yellowboy90 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Where does it say max contract? I dont see that?

You have three teams bidding on him. Two of those teams have $50m in cap room. And he's restricted. He's a younger guy so his max starts around $17m in year 1. Which is what you said you'd pay him anyway. I'm just saying I think he will absolutely get that based on who will be bidding.

I don't love Courtney Lee - but I think he's affordable for what we can do and his skill set fits what we need from the SG spot - defense and 3pt shooting.

Been underwhelmed with the pool of available SGs. Doesn't get much better next summer. We need help, thats for sure, but part of me doesn't want to sign anyone available to a long term deal until we know what happens with Rose. Would be nice to trade for an SG, but we don't have much to offer.

Yeah I have a feeling we will wind up targeting a guard in the 2017 draft.

It'd be nice to overpay a little on a one and one deal this year. Though I don't know what our options are there.

I wouldnt mind Phil doing that if someone was available. Europe?

I haven't heard anything about that Nando de Colo guy in a while. It'd be interesting to have him to backup Rose and maybe play alongside him.

I think going two PGs would not be a bad option - Hornacek likes that look.

Wouldn't mind sliding Rose over to SG at times, see how that works, and a more traditional PG running things. I do like the idea of bringing in a project PG from Europe. Two PGs would be interesting.

what makes you think this is the role he would succeed at?

Also wrote that Id like to see how that works, not saying definitively that it would. Playing off the ball at times might make things a little easier on Rose. Right now Rose might be a more reliable scorer than playmaker.

Jimmy Butler says hello. Rose wants the ball in his hands and isn't a good enough shooter to play off the ball. Playing Rose off the ball would be similar to Monta Ellis and how he is at the 2.

Was thinking more about Rose getting to the rim, than spot up shooter. A good PG will find a cutting Rose. Rose was also playing with a shooter (Butler), not a PG. Like I said, Id like to see it tried, not predicting anything. His assist numbers are bad enough to make me want to see how he would do as a scorer at times.

GustavBahler wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Where does it say max contract? I dont see that?

You have three teams bidding on him. Two of those teams have $50m in cap room. And he's restricted. He's a younger guy so his max starts around $17m in year 1. Which is what you said you'd pay him anyway. I'm just saying I think he will absolutely get that based on who will be bidding.

I don't love Courtney Lee - but I think he's affordable for what we can do and his skill set fits what we need from the SG spot - defense and 3pt shooting.

Been underwhelmed with the pool of available SGs. Doesn't get much better next summer. We need help, thats for sure, but part of me doesn't want to sign anyone available to a long term deal until we know what happens with Rose. Would be nice to trade for an SG, but we don't have much to offer.

Yeah I have a feeling we will wind up targeting a guard in the 2017 draft.

It'd be nice to overpay a little on a one and one deal this year. Though I don't know what our options are there.

I wouldnt mind Phil doing that if someone was available. Europe?

I haven't heard anything about that Nando de Colo guy in a while. It'd be interesting to have him to backup Rose and maybe play alongside him.

I think going two PGs would not be a bad option - Hornacek likes that look.

Wouldn't mind sliding Rose over to SG at times, see how that works, and a more traditional PG running things. I do like the idea of bringing in a project PG from Europe. Two PGs would be interesting.

what makes you think this is the role he would succeed at?

Also wrote that Id like to see how that works, not saying definitively that it would. Playing off the ball at times might make things a little easier on Rose. Right now Rose might be a more reliable scorer than playmaker.

Jimmy Butler says hello. Rose wants the ball in his hands and isn't a good enough shooter to play off the ball. Playing Rose off the ball would be similar to Monta Ellis and how he is at the 2.

Was thinking more about Rose getting to the rim, than spot up shooter. A good PG will find a cutting Rose. Rose was also playing with a shooter (Butler), not a PG. Like I said, Id like to see it tried, not predicting anything. His assist numbers are bad enough to make me want to see how he would do as a scorer at times.

That was Noah's role in the offense - to find Rose off cuts from the high post. Noah is a great passer - if he's on the floor.

EnySpree wrote:

GodSaveTheKnicks wrote:

EnySpree wrote:3 loser teams want to offer Crabbe the max.... need we say more?

What's crazier though?

a) Offering a young dude like Crabbe/Fournier who haven't done much other than show flashes big $ and hoping they get better

b) Offering declining guys like Noah/Howard with tons of miles and previous injuries big $ and hoping they stay healthy and not drop off a cliff like Tyson Chandler

It's a gamble either way I guess. I'd rather gamble on YOOTS

Fournier actually put up numbers and showed he can carry an offense at times. Crabbe hasn't done that. You don't max out a spot up shooter. That's all that he's shown that he can do

I don't mind Fournier either. He's only 23. I'm just tired of the Knicks paying for guys who are past their prime.

Like others on the thread have said..if you're going to pay someone with a track record who's older...make it a short deal. If you're going to pay someone for four seasons..have it be someone who won't be on the wrong side of 30 for their entire contract...

Knickoftime wrote:

GodSaveTheKnicks wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

GodSaveTheKnicks wrote:

EnySpree wrote:3 loser teams want to offer Crabbe the max.... need we say more?

What's crazier though?

a) Offering a young dude like Crabbe/Fournier who haven't done much other than show flashes big $ and hoping they get better

b) Offering declining guys like Noah/Howard with tons of miles and previous injuries big $ and hoping they stay healthy and not drop off a cliff like Tyson Chandler

It's a gamble either way I guess. I'd rather gamble on YOOTS

Fournier actually put up numbers and showed he can carry an offense at times. Crabbe hasn't done that. You don't max out a spot up shooter. That's all that he's shown that he can do

I don't mind Fournier either. He's only 23. I'm just tired of the Knicks paying for guys who are past their prime.

Like others on the thread have said..if you're going to pay someone with a track record who's older...make it a short deal. If you're going to pay someone for four seasons..have it be someone who won't be on the wrong side of 30 for their entire contract...

Then you're either paying that early-20 something the max ... or alternatively, paying him good money off of ONE breakout season.

The second group has a significant track record of producing albatross contracts too, just for the record.

That's valid. If both Crabbe and Fournier get max deals..I guess that's the world we live in now. It's also a great case for removing salary limits and guys like Lebron/KD getting paid $40M per season.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/WojVerticalNBA/status/751252693092536320

WaltLongmire wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/WojVerticalNBA/status/751252693092536320

Nets may up with Crabbe and Johnson.

So a player whose "breakout" season saw him average about 10 PPG, about 1 APG, and less than 1 SPG, and who probably benefited from being with one of the highest backcourts in the league, might get more than $20M/year.

Yup...makes perfect sense to me.

WaltLongmire wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/WojVerticalNBA/status/751252693092536320

Nets may up with Crabbe and Johnson.

So a player whose "breakout" season saw him average about 10 PPG, about 1 APG, and less than 1 SPG, and who probably benefited from being with one of the highest backcourts in the league, might get more than $20M/year.

Yup...makes perfect sense to me.

Maybe he works out but if he doesn't the Nets are in trouble in my opinion. He could be great with Lopez. He is a really good shooter. The cap is going to level out and deals like Crabbe's and Conley's are going to look really bad. If you go all upside, I don't think Johnson and Crabbe can justify their contracts if they play at the highest level they are capable of. I think Crabbe at best is the third option on a team and that is if he shows tremendous growth. On the Nets he has more value because he is playing with Lopez but I still don't think that justifies almost 20 mil a year. Marks had to go big with rfas. Unrestricted guys arent interested in BK. It might work out but at best he breaks even here. I think both Crabbe and Johnson are Nets.

I actually like Crabbe, but the amount they offered him is simply ridiculous.

I still think Miami matches the Johnson offer...

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/IraHeatBeat/status/751143094318280704

I hope the Heat don't match Johnson's deal. I hate the poison pill. Pretty crazy that it even exists. It didnt work out for the rockets and they even ended up giving up a first round pick to get out of Lin's deal. I believe these two deals are only the third and fourth time the poison pill has been used. I am hoping that using the poison pill becomes like including first round picks in trades.
I also wonder if this impacts Marks's abilities to make moves in the future.

There is no upside to tanking for them. They only have on path the next 2 seasons - try not to be awful and try to get people to come out to watch them.

crzymdups wrote:

wargames wrote:I feel justified in my breakdown of his talent..... I just never thought he was going to be a Max contract......

He got a four year $75M offer from the Nets, with incentives that could take it up to $83M. I'm not sure if that's a max for his age group, but it is pretty close.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/16876716/allen-crabbe-gets-75-million-4-year-offer-sheet-nets

I consider it a max deal... unbelievable a 10ppg guy gets that... I think he'll be better than that but just seems insane to me

SupremeCommander wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

wargames wrote:I feel justified in my breakdown of his talent..... I just never thought he was going to be a Max contract......

He got a four year $75M offer from the Nets, with incentives that could take it up to $83M. I'm not sure if that's a max for his age group, but it is pretty close.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/16876716/allen-crabbe-gets-75-million-4-year-offer-sheet-nets

I consider it a max deal... unbelievable a 10ppg guy gets that... I think he'll be better than that but just seems insane to me

It is, but in context it makes some sense.

Nets have to spend. They can either distribute to a bunch of veterans they know are just going to be who they are. They can sign no one, stink, not get a draft pick for the next two seasons and write checks to make-up the money they have to spend anyway.

Or they can take the money they have to spend, and gamble and do what it takes to actually get a few young players with upside and a possible future.

Just a confluence of events that makes Johnson and Crabbe their least objectionable, crappy option.