[WOJ] Knicks Extend Hart for 4/81

[nedleeds]

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.

I don't want either as my 1st scoring option. But Haliburton is better now, and 4 years younger. He's a far better passer. Brunson is an excellent player period, and a very good scoring point guard. Haliburton is a comparable scorer by every measurable.

Brunsons contract is very good, top 5 in the league probably. Be great if we could have traded it for a top 5 pick.

[Chanel Bomber]

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

They also have a different timeline.

[Jeff Van Gully]

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.

understood.

[thebuzzardman]

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.



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.


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.

4 years from now Haliburton will be Brunsons age and ready to make 80 million a year or whatever the cap is up to allowing. And?

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.

I don't want either as my 1st scoring option. But Haliburton is better now, and 4 years younger. He's a far better passer. Brunson is an excellent player period, and a very good scoring point guard. Haliburton is a comparable scorer by every measurable.

Brunsons contract is very good, top 5 in the league probably. Be great if we could have traded it for a top 5 pick.

In 4 years Haliburton will be Brunson's age and making even more $ than he is now.

Haliburton is NOT a comparable scorer by "every measure". He just isn't, as of now, as gifted scoring. Come on.

And I'm not sure he's a top 20 player either.

Pacers are on a different timeline.

You like teams that draft most of their players; the Knicks didn't do that.

At least they drafted some.

Of course, nothing is ever good enough for Knick fans.

Everyone deserves another shot at Isiah Thomas running the show.

[GONYK]

There's a lot of fixation on "the path to getting a top 10 player". What does that mean exactly?

By definition, the probability of getting one is low, since there are only 10 of them and every team wants at least 1. What is this mystical path to get one that guarantees you one in a reasonable time frame?

Tanking costs you whole seasons for a 14% chance at maybe getting one. Seeing as how one is only available every 4-5 years (at best) the odds are much lower than even that. Plus, you have to invest the time to actually see if they develop into one. The NBA is littered with teams who are currently engaging in this path without much to show for it.

The other path is to acquire one, which costs lots of assets. Stars are hitting the market all the time, but true top 10 players becoming available is probably another once every 4-5 years thing. Then you need to contend in the trade market when you do.

The Knicks have obviously chosen option 2, but I don't see why that is any worse than option 1. Especially when both are hard and unlikely to achieve the outcome, but at least option 2 affords you the chance to put a competitive team on the floor in the meantime and maybe get lucky.

Is there a magic third alternative that is a clear path to a top 10 player that is clearly better? And every other team in the league is seemingly ignoring?

[nedleeds]

Brunsons contract is very good, top 5 in the league probably. Be great if we could have traded it for a top 5 pick.

In 4 years Haliburton will be Brunson's age and making even more $ than he is now.

Haliburton is NOT a comparable scorer by "every measure". He just isn't, as of now, as gifted scoring. Come on.

And I'm not sure he's a top 20 player either.

In 4 years Brunson will be 31 and 6' 2". Haliburton will be 27 and 6' 5".

Every measure was hyperbole, but there isn't really much other than shooting more shots that Brunson does better as a scorer. They're comparable. Haliburton takes and makes more 3's Brunson gets in the paint better and get fouled more. Haliburton shoots a higher % from the line, but on fewer attempts. With a higher % of his shots being 3s, things like EFG% and such favor Haliburton.

Assists however aren't really close on a per 36 Thibs adjusted basis. 6.4 to 11.2.

CBS is pretty unbiased and they have Haliburton 16 I think and Brunson 29.

I fully acknowledge Brunson's contract is great. Keeping the CAA money funnel in his dad's pocket is a great way of managing the cap.

Of course, nothing is ever good enough for Knick fans.

If having a top 15 player on roster and a reasonable chance to make the Finals is too good then guilty as charged.

[nedleeds]

There's a lot of fixation on "the path to getting a top 10 player". What does that mean exactly?

By definition, the probability of getting one is low, since there are only 10 of them and every team wants at least 1. What is this mystical path to get one that guarantees you one in a reasonable time frame?

Is there a magic third alternative that is a clear path to a top 10 player that is clearly better? And every other team in the league is seemingly ignoring?

All good points. A few teams have had multiple top 10 players, but if we graciously call it top 15 then about 1/3 of the teams will have 1 or 2 (Lakers, Celtics, maybe Suns and Nuggets). You can also have a top 5 player and some top 30 guys like the Bucks and (depending on Murrays rank) Nuggets.

The path is either draft (Celtics, Nuggets, Bucks, Mavs, GSW peak) or sign (Heat, Lakers) or hybrid (Suns).

None of the players we drafted have any chance of being top 15. Our 2 best players are old enough that it's extremely unlikely they'd become top 15 players after age 28.

So that leaves us with trade, sign or draft new players. Sign seems like a thing of the past, stars just demand the max, lie about staying and cry for a trade. Draft is unlikely with a roster that should make the playoffs and compete for the 2nd Round Exit Banner, but could happen (see Jokic, Giannis ... even a Bam type pick). That leaves trade, either trade for a top 15 player or trade for a top 5 pick.

[god shammgod]

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.

no

[GONYK]

There's a lot of fixation on "the path to getting a top 10 player". What does that mean exactly?

By definition, the probability of getting one is low, since there are only 10 of them and every team wants at least 1. What is this mystical path to get one that guarantees you one in a reasonable time frame?

Is there a magic third alternative that is a clear path to a top 10 player that is clearly better? And every other team in the league is seemingly ignoring?

All good points. A few teams have had multiple top 10 players, but if we graciously call it top 15 then about 1/3 of the teams will have 1 or 2 (Lakers, Celtics, maybe Suns and Nuggets). You can also have a top 5 player and some top 30 guys like the Bucks and (depending on Murrays rank) Nuggets.

The path is either draft (Celtics, Nuggets, Bucks, Mavs, GSW peak) or sign (Heat, Lakers) or hybrid (Suns).

None of the players we drafted have any chance of being top 15. Our 2 best players are old enough that it's extremely unlikely they'd become top 15 players after age 28.

So that leaves us with trade, sign or draft new players. Sign seems like a thing of the past, stars just demand the max, lie about staying and cry for a trade. Draft is unlikely with a roster that should make the playoffs and compete for the 2nd Round Exit Banner, but could happen (see Jokic, Giannis ... even a Bam type pick). That leaves trade, either trade for a top 15 player or trade for a top 5 pick.

I don't disagree, but my question is how does that put the Knicks further away than the other 20-22 teams in the league that don't have a top 15 player?

The Knicks are maximizing the path that leads to acquiring a sure fire top 10 player (since players acquired aren't a mystery box like players drafted). If we both acknowledge that any path to a top 10 player is an unlikely one, I don't see how a team like the Pacers are any closer. Same for Detroit, Orlando, Brooklyn, Atlanta, etc...

Every team will have some advantages and some disadvantages when compared to other teams but overall everyone is either in contention or not, and have players that are getting paid or will need to get paid soon.

Like it's totally fair someone to say that they like the way OKC is building because they are maximizing the hand they have been dealt, but I don't see any evidence that they are closer to contention than the Knicks.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

The problem I have with the team construction is that they are passing on cheaper talent (draft), while paying the premium for guys who are just decent to good. Like Hart is a nice player, but is he worth 4x as much as Caleb Martin (3 years $20 million)? Hart got outplayed by Strus who was making $1.8 million at the time, so it's already happened where someone making a fraction of what he makes outplayed him. The problem with guys like Hart & DDV is that the ceiling is pretty low and you will run into instances where there's a guy who makes 1/2 as much having a greater impact on a series.

The only way these type of deals make sense is if Hart and DDV ultimately end up as starters, where they'd have a chance to outplay their contracts. Hart has zero shot of being worth that money as a bench player, you can try and talk yourself into it, but the reality is that when you get into the playoffs there will be some random Bruce Brown type guy who is on a value deal or someone on a rookie deal that is absolutely killing your high priced role player.

We currently have 3 guys on the team who outplay their contracts, which is Grimes, Brunson and for the time being IQ. We've also painted ourselves into a corner where the guys we'd need to trade are pretty much RJ, Grimes and IQ + a boatload of picks for this mythical top 10 player. At which point they'd have to be the right fit with Brunson, because he is really the player that matters most on the team. The team build approach they're using puts a low ceiling on your team, and you need a hailmary type trade, which isn't out there.

[thebuzzardman]

Brunsons contract is very good, top 5 in the league probably. Be great if we could have traded it for a top 5 pick.

In 4 years Haliburton will be Brunson's age and making even more $ than he is now.

Haliburton is NOT a comparable scorer by "every measure". He just isn't, as of now, as gifted scoring. Come on.

And I'm not sure he's a top 20 player either.

In 4 years Brunson will be 31 and 6' 2". Haliburton will be 27 and 6' 5".

Every measure was hyperbole, but there isn't really much other than shooting more shots that Brunson does better as a scorer. They're comparable. Haliburton takes and makes more 3's Brunson gets in the paint better and get fouled more. Haliburton shoots a higher % from the line, but on fewer attempts. With a higher % of his shots being 3s, things like EFG% and such favor Haliburton.

Assists however aren't really close on a per 36 Thibs adjusted basis. 6.4 to 11.2.

CBS is pretty unbiased and they have Haliburton 16 I think and Brunson 29.

I fully acknowledge Brunson's contract is great. Keeping the CAA money funnel in his dad's pocket is a great way of managing the cap.

Of course, nothing is ever good enough for Knick fans.

If having a top 15 player on roster and a reasonable chance to make the Finals is too good then guilty as charged.

Cool. In 5 years when Brunson is 32 hopefully the Knicks are starting their rebuild and you can have 5 straight sh*tty years and lots of nice picks.

[thebuzzardman]

The problem I have with the team construction is that they are passing on cheaper talent (draft), while paying the premium for guys who are just decent to good. Like Hart is a nice player, but is he worth 4x as much as Caleb Martin (3 years $20 million)? Hart got outplayed by Strus who was making $1.8 million at the time, so it's already happened where someone making a fraction of what he makes outplayed him. The problem with guys like Hart & DDV is that the ceiling is pretty low and you will run into instances where there's a guy who makes 1/2 as much having a greater impact on a series.

The only way these type of deals make sense is if Hart and DDV ultimately end up as starters, where they'd have a chance to outplay their contracts. Hart has zero shot of being worth that money as a bench player, you can try and talk yourself into it, but the reality is that when you get into the playoffs there will be some random Bruce Brown type guy who is on a value deal or someone on a rookie deal that is absolutely killing your high priced role player.

We currently have 3 guys on the team who outplay their contracts, which is Grimes, Brunson and for the time being IQ. We've also painted ourselves into a corner where the guys we'd need to trade are pretty much RJ, Grimes and IQ + a boatload of picks for this mythical top 10 player. At which point they'd have to be the right fit with Brunson, because he is really the player that matters most on the team. The team build approach they're using puts a low ceiling on your team, and you need a hailmary type trade, which isn't out there.

And now Strus is making about halfway between Donte D and Hart but for another team.

Eventually decent players get paid.

Miami will likely replace his production, but not every team is Miami.

I get it. Value guys are nice but they eventually get paid. It's not a given that each team replaces them cheaply each time.

Knicks probably overreached a little to retain guys in pursuit of some stability but it happens.

Gee. I wish we could get back to 6 years ago. Those were GREAT teams.

[nedleeds]

In 4 years Haliburton will be Brunson's age and making even more $ than he is now.

Haliburton is NOT a comparable scorer by "every measure". He just isn't, as of now, as gifted scoring. Come on.

And I'm not sure he's a top 20 player either.

In 4 years Brunson will be 31 and 6' 2". Haliburton will be 27 and 6' 5".

Every measure was hyperbole, but there isn't really much other than shooting more shots that Brunson does better as a scorer. They're comparable. Haliburton takes and makes more 3's Brunson gets in the paint better and get fouled more. Haliburton shoots a higher % from the line, but on fewer attempts. With a higher % of his shots being 3s, things like EFG% and such favor Haliburton.

Assists however aren't really close on a per 36 Thibs adjusted basis. 6.4 to 11.2.

CBS is pretty unbiased and they have Haliburton 16 I think and Brunson 29.

I fully acknowledge Brunson's contract is great. Keeping the CAA money funnel in his dad's pocket is a great way of managing the cap.

Of course, nothing is ever good enough for Knick fans.

If having a top 15 player on roster and a reasonable chance to make the Finals is too good then guilty as charged.

Cool. In 5 years when Brunson is 32 hopefully the Knicks are starting their rebuild and you can have 5 straight sh*tty years and lots of nice picks.

Sounds good. Looking forward to half a decade of reliving the Bobcats in the meantime.

[sol537]

There's a lot of fixation on "the path to getting a top 10 player". What does that mean exactly?

By definition, the probability of getting one is low, since there are only 10 of them and every team wants at least 1. What is this mystical path to get one that guarantees you one in a reasonable time frame?

Is there a magic third alternative that is a clear path to a top 10 player that is clearly better? And every other team in the league is seemingly ignoring?

All good points. A few teams have had multiple top 10 players, but if we graciously call it top 15 then about 1/3 of the teams will have 1 or 2 (Lakers, Celtics, maybe Suns and Nuggets). You can also have a top 5 player and some top 30 guys like the Bucks and (depending on Murrays rank) Nuggets.

The path is either draft (Celtics, Nuggets, Bucks, Mavs, GSW peak) or sign (Heat, Lakers) or hybrid (Suns).

None of the players we drafted have any chance of being top 15. Our 2 best players are old enough that it's extremely unlikely they'd become top 15 players after age 28.

So that leaves us with trade, sign or draft new players. Sign seems like a thing of the past, stars just demand the max, lie about staying and cry for a trade. Draft is unlikely with a roster that should make the playoffs and compete for the 2nd Round Exit Banner, but could happen (see Jokic, Giannis ... even a Bam type pick). That leaves trade, either trade for a top 15 player or trade for a top 5 pick.

I don't disagree, but my question is how does that put the Knicks further away than the other 20-22 teams in the league that don't have a top 15 player?

The Knicks are maximizing the path that leads to acquiring a sure fire top 10 player (since players acquired aren't a mystery box like players drafted). If we both acknowledge that any path to a top 10 player is an unlikely one, I don't see how a team like the Pacers are any closer. Same for Detroit, Orlando, Brooklyn, Atlanta, etc...

Every team will have some advantages and some disadvantages when compared to other teams but overall everyone is either in contention or not, and have players that are getting paid or will need to get paid soon.

Like it's totally fair someone to say that they like the way OKC is building because they are maximizing the hand they have been dealt, but I don't see any evidence that they are closer to contention than the Knicks.

I put our position to what the Heat were right before they traded for Shaq to put them over the top. Remember that they gave up guys like Odom and Butler to get it done. Brunson is our "Wade" type... maybe Randle and RJ are our Odom and Butler types that go out in a deal for a guy like Embiid or Shaq (ie the Shaq of today). At least, that seems to be the type of plan we're gearing up for.

[thebuzzardman]

In 4 years Brunson will be 31 and 6' 2". Haliburton will be 27 and 6' 5".

Every measure was hyperbole, but there isn't really much other than shooting more shots that Brunson does better as a scorer. They're comparable. Haliburton takes and makes more 3's Brunson gets in the paint better and get fouled more. Haliburton shoots a higher % from the line, but on fewer attempts. With a higher % of his shots being 3s, things like EFG% and such favor Haliburton.

Assists however aren't really close on a per 36 Thibs adjusted basis. 6.4 to 11.2.

CBS is pretty unbiased and they have Haliburton 16 I think and Brunson 29.

I fully acknowledge Brunson's contract is great. Keeping the CAA money funnel in his dad's pocket is a great way of managing the cap.


If having a top 15 player on roster and a reasonable chance to make the Finals is too good then guilty as charged.

Cool. In 5 years when Brunson is 32 hopefully the Knicks are starting their rebuild and you can have 5 straight sh*tty years and lots of nice picks.

Sounds good. Looking forward to half a decade of reliving the Bobcats in the meantime.

Would instantly make it better than the last 20 years.

[HarthorneWingo]

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?

It happens in steps. It's clear that our team is progressing and most analysts expect us to be even better this season. We got better, if only slightly on paper, but other teams like the Celtics, Sixers, and Heat got worse. Milwaukee didn't improve (Giannis had knee surgery this summer).

[Kampuchea]

Pacers are much further from contention and also have less of a pathway to get there. Terrible people

[bronxknicksfan1]

Last year, GB was asking if the Knicks were better than the Pistons. This year, nedleeds is asking if the Knicks are better than the Pacers. RealGM can be unbearable sometimes.

[thebuzzardman]

Too bad the Knicks spent all this money and will barely make the play in. Might even miss it.

After Brunson has the season ending injury playing for Team USA or whatever the hell this exhibition basketball is that they are playing.

[nedleeds]

Brunson is our "Wade" type...

This fanbase. It's just breathtaking. Wade might be the 3rd best shooting guard of all time. Brunson might be the 3rd best point guard in the East.