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

wow... Dampier is a little pricey
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 3 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
8/25/2004  2:23 PM
Posted by TMS:

well guys...this changes EVERYTHING...how stupid of me to say Dampier wasn't worth a 7 year $73 million dollar deal...the thought of a 36 year old C making near max dollars at the end of his contract after he's had 1 impressive season in the NBA out of 8 is perfectly fine w/me now! i've seen the light!

Hey, you said he was 31, I was just correcting you. Paying a center who's 36 is a little different than paying someone who's 38. Making a silly little face doesnt' mean you weren't wrong. All you have to do is admit it. It's an NBA rule that a 30 year old can't sign a 7 year deal. So how old is Dampier, with his shiny new 7 year deal on the contending Mavericks?

And I think you wouldn't be too upset if the Knicks got a 29 year old center for that money. The Mavs don't need him to score, they need his defense and his blocked shots and his rebounds. Its a coup.

¿ △ ?
AUTOADVERT
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
8/25/2004  2:33 PM
Posted by crzymdups:
Posted by TMS:

well guys...this changes EVERYTHING...how stupid of me to say Dampier wasn't worth a 7 year $73 million dollar deal...the thought of a 36 year old C making near max dollars at the end of his contract after he's had 1 impressive season in the NBA out of 8 is perfectly fine w/me now! i've seen the light!

Hey, you said he was 31, I was just correcting you. Paying a center who's 36 is a little different than paying someone who's 38. Making a silly little face doesnt' mean you weren't wrong. All you have to do is admit it. It's an NBA rule that a 30 year old can't sign a 7 year deal. So how old is Dampier, with his shiny new 7 year deal on the contending Mavericks?

And I think you wouldn't be too upset if the Knicks got a 29 year old center for that money. The Mavs don't need him to score, they need his defense and his blocked shots and his rebounds. Its a coup.

i didn't have a problem admitting i was off...i already said so in my last post after checking on ESPN...if i was off by 2 years, then fine...i didn't know about that NBA rule...thanks for pointing it out to me...

it still doesn't change the fact that offering Dampier a 7 year deal at that money would be a big risk that isn't justifiable to me...if we were talking about a young up & coming stud like a Dalembert or Magloire, it's a different story...i'd be perfectly fine w/that...but for Dampier a 5 year deal at $11 mil per is more than fair in my eyes, & alot less risky than signing him to a more longterm deal...whether he's 29 or 30, i think he's reached his peak already...i just don't see him being any better than he was last year, & i've already seen much better players than him have huge dropoffs in performance in their later years after having signed big contracts, & these guys had more than just 1 good season before they signed those longterm deals.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
fishmike
Posts: 53805
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
8/25/2004  2:41 PM
the Mavs are in a different situation then we are. They can more easily recover from a mistake because they have drafted MUCH better than we have and have more talent to start out with. Daniels, Howard, Pavel, the Nigerian kid... they have a young up and coming nucleus as well as one of the league's top 5 players. Some guys are overpaid but they have produced in the win column.

I wouldnt have a problem paying Dampier that money for the Knicks if we knew Houston was 100% healthy, and it dodnt cost us every little asset we have to improve the team. A line up of Marbury, Houston, TT, KT and Dampier w/ a bench of Crawford, Sweetney, Penny and Nazr is good enough to contend for a title, at least on paper. Then you have next year's #1, Sweetney and Ariza in the pipeline and some expiring deals to lower the payroll and or aquire another player.

To me you cant risk strapping yourself and your future w/ a contract like that if you dont have those other pieces in place. The Mavs do, we dont.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
8/25/2004  2:51 PM
you would have had to give up a package like Deke, Othella & 2 1st round picks or possibly even more (considering the other young players the Mavs gave up in that 8 player trade) along w/signing Dampier to that contract to get him...i definitely could not have justified the move under those conditions.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
8/25/2004  3:07 PM
Posted by fishmike:

the Mavs are in a different situation then we are. They can more easily recover from a mistake because they have drafted MUCH better than we have and have more talent to start out with. Daniels, Howard, Pavel, the Nigerian kid... they have a young up and coming nucleus as well as one of the league's top 5 players. Some guys are overpaid but they have produced in the win column.

I wouldnt have a problem paying Dampier that money for the Knicks if we knew Houston was 100% healthy, and it dodnt cost us every little asset we have to improve the team. A line up of Marbury, Houston, TT, KT and Dampier w/ a bench of Crawford, Sweetney, Penny and Nazr is good enough to contend for a title, at least on paper. Then you have next year's #1, Sweetney and Ariza in the pipeline and some expiring deals to lower the payroll and or aquire another player.

To me you cant risk strapping yourself and your future w/ a contract like that if you dont have those other pieces in place. The Mavs do, we dont.

I understand your point to some degree but my problem with Dallas is that they have reached as far as they can go with that nucleus of Dirk, Finley and nash, nash is gone now and Dampier is there, IMO that still is not enough to beat the 4 teams (Houston, spurs, Kings and wolves) in the west, dumping that much cash and years in Dampier will and has to come back and bite them at some time. We are talking about a guy who has perfected the art of underachieving... I honestly think that Kenyon martin would have been a better fit there, we all knew GS was a mess but dampier IMO was a part of the problem there in Golden state.. time will tell, but I am not sold on Dampier at all. Neither am I sold on the mavs..
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
8/25/2004  3:14 PM
what's lost in all this is that don nelson will finally get a first real center to work with (well, not including the ewing fiasco). if they don't get to the western conference finals, at least, he'll probalby get fired.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
8/25/2004  5:37 PM
whats the BS? Our offer to Dampier in the S+T was 6 yeasr 67.5 mm--it's actually atad more per year than the dallas deal. the reason why he got that extra year from dallas is because his agent proved he just turned 29 last month. Guys over 30 cant get 7 years--so they negotiated the contract for a few mm more. But the BOTTOM line was WE were going to pay him 6 years 67.5mm and take on escymeyer as well. I didnt hear to many people saying no way--including me because i realize that the way things are with the Knicks-the odds of us getting something better than dampier is low. His market is 10mm$ if brian cardinal makes nearly 7mm a year if camby makes over 10 than dampier in this market got a fair contract. its impossible to guage what the knicks are doing--thats why i thought it would be good if we could acquire Dampier--heck many teams GOOD teams tried and they cant all be wrong:>) thats kind of ludicrous to say will give you 5 years when the hawks were offering 6 at nearly 60mm--isiah was trying to get dampier adn the cost was going to be 65MM+ no matter what. i think it was reasonable to assume that if you got 4-5 years out of the 6 your be satisfied.
RIP Crushalot😞
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/25/2004  5:41 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:

whats the BS? Our offer to Dampier in the S+T was 6 yeasr 67.5 mm
I know you hate providing links for your claims but I personally would be interested in knowing where that claim came from.

Regarding Dampier, I would give him a long-term deal; my only comment was that I think Crawford is less of a risk for a long-term deal because of the stagees they're at in their careers. But I think both are worthwhile risks when you're over the cap and have no need to get under it.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
8/25/2004  10:45 PM
the bottom line is the NY Knicks are going to have a big problem trying to find a real C like Dampier---they wouldve gladly forked over the cash and picks if they had them. there is no C on the horizon unless we can get up into the higher end of the draft OR we find a young guy like Lampe Ramos or Harrison and take the time to let them develop.
RIP Crushalot😞
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/25/2004  10:56 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:

the bottom line is the NY Knicks are going to have a big problem trying to find a real C like Dampier---they wouldve gladly forked over the cash and picks if they had them. there is no C on the horizon unless we can get up into the higher end of the draft OR we find a young guy like Lampe Ramos or Harrison and take the time to let them develop.
Was Marbury "on the horizon" 12 months ago?
HARDCOREKNICKSFAN
Posts: 26191
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 6/24/2002
Member: #263
USA
8/25/2004  11:08 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by BRIGGS:

the bottom line is the NY Knicks are going to have a big problem trying to find a real C like Dampier---they wouldve gladly forked over the cash and picks if they had them. there is no C on the horizon unless we can get up into the higher end of the draft OR we find a young guy like Lampe Ramos or Harrison and take the time to let them develop.
Was Marbury "on the horizon" 12 months ago?

Good point. I am glad we didn't get Damp for 7 years.

In time, Messiah Thomas will hustle up another move to help solidify the front line. That help will end up working out much better for us in the long run, whereas that Damp 7yr/73M shenanigan wouldn't have.
Another season, and more adversity to persevere through. We will get the job done, even BETTER than last year. GO KNICKS!
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
8/26/2004  8:54 AM
Posted by BRIGGS:

the BOTTOM line was WE were going to pay him 6 years 67.5mm and take on escymeyer as well. I didnt hear to many people saying no way

the idea back then was that you would get Dampier in a sign & trade for Kurt Thomas & Nazr Mohammed...in that scenario, i would have been reluctant over the 6 year deal, yet would have accepted the trade since you'd be getting a legitimate C w/o giving up any draft picks in the process as well as getting rid of KT's contract & freeing up time for Sweetney to start...you seem to think that scenario is the same thing as giving up 2 expiring contracts, 2 1st round picks, 2 young players, take on a bad, useless contract of a player that will never see any playing time, AND give Dampier 7 years at big money after 1 good season in the NBA...i love how you ignore little things like FACTS to try & prove your points, BRIGGS.
thats kind of ludicrous to say will give you 5 years when the hawks were offering 6 at nearly 60mm--isiah was trying to get dampier adn the cost was going to be 65MM+ no matter what. i think it was reasonable to assume that if you got 4-5 years out of the 6 your be satisfied.

weren't you the one who made a separate thread a while ago that you felt Dampier would sign w/the Knicks for the MLE, even though it was pointed out to you repeatedly that the Hawks had a much better offer on the table? funny how you've undergone a complete 180 degree turnaround in your views & now you're telling others how the Knicks never had a shot at Dampier for anything less than what the Hawks were offering.

[Edited by - TMS on 08/26/2004 08:59:36]
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Page 3 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 
« Reply To Topic
wow... Dampier is a little pricey
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