Knicks · Poll: If the Knicks are all in, should they match on Landry Fields? (page 2)

I understand where the OP is coming from. A guy at Fields' level isn't worth anything close to the contract that Toronto gave him under any normal circumstance. The problem is that this isn't a normal circumstance. Iman Shumpert is injured for half the season and the bottom line is that the Knicks need a guy there. Fields doesn't count against the cap and New York has unlimited money apparently. If they're willing to venture into the tax, take the three days to see if you can get somebody better than Fields for either the minimum or in a sign & trade for Gadzuric. If you can't, matching Fields is something to consider.

No thanks to Fields we need shooters not brick layers

1. It's evident to even the blind that he can't shoot.
2. The "can he fit with Melo" question has been answered. This is not a pseudo-max player like Stat we're talking about.
3. Is he great defensively? I haven't read that anywhere. Not even on the LF Appreciation Thread.
4. Why pay someone 20mil who will primarily sit the bench when Shump comes back? Fishlips and Novak are ahead of him at SF and you've got Lin, Shump, JR, JKidd in the backcourt. When's he going to get 20mil worth of minutes?
5. One less player to discuss the neverending potential issue about.
6. With the exception of Novak, we are all in on senior league players, not continuing developmental projects based on hope and homegrown dreams.
7. 20 mil is alot to pay for injury insurance, not that I care about Jimmy's wallet.

He's an $3 Mil player in NY, and a much better prospect elsewhere. So long Landry, best of luck.

The Raptors would be thrilled if we matched that. If Dantoni was the coach Id be inclined to match but with Woodson he is a waste. We can get similar production for a 10th of the cost

The Raptors would be thrilled if we matched that. If Dantoni was the coach Id be inclined to match but with Woodson he is a waste. We can get similar production for a 10th of the cost

martin wrote:

Damn Grunwalds phone is at 99% battery life you know his phone ain't blowing up for trades.

HELL NO. The only thing worse than bringing him back would be bringing back DumDumDouglas

I initially thought the simple answer to matching Fields contract was 'Hell no' but after reading that salary cap thing I think it makes sense. If it really is the way I think it is I think Grunwald will match. Why?

Knicks without Fields: Capped out. Over the $74M "Apron" which simply means they're $4M over the $70 M level where the luxury tax hits. That means they can't use the full MLE for the next 3 years ANYWAY. Even without Fields.

Knicks with Fields: Same EXACT situation cap wise the only negatives are:

- paying luxury tax. as a Knick fan..who cares? It's Dolan's $.
- if Woodson is dumb he'll play him over someone more worthy. Doubt that happens.

Plus side:

- MAYBE he recaptures form from rookie season, finds that J.
- we all know he doesn't need the ball to be effective
- right now if JR Smith gets injured we have NOBODY. NO BOD E.

Obviously if the choice was between paying Fields that kind of money and paying someone else the answer is simple but the choice is between Fields and No one.

The only way I'd say it doesn't make sense is if having him on the roster prevents us from signing someone for the vet min who can do better.

Who y'all think we can REALISTICALLY sign for the vet min that will produce more and has more potential over the next 3 seasons??

GodSaveTheKnicks wrote:I initially thought the simple answer to matching Fields contract was 'Hell no' but after reading that salary cap thing I think it makes sense. If it really is the way I think it is I think Grunwald will match. Why?

Knicks without Fields: Capped out. Over the $74M "Apron" which simply means they're $4M over the $70 M level where the luxury tax hits. That means they can't use the full MLE for the next 3 years ANYWAY. Even without Fields.

Knicks with Fields: Same EXACT situation cap wise the only negatives are:

- paying luxury tax. as a Knick fan..who cares? It's Dolan's $.
- if Woodson is dumb he'll play him over someone more worthy. Doubt that happens.

Plus side:

- MAYBE he recaptures form from rookie season, finds that J.
- we all know he doesn't need the ball to be effective
- right now if JR Smith gets injured we have NOBODY. NO BOD E.

Obviously if the choice was between paying Fields that kind of money and paying someone else the answer is simple but the choice is between Fields and No one.

The only way I'd say it doesn't make sense is if having him on the roster prevents us from signing someone for the vet min who can do better.

Who y'all think we can REALISTICALLY sign for the vet min that will produce more and has more potential over the next 3 seasons??

i voted yes. i agree, it's gonna be hard to get players and fields is one of ours and i like him.

But, he never seemed to mesh with melo's style and woodson would often bench him for entire second halfs of games.

crzymdups wrote:

GodSaveTheKnicks wrote:I initially thought the simple answer to matching Fields contract was 'Hell no' but after reading that salary cap thing I think it makes sense. If it really is the way I think it is I think Grunwald will match. Why?

Knicks without Fields: Capped out. Over the $74M "Apron" which simply means they're $4M over the $70 M level where the luxury tax hits. That means they can't use the full MLE for the next 3 years ANYWAY. Even without Fields.

Knicks with Fields: Same EXACT situation cap wise the only negatives are:

- paying luxury tax. as a Knick fan..who cares? It's Dolan's $.
- if Woodson is dumb he'll play him over someone more worthy. Doubt that happens.

Plus side:

- MAYBE he recaptures form from rookie season, finds that J.
- we all know he doesn't need the ball to be effective
- right now if JR Smith gets injured we have NOBODY. NO BOD E.

Obviously if the choice was between paying Fields that kind of money and paying someone else the answer is simple but the choice is between Fields and No one.

The only way I'd say it doesn't make sense is if having him on the roster prevents us from signing someone for the vet min who can do better.

Who y'all think we can REALISTICALLY sign for the vet min that will produce more and has more potential over the next 3 seasons??

i voted yes. i agree, it's gonna be hard to get players and fields is one of ours and i like him.

But, he never seemed to mesh with melo's style and woodson would often bench him for entire second halfs of games.

Guess it's just you, me, allanfan and 8 other idiots. haha

i would be shocked if the knicks matched... but i certainly wouldn't be mad.

gerald green just got 3 yrs 10 million from indy, which is essentially the "3 million exception" with annual raises. in april green was a 15/4 guy and 40% from 3. he is probably one of the 5 best athletes in the NBA.
landry got 3 yrs 20 million. landry is clumsy with the ball b/c of his bad hands, doesn't have anything near elite athleticism, can't shoot the 3, and the green signing shows that we can get a comparable (if not better player; i'll bet a beer at next ultimateknicks get together that green puts up better #'s/PER than landry next season) if we just play the market right.

no reason to bring back landry, as he is UNTRADEABLE with his 5 mil/5.5 mil/9.5 mil contract structure. no team is gonna want that 3rd year. we can actually upgrade his position and spend less money doing it.

BigSm00th wrote:gerald green just got 3 yrs 10 million from indy, which is essentially the "3 million exception" with annual raises. in april green was a 15/4 guy and 40% from 3. he is probably one of the 5 best athletes in the NBA.
landry got 3 yrs 20 million. landry is clumsy with the ball b/c of his bad hands, doesn't have anything near elite athleticism, can't shoot the 3, and the green signing shows that we can get a comparable (if not better player; i'll bet a beer at next ultimateknicks get together that green puts up better #'s/PER than landry next season) if we just play the market right.

no reason to bring back landry, as he is UNTRADEABLE with his 5 mil/5.5 mil/9.5 mil contract structure. no team is gonna want that 3rd year. we can actually upgrade his position and spend less money doing it.

I agree, but his point is, we cannot sign a player like Gereld Green/Randy Foye/Courtney Lee etc....
because we don't have the ability to outside of veteran min players.

I don't it would be a bad move, because he no longer fits here, Melo took his SF spot.
Amare use to be the center, with 4 other shooter, in which Fields was the worse one, so the lane is open for him to drive.

It is just a different system, different players, I am sure he will do well for Toronto, but he won't do well here.
Fields does a lot of things that are good, but his movement alone, is useless, the team must move together, to free each other up.

A couple possible vet min players, I would even rather have are Delonte West, Deshawn Stevenson, and Anthony Tolliver.
They might not be available for the vet minimum, but if they are these guys are the cream of the crop.

BigSm00th wrote:gerald green just got 3 yrs 10 million from indy, which is essentially the "3 million exception" with annual raises. in april green was a 15/4 guy and 40% from 3. he is probably one of the 5 best athletes in the NBA.
landry got 3 yrs 20 million. landry is clumsy with the ball b/c of his bad hands, doesn't have anything near elite athleticism, can't shoot the 3, and the green signing shows that we can get a comparable (if not better player; i'll bet a beer at next ultimateknicks get together that green puts up better #'s/PER than landry next season) if we just play the market right.

no reason to bring back landry, as he is UNTRADEABLE with his 5 mil/5.5 mil/9.5 mil contract structure. no team is gonna want that 3rd year. we can actually upgrade his position and spend less money doing it.

You're comparing the best month of a 4 year veteran to a down season for a sophomore? Take a look at their sophomore numbers. You'll see that Green, like Landry, had a "slump." Other than a slight PPG and blocks edge for Green, Landry was better in all major categories (Rebounds, assists, turnovers, steals). Green is a great buy for the mini-exception but that doesn't affect us.

I'm confused. I do not understand the reasoning behind the statement "we should match because we are in the same spot if we don't but at least we have Fields". As fans its easy for us to say it is not our money but by validating that reasoning we are talking about fantasy basketball and not the NBA.

I am not a Dolan apologist but really, the luxury tax may be somewhere in the 2 to 1 range at that "not hard" cap. So at 4 million over that is another 8 million Dolan has to pay. Per year. So while Fields may be worth 5, 5, 10 to those in all money being equal land, is he worth an 9, 9, 18 million to the franchise?

Personally I am still adjusting to this new pay scale. Last year that 5 mil was the going rate for like a 7th or 8th man. Now guys like Kidd, Allen, Terry are making $3 mil. Much better players then Fields.

Landry is a backup SF and prolly the 3rd or 4th guy off the bench here. Way too much to invest 20 mil + in that. You still got comparable if not better players out there like Mayo and Lee who want the full MLE and aren't getting it.

Here is my take On why Knicks got nothing to lose bjavascript:insertsmilie(':{)');y resigning L.Fields as short term need (SF/SG) and possible $$chip value in near future months.

Fields despite a bad 2012, he is health durable and gives them depth. Though Knicks signed some decent young guys whom need to make the team NONE of em are proven yet
maybe few are proven in the Europe league play however Fields issue is offense & not D' he gives stability to role-players until Iman is back next January.
Landry is a 2 way player cant hit a jumpshot, but can make a steal and guard alot of peeps with his height, making them work to score.

Another vital point is Word is Knicks do not care squat as you've read about $$paying the Luxury tax in effect in < 1 yr?
NYK like lots of teams, even elite teams is capped out any way whether the let Fields go OR not.

Despite wanted to run Fields out for absurd $20mil offer from Raptors they are 1 of several teams having keen interest so Fields has some demand despite our NY feelings.
Why not get something down the road for him then eh?

The 3 yr contracts exp. mentioned on forum of many Knix will help down the road. Some knicks will stay others come off the book

Despite his woes the Knicks can keep him the 3mo. or 90days and Fields is still in demand by Suns, Believe NY can sign/match then deal him later before 2013 ends.

Raptors work out a deal later mid-season (Jan. 2013?) and get back drafts or whatever so not to lose Fields for nothing. No matter what we think about Fields he still is a chip$$ & worth a investment return if eventually only a short term rental need to Knicks SG/SF backup plans going into the year.

Fields bad offense and all isnt afraid to go mano-E-mano with Dwades, LBJ, Kobe and Pierce in the league. The 'O' & shooting is main issue. We havent seen too many BAD
Knicks loses where Newpapers says KNICKS lost cause Landry coverage or defense missed. Cant have too many defender minded souls on our team at least to DJ

I'd sign him as short term need only his stock wont go low & if anything rises a bit and he can get us back draft picks we lost and/or help players.
He will still have value in 90days just play him some and until Shumpert is back you gotta play guys at his height/position anyhow lots of minutes.
*minor opinion

Forget the $20mil & dont get cardiac arrest on it, main thing it can be unloaded later even if Knicks trade him and pay part (40-50%) which makes it only near 10mil
in a trade which is like Knicks bringing back picks/players .. for the $$$ deals later on using Fields.
Why let a guy in demand (Suns, Raptors, Warriors, Kings ) go for nil ? at his age too.

Recall he was something else at Stanford & that part of his resume dont go away!