WaltLongmire wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:Best loss ever

This is how you want it... player development while staying in the running for the #1 pick.

This could have happened sooner and this being done by accident

Is a major cause for concern, because believe you me

Fisher and Phil will do everything possible to avoid losing

Next year which the free agents we overpay will be

Relied on too heavily to pull out wins

And quite frankly our youth will be ahead of the Triangle curve

I like what I saw and I'm sure by these comments here you two did too

But this by accident stuff is so unacceptable

Don't play the names, play the young danes

I think Jackson will search for guys who play the game like he wants it to be played.

I think he will do what he can to give us a younger look next year, and the guys who emerge this year will not be forgotten.

I think the Bargs trade is a killer because we gave up one that would have been another lottery pick if we were really looking to tear things down an rebuild more slowly.

I think the Anthony signing by Phil might still come back to haunt us- not only if his physical decline continues, but because you will not see the kind of play you saw in this Houston game if Anthony is the focal point of our offense. Sorry to offend many, but there may be no way to escape this.

What kind of play? The kind where we lose by 24 points??? Individual performances aside the team was completely uncompetitive tonight.

“They played well as a group,” coach Kevin McHale said of his starters, who outscored the Knicks’ starters 87-26. “We were able to move the ball pretty well. We had good spacing. We had a lot of what we tried to get, the pass-pass combination. We ended up shooting 44 percent from the 3-point line. We had good, open looks.”

CrushAlot wrote:Galloway does not look like a rookie.

Yep- his demeanour is that of a seasoned vet

Cartman718 wrote:i think THJr just needs some time and a little kick in the butt from his dad... but unfortunately dolan may not give him that.

I'm biased because I've never liked Tim Jr, even when he was supposedly playing well last year. We need to just keep him in what his role should be- a 20min streaky gunner off the bench. Thats his ceiling.

smackeddog wrote:These players will be our bench next year- likely we'll sign 3 starters in free agency, hopefully draft one, and put them all next to Melo. That will leave no money, so we'll be reliant on them. I will be pleased if Early, Galloway, Cole and Wear can keep some of this up. Shame we didn't pick up Larkin's option as I would have like to have added him to the mix. Then fill out the roster with aged vets on minimum deal- we need experience, smarts and leadership.

Just out of curiosity, if we traded Larkin, could we then exceed $1.6mil to sign him in the offseason? Or are we limited to $1.6mil whether we trade him or not? I'm not saying I would, I'm just curious.

Why is it a foregone conclusions that teams will be falling over themselves to pay Shane Larkin over the 1.6 million that we can offer him? He's quite undersized and a backup on a 5 win team and he plays at the deepest position in the league. The Knicks probably have a pretty good shot at retaining him if they want him.

smackeddog wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:These players will be our bench next year- likely we'll sign 3 starters in free agency, hopefully draft one, and put them all next to Melo. That will leave no money, so we'll be reliant on them. I will be pleased if Early, Galloway, Cole and Wear can keep some of this up. Shame we didn't pick up Larkin's option as I would have like to have added him to the mix. Then fill out the roster with aged vets on minimum deal- we need experience, smarts and leadership.

Just out of curiosity, if we traded Larkin, could we then exceed $1.6mil to sign him in the offseason? Or are we limited to $1.6mil whether we trade him or not? I'm not saying I would, I'm just curious.

Why is it a foregone conclusions that teams will be falling over themselves to pay Shane Larkin over the 1.6 million that we can offer him? He's quite undersized and a backup on a 5 win team and he plays at the deepest position in the league. The Knicks probably have a pretty good shot at retaining him if they want him.

See what happened to Copeland. And Lin- there's always one team that tries to screw us every offseason! If Larkin shows promise, they just have to offer him $2mil and he's gone. Even $2.5mil is cheap these days for a 3rd string PG.

smackeddog wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:These players will be our bench next year- likely we'll sign 3 starters in free agency, hopefully draft one, and put them all next to Melo. That will leave no money, so we'll be reliant on them. I will be pleased if Early, Galloway, Cole and Wear can keep some of this up. Shame we didn't pick up Larkin's option as I would have like to have added him to the mix. Then fill out the roster with aged vets on minimum deal- we need experience, smarts and leadership.

Just out of curiosity, if we traded Larkin, could we then exceed $1.6mil to sign him in the offseason? Or are we limited to $1.6mil whether we trade him or not? I'm not saying I would, I'm just curious.

Why is it a foregone conclusions that teams will be falling over themselves to pay Shane Larkin over the 1.6 million that we can offer him? He's quite undersized and a backup on a 5 win team and he plays at the deepest position in the league. The Knicks probably have a pretty good shot at retaining him if they want him.

See what happened to Copeland. And Lin- there's always one team that tries to screw us every offseason! If Larkin shows promise, they just have to offer him $2mil and he's gone. Even $2.5mil is cheap these days for a 3rd string PG.

Copeland is a 6'11' Forward who can stroke 3's at an above average rate and Lin was a sensation that could bring in revenue beyond what a normal PG could muster. Both cases were very different from Larkin, who by all accounts is not AT ALL a proven point guard in this league.