But it is not the most horrible thing. The most horrible thing is that it shows the Mills' ambition. He is not afraid of going to cap hell to make the team somewhat competitive. He has no plan. His plan is now. If a team is capped out but still bad, an ambitious prez/GM will try to trade away some players to make it work again. When he has nothing to trade but overpaid players he collected earlier, then he will start to trade away picks, because he knows now his life depends on it.

Mills is currently on step 1. If he goes to step 3 then we are truly doomed. Everything Uncle Phil saved for us would be gone.

Welpee wrote:

mlby1215 wrote:The problem is not about Baker. The problem is about Mills. I think he could have signed him with lesser, and is Baker's agent actually CAA? (not sure) All things together, it does not look good for the future of Knicks.

And Mills now is the prez. Yeah, we deserve it. We finally got Phil fired. It is Karma.

EnySpree wrote:You guys are crying about 8.9 mill over 2 years like it's 80 mil over 2 years. This is a respect counteract. Baker works hard and is a good example of the kind of guy we need at every position. Baker gotta get his shooting percentages up... if he does then the contract is a steal.

Again the Knicks off season is still underway.... no telling what is going to happen

I agree. Nothing against Baker. More power to him. But we couldn't find comparable talent and upside at a fraction of the cost?

joec32033 wrote:

TheGame wrote:I just have to say this again. No body was paying Hardaway $16.5 million a year and no one was paying Baker $4.5 million. It is ridiculous these deals Mills is handing out. The Baker deal is the worst, but I now see the flawed logic. The Knicks don't plan to bring in a vet unless it is the minimum so they figure you might as well pay Baker for playing defense last year. There are at least three PGs playing summer league that are better than Baker.l and who we could have probably signed for $2 mil. The guy Alex Caruso looks like he would take Baker's lunch and he shoots threes. Baker should have been on a minimum deal. He better shoot better than 26% this season. It is unbelievable.

Someone just paid Pope 18 mil a year. Not saying I disagree with your premise on Baker, just THJR shouldnt be used as an example

There's a huge difference between 18 million for 1 year vs 18 million per year for four years.

nykshaknbake wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Like him, but to be honest he is a fringe rotation player on a bad team.

How do you know that?

It prevents us from getting any veteran PG help for now.

How do you know that?

Watched him play. He wouldn't see anything but garbage minutes on most NBA teams. Veteran PG help requires money. Something which we no longer have.

Right, so you can project the career of all rookies based on their first seasons.

That's a marketable skill that should earn you a pretty good living.

This is stupid. Bottom line is today he wouldn't do much but warm benches on most teams.

Jmpasq wrote:

Dagger wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

TheGame wrote:I just have to say this again. No body was paying Hardaway $16.5 million a year and no one was paying Baker $4.5 million. It is ridiculous these deals Mills is handing out. The Baker deal is the worst, but I now see the flawed logic. The Knicks don't plan to bring in a vet unless it is the minimum so they figure you might as well pay Baker for playing defense last year. There are at least three PGs playing summer league that are better than Baker.l and who we could have probably signed for $2 mil. The guy Alex Caruso looks like he would take Baker's lunch and he shoots threes. Baker should have been on a minimum deal. He better shoot better than 26% this season. It is unbelievable.

Someone just paid Pope 18 mil a year. Not saying I disagree with your premise on Baker, just THJR shouldnt be used as an example

There's a huge difference between 18 million for 1 year vs 18 million per year for four years.

Yep the years is the crippling part there is a cap floor so you may have to overpay some guys to reach it but that doesn't mean you go four years

Bonn1997 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

Dagger wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

TheGame wrote:I just have to say this again. No body was paying Hardaway $16.5 million a year and no one was paying Baker $4.5 million. It is ridiculous these deals Mills is handing out. The Baker deal is the worst, but I now see the flawed logic. The Knicks don't plan to bring in a vet unless it is the minimum so they figure you might as well pay Baker for playing defense last year. There are at least three PGs playing summer league that are better than Baker.l and who we could have probably signed for $2 mil. The guy Alex Caruso looks like he would take Baker's lunch and he shoots threes. Baker should have been on a minimum deal. He better shoot better than 26% this season. It is unbelievable.

Someone just paid Pope 18 mil a year. Not saying I disagree with your premise on Baker, just THJR shouldnt be used as an example

There's a huge difference between 18 million for 1 year vs 18 million per year for four years.

Yep the years is the crippling part there is a cap floor so you may have to overpay some guys to reach it but that doesn't mean you go four years

The other way of looking at it is to consider how much salaries are increasing each year. If that trend continues, it would be better to lock up players long-term now.

Dagger wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

TheGame wrote:I just have to say this again. No body was paying Hardaway $16.5 million a year and no one was paying Baker $4.5 million. It is ridiculous these deals Mills is handing out. The Baker deal is the worst, but I now see the flawed logic. The Knicks don't plan to bring in a vet unless it is the minimum so they figure you might as well pay Baker for playing defense last year. There are at least three PGs playing summer league that are better than Baker.l and who we could have probably signed for $2 mil. The guy Alex Caruso looks like he would take Baker's lunch and he shoots threes. Baker should have been on a minimum deal. He better shoot better than 26% this season. It is unbelievable.

Someone just paid Pope 18 mil a year. Not saying I disagree with your premise on Baker, just THJR shouldnt be used as an example

There's a huge difference between 18 million for 1 year vs 18 million per year for four years.

It cuts both ways. Next season players like THJ and KCP may be commanding 20 million and so on. Of course, THJ may revert to D-leaguer get injured whatever, or turn into a star

We did the same with Langston Galloway and now Galloway just got $25M contract.

nykshaknbake wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Like him, but to be honest he is a fringe rotation player on a bad team.

How do you know that?

It prevents us from getting any veteran PG help for now.

How do you know that?

Watched him play. He wouldn't see anything but garbage minutes on most NBA teams. Veteran PG help requires money. Something which we no longer have.

Right, so you can project the career of all rookies based on their first seasons.

That's a marketable skill that should earn you a pretty good living.

This is stupid. Bottom line is today he wouldn't do much but warm benches on most teams.

Why? Because of his shooting? That's the only thing he didn't do well. There may have been teams that judged him more from his college shooting and wanted him and dismissed his poor NBA shooting. You really can't say much from 200 shots. He showed enough overall that I think most teams would wait for a larger sample of shot attempts. That's not to say I like the contract. I think it's an adequate signing.

The shooting is kind of a big deal. It's not just bad, it's sub Brandon Jennings bad. I doubt teams dismiss NBA stats and ficus on college stats. He was fine at passing and D, but none of it was incredible. The question is can u picture any other team signing him to this contract? Do you think he has any trade value? Most people will answer no and no.

But he shot well in college so there's hope.

Bonn1997 wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Like him, but to be honest he is a fringe rotation player on a bad team.

How do you know that?

It prevents us from getting any veteran PG help for now.

How do you know that?

Watched him play. He wouldn't see anything but garbage minutes on most NBA teams. Veteran PG help requires money. Something which we no longer have.

Right, so you can project the career of all rookies based on their first seasons.

That's a marketable skill that should earn you a pretty good living.

This is stupid. Bottom line is today he wouldn't do much but warm benches on most teams.

Why? Because of his shooting? That's the only thing he didn't do well. There may have been teams that judged him more from his college shooting and wanted him and dismissed his poor NBA shooting. You really can't say much from 200 shots. He showed enough overall that I think most teams would wait for a larger sample of shot attempts. That's not to say I like the contract. I think it's an adequate signing.

The shooting is kind of a big deal. It's not just bad, it's sub Brandon Jennings bad. I doubt teams dismiss NBA stats and ficus on college stats. He was fine at passing and D, but none of it was incredible. The question is can u picture any other team signing him to this contract? Do you think he has any trade value? Most people will answer no and no.

But 200 shots is way too small sample. You can take any good nba shooter and they've probably had stretches of 200 shots with a low shooting percentage. And actually his 2 point shooting was not that bad for a rookie just breaking into the league (45%). It's really just a sample of 86 3 pointers that you're judging him on. He should have made about 6 more 3 pointers last season.

Good perspective