Joined: 18 Feb 2005 Posts: 10 Location: Connecticut
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:12 pm Post subject: Knicks' Deals
I'm a longtime fan (now longtime sufferer) and was wondering what folks thought about the deals they made today. The cap has been killing them and they add more salary? Doesn't make sense to me. And I have to wonder if Taylor and Rose are gonna take minutes away from Sweetney. Looks like some more brilliant moves by Thomas and the Dolans.
I think most of the past criticism of Isiah's moves is off the mark.
People say, "ugh, more salaries on the books," but who cares? The Knicks have the money to play above the cap and luxury tax (and the fear that you can't rebuild in NY), so they are in a different position than almost any other team in the league.
You first have to accept the premise that they will never be below the salary cap. This would be very difficult practically because of their current salaries, and difficult theoretically in light of the concerns about rebuilding/not putting an entertaining product on the floor. Never being below the cap means the Knicks can't build their team through greater than MLE free agent signings, but it also has its advantages. The Knicks can take on any size contract with no consequence. They have the ability to trade for good but overpaid players, something which many teams can't afford to do. And when they take on lots of large contracts, almost every year they will have one that is expiring that they can trade for another good but overpaid player. So the Knicks have to build their team in a different method, but I think it's one that can work.
I think Isiah's main problem is not that he has added too much salary, but that (1) he hasn't been a good judge of getting talent that fits together as a team, and (2) he hasn't taken full advantage of the Knicks special position.
These trades actually go some ways to remedying the second concern. If money is no object to you, one of the best things you can do is take other teams contracts off their hands, on the condition that they send you a draft pick. So the Knicks took two decent players on bad contracts and got two first round picks for it. They did have to send out Mohammed, but I don't see that as that great a loss.
I think in the past Isiah has been too quick to trade away draft picks and young players, when I think those are key elements to building a team when you don't have the ability to sign big free agents. By getting two first round picks while holding onto youngsters like Sweetney and Ariza, I actually like Isiah's moves.
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 497 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:58 am Post subject:
John Quincy wrote:
I think most of the past criticism of Isiah's moves is off the mark.
People say, "ugh, more salaries on the books," but who cares? The Knicks have the money to play above the cap and luxury tax (and the fear that you can't rebuild in NY), so they are in a different position than almost any other team in the league.
You first have to accept the premise that they will never be below the salary cap. This would be very difficult practically because of their current salaries, and difficult theoretically in light of the concerns about rebuilding/not putting an entertaining product on the floor. Never being below the cap means the Knicks can't build their team through greater than MLE free agent signings, but it also has its advantages. The Knicks can take on any size contract with no consequence. They have the ability to trade for good but overpaid players, something which many teams can't afford to do. And when they take on lots of large contracts, almost every year they will have one that is expiring that they can trade for another good but overpaid player. So the Knicks have to build their team in a different method, but I think it's one that can work.
I think Isiah's main problem is not that he has added too much salary, but that (1) he hasn't been a good judge of getting talent that fits together as a team, and (2) he hasn't taken full advantage of the Knicks special position.
These trades actually go some ways to remedying the second concern. If money is no object to you, one of the best things you can do is take other teams contracts off their hands, on the condition that they send you a draft pick. So the Knicks took two decent players on bad contracts and got two first round picks for it. They did have to send out Mohammed, but I don't see that as that great a loss.
I think in the past Isiah has been too quick to trade away draft picks and young players, when I think those are key elements to building a team when you don't have the ability to sign big free agents. By getting two first round picks while holding onto youngsters like Sweetney and Ariza, I actually like Isiah's moves.
Let's just imagine it is Summer 2006. The Knicks have just missed the playoffs again and revenues are stagnant. And the luxury tax is back and for really high-spending teams the tax is 200 percent. So even though the Knicks still have the highest revenue in the league, those Cablevision guys have to write that $80 to $100 million luxury tax check that puts them $50 million or so in the red. At that point they make a call over to Trump Towers and ask Donald to do the honors.
"Isiah, YOU'RE FIRED!"
People used to think losing money didn't matter to folks like Paul Allen and Mark Cuban. It does. Heck, even the Yankees cut back a bit this year and they only have a Baby Luxury Tax to deal with.
I'll also add that the problem with taking on overpaid players isn't that it keeps you from getting under the salary cap; JQ is right that doing so is a practical impossibility for all but the most frugal of teams, and is of dubious usefulness even when accomplished. The problem is that when a true star comes available via trade, no one wants to take back what you have in a deal. Can you imagine the Knicks getting a player like Shaq, or Rasheed, or McGrady, given what they have to offer teams now? I'll tell you what: I cannot. And that's the only way, or at least the easiest way, to lift the team out of mediocrity.
Getting the 23rd and 30th picks in the draft, which is what the Houston and SA picks would be if the season ended today, is a pretty inefficient way of trying to approximate that. True game-changing talents are almost always gone by that point. _________________ Ankur Desai
Amateur Hoops Junkie
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 671 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:20 am Post subject:
The problem I have with these deals is that the Knicks added salary without upgrading their talent. Rose isn't any better than Mohammed, and Taylor isn't an upgrade over guys they already had on the roster.
Maybe Isiah thought he was getting Jalen Rose. (Not that getting Jalen would have made it a better deal.)
Joined: 31 Dec 2004 Posts: 881 Location: Durham, NC
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:31 am Post subject:
JQ - the only ones in NY scared of rebuilding are the owners and management of the Knicks (and Rangers). the fans have been screaming for it since we traded away Ewing for Glen Rice and some spare parts.
as for the NY-not-being-able-to-acquire-stars argument, let me remind you of the junk that we parlayed into acquiring Starbury. anything is possible!
Yeah, I don't agree about the Knicks not being able to trade for stars. They traded for Marbury, and they almost traded for Vince Carter (their offer of cap space looked a lot better to me than what New Jersey gave up). I actually think they're in a better position to trade for stars than many teams, because they usually have large expiring deals. You mentioned Rasheed Wallace, who was acquired by trading lots of expiring deals and a first-round pick. I can definitely see the Knicks being able to make a trade like that.
As for the fear of rebuilding and the unlimited payroll, I don't know the practical realities of whether the franchise could afford to rebuild or whether the owners money will soon run out. But if ownership is the one saying that the team can't rebuild, the GM has to work within those demands.
Oh, I can see the Knicks trading for a star eventually; that wasn't my point. I'm saying right now, they have basically no contracts (Sweetney/Ariza aside) attractive enough for someone to take in a trade for a star. Next deadline, maybe someone wants Penny's expiring deal or Tim Thomas' expiring deal, and they can start all over. But that's all those guys are: contracts. When you have someone who has a contract commensurate to his performance, you can trade him before the last year of his deal. When you have 10 guys who are desperately overpaid, you have to wait to move them until they're in the last year of their deal. That is, unless you have Isiah Thomas to trade with, and if you are Isiah Thomas, you don't have that luxury.
You are of course right that Isiah getting bad players is a problem. But it's only half of the problem; the other half is getting bad contracts. Overpaid players put you in a worse spot than NBADL players.
So I agree that doing something like trading Nazr/Baker/Norris to Toronto for Vince would have been a good trade, even though Vince makes money. It's not absolute payroll that I'm concerned about, it's the ratio of payroll to talent. (As an aside: Why the heck didn't the Knicks offer that? It's certainly better than what the Raptors ultimately accepted.) So it isn't that I think they'll never get there; it's that they should have gotten closer to it this deadline, with over $10,000,000 in expiring deals and a young tradeable big to boot, and instead they got further away. _________________ Ankur Desai
Amateur Hoops Junkie
But if ownership is the one saying that the team can't rebuild, the GM has to work within those demands.
And that's where I disagree with Dan; while the owners might be upset in 2006, I don't think Isiah Thomas is roguely making these moves; Cablevision has to be signing off. (Not that it will stop them from passing the buck later.)
I also think we shouldn't underrate the value of first-round picks, even if they're towards the end of the draft. Look at last year's deadline deal with Detroit, Atlanta, and Boston. The pick Atlanta got (Josh Smith) is now their best asset, while Boston (Tony Allen) got another player good enough to make the got milk? Rookie Challenge.
But I do agree that even within the context of those ideas, the Knicks overpaid. Atlanta has gotten first-round picks the last two years without taking on any salary, and I think Mohammed was good enough for a similar arrangement.
With Allan Houston taking up $20M a year of cap space, and refusing to consider retirement, shedding contract does nothing for New York until his deal dies. Even if you could get rid of EVERYONE else (Marbury, Crawford, Kurt Thomas, Jerome Williams), you'd only be free a year early, but NY would have absolutely nothing to build around. Most likely you'd have to move Sweetney, Ariza, and send some picks to get a team to take some of these deals. In the end you'd be like the 1999 Bulls - 6 years of rebuilding from scratch, starting in 2006.
I think the Knicks offered Tim Thomas and Penny Hardaway (both of whom have deals that expire after next season) to the Raptors for Vince and Jalen Rose. The Raptors should have taken that deal, in my opinion. But next season Isiah will probably be able to do some similar trade as both deals will be expiring.
NYers: You should grab a copy of today's Sun. I'm so glad that Hollinger views the trade in the same light as myself. _________________ KnickerBlogger.Net - now indispensable!
Last edited by KnickerBlogger on Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 497 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:26 pm Post subject:
admin wrote:
And that's where I disagree with Dan; while the owners might be upset in 2006, I don't think Isiah Thomas is roguely making these moves; Cablevision has to be signing off. (Not that it will stop them from passing the buck later.)
But the problem is that the Cablevision folks probably only have a vague idea what the luxury tax might do to them. It is really not their responsibility to know all of the details. It is, however, Isiah's responsibility to know and to educate the Cablevision folks on the relevant details. I am skeptical that he has done that. So in the future I think they will be justified in being angry with Isiah for not doing a better job of educating them on the likely consequences of these trades.
knickerblogger: I read your entry today, as I do every time you post. Good writing, and an interesting take.
I suppose the first issue I take with your position on the Nazr deal is that I think Nazr is a good young piece, right now. He's a plus rebounder and a good low post defender, and he's only 27. That's not something you really discuss on your blog. I don't know what his contract demands are like for the offseason, but even if they're prohibitive, the guy's probably got some value in a sign & trade.
If you want me to stipulate that the bad contracts of Houston, Marbury, Kurt Thomas, Jamal Crawford and Jerome Williams are unmovable for 2 years, I will. But by adding 2 more unmovable contracts, the Knicks are taking up a lot of roster space that could otherwise be going to decent young talent. That's seven out of your twelve roster spots, and of those guys only Marbury is substantially above league average. I agree with you that the Knicks will never be under the cap, and that it's probably useless to try. But is it really worth pouring gas on the fire? Well, it is, if you like the draft picks that much.
But why would you like the draft picks so much? We know with reasonable certainty that the 2 picks (the Suns' in '05, the Spurs' in '06) will be at the bottom of their respective drafts. In the last 10 years, there have been six guys one could reasonably call game-changing talents taken below #25 in the draft (Rashard Lewis, Manu Ginobilli, Michael Redd, Tony Parker, Carlos Boozer, and Gilbert Arenas). Six. That's it. Out of around 350 total players picked. To be fair, there are a couple of other guys I like on that list, such as Earl Watson, Samuel Dalembert, and, yes, Nazr Mohammed. Overall, though, it seems to me that trading established ballplayers for the extreme uncertainty of a couple of low first-rounders (to say nothing of wasting a roster spot and tens of millions of dollars for your trouble) smacks of poor risk analysis.
Edited for grammar. _________________ Ankur Desai
Amateur Hoops Junkie
Last edited by radio on Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
