I believe if we play the right way, develop our players and have strong leadership, multiple free agents will want to play in NY. I do not want 2010 all over again!

Jmpasq wrote:If Kyrie want to play here we pay him. If you can get All NBA talent for just cap space you have to do it. If Porzingis is healthy and Knox is as good as I think he will be the Knicks could compete in the East. Add another high lottery talent to the mix as well this will be a damn good team

i’m really mixed on kyrie but in the end i think you’re right.

doomed wrote:Can’t the Knicks do both?

I Agree!
Kyrie is one of the best players in the NBA. I really love the way he plays.
Getting Irving on the team will help a lot, and we can continue developing our players..

meloshouldgo wrote:How can Boston play better without him if he is one of the best players in the NBA? He is a one way player and injury prone, STAT is a great comparison. If it's Klay or KD you go for it. The Kyries of the world you pass.

I'm undecided on signing Kyrie's to the max, but I think I'm leaning more to signing him. It's not fair or true to say the Celtics played better without him. The Celts marched off to one of the best records in the league after the Gordon injury. That was fueled by Kyrie. Yeah, they enjoyed playoff success, but they also sputtered at the tail end of the regular season without Kyrie. You can make the case that Kyrie would have taken them to the NBA finals if he were healthy. Kyrie proved he is one of the best players in the NBA. Now, the injury history is scary. Some of it is fluky. But stuff like the knee...it seems like it has the potential to be chronic. That may already be the case. Our front office needs to take a long hard look at this. I'd be worried if they already had their minds made up.

Uptown wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:How can Boston play better without him if he is one of the best players in the NBA? He is a one way player and injury prone, STAT is a great comparison. If it's Klay or KD you go for it. The Kyries of the world you pass.

If Kyrie is healthy, they advance to the finals last year...Celts were exposed in game 7! Stat is not a good comparison to Kyrie. Stat was damaged goods and we outbid ourselves for his services. Kyrie, is also an NBA champion, and could have easily been the finals MVP! Stat never sniffed the finals...

I wouldnt call Irving fresh off the showroom floor either, not after all those surgeries. Dont believe anyone here doubts what Irving can do, has done. Its about the tail end of a max contract. Might not be history repeating itself if we gave another player with mutliple knee surgeries the max, but it could rhyme. The final years of Amare's, Melo's, Curry's deals were not productive. They were expensive. I hope Perry/Mills think long and hard about giving the max to an athlete with all those surgeries.

It would have been better IMO if we signed Kyrie before he got a ring. Would rather find a healthier, and hungrier player. Celtics give him a better chance right now. Yet he still might walk.

TripleThreat wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:I really think we may regret Kyrie at the max (if he signs). I do think there are a few players worth the max, but not injury-riddled players over the age of 26 that rely on athleticism and quickness. Players without injuries eventually wear down, but we know Kyrie has had several injuries so he is not a good candidate/risk - just like Amare. I loved him as a Knick and he was great when healthy - but the Suns looked at his injuries/knees and considered the long term. We were so desperate for a name/star we took the risk that other franchises laughed at. Just because we have sucked the past 18 years and most free agents haven't been interested in coming here doesn't mean that we should be lucky and overpay. In the end it either works or it doesn't. I get that someone will pay him max money - but why can't we spend the max on someone without known injury problems? If they don't exist it doesn't mean you overpay for someone lesser/not worth the max...

Objectively, you are making a lot of good points, rational points. No argument here.

The complication is what goals does the franchise have? I know this will sound like poison to some here, but not every sports franchise is looking to be a contender. Many are happy to put out a team that wins most of the time, makes the playoffs, entertains fan, puts a good product on the floor and keeps generating revenue.

Your perspective is correct is the goal is to build a true contender.

Your perspective has some push/pull if the goal is to just have a solid playoff team you know won't win a ring, but will have stability and playoff appearances.

If Kyrie Irving is a Knick for four years, assuming most of his health is there, they are making the playoffs in those four years. Are they winning a ring? No. But then again, as long as the Warriors have their core, no one is winning a ring anyway.

If Irving wants to come here for just open cap space, I'd say do it. But my perspective is the Knicks won't be a contender anyway within the Zinger career timeline so just getting a fun/stable team on the floor is a good compromise. But the bigger problem is if Irving was to be willing to come here for just open cap space, it means something is very wrong with him. If he can get equal money and equal years from a team who could contend or even have a better pathway to that end, why would he pick the Knicks instead? Unless their offer was the max AAV and length, which means something is very wrong with him in that situation.

Isaiah Thomas 2 is a "treadmill player" Good enough to get you into the playoffs, not good enough to carry you to be a contender. Celtics took him in and it worked out for them anyway. Signing Irving doesn't mean he stays a Knick for those 4 years. You take the talent and figure out the rest later. Irving is a future HOFer and an All Star, I'd say his talent base is enough where he falls under "take the talent, worry about the rest later"

You are right though, there is a lot to worry about.

u just summed up all my ambiguities.

blkexec wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:How can Boston play better without him if he is one of the best players in the NBA? He is a one way player and injury prone, STAT is a great comparison. If it's Klay or KD you go for it. The Kyries of the world you pass.

The best thing Kyrie can do for us and increase ticket sales.

Theres a reason why Boston looked and played better without him.

The ball sticks in Kyrie's hand....He's Melo at the PG position.

Kyrie is the best 1 on 1 player in the NBA. But is he the best team player?

I never liked Kyrie's game at the NBA level. But for And 1 or street ball, he's the king.

your nuts if you think Kyrie is not a team player. He's the guy that will take you over the top in the playoffs where 1 on 1 play rules in the clutch.

It was so obvious Cleveland and boston suffered in the playoffs without him

But lets see which one of our guards will step up, I personally think if trey stays healthy, he can be really really good,