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

need to position oursleves for a reasonably high draft pick somehow
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 3 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/21/2004  3:00 PM
We're not seriously *still* debating whether we gave up too much in the Marbury trade, are we? Haven't there been like a thousand threads on that already?

I agree 100% that this team needs a shot blocker. I just am patient enough to realize that you can't address every need at once and am patient enough to wait until next summer (although I still like the idea of picking up Keon Clark).
AUTOADVERT
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/21/2004  3:02 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:

who the heck is saying tank the season?

Originally posted by Rich:

It's not out of the question that the Knicks will tank this season, and they will have their own lottery pick.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/21/2004  3:24 PM
Posted by BigSm00th:

Bonn it's a simple thought.

The team is made up of average to below-average wing defenders, whether it be Marbury, Crawford, Houston, Penny, TT, etc. Can they improve? Of course, but they will never be stoppers.

When people penetrate, or when they beat one of our many (last year it was one of our few big men, thank you Isiah for adding depth) big men, Mutumbo was the only player to block the shot. He'd block it, deflect it, or make the player think twice. The Knicks need somebody like this.

I agree, but I think Mutombo is too slow to be that player. He can still blocks shots but his slowness is a liability. He'd be a nice 12th man on the team who depending on the situation, got some DNPs but also sometimes saw significant minutes.
I know expiring contracts can yield you a great player, I've made that point before (though not in this thread). Here's to hoping Ratliff and Rasheed will be around. I ws just wondering if you could name a center who will have several years left on his contract, on a team that would have a shot at getting under the cap, and then I'd believe you.

Okay, you don't understand how expiring contracts are used in trades. We take back one or two bad contracts from another team. The player with the bad contract does NOT have to be their center. If we relieve a team of two bad contracts, we can get a center. Ideally, N.O. is in the situation the Suns were in a year ago. After a good season, they become a below .500 lottery team in the west. Suddenly, they're not in love with Magloire (just like Phoenix was suddenly not in love with Marbury after being a lottery team) and you're willing to give him up for Nazy if we take back the $30 mil Mashburn is owed in his contract (he will probably retire) and we give them TT's expiring contract, the player we drafted with our 1st round pick, and Sweetney if necessary. Or we take back one more bad contract. That's just one example. On another forum, I listed scenarios where there were about ten centers who, if the chips fell in the right places, we could pursue. Out of those ten I expect at least two to be legimately available. I'm trying to find that thread in the other forum so I can post what I wrote. Another possibility I remember mentioning was maybe the Blazers would be willing to sign and trade Ratliff if we give them TT's expiring contract and take back Ruben Patterson's bad contract. We also could give them Baker and/or Nazy's expiring contracts so they have someone to play center. Maybe we can take back a bad contract from Cleveland to get them to sign and trade Big Z. Maybe things don't work out in Utah and they regret giving Okur a big contract and try to get rid of him for a less expensive player. Maybe Philly's willing to give up Dalembert if we take back their bad contracts. Maybe Memphis doesn't want to pay Stro huge money to be coming off the bench and regrets giving Cardinal a big contract. And they do a sign and trade involving TT and Baker for Cardinal and Stro Swift. These are just a few examples that come to mind. You could think of endless possibilities. There will always be teams trying to get rid of bad contracts and willing to give up good players to get rid of those contracts. Only ONE of these examples has to even happen for the Knicks to substantially upgrade their team at C. Maybe 90% of the examples are ludicrous but one actually ends up happening. It's hard to argue that it's impossible that any of these trades could happen.


BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
8/21/2004  3:38 PM
why would the knicks ever trade tim thomas mike sweetney and 1st round pick to take back mashburns contract all for jamal magliore. i wouldnt trade sweetney fo magliore straight up.

you are fooled into a sense that money grows on trees--that the knicks can just spend at will---if the knicks simply took back eilsye's contract in order to get a high enough pick so we can add size and atheltiscm on the cheap.

On top of that all the chemistry you built up with sweetney and TT is out the window replaced by the unkown. then you need a PF and a SF.

payroll is a reality in every business in the US including your NY Knicks. IF we fail this season for ANY reason--we have no excuses this year--then as an owner wouldnt you take a step back from just packing more payroll? the owner is going to HAVE to at some point say we cant go any higher.
RIP Crushalot😞
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/21/2004  3:59 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:

why would the knicks ever trade tim thomas mike sweetney and 1st round pick to take back mashburns contract all for jamal magliore. i wouldnt trade sweetney fo magliore straight up.

you are fooled into a sense that money grows on trees--that the knicks can just spend at will---if the knicks simply took back eilsye's contract in order to get a high enough pick so we can add size and atheltiscm on the cheap.

On top of that all the chemistry you built up with sweetney and TT is out the window replaced by the unkown. then you need a PF and a SF.

payroll is a reality in every business in the US including your NY Knicks. IF we fail this season for ANY reason--we have no excuses this year--then as an owner wouldnt you take a step back from just packing more payroll? the owner is going to HAVE to at some point say we cant go any higher.
Magloire is a 14/10 24 year old kid improving very rapidly. A 6'7" PF is much more replaceable than a 7' all-star center. Sure, I'd let some of the expiring contracts expire. Maybe $25 mil of the 76 mil over the next two years. Maybe even a little more. But you can't seriously think that they'll all expire rather than being used to pull off more Marbury or Crawford deals.

Out of the seven expiring contracts Isiah has had, how many did they let expire so far? Zero. Six were traded to get back good young players and take bad contracts back. The seventh player (Kurt) was unable to be traded despite Isiah's efforts. Thus, rather than letting the contract for a player we don't need in the long-term expire, the Knicks still re-signed him because the idea of letting even one expiring contract expire and getting nothing for the player was too unappealing to Isiah and Dolan.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 08/21/2004 16:00:09]
BigSm00th
Posts: 24504
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/9/2001
Member: #178
USA
8/21/2004  4:43 PM
That's a horrible trade, Sweetney might have a better year than Magloire this year.

The Blazers have all expiring contracts, what contract are you going to take back, they will be in a good financial situation.

The Cavs have no bad contracts, how are you going to get Ilgauskas?

Swift makes sense.

Dalembert doesn't, Philly is basically re-tooled now with Dalembert, Igoudala, Korver, Green, and Salmons.

Utah has no bad contracts.

You are looking at these situations and just implying these teams have bad cap situations. They don't, the only one that makes sense is Swift, but I don't want to deal Sweetney for him, b/c then you're trading a player who can score in the post for a shot blocker, then you need a player who can score in the post.

"Okay, you don't understand how expiring contracts are used in trades" Yes I do, but the Knicks are now going to ADD TO THEIR ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR PAYROLL?????????? Come on man, the spending's going to stop eventually, you can't keep just adding adding adding. At some point you have to let the bad contracts expire.

I just don't see a lot of options. KT for a bad player and a first rounder which will be in the teens makes a lot more sense than HOPING that a team will give the Knicks another hundred million dollasr in bad contracts so they can get a mediocre center like Jamal Magloire.

The theory you are proposing is adding tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions in contracts to get mediocre centers.

My porposed plan is trading a 32-year old KT who is aging and declining for a first rounder, so you can use both first rounders on big men in this year's draft (I've given you their names earlier, another name to add is 'Zona's Channing Frye, and Briggs brought up Taft) and training them how you want them to play. It's cheaper and makes more sense on all levels.
#Knickstaps
RonRon
Posts: 25531
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/22/2002
Member: #246
8/21/2004  4:46 PM
easy, we were finally getting it going. Most importantly we played non championship caliber teams. If we are going to be the highest payroll team, we might as well try to compete for the title.

and about that magliore..., if big cat is really that good, which i dont like, because of his inconsistantcy and lack of shot blocking, NO will not give him up to us for one of our picks. We would need a lower pick from some other team.

And about mutumbo, yes i know there were things he cant do, but there were things that he can, and that allowed us to play a transition game, and let the team know, "someone has ur back". Its a great feeling, ask prince and rip.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
8/21/2004  5:00 PM
Magliore is a good player. He is not the second coming of alonzo Mourning. Heck Alonzo got traded for ALOT less than what you suggested. There is no way I would trade TT Mike Sweetney a first round pick and take on tens of millions of dollars for that player--on top of which who is Charlotte's starting C. This is not realistic and it's an awful swap.

I still think we should target Pheonix Bulls pick by taking eisley in a trade for KT IF this season shows us thats the way. If we end up playing well, then we just go as is.
RIP Crushalot😞
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/21/2004  5:55 PM
Posted by BigSm00th:

That's a horrible trade, Sweetney might have a better year than Magloire this year.

The Blazers have all expiring contracts, what contract are you going to take back, they will be in a good financial situation.

Please, at least check their payroll if you're gonna say something like that. They owe $50+ mil over three years to players they don't need like Derek Anderson and Ruben Patterson. You don't think they'd love to get rid of one of those players if Ratliff made it clear he wasn't even going to re-sign with them anyway??

The Cavs have no bad contracts, how are you going to get Ilgauskas?
How about close to $50 mil owed to Ira Newble and Derek Snow. If Snow doesn't play well, they may prefer a lower-cost alternative. It's an unlikely scenario, but I'd give that at least a 1 or 2% chance of happening.

Swift makes sense.
Thanks. I wouldn't give up Sweetney for him either, and I never said I would.

Dalembert doesn't, Philly is basically re-tooled now with Dalembert, Igoudala, Korver, Green, and Salmons.

Did anyone twelve months ago seriously think Marbury would be traded?

You are looking at these situations and just implying these teams have bad cap situations.
I'm looking at these situations and saying 90% probably won't happen but all we have to do is jump on the one that does become available.

My porposed plan is trading a 32-year old KT who is aging and declining for a first rounder, so you can use both first rounders on big men in this year's draft (I've given you their names earlier, another name to add is 'Zona's Channing Frye, and Briggs brought up Taft) and training them how you want them to play. It's cheaper and makes more sense on all levels.
So the players I mentioned are too mediocre, but you're gonna get a better player for a mediocre draft pick??? You're plan is cheaper, I'll give you that. Cheapness is something the Knicks have NEVER been concerned about, though.

Can you produce one shred of undeniable evidence that even though the Knicks took back roughly $100 mil in long-term contracts for two players already, they're going to stop now that they're one player short of what they need? Just one shred of indisputable evidence, please.
toodarkmark
Posts: 21145
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/2/2004
Member: #515
USA
8/21/2004  6:15 PM
I personally feel we should just wait for E Curry to have a bad, lazy season this year. And then in the off season demand a trade to the Knicks a la J Crawford. We will be able to swing something I'm sure with all the expiring contracts.

And I have a feeling Elton Brand might get frustrated with the Clippers this year. Although he is tied in long term and has no leverage like V Carter, it's not to say the Clippers wont look to break it all down for expiring contracts and start all over again for the 15th time. Not a center, but blocks shots, rebounds, and scores inside with the best of them.
I don't care what people think. People are stupid. - Charles Barkley
BigSm00th
Posts: 24504
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/9/2001
Member: #178
USA
8/21/2004  6:19 PM
"Please, at least check their payroll if you're gonna say something like that. They owe $50+ mil over three years to players they don't need like Derek Anderson and Ruben Patterson. You don't think they'd love to get rid of one of those players if Ratliff made it clear he wasn't even going to re-sign with them anyway??"

Portland's cap number next year is $19 million. Assuming they pay Randolph, Miles, and Ratliff, it will be at $50 million. They won't need any expiring contracts. (http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/portland.htm)

"How about close to $50 mil owed to Ira Newble and Derek Snow. If Snow doesn't play well, they may prefer a lower-cost alternative. It's an unlikely scenario, but I'd give that at least a 1 or 2% chance of happening."

Cleveland's cap, assuming they re-sign Gooden, Wagner, and Traylor, will be between $35 and 40 million. If they re-sign Ilgauskas, it'd be around $46 million. Why are they going to trade him for expiring contracts they don't need? (http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/cleveland.htm)

"Did anyone twelve months ago seriously think Marbury would be traded?" No, but logically why would Philly trade a 7 foot shot-blocking C for contract reasons when they'll have a young squad. Their cap is pretty reasonable for a big market team once Glenn Robinson comes off after this year ($57 million). If you do get Dalembert, how many bad contracts will they make you take back? What's the trade gonna be? TT, Sweetney, and Penny for Dalembert, Kenny Thomas, and Marc Jackson?

"I'm looking at these situations and saying 90% probably won't happen but all we have to do is jump on the one that does become available"

That's a fair point and I agree most won't happen, I just don't know about the quality of a C that will be available when it does become available. It's inevitable a team will need cap room and to cut costs for one reason or the other, but what are the Knicks going to have to take back? They had to take back Penny (pretty bad) and JYD (very overpaid for his talent). For a C, I'd imagine it'd be even more.

"Can you produce one shred of undeniable evidence that even though the Knicks took back roughly $100 mil in long-term contracts for two players already, they're going to stop now that they're one player short of what they need? Just one shred of indisputable evidence, please." The fact that they've raised prices, fired all the ushers, are charging more for Cablevision and that they're cap is now at over $100 million are four reasons I'd point to that they don't want to spend any more.
#Knickstaps
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/21/2004  7:44 PM
Posted by BigSm00th:

"Please, at least check their payroll if you're gonna say something like that. They owe $50+ mil over three years to players they don't need like Derek Anderson and Ruben Patterson. You don't think they'd love to get rid of one of those players if Ratliff made it clear he wasn't even going to re-sign with them anyway??"

Portland's cap number next year is $19 million. Assuming they pay Randolph, Miles, and Ratliff, it will be at $50 million. They won't need any expiring contracts. (http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/portland.htm)

"How about close to $50 mil owed to Ira Newble and Derek Snow. If Snow doesn't play well, they may prefer a lower-cost alternative. It's an unlikely scenario, but I'd give that at least a 1 or 2% chance of happening."

Cleveland's cap, assuming they re-sign Gooden, Wagner, and Traylor, will be between $35 and 40 million. If they re-sign Ilgauskas, it'd be around $46 million. Why are they going to trade him for expiring contracts they don't need? (http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/cleveland.htm)

"Did anyone twelve months ago seriously think Marbury would be traded?" No, but logically why would Philly trade a 7 foot shot-blocking C for contract reasons when they'll have a young squad. Their cap is pretty reasonable for a big market team once Glenn Robinson comes off after this year ($57 million). If you do get Dalembert, how many bad contracts will they make you take back? What's the trade gonna be? TT, Sweetney, and Penny for Dalembert, Kenny Thomas, and Marc Jackson?

"I'm looking at these situations and saying 90% probably won't happen but all we have to do is jump on the one that does become available"

That's a fair point and I agree most won't happen, I just don't know about the quality of a C that will be available when it does become available. It's inevitable a team will need cap room and to cut costs for one reason or the other, but what are the Knicks going to have to take back? They had to take back Penny (pretty bad) and JYD (very overpaid for his talent). For a C, I'd imagine it'd be even more.

"Can you produce one shred of undeniable evidence that even though the Knicks took back roughly $100 mil in long-term contracts for two players already, they're going to stop now that they're one player short of what they need? Just one shred of indisputable evidence, please." The fact that they've raised prices, fired all the ushers, are charging more for Cablevision and that they're cap is now at over $100 million are four reasons I'd point to that they don't want to spend any more.
The fact that they payroll is so high is evidence that they ARE willing to take on high contracts. The fact that they've raised prices shows that they know they're getting more popular and can get away with raising prices and still make money. It shows them that their strategy of doing Marbury and Crawford types of trades is paying off because they can charge so much more and still have enough fan interest. The fired ushers to save money. There's no clear connection that that's related to their willingess to take back bad contracts, unless you can show that it's impossible to fire ushers and still take back bad contracts. In fact, WHILE firing ushers this summer, they also took back about $64 mil in salary in the Jamal trade ($74 mil minus the $10 mil they gave up).

You still don't seem to get the point about expiring contracts. You're right; those teams have reasonable payrolls, but what matters is that they can still save A TON of money by dumping off overpaid players in exchange for expiring contracts. The Blazers' payroll, for example, may be reasonable after this year, but an owner still would LOVE to put an extra $50 mil in his pocket by trading Ruben Patterson and Derek Anderson (actually, I think we can pull of the trade if we just take one of those contracts) and sign and trade Ratliff. If Ratliff either wanted a larger contract then they were willing to give him or made it clear that he simply wouldn't re-sign with them, then it would be even an easier decision for them. They save $50 mil just to sign and trade a player that they wouldn't be keeping. Ratliff is just one example. Maybe there's not a very high chance of that happening, although it's not hard to imagine Portland's owner finding the opportunity to save dozens of millions of his own personal dollars too appealing to pass.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 08/21/2004 19:47:47]
BigSm00th
Posts: 24504
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/9/2001
Member: #178
USA
8/21/2004  8:41 PM
It's just a difference of opinion at this point. I think we both debated it pretty well and provided information for everything. I'm not going to discuss it anymore though, I've got nothing left to add.

I think trading KT for Eisley and the Bulls' pick is a really smart move, you'd rather go the other route the year after and trade expiring contracts for a C. Why not just do both?
#Knickstaps
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/22/2004  12:06 AM
Posted by BigSm00th:

It's just a difference of opinion at this point. I think we both debated it pretty well and provided information for everything. I'm not going to discuss it anymore though, I've got nothing left to add.

I think trading KT for Eisley and the Bulls' pick is a really smart move, you'd rather go the other route the year after and trade expiring contracts for a C. Why not just do both?
If you can get a lottery pick, that's a completely different story. I wouldn't do a deal like the rumored one of Kurt for Malik Rose and the Spurs pick, which will probably be around 25, though.
MaTT4281
Posts: 34864
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #538
USA
8/22/2004  12:32 AM
I was reading other proposals on ESPN: How about Kurt for Diop and a pick from Cavs.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
8/22/2004  12:59 AM
they trade their 2005 pick for pavolic

diop really stinks i really believe he needs to go to the cba or overseas and play for 2 years.
RIP Crushalot😞
Page 3 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 
« Reply To Topic
need to position oursleves for a reasonably high draft pick somehow
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