OG to re-sign 5 years $212mil

[kNicksGmen]

He took less per year on average than anyone else could have offered him. He took less than we could have offered him. Both cases he took less money. Is it as much of a discount as people may have preferred? Probably not but, it is less than the max that anyone could have offered him. Period. He left money on the table either way.

You can assume all you want about what other teams would be willing to pay. You have no possible way of knowing that at all. Reports were multiple teams were offering the max from what I recall.

In the end he left plenty of money on the table to make a difference. 50mil vs 43mil from us is 35mil less. 43mil vs 45.5mil from other teams is 10mil less. Is that correct math? He took less in both scenarios.

agree to disagree. maybe the sixers offer him the max maybe not - knicks could then have matched it or offered what they did - which was more total money, a 15% trade kicker and player option.

you're saying i'm assuming and have no way of knowing what he would have been offered - neither do you. and again, knicks gave him 30.5 million more than any other team could have possibly offered - with a trade kicker. the idea that it was less or a discount i can't agree with. knicks overpaid to avoid him going to free agency and potentially leaving. it is what it is - i'm not mad at him. in contrast to what brunson did it certainly looks greedy and to act like he "took less" isn't how i see it.

i love OG - but is he even a top 50 player? i understand a lot of guys get maxes that don't deserve it, but just because some guys get overpaid doesn't make his deal look like anything less than fair value at best and an overpay at worst. with the cap expected to rise - and thankfully brunson signing his extension, his contract can be managed. but he is maybe the 3rd or 4th best player on the team getting paid by far the most (over a quarter of the cap). Also when you consider he's expected to miss 20 games or so, on a games played basis he's getting crazy money. if he's healthy and plays 70+ games and performs in the playoffs he's worth every penny. the injury history makes it a concerning contract.

in a vacuum it doesn't look that bad, but when basically every other guy on the team is on a bargain contract it stands out. mikal bridges (a better player that misses 0 games) is likely going to extend for less annually/total soon as well. Randle we'll see what happens.

It's simple math bro. He took less on average than anyone could have offered him. That's leaving money on the table. Period end of story. I didn't assume anything. It was reported multiple teams were ready to offer him the max. You are acting like you know what one team would have offered him. It doesn't change the facts. 43 is less than 45.5 and 50. So it is less money.

The trade kicker is meaningless.

Math says Knicks paid him over 30 mil more and one year more than anyone could have.

He did not leave money on the table, period.

If he signed a full max with any other team, that would have literally been leaving money on the table.

[Kampuchea]

agree to disagree. maybe the sixers offer him the max maybe not - knicks could then have matched it or offered what they did - which was more total money, a 15% trade kicker and player option.

you're saying i'm assuming and have no way of knowing what he would have been offered - neither do you. and again, knicks gave him 30.5 million more than any other team could have possibly offered - with a trade kicker. the idea that it was less or a discount i can't agree with. knicks overpaid to avoid him going to free agency and potentially leaving. it is what it is - i'm not mad at him. in contrast to what brunson did it certainly looks greedy and to act like he "took less" isn't how i see it.

i love OG - but is he even a top 50 player? i understand a lot of guys get maxes that don't deserve it, but just because some guys get overpaid doesn't make his deal look like anything less than fair value at best and an overpay at worst. with the cap expected to rise - and thankfully brunson signing his extension, his contract can be managed. but he is maybe the 3rd or 4th best player on the team getting paid by far the most (over a quarter of the cap). Also when you consider he's expected to miss 20 games or so, on a games played basis he's getting crazy money. if he's healthy and plays 70+ games and performs in the playoffs he's worth every penny. the injury history makes it a concerning contract.

in a vacuum it doesn't look that bad, but when basically every other guy on the team is on a bargain contract it stands out. mikal bridges (a better player that misses 0 games) is likely going to extend for less annually/total soon as well. Randle we'll see what happens.

It's simple math bro. He took less on average than anyone could have offered him. That's leaving money on the table. Period end of story. I didn't assume anything. It was reported multiple teams were ready to offer him the max. You are acting like you know what one team would have offered him. It doesn't change the facts. 43 is less than 45.5 and 50. So it is less money.

The trade kicker is meaningless.

Math says Knicks paid him over 30 mil more and one year more than anyone could have.

He did not leave money on the table, period.

If he signed a full max with any other team, that would have literally been leaving money on the table.

Does that assume if he signed a 4 year max with another team he is making $0 in year 5?

[Jalen Bluntson]

agree to disagree. maybe the sixers offer him the max maybe not - knicks could then have matched it or offered what they did - which was more total money, a 15% trade kicker and player option.

you're saying i'm assuming and have no way of knowing what he would have been offered - neither do you. and again, knicks gave him 30.5 million more than any other team could have possibly offered - with a trade kicker. the idea that it was less or a discount i can't agree with. knicks overpaid to avoid him going to free agency and potentially leaving. it is what it is - i'm not mad at him. in contrast to what brunson did it certainly looks greedy and to act like he "took less" isn't how i see it.

i love OG - but is he even a top 50 player? i understand a lot of guys get maxes that don't deserve it, but just because some guys get overpaid doesn't make his deal look like anything less than fair value at best and an overpay at worst. with the cap expected to rise - and thankfully brunson signing his extension, his contract can be managed. but he is maybe the 3rd or 4th best player on the team getting paid by far the most (over a quarter of the cap). Also when you consider he's expected to miss 20 games or so, on a games played basis he's getting crazy money. if he's healthy and plays 70+ games and performs in the playoffs he's worth every penny. the injury history makes it a concerning contract.

in a vacuum it doesn't look that bad, but when basically every other guy on the team is on a bargain contract it stands out. mikal bridges (a better player that misses 0 games) is likely going to extend for less annually/total soon as well. Randle we'll see what happens.

It's simple math bro. He took less on average than anyone could have offered him. That's leaving money on the table. Period end of story. I didn't assume anything. It was reported multiple teams were ready to offer him the max. You are acting like you know what one team would have offered him. It doesn't change the facts. 43 is less than 45.5 and 50. So it is less money.

The trade kicker is meaningless.

Math says Knicks paid him over 30 mil more and one year more than anyone could have.

He did not leave money on the table, period.

If he signed a full max with any other team, that would have literally been leaving money on the table.

He didn't take the full max from ANYONE! He left money on the table. Stop it.

[kNicksGmen]

It's simple math bro. He took less on average than anyone could have offered him. That's leaving money on the table. Period end of story. I didn't assume anything. It was reported multiple teams were ready to offer him the max. You are acting like you know what one team would have offered him. It doesn't change the facts. 43 is less than 45.5 and 50. So it is less money.

The trade kicker is meaningless.

Math says Knicks paid him over 30 mil more and one year more than anyone could have.

He did not leave money on the table, period.

If he signed a full max with any other team, that would have literally been leaving money on the table.

Does that assume if he signed a 4 year max with another team he is making $0 in year 5?

It's not assuming anything. He has the 5th year option regardless. You could argue if he took a 3+1 max elsewhere he could have gotten a super duper max a year earlier. If you actually believe a role player of his caliber is going to get that 3 years from now.

It's simple math bro. He took less on average than anyone could have offered him. That's leaving money on the table. Period end of story. I didn't assume anything. It was reported multiple teams were ready to offer him the max. You are acting like you know what one team would have offered him. It doesn't change the facts. 43 is less than 45.5 and 50. So it is less money.

The trade kicker is meaningless.

Math says Knicks paid him over 30 mil more and one year more than anyone could have.

He did not leave money on the table, period.

If he signed a full max with any other team, that would have literally been leaving money on the table.

He didn't take the full max from ANYONE! He left money on the table. Stop it.

not going to keep debating with you. I already made my points. You don't want to acknowledge the Knicks paid him more total money with more flexibility than any other team could. It was under no circumstances a discount just because it wasn't the absolute max the Knicks could pay. You're essentially saying whenever a player takes less than the absolute most the team is capable of paying, that it is a discount. Nonsense.

Why didn't OG take a 1 or 2 year max then get an even bigger deal which he would be eligible for? Answer is very simple and the reason the 5th year and total money matters.

[BKlutch]

Just call him G now, for Greedy

Oh, oh oh oh -- G!!!!


Will kind of like hearing Breen say "Oh oh oh oh oh Geeeeee Bang!"

[BKlutch]

How long will it take OG to make up the disparity by paying for team dinners, as suggested by Jalen in his podcast?

NBA League sources confirm it will be for the duration of the contract.

Spoiler:

.
NBA League sources Josh Hart confirms it will be for the duration of the contract.

[aggo]

the most important part of OG's contract

and Brunson's
And Hart's
and Mikal's


is that their contracts are not max contracts. meaning they dont take up 30% or 35% of the cap with 8% raises. their contract's share of the overall cap space decreases signficantly more each year than they would if they did have max contracts.

this means that OG certainly did give us a discount. because we have much more room to maneuver under the aprons because his starting salary is less than 30% of the cap (and not 42m in a 30% max contract of 4/180).

OG's 4/180 Free agent 30% max starts at 42m
OG's 5/212 starts at 36.6m

he 100% gave us a discount.

[Jalen Bluntson]

Math says Knicks paid him over 30 mil more and one year more than anyone could have.

He did not leave money on the table, period.

If he signed a full max with any other team, that would have literally been leaving money on the table.

Does that assume if he signed a 4 year max with another team he is making $0 in year 5?

It's not assuming anything. He has the 5th year option regardless. You could argue if he took a 3+1 max elsewhere he could have gotten a super duper max a year earlier. If you actually believe a role player of his caliber is going to get that 3 years from now.

Math says Knicks paid him over 30 mil more and one year more than anyone could have.

He did not leave money on the table, period.

If he signed a full max with any other team, that would have literally been leaving money on the table.

He didn't take the full max from ANYONE! He left money on the table. Stop it.

not going to keep debating with you. I already made my points. You don't want to acknowledge the Knicks paid him more total money with more flexibility than any other team could. It was under no circumstances a discount just because it wasn't the absolute max the Knicks could pay. You're essentially saying whenever a player takes less than the absolute most the team is capable of paying, that it is a discount. Nonsense.

Why didn't OG take a 1 or 2 year max then get an even bigger deal which he would be eligible for? Answer is very simple and the reason the 5th year and total money matters.

You should stop debating because you are dead wrong. He took less than the max that anyone could give him means he left money on the table. You can tap dance and do all the mathematical and mental gymnastics you want. You're wrong.

He is getting paid LESS MONEY for more years than he would have if he took the max from us. He is also getting less money on average per year than he would have if he took the max from someone else. Less money total here. Less money on average anywhere else. Both mean he left money on the table. It's not up for debate. It's fact.

[kNicksGmen]

Does that assume if he signed a 4 year max with another team he is making $0 in year 5?

It's not assuming anything. He has the 5th year option regardless. You could argue if he took a 3+1 max elsewhere he could have gotten a super duper max a year earlier. If you actually believe a role player of his caliber is going to get that 3 years from now.

He didn't take the full max from ANYONE! He left money on the table. Stop it.

not going to keep debating with you. I already made my points. You don't want to acknowledge the Knicks paid him more total money with more flexibility than any other team could. It was under no circumstances a discount just because it wasn't the absolute max the Knicks could pay. You're essentially saying whenever a player takes less than the absolute most the team is capable of paying, that it is a discount. Nonsense.

Why didn't OG take a 1 or 2 year max then get an even bigger deal which he would be eligible for? Answer is very simple and the reason the 5th year and total money matters.

You should stop debating because you are dead wrong. He took less than the max that anyone could give him means he left money on the table. You can tap dance and do all the mathematical and mental gymnastics you want. You're wrong.

He is getting paid LESS MONEY for more years than he would have if he took the max from us. He is also getting less money on average per year than he would have if he took the max from someone else. Less money total here. Less money on average anywhere else. Both mean he left money on the table. It's not up for debate. It's fact.

funny was listening to the KFS pod the other day and thought of your nonsensical take when Jeremy said and I quote (this was them discussing Brunson's new extension).

"Ihart didn't take less, OG didn't take less"

212.5 > 182

Have a nice day.

[Jalen Bluntson]

It's not assuming anything. He has the 5th year option regardless. You could argue if he took a 3+1 max elsewhere he could have gotten a super duper max a year earlier. If you actually believe a role player of his caliber is going to get that 3 years from now. not going to keep debating with you. I already made my points. You don't want to acknowledge the Knicks paid him more total money with more flexibility than any other team could. It was under no circumstances a discount just because it wasn't the absolute max the Knicks could pay. You're essentially saying whenever a player takes less than the absolute most the team is capable of paying, that it is a discount. Nonsense.

Why didn't OG take a 1 or 2 year max then get an even bigger deal which he would be eligible for? Answer is very simple and the reason the 5th year and total money matters.

You should stop debating because you are dead wrong. He took less than the max that anyone could give him means he left money on the table. You can tap dance and do all the mathematical and mental gymnastics you want. You're wrong.

He is getting paid LESS MONEY for more years than he would have if he took the max from us. He is also getting less money on average per year than he would have if he took the max from someone else. Less money total here. Less money on average anywhere else. Both mean he left money on the table. It's not up for debate. It's fact.

funny was listening to the KFS pod the other day and thought of your nonsensical take when Jeremy said and I quote (this was them discussing Brunson's new extension).

"Ihart didn't take less, OG didn't take less"

212.5 > 182

Have a nice day.

212.5 is less than 250. You need math classes bro. Thanks, bye.

[kNicksGmen]

You should stop debating because you are dead wrong. He took less than the max that anyone could give him means he left money on the table. You can tap dance and do all the mathematical and mental gymnastics you want. You're wrong.

He is getting paid LESS MONEY for more years than he would have if he took the max from us. He is also getting less money on average per year than he would have if he took the max from someone else. Less money total here. Less money on average anywhere else. Both mean he left money on the table. It's not up for debate. It's fact.

funny was listening to the KFS pod the other day and thought of your nonsensical take when Jeremy said and I quote (this was them discussing Brunson's new extension).

"Ihart didn't take less, OG didn't take less"

212.5 > 182

Have a nice day.

212.5 is less than 250. You need math classes bro. Thanks, bye.

by your logic Brunson didn't take less because he took the max we could offer. taking the max a team can offer, or less than the max a team can offer - does not equate to taking a discount or taking less.

again... taking less than the absolute max a team can offer, is not taking a discount or taking less unless you are an all nba max player. OG is not.

one last time. the MAXIMUM guaranteed total dollars any team other than the knicks could offer was 182. The knicks paid him 212.5 with a player option in the 5th year. More total money guaranteed, with an option which is more flexibility than any other team could offer (and a trade kicker)

this is very simple stuff here. OG did not take a discount, team friendly deal, less, or any other way you want to word it. good for him. the original point was just it looks a bit greedy in comparison to what brunson just did and what bridges is likely to do.

you can choose to live in an alternate reality where the OG deal was a discount or that "he took less", but in the real world every single reaction to the deal was "Wow that's more than everyone expected" - many considered it an overpay.

[aggo]

funny was listening to the KFS pod the other day and thought of your nonsensical take when Jeremy said and I quote (this was them discussing Brunson's new extension).

"Ihart didn't take less, OG didn't take less"

212.5 > 182

Have a nice day.

212.5 is less than 250. You need math classes bro. Thanks, bye.

by your logic Brunson didn't take less because he took the max we could offer. taking the max a team can offer, or less than the max a team can offer - does not equate to taking a discount or taking less.

again... taking less than the absolute max a team can offer, is not taking a discount or taking less unless you are an all nba max player. OG is not.

one last time. the MAXIMUM guaranteed total dollars any team other than the knicks could offer was 182. The knicks paid him 212.5 with a player option in the 5th year. More total money guaranteed, with an option which is more flexibility than any other team could offer (and a trade kicker)

this is very simple stuff here. OG did not take a discount, team friendly deal, less, or any other way you want to word it. good for him. the original point was just it looks a bit greedy in comparison to what brunson just did and what bridges is likely to do.

you can choose to live in an alternate reality where the OG deal was a discount or that "he took less", but in the real world every single reaction to the deal was "Wow that's more than everyone expected" - many considered it an overpay.

OG did tho?
lol

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/new-york-knicks/yearly

4/164 + 1/48 (Player option) == 5/212


his FA max that he had multiple offers on


4/180


again, this was explained above

[aggo]

OG literally took the exact starting amount to keep the door open for ihart to return and for the team to remain under the second apron by like hundreds of thousands.


OGs discount was more important than Brunson's discount because OG's extension starts this year, and the one Brunson signed starts next year.

[Jalen Bluntson]

OG literally took the exact starting amount to keep the door open for ihart to return and for the team to remain under the second apron by like hundreds of thousands.


OGs discount was more important than Brunson's discount because OG's extension starts this year, and the one Brunson signed starts next year.

He is trying to act like total max dollars matters and then completely ignores that OG did not take the total max dollars he could have. It's nonsense. Add the fact that his yearly avg is STILL less than the yearly avg he could have gotten on a max deal from other teams and he took less all around to stay here.

As for Brunson, he took his max deal. It helped the team because had he waited until next summer he could have gotten another 113mil. That's where his discount comes in.

This FO is getting team friendly deals from everyone on the roster. End of story.

[kNicksGmen]

taking less than the absolute max "avg salary" you could have gotten does not equate to taking less or a discount. the idea that the knicks were going to give him a full max is absurd. he was expected to land in the 30-40 mil range by front office execs around the league (closer to 30 by the majority). is taking a 5/212.5 a discount compared to a 1 year max? obviously not.

total money guaranteed and total years committed (they go hand in hand) are what matters.

5 years for 212.5 with a player option in the 5th year for a player like OG is a FAR BETTER and BIGGER deal than a normal 4 year max he could have otherwise gotten. for the knicks they are trading very slight added flexibility in those 4 years for a risky 5th year on an injury prone role player (albeit a very good role player).

if OG took 4/170 or 5/195 or something, then i would agree he took a bit less (still way more than he was expected to get). but he didn't he took a deal with more total money on more years, a trade kicker and a player option. under no circumstances was it a team friendly deal or a discount. there was a small trade off for lower avg salary for the 5th year - that isn't taking less.

show me the teams where the 3rd best player (at best) is getting paid a near max and it's a "team friendly" or "discount" deal?

the foundation of the argument the "OG took a discount" people are making starts and ends with the idea the guy is clearly worth a max - which isn't even debatable if we're being honest - he's not a max player. So again if he was a 1a or 1b player and took the deal he did, then sure you could argue he took a tiny little bit less than he deserved. that isn't the case here. he's an elite role player that hit free agency in a year there was a desperate team or 2 with cap space that was potentially willing to max him (again at far less total dollars than the knicks gave). this led to the knicks having to overpay and include the 5th year to lower the avg salary a bit. not by any means a discount or a team friendly deal.

[Jalen Bluntson]

taking less than the absolute max "avg salary" you could have gotten does not equate to taking less or a discount. the idea that the knicks were going to give him a full max is absurd. he was expected to land in the 30-40 mil range by front office execs around the league (closer to 30 by the majority). is taking a 5/212.5 a discount compared to a 1 year max? obviously not.

total money guaranteed and total years committed (they go hand in hand) are what matters.

5 years for 212.5 with a player option in the 5th year for a player like OG is a FAR BETTER and BIGGER deal than a normal 4 year max he could have otherwise gotten. for the knicks they are trading very slight added flexibility in those 4 years for a risky 5th year on an injury prone role player (albeit a very good role player).

if OG took 4/170 or 5/195 or something, then i would agree he took a bit less (still way more than he was expected to get). but he didn't he took a deal with more total money on more years, a trade kicker and a player option. under no circumstances was it a team friendly deal or a discount. there was a small trade off for lower avg salary for the 5th year - that isn't taking less.

show me the teams where the 3rd best player (at best) is getting paid a near max and it's a "team friendly" or "discount" deal?

the foundation of the argument the "OG took a discount" people are making starts and ends with the idea the guy is clearly worth a max - which isn't even debatable if we're being honest - he's not a max player. So again if he was a 1a or 1b player and took the deal he did, then sure you could argue he took a tiny little bit less than he deserved. that isn't the case here. he's an elite role player that hit free agency in a year there was a desperate team or 2 with cap space that was potentially willing to max him (again at far less total dollars than the knicks gave). this led to the knicks having to overpay and include the 5th year to lower the avg salary a bit. not by any means a discount or a team friendly deal.

No.

[kNicksGmen]

agree to disagree and keep it pushing. i really like OG as a player and understand why the knicks had to overpay. it is what it is. I don't hold it against a player for using leverage to squeeze a team to get the most they can. good for him and his family.

from a greedy fan perspective i wish he did actually take less but nothing we can do now other than hope he stays healthy as our highest paid player. if you factor in the potential of him only playing 50-60 games his salary becomes even more absurd but like i said have to hope he stays healthy. if the knicks win a chip with him being an impact player the overpay was worth it. if he's oft injured (especially for the playoffs) the contract might not age very well. the trade kicker makes it even harder to trade him if it comes to that point. i'm an optimist and expect good results but also a realist and can't expect every player to take team friendly deals. Randle is up next so we'll see what he does. fortunately the brunson contract is so team friendly it makes the OG contract less of a burden.

[Context]

Lets get this on record too:

Read on Twitter

[Iron Mantis]

Don't like such a huge contract(with a trade-kicker) for a role player(although elite) knowing he's only good for 50-60 games per year.

That chunk of missed games are like a stray bullet that doesn't care who it hits.

When will those missed games make their ugly, herpes-like appearance? In December? Maybe in March? Could it be June?

If the Knicks are "blessed with" those 20-30 guaranteed missed game during the playoff-months....all we can say is: "it's ok, guess we can try for a title run next year".

[Jose7]

Don't like such a huge contract(with a trade-kicker) for a role player(although elite) knowing he's only good for 50-60 games per year.

That chunk of missed games are like a stray bullet that doesn't care who it hits.

When will those missed games make their ugly, herpes-like appearance? In December? Maybe in March? Could it be June?

If the Knicks are "blessed with" those 20-30 guaranteed missed game during the playoff-months....all we can say is: "it's ok, guess we can try for a title run next year".

stop. stop. stop. dont talk about OG like that .EVER.