Addressing the Rumors
...and not the ones about me cross-dressing. Those are completely without basis. Who are you to judge, anyway? It's my journey.
No, the rumors we're discussing are hard to ignore, and they center primarily around the one guy I wish they didn't: David Lee. From what I can tell, it started with Tommy Dee, who is still all over these rumors that the Blazers seek Lee. Props to TD for the dilligence (at least until we find out that his source is a 14 year-old fantasy owner scheming to make his fourth round pick of Jerryd Bayless pay off because not finishing first in his league has a price: Blood.). Anyway, let me summarize said rumors for you. The Blazers want David Lee. The Knicks want literally any human being with a beating heart, and especially if he can play defense. Possible returns include Travis Outlaw, Jerryd Bayless and/or Sergio Rodriguez, Channing Frye and in a longshot but oft-rumored three-team deal, Marcus Camby. (For what it's worth, Marc Berman thoroughly bashes the legitimacy and blog roots of these rumors, and then floats a "BLAZERS EYEING CURRY" rumor of his own. Which is more believable. Because the Blazers would obviously want an injury-prone 300-pounder who doesn't rebound to shore up their awful front line of LaMarcus Aldridge and Greg Oden. And it's in all caps.).
To be fair, the most recent news are these reactions from Donnie Walsh, who called the rumors a "fabrication" and shot them down completely. So perhaps these particular rumors can be left alone. Nonetheless, Lee's name just keeps coming up, and unless you believe Mike D'Antoni's explanation ("cause thats who everybody wants"), it seems likely that the Knicks have been on the phones about him. Plus, Walsh is pure business, and he'd probably tell us that the moon landing was a fabrication if he thought it best suited his Knicks dealings (ten points if you can come up with a scenario in which denying the moon landing allows an NBA trade to pass).
Please don't go.
This all terrifies me. I'll admit that I'm a silly, starry-eyed homer, and really believe that Lee means more to this team as a player than as an asset. His skillset, his energy, and his unrelenting loyalty to this team should not be overlooked. Especially that last one. Over the last three years, nearly every Knick has been caught complaining, beefing, or voicing some desire to just give up and move elsewhere. Not Lee. Despite fluctuating minutes, an indefinite starting job, and several roster moves that hindered his development, Lee's kept his head up, his mouth shut, and his play at top level. To me, that's the kind of guy a winning team needs on the court and in the locker room, and I'd give Lee a long-term deal ASAP. I understand that the goals are to make some preposterous big-name signings, but the last few years in Cleveland have shown that you've gotta fill in the cracks to make a star-studded team matter. What better guy than Lee?
Right now, the Knicks need defense, and I get that. It's just that they have more roster room and flexibility than ever before. Why waste it? There's got an open roster spot, Malik Rose's expiring deal, and some Cuttino Mobley-related trade exception (which I still don't understand) to work with. Why not make a mini-deal or raid the D-League? Anything. I'd do anything to keep David Lee on the Knicks. I'm actually so far gone that I'd turn down most trades for superstars to keep Lee on the Knicks. That's how big the P&T basketboner is for Lee.
So, now that you've heard my Lee-loving spiel, I've gotta put it to you guys. Is it time to trade Lee? Am I overrating his worth? (Yes, but how much?) Does he fit the Knicks' long term goals? Speak up in the comments.
0 recs |
15 comments
|
Comments
i'm with you
seeing lee in any uni other than new york’s will make me like this team a little bit less. i think he’s literally the only player from the old roster i don’t want to see go. he’s a double double machine at pf, paired with a defensive/shot blocking big man the knicks would be set in the frontcourt (not curry.)
by jerrod mustaf's ghost on Jan 6, 2009 11:54 AM EST reply actions
landing on the moon is out of the question
you can’t trade lee. he’s the only guy that is worth having around in 2010.
with wilson and nate being a not so close second. wilson is ours already. so that’s nice. calimari will be around if he ever unbreaks his back.
also lee fits in nicely with the oh-ten free agent list we desire. doesn’t interfere with anyone’s style of play, and in fact- get this- the guy complements the superstar players of today’s game.
just my stinking opinion though
Bayless
Knicks are incredibly low on guards
Duhon is an 2010 free agent
Lee is an 09 free agent
By getting rid of lee and recieving Bayless the Knicks are going to have even more cap space in 2010 because they wouldnt have to resign Lee or Duhon (bayless to the point while he can play 2 now)
Right now Lee is better than Bayless but Bayless is young with a ton of potential, the Knicks are Looking toward the future, that is exactly what getting Bayless would do, build for the future. by 2010 bayless mey be a more desireable teamete for the FA’s than Lee (he’s alot like LeBrons current teammate Mo Williams, and a better version of D-Wades mario Chalmers).
If there’s no Bayless no deal but bayless and Camby together would help the knicks
Keep David Lee
Hey Seth, I agree totally with what you say, David Lee’s pluses far outweigh the negatory defensive rap. He is allstar-to-be awaiting to emerge as the best PF in the league. We lost Crawford/Randolph for 2010, let’s keep a keeper and get Camby.
“Lee means more to this team as a player than as an asset. His skillset, his energy, and his unrelenting loyalty to this team should not be overlooked… that’s the kind of guy a winning team needs on the court and in the locker room, and I’d give Lee a long-term deal ASAP…. I’d do anything to keep David Lee on the Knicks. I’m actually so far gone that I’d turn down most trades for superstars to keep Lee on the Knicks. That’s how big the P&T basketboner is for Lee.”
You speak the truth! I believe David Lee fits the Knicks’ long term goals, he fits the Knicks mold of hustle and good ‘tude. I’d be happy to see him signed as a Knickerbocker-for-life. “basketboner for DLee” classic!
Great post man!
WC
Camby
Lee
Harrington
Chandler
Duhon
um
awaiting to emerge as the best PF in the league
^^
Woah there….Lee is awesome as shit but let us all attempt to curb the hyperbole during these discussions lol
reppin NYC, and my clothing line, Recruit Zero !
www. recruitzero.com !!!
by Prezs2ReprsntMe on Jan 6, 2009 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
whoa
Harrington has stepped up as the leader of this team, something we havent had in years.
Lee is a hustle & heart player he brings a ton of energy to the team and is and an important asset but look at his #’s, good but he is expendable espessially because they will have to resign him this year
camby wont come without losing lee thats just the way it goes, the deal probably has port sending someone to LA to appease the clippers
i heart Lee
but i doubt the Knicks will choose to keep him and Nate. it’ll probably be one or the other (or maybe none?) i really don’t want to choose.
Chandler is an obvious keep (for 2010 that is), and his contract isn’t an issue so he’s not even really in the discussion. Fredrick Weis er, the Italian guy, will be around too. Having a double-double machine like Lee would be a great fit, should they bring in LeBron or anybody else. Lee is the kind of glue guy that you find on Championship-caliber teams, which is what the Knicks want to be in 2010-11. Nate has been a great energy guy (i love cliches!) and would be a big boost off the bench or as a spot starter – kind of like Starks was as a sixth man early on.
there are advantages to keeping both Lee and Nate. the only problem is that there’s no way to part with Curry unless they get rid of one of the two.
Ewing with the step...YES! and the foul!
by Anthony Masons Haircut on Jan 6, 2009 12:22 PM EST reply actions
Oh how I wish
there were a way to get rid of Curry without dumping somebody else. But hey, maybe we’re nearing the dawn of a Curry renaissance.
In any event, I’d give up Robinson before Lee. It would hurt, sure, but not nearly as much.
Posting and Toasting: Blogging Robin Hood-Style Since 2007
i'd keep them both
and then of course the new york media would lambaste me for ruining our chances to lebron. and then of course i would pull off the deal of the century when i sent eddy curry and his expiring contract (aka jared jeffries) to the cavs in a sign and trade forced by lebron.
hate to say this
Lebron aint leaving the cavs
I would love to get him but the situation in cleveland is to good to leave for a chance to play in NY with Bosh Wade Amare ect.
BUT the only reason he would leave would have to be because he feels underapreciated in Cleveland and wants to go to a bigger market
SO if he does leave it WILL be to the Knicks (sorry Nets, Pistons, and Washington Nationals)
I say trade lee ONLY IF
certain things happen.
Bayless is the only one on that squad worth a shit , who they would ocnsider trading. However, fuck that shit. This is what I Do:
Sign Lee to the extension. Let Bayless get some PT out there. If they really want Lee, stop hiding bayless on the fucking bench, i don’t give a shit if he’s 19 and has theoretical high potential. We basically have NO footage of him getting extended minutes in professional basketball. If he plays and proves that he has a future, i would CONSIDER trading Lee…
Frye, Rodriguiez, Rudy….fuck em all. All are decent, but have no place on our team in 2010, which Lee does.
reppin NYC, and my clothing line, Recruit Zero !
www. recruitzero.com !!!

by 
















