Knixkik wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Knicks only one 53 games last year and as someone already said Landry was really the only guy off the bench who made a sizeable impact for the playoff run. I don’t see why we can’t retool the bench and win more games and match bench success in the playoffs next year. Whether we win again or not is not really gonna be hinged on the bench.

That was me.

We went on our epic playoff run because of our starters and Shamet.

Everyone else on the roster played a provisional role at various moments, but nobody else was consistently a core element of the giant uptick in production after Game 4 in the ATL series.

The ability to repeat is going to hinge on the starting five's continued harmonization more than anything else. Considering how the team didn't truly click until the playoffs, there is reason to believe they can continue to learn more about how to play off each other to actually improve as a starting unit.

There is continued upside to the starters, particularly KAT and OG who have evolved the most this season and may not be done doing so.

The ability to retool by moving the pipeline players into the rotation and drafting well should strengthen the team while managing cap considerations.

If MO, McCullars, Kolek and maybe Dadiet deliver on their potential they are collectively a step up from Clarkson, Alvarado and Deuce as whole.

Mitch and Shamet are to me the only question marks. Everyone else can be replaced with our pipeline and the draft.

Mitch can be replaced. I'd like him to stay, but if re-signing him makes it hard to sign Mo and Shamet than I'd draft bigs and let him go. Maybe Huk stays as part of the Center depth.

Shamet is the one bench player I'd priortize retaining. The guy is a winner.

And Diawara is the one young player you have to figure out how to retain due to his potential all-star talent.

If it came down to Diawara vs. Shamet, I'd have to prioritize locking down Mo. His upside is that big.

I completely agree. Shamet is most replaceable. Mitch is a difference maker, a guy we can throw on the top tier Cs in the league and a weapon off the bench nobody else has. You’d like the keep him and draft a reserve that’s better than Hukporti. But fact is Mitch barely contributed to a championship run. That shows we don’t NEED him to be successful.

Mo is the guy we can’t lose. His ceiling is too high and he brings a rare element and loads of lineup flexibility if he becomes an every night guy off the bench. He’s also a piece that can keep us contending past the 2 year window if he pans out.

We can’t lose Mo for sure. He offers the wide range of outcomes and upside. As far as Mitch vs Shamet, I hate to say I’d probably prefer to keep shamet if I had to choose. He’s going to be cheaper. And he’s proven that he can play big minutes in the playoffs. For all of Mitch’s unique talent, it’s hard to play him more than 15 mpg due to the intentional fouling. He just can’t stay on the floor. Shamet can play 30 mpg in a finals game. Mitch can’t. But even so, I want to keep everyone.

contractually we are limited to what we can offer MO. Mo if offered more then what we are allowed to offer would have to choose to take less to remain. Let's hope the glow of the championship, team friendships, and promise of continued development behind OG and Hart helps him choose to remain.

Knicks can match any offer. Max a team can offer Mo is the full mid level of $15mil. But that would be insane for a team to offer that. Especially in this salary cap environment.

Actually this is only half-correct. Here’s the dilemma;
Knicks can only offer him a starting salary of 2.7M if they go over the second apron. Anything over 2.7M they would have to use an exception to sign him. If they use an exception, they are hard-capped at the second apron. So if you are resigning both Mitch and shamet, you better hope Diawara is cool with about 3M per year. If not, it’s essentially a decision between Mo and Mitch. So while we can technically match any realistic offer, it’s really difficult to do so.

According to Gemini, we can only pay him $1.5M, not $2.7M

Key Clarification on Diawara’s Contract

2025-26 Salary: $1,272,870 (Standard rookie minimum contract). 
Contract Status: He is a restricted free agent (RFA) entering the 2026 summer. 
Rights Held: You hold Non-Bird rights on him. 

What this means for your 2026-27 offer:
Because he earned $1,272,870 this past year, your Non-Bird re-signing capacity is strictly capped at 120% of his previous salary:
$1,272,870 × 1.20 = $1,527,444

This is the absolute maximum starting salary you can offer him using the Non-Bird exception.

The "Exception" Hierarchy

To pay a player more than the minimum or more than his Non-Bird maximum, you must use a designated cap exception (like the Mid-Level Exception). However, you cannot use the Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception (TMLE) if you are over the second apron. 

The Hard Cap Trap
Even if you tried to sign Diawara before crossing the second apron:

If you used the Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception (TMLE) to sign him, your team would become hard-capped at the second apron.

This means you would be legally forbidden from exceeding that $222M line for the rest of the season.

PatCummings wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Knicks only one 53 games last year and as someone already said Landry was really the only guy off the bench who made a sizeable impact for the playoff run. I don’t see why we can’t retool the bench and win more games and match bench success in the playoffs next year. Whether we win again or not is not really gonna be hinged on the bench.

That was me.

We went on our epic playoff run because of our starters and Shamet.

Everyone else on the roster played a provisional role at various moments, but nobody else was consistently a core element of the giant uptick in production after Game 4 in the ATL series.

The ability to repeat is going to hinge on the starting five's continued harmonization more than anything else. Considering how the team didn't truly click until the playoffs, there is reason to believe they can continue to learn more about how to play off each other to actually improve as a starting unit.

There is continued upside to the starters, particularly KAT and OG who have evolved the most this season and may not be done doing so.

The ability to retool by moving the pipeline players into the rotation and drafting well should strengthen the team while managing cap considerations.

If MO, McCullars, Kolek and maybe Dadiet deliver on their potential they are collectively a step up from Clarkson, Alvarado and Deuce as whole.

Mitch and Shamet are to me the only question marks. Everyone else can be replaced with our pipeline and the draft.

Mitch can be replaced. I'd like him to stay, but if re-signing him makes it hard to sign Mo and Shamet than I'd draft bigs and let him go. Maybe Huk stays as part of the Center depth.

Shamet is the one bench player I'd priortize retaining. The guy is a winner.

And Diawara is the one young player you have to figure out how to retain due to his potential all-star talent.

If it came down to Diawara vs. Shamet, I'd have to prioritize locking down Mo. His upside is that big.

I completely agree. Shamet is most replaceable. Mitch is a difference maker, a guy we can throw on the top tier Cs in the league and a weapon off the bench nobody else has. You’d like the keep him and draft a reserve that’s better than Hukporti. But fact is Mitch barely contributed to a championship run. That shows we don’t NEED him to be successful.

Mo is the guy we can’t lose. His ceiling is too high and he brings a rare element and loads of lineup flexibility if he becomes an every night guy off the bench. He’s also a piece that can keep us contending past the 2 year window if he pans out.

We can’t lose Mo for sure. He offers the wide range of outcomes and upside. As far as Mitch vs Shamet, I hate to say I’d probably prefer to keep shamet if I had to choose. He’s going to be cheaper. And he’s proven that he can play big minutes in the playoffs. For all of Mitch’s unique talent, it’s hard to play him more than 15 mpg due to the intentional fouling. He just can’t stay on the floor. Shamet can play 30 mpg in a finals game. Mitch can’t. But even so, I want to keep everyone.

contractually we are limited to what we can offer MO. Mo if offered more then what we are allowed to offer would have to choose to take less to remain. Let's hope the glow of the championship, team friendships, and promise of continued development behind OG and Hart helps him choose to remain.

Knicks can match any offer. Max a team can offer Mo is the full mid level of $15mil. But that would be insane for a team to offer that. Especially in this salary cap environment.

Actually this is only half-correct. Here’s the dilemma;
Knicks can only offer him a starting salary of 2.7M if they go over the second apron. Anything over 2.7M they would have to use an exception to sign him. If they use an exception, they are hard-capped at the second apron. So if you are resigning both Mitch and shamet, you better hope Diawara is cool with about 3M per year. If not, it’s essentially a decision between Mo and Mitch. So while we can technically match any realistic offer, it’s really difficult to do so.

According to Gemini, we can only pay him $1.5M, not $2.7M

Key Clarification on Diawara’s Contract

2025-26 Salary: $1,272,870 (Standard rookie minimum contract). 
Contract Status: He is a restricted free agent (RFA) entering the 2026 summer. 
Rights Held: You hold Non-Bird rights on him. 

What this means for your 2026-27 offer:
Because he earned $1,272,870 this past year, your Non-Bird re-signing capacity is strictly capped at 120% of his previous salary:
$1,272,870 × 1.20 = $1,527,444

This is the absolute maximum starting salary you can offer him using the Non-Bird exception.

The "Exception" Hierarchy

To pay a player more than the minimum or more than his Non-Bird maximum, you must use a designated cap exception (like the Mid-Level Exception). However, you cannot use the Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception (TMLE) if you are over the second apron. 

The Hard Cap Trap
Even if you tried to sign Diawara before crossing the second apron:

If you used the Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception (TMLE) to sign him, your team would become hard-capped at the second apron.

This means you would be legally forbidden from exceeding that $222M line for the rest of the season.

truth be told lots of guys that did what MO did get just that or less, so there's hope to keep all 3. even if we can only offer $1.5m, can we give him a PO for 2nd year where he gets another $1.8m or so guaranteed or can opt out and get a bigger deal from us?

even if we don't resign Mitch and give MO a bigger deal, the hard cap could be a huge issue.

nycericanguy wrote:

PatCummings wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Knicks only one 53 games last year and as someone already said Landry was really the only guy off the bench who made a sizeable impact for the playoff run. I don’t see why we can’t retool the bench and win more games and match bench success in the playoffs next year. Whether we win again or not is not really gonna be hinged on the bench.

That was me.

We went on our epic playoff run because of our starters and Shamet.

Everyone else on the roster played a provisional role at various moments, but nobody else was consistently a core element of the giant uptick in production after Game 4 in the ATL series.

The ability to repeat is going to hinge on the starting five's continued harmonization more than anything else. Considering how the team didn't truly click until the playoffs, there is reason to believe they can continue to learn more about how to play off each other to actually improve as a starting unit.

There is continued upside to the starters, particularly KAT and OG who have evolved the most this season and may not be done doing so.

The ability to retool by moving the pipeline players into the rotation and drafting well should strengthen the team while managing cap considerations.

If MO, McCullars, Kolek and maybe Dadiet deliver on their potential they are collectively a step up from Clarkson, Alvarado and Deuce as whole.

Mitch and Shamet are to me the only question marks. Everyone else can be replaced with our pipeline and the draft.

Mitch can be replaced. I'd like him to stay, but if re-signing him makes it hard to sign Mo and Shamet than I'd draft bigs and let him go. Maybe Huk stays as part of the Center depth.

Shamet is the one bench player I'd priortize retaining. The guy is a winner.

And Diawara is the one young player you have to figure out how to retain due to his potential all-star talent.

If it came down to Diawara vs. Shamet, I'd have to prioritize locking down Mo. His upside is that big.

I completely agree. Shamet is most replaceable. Mitch is a difference maker, a guy we can throw on the top tier Cs in the league and a weapon off the bench nobody else has. You’d like the keep him and draft a reserve that’s better than Hukporti. But fact is Mitch barely contributed to a championship run. That shows we don’t NEED him to be successful.

Mo is the guy we can’t lose. His ceiling is too high and he brings a rare element and loads of lineup flexibility if he becomes an every night guy off the bench. He’s also a piece that can keep us contending past the 2 year window if he pans out.

We can’t lose Mo for sure. He offers the wide range of outcomes and upside. As far as Mitch vs Shamet, I hate to say I’d probably prefer to keep shamet if I had to choose. He’s going to be cheaper. And he’s proven that he can play big minutes in the playoffs. For all of Mitch’s unique talent, it’s hard to play him more than 15 mpg due to the intentional fouling. He just can’t stay on the floor. Shamet can play 30 mpg in a finals game. Mitch can’t. But even so, I want to keep everyone.

contractually we are limited to what we can offer MO. Mo if offered more then what we are allowed to offer would have to choose to take less to remain. Let's hope the glow of the championship, team friendships, and promise of continued development behind OG and Hart helps him choose to remain.

Knicks can match any offer. Max a team can offer Mo is the full mid level of $15mil. But that would be insane for a team to offer that. Especially in this salary cap environment.

Actually this is only half-correct. Here’s the dilemma;
Knicks can only offer him a starting salary of 2.7M if they go over the second apron. Anything over 2.7M they would have to use an exception to sign him. If they use an exception, they are hard-capped at the second apron. So if you are resigning both Mitch and shamet, you better hope Diawara is cool with about 3M per year. If not, it’s essentially a decision between Mo and Mitch. So while we can technically match any realistic offer, it’s really difficult to do so.

According to Gemini, we can only pay him $1.5M, not $2.7M

Key Clarification on Diawara’s Contract

2025-26 Salary: $1,272,870 (Standard rookie minimum contract). 
Contract Status: He is a restricted free agent (RFA) entering the 2026 summer. 
Rights Held: You hold Non-Bird rights on him. 

What this means for your 2026-27 offer:
Because he earned $1,272,870 this past year, your Non-Bird re-signing capacity is strictly capped at 120% of his previous salary:
$1,272,870 × 1.20 = $1,527,444

This is the absolute maximum starting salary you can offer him using the Non-Bird exception.

The "Exception" Hierarchy

To pay a player more than the minimum or more than his Non-Bird maximum, you must use a designated cap exception (like the Mid-Level Exception). However, you cannot use the Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception (TMLE) if you are over the second apron. 

The Hard Cap Trap
Even if you tried to sign Diawara before crossing the second apron:

If you used the Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception (TMLE) to sign him, your team would become hard-capped at the second apron.

This means you would be legally forbidden from exceeding that $222M line for the rest of the season.

truth be told lots of guys that did what MO did get just that or less, so there's hope to keep all 3. even if we can only offer $1.5m, can we give him a PO for 2nd year where he gets another $1.8m or so guaranteed or can opt out and get a bigger deal from us?

even if we don't resign Mitch and give MO a bigger deal, the hard cap could be a huge issue.

Mo is really unique as a 6’9” wing with a 7’4” wingspan who came out of nowhere to shoot well from 3 pt. But yes, we can SIGNIFICANTLY increase his salary after he completes his second year with us. Even if we’re over the 2nd apron we can pay him up to 105% of the league average which is $15M

If anyone can sell him on that it’s Leon, right?

nycericanguy wrote:

PatCummings wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

PatCummings wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Knicks only one 53 games last year and as someone already said Landry was really the only guy off the bench who made a sizeable impact for the playoff run. I don’t see why we can’t retool the bench and win more games and match bench success in the playoffs next year. Whether we win again or not is not really gonna be hinged on the bench.

That was me.

We went on our epic playoff run because of our starters and Shamet.

Everyone else on the roster played a provisional role at various moments, but nobody else was consistently a core element of the giant uptick in production after Game 4 in the ATL series.

The ability to repeat is going to hinge on the starting five's continued harmonization more than anything else. Considering how the team didn't truly click until the playoffs, there is reason to believe they can continue to learn more about how to play off each other to actually improve as a starting unit.

There is continued upside to the starters, particularly KAT and OG who have evolved the most this season and may not be done doing so.

The ability to retool by moving the pipeline players into the rotation and drafting well should strengthen the team while managing cap considerations.

If MO, McCullars, Kolek and maybe Dadiet deliver on their potential they are collectively a step up from Clarkson, Alvarado and Deuce as whole.

Mitch and Shamet are to me the only question marks. Everyone else can be replaced with our pipeline and the draft.

Mitch can be replaced. I'd like him to stay, but if re-signing him makes it hard to sign Mo and Shamet than I'd draft bigs and let him go. Maybe Huk stays as part of the Center depth.

Shamet is the one bench player I'd priortize retaining. The guy is a winner.

And Diawara is the one young player you have to figure out how to retain due to his potential all-star talent.

If it came down to Diawara vs. Shamet, I'd have to prioritize locking down Mo. His upside is that big.

I completely agree. Shamet is most replaceable. Mitch is a difference maker, a guy we can throw on the top tier Cs in the league and a weapon off the bench nobody else has. You’d like the keep him and draft a reserve that’s better than Hukporti. But fact is Mitch barely contributed to a championship run. That shows we don’t NEED him to be successful.

Mo is the guy we can’t lose. His ceiling is too high and he brings a rare element and loads of lineup flexibility if he becomes an every night guy off the bench. He’s also a piece that can keep us contending past the 2 year window if he pans out.

We can’t lose Mo for sure. He offers the wide range of outcomes and upside. As far as Mitch vs Shamet, I hate to say I’d probably prefer to keep shamet if I had to choose. He’s going to be cheaper. And he’s proven that he can play big minutes in the playoffs. For all of Mitch’s unique talent, it’s hard to play him more than 15 mpg due to the intentional fouling. He just can’t stay on the floor. Shamet can play 30 mpg in a finals game. Mitch can’t. But even so, I want to keep everyone.

contractually we are limited to what we can offer MO. Mo if offered more then what we are allowed to offer would have to choose to take less to remain. Let's hope the glow of the championship, team friendships, and promise of continued development behind OG and Hart helps him choose to remain.

Knicks can match any offer. Max a team can offer Mo is the full mid level of $15mil. But that would be insane for a team to offer that. Especially in this salary cap environment.

Actually this is only half-correct. Here’s the dilemma;
Knicks can only offer him a starting salary of 2.7M if they go over the second apron. Anything over 2.7M they would have to use an exception to sign him. If they use an exception, they are hard-capped at the second apron. So if you are resigning both Mitch and shamet, you better hope Diawara is cool with about 3M per year. If not, it’s essentially a decision between Mo and Mitch. So while we can technically match any realistic offer, it’s really difficult to do so.

According to Gemini, we can only pay him $1.5M, not $2.7M

Key Clarification on Diawara’s Contract

2025-26 Salary: $1,272,870 (Standard rookie minimum contract). 
Contract Status: He is a restricted free agent (RFA) entering the 2026 summer. 
Rights Held: You hold Non-Bird rights on him. 

What this means for your 2026-27 offer:
Because he earned $1,272,870 this past year, your Non-Bird re-signing capacity is strictly capped at 120% of his previous salary:
$1,272,870 × 1.20 = $1,527,444

This is the absolute maximum starting salary you can offer him using the Non-Bird exception.

The "Exception" Hierarchy

To pay a player more than the minimum or more than his Non-Bird maximum, you must use a designated cap exception (like the Mid-Level Exception). However, you cannot use the Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception (TMLE) if you are over the second apron. 

The Hard Cap Trap
Even if you tried to sign Diawara before crossing the second apron:

If you used the Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception (TMLE) to sign him, your team would become hard-capped at the second apron.

This means you would be legally forbidden from exceeding that $222M line for the rest of the season.

truth be told lots of guys that did what MO did get just that or less, so there's hope to keep all 3. even if we can only offer $1.5m, can we give him a PO for 2nd year where he gets another $1.8m or so guaranteed or can opt out and get a bigger deal from us?

even if we don't resign Mitch and give MO a bigger deal, the hard cap could be a huge issue.

Mo is really unique as a 6’9” wing with a 7’4” wingspan who came out of nowhere to shoot well from 3 pt. But yes, we can SIGNIFICANTLY increase his salary after he completes his second year with us. Even if we’re over the 2nd apron we can pay him up to 105% of the league average which is $15M

If anyone can sell him on that it’s Leon, right?

also interesting to note that he made an extra $1.3m in bonuses last season.

Could probably sell him on 1.5 + 1.8 PO next season = guaranteed $3.3m + potential bonus money. And a bigger role/bigger payday in a year.

He’s a restricted FA so we can offer more than 1.5M. Knicks can offer him a regular minimum contract which goes up to around 2.6-2.7M. The 1.5M would be if they could only offer him the 20% increase which isn’t the case here. He can earn a regular minimum contract equivalent to his years of service. But obviously that’s if the Knicks are committed to going over the second apron. If they don’t, they can give him more.

DLeethal wrote:It’s probably too much of a shape shifting move but I actually like Westbrook in a contained bench role on this team. Size, ball handling, toughness, fearlessness, and fits great next to Deuce and next to Brunson.

I really don’t want to go another season watching Brunson get smothered end to end without ball handling help. I’d love a guy off the bench that can play next to both Brunson and Deuce, with the size to guard 2s and ball handling chops to let Deuce play off ball.

I agree that ball handling was an issue. But does Alvarado solve that? We can’t have Alvarado, Kolek, Deuce AND someone like Westbrook.

In a perfect world, Kolek would fill that role. He can shoot and pass… just need him to be able to defend a little and ball handle

PatCummings wrote:

DLeethal wrote:It’s probably too much of a shape shifting move but I actually like Westbrook in a contained bench role on this team. Size, ball handling, toughness, fearlessness, and fits great next to Deuce and next to Brunson.

I really don’t want to go another season watching Brunson get smothered end to end without ball handling help. I’d love a guy off the bench that can play next to both Brunson and Deuce, with the size to guard 2s and ball handling chops to let Deuce play off ball.

I agree that ball handling was an issue. But does Alvarado solve that? We can’t have Alvarado, Kolek, Deuce AND someone like Westbrook.

In a perfect world, Kolek would fill that role. He can shoot and pass… just need him to be able to defend a little and ball handle

I think in a lot of ways our bench last year was not very balanced. Jose and Brunson are very undersized and not ideal to play next to each other on a nightly basis which is why we basically never saw it until desperation time in the finals. Jose-Deuce-Landry is a very small trio as your 3 core bench guys + Mitch.

To me, Jose and Kolek are purely guys who fill in as Brunson's backup. But I think this team really needs a guy who can serve two roles - Brunson's backup and occasionally Brunson's backcourt mate to spell him from ball handling duties and full court pressure. It requires a bigger guard who can defend 2s and also run point.

Knicks can't really offer him more than his current one year PO at $4.5mil for flexibility purposes. Or a 2 year deal around $4mil per.

If that was the case, and they moved Deuce & Dadiet's contracts($6.9mil).

Would be $11.4mil free'd up. Knicks would be $24.4mil under the 2nd apron.

PatCummings wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

PatCummings wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

PatCummings wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Knicks only one 53 games last year and as someone already said Landry was really the only guy off the bench who made a sizeable impact for the playoff run. I don’t see why we can’t retool the bench and win more games and match bench success in the playoffs next year. Whether we win again or not is not really gonna be hinged on the bench.

That was me.

We went on our epic playoff run because of our starters and Shamet.

Everyone else on the roster played a provisional role at various moments, but nobody else was consistently a core element of the giant uptick in production after Game 4 in the ATL series.

The ability to repeat is going to hinge on the starting five's continued harmonization more than anything else. Considering how the team didn't truly click until the playoffs, there is reason to believe they can continue to learn more about how to play off each other to actually improve as a starting unit.

There is continued upside to the starters, particularly KAT and OG who have evolved the most this season and may not be done doing so.

The ability to retool by moving the pipeline players into the rotation and drafting well should strengthen the team while managing cap considerations.

If MO, McCullars, Kolek and maybe Dadiet deliver on their potential they are collectively a step up from Clarkson, Alvarado and Deuce as whole.

Mitch and Shamet are to me the only question marks. Everyone else can be replaced with our pipeline and the draft.

Mitch can be replaced. I'd like him to stay, but if re-signing him makes it hard to sign Mo and Shamet than I'd draft bigs and let him go. Maybe Huk stays as part of the Center depth.

Shamet is the one bench player I'd priortize retaining. The guy is a winner.

And Diawara is the one young player you have to figure out how to retain due to his potential all-star talent.

If it came down to Diawara vs. Shamet, I'd have to prioritize locking down Mo. His upside is that big.

I completely agree. Shamet is most replaceable. Mitch is a difference maker, a guy we can throw on the top tier Cs in the league and a weapon off the bench nobody else has. You’d like the keep him and draft a reserve that’s better than Hukporti. But fact is Mitch barely contributed to a championship run. That shows we don’t NEED him to be successful.

Mo is the guy we can’t lose. His ceiling is too high and he brings a rare element and loads of lineup flexibility if he becomes an every night guy off the bench. He’s also a piece that can keep us contending past the 2 year window if he pans out.

We can’t lose Mo for sure. He offers the wide range of outcomes and upside. As far as Mitch vs Shamet, I hate to say I’d probably prefer to keep shamet if I had to choose. He’s going to be cheaper. And he’s proven that he can play big minutes in the playoffs. For all of Mitch’s unique talent, it’s hard to play him more than 15 mpg due to the intentional fouling. He just can’t stay on the floor. Shamet can play 30 mpg in a finals game. Mitch can’t. But even so, I want to keep everyone.

contractually we are limited to what we can offer MO. Mo if offered more then what we are allowed to offer would have to choose to take less to remain. Let's hope the glow of the championship, team friendships, and promise of continued development behind OG and Hart helps him choose to remain.

Knicks can match any offer. Max a team can offer Mo is the full mid level of $15mil. But that would be insane for a team to offer that. Especially in this salary cap environment.

Actually this is only half-correct. Here’s the dilemma;
Knicks can only offer him a starting salary of 2.7M if they go over the second apron. Anything over 2.7M they would have to use an exception to sign him. If they use an exception, they are hard-capped at the second apron. So if you are resigning both Mitch and shamet, you better hope Diawara is cool with about 3M per year. If not, it’s essentially a decision between Mo and Mitch. So while we can technically match any realistic offer, it’s really difficult to do so.

According to Gemini, we can only pay him $1.5M, not $2.7M

Key Clarification on Diawara’s Contract

2025-26 Salary: $1,272,870 (Standard rookie minimum contract). 
Contract Status: He is a restricted free agent (RFA) entering the 2026 summer. 
Rights Held: You hold Non-Bird rights on him. 

What this means for your 2026-27 offer:
Because he earned $1,272,870 this past year, your Non-Bird re-signing capacity is strictly capped at 120% of his previous salary:
$1,272,870 × 1.20 = $1,527,444

This is the absolute maximum starting salary you can offer him using the Non-Bird exception.

The "Exception" Hierarchy

To pay a player more than the minimum or more than his Non-Bird maximum, you must use a designated cap exception (like the Mid-Level Exception). However, you cannot use the Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception (TMLE) if you are over the second apron. 

The Hard Cap Trap
Even if you tried to sign Diawara before crossing the second apron:

If you used the Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception (TMLE) to sign him, your team would become hard-capped at the second apron.

This means you would be legally forbidden from exceeding that $222M line for the rest of the season.

truth be told lots of guys that did what MO did get just that or less, so there's hope to keep all 3. even if we can only offer $1.5m, can we give him a PO for 2nd year where he gets another $1.8m or so guaranteed or can opt out and get a bigger deal from us?

even if we don't resign Mitch and give MO a bigger deal, the hard cap could be a huge issue.

Mo is really unique as a 6’9” wing with a 7’4” wingspan who came out of nowhere to shoot well from 3 pt. But yes, we can SIGNIFICANTLY increase his salary after he completes his second year with us. Even if we’re over the 2nd apron we can pay him up to 105% of the league average which is $15M

If anyone can sell him on that it’s Leon, right?

also interesting to note that he made an extra $1.3m in bonuses last season.

Could probably sell him on 1.5 + 1.8 PO next season = guaranteed $3.3m + potential bonus money. And a bigger role/bigger payday in a year.

He’s a restricted FA so we can offer more than 1.5M. Knicks can offer him a regular minimum contract which goes up to around 2.6-2.7M. The 1.5M would be if they could only offer him the 20% increase which isn’t the case here. He can earn a regular minimum contract equivalent to his years of service. But obviously that’s if the Knicks are committed to going over the second apron. If they don’t, they can give him more.

Never fully trust AI!

Turns out the min 2nd year salary is $2.18M

Heres a source (assuming it’s accurate)

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2025/08/early-nba-minimum-salary-projections-for-2026-27.html

So it’s that figure plus the 20%. That’s where the 2.7M comes from.