CrushAlot wrote:The Knicks have Curry coming off the books in 2011 already. Would that free up enough space to sign Melo and still let Walsh try to build something this summer? I don't think Walsh can wait for Melo after the Hill/Jeffries/picks trade. If he was going to go in that direction he could have just kept Jeffries and let him expire. The Knicks would have sign and trade assets and cap space to still be players this summer if that trade wasn't made. Walsh went all in for this summer. If he doesn't score a couple of big name guys that trade was a disaster.

Crush, I understand that Walsh overspent for capspace...there is nothing we can do about that now but move forward. Yes, we will have additional money coming off the books with Currys expiring, but my question is, what are the right moves to make, the right pieces to bring in if Melo is coming to NY in 2011?

Personally i would prefer Wade but i am not sure how his body will hold up.

Then use the Curry cap space to sign Melo.

Cosmic wrote:I don't think Melo IS "the" plan in any way.

I think we get ahead of ourselves in this free agent stuff.

The point of Walsh's plan was to stop the insane spending, get rid of the malcontents, and give the Knicks a clean slate.

From that clean slate you go out and acquire who you can.

I don't believe it was ever about landing certain players. Of course the timing has been good for us to have a shot at a couple of real good free agent classes but the intent wasn't ever "Lebron or bust and if bust then Melo or bust."

It's not about that. We get too wrapped up in that. Also these articles that keep getting posted aren't factual. They're speculative. They're no different than you or I saying "Hmmm, melo is a FA next summer, maybe the Knicks should take a run at him!".

Yet for some reason people read these articles and post them and react to them as if they are factual when they are merely speculative.

The idea was to clean up the mess, put an end to the practices that caused the mess, and start over. In starting over you of course will target the top players and then work your way down. I doubt we strike out and say "Oh well, lets suck throughout 2010/2011 and then try again next summer!"

Not going to happen.

There is one side factor that does worry me however: John Gabriel.

He orchestrated the Magic's overhaul and he targeted Duncan in 2000. He didn't get him but what he did was keep the payroll low for the next three seasons in an effort to target Duncan again in 2003 of which he failed yet again. In those three years he failed to put together a winning team all with the idea of waiting out Tim Duncan. That was foolish and led to his ousting from Orlando.

Now, here, he is a capologist for us, you can bet he was behind our tear down, but you hope he's not going to be a part of building the new team, for if he is? Then yeah, we're going to watch the Knicks miss out on the top FAs this summer, and Gabriel will tell Walsh to not sign anyone, keep the cap space, and try again and again. Not the best of ideas, yet, it's what he did in Orlando, and it might happen here.

I don't think it will happen here but it is possible.

Good post. The reality is that the Knicks needed to tear down and rebuild after Ewing left. It took us 10 years to finally do so. Unfortunately with so many mistakes/malcontents on the roster and Walsh's haste to get in the game for this years free-agent class mistakes may have been made by dealing our draft picks. Only time will tell on that one. But I think you are right Cosmic. I don't think that the intent was to get Lebron or else we are screwed forever. I think this is media fodder. I think the intent was to start anew. Get under the cap so we can go after free-agents from a direction of strength instead of weakness. Give the team flexibility. Go after guys like James hard. And then build the team over the next few years.

What we forget is that we did not have a draft pick in 2010. Once again we were going to have to build on top of a bad team, with poor work habits, poor attitudes and poor professionalism. And to improve that team we were going to go out and sign a Ramon Sessions/Jared Jeffriese/Jerome James type with the MLE and then brag about how they were going to turn us around. We had been doing this for 10 years and enough was enough. Now we have the flexibility to sign free-agents, trade/pay our way back into the first round and the flexibility to make trades.

Signing Lebron would be great. It would turn us around instantly. But outside of signing a guy like that, it was going to take 3-5 years from the time Walsh was hired to get this thing rolling. We are now coming upon year 3. Walsh has to make the right moves to build this thing now. Now, it's just a wait and see game. The needed tear down is done(besides the need to get rid of Eddie Curry) and the building has begun.

I was fine in trading Crawford and Zach because their contracts were ridiculous and we needed to change the culture, but Walsh really lost me with the mid-season deal. It makes no sense other than leading to the acquisition of two max free agents this year. We could have held on to those assets and either traded Jefferies or let his deal expire this year.

sebstar wrote:Jordan Hill and Jared Jeffries weren't malcontents. The future picks weren't malcontents...why did we get rid of them?

I was fine in trading Crawford and Zach because their contracts were ridiculous and we needed to change the culture, but Walsh really lost me with the mid-season deal. It makes no sense other than leading to the acquisition of two max free agents this year. We could have held on to those assets and either traded Jefferies or let his deal expire this year.

"mistakes/malcontents"

Jeffries, was a mistake. A bad player signed to a huge contract. A bad player who we purchased with the MLE with the intent of adding role players to a bad team that was never going to win big. Walsh wanted to get him off the roster to clear cap space to be fully in the game. Hill was collateral damage from the mistakes of the past. A guy you want to keep but unfortunately if you want to be in the game you had to take a gamble and trade him. We threw in draft picks as well. I personally am not excited about losing Hill and the picks, but time will tell if this was a mistake or not. If a Lebron type signs here tehn who cares about Hill and picks. If a Lebron type doesn't sign then we all care. But the answer won't come until the players sign with whatever team they sign with. So we have to wait and see.

This formula had to end.

1.) Bad team
2.) No cap space
3.) Overpaid players(whether they were good or not)
4.) No flexibility
5.) Use your MLE,LLE to sign more bad players to build on top of a bad team because that's the only choice you had.

nixluva wrote:

sebstar wrote:Jordan Hill and Jared Jeffries weren't malcontents. The future picks weren't malcontents...why did we get rid of them?

I was fine in trading Crawford and Zach because their contracts were ridiculous and we needed to change the culture, but Walsh really lost me with the mid-season deal. It makes no sense other than leading to the acquisition of two max free agents this year. We could have held on to those assets and either traded Jefferies or let his deal expire this year.

That 10 mil we got from Hill/Jared n pick was a calculated gamble that we could use that money to get a big that far surpassed what we had. The pick is an unknown! How can it be valued this early? Why even worry about it at this point? Right now it helped get us an extra 10 mil when there are a slew of top FA's to go after.

Okay so the Knicks just sign David Lee to a long-term deal and sign no one else and they no absolutely nothing else to improve the team you would still consider Walsh's moves a success? If it was never about 2010 why Walsh so desperate to get McGrady's expiring deal couldn't Walsh just have cleared cap room for this upcoming summer and left things as they were and waited for the expiring deals of 2011?

There is absolutely no way Walsh's moves aren't motivated by one thing and one thing only: getting Lebron James. The Knicks aren't rebuilding they are only clearing cap space. They haven't acquired draft picks, they haven't attained any talent (other than what they've attained through the draft), and Walsh hired a coach who isn't known for coaching young developing team.

franco12 wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:

sebstar wrote:Jordan Hill and Jared Jeffries weren't malcontents. The future picks weren't malcontents...why did we get rid of them?

I was fine in trading Crawford and Zach because their contracts were ridiculous and we needed to change the culture, but Walsh really lost me with the mid-season deal. It makes no sense other than leading to the acquisition of two max free agents this year. We could have held on to those assets and either traded Jefferies or let his deal expire this year.

"mistakes/malcontents"

Jeffries, was a mistake. A bad player signed to a huge contract. A bad player who we purchased with the MLE with the intent of adding role players to a bad team that was never going to win big. Walsh wanted to get him off the roster to clear cap space to be fully in the game. Hill was collateral damage from the mistakes of the past. A guy you want to keep but unfortunately if you want to be in the game you had to take a gamble and trade him. We threw in draft picks as well. I personally am not excited about losing Hill and the picks, but time will tell if this was a mistake or not. If a Lebron type signs here tehn who cares about Hill and picks. If a Lebron type doesn't sign then we all care. But the answer won't come until the players sign with whatever team they sign with. So we have to wait and see.

This formula had to end.

1.) Bad team
2.) No cap space
3.) Overpaid players(whether they were good or not)
4.) No flexibility
5.) Use your MLE,LLE to sign more bad players to build on top of a bad team because that's the only choice you had.

Except the formula now with Walsh having traded 3 picks for cap space is

1. Bad team
2. lots of cap space
3. all stars say thanks, but no thanks
4. Walsh has to do something, over pays marginal talent
5. no draft picks to help bring in super star talent
6. Repeat last ten years moving forward - capped out, marginally talented team, good enough to stay out of the lotto, bad enough not to make the playoffs, or perhaps have a first round exit once as an eight seed.

3 Picks? Please, stop this. It wasn't three picks.

It was: Jordan Hill a terrible basketball player that we screwed up drafting.
A 2012 pick.
A right to swap 2011 first rounders.

WE TRADED ONE PICKS, ONE BAD PLAYER, AND A RIGHT TO SWAP POSITION IN A DRAFT.

Does it sound better to say 3 picks? When it's just one? It doesn't make any argument against Walsh's plan sound any better.