if he indeed becomes unrestricted, is he a fit?

EnySpree wrote:He doesn't really contribute. His numbers are terrible across the board. At this point he is a vet minimum guy. Hesnt skilled enough to help us. Balkman is better.

RonRon wrote:

EnySpree wrote:He doesn't really contribute. His numbers are terrible across the board. At this point he is a vet minimum guy. Hesnt skilled enough to help us. Balkman is better.

ouch, if I was Outlaw, that would really hurt my feelings EnySpree LOL

I admit it, I thought Outlaw, could be have been a beast, while he was playing in Portland.
I thought he was a nice tweener from hit shooting abilities, his size, athleticism, and reach, letting him play

SF and PF, with even some SG with that combo. Thought he could have been a nice 6th man role.
It looks more apparent that I was wrong, just saying....

That's his rep....but seriously...he played for the nets last year. How many knew that? If you did do you remember him standing out on a team full of bums?

I would be shocked if someone doesn't claim him though. Only problem with him is that he was overpaid.

Rookie wrote:few years back...wasn't Portland acting like he was better then Will?

yeah. and he's pretty good defensively. but nowhere near the offensive player Wil turned into.

HARDCOREKNICKSFAN wrote:The Nets base their wretched existence on scrounging off of whatever the Knicks do. They are too far beneath the Knicks for us to try and return the favor.

They're the ones trying to keep up with us, not the other way around. For us to get Outlaw would look like a weak tit-for-tat, whre they get the better end of the deal.

IMO, the Knicks can get someone better than Outlaw, given enough patience. There is no need for us to be hasty.

Imagine if we can get Ak47, another Russian we signed b4 the Russian in Jersey!

BigDaddyG wrote:The guy is injury prone and he was unable to step it up while getting substantial minutes in New Jersey last year. What do you expect him to do here, with the stakes much higher? There no way I waste the $2.5 million exception on him.

MattSuspect wrote:Am I wrong that these articles are silly suggesting we would use anything but the veteran minimum, he gets paid his full contract no matter what, he basically just has to pick the team he wants to play for. There's no advantage for him for a team to offer him more money right? He get's paid his old contract, anything we offer is deducted from that? Or is just when they are going through the auction process? The amnestied player gets to "double dip"? Can someone clarify?

yeah, i'm unclear if they get to double dip after they clear the bid/auction process. that seems like an unfair situation, if so, and different than waivers used to work. my understanding of the old rule was if a player cleared waivers and then signed a deal as a free agent, the money from his new team would still be deducted from the amount the old team had to pay - meaning the player could never get more than the original amount of their contract. i had thought the only way to circumvent that was a traditional buyout.

i asked larry coon this on twitter today and he never answered.