Clippers/Knicks
Moderators: UOducksTK1, Zyme, lukeyrid13, Oregon Ownage
- dd10snoop28
- Senior
- Posts: 4817
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:06 am
- GM: New Jersey Nets GM
- Location: Portland, Oregon
Re: Clippers/Knicks
could zyme be making an appearance in the next nefarious rankings....?
stay tuned
stay tuned
- lukeyrid13
- All-American
- Posts: 10484
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:58 am
- GM: Portland TrailBlazers
Re: Clippers/Knicks
dd10snoop28 wrote:could zyme be making an appearance in the next nefarious rankings....?
stay tuned
- Oregon Ownage
- All-American
- Posts: 15300
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:40 am
- GM: Dallas Mavericks
- Location: Hampton Roads, Virginia
Re: Clippers/Knicks
Knicks and Clippers agreed to a deal that was not legal
Knicks asked if a rearrangement would work and Clippers agreed to that deal but Knicks never agreed to the reworked deal, only asked if it could work
Shitty situation but Knicks never agreed to reworked deal
Knicks asked if a rearrangement would work and Clippers agreed to that deal but Knicks never agreed to the reworked deal, only asked if it could work
Shitty situation but Knicks never agreed to reworked deal
- Craig
- Senior
- Posts: 2418
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:16 pm
- GM: Phoenix Suns GM
Re: Clippers/Knicks
Half kidding/half serious...should we just not be able to comment on trades? Or at least not til after they're actually processed?
SUNS GM
- offtheheezy
- Senior
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:09 pm
- GM: Vancouver Grizzlies
Re: Clippers/Knicks
Not to stir the pot but just for consistency moving forward, what's the difference between this deal and say like this previous deal? https://ducksattack.com/forum/viewtopic ... 27&t=39135
Is it Eisley's status as a "dealbreaker"? Or would Heat previously have been able to renege on Horry deal because of that minimum contract if he were actually serious about it in the thread
Is it Eisley's status as a "dealbreaker"? Or would Heat previously have been able to renege on Horry deal because of that minimum contract if he were actually serious about it in the thread
- Oregon Ownage
- All-American
- Posts: 15300
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:40 am
- GM: Dallas Mavericks
- Location: Hampton Roads, Virginia
Re: Clippers/Knicks
In the deal you provided, salaries were off and adding a min contract provided no value other than matching salariesofftheheezy wrote:Not to stir the pot but just for consistency moving forward, what's the difference between this deal and say like this previous deal? https://ducksattack.com/forum/viewtopic ... 27&t=39135
Is it Eisley's status as a "dealbreaker"? Or would Heat previously have been able to renege on Horry deal because of that minimum contract if he were actually serious about it in the thread
The Knicks/Clippers deal had a player being removed from the previous agreement which altered the deal itself. If Knicks were in the position of needing to add a min player to make salaries work, the deal should be honored IMO
Small details but important I think
- pistolpetejr
- Senior
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:48 pm
- GM: Los Angeles Clippers
Re: Clippers/Knicks
To me, this sounds like you are interpreting that the Knicks’ proposed rearrangement was purely inquisitive with absolutely no connotation toward it being a solution. Is that accurate?Oregon Ownage wrote:Knicks and Clippers agreed to a deal that was not legal
Knicks asked if a rearrangement would work and Clippers agreed to that deal but Knicks never agreed to the reworked deal, only asked if it could work
Shitty situation but Knicks never agreed to reworked deal
Because if so, I don’t agree. I most definitely see the proposed rearrangement as both minor as well as an attempt to make it work rather than the Knicks “never [agreeing] to reworked deal”.
Having said that, the solution then should not be “nix the whole trade” given the main premise in the trade remains intact; rather, I think it should be to rework the minor detail.
I just think this sets a precedent.
---
PistolPeteJR
PistolPeteJR
- dd10snoop28
- Senior
- Posts: 4817
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:06 am
- GM: New Jersey Nets GM
- Location: Portland, Oregon
Re: Clippers/Knicks
Precisely.pistolpetejr wrote:To me, this sounds like you are interpreting that the Knicks’ proposed rearrangement was purely inquisitive with absolutely no connotation toward it being a solution. Is that accurate?Oregon Ownage wrote:Knicks and Clippers agreed to a deal that was not legal
Knicks asked if a rearrangement would work and Clippers agreed to that deal but Knicks never agreed to the reworked deal, only asked if it could work
Shitty situation but Knicks never agreed to reworked deal
Because if so, I don’t agree. I most definitely see the proposed rearrangement as both minor as well as an attempt to make it work rather than the Knicks “never [agreeing] to reworked deal”.
Having said that, the solution then should not be “nix the whole trade” given the main premise in the trade remains intact; rather, I think it should be to rework the minor detail.
I just think this sets a precedent.
- Oregon Ownage
- All-American
- Posts: 15300
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:40 am
- GM: Dallas Mavericks
- Location: Hampton Roads, Virginia
Re: Clippers/Knicks
The original deal is not legal so I nixes that trade for obvious reasonspistolpetejr wrote:To me, this sounds like you are interpreting that the Knicks’ proposed rearrangement was purely inquisitive with absolutely no connotation toward it being a solution. Is that accurate?Oregon Ownage wrote:Knicks and Clippers agreed to a deal that was not legal
Knicks asked if a rearrangement would work and Clippers agreed to that deal but Knicks never agreed to the reworked deal, only asked if it could work
Shitty situation but Knicks never agreed to reworked deal
Because if so, I don’t agree. I most definitely see the proposed rearrangement as both minor as well as an attempt to make it work rather than the Knicks “never [agreeing] to reworked deal”.
Having said that, the solution then should not be “nix the whole trade” given the main premise in the trade remains intact; rather, I think it should be to rework the minor detail.
I just think this sets a precedent.
There was no agreement on a reworked trade, Knicks asked if removing a player work make salaries work, that is not an agreement. If by asking if a trade works is an agreement, that sets a bad precedent
- UOducksTK1
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37690
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
- GM: Boston Celtics GM
- Location: Portland, Oregon
Re: Clippers/Knicks
This one is definitely more gray area than most. Tough situation.
At the same time though, ultimately hard for two seasoned GMs not to know one team would go over the hard cap. So less sympathy for that point alone.
At the same time though, ultimately hard for two seasoned GMs not to know one team would go over the hard cap. So less sympathy for that point alone.
Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13