Well, for a second there, it looked like things were about to get interesting (or at least bearable). Despite the Knicks’ flirtatious advances, future hall-of-famer Allen Iverson is back where he started: sitting at home, waiting for a team to call and sign him.
Depending on who you spoke to, bringing in A.I. was viewed as either a quick fix (something to produce excitement and maybe a few more wins), or, a long-term disaster (something that was going to prevent New York’s young players from developing due to Iverson’s high propensity to take more than 25 shots per game).
But now that this brief dramatic pause in Knicks folklore has come to an end, it is time to move forward. Obviously, a majority of New York fans are going to go right back to what they were doing last week: watching pro football, waiting for the next off-season when the Knicks begin bidding in the Free Agent Sweepstakes of 2010. However, for all the die-hards out there, this squad still has a long year ahead of them, and most of it—whether you like it or not—is going to have a major impact on how effective this team will be in free agency.
Remember:
More wins + More stability = Better chance at signing a superstar
But at 3-10, will the Knicks eventually be stable enough to court a LeBron, D-Wade or Chris Bosh on the open market? The Knicks beat the Nets on Saturday, keeping New Jersey in the lead for “worst pro basketball team of the year.” On Sunday, New York played fairly well, and almost squeaked out a win against the Celtics. Both games again told us that this team at least has some talent stashed away for the future (and in the process showed prospective players that the Knicks are capable of competing in the first place).
Looking ahead however, its hard to see the Knicks maneuvering their way out of the cellar, especially if Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari and Toney Douglas continue to compete without Mike D’Antoni calling more plays for them. (Some off-ball screens for Gallinari perhaps?)
Now, in hopes of trading a newly trimmed Eddy Curry, the Knicks are exploring a possible swap involving the Houston Rockets’ Tracy McGrady.
T-Mac was certainly one of the best players in the NBA during the early aughts. In the 2002-03 season when he averaged a league-best 32 points per game. However, McGrady has missed more than 100 games over the past four years. And on top of his back spasms, he has had knee trouble, spending most of last season on the bench after undergoing microfracture surgery last winter.
Former superstar with history of knee and back problems; why go after him when they could have had Allen Iverson for less than half the price? Not to mention, you know Iverson, when given the chance, is going to show more effort than T-Mac ever could.
However, let’s say McGrady doesn’t end up signing with the Knicks. Where do they go from there? Who should they trade Eddy Curry for? Should they trade him at all? Also, which of next year’s free agents would fit best in D’Antoni’s system? If the Knicks sign a marquee free agent, who else should they be targeting?
These are the questions I plan on answering in my upcoming 2010 Knicks Series. Each week, I will present the case of one free agent, how they could fit into D’Antoni’s system and the likelihood of the Knicks signing them. We will start next Monday after Thanksgiving with the player on everybody’s mind: LeBron James.
Until then, enjoy the Knicks west coast trip, which begins Tuesday night against the Lakers.
**************************************************
Response to first comment below from Paul:
You could argue that dumping Curry's contract in exchange for T-Mac's would be the smarter move for the future, however, it might be beneficial for the Knicks to be doing quite the opposite at this juncture: keeping players and not getting rid of them strictly for cap room.
In the end, New York could wind up with less than 20 wins this year (although, that is arguably the direction they are headed in already) if they get rid of Curry, while the 2010 free agent class looks on at the end of the season, viewing a move to the Knicks as a step backward; going to a team that is in the process of being built from scratch, and full of players that will likely not have prior experience playing together. Remember the Knicks have nine unrestricted free agents next season, meaning a very different team after the end of this year.
Not to mention, the Knicks are not the only team who are going to be vying for free agents next season. There are plenty of other teams interested in making runs at the top players and the Knicks are definitely not the best looking option right now. Making the team worse does nothing but lower their status.
Comments
You don't seem to understand the situation with mcgrady. The knicks are interested in him so that they can dump curry and/ or jefferies contracts in exchange for mcgrady's expiring one. So, the interest in him has little to do with what he can contribute on the court this season
You don't seem to understand the situation with mcgrady. The knicks are interested in him so that they can dump curry and/ or jefferies contracts in exchange for mcgrady's expiring one. So, the interest in him has little to do with what he can contribute on the court this season
Paul doesn't seem to understand the situation with McGrady either. Curry and Jefferies both have player options next year so their contracts probably aren't going to expire until after the 2010-2011 season since I fully expect them both to exercise their options.
Houston will likely make a run at players like Marcus Camby, Rudy Gay, Amare Stoudamire, or Chris Bosh with the cap space freed from McGrady's contract.
Ok, well I never said that the move would make sense for Houston. I was just expressing what the Knicks motivation would be in pursuing this trade. As for the authors response about the Knicks keeping players and not moving them--If Curry can prove to be an effective option at center, then I would be in favor of the Knicks potentially keeping him, but at this point I can't see banking the future on Eddy Curry. Also, this business about the Knicks needing to provide a winning team for the 2010 free agents is totally overrated. If teh knicks can actually move Curry and Jefferies contratcs they will have more than 40 million dollars to spend in free agency. What that means is that the knicks would be able to sell the prospect of teaming two big free agents--or even three top free agents--thereby making the team an instant contender. For instance, they could sign Bosh, Joe Johnson and re-sign David Lee--and then find a viable point guard in the free agency class or via trade. One example
That was just one modest example that makes the team much better than they are now, giving the Knicks a lineup of C-Bosh, PF-Lee, SF-Gallinari, SG-Johnson, and PG to be determined. Then there are the dream scenarios, which aren't as far fetched as some people think. With that much money to work with, they can sell the idea of two stud free agents teaming up, and bringing in a Key--but cheaper--complimentary player or two. For example, Lebron, Johnson, and Camby or Okur. Or Lebron, Bosh and DAvid Lee. or Lebron, Nowitzki, Lee and find a capable point guard. So, my point is that if the Knicks can dump Curry and Jeffries salaries, even with the projected low salary cap for the league, the knicks would have over 40 million to work with making anything possible. Lastly, saying that free agents won't come without giving reasons, doesn't hold water. Money talks, so do the bright lights of NYC, and if the Knicks have enough dough to offer contracts to two stars, then they have a chance
Think of what the Celtics pulled off 2 yrs ago. Celtics was going to be built from scratch (not as bad knicks) but they made trades and got KG and Ray allen, then a championship. KG and Allen came to Celtics. Why wouldnt it work the same way for the knicks?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!