Thank you for making my point entirely. Why is it that these players are talented black holes with negative trade value on the Knicks, but become incredible contributors elsewhere? Why couldn't have Walsh turned them into contributor in NY first before trading them? NBA doesn't care about "past issues" for good players. They care about "issues" only when the player's not helping the team win. If Z-Bo and Crawford are helping the Knicks to even a playoff birth putting up 15-20ppg, you think they won't have positive trade value? I guarantee you at least one contender is going to bite on their contracts for a championship run.
Uh, I'm pretty sure your grand point was that Walsh traded those guys for "zero assets" when in reality that's not even remotely accurate. Crawford netted Harrington, Z-Bo netted Thomas/Mobley + cap space, Robinson netted House + two young guys and Hill was the price Walsh had to pay to unload Jeffries. By and large, that's a fairly decent return for all those players from a personnel standpoint. This, of course, being a distant secondary objective to the REAL motivation behind all these moves -- slashing post-2010 salary AKA cap space. If you want to accurately criticize Walsh then let's delay this discussion until the end of the summer. If he's unable to convince one or two max players to sign, is unable to significantly boost the Knicks via trade and/or his plan completely blows up in his face....then we'll talk. Until then, it's pointless to argue about this strategy this early in the game. Also, it's not hard to judge how good a player is relative to what he's being paid. This goes hand-in-hand with team success. If you have players like Crawford and Z-Bo that are being paid $10M+ over the next 3-4 years while your team is losing and those players are displaying playing styles that aren't conducive to winning, it's not hard to make the decision to move on. It happens all the time in this league. The mistake you're making is judging those trades in hindsight while each player currently only has one year left on their contracts -AND- after they both finally played and contributed on a winning team. For Crawford, this much was expected. I follow the Hawks closely and he's been the perfect type of player to bring off the bench. The Hawks are good enough to win without him, but on nights where he's hot and his shot is falling they're nearly unbeatable. They don't care about bringing a $10M player off of the bench -- something most teams are reluctant to do. Amazing, that's taken 10 years and four teams for somebody to finally figure out that 'Jamal Crawford the starter' is pure poison but 'Jamal Crawford the bench spark' could be absolutely lethal. Z-Bo? That's a bit of a different story. There were some rather lengthy and exhaustive arguments between myself and others versus MemphisX and any other delusional Grizzles fans that thinks acquiring Z-Bo was all about trying to win versus making a play to acquire a player so you both can satisfy the league's mandatory salary floor as well as do so in a manner where you're only taking on a two-year deal versus the typical 4-5 year free agent deal. I am 100% convinced that the latter was Michael Heisley's motivation behind acquiring Z-Bo and that his sudden success on the Grizzlies was primarily by sheer luck and surprise. I don't think anybody in their right mind expected Z-Bo to wise up the way he did -- eliminating the dribbling, three point attempts, learning to pass and play defense, etc. These were all changes he's showed for the first time in his career and were literally impossible to forecast. In any event, good for Z-Bo and good for the Grizzlies. The one point you could be right about is that a contender could make a play for Z-Bo this summer and I wouldn't be surprised at all. With Rudy Gay due for a payday and Heisley declaring his intentions to operate below a pathetic $50M mark, that's definitely a possibility.
And how many of these players will be with the team at the end of the season? None of the players you mentioned will be on the Knicks roster next year(maybe except some roster filler like Bill Walker). So no, they're not assets. A future 1st round pick would be an asset. A young player who's paid on the low rookie salary scale, like Wilson Chandler, is an asset. CBud is the type of "asset" that would greatly help NY. Harrington is not an asset because he's gone in the offseason. And if you think Thomas and Mobley are assets, well, you and I have very different definition on the word. No. A swap of the 2011 pick and a 2012 pick was the price to unload Jeffries. If Hill had the value of anywhere near a #8 pick, Walsh wouldn't have been fleeced so hard by Morey.
Without debating semantics, expiring contracts are very much considered assets. That said, it's no secret what Walsh is doing -- clear as much cap space as possible while retaining only small, rookie scale type contracts post-2010 which they already had in Chandler, Douglas and Gallinari and which they now have in Walker/Giddens/Rodriguez as well. House is expiring this year but given his history with D'Antoni I would be very surprised if he wasn't retained. Thomas and Mobley had value both as players and expiring contracts at the time of the Z-Bo trade. Unfortunately for Mobley, his heart condition that forced him to retire was soon discovered and Walsh elected to package Thomas/James in a deal for Hughes' expiring deal. In any event, at their very worst Thomas/Mobley still had value due to their contracts, Harrington had value due to his contract and ability to play immediately and House + Walker/Giddens + Rodriguez are all low-risk/cost players that both provide depth and won't interfere with the major roster overhaul that Walsh currently has in the works. To sit here and suggest that Walsh dealt your three cancers (at the time) and Hill for "zero assets" in return is not accurate. He got exactly what he wanted and in the case of Harrington, House and Walker he also got players in return that they intended on using right away. If that doesn't qualify as an asset then you and I really do have some fundamental differences of what that term really means. Obviously, the draft picks were part of the equation too, but it makes absolutely zero sense for Walsh to draft Hill and then 'dump' him less than a year later unless there was a compelling reason to do so. From Walsh's standpoint, unloading Jeffries was VERY high on the priority list. This is what enabled the Knicks to free up enough cap space to offer two max contract free agent deals instead of one. Hill and the draft picks were the price to do so -- I was merely simplifying this point in my original argument by only suggesting that Hill was the price for unloading Jeffries. It's the same point regardless and it still stands.
I think both of you raise very good points, but I'm going to have to lean a little more in favor of baller4life on this one. Would it have been better if Donnie Walsh could have netted more future draft picks in his deals? Of course. But Walsh's mandate was, from day one, to maximize the Knicks' cap room for the summer of 2010. And he has accomplished that goal. Donnie Walsh is an excellent GM, career-wise. I still think he got fleeced by Morey, but that had more to do with his disadvantageous negotiating position than with his negotiating skills. Randolph had negative trade value at the time he was traded, yet Walsh found a taker in the Clippers. Crawford netted the Knicks Al Harrington, who was supposed to help the Knicks contend for a playoff spot THIS season and keep the fans placated for another year until Lebron shows up. The Knicks also have two high second rounders this summer, one acquired in the Renaldo Balkman deal, that will add no more cap room to the Knicks than the mandatory roster charge otherwise would. meh, your point still stands, though, that the Knicks are relatively devoid of future assets. Aside from those two second rounders and the Rockets' 2011 pick (which they can't even trade until AFTER the 2011 draft), the Knicks don't have much in the way of trade assets. I can easily see them having to deal Wilson Chandler in order to fill other positions of need. Bottom line: It looks bleak for New York; but Donnie Walsh did the best he could, given the terrible hand that Isiah Thomas and James Dolan dealt him.
The really screwed up when they gave us that 2012 pick, imo. That was their safety net even If they did strike out in free agency. I would try and trade for Ricky Rubio If I was the Knicks, whatever it takes. Gallo, Chandler, Lee, whatever. Bring him over in a couple years and start fresh with a good PG in 2012...
Agreed (on the 2012 pick), although they really had no choice. The top-5 protection on that pick also screws them, since it is possible (although not probable) that the Knicks won't be able to fulfill their obligation until 2015. That means that any future first round pick would have to be conditioned on them first fulfilling their obligation to the Rockets and waiting two years. More likely, it would have to be the right to swap picks with the Knicks in the "First Available Draft", meaning the first draft AFTER they send their first round pick to Houston. As for Rubio, I suppose that, since Minnesota will be under the cap, the Knicks could sign-and-trade David Lee there, but Lee would have to WANT to go there; plus, the T-Wolves already have two power forwards trying to play some center in Al Jefferson and Kevin Love. I don't think they'd have a real need for Lee. Perhaps the Knicks could trade Gallinari, but he's really a PF, so you have the same problem there. What else do the Knicks have to offer that David Kahn would actually want in exchange for Rubio? Nothing. Chandler won't be enough. Knicks are screwed. I'm going to love watching them fail over the next couple of years.
I guess that's where you and I differ. I don't view any player that won't be in NY next season as assets. I don't know why you even bring up so many player names. All these names can be replaced by expiring player #1, #2, #3, etc. and it won't even matter. Because that's the way Walsh views them. And stop saying how they "contribute". They contribute to one of the worst teams in the NBA. You can sign NDBL players to 10-day contracts for that kind of contribution. Sergio Rodriguez couldn't get playing time on the freaking Sacramento Kings. Nothing like getting depth from the vaunted deep roster of the Kings. In the end, these players won't contribute to the free agents they bring in. Except perhaps in making FA feel like they're playing with crap. Quick question: If the NY Knicks offered the #8 pick and Jeffries to the Rockets at last year's draft for expiring(say Brian Cook and Brent Barry), would Morey do it?
I'm pretty sure that wasn't the goal. The goal was to use that cap space to SIGN free agents with that money. And to sign free agents, you have to woo them to your city. And in order to woo them, you have to show them that they have a bright future with your team. And to show that bright future, you show them the great players they get to play with. Or in the Knicks case: Gallinari: drafted in front of Brook Lopez only to regress into a stiff. Wilson Chandler: Good young player Toney Douglas: Hasn't really played Eddie Curry: No comment Lots of free agents who can't find a team willing to pay them more than the minimum: Lebron's wet dream Oh, and team's picking in the mid-20s in the 2011 in draft and has no pick in 2012.
This is really starting to get pointless. So now instead of arguing your original point you're going to switch your point to NY not receiving any post-2010 assets as your main gripe with Walsh. Not only that, but you're going to contend that the players Walsh received aren't good enough. That they're not real "contributors". I mean, honestly. I respect your opinion but this is dumb. How many times do you need to hear that clearing cap space was his primary goal? Well, he did that and he collected some useful pieces along the way. That's about the best that you can hope to do if you were in his shoes. Probably not. Morey has stated that he had Hill ranked somewhere in the teens and we're all aware of his interest in Rubio (who was gone at that point). Plus, we're talking about paying Jeffries 2.5 years versus 1.5 years. Granted, we'll already be in LT territory next year but his contract gives us the option to dress up his $7M expiring deal however we want and possibly shoot for a bigger deal. It's why you've seen so many wet dream scenarios of us offering Jeffries/Battier + the NY picks + whatever in some megadeal for the Bosh types. Those are all unlikely, I realize. Worst case scenario is we just let Jeffries expire and enjoy the luxury of having a 22-year-old big body with upside in Hill.
NY ppl are stupid they have a false belief that theyre 'entitled' to sign the biggest names just becuz theyre in NY.. wat front-running r****ds.. they gut their team, mortgage their future all for wat? the illusion that they will sign 2 max players in the offseason? lol wat idiots I cant remember the last time they were any good.. can any1 feel me in? last time they were any threat Houston was kickin their ass in the Finals arent they supposed to be the 'Mecca'? all ive seen is hot garbage the last couple decades screw NY
Outside of maybe the Lakers (premier team), Bulls (big market), Heat (Florida), and Celtics (premier franchise and talented team), I could ask the same question about any other team in the NBA. Why would any FA want to go to Utah? Why would any FA want to go to New Orleans? Why would any FA want to go to Memphis? Why would any FA want to go to Atlanta? Why would any FA want to go to . . . Hou-ston? New York has alot of money to throw at perspective players, while also being in the biggest market in the US. Also, I'd imagine, if they Walsh can pull enough resources together (with or without LeBron James) . . . I believe the Knicks could have a fairly competitive EC playoff team. It would work better, if they didn't sign two max contracts, and just one with a number of quality players. Re-signing David Lee should be pretty high on the list, though. While, they already have Danilo Gallanari and Wilson Chandler. I'd say they don't necessarily need forwards, I'd simply move Lee to pf (he is not made for center, especially on defense). The Knicks main priority should be shooting guard, starting (and backup) center, backup power forward, and point guard. Backup Shooting guard: Bill Walker Backup Point guard: Toney Douglas Five positions that the Knicks need desperately. Nearly 70 million in cap space, I believe. Joe Johnson Tyrus Thomas (res.) Brad Miller Shaquille O'Neal Kwame Brown (yuck) Dirk Nowitzki (ETO), unlikely to opt out Yao Ming (ETO) Earl Watson Rudy Gay (res.) Anthony Morrow (res.) Dwayne Wade (P.) Jermaine O'Neal Amar'e Stoudemire Hakim Warrick Willie Green (ETO) Manu Ginobili Chris Bosh Brendan Haywood Carlos Boozer Ronnie Brewer (res.) Carl Landry (T) Could acquire Monta Ellis through a trade? Might could get Darren Collison or Chris Paul for the right deal? In fact, I would say that the Knicks might could get a pretty decent player for simply trading money or take on someone's salary?
I wouldn't hold that against them.Those are guys who need lots of talent around them to be productive; a team gets into trouble if they are expected to do too much. And on a team like the Knicks, that's exactly the problem they would run into. New York did what it had to do after a decade of decadence and nothing to show for it. Only time will tell if they can get a bonafide building block out of it... and I see no reason why Joe Johnson and Boozer/Amare won't bolt for NY. If the Knicks are smart they can sign them all for slightly less than the max, given the issues surrounding the upcoming CBA.
YOur logic with respect to this one exhibits some defects: First off, I don't really believe that there is a magic "developing of players" quotient that any franchise has. Players generally develop themselves. Some do, some don't. When you get talented young players on your team, and they work hard etc- they become talented veteran players. That's it. Furthermore - there's no reason to believe that a particular franchise or city would be more conducive to this as a general matter, irrespective of the team itself. Second, David Lee and Nate Robinson, recently, were picked from relative obscurity to become pretty decent NBA players Third, Darko has failed pretty much every single NBA stop, but it is the Knicks who failed to develop him when they got him at the end of the line? That is incredibly weak sauce. That shot would be blocked by Chuck Hayes. And he wouldn't even have to jump. Fourth, Gallinari is having a decent season, no he's not as good as Brook Lopez, but then neither is Michael Beasley, who was drafted second. The problem is that you appear to be conflating everything from the two regimes, and the coaching patterns - as "The Knicks". There was the Thomas era. There is the Walsh-D'Antoni era. Each one had different goals and made differetn rules for different reasons.
No, the Knicks don't have 70 million in cap space. It's probably not even half of that. (Most estimates are in the 30-35 range, and that is after you renounce all your free agents and lose their Bird rights.) No, they most likely can't trade for those guys, seeing all they have to trade is Eddie Curry, Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari and Toney Douglas. (Maybe for sign& trade with Lee but then you need his consent and why would he want go to those teams again?) And you can only include a limited amount of money, 3 millions I believe in a deal. And then again that only works when you have cap space to absorb the contract. So they are not going to get anybody significant by that method either. And you could have probably figured all this out by reading the first page in this thread.
Question... if i remember correctly, teams have sold their draft pick for money in previous years. Could NY purchase a first round pick (mid to lower) if there is one to offer from a team with financial trouble? If this is possible, how much of an impact would this pay-out be on their cap?
Teams can include up to $3M in any trade, so the Knicks could by a first round pick for that much. That cash would not affect their cap, but the rookie scale salary of the player selected in the first round would count against the Knicks' cap and likely prevent them from offering two full max contracts.
anyone who says that the NY market ain't a big deal, and then compares it to houston is r****ded and never been anywhere near NY except perhaps times square. if LBJ lands in NY, which is HIGHLY likely, nike will make him a billionaire for the simple fact that its a marketing dream come true. do you realize how big NY is? what else is there? LA is the only place that can compare, but they got someone named Kobe somebody. Lebron will be king of the city, and its an allure, along with money, that a young man of Lebrons maturity can't pass up. remember, this is the kid that dances around when his team is humiliating other teams. NY is the center of the world, it has every form of media, is the hiphop mecca (if you don't think that matters, you haven't read anything about him) and the single biggest market of any city in the nation. why would he not sign there? he could do 5 years in new york, make a TON of money, and STILL be in his prime if he wants to move. this is a stupid thread, and totally dillusional
