Knicks · Source: Chicago Is Most Likely Option for Melo (page 3)

I'd trade Melo for a Party Size bag of M&M's

Preferably peanut

gunsnewing wrote:Preferably peanut

Almonds are much better. To each there own though. Once I started with almonds I couldn't go back to plain peanuts.

Damn now I gotta go get some

yellowboy90 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Preferably peanut

Almonds are much better. To each there own though. Once I started with almonds I couldn't go back to plain peanuts.

Dude, almond M&Ms are the best; they're completely underrated by everyone.

Wow so I'm not the only one who would make that trade!

VCoug wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Preferably peanut

Almonds are much better. To each there own though. Once I started with almonds I couldn't go back to plain peanuts.

Dude, almond M&Ms are the best; they're completely underrated by everyone.

I know right. Walgreens usually have M&MS on sale too. Honestly anything with almonds takes it to the next level, imo.

Where has this thread gone. I want some M&Ms now. Thanks Guns

VCoug wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Preferably peanut

Almonds are much better. To each there own though. Once I started with almonds I couldn't go back to plain peanuts.

Dude, almond M&Ms are the best; they're completely underrated by everyone.

Don't forget jordan almonds mmmmm.

I'm old school. I can't wait to try the almonds for the first time.

Considering getting in the car and driving to walgreens

Or maybe go to bed and pick them up on the way to work in the morning

gunsnewing wrote:Wow so I'm not the only one who would make that trade!

No, who do you think I am... Dolan?

I think I just inadvertently sold more M&M's than any of the product ad's sold in UK's existence.

VCoug wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Preferably peanut

Almonds are much better. To each there own though. Once I started with almonds I couldn't go back to plain peanuts.

Dude, almond M&Ms are the best; they're completely underrated by everyone.

Not by my daughter! If I tell her i will by her M&M's I can get her to do pretty much any of the tasks that I normally have to battle her to get done. Haha. Eat cabbage, clean her room, do her homework, be nice to her brother, ANYTHING.

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

They wouldn't have to trade Gibson at all. They would have to renounce the rights to Augustine and then trade Snell or their picks plus Dunleavy for nothing this year.

VCoug wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Preferably peanut

Almonds are much better. To each there own though. Once I started with almonds I couldn't go back to plain peanuts.

Dude, almond M&Ms are the best; they're completely underrated by everyone.

Gross!

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

yellowboy90 wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

They wouldn't have to trade Gibson at all. They would have to renounce the rights to Augustine and then trade Snell or their picks plus Dunleavy for nothing this year.

You're not factoring in the cap holds for the vacant roster spots that will be $4 million at the minimum, as well as the two picks that add an additional $3.3 million cap hold. That $7.3 million would eat into the $20 million salary you think would be available.

the "rumor" is for 1 draft pick (not even stating the HIGHER selection)
In a deal, we would need to match salaries which means we must take back at least Boozer with another contract like Dunleavy JR as well

It seems like CA understands that he must be traded for LIMITED assets in order to increase his chances of winning
Unfortunately, we are still paying for the trade FOR him to Denver

Bulls
===========

Fortunately, the owner to Bulls is CHEAP, would prefer trading Boozer's contract than amnestying him
However, it is possible for a team that is willing to absorb Boozer's contract with 1 draft pick and maybe a 2nd rounder, NOT named NYK's
Which would allow the Bulls to SIGN CA rather than trading with NYK for him, they also would have to move Dunleavy or Taj Gibson as well, depending on how much less CA is willing to take to sign with the Bulls
The Bulls are an attractive team for CA because they have the G/F to hide his defensive inabilities along with Noah to help him

Jimmy Butler is a great compliment to Melo, also the development of Snell of he can become half the player that Kawaii Leanard has become (they physically are very comparable to each other and played for the same
college system though Leanard's development had a lot to do with Tim Duncan, Ginobili, Parker, Poppavich and his coaching/development staff
Add in Taj Gibson or Derrick Rose himself, for CA to be the new face of the franchise along with Noah and a developing Jimmy Butler
They will have a lot of decision to make in the near future, especially with the draft approaching
On draft day, even if they traded the selection of the pick, it wouldn't count as trading their draft pick, since teams are only allowed to trade their 1st round pick, once every other year...

Tom Tibs is as close as it gets in the East when compared to the defensive abilities of SA

Pacers
============

Also for Pacer's, they likely will try to pay and keep both Lance Stephenson and Evan Turner, in addition to the taxpayers 3.2m as well
George Hill that are expendable, a MLE (likely tax payers at 3.2m)
Some other contracts include Mahimi, maybe Scola (not sure if he is allowed to be move but think so) and Copeland, even Roy Hibbert's play was expendable considering his production this play offs
They will have a lot of decisions to make to continue to assemble their roster, but it isn't impossible for them to get in the hunt for a ALL STAR caliber player

They also have the luxury of possibly trading them instead, utilizing their cap room elswhere
Maybe Lance and chance for Bledsoe, would make a lot of sense

East
==========

The East is improving, many teams have draft picks in this draft along with cap space, many teams could make a big leap similar to how Bobcats improved basically with their draft picks and one veteran player in Al Jefferson

That is why I prefer trading CA to The West, likely Houston, if possible, regardless of the deal being better *if not by too much, we would be building our own contender*
Especially with that BS trade rumor of 1 draft round pick in addition to Boozer's contract and likely Dunleavy for Melo

I hate what Houston is offering. To take on 30 mil in salary to gain 15 mil in cap space in 2015 and not come out of it with at least one good young player for the future is a horrible trade. Maybe Walsh does it but I can't imagine PJax repeating the McGrady trade. Taking on that 30 mil to steer Melo to Houston without getting proper compensation is just a bad deal. The Knicks might be better off just letting Melo walk as opposed to that deal.
In regards to still paying for the Melo deal. The Knicks couldn't trade a first round pick until 2014 because of all of the picks they had traded before including the McGrady deal. It is why many thought the Knicks didn't have the assets to get the deal done. It sucks that the one first rounder sent out in that deal ended up being a lottery pick but one future first in a deal for franchise player isn't an outrageous price in my opinion.

CrushAlot wrote:I hate what Houston is offering. To take on 30 mil in salary to gain 15 mil in cap space in 2015 and not come out of it with at least one good young player for the future is a horrible trade. Maybe Walsh does it but I can't imagine PJax repeating the McGrady trade. Taking on that 30 mil to steer Melo to Houston without getting proper compensation is just a bad deal. The Knicks might be better off just letting Melo walk as opposed to that deal.
In regards to still paying for the Melo deal. The Knicks couldn't trade a first round pick until 2014 because of all of the picks they had traded before including the McGrady deal. It is why many thought the Knicks didn't have the assets to get the deal done. It sucks that the one first rounder sent out in that deal ended up being a lottery pick but one future first in a deal for franchise player isn't an outrageous price in my opinion.

what franchise player are you referring to?

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:I hate what Houston is offering. To take on 30 mil in salary to gain 15 mil in cap space in 2015 and not come out of it with at least one good young player for the future is a horrible trade. Maybe Walsh does it but I can't imagine PJax repeating the McGrady trade. Taking on that 30 mil to steer Melo to Houston without getting proper compensation is just a bad deal. The Knicks might be better off just letting Melo walk as opposed to that deal.
In regards to still paying for the Melo deal. The Knicks couldn't trade a first round pick until 2014 because of all of the picks they had traded before including the McGrady deal. It is why many thought the Knicks didn't have the assets to get the deal done. It sucks that the one first rounder sent out in that deal ended up being a lottery pick but one future first in a deal for franchise player isn't an outrageous price in my opinion.

what franchise player are you referring to?

It is hard to figure out when you look at the salaries. I guess you have to watch the games.