Offseason Trades and Transaction Ideas Thread

[Richard4444]

If we are to get a vet pg like Lowry/Conley or *gasp* cp3, it may be prudent to also get a young guard that will absorb teachings from these vet pg acquisitions. Money would be well spent in that manner.

Getting vet players as CP3 and Lowry is bad from a cap management perspective.

We are supposed to raise Randle's, Barret's, and Mitch's salaries in the next few years to go a lot over the cap by using their bird's rights.

Consequently, when the vet player retires, we will lose that player without getting any cap space in his place to sign a substitute.

[Marty McFly]

If we are to get a vet pg like Lowry/Conley or *gasp* cp3, it may be prudent to also get a young guard that will absorb teachings from these vet pg acquisitions. Money would be well spent in that manner.

Getting vet players as CP3 and Lowry is bad from a cap management perspective.

We are supposed to raise Randle's, Barret's, and Mitch's salaries in the next few years to go a lot over the cap by using their bird's rights.

Consequently, when the vet player retires, we will lose that player without getting any cap space in his place to sign a substitute.

extending Randle is bad from a cap management perspective too.

[KnixtapeH20]

Hey Knicks fans,

You guys need a point guard and Raptors need a C,

What do you think about a Malachi Flynn for Mitch Robinson deal?

U must be out of your fkn mind.... FOH

[BowlRips]

If we are to get a vet pg like Lowry/Conley or *gasp* cp3, it may be prudent to also get a young guard that will absorb teachings from these vet pg acquisitions. Money would be well spent in that manner.

Getting vet players as CP3 and Lowry is bad from a cap management perspective.

We are supposed to raise Randle's, Barret's, and Mitch's salaries in the next few years to go a lot over the cap by using their bird's rights.

Consequently, when the vet player retires, we will lose that player without getting any cap space in his place to sign a substitute.

Lets say a 2/50 for Lowry.
That would leave the Knicks with about 30mil in space for the 2022 offseason when they try to strike.
And that includes:
Lowry
Randle (caphold)
RJ
IQ
Obi
Mitch (caphold)
#19
#21

Thats a pretty good position to be going star chasing. And if you decide to let Randle go.. thats $60mil to spend.

[Richard4444]

If we are to get a vet pg like Lowry/Conley or *gasp* cp3, it may be prudent to also get a young guard that will absorb teachings from these vet pg acquisitions. Money would be well spent in that manner.

Getting vet players as CP3 and Lowry is bad from a cap management perspective.

We are supposed to raise Randle's, Barret's, and Mitch's salaries in the next few years to go a lot over the cap by using their bird's rights.

Consequently, when the vet player retires, we will lose that player without getting any cap space in his place to sign a substitute.

extending Randle is bad from a cap management perspective too.

Extending Randle's contract this offseason a nice move. We would be getting a durable 27 years old star/all NBA player for under 30M/y. It should be a pretty movable deal.

But I agree that re-signing Randle for a supermax salary next offseason (+40M/y) could be awful. Very risk.

Anyway, I assume we will soon capping out and start accumulating contracts to go to spend over 170M/y as Nets and GSW are doing now. We are economical since the ending of the STAT deal.

[Richard4444]

If we are to get a vet pg like Lowry/Conley or *gasp* cp3, it may be prudent to also get a young guard that will absorb teachings from these vet pg acquisitions. Money would be well spent in that manner.

Getting vet players as CP3 and Lowry is bad from a cap management perspective.

We are supposed to raise Randle's, Barret's, and Mitch's salaries in the next few years to go a lot over the cap by using their bird's rights.

Consequently, when the vet player retires, we will lose that player without getting any cap space in his place to sign a substitute.

Lets say a 2/50 for Lowry.
That would leave the Knicks with about 30mil in space for the 2022 offseason when they try to strike.
And that includes:
Lowry
Randle (caphold)
RJ
IQ
Obi
Mitch (caphold)
#19
#21

Thats a pretty good position to be going star chasing. And if you decide to let Randle go.. thats $60mil to spend.

Assuming we get Lavine, the rotation for 2022 season, would be:
Lowry/Luca
Lavine/IQ
RJ/19
Randle/Obi
Mitch/21

The problem is assuming Lowry retires in 2023, we would lose the starting PG and would not have cap space to find a substitute. Mitch, Randle and RJ Cap hold would kill the cap space created by Lowry exit.

If we have signed Lonzo for 4 years instead of Lowry, we would have a team for 3 years at least.

[nykballa2k4]

Getting vet players as CP3 and Lowry is bad from a cap management perspective.

We are supposed to raise Randle's, Barret's, and Mitch's salaries in the next few years to go a lot over the cap by using their bird's rights.

Consequently, when the vet player retires, we will lose that player without getting any cap space in his place to sign a substitute.

extending Randle is bad from a cap management perspective too.

Extending Randle's contract this offseason a nice move. We would be getting a durable 27 years old star/all NBA player for under 30M/y. It should be a pretty movable deal.

But I agree that re-signing Randle for a supermax salary next offseason (+40M/y) could be awful. Very risk.

Anyway, I assume we will soon capping out and start accumulating contracts to go to spend over 170M/y as Nets and GSW are doing now. We are economical since the ending of the STAT deal.

IMO if we can get a team-friendly extension on Mitch (he could be paid the 2M range this summer otherwise) we could maybe do a 3/30 with him with the 3rd year a PO just for the purpose of paying him 20M and having him for this and next year so we can get a big fish before paying him a real salary.

Randle is scary, I don't think we super-max him regardless and if he wants to play here we can still pay him what everyone else can. No one is going to super-max him or want to super-max him.

[RHODEY]

extending Randle is bad from a cap management perspective too.

Extending Randle's contract this offseason a nice move. We would be getting a durable 27 years old star/all NBA player for under 30M/y. It should be a pretty movable deal.

But I agree that re-signing Randle for a supermax salary next offseason (+40M/y) could be awful. Very risk.

Anyway, I assume we will soon capping out and start accumulating contracts to go to spend over 170M/y as Nets and GSW are doing now. We are economical since the ending of the STAT deal.

IMO if we can get a team-friendly extension on Mitch (he could be paid the 2M range this summer otherwise) we could maybe do a 3/30 with him with the 3rd year a PO just for the purpose of paying him 20M and having him for this and next year so we can get a big fish before paying him a real salary.

Randle is scary, I don't think we super-max him regardless and if he wants to play here we can still pay him what everyone else can. No one is going to super-max him or want to super-max him.

Not unless he continues to improve...

[F N 11]

I have decided to go with Lonzo. He fits the timeline, keep building. Old players should not be our best players.

[nykballa2k4]

Extending Randle's contract this offseason a nice move. We would be getting a durable 27 years old star/all NBA player for under 30M/y. It should be a pretty movable deal.

But I agree that re-signing Randle for a supermax salary next offseason (+40M/y) could be awful. Very risk.

Anyway, I assume we will soon capping out and start accumulating contracts to go to spend over 170M/y as Nets and GSW are doing now. We are economical since the ending of the STAT deal.

IMO if we can get a team-friendly extension on Mitch (he could be paid the 2M range this summer otherwise) we could maybe do a 3/30 with him with the 3rd year a PO just for the purpose of paying him 20M and having him for this and next year so we can get a big fish before paying him a real salary.

Randle is scary, I don't think we super-max him regardless and if he wants to play here we can still pay him what everyone else can. No one is going to super-max him or want to super-max him.

Not unless he continues to improve...

If RJ takes strides and we get another high-level guy on this roster (Kemba, Wall, Westbrook, Lillard, Beal) there are going to be fewer shots. Randle can be more efficient, but he is not going to magically become a shot blocker, not going to become a coast-to-coast off the steal ball hawk. He can rebound better I assume. Does an efficient 2-way PF with averages of 22-12-4 assists get a supermax?

With our pace of play, numbers are artificially lower. Randle's high MPG makes his season average numbers more representative but overall if we bring in "a guy" and RJ needs shots, Randles FGA's go down. I just don't see a team telling Randles agent "get him here and we will super-max him" That would have to be decided this summer if I am not mistaken (so he would play a season with the new team and be eligible for the supermax). If we keep him all year, he becomes a UFA and we don't put the supermax on the table, I think we can still outbid in years any competition.

[nykballa2k4]

I have decided to go with Lonzo. He fits the timeline, keep building. Old players should not be our best players.

Would not be mad at it, but IMO we should be staying flexible. We could certainly do worse.

[booyaka_jones]

This is gonna sound funny but, I'm sold on Lonzo because yea he's a good player, but more importantly, he would FORCE Thibs to adjust his outdated ass offensive schemes. That alone makes me happy. He's gonna have to adjust to having his pg/primary ball handler wanting to push the pace and get out in transition. He's gonna have to live with not having his PG trying to live in the paint where his other two star players want to live (3 if you count mitch). Lonzo will get out in transition, he'll swing the ball around effectively to open shooters on the perimeter and be the king of the hockey assist and I'm good with that. The real issue we have is at the starting 2 guard spot. Thank you Reggie, you're nice dude but you belong on the bench, not on the starting unit playing 35 minutes a night. Get IQ in there at the 2 spot or get someone else who can shot create and hit the 3. I'd love it to come from the draft or make it IQ but no way Thibs starting a rookie.

[BugginOut]

IMO if we can get a team-friendly extension on Mitch (he could be paid the 2M range this summer otherwise) we could maybe do a 3/30 with him with the 3rd year a PO just for the purpose of paying him 20M and having him for this and next year so we can get a big fish before paying him a real salary.

Randle is scary, I don't think we super-max him regardless and if he wants to play here we can still pay him what everyone else can. No one is going to super-max him or want to super-max him.

Not unless he continues to improve...

If RJ takes strides and we get another high-level guy on this roster (Kemba, Wall, Westbrook, Lillard, Beal) there are going to be fewer shots. Randle can be more efficient, but he is not going to magically become a shot blocker, not going to become a coast-to-coast off the steal ball hawk. He can rebound better I assume. Does an efficient 2-way PF with averages of 22-12-4 assists get a supermax?

With our pace of play, numbers are artificially lower. Randle's high MPG makes his season average numbers more representative but overall if we bring in "a guy" and RJ needs shots, Randles FGA's go down. I just don't see a team telling Randles agent "get him here and we will super-max him" That would have to be decided this summer if I am not mistaken (so he would play a season with the new team and be eligible for the supermax). If we keep him all year, he becomes a UFA and we don't put the supermax on the table, I think we can still outbid in years any competition.

A 20-10 two-way PF that shoots 40% from 3 is getting the max from any team in the league. Especially since his max is around 33 million a year

[sol537]

Lowry on a 2-year deal is my jam. He'd make us way more dangerous than we've been this past season.

[The Vo Show]

My biggest problem with Lonzo is that his skillset says he's a pg but his inability to breakdown defenses in a half court set basically negates his vision because hes relegated to passing around the perimeter and spotting up for 3. I'm sure Stan Van Gundy saw how good Lonzo's vision is and yet look at how they played him. Its because in a half court, he's basically Joe Harris except way worse. His vision is only useful if he is able to navigate a PnR and if he's not a threat in the PnR, then who is he passing to because the defender will sag off and cut off passing lanes instead.

[Chanel Bomber]

We're not gonna elevate over mediocrity in a sustainable manner if we sign or trade for mediocre players.

Lonzo isn't a difference maker. At best, he's neutral. At worst, he makes us worse.

[The Lamma]

Who comes up with stuff? First he says kp gives us another shot creator...since when? He's a shot taker, but not a shot creator. Then says he still has some Gobert level ceiling on D...he's timid, slow and weak manning the paint, none of which describe Rudy.
He's not quick or strong enough to do anything other than chuck open shots at a below average rate. (it seems impressive because it's unexpected coming from 7'3", but this isn't a carnival attraction), otherwise this guy is a Carmelo level ball stopper minus the shooting and bully strength.

KP can create his own shot because can shoot over any defender. His accuracy is average. But I agree KP is slow, timid, and weak in the painting, unlike Rudy.

Rudy is out... Should be a victory

[The Lamma]

Lowry on a 2-year deal is my jam. He'd make us way more dangerous than we've been this past season.

Gut feeling says this is what ends up happening. Any trade we make requires the other team to agree. A Lonzo signing only works if the offer isn't matched. (RFA). But all it takes for Lowry is moola, so it's a clear path

[VirginiaKnickFan]

Lowry on a 2-year deal is my jam. He'd make us way more dangerous than we've been this past season.

Gut feeling says this is what ends up happening. Any trade we make requires the other team to agree. A Lonzo signing only works if the offer isn't matched. (RFA). But all it takes for Lowry is moola, so it's a clear path

All it takes for Lonzo is money, moola, $$$ as well. I'd much rather go that route.

[VirginiaKnickFan]

I have decided to go with Lonzo. He fits the timeline, keep building. Old players should not be our best players.