Keep Allan Houston?

[Mr. J]

I know that it was everyone's intention to trade Houston, but do you think we should keep him? First of all, if healthy, we get a player who can put up 20 points a game and is clutch as they come. Our losses in the clutch is the biggest reason why we didn't make the playoffs last season. So with Houston, we're solid. We also have Marbury who will benefit very well with a reliable outside shooter in Houston. Last time he had that, he averaged 9.3 assists and was pretty passive.

Now what I want us to do is to get rid of Mo' Taylor. He's okay and definitely not as bad as I thought he would be, but do we really need him? We just got him because he was offered for Moochie Norris and Vin Baker - 10th-12th man material. In terms of post scoring, we have David Lee and Mike Sweetney and in addition, we limit the glut to just four players instead of five.

Houston is more valuable than Taylor will ever be and having a healthy Houston will greatly increase our contending chances in the East. Sure we'll save 40 million, but after this season, he'll have an expiring contract so we can just be patient and trade him in 2007. Your thoughts?

 

[MoreCowBell]

PROS:
Houston: good team guy and spiritual
Houston: one of the purest shooters in the game
Houston: many good Knick's memories

CONS:
Houston: defensive liability.
Houston: bum knees
Houston: no lateral movement
Houston: $40 mill remaining
Houston: only played 70 games in last two years
Houston: captain but not a great leader
Houston: does not make teamates better


Obviously the Cons outweigh the Pros.

Being a good player in the "clutch" doesn't only mean offensively. Most, if not all, over paid players play decent defense in the clutch. Because of the nature of Houston's injuries (multiple knee operations) his lateral movement has suffered greatly. Even if he is one of the purest shooters in the game all of that is for naught if he gives up 20+ on the other end (defense). As far as i'm concerned a player who does not have the same offensive prowess as Houston but who does have better defensive skills is much more valuable - especially on a Larry Brown coached team.

The Knicks have too much to gain by releasing Houston. Most importantly, they save a whole lotta money. Even if Houston is serviceable, at $40 mill over the next two years...that's a whole lotta mulah to be throwing a serviceable-type player. The only way I could see Houston staying in New York is if he agreed to accept less money (change his contract) - which is not really a possibility.

As far as letting Mo T. go....I think MT has some good post up moves. He's a good scorer down low but plays woeful defense. MT would be a good trading pawn. Throw in TT and AH and we might just land a either decent rebounding PF (Reggie Evans?) or a quality back-up pg (Eric Snow?). With our glut at PF and SG I wouldn't mind seeing one of our SG's go in exchange for a big man with potential (Al Harrington?).

Basically, I think the CBA provision allowing teams to dump a big contract is very beneficial to the Knicks. I think Houston should be the contract that is dumped. However, the Knicks may choose to dump another player (MT) instead.

I guess we'll have to wait until August 15th to see what happens ......

 

[REREM]

You don't get to "Dump a Contract" you still PAY Houston,or whoever the Zillion $,and it still counts against cap BUT no longer counts toward Lux tax. Nobody will trade for Houston,The Knicks would be VERY lucky to move P Hardaway or TT,and Thomas at least is healthy,mediocre-but healthy. Taylor's stock also has been sliding-as is few teams want what he costs. Short term the various mega salary mistakes have the Knicks stuck. Over time those poison contracts end and the Knicks can start putting something togather.

 

[MoreCowBell]

I agree with REREM in regards to it being difficult to move any of the players the Knicks have. Overpaid, lazy players are hard to move.

When I said "dump" i was assuming those in the "know" understood the CBA provision and that this particular exception to the CBA does not affect the luxury cap in any way - rather as you have put it so succinctly only the salary cap. Either way you cut it, the Knicks save a bundle of loot if they cut Houston.

 

[Char]

But it doesn't look like the Knicks dare to cut him. With Starbury moving to the 2, it's starting to look awful crowded, but I have the utmost confidence that Coach Brown will run a extremely tight ship and we will not see any quarrels like Hardaway and Sprewell in Golden State. I wince every time I see the Slam cover with Spree and Tim being touted as the greatest backourt ever.

 

[bbwSwish]

Apparently the Knicks are planning on keeping Allan Houston.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">New York Post - Allan Houston appears safe, The Post has learned.
The Knicks are expected to let Monday's amnesty deadline pass without waiving Houston, a league official said.

The Knicks are talking about waiving one of four other players in order to take advantage of the NBA's one-time provision and reduce their luxury tax liability. Power forwards Malik Rose, Maurice Taylor and, to a lesser extent, Jerome Williams are in danger. Perhaps the best option being reviewed is waiving the contract of Shandon Anderson, bought out last October.

Yesterday, Knicks president Isiah Thomas and newly hired coach Larry Brown huddled at their Westchester practice campus, partly to discuss their amnesty decision.

Cutting Houston would save the club $39.8 million in luxury tax; when the league included the provision in its new collective bargaining agreement, some even referred to the clause as "The Allan Houston Rule."

The club now believes that Houston, once reluctant to retire, will hang them up if he's not close to being ready by the end of October's training camp.

Houston has told Knicks officials he doesn't want to go through the same ordeal of the past two seasons, missing 92 games, and would consider retirement if he's still not healthy after camp.

Houston's sentiment changed the Knicks' position on how best to proceed. A faction within the organization believes the veteran shooting guard's arthritic knees will not heal enough to allow him to play close to an entire season.

The Knicks would prefer that Houston agree to a medical retirement, which would save them much more than just the luxury tax reduction of the amnesty rule. Houston would get every penny but insurance ? not the Knicks ? would pay 75 percent of Houston's $39.8M in salary, minus a 20 percent deductible.</div>
Source

 

[Shapecity]

From the article it mentions the Knicks will consider waiving Mo Taylor, Malik Rose, JYD, or the remainder of Anderson's contract. Waiving Anderson makes the most sense, but I would still just use it on Houston. It's great he's willing to retire if he's not healthy, but you run the risk he backs off that statement and sits on the IL the next two years. Also keeping Houston costs you a roster spot.

 

[MoreCowBell]

Houston's contract should be the one that is cut. However, from news today it seems that the Knicks are leaning towards cutting Anderson's contract - though Rose's seems like a better alternative.

If we end up keeping Houston the way to avoid taking up an active roster spot is to place him on the DL...or practice squad (unlikely)....until he is healthy enough to contribute.

If Houston comes back and can give meaningful minutes (15) off the bench it might actually work in the Knick's favor. Holding onto him for 1 more season makes him a valuable trading asset (either for teams looking for a serviceable sharp-shooter or for a team looking to clear up their salary/luxury cap).

Perhaps the Knicks can make a run for Lebron when his contract with cleveland comes to an end (assuming he doesn't sign an extension and elects to become a free agent).

So many possibilities. Word has it that Dolan likes Houston quite a bit and wants to handle his situation respectfully. However, I'm sure that the Dolans are hoping that Allan retires and lets the insurance company pay for his salary.

Only a few more days until we find out the answer.....

 

[Mr. J]

I was hoping we didn?t cut Houston because I didn?t think it was worth it. Houston is making a ton of money, but his contract ends in only two years and after TT and Penny expire at the end of this year, at the very next year, we can further help ourselves by some team desperate to get under the cap by the February deadline.

Also, if he comes healthy, like he promised us, the Knicks will greatly benefit. We?ll have back a reliable threat on the perimeter and above all our clutchest shooter who can help close out our games. As I said before, the Knicks have lost 30 of their 49 games by a total of 6 points or less because of their inability to put games away. So, if we did have a healthy Houston, imagining us making the playoffs last year wouldn?t be a stretch.

If he doesn?t come back healthy, he?ll retire and the Knicks can make more money and still cut someone with the amnesty rule. I would want Mo? Taylor out of here if we had to use it on someone. We need to get rid of a power forward and he?s also the least useful one being a one-dimensional low post threat. Shandon Anderson would seem to be the best option, but we need to take some players off our roster. Coming into next season, we will have 16 players on the roster not including Bruno and Jermaine Jackson.

All we can do is just sit back and hope that Houston is healthy next year. If he is, that will be another surprise that can change our season around for the better.