Dont get attached. We can pay him what his option would have been and that's it. Anyone offers him more than 1.7mm he's gone.
Strikes me as stupid
fishmike wrote:Dont get attached. We can pay him what his option would have been and that's it. Anyone offers him more than 1.7mm he's gone. Strikes me as stupid
We don't have the information available to us that Phil has. So all we can do is believe in his basketball knowledge.
He isn't anything special to me regardless and didn't really care that he was acquired in the Dallas trade. That 5'11 frame just isn't appealing to me.
Calderon will probably be used between PG&SG down the road and probably come off the bench after we acquire another quality PG.
what bugs me about it is it eliminates any chance of continuity. Look at the elite teams. They develop and bring people back. How does a renta-year player whos essentially a rookie help us. Why do we bother investing in this guy?
fishmike wrote:what bugs me about it is it eliminates any chance of continuity. Look at the elite teams. They develop and bring people back. How does a renta-year player whos essentially a rookie help us. Why do we bother investing in this guy?
Yep, first all-out dumb move by Phil since he took over. Fisher likes him, and seems committed to developing him- why let him walk? Whats the point in spending all year teaching the triangle, if we're not going to bring any of the players back?
smackeddog wrote:fishmike wrote:what bugs me about it is it eliminates any chance of continuity. Look at the elite teams. They develop and bring people back. How does a renta-year player whos essentially a rookie help us. Why do we bother investing in this guy?
Yep, first all-out dumb move by Phil since he took over. Fisher likes him, and seems committed to developing him- why let him walk? Whats the point in spending all year teaching the triangle, if we're not going to bring any of the players back?
If Larkin is dumb enough to leave a good system...lots of playing time....under a pg coach....in the big apple....with phil jackson running the show....then he deserves to leave.
Larkin or shump will not make or break a championship run.
smackeddog wrote:fishmike wrote:what bugs me about it is it eliminates any chance of continuity. Look at the elite teams. They develop and bring people back. How does a renta-year player whos essentially a rookie help us. Why do we bother investing in this guy?
Yep, first all-out dumb move by Phil since he took over. Fisher likes him, and seems committed to developing him- why let him walk? Whats the point in spending all year teaching the triangle, if we're not going to bring any of the players back?
Its waaay to early to know if its a dumb move.
In the off season I think we should be looking at a lot of savy vets anyway.
Remember when we picked up Billips option for no reason lol
This sucks
I guess no matter how well Larkin plays he is not not part of the future because of his height
I just hope this is not a Steve Mills doozy
His option wasnt picked up because no matter how he plays...Phil has no intention of keeping him. Makes the Calderon deal even sillier.
I thought they would pick up the option but in the end we have no idea what Phil's plan really is and how he sees Larkin's value in that overall scheme. I like Larkin but at the same time he's not the only possible option Phil will have. He can always find another backup PG since he does still have Calderon on board who he knows is capable of playing starting PG and could move to a real quality backup if Phil gets a new starting PG in here. This move doesn't in any way hinder our path going forward.
You have no idea what his market value will be. I think from a financial stand point this is not a big deal, you just give yourself more options. If larkin and shump proves themselves to be more than avg, then i believe phil will make it work.
I like larkin but he's not a player im making a priority, he'll get the money he truly deserves by playing his ass off and helping the team to win.
If these guys want to stay, prove it and make the playoffs (preferably the 2nd rnd) and make phil pay up. Now phil will be investing into something he's more sure about as oppose to taking a bigger risk extending them now...If they play inconsistent, and we don't make the playoffs, or get swept in the 1st rnd, then phils a smart man.
nixluva wrote:I thought they would pick up the option but in the end we have no idea what Phil's plan really is and how he sees Larkin's value in that overall scheme. I like Larkin but at the same time he's not the only possible option Phil will have. He can always find another backup PG since he does still have Calderon on board who he knows is capable of playing starting PG and could move to a real quality backup if Phil gets a new starting PG in here. This move doesn't in any way hinder our path going forward.
It's a odd move because it automatically limits the team. Larkin is gonna have the "young with upside" tag for at least two seasons....why NOT commit to one of those? He can absolutely be trade even if he bombs completely. While we dont know Phil's thinking, we do know what he cannot do....he cant resign Larkin for more than that 1.7 next season and this move makes Larkin an unrestricted free agent, so he's essentially allowing a young player walk, the same young player that we all believed triggered the trade in the first place.
If Larkin develops with these minutes as a starter which all eyes will be on, every other team will certainly try to sign him next season, and being unrestricted...we cant match or resign him.
PG is the deepest position in the league and even though the Knicks seem to never have a corps of good PGs it should be relatively easy to get decent PGs going forward. Obviously management doesn't think Larkin is a long term piece at this point. I like the kid but I'm not losing sleep over losing a 5'11" PG when we have loads of cap space coming and the market is chock full of other young guards.
What is Larkins best case upside, really? id honestly like to hear people's opinions on that.
knickscity wrote:His option wasnt picked up because no matter how he plays...Phil has no intention of keeping him. Makes the Calderon deal even sillier.
I think it's a smart move overall
Of course Phil Jackson has final say on things
So if he decided not to pick his option
Up then obviously it's a good move because he can do no wrong
It's "In Phil We Trust" right?
Or should it be followed by "No Matter What"
F500ONE wrote:knickscity wrote:His option wasnt picked up because no matter how he plays...Phil has no intention of keeping him. Makes the Calderon deal even sillier.
I think it's a smart move overall
Of course Phil Jackson has final say on things
So if he decided not to pick his option
Up then obviously it's a good move because he can do no wrong
It's "In Phil We Trust" right?
Or should it be followed by "No Matter What"
The move is at best "risky". Also keep in mind Phil didnt offer an extension for Shumpert either. The team has enough cap space to have retained both and spend during free agency. And if needed both players could have been traded to create the space.
knickscity wrote:nixluva wrote:I thought they would pick up the option but in the end we have no idea what Phil's plan really is and how he sees Larkin's value in that overall scheme. I like Larkin but at the same time he's not the only possible option Phil will have. He can always find another backup PG since he does still have Calderon on board who he knows is capable of playing starting PG and could move to a real quality backup if Phil gets a new starting PG in here. This move doesn't in any way hinder our path going forward.
It's a odd move because it automatically limits the team. Larkin is gonna have the "young with upside" tag for at least two seasons....why NOT commit to one of those? He can absolutely be trade even if he bombs completely. While we dont know Phil's thinking, we do know what he cannot do....he cant resign Larkin for more than that 1.7 next season and this move makes Larkin an unrestricted free agent, so he's essentially allowing a young player walk, the same young player that we all believed triggered the trade in the first place.If Larkin develops with these minutes as a starter which all eyes will be on, every other team will certainly try to sign him next season, and being unrestricted...we cant match or resign him.
Just think if Melo gave back more than $1.4mil
We could have kept Larkin while not thinking twice
Funny how Phil talked of Melo's give back providing some future flexibility
But as soon as he was inked we traded Outlaw with GOLD to rid his salary
And won't pickup Larkin as it appears we're counting every penny going forward
In the end I agree with this move because Larkin should prove he's worth the pay
Besides does anyone think we can't find a Larkin replacement
Are we and the great Phil Jackson that limited going forward
knickscity wrote:F500ONE wrote:knickscity wrote:His option wasnt picked up because no matter how he plays...Phil has no intention of keeping him. Makes the Calderon deal even sillier.
I think it's a smart move overall
Of course Phil Jackson has final say on things
So if he decided not to pick his option
Up then obviously it's a good move because he can do no wrong
It's "In Phil We Trust" right?
Or should it be followed by "No Matter What"
The move is at best "risky". Also keep in mind Phil didnt offer an extension for Shumpert either. The team has enough cap space to have retained both and spend during free agency. And if needed both players could have been traded to create the space.
So what you're saying this move
Errors on the side of bad and this may not
Have been the only bad move he's made thus far
As in he is capable of making bad moves
Even the BEST GM's in history have bad moves on their record!!! Right now we don't know what this will end up being so there's no way to grade the move. We can only wait and see what Phil does. He obviously thought long and hard about it and this was his final decision. There's no way he doesn't know all of the ramifications of picking up options verses not picking them up. This is literally all he and his staff have to do so i'm sure they talked it over and over weighed against other options and this is what they decided.
F500ONE wrote:knickscity wrote:F500ONE wrote:knickscity wrote:His option wasnt picked up because no matter how he plays...Phil has no intention of keeping him. Makes the Calderon deal even sillier.
I think it's a smart move overall
Of course Phil Jackson has final say on things
So if he decided not to pick his option
Up then obviously it's a good move because he can do no wrong
It's "In Phil We Trust" right?
Or should it be followed by "No Matter What"
The move is at best "risky". Also keep in mind Phil didnt offer an extension for Shumpert either. The team has enough cap space to have retained both and spend during free agency. And if needed both players could have been traded to create the space.
So what you're saying this move
Errors on the side of bad and this may not
Have been the only bad move he's made thus far
As in he is capable of making bad moves
I prefer the term "risky" since Phil is clearly giving up on controllable items in the hopes of something that is 100% ungaranteed.
