Barcs wrote:arasu wrote:My points are rationally irrefutable buddy.
Wrong.
And I in no way said they would win a title next year.
arasu wrote:KP and Zion could have led the Knicks to the promised land. Now we will never know.
Just stop, bro.
You proved in your own quoting of my quote that I never wrote anything about winning a title next year. Stop trying to misrepresent me. You are wrong. I proved it, and now you are proving yourself wrong as well. Sad.
Barcs wrote:He very likely would have signed a max deal with another team, and the Knicks probably would have matched it.
Not if he already said he doesn't want to be there. They would have let him walk, and got NOTHING out of it. Teams aren't that stupid. The guy demanded a trade, and the Knicks gave it to him. There really wasn't an option. It's like saying the Cavs shouldn't have traded Kyrie when he requested it. You either acquiesce or the player walks or stays unhappy. You aren't going to get the best out of a player that doesn't want to be there. ...
In 2007, Bryant told Stephen A. Smith on the radio “I would like to be traded, yeah.”
Plenty of players have said they didn't want to be in a place, and then changed their mind later. There are plenty examples of players who asked for a trade or made it clear that they were looking to leave via free agency or otherwise, but then stayed and won many games with that team. More importantly, the Knicks held all the power over where KP would go. Kyrie was not a restricted FA. KP will be. KP is not in a position like AD is in (or like Kyrie was), where he could collect big checks on his way out the door, and then walk without the team gaining compensation. That is the difference. Address the restricted free agency issue buddy. Stop avoiding the argument at hand.
The QO is a pitiful level of compensation. How many players take that and refuse to take max offers? Answer: none. This isn't a situation like a delusional Nerlens Noel with no All-Star history or stats to back up a max contract turning down a solid $70 million offer in a tight market. The 2019 cap is going up, and big contracts are likely to be handed out like candy. The default for the NBA has been bad max contracts given to not-quite-deserving players, so why would you think anything otherwise would occur? KP's injury history plays into his compromised situation, making it much less likely that he would turn down max offers, or even near max offers. His value and injury history is a bit shaky, which adds urgency for him to sign sooner than later. But that shaky value doesn't preclude teams from signing him to a "bad" contract, especially in light of the extra cap space teams will have this summer. He was, and still is, in no position to be turning down a max contract with any team willing to give it, and teams will be willing. The Mavs will match any offer. And the Knicks would likely have done the same.
KP was not getting a max deal coming off a major injury, regardless.
Several teams have max cap space available this summer. Teams often sign injured players to max deals. I'm not saying it always works out well, but the offers come, and the Knicks would have been under huge pressure to match, or lose him for nothing. It's likely that they would have matched under those circumstances. Their long history of signing players lends more weight to that possibility. Maybe they wouldn't have done so, but pretending that it was some kind of certainty is just you pretending with no past evidence to back it up.
You haven't addressed any of my arguments. Either you don't understand the difference, or you refuse to address that aspect of my argument to deflect from the fact that you are wrong. I can accept the idea that you think KP will never deserve a max contract. That is called making a prediction. There is no shame in taking that position. There is no "absurdity" in taking either side of a KP prediction or the trade/no trade positions, since there is evidence for both. There is absurdity in calling one side "absurd", which was your mistake.
