sinjz wrote:I read the first forty pages or so, then skipped through a bunch of pages, so I apologize if this has already been discussed in length.
Does keeping Lin negatively affect our ability to sign players or make trades in the next three years? I'm currently of the belief that it does NOT. I think we are are pretty much set as a team for the next three years REGARDLESS of whether we match Lin or not; We are capped out regardless. If that's the case, I don't see why there is any debate over this, we would need to match Lin.
Does this push us from MLE to a MMLE? If not, then it looks like the only difference on the basketball court would be Lin or some guy off the street. If that's the choice how do you not choose Lin? At worse, if he sucks we trade him for a 2nd rounder or something. At best he helps us go for a championship. If he's something in between, he's a trade chip.
Off court stuff - if you complain about the luxury tax, you can't ignore the fact he'll bring extra attention and cash to the club; probably MUCH more than what the luxury tax would cost.
So basically can somebody explain to me basketball management wise, why we aren't bringing him back.
See, you're thinking too logically. This is the Knicks, you can't deduce any action through rational and cogent thought.
My best guess:
The only reason I can think of is CAA (Lin kills Melo's marketability); Or to spite the Rockets; Or Woody/Grunwald don't think he's starter material, and don't want to deal with the headache and media pressure to play him. They may legitamately see Felton as a better option than Lin. It seems absurd but Woodson has demonstrated nothing but complete and utter incompetence as an NBA coach (iso-joe/melo abominations), and Grunwald as a GM, and the Knicks as an organization. It's probably a combination of all of the above, though.