Rosenhaus probably could get him 10 million. I want the agent who got Cardinal 7 yrs 45 million, Mark Blount 6 yrs 45 million, Brian Grant 7 yrs 84 million, Brad Miller 7 years 68 million or Bobby Simmons 6 years 60 million that is the guy who I would be searching for.

Posted by King1:

Rosenhaus probably could get him 10 million. I want the agent who got Cardinal 7 yrs 45 million, Mark Blount 6 yrs 45 million, Brian Grant 7 yrs 84 million, Brad Miller 7 years 68 million or Bobby Simmons 6 years 60 million that is the guy who I would be searching for.

Sadly, this is the agency that represents Lee. They got most of those guys you listed those contracts.

Posted by King1:

Rosenhaus probably could get him 10 million. I want the agent who got Cardinal 7 yrs 45 million, Mark Blount 6 yrs 45 million, Brian Grant 7 yrs 84 million, Brad Miller 7 years 68 million or Bobby Simmons 6 years 60 million that is the guy who I would be searching for.

king, how come every time you bring up how much lee should get you bring up horrible contracts? i like lee and i think he'll get something close to $50M, but come on now. if you're hanging your hat on a fourth year player starting and "leading" the team to 33 wins, that's pretty sad. oh, i'm sorry, 32 wins.

David's best role is the role HoGrant played on the Bulls all those years as long as he can improve his defense. I would give Lee $50 mil albeit over 6 or 7 years-not 5.

Lee's a good, but not a great player. I hope we do re-sign him without breaking the bank.
One thing to consider is that his scoring has improved year by year. If he can continue to improve his jump shot (which I think he can) and work on some low post moves, he will be close to a 20-10 guy with a high shooting percentage. I've seen some, but very little progress in his defense. So, it's very important not to give him a max contract.

I like Lee and what he brings to a team, but we should not break the bank for him.

I would hope we can lay out a scenario where he can have a long and productive career on a winning franchise and make a very very nice living in a great city!

He has had a great two year run playing 162 regular season games and getting starter minutes avged 16 and 11.7 winning 7 more games despite trading away our two best scorers.

Based on stats, he deserves big money, but his greatest value to a team is to be a blue collar role guy on a winning team. There is not big money for that. Put him on the Lakers, celtics, Cavs, etc he would make them better. BUt you can't do it and he eats cap. He is also not a work horse but a runner, and as he gets older he will break down more. I don't see him playing 34 min a game at this level for years.

THus, I hope he can sign a resonable contract and be one of our building blocks going forward. He is the kind of player that really make good teams better. We just gotta get "good" first!

not even borderline bro... it's just inexcusable to let this guy walk for nothing useful in return, i don't care what anyone says... whether that be a draft pick, a viable player that we can use, or the ability to dump 1 of our bad contracts, Walsh absolutely must make sure that he gets at least 1 of those if he doesn't intend on keeping Lee on this team over the longhaul.

Lee's agent earlier this season suggested his client would command 13M starting salary. So I don't understand the idea that we should have locked him up early in the year.

As pointed out Walsh certainly made him available but you had to take Eddy with him. Teams did not bite. That's fine.

We are painted into a bit of a corner here now but you know it's not that tough to figure it out.

1. He gets an outlandish offer, we decline to match, and also decline an S&T because that team has nothing of value to offer in return in trade and we'd be better off letting him go.

2. He gets a good offer, one we don't want to match, but it's by a team with assets we could use, so we S&T him.

3. He gets a mediocre offer and we match --- or we agree with him on terms of a reasonable contract say starting at 6M.

I'm honestly fine with each scenario. While 1 would be unsettling the fact is we will not jeopardize the big picture over David Lee.

As also said by many in the past he is over rated he is no superstar and is not a franchise corner stone and while his stats may command a certain number on the market his overall impact and lack of a well rounded game does not.

If you sign Lee to market value, he's tradeable and that's fine. Sign him to 7 or 8 million. However, my number 1 option is signing and trading him for an ending contract and maybe someone like Anthony Randolph. Come on, we know fine and well that's tempting to the dumbass Warriors!

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Andrew:

I think someone needs to define what exactly breaking the bank is....then you can all agree that you were saying the same thing all along and hugs for everyone.

Breaking the bank = Spending a dollar more than the particular poster thinks a player is worth. At least that's probably how the term is being used.

Breaking the bank on Lee would be his agent recommended 13M starting point. In fact to some degree a 10M starting point would be breaking the bank on Lee. So lets say starting at 10M is the bank breaker.

Starting at anything over 6 to 7M a year is pricey.

Yet when you see guys like Wilcox, Nene, and others command 10M a year for less production? Then Lee probably is worth starting 10M a year.

Yet his overall skill set is quite empty and paying a guy 10M a year is saying that he is a starter and a solid building block to place other players around.

David Lee clearly is NOT such a player and I would cringe if we started at over 7M starting point - and if it's 8M and above as a starting point? I'd be pretty upset.

He's just not THAT good. He can't play any defense, he can't create for himself, he is a lazy passer despite having decent court vision (the turnovers are just unacceptable on his soft passes). Is this a franchise player that you pay 10M or more per year!?

No, it's not.

It's a good thing there were 21 reasons. With only 20 reasons, doubt may have remained.