I would prefer Gerald Wallace, because you guys are bitching about the Knicks defense now...just wait. Rashard plays NO defense. Gerald just needs to work on his perimeter shooting more.

Posted by PresIke:

Posted by martin:

Posted by PresIke:

Posted by Queeniepop:

This is BS...why would seattle take back a contract when they can let Lewis flat-out walk. They are getting Durant ON A ROOKIE deal. Plus, why would they pair JC with Ray and Durant??? The amt Shard is asking for does not add up to what the "potential deal" is worth. Shard's asking for like $12M per year over 5 years. We would actually be in a WORSE position for a good shooter that plays like a 6'5" guard with out any D.

Plus I highly doubt that Lenny Wilkens is going to help out Zeke...he pretty much ripped him this year when he was "free" to talk. If I am going to sign and trade Lewis, there is much better out there. Plus enough of this local crap with Nate and Jamal being from Seattle...the damn team aint even staying there. Plus, Isiah's priority this summer should be getting rid of Francis.

This is flat out fodder.

Be prepared Knicks fans- any "name" that comes out will be linked to us:

Vince
KG
Carter
JO
Pau

and counting.

Queenie, the Sonics are not necessarily moving yet. The owners may be from Oklahoma City, but they can make a crapload more money by keeping the team in Seattle. According to CNN Money here are the average family incomes for:

Oklahoma City: $48,162
Seattle: $70,133

With both having similar population sizes (although Seattle is larger and home to more high income earners), which market do you think would be the preference for an owner to have the team?

So it still is about generating fan interest in the team in Seattle, when they have not declared that they are moving the team just yet. They gave a 12 month window last July. So it is not just about what makes sense b-ball wise. Bringing in Seattle natives and popular players in the area like Jamal and Nate helps them with a shot at keeping the team in Seattle, where they can make more money. To wait 3 years for Durant to be a star (maybe) by then Allen is too old, they may be forced to move to Oak. City. Crawford turned 27 this year and Nate is turning 24 tomorrow, actually so they get younger too.


[Edited by - PresIke on 05-30-2007 10:28 AM]

I know you didn't mean it this way, but avg income and poulation size are but 2 factors. If the owners are indeed from Oklahoma City they gotta have better ties with the business community than in Seattle and may also have better ties politically (stadium finiancing) etc. Didn't Oklahoma folk come out to games and fill the stadiums? Seattle has a professional football team which may also dilute some of the ticket purchasing power for a city of it's size.

Who thinks that Seattle would rather pawn off Allen for picks, cash, players that would attract fans and players that are coming off of the cap shortly if they are going to stay up north?

martin, they have openly declared an interest in staying in Seattle essentially for the very reason I listed:

http://newsok.com/article/3060094

When Clay Bennett and his partners first bought the Seattle SuperSonics, he would drive around the Puget Sound area marveling.


"I couldn't get my hands around what good fortune, to have a team in that marketplace with a new facility,” said Bennett, the Oklahoma City businessman whose group purchased the NBA franchise last summer. "I really thought we would get a deal done. An extraordinary opportunity.

"But lately, I don't have those same feelings.”

Bennett said Tuesday that despite the splendid lottery news of last week — the Sonics will pick second in the NBA draft, giving them either Greg Oden or Kevin Durant, both projected superstars — he is out of ideas for a new arena in Seattle and has begun preliminary discussions with Oklahoma City and Kansas City about possible relocation.

"My expectation and my belief is that if we leave Seattle, we're quite likely headed to Oklahoma City,” Bennett said from his office on the 31st floor of Oklahoma Tower. "But that decision has to be made with appropriate due diligence. We have to do that work. Just can't proclaim we're moving here.”

Bennett said the Sonics got a "little bump” in ticket sales from the lottery news but no momentum on the arena front.

Bennett said ideally the Sonics would launch the career of either Durant or Oden in the franchise's long-term home but that it was unlikely for the franchise to seek relocation this summer.

"For now, without a building solution, it's our intent to play in Seattle and apply for relocation immediately after the (Oct. 31) deadline,” Bennett said. The Oklahoma City group agreed to give Seattle until Oct. 31 to produce an arena deal.

Now, there are certainly reasons to suspect that the Sonics up to this point had been feeling like they may be moving, but it doesn't sound like they want to move for the very reasons I stated, so my point is not just me talking. Connections with the business community, means what exactly for their profit gains when there is more money available to be made in Seattle, which is fact. Certainly football is there, but that's 8 home games, man. Their issue is an arena.

However, I have family who lives in Seattle, and as doable as this deal may be, I think the population there may just not be in support of paying for the building of a new arena, no matter what. To be honest, I agree with them, as much as I want to get Lewis. Seattle paid for two brand new stadiums for the Mariners and the Seahawks, when they have significant education, public transportation, and traffic problems, and even worse, voters came out against tax subsidies going to pay for the Seahawks stadium but they somehow got overridden.

Seattle residents are upset because tax dollars went to renovate Key Arena barely a decade ago:

http://www.citizensformoreimportantthings.org/page2.html

Here is a blog about the stadium issue from the Seattle Post Intelligencer with locals sounding off, often against stadium subsidies, which stems from the history of what happened with those two stadiums, as well as how they and other stadiums built in cities elsewhere have failed to stimulate economic growth:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=310362

However, if the owners believe a Lewis deal with the Knicks gets enough excitement from people on the border about whether to support the stadium then they may go for it. If not, then we get no Lewis, and the Sonics probably go to Oak. City.



[Edited by - PresIke on 05-30-2007 11:00 AM]

[Edited by - PresIke on 05-30-2007 11:01 AM]

Even if they move to OK, they're still likely to move Lewis- With Durant playing the same position, they don't need lewis. And, they're not the knicks so they aren't going to want to be capped out- and giving Lewis 6 years at the kind of money he wants does that.

the problems in seattle stem from an arena deal.
the citizens do not want to pay taxes for a new arena.
the owners do not want to privately fund it.

crawford + nate don't really tip the scales in anyone's favor. in fact, they probably make no difference.

(btw, crawford is not revered in the area. nate is, but not crawford.)

durant may make some type of impact, but chances are still very low seattle residents budge on this issue.

in this state of flux for seattle, the owners do not want to add payroll.

Posted by djsunyc:

the problems in seattle stem from an arena deal.
the citizens do not want to pay taxes for a new arena.
the owners do not want to privately fund it.

crawford + nate don't really tip the scales in anyone's favor. in fact, they probably make no difference.

(btw, crawford is not revered in the area. nate is, but not crawford.)

durant may make some type of impact, but chances are still very low seattle residents budge on this issue.

in this state of flux for seattle, the owners do not want to add payroll.

that's why I think Seattle would want to include Luke or Earl in the deal and take back Malik (tough nosed guy who would be a locker coach and play with their young bigs) with another pick (23 or Morris).

Getting Rashard Lewis would be a great start in putting this team on the right road that it needs to go on. A trade of Crawford and Nate is certainly doable for me, even if Balkman or Collins need to be added in order to get the trade done.

If this were me, the next step I would take after making this deal is seeing what kind of deals would be available to the Knicks for a SG if we dangled Frye and Balkman or Collins(whoever isn't traded in the Lewis deal.)

After that I would go ahead and draft a PG like Jarvis Crittenton from GT or Dominic James from Marquette, he's a gritty player, a little small but I think he'd be great under Isiah's tutalage.

Just my thoughts, either way, getting Rashard is a great start to the off-season though.

I also don't see them overly eager to add 4 years of a contract...they will have resign Durant during this time and they have Ray on the books.

They have ZERO need for Crawford and/or Nate. They have Ray Allen. They have Luke Ridnour and Watson. They have multiple second round picks.

Plus Isiah just signed Jeffries and drafted Balkman. Lewis and Jeffries leave ZERO PT for Balkman.

So if you want to add a contract of $12-$13M per year until 2012, with no hope of even getting close to the cap, so be it.

Plus NO ONE is qaccounting for the fact that a new GM for the Sonics will be hired...they are heavily considering Sam Presti, asst GM of the Spurs...it will be his call not Wilkens.

I don't like rashard Lewis cuz I think he is too high maintenance. He is not much of a creator, so he needs plays to be ran for him. With curry being the focal point and a guy like steph being the primary distributer without craw, how good can this team really be? Rashard wants to play for a big market. Is he ready for the beast that is the nyc media?

If rashard is brought to ny and fails, some how people will blame it on steph.

The more I think about it, I love this deal.

PG: Steph
SG: Q
SF: Balkman
PF: Rashard
C: Curry

SUBS: Collins, Lee, Randolph Morris, Jeffries

Think about how much we could spread the offense around Curry, and Balk would be there to pick up the rebounds. Lewis would have crazy mismatches on other team's 4's. Bringing Jeffries and Collins in gives you a lock down D. Rashard eliminates the need for Balk to have 3 range.

Not too shabby.

Guys stop trying to make Rashard into something he's not. Rashard is a SF, he's a shooter, he'll grab a few boards but he's nowhere near a PF in this league. His interior defense would be shotty because he doesn't have the strength to play down there and offensively he hangs out on the perimeter and scores his points that way.

He's not a 4.

I think we'd be fortunate to get either Lewis or JO. If Isiah goes for Lewis that would make this team's attack very balanced. There'd be far less a team could do to double Curry and not pay a steep price. Then Isiah would have to look to get a shotblocker, cuz we'd be an even more offensively focused team with Lewis. Lewis is also a huge target for a poor passer like Curry. He'd be much easier to find and hit with a pass. I think it may be worth a try, cuz we have a somewhat clogged roster and making a trade would clear some things up. We'd get a very good player who would make a difference for this team, despite all the protests, the guy would help. Imagine at the end of games when Steph drives and then kicks to an open Lewis. It's another good option that we didn't have before.

I'm not saying that Isiah should do it. Only that if he did I could understand how it could help this team. It also would still leave us in a decent position to get under the cap in 2 years. What are our chances of getting a 6-10 SF who can shoot 40% from 3 in any other way? He is a much more natural fit with Curry than JO. We really don't know how that would work, but with Lewis it's pretty clear how that would work. There really aren't any conflicts. We'll see if these rumors have any merit.