With 12 players currently under contract, most assume the Knicks will add a veteran on the minimum, then ink a rookie-minimum deal, and call it a summer. Shamet is now widely expected to return after some standout moments during the playoffs. This, in turn, suggests New York’s final signing will be the No. 51 pick from June’s draft, Mohamed Diaward.

Yet, while speaking on an episode of The Putback podcast, SNY’s Ian Begley said the Knicks may actually have other plans. “I would not rule out the idea that the Knicks want to bring in another veteran in addition to a Shamet,” he explained. “And the only way to do that is to make a trade. You can’t do it any other way.” He then goes on to mention that this could be part of a play to land Ben Simmons, who New York remains interested in signing.

The Knicks can’t afford to sign two veteran minimum deals
For now, the Knicks’ primary veteran target after Shamet doesn’t matter so much as the process of making it happen. And Begley is correct: It will require a trade.
Signing a pair of players with two or more years of NBA experience would cost a total of $4.6 million—$2.3 million apiece. The Knicks, as things stand, have about $3.7 million in room beneath the second apron, which they cannot venture into after using most of the mini mid-level exception on Guerschon Yabusele.
So, going after both Shamet and Simmons doesn’t fly with the current roster. New York runs into the same problem even if it wants to guarantee a roster spot. It needs to trim money from the payroll.

This trade could do a number of different ways

The Knicks can do a few different things to create the money necessary to open up a second veteran’s minimum slot.
Offloading Pacome Dadiet is perhaps the cleanest, albeit far from the least painful, path to travel down. His $2.8 million salary is worth more than a veteran’s minimum deal, and New York shouldn’t have an issue finding someone to take him outright.
Similar logic applies to Tyler Kolek, except moving him alone doesn’t get the job done. He is earning just under $2.2 million—a hair less than the $2.3 million that the Knicks would need.

New York could also look at breaking up a slightly more expensive player into a cheaper acquisition, or two. Deuce McBride ($4.3 million), Mitchell Robinson ($13 million), and Josh Hart ($19.5 million) all loom as options here, to various levels of extremity.
Regardless of how the Knicks game it, if the plan is to bring back Shamet and sign another veteran, their offseason remains far from over. And a trade is possible.

https://dailyknicks.com/knicks-potential-free-agency-plan-could-spark-surprise-trade-01k2m9dev2xn

martin wrote:The Knicks could have wrapped up their offseason by signing Shamet and called it a day.

They have not.

Yes - good point.

Listening to K Smith on with Begley the other day and they both confirmed a point that Knicks can't sign McCullar's and a vet min because McCullar makes a bit too much on his current deal. Mentioning McCullar because I believe he will be on the roster.

They also mentioned the possibility of Knicks wanting to sign BOTH Shamet and Simmons but noted that in order to do so they'd have to trade a current (under contract) player in a trade where we send player out and take NOTHING back.

K Smith used Dadiet as an example where Knicks send him out and bring back for ex. 2 2nd rounders. A trade like this in theory could allow McCullers to stay and Knicks to add 2 vet min deals for Shamet/Simmons.

The thought being if we are really going for it does mgmt/Brown prefer to put their fate in hands of a young kid or VETS.

I like the idea of BOTH Shamet/Simmons because Shamet helps with shooting while Ben defensive size and ball movement.

If we could do something like this not sure which young players contract would make it work but I think I'd prefer we moved Kolek over the likes of Dadiet/Huck/McCullar.

Watching some extended clips of Simmons I feel like he could add value -- we really lack ball handling and decision making -- especially if it comes in 6'10" guy who can still defend.

LivingLegend wrote:

martin wrote:The Knicks could have wrapped up their offseason by signing Shamet and called it a day.

They have not.

Yes - good point.

Listening to K Smith on with Begley the other day and they both confirmed a point that Knicks can't sign McCullar's and a vet min because McCullar makes a bit too much on his current deal. Mentioning McCullar because I believe he will be on the roster.

They also mentioned the possibility of Knicks wanting to sign BOTH Shamet and Simmons but noted that in order to do so they'd have to trade a current (under contract) player in a trade where we send player out and take NOTHING back.

K Smith used Dadiet as an example where Knicks send him out and bring back for ex. 2 2nd rounders. A trade like this in theory could allow McCullers to stay and Knicks to add 2 vet min deals for Shamet/Simmons.

The thought being if we are really going for it does mgmt/Brown prefer to put their fate in hands of a young kid or VETS.

I like the idea of BOTH Shamet/Simmons because Shamet helps with shooting while Ben defensive size and ball movement.

If we could do something like this not sure which young players contract would make it work but I think I'd prefer we moved Kolek over the likes of Dadiet/Huck/McCullar.

Watching some extended clips of Simmons I feel like he could add value -- we really lack ball handling and decision making -- especially if it comes in 6'10" guy who can still defend.

We lack ball handling and decision making.... So your solution is to trade Kolek ? Hmm, I don't agree with that logic

We should probably just bring back Shamet and skip the Ben Simmons thing but his defense and passing skills are still intriguing.

ramtour420 wrote:

PassTheBall wrote:Kolek will not be getting any minutes next year.

We should probably just bring back Shamet and skip the Ben Simmons thing but his defense and passing skills are still intriguing.

From the sound of it we are going to be playing fast basketball. System ball. Kolek might actually find more playing time than most think, provided his shot is there.

We already have Deuce and Clarkson playing PG off the bench.

ramtour420 wrote:Let's pretend it's ECF. Do you want Simmons on your team or do you want to play against him? 10 years ago would not be sure. Now tho, with the new NBA he is a liability because it's 4 on 5. And I haven't even discussed his mental fragility. Let Indiana or Cavs or the Celtics have him.....

I’m just not sure he has enough of the winner mentality to make it work. Like he might be destined to not win a championship. I want a championship.