Posted by SlimPack:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by SlimPack:

Posted by Bonn1997:


What franchise player FA last offseason or the one before would you have signed if we had cap space?

stop asking me to answer questions that require research, *sigh* hold on a sec

EDIT: okay here we go, jameer nelson, sebastion telefair, devin harris, ron arte.. err nevermind, JR smith, and Shaun Livingston, so far those are the only good ones that I dont think will get an extension or have a strong desire to resign with their team, my final assessment? that codeunknown was right and that theres no huge advantage to trading marbury and striving for cap space



[Edited by - SlimPack on 12-16-2005 11:06 PM]

Now you've really confused me!

the reason I said it is becuase none of thos guys are really all that good, okafor and dwight howard are also on that list, but they'll likely get extensions, its kinda like what isiah said some time ago, getting under the cap isnt all that good becuase all the really good guys are locked up. but we need our draft picks tho, we wont ever be any good if he keeps trading them away

[Edited by - SlimPack on 12-16-2005 11:22 PM]

Oh, then I agree. I didn't know if you were serious or joking.

Posted by SlimPack:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by SlimPack:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by SlimPack:

who care if it doesnt put us under the cap, trading marbury will give us a chance of having cap space.

[Edited by - SlimPack on 12-16-2005 10:14 PM]

What does this mean?

having 20 million come off then that means that all we have to do is trade 1 or 2 other guys for expirings and we can be under the cap in two seasons, whatever it is by then, if we dont trade marbury then we dont have a chance of being under the cap and we'll be mediocre for the next 3 or 4 years like islesfan says. although right now we'd have to take a step or 2 up just to get to mediocre. maybe Im over reacting, maybe marbury will eventually learn to run the offense the way LB wants, thats the only way keeping him makes sense, even isiah said he'd consider trading him if he doesn't.

Thats a load of crap. Its more than trading 1 or 2 more guys in addition to Marbury for capspace - it means not signing any more free agents and not re-signing Ariza. In order to trade our over-priced commodities, we'd perhaps have to throw in even more draft picks or young talent. In other words, you're suggesting a total jettison of our assets for what amounts to nothing. That is except for a miniscule chance in the free agent market of 2007. Quite a risk - the downside of which is having 0 assets by 2007. Previously you stated "who cares if it doesn't put us under the cap" - perhaps this is why you shoud start caring.

whats so bad about not signing anymore free agents?, vin baker and jerome james havent exactly been impact players, the knicks will pay approximately 63.5 million in 07 assuming currys contract is worth about 9 million and arizas new on 2 million and we keep jackie and woods. if marbury's contract is not figured then we only pay 43.5 million. if we trade q for an expiring, than thats 35.4. enough to sign for a free agent, assuming the cap is around 50 million. isnt that right?

[Edited by - SlimPack on 12-16-2005 10:55 PM]

Slimpack, its really quite obvious that the plan you're suggesting is both highly flawed and close to impossible. A cap limit of 50 million? Tell me, what are your projections of NBA revenue in 2007? Why not base a strategy on reality - that is NBA revenue isn't going to escalate dramatically from the baseline we've seen in recent years. That means a cap limit of around 42 mil - accept it.

Trading Marbury and Q for cap space is even more unlikely considering most other teams do not operate with the unlimited budget available to our organization. In the miraculous event that both trades occur, with a cap limit of 42 million, that leaves us only with about 50 mil for a free agent - paltry, to say the least, for a top level player. Should we trade Crawford as well and start over with negligible assets? Thats not even considering the fact that our picks for 06 and 07 are gone, negating the lottery proceeds of a bad team. What benefits are you expecting to receive beyond an average player in 07?

A total rebuild isn't called for with our present roster. If we weren't hamstrung with Jerome James, Malik Rose and Mo Taylor, I would be the first to recommend a Marbury trade. But, depleting our assets from top to bottom is careless considering that free agency is not a guaranteed market. What you're more or less saying is that we need to trade Marbury, Crawford and Q or a combination that involves Marbury, Q, Rose and an accompanying attractive future asset. That amounts to mis-management that returns us to the basement of the NBA with little leverage moving forward.

[Edited by - codeunknown on 12-16-2005 11:31 PM]

Posted by codeunknown:




Slimpack, its really quite obvious that the plan you're suggesting is both highly flawed and close to impossible. A cap limit of 50 million? Tell me, what are your projections of NBA revenue in 2007? Why not base a strategy on reality - that is NBA revenue isn't going to escalate dramatically from the baseline we've seen in recent years. That means a cap limit of around 42 mil - accept it.

Trading Marbury and Q for cap space is even more unlikely considering most other teams do not operate with the unlimited budget available to our organization. In the miraculous event that both trades occur, with a cap limit of 42 million, that leaves us only with about 50 mil for a free agent - paltry, to say the least, for a top level player. Should we trade Crawford as well and start over with negligible assets? Thats not even considering the fact that our picks for 06 and 07 are gone, negating the lottery proceeds of a bad team. What benefits are you expecting to receive beyond an average player in 07?

A total rebuild isn't called for with our present roster. If we weren't hamstrung with Jerome James, Malik Rose and Mo Taylor, I would be the first to recommend a Marbury trade. But, depleting our assets from top to bottom is careless considering that free agency is not a guaranteed market. What you're more or less saying is that we need to trade Marbury, Crawford and Q or a combination that involves Marbury, Q, Rose and an accompanying attractive future asset. That amounts to mis-management that returns us to the basement of the NBA with little leverage moving forward.

[Edited by - codeunknown on 12-16-2005 11:31 PM]

Posted by jaydh:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by SlimPack:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by SlimPack:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by SlimPack:

who care if it doesnt put us under the cap, trading marbury will give us a chance of having cap space.

[Edited by - SlimPack on 12-16-2005 10:14 PM]

What does this mean?

having 20 million come off then that means that all we have to do is trade 1 or 2 other guys for expirings and we can be under the cap in two seasons, whatever it is by then, if we dont trade marbury then we dont have a chance of being under the cap and we'll be mediocre for the next 3 or 4 years like islesfan says. although right now we'd have to take a step or 2 up just to get to mediocre. maybe Im over reacting, maybe marbury will eventually learn to run the offense the way LB wants, thats the only way keeping him makes sense, even isiah said he'd consider trading him if he doesn't.

What? Very few championship teams got their key players via cap space signings. Cap space can help you improve your team but it's certainly neither necessary nor sufficient for rebuilding.

but you do need very good players and at least one really good player, how do we get that?

By patiently letting our 2 22 year-old frontcourt kids (EC and CF) learn and develop and continuing to get more promising young players like them?

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 12-16-2005 10:44 PM]

You mean the 2 guys who aren't even close to being Franchise players or players you'd build a contender around? But even then, how are we going to get more players like them with no more lottery picks to trade and no more lottery picks to use in at least 3 of the next 4 seasons?

i dont see why Curry& Frye cant be considered future pieces to build a contender around(potential roy candidate is a good start if you ask me).

We still have assets to get more picks. If Isiah sees something in the draft he wants, he will trade for picks.

You can't take it seriously when someone says that a rookie of the month winner and strong ROY candidate isn't even worth building with.

Posted by Knight:

Until Isiah trades his failing pet project, Steph will always be news and always be talked about.

Posted by codeunknown:

I posted this earlier in the thread but I am re-posting it so 1) we can keep the figures straight and 2) we don't have to discuss this again.

Cap space via a Marbury trade is the biggest misconception on this board. First of all, if you were an astute observer, you'd notice that Curry's salary isn't tabulated on the Hoopshype page. Thats about 10 million you can add to each year in salary for atleast the next 4 years.

Moreover, imagine the hypothetical scenario where we get rid of Marbury, don't re-sign Ariza, don't sign any free agents for the next 2 years, but don't trade Frye, Lee or Robinson. Our cap number for 07/08 is still 43 1/2 million - meaning we don't have the option of offering a max contract. With the cap limit usually at 42 mil - we are left with 0 capspace in 07/08. Even in 08/09, if we lose Marbury, Ariza and don't so much as glance at another free agent, our cap number is a whopping 39 mil. Thus, the MLE remains our maximum contract offer. Summer 07 - Lebron, Wade and Bosh will get offers of 90+ mil over 6 years. The same applies to Okafor and Howard in 08/09. I'm assuming, if you trade Marbury for capspace - you'd want a superstar in free-agency - that, unfortinately, is a pipe-dream.

Posted by SlimPack:

Posted by codeunknown:




Slimpack, its really quite obvious that the plan you're suggesting is both highly flawed and close to impossible. A cap limit of 50 million? Tell me, what are your projections of NBA revenue in 2007? Why not base a strategy on reality - that is NBA revenue isn't going to escalate dramatically from the baseline we've seen in recent years. That means a cap limit of around 42 mil - accept it.

Trading Marbury and Q for cap space is even more unlikely considering most other teams do not operate with the unlimited budget available to our organization. In the miraculous event that both trades occur, with a cap limit of 42 million, that leaves us only with about 50 mil for a free agent - paltry, to say the least, for a top level player. Should we trade Crawford as well and start over with negligible assets? Thats not even considering the fact that our picks for 06 and 07 are gone, negating the lottery proceeds of a bad team. What benefits are you expecting to receive beyond an average player in 07?

A total rebuild isn't called for with our present roster. If we weren't hamstrung with Jerome James, Malik Rose and Mo Taylor, I would be the first to recommend a Marbury trade. But, depleting our assets from top to bottom is careless considering that free agency is not a guaranteed market. What you're more or less saying is that we need to trade Marbury, Crawford and Q or a combination that involves Marbury, Q, Rose and an accompanying attractive future asset. That amounts to mis-management that returns us to the basement of the NBA with little leverage moving forward.

[Edited by - codeunknown on 12-16-2005 11:31 PM]

wait so the salary cap would go down? isnt it 49.5 million now?(bear in mind that I dont know what defined percentage of BRI means).



[Edited by - SlimPack on 12-16-2005 11:50 PM]

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Bonn1997:

You serious? So Frye's a great player to build with but not around? Who's worth building "around" on the Pistons? What's so terrible about having great players to build with but not around? I love the cute learn to read line, though.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 12-17-2005 12:01 AM]

If you're going to try to twist around my words I'm going to assume that you can't read or at least read with any kind of proficiency.

Back to making stuff up I see. Where did I say that Frye was "a great player to build with"? He's a nice piece as a complimentary player but you don't build around them as the cornerstone of a franchise.

Posted by SlimPack:

Posted by codeunknown:




Slimpack, its really quite obvious that the plan you're suggesting is both highly flawed and close to impossible. A cap limit of 50 million? Tell me, what are your projections of NBA revenue in 2007? Why not base a strategy on reality - that is NBA revenue isn't going to escalate dramatically from the baseline we've seen in recent years. That means a cap limit of around 42 mil - accept it.

Trading Marbury and Q for cap space is even more unlikely considering most other teams do not operate with the unlimited budget available to our organization. In the miraculous event that both trades occur, with a cap limit of 42 million, that leaves us only with about 50 mil for a free agent - paltry, to say the least, for a top level player. Should we trade Crawford as well and start over with negligible assets? Thats not even considering the fact that our picks for 06 and 07 are gone, negating the lottery proceeds of a bad team. What benefits are you expecting to receive beyond an average player in 07?

A total rebuild isn't called for with our present roster. If we weren't hamstrung with Jerome James, Malik Rose and Mo Taylor, I would be the first to recommend a Marbury trade. But, depleting our assets from top to bottom is careless considering that free agency is not a guaranteed market. What you're more or less saying is that we need to trade Marbury, Crawford and Q or a combination that involves Marbury, Q, Rose and an accompanying attractive future asset. That amounts to mis-management that returns us to the basement of the NBA with little leverage moving forward.

[Edited by - codeunknown on 12-16-2005 11:31 PM]

wait so the salary cap would go down? isnt it 49.5 million now?(bear in mind that I dont know what defined percentage of BRI means). anyway if what your saying is true then I didnt have an accurate understanding of how the salary cap worked in the first place. In any event Ive already decided that trading marbury along with our other players to get under the cap wouldnt help us very much anyway.

P.S. thanks for the info



[Edited by - SlimPack on 12-16-2005 11:50 PM]