Panos wrote:

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

The thing is ... He will be worth that type of money in two years. Just watch how contracts rise after the new deal. It was that long ago that people where saying Jalen Browns contract was insane. Very few people are saying that now.

Yes Pano's, join us in being nervous, and yes apprehensive about his health. What is the real downside? Not our money? Not like we were going to win with IQ or RJ.
Sure, "We could have done better"!! Specifically thats not an easy answer.

Im sure you'd rather be wrong but is it so terrible to be disappointed like the rest of us? Or is "Told you so" really that good to have?
Thats the real cost to the fan, being disappointed!

Panos wrote:

Nalod wrote:

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!

Yes, and the guy that the NBA created a rule for getting out of 1 bad contract and it was nick-named the Allan Houston rule.

Yes, its why I said it!!! We used it on Jerome "Junkyard dog" Williams! It ****ing sucked!!
Knicks took chances and failed with guys they should not have signed.
but in many of those instances they were "starphuchs" to teams that were not contending. They were for Dolans desire to put star on broadway and sell seats post Ewing era.

I am long on record for hating the Marbury deal, deplore Isiah Lord Thomas, and not loving the Melo trade not because of him, but because the cupboard was barren and we could not construct a good roster to contend. The 54 win year was built on old men who rand out of gas by seasons end. Melo was magnificent!
OG is not the starphuch of the past. Yes any fan with any interest in what's going on is nervous/apprehensive. WE'd be the same for Gianis, embiid, Anthony Davis if we signed them as free agents!
Star trades? They expensive and none is a slam dunk given the prices of them. We need our 5 solidified and then we can see what we got.

Panos wrote:

Nalod wrote:Most fans are really happy about the OG signing and are nervous about his health.
Takes risks to win a chip. We all understand his history as well as his talent.
We will watch the games, enjoy them and hope for best outcome.
Why is Being right so damn import

its like one can stand up and See, I told you and thus knicks lose, you lose, but me, no, I win!!!! Do you or any fan?

Yes Pano's, join us in being nervous, and yes apprehensive about his health. What is the real downside? Not our money? Not like we were going to win with IQ or RJ.
Sure, We could have done better!! Specifically thats not an easy answer.

Im sure you'd rather be wrong but is it so terrible to be disappointed like the rest of us? Or is ;Told you so; really that good to have?
Thats the real cost to the fan, being disappointed!

Did you even read my post?
I clearly said I'm not in this for the "I told you so's". I said I'd rather be wrong in this case than right. Why do you always play the role of fan police?

Frankly, I'd rather be wrong in this case than come back and say "I told you so." I'm not here to gloat./quote]
I understand, but you kind of do. What's the motivation then for taking a stand where you on one side or the other?

Why do I play the Fan police? Good question actually. I don't think its "Always". But its not "Fan Police". If true, its "Post police". Its about the content, not the person.

It will also give us the boldness to trade a whole bunch of unprotected 1st rounders to the Nets to get Mikal Bridges, giving us 2 elite wing defenders.

And also trade our first rounders and 2nd rounders down so we have like 5-8 more 2nd rounders (I lost count of which ones were keeping or trading away)… and working toward additional moves to qualify us for the 2nd apron for us to offer the max early bird offer to iHart.

I think we’re in line to accomplish all we set out to do, perhaps except bringing Precious back.

technomaster wrote:So to answer the question, $212.5m over 5 years.

It will also give us the boldness to trade a whole bunch of unprotected 1st rounders to the Nets to get Mikal Bridges, giving us 2 elite wing defenders.

And also trade our first rounders and 2nd rounders down so we have like 5-8 more 2nd rounders (I lost count of which ones were keeping or trading away)… and working toward additional moves to qualify us for the 2nd apron for us to offer the max early bird offer to iHart.

I think we’re in line to accomplish all we set out to do, perhaps except bringing Precious back.

I think Precious is very much in play for the Tax payer mid-level if iHart is gone.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Yes Pano's, join us in being nervous, and yes apprehensive about his health. What is the real downside? Not our money? Not like we were going to win with IQ or RJ.
Sure, "We could have done better"!! Specifically thats not an easy answer.

You may be missing his point here. No one is worried about Dolan's pockets. But people are worried that we might be strapping ourselves into a financial straightjacket capwise. Given our cap-strapped history with the likes of Noah, these worries are legitimate. Especially given that we are tying all this money into a non-offensive player.
Now, I understand that there is a bias in thinking that a player who scores a lot is better than a player who defends a lot. And bias towards valuing statistical evidence, even on the defensive end (blocks, rebounds, stuff that big men like Bill Russell or Ben Wallace do). OG is average at best on offense and does not shine in any traditional defensive statistical categories. Add his injury history, and concerns about tying up so much of our cap on him look more than legitimate.

The only consolation that may be offered is that this set up is only for the next 3 years. After that, the cap will rise and mitigate any overspending decisions made now. Plus, trading large contracts for some useful assets becomes easy when they are close to expiring. So, essentially, whatever mistakes we are making today are only with us for 3 years. The FO sees these 3 years as our contention window while Randle, Brunson, OG and Bridges are entering their prime. This is the best team the FO could have assembled at this time and for this window. Would it have been better if we added a legit two-way superstar? Sure, but did we have that option. Probably not. By the time DM became available, we were already committed to Brunson. And trading for people like Durant or Kyrie would have probably been decried as an even riskier strategy than throwing $$$ at OG.

My personal view is that trading RJ and IQ for OG was a mistake. Everything that has come after has been dictated by the logic of that trade, with hardly any wiggle room available for pivoting to another strategy. The hand was dealt, now we are playing it the only way it can be played. Maybe we get lucky, avoid major injuries as a team and compete at the highest level. The odds of it appear long. But at least we will not be reveling in the pleasures of watching a lottery team, like we were doing for most of this century.

We are going to be cap strapped no matter what. Brunson and Randle extentions are coming up. They will no longer be on team friendly deals. Harts extention kicks in next season. If we sign iHart his salary will take a huge spike. This is the reason why we did the trade for Bridges now. After this season even with the cap increases we will be capped out meaning these types of trades will have more restrictions to make it harder. Think about how close to hard cap we are now and we got Brunson and Randle on contracts that are about to double in size. So stop worrying about getting capped out. It is already going to happen. Knicks fans will have to get used to how every other team operates. We got lucky to have so many team friendly deals. Those days are over.

You do know that RJ an IQ combined are going to be getting paid more than OG next season right? Cap situation would be way worse and they did not fit our team.

RJ will be making 25.7mil and IQ wanted at a minimum 25mil. We offered 20mil and he said no.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Yes Pano's, join us in being nervous, and yes apprehensive about his health. What is the real downside? Not our money? Not like we were going to win with IQ or RJ.
Sure, "We could have done better"!! Specifically thats not an easy answer.

You may be missing his point here. No one is worried about Dolan's pockets. But people are worried that we might be strapping ourselves into a financial straightjacket capwise. Given our cap-strapped history with the likes of Noah, these worries are legitimate. Especially given that we are tying all this money into a non-offensive player.
Now, I understand that there is a bias in thinking that a player who scores a lot is better than a player who defends a lot. And bias towards valuing statistical evidence, even on the defensive end (blocks, rebounds, stuff that big men like Bill Russell or Ben Wallace do). OG is average at best on offense and does not shine in any traditional defensive statistical categories. Add his injury history, and concerns about tying up so much of our cap on him look more than legitimate.

The only consolation that may be offered is that this set up is only for the next 3 years. After that, the cap will rise and mitigate any overspending decisions made now. Plus, trading large contracts for some useful assets becomes easy when they are close to expiring. So, essentially, whatever mistakes we are making today are only with us for 3 years. The FO sees these 3 years as our contention window while Randle, Brunson, OG and Bridges are entering their prime. This is the best team the FO could have assembled at this time and for this window. Would it have been better if we added a legit two-way superstar? Sure, but did we have that option. Probably not. By the time DM became available, we were already committed to Brunson. And trading for people like Durant or Kyrie would have probably been decried as an even riskier strategy than throwing $$$ at OG.

My personal view is that trading RJ and IQ for OG was a mistake. Everything that has come after has been dictated by the logic of that trade, with hardly any wiggle room available for pivoting to another strategy. The hand was dealt, now we are playing it the only way it can be played. Maybe we get lucky, avoid major injuries as a team and compete at the highest level. The odds of it appear long. But at least we will not be reveling in the pleasures of watching a lottery team, like we were doing for most of this century.

I'm curious why you feel the odds are long foe the Knicks competing at the highest level. An injury riddled Knicks finished 2nd in conference last season and would likely have progressed to the conference finals if not for a hamstring. Add to that another superior 3 and D wing for next season. Anything can happen, but to downplay the team's chances over the next 2-3 seasons seems odd to me.

BigDaddyG wrote:

technomaster wrote:So to answer the question, $212.5m over 5 years.

It will also give us the boldness to trade a whole bunch of unprotected 1st rounders to the Nets to get Mikal Bridges, giving us 2 elite wing defenders.

And also trade our first rounders and 2nd rounders down so we have like 5-8 more 2nd rounders (I lost count of which ones were keeping or trading away)… and working toward additional moves to qualify us for the 2nd apron for us to offer the max early bird offer to iHart.

I think we’re in line to accomplish all we set out to do, perhaps except bringing Precious back.

I think Precious is very much in play for the Tax payer mid-level if iHart is gone.

We have bird rights. Can just sign him outright.

Clean wrote:We are going to be cap strapped no matter what. Brunson and Randle extentions are coming up. They will no longer be on team friendly deals. Harts extention kicks in next season. If we sign iHart his salary will take a huge spike. This is the reason why we did the trade for Bridges now. After this season even with the cap increases we will be capped out meaning these types of trades will have more restrictions to make it harder. Think about how close to hard cap we are now and we got Brunson and Randle on contracts that are about to double in size. So stop worrying about getting capped out. It is already going to happen. Knicks fans will have to get used to how every other team operates. We got lucky to have so many team friendly deals. Those days are over.

You do know that RJ an IQ combined are going to be getting paid more than OG next season right? Cap situation would be way worse and they did not fit our team.

RJ will be making 25.7mil and IQ wanted at a minimum 25mil. We offered 20mil and he said no.

This is a valid point, but it makes the choice appear more binary than it really is. It is true that the Knicks are prospectively coming under a pile of big extensions and contracts. But the deeper the pile, the more difficult the task of getting out from under it if things do not pan out. If I am Edgar Allan Poe, who is afraid of being buried alive, every extra foot in the depth of my grave is going to matter.
For example, would you see the task of trading OG making 40m per year as easier, than the task of trading RJ and IQ making 25m each? I would see the reverse.