Dantoni traded for Lampe what is he gonna do, bash the kid? And how long did he stay in PHX?

http://www.insidehoops.com/knicks-draft-062703.shtml
"In the process, the Knickerbockers also pulled off the steal of the draft, grabbing 6-foot-11 Polish forward Maciej Lampe with the 30th pick, early in the second round. Lampe was considered a lottery pick at the start of the evening, but slipped down in position because of contract issues that could keep him away from an NBA roster anytime soon."

Posted by kam77:

nyk4ever-

I do appreciate your research, but when you read what they really say is that they consider him a steal with value precisely BECAUSE of his draft position.

Not to be a pest but if you could find an article during Lampes season before we traded him that was raving about his value then i'd say you're right i'm sorry i ever doubted you, lets go get drunk.

I'll look and see what I can find.

Remember Kam, Lampe DID have a big summer league.

Lampe or Lee?

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by sebstar:


Why are you inventing lottery picks? Are you actually blaming Isiah for making the playoffs in his first year? '10 hasnt happened yet and the Knicks still have a more than solid chance of making the playoffs this year. Thats three down.

I stand behind my "bizarre" statement because when Zeke took the job nobody was talking about these wealth of assets he had at his disposal, just the pitiful roster he inherited. You are playing revisionist history. Its not to say that the situation was completely hopeless, but the prospects you invoke, yet whose names you conveniently ignore, are damn near all out of the league. Again, you are not using any balance or perspective. You seem to just be grinding axes and trying to make Zeke look as bad as possible by even playing fast and loose with facts.

You were the one that made the statement that no GM in the history of the league had his assets --- you back it up. I aint doing a damn thing. I'm going to class and partying my @ss off tonight.

I get it sebstar, you're a young guy and you're having trouble to understand the concept of assets outside of talent.

Lets try to abstract this a bit. Two of your friends, are talking. "Homer" is excitedly telling "Hater" about his new car:

Homer: "Dude, did I tell you about my new car? Know how I used to drive that crummy '85 Mazda? Well my dad just bought me a '2000 Subaru. It's like so totally awesome."

Hater: "A 2000 Subaru is totally awesome? Okay..."

Homer: "Dude, maybe it's not great but do you realize what a piece of junk that was that I started with?"

Hater: "Anyway, I heard your dad bought that in a manic fit where he mortgaged the house and blew your college fund and their retirement savings. Is that true?"

Homer: "Dude, like who cares, I just got a Subaru!!!"

Dont use my age as a way to cover for the fact that you cant get basic facts straight and your posts lack simple logic. Of course you had to fall back on that tired ass homer/hater nonsense that has dominated the board. Lame. I guess I am crazy for wanting people to engage in critical thinking. I see where you're coming from.

You keep bringing up these bit players as reasons why the Suns and Bulls made those trades. In terms of "assets", those players were throw ins.

The Suns made that trade to get Marbury and Penny out of there, so they could get their ridiculous contracts off their cap and to get a real PG in to play with Amare and Marion. Next you can say those 2 #1 picks were of much greater importance along with getting an interior presence in KT. After all that you can talk about the throw in players.

The Bulls made that trade because they questioned Curry's health, work ethic and desire. They didn't want to give him a long term contract when the only time he came into camp in shape was when he was in his contract year. I'm sure there were questions about Curry using substances like ephedra to drop his weight, which led to his heart problems. If drugs were the only way for him to get into shape before his contract year then why take the chance and take up valuable cap space for him? Especially when they have more important young players that they're going to have to take care of.

Then when Isiah actually agreed to giving up last years #1 pick unprotected along with trading picks this year unconditionally, it was a no brainer that they were going to make the trade. Sweetney and Williams were throw ins.

So the short answer is that the "assets" that Isiah had to work with were the Knicks ability to take on hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts, that other teams desperately wanted off their cap and unprotected potential lottery picks. If they don't make the playoffs this year it will be 3 lottery picks that Isiah has traded away in 4 years, let that sink in for a second. Those players you keep bringing up were throw ins to make it work under the cap and not the "assets" that you make them out to be.

I dont disagree with a lot of this. I acknowledged earlier that the ability to absorb money was certainly an asset at Zeke's disposal, but that was mitigated by the obscenely overpaid and under talented 2003-04 knicks roster. From the starters down to the "prospects," it was a mess of a team. Performance none withstanding, I was simply challenging the statement that Isiah had the more assets at his disposal "than any GM in history" or whatever the hell Blueseats said. Thats just being fluent in hyperbole and not even close to being true.

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by islesfan:


You keep bringing up these bit players as reasons why the Suns and Bulls made those trades. In terms of "assets", those players were throw ins.

The Suns made that trade to get Marbury and Penny out of there, so they could get their ridiculous contracts off their cap and to get a real PG in to play with Amare and Marion. Next you can say those 2 #1 picks were of much greater importance along with getting an interior presence in KT. After all that you can talk about the throw in players.

The Bulls made that trade because they questioned Curry's health, work ethic and desire. They didn't want to give him a long term contract when the only time he came into camp in shape was when he was in his contract year. I'm sure there were questions about Curry using substances like ephedra to drop his weight, which led to his heart problems. If drugs were the only way for him to get into shape before his contract year then why take the chance and take up valuable cap space for him? Especially when they have more important young players that they're going to have to take care of.

Then when Isiah actually agreed to giving up last years #1 pick unprotected along with trading picks this year unconditionally, it was a no brainer that they were going to make the trade. Sweetney and Williams were throw ins.

So the short answer is that the "assets" that Isiah had to work with were the Knicks ability to take on hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts, that other teams desperately wanted off their cap and unprotected potential lottery picks. If they don't make the playoffs this year it will be 3 lottery picks that Isiah has traded away in 4 years, let that sink in for a second. Those players you keep bringing up were throw ins to make it work under the cap and not the "assets" that you make them out to be.

I dont disagree with a lot of this. I acknowledged earlier that the ability to absorb money was certainly an asset at Zeke's disposal, but that was mitigated by the obscenely overpaid and under talented 2003-04 knicks roster. From the starters down to the "prospects," it was a mess of a team. Performance none withstanding, I was simply challenging the statement that Isiah had the more assets at his disposal "than any GM in history" or whatever the hell Blueseats said. Thats just being fluent in hyperbole and not even close to being true.

That's not hyperbole and it's very much true. You've already admitted as much.

The financial advantage that Isiah has had is a greater advantage than any GM has ever had in the NBA. What other GM can make trades that add hundreds of millions of dollars to their future payroll? What other GM can simply buyout his mistakes the way Isiah has and not only keep their job but receive a multiyear extension? What other GM can make a trade for a large uninsurable, and hence untradeable, contract just to get the 21st pick in the draft?

Every trade that Isiah has made has been facilitated by his financial advantage.

Every mistake that he makes can eventually be covered up by his financial advantage. Other GM's are forced to keep their mistakes. Isiah just buys them out and makes more mistakes.


[Edited by - islesfan on 03-16-2007 12:13 AM]

Posted by codeunknown:

Its difficult to appraise assets in a historical context. The first and most egregious mistake you can make is blindly gauging the value of those assets in hindsight - risk and potential are commodities in the NBA and the erosion of these over time alters the assessment. So, while the fact that Vujanic and Lampe are no longer NBA worthy may indicate that their departure from the Knicks was timely, it does not verify absolutely that Isiah made a good deal in the context of other trading options (or opportunity costs as Blueseats put it). And it certainly isn't automatic cause to celebrate Isiah. Whether IT fully exploited their market values at the time, something we can't definitively ascertain, is a far more relevant evaluation of Isiah. The fact that Vujanic and Lampe were traded in such a large deal further obscures their values. Still, with the aid of other contemporaneous deals for superstars like Shaq, Ray Allen, and Vince Carter, upper and lower bounds for the market price of a player like Marbury '03 can be deduced. Without getting into horrendous detail, its quite clear that we overpaid. Since Vujanic, Lampe and the future 1st rounder were the most uncertain commodities of our package, I would claim that these components were especially undervalued.

You also can't assume that the assets Isiah inherited were worth the crap for which he sold them. Lets remember that the implicit argument that Blueseats and others are making is that Isiah's returns frequently are not representative of the asking price - in other words, Isiah pathologically overpays. As I indicated above, the expiring contracts unloaded in behemoth fashion in the Marbury trade were major assets - substantially more valuable if you consider the opportunity cost of multiple years of free agency.

Without question, Layden's remains were old and busted. And, clearly, talent recycling was not a viable mode of managment. Here's the catch, though - the league is kind enough to give ****ty teams the gift of lottery balls. Lots of balls. Isiah inherited a team devoid of talent, and also a team spiraling towards that special magical world of balls. Thats where the concept of assets gets quite tricky; its yet another lottery, another gamble for which you have to account. The truth is that, with our lottery bound team, Isiah was endowed with the most regenerative asset of all, an asset he impulsively sacrificed in the Marbury trade. Isiah had the opportunity to gut the team that year and, heck, maybe even the year afterwards. In the 2-year process, he would have accrued superior parts that would develop together instead of making a splash for a veteran superstar that merely rallied us back into the middle of the pack. Sebstar, if you're pretending that talent was the major obstacle at the start of Isiah's tenure then you would be showing the heralded lack of logic of which you're accusing others. The problem was and remains that Isiah's timing is all wrong. He's not recycling the talent of a contender. He has been recycling mediocrity in the form of expiring contracts and underachieving players.

After that rather lengthy setup, here's the take home. After 4+ years as GM, what Isiah started with is really a negligible component of the vast financial and lottery assets that he has readily squandered. So, its meaningless to bemoan the fact that Isiah started with no talent - he's blown a world of resources trying, many times futilely, to acquire it. Its analagous to complaining about the initial costs of starting a company when, in reality, the continued losses due to poor business strategy are exponentially greater.
The bottom line, as Blueseats and DJ put it, is that Isiah has blown 100s of millions of dollars and 4 1st rounders. That includes moves for Marbury, Malik Rose, Jalen Rose, Maurice Taylor, Jamal Crawford, Steve Francis and Eddy Curry, almost all for which we overpaid. The payroll added, in combination with coaching turnover and draft picks dealt, is unprecedented. Once you get over the starting point, its becomes quite probable that Isiah has more efficiently blown resources than any other GM. Again, its worth repeating that what he started with wasn't as bad as it superficially appeared. His misguided "win now" strategy promptly amplified it and the struggle to "rebuild on the fly" has cost us more heavily than anything else.

Could you dumb it down a notch next time? My head hurts.

But yeah, what code said.

Posted by codeunknown:

Its difficult to appraise assets in a historical context. The first and most egregious mistake you can make is blindly gauging the value of those assets in hindsight - risk and potential are commodities in the NBA and the erosion of these over time alters the assessment. So, while the fact that Vujanic and Lampe are no longer NBA worthy may indicate that their departure from the Knicks was timely, it does not verify absolutely that Isiah made a good deal in the context of other trading options (or opportunity costs as Blueseats put it). And it certainly isn't automatic cause to celebrate Isiah. Whether IT fully exploited their market values at the time, something we can't definitively ascertain, is a far more relevant evaluation of Isiah. The fact that Vujanic and Lampe were traded in such a large deal further obscures their values. Still, with the aid of other contemporaneous deals for superstars like Shaq, Ray Allen, and Vince Carter, upper and lower bounds for the market price of a player like Marbury '03 can be deduced. Without getting into horrendous detail, its quite clear that we overpaid. Since Vujanic, Lampe and the future 1st rounder were the most uncertain commodities of our package, I would claim that these components were especially undervalued.

You also can't assume that the assets Isiah inherited were worth the crap for which he sold them. Lets remember that the implicit argument that Blueseats and others are making is that Isiah's returns frequently are not representative of the asking price - in other words, Isiah pathologically overpays. As I indicated above, the expiring contracts unloaded in behemoth fashion in the Marbury trade were major assets - substantially more valuable if you consider the opportunity cost of multiple years of free agency.

Without question, Layden's remains were old and busted. And, clearly, talent recycling was not a viable mode of managment. Here's the catch, though - the league is kind enough to give ****ty teams the gift of lottery balls. Lots of balls. Isiah inherited a team devoid of talent, and also a team spiraling towards that special magical world of balls. Thats where the concept of assets gets quite tricky; its yet another lottery, another gamble for which you have to account. The truth is that, with our lottery bound team, Isiah was endowed with the most regenerative asset of all, an asset he impulsively sacrificed in the Marbury trade. Isiah had the opportunity to gut the team that year and, heck, maybe even the year afterwards. In the 2-year process, he would have accrued superior parts that would develop together instead of making a splash for a veteran superstar that merely rallied us back into the middle of the pack. Sebstar, if you're pretending that talent was the major obstacle at the start of Isiah's tenure then you would be showing the heralded lack of logic of which you're accusing others. The problem was and remains that Isiah's timing is all wrong. He's not recycling the talent of a contender. He has been recycling mediocrity in the form of expiring contracts and underachieving players.

After that rather lengthy setup, here's the take home. After 4+ years as GM, what Isiah started with is really a negligible component of the vast financial and lottery assets that he has readily squandered. So, its meaningless to bemoan the fact that Isiah started with no talent - he's blown a world of resources trying, many times futilely, to acquire it. Its analagous to complaining about the initial costs of starting a company when, in reality, the continued losses due to poor business strategy are exponentially greater.
The bottom line, as Blueseats and DJ put it, is that Isiah has blown 100s of millions of dollars and 4 1st rounders. That includes moves for Marbury, Malik Rose, Jalen Rose, Maurice Taylor, Jamal Crawford, Steve Francis and Eddy Curry, almost all for which we overpaid. The payroll added, in combination with coaching turnover and draft picks dealt, is unprecedented. Once you get over the starting point, its becomes quite probable that Isiah has more efficiently blown resources than any other GM. Again, its worth repeating that what he started with wasn't as bad as it superficially appeared. His misguided "win now" strategy promptly amplified it and the struggle to "rebuild on the fly" has cost us more heavily than anything else.

How can anyone disagree with this? Good job, Code.

Posted by kam77:

Whether IT fully exploited their market values at the time, something we can't definitively ascertain, is a far more relevant evaluation of Isiah.

Fine. If I accept this premise, then I propose others accept the premise that Isiah had no choice but to leave the draft pick unprotected to get Eddy Curry. After all, we can not definitively ascertain the details of the negotiation.

Sounds like everyone is taking educated guesses. Maybe Isiah could have gotten the protection. OK, and maybe Marbury was the best he could get for Lampe/Vujanic. If we're going to accept the one premise, then shouldn't we accept the other? Am i off-base here? Would we be better off if Isiah had waited for Baron Davis instead of Marbury -- when would it have been okay to trade Lampe/Vujanic? Everyone is screaming today about Frye's plummeting trade value. It wouldn've been the same with Lampe I feel.

It wasn't Marbury for Lampe & Vujanic -- it was Marbury AND Penny (huge albatross contract) and Trybanski (throw in) for Ward (expiring), Dice (expiring), Eisley, Lampe, Vujanic, a 2004 1st round pick (in a year where if not for this trade, we were likely to be in the lottery) and another conditional first round pick (that will be unprotected in 2010).