Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

pistolpetejr wrote:I don’t want to create drama here, but that’s ridiculous I think honestly.

Anyway; just a game, it is what it is.

agreed. Once u accept, u accept.

it's not that bad of a deal fwiw. Well, kinda, but makes Knicks more competitive I suppose.

It’s a bad deal

But once you post / agree it is what it is IMO

Original deal put me over the hard cap, I do not agree to the changes required to make a cap ok deal. I know this is a technicality but I should have never pulled the trigger on a deal at the end of an exhausting 12 H nursing shift. I should have thought about it overnight at the least. Sorry about the hassle I have caused.

I also agree if you accept, in principle your should see through. The only exception being any changes that need to be made to the detail are big enough to say no to.

UOducksTK1 wrote:I also agree if you accept, in principle your should see through. The only exception being any changes that need to be made to the detail are big enough to say no to.

The change in not getting the point guard backup is enough for me to decline.

And that's fair IMO.

Zyme wrote:Original deal put me over the hard cap, I do not agree to the changes required to make a cap ok deal. I know this is a technicality but I should have never pulled the trigger on a deal at the end of an exhausting 12 H nursing shift. I should have thought about it overnight at the least. Sorry about the hassle I have caused.

The change is minimal and, additionally, if I'm understanding correctly,you even suggested the taking another person in the deal to make the cap work.

IMO, as long as the tweaks to make the deal work are trivial, then I don't see why the original commitment shouldn't be adhered... leads to a really bad precedent.

I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate if shoe was on the other foot.

Anyways, that's my final input on the issue. Will let the parties resolve.

dd10snoop28 wrote:

Zyme wrote:Original deal put me over the hard cap, I do not agree to the changes required to make a cap ok deal. I know this is a technicality but I should have never pulled the trigger on a deal at the end of an exhausting 12 H nursing shift. I should have thought about it overnight at the least. Sorry about the hassle I have caused.

The change is minimal and, additionally, if I'm understanding correctly,you even suggested the taking another person in the deal to make the cap work.

IMO, as long as the tweaks to make the deal work are trivial, then I don't see why the original commitment shouldn't be adhered... leads to a really bad precedent.

I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate if shoe was on the other foot.

Anyways, that's my final input on the issue. Will let the parties resolve.

Eisley is good enough to start on some bad teams. Is that small enough? I feel that's debatable, and the fact it's debatable makes it reasonable for Knicks to opt out.

UOducksTK1 wrote:

dd10snoop28 wrote:

Zyme wrote:Original deal put me over the hard cap, I do not agree to the changes required to make a cap ok deal. I know this is a technicality but I should have never pulled the trigger on a deal at the end of an exhausting 12 H nursing shift. I should have thought about it overnight at the least. Sorry about the hassle I have caused.

The change is minimal and, additionally, if I'm understanding correctly,you even suggested the taking another person in the deal to make the cap work.

IMO, as long as the tweaks to make the deal work are trivial, then I don't see why the original commitment shouldn't be adhered... leads to a really bad precedent.

I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate if shoe was on the other foot.

Anyways, that's my final input on the issue. Will let the parties resolve.

Eisley is good enough to start on some bad teams. Is that small enough? I feel that's debatable, and the fact it's debatable makes it reasonable for Knicks to opt out.

Some truth in that. But counterargument to that is that there are players left in FA right now who might be just as good as Eisley is so how valuable is he? That might be a result of inflation rather than an indictment on Eisley's value, but something to consider...

Why don't the Knicks just send Nichols and get Eisley

Their prerogative I guess

Not gonna lie, I'd be pretty upset in Pistol's shoes.

I think it's fair for Knicks to ask to bow out but up to the commish and other party on ultimate decision.

I suppose that is just my take on it....which means I agree with the Nets. Yuck!

At the end of the day, I think the change here is so minimal that opting out just doesn’t make any sense. Additionally, I think Eisley can easily be worked in to something here. Ultimately, the Knicks were the ones to propose a solution to the Commish bringing up the hard cap being exceeded, not me. I was fine with that alteration and said as much.

Again, I don’t wanna cause drama, it is what it is. But yeah.

offtheheezy wrote:Why don't the Knicks just send Nichols and get Eisley

Their prerogative I guess

ya true..

Both teams to blame. You gotta check salaries.
Feel bad for Clips here, but yeah I slightly (55-45) am in the camp that Eisley might be worth saying he's not ok with the changes.

pistolpetejr wrote:At the end of the day, I think the change here is so minimal that opting out just doesn’t make any sense. Additionally, I think Eisley can easily be worked in to something here. Ultimately, the Knicks were the ones to propose a solution to the Commish bringing up the hard cap being exceeded, not me. I was fine with that alteration and said as much.

Again, I don’t wanna cause drama, it is what it is. But yeah.

I’d tend to agree with Petey here. Zyme was the one who asked if dropping Eisley would work, and Petey agreed to that