Vmart wrote:It would be absolutely stupid on the Knicks part to give Melo a Max deal at 30. He is already a below average shooter inefficient he will only get worse and worse from here on out.

fishmike wrote:

Vmart wrote:It would be absolutely stupid on the Knicks part to give Melo a Max deal at 30. He is already a below average shooter inefficient he will only get worse and worse from here on out.

so long as the Knicks are winning 45+ games and making the playoffs its good *financial* move.

I know the Knicks are about everything else but championships.

BRIGGS wrote:He's worth the money.

I hope that he considers giving us a house discount or atleast taking a frontloaded contract so we can have solid spending money the following year.

But lets get real here. Carmelo is a top 10 player who is a top 3 scorer capable of dominating NBA basketball games. Few players like him. You can look at his deficiencies but hes a worthy max player. Does he have 5 years left after this one? Well hes never been a run jump athlete so his knees should hold up and he seems to be a hard worker in the offseason--but there will be risk with the back end of that contract. If he gets it--they must give every dollar they can in year 1 and when they go back into free agency it will have to be a guy who is young.

so briggs why hasn't he done so in any of the playoffs here in NY.. why was it paul george that had the superstar impact.. why was it paul pierce , garnett... I keep hearing this, but yet to see any evidence.

tkf wrote:

callmened wrote:I agree with briggs. The bottom line is hes a top 10 player in his prime so you gotta pay him

I am going to argue this point since you guys keep saying it.

lebron
Durant
paul
westbrook
Duncan
kobe
harden
parker
wade
rose

All of these guys are better..... So no, you don't have to keep carmelo at that price.. not at all..

tfk--would you rather give a 5 year contract to Carmelo or Kobe? How about Duncan? How about Wade?

Bonn1997 wrote:The better alternative is to spend money more wisely. That means no longer being PPG whores too. There's an infinite # of ways to do that. You can't list *the* better alternative. I've argued for using rather than ignoring the best available statistical models for a long time. With patience, there will be better options available like getting a 23 year old superstar scorer with many other talents for a much lower salary (Harden in Houston).

yea, for me it is simple bonn. I don't need some 44% shooter jacking up 23 shots per game and not defending.... I look at it like this, for 25 mil plus a year, there are a combination of players who would fit that slot I would take over carmelo..... To think I could have paul george and george hill for his salary is mind boggling.. I would take paul george straight up..

too many flaws in carmelo to give him 20+ mil.. just can't do it.. Great players should not need other players to keep them in check, to make sure they don't shoot too much... Great players should be the balance, they should be the one's to that makes sure everything else balances out....

Carmelo needs a star PG to tell him no.
Carmelo needs another scorer so he doesn't hoist up a bunch of bricks
carmelo needs to play PF because he had an advantage offensively.
carmelo needs a defensive big to guard PF's since he is playing out of position since he can't guard SF's

I mean really?

But he won the scoring title last yr , so his goal should winning a championship in NY. He can play the right way , but can he play that way in the playoffs when things get tight ?

BRIGGS wrote:

tkf wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

tkf wrote:

callmened wrote:I agree with briggs. The bottom line is hes a top 10 player in his prime so you gotta pay him

I am going to argue this point since you guys keep saying it.

lebron
Durant
paul
westbrook
Duncan
kobe
harden
parker
wade
rose

All of these guys are better..... So no, you don't have to keep carmelo at that price.. not at all..

tfk--would you rather give a 5 year contract to Carmelo or Kobe? How about Duncan? How about Wade?

I think all would be the same. difference is the first 2-3 years I would still have a legit shot at a ring, the last couple of years will be paying a ton for a shot player.. with carmelo, I know this will be 5 years of futility, no shot at a ring and a shot player at the end of the deal... so while I rather give none 5 years, I would do so with duncan , kobe or wade over carmelo.. sure..

Just a difference of opinion. Not many teams won 54 games last year and only 8 got as high as the Knicks. We did not have enough additional scoring and we were way to banged up to go much further. Its hard to get really good players in this league--do I wish that Melo wouldve waited for FA--yes but thats water under the bridge now. We have a top 5-10 player who has the ability to dominate any game against any team. if our defense and rebounding hold--our offense will be better this year.

it's about "varsity ball," elevating your game in the playoffs, finding ways to win other than scoring. and if all you do is score then by god do so efficiently. melo doesn't do this, his numbers go down every time from the regular season to the playoffs except once, if you look at his career.so far as dominate, you surely don't mean in the playoffs do you? if that were the case he would have gotten out of the first round more than twice in his career.

BRIGGS wrote:

tkf wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

tkf wrote:

callmened wrote:I agree with briggs. The bottom line is hes a top 10 player in his prime so you gotta pay him

I am going to argue this point since you guys keep saying it.

lebron
Durant
paul
westbrook
Duncan
kobe
harden
parker
wade
rose

All of these guys are better..... So no, you don't have to keep carmelo at that price.. not at all..

tfk--would you rather give a 5 year contract to Carmelo or Kobe? How about Duncan? How about Wade?

I think all would be the same. difference is the first 2-3 years I would still have a legit shot at a ring, the last couple of years will be paying a ton for a shot player.. with carmelo, I know this will be 5 years of futility, no shot at a ring and a shot player at the end of the deal... so while I rather give none 5 years, I would do so with duncan , kobe or wade over carmelo.. sure..

Just a difference of opinion. Not many teams won 54 games last year and only 8 got as high as the Knicks. We did not have enough additional scoring and we were way to banged up to go much further. Its hard to get really good players in this league--do I wish that Melo wouldve waited for FA--yes but thats water under the bridge now. We have a top 5-10 player who has the ability to dominate any game against any team. if our defense and rebounding hold--our offense will be better this year.

ok Briggs. I see you pur such a premium on 54 games... tell me who are the star players on the nuggeets and grizzlies.. both teams posting more wins than the knicks?

And lets not talk injuries, the pacers won 49 games with no granger.. bulls 45 no rose. Come on now..

Its hard to get really good players in this league--do I wish that Melo wouldve waited for FA--yes but thats water under the bridge now. We have a top 5-10 player who has the ability to dominate any game against any team. if our defense and rebounding hold--our offense will be better this year.

and that is my problem , melo didn't wait because he is a self absorbed prick... he could care less about winning... he is no where near a top 5 player.. honestly that kind of talk just boggles my mind... I keep hearing this talk "with the ability to dominate" well briggs when has that happened? when? Good players are hard to find.. even harder when you are throwing 25+mil of your cap at a very flawed player....