BRIGGS wrote:I highly doubt it.

I'd much rather have a 1 year commitment to Lee than a max contract for Monroe or supermax for Aldridge, especially if GSW is willing to sweeten the deal for us taking on his salary.

The good thing about Lee is that his contract is up next year, which could be a good thing going into that off season FA market. If GS did sweeten the deal that would be very interesting. But what could they offer that would really be of value?

Bonn1997 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:I highly doubt it.

I'd much rather have a 1 year commitment to Lee than a max contract for Monroe or supermax for Aldridge, especially if GSW is willing to sweeten the deal for us taking on his salary.

1000x yes. Rather have Lee's expiring than Aldridge or Monroe. If GSW throws in a draft pick then it'd be even better.

BRIGGS wrote:

nixluva wrote:Monroe can legitimately play C or PF. He's not as agile and quick as Lee, but he is a younger and beefier big who can hold his ground on the block and allow our offense to function properly.

The good thing about Lee is that his contract is up next year, which could be a good thing going into that off season FA market. If GS did sweeten the deal that would be very interesting. But what could they offer that would really be of value?

I'm not loving the free agents here. How bad would it be to walk away with Lee and Wallace for 1 year with picks 16 and 30? We resign Shveyd Cole release Jose and see if we can add a cheap C like Anjica for 4 years 24-26mm. We'd have picks 1/4-16 and 30 an all star(or close to it) PF who runs the triangle and then maximum cap space in a better free agent year when we have no picks. I think its a very reasonable plan.

You're not getting the 16th pick of the draft from simply assuming Gerald Wallace's contract but I support the general strategy of leveraging our cap space for assets. If LaMarcus Aldridge isn't interested, we need to make moves that can give us tools for a better future.

nychamp wrote:Absolutely NO to David Lee. 1st team all NBA, all time worst defender. Never has been a winning player though his stats fool many otherwise knowledgable bball fans who rely too much on numbers. Plus as others have mentioned, he is significantly down from the height of his abilities, a bench player at this point.

Why do you think the Knicks are set on winning the championship next year? Id rather be competitive and develop--exactly what is a realistic expectation? To go from winning 17 to 57 with who? if Boston and GS will feed us those two picks and we get Lee for 2015-2016 its a huge win.

Moonangie wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

nychamp wrote:Absolutely NO to David Lee. 1st team all NBA, all time worst defender. Never has been a winning player though his stats fool many otherwise knowledgable bball fans who rely too much on numbers. Plus as others have mentioned, he is significantly down from the height of his abilities, a bench player at this point.

Why do you think the Knicks are set on winning the championship next year? Id rather be competitive and develop--exactly what is a realistic expectation? To go from winning 17 to 57 with who? if Boston and GS will feed us those two picks and we get Lee for 2015-2016 its a huge win.

That's a BIG if, but certainly would be a solid plan for us. We're not competing next year for a chip, so we can leverage our available cap space on a one year rental in order to acquire additional picks. In fact, the more I consider it, the more I like this idea. Better than maxing GM or LA. Way better. It doesn't matter if Lee is a has been. We need picks in 2015 since we have none next year.

nixluva wrote:

Moonangie wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

nychamp wrote:Absolutely NO to David Lee. 1st team all NBA, all time worst defender. Never has been a winning player though his stats fool many otherwise knowledgable bball fans who rely too much on numbers. Plus as others have mentioned, he is significantly down from the height of his abilities, a bench player at this point.

Why do you think the Knicks are set on winning the championship next year? Id rather be competitive and develop--exactly what is a realistic expectation? To go from winning 17 to 57 with who? if Boston and GS will feed us those two picks and we get Lee for 2015-2016 its a huge win.

That's a BIG if, but certainly would be a solid plan for us. We're not competing next year for a chip, so we can leverage our available cap space on a one year rental in order to acquire additional picks. In fact, the more I consider it, the more I like this idea. Better than maxing GM or LA. Way better. It doesn't matter if Lee is a has been. We need picks in 2015 since we have none next year.

I'm not sure that Phil has sold Melo on this kind of plan. It sounds to me like he's told Melo that he intends to make some improvement next season and likely again in 2016 FA Market. I'm guessing he wants to set things up cap wise so that he has enough space to go after a 2016 FA. I just don't perceive Phil wanting to build mostly thru the draft. Things could change but that doesn't seem to be what he's looking to do.

We can tell Melo all he wants--we wont get a player better than David Lee. If we can get both picks for both players at 26mm and waived Jose--we'd still have roughly 7mm to spend if we give Alex the upper level exception. David Lee 3 1st round draft picks one likely top 3 and an additional 7mm? What more can we get? What player is better than David Lee that we can get. Lee can avg 20-10-4 here. If we have Towns/Okafor-- Portis/Wood/Kaminsky and Anjica plus Lee? 3 7 footers plus Lee--I dont think we can do better than that.

I'm not sure that Phil is willing to take that many chances on young prospects. We have to start being realistic. The Knicks are not going to turn into the Sixers or T'Wolves. They clearly want to have a much better season next year using the FA Market and then likely doing it again the next summer. There are relatively young FA's who can be acquired and would form a good core for a good run of years. I think that's what Phil is thinking.

Phil is thinking that he can draft a young player for the future and put a new core of vets together who can win now and still have a great future once he gets past 2016 he has all of his 1st rd. picks. The next 4 years he can win games with vets and develop young players behind them. It's less risky for him than going with even more kids and waiting for them to develop enough to go deep in the playoffs. Phil is thinking Bynum and the Lakers vets were able to win as he developed. Bynum had health and personality issues, but if he didn't that plan would've worked long term.