Elite wrote:Even with all Isiah did, I think this has the chance to overtake it to be known as the worst move in Knicks history.

This will never be worse than trading 2 first round lottery picks for Eddy Curry's fat lazy ass. Not even close.

fishmike wrote:

HARDCOREKNICKSFAN wrote:

Elite wrote:

HARDCOREKNICKSFAN wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:If Lin falls flat on his face, is it a "Good Move"?

Exactly.

Then it'll look like one of the BEST moves that the Knicks have ever made. We won't hear about that from the sports media or from most fans who were in favor of the Knicks matching, though.

ABSOLUTELY not, your so wrong. It will look like a prudent FISCAL move.. but not a marginal basketball move. Because not keeping him no matter how average he ends up will have done nothing to increase our chances of flexibility. Just a good money move, not a good basketball move. Even if Lin ends up "average" and Kidd is hurt it looks bad

OK, I will say that it would be a good move when it comes to avoiding a potentially untradeable, albatross, ccap-killer contract, which is STILL a good thing. There is nothing wrong about that.

I will concur, however, that we would be losing a marketable asset, though.

how can one year make a contract that? Your not making any sense. Lin for MLE money (first two years) is great. Its not like after that its 3 years and $60mm like Melo or Amare.

How can you possible say that in 2 years Lin making $15mm in an expiring contract is untradable?

Its one year. Please. This is your starting PG, your best prospect and a player who inspires teammates. If he's overpaid its MSG's fault for publicly saying "we will match any offer." Let them pay for that, why should Knick fans? I want our young starting dynamic PG to return. Not go away for nothing because of a "fiscal" problem.

He is only tradable if hes good at that point but there is no guarantee

The knicks could not trade CB, The sixers needed to amnesty Brand. Both were in the last year of their contracts.

fishmike wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

HARDCOREKNICKSFAN wrote:

Elite wrote:

HARDCOREKNICKSFAN wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:If Lin falls flat on his face, is it a "Good Move"?

Exactly.

Then it'll look like one of the BEST moves that the Knicks have ever made. We won't hear about that from the sports media or from most fans who were in favor of the Knicks matching, though.

ABSOLUTELY not, your so wrong. It will look like a prudent FISCAL move.. but not a marginal basketball move. Because not keeping him no matter how average he ends up will have done nothing to increase our chances of flexibility. Just a good money move, not a good basketball move. Even if Lin ends up "average" and Kidd is hurt it looks bad

OK, I will say that it would be a good move when it comes to avoiding a potentially untradeable, albatross, ccap-killer contract, which is STILL a good thing. There is nothing wrong about that.

I will concur, however, that we would be losing a marketable asset, though.

how can one year make a contract that? Your not making any sense. Lin for MLE money (first two years) is great. Its not like after that its 3 years and $60mm like Melo or Amare.

How can you possible say that in 2 years Lin making $15mm in an expiring contract is untradable?

Its one year. Please. This is your starting PG, your best prospect and a player who inspires teammates. If he's overpaid its MSG's fault for publicly saying "we will match any offer." Let them pay for that, why should Knick fans? I want our young starting dynamic PG to return. Not go away for nothing because of a "fiscal" problem.

He is only tradable if hes good at that point but there is no guarantee

The knicks could not trade CB, The sixers needed to amnesty Brand. Both were in the last year of their contracts.

amnesty and trading not the same. Knicks could have traded CB just fine, but trades means you have to take back equal salary. Amnesty puts you under the cap. Thats how we signed Chandler, because the amnesty creates cap space. A trade doesnt. Trading Billups was never a choice.

THey tried really hard to trade CB in multi team deals as to avoid taking back contracts but they could not.

Trading Lin in year 3 will require us to take back salary of almost equal value. Those can be bad contracts and they will also hurt us in luxury tax. Unless they can again try a multi team trade.

Its not that simple is all I'm saying.

CrushAlot wrote:

Elite wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:If Lin falls flat on his face, is it a "Good Move"?

that's the funniest part, no its not even a good move... because it really wouldn't matter much either way in terms of the cap

His contract will have a huge impact on the cap. Say goodbye to shump any other young guys the Knicks get and draft picks that get moved to help unload stats contract.

I think the Knicks will attempt to trade there first in 2013 for a future lottery protected 1.Which wouldnt be a bad move considering they have trade a lot of picks away

mrKnickShot wrote:

fishmike wrote:mrKnickShot, also if its a $$$ thing Knicks can just waive him and stretch out that last baloon year over 3. Either way $$$ isnt whats keeping this from happening.

Yeah I'm a bit confused on the stretch provision. And, does it spread over 3 cap years? If yes, why did we not do that with CB so that we could have saved our amnesty for Amare?

The stretch provision is only applicable to contracts signed under the new CBA, so for the Knicks, Jason Kidd, Raymond Felton, Marcus Camby, Steve Novak, as well as Jeremy Lin’s deal would all be eligible.

mrKnickShot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

HARDCOREKNICKSFAN wrote:

Elite wrote:

HARDCOREKNICKSFAN wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:If Lin falls flat on his face, is it a "Good Move"?

Exactly.

Then it'll look like one of the BEST moves that the Knicks have ever made. We won't hear about that from the sports media or from most fans who were in favor of the Knicks matching, though.

ABSOLUTELY not, your so wrong. It will look like a prudent FISCAL move.. but not a marginal basketball move. Because not keeping him no matter how average he ends up will have done nothing to increase our chances of flexibility. Just a good money move, not a good basketball move. Even if Lin ends up "average" and Kidd is hurt it looks bad

OK, I will say that it would be a good move when it comes to avoiding a potentially untradeable, albatross, ccap-killer contract, which is STILL a good thing. There is nothing wrong about that.

I will concur, however, that we would be losing a marketable asset, though.

how can one year make a contract that? Your not making any sense. Lin for MLE money (first two years) is great. Its not like after that its 3 years and $60mm like Melo or Amare.

How can you possible say that in 2 years Lin making $15mm in an expiring contract is untradable?

Its one year. Please. This is your starting PG, your best prospect and a player who inspires teammates. If he's overpaid its MSG's fault for publicly saying "we will match any offer." Let them pay for that, why should Knick fans? I want our young starting dynamic PG to return. Not go away for nothing because of a "fiscal" problem.

He is only tradable if hes good at that point but there is no guarantee

The knicks could not trade CB, The sixers needed to amnesty Brand. Both were in the last year of their contracts.

That is what I meant when I said that this can be a POTENTIALLY bad deal.

Fish, We are all aware of the reported contract terms and duration. That said, the year 3 payout is high as hell, and if Lin's performance doesn't measure up, then yes, he will be difficult to trade.

It's not MSG's fault that Lin went and SIGNED a modified deal AFTER they Knicks had already verbally agreed to match the initial deal. What is there not to understand?

We don't know whether Lin stays or goes yet. The answer will be revealed by midnight. If we match, then fine. If not, then NO, the Knicks world won't end, either.

HARDCOREKNICKSFAN wrote:That is what I meant when I said that this can be a POTENTIALLY bad deal.

Fish, We are all aware of the reported contract terms and duration. That said, the year 3 payout is high as hell, and if Lin's performance doesn't measure up, then yes, he will be difficult to trade.

It's not MSG's fault that Lin went and SIGNED a modified deal AFTER they Knicks had already verbally agreed to match the initial deal. What is there not to understand?

We don't know whether Lin stays or goes yet. The answer will be revealed by midnight. If we match, then fine. If not, then NO, the Knicks world won't end, either.

"It's not MSG's fault that Lin went and SIGNED a modified deal AFTER they Knicks had already verbally agreed to match the initial deal. What is there not to understand?"

Ahhh... all of it. There was no official deal for the Knicks to agree to, they were just shooting their mouth off. If they say nothing and wait for the papers to arrive it they wouldnt be paying. Simple as that. Thats the only relevent info