Knickoftime wrote:
The Knicks knew.

The player was on their roster. They had conversations with his agent. They didn't come up with the strategy on their own.

If fans want to cling to the idea that the Knicks and Lin were opposing forces trying to guess one another's next move and Lin wouldn't have jumped at what would have been a minimum offer without testing the market, enjoy that version of events.

The poison pill was Morey's creation. Nobody has done it before. If knicks offered him the full MLE which is around 5M per year then it would have been 3/16M or 5/28M. That would be the known/accepted top contract for Lin at the time since other teams can only offer 5M per year for the 1st 2 years. Knicks wanted to see if somebody would actually give him the full MLE before offering him anything.

It was not Morey's creation. The term and general premise goes back to the Gilbert Arenas rule of 2005. Larry Coon was well aware of the rule's potential application and covered it in his FAQ well before Morey applied it.

The point remains Lin and the Knicks agreed his value exceeded what they were limited to offer him, which was a reasonable agreement. And they were prepared to match his first offer from Houston, which also contained a backloaded contract. Knicks wanted to resign him and were willing and prepared to pay him more than what they could offer.

Morey increased the back end, Lin signed the offer sheet and the luxury tax implications became too much.

Frankly, I don't blame Morey (he wanted a player), I don't blame Lin (he wanted what the market would pay him) and I don't blame the Knicks (the CBA placed them in a tough spot and Morey in an advantageous one).

Linsanity was awesome. Some of the most fun I've had as a Knicks/NBA fan. But it just wasn't destined to work out long term.

Answering "no" would result in some more unwanted drama.

So, no NYK is nowhere near Lin's top 5 potential teams for this offseason. Let's all just relax.

As for those who are saying Jeremy Lin affirmatively made Houston give a poison pill just to **** NYK, I really don't know what kind of miserable childhood you have had to make you fabricate twisted stuff like this.

wallstbear wrote:Thanks for a level headed response. That said, Knicks really could have made an offer up front anyway. Lin could have taken it. In addition, it really sucks for so many NYK fans to now think Lin is a greedy disloyal bad person, which we all know he isn't.

Knickoftime wrote:
The Knicks knew.

The player was on their roster. They had conversations with his agent. They didn't come up with the strategy on their own.

If fans want to cling to the idea that the Knicks and Lin were opposing forces trying to guess one another's next move and Lin wouldn't have jumped at what would have been a minimum offer without testing the market, enjoy that version of events.

The poison pill was Morey's creation. Nobody has done it before. If knicks offered him the full MLE which is around 5M per year then it would have been 3/16M or 5/28M. That would be the known/accepted top contract for Lin at the time since other teams can only offer 5M per year for the 1st 2 years. Knicks wanted to see if somebody would actually give him the full MLE before offering him anything.

It was not Morey's creation. The term and general premise goes back to the Gilbert Arenas rule of 2005. Larry Coon was well aware of the rule's potential application and covered it in his FAQ well before Morey applied it.

The point remains Lin and the Knicks agreed his value exceeded what they were limited to offer him, which was a reasonable agreement. And they were prepared to match his first offer from Houston, which also contained a backloaded contract. Knicks wanted to resign him and were willing and prepared to pay him more than what they could offer.

Morey increased the back end, Lin signed the offer sheet and the luxury tax implications became too much.

Frankly, I don't blame Morey (he wanted a player), I don't blame Lin (he wanted what the market would pay him) and I don't blame the Knicks (the CBA placed them in a tough spot and Morey in an advantageous one).

Linsanity was awesome. Some of the most fun I've had as a Knicks/NBA fan. But it just wasn't destined to work out long term.

It is even more simple than outlined. Lin got another team to overpay, and the Knick didn't want to overpay. That turned out to be the right call (for once) as Lin did not live up to that contract, was not an impact player, was replaced by a played regarded as less talented in the SL, later traded and eventually signed a scrapheap player type deal to stay in the league. Lin simply was not worth the contract he was offered.

Nice kid... great run of hoops and super exciting until the Heat killed Linsanity.

crzymdups wrote:So really, the poison pill nonsense needs to stop. The Knicks have made worse investments time and time again.

Sorry, but you continue to look at this deal in relative comparison to other deals to justify it. "It should have been done because the Knicks did other things that were worse'.

Once you realize you when stop doing that ALL you are left with is "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,' then it should dawn on your we don't actually disagree.

You're only arguing it 'wasn't as bad'... I'm leaving out the 'wasn't as'.

arkrud 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.

Most money are made from broadcasting rights and MSG would benefit immensely from Lin increasing broadcasting deals volume with Asian countries with billions of viewers.
Only complete idiot can throw this away because of some couple tens of millions which are not even noticeable in Cable-vision financial picture.
It is the same as part ties with pop-star in the pick of ratings. Dumb and Dumber...

As far as I'm aware, the NBA does not allow individual teams to sell the rights to their games in Asia. The LEAGUE has broadcasting and streaming rights in Asia that benefit/ate distributed to the entire league.

I'd be glad to be corrected if you have more accurate information.