PDA

View Full Version : Knicks give Lee one-year, $8 million deal



LJ4ptplay
Sep 24, 2009, 16:52
The New York Knicks have reached agreement with free-agent forward David Lee(notes) on a one-year contract worth $8 million plus additional incentives, Lee’s agent, Mark Bartelstein, told Yahoo! Sports.

Lee had been seeking a multiyear contract, but the Knicks wanted to preserve as much salary-cap room for next summer’s flush free-agent market. Lee will now also join LeBron James(notes), Dwyane Wade(notes) and Chris Bosh(notes) in the free-agent class of 2010.


About time. A one year rental. It will cost $12 mil to retain his Bird Rights. That doesn't leave us enough to go after a max-contract so the Knicks will forego retaining them. He'll be an unrestricted free agent next year.

Ewing
Sep 24, 2009, 17:35
Lee was getting desperate and I think we could have signed him for less, the QO was 2.9M, so anything in the region of 5M would be good for both.

D-Lee42fan
Sep 24, 2009, 19:08
Hell ya! finally we have LEE back. I hope that after his 1 year contract is up, we resign him again for a longer period after all this hype about signing a d-wade, amare, lebron etc... is all over.

Knicker23
Sep 24, 2009, 19:45
nothing unexpected here...

i expected more this off season...we did what, next to nothing, right?

I guess there wasnt much we could do this off season to keep next off cap okay, but i was under the impression we'd be getting a few stable pieces to sorround around the hopeful star (s) we'll get next...oh well...

healthy gallo, nate, lee, chandler, hill, harrington...not too bad

the portable man
Sep 24, 2009, 19:47
sick of david lee not being able to play d

Kiyaman
Sep 24, 2009, 21:16
Great resigning....even if it did take 3-months of the offseason.

David Lee grabbing the defensive-rebound so Knick oponents get one shot on offense makes him a valuable rebuilding tool to have in the rotation.

Imagine accepting $5M then having another double-double season as an unrestricted FA....teams would be lined-up for Lee on July 1st.
Ben Gordon proved that.
The same goes for Nate Robinson energy off the bench.

OGKnickfan
Sep 24, 2009, 21:48
2.9 mill for Robinson, 7 mill for Lee? Ha: GWH strikes again.

DontForgetDerekHarper
Sep 24, 2009, 21:52
45-37

45-37

CoolClyde
Sep 24, 2009, 22:43
Magic 8 Balls for DLEE. Half the basketball world agreed DLEE was worth $8, more or less;
should have happened months ago, if DLEE agent Barleycorn faced reality in the first place.
Testing the market is one thing, dragging things out to an inevitable conclusion only serves
to mess with DLEE's head, the team's cohesion, and 1001 KO threads.

I still think Walsh is a p*ssy for not getting Sessions.
:2cents::2cents::2cents::2cents:

Paul1355
Sep 24, 2009, 22:54
Now we can focus on the season....

Lee will start at PF with Darko probably at Center....this is the front court I hope we have since it's the first tall starting back court for the knicks in a long time.

alrobinson6022
Sep 25, 2009, 06:33
sick of david lee not being able to play d

no doubt. that's my only issue with d-lee. i think he's pretty good otherwise...

metrocard
Sep 25, 2009, 08:04
Defensive rebounds are a part of defense.

PG - Duhon/Robinson
SG - Chandler/Hughes/Douglas
SF - Harrington/Gallinari
PF - Lee/Hill/Jefferies
C - Darko/Curry

We need a pick/roll PG...offer Arroyo a contract already.

nyk_nyk
Sep 25, 2009, 08:22
Arroyo is actually pretty good. Don't know why its always so hard for him to stick with a team.

nyk_nyk
Sep 25, 2009, 08:40
Defensive rebounds are a part of defense.

PG - Duhon/Robinson
SG - Chandler/Hughes/Douglas
SF - Harrington/Gallinari
PF - Lee/Hill/Jefferies
C - Darko/Curry

We need a pick/roll PG...offer Arroyo a contract already.
That's the line-up I envision but I think it may be a good idea to start Curry only to showcase him a bit to entice potential takers. We NEED to get rid of him if two max players is in the future plans.

On the other hand, if he shows up ready to play and becomes dominant in the paint again with a lil more passion on defense and rebounding we should keep him. It's too damn hard to find a good NBA ready center.

Not really sure about Darko. Hasn't shown much promise since being drafted so I can't get all hyped about him until I see something, sorry.

With Lee, Hill and Jeffries we have a solid core of PFs. Not much scoring but good rebounding and size. Obviously Jeffries and Hill (hopefully) will be the better defenders but I definitely like the height (6'9" 6'10" 6'11")

I still don't think this is a playoff team right now but we'll see. All 8 teams from last season will be the favorites to make the playoffs including the much improved Wizards (Arenas) and Raptors (Turkoglu).

honey230
Sep 25, 2009, 08:56
Very good day for Knicks Fan. Love the way they structured the contracts for both players. If the Knicks make the playoffs both get a million dollar bonus. Good incentive for them to play their best and to be vocal leaders. This is the only way we'll have a chance to make the playoffs. And this wont affect our 2010 plan. So far Walsh is making smart decisions about this francise. I have a good feeling about this year. I think we are going to surprise alot of people.

Off topic:
Spurs dropped Jack McClinton. I wonder if the Knicks would send a invite to training camp? Or do we have too many players now? Rather see him compete for a spot than Sun Yue. Jack is a sharp shooter and quick. I think he would fit into the system.

LJ4ptplay
Sep 25, 2009, 09:26
I think Knicks management want the starting lineup to be:

PG-Duhon
SG-Chandler
SF-Gallo
PF-Lee
C-Curry

w/ Nate, Harrington, Hughes, Jeffries and Darko off the bench. Hill and Douglas will see little playing time.

But we'll see after training camp. Curry and Jeffries have to get playing time so they can be moved. Donnie and D'Antoni must see this. The entire success of the 2010 plan depends on it.

GetRealistic
Sep 25, 2009, 09:38
Defensive rebounds are a part of defense.

PG - Duhon/Robinson
SG - Chandler/Hughes/Douglas
SF - Harrington/Gallinari
PF - Lee/Hill/Jefferies
C - Darko/Curry

We need a pick/roll PG...offer Arroyo a contract already.

Pretty much dead on but i'd rather start Gallinari over Harrington because he is the future plus Al has shown in the past he can be a good guy off the bench but i could live with lineup... That being said if i were a betting man i'd think Mike D starts something like this come opening night

Duhon
Chandler
Gallo
Jefferies
Lee

For some reason coach sees something in Jefferies, don't really know why but he thinks jefferies has something. This roster is deffinately better then last years roster. There a few defensive players on the roster in Hughes, Jefferies, Chandler, Douglas and Darko. Plus hopefully Hill can provide some shotblocking. We proved last year that just based on the system we can put up 100 + points a night with just about anybody we throw out there but maybe with the infusion of some defense and some much needed size (darko, hill, and curry) we can become a better team... I wouldn't expect anything radicle but i wouldn't be shocked if we went .500 this season.

Also i see Larry Hughes as the backup point guard to start the season... Not saying i'm a big fan of the idea but i'm not sure if Douglas is ready and we all know Nate is better suited to play off the ball. Also if Hughes doesn't see minutes early he's going to become a lockeroom cancer. His contract is massive but its expiring and he does have ability and he is deffinately tradeable to a playoff team looking for a defender in the backcourt and since he has an expiring deal somebody may take a shot on him.

GetRealistic
Sep 25, 2009, 09:48
Also i know there was a thread about it earlier, but what number did Nate switch to??? Is it number 8?

portega1968
Sep 25, 2009, 10:08
Awesome resigning... Knicks showed respect by giving him way more than the QO.

Chances are they will find a way to keep him next summer unless he helps get rid of Curry or Jeffries before Feb2010.

Starting 5: (unless another signing/trade comes along)

Duhon
Chandler
Gallo
Lee
Darko

Nate, Hughes and Harrington round out the 8man rotation. Rookies getting garbage time.

Curry spectator at the end of the bench!!! You guys crazy if ya'll think he's coming back ready to crack the rotation.

A Ski
Sep 25, 2009, 10:15
:thumbsup:I know I will catch flack for this but I have to say I am very happy that we got our Boy's back( David Lee & Nate the great) and I truly hope we make some strides this year .Playoffs would be awesome! deep in the playoffs even better Yeah! I really hope our new rookies shine they seem to have a lot of up-side (Jordan Hill & Toney Douglas). I think Al.Harington will be a stud this season; Danilo Gallinari & Wilson Chandler will both be something really special! I really hope Darko Milicic will be all that he was projected to be; that will make a big difference, Eddy needs to step up his all around game, cant comment about Gabe Pruitt all though I wish him luck after all he is a Knick now and thats what matters. Its tough to be a fan in Texas but this is my home town team so GO NY Go NY GO! To the rest of the team God bless and have a great season all of you mentioned or not.

LJ4ptplay
Sep 25, 2009, 11:01
Awesome resigning... Knicks showed respect by giving him way more than the QO.

Chances are they will find a way to keep him next summer unless he helps get rid of Curry or Jeffries before Feb2010.

Starting 5: (unless another signing/trade comes along)

Duhon
Chandler
Gallo
Lee
Darko

Nate, Hughes and Harrington round out the 8man rotation. Rookies getting garbage time.

Curry spectator at the end of the bench!!! You guys crazy if ya'll think he's coming back ready to crack the rotation.

That lineup and rotation makes the most sense and is probably what D'Antoni will want to use to get the most wins he can for this season.

But there is a problem. I wonder if D'Antoni will see the "big picture" here. This year is another throw away year. We're not making the playoffs, not with that lineup. It's all about next year.

D'Antoni must play Curry and Jeffries to showcase them so they can be traded. If Curry and Jeffries ride the bench they will not be traded. If they're not traded the 2010 plan falls apart.

The 2010 offseason roster stands at Curry, Jeffries, Chandler, Gallo, Hill and Douglas. At best case projections we will have enough cap space to sign 1 max player with $11 mil remaining. Lee at $8 mil and $3 mil left over to throw at some bench player (not Nate. It's less than what he's getting this year). That's a terrible lineup with no starting PG. Any money spent eats into 2011 cap space.

Donnie and D'Antoni must see this. Hopefully they're on the same page.


Another problem. I think Lee and Nate have trade veto options in their contracts. Therefore it will be very difficult to use them as bait to move Curry and Jeffries.

Looking back, Donnie is going to slap himself for not taking the Jeffries + Nate to Sacramento deal.

RunningJumper
Sep 25, 2009, 13:18
Also i know there was a thread about it earlier, but what number did Nate switch to??? Is it number 8?
I think 2.Gallinari is 8:lol:.

Man, this isn't shocking, but this is something to watch out for.Let's say we didn't even get Darko and Curry didn't get back in shape, last season was just the START of the new era and Gallanari is now healthy.Improvement with this style of play plus healthy Gallanari = something that can be very good.

Oldtimer
Sep 25, 2009, 13:38
Gallinari has number '8" and there is a reason behind the number for him. He was born on August 8, 1988 -- 8-8-88.

Red
Sep 25, 2009, 13:38
That lineup and rotation makes the most sense and is probably what D'Antoni will want to use to get the most wins he can for this season.

But there is a problem. I wonder if D'Antoni will see the "big picture" here. This year is another throw away year. We're not making the playoffs, not with that lineup. It's all about next year.

D'Antoni must play Curry and Jeffries to showcase them so they can be traded. If Curry and Jeffries ride the bench they will not be traded. If they're not traded the 2010 plan falls apart.J

I'm gonna disagree... I don't believe we sacrafice another season by intentionally playing Curry and JJ more than they deserve. Winning at all cost is more important at this point than showcasing them. That was the knock on Lee & N; they performed o.k. but the team didn't achieve so no one wanted them. I would argue a players value is percieved better if they are part of a winning team (no matter how limited) unless they put up outstanding #'s that can't be ignored. Curry and JJ (or anyone) should only get playing time if they are the best and earn it. That's how D'Antoni must approach this imo... Winning at any cost superceedes Veterans/ Favorites/ or "Showcasing". The time to do that was last year! If someone is going to want them it will have to be out of need not b/c we were so desperate we sacraficed to showcase them- thus lowering our teams chances of the postseason and inadvertently forcing teams to devalue them and attempt to rape us. Simply put winning = increased appraisals not showcasing losing results. "Just win baby" - Al Davis. That way we show we can win with or without their contributions. Winning takes precedence over moving Curry, Jj or anyone! That's how you deal w/them... you compete and win! Then someone will want them (minutes or not).

DontForgetDerekHarper
Sep 25, 2009, 14:06
45



37

LJ4ptplay
Sep 25, 2009, 14:11
I'm gonna disagree... I don't believe we sacrafice another season by intentionally playing Curry and JJ more than they deserve. Winning at all cost is more important at this point than showcasing them. That was the knock on Lee & N; they performed o.k. but the team didn't achieve so no one wanted them. I would argue a players value is percieved better if they are part of a winning team (no matter how limited) unless they put up outstanding #'s that can't be ignored. Curry and JJ (or anyone) should only get playing time if they are the best and earn it. That's how D'Antoni must approach this imo... Winning at any cost superceedes Veterans/ Favorites/ or "Showcasing". The time to do that was last year! If someone is going to want them it will have to be out of need not b/c we were so desperate we sacraficed to showcase them- thus lowering our teams chances of the postseason and inadvertently forcing teams to devalue them and attempt to rape us. Simply put winning = increased appraisals not showcasing losing results. "Just win baby" - Al Davis. That way we show we can win with or without their contributions. Winning takes precedence over moving Curry, Jj or anyone! That's how you deal w/them... you compete and win! Then someone will want them (minutes or not).

Honestly, winning this season with 1 year rentals should not be the focus. If we win then great, but if we don't get rid of Curry and Jeffries - Duhon, Harrington, Darko, Hughes, Nate and maybe Lee are all gone next year - regardless of how many wins they give us.

Why, because we won't be able to afford to retain them because of Curry and Jeffries' salaries.

If we're winning and Curry and Jeffries are not getting any playing time, they still won't be traded.

I've explained how imperitive it is to move Curry and Jeffries ad nauseam. Don't let your love for the Knicks and desire to see them win this year effect the overall goal.

Red
Sep 25, 2009, 16:47
Honestly, winning this season with 1 year rentals should not be the focus. If we win then great, but if we don't get rid of Curry and Jeffries - Duhon, Harrington, Darko, Hughes, Nate and maybe Lee are all gone next year - regardless of how many wins they give us.

Why, because we won't be able to afford to retain them because of Curry and Jeffries' salaries.

If we're winning and Curry and Jeffries are not getting any playing time, they still won't be traded.

I've explained how imperitive it is to move Curry and Jeffries ad nauseam. Don't let your love for the Knicks and desire to see them win this year effect the overall goal.

my friend WINNING IS THE OVERALL GOAL! Hello... you play to WIN the game! Don't let your love for "the plan" (which has changed due to circumstance) cloud your judgement. Getting rid of players whether to free cap space or whatever is SECONDARY to the ultimate goal of WINNING period. That is the goal. Signing LB or Wade or Jesus is all ancilary to what we needless to say every team is trying to achieve.... Winning!

LJ4ptplay
Sep 25, 2009, 18:59
my friend WINNING IS THE OVERALL GOAL! Hello... you play to WIN the game! Don't let your love for "the plan" (which has changed due to circumstance) cloud your judgement. Getting rid of players whether to free cap space or whatever is SECONDARY to the ultimate goal of WINNING period. That is the goal. Signing LB or Wade or Jesus is all ancilary to what we needless to say every team is trying to achieve.... Winning!

So essentially you want to sacrifice the future of the Knicks and suffer for several more seasons just for a few more wins this year?

With or without Curry and Jeffries playing this is a max 41 win team. Most likely 35 wins. I would love it if the Knicks win 45 games and make the playoffs this year but I'm realistic. They're just not that good. Everybody on the roster is a bench player on a good team.

Getting rid of Curry and Jeffries makes us a contender next year. Keeping Curry and Jeffries f*cks up the 2010 plan in a major way. The only way we get rid of them is by playing them.

Although you may not agree with the 2010 plan, we're "all in" right now or else we would have signed Sessions. Love it or hate it, the success of the Knicks is riding on Curry and Jeffries being moved, not getting a few more wins this year.

CoolClyde
Sep 25, 2009, 19:47
From Alan Me-So-Hahn-y blog:
The one-year contracts do not completely expunge Lee and Robinson from the 2010 cap budget.
To maintain both players' "Bird Rights" (the ability to sign them to a longer term with higher raises
than any other team), both will have a "cap holds." The hold for Lee, for instance, would be between
$10.5 and 12 million (one-and-a-half times his salary, depending on the bonus) that will count against
the Knicks' cap space next summer.

How the hell are we going to keep David Lee past this year, and still go after ANY max contract?
If I read this correctly, if the Knicks don't make the playoffs, DLEE gets paid 7 mill; 8 mill if they do.
hence, DLEE's cap hold (Bird Rights) will count as 10.5 mill or 12 Mill towards Knicks cap space next summer.
Congratulations, Agent Barleycorn, for guaranteeing the Knicks lose DLEE next year.
Unless, we lose Curry's gigantor contract via trade for another expiring contract, 1-year stop-gap player.
Curry needs to play in order to be traded, just like Jefferies (I just hope Jefferies doesn't start)...

Starting lineup:
Duhon/N8/Douglas (Douglas can be 1 or 2)
Chandler/Hughes
Harrington/Gallo (interchangeable, Gallo starts sooner than later)
Lee/Jefferies/Hill (all 3 can play center as well, interesting)
Curry/Darko

Hey, Walsh got rid of Zebo and Crawful in one fell swoop last year,
let's see if he makes magic happen this year with Curry/Jefferies.
:crossfingers:
I still can't believe he got rid of Jerome James, that utter waste of space and Isiah stink. that was genius.

DontForgetDerekHarper
Sep 25, 2009, 20:52
Forty Five

and

Thirty Seven

Red
Sep 26, 2009, 07:02
my friend WINNING IS THE OVERALL GOAL! Hello... you play to WIN the game! Don't let your love for "the plan" (which has changed due to circumstance) cloud your judgement. Getting rid of players whether to free cap space or whatever is SECONDARY to the ultimate goal of WINNING period. That is the goal. Signing LB or Wade or Jesus is all ancilary to what we needless to say every team is trying to achieve.... Winning!

Damn, can I make it any clearer?


So essentially you want to sacrifice the future of the Knicks and suffer for several more seasons just for a few more wins this year?

With or without Curry and Jeffries playing this is a max 41 win team. Most likely 35 wins. I would love it if the Knicks win 45 games and make the playoffs this year but I'm realistic. They're just not that good. Everybody on the roster is a bench player on a good team.

Getting rid of Curry and Jeffries makes us a contender next year. Keeping Curry and Jeffries f*cks up the 2010 plan in a major way. The only way we get rid of them is by playing them.

Although you may not agree with the 2010 plan, we're "all in" right now or else we would have signed Sessions. Love it or hate it, the success of the Knicks is riding on Curry and Jeffries being moved, not getting a few more wins this year.

Essentially YOU ARE saying even if Curry/JJ COST us WINS you would rather play them THAN WIN! SMH! Look I know we are saying the same thing in terms of IF WE WIN etc...

But the ultimate goal Short or Long term is to win. Don't get it twisted; we might attempt short term goals like moving Curry/JJ or whoever BUT that is with the long term goal in mind of... guess what... Winning. I'm not saying win now at all costs meaning to cheat or trip a player as he is walking by; I'm Saying if...

1. We are winning without Curry/JJ (and begin to lose by playing them) then we WILL NOT PLAY THEM JUST TO SHOWCASE THEM because we are achieving the goal of WINNING.

2. IF miraculously Curry/JJ contribute and become intricate parts and we are winning then trading both will not be as important

Everything we do as an organization should be, and is, to achieve the ultimate goal of Winning, do you disagree?

If YOU believe we can't win and need to trade these guys in order to do so, I respect your opinion, but please don't try and sell me the idea that that isn't b/c you believe Winning isn't the ultimate goal.

I believe with a in shape EC/Gallo, 1 year incentive Lee/N8, budding juniors in Chandler/Douglas/Hill and vet's Harrington/Hughes we are prepping to win... starting now and later, did I say winning is the ultimate goal?:smokin:

paris401
Sep 30, 2009, 16:59
no . i think he's pretty good otherwise...

i agree ..i think he has the best 5ft jumper in the league...