# Dampier to NY



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Well to visit anyway, by Tues. NYs offer of Nazr and Othella said to be front-running offer so far:

http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/18061.htm

I can handle the $9M, but 7 years? He's too old and risky for that. Give him 5.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

N:laugh: E:no: W Y O:uhoh:R K:dead: 

P:sigh: O S:heart: T


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Knicksbiggestfan</b>!
> N:laugh: E:no: W Y O:uhoh:R K:dead:
> 
> P:sigh: O S:heart: T


Very artistic, I might have to steal that sometime. :yes:


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

Yes, but it's not Peter Vescey it's Marc Berman, more credibility there...


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> The Erick Dampier sweepstakes heated up in the Knicks' favor yesterday as team president Isiah Thomas made Golden State what one league official termed "a strong offer" — Nazr Mohammed and Othella Harrington — for the 7-foot Shaq stopper.


Anyone still think the Van Horn/Doleac trade for Tim Thomas and Naz was a bad trade by IT????




> If the Warriors accept the Knicks' offer, it likely will blow up Thomas chances of landing the Bulls' combo guard, Jamal Crawford. But Thomas considers Dampier as big a priority as Crawford and will have to get very lucky to get both.


----------



## Torim (Jun 22, 2004)

Wouldn't it be easier for Golden State to simply let Dampier walk? That would even save them more money, seeing how Nazr's contract runs through 2006.
But then again if you give Foyle 8 Mio. $ and Fisher 5 Mio. $ why not pay Nazr another 5 Mio. $.....


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Even GSs fans don't know what direction that team is going in. But two things have revealed themselves to me so far: they aren't hellbent to get under the cap, and they aren't trying to re-sign Damp. So we offer them an alternative center who's cheaper, and an expiring contract which they can let expire, or use as another trading chip. 

It's a flexible package that makes sense for a club that seemingly doesn't know what it wants to do.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

I can see why GS ould do this as opposed to letting Damp walk.They need a serviceable back up center,or should i say a center,and Naz is as good as it gets in his price range

IT is going to luck out on this one....


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> I can see why GS ould do this as opposed to letting Damp walk.They need a serviceable back up center,or should i say a center,and Naz is as good as it gets in his price range
> 
> IT is going to luck out on this one....


like i said before DAmpier to the knicks is a mistake, we might as well keep nazr and othella. GS made a choice, Mullin knows his bball and he picked to sign adonal foyle to all that money, instead of throwing it to Dampier. The dude's lazy and you'll never know what you get from it, if he had sweetney or harrington's work ethic, i wouldn't worry, but he doesnt. He'll be booed out of the garden after the first month of the season.


----------



## Outkast (Jul 20, 2004)

if Dampier play like last season the Knicks will be in the playoffs


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Outkast</b>!
> if Dampier play like last season the Knicks will be in the playoffs


he was so inconsistent, but the knicks made the playoffs basically without marbury in the begining without houston for the latter half, so why wouldn't they make it now, with or without dampier?


----------



## Dr. J (Jul 12, 2002)

It might not happen now. GS traded Van Exel to Portland for Dale Davis. They have their fill of backup centers.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dr. J</b>!
> It might not happen now. GS traded Van Exel to Portland for Dale Davis. They have their fill of backup centers.


Once again another team used the knicks to gauge their player's trade value.

Time to look at JC.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Is it just me,or is this rumors with no signings getting old??


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

Any updates on this? I read somewhere the grizz are still in the running.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

jerry refuses to trade stro,so there is no deal in memphis


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

They have a lot of other pieces besides stro to trade.

They also can just sign him straight out. Posey has been doing a lot of campaigning.


----------



## edgaraven (Jun 22, 2004)

Hey fellas..

New to the Knicks board. I'm a Suns fan, and, I'll be honest - I've secretly been hoping that some deal might work itself out where Damp comes to Phoenix. Damp and Amare down low would be a pretty strong tandem. I'm realistic enough to see that landing Damp down here may be quite a long shot given the interest other teams have shown.

The latest I read was that Mullin was trying to have Isaiah find a 3rd team that gets the Warriors some help at SF, since they obviously aren't going to be interested in taking on a couple more centers, even if they have expiring contracts. I started to look around at some of the possibilities that might surface as Zeke scours the league for a SF to send to Golden State. Glenn Robinson and Anotine Walker are the names that keep coming up, but I don't think Mullin would care for either of them, as they certainly wouldn't seem to have a future with the Warriors beyond this year, and they could just let Damp go and save the money and headaches. Matt Harpring was another name that came to mind, but I couldn't think of who Utah would want off the Knick roster that Isaiah might be willing to part with.

After looking over all the teams, there were two names that seemed like possibilities.

1) Donyell Marshall - Marshall has experience playing in Golden State, and he has experience playing with Chris Mullin. Given that his trade for Dale Davis had a lot to do with Davis having been a teammate of his in Indiana, I could see that connection aiding in Mullin's interest. Toronto needs big men. Araujo will help, but adding a Nazr Mohammed or even a Dikembe Mutombo to pair alongside their future, Chris Bosh, would be ideal. Send Marshall + Lamond Murray to the Warriors, send Nazr Mohammed Othella Harrington and Frank Williams to Toronto. Erick Dampier could then be a Knick.

2) Vladimir Radmanovic - Seattle has given a lot of thought to what to do with Vlad-Rad for awhile. They've got a SF in Rashard Lewis, and Radmanovic might be a nice backup, but they need help at PF. Collison should help, but I wonder if that same package of Nazr, Othella, and Frank might not appeal to them. They could use another ball-handler with Brent Barry gone, and Williams could help there. Nazr would give them a legit C who can spot minutes at PF, too. 

Of these two, I think the Donyell trade has the most promise. 

Anyone else have ideas?


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

There is NO way that Williams would be included with Nazr and Harrington. I don't even think that works salary-wise but the 'xperts here could say. If williams is in, the Knicks have to get back some more talent besides Dampier. I have got a bad feelin about that guy...if he gets here for the mle, fine.


----------



## edgaraven (Jun 22, 2004)

It works salary wise if Dampier is signed to a deal in the $9-9.75 million range his first season. As for not giving up Williams.. that's precisely why Thomas and the Knicks are getting stone-walled at every turn. You guys aren't going to land players like Crawford for crap, but that's all the Knicks ever seem to offer. Yes, expiring contracts are good, but Nazr isn't an expiring deal, and Harrington is just a body to throw on the floor. 

Come on, get real. Williams may have shown flashes, but if the team is going to land one of the top C's in the league, it can't try and pawn off what amounts to a backup C and a end of the bench front-court player with a small, expiring deal. The Knicks have to give something more of value. 

If you, personally, don't like Damp, fine. Fact is, Damp hasn't had a significant injury in over 3 full seasons. While it seems like his numbers suddenly jumped in his contract year, you have to remember two things. One, the previous two seasons, he was splitting time with Adonal Foyle. Two, the previous two seasons, there was a consistent starting PF (Fortson the first year, Murphy the second) who averaged over 10 reb a game. This past year, the Warriors never had a consistent player at PF the whole season, and Foyle was out for all but 31 games. Damp just picked up the slack and did what he was doing the previous two years. The difference was that he played 33 minutes a game, insted of just 24. 

I think Damp will do pretty well wherever he lands next, assuming he gets to work himself into the system through training camp. In New York, he'd be a huge asset to the Knicks, who couldn't find any consistency at the C spot - especially on defense.

No way Williams?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>edgaraven</b>!
> It works salary wise if Dampier is signed to a deal in the $9-9.75 million range his first season.


If his first year salary goes above 9.4M he becomes BYC, and then it doesn't work.



> If you, personally, don't like Damp, fine. Fact is, Damp hasn't had a significant injury in over 3 full seasons. While it seems like his numbers suddenly jumped in his contract year, you have to remember two things. One, the previous two seasons, he was splitting time with Adonal Foyle. Two, the previous two seasons, there was a consistent starting PF (Fortson the first year, Murphy the second) who averaged over 10 reb a game. This past year, the Warriors never had a consistent player at PF the whole season, and Foyle was out for all but 31 games. Damp just picked up the slack and did what he was doing the previous two years. The difference was that he played 33 minutes a game, insted of just 24.


Do you realize what you are telling us? Firsat off Damp isn't good enough to out play Foyle, a career 4.5/5 guy. That really has me wonder if he can beat out Mutombo too. Second, if our PF, be it KT, Sweetney, or Walker can grab anywhere near 10 rebs, as all of them can, we can expect the usual career 7.2 rpg out of Dampier. But Nazr gave us 7.7 as a Knick last year. Then you proceed to tell us that Nazr plus an expiring contract, which you can trade for additional talent, is a joke.

So lets see, we can pay Nazr $5.2M to pull 7.7 boards for us, or we can trade him plus a promising PG plus an expiring contract for the right to pay Dampier $9.4M to do the same? And anything less is a joke?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

HAWKS HOLD KEY TO DAMPIER DEAL 
Peter Vescey
New York Post

("I'd only bring him in on a day-to-day contract," one of Dampier's
former supervisors stressed.)

----

Oh brother, and we want to give up hardworking players for him and sign him to a 6yr deal?


----------



## edgaraven (Jun 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> 
> 
> If his first year salary goes above 9.4M he becomes BYC, and then it doesn't work.


Actually, if he signs for more than 9.75 million, if my calculations are correct. I think he cannot make more than 25% of his previous contract. He made $7.8 this past year, and 125% of that is $9.75 million.



> Do you realize what you are telling us? Firsat off Damp isn't good enough to out play Foyle, a career 4.5/5 guy. That really has me wonder if he can beat out Mutombo too. Second, if our PF, be it KT, Sweetney, or Walker can grab anywhere near 10 rebs, as all of them can, we can expect the usual career 7.2 rpg out of Dampier. But Nazr gave us 7.7 as a Knick last year. Then you proceed to tell us that Nazr plus an expiring contract, which you can trade for additional talent, is a joke.


Mutombo can't get up and down the floor. Come on, man. If Mutombo was the answer, the Knicks wouldn't have sat him so often during the playoffs and wouldn't be pursuing Damp. Dampier played consistenly all of last year, and, if you look at his numbers the previous two, he played consistently then, too - Just in 2/3 of the minutes he got this year.

To say he'd go back to his regular 7.2 rpg with a strong PF is also mis-analyzing what I said. Unless Thomas plans to suddenly start platooning him with Mutombo so he only gets 22 mpg, again, I think it's safe to assume he will at least split the difference between his RP/min last year (around .370) and for the previous two (around .275). If you figure he plays around 32 mpg, that's still around 10.5 rebounds per game. Add in the fact that he intimidates shooters around the basket (he blocks or alters shots), something Nazr doesn't do at all, and you can see why he has value.

Nazr, as essentially a backup, is making $5.3 million, himself. I think the type of game Damp could bring is worth significantly more than Nazr.. and I think the GM's around the league would agree. You guys can stick with Nazr if you want. I'm still hoping my Suns nab Damp. I know this much, too. Jerry Colangelo (one of the best front-office men in the history of the league) isn't clamoring to get Nazr Mohammed.


----------



## edgaraven (Jun 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> Oh brother, and we want to give up hardworking players for him and sign him to a 6yr deal?


Good lord. You still buying what these "unidentified sources" of Peter Vescey say? Vescey makes so much crap up, I consider his columns fiction. He's just trying to cover his a-ss because he's the idiot who said the S&T was a done deal. Now that Damp isn't in New York, he's trying to find "reasons" why the deal hasn't been consummated. Character assasination, especially through the voice of unnamed sources, is a classic Vescey tactic. 

Clifford Ray, the big-man coach who helped transform Damp after his huge injury problems in the early 2000's, said Dampier is maligned for being quiet. Like Ray, himself, Dampier is (according to Clifford) a hard worker who is a real team player. I remember listening to Ray on a radio interview on I think Fox say that Damp gets a bad rap because he tried to play through all his injuries when he should have just sat out and healed properly. Instead, he suffered through two straight years of poor health (1999-00, 2000-01). I'll take a guy like that anyday. What the hell has Nazr done, anyways? Talk about loafing.. he didn't play hard at all while he was in Atlanta last year (look at the numbers) then all of a sudden he's healthy in NY? He has a history of being a loafer when he's not a starter. Deal with that.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

edgaraven, As for the BYC... the amount is 20% over last years salary, not 25%. See Larry ****'s FAQ #72.

My posts are so much pro-Nazr as anti Damp. He's too big a risk and almost every GM knows it. Warriors prefer Foyle to him, for gods sake, and you and I'm sure you'll agree he's not much better than Nazr, if at all. And Atlanta has sense enough to limit their offer to 4 years. 

Phoenix worked hard to get under the cap to make some moves this year, but when it's time to re-up your youth you will have a high payroll again too. Do you really want an old risk like Dampier to be the last FA you sign for a long long time? If so, I hope you too will give him 6 years and 72M so we can laugh at our outrageous payrolls and unmovable contracts together.

As for other options for Knicks fans I'll post this. I lifted it off another board, so give credit to zerostatic:

I know some of you don't like that we are going to use part of our MLE to sign Vin Baker, but I would like to bring to light some of the games Vin Baker has had last season with the Celtics before he reverted to his alcoholism. 

10/29 - 15 points & 5 rebounds 
10/31 - 24 points & 8 rebounds 
11/05 - 20 points & 6 rebounds 
11/09 - 18 points & 13 rebounds 
11/17 - 20 points & 8 rebounds (against us) 
11/21 - 22 points & 4 rebounds 
11/24 - 16 points & 12 rebounds & 5 blocks (against us) 
11/26 - 19 points & 7 rebounds & 5 assists 
12/03 - 17 points & 8 rebounds 
12/05 - 22 points & 9 rebounds 
12/13 - 16 points & 6 rebounds 

*Remember these games are only from a month and a half of playing before his alcohol problem started taking it's toll. 

As you can see, for the 3 mil a year he is easily worth the risk, and I feel alot better signing him to a short term deal starting at 3 mil, then signing Dampier to a long term deal starting at 9 mil. He doesn't have to become the all star player he once was year's ago for this deal to be good, all he has to do is become the player he was with the Celtics early last season for us to get a bargain. Also, if there is some kind of drinking clause which there almost definitely is, there isn't much risk at all.


----------



## edgaraven (Jun 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> My posts are so much pro-Nazr as anti Damp. He's too big a risk and almost every GM knows it.


I'll agree that a 6 year deal might be excessive if it starts at $9 million and progresses, but I don't think he's seen as the risk you make him out to be. Yes, he is a risk.. many players are. Compared to Vin Baker, he's a very small risk.. compared to a Shaquille O'Neal, a very big one. It's all relative, but one thing cannot be denied. This past year, he demonstrated what he's capable of doing. I think this whole "but it was only one year, and a contract year at that" business is slightly overblown. The guy was a 12-12 C who played very solid D. He's one of the few C's in the league who plays Shaquille decently. 



> Warriors prefer Foyle to him, for gods sake, and you and I'm sure you'll agree he's not much better than Nazr, if at all. And Atlanta has sense enough to limit their offer to 4 years.


The Warriors chose Foyle because Dampier made it clear to Mullin that he would not re-sign in Golden State. It's not some conspiracy. Dan Fegan and the Warriors don't have the best relationship, either, from what I can remember (he was Gilbert Arenas' agent). Atlanta has offered only 4 years because they don't have the type of financial resources the Knicks do, and they are playing a game of cat and mouse. Smart move to offer fewer years at a potentially higher salary. No need for them to outbid themselves yet. They could end up offering more (their original offer was only 3 years, remember), too, if the stakes are raised.



> Phoenix worked hard to get under the cap to make some moves this year, but when it's time to re-up your youth you will have a high payroll again too. Do you really want an old risk like Dampier to be the last FA you sign for a long long time? If so, I hope you too will give him 6 years and 72M so we can laugh at our outrageous payrolls and unmovable contracts together.


Again, Colangelo's smart enough not to offer up a 6 year deal for that money off the bat. That's why I think Thomas is somewhat overrated. Of course, Thomas knows that he has to use the financial leverage MSG offers him to make deals, since the Knicks have the most ridiculous payroll in the league (at least Mark Cuban's got pretty good players earning all his dough) and can't just up and sign FA.

I'm interested in Dampier for one reason. He brings a real C to my team that, in signing Steve Nash, really only has a 3 year window to make some big time noise before there's a changing of the 'guard' at point. With Amare emerging, and Joe Johnson looking like one of the most underrated players in the league, I think this team is a C away from being big-time. Notice how the Suns have entered the negotiations for him recently, too. 



> As for other options for Knicks fans I'll post this. I lifted it off another board, so give credit to zerostatic:
> 
> I know some of you don't like that we are going to use part of our MLE to sign Vin Baker, but I would like to bring to light some of the games Vin Baker has had last season with the Celtics before he reverted to his alcoholism.
> 
> ...


Worth the risk? The fact that he bombed out due to alcohol is less of a risk than a player who recorded 42 double-doubles in 73 games? A C who had 12 games with 18 or more rebounds? A guy who had 17 games with 8 or more offensive rebounds (4.7 offensive rebounds a contest)?

I could go and list all the highlight games of Dampier, too, but what does it prove? Baker's not even a true C, and, not to harp on this over and over, is not a particularly good defensive player. It's not even close as to who'd be more valuable. If Damp can even settle in and average 11 pts, 10 reb, and 2 blks a game, I'd say he's worth the money. You can't understate the importance of having size in the middle.. on D. If you expect consistency out of Baker, prepared to be disappointed.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>edgaraven</b>!
> 
> 
> Good lord. You still buying what these "unidentified sources" of Peter Vescey say? Vescey makes so much crap up, I consider his columns fiction. He's just trying to cover his a-ss because he's the idiot who said the S&T was a done deal. Now that Damp isn't in New York, he's trying to find "reasons" why the deal hasn't been consummated. Character assasination, especially through the voice of unnamed sources, is a classic Vescey tactic.


Well Peter Vecsey's lies must hold a lot of sway in GS because they prefer Foyle and Dale davis to Damp.

Foyle:
Career 4.6ppg/5.1rpg
'04-05 $6.5M

vs

Nazr: 
Career 6.7/5.3
$5.25M

Davis:
Career 8.7/8.4
03-04 4.4/5.2
04-05 $9M

vs

Mutombo:
Career 11.7/11.7
'04 5.6/6.7
'04-05 $4.5M

Making this about Vecsey is silly. GS's actions in taking Davis and Foyle over Dampier speaks volumes to how high they regard him. And both of our players are better and cheaper than the two they chose over Dampier, which hardly makes us or our offer silly.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

^^^^^doesnt that remind you of another warrior. Danny Fortson. the guy led the league in rebounding, got traded to dallas and didnt do jack. in fact, he was picking up splinters on the bench. i dont know if we can trust damp.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>edgaraven</b>!
> 
> I'll agree that a 6 year deal might be excessive if it starts at $9 million and progresses, but I don't think he's seen as the risk you make him out to be. Yes, he is a risk.. many players are. Compared to Vin Baker, he's a very small risk.. compared to a Shaquille O'Neal, a very big one.





> Worth the risk? The fact that he bombed out due to alcohol is less of a risk than a player who recorded 42 double-doubles in 73 games? A C who had 12 games with 18 or more rebounds? A guy who had 17 games with 8 or more offensive rebounds (4.7 offensive rebounds a contest)?


You seem to think risk is independent of finance, motivation and injury. All those are questionable with Damp.

And yes, saddling ourselves with another long and massive contract is risky. Marbury is 3 years younger than Nash so perhaps our window is longer. And we don't have another player like Amare. If we were one guy from competing for a championship I might be more inclined to go for a guy like Dampier. But given our situation I'd prefer to develop some of our young guys and bring in youth rather than constantly trade it away. 

We are constantly told all we have to trade is over priced mediocrity. If Damp gives us what he's given GS for his career he'll become the poster boy of that, beating out perennial favorites like Eisley and Anderson.


----------



## edgaraven (Jun 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> Making this about Vecsey is silly. GS's actions in taking Davis and Foyle over Dampier speaks volumes to how high they regard him. And both of our players are better and cheaper than the two they chose over Dampier, which hardly makes us or our offer silly.


I didn't make this about Vescey. I'm just noting that the use of a quote from a Vescey article (and one of his classically unattributed/unidentified source quotes at that) seems to dampen the weight of that argument you posted. That's all. 

Ultimately, it is about the players. The reason the Knicks offer is oen that makes little sense, to me, is precisely because the Warriors have Foyle and Davis in their fold. Mutombo is questionably better than Davis, imo. It really doesn't matter though, since both Davis and Mutombo would be no more than a 1 year roster filler. 

As for Foyle vs. Nazr. You've conveniently only listed points and rebounds, failing to mention the detail I noted in the first place. Defensive presence. Nazr is a poor defender. There's no getting around that fact. Foyle, conversely, has averaged over 2 blks most of his career, and is widely regarded as a decent defender. There's a reason he was listed as a top FA target by a number of teams.. stats alone don't speak to his game. 

Besides, after seeing how horribly Nazr played (nay, loafed) in Atlanta, why would Mullin be intrigued by adding a player who probably wouldn't want to be in the San Francisco Bay Area (Foyle is very happy to be staying with Golden State)? You're going out of your way to try and talk down Dampier, despite the fact that your belief in his laziness comes from one unsubstantiated quote, but I think it's clear he'd be a significant upgrade over the combo of Mutombo and Nazr. 

The only issue, really, is money. Face it, though.. New York does not play by the rules of other teams. They are over the cap for the forseeable future. They spent the past two seasons paying players who were retired (Luc Longley and Larry Johnson). I'm not saying it'd make sense for just any team to pay $9 million a year for Dampier, but IT knows he can't compete with the same roster as last year. Did you see that constipated scowl on his face as New Jersey ran all over his squad?


BTW - The reason the Warriors took the Davis deal was because it got rid of Nick Van Exel. Had the Knicks found a way to take Van Exel in the deal, you might already have Dampier. Trying to compare the value of Mutombo/Nazr to Davis, in that regard, is faulty since it doesn't take into consideration the addition by subtraction that took place for Golden State.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Unwanted...*

Just so Mr. Raven doesn't forget....GM's are not beating down Dampier's door. Since the talent level at the center position is so bad right now in the league, anyone who plays the position well will be a highly sought after piece. Dampier is an older version (not much) of Olawakandi. Questionable work ethic and carreer numbers until contract time. There is also the beginning of a subtle change going on through the league. There are more teams going with more athletic, better rounded(skill-wise) big guys..almost like playing 2 PF's. I'm not so sure it is a plan as it is that there are just not many big guys that play (or are wiling to play) a traditional low post game. I believe that once Shaq retires, the center position will be re-defined. Folks are still scrambling to figure out how to guard him, but his days are growing shorter. In my mind, Tyson Chandler is a guy that I'd like to have at the 5 and more typical of what we will seee in the future.


----------



## edgaraven (Jun 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> You seem to think risk is independent of finance, motivation and injury. All those are questionable with Damp.


Why do you keep pigeon-holing my arguments like this? I stated those facts, not because I think they are the sole reasons to equate risk, but as a response to the inane argument posted by zerostatic about Baker's numbers. It's like saying, well, Jason Williams had some really good looking games as a rookie in Chicago, and then ignoring the fact that his motorcycle accident plays a big factor in weighing his potential value. Baker's situation isn't quite as severe, but you get my point.

The 'risk' with Dampier is motivation, period. I've stated my case as to why I think that risk is not nearly as great (or at least over-stated) by many people, and my point in rattling off his performance numbers of 2003-04 was simply to note that I'll take a player who put up those numbers and is clearly a better player over an alcoholic who had a severe relapse 'after' he put up those gaudy numbers. 

If the Suns do manage to land Dampier for the $5.8 million starting salary they are contemplating giving him, you Knick fans won't have to worry about him anymore. And then, when you see Baker relapse or play inconsistently, and you see Nazr continue to get burned on D, and you see Mutombo creak his way through another season.. then you can say "Phew! well, at least we didn't overpay Dampier."


----------



## edgaraven (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: Unwanted...*



> Originally posted by <b>alphadog</b>!
> Just so Mr. Raven doesn't forget....GM's are not beating down Dampier's door. Since the talent level at the center position is so bad right now in the league, anyone who plays the position well will be a highly sought after piece. Dampier is an older version (not much) of Olawakandi. Questionable work ethic and carreer numbers until contract time. There is also the beginning of a subtle change going on through the league. There are more teams going with more athletic, better rounded(skill-wise) big guys..almost like playing 2 PF's. I'm not so sure it is a plan as it is that there are just not many big guys that play (or are wiling to play) a traditional low post game. I believe that once Shaq retires, the center position will be re-defined. Folks are still scrambling to figure out how to guard him, but his days are growing shorter. In my mind, Tyson Chandler is a guy that I'd like to have at the 5 and more typical of what we will seee in the future.


I agree that there's a lack of conventional 'big' men in the league (although Shaq is unconventional any way you look at it). That's precisely why having a skilled player of Damp's size is useful. He's not a lumbering oaf, either. He's pretty mobile for a guy his size. Definitely better than Olowokandi, whose more naturally gifted athletically but still doesn't know how to block out properly or rotate on defense. 

Damp's problems are that he had a history of injury early, although I've noted a couple times that he's not had any serious injury the past three years since he was forced to sit out the remainder of the 2000-01 season by the coaching staff to recuperate properly, and that he has this reputation for being unmotivated. Being quiet and being unmotivated are different things, yet for some reason, people like to lump them together. I'll totally agree that he hasn't had the consistent production in the past, but his per minute numbers the last 3 years have been solid.. spectacular this past year.

Also.. why is it that Jerry West, Donnie Walsh/Larry Bird, Jerry/Brian Colangelo, Don Nelson/Mark Cuban, and Mitch Kupchak all have tried their hands at getting Damp if he isn't valuable? No, not every team has inquired, but not every team has the good to acquire Damp. As far as teams looking for his service, though, that's a pretty solid group of GM's/Teams showing interest.

With the Knicks aging roster, and the moves IT made, the Knicks are looking at winning now, not 3 years from now when Shaq is on his way out. Dampier will get the team a lot closer than Nazr/Mutombo would. Unfortunately, I don't think the Knicks have the goods, right now, to make the deal happen if they keep sticking to their stance that adding a player like Frank Williams to accomodate a 3-way is out of the question.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>edgaraven</b>!
> 
> Why do you keep pigeon-holing my arguments like this? I stated those facts, not because I think they are the sole reasons to equate risk, but as a response to the inane argument posted by zerostatic about Baker's numbers. It's like saying, well, Jason Williams had some really good looking games as a rookie in Chicago, and then ignoring the fact that his motorcycle accident plays a big factor in weighing his potential value. Baker's situation isn't quite as severe, but you get my point.


Yes but your point still ignores money. If Jay Williams can put up games with stats like I posted for Baker he too might be a smaller risk at say 1M/yr than Damp at 72M/6= $12M/yr. 

Do you not see the relationship between salary and risk?

A player like Baker or Williams would be low risk because if they fail we can easily swallow the loss without damage. But a 12m/yr contract for an unmotivated guy is another matter entirely.

Then to make matters worse, you go on to tell us how the Suns wouldn't overpay Damp like NY would, but NY should be happy to overpay him. We've lived under Layden's contracts for a long time now and hopefully have learned from his mistakes. We have a new GM and an opportunity to start cleaning up some of the mess his predecessor left behind. 

Perhaps you will "win" Dampier, but if you do and he fails you then you too might not want anymore Layden-esque deals for yourself in the future. Maybe that's why the likes of Jerry West, Donnie Walsh/Larry Bird, Jerry/Brian Colangelo, Don Nelson/Mark Cuban, and Mitch Kupchak have yet to outbid us.

Good to see you alphadog.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

Raven, I am not questioning Damp's skill level at all. I know he has real tools. As far as being more athletic than Kandi...well, I amm not so sure about that. One of the reasons Kandi was select #1 was that he had great athleticism and agility for his size. As I recall,he just had very little BBall experience. I guess my basic point is only this: While West et al have looked at Dampier and tried to get him, their efforts have not been representative of the value you seem to think he has. His desire and dedication ARE very real issues. 

Thanks Oak...good to find the place again. Compared to the other boards there are just too many good thinkers here...except Truth...(jab,jab)


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> there are just too many good thinkers here...except Truth...(jab,jab)


Alfa, are you implying i am not a good thinker,but a great thinker??? it appears you have acquired wisdom dring your hiatus:yes:

I hate giving damp a contract over 3 years...Imagine paying that stiff 10+ when he is 35 years old.....


----------



## edgaraven (Jun 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>alphadog</b>!
> Raven, I am not questioning Damp's skill level at all. I know he has real tools. As far as being more athletic than Kandi...well, I amm not so sure about that. One of the reasons Kandi was select #1 was that he had great athleticism and agility for his size. As I recall,he just had very little BBall experience. I guess my basic point is only this: While West et al have looked at Dampier and tried to get him, their efforts have not been representative of the value you seem to think he has. His desire and dedication ARE very real issues.


I think you've misquoted me there, alphadog. I actually said that Kandi was the more athletic, but that he still doesn't know how to properly play in the post, which negates his athletic advantage.

As far as who has outbid who.. no one has the clear edge at this point. The NY media has out-rumored any other group that pursued Damp to this point, but the Knicks aren't really any closer to landing Damp than, say, Memphis or Indiana are. Dallas seems to have taken themselves out of the bidding for now. The Lakers, now that the Shaq trade is done, don't really have the assets to make a trade work.

Getting back to the risk of signing Damp. I'm not saying that there is no risk involved with him. Certainly, he hasn't dominated like someone of his size and skill should have over the years. To some, it may point to a lack of motivation. What I'm arguing against is this blanket belief that because his numbers were, on the surface, so extraordinary this past year, that is MUST be because he's lacked proper motivation in the past. While that view may hold some water, my main point was to counter many of the baseless comments made by many (not just Vescey) in the NY media. 

Just to give a counterpoint, check out 
this article from HoopsHype earlier this year. This is just one of a few articles I read that touched on the effect Clifford Ray has had on Damp over the past few seasons.



> But it’s not Thurmond or Rick Barry or Al Attles that Dampier credits most for his advancement as a center. Instead it’s Clifford Ray, the undersized 6-foot-9 man in the middle for the 1974-75 Warriors, the only Golden State club to win an NBA championship. The pair first hooked up when Ray worked as a Warriors assistant coach in 2001-02 and soon became friends.
> 
> “I came into camp this season in the best shape of my life and I credit Cliff for working with me all last summer. He even came to live with me over the summer back in Mississippi. I have to credit Cliff with a lot of my success,” the humble big man said. “Cliff, he always told me, ‘Damp, everything that you have, I didn’t have. All you have to do is believe in yourself and work heard everyday.’ No matter what happens in my career or life, he’s always going to be there for me.”


Honestly.. this guy's never had a rep for being a whiner or a head-case (unlike a guy like Kandi) He called Eric Musselman "Musclehead" out of frustration last year, but it has since been revealed that many of the Warriors didn't like Mussleman's head games. I, for one, believe his transformation this year was legit. I saw his improvement the year before.. give him his 32-33 minutes a game, and I think you'll get the 12 pts, 10 reb, 2 blks. To continue to argue that you'd rather not take the risk and go with an alcoholic who can't play defense even when he's sober, to me, is a little absurd.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>edgaraven</b>!
> 
> As far as who has outbid who.. no one has the clear edge at this point. The NY media has out-rumored any other group that pursued Damp to this point, but the Knicks aren't really any closer to landing Damp than, say, Memphis or Indiana are. Dallas seems to have taken themselves out of the bidding for now. The Lakers, now that the Shaq trade is done, don't really have the assets to make a trade work.


I think you're speaking to me here, and I'll just point out that I said they hadn't outbid us YET. While that might even technically be wrong I just meant nobody has been aggressive enough to actually get a deal done and there are no indications that we are anything but the frontrunners for a S&T at this point.



> To continue to argue that you'd rather not take the risk and go with an alcoholic who can't play defense even when he's sober, to me, is a little absurd.


That's because you've still yet to show you grasp the concept of risk being relative to the size of the contract. We'd be offering Baker 3M per vs Damp at 12M per. Before you even brake down the players potential your in the hole by a factor of 4 with Dampier.

And while Bakers D is suspect, it works both ways. Baker's post moves while drunk are better than Damps when sober. That too is absurd.

If we were offing Dampier the deal Atlanta is, something like 4 years and 40M, I'd be more enthusiastic. But Damp played weak while in his physical prime, thought of giving him 12M per when he's 34, 35, 36,is not that enticing.

Anyway, I hope you're right and I'm wrong, because whenever bad contracts are being discussed we are always right in the mix.


----------

