Knicks leaning toward not picking up Larkin’s 2015-16 option
October 25th, 2014 1:00 pm Adam Zagoria, Team Reporter
The Knicks are “leaning” towards not picking up point guard Shane Larkin’s team option for 2015-16, according to Adrian Wojnarowski, who says the team is inclined to have the cap space that would come from not signing Larkin.
The deadline for guaranteeing the third-year option comes on Friday.
The former Miami floor general has a $1.7 million team option for 2015-16, and Wojnarowski initially reported the Knicks planned to pick up the option.
Larkin is competing with veteran Pablo Prigioni for the backup point guard duties behind Jose Calderon.
Larkin does not look good enough to plan a future romance with. This is good news.
Splat wrote:Larkin does not look good enough to plan a future romance with. This is good news.
I agree. I thought they already picked up his option though.
Wtf I thought they already picked it up. He should be a nice trade chip regardless.
I like larkin. Last year he was injured and didnt get a chance to develop. Im all for clearing dead weight like bargs and amare and jr but larkin wont cost much
StarksEwing1 wrote:I like larkin. Last year he was injured and didnt get a chance to develop. Im all for clearing dead weight like bargs and amare and jr but larkin wont cost much
Prior to the last two games I saw nothing from him that would make me think he was a part of the future. He has looked better. He has the son of a professional athlete pedigree thing going for him and he has elite athleticism. Not sure that overcomes his lack of height/reach or his in game struggles.
CrushAlot wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:I like larkin. Last year he was injured and didnt get a chance to develop. Im all for clearing dead weight like bargs and amare and jr but larkin wont cost much
Prior to the last two games I saw nothing from him that would make me think he was a part of the future. He has looked better. He has the son of a professional athlete pedigree thing going for him and he has elite athleticism. Not sure that overcomes his lack of height/reach or his in game struggles.
im not saying he should get a guaranteed spot but we could always use him as trade bait if he shows progress
He is the same height as Steve Nash. Nash isn't 6'3 as listed but 5'10-5'11ish
Height is not his problem
It can be a problem defensively but calderon and prigioni also struggle there
Give him a chance! $1.7 mil is nothing, especially when you factor in cap holds
Why spend money because its chicken feed? What kind of logic is that?
This is a transitional year. It doesn't much matter now, but you don't plan a future around a player whom you don't want. If the club doesn't pick up his option, it means they've evaluated him and decided he is not a serious prospect.
What is this logic? On the one hand, you can be all in supporting the new regime, but on the other hand you're just as ready to question their ability to evaluate their talent? Which is it?
Phil obviously is going to do what he can to upgrade the PG position. The plan clearly has to be to replace Jose as a starter by year three or have traded him away already.
With that being the case, next year needs a PG replacement on board training to take the reins in the following season. If Larkin is not part of the plan, you don't plan on giving him major minutes any more than you have to next season.
Either you guys see the long picture or you don't. And if you do, then maybe management has figured out Larkin is not part of that vision. What has Larkin shown that would indicate this is a wrong decision? Nothing.
gunsnewing wrote:He is the same height as Steve Nash. Nash isn't 6'3 as listed but 5'10-5'11ishHeight is not his problem
It can be a problem defensively but calderon and prigioni also struggle there
Cleanthony Early can also become trade fodder
Larkin, Shane 5' 10.25'' 5' 11.5'' 170.8 5' 10.75'' 7' 5.5'' 3.8 7.5 8.75. Nash is reported actual height is 6'1. That is still three inches taller than Shane.
Shane is really only 5'3". The jet packs in his sneaker heels add some extra inches, but it sure is hard to handle all that extra propulsion. Weeeee!
Fisher likes Larkin a lot, he said it during SL, and said it again during preseason. I recall him saying he thought larkin was a very good clutch player. His team option is a million, thats chump change
CrushAlot wrote:Splat wrote:Larkin does not look good enough to plan a future romance with. This is good news.
I agree. I thought they already picked up his option though.
Thought the same thing. I guess we never pulled the trigger...I think there's definitely some nice talent here with this young man but right now, I guess it's for the best. I can understand the reasoning---gotta make sure we have the maximum amount of cap space available when the time comes and while we're at it--I'd also hesitate on blowing our full trade cash allotment on something minor too. Need to keep that benefit intact for the off-season as well (either for the draft or FA, unless something major materializes by the deadline). I mean we didn't rush out there to sign Shumpert yet either, right (did we even pick up his QO?)? Same thinking here with Larkin. We'll cross all these bridges when the time comes. If these guys prove they're worth signing, I'm sure they'll be retained.
This is probably Phil wising up
There were some grumblings in the under channels
No need to pick up his option whatsoever at this time
It's $1.7mil added to the cap for no reason
If THJR has to EARN a starting spot
Then Larky should have to EARN his future payday
He's really not that good guys, just a stop gap
Until we can find something better
This move "JUST ABOUT A WEEK AGO"[do the dance]
Had me livid, mood needle moving in different direction now
smackeddog wrote:Give him a chance! $1.7 mil is nothing, especially when you factor in cap holds
That's the flip side--$1.7mm really isn't that big a deal esp. considering the kid's youth, skills, speed, athleticism & upside. I'm torn on this... Can see both sides of the argument -- I'm really a pro Larkin guy though, so I can definitely see the wisdom in picking up his option...I know some people wanna send this kid to the guillotine by now. I see a bright future however. I don't think adding $1.7mm to the payroll next year is that big a deal. Hard to believe that amount would prevent a big trade from going down in the future, esp. if we manage other things properly i.e. maybe keep Outlaw around as a throw-in for a deadline deal esp. if we can protect Wear in the DL (thought I read that we can protect up to 4 players on the Westchester team that are cut from the pre-season roster -- now that's if a guy like Travis Wear agrees to play for our DL team. Will he or will he go to Europe? And if he goes overseas, do we still have the protection and keep his rights?); keep our cash allotment intact, etc..
It's not a mistake too admit mistake. That first trade we made made was a mistake. You don't double down on mistakes just to prove yourself right. IF Larkin can prove some things, Im sure we can take care of him. But giving him 1.75mm without him earning it is not reasonable for the position the Knicks are in.
I think we gave the Mavs the championship--adding Parsons and Chandler is going to be tough to beat.
Mistake or not Larkin's contract is peanuts, if you want to talk about salaries our bigger mistake is the one that is committed to a 30year old about 15-20x more than that
As of now, we are stuck in the middle, not good enough to get a high draft pick or good enough to contend
If you were a FA would you choose to goto NYK or another state for the same price if you are trying to win?
1.75
7-8m (3-4 more million each year to get rid of Felton)
23-30m
CrushAlot wrote:Larkin, Shane 5' 10.25'' 5' 11.5'' 170.8 5' 10.75'' 7' 5.5'' 3.8 7.5 8.75. Nash is reported actual height is 6'1. That is still three inches taller than Shane.
This is true...Larkin and Nash are not the same height. The problem with Larkin compared to other 6ft and under guards....is his arm length...which is very short and doesnt make up for his height. This is why Iverson was so good. Look at Rondo. These guys have longer arms and can play in traffic. Tony Parker is nice but hes 6'3 i believe. Speed...jumper....passing....breaking down the defense and Basketball IQ must be a high skill set or hes easily replaceable by the plethora of 6ft guards thats available like me.....lol.
