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

What do the Knicks do if
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
martin
Posts: 78516
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
9/5/2009  7:21 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by fishmike:

same thing they do when Memphis offers Lee a frontloaded huge contract?

Seriously... do you just sit here and think up every possible failure scenario and post 2 threads a day about it for a week until you think of the next one?

If you don't look at downside scenario's whatever you plan out--you're not doing your job. I don't see the hedge here--I thought Sessions was a quality hedge and wouldve made this team better this year without sacrificing one inch of maximum cap space. I think we are creating a *me* first environment for this year and yes there are several BAD scenarios next year. If I post a negative sentiment that is to bad--ignore me as a reasonable adult if you don't want to read it.
I'm concerned that we are setting ourselves up for another 5-6 year disaster.

BRIGGS, I gave you the numbers yesterday. Show me how signing Sessions won't sacrifice one inch of max cap space. Cause I clearly showed the opposite.

Martin--we have 27.2mm for long term cap--if we added 4mm that=31.2--lets figure a 53mm cap[reasonable number] thats 22.8mm in cap space with Sessions signed

So you want to sign Sessions and forgo Lee?

Who says Lee wants to be here--who says the Knicks want to pay him how can you guarantee an unrestricted fA will stay? If they wanted David Lee--they couldve signed him to a long term moderate contract 1.5 years ago and rid themselves of Jefferies contract this year--they didnt do it in either case. With Sessions signed I know he will be here and I can work on David Lee--that's IF they want Lee and they certainly havent shown that. Don't you think David Lee is slightly pirsed at the Knicks? He wants a S+T for goodness sakes.

all I have heard Lee say is that he wants to stay in NY... show me otherwise.

Signing Sessions while keeping an earmark for a max free agent will definitely NOT leave room for Lee in 2010, which is the ultimate insult to Lee, is it not? Which is exactly what you are proposing here.

All Walsh has done is delay signing both Nate and Lee, which is absolutely frustrating for both but which is also understandable from a managements perspective (Lee's words).

And you keep calling Walsh classless for not extending Lee and Nate, which the Sessions signing would do with regards to earmarking for a max or near max player.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
AUTOADVERT
babyKnicks
Posts: 22486
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/31/2006
Member: #1191
USA
9/5/2009  7:39 PM
we resign lee and nate and harrrigton to moderate contracts, bring melo home in 2011...and package jeffries and Curry $18m expiring contracts for another superstar (or two solid b's).
Let's go Knicks. That's amare
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
9/5/2009  8:43 PM
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by fishmike:

same thing they do when Memphis offers Lee a frontloaded huge contract?

Seriously... do you just sit here and think up every possible failure scenario and post 2 threads a day about it for a week until you think of the next one?

If you don't look at downside scenario's whatever you plan out--you're not doing your job. I don't see the hedge here--I thought Sessions was a quality hedge and wouldve made this team better this year without sacrificing one inch of maximum cap space. I think we are creating a *me* first environment for this year and yes there are several BAD scenarios next year. If I post a negative sentiment that is to bad--ignore me as a reasonable adult if you don't want to read it.
I'm concerned that we are setting ourselves up for another 5-6 year disaster.

BRIGGS, I gave you the numbers yesterday. Show me how signing Sessions won't sacrifice one inch of max cap space. Cause I clearly showed the opposite.

Martin--we have 27.2mm for long term cap--if we added 4mm that=31.2--lets figure a 53mm cap[reasonable number] thats 22.8mm in cap space with Sessions signed

So you want to sign Sessions and forgo Lee?

Who says Lee wants to be here--who says the Knicks want to pay him how can you guarantee an unrestricted fA will stay? If they wanted David Lee--they couldve signed him to a long term moderate contract 1.5 years ago and rid themselves of Jefferies contract this year--they didnt do it in either case. With Sessions signed I know he will be here and I can work on David Lee--that's IF they want Lee and they certainly havent shown that. Don't you think David Lee is slightly pirsed at the Knicks? He wants a S+T for goodness sakes.

all I have heard Lee say is that he wants to stay in NY... show me otherwise.----> We’re going to continue to work on a few sign-and-trade possibilities;[if you are looking for S+T possibilities you are looking to get traded--only way you can interpretate that]

http://knicksfanatics.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/david-lee-still-looking-for-sign-and-trades-one-year-deal-with-knicks-still-likely/

Signing Sessions while keeping an earmark for a max free agent will definitely NOT leave room for Lee in 2010, which is the ultimate insult to Lee, is it not? Which is exactly what you are proposing here.---> I don't even know if the Knicks want David Lee long term--do you? Certainly they ahevhad their chances over the last 1.5 years. Were they trying to sign Sessions Jason Kidd Grant Hill or David Lee for more than 1 year? Answer--not Lee although they have the space

All Walsh has done is delay signing both Nate and Lee, which is absolutely frustrating for both but which is also understandable from a managements perspective (Lee's words). The Knicks are lucky there was limited FA money or they would be gone.

And you keep calling Walsh classless for not extending Lee and Nate, which the Sessions signing would do with regards to earmarking for a max or near max player.--I don't like the way things were handled with Lee and Nate but I think I used the words "no class" one time. I wouldnt have dragged DLee through the mud.

RIP Crushalot😞
martin
Posts: 78516
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
9/5/2009  9:54 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by fishmike:

same thing they do when Memphis offers Lee a frontloaded huge contract?

Seriously... do you just sit here and think up every possible failure scenario and post 2 threads a day about it for a week until you think of the next one?

If you don't look at downside scenario's whatever you plan out--you're not doing your job. I don't see the hedge here--I thought Sessions was a quality hedge and wouldve made this team better this year without sacrificing one inch of maximum cap space. I think we are creating a *me* first environment for this year and yes there are several BAD scenarios next year. If I post a negative sentiment that is to bad--ignore me as a reasonable adult if you don't want to read it.
I'm concerned that we are setting ourselves up for another 5-6 year disaster.

BRIGGS, I gave you the numbers yesterday. Show me how signing Sessions won't sacrifice one inch of max cap space. Cause I clearly showed the opposite.

Martin--we have 27.2mm for long term cap--if we added 4mm that=31.2--lets figure a 53mm cap[reasonable number] thats 22.8mm in cap space with Sessions signed

So you want to sign Sessions and forgo Lee?

Who says Lee wants to be here--who says the Knicks want to pay him how can you guarantee an unrestricted fA will stay? If they wanted David Lee--they couldve signed him to a long term moderate contract 1.5 years ago and rid themselves of Jefferies contract this year--they didnt do it in either case. With Sessions signed I know he will be here and I can work on David Lee--that's IF they want Lee and they certainly havent shown that. Don't you think David Lee is slightly pirsed at the Knicks? He wants a S+T for goodness sakes.

all I have heard Lee say is that he wants to stay in NY... show me otherwise.----> We’re going to continue to work on a few sign-and-trade possibilities;[if you are looking for S+T possibilities you are looking to get traded--only way you can interpretate that]

http://knicksfanatics.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/david-lee-still-looking-for-sign-and-trades-one-year-deal-with-knicks-still-likely/

Signing Sessions while keeping an earmark for a max free agent will definitely NOT leave room for Lee in 2010, which is the ultimate insult to Lee, is it not? Which is exactly what you are proposing here.---> I don't even know if the Knicks want David Lee long term--do you? Certainly they ahevhad their chances over the last 1.5 years. Were they trying to sign Sessions Jason Kidd Grant Hill or David Lee for more than 1 year? Answer--not Lee although they have the space

All Walsh has done is delay signing both Nate and Lee, which is absolutely frustrating for both but which is also understandable from a managements perspective (Lee's words). The Knicks are lucky there was limited FA money or they would be gone.

And you keep calling Walsh classless for not extending Lee and Nate, which the Sessions signing would do with regards to earmarking for a max or near max player.--I don't like the way things were handled with Lee and Nate but I think I used the words "no class" one time. I wouldnt have dragged DLee through the mud.

BRIGGS, i could have saved you the effort if all you were to come up with was a S&T. Lee's agent has been trying to get on offer sheet from another team since the last game of the season - we know that as getting the best leverage for your client as you can. Does this mean that Lee was being classless towards the Knicks?

After getting ziltch on the free market, Lee's agent also has tried to engineer S&T's with the Knicks for Lee; also something any good agent should be doing.

Does this mean that since day 1 Lee did not want to be on the Knicks even though he has publicly said "I want to remain a Knick"?

Curry, JJ, Douglas, Chandler, Gallo and Hill are on the books for 2010 ($27.2M) and I think you have to have a min of 12 rosters filled.

Those 5 players and a max player at $17M is $44M. After that you have to tack on about $1M for each roster spot. Which is $50M.

Which leaves about $4M for either Sessions or Lee or whomever.

So, back to the original. Is Sessions or Lee more important a signing now in 2009 or should Walsh hold tight for a reasonable contracts for any of them?
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
93BUICK
Posts: 22281
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 10/6/2006
Member: #1175
USA
9/5/2009  10:32 PM
Posted by bitty41:

If I were Lee I would take this first serious offer I get at this point just to leave NY. This team has jerked him around and become downright ambivalent about re-signing him. They've basically said you aren't worth shyt and they could care less on whether he leaves or not. I would tell the Knicks that I don't want to be apart of this organization (I'm not sure how restricted free-agency works) and bounce.

Normally I agree with you Bitty but here I think it's just playing within the market- I think if they want him here after next year they'll keep him.
If you are still following the team and reading sites like this, there is nothing, short of your own demise, that is going to throw you off this train.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
9/5/2009  10:35 PM
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by fishmike:

same thing they do when Memphis offers Lee a frontloaded huge contract?

Seriously... do you just sit here and think up every possible failure scenario and post 2 threads a day about it for a week until you think of the next one?

If you don't look at downside scenario's whatever you plan out--you're not doing your job. I don't see the hedge here--I thought Sessions was a quality hedge and wouldve made this team better this year without sacrificing one inch of maximum cap space. I think we are creating a *me* first environment for this year and yes there are several BAD scenarios next year. If I post a negative sentiment that is to bad--ignore me as a reasonable adult if you don't want to read it.
I'm concerned that we are setting ourselves up for another 5-6 year disaster.

BRIGGS, I gave you the numbers yesterday. Show me how signing Sessions won't sacrifice one inch of max cap space. Cause I clearly showed the opposite.

Martin--we have 27.2mm for long term cap--if we added 4mm that=31.2--lets figure a 53mm cap[reasonable number] thats 22.8mm in cap space with Sessions signed

So you want to sign Sessions and forgo Lee?

Who says Lee wants to be here--who says the Knicks want to pay him how can you guarantee an unrestricted fA will stay? If they wanted David Lee--they couldve signed him to a long term moderate contract 1.5 years ago and rid themselves of Jefferies contract this year--they didnt do it in either case. With Sessions signed I know he will be here and I can work on David Lee--that's IF they want Lee and they certainly havent shown that. Don't you think David Lee is slightly pirsed at the Knicks? He wants a S+T for goodness sakes.

all I have heard Lee say is that he wants to stay in NY... show me otherwise.----> We’re going to continue to work on a few sign-and-trade possibilities;[if you are looking for S+T possibilities you are looking to get traded--only way you can interpretate that]

http://knicksfanatics.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/david-lee-still-looking-for-sign-and-trades-one-year-deal-with-knicks-still-likely/

Signing Sessions while keeping an earmark for a max free agent will definitely NOT leave room for Lee in 2010, which is the ultimate insult to Lee, is it not? Which is exactly what you are proposing here.---> I don't even know if the Knicks want David Lee long term--do you? Certainly they ahevhad their chances over the last 1.5 years. Were they trying to sign Sessions Jason Kidd Grant Hill or David Lee for more than 1 year? Answer--not Lee although they have the space

All Walsh has done is delay signing both Nate and Lee, which is absolutely frustrating for both but which is also understandable from a managements perspective (Lee's words). The Knicks are lucky there was limited FA money or they would be gone.

And you keep calling Walsh classless for not extending Lee and Nate, which the Sessions signing would do with regards to earmarking for a max or near max player.--I don't like the way things were handled with Lee and Nate but I think I used the words "no class" one time. I wouldnt have dragged DLee through the mud.

BRIGGS, i could have saved you the effort if all you were to come up with was a S&T. Lee's agent has been trying to get on offer sheet from another team since the last game of the season - we know that as getting the best leverage for your client as you can. Does this mean that Lee was being classless towards the Knicks?

After getting ziltch on the free market, Lee's agent also has tried to engineer S&T's with the Knicks for Lee; also something any good agent should be doing.

Does this mean that since day 1 Lee did not want to be on the Knicks even though he has publicly said "I want to remain a Knick"?

Curry, JJ, Douglas, Chandler, Gallo and Hill are on the books for 2010 ($27.2M) and I think you have to have a min of 12 rosters filled.

Those 5 players and a max player at $17M is $44M. After that you have to tack on about $1M for each roster spot. Which is $50M.

Which leaves about $4M for either Sessions or Lee or whomever.

So, back to the original. Is Sessions or Lee more important a signing now in 2009 or should Walsh hold tight for a reasonable contracts for any of them?

I think that if the Knicks wanted David Lee to be here long term he would already have a contract and they would not have drafted a PF @ 8 this year and 6 last year. If David Lee didn't feel that way--he wouldn't be talking about S+T. I don't base everything I do on two years from now and thats what they are doing--they could've signed Sessions and tried to have a good year. We are a flinch in Chris Duhon's back away from being a 25 win team and handing over a top 5 pick to Utah. I think we couldve had a real steal with Sessions and I think it was a big mistake.
RIP Crushalot😞
Moonangie
Posts: 24767
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 7/9/2009
Member: #2788
9/5/2009  10:57 PM
Posted by kam77:

What the hell is the downside of that BRIGGS?

Exactly. THAT'S the plan. Wrecking it now will be worthy of a public flogging. Planned suckage is not the same thing as staight out long-term suckage. We have already done that ad nauseum. It's time for a change.
martin
Posts: 78516
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
9/5/2009  11:38 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by fishmike:

same thing they do when Memphis offers Lee a frontloaded huge contract?

Seriously... do you just sit here and think up every possible failure scenario and post 2 threads a day about it for a week until you think of the next one?

If you don't look at downside scenario's whatever you plan out--you're not doing your job. I don't see the hedge here--I thought Sessions was a quality hedge and wouldve made this team better this year without sacrificing one inch of maximum cap space. I think we are creating a *me* first environment for this year and yes there are several BAD scenarios next year. If I post a negative sentiment that is to bad--ignore me as a reasonable adult if you don't want to read it.
I'm concerned that we are setting ourselves up for another 5-6 year disaster.

BRIGGS, I gave you the numbers yesterday. Show me how signing Sessions won't sacrifice one inch of max cap space. Cause I clearly showed the opposite.

Martin--we have 27.2mm for long term cap--if we added 4mm that=31.2--lets figure a 53mm cap[reasonable number] thats 22.8mm in cap space with Sessions signed

So you want to sign Sessions and forgo Lee?

Who says Lee wants to be here--who says the Knicks want to pay him how can you guarantee an unrestricted fA will stay? If they wanted David Lee--they couldve signed him to a long term moderate contract 1.5 years ago and rid themselves of Jefferies contract this year--they didnt do it in either case. With Sessions signed I know he will be here and I can work on David Lee--that's IF they want Lee and they certainly havent shown that. Don't you think David Lee is slightly pirsed at the Knicks? He wants a S+T for goodness sakes.

all I have heard Lee say is that he wants to stay in NY... show me otherwise.----> We’re going to continue to work on a few sign-and-trade possibilities;[if you are looking for S+T possibilities you are looking to get traded--only way you can interpretate that]

http://knicksfanatics.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/david-lee-still-looking-for-sign-and-trades-one-year-deal-with-knicks-still-likely/

Signing Sessions while keeping an earmark for a max free agent will definitely NOT leave room for Lee in 2010, which is the ultimate insult to Lee, is it not? Which is exactly what you are proposing here.---> I don't even know if the Knicks want David Lee long term--do you? Certainly they ahevhad their chances over the last 1.5 years. Were they trying to sign Sessions Jason Kidd Grant Hill or David Lee for more than 1 year? Answer--not Lee although they have the space

All Walsh has done is delay signing both Nate and Lee, which is absolutely frustrating for both but which is also understandable from a managements perspective (Lee's words). The Knicks are lucky there was limited FA money or they would be gone.

And you keep calling Walsh classless for not extending Lee and Nate, which the Sessions signing would do with regards to earmarking for a max or near max player.--I don't like the way things were handled with Lee and Nate but I think I used the words "no class" one time. I wouldnt have dragged DLee through the mud.

BRIGGS, i could have saved you the effort if all you were to come up with was a S&T. Lee's agent has been trying to get on offer sheet from another team since the last game of the season - we know that as getting the best leverage for your client as you can. Does this mean that Lee was being classless towards the Knicks?

After getting ziltch on the free market, Lee's agent also has tried to engineer S&T's with the Knicks for Lee; also something any good agent should be doing.

Does this mean that since day 1 Lee did not want to be on the Knicks even though he has publicly said "I want to remain a Knick"?

Curry, JJ, Douglas, Chandler, Gallo and Hill are on the books for 2010 ($27.2M) and I think you have to have a min of 12 rosters filled.

Those 5 players and a max player at $17M is $44M. After that you have to tack on about $1M for each roster spot. Which is $50M.

Which leaves about $4M for either Sessions or Lee or whomever.

So, back to the original. Is Sessions or Lee more important a signing now in 2009 or should Walsh hold tight for a reasonable contracts for any of them?

I think that if the Knicks wanted David Lee to be here long term he would already have a contract and they would not have drafted a PF @ 8 this year and 6 last year. If David Lee didn't feel that way--he wouldn't be talking about S+T. I don't base everything I do on two years from now and thats what they are doing--they could've signed Sessions and tried to have a good year. We are a flinch in Chris Duhon's back away from being a 25 win team and handing over a top 5 pick to Utah. I think we couldve had a real steal with Sessions and I think it was a big mistake.

so mostly what you are advocating by saying you don't base everything on 2 years from now (the greatest class of free agents in 2010) and that you would have rather signed Sessions and Lee to long term deals is ... what? No long term planning and being very conservative? Sessions and Lee? Backbones of 30 win teams?

The opposite is planning to be in place to sign the best NBA player since Jordan and taking some great risk while doing it, something that you yourself have been advocating over and over.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
9/6/2009  12:29 AM
i don't get it. it's like people have completely forgotten the isiah era error.

yeah let's overpay for mediocre talent and ensure we never are in position to break the cycle of mediocrity
lol @ being BANNED by Martin since 11/07/10 (for asking if Mr. Earl had a point). Really, Martin? C'mon. This is the internet. I've seen much worse on this site. By Earl himself. Drop the hypocrisy.
BasketballJones
Posts: 31973
Alba Posts: 19
Joined: 7/16/2002
Member: #290
USA
9/6/2009  12:40 AM
Posted by kam77:

i don't get it. it's like people have completely forgotten the isiah era error.

yeah let's overpay for mediocre talent and ensure we never are in position to break the cycle of mediocrity



We haven't forgotten, we're nostalgic.
https:// It's not so hard.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
9/6/2009  1:45 AM
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by fishmike:

same thing they do when Memphis offers Lee a frontloaded huge contract?

Seriously... do you just sit here and think up every possible failure scenario and post 2 threads a day about it for a week until you think of the next one?

If you don't look at downside scenario's whatever you plan out--you're not doing your job. I don't see the hedge here--I thought Sessions was a quality hedge and wouldve made this team better this year without sacrificing one inch of maximum cap space. I think we are creating a *me* first environment for this year and yes there are several BAD scenarios next year. If I post a negative sentiment that is to bad--ignore me as a reasonable adult if you don't want to read it.
I'm concerned that we are setting ourselves up for another 5-6 year disaster.

BRIGGS, I gave you the numbers yesterday. Show me how signing Sessions won't sacrifice one inch of max cap space. Cause I clearly showed the opposite.

Martin--we have 27.2mm for long term cap--if we added 4mm that=31.2--lets figure a 53mm cap[reasonable number] thats 22.8mm in cap space with Sessions signed

So you want to sign Sessions and forgo Lee?

Who says Lee wants to be here--who says the Knicks want to pay him how can you guarantee an unrestricted fA will stay? If they wanted David Lee--they couldve signed him to a long term moderate contract 1.5 years ago and rid themselves of Jefferies contract this year--they didnt do it in either case. With Sessions signed I know he will be here and I can work on David Lee--that's IF they want Lee and they certainly havent shown that. Don't you think David Lee is slightly pirsed at the Knicks? He wants a S+T for goodness sakes.

all I have heard Lee say is that he wants to stay in NY... show me otherwise.----> We’re going to continue to work on a few sign-and-trade possibilities;[if you are looking for S+T possibilities you are looking to get traded--only way you can interpretate that]

http://knicksfanatics.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/david-lee-still-looking-for-sign-and-trades-one-year-deal-with-knicks-still-likely/

Signing Sessions while keeping an earmark for a max free agent will definitely NOT leave room for Lee in 2010, which is the ultimate insult to Lee, is it not? Which is exactly what you are proposing here.---> I don't even know if the Knicks want David Lee long term--do you? Certainly they ahevhad their chances over the last 1.5 years. Were they trying to sign Sessions Jason Kidd Grant Hill or David Lee for more than 1 year? Answer--not Lee although they have the space

All Walsh has done is delay signing both Nate and Lee, which is absolutely frustrating for both but which is also understandable from a managements perspective (Lee's words). The Knicks are lucky there was limited FA money or they would be gone.

And you keep calling Walsh classless for not extending Lee and Nate, which the Sessions signing would do with regards to earmarking for a max or near max player.--I don't like the way things were handled with Lee and Nate but I think I used the words "no class" one time. I wouldnt have dragged DLee through the mud.

BRIGGS, i could have saved you the effort if all you were to come up with was a S&T. Lee's agent has been trying to get on offer sheet from another team since the last game of the season - we know that as getting the best leverage for your client as you can. Does this mean that Lee was being classless towards the Knicks?

After getting ziltch on the free market, Lee's agent also has tried to engineer S&T's with the Knicks for Lee; also something any good agent should be doing.

Does this mean that since day 1 Lee did not want to be on the Knicks even though he has publicly said "I want to remain a Knick"?

Curry, JJ, Douglas, Chandler, Gallo and Hill are on the books for 2010 ($27.2M) and I think you have to have a min of 12 rosters filled.

Those 5 players and a max player at $17M is $44M. After that you have to tack on about $1M for each roster spot. Which is $50M.

Which leaves about $4M for either Sessions or Lee or whomever.

So, back to the original. Is Sessions or Lee more important a signing now in 2009 or should Walsh hold tight for a reasonable contracts for any of them?

I think that if the Knicks wanted David Lee to be here long term he would already have a contract and they would not have drafted a PF @ 8 this year and 6 last year. If David Lee didn't feel that way--he wouldn't be talking about S+T. I don't base everything I do on two years from now and thats what they are doing--they could've signed Sessions and tried to have a good year. We are a flinch in Chris Duhon's back away from being a 25 win team and handing over a top 5 pick to Utah. I think we couldve had a real steal with Sessions and I think it was a big mistake.

so mostly what you are advocating by saying you don't base everything on 2 years from now (the greatest class of free agents in 2010) and that you would have rather signed Sessions and Lee to long term deals is ... what? No long term planning and being very conservative? Sessions and Lee? Backbones of 30 win teams?

The opposite is planning to be in place to sign the best NBA player since Jordan and taking some great risk while doing it, something that you yourself have been advocating over and over.

You can't sign both. Our failure to get rid of Jefferies and not signing Lee to a reasonable contract 1.5 years[or trade him when he had that value] ago took care of that. If I was Lee's agent--I would ask the Knicks for as much as Eddy Curry is making to make up for being underpaid for 3 years and I would offer to waive my no trade clause as a gesture so I could possibly be traded. What are the Knicks going to say? How would the season go without Lee? He's already in the marketing plan! 10mm!
RIP Crushalot😞
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/6/2009  4:39 AM
You don't get a higher contract to makeup for your rookie contract. That's the worst idea I've heard in a long time. If he felt his rookie contract was unfair, he shouldn't have signed it. I can't track down the person I bought my house from and demand that they sell me another house at a discount because I overpaid for the one I'm currently in!

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-06-2009 06:44 AM]
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
9/6/2009  9:28 AM
This is what rebuiding can often look like. Walsh isn't able to just tank on purpose like some smallmarket teams are able to do. I don't see a player in the draft that has a chance to be better than Lebron so why would u ever want to pass up a chance to get him?

The last few drafts we haven't missed out on a guy of his caliber either. Sure there've been some very good players but no Jordan level players like Lebron. You have to make sure you've got every dime possible for 2010 just in case things go horribly wrong in Cle and Lebron wants a change. Or perhaps the same happens in Miami etc. There really is no downside to this.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
9/6/2009  10:00 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:

You don't get a higher contract to makeup for your rookie contract. That's the worst idea I've heard in a long time. If he felt his rookie contract was unfair, he shouldn't have signed it. I can't track down the person I bought my house from and demand that they sell me another house at a discount because I overpaid for the one I'm currently in!

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-06-2009 06:44 AM]

Or David could decide not to play for 2.8mm or whatever it is. If David does not play--the whole season is shot. They know it.
RIP Crushalot😞
newyorknewyork
Posts: 30223
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
9/6/2009  10:26 AM
What do the Knicks do if our guys starting taking contracts elsewhere as fA started like Lee Harrington Duhon Darko and other FA started resigning with their clubs like Bosh Wade and 6 week later while much activity is used up Lebron goes back to the Cavs?

Then we would be left with Douglas, Chandler, Gallinari, Hill who will have a yr or another yr under there belts. That along with 30mil in cap space as well as another 18mil in cap space comming off the books the following yr.

With that 30mil in cap space we can buy mulitple draft picks as well as have the ability to eat players contracts that have one yr remaining for draft picks. Like how Suns traded there the knicks draft pick from the Marbury trade to Utah so that they could take Toney Guggs off there hands and avoid the luxary tax. Utah's AK47, Denver Kmart come, Dallas Dampier come to mind.

Another possibility is to eat a guy like Michael Redds, or Jason Richardson, or Jamal Crawford, or Zach Randolphs contracts for nothing giving these teams 10-18mil trade exceptions while we use these players as one yr rentals.

Another possibility is to make a trade taking back is stud player along with a ugly contract without having to match salary 100 percent. If Ty Evens from the Kings becomes a start but prefers SG positon then Kevin Martin might become available. We could absorb his contract without matching salary and give up a guy like Wilson Chandler. That would give them an up and coming prospect as well as 10-11 trade exception.

Thats why its called flexability because with 30mil available, 18 in expiring, and 4 hopefully solid prospects you have tons of options to make moves adding picks and quality players. Walsh would be 100 percent in controll and have the upper hand in most negociated deals.

The best part is that Walsh has demonstrated the patience to be able to handle having that type of available money and not blow it by throwing money at any avaialbe free agent just because he has it to spend. But instead pick each piece carefully and build a deep and quality team that could last for a couple yrs.
https://vote.nba.com/en Vote for your Knicks.
newyorknewyork
Posts: 30223
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
9/6/2009  10:31 AM
Golden State had money to spend a yr ago and they blew it by signing Corey Maggette because he was one of the top available free agents and they had money to spend so they spent it.

Id rather have the guy with a plan and the patience to execute and follow through with it. Whinny fans or not.
https://vote.nba.com/en Vote for your Knicks.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/6/2009  11:19 AM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by Bonn1997:

You don't get a higher contract to makeup for your rookie contract. That's the worst idea I've heard in a long time. If he felt his rookie contract was unfair, he shouldn't have signed it. I can't track down the person I bought my house from and demand that they sell me another house at a discount because I overpaid for the one I'm currently in!

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-06-2009 06:44 AM]

Or David could decide not to play for 2.8mm or whatever it is. If David does not play--the whole season is shot. They know it.
No, his career is shot as his rep will take a major hit. The difference between 22 and 32 wins this year means little.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
9/6/2009  11:29 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by Bonn1997:

You don't get a higher contract to makeup for your rookie contract. That's the worst idea I've heard in a long time. If he felt his rookie contract was unfair, he shouldn't have signed it. I can't track down the person I bought my house from and demand that they sell me another house at a discount because I overpaid for the one I'm currently in!

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-06-2009 06:44 AM]

Or David could decide not to play for 2.8mm or whatever it is. If David does not play--the whole season is shot. They know it.
No, his career is shot as his rep will take a major hit. The difference between 22 and 32 wins this year means little.

BS his career would have no effect. Believe me guy David Lee is NOT playing for 2.6mm this year--hs going to get ATLEAST 8mm if not 9 or 10. Talk to me later when he gets it.
RIP Crushalot😞
CrushAlot
Posts: 59764
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/25/2003
Member: #452
USA
9/6/2009  11:55 AM
His agent said he wouldn't hold out. If he goes to Greece or something like Childress did the Knicks retain his rights. He has to play to become a free agent. He will play and unless some mystery team offers a sign and trade to Walsh that is reasonable, he will either play for his Q.O. or a one year deal that is closer to his true market value.
I'm tired,I'm tired, I'm so tired right now......Kristaps Porzingis 1/3/18
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/6/2009  2:16 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by Bonn1997:

You don't get a higher contract to makeup for your rookie contract. That's the worst idea I've heard in a long time. If he felt his rookie contract was unfair, he shouldn't have signed it. I can't track down the person I bought my house from and demand that they sell me another house at a discount because I overpaid for the one I'm currently in!

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-06-2009 06:44 AM]

Or David could decide not to play for 2.8mm or whatever it is. If David does not play--the whole season is shot. They know it.
No, his career is shot as his rep will take a major hit. The difference between 22 and 32 wins this year means little.

BS his career would have no effect. Believe me guy David Lee is NOT playing for 2.6mm this year--hs going to get ATLEAST 8mm if not 9 or 10. Talk to me later when he gets it.

Are you talking about a 1 yr contract? I thought you were talking about a long-term contract with the Knicks. It's pretty obvious they're going to generously throw extra money at him. He doesn't get the money for free though. There's no such thing as free money--you should be old enough to know that by now! He has to give his word that he won't veto any trades. Otherwise play for the QO or blow your career by looking like a greedy fool by taking the unprecedented step of sitting out a year.
Page 2 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
What do the Knicks do if
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