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

isiah by the dollars
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 3 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
8/22/2005  2:09 PM
i ask you guys this - would you be satisfied if he puts together a perennial 50 win team but just not good enough to get to the ECF or finals? (like the hawks and cavs all those years in the late 80's, early 90's)
Yes and no. Getting a team thats good enough to win close to 50 every year is certainly a step. But it comes down to this... the eternal debate. Is it better to do that and work on adding the "final piece" or are titles only won by star players drafted by their teams. You can talk about the FA Shaq, but thats an anamoly.. he wanted to go there and everyone knew he was going there. Duncan, Hakeem, Jordon/Pippen, Kobe/Shaq. Look at 13 of the last 14 NBA champs. Of those 13, 6 stars played on those teams. Of all 6 only Shaq wasnt drafted or aquired on draft day by the team that won the titles. Those are hard facts to turn your back on if your talking about winning a title.

Now if anyone has the resources to build a "team" that could win like Det it should be Knicks, seeing as how we should always be able to upgrade talent because of the money we are able to take back. Obviously so far it hasnt happened, but there's always hope. If Isiah is going to be here I sure as hell hope he learns from his mistakes, and isnt just happy with Larry riding 8 vets to 44 wins and better ticket revenue. Thats a freakin disaster.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
AUTOADVERT
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
8/22/2005  2:10 PM
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by tomverve:
Posted by fishmike:

The bottom line is ISiah ADDED over $200mm in players and it resulted in 33 wins.

The salary he added is spread out over a number of years, and last season's 33 win effort was only one season. Does not compute. If you want to put last season in context in terms of salary added, it should be relative to what the salary structure would have been had no roster moves been made. Some salary was added, but not a prohibitive amount. The $200+ million figure can only be used to evaluate the team over the duration of time in which the $200m is actually distributed.
its not flawed at all. The players he spent that money on are all here, and they have failed to translate into wins. The $200 *future* is MUCH MORE significant to me than current salary. Current salary represents 1 year.. the fact that Isiah added almost $250 in FUTURE contracts means we are commited to what we have. What we have won us 33 games. Yes yes.. I know Q is the savior and our rookies will all compete for ROY. Hope and faith baby... hope and faith


thats because he tacks on an extra 2-3yrs on every players contract. Crawford, Kurt & JJ when he doesn't really have to. I just hope that a superstar takes notice and comes here for the extra money
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
8/22/2005  2:14 PM
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by tomverve:
Posted by fishmike:

The bottom line is ISiah ADDED over $200mm in players and it resulted in 33 wins.

The salary he added is spread out over a number of years, and last season's 33 win effort was only one season. Does not compute. If you want to put last season in context in terms of salary added, it should be relative to what the salary structure would have been had no roster moves been made. Some salary was added, but not a prohibitive amount. The $200+ million figure can only be used to evaluate the team over the duration of time in which the $200m is actually distributed.


Yeah and that makes it even worse since Isiah is operating under a salary cap. The fact that the $200m is distributed over several years means that we're going to be over the cap that much longer.

Exactly! its amazing how people only look at the Dollars and totally disregard the cap. The Cap is what's holding us back! we need cap flexibilty. We need to stop overpaying everyone and let contracts expire if we have to!
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
8/22/2005  2:21 PM
Posted by fishmike:
i ask you guys this - would you be satisfied if he puts together a perennial 50 win team but just not good enough to get to the ECF or finals? (like the hawks and cavs all those years in the late 80's, early 90's)
Yes and no. Getting a team thats good enough to win close to 50 every year is certainly a step. But it comes down to this... the eternal debate. Is it better to do that and work on adding the "final piece" or are titles only won by star players drafted by their teams. You can talk about the FA Shaq, but thats an anamoly.. he wanted to go there and everyone knew he was going there. Duncan, Hakeem, Jordon/Pippen, Kobe/Shaq. Look at 13 of the last 14 NBA champs. Of those 13, 6 stars played on those teams. Of all 6 only Shaq wasnt drafted or aquired on draft day by the team that won the titles. Those are hard facts to turn your back on if your talking about winning a title.

Now if anyone has the resources to build a "team" that could win like Det it should be Knicks, seeing as how we should always be able to upgrade talent because of the money we are able to take back. Obviously so far it hasnt happened, but there's always hope. If Isiah is going to be here I sure as hell hope he learns from his mistakes, and isnt just happy with Larry riding 8 vets to 44 wins and better ticket revenue. Thats a freakin disaster.


I wish the Knicks were run the way the Lakers are. Of course I picked the team that does everything backwards and has only yielded 2 championships in over 60yrs to love
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
8/22/2005  4:11 PM
Posted by fishmike:

none of that matters.. according to Tom and RV since nobody can predict the future, nobody can say it will be bad. Therefore, despite the fact that this collosal investment has yeilded nothing in the short term and represents a commitment that crushes flexibility for the next 3-4 years, you cant say the choices or plan were suspect, because after all... you never know, its the future.


For one thing, let's get the facts straight. If the OP was right, Isiah has added $235m in long term contracts, but $15.5m of that was from the KT trade and $29m was from the Jerome James signing. $235m - ($15.5m + $29m) = $190.5m, so if you're going to evaluate last season's win total in terms of long term salary added, it's not even close to the $250m figure that's been bandied about.

For another thing, has flexibility really been crushed? On what do you base this claim? Merely stating the dollars added is not a good argument. Case in point: does paying Q $15.5m more than KT over the lives of their respective contracts amount to a reduction in flexibility? I don't think so. KT is going to drop off the cliff sometime soon, whereas Q will always be tradeable at his numbers, assuming he doesn't break his knee or something. Flexibility for signing free agents has been hindered, but flexibility for trades has gone way up since Isiah came on board. What's the balance between the two, which is more significant? There is no answer, because you can't really quantify what GMs will make what trades or what free agents will be likely to leave their teams, etc. You might intuit or argue that net flexibility has gone down, but it's not a cut-and-dry issue, and assuming that flexibility unilaterally drops as a function of added salary is simply bad reasoning.

Besides, the argument that we are doomed to mediocrity because last season's team was poor is flawed in that it overlooks the coach. Can Larry Brown make this a 50+ win team that's competetive in the playoffs 2 or 3 seasons from now? We don't know that he will or won't, but it's certainly in the realm of possibility. Last season's 33 win team might be a 44 win team with Larry Brown. So what if we got Larry Brown last season and it was a 44 win team? Would we be hearing about how Isiah's $200m investment is beginning to pay off?

I'm not arguing that the future is as good as it could be, but this doom and gloom stuff is too premature, I think (not that that's ever stopped Knicks fans). I think there is rational grounds in believing that there exists a pretty good *possibility* that things could turn around fairly quickly, given player additions and the new coach. And enough with the hope and faith stuff-- hope and faith is believing that we will turn it around for sure. Doom and gloom is that believing that we'll suck, for sure. Reason points out that there's a pretty good chance that *either one* could happen, so we'll just have to sit it out and see what happens, and maybe quit that day job prophesying the end of the world on some Times Square street corner in the meantime.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
rvhoss
Posts: 24943
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2004
Member: #777
Switzerland
8/22/2005  4:35 PM
Cry me a river.

I'm just saying that, while you guys all have good points, using the total amount acquired over all future year's and not dividing out the number of years OR quantifying the average annual income, is fool's gold.

one of my favorite math related quotes
"There are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics."

Last year the Suns Added Q's contract and didn't go to the finals, the next year, they don't have Q's contract. (see how quickly it can change?)

While, I agree you can all bitch and moan today, I just disagree with using it to predict doom and gloom for year's to come and for evaluating a GM that has been on the job less than two years and had only two drafts.

Your arguments have a foundation, but your facts are meaningless. (which kill the argument, because I can't be sure you know what you are arguing about if you are backing it up with nonsense)

I'm sure it's fun to do, and I should probably just ignore it, but it's tough fellas to ignore these types of posts.

I would love to see the inverted post.

Or how these examples fit in your equation:
The heat just added $100 in shaq's extension alone...oh, and don't forget the sixers added $70 mill in dalambert alone...So, the heat added half of what zeke did in one day. hopefully it translates into success.
Imagine what the laker's fans are saying about the resigning of Kobe (adding $120 million) plus the other contracts for the same number of wins.

You can't use the lifetime of a contract and say it's a present value evaluation of a franchise. and if you are going to do so, compare it to other teams in a comparable starting position as our own (over the cap, same number of wins). But to blindly say that Zeke is spending money like a madman shows a lack of Capology logic.

There is a reason they break them down annually.

Math...it's a powerful thing, but dangerous when used incorrectly.

That's all I'm saying.

Next year I imagine we will be on the winning end of some of those trades.
Posted by fishmike:

none of that matters.. according to Tom and RV since nobody can predict the future, nobody can say it will be bad. Therefore, despite the fact that this collosal investment has yeilded nothing in the short term and represents a commitment that crushes flexibility for the next 3-4 years, you cant say the choices or plan were suspect, because after all... you never know, its the future.



[Edited by - rvhoss on 08-22-2005 4:42 PM]

[Edited by - rvhoss on 08-22-2005 4:50 PM]
all kool aid all the time.
rvhoss
Posts: 24943
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2004
Member: #777
Switzerland
8/22/2005  4:51 PM
can we see a riley by the dollars? and you can pretty much start with the original Mourning signing.

[Edited by - rvhoss on 08-22-2005 4:52 PM]
all kool aid all the time.
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
8/22/2005  5:30 PM
one thing about riley. it wasn't until he got UNDER the cap, he was able to get lamar and have enough chips to get shaq. it's aroundabout way but it's what happened.
Pharzeone
Posts: 32183
Alba Posts: 14
Joined: 2/11/2005
Member: #871
8/22/2005  6:01 PM
Posted by fishmike:

none of that matters.. according to Tom and RV since nobody can predict the future, nobody can say it will be bad. Therefore, despite the fact that this collosal investment has yeilded nothing in the short term and represents a commitment that crushes flexibility for the next 3-4 years, you cant say the choices or plan were suspect, because after all... you never know, its the future.
The only problem that bothers me is that the KNicks have been over the cap since 1996. As far as I concern, the Knicks are guilty with robbing Peter to pay Paul. Ewing allowed the Knicks to get away with making horrible decisions, throwing draft pick after draft pick. As long as Ewing was here he kept them respectable. LJ and Starks did their parts when he was hurt but this is a long existing problem that I have bothered me long before Isiah got here and added to or subtracted from the problem. I mean this franchise makes moves that have nothing to do with on court talent. Owner has an issue with a player, he gets his GM to get anything for him and move him. GMs waiving players because they don't speak, I won't even get into the whole Ewing trade fisaco. This organization will not get better until they learn how to spend wisely but especially start to respect the draft process. Isiah needs to work on the spending part but I am grateful that he respects the draft enough. The days of throwing picks away on the Eric Chenowiths, Micheal Wrights, or 1st round picks to get an injured malcontent Rice and Travis Knight (2001 was a horrible draft year sceanrio for the Knicks). For that matter drafting Donnel Harvey to just trade him for Eric Strickland. I won't even bother to mention Grunfelds drafts because all you need to know is that Charlie Ward was his most successful pick running this team.

I don't like to play bad rookies , I like to play good rookies - Mike D'Antoni
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
8/22/2005  6:55 PM
For another thing, has flexibility really been crushed?
if never being able to do anything aside from trade for players like Tim Thomas and sign guys like Jerome James then yes. I have said 100x the Knicks could have stuck to players with essentially 2 years or less and had just as talented a squad as they do now. I'm fine with Jamal and Q... they are good and have reasonable contracts, but if we either NOT traded for Rose or moved to dumped him, and NOT signed James to that assanine deal in 2 years we would be in a position to move Marbury for an expiring contract, and in 2 years put ourselves in position to have close to $20mm in cap space, along with a roster of Ariza, Q, Craw, Nate, Frye, Lee and Sweetney. Not too bad. Now its win with these guys or trade for other teams albatross contracts, and we can see how well thats worked.

Also it IS close to $200mm plus. You cant subtract KT... he Isiah extended him. If you want to say that extension doesnt apply, fine. Then it means you take on $40mm in the Q deal and not the $17 originally stated. It doesnt matter to me.

Pharzeone, I agree... its a big problem. When you have Ewing and decent role players = close to 50 wins. We have nothing like that to build around, and a 1% of getting a player of Ewings caliber. Ok, I will be fair, we HAD a 7% or whatever last draft, but alas we lost again and a team 2 spots down won.

Cry me a river.
I gave it a 3 sentance scan and saw something about math and Q's contract and Pho. When we have Amare and Marion caliber 2 way players talk to me about how our situation is anything like the Suns
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
rvhoss
Posts: 24943
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2004
Member: #777
Switzerland
8/22/2005  8:21 PM
did someone already say add LB's salary...that's still more money.
all kool aid all the time.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/22/2005  9:47 PM
Posted by rvhoss:

did someone already say add LB's salary...that's still more money.
Don't forget to add Lenny's salary too. He's no longer here but Isiah did add him
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
8/23/2005  7:30 AM
yea well Lenny was a failed experiment obviously... to bad, MArbury hugging him was such a tender moment.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
rvhoss
Posts: 24943
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2004
Member: #777
Switzerland
8/23/2005  9:50 AM
you guys suck at math.
all kool aid all the time.
Page 3 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 
« Reply To Topic
isiah by the dollars
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