Knicks want Rudy.

"The Knicks have made it pretty clear to Portland that any discussion involving Lee would have to start with Rudy Fernandez ($1.1M with team opt in 2010). So far, the Blazers have been reluctant to include Fernandez and, after signing Miller, are more likely to want to involve Steve Blake ($4.9M) and Travis Outlaw ($4M). This works for Lee because it's around the type of salary range he's looking for ($9M) and it works for the Knicks' 2010 plan because both contracts are expiring deals.

Plus, while Outlaw gives scoring punch on the wing, Blake would give some needed depth in the backcourt. But, from what I understand, so far the Knicks are not interested if Fernandez is not in the deal. Lee is a valuable asset and the Knicks aren't interested in just giving him away for a pair of expiring deals."-Newsday

over 2 years ago Nick Van Excellent 29 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

And I'm guessing...

Rudy wants the Knicks.

by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 30, 2009 7:46 AM PDT reply actions

You beat me to the post

I was thinking about linking a post to this but got sidetracked.

It raises a couple of good thoughts to mull over. If this was a move involving Lee/Rudy then we would become solid at PF but would then be thinner at SC. What are the trade offs there?

I was just becoming comfortable with Miller/Blake. If the deal would be Blake/Doubtlaw for Lee then we would again be thinner at PG.

What’s best for the team and which move would hurt us as a team the least?

by Gaz on Aug 30, 2009 7:50 AM PDT reply actions

I have no idea.

But it might make sense long term if:

a.) The Blazers aren’t sure they can keep Joel.

b.) The Blazers aren’t sure they can keep Rudy happy.

David Lee gives you some insurance if Przybilla leaves or Oden doesn’t pan out. I mean really, if Joel walks it would be a disaster. Having Lee hedges your bets and gives you more room to work trades. Obviously the Blazers feel the need for another premium big man or we wouldn’t have taken a shot at Milsap and wouldn’t still be talking to the Knicks. I’m not sure Lee is an ideal fit, but it’s not like decent 4/5’s grow on trees.

I would do it. I like Rudy, but it’s a lot easier to find a good backup SG than it is to find a legit big man.

by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 30, 2009 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions

No doubt

Rudy would be fun to watch in the D’Antoni system. I’m hoping Rudy sees a deep finals run with Portland as more attractive.

Long term Przybilla questions just make me scratch my head more. I think we really need to keep him. His next contract would be cheaper than a new Lee contract?

by Gaz on Aug 30, 2009 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions

Maybe.

But he’s also 30 and historically very injury prone.

by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 30, 2009 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions

I don't get the appeal of Lee

He can rebound. He can get garbage offense. But isn’t he a terrible defender? He’s certainly no Joel. I sincerely hope all the stuff about Portland being after him is just smoke.

by meru on Aug 30, 2009 8:12 AM PDT reply actions

Yeah.

I’m not in love with him. He is a pretty good offensive player even if they don’t run a lot of plays for him. Much more polished than Joel or Oden. He’s not a good defender, which is a problem. He can play both the 4 and 5 though, which is a huge bonus.

Who knows. I doubt it happens, but I think it’s still a possibility.

by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 30, 2009 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions

My friend Ben is a die-hard knicks fan and says Lee's overall interior defense is adequate, but gets murdered on the pick-and roll.

by dario argento on Aug 31, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Oh Newsday...

There's Gotta Be More To Life

by Norsktroll on Aug 30, 2009 8:36 AM PDT reply actions

Right

The Knicks can’t shed Mobley’s salary by waiving him. If this guy’s sources told them that, then they are worthless. But of course, he might just be making that part up — or maybe the part about the Blazers pursuing Lee, too.

The Knicks want Rudy? Well, that’s a surprise. Most of the league would love to have him — a great 3 point threat, potential to be much more, and at a very small cost for three more years. That part, at least, is true — they would love to have Rudy.

David Lee doesn’t really want to come to Portland, so we don’t really want him, either.

"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue

by jscot on Aug 30, 2009 9:28 AM PDT reply actions

Yeah, Cuttino Mobley will rot away on the inactive list this season; that'll allow the New York Knicks ...

to collect the insurance payments on his contract. As a result, Mobley will be neither released nor traded.

Stupid people have stupid ideas.

by AK1984 on Aug 30, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Let me rescind the last part of my comment, for Cuttino Mobley may very well be dealt elsewhere.

Mobely certainly won’t be released, though, since his contract is 80% insured and keeping him on the inactive list for the entire 2009-2010 season will save some team $7,600,000.

Stupid people have stupid ideas.

by AK1984 on Aug 31, 2009 2:12 AM PDT up reply actions

I think that's right

But he can’t be medically retired, so waiving him won’t cut luxury tax, so the author is just wrong on that point.

"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue

by jscot on Aug 31, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, Cuttino Mobley can't be medically retired like the Portland Trail Blazers wanted to ...

do with Darius Miles. Rather, Mobley’s situation in New York is akin to what occured with Raef LaFrentz in Portland last season.

Stupid people have stupid ideas.

by AK1984 on Aug 31, 2009 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Precisely

So he has potentially high trade value to a team looking to save money, but no value if waived.

"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue

by jscot on Sep 1, 2009 2:45 AM PDT up reply actions

The two questions for me here are:

Is Roy or LMA more injury prone?

Is Lee or Rudy better at basketball by age?

Since I think it is more likely Roy gets injured (like Wade) than LMA, Roy’s backup is more valuable.

Rudy is clearly (to me) the better basketball player by age so he is more valuable.

In either case Rudy is more valuable to the Blazers than Lee, so NY would have to offer us something beyond Lee for Rudy. Something they can’t do.

*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>

by staylost on Aug 30, 2009 10:27 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs

Lee is alright but

if we have to give up rudy, i say NO DEAL!

Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Rudy, Batum, Outlaw, Webster, Bayless, Blake, Miller, Joel... Holy crap!

by axel360 on Aug 30, 2009 11:01 AM PDT reply actions

I thought the Blazers walked away from Lee

when they decided on Miller instead. Sounded like KP said it wasn’t a good fit so is this old news or a revisit? They can’t have Rudy!

by somanluna on Aug 30, 2009 11:53 AM PDT reply actions

Trade our most entertaining player to watch?

Are you guys crazy?!

by bbails on Aug 30, 2009 1:10 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs

Rec!!!!!!!!!

Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave

Also: COMCAST SUCKS!

by TwoDeep on Aug 31, 2009 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions

I think that would be Roy for me.

and then Miller, Aldridge, Batum, and then maybe Rudy.

by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 31, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions

Miller entertaining?

More so than Batum and Rudy. All I can say NVE is that you have high expectations.

Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave

Also: COMCAST SUCKS!

by TwoDeep on Aug 31, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't think my expectations are all that high, but I have watched a bunch of 76'er games the past couple season.

Miller is truly awesome in an old school sort of way. I like post moves, I enjoy fundamentals. I appreciate the way Miller drives to the basket, sort of like Roy in the way it looks slow but somehow he makes it work with creativity and trickery. He’s the craftiest of crafty veterans.

by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 1, 2009 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't think Lee will agree to a sign and trade with the Blazers.

He wants to start and play 30+ minutes. There’s only about 10-12 minutes available behind LMA. He’d want another 20 minutes at center. I don’t see him starting at center or getting that much time. Joel is a better defender, and GO has a more important future and needs all the minutes he can stay on the court.

Another large problem with a sign and trade for Lee is that he would be a BYC player. That makes trades very difficult.

For instance, without our $2.7M in cap space, if we traded Outlaw ($3.6M) plus Rudy ($1.2M) for Lee now we could take back $6.1M (125%*$4.8M + 100K). If Lee signed for $6M (he probably wouldn’t) then the Knicks could only take back $3M (because Lee is BYC) * 125% + 100K = $3.85M, so the deal doesn’t work. However, if NY threw in Joe Crawford the deal would just work because Crawford has a minimum salary (0.74M) which counts as an outgoing salary for Knicks but not as incoming salary for Blazers (according to my reading of Larry Coon’s salary cap FAQ #70).

But I wouldn’t trade Rudy in a deal for Lee. He has more value to us than Lee as long as Joel remains here (which I think he will).

A deal that would work, and one that I would do, would be to wait for the salary cap money at the start of the season and then trade Outlaw ($3.6M) plus Bayless ($2.1M) plus use our $2.7M in cap space for Lee ($7.6M) plus Crawford ($0.74M). (Knicks can receive $4.54M * 125% + 100K = $5.8M). We could go as high as $8.4M for Lee’s salary and the deal still works. Crawford’s minimum salary is again necessary to make the deals work.

Lee would probably be ok with that salary, but not the playing time in Portland. I doubt the Knick’s would value Bayless and Outlaw’s expiring contract enough to do the deal. But they are in a pickle because if they want to sign a max player like Wade or Lebron next summer they may have to renounce Lee then to get the cap space they will need (assuming he signs a decent one year deal with them now) to sign one of those guys.

I think the BYC calculations above are correct but if I messed something up I’m sure Storyteller or AK will correct me. :)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 30, 2009 2:31 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Trading for Lee makes no sense

Lee doesn’t need to be on this team. That’s all that needs to be said

"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"

by Magnum on Aug 30, 2009 3:16 PM PDT reply actions

I would become a Knicks fan...

well sorta…

by In Walks Rudy on Aug 30, 2009 4:46 PM PDT reply actions

I agree

I’d be Blazers fan first and then a Knicks fan (ok, maybe just Rudy).

by somanluna on Aug 30, 2009 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions

I’d hate this deal, but Rudy would make an amazing wing in a D’Antonio offense. I’d pay just to see him play on that team for a week as long as we could get him back.

"...the primary focus of all obstacles is to induce labor, so progression can be born." - LiL C

by idoltime on Aug 31, 2009 8:17 AM PDT reply actions