Posted by joec32033:

http://wfan.com/chrismikeaudio/, yeah the interview is posted....

I just listened to Chris Russo interview Zeke on WFAN and then Steve Smith from the Chicago newspapers about the Craw deal.

Basically Russo believes-The Knicks should have rebuilt totally. He hates the Crawford deal and thinks that the Knicks settled for mediocrity. At one point he said the Knicks basically secured thet 7th seed instead of the tenth. Also he asked Zeke who the last 8 seed to win the championship was (neither could name one, but he conveniently forgot the Knicks made the Finals as an 8th seed in 1999.) Seemed pretty certain that it was a bad financial investment...

Zeke said he is building in steps. We need to lose to learn to win (that is one of the great sports enigmas, isn't it?). Also my favorite quote that Zeke had when Russo was basically badgering him (can't the guy get his sinus's cleared or something...he has the MOST annoying voice I have ever heard on any radio show in existence)..."We are trying to change the engine while 40,000 feet in the air". Admitted that money was not an issue, nor will it be, either. He is looking at talent and the team, not at the price tag.

Smith said-Craw will be no more than a 3rd guard in a very good 3 guard rotation. IMHO, the Chicago media has been against this trade since it was first talked about so take that for what you want. He also said that Craw needs to learn to play the game, essentially he is more street than old-school. Also brough up the fact that this may be a precursor to another trade (he seemed pretty sure of it, considering he hammered the point pretty hard, but he also kept sayin he didn't know. So either he is giving Zeke a hell of alot more credit than he deserves or he is plain calling him stupid). He said point blank he wouldn't do this trade if he was the Knicks.

Russo seemed pretty intent on defending his point the Knicks aren't that much improved...he also ignored the 31 mil in expiring contracts at the end of the season.

Posted by Rich:

As things stand now, the Knicks will be under the cap when Houston's contract expires:

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/new_york.htm

They have 3 players taking up about 85% of the cap after Houston's contract expires. Sure, if they Don't keep Sweetney and fill all the remaining roster spots with players playing for the league minimum, they'll have enough cap room to offer one player slightly more than the MLE

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Rich:

As things stand now, the Knicks will be under the cap when Houston's contract expires:

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/new_york.htm

They have 3 players taking up about 85% of the cap after Houston's contract expires. Sure, if they Don't keep Sweetney and fill all the remaining roster spots with players playing for the league minimum, they'll have enough cap room to offer one player slightly more than the MLE

How do you know what the cap will be in three years? You don't

Getting under the cap in three years is the best thing this franchise can do going forward.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Rich:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Rich:

As things stand now, the Knicks will be under the cap when Houston's contract expires:

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/new_york.htm

They have 3 players taking up about 85% of the cap after Houston's contract expires. Sure, if they Don't keep Sweetney and fill all the remaining roster spots with players playing for the league minimum, they'll have enough cap room to offer one player slightly more than the MLE

How do you know what the cap will be in three years? You don't

The cap changes very minimally each year. I don't expect there to be a huge change.

Getting under the cap in three years is the best thing this franchise can do going forward.

You can't keep making blind statements like that but you haven't explained why most teams under the cap and up being annual repeat lotterry teams. Getting under the cap usually ensures a bad team that free agents don't want to go to.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 08/07/2004 17:57:48]

The only thing blind is your selective perception of the facts.

How did the Lakers sign Shaq? They got under the cap.

How did Kiki turn around the Nuggets? He got under the cap.

How did Riley turn around the Heat? With good drafting and getting under the cap to sign Odom.

Try to see reality more clearly. Smart basketball decisionmakers are able to turn around their teams by getting under the cap.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Rich:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Rich:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Rich:

As things stand now, the Knicks will be under the cap when Houston's contract expires:

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/new_york.htm

They have 3 players taking up about 85% of the cap after Houston's contract expires. Sure, if they Don't keep Sweetney and fill all the remaining roster spots with players playing for the league minimum, they'll have enough cap room to offer one player slightly more than the MLE

How do you know what the cap will be in three years? You don't

The cap changes very minimally each year. I don't expect there to be a huge change.

Getting under the cap in three years is the best thing this franchise can do going forward.

You can't keep making blind statements like that but you haven't explained why most teams under the cap and up being annual repeat lotterry teams. Getting under the cap usually ensures a bad team that free agents don't want to go to.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 08/07/2004 17:57:48]

The only thing blind is your selective perception of the facts.

How did the Lakers sign Shaq? They got under the cap.

How did Kiki turn around the Nuggets? He got under the cap.

How did Riley turn around the Heat? With good drafting and getting under the cap to sign Odom.

Try to see reality more clearly. Smart basketball decisionmakers are able to turn around their teams by getting under the cap.

You're right; occasionally a team is successfuly by rebuilding by getting under the cap. It works about 25 percent of the time. You're ignoring the 75% of the time it doesn't work. There are four Clipper type of teams that are under the cap and in the lottery every year for every one Laker type of team that succeeds in rebuilding by getting under the cap. I'm not ignoring either type of team. I know that occasionally getting under the cap does work, even though it usually just ensures that you'll be stuck in the lottery for a long time. I'm glad our GM is smart enough to realize that cap room usually turns out to be fool's gold.

Two points:

1) Isiah is smart enough to use the cap room wisely, and the allure of playing for the New York Knicks at MSG for a charismatic former player turned GM, is a sufficient inducement to attact virtually any free agent. Most of the teams that have failed to use cap room prudently have either dumb GMs, or an unattractive city to sell, or a team that lacks the talent base that free agents want to play with. The Knicks franchise would be a free agent magnet if they were ever able to free up significant cap space.

2) The Clippers are, as we say in the law, sui generis; they are in a class by themselves. I wish the Knicks had their roster. The reason that collection of talent isn't more successful is incomprehensibe. My guess is that the are finally likely to become a winning team soon.

Posted by eViL:

Posted by Rich:

The only thing blind is your selective perception of the facts.

How did the Lakers sign Shaq? They got under the cap.

How did Kiki turn around the Nuggets? He got under the cap.

How did Riley turn around the Heat? With good drafting and getting under the cap to sign Odom.

Try to see reality more clearly. Smart basketball decisionmakers are able to turn around their teams by getting under the cap.

I just want to clear a few things up here:

The Lakers signed Shaq in the pre-cap era. Riley was extremely fortunate that Anthony Carter and his agent are such dingbats that they didn't exercise a player option that ended up freeing space for Miami to deal with. That was most definitely not a planned effort on Riley's part. Kiki's done well, but he hasn't exactly built a champion yet.

Think about the teams that have been highly successful in this league over the past few years. How'd they get there?

Lakers: Kobe (trade) + Shaq (pre-cap signing) = 3 titles

Kings: Webber (trade) + Bibby (trade) + Peja (14th pick) = WCF

Pistons: Rip Hamilton (trade) + Ben Wallace (trade) + Chauncey Billups (MLE) + Rasheed (trade) + Prince (23rd pick) = Title

Dallas: Nash (trade) + Nowitzki (trade) + Finley (trade) = WCF

Nets: Kidd (trade) + Jefferson (trade) + Kenyon (1st pick) = Finals

Indiana: Artest (trade) + O'Neal (trade) = ECF

The Spurs are a successful team that has been well managed and extremely fortunate. We all know that they were expected to be a contender the year they won the 1st pick in the draft. If it wasn't for Robinons injury, they were on their way to another 50+ win year. If the Admiral is not sidelined all season, Tim Duncan is likely a Sixer. Tim Duncan and Allen Iverson teammates in Philly - imagine what a different league we'd be watching.

A lot of this stuff is not under the GM's control.

The point to all of this is that there is not one right way to manage and build a successful NBA team. If there was, everyone would do it. And even in all cases there's a certain amount of good fortune that's needed for things to work out. Some of the most successful teams out there got their top pieces from trades and good fortune. Not many of them got under the cap and lured a prize free agent. For every Yao and Lebron there's a Kwame and Jay Williams. So even the number one pick is no lock.

The ongoing debates about what our future looks like are entertaining and informative, but the idea that anyone knows for certain what will transpire is silly. With that said, there's just as much a chance as our team developing chemistry and becoming special as there is for our team to crumble under the pressure. As a fan, I prefer to keep a positive outlook. Some argue that we've mortaged our future for mediocrity. I'll argue that we should wait and see.

The only thing I can say for sure is that we are more talented and we're commited to more money for the next few seasons. Those two statements are facts. Whether we're horrible, mediocre or great is yet to be determined.

I won't question Isiah's approach until I've had enough time to see results. In the meantime, as a fan, I'm gonna root for the Knicks to succeed.