Depth Chart (13/15)(2/2) (Name Age)
Brunson 26/ Rose 34/McBride 22
Fournier 30/IQ 23/ Grimes 22
Barrett 22/Reddish 23
Randle 28/Toppin 24
Robinson 24 /Hart 24/Sims 24
2Way: Keels 19/Hunt 23

Near Term Assets
Rokas Jokubaitus (21)
2023 1st
2023 Dallas 1st (Top 10 Protected)
2023 Washington 1st (Top 14 Protected)
2023 Detroit 1st (Top 18 Protected)
2024 1st
2024 Detroit 2nd
2024 Utah/Cle 2nd (more favorable)
2024 Miami 2nd (Top 55 protected)
2025 1st
2025 Bucks 1st (Top 4 Protected)
2025 Brooklyn 2nd

2024 Salary (Guaranteed 118)
Randle 25.6
Barrett 25.6
Brunson 26.3
Fournier 18.8
Robinson 15.6
Hart 8.2

Team Option (30.8mm)
Rose 15.6
Toppin 6.8
IQ 4.2
Grimes 2.4
McBride 1.8

RFA
Reddish (17.8mm cap hold)

EwingsGlass wrote:Edited 7/14 Added Updated new contract to reflect front loading.

Depth Chart (13/15)(2/2)
Brunson/Rose/McBride
Fournier/IQ/Grimes
Barrett/Reddish
Randle/Toppin
Robinson/Hart/Sims
2Way: Keels/Hunt

Near Term Assets
Rokas Jokubaitus
2023 1st
2023 Dallas 1st (Top 10 Protected)
2023 Washington 1st (Top 14 Protected)
2023 Detroit 1st (Top 18 Protected)
2024 1st
2024 Detroit 2nd
2024 Utah/Cle 2nd (more favorable)
2024 Miami 2nd (Top 55 protected)
2025 1st
2025 Bucks 1st (Top 4 Protected)
2025 Brooklyn 2nd

2024 Salary (Guaranteed 93.5mm)
Randle 25.6
Brunson 26.3
Fournier 18.8
Robinson 15.6
Hart 8.2

Team Option (30.8mm)
Rose 15.6
Toppin 6.8
IQ 4.2
Grimes 2.4
McBride 1.8

RFA
Barrett (32.7mm cap hold)
Reddish (17.8mm cap hold)

Just looking at this in the context of a trade for Donovan Mitchell,

Brunson/Rose/McBride makes Rose/McBride/Rokas a moveable asset. In theory, you could include both Rose and McBride in a trade and still convince Rokas to come play using the Room exception. I love McBride but maybe he is a necessary trade.

Mitchell makes two of Fournier, Grimes and IQ expendable. Our preference is clearly Fournier based kn his lack of defense and the need to fill salary. Between Grimes and IQ I am torn. Grimes has more years of control. IQ is the better player today.

Barrett/Reddish doesn’t leave us much at SF. In my head Barrett isn’t really a SF. And Reddish is unproven. I’m pretty much holding out to trade these guys to NOP to be with Zion for some of their SFs. But for now, I hear folks including Reddish but other that Feron Hunt, I don’t see a lot of length here.

Randle/Toppin - again, not a lot of positional depth here. I’m not really liking to move either in this trade but they need to fill in the PF position if they do. Randle’s trade kicker is an impediment to including him.

Robinson/Hart/Sims - Nothing to talk about. None of these players can be included in a trade.

Rose/Fournier/IQ and selected picks for Mitchell is where I am.

I’m ok not making a move though. Could give this team a season to grow and see what 2023 brings in the draft.

Brunson/Rose/McBride
Fournier/IQ/Grimes
Barrett/Reddish
Randle/Toppin
Robinson/Hart/Sims
2Way: Keels/Hunt

Need to pick up a SF and a PF. I’d like to see a resolution to the SG situation. I’m read my to move IQ and Toppin into the SL in place of Randle and Fournier but obviously can’t do that without some trade.

I’d probably move Randle/Fournier for Westbrook and a 2027 pick. Depending on how Barrett pans out this year, we could end up with space for 2 max FAs in 2023. Or Barrett and a max FA. Actually makes a lot of sense. You actually have a chance to build with players that much fit better.

It’s a bad PR move on the first look, Randle and Fournier, but I just don’t see these guys working well with Brunson. You have a crop of firsts in a strong draft. Let’s Brunson have the ball. Builds off the IQ/Toppin chemistry much like Rose’s statement, and actually increases the efficiency of the starting offense.

If it doesn’t work, you have a better draft pick, a better chance the conditional picks vest (we aren’t ahead of them).

Seems pretty simple to me.

EwingsGlass wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:Looks like the D Mitchell trade is done. How would you guys adjust this roster going into next season?

Brunson/Rose/McBride
Fournier/IQ/Grimes
Barrett/Reddish
Randle/Toppin
Robinson/Hart/Sims
2Way: Keels/Hunt

Need to pick up a SF and a PF. I’d like to see a resolution to the SG situation. I’m read my to move IQ and Toppin into the SL in place of Randle and Fournier but obviously can’t do that without some trade.

I’d probably move Randle/Fournier for Westbrook and a 2027 pick. Depending on how Barrett pans out this year, we could end up with space for 2 max FAs in 2023. Or Barrett and a max FA. Actually makes a lot of sense. You actually have a chance to build with players that much fit better.

It’s a bad PR move on the first look, Randle and Fournier, but I just don’t see these guys working well with Brunson. You have a crop of firsts in a strong draft. Let’s Brunson have the ball. Builds off the IQ/Toppin chemistry much like Rose’s statement, and actually increases the efficiency of the starting offense.

If it doesn’t work, you have a better draft pick, a better chance the conditional picks vest (we aren’t ahead of them).

Seems pretty simple to me.

I would guess the organization is dead set on making the playoffs, on showing progress. What a slow start would mean in terms of trades or roster moves I could only guess. Personally, I want to see what we have before cutting bait. If that means selling lower than I guess so be it. It might also mean selling higher.

Yeah, you have to really believe you are one piece away to willingly accept being on the bubble every year without cap space, roster spots or high draft picks. Kind of better to be really bad (See OKC) or really good (See GSW), but in between doesn’t do much for you (See Washington). I like the idea of being competitive and gave this current roster (pre-Brunson) a good look, but I don’t really think they have “it”. They take bad shots. Don’t really pass much. And have holes in their defense. The 2023 free agent crop is no longer special. So, a ton of cap space doesn’t do that much, but tanking for a high lotto pick could change the franchise. Besides that pile of conditional draft picks, I don’t objectively think we are positioned that well.

I'm a little more glass half full. I think having Brunson and Rose give the Knicks one of the better PG combos in the league. The defense has been solid for two seasons. I think 2021-22 Randle and RJ are closer to their true selves than last season's versions. I think the Knicks have a chance again at having home court in the first round. I'm not confident in a lot of the moves around the Eastern Conference. We'll see by January.

gradyandrew wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:Looks like the D Mitchell trade is done. How would you guys adjust this roster going into next season?

Brunson/Rose/McBride
Fournier/IQ/Grimes
Barrett/Reddish
Randle/Toppin
Robinson/Hart/Sims
2Way: Keels/Hunt

Need to pick up a SF and a PF. I’d like to see a resolution to the SG situation. I’m read my to move IQ and Toppin into the SL in place of Randle and Fournier but obviously can’t do that without some trade.

I’d probably move Randle/Fournier for Westbrook and a 2027 pick. Depending on how Barrett pans out this year, we could end up with space for 2 max FAs in 2023. Or Barrett and a max FA. Actually makes a lot of sense. You actually have a chance to build with players that much fit better.

It’s a bad PR move on the first look, Randle and Fournier, but I just don’t see these guys working well with Brunson. You have a crop of firsts in a strong draft. Let’s Brunson have the ball. Builds off the IQ/Toppin chemistry much like Rose’s statement, and actually increases the efficiency of the starting offense.

If it doesn’t work, you have a better draft pick, a better chance the conditional picks vest (we aren’t ahead of them).

Seems pretty simple to me.

I would guess the organization is dead set on making the playoffs, on showing progress. What a slow start would mean in terms of trades or roster moves I could only guess. Personally, I want to see what we have before cutting bait. If that means selling lower than I guess so be it. It might also mean selling higher.

Yeah, you have to really believe you are one piece away to willingly accept being on the bubble every year without cap space, roster spots or high draft picks. Kind of better to be really bad (See OKC) or really good (See GSW), but in between doesn’t do much for you (See Washington). I like the idea of being competitive and gave this current roster (pre-Brunson) a good look, but I don’t really think they have “it”. They take bad shots. Don’t really pass much. And have holes in their defense. The 2023 free agent crop is no longer special. So, a ton of cap space doesn’t do that much, but tanking for a high lotto pick could change the franchise. Besides that pile of conditional draft picks, I don’t objectively think we are positioned that well.

I'm a little more glass half full. I think having Brunson and Rose give the Knicks one of the better PG combos in the league. The defense has been solid for two seasons. I think 2021-22 Randle and RJ are closer to their true selves than last season's versions. I think the Knicks have a chance again at having home court in the first round. I'm not confident in a lot of the moves around the Eastern Conference. We'll see by January.

I actually think the team will be better without Randle and Fournier. It’s a more volatile position, you kind of know you are getting 37 to 44 wins with Randle and Fournier. Truth is, without that second unit out playing the opposing teams this team is a 25 win team. Triple Threat predicted Randle pretty spot on after his empty stands season. Fournier has been exactly what we expected him to be. I don’t see how Brunson can thrive in a lineup with 3 wings that shoot below 40% and a box out. It’s going to me a much smaller court for him than he had in Dallas. And none of the Knicks in the SL move without the ball. They are stagnant.

Thing is, I want them to be really good or really bad this year. 15th pick in the draft will set them back for a few years as 4 or 5 teams are going to likely get franchise players this coming draft.

The simple argument against the half full glass is that Barrett lacks the athleticism necessary to finish strong at the rim. Without that or a solid 3 point, his eFG will make him a defensive player or a high volume shooter on a terrible team.

Rose needs to have the balls to blow it up and start over. It’s a good year for this.

BRIGGS wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:
Depth Chart
Brunson/Rose/McBride
Fournier/IQ/Grimes
Barrett/Reddish
Randle/Toppin/Gibson
Robinson/Hart/Sims

Near Term Assets
Trevor Keels
Rokas Jokubaitus
2023 1st
2023 Dallas 1st (Top 10 Protected)
2023 Washington 1st (Top 14 Protected)
2023 Detroit 1st (Top 18 Protected)
2024 1st
2024 Detroit 2nd
2024 Utah/Cle 2nd (more favorable)
2024 Miami 2nd (Top 55 protected)
2025 1st
2025 Bucks 1st (Top 4 Protected)
2025 Brooklyn 2nd

2024 Salary (Guaranteed 90.4mm)
Randle 25.6
Brunson 25.4
Fournier 18.8
Robinson 14.4
Hart 8.2

Team Option (30.8mm)
Rose 15.6
Toppin 6.8
IQ 4.2
Grimes 2.4
McBride 1.8

RFA
Barrett (32.7mm cap hold)
Reddish (17.8mm cap hold)

When you look at this, it’s possible but unlikely the Knicks have cap space next year. Assuming they don’t pick up Rose’s option, but they pick up the other 15mm in options, and they resign Barrett at 20-25mm per, they would be over the projected cap.

Barrett and Reddish are on the clock.

Knicks need more 3 AND D not 3 or D players.

At the moment, I think we are still a lottery team.

I’d be trying to move Reddish, Fournier and assets for a 3&D athletic player like Mikal Bridges or OG Anounouby (or both). Might be worth discussing Norman Powell with the Clippers.

I wouldn’t worry too much about moving some youth with Rokas potentially able to come over next year. I think they need to focus on getting more athletic on the wings.

we have 4 first rd picks next year. So much better than risking it all on one player unless its Lebron

I would love to pick up Mikal Bridges. Excellent defense and very efficient shooting, although low volume. What would you guys think about Randell and Fournier and a first round pick (not our own) to the Suns for Mikal Bridges, Jae Crowder and Dario Saric.

Suns get scoring help from Randle, some needed bench depth with Fournier, they lose Bridges but can start Cameron Johnson and they get a first round pick. They are also over the cap and adding more salary doesn’t matter.

Knicks get an expiring contract in Saric and Crowder. Crowder would fill in the PF until we find a replacement and then we slide Barrett to the SG with Quickly as backup and Mikal at SF with Grimes as backup. Crowder and Obi can play as many minutes needed depending on matchups.

EwingsGlass wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:The RJ talk is spot on sadly. He had the most blocked shots in the league. Knicks as a team had a slightly better 3p% shooting vs Dallas (.357 vs .350) so maybe the floor spreading issue isn't as serious.

Our biggest hope is that he takes a big step forward. Age is his friend. I might be overstating the 3pt shooting acumen in Dallas but I don’t think I am wrong on their floor spacing. The Knicks can put a legit floor spacing squad around Brunson, but they are missing a big 3&d sf.

Brunson/Fournier/Grimes/Toppin/Hart would be well spread and high eFG. Fournier, Brunson and Toppin might be weaker on defense.

Rose/IQ/Grimes/Toppin/Hart probably outplays the starting lineup this year for this same reason.

Looking at those lineups makes me seriously question if we need D Mitchell.

Quickly playing with the starters was a net positive. I still think the issue with EF RJ JR and MR comes down to needing a competent PG which the Knicks now have.

I think the bench benefits from playing against looser defenses. Not sure if there are stats that back this up.

Best way to maximize depth is to push the pace. I don't think the starters have anyone that really threatens on the fast break.

https://www.nba.com/stats/lineups/advanced/?Season=2021-22&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&CF=TEAM_ABBREVIATION*E*NYK:MIN*GE*20&sort=NET_RATING&dir=1&GroupQuantity=2

My point is that we tell ourselves that certain players are really good, but are they?