Knicks are turning into a team with no class. If they dont want to sign him to a long term contract--atleast give him a fair 8mm $ 1 year contract. I guess they want to give Utah pick 1 and see no one at the Garden--on top of it perhaps pirse off players who may be looking at NY. The owner has a lack of class and now our dealings with our own players has turned into a wreck. Without David we wont won 25 games

Read the Hahn article on the matter.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/the-knicks-fix-1.812055

The rest of the league has shown no interest in signing him so the market is what the Knicks have offered. If you ask me, Lee is being stupid at this point.

What I'm starting not to get here is why the big wait on everything? OK, they appear to be proceeding cautiously as if the future cap will drop to $50.4 mil. I think that's a good thing. That's wise. I can understand the reluctancy to offer lucrative, long-term deals to anyone with that kind of forecast. OK gotcha. But why no action at all? I mean they must've been over the figures hundreds of times already - I wanna start reading in the paper that we finally offer some kind of contract to 1, 2 or all 3 of these guys, and if they get rejected so be it. If they know they can offer Sessions around $4 mil. a year and still have room for a max. FA offer, what's the problem? Go for it even if it means rounding out the rest of the roster with minimum wage filler for a year. Offer Sessions the contract. If they think Lee, Nate or Lee & Nate is more important than Sessions, knowing they're not in a position to offer either guy a long-term deal right now (which they have communicated to both parties), just skip the QO which is kind of insulting to both guys anyway (Lee's agent is saying he's not accepting it) and come up with a fair market value, 1-year contract to appease both guys. Offer the contracts. I mean by now, they should have an idea as to what's more of a priority for them - Sessions, Lee, Nate, etc. Pick one scenario and act on it already. They know damn well at this stage what they can offer and what they can't. How many days in a row can they all come to the office and mull over the same stuff??? I guess it's all a game where neither side is willing to step up and give up ground to get something done... In the meantime, they show zero interest in any of the young, cheap unsigned talent, undrafted or otherwise, that's out there right now which futher infuriates me. I mean they show interest in every retread out there (White Chocolate, Jamaal Tinsley, Troy Hudson) but no interest in an intriguing young prospect like Mike Taylor? They also could use another swingman and/or another big - there's a ton of cheap young talent with upside out there right now that fits the bill, yet we hear nothing. Nothing. Crickets. WTF is that all about? Unless we're talking guys like J. Kidd or Grant Hill, do they not understand the concept that a roster of young, up & comers is much more attractive to potential FAs than a squad filled with guys like Troy Hudson & Mark Madsen??? What's the deal? Do they like Morris Almond or not? Tskitishvili?? I think there are better options out there but whatever, they refuse to acknowledge any of them... If they're that high on a guy like Almond (I think he's severely limited but there's no denying he's young & can shoot), how come we haven't heard anything yet?? I can't wait to see the motley crew they wind up inviting to training camp...

Back to Lee and Nate for a sec., they're obviously holding out that both eventually relent & sign the less-expensive QO. They're probably thinking - hey, they have no other offers, let them do what Ben Gordon and countless others had to do... Which I don't think is the right thing but to be clear, someone please explain in simple terms what the difference is between signing the QO and re-uping either guy for a fair, good-faith 1-year deal? I'm not sure if I'm understanding all this stuff correctly - Bird rights, cap holds, etc.. Would we shoot ourselves in the foot somehow if we chose to offer fair 1-year market value contracts to these guys?? That's the feeling I'm getting here... If anyone can clear this up I'd appreciate it because I'm really starting to get frustrated with the big delay on everything myself. I mean Jesus, there comes a point where ya gotta start being proactive, not reactive with everything right??

[Edited by - finestrg on 08-28-2009 10:09 AM]

Posted by joec32033:

I swear it is no coincidence that you can't be David without the D-I-V-A......Divad Lee is his new handle.....

all right first of all that is a good one.

BUT

imo he hasn’t been such a diva. he's looking right now at the difference between having a secure career and future or a very tentative one. it's a very intense time for him. he's gotta look for and use any leverage he can to impact how this goes. it's his life, his career. i'd be very surprised if any of us wouldn’t do the same.

Why you want any players to lay under the Knicks organization?
Just because we are Knicks fans and we want all players go bagging to play for the Knicks and if they are already with team to play with joy for charity.
The value of Lee is set by the market and if he will get it from the Knicks, he will play for Knicks. If not - he will play for any team offering him his market value money.
Having unhappy player playing for the team is just stupid. He will work on HIS game of course, but he will give a sht about what Knicks are trying to accomplish. Same goes for Nate.
It looks to me more and more that they want to get read of all players associated with Isiah era so Chan for whatever point trade should follow.

I love how fans and media react on stuff that hasnt happened yet.

If the Knicks are so bad and mean then why doesnt he go get the millions he feels he so richly deserves from another organization? Oh wait...