Welpee wrote:So predictable. Someone plays well against us and suddenly we have to have him. Based on that we should have about 50 players on our roster next year.

Makes a ton of sense if we want to keep D rose

E Payton is a legit weak spot. But do we want to spend 25mm per years or mare on a PG? No we want to resign D rose and upgrade the position for a few years without breaking the bank. A player like this can do that?

BRIGGS wrote:Someone already mentioned him

He’s the kind of guy u want to lock up for 4 years on a much less expensive dime
We have Rose and we should keep him for 3 years but we will need a 24 minute pg who is capable of 34
Payne is super smooth lefty shoots great plays good D doesn’t turn it over. Look at his 36 min stats on basketball reference

I’d much rather pay Payne 4 years 36 mm. 9 per then raking out tens of millions to someone who may not even be superior

Payne is getting a lot of clean looks with the catch and shoot based on the roster around him. Take that roster away and I don't know if it keeps translating. He's in his 6th year, so I have a hard time seeing him having a career turnaround at this point. He's having a good season, so good for him, but he's only useful on a prove it deal. I.E. a two year deal, the 2nd a team option with a minimal buyout. The chance to start might be the real enticement for him.

You don't sign Payne, you use one of those 2nds to draft the guy who gives you 65-70 percent of Payne's current production at 8-10-12 percent of the cost ( i.e. running it through the VORP scenario)

If the Knicks can get him on a very cheap deal, I don't see why not take a flier on him for a short contract, but more than that, I'd take a pass.

Take care of your health Briggs.

Point to note for everyone - When you look at a player, ask yourself if you can get 65 percent of his production for 10 percent of the cost. You can't get that with Jokic, Curry, Doncic, etc, etc. That's why they are superstar players. However would it be impossible to get 65 percent of what Austin Rivers got you at 10 percent of the cost? Burks? Noel? Bullock? I'm not talking about their current pay, but the kind of contract extensions I see people discussing as worth offering up.

If you sign a veteran on a one year "Prove It" deal, he's only sure to play hungry for one year.

When you draft a rookie, he's got a chance to play hungry for three to four years for you to get paid on that 2nd contract and beyond. You also put yourself in a position to get his full Bird Rights, which helps you in trades or to retain him if he's worth keeping.

The salary structure was designed to have two max contracts ( at minimum one), a couple of middle class contracts, and a variety of rookie deals and fringe journeymen and veteran minimums. You have to really think hard about how and when you issue out a middle class contract. ( i.e. the 9-12 million AAV range) MCC's are actually a fast way to poisoning your cap long term if you aren't careful. Contenders are stretching that to three max contracts but are willing to go into the tax zone to do it. But in order to do that, said contenders need full Bird Rights of nearly all of their roster.

I'm not saying the Knicks should totally avoid a MCC in the current system, but I am saying it has a lot of complexity long term on a cap sheet and Cameron Payne is NOT the kind of player you use it on.

Briggs, if you want Cameron Payne (well, without the steep learning curve), look at the next two draft classes and figure out who the Knicks should draft to fulfill the VORP scenario.

What I just posted is exactly how Brock Aller will approach this.

TripleThreat wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Someone already mentioned him

He’s the kind of guy u want to lock up for 4 years on a much less expensive dime
We have Rose and we should keep him for 3 years but we will need a 24 minute pg who is capable of 34
Payne is super smooth lefty shoots great plays good D doesn’t turn it over. Look at his 36 min stats on basketball reference

I’d much rather pay Payne 4 years 36 mm. 9 per then raking out tens of millions to someone who may not even be superior

Payne is getting a lot of clean looks with the catch and shoot based on the roster around him. Take that roster away and I don't know if it keeps translating. He's in his 6th year, so I have a hard time seeing him having a career turnaround at this point. He's having a good season, so good for him, but he's only useful on a prove it deal. I.E. a two year deal, the 2nd a team option with a minimal buyout. The chance to start might be the real enticement for him.

You don't sign Payne, you use one of those 2nds to draft the guy who gives you 65-70 percent of Payne's current production at 8-10-12 percent of the cost ( i.e. running it through the VORP scenario)

If the Knicks can get him on a very cheap deal, I don't see why not take a flier on him for a short contract, but more than that, I'd take a pass.

Take care of your health Briggs.

Point to note for everyone - When you look at a player, ask yourself if you can get 65 percent of his production for 10 percent of the cost. You can't get that with Jokic, Curry, Doncic, etc, etc. That's why they are superstar players. However would it be impossible to get 65 percent of what Austin Rivers got you at 10 percent of the cost? Burks? Noel? Bullock? I'm not talking about their current pay, but the kind of contract extensions I see people discussing as worth offering up.

If you sign a veteran on a one year "Prove It" deal, he's only sure to play hungry for one year.

When you draft a rookie, he's got a chance to play hungry for three to four years for you to get paid on that 2nd contract and beyond. You also put yourself in a position to get his full Bird Rights, which helps you in trades or to retain him if he's worth keeping.

The salary structure was designed to have two max contracts ( at minimum one), a couple of middle class contracts, and a variety of rookie deals and fringe journeymen and veteran minimums. You have to really think hard about how and when you issue out a middle class contract. ( i.e. the 9-12 million AAV range) MCC's are actually a fast way to poisoning your cap long term if you aren't careful. Contenders are stretching that to three max contracts but are willing to go into the tax zone to do it. But in order to do that, said contenders need full Bird Rights of nearly all of their roster.

I'm not saying the Knicks should totally avoid a MCC in the current system, but I am saying it has a lot of complexity long term on a cap sheet and Cameron Payne is NOT the kind of player you use it on.

Briggs, if you want Cameron Payne (well, without the steep learning curve), look at the next two draft classes and figure out who the Knicks should draft to fulfill the VORP scenario.

What I just posted is exactly how Brock Aller will approach this.

First off good to see you TT— hope u r going good. You owe me a lunch I never received

Cameron Payne is an upgrade over Payton — hrs already proven what he can do over his last 70 games on a good team— no way will u get another 2-3 mm $ contract. BUT you can get him for 6-9 mm per for 2-3 years to go with Rose— that’s what we do want. I’d also like to snatch naz Reid from Minny on the cheap cuz I like his upside.

In the draft I like boughknight ayo dusonmo and Jeremiah Robinson in our 17-32 bracket. We need a 6-8 sf we could use ayo as third pg and I think boughknight reminds me of booker

We’re a team trying to win now— we need proven vets — Payne is a Payton upgrade Abd still has upside.

fishmike wrote:phucking Cameron Payne

Perfect for us
Relatively cheap
Turning into a great three point shooter
Assist to turnover is 3.5-1
Good defensive player
Good ball handler
If Derrick rose is our pg we need someone who can upgrade over Payton— have the ability to start but be happy with 20 minutes and won’t break the back

Payne is all of these

Welpee wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

fishmike wrote:phucking Cameron Payne

Perfect for us
Relatively cheap
Turning into a great three point shooter
Assist to turnover is 3.5-1
Good defensive player
Good ball handler
If Derrick rose is our pg we need someone who can upgrade over Payton— have the ability to start but be happy with 20 minutes and won’t break the back

Payne is all of these

Depends on the role you're talking. Again, I would love to have Payne and he would be a significant upgrade offensively over Payton. But is he a reliable, full time starting point guard? I'm not comfortable heavily relying on DRose given his injury history. He hasn't played more than 65 games since 2016. We need a point guard who can carry the load if DRose goes down.

This guy is burgeoning— he’s coming into his own. He could easily start. He’s getting better and he’s 27 with very low miles on the tires.
I don’t want to change the team dynamic— really just looking for younger clear cut upgrades in a couple of positions.

Welpee wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

fishmike wrote:phucking Cameron Payne

Perfect for us
Relatively cheap
Turning into a great three point shooter
Assist to turnover is 3.5-1
Good defensive player
Good ball handler
If Derrick rose is our pg we need someone who can upgrade over Payton— have the ability to start but be happy with 20 minutes and won’t break the back

Payne is all of these

Depends on the role you're talking. Again, I would love to have Payne and he would be a significant upgrade offensively over Payton. But is he a reliable, full time starting point guard? I'm not comfortable heavily relying on DRose given his injury history. He hasn't played more than 65 games since 2016. We need a point guard who can carry the load if DRose goes down.

BRIGGS wrote:

Welpee wrote:So predictable. Someone plays well against us and suddenly we have to have him. Based on that we should have about 50 players on our roster next year.

Makes a ton of sense if we want to keep D rose

E Payton is a legit weak spot. But do we want to spend 25mm per years or mare on a PG? No we want to resign D rose and upgrade the position for a few years without breaking the bank. A player like this can do that?

Questions. Although Payton is a legit weak spot we have to give him a little credit (As the starting PG) for having one of the best defenses and win record? But do agree that we can improve by upgrading Payton. But what would Payne bring defensively or add that is entirely better than Payton? Has to be something different that what he has shown in SIX seasons. Not to mention that nothing in those six years nor being traded to three different teams screams out we need to lock this kid up? Btw, he is close to the bottom of total minutes in FOUR years? Why? Since he has progressed so much. Why are coaches not playing him?? Why are teams trading him?