Splat wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Splat wrote:
Sure, Melo is worth every penny of $124M as a recruiting tool. Free agents will be fighting each other over the opportunity to play with a god of the courts like Carmelo Anthony. It would be an honor and a privilege. To say you once played with Carmelo Anthony means you've made it in life. You're right. Phil had no choice.

With all due respect..U and I have no idea what Melo is worth to the business that is MSG..Who are u to say what he should be making??..I guarantee the guys at MSG have a better handle on that..

What?

Your thesis was they couldn't build a team without retaining Melo as a recruiting tool.

Who said anything about Dolan's cost analysis regarding his bottom line?

What kind of response is that?

All of the above is probably a factor..

TripleThreat wrote:The option Dolan took was this

- Anything Melo related, Melo is the defacto GM. His entire "Is it a injury or is he just hurt" and branding saga is proof positive that Melo

holfresh wrote:

Splat wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Splat wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Splat wrote:
Sure, Melo is worth every penny of $124M as a recruiting tool. Free agents will be fighting each other over the opportunity to play with a god of the courts like Carmelo Anthony. It would be an honor and a privilege. To say you once played with Carmelo Anthony means you've made it in life. You're right. Phil had no choice.

With all due respect..U and I have no idea what Melo is worth to the business that is MSG..Who are u to say what he should be making??..I guarantee the guys at MSG have a better handle on that..

What?

Your thesis was they couldn't build a team without retaining Melo as a recruiting tool.

Who said anything about Dolan's cost analysis regarding his bottom line?

What kind of response is that?

All of the above is probably a factor..

Come on man. That ain't debating. Sure, it is the number one factor for Dolan, but it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR POINT.

Your point was Phil's hands were tied because without Melo he'd have no ability to recruit. That was your point. It is not a good point, because nobody has a lust to play with Melo and no player in the league thinks their career or chances at being part of a competitive team will be given a boost by playing with Melo.

So, no, Phil had choices. The only thing tying his hands was not recruitment considerations, but Dolan's needs to retain Melo at any cost.

This franchise didn't have the cojones to start over. They went off half-cocked and bid against themselves for an aging marquee player who certainly is not a player you build around. If Melo is not a foundational player, then he is not the starting point of a rebuild. He could be part of a core with other quality players, but that's after the fact.

Melo is merely a player you can add to the mix to improve your team.

Counter to your argument and way closer to reality is he is the opposite of a centerpiece that will entice quality players to sign on. He is not a recruitment chip at all. In fact, he is probably the opposite. Many players will not want to play with a player like Melo on a team going nowhere.

Phil could have done other things. He could have signed Melo for far less or let him walk. He may not have been able to do a sign and trade, but they should have crossed that bridge last season just like they should have traded Tyson mid-season when real offers were dangled at the Knicks.

Instead, Phil dealt Tyson for peanuts and he caved liked a wet pinata to Melo's salary demands.

Visionary leadership at its finest.

Wrong..My initial point was that teams will be able to pay their FA big money after the significant increase in salary cap hits probably starting next year or the year after...Teams will be able to afford to retain their players...Like OKC would be able to afford Harden...That's a big difference than saying Phil has no ability to recruit without Melo..

And how do you know Melo isn't a recruitment chip after multiple players have stated they would love to play with him...Where are you getting your info??..Did you run a Splat/Gallup poll I'm not aware of??

Your points on the cap were driven by the consequence of Phil losing Melo to the open market and being left empty handed with no star to recruit with. That was the pith of your thesis.

As far as what players say, do you really think that means squat? Players say stuff like that ALL THE TIME. It is meaningless until they sign on the dotted line. 98% of the NBA are not Charles Barkley types who shoot off their mouths. If players have reservations about Melo, you sure are not going to hear it. The only criteria of value is who has he attracted to this franchise in five years? Tyson, that's it.

Splat wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Splat wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Splat wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Splat wrote:
Sure, Melo is worth every penny of $124M as a recruiting tool. Free agents will be fighting each other over the opportunity to play with a god of the courts like Carmelo Anthony. It would be an honor and a privilege. To say you once played with Carmelo Anthony means you've made it in life. You're right. Phil had no choice.

With all due respect..U and I have no idea what Melo is worth to the business that is MSG..Who are u to say what he should be making??..I guarantee the guys at MSG have a better handle on that..

What?

Your thesis was they couldn't build a team without retaining Melo as a recruiting tool.

Who said anything about Dolan's cost analysis regarding his bottom line?

What kind of response is that?

All of the above is probably a factor..

Come on man. That ain't debating. Sure, it is the number one factor for Dolan, but it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR POINT.

Your point was Phil's hands were tied because without Melo he'd have no ability to recruit. That was your point. It is not a good point, because nobody has a lust to play with Melo and no player in the league thinks their career or chances at being part of a competitive team will be given a boost by playing with Melo.

So, no, Phil had choices. The only thing tying his hands was not recruitment considerations, but Dolan's needs to retain Melo at any cost.

This franchise didn't have the cojones to start over. They went off half-cocked and bid against themselves for an aging marquee player who certainly is not a player you build around. If Melo is not a foundational player, then he is not the starting point of a rebuild. He could be part of a core with other quality players, but that's after the fact.

Melo is merely a player you can add to the mix to improve your team.

Counter to your argument and way closer to reality is he is the opposite of a centerpiece that will entice quality players to sign on. He is not a recruitment chip at all. In fact, he is probably the opposite. Many players will not want to play with a player like Melo on a team going nowhere.

Phil could have done other things. He could have signed Melo for far less or let him walk. He may not have been able to do a sign and trade, but they should have crossed that bridge last season just like they should have traded Tyson mid-season when real offers were dangled at the Knicks.

Instead, Phil dealt Tyson for peanuts and he caved liked a wet pinata to Melo's salary demands.

Visionary leadership at its finest.

Wrong..My initial point was that teams will be able to pay their FA big money after the significant increase in salary cap hits probably starting next year or the year after...Teams will be able to afford to retain their players...Like OKC would be able to afford Harden...That's a big difference than saying Phil has no ability to recruit without Melo..

And how do you know Melo isn't a recruitment chip after multiple players have stated they would love to play with him...Where are you getting your info??..Did you run a Splat/Gallup poll I'm not aware of??

Your points on the cap were driven by the consequence of Phil losing Melo to the open market and being left empty handed with no star to recruit with. That was the pith of your thesis.

As far as what players say, do you really think that means squat? Players say stuff like that ALL THE TIME. It is meaningless until they sign on the dotted line. 98% of the NBA are not Charles Barkley types who shoot off their mouths. If players have reservations about Melo, you sure are not going to hear it. The only criteria of value is who has he attracted to this franchise in five years? Tyson, that's it.

Why listen to them when we have Spat to clear up all the untruths...Ever heard of cap room that might prevent players from signing??..

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

RonRon wrote:Yeah, it was stupid, Phil Jackson should have just given Kerr a deal he couldn't refuse, instead of trying to lowball him
We were in negatations with Kerr for a little while and then GS swept right in, which there was no way he would pick NYK over GS
However, if we offered him 5m + with a 5year deal, which is the same length of Jackons reign, he could possibly be our coach today

Instead we wanted to give him closer to 4m with a 3year deal with options for 4th with Kerr's lack of "experience as a coach"
It was going to be a couple year project, so giving him such a short leash made it hard to swallow, as the 1st year was invetible to be a losing season
Also I don't think Phil Jackson liked the fact that Kerr was going to use all his experiences from Poppavich/Dantoni and not just the Triangle that Phil Jackson wants to see succeed and live on

Then the 2Billion man bought the Clippers and we were willing to pay Fisher in hopes of possibliy increasing our chances of acquiring Durant in the future

ronron no way kerr was going to come to new york for any amount of money once he knew that carmelo was going to be here. the fact that jackson was compelled to reward a career underachiever with 124 million and a no-trade is simply evidence downstream that there was never any intention of giving carmelo anthony his walking papers... which would have been the very fountainhead of true culture change. no doubt kerr asked a simple question and the answer he got was enough for him to make an easy decision.

does anyone ever question how jackson goes from a tough negotiating stance to rolling over like he did and NOT think he was coerced along the way? or is jackson actually as stupid as he often sounds?

walsh was far more intelligent than jackson is demonstrating.

Kerr signed in Golden State in May. Melo signed with the Knicks 2 months later. Everything bad isn't Melo. Kerr got a mucho better roster, a better owner, and was able to stay on the same coast as his family. Not sure what role Melo played in all things that made golden state a better situation for Kerr but I would love for you to explain it. In regards to Walsh, any recent lottery picks or top 3 protected picks traded to get cap space for this coming offseason? Will have to see if PJax can max out a guy that has such a severe pre-existing condition that his contract can't be insured and that doctors put a time line on his career that is shorter then the length of contract offered.

and jackson was hired in february. your timeline merely reinforces the fact that jackson's directive from on high was to bring back melo. you should ask yourself how it is possible to talk tough about a contract and culture change only to go tits up to the tune of 124 million with a no trade. do you sincerely see nothing wrong with this "transition" from one stance to the next? how do you explain it?

try as you might, there's nothing to explain: melo and dolan have been 69ing each other for 4 years and counting. they started with back rubs and bubble baths in vegas and now this unmitigated disaster. they share the same avarice-based value system and nothing will break that bond, even winning.

this is what is so godawful about jackson coming here. never mind the 11 rings as a coach. he has two rings as a new york legend and is a substantial part of genuine new york knick glory, and you think that alone will trump the curse of the house of dolan.

but no, instead, his performance here in his return to new york sports has been tantamount to taking a watery old man's dump on his OWN legacy as a knick.

"shame" comes to mind.

If the situation was as you described Kerr wouldn't have entertained taking the Knicks job. When MJax got fired he had a much better opportunity come along for both himself and his family. Your agenda doesn't apply here.

what does "entertained" even mean in these situations? it's all doubletalk when it's in public. actions speak louder than words-- always. words and deeds are two different things. as i said already, the extent of his entertaining the knicks job rested solely on whether he had to endure a situation where melo is the main player and where kerr himself has more gm chops than the people he would be serving. kerr did not "entertain" the job for any longer than it took to ask a simple question and get an answer that told him all he needed to know. yes the other stuff you mentioned are very important to a family man, but the quickness of his decision was not due to those matters but rather the distasteful situation of working for an owner who is a lesser man.

always remember, crushalot, a lesser man cannot abide the presence of those he deems his betters. given the history of the men who dolan has managed to repulse or alienate, it only makes eminent sense for kerr to not give the matter of being a knicks coach any "entertaining."

Your reply was entertaining

TeamBall wrote:

dk7th wrote:

RonRon wrote:Yeah, it was stupid, Phil Jackson should have just given Kerr a deal he couldn't refuse, instead of trying to lowball him
We were in negatations with Kerr for a little while and then GS swept right in, which there was no way he would pick NYK over GS
However, if we offered him 5m + with a 5year deal, which is the same length of Jackons reign, he could possibly be our coach today

Instead we wanted to give him closer to 4m with a 3year deal with options for 4th with Kerr's lack of "experience as a coach"
It was going to be a couple year project, so giving him such a short leash made it hard to swallow, as the 1st year was invetible to be a losing season
Also I don't think Phil Jackson liked the fact that Kerr was going to use all his experiences from Poppavich/Dantoni and not just the Triangle that Phil Jackson wants to see succeed and live on

Then the 2Billion man bought the Clippers and we were willing to pay Fisher in hopes of possibliy increasing our chances of acquiring Durant in the future

ronron no way kerr was going to come to new york for any amount of money once he knew that carmelo was going to be here. the fact that jackson was compelled to reward a career underachiever with 124 million and a no-trade is simply evidence downstream that there was never any intention of giving carmelo anthony his walking papers... which would have been the very fountainhead of true culture change. no doubt kerr asked a simple question and the answer he got was enough for him to make an easy decision.

does anyone ever question how jackson goes from a tough negotiating stance to rolling over like he did and NOT think he was coerced along the way? or is jackson actually as stupid as he often sounds?

walsh was far more intelligent than jackson is demonstrating.

So do you actually do research or does your disdain drive your arguments? Seriously. As it was already pointed it, Kerr signed with GS 2 months before Melo re signed here. At least know what you're talking about when you spout those statements...

i am saying:

1)kerr was informed by jackson that jackson was given a directive by dolan to sign melo

2)melo eventually signing here was a foregone conclusion since dolan gave jackson the directive to re-sign melo to a max contract

3)melo's getting his quim licked during his free agency courtship was all a vain exercise

i bore witness to this history unfold. i am entitled to interpret these events... research is unnecessary.

you asked a silly question, feel blessed you got a civil and rational answer.

TeamBall wrote:

dk7th wrote:

TeamBall wrote:

dk7th wrote:

RonRon wrote:Yeah, it was stupid, Phil Jackson should have just given Kerr a deal he couldn't refuse, instead of trying to lowball him
We were in negatations with Kerr for a little while and then GS swept right in, which there was no way he would pick NYK over GS
However, if we offered him 5m + with a 5year deal, which is the same length of Jackons reign, he could possibly be our coach today

Instead we wanted to give him closer to 4m with a 3year deal with options for 4th with Kerr's lack of "experience as a coach"
It was going to be a couple year project, so giving him such a short leash made it hard to swallow, as the 1st year was invetible to be a losing season
Also I don't think Phil Jackson liked the fact that Kerr was going to use all his experiences from Poppavich/Dantoni and not just the Triangle that Phil Jackson wants to see succeed and live on

Then the 2Billion man bought the Clippers and we were willing to pay Fisher in hopes of possibliy increasing our chances of acquiring Durant in the future

ronron no way kerr was going to come to new york for any amount of money once he knew that carmelo was going to be here. the fact that jackson was compelled to reward a career underachiever with 124 million and a no-trade is simply evidence downstream that there was never any intention of giving carmelo anthony his walking papers... which would have been the very fountainhead of true culture change. no doubt kerr asked a simple question and the answer he got was enough for him to make an easy decision.

does anyone ever question how jackson goes from a tough negotiating stance to rolling over like he did and NOT think he was coerced along the way? or is jackson actually as stupid as he often sounds?

walsh was far more intelligent than jackson is demonstrating.

So do you actually do research or does your disdain drive your arguments? Seriously. As it was already pointed it, Kerr signed with GS 2 months before Melo re signed here. At least know what you're talking about when you spout those statements...

i am saying:

1)kerr was informed by jackson that jackson was given a directive by dolan to sign melo

2)melo eventually signing here was a foregone conclusion since dolan gave jackson the directive to re-sign melo to a max contract

3)melo's getting his quim licked during his free agency courtship was all a vain exercise

i bore witness to this history unfold. i am entitled to interpret these events... research is unnecessary.

you asked a silly question, feel blessed you got a civil and rational answer.

You sound as smug as you believe Melo is.

Oddly enough I agree with point 3. Melo did want to be courted. He said so much himself.

And you really do need research if you're going to pass these on as facts. You really think Melo was the reason Kerr went to GS? GS was just a better destination period.

i did not state them as facts. i stated them as interpretations, which is the right of those who live history, whereas it is the job of historians to research history they haven't lived. you have the same right to interpret events as you see fit. you're just upset that i have always seen dolan for who and what he is and that jackson not all he has been cracked up to be and is ****ting on his own knick legacy.

If he didn't have GS as an option, he may have become the Knicks coach even if he does have personal reservations about Melo as the centerpiece. That's probably impossible to infer from any clues left over from that courtship. Kerr is savvy and didn't show his cards to the press.

The real story to me is how a rookie GM hired a rookie coach. We're talking about a GM with zero front office experience hiring a coach with zero coaching experience. That's a hell of a plan B after Kerr. I don't know what a coach should be paid, but committing five years to Fisher is a head scratcher.

dk7th wrote:

RonRon wrote:Yeah, it was stupid, Phil Jackson should have just given Kerr a deal he couldn't refuse, instead of trying to lowball him
We were in negatations with Kerr for a little while and then GS swept right in, which there was no way he would pick NYK over GS
However, if we offered him 5m + with a 5year deal, which is the same length of Jackons reign, he could possibly be our coach today

Instead we wanted to give him closer to 4m with a 3year deal with options for 4th with Kerr's lack of "experience as a coach"
It was going to be a couple year project, so giving him such a short leash made it hard to swallow, as the 1st year was invetible to be a losing season
Also I don't think Phil Jackson liked the fact that Kerr was going to use all his experiences from Poppavich/Dantoni and not just the Triangle that Phil Jackson wants to see succeed and live on

Then the 2Billion man bought the Clippers and we were willing to pay Fisher in hopes of possibliy increasing our chances of acquiring Durant in the future

ronron no way kerr was going to come to new york for any amount of money once he knew that carmelo was going to be here. the fact that jackson was compelled to reward a career underachiever with 124 million and a no-trade is simply evidence downstream that there was never any intention of giving carmelo anthony his walking papers... which would have been the very fountainhead of true culture change. no doubt kerr asked a simple question and the answer he got was enough for him to make an easy decision.

does anyone ever question how jackson goes from a tough negotiating stance to rolling over like he did and NOT think he was coerced along the way? or is jackson actually as stupid as he often sounds?

walsh was far more intelligent than jackson is demonstrating.

With Phil Jackson always talking about building a "Winning Culture", bringing back NYK to being a Championship caliber contender, building a solid foundation and him emphasizing that he would have complete control of ALL BASKETBALL related decisions, last summer, I was very confident that Phil Jackson was NOT going to offer CA a contract near MAX
I thought at best, that Phil would offer CA a contract in the range of 15m, while leaving enough money to target and attract 2-3 ALL STAR tier talents in the near future
At CA's age, weakness's and inabilities, by the time we can surround him with the talent needed to contend, he would likely decline......

Well, I was wrong, whether it was completely Phil Jackson's decision or Dolan's decision to keep CA for business purposes to keep the ticket sales at a high price over building a Championship Contender
At CA's salary and inabilities/weakness's, I just do not see how we can have CA as our #1 despite for the NYK's, he could be a 3rd piece or overpaid on a VERY STRONG team with good/great defense and other ALL STAR's, just NOT for the NYK's as the first piece and our limited draft picks to build around...
HOwever, even at his pay, he can join many other teams and still be contenders like Bulls/Houston and a good amount of other teams
There is a big difference because we simply lack a foundation of ALL STAR's and many good role players that we will all have to build chemistry with when acquired, especially to learn the Triangle to be able to execute the system efficiently and effectively

dk7th wrote:

Splat wrote:For all we know, Kerr did what the majority of free agents do. He used the Knicks to leverage his deal with GS. Its not the first time. Sure, he's friends with Phil and I don't doubt he seriously considered being the Knick's coach, but when GS reached out to him I think it is fair to say he had to take the job barring a massive gap in salary. He got his money too. Going to GS was a no-brainer. Good for him.

If he didn't have GS as an option, he may have become the Knicks coach even if he does have personal reservations about Melo as the centerpiece. That's probably impossible to infer from any clues left over from that courtship. Kerr is savvy and didn't show his cards to the press.

The real story to me is how a rookie GM hired a rookie coach. We're talking about a GM with zero front office experience hiring a coach with zero coaching experience. That's a hell of a plan B after Kerr. I don't know what a coach should be paid, but committing five years to Fisher is a head scratcher.

Splat as you well understand:

"for all we know" means that none of us has the actual facts except for dolan, jackson, kerr, melo, etc. this is all i am saying when i make an "interpretation," which others can mistakenly construe as "fact."

events are "facts" but the words that these people speak publicly almost never are accurate, ie true.... hence these sorts of words are not facts.

hence, i see kerr taking the warrior job in the same light as i see walsh "retiring." both are downstream actions that i interpret as telltale signs of what actually went down. in kerr's case, he knew melo was going to remain a knick and it doesn't help that dolan is an inveterate malingerer. and in walsh's case he didn't want to be part of an organization that had ruined his efforts at a decent rebuilding plan.

i agree with your last paragraph. having two people out of their depth is a recipe for disaster. it's going to take a ton of good fortune in the form of both talent and character for this situation to have any chance of success, ie a conference finals appearance or two in the next 4 seasons.

Yeah, I got all that. I was providing cliff notes, not any kind of corrective comments. I agree that Kerr almost certainly had to have reservations about Melo. If we know Melo's many limitations and how much of a liability he becomes as the overpaid centerpiece of a faux rebuild, then we can pretty much assume a sharp cookie like Kerr was weighing whether it was worth throwing his hat into the ring with a team like this.

I think he was actively in talks and was considering it. I don't think he'd completely dick around Phil like that. But in the end he was also clearly weighing his options and the choice was blindingly obvious.

Melo is a coach killer. Kerr dodged a bullet.