Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: That trade deadline deal w/ Sac is starting to sound better!

  1. #1
    Quiet Storm New New York's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,431
    Rep Power
    16

    Default That trade deadline deal w/ Sac is starting to sound better!

    Ok so the deal was Nate and Jared Jefferies for expiring contracts, we all thought the deal was bad considering Nate was playing good, and we still had a shot at making the Playoffs.

    Fast Forward three months, no playoffs and now we need to consider renewing his contract. The fact of the matter is at the trade deadline we would have lost him, but, we would have shaved Jared Jefferies immovable contract. Now if we don't resign him, we lose him with nothing to show for it.

    Before I go further allow me to reiterate the fact that I hate the 2010 plan as a means to rebuilding a team.

    Alright so had we made the deal back then we would have 19 million on the books in 2010. Thats considering we sign David Lee for like 8 million and we don't trade Curry. The cap is projected to be like 55 million in 2010 giving us like 36 million in cap space, now if we sign Lee and Nate this summer for a total of 17 million plus Jared's 6 million only leaves us w/ 24 million in cap.

    See how it would be have been better to have traded Nate and Jefferies at the deadline. Now, we're stuck with 2 unfavorable options 1) stick to the 2010 plan and consider letting both Lee and Nate go. 2) Sign one or both with the hopes Curry comes back in playing shape and can be traded.

    See why I hate the 2010 plan! I tell you one thing if Donnie does a sign and trade for David and Nate it better include 2010 draft picks because if not we will see Utah getting a high lottery pick and us not making a pick at all.

  2. #2
    Sexy Stud knickzrulezH20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,781
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    it all sounds good on paper now, but ppl wuda revolted if nate got traded wif he did, that was when he was on his scoring tear after he won the dunk contest

  3. #3
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,747
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    i too don't like the 2010 plan, cause i don't see how it will work.. the 'prime' free agents will be signing with a team that has a nucleus of talent that will be able to contend for a title.. if the 'prime' guys move at all... cause its not about $$$$, it's about winning..

    without any moves our roster will be (drum roll please... a bit louder please)

    eddie 'fat-fuk' curry
    jarred 'boy do i sux' jefffies
    zepole canolli
    wilson chandler

    i can't wait to see the gm's plan...

  4. #4
    Quiet Storm New New York's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,431
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Originally Posted by paris401
    i too don't like the 2010 plan, cause i don't see how it will work.. the 'prime' free agents will be signing with a team that has a nucleus of talent that will be able to contend for a title.. if the 'prime' guys move at all... cause its not about $$$$, it's about winning..

    without any moves our roster will be (drum roll please... a bit louder please)

    eddie 'fat-fuk' curry
    jarred 'boy do i sux' jefffies
    zepole canolli
    wilson chandler

    i can't wait to see the gm's plan...
    The funny thing is that there is currently one team under cap in the NBA and that is the Memphis Grizz. Point being, that it is impossible to build a team within the cap restrictions of The NBA. How many players can we realistically add with only spending 35 million. As you pointed out there is only 4 players on the 2010 roster, so how could we build a team of 14 or more using the remaining 35 million. If we want a star it is going to cost 16 million leaving us w/ 19 million to add 11 players with, not to mention, what star player looks at a team with the makeup of Jefferies,Curry, Danillo, and Wilson and says "That's the team for me!" Most of the top players are going to be on teams better than us, why would they reach down?

    It just doesnt add up. bottom line there is no way Donnie can sign both Nate and David and stick to this plan, and if it is Nate who goes, then we should have shipped him at the deadline to shave Jefferies contract as well.

  5. #5
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    599
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    The Cavs will be in the same position as us come 2010. They will have lost Ilgauskas and Wallace and really only have Mo Williams and Varejao as the core. How much different is Williams and Varejao going to be in persuading Lebron to stay over Robinson, Lee, Chandler, Gallinari, 2009 pick?

    The premier players won't choose NY not because of winning; they are going to win anywhere. The only reason they wouldn't choose NY is because they are comfortable being the hero where they are now. So the choice comes down to comfort or what is better for the NBA.

  6. #6
    Veteran DontForgetDerekHarper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,263
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    for every one who is complaining about the 2010 plan, I abruptly have to say, shut uppp. honestly, there is no other plan but the 2010 plan because we have been tied up in cap space hell for ever, and it wont subside until 2010. the 2010 plan isnt the LBJ or DWADE plan, its the 2010 plan, now if walsh said we are setting our eyes on LBJ OR WADE, then you have a right to say im tired of waiting for those two guys. the whole point is CAP SPACE CAP SPACE. its like when every one whines about trading away craw and zach because we probably would of made the playoffs...first off we still would of ended up out of the playoffs. Crawford would supply the same thing as al harrington, and zach would afford us maybe 4 more wins.

    back to the point.
    2010 is a single point of access that donnie walsh has constructed every move he will make around, so that at that moment the knicks will become flexible. similar to what he did in indiana, and if you want to knock indiana, the team went deep into the playoffs for a decade straight with him running things, and even as players aged he made all the right moves to keep them winning at an above 50 win clip until larry bird took over the front office and **** the bed for every one.

    remember dale davis turned into jermaine oneil, marc jackson turned into jamal tinsley, rik smits turned into brad miller, and austin croshere and jalen rose turned into ron artest and stephen jackson.

    now of ccourse one unpredictable brawl ruined that core of players who made a run to the eastern conference finals the year before.

    the point is, walsh put a successful team on the floor for years, and as that team faded away subplanted it with a young successful predecessing team.

    so as an end result, 2010 sounds fair game to me

    walsh. lets do this.

    if you want to argue, check the mans resume, then shut your mouth.

  7. #7
    Veteran jpz17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,782
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    if we deal Curry I'm all for it Even if we give Nate. But Jared, no. Jared is only 6mil so its not that much $$. We can get more for Nate when the playoffs if over. Teams will come cryin

  8. #8
    Veteran ANU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,068
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    donnie needs to overpay nate for one year if he wants to keep him.if he wants at 3 year, 21 mill deal, give him 10 for 1 year, then after the 2010 **** goes down like some of us are hoping, bron is signed, then you resign him to a better deal.
    i like nate, he's instant offense off the bench.but i don't want him to get paid a silly contract that wouldn't be in the best interest of this teams future.

  9. #9
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    It does look pretty good now but some people would have been pretty pissed if that would have happened at the time.

    As long as Donnie manages to find another way to get rid of Jeffries everything's cool.

  10. #10
    Quiet Storm New New York's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,431
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Originally Posted by DontForgetDerekHarper
    for every one who is complaining about the 2010 plan, I abruptly have to say, shut uppp. honestly, there is no other plan but the 2010 plan because we have been tied up in cap space hell for ever, and it wont subside until 2010. the 2010 plan isnt the LBJ or DWADE plan, its the 2010 plan, now if walsh said we are setting our eyes on LBJ OR WADE, then you have a right to say im tired of waiting for those two guys. the whole point is CAP SPACE CAP SPACE. its like when every one whines about trading away craw and zach because we probably would of made the playoffs...first off we still would of ended up out of the playoffs. Crawford would supply the same thing as al harrington, and zach would afford us maybe 4 more wins.

    back to the point.
    2010 is a single point of access that donnie walsh has constructed every move he will make around, so that at that moment the knicks will become flexible. similar to what he did in indiana, and if you want to knock indiana, the team went deep into the playoffs for a decade straight with him running things, and even as players aged he made all the right moves to keep them winning at an above 50 win clip until larry bird took over the front office and **** the bed for every one.

    remember dale davis turned into jermaine oneil, marc jackson turned into jamal tinsley, rik smits turned into brad miller, and austin croshere and jalen rose turned into ron artest and stephen jackson.

    now of ccourse one unpredictable brawl ruined that core of players who made a run to the eastern conference finals the year before.

    the point is, walsh put a successful team on the floor for years, and as that team faded away subplanted it with a young successful predecessing team.

    so as an end result, 2010 sounds fair game to me

    walsh. lets do this.

    if you want to argue, check the mans resume, then shut your mouth.

    First off I loved the fact that we moved Zach and Crawford off the books, 2010 plan or not they are the type of players who are one injury away -or in Zach's case one law violation- from being completley immovable. Second, no one is questioning Walsh's rep, again I don't think any other GM gets a team to absorb Zach and Crawford's contract on the same day.

    That said, This is why the 2010 plan sucks! Our current roster will likely win about 37 games next season, what quality player is in such a bad position that a 37 win team looks like a better situation for them in 2010? If you were Donnie Walsh how do you sell a player on that? "Hey come to NY, we have Dantoni who was once considered the best coach to play for when he coached in Phoenix!" Cap room is nice if you are a team like The Bulls who are just one Superstar away from being a contender, that is clearly not the case with us.

    You mentioned what other options do we have...the answer is using expiring contracts to obtain quality players. Isiah has scared the whole league from making such deals since he did it so bad, but, it can work if done by a smart GM, and we both agree Walsh has the savvy.

    Now lets look at the top teams in The League, did they get there by getting under the cap and signing All Stars? No! They got there by making trades, sometimes taking on longer cotracts. Or the case with The Spurs, having a quality unit to surround their Superstar player around, THe Knicks won't have such a unit in 2010. Look even Denver aborted their cap plan and decided to go after quality talent right away instead of waiting for 2010 to add a star to play with Melo. It is dumb to sit on your hands until 2010 just for a remote shot at landing a star.

    Also, Knick fans need to realize we arent the only team who will be under the cap in 2010! In fact every team that has a player Knick fans talk about getting (Lebron,Wade,Bosh, Amare, etc.) they themselves are well under what the projected cap is going to be, so their GMs will be looking to add other players around them to keep them.

    Fact remains, we are not a good enough team where cap is that much a benefit, unless a star player wants to join a rebuilding situation, then NY isnt the place for them.

    Back to the point at hand, if Walsh does stick to this plan, it wouldve been a good idea to shave Jefferies contract by moving Nate, who is now because of the 2010 plan is thought to be somewhat expendable.

  11. #11
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    I wouldn't mind seeing us actually start dumping all these expiring contracts next year for a few good players and moving from there...

Similar Threads

  1. Blow it the F*CK up! Official Trade Thread
    By metrocard in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 348
    Last Post: Dec 20, 2013, 00:36
  2. Trade Watch: Top big men on the block
    By _______√ictory_______ in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Jan 29, 2009, 23:26
  3. Trade Deadline Updates.
    By NYKnicks15 in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: Feb 15, 2008, 12:39
  4. Replies: 44
    Last Post: Jan 03, 2008, 19:39
  5. Trade Deadline Passed
    By Irv in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Feb 21, 2003, 14:46

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •