The next is C but you can always find a big serviceable center

PG is the floor general
We should know this better than anyone having seen TD & Felton

Splat wrote:Some are saying PGs are a dime a dozen.

In that case, here's a question:

If Larkin becomes a good or above average PG, how common is speed or quickness of his kind?

While guards can be found, the term "speed kills" has been used in terms of NBA strategy. Maybe that trait is more valuable than Larkin is given credit for. Granted, he needs to prove himself, but if he does then his speed may not be something found so readily in other competent PGs.

Crack Baby is fast.

Or he could be slow and limited in other areas

Like Beno Udrih on a 3-0 team as a backup

You'd still have to pay him if he produces

You know the Griz picked up this so-called trash for nothing

There's your dime a dozen

newyorknewyork wrote:

knickscity wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

knickscity wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

knickscity wrote:His option wasnt picked up because no matter how he plays...Phil has no intention of keeping him. Makes the Calderon deal even sillier.

I think it's a smart move overall

Of course Phil Jackson has final say on things

So if he decided not to pick his option

Up then obviously it's a good move because he can do no wrong

It's "In Phil We Trust" right?

Or should it be followed by "No Matter What"

More like lets see the end result before we come to a conclusion.

But we already know the result now...unless Larkin accepts 1.7 from this team, he wont be back no matter if he play well or not.

The end result is what Phil is able to accomplish by not picking up Larkin's option compared to if he had picked up Larkin's contract. This we will most likely not know until the off season. Larkin can play out of his mind for the rest of the season, but if not picking up his option leads to someone better or a better circumstance then Phil ended up making the right decision.

All the knowledge that we know Phil knows as well. They have been talking about it for a few days so there must have been a lot of thought put into it over the last few days and he came to this conclusion. There must be a reason that this decision was taken over the other.

That can be said of any move by any front office, but the end result in this situation involves the player, not what he's replaced by or if at all. It's shortsighted to limit the capability of keeping any player without an evaulation done first. Unless you think keeping a player at 1.7 is gonna cost the Knicks a free agent.

That's what should be said by most moves from the front office. Get critique or praise for a decision after it plays out and all the details are available to the public on why the decision was made and if it was worth it.

Like I said they have been discussing this for a couple of days. For them to decide this route something persuaded them to do so. Until we know the details on what persuaded them to do so its hard to know if they made the correct decision or not.

F5 made a good point earlier....perhaps if melo had took a little more "discount" next season, perhaps Larkin and his 1.7 wouldnt be preventing him from proving his keep and being able to stay.

The kid is literally a blur out, and right now he is our starter. I wasnt that excited about the trade details but I did say it was good because of the return.

But who exactly does Phil plan on keeping in the return? Dally, not likely....now Larkin, not likely at all.

knickscity wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

knickscity wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

knickscity wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

knickscity wrote:His option wasnt picked up because no matter how he plays...Phil has no intention of keeping him. Makes the Calderon deal even sillier.

I think it's a smart move overall

Of course Phil Jackson has final say on things

So if he decided not to pick his option

Up then obviously it's a good move because he can do no wrong

It's "In Phil We Trust" right?

Or should it be followed by "No Matter What"

More like lets see the end result before we come to a conclusion.

But we already know the result now...unless Larkin accepts 1.7 from this team, he wont be back no matter if he play well or not.

The end result is what Phil is able to accomplish by not picking up Larkin's option compared to if he had picked up Larkin's contract. This we will most likely not know until the off season. Larkin can play out of his mind for the rest of the season, but if not picking up his option leads to someone better or a better circumstance then Phil ended up making the right decision.

All the knowledge that we know Phil knows as well. They have been talking about it for a few days so there must have been a lot of thought put into it over the last few days and he came to this conclusion. There must be a reason that this decision was taken over the other.

That can be said of any move by any front office, but the end result in this situation involves the player, not what he's replaced by or if at all. It's shortsighted to limit the capability of keeping any player without an evaulation done first. Unless you think keeping a player at 1.7 is gonna cost the Knicks a free agent.

That's what should be said by most moves from the front office. Get critique or praise for a decision after it plays out and all the details are available to the public on why the decision was made and if it was worth it.

Like I said they have been discussing this for a couple of days. For them to decide this route something persuaded them to do so. Until we know the details on what persuaded them to do so its hard to know if they made the correct decision or not.

Not really, teams do make bad decisions, but like I said, I call this one "risky". Everyone and their momma knew the bargs deal was trash...didnt need to play out, nobody TRADES for a player about to be amnestied and gives up draft picks to boot that will be needed after the player is gone.

F5 made a good point earlier....perhaps if melo had took a little more "discount" next season, perhaps Larkin and his 1.7 wouldnt be preventing him from proving his keep and being able to stay.

The kid is literally a blur out, and right now he is our starter. I wasnt that excited about the trade details but I did say it was good because of the return.

But who exactly does Phil plan on keeping in the return? Dally, not likely....now Larkin, not likely at all.

As a fan its a bit deflating. It now means if this kid plays great and explodes its a negative. Deflating.

fishmike wrote:from LArkin:

“As a second-year guy coming off an up-and-down rookie season with an injury being able to be thrown into that type of fire and just go out there and play, it’s a great experience for me,” Larkin said. “It’s just going to make me better.”

As for his contract situation, Larkin says the Knicks’ decision not to pick up his third-year option doesn’t mean he’s not wanted.

“It’s not like they told me like, ‘We don’t see you as part of our future, we don’t want you, da-da-da-da,’” Larkin said. “If that was the case, I’d be sitting on the bench.

“So obviously, they want to see what I have,” he added. “That’s what I’m doing. Going out there playing

Philly can offer him $3.2mm next year to run their team and that's double what the Knicks can give him. Let me just get this out of my system now, if we are giving up on guys like Larkin to max out Gasol I will throw up

That's not true. the knicks can offer that and more.

knickscity wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:We need the new CBA to allow for restructuring of deals so Melo can take a less less yearly and still get his $124mil over and an extended period of time like the NFL does

We need amaganment that can look further than their nose. i have yet to hear s single logical reason why they didnt pick up that option.

Considering management always has more data than us, I figured the Cavs game would tip the scales on their assessment and they'd exercise the option. From our vantage point, pretty much most of us who were non-committal probably shifted to supporting extending Larkin.

Unless the Knicks know something about Larkin that is actually detrimental, then it was a bad decision.

Like I said earlier, speed kills. Little guys have done big stuff before. Nate Archibald was one of the most devastating players in the league. Mugsy Bogues was a good player. There's many more.

By size, he's little, but if he can pick pockets and zip by bigger players, they have to nullify him, not the other way around.

Crack Baby, we're sorry. We think you should have been given the option.

yellowboy90 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

fishmike wrote:from LArkin:

“As a second-year guy coming off an up-and-down rookie season with an injury being able to be thrown into that type of fire and just go out there and play, it’s a great experience for me,” Larkin said. “It’s just going to make me better.”

As for his contract situation, Larkin says the Knicks’ decision not to pick up his third-year option doesn’t mean he’s not wanted.

“It’s not like they told me like, ‘We don’t see you as part of our future, we don’t want you, da-da-da-da,’” Larkin said. “If that was the case, I’d be sitting on the bench.

“So obviously, they want to see what I have,” he added. “That’s what I’m doing. Going out there playing

Philly can offer him $3.2mm next year to run their team and that's double what the Knicks can give him. Let me just get this out of my system now, if we are giving up on guys like Larkin to max out Gasol I will throw up

That's not true. the knicks can offer that and more.

No...the knicks can only offer what they declined....1.7 mil. it's a CBA loophole closure to prevent teams from doing exactly what you wish they could.

really, so EB rights do not apply?

Go back and read the thread

Knickscity dropped a link difference between

How 1st rd picks and 2nd rd picks are handled in this situation