Knicks to keep an eye on Chris Webber?

Double-K · Oct 31, 2004

Contender or pretender?

Knicks tip off season with lots of questions

BY FRANK ISOLA
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER

James L. Dolan again will spend more money on his players than any NBA owner this season, so if nothing else, the Madison Square Garden chairman has earned the right to dream a little.

On Friday, Dolan actually talked about the Knicks being a championship team in the very near future, which is something the Garden boss never said when Patrick Ewing was dominating the paint in New York. Apparently, it's taken Isiah Thomas only 10 months to turn Dolan into a true believer.

"You can't say it's going to be a long time because we have Isiah Thomas at the helm," Dolan said on WFAN's "Mike and the Mad Dog" program. "If you take a look at what he's done with this team since he's come on and the amount of improvement he's made, if he can just make as much improvement in the team (this) year that he's made in the last year then you would have to say to me that this will be a championship team."

Dolan has tickets to sell, which might explain his optimism. Even the most ardent Knick followers don't really believe their team is closing in on a championship. Most fans gladly would accept a trip to the second round of the playoffs, which is somewhere the Knicks haven't been since 2000.

Over the past three seasons the Knicks have won 30, 37 and 39 games, respectively, and have reached the postseason only once. They are certainly not a lock to win more than 41 games this season, which still may be enough to earn the Atlantic Division title.

On Wednesday, the Knicks open the 2004-05 season in Minnesota. They are soft at center and overloaded at shooting guard and small forward. Those are just some of the questions surrounding the Knicks and whether they are the legitimate contenders Dolan claims they are.

<LI>Will Lenny Wilkens survive the season? Most of the speculation regarding Wilkens' job security has been generated by Phil Jackson, Thomas and now Dolan. Wilkens, a Hall of Fame coach and player, deserves better. When Dolan was asked on Friday about Thomas pining to coach, he revealed that he would not stand in Thomas' way.

"I think Isiah makes good decisions for the team," he said. "If someday Isiah thinks that it's a good decision for him to coach, I'd probably (support the move)."

Such a move would not be surprising or unprecedented. Remember, the Garden's other tenant, the Rangers, were coached up until February by their team president, Glen Sather.

By his own admission, Thomas is more hands-on than most executives in the league. He is the face of the organization, and plenty of executives around the league are convinced Thomas will take over the coaching duties at some point this season.

As team president, Thomas has made a few internal moves that were necessary - banning all non-essential basketball personnel from the locker room and imposing a dress code, even on team charters to away games.

Other moves could be construed as undermining Wilkens' authority. It was Thomas who decided that the team will conduct game-day practices at the Garden, even though most of the players live near the team's training facility in Greenburgh, N.Y. Needless to say, some players aren't thrilled with the idea.

Pat Riley was the last Knicks coach to regularly hold game-day practices in Manhattan. But the one significant difference is that Riley was the coach. And who better than the coach to gauge the team's temperature each day and decide when and where it should practice?

It is also still debatable whether Shandon Anderson is being buried on the Knicks' bench because Wilkens doesn't think he can help or because Anderson had a highly publicized falling-out with Thomas.

Thomas has never tried to hide the fact that he loved coaching the Pacers and that coaching is in his blood. He will coach again one day, either here or somewhere else. That being said, Thomas also has given Wilkens a grace period by saying that a 10-10 record after 20 games would be satisfactory.

<LI>Can Thomas make any more big moves? No one knows better than Isiah that to emerge as a contender the Knicks need a legitimate superstar, preferably a big man. The best formula for the Knicks is to follow the one used by Miami last season: hope that several key players - Tim Thomas, Jamal Crawford, Stephon Marbury - overachieve and then use some of them to land a front-line big man.

Miami's success allowed the Heat to turn Lamar Odom, Caron Butler and Brian Grant into Shaquille O'Neal. Look for the Knicks to monitor Chris Webber's progress in Sacramento as well as Antoine Walker's in Atlanta. Vince Carter is also on Thomas' radar.

<LI>Will Allan Houston make a major contribution? He'd better if the Knicks want to advance to the second round. Houston has an impressive playoff resume: two conference finals and one NBA Final. More importantly, no one in the organization - Dolan, Thomas or Wilkens - knows what it takes to win in New York better than Houston.

Originally published on October 31, 2004 http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/247980p-212400c.html

see? I told you Knicks won't back off from a crazy, nonsense contract......Now don't get me wrong, all you Webber-haters or Webber-lovers, I'm not saying that we should or should not trade him, I'm just saying, if they wanna trade, the Knicks most likely would be the only one team to do that....

Bricklayer · Oct 31, 2004

if you reread the article and note the statement: it was this Knicks writer saying the Knicks would probably be keeping an eye on Webber. That's an old pattern. NY sportwriter's have always generated a healthy percentage fo the Webber rumors in the league regardless of what the Knicks have or haven't said or been in a position to do.

Its not impossible to conceive of --the Knicks are Big Contracts R' Us. But the devil is always in the details. If Webb is still a franchse player, why would we want to do it? If he's not, why would the Knicks? And then there's the question of value -- the Knicks are of course 2x over the cap. So you trade them Webb's contract, you have to take the same value of contracts back. And as usual the Knicks have little of what we want or need. Maybe Crawford. Maybe Sweetney. Niether or both together is remotely worth a healthy Webb. Neither is likely to be offered for a non-healthy Webb.

sloter · Oct 31, 2004

Just get rid of him. Ask questions later.

LPKingsFan · Oct 31, 2004

Bricklayer said:

if you reread the article and note the statement: it was this Knicks writer saying the Knicks would probably be keeping an eye on Webber. That's an old pattern. NY sportwriter's have always generated a healthy percentage fo the Webber rumors in the league regardless of what the Knicks have or haven't said or been in a position to do.

Its not impossible to conceive of --the Knicks are Big Contracts R' Us. But the devil is always in the details. If Webb is still a franchse player, why would we want to do it? If he's not, why would the Knicks? And then there's the question of value -- the Knicks are of course 2x over the cap. So you trade them Webb's contract, you have to take the same value of contracts back. And as usual the Knicks have little of what we want or need. Maybe Crawford. Maybe Sweetney. Niether or both together is remotely worth a healthy Webb. Neither is likely to be offered for a non-healthy Webb.

I guess the perception is that Knicks management has done stupid enough deals in the past, so they could be fooled into taking a less than stellar Webb.

VF21 · Oct 31, 2004

It has been said so many times it's virtually impossible to figure out why people don't think about this:

IF Chris Webber is healthy and able to perform as a "legitimate superstar," which is what the Knicks are desperately looking for, the KINGS would be insane to get rid of him.

If Chris Webber isn't about to perform as a "legitimate superstar," which is what the Knicks are desperately looking for, the KNICKS won't want him.

Any questions?

HndsmCelt · Oct 31, 2004

Brick and VF21, give it up the irrational "Trade Webber Now!" contenginat has never worried about rational thinking and don't expect them to start after posting 100 times or 1,000 time the reality of his untradeabliy or the logic behind it. They don't see it, and whats more, they don't care. The sad fact is that most of the folks screeming trade Webber would be the most lost if he were gone. Then who would they have to blame? Adelman I suppose.

peja16 · Oct 31, 2004

VF21 said:

Maybe noone is thinking about it because your point is wrong. Saying it would be 'insane' of the Kings to do it is absurd. And what does it take for Chris Webber to be a 'legitimate superstar'? You're views on what a superstar is obviously different then mine.

Chris Webber has been relatively healthy for a while, and only had 1 year where he basically did nothing. And where has that gotten us?

And remember, Chris Webber is not a stat-sheet. He has more baggage on him than 80% of the league, not to mention his horrid contract. He could go down with a career injury any day, he is one of the most risky deals in the league.

The one year Webb looked like he might lead us to a championship, he crumbled while going for an alley-oop, before even leaving the ground. He was then out for half the following season, and came back justy in time to screw it up.

Anyone who says he is 'untradeable' from our perspective after witnessing these past two years is horribly biased.

fakie · Oct 31, 2004

i've gotten so numb to what the meida "think would happen" and they don't surprise me anymore.

sure, webber can go to new york and peja can go to chicago.
maybe they'll partner up and open a bagel shop.

VF21 · Oct 31, 2004

peja16 said:

Did I say he was "untradeable"? NO. What I said was, in reference to the Knicks in this instance, pretty clear.

If Webber plays well this year (and this upcoming season is the year being talked about), he will be earning what he's being paid and the Kings won't be likely to trade him. What part of that says "untradeable"?

If Webber DOESN'T play well, then a team like the KNICKS aren't going to want to take him. They are looking for a "LEGITIMATE SUPERSTAR." A hobbled Chris Webber would not fit their needs.

So, while the writer - from New York - thinks the Knicks will be watching Webber, and I'm sure they will, he DOESN'T talk about under what conditions the Knicks might be able to actually trade for him. Why? Because they don't have anything to offer us; if he's really good, we aren't going to get rid of him; and if he's really bad, he doesn't meet their needs.

If you look at the whole scenario without bias, what part of what I've just said don't you agree with?

VF21 · Oct 31, 2004

peja16 said:

I wasn't the one who called him a "legitimate superstar."

It's in the article...

You may not like Webber; you may not agree with his actions off the court; etc.

But to deny the man's record is just incredibly (or should I say "horribly") biased.

Bricklayer · Oct 31, 2004

The point is very simple. And very correct. And its got nothing to do with Chris Webber at all.

1) You do NOT trade a superstar if you're trying to win a championship (unless you can get another one in return)
2) You do NOT trade FOR a $17 million a year injury-prone player with years left on his contract UNLESS he's a superstar

Now from those two truisms you get a bit of quandry if, for instance, your primary interest in the Kings is in the glorification of a certain 6'9" sharpshooter via the removal of his competition:

1) The Kings will not trade Chris Webber if he is still a superstar because they want to win a championship.
2) The Knicks (or any other team) will not trade FOR Chris Webber UNLESS he's a still a superstar.
The only way around that little pickle depends on one side or the other being stupid. Now Geoff Petrie is not stupid. So it can be safely assumed that he is not going to trade Chris Webber if he can still perform at a superstar level (for anything less than another superstar, which the Knicks do not have). And so if you really have a hard-on to see Webber gone your last hope has to be a) that Webber IS ruined; and 2) that the Knicks ARE stupid. Which is always possible. But even if they are stupid, they still have very little that we would want. It is beyond pointless to ship Webber's bloated contract and bum knee for Allan Houston's bloated contract and bum knee.

bibbyweb · Oct 31, 2004

sloter said:

Are u on King's side or against them? Or just don't think before posting?

SacKings384 · Oct 31, 2004

What this is basically saying. Is if Webber returns to his old form, the Knicks want him... But that wouldn't work. Because if Webber returns to his old form, the Kings aint trading him for some old hacks with bad contracts... So it wouldn't make sense at all... We don't have Mitch Kupchack at the wheel... We have one of the best GM's in all of the NBA... Don't look for Petrie to be doing ANYTHING that won't help this team... He doesn't fold under pressure, and he certainly won't trade Chris Webber if he's showing he is healthy...

slugking50 · Nov 1, 2004

ZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZz

peja16 · Nov 1, 2004

VF21 said:

1. I didn't notice that "legit superstar" was in the article, It thought was your input, my bad, I retract my previous comments about that.

2. It would not be "insane" to trade him, that's my point. Jamal Crawford and expiring contracts is a superb deal in the eyes of many, myself included. Given the disparity in GM abilities, Petrie could probably get Sweetney too. A logjam would occur with Bibby/Bobby/Jamal, but next year BJ will be 32, and could be looking elsewhere. Crawford is a younger, maybe better Bobby J.

3. Expiring contracts. Their must have been some in the Mutombo deal, or else why would NY do it? Tim Thomas' deal feels like it's been going on forever... if that ends this summer or even next, I'd gladly take it with Crawford. NY probably would too.

4. What is a "hobbled" Chris Webber? Isn't he always somewhat hobbled? If he's a slight improvement over last year, NY would gladly take him, and we would probably trade him. With Webber, it's never an immidiate solution. He could wake up with a broken leg tomorrow and never play again. It is far beyond stat sheets.

As for the untradeable comment, it relates to the "insane" comment. In this statement for example: "if he's really good, we aren't going to get rid of him"

Now, I don't know if you mean NY only, but I'll take that to mean Webber is "untradeable" for players less productive and talented. My point is that is incorrect. A trade involving Webber is never inconcievable, beause there are too many questions with him. He is always tradeable for worse players, if those worse players are younger, cheaper, less demanding, and/or have an expiring contract.

Think of the Stephon Marbury trade. The Suns made out better in the end, no question. My point is that Webber is at the same level, and he could be traded for peanuts, if those peanuts fit the above criteria.

peja16 · Nov 1, 2004

Bricklayer, I think I pretty much adressed your post as well above... except for the part about Peja Stojakovic. I realize my screen name doesn't help me much here (I explaine dit a few times already) but I don't consider myself a Peja homer. In fact, I'd guess that most people didn't even know I was Euro until I mentioned it. I don't think Peja is "God's gift to America", I don't think he a legit MVP, or the key to a championship. I am biased against Webber, but it not because of Peja, or else any credibility I might have been would be shot.

And yes, VF21, "horribly" was the wrong word

Ryle · Nov 1, 2004

peja16 said:

What????

I've read this statement about 10 times and still can't understand it.

Reality is this. The last time Chris was healthy in the playoffs he averaged about 24 points, 12 boards and 7 assists in the WESTERN CONFERENCE FINALS.

I will take that from a power forward any day. I'm excited to see what Chris can bring to the table this year and hopefully he will stay healthy.

Truconfidence · Nov 1, 2004

The Knicks would still trade for him solely for the possibilities of pick and roll come playoff time with him and Marbury. Kurt Thomas feasted off of it last yr. Makes perfect sense for the Knicks even if Webber isnt the Webber of old, they dont need him to reinvent the wheel or save teh franchise they just need another cog in the wheel. with Crawford and Marbury and Tim thomas they have most of what they need. i suppose the bigger question is what can the Kings get back, Sweetney would have to be included, Kurt Thomas also..beyond that what else can they offer up? Pciks probably, but if the Kings wont get suckered into taking Shandon Anderson's contract

this is what i was alluded to in another thread NY is the perfect destination just working out what the Knicks would give back besides the 2 players i named is hard to see

Kingsgurl · Nov 1, 2004

Dayum, we would be a very SMALL team. No way we even think of contending in the West, but I guess that really isn't the goal in this scenario?

peja16 · Nov 1, 2004

Kingsgurl said:

That's true... but Petrie ain't no fool.

And again, this isn't an immidiate advancement deal. If we got expiring contracts, we could sign players, or use them as trade bait. Think of how many GMs would love to take Tim Thomas in the last year of his deal.

This is a good example of Webber's status. It's not just about this year, it's about the next four years. Webber could turn out to be Jamal Mashburn, or he could win MVP the next three years, but one is more likely than the other. Any trade with NY would probably be a short-term loss ala the Suns, but look at them now. And if Webber does go down, which wouldn't be surprising, we would be left with four years and $80 mil and still be a small team.

Truconfidence · Nov 1, 2004

peja16 said:

1. I didn't notice that "legit superstar" was in the article, It thought was your input, my bad, I retract my previous comments about that.

2. It would not be "insane" to trade him, that's my point. Jamal Crawford and expiring contracts is a superb deal in the eyes of many, myself included. Given the disparity in GM abilities, Petrie could probably get Sweetney too. A logjam would occur with Bibby/Bobby/Jamal, but next year BJ will be 32, and could be looking elsewhere. Crawford is a younger, maybe better Bobby J.

3. Expiring contracts. Their must have been some in the Mutombo deal, or else why would NY do it? Tim Thomas' deal feels like it's been going on forever... if that ends this summer or even next, I'd gladly take it with Crawford. NY probably would too.

4. What is a "hobbled" Chris Webber? Isn't he always somewhat hobbled? If he's a slight improvement over last year, NY would gladly take him, and we would probably trade him. With Webber, it's never an immidiate solution. He could wake up with a broken leg tomorrow and never play again. It is far beyond stat sheets.

As for the untradeable comment, it relates to the "insane" comment. In this statement for example: "if he's really good, we aren't going to get rid of him"

Now, I don't know if you mean NY only, but I'll take that to mean Webber is "untradeable" for players less productive and talented. My point is that is incorrect. A trade involving Webber is never inconcievable, beause there are too many questions with him. He is always tradeable for worse players, if those worse players are younger, cheaper, less demanding, and/or have an expiring contract.

Think of the Stephon Marbury trade. The Suns made out better in the end, no question. My point is that Webber is at the same level, and he could be traded for peanuts, if those peanuts fit the above criteria.

I concur...this post is right on. Btu all this has to do with if the season doesnt look promising of course, no one is suggesting if the Kings are Top 4 in the West to do anything.

Kingsgurl · Nov 1, 2004

peja16 said:

That's true... but Petrie ain't no fool.

And again, this isn't an immidiate advancement deal. If we got expiring contracts, we could sign players, or use them as trade bait. Think of how many GMs would love to take Tim Thomas in the last year of his deal.

This is a good example of Webber's status. It's not just about this year, it's about the next four years. Webber could turn out to be Jamal Mashburn, or he could win MVP the next three years, but one is more likely than the other. Any trade with NY would probably be a short-term loss ala the Suns, but look at them now. And if Webber does go down, which wouldn't be surprising, we would be left with four years and $80 mil and still be a small team.

So, you are advocating flushing the season now?

peja16 · Nov 1, 2004

Kingsgurl said:

Give the in-depth explanations I've made in this thread, I get the feeling this comment is more about making me look like a fool/blind hater than a real question.

fakie · Nov 1, 2004

everyone take a deep breathe......
inhale..........
..................
count to 3.......
......
.....................
exhale.............
......................

now, that's better.
how about nobody hating peja and nobody hating webber and we all just wait impatiently for the season opener tomorrow?
chill, it'll be all right.

sloter · Nov 1, 2004

bibbyweb said:

I am strongly on Kings side. If getting rid of 17 million dollars a year contract for "46th player in the league" is not in Kings interest, then I don't know what is. (Not to mention all the other aspects where his presence affected the Kings in a negative way)
The problem is: noone wants him. Noone, not even NY.

With this said, my position on Webber is clear - and I will make no further comments on the issue, but please don't let my intellectual capabilities be a concern of yours. Thank you.

bibbyweb · Nov 1, 2004

sloter said:

I am not questioning ur intellectual capabilities, but your blind hatred. "46th player of the league", with the condition he was in. Come on, even you know that he is much better than that.

You get someone of some value even half of his value, then it would be considerable(not acceptable) but getting rid of him no matter what is ridiculous.

vj9999 · Nov 1, 2004

Getting rid of any of our player if we will get something equal or better in value is not ridiculous. It is all in the best interest of the team. Players come and go, the team stays.

Webber is getting past his prime and that is reality, but even in that condition he is of more value to us than many other players would be. Peja is in his prime, but has it flaws. Would I get rid of him if we could get someone better? You bet.

The only player we can't get rid of is Bibby (and that is only because I want my wife to be happy

).

bibbyweb · Nov 1, 2004

vj9999 said:

The important part is "if we will get something equal or better in value".
What I feel is wrong is "Just get rid of him first, ask questions later."

Elise10 · Nov 1, 2004

These NY "sports"writers don't give up do they? Seems about every 3-6 months they're writing about how Webber should play for the Knicks.

vladetomiller · Nov 1, 2004

bibbyweb said:

I dont think they ranked him 46th based on last year, he didnt play that much last year. But then again who knows what those rankers think

If the knicks want him then maybe its better to trade him now for expiring contracts, yao ming is coming up in FA next year

Knicks to keep an eye on Chris Webber?

Starter

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

Starter

All-Star

Super Moderator Emeritus

Hall of Famer

G-League

Bench

Super Moderator Emeritus

Super Moderator Emeritus

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

Bench

Starter

All-Star

G-League

G-League

Starter

G-League

Starter

G-League

G-League

Starter

G-League

Bench

Starter

Bench

Starter

Bench

Starter

Bench