Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Knicks Morning News (Thursday, Sep 27 2012)

  • [New York Times] Mercury Get No. 1 Pick in W.N.B.A. Draft (Thu, 27 Sep 2012 06:00:20 GMT)
    The Phoenix Mercury won the W.N.B.A. draft lottery and earned the right to choose center Brittney Griner with the top pick next year.

  • [New York Times] Liberty-Sun Playoff Has a Big East Feel (Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:50:05 GMT)
    Five members of the Sun once played for UConn, while the Liberty have three former Rutgers players.

  • [New York Times] For Developer Bruce Ratner, Nets Purchase Aided Atlantic Yards Project (Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:34:44 GMT)
    The purchase of the New Jersey Nets in 2004 gave Bruce C. Ratner the leverage he needed to pull off his Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, a real estate megadeal.

  • [New York Post] Knicks hire Cross to coach D-League squad (Thu, 27 Sep 2012 02:52:15 -0500)
    The Knicks announced Wednesday Gene Cross will be the head coach of their D-League affiliate, the Erie BayHawks, this season.
    Cross, who spent two years as the head coach at the University of Toledo, was an assistant with the D-League’s Iowa Energy last season.
    He spent his entire career…

  • [New York Post] Chandler believes Rasheed can help Knicks (Thu, 27 Sep 2012 04:19:33 -0500)
    Count Tyson Chandler among those who think Rasheed Wallace has something left.
    After taking the last two seasons off, Wallace worked out at the Knicks practice facility, and is considering signing with the team. And after seeing him work out, Chandler thinks Wallace can help.
    “He looked good,” Chandler said…

  • [ESPN.com - New York Knicks] Chandler: Wallace would be 'great addition' (Thu, 27 Sep 2012 01:24:01 EDT)
    Rasheed Wallace is mulling a return to the NBA.
    If the veteran forward decides to come back and join the New York Knicks, Tyson Chandler said he thinks Wallace would be “a great addition” to the team.
    The Knicks brought Wallace in for a workout on Saturday, ESPN.com’s Ric Bucher reported.
    Chandler was there for the workout. He said the 15-year veteran “looked good.”

    “I hope he stays. I don’t know what the situation is but he’s a great communicator on defense and we know he can knock down the open 3 and the jump shot,” Chandler said on Wednesday at his photo exhibit “A New York Minute” — a series of photos by Chandler has taken over the past year.

  • 24 comments on “Knicks Morning News (Thursday, Sep 27 2012)

    1. Carmello Koala

      As a dedicated Knicks fan, I am disgusted at the recruiting of Raymond Felton. Losing a promising young PG like Lin who could combine with Stat and Melo for an excellent ‘big 3′. Now we have a player who use to play in New York, and in my opinion, is over the hill. Jason Kidd obviously at his age may be viewed as over the hill, but I see him as an excellent contributer still. Having Lin with a backup like Kidd would have been great. I will always be a Knicks fan, but I am not holding my breath over this felton-melo, stoudemire, chandler situation.

      Success is looking further away..

    2. Jafa

      +1.

      Take away that one move (Felton over Lin) and I think we not only have a brighter present, but a much brighter future.

    3. Brian Cronin

      +1.

      Take away that one move (Felton over Lin) and I think we not only have a brighter present, but a much brighter future.

      While I certainly am not “disgusted” by Felton, as he’s fine, yes, I do agree that keeping Lin would have been better for now and for the future, so yeah, not signing Lin pretty much sucked (it sucked for reasons beyond Felton, though. Felton is not the problem. Felton instead of Lin is the problem).

    4. knicknyk

      Brian Cronin: While I certainly am not “disgusted” by Felton, as he’s fine, yes, I do agree that keeping Lin would have been better for now and for the future, so yeah, not signing Lin pretty much sucked (it sucked for reasons beyond Felton, though. Felton is not the problem. Felton instead of Lin is the problem).

      I don’t think I understand what your saying. If we could have had Kyle Lowry instead you wouldn’t bite that? Also, was it even possible for the Knicks to sign & trade Lin to houston. The media made a big deal about letting Lin walk for nothing but I can’t think of any viable way in which we could have gotten someone back for him in return.

    5. Brian Cronin

      Hm? I was responding to (and agreeing with) Jafa saying that changing that one move (signing and trading for Felton instead of re-signing Lin) would have made things better in the present and the future.

    6. knicknyk

      Brian Cronin:
      Hm? I was responding to (and agreeing with) Jafa saying that changing that one move (signing and trading for Felton instead of re-signing Lin) would have made things better in the present and the future.

      Oh I see. Anyway, can you respond yto my second question. Was there any viable way in which the knicks could have gotten something in return for Lin. Because we seem to taken a lot of flack by the media for letting him walk for nothing when our only real choices were to keep him (via matching or negotiating with him ourselves) or let him leave.

    7. Brian Cronin

      Oh I see. Anyway, can you respond yto my second question. Was there any viable way in which the knicks could have gotten something in return for Lin. Because we seem to taken a lot of flack by the media for letting him walk for nothing when our only real choices were to keep him (via matching or negotiating with him ourselves) or let him leave.

      No, I don’t think there was a realistic shot at them doing a sign and trade with him (that they didn’t even attempt it, though, speaks volumes about what their initial plans were regarding Lin). So yes, the criticism really boils down to “they should have matched the offer for the sake of the Knicks’ present level of play and for the sake of the Knicks’ future level of play, both of which were harmed by not matching.”

    8. knicknyk

      Brian Cronin: No, I don’t think there was a realistic shot at them doing a sign and trade with him (that they didn’t even attempt it, though, speaks volumes about what their initial plans were regarding Lin). So yes, the criticism really boils down to “they should have matched the offer for the sake of the Knicks’ present level of play and for the sake of the Knicks’ future level of play, both of which were harmed by not matching.”

      Exactly that is my point. There was no realistic options for sign & trade so this whole notion that we let him walk for nothing is incorrect. But in terms of talking points it sounds better for the media to say the Knicks let him go for nothing.

    9. Brian Cronin

      Exactly that is my point. There was no realistic options for sign & trade so this whole notion that we let him walk for nothing is incorrect. But in terms of talking points it sounds better for the media to say the Knicks let him go for nothing.

      They could have kept him and traded him in January. Or after Year 1. Or after Year 2. So “let him go for nothing” sounds accurate. Simply put, he was likely the third most valuable trade asset in the entire organization (maybe the 2017 first rounder will end up becoming valuable, as well, so perhaps the fourth most valuable trade asset. I sure as heck hope that the 2015 first rounder doesn’t turn out to be valuable).

    10. knicknyk

      Brian Cronin: They could have kept him and traded him in January. Or after Year 1. Or after Year 2. So “let him go for nothing” sounds accurate. Simply put, he was likely the third most valuable trade asset in the entire organization (maybe the 2017 first rounder will end up becoming valuable, as well, so perhaps the fourth most valuable trade asset. I sure as heck hope that the 2015 first rounder doesn’t turn out to be valuable).

      Could we have traded him in January though or in Year 1 or Year 2? Aren’t there no more sign and trades?? And I thought if you match you are stuck with the player for at least a year?

    11. Z-man

      Brian Cronin: They could have kept him and traded him in January. Or after Year 1. Or after Year 2. So “let him go for nothing” sounds accurate. Simply put, he was likely the third most valuable trade asset in the entire organization (maybe the 2017 first rounder will end up becoming valuable, as well, so perhaps the fourth most valuable trade asset. I sure as heck hope that the 2015 first rounder doesn’t turn out to be valuable).

      Unless he stunk or got hurt.

    12. knicknyk

      Z-man: Unless he stunk or got hurt.

      Lol him playing well or staying healthy had nothing to do with the decision anyway because they never wanted him in the first place. Anyway I am trying for this to not become a huge debate on the merits of keeping Lin or not. Would appreciate it if this topic was not derailed. Just trying to get a bit of clarification.

      Brian, I thought it was not possible to do sign & trades next season? Also after matching a contract you can’t trade him for up to a year I believe and seeing as how the Knicks had no intention of keeping him in the first place why would they hold onto a player they never really wanted. Don’t really think that was an option either.

    13. Brian Cronin

      Could we have traded him in January though or in Year 1 or Year 2? Aren’t there no more sign and trades?? And I thought if you match you are stuck with the player for at least a year?

      Nah, you’re right, it would have to be at the end of Year 1.

      But other than that, yes. So “let go for nothing” still sounds accurate.

    14. knicknyk

      Brian Cronin: Nah, you’re right, it would have to be at the end of Year 1.

      But other than that, yes. So “let go for nothing” still sounds accurate.

      But there are no more sign and trades I thought so we would have had to have kept a player we didn’t want though. Or am I mistaken on the sign and trade thing?

    15. Brian Cronin

      But there are no more sign and trades I thought so we would have had to have kept a player we didn’t want though. Or am I mistaken on the sign and trade thing?

      If they didn’t want him, then fine, but they still let him go for nothing. They had control over the third most valuable asset on the team and let him go and gained no benefit to the roster in the process (outside, I suppose, of the option of having room to sign Chris Copeland. So, yeah, nothing). Three Knicks made Bill Simmons’ annual Top 50 Highest Trade Value List, and Lin was one of those three (Simmons had him ahead of Chandler, but even he noted he had no real idea of where to place Lin. Just that he would be in the top 50 somewhere, so I don’t think Lin is seriously ahead of Chandler in trade value).

      Again, in this instance I am not even arguing that they should have matched (I think they clearly should have matched, but in this particular instance it is immaterial to the point), just that they let him go and gained no roster benefit for it. They did not use his cap space to get some other guy. They did not use his roster spot to get some guy of note. They just let him go…for nothing. You can even like that they let him go for nothing if you think he was just not going to be a good player or whatever, but he was still let go of for nothing.

    16. Z-man

      I continue to disagree with this characterization. You can’t definitively assume that Lin was a valuable asset going forward. If he either stunk or got injured, you would be stuck with a shitty contract that nobody would want. At that point, all of your bailout scenarios are purely hypothetical and potentially very costly. And, as you pointed out, they couldn’t do anything at all with his roster spot for a year. Befor the FA period even started, Lin’s agent put it out there that coming back to NY was not a given, so he had every intention of testing the market. And refusing to match a contract that you believe is risky, well above market value, and at a position where comparable alternatives were available is hardly the same as your insistence that they committed a total brainfart by not matching.

      What proof do you have that they weren’t interested him at $5 mill per year for 4 years, or that Lin would have signed for that if they offered him that right when FA started? And why aren’t we crucifying Morey for overpaying for Lin when he could have signed Lowry or Dragic? Did he give him away for nothing?

      I also don’t want to hear the argument that Dolan never cared about luxury tax before so why should he care now. Every decision should be judged on his own merits.

    17. Brian Cronin

      . If he either stunk or got injured, you would be stuck with a shitty contract that nobody would want.

      He was injured when he got the contract. So no, I am not worried about their ability to trade the contract.

      And the odds are that he was not going to stink. Morey made the correct argument, that playing at the level he played during Linsanity is the best indication that you can get that he will not suck.

      Again, by your own account, he was reasonably going to be a top 15 point guard this year. If so, the contract he was signed to was eminently tradeable. There was no reasonable way (outside of a career-ending injury, in which case insurance would cover the cost and the luxury tax wouldn’t need to be paid) he was not going to be a valuable asset for the Knicks. If Shump returns from the injury well, then his rookie contract salary might make Shump a more tradeable asset, but I doubt it. Either way, he was top 4 or top 3.

      It continues to be strange that someone like Juany8, who is surely no Lin fan, concedes all of this (that Lin is a valuable asset not worth letting go for nothing) but you, who were pro-Lin when it seemed like they were matching, will not.

    18. knicknyk

      He may not be a valuable trade asset going forward (I do think he will be though) but he was one this off season so your entire statement is false. Anyway, all of this is moot because the Knicks never wanted him in the first place. They had no intention of keeping him. If they were interested in him for 4 years 5 million they could have at least offered it to him from the get go. But they didn’t. The Nuggets offered McGee a contract and McGee still chose to test the market. When he found no other offers available he came back and negotiated with the Nuggets. Ideally that is what the Knicks should have done. And I think it is incorrect to say it is well above market value because the market decided that his value is 25 million dollars. It is above your perception of what his value isn’t but you aren’t the market. And Morey didn’t overpay for him because his cap hit is 8 million a year which is fair in light of other salaries paid to PG’s in the NBA. And Morey got a pick back for Lowry. I still disagree though that we let him go for nothing though because it was hardly possible for them to get something in return. But the fact that the Knicks never even tried to figure out a sign & trade (even though it wasn’t possible) supports the notion that they let him go for nothing. I wanted Lin back & I don’t think he is a fluke FWIW. I was just curious.

    19. Z-man

      Brian Cronin: He was injured when he got the contract. So no, I am not worried about their ability to trade the contract.

      And the odds are that he was not going to stink. Morey made the correct argument, that playing at the level he played during Linsanity is the best indication that you can get that he will not suck.

      Again, by your own account, he was reasonably going to be a top 15 point guard this year. If so, the contract he was signed to was eminently tradeable. There was no reasonable way (outside of a career-ending injury, in which case insurance would cover the cost and the luxury tax wouldn’t need to be paid) he was not going to be a valuable asset for the Knicks. If Shump returns from the injury well, then his rookie contract salary might make Shump a more tradeable asset, but I doubt it. Either way, he was top 4 or top 3.

      It continues to be strange that someone like Juany8, who is surely no Lin fan, concedes all of this (that Lin is a valuable asset not worth letting go for nothing) but you, who were pro-Lin when it seemed like they were matching, will not.

      What odds that he wouldn’t stink? 95%? 70%? 51%? I have been consistent in saying that there is too little data to tell, and as the price goes up, so does the risk. At the price he was going to cost the Knicks with the poison pill, etc., I don’t find it illogical to decline the risk.

      With what we have to go on, is reasonable to think he has a good chance of becoming a top-15 PG (not top-10, 5, or 2) but I think (and thought) it is equally reasonable that the league would adjust to him and he would not be able to sustain that level of play in the long run, and that until he went around the league a couple of times

    20. Z-man

      …it is hard to come to any firm conclusion. As did just about everyone else here, I wanted the Knicks to keep him and expected that they would until the day he signed the unexpectedly punitive offer sheet. When I learned more about the tax/cap implications, I felt that a reasonable argument could be made in both directions and became ambivalent after they signed Felton. Ambivalent means that it was no big deal to me because even if I disagreed with not signing him, there was enough risk and enough money involved that I did not see it as an unreasonable decision.

      BTW, what freakin’ difference should it make to me that Juany8 feels that we should have signed Lin? I respect your opinion at least as much (or as little:-)) as I do his. Another way of looking at it: Morey set the price at a level that made the Knicks think long and hard about the pros and cons. And if they were dying to get rid of Lin, why the whole disappearing act by Grunwald?

    21. Z-man

      Also, it should be considered that in the early days of FA, the Knicks were hot for Nash, and the signing of Lin was put on the back burner untll that played itself out. Then, the Knicks went after Kidd and surprisingly got him, which also had implications. Then after Lin signed, Felton became available at a reasonable price. They did not decide not to match until the PG position was reasonably stocked for this all or nothing season. Maybe they didn’t want a Tebow-Sanchez type PG controversy at this critical time. Maybe they were worried about other players being resentful of his salary and celebrity. Or maybe they just don’t think he is good.

    22. Z-man

      Sorry, one more thing…why no hand-wringing about letting 2x rookie of the month Landry Fields go for nothing? Wouldn’t he have been a valuable trade asset? Oh, that’s right, turns out he was not all that good (they must not have NBA TV in Toronto).

      Shouldn’t we have learned a lesson from him, that 26 or even 50 good games does not mean much in the long run? That you have to go around the league a couple of times before being coronated the next big thing? Hypothetically, If I had told you during Landry’s rookie peak that a year and a half later, we would not match a 3-yr 20 mill backloaded offer, would you have thought it was as foolish as not signing Lin now?

    23. knicknyk

      Honestly, I didn’t read your post because I really wanted to avoid this entire discussion in the first place. You have your opinion & I have mine. It is all water under the bridge right now.

    24. Brian Cronin

      BTW, what freakin’ difference should it make to me that Juany8 feels that we should have signed Lin? I respect your opinion at least as much (or as little:-)) as I do his. Another way of looking at it: Morey set the price at a level that made the Knicks think long and hard about the pros and cons. And if they were dying to get rid of Lin, why the whole disappearing act by Grunwald?

      I mention him only because it weirds me out that even a guy who is no fan of Lin can look past that to see why it was not the best idea to let such a valuable asset go for nothing, but you, who were gung ho on him when it looked like they were going to match the contract, cannot. If you were down on Lin before they decided not to bring him back, then that’d at least be consistent. There’s plenty of guys here who were not down with the idea of bringing Lin back, so when they are cool with not bringing him back, I can understand it. That’s consistent. As is Juany8’s “He might not be that great, but you don’t give up an asset for nothing” position. It’s your diametric positions pre/post bringing him back that get me. Like suddenly being worried about the risks about Lin only once the Knicks said that they weren’t bringing him back. Perhaps it shouldn’t, but consistency in arguments is a big deal for me. And in every other discussion we’ve had over the years, whether we agreed or disagreed, I’ve always found you to be consistent in your positions, so this one really stands out for me.

      This all said, believe you me, I’m fine with not talking about the Lin situation, as it really is a bit of “what’s done is done.” I sure don’t bring it up, ya know? Heck, I only even responded here because I thought the initial commenter was being too harsh towards Felton. Nothing about this situation should reflect poorly on Felton. Felton is a fine player.

    Comments are closed.