation. Option 3, while not the best, is still quite good; hence, any grief over their voluntary departure should be tempered.

Regarding which should be kept, neither is more valuable than the other outside of their ability to take Eddy Curry with them; both are largely 6th men who will hit occasional big shots and be over-rated by die-hard sentimentalists as transcendent martyrs of NY star****ing. I'll likely remember them as vestiges of average play and victims of better asset appraisal.

i say we trade both these guys for expirings & picks in next year's draft.

I don't think we have to keep anyone on this team. It's a transitional period. Both Lee and Nate are decent players and could contribute on a good team. But I don't know if they can be part of a core group. I don't think we have any guys like that right now.

^^ excellent point, players use NY to drive up their asking price all the time, everyone is clamoring about Lebron, Wade, Bosh et al, who the hell are they going to play with? Especially if we manage to get two max star what is the supporting staff is going to like. Is it going to be the dreaded 8 man rotation using 8 seconds or less?

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by knicks1248:

The problem with what most of your thinking is that your forgetting that as soon as you aquire a stud, your gonna be screaming for a supporting cast, and thats where lee and nate come in. i know they both want to be here and if they want to be part of a winning situation then they will ask for reasonable money because they know what is expected next year.

These 2 players don't know how to win yet, thats obvious, but to trade them for a cheaper version banking on signing bosh wade or lebron as if all it's gonna take is a limo drive to westchester, your kidding yourself.

This is ridiculous. Which is easier to accomplish with a salary restraint - surrounding a tandem of premier players with a competent supporting cast or surrounding a 30-win below average supporting cast with premier players?

Thank you. To approach it the other way is tail wagging dog, or bass ackwards, e.g. stupid.