PDA

View Full Version : Knicks do not have the cap room for two max contracts


dude1394
02-16-2010, 08:15 AM
Jthig had a very interesting observation when talking about who the mavs could get in the off-season.


The Knicks do not have the cap room for two max contracts unless they move Jeffries and Curry.

This needs to go in a new thread though. Think of the people with real lives.

Discuss..

jthig32
02-16-2010, 08:25 AM
I concur with whoever that is that you quoted. He's pretty sharp.

Underdog
02-16-2010, 08:25 AM
Shouldn't this be in the "Around the NBA" section?

I mean, I know the cool kids of the forum have declared war on everyone else around here, but threads like this are junking up the "General Mavs Discussion" in the middle of some really big Mavs news.

(it's kinda like wishing that America would crumble under the Obama administration just so you can be "right" at the end of the day...)

dude1394
02-16-2010, 08:45 AM
Thread Nazi's have taken over my thread.

jthig32
02-16-2010, 08:52 AM
Let's get it back on topic:

I completely disagree with RMAComic's point here:

I think a lot of people are overestimating just how easy it will be to actually land a superstar type player this summer. There is one team in position to ruin every other teams summer. The Knicks.
New York has the potential to be the number one destination for every free agent this summer, and every team will want to deal with them first. The Knicks will get the first pick of the FA class of 2010. With 68 million coming off their books this year and another 14 mil in one year contracts to make deals with, the Knicks are the team best situated to sign multiple all-star free agents this summer.

How many of this years "Sammy Superstars" do you really think will leave their team? Two? Three, maybe? Even if New York gives away horrible contracts, (which they probably will), the rest of the league will be scrambling for their scraps. If you are going to move Damp, it needs to be now, while you are sure to get something for him. The summer of 2010 could be a bonanza for many teams, or it could be a bust for all but one.

If you believe everything you read, the big time superstars are concerned about winning more than about exposure. Obviously both are important, but I really don't think the Knicks are setup to be this huge gorilla in free agency.

Having one year contracts are not really going to be useful this summer. Teams aren't going to sign and trade their superstar to New York and take Curry or Jeffries back. That's just not going to happen.

Now I certainly don't think it's "going to be easy" to land a superstar. But I don't think the Knicks are holding the keys to the summer, by any stretch.

dude1394
02-16-2010, 08:58 AM
I just do not see how we can discuss this item when it originated in the Cuban not wanting to make big trades thread. I mean it started there and should remain there. This thread has no separate purpose other than to pollute the board.

Underdog
02-16-2010, 09:29 AM
Thread Nazi's have taken over my thread.

I love being called a Nazi - it rarely happens to us non-Israeli Jews...


(let's be honest; neither of us really wants to talk about the Knicks!)

dude1394
02-16-2010, 09:36 AM
I love being called a Nazi - it rarely happens to us non-Israeli Jews...


(let's be honest; neither of us really wants to talk about the Knicks!)

Me too, but conservatives get called it a lot so the excitement kinda wears off after awhile. :)

Underdog
02-16-2010, 09:43 AM
Me too, but conservatives get called it a lot so the excitement kinda wears off after awhile. :)

Conservatives have all the fun...
http://cdn1.gamepro.com/global/radar/blog_images/105240-4.jpg

dude1394
02-16-2010, 09:51 AM
Conservatives have all the fun...
http://cdn1.gamepro.com/global/radar/blog_images/105240-4.jpg

Da 'mn. TO NETFLIX!!!

rmacomic
02-16-2010, 09:57 AM
Let's get it back on topic:

I completely disagree with RMAComic's point here:



If you believe everything you read, the big time superstars are concerned about winning more than about exposure. Obviously both are important, but I really don't think the Knicks are setup to be this huge gorilla in free agency.

Having one year contracts are not really going to be useful this summer. Teams aren't going to sign and trade their superstar to New York and take Curry or Jeffries back. That's just not going to happen.

Now I certainly don't think it's "going to be easy" to land a superstar. But I don't think the Knicks are holding the keys to the summer, by any stretch.

If you believe everything you read, then you would think if Wade goes anywhere it'll be to Chicago. You would also think, according to twitter, Bosh isn't interested in Dallas, and, according to numerous written sources, that LeBron will stay in Ohio or go to New York.

I am no analyst, (mostly because I actually watch the game, not just look at my stat sheet) , I'm just some jagoff with dsl. However, I do know enough not to count something as a sure deal. Hell if all that matters to a player is just a ring why don't they all just take a one year minimum deal with the Lakers and win 82 regular season games then go fo, fo , fo, fo in the playoff.

Also all responses should be in the form of a new thread.

sefant77
02-16-2010, 09:58 AM
No nazi jokes or Dirk gets mad and exercise his player option!

And i meant the Knicks can sign 2 max contracts when they do that McGrady/Jeffries deal. But then they couldnt resign Lee.

Dirkenstien
02-16-2010, 11:01 AM
I think we're good waiting for the off-season with the DUST chip.

In fact, the more other teams become Free Agent signing threats (New York, Miami, etc.), the better our chances of capitalizing on the DUST chip. Bottom line is we don't make any significant S&T without the legit possibility that Sammy walks away this off-season leaving his team with nothing.

It would go something like this:

Team GM:
"So Sammy, I can see you're serious about leaving us for New York but before you do, let's talk about maybe working a possible S&T with Dallas. You would get much more money for more years this way, you would go to a championship contending team in a good market with Jason Kidd, Dirk, Butler, Marion etc., and you would help us out, your former franchise and family, by allowing us to get some picks or prospects in return. What do you say?"

Sammy:
"More money for more years, compete for a championship with a talented group, good market, and I help you out in the process? Sure thing, let's get this thing done!"

jthig32
02-16-2010, 11:05 AM
If you believe everything you read, then you would think if Wade goes anywhere it'll be to Chicago. You would also think, according to twitter, Bosh isn't interested in Dallas, and, according to numerous written sources, that LeBron will stay in Ohio or go to New York.

I am no analyst, (mostly because I actually watch the game, not just look at my stat sheet) , I'm just some jagoff with dsl. However, I do know enough not to count something as a sure deal. Hell if all that matters to a player is just a ring why don't they all just take a one year minimum deal with the Lakers and win 82 regular season games then go fo, fo , fo, fo in the playoff.

Also all responses should be in the form of a new thread.

I'm not counting anything as a sure deal. Far from it. I just disagree that New York has a leg up on anyone. There will be several bad teams with room for one max contract, which is what New York is.

rmacomic
02-16-2010, 11:14 AM
I'm not counting anything as a sure deal. Far from it. I just disagree that New York has a leg up on anyone. There will be several bad teams with room for one max contract, which is what New York is.

Sorry, I am far too busy with my life to respond to this. If you start a new thread I might be able to clear some time in my schedule, how's Thursday the 23rd @ 2PM work for you?

nikeball
02-16-2010, 12:04 PM
I'm confused, do they need to move BOTH Curry & Jefferies?

I am looking at their salaries and they have 27m committed for next year. Curry & Jefferies (18m) I assume will exercise their option. I assume they will trade Jefferies so that leaves them at 20m.

LBJ/Bosh/Wade will get around 18m each? 20 + 36 = 56m. I thought the cap was way higher than that. Am I missing something?

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

alby
02-16-2010, 12:33 PM
I'm confused, do they need to move BOTH Curry & Jefferies?

I am looking at their salaries and they have 27m committed for next year. Curry & Jefferies (18m) I assume will exercise their option. I assume they will trade Jefferies so that leaves them at 20m.

LBJ/Bosh/Wade will get around 18m each? 20 + 36 = 56m. I thought the cap was way higher than that. Am I missing something?

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

2009/2010
Salaray Cap = $57-ish million
Luxury Tax = $69-ish million

bobatundi
02-16-2010, 12:34 PM
I'm really wondering what the Knicks will end up with (since I live here and have a partial-season package). They're actually completely renovating MSG over the next two years, so not only will whoever signs here have a chance to resurrect basketball in NY, they'll get to usher in a new era of basketball in the new & improved MSG.

That said...I can't see why LeBron or Wade would want to come to this team. If the Knicks do manage to sign two of these guys, they'll have to renounce--or S&T--David Lee. Meaning a starting lineup of, hypothetically, LeBron, Bosh, Gallinari, Wilson Chandler & Toney Douglas, with my dog Nacho coming off the bench (he's only 11 lbs, but he's got mad hops). No first-rounder this year, and if they pull off this McGrady deal, that's probably going to cost them additional future draft picks. Are you really happy with that scenario if you're one of those guys?

My prediction is the Knicks end up with two guys who are a notch below the top dogs. Joe Johnson has been wasting away in obscurity in Atlanta--I'm sure he would love to be The Man in NYC. And Carlos Loozer is the biggest contract whore in the NBA, he'd sign with the Washington Generals if it meant more money. So that's my prediction--Boozer & Johnson in NY...probably enough for a low playoff seed, but little more.

jthig32
02-16-2010, 12:51 PM
I'm confused, do they need to move BOTH Curry & Jefferies?

I am looking at their salaries and they have 27m committed for next year. Curry & Jefferies (18m) I assume will exercise their option. I assume they will trade Jefferies so that leaves them at 20m.

LBJ/Bosh/Wade will get around 18m each? 20 + 36 = 56m. I thought the cap was way higher than that. Am I missing something?

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

You assume they will trade Jeffries? For what?

Even if they can trade Jeffies for salary relief, which seems unlikely to me, they would have to renounce David Lee's Bird Rights in order for the scenario you're talking about to work. I don't see them doing that.

And as Alby pointed out, the salary cap this year is 57mil-ish, and could be going backwards next year.

sike
02-16-2010, 01:14 PM
Is this an appropriate place to say that I hate the Knicks and wish nothing but failure upon their franchise?

If not, then I'll add that I think there is NO way James will be a Knick.

bobatundi
02-16-2010, 01:20 PM
Rumor has it right now they're talking to Houston about McGrady, and would unload Jeffries in such a deal (along with their 1st round pick Jordan Hill, a 2012 first-rounder, and giving Houston the right to swap 2011 first round picks). So they would gain $9.5MM in cap room for next year, at a cost of further mortgaging their future building blocks...with no guarantees that anyone will sign with them in the offseason.

In my amateur GM fantasy world, if I'm Donnie Nelson, I pick up the phone and offer the Knicks this trade:

Carroll
Thomas
Barea

for

Jeffries
Hill
Cash
future 1st

Knicks gain $5.2MM in 2010 cap room. Mavs pick up a prospect in Hill, a solid if overpaid defender in Jeffries, a future 1st...and, by getting rid of Carroll's contract, their total dollar spend is roughly the same, especially if the Knicks kick in some cash.

Also, Jeffries is a 2011 expiring, and Hill is a team option for 2011 and 2012. Both more valuable than Carroll's contract in making trades or S&Ts work.

chumdawg
02-16-2010, 01:31 PM
Interesting. I've often thought that the Knicks could be a potential trade partner for us.

bobatundi
02-16-2010, 01:39 PM
Another alternative: Carroll, Thomas, Barea + a minimum-salary pickup for Eddy Curry, plus cash, picks. Saves the Knicks even more cap room for next year, still saves the Mavs money long-term and nets them some assets.

I just want to figure out a way for the Mavs to fleece the Knicks.

I actually prefer the first trade I put out there, as Jeffries & Hill are both potentially useful bench players; Curry would be pure fodder for future trades.

jthig32
02-16-2010, 02:04 PM
Here's a little more info on the Knicks situation. According to this guy's calculations they could possibly find a way to get something done with two max contracts if they trade Jeffries and buy out Curry. The Curry thing sounds suspicious to me though. My understanding has always been that buyouts do not affect the status of the salary cap. Maybe I've been wrong. I'll have to look that up. Still in this scenario it's singing two max guys and you fill out the rest of the roster with vet minimum guys, as you have zero cap room left over and no MLE or LLE. And your renounce Lee and Robinson. Still strikes me as very unlikely.

http://www.hoopdata.com/recent.aspx?aid=155

According to Yahoo! Sports, the Knicks are rumored to be making the following trade with the Houston Rockets in the coming days: Larry Hughes, Jared Jeffries, Jordan Hill, and a bunch of draft picks for Tracy McGrady, Brian Cook, and Joey Dorsey. Various reports have been thrown around about how far under the cap the Knicks will be, but here is the reality of the situation:

First and foremost, the Knicks have 17,782,904 in guaranteed salaries between Curry, Gallinari, Douglas, and Chandler. After that, a cap hold is put in place for each roster spot under 12, filling in some of the Knicks' projected cap space. Because a team must have 12 players under contract at all times in the regular season, the CBA makes sure teams account for the minimum contracts they must use to fill out their roster before they use their cap space. The minimum rookie contract for the 10-11 season is 490,180. The Knicks thus also have 3,921,440 in cap holds (8 roster spots) to add to their salary in the offseason, putting them at a total of 21,704,344.

Teams are currently projecting the salary cap next season to be approximately 53,000,000, so under that projection, the Knicks would have 31,295,656 in cap space available. To free up a little more cap space, the Knicks can opt to buyout Eddy Curry's 11,276,863 contract. Because the minimum salary for a 10-year player is 1,399,507, Curry and his agent should agree to a buyout saving the Knicks that amount, a deal that is in both of their best interests and will not lose Curry any money, assuming he finds someone to sign him to a minimum deal (and the league pays a good portion of the minimum deals for veterans – a team will actually only have to flesh out 788,872 for Curry, with the league covering the rest).

Assuming the Knicks and Curry agree to the buyout as stated above, that would net the Knicks cap savings of 909,327, because they'd have to add yet another cap hold to account for Curry no longer being there. This would put the Knicks up to 32,204,983 in cap space.

With the cap for 2010 projected at approximately 53 million, the max contract for a player entering his 7th year in the league (Lebron, Bosh, Wade) would be 30% of the cap or 15,900,000. Seeing how 15,900,000 * 2 is 31,800,000, the Knicks would have enough space to sign two of those players to maximum deals, and they'd actually have a bit left over, as you'd remove two of the cap holds (for the players you just signed), saving 980,360, plus they had a difference of 404,983 to begin with, leaving them with 1,385,343 in additional space. Combine this with another of the cap holds and that leaves the Knicks with 1,875,523 to sign a third free agent to a deal.

In full, under this projection, the Knicks would have two max contract players, Gallinari, Douglas, Chandler, a free agent with a deal starting at 1,875,523, and then six minimum contract players to round things out. That is all they would be able to add. There is no MLE, there are no Bird Rights for David Lee and Nate Robinson, there is nothing else. In order to use your cap space, you must renounce all your exceptions, including the MLE and any player Bird Rights you have.

Some random notes: Amare's contract (8th year player) would begin at the same price as Bosh, Lebron, or Wade, so you can throw him in the mix without adjusting anything. Joe Johnson, on the other hand, entering his 10th year, would have a starting salary of 35% of the cap or 18,550,000 in a max deal, though it's unlikely anyone offers that, so you can probably swap him into your projections at the same price as the others. Rudy Gay, on the other hand, would have a max deal starting at 25% of the cap or 13,250,000, so if the Knicks can only grab one of the big five players and want to add Gay as their second star, they'd be able to save 2,650,000 in doing so, meaning they could then add a 4,525,523 free agent for their third acquisition.

All of these numbers are based on a cap set at 53million. If the cap were slightly higher, it'd give the Knicks a sliver more flexibility in terms of what they could add with their third free agent after signing the two maxes. As long as the cap stays above 51million, the Knicks should have enough to sign two max free agents to a deal, assuming they can get Eddy Curry to agree to a buyout saving the Knicks the difference of the minimum contract he'd receive on the open market. Without Curry's buyout, things get a little murkier, but the Knicks should regardless be close enough to get it done somehow.

An interesting angle to watch in all this is what happens if Amare goes to Cleveland, Amare and Lebron both re-sign there after winning a championship, the Heat miss the playoffs, and the Raptors get knocked out in the first round. I don't think you'd find anyone around who would think that Bosh or Wade alone could build a team strong enough to knock off those Cavs (or even the Lakers or other teams), so it may become a necessity for Bosh and Wade to team up if they want to have a legitimate shot at winning a title in the near future.

As things stack up right now, the only two teams capable of offering max deals to both Bosh and Wade would be the Knicks and Heat (though Chicago and New Jersey are capable of maneuvering to that point with extremely aggressive moves in the next few days). Regardless, comparing the Knicks' situation to the Heat's situation, the Knicks will have a core of Gallinari, Chandler, and Douglas, while the Heat will have a core of Beasley, Cook, and Chalmers, though the Heat have a little more cap space and a first round pick to add to the mix. Still, with the allure of New York City and Gallinari being the best player of those named, it definitely makes a strong case for Bosh and Wade choosing New York over Miami. It's a big risk for the Knicks to take, but unlike those taken by Isiah Thomas, there actually is upside to this one.

Hitman
02-16-2010, 02:09 PM
This trade will allow the New York Knicks to offer both LeBron James and Dwyane Wade maximum contracts on July 1.

I am sure the red carpet will be laid out and a huge presentation will be made. (Think of how the Suns went after Steve Nash back in 2005, with Amare, Kerr, etc. Taken to the umteenth level.)

They will probably have the owners and Walt Frazier and Spike Lee and David Letterman and Jon Stewart and A Rod and Jeter and Donald Trump there (the 2 meetings have simultaneous video chat with each other).... and Frank Sinatra and Jay Z will be performing a duet in the background

while they outline how the 2 of them together on the world's biggest stage can be the biggest thing in history.

Ain't there a chance they bite?

jthig32
02-16-2010, 02:13 PM
Of course there's a chance. They have as good a chance as anyone. I just don't think they have an advantage over other teams.

And are they really going to be willing to absolutely suck for at least one year? Because make no mistake, a team with Lebron, Wade, Gallinari, Chander, Douglas and minimum salary players will suck.

Dirkenstien
02-16-2010, 02:26 PM
Yeah, there's definitely a chance they might bite, but like I stated earlier, the more teams with sufficient cap space to sign a Lebron, Wade, Bosh, etc. the better it is for the Dallas Mavericks' chances of landing a Lebron, Wade, Bosh etc.

Hitman
02-16-2010, 02:30 PM
Really? I don't think so. LeBron and Wade and Gallinari and Chandler and Douglas...that team would be pretty good. Vets would be chomping to get a piece of that action.

No way in hell that team sucks.

bobatundi
02-16-2010, 02:35 PM
Yep--they'll suck badly for year 1, then have to use their MLE to lure the top available MLE-level FA every offseason after that. They won't have any draft picks left, and they won't really have any tradeable assets that can bring anything in return, unless they're willing to part with one of their two Sammy Superstars. Those two guys will both average 40 points a game...but the team as a whole will only average 90.

Obviously, if they only way to get LeBron there is to promise to partner him with D-Wade, that's what the Knicks will try to do--but a smarter move for the Knicks would probably be to try to get one top-tier FA, re-sign Lee, and use the remaining $10MM or so in cap room they'll have to add 2 more MLE-level guys. And preserve draft picks where possible. But--when is the last time the Knicks made a smart move (firing Isiah doesn't count).

Dirkenstien
02-16-2010, 02:37 PM
Really? I don't think so. LeBron and Wade and Gallinari and Chandler and Douglas...that team would be pretty good. Vets would be chomping to get a piece of that action.

No way in hell that team sucks.

I'm not even convinced they'd be a great fit playing together. Obviously they'd still be competitive on the talent level alone, but they both like to have the ball in their hands and both guys have huge egos.

bobatundi
02-16-2010, 02:40 PM
Really? I don't think so. LeBron and Wade and Gallinari and Chandler and Douglas...that team would be pretty good. Vets would be chomping to get a piece of that action.

No way in hell that team sucks.

Douglas is a 6'1" SG, Chandler is horribly overrated, and Gallo, while I love his shooting stroke, has zero inside game, plays zero defense, and chucks up a LOT of shots to get his 14 ppg (shots which will go away if Wade & LeBron join the squad).

Not to mention, that's basically a starting lineup of 2 SGs and 3 SFs. This ain't Duke, this is the NBA.

chumdawg
02-16-2010, 02:45 PM
Because make no mistake, a team with Lebron, Wade, Gallinari, Chander, Douglas and minimum salary players will suck.Serious? I think you can stop at "Lebron, Wade" and already call them contenders.

Hitman
02-16-2010, 02:45 PM
Right, I hear you, but worst case scenario, they sign someone like Drew Gooden for the vets minimum. Or Big Z. Or Damp. There will be be people available and those that are available are going to want to play in NYC w/ LBJ & DWade.

And FYI- Gallinari takes less than 11 shots per game.

jthig32
02-16-2010, 02:59 PM
Right, I hear you, but worst case scenario, they sign someone like Drew Gooden for the vets minimum. Or Big Z. Or Damp. There will be be people available and those that are available are going to want to play in NYC w/ LBJ & DWade.

And FYI- Gallinari takes less than 11 shots per game.

You are seriously over estimating the kind of players they would get for the minimum, imo.

bobatundi
02-16-2010, 03:00 PM
Have to wonder, if the Knicks play their cards right, they could actually be quite dangerous this offseason. Imagine this scenario: LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Johnson, Stoudemire, Boozer all end up elsewhere. Now, if Isiah were still running the team, he'd just go throw max money at Ray Allen & Tracy McGrady or something stupid like that; but a sharp GM here might see that, with the kind of cap room they'll have, they can be major trade players--because they'll be able to absorb other teams' contracts without sending as much money back. They could easily turn that into young talent & draft picks, right?

Imagine calling up the Wizards GM right now and saying, "hey, I'll take Arenas off your hands, if you send me Blatche, Young, $3MM cash, and your 2010 and 2012 first round picks. Oh, and you're taking back Eddy Curry." You don't think the Wizards might bite? Sure, they'll quickly find themselves back in Cap Hell...but if they get there the right way, it might work out.

Isiah was stupid because he'd take on somebody's $20MM a year deal and would actually SEND OUT draft picks & young talent; in today's NBA economic landscape, the Knicks could easily stockpile a ton of young talent & draft picks by taking back a few bad deals.

jthig32
02-16-2010, 03:00 PM
Yep--they'll suck badly for year 1, then have to use their MLE to lure the top available MLE-level FA every offseason after that. They won't have any draft picks left, and they won't really have any tradeable assets that can bring anything in return, unless they're willing to part with one of their two Sammy Superstars. Those two guys will both average 40 points a game...but the team as a whole will only average 90.

Obviously, if they only way to get LeBron there is to promise to partner him with D-Wade, that's what the Knicks will try to do--but a smarter move for the Knicks would probably be to try to get one top-tier FA, re-sign Lee, and use the remaining $10MM or so in cap room they'll have to add 2 more MLE-level guys. And preserve draft picks where possible. But--when is the last time the Knicks made a smart move (firing Isiah doesn't count).

And don't forget what effects the new CBA could have. There might not even be a MLE in the new CBA.

jthig32
02-16-2010, 03:02 PM
Have to wonder, if the Knicks play their cards right, they could actually be quite dangerous this offseason. Imagine this scenario: LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Johnson, Stoudemire, Boozer all end up elsewhere. Now, if Isiah were still running the team, he'd just go throw max money at Ray Allen & Tracy McGrady or something stupid like that; but a sharp GM here might see that, with the kind of cap room they'll have, they can be major trade players--because they'll be able to absorb other teams' contracts without sending as much money back. They could easily turn that into young talent & draft picks, right?

Imagine calling up the Wizards GM right now and saying, "hey, I'll take Arenas off your hands, if you send me Blatche, Young, $3MM cash, and your 2010 and 2012 first round picks. Oh, and you're taking back Eddy Curry." You don't think the Wizards might bite? Sure, they'll quickly find themselves back in Cap Hell...but if they get there the right way, it might work out.

Isiah was stupid because he'd take on somebody's $20MM a year deal and would actually SEND OUT draft picks & young talent; in today's NBA economic landscape, the Knicks could easily stockpile a ton of young talent & draft picks by taking back a few bad deals.

This is essentially what Seattle/Oklahoma did, although they didn't take on contracts like Arenas'. Heck they got two first round picks for taking Kurt Thomas from Phoenix.

bobatundi
02-16-2010, 03:06 PM
This is essentially what Seattle/Oklahoma did, although they didn't take on contracts like Arenas'. Heck they got two first round picks for taking Kurt Thomas from Phoenix.

Right. And they're at 30-21 with the 28th-highest payroll in the league. Imagine what they could do if they were willing to spend what the Knicks do.

alby
02-16-2010, 03:08 PM
Lebron James being in his prime, can join any team in the NBA and that team would win a minimum of 50 games.

bobatundi
02-16-2010, 03:13 PM
Can't say the same of D-Wade, Bosh, etc.

Which, in my mind, is even more argument for the Knicks going after a 3-4 man supporting cast if they can convince LeBron to join, rather than a second Sammy Superstar.

jthig32
02-16-2010, 03:18 PM
Lebron James being in his prime, can join any team in the NBA and that team would win a minimum of 50 games.

I guess I should explain "suck". They clearly wouldn't literally "suck". I mean Miami basically sucks but is still a playoff team right now.

I'm simply saying that Lebron, Wade and a poo-poo platter of ill fitting parts is in no way a contender.

Hitman
02-16-2010, 03:21 PM
Alby- Bingo.

bob- True, BUT...You can say the same of LeBron AND Dwyane Wade. That team plus anything else Donnie Walsh and Mike D'Antoni could find to put around them in MSG would be pretty f'ing good.

alby
02-16-2010, 03:24 PM
a 50 win team in New York City IS like winning the championship.

jthig32
02-16-2010, 03:28 PM
a 50 win team in New York City IS like winning the championship.

Not to Lebron it's not.

chumdawg
02-16-2010, 03:38 PM
I'm simply saying that Lebron, Wade and a poo-poo platter of ill fitting parts is in no way a contender.I think you're wrong.

bobatundi
02-16-2010, 03:55 PM
Not to Lebron it's not.

Bingo.

Yes, that team would be a perennial playoff team, but they would in no way be a legit championship contender. A vet-minimum frontcourt just isn't going to cut it.

Hitman
02-16-2010, 04:37 PM
We are talking about LeBron James and Dwyane Wade.

LeBron James AND Dwyane Wade.

And you, oh bobatundi, don't think the Knicks could put a contender around LeBron James AND Dwyane Wade?

I think you be wrong.

alby
02-16-2010, 04:45 PM
A 50 win team in New York City is a contender in SterNBA

jthig32
02-16-2010, 05:33 PM
I think you're wrong.

What kind of players do you think they get to fill out their roster? And don't say quality players will be lining up to take the minimum to play with them, because that just doesn't happen.

jthig32
02-16-2010, 05:33 PM
We are talking about LeBron James and Dwyane Wade.

LeBron James AND Dwyane Wade.

And you, oh bobatundi, don't think the Knicks could put a contender around LeBron James AND Dwyane Wade?

I think you be wrong.

With minimum salary guys and no draft picks?

C'mon.

mary
02-16-2010, 05:42 PM
I guess I should explain "suck". They clearly wouldn't literally "suck". I mean Miami basically sucks but is still a playoff team right now.



Not to poke my nose in the discussion, but what did the Heat have in 2006?

(Old Shaq, Alonzo Mourning.....freaking Udonis Haslem...Bennett Salvatore)

jthig32
02-16-2010, 05:46 PM
Not to poke my nose in the discussion, but what did the Heat have in 2006?

They had a still pretty good Shaq and they had quite a few role players that you're not getting for minimum contracts.

See that's the thing. If they already had some decent young players in place at different positions that could contribute, I would feel differently. But you're talking about starting a team with two mega stars, a homeless man's Dirk in Dano, some ill-fitting busts of young players, and players off the scrap heap.

You're not getting the Udonis Haslem they had for vet minimum. Or James Posey, or Antoine Walker for that matter.

chumdawg
02-16-2010, 05:59 PM
What kind of players do you think they get to fill out their roster? And don't say quality players will be lining up to take the minimum to play with them, because that just doesn't happen.D-Leaguers would be fine. Rookies. It doesn't matter. As long as the guy is good enough to play in the NBA, that's all.

Dirk and...oh, excuse me...Lebron and Wade would make the players around them look like quality NBA players, even if they were scrubs.

jthig32
02-16-2010, 06:39 PM
D-Leaguers would be fine. Rookies. It doesn't matter. As long as the guy is good enough to play in the NBA, that's all.

Dirk and...oh, excuse me...Lebron and Wade would make the players around them look like quality NBA players, even if they were scrubs.

That's crazy.

Lor20
02-16-2010, 10:03 PM
you need at least good rebounders and defenders. wade and james are fairly efficient scorers but they both dont rebound a ton or (regularly) protect the rim. the other team could score inside at will if there were just scrubs in the front court.

dude1394
02-17-2010, 04:37 AM
Funny...a lark new thread, gets 55 posts. Hmm...maybe it should not have been embedded in a 1,331 post thread. :)

Hitman
02-17-2010, 09:07 AM
Hey, at the very least it would be entertaining. LeBron and Wade on the Knicks and totally sucking.

That wouldn't happen though. If those two fell into place, everything else would as well.

mary
02-17-2010, 12:45 PM
Maybe the Knicks could envoke the special "break the bank" provision of the CBA.

duh.

Hitman
02-18-2010, 05:08 PM
Now the Knicks DO have enough room to sign two max guys.

This is going to be an interesting summer.

spreedom
02-18-2010, 05:18 PM
Now the Knicks DO have enough room to sign two max guys.

This is going to be an interesting summer.

That would be if they renounce every single one of their free agents (including Lee) -- which I don't expect they'll do. I'm guessing Lee will get a deal in the nieghborhood of 5yrs/$55M or so, which would give them about $19M to fill out the rest of the roster before they use the MLE/LLE....

chumdawg
02-18-2010, 05:35 PM
I don't think you get to use the MLE if you are under the cap.

mavErika
02-18-2010, 06:24 PM
Of course there's a chance. They have as good a chance as anyone. I just don't think they have an advantage over other teams.

And are they really going to be willing to absolutely suck for at least one year? Because make no mistake, a team with Lebron, Wade, Gallinari, Chander, Douglas and minimum salary players will suck.

that's what I thought, there can't be possibly enough cap room to sign two max guys and a decent supporting cast. I don't get why they are considered favourites at signing top notch free agents so often, I don't see why LBJ or Wade would prefer such a chaotic situation(admittedly in a big market city, playing in the MSG) over a solid situation like in Cleveland, Chicago, L.A.C. or Dallas. And the praise, or at least understanding N.Y. earns for the Houston-deal baffles me even more.

Hitman
02-18-2010, 07:16 PM
That would be if they renounce every single one of their free agents (including Lee) -- which I don't expect they'll do. I'm guessing Lee will get a deal in the nieghborhood of 5yrs/$55M or so, which would give them about $19M to fill out the rest of the roster before they use the MLE/LLE....

They are renouncing every free agent. Even Lee. They are not going to maintain his Bird rights, which doesn't mean that he won't resign there, but the Knicks will not have any homecourt cap advantages.

On July 1, they will be able to offer LeBron & Wade max contracts.

Hitman
02-18-2010, 07:21 PM
I don't see why LBJ or Wade would prefer such a chaotic situation(admittedly in a big market city, playing in the MSG) over a solid situation like in Cleveland, Chicago, L.A.C. or Dallas. And the praise, or at least understanding N.Y. earns for the Houston-deal baffles me even more.

It is not about playing in a "big market." Dallas and Chicago and Boston are so called "big markets."

It is about playing in New York City.

In Madison Square Garden.

It is different.

bobatundi
02-19-2010, 08:50 AM
It is not about playing in a "big market." Dallas and Chicago and Boston are so called "big markets."

It is about playing in New York City.

In Madison Square Garden.

It is different.

You hit the nail on the head. New York isn't just another "large market." It's more than twice the population of any other market in the country besides LA (and those two cities couldn't be much more different). More than that, it's such a media, financial & cultural hub...having lived and/or worked in five of the top 10 markets in the US, I can tell you, New York is just so much more.

bobatundi
02-20-2010, 10:12 AM
Ok, so maybe I'm just bored, but I still think we need to somehow take advantage of the Knicks (I mean, Houston obviously did, getting their most recent #1 pick in Hill, their 2012 first-rounder, and the right to swap 2011 first-rounders).

If I'm Donnie, I pick up the phone as soon as trades are allowed again, and I offer Carroll, Stevenson, and a S&T vet minimum (Thomas?) for Eddy Curry and a pick or two (even second-rounders since that's about all they have). Why? The Knicks gain $2MM more in cap room, which might come in handy for them. The Mavs actually SAVE $4.5 million over the life of all the deals ($9MM if you include Luxury Tax), reduce longer-term (2011+) salary obligations, and gain a potentially valuable trade piece for next year's deadline in Curry's $11MM expiring contract.

bobatundi
02-25-2010, 03:46 PM
More fun ideas involving looting the Knicks:

Would they be willing to give up some young talent to unload Curry's behemoth contract for next year? Here's a thought: Mavs send them Damp's instant expiring in exchange for Curry & Gallinari, and the Humphries Trade Exception for Rodriguez. Mavs get two young, talented players to build around going forward, at the price of paying Curry's bloated contract for one year (or, half a year, as he'll be an expiring and thus good trade deadline fodder). The Knicks then get so far under the cap, they can just about sign THREE max players (at a $53MM cap, minus cap holds, they'd have about $47MM to spend, say on LeBron, Wade, Boozer).

Would you?

rabbitproof
02-25-2010, 04:56 PM
We could have a great time losing to the New York LeWade Boshes in the Finals every year.

MavsX
02-26-2010, 06:53 AM
did anybody see that article on espn a few days ago about how if lebron, wade, and bosh all don't sign max deals. That they could all be on the knicks and win rings forever? It was a pretty interesting article.

bobatundi
02-26-2010, 07:37 AM
did anybody see that article on espn a few days ago about how if lebron, wade, and bosh all don't sign max deals. That they could all be on the knicks and win rings forever? It was a pretty interesting article.

Yeah, I read that...but it'll never happen. Agents & the Players Union would flip.

MavsX
02-26-2010, 08:58 AM
Yeah, I read that...but it'll never happen. Agents & the Players Union would flip.

yeah really. i guess we will see......