KNICK CELTIC DEAL FINALIZED - MULTIPLE PLAYERS

I also will root for Robinson, he will indeed add energy and improve this year's team markedly.

My concern is DA has mortgaged the franchise's future for a title run this season, and that appears much more unlikely today as a result of moves made by cunning GM's more astute than he.

Tark

Tark,

I loved Eddie and am interested in seeing how well Nate will fit in, but I do not consider it a HUGELY one-sided deal. JR and Walker were non-factors. They never played well enough to make it in the NBA (being impressive in the D-league doesn't translate). JR just had knee surgery. Walker has had multiple knee surgeries and was looking more and more like a one-trick pony. When you're a 6'6", 225# forward and your one trick is a spin move in traffic, that's not gonna cut it.

As far as the rest of the Knick trades go, I presume you're talking about T-Mac. T-Mac is going to be 31 in a few months, he played less than half a season last year (and shot under 39% from the field) and has only played 6 games this year (and shot 37% from the field and 67% from the line in them. He has had 0 offensive rebounds and 0 steals this year). His last game was 12/23/09. I have long felt that T-Mac benefited from the "Gerald Green Glow". A fantastic athlete who puts fans in the seats but is fundamentally flawed as a player. That's who the Knicks traded for. They traded for a player who is chronically injured and hasn't played in a game in almost 2 months and who didn't play in the playoffs last year because he was injured in the second half of the year. Damaged goods. If the Knicks didn't get T-Mac SOLELY to clear $23M of cap space so they can enter the Lebron James Sweepstakes next year, then they are dumber than rocks.


bob

I am entirely referring to the moves made with the cap in mind.

The Knick's have been an embarrassment for many years......I believe, and understand there will be dissent here, that their new management team is attuned to the 'new' NBA and cap ramnifications.

Undoubtedly, with D'Antoni's style and the allure of the NYC market, they will be easily able to turn that cap room into gold.

We as Celt's devotees could have benefited from such foresight.

Tark

On the bright side:

Nate's going on 26, Eddie's going on 32.

This season -
Per 36 minutes of play: PPG Assists Rebs TOs FG%-3ptFG%-FT%
Nate 19.5 5.5 3.5 2.6 45%-37.5%-78%
Eddie 15.2 2.0 2.9 1.1 40%-38%-90%

Where Eddie really shines is in that we know for certain he is a clutch player when the game is on the line and in the playoffs. Nate's an unknown. We also know for certain that Eddie is an Ubuntu player. Nate's an unknown (at best) there too.

bob

By the way, in case anyone cares, it's now 6:00 EST and the league office has not yet approved the Clets-Knicks trade. The Celtics are apparently in line, with approval delayed by the sheer number of pending trades. Also complicating things is the fact of the three-team deal involving the Knicks; so it takes considerable work to ensure that the Knicks (given their two trades) are in compliance with the trade guidelines.

Sam

bob,

In fact I do like the Robinson trade; just feel DA has placed a 'bet' on the C's winning a title THIS year by retaining Ray, is all.

At Mandalay Bay this weekend current odds for such were 16:1 against.

Is that a quality rationale for mortgaging a glorious franchise's future when there were other options available ?

The Maloof's would have MUCH rather received Allen's contract and then bought it out immediately, than the move the King's made with the Rockets.

Hell, I'm not even sure we compare favorably with Houston today, much less LA and Cleveland.

All that vented, as a 50 year fan, I'll be up late tonight hoping for the best, and rooting for the C's and their medical staff to prove me wrong in June (As a C's fan April does not matter not to I, apologies to Sam).


Tark

Tark

If it looked like I wanted Eddie gone, that was wrong. I, too, have alot of the same concerns that Sam has. Eddie brought more to this team than three point shooting. He was a constant in the locker room, keeping everyone's head above water. I believe he is going to be missed more than people realize.

My only thoughts on Robinson are his ball handling, and the way he can get to the basket. Eddie was a terrible ball handler, he was never meant to be a point guard, being much better at the two. Hopefully Robinson can relieve some of the tension in the backcourt when Rondo is not in. He is quick, you have to give him that. I will wait to judge this trade, I, too am a little sorry to see both of the young guys go. Giddens was resolved to the fact that he wasn't going to be here next year. I don't know about Walker.
It will be interesting to watch and see if they develop into bona fide NBA players, or if they will fall the way of Gerald Green, and all the others before them.

Yup, I am glad Ray is still here, no bones about it. Hopefully he will finally relax and his shooting will show it.

Jerry Tarkanian wrote:

The Maloof's would have MUCH rather received Allen's contract and then bought it out immediately, than the move the King's made with the Rockets.

Hell, I'm not even sure we compare favorably with Houston today, much less LA and Cleveland.

Tark

Tark-

The Maloofs were only moving Martin if they got a high-quality big back along with cap relief. That's why they changed their stance at the last minute last night- because they got Carl Landry. A very high quality big making only $3m e this year and next. He's one of the biggest bargains in the NBA.

So unless you were willing to give up Perk, the Cs weren't getting Martin (just like the Mavs and Cavs didn't). And I'm assuming you wouldn't want to trade Perk and Ray for an injury prone guy who plays no defense. Who's making $9m + for 4 years ? That would have been a franchise killer.

As expected (unless you actually believe everything you read), no changes to the first unit.

Did anybody really think we would move Ray Allen or Perk? Shame on you if you really thought that was a good idea or was about to happen. And if you honestly thought we should have moved Ray I'm personally going to send you to see Rosalie and she is going to straighten you out.

This trade seems to make sense, although I'll miss Eddie.

We needed a point guard for Doc's second unit and Daniels is better suited to play on the wing. Tony Allen seems to have found a second wind and is still a good defender at two or three positions. In a group of Eddie, Nate, Daniels and Tony Allen, Eddie is the odd man out in terms of the Celts bench needs.

Despite problems of it's own with health and continuity, the first unit isn't the biggest issue or place we can re-tool. We weren't likely to get value for Ray; despite a new rumor every day nothing appeared genuine and he's still a great shooter who can play better D than most will credit him for.

With a second unit featuring Sheed, Davis, Daniels, T Allen and Nate we have better balance than we did with Eddie. Eddie was a good locker room/chemistry guy, but winning builds chemistry faster than ubuntu. We've all been on teams or seen teams that win non-stop filled with guys that don't talk after the game.

Rebounding, shooting, the ability to defend, penetrate and play somewhat uptempo are all there on this second unit. I hope the x-factor of desire is present on the second unit too.

I'm not saying this trade takes us to the promised land by itself. We really didn't give up anything at all to take this chance. Eddie will be missed, but was expendable. Giddens and Walker were non-factors and (in my opinion) aren't going to be developing into anything special anyway. If Robinson sticks around for any period of time, he's also about as young as those two so he doesn't age us.

We'll probably pick up another body too, but likely just someone to sit beside Sheldon during the game.

Once again, Danny makes the move that makes the most sense.

This is the GM that got us a title quickly after taking over a bunch that couldn't take the court without tripping over the sideline. He continues to show a thinking man's flair for keeping the group competitive but flexible for the future. He's also not afraid to gamble a little when the gamble has potential.

Regards

deano very well written

cowens/oldschool wrote:deano very well written

Rich,

Thanks.

You also know me well enough to know I have 5 minutes of clarity followed by 2 months of fog!

I hope the family is well.

Regards

' He continues to show a thinking man's flair for keeping the group competitive but flexible for the future. He's also not afraid to gamble a little when the gamble has potential.'

NYCELT,

I agree Robinson will add youth and energy to this year's edition, question if it is enough to contend for a title, though would LOVE to be proven wrong.

But how does adding 3 months of Nate equate to a brilliant move ? DA has an aging core, is hamstrung by the cap and reduced to attempting to make deadline deals to recoup any of his investment.

The fault is in misunderstanding the implications of adding 3 aged stars without reworking the contracts at THAT time to avoid the mess we will be in next season and at least the following two. Being OVER cap as the contracts expire is a blunder of mythic proportion that makes DA the object of ridicule by all GM's in the league. Perhaps Wyc might add a financial guru to guide his management team in the future.

I enjoyed the championship run of '07 as much as anyone, but DO avoid the 'homer' mentality that prevents some from seeing the forest for the trees. I could see then the complications that are evident now. Only wish DA had as well.

We could have added KG and Ray and reworked the deals as more cap friendly extensions that would have produced the flexibility we will need going forward.

If you could cite an example of this 'flexibility' of which you speak I, and other long term fans, would appreciate it.

All the best,

Tark

babyskyhook wrote:

Jerry Tarkanian wrote:

The Maloof's would have MUCH rather received Allen's contract and then bought it out immediately, than the move the King's made with the Rockets.

Hell, I'm not even sure we compare favorably with Houston today, much less LA and Cleveland.

Tark

Tark-

The Maloofs were only moving Martin if they got a high-quality big back along with cap relief. That's why they changed their stance at the last minute last night- because they got Carl Landry. A very high quality big making only $3m e this year and next. He's one of the biggest bargains in the NBA.

So unless you were willing to give up Perk, the Cs weren't getting Martin (just like the Mavs and Cavs didn't). And I'm assuming you wouldn't want to trade Perk and Ray for an injury prone guy who plays no defense. Who's making $9m + for 4 years ? That would have been a franchise killer.

Gavin was prepared to move Martin and C's choice of Hawes or Thompson for KP and RA, and then do a buyout of Ray that would have had him back in a Green uniform by the middle of March.

Ray is a shadow of his '07 self and Martin is at $11 million the next 4 years, and a bargain at that by the standards of those not devoted to Ray. The upside of Martin is far greater than the declining years of Allen. I understand the emotional attachment of some to RA, and have always distanced myself from such. Makes for better ball teams.

Tark

Jerry Tarkanian wrote:' He continues to show a thinking man's flair for keeping the group competitive but flexible for the future. He's also not afraid to gamble a little when the gamble has potential.'

NYCELT,

I agree Robinson will add youth and energy to this year's edition, question if it is enough to contend for a title, though would LOVE to be proven wrong.

But how does adding 3 months of Nate equate to a brilliant move ? DA has an aging core, is hamstrung by the cap and reduced to attempting to make deadline deals to recoup any of his investment.

The fault is in misunderstanding the implications of adding 3 aged stars without reworking the contracts at THAT time to avoid the mess we will be in next season and at least the following two. Being OVER cap as the contracts expire is a blunder of mythic proportion that makes DA the object of ridicule by all GM's in the league. Perhaps Wyc might add a financial guru to guide his management team in the future.

I enjoyed the championship run of '07 as much as anyone, but DO avoid the 'homer' mentality that prevents some from seeing the forest for the trees. I could see then the complications that are evident now. Only wish DA had as well.

We could have added KG and Ray and reworked the deals as more cap friendly extensions that would have produced the flexibility we will need going forward.

If you could cite an example of this 'flexibility' of which you speak I, and other long term fans, would appreciate it.

All the best,

Tark

Tark,

Reworking contracts ist verboten!!
____________________________________________________________________________

52. Can existing contracts be renegotiated?

A contract for four or more seasons can be renegotiated after the third anniversary of its signing, extension, or renegotiation that increased any season's salary by more than 8%. Contracts for fewer than four seasons cannot be renegotiated. A contract cannot be renegotiated between March 1 and June 30 of any year. Only teams under the cap can renegotiate a contract, and the salary in the then-current season can be increased only to the extent that the team has room under the cap. Raises in subsequent years are limited to 10.5% of the salary in the first renegotiated season. The renegotiation may not contain a signing bonus. Contracts cannot be renegotiated downward (players can't take a "pay cut" in order to create salary cap room for the team) or to contain fewer seasons.

Again, a team over the salary cap cannot renegotiate a contract. An interesting case of this was Shawn Kemp with the Sonics. Kemp, who was unhappy with his contract and wanted to renegotiate, could not get a larger contract from the Sonics because they were over the cap. Kemp forced a trade to Cleveland, who was far enough under the cap at the time to give him the large contract he wanted. Kemp's contract was renegotiated soon after the trade.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q52

____________________________________________________________________________

Question: How can a team be under the cap when it has three max-contract players?

Answer: It can't.

Question: How do you even field a competitive team when you are almost over the cap with three players?

Answer: It is extremely hard. Ask the other GM's if you want. Danny did it. Twice. Had a chance to repeat but failed in the second try due to injuries.

gyso

Good answer.........however......if memory serves.......we were NOT over the cap as we acquired KG. Nor were the Wolves. Contract renegotiation should have been done

Tark

Still waiting to hear how 'flexible' we are now....lol.

All in the spirit of the C's tradition. And fun in the forum.

Tark

Tark,

I didn't say brilliant move, I said the move that made sense.

You need to re-read my post.

We needed to get younger and more athletic in our backcourt.

You want to talk about my thinking on Danny's past moves? My contention all along has been simply this; without going over the cap as we did, how were we going to contend quickly after 22 years off and the danger of alienating the fan base?

We can't have it both ways, some wanted youth, but that alone doesn't win. Was Al Jefferson going to take us to a title any time soon?

By the way, if you've read many of my posts you know it's far from homer mentality with me.

I'm calling you on your statements of "blunder of mythic proportion" and Ainge being the "object of ridicule" among league GM's. I've seen nothing to show that and seem to recall many statements to the contrary. I'm not talking about the Globe or Herald either. Go back to what it took to work with Andy Miller, Garnett's agent, to get him to look our way. Re-work his contract? We're lucky Miller didn't close the door. Lon Babby, Ray Allen's agent also wasn't going to budge on the 5-year deal Ray had. How do you think Ainge was going to re-work those two?

The big three's contracts do expire in consecutive years, which will not keep us out of salary cap land, but will allow us to slowly add pieces to the mix. Not pieces named Wade or James, but players capable of complimenting what's left from the championship core and maintain a competitive team in a now desireable place to play as the team rebuilds around Rondo. Free agents will come our way and trades will continue to be made. You can't predict the who or when, you can't look at some website that let's you pretend to be a GM and know what will happen. Did anyone see the deal for KG coming? Remember, for instance, we can let Ray Allen become a free agent after this season. Some think we will in order to drive his price down and re-sign him lower. He can still play, still has value; that isn't flexible thinking?

Flexibility, huh? Do none of our players or expiring contracts have value to other teams? The expiring contracts of the big three over the next three years is actually one part. Given the circumstances at the time we brought in KG and Ray it's the best one could hope for. With the exception of Wallace most everyone else due to expire over the next year or two (Wallace is three total if I recall, I might be wrong there) is another. The fact that some of those contracts will have value to other teams as each of the next two seasons wear on and their trade deadlines come into view will help. A young star point guard tied in relatively cheap for several years gives us some operating room. We will have the ability to remake our bench constantly. Yes, we're still going to be over the cap, but if you look at the roster there are probably only four players who might be around in three years and that doesn't spell flexibility after what it took to create a one-year emergency turn-around to win a championship?

Sorry Shark, nothing at all personal. With all due respect, and pun intended, I think you're all wet on this one.

Regards

Jerry Tarkanian wrote:Still waiting to hear how 'flexible' we are now....lol.

All in the spirit of the C's tradition. And fun in the forum.

Tark

See my answer above.

I don't always have time to camp out on the web.

No offense, but I think you may also not know you can't always just go in and re-work an existing contract.

Regards

NYCELT,

The value of the expiring contracts is lost post deadline. The parameters are far different in the off season; thus, the large number of moves today involving expiring players.

Think there will be a big market for Scal & TA, et al in sign and trades ? I just think differently, and respect your opinion. The ability to bring in mediocre talent in the next three years to complement Rondo and a merry band of geriatrics does not inspire my confidence. Nor qualify as flexible IMHO. Our best bet will be quality draftees in prime draft positions as we are now positioned for 3 or so 30 win seasons.

Tark

And we have just lost the value of one of the Big 3's expiring contracts in Ray.

Just an aside. Hopefully experience for DA will prevent this occurring in the next to scenarios.

Appreciate you,

Tark

Jerry Tarkanian wrote:And we have just lost the value of one of the Big 3's expiring contracts in Ray.

Just an aside. Hopefully experience for DA will prevent this occurring in the next to scenarios.

Appreciate you,

Tark

In this instance we didn't use the expiring contract at this time or at perceived maximum value. If Ray still fits the 2-guard role this roster needs should we have swapped him out? Even if the best offers reported/rumored would have just made the salary situation less flexible?

It doesn't take everything off the books, but we can let him go via free agency and then negotiate with him should his value be high enough to our team. That's just one example of flexibility.

NYCELT,

Agreed we can let him go and then re-sign him to the MLE, perhaps, if we so choose. It would preclude signing a younger player, however.

Would we have been better served to acquire a younger 2 with a contract that extends 3 or more years to assume Bird exemption status at it expiration and have greater flexibility ?

Questions such as those inspire intelligent chat and foster the dissenting opinions that make good forums great.

If it means anything, you have surpassed another tonight as my favorite source of contrasting opinion. And I view that as a VERY good thing.

Enjoy the game,

Tark

Jerry Tarkanian wrote:'


The fault is in misunderstanding the implications of adding 3 aged stars without reworking the contracts at THAT time to avoid the mess we will be in next season and at least the following two. Being OVER cap as the contracts expire is a blunder of mythic proportion that makes DA the object of ridicule by all GM's in the league.

Tark-


I don't know whyb you're all over NYC on this.

The misunderstanding is your idea that you could rework these guys' deals in the first place. Have you ever heard of contract law or the CBA ? There's a reason these guys have contracts- to protect their earnings. You get what you pay for. You put three veteran All Stars together and you're going to be paying big $$$$.

These guys (Wyc, DA, etc) knew what they were getting into when they put the team together. There would be a realistic two-three year window where they could compete for the title every year.

That's a lot BIGGER window than most franchises have ever had- IN THEIR HISTORY!

And when that window closes it will be time for a rebuild. If they can do it on the fly- great. If they have to suck for a year or two but then get back in the top tier, that's a small price to pay and that's reality.

And DA the object of ridicule ? Every GM in the league would love to have put a championship team together on the fly and have the trophy in his office to prove it. You get what you pay for in this league, and unless someone's on their rookie contract, you're paying a lot of money for star players. there is no way to get under the cap with the kind of stars on the Cs team until both Pierce and Ray expire.


I can't believe that as a life-long Laker fan I am sitting here defending DA (who I HATED as a player) but you are trying to turn the world upside down with this analysis, and there is no basis for it in reality. The sky is red. Why ? Because I say so.

Jerry Tarkanian wrote:

babyskyhook wrote:

Jerry Tarkanian wrote:

The Maloof's would have MUCH rather received Allen's contract and then bought it out immediately, than the move the King's made with the Rockets.

Hell, I'm not even sure we compare favorably with Houston today, much less LA and Cleveland.

Tark

Tark-

The Maloofs were only moving Martin if they got a high-quality big back along with cap relief. That's why they changed their stance at the last minute last night- because they got Carl Landry. A very high quality big making only $3m e this year and next. He's one of the biggest bargains in the NBA.

So unless you were willing to give up Perk, the Cs weren't getting Martin (just like the Mavs and Cavs didn't). And I'm assuming you wouldn't want to trade Perk and Ray for an injury prone guy who plays no defense. Who's making $9m + for 4 years ? That would have been a franchise killer.

Gavin was prepared to move Martin and C's choice of Hawes or Thompson for KP and RA, and then do a buyout of Ray that would have had him back in a Green uniform by the middle of March.

Ray is a shadow of his '07 self and Martin is at $11 million the next 4 years, and a bargain at that by the standards of those not devoted to Ray. The upside of Martin is far greater than the declining years of Allen. I understand the emotional attachment of some to RA, and have always distanced myself from such. Makes for better ball teams.

Tark

As a Laker fan, I am not devoted to Ray, but as a big NBA fan who wishes I owned a team and likes to play armchair GM, I'll say this:

Why on earth would you give up Perk to get an injury-prone (he's missed at least 20 games every year for last 4 years), expensive (Martin is making Rondo-level money. Do you think he's in that class ?), one dimensional (no defense and not a good passer) player and Spencer Hawes or Thompson ?


have you seen Hawes or Thompson vs Dwight Howard or Shaq ? You would gut your interior defense in one fell swoop and be looking at a probable first round exit.

Like I said in another thread, if you were getting Iguodala, it would be a different story. I could see Ray and Perk for Iggy and Dalembert b/c Iggy is a great player- skilled offensively and an elite wing defender- and he's durable. Kevin Martin isn't in his league. And Dalembert wouldn't be that big of a dropoff from Perk that it would kill your D. The upgrade to Iggy would be worth it.

But all this handwringing over Kevin Martin ? Trading Perk and Ray for Martin and Hawes would have been suicide for the Cs- every laker fan would be popping a champagne bottle. If Spencer Hawes was playing tonight LA would have won by 15.

baby that was great analysis earlier in thread,boy am I glad we didn't trade Perk

Jerry Tarkanian wrote:

Agreed we can let him go and then re-sign him to the MLE, perhaps, if we so choose. It would preclude signing a younger player, however.

Tark- you don't need to let Ray go. You have his Bird rights. You're going to be over the cap anyway. So you can sign him for whatever you can mutually agree to and still use your MLE to bring in another player.

You would only need to use the MLE to re-sign him if for some reason they renounced his rights (which they would never do.)

So it's not as dark as you think.