by Stop Mike Lupica on January 7 at 1:41PM
It's already that point in the season for the New York Knicks. The point in the season where the present is meaningless. With the past being, well, in the past, fans of the franchise have but one thing to look forward to... the future.
Posting and Toasting has a post up about whether it is beneficial to tank for a better draft pick (my answer: No, especially given that this isn't even a particularly great draft - Mike Beasley, Derrick Rose and OJ Mayo all look good, but there are no can't-miss prospects, like Durant, Oden, Shaq, Duncan, or LeBron here).
Alan Hahn did a recent mailbag filled with questions from his readers, and, well... most of the question dealt with the future. Who should we pick? Should we deal the pick? Who can we trade? Fire Isiah?
With that in mind, it's time to do a post on the 6 Questions that the Knicks need to answer over the next 6 months, before next season begins. Some of these questions have to wait until this season is over, but some have to begin getting addressed now.
1. Let's start with coaching and management, of course. Since both are under the charge of Isiah Thomas... keep Isiah or fire him?
My take: I said at the beginning of the year I wanted progress. I wanted a playoff spot, or bust. It's been way beyond bust at this point. Yes, there is still time for the team to comeback (though it won't), so yeah... give Isiah until the end of the season before making a decision on him.
But at this point the decision is already made. The team has quit on him. He isn't making trades, either. His one chance, if the team really quit on him, would be to make some moves to shake things up. But it appears more and more that James Dolan won't let him "mess" the team up more, so Isiah's hands are tied. The players know this, and thus they don't care anymore.
James Dolan will probably fire Isiah at the end of the season. Articles speculating about James Dolan not wanting to "eat" the remaining two or three years on Isiah's contract... that's never an issue for James Dolan. He'll eat it. He's just sticking with Isiah until the end of the season, out of loyalty if you will. Isiah hasn't sold Dolan out in the media. Isiah has smiled and put up with this awful situation. Dolan will pay him his full contract, and release him from it at the end of the year. Maybe he'll bump him up in management (perhaps taking Steve Mills place as "President"), but there will be a new coach, and probably a new GM, by next season. That's my guess.
Regardless of whether he goes or stays, there needs to be an organization decision on how to proceed for the future. An organization plan. And, like it or not Knicks fans, it doesn't matter who is in charge - James Dolan still runs the organization. And he's the real problem.
He, in all likelihood, undermined Isiah's authority as coach (ordering him to bench Marbury, having too much input in lineup decisions). He's undermined Isiah's authority as GM (not allowing him to make trades). He did the same to Scott Layden once (forcing the trade of Marcus Camby and Latrell Sprewell, leaving the Knicks so devoid of talent that Isiah inherited a franchise with no hope for at least 5 years). He ran Jeff van Gundy off. It's very unlikely anyone with any real resume is going to want to work here.
That's the biggest problem with this franchise right there.
2. What's the game plan for the franchise?
Basically, what's is the organization plan? Are the Knicks going to play it cool, build around the young talent (all of whom are good role players, but none are superstars)? Are they going to wait until 2010, and make a play for LeBron? Or make some moves now to reshape the Knicks?
Alan Hahn has been proposing a Eddy Curry and Malik Rose for Pau Gasol trade. It makes sense for the Knicks, as Gasol and Randolph are complimentary (Gasol, like Randolph, can post or shoot from the perimeter, and has better defense). The Grizzlies would get cap relief out of the trade - Gasol is signed for three more seasons, at about $7 million more per season than Curry (Rose's contract expires after next season). Curry would be a good compliment in Memphis to Rudy Gay and the guards (Kyle Lowry and Mike Conley). That's Hahn's argument.
The reality is that I don't think the Grizzlies will go for it. At least not until the Bulls make a move. As it stands right now, the Bulls could offer Ben Gordon and Tyrus Thomas, and it would blow away the Knicks' offer. So until there is some closure to that offer... I think the Grizzlies will play it tight.
This is a good time to note that the Knicks have been hampered a bit under Isiah because of his beefs with several executives on other teams. For example, the Pacers would make a good fit for a similar trade... the Knicks getting Jermaine O'Neal would actually be better, because he like Isiah (instant leader in the clubhouse), and because his contract expires at one year earlier than Gasol's. But Isiah can't trade with the Pacers, because of his beefs with Larry Bird.
The Bobcats, needing a center, recently traded for Nazr Mohammad. The contract Nazr possesses not only makes Eddy Curry's look great (considering that Curry is a better player in almost every regard to Nazr), but it makes you almost wonder if Jerome James might actually be tradeable! But the reality is the Knicks couldn't make an offer to the Bobcats because of Michael Jordan's well-known beef with Isiah (Jordan's held that grudge longer than anyone, and even Jordan's agent, David Falk, hates Isiah).
3. LeBron James in 2010? Is that feasible?
Anyway, develop an organizational plan. LeBron in 2010? If so, get rid of has much salary cap has possible. That means let Marbury's contract expire; ditto Rose; ditto Richardson and Fred Jones. It might even mean offering Curry, Jerome James, Jared Jeffries and Crawford Dolan-money on the side (a bit shady, but the Knicks could pull it off), in exchange for them exercising their opt outs in 2009. It's probably crazy illegal, but couldn't Dolan offer Curry $8 million to exercise the contract option? Curry would get $8 million, and still get to sign with another team for whatever he can get. It would be like a buyout, but with the player opting out of his contract so that the team could save some money under the cap. If so, that would leave only Randolph on the cap ($17.333 million), and whichever young players the Knicks keep.
Wilson Chandler is on a rookie contract until then; Mardy Collins probably can be had for the minimal tender; Balkman may need to have a contract extended, as will Nate Robinson and David Lee.
Okay, dream scenario talk is over. Realistically... the Knicks can't expect to talk Curry and Jeffries out of using their options. They'll be getting paid. That pumps the cap number to $33 million, not counting the young guys. The Knicks can't let Lee walk for nothing, so he'll be resigned at way too much (say, another $8 million). Maybe, just maybe, the Knicks can catch a break and Crawford will walk away from the last year of his contract to pursue free agency. But if not... a $52 million payroll is not far enough under the cap to sign LeBron.
Oh, and that likely top-5 pick from this draft? He'll cost another $5 million on the cap in 2010.
Nor should the Knicks put all their eggs in the LeBron basket, anyway. It's never a sound strategy; it's like the Celtics putting their eggs in the Durant/Oden basket last year, or the Clippers saving for years to get a chance at Kobe, only to get stood up at the last second. The end result could be ugly if LeBron decides to stay at home in Ohio, or go to the Nets... the result could be an upset fan base, and a rush by management to sign someone else in lieu of LeBron (like overpaying for Dwyane Wade).
4. If not LeBron, then what other plan should the Knicks have?
Well, if you hate Isiah has GM, you are not going to like this, but... make more Isiah like moves. Let me clarify: No, not the bad free agent mid-level signings (Jerome Jeffries, Jared Jeffries). In fact, the first move the Knicks should make is to bar any free agent signings, and especially for players whose initials are JJ (thank goodness Jared Jordan got waived).
But... you need to make some moves to add talent. You need to decide whether trying to keep under the cap is worth it (I personally think it isn't needed in rebuilding). If you have no premier free agents to pursue, then why get under the cap? If that's the case, then trades like Curry + Rose for Gasol make sense. Lee for Artest might also make sense.
Next season you might, just might, have a starting lineup of Derrick Rose/OJ Mayo, Crawford, Artest, Randolph and Gasol, with Nate Robinson and Marbury coming off the bench, and Balkman, Chandler. And Jeffries, for defensive purposes. It's not a terrible team, on paper.
Or, you could spend the offseason trying to get rid of Marbury's expiring contract to a point-guard starving team (the Cavs, the Heat), hoping to get back some assets.
But you have to decide what the goal is. One of the big problems with the Knicks and their fans right now is trying to figure out what the direction of the franchise is, and whether there is a plan, in fact. At least in Boston last year the plan was obvious - tank and hope for a top pick. In Minnesota this year the plan is obvious - rebuild. Philly since the Iverson trade - rebuild, patiently. The places with the most strife are Chicago and New York, and that's because neither team's management seems to have a clear plan of what they are trying to do.
5. Who should the Knicks draft in the 2008 Draft?
Knicks fans have little to look forward to this season, huh? But at least we have our draft pick this year! And so, here are the top contenders at this point: Two point guards - Derrick Rose and OJ Mayo, and one "PF" (really a SF in size, though), in Michael Beasley.
Those are the guys to watch this season in the NCAA, although a few others will emerge. Might as well get familiar with them, folks.
For the Knicks, the idea should be to get the best player available. They could use help at PG and SF the most. Beasley is the best player in the NCAA right now, which means he is likely going to Minnesota with the #1 pick. The Heat, also PG-needy, are currently slightly ahead of the Knicks for the #2 pick. The Knicks may end up with OJ Mayo, who is sure to get ripped apart by the Boston media (ESPN), and the local media. Are you excited to hear about how we picked another Marbury?!
Ignore the press. They are, as we have written many times, short-sighted morons. Case in point: Frank Assola. Today's column dealt with rehashing the trade for Marbury four years ago, and saying that it was a bad trade. I can't disagree, but I do find it a case of hindsight (where's the link to what you wrote 4 years ago, when you were praising it, Frank?). I find it shoddy on the facts... for example:
"Thomas repeated that same formula in deals for Crawford, Curry and Randolph, whose former teams have all improved without them."
Really? The Bulls improved without Curry? They were 47-35 his last season there. They went 41-41 the next season, thanks only to a 12-2 finish down the stretch (otherwise they wouldn't have made the playoffs, or even finished .500). That's an improvement?
Of course, after signing Ben Wallace, the Bulls improved to 49-33. A whopping two game improvement. Then, this season, they are 13-29, or slightly better than the Knicks. I'm not sold on the Bulls has improved.
And it's a good time to write that now, with the Blazers winning 13 out of 14, to say they have improved without Randolph. It wouldn't have looked the same if he had written that when the Blazers were 4-12.
He also said that the Marbury trade cost the Knicks salary cap flexibility, which is a total myth. The Knicks wouldn't have had any salary cap flexibility even if they had done nothing since 2003... Allan Houston, Clarence Weatherspoon, Howard Eisley, and Shannon Anderson were all on the 2006 salary cap for the Knicks. Kurt Thomas' contract ran through the 2008 season. Salary cap relief was never an option for the Knicks, unless they were willing to wait three plus seasons.
6. Shouldn't the Knicks at least develop their young players?
If the season doesn't get any better, the Knicks will almost have no choice but to develop, and play, the young players. The phasing out of Marbury from the offense is a sign of that, and it will continue. However, if their is one really worrisome aspect of this season, almost as bad as all the losses, it's this: The Knicks' young players have all regressed a bit.
Balkman is stuck on the bench, after exciting fans most of last season. Nate Robinson's summer league performance was great... so why hasn't he gotten more burn? Mardy Collins started two games in place of Marbury, and was never seen again. Even David Lee seems... slightly worse... this year.
And Wilson Chandler and Randolph Morris are stuck on the bench.
At some point, you have to hope, Isiah Thomas (and/or James Dolan) will accept that this team is done, and let the kids play. As a Knicks fan, you have to hope that in every case, the regression is the result of rotation instability and playing time issues, and not a sign of creeping Channing Frye-ism (peaking in your first season and a half, than slowly regressing after that).
Leave a comment
Posting and Toasting has a post up about whether it is beneficial to tank for a better draft pick (my answer: No, especially given that this isn't even a particularly great draft - Mike Beasley, Derrick Rose and OJ Mayo all look good, but there are no can't-miss prospects, like Durant, Oden, Shaq, Duncan, or LeBron here).
Alan Hahn did a recent mailbag filled with questions from his readers, and, well... most of the question dealt with the future. Who should we pick? Should we deal the pick? Who can we trade? Fire Isiah?
With that in mind, it's time to do a post on the 6 Questions that the Knicks need to answer over the next 6 months, before next season begins. Some of these questions have to wait until this season is over, but some have to begin getting addressed now.
1. Let's start with coaching and management, of course. Since both are under the charge of Isiah Thomas... keep Isiah or fire him?
My take: I said at the beginning of the year I wanted progress. I wanted a playoff spot, or bust. It's been way beyond bust at this point. Yes, there is still time for the team to comeback (though it won't), so yeah... give Isiah until the end of the season before making a decision on him.
But at this point the decision is already made. The team has quit on him. He isn't making trades, either. His one chance, if the team really quit on him, would be to make some moves to shake things up. But it appears more and more that James Dolan won't let him "mess" the team up more, so Isiah's hands are tied. The players know this, and thus they don't care anymore.
James Dolan will probably fire Isiah at the end of the season. Articles speculating about James Dolan not wanting to "eat" the remaining two or three years on Isiah's contract... that's never an issue for James Dolan. He'll eat it. He's just sticking with Isiah until the end of the season, out of loyalty if you will. Isiah hasn't sold Dolan out in the media. Isiah has smiled and put up with this awful situation. Dolan will pay him his full contract, and release him from it at the end of the year. Maybe he'll bump him up in management (perhaps taking Steve Mills place as "President"), but there will be a new coach, and probably a new GM, by next season. That's my guess.
Regardless of whether he goes or stays, there needs to be an organization decision on how to proceed for the future. An organization plan. And, like it or not Knicks fans, it doesn't matter who is in charge - James Dolan still runs the organization. And he's the real problem.
He, in all likelihood, undermined Isiah's authority as coach (ordering him to bench Marbury, having too much input in lineup decisions). He's undermined Isiah's authority as GM (not allowing him to make trades). He did the same to Scott Layden once (forcing the trade of Marcus Camby and Latrell Sprewell, leaving the Knicks so devoid of talent that Isiah inherited a franchise with no hope for at least 5 years). He ran Jeff van Gundy off. It's very unlikely anyone with any real resume is going to want to work here.
That's the biggest problem with this franchise right there.
2. What's the game plan for the franchise?
Basically, what's is the organization plan? Are the Knicks going to play it cool, build around the young talent (all of whom are good role players, but none are superstars)? Are they going to wait until 2010, and make a play for LeBron? Or make some moves now to reshape the Knicks?
Alan Hahn has been proposing a Eddy Curry and Malik Rose for Pau Gasol trade. It makes sense for the Knicks, as Gasol and Randolph are complimentary (Gasol, like Randolph, can post or shoot from the perimeter, and has better defense). The Grizzlies would get cap relief out of the trade - Gasol is signed for three more seasons, at about $7 million more per season than Curry (Rose's contract expires after next season). Curry would be a good compliment in Memphis to Rudy Gay and the guards (Kyle Lowry and Mike Conley). That's Hahn's argument.
The reality is that I don't think the Grizzlies will go for it. At least not until the Bulls make a move. As it stands right now, the Bulls could offer Ben Gordon and Tyrus Thomas, and it would blow away the Knicks' offer. So until there is some closure to that offer... I think the Grizzlies will play it tight.
This is a good time to note that the Knicks have been hampered a bit under Isiah because of his beefs with several executives on other teams. For example, the Pacers would make a good fit for a similar trade... the Knicks getting Jermaine O'Neal would actually be better, because he like Isiah (instant leader in the clubhouse), and because his contract expires at one year earlier than Gasol's. But Isiah can't trade with the Pacers, because of his beefs with Larry Bird.
The Bobcats, needing a center, recently traded for Nazr Mohammad. The contract Nazr possesses not only makes Eddy Curry's look great (considering that Curry is a better player in almost every regard to Nazr), but it makes you almost wonder if Jerome James might actually be tradeable! But the reality is the Knicks couldn't make an offer to the Bobcats because of Michael Jordan's well-known beef with Isiah (Jordan's held that grudge longer than anyone, and even Jordan's agent, David Falk, hates Isiah).
3. LeBron James in 2010? Is that feasible?
Anyway, develop an organizational plan. LeBron in 2010? If so, get rid of has much salary cap has possible. That means let Marbury's contract expire; ditto Rose; ditto Richardson and Fred Jones. It might even mean offering Curry, Jerome James, Jared Jeffries and Crawford Dolan-money on the side (a bit shady, but the Knicks could pull it off), in exchange for them exercising their opt outs in 2009. It's probably crazy illegal, but couldn't Dolan offer Curry $8 million to exercise the contract option? Curry would get $8 million, and still get to sign with another team for whatever he can get. It would be like a buyout, but with the player opting out of his contract so that the team could save some money under the cap. If so, that would leave only Randolph on the cap ($17.333 million), and whichever young players the Knicks keep.
Wilson Chandler is on a rookie contract until then; Mardy Collins probably can be had for the minimal tender; Balkman may need to have a contract extended, as will Nate Robinson and David Lee.
Okay, dream scenario talk is over. Realistically... the Knicks can't expect to talk Curry and Jeffries out of using their options. They'll be getting paid. That pumps the cap number to $33 million, not counting the young guys. The Knicks can't let Lee walk for nothing, so he'll be resigned at way too much (say, another $8 million). Maybe, just maybe, the Knicks can catch a break and Crawford will walk away from the last year of his contract to pursue free agency. But if not... a $52 million payroll is not far enough under the cap to sign LeBron.
Oh, and that likely top-5 pick from this draft? He'll cost another $5 million on the cap in 2010.
Nor should the Knicks put all their eggs in the LeBron basket, anyway. It's never a sound strategy; it's like the Celtics putting their eggs in the Durant/Oden basket last year, or the Clippers saving for years to get a chance at Kobe, only to get stood up at the last second. The end result could be ugly if LeBron decides to stay at home in Ohio, or go to the Nets... the result could be an upset fan base, and a rush by management to sign someone else in lieu of LeBron (like overpaying for Dwyane Wade).
4. If not LeBron, then what other plan should the Knicks have?
Well, if you hate Isiah has GM, you are not going to like this, but... make more Isiah like moves. Let me clarify: No, not the bad free agent mid-level signings (Jerome Jeffries, Jared Jeffries). In fact, the first move the Knicks should make is to bar any free agent signings, and especially for players whose initials are JJ (thank goodness Jared Jordan got waived).
But... you need to make some moves to add talent. You need to decide whether trying to keep under the cap is worth it (I personally think it isn't needed in rebuilding). If you have no premier free agents to pursue, then why get under the cap? If that's the case, then trades like Curry + Rose for Gasol make sense. Lee for Artest might also make sense.
Next season you might, just might, have a starting lineup of Derrick Rose/OJ Mayo, Crawford, Artest, Randolph and Gasol, with Nate Robinson and Marbury coming off the bench, and Balkman, Chandler. And Jeffries, for defensive purposes. It's not a terrible team, on paper.
Or, you could spend the offseason trying to get rid of Marbury's expiring contract to a point-guard starving team (the Cavs, the Heat), hoping to get back some assets.
But you have to decide what the goal is. One of the big problems with the Knicks and their fans right now is trying to figure out what the direction of the franchise is, and whether there is a plan, in fact. At least in Boston last year the plan was obvious - tank and hope for a top pick. In Minnesota this year the plan is obvious - rebuild. Philly since the Iverson trade - rebuild, patiently. The places with the most strife are Chicago and New York, and that's because neither team's management seems to have a clear plan of what they are trying to do.
5. Who should the Knicks draft in the 2008 Draft?
Knicks fans have little to look forward to this season, huh? But at least we have our draft pick this year! And so, here are the top contenders at this point: Two point guards - Derrick Rose and OJ Mayo, and one "PF" (really a SF in size, though), in Michael Beasley.
Those are the guys to watch this season in the NCAA, although a few others will emerge. Might as well get familiar with them, folks.
For the Knicks, the idea should be to get the best player available. They could use help at PG and SF the most. Beasley is the best player in the NCAA right now, which means he is likely going to Minnesota with the #1 pick. The Heat, also PG-needy, are currently slightly ahead of the Knicks for the #2 pick. The Knicks may end up with OJ Mayo, who is sure to get ripped apart by the Boston media (ESPN), and the local media. Are you excited to hear about how we picked another Marbury?!
Ignore the press. They are, as we have written many times, short-sighted morons. Case in point: Frank Assola. Today's column dealt with rehashing the trade for Marbury four years ago, and saying that it was a bad trade. I can't disagree, but I do find it a case of hindsight (where's the link to what you wrote 4 years ago, when you were praising it, Frank?). I find it shoddy on the facts... for example:
"Thomas repeated that same formula in deals for Crawford, Curry and Randolph, whose former teams have all improved without them."
Really? The Bulls improved without Curry? They were 47-35 his last season there. They went 41-41 the next season, thanks only to a 12-2 finish down the stretch (otherwise they wouldn't have made the playoffs, or even finished .500). That's an improvement?
Of course, after signing Ben Wallace, the Bulls improved to 49-33. A whopping two game improvement. Then, this season, they are 13-29, or slightly better than the Knicks. I'm not sold on the Bulls has improved.
And it's a good time to write that now, with the Blazers winning 13 out of 14, to say they have improved without Randolph. It wouldn't have looked the same if he had written that when the Blazers were 4-12.
He also said that the Marbury trade cost the Knicks salary cap flexibility, which is a total myth. The Knicks wouldn't have had any salary cap flexibility even if they had done nothing since 2003... Allan Houston, Clarence Weatherspoon, Howard Eisley, and Shannon Anderson were all on the 2006 salary cap for the Knicks. Kurt Thomas' contract ran through the 2008 season. Salary cap relief was never an option for the Knicks, unless they were willing to wait three plus seasons.
6. Shouldn't the Knicks at least develop their young players?
If the season doesn't get any better, the Knicks will almost have no choice but to develop, and play, the young players. The phasing out of Marbury from the offense is a sign of that, and it will continue. However, if their is one really worrisome aspect of this season, almost as bad as all the losses, it's this: The Knicks' young players have all regressed a bit.
Balkman is stuck on the bench, after exciting fans most of last season. Nate Robinson's summer league performance was great... so why hasn't he gotten more burn? Mardy Collins started two games in place of Marbury, and was never seen again. Even David Lee seems... slightly worse... this year.
And Wilson Chandler and Randolph Morris are stuck on the bench.
At some point, you have to hope, Isiah Thomas (and/or James Dolan) will accept that this team is done, and let the kids play. As a Knicks fan, you have to hope that in every case, the regression is the result of rotation instability and playing time issues, and not a sign of creeping Channing Frye-ism (peaking in your first season and a half, than slowly regressing after that).
Leave a comment
|
3 Comments
Comments
Mayo is legit, don't listen to the haters. But the Knicks need Rose, he'd turn that ship around no doubt.
Great post. I am all for standing pat and allowing the young guys to develop while building up some cap flexibility.
Things won't turn around until we are able to rebuild from the ground up and that isnt possible without the ability to sign free agents.
Also, Im with Rickhouse, Derrick Rose is clearly the best fit for the Knicks come the 2008 draft.
SML-
I appreciate your calm, reasoned approach. Two thoughts:
(1) Even if it were legal (and I'm sure it's not), it would be crazy for Crawford, Curry, etc. to opt out of their contracts even if given a big payment. So very few teams will be under the cap in the coming years and there will be so many free agents that the free agent market will continue to be a buyers market. Most free agents will have to settle for the midlevel exception. That even applies to the sainted David Lee. No team is going to offer huge money to him.
(2) That's an excellent point about Isiah not being able to do trades because opposing GMs carry grudges against him. It's a real shame too. One trade that I think would make a lot of sense is Zach Randolph for Ben Wallace. The Bulls would apparently love to be out from under Wallace's contract and Zach would flourish in Chicago. Although he's not nearly the player he used to be, the Knicks could definitely use Wallace's experience and team defense. And his contract is actually shorther than Zach's. It seems doubtful that we'd see yet another Chicago/New York trade though.