TripleThreat wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:We legitimately don’t even know what we have with current players. We have not one lock player — meaning I know this guys good. Build through draft and smart acquisition like MIAMi and BOStOn

If we hired a compete team draft team we could have a team filled with great players right now— but we did nutso things

Now we have note of a team assembled. Need to acquire good players to fit——NOT pay another tram for a 36 going on 37 year old player

Nothing else needs to be said?

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/new-york-knicks/cap/2020/

Doing some rough math in my head, and finding the middle ground on where I think the salary floor will fall between league projections and my estimates of a smoothed BRI, the number should be about 95 million.

Portis 15.8
Gibson 9.5
Ellington 8
Payton 8
Bullock 4.2

Can all be bought out for 1 million each. I think they keep Bullock at that price given the veterans minimum will likely be held at a max of 2.5 million

Randle 19
RJ Barrett 8.2
Frank N 6.2
Smith Jr 5.7
Knox 4.6
Bullock 4.2
MRob 1.7
Iggy Braz 1.5
Noah Stretch 6.4
57.5

So 37-38 million in cap space, if you only want to hit the cap floor, without factoring in what happens to Dotson/Harper

Adjusted for the buyouts of the four listed above, 33-34 million

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/oklahoma-city-thunder/chris-paul-2609/

So it wouldn't just be Chris Paul, the OKC Thunder would need to send some late 1sts to compensate for the salary burden. Paul becomes a 20-25 million a year player for two years and the Knicks are essentially buying two late firsts at about 15-17 million each. Given the optics needed for a trade like this, the Knicks would probably send Knox and one of those buyout veterans, probably a cheaper one since OKC will want as large as a trade exception as possible. My bet is expanded rosters stay to 17 given the pandemic. G League rosters will likely get an expansion next year.

With Paul, the Knicks would get likely two late firsts, hit the cap floor, plus have about 9 roster spots to look for the next Duncan Robinson or Kendrick Nunn.

Or the Knicks can sign a larger quantity of middle class contracts from Tier 4/5 who will likely be untradeable, or keep one of those buyout veterans, get no picks and start cutting down the roster space/minutes to test out a possible Dort, Robinson, Nunn, etc.

The salary structure was designed for every team to have at least one max player.

Boston signed three street free agents to maxes ( Horford, Hayward, Walker) and none of them have provided market value and none have avoided injury/decline, so I have no idea what you are talking about there.

As ****ed as it sounds, doing the math behind it, trading for Chris Paul ( in the real way it would happen, not in the ****ed/fake way CAA is spinning to the press) is not as bad as it looks.

The big takeaway is this - A bad max contract is ****ing horrible. But a gaggle of mediocre middle class contracts instead is ****ing horrible frosted with pig ****.

Being a perpetually losing team means the current salary structure will informally tax you for it. You don't get to avoid the poison, you only get to pick your poison.

martin wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:...

That's what it comes down to. I'm not sure how many of these rumors are true, but the idea of us giving picks seems ridiculous. Paul will not turn the Knicks into a playoff contender and I don't seem him "recruiting" guys to play for this presumed dumpster fire. The Knicks are the only team in the mix who can meet OKCs desire for salary relief. We can play the long game and see what these other teams have to offer. I'm guessing they might be able to throw in a crappy pick or two, but they're also going to toss in another crappy contract. If that's the route OK wants to take, let them have at it. I'll give Presti even more credit. I'm still not against the idea of overpaying mediocre guys to short term deals. I'd like the team to consider positional fit a little more, but sometimes the better is move is to punt.

Unfortunately that's what you are left with on the scrap heap though, right? Knicks got lucky with Morris.

Portis, Randle, Payton, Bullock, Wayne. They all failed IMO and some of them complicated the dev cycle of the core players. What else is out there?

More years of pain. I'm not against the idea of making a big move, but it has to be the right fit. OKC is in better position than we are assets wise. Yet, they still see the need to jettison Paul. The salary flexibility is far more important for the Knicks than another 30-40 win season, or its equivalent. Yeah, it sucked seeing Randle, Portis and Payton out there. I'm pretty sure I won't be able to do again for extended periods of time. But a least I know we can wash, rinse and repeat the next season. Heck, we might even get lucky and sign another Morris. Get another asset in the process. Giving up assets for Paul will just lead to another descent that leads to us giving up more assets and chasing another era Knicks era of mediocrity. There will be opportunities for us. Another Dame Lilliard will become disgruntled and ask for a trade. The Knicks need to make sure they have the cap space and draft picks available to be in the conversation. I'm also hopeful that Thibs will have a decent view of the players to sign that make sense for the roster.

martin wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:...

That's what it comes down to. I'm not sure how many of these rumors are true, but the idea of us giving picks seems ridiculous. Paul will not turn the Knicks into a playoff contender and I don't seem him "recruiting" guys to play for this presumed dumpster fire. The Knicks are the only team in the mix who can meet OKCs desire for salary relief. We can play the long game and see what these other teams have to offer. I'm guessing they might be able to throw in a crappy pick or two, but they're also going to toss in another crappy contract. If that's the route OK wants to take, let them have at it. I'll give Presti even more credit. I'm still not against the idea of overpaying mediocre guys to short term deals. I'd like the team to consider positional fit a little more, but sometimes the better is move is to punt.

Unfortunately that's what you are left with on the scrap heap though, right? Knicks got lucky with Morris.

Portis, Randle, Payton, Bullock, Wayne. They all failed IMO and some of them complicated the dev cycle of the core players. What else is out there?

More years of pain. I'm not against the idea of making a big move, but it has to be the right fit. OKC is in better position than we are assets wise. Yet, they still see the need to jettison Paul. The salary flexibility is far more important for the Knicks than another 30-40 win season, or its equivalent. Yeah, it sucked seeing Randle, Portis and Payton out there. I'm pretty sure I won't be able to do again for extended periods of time. But a least I know we can wash, rinse and repeat the next season. Heck, we might even get lucky and sign another Morris. Get another asset in the process. Giving up assets for Paul will just lead to another descent that leads to us giving up more assets and chasing another era Knicks era of mediocrity. There will be opportunities for us. Another Dame Lilliard will become disgruntled and ask for a trade. The Knicks need to make sure they have the cap space and draft picks available to be in the conversation. I'm also hopeful that Thibs will have a decent view of the players to sign that make sense for the roster.

OK, I guess our underlying assumptions are vastly different. I am going under the TT assumptions of getting a few 1st's and maybe giving up Knox at most.

I've heard a lot of rumors stating the opposite. I'm hoping it's just posturing on OKC's part.

If we have to ship players & picks to OKC in return for Paul - then hard pass.

BRIGGS wrote:We legitimately don’t even know what we have with current players. We have not one lock player — meaning I know this guys good. Build through draft and smart acquisition like MIAMi and BOStOn

If we hired a compete team draft team we could have a team filled with great players right now— but we did nutso things

Now we have note of a team assembled. Need to acquire good players to fit——NOT pay another tram for a 36 going on 37 year old player

Nothing else needs to be said?

+1

Problem with the Knicks is more than ONE player can fix. Especially a 36 year old one. However, do believe there is a chance that the Knicks
go in a different direction and go the FA rout and trade most of their assets to put together a team that will compete now.
Hopefully it will be done with younger FA's. Other possibility is that they use this year to pick up more young assets, analyze which one them fit long term while playing into another year in the lottery. Then use all those assets for next years free agency.
Would prefer the latter. Especially if there is a chance that it will be a shortened season.

Philc1 wrote:1. Trading for Paul helps the young players (RJ, Mitch, Frank)

2. He’s only on the books for 2 years

3. He made the playoffs and made a run in the western conference- the guy can still play

4. Next season is a 40-50 game season tops

Agreed. Unless you want kp part 2 again, where our top lotto players leave because we aren't winning.

Next season being cramped and in a bubble will benefit the veterans.

We aren't winning anytime soon tbh and we need to develop rj and mitch, cp will help us develop them by making them play playoffs basketball and holding them accountable.

knicks1248 wrote:

TPercy wrote:Give em Randle, DSJ, and a 2023 2nd rounder. That’s it.

why those 2 ?