ImageImageImageImageImage

Lee (had to bring it up)

Moderators: mpharris36, GONYK, HerSports85, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23, Capn'O, j4remi, Deeeez Knicks, NoLayupRule

JAX
Veteran
Posts: 2,513
And1: 0
Joined: May 21, 2002

Lee (had to bring it up) 

Post#1 » by JAX » Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:20 pm

Lee not only is a fan favorite, but is proving that he can put up stats. So that will make it even harder to see him go.

So I guess the questions is, assuming we find a way to dump Curry, would you rather keep Lee and Nate at a combined 15 MIL or so or use that money to go after another big name FA (which would probably be the 3rd b/c we still will have enough for 2 max FAs)

This is not so much of 2010 post, b/c it really effects what we do NOW as far as trades.

Or do you think that Lee has had enough of NYK and is ready to bring his stuff to another city. I for one am concerned he could wind up somewhere like MIA. Sure they have Beasley and Haslem, but if MIA is looking to get Boozer next season (which I read somewhere) then maybe they would have an interest in Lee, and I could see him interested in playing there as he played college ball at Florida.

And then we have to evaluate the value of keeping him considering Al, Chandler, Gallo and that 2 of our top priorities in 2010 are LBJ and Bosh further clogging the further front court.

I say keep both Lee and Nate at the expense of a number 3, b/c there is no guarantee we even get a 3rd (even 2nd) star, if we are lucky enough to get 1. But if MIA for example is willing to take Steph, Curry, and Lee for Marion, Blount filler PICK, emphasis on PICK, it might be worth considering, especially if Marion can be shipped to a 3rd team since we don't need him at this point.
duetta
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,035
And1: 12,221
Joined: Aug 28, 2002
Location: Patrolling the middle....

Re: Lee (had to bring it up) 

Post#2 » by duetta » Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:29 pm

You always consider moving a player in the right deal. And getting an unprotected Miami #1 might be that kind of deal, while moving Curry. But simply moving him to unload Curry, when Curry expires in 2011 anyway (when another crop of FAs becomes available) is bad value.
User avatar
stuporman
RealGM
Posts: 28,271
And1: 15,601
Joined: Nov 27, 2005
Location: optimistic skeptical realist

Re: Lee (had to bring it up) 

Post#3 » by stuporman » Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:41 pm

People slam Lee for not being a great defender. But he has improved a little so far this season in that. There aren't many big players out there who are exceptional offensive and defensive players. The ones that are get top dollar and are hard to acquire. Lee has so many qualities that star wing players love to play with. I think he'd be a large asset in luring a big time FA in 2010.

The Knicks will be able to move Curry at some point before 2010 without including Lee. Walsh will just have to be patient and wait for a team desperate for inside scoring and will take him without including Lee or one of the other young guns and not giving back contracts that extend past spring 2010. He's already shown to be shrewd in that respect so I will trust he'll be smart about that.
If you'd rather see your team fail so you can be right
...you are a fan of your opinion not the team.
Image?
Knowledge is just information stuffed into a mental bag
Wisdom is knowing what to pull out of the bag to do the job
User avatar
Jitpal
General Manager
Posts: 8,149
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 21, 2004
Location: Long Island
Contact:

Re: Lee (had to bring it up) 

Post#4 » by Jitpal » Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:17 pm

Well I doubt it would be $15 million combined for Nate and Lee. The rumor going around earlier for Nate was 4 years and $20 million, which would work out to $5 million a year but probably less for 2010, depending on how they structure the deal. Which would mean something closer to $7 million a year for Lee. So assume $12-13 million. As it stands right now, if they can move Curry then they can sign Lee and Nate to the rumored deals, sign 2 max free agents and have about $5 million left to play with. If they can't move Curry, they can sign 2 max free agents and Nate and have around $2 million left to play with.

I think the real issue though, would be if Duhon keeps playing like he is playing. He is going to get a big offer from some team, would we look to keep him? If we do then a figure like $8-10 million is not out of the question. That would prevent us adding someone like a Bosh. We can only match up around $8.25 million a year without dipping into the extra cap space that we would have outside of the cap hold. Getting rid of Curry is vital to building a good team for 2010 rather than just signing one or two max players. -Jitpal

Return to New York Knicks