Jalen Brunson says he hopes the New York Knicks will reciprocate his team-friendly contract extension when he becomes eligible for a maximum deal in 2028. The All-NBA guard left $113 million on the table by signing early in 2024 rather than waiting for a larger payday in 2025.

Brunson signed a four-year, $156.5 million extension instead of waiting to pursue a five-year, $269 million maximum contract. The discount provided New York crucial cap flexibility to build around its franchise cornerstone.

"Obviously we'd love for them to do right by me," Brunson said. "I think anyone would. I feel like I sacrificed."

The 29-year-old will be eligible for a five-year, $417.8 million deal beginning in 2028, though he will be 32 entering that season, an age when smaller guards historically begin to decline. Brunson expressed pragmatic reasoning behind his decision to sign early rather than risk injury jeopardizing a larger contract.

"I've seen players wait and then get hurt, and then they're at the mercy of the organization," he said. "A lot of people say I sacrificed for the team. One hundred percent I sacrificed for the team. But most importantly, I made sure my family and I are taken care of."

Brunson joined the Knicks in 2022 on a four-year, $104 million deal after declining to remain with the Dallas Mavericks alongside Luka Doncic. The decision to leave Dallas centered on building his own legacy rather than remaining in a supporting role.

"At the time of free agency, I was thinking about all the situations," Brunson said. "Could I be comfortable and stay in a role next to a future Hall of Famer or create my own path? I was never afraid to fail. When you're reaching for your dreams, you've got to take leaps, even if it's uncomfortable."

martin wrote:

FrenchKnicks wrote:

DLeethal wrote:He definitely took a big paycut and gave us a big discount during his peak prime years and is bearing a ton of risk in hoping he will get the mega payday when he's past his prime instead.

He made a business decision to earn more money over the duration of his career.
The discount was actually 3 or 4 mil, same as Bridges.

Candidly, you seem to be pulling these numbers out of your ass.

Show us the math and then maybe you'll have a point.

I will try.
Here’s one article explaining it:

« Jalen Brunson’s 2024 contract extension earns him a guaranteed $156,549,124 with an average annual salary of $39.1 million. If he had waited for one more year and signed the contract in 2025, Brunson would have been awarded a $269 million maximum contract. »
>> this is the $113 million « sacrifice » which is mentionned in many articles.

« While it seems a purely altruistic gesture, it is a well-calculated bet on his career and Knicks’ success. By locking in $156.5 million in 2024, Brunson not only secured an impressive deal but also positioned himself for a massive contract down the road. The current deal includes a player option for the 2028-29 season, and if he opts out in 2028, he’ll become eligible for a four-year, $323 million extension. But if he waits until 2029, he could command a staggering $418 million extension. »

If you compare the two scenarios over the same four-year span (not taking into account the 5th year) : Brunson really took an initial $37 million paycut over four years, with a $113 million of total risk (ie. career ending injury), in order to be able to sign a 323 or 418 mil extension.

That is why I am saying that it is a business decision, a calculated move to maximize his career earnings.
Nothing wrong about that, but many articles make it look like he took a $113 mil paycut to help the Knicks.

In the end, he will greatly benefit from that decision.
Now, do you want the Knicks to sign him to $80 mil per year starting at age 32?

FrenchKnicks wrote:Salaries increase by a certain max percentage year after year, they’re not linear.
But that really is not the point. He made that decision to earn a LOT MORE, not LESS, and certainly not a sacrifice.

I tried my best to explain it. Sorry I was not able to express myself correctly enough.

I don't believe he made a decision to earn a lot more as his goal when he signed when he signed. Odds are way higher that Leon presented and sold Brunson on signing earlier as Leon knew this would give him more wiggle room to operate. That was Brunson's mindset when signing his deal. Which tracks to why he would feel he sacrificed. As he took the option that Leon presented with the knowledge that it would give the Knicks wiggle room in the cap.

Odds are very high when he is due for extention and Leon presents what cap figure would allow Knicks to keep a player or 2. He will probably sign that deal as well.

If he waited the year and signed his 5 year $269mil deal. He would average $54mil per year over the 5 year deal. Thus Knicks would currently be over the 2nd apron and we wouldn't have the team we currently have right now.

So Knicks have and are currently greatly benefiting from the decisoin Brunson agreed to. Simply due to the apron restrictions, and will have been able to do so this past season, current season, and the next 2 following seasons. Yet you are concerned with a narrative about a 2028-29 possible contract. Which who knows.

Now - whether any player - nothing to do with Brunson - deserves $85mm a year - well — that’s a question above my pay grade. I think earning dollars is important. But in this environment teams that can pay their stars a fraction less have more flexibility to field better teams. It happens in the NFL regularly. I don’t know why the NBA insists on its CBA being a chokehold on teams vs being flexible / they should want teams to put out the best product possible. This second apron nonsense just hamstrings good veteran teams in favor of lucky tankers.

I don’t mind Brunson getting paid. But to be honest, before I gave him $85mm I’d want to see a chip with the likelihood of more.

martin wrote:Is $37m an imaginary discount or what?

It feels like people are really overthinking this one. He took a discount by signing a year early. He didn’t have to do that. I get the whole projecting future salary as a factor, but life is tough to project.

BlueKnickers wrote:Brunson cooperated with the front office and his deal was structured to give them enough flexibility to continue building the team around him.

It is not about how much Brunson left on the table by not locking in X amount of years, etc. regardless of whether it sets him up for a bigger deal sooner.

Brunson is the opposite of Melo who squeezed the franchise for every penny he could. He arrived by forcing a roster depleting trade which backfired on him. The FO then had less assets to build or trade with to continue building the team.

Brunson has been fair with the Knicks by comparison because he is ten times smarter than Melo was about what it takes to build a winning roster.

Yes, the Knicks would need to pay him a giant salary the next go-around, but that is about the nature of today's NBA as a business, not Brunson.

The one thing I would object to a no-trade clause. They are terrible and ruin franchises, because sometimes you need to part ways and reboot.

Not exactly a fair comparison. Brunson's father played for the Knicks during the 99 finals run, and Brunson was around it. Brunson has known Leon Rose basically his whole life. His father also is an active coach on the Knicks. NBA was going into a potential lockout when Melo was to enter FA.

Most importantly, the Knicks are actually run by competent people. None of this was the case leading to Melo getting traded to the Knicks. Narrative is often put on Melo for "forcing" his way to the Knicks through trade. But its more on the Knicks for being an incompetent org putting themselves in that situation. Than relying on Melo to save the Knicks from its incompetence. Walsh drafted Jordan Hill over Derozan, Brandon Jennings, Jrue Holiday, Jeff Teague etc once Steph was off the board. Even though D'Antoni needed a G for his system. Nabbing any one of these players would of allowed for an asset to fall back on or reduced assets needed to be moved in the deal. Walsh essentially got back nothing for All Star David Lee, when his value should have netted a lottery pick. So another asset for the Knicks to fall back on lost. When Knicks did trade for Melo. They were in position to clear all cap with Billups expiring contract and the available amnesty from the lockout. Knicks could have potentially cleared cap and built a whole team around Melo after letting Billups expire for better overall and end game results.

DLeethal wrote:

Rookie wrote:After watching him in the AS game 2 years in a row you can clearly see that while he is a star player he is not on the same level as ‘super star’ players. In that light I think his salary/contract is very reasonable.

Comparatively role players like Bridges and OG are clearly over paid and Towns who gets paid like a super star hasn’t really played like one or shown that he can be the difference maker. Brunsons contract is the last one that I’d complain about on this team.

That's more style of play than anything. Nikola Jokic doesn't sync with the NBA Jam style all star game either. Tim Duncan didn't as well. There are lots of great players who don't really shine with that kind of street ball / globe trotter game.

While Brunson doesn’t have freak athleticism and considered small for his position, I guess if you compared his stats to super star or HOF guards he would be comparable. If not at the top, definitely in the conversation and of course you have to consider the clutch gene coming up big at the end of meaningful games.

Still, I’m not convinced he is a max player. If you said ‘would you rather have Brunson on a max contract or player ‘x’ (given age is an equal) I wouldn’t choose Brunson every time. In that regard I think his contract is in line what I would call fair value. I also think OG, Bridges and KAT are overpaid. How many role player starters in this league have contracts in the top 5% of the league