Walsh deserves to be fired.

Rather lose him for nothing than take back garbage or sign him longterm for big money. This question lacks context. There's a certain point where you have to accept losing him for nothing if the circumstances dictate that outcome.

long as my local liquor store keeps issuing me credit i probably won't give a f.

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by eViL:

Rather lose him for nothing than take back garbage or sign him longterm for big money. This question lacks context. There's a certain point where you have to accept losing him for nothing if the circumstances dictate that outcome.

not necessarily. the question is simple, if the knicks lost david lee for nothing, how would you feel? the fact of the matter is that if he signs an offer sheet, there is no chance of making a deal, so it's either sign him or lose him. it doesn't really matter how you feel about a certain player or not, it's about his value to the team and around the league. losing a player that's given you a double double and is marketable for nothing, when you have the final say on whether he stays or not, is borderline negligence.

and 5 years $50 mil is not long term big money. it's market value.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 05-01-2009 2:24 PM]

I rather let him walk than sign him for 5 years $50. He's not a two-way player. He is not a go-to guy. He's an effort guy who looks amazing on team full of no-effort guys. Over the last few years, I think he's been great, but that's because he hasn't cost us much and he's been a lone bright spot. He doesn't look nearly as great if he's getting $10M a year. I don't know why marketing even gets brought up in this conversation. We're fans. I don't give a damn what players give the Knicks marketing opportunities. I just care about the players that help us win games. Lee has been great during his tenure here, but he hasn't helped us win very much. Not all his fault, I know that, but still -- he's not someone I'd blow cap space on.

Lots of teams have lost good players for nothing. Walsh was thrown into a situation where he had to make a decision last summer for Lee and Nate without having even been here for one regular season game. Losing a good player for nothing is a lousy situation but sometimes it's the least bad one--not saying it will happen though. That depends on what other offers Lee gets. If Walsh had been here for 2 or 3 years and lost Lee and Nate for nothing, I'd be more inclined to blame him.

Posted by eViL:

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by eViL:

Rather lose him for nothing than take back garbage or sign him longterm for big money. This question lacks context. There's a certain point where you have to accept losing him for nothing if the circumstances dictate that outcome.

not necessarily. the question is simple, if the knicks lost david lee for nothing, how would you feel? the fact of the matter is that if he signs an offer sheet, there is no chance of making a deal, so it's either sign him or lose him. it doesn't really matter how you feel about a certain player or not, it's about his value to the team and around the league. losing a player that's given you a double double and is marketable for nothing, when you have the final say on whether he stays or not, is borderline negligence.

and 5 years $50 mil is not long term big money. it's market value.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 05-01-2009 2:24 PM]

I rather let him walk than sign him for 5 years $50. He's not a two-way player. He is not a go-to guy. He's an effort guy who looks amazing on team full of no-effort guys. Over the last few years, I think he's been great, but that's because he hasn't cost us much and he's been a lone bright spot. He doesn't look nearly as great if he's getting $10M a year. I don't know why marketing even gets brought up in this conversation. We're fans. I don't give a damn what players give the Knicks marketing opportunities. I just care about the players that help us win games. Lee has been great during his tenure here, but he hasn't helped us win very much. Not all his fault, I know that, but still -- he's not someone I'd blow cap space on.

I would also add that we've been losing games with him, and we're likely to lose games if we keep him or let him walk- although there might be a difference in the net losses- without him, its cheaper and maybe we get closer to really rebuilding this franchise for once, in a serious way.

10mil a year don't buy much.

We should match offers and then trade him next summer if we need the cap room.

We can let Nate go.

We won 7 more games this year with DLEE as our starting center. Third leading rebounder, 16pts per game don't come cheap and don't come easy.

10mil is not go to money.

it's tough to trade lee next year (if you match the contract) b/c of BYC issues. he won't be eligible to be traded until well into the 10/11 season.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 05-01-2009 2:57 PM]

Posted by djsunyc:

it's tough to trade lee next year (if you match the contract) b/c of BYC issues. he won't be eligible to be traded until well into the 10/11 season.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 05-01-2009 2:57 PM]

if that's the case then Walsh pretty much already fugged up bigtime unless he can sign D Lee to a well below market value deal.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by djsunyc:

it's tough to trade lee next year (if you match the contract) b/c of BYC issues. he won't be eligible to be traded until well into the 10/11 season.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 05-01-2009 2:57 PM]

if that's the case then Walsh pretty much already fugged up bigtime unless he can sign D Lee to a well below market value deal.

naw, he can also move him in a sign-and-trade.

that's the most likely way lee is going to get traded at this point.

anyone who's watched D Lee on television can tell u he's worth at least a 1st round pick... it doesn't take a rocket scientist nor does it take a full year to evaluate his talent to figure this out... to let a young talented player like that go w/o getting any compensation in return is irresponsibly idiotic, whether it was Isiah, Walsh or Jerry West we were talking about.