KnicksFE wrote:NYKBocker wrote:CrushAlot wrote:subzero0 wrote:Papabear wrote:Papabear SaysIf Lin was offered 25 million from the begining and the Knicks refused I would then give him a props and thank him for being a Knick. But since he really didn't want to come back to the Knicks why should I stand up for him. I won't Boo him but I damn sure won't stand up for him.
Not sure what you're saying here. You do realize that every team tells their free agent to go out and try to get the best offer sheat deal they can and they will then match it, right? If the team turns around and says "Sayonara sucker, we were just kidding when we said we were going to re-sign you!", then im not really sure how you can blame the player for that. But to each his own I guess.
Not sure why this is being rehashed again but you know about the poison pill in the third year and how much it would have cost NY. You know that the new cba is very restrictive in regards to player movement for teams that are over the cap to the point where the Lin contract would have put the Knicks. Morey isn't stupid.
Actually, the Poison Pill contract would have only affected Chicago. Knicks was in a unique position that the contract would not have affected any player movement since the Knicks were already over the cap in year 3. The only cost is Dolan's money.
Totally true, the Knicks will still pay hefty penalties for being way over the cap with or without Lin.
Thats what some of these fans just dont understand. It only would have cost Dolan some money. Lin was told to go out and get the best contract he can and when he did the Knicks shut the door on him. Yet some people blame Lin for that, im not quite sure how that works.
Consider how many other players Dolan has signed for much much expensive contracts with potential much much less than Lin's.
But whatever, if some critics choose to blame Lin for something that was absolutely not his fault then so be it... says more about the critic than it does Lin.