RealGM

cuyankees wrote:

Kampuchea wrote:

cuyankees wrote:Adding 75% more OpEx in long term commitments to a biz is a huge decision, a seller would never do that if it's actively shopping.

I understand the idea of not engaging in long-term commitments in a business which you are attempting to sell, however, in this case, those are acquiring assets which directly and immediately will improve the value of the franchise.

In fact, it may be something discussed actively between a buyer and seller during negotiation.

It becomes more an issue for the debatable type of contracts. For example, we would not likely be maxing out Kemba or throwing money at Hardaway in the midst of a sale. Durant is not that situation, it is a no-brainer asset to the team.

Your "sky is falling" proclamation holds little basis in reality, and I believe you simply made that post to create a reaction on the forum.

Wait, so NYK have had 20 years of terrible management, few stars but most valuable tem by a long shot. What does that tell you about the correlation btwn valuation and stars?

KD & KI are $350 mn 5 year commitment, you really think that NYK would add nearly 10% in value (4bn) just from those 2? That's to pretty much break even.

If 2 decades are proof that stars don't matter in NYK valuation, really don't what else will?

cuyankees wrote:

Kampuchea wrote:

cuyankees wrote:Adding 75% more OpEx in long term commitments to a biz is a huge decision, a seller would never do that if it's actively shopping.

I understand the idea of not engaging in long-term commitments in a business which you are attempting to sell, however, in this case, those are acquiring assets which directly and immediately will improve the value of the franchise.

In fact, it may be something discussed actively between a buyer and seller during negotiation.

It becomes more an issue for the debatable type of contracts. For example, we would not likely be maxing out Kemba or throwing money at Hardaway in the midst of a sale. Durant is not that situation, it is a no-brainer asset to the team.

Your "sky is falling" proclamation holds little basis in reality, and I believe you simply made that post to create a reaction on the forum.

Wait, so NYK have had 20 years of terrible management, few stars but most valuable tem by a long shot. What does that tell you about the correlation btwn valuation and stars?

KD & KI are $350 mn 5 year commitment, you really think that NYK would add nearly 10% in value (4bn) just from those 2? That's to pretty much break even.

If 2 decades are proof that stars don't matter in NYK valuation, really don't what else will?

Zenzibar wrote:It's amazing the love Dolan is getting in here today.

Only Knicks fans can trash their team's owner, all others GTFO!

Deeeez Knicks wrote:

cuyankees wrote:

Kampuchea wrote:
I understand the idea of not engaging in long-term commitments in a business which you are attempting to sell, however, in this case, those are acquiring assets which directly and immediately will improve the value of the franchise.

In fact, it may be something discussed actively between a buyer and seller during negotiation.

It becomes more an issue for the debatable type of contracts. For example, we would not likely be maxing out Kemba or throwing money at Hardaway in the midst of a sale. Durant is not that situation, it is a no-brainer asset to the team.

Your "sky is falling" proclamation holds little basis in reality, and I believe you simply made that post to create a reaction on the forum.

Wait, so NYK have had 20 years of terrible management, few stars but most valuable tem by a long shot. What does that tell you about the correlation btwn valuation and stars?

KD & KI are $350 mn 5 year commitment, you really think that NYK would add nearly 10% in value (4bn) just from those 2? That's to pretty much break even.

If 2 decades are proof that stars don't matter in NYK valuation, really don't what else will?

It tells me the Knicks can be valuable no matter what. Knicks have typically spent a lot of money so that is not an issue. The argument doesn't make sense because there is a salary cap and a min you can spend. Even if the Knicks dont invest in Kyrie and Durant, they will have to spend on someone. That $350mil is not extra money, but much of it will need to be spent regardless. It is far more valuable to spend on Durant and Kyrie, then the likes of Timmy/Lee/Noah. We have had a bunch of years being the #1 spending team, with a losing record, while still being wildly profitable

Capn'O wrote:

cuyankees wrote:

Capn'O wrote:
That's what I'm talkin' about! Keep talkin'.

Talk about getting the rug pulled out.

Imagine a grand plan to clear books, drum up KD interest, etc and Dolan did it all to prep for a sale. And KP actually never wanted out, but was dealt for a sale...

Ahhhhhhh

Stay woke...

A Knicks sale is my best possible outcome. I'll take "owner X" over Dolan easily. The "what if s/he doesn't spend" bogeyman has never scared me. Our problem has always been that we spend poorly which, in a capped league, is the worst sin.


Plus, these players all want 1+1s these days anyway.

Tron Carter wrote:

cuyankees wrote:If Dolan is seriously selling, then that's a huge problem for upcoming FA and you can kiss any max cats goodbye

actually it’s all part of the plan

Read on Twitter

thebuzzardman wrote:

Tron Carter wrote:

cuyankees wrote:If Dolan is seriously selling, then that's a huge problem for upcoming FA and you can kiss any max cats goodbye

actually it’s all part of the plan

Read on Twitter

This

Durant going for ownership with Rich

NoLayupRule wrote:

thebuzzardman wrote:

Tron Carter wrote:
actually it’s all part of the plan

Read on Twitter

This

Durant going for ownership with Rich

Can you imagine a player/owner?

He would be so pissed at the money he’s paying scrub players. He would be a nightmare in the locker room

thebuzzardman wrote:It's interesting that Bill's take is that "joke franchises" can't turn around.

SmoothLefty21 wrote:

thebuzzardman wrote:It's interesting that Bill's take is that "joke franchises" can't turn around.

The real beauty of it is that he's a Boston guy and the Red Sox and Patriots were jokes for a long, long time before turning it around. It happened twice right under his nose and he still acts like franchises can't turn around.

Jay10 wrote:

Deeeez Knicks wrote:Bill is just mad that AD, Kyrie and/or Durant are considering the Knicks.

Bill has attacked all of those players over the past free weeks whenever their names have been linked to the Knicks in reports.

Bill even got the point on his podcast/twitter where he said Kyrie should get out, and that he no longer wanted to see Kyrie on his Celtics.

The Celtics enter every season praying for players on other teams not getting along with their coach/front office, because that's the only way the Celtics are able to get them.

When was the last time a top player signed with the Celtics as a free agent, instead of asking their former team to be traded?

Bill is afraid of the Knicks becoming a free agency destination, whereas the team he roots far having to lay in the weeds during the season until a disgruntled player asks to be traded.

thebuzzardman wrote:

SmoothLefty21 wrote:

thebuzzardman wrote:It's interesting that Bill's take is that "joke franchises" can't turn around.

The real beauty of it is that he's a Boston guy and the Red Sox and Patriots were jokes for a long, long time before turning it around. It happened twice right under his nose and he still acts like franchises can't turn around.

Particularly the Patriots.

Stannis wrote:It will be good for him. He needs to focus on his dream which is his band:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Deeeez Knicks wrote:

Zenzibar wrote:It's amazing the love Dolan is getting in here today.

Only Knicks fans can trash their team's owner, all others GTFO!

There is a time and a place to trash Dolan, and now is not the time when we are trying to lure free agents.

It's the same reason Bill Simmons is picking now to spark rumors and trash the Knicks...He is feeling threatened

GEOLINK wrote:Knicks have a contract to play at MSG if a new owner would come right?