ConSarnit wrote:Scase wrote:pharring wrote:I am just so tired of everything being "wait and see". They got Brown with the intention to wait and see what they could get at the trade deadline. They got nothing. If they pick up his option, it will be another series of wait and see: Can his salary be useful to a trade at the Draft? Can it be useful during FA as a sign-and-trade? Can it be useful as teams head to camp if injuries crop up over the summer? Can it be useful at the next trade deadline?
Always kicking the can forward in the name of flexibility. Meanwhile, his skill set isn't driving improvement on the current roster and his value is being diminished as a result. If you are an opposing GM, are you paying $23 million worth of anything you value on the assumption you can get 2023 Bruce Brown instead of 24/25?
Have the stones to just let him go. I couldn't care less about the salary sheet implications. Show me you care about putting a team on the floor because of pure basketball fit and talent and not also for "future flexibility of something comes along". It's been years of this flexibility crap.
This FO has been the text book definition of choice paralysis for years. Always constantly worried that "I could've done better" while consistently being found in the position of "How could you possibly even done worse?". It's so tiring. Never ending evaluating, just to make the worst choice possible, every damn time.
MiamiSPX wrote:
Yes, people keep getting this wrong. HIs peak value was at the trade deadline when a team could have used him for a playoff run and then had the luxury of picking up that TO or letting him walk. Now his value has dropped dramatically because he's really a 15M player who is going to be paid a lot more than this year.
The only value he has now is to a team that wants that 23M contract so they can use it in a trade later.
Yet every time I have said this, some 200IQ comment gets throw in that "the same deals will be there in the off season". Imagine declining a FRP just to be in this situation.
I think the issue is that all 1sts are not created equal. If the Knicks were offering a late 1st in this draft we already know:
-this draft sucks
-at the time we were slated to possibly have 3 picks in the top 31
-we already traded a late 1st this year for Agbaji
The front office values a late 1st this year as much as they value Agbaji. It's a gamble to keep Brown but trading him for late 1st in 2024 isn't exactly a haul. We are drafting at 19 and 31 so if we've identified players in that range we're going to have a chance to draft them. If we had no 1sts then yeah, not trading Brown was a mistake but adding another late 1st doesn't do much for us. The ship hasn't sailed on Brown returning something of value (in a salary dump or from a team looking to add a playoff rotation level player).
It is a risk to hold onto Brown but the offer was not strong, especially given our draft situation. It was a hat on a hat offer and I'm sure the Knicks knew that.
This was the same argument for not trading FVV, we couldve had a second and Grayson Allen who is objectively one of the best 3p shooters in the NBA. But everyone clowned on it, and we got nothing. BB is shaping up to be the same result, albeit not as bad as a fumble, but still pretty bad.
This has been the FOs issue for years, hold onto a player to get the absolute maximum value....and then never get it, lose them, or trade them for less than the original offers. We need to stop letting the league dictate how WE trade.
