ChuckBuck wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Trade him and use the 23 mil per year cap money wisely. I chose option A even though it's way too early to know that either of those players are ones to build a franchise around.

we had 27 million this yr, and the improvement is lousy, KP is shooting 41% on the season and is head south of his development. Once the full scouting report was out, just like LIN, its been a struggle for him.

And if you don't know for certain how it will turned out, what sense would it make to trade surety for uncertainty

See bold

See Dolan

LOL!
We did add Rolo. So it's not impossible for FA money to be spent well but we have had a low success rate with FAs (and draft picks and trades) under Dolan.

I see, so with our cap space we are going to sign pure bargains and values. And with our draft picks we are going to hit on multiple franchise players.

With this ownership and management? I doubt it but it's not going to get any worse than the sub .300 winning percentage since Melo signed the largest basketball contract in the world (at the time). They're going to need new people or at least new methods for making decisions.

Philly has had no big contracts and multiple upon multiple lotto picks over the years. And they have less then .300% win %

There aren't many teams in the league that have a team full of bargain contracts and franchise picks they landed in the draft. Because it's freaking hard.

All plans are great if you execute and or get lucky.

I never said we need to avoid big contracts. I just wouldn't have given the largest contract on the planet to Melo.

You should know the circumstances that came with that though. Which has been gone over plenty of times.

I've listed below all of the circumstances that would cause me to give out a bad contract:

I mean that's kind of easy to say on a message board. You try and make it seem like Carmelo's contract has prevented the Knicks from having any flexibility which hasn't been the case.

It's taken up space that could have been better used. I think there's strong evidence that Melo's production does not match his contract. And the problem is that you don't want players to simply match their contracts (which he doesn't even do). Average production per dollar spent is what a .500 team does. The top teams have most of their salary spent on players whose production exceeds their contracts. We actually have the 17th highest payroll and 22nd best record. So we're getting below average return on money spent. That's not just Melo. Almost every player on the roster is producing below their contract. He's just the biggest symptom of a problem that pertains to the entire roster.
To be clear, I didn't want to lose Melo for nothing either. It should have never gotten to the point of his free agency. Back when Melo was winning player of the month awards, I was saying it was time to sell high and trade him.

+1. Knicks should've signed and traded Melo long ago if they were afraid to lose him in free agency without compensation.

We would have had to trade him during the 54 win season or the yr prior when MDA tried to move him for D.Williams. Wasn't happening. This is the same era that amnestied Billups over Amare and traded our draft pick for Bargs.

No, they could've traded him the 2013-2014 37 win season when he still had some decent value and he was a pending free agent. Or even signed and traded him to LA, Houston, or Chicago before he resigned to $124m and trapped us with the NTC.

He was a pending free agent meaning he would have to give the team he is being traded to clearance that he would resign with them before they give up any assets.

Or they could've traded him on draft day with no assurances needed. At All.

When he was a free agent?

NBA Draft is in June. Free Agency begins in July usually. Knicks would still hold his rights before free agency began.

Nothing changes, would have to be a S&T since he would become a unrestricted FA. He would have to give the go ahead for the S%T.

newyorknewyork wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Trade him and use the 23 mil per year cap money wisely. I chose option A even though it's way too early to know that either of those players are ones to build a franchise around.

we had 27 million this yr, and the improvement is lousy, KP is shooting 41% on the season and is head south of his development. Once the full scouting report was out, just like LIN, its been a struggle for him.

And if you don't know for certain how it will turned out, what sense would it make to trade surety for uncertainty

See bold

See Dolan

LOL!
We did add Rolo. So it's not impossible for FA money to be spent well but we have had a low success rate with FAs (and draft picks and trades) under Dolan.

I see, so with our cap space we are going to sign pure bargains and values. And with our draft picks we are going to hit on multiple franchise players.

With this ownership and management? I doubt it but it's not going to get any worse than the sub .300 winning percentage since Melo signed the largest basketball contract in the world (at the time). They're going to need new people or at least new methods for making decisions.

Philly has had no big contracts and multiple upon multiple lotto picks over the years. And they have less then .300% win %

There aren't many teams in the league that have a team full of bargain contracts and franchise picks they landed in the draft. Because it's freaking hard.

All plans are great if you execute and or get lucky.

I never said we need to avoid big contracts. I just wouldn't have given the largest contract on the planet to Melo.

You should know the circumstances that came with that though. Which has been gone over plenty of times.

I've listed below all of the circumstances that would cause me to give out a bad contract:

I mean that's kind of easy to say on a message board. You try and make it seem like Carmelo's contract has prevented the Knicks from having any flexibility which hasn't been the case.

It's taken up space that could have been better used. I think there's strong evidence that Melo's production does not match his contract. And the problem is that you don't want players to simply match their contracts (which he doesn't even do). Average production per dollar spent is what a .500 team does. The top teams have most of their salary spent on players whose production exceeds their contracts. We actually have the 17th highest payroll and 22nd best record. So we're getting below average return on money spent. That's not just Melo. Almost every player on the roster is producing below their contract. He's just the biggest symptom of a problem that pertains to the entire roster.
To be clear, I didn't want to lose Melo for nothing either. It should have never gotten to the point of his free agency. Back when Melo was winning player of the month awards, I was saying it was time to sell high and trade him.

+1. Knicks should've signed and traded Melo long ago if they were afraid to lose him in free agency without compensation.

We would have had to trade him during the 54 win season or the yr prior when MDA tried to move him for D.Williams. Wasn't happening. This is the same era that amnestied Billups over Amare and traded our draft pick for Bargs.

No, they could've traded him the 2013-2014 37 win season when he still had some decent value and he was a pending free agent. Or even signed and traded him to LA, Houston, or Chicago before he resigned to $124m and trapped us with the NTC.

He was a pending free agent meaning he would have to give the team he is being traded to clearance that he would resign with them before they give up any assets.

Or they could've traded him on draft day with no assurances needed. At All.

When he was a free agent?

NBA Draft is in June. Free Agency begins in July usually. Knicks would still hold his rights before free agency began.

Nothing changes, would have to be a S&T since he would become a unrestricted FA. He would have to give the go ahead for the S%T.

That's fine. If they could've made a deal with Chicago, then both sides win. Knicks unfortunately erred and let him get to test free agency.

reub wrote:This team is gaining continuity. All we need is one or two good guards and we'll be great. Let's not blow it all up and start again. We're closer than many people think.

how are we getting those 1-2 good guards? Sure as hell ain't drafting them.

GustavBahler wrote:There was one other reason Melo was signed that has been largely ignored here, and thats signing Melo to keep people in the seats. Sure some of it had to do with what Melo brought to the table, but a lot of it had to do with not knowing that they would get a top 5 pick in KP, and that KP had superstar potential. The decision to tank and go for the first pick came after Melo reupped. As far as Jackson was concerned he had to have at least one star in NY while he does his rebuild. Otherwise it would have taken longer to get back to relevance, and the Knicks would have trouble drawing crowds which Dolan would not have liked.

I get the logic, makes sense, if it had been a 4 year deal (even with a NTC) I would have been happier to see Melo come back. If he develops a serious injury we would be on the hook for 5 years with limited trade options. Thats why I would be pleased with a trade that brought us a package of younger player(s) and picks.

bingo! cash cow syndrome.

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:There was one other reason Melo was signed that has been largely ignored here, and thats signing Melo to keep people in the seats. Sure some of it had to do with what Melo brought to the table, but a lot of it had to do with not knowing that they would get a top 5 pick in KP, and that KP had superstar potential. The decision to tank and go for the first pick came after Melo reupped. As far as Jackson was concerned he had to have at least one star in NY while he does his rebuild. Otherwise it would have taken longer to get back to relevance, and the Knicks would have trouble drawing crowds which Dolan would not have liked.

I get the logic, makes sense, if it had been a 4 year deal (even with a NTC) I would have been happier to see Melo come back. If he develops a serious injury we would be on the hook for 5 years with limited trade options. Thats why I would be pleased with a trade that brought us a package of younger player(s) and picks.

Agree with this. I don't think you would ever be able to get a player to willing agree to a 4 year deal unless they initiate. I think Knicks miscalculated on the NTC if it was in exchange for less $ by Melo but not 100% convinced on that yet.

I hope that wasnt the deal. Not enough money left on the table to justify it. Would have been happier if Phil had offered a 4 year deal with an NTC or a 5 year deal without one.

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:There was one other reason Melo was signed that has been largely ignored here, and thats signing Melo to keep people in the seats. Sure some of it had to do with what Melo brought to the table, but a lot of it had to do with not knowing that they would get a top 5 pick in KP, and that KP had superstar potential. The decision to tank and go for the first pick came after Melo reupped. As far as Jackson was concerned he had to have at least one star in NY while he does his rebuild. Otherwise it would have taken longer to get back to relevance, and the Knicks would have trouble drawing crowds which Dolan would not have liked.

I get the logic, makes sense, if it had been a 4 year deal (even with a NTC) I would have been happier to see Melo come back. If he develops a serious injury we would be on the hook for 5 years with limited trade options. Thats why I would be pleased with a trade that brought us a package of younger player(s) and picks.

Agree with this. I don't think you would ever be able to get a player to willing agree to a 4 year deal unless they initiate. I think Knicks miscalculated on the NTC if it was in exchange for less $ by Melo but not 100% convinced on that yet.

I hope that wasnt the deal. Not enough money left on the table to justify it. Would have been happier if Phil had offered a 4 year deal with an NTC or a 5 year deal without one.

4 years versus 5 years for a guy that would still be in his prime'ish. That's a hard decision for GM, most would go for the years all things being equal.

Should GSW shorted Curry because of his ankles? GM glad they didn't.

How would not having him negatively affect us right now. We haven't sniffed or come close to playoffs since he resigned so what's the point in giving him all that money. Any decent all star would've carried this team to at least an 8th seed even with complete garbage around him.

Heck, I love KP and all, but we probably end up with Karl Anthony-Towns if Melo's not resigned...

newyorknewyork wrote:

mreinman wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:There was one other reason Melo was signed that has been largely ignored here, and thats signing Melo to keep people in the seats. Sure some of it had to do with what Melo brought to the table, but a lot of it had to do with not knowing that they would get a top 5 pick in KP, and that KP had superstar potential. The decision to tank and go for the first pick came after Melo reupped. As far as Jackson was concerned he had to have at least one star in NY while he does his rebuild. Otherwise it would have taken longer to get back to relevance, and the Knicks would have trouble drawing crowds which Dolan would not have liked.

I get the logic, makes sense, if it had been a 4 year deal (even with a NTC) I would have been happier to see Melo come back. If he develops a serious injury we would be on the hook for 5 years with limited trade options. Thats why I would be pleased with a trade that brought us a package of younger player(s) and picks.

bingo! cash cow syndrome.

We would only have limited options when it pertains to trading Melo, but not the rest of the team. This off season if we strike out on free agency, would be the only time I could see trading Melo as a realistic opportunity. Acting like we could have traded Melo for any assets before then is just blowing smoke. Letting Melo walk comes with just as much down side. It does allow you to dream more though.

don't agree there.

By the time he was a free agent and held all the cards, phil was screwed and melo owned him.

I would assume (because I still have some respect for phil) that he knows that it was a mistake not to trade him before he became a FA. Of course it was a mistake to not trade him. Now his value is crumbling by the minute even though he is playing a much smarter brand of basketball.

I would say that if I was the GM and I was hired after the trade deadline, I probably would have resigned him. Melo would have owned me and handcuffed me. Can't just let an asset like that walk.

ChuckBuck wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:There was one other reason Melo was signed that has been largely ignored here, and thats signing Melo to keep people in the seats. Sure some of it had to do with what Melo brought to the table, but a lot of it had to do with not knowing that they would get a top 5 pick in KP, and that KP had superstar potential. The decision to tank and go for the first pick came after Melo reupped. As far as Jackson was concerned he had to have at least one star in NY while he does his rebuild. Otherwise it would have taken longer to get back to relevance, and the Knicks would have trouble drawing crowds which Dolan would not have liked.

I get the logic, makes sense, if it had been a 4 year deal (even with a NTC) I would have been happier to see Melo come back. If he develops a serious injury we would be on the hook for 5 years with limited trade options. Thats why I would be pleased with a trade that brought us a package of younger player(s) and picks.

Agree with this. I don't think you would ever be able to get a player to willing agree to a 4 year deal unless they initiate. I think Knicks miscalculated on the NTC if it was in exchange for less $ by Melo but not 100% convinced on that yet.

I hope that wasnt the deal. Not enough money left on the table to justify it. Would have been happier if Phil had offered a 4 year deal with an NTC or a 5 year deal without one.

4 years versus 5 years for a guy that would still be in his prime'ish. That's a hard decision for GM, most would go for the years all things being equal.

Should GSW shorted Curry because of his ankles? GM glad they didn't.

Curry was a good deal younger. You're right its a tough decision. In the end I believe that keeping the Garden full and Dolan happy won out vs a total rebuild. Sometimes total rebuilds work, sometimes they dont. Saw what happened with Stat's albatross of a contract, his chronic injuries, and how it impacted the cap and flexibility. Guess I was a bit gunshy about possibly going down this road again.

It's a trend in Knick land. Albatross contracts is what we do here.

Allan Houston.

Amare Stoudemire.

Carmelo Anthony.

Always overbidding against ourselves, when no one is even close to the same years or annual.

big diff is that Melo has trade value, they did not.

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Trade him and use the 23 mil per year cap money wisely. I chose option A even though it's way too early to know that either of those players are ones to build a franchise around.

we had 27 million this yr, and the improvement is lousy, KP is shooting 41% on the season and is head south of his development. Once the full scouting report was out, just like LIN, its been a struggle for him.

And if you don't know for certain how it will turned out, what sense would it make to trade surety for uncertainty

See bold

See Dolan

LOL!
We did add Rolo. So it's not impossible for FA money to be spent well but we have had a low success rate with FAs (and draft picks and trades) under Dolan.

I see, so with our cap space we are going to sign pure bargains and values. And with our draft picks we are going to hit on multiple franchise players.

With this ownership and management? I doubt it but it's not going to get any worse than the sub .300 winning percentage since Melo signed the largest basketball contract in the world (at the time). They're going to need new people or at least new methods for making decisions.

Philly has had no big contracts and multiple upon multiple lotto picks over the years. And they have less then .300% win %

There aren't many teams in the league that have a team full of bargain contracts and franchise picks they landed in the draft. Because it's freaking hard.

All plans are great if you execute and or get lucky.

I never said we need to avoid big contracts. I just wouldn't have given the largest contract on the planet to Melo.

You should know the circumstances that came with that though. Which has been gone over plenty of times.

I've listed below all of the circumstances that would cause me to give out a bad contract:

I mean that's kind of easy to say on a message board. You try and make it seem like Carmelo's contract has prevented the Knicks from having any flexibility which hasn't been the case.

It's taken up space that could have been better used. I think there's strong evidence that Melo's production does not match his contract. And the problem is that you don't want players to simply match their contracts (which he doesn't even do). Average production per dollar spent is what a .500 team does. The top teams have most of their salary spent on players whose production exceeds their contracts. We actually have the 17th highest payroll and 22nd best record. So we're getting below average return on money spent. That's not just Melo. Almost every player on the roster is producing below their contract. He's just the biggest symptom of a problem that pertains to the entire roster.
To be clear, I didn't want to lose Melo for nothing either. It should have never gotten to the point of his free agency. Back when Melo was winning player of the month awards, I was saying it was time to sell high and trade him.

This would mean more if the Knicks were capped out beyond belief with a bunch of unmovable players and no wiggle room to improve the roster which isn't the case. Just because hypothetically money could maybe be spent on higher returns if they were available doesn't mean it would happen. You have to compete for FAs with other teams. You could hypothetically end up having to overpay or continue with stop gap players waiting for that value to come all the same rather then actually building a team.

A smart team spends every penny well. You can't just designate a large portion of the team salary (like Melo's 23 mil per) and say we're going to get poor return out of that portion but we'll use the other part of the cap space well. If a player is not going to outproduce his contract, then you have to find better ways to use the money. That could mean 3 guys signed at 8 mil who give you 10 mil each in production. It doesn't have to be big names.

There's no point in discussing what "would happen" under Dolan. Then as might as well just list all the ways we can think of to construct a .400 team. The point is to discuss what should happen.

You act as if the Knicks just threw 124mil at Carmelo. They did so because it was there most logical option to take. You either sign him to 5yr 124mil NTC. Or he signs with the Bulls as there would be no reason for Melo to resign with the Knicks and no reason for Bulls to trade for Melo if they know the Knicks aren't willing to use the only card they have.

You claimed when we first resigned him that this would force Phil to go after a Monroe and be capped out with Melo and Monroe locked into mediocrity and no cap flexibility. Also stated we would never be able to land a blue chip prospect. Yet we do have cap flexibility and we do have a blue chip prospect.

I understand the principals that you want to hold on to. But its not black and white.

I claimed we'd be forced to go after Monroe? I don't remember that by any means. I never make guarantees about what player a GM will target. I can't imagine I said that. If Melo went to the Bulls and we lose him for nothing, that's a worse case scenario that should have been avoided but it's still fine. I'd rather have the $124 mil in cap space than have Melo at that price. His production doesn't warrant it. I'd be willing to bet that spending that money well on players other than Melo would not have led to an outcome worse than our 44 and 104 record since his signing!

I'm pretty sure you did but whatever. If we did win more then we wouldn't have KP and you would probably be claiming that we weren't real contenders and are missing out on blue chip prospects. And again you are assuming that we would be able to spend money well on players like that. Yea hypothetically if we did have an extra 23mil last off season and we signed a bunch of sleepers who broke out and outproduced there contracts then of course we would great. The odds of that happening though are aren't as great.

newyorknewyork wrote:

mreinman wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

mreinman wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:There was one other reason Melo was signed that has been largely ignored here, and thats signing Melo to keep people in the seats. Sure some of it had to do with what Melo brought to the table, but a lot of it had to do with not knowing that they would get a top 5 pick in KP, and that KP had superstar potential. The decision to tank and go for the first pick came after Melo reupped. As far as Jackson was concerned he had to have at least one star in NY while he does his rebuild. Otherwise it would have taken longer to get back to relevance, and the Knicks would have trouble drawing crowds which Dolan would not have liked.

I get the logic, makes sense, if it had been a 4 year deal (even with a NTC) I would have been happier to see Melo come back. If he develops a serious injury we would be on the hook for 5 years with limited trade options. Thats why I would be pleased with a trade that brought us a package of younger player(s) and picks.

bingo! cash cow syndrome.

We would only have limited options when it pertains to trading Melo, but not the rest of the team. This off season if we strike out on free agency, would be the only time I could see trading Melo as a realistic opportunity. Acting like we could have traded Melo for any assets before then is just blowing smoke. Letting Melo walk comes with just as much down side. It does allow you to dream more though.

don't agree there.

By the time he was a free agent and held all the cards, phil was screwed and melo owned him.

I would assume (because I still have some respect for phil) that he knows that it was a mistake not to trade him before he became a FA. Of course it was a mistake to not trade him. Now his value is crumbling by the minute even though he is playing a much smarter brand of basketball.

I would say that if I was the GM and I was hired after the trade deadline, I probably would have resigned him. Melo would have owned me and handcuffed me. Can't just let an asset like that walk.

Melo would have to okay any deal. He had an expiring contract.

he may have if phil said that he was rebuilding.