DLeethal wrote:Hot take - with Randle in tow, as the primary paint catcher and initiator, Robinson/Precious and their hands-off offensive style and relentless board crashing might be better than iHart who thrives when he's getting touches and creating.

Sounds like a recipe for Randle being double teamed in the paint. But if you play Randle more at the 5 BOOM more floor spacing ala a modern nba offence

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

Dwightschrute wrote:I think okc overpaid
We have more than enough with mitch
I think we possibly trade for Kessler at some point as I think the coach likes him

It’s a bad contract. And I like Hartenstein

Why is it bad if it fills a need under their salary circumstances without also affecting their level of play?

OKC GM is considered one of the best in the NBA. He thought it was a very very good contract.

They HAD to spend the money. If they did not, they would be penalized.

Who else would have been better for them? that would have made this go from bad to good for you? Cause that's the real question.

They already had Chet Holmgren at C. There were other UFA’s they could have signed

You can't just get away with the simple obvious right? No sir, this is not high school.

Chet will never be able to be a defending power backup C in the same way Mitch has some matchups that don't favor him.

If you think there were other UFA's that were possible and also filled out their salary cap, please list them. They need to meet the salary and skill level to pull that off, rotation player in the least.

There are a lot of layers to OKC signing iHart.

For starters, I can see signing iHart was as much a defensive move as a roster addition. We all like iHart. His stats are solid. His chemistry was great here. His net rating (like all of the Knicks) is boosted by that amazing January. His other advanced stats are pretty good in moderate volume. Not $30mm good. But good. He fit well in NY. A guy I would target on the UFA market or the trade market.

When I survey the league, I see the Knicks as a major opponent within the same competitive horizon as OKC over the next 4-5 years. Losing iHart puts the Knicks in a little bind and no one is bailing the Knicks out. It weakens an otherwise strong squad. It’s a chink in our armor. Robinson can’t play 82 games. We will need alternatives.

Like the vultures picking over Miami’s carcass after the 2022 finals, they came pick off what they could from the Knicks roster. That’s why keeping OG is such a victory.

But I don’t think iHart wins a championship in OKC. I think he has traded his shot at a ring for $30m. New apron rules basically require salary to obtain salary - it’s much harder to add salary. So adding a serviceable player at $30mm is plausible if they want to have tradable salary to obtain the next superstar available. IHart will end up playing in Milwaukee or Phoenix or Miami or anywhere else on a depleted team. He thinks he signed with OKC, but he signed as trade filler. Serviceable trade filler, but trade filler. Teams need filler to go with youth to make trades now.

He is essentially Bruce Brown.

Regarding the bolded. iHart's advanced stats everywhere are pretty much A-MAZING. Not close to anything else. But they are not counting stats so they are hard to quantify. There is a bro on Reddit eg1400 something that has articulated this very well for any who want to look that up. Whole subreddit dedicated to that; it's well travelled.

IMHO iHart is worlds away from Bruce Brown. Or maybe he is the version of Bruce Brown in the very specific games in Denver on their way to championship, not the Toronto or other version.

I think he means in terms of the actual signing. Brown was given inflated, upfront money with a team option. I think everyone knew that Brown was likely getting traded after the signing. I like iHart, but his deal just screams salary ballast.

DLeethal wrote:

Rookie wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Hot take - with Randle in tow, as the primary paint catcher and initiator, Robinson/Precious and their hands-off offensive style and relentless board crashing might be better than iHart who thrives when he's getting touches and creating.

Sounds like a recipe for Randle being double teamed in the paint. But if you play Randle more at the 5 BOOM more floor spacing ala a modern nba offence

I mean Randle has been playing at an All NBA level next to Mitch for years its not like this is something new for him, and despite his overstated turnover tendencies he is elite at creating out of doubles

Yeah adding OG and moving DDV to the SL did help spacing. Randle’s hands still are a little sticky as a point forward. I’m pretty sure both Randle and Mitch are still rehabbing and questionable for the start of the season. Both have traditionally been slow starters to the season when coming off injury

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

Dwightschrute wrote:I think okc overpaid
We have more than enough with mitch
I think we possibly trade for Kessler at some point as I think the coach likes him

It’s a bad contract. And I like Hartenstein

Why is it bad if it fills a need under their salary circumstances without also affecting their level of play?

OKC GM is considered one of the best in the NBA. He thought it was a very very good contract.

They HAD to spend the money. If they did not, they would be penalized.

Who else would have been better for them? that would have made this go from bad to good for you? Cause that's the real question.

They already had Chet Holmgren at C. There were other UFA’s they could have signed

You can't just get away with the simple obvious right? No sir, this is not high school.

Chet will never be able to be a defending power backup C in the same way Mitch has some matchups that don't favor him.

If you think there were other UFA's that were possible and also filled out their salary cap, please list them. They need to meet the salary and skill level to pull that off, rotation player in the least.

There are a lot of layers to OKC signing iHart.

For starters, I can see signing iHart was as much a defensive move as a roster addition. We all like iHart. His stats are solid. His chemistry was great here. His net rating (like all of the Knicks) is boosted by that amazing January. His other advanced stats are pretty good in moderate volume. Not $30mm good. But good. He fit well in NY. A guy I would target on the UFA market or the trade market.

When I survey the league, I see the Knicks as a major opponent within the same competitive horizon as OKC over the next 4-5 years. Losing iHart puts the Knicks in a little bind and no one is bailing the Knicks out. It weakens an otherwise strong squad. It’s a chink in our armor. Robinson can’t play 82 games. We will need alternatives.

Like the vultures picking over Miami’s carcass after the 2022 finals, they came pick off what they could from the Knicks roster. That’s why keeping OG is such a victory.

But I don’t think iHart wins a championship in OKC. I think he has traded his shot at a ring for $30m. New apron rules basically require salary to obtain salary - it’s much harder to add salary. So adding a serviceable player at $30mm is plausible if they want to have tradable salary to obtain the next superstar available. IHart will end up playing in Milwaukee or Phoenix or Miami or anywhere else on a depleted team. He thinks he signed with OKC, but he signed as trade filler. Serviceable trade filler, but trade filler. Teams need filler to go with youth to make trades now.

He is essentially Bruce Brown.

Regarding the bolded. iHart's advanced stats everywhere are pretty much A-MAZING. Not close to anything else. But they are not counting stats so they are hard to quantify. There is a bro on Reddit eg1400 something that has articulated this very well for any who want to look that up. Whole subreddit dedicated to that; it's well travelled.

IMHO iHart is worlds away from Bruce Brown. Or maybe he is the version of Bruce Brown in the very specific games in Denver on their way to championship, not the Toronto or other version.

I'll look for the reddit post. Not looking to argue the difference between good and amazing. His advanced stats make him a top-100 player. He has high assist percentage for a center and offensive rebounding combined with very impressive defense. That's what we need. I am not sure OKC gets the same production with their offensive sets. We will have to wait and see.

The reference to Bruce Brown is a role player type that had very good stats in a system that got (over)paid to fill salary requirements with another team and was subsequently used as trade fodder after those stats didn't 100% translate to a new team and system. Its a working hypothesis. I think we have to let the season play out to prove or disprove the idle speculation.

Rookie wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Hot take - with Randle in tow, as the primary paint catcher and initiator, Robinson/Precious and their hands-off offensive style and relentless board crashing might be better than iHart who thrives when he's getting touches and creating.

Sounds like a recipe for Randle being double teamed in the paint. But if you play Randle more at the 5 BOOM more floor spacing ala a modern nba offence

Isn't that the purpose of putting him in the paint, to let one of the 37%+ shooters get an open look or let Randle get to the line? He has to play with better court awareness on the double team but having faith in his teammates to hit shots should be a lot easier this year with this team.

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

Dwightschrute wrote:I think okc overpaid
We have more than enough with mitch
I think we possibly trade for Kessler at some point as I think the coach likes him

It’s a bad contract. And I like Hartenstein

Why is it bad if it fills a need under their salary circumstances without also affecting their level of play?

OKC GM is considered one of the best in the NBA. He thought it was a very very good contract.

They HAD to spend the money. If they did not, they would be penalized.

Who else would have been better for them? that would have made this go from bad to good for you? Cause that's the real question.

They already had Chet Holmgren at C. There were other UFA’s they could have signed

You can't just get away with the simple obvious right? No sir, this is not high school.

Chet will never be able to be a defending power backup C in the same way Mitch has some matchups that don't favor him.

If you think there were other UFA's that were possible and also filled out their salary cap, please list them. They need to meet the salary and skill level to pull that off, rotation player in the least.

There are a lot of layers to OKC signing iHart.

For starters, I can see signing iHart was as much a defensive move as a roster addition. We all like iHart. His stats are solid. His chemistry was great here. His net rating (like all of the Knicks) is boosted by that amazing January. His other advanced stats are pretty good in moderate volume. Not $30mm good. But good. He fit well in NY. A guy I would target on the UFA market or the trade market.

When I survey the league, I see the Knicks as a major opponent within the same competitive horizon as OKC over the next 4-5 years. Losing iHart puts the Knicks in a little bind and no one is bailing the Knicks out. It weakens an otherwise strong squad. It’s a chink in our armor. Robinson can’t play 82 games. We will need alternatives.

Like the vultures picking over Miami’s carcass after the 2022 finals, they came pick off what they could from the Knicks roster. That’s why keeping OG is such a victory.

But I don’t think iHart wins a championship in OKC. I think he has traded his shot at a ring for $30m. New apron rules basically require salary to obtain salary - it’s much harder to add salary. So adding a serviceable player at $30mm is plausible if they want to have tradable salary to obtain the next superstar available. IHart will end up playing in Milwaukee or Phoenix or Miami or anywhere else on a depleted team. He thinks he signed with OKC, but he signed as trade filler. Serviceable trade filler, but trade filler. Teams need filler to go with youth to make trades now.

He is essentially Bruce Brown.

Regarding the bolded. iHart's advanced stats everywhere are pretty much A-MAZING. Not close to anything else. But they are not counting stats so they are hard to quantify. There is a bro on Reddit eg1400 something that has articulated this very well for any who want to look that up. Whole subreddit dedicated to that; it's well travelled.

IMHO iHart is worlds away from Bruce Brown. Or maybe he is the version of Bruce Brown in the very specific games in Denver on their way to championship, not the Toronto or other version.

I think he means in terms of the actual signing. Brown was given inflated, upfront money with a team option. I think everyone knew that Brown was likely getting traded after the signing. I like iHart, but his deal just screams salary ballast.

How about this take: He salary is not a salary ballast for OKC. In fact, it's a requirement. It's only because all of the other important players on their team is way underpaid.

iHart is making $30M $28.5M $28.5M team option. OVERPAID.

Brunson got paid $27M $26M $25M NOT OVERPAID.

iHart will not have the leap that Brunson had. I think in 2 years, with the TV money coming in, $28M for a passing, shooting (maybe out to 3point land), defense playing Center is not out of the realm of a very fair deal. A younger, springier version of Brook Lopez is in his potential.

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

Dwightschrute wrote:I think okc overpaid
We have more than enough with mitch
I think we possibly trade for Kessler at some point as I think the coach likes him

It’s a bad contract. And I like Hartenstein

Why is it bad if it fills a need under their salary circumstances without also affecting their level of play?

OKC GM is considered one of the best in the NBA. He thought it was a very very good contract.

They HAD to spend the money. If they did not, they would be penalized.

Who else would have been better for them? that would have made this go from bad to good for you? Cause that's the real question.

They already had Chet Holmgren at C. There were other UFA’s they could have signed

You can't just get away with the simple obvious right? No sir, this is not high school.

Chet will never be able to be a defending power backup C in the same way Mitch has some matchups that don't favor him.

If you think there were other UFA's that were possible and also filled out their salary cap, please list them. They need to meet the salary and skill level to pull that off, rotation player in the least.

There are a lot of layers to OKC signing iHart.

For starters, I can see signing iHart was as much a defensive move as a roster addition. We all like iHart. His stats are solid. His chemistry was great here. His net rating (like all of the Knicks) is boosted by that amazing January. His other advanced stats are pretty good in moderate volume. Not $30mm good. But good. He fit well in NY. A guy I would target on the UFA market or the trade market.

When I survey the league, I see the Knicks as a major opponent within the same competitive horizon as OKC over the next 4-5 years. Losing iHart puts the Knicks in a little bind and no one is bailing the Knicks out. It weakens an otherwise strong squad. It’s a chink in our armor. Robinson can’t play 82 games. We will need alternatives.

Like the vultures picking over Miami’s carcass after the 2022 finals, they came pick off what they could from the Knicks roster. That’s why keeping OG is such a victory.

But I don’t think iHart wins a championship in OKC. I think he has traded his shot at a ring for $30m. New apron rules basically require salary to obtain salary - it’s much harder to add salary. So adding a serviceable player at $30mm is plausible if they want to have tradable salary to obtain the next superstar available. IHart will end up playing in Milwaukee or Phoenix or Miami or anywhere else on a depleted team. He thinks he signed with OKC, but he signed as trade filler. Serviceable trade filler, but trade filler. Teams need filler to go with youth to make trades now.

He is essentially Bruce Brown.

Regarding the bolded. iHart's advanced stats everywhere are pretty much A-MAZING. Not close to anything else. But they are not counting stats so they are hard to quantify. There is a bro on Reddit eg1400 something that has articulated this very well for any who want to look that up. Whole subreddit dedicated to that; it's well travelled.

IMHO iHart is worlds away from Bruce Brown. Or maybe he is the version of Bruce Brown in the very specific games in Denver on their way to championship, not the Toronto or other version.

I think he means in terms of the actual signing. Brown was given inflated, upfront money with a team option. I think everyone knew that Brown was likely getting traded after the signing. I like iHart, but his deal just screams salary ballast.

How about this take: He salary is not a salary ballast for OKC. In fact, it's a requirement. It's only because all of the other important players on their team is way underpaid.

iHart is making $30M $28.5M $28.5M team option. OVERPAID.

Brunson got paid $27M $26M $25M NOT OVERPAID.

iHart will not have the leap that Brunson had. I think in 2 years, with the TV money coming in, $28M for a passing, shooting (maybe out to 3point land), defense playing Center is not out of the realm of a very fair deal. A younger, springier version of Brook Lopez is in his potential.

All things can be true. I think we can all agree that Chet, at least as of now, isn't physically ready to play center in a deep playoff run. IHart fills a need. Not sure that 3 point shot ever happens for him, but he is still useful on offense. But I think they're banking on Chet developing to the point (not saying this season) that they won't have a need for IHart. If that happens, it'll be nice to have a team controlled $25M salary and gazillion draft picks to flip for a team need or just to clear up space for the Holmgren and Williams extensions. Shai is also looking at a possible extension with an AAV of $73M next season.

The great thing with the Chet iHart combo: you can play Chet at the 4 no prob.

I think Chet surprised everyone by playing 82 games. So far though, he has only averaged about 42 games a year. So, there is PLENTY of room for the possibility that iHart is worth much more VALUE to OKC than his output.

It's not out of the realm to say that Chet is as injury prone as Mitch.

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

Dwightschrute wrote:I think okc overpaid
We have more than enough with mitch
I think we possibly trade for Kessler at some point as I think the coach likes him

It’s a bad contract. And I like Hartenstein

Why is it bad if it fills a need under their salary circumstances without also affecting their level of play?

OKC GM is considered one of the best in the NBA. He thought it was a very very good contract.

They HAD to spend the money. If they did not, they would be penalized.

Who else would have been better for them? that would have made this go from bad to good for you? Cause that's the real question.

They already had Chet Holmgren at C. There were other UFA’s they could have signed

You can't just get away with the simple obvious right? No sir, this is not high school.

Chet will never be able to be a defending power backup C in the same way Mitch has some matchups that don't favor him.

If you think there were other UFA's that were possible and also filled out their salary cap, please list them. They need to meet the salary and skill level to pull that off, rotation player in the least.

There are a lot of layers to OKC signing iHart.

For starters, I can see signing iHart was as much a defensive move as a roster addition. We all like iHart. His stats are solid. His chemistry was great here. His net rating (like all of the Knicks) is boosted by that amazing January. His other advanced stats are pretty good in moderate volume. Not $30mm good. But good. He fit well in NY. A guy I would target on the UFA market or the trade market.

When I survey the league, I see the Knicks as a major opponent within the same competitive horizon as OKC over the next 4-5 years. Losing iHart puts the Knicks in a little bind and no one is bailing the Knicks out. It weakens an otherwise strong squad. It’s a chink in our armor. Robinson can’t play 82 games. We will need alternatives.

Like the vultures picking over Miami’s carcass after the 2022 finals, they came pick off what they could from the Knicks roster. That’s why keeping OG is such a victory.

But I don’t think iHart wins a championship in OKC. I think he has traded his shot at a ring for $30m. New apron rules basically require salary to obtain salary - it’s much harder to add salary. So adding a serviceable player at $30mm is plausible if they want to have tradable salary to obtain the next superstar available. IHart will end up playing in Milwaukee or Phoenix or Miami or anywhere else on a depleted team. He thinks he signed with OKC, but he signed as trade filler. Serviceable trade filler, but trade filler. Teams need filler to go with youth to make trades now.

He is essentially Bruce Brown.

Regarding the bolded. iHart's advanced stats everywhere are pretty much A-MAZING. Not close to anything else. But they are not counting stats so they are hard to quantify. There is a bro on Reddit eg1400 something that has articulated this very well for any who want to look that up. Whole subreddit dedicated to that; it's well travelled.

IMHO iHart is worlds away from Bruce Brown. Or maybe he is the version of Bruce Brown in the very specific games in Denver on their way to championship, not the Toronto or other version.

I think he means in terms of the actual signing. Brown was given inflated, upfront money with a team option. I think everyone knew that Brown was likely getting traded after the signing. I like iHart, but his deal just screams salary ballast.

How about this take: He salary is not a salary ballast for OKC. In fact, it's a requirement. It's only because all of the other important players on their team is way underpaid.

iHart is making $30M $28.5M $28.5M team option. OVERPAID.

Brunson got paid $27M $26M $25M NOT OVERPAID.

iHart will not have the leap that Brunson had. I think in 2 years, with the TV money coming in, $28M for a passing, shooting (maybe out to 3point land), defense playing Center is not out of the realm of a very fair deal. A younger, springier version of Brook Lopez is in his potential.

You’ve made a similar statement before without challenge that spending this money is a requirement, but I don’t think your underlying premise is correct. With a total salary of 159m and a cap minimum of 126mm, they didn’t “need” to spend this money. They chose to.

Your use of Brunson as salary guidance for iHart is a ridiculous comp. Even way back when. You are using magical projections of growth as your modeling that have no basis (or indicator) in actual performance.

IHart’s best comp/replacement pre-contract was Goga using a Per36 to compare what each would do with the same minutes. Goga signed for 9mm.

Brunson’s best comp was FVV.

Hart put up 8/8/2.5 in 25 mins. I can’t think of another player that put up that kind of number before earning 30mm.

This screams cap filler for me. Subtract iHart and what do they use to match salary for another star (KD) to OKC? Those rumors were floating early summer, incorrectly cause OKC would have to trade half their roster to aggregate that much money. A $30mm placeholder gives them a shot at whoever comes up next.

After Chet, who is probably a significant injury risk despite 82 games last year, OKC has Dieng and Jaylin Williams at 6’9 and no one else over 6’6. That’s a dearth at PF/C.

I am trying to use Brunson as a marker in terms of what vale folks thought he was worth at signing and then well after signing, especially in terms of salary growth relative to cap. Not iHart vs Brunson stats or production growth.

I absolutely do not value Goga and iHart at same levels, so IMHO that comparison is a bad one. His fair value to NY hovered at least to the $17m Knicks were trying to sign him to and I thought that was in iHart range to say the least. iHart was already exploding past his previous of $9m. iHart’s counting stats do not equate to his contract value, it’s all his advanced stuff that separates him.

Draymond’s counting stats suck too. I think iHart is in the same category of player.

iHart’s overall value to team definitely is not $30m but who cares?

I absolutely think iHart’s value to team could be equitable to $28m in 2 more years.

EwingsGlass wrote:You’ve made a similar statement before without challenge that spending this money is a requirement, but I don’t think your underlying premise is correct. With a total salary of 159m and a cap minimum of 126mm, they didn’t “need” to spend this money. They chose to.

Your use of Brunson as salary guidance for iHart is a ridiculous comp. Even way back when. You are using magical projections of growth as your modeling that have no basis (or indicator) in actual performance.

IHart’s best comp/replacement pre-contract was Goga using a Per36 to compare what each would do with the same minutes. Goga signed for 9mm.

Brunson’s best comp was FVV.

Hart put up 8/8/2.5 in 25 mins. I can’t think of another player that put up that kind of number before earning 30mm.

This screams cap filler for me. Subtract iHart and what do they use to match salary for another star (KD) to OKC? Those rumors were floating early summer, incorrectly cause OKC would have to trade half their roster to aggregate that much money. A $30mm placeholder gives them a shot at whoever comes up next.