This doesn't make sense

On Jul 15, 8:41 am, "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.jack... DeleteThis @worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

> OK, let's get under the cap, and let's assemble a team of Duhon, Chandler,
> Robinson, Nilo and Curry (because we are stuck with him) and see how many FA
> like Wade and James will be chomping at the bit to be a Knick after we have
> our 4th consecutive sub 35 game win season.
> If we have nothing in 2010, we will still have nothing in 2011 so IMO it
> makes no difference. These players will want to join a team that can win,
> not one that is still rebuilding, otherwise James will stay in Cleveland
> where he is a God and Wade will stay in Miami where he has already won it
> all.

It does amaze me that this sort of short-sighted philosophy
exemplified by five years of Isiah has taught you nothing.

This is not an assembly of a team of Duhon etc. That's why you sign
Duhon to a two-year deal, not a six-year deal. There is no need to
keep the draft picks if they don't pan out (and it's pretty clear that
Robinson hasn't panned out and there's not yet an indication of
whether or not the other two will either).

WITH all of the players you have available, you've had sub 35 win
seasons. Zach hasn't had a winning season in his career. That's
somehow better than clearing it out and making room for deals that
will actually have value, and cap space to sign free agents?

As for 2010 -- you've got a lot of free agents. Getting James or Wade
is pretty unlikely, agreed. But what you are missing is that there's
a ton of OTHER good free agents on the market that year. It's a
question of supply and demand. When there's only one or two quality
free agents on the market in a given summer, teams desperate to win
now and have help always overspend for them (say, $110M for Rashard
Lewis last summer, or $65M for Baron Davis this year).

In the case of 2010, the big spenders will have their wallets tied up
with the marquee names. When that happens, the good players maybe a
rung below superstars will be much more likely to be had for
reasonable contracts, since all the big money will be pointed at the
marquee names. It's a rare opportunity to get some regular good
players in (and not on contracts that will kill the team for years to
come).

> Now if you think Nilo and Chandler will become big time players, then I
> would say getting nothing for Zach is makes no difference, but I think the
> two of them making a major impact in the next two years without a real PG
> are pretty slim.

Think of it this way. You bought a stock at $45 a share. It's
dropped to half that value at $22.50 a share. Nobody wants to buy it
except one person, and the company shows no sign of recovery and the
value going back up -- it's steadily gone downhill for years and is
still overvalued at even half its value. You can point to statistical
data that indirectly indicates "potential" of the company even though
the company has never realized that "potential", but the reality is
that the value of the company continues to plunge and potential buyers
see that.

Now, do you cut your losses and sell the stock when one person wants
to take a gamble on it at $22.50 a share, and take that money and
invest it more intelligently with something with real value? Or do
you stamp your feet and insist it's worth more while it's value
dwindles down to zero and you're stuck with it for absolutely NO
return, and have no money for it to reinvest elsewhere?

On Jul 15, 8:45 am, "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.jack... RemoveThis @worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

> Lee, if we have a team full of scrubs, I don't think it is going to matter.
> Everyone and their sister are going to make offers to these FA's we are
> targeting, and everyone will be offering them max deals. What makes the
> Knicks money any better than the Nets, Clippers, Bucks, Cleveland's, or
> Miami's,

None of those teams have anything either. Cleveland's got zero
players signed for 2010. The Nets have old Vince Carter and not much
else.

And we already have a team full of scrubs. Getting rid of the scrubs
is the idea, not hanging onto them.