Posted by fishmike:

cap flexibility or cap space?

Cap flexibility allows you to get cap space. You've talked about Lee and Nate being tradeable if they have reasonable contracts. I'm sure a team would give up more than just an expiring contract for them, which is the worst case scenario and would be comparable to letting them walk.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by fishmike:

we are a rebuilding team. We are in the process of turning over this roster from the Isiah era. We have been a losing team for many years now.

Has any team ever purposely let good productive young players go for the sake of a chance to sign a FA and get cap space? I cant get my head around that mindset.

I understand DW wants to be a player in 2010 and thats fine. There will be a lot of good players and thats fine. Lee and Nate are good players also and their depth allowed us to let Crawford and Zach go and not take that big a hit. There's nobody behind them waiting to do the same.

I love that DW is building the team responsibly. No downside to that. Hopefully he continues the trend.

The Knicks are in position to let Lee and Nate walk away for nothing because Walsh has let it get this far. Everybody was aware of a situation and nobody wanted to be in a position where that could happen. Walsh could have traded them at the draft last year, during the summer, during the first half of the season or at the trade deadline. He ended up pulling Lee off the table days before the deadline and it was reported that he declined an offer for Jeffries and Nate from the Kings for contracts that expire in 2010. Who knows what Walsh could have gotten back if he had actively shopped them.

Would it have been acceptable to you if Walsh made that Nate and Jeffries trade, which would have enabled them to re-sign Lee and still have room for 2 max contracts in 2010?

Sorry but putting yourself in a position where 2 assets can walk away for nothing isn't responsible.

That's about the silliest thing ever. So, if a GM does not sign a rookie contract by the summer before the 4th year it's a bad thing that will doom you forever?

Is it bad to want a GM to evaluate his team or should he just blindly take the word of the likes of Isiah and resign them?

If Nate and Jefferies could have been traded by the deadline last year, they can still be traded this summer. Same players and Nate may even upgrade his value.

Posted by martin:

BTW, why aren't LeBron and Wade resigned? Those assets can walk away for nothing.

Well they were re-signed before they could walk from their rookie contract. And they are currently signed thru next summer

Their situations are vastly different than Nate and Lee's so I'm not sure why you brought them up.

Posted by martin:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by fishmike:

we are a rebuilding team. We are in the process of turning over this roster from the Isiah era. We have been a losing team for many years now.

Has any team ever purposely let good productive young players go for the sake of a chance to sign a FA and get cap space? I cant get my head around that mindset.

I understand DW wants to be a player in 2010 and thats fine. There will be a lot of good players and thats fine. Lee and Nate are good players also and their depth allowed us to let Crawford and Zach go and not take that big a hit. There's nobody behind them waiting to do the same.

I love that DW is building the team responsibly. No downside to that. Hopefully he continues the trend.

The Knicks are in position to let Lee and Nate walk away for nothing because Walsh has let it get this far. Everybody was aware of a situation and nobody wanted to be in a position where that could happen. Walsh could have traded them at the draft last year, during the summer, during the first half of the season or at the trade deadline. He ended up pulling Lee off the table days before the deadline and it was reported that he declined an offer for Jeffries and Nate from the Kings for contracts that expire in 2010. Who knows what Walsh could have gotten back if he had actively shopped them.

Would it have been acceptable to you if Walsh made that Nate and Jeffries trade, which would have enabled them to re-sign Lee and still have room for 2 max contracts in 2010?

Sorry but putting yourself in a position where 2 assets can walk away for nothing isn't responsible.

That's about the silliest thing ever. So, if a GM does not sign a rookie contract by the summer before the 4th year it's a bad thing that will doom you forever?

Is it bad to want a GM to evaluate his team or should he just blindly take the word of the likes of Isiah and resign them?

If Nate and Jefferies could have been traded by the deadline last year, they can still be traded this summer. Same players and Nate may even upgrade his value.

A bad thing that will doom you forever? A little dramatic don't you think? If a contract hasn't been signed by the end of the 4th year of the players rookie contract, you risk letting that player walking away and getting nothing in return. The Knicks don't have to re-sign anybody at all costs. There's going to be a dollar amount where the Knicks will rather let the player walk. It didn't have to get to that point.

Walsh has had time to evaluate the players. He made the decision not to trade Nate with an offer on the table and to take Lee off the table altogether days before the trade deadline.

Those players can be traded but the situations are all different. Nobody is taking Jeffries alone, the players offered at the deadline are no longer available, Nate is a restricted free agent, there's no market for teams making playoff pushes like there is at the deadline...

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by martin:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by martin:

BTW, why aren't LeBron and Wade resigned? Those assets can walk away for nothing.

Well they were re-signed before they could walk from their rookie contract. And they are currently signed thru next summer

Their situations are vastly different than Nate and Lee's so I'm not sure why you brought them up.

Nate and Lee are signed through next summer too.

LeBron and Wade are restricted free agents this summer?

it's the same scenario. Each player has a contract through 2010. Each player can be lost by their respective teams if they don't sign extensions. They can all walk away for nothing if not extended beyond 2010.

wait a sec... Nate and Lee are restricted? Weird.. based on your post I was under the impression that we are at risk of losing them for nothing. So what exactly is the risk again? Rather than big against ourselves and offer them extensions last summer DW risks having to match an offer from another team? Is that it? Wouldnt that be considered paying market value?

The best part is if DW did extend them you would be harping about extending losing players that never accomplished anything.

So old dude... tell me something interesting.

The only way Nate/Lee walk away for nothing is if some team overpays for them and if that occurs good for them. I don't want to overpay for either one.

Posted by islesfan:


They sign a contract with another team and Walsh doesn't match because he doesn't want to take up cap room that will prevent them from signing even a single max free agent.

Its hardly inconceivable.

I'm sure Walsh has a price that he's willing to pay for Lee/Nate and if someone offers more than that then it is hardly reasonable to match it. Plus there is always the possibility of the Knicks matching and doing a S&T.