Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by s3231:

I have been reading some of your posts and you just said yourself that you are in complete agreement with a full rebuild (which seems to imply tearing it down, aka letting Lee walk). What I'm saying is, why not try to keep Lee and stockpile assets to go along with him?

I just don't see why its a good idea to let your best player walk for nothing. How can you say that Lee has no market value when you don't know if/what teams are interested in him? Its funny because a lot of fans are saying that because of the newspapers, Lee is obviously asking for $12 million. Those same newspapers are also reporting a lot of teams interested in getting Lee in a sign and trade. Yet, a lot of fans like you seem to want it one way but not the other. That is flawed though, you can't just take what you like and disregard the rest.

If you use one standard, it has to be uniform.

Listen, I'm not saying this franchise should give in to Lee and overpay him. But I honestly think both sides can come to a mutual agreement. Its not in our best interests to let this guy walk for nothing. Its obviously not in Lee's interests to take the Qualifying Offer (that is really not an option for him) or sign for a cheap long-term team. So why not compromise?

Why not give him $9 million a year with a player option after 2-3 seasons?

That seems fair and Donnie could probably be creative enough to backload the contract so that 2010 isn't affected too much. Unless you think Lee shouldn't be resigned period, that seems like a fairly reasonable alternative.

A full rebuild to me is letting all of your young players play and making shrewd moves when seen fit (and yes keeping David Lee is in that discussion.) I like David Lee as a player, he hustles, he gives his best and he always seems to find a way to score points and rebound the basketball. That is good stuff that any good team needs to have. I have also said many times that I am not an advocate of David Lee walking for nothing. I believe in Lee's case a 5 year 40 million dollar is more than suitable for the type of player he is (he can even have a player option after his 3rd year if so he can opt out) and is a comparable salary to what other players of his ilk make around the league.

What I do have a problem with is Lee's agent asking for 5 years 60 million, as has been reported throughout the offseason, in several media outlets. If that's the case, I'm sorry, but that is an outrageous salary. In this case, I would not want to let him walk for nothing, I would find a team that was interested in paying him that type of salary (or something close to it) and find a suitable sign and trade deal that works out for both teams. This is what good GMs do and if Walsh is worth his stones (which I believe he is) then in this case he would find a way to deal David and get back a few assets that will help this team.

Yes, I am in absolute accordance of a full rebuild but to me with a rebuild comes signing your own players to a proper salary so we can keep our flexibility and not tie up the cap when we don't need to.

I don't know how to explain it any better than that.

Good it seems that we agree on more than we thought then.

I also wouldn't give Lee $60 million over 5 years. However, unlike you, I'm not convinced that Lee and his agent need that much money to make a deal. Maybe its just me but I don't see the papers telling me it has to be that much.

If I had to guess, and let me emphasize, I'm guessing here so I don't know if this is truly the case.

To me, all of the rumors seem to suggest that this is the story:

Walsh wants Lee at $7/8 million a year. Lee wants $10-$12 million. But again, this is just a guess and we can't really judge too much because we don't know what the real numbers are. My point is, why can't those two sides meet in the middle?

Honestly, I would rather give Lee $10 million a year than let him walk for nothing and I've said that before on this forum. I would rather get him for $9 million, but if I had to go to $10 million, I would do it because ultimately, he is a good player and I think he would still be tradeable (Zach has certainly shown that).

Maybe I'm greedy, but I think we can find a way to keep Lee and still be players in the 2010 FA market. I don't see why we can't accomplish both. I'm not saying to give Lee $12 million a year to ensure that happens, but if it comes down to giving him $10 million a season and letting him walk, I'd rather pay him and keep him happy and productive.

I think Donnie realizes he has the leverage, which is obviously a good thing, but he has to be careful too. Akrud made a good point above that these aren't just assets like buildings, these are people. If you treat a player badly, that player might not want to deal with you in the future. So while Donnie should very well use his leverage to his advantage, he can't just rip Lee off either because both sides have to be happy here.

I think David Lee's agent gave him a fat head. Will the real David Lee please stand up?

i don't blame Lee for trying to get what he's looking for nor do i blame Donnie for not giving in to his agent's demands... both parties need to look out for their own best interests, this is business, not personal... that goes for any player that wants to get paid when they hit free agency... people around here shouldn't be angry at D Lee for trying to get a big contract, there isn't 1 person here who wouldn't try doing the same if they were in Lee's shoes right now... the thing to be upset about is if Lee walks for nothing & we can't work out some kind of S&T deal to net us some assets in return... that then falls on Donnie's shoulders because he could have avoided this situation a long time ago.

who said Lee was only worth a MLE contract?

Posted by s3231:

Posted by Paladin55:

Posted by s3231:


Why not give him $9 million a year with a player option after 2-3 seasons?

That seems fair and Donnie could probably be creative enough to backload the contract so that 2010 isn't affected too much. Unless you think Lee shouldn't be resigned period, that seems like a fairly reasonable alternative.

I don't think Walsh will go above $8M/yr at this point. If he does go to $9M/yr, and there is an option year, he will want the team to have that option- gives the Knicks more flexibility, and if it turns out that they want to trade Lee at the deadline, I would think that other teams would be more likely to want a contract with a team option. If Walsh gets Lee to sign for $7M/yr, then maybe he concedes and gives Lee a player's option in the final year, so Lee can go after the bigger payday if it is out there for him.

That could be the case, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was.

If a small difference like that leads to us losing Lee for nothing though, I would be very pissed at Donnie.

You said you want to sign Lee for 10 mil and still be a player in the 2010 FA market. Please lay out a plan that will get this done. If we keep Lee, Curry and or JJ2 needs to be moved in a market that most teams are trying to clear cap for '10. So whose bitting?

Posted by s3231:

I don't get why people make Allan Houston comparisons to the David Lee situation.

If you guys really do believe that Lee is asking for $10 million a year then isn't that a fair asking price when two players, who haven't accomplished as much as David has, got that same deal? I mean, most of you guys are scoffing at the notion of giving David $10 million a year. Its not like you guys are saying "10 is ok, but 12 is awful." Most of the fans here think 10 is ridiculous for some reason. Yet, two players in the same off-season already got that $10 million and you can make the argument that at worst, Lee is in their same class.

Now, how is that similar to the Allan Houston scenario?

[Edited by - s3231 on 07-23-2009 10:15 PM]

In both cases, we were bidding against no one but ourselves. That's the comparison.

Posted by Uptown:

Posted by s3231:

Posted by Paladin55:

Posted by s3231:


Why not give him $9 million a year with a player option after 2-3 seasons?

That seems fair and Donnie could probably be creative enough to backload the contract so that 2010 isn't affected too much. Unless you think Lee shouldn't be resigned period, that seems like a fairly reasonable alternative.

I don't think Walsh will go above $8M/yr at this point. If he does go to $9M/yr, and there is an option year, he will want the team to have that option- gives the Knicks more flexibility, and if it turns out that they want to trade Lee at the deadline, I would think that other teams would be more likely to want a contract with a team option. If Walsh gets Lee to sign for $7M/yr, then maybe he concedes and gives Lee a player's option in the final year, so Lee can go after the bigger payday if it is out there for him.

That could be the case, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was.

If a small difference like that leads to us losing Lee for nothing though, I would be very pissed at Donnie.

You said you want to sign Lee for 10 mil and still be a player in the 2010 FA market. Please lay out a plan that will get this done. If we keep Lee, Curry and or JJ2 needs to be moved in a market that most teams are trying to clear cap for '10. So whose bitting?

At work right now, but I promise, I'll get back to you on this at some point tomorrow morning. All it will take me is 15 minutes to look at salaries and the CBA to come up with something realistic.

I really do think we can move Jeffries btw. There were rumors that Jeffries and Nate were heading to Sac-Town at the deadline for expirings. We don't know if that is 100% true, but if it was, I don't see why Donnie can't re-explore something like that.

[Edited by - s3231 on 07-24-2009 09:08 AM]

Posted by Marv:

Everything’s skewed because we have a unique opportunity in 2010. sure, wade and lebron are longshots, but if we have a chance at potentially 2 of Amare, Bosh, Dirk, Joe Johnson, Rip Hamilton, Josh Howard, Brandon Roy, Rudy Gay, LaMarcus Aldridge and Rajon Rondo, then I don’t want holding onto David Lee to jeopardize that.

Lee’s been a great soldier and a great knick. But he’s gotten a lot out of this too. the knicks took him in the 1st round when it didn’t appear any other team would, gave him plenty of playing time and exposure and helped support his development into a 16/12/2 player. They don’t owe him a thing at this point, he’s responsible for where his career goes next. If it works out with the knicks, great. If it’s at a much lower cost than he wanted, still great. If they sign and trade him to lower cap, still great imo.

Agreed.

Guess we can lock this thread now....nothing left to say here

Posted by DrAlphaeus:

I don't know about you guys, but I don't like dealing with lawyers and contract negotiations. I find it dehumanizing, materialistic and depressing. I can't imagine having to deal with an agent and NBA front offices. I imagine it would be frustrating.

David Lee can't even play with the USA squad because the negotiations aren't done. He's not having a fun summer, because he's 26 and has to make decisions that will affect his career and his life. So he's being asked about it all the time, and his agent has allowed him to answer likely for negotiation purposes, so he's talking about how he feels. He was fairly political in everything he said, while keeping it somewhat real. There really isn't much to see here fellas.

I would just hope that he and Nate are treated fairly and with respect, because I think they are owed that. Lee is not Stephon Marbury, nor is he Eddy Curry. He has played to the best of his ability. Life sometimes rewards underachievers because of their (unfilled) potential, and shortchanges overachievers because they've revealed their limits. Nobody said life is fair.

Stop it...

Ever been to Family Court to try to fight for the right to see your kid? Thats dehumanizing....

We are talking about a duded getting frustrated cuz he isn't paid yet...He wants more than the Knicks wanna pay him...poor baby.