MS wrote:Martin, do you feel good about 5 years and $40 million+ per season?

It’s fine at the moment because Brunson and Bridges are bargains.

We absolutely couldn’t lose him; when he plays, we are elite. But true to form, he broke down twice.

Bridges can man the spot, and DDV can slide back in as a starter. Depth is our strength.

The number just feels a little scary, which was always the concern.

If he stays healthy, I think we are the favorites.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Some questions answer themselves, and when you read them back to yourself out loud, do it slowly.

Panos wrote:I think I'm going to puke.
This is an Allan Houston contract.

Lolz

Chandler wrote:Martin can you sticky this thread and put next to the other one decrying the trade for OG?

martin...you can just perform a git merge. Ask bip for help.

Panos wrote:I think I'm going to puke.
This is an Allan Houston contract.

They guy that hit the winning shot in 1999 to beat the Heat and extend our run to the finals?
The guy that opted out of a free agent contract he was outperforming?
The guy "we all knew the contract was gonna be high but knicks Management"?
The guy 23 years later still lamenting about his contract as the UK "Told you so guy"?
The guy we blame 20 years of knick woes on?

Really? We still doing this? Why not use Marvin Webster?

We never achieved with H20 and the contract was a bear. They named an exemption to wipe out bad contracts. Funny , we never even used it! Fact was at the time the knicks looking forward could not achieve if they let him walk even with a sore knee. I get hindsight and im not here to defend it. It sucked, but that does not mean you stop taking bold chances.
What if McDyess knee never buckled? It was the good knee that did, not the one he had repaired.

Shit happens. We not talking about Amare who had a bonafide issue. Even still, FO knew he'd likely last three seasons of the 5.
OG has no chronic issues. He is not durable but players without chronic issues do get more reliable. Sometimes not. Im not into "Knicks have a 5 year window". Its likely 2-3. Thats ok. OG is 27. He'll be ok. He holds up ok, we win a chip year two, and if we don't repeat we can trade him for goodies. That contract will age ok if he does. If not, we are ****ed.
Lots of ways get can get ****ed. But letting him walk ensures that sooner than later.
Upside? You saw it this past season. He was magnficinet!

MS wrote:Martin, do you feel good about 5 years and $40 million+ per season?

It’s fine at the moment because Brunson and Bridges are bargains.

We absolutely couldn’t lose him; when he plays, we are elite. But true to form, he broke down twice.

Bridges can man the spot, and DDV can slide back in as a starter. Depth is our strength.

The number just feels a little scary, which was always the concern.

If he stays healthy, I think we are the favorites.

I have finally figured out the response that fully gets to the core of things.

Pretend I am me, and Rebecca is back at my place and is giving me the sexy eyes but also tells me she needs to be taken to the nice restaurant first and please treat me good.

Do you want to be me in this scenario or do you want to be Wally?

Panos wrote:

martin wrote:

Chandler wrote:Martin can you sticky this thread and put next to the other one decrying the trade for OG?

Right. I am going to call it the “we need to know how you like your crow prepared” what the heck

Look, I admit when I was wrong and have done so on this site a couple of times, uninvited.
But I'll tell you how these things work. If OG goes on to lead us to a championship with his massive salary, I'll be the first to say I was wrong, he was worth every penny. Hell, even if he stays relatively healthy and the Knicks have a few years of 50 wins and ECF appearances.
HOWEVER, the flip side is that if he doesn't prove he's worth the contract, y'all will be saying "oh, past is past, why are you still talking about that."
So the bottom line is you are not *allowed* to second guess a move when it happens, and then the teflon memory of y'all doesn't allow revisiting it after the fact, cuz you're already onto the next thing.

The Knicks are in the position to pay OG fair market value and keep all of their core pieces. That is the assumption. If signing OG meant forgoing iHart and other in core, then a different type of decision needs to be made. That is not that case here. There is literally zero impact on team building paying OG $35 vs. $40M per because we are over cap anyway. Would it possibility effect signing an extra extra guy? You can come up with something, it won't be marginally significant.

This is not a trick question situation. If you already have the assumption that OG can be integral to winning a championship, you have already made the decision that he is worth it.

After that, you are fighting against yourself with contorting an games played because of injury. If that's the case, articulate the number of games you need to expect; I will then tell you about all of the playoff performers you would not get to have on your team and it would be an exhaustive list of playoff guys.

I legit don't know how anyone can watch what OG did in January and in the playoffs and be like, he may miss games in the future so nah. OG is not KP.

Panos wrote:

martin wrote:

Chandler wrote:Martin can you sticky this thread and put next to the other one decrying the trade for OG?

Right. I am going to call it the “we need to know how you like your crow prepared” what the heck

Look, I admit when I was wrong and have done so on this site a couple of times, uninvited.
But I'll tell you how these things work. If OG goes on to lead us to a championship with his massive salary, I'll be the first to say I was wrong, he was worth every penny. Hell, even if he stays relatively healthy and the Knicks have a few years of 50 wins and ECF appearances.
HOWEVER, the flip side is that if he doesn't prove he's worth the contract, y'all will be saying "oh, past is past, why are you still talking about that."
So the bottom line is you are not *allowed* to second guess a move when it happens, and then the teflon memory of y'all doesn't allow revisiting it after the fact, cuz you're already onto the next thing.

but if this thread is stickied you can come back and told us you told us so. I don't get the point. Everyone is on the hook

I think everyone agrees we would all like it better if OG had Mikal's track record for availability. But the question can't be is this ideal. The issue is what do you when you feel like you're primed to make a move, and there are only a given set of players. Is there another alternative you preferred? Letting him walk and we keep the cash for what/who?

We now have the defensive chops for Tatum/Brown or at least the best possibilities there. And if Philly gets PG east is going to be crazy

Chandler wrote:

Panos wrote:

martin wrote:

Chandler wrote:Martin can you sticky this thread and put next to the other one decrying the trade for OG?

Right. I am going to call it the “we need to know how you like your crow prepared” what the heck

Look, I admit when I was wrong and have done so on this site a couple of times, uninvited.
But I'll tell you how these things work. If OG goes on to lead us to a championship with his massive salary, I'll be the first to say I was wrong, he was worth every penny. Hell, even if he stays relatively healthy and the Knicks have a few years of 50 wins and ECF appearances.
HOWEVER, the flip side is that if he doesn't prove he's worth the contract, y'all will be saying "oh, past is past, why are you still talking about that."
So the bottom line is you are not *allowed* to second guess a move when it happens, and then the teflon memory of y'all doesn't allow revisiting it after the fact, cuz you're already onto the next thing.

but if this thread is stickied you can come back and told us you told us so. I don't get the point. Everyone is on the hook

I think everyone agrees we would all like it better if OG had Mikal's track record for availability. But the question can't be is this ideal. The issue is what do you when you feel like you're primed to make a move, and there are only a given set of players. Is there another alternative you preferred? Letting him walk and we keep the cash for what/who?

We now have the defensive chops for Tatum/Brown or at least the best possibilities there. And if Philly gets PG east is going to be crazy

Frankly, I'd rather be wrong in this case than come back and say "I told you so." I'm not here to gloat.
The issue is not "who can you get instead". The issue is not tying up money in a player that isn't worth that kind of money. How many times have the Knicks had albatross contracts tied up in injured players that we had to eat, or stretch? They are budget killers. Ok, at $20-25M, I would have taken the risk. At nearly $40M per tied up in OG, that's too big a risk. Rose and company has been so good about not overpaying. I'm really surprised they did this.
McDyess
Houston
Eddy Curry
Stoudamire
Joakim Noah