Knicks' Downfall Began With Ewing Trade
By CHRIS BROUSSARD
nytimes.com
Before reminding the Madison
Square Garden fans of what
a franchise center looked like on
Sunday, Shaquille O'Neal opined
on the downfall of the Knicks.
Simply and succinctly, he traced
the Knicks' current plight to the
trading of Patrick Ewing.
"Trade a legend, bad things
happen to you," said O'Neal, the
Los Angeles Lakers star.
The Knicks, on the verge of
missing the playoffs for the first
time in 15 years, are certainly
evidence of that. While Ewing,
who was 38 when he was dealt to
Seattle in September 2000, did
not have much to offer on the
court anymore, the Knicks'
decision to trade him was the first
in a series of front-office moves
that were imprudent from a
financial standpoint and
questionable from a basketball
standpoint.
Those moves, combined with the
untimely and unexpected
resignation of Jeff Van Gundy as
head coach earlier this season,
Marcus Camby's constant injury
problems and the premature
retirement of Larry Johnson, have
caused the Knicks to deteriorate
into one of the worst-situated
teams in the National Basketball
Association. With a league-high
$85.5 million payroll and a roster
full of overpaid role players,
their prospects for swift
improvement are as unfavorable
as their current 20-34 record.
"Most general managers around
the league feel the Ewing trade
was the single most drastic thing,
because look at what it turned
them into," said an Eastern
Conference executive, speaking
on condition of anonymity. "If
they had just let Ewing go, they
wouldn't have guys like Travis
Knight, Howard Eisley and
Shandon Anderson signed to
those long-term deals."
The seeds for the Ewing trade
were planted when the players,
the public, and even Dave
Checketts, then the president of
Madison Square Garden, began
thinking the Knicks were better
off without Ewing during their run
to the 1999 N.B.A. finals. So when Ewing, angry over the
lack of respect he received and aware that the Knicks
would not extend his contract, demanded a trade, the
Knicks sought to satisfy him.
If the Knicks had gotten great value, trading Ewing at that
point in his career would not have been so damning. But
the Knicks were afraid he would be disruptive if brought
back for one more season, so they accepted a package of
aging, injured, ill- fitting players with long-term contracts
totaling $90.4 million rather than keeping Ewing around
and chopping his $16 million off their payroll after the
2000-1 season.
The club's thinking was that by pulling off the four-team
trade that sent Ewing to Seattle, it would be in position to
trade for Dikembe Mutombo, still a top-flight center,
during, or after, the season.
"I was an assistant at the time and as far as I was told,
there were conversations in terms of trying to get
Mutombo," Knicks Coach Don Chaney said. "They were
working on that. We thought we had a chance at getting a
big guy, and the big guy was Mutombo. I was told through
the coaches that Mutombo was the guy in sight for us to
bring in here."
While David Falk, the agent for Mutombo and Glen Rice,
never told the Knicks he would deliver Mutombo, the
Knicks knew that taking care of one of his clients would
not hurt in the pursuit of another. So they gave Rice, who
was 33 at the time, a four-year, $36 million contract.
Rice's only other option at the time was to accept a
one-year, $7.5 million offer from the Chicago Bulls.
"The Knicks tried to cultivate a good relationship with
people who could help them," Falk said. "That's called
good business. I'm very fond of Dave Checketts and we
developed a good relationship. If Dikembe had not been
traded from Atlanta to Philadelphia, would the Knicks
have had a good chance of getting him? Absolutely."
The Knicks were so focused on getting Mutombo that they
were willing to look past Luc Longley's poor health and
six-year, $32.4 million contract and agreed to accept him
in the Ewing deal to make the trade work for the
SuperSonics. While the Knicks wound up surprised that
Longley was limited to only 25 games in the 2000-1
season, they knew beforehand that he would not be a
major contributor. In fact, Longley, who ended up retiring
because of a degenerative condition in his ankle in
September, said the Knicks knew he was banged up
before trading for him.
"Phoenix knew what was going on," Longley said last
summer. "That's why they traded me. Their doctors had
seen the X-rays and giggled at them. I brought up my ankle
in my physical with the Knicks, and they said, `Have you
been playing?' I said, `Yes,' and that was it."
Now Longley is retired, and the Knicks will have ended
up paying him approximately $25 million.
Scott Layden, the Knicks' president and general manager,
would not comment on the Knicks' series of deals, but one
person who was close to him said, "It would have been a
great trade if it had all turned into Mutombo, but those are
some of the gambles you take."
Checketts was forced out last spring, and Layden
ultimately saw his duties expanded. The Knicks then took
another gamble last summer, miscalculating the health of
Charlie Ward and compounding the financial
repercussions of the Ewing trade by sending Rice to
Houston in a three- team deal for Anderson and Eisley.
The Knicks knew they needed to move Rice because he
was unhappy coming off the bench, and they also wanted
another point guard because they were afraid that Ward's
knees would not hold up this season.
But none of that is justification for trading for a role
player like Eisley when he has six years and $36.6 million
left on his contract. The summer before, no one but
Dallas's deep- pocketed owner, Mark Cuban, was willing
to give Eisley more than $2.25 million a year. And
Eisley's trade value was higher then than it is now. On top
of that, the Knicks agreed to give Anderson a six-year,
$42 million deal.
Adding in the seven-year, $22 million contract that Knight
got when he arrived with Rice, the Knicks took on $137.4
million in contracts for players they acquired through the
Ewing trade. By contrast, Ewing had sought just a $17
million extension for two years.
When Ward's knees proved
sturdy, the move to acquire Eisley
became even more problematic
because it left the Knicks with
three point guards of similar
talent. The glut at the position
would not have been as bad if the
Knicks had not traded Chris
Childs for Mark Jackson last
season. Whereas Childs could
have been traded because he is in
the last year of his contract, the
36-year-old Jackson, who has
two years and nearly $9 million
left on his deal after this season,
is hard to move.
Now, the Knicks don't seem to
have any attractive options. Kurt
Thomas and Othella Harrington
have reasonable contracts, but
who will the Knicks get in return
who is better than them?
Camby's injuries have crushed his
market value. He has played just
29 games this season.
Even Latrell Sprewell, who will
be 32 at the start of next season,
is not hot. A rebuilding team will
not want him because of his age,
and a contending team that needs
another piece would probably not
offer equal value for him.
And most league executives
believe Allan Houston will be
hard to move because of his
six-year, $100.4 million contract.
Knowing that he left Detroit as a
free agent in 1996, the Knicks
wanted to avoid the risk of losing
him by haggling in negotiations.
They thought it would be better to
sign him and trade him later if
necessary.
"Signing Allan Houston for $100
million was not good," one
Eastern Conference general
manager said. "I would have
given him maybe $1 million more
than anybody else would have
given him, and that was probably
Chicago, $72 million. And he
probably would not have gone
there."
Johnson's retirement during
training camp robbed the Knicks
of their one low-post presence
who could demand double teams
and it also left them without a dominant personality in the
locker room.
But the impact that Van Gundy's resignation had on the
team cannot be overstated. With no disrespect to Chaney,
who was left in a very difficult position, many people
inside the league believe the Knicks would at least be in
the playoff hunt if their coach had not walked out.
"I don't think their front office realized the ramifications of
Jeff's decision," said one Eastern Conference coach who
believes Van Gundy left in large part because the Knicks
refused to grant him a contract extension last summer.
"They thought their team was a good team and the players
thought they were a good team and that they could do it
without Jeff.
"Watching their team play, when they get their large leads
and they let up and they lose, it's because most of those
guys on the team think they're much better than they really
are. I think that's a big problem with that team. I think
when they play hard and play like a team that realizes that
they're not that good and that they have to play hard,
they're not bad. But they don't do that.
"Jeff, whether they liked him or not, got the most out of
them. He paid attention to detail and there was no slippage
when he was around. He wouldn't allow anybody to let
up. They have let up, especially with big leads, and that's
the reason they went down."
That's one of the reasons. |
