Knicks leaning toward not picking up Larkin’s 2015-16 option
October 25th, 2014 1:00 pm

Adam Zagoria, Team Reporter

The Knicks are “leaning” towards not picking up point guard Shane Larkin’s team option for 2015-16, according to Adrian Wojnarowski, who says the team is inclined to have the cap space that would come from not signing Larkin.

The deadline for guaranteeing the third-year option comes on Friday.

The former Miami floor general has a $1.7 million team option for 2015-16, and Wojnarowski initially reported the Knicks planned to pick up the option.

Larkin is competing with veteran Pablo Prigioni for the backup point guard duties behind Jose Calderon.

StarksEwing1 wrote:I like larkin. Last year he was injured and didnt get a chance to develop. Im all for clearing dead weight like bargs and amare and jr but larkin wont cost much

Height is not his problem

It can be a problem defensively but calderon and prigioni also struggle there

This is a transitional year. It doesn't much matter now, but you don't plan a future around a player whom you don't want. If the club doesn't pick up his option, it means they've evaluated him and decided he is not a serious prospect.

What is this logic? On the one hand, you can be all in supporting the new regime, but on the other hand you're just as ready to question their ability to evaluate their talent? Which is it?

Phil obviously is going to do what he can to upgrade the PG position. The plan clearly has to be to replace Jose as a starter by year three or have traded him away already.

With that being the case, next year needs a PG replacement on board training to take the reins in the following season. If Larkin is not part of the plan, you don't plan on giving him major minutes any more than you have to next season.

Either you guys see the long picture or you don't. And if you do, then maybe management has figured out Larkin is not part of that vision. What has Larkin shown that would indicate this is a wrong decision? Nothing.

CrushAlot wrote:

Splat wrote:Larkin does not look good enough to plan a future romance with. This is good news.

I agree. I thought they already picked up his option though.

Thought the same thing. I guess we never pulled the trigger...I think there's definitely some nice talent here with this young man but right now, I guess it's for the best. I can understand the reasoning---gotta make sure we have the maximum amount of cap space available when the time comes and while we're at it--I'd also hesitate on blowing our full trade cash allotment on something minor too. Need to keep that benefit intact for the off-season as well (either for the draft or FA, unless something major materializes by the deadline). I mean we didn't rush out there to sign Shumpert yet either, right (did we even pick up his QO?)? Same thinking here with Larkin. We'll cross all these bridges when the time comes. If these guys prove they're worth signing, I'm sure they'll be retained.

smackeddog wrote:Give him a chance! $1.7 mil is nothing, especially when you factor in cap holds

That's the flip side--$1.7mm really isn't that big a deal esp. considering the kid's youth, skills, speed, athleticism & upside. I'm torn on this... Can see both sides of the argument -- I'm really a pro Larkin guy though, so I can definitely see the wisdom in picking up his option...I know some people wanna send this kid to the guillotine by now. I see a bright future however. I don't think adding $1.7mm to the payroll next year is that big a deal. Hard to believe that amount would prevent a big trade from going down in the future, esp. if we manage other things properly i.e. maybe keep Outlaw around as a throw-in for a deadline deal esp. if we can protect Wear in the DL (thought I read that we can protect up to 4 players on the Westchester team that are cut from the pre-season roster -- now that's if a guy like Travis Wear agrees to play for our DL team. Will he or will he go to Europe? And if he goes overseas, do we still have the protection and keep his rights?); keep our cash allotment intact, etc..

1.75

7-8m (3-4 more million each year to get rid of Felton)

23-30m