Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 158 of 692 FirstFirst ... 58108148156157158159160168208258658 ... LastLast
Results 2,356 to 2,370 of 10366
  1. #2356
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    10,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Bivory View Post
    Keep star hunting. That's gotten the Knicks pretty far. Get players that fit. A lead ball handler, finisher, unselfish player is a Knicks dream. More impact than even Bradley Beal imo. Someone please tell me a better more impactful way to spend 100mill over the next 3 yrs. Im all ears.
    What I said has nothing to do with star hunting. In fact, your scenario is more about a star..

    What a crap team needs, is players (preferably younger) that play above their contracts. And several of them. Also just need good players period.

    Paying one guy whoís a good player money that great players get makes no sense for a team that has holes all over the place. I just canít see any way it does. That money could be used on 2 good players that fill holes, that have a chance to develop further. It makes even less sense when you factor in age. Hayward isnít getting better. Heís the same, or worse for the life of the deal

    And Hayward is benefitting greatly from being the #4 on a deep, unselfish team with a great coach

  2. #2357
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrett2010 View Post
    I would draft Cole for SG and Nico for PG. Cole will be a scorer by far more than anything else. Nico fits the traditional "pure" PG mold. That makes sense to me.
    Lol and would never be able to play them together. Too little

  3. #2358
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10,934
    Quote Originally Posted by ShadyOne View Post
    What I said has nothing to do with star hunting. In fact, your scenario is more about a star..

    What a crap team needs, is players (preferably younger) that play above their contracts. And several of them. Also just need good players period.

    Paying one guy whoís a good player money that great players get makes no sense for a team that has holes all over the place. I just canít see any way it does. That money could be used on 2 good players that fill holes, that have a chance to develop further. It makes even less sense when you factor in age. Hayward isnít getting better. Heís the same, or worse for the life of the deal

    And Hayward is benefitting greatly from being the #4 on a deep, unselfish team with a great coach
    You mean like Payton at 24yrs old, or Randle, or Portis???? We need the best available and that means pay Hayward. This crap team prefers young players??? Why? Knicks need good vets who can show ALL OF THESE youung players how to play, while also making Knicks and others better. How many young guys do we need on this team? Eventually, we need players.

    I would bet a million that if Knicks signed Hayward, You would find a million reasons why it was a great move. Book it

  4. #2359
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    10,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Bivory View Post
    You mean like Payton at 24yrs old, or Randle, or Portis???? We need the best available and that means pay Hayward. This crap team prefers young players??? Why? Knicks need good vets who can show ALL OF THESE youung players how to play, while also making Knicks and others better. How many young guys do we need on this team? Eventually, we need players.

    I would bet a million that if Knicks signed Hayward, You would find a million reasons why it was a great move. Book it
    No, I donít mean those guys. I mean good players that fit our needs. Those arenít necessarily terrible players, but they need specific roles/fits. We canít provide that. Not to mention they wouldnít be anyoneís first choice

    No, I wouldnít find reasons why it was great, book that. I donít flip flop. Iím not against Hayward. Iím against him at 30+ for 3 years. We are among the least talented teams in the league, maybe the worst in that aspect. Thatís the first thing that needs to change. One guy isnít making that happen. Definitely not Hayward. And that 30+M tied up into one guy severely impacts any other moves. Itís just not worth it. If it was 3/75, fine. Iíd take Gallo at around that range before Hayward anywhere near what youíre talking about

    Iíd much rather 2 good younger players with potential at 35-40M over Hayward at the 33-35M you always talk about.
    Last edited by ShadyOne; 04-02-2020 at 12:41 PM.

  5. #2360
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    15,961

  6. #2361
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    15,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Bivory View Post
    You mean like Payton at 24yrs old, or Randle, or Portis???? We need the best available and that means pay Hayward. This crap team prefers young players??? Why? Knicks need good vets who can show ALL OF THESE youung players how to play, while also making Knicks and others better. How many young guys do we need on this team? Eventually, we need players.

    I would bet a million that if Knicks signed Hayward, You would find a million reasons why it was a great move. Book it
    Paying Hayward that much hurts more than what he can do to help on the court. The issue here isnít the player or the idea that the Knicks need to add good players, itís the money. Money does matter.

    This isnít the NFL where teams can rework contracts, convert money into singing bonuses, and cut players at will without consequence. Bad NBA contracts can stall or set teams back.
    Last edited by smood999; 04-02-2020 at 01:20 PM.

  7. #2362
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10,934
    Quote Originally Posted by smood999 View Post
    Paying Hayward that much hurts more than what he can do to help on the court. The issue here isnít the player or the idea that the Knicks need to add good players, itís the money. Money does matter.

    This isnít the NFL where teams can rework contracts, convert money into singing bonuses, and cut players at will without consequence. Bad NBA contracts can stall or set teams back.
    Im not sure paying Hayward 33mill is an overpay when we're dying to get rid of 21mill in Randle, 15mill in Portis and 8 mill in Payton. Someone please tell me how we're gonna spend 33mill next yr, that will make a bigger impact than Hayward?

    Im sure plenty of us thought those 3 would make a big difference and they didn't. One very good player is better and more impactful than 3 average players. Who is Hayward gonna stop the Knicks from getting? It's time we wake up. We have to overpay to get guys to come here and why not overpay a good player instead a couple of average ones.

  8. #2363
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Bivory View Post
    Im not sure paying Hayward 33mill is an overpay when we're dying to get rid of 21mill in Randle, 15mill in Portis and 8 mill in Payton. Someone please tell me how we're gonna spend 33mill next yr, that will make a bigger impact than Hayward?

    Im sure plenty of us thought those 3 would make a big difference and they didn't. One very good player is better and more impactful than 3 average players. Who is Hayward gonna stop the Knicks from getting? It's time we wake up. We have to overpay to get guys to come here and why not overpay a good player instead a couple of average ones.
    If we were one player away, sure. But we're so far from contending that giving 33M to Hayward just worsens our chances at a good lottery pick and cripples our flexibility to add FA/disgruntled stars in the future.

    The fact that all of Randle, Portis and Payton are severely overpaid and of little to no use does not justify the huge contract for Hayward.

    We'd be better off adding a good, young player with the same timeline as our younger players for half of the $33M annual contract you want to give to Hayward, and then take on some bad salary for picks with the rest of it.

  9. #2364
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    10,069
    Also remember, when talking about Randle, Payton, and Portis..

    They paid them that much because they insisted on team options. Kept flexibility if it didnít work out. Not defending the complete whiff on FA, or the strikeout on roster construction, but at least thereís that..

    And for potentially around that 33M number (likely a bit more) we could be talking Wood and Beasley, for example. Iím not sold on Wood, but Iíd take my chances on that combo anyday before signing Hayward to that kind of cash
    Last edited by ShadyOne; 04-02-2020 at 01:44 PM.

  10. #2365
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    15,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Bivory View Post
    Im not sure paying Hayward 33mill is an overpay when we're dying to get rid of 21mill in Randle, 15mill in Portis and 8 mill in Payton. Someone please tell me how we're gonna spend 33mill next yr, that will make a bigger impact than Hayward?

    Im sure plenty of us thought those 3 would make a big difference and they didn't. One very good player is better and more impactful than 3 average players. Who is Hayward gonna stop the Knicks from getting? It's time we wake up. We have to overpay to get guys to come here and why not overpay a good player instead a couple of average ones.
    Randle is the only one left on the books. Heís actually a good example of how long term contracts can hurt. Right now heís fine given that heís an expiring. The other two have team options and can just become free agents this summer. The Knicks donít have to try to get rid of them. They can simply just not pick up their options.

    I think the point is that you donít spend money to spend it. The Knicks can spend portions of it, no need to spend the whole thing. If youíre talking about for one year, then fine. Long term and thatís where you get into actually hurting the team.
    Last edited by smood999; 04-02-2020 at 02:11 PM.

  11. #2366
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    12,628
    Quote Originally Posted by SoulBrotha View Post
    Lol and would never be able to play them together. Too little
    Are you saying there are no 6' 3" SGs in the league? Sure there are.

  12. #2367
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    260
    I would rather go after Joe Harris or Malik Beasley.

  13. #2368
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by smood999 View Post
    That's crazy. The balls to make A move like that at 18

  14. #2369
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10,934
    Quote Originally Posted by smood999 View Post
    Randle is the only one left on the books. Heís actually a good example of how long term contracts can hurt. Right now heís fine given that heís an expiring. The other two have team options and can just become free agents this summer. The Knicks donít have to try to get rid of them. They can simply just not pick up their options.

    I think the point is that you donít spend money to spend it. The Knicks can spend portions of it, no need to spend the whole thing. If youíre talking about for one year, then fine. Long term and thatís where you get into actually hurting the team.
    My point is that, even if Randle was expiring this yr like Portis, we usually just find next yrs version of the same type of player for 15 or 20 mill, which is a player who we don't know if we want here long term and a player we may grow to hate..lmao. 3yrs is a long time these days and having a player like Hayward for 3/33 wouldn't hurt us at all considering Randle is gone this yr, Portis is gone, and no one else is on the books.

    Besides, I like Hayway kicking out to Cole or Haliburton. Lamelo is dreaming too big
    Last edited by Bivory; 04-02-2020 at 03:11 PM.

  15. #2370
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrett2010 View Post
    Are you saying there are no 6' 3" SGs in the league? Sure there are.
    I'm saying you can't play 2 miniature players together

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •