Jalen Brunson obsession

[HerSports85]

Read on Twitter

[thebuzzardman]

Read on Twitter

Not good enough for the Knicks or their fans

[thebuzzardman]

lol bertans got that contract from the wizards for real? damn that cracked me up

He shot an insane %age from 3pt at a very high usage rate.

Theoretically, he's just in a gully right now and he should revert to a reasonably decent 3pt shooter. But, who's never, ever, ever played a lick of D in his life and essentially has no other relevant bball skills. So .. yeah .. pretty funny.

Watch on YouTube

Steve Novak looks at the Bertrans contract every day and breaks something

[thebuzzardman]

Jake Fischer just said on his podcast that a former Knicks executive told him the Knicks tried to trade Nerlens and Burks before the trade deadline to create cap space for Jalen.

I'm sure they did but no one was interested is the problem. I said this before the season when the vibes from last season was still in bloom and folks on this board were saying (or maybe trying to convince themselves) that the contracts weren't bad. Every one of the contracts Rose gave up was not necessary and that by doing so he made it extremely difficult for them to move on from any of them if things didn't go well. The "team option" doesn't make up for the unnecessarily high per year money for the guaranteed years on the contract. That's more important than the length when you're dealing with solid role players. For solid role players, slightly longer contracts but with much more reasonable AAV actually makes more sense than less years by higher AAV if you think about it. No one wants to pay Nerlens Noel $9.25 million a year to be a backup C when you can find backup C's nowadays for slightly above vet minimum to the $5 million or so range.

They should've doubled the amount and cut the years in half. Sign Rose and Bullock (the two most important players of the bunch) to about $40 million each with a team option for the second year.

They get their money, the Knicks keep their flexibility. Also it would've prevented overloading the team with too many players of (approximately) the same level.

I was about to post this. I'd assume this would mean they couldn't have signed each player?

It would have been fine to not sign each guy, say leaving Burks off the list, even Fournier, but pumping up the money for Rose, Bullocks and Noel, but on one year deals.

Maybe Rose could have taken less and gotten the two years.

Only thing that might have held the Knicks back at giving Noel say 15 million for 1 year is that is kind of defines Mitch's money more clearly, though I'd assume Aller has an idea of both what Mitch should and could command as a FA and also what $ amount works for the Knicks, in terms of future ramifications

[Chanel Bomber]

I'm sure they did but no one was interested is the problem. I said this before the season when the vibes from last season was still in bloom and folks on this board were saying (or maybe trying to convince themselves) that the contracts weren't bad. Every one of the contracts Rose gave up was not necessary and that by doing so he made it extremely difficult for them to move on from any of them if things didn't go well. The "team option" doesn't make up for the unnecessarily high per year money for the guaranteed years on the contract. That's more important than the length when you're dealing with solid role players. For solid role players, slightly longer contracts but with much more reasonable AAV actually makes more sense than less years by higher AAV if you think about it. No one wants to pay Nerlens Noel $9.25 million a year to be a backup C when you can find backup C's nowadays for slightly above vet minimum to the $5 million or so range.

They should've doubled the amount and cut the years in half. Sign Rose and Bullock (the two most important players of the bunch) to about $40 million each with a team option for the second year.

They get their money, the Knicks keep their flexibility. Also it would've prevented overloading the team with too many players of (approximately) the same level.

I was about to post this. I'd assume this would mean they couldn't have signed each player?

It would have been fine to not sign each guy, say leaving Burks off the list, even Fournier, but pumping up the money for Rose, Bullocks and Noel, but on one year deals.

Maybe Rose could have taken less and gotten the two years.

Only thing that might have held the Knicks back at giving Noel say 15 million for 1 year is that is kind of defines Mitch's money more clearly, though I'd assume Aller has an idea of both what Mitch should and could command as a FA and also what $ amount works for the Knicks, in terms of future ramifications

Yeah, and there was no need to sign all these players. The Knicks had facsimiles of Burks and Noel in IQ and Mitch. They didn't need to double up on these roles.

I think there were two rationales behind these signings that I completely disagree with:

1. The Knicks could build on last year's "success", so bringing back all these guys plus Fournier would put the team in a good position this season. As shamm always said, they didn't just sign those guys because these were "movable contracts" - they also felt they could build around this core, otherwise the contracts would have been shorter and more flexible. They bought into the hype to some extent.

2. The Knicks lost the Atlanta series because they didn't have enough shot creators. Well, that's true in the sense that you can never have enough (efficient) shot creators, but that's not the primary reason why the Knicks lost the Atlanta series. The Knicks simply lacked talent overall, their primary shot creator was awful (again they doubled down with the extension), and Thibs lost the plot with his unwillingness to adjust and go small, in my opinion.

Not taking any in-season moves into account, nor my preference to trade Randle, the Knicks would have been much better off starting the season with:

Kemba/Rose
RJ/IQ
Bullock/Grimes
Randle/Obi
Mitch/Taj

With Rose and Bullock getting overpaid on the front end for the sake of the cap flexibility. They could have still controlled their contracts so to match salaries in a trade if it came to that.

[Deeeez Knicks]

Absolutely no chance now.

[thebuzzardman]

They should've doubled the amount and cut the years in half. Sign Rose and Bullock (the two most important players of the bunch) to about $40 million each with a team option for the second year.

They get their money, the Knicks keep their flexibility. Also it would've prevented overloading the team with too many players of (approximately) the same level.

I was about to post this. I'd assume this would mean they couldn't have signed each player?

It would have been fine to not sign each guy, say leaving Burks off the list, even Fournier, but pumping up the money for Rose, Bullocks and Noel, but on one year deals.

Maybe Rose could have taken less and gotten the two years.

Only thing that might have held the Knicks back at giving Noel say 15 million for 1 year is that is kind of defines Mitch's money more clearly, though I'd assume Aller has an idea of both what Mitch should and could command as a FA and also what $ amount works for the Knicks, in terms of future ramifications

Yeah, and there was no need to sign all these players. The Knicks had facsimiles of Burks and Noel in IQ and Mitch. They didn't need to double up on these roles.

I think there were two rationales behind these signings that I completely disagree with:

1. The Knicks could build on last year's "success", so bringing back all these guys plus Fournier would put the team in a good position this season. As shamm always said, they didn't just sign those guys because these were "movable contracts" - they also felt they could build around this core, otherwise the contracts would have been shorter and more flexible. They bought into the hype to some extent.

2. The Knicks lost the Atlanta series because they didn't have enough shot creators. Well, that's true in the sense that you can never have enough (efficient) shot creators, but that's not the primary reason why the Knicks lost the Atlanta series. The Knicks simply lacked talent overall, their primary shot creator was awful (again they doubled down with the extension), and Thibs lost the plot with his unwillingness to adjust and go small, in my opinion.

Not taking any in-season moves into account, nor my preference to trade Randle, the Knicks would have been much better off starting the season with:

Kemba/Rose
RJ/IQ
Bullock/Grimes
Randle/Obi
Mitch/Taj

With Rose and Bullock getting overpaid on the front end for the sake of the cap flexibility. They could have still controlled their contracts so to match salaries in a trade if it came to that.

Mitch was coming off an injury so I kind of get it. Kemba needs to be off the list if hindsight is 20/20.

But if the Knicks were that interested in Brunson and know/knew he's going to be a FA, they should have paid two guys enough in 1 year deals to just be able to walk away and insert Brunson into that spot.

Fournier got 18 million (3+1), Rose 14 million (2+1), Burks 10 million (2+1), Noel 9 million (2+1), Walker 9 million (2), Taj 5 million (1)

Could have kept Rose deal the same, Given 15 million to Burks or Bullocks or even Noel, not signed Walker. Maybe add a depth vet.

Actually, if they were looking to tread water but semi compete, they could have given 15 to each of Bullocks, Burks and Noel and still experimented with Walker.

Guano's Fournier going to cost the Knicks Brunson. He might be the leading curse again.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Read on Twitter

Average and not worth the money - Knick fans

[Chanel Bomber]

I was about to post this. I'd assume this would mean they couldn't have signed each player?

It would have been fine to not sign each guy, say leaving Burks off the list, even Fournier, but pumping up the money for Rose, Bullocks and Noel, but on one year deals.

Maybe Rose could have taken less and gotten the two years.

Only thing that might have held the Knicks back at giving Noel say 15 million for 1 year is that is kind of defines Mitch's money more clearly, though I'd assume Aller has an idea of both what Mitch should and could command as a FA and also what $ amount works for the Knicks, in terms of future ramifications

Yeah, and there was no need to sign all these players. The Knicks had facsimiles of Burks and Noel in IQ and Mitch. They didn't need to double up on these roles.

I think there were two rationales behind these signings that I completely disagree with:

1. The Knicks could build on last year's "success", so bringing back all these guys plus Fournier would put the team in a good position this season. As shamm always said, they didn't just sign those guys because these were "movable contracts" - they also felt they could build around this core, otherwise the contracts would have been shorter and more flexible. They bought into the hype to some extent.

2. The Knicks lost the Atlanta series because they didn't have enough shot creators. Well, that's true in the sense that you can never have enough (efficient) shot creators, but that's not the primary reason why the Knicks lost the Atlanta series. The Knicks simply lacked talent overall, their primary shot creator was awful (again they doubled down with the extension), and Thibs lost the plot with his unwillingness to adjust and go small, in my opinion.

Not taking any in-season moves into account, nor my preference to trade Randle, the Knicks would have been much better off starting the season with:

Kemba/Rose
RJ/IQ
Bullock/Grimes
Randle/Obi
Mitch/Taj

With Rose and Bullock getting overpaid on the front end for the sake of the cap flexibility. They could have still controlled their contracts so to match salaries in a trade if it came to that.

Mitch was coming off an injury so I kind of get it. Kemba needs to be off the list if hindsight is 20/20.

But if the Knicks were that interested in Brunson and know/knew he's going to be a FA, they should have paid two guys enough in 1 year deals to just be able to walk away and insert Brunson into that spot.

Fournier got 18 million (3+1), Rose 14 million (2+1), Burks 10 million (2+1), Noel 9 million (2+1), Walker 9 million (2), Taj 5 million (1)

Could have kept Rose deal the same, Given 15 million to Burks or Bullocks or even Noel, not signed Walker. Maybe add a depth vet.

Actually, if they were looking to tread water but semi compete, they could have given 15 to each of Bullocks, Burks and Noel and still experimented with Walker.

Guano's Fournier going to cost the Knicks Brunson. He might be the leading curse again.

A curse race! I like that! If that's not an excuse to create an Excel table, I don't know what is!

I was only projecting the rotation if we had signed fewer players for more money but on more flexible deals - basically to illustrate my point about that specifically. That wasn't my ideal offseason plan.

Obviously, in hindsight, the Knicks should have passed on Kemba.

In any case, we agree. It's really funny that everybody raved about the Knicks flexibility and the one summer where they might be nicely positioned to sign a good player is the one they don't have capspace.

[Richard4444]

I'm sure they did but no one was interested is the problem. I said this before the season when the vibes from last season was still in bloom and folks on this board were saying (or maybe trying to convince themselves) that the contracts weren't bad. Every one of the contracts Rose gave up was not necessary and that by doing so he made it extremely difficult for them to move on from any of them if things didn't go well. The "team option" doesn't make up for the unnecessarily high per year money for the guaranteed years on the contract. That's more important than the length when you're dealing with solid role players. For solid role players, slightly longer contracts but with much more reasonable AAV actually makes more sense than less years by higher AAV if you think about it. No one wants to pay Nerlens Noel $9.25 million a year to be a backup C when you can find backup C's nowadays for slightly above vet minimum to the $5 million or so range.

They should've doubled the amount and cut the years in half. Sign Rose and Bullock (the two most important players of the bunch) to about $40 million each with a team option for the second year.

They get their money, the Knicks keep their flexibility. Also it would've prevented overloading the team with too many players of (approximately) the same level.

It was the same story in 2019 with Randle and all of the other unnecessary consolation FAs. Same thing before that with THJr. Same thing before that going all the way back to Shandon Anderson days.

I fully expect Leon to continue the long tradition of Knick executives overspending Dolan’s money on leftover veterans instead of just telling him the truth which is that the organization needs a total scorched earth redo from the top down, including at least 3 if not 5 shots at a top 5 pick since there’s literally no other means of attracting Tier 1 talent to the Dolan organization.

We are not in a good position to tank. We have a relatively qualified/experienced bunch of young players and not valuable vets. To get decent odds to get a Top5 pick, we need to build a g-league team (we had one in 2019). We would need to sell some of the young guys for picks and the current vets for worse vets (with very little asset profit in the process) to have a shot.

[Richard4444]

I was about to post this. I'd assume this would mean they couldn't have signed each player?

It would have been fine to not sign each guy, say leaving Burks off the list, even Fournier, but pumping up the money for Rose, Bullocks and Noel, but on one year deals.

Maybe Rose could have taken less and gotten the two years.

Only thing that might have held the Knicks back at giving Noel say 15 million for 1 year is that is kind of defines Mitch's money more clearly, though I'd assume Aller has an idea of both what Mitch should and could command as a FA and also what $ amount works for the Knicks, in terms of future ramifications

Yeah, and there was no need to sign all these players. The Knicks had facsimiles of Burks and Noel in IQ and Mitch. They didn't need to double up on these roles.

I think there were two rationales behind these signings that I completely disagree with:

1. The Knicks could build on last year's "success", so bringing back all these guys plus Fournier would put the team in a good position this season. As shamm always said, they didn't just sign those guys because these were "movable contracts" - they also felt they could build around this core, otherwise the contracts would have been shorter and more flexible. They bought into the hype to some extent.

2. The Knicks lost the Atlanta series because they didn't have enough shot creators. Well, that's true in the sense that you can never have enough (efficient) shot creators, but that's not the primary reason why the Knicks lost the Atlanta series. The Knicks simply lacked talent overall, their primary shot creator was awful (again they doubled down with the extension), and Thibs lost the plot with his unwillingness to adjust and go small, in my opinion.

Not taking any in-season moves into account, nor my preference to trade Randle, the Knicks would have been much better off starting the season with:

Kemba/Rose
RJ/IQ
Bullock/Grimes
Randle/Obi
Mitch/Taj

With Rose and Bullock getting overpaid on the front end for the sake of the cap flexibility. They could have still controlled their contracts so to match salaries in a trade if it came to that.

Mitch was coming off an injury so I kind of get it. Kemba needs to be off the list if hindsight is 20/20.

But if the Knicks were that interested in Brunson and know/knew he's going to be a FA, they should have paid two guys enough in 1 year deals to just be able to walk away and insert Brunson into that spot.

Fournier got 18 million (3+1), Rose 14 million (2+1), Burks 10 million (2+1), Noel 9 million (2+1), Walker 9 million (2), Taj 5 million (1)

Could have kept Rose deal the same, Given 15 million to Burks or Bullocks or even Noel, not signed Walker. Maybe add a depth vet.

Actually, if they were looking to tread water but semi compete, they could have given 15 to each of Bullocks, Burks and Noel and still experimented with Walker.

Guano's Fournier going to cost the Knicks Brunson. He might be the leading curse again.

Last season, everybody was excited about the Knicks' future. Assuming we could not really improve our team by adding stars, we had to keep the core.

Rose: a must-do. He was playing great.
Randle: He was the heart of the team. We needed to keep him. Probably, the extension was a mistake.
Burks: I still think it was a solid contract. He struggled in January/February (maybe concerned with the trade deadline), but he was fine at the end of the season.
Kemba: A good gamble in a position of need. Besides, he was signed for last when we had limited cap space to pursue a better option.

Noel: I did not understand the re-signing. I think it was a reward after a really great performance in the prior season. But he was not needed at the current price range and contract. We could have found better options.

Fournier: He was a good high-volume 3pt shooter last season. And we desperately needed a good high-volume 3pt shooter in the prior season. But we can say he was a great failure. He was very bad in the defensive end (I thought Thibs scheme would help him and not expose him). Besides, he was not very dynamic on the offensive (his playmaking and 2 pt shooting were weak).

I don't know if at the time we could give up getting a long-term reinforcement (like what Fournier could be) only to save money to sign a solid player like Brunson (not a promising future star at the time). There were too moving parts. The scenario could change in one season. We could have traded for a PG star (Lillard perhaps) and make Brunson not needed. IQ or Deuce could breakout at the PG position. Brunson could lose value and accept an MLE offer. Brunson could choose to stay in Dallas. Brunson could get overpaid for another franchise.

[8516knicks]

Read on Twitter

Average and not worth the money - Knick fans

"Brunson averaged 27.8 points per game in the series and committed only four turnovers in the six games. According to ESPN Stats & Information, it's the highest scoring average in a playoff series by a player who committed five or fewer turnovers, surpassing Boston Celtics legend Larry Bird's 27.2 points per game in the 1986 Eastern Conference semifinals."

Knick fans certainly right again= average and not worth the money.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Yeah, and there was no need to sign all these players. The Knicks had facsimiles of Burks and Noel in IQ and Mitch. They didn't need to double up on these roles.

I think there were two rationales behind these signings that I completely disagree with:

1. The Knicks could build on last year's "success", so bringing back all these guys plus Fournier would put the team in a good position this season. As shamm always said, they didn't just sign those guys because these were "movable contracts" - they also felt they could build around this core, otherwise the contracts would have been shorter and more flexible. They bought into the hype to some extent.

2. The Knicks lost the Atlanta series because they didn't have enough shot creators. Well, that's true in the sense that you can never have enough (efficient) shot creators, but that's not the primary reason why the Knicks lost the Atlanta series. The Knicks simply lacked talent overall, their primary shot creator was awful (again they doubled down with the extension), and Thibs lost the plot with his unwillingness to adjust and go small, in my opinion.

Not taking any in-season moves into account, nor my preference to trade Randle, the Knicks would have been much better off starting the season with:

Kemba/Rose
RJ/IQ
Bullock/Grimes
Randle/Obi
Mitch/Taj

With Rose and Bullock getting overpaid on the front end for the sake of the cap flexibility. They could have still controlled their contracts so to match salaries in a trade if it came to that.

Mitch was coming off an injury so I kind of get it. Kemba needs to be off the list if hindsight is 20/20.

But if the Knicks were that interested in Brunson and know/knew he's going to be a FA, they should have paid two guys enough in 1 year deals to just be able to walk away and insert Brunson into that spot.

Fournier got 18 million (3+1), Rose 14 million (2+1), Burks 10 million (2+1), Noel 9 million (2+1), Walker 9 million (2), Taj 5 million (1)

Could have kept Rose deal the same, Given 15 million to Burks or Bullocks or even Noel, not signed Walker. Maybe add a depth vet.

Actually, if they were looking to tread water but semi compete, they could have given 15 to each of Bullocks, Burks and Noel and still experimented with Walker.

Guano's Fournier going to cost the Knicks Brunson. He might be the leading curse again.

A curse race! I like that! If that's not an excuse to create an Excel table, I don't know what is!

I was only projecting the rotation if we had signed fewer players for more money but on more flexible deals - basically to illustrate my point about that specifically. That wasn't my ideal offseason plan.

Obviously, in hindsight, the Knicks should have passed on Kemba.

In any case, we agree. It's really funny that everybody raved about the Knicks flexibility and the one summer where they might be nicely positioned to sign a good player is the one they don't have capspace.

Nah, that was just the kool aid sippers, anyone with understanding of the NBA knew we were f**ked as far as flexibility goes with all those awful deals they handed out.

[Chanel Bomber]

Mitch was coming off an injury so I kind of get it. Kemba needs to be off the list if hindsight is 20/20.

But if the Knicks were that interested in Brunson and know/knew he's going to be a FA, they should have paid two guys enough in 1 year deals to just be able to walk away and insert Brunson into that spot.

Fournier got 18 million (3+1), Rose 14 million (2+1), Burks 10 million (2+1), Noel 9 million (2+1), Walker 9 million (2), Taj 5 million (1)

Could have kept Rose deal the same, Given 15 million to Burks or Bullocks or even Noel, not signed Walker. Maybe add a depth vet.

Actually, if they were looking to tread water but semi compete, they could have given 15 to each of Bullocks, Burks and Noel and still experimented with Walker.

Guano's Fournier going to cost the Knicks Brunson. He might be the leading curse again.

A curse race! I like that! If that's not an excuse to create an Excel table, I don't know what is!

I was only projecting the rotation if we had signed fewer players for more money but on more flexible deals - basically to illustrate my point about that specifically. That wasn't my ideal offseason plan.

Obviously, in hindsight, the Knicks should have passed on Kemba.

In any case, we agree. It's really funny that everybody raved about the Knicks flexibility and the one summer where they might be nicely positioned to sign a good player is the one they don't have capspace.

Nah, that was just the kool aid sippers, anyone with understanding of the NBA knew we were f**ked as far as flexibility goes with all those awful deals they handed out.

Realgm is an ocean of kool-aid. We're a bunch of Tom Hanks in Castaway.

Bing bong.

[Capn'O]

Absolutely no chance now.

None.

[3toheadmelo]

Read on Twitter

Average and not worth the money - Knick fans

Hey, I admitted I was wrong on him

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Read on Twitter

Average and not worth the money - Knick fans

Hey, I admitted I was wrong on him

That wasn't aimed at you, I don't do subliminals, if I'm gonna pull up I hop out and make sure it's known what I'm shooting at. That was just generally what I seen on here.

[Capn'O]

What I don't get is why the front office tipped their hands that they were interested in him. The whole narrative last year is that they saved flexibility for the 2023 free agent class. Now all of a sudden Brunson was a prime target and they earmarked no money for it. We're completely unprepared. Why even advertise that? Is this like how Danny Ainge wanted to draft every superstar player for the Celtics after the fact? It's dumb.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

What I don't get is why the front office tipped their hands that they were interested in him. The whole narrative last year is that they saved flexibility for the 2023 free agent class. Now all of a sudden Brunson was a prime target and they earmarked no money for it. We're completely unprepared. Why even advertise that? Is this like how Danny Ainge wanted to draft every superstar player for the Celtics after the fact? It's dumb.

There was talk of us wanting Brunson before last summer


https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/knicks-have-eye-on-jalen-brunsons-uncertain-mavericks-future/


That story is from April 2021, this front office coveted Brunson, then went out and handicapped themselves with deals that prevented them from having caproom to sign him outright the next summer. Just incompetence.

[Capn'O]

What I don't get is why the front office tipped their hands that they were interested in him. The whole narrative last year is that they saved flexibility for the 2023 free agent class. Now all of a sudden Brunson was a prime target and they earmarked no money for it. We're completely unprepared. Why even advertise that? Is this like how Danny Ainge wanted to draft every superstar player for the Celtics after the fact? It's dumb.

There was talk of us wanting Brunson before last summer


https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/knicks-have-eye-on-jalen-brunsons-uncertain-mavericks-future/


That story is from April 2021, this front office coveted Brunson, then went out and handicapped themselves with deals that prevented them from having caproom to sign him outright the next summer. Just incompetence.

Yeah. That's pretty dumb.