What does an RJ extension look like?

[Deeeez Knicks]

There is more to a player than TS%.

PF John Collins
SF Harrison Barnes
C Gobert
SG Connaughton
PG Monte Morris

So this would be a contender in your eyes?

I never said the opposite.

But there is a clear relationship between low efficiency *high usage and losing. It's self-evident and pretty basic imo.

Case in point, there have only been a handful of great players who have won championships who were inefficient, and these players were generally great playmakers, which means they manufactured efficient shots for their teammates.

There is no shot creator in that line-up so no, it obviously wouldn't be a contender.

Is this as the lead player, the secondary player or the tertiary player?

If RJ is paid as a secondary/tertiary player (I get he would be very near the top of tertiary options $ wise) is that so bad?

Meaning, inefficient guy X never won a championship, but inefficient guy Y did, as secondary or tertiary option.


I get most contenders probably have efficient 1st and 2nd options and decent role players that compliment , just wondering.

Conversely, there have been efficient players who never won a chip.
Ewing/Barkley come to mind, though I don't know how truly efficient they were, guessing they were.

Wiggins just pulled that off this year. He was very inefficient for most of his career in minn. Even worse then RJ some years. Even on the Warriors he is avg/slightly below avg in efficiency but still was super valuable. GSW doesn’t win without him.

[thebuzzardman]

I never said the opposite.

But there is a clear relationship between low efficiency *high usage and losing. It's self-evident and pretty basic imo.

Case in point, there have only been a handful of great players who have won championships who were inefficient, and these players were generally great playmakers, which means they manufactured efficient shots for their teammates.

There is no shot creator in that line-up so no, it obviously wouldn't be a contender.

Is this as the lead player, the secondary player or the tertiary player?

If RJ is paid as a secondary/tertiary player (I get he would be very near the top of tertiary options $ wise) is that so bad?

Meaning, inefficient guy X never won a championship, but inefficient guy Y did, as secondary or tertiary option.


I get most contenders probably have efficient 1st and 2nd options and decent role players that compliment , just wondering.

Conversely, there have been efficient players who never won a chip.
Ewing/Barkley come to mind, though I don't know how truly efficient they were, guessing they were.

Wiggins just pulled that off this year. He was very inefficient for most of his career in minn. Even worse then RJ some years. Even on the Warriors he is avg/slightly below avg in efficiency but still was super valuable. GSW doesn’t win without him.

Yeah, but GSW has three particularly awesome players. An all time great scorer/passer in Curry, a great shooter/scorer in Klay and one of the more versatile, good passing role players of all time.

[thebuzzardman]

It’ll be interesting to see if they work out an extension early and what that number would be, or if they wait. I think it’ll only be a matter of time and Knicks seem pretty committed to this core but things can change fast

Any implications on waiting\not waiting for either the team or RJ?

I feel like any upgrades, as team is basically over the cap, come from moving Fournier/Rose/Cam in some combination, maybe with another youth.

Any cap benefits or issues or trade flexibility or issues by extending sooner than later?

This implies after the round of trades finalize etc and we assume there's no further moves.

It seems like the Knicks will be over the cap for the foreseeable future unless by some miracle they move Randle and Fournier. It may just come down to if they can agree on a number. RJ may also prefer to bet on himself.

It may be easier to trade him if they don’t resign him right now which could be one benefit for waiting.

In terms of the Knicks moves, they have to look at somehow consolidating picks, contracts, players for some upgrades…It’ll be tough to pull off. That’s probably the biggest reason people don’t like the moves is that they are pretty much locking themselves in unless they can pull off a huge move.

I get they don't like the moves, I guess. I think there's a lot of disappointment the Knicks didn't get Ivey, then traded out of the draft.
At least with young players we can sell ourselves on some hope.
Then there's the optics/reality of the trades being at least 1/2 about clearing contracts they put there etc.
I guess getting some money off the books to be able to get Brunson while getting some so so 1st round picks for around year 2025, it's "ok"

But even before that, once Randle got paid, the outline of the team kind of set. They'd need an upgrade at PG - they did it, and really, it's hard to see not re-upping RJ.

So, the cap space/roster spots of Fournier/Rose/Cam need to be turned into a star wing.
I mean, it could be RJ or Randle, but doubtful.

[Deeeez Knicks]

Is this as the lead player, the secondary player or the tertiary player?

If RJ is paid as a secondary/tertiary player (I get he would be very near the top of tertiary options $ wise) is that so bad?

Meaning, inefficient guy X never won a championship, but inefficient guy Y did, as secondary or tertiary option.


I get most contenders probably have efficient 1st and 2nd options and decent role players that compliment , just wondering.

Conversely, there have been efficient players who never won a chip.
Ewing/Barkley come to mind, though I don't know how truly efficient they were, guessing they were.

Wiggins just pulled that off this year. He was very inefficient for most of his career in minn. Even worse then RJ some years. Even on the Warriors he is avg/slightly below avg in efficiency but still was super valuable. GSW doesn’t win without him.

Yeah, but GSW has three particularly awesome players. An all time great scorer/passer in Curry, a great shooter/scorer in Klay and one of the more versatile, good passing role players of all time.

If we judge them by efficiency are they really awesome and were they awesome in the finals? Klay was below avg in league adjusted efficiency this year at 97 with 48ts% in the finals and Dray for his career is below league avg in efficiency at 97 and had a 39% TS% in the finals.

Or they were still all able to contribute and be valuable despite poor efficiency.

[Deeeez Knicks]

Any implications on waiting\not waiting for either the team or RJ?

I feel like any upgrades, as team is basically over the cap, come from moving Fournier/Rose/Cam in some combination, maybe with another youth.

Any cap benefits or issues or trade flexibility or issues by extending sooner than later?

This implies after the round of trades finalize etc and we assume there's no further moves.

It seems like the Knicks will be over the cap for the foreseeable future unless by some miracle they move Randle and Fournier. It may just come down to if they can agree on a number. RJ may also prefer to bet on himself.

It may be easier to trade him if they don’t resign him right now which could be one benefit for waiting.

In terms of the Knicks moves, they have to look at somehow consolidating picks, contracts, players for some upgrades…It’ll be tough to pull off. That’s probably the biggest reason people don’t like the moves is that they are pretty much locking themselves in unless they can pull off a huge move.

I get they don't like the moves, I guess. I think there's a lot of disappointment the Knicks didn't get Ivey, then traded out of the draft.
At least with young players we can sell ourselves on some hope.
Then there's the optics/reality of the trades being at least 1/2 about clearing contracts they put there etc.
I guess getting some money off the books to be able to get Brunson while getting some so so 1st round picks for around year 2025, it's "ok"

But even before that, once Randle got paid, the outline of the team kind of set. They'd need an upgrade at PG - they did it, and really, it's hard to see not re-upping RJ.

So, the cap space/roster spots of Fournier/Rose/Cam need to be turned into a star wing.
I mean, it could be RJ or Randle, but doubtful.

Yea, they were pretty much committed after resigning Randle. That is the part I like least since building around Randle requires so much effort and a specific type of team makeup. I don’t see the ceiling being that high as long as we are committed to him…plus with all the money tied up into Brunson, Mitch and soon to be RJ….it’s tough to see how we flip this around. Ideally we could swap Randle + picks/players for a legit, better fitting star. That feels like a pipe dream though.

[Bob Ross]

I know people don't like those argument but RJ is also super young still. Not to mention he had had arguably the worst team around him given his strengths and weaknesses, and despite all that, has been a pro and someone who wants to be here.

I'll take a Knicks version of Derek Jeter in RJ

[Chanel Bomber]

I never said the opposite.

But there is a clear relationship between low efficiency *high usage and losing. It's self-evident and pretty basic imo.

Case in point, there have only been a handful of great players who have won championships who were inefficient, and these players were generally great playmakers, which means they manufactured efficient shots for their teammates.

There is no shot creator in that line-up so no, it obviously wouldn't be a contender.

Is this as the lead player, the secondary player or the tertiary player?

If RJ is paid as a secondary/tertiary player (I get he would be very near the top of tertiary options $ wise) is that so bad?

Meaning, inefficient guy X never won a championship, but inefficient guy Y did, as secondary or tertiary option.


I get most contenders probably have efficient 1st and 2nd options and decent role players that compliment , just wondering.

Conversely, there have been efficient players who never won a chip.
Ewing/Barkley come to mind, though I don't know how truly efficient they were, guessing they were.

Wiggins just pulled that off this year. He was very inefficient for most of his career in minn. Even worse then RJ some years. Even on the Warriors he is avg/slightly below avg in efficiency but still was super valuable. GSW doesn’t win without him.

2 of RJ's 3 seasons in the league were worse than Wiggins's worst career-year in league-adjusted TS. And I don't think RJ has the tools in terms of speed and athleticism to become the level of defender that Wiggins was this past year.

But, yes, to your point Wiggins does fit the KCP, Antoine Walker, Jrue Holiday mold of a young player who was empowered and who put up big numbers on low efficiency early on, and who managed to carve out a role as a 3rd option later in his career. I think that is RJ's upside, and his destiny if things work out for him (situation etc.).

All these players adjusted to these new roles after leaving or getting traded by the franchise that drafted them however, and I don't think this is a coincidence. A shift in player expectations is a lesser pill to swallow in a new environment, with better players around them. Which is why I don't foresee an RJ extension ending well.

The Knicks don't have their Curry. If RJ can help get a shot at a proper offensive engine as an asset, that should be the organizational focus. If RJ doesn't carry that sort of value around the league, then it possibly makes sense to keep him on a contract that reflects his actual on-court impact, with a reasonable extra for his upside.

[moocow007]

I know people don't like those argument but RJ is also super young still. Not to mention he had had arguably the worst team around him given his strengths and weaknesses, and despite all that, has been a pro and someone who wants to be here.

I'll take a Knicks version of Derek Jeter in RJ

The problem is MLB doesn't have a salary cap and you have 10 guys starting and another 15 guys on the bench that can significantly impact and cover for their various teammates weaknesses. It's a lot harder to do that in the NBA where individual talent is more important and how much talent you can squeeze under the cap. Ultimately it comes down to how much and whether it makes sense based on where the Knicks are at and what the alternatives are. What is in the best interest of the team is the most important thing and the ultimate goal. Hopefully RJ takes another step forward this season with arguably a true point and better passing talent that should get him the ball in easier situations.

[thebuzzardman]

Is this as the lead player, the secondary player or the tertiary player?

If RJ is paid as a secondary/tertiary player (I get he would be very near the top of tertiary options $ wise) is that so bad?

Meaning, inefficient guy X never won a championship, but inefficient guy Y did, as secondary or tertiary option.


I get most contenders probably have efficient 1st and 2nd options and decent role players that compliment , just wondering.

Conversely, there have been efficient players who never won a chip.
Ewing/Barkley come to mind, though I don't know how truly efficient they were, guessing they were.

Wiggins just pulled that off this year. He was very inefficient for most of his career in minn. Even worse then RJ some years. Even on the Warriors he is avg/slightly below avg in efficiency but still was super valuable. GSW doesn’t win without him.

2 of RJ's 3 seasons in the league were worse than Wiggins's worst career-year in league-adjusted TS. And I don't think RJ has the tools in terms of speed and athleticism to become the level of defender that Wiggins was this past year.

But, yes, to your point Wiggins does fit the KCP, Antoine Walker, Jrue Holiday mold of a young player who was empowered and who put up big numbers on low efficiency early on, and who managed to carve out a role as a 3rd option later in his career. I think that is RJ's upside, and his destiny if things work out for him (situation etc.).

All these players adjusted to these new roles after leaving or getting traded by the franchise that drafted them however, and I don't think this is a coincidence. A shift in player expectations is a lesser pill to swallow in a new environment, with better players around them. Which is why I don't foresee an RJ extension ending well.

The Knicks don't have their Curry. If RJ can help get a shot at a proper offensive engine as an asset, that should be the organizational focus. If RJ doesn't carry that sort of value around the league, then it possibly makes sense to keep him on a contract that reflects his actual on-court impact, with a reasonable extra for his upside.

I've often stated that RJ's willingness to take on any role and have a good attitude about it is why I always consider him a keeper, so I think it's likely he'll adjust to better talent just fine, where some other players don't have the mentality to do that.

All that stuff isn't in a vacuum though. For instance, credit to Wiggins adjusting, and I think he was changing before going to the GSW, but it's easier to take adusting to a role player when Curry/Klay/Draymond are the guys

[Bob Ross]

I know people don't like those argument but RJ is also super young still. Not to mention he had had arguably the worst team around him given his strengths and weaknesses, and despite all that, has been a pro and someone who wants to be here.

I'll take a Knicks version of Derek Jeter in RJ

The problem is MLB doesn't have a salary cap and you have 10 guys starting and another 15 guys on the bench that can significantly impact and cover for their various teammates weaknesses. It's a lot harder to do that in the NBA where individual talent is more important and how much talent you can squeeze under the cap. Ultimately it comes down to how much and whether it makes sense based on where the Knicks are at and what the alternatives are. What is in the best interest of the team is the most important thing and the ultimate goal. Hopefully RJ takes another step forward this season with arguably a true point and better passing talent that should get him the ball in easier situations.

That's fair. I think he will be worth the money

[Ghetto Gospel]

I know people don't like those argument but RJ is also super young still. Not to mention he had had arguably the worst team around him given his strengths and weaknesses, and despite all that, has been a pro and someone who wants to be here.

I'll take a Knicks version of Derek Jeter in RJ

can we let the kid achieve something before we compare him to a hall of famer and one of the most decorated players in the most decorated franchise in baseball? 1 all-star game? 1 all-nba team? 1 chip? anything?

[Chanel Bomber]

Wiggins just pulled that off this year. He was very inefficient for most of his career in minn. Even worse then RJ some years. Even on the Warriors he is avg/slightly below avg in efficiency but still was super valuable. GSW doesn’t win without him.

2 of RJ's 3 seasons in the league were worse than Wiggins's worst career-year in league-adjusted TS. And I don't think RJ has the tools in terms of speed and athleticism to become the level of defender that Wiggins was this past year.

But, yes, to your point Wiggins does fit the KCP, Antoine Walker, Jrue Holiday mold of a young player who was empowered and who put up big numbers on low efficiency early on, and who managed to carve out a role as a 3rd option later in his career. I think that is RJ's upside, and his destiny if things work out for him (situation etc.).

All these players adjusted to these new roles after leaving or getting traded by the franchise that drafted them however, and I don't think this is a coincidence. A shift in player expectations is a lesser pill to swallow in a new environment, with better players around them. Which is why I don't foresee an RJ extension ending well.

The Knicks don't have their Curry. If RJ can help get a shot at a proper offensive engine as an asset, that should be the organizational focus. If RJ doesn't carry that sort of value around the league, then it possibly makes sense to keep him on a contract that reflects his actual on-court impact, with a reasonable extra for his upside.

I've often stated that RJ's willingness to take on any role and have a good attitude about it is why I always consider him a keeper, so I think it's likely he'll adjust to better talent just fine, where some other players don't have the mentality to do that.

All that stuff isn't in a vacuum though. For instance, credit to Wiggins adjusting, and I think he was changing before going to the GSW, but it's easier to take adusting to a role player when Curry/Klay/Draymond are the guys

I think that remains to be seen. His role has expanded in linear manner, from mainly a C&S shooter to a high-usage primary/secondary option. He has a high opinion of himself, so let's see what happens when his role is scaled down back to a role player or tertiary role.

[Bob Ross]

I know people don't like those argument but RJ is also super young still. Not to mention he had had arguably the worst team around him given his strengths and weaknesses, and despite all that, has been a pro and someone who wants to be here.

I'll take a Knicks version of Derek Jeter in RJ

can we let the kid achieve something before we compare him to a hall of famer and one of the most decorated players in the most decorated franchise in baseball? 1 all-star game? 1 all-nba team? 1 chip? anything?

No

[spree8]

In retrospect, probably should've traded RJ to SAC for Ivey straight up.

[Ghetto Gospel]

I know people don't like those argument but RJ is also super young still. Not to mention he had had arguably the worst team around him given his strengths and weaknesses, and despite all that, has been a pro and someone who wants to be here.

I'll take a Knicks version of Derek Jeter in RJ

can we let the kid achieve something before we compare him to a hall of famer and one of the most decorated players in the most decorated franchise in baseball? 1 all-star game? 1 all-nba team? 1 chip? anything?

No

you people are not rooted in reality. prepare to be disappointed

[KnicksNext]

Why hasn't volde gotten extension yet could it be he's getting traded? I hear Toronto would be happy to have him.

A LOT of teams would be happy to have RJ. Good player, hard worker, good teammate, and in the right situation, could probably be very effective, but as far as extending him, it's a valid question what he's worth. A lot of max players end up not helping their team that much. As for RJ, his win shares are kinda low. (16th in his draft class and 37th in win-shares per 48), his effective FG% is low. There are valid questions what he's worth.

Brunson for example, last year - player efficiency rating 17.1, win-shares 7.5
RJ - player efficiency rating 13.7, wins-hares 2.3

Knicks got Brunson on a good contract, but it's not at all clear to me that RJ should get a bigger deal than Brunson and basically every number mentioned in this thread is bigger. I'm not sure he's worth it.

Also . . . I'm not crystal clear on how the cap works, and RJ is young and can get better. But do the Knicks have to lock him up this year? Can they extend him next year? I don't see why not. Or, they could explore trading him for a vet who wants a trade from their team. Not the worst option, or, maybe extend him now when he's going to get less than the Max, or wait and see how he plays this year. I don't think there's a 100% right answer here.

I have no idea what Leon is thinking, but I'm sure he's keeping his options open. I don't think this is the Knicks team of 15 years ago, eager to hand out max contracts just because they can. Amare was not worth a max deal. He was fun to watch, but overpaid. Spree, Houston - both overpaid, though Spree was closest to earning his salary. Marbury, overpaid. None of those players could carry a team. All of them were overpaid.

I don't know what RJ should get, but I wouldn't offer him that much right now. I'd offer maybe 5-118 with an opt out and his agent probably turns it down.

Excellent, excellent point that can be turned into a question for everyone. Should RJ get paid more than Brunson? Is RJ worth more to a franchise than Brunson? For me the answer is clearly no. Brunson is currently a much better player than RJ and it's not really that close. I'm taking Brunson 10 times out of 10 over RJ, and I think almost all GMs around the league would as well.

[Bob Ross]

can we let the kid achieve something before we compare him to a hall of famer and one of the most decorated players in the most decorated franchise in baseball? 1 all-star game? 1 all-nba team? 1 chip? anything?

No

you people are not rooted in reality. prepare to be disappointed

I'll give you that, I'm not sure I'm ever actually in reality or that I or any of you are real for that matter

[thebuzzardman]

2 of RJ's 3 seasons in the league were worse than Wiggins's worst career-year in league-adjusted TS. And I don't think RJ has the tools in terms of speed and athleticism to become the level of defender that Wiggins was this past year.

But, yes, to your point Wiggins does fit the KCP, Antoine Walker, Jrue Holiday mold of a young player who was empowered and who put up big numbers on low efficiency early on, and who managed to carve out a role as a 3rd option later in his career. I think that is RJ's upside, and his destiny if things work out for him (situation etc.).

All these players adjusted to these new roles after leaving or getting traded by the franchise that drafted them however, and I don't think this is a coincidence. A shift in player expectations is a lesser pill to swallow in a new environment, with better players around them. Which is why I don't foresee an RJ extension ending well.

The Knicks don't have their Curry. If RJ can help get a shot at a proper offensive engine as an asset, that should be the organizational focus. If RJ doesn't carry that sort of value around the league, then it possibly makes sense to keep him on a contract that reflects his actual on-court impact, with a reasonable extra for his upside.

I've often stated that RJ's willingness to take on any role and have a good attitude about it is why I always consider him a keeper, so I think it's likely he'll adjust to better talent just fine, where some other players don't have the mentality to do that.

All that stuff isn't in a vacuum though. For instance, credit to Wiggins adjusting, and I think he was changing before going to the GSW, but it's easier to take adusting to a role player when Curry/Klay/Draymond are the guys

I think that remains to be seen. His role has expanded in linear manner, from mainly a C&S shooter to a high-usage primary/secondary option. He has a high opinion of himself, so let's see what happens when his role is scaled down back to a role player or tertiary role.

I think he's done what they've asked him to do in the context of the team and its development plan for him.
We'll see.

[Deeeez Knicks]

Is this as the lead player, the secondary player or the tertiary player?

If RJ is paid as a secondary/tertiary player (I get he would be very near the top of tertiary options $ wise) is that so bad?

Meaning, inefficient guy X never won a championship, but inefficient guy Y did, as secondary or tertiary option.


I get most contenders probably have efficient 1st and 2nd options and decent role players that compliment , just wondering.

Conversely, there have been efficient players who never won a chip.
Ewing/Barkley come to mind, though I don't know how truly efficient they were, guessing they were.

Wiggins just pulled that off this year. He was very inefficient for most of his career in minn. Even worse then RJ some years. Even on the Warriors he is avg/slightly below avg in efficiency but still was super valuable. GSW doesn’t win without him.

2 of RJ's 3 seasons in the league were worse than Wiggins's worst career-year in league-adjusted TS. And I don't think RJ has the tools in terms of speed and athleticism to become the level of defender that Wiggins was this past year.

But, yes, to your point Wiggins does fit the KCP, Antoine Walker, Jrue Holiday mold of a young player who was empowered and who put up big numbers on low efficiency early on, and who managed to carve out a role as a 3rd option later in his career. I think that is RJ's upside, and his destiny if things work out for him (situation etc.).

All these players adjusted to these new roles after leaving or getting traded by the franchise that drafted them however, and I don't think this is a coincidence. A shift in player expectations is a lesser pill to swallow in a new environment, with better players around them. Which is why I don't foresee an RJ extension ending well.

The Knicks don't have their Curry. If RJ can help get a shot at a proper offensive engine as an asset, that should be the organizational focus. If RJ doesn't carry that sort of value around the league, then it possibly makes sense to keep him on a contract that reflects his actual on-court impact, with a reasonable extra for his upside.

The Knicks could def use a Curry or superstar like that. If we had a player like that, no doubt just about everyone would look better.

GSWs culture really is next level. That situation was really perfect for him, and would be perfect for RJ. I think RJ could replicate that if they switched places. Def helps playing with hall of famers and a great coach. Of course the Knicks would never be able to replicate the Warriors. They don’t have to go that far to see improvements though. Just a better team, with better fitting pieces will go a long way.

But the main point is that so much of efficiency is based on role and environment that it really needs to be in put in context. We see it fluctuate drastically for players. It’s something RJ needs to improve for sure. But I don’t think it’s a good measure of progress right now. Many players have dips in efficiency as they expand there usage, role and games. We saw it with RJ where he was more efficient 2 seasons ago. But I am fine with the dip for now because he expanded his game and usage in an attempt to get better. I think he def got better and played some of his best basketball of his career for stretches…consistency is an issue and def needs to get better there as well. Still want to see improvement across the board and it will be a big season for RJ.

Going back to the point of players switching teams….Part of it is finding a better situation. Another part is players typically evolve and get better. Players move around a lot. But successful teams also draft, keep players for long periods and develop them into their roles. Switching teams is more of a factor if it’s switching from a bad organization like the Knicks. That says more about the original team then the player imo.

Ultimately if RJ can be a good #3 type player that’s a good outcome. If that’s what we think then I don’t get some of the negative vibes.

[Bob Ross]

Paying RJ is banking on his character, attitude, work ethic, reported leadership and desire to be here. I think some expectations are too high of him given his age and point of development. He is someone to keep around