gunsnewing wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:I honestly don't see Melo taking a pay cut. He is due $23.5M next year. So we are saying he will opt out to take $18M per year? I don't see that happening.

That's the thing. Before Phil signed on you could rest assure his contract was starting at $24m

Yup. So I think our only option to sell high and let the Houston and Chicago of the world bid on our prized possesion. Because that is what Melo is right now, a trading asset.

gunsnewing wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:If a player is overpaid and aging badly, he is a terrible burden. You can't approach any investment, let alone a $100 million one, as if the price doesn't matter. Knicks' fans certainly should know this by now!

Any player aging badly is a burden. Unless a guy is really young most contracts are a burden by the time they expire, if you let them. You cant really control that beyond limiting minutes and building a deep roster, and even then. Older guys get hurt more.

Its the trade off every team makes no? Pay less up front so you have more flexilibility to get the pieces in place. To me it doesnt matter what Melo makes, so long as we can get the pieces in place.

Some gambles make more sense than others though. It would be one thing if this was Lebron, Durant, or even a top all-star who was much younger. But $100 mil or more so that Melo can play out his twelfth to sixteenth seasons here? I don't think he's worth $20+ mil per year right now, anyway, though, but I know we'll disagree on that.

We do disagree... I think $20mm is probably about right. Its a lot, but just kind of how these things work. You generally overpay to keep your own guys. There are some exceptions but thats the norm. Much more interesting will be what we pay Shump. He's in a contract year. What happens when he has a great season and wants $8mm per like other similar players?

Then We are in great shape and we own his bird rights to pay him what he deserves. You can go over the cap to sign your own. Remember Lin?

Looks like we all agree on Melo. I would go $17-22 with yearly incremental increases if Melo is kept. Less in the first 2yrs to allow us to add as much talent as possible. And then just hope he doesn't become H20 v2.0 because of overuse in this 11 seasons

22 mil guns? might as well pay him the max

LegendaryKnicks wrote:Carmelo's age isn't an issue at all, nor a factor in the contract talks. He's going to get four years from someone, he's a scorer, with a great jump shot. That doesn't leave you as you age, even at 34 years old it's not going to be an issue. Jason Kidd and Nash played incredibly well in their mid to late 30s. Kobe at 33, 34(before the injury that year) was top three in the league. This "30 being old" stuff is way off base in this day in age, he isn't a running back.

tkf wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:If a player is overpaid and aging badly, he is a terrible burden. You can't approach any investment, let alone a $100 million one, as if the price doesn't matter. Knicks' fans certainly should know this by now!

Any player aging badly is a burden. Unless a guy is really young most contracts are a burden by the time they expire, if you let them. You cant really control that beyond limiting minutes and building a deep roster, and even then. Older guys get hurt more.

Its the trade off every team makes no? Pay less up front so you have more flexilibility to get the pieces in place. To me it doesnt matter what Melo makes, so long as we can get the pieces in place.

Some gambles make more sense than others though. It would be one thing if this was Lebron, Durant, or even a top all-star who was much younger. But $100 mil or more so that Melo can play out his twelfth to sixteenth seasons here? I don't think he's worth $20+ mil per year right now, anyway, though, but I know we'll disagree on that.

We do disagree... I think $20mm is probably about right. Its a lot, but just kind of how these things work. You generally overpay to keep your own guys. There are some exceptions but thats the norm. Much more interesting will be what we pay Shump. He's in a contract year. What happens when he has a great season and wants $8mm per like other similar players?

Then We are in great shape and we own his bird rights to pay him what he deserves. You can go over the cap to sign your own. Remember Lin?

Looks like we all agree on Melo. I would go $17-22 with yearly incremental increases if Melo is kept. Less in the first 2yrs to allow us to add as much talent as possible. And then just hope he doesn't become H20 v2.0 because of overuse in this 11 seasons

22 mil guns? might as well pay him the max

What's wrong with 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 in 5yrs? Any more is reserved for guys like Lebron and Durant and even they realized they needed to take less. If Melo wants more than you trade him. Or you trade him to avoid repeating the mistakes you've made for 15yrs. Difference is we have Phil now

Melo made close to $24m this year. You expect to pay him $12m?

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:You want continuity. Guys who have a pulse on what it is to be a knick and the city. You can't keep throwing players up against the wall and hope they stick. No more hogs podge rosters. Establish a winning culture

Why would anyone want the continuity of a .450 roster!?

You don't think we would've been better right now had we kept Lee, Randolph, Nate, Crawford, Wilson and Gallo?

gunsnewing wrote:

tkf wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:If a player is overpaid and aging badly, he is a terrible burden. You can't approach any investment, let alone a $100 million one, as if the price doesn't matter. Knicks' fans certainly should know this by now!

Any player aging badly is a burden. Unless a guy is really young most contracts are a burden by the time they expire, if you let them. You cant really control that beyond limiting minutes and building a deep roster, and even then. Older guys get hurt more.

Its the trade off every team makes no? Pay less up front so you have more flexilibility to get the pieces in place. To me it doesnt matter what Melo makes, so long as we can get the pieces in place.

Some gambles make more sense than others though. It would be one thing if this was Lebron, Durant, or even a top all-star who was much younger. But $100 mil or more so that Melo can play out his twelfth to sixteenth seasons here? I don't think he's worth $20+ mil per year right now, anyway, though, but I know we'll disagree on that.

We do disagree... I think $20mm is probably about right. Its a lot, but just kind of how these things work. You generally overpay to keep your own guys. There are some exceptions but thats the norm. Much more interesting will be what we pay Shump. He's in a contract year. What happens when he has a great season and wants $8mm per like other similar players?

Then We are in great shape and we own his bird rights to pay him what he deserves. You can go over the cap to sign your own. Remember Lin?

Looks like we all agree on Melo. I would go $17-22 with yearly incremental increases if Melo is kept. Less in the first 2yrs to allow us to add as much talent as possible. And then just hope he doesn't become H20 v2.0 because of overuse in this 11 seasons

22 mil guns? might as well pay him the max

What's wrong with 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 in 5yrs? Any more is reserved for guys like Lebron and Durant and even they release they needed to take less. If Melo wants more than you trade him. Or you trade him to avoid repeating the mistakes you've made for 15yrs. Difference is we have Phil now

a lot is wrong with that. .if we are talking a true savings, I am looking at the 14-15 mil range.. of course I don't want him here at any price, but since knick fans are hell bent on mediocrity, I don't see why we should pay any more than that...

fans keep saying he needs help, the keep referencing his role on team usa.. well that was like a 3-5th option.. ok, well then he should be paid as such.. in the end guns, he is a scorer, and not really that efficient... I would like the knicks to get younger at SF and preferably one who can defend.. if we want scoring, a guy like monta ellis could give us scoring off the bench...someone in that mold. I look at what monta did this year.. 19ppg on 15 shots shooting 45%... with almost 6 dimes.. I will take that and pay him about 8-11 mil.. if you rate carmelo slightly above monta as a scorer then go 14 mil.. but no more..

tkf wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

tkf wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:If a player is overpaid and aging badly, he is a terrible burden. You can't approach any investment, let alone a $100 million one, as if the price doesn't matter. Knicks' fans certainly should know this by now!

Any player aging badly is a burden. Unless a guy is really young most contracts are a burden by the time they expire, if you let them. You cant really control that beyond limiting minutes and building a deep roster, and even then. Older guys get hurt more.

Its the trade off every team makes no? Pay less up front so you have more flexilibility to get the pieces in place. To me it doesnt matter what Melo makes, so long as we can get the pieces in place.

Some gambles make more sense than others though. It would be one thing if this was Lebron, Durant, or even a top all-star who was much younger. But $100 mil or more so that Melo can play out his twelfth to sixteenth seasons here? I don't think he's worth $20+ mil per year right now, anyway, though, but I know we'll disagree on that.

We do disagree... I think $20mm is probably about right. Its a lot, but just kind of how these things work. You generally overpay to keep your own guys. There are some exceptions but thats the norm. Much more interesting will be what we pay Shump. He's in a contract year. What happens when he has a great season and wants $8mm per like other similar players?

Then We are in great shape and we own his bird rights to pay him what he deserves. You can go over the cap to sign your own. Remember Lin?

Looks like we all agree on Melo. I would go $17-22 with yearly incremental increases if Melo is kept. Less in the first 2yrs to allow us to add as much talent as possible. And then just hope he doesn't become H20 v2.0 because of overuse in this 11 seasons

22 mil guns? might as well pay him the max

What's wrong with 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 in 5yrs? Any more is reserved for guys like Lebron and Durant and even they release they needed to take less. If Melo wants more than you trade him. Or you trade him to avoid repeating the mistakes you've made for 15yrs. Difference is we have Phil now

a lot is wrong with that. .if we are talking a true savings, I am looking at the 14-15 mil range.. of course I don't want him here at any price, but since knick fans are hell bent on mediocrity, I don't see why we should pay any more than that...

fans keep saying he needs help, the keep referencing his role on team usa.. well that was like a 3-5th option.. ok, well then he should be paid as such.. in the end guns, he is a scorer, and not really that efficient... I would like the knicks to get younger at SF and preferably one who can defend.. if we want scoring, a guy like monta ellis could give us scoring off the bench...someone in that mold. I look at what monta did this year.. 19ppg on 15 shots shooting 45%... with almost 6 dimes.. I will take that and pay him about 8-11 mil.. if you rate carmelo slightly above monta as a scorer then go 14 mil.. but no more..

We got Amare making $24m and chandler $15m. It can be done @$17-22m. But if Melo blows out his shoulder then we are screwed. It's like he's on a pitch count. I can't even begin to image how many shots he's put up in those 11yrs. Those shoulders gotta be buggin

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:You want continuity. Guys who have a pulse on what it is to be a knick and the city. You can't keep throwing players up against the wall and hope they stick. No more hogs podge rosters. Establish a winning culture

Why would anyone want the continuity of a .450 roster!?

how about the Wizards? The team everyone is gushing over. They were a .350 team last year. So by your logic they should have blown it up? The GM even said he was going to let this group grow together...continuity was the exact word he used.

Its called building, before last year Knicks made the playoffs what? Once in like 12 years? Then get some money guys and make the playoffs 3 straight years and get better every year. Obviously last year was bad but its also not hard to see what needs to be fixed. Continuity is huge, especially in hoops.

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:You want continuity. Guys who have a pulse on what it is to be a knick and the city. You can't keep throwing players up against the wall and hope they stick. No more hogs podge rosters. Establish a winning culture

Why would anyone want the continuity of a .450 roster!?

You don't think we would've been better right now had we kept Lee, Randolph, Nate, Crawford, Wilson and Gallo?

eeeesh

Eh, a little better but with no cap space and no future.

Yea but then you'd be looking at adding one big piece not a whole roster