jskinny35 wrote:If the W's were willing to trade either a top 4 pick or Wiseman and you only had to give up Randle and a 1st round pick - you do that trade and hang up as quickly as possible. Much easier to fill out a roster of swingman around Wiseman and RJ and the timeline gives us much longer to field a competitive team as both are super young. You also likely free up even more cap space.
Mirror Test that.
If the Knicks had the TWolves pick that actually conveyed and turned into Jon Kuminga or Evan Mobley, would they trade a young cost controlled asset for the risk of a rental and regression? You only give up that much for Randle if you plan to sign him to an extension. So that's either 4/106 immediately, or wait after 20.8 million clears and sign him to a 5/200. Or Randle plays out the 20.8 for a year then signs a 1+1. That 1 + 1 means 36 million then 37 million. You only sign a 1+1 with Randle if you need the time and distance to sign him to a 5/250. ALL TAXED. Every last penny of that is going to be hit with the multiplier of the luxury tax.
RSE slotting means someone like Kuminga costs you 4/32-36, somewhere in that range. And it's an exception. It's not carving into your flexibility with the rest of your cap. Yes, you have to pay a tax bill on that ( potentially) but it's not the same as the numbers anyone is talking about with Randle.
This doesn't even factor into the issue that, in a Mirror Test, it's almost assured Wiggins would have to go to formulate some salary matching. While Wiggins is overpaid, his production needs to be replaced. Is Randle worth killing your cap, blowing up your tax penalty for years and years to come and will produce at a rate to be of value for himself PLUS to replace what was lost with Wiggins AND Kuminga/Mobley?
No rational GM would make that trade. If Zeke was still running the Knicks, who was an irrational GM, even he would not make that trade. The terrifying thing is you just adjusted it to Wiseman OR the projected 4th pick when previously you wanted BOTH. You halved the trade scenario and it's still terrifying for this team, how brutal is that?
You are pushing trade that I can't possibly see you taking yourself in a pure Mirror Test. But maybe you would, in that case, you would make Zeke look rational. How bizarre is that scenario? Where a trade would punish a team so badly, that even Zeke would sit down and just have a beer instead.
This doesn't even begin to factor in that if the Warriors moved the 4th pick, that Randle plus a late first would be best offer made and 28 other teams could not possibly top that. How hard is it to top luxury tax poison? I'm talking REPEATER TAX. Not for a year but possibly for half a decade or more?
Projected, even if I adjust to the massive BRI losses because of the pandemic, you are asking the Warriors to eat long term possibly paying HALF A BILLION just in tax alone ( that's not even factoring in the actual salary) for the hope that a mid career ball dominant player having a big year in empty arenas will defy all of NBA recorded history of how players develop and trend in production, while ignoring all the previous analytics of his career before this season, is worth taking the ball out of Steph Curry's hands. If you project a 1+1 with the possible rise in the next TV deal, add in the actual salary, then consider the multiplier effect of the repeater tax, you could be looking at an out the door long term cost for Randle approaching of close to a BILLION DOLLARS.
Why would the Knicks want to trade Randle? Maybe they don't want to deal with any of this on a bet and a prayer. Maybe it's easier to get one more year of value and then see if they can sign and trade him at the end of next season. It's NOT disloyalty. Certainly there's no reason for the Knicks to talk about it now or the next few weeks. Are we going to pretend that if Randle was free and could get a Super Max with a contender this offseason that he wouldn't leave the Knicks like a two dollar Tinder whore at closing time? Players do what's best for themselves. Teams do the same thing. That's why it's a business.
