[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

As per Alan Hahn: Sign and trades before 1 yr deal for Lee
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 1 of 2  1  2 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
EnySpree
Posts: 44919
Alba Posts: 138
Joined: 4/18/2003
Member: #397
8/30/2009  12:40 AM
I'm on my phone so I can't post the link to his blog right now...its an interesting read, though nothing solid.

Says basically a couple teams have sign and trade offers on Donnie's lap to consider. Says they are real but source won't reveal them for fear of squashing possible deals.

He speculates it could be Portland and gives the same rundown we all have been debating of outlaw, and blake but Donnie supposedly wanting Rudy too.

So if there's a big secret, hopefully is pops off soon. Training camp is less than a month away now.
Subscribe to my Podcast https://youtube.com/c/DiehardknicksPodcast https://twitter.com/DiehardknicksPC https://instagram.com/diehardknickspodcast
AUTOADVERT
NYKBocker
Posts: 38456
Alba Posts: 474
Joined: 1/14/2003
Member: #377
USA
8/30/2009  1:05 AM
The Godfather is going to give Portland an offer they can't refuse.
Finestrg
Posts: 27296
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/1/2006
Member: #1069
8/30/2009  11:24 AM
http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/the-knicks-fix-1.812055

I'd have to agree that any Portland scenario for David Lee would have to involve Rudy Fernandez. Or Jerryd Bayless for that matter. If push came to shove, Outlaw & Blake wouldn't be terrible, but it wouldn't be enough and I can see why. The thing is both are expiring deals that we probably wouldn't retain in order to maintain maximum cap room. Blake I don't care too much about - he's serviceable but nothing special, kinda on the same level as Duhon.. But just waiving goodbye to Travis Outlaw would be tough man. He's young & he's good. In the end, Outlaw & Blake just isn't enough - now if they wanted to kick in their 1st rounder next year, now maybe we're talkin'. I betcha Donnie wants at least 1 salary-controlled, young long-term player outta this deal to hang his hat on. I think that's the key for Walsh. And I don't blame him..

In this latest article, Hahn concluded with this thought, which I don't understand: "Getting back to Lee, I'm still leaning toward the belief that the end result will be a 1-year deal at an agreeable price (just a guess, but I'd say $9M should get it done...note that it's basically the Mobley salary slot). The sides could still negotiate an extension during the season and also, obviously, in July." If they chose to give Lee a 1-year deal and then resigned him during the season to an extension, doesn't that jepordize cap space in a big way? It's the same as offering him a long-term deal right now, which they don't want to do...

A little further down in his blog, in his "Iverson will not be a Knick" piece, Kahn clears up how the qualifying offer works with regard to Nate & Lee: "... at this point Robinson is the Knicks' property, for better or for worse. Once they went beyond the July 23 date, both parties now have to agree to walk away from the QO. In Nate's case, that is not going to happen. Instead, it's almost assured he will at least walk into training camp with his qualifyer. And, as a result, the Knicks can't trade him this season unless Robinson agrees to the trade.

It would be different in David Lee's case. If the Knicks opt to offer him a one-year at a number higher than his QO, Lee would agree to walk away from his QO to take that number. And that would also allow the Knicks to trade Lee during the season if a deal came up."

[Edited by - finestrg on 08-30-2009 11:27 AM]
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/30/2009  11:52 AM
If they chose to give Lee a 1-year deal and then resigned him during the season to an extension, doesn't that jepordize cap space in a big way?
Maybe by then they'll have a better idea of the 2010 FA market because they can see which stars have signed extensions with their teams.
Finestrg
Posts: 27296
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/1/2006
Member: #1069
8/30/2009  12:25 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
If they chose to give Lee a 1-year deal and then resigned him during the season to an extension, doesn't that jepordize cap space in a big way?
Maybe by then they'll have a better idea of the 2010 FA market because they can see which stars have signed extensions with their teams.

Right. I guess so. Or if by some miracle Donnie can come up with a way to dump either Curry or Jeffries during the season, then we'll have the room.

Back to the QO for both Nate & Lee for a sec. - if we're gonna bring either Nate or Lee back it almost has to be for a more substantial offer than the qualifying offer. With that comes important trade flexibility for the team with both players. The last thing I'd want to see is Nate or Lee veto a trade if a deal came up for us during the season that could help us i.e. the draft-day deal with Lee we supposedly had in place with Memphis a couple of years ago, etc. Say we had something in place to move Jeffries during the season and had to include Nate, can you imagine Nate squashing the deal? That would piss me off to no end. Give each guy substantial 1-year raises in order to have each forgo the protection that's provided by the QO, which basically amounts to a no-trade clause. That's the way to go. It'd be worth the Knicks and Dolan coming up with a decent amount of money to insure that type of flexibility. Walsh needs to make sure Jimmy Dolan understands this.

[Edited by - finestrg on 08-30-2009 12:35 PM]
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
8/30/2009  1:50 PM
i agree w/ur idea in principle, but you also have to make sure you don't overprice those guys too much from their real market value cuz then you'd have a hard time trading them... you'd almost be forced to take back a garbage contract in that case, which sorta defeats the purpose to begin with.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
joec32033
Posts: 30622
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
8/30/2009  3:59 PM
Question. If Donnie is so adamant about Rudy, (who, I wouldn't say I like him, the more I read about him the more I am moving in that direction), what does that say about the whole Chandler at the 2 guard thing?

I mean, everyone is saying Gallo is a SF so there is really no room for Wilson to grow there. Hill is being talked about as a PF. If Portland realizes we get the same cap space whether we trade Lee for that crap package(we won't resign either player(Blake or Outlaw, IMHO) or by just letting Lee walk, where is Wilson in this equation?

Personally if Portland is willing to do a package like Lee and Jefferies or Curry, the base package of Blake and Outlaw is workable. Portland has alot of small manageable contracts.

Blake, Outlaw, and Pryzbilla for Lee and Curry doesn't work perfectly but it's close.

I just don't get how Portland can think it can say take all of it's chips off the market (and even then saying Bayless is untouchable)but the smaller ones, which they know and everyone else knows that Portland has no use for whatsoever. Portland's perfect trade partner is a team like GS, with a guy with a long term contract they already want to unload.

I just don't understand how Portland sees a trade of expiring contracts for a guy that we can let walk after the year anyway is beneficial to us in any way at all.

Personally, if I was Donnie, I am telling Portland I am only doing a deal with Bayless and Fernandez involved. We can give you Lee and some major cap savings in Cuttino's contract if you want to expand. We'll sign David to a deal starting at 8-9 mil so he works his way up to his 11.

Bayless, Rudy, Outlaw, Blake for Lee, Duhon, and $3 mil.
~You can't run from who you are.~
King1
Posts: 22993
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/2/2005
Member: #998
USA
8/30/2009  4:12 PM
I dont think Walsh and MDA are looking to move Jeffires they had a chance last year. I would think Jared will play more than Hill and Darko this year.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/30/2009  4:15 PM
Posted by Finestrg:
Posted by Bonn1997:
If they chose to give Lee a 1-year deal and then resigned him during the season to an extension, doesn't that jepordize cap space in a big way?
Maybe by then they'll have a better idea of the 2010 FA market because they can see which stars have signed extensions with their teams.

Right. I guess so. Or if by some miracle Donnie can come up with a way to dump either Curry or Jeffries during the season, then we'll have the room.

Back to the QO for both Nate & Lee for a sec. - if we're gonna bring either Nate or Lee back it almost has to be for a more substantial offer than the qualifying offer. With that comes important trade flexibility for the team with both players. The last thing I'd want to see is Nate or Lee veto a trade if a deal came up for us during the season that could help us i.e. the draft-day deal with Lee we supposedly had in place with Memphis a couple of years ago, etc. Say we had something in place to move Jeffries during the season and had to include Nate, can you imagine Nate squashing the deal? That would piss me off to no end. Give each guy substantial 1-year raises in order to have each forgo the protection that's provided by the QO, which basically amounts to a no-trade clause. That's the way to go. It'd be worth the Knicks and Dolan coming up with a decent amount of money to insure that type of flexibility. Walsh needs to make sure Jimmy Dolan understands this.

[Edited by - finestrg on 08-30-2009 12:35 PM]

Nate and Lee can still veto a trade if we give them more than the QO. We could reach an unofficial agreement that they wouldn't veto a trade if we gave them more. Then I guess we'd just have to hope they play Mr. Nice Guy since they have no legal obligation to keep their word on that agreement.
joec32033
Posts: 30622
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
8/30/2009  4:18 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Finestrg:
Posted by Bonn1997:
If they chose to give Lee a 1-year deal and then resigned him during the season to an extension, doesn't that jepordize cap space in a big way?
Maybe by then they'll have a better idea of the 2010 FA market because they can see which stars have signed extensions with their teams.

Right. I guess so. Or if by some miracle Donnie can come up with a way to dump either Curry or Jeffries during the season, then we'll have the room.

Back to the QO for both Nate & Lee for a sec. - if we're gonna bring either Nate or Lee back it almost has to be for a more substantial offer than the qualifying offer. With that comes important trade flexibility for the team with both players. The last thing I'd want to see is Nate or Lee veto a trade if a deal came up for us during the season that could help us i.e. the draft-day deal with Lee we supposedly had in place with Memphis a couple of years ago, etc. Say we had something in place to move Jeffries during the season and had to include Nate, can you imagine Nate squashing the deal? That would piss me off to no end. Give each guy substantial 1-year raises in order to have each forgo the protection that's provided by the QO, which basically amounts to a no-trade clause. That's the way to go. It'd be worth the Knicks and Dolan coming up with a decent amount of money to insure that type of flexibility. Walsh needs to make sure Jimmy Dolan understands this.

[Edited by - finestrg on 08-30-2009 12:35 PM]

Nate and Lee can still veto a trade if we give them more than the QO. We could reach an unofficial agreement that they wouldn't veto a trade if we gave them more. Then I guess we'd just have to hope they play Mr. Nice Guy since they have no legal obligation to keep their word on that agreement.

No they can't. We went over this before. Basically the QO is the least they are going to make, and if they are going to make that(because it is more team friendly, the trade off is they can approve or veto trades). If they decide to sign for more they forfeit their right to veto trades.

Check that...just looked at Coon's FAQ.....sorry....got to give Lee that second year to trade out that right of first refusal..



[Edited by - joec32033 on 30 August 2009 16:27]
~You can't run from who you are.~
GKFv2
Posts: 26752
Alba Posts: 114
Joined: 1/16/2007
Member: #1259
USA
8/30/2009  4:38 PM
Hahn is becoming Marc Berman. It's pretty sad.
Thank you, Rick Brunson.
Ira
Posts: 24692
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/14/2001
Member: #91
8/30/2009  5:37 PM
Posted by joec32033:

Question. If Donnie is so adamant about Rudy, (who, I wouldn't say I like him, the more I read about him the more I am moving in that direction), what does that say about the whole Chandler at the 2 guard thing?

I mean, everyone is saying Gallo is a SF so there is really no room for Wilson to grow there. Hill is being talked about as a PF. If Portland realizes we get the same cap space whether we trade Lee for that crap package(we won't resign either player(Blake or Outlaw, IMHO) or by just letting Lee walk, where is Wilson in this equation?

Personally if Portland is willing to do a package like Lee and Jefferies or Curry, the base package of Blake and Outlaw is workable. Portland has alot of small manageable contracts.

Blake, Outlaw, and Pryzbilla for Lee and Curry doesn't work perfectly but it's close.

I just don't get how Portland can think it can say take all of it's chips off the market (and even then saying Bayless is untouchable)but the smaller ones, which they know and everyone else knows that Portland has no use for whatsoever. Portland's perfect trade partner is a team like GS, with a guy with a long term contract they already want to unload.

I just don't understand how Portland sees a trade of expiring contracts for a guy that we can let walk after the year anyway is beneficial to us in any way at all.

Personally, if I was Donnie, I am telling Portland I am only doing a deal with Bayless and Fernandez involved. We can give you Lee and some major cap savings in Cuttino's contract if you want to expand. We'll sign David to a deal starting at 8-9 mil so he works his way up to his 11.

Bayless, Rudy, Outlaw, Blake for Lee, Duhon, and $3 mil.

I'd like to see something like Bayless and Outlaw for Lee and (if necessary) the 2nd round pick we got for Balkman.
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
8/30/2009  10:19 PM
if we are just dumping Lee for ending deals- can we at least get two future first rounders?
King1
Posts: 22993
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/2/2005
Member: #998
USA
8/30/2009  10:58 PM
You dont want to give Lee away but you dont want to pay him either. If there isnt any market for himn how are you going to get any good players. I would rather trade for something than lose himn for nothing next year
EnySpree
Posts: 44919
Alba Posts: 138
Joined: 4/18/2003
Member: #397
8/31/2009  2:51 AM
Lee and his agent have to come off that "pay him properly" stuff. If Lee wants a contract his agent has to be realistic and work with the Knicks. They know what the Knicks are trying to do. They gotta help the Knicks if they want to get paid.

Yo Donnie said he hopes it wouldn't get to it, but he did say that one of Lee's options is to sit out. So Donnie is already prepared to go into the season without Lee....

This situations is all in Lee and his agents hands IMHO.

Needs of the Knicks??? Expirings, a useable young guys, and possible a pick...we all know what's good. Im sticking by the my comments that this is all Lee and his agents mockery. Knicks don't have to really do anything. It would suck to lose talent for nothing but it would also suck to overpay or take back non-sense and ruin the whole 2010 plan just to show loyalty or to reward Lee.
Subscribe to my Podcast https://youtube.com/c/DiehardknicksPodcast https://twitter.com/DiehardknicksPC https://instagram.com/diehardknickspodcast
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
8/31/2009  6:43 AM
Posted by franco12:

if we are just dumping Lee for ending deals- can we at least get two future first rounders?
You could easily trade outlaw during the season to a team with cap space in exchange for either a draft pick or a decent player on a rookie contract. Or you could re-sign him without using up too much cap space.
JohnWallace44
Posts: 25119
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 6/14/2005
Member: #910
USA
8/31/2009  9:12 AM
Posted by King1:

I dont think Walsh and MDA are looking to move Jeffires they had a chance last year. I would think Jared will play more than Hill and Darko this year.

If this is anything close to true then Donnie needs to be banned.



Not sure what happened with Sacto last year at the deadline, but pretty sure Donnie just slept through it accidentally.

He should be giving anything to trade Jeffries just as he should be for Curry.

Alan Hahn: Nate Robinson has been on a ridonkulous scoring tear lately (remember when he couldn't hit Jerome James with a Big Mac in early January?)
Finestrg
Posts: 27296
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/1/2006
Member: #1069
8/31/2009  10:20 AM
In order of importance, this is what the Knicks need to bring back in a Lee deal:

(A) A young, cost-effective player that fills a long-term need, preferably a PG or a SG - either Bayless or Fernandez would be perfect.

(B) At least 1 1st round pick in a deal that doesn't fall under category A.

(C) Reasonable value, even if it's not the best fit. As TMS has been saying, there's no way you let Lee walk away for nothing. I'm either signing him for this upcoming season or if it looks like we can't get either A or B, I'll take an Outlaw/Blake package and figure out what to do with Outlaw later (like Bonn touched on, we could always deal Outlaw later - or maybe obtaining Outlaw opens up the possibility of dealing Chandler for substantial value, or maybe we could deal Outlaw for an up & coming 2-guard to fill a need like Courtney Lee, etc.). Even though Outlaw's not the best fit here with Chandler and Gallo (and hopefully LeBron in 2010 or maybe Melo in 2011), he's still a young, very solid, athletic 2-way player that has good value. You give Outlaw 35+ mins. a night and a lot of offensive responsibility (picture Outlaw with the same green light Al Harrington has), with his game & skills, he could very well blow up into a borderline all-star. Chandler, Outlaw and Jordan Hill, 2, 3 & 4, sounds very intriguing.. If that's really all that's out there, Outlaw & Blake wouldn't be terrible...

[Edited by - finestrg on 08-31-2009 10:33 AM]
cooch2584
Posts: 21588
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/28/2006
Member: #1187
8/31/2009  10:32 AM
IMHO i offer lee the 5-7 mil range and THATS IT!!! And I gotta ask why are we always trying to get rid of Chandler!! What is it you guys dont like about him??
Finestrg
Posts: 27296
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/1/2006
Member: #1069
8/31/2009  10:42 AM
Posted by cooch2584:

IMHO i offer lee the 5-7 mil range and THATS IT!!! And I gotta ask why are we always trying to get rid of Chandler!! What is it you guys dont like about him??

I don't think anyone here dislikes Chandler. Not at all. Just speaking for myself -- if we amassed enough talent at the 3 (with Gallo, say we picked up Travis Outlaw then say we managed to land LeBron James), Chandler's suddenly not the best fit anymore. I mean he can play the 2 I guess, but I'm not convinced that's his best position. He does have very good value though - depending on what you believe, sounds like we could've gotten the 5th pick in this draft if we had agreed to deal Chandler. If we ever amassed enough talent where he suddenly became expendable, we could get something really nice for him I think. Otherwise, I'm fine with him staying here.
Page 1 of 2  1  2 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
As per Alan Hahn: Sign and trades before 1 yr deal for Lee
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy