that having been said, as a knicks fan i still like to speculate on their future and ,hopefully, their success. lee and nate are not problems that need to solved. they have both played well and hard for the past three years and are both coming into their prime.
why would you let them dangle? the future needs of the knicks need to be addressed(lebron,cap space,etc.) ,but at what price ???

a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush—sign lee and nate to three year contracts and utilize their strengths as the team is developed around them.

I’m not saying that is Walsh’s strategy; it was something that occurred to me.

Not unless he goes into a time machine and puts a uniform back on.

Well CM has a time machine. But we have to go back to get the 1993 “defense and rebounding” Oakley not the 1997 “Hey, I (think I) can hit 18 foot jumpers now” Oakley.

Nate is taking an approach similar to that of Ben Gordon, bad for NY but great for him. With teams clearing space for the James-Wade-Bosh-athon, Nate could get his hands on some of that money. All the teams that don’t get one of the sweepstakes players will have money to burn and they would be looking to add a player that will draw fans to the games. He has been marketing himself for this sort of move for the last three years.

I can see him walking into a meeting next summer dressed as Daddy Rich with the Pointer sisters singing the chorus: “If you got to believe in something, why not believe in me?”

cgreene,

If Lee and or Nate walk you don’t get nothing… you get cap space.

nickatnight,

I don’t really see the difference between your take on Walshtoni’s view and the views often expressed on this site…
I do think you undervalue Nate Robinson a lot by labeling him as nothing more than a spark off the bench and easily replaced. Sparks off the bench come in a large spectrum of quality. While he’s certainly not at the top, Nate is towards it. I certainly think he could play on a championship team, because he’s a good basketball player.
Let’s say that you took all the playoff minutes that the Lakers gave to Farmar and Shannon Brown last season and gave them to Nate (giving him the 6th most minutes on their team in the playoffs)… are they really worse off? I would expect them to have been better off.

Ben R,

You make some good points, but I don’t share your pessimism at all.
I think Kidd was a pretty good flirtation for several reasons including both that he was never going to come and that if he had come I think he makes the team better.
I don’t know how many options Donnie really has with Nate and Lee. I would assume he’s very well be willing to go for 3 yrs 15 for Nate, but I would also assume Nate is not willing to sign that deal.
Basically, you’re slamming Walsh for not signing guys to contracts that they don’t want to sign and not signing a couple of guards who are unlikely to ever have a steady role in NBA rotations (one of whom he is actually rumored to be pursuing). Since the Knicks go three deep at PG I doubt they’re atop Watson’s list anyway. Powe could be a good signing, if he’s willing to sign with the Knicks.
The Chandler for #5 non-trade is inexcusable in my opinion, but that assumes it actually was a possibility. If I’m Washington I take Miller and Foye over Chandler and Jeffries/Hughes…
Cap space and flexibility doesn’t only apply to 2010, it’s a gift that keeps on giving. If the Knicks do strike out in 2010, what are the chances that Lee and Nate actually get their asking prices before the big boys sign??? The Knicks can still fall back on Lee/Nate. Sessions is not an UFA, so I don’t know that the Knicks can have him.

cgreene – i think that’s the best thing that could happen – all contract year players: all fighting for minutes, all in top shape – not one of them wants a stain on their shirt(with all the media focus), and i think everyone knows that d’antoni will put them on the end of the bench if they don’t play the way he wants….

What an odd trade.

I do agree that I would love to see Walsh give Bender a flyer for the minimum. Seems like the perfect sort of low-risk/high-reward signing you want to see from a rebuilding club like the Knicks.

On top of that the players he did reach out to are over the hill former all-stars that we were fortunate not to get, Hill would have been ok except for the fact he would have taken Chandler’s and Gallinari’s minutes, but Kidd would have been a massive blunder.

We need to offer Nate a three year contract worth about 15 million with next year being the smallest paycheck, and we definately need to lock up Lee long term even if we have to give him 5 years 50 million, that is still bargain considering Lee is a hard worker and has improved every year he has been in the league. One year contracts are pointless because it almost guarantees we lose the player and they get to gobble up minutes that could go to our younger players in the process.

Also I would like to see a little thinking outside the box from Walsh. Powe is going to get signed for really cheap since he is coming off an injury and could probably be had for three years 5 million and once he returns in 2010 he will be a great asset to whoever gets him, also CJ Watson is a potential cheap asset, as is Wafer, who we still might get, or many other players. I want to see some low risk/high rewardmoves rather than low risk/low reward moves like going after over the hill vets.

I also think we are putting way too many eggs in the 2010 basket and could possibly pass on Lee, Nate and Sessions and then wind up with no one in 2010. Lebron is not coming to NY and neither is Wade, and as for Amare or Bosh I would rather have Lee, Sessions and Nate than just Bosh or Amare and the contracts will work out about the same.