Author | Thread |
AUTOADVERT |
martin
Posts: 67903 Alba Posts: 108 Joined: 7/24/2001 Member: #2 USA |
6/29/2022 10:22 AM
smackeddog wrote:Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL: That's just cause you have no faith in Brock Aller Using these notes: https://basketball.realgm.com/nba/draft/future_drafts/detailed 2024 second round draft pick from Miami Points to this trade: George Hill is headed to the Philadelphia 76ers as part of a three-way deal involving the Oklahoma City Thunder and the New York Knicks, it was announced. Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
|
Caseloads
Posts: 27725 Alba Posts: 0 Joined: 7/29/2001 Member: #41 |
6/29/2022 10:51 AM
Uptown wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:TheGame wrote:wargames wrote:Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL: way too much of an overpay |
fishmike
Posts: 53037 Alba Posts: 1 Joined: 7/19/2002 Member: #298 USA |
6/29/2022 11:34 AM
Caseloads wrote:its just not. I dont even love Brunson but its not an overpayUptown wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:TheGame wrote:wargames wrote:Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL: Just to put it into perspective, a 4/110 contract for Jalen Brunson would make him the 39th highest paid player in the NBA next season At 27.5m, he would be 39th, right ahead of Al Horford and right behind Jayson Tatum If you think Brunson is a top 40 player in the NBA it's a fair contract. I don't have a list of my top 40 players but I can't imagine Brunson isn't on it or at least close to it. Don't really get the "what an overpay" comments The above is not from me.. its from Reddit but its spot on IMO for perspective. Brunson is also 26 when he starts playing for us. Literally the best years. He will make Randle better, is a sniper from the corner and is a hard playing tough kid. Very Lowry like. Knick fans will love him. Its a year late but this is a good use of cap space... Brunson is a high EFF% floor general. He's small. I would love to add a big defnesive SF and move RJ to SG but thats for another thread "winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
|
EwingsGlass
Posts: 26035 Alba Posts: 2 Joined: 4/29/2005 Member: #893 USA |
6/29/2022 12:19 PM
fishmike wrote:Caseloads wrote:its just not. I dont even love Brunson but its not an overpayUptown wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:TheGame wrote:wargames wrote:Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL: I think you are over-generalizing to make the number sound good. But I don't agree. I don't want to trash Brunson, I just don't think 27mm is supported by his numbers. Your analysis is too generalized to be accurate. He is not a top 40 player today by any standards. What percentage of those other 39 contracts are overpays? What percentage are HOF? What percentage are 5th year players coming off of 4 year contracts and not an RFA? You can't just presume he is top 40 and then pay him like that. That's an overpay. It may earn out over time, but today its an overpay. He doesn't have the resume. https://www.spotrac.com/nba/valuation/2021/guard/gmpct-25/active/ I don't love this contract value model from Spotrac - it only uses flat productivity numbers to create value, but it equates productivity to games played and productivity in the games played. It doesn't penalize for missed games as much as I might in determining salary. It won't speak to starter vs bench player, only productivity and then that relates back to contract - obviously rookie scale and vet minimum contracts create exceptional production value despite not being a "better" player. I think you need to look at contracts for players in similar situations with similar production to get comparative valuation. FVV's extension may make Brunson's price seem right, but FVV is better and more productive. I think the first step for Brunson is a 20mm contract - like FVV, not a 27mm contract. FVV has a ring and got his raise after performing at 20mm. Lonzo Ball got 20mm. Rozier got 18mm. Rozier got 18mm. I would use this chart to find guards with similar productivity at the price you want to pay them and then compare that to the contract value. By doing that, a Lonzo Ball at 20mm is a better value than Brunson at 20mm. At 27mm, he is not good value by this metric. By current production alone, he's not even a top 40 guard. So anything over 17-18mm is paying for potential. With the right players surrounding him, I would go above 17mm, but not until someone takes Murray off the table at 16mm. For potential, maybe you predict the increased production based on increased minutes. But I don't think you can get from 17mm of face value to 27mm without significantly overpaying. I don't know where these numbers are coming from and maybe the reporters are more tuned in, but the math doesn't really support the storyline, at least in my head. Those articles seem to be sensationalizing how much the Knicks can offer not how much they should. The fact that Charlotte doesn't want to give Miles Bridges 30mm with his much better size, age and positional scarcity should give anyone pause on their valuation. This is the Randle.
|
fishmike
Posts: 53037 Alba Posts: 1 Joined: 7/19/2002 Member: #298 USA |
6/29/2022 12:32 PM
EwingsGlass wrote:who cares what Cha "wants" to pay Bridges and lets see what they do pay him.fishmike wrote:Caseloads wrote:its just not. I dont even love Brunson but its not an overpayUptown wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:TheGame wrote:wargames wrote:Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL: Trash Brunson all you want... I have. He was not a guy I wanted to clear the roster for, but they really didnt do that. They flipped their role players from last year into a 26 year old sharp shooting floor general. He might not even be a top 10 PG in the conference. BUT He's really good and the Knicks get better, get younger and fill a position of need. I understand there are less than ideal aspects of Brunson but when you look at cost/need/value this is a really easy signing for the Knicks. Really easy. He's also a "culture" player. He will work incredible hard, play hard and he's also a big part of fixing Randle assuming Julius bounces back next (much to some fan's dismay). "winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
|
EwingsGlass
Posts: 26035 Alba Posts: 2 Joined: 4/29/2005 Member: #893 USA |
6/29/2022 12:40 PM
fishmike wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:who cares what Cha "wants" to pay Bridges and lets see what they do pay him.fishmike wrote:Caseloads wrote:its just not. I dont even love Brunson but its not an overpayUptown wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:TheGame wrote:wargames wrote:Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL: All we are talking about is price. For me, Murray is the better opportunity. After that door closes, Brunson isn't perfect, I just don't want an AAV of 27.5mm per. I think we can spend our money better. Dallas' 4 for 85 is spot on. 5 for 110m might work if its a sign & trade. This is the Randle.
|
fishmike
Posts: 53037 Alba Posts: 1 Joined: 7/19/2002 Member: #298 USA |
6/29/2022 1:02 PM
EwingsGlass wrote:Murray is better but they are way different costs. Brunson allows us to continue to be players in the draft. Maybe we are out of the lottery but this FO has done a great job filling in gaps and getting us players there. Murray is 3 FRPs and 3 swaps plus some players. Brunson is a do-over from the role players we signed last year that didnt work.fishmike wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:who cares what Cha "wants" to pay Bridges and lets see what they do pay him.fishmike wrote:Caseloads wrote:its just not. I dont even love Brunson but its not an overpayUptown wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:TheGame wrote:wargames wrote:Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL: You trade for DM and that's your team. Part of what makes Brunson so attractive is we can continue to work our draft assets. DM takes us out of that entirely "winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
|