Hey maybe we would've actually attacked Roy Hibbert and got him in foul trouble instead of watching Melo & Felton heave 20ft bricks with Copeland glued to the bench.

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:As others have said it is not happening as its highly unlikely Dolan will not admit he f'd up.

F'd up how?

By NOT paying $35m for Lin's production in the last year of his deal?

Dolan ain't very good at this job, but I don't blame him for that one.

Assigning all the luxury tax to Lin is such BS. How much did Bargnani cost them then? How about Chris Smith's contract?

No, it isn't.

That was the choice in front of the Knicks at the time. Lin isn't to blame for the bad cap management before or after, but that isn't the point.

The $15m figure in the final year would have triggered a significant luxury tax hit. That it wasn't Lin's sole making is beside the point. Of course it wasn't. The first $70m or whatever is was was equally part of the problem.

But that doesn't change the choice they had to make.

I wouldn't have paid Lin $15m at all, much less the extra $16-17m it would have trigged either.

Read what I'm saying to you, not some version you want to argue against.

Dolan sucks.

That decision didn't.

Bargnani made $14M during the 2014-5 season in which people were worried about Lin's $15M balloon payment and the supposed luxury tax it would incure. So what's the difference there again? The difference is Lin is a somewhat valuable basketball player and retaining him wouldn't have cost us a lottery pick.

No difference.

That WAS stupid TOO. Heck, MORE stupid.

Can you take a deep breath and actually read what I'm writing.

gunsnewing wrote:If we had Lin/Kidd as originally intended we would've fared better after Kidd ran out of gas. Instead we were subjected to watching Felton shoot 2 for 19. Zero penetration. Zero points in the paint and cheap free throws. Zero leadership.

Hey maybe we would've actually attacked Roy Hibbert and got him in foul trouble instead of watching Melo & Felton heave 20ft bricks with Copeland glued to the bench.

There's no point trying to use logic or basketball reasoning here.

That's a very good basketball point though.

Jason Kidd even said when he signed that he was excited to mentor Jeremy Lin. I think it would've been a hell of a pairing.

Not to mention we gave Camby 2yrs $13M. I mean, I love Camby... but people try to act like the Knicks were being fiscally repsonsible - then they turn around and give the exact amount it would've cost to sign Lin to Camby and Felton. Camby played 24 games for the Knicks. Felton was run out of town and we had to take on an extra year of Jose Calderon just to get rid of him.

crzymdups wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:If we had Lin/Kidd as originally intended we would've fared better after Kidd ran out of gas. Instead we were subjected to watching Felton shoot 2 for 19. Zero penetration. Zero points in the paint and cheap free throws. Zero leadership.

Hey maybe we would've actually attacked Roy Hibbert and got him in foul trouble instead of watching Melo & Felton heave 20ft bricks with Copeland glued to the bench.

There's no point trying to use logic or basketball reasoning here.

That's a very good basketball point though.

Jason Kidd even said when he signed that he was excited to mentor Jeremy Lin. I think it would've been a hell of a pairing.

Not to mention we gave Camby 2yrs $13M. I mean, I love Camby... but people try to act like the Knicks were being fiscally repsonsible - then they turn around and give the exact amount it would've cost to sign Lin to Camby and Felton. Camby played 24 games for the Knicks. Felton was run out of town and we had to take on an extra year of Jose Calderon just to get rid of him.

How can I forget Camby who I also loved but he gave us nothing his 2nd go around here. No value & return on the cap money we gave him whatsoever.

CrushAlot wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:but people try to act like the Knicks were being fiscally repsonsible -

Nope, the Knicks were awful.

But that was right decision.

Sun even shines on a dog's ass some days.

Knicks couldn't afford to give Lin 3yrs $25M

Then they give:

Steve Novak 4yrs $15M
Ray Felton 3yr $10M
Marcus Camby 2yr $13M (24 games played)

Novak and Camby were traded for Andrea Bargnani for one year $14M plus an unprotected 2016 first round pick.

Brilliant decision. You're right. What was I thinking.

Just for basketball reasoning - if you look purely at ws/48 for the years of the three year deal:

Lin
12-13 .099
13-14 .103
14-15 .068* (this was Kobe and Byron Scott's disaster of a Lakers squad)

Felton
12-13 .087
13-14 .053
14-15 .039

So both financially and on the basketball court it was a bad move that is not remotely defensible in any way.

Camby's deal was three years but the last year was only partially guaranteed. The 'poison pill' was designed to be hard to match because of the position it put a team in. The numbers around the cap penalty in the poison pill deal were astronomical.

Yeah, but then why did the Knicks trade for one year of Bargnani at $14M. That's the same astronomical poison pill. Plus we threw in a lottery pick.

The point is that they made $40M in long-term commitments to Novak, Camby, Felton right after they said they couldn't make a $25M long term commitment to Lin. They were over the cap - the luxury tax hit was the same no matter how the money was spent. The commitments to Camby/Felton/Novak carried a bigger hit than the commitment to Lin. Novak and Camby were traded for Bargnani who had almost the exact same albatross salary deal as the one that people were so terrified of with Lin.

Anyway, I'm sick of having this discussion and I'm sure everyone else is, too. It's just ridiculous how people have distorted reality on this one. I mean, to each their own, I guess.

CrushAlot wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:but people try to act like the Knicks were being fiscally repsonsible -

Nope, the Knicks were awful.

But that was right decision.

Sun even shines on a dog's ass some days.

Knicks couldn't afford to give Lin 3yrs $25M

Then they give:

Steve Novak 4yrs $15M
Ray Felton 3yr $10M
Marcus Camby 2yr $13M (24 games played)

Novak and Camby were traded for Andrea Bargnani for one year $14M plus an unprotected 2016 first round pick.

Brilliant decision. You're right. What was I thinking.

Just for basketball reasoning - if you look purely at ws/48 for the years of the three year deal:

Lin
12-13 .099
13-14 .103
14-15 .068* (this was Kobe and Byron Scott's disaster of a Lakers squad)

Felton
12-13 .087
13-14 .053
14-15 .039

So both financially and on the basketball court it was a bad move that is not remotely defensible in any way.

Camby's deal was three years but the last year was only partially guaranteed. The 'poison pill' was designed to be hard to match because of the position it put a team in. The numbers around the cap penalty in the poison pill deal were astronomical.

Yeah, but then why did the Knicks trade for one year of Bargnani at $14M. That's the same astronomical poison pill. Plus we threw in a lottery pick.

The point is that they made $40M in long-term commitments to Novak, Camby, Felton right after they said they couldn't make a $25M long term commitment to Lin. They were over the cap - the luxury tax hit was the same no matter how the money was spent. The commitments to Camby/Felton/Novak carried a bigger hit than the commitment to Lin. Novak and Camby were traded for Bargnani who had almost the exact same albatross salary deal as the one that people were so terrified of with Lin.

Anyway, I'm sick of having this discussion and I'm sure everyone else is, too. It's just ridiculous how people have distorted reality on this one. I mean, to each their own, I guess.

It was all about the year three commitment where Lin was getting 15-16 mil. The year three commitment to Felton/Novak was around 7 mil and they were bringing Novak back anyway. I think Camby got 200,000 guaranteed.

Yes, but then they traded Novak and Camby for a guaranteed $14M commitment to Bargnani. If you use the same disingenuous luxury tax math Bargnani cost the Knicks well over $40M total for the 40 games he played for them. Plus a lotto pick.

Also, the cap went up in 2014-5 and that's also the year we gave away Shump and JR, so we wound up well out of luxury tax range anyway. We'd also traded Tyson so our cap number went down again. Guess hindsight is 20/20, except a bunch of us knew it was a bad move then and it still is now - especially given that it led to the Camby trade to try to appease the fan base - we also gave away two second round picks in the trade to get Camby who was essentially given $13M to be a mascot. I love Camby, but he was doner than done.

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:but people try to act like the Knicks were being fiscally repsonsible -

Nope, the Knicks were awful.

But that was right decision.

Sun even shines on a dog's ass some days.

Knicks couldn't afford to give Lin 3yrs $25M

I never wrote they couldn't. Of course they could.

I wrote they shouldn't.

Clearly.

Again, why don't you respond to the conversation occurring rather than the one you're having in your head.

I say not matching Lin was the right move, and what you interpret that as meaning at other stupid Knicks moves were the right ones too ... or that because the Knicks made worse moves, they should also have made the Lin one too.

I'm not saying had the Knicks matched the Houston offer it would have been any worse than other bad things they did.

I'm simply evaluating it on its own (NOT in comparison to others) and saying it was right not to match.

Why are you struggling with this so mightily?

You seem unwilling or unable to discuss the circumstance on its own. It seems the premise of your argument is comparing it to other things.

Which I haven't done one way or another, because it's irrelevant.

Just for basketball reasoning - if you look purely at ws/48 for the years of the three year deal:

Lin
12-13 .099
13-14 .103
14-15 .068* (this was Kobe and Byron Scott's disaster of a Lakers squad)

Felton
12-13 .087
13-14 .053
14-15 .039

So both financially and on the basketball court it was a bad move that is not remotely defensible in any way.

Okay...

Can you remind me who is trying to?

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:but people try to act like the Knicks were being fiscally repsonsible -

Nope, the Knicks were awful.

But that was right decision.

Sun even shines on a dog's ass some days.

Knicks couldn't afford to give Lin 3yrs $25M

I never wrote they couldn't. Of course they could.

I wrote they shouldn't.

Clearly.

Again, why don't you respond to the conversation occurring rather than the one you're having in your head.

I say not matching Lin was the right move, and what you interpret that as meaning at other stupid Knicks moves were the right ones too ... or that because the Knicks made worse moves, they should also have made the Lin one too.

I'm not saying had the Knicks matched the Houston offer it would have been any worse than other bad things they did.

I'm simply evaluating it on its own (NOT in comparison to others) and saying it was right not to match.

Why are you struggling with this so mightily?

You seem unwilling or unable to discuss the circumstance on its own. It seems the premise of your argument is comparing it to other things.

Which I haven't done one way or another, because it's irrelevant.

Just for basketball reasoning - if you look purely at ws/48 for the years of the three year deal:

Lin
12-13 .099
13-14 .103
14-15 .068* (this was Kobe and Byron Scott's disaster of a Lakers squad)

Felton
12-13 .087
13-14 .053
14-15 .039

So both financially and on the basketball court it was a bad move that is not remotely defensible in any way.

Okay...

Can you remind me who is trying to?

For some reason you think that NBA business is only about cap management and minimizing tax implications.
Can you image how much additional revenue MSG would get from retaining Lin with all popularity he has in NY and with Asian community around the glob?
There is no way to put this in $$$ but it would exceed all size of Lin contract with all taxes involved.
Dolan only accepts miracles of his own making and Melo only accepts team of his own liking.
The rest is technical noise.

CrushAlot wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:but people try to act like the Knicks were being fiscally repsonsible -

Nope, the Knicks were awful.

But that was right decision.

Sun even shines on a dog's ass some days.

Knicks couldn't afford to give Lin 3yrs $25M

I never wrote they couldn't. Of course they could.

I wrote they shouldn't.

Clearly.

Again, why don't you respond to the conversation occurring rather than the one you're having in your head.

I say not matching Lin was the right move, and what you interpret that as meaning at other stupid Knicks moves were the right ones too ... or that because the Knicks made worse moves, they should also have made the Lin one too.

I'm not saying had the Knicks matched the Houston offer it would have been any worse than other bad things they did.

I'm simply evaluating it on its own (NOT in comparison to others) and saying it was right not to match.

Why are you struggling with this so mightily?

You seem unwilling or unable to discuss the circumstance on its own. It seems the premise of your argument is comparing it to other things.

Which I haven't done one way or another, because it's irrelevant.

Just for basketball reasoning - if you look purely at ws/48 for the years of the three year deal:

Lin
12-13 .099
13-14 .103
14-15 .068* (this was Kobe and Byron Scott's disaster of a Lakers squad)

Felton
12-13 .087
13-14 .053
14-15 .039

So both financially and on the basketball court it was a bad move that is not remotely defensible in any way.

Okay...

Can you remind me who is trying to?

For some reason you think that NBA business is only about cap management and minimizing tax implications.
Can you image how much additional revenue MSG would get from retaining Lin with all popularity he has in NY and with Asian community around the glob?
There is no way to put this in $$$ but it would exceed all size of Lin contract with all taxes involved.
Dolan only accepts miracles of his own making and Melo only accepts team of his own liking.
The rest is technical noise.

I don't know if that is accurate. The Knicks sell out every game at msg. The nba uses a revenue sharing formula for merchandise sales that tries to make the financial playing field equal for all teams.

The thing is - we've already pointed out that even if you just look at on the floor basketball production it was a bad move. And even if you try to justify the financials, it was a bad move because Felton and Camby alone were given a $23M commitment over three years compared to $25M for Lin over three years - that's the same financial impact - Lin had more win shares than both players combined, and that's counting Lin's disastrous stint playing alongside Kobe in LA for Byron Scott.

It didn't work for a variety of reasons in NY - but it's really old to blame Lin for how it all went down. Melo has an equal share of blame - it is undeniable he had some jealousy and wasn't down with Lin. Dolan has a lionsized share of the blame. Whoever in the front office told Lin to go out and get an offer and they'd match has a big share of the blame. Whoever leaked the story that the Knicks would definitely match the Rockets first offer has a big share of the blame - that is what caused the Rockets to up their offer, not Lin scheming. But to blame Lin for all of it is really lame.

Weirdly, I wonder if the Lin experience made Melo treat KP differently - like he learned from the Lin saga? Who knows. But I wonder.

CrushAlot wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:but people try to act like the Knicks were being fiscally repsonsible -

Nope, the Knicks were awful.

But that was right decision.

Sun even shines on a dog's ass some days.

Knicks couldn't afford to give Lin 3yrs $25M

I never wrote they couldn't. Of course they could.

I wrote they shouldn't.

Clearly.

Again, why don't you respond to the conversation occurring rather than the one you're having in your head.

I say not matching Lin was the right move, and what you interpret that as meaning at other stupid Knicks moves were the right ones too ... or that because the Knicks made worse moves, they should also have made the Lin one too.

I'm not saying had the Knicks matched the Houston offer it would have been any worse than other bad things they did.

I'm simply evaluating it on its own (NOT in comparison to others) and saying it was right not to match.

Why are you struggling with this so mightily?

You seem unwilling or unable to discuss the circumstance on its own. It seems the premise of your argument is comparing it to other things.

Which I haven't done one way or another, because it's irrelevant.

Just for basketball reasoning - if you look purely at ws/48 for the years of the three year deal:

Lin
12-13 .099
13-14 .103
14-15 .068* (this was Kobe and Byron Scott's disaster of a Lakers squad)

Felton
12-13 .087
13-14 .053
14-15 .039

So both financially and on the basketball court it was a bad move that is not remotely defensible in any way.

Okay...

Can you remind me who is trying to?

For some reason you think that NBA business is only about cap management and minimizing tax implications.
Can you image how much additional revenue MSG would get from retaining Lin with all popularity he has in NY and with Asian community around the glob?
There is no way to put this in $$$ but it would exceed all size of Lin contract with all taxes involved.
Dolan only accepts miracles of his own making and Melo only accepts team of his own liking.
The rest is technical noise.

I don't know if that is accurate. The Knicks sell out every game at msg. The nba uses a revenue sharing formula for merchandise sales that tries to make the financial playing field equal for all teams.

The thing is - we've already pointed out that even if you just look at on the floor basketball production it was a bad move. And even if you try to justify the financials, it was a bad move because Felton and Camby alone were given a $23M commitment over three years compared to $25M for Lin over three years - that's the same financial impact - Lin had more win shares than both players combined, and that's counting Lin's disastrous stint playing alongside Kobe in LA for Byron Scott.

It didn't work for a variety of reasons in NY - but it's really old to blame Lin for how it all went down. Melo has an equal share of blame - it is undeniable he had some jealousy and wasn't down with Lin. Dolan has a lionshare size of the blame. Whoever in the front office told Lin to go out and get an offer and they'd match has a big share of the blame. Whoever leaked the story that the Knicks would definitely match the Rockets first offer has a big share of the blame - that is what caused the Rockets to up their offer, not Lin scheming. But to blame Lin for all of it is really lame.

Weirdly, I wonder if the Lin experience made Melo treat KP differently - like he learned from the Lin saga? Who knows. But I wonder.

Camby's deal was only guaranteed for 200g year 3 and Felton was around 3 mil. Lin was getting 15 mil (12 mil more). Also, Felton was signed because Lin went for the poison pill. Lin's deal was all about year 3 when the Knicks would be farther over the cap and the rules changed and would cause them to have to pay much more than Lin's salary. It worked twice for Morey but no one has done it again. Having to use a first round pick to get out of a contract had to sting a bit.
In regards to Melo, I think he liked playing with Lin and I think they were friends (pics of Melo's kid and Lin etc.) but I don't think it compares to the joy he gets from playing with another franchise talent like KP. I know Kidd and Melo loved playing on the same team also.

The cap went up and the Knicks ditched JR and Shump and Tyson in salary dump trades, so they weren't in luxury tax land. That financial logic was facetious bull**** from Dolan who just didn't want to pay the poison pill. The year before Lin's poison pill the Knicks traded Camby and Novak for Bargnani, who as mentioned had a one year poison pill of $14M. So really, the poison pill nonsense needs to stop. The Knicks have made worse investments time and time again.

Yes - It was a horrible deal and it backfired on Morey twice. He had to send a pick with Lin to the Lakers to unload the deal and Asik was a total bust for them.