SupremeCommander wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:Honest answer is “Incomplete”. Emotionally, it’s an F. As a fan, watching mediocrity, I was hopeful that we would have an addition to our stable. A meaningful change in the SL. Next opportunity to really improve isn’t until August 2 this year. So, we are looking at a little over a month of having nothing to chew on. Not enough cap space to really make a splash. Too many conditions on the assets acquired to feel like we improved draft position over what we actually gave up. (e.g. is an unconditional Knicks 2023 and 2024 2nd higher value than conditional Detroit and Washington 1sts?). I think this office overvalued those conditions. Not sure we have improved until they finish this offseason. If they can use the trade exception to remain over the cap when bringing in their presumptive starting PG, we might have a special offseason.

a lotto pick now is not worth protected picks in the future. if we are hoarding draft picks, why didn't we just keep Kemba, assume someone else's bad deal at the deadline, and acquire a pick for cleaning up their cap ($9 million expiring has some value)? I think it is an F because I see an absence of strategy

Regarding moving the #11 pick - it's an incomplete to me - as it depends on how good or bad the draft talent pool is and how the players pan out.

Regarding giving up draft capital to move Kemba - I agree with you.

Overall Grade - Incomplete - IMO many fans are too quick to judge/grade. For instance how do the players missed out in this draft pan out - or what if we are able to leverage all the acquired first rounders to draft or trade for a stud?

NardDogNation wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:Incomplete for me.

Same. Let's see what we do with the money once Brunson turns us down.

God-willing. Signing Brunson to big money would be an incredibly bone-headed decision...sort of likethe bone-headed decision to give big money to a dude like Evan Fournier.

What was your expectation? He hit the franchise record for 3's. He got paid the same as Duncan Robinson who looks like a prime candidate to get bought out and stretched. His assists were way done, hopefully next season he will get back to his career average.

gradyandrew wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:Incomplete for me.

Same. Let's see what we do with the money once Brunson turns us down.

God-willing. Signing Brunson to big money would be an incredibly bone-headed decision...sort of likethe bone-headed decision to give big money to a dude like Evan Fournier.

What was your expectation? He hit the franchise record for 3's. He got paid the same as Duncan Robinson who looks like a prime candidate to get bought out and stretched. His assists were way done, hopefully next season he will get back to his career average.

The issue I have with the Fournier is two-fold: (1) he's a superfluous talent and (2) made no sense to a team whose success was not sustainable. Those variables almost always lead to a player becoming a bad contract; and those variables are present in any Jalen Brunson-to-the-Knicks scenarios. Just look at the narrative surrounding Tim Hardaway Jr during his 2nd stint with the Knicks versus what it became with the Mavericks. And also consider that we had to trade what was once considered a generational talent just to offload that contract of his.

NardDogNation wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:Incomplete for me.

Same. Let's see what we do with the money once Brunson turns us down.

God-willing. Signing Brunson to big money would be an incredibly bone-headed decision...sort of likethe bone-headed decision to give big money to a dude like Evan Fournier.

What was your expectation? He hit the franchise record for 3's. He got paid the same as Duncan Robinson who looks like a prime candidate to get bought out and stretched. His assists were way done, hopefully next season he will get back to his career average.

The issue I have with the Fournier is two-fold: (1) he's a superfluous talent and (2) made no sense to a team whose success was not sustainable. Those variables almost always lead to a player becoming a bad contract; and those variables are present in any Jalen Brunson-to-the-Knicks scenarios.

Signing Fournier and Kemba last year kinda made sense. They were supposed to be an upgrade to Bullock and an insurance policy for Rose. The problem was that Randle regressed and Rose was hurt. We bet on Julius and he didn't deliver and exposing Fournier and Kemba. Really, that was the reason we failed last year. The good thing is that a lot of our youngins got to show what they have. RJ, Obi and IQ are very promising. Grimes looks like a rotational player. Mitch is awesome when not hurt. Looks like we found a backup C in Sims. Cam is an incomplete right now but I like him. I like players that can defend. Deuce is an incomplete also.
That is a lot young players.

TPercy wrote:My issue is that we trade a pick and 4 2nds to dump salary. Stupid organization.

So, one of those 2nds was top 55 protected so let’s not get crazy yet.

If our Detroit or Washington firsts don’t convey, we get 2 seconds each. Net gain is 1 second.

The 11 pick carries a 4.9mm or so cap hold. So, ignoring the balance of our cap considerations, we removed about 15mm of cap considerations.

Once we show the capability of signing a FA with cap space, we will often negotiate a sign and trade that benefits our cap. That is, the ability to clear $25mm should incentivize a Dallas in a hypothetical Brunson trade to make a deal. In theory, that allows us to include Noel and the trades player exception from Walker to sign and trade him without actually dipping below the cap. Thereby keeping our MLE open for future signings.

It’s not that these moves were dumb. They are just not entertaining. Takes a spreadsheet and a flow chart with game theory analysis to see the upside value created from optionality.

I just wanted them to make a move for Shaedon Sharpe. Go Portland!

gradyandrew wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:

Signing Fournier and Kemba last year kinda made sense. They were supposed to be an upgrade to Bullock and an insurance policy for Rose. The problem was that Randle regressed and Rose was hurt. We bet on Julius and he didn't deliver and exposing Fournier and Kemba. Really, that was the reason we failed last year. The good thing is that a lot of our youngins got to show what they have. RJ, Obi and IQ are very promising. Grimes looks like a rotational player. Mitch is awesome when not hurt. Looks like we found a backup C in Sims. Cam is an incomplete right now but I like him. I like players that can defend. Deuce is an incomplete also.
That is a lot young players.

A+ is my grade for that reason. Knicks have young guys at every position, so realistically who was the 11 pick going to jump in the rotation? Apparently Knicks saw Ivey as a guy they could bring in to run the point and once he was off the board it was time for plan B.

Brogdon, Brunson, Dejounte Murray, Tyus Jones, Kyrie, Monte Morris- lots of PG look in play and the next PG that went in the draft was Tyty at 29. The Knicks are set at every position except the one which had no prospects in the draft.

A lot has been made about the protections on the picks- who really cares. After 4 years they will eventually convert. The Bucks 2025 pick is especially promising. When top teams lose it, they usually get bad quick. I didn't think there was even a way to get Kemba off the books and somehow the front office did it without even definitively giving up draft assets. 1st round picks > 2nd round picks.

Knicks still have enough draft capital that they can move Noel and Burks if needed. Maybe Brunson signs a 4 year deal starting at 16 million. As long as we can outbid the MLE the Knicks have a lot more leverage.

See, this is why it is an Incomplete. You are presuming best outcome where it is necessary to for several more things to occur in order to recognize what occurred today. They created flexibility but not much value last night.

TPercy wrote:Can someone please explain to me how trading NINE FUCKING MILLION on an EXPIRING contract for a protected first that will 100% convey is good buisness? Like this is easily one of the dumbest moves we’ve made. If we kept the 4 picks then honestly I can live with it but giving up a first to trade an okay contract is so stupid.

not to mention, we will waste that $9M by overpaying on another FA that we'll be stuck with and be untradable..

TPercy wrote:Can someone please explain to me how trading NINE FUCKING MILLION on an EXPIRING contract for a protected first that will 100% convey is good buisness? Like this is easily one of the dumbest moves we’ve made. If we kept the 4 picks then honestly I can live with it but giving up a first to trade an okay contract is so stupid.

Because Detroit is under the cap, the $9MM they absorbed creates a Traded Player Exception for the Knicks of the same amount. Recall they have a 1.2mm TPE from the Knox deal. These are not "cap space" unless they are waived, instead, they are basically options to acquire a player for the amount of the TPE without matching that incoming salary. In addition, the 11 pick comes with a 4.9mm cap hold which represents the rookie scale contract allocated to the #11 pick. Without this trade, they have Walker's 9mm and #11 slated to use 15mm of cap space. Technically, we are carrying Jalen Duran's cap hold until the transactions clear, but that may not "clear" until free agency. Teams often leave transactions unfinished on paper until they must. As such they remain over the cap on paper, but once the dust settles, they will be below the cap.

The key point is that they are not yet below the cap. They can still wheel and deal with the explicit threat of going below the cap to sign players outright. Take about 15mm and waive Gibson's non-guaranteed money and you have about 20mm of money to spend in free agency. Using FVV's contract as guidance on Brunson and you have the threat of a deal if Brunson is willing. The threat being the key term. If Dallas accepts the threat as credible, they become motivated to make a deal instead of losing Brunson for nothing. Starting bid for us is the TPE from Walker and Gibson. They probably ask for Noel and the TPE. We end up with Brunson without waiving Gibson, without waiving any other exceptions we have (like the MLE) and we become hard-capped because we used a S&T to add salary while above the salary cap. We aren't near the hard cap limit, so that's forgivable.

Now, we gave up #11 (with no prospects that were truly making us excited. I liked AJ Griffin, but I appear to be alone in that position). We gave up our 2023 second rd Utah's 2023 second rd, a top 55 protected second rd and a 2024 2nd rd. In 2023, we now have our 1st, Dallas's 1st (protected), Washington's 1st (protected), Detroit's 1st (protected) and Detroit's 2nd. We could be picking 5 times next year. Or, as we approach next year's trade deadline and the impending free agency of a record draft class (together with the famed "double draft"), we will have a slew up upcoming draft picks to play with, some which may not vest immediately.

There are only so many picks we can use ourselves, but we upgraded 2nds to options on 1sts that revert to 2nds if they don't vest in the next several years.

And we have a top 4 protected Bucks pick for 2025. That team may still be nasty in 2024/2025, but they will be facing aging and salary cap pressures with Middleton expiring with player option in 2023 and Holiday a player option for 2024. They are not likely to be the same team they have been the last couple years. Its a gamble.

The moves aren't "sexy" but they are smart. They found value in a vacuum. They created the bargaining position they want/need for this offseason and have the ammo to be players in the next year. They have a number of expiring contracts with team options. They have things that can be sold as 1st rd draft picks (despite the conditions) and they have the ability to make a move on a PG this offseason.

The team is still deeply flawed. I don't think Brunson fixes that. But we now have bargaining position to make other moves. The optionality is valuable.

EwingsGlass wrote:

TPercy wrote:Can someone please explain to me how trading NINE FUCKING MILLION on an EXPIRING contract for a protected first that will 100% convey is good buisness? Like this is easily one of the dumbest moves we’ve made. If we kept the 4 picks then honestly I can live with it but giving up a first to trade an okay contract is so stupid.

Because Detroit is under the cap, the $9MM they absorbed creates a Traded Player Exception for the Knicks of the same amount. Recall they have a 1.2mm TPE from the Knox deal. These are not "cap space" unless they are waived, instead, they are basically options to acquire a player for the amount of the TPE without matching that incoming salary. In addition, the 11 pick comes with a 4.9mm cap hold which represents the rookie scale contract allocated to the #11 pick. Without this trade, they have Walker's 9mm and #11 slated to use 15mm of cap space. Technically, we are carrying Jalen Duran's cap hold until the transactions clear, but that may not "clear" until free agency. Teams often leave transactions unfinished on paper until they must. As such they remain over the cap on paper, but once the dust settles, they will be below the cap.

The key point is that they are not yet below the cap. They can still wheel and deal with the explicit threat of going below the cap to sign players outright. Take about 15mm and waive Gibson's non-guaranteed money and you have about 20mm of money to spend in free agency. Using FVV's contract as guidance on Brunson and you have the threat of a deal if Brunson is willing. The threat being the key term. If Dallas accepts the threat as credible, they become motivated to make a deal instead of losing Brunson for nothing. Starting bid for us is the TPE from Walker and Gibson. They probably ask for Noel and the TPE. We end up with Brunson without waiving Gibson, without waiving any other exceptions we have (like the MLE) and we become hard-capped because we used a S&T to add salary while above the salary cap. We aren't near the hard cap limit, so that's forgivable.

Now, we gave up #11 (with no prospects that were truly making us excited. I liked AJ Griffin, but I appear to be alone in that position). We gave up our 2023 second rd Utah's 2023 second rd, a top 55 protected second rd and a 2024 2nd rd. In 2023, we now have our 1st, Dallas's 1st (protected), Washington's 1st (protected), Detroit's 1st (protected) and Detroit's 2nd. We could be picking 5 times next year. Or, as we approach next year's trade deadline and the impending free agency of a record draft class (together with the famed "double draft"), we will have a slew up upcoming draft picks to play with, some which may not vest immediately.

There are only so many picks we can use ourselves, but we upgraded 2nds to options on 1sts that revert to 2nds if they don't vest in the next several years.

And we have a top 4 protected Bucks pick for 2025. That team may still be nasty in 2024/2025, but they will be facing aging and salary cap pressures with Middleton expiring with player option in 2023 and Holiday a player option for 2024. They are not likely to be the same team they have been the last couple years. Its a gamble.

The moves aren't "sexy" but they are smart. They found value in a vacuum. They created the bargaining position they want/need for this offseason and have the ammo to be players in the next year. They have a number of expiring contracts with team options. They have things that can be sold as 1st rd draft picks (despite the conditions) and they have the ability to make a move on a PG this offseason.

The team is still deeply flawed. I don't think Brunson fixes that. But we now have bargaining position to make other moves. The optionality is valuable.

I found this an excellent read out and agree with it. Thanks EwingsGlass