Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Which Long Term Deal Should New York Make?

Just curious what Knick fans think, since it seems that things have quieted down. Let’s assume that we only have one long term deal to offer this summer. Which one you would prefer? This doesn’t mean that New York can’t sign the other players to 1 year deals (save for Sessions), but it does mean they would hit the market as an unrestricted free agent next year. While that doesn’t mean the Knicks couldn’t resign that player next summer, however it comes with some caveats.

First is that they would likely have to get a deal done quickly, because the cap hold would likely be larger than their contract. Secondly if they decide they can’t afford the player, they would have to renounce their rights to get the cap hold released. And finally, as an unrestricted free agent that player wouldn’t have to give the Knicks a chance to match an offer. They could just leave the team without any compensation.

So if you could only pick one offer, which would it be? I tried to approximate their 2011 salary, so you’d get an idea of how much it would cost the Knicks next summer. And remember the offer to Sessions would mean that the Bucks could match.

{democracy:31}

20 comments on “Which Long Term Deal Should New York Make?

  1. GAx

    Wow. And to think only a year or so ago people were actually debating the merits of including Lee in a hypothetical Kobe trade.

  2. sj12

    We have to get Ramon Sessions. The league is dependent on having a good point guard, he would sure-up our situation there.

  3. Mike Kurylo Post author

    At this time, Sessions is leading the pack. I can imagine that he’s kinda the FA du jour, and all Knick fans have been talking about. But the number I put up for him is the full MLE (that Alan Hahn mentioned recently). Granted this number might be too high for Milwaukee to match (and would be the most the Knicks could offer), but look at the difference between him & Lee next year – only $2M. Sessions does have youth on his side, but I think for the extra $2M, you pony up for the more proven player.

  4. sj12

    The problem with that deal is that it would leave us totally dependent on next year’s free agency. If for some reason we couldn’t get superstar, we would have the worst team in the NBA.

  5. Brian Cronin

    T-Wolves to name Kurt Rambis head coach.

    That is hilarious.

    The whitewashing of NBA coaches continues.

  6. cavjam

    It depends on talent assessment. If Darko/Curry can actually allow Lee to play the 4, sign Lee. If Douglas can’t provide an effective 12 minutes, sign Sessions (whom I’m not sold on anyway). If there’s no 2 who can fill it up, sign N8. (I think N8′s negatives (can’t deny the entry pass, gambles too much on D, tantrums) outweigh his occasional unconscious shooting, though.) These seem coach’s call. If there’s a GM out there who’s a big fan of stupid, maybe we can package N8 and Harrington in a trade. We need at least one trade for a #1 next year. A trade for Rubio’s rights would be nice, too, though prolly just a dream. This would seem to be Walsh’s task.

    BTW, if the Knicks are going to merely bide time and shuffle contracts for next summer, they better have more than a wing and a prayer on which to base such a strategy.

  7. Nick C.

    Sessions since I have to pick one, but w/o Lee who can give us 30 minutes, rebound and finish efficiently @ the basket

  8. Count Zero

    “the number I put up for him is the full MLE (that Alan Hahn mentioned recently). Granted this number might be too high for Milwaukee to match (and would be the most the Knicks could offer), but look at the difference between him & Lee next year – only $2M. Sessions does have youth on his side, but I think for the extra $2M, you pony up for the more proven player.”

    I hear that, but it doesn’t look like Walsh is willing to go that high on Sessions. Hahn is now reporting “$4 million per annum with an 8-percent decrease in the second season to save as much of that precious cap space in 2010.” If the difference is $4MM, then I think you definitely have to take Sessions. Too much potential upside.

  9. sj12

    If Nate and Lee don’t get any offers, couldn’t they then just accept our qualifying offers, and we’d still have money to sign Sessions?

  10. cgreene

    How about the Lee and Sessions deals? We can do both and still work the roster enough to be under the cap for 1 big FA in 2010.

  11. Mike Kurylo Post author

    When I made up the salaries, I tried to go above what Walsh was willing to offer. With Lee, his agent floated $10M-$12M, Walsh said $7M-$8M, so I went with $9M. For Sessions I used the full MLE, since that is likely to blow out the Clippers and the Bucks. And for Nate, well I just gave him a decent multi-year offer.

  12. ess-dog

    Although I’m a huge fan of trying to get Sessions, I still think Lee at 9 mil is good value for a starter. 6 mil for Sessions seems worthwhile as well, but I think, regardless of position, you have to lock up the best players you can *unless* you can get a trade of good value for that player, Lee.
    That is why Donnie is probably seeing what is going to happen with Lee before he offers something too Sessions. The problem is, the Clippers might force his hand sooner than he would like. It’s likely that Chubby Wells will come to Walsh before signing anything with the Clips (NYC is just a better landing spot for Sessions.) So maybe Donnie is working on what to do with Lee first, but will hold out as long as he has to to get equal trade value or a fair price. If Bartelstein holds his ground (which he should), then it seems likely that Walsh will have to deal with Sessions first.
    So we will probably give an offer higher than what the Clips offer (anywhere from 4.5 to 6 mil) when we have to, and then we will somewhat lose the upper hand in trade negotiations for Lee. Teams will see that we then have to trade Lee or else sign him to a 1 year deal (which is another possibility.)
    So when this happens, we will have to take a lesser trade (unlikely) or sign Lee for one year (which he’s open to now) at whatever price we can negotiate.
    This is what I think will be the likely scenario.
    As for Nate, I still think it’s a one year deal for him or nothing (possibly a sign and trade package with Jeffries if that is still possible.)
    I guess the main questions are: will the Clips force our hand re: Sessions and what is too much to pay for Lee.. 9.5, 10, 10.5 mil?

  13. steveoh

    If we’re going all in for LeBron next year, then we also have to build a team that complements his game. That being said, with LeBron dominating the ball and creating for others, do we really need Sessions?

    I vote for Nate. We’re gonna need shooters around LBJ.

  14. Mike Kurylo Post author

    The thing that shocks me is the number of people that would rather have no one than Nate. $5M a year – I thought that was a good deal for one of the league’s best 6th men.

  15. clyderama

    i don’t like any of these deals, other than N8 being worth $5/M year. DLEE’s and Sessions’ agent are holding out to get their percentages, rather than do what’s best for their clients. If no one’s offering DLEE a multi-year deal, or a 1-year deal for more than what DW is offering, why is Bartlestein holding out? What does the agent get out of a sign and trade, and why don’t we hear anything along the lines as to what’s being offered? Why is he holding out for 10-12M per year, or even for one year, if no one else in the league is offering said sum?
    How can Fatty Wells be doing what’s best for his client if staying with Bucks or going to Clips in a sign and trade is going to keep Sesssions on the bench, when he can be a starter on NYC club?
    N8 seems to be the only one content with hanging loose and taking what the Knicks offer, so he deserves $5/M year for multi-contract.
    However, I believe Sessions > N8 in the long run, so I’d rather offer him multi-contract, but at lower than full MLE.

  16. danvt

    I like Sessions and would be excited to see him in a NYK uniform. Much more so than any of the vets they’ve been auditioning. I’d hate to see us pinch pennies for next summer and have to suffer through a season of Harrington, Stackhouse, etc.

    I say overpay (slightly) for Lee Nate and Ramon if you need to and then try to trade guys like Jeffries, Curry, or even Duhon. If you can’t then let those contracts lapse and get cap space for future summers. Maybe you get Joe Johnson in 2010 and Dwight Howard in 2011.

    I just want a team now, is that so wrong?

  17. Sean

    The Knicks should sign Nate. Hes probably the biggest impact on this team. He energizes and provides points needed of the bench. In 2011, they can open up their salary cap if they do decide not to sign Lee or Sessions

  18. ksaint83

    The Knicks aren’t going to win any more games with either Lee or Nate. Sign or sign and trade someone to start building a team a #1 WOULD sign with. Don’t assume a #1 is going to come to NY for the money ONLY and not have ANY chance to win more than they lose. The Knicks hired Walsh to do a job and I think we trust him to do the right thing until 2112 Lets see what he assembles by then. He inherited one holy mess.

Comments are closed.