Knicks · Would you as a Knick fan take Andera Bargnani back on a 1 year 4mm deal? (page 9)
franco12 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Not that big of a deal to argue over. Seems like the pulse is 50-50 on bargs which sounds about right. I don't think a 1 year nominal deal is much to get upset about or really argue against. Let's take it for what it is a small commitment to a player who has been injured has come back to perform well.
Where are you getting 50-50 from? Are you combining options 2 and 3 and putting them against #1?if it were 50/50, I don't think it would be 9 pages long.
I think he's combining options 2 and 3 vs. option 1. It reminds me of this:
Splat wrote:knicks1248 wrote:Splat wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:All he is doing is going hard to sucker someone into throwing more than the vet in at himYep. Bargs right now is the perennial procrastinating underachiever pulling an all-nighter to write a paper they had all semester to produce in the hopes they can get a B or C instead of being bounced from school.
Only naive people base their assessments on the behavior of con men in their 11th hour on the gallows pole.
Good points, but you can't deny he has the skill set for this system. If he can play 50 to 60 games, get couple of dirty work guys around him, he's worth a non guaranteed contract. In this NBA business you get paid 2 ways, potential, and what you already accomplished.
Yes, but..... he's a con man. He doesn't even like being a professional basketball player. He just likes the money. Hustlers always hustle those they already hustled and Bargs knows he is in the heartland of dumb ownership where champagne dreams and caviar contracts are awarded to even the least deserving schmucks.
I don't think he's conning anyone, he's just a soft ass big man who can't stay healthy. If you call trying to make a layup in traffic, and leaping in the air from the free throw line and crashing down on the hardwood floor conning, then he seems to be more brain dead then con artis.
Some of his moves are head scratching moves, because on one hand I'm like, he's pretty damn athletic for a 7 footer, on the other hand I'm like, WTF was he thinking, I mean he just plays way to reckless and erratic for his size.
dk7th wrote:bargnani is an opportunistic, soft, selfish a-hole. he contributes to a losing culture. can we shut this thread down? it's annoying!
You made a wrong turn at the last Melohate thread. Go back 3 spaces.
Bonn1997 wrote:franco12 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Not that big of a deal to argue over. Seems like the pulse is 50-50 on bargs which sounds about right. I don't think a 1 year nominal deal is much to get upset about or really argue against. Let's take it for what it is a small commitment to a player who has been injured has come back to perform well.
Where are you getting 50-50 from? Are you combining options 2 and 3 and putting them against #1?if it were 50/50, I don't think it would be 9 pages long.
I think he's combining options 2 and 3 vs. option 1. It reminds me of this:
The chads! I just knew this had something to do with Dolanist corporate right wingnutsery!
Splat wrote:You know nothing.YOU'VE BEEN WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Splat wrote:Suckers loves bums.Bargnani is the gold standard among bum suckers.
Splat wrote:What is sunny and warm and cuddly about a deranged person pounding out exclamation points and telling everyone to get lost? I don't get it.I cannot abide by corporate tools like Nix. I may be rough and not others cup of tea. I get it, but his Dolanist world view is utterly toxic to me.
Splat wrote:Only naive people base their assessments on the behavior of con men in their 11th hour on the gallows pole.
Splat wrote:This ability to fantasize about unicorns and plum fairies is what separates the highly functional executives of the league from the also-rans. If Phil is truly as wise as you are, then he is ready to go to war surrounded by munchkins and oompa loompas and bubble gum trees.
Splat wrote:Hustlers always hustle those they already hustled and Bargs knows he is in the heartland of dumb ownership where champagne dreams and caviar contracts are awarded to even the least deserving schmucks.
I just thought everyone would enjoy a greatest hits version of this thread....
martin, could we sticky this? This thread should never die...
Bargs isn't just playing well now for his contract. In fact he was trying to play last year and IMO wasn't being used as well as he could. In terms of Bargs shooting he was shooting well from 2pt range last year at 48.7% and so far this year he's at 48.6%, so he's consistently effective from inside the 3pt line. Last year he started taking fewer 3's and this year he's taking even fewer. The more healthy and in game shape he's getting he's getting to the line more and i'd like to see that increase. He's been very consistent from midrange and if he can stay in his sweet spot it should help every aspect of his game.
2pt FGA 2pt FG% FTA 3pt FGA
2009-10 10.2 .509 2.9 4.1
2010-11 14.4 .472 5.3 3.4
2011-12 11.9 .474 5.6 3.7
2012-13 8.7 .436 2.2 3.5
2013-14 9.4 .487 2.4 2.6
2014-15 9.3 .486 3.8 0.8
I think he would be a very good fit next to KAT if we drafted him. KAT could be the shot blocking presence and Bargs could guard the opposing Center. If Bargs can stay healthy and play like this then I think Phil could sign Bargs to a low contract as BRIGGS suggested it would be a good cost saving move. Then Phil could use that money elsewhere to make the roster stronger.
nixluva wrote:I'm just trying to use practical thinking when it comes to Bargs and the roster. Why should there be such a major consternation over one player being brought back on a prove it contract?Bargs isn't just playing well now for his contract. In fact he was trying to play last year and IMO wasn't being used as well as he could. In terms of Bargs shooting he was shooting well from 2pt range last year at 48.7% and so far this year he's at 48.6%, so he's consistently effective from inside the 3pt line. Last year he started taking fewer 3's and this year he's taking even fewer. The more healthy and in game shape he's getting he's getting to the line more and i'd like to see that increase. He's been very consistent from midrange and if he can stay in his sweet spot it should help every aspect of his game.
2pt FGA 2pt FG% FTA 3pt FGA
2009-10 10.2 .509 2.9 4.1
2010-11 14.4 .472 5.3 3.4
2011-12 11.9 .474 5.6 3.7
2012-13 8.7 .436 2.2 3.5
2013-14 9.4 .487 2.4 2.6
2014-15 9.3 .486 3.8 0.8I think he would be a very good fit next to KAT if we drafted him. KAT could be the shot blocking presence and Bargs could guard the opposing Center. If Bargs can stay healthy and play like this then I think Phil could sign Bargs to a low contract as BRIGGS suggested it would be a good cost saving move. Then Phil could use that money elsewhere to make the roster stronger.
what is his TS and how does that compare with other players at his position for the last few years?
How is his WS48? How is his WS48 compared to others at his position?
I know that you and briggs dont really look at these stats because if you did, you probably would both be quieting down a bit.
How about finding me some players that you consider good that have anywhere close to his horrible career WS48.
nixluva wrote:I'm just trying to use practical thinking when it comes to Bargs and the roster. Why should there be such a major consternation over one player being brought back on a prove it contract?Bargs isn't just playing well now for his contract. In fact he was trying to play last year and IMO wasn't being used as well as he could. In terms of Bargs shooting he was shooting well from 2pt range last year at 48.7% and so far this year he's at 48.6%, so he's consistently effective from inside the 3pt line. Last year he started taking fewer 3's and this year he's taking even fewer. The more healthy and in game shape he's getting he's getting to the line more and i'd like to see that increase. He's been very consistent from midrange and if he can stay in his sweet spot it should help every aspect of his game.
2pt FGA 2pt FG% FTA 3pt FGA
2009-10 10.2 .509 2.9 4.1
2010-11 14.4 .472 5.3 3.4
2011-12 11.9 .474 5.6 3.7
2012-13 8.7 .436 2.2 3.5
2013-14 9.4 .487 2.4 2.6
2014-15 9.3 .486 3.8 0.8I think he would be a very good fit next to KAT if we drafted him. KAT could be the shot blocking presence and Bargs could guard the opposing Center. If Bargs can stay healthy and play like this then I think Phil could sign Bargs to a low contract as BRIGGS suggested it would be a good cost saving move. Then Phil could use that money elsewhere to make the roster stronger.
If it's a prove it contract - non-guaranteed, vet min - I'm fine with it. If he plays well all year, I'd probably give him the vet min guaranteed
If it's 4 mil, that's another 7 or 8% of the cap, and I think it's a bad gamble. We're talking about a guy who's contributed a total of 2.2 win shares the past three seasons. An average 7th or 8th man would likely have triple that.
Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:I'm just trying to use practical thinking when it comes to Bargs and the roster. Why should there be such a major consternation over one player being brought back on a prove it contract?Bargs isn't just playing well now for his contract. In fact he was trying to play last year and IMO wasn't being used as well as he could. In terms of Bargs shooting he was shooting well from 2pt range last year at 48.7% and so far this year he's at 48.6%, so he's consistently effective from inside the 3pt line. Last year he started taking fewer 3's and this year he's taking even fewer. The more healthy and in game shape he's getting he's getting to the line more and i'd like to see that increase. He's been very consistent from midrange and if he can stay in his sweet spot it should help every aspect of his game.
2pt FGA 2pt FG% FTA 3pt FGA
2009-10 10.2 .509 2.9 4.1
2010-11 14.4 .472 5.3 3.4
2011-12 11.9 .474 5.6 3.7
2012-13 8.7 .436 2.2 3.5
2013-14 9.4 .487 2.4 2.6
2014-15 9.3 .486 3.8 0.8I think he would be a very good fit next to KAT if we drafted him. KAT could be the shot blocking presence and Bargs could guard the opposing Center. If Bargs can stay healthy and play like this then I think Phil could sign Bargs to a low contract as BRIGGS suggested it would be a good cost saving move. Then Phil could use that money elsewhere to make the roster stronger.
If it's a prove it contract - non-guaranteed, vet min - I'm fine with it. If he plays well all year, I'd probably give him the vet min guaranteed
If it's 4 mil, that's another 7 or 8% of the cap, and I think it's a bad gamble. We're talking about a guy who's contributed a total of 2.2 win shares the past three seasons. An average 7th or 8th man would likely have triple that.
good point.
why look at WS48 if the guy never plays. Its not like he is ready for PT if he was called upon. Actual Win Shares make more sense in his case which is far more disgusting if that is even possible.
Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:I'm just trying to use practical thinking when it comes to Bargs and the roster. Why should there be such a major consternation over one player being brought back on a prove it contract?Bargs isn't just playing well now for his contract. In fact he was trying to play last year and IMO wasn't being used as well as he could. In terms of Bargs shooting he was shooting well from 2pt range last year at 48.7% and so far this year he's at 48.6%, so he's consistently effective from inside the 3pt line. Last year he started taking fewer 3's and this year he's taking even fewer. The more healthy and in game shape he's getting he's getting to the line more and i'd like to see that increase. He's been very consistent from midrange and if he can stay in his sweet spot it should help every aspect of his game.
2pt FGA 2pt FG% FTA 3pt FGA
2009-10 10.2 .509 2.9 4.1
2010-11 14.4 .472 5.3 3.4
2011-12 11.9 .474 5.6 3.7
2012-13 8.7 .436 2.2 3.5
2013-14 9.4 .487 2.4 2.6
2014-15 9.3 .486 3.8 0.8I think he would be a very good fit next to KAT if we drafted him. KAT could be the shot blocking presence and Bargs could guard the opposing Center. If Bargs can stay healthy and play like this then I think Phil could sign Bargs to a low contract as BRIGGS suggested it would be a good cost saving move. Then Phil could use that money elsewhere to make the roster stronger.
If it's a prove it contract - non-guaranteed, vet min - I'm fine with it. If he plays well all year, I'd probably give him the vet min guaranteed
If it's 4 mil, that's another 7 or 8% of the cap, and I think it's a bad gamble. We're talking about a guy who's contributed a total of 2.2 win shares the past three seasons. An average 7th or 8th man would likely have triple that.
Just remember that the last few years have been injury riddled seasons and he's always coming back off injury and trying to get his game back. When he was at his best he was active and taking a good number of shots per game and he was more productive. He's never going to be a perfect player but I think he can be a good part of the rotation on this team.
I think it's understandable to have doubts about him, which is why I think it should be a prove it contract. He's just one cog in the overall machine and we're obviously going to need a lot more than just one player to fix this roster. It can't be overlooked however, that his game fits this system and he can continue to refine his game to be even more productive and efficient if he stays in this system and stays locked into his most efficient style of play. Bargs next to a big like Towns and maybe a Robin Lopez works IMO.
nixluva wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:I'm just trying to use practical thinking when it comes to Bargs and the roster. Why should there be such a major consternation over one player being brought back on a prove it contract?Bargs isn't just playing well now for his contract. In fact he was trying to play last year and IMO wasn't being used as well as he could. In terms of Bargs shooting he was shooting well from 2pt range last year at 48.7% and so far this year he's at 48.6%, so he's consistently effective from inside the 3pt line. Last year he started taking fewer 3's and this year he's taking even fewer. The more healthy and in game shape he's getting he's getting to the line more and i'd like to see that increase. He's been very consistent from midrange and if he can stay in his sweet spot it should help every aspect of his game.
2pt FGA 2pt FG% FTA 3pt FGA
2009-10 10.2 .509 2.9 4.1
2010-11 14.4 .472 5.3 3.4
2011-12 11.9 .474 5.6 3.7
2012-13 8.7 .436 2.2 3.5
2013-14 9.4 .487 2.4 2.6
2014-15 9.3 .486 3.8 0.8I think he would be a very good fit next to KAT if we drafted him. KAT could be the shot blocking presence and Bargs could guard the opposing Center. If Bargs can stay healthy and play like this then I think Phil could sign Bargs to a low contract as BRIGGS suggested it would be a good cost saving move. Then Phil could use that money elsewhere to make the roster stronger.
If it's a prove it contract - non-guaranteed, vet min - I'm fine with it. If he plays well all year, I'd probably give him the vet min guaranteed
If it's 4 mil, that's another 7 or 8% of the cap, and I think it's a bad gamble. We're talking about a guy who's contributed a total of 2.2 win shares the past three seasons. An average 7th or 8th man would likely have triple that.Just remember that the last few years have been injury riddled seasons and he's always coming back off injury and trying to get his game back. When he was at his best he was active and taking a good number of shots per game and he was more productive. He's never going to be a perfect player but I think he can be a good part of the rotation on this team.
I think it's understandable to have doubts about him, which is why I think it should be a prove it contract. He's just one cog in the overall machine and we're obviously going to need a lot more than just one player to fix this roster. It can't be overlooked however, that his game fits this system and he can continue to refine his game to be even more productive and efficient if he stays in this system and stays locked into his most efficient style of play. Bargs next to a big like Towns and maybe a Robin Lopez works IMO.
Prove it contract is fine. 5 or 10% of the cap being used up on him isn't.
I know you are happy with this system but you're replying to people like me and Mreinman who are unimpressed by it. So telling us he fits the system isn't helping your argument. Reminding us he's always injured isn't helping either.
Basing signings on their fit into the triangle alone is utter rot and a farce. You need to fit players with a compensatory defensive presence next to Melo to achieve anything close to a good roster mix. Agenda items like that should take way more precedence over what can become an increasingly vague and arbitrary set of criteria based on the triangle.
There are very simple criteria that trumps this fantasy: Are players intelligent, team oriented ball players who move the ball and play defense? If they are, then if you want to use triangle sets, then at least you may have a higher IQ squad to try it with. But the real issues are putting together a roster with chemistry that complements each other.
Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:I'm just trying to use practical thinking when it comes to Bargs and the roster. Why should there be such a major consternation over one player being brought back on a prove it contract?Bargs isn't just playing well now for his contract. In fact he was trying to play last year and IMO wasn't being used as well as he could. In terms of Bargs shooting he was shooting well from 2pt range last year at 48.7% and so far this year he's at 48.6%, so he's consistently effective from inside the 3pt line. Last year he started taking fewer 3's and this year he's taking even fewer. The more healthy and in game shape he's getting he's getting to the line more and i'd like to see that increase. He's been very consistent from midrange and if he can stay in his sweet spot it should help every aspect of his game.
2pt FGA 2pt FG% FTA 3pt FGA
2009-10 10.2 .509 2.9 4.1
2010-11 14.4 .472 5.3 3.4
2011-12 11.9 .474 5.6 3.7
2012-13 8.7 .436 2.2 3.5
2013-14 9.4 .487 2.4 2.6
2014-15 9.3 .486 3.8 0.8I think he would be a very good fit next to KAT if we drafted him. KAT could be the shot blocking presence and Bargs could guard the opposing Center. If Bargs can stay healthy and play like this then I think Phil could sign Bargs to a low contract as BRIGGS suggested it would be a good cost saving move. Then Phil could use that money elsewhere to make the roster stronger.
If it's a prove it contract - non-guaranteed, vet min - I'm fine with it. If he plays well all year, I'd probably give him the vet min guaranteed
If it's 4 mil, that's another 7 or 8% of the cap, and I think it's a bad gamble. We're talking about a guy who's contributed a total of 2.2 win shares the past three seasons. An average 7th or 8th man would likely have triple that.Just remember that the last few years have been injury riddled seasons and he's always coming back off injury and trying to get his game back. When he was at his best he was active and taking a good number of shots per game and he was more productive. He's never going to be a perfect player but I think he can be a good part of the rotation on this team.
I think it's understandable to have doubts about him, which is why I think it should be a prove it contract. He's just one cog in the overall machine and we're obviously going to need a lot more than just one player to fix this roster. It can't be overlooked however, that his game fits this system and he can continue to refine his game to be even more productive and efficient if he stays in this system and stays locked into his most efficient style of play. Bargs next to a big like Towns and maybe a Robin Lopez works IMO.
Prove it contract is fine. 5 or 10% of the cap being used up on him isn't.
I know you are happy with this system but you're replying to people like me and Mreinman who are unimpressed by it. So telling us he fits the system isn't helping your argument. Reminding us he's always injured isn't helping either.
I think the decision to bring back Bargs (or many players) comes down to what will be done with the cap space he will take up. If you are using it to bring back a guy like Jason Smith on a one year deal.....I probably stay with Bargs. If you are using it sign your draft pick or to bring in some young big with potential....I probably don't bring Bargs back for anything but the Vet Min. Either way, he should not be a priority...fill out the roster with the draft pick and a bigger fish and see how it plays out.
foosballnick wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:I'm just trying to use practical thinking when it comes to Bargs and the roster. Why should there be such a major consternation over one player being brought back on a prove it contract?Bargs isn't just playing well now for his contract. In fact he was trying to play last year and IMO wasn't being used as well as he could. In terms of Bargs shooting he was shooting well from 2pt range last year at 48.7% and so far this year he's at 48.6%, so he's consistently effective from inside the 3pt line. Last year he started taking fewer 3's and this year he's taking even fewer. The more healthy and in game shape he's getting he's getting to the line more and i'd like to see that increase. He's been very consistent from midrange and if he can stay in his sweet spot it should help every aspect of his game.
2pt FGA 2pt FG% FTA 3pt FGA
2009-10 10.2 .509 2.9 4.1
2010-11 14.4 .472 5.3 3.4
2011-12 11.9 .474 5.6 3.7
2012-13 8.7 .436 2.2 3.5
2013-14 9.4 .487 2.4 2.6
2014-15 9.3 .486 3.8 0.8I think he would be a very good fit next to KAT if we drafted him. KAT could be the shot blocking presence and Bargs could guard the opposing Center. If Bargs can stay healthy and play like this then I think Phil could sign Bargs to a low contract as BRIGGS suggested it would be a good cost saving move. Then Phil could use that money elsewhere to make the roster stronger.
If it's a prove it contract - non-guaranteed, vet min - I'm fine with it. If he plays well all year, I'd probably give him the vet min guaranteed
If it's 4 mil, that's another 7 or 8% of the cap, and I think it's a bad gamble. We're talking about a guy who's contributed a total of 2.2 win shares the past three seasons. An average 7th or 8th man would likely have triple that.Just remember that the last few years have been injury riddled seasons and he's always coming back off injury and trying to get his game back. When he was at his best he was active and taking a good number of shots per game and he was more productive. He's never going to be a perfect player but I think he can be a good part of the rotation on this team.
I think it's understandable to have doubts about him, which is why I think it should be a prove it contract. He's just one cog in the overall machine and we're obviously going to need a lot more than just one player to fix this roster. It can't be overlooked however, that his game fits this system and he can continue to refine his game to be even more productive and efficient if he stays in this system and stays locked into his most efficient style of play. Bargs next to a big like Towns and maybe a Robin Lopez works IMO.
Prove it contract is fine. 5 or 10% of the cap being used up on him isn't.
I know you are happy with this system but you're replying to people like me and Mreinman who are unimpressed by it. So telling us he fits the system isn't helping your argument. Reminding us he's always injured isn't helping either.I think the decision to bring back Bargs (or many players) comes down to what will be done with the cap space he will take up. If you are using it to bring back a guy like Jason Smith on a one year deal.....I probably stay with Bargs. If you are using it sign your draft pick or to bring in some young big with potential....I probably don't bring Bargs back for anything but the Vet Min. Either way, he should not be a priority...fill out the roster with the draft pick and a bigger fish and see how it plays out.
I don't know about that being the issue. You can fill up the cap room with trades too, since the salaries don't have to match if you're under the cap. I doubt we reach a situation when we just can't figure out what to do with the remaining space and so we pick up Bargs.
foosballnick wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:I'm just trying to use practical thinking when it comes to Bargs and the roster. Why should there be such a major consternation over one player being brought back on a prove it contract?Bargs isn't just playing well now for his contract. In fact he was trying to play last year and IMO wasn't being used as well as he could. In terms of Bargs shooting he was shooting well from 2pt range last year at 48.7% and so far this year he's at 48.6%, so he's consistently effective from inside the 3pt line. Last year he started taking fewer 3's and this year he's taking even fewer. The more healthy and in game shape he's getting he's getting to the line more and i'd like to see that increase. He's been very consistent from midrange and if he can stay in his sweet spot it should help every aspect of his game.
2pt FGA 2pt FG% FTA 3pt FGA
2009-10 10.2 .509 2.9 4.1
2010-11 14.4 .472 5.3 3.4
2011-12 11.9 .474 5.6 3.7
2012-13 8.7 .436 2.2 3.5
2013-14 9.4 .487 2.4 2.6
2014-15 9.3 .486 3.8 0.8I think he would be a very good fit next to KAT if we drafted him. KAT could be the shot blocking presence and Bargs could guard the opposing Center. If Bargs can stay healthy and play like this then I think Phil could sign Bargs to a low contract as BRIGGS suggested it would be a good cost saving move. Then Phil could use that money elsewhere to make the roster stronger.
If it's a prove it contract - non-guaranteed, vet min - I'm fine with it. If he plays well all year, I'd probably give him the vet min guaranteed
If it's 4 mil, that's another 7 or 8% of the cap, and I think it's a bad gamble. We're talking about a guy who's contributed a total of 2.2 win shares the past three seasons. An average 7th or 8th man would likely have triple that.Just remember that the last few years have been injury riddled seasons and he's always coming back off injury and trying to get his game back. When he was at his best he was active and taking a good number of shots per game and he was more productive. He's never going to be a perfect player but I think he can be a good part of the rotation on this team.
I think it's understandable to have doubts about him, which is why I think it should be a prove it contract. He's just one cog in the overall machine and we're obviously going to need a lot more than just one player to fix this roster. It can't be overlooked however, that his game fits this system and he can continue to refine his game to be even more productive and efficient if he stays in this system and stays locked into his most efficient style of play. Bargs next to a big like Towns and maybe a Robin Lopez works IMO.
Prove it contract is fine. 5 or 10% of the cap being used up on him isn't.
I know you are happy with this system but you're replying to people like me and Mreinman who are unimpressed by it. So telling us he fits the system isn't helping your argument. Reminding us he's always injured isn't helping either.I think the decision to bring back Bargs (or many players) comes down to what will be done with the cap space he will take up. If you are using it to bring back a guy like Jason Smith on a one year deal.....I probably stay with Bargs. If you are using it sign your draft pick or to bring in some young big with potential....I probably don't bring Bargs back for anything but the Vet Min. Either way, he should not be a priority...fill out the roster with the draft pick and a bigger fish and see how it plays out.
I think Phil is also trying to go into next year with some level of continuity. As many of these guys he can bring back who are worth bringing back he's going to do that since it will make things easier to have some players who are well versed in the system and can make the process of melding the new players in with some level of execution much easier. Phil can't know which Free Agents he'll be able to get to sign, but he has a bit more of a chance with guys who are already here to start with.
Obviously the Draft is the key to the off season process so we have to see which spot we'll be drafting from. That will advise everything else after that. We have to assume that with the limited amount of cap we have that you will need several lower priced players. If Bargs won't take what Phil offers then goodbye, but if he's willing to stay on a lower contract then I have no problem with him coming back.
As for the take on the Triangle being a negative I think we all need to take a step back and remember just what level of talent we have right now. It's going to look a lot better with better talent on the roster. Also the system can easily be tweaked where necessary. IMO the only issue we have is the players. The openings are being created but if you can't shoot or take advantage of the openings then it won't matter what system you run. The biggest improvement will come with adding better players to the roster and not so much a change of the system.
I don't care what system we run, but if this is going to be the system then we need to bring in better players and guys who can execute what needs to be done. It's not rocket science. It's just basketball. The guys we just brought in were able to figure it out fairly quickly.
Bonn1997 wrote:foosballnick wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:I'm just trying to use practical thinking when it comes to Bargs and the roster. Why should there be such a major consternation over one player being brought back on a prove it contract?Bargs isn't just playing well now for his contract. In fact he was trying to play last year and IMO wasn't being used as well as he could. In terms of Bargs shooting he was shooting well from 2pt range last year at 48.7% and so far this year he's at 48.6%, so he's consistently effective from inside the 3pt line. Last year he started taking fewer 3's and this year he's taking even fewer. The more healthy and in game shape he's getting he's getting to the line more and i'd like to see that increase. He's been very consistent from midrange and if he can stay in his sweet spot it should help every aspect of his game.
2pt FGA 2pt FG% FTA 3pt FGA
2009-10 10.2 .509 2.9 4.1
2010-11 14.4 .472 5.3 3.4
2011-12 11.9 .474 5.6 3.7
2012-13 8.7 .436 2.2 3.5
2013-14 9.4 .487 2.4 2.6
2014-15 9.3 .486 3.8 0.8I think he would be a very good fit next to KAT if we drafted him. KAT could be the shot blocking presence and Bargs could guard the opposing Center. If Bargs can stay healthy and play like this then I think Phil could sign Bargs to a low contract as BRIGGS suggested it would be a good cost saving move. Then Phil could use that money elsewhere to make the roster stronger.
If it's a prove it contract - non-guaranteed, vet min - I'm fine with it. If he plays well all year, I'd probably give him the vet min guaranteed
If it's 4 mil, that's another 7 or 8% of the cap, and I think it's a bad gamble. We're talking about a guy who's contributed a total of 2.2 win shares the past three seasons. An average 7th or 8th man would likely have triple that.Just remember that the last few years have been injury riddled seasons and he's always coming back off injury and trying to get his game back. When he was at his best he was active and taking a good number of shots per game and he was more productive. He's never going to be a perfect player but I think he can be a good part of the rotation on this team.
I think it's understandable to have doubts about him, which is why I think it should be a prove it contract. He's just one cog in the overall machine and we're obviously going to need a lot more than just one player to fix this roster. It can't be overlooked however, that his game fits this system and he can continue to refine his game to be even more productive and efficient if he stays in this system and stays locked into his most efficient style of play. Bargs next to a big like Towns and maybe a Robin Lopez works IMO.
Prove it contract is fine. 5 or 10% of the cap being used up on him isn't.
I know you are happy with this system but you're replying to people like me and Mreinman who are unimpressed by it. So telling us he fits the system isn't helping your argument. Reminding us he's always injured isn't helping either.I think the decision to bring back Bargs (or many players) comes down to what will be done with the cap space he will take up. If you are using it to bring back a guy like Jason Smith on a one year deal.....I probably stay with Bargs. If you are using it sign your draft pick or to bring in some young big with potential....I probably don't bring Bargs back for anything but the Vet Min. Either way, he should not be a priority...fill out the roster with the draft pick and a bigger fish and see how it plays out.
I don't know about that being the issue. You can fill up the cap room with trades too, since the salaries don't have to match if you're under the cap. I doubt we reach a situation when we just can't figure out what to do with the remaining space and so we pick up Bargs.
Bonn, my bet is Knicks fans will be shocked on how hard it will be to spend the money. I think RFA is VERY difficulty because teams KNOW the cap is going up by as much as 33%. This makes almost ANY offer per the talent reasonable and probably favorable to match. Then teams dont necessarily want to just give away assets for nothing right? You would have to "overpay" substantially aggressively and it might not even make sense at first glance but thats what RFA is. Really our CORE is the draft pick--that's OUR team. I dont think its Melo Bargs my mother not anyone BUT the draft pick. Bargs to me is a piece that can help--almost like a car that we can put back together and sell for more. Right now Bargs is low value. But he has the ability and talent to be very decent reward if he is intent on saving his career and looking for another large contract. Bargs is a piece that we could use to compete--we cant compete with d leagueres and 2nd round picks. We need Carmelo some post players a good PG and a reliable SG to compete--to get us to a level of competing. That doesnt mean we are done rebuilding. So Bargs at 4mm becomes attractive if you look at it from a different angle. Im not basing my franchise on him--I want him to help me compete next year. I want him to stay within 14 feet and score 18-20 points grab 6-7 rebounds make a few good passes and play team DF. Guess what--he can do that. You know how many players can score 20 points in the NBA post for 4mm--NONE.
BRIGGS wrote:Not on IR he cant. What happens when he misses the first 50 games again? He only missed 16 games like 4 years ago. Since then he's missed 51, 47 and 50 this year.Bonn1997 wrote:foosballnick wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:I'm just trying to use practical thinking when it comes to Bargs and the roster. Why should there be such a major consternation over one player being brought back on a prove it contract?Bargs isn't just playing well now for his contract. In fact he was trying to play last year and IMO wasn't being used as well as he could. In terms of Bargs shooting he was shooting well from 2pt range last year at 48.7% and so far this year he's at 48.6%, so he's consistently effective from inside the 3pt line. Last year he started taking fewer 3's and this year he's taking even fewer. The more healthy and in game shape he's getting he's getting to the line more and i'd like to see that increase. He's been very consistent from midrange and if he can stay in his sweet spot it should help every aspect of his game.
2pt FGA 2pt FG% FTA 3pt FGA
2009-10 10.2 .509 2.9 4.1
2010-11 14.4 .472 5.3 3.4
2011-12 11.9 .474 5.6 3.7
2012-13 8.7 .436 2.2 3.5
2013-14 9.4 .487 2.4 2.6
2014-15 9.3 .486 3.8 0.8I think he would be a very good fit next to KAT if we drafted him. KAT could be the shot blocking presence and Bargs could guard the opposing Center. If Bargs can stay healthy and play like this then I think Phil could sign Bargs to a low contract as BRIGGS suggested it would be a good cost saving move. Then Phil could use that money elsewhere to make the roster stronger.
If it's a prove it contract - non-guaranteed, vet min - I'm fine with it. If he plays well all year, I'd probably give him the vet min guaranteed
If it's 4 mil, that's another 7 or 8% of the cap, and I think it's a bad gamble. We're talking about a guy who's contributed a total of 2.2 win shares the past three seasons. An average 7th or 8th man would likely have triple that.Just remember that the last few years have been injury riddled seasons and he's always coming back off injury and trying to get his game back. When he was at his best he was active and taking a good number of shots per game and he was more productive. He's never going to be a perfect player but I think he can be a good part of the rotation on this team.
I think it's understandable to have doubts about him, which is why I think it should be a prove it contract. He's just one cog in the overall machine and we're obviously going to need a lot more than just one player to fix this roster. It can't be overlooked however, that his game fits this system and he can continue to refine his game to be even more productive and efficient if he stays in this system and stays locked into his most efficient style of play. Bargs next to a big like Towns and maybe a Robin Lopez works IMO.
Prove it contract is fine. 5 or 10% of the cap being used up on him isn't.
I know you are happy with this system but you're replying to people like me and Mreinman who are unimpressed by it. So telling us he fits the system isn't helping your argument. Reminding us he's always injured isn't helping either.I think the decision to bring back Bargs (or many players) comes down to what will be done with the cap space he will take up. If you are using it to bring back a guy like Jason Smith on a one year deal.....I probably stay with Bargs. If you are using it sign your draft pick or to bring in some young big with potential....I probably don't bring Bargs back for anything but the Vet Min. Either way, he should not be a priority...fill out the roster with the draft pick and a bigger fish and see how it plays out.
I don't know about that being the issue. You can fill up the cap room with trades too, since the salaries don't have to match if you're under the cap. I doubt we reach a situation when we just can't figure out what to do with the remaining space and so we pick up Bargs.Bonn, my bet is Knicks fans will be shocked on how hard it will be to spend the money. I think RFA is VERY difficulty because teams KNOW the cap is going up by as much as 33%. This makes almost ANY offer per the talent reasonable and probably favorable to match. Then teams dont necessarily want to just give away assets for nothing right? You would have to "overpay" substantially aggressively and it might not even make sense at first glance but thats what RFA is. Really our CORE is the draft pick--that's OUR team. I dont think its Melo Bargs my mother not anyone BUT the draft pick. Bargs to me is a piece that can help--almost like a car that we can put back together and sell for more. Right now Bargs is low value. But he has the ability and talent to be very decent reward if he is intent on saving his career and looking for another large contract. Bargs is a piece that we could use to compete--we cant compete with d leagueres and 2nd round picks. We need Carmelo some post players a good PG and a reliable SG to compete--to get us to a level of competing. That doesnt mean we are done rebuilding. So Bargs at 4mm becomes attractive if you look at it from a different angle. Im not basing my franchise on him--I want him to help me compete next year. I want him to stay within 14 feet and score 18-20 points grab 6-7 rebounds make a few good passes and play team DF. Guess what--he can do that. You know how many players can score 20 points in the NBA post for 4mm--NONE.
I understand your thinking and agree... but he strains a muscle and misses a month. He's made of glass
Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:I'm just trying to use practical thinking when it comes to Bargs and the roster. Why should there be such a major consternation over one player being brought back on a prove it contract?Bargs isn't just playing well now for his contract. In fact he was trying to play last year and IMO wasn't being used as well as he could. In terms of Bargs shooting he was shooting well from 2pt range last year at 48.7% and so far this year he's at 48.6%, so he's consistently effective from inside the 3pt line. Last year he started taking fewer 3's and this year he's taking even fewer. The more healthy and in game shape he's getting he's getting to the line more and i'd like to see that increase. He's been very consistent from midrange and if he can stay in his sweet spot it should help every aspect of his game.
2pt FGA 2pt FG% FTA 3pt FGA
2009-10 10.2 .509 2.9 4.1
2010-11 14.4 .472 5.3 3.4
2011-12 11.9 .474 5.6 3.7
2012-13 8.7 .436 2.2 3.5
2013-14 9.4 .487 2.4 2.6
2014-15 9.3 .486 3.8 0.8I think he would be a very good fit next to KAT if we drafted him. KAT could be the shot blocking presence and Bargs could guard the opposing Center. If Bargs can stay healthy and play like this then I think Phil could sign Bargs to a low contract as BRIGGS suggested it would be a good cost saving move. Then Phil could use that money elsewhere to make the roster stronger.
If it's a prove it contract - non-guaranteed, vet min - I'm fine with it. If he plays well all year, I'd probably give him the vet min guaranteed
If it's 4 mil, that's another 7 or 8% of the cap, and I think it's a bad gamble. We're talking about a guy who's contributed a total of 2.2 win shares the past three seasons. An average 7th or 8th man would likely have triple that.Just remember that the last few years have been injury riddled seasons and he's always coming back off injury and trying to get his game back. When he was at his best he was active and taking a good number of shots per game and he was more productive. He's never going to be a perfect player but I think he can be a good part of the rotation on this team.
I think it's understandable to have doubts about him, which is why I think it should be a prove it contract. He's just one cog in the overall machine and we're obviously going to need a lot more than just one player to fix this roster. It can't be overlooked however, that his game fits this system and he can continue to refine his game to be even more productive and efficient if he stays in this system and stays locked into his most efficient style of play. Bargs next to a big like Towns and maybe a Robin Lopez works IMO.
Prove it contract is fine. 5 or 10% of the cap being used up on him isn't.
I know you are happy with this system but you're replying to people like me and Mreinman who are unimpressed by it. So telling us he fits the system isn't helping your argument. Reminding us he's always injured isn't helping either.
they (nix and briggs) never actually answer these questions, they just keep stating the same things over and over again. Kind of frustrating ... oh well.
I am bored right now, I think that I will go fill out a spreadsheet with useless data.
fishmike wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Not on IR he cant. What happens when he misses the first 50 games again? He only missed 16 games like 4 years ago. Since then he's missed 51, 47 and 50 this year.Bonn1997 wrote:foosballnick wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:I'm just trying to use practical thinking when it comes to Bargs and the roster. Why should there be such a major consternation over one player being brought back on a prove it contract?Bargs isn't just playing well now for his contract. In fact he was trying to play last year and IMO wasn't being used as well as he could. In terms of Bargs shooting he was shooting well from 2pt range last year at 48.7% and so far this year he's at 48.6%, so he's consistently effective from inside the 3pt line. Last year he started taking fewer 3's and this year he's taking even fewer. The more healthy and in game shape he's getting he's getting to the line more and i'd like to see that increase. He's been very consistent from midrange and if he can stay in his sweet spot it should help every aspect of his game.
2pt FGA 2pt FG% FTA 3pt FGA
2009-10 10.2 .509 2.9 4.1
2010-11 14.4 .472 5.3 3.4
2011-12 11.9 .474 5.6 3.7
2012-13 8.7 .436 2.2 3.5
2013-14 9.4 .487 2.4 2.6
2014-15 9.3 .486 3.8 0.8I think he would be a very good fit next to KAT if we drafted him. KAT could be the shot blocking presence and Bargs could guard the opposing Center. If Bargs can stay healthy and play like this then I think Phil could sign Bargs to a low contract as BRIGGS suggested it would be a good cost saving move. Then Phil could use that money elsewhere to make the roster stronger.
If it's a prove it contract - non-guaranteed, vet min - I'm fine with it. If he plays well all year, I'd probably give him the vet min guaranteed
If it's 4 mil, that's another 7 or 8% of the cap, and I think it's a bad gamble. We're talking about a guy who's contributed a total of 2.2 win shares the past three seasons. An average 7th or 8th man would likely have triple that.Just remember that the last few years have been injury riddled seasons and he's always coming back off injury and trying to get his game back. When he was at his best he was active and taking a good number of shots per game and he was more productive. He's never going to be a perfect player but I think he can be a good part of the rotation on this team.
I think it's understandable to have doubts about him, which is why I think it should be a prove it contract. He's just one cog in the overall machine and we're obviously going to need a lot more than just one player to fix this roster. It can't be overlooked however, that his game fits this system and he can continue to refine his game to be even more productive and efficient if he stays in this system and stays locked into his most efficient style of play. Bargs next to a big like Towns and maybe a Robin Lopez works IMO.
Prove it contract is fine. 5 or 10% of the cap being used up on him isn't.
I know you are happy with this system but you're replying to people like me and Mreinman who are unimpressed by it. So telling us he fits the system isn't helping your argument. Reminding us he's always injured isn't helping either.I think the decision to bring back Bargs (or many players) comes down to what will be done with the cap space he will take up. If you are using it to bring back a guy like Jason Smith on a one year deal.....I probably stay with Bargs. If you are using it sign your draft pick or to bring in some young big with potential....I probably don't bring Bargs back for anything but the Vet Min. Either way, he should not be a priority...fill out the roster with the draft pick and a bigger fish and see how it plays out.
I don't know about that being the issue. You can fill up the cap room with trades too, since the salaries don't have to match if you're under the cap. I doubt we reach a situation when we just can't figure out what to do with the remaining space and so we pick up Bargs.Bonn, my bet is Knicks fans will be shocked on how hard it will be to spend the money. I think RFA is VERY difficulty because teams KNOW the cap is going up by as much as 33%. This makes almost ANY offer per the talent reasonable and probably favorable to match. Then teams dont necessarily want to just give away assets for nothing right? You would have to "overpay" substantially aggressively and it might not even make sense at first glance but thats what RFA is. Really our CORE is the draft pick--that's OUR team. I dont think its Melo Bargs my mother not anyone BUT the draft pick. Bargs to me is a piece that can help--almost like a car that we can put back together and sell for more. Right now Bargs is low value. But he has the ability and talent to be very decent reward if he is intent on saving his career and looking for another large contract. Bargs is a piece that we could use to compete--we cant compete with d leagueres and 2nd round picks. We need Carmelo some post players a good PG and a reliable SG to compete--to get us to a level of competing. That doesnt mean we are done rebuilding. So Bargs at 4mm becomes attractive if you look at it from a different angle. Im not basing my franchise on him--I want him to help me compete next year. I want him to stay within 14 feet and score 18-20 points grab 6-7 rebounds make a few good passes and play team DF. Guess what--he can do that. You know how many players can score 20 points in the NBA post for 4mm--NONE.
I understand your thinking and agree... but he strains a muscle and misses a month. He's made of glass
Then heave ho I invested 4mm and didnt get ROI on it--not much in the NBA. I can live with that. I would also look at beasley the last 20 games--to me if its good for Riley its good for the Knicks. I need CHEAP guys with 1 year contracts here who will play over their heads.
nixluva wrote:foosballnick wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:I'm just trying to use practical thinking when it comes to Bargs and the roster. Why should there be such a major consternation over one player being brought back on a prove it contract?Bargs isn't just playing well now for his contract. In fact he was trying to play last year and IMO wasn't being used as well as he could. In terms of Bargs shooting he was shooting well from 2pt range last year at 48.7% and so far this year he's at 48.6%, so he's consistently effective from inside the 3pt line. Last year he started taking fewer 3's and this year he's taking even fewer. The more healthy and in game shape he's getting he's getting to the line more and i'd like to see that increase. He's been very consistent from midrange and if he can stay in his sweet spot it should help every aspect of his game.
2pt FGA 2pt FG% FTA 3pt FGA
2009-10 10.2 .509 2.9 4.1
2010-11 14.4 .472 5.3 3.4
2011-12 11.9 .474 5.6 3.7
2012-13 8.7 .436 2.2 3.5
2013-14 9.4 .487 2.4 2.6
2014-15 9.3 .486 3.8 0.8I think he would be a very good fit next to KAT if we drafted him. KAT could be the shot blocking presence and Bargs could guard the opposing Center. If Bargs can stay healthy and play like this then I think Phil could sign Bargs to a low contract as BRIGGS suggested it would be a good cost saving move. Then Phil could use that money elsewhere to make the roster stronger.
If it's a prove it contract - non-guaranteed, vet min - I'm fine with it. If he plays well all year, I'd probably give him the vet min guaranteed
If it's 4 mil, that's another 7 or 8% of the cap, and I think it's a bad gamble. We're talking about a guy who's contributed a total of 2.2 win shares the past three seasons. An average 7th or 8th man would likely have triple that.Just remember that the last few years have been injury riddled seasons and he's always coming back off injury and trying to get his game back. When he was at his best he was active and taking a good number of shots per game and he was more productive. He's never going to be a perfect player but I think he can be a good part of the rotation on this team.
I think it's understandable to have doubts about him, which is why I think it should be a prove it contract. He's just one cog in the overall machine and we're obviously going to need a lot more than just one player to fix this roster. It can't be overlooked however, that his game fits this system and he can continue to refine his game to be even more productive and efficient if he stays in this system and stays locked into his most efficient style of play. Bargs next to a big like Towns and maybe a Robin Lopez works IMO.
Prove it contract is fine. 5 or 10% of the cap being used up on him isn't.
I know you are happy with this system but you're replying to people like me and Mreinman who are unimpressed by it. So telling us he fits the system isn't helping your argument. Reminding us he's always injured isn't helping either.I think the decision to bring back Bargs (or many players) comes down to what will be done with the cap space he will take up. If you are using it to bring back a guy like Jason Smith on a one year deal.....I probably stay with Bargs. If you are using it sign your draft pick or to bring in some young big with potential....I probably don't bring Bargs back for anything but the Vet Min. Either way, he should not be a priority...fill out the roster with the draft pick and a bigger fish and see how it plays out.
I think Phil is also trying to go into next year with some level of continuity. As many of these guys he can bring back who are worth bringing back he's going to do that since it will make things easier to have some players who are well versed in the system and can make the process of melding the new players in with some level of execution much easier. Phil can't know which Free Agents he'll be able to get to sign, but he has a bit more of a chance with guys who are already here to start with.
Obviously the Draft is the key to the off season process so we have to see which spot we'll be drafting from. That will advise everything else after that. We have to assume that with the limited amount of cap we have that you will need several lower priced players. If Bargs won't take what Phil offers then goodbye, but if he's willing to stay on a lower contract then I have no problem with him coming back.
As for the take on the Triangle being a negative I think we all need to take a step back and remember just what level of talent we have right now. It's going to look a lot better with better talent on the roster. Also the system can easily be tweaked where necessary. IMO the only issue we have is the players. The openings are being created but if you can't shoot or take advantage of the openings then it won't matter what system you run. The biggest improvement will come with adding better players to the roster and not so much a change of the system.
I don't care what system we run, but if this is going to be the system then we need to bring in better players and guys who can execute what needs to be done. It's not rocket science. It's just basketball. The guys we just brought in were able to figure it out fairly quickly.
Continuity is normally a good thing, but coming off a 10 win season, I really as little continuity as possible.
BRIGGS wrote:Beasly could constitute an investment. Bargs is a duct tape job. I understand your thinking, and for the most part I agree, its just that Bargs hasnt been very good AND he never plays. I could hope for one, but both? Thats a stretch. $4mm may not be much in the NBA but its still $4mm. I just think we could do better.fishmike wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Not on IR he cant. What happens when he misses the first 50 games again? He only missed 16 games like 4 years ago. Since then he's missed 51, 47 and 50 this year.Bonn1997 wrote:foosballnick wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:nixluva wrote:I'm just trying to use practical thinking when it comes to Bargs and the roster. Why should there be such a major consternation over one player being brought back on a prove it contract?Bargs isn't just playing well now for his contract. In fact he was trying to play last year and IMO wasn't being used as well as he could. In terms of Bargs shooting he was shooting well from 2pt range last year at 48.7% and so far this year he's at 48.6%, so he's consistently effective from inside the 3pt line. Last year he started taking fewer 3's and this year he's taking even fewer. The more healthy and in game shape he's getting he's getting to the line more and i'd like to see that increase. He's been very consistent from midrange and if he can stay in his sweet spot it should help every aspect of his game.
2pt FGA 2pt FG% FTA 3pt FGA
2009-10 10.2 .509 2.9 4.1
2010-11 14.4 .472 5.3 3.4
2011-12 11.9 .474 5.6 3.7
2012-13 8.7 .436 2.2 3.5
2013-14 9.4 .487 2.4 2.6
2014-15 9.3 .486 3.8 0.8I think he would be a very good fit next to KAT if we drafted him. KAT could be the shot blocking presence and Bargs could guard the opposing Center. If Bargs can stay healthy and play like this then I think Phil could sign Bargs to a low contract as BRIGGS suggested it would be a good cost saving move. Then Phil could use that money elsewhere to make the roster stronger.
If it's a prove it contract - non-guaranteed, vet min - I'm fine with it. If he plays well all year, I'd probably give him the vet min guaranteed
If it's 4 mil, that's another 7 or 8% of the cap, and I think it's a bad gamble. We're talking about a guy who's contributed a total of 2.2 win shares the past three seasons. An average 7th or 8th man would likely have triple that.Just remember that the last few years have been injury riddled seasons and he's always coming back off injury and trying to get his game back. When he was at his best he was active and taking a good number of shots per game and he was more productive. He's never going to be a perfect player but I think he can be a good part of the rotation on this team.
I think it's understandable to have doubts about him, which is why I think it should be a prove it contract. He's just one cog in the overall machine and we're obviously going to need a lot more than just one player to fix this roster. It can't be overlooked however, that his game fits this system and he can continue to refine his game to be even more productive and efficient if he stays in this system and stays locked into his most efficient style of play. Bargs next to a big like Towns and maybe a Robin Lopez works IMO.
Prove it contract is fine. 5 or 10% of the cap being used up on him isn't.
I know you are happy with this system but you're replying to people like me and Mreinman who are unimpressed by it. So telling us he fits the system isn't helping your argument. Reminding us he's always injured isn't helping either.I think the decision to bring back Bargs (or many players) comes down to what will be done with the cap space he will take up. If you are using it to bring back a guy like Jason Smith on a one year deal.....I probably stay with Bargs. If you are using it sign your draft pick or to bring in some young big with potential....I probably don't bring Bargs back for anything but the Vet Min. Either way, he should not be a priority...fill out the roster with the draft pick and a bigger fish and see how it plays out.
I don't know about that being the issue. You can fill up the cap room with trades too, since the salaries don't have to match if you're under the cap. I doubt we reach a situation when we just can't figure out what to do with the remaining space and so we pick up Bargs.Bonn, my bet is Knicks fans will be shocked on how hard it will be to spend the money. I think RFA is VERY difficulty because teams KNOW the cap is going up by as much as 33%. This makes almost ANY offer per the talent reasonable and probably favorable to match. Then teams dont necessarily want to just give away assets for nothing right? You would have to "overpay" substantially aggressively and it might not even make sense at first glance but thats what RFA is. Really our CORE is the draft pick--that's OUR team. I dont think its Melo Bargs my mother not anyone BUT the draft pick. Bargs to me is a piece that can help--almost like a car that we can put back together and sell for more. Right now Bargs is low value. But he has the ability and talent to be very decent reward if he is intent on saving his career and looking for another large contract. Bargs is a piece that we could use to compete--we cant compete with d leagueres and 2nd round picks. We need Carmelo some post players a good PG and a reliable SG to compete--to get us to a level of competing. That doesnt mean we are done rebuilding. So Bargs at 4mm becomes attractive if you look at it from a different angle. Im not basing my franchise on him--I want him to help me compete next year. I want him to stay within 14 feet and score 18-20 points grab 6-7 rebounds make a few good passes and play team DF. Guess what--he can do that. You know how many players can score 20 points in the NBA post for 4mm--NONE.
I understand your thinking and agree... but he strains a muscle and misses a month. He's made of glass
Then heave ho I invested 4mm and didnt get ROI on it--not much in the NBA. I can live with that. I would also look at beasley the last 20 games--to me if its good for Riley its good for the Knicks. I need CHEAP guys with 1 year contracts here who will play over their heads.