Comments on: Which Long Term Deal Should New York Make?

By: ksaint83

ksaint83 — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:22:07 +0000

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.

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:49:50 +0000

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

By: danvt

danvt — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:30:58 +0000

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?

By: clyderama

clyderama — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:15:36 +0000

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.

By: Mike Kurylo

Mike Kurylo — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:42:57 +0000

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.

By: steveoh

steveoh — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:41:58 +0000

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.

By: ess-dog

ess-dog — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 03:32:42 +0000

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?

By: Mike Kurylo

Mike Kurylo — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 02:34:51 +0000

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.

By: cgreene

cgreene — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 21:47:33 +0000

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.

By: sj12

sj12 — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:00:15 +0000

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?