[WOJ] Knicks Extend Hart for 4/81

[Jalen Bluntson]

Its funny to see posters try to somehow group the knicks with old regimes

The Knicks are doing a great job and i suspect Brock Aller is the mastermind

We have a solid team and added another solid 2 way player in his prime Donte
Resigned Hart
Brunson, Hart, Donte all in prime and have chemistry
We are not over the cap
We are young with no players over 30 yrs olf
We have chemistry and a culture
We have all our picks PLUS a surplus of others
We beat the Cavs with Mitchell whom many wanted to trade the farm for
We played the heat as well as any team, a Heat team that lost 2 rotation players in Straus $ Vincent
We have no un tradable albatross contracts
We have fournier to trade
No panic moves
No rotation players over 28 yrs old

I think I'm more on your side of this argument but disagree with the bolded. It's a good job.

Graded on the Knicks curve it's a great job. For the rest of the NBA it's solid. Normal. I'll take it.

You've been promoted to Tour Bus Driver. I know you're going to kill it

Stop requested

[Chanel Bomber]

Long live team treadmill!

With Brunson I think the Knicks have a window to become something more than a treadmill. It's all about opportunity and execution now. Will they succeed? Probably not. The margin for error is thin. But there's a window.

It depends how you define "success". Can the Knicks get to the ECF in 2024? I think it's possible. I also believe that this is, if we stay relatively healthy, at 50-win team.

The bar in my reply to nedleeds was being "better than a treadmill". I think serious championship contention is a long shot, but we have the pieces to build a good team for the foreseeable future, which isn't nothing.

But there's also the risk the team regresses, the value of our assets depreciates, and last season proves to have been an aberration in a bigger, treadmill-shaped picture. This is all TBD. But the window to build a sustainably good team for the next 5 years is there - it will take some solid roster decisions.

[DOT]

Its funny to see posters try to somehow group the knicks with old regimes

The Knicks are doing a great job and i suspect Brock Aller is the mastermind

We have a solid team and added another solid 2 way player in his prime Donte
Resigned Hart
Brunson, Hart, Donte all in prime and have chemistry
We are not over the cap
We are young with no players over 30 yrs olf
We have chemistry and a culture
We have all our picks PLUS a surplus of others
We beat the Cavs with Mitchell whom many wanted to trade the farm for
We played the heat as well as any team, a Heat team that lost 2 rotation players in Straus $ Vincent
We have no un tradable albatross contracts
We have fournier to trade
No panic moves
No rotation players over 28 yrs old

I think I'm more on your side of this argument but disagree with the bolded. It's a good job.

Graded on the Knicks curve it's a great job. For the rest of the NBA it's solid. Normal. I'll take it.

Cap management
Surplus of picks
Team culture & Chemistry
2nd rd playoffs

Most importantly no panic moves and quick fixes

Formidable.

[thebuzzardman]

I think I'm more on your side of this argument but disagree with the bolded. It's a good job.

Graded on the Knicks curve it's a great job. For the rest of the NBA it's solid. Normal. I'll take it.

Cap management
Surplus of picks
Team culture & Chemistry
2nd rd playoffs

Most importantly no panic moves and quick fixes

Formidable.

Hardly.

Not nearly the sh*tshow you generally portray it as either

[god shammgod]

buzz needs to take up yoga or something. find your chi my man. way too angry about all this. lol

[Clyde_Style]

buzz needs to take up yoga or something. find your chi my man. way too angry about all this. lol

or quit smoking

[GONYK]

Ayo! Hart really did give a hometown discount on the contract. Damn. Literally gave back a full year of control and about $10M by opting in and making the last year of the extension a team option.

Read on Twitter

This is fairly significant.

This FO tends to extract favorable terms, whether it be in the form of declining contracts or team options.

I'm interested in seeing the structure of IQ's extension.

[nedleeds]

With Brunson I think the Knicks have a window to become something more than a treadmill. It's all about opportunity and execution now. Will they succeed? Probably not. The margin for error is thin. But there's a window.

It depends how you define "success". Can the Knicks get to the ECF in 2024? I think it's possible. I also believe that this is, if we stay relatively healthy, at 50-win team.

The bar in my reply to nedleeds was being "better than a treadmill". I think serious championship contention is a long shot, but we have the pieces to build a good team for the foreseeable future, which isn't nothing.

But there's also the risk the team regresses, the value of our assets depreciates, and last season proves to have been an aberration in a bigger, treadmill-shaped picture. This is all TBD. But the window to build a sustainably good team for the next 5 years is there - it will take some solid roster decisions.

I guess I just don't see us as really any better in a meaningful way than the Pacers lets say. But they have a better chance of having a top 15 player and lower salary by $30 million or so. Neither team can make the finals, but neither team will miss the playoffs. We have better older role players like Hart vs. McConnell. But they just picked 8th in the draft and we traded our draft away.

Comparing our best players

1 - Brunson / Haliburton (push? obviously as a franchise you'd prefer Haliburton on age)
2 - Turner / Randle (Turner universally considered better, certainly in a modern NBA, better contract, a bit younger)
3 - Hield / RJ (?) (Hield does everything better than RJ and has a good contract)
4 - IQ / Bruce Brown? Push
5 - Mitch / better than any next best Pacer

My point is their 2 best players are better than ours and they are younger. You can shoot a load over the second round vs the first round but I just don't get it, if I was 17 years old or something I might GAF. I'd rather just be the Pacers.

[robillionaire]

It depends how you define "success". Can the Knicks get to the ECF in 2024? I think it's possible. I also believe that this is, if we stay relatively healthy, at 50-win team.

The bar in my reply to nedleeds was being "better than a treadmill". I think serious championship contention is a long shot, but we have the pieces to build a good team for the foreseeable future, which isn't nothing.

But there's also the risk the team regresses, the value of our assets depreciates, and last season proves to have been an aberration in a bigger, treadmill-shaped picture. This is all TBD. But the window to build a sustainably good team for the next 5 years is there - it will take some solid roster decisions.

I guess I just don't see us as really any better in a meaningful way than the Pacers lets say. But they have a better chance of having a top 15 player and lower salary by $30 million or so. Neither team can make the finals, but neither team will miss the playoffs. We have better older role players like Hart vs. McConnell. But they just picked 8th in the draft and we traded our draft away.

Comparing our best players

1 - Brunson / Haliburton (push? obviously as a franchise you'd prefer Haliburton on age)
2 - Turner / Randle (Turner universally considered better, certainly in a modern NBA, better contract, a bit younger)
3 - Hield / RJ (?) (Hield does everything better than RJ and has a good contract)
4 - IQ / Bruce Brown? Push
5 - Mitch / better than any next best Pacer

My point is their 2 best players are better than ours and they are younger. You can shoot a load over the second round vs the first round but I just don't get it, if I was 17 years old or something I might GAF. I'd rather just be the Pacers.

Really makes you wonder why they finished 11th in the east being such a great team

If this were a pacers board everyone would be crying about how they didn’t tank properly and missed wemby because they won a meaningless 35 games

[nedleeds]

The bar in my reply to nedleeds was being "better than a treadmill". I think serious championship contention is a long shot, but we have the pieces to build a good team for the foreseeable future, which isn't nothing.

But there's also the risk the team regresses, the value of our assets depreciates, and last season proves to have been an aberration in a bigger, treadmill-shaped picture. This is all TBD. But the window to build a sustainably good team for the next 5 years is there - it will take some solid roster decisions.

I guess I just don't see us as really any better in a meaningful way than the Pacers lets say. But they have a better chance of having a top 15 player and lower salary by $30 million or so. Neither team can make the finals, but neither team will miss the playoffs. We have better older role players like Hart vs. McConnell. But they just picked 8th in the draft and we traded our draft away.

Comparing our best players

1 - Brunson / Haliburton (push? obviously as a franchise you'd prefer Haliburton on age)
2 - Turner / Randle (Turner universally considered better, certainly in a modern NBA, better contract, a bit younger)
3 - Hield / RJ (?) (Hield does everything better than RJ and has a good contract)
4 - IQ / Bruce Brown? Push
5 - Mitch / better than any next best Pacer

My point is their 2 best players are better than ours and they are younger. You can shoot a load over the second round vs the first round but I just don't get it, if I was 17 years old or something I might GAF. I'd rather just be the Pacers.

Really makes you wonder why they finished 11th in the east being such a great team

I'll search for the word great. Oh that's right I didn't say that.

A great team has a chance to make the finals -- neither the Pacers or Knicks are great.

[DrCoach]

It depends how you define "success". Can the Knicks get to the ECF in 2024? I think it's possible. I also believe that this is, if we stay relatively healthy, at 50-win team.

The bar in my reply to nedleeds was being "better than a treadmill". I think serious championship contention is a long shot, but we have the pieces to build a good team for the foreseeable future, which isn't nothing.

But there's also the risk the team regresses, the value of our assets depreciates, and last season proves to have been an aberration in a bigger, treadmill-shaped picture. This is all TBD. But the window to build a sustainably good team for the next 5 years is there - it will take some solid roster decisions.

I guess I just don't see us as really any better in a meaningful way than the Pacers lets say. But they have a better chance of having a top 15 player and lower salary by $30 million or so. Neither team can make the finals, but neither team will miss the playoffs. We have better older role players like Hart vs. McConnell. But they just picked 8th in the draft and we traded our draft away.

Comparing our best players

1 - Brunson / Haliburton (push? obviously as a franchise you'd prefer Haliburton on age)
2 - Turner / Randle (Turner universally considered better, certainly in a modern NBA, better contract, a bit younger)
3 - Hield / RJ (?) (Hield does everything better than RJ and has a good contract)
4 - IQ / Bruce Brown? Push
5 - Mitch / better than any next best Pacer

My point is their 2 best players are better than ours and they are younger. You can shoot a load over the second round vs the first round but I just don't get it, if I was 17 years old or something I might GAF. I'd rather just be the Pacers.

Randle is two time all nba and All star but you say Turner is universally better?… SMH

Heild does everything better than RJ? SMH

Halliburton is backing up Brunson on Team USA

[DrCoach]

The bar in my reply to nedleeds was being "better than a treadmill". I think serious championship contention is a long shot, but we have the pieces to build a good team for the foreseeable future, which isn't nothing.

But there's also the risk the team regresses, the value of our assets depreciates, and last season proves to have been an aberration in a bigger, treadmill-shaped picture. This is all TBD. But the window to build a sustainably good team for the next 5 years is there - it will take some solid roster decisions.

I guess I just don't see us as really any better in a meaningful way than the Pacers lets say. But they have a better chance of having a top 15 player and lower salary by $30 million or so. Neither team can make the finals, but neither team will miss the playoffs. We have better older role players like Hart vs. McConnell. But they just picked 8th in the draft and we traded our draft away.

Comparing our best players

1 - Brunson / Haliburton (push? obviously as a franchise you'd prefer Haliburton on age)
2 - Turner / Randle (Turner universally considered better, certainly in a modern NBA, better contract, a bit younger)
3 - Hield / RJ (?) (Hield does everything better than RJ and has a good contract)
4 - IQ / Bruce Brown? Push
5 - Mitch / better than any next best Pacer

My point is their 2 best players are better than ours and they are younger. You can shoot a load over the second round vs the first round but I just don't get it, if I was 17 years old or something I might GAF. I'd rather just be the Pacers.

Really makes you wonder why they finished 11th in the east being such a great team

If this were a pacers board everyone would be crying about how they didn’t tank properly and missed wemby because they won a meaningless 35 games

And nobody wanted Turner

[Jeff Van Gully]

It depends how you define "success". Can the Knicks get to the ECF in 2024? I think it's possible. I also believe that this is, if we stay relatively healthy, at 50-win team.

The bar in my reply to nedleeds was being "better than a treadmill". I think serious championship contention is a long shot, but we have the pieces to build a good team for the foreseeable future, which isn't nothing.

But there's also the risk the team regresses, the value of our assets depreciates, and last season proves to have been an aberration in a bigger, treadmill-shaped picture. This is all TBD. But the window to build a sustainably good team for the next 5 years is there - it will take some solid roster decisions.

I guess I just don't see us as really any better in a meaningful way than the Pacers lets say. But they have a better chance of having a top 15 player and lower salary by $30 million or so. Neither team can make the finals, but neither team will miss the playoffs. We have better older role players like Hart vs. McConnell. But they just picked 8th in the draft and we traded our draft away.

Comparing our best players

1 - Brunson / Haliburton (push? obviously as a franchise you'd prefer Haliburton on age)
2 - Turner / Randle (Turner universally considered better, certainly in a modern NBA, better contract, a bit younger)
3 - Hield / RJ (?) (Hield does everything better than RJ and has a good contract)
4 - IQ / Bruce Brown? Push
5 - Mitch / better than any next best Pacer

My point is their 2 best players are better than ours and they are younger. You can shoot a load over the second round vs the first round but I just don't get it, if I was 17 years old or something I might GAF. I'd rather just be the Pacers.

pacers really need to make the playoffs before being compared to a team that played a solid series against a finals team.

[nedleeds]

The bar in my reply to nedleeds was being "better than a treadmill". I think serious championship contention is a long shot, but we have the pieces to build a good team for the foreseeable future, which isn't nothing.

But there's also the risk the team regresses, the value of our assets depreciates, and last season proves to have been an aberration in a bigger, treadmill-shaped picture. This is all TBD. But the window to build a sustainably good team for the next 5 years is there - it will take some solid roster decisions.

I guess I just don't see us as really any better in a meaningful way than the Pacers lets say. But they have a better chance of having a top 15 player and lower salary by $30 million or so. Neither team can make the finals, but neither team will miss the playoffs. We have better older role players like Hart vs. McConnell. But they just picked 8th in the draft and we traded our draft away.

Comparing our best players

1 - Brunson / Haliburton (push? obviously as a franchise you'd prefer Haliburton on age)
2 - Turner / Randle (Turner universally considered better, certainly in a modern NBA, better contract, a bit younger)
3 - Hield / RJ (?) (Hield does everything better than RJ and has a good contract)
4 - IQ / Bruce Brown? Push
5 - Mitch / better than any next best Pacer

My point is their 2 best players are better than ours and they are younger. You can shoot a load over the second round vs the first round but I just don't get it, if I was 17 years old or something I might GAF. I'd rather just be the Pacers.

Randle is two time all nba and All star but you say Turner is universally better?… SMH

Turner the better defender by a mile, if you're bringing All Star games to the table as proof we aren't going to get anywhere. No team in the league save those with top 5 centers would want Randle over Turner.

Heild does everything better than RJ? SMH

Besides play in New York, mean mug and sit out the last game to preserve his 20 per game what does RJ do better? I'll take anything. But I'm sure it's this year it'll happen for him.



Anything? Besides shoot a bunch of bad shots and miss RJ does absolutely nothing better than Buddy Hield, in fact he does most things at a demonstrably worse level. And now we have a PG so that excuse is gone.

Halliburton is backing up Brunson on Team USA

That's the advanced metric we've been waiting for. Brunson is great, but Haliburton is better now and younger. It's not close and besides Knicks homers nobody thinks otherwise.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nbas-top-50-players-in-2022-23-season-giannis-jokic-luka-battle-for-no-1-lebron-slips-out-of-top-10/



Besides being older and starting on the World Cup team what does Brunson do better? Because Haliburton actually passes ... Brunson shoots more. Brunson is good, Haliburton is younger and better. He's a top 20 player right now.

[nedleeds]

The bar in my reply to nedleeds was being "better than a treadmill". I think serious championship contention is a long shot, but we have the pieces to build a good team for the foreseeable future, which isn't nothing.

But there's also the risk the team regresses, the value of our assets depreciates, and last season proves to have been an aberration in a bigger, treadmill-shaped picture. This is all TBD. But the window to build a sustainably good team for the next 5 years is there - it will take some solid roster decisions.

I guess I just don't see us as really any better in a meaningful way than the Pacers lets say. But they have a better chance of having a top 15 player and lower salary by $30 million or so. Neither team can make the finals, but neither team will miss the playoffs. We have better older role players like Hart vs. McConnell. But they just picked 8th in the draft and we traded our draft away.

Comparing our best players

1 - Brunson / Haliburton (push? obviously as a franchise you'd prefer Haliburton on age)
2 - Turner / Randle (Turner universally considered better, certainly in a modern NBA, better contract, a bit younger)
3 - Hield / RJ (?) (Hield does everything better than RJ and has a good contract)
4 - IQ / Bruce Brown? Push
5 - Mitch / better than any next best Pacer

My point is their 2 best players are better than ours and they are younger. You can shoot a load over the second round vs the first round but I just don't get it, if I was 17 years old or something I might GAF. I'd rather just be the Pacers.

pacers really need to make the playoffs before being compared to a team that played a solid series against a finals team.

Where do the Solid Series banners go again? Next to the Play In Game Gold Star for trying?

[The Lamma]

The Pacers were a .500 team with Hali last year 28-28. 7-19 without

Plus they got better this offseason. I wouldn't use where they finished last year as an indicator of where they are right now

[Jeff Van Gully]

I guess I just don't see us as really any better in a meaningful way than the Pacers lets say. But they have a better chance of having a top 15 player and lower salary by $30 million or so. Neither team can make the finals, but neither team will miss the playoffs. We have better older role players like Hart vs. McConnell. But they just picked 8th in the draft and we traded our draft away.

Comparing our best players

1 - Brunson / Haliburton (push? obviously as a franchise you'd prefer Haliburton on age)
2 - Turner / Randle (Turner universally considered better, certainly in a modern NBA, better contract, a bit younger)
3 - Hield / RJ (?) (Hield does everything better than RJ and has a good contract)
4 - IQ / Bruce Brown? Push
5 - Mitch / better than any next best Pacer

My point is their 2 best players are better than ours and they are younger. You can shoot a load over the second round vs the first round but I just don't get it, if I was 17 years old or something I might GAF. I'd rather just be the Pacers.

pacers really need to make the playoffs before being compared to a team that played a solid series against a finals team.

Where do the Solid Series banners go again? Next to the Play In Game Gold Star for trying?

nowhere near "we didn't make the play-in tournament." your argument is these are comparable teams.

[nedleeds]

pacers really need to make the playoffs before being compared to a team that played a solid series against a finals team.

Where do the Solid Series banners go again? Next to the Play In Game Gold Star for trying?

nowhere near "we didn't make the play-in tournament." your argument is these are comparable teams.

My argument is I'd rather have the Pacers roster, contracts and future. There's no meaningful difference in eithers ability to make the finals.

The broader argument is Harts deal is fine but ultimately does nothing since we have no top 1-15 player and no clear path to get one.

[thebuzzardman]

buzz needs to take up yoga or something. find your chi my man. way too angry about all this. lol

This is me being calm and centered.

[thebuzzardman]

I guess I just don't see us as really any better in a meaningful way than the Pacers lets say. But they have a better chance of having a top 15 player and lower salary by $30 million or so. Neither team can make the finals, but neither team will miss the playoffs. We have better older role players like Hart vs. McConnell. But they just picked 8th in the draft and we traded our draft away.

Comparing our best players

1 - Brunson / Haliburton (push? obviously as a franchise you'd prefer Haliburton on age)
2 - Turner / Randle (Turner universally considered better, certainly in a modern NBA, better contract, a bit younger)
3 - Hield / RJ (?) (Hield does everything better than RJ and has a good contract)
4 - IQ / Bruce Brown? Push
5 - Mitch / better than any next best Pacer

My point is their 2 best players are better than ours and they are younger. You can shoot a load over the second round vs the first round but I just don't get it, if I was 17 years old or something I might GAF. I'd rather just be the Pacers.

Randle is two time all nba and All star but you say Turner is universally better?… SMH

Turner the better defender by a mile, if you're bringing All Star games to the table as proof we aren't going to get anywhere. No team in the league save those with top 5 centers would want Randle over Turner.

Heild does everything better than RJ? SMH

Besides play in New York, mean mug and sit out the last game to preserve his 20 per game what does RJ do better? I'll take anything. But I'm sure it's this year it'll happen for him.



Anything? Besides shoot a bunch of bad shots and miss RJ does absolutely nothing better than Buddy Hield, in fact he does most things at a demonstrably worse level. And now we have a PG so that excuse is gone.

Halliburton is backing up Brunson on Team USA

That's the advanced metric we've been waiting for. Brunson is great, but Haliburton is better now and younger. It's not close and besides Knicks homers nobody thinks otherwise.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nbas-top-50-players-in-2022-23-season-giannis-jokic-luka-battle-for-no-1-lebron-slips-out-of-top-10/



Besides being older and starting on the World Cup team what does Brunson do better? Because Haliburton actually passes ... Brunson shoots more. Brunson is good, Haliburton is younger and better. He's a top 20 player right now.

You'd want Haliburton as your 1st or 2nd scoring option? I wouldn't.

So he's a better passer. Yipee. That is in fact nice. It's by far the only metric of what makes a PG good.
Brunson is an excellent scoring point guard who is a decent passer.

Oh, and he's 15 million per year cheaper.

Since everyone is bitching about payroll now.