When Jon Heyman’s headline says one thing and his piece says another

2000: The year the blog forgot
On the lack of pitching depth

Toward the end of the day yesterday, Sports Illustrated’s Jon Heyman wrote a piece with the headline, “Yankees not in ballpark for Lowe, Burnett.” The article wasn’t quite as accurate as that though:

The Yankees intended to make four-year offers on A.J. Burnett and Derek Lowe for about $14-15 million annually (in other words, close to $60 million each). However, Burnett’s agent, Darek Braunecker, is telling teams he’s only considering five-year proposals, and Lowe’s agent, Scott Boras, apparently also suggested the Yankees aren’t in the ballpark.

Well, maybe metaphorically, the Yanks “aren’t in the ballpark” these players’ agents want them to be. However, the Yankees are set to make opening offers to two of their free agent targets. As is custom in a negotiation, the agents will then counteroffer.

It’s fun to dump on the Yankees. They’re the big bad rich guys who want to buy up everyone. But it’s less fun to stretch the truth about a contract negotiation. Don’t let Heyman’s piece scare you. The Yanks and Burnett or Lowe are simply involved in a business deal, and that’s how these play out, bad baseball metaphors or not.

2000: The year the blog forgot
On the lack of pitching depth
  • TurnTwo

    It’s all about moving internet traffic.

  • radnom

    Don’t let it scare me?
    I wish the headline were accurate.

    The only pitcher I want to hear about not named CC is Sheets.

    • Bo

      Because Sheets is always healthy and a workhorse right?

      He’s also dominated in the AL East, right?

      • Thomas

        No free agent pitcher fits all those categories, so I guess we shouldn’t sign any.

      • Chris

        Neither Lowe nor Burnett have dominated in the AL East either, and only Lowe is healthy.

        I would prefer someone with an injury history, but who pitches well when healthy, over someone who’s just mediocre.

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

          I would prefer someone with an injury history, but who pitches well when healthy, and someone who would accept a 3 year deal over a 4 or 5 year one, over someone who’s just mediocre.

          Hence, Sheets > Burnett > Lowe

        • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

          Burnett is far from mediocre.

          • radnom

            I think he was refering to Lowe.

            If you’re going to go with injury prone guys I can’t see why you would take Burnett over Sheets.

            If someone else wants to give Sheets 4 garenteed years, no big deal, let him go there.

            • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

              because Burnett and Sheets are similar pitchers on a rate basis and Burnett is a much better bet to be healthy??

              they have had almost identical careers to this point:

              http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp2.cgi?I=burnea.01:A.J.+Burnett&st=career

              before people flip out, i fully concede that Sheets is the superior pitcher. i am just pointing out that the gap in perception is much larger than the gap in performance.

              i also concede that Sheets on a 2 year deal is better than Burnett on a 5 year deal. but i have yet to hear a single rumor of any sort of contract parameters for Sheets.

              • radnom

                Actually, look at the last six years and you will see Sheets has been much more durable than Burnett.

                Listen, yeah Sheets isn’t all that much better; he is better but I wouldn’t want Sheets on the same type of deal that Burnett is going to get.
                The only reason Sheets is attractive is because he happened to be injured at the end of his contract year, and for some reason that is giving everyone the impression he is much more injury prone then Burnett but that is just not true; especially if you look at the chance they will both be healthy over the next few years and not just the ’09 season.

                Like I said, if someone else offers Sheets a garenteed 4th year it is easy to walk away, but I think you could get him at 3 with a vesting option.
                Good luck signing Burnett to less than 5 garenteed, at a slightly higher AAV.

                • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

                  The only reason Sheets is attractive is because he happened to be injured at the end of his contract year, and for some reason that is giving everyone the impression he is much more injury prone then Burnett but that is just not true; especially if you look at the chance they will both be healthy over the next few years and not just the ‘09 season.

                  and this is where i disagree with almost everyone here.

                  i think the fact that Sheets, who has been injured in every season since 2004, is currently injured, DOES make him much more injury prone than Burnett going forward.

                  i guess i just place a lot more weight on Sheets’ elbow injury that he has RIGHT AT THIS MINUTE, than i do on Burnett’s elbow injury that he had in 2003.

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                  Had Burnett not gotten reinjured since 2003, I’d agree. But he has. Elbow, shoulder, and back.

                  I’ll agree that Sheets is a bigger injury risk, but Burnett is still a significant injury risk. And therefore, if you can get Sheets on a shorter, less expensive contract, which I think you can, and if you MUST sign another pitcher (which I don’t think you must, but that’s another discussion), sign Sheets.

                • radnom


                  and this is where i disagree with almost everyone here.

                  i think the fact that Sheets, who has been injured in every season since 2004, is currently injured, DOES make him much more injury prone than Burnett going forward.

                  i guess i just place a lot more weight on Sheets’ elbow injury that he has RIGHT AT THIS MINUTE, than i do on Burnett’s elbow injury that he had in 2003.

                  Here is the thing though.
                  They both get injured every single year.
                  Burnett just lucked out and happened to put together a 200 inning walk year, and is going to get rewarded for that with a stupid contract.
                  Sheets got unlucky and is going to have to take a below value deal, because he had an injury at the worst possible time (he still managed 180 innings pitched last year)

                  I’m not going to get fooled by the unfortunate timing of Sheets latest non-major injury…they are both going to have their share of those the next 3-5 years.
                  Which of them is going to pitch more innings over the next three years is anyone’s guess, the only reason I mentioned the past was if you look at their innings pitched over the last six years, Sheets holds up better.

                  The comparison is irrelevant anyway ecause even if Sheets was never born I would not want Burnett for the contract he is going to get.
                  If Burnett was not available, you wouldn’t try to make a three year deal with Sheets?

              • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                but i have yet to hear a single rumor of any sort of contract parameters for Sheets.

                Every single thing on MLBTR says Sheets is getting a 2 or 3 year deal.

                It’s not a smoking gun, just what I’m seeing.

                • radnom

                  It has been really quiet though.

                  I think the Sheets camp is going to lay lowe and let the market set itself before they enter any negotiations.

                • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

                  here is another thing to think about:

                  if Sheets winds up being some sort of bargain, in other words the market is only willing to go to 2 years for less AAV than Burnett, then don’t we think it is very possible that he would just stay in Milwaukee?

                  he loves it there, he is comfortable, and if they lose Sabathia, they could easily afford such a deal.

                  that would make sense to me.

                  but we’ll see.

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                  Good points.

                • ceciguante

                  good points all around on burnett v. sheets.
                  i’d agree with radnom, i’d take sheets for fewer years, b/c that ultimately means less downside from the likely injuries.

                  with moose retiring, all of a sudden the yanks picture changes. even assuming they sign both CC and pettitte — which is far from a lock — they’re looking at.

                  CC (overuse questions)
                  wang (injury questions)
                  joba (injury questions and innings limit)
                  pettitte (age / effectiveness questions)
                  mix of kids (unproven)

                  while i like that rotation, it’s not terribly deep, esp with (hate to say it) rasner out of the picture. so the yanks don’t appear to have tons of leverage when it comes to making offers to burnett and sheets. the league knows they’re simply desperate for starters. [shudder]

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

            I think he was saying Lowe was mediocre.

  • Shamus

    Here are a few interesting rumors to chop on.

    Two different sources citing the idea the Yankees may flip Swisher in a ‘bigger-picture deal’ to the NL. Which would put them right smack middle of the Tex Derby.

    Interesting stuff. But about as believable as the Sox ‘quietly shopping’ Big Pop Out.

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/11/mark-teixeira-1.html

    • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

      this says that the Yankees still have plans to add one more impact bat. that’s somewhat of a relief, even if it’s just a rumor.

      if they add another bat and sign Sabathia and Pettitte, i’d feel pretty good about the team. if they want to sign Burnett too, then i think they would be in even better shape.

      that bat doesn’t HAVE to be Teixeira. could be someone we haven’t thought of yet in a trade.

      • Bo

        I wouldnt doubt they are shopping Ortiz. Who thought they were shopping Nomar? Theo isn’t afraid to take chances. Problem is Ortiz can only go to 14 teams.

        And when you factor in that they won’t trade him within the division, you cut that number down even further.

        • A.D.

          and that the Sox are one of those 14 teams…

          But as you say, if he doesn’t go in the divison, that makes it 9

      • TurnTwo

        yeah, one could actually take that rumor a number of different ways.

        either Cashman plans to spin Swisher in a bigger deal

        or

        now that Cashman has Swisher in the fold, he can move Damon or Matsui to simply clear payroll and sign an impact bat (Teixeira, Dunn for 1B or Manny for DH)

        or

        instead of Swisher getting moved, you could package Nady somewhere, move Swisher to RF, and then, again, sign Teixeira, Dunn for 1B or get back a 1B in the Nady deal.

        or

        Cashman does nothing, and sits on the offense as is, and just signs pitchers to enhance the rotation and check back mid-season 2009 if need be.

    • Chip

      Well the braves line up nicely with the Padres and also would like Swisher? Three way deal with the Yanks sending Swisher to the Braves and pitching to the Padres and getting Peavy? The Braves could throw in Escobar + a few others? I know, it’s all wishful thinking

      • TurnTwo

        but who do the Yankees want in return, from either the Padres or the Braves, to give up Nick Swisher and/or young pitching, other than Jake Peavy himself, who in this type of deal would go to Atlanta?

        maybe a young OF or two from the Braves system?

        • A.D.

          Yeah I would figure if they get in on a 3 team trade they would be picking up offensive prospects that would have gone to SD otherwsie

          • Chip

            I was actually thinking the Yankees getting Peavy

            Yankees give pitching + Swisher, get Peavy
            Braves give outfield prospects + Escobar, get Swisher + pitching
            Padres give Peavy, get outfield and pitching prospects

            I’d imagine that whole deal would be contingent on how much the Yankees would be willing to give up in pitching because Swisher isn’t enough of a return for the Braves to be giving up Escobar. Also, if Escobar + outfielders really wasn’t enough, how can the Yankees really help out? It’s not like we have a whole lot of pitchers with the upside of Hansen.

            I’d be interesting to see how a three team deal with Peavy going to the Braves would look. I mean if the Braves are getting both Swisher and Peavy (the two big pieces), I’d imagine they’d have to give up half their system. We’d probably get a ton of outfield prospects for a ton of pitching prospects. It would all depend on what we send compared to what we get but in theory it’s not a bad idea to trade from strength to cover a weakness

            • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

              this is an interesting idea, but i don’t get how this helps them sign Teixeira.

              Peavy stands to make the same as Burnett will get.

              if they can’t afford Sabathia, Burnett and Teixeira, they can’t afford Sabathia, Peavy, and Teixeira either.

              all it saves them is Swisher’s small contract.

              • Chip

                Peavy, Sabathia and Tex are what, 70 million per year combined? Isn’t that pretty much what came off the books this season? It doesn’t help us get Tex per se but it could give us a rotation of

                CC
                Peavy
                Wang
                Joba/Giese
                Hughes/Aceves/IPK/Coke/ect

                with a lineup of

                Damon
                Jeter
                Tex
                A-Rod
                Matsui
                Posada
                Nady
                Cano
                Gardner/DeJesus?

                The beautiful part is, that entire rotation is under 30 and under control for the next 4ish years. Not only that, but I’m pretty sure it’s not that much more expensive than last year’s rotation

                • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

                  oh, i agree.

                  i am just saying if the Yankees are saying they can’t sign both Sabathia and Teixeira, then i don’t think this changes that stance.

                  whether that stance is just posturing or not remains to be seen.

                • TurnTwo

                  unless what they are saying publically is a total sham, and it was their plan all along to pursue Teixeira with Sabathia… and now they just simply found a way to get Peavy, too, without having to trade Phil Hughes?

                  not likely, but who knows.

  • Chris

    The only thing that would scare me is if his article said the Yankees were prepared to offer a longer or significantly higher AAV deal to either of them.

  • A.D.

    Yeah because the 5 year offers are pouring in for these 2 guys

  • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

    I know this is off topic, but I don’t give a crap, it’s amazing.

    New York Newsday’s Alan Hahn was just quoted on the Max Kellerman show saying the Knicks are swinging a three-way deal with the Warriors and Clippers. Knicks get Al Harrington, Cuttino Mobley, and Tim Thomas for Jamal Crawford, Zach Randolph, and Mardy Collins.

    All three outgoing players have 3 years left on their deals, all three incoming players have two years left. Meaning the Knicks just shaved about 30M off their payroll two offseasons from now, you know, the offseason that LeBron James is due to be a free agent.

    I fucking LOVE Donnie Walsh.

    http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/blog/2008/11/threeway_deal.html

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike A.

      OMG, what is taking LeBron so long to make up his mind? It must mean he doesn’t want to come here!

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

        Well played.

        • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

          i would like my microwave to finish cooking my microwave burrito in fewer minutes of time!

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

            Also, well played.

      • radnom

        He an CC can get a place together maybe.

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

          I think when all this gets sorted out, you and me should get an apartment together!!!

          • radnom

            Sounds good, as long as you’re willing to move up to Boston.
            Maybe we can get a good deal on Manny’s old place.

    • Andy In Sunny Daytona

      LeBron will be playing for Panathinaikos in 2010-2011 for $50 mil a year.

    • E-ROC

      I guess Knicks really want Lebron James, lol. No real value in the return for the Knicks except for shorten contracts. The Knicks could’ve better done better like acquire some young talent. I know this for sure: the Knicks will be shooting a ton of threes.

      • Ivan

        Hey expiring/short contracts are pretty valuable in the NBA. Especially when you are the Knicks who were like centuries over the cap.

        • E-ROC

          Yeah, but who will Lebron be playing with? Wilson Chandler, Nate Robinson, and Gallinari are the only young players on that team. That’s hardly enticing. Of course, the Knicks could draft Blake Griffin next year and a couple of other top ten players. The Knicks will have to put together a better roster for Lebron to want to come to New York.

          • Nady Nation

            Or, they can offer him a max contract, he’ll get the biggest endorsement deal ever known to mankind, AND we’ll have enough money to sign Amare or Bosh (pending this deal). I think he’d gladly come to NY given those circumstances.

          • Ivan

            Well your gonna have draft somebody who’s obviously a stud. Hope Gallinari develop into that very good pt. Forward and etc. I agree the roster is far from being fixed up.

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

            Now that Randolph, Crawford, and Mardy are gone, the Knicks are set up lovely. Think about this: In the summer of 2010, when LeBron hits the market, the Knicks will have:

            Danilo Gallinari and Wilson Chandler still on their rookie scales, plus whomever we draft this coming offseason on a rookie scale, all making peanuts;
            Nate Robinson and David Lee hitting free agency;
            Assloads of expiring money (Mobley, Thomas, Harrington, Q-Rich, Jerome James, Chris Duhon and Anthony Roberson all dissapearing)
            Eddy Curry and Jared Jeffries both entering their final year on their contracts, with 17M between them.

            The Knicks can either:

            1) Resign Lee and Nate, if they improve, and use the 17M of Curry and Jeffries as the sign-and-trade money for a LeBron deal, building around a LeBron-Lee-Nate-Gallinari-Chandler-DraftPickXXX core, or
            2) Let Lee and Nate walk, use the 17M sign and trade money to grab some other NBA superstar hitting the market (Chris Bosh? Dwayne Wade?) and sign LeBron straight up, with a LeBron-Bosh-Gallinari-Chandler-DraftPickXXX core, or
            3) Find takers for Curry and Jeffries deals sometime in the next two years (not nearly as impossible as it seems; Randolph and Crawford were definitely the two harder contracts to move), let Lee and Nate walk, and head into the Summer of 2010 with nothing more than the Gallinari-Chandler-DraftPickXXX core, possibly having enough cap space to target THREE marquee free agents, like what the Magic almost pulled off when attempting the Tracy McGrady/Grant Hill/Tim Duncan trifecta. If Walsh can unload Curry and Jeffries on someone, the Knicks would have like a 9M payroll. Lebron, Bosh AND Wade could all sign up to return the Knicks to greatness, like the Boston Three Party redux.

            • Nady Nation

              I just feel like this is too good to be true. Tommie, have you heard any official word?

              • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                It’s on Newsday’s blog, and HoopsHype has also linked to it. But so far, no corroboration outside of Alan Hahn.

                It makes so much sense, though.

                GS would take Crawford for Harrington, because Al’s a malcontent and Nellie loves guards like Jamal. The extra year isn’t going to scare them away, they don’t give a crap.

                The Clips would do it, because they have no use for TT and Mobley, and Z-Bo replaces what they lost in Brand, and allows them to have a dominant front-line again. And, like GS, they have no real shot at anybody in 2010 (or cap room), so they don’t care about the extra year of Z-Bo’s money.

                I think it’s legit.

            • Ivan

              I sorta disagree with #1. I mean I don’t wanna put money into both Lee or Nate. Probably one of them though.

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

        Actually, I think the talent swap is pretty even, all things considered. Randolph is a better pivot man than anything the Knicks got back, but all three guys they got are good perimiter shooters, and having good shooters to stretch the floor is both something we’ve been lacking for a long time, and something that’s a must in D’Antoni’s system.

        Plus, getting Jamal Crawford off this team is a godsend in and of itself. He’s probably the worst “good” player in the league (well, him and Steph) in that both of them are supremely talented streetballers who are utterly incapable of playing in any system or with any direction.

        Jamal stuck out like a sore thumb in D’Antoniball. Good riddance.

        • Nady Nation

          Amen to everything said here. Don’t forget about Tim Thomas’ triumphant return to the Garden, the most crucial aspect of the deal.

          KENYON MARTIN IS FUGAZY

        • E-ROC

          Zach Randolph’s value couldn’t be any higher right now. The Knicks are getting rid of 20/10. There aren’t many big men in the league that gives you that type of production. The Knicks could’ve at least gotten a young player from one of the two teams. Instead, they get Harrington (I really like him; very underrated), Mobley and Tim Thomas. Those three players aren’t worth Randolph alone. At least a get young player to develop instead of getting dead weight like Tim Thomas and Mobley.

          • Ivan

            This is really a salary deal with the Knicks.

            I seriously doubt your gonna get some young players back even if the Knicks tried. They were not gettin Al Thorthon, or Anthony Randolph despite Zach playing his ball so far.

            • E-ROC

              I don’t think the Knicks could’ve gotten any from the Clippers, but Golden State was desperate. The Warriors were having trouble scoring and Zach Randolph would help immensely. This is probably salary dump, but I would not have dumped that type of production (Randolph) without getting something substantial in return. The Knicks could’ve probably gotten Gerald Wallace from the Bobcats for Zach Randolph. Wallace is a two way player and another player to make the salaries match. ‘Ol well.

              • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                I think Randolph is likely headed to the Clippers, for what it’s worth. Makes sense on a salary level.

                Harrington’s money matches up with Jamals.
                Mobley + Thomas matches up with Z-Bo.

          • Nady Nation

            How can you possibly be against this deal? You’re ridiculously overvaluing Randolph given his contract situation. What team in their right mind is going to give up good young talent for a guy who is under contract for 3 more years at 17 million per and has a history of attitude and conditioning problems? Salaries needs to match up in order to make trades in the NBA, so you’re not getting rid of Randolph without taking on some other shitty contracts. Thankfully, the shitty contracts we’re getting back in return all expire before The Summer of Lebron.

            • E-ROC

              Have there been negative reports for Randolph lately? I’m not against the trade. It’s an ok trade. Randolph is/was productive in D’Antoni’s system. I know this trade is about woo-ing Lebron to NY but I would’ve gotten expiring contracts along with at least one good young player.

              • Nady Nation

                Dude, if we could’ve done that, I’m obviously 100% with you, but I just don’t think we could’ve gotten a good, young, cheap player in return for Z-Bo. I also think that Harrington/Mobley/Thomas on a sheer talent level is pretty close, if not equal to Z-Bo/Jamal/Collins. But, this year truly doesn’t matter. This is the last year we have a first round pick before The Summer of Lebron, as we lost our 2010 first rd pick in the Eddy Curry deal (Thanks Isiah!), so we’re almost better off tanking this season.

              • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                No, Randolph has looked decent. He’s a legit 20-10 man, for sure. But he’s definitely a notch below other guys, and if I’m Bron, I’d rather the Knicks move his 17M AAV and spend that on a Bosh, Boozer, Amare, etc. etc.

                He’s a good player but we’re better off without his contract.

                • Ivan

                  I,ve heard Detroit might go really hard for Boozer or Bosh. And they got alot of money off the cap the next couple seasons.

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                  Very true. But they have to wait until 2010 just like we do.

              • Ivan

                Randolph yes was playing well, but at the end of the day he’s a solid/good player on sucky team. So really if you trade him for salary relief, you have to do it.

                I Hope we get Blake Griffen in the draft. Hell at least Demar DeRozen.

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                  I doubt we pick that high. I rescind my disagreement with you from before, we probably do win 32-36 games. D’Antoni has these guys making shots and being offensively productive, and this trade doesn’t really hurt us competitively.

                  Remember, Z-Bo > Harrington, but Mobley + Thomas >>> Crawford + Collins.

                • Ivan

                  Well it’s not like I pulled the 35 games thing out of my ass lol.

                  I mean the knicks can go like 20-21 at home, 15-26 on the road. I mean not even asking t hem to over .500 at home. It’s not really wishful thinking.

                  As for the draft, well your right were probably not gonna high but hey Chicago got the #1 pick and won about what 34 games? Shit can happen, unlikely but it could happen.

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

            E-ROC, everything you said is true. My retort: The next two years are totally meaningless. We’re not winning a title with this group. Giving up on talent to get cap flexibility is a must. The only way for us to become a title contender again is to get better players, and we have to get out from under these contracts to have the money necessary to get true championship caliber players.

            Using Z-Bo’s ability to get more cap friendly deals is a necessary sacrifice.

          • Thomas

            Even if they get worse, it doesn’t matter. The Knicks are going to compete this year or next year, they are preparing for 2010. Hence why they are dropping salary.

            Additionally, getting worse could help them in getting better draft position (not that they should be tanking).

    • Nady Nation

      Tommie, we are so on the same page. I wanted to post this here earlier but wasn’t sure about how many Knick fans still exist. I’ve been taking a break from my usual morning routine of Yankee rumor-searching to try to confirm this Knick deal. If this trade goes through, let the Lebron-courting begin! HI-OOOOOOOO. (I’m very aroused)

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

        Donnie Walsh: Let me just grab this… Sorry about that, WHAMMY!…
        LeBron James: Donnie, you’re trying to sign me to a contract, aren’t you.
        Donnie Walsh: What can I say? I like the way you’re put together. Why don’t we go out on a date. Have some chicken, maybe win a title, you know… see what happens.

    • Ivan

      Knicks are gonna trying to go under the cap. What? I thought that working under the Knicks that was illegal.

      • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike A.

        So how does that work, you can be over the cap in the NBA? Pardon my ignorance.

        • Ivan

          Tommie might explain the SC in the NBA more than I.

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

          When you’re over the cap, you can’t sign any player to any deal bigger than the veteran minimum (like, a 6M AAV), so they’d be bidding like a fourth of what Bron would get from other teams. Also, you can’t make a trade with any other team and take back more than 125% of the total salary difference, and since there’s only like 3 teams or so under the cap at any given time, that means basically all trades in the NBA have to be for equal money.

          The Knicks getting under the cap means instead of offering Bron a 5/30, they can offer him a 6/120. (roughly).

          • Ivan

            Thank You Tommie.

            • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

              np.

              One more little factoid to consider in all this: The Knicks still owe a first rounder to Utah (part of the old Steph deal). It’s top-22 protected in ’09, and unprotected in 2010. And, we gave away our ’09 second rounder in the Crawford deal.

              So, as long as we don’t go crazy and finish as one of the top 8 teams in the league this year, we should have one more quality player to add to our core, but we won’t have a 2010 first rounder, FWIW.

              • Ivan

                okay thanx.

          • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike A.

            ZOMG this is NEW YORK, we’re supposed to win every year, not wait until 2010!!! LeBron’s already shown he can’t win in the Finals, why would they want him???? Get me SHAQ!!!

            • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

              Heh, if I didn’t already have TSJC as my name, I’d have gone with “ZOMG!!!!”

  • DonnieBaseballHallofFame

    I had no problem with the way the original piece was worded. I got the meaning. I hope we are not in the ballpark for Lowe and never get in the ballpark for him. I also hope we never even think about 5 years for a guy like AJ.

    Sign Sheets for two years. Give Andy a year. See if a Paul Byrd type minus the roids can be had for a year. Screw giving old guys 4 or 5 year deals.

    • DonnieBaseballHallofFame

      Was not saying AJ is old, but he gets hurt alot. AJ at a 3 or 4 year deal for more money is better than 5.

      • Chip

        I believe AJ is older than Sheets isn’t he?

        I’m also up for Sheets signing. I think the only reason we haven’t heard about anything is either his agent doesn’t like to talk about it or he’s waiting like everybody else on CC

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

          I believe AJ is older than Sheets isn’t he?

          By a year and a half.

          • DonnieBaseballHallofFame

            Yeah I think the possible reasons we are not hearing about Sheets are:

            A) He gets hurt every single year, at least once.

            B) The Yanks are laying in the weeds hoping we get him if the price is right in years and dollars, similar to the A-Rod deal (i know that was a trade but its still the cost in years/ dollars/ talent), the Damon deal, the non deals for Santana (again I know its a non trade), and Lowell last offseason.

            C) They have no real interest. Which I think is possibly a very bad thing.

            D) I got no clue what I am talking about and they have another reason.

  • E-ROC

    The Knicks are sending Malik Rose to the Warriors for Al Harrington according to Hoopsworld. Now that’s a superb trade if that happens. Don Nelson must not like Al Harrington really bad.

    • Ivan

      oh yeah.

    • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

      That’s an awful trade. If it’s only a one-for-one (which both ESPN and the Post still maintain), we want to give them Crawford and keep Malik Rose.

      The objective is to clear cap space for 2010. Keeping Crawford and dumping Malik does not do that.

      • Ivan

        WHY!!!

      • E-ROC

        I think I’ll go with the ESPN trade because that sounds a bit more logical.

    • Ivan

      Hold up, Marc Stein said it’s Harrington for Crawford:

      http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3717209

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

        Yeah, I was talking about that with Joe. I’m much less enthused if it’s only a two team deal of Harrington-Crawford, because Z-Bo’s the contract that’s the most damaging. But that’s still a good deal, and we can still just deal Z-Bo/Mardy Collins to the Clips for Tim Thomas and Cuttino Mobley in a separate deal.

        The more I think about it, it was never really a “three-way” deal, it was just two simultaneous straight-up trades.

        • Ivan

          yeah pretty much.

          • Mike Pop

            But you guys shoulda got Monta somehow

            • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

              Let’s not start demanding the impossible, here. Get cap relief. Asking for Monta Ellis is the kinda shit that GM’s used to laugh at Scott Layden for.

              • Mike Pop

                Lol it was a joke.. Monta is great though but I never expected him to be part of any deal.. I wish they coulda kept Crawford though and traded him in the offseason.. Woulda gave them a better chance at a deep playoff run this year

                • Nady Nation

                  Deep playoff run? Wow. Amazing what an 11 game stretch of 6-5 basketball can do for Knick fans.

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                  I retracted my statement to Ivan that the 2008-2009 Knicks will be putridly awful and one of the worst teams in the league.

                  However, I firmly stand by my statement that Jamal Crawford blows chunks and is the worst player in NBA history to ever score 50 points. He’s a disaster. A turnover prone, erratic streak shooter who can’t defend anybody, makes horrible decisions on a constant basis, basically ignores the other 4 players on the court (as well as his coach) and freelances when he should be playing under control. But, he had a few amazing games and hit some buzzer beaters, and people forget how craptastic he was playing in the weeks (and minutes) surrounding those brief flickers of brilliance.

                  He’s the basketball version of David Eckstein. Totally overrated because of the myths of being a “clutch” or “money” player. He sucks.

                  Kellerman was quoting some stat on his show today while discussing the trade, that of all the active players in the NBA on Crawford’s level of career games/minutes played, he’s got the worst career W/L percentage or something like that. Basically, he’s constantly on losing teams… kinda like Steph.

        • Nady Nation

          The Post now has it as 2 separate deals too. Whatever the semantics, its a great deal(s), and a great day to be a Knick fan. FINALLY

  • Mike Pop
  • christopher

    sign sheets – worst case scenaro he has the dominant stuff to become MOs extension.

    team still needs a abata nd dunn is a perfect fit. granted the D will suffer next year gut going forward he is your DH