martin wrote:your underlying assumption is wrong. The plan was to build a contender by way of cap space and flexibility. The first target/goal of that plan was LeBron and a second max guy next to him.

We missed on LeBron and still have flexibility and cap space to build a contender.

No my underlying assumption is not wrong. The plan was to go from being a bad team to a contender in one fell swoop by Signing Lebron James and an excellent free agent or barring that, 2 max free agents. While the Knicks do have cap flexibility I don't see that they have the goods to attract the remaining free agent next season. They also don't have a lot of assets outside of cap room to build a team. For example I think Carmello Anthony will more likely sign in Chicago assuming he wants to win.

Chris Paul may be a possibility and he would make the Knicks good-mediocre but I don't think that team would contend. I guess I am different from a lot of people in that while I understand that between bad and contender is mediocre, I want the actual goal to be contending, and I don't think that is really what MSG is about anymore.

Add to that I don't have the faith in Walsh or D'Antoni to surround the (hopefully) 2 stars with the right players and the future looks grim.

Time to start over...again. New management, new coach. No more saviors. Simply build a good team. No gimmicks. No reverse-starphucking. Just build a good foundation.

oohah

The plan was to get LeBron James. That is why there have been LeBron countdowns in the papers etc. That is why the Knicks had one of the worlds' biggest agencies put together a pitch for LeBron, and that is the reason that YOU ALL have been talking about LeBron for 2 years.

Seriously. It is okay to admit when things go wrong. It does not make you less of a fan.

oohah

Solace wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Solace wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Solace wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:He "cleaned up the mess" by giving up a lottery pick an 3 1st round draft picks (with the result so far being simply that we were in a position to offer $100 million to Amare). Does that really deserve so much credit?

I think you're conveniently ignoring some other steps in the cleanup process. That's not a very good summary of the actual results. That being said, I think it's fair to argue the Jordan Hill part. Look, that only happens if we were sure we had LeBron. Obviously, we were sure, but the information was bad. I don't fault him for going all out because of the confidence. The Jordan Hill trade obviously did not work out. In retrospect, I think everyone would like to undo that trade. On the flipside, Jordan Hill was traded because he's only going to be a marginal NBA player, unfortunately. I'm not going to advocate losing picks for nothing (except when they clear cap room like Miami did AND it actually works in getting a star player like LeBron). However, I think it's fair to say that Donnie did a lot more good than harm and so far, we're in great position for 2011. It's not plan A, but it's something relevant, because other Knicks GMs have completely folded when plan A didn't work.

My bad that I was off by a pick like Cosmic pointed out. Any other good that he's done--and I'll give credit for the Randolph trade--were not dependent on the 2010 cap space plan. They could have been done without the 2010 cap space plan. I was posting a summary of the 2010 cap space plan (not Walsh overall) and I don't see how it's inaccurate (with the exception of mistakenly adding a pick to what we gave up). I think it would have been fully accurate to say that the 2010 cap space plan has resulted in giving up a player we drafted in the lottery, 1 1st round pick outright, trading down in another 1st round for the benefit of the opportunity to offer Amare $100 mil. That may change if we add more. We may also get to sign someone like Mike Miller for $50 mil in which case that would have to be added to our half of the equation. It still doesn't look to me like the 2010 cap space plan worked out impressively.

Well, as Cosmic pointed out, you were off by three, not one. Jordan Hill was a pick, but they traded for a player, not a pick. I seriously doubt if the Rockets had the #8 pick that they would've taken Jordan Hill. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. He's a player that a lot of people don't think all that highly of. So, take that for what it's worth. The second pick is a swap, and Cosmic has pointed out numerous times, there's a good chance that a swap won't even happen. If it does, okay, we won't be dropping very many slots. So, there's one pick that we're actually giving up, not three. I think the price of that trade is very overrated. If Jordan Hill was all he was cracked up to be, we wouldn't need to have added the swap and the pick.

That being said, would I like to undo the trade, since it effectively gave us little result? Sure. However, it was a high reward potential, relatively low risk trade. Let's not paint it like we mortgaged the entire franchise on it. The move itself was a failure, but not a colossal failure. This move in of itself, probably will be a blip on the radar and not a significant factor in how the Knicks do going forward.

As for the overall 2010 cap space plan, let's be fair for a moment. It worked out just fine. Amare is better than everything we gave up, combined. With Amare, we will have the best team we've had since Jeff Van Gundy was coaching. That's just a fact. The Jordan Hill trade did not work out, but it's hard to reasonably criticize too heavily for taking that risk when the stakes were as high as they were. We will move forward.

Three?! I was off by one. When you swap you ARE giving up a pick, and you get a lower one back. And Hill was Walsh's lottery pick. I think we have quite different views of Amare and Lee. I think Briggs is right, and the stat analyses that have been posted comparing Lee and Amare give a reasonable impression of both. I like Amare I don't think a team that needs to do serious long-term rebuilding should be giving him a $100 mil contract.

Well, I'm not going to argue semantics. Considering the fact that the swap might not happen, yet you've already written it off, what's the point of discussing? You ignore that if the swap happens, we also get a pick back. In the worst case, we swap the #16 pick (IMHO, Houston making the playoffs is a longshot, and the #8 seed is the best they will do) for the #11 pick. You ignore that Jordan Hill sucks. You don't think the Knicks with Amare Stoudemire are a playoff team? I think you're emphasizing the number in that manner to make it seem far more dramatic than it actually was. We can agree to disagree, but I think you're adding complexity to a situation that's relatively simple. We got the better player, we have a better team. I liked David Lee, but c'mon, compared to Amare Stoudemire? That's just silly. End of story.

On a side note, this is starting to remind me of the Bobo discussions that Allan Houston was better than Ray Allen.

Bonn1997 wrote:I don't see Amare as a huge upgrade over Lee. Lee gets 3 more assists and 3 more rebounds than Amare. That's a lot of ground Amare has to cover up for elsewhere (tell me where) just to break even with Lee. You can also look at the Hollinger stats that were posted in separate thread comparing the two.

It really isn't so much about numbers. Stoudemire should put up big numbers in this system assuming he isn't injured. I think Stoudemire is a pretty big upgrade over Lee, but he won't make the team "good". So in that respect, the Knicks might as well have kept Lee. But at the same time 80 million for Lee is way too much. Because Lee can't make your team "good".

oohah

Bonn1997 wrote:

Solace wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Solace wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Solace wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:He "cleaned up the mess" by giving up a lottery pick an 3 1st round draft picks (with the result so far being simply that we were in a position to offer $100 million to Amare). Does that really deserve so much credit?

I think you're conveniently ignoring some other steps in the cleanup process. That's not a very good summary of the actual results. That being said, I think it's fair to argue the Jordan Hill part. Look, that only happens if we were sure we had LeBron. Obviously, we were sure, but the information was bad. I don't fault him for going all out because of the confidence. The Jordan Hill trade obviously did not work out. In retrospect, I think everyone would like to undo that trade. On the flipside, Jordan Hill was traded because he's only going to be a marginal NBA player, unfortunately. I'm not going to advocate losing picks for nothing (except when they clear cap room like Miami did AND it actually works in getting a star player like LeBron). However, I think it's fair to say that Donnie did a lot more good than harm and so far, we're in great position for 2011. It's not plan A, but it's something relevant, because other Knicks GMs have completely folded when plan A didn't work.

My bad that I was off by a pick like Cosmic pointed out. Any other good that he's done--and I'll give credit for the Randolph trade--were not dependent on the 2010 cap space plan. They could have been done without the 2010 cap space plan. I was posting a summary of the 2010 cap space plan (not Walsh overall) and I don't see how it's inaccurate (with the exception of mistakenly adding a pick to what we gave up). I think it would have been fully accurate to say that the 2010 cap space plan has resulted in giving up a player we drafted in the lottery, 1 1st round pick outright, trading down in another 1st round for the benefit of the opportunity to offer Amare $100 mil. That may change if we add more. We may also get to sign someone like Mike Miller for $50 mil in which case that would have to be added to our half of the equation. It still doesn't look to me like the 2010 cap space plan worked out impressively.

Well, as Cosmic pointed out, you were off by three, not one. Jordan Hill was a pick, but they traded for a player, not a pick. I seriously doubt if the Rockets had the #8 pick that they would've taken Jordan Hill. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. He's a player that a lot of people don't think all that highly of. So, take that for what it's worth. The second pick is a swap, and Cosmic has pointed out numerous times, there's a good chance that a swap won't even happen. If it does, okay, we won't be dropping very many slots. So, there's one pick that we're actually giving up, not three. I think the price of that trade is very overrated. If Jordan Hill was all he was cracked up to be, we wouldn't need to have added the swap and the pick.

That being said, would I like to undo the trade, since it effectively gave us little result? Sure. However, it was a high reward potential, relatively low risk trade. Let's not paint it like we mortgaged the entire franchise on it. The move itself was a failure, but not a colossal failure. This move in of itself, probably will be a blip on the radar and not a significant factor in how the Knicks do going forward.

As for the overall 2010 cap space plan, let's be fair for a moment. It worked out just fine. Amare is better than everything we gave up, combined. With Amare, we will have the best team we've had since Jeff Van Gundy was coaching. That's just a fact. The Jordan Hill trade did not work out, but it's hard to reasonably criticize too heavily for taking that risk when the stakes were as high as they were. We will move forward.

Three?! I was off by one. When you swap you ARE giving up a pick, and you get a lower one back. And Hill was Walsh's lottery pick. I think we have quite different views of Amare and Lee. I think Briggs is right, and the stat analyses that have been posted comparing Lee and Amare give a reasonable impression of both. I like Amare I don't think a team that needs to do serious long-term rebuilding should be giving him a $100 mil contract.

Well, I'm not going to argue semantics. Considering the fact that the swap might not happen, yet you've already written it off, what's the point of discussing? You ignore that if the swap happens, we also get a pick back. In the worst case, we swap the #16 pick (IMHO, Houston making the playoffs is a longshot, and the #8 seed is the best they will do) for the #11 pick. You ignore that Jordan Hill sucks. You don't think the Knicks with Amare Stoudemire are a playoff team? I think you're emphasizing the number in that manner to make it seem far more dramatic than it actually was. We can agree to disagree, but I think you're adding complexity to a situation that's relatively simple. We got the better player, we have a better team. I liked David Lee, but c'mon, compared to Amare Stoudemire? That's just silly. End of story.

On a side note, this is starting to remind me of the Bobo discussions that Allan Houston was better than Ray Allen.

I don't see Amare as a huge upgrade over Lee. Lee gets 3 more assists and 3 more rebounds than Amare. That's a lot of ground Amare has to cover up for elsewhere (tell me where) just to break even with Lee. You can also look at the Hollinger stats that were posted in separate thread comparing the two.

They played on different teams. If Amare was on last year's Knicks team, he'd also have 11 rebounds. The assists I'll give you. Lee is a very good rebounder and passer, no doubt. He's poor on defense and not a game changer. The fact is that with Amare, we improved on defense, even without Amare being a defensive star. Amare is a game changer. He will command a double team. Not everything can be seen on a stat sheet. We now have a definitive advantage almost every night at the center (or PF) position.

Bippity10 wrote:With the acquisition of Randolph we are now in position to trade Randolph/Gallinari and or Chandler in a trade that nets us a Carmelo Anthony or a Chris Paul should they come available. The reason for getting under the cap was clearly to get Lebron. That was an utter failure. But the reason that Walsh's plan is better then Layden's or Isiah's is that we aren't painted into a corner. We still have flexibility.

The benefits of getting under the cap are that now you have the flexibility to acquire players that can help and that can be used in trade. Instead of having overpaid bumbs you now have young guys with potential and expiring contracts. These items are valuable. Should an Anthony/Paul come available at least you are in the game(that's the only way to get them of course) instead of watching other teams acquire them and have your team try to convince themselves they can win by signing Clarence Weatherspoon or Ramon Sessions to MLE's.

I'm as bumbed as anyone that we did not get Lebron. I think this was a failure on Walsh's part. I would not be saddened if Walsh left or was replaced for not completing his Plan A. That being said, we are clearly better off then we were 2 years ago. We just aren't the clear cut winner we hoped.

That's just too reasonable a position.

Paladin55 wrote:Please- tell me in some detail what the Heat did to get the Prince to play with them. What did that franchise do to put themselves in a situation to get him?

When you figure out the answer you will know why there was simply no way for the Knicks to compete with them.

Better yet, why don't you put down what you would have done so we could have really competed with Miami in this competition. And having Walsh morph into Isiah is not an answer.

A) I don't know what deal they offered LeBron as compared to what the Knicks offered except the chance to have much better players next to him.

B) If there was (Quoting your words) "simply no way for the Knicks to compete with them" then I guess the plan was destined to be a failure from the beginning, huh Paladin55? Thanks for pointing that out! I guess the Knicks should have tried to build a good team instead of trying to get better with one karate chop!

C)What the hell are you talking about? See answer B immediately above.

oohah

Cosmic wrote:It was his job to clean up the Knicks.

He did that.

He did it in time to give us a shot at the best FA crop in recent history.

He did that.

The failure would have been to PREVENT us from having a shot at these guys.

And, no, I don't have a problem with the guys brought in to do the pitch to the free agents. They did their job. The players chose to go elsewhere.

No, I don't have a problem with Donnie being a Team President and then bringing in well known NBA talent managers to execute his plan.

This is called business.

If you're suggesting things were run poorly I think you don't understand how an NBA franchise works. Team Presidents run their team of guys. The team of guys make things happen. Just like any other business.

Donnie did marvelous work here to get us to where we're at.

I agree with you Cosmic

Donnie has done a wonderful job!!

Getting a great GM would be nice too though...... Calangelo or West would be great!!