People repeat this enough for 4 years it actually becomes reality.

Prove Melo wouldn't have gone to Brooklyn.

Prove how we would have made it to the second round without him.

Prove how we still get him in your make believe, later on scenarios.

It's great, 4 years later, how folks know how much more money Melo would have made under their brilliant management of his career.
While not realizing they're actually typing about it on the internet for free.

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

dk7th wrote:

martin wrote:

dk7th wrote:

RonRon wrote:Next up for Melo is

Houston and Dallas to convince him otherwise

While in any scenario I would prefer CA to go out West if he is not staying at a discount in years 2015-16 and 2016-17
Of course I would prefer a sign and trade to get back some assets, though I don't think it would be realistic to get back what some posters would prefer here, these teams have the ability to sign him outright while making some trades
Phil Jackson is playing hard ball, but if push came to shove, the ball is in CA's court, and we likely will be forced to take back whatever we can get, *in the range of 3 draft picks, though one would be a 2nd rounder, and anything more is a +++*

Of course, in all scenarios CA, will have to make much less than his "max" deal but will be able to contend starting next season

In Phil we trust, there is a rumor out there saying Phil Jackson has offered a MAX deal if that is what it took for CA to stay a Knick
I don't buy it, I think it is just rumor's on CA's agency in CAA, looking for the best possible deal
If it is true, I am quite surprised that CA didn't just straight out take the offer, though being courted/wine and dined is a once in a chance opportunity for a man

And IF it is true, is Dolan behind this and Phil Jackson just following his orders?
I just cannot see us ever building a CHAMPIONSHIP level team if that is true, while letting him GO for NO COMPENSATION despite us trading a team and future for him and making dumb overpaid to build a team around him
Will Phil Jackson leave like Donnie Walsh did, if we continue to suck?
Without the FULL CONTROL that Phil Jackson demanded from the START when he took the job on ALL BASKETBALL related decisions

By the time we have the ability to build a play off contender, CA could be in the downhill of his career, a reason I would much rather let him walk for NOTHING than paying MAX in order to keep him

same here!

Not me, you can't let an asset that big walk for nothing. Can always trade him after season starts.

i am advocating culture change here. clean house. i regard carmelo as sunk cost. i can't imagine him as a locker room presence under your scenario.

seems to me you wouldn't be a good GM then, you can't just let that kind of player/asset walk for nothing. If it was someone like Josh Smith or Marbury, I'd be for it, but not him.

It's a big gamble to sign someone to a 5 year max contract just to trade him during the season, and I can't think of any teams that have ever done that. There are lots of scenarios where it could backfire. For example, maybe he starts the season badly because his shoulders are worse than we thought, and suddenly a max contract through his 17th season looks like a disaster that no team will touch. Or maybe he does as badly in the triangle as he did when MDA tried to get him to be an offensive orchestrator. I'm sure there are many other examples we could come up with. I don't think you should give a guy that big a contract for the sole purpose of trading him. You might be interested in pursuing trades but you'd have to also be comfortable with keeping the player for the duration of the deal. I'm assuming from reading DK's messages that he'd still rather do an S & T than lose Melo for nothing - it's not like his preference is to let an asset walk for nothing.

i think we can all agree that at the end of the day there will be a painful sacrifice for both parties, the knicks and anthiny. that's the nature of compromise-- neither party comes away happy. the all or nothing stance is a gun to the head extreme-- and in that case i'd prefer to lose him for nothing on the prinicples and eventualities you laid out in your post.

i will say it again for the billionth time: anything over 14 million per year for carmelo anthiny is a mistake, and the further jackson goes over that value the more he hurts the knicks. and since anthiny is not particularly bright, he will be difficult to convince that taking this kind of reduction in salary is for his own good as a knick. in a vacuum, no it isn't good for him. but in the context of winning with the knicks it is good for him. unfortunately, empty calorie stats and deliberating in a vacuum are the core qualities of the primadonna.

unlike melo's ego trip around the usa there will be no wooing, no courting at msg!

Andrew wrote:Melo sign and trade for Dunlevey, McD and some picks or the euro or both.

IMO Knicks are making a great move by telling the bulls they dont want Boozer. Why pay his salary? If meloe leaves, the knicks want to be as bad as possible next year because they own their own pick.

The result is melo gets his max salary, since the bulls anmesty boozer and have enough cap space to take back more salary than they send out. Knicks get a large trade exception and prospects while preserving cap flexibility for next offseason. Win-win. Bulls keep their core and compete right away. Knicks start the rebuild with cap space and prospects.

While I am no expert on Jerry Reinsdorf I find his history to not conducive to eating that, giving away 5 mil in players, and then paying someone another 17mil. Thats 34 million and loss of an asset. Would he do it if melo was willing? Perhaps, but when Phil said FU to Booze in a sign and trade it seemed to lower the number they were asking Melo to take.

We assume because Dolan did it with Billups and Tyson others would. Im remembering too many teams that have done that. In the Bulls case, $34mil is a big number for a player.

IN a sign and trade the player is basically gone and now we trying to get some sort of compensation in return which is usually 50 cents on the dollar. The question of "what is acceptable" by fans vs. the reality of the situation. Chicago is actually set up very well to surround Noah and rose whom are both still young in many ways via yoot, trade, or both.

In fact, they can reboot (again) by shedding noah and likely get some good value in return. They have a lot of assets to make a run for Love which requires them shedding Booze. Love at age 25 and the financial considerations make more sense. Minny would have to take some cap back.

Nalod wrote:For what ever reasons, Booze getting exiled via Amnesty yields back to Chicago only 11-12 million from what I have read. They need to clear more. Its doable.

While I am no expert on Jerry Reinsdorf I find his history to not conducive to eating that, giving away 5 mil in players, and then paying someone another 17mil. Thats 34 million and loss of an asset. Would he do it if melo was willing? Perhaps, but when Phil said FU to Booze in a sign and trade it seemed to lower the number they were asking Melo to take.

We assume because Dolan did it with Billups and Tyson others would. Im remembering too many teams that have done that. In the Bulls case, $34mil is a big number for a player.

IN a sign and trade the player is basically gone and now we trying to get some sort of compensation in return which is usually 50 cents on the dollar. The question of "what is acceptable" by fans vs. the reality of the situation. Chicago is actually set up very well to surround Noah and rose whom are both still young in many ways via yoot, trade, or both.

In fact, they can reboot (again) by shedding noah and likely get some good value in return. They have a lot of assets to make a run for Love which requires them shedding Booze. Love at age 25 and the financial considerations make more sense. Minny would have to take some cap back.

bulls would be crazy to trade noah. he's a top tier player, someone you can actually build around.

Andrew wrote:Melo sign and trade for Dunlevey, McD and some picks or the euro or both.

IMO Knicks are making a great move by telling the bulls they dont want Boozer. Why pay his salary? If meloe leaves, the knicks want to be as bad as possible next year because they own their own pick.

The result is melo gets his max salary, since the bulls anmesty boozer and have enough cap space to take back more salary than they send out. Knicks get a large trade exception and prospects while preserving cap flexibility for next offseason. Win-win. Bulls keep their core and compete right away. Knicks start the rebuild with cap space and prospects.

The move requires Chicago to pay a price they likely won't want to. Melo has to really really want to play their AND willing to take a pay cut. If so, they have the leverage and Knicks are then asked about a sign and trade scenario but the problem is you play hard ball with Melo and Bulls it makes a return very awkward. Knicks said no. Its their position. Maybe Melo calls our bluff and moves on. Seems that Melo wants to play in NY still. Phish (Phil and Fisher) might want to make him over as they did with Kobe and Jordan. That intrigues me.

newyorknewyork wrote:

Andrew wrote:Melo sign and trade for Dunlevey, McD and some picks or the euro or both.

IMO Knicks are making a great move by telling the bulls they dont want Boozer. Why pay his salary? If meloe leaves, the knicks want to be as bad as possible next year because they own their own pick.

The result is melo gets his max salary, since the bulls anmesty boozer and have enough cap space to take back more salary than they send out. Knicks get a large trade exception and prospects while preserving cap flexibility for next offseason. Win-win. Bulls keep their core and compete right away. Knicks start the rebuild with cap space and prospects.

Swap McD with Jimmy Butler.

Why? Who does it benefit? Seems like McD is a better triangle fit and Butler is better for chi win now plans

martin wrote:

dk7th wrote:

martin wrote:

dk7th wrote:

RonRon wrote:Next up for Melo is

Houston and Dallas to convince him otherwise

While in any scenario I would prefer CA to go out West if he is not staying at a discount in years 2015-16 and 2016-17
Of course I would prefer a sign and trade to get back some assets, though I don't think it would be realistic to get back what some posters would prefer here, these teams have the ability to sign him outright while making some trades
Phil Jackson is playing hard ball, but if push came to shove, the ball is in CA's court, and we likely will be forced to take back whatever we can get, *in the range of 3 draft picks, though one would be a 2nd rounder, and anything more is a +++*

Of course, in all scenarios CA, will have to make much less than his "max" deal but will be able to contend starting next season

In Phil we trust, there is a rumor out there saying Phil Jackson has offered a MAX deal if that is what it took for CA to stay a Knick
I don't buy it, I think it is just rumor's on CA's agency in CAA, looking for the best possible deal
If it is true, I am quite surprised that CA didn't just straight out take the offer, though being courted/wine and dined is a once in a chance opportunity for a man

And IF it is true, is Dolan behind this and Phil Jackson just following his orders?
I just cannot see us ever building a CHAMPIONSHIP level team if that is true, while letting him GO for NO COMPENSATION despite us trading a team and future for him and making dumb overpaid to build a team around him
Will Phil Jackson leave like Donnie Walsh did, if we continue to suck?
Without the FULL CONTROL that Phil Jackson demanded from the START when he took the job on ALL BASKETBALL related decisions

By the time we have the ability to build a play off contender, CA could be in the downhill of his career, a reason I would much rather let him walk for NOTHING than paying MAX in order to keep him

same here!

Not me, you can't let an asset that big walk for nothing. Can always trade him after season starts.

i am advocating culture change here. clean house. i regard carmelo as sunk cost. i can't imagine him as a locker room presence under your scenario.

seems to me you wouldn't be a good GM then, you can't just let that kind of player/asset walk for nothing. If it was someone like Josh Smith or Marbury, I'd be for it, but not him.

I don't see how you can do anything about it? He is an unrestricted free agent and can do ad he chooses. The way to have not been in the situation is to have not given him the player option.

If faced with watching him sign somewhere else and offering him the max which one would you do? I would definitely let him go. Trying to trade him would only mean taking back more overpaid baggage from other teams plus one or two valuable pieces. I see that as being a wash. You get one really good player and two bloated cap eating contacts. .I am not sure why people would consider that great value. Now if we could just get the good player and picks that would be great. But why would any of these teams do that?

Andrew wrote:Melo sign and trade for Dunlevey, McD and some picks or the euro or both.

IMO Knicks are making a great move by telling the bulls they dont want Boozer. Why pay his salary? If meloe leaves, the knicks want to be as bad as possible next year because they own their own pick.

The result is melo gets his max salary, since the bulls anmesty boozer and have enough cap space to take back more salary than they send out. Knicks get a large trade exception and prospects while preserving cap flexibility for next offseason. Win-win. Bulls keep their core and compete right away. Knicks start the rebuild with cap space and prospects.