gunsnewing wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

NumberTwoPencil wrote:OT but . . . is it just me or is Larkin the reincarnation of Rick Brunson?

Just you.

Emotionally for the fans, this is like letting Lin walk all over again.
We get to watch him play and improve with next to ZERO chance of being able to resign him.

Yea puts a big damper on what has been a great year so far for us knicks fans

Two different things. I am stoked about the team, rather how they are playing (not so much the personnel)
This thread is titled "Larkin is gone" (I didn't even start it) and you are criticizing me about contributing to it?

I'm more a realist, I try not to see things through shizz glasses or rosy ones. This is a shizz move and I hope it doesn't
bit us like the Lin one did. (Which ironically was also about money and ended costing us more than they said it saved us.)

earthmansurfer wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

NumberTwoPencil wrote:OT but . . . is it just me or is Larkin the reincarnation of Rick Brunson?

Just you.

Emotionally for the fans, this is like letting Lin walk all over again.
We get to watch him play and improve with next to ZERO chance of being able to resign him.

Yea puts a big damper on what has been a great year so far for us knicks fans

Two different things. I am stoked about the team, rather how they are playing (not so much the personnel)
This thread is titled "Larkin is gone" (I didn't even start it) and you are criticizing me about contributing to it?

I'm more a realist, I try not to see things through shizz glasses or rosy ones. This is a shizz move and I hope it doesn't
bit us like the Lin one did. (Which ironically was also about money and ended costing us more than they said it saved us.)

There is nothing good that comes from this. Nothing. Sorry to be doom and gloom. This as you say is a shizz move.

In an interesting twist, it appears that Article VII, Section 6(m)(4) of the CBA puts that salary limitation on the team that has the player when his rookie scale contract ends rather than the team that declines the option. This would mean that if Portland traded Robinson during this season, the salary restriction would shift from the Blazers to the team that acquired him. This situation seems awfully unlikely but is fun to ponder nonetheless.

So, a team that wants to acquire Larkin can only pay him what his option was worth! A team that really wants to trade for him can't sign him for more, so that means they won't trade for him as ALL the other teams with space can offer more!

We basically have a 1.7 million dollar expiring contract to trade (who is young and talented). Why would we trade him when no one would give value to the above clause? So, the only way for us to sign Larkin to more $$$ is to first trade him and then offer him more in the off season.

Nalod wrote:Do we have a salary hold on him? Bascially we can sign others, then him and go over the cap?

if we extend him, he hits our cap first?

the Kicks have EB right but can not exceed his rookie salary scale of the declined option. Some say that is $1.7M others have it at $2.5M. He is gone at 2M+ or 3M+. I doubt he leaves if its just a 100k or two.

smackeddog wrote:

Finestrg wrote:My final say on this before moving on -- mistake not to pick up Larkin's option. Case closed. Makes absolutely no sense...For the amount of money we're talking about coupled with the kid's obvious upside, it's just not good business, I'm sorry guys.. He's young, talented and there's tangible/discernible upside here--that's what the decision should've been based on. And you know what--if for some reason we need to unload him, then you deal the kid off somewhere for a 2030 2nd round pick if you have to or a friggin' trade exception. Or you pull off something along the lines of this ridiculous trade we made with Philly to unload Travis Outlaw where we had to surrender a future 2nd round pick. And that's only if this guy's small salary for next year potentially interferes with other things we wanna do. Otherwise, we keep him and move forward with a good young PG with potential...I mean what the hell are we talking about here? He's already improved from the pre-season. How good can he become? Not sure -- he can only become marginally better (which = a very serviceable, ultra-quick reserve NBA PG) or he can become NBA starter quality, dare I say an all-star one day. Why not? Who's to say one way or another right now?? Regardless, two things we all could agree on is his ability/potential and the friendly price tag. Now, we won't have either working for us next yr in all likelihood. It all revolves around a calculated, educated guess and mine tells me he's got an NBA future in some capacity. I personally like what he brings to the table a lot and I see a ton of room for growth. It's obvious to me he can impact the game on both sides of the ball. As of right now, green an inexperienced as he might still look, he's worth $1.7mm a season. Heck, he's worth more than that imo. And this isn't even factoring potential. I don't care what the hell Phil's plan is -- when you have young players with talent and upside, ever effort should be made to make sure they're a part of it. They can always be moved later if need be.

Agreed- but I've come to think that the only possible way it makes sense is if Phil has decided to target a PG in Free agency, and therefore doesn't see the point in adding Larkins $1.6mil on top of Calderon's. But even then, by not picking up the option, we've made Larkin untradeable.

Yeah, but even then they could have just cut him. $1.6M is still an good price for even a 3rd guard. I think they dropped the ball on this. The only way it works is if no one wants to pony up cash to pay Larkin. The league seems to try to low ball short pgs anyway. Sac let Isiah Smith go and Nate Robinson had problems getting money too. If no one goes after him and they can sign him to a low long term deal then Kudos they save face.

Finestrg wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Finestrg wrote:My final say on this before moving on -- mistake not to pick up Larkin's option. Case closed. Makes absolutely no sense...For the amount of money we're talking about coupled with the kid's obvious upside, it's just not good business, I'm sorry guys.. He's young, talented and there's tangible/discernible upside here--that's what the decision should've been based on. And you know what--if for some reason we need to unload him, then you deal the kid off somewhere for a 2030 2nd round pick if you have to or a friggin' trade exception. Or you pull off something along the lines of this ridiculous trade we made with Philly to unload Travis Outlaw where we had to surrender a future 2nd round pick. And that's only if this guy's small salary for next year potentially interferes with other things we wanna do. Otherwise, we keep him and move forward with a good young PG with potential...I mean what the hell are we talking about here? He's already improved from the pre-season. How good can he become? Not sure -- he can only become marginally better (which = a very serviceable, ultra-quick reserve NBA PG) or he can become NBA starter quality, dare I say an all-star one day. Why not? Who's to say one way or another right now?? Regardless, two things we all could agree on is his ability/potential and the friendly price tag. Now, we won't have either working for us next yr in all likelihood. It all revolves around a calculated, educated guess and mine tells me he's got an NBA future in some capacity. I personally like what he brings to the table a lot and I see a ton of room for growth. It's obvious to me he can impact the game on both sides of the ball. As of right now, green an inexperienced as he might still look, he's worth $1.7mm a season. Heck, he's worth more than that imo. And this isn't even factoring potential. I don't care what the hell Phil's plan is -- when you have young players with talent and upside, ever effort should be made to make sure they're a part of it. They can always be moved later if need be.

Agreed- but I've come to think that the only possible way it makes sense is if Phil has decided to target a PG in Free agency, and therefore doesn't see the point in adding Larkins $1.6mil on top of Calderon's. But even then, by not picking up the option, we've made Larkin untradeable.

Yeah, but even then they could have just cut him. $1.6M is still an good price for even a 3rd guard. I think they dropped the ball on this. The only way it works is if no one wants to pony up cash to pay Larkin. The league seems to try to low ball short pgs anyway. Sac let Isiah Smith go and Nate Robinson had problems getting money too. If no one goes after him and they can sign him to a low long term deal then Kudos they save face.

I hope that happens. I think by the end of the year, we're all gonna want this kid back. Interesting to bring up Isaiah Thomas. That's the barometer for Larkin. I mean that kid made it, why can't Larkin? They're both the same size, in fact I think Thomas might even be a little shorter. That kid almost went undrafted a couple of yrs ago, now he earned himself a $28mm contract. If he can do it, why can't Larkin? And like Thomas over the past couple of seasons, Larkin's got a coach who's gonna play him. There's no hindrance here--Fish is gonna play this kid. This is why the kid's spirit is still up right now...I mean what if by the end of the season, Larkin's putting up Isaiah Thomas-type numbers? You mean to tell me there's no way that can happen. Why not? This guy's got just as much ability as little Isaiah Thomas -- he's just not as established yet. Give him time....Fish definitely isn't gonna hold him back...the more I think about this, the angrier I get. I don't care if the kid busts right outta the league tomorrow -- I'll still say it wasn't the right move. Oh well -- hey like you mentioned, maybe we do have an opportunity to sign him to deal when the time comes after all. Have to wait and see but damn, did we just make it that much harder for ourselves.

Thomas is 2 inches shorter but still has an 3 inch longer wingspan and 2 inch longer standing reach. Larkin has to stay in his opponents pocket and affect his dribble then use his incredible vert. I was impressed when he tied up MKG. I really think things would be diffrent if his wingspan was 6'1-6'3 or his standing reach was higher.

nycisgreat wrote:Larkin stinks. He plays like he is scared. Give a center the ball at the top of the key to may plays for himself makes no sense.

his rookie year basically

prigioni with so many defensive breakdowns

(No, you can't win with Larkin as your starting PG but he certainly looks like a promising bench player for a pretty good team. I mostly like how he runs the team, he's pretty active off-ball, and I'd guess his D will steadily get better.)