So everyone has chimed in with their take, but this article actually puts it perspective from a realist’s point of view. Its worth the read, I also think this is a real legitimate point, “getting rid” of Franchise’s contract was not the big coup everyone is making it out to be… :

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_22602.shtml

Looking at the big picture/long-term health of the franchise, the fact that Zach Randolph is owed over 61 million dollars over the next four seasons is a tough pill to swallow. Paying Randolph $13.3 million this season and $14.6 million in '08-'09 actually doesn't effect the franchise, it's the last two years of his deal that are potentially treacherous. On a related note, let's clear up the common misconception floating around that the trade was a no-brainer and genius move by Isiah because he was able to pawn off Stevie Franchise's horrible contract. If you are a fan of the Z-Bo trade because you feel the Knicks got far more talent in return - that is one thing. But don't bring finances into the conversation to support Isiah's side of the deal. For instance, Stephen A. Smith was mindlessly spouting off about this on draft night when the trade was announced. There is no validity to this argument whatsoever. Here's the reason: The Knicks were already going to be approximately $50 million over the cap for the next two seasons (the length of Francis' contract), no matter what. Isiah had already buried the team's finances for those two seasons. So the money owed to Francis had absolutely no impact on the organization from a basketball perspective. In other words - Francis' contract in no way kept the Knicks from adding another piece/player to the team. But, if the Knicks had bought Franchise out or let his deal expire or trade for a player with a similar length contract, they would have been inching closer towards salary cap space in 2009. And if they had maintained fiscal responsibility, they could have reached salary cap heaven in the summer of 2010. Prior to the Randolph trade, the only guaranteed contracts on the Knicks books that extended out to the 2010-2011 season were Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry (player option), and Jared Jefferies (player option). The pipe dream could have become a reality. Ever so briefly, there was light at the end of the tunnel...

• And as I have written about before, ever since LeBron James and his fellow superstars (Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh) from the Class of 2003 opted to sign shorter-term contracts (with opt-out clauses following the 2009-2010 season), Isiah Thomas owed it to the Knicks organization and the fans of New York City to do everything within his power to make sure that the Knicks were under the cap in the summer of 2010. Even if it was unlikely that the Knicks would be able snag a stud like King James or D Wade, you have to at least give yourself a chance to get in the game. And with players such as Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett unhappy in their current situations and threatening to opt-out as well, Isiah is doing the Knicks a great disservice by permanently tying up their cap-space. Worse yet, now Isiah and his supporters will start using the excuse, "Well, we are already over the cap for the next five years so let's keep adding aging veterans with horrendous contracts and hope we catch lighting in a bottle." Eventually this nonsensical thinking has to stop. It would takes a commitment to patience and rebuilding plan. It's difficult to do, but not impossible. Under Isiah Thomas, New York has become the place where outrageous contracts go to die.

Thus, to make a long story long, it is the commitment to pay Zach Randolph $16 million in '09-'10 and especially $17.3 million for 2010-2011 that is the backbreaker. Instead of being patient, devolving the young core of Curry, Lee, Frye, etc. and slowing chipping away at that horrifying cap number, Isiah has mortgaged the future on a kid with character issues, who plays no defense, and has had micro-fracture knee surgery. This is one chemistry experiment that may blow up in his face.

Look, I didn't like the fact that the trade had us taking on more money, but isn't a bit presumptuous to assume we can't get under the cap for 2010? If they can shed Crawford and Jeffries for like Artest and Kenny Thoams that immediately gives us shorter term deals.

B.I.N.G.O....B.I.N.G.O.....B.I.N.G.O.......and BINGO WAS HIS NAME YO!


This writer got all his material from this board. You don't mortgage your financial future on a player like Zach Randolph under any circumstance. This trade will either be disastrous or have us peaked at 43-45 wins for the next 2 yrs.


My only question when this doesn't work will I SAY UGH get fired?

aging veteran? Randolph is 25 yrs old. Only 2 yrs older than frye. Also people talk about Zachs salary , how much would have it cost to resign Frye?? I could see a 5yr 50 million deal.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by BigRedDog:

aging veteran? Randolph is 25 yrs old. Only 2 yrs older than frye. Also people talk about Zachs salary , how much would have it cost to resign Frye?? I could see a 5yr 50 million deal.

i think the aging veteran comment was about Steve Francis... this article refers to Zach as a kid with personal issues... & what idiot in their right mind would sign Channing Frye to a 5 year $10 million dollar deal?

[Edited by - TMS on 07-05-2007 11:48 AM]

The same idiot who said Frye was the best big man in his draft and would have taken him with the #1 pick.

I hear you, but I just think the length of the contract and the surgery are being glossed over way too much - this article finally hits both and includes the Lee factor which to me is huge.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by BigRedDog:

aging veteran? Randolph is 25 yrs old. Only 2 yrs older than frye. Also people talk about Zachs salary , how much would have it cost to resign Frye?? I could see a 5yr 50 million deal.

i think the aging veteran comment was about Steve Francis... this article refers to Zach as a kid with personal issues... & what idiot in their right mind would sign Channing Frye to a 5 year $10 million dollar deal?

[Edited by - TMS on 07-05-2007 11:48 AM]

The same idiot who said Frye was the best big man in his draft and would have taken him with the #1 pick.

touche

Posted by TheGame:

Posted by VDesai:

Look, I didn't like the fact that the trade had us taking on more money, but isn't a bit presumptuous to assume we can't get under the cap for 2010? If they can shed Crawford and Jeffries for like Artest and Kenny Thoams that immediately gives us shorter term deals.

Exactly. The NBA is too dynamic to try a strategy of "we are getting under the cap in 3 years." So what, the team is supposed to lose for three more years while we get under the cap on the hope that LeBron or Wade would rather play for N.Y. About six years ago, Orlando took the same under the cap strategy to try and land Tim Duncan. They traded away Maggette, Ben Wallace, and Chucky Atkins to get Grant Hill and ultimately Tracy McGrady. They lost out on Duncan because he decided to resign with his hometeam, which is going to happen 90% of the time. You know the rest of the story; the Magic won nothing and ultimately traded away McGrady. There are no guarantees and this idea of waiting around for 3 years in the hope that a superstar wants to sign here is not a winning strategy in my opinion. Moreover, as Boston and Memphis can attest, the strategy of trying to lose games to draft a superstar is not a guaranteed strategy either.

News flash, we can trade Randolph in two years for an expiring contract and get under the cap then when we have a better idea whether James or Wade actually want to leave their current teams. Randolph has value. Curry has value. There are not many players on this team who we could not trade to another team for cap space and the few that we couldn't will mostly be off the books by 2010. In the meantime, IT has given us a better chance to win now. I think James and Wade would be more likely to come to NY if we are in the playoffs and look like we just need one more piece to get over the hump, rather than us being a nonplayoff team hoping to sign a savior in 2010.

[Edited by - thegame on 07-05-2007 12:46 PM]

LOL Who is going to trade for Zach, for their cap room, when he has 2 years left at around 18M a year if the Knicks are going to be looking to trade him after just 2 years?

Same goes for Curry, who can opt out in a couple years anyway so who would give up cap space when they can sign him outright if they wanted.

Posted by TheGame:

Posted by VDesai:

Look, I didn't like the fact that the trade had us taking on more money, but isn't a bit presumptuous to assume we can't get under the cap for 2010? If they can shed Crawford and Jeffries for like Artest and Kenny Thoams that immediately gives us shorter term deals.

Exactly. The NBA is too dynamic to try a strategy of "we are getting under the cap in 3 years." So what, the team is supposed to lose for three more years while we get under the cap on the hope that LeBron or Wade would rather play for N.Y. About six years ago, Orlando took the same under the cap strategy to try and land Tim Duncan. They traded away Maggette, Ben Wallace, and Chucky Atkins to get Grant Hill and ultimately Tracy McGrady. They lost out on Duncan because he decided to resign with his hometeam, which is going to happen 90% of the time. You know the rest of the story; the Magic won nothing and ultimately traded away McGrady. There are no guarantees and this idea of waiting around for 3 years in the hope that a superstar wants to sign here is not a winning strategy in my opinion. Moreover, as Boston and Memphis can attest, the strategy of trying to lose games to draft a superstar is not a guaranteed strategy either.

News flash, we can trade Randolph in two years for an expiring contract and get under the cap then when we have a better idea whether James or Wade actually want to leave their current teams. Randolph has value. Curry has value. There are not many players on this team who we could not trade to another team for cap space and the few that we couldn't will mostly be off the books by 2010. In the meantime, IT has given us a better chance to win now. I think James and Wade would be more likely to come to NY if we are in the playoffs and look like we just need one more piece to get over the hump, rather than us being a nonplayoff team hoping to sign a savior in 2010.

[Edited by - thegame on 07-05-2007 12:46 PM]

We've been losing for 4 straight yrs operating over the cap. If this would have done 2 yrs ago there would be no 3 more yrs excuse. I SAY UGH should have did the opposite of what his predecessor did. If Layden was irresponsible you don't come in and pile on to the irresponsibility. I SAY UGH should have begged the fans "give me 2-3 yrs to get our cap under control but at the same time I'll try to put a product on the floor that competes every night". Instead he acquired a roster full of more overpriced stiffs, who have no accountability, who lose far more than they win, and don't compete every night. I find it comical how every says New York is a big market most player want to play here because they know they'll get paid and play on the biggest stage to be marketed, but when it comes to trying to plan for cap space to sign player(s) these same fans says it's no guarantee no one will want to sign here.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 07-05-2007 11:57 AM]

Posted by VDesai:

Who cares? Zach and Curry could both be on the roster in 2010 and we could still be under the cap.

he'll likely trade for yet another player w/overrated skills & a bloated albatross deal & keep this franchise in cap hell for the rest of the time he's here at this rate

[Edited by - TMS on 07-05-2007 1:00 PM]

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by TheGame:

Posted by VDesai:

Look, I didn't like the fact that the trade had us taking on more money, but isn't a bit presumptuous to assume we can't get under the cap for 2010? If they can shed Crawford and Jeffries for like Artest and Kenny Thoams that immediately gives us shorter term deals.

Exactly. The NBA is too dynamic to try a strategy of "we are getting under the cap in 3 years." So what, the team is supposed to lose for three more years while we get under the cap on the hope that LeBron or Wade would rather play for N.Y. About six years ago, Orlando took the same under the cap strategy to try and land Tim Duncan. They traded away Maggette, Ben Wallace, and Chucky Atkins to get Grant Hill and ultimately Tracy McGrady. They lost out on Duncan because he decided to resign with his hometeam, which is going to happen 90% of the time. You know the rest of the story; the Magic won nothing and ultimately traded away McGrady. There are no guarantees and this idea of waiting around for 3 years in the hope that a superstar wants to sign here is not a winning strategy in my opinion. Moreover, as Boston and Memphis can attest, the strategy of trying to lose games to draft a superstar is not a guaranteed strategy either.

News flash, we can trade Randolph in two years for an expiring contract and get under the cap then when we have a better idea whether James or Wade actually want to leave their current teams. Randolph has value. Curry has value. There are not many players on this team who we could not trade to another team for cap space and the few that we couldn't will mostly be off the books by 2010. In the meantime, IT has given us a better chance to win now. I think James and Wade would be more likely to come to NY if we are in the playoffs and look like we just need one more piece to get over the hump, rather than us being a nonplayoff team hoping to sign a savior in 2010.

[Edited by - thegame on 07-05-2007 12:46 PM]

LOL Who is going to trade for Zach, for their cap room, when he has 2 years left at around 18M a year if the Knicks are going to be looking to trade him after just 2 years?

Same goes for Curry, who can opt out in a couple years anyway so who would give up cap space when they can sign him outright if they wanted.

THe reason we got Zack cheap is because of his off the court problems. If he stays out of trouble for the next two years and continues to put up 20/10 type numbers and shows that he is a team player, other teams will want him, but it is not even about trading him for an expiring deal. The most likely way to get a Lebron or Wade is the have 5-6 players that other teams want. Why do you think everyone always mentions Chicago as a trading partner. Because they have 4-5 young players that other teams want. Assuming that Zack stays out of trouble and Curry continues to develop, in 2-3 years we will have Lee, Curry, Balkman, Zack, Crawford, and Collins as solid young guys other teams would want. Moreover, if Nichols and Chandler actually can play, that is 2 more guys. You get a Lebron or Wade by: 1) them demanding a trade out of town; and 2) offering their current team players that the GM can justify to his fans was the best deal he could get. IT has put us in a good situation because we now have two 20 point lowpost big men to offer. We give up Curry, we still have Zack. If we give up Zack, we still have Curry. Thus, we can package a big man and a few of our perimeter players and put together a competitive package for a superstar and still have enough of a team left to be competitive.

[Edited by - thegame on 07-05-2007 1:12 PM]