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

Its getting down to it with the Lee situation...
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/5/2009  11:34 AM
Posted by djsunyc:
Posted by nychamp:
Posted by orangeblobman:

I think, you know, that is not good! this guy averaged 18/14 after the zbo trade, he led the league in double doubles, he was awesome. you want to give him 8m$?? Have you seen who is getting payed 10m$, 21m$, even bad 5m$??

He deserves at least 10m$, and he should be s&t for that or let walk, because that's that.

This post makes me sick.

6 million/yr tops. Artest got mid level. Artest is a much, much better player than Lee.

Let him walk! He is a "nice" complementary player but not a main piece. How many wins did his double-doubles get us?

this is a fair point, but is artest better than bed gordon + charlie v? i would say yes and he took less than them. artest shouldn't be used as an example, he took less than market value to go to the lakers.

charlie v got 5 years $40 mil - that's $8 mil a year. that's more of a comparable player...
Maybe. Charlie V is bigger and more versatile. I'd say somewhere between what CV and Artest got. Artest got $6 mil per and CV $8 mil per. $7 mil per (5 years, $35 mil) would be fair market for Lee. That said, I'm not so sure paying him fair market value makes sense for a team that wants to get significant cap space.
AUTOADVERT
newyorknewyork
Posts: 30223
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
7/5/2009  11:50 AM
Drew Gooden is out there as a free agent. He is only 28, can get you 10-14pts 8-10rebs and would probably only cost the mid level. I don't see us going after him, but he would be good in MDA's system. He would do for us everything we expected Wilcox to do for us. He is athletic, could play PF/C, bang down low, hustle, has a decent hook shot.
https://vote.nba.com/en Vote for your Knicks.
Nalod
Posts: 71790
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
7/5/2009  1:07 PM
Artest is a head case. Great player, but total nut job.

DLee's agent is trying but Gm's understand Lee's value and what the MDA system.

The process is making his value to what it should be. Not 10mil.

We only know what we read, and what we read is not always the real deal.

Lee can have do a sign and trade, or stay in NY for lower money.

somtimes thats the market.

He can take qualifying offer and get hurt.

Lee is a nice role player and can be the kind of player championship teams need.

It would be nice to keep him. But not critical.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/5/2009  1:11 PM
What's involved in trading a player who's playing for the qualifying offer? Are there any trade restrictions?
s3231
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #544
USA
7/5/2009  1:24 PM
A lot of people talk about Lee's lack of effort on the defensive end and how he is a horrible defender.

Say what you want, but the guy had to stay on the floor last season, he was our best player. He also had to stay on the floor so that he could put up the numbers to get a nice contract (which he obviously did).

There was really no strong incentive for Lee to bust his ass on the defensive end and play the enforcer role when no one else on this team played defense last season and he needed to play for a contract. And once we were out of the playoff hunt, there really was no incentive whatsoever to play defense. Knowing how Lee's agent operates, I wouldn't be surprised if he told him to avoid fouling out. We needed Lee on the floor for his offense and rebounding so I think that explains why he wasn't as aggressive as we would have liked him to be.

Does that make it ok for Lee to take plays off? No of course not. But I think when you look at the situation more closely, you can see that Lee probably did what was best for him (and you can argue best for the team because it kept him on the floor) and you can't blame him for that.

I, for one, think that once Lee gets his contract, he will expend more energy on the defensive end. The guy is actually not that bad of a post defender. His weaknesses this season were contesting shots (which he seemed to do more of before this season, hmmm) and help defense (an area he def. needs to improve in).

[Edited by - s3231 on 07-05-2009 1:25 PM]
"This is a very cautious situation that we're in. You have to be conservative in terms of using your assets and using them wisely. We're building for the future." - Zeke (I guess not protecting a first round pick is being conservative)
TheGame
Posts: 26647
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/15/2006
Member: #1154
USA
7/5/2009  1:27 PM
Posted by EnySpree:

Giving the market and the fact the Knicks can match any offer...they are playing this the right way. Lee is running out of potential teams to play for...

Lee still has the option of taking the qualifying offer or taking what the Knicks offer and seeing if he can squeeze out some more. There's always a sign and trade, but if that's the decision Lee's agent is gonna have to work with said team to get the Knicks what they need and that's expirings and a player they can use....

Qualifying offer seems like the best road since next year is where all the money is....

Anyway, I think this saga is gonna be done with before summer league...

Source??? My balls....

If he takes the QO, that would be the best of both worlds. We could keep him for one more year, and trade him at the deadline. Or, hold him to next summer and see if we can resign him then along with Lebron and anyone else. I think our best move would be to trade Lee for Bosh and jut upgrade the posiion. Most of the talk has been about him going to Portland. A Lee for Rudy Fernandez trade could be a solid deal if you believe Fernandez can still turn into a star player.
Trust the Process
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
7/5/2009  1:34 PM
Posted by TheGame:
Posted by EnySpree:

Giving the market and the fact the Knicks can match any offer...they are playing this the right way. Lee is running out of potential teams to play for...

Lee still has the option of taking the qualifying offer or taking what the Knicks offer and seeing if he can squeeze out some more. There's always a sign and trade, but if that's the decision Lee's agent is gonna have to work with said team to get the Knicks what they need and that's expirings and a player they can use....

Qualifying offer seems like the best road since next year is where all the money is....

Anyway, I think this saga is gonna be done with before summer league...

Source??? My balls....

If he takes the QO, that would be the best of both worlds. We could keep him for one more year, and trade him at the deadline. Or, hold him to next summer and see if we can resign him then along with Lebron and anyone else. I think our best move would be to trade Lee for Bosh and jut upgrade the posiion. Most of the talk has been about him going to Portland. A Lee for Rudy Fernandez trade could be a solid deal if you believe Fernandez can still turn into a star player.

i wouldn’t take the qo if i were him. the knicks just brought in darko and hill to take minutes from him, plus gallo should be healthy and playing and god forbid but who knows about ecity? i'd cash in as high as possible on the 16/12 and not chance losing whatever leverage he has. plus a qo makes him a fa next year when he'd be competing against the big swinging d**k fa's for money.
BigSm00th
Posts: 24504
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/9/2001
Member: #178
USA
7/5/2009  1:37 PM
lee is going to be the most overcompensated free agent of this year's class. i think 5 yrs 55 mil or something along those lines he's going to get, which will be laughable because his game is so limited. let him go, i'd rather give the minutes to hill and darko.
#Knickstaps
King1
Posts: 22993
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/2/2005
Member: #998
USA
7/5/2009  1:41 PM
You cant trade a guy who takes a QO.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
7/5/2009  1:59 PM
Posted by King1:

You cant trade a guy who takes a QO.

king 1--if they really did offer Lee 8mm per for 4--why wouldnt they negotiate an extra year or two with an opt out at 3? Making sure you have that bundle of cash--lets say 5 for 40 might be smarter than risking injury or poor play. 40mm goes a LONG way and if he gets better and the economy comes back in 3 years he can opt out. To me 8mm is 8mm a year and 40mm is 40mm once signed thats his and can take care of his family for life. Opt out gives the possibility of another big contract before the age of 30. If he gets hurt taking the QO --that is way to much risk.
RIP Crushalot😞
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/5/2009  2:00 PM
Posted by s3231:

A lot of people talk about Lee's lack of effort on the defensive end and how he is a horrible defender.

Say what you want, but the guy had to stay on the floor last season, he was our best player. He also had to stay on the floor so that he could put up the numbers to get a nice contract (which he obviously did).

There was really no strong incentive for Lee to bust his ass on the defensive end and play the enforcer role when no one else on this team played defense last season and he needed to play for a contract. And once we were out of the playoff hunt, there really was no incentive whatsoever to play defense. Knowing how Lee's agent operates, I wouldn't be surprised if he told him to avoid fouling out. We needed Lee on the floor for his offense and rebounding so I think that explains why he wasn't as aggressive as we would have liked him to be.

Does that make it ok for Lee to take plays off? No of course not. But I think when you look at the situation more closely, you can see that Lee probably did what was best for him (and you can argue best for the team because it kept him on the floor) and you can't blame him for that.

I, for one, think that once Lee gets his contract, he will expend more energy on the defensive end. The guy is actually not that bad of a post defender. His weaknesses this season were contesting shots (which he seemed to do more of before this season, hmmm) and help defense (an area he def. needs to improve in).

[Edited by - s3231 on 07-05-2009 1:25 PM]
This would make sense if his poor defense was something unique to last year. But it was not. His defense was the same last year as in his prior three years.
VDesai
Posts: 43296
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
7/5/2009  2:01 PM
Without a doubt this very much an Allan Houston situation. What you have is a really good player that you can't afford to lose. But a limited player and ultimately the best player on a bad team. You know committing your cap to this guy is gonna get you no where long term. The Knicks didn't let the market dictate the price last time and overpaid for fear of losing the player. This time they are playing it right. If they let the market dictate price, the price will be right for the team. If not you have to take the short term hurt for the longterm gain.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/5/2009  2:02 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by King1:

You cant trade a guy who takes a QO.

king 1--if they really did offer Lee 8mm per for 4--why wouldnt they negotiate an extra year or two with an opt out at 3? Making sure you have that bundle of cash--lets say 5 for 40 might be smarter than risking injury or poor play. 40mm goes a LONG way and if he gets better and the economy comes back in 3 years he can opt out. To me 8mm is 8mm a year and 40mm is 40mm once signed thats his and can take care of his family for life. Opt out gives the possibility of another big contract before the age of 30. If he gets hurt taking the QO --that is way to much risk.
So now that Lee's options are dwindling, you want to offer him MORE money than we offered previously? I don't get it.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/5/2009  2:02 PM
Posted by VDesai:

Without a doubt this very much an Allan Houston situation. What you have is a really good player that you can't afford to lose. But a limited player and ultimately the best player on a bad team. You know committing your cap to this guy is gonna get you no where long term. The Knicks didn't let the market dictate the price last time and overpaid for fear of losing the player. This time they are playing it right. If they let the market dictate price, the price will be right for the team. If not you have to take the short term hurt for the longterm gain.
Was Allan Houston really a player that we couldn't afford to lose?
VDesai
Posts: 43296
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
7/5/2009  2:07 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by VDesai:

Without a doubt this very much an Allan Houston situation. What you have is a really good player that you can't afford to lose. But a limited player and ultimately the best player on a bad team. You know committing your cap to this guy is gonna get you no where long term. The Knicks didn't let the market dictate the price last time and overpaid for fear of losing the player. This time they are playing it right. If they let the market dictate price, the price will be right for the team. If not you have to take the short term hurt for the longterm gain.
Was Allan Houston really a player that we couldn't afford to lose?

Knicks were a borderline playoff team with him, probably a definite lotto team without him. In the sense of being competetive, they couldn't lose him.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/5/2009  2:27 PM
Posted by VDesai:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by VDesai:

Without a doubt this very much an Allan Houston situation. What you have is a really good player that you can't afford to lose. But a limited player and ultimately the best player on a bad team. You know committing your cap to this guy is gonna get you no where long term. The Knicks didn't let the market dictate the price last time and overpaid for fear of losing the player. This time they are playing it right. If they let the market dictate price, the price will be right for the team. If not you have to take the short term hurt for the longterm gain.
Was Allan Houston really a player that we couldn't afford to lose?

Knicks were a borderline playoff team with him, probably a definite lotto team without him. In the sense of being competetive, they couldn't lose him.
Fair enough. In the sense of being competitive for a playoff spot, you're right. In the sense of trying to win a championship in the long-term, he was replaceable.
nychamp
Posts: 20565
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/8/2009
Member: #2556
7/5/2009  2:27 PM
Posted by VDesai:

Without a doubt this very much an Allan Houston situation. What you have is a really good player that you can't afford to lose. But a limited player and ultimately the best player on a bad team. You know committing your cap to this guy is gonna get you no where long term. The Knicks didn't let the market dictate the price last time and overpaid for fear of losing the player. This time they are playing it right. If they let the market dictate price, the price will be right for the team. If not you have to take the short term hurt for the longterm gain.

I hear you, but I actually think we can afford to lose Lee.

Houston was a special shooter, but horrible defender. Lee is a special rebounder, good hustle guy, with excellent hands on offense and above average basketball IQ. He is a disinterested and disgraceful defender (disgraceful given his size, position, and capacity for hustle, which he neglects to bring on D) and has no shot. The contributions he makes towards wins are replaceable, much more so than the skills of a lights-out shooter like Allan Houston. And I was no huge Houston lover either.

If this was the 90's Knicks, and Lee was 6th-man/young up-and-comer earning minutes among the hard-nosed Knicks back in the day, I would be screaming to keep him. But in the current situation with the current team, I want him cheaply only. We have no main guys yet (maybe Gallo/Chandler, but we don't know yet), so I am reluctant to try to lock down a secondary piece like Lee for anything more than small money. Not only so he doesn't screw up our cap, but also so we can easily trade him down the road when necessary.
s3231
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #544
USA
7/5/2009  2:43 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by s3231:

A lot of people talk about Lee's lack of effort on the defensive end and how he is a horrible defender.

Say what you want, but the guy had to stay on the floor last season, he was our best player. He also had to stay on the floor so that he could put up the numbers to get a nice contract (which he obviously did).

There was really no strong incentive for Lee to bust his ass on the defensive end and play the enforcer role when no one else on this team played defense last season and he needed to play for a contract. And once we were out of the playoff hunt, there really was no incentive whatsoever to play defense. Knowing how Lee's agent operates, I wouldn't be surprised if he told him to avoid fouling out. We needed Lee on the floor for his offense and rebounding so I think that explains why he wasn't as aggressive as we would have liked him to be.

Does that make it ok for Lee to take plays off? No of course not. But I think when you look at the situation more closely, you can see that Lee probably did what was best for him (and you can argue best for the team because it kept him on the floor) and you can't blame him for that.

I, for one, think that once Lee gets his contract, he will expend more energy on the defensive end. The guy is actually not that bad of a post defender. His weaknesses this season were contesting shots (which he seemed to do more of before this season, hmmm) and help defense (an area he def. needs to improve in).

[Edited by - s3231 on 07-05-2009 1:25 PM]
This would make sense if his poor defense was something unique to last year. But it was not. His defense was the same last year as in his prior three years.

You think so? I don't know about that, we might disagree on this one. From what I remember seeing of him in the previous years, he made more of an effort on the defensive end. Of course, I'm not saying he was ever a good defender, but I remember him at least attempting to contest more shots when he came off the bench.

I think this season his defense (excluding man on man post defense) was downright awful whereas it was around average in the past.
"This is a very cautious situation that we're in. You have to be conservative in terms of using your assets and using them wisely. We're building for the future." - Zeke (I guess not protecting a first round pick is being conservative)
VDesai
Posts: 43296
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
7/5/2009  2:45 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by VDesai:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by VDesai:

Without a doubt this very much an Allan Houston situation. What you have is a really good player that you can't afford to lose. But a limited player and ultimately the best player on a bad team. You know committing your cap to this guy is gonna get you no where long term. The Knicks didn't let the market dictate the price last time and overpaid for fear of losing the player. This time they are playing it right. If they let the market dictate price, the price will be right for the team. If not you have to take the short term hurt for the longterm gain.
Was Allan Houston really a player that we couldn't afford to lose?

Knicks were a borderline playoff team with him, probably a definite lotto team without him. In the sense of being competetive, they couldn't lose him.
Fair enough. In the sense of being competitive for a playoff spot, you're right. In the sense of trying to win a championship in the long-term, he was replaceable.
That was my whole point from the first post


[Edited by - vdesai on 07-05-2009 2:46 PM]
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/5/2009  2:48 PM
Posted by VDesai:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by VDesai:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by VDesai:

Without a doubt this very much an Allan Houston situation. What you have is a really good player that you can't afford to lose. But a limited player and ultimately the best player on a bad team. You know committing your cap to this guy is gonna get you no where long term. The Knicks didn't let the market dictate the price last time and overpaid for fear of losing the player. This time they are playing it right. If they let the market dictate price, the price will be right for the team. If not you have to take the short term hurt for the longterm gain.
Was Allan Houston really a player that we couldn't afford to lose?

Knicks were a borderline playoff team with him, probably a definite lotto team without him. In the sense of being competetive, they couldn't lose him.
Fair enough. In the sense of being competitive for a playoff spot, you're right. In the sense of trying to win a championship in the long-term, he was replaceable.
That was my whole point from the first post


[Edited by - vdesai on 07-05-2009 2:46 PM]
Well then I'm glad it took a dozen replies to reach a mutual understanding!
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Its getting down to it with the Lee situation...
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