3toheadmelo wrote:Capn'O wrote:3toheadmelo wrote:They both were trash deals. Me and sham kept telling y’all about Kembas knees being done but y’all didn’t wanna hear it
I'd rather take two years of Kemba not being able to play and a higher pick vs. 4 years of Schroeder at a higher number. The low cap hit that Schroeder ended up taking... I'd take that deal over Kemba. But for what he was asking for in the summer? Absolutely not. Similarly, the deal the Bulls got DeRozan for vs. the max was an excellent signing. Sometimes a player is good at one number and bad at another.
We didn’t have to give Schroder a 4 year deal though. We most likely could’ve gotten him for 2-3 years. He would’ve settled for it cause it’s the best offer he would’ve got.
I do agree sometimes a player is good at one number and bad at another. Schroder with a 4 year deal likely wouldn’t haven’t panned out as good as you would want it to be
I could've been talked into beating the Celtics offer or doing something like the Kemba deal with DS. Anything bigger... I'd balk at that. The real question is why the Knicks don't commit long term to the position. Garland... Ball... Haliburton... anyone. It's so confusing.