Originally Posted by Phantom_Blue
Melo was talking about the poison pill aspect of his contract, not the contract itself.
I can't believe he started the article like that. Just lost a ton of credibility.
yes and no.
You could make the case that he might have been talking about that. But if he was talking about that third year, he could have been more specific. And it surely wasn't a ringing endorsement that he wanted him back.... nothing like a "I really want to see him brought back, but that contract is pretty bad."
It's up to management = I don't really care (at best)
And Camby, Kidd, and Novak have contracts that go at least 3 years. So their contracts are going to cause that lux tax hit also. But this wasn't a financial decision as we all know the Knicks could have afforded it, if not traded his expiring deal or used the stretch provision.
It was personal.