Re: Bremer makes his move

["hironaka@xxxxxxxxx"<hironaka@xxxxxxxxx>]

> ---------- Initial message -----------
> Didn't he play very well against the C's 
> > last season? I seem to remember about 29 points and 
double digit 
> > rebounds, as we had no answer for him inside. 


JB I was thinking exactly the same thing after the Knicks 
game this weekend. Vin Baker played well against us, and 
now he's playing well against them. If he keeps it up, 
you never know with that guy Layden.

A trade would allow Boston to re-sign Walker in 2005, 
without blowing up the cap thanks to Baker.

The last thing the Knicks should do, frankly, is try to 
get all the way out of salary cap jail the hard way. The 
team is such a financial basket case (96 million payroll 
NEXT summer) that its a clear dead end trying to 
progressively shed salary for the sake of cap 
flexibility. Even getting to within 20 million above the 
cap would require fans to suffer seasons of terrific pain 
and disruption, with zero salary cap benefit in return.

What the Knicks should do instead is aim to get a lot of 
bad contracts that expire in the same year or two. Then 
restart from there.

And if they have a deal with David Stern to reward them 
in the LeBron James sweepstakes, then now is the time to 
move Sprewell and get a center better than Doleac to 
complement McDyess.

I don't like Sprewell, but at least he's a tradeable 
commodity and a fantastic defender.

Knicks fans would never go for Baker for Sprewell. He's 
so popular.

So if the Celtics think Vin Baker is a complete loss 
after this season(which I don't), then the fastest way 
out of the situation is to trade him for Luc Longley 
(he's retired, but on the books) and Travis Knight. 

Or even Antonio McDyess straight up, if he has another 
medical setback(or else the Knicks wouldn't trade him).

All three players are off the books after next season. It 
wouldn't surprise me if the Knicks said yes to that kind 
of deal, even this summer after we've gotten a full test 
drive out of Vin Baker. 

To the Knicks, what's another contract expiring in the 
second half of the decade? Even after all those guys 
clear the cap two-years from now, the Knicks still have 
six guys earning between 6 million and the max.

And to Boston, what did we really give up for Baker in 
the first place? Hardly anything, if you already consider 
Shammond for Kenny a wash for the Celtics system. It 
wasn't a bad trade, personnel wise.

This type of housecleaning scenario is something I could 
picture if Chris Wallace gets fired. 

But bear in mind that trading Vin Baker won't clear real 
cap maneuverability, anymore than holding on to Kenny 
Anderson and Potapenko would have. It will merely keep 
ownership safe from luxury taxation, while re-signing 
Walker. That's all you get, apart from the satisfaction 
of seeing Baker fail as expected.

And I'll say again that if you look around the league, 
there are plenty of Vin Baker type max contracts 
scattered around on even the best-run teams. 

Boston has a first place team with a middle-of-the-pack 
payroll. That's what we're basically complaining about.

The Knicks roster has half-a-dozen Vin Bakers contracts 
on it. They owe Larry Johnson more than 17 million. Allan 
Houston+Shandon Anderson will be paid a combined 30 
million dollars in the 2007 season. The Nets still owe 
Dikembe 54 million dollars, about the same as his actual 
age.














-------------------
L'e-mail gratuit pas comme les autres.
NOMADE.FR, pourquoi chercher ailleurs ?