Quote p00ka wrote: View Post
I don't know that it makes any sense at all to debate with someone that uses the lame "just arguing for the sake of arguying" deflection, but,................

When you speak of "in fact it would have been better for us to match", there is no "fact" about it, just your opinion, aided by 20/20 hindsight it would seem. In any event, whether you agree with the goal or not, you assume that the only reason he was offered that deal was to dissuade NY from signing Nash. Unless you can get into BC's head, you have no idea whether or not he also saw Fields as an answer to filling the SF spot, which was a big need at that time. A very good argument could be made that BC was trying to kill two birds with one stone. As far as you're "Or are you saying he wouldn't have signed anything under 6.5 million", I have no idea, and neither do you, but the simple concept that was stated by LBF, and some people want to argue about (hmmmmm, for the sake of arguing?), is that almost without fail, a GM has to overpay to get a RFA, to which there is no argument. Who is arguing to argue?
BC overpaid beyond what was necessary. New York would have been hard pressed to match $4M, which would still have been over-paying for player that has production/potential in the $2M-$3M range. There is overpaying, and then there is BC.

Here's a yahoo take from last year, when the offer sheet was first reported:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ba...5409--nba.html

At first blush, the deal seems wholly out of proportion with Fields' production through two years in the league, and especially ridiculous given the Stanford product's sophomore swoon on Broadway. After a surprisingly effective first NBA campaign that saw him go from second-round afterthought to New York's opening-night off-guard and, eventually, a first-team All-Rookie selection, Fields fell off something fierce in the lockout-shortened 2011-12 season.

All of Fields' shooting percentages declined in his second year in the league, including woeful marks of 25.6 percent from 3-point range and 56.2 percent from the foul line, along with his Player Efficiency Rating and rebound rates — most notably his defensive rebound rate, which was elite among guards and was a huge part of what made the 6-foot-7 Fields so valuable in the Knicks backcourt. He used more Knick possessions in his second year, but posted a lower per-minute scoring output and turned the ball over more frequently.

He wasn't any great shakes on the defensive end, either. Fields ranked 341st among NBA players in overall points allowed per play defended, according to Synergy Sports Technology's game charting. When you consider that more than 440 players saw NBA floor-time this season, that not all of them are counted (only guys with at least 25 plays charted appear in the rankings, per Synergy's FAQ) and that Fields played 2,009 total minutes this season (so it's not like he got burned repeatedly for one game and caught a bum stat line), that number looks really, really bad. That he ranked 185th in the NBA or worse in defending pick-and-roll ball-handlers, on post-ups, on spot-ups and in isolation doesn't help matters. (In fairness, we must note that he posted a top-100 finish in defending plays off screens, coming in at 96th overall.)

OK, so we've got a shooting guard who can't shoot, a rebounding wing whose rebounding fell off, a perimeter defender who's not a very good defender and a second-year pro whom most Knicks fans were willing, if not eager, to let walk after the team's first-round playoff exit. (This is, of course, a drastic oversimplification, but it's also about the size of how Landry Fields looks to the world.) And yet now he's getting offered better than $6.5 million a year to play the wing for a team that starts DeMar DeRozan and just drafted Terrence Ross? Are the Raptors stupid?