MeloDrama Part V

[moocow007]

This is the same scenario as with the Bargnani trade, trying to diminish the importance of everything to rationalize a bad move and it always turns out to be false.

"Those draft picks are meaningless, they had to be included to get rid of Novak"

"The no-trade clause is not important, players hate us because of this"

It is a completely distorted line of thinking and it always comes back to haunt us. There is a reason why only 4 players had a no-trade clause last season, Kobe, Duncan, Garnett and Nowitzki. They've proven themselves loyal to their teams, they've all won MVP's with them, they've all made them perennial playoff teams and they've all gotten at least to the conference finals with them. Carmelo doesn't meet a single criteria.

Bargnani doesn't have a no trade clause so why can't the Knicks trade him? Same with Amare Stoudemire? Exactly...because they are both broken with big contracts. It doesn't need a no trade clause. If Carmelo Anthony breaks, NO ONE is going to trade for him either regardless of whether he has a no-trade clause or not.

And if you are comparing Anthony to Bargnani please see my distorted thinking comment. The Knicks are not trade a thing for Bargnani and Anthony (even for the most fervent haters...see TKF level) is far better than Bargnani.

Why does it have to only apply in case he breaks down? What if Phil sees the team is going nowhere which is what will happen with a maxed out Melo and wants to trade him? What if that was his plan from the moment he backtracked and let it out that he's willing to give him a max contract?

I am comparing scenarios in which the Knicks concede more than it is good for them and fans convincing themselves it's okay because they want it to be okay.

Which goes back to my original comment. Let him go and instead we can make great trades with the super assets we have. Anthony's value to the Knicks is greater than letting him go cause you don't want to give him a no trade clause. It's not even close.

[blumatic]

This is the same scenario as with the Bargnani trade, trying to diminish the importance of everything to rationalize a bad move and it always turns out to be false.

"Those draft picks are meaningless, they had to be included to get rid of Novak"

"The no-trade clause is not important, players hate us because of this"

It is a completely distorted line of thinking and it always comes back to haunt us. There is a reason why only 4 players had a no-trade clause last season, Kobe, Duncan, Garnett and Nowitzki. They've proven themselves loyal to their teams, they've all won MVP's with them, they've all made them perennial playoff teams and they've all gotten at least to the conference finals with them. Carmelo doesn't meet a single criteria.

You're speaking from a team standpoint. As an individual, and as a player with Carmelo's talents, he has they right to those things as those players.

Those awards you speak of, are really team awards, even the MVP, Carmelo has never had a roster as good as any of those guys that have won championships.

[delvec19]

The Knicks "remain confident" in their chances of re-signing unrestricted free agent Carmelo Anthony.
The Lakers have moved into "serious contention" and Melo reportedly was at a pickup game at UCLA with Kobe Bryant, but that report is unconfirmed. Anthony has not informed teams who is ruled out of the running, so the Rockets, Lakers, Bulls, Mavericks and Knicks still have a chance. He is expected to make a decision in the next few days.

[BallSacBounce]

And the big deal is again? What team is the Knicks going to trade him to if he breaks down (that's everyone's concern right) with that contract? And haven't we learned that no team wants a disgruntled malcontent on their hands (especially at $23-26 million)? All Anthony would have to do is to say he's not going to be happy with a team they may try to move him to for a trade to be caboshed.

The big deal is it hinders our flexibility. He could also ask for extra money to waive it which hinders us further.

If you don't see affecting our flexibility as a big deal then wonderful but whatever.

He can't ask for more money. That would be going around the cap ("hey Carmelo, ask for the no trade clause, we'll give it to you, then we'll ask you to waive it and you tell us to give you $20 million to waive it and we'll do it!!!"). Dear lord the imagination is going wild isn't it. Every dollar Anthony takes hinders his flexibility. So are we back to he should take $10 million and shut up about it already?

Oh c'mon, yeah maybe he gets the max but maybe he takes a little less it's not a given. Talk about imagination.

Anyway I just want what's best for the team, I don't see how arguing for the Knicks benefit is bad and I don't see how Melo getting every conceivable benefit helps the Knicks position which is the only thing I give a damn about.

[delvec19]

Brian Windhorst ‏@WindhorstESPN now
For 4 years, Dan Gilbert's letter after LeBron's decision has been on team website. It appears it was removed today

[moocow007]

Let me just be clear...

OBVIOUSLY there's no reason to offer it and you try to not include it. But if it comes down to it (for whatever macho reason on Anthony's side) give the **** thing to him. That's the relatively minor thing I'm talking about.

[KNIXFAN_83]

This is the same scenario as with the Bargnani trade, trying to diminish the importance of everything to rationalize a bad move and it always turns out to be false.

"Those draft picks are meaningless, they had to be included to get rid of Novak"

"The no-trade clause is not important, players hate us because of this"

It is a completely distorted line of thinking and it always comes back to haunt us. There is a reason why only 4 players had a no-trade clause last season, Kobe, Duncan, Garnett and Nowitzki. They've proven themselves loyal to their teams, they've all won MVP's with them, they've all made them perennial playoff teams and they've all gotten at least to the conference finals with them. Carmelo doesn't meet a single criteria.

Whether you agree or not these are valid points. Well said.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[mpharris36]

This is the same scenario as with the Bargnani trade, trying to diminish the importance of everything to rationalize a bad move and it always turns out to be false.

"Those draft picks are meaningless, they had to be included to get rid of Novak"

"The no-trade clause is not important, players hate us because of this"

It is a completely distorted line of thinking and it always comes back to haunt us. There is a reason why only 4 players had a no-trade clause last season, Kobe, Duncan, Garnett and Nowitzki. They've proven themselves loyal to their teams, they've all won MVP's with them, they've all made them perennial playoff teams and they've all gotten at least to the conference finals with them. Carmelo doesn't meet a single criteria.

just playing devil's advocate here. Wouldn't passing up on current better winning situations like Houston and Chicago being showing loyalty to the knicks?

[moocow007]

The big deal is it hinders our flexibility. He could also ask for extra money to waive it which hinders us further.

If you don't see affecting our flexibility as a big deal then wonderful but whatever.

He can't ask for more money. That would be going around the cap ("hey Carmelo, ask for the no trade clause, we'll give it to you, then we'll ask you to waive it and you tell us to give you $20 million to waive it and we'll do it!!!"). Dear lord the imagination is going wild isn't it. Every dollar Anthony takes hinders his flexibility. So are we back to he should take $10 million and shut up about it already?

Oh c'mon, yeah maybe he gets the max but maybe he takes a little less it's not a given. Talk about imagination.

Anyway I just want what's best for the team, I don't see how arguing for the Knicks benefit is bad and I don't see how Melo getting every conceivable benefit helps the Knicks position which is the only thing I give a damn about.

What's best for the team is: a) having Carmelo Anthony or b) not having him cause you got a stick up your but about a no trade clause. What do you think is best if the money doesn't matter? Think about it. Cool down, let the testosterone level a bit, and think about it.

[Rasho Brezec]

Bargnani doesn't have a no trade clause so why can't the Knicks trade him? Same with Amare Stoudemire? Exactly...because they are both broken with big contracts. It doesn't need a no trade clause. If Carmelo Anthony breaks, NO ONE is going to trade for him either regardless of whether he has a no-trade clause or not.

And if you are comparing Anthony to Bargnani please see my distorted thinking comment. The Knicks are not trade a thing for Bargnani and Anthony (even for the most fervent haters...see TKF level) is far better than Bargnani.

Why does it have to only apply in case he breaks down? What if Phil sees the team is going nowhere which is what will happen with a maxed out Melo and wants to trade him? What if that was his plan from the moment he backtracked and let it out that he's willing to give him a max contract?

I am comparing scenarios in which the Knicks concede more than it is good for them and fans convincing themselves it's okay because they want it to be okay.

Which goes back to my original comment. Let him go and instead we can make great trades with the super assets we have. Anthony's value to the Knicks is greater than letting him go cause you don't want to give him a no trade clause. It's not even close.

Just like the value of unloading Novak's contract and the "potential" of Bargnani was greater than the draft picks we gave up to get him. You're simply wrong. Each value has its limit and Carmelo's demands are exceeding it.

[moocow007]

This is the same scenario as with the Bargnani trade, trying to diminish the importance of everything to rationalize a bad move and it always turns out to be false.

"Those draft picks are meaningless, they had to be included to get rid of Novak"

"The no-trade clause is not important, players hate us because of this"

It is a completely distorted line of thinking and it always comes back to haunt us. There is a reason why only 4 players had a no-trade clause last season, Kobe, Duncan, Garnett and Nowitzki. They've proven themselves loyal to their teams, they've all won MVP's with them, they've all made them perennial playoff teams and they've all gotten at least to the conference finals with them. Carmelo doesn't meet a single criteria.

just playing devil's advocate here. Wouldn't passing up on current better winning situations like Houston and Chicago being showing loyalty to the knicks?

No because it's clearly about the money with Anthony. Come on...you've been on the tour enough.

[Rasho Brezec]

This is the same scenario as with the Bargnani trade, trying to diminish the importance of everything to rationalize a bad move and it always turns out to be false.

"Those draft picks are meaningless, they had to be included to get rid of Novak"

"The no-trade clause is not important, players hate us because of this"

It is a completely distorted line of thinking and it always comes back to haunt us. There is a reason why only 4 players had a no-trade clause last season, Kobe, Duncan, Garnett and Nowitzki. They've proven themselves loyal to their teams, they've all won MVP's with them, they've all made them perennial playoff teams and they've all gotten at least to the conference finals with them. Carmelo doesn't meet a single criteria.

just playing devil's advocate here. Wouldn't passing up on current better winning situations like Houston and Chicago being showing loyalty to the knicks?

Under a max contract with a no-trade clause, definitely not.

[moocow007]

Why does it have to only apply in case he breaks down? What if Phil sees the team is going nowhere which is what will happen with a maxed out Melo and wants to trade him? What if that was his plan from the moment he backtracked and let it out that he's willing to give him a max contract?

I am comparing scenarios in which the Knicks concede more than it is good for them and fans convincing themselves it's okay because they want it to be okay.

Which goes back to my original comment. Let him go and instead we can make great trades with the super assets we have. Anthony's value to the Knicks is greater than letting him go cause you don't want to give him a no trade clause. It's not even close.

Just like the value of unloading Novak's contract and the "potential" of Bargnani was greater than the draft picks we gave up to get him. You're simply wrong. Each value has its limit and Carmelo's demands are exceeding it.

Again if you want to compare Novak to Carmelo Anthony in that context by all means. Carmelo Anthony's demands? Honestly are you part of his inner circle? You know his demands when no one else does and buys every little thing bad said about the guy the minute is said or posted. Why's that?

[H20FAN]

Madd funny if lebron goes home to cavs and miami replaces bron with melo lol. They would be so terrible lol

[Workforce250]

This is the same scenario as with the Bargnani trade, trying to diminish the importance of everything to rationalize a bad move and it always turns out to be false.

"Those draft picks are meaningless, they had to be included to get rid of Novak"

"The no-trade clause is not important, players hate us because of this"

It is a completely distorted line of thinking and it always comes back to haunt us. There is a reason why only 4 players had a no-trade clause last season, Kobe, Duncan, Garnett and Nowitzki. They've proven themselves loyal to their teams, they've all won MVP's with them, they've all made them perennial playoff teams and they've all gotten at least to the conference finals with them. Carmelo doesn't meet a single criteria.

Well well. Now there's 1 other story to bash Melo on. Why does this dreary response not surprise me?
I'm 100% certain Patrick Ewing wished he had a no-trade clause in his last contract with the KNicks.

[Tron Carter]

[BallSacBounce]

He can't ask for more money. That would be going around the cap ("hey Carmelo, ask for the no trade clause, we'll give it to you, then we'll ask you to waive it and you tell us to give you $20 million to waive it and we'll do it!!!"). Dear lord the imagination is going wild isn't it. Every dollar Anthony takes hinders his flexibility. So are we back to he should take $10 million and shut up about it already?

Oh c'mon, yeah maybe he gets the max but maybe he takes a little less it's not a given. Talk about imagination.

Anyway I just want what's best for the team, I don't see how arguing for the Knicks benefit is bad and I don't see how Melo getting every conceivable benefit helps the Knicks position which is the only thing I give a damn about.

What's best for the team is: a) having Carmelo Anthony or b) not having him cause you got a stick up your but about a no trade clause. What do you think is best if the money doesn't matter? Think about it. Cool down, let the testosterone level a bit, and think about it.

First answer the question at what price. That dictates everything else. Because the money always matters.

Really you're asking the wrong guy because to me this looks everything like a typical Yankee signing where they hire the veteran at max dollars and everything looks great for a few years until they break down. I think years four and five will be hideous for us.

[mpharris36]

This is the same scenario as with the Bargnani trade, trying to diminish the importance of everything to rationalize a bad move and it always turns out to be false.

"Those draft picks are meaningless, they had to be included to get rid of Novak"

"The no-trade clause is not important, players hate us because of this"

It is a completely distorted line of thinking and it always comes back to haunt us. There is a reason why only 4 players had a no-trade clause last season, Kobe, Duncan, Garnett and Nowitzki. They've proven themselves loyal to their teams, they've all won MVP's with them, they've all made them perennial playoff teams and they've all gotten at least to the conference finals with them. Carmelo doesn't meet a single criteria.

just playing devil's advocate here. Wouldn't passing up on current better winning situations like Houston and Chicago being showing loyalty to the knicks?

Under a max contract with a no-trade clause, definitely not.

you have no clue if either are correct at this point though. Melo can ask for it but phil might use that as a bargaining chip to bring his yearly salary down.

"melo, we have no problem giving you the security of not trading you, but you will have to take less for us to be sure we can put the strongest team by your side"

[KnicksManiac]

Almost time for MeloDrama Part VI.

Hopefully that'll be the last.

[Rasho Brezec]

Which goes back to my original comment. Let him go and instead we can make great trades with the super assets we have. Anthony's value to the Knicks is greater than letting him go cause you don't want to give him a no trade clause. It's not even close.

Just like the value of unloading Novak's contract and the "potential" of Bargnani was greater than the draft picks we gave up to get him. You're simply wrong. Each value has its limit and Carmelo's demands are exceeding it.

Again if you want to compare Novak to Carmelo Anthony in that context by all means. Carmelo Anthony's demands? Honestly are you part of his inner circle? You know his demands when no one else does and buys every little thing bad said about the guy the minute is said or posted. Why's that?

I am discussing what is being reported just like everyone else.