yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:GMs (or the "market") really misjudged Millsap's value. It's hard to believe he got only 2 yrs, $9.5 mil per

did they really? He is not a young guy and won't carry your team but I will agree that teams on the verge should have went after him but I think a lot of those teams already had players at his position that they valued. One could argue his shooting efficiency is on the downhill but maybe it would be different if he wasn't a focal point of the offense like the last 3 years.

If Melo stays I would see if ATL wanted to move him in a salary dump to get Korver and teague off the books. I think Korver might be another Mike Miller(better overall player) who is great off the bench but can't stay on the floor due to Back problems. Korver is only a year younger than Miller but has been healthier so far up until this year. Anyway, ATL is really in no mans land and may want to dumb long term salary and tank next year. I think age and salary could give the knicks a chance to steal two good players.

I'm not the biggest fan of Teague or Korver but I would imagine that the Hawks could get more for them than just a salary dump. With a healthy Al Horford, those guys were key players on a team that had the 3rd best record in the league. To be honest, I can't decipher what the Hawks want to do because they seem to be purposely clinging to mediocrity. If they were going to tank, it would've been this season and for this draft that is burgeoning with star talent. If not now, then never.

In any case, I think you are grossly underrating Paul Millsap if you think his value is exclusively determined by his efficiency numbers. The guy impacts the game in a number of ways, as a deft passer, versatile defender (can pick or 3's or 4's), rebounder, hustle/muscle player and floor spacer. I love watching him play because of that. What more do you want out of a guy that could be your 3rd best player on a title team? If his efficiency is all that concerns you, one would think that if he played on a team where he didn't have to be the focal point of the offense, that his efficiency numbers would go up. Next to Melo and with a decent PG to get him the ball, I think this would be a distinct possibility.

y2zipper wrote:The Clippers only had 60 million on the books when they acquired Redick and Dudley. They weren't close to the tax line.

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/7/2/4488366/suns-clippers-bucks-trade-eric-bledsoe-jj-redick-jared-dudley

This article talks about it being a financial win for the Clippers, who saved money and preserved their MLE in the deal. Remember, they gave up Caron Butler and Eric Bledsoe and actually saved money here.

The current rule is that a taxpayer can't receive a player in a sign and trade unless they take less salary than they give up.

But definitely over the cap. So was it possible for the Knicks to create a trade that could've dumped Bargnani for a trade exception to get Millsap and Mo? That would've put us below the luxury tax and pretty close to the cap. Would we have been able to keep JR's rights?

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:They undervalued him more in the duration of the contract. He should have been able to get at least 4 years, 35 mil with a player option (rather than the contract just ending) after the second year.
Put it this way, would you rather have 3 Paul Millsaps or Melo? If we had 3 Millsaps, do you think we'd still be a .400 team?
The shooting efficiency is probably just random variation. His 3s are better and 2s are worse this year.

Why would anyone want 3 PFs at the same price. Also, his 2pt% has gone down ever year the last 4 years and his TS has been at 55 or below the last 3 years. He is going down in his prime.

Say you do have 3 Millsaps with Felton and Bargs sandwiching them, what then. Also, why 3 wouldn't it be 2 given the money? Is 21M that much more than 19M?

Why would anyone want a volume scoring specialist at 25 mil either? I think you're taking the example too literally. I meant 3 players at his level. Although if you do take the statement literally, I'd still bet that with 3 Millsaps (1 SF, 1PF, 1 6th man) we'd be better than .400 right now.

Why would anyone want a more efficient Paul Millsap who keeps a higher efficiency at a much higher usage while grabbing nearly the same amount as boards? I don't gamble but I I doubt we will ever find out.

Edit: I think the last few Utah teams had a similar scenario and they did have a better record. Then again they didn't have two of the worst players at their position starting on that team.

yellowboy90 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The Clippers only had 60 million on the books when they acquired Redick and Dudley. They weren't close to the tax line.

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/7/2/4488366/suns-clippers-bucks-trade-eric-bledsoe-jj-redick-jared-dudley

This article talks about it being a financial win for the Clippers, who saved money and preserved their MLE in the deal. Remember, they gave up Caron Butler and Eric Bledsoe and actually saved money here.

The current rule is that a taxpayer can't receive a player in a sign and trade unless they take less salary than they give up.

But definitely over the cap. So was it possible for the Knicks to create a trade that could've dumped Bargnani for a trade exception (for Millsap and Mo) that also moved us closer to the cap threshold? Would we have been able to keep JR's rights?

I think you are lost in your scenario. The knicks wouldn't have Bargs at the time right? They would be using Novak, Camby, Richardson?, and etc to get M&M and would need to dump somebody else maybe to make it work. MAybe I'm the one who is lost. IDK.

No, it is definitely my fault. I tried editing and re-editing the post and it still didn't seem clear to me. Maybe if I do it bulletin-style.

Step 1:Knicks engage in a 3 team trade.
●Raptors get our original Bargnani package.
●We get a trade exception equivalent to $12 million.
●A third team, with cap space, takes Bargnani.

Step 2: Knicks (who are now below the luxury tax/apron) trade the exception for both Paul Millsap and Mo Williams.

Does that make more sense?

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:They undervalued him more in the duration of the contract. He should have been able to get at least 4 years, 35 mil with a player option (rather than the contract just ending) after the second year.
Put it this way, would you rather have 3 Paul Millsaps or Melo? If we had 3 Millsaps, do you think we'd still be a .400 team?
The shooting efficiency is probably just random variation. His 3s are better and 2s are worse this year.

Why would anyone want 3 PFs at the same price. Also, his 2pt% has gone down ever year the last 4 years and his TS has been at 55 or below the last 3 years. He is going down in his prime.

Say you do have 3 Millsaps with Felton and Bargs sandwiching them, what then. Also, why 3 wouldn't it be 2 given the money? Is 21M that much more than 19M?

Why would anyone want a volume scoring specialist at 25 mil either? I think you're taking the example too literally. I meant 3 players at his level. Although if you do take the statement literally, I'd still bet that with 3 Millsaps (1 SF, 1PF, 1 6th man) we'd be better than .400 right now.

Why would anyone want a more efficient Paul Millsap who keeps a higher efficiency at a much higher usage while grabbing nearly the same amount as boards? I don't gamble but I I doubt we will ever find out.

Edit: I think the last few Utah teams had a similar scenario and they did have a better record. Then again they didn't have two of the worst players at their position starting on that team.

Do you mean Melo when you say a "more efficient Millsap"? If they were the same price, of course you'd prefer Melo. If Melo signed a 2 year, $19 mil contract, it would be the best thing that happened to the Knicks since drafting Patrick Ewing. But that's obviously far-fetched. If he signs a $25 to 30 mil per, it will be the worst thing in years though.

Melo signing a 2 year deal is definitely far fetch and what if Melo sign at 30 M and the knicks won a title. Would that still be the worst thing in years?

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:They undervalued him more in the duration of the contract. He should have been able to get at least 4 years, 35 mil with a player option (rather than the contract just ending) after the second year.
Put it this way, would you rather have 3 Paul Millsaps or Melo? If we had 3 Millsaps, do you think we'd still be a .400 team?
The shooting efficiency is probably just random variation. His 3s are better and 2s are worse this year.

Why would anyone want 3 PFs at the same price. Also, his 2pt% has gone down ever year the last 4 years and his TS has been at 55 or below the last 3 years. He is going down in his prime.

Say you do have 3 Millsaps with Felton and Bargs sandwiching them, what then. Also, why 3 wouldn't it be 2 given the money? Is 21M that much more than 19M?

Why would anyone want a volume scoring specialist at 25 mil either? I think you're taking the example too literally. I meant 3 players at his level. Although if you do take the statement literally, I'd still bet that with 3 Millsaps (1 SF, 1PF, 1 6th man) we'd be better than .400 right now.

Why would anyone want a more efficient Paul Millsap who keeps a higher efficiency at a much higher usage while grabbing nearly the same amount as boards? I don't gamble but I I doubt we will ever find out.

Edit: I think the last few Utah teams had a similar scenario and they did have a better record. Then again they didn't have two of the worst players at their position starting on that team.

Do you mean Melo when you say a "more efficient Millsap"? If they were the same price, of course you'd prefer Melo. If Melo signed a 2 year, $19 mil contract, it would be the best thing that happened to the Knicks since drafting Patrick Ewing. But that's obviously far-fetched. If he signs a $25 to 30 mil per, it will be the worst thing in years though.

Yes, I mean Melo and maybe they are working with some in house data that we don't know. I have no clue why teams didn't want Millsap. Why would Morey not go get Millsap at that Price or try to get him at the deadline?

Melo signing a 2 year deal is definitely far fetch and what if Melo sign at 30 M and the knicks won a title. Would that still be the worst thing in years?

Morey didn't have the $9.5 million to sign and trade for Millsap at the beginning of the season. I also got the impression that the Hawks were not interested in paying Omer Asik $15 million next year, so I don't see how a deal could be made.

yellowboy90 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:They undervalued him more in the duration of the contract. He should have been able to get at least 4 years, 35 mil with a player option (rather than the contract just ending) after the second year.
Put it this way, would you rather have 3 Paul Millsaps or Melo? If we had 3 Millsaps, do you think we'd still be a .400 team?
The shooting efficiency is probably just random variation. His 3s are better and 2s are worse this year.

I think if we had 10 Milsaps we would win a title because he's so efficient. Like my speling.

You know what's interesting is that a guy like Millsap is labeled efficient but really is not and Melo is labeled inefficient but really is efficient. Is that Ironic? No really is that Ironic I get the use of that word mixed up.

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:They undervalued him more in the duration of the contract. He should have been able to get at least 4 years, 35 mil with a player option (rather than the contract just ending) after the second year.
Put it this way, would you rather have 3 Paul Millsaps or Melo? If we had 3 Millsaps, do you think we'd still be a .400 team?
The shooting efficiency is probably just random variation. His 3s are better and 2s are worse this year.

Why would anyone want 3 PFs at the same price. Also, his 2pt% has gone down ever year the last 4 years and his TS has been at 55 or below the last 3 years. He is going down in his prime.

Say you do have 3 Millsaps with Felton and Bargs sandwiching them, what then. Also, why 3 wouldn't it be 2 given the money? Is 21M that much more than 19M?

Why would anyone want a volume scoring specialist at 25 mil either? I think you're taking the example too literally. I meant 3 players at his level. Although if you do take the statement literally, I'd still bet that with 3 Millsaps (1 SF, 1PF, 1 6th man) we'd be better than .400 right now.

Why would anyone want a more efficient Paul Millsap who keeps a higher efficiency at a much higher usage while grabbing nearly the same amount as boards? I don't gamble but I I doubt we will ever find out.

Edit: I think the last few Utah teams had a similar scenario and they did have a better record. Then again they didn't have two of the worst players at their position starting on that team.

Do you mean Melo when you say a "more efficient Millsap"? If they were the same price, of course you'd prefer Melo. If Melo signed a 2 year, $19 mil contract, it would be the best thing that happened to the Knicks since drafting Patrick Ewing. But that's obviously far-fetched. If he signs a $25 to 30 mil per, it will be the worst thing in years though.

Yes, I mean Melo and maybe they are working with some in house data that we don't know. I have no clue why teams didn't want Millsap. Why would Morey not go get Millsap at that Price or try to get him at the deadline?

Melo signing a 2 year deal is definitely far fetch and what if Melo sign at 30 M and the knicks won a title. Would that still be the worst thing in years?

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:They undervalued him more in the duration of the contract. He should have been able to get at least 4 years, 35 mil with a player option (rather than the contract just ending) after the second year.
Put it this way, would you rather have 3 Paul Millsaps or Melo? If we had 3 Millsaps, do you think we'd still be a .400 team?
The shooting efficiency is probably just random variation. His 3s are better and 2s are worse this year.

Why would anyone want 3 PFs at the same price. Also, his 2pt% has gone down ever year the last 4 years and his TS has been at 55 or below the last 3 years. He is going down in his prime.

Say you do have 3 Millsaps with Felton and Bargs sandwiching them, what then. Also, why 3 wouldn't it be 2 given the money? Is 21M that much more than 19M?

Why would anyone want a volume scoring specialist at 25 mil either? I think you're taking the example too literally. I meant 3 players at his level. Although if you do take the statement literally, I'd still bet that with 3 Millsaps (1 SF, 1PF, 1 6th man) we'd be better than .400 right now.

Why would anyone want a more efficient Paul Millsap who keeps a higher efficiency at a much higher usage while grabbing nearly the same amount as boards? I don't gamble but I I doubt we will ever find out.

Edit: I think the last few Utah teams had a similar scenario and they did have a better record. Then again they didn't have two of the worst players at their position starting on that team.

Do you mean Melo when you say a "more efficient Millsap"? If they were the same price, of course you'd prefer Melo. If Melo signed a 2 year, $19 mil contract, it would be the best thing that happened to the Knicks since drafting Patrick Ewing. But that's obviously far-fetched. If he signs a $25 to 30 mil per, it will be the worst thing in years though.

Yes, I mean Melo and maybe they are working with some in house data that we don't know. I have no clue why teams didn't want Millsap. Why would Morey not go get Millsap at that Price or try to get him at the deadline?

Melo signing a 2 year deal is definitely far fetch and what if Melo sign at 30 M and the knicks won a title. Would that still be the worst thing in years?

No it would be the best thing to happen in years, though it would still be preferable that the Knicks sign me for $30 mil and won the championship.

See that's where you are wrong the more preferable scenario would be to sign me for 29M. Then I can brag about how I took less for the team because I'm all about sacrifice.