Posted by Markji:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Every team in the league knows we're trying to get rid of Zach. If there was a better deal, we'd have done it by now. Jaric's owed $7.6 m. Big deal. Zach is owed $17 + mil. If Zach was owed $10 mil and Jaric $0 in 2010 but we already had a figure that was $7.6 mil higher for 2010 from a previous transaction, we'd be ecstatic with this offer. Ironically, our situation would be identical to what it would be after this deal was completed.

No so. Jaric It isnt the difference in salary. It is the fact that we will have Jaric's salary in 2010. We dont want that. So we will need to trade him before 2010 just like zach. However, Zach is a premier player. I know he's a problem, etc, but it still holds that he puts up 20/10. Not many other players can do that. Only the elite players can. I'd rather have D'A work with Zach than trade him for lower talent and we still have to take on salary in 2010. That defeats the purpose of the trade.

Darko is fine. And hold out for someone else from Memphis.

Throw in a solid 6th man on a rookie contract and a team will gladly take back Jaric's $7.6 mil. You can't say the same for Zach's $17 mil. Please don't fall for the trap of trying to work with Zach. Each year that fails you're just digging a deeper hole. (The whole point of my previous post, btw, was that in that scenario you'd STILL have $7.6 mil to get rid of but everyone would be thrilled just to have gotten $10 mil off the payroll. That's what I meant by the bold part.)

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-06-2008 10:20 AM]

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Markji:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Every team in the league knows we're trying to get rid of Zach. If there was a better deal, we'd have done it by now. Jaric's owed $7.6 m. Big deal. Zach is owed $17 + mil. If Zach was owed $10 mil and Jaric $0 in 2010 but we already had a figure that was $7.6 mil higher for 2010 from a previous transaction, we'd be ecstatic with this offer. Ironically, our situation would be identical to what it would be after this deal was completed.

No so. Jaric It isnt the difference in salary. It is the fact that we will have Jaric's salary in 2010. We dont want that. So we will need to trade him before 2010 just like zach. However, Zach is a premier player. I know he's a problem, etc, but it still holds that he puts up 20/10. Not many other players can do that. Only the elite players can. I'd rather have D'A work with Zach than trade him for lower talent and we still have to take on salary in 2010. That defeats the purpose of the trade.

Darko is fine. And hold out for someone else from Memphis.

Throw in a solid 6th man on a rookie contract and a team will gladly take back Jaric's $7.6 mil. You can't say the same for Zach's $17 mil. Please don't fall for the trap of trying to work with Zach. Each year that fails you're just digging a deeper hole. (The whole point of my previous post, btw, was that in that scenario you'd STILL have $7.6 mil to get rid of but everyone would be thrilled just to have gotten $10 mil off the payroll. That's what I meant by the bold part.)

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-06-2008 10:20 AM]

Yes, Zach's contract is harder to get rid of. And I now I better understand your pt. on the $10 million saved.

But, I don't think we just have to just accept the offer as is. Either continue negotiating with Memphis and/or get a third team involved who takes Jaric and sends us a player whom we feel can help us and with only a one or 2 year contract. I'm fine with taking back some of Zach's deferred payments, but not with the deal as it stands.

Posted by Bonn1997:

I'd love to do the things you're listing and I think they are good ideas; I just don't see them happening. Frankly, I'm shocked Memphis wants anything to do with Zach and I'm not sure I buy this rumor.

Don't say that too loudly or Memphis may take your advice and back out of the deal.

One thing we have to realze is that Memphis is also rebuilding. And they had a worse record than us (by 1 game). And they want to make major changes in their roster by getting rid of Darko (they signed 2 other 7 foot centers) and they don't need Jaric who came in the Mayo trade. Memphis has plenty of guards. So they are also strongly wanting to make changes. That is why I say Walsh should continue to negotiate. In negotiations, a team won't give its top offer up front. See if something better becomes available.

Eddie Curry is a factor in all of this. I think Waltoni understands that you can't have Curry and Randolph playing in the same lineup, and at this time, Randolph has the most value of the two. The Knicks also have other guys who can play where Randolph plays- Chandler, Lee, Gallinari can all play PF, as can Jeffries. The Knicks really don't have a backup center at this point, and Curry has hardly been a true center in terms of rebounding and being a defensive presence in the middle. This is also a major contributing factor in favor of making this trade.

I don't think that Randolph will ever have more value than he has now. To me, there is a 50/50 chance that his value can even go down under D'Antoni, because Zach will be going against his instincts in a system which values quick decisions, less dribbling, quick passes, etc.. BUT:

My biggest problem with this trade- and I have been a big supporter of it- is the fact that I still don't understand how much we will be paying if we pick up Zach's deferred payment, and I don't know for sure if it will be going against our cap (Has there been a final determination on this yet by anyone who understands the cap/contract stuff better than me? I have not read anything on any site which really clears it all up for me.).

Since we are picking up Jaric's contract, which is as long as Zachs, it seems to me that if the deferred payments, however large they are, are picked up by the Knicks, it will defeat the entire purpose of getting rid of Zach's contract if they have to be applied to our cap.

Can we make them take another player (Collins?)? Can we get a guy like Lowry thrown in if we do this? I just think that if the deferred money goes against our cap we should have some more compensation.

If it is just money, though, we should just pay it and take the loss. Maybe we can give them Isiah's contract/services, too, since he is so connected to the Zach quandry.

Paladin, I agree with your idea on the addition of Mardy into the trade and get back Memphis' 2nd round pick in either 2009 or 2010. We have too many players right now and if we add Jaric, that makes two too many (17). Subtracting Mardy for a 2nd round pick is better.

its the secondary players that matter in this trade. Memphis is deep in pg's and one of the three young ones should be included if Jaric and his contract which extends into 2010 is in the deal. Or, swap Jaric for Walkers deal which is essentially an expiring contract. If Memphis wants the $3m max cash allowed to be thrown in by the Knicks so be it. I hope this gets done and is closely followed by buy-outs for Marbs, JJ1 and Walker if he is in the deal.

if this rumor has any validity to it & Walsh mucks up the deal by trying to milk another asset out of MEM a-la Isiah Thomas, i'm going to blame alot of the people sitting in this room... & that i cannot forgive.

I can't see how we're going to let a little cash stop us from making this deal- not if you think we're positioning ourselves to lay out $86MM+ for Lebron or some other FA in 2010.

I have to admit that the desire to see this team cleaned up has me almost hoping for this trade, but I have to agree that we have time. We've got 2 years and lot's of opportunities to get a deal done. Zach's contract only get's more moveable the longer we hold out, not less moveable. As his cap hit decreases we will see more teams willing to absorb the remainder of that salary. We've still got the trade deadline at the least to holdout for.

Posted by nixluva:

I have to admit that the desire to see this team cleaned up has me almost hoping for this trade, but I have to agree that we have time. We've got 2 years and lot's of opportunities to get a deal done. Zach's contract only get's more moveable the longer we hold out, not less moveable. As his cap hit decreases we will see more teams willing to absorb the remainder of that salary. We've still got the trade deadline at the least to holdout for.

If you trade Zach now, I believe Eddy and Lee will play better and we'll be able to get more from them in a trade over the next two years. Keeping all three just kills each of them. If you sell one low and sell the other two high, it's a better investment than waiting and letting all three plummet.



[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-06-2008 6:31 PM]

A real good analysis of the possible trade. Taking Jaric makes it NOT a slam-dunk opportunity, but it may happen.

Breaking Down the Memphis Offer for Zach
September 6th, 2008 by Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

According to multiple sources, the Memphis Grizzlies have put an offer on the table to the New York Knicks: Zach Randolph for Marko Jaric and Darko Milicic. From Memphis’ side, they would gain a scorer they sorely need since the departure of Pau Gasol. New York on the other hand would rid themselves of Randolph’s contract, and would be able to hand over the starting PF job to USA Select Team member David Lee. But how much does this help the Knicks in terms of future cap space?

In 2010, the year of multiple big free agents (LeBron, Wade, Bosh, etc.) Zach Randolph is scheduled to make $17.3M. Of the contracts they would be receiving, only Jaric would still be on the books for $7.6M. So the Knicks would shave off approximately $10M. According to Hoopshype, with Randolph the Knicks would be at about $45.5M. So one might assume saving $10M would bring them well below the cap which is currently set to $58.6M.

However Hoopshype doesn’t factor in players with team options, nor do they factor in players who get their contracts extended. If you add in Danilo Gallinari’s $3.3M, Wilson Chandler’s $2.1M, and this year’s #1 pick ($2M-$3M) the Knicks salaries creep up to $54M (with Randolph). Additionally the team may sign David Lee and Nate Robinson to contracts as opposed to letting them leave as unrestricted free agents. These two could well bring them in the $64M - $70M range.

So if the Knicks accept this trade now, they would be faced with a tough decision down the road. Option “A” would be to Let Lee and/or Nate walk in free agency without anything in return. This way they would definitely be in the range to grab a top free agent. But the team would be weaker and less palatable to free agents. Option “B” would be to accept the trade and resign Lee and/or Nate now in order to get them cheaper. Of course this would probably still put them over the top free agent limit in 2010. Option “C” would be to accept the trade and hope to trade one of the following players in the near future: Eddy Curry ($11.3M in 2010), Jared Jeffries ($6.9M), Marko Jaric ($7.6M), or Jamal Crawford ($10.1M). In this option, not being able to move one of these players could mean the loss of a free agent.

Donnie Walsh is also facing another dilemma. Is he getting enough in return for Zach Randolph? With Memphis’ cap situation, they could make the trade without offering Jaric. But obviously they gain fiscally by moving Marko’s contract. Walsh might be able to get the Grizzlies to accept an offer for just Darko or even to throw in something better (perhaps a future pick or one of their guards). If they hold onto Zach, the Knicks could get more in return from another team especially if his offensive numbers increase in D’Antoni’s offense. Additionally playoff bound teams may get more desperate to improve themselves as the season wears on.

If Walsh accepts this deal and lets Lee or Nate walk, he’d be getting little in return for these investments. However it could turn out that getting nothing for these players benefit the team the most if they are able to land a superstar player. That’s something New York has lacked since Ewing was in his prime in the mid-90s. Ironically getting the worse of these two deals, but improving the team greatly would be the opposite of Isiah Thomas’ modus operandi. Thomas was able to make every trade seem to be in his favor, but the team always ended up worse.

Personally I would take the deal, but I don’t think it’s a no-brainer. If he accepts, Walsh will have some tough decisions to make. In the present he’ll have added another player to an already crowded roster. There’s a reason no moves have been made yet, possibly to have leverage over a buyout of Marbury, Rose, and/or James. This trade could undermine any behind the scenes bargaining that’s already occurred. And in the future he’ll have to figure out what do if he can’t move a lesser Knick (Jaric/Jeffries) for a shorter contract to make cap space for Lee & Robinson.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/index.php/2008/09/06/breaking-down-the-memphis-offer-for-zach/