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.

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?

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?

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

. 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.

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.

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.