Jimbo5 wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

Jimbo5 wrote:Will the Knicks FO continue to stay patient? Can someone shake the young talent tree maybe one good young prospect can shake loose. Im curious if any of these players can become available via trade- SGA, OG, Lonzo and Jalen Brown. I think anyone of these players will be a better fit that if they got Mitchell.

Lonzo has significant knee issues. We dodged a bullet with that guy

Mitchell also has a documented concussion problem. Rose May end looking like Neo from the Matrix

I ment Lamelo Ball

Lamelo? We’d have to offer something as outrageous as what we just offered for Mitchell and that would be going to a team inside our own conference

martin wrote:Nalod, you nailed it: Wiggins is the concept.

Starting: Brunson, Grimes, RJ, Wiggins, Mitch
Bench: IQ, Rokas, ? (2 2023 picks), Obi, Hart

Lots of possibilities

Really warming up to this idea.

martin wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

martin wrote:Nalod, you nailed it: Wiggins is the concept.

Starting: Brunson, Grimes, RJ, Wiggins, Mitch
Bench: IQ, Rokas, ? (2 2023 picks), Obi, Hart

Lots of possibilities

Really warming up to this idea.

I think the Knicks have a sneaky wild card with Hartenstein.

While they may not be an automatic top 6-8 team in the East without a top tier All Star, they could have a very modern team with Hart starting:

Starting: Brunson, Grimes, RJ, Wiggins, Hart
Bench: IQ, Rokas, ? (2 2023 picks), Obi, Mitch

And as much as I post about trading Cam or Randle or Fournier to create cap space, I think better cap, player, and asset management would be for the Knicks to hold on to Randle/Fournier/Cam until their values increase just a bit - all are probably at their low point right now and I wouldn't straight give them away just to move them or attach picks.

I think you only move Fournier or Randle (while attaching a pick) if it’s to create space/ flexibility for a free agent you know you’re going to get. Similar to Brunson. Then the cost becomes far less than trading for that player. The cost is essentially Randle/ Fournier and a couple of protected picks.

martin wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

martin wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

martin wrote:Nalod, you nailed it: Wiggins is the concept.

Starting: Brunson, Grimes, RJ, Wiggins, Mitch
Bench: IQ, Rokas, ? (2 2023 picks), Obi, Hart

Lots of possibilities

Really warming up to this idea.

I think the Knicks have a sneaky wild card with Hartenstein.

While they may not be an automatic top 6-8 team in the East without a top tier All Star, they could have a very modern team with Hart starting:

Starting: Brunson, Grimes, RJ, Wiggins, Hart
Bench: IQ, Rokas, ? (2 2023 picks), Obi, Mitch

And as much as I post about trading Cam or Randle or Fournier to create cap space, I think better cap, player, and asset management would be for the Knicks to hold on to Randle/Fournier/Cam until their values increase just a bit - all are probably at their low point right now and I wouldn't straight give them away just to move them or attach picks.

I think you only move Fournier or Randle (while attaching a pick) if it’s to create space/ flexibility for a free agent you know you’re going to get. Similar to Brunson. Then the cost becomes far less than trading for that player. The cost is essentially Randle/ Fournier and a couple of protected picks.

100% and unfortunately Randle is uber key to the Knicks potentially getting under the cap enough. I can see a world where Fournier is moved relatively easily as the Knicks did with Burks/Noel but Randle is a whole different level.

Give or take, with all the players (except Rose/Cam) minus Randle, Knicks sit at around $113m (not counting draft picks) with an estimated salary cap of $132m, so $20m under with Wiggins probably demanding somewhere near $40m. Those are the parameters.

Looking at the cap I think it just makes sense to trade Fournier for a younger guy and then sign who ever that is and Cam long term. Potentially even extend Quickly and Toppin if they can get a good deal for them. The Knicks might be able to keep everyone and avoid the luxury tax if they keep salaries for everyone at discounts while the cap raises.