Posted by iyamwutiam:

Sigh! Under the assumption we shed no salary and make minimal moves here's the stuation...


iyamwutiam David Lee is gonna get paid you might as well come to grips with this or else he's a goner. He'll be in the second yr of a new contract that will pay him approximately $10mil/yr(6yr $60mil). Add $9mil 2nd yr salary at least for Lee now we're at $55mil. Nate he's gonna get a tad more than the MLE his first yr salary will be around $6mil possibly $7mil. Add that to $55mil now we're at approximately $61-62mil. You then have to add a Top 7 pick salary in there not in case you're thinking about trading it that pick will be in the 3rd yr of his contract add at least another $3mil to the $61-62mil now we're at $65mil. We probably won't make the playoffs next yr and if we don't trade that pick add another $2mil in salary from a Top 12 minimum lottery pick, now we're at $67mil. Now do you honestly believe we allow our MLE to remain dormant for 2yrs straight? If not pick a yr from now till 2010/2011 in which we exercise all if not a portion of it and add at least another $3-6mil in salary to the $67mil. The MLE will rise more than likely over the next yr or so and be pretty much $6mil in value.


Look you've spent all this time trying to paint I SAY UGH as a GM who has set us up with a nice future financially but in actuality he hasn't.

Personally - I don't see David Lee as a 10M a year player much less Nate at a mid-level especially when you look at Haslem around 6.5M. Same goes for Nate.

You're very naive.

Lee will get offered from other teams if he isn't extended by us before he hits the market about a 5yr/$50mil contract if not more. Double Double players usually make double digit salaries/yr in this league just in case you didn't know that already. The MLE contract already averages $6mil/yr Kapono, Carroll, and Luke Walton got MLE deals this summer. Jerome and Jeffries make approximately $6mil/yr and Nate's a better player than them. In order to retain Nate if he isn't extended by us first we have to do slightly better than an MLE deal.

Also - in a sign and trade- you can give them players back. As I pointed out - say you sign Dwayne Wade as an example - for a max contract- 100 M for 6 years or so. You can send them back Curry and Randolph - and hava front loaded contract that pays Wade 29M in his first year and still be under the rules. Miami would get two expirings -Curry and Randolph - so this is what I meant. So if you were at the cap before you signed - you could still be at the cap with the addition of a big time free agent. You can obviously give up some picks - 1 first and say a second rounder.

I completely understand your example but it's a very horrible one. You're not offering Curry nor Randolph together to any team and getting back a star player. Look at the 2-3 deals that almost happened at the deadline and the one over this summer.

Curry 4 J-Will/Ricky Davis
Randolph 4 Bobby Simmons/Dan Gadzurich/CV
Randolph 4 Channing/Steve Francis

So as I see it In order for Zach or Curry to increase their trade value, more than anything else, they have to contribute to winning basketball which won't be happening anytime soon.

1. Randolph/Curry/Crawford/Jeffries are all expiring - and you can basically match anyone. Say Cleveland offered Le Bron 120M for 6 years - we can beat that with say 150M for 6 years and pay him 40M in his first year. It can be done.

No we can't. We can only offer him as much as Cleveland can offer him in a S&T. Holy Crap you're full of inaccurate information. We can only offer him 5yrs max outright and 6yrs in a S&T. You can only front load up to a certain % of his first yr salary and it's not 200% like in your example. Man can fly to and land on the moon, it doesn't mean I'll be. Please stop with the La La Land scenarios. When has anything you're suggesting ever happened.

I am not sure about the MLE - but why should we not allow it to be dormant.

Because by the 2009/2010 season we'll have 10 players under contract including the pick if players and teams exercise their options. If such scenario doesn't happen how do you think we're going to fill out the roster to meet the 15man requirement?

You have one of two strategies - not be over the cap or be over the cap. We have already tried the former (didn't work) and now we try the latter. IT's statement' regarding the cap/trades etc - would have to imply that this is the direction we are going. In addition- at some point -its about bloody well time -we did go in this direction since the last 25 years or so - we have been under the cap like once. So about time - the Knicks go with this strategy- so I guess - the answer would be -no- no signing MLEs. No overpaying for Lee or Robinson.

We won't be under the cap by 2010/2011 unless we completely gut the team. I already outlined to you we will be over if everything remains as is. So what you're suggesting is we're really going to suck to meet the latter approach, giving us a 0% shot at someone like Lebron, meanwhile handing Utah our 2010 Top 5 Lottery pick over. You realize there's no protection after 2009, we owe them a first rounder from the Marbury trade still. I'm sure you forgot that.

Lee at 10M a year is a joke !!! That's David West money - and I doubt David Lee will become David West. I really know -so many people would love for him to become a member of the over-paid (because I look like the fans) poster boy club such as Troy Murphy, Croshere, Dunleavy etc- but other than that universal American ethic - I see no real reason for it.

Lee's getting paid maybe not by us but rest assured he's going to get some scrilla.

So the answer is :
Expiring contracts 4 - can help us land a player because salaries have to MATCH - and so we would not be over the cap - we would just be exchanguing expiring contracts for long term contracts. Also I don't believe the Lee and Robinson are worth that kind of money- maybe Montae Ellis, Josh Smith etc. -- so I am not expecting that kind of cap situation.

Lastly- it is still possible - to trade someone for an expiring - either Crawford or Randolph. We don't know. As I said -every one feels like a gennius because of hindsight - but that doesn't make you one. The future is uncertain.

Well Duh if you would allow people to educate you some, you would understand this is what we're getting at.



[Edited by - TrueBlue on 02-25-2008 9:36 PM]

I can only imagine the horror when iamwutiam finally figures out that we can't get Lebron.

The thread killer strikes again!

Posted by codeunknown:

I can only imagine the horror when iamwutiam finally figures out that we can't get Lebron.

No matter, we can just go for McGrady or TJ Ford instead, assuming they haven't retired by then.

Ok True:
Here goes-

Curry 4 J-Will/Ricky Davis
Randolph 4 Bobby Simmons/Dan Gadzurich/CV
Randolph 4 Channing/Steve Francis

So as I see it In order for Zach or Curry to increase their trade value, more than anything else, they have to contribute to winning basketball which won't be happening anytime soon.

]

1. If teams are trying to take advantage of the Knicks by offering a bag of Cheetos, 3 over paid under-performing players with long term contracts for one of your best over-paid players- that does NOT mean that it is the best deal you can get. It just means they want to take advantage of what they perceive as your organization being under pressure - and hope that you will make a change for the sake of appearances ofr your fans.

2. There is a BIG difference between an expiring contract and exchanging players that have varying long term contracts but add up to the same.

No we can't. We can only offer him as much as Cleveland can offer him in a S&T. Holy Crap you're full of inaccurate information. We can only offer him 5yrs max outright and 6yrs in a S&T. You can only front load up to a certain % of his first yr salary and it's not 200% like in your example. Man can fly to and land on the moon, it doesn't mean I'll be. Please stop with the La La Land scenarios. When has anything you're suggesting ever happened.

The point you refuse to understand is - that one is trading an expiring contract in return for a long term committment- ths is important in the NBA since all contracts are guaranteed -even if the player retires. It is advantageous for any team in the NBA - if they are goigng to lose the player to get expiring contracts of whch we will have 4 !! All large ones basically. At worse- like you said - let them expire- but again they can be valuable in a sign and trade-which is all I am saying.

Whether youu think David Lee is a 'great' player or not is irrelevant and what other teams 'may' pay him is irrelevant. Did you notice that all your examples -Walton, Kopono and Carrol -are also memners of the same poster boy club - gee I look like the majority of fans- club. But there are many other players -Jamario Moon, Turkaglo, Jeff Foster, Nocioni, Fabricio Oberto etc -that are not making near the salary you project your precious David Lee.

In fact- Ginobli is getting paid less than what you think Lee should go for - so i say - 'Don't let the door hit you on the way out-David, been nice knowing you - and you too Nate". This is not unreasonable - he is not a Josh Smith, Al Jefferson - and if he wishes to be a over paid like Raef La Frentz- than fine - just not with the Knicks.

We don't make the decisions - but we can have an opinion. My opinion is let them walk- neither of them have shown the ability to make the Knicks -that much better (get them to 40 wins) IMO.


As for players making up the roster - have you been to hoopshype- its amazing how many teams -San Antonio, Boston, Charlotte etc have low salaried players- some as low as 9k a year (not a Typo)!! So getting a roster of 15 players is quite possible with out spending a lot of money.

The points are rather simple:
1. Expiring contracts help in trade situations- and if you have a lot of them - its a good thing.
2. The probability that we actually get a 'franchhise' type guy is low- since all franchises (especially Clevelandd and Miami) will try their best to keep them.

Look the CBA is a bit complicated - and as I said I am not well versed on it - but teams do creative deals often enough and if the NBA wants to keep the NY market involved - something can be done.


I would like to see a link where it says you can not front load a contract beyond a certain amount. Because I think - it should make no difference. Contracts are always stated at xM over y years. So what difference does it make if he makes 40M, 30M 20M,10M,10M, 10M- as opposed to 20M over 6 years? I know there is a cap on the total amount because of the garnet deal - but I am not sure that you can be capped out for how much you make in a year? No doubt the CBA is quite complicated and thats why they have capologists. I am just saying that it would benefit the Knicks to do it that way - as when the player gets older - he will count less aginst your cap and give you more future flexibility.

Anyway - on the whole we disagree about a few things:
1. The value of Lee and Robinson I don't see it as high as you do.
2. The amount of flexibility expiring contracts offer you in a sign and trade.
3. The salary cap is not the most important factor in getting a top level player http://www.cosellout.com/?p=131

I seriously doubt - the Knicks in particular can literally be a 20 win teaam for 4 years to get to a total salry of say 30M with the cap being at say 70M. It is possible - but somehow - I think that ownership/fans would not want this. I seriously doubt the resolve of 'most'fans -even if iT was fired today - to accept 3 more seasons of 25-57 or so.

It is 3 more years from now - if we let everyone expire -do no MLE - for the next 3 years - absolutely- but like I said -Portland was almost run out of town lliterally. They had to 'miraculously' get the number one pick (maybe we will too?) and have what 'appeared' to be a good season - just like the New Orleans Saints 'miraculously' went to the playoffs after Katrina.

At the end of the day - its a closed monopoly and I doubt that these things all 'happen' by coincidence. All I am really saying is - that our salary cap position (relatively) will be better than it has been in over 25 years!! If we don't do anything drastic.


[Edited by - iyamwutiam on 02-25-2008 11:59 PM]

[Edited by - iyamwutiam on 02-26-2008 12:01 AM]

[Edited by - iyamwutiam on 02-26-2008 12:03 AM]

No -greekssuckass.com

Well I will see you on the other site though ;)
But seriously- I hope not - I mean I want to see the Knciks do well. Obviously - some of us- call it denial - don't want to believe it is as horrendous as it is.

Sometimes- I do obviously see your POV. I think the danger is - after next year - we will be as close to being a well managed salary cap wise then we have ever been in atleast 12 years!! So I am 'now' hoping that IT does no more damge, lets everyone expire and leave when his contract expires. It doesn't seem like he is going to get fired.

Also I am praying for a few miracles- Curry plays well, Randolph plays well, Crawford actually has ONE season where he shoots over 45%, Q Rich actually has ONE season where he is 40% from the 3. That sort of thing. This year has been the MOST painful year- maybe because there have been so many of them in a row.

Posted by iyamwutiam:

Ok True:
Here goes-

1. If teams are trying to take advantage of the Knicks by offering a bag of Cheetos, 3 over paid under-performing players with long term contracts for one of your best over-paid players- that does NOT mean that it is the best deal you can get. It just means they want to take advantage of what they perceive as your organization being under pressure - and hope that you will make a change for the sake of appearances ofr your fans.

I SAY UGH was ready to pull the trigger the Bucks owner Kohl balked at adding Zach to their team

2. There is a BIG difference between an expiring contract and exchanging players that have varying long term contracts but add up to the same.

I'm whistling this NO KIDDING point off the record

The point you refuse to understand is - that one is trading an expiring contract in return for a long term committment- ths is important in the NBA since all contracts are guaranteed -even if the player retires. It is advantageous for any team in the NBA - if they are goigng to lose the player to get expiring contracts of whch we will have 4 !! All large ones basically. At worse- like you said - let them expire- but again they can be valuable in a sign and trade-which is all I am saying.

Not for an All-Star, Super-Star, Franchise, Top 5 Player, they won't be.

Whether youu think David Lee is a 'great' player or not is irrelevant and what other teams 'may' pay him is irrelevant.

Ok On one hand you say teams really don't like letting expiring contracts walk away and on the other hand you feel losing a young talented player such as Lee isn't that a big deal because you don't want to pay him what his market value more than likely will be. Your continual nonsense is your biggest setback. So are you saying this team scratches the option to S&T Lee? Let Lee Walk if he wants 5yr/$50mil? Let me ask you this question

Who do you think would have most trade value right now if this was a scenario heading into the summer....

Lee hitting the market as a RFA

or

Curry's expiring
Jeffries expiring
Zach's expiring
Jeffries expiring

Did you notice that all your examples -Walton, Kopono and Carrol -are also memners of the same poster boy club - gee I look like the majority of fans- club. But there are many other players -Jamario Moon, Turkaglo, Jeff Foster, Nocioni, Fabricio Oberto etc -that are not making near the salary you project your precious David Lee.

WOW I'm pretty pissed off you forced me to break this up because you don't know how to follow what was said.

I never compared those guys to Lee I compared a couple of them to what Nate more than likely will receive. Then to top it off you throw in guys who are truly irrelevant to the conversation like Jamario Moon and Jeff Foster. Jamario Moon is a rookie from overseas why would he be making $10mil/yr(Lee's projected salary) or even $6-7/yr(Nate's projected salary)? WTH! Jeff Foster how is he even worthy of discussing? I said, and let me repeat this to you, DOUBLE DOUBLE GUYS USUALLY MAKE DOUBLE DIGIT SALARY PER YEAR. You didn't name one guy who is a or damn near double double guy. Hedo Turkeyglue signed his contract how long ago and what were his stats when he did? Hedo signed I believe a 6yr/$37mil back in 04/05 as a Free Agent. His stats at the time were 9.2ppg, 1.9ast, 4.5reb, 42%3pt(fg), 40%(fg), 26min/gm. Now I never compared Nate to Hedo but go ahead and look up what Nate's stats are this yr and compare them to Hedo and tell me 4yrs removed from the deal Hedo signed if Nate doesn't deserve what Hedo's making now.

In fact- Ginobli is getting paid less than what you think Lee should go for - so i say - 'Don't let the door hit you on the way out-David, been nice knowing you - and you too Nate". This is not unreasonable - he is not a Josh Smith, Al Jefferson - and if he wishes to be a over paid like Raef La Frentz- than fine - just not with the Knicks.

Only you would compare well in the past market value to future market value. Ginobli signed a 6yr/$52mil extension from the Spurs back in 2004/2005. We're projecting 2009/2010 Extensions, which are usually less than open market contracts for a hot commodity player. Lee is a hot commodity across the league. In Ginobli's 2nd yr of contract he was making $7.5mil and you also have to factor Ginobli is a guard not a big. Bigs get paid more in comparison usually. So 5yrs removed, if Lee doesn't receive and/or sign an extension from us considering the economical growth of the league you don't think Lee stands a chance to make $1.5mil more in his second yr vs Gindobli considering Lee's game and league value? As far as Al Jefferson he signed a 5yr/$65mil extension uhhhhh by my math that's $13mil/yr not $10mil/yr where I have Lee slated.

We don't make the decisions - but we can have an opinion. My opinion is let them walk- neither of them have shown the ability to make the Knicks -that much better (get them to 40 wins) IMO.

It's nice know that Josh Smith and Al Jefferson have though huh? I'm not knocking their games I'd love to have both of them but I'm exposing your hypocrisy.

As for players making up the roster - have you been to hoopshype- its amazing how many teams -San Antonio, Boston, Charlotte etc have low salaried players- some as low as 9k a year (not a Typo)!! So getting a roster of 15 players is quite possible with out spending a lot of money.

So like I said your plan is to fill the roster up with NBDL caliber CBA rejects and suck for a couple more yrs while we had Utah our Lottery pick

The points are rather simple:
1. Expiring contracts help in trade situations- and if you have a lot of them - its a good thing.
2. The probability that we actually get a 'franchhise' type guy is low- since all franchises (especially Clevelandd and Miami) will try their best to keep them.

Look the CBA is a bit complicated - and as I said I am not well versed on it - but teams do creative deals often enough and if the NBA wants to keep the NY market involved - something can be done.

Oh so this isn't about I SAY UGH working his magic as a GM it's about David Stern talking Cleveland into accepting our trash for Lebron or the likes. I get it.

I would like to see a link where it says you can not front load a contract beyond a certain amount. Because I think - it should make no difference. Contracts are always stated at xM over y years. So what difference does it make if he makes 40M, 30M 20M,10M,10M, 10M- as opposed to 20M over 6 years? I know there is a cap on the total amount because of the garnet deal - but I am not sure that you can be capped out for how much you make in a year? No doubt the CBA is quite complicated and thats why they have capologists. I am just saying that it would benefit the Knicks to do it that way - as when the player gets older - he will count less against your cap and give you more future flexibility.

Just think for a second what you're saying. If you feel there's no cap on what a player can make in a yr why not in your scenario give Lebron all $120mil up front and give us 0 in cap over the remaining yrs? You can only front load up to a %, which are the annual raises given to a player each yr over the course of a contract. So each yr Lebron would receive a 10% raise over 6yrs, instead of spanning it over 6yrs you give him the raises up front in his first yr, therefore his salary decreases each yr. Also why would you give a player that much money up front $40mil(1rst yr), $30mil(2nd yr) when the cap would be around $60, you wouldn't be able to put a team around Lebron in his first or second yr. Hmmmmmm where have we seen this play out before does Kevin Garnett ring a bell didn't you mention him?

Anyway - on the whole we disagree about a few things:
1. The value of Lee and Robinson I don't see it as high as you do.
2. The amount of flexibility expiring contracts offer you in a sign and trade.
3. The salary cap is not the most important factor in getting a top level player http://www.cosellout.com/?p=131

I seriously doubt - the Knicks in particular can literally be a 20 win teaam for 4 years to get to a total salry of say 30M with the cap being at say 70M. It is possible - but somehow - I think that ownership/fans would not want this. I seriously doubt the resolve of 'most'fans -even if iT was fired today - to accept 3 more seasons of 25-57 or so.

We're headed for 25-35 seasons the next 2yrs anyway and in particular the Over The Rainbow ideas you've presented. And referencing COSELLOUT is totally unnecessary. Most of us here understand what needs to be and can be done. I wish you did.

It is 3 more years from now - if we let everyone expire -do no MLE - for the next 3 years - absolutely- but like I said -Portland was almost run out of town lliterally. They had to 'miraculously' get the number one pick (maybe we will too?) and have what 'appeared' to be a good season - just like the New Orleans Saints 'miraculously' went to the playoffs after Katrina.

At the end of the day - its a closed monopoly and I doubt that these things all 'happen' by coincidence. All I am really saying is - that our salary cap position (relatively) will be better than it has been in over 25 years!! If we don't do anything drastic.

Babble Babble Babble Babble Babble is all I hear in this last paragraph

No credit given to I SAY UGH then, considering the conclusion.


[Edited by - TrueBlue on 02-26-2008 2:09 PM]

Everybody calm down. Lebron is coming.

Posted by martin:

^ I feel like I just read an oohah post

Ok I'm Blueballs and now Oohah... what's up Martin?


No Explanations given just hit and run commentary from you.

iyamwutiam:


You never replied to my last long post why not?