Not sure if this was posted, from

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/playerbreakingnews.asp?sport=NBA&id=314&line=68498&spln=1

New Knicks' senior vice-president of basketball operations Glen Grunwald said it's too early for him to talk about the team's plans for Jalen Rose.

The Knicks have to figure out what to do with Rose, who has one year and $16.9 million left on his deal. Options include buying him out or dealing him to a team seeking to clear cap space

I am of the opinion that the knicks are "a team seeking to clear cap space"

I am happy with the team we currently have, and don't think we are a high salaried player away from realizing our dream of being a contender within 5 years of Isiah Taking over.

Thoughts?

I think Rose has been beat down on this board a little more than he warrants. He certainly has his uses and just might be able to help this team...IMO he's a much better player than QRich.

yep, the issue is the "piece of meat" and "expiring contract" conversations.

Posted by BlueSeats:

Rose could be a crafty veteran to have on board, and maybe even a guy you keep around on a very reduced salary next year. I've never been a fan of his (far from) but he is a guy who can get on a streak from the mid-range, and I think/hope he's at the stage of his career where he's willing to accept a highly reduced role.

But he and Isiah didn't really see eye to eye back in Indy; I think it was Isiah who traded him. and I think chemistry will be job one for Isiah.

But if Rose has familiarity with Isiah's "quick" offense and wants to take some kids under his wing and be a mentor it would be nice to get something for our 16M. Then let the contract expire.

That said, I'm not opposed to waiving ANY of the guys Brown wanted waived.

unless the reports were right about Nate!

Posted by BlueSeats:

Rose could be a crafty veteran to have on board, and maybe even a guy you keep around on a very reduced salary next year. I've never been a fan of his (far from) but he is a guy who can get on a streak from the mid-range, and I think/hope he's at the stage of his career where he's willing to accept a highly reduced role.

But he and Isiah didn't really see eye to eye back in Indy; I think it was Isiah who traded him. and I think chemistry will be job one for Isiah.But if Rose has familiarity with Isiah's "quick" offense and wants to take some kids under his wing and be a mentor it would be nice to get something for our 16M. Then let the contract expire.

That said, I'm not opposed to waiving ANY of the guys Brown wanted waived.

Didn't you say Isiah had been trying to get Rose on this team since he got here. Yet, you admit that Isiah traded him away from Indy because they didn't see eye to eye. If this is the case, why would Isiah want to reaquire this guy? You make a stronger case for Isiah only getting this player because Brown wanted him. Not the other way around as you have implied several times.

My take was always that Isiah and Rose did get along. Isiah use to run camps in Detroit with Jalen and Webber. Jalen started to not get along with Isiah after the trade of Artest for Jalen. I remember Jalen said he felt that Isiah backed stabbed him because Isiah was the main one behind the Artest trade. Jalen said Isiah did not act like a real friend in that situation.

Right now Isiah said Jalen is the one player he talks to the most. That includes a team with big head Marbury. So it will be interesting to see how this ends up. If anything the Knicks should just let Jalen's contract expire.
s
Keeping Jalen is not a bad thing. It's not like this team is stacked with shooters. Besides Frye being a pure shooter, who else do we have?



[Edited by - BigC on 10-02-2006 11:20 AM]

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by bigbeast:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Rose could be a crafty veteran to have on board, and maybe even a guy you keep around on a very reduced salary next year. I've never been a fan of his (far from) but he is a guy who can get on a streak from the mid-range, and I think/hope he's at the stage of his career where he's willing to accept a highly reduced role.

But he and Isiah didn't really see eye to eye back in Indy; I think it was Isiah who traded him. and I think chemistry will be job one for Isiah.But if Rose has familiarity with Isiah's "quick" offense and wants to take some kids under his wing and be a mentor it would be nice to get something for our 16M. Then let the contract expire.

That said, I'm not opposed to waiving ANY of the guys Brown wanted waived.

Didn't you say Isiah had been trying to get Rose on this team since he got here. Yet, you admit that Isiah traded him away from Indy because they didn't see eye to eye. If this is the case, why would Isiah want to reaquire this guy? You make a stronger case for Isiah only getting this player because Brown wanted him. Not the other way around as you have implied several times.

Nice try, but Brown had him in Indy too and didn't like him any better. So if your logic applies to Isiah it should also apply to Brown, right?

From an interview with Pacers GM, Donny Walsh:

Q: What's the dumbest thing you've done as far as basketball decisions?
A: I wouldn't admit it (laughs). I don't sit around making lists. I guess if it's stupid, I try to forget about it.
But you're talking about people when you talk about the players. I invest emotionally in a lot of them. So I would never say it was a dumb move. To me, there's always reasons. Maybe they didn't fit here. Or maybe it got to where they didn't fit here.
Like with Jalen Rose. I thought he'd be great here. But (then-coach) Larry Brown hated him, so he never played.I thought, "Oh, no." Then Larry Bird got here and played him and he became a terrific player. Then Isiah came in, and at first I thought it would be great, but it didn't work out, so I traded him.
So what should I think of Jalen? He was the same player, but the circumstances kept changing.



[Edited by - BlueSeats on 10-02-2006 11:09 AM]

Point well taken. It should go both ways, except it was readily admitted by everyone that Brown is the one that begged for Rose.

"He's exactly what we need," Brown said before the game. "I think it's a no-brainer. I haven't seen a drop-off in his game. We don't have enough ball-handlers, guys that have experience back there."

Everyone remembers (except those with selective memory) the quotes of Brown telling Dolan and Isiah that he was "dying here" and needed Jalen Rose in the worst way. Also, you don't think its a coincidence that Isiah supposedly chased Rose for 2 yrs, and didn't land him until Brown comes aboard (you do remember Isiah saying he'll get Brown the players he wants)


[Edited by - bigbeast on 10-02-2006 11:29 AM]

Posted by bigbeast:

Point well taken. It should go both ways, except it was readily admitted by everyone that Brown is the one that begged for Rose.

"He's exactly what we need," Brown said before the game. "I think it's a no-brainer. I haven't seen a drop-off in his game. We don't have enough ball-handlers, guys that have experience back there."

Everyone remembers (except those with selective memory) the quotes of Brown telling Dolan and Isiah that he was "dying here" and needed Jalen Rose in the worst way. Also, you don't think its a coincidence that Isiah supposedly chased Rose for 2 yrs, and didn't land him until Brown comes aboard (you do remember Isiah saying he'll get Brown the players he wants)

I just gave my thoughts on the matter of Rose and Francis to oohah yesterday. They may have simply gotten Rose when they did because it was at the shortest point of his overpriced contract. And he came with a draft pick. But I think we can be pretty confident, from rumors and logic, that they were also pursuing guys like Patterson and Miles, Cato, Earl Watson, Danny Fortson, reggie Evans, etc. Jalen and Francis may have been the only ones available for what Isiah was offering. So you put a happy face on it and hope for the best.

If all you guys want to consider is the propaganda they give in press conferences then you will always get a rosy picture.

One last thing about the Rose & Francis trades.

What I think separates Isiah and Brown on these trades is that Brown would have been willing to give up more in current talent to get more (or different) in the trades. Whether his deal would be better or worse we can't say without knowing specifics. My intuition tells me Brown might have been willing to lose a trade battle or two, but the team would have been better balanced for it.

Brown wanted a more radical reshaping of the roster, while Isiah wanted to give his guys more time. Can we at least agree on the probability of that?

Isiah's strategy is typically to try to win trade battles - to always get more "talent" than he gives up (though many question if piling up the payroll with castoffs, and trading high draft picks for low really constitiutes "winning"). It's part of the philosophy that Brendan Suhr spoke of where Isiah is trying to get a lot of blocks to build a big tower. This would be consistent with the theory that these guys are also blocks for a hypothetical mega-trade, like for JO or KG. The theory goes you keep trading up so that you start with bad players you trade for mediocre players. Then mediocre players for good players. And then good players for great players.

Obviously there is some merit to this approach, at least conceptually, but the mishmash we see in the interim is also consistent with an approach where "talent" is put above chemistry, fit and cohesion.

Some other GMs are willing to take back less in their deals in order to have a better fit now. (For examples we only need to look at our trade partners in these deals) I think that is the direction Brown would have liked to have taken things. Regardless that he endorsed those deals at the time, we know that's where he was heading in the off-season.

So I think the Rose and Francis deals were simply the intersection of two different, but not necessarily oppositional, approaches. For Brown they represented experienced short-term help in the backcourt while Marbury was out, and at SF where we had no established solution. And for Isiah they represented blocks for his tower that could be had for the least amount of talent given.

Lets face it, whatever we think of these guys, what we gave up for them was relatively insignificant. (Penny, AD, Trevor)

But this is not the stuff of press conferences...

[Edited by - BlueSeats on 10-02-2006 1:33 PM]

Posted by wsdm:
The statements may have simply been at different time points. Brown wasn't exactly consistent with anything last year. Maybe once he saw how bad Francis was, he decided to Nate was worth keeping. Maybe he knew the rookies were popular and commenting positively on Nate would be good PR. Who knows? Your quote's interesting but it doesn't really prove that comments in the Daily News about him wanting to cut Nate to be false.

That is correct, it doesn't disprove anything, it just casts it seriously in doubt. And I again point to the difference in qualitybetween the opposing articles. The one I quote is replete with direct quotes from Isiah, Dolan and Brown. The one you cite quotes no one directly:

BY FRANK ISOLA
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER
Interestingly, former coach Larry Brown last season tried to persuade management to cut players because he felt it would improve team chemistry. Taylor and backup center Jerome James were two players Brown wanted off the team. Brown also talked about wanting to release Jalen Rose and rookie guard Nate Robinson as well.

It say Brown "talked about wanting", but talked to whom? It leaves me to wonder if that was simply that journalists interpretation of Brown's comments that he considered sending Nate to the NBDL.

So one is vague as to timing and the source of the info, while the other is quite specific as to who said what and when.

I simply consider it stronger evidence, which is corroborate by logic (no gain in cutting a guy with obvious trade value), but you are correct that it is not iron-clad proof.


[Edited by - BlueSeats on 10-02-2006 1:26 PM]