FREE AGENT/Trade/Transaction Idea thread

[aq_ua]

If you care to go back, you provided a list of players including Carroll, Milsap, Ellis and Matthews for whom you would more than willingly outbid the market for including extending max contracts in order to sign this summer. If you would like to retract that statement, then go right ahead, but that did read as the entirety of your strategy.

No need for a retraction, given I correctly remember what I wrote, which was:

Monroe, Carroll, Green, Matthews, maybe Love, maybe Jordan, Milsap, Lopez (either), Ellis, Hibbert, Rondo, Asik, Young, more...

But i don't think anyone to the left side of Ellis is signing for much less than market value.

To the left side of Ellis does not include Ellis, of course.

Can I get the courtesy of an acknowledgment you've misremembered or misunderstood that?

Actually, that's specifically why I asked for the following clarification:

Monroe, Carroll, Green, Matthews, maybe Love, maybe Jordan, Milsap, Lopez (either), Ellis, Hibbert, Rondo, Asik, Young, more...

But i don't think anyone to the left side of Ellis is signing for much less than market value.

Interesting. You don't think we would need to outbid the market in order to get any of those guys to leave their current teams and join us?

Well, you can't outbid the max, which will be the market prices.

"Any of those guys" would by definition include...any of those guys. Would you care to retract or fix your clarification then?

If I further understand your position, you don't mind signing these players to what are considered max contracts today, because as the cap increases, those max contracts would increase in proportion.

I don't think the Knicks will have choice because that's what I think the market will be. What I mind is beside the point.

But the math you cite is relevant yes, of course.

Every player, including players of whatever type and salary slot you deem them to be will be more expensive in 2016 and more expensive than that in 2017. The cap has NEVER risen like this, it's unprecedented. It may be a inconvenient fact for fans with concerns about the cost of players they don't deem stars, but the FACT remains players signed this year WILL become relatively less expensive next year and the year after.

Players signed next year will not relative to 2016 but less expensive relative to 2017. 2017 signees (as far as we know now) will no longer have that advantage.

I think what is fundamentally missing here is an understanding of the exact players you are talking about. The players you are talking about, these are role players. They're not as good as you seem to think they are.

I don't want them to be any better than they are. Has nothing to do with how much I think they're going to get paid by somebody.

but objectively, no team has ever chosen to build around them.

That's fine because I'm not suggesting the Knicks do either. They're building around Melo. Maybe the #4, maybe if thy can snag LMA at max.

I would just like to point out that a causal "maybe if they can snag LMA at max" is a rather key component to a rebuild around Melo and begs the question - what do you possibly think is the rational for why we would be able to "snag LMA at max"? What makes you think the number 4 pick can develop into enough of a contributor to form a core with Melo beyond wishful thinking?

Now - I will point out an interesting flaw in your analysis. You make the point of stating a good player on a good contract that the team no longer wants as having an inherent conflict. However, that is the sole reason why Melo is on this team. In fact, that trade and drafts are the only way this team has ever acquired a bonfide star.

Who's the Gallonari and Wilson in this scenario? Hardaway JR?

Precisely why I am advocating accumulation of draft picks and rookie contracts through accepting contract dumps. Do you recall how we obtained Gallinari and Chandler in the first place?

Furthermore, to your point on outbidding for free agents, the nature of free agency is such that you must outbid the market for any player, hence the inherent conflict of signing a good player to a good contract is exactly there. I found that humorous.

Don't understand the conflict you're pointing out??

You don't understand the inherent conflict between needing to either outbid the market or having a team that no longer wants their free agent to remain as a prerequisite for a free agent signing vs. the want for a "good player on a good contract". This is actually your argument against trades, except trading has yielded us Melo while free agency will apparently yield DeMarr Carroll and Monta Ellis in your paradigm. There is a very rational reason for this reality in that the incumbent team holds the upper hand in any free agency, being able to offer the highest contract. This particularly relevant for max contract level players where the highest possible contract offer under the salary cap is still below the intrinsic value of the player. That's why free agent mobility is relegated to those complementary players that don't deserve a max contract but might be able to squeeze one out of certain teams - perhaps certain teams who feel they need to make a signing for the sake of "not being shut out".

[AlphakirA]

I don't think you can possibly call what we're doing now a full rebuild with a 31 year old star on a max contract and basically nothing else.

Fast forward 12 months, the prospect of any combination of Melo, Carroll, Milsap, Matthews and Ellis eating up our entire cap is just sickening. We don't need an upgrade of role players now - we need an actual core first. The best option we have at finding that second star is the 4th pick we currently hold, but the primes of Melo's career and that pick's career will never coincide. We haven't reconciled that aspect of the strategy.


We've got circa $27mm in cap space, so this is not about signing ALL 4 guys. This is in all likelihood signing 2 out of those 4 guys. Any 2 of those 4 guys + Melo as the entirety of our space is a sickening thought, yes. By the way, there is a reason why the Hawks sent 4 guys to the all-star game - not any one or two of them were outstanding enough to be solely responsible for those 60 wins. Let's also not forget Carroll was not one of those 4 all-stars.

So then you agree, they won 60 games because they had a balanced team game without 2 stars? Then why do you want 2 stars and a bunch of scrubs rather than 1 star and a bunch of high quality role players until the cap shoots up?

Starting from the above, we now have a team of Melo + 2 out of those 4 guys. Add Mudiay or Porzingis to that. Throw in Galloway, Early, Thanasis, maybe we bring back Shved and Bargs. Is that really better than last year?

You don't? You'd be replacing Shumpert and J.R. with Milsap and Ellis - for arguments sake - that's lightyears better than those guys. Ellis is a much better J.R. than J.R. is, and Milsap is one of the most well rounded productive players in the NBA. Even if you replace Ellis with Carroll or Matthews it's still a major upgrade from two guys that couldn't lead a team if their life depended on it.

PG: Mudiay/Calderon
SG: Ellis/Shved/Galloway
SF: Melo/Early
PF: Milsap/Bargs
C: Amundson/Aldrich

doesn't it look better than?:

PG: Calderon/Larkin/Galloway
SG: J.R./Shved
SF: Shump/Early
PF: Melo/Bargs
C: Amundson/Aldrich/Stat

Besides the obvious answer is that Melo is not a 7 footer and it would be wrong to assume that a 6'9" small forward can extend his career the way a center can, it would be a tremendous leap of faith to assume that either Mudiay or Porzingis is going to turn out to be Duncan or Kawhi.

You know what I meant. And why would it be a leap of faith to take the two guys that are considered to have the highest risk but the highest ceiling to become a guy like Leonard? Let's not play into the hyperbole that the media tried to create with Leonard, he's not elite, except maybe on defense. We're talking 2-3 years from now, I don't see how you can worry that Melo can't "extend his career" into the age of 34, that's not that old especially considering that Melo's slowly brought his game out to the 3 point line anyway.

I don't fully follow your logic on this last point. I agree that there isn't one right way to win a championship, and there is so much luck involved that it's impossible to state unequivocally that there is a magic formula. Take your example of the 2011 championships - Spurs have the top seed in the regular season but get knocked out in the first round by the Grizzlies. If they get through, they likely end up playing and potentially beating Dallas in the conference finals.

So then you're in agreement with me, there is no formula, yet you don't believe any formula outside of scrapping the entire thing could get it done? I don't understand that. What team has started from nothing and succeeded? Heat already had Wade when they got Bosh and LeBron, Dallas already had Dirk and has attempted to fit random pieces in for years before getting it right, San Antonio stuck together and added only a few missing pieces, Lakers kept building and haven't started from the bottom in god knows how many years, etc. etc. Who has started with nothing, maybe 1 team in OKC? It's not exactly a sure fire method unless you hit big on many draft picks like OKC did with Durant, Westbrook, Harden, and Ibaka - that's not realistic.

Yes, ultimately we need depth to win, I don't think there's argument around that. The only question is the order in which and how that depth is accumulated. We need cap space flexibility, trade-able assets all the while having a core. If we lose all the first things in getting that core, then we won't have the ability to build depth around it. GS, Cleveland, Dallas are all examples of teams that built a core and kept flexibility to build depth. In fact, the Dallas example is exactly that - they drafted Dirk and weren't afraid to trade away established stars like Jason Kidd to create a core that eventually became the 2011 team.

"Eventually" is kind of a ridiculous statement here regarding Dallas. They traded Kidd in 1996, they won in 2011, it wasn't because of that trade. Cleveland only built a "core" because they had a guy in LeBron go back home after being terrible enough that they lucked into #1 picks, that's not possible to replicate. GS has 1 star and a bunch of very good players built around him and a system that works...which is what I want the Knicks to do and you say you don't want.

The distinction as I see it is the time limitations in which all these things need to happen and the realities of salary caps. We have what is essentially a relatively short remaining window of Melo's prime. We don't have the luxury of the 15 year span in which Dallas built they're 2011 championship or the how many ever years you choose count as the Golden State rebuild (6 years since drafting Curry). That's just the reality of building around Melo, in that we need to get every step exactly right while being armed with cap space and very few young assets and draft picks.

In order to accomplish this, we need to grab at every free agent that just happens to be available (for the fear of "sitting out" as others have referred to it as), overpaying them in order to ensure they come, and hope that the available free agent just happens to be the right fit for Melo and the team structure. That's asking a lot. I look around at who those realistic names are (Carroll, Milsap, Ellis, etc.) and yes, they're nice complementary players, but they're not a second or third star to build a core around and we are not in a position to be spending all our cap space on just nice complementary players.

However, that's basically what we're forced to do in order to build around Melo right now, which smells to me of salary cap suicide as we've experienced in the past. As to the probability that Mudiay/Porzingis develop into a Kawhi Leonard and whether high risk always correlates to high returns, the answer is I have no idea, but Leonard is a rare player and high risk is basically that - high risk - means you can hit a home run or completely whiff, it is by no means a guarantee of a high return, and in fact quite the opposite.

All of which, to me, is hoping for a whole lot of things to go right to find that one magical formula, which is exactly the putting your eggs in one basket type strategy that it sounds like you are arguing against.

Then I ask again, what is your strategy? To go into a 15 year window of a rebuild? That's not a strategy and no one with Dallas would be silly enough to claim that was their ultimate strategy back in 1996. You don't want to rebuild using this cap and you can't trade Melo, so what's the strategy? If you sign Carroll and Ellis (or whoever) and they play well, are they not assets when the cap sky rockets? We don't have a pick next year, so what's your suggestion on what to do until 2017?

[aq_ua]

Then I ask again, what is your strategy? To go into a 15 year window of a rebuild? That's not a strategy and no one with Dallas would be silly enough to claim that was their ultimate strategy back in 1996. You don't want to rebuild using this cap and you can't trade Melo, so what's the strategy? If you sign Carroll and Ellis (or whoever) and they play well, are they not assets when the cap sky rockets? We don't have a pick next year, so what's your suggestion on what to do until 2017?

Take on expiring contract dumps and acquire as many picks as possible. We are in a unique situation where we have a true need for even those players associated with those unwanted expiring contracts. If we completely luck into a free agent that happens to be cap friendly but useful, by all means sign them, but don't bind ourselves to needing to sign anyone for the sake of signing someone. Build slowly and piece by piece. If Melo wants out, trade him and build around the remaining young pieces. Not having our own 2016 pick is not a reason to hamstring ourselves for the next 3 - 4 years. No, my strategy does not put us in a position to compete for a championship in the next 2 - 3 years or perhaps at any point during Melo's contract, but I don't think there's any strategy that will do so, so we might as well build for beyond that.

[And100]

If you care to go back, you provided a list of players including Carroll, Milsap, Ellis and Matthews for whom you would more than willingly outbid the market for including extending max contracts in order to sign this summer. If you would like to retract that statement, then go right ahead, but that did read as the entirety of your strategy.

No need for a retraction, given I correctly remember what I wrote, which was:

Monroe, Carroll, Green, Matthews, maybe Love, maybe Jordan, Milsap, Lopez (either), Ellis, Hibbert, Rondo, Asik, Young, more...

But i don't think anyone to the left side of Ellis is signing for much less than market value.

To the left side of Ellis does not include Ellis, of course.

Can I get the courtesy of an acknowledgment you've misremembered or misunderstood that?

Actually, that's specifically why I asked for the following clarification:

Interesting. You don't think we would need to outbid the market in order to get any of those guys to leave their current teams and join us?

Well, you can't outbid the max, which will be the market prices.

"Any of those guys" would by definition include...any of those guys. Would you care to retract or fix your clarification then?

Happy to clarify. I assumed we were speaking about the guys to left, since of course, I remember what I wrote just minutes prior.

But if you assumed I was arguing Ellis would get the max in one post subsequent to a post in which I said he would not, understandable miscommunication. Next time I'm be more specific each in individual post. My apologies.

If I further understand your position, you don't mind signing these players to what are considered max contracts today, because as the cap increases, those max contracts would increase in proportion.

I don't think the Knicks will have choice because that's what I think the market will be. What I mind is beside the point.

But the math you cite is relevant yes, of course.

Every player, including players of whatever type and salary slot you deem them to be will be more expensive in 2016 and more expensive than that in 2017. The cap has NEVER risen like this, it's unprecedented. It may be a inconvenient fact for fans with concerns about the cost of players they don't deem stars, but the FACT remains players signed this year WILL become relatively less expensive next year and the year after.

Players signed next year will not relative to 2016 but less expensive relative to 2017. 2017 signees (as far as we know now) will no longer have that advantage.

I think what is fundamentally missing here is an understanding of the exact players you are talking about. The players you are talking about, these are role players. They're not as good as you seem to think they are.

I don't want them to be any better than they are. Has nothing to do with how much I think they're going to get paid by somebody.

but objectively, no team has ever chosen to build around them.

That's fine because I'm not suggesting the Knicks do either. They're building around Melo. Maybe the #4, maybe if thy can snag LMA at max.

I would just like to point out that a causal "maybe if they can snag LMA at max" is a rather key component to a rebuild around Melo and begs the question - what do you possibly think is the rational for why we would be able to "snag LMA at max"? What makes you think the number 4 pick can develop into enough of a contributor to form a core with Melo beyond wishful thinking?[/quote]

The LMA reference was a casual one cited as an example. I think he's possible, but truth be told I'm not bullish.

The #4 pick isn't a prediction, it's just citing the path available to them.

if he pick doesn't turn out to a strong rotation player, the Knicks prospects suffer. Remember, I'm not arguing for a recipe of success, I'm arguing to pretty much the only road open to them (and before we repeat ourselves, yes, that's because I don't find your alternatives practical).

Now - I will point out an interesting flaw in your analysis. You make the point of stating a good player on a good contract that the team no longer wants as having an inherent conflict. However, that is the sole reason why Melo is on this team. In fact, that trade and drafts are the only way this team has ever acquired a bonfide star.

Who's the Gallonari and Wilson in this scenario? Hardaway JR?

Precisely why I am advocating accumulation of draft picks and rookie contracts through accepting contract dumps. Do you recall how we obtained Gallinari and Chandler in the first place?[/quote]

I think I do, but I'll let you make your point.

I'd add that free agents are known quantities. You can even project free agents with some accuracy years in advance.

Your plan is dependent on the notion that players like that become available "all the time" though you won't be able to actually at least project who, when, what incentive comes with them or the Knicks ability to obtain them.

You don't understand the inherent conflict between needing to either outbid the market or having a team that no longer wants their free agent to remain as a prerequisite for a free agent signing vs. the want for a "good player on a good contract".

I can't say I don't understand your premise because I genuinely don't understand the context. Where are you pulling "good player on a good contract" from?

That's why free agent mobility is relegated to those complementary players that don't deserve a max contract but might be able to squeeze one out of certain teams - perhaps certain teams who feel they need to make a signing for the sake of "not being shut out".

You don't need to characterize "not being shut out" as the point of signing players. That's was a way to describe a condition in which the 17 win Knicks waited for "attractive" (since you picked on previous adjectives) FAs to come to them at a discount.

The point of course, is to be better than a 17 win team.

But now I'm confused. I thought we were disagreeing about what free agents who are better players than the Knicks currently have on their roster would command. Is this actually an argument against free agency in general?

I'm no longer certain if your point in asking me those first questions is you believe quality free agents will come to the Knicks at prices favorable to the Knicks, or if you're advocating the Knicks simply not be in the market for any free agents.

My assumption, up until recently, was the former. Now I'm not so sure.

[AlphakirA]

Then I ask again, what is your strategy? To go into a 15 year window of a rebuild? That's not a strategy and no one with Dallas would be silly enough to claim that was their ultimate strategy back in 1996. You don't want to rebuild using this cap and you can't trade Melo, so what's the strategy? If you sign Carroll and Ellis (or whoever) and they play well, are they not assets when the cap sky rockets? We don't have a pick next year, so what's your suggestion on what to do until 2017?

Take on expiring contract dumps and acquire as many picks as possible. We are in a unique situation where we have a true need for even those players associated with those unwanted expiring contracts. If we completely luck into a free agent that happens to be cap friendly but useful, by all means sign them, but don't bind ourselves to needing to sign anyone for the sake of signing someone. Build slowly and piece by piece. If Melo wants out, trade him and build around the remaining young pieces. Not having our own 2016 pick is not a reason to hamstring ourselves for the next 3 - 4 years. No, my strategy does not put us in a position to compete for a championship in the next 2 - 3 years or perhaps at any point during Melo's contract, but I don't think there's any strategy that will do so, so we might as well build for beyond that.

I posted this elsewhere and it seems you want to do essentially what Philly is doing, here's Freakonomics study on that:

"But it appears that teams that win 25 or fewer games have a hard time joining this elite. Of the teams that won 25 or fewer games since 1984-85,

2.3 percent won 54 or more games the next year
3.9 percent won 54 or more games two years later
5.7 percent won 54 or more games three years later
10.1 percent won 54 or more games four years later
10.6 percent won 54 or more games five years later"

So by tanking, taking on garbage contracts solely to get picks this is our outlook in 5 years...10.6 chance of winning 54 games in 5 years? How many teams have successfully scrapped everything and won as a result? My problem with your strategy is that we have everything you seem to want right now. Money to spend, a great pick, a bunch of guys that just expired and 1 of the 2 superstars you want. Plus we get the added bonus that whatever signings we make this year won't matter all that much in 2 years when the cap sky rockets and the 13 mil deals look more like 8 mil deals. So why the sad face?

[aq_ua]

No need for a retraction, given I correctly remember what I wrote, which was:



To the left side of Ellis does not include Ellis, of course.

Can I get the courtesy of an acknowledgment you've misremembered or misunderstood that?

Actually, that's specifically why I asked for the following clarification:

Well, you can't outbid the max, which will be the market prices.

"Any of those guys" would by definition include...any of those guys. Would you care to retract or fix your clarification then?

Happy to clarify. I assumed we were speaking about the guys to left, since of course, I remember what I wrote just minutes prior.

But if you assumed I was arguing Ellis would get the max in one post subsequent to a post in which I said he would not, understandable miscommunication. Next time I'm be more specific each in individual post. My apologies.

Apology accepted. Just to clarify further, this means you think the guys to the right of Ellis (Asik, Young, Hibbert, Rondo) will get the max?

I would just like to point out that a causal "maybe if they can snag LMA at max" is a rather key component to a rebuild around Melo and begs the question - what do you possibly think is the rational for why we would be able to "snag LMA at max"? What makes you think the number 4 pick can develop into enough of a contributor to form a core with Melo beyond wishful thinking?

The LMA reference was a casual one cited as an example. I think he's possible, but truth be told I'm not bullish.

The #4 pick isn't a prediction, it's just citing the path available to them.

if he pick doesn't turn out to a strong rotation player, the Knicks prospects suffer. Remember, I'm not arguing for a recipe of success, I'm arguing to pretty much the only road open to them (and before we repeat ourselves, yes, that's because I don't find your alternatives practical).

Who's the Gallonari and Wilson in this scenario? Hardaway JR?

Precisely why I am advocating accumulation of draft picks and rookie contracts through accepting contract dumps. Do you recall how we obtained Gallinari and Chandler in the first place?

I think I do, but I'll let you make your point.

I'd add that free agents are known quantities. You can even project free agents with some accuracy years in advance.

Your plan is dependent on the notion that players like that become available "all the time" though you won't be able to actually at least project who, when, what incentive comes with them or the Knicks ability to obtain them.

You don't understand the inherent conflict between needing to either outbid the market or having a team that no longer wants their free agent to remain as a prerequisite for a free agent signing vs. the want for a "good player on a good contract".

I can't say I don't understand your premise because I genuinely don't understand the context. Where are you pulling "good player on a good contract" from?

Oh, again I just took your argument because I thought it was rather amusing. Check 3 or 4 posts back?

That's why free agent mobility is relegated to those complementary players that don't deserve a max contract but might be able to squeeze one out of certain teams - perhaps certain teams who feel they need to make a signing for the sake of "not being shut out".

You don't need to characterize "not being shut out" as the point of signing players. That's was a way to describe a condition in which the 17 win Knicks waited for "attractive" (since you picked on previous adjectives) FAs to come to them at a discount.

The point of course, is to be better than a 17 win team.

But now I'm confused. I thought we were disagreeing about what free agents who are better players than the Knicks currently have on their roster would command. Is this actually an argument against free agency in general?

I'm no longer certain if your point in asking me those first questions is you believe quality free agents will come to the Knicks at prices favorable to the Knicks, or if you're advocating the Knicks simply not be in the market for any free agents.

My assumption, up until recently, was the former. Now I'm not so sure.

Perhaps we need to speak in specifics, because now I don't understand your point either. I thought your point was that we should outbid the market for whatever free agents happen to be available this summer, hell or high-water. I think that strategy is nuts, so if that's not your strategy, this conversation is pointless.

Perhaps we need to talk in specifics. Let's take reality - we have roughly $27 million to spend in free agency this summer. As a benchmark, we have Wes Matthews asking for $15mm per season. Monta Ellis just opt-ed out of a $9mm contract. So realistically, we're talking about two of any of the guys in your list. We currently have one starting quality player in Melo, and depending on how you view Galloway, Hardaway and Early, maybe a couple other rotation players. Add to that the 4th pick as an additional rotation player. The additional two free agents and our incumbents are enough to mitigate the lack of our 2016 draft pick. Is this your thought?

[aq_ua]

Then I ask again, what is your strategy? To go into a 15 year window of a rebuild? That's not a strategy and no one with Dallas would be silly enough to claim that was their ultimate strategy back in 1996. You don't want to rebuild using this cap and you can't trade Melo, so what's the strategy? If you sign Carroll and Ellis (or whoever) and they play well, are they not assets when the cap sky rockets? We don't have a pick next year, so what's your suggestion on what to do until 2017?

Take on expiring contract dumps and acquire as many picks as possible. We are in a unique situation where we have a true need for even those players associated with those unwanted expiring contracts. If we completely luck into a free agent that happens to be cap friendly but useful, by all means sign them, but don't bind ourselves to needing to sign anyone for the sake of signing someone. Build slowly and piece by piece. If Melo wants out, trade him and build around the remaining young pieces. Not having our own 2016 pick is not a reason to hamstring ourselves for the next 3 - 4 years. No, my strategy does not put us in a position to compete for a championship in the next 2 - 3 years or perhaps at any point during Melo's contract, but I don't think there's any strategy that will do so, so we might as well build for beyond that.

I posted this elsewhere and it seems you want to do essentially what Philly is doing, here's Freakonomics study on that:

"But it appears that teams that win 25 or fewer games have a hard time joining this elite. Of the teams that won 25 or fewer games since 1984-85,

2.3 percent won 54 or more games the next year
3.9 percent won 54 or more games two years later
5.7 percent won 54 or more games three years later
10.1 percent won 54 or more games four years later
10.6 percent won 54 or more games five years later"

So by tanking, taking on garbage contracts solely to get picks this is our outlook in 5 years...10.6 chance of winning 54 games in 5 years? How many teams have successfully scrapped everything and won as a result? My problem with your strategy is that we have everything you seem to want right now. Money to spend, a great pick, a bunch of guys that just expired and 1 of the 2 superstars you want. Plus we get the added bonus that whatever signings we make this year won't matter all that much in 2 years when the cap sky rockets and the 13 mil deals look more like 8 mil deals. So why the sad face?

No, we don't have everything I want right now. We don't have any assets such as excess draft picks to trade, our "superstar" is 31 with a 3-4 year window remaining, and we don't have anything approaching a core group of players. We are entirely reliant on free agency to fill out 3 to 4 starting roles plus a majority of our bench because we don't have the luxury of waiting to draft and develop players given that 3 - 4 year window. That's the reason for my sad face.

P.S. 10.6% of winning 54 or more games five years later? I'll take those odds any day. The better question is, once a team has achieved those 54 wins, how sustainable is it, because that's where the "how" to build really comes into play.

[And100]

Take on expiring contract dumps and acquire as many picks as possible. We are in a unique situation where we have a true need for even those players associated with those unwanted expiring contracts.

...which smells to me of salary cap suicide as we've experienced in the past.

Aqua, I think the red flag here is illustrated on your comment about cap suicide of the past. The problem is the next two years will be unlike anything in the past to fairly compare it to.

A first tier max signed this year for example, in two years WITH 4.5% raises factored in, will be worth approximately $10.8m in 2015 NBA dollars.

You can't compare that to the past. That's never occurred before. Past cap suicide was specific to past circumstances.

You can only apply the general vague premise of objecting to max deals to the situation. You cannot accurately and relevantly apply the math.

In the same way, in your best case scenario you're assuming unidentified players will be available in salary dumps, but you don't weigh the fact that in a way that's never occurred before, every team will be infused with NEW money they HAVE to spend.

Isn't it a reasonable notion that given each team will be given $20m in each of the next two season they have to spend, that the market for salary dumps may be even MORE unpredictable than previously thought?

If we completely luck into a free agent that happens to be cap friendly but useful, by all means sign them

But your definition isn't accounting for the actual cap. You're arguing for the long view on one hand but in the other you're ignoring the cap is going up by 60% in two years. Signing free agents THIS year as cap advantages by this fact alone.

Build slowly and piece by piece.

Thar presents problems you're not accounting for.

As demonstrated in OKC, when you build a piece at a time slowly, but the time piece 3 or 4 is ready to contribute, piece 1 is getting ready to be paid, handsomely if he's a real piece.

How do you achieve this sweetspot of having a young group of GOOD core players acquired over time who are ready to complete AND who are going to remain cap friendly concurrently?

[And100]

Apology accepted. Just to clarify further, this means you think the guys to the right of Ellis (Asik, Young, Hibbert, Rondo) will get the max?

No, they won't. They're to the right of Ellis.

Oh, again I just took your argument because I thought it was rather amusing. Check 3 or 4 posts back?

I genuinely don't understand they point you're making. Can you just explain it to me without asking me what I don't understand about it?

Perhaps we need to talk in specifics. Let's take reality - we have roughly $27 million to spend in free agency this summer. As a benchmark, we have Wes Matthews asking for $15mm per season. Monta Ellis just opt-ed out of a $9mm contract. So realistically, we're talking about two of any of the guys in your list. We currently have one starting quality player in Melo, and depending on how you view Galloway, Hardaway and Early, maybe a couple other rotation players. Add to that the 4th pick as an additional rotation player. The additional two free agents and our incumbents are enough to mitigate the lack of our 2016 draft pick. Is this your thought?

No of course not. The 2016 pick is gone, there point isn't some subjective measurement of whether free agents can mitigate the loss. The point is its the means available to the Knicks to be better than a 17 win team.

We know their names, We know their skills. There are free agents that will make the Knicks better and NOT cap them out for years to come. We know this as a fact.

We, however don't know what players may or may not be available in salary dumps and what picks may or may not be available. In fact, we can't say with any certainly ANY will be.

And we DO know the NY Knicks and MSG are NOT going to use spend their offseason waiting for a phone call that may never come or making phonecall that might not turn anything up.

We KNOW they ARE going to add players and spend their cap room.

Don't we?

[And100]

We are entirely reliant on free agency to fill out 3 to 4 starting roles plus a majority of our bench because we don't have the luxury of waiting to draft and develop players given that 3 - 4 year window.

Exactly, as sad as it may make you, you are astute enough to realize THAT is the play.

Which is why arguing they shouldn't sign anyone at rates that will descend significant in cap value in unprecedented fashion makes little practical sense.

[aq_ua]

Take on expiring contract dumps and acquire as many picks as possible. We are in a unique situation where we have a true need for even those players associated with those unwanted expiring contracts.

...which smells to me of salary cap suicide as we've experienced in the past.

Aqua, I think the red flag here is illustrated on your comment about cap suicide of the past. The problem is the next two years will be unlike anything in the past to fairly compare it to.

A first tier max signed this year for example, in two years WITH 4.5% raises factored in, will be worth approximately $10.8m in 2015 NBA dollars.

You can't compare that to the past. That's never occurred before. Past cap suicide was specific to past circumstances.

You can only apply the general vague premise of objecting to max deals to the situation. You cannot accurately and relevantly apply the math.

In the same way, in your best case scenario you're assuming unidentified players will be available in salary dumps, but you don't weigh the fact that in a way that's never occurred before, every team will be infused with NEW money they HAVE to spend.

Isn't it a reasonable notion that given each team will be given $20m in each of the next two season they have to spend, that the market for salary dumps may be even MORE unpredictable than previously thought?

If we completely luck into a free agent that happens to be cap friendly but useful, by all means sign them

But your definition isn't accounting for the actual cap. You're arguing for the long view on one hand but in the other you're ignoring the cap is going up by 60% in two years. Signing free agents THIS year as cap advantages by this fact alone.

Build slowly and piece by piece.

Thar presents problems you're not accounting for.

As demonstrated in OKC, when you build a piece at a time slowly, but the time piece 3 or 4 is ready to contribute, piece 1 is getting ready to be paid, handsomely if he's a real piece.

How do you achieve this sweetspot of having a young group of GOOD core players acquired over time who are ready to complete AND who are going to remain cap friendly concurrently?

Computer, you're going to have to learn to stick to your own lineage of posting. It gets confusing.

However, since you ask, the first point I'll make is that 2017 is not the first ever increase in salary cap. In fact, the salary cap has literally been increasing every year. The only perhaps meaningful distinction is the absolute dollar amount by which we expect the salary cap to go up. I will now explain to you why this is meaningless for us.

The Knicks do not have a monopoly over the expected increase in salary cap. Neither do the Knicks (nor clearly we) have an exclusive knowledge of the expected increase in salary cap. In much the same way we plan for the future by including expectations of future events, every team does and so does every player. Why do you suppose Wes Matthews (and/or his agent) believes he is entitled to a contract starting at $15mm/season when he has never made an all-star game, he's coming off a season ending injury and he's coming off a contract that paid a mere $7mm. I would argue that they are already accounting for the fact that when the salary cap rises, this contract will be in future dollar terms, fair value. Even if the salary cap goes up $20mm, that's 17% of the cap locked up in one role player. That's the reality of these complementary players that - to your point - do not command a max contract.

Where the salary cap increase does have positive implications is if we are able to obtain a deserving max contract level player. The salary max is dictated by the current salary cap, not the future expected salary cap. Therefore, a max contract player locked in today would in theory outperform their contract when the salary cap rises. However, to your point, signing such max contract players this off-season appears to be a long shot at best and impossible at worst.

Therefore, my point is that there is no arbitrage to be gained by loading up on free agents today vs. next off season, etc.

What is more to the heart of a proper rebuild is your last point - how to have a good core of young players with cap friendly contracts. There are two types of players that tend to outperform their contracts. One are the max contract superstars. The other are players on rookie contracts. My point is that you need both of these things to fit sufficient talent under the salary cap.

[aq_ua]

Apology accepted. Just to clarify further, this means you think the guys to the right of Ellis (Asik, Young, Hibbert, Rondo) will get the max?

No, they won't. They're to the right of Ellis.

Not trying to be obtuse, but then what is the distinction between left and right of Ellis?

Oh, again I just took your argument because I thought it was rather amusing. Check 3 or 4 posts back?

I genuinely don't understand they point you're making. Can you just explain it to me without asking me what I don't understand about it?

I just did...really?

Perhaps we need to talk in specifics. Let's take reality - we have roughly $27 million to spend in free agency this summer. As a benchmark, we have Wes Matthews asking for $15mm per season. Monta Ellis just opt-ed out of a $9mm contract. So realistically, we're talking about two of any of the guys in your list. We currently have one starting quality player in Melo, and depending on how you view Galloway, Hardaway and Early, maybe a couple other rotation players. Add to that the 4th pick as an additional rotation player. The additional two free agents and our incumbents are enough to mitigate the lack of our 2016 draft pick. Is this your thought?

No of course not. The 2016 pick is gone, there point isn't some subjective measurement of whether free agents can mitigate the loss. The point is its the means available to the Knicks to be better than a 17 win team.

We know their names, We know their skills. There are free agents that will make the Knicks better and NOT cap them out for years to come. We know this as a fact.

Pray tell, who? I actually don't know who these free agents are that will make the Knicks better and NOT cap them out for years to come. Again, let's say the salary cap goes up by $20mm. That means we can add one more player of a similar stature to whomever we add this off-season. However, that does not necessarily mean it opens up a full max contract slot because as salary caps go up, so do max contract caps. So how does this help us avoid salary cap purgatory? Please explain said facts.

We, however don't know what players may or may not be available in salary dumps and what picks may or may not be available. In fact, we can't say with any certainly ANY will be.

And we DO know the NY Knicks and MSG are NOT going to use spend their offseason waiting for a phone call that may never come or making phonecall that might not turn anything up.

We KNOW they ARE going to add players and spend their cap room.

Don't we?

Spending cap room, sure. Entirely on free agents? Why not trades? If you have accepted the fact that the 2016 pick is gone, then you should accept the fact that it doesn't matter whether or not we win more than 17 games next season and the only criteria by which you should judge next year is by whether we have advanced the team and its roster towards a championship caliber one. You shouldn't feel compelled to binge on free agency this summer solely for the purpose of outperforming last year at the cost of flexibility in the future. Why is flexibility important?

We, however don't know what players may or may not be available in salary dumps and what picks may or may not be available.

Nor do we know what players will become available in trade. What we do need is the ability to act opportunistically in order to acquire the as of yet unknown players/draft picks because that is the only way in which we can advance the agenda of building towards something winning and something sustainable. That requires assets and cap flexibility. Signing a bunch of role players with Melo just doesn't do that.

[aq_ua]

We are entirely reliant on free agency to fill out 3 to 4 starting roles plus a majority of our bench because we don't have the luxury of waiting to draft and develop players given that 3 - 4 year window.

Exactly, as sad as it may make you, you are astute enough to realize THAT is the play.

Which is why arguing they shouldn't sign anyone at rates that will descend significant in cap value in unprecedented fashion makes little practical sense.

No, it also doesn't make practical sense to sign anyone for the sake of signing someone if it doesn't lead to winning.

[And100]

First of all, a few days ago you accused me of getting personal with you, which I don't think I did.

Now, out of nowhere, you called me what I've learned is an insult on this forum for a handful of posters, assuming me of being some unfavored poster of the past, which has no relevance to this conversation and is meant as an insult.

So there's that.

That said, I don't disagree with you that the Knicks have no inherent advantage against other teams with the cap increasing. My only argument is you cannot ignore the math. The cap has never gone up by 60% during the life of a 4 year contract before.

As to what you did say, the substance of which is your subjective opinion as to which players are worth what, I have not and have no inclination to argue.

My only point has been if you deem no players worthy of the market rates they'll command, you won't get any new, better players, the absence of which will not make your unlikely scenarios any more likely, which again, has been my point all along.

What is more to the heart of a proper rebuild is your last point - how to have a good core of young players with cap friendly contracts. There are two types of players that tend to outperform their contracts. One are the max contract superstars.

Which is specific to the contract they signed vs. the cap over the life of the deal. That paradigm IS changing. If you are referring only to their quality of play and not their quality of play vs. their salary, that's one thing, but you are, and if you're going to cite their salary, it would be incomplete to not cite their salary in context to the cap.

The other are players on rookie contracts. My point is that you need both of these things to fit sufficient talent under the salary cap.

Name the teamS you're referring to over recent years.

[And100]

We are entirely reliant on free agency to fill out 3 to 4 starting roles plus a majority of our bench because we don't have the luxury of waiting to draft and develop players given that 3 - 4 year window.

Exactly, as sad as it may make you, you are astute enough to realize THAT is the play.

Which is why arguing they shouldn't sign anyone at rates that will descend significant in cap value in unprecedented fashion makes little practical sense.

No, it also doesn't make practical sense to sign anyone for the sake of signing someone if it doesn't lead to winning.

It makes sense on many levels for MSG for the NY Knicks to win 30 games instead of 17. It makes sense on many levels for MSG for the NY Knicks to win 40 games instead of 30. It makes sense on many levels for MSG for the NY Knicks to win 50 games instead of 40 and qualify for the postseason as oppossed to not qualifying.

Unless you're arguing signing two free agents will result in no net win total?

The NYK are not run as a "championship for bust" organization, never have been. That may be your desire and it might even be mine, but we're fans of the wrong team if we have any expectation that will occur.

Knicks are going to spend money. You continue to argue against something you know will occur.

[aq_ua]

First of all, a few days ago you accused me of getting personal with you, which I don't think I did.

Now, out of nowhere, you called me what I've learned is an insult on this forum for a handful of posters, assuming me of being some unfavored poster of the past, which has no relevance to this conversation and is meant as an insult.

So there's that.

That said, I don't disagree with you that the Knicks have no inherent advantage against other teams with the cap increasing. My only argument is you cannot ignore the math. The cap has never gone up by 60% during the life of a 4 year contract before.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, I genuinely thought you liked that name.

My point being contracts being negotiated this offseason already take all of that into account so whatever arb you expect has already been priced in. Wes Matthews could very well end up with a 100% increase, which according to math, is a greater proportional increase than 60%.

As to what you did say, the substance of which is your subjective opinion as to which players are worth what, I have not and have no inclination to argue.

My only point has been if you deem no players worthy of the market rates they'll command, you won't get any new, better players, the absence of which will not make your unlikely scenarios any more likely, which again, has been my point all along.

Not really. Your point has been to out pay the market in order to sign said players this off season with the expectation that it will all be fine when the salary cap goes up. If your point has now changed, then there is nothing to argue. If you think my point is never sign free agents ever, then there is clear miscommunication as I don't believe I have ever said that.

What is more to the heart of a proper rebuild is your last point - how to have a good core of young players with cap friendly contracts. There are two types of players that tend to outperform their contracts. One are the max contract superstars.

Which is specific to the contract they signed vs. the cap over the life of the deal. That paradigm IS changing. If you are referring only to their quality of play and not their quality of play vs. their salary, that's one thing, but you are, and if you're going to cite their salary, it would be incomplete to not cite their salary in context to the cap.

The other are players on rookie contracts. My point is that you need both of these things to fit sufficient talent under the salary cap.

Name the teamS you're referring to over recent years.

Basically...every playoff team?

[And100]

Not trying to be obtuse, but then what is the distinction between left and right of Ellis?

My opinion to as free agents who are ascending to their peak value vs. descending. Which you may agree or disagree with, which would be fair.

I just did...really?

Really, I told you I didn't understand the significance or context of the latter part of what you describe as a funny conflict. I still don't. Because I don't recognize it. Still don't.

Pray tell, who? I actually don't know who these free agents are that will make the Knicks better and NOT cap them out for years to come.

Don't understand the question. Knicks can ONLY go over the cap by the room exception this year. Raises can only be 4.5%. The Knicks will be under the cap by CBA rule going into the 2016-2017 season. That same process will repeat itself the following offseason.

This is a pure statement of fact. Why are you arguing the Knicks will be capped out? No one is arguing they'll have the cap room to acquire the player YOU identify as wanting or needing.

Again, let's say the salary cap goes up by $20mm. That means we can add one more player of a similar stature to whomever we add this off-season. However, that does not necessarily mean it opens up a full max contract slot because as salary caps go up, so do max contract caps. So how does this help us avoid salary cap purgatory? Please explain said facts.

Just did. I never said they'd have a max cap slot. i said they'd have cap room. Can we please distinguish putting facts into the discourse versus your subjective charactrization of them?

Spending cap room, sure. Entirely on free agents? Why not trades?

I'm down with good trades. Now you're starting to characterize my argument in exagerrated extremes. In context I first responded about the notion of free agents at their market value vs. preferred friendly value. I have in no way implied the KNicks cannot or should not consider trades. Why do I even have to say that?

If you have accepted the fact that the 2016 pick is gone, then you should accept the fact that it doesn't matter whether or not we win more than 17 games next season and the only criteria by which you should judge next year is by whether we have advanced the team and its roster towards a championship caliber one.

And you and I both know we are not fans of an organization guided by the precept.

Nor do we know what players will become available in trade. What we do need is the ability to act opportunistically in order to acquire the as of yet unknown players/draft picks because that is the only way in which we can advance the agenda of building towards something winning and something sustainable. That requires assets and cap flexibility. Signing a bunch of role players with Melo just doesn't do that.

Again, the premise behind this is clearly your subjective view of available free agents. I realy have to inclination to argue, over, say the abilities of Demarre Carroll. It would be beneath both of us.

I will say desiring to add players in salary dumps and acquiring worthwhile draft picks is a desire (and a perfectly valid one) not a strategy.

[aq_ua]

Exactly, as sad as it may make you, you are astute enough to realize THAT is the play.

Which is why arguing they shouldn't sign anyone at rates that will descend significant in cap value in unprecedented fashion makes little practical sense.

No, it also doesn't make practical sense to sign anyone for the sake of signing someone if it doesn't lead to winning.

It makes sense on many levels for MSG for the NY Knicks to win 30 games instead of 17. It makes sense on many levels for MSG for the NY Knicks to win 40 games instead of 30. It makes sense on many levels for MSG for the NY Knicks to win 50 games instead of 40 and qualify for the postseason as oppossed to not qualifying.

Unless you're arguing signing two free agents will result in no net win total?

The NYK are not run as a "championship for bust" organization, never have been. That may be your desire and it might even be mine, but we're fans of the wrong team if we have any expectation that will occur.

Knicks are going to spend money. You continue to argue against something you know will occur.

Does it make sense for MSG to want the NY Knicks to win 30 games forever because we only won 17 last year? Does it make sense for MSG to want the NY Knicks to win 40 games forever? Etc. etc. etc. Do you think Knicks management just looks at 2016 in a vacuum or as part of the overall package of what it needs to sell to fans in terms of future prospects. Why even sign a guy like Phil Jackson when there are much cheaper alternatives that could throw together just as credible a sham. Could maybe, just maybe, the team have championship aspirations and have genuine intentions to put together more than just a quick fix solution? If you so choose to look at it from the purely business angle, what approach do you think maximizes enterprise value? A short and quick blip or long-term growth trends?

[And100]

My point being contracts being negotiated this offseason already take all of that into account so whatever arb you expect has already been priced in. Wes Matthews could very well end up with a 100% increase, which according to math, is a greater proportional increase than 60%.

That's another entirely subjective conclusion.

Not really. Your point has been to out pay the market in order to sign said players this off season with the expectation that it will all be fine when the salary cap goes up.

No, I said it will be what it is.

Basically...every playoff team?

Name two. When I ask a question, I'm really asking, for a reason.

[And100]

Does it make sense for MSG to want the NY Knicks to win 30 games forever because we only won 17 last year? Does it make sense for MSG to want the NY Knicks to win 40 games forever? Etc. etc. etc. Do you think Knicks management just looks at 2016 in a vacuum or as part of the overall package of what it needs to sell to fans in terms of future prospects. Why even sign a guy like Phil Jackson when there are much cheaper alternatives that could throw together just as credible a sham. Could maybe, just maybe, the team have championship aspirations and have genuine intentions to put together more than just a quick fix solution?

You've clearly stated multiple times that trying to put a team around Melo is a significant antithesis of the approach you favor.

Phil Jackson, one a five year deal (yes?) gave him a max extension and a no-trade clause one year ago.

Reconcile that please.