Discussion:
Being ALMOST under the cap is like being ALMOST not pregnant...
(too old to reply)
r***@hotmail.com
2006-02-23 15:22:00 UTC
Permalink
People are saying, "step in the right direction", "let the contracts
expire". Well, if you aren't under the cap, then what is the point?
You save Dolan money. I guess people are members of the Dolan fanclub,
and concerned about his financial well being.

As far as I see it, the only way to get it is to cluster contracts
right around the same year or so, and do a massive purge. Short of
that, what is the point? People THAT concerned about how much Dolan
spends? Do people think the price of Knicks tickets will drop, as if
the cost of operations dictates ticket prices, as opposed to demand.
Size of payroll is not a scoreboard.

Even if you are several million under the cap, you have LESS ability to
make moves than if you were over, because you have the MLE you can use
if you are over the cap.

- Richard Hutnik
Zoe Chen
2006-02-23 16:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@hotmail.com
People are saying, "step in the right direction", "let the contracts
expire". Well, if you aren't under the cap, then what is the point?
The point is this needs to be done in multi-year strategy. Had Thomas
stand pat and not made any ridiculous moves, the Knicks would be under
the cap next season.

You can't do it in one year, but you can definitely do it in 3 years
or less from 2002. Of course, this is all for naught now that Zeke
has screwed the Knicks even deeper into the hole.
Post by r***@hotmail.com
You save Dolan money. I guess people are members of the Dolan fanclub,
and concerned about his financial well being.
No, we are logical Knicks fans that is concern about the Knicks
record.
Post by r***@hotmail.com
As far as I see it, the only way to get it is to cluster contracts
right around the same year or so, and do a massive purge. Short of
that, what is the point?
Winning in 2007 and not another 30-52 record?
Post by r***@hotmail.com
People THAT concerned about how much Dolan
spends? Do people think the price of Knicks tickets will drop, as if
the cost of operations dictates ticket prices, as opposed to demand.
Size of payroll is not a scoreboard.
You're completely missing the point. The point is under the cap =
signing all-star free agents.
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Even if you are several million under the cap, you have LESS ability to
make moves than if you were over, because you have the MLE you can use
if you are over the cap.
- Richard Hutnik
This is the most foolish thing I've read (besides all the Zeke
trades.)

MLE = marginal players. Under the cap = all-star type players.

Great players actually still wants to come to New York. It's just
that NY don't have any cap space to accommodate.

Let me put it simply for you.

All of this getting more salary from less salary has produce what? 30,
37, 39, 33 wins in the last 4 years? Layden did the same shit, and
now Zeke is doing it far worst. And you sit there with a straight
face that this is good?

Also, nobody's against spending if it's on the right players. Fuck if
the Knicks have Kobe, Duncan, KG, Marbury, and Hamilton I say hell
yeah, spend $200 millions to keep them together. But fucking
Crawford? Eddy Curry? Jalen Rose? Now Stevie Francis? Crawford and
Curry are a joke. Any marginal player earning the NBA minimum can put
up their numbers. As for Rose and Francis, they are better than
average players that helps a playoff team over the hump, not
franchise-type players to build around with.
Noah
2006-02-23 17:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zoe Chen
You're completely missing the point. The point is under the cap =
signing all-star free agents.
You are also missing the point...but you wouldn't be the first to do
this.

The point is much more than signing "all star free agents". That's a
good option to have, but the point is that if you have a good contract
with a player, you can trade that good contract and good player for
another good contract and good player. Other teams are interested in
that deal. Now you can build a team by selecting the right parts for
your coach, your philosophy, your roster needs, etc. Look at the
Pistons. They didn't empty out the cupboard and then come in and sign
one superstar to save the day. They drafted well and made good deals
with good contracts. They signed their players to reasonable deals and
kept themselves within the salary cap. This allowed them to make good
trades that benefitted their team and addressed the specific needs of
their team, and still does. Rasheed Wallace, Ben Wallace, Chauncey
Billups, Richard Hamilton -- all those guys make less money than Jalen
Rose. They get a lot more player for their dollar and when it comes to
be time to make a trade that good value is attractive to other GMs and
those other GMs will offer them good players. Meanwhile they drafted
well and developed their picks well, even when their picks were not
lottery picks.

The point is that if you make good deals, you can trade them for good
deals. But if you make bad deals, the only thing you can trade them is
for more bad deals.

Not rocket science, right?

So if you've got a bunch of bad deals, you get rid of them, not trade
them for different bad deals. The problem isn't even that it's
"shuffling", as one contributor here likes to put it. The problem is
that it has a snowball effect. Due to politics, one bad deal leads to
desperation and panic for change and that leads to an even worse deal
that goes on even longer. And your team goes from winning 40 games to
30 games to what will probably be 20 games this year.

So rather than play in all that quicksand, suck it up and let your bad
deals go away. Most teams do that by letting their bad contracts
expire or trading them to another team for their expiring contracts
(usually us, in this case). Once they've expired, you can go out and
use your salary cap flexibility not necessarily to "sign all stars" but
to make GOOD deals and signings of all types of players. As you need
to change or mantain, you can then trade them for GOOD deals. And
start the cycle that way.
Noah
2006-02-23 16:57:41 UTC
Permalink
A brilliant philosophy that has worked wonders for the Knicks over
these last few years. Bravo!

Richard, we did cluster contracts all around the same year. It was
this year and next. Penny Hardaway, Latrell Sprewell/Keith Van
Horn/Tim Thomas/Antonio Davis, Vin Baker, Allan Houston, Shandon
Anderson (remember them? still on the books) on and on and on. There
was a chance to dump most of Layden's $80M mess in one sitting.

The year before that, and before his arrival, there was another
cluster, and another $25M or so - Antonio McDyess, Dikembe Mutumbo,
Othella Harrington.

We had more money in bad contracts set to expire and come off the cap
in a two or three year span than most teams have as their entire
payroll.

So why didn't it work? You know why, Richard. Because Isiah didn't
let those contracts expire. He traded them all, and didn't even get
anything special for them.

Now he's got the worst team in the league, is setting records for the
lowest performance standards in franchise history, and has the most
expensive NBA team ever assembled. His dollar-per-victory ratio is
staggering in comparison with every other GM in the league.

Don't you think it's time to stop defending him? How much worse is it
going to have to get before you see what's going on? How much worse
CAN it get?
Post by r***@hotmail.com
People are saying, "step in the right direction", "let the contracts
expire". Well, if you aren't under the cap, then what is the point?
You save Dolan money. I guess people are members of the Dolan fanclub,
and concerned about his financial well being.
As far as I see it, the only way to get it is to cluster contracts
right around the same year or so, and do a massive purge. Short of
that, what is the point? People THAT concerned about how much Dolan
spends? Do people think the price of Knicks tickets will drop, as if
the cost of operations dictates ticket prices, as opposed to demand.
Size of payroll is not a scoreboard.
Even if you are several million under the cap, you have LESS ability to
make moves than if you were over, because you have the MLE you can use
if you are over the cap.
- Richard Hutnik
Capn'O
2006-02-23 21:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
A brilliant philosophy that has worked wonders for the Knicks over
these last few years. Bravo!
Richard, we did cluster contracts all around the same year. It was
this year and next. Penny Hardaway, Latrell Sprewell/Keith Van
Horn/Tim Thomas/Antonio Davis, Vin Baker, Allan Houston, Shandon
Anderson (remember them? still on the books) on and on and on. There
was a chance to dump most of Layden's $80M mess in one sitting.
This is why I initially liked Isiah... seemed like he was getting some
quality players (Nazr, Marbs if you surround him with good players...
like Nazr) without going past that magic line. I thought we were headed
to have some decent building blocks, lotsa cap space, and a few good
pix and prospects to show for it.

The original fall came with the Ewing trade and the subsequent Houston
contract... but there was a second that started with the Crawford
trade. We _could_ have gone under the cap by Houston's departure before
then. So pissed... and I take it out on poor Jamal... well he earns it
though.
Noah
2006-02-24 00:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Capn'O
This is why I initially liked Isiah... seemed like he was getting some
quality players (Nazr, Marbs if you surround him with good players...
like Nazr) without going past that magic line. I thought we were headed
to have some decent building blocks, lotsa cap space, and a few good
pix and prospects to show for it.
I'm with you, Cap'n. I thought at first we'd at least get some
entertaining .500 basketball until Houston and Shandon went away. The
warning sign was that summer when Zeke tried (and failed) to sign
30-something Erick Dampier to a multi-year for $70M. We all sat on the
fence about Crawford until he played about 30 games and we saw what was
up. The Bulls fans told us, actually, but we had to learn the hard
way.
Post by Capn'O
The original fall came with the Ewing trade and the subsequent Houston
contract... but there was a second that started with the Crawford
trade.
To my mind, this time last year was really when it went to hell in a
handbasket. There were lots of questionable trades and Crawford was
one, and it was clear it was a mistake, but once he traded Nazr for
Rose and expiring contracts (Moochie and Baker?) for Taylor it was
clear it was falling apart. Add to that last summer's colossal screw
ups (Kurt T for Q Rich and Jerome James for five years) and the nails
were deep in the coffin. Now it's obviously just going straight over
the edge.

We _could_ have gone under the cap by Houston's departure before
Post by Capn'O
then.
Yes, we could have. I was stupid enough to really have hope for that.
Gordon Gekko
2006-02-24 14:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Are you smoking crack, Houston's contract is still counting against the
cap this year and next year for 20 million
Spudz
2006-02-23 23:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
A brilliant philosophy that has worked wonders for the Knicks over
these last few years. Bravo!
Richard, we did cluster contracts all around the same year. It was
this year and next. Penny Hardaway, Latrell Sprewell/Keith Van
Horn/Tim Thomas/Antonio Davis, Vin Baker, Allan Houston, Shandon
Anderson (remember them? still on the books) on and on and on. There
was a chance to dump most of Layden's $80M mess in one sitting.
The year before that, and before his arrival, there was another
cluster, and another $25M or so - Antonio McDyess, Dikembe Mutumbo,
Othella Harrington.
We had more money in bad contracts set to expire and come off the cap
in a two or three year span than most teams have as their entire
payroll.
So why didn't it work? You know why, Richard. Because Isiah didn't
let those contracts expire. He traded them all, and didn't even get
anything special for them.
Now he's got the worst team in the league, is setting records for the
lowest performance standards in franchise history, and has the most
expensive NBA team ever assembled. His dollar-per-victory ratio is
staggering in comparison with every other GM in the league.
Don't you think it's time to stop defending him? How much worse is it
going to have to get before you see what's going on? How much worse
CAN it get?
Never ask questions like that.

Great couple of posts, btw.

Spudz
Gordon Gekko
2006-02-24 14:01:36 UTC
Permalink
First off Richard is the voice of wisdom here, don't forget you still
have to field a team, secondly Dolan was not going to allow Isiah to
just blow it all up, third Isiah has only been here 2 years.

What the hell is Noah talking about Sprewell was traded by Layden,
Houston was signed by Layden
Zoe Chen
2006-02-24 15:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
First off Richard is the voice of wisdom here,
Rich, is this you?
Post by Gordon Gekko
don't forget you still
have to field a team,
A team with 15 wins? For $125 million?
Post by Gordon Gekko
secondly Dolan was not going to allow Isiah to
just blow it all up,
You don't know this. From the facts and not fantasy it seems like
Dolans are being good bosses - let the GM run the show and not
interfere. I seriously doubt Dolan says "give me $125 million and let
the records be damn."
Post by Gordon Gekko
third Isiah has only been here 2 years.
And already has turned the Knicks upside-down literally. All of the
players on the roster are bought in from Isaiah, so there are no
excuses.
Post by Gordon Gekko
What the hell is Noah talking about Sprewell was traded by Layden,
Houston was signed by Layden
Because the Knicks actually made the playoffs and made a finals run
under Layden's watch? You know, 40+ wins is a hell better than 15
wins?
Gordon Gekko
2006-02-25 04:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Zoe you keep boring us with the same line 15 wins and 125 million,
obviously nobody would sign on for that, my point was when Isiah took
over the team he had 2 choices and I have never heard any indication
that he would be allowed to pull a Chicago, and like I said before I
want to know the moves the people would have made

Don't give us the simpleton response of we will just let every contract
expire, because you still have to field 11 players, I want to the
realistic moves you would have made. Even if you dumped everybody now,
if u were living in a fantasy world and that was possible, you could be
in the lottery for years and it doesn't guarantee anything, plenty of
examples

Zoe refresh my memory, Layden made the playoffs with players he had
nothing to do with, I know Layden never made the Finals, only a jackass
could think that, those were all Grunfield's players and Van Gundy's
coaching. Once Van Gundy left, no 40 win seasons existed, horrible
drafts, horrible trades.

You guys fail to say well Isiah traded for Malik Rose but got draft
picks back, or he traded for Maurice Taylor but now his expiring
contract can be used in the summer in a trade
Noah
2006-02-25 21:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
You guys fail to say well Isiah traded for Malik Rose but got draft
picks back,
Because he traded that pick before using it for some other overpaid
joke that year. Not that trading a young, talented, modestly paid
center for an overpaid, undersized PF with a long contract wasn't a
complete abomination in and out of itself, and the last pick in the
draft (from the champions) makes it all better even if he hadn't traded
it away first.
Post by Gordon Gekko
or he traded for Maurice Taylor but now his expiring
contract can be used in the summer in a trade
You forget that we could have used the expiring contracts we traded to
get Taylor already.

And you want to keep trading away the cap space? Super. Who will we
get this time, Gordon? Kwame Brown? Clifford Robinson? Think Calvin
Booth might be available?
Noah
2006-02-25 21:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zoe Chen
Because the Knicks actually made the playoffs and made a finals run
under Layden's watch? You know, 40+ wins is a hell better than 15
wins?
No, they did that under Checketts' watch. The Knicks were 30-52 in
Layden's first year (2001-2002) and never really got much better than
that, and never went to the playoffs while he was GM.
Capn'O
2006-02-24 16:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
First off Richard is the voice of wisdom here,
I see... wisdom does not require getting one's facts straight. You
could run for office.
Post by Gordon Gekko
don't forget you still
have to field a team, secondly Dolan was not going to allow Isiah to
just blow it all up
It doesn't matter if he was going to "blow it up" or not.

Whether or not he "blew it up" he could have avoided some of the grave
errors he has made. He could still keep guys like DerMarr and Jackie
Butler around _and_ playing instead of signing players like Jamal and
Jerome to huge contracts. Players with reasonable contracts that other
teams would covet and trade us other talented players with reasonable
contracts. He could have let certain expiring contracts expire if his
only other option was getting a player back that would only marginally
upgrade the position while drawing out cap issues (Mo T). He could have
kept our only viable center last year - a center that went on to start
for the NBA Champs - and not felt obligated to find a quick fix this
summer in James. He could have structured contracts (Curry, James, and
Jamal) in a much more reasonable fashion and still been the high bidder
for those players. This is only a start of how things _could_ have gone
differently.

Now we have players - Crawford, Taylor, Rose, Rose, James, Marbury,
possibly Curry and Francis - that NOBODY will trade for until they are
expirings and even then it will only be for other players with
questionable skills/attitude issues with similarly long contracts.

Isiah had us in a situation at the beginning of last summer where he
could have made this team _much_ better short and long term and he's
blown it to the point where the only hope we have is for another team
to do something stupid or for one of our own to magically start
bringing the goods that they haven't brought their whole career.

I think another GM could turn this team into a winner in a few years. I
have lost my faith in Isiah to do so.
Gordon Gekko
2006-02-25 04:23:44 UTC
Permalink
Captain, Jackie Butler and Demarr Johnson, yeah those are huge trading
chips, please continue after the laughter dies down

Yeah Nazr, are you joking us, yes he deserved to be MVP of the
playoffs, without him I'm sure San Antonio would have lost. The reason
he got Mo T was this summer he now becomes a chip because his contract
will be in the expiring year. James and Crawford deals were mistakes,
no doubt about that.

Rose and Mo's contract are expiring and will be summertime trade
possibilities. Isiah took a gamble on Eddy Curry, Curry is very
talented, question becomes can he get in better shape, stay out of foul
trouble and improve defensively, if the guy stays on the floor for 30
minutes a night he is going to produce offensively. I'm willing to see
what Larry Brown can do for him.
Joe Blow
2006-02-25 05:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
Captain, Jackie Butler and Demarr Johnson, yeah those are huge trading
chips, please continue after the laughter dies down
Yeah Nazr, are you joking us, yes he deserved to be MVP of the
playoffs, without him I'm sure San Antonio would have lost. The reason
he got Mo T was this summer he now becomes a chip because his contract
will be in the expiring year. James and Crawford deals were mistakes,
no doubt about that.
Rose and Mo's contract are expiring and will be summertime trade
possibilities. Isiah took a gamble on Eddy Curry, Curry is very
talented, question becomes can he get in better shape, stay out of foul
trouble and improve defensively, if the guy stays on the floor for 30
minutes a night he is going to produce offensively. I'm willing to see
what Larry Brown can do for him.
Please. So far as Isiah's talent evaluation is concerned regarding
players obtained in trades, his judgement STINKS. You can argue all
you want that heart-murmuring Curry might be this or that kind of
player, but there is no evidence whatsoever from *any* of the players
Isiah has brought in that they'll amount to even halfway decent cogs on
a championship contender.

You really think the Jalen Rose trade was necessary? What good is he
really so far as the future of this team is concerned? Do we need him
saddling the Knicks with yet another year's worth of outrageous salary?
And how do you justify bringing in Steve Francis? So come on, Isiah
inherited a lousy situation, sure, but he has made it manifestly worse.

JB
Gordon Gekko
2006-02-25 07:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Jalen Rose is 16 million in an expiring contract next year, so this
summer that contract becomes very valuable

Salaries don't matter now, we had no chance of getting under the cap
now either way, 3 years from now we want to be under the cap, Rose's
contract won't change that

If the Knicks get Garnett in the summer, we become a contender again
Noah
2006-02-25 22:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
Jalen Rose is 16 million in an expiring contract next year, so this
summer that contract becomes very valuable
We traded a 16 million expiring contract THIS year to get him. If $16M
in cap space expiring contract had value, why wait another year?

Tell you what, Gordon. Give me $100M. Next year I'll give it back to
you and it will become very valuable to you then -- I mean, you'll have
$100M to spend however you choose. What do you say?

And this from a guy who was giving out lectures on intelligence
recently.

Ugh, you still don't get it, do you? Face facts. Let's go back to
school: The only teams that want cap space are teams trying to rebuild
from bad situations. They want to get rid of all the parts that have
been dragging them down, all the bad trades and mistakes that they
made.

Example #1: Denver has Nick Van Exel and Antonio McDyess but it's not
working out. McDyess just had knee surgery and even before he did the
team never really made it over the hump. Is it going to be better
post-surgery? Is he even going to stay? Lots of questions, few
answers.

How did they fix it? Well, they traded McDyess to New York for Marcus
Camby, that year's lottery pick (Nene) and $9M in cap space from Mark
Jackson's expiring contract. The next year they traded Van Exel to
Dallas for further cap space (Tim Hardaway, etc) and all of a sudden
they could rebuild.

Example #2: Phoenix signed Penny Hardaway to a long term contract when
he was still good, and then his knees broke down several times.
Phoenix then traded Jason Kidd for Stephon Marbury. Both bad ideas,
one perhaps from bad luck and the other from bad judgment.

How did they fix it? Well, they traded both guys to New York for cap
space (Charlie Ward and Antonio McDyess, $22M), drafted well
(Stoudemire) developed their older picks well (Johnson, Barbosa) and
made a good free agent signing with their new found cap space (Nash,
who was underrated and overshadowed in Dallas until the Phoenix trade,
and was excellent value at a little more than half the max deal for
what would become the league MVP). On top of this they got away with
trading the piece that was dragging them down (Quentin Richardson,
signed to a bad contract) to New York for a good piece that they needed
(Kurt Thomas, signed to a mediocre contract).

Example #3: Orlando traded Tracy McGrady for Steve Francis and Cuttino
Mobley because they knew McGrady wasn't going to stay. They believed
in the hype and the numbers that came with Francis and ignored Francis'
career history of losing. They then traded Mobley for Doug Christie
who was an absolute bust outside the Kings' system. On top of this
they made some bad signings (Juwan Howard, etc) which just resulted in
trades for more bad signings. Then they got lucky and went #1 in the
draft, and got Josh Howard. But they found out Howard couldn't play
with Francis, didn't really have any other notable players, and
continued to plod on with a losing record.

How did they fix it? They traded Penny Hardaway's contract to the
Knicks for Francis, and now they'll have $15M of cap room to eventually
make a more sensible deal, while the Knicks will be stuck with Francis
for four more years. On top of this, they cleared the way for Howard
to develop when it was clear that Francis' ballhogging was inhibiting
that development.

Example #4: Chicago was amongst the worst teams in the league for years
and years after being the best team in the league for years. They
toiled and tried to do everything to rebuild, but their GM was an
idiot. Finally, he got fired or stepped down or whatever and was
replaced with someone more intelligent, who went to work getting rid of
all of their garbage.

How did they fix it? They re-signed Jamal Crawford and traded him to
the Knicks for millions in expiring contracts (Harrington, Mutumbo).
They re-signed Eddy Curry and traded him, along with Davis, for a good
deal in Mike Sweetney ($2-3M), $15M expiring contract (Tim Thomas) and
what will likely be a #1 pick. They saw the writing on the wall that
saw that although both of those guys had talent, they both have too low
a basketball IQ and too little desire to do anything about it to ever
become heroes. When they couldn't trade their other bad contracts to
the Knicks, they let them expire (Eddie Robinson). They drafted well
(Deng, Gordon), imported well (Nocioni) and made other sensible trades
(Songaila). They blew it resigning Tyson Chandler, but because they
did so much else well that move does not kill them dead in the water.
Now they go into next year with only $28M or so on the payroll, stocked
with young, promising players and plenty of cap room to go out and get
whoever they like.

Example #5: Toronto was going nowhere with a losing record. They were
dumb enough to kill their franchise by signing Jerome Williams, Antonio
Davis, and Alvin Williams to big deals when Toronto made it to the
second round of the playoffs one year at Vince Carter's insistence, and
then dumb enough to trade Vince Carter after they had traded the other
guys, in yet another example of bad trades begetting bad trades (Davis
for Rose, etc). So they were up shit creek without a paddle.

How did they fix it? They accelerated their need for cap space by
cashing in on Rose's expiring contract one year early, by trading it
back to New York for Davis. They appear to be wisely letting the rest
of their garbage expire (Williams, Morris Peterson, etc), drafting well
(Villanueva, Bosh), and being in position to rebuild in one to two
years, when we'll still be bitching about Marbury and Francis and
Jerome James.

Get it? Late 90s Nuggets, Marbury Suns, Orlando, Chicago, Toronto --
these kinds of go-nowhere teams are the ones that want the cap space,
so they can fix all their mistakes. If you trade your cap space to a
team like that, you inherit their mistakes.

All those teams that traded our space for their players have a chance
to be better or are already better, thanks to Isiah and Layden before
him. We, on the other hand, have no chance to be better as we go on
like this -- we just get worse and worse. 40 wins to 30 wins to 20
wins, while the payroll goes from $80M to $104M to $125M and the picks
get traded away. How can you honestly defend these tactics?

Teams that are doing well with their good players are not interested
in the cap space so they can blow up and rebuild. They don't want to
blow it up -- they're winning. All they want in terms of cap space is
generally very small doses so they can make tweaks to what is already
working. If you need a $16M expiring contract, it's because you need
to get rid of $16M in parts that are not working for you, and probably
won't work for anyone else either. Capisce?
Joe Blow
2006-02-25 22:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
How did they fix it? They accelerated their need for cap space by
cashing in on Rose's expiring contract one year early, by trading it
back to New York for Davis. They appear to be wisely letting the rest
of their garbage expire (Williams, Morris Peterson, etc), drafting well
(Villanueva, Bosh), and being in position to rebuild in one to two
Excellent post. But because I'm such a negative fellow, I will take
exception with the lone point that I disagree with. I think that
Villanueva is the modern-day classic example of an NBA loser. He
brings to mind a less talented version of Derrick Coleman. I see "poor
work ethic" written all over Villanueva's face. But, they did have the
#7 pick and by that time there weren't any particularly stellar players
left. They could've had Frye, Fran Vazquez, or Bynum, but they can be
forgiven on passing them up. Frye has been quite a surprise. I don't
think too many people thought he'd perform as well as he has this
quickly.

JB
Gordon Gekko
2006-02-26 08:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Noah first off it was Grunfield's team, he made the trades that got the
Knicks to the Finals, he got Camby and Sprewell. Layden did make the
playoffs he came to the Knicks in 1999, but those were not his players.

How hard is it to understand, he traded Davis so he could have an
expiring contract next year. Isiah is not going to be able to move 34
million in expiring contracts in one year, makes sense to spread it
out. If the Knicks get Garnett this summer everything you have said
will be wrong. Sure you have your examples, there are other examples
of good players getting traded in salary dumps. You also seem to
forget that in Garnett's contract he has an out in 2007/2008 and a 15
percent trade kicker. If he wants to go this summer then Minny is
going to move him.

Time will tell.
smacdo
2006-02-26 09:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Gordon Gekko wrote:
<snip>
Post by Gordon Gekko
If the Knicks get Garnett this summer everything you have said
will be wrong.
If my aunt had balls...she would be my uncle.
Noah
2006-02-26 17:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
Noah first off it was Grunfield's team, he made the trades that got the
Knicks to the Finals, he got Camby and Sprewell. Layden did make the
playoffs he came to the Knicks in 1999, but those were not his players.
Layden assumed GM duties when Dave Checketts was fired at the end of
the 2000-2001 season. When we refer to the Layden era, we are
referring to his tenure as general manager.
Post by Gordon Gekko
How hard is it to understand, he traded Davis so he could have an
expiring contract next year. Isiah is not going to be able to move 34
million in expiring contracts in one year, makes sense to spread it
out.
Oh, lord. I guess you should probably get points somewhere for
creative rationalization and apologizing.

How hard is it to understand that you let those contracts go instead of
trading them, and that they net nothing in trades except more unwanted,
bad parts? That was the Knicks' first dumb move in this long stretch
-- to trade an overvalued contract -- with Ewing's, and you see what it
has mushroomed into.

It can't be that complicated. It's not much more complicated than
using a period instead of a comma at the end of a sentence.

Look, Gordon, if you are happy with this approach, you like this team,
and you're having a good time in the Isiah era, more power to you. At
least someone is enjoying this. Go on and keep defending him. But if
you've been as miserable as the rest of us watching the Knicks lose for
five straight seasons, become the joke of the league, and sell their
future away all the while -- yet insist that all of this bloodshed is
OK because KG is going to come and save you -- well, then, I pity you.
Post by Gordon Gekko
If the Knicks get Garnett this summer everything you have said
will be wrong.
No, it won't. KG is not going to turn the franchise around all by his
lonesome even if he were coming, which is dubious to begin with. He
got Minnesota out of the first round one time in eight tries. Now he
can't even get them to the playoffs. Why would he be suddenly able to
reverse all of the Knicks' calamities?

Good luck, Gordon.
Gordon Gekko
2006-02-27 00:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Noah here is reality

On Monday, December 22, Scott Layden was fired as president of the New
York Knicks, and Isiah Thomas was hired to replace him. Layden, 44, was
hired as general manager in August 1999 by Dave Checketts, then
president of Madison Square Garden. When Checketts was fired, Layden
was promoted in June 2001

Layden was GM from the start, after Checketts was canned Layden became
team president. Ernie Grunfield was the GM before Layden.

I don't expect anyone to win on their own. You put Kevin Garnett in
this weakened East and you win the division. I will take that and see
what we can build from there. You either choose to make that move if
it is available or you give up and have 3 to 4 years of hell and still
have zero guarantees of turning it around.

Noah I don't enjoy watching the Knicks lose but I'm not going to give
in to this microwave mentality that success must happen instantaneously.
Noah
2006-02-27 06:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
Noah here is reality
On Monday, December 22, Scott Layden was fired as president of the New
York Knicks, and Isiah Thomas was hired to replace him. Layden, 44, was
hired as general manager in August 1999 by Dave Checketts, then
president of Madison Square Garden. When Checketts was fired, Layden
was promoted in June 2001
Layden was GM from the start, after Checketts was canned Layden became
team president. Ernie Grunfield was the GM before Layden.
Thanks for the history lesson, but we all know Checketts, not Layden,
called the personnel shots until he was fired. Grunfeld was fired in
1999. Checketts was fired in 2001. Layden was fired in 2003. Class
dismissed.
Post by Gordon Gekko
I don't expect anyone to win on their own. You put Kevin Garnett in
this weakened East and you win the division.
The "weakened" East? Weakened from when, 1997? In case you haven't
noticed, the east is just as strong as the west these days. Both have
two or three good teams, a few mediocre teams, and the usual
hopelessness afterward.

To note, Kevin Garnett's current team, the Minnesota Timberwolves, are
24-31. They are third place in their division, behind ANOTHER sub-.500
team, Utah (26-29), and a team barely over .500, Denver. So pardon me
if I don't see him taking out the Nets, much less Shaq and Wade or the
Pistons.
Post by Gordon Gekko
I will take that and see
what we can build from there. You either choose to make that move if
it is available or you give up and have 3 to 4 years of hell and still
have zero guarantees of turning it around.
You continue to be blind to the point. It's not whether or not you get
Garnett, in the absolutely unlikely event he is available to you. It's
that with or without Kevin Garnett, the Knicks are a losing team.
We've already had 5 years of hell, with no chance at improvement any
time soon, by trying to avoid "3 or 4 years of hell". Do you want to
keep going with that? Or do you want to face facts and start cutting
your losses before they continue to expand even more? You're already
the worst team in the league with the highest payroll, with your reward
for that (a high lottery pick) traded to the very team that routinely
kicked your ass during the "glory years" that you pine for, in exchange
for their albatross that now becomes yours. How much more indignity
must you suffer before you realize that this approach is not working?
Post by Gordon Gekko
Noah I don't enjoy watching the Knicks lose but I'm not going to give
in to this microwave mentality that success must happen instantaneously.
Well, we've given the philosphy of trading expirings instead of
rebuilding five years. It's hardly instantaneous, and the results have
been uniform. Again, how much more evidence do you need?
Gordon Gekko
2006-02-27 06:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Ok weakened league then. The atlantic division is a joke. Noah are
you going to try and tell us that Ernie Grunfield was not the driving
force behind Camby and Sprewell coming here, of course Checketts was a
big part. If you remember Grunfield got a lot of the credit for his
philosophy of getting more athletic players here.

Garnett would kill the Nets and their non existent front line. The
Nets are 31-24, not very impressive, and Kidd is not going to last
forever. I didn't say I wanted to trade for the whole Timberwolves
team. I wanted to build around Garnett with a great coach, hopefully
an all star guard (either Francis or Marbury), and would like to see
the influence Garnett would have on Curry's game and attitude.

Kobe Bryant is .500 should we not want him here because he is not
producing the playoffs for the Lakers. The way this league is
constituted we all know you need more than one superstar to win.

You talk about 5 years, I am talking about 2 years. I agree if we
could go back and time we should have let Ewing and Houston walk. If
after the summer there is no Garnett, O'Neal, or Harrington then I will
wait until the next trading deadline. If that passes without a
significant move then I'm sure Isiah will be fired anyway and you might
get your wish of total rebuilding.

Oh and with Layden, the only real trade I can remember the guy making
was for McDyess and I hated the deal at the time. I don't recall if he
had a penchant for trading expiring contracts. I do remember he gave
stupid deals for Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisley and traded Sprewell
for Van Horn.

And going back to Curry, I seem to remember everybody saying it was a
no brainer deal, the only issue is the kid's heart problems and that is
what scared off most teams. Anyway we should just agree to disagree
and see how this plays out. Either way I think if Isiah does not land
a significant impact player he will be gone after the trading deadline
next year. What you should understand is that in the NBA luck plays a
part also. The Spurs getting Duncan the one year they were horrible
because David Robinson curiously was shelved for the season. The
Lakers get Kobe because he forced a draft day trade. You brought up
Chicago and the Clippers, sure they have some players but can't see
them winning a championship anytime soon.

Bottom line is you want the Knicks to end all signings and totally
rebuild, I want to give this Garnett thing a chance, we shall see what
happens
Noah
2006-02-27 07:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Gordon, it's clear that you are still responding to hype instead of
basketball. So, again, I am not going to waste time debating with you.
I've given enough evidence in previous posts, if there wasn't enough
in the last five years of Knicks history, as to why this isn't going to
work. If you want to believe in it, I wish you good luck. Just please
don't buy any season tickets or write Dolan and Isiah any fan letters.
Post by Gordon Gekko
Ok weakened league then. The atlantic division is a joke. Noah are
you going to try and tell us that Ernie Grunfield was not the driving
force behind Camby and Sprewell coming here, of course Checketts was a
big part. If you remember Grunfield got a lot of the credit for his
philosophy of getting more athletic players here.
Garnett would kill the Nets and their non existent front line. The
Nets are 31-24, not very impressive, and Kidd is not going to last
forever. I didn't say I wanted to trade for the whole Timberwolves
team. I wanted to build around Garnett with a great coach, hopefully
an all star guard (either Francis or Marbury), and would like to see
the influence Garnett would have on Curry's game and attitude.
Kobe Bryant is .500 should we not want him here because he is not
producing the playoffs for the Lakers. The way this league is
constituted we all know you need more than one superstar to win.
You talk about 5 years, I am talking about 2 years. I agree if we
could go back and time we should have let Ewing and Houston walk. If
after the summer there is no Garnett, O'Neal, or Harrington then I will
wait until the next trading deadline. If that passes without a
significant move then I'm sure Isiah will be fired anyway and you might
get your wish of total rebuilding.
Oh and with Layden, the only real trade I can remember the guy making
was for McDyess and I hated the deal at the time. I don't recall if he
had a penchant for trading expiring contracts. I do remember he gave
stupid deals for Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisley and traded Sprewell
for Van Horn.
And going back to Curry, I seem to remember everybody saying it was a
no brainer deal, the only issue is the kid's heart problems and that is
what scared off most teams. Anyway we should just agree to disagree
and see how this plays out. Either way I think if Isiah does not land
a significant impact player he will be gone after the trading deadline
next year. What you should understand is that in the NBA luck plays a
part also. The Spurs getting Duncan the one year they were horrible
because David Robinson curiously was shelved for the season. The
Lakers get Kobe because he forced a draft day trade. You brought up
Chicago and the Clippers, sure they have some players but can't see
them winning a championship anytime soon.
Bottom line is you want the Knicks to end all signings and totally
rebuild, I want to give this Garnett thing a chance, we shall see what
happens
smacdo
2006-02-27 14:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
Ok weakened league then. The atlantic division is a joke.
Its about as good as the Northwest division. And looking forward, the
Celtics are starting to get some contributions from their young
guys...their future, at least, is pretty bright. Toronto is the front
runner for one of the best GM's in basketball and after next year,
their cap figure is just over 6 million dollars, not counting the team
options at fairly low money on guys like Villaneueva and Calderon.
Their future is brighter than the Knicks.
Post by Gordon Gekko
Garnett would kill the Nets and their non existent front line.
As he has shown with the T-Wolves...he cannot do it by himself.
Post by Gordon Gekko
The Nets are 31-24, not very impressive,
Not very impressive? They would be in first place in the division
Garnett currently plays in.
Post by Gordon Gekko
I didn't say I wanted to trade for the whole Timberwolves team.
You would be better off as a Knicks fan if you did.
Post by Gordon Gekko
I wanted to build around Garnett
You can't. The Knicks are hamstrung for the rest of the decade.
Post by Gordon Gekko
And going back to Curry, I seem to remember everybody saying it was a
no brainer deal,
Everybody? Really?
Post by Gordon Gekko
the only issue is the kid's heart problems
Oh..well...as long as that is all. Newsflash - you need a heart to
live.
Post by Gordon Gekko
and that is what scared off most teams.
Wimps.
Post by Gordon Gekko
Either way I think if Isiah does not land
a significant impact player he will be gone after the trading deadline
next year.
If they wait that long, its just another season gone by before you can
start the 4 to 5 year process of clean up. They shouldn't just fire
Isiah, they should bury him *under* MSG.
Post by Gordon Gekko
What you should understand is that in the NBA luck plays a
part also. The Spurs getting Duncan the one year they were horrible
because David Robinson curiously was shelved for the season.
Curiously because he was injured? Besides, your examples of luck
involve the draft...something the Knicks won't be a part of for the
next two years.
Post by Gordon Gekko
You brought up Chicago and the Clippers, sure they have some players but can't see
them winning a championship anytime soon.
The Clippers are closer than a lot of teams in the league...and much
closer than the Knicks.
Post by Gordon Gekko
I want to give this Garnett thing a chance, we shall see what happens
What Garnett thing? There isn't a Garnett thing. The Knicks are in
probably the worst position in the NBA to explore the 'Garnett
thing'...if you think the Wolves are trading Kevin Garnett for a bunch
of stiffs with expiring contracts...you are freakin' DREAMING (that is,
unless McHale gets canned and Isiah gets his job). The Knicks don't
have one thing that Minny would want in return for a guy who arguably
is the best player in basketball and a perennial MVP candidate. Do you
get it? NOTHING. Zero.

You remind me of a Simpsons episode where Bart goes to Kamp Krusty, and
in the face of abysmal conditions, curls up in the fetal position and
keeps saying "Krusty is coming...Krusty is coming..."
Gordon Gekko
2006-02-28 06:39:02 UTC
Permalink
The Knicks are in the worst position in the NBA to get Garnett, what a
fool you are, first off there is a 15 percent trade kicker in Garnett's
contract which due to the new CBA can't be met because he makes too
much money, so in order for him to be traded anywhere he has to waive
the kicker

Which means Garnett can only go where he wants to go. Secondly if the
Wolves want to rebuild they are not going to want to take back 20
million in salary, they are going to want expiring contracts, picks,
and Frye.

There are only a few teams Garnett wants to go to, and out of those
teams the Knicks are probably the only team to have 20 million in
expiring contracts

And please explain to me why the Knicks don't have a pick next year
smacdo
2006-02-28 12:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
The Knicks are in the worst position in the NBA to get Garnett, what a
fool you are, first off there is a 15 percent trade kicker in Garnett's
contract which due to the new CBA can't be met because he makes too
much money, so in order for him to be traded anywhere he has to waive
the kicker
Ok, so this means the Knicks are in fact in a good position? Let's see
what else you came up with...
Post by Gordon Gekko
Which means Garnett can only go where he wants to go.
And let's be honest...after languishing in Minnesota and facing a
string of playoff failures...do you really think Garnett wants to come
to the worst team in the league?
Post by Gordon Gekko
Secondly if the Wolves want to rebuild they are not going to want to take back 20
million in salary, they are going to want expiring contracts, picks, and Frye.
What you say here, in essence, may be true. But I also think that you
have to consider the PR nightmare of moving Garnett for a bag of crappy
contracts, some picks a few years down the road, and Channing
Frye...who is a pretty nice player but is no Garnett. Maybe its not
impossible...but I am pretty sure McHale knows that if he does trade
Garnett...his job will be sitting on a very perilous edge.
Post by Gordon Gekko
There are only a few teams Garnett wants to go to, and out of those
teams the Knicks are probably the only team to have 20 million in
expiring contracts
And for your sake, I hope he gets to NY. However, then, you will have
the T-Wolves. Garnett and not much else...and you will either miss the
playoffs or make it as an 8 seed to get vaporized in the first round.
Post by Gordon Gekko
And please explain to me why the Knicks don't have a pick next year
Traded from Chicago, with Antonio Davis, to New York in exchange for
Tim Thomas, Michael Sweetney, two future second-round draft picks, a
2006 conditional first-round draft pick and the right to switch future
first-round draft picks on Oct. 4, 2005.

I am not really a brain surgeon...but I am guessing that the Bulls
exercise their right to that pick switch next year...because I am also
fairly certain the Knicks will be awful again next year. And if all
the planets line up and Isiah actually starts getting that shit wagon
of a team back on track...that pick isn't going to be getting any
better for the Bulls.
Gordon Gekko
2006-02-28 22:56:08 UTC
Permalink
The Knicks would trade Minnesota their 2 first round picks this year

You think the Bulls are not going to take this year's pick which could
be a top 3 and take the chance that next year's pick could be a lot
worse

I think some of the brain surgeons here think that the Bulls can take
this year and next year's pick

And if you think the Bulls are going to give up a top 3 pick this year
you really are smoking crack.
Noah
2006-03-01 00:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
I think some of the brain surgeons here think that the Bulls can take
this year and next year's pick
This from the guy that chided someone else recently for not thinking
before they posted?

They CAN have this year and next year's pick.

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/curry_traded_051004.html

"In addition, New York conveys to Chicago, New York's 2006 regular
first round draft choice on condition that the pick does not actually
go to Utah (due to not being number 26-30) and also on condition that
New York receives San Antonio's 2006 regular first round selection
(due to being number 11-30).

If New York's 2006 first round does go to Utah (due to being number
26-30), and New York does receive San Antonio's 2006 first round pick
(due to being number 11-30), New York conveys to Chicago that San
Antonio first round selection.

In addition, New York also conveys to Chicago the right to switch first
round draft picks with New York in 2007 provided that New York's
first round selection does not go to Utah (is not number 25-30). Per
team policy, terms of the contract were not disclosed. This trade is
conditional upon the players passing their physicals."

So get it straight before you start handing out insults and titles.
This year, Chicago's got our pick. They don't have the option to have
our pick -- they've got it. We handed it to them straight up in the
trade.

Next year, they've got both our first round pick AND our second round
pick. We get their first round pick next year, unless they don't want
to swap (fat fucking chance).

We, on the other hand, get Eddy Curry for $10M a year. What a steal.
Way to go, Isiah.

After all, Larry will have him playing like Ewing and Olajuwon in, er,
a heartbeat.
Capn'O
2006-03-01 00:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Gordon Gekko
I think some of the brain surgeons here think that the Bulls can take
this year and next year's pick
This from the guy that chided someone else recently for not thinking
before they posted?
It's like talking to religious fundies. I should know... I'm currently
living with one :-(
Granville Waiters' Ghost
2006-03-01 00:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
The Knicks would trade Minnesota their 2 first round picks this year
You think the Bulls are not going to take this year's pick which could
be a top 3 and take the chance that next year's pick could be a lot
worse
I think some of the brain surgeons here think that the Bulls can take
this year and next year's pick
And if you think the Bulls are going to give up a top 3 pick this year
you really are smoking crack.
Beautiful. I've never seen a poster meltdown and vomit the remains of
his credibility so quickly.
smacdo
2006-03-01 01:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
You think the Bulls are not going to take this year's pick which could
be a top 3 and take the chance that next year's pick could be a lot
worse
I think some of the brain surgeons here think that the Bulls can take
this year and next year's pick
Dear Brainiac...

Please check your facts. Or at least read what I posted before you
Traded from Chicago, with Antonio Davis, to New York in exchange for
Tim Thomas, Michael Sweetney, two future second-round draft picks, A
2006 CONDITIONAL FIRST ROUND DRAFT PICK --->*AND*<--- THE RIGHT TO
SWITCH FUTURE FIRST ROUND DRAFT PICKS on Oct. 4, 2005.

The only one on the glass dick here, my crack addled friend, is you.
There is enough egg on your face to make a freakin' omelette.
Gordon Gekko
2006-03-01 06:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Oh wow congratulations, you are correct, however you could have been a
lot more clear like the previous poster, your statement can easily be
interpreted to mean what I originally thought

a 2006 conditional first round pick and the right to switch future
first round picks

The key word is conditional, I did not know what the conditions were,
it could have been written that if Chicago chooses to switch to the
2007 then they give back the 2006 to the Knicks, these NBA draft trades
have all sorts of weird conditions tied to them

And sometimes we don't even know them all, if you go to hoops hype we
owe Phoenix a future first round pick, which seems to be protected to
23 for a couple of years, but even the website doesn't know how far the
protection ends only to say they are pretty certain in 2010 there is no
protection

But again obviously I am WRONG and you are RIGHT and my fault for
listening to Mike Francesa who told a caller the 2007 pick is the
Knicks and they don't owe it to anyone.


SO HERE IT IS, everybody here is RIGHT, Isiah is a fool for giving up
those picks for Curry, especially when nobody wanted Curry because of
his heart condition, I am especially angry about 2007 because of Oden
coming out, so when Isiah says this is a bad draft, you are all right
he is full of garbage, because we know next year the draft has a Shaq
coming out and he gave up that pick also, no way Chicago is going to
have a worse record than the Knicks


SO I SAY ISIAH SHOULD BE FIRED TODAY, YOU HAVE ALL CONVINCED ME, not
only did this guy savage the cap with players that can't listen to a
hall of fame coach, but he gave up our future in the draft, sorry for
being an idiot and for having my head in the clouds, my only hope is
Garnett and that is probably a pipedream

I'm actually shocked that he gave up 2 picks, honestly I didn't even
know about the first one when the trade first went down

Are we 100 percent sure there are no weird conditions attached to the
2007 pick, are you guys sure it is not lottery protected, maybe that
right only goes into effect if the Knicks are not in the lottery.
Noah
2006-03-01 11:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
SO I SAY ISIAH SHOULD BE FIRED TODAY, YOU HAVE ALL CONVINCED ME,
Gee, that sure was easy. Only took three novellas of text from five or
six different contributors.
Post by Gordon Gekko
Are we 100 percent sure there are no weird conditions attached to the
2007 pick, are you guys sure it is not lottery protected, maybe that
right only goes into effect if the Knicks are not in the lottery.
For the second time now:

"In addition, New York also conveys to Chicago the right to switch
first
round draft picks with New York in 2007 provided that New York's
first round selection does not go to Utah (is not number 25-30)."
smacdo
2006-03-01 14:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
Oh wow congratulations, you are correct, however you could have been a
lot more clear like the previous poster, your statement can easily be
interpreted to mean what I originally thought
The use of the word 'and' should have been the blinking light, so to
speak. I learned about conjunctions from 'Schoolhouse Rock'. Since
then, its been cake...
Post by Gordon Gekko
a 2006 conditional first round pick and the right to switch future
first round picks
The key word is conditional,
No, the key word is 'and'.
Post by Gordon Gekko
I did not know what the conditions were,
But were more than happy to blast a bunch of people when you had no
clue what you were talking about.
Post by Gordon Gekko
it could have been written that if Chicago chooses to switch to the
2007 then they give back the 2006 to the Knicks, these NBA draft trades
have all sorts of weird conditions tied to them
Check out your facts next time and you won't look so stupid. It took
me all of about 20 seconds to figure this one out.
Post by Gordon Gekko
And sometimes we don't even know them all,
But in this case, we do...

. if you go to hoops hype we
Post by Gordon Gekko
owe Phoenix a future first round pick, which seems to be protected to
23 for a couple of years,
Yet *ANOTHER* reason why you aren't getting Garnett anytime soon.
That's two first rounders to Chicago, possibly one to Utah at some
point, and Phoenix gets one later on too. Now you are starting to see
what we have been talking about...
Post by Gordon Gekko
But again obviously I am WRONG and you are RIGHT and my fault for
listening to Mike Francesa who told a caller the 2007 pick is the
Knicks and they don't owe it to anyone.
Listening to that knucklehead will only get you in trouble...
Post by Gordon Gekko
SO I SAY ISIAH SHOULD BE FIRED TODAY, YOU HAVE ALL CONVINCED ME,
I feel a bit better that I was able to help someone in some small
way...
Post by Gordon Gekko
Are we 100 percent sure there are no weird conditions attached to the
2007 pick, are you guys sure it is not lottery protected, maybe that
right only goes into effect if the Knicks are not in the lottery.
Nope. No other reported conditions. Isiah got ass rammed on this
one...and as one last way to further demoralize him...the Bulls made
him hold his own ass cheeks open. Seriously, it could take 10 years to
recover from the mess Isiah made...
smacdo
2006-03-01 14:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
Oh wow congratulations, you are correct, however you could have been a
lot more clear like the previous poster, your statement can easily be
interpreted to mean what I originally thought
The use of the word 'and' should have been the blinking light, so to
speak. I learned about conjunctions from 'Schoolhouse Rock'. Since
then, its been cake...
Post by Gordon Gekko
a 2006 conditional first round pick and the right to switch future
first round picks
The key word is conditional,
No, the key word is 'and'.
Post by Gordon Gekko
I did not know what the conditions were,
But were more than happy to blast a bunch of people when you had no
clue what you were talking about.
Post by Gordon Gekko
it could have been written that if Chicago chooses to switch to the
2007 then they give back the 2006 to the Knicks, these NBA draft trades
have all sorts of weird conditions tied to them
Check out your facts next time and you won't look so stupid. It took
me all of about 20 seconds to figure this one out.
Post by Gordon Gekko
And sometimes we don't even know them all,
But in this case, we do...

. if you go to hoops hype we
Post by Gordon Gekko
owe Phoenix a future first round pick, which seems to be protected to
23 for a couple of years,
Yet *ANOTHER* reason why you aren't getting Garnett anytime soon.
That's two first rounders to Chicago, possibly one to Utah at some
point, and Phoenix gets one later on too. Now you are starting to see
what we have been talking about...
Post by Gordon Gekko
But again obviously I am WRONG and you are RIGHT and my fault for
listening to Mike Francesa who told a caller the 2007 pick is the
Knicks and they don't owe it to anyone.
Listening to that knucklehead will only get you in trouble...
Post by Gordon Gekko
SO I SAY ISIAH SHOULD BE FIRED TODAY, YOU HAVE ALL CONVINCED ME,
I feel a bit better that I was able to help someone in some small
way...
Post by Gordon Gekko
Are we 100 percent sure there are no weird conditions attached to the
2007 pick, are you guys sure it is not lottery protected, maybe that
right only goes into effect if the Knicks are not in the lottery.
Nope. No other reported conditions. Isiah got ass rammed on this
one...and as one last way to further demoralize him...the Bulls made
him hold his own ass cheeks open. Seriously, it could take 10 years to
recover from the mess Isiah made...

Lee Watkins
2006-02-27 16:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
Ok weakened league then. The atlantic division is a joke. Noah are
you going to try and tell us that Ernie Grunfield was not the driving
force behind Camby and Sprewell coming here, of course Checketts was a
big part. If you remember Grunfield got a lot of the credit for his
philosophy of getting more athletic players here.
Garnett would kill the Nets and their non existent front line.
while kidd and carter shred the knicks midget backcourt.
Post by Gordon Gekko
The
Nets are 31-24, not very impressive, and Kidd is not going to last
forever.
and garnett has how many good years left?
Post by Gordon Gekko
I didn't say I wanted to trade for the whole Timberwolves
team. I wanted to build around Garnett with a great coach, hopefully
an all star guard (either Francis or Marbury), and would like to see
the influence Garnett would have on Curry's game and attitude.
i'm curious to see how you build with no cap flexibility, and a GM with
an aptitude for trading draft picks away.
Post by Gordon Gekko
Kobe Bryant is .500 should we not want him here because he is not
producing the playoffs for the Lakers. The way this league is
constituted we all know you need more than one superstar to win.
You talk about 5 years, I am talking about 2 years.
hhmm....so we should ignore history because it doesnt fit your argument?
Post by Gordon Gekko
I agree if we
could go back and time we should have let Ewing and Houston walk. If
after the summer there is no Garnett, O'Neal, or Harrington then I will
wait until the next trading deadline. If that passes without a
significant move then I'm sure Isiah will be fired anyway and you might
get your wish of total rebuilding.
geeze....you really dont get it....im not gonna retype my previous post
out again.
Post by Gordon Gekko
Oh and with Layden, the only real trade I can remember the guy making
was for McDyess and I hated the deal at the time. I don't recall if he
had a penchant for trading expiring contracts. I do remember he gave
stupid deals for Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisley and traded Sprewell
for Van Horn.
And going back to Curry, I seem to remember everybody saying it was a
no brainer deal, the only issue is the kid's heart problems and that is
what scared off most teams. Anyway we should just agree to disagree
and see how this plays out. Either way I think if Isiah does not land
a significant impact player he will be gone after the trading deadline
next year. What you should understand is that in the NBA luck plays a
part also. The Spurs getting Duncan the one year they were horrible
because David Robinson curiously was shelved for the season. The
Lakers get Kobe because he forced a draft day trade. You brought up
Chicago and the Clippers, sure they have some players but can't see
them winning a championship anytime soon.
Bottom line is you want the Knicks to end all signings and totally
rebuild, I want to give this Garnett thing a chance, we shall see what
happens
Noah
2006-02-28 00:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
And going back to Curry, I seem to remember everybody saying it was a
no brainer deal, the only issue is the kid's heart problems and that is
what scared off most teams.
Just for the record, we said the same thing at the time of the trade
that we are saying now:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.basketball.pro.ny-knicks/browse_frm/thread/80ff422863c465cb/451c78436984feff?q=curry+heart+knicks+noah+&rnum=2#451c78436984feff
Lee Watkins
2006-02-27 16:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
Jalen Rose is 16 million in an expiring contract next year, so this
summer that contract becomes very valuable
Salaries don't matter now, we had no chance of getting under the cap
now either way, 3 years from now we want to be under the cap, Rose's
contract won't change that
If the Knicks get Garnett in the summer, we become a contender again
no, you wont, and ive explained why in another post that youve ignored.

lee
Zoe Chen
2006-02-27 19:48:51 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:06:35 -0600, Lee Watkins
Post by Lee Watkins
Post by Gordon Gekko
Jalen Rose is 16 million in an expiring contract next year, so this
summer that contract becomes very valuable
Yeah, which overpaid, over-the-hill, marginal talent is Isaiah going
to trade for next?
Post by Lee Watkins
Post by Gordon Gekko
Salaries don't matter now, we had no chance of getting under the cap
now either way, 3 years from now we want to be under the cap, Rose's
contract won't change that
Circular logic.
Post by Lee Watkins
Post by Gordon Gekko
If the Knicks get Garnett in the summer, we become a contender again
That's a laugh. Ever since 1998 Minnesota is suppose to trade us
Kevin Garnett for _________, keep dreaming.
Post by Lee Watkins
no, you wont, and ive explained why in another post that youve ignored.
lee
Capn'O
2006-02-25 17:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Gekko
Captain, Jackie Butler and Demarr Johnson, yeah those are huge trading
chips, please continue after the laughter dies down.
At the league min they were moreso than Crawford at 10 mil or whatever
it is per year. Coupled with, say, Harrington, DerMarr could have been
worth something to a team that was looking to dump salary and needed a
backup shooting guard.
Post by Gordon Gekko
Yeah Nazr, are you joking us, yes he deserved to be MVP of the
playoffs, without him I'm sure San Antonio would have lost.
Nazr played very well deep into the playoffs.

None of the building blocks Isiah has acquired have ever been deep into
the playoffs.

The reason
Post by Gordon Gekko
he got Mo T was this summer he now becomes a chip because his contract
will be in the expiring year.
Remember how we got him? For expirings. Yay, next year we could get
another Mo Taylor with 2 more years on the contract!
Post by Gordon Gekko
James and Crawford deals were mistakes,
no doubt about that.
James was a mistake that never would have been thought of if we had
retained Nazr. Crawford was an expirament... like Curry... see below
for the problem with these kinds of expiraments.
Post by Gordon Gekko
Rose and Mo's contract are expiring and will be summertime trade
possibilities. Isiah took a gamble on Eddy Curry, Curry is very
talented, question becomes can he get in better shape, stay out of foul
trouble and improve defensively, if the guy stays on the floor for 30
minutes a night he is going to produce offensively. I'm willing to see
what Larry Brown can do for him.
I was for taking a chance on Curry too. There is no doubt that he has
talent - moreso than Sweetney and it's worth seeing if it can be
maximized under Brown...

However there was NO reason to sign him to the contract he was signed
to when we traded for him. Nobody was offering him 6 (5?) years and
nobody was offering him that kind of money. Having many players that
cost more than their value around the league is a HUGE problem if those
players have yet to show that they can win. Regardless of _our_ lack of
concern for the cap other teams do think about these things and once we
take on these players they are unmovable until the last year of their
contract.

I was fine with taking these risks if they lasted up until the magic
line when Houston... or hell, even Marbury came off the cap. We have
now gone above and beyond that point with no hope of taking a different
direction.

Believe me, I want the Knicks to be REALLY good but this is not the way
to get there.
Noah
2006-02-25 21:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Well said, Cap'n, and thanks for summarizing much more succinctly what
took me much longer to say. It was getting awfully lonely out there in
that sea of foolishness.
Post by Capn'O
Whether or not he "blew it up" he could have avoided some of the grave
errors he has made. He could still keep guys like DerMarr and Jackie
Butler around _and_ playing instead of signing players like Jamal and
Jerome to huge contracts. Players with reasonable contracts that other
teams would covet and trade us other talented players with reasonable
contracts. He could have let certain expiring contracts expire if his
only other option was getting a player back that would only marginally
upgrade the position while drawing out cap issues (Mo T). He could have
kept our only viable center last year - a center that went on to start
for the NBA Champs - and not felt obligated to find a quick fix this
summer in James. He could have structured contracts (Curry, James, and
Jamal) in a much more reasonable fashion and still been the high bidder
for those players. This is only a start of how things _could_ have gone
differently.
Now we have players - Crawford, Taylor, Rose, Rose, James, Marbury,
possibly Curry and Francis - that NOBODY will trade for until they are
expirings and even then it will only be for other players with
questionable skills/attitude issues with similarly long contracts.
Isiah had us in a situation at the beginning of last summer where he
could have made this team _much_ better short and long term and he's
blown it to the point where the only hope we have is for another team
to do something stupid or for one of our own to magically start
bringing the goods that they haven't brought their whole career.
I think another GM could turn this team into a winner in a few years. I
have lost my faith in Isiah to do so.
Granville Waiters' Ghost
2006-02-23 21:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@hotmail.com
People are saying, "step in the right direction", "let the contracts
expire". Well, if you aren't under the cap, then what is the point?
You save Dolan money. I guess people are members of the Dolan fanclub,
and concerned about his financial well being.
As far as I see it, the only way to get it is to cluster contracts
right around the same year or so, and do a massive purge. Short of
that, what is the point? People THAT concerned about how much Dolan
spends? Do people think the price of Knicks tickets will drop, as if
the cost of operations dictates ticket prices, as opposed to demand.
Size of payroll is not a scoreboard.
Even if you are several million under the cap, you have LESS ability to
make moves than if you were over, because you have the MLE you can use
if you are over the cap.
Richard, I could refute every single argument here, except that I've
already done it before.

Look up the payroll of two teams: Charlotte and Portland. Neither team
is doing much better than the Knicks. Charlotte however has stayed away
from long-term, big-bust contracts even though they were offered them,
and has built a team of competitive, hustling guys, fantastic prospects
and stockpiled draft picks, and *still* has the wherewithal to sign a
full-boat free agent.

I would trade the entire Knicks roster for Charlotte's in an instant.
I'd trade the entire Knicks roster for a gimpy Okafor and gimpy Gerald
Wallace, and take Felton as a throw-in.

Now go to Portland. A few years ago, they were in the same situation the
Knicks are in. But after the Wallace debacle, they decided to suck it
up, let the contracts expire and let it go. They've blown some money on
bad players (most of whom Isiah seems to covet) but they're still in an
excellent position for the future: they have loads of kids, two or three
of whom will probably be packaged for an outstanding player. If they can
dump Miles and Ratliff on you, even better.

Now go to Denver. Even with Martin's gimpy leg, they're in an
outstanding position to be a good, even spectacular team for the next
five years *without doing anything*. That's the endgame of what
Charlotte and Portland are doing, and what the Knicks could have done
but never will.

The difference is clear: each of these teams have a young foundation,
while the Knicks have no foundation at all. All of them were able to get
into their position through fiscal sanity. Paul Allen has more money in
his mattress than Dolan has in his Swiss bank accounts. You know what
happened? He brought in some outside consultants who told him that there
was a catch phrase going around the office: SPAM. "Spending Paul Allen's
Money." He could easily do exactly what the Knicks are doing. He did it
before. It doesn't work, and the Knicks team as currently composed is
never going to be within a whiff of the finals, as those Portland teams
were.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...