We have $52 Million of expirings in the next 2 years

[Jerryd Bayless]

Z-Bo for anything. Besides a contract that extends past 2010.

Toilet Paper
Burger
Scissors
Chicken
A basketball
A turd
Deck of cards
Brick


anything to get rid of him

[cgf]

If there's any truth to the Fat Zach for Gooden and a guard rumour I'd probably cream myself, because that would clear another 15 mill off the cap by 2010.

[Mecca]

We Keep Chandler, Gallo, Nate, and Balkman, and 09 first round pick.

We trade Lee Zbo Curry and Jeffries for players that there contracts end by 010, then lets say wed be around 43 million under the cap, with 5 players under contract,In 09 we stay smart but we fill the PG Need by signing Jason Kidd for a 3 year deal woth around 9 a year. Lets just say we get the 9th pick in 09 and we have a choice, we either trade it for 2 picks or keep it,i would trade it for like a 15th and 25th pick in the draft which 1 is a pg, and the other is a Center, they serve roles in 010 off the bench. and what if Gallo and Wilson become Our future and they both average around 14-18 ppg, and the have a bright future, In 010 we look Like:
PG Kidd 10 mill
SG Wade/Lebron 20
SF Chandler 2 mill
PF Galli 5 mill
C Amare 17 mill
thats 54 million in our starting lineup. Add Balkman Nate and 3 picks in 09 and were around 60 million right at the cap. Wen then sign 1 important role player with full mle MLE, and one scrub full LLE, and were around 68 million dollers and 8 over the cap.

[TdoubleE]

Crawford has an option next summer I think. I'm convinced he will opt out after seeing the offers bums like Arenas are getting. Let him walk, don't try to make some fancy deal unless it for an expiring and a pick. That's $9-10M gone and an open position at SG for whoever comes along....

[mjhp911]

Crawford has an option next summer I think. I'm convinced he will opt out after seeing the offers bums like Arenas are getting. Let him walk, don't try to make some fancy deal unless it for an expiring and a pick. That's $9-10M gone and an open position at SG for whoever comes along....

He doesn't have a player option the year after that, so hopefully, you're right.

[Zerostatic]

To get under the cap significantly in 2010, we are still gonna have to get rid of at least one out of Crawford/Zach/Jeffries/Curry.

I think Jeffries will be the hardest to move of the four. I don't think Crawford and Curry will be as hard to move as some people think, as long as we're willing to except trash (which I am), Crawford just came off a big year so I say push a Crawford trade hard asap. As for Curry, he is really not that overpaid. He makes about 10 million a year and has 3 years left on his deal, that is about the same that other similar big-men get. In fact Erik Dampier, Samuel Dalembert, and Nene Hilario all make more. Zach, I thought was going to be difficult to move but judging from the rumors that we've heard perhaps not as hard as I thought. I think the key could be that we get back multiple players with some of the expiring earlier but some expiring later kind of like the Hinrich & Gooden deal.

[J0rdan4life42o]

Yes, lets use Lee and Nate to get rid of Zack and Curry and then in 2010, we'll have Chanlder/Gallinari/Balkman/Collins to entire LeBron or Wade or Amare to come here. Are you kidding me?! Lee and Nate MUST be resigned if we have any chance at securing one of these FA's. Randolph's deal will become much easier to trade in the 09/10 season. Teams looking to making a jump would see acquiring Zack as a low risk/high reward move, considering he becomes a valuable expiring the season after. Why in the hell would we package Lee or Nate with him when Walsh will be able to unload him easily in another year. Lets not be stupid here. Fans could say whatever they want to say, but when a GM has pressure on him to put together a team that will advance in the playoffs and sees a 20 10 player with 1 year left on his deal being available, make no mistake about it, he will be very moveable and in high demand. It's in our teams best interest to win a lot of games next year, which should boost Zack's Randolph, making him even more tradeable when the time comes.

[cgf]

Yes, lets use Lee and Nate to get rid of Zack and Curry and then in 2010, we'll have Chanlder/Gallinari/Balkman/Collins to entire LeBron or Wade or Amare to come here. Are you kidding me?! Lee and Nate MUST be resigned if we have any chance at securing one of these FA's. Randolph's deal will become much easier to trade in the 09/10 season. Teams looking to making a jump would see acquiring Zack as a low risk/high reward move, considering he becomes a valuable expiring the season after. Why in the hell would we package Lee or Nate with him when Walsh will be able to unload him easily in another year. Lets not be stupid here. Fans could say whatever they want to say, but when a GM has pressure on him to put together a team that will advance in the playoffs and sees a 20 10 player with 1 year left on his deal being available, make no mistake about it, he will be very moveable and in high demand. It's in our teams best interest to win a lot of games next year, which should boost Zack's Randolph, making him even more tradeable when the time comes.

Chandler/Gallinari/Rubio/Balkman and nate would definately be enough to get a Bosh or Wade to consider NYC. I just don't see the point giving Lee a fair deal with the Rooster waiting in the wings and the goal of getting under the cap. I don't want to see the knicks paying our backup PF 9 mill per, which is why I think we should try and trade Lee either during the season or before next years draft. Nate I'd keep as an off the bench scorer.

[doctor fite]

Exactly.
I would let Lee and Nate walk.

We will have a Top 3 lowest salary in the NBA. What a turnaround it will be. It wouldn't be normal, I am so used to having the highest salary in the league. Walsh knows exactly what we're talking about.

i agree on letting nate and lee go... i like them both bu they arent players that answer any of our big questions. my only thing is... cant we deal them for picks rather than just let them walk? they both are young and have value.

[FutureKnicksGM]

Exactly.
I would let Lee and Nate walk.

We will have a Top 3 lowest salary in the NBA. What a turnaround it will be. It wouldn't be normal, I am so used to having the highest salary in the league. Walsh knows exactly what we're talking about.

i agree on letting nate and lee go... i like them both bu they arent players that answer any of our big questions. my only thing is... cant we deal them for picks rather than just let them walk? they both are young and have value.

I agree, no way we let Lee and Nate go for nothing. You package them with one of our contacts or get picks in return.

[vinnie_vegas69]

People have been saying that they don't want to use Lee to trade up in the draft, or to dump a contract, yet they're saying here that they'll let him walk for nothing.

If we package Lee with Randolph and Nate with Jeffries, I think we could move both of them.

[swisscheeseD]

i really like the idea that BOTH my yankees AND knicks are starting to be a little more fiscally responsible...

i realize that it makes perfect sense to use Nate and DLee as a way to help move these other rediculous contracts that we have rotting...especially since it does not seem as if they are looking to resign them

but even if we werent able to unload ZRo's contract, wouldnt that be a huge expiring???...i thought all the major free agent signings usually get done as a sign-n-trade???...cant we just spin that expiring and a lil somethin under the table for a Maxed Contract LeBron James???

[R33D33]

We should have traded Lee and Nate for draft picks this season.

[J0rdan4life42o]

Neither Nate or Lee should be given ridiculous deals, thats for sure. However, these 2 guys are LEGIT and IMPORTant role players on any team in the league 100%. Losing these 2 would make our team less attractive to whatever free agent we go after. Letting them go for nothing would be ridiculous. I would certainly entertain trade options for both of them as long as we can get good value for them, value that one of these big FA would see themselves. I really think Zack can be dealt. Not this season, but sometime in the 09/10 season, I think a lot of teams will be taking a hard look at him, especially if her performs well this coming year. Zack will be with us for all 82 games this year unless Walsh pulls off a miracle. Next season is when teams could take a chance on him b/c he'll have a year remaining, giving us the cap space we need while still being able to keep Lee and Robinson.

[NYC2BGI]

To get under the cap significantly in 2010, we are still gonna have to get rid of at least one out of Crawford/Zach/Jeffries/Curry.

I was hoping that we could move at least 2 of those guys for expiring contracts. Zach, Curry and Crawford must have some value. Hopefully Walsh takes his time and waits for the team that feels Zachs inside scoring and rebounding will help them. Maybe it is Crawford's scoring or Curry's low post scoring ability that makes a team bite.