Bonn1997 wrote:3 years from now, Melo will be in his 13th season, Camby in his 20th, Chandler in his 14th, Felton in his 10th, Amare in his 13th, and Kidd in his 21st. It should have been obvious that you keep Lin and if you're worried about the luxury tax, you trade as many of those players for shorter deals as you can at some point before the 2014-2015 season.

Exactly! We signed Kidd for THREE YEARS at $3m per, the last year of which he'll be 42(!) and useless if he doesn't go down much sooner. Why isn't that considered to be a cap killer? Sounds pretty "poisonous" to me.
We resigned a one dimensional bench player in Novak at $4m. Why isnt that the reason we'll be the luxury tax?
If Stat doesn't come back strong, he won't be earning his $20m a year either. How disloyal!

It isn't only Lin going against the cap. He's just one piece. They better have thought about his value per contract dollar, not against the luxury tax.

DurzoBlint wrote:

VCoug wrote:

martin wrote:

VCoug wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

VCoug wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:If you are asking would I care if the Knicks decided to spend the money, no I don't, I would love to have him on the team. If you are asking why do I point out the rational for not resigning him it is because I have read a lot about it and I don't think it was an easy decision and I also don't think it was a reactionary one. I think that kind of money makes even billionaires blink and is a ridiculous sum to pay to have a guy that has only played 25 games in the nba. Resigning the guy to trade him or use the stretch provision make no sense to me. I have no ill will for Lin but I hope Moray's poison pill contracts to Lin and Asik somehow bite him in the @ss.

But why is this time different than every other time for Dolan? And do you really think that if the opportunity presents itself we won't be spending a similar amount of money on another player or combination of players?

This time is different because there is a new cba that is much more punitive and restrictive.

Right, but we're going to be over the luxury tax anyway so we're not avoiding the new restrictions by not resigning Lin.

your double negative is a little hard to follow but it does boil down to this: what Crush pointed out is correct and there are new restrictions in place and a LOT higher luxury tax formula IF Lin was resigned.

Yeah, that wasn't very clear. My point was, with or without Lin, we will be over the luxury tax.

so, just because MSG is already in debt, why try to show any further fiscal responsibility....yeah, makes perfect sense.

Who cares about fiscal responsibility when trying to win a championship? In terms of team success, fiscal responsibility matters when your team sucks and your trying to improve. When your team is, supposedly, a championship contender what is the point of saving on luxury tax? How does that help us to win? Why does it matter now when it has never mattered in the past: And MSG isn't in debt; the money spent on the Knicks is about 3% of its parent company's revenues. They easily could have afforded to pay the luxury tax on Lin and if he was even marginally effective Lin would have paid for his own contract by bringing in a ton of Chinese money.

holfresh wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

knickstorrents wrote:Reason is because it was personal, not business

+10000000000000000000

and you know this how...because it was in the papers? Unless you heard it from Dolan or, your a mind reader, you don't know what your talking about. Like I said before, lots of telepaths posting here.

because people are judge on there past not there future (in most cases) they said they would match and they had every intentions on doing that until it became personal...

My agent tells me that the knicks are big on me and I believe they'll match anything. my agent calls the rockets and tells them, hey if your serious about retaining my client, you may have to up the $ cause your wasting your ink with that contract thats going to be match in the blink of an eye, I figure if you add a few more $ you will atleast have them 2nd guessing themselves..

The rockets lose nothing cause they can waive him in the 3rd year, trade him, or if he plays upto the potential, they have a franchise player..

it was a business move on the rockets part, and a personal decision on the knicks part..

why would the knicks commit to 3 pgs before committing to lin ?

Because they weren't going cost close to 50 mil dollars for a guy who broke down after 25 games...

I don't know about that..The guy goes from not playing at all to playing close to 40 mins 5 times a wk..with almost no rest in between time, no adjustment period..

MDA PGs during his knick tenure where breaking down after 3/4 months regardless..

fields was the only player to play 66 games on the knicks roster last season..

57.85 mil in year 3, no sign and trades, any trade has to be dollar for dollar so no relief from year three of that contract unless the knicks waive Lin and stretch the cost out over several years. Those numbers and the limited options the Knicks had after commiting to that contract are why it was ummatchable from a business prospective. I assume the commitment to 3 point guards includes Pablo's 1 year deal at 488,000. I would just take that right out of your argument. The Knicks got Pablo because they wanted him and he cost them nothing. Kidd was obtained to mentor Lin and both his and Felton's contracts are much more reasonable in my opinion.

did you ever think Joe johnson would be traded with that contract..EVERY CONTRACT in the NBA is tradable

If you are trading him in year 3, why sign him in the first place???...

because you get him for a great bargain in years 1 and 2!!!...

You are assuming he will be a great bargain at 5 mil per...He has zero track record to say this will be the case...Lin does not want to play here, if he wanted to be a Knick, he would still be a Knick...We all know this...He wants his own stage..He doesn't want to share it with Melo or Amare...Let's hope McHale run an offense for him to take 30 shots per game so he can revive Linsanity in Houston...Meanwhile we have the Heat, Boston and the rest of the hard charging East to worry about...Can't wait for the season to start....

I can't believe your saying that..this is the most humble guy on the planet, with a bunch of greedy agents who know business..How could a guy in the d-league 9 months ago want his own stage..

The stage was right here..it's alright for a pg to shoot 30 times if he has 12 dimes to go with it...and a win

Bro are u kidding???...He fired his agent and got a new high profile agent ...He also hired a publicist...Humble???..The dude was waving off Amare who maybe the most dynamic PnR PF playing today..There are many intances where he refused to pass the ball to Melo while MDA was coaching..Humble???..keep believing the hype ..

Well you got me on the waiving off amare part, I did see that quite often..Although you wrong about him firing his agent.I read that his current agent was still around with a much smaller roll.

But lin always took his attention and place it on the team rather then him..LIN and TEBOW are the ultimate team mates and it shows in their press conferences despite them always trying to make the home run play..

I just don't see him asking the rockets to increase the offer to stick it to the knicks, the one team that gave him a shot. I also don't see any human being saying thats too much money I can't sign that contract because it will hinder the knicks from any future roster movements..

VCoug wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

VCoug wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

VCoug wrote:

martin wrote:

VCoug wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

VCoug wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:If you are asking would I care if the Knicks decided to spend the money, no I don't, I would love to have him on the team. If you are asking why do I point out the rational for not resigning him it is because I have read a lot about it and I don't think it was an easy decision and I also don't think it was a reactionary one. I think that kind of money makes even billionaires blink and is a ridiculous sum to pay to have a guy that has only played 25 games in the nba. Resigning the guy to trade him or use the stretch provision make no sense to me. I have no ill will for Lin but I hope Moray's poison pill contracts to Lin and Asik somehow bite him in the @ss.

But why is this time different than every other time for Dolan? And do you really think that if the opportunity presents itself we won't be spending a similar amount of money on another player or combination of players?

This time is different because there is a new cba that is much more punitive and restrictive.

Right, but we're going to be over the luxury tax anyway so we're not avoiding the new restrictions by not resigning Lin.

your double negative is a little hard to follow but it does boil down to this: what Crush pointed out is correct and there are new restrictions in place and a LOT higher luxury tax formula IF Lin was resigned.

Yeah, that wasn't very clear. My point was, with or without Lin, we will be over the luxury tax.

so, just because MSG is already in debt, why try to show any further fiscal responsibility....yeah, makes perfect sense.

Who cares about fiscal responsibility when trying to win a championship? In terms of team success, fiscal responsibility matters when your team sucks and your trying to improve. When your team is, supposedly, a championship contender what is the point of saving on luxury tax? How does that help us to win? Why does it matter now when it has never mattered in the past: And MSG isn't in debt; the money spent on the Knicks is about 3% of its parent company's revenues. They easily could have afforded to pay the luxury tax on Lin and if he was even marginally effective Lin would have paid for his own contract by bringing in a ton of Chinese money.

easy for you to say when it's not effecting your pockets. Also, we are not yet a championship level team so, why put out Rondo money for a guy that hasn't earned it and, possibly isn't worth it.

It's always been easy for Dolan until it came to Lin, what was the difference this time? And if we're not a championship caliber team now then we're not going to be within the next three years. This team is what we're going to have for the foreseeable future so if we're not good enough we'll have to blow it up in three years anyway.

exactly

VCoug wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

VCoug wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

VCoug wrote:

martin wrote:

VCoug wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

VCoug wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:If you are asking would I care if the Knicks decided to spend the money, no I don't, I would love to have him on the team. If you are asking why do I point out the rational for not resigning him it is because I have read a lot about it and I don't think it was an easy decision and I also don't think it was a reactionary one. I think that kind of money makes even billionaires blink and is a ridiculous sum to pay to have a guy that has only played 25 games in the nba. Resigning the guy to trade him or use the stretch provision make no sense to me. I have no ill will for Lin but I hope Moray's poison pill contracts to Lin and Asik somehow bite him in the @ss.

But why is this time different than every other time for Dolan? And do you really think that if the opportunity presents itself we won't be spending a similar amount of money on another player or combination of players?

This time is different because there is a new cba that is much more punitive and restrictive.

Right, but we're going to be over the luxury tax anyway so we're not avoiding the new restrictions by not resigning Lin.

your double negative is a little hard to follow but it does boil down to this: what Crush pointed out is correct and there are new restrictions in place and a LOT higher luxury tax formula IF Lin was resigned.

Yeah, that wasn't very clear. My point was, with or without Lin, we will be over the luxury tax.

so, just because MSG is already in debt, why try to show any further fiscal responsibility....yeah, makes perfect sense.

Who cares about fiscal responsibility when trying to win a championship? In terms of team success, fiscal responsibility matters when your team sucks and your trying to improve. When your team is, supposedly, a championship contender what is the point of saving on luxury tax? How does that help us to win? Why does it matter now when it has never mattered in the past: And MSG isn't in debt; the money spent on the Knicks is about 3% of its parent company's revenues. They easily could have afforded to pay the luxury tax on Lin and if he was even marginally effective Lin would have paid for his own contract by bringing in a ton of Chinese money.

easy for you to say when it's not effecting your pockets. Also, we are not yet a championship level team so, why put out Rondo money for a guy that hasn't earned it and, possibly isn't worth it.

It's always been easy for Dolan until it came to Lin, what was the difference this time? And if we're not a championship caliber team now then we're not going to be within the next three years. This team is what we're going to have for the foreseeable future so if we're not good enough we'll have to blow it up in three years anyway.

CrushAlot wrote:I think the new cba is going to have a huge impact on the league. Just read an article on the Thunder and James Harden. The fact that they may have to let him go or amnesty Kendrick Perkins to keep him says a lot about the new economic climate in the NBA.

If they can parlay him into a draft pick or two then they can better manage the cap.

It promotes parity not dynasty.

It could keep you relevant for years and perhaps one day break thru and win but very hard to have three stars and a good cast around them. Player development also includes keeping or collecting draft picks.

CrushAlot wrote:

VCoug wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

VCoug wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

VCoug wrote:

martin wrote:

VCoug wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

VCoug wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:If you are asking would I care if the Knicks decided to spend the money, no I don't, I would love to have him on the team. If you are asking why do I point out the rational for not resigning him it is because I have read a lot about it and I don't think it was an easy decision and I also don't think it was a reactionary one. I think that kind of money makes even billionaires blink and is a ridiculous sum to pay to have a guy that has only played 25 games in the nba. Resigning the guy to trade him or use the stretch provision make no sense to me. I have no ill will for Lin but I hope Moray's poison pill contracts to Lin and Asik somehow bite him in the @ss.

But why is this time different than every other time for Dolan? And do you really think that if the opportunity presents itself we won't be spending a similar amount of money on another player or combination of players?

This time is different because there is a new cba that is much more punitive and restrictive.

Right, but we're going to be over the luxury tax anyway so we're not avoiding the new restrictions by not resigning Lin.

your double negative is a little hard to follow but it does boil down to this: what Crush pointed out is correct and there are new restrictions in place and a LOT higher luxury tax formula IF Lin was resigned.

Yeah, that wasn't very clear. My point was, with or without Lin, we will be over the luxury tax.

so, just because MSG is already in debt, why try to show any further fiscal responsibility....yeah, makes perfect sense.

Who cares about fiscal responsibility when trying to win a championship? In terms of team success, fiscal responsibility matters when your team sucks and your trying to improve. When your team is, supposedly, a championship contender what is the point of saving on luxury tax? How does that help us to win? Why does it matter now when it has never mattered in the past: And MSG isn't in debt; the money spent on the Knicks is about 3% of its parent company's revenues. They easily could have afforded to pay the luxury tax on Lin and if he was even marginally effective Lin would have paid for his own contract by bringing in a ton of Chinese money.

easy for you to say when it's not effecting your pockets. Also, we are not yet a championship level team so, why put out Rondo money for a guy that hasn't earned it and, possibly isn't worth it.

It's always been easy for Dolan until it came to Lin, what was the difference this time? And if we're not a championship caliber team now then we're not going to be within the next three years. This team is what we're going to have for the foreseeable future so if we're not good enough we'll have to blow it up in three years anyway.

The difference is its a new cba. Has he ever paid any player 57 million for one year? Also there are other restrictions that go along with being that far over the cap and being a repeat offender. Remember year 3 of that contract was called a poison pill because it was exactly that.

It's not fair to say he'll be paying $57M for one player; I could just as easily say he'll be paying close to $80M for Melo or Amare or around $57M for Tyson. The luxury tax isn't for one player it's for the team as a whole. And I'm willing to bet that we'll be signing some combination of players that will make around the same amount as Lin in that 3rd year. JR Smith has a player option after this season and he's probably going to opt out and be resigned using the Early Bird Exception. We have a 1st round pick next year that should be making between $1.5M and $2M. And we'll still have our MLE available next season to sign a free agent.

VCoug wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

VCoug wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

VCoug wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

VCoug wrote:

martin wrote:

VCoug wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

VCoug wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:If you are asking would I care if the Knicks decided to spend the money, no I don't, I would love to have him on the team. If you are asking why do I point out the rational for not resigning him it is because I have read a lot about it and I don't think it was an easy decision and I also don't think it was a reactionary one. I think that kind of money makes even billionaires blink and is a ridiculous sum to pay to have a guy that has only played 25 games in the nba. Resigning the guy to trade him or use the stretch provision make no sense to me. I have no ill will for Lin but I hope Moray's poison pill contracts to Lin and Asik somehow bite him in the @ss.

But why is this time different than every other time for Dolan? And do you really think that if the opportunity presents itself we won't be spending a similar amount of money on another player or combination of players?

This time is different because there is a new cba that is much more punitive and restrictive.

Right, but we're going to be over the luxury tax anyway so we're not avoiding the new restrictions by not resigning Lin.

your double negative is a little hard to follow but it does boil down to this: what Crush pointed out is correct and there are new restrictions in place and a LOT higher luxury tax formula IF Lin was resigned.

Yeah, that wasn't very clear. My point was, with or without Lin, we will be over the luxury tax.

so, just because MSG is already in debt, why try to show any further fiscal responsibility....yeah, makes perfect sense.

Who cares about fiscal responsibility when trying to win a championship? In terms of team success, fiscal responsibility matters when your team sucks and your trying to improve. When your team is, supposedly, a championship contender what is the point of saving on luxury tax? How does that help us to win? Why does it matter now when it has never mattered in the past: And MSG isn't in debt; the money spent on the Knicks is about 3% of its parent company's revenues. They easily could have afforded to pay the luxury tax on Lin and if he was even marginally effective Lin would have paid for his own contract by bringing in a ton of Chinese money.

easy for you to say when it's not effecting your pockets. Also, we are not yet a championship level team so, why put out Rondo money for a guy that hasn't earned it and, possibly isn't worth it.

It's always been easy for Dolan until it came to Lin, what was the difference this time? And if we're not a championship caliber team now then we're not going to be within the next three years. This team is what we're going to have for the foreseeable future so if we're not good enough we'll have to blow it up in three years anyway.

The difference is its a new cba. Has he ever paid any player 57 million for one year? Also there are other restrictions that go along with being that far over the cap and being a repeat offender. Remember year 3 of that contract was called a poison pill because it was exactly that.

It's not fair to say he'll be paying $57M for one player; I could just as easily say he'll be paying close to $80M for Melo or Amare or around $57M for Tyson. The luxury tax isn't for one player it's for the team as a whole. And I'm willing to bet that we'll be signing some combination of players that will make around the same amount as Lin in that 3rd year. JR Smith has a player option after this season and he's probably going to opt out and be resigned using the Early Bird Exception. We have a 1st round pick next year that should be making between $1.5M and $2M. And we'll still have our MLE available next season to sign a free agent.

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

VCoug wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

VCoug wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

VCoug wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

VCoug wrote:

martin wrote:

VCoug wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

VCoug wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:If you are asking would I care if the Knicks decided to spend the money, no I don't, I would love to have him on the team. If you are asking why do I point out the rational for not resigning him it is because I have read a lot about it and I don't think it was an easy decision and I also don't think it was a reactionary one. I think that kind of money makes even billionaires blink and is a ridiculous sum to pay to have a guy that has only played 25 games in the nba. Resigning the guy to trade him or use the stretch provision make no sense to me. I have no ill will for Lin but I hope Moray's poison pill contracts to Lin and Asik somehow bite him in the @ss.

But why is this time different than every other time for Dolan? And do you really think that if the opportunity presents itself we won't be spending a similar amount of money on another player or combination of players?

This time is different because there is a new cba that is much more punitive and restrictive.

Right, but we're going to be over the luxury tax anyway so we're not avoiding the new restrictions by not resigning Lin.

your double negative is a little hard to follow but it does boil down to this: what Crush pointed out is correct and there are new restrictions in place and a LOT higher luxury tax formula IF Lin was resigned.

Yeah, that wasn't very clear. My point was, with or without Lin, we will be over the luxury tax.

so, just because MSG is already in debt, why try to show any further fiscal responsibility....yeah, makes perfect sense.

Who cares about fiscal responsibility when trying to win a championship? In terms of team success, fiscal responsibility matters when your team sucks and your trying to improve. When your team is, supposedly, a championship contender what is the point of saving on luxury tax? How does that help us to win? Why does it matter now when it has never mattered in the past: And MSG isn't in debt; the money spent on the Knicks is about 3% of its parent company's revenues. They easily could have afforded to pay the luxury tax on Lin and if he was even marginally effective Lin would have paid for his own contract by bringing in a ton of Chinese money.

easy for you to say when it's not effecting your pockets. Also, we are not yet a championship level team so, why put out Rondo money for a guy that hasn't earned it and, possibly isn't worth it.

It's always been easy for Dolan until it came to Lin, what was the difference this time? And if we're not a championship caliber team now then we're not going to be within the next three years. This team is what we're going to have for the foreseeable future so if we're not good enough we'll have to blow it up in three years anyway.

The difference is its a new cba. Has he ever paid any player 57 million for one year? Also there are other restrictions that go along with being that far over the cap and being a repeat offender. Remember year 3 of that contract was called a poison pill because it was exactly that.

It's not fair to say he'll be paying $57M for one player; I could just as easily say he'll be paying close to $80M for Melo or Amare or around $57M for Tyson. The luxury tax isn't for one player it's for the team as a whole. And I'm willing to bet that we'll be signing some combination of players that will make around the same amount as Lin in that 3rd year. JR Smith has a player option after this season and he's probably going to opt out and be resigned using the Early Bird Exception. We have a 1st round pick next year that should be making between $1.5M and $2M. And we'll still have our MLE available next season to sign a free agent.

The money committed to Amare and Melo was committed before the new cba so I disagree with counting that. The Knicks made those moves without knowing how restricticve and punitive the new cba would be for teams over the cap. Tyson is the only big contract the Knicks have taken on since the new cba. And I disagree about Lin not costing 57 mil. If they had him in year three that is what it would cost based on the current contracts that they already have in place.

When the money was committed doesn't matter - whether that money (that is, the player and contract) can be moved before the 2014-2015 season is what matters.

Let me ask you then, do you think it can be moved? I don't think the Knicks would be able to move Amare's deal. Walsh had to come away with something at the end of his plan and an uninsured max contract for Amare is what he got. I don't think they want to move Melo or Tyson. Also, they have to take salary back in a trade. There is a reason year three of Lin's contract balloned up and was called a poison pill.