Knicks · What do we do with Rose, Bullock, Burks, and Noel Long-Term? (page 1)

These are essentially the vet 1-year deal guys who make up the supporting cast to the core group. All of them will get a ton of interest at the deadline and after the season and have probably earned multi-year deals. It's assumed Rose will come back on a team-friendly multi-year deal, but what about the rest? All of them have been important to the success so far. Each provides something different that's important as a role player. This group provides what Perry/Mills were going for when they signed all of those role players in 2019. So the question becomes, do we offer any of these guys multi-year deals, hold firm and keep only the guys that will come back on 1-year deals to keep the max cap space available, or something else? I didn't include Payton because i feel he would only be brought back as a last-resort 1-year contract. The rest of these guys have a legit opportunity for multi-year deals either here or somewhere else and the Knicks will have to make some tough decisions. Given age and skillsets, i'll try to bring Bullock, Rose, and Noel back on team-friendly multi-year deals, and only bring back Burks if it's for 1-year. Knicks will have the draft to replace some offense.

its a good question and it depends on who here and what their arc looks like. Also depends on who we draft, and who is available as a FA.

Here's a question... what if Frank has a great second half? What if he earns the backup PG spot behind Rose, and plays really great for 25 minutes a night at backup PG and as a defensive sub guy guards 1-4. Do you throw some money at resigning him? His QO is $8mm so figure anything starts at that #

Rose( so far), all played well here and assuming they get along well with the others and bring good habits then you have to reward that. Continuity is very important for obvious reasons and we shouldn’t be repeating past mistakes with turning our roster over every year. They don’t even need a big role as most will probably end up being rotation end of bench guys, especially if we can land a Conley/Lowry. As for the size of their deals, they should be 1-3 yr deals with TO and partial guarantees. Gotta keep things as flexible as possible for 22 or 23 FA as well as Mitch’s and Randle’a pay day.

Bullock is the only one I don’t bring back, just because it’s a spot we are very likely to upgrade on via the draft and I’m still a believer in Knox but he’ll have no problem getting another team.

Wouldnt offer Rose no more than a cap friendly 2 year deal. Anything more would be very risky, considering his injury history. Doubt Rose ia going to get a long term deal somewhere else.

Bringing Mitch and Noel back is important if we want to contend. Noel is demonstrating why you cant have too many elite rim defenders/shot blockers on the roster Even if they're offensively challenged. Most teams would kill to have 2 elite rim protectors on their team. Im sure other teams are taking notice of Noel, so I hope the FO can make it happen.

Burks and Bullock are doing their share, but Burks can really get hot from behind the arc. Id sign him, if the price is right.

TPercy wrote:Rose( so far), all played well here and assuming they get along well with the others and bring good habits then you have to reward that. Continuity is very important for obvious reasons and we shouldn’t be repeating past mistakes with turning our roster over every year. They don’t even need a big role as most will probably end up being rotation end of bench guys, especially if we can land a Conley/Lowry. As for the size of their deals, they should be 1-3 yr deals with TO and partial guarantees. Gotta keep things as flexible as possible for 22 or 23 FA as well as Mitch’s and Randle’a pay day.

Bullock is the only one I don’t bring back, just because it’s a spot we are very likely to upgrade on via the draft and I’m still a believer in Knox but he’ll have no problem getting another team.

I get the reasoning behind Bullock, but he’s the one true 3&D guy on the roster and seems to really help the Knicks identify on the floor. He won’t be easy to replace in the draft. There’s hardly ever any plug and play 3&D guys. You basically have to replace him with either a star, or at least a better version of what he is, which isn’t easy to find. Take someone like Danny green who is a free agent this summer. How much will be make and how much better is he really than Bullock ? He’s better but is it significant?

Knixkik wrote:

TPercy wrote:Rose( so far), all played well here and assuming they get along well with the others and bring good habits then you have to reward that. Continuity is very important for obvious reasons and we shouldn’t be repeating past mistakes with turning our roster over every year. They don’t even need a big role as most will probably end up being rotation end of bench guys, especially if we can land a Conley/Lowry. As for the size of their deals, they should be 1-3 yr deals with TO and partial guarantees. Gotta keep things as flexible as possible for 22 or 23 FA as well as Mitch’s and Randle’a pay day.

Bullock is the only one I don’t bring back, just because it’s a spot we are very likely to upgrade on via the draft and I’m still a believer in Knox but he’ll have no problem getting another team.

I get the reasoning behind Bullock, but he’s the one true 3&D guy on the roster and seems to really help the Knicks identify on the floor. He won’t be easy to replace in the draft. There’s hardly ever any plug and play 3&D guys. You basically have to replace him with either a star, or at least a better version of what he is, which isn’t easy to find. Take someone like Danny green who is a free agent this summer. How much will be make and how much better is he really than Bullock ? He’s better but is it significant?

A month ago we thought Rivers was the steal of FA until he went in to a slump (like Rj, like IQ, like payton), it was just bad timing for him to go into that slump because rose became available

My point is, this coach and his staff, has everyone on the roster playing on a different level from last season, so i feel like anyone we bring in will have the same effect.

The difference is the preparation and the roles have been identified from the JUMP.

Novak could always shoot regardless to what team he was on, but under MDA he had a career #s.

I would start looking at the bottom feeders and see who is available of those squads

knicks1248 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

TPercy wrote:Rose( so far), all played well here and assuming they get along well with the others and bring good habits then you have to reward that. Continuity is very important for obvious reasons and we shouldn’t be repeating past mistakes with turning our roster over every year. They don’t even need a big role as most will probably end up being rotation end of bench guys, especially if we can land a Conley/Lowry. As for the size of their deals, they should be 1-3 yr deals with TO and partial guarantees. Gotta keep things as flexible as possible for 22 or 23 FA as well as Mitch’s and Randle’a pay day.

Bullock is the only one I don’t bring back, just because it’s a spot we are very likely to upgrade on via the draft and I’m still a believer in Knox but he’ll have no problem getting another team.

I get the reasoning behind Bullock, but he’s the one true 3&D guy on the roster and seems to really help the Knicks identify on the floor. He won’t be easy to replace in the draft. There’s hardly ever any plug and play 3&D guys. You basically have to replace him with either a star, or at least a better version of what he is, which isn’t easy to find. Take someone like Danny green who is a free agent this summer. How much will be make and how much better is he really than Bullock ? He’s better but is it significant?

A month ago we thought Rivers was the steal of FA until he went in to a slump (like Rj, like IQ, like payton), it was just bad timing for him to go into that slump because rose became available

My point is, this coach and his staff, has everyone on the roster playing on a different level from last season, so i feel like anyone we bring in will have the same effect.

The difference is the preparation and the roles have been identified from the JUMP.

Novak could always shoot regardless to what team he was on, but under MDA he had a career #s.

I would start looking at the bottom feeders and see who is available of those squads

Never thought Rivers was a steal. I always considered him a rotation player who gets hot sometimes. A destitute man's John Starks.

BigDaddyG wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

TPercy wrote:Rose( so far), all played well here and assuming they get along well with the others and bring good habits then you have to reward that. Continuity is very important for obvious reasons and we shouldn’t be repeating past mistakes with turning our roster over every year. They don’t even need a big role as most will probably end up being rotation end of bench guys, especially if we can land a Conley/Lowry. As for the size of their deals, they should be 1-3 yr deals with TO and partial guarantees. Gotta keep things as flexible as possible for 22 or 23 FA as well as Mitch’s and Randle’a pay day.

Bullock is the only one I don’t bring back, just because it’s a spot we are very likely to upgrade on via the draft and I’m still a believer in Knox but he’ll have no problem getting another team.

I get the reasoning behind Bullock, but he’s the one true 3&D guy on the roster and seems to really help the Knicks identify on the floor. He won’t be easy to replace in the draft. There’s hardly ever any plug and play 3&D guys. You basically have to replace him with either a star, or at least a better version of what he is, which isn’t easy to find. Take someone like Danny green who is a free agent this summer. How much will be make and how much better is he really than Bullock ? He’s better but is it significant?

A month ago we thought Rivers was the steal of FA until he went in to a slump (like Rj, like IQ, like payton), it was just bad timing for him to go into that slump because rose became available

My point is, this coach and his staff, has everyone on the roster playing on a different level from last season, so i feel like anyone we bring in will have the same effect.

The difference is the preparation and the roles have been identified from the JUMP.

Novak could always shoot regardless to what team he was on, but under MDA he had a career #s.

I would start looking at the bottom feeders and see who is available of those squads

Never thought Rivers was a steal. I always considered him a rotation player who gets hot sometimes. A destitute man's John Starks.

According to Rivers and other in the know around the league, Thibs and the Knicks were trying to get Rose since the beginning of the season. Regardless of whether Rivers went into a slump or not, D Rose was on his way. With that said, there is no doubt we are re-signing Rose. I could see a 3 year deal to coincide with Thibs contract....

BigDaddyG wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

TPercy wrote:Rose( so far), all played well here and assuming they get along well with the others and bring good habits then you have to reward that. Continuity is very important for obvious reasons and we shouldn’t be repeating past mistakes with turning our roster over every year. They don’t even need a big role as most will probably end up being rotation end of bench guys, especially if we can land a Conley/Lowry. As for the size of their deals, they should be 1-3 yr deals with TO and partial guarantees. Gotta keep things as flexible as possible for 22 or 23 FA as well as Mitch’s and Randle’a pay day.

Bullock is the only one I don’t bring back, just because it’s a spot we are very likely to upgrade on via the draft and I’m still a believer in Knox but he’ll have no problem getting another team.

I get the reasoning behind Bullock, but he’s the one true 3&D guy on the roster and seems to really help the Knicks identify on the floor. He won’t be easy to replace in the draft. There’s hardly ever any plug and play 3&D guys. You basically have to replace him with either a star, or at least a better version of what he is, which isn’t easy to find. Take someone like Danny green who is a free agent this summer. How much will be make and how much better is he really than Bullock ? He’s better but is it significant?

A month ago we thought Rivers was the steal of FA until he went in to a slump (like Rj, like IQ, like payton), it was just bad timing for him to go into that slump because rose became available

My point is, this coach and his staff, has everyone on the roster playing on a different level from last season, so i feel like anyone we bring in will have the same effect.

The difference is the preparation and the roles have been identified from the JUMP.

Novak could always shoot regardless to what team he was on, but under MDA he had a career #s.

I would start looking at the bottom feeders and see who is available of those squads

Never thought Rivers was a steal. I always considered him a rotation player who gets hot sometimes. A destitute man's John Starks.

A rotation player for the contract he came for is a steal. Rivers is solid but clearly just got pinched by some guys overachieving. I didn’t think Bullock would last in the rotation for long but I just feel like he gives something no one else on the team does.

Knixkik wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

TPercy wrote:Rose( so far), all played well here and assuming they get along well with the others and bring good habits then you have to reward that. Continuity is very important for obvious reasons and we shouldn’t be repeating past mistakes with turning our roster over every year. They don’t even need a big role as most will probably end up being rotation end of bench guys, especially if we can land a Conley/Lowry. As for the size of their deals, they should be 1-3 yr deals with TO and partial guarantees. Gotta keep things as flexible as possible for 22 or 23 FA as well as Mitch’s and Randle’a pay day.

Bullock is the only one I don’t bring back, just because it’s a spot we are very likely to upgrade on via the draft and I’m still a believer in Knox but he’ll have no problem getting another team.

I get the reasoning behind Bullock, but he’s the one true 3&D guy on the roster and seems to really help the Knicks identify on the floor. He won’t be easy to replace in the draft. There’s hardly ever any plug and play 3&D guys. You basically have to replace him with either a star, or at least a better version of what he is, which isn’t easy to find. Take someone like Danny green who is a free agent this summer. How much will be make and how much better is he really than Bullock ? He’s better but is it significant?

A month ago we thought Rivers was the steal of FA until he went in to a slump (like Rj, like IQ, like payton), it was just bad timing for him to go into that slump because rose became available

My point is, this coach and his staff, has everyone on the roster playing on a different level from last season, so i feel like anyone we bring in will have the same effect.

The difference is the preparation and the roles have been identified from the JUMP.

Novak could always shoot regardless to what team he was on, but under MDA he had a career #s.

I would start looking at the bottom feeders and see who is available of those squads

Never thought Rivers was a steal. I always considered him a rotation player who gets hot sometimes. A destitute man's John Starks.

A rotation player for the contract he came for is a steal. Rivers is solid but clearly just got pinched by some guys overachieving. I didn’t think Bullock would last in the rotation for long but I just feel like he gives something no one else on the team does.

I should have added "deep" rotation guy. I think people get caught up by his offensive outbursts but don't realize that he's been pretty "meh" in every season he's played. He's not that good. Even in in his best season in Houston, he was about average. I like his attitude and don't mind him being on the team. But any squad that had depend on him for consistent minutes isn't good.

If you ignore capholds for a moment, the Knicks would have about 60mm to divvy up between FN, Rose, Bullock, Burks Noel and any other FA.

FN is probably gone. His caphold and eventual salary are likely to limit the Knicks in FA. Maybe they offer the QO but rescind it before he gets to deep into the RFA hunt.

Rose should be back. I can’t price him. I’d guess he gets 10mm per for 2 years.

Bullock. Feel like he will get a raise beyond our willingness to pay.

Noel - I’d give him a raise and bring him back if he is comfortable playing behind Robinson. Those two are amazing anchors to the defense. Could see another team making him their starter.

Burks - I really like Burks. On offense. Not sure if he will be back or not. Feel like his skill set is replaceable. Feel like his future is dependent on our FA.

Pretty sure this is why they want to bring in a max type player before the trade deadline. Probably easier to go over the cap to keep these guys if you already spent your FA money this year. You also gain the MLE and can use bird exception on Rose and FN.

As long as Thibs is the head coach i dont mind keeping Rose. Thibs clearly knows how best to utilize Rose. I do hope they extend Noel, a mitch-noel center rotation is a nightmare for opposing teams. 48 minutes of good rim protection with that pairing. I want them to choose between Bullock and burks. Just keep one and try to a better more consistent 3 and D player to improve the rotation.

Honestly I would see what I could get for every one of them at the deadline.

Rose isn’t going anywhere, Rivers might just be move for a conditional pick.

But, how many first round picks are needed to grab a real star? Noel’s defense could make a big difference to teams like the Warriors or Nuggets.

If we can get a first rounder and flip that with the Dallas picks, two future firsts, Knox and Toppin for a player like Beal you have to be ready. There is a deal to be made especially while Barrett, Quick, Mitch are on rookie deals and Randle is only making $19MM.

MS wrote:Honestly I would see what I could get for every one of them at the deadline.

Rose isn’t going anywhere, Rivers might just be move for a conditional pick.

But, how many first round picks are needed to grab a real star? Noel’s defense could make a big difference to teams like the Warriors or Nuggets.

If we can get a first rounder and flip that with the Dallas picks, two future firsts, Knox and Toppin for a player like Beal you have to be ready. There is a deal to be made especially while Barrett, Quick, Mitch are on rookie deals and Randle is only making $19MM.

Feel like they could make a splash. But I don’t want to take the ball out of their hands as they are playing well and may be looking at a playoff berth. If they can improve the 10 man rotation, they should though.

I think Noel is the perfect backup and we should keep him if the price is right.
I hope we find a better point guard than Rose, but as a backup he seems to be a good fit.
Not attached to Bullock or Burks and i think they are commodity type players.

Knixkik wrote:

TPercy wrote:Rose( so far), all played well here and assuming they get along well with the others and bring good habits then you have to reward that. Continuity is very important for obvious reasons and we shouldn’t be repeating past mistakes with turning our roster over every year. They don’t even need a big role as most will probably end up being rotation end of bench guys, especially if we can land a Conley/Lowry. As for the size of their deals, they should be 1-3 yr deals with TO and partial guarantees. Gotta keep things as flexible as possible for 22 or 23 FA as well as Mitch’s and Randle’a pay day.

Bullock is the only one I don’t bring back, just because it’s a spot we are very likely to upgrade on via the draft and I’m still a believer in Knox but he’ll have no problem getting another team.

I get the reasoning behind Bullock, but he’s the one true 3&D guy on the roster and seems to really help the Knicks identify on the floor. He won’t be easy to replace in the draft. There’s hardly ever any plug and play 3&D guys. You basically have to replace him with either a star, or at least a better version of what he is, which isn’t easy to find. Take someone like Danny green who is a free agent this summer. How much will be make and how much better is he really than Bullock ? He’s better but is it significant?

I understand that but we have to upgrade on Reggie or Burks and Burks gets the nod for me. I like Reggie and tbh I'm not going to be pissed at all if we resign him but at the end of the day he's a decent defender but he's nothing special on offense. Worst comes to the worst Burks can just fill in for him in starting lineup.

Panos wrote:I think Noel is the perfect backup and we should keep him if the price is right.
I hope we find a better point guard than Rose, but as a backup he seems to be a good fit.
Not attached to Bullock or Burks and i think they are commodity type players.

I think the PG combo of Rose and Quickley is fine. Hopefully at some point Quickley becomes "better" than Rose and will start, but i like one of them on the floor at all times with a bit of time sharing the court together as well.

TPercy wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

TPercy wrote:Rose( so far), all played well here and assuming they get along well with the others and bring good habits then you have to reward that. Continuity is very important for obvious reasons and we shouldn’t be repeating past mistakes with turning our roster over every year. They don’t even need a big role as most will probably end up being rotation end of bench guys, especially if we can land a Conley/Lowry. As for the size of their deals, they should be 1-3 yr deals with TO and partial guarantees. Gotta keep things as flexible as possible for 22 or 23 FA as well as Mitch’s and Randle’a pay day.

Bullock is the only one I don’t bring back, just because it’s a spot we are very likely to upgrade on via the draft and I’m still a believer in Knox but he’ll have no problem getting another team.

I get the reasoning behind Bullock, but he’s the one true 3&D guy on the roster and seems to really help the Knicks identify on the floor. He won’t be easy to replace in the draft. There’s hardly ever any plug and play 3&D guys. You basically have to replace him with either a star, or at least a better version of what he is, which isn’t easy to find. Take someone like Danny green who is a free agent this summer. How much will be make and how much better is he really than Bullock ? He’s better but is it significant?

I understand that but we have to upgrade on Reggie or Burks and Burks gets the nod for me. I like Reggie and tbh I'm not going to be pissed at all if we resign him but at the end of the day he's a decent defender but he's nothing special on offense. Worst comes to the worst Burks can just fill in for him in starting lineup.

Yeah Burks could fill in and do a solid job. The only concern is would the defense take a step back? At this point the identity of this team is a top 3 defense. Bullock is a huge part of that, Burks isn't.

Knixkik wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

TPercy wrote:Rose( so far), all played well here and assuming they get along well with the others and bring good habits then you have to reward that. Continuity is very important for obvious reasons and we shouldn’t be repeating past mistakes with turning our roster over every year. They don’t even need a big role as most will probably end up being rotation end of bench guys, especially if we can land a Conley/Lowry. As for the size of their deals, they should be 1-3 yr deals with TO and partial guarantees. Gotta keep things as flexible as possible for 22 or 23 FA as well as Mitch’s and Randle’a pay day.

Bullock is the only one I don’t bring back, just because it’s a spot we are very likely to upgrade on via the draft and I’m still a believer in Knox but he’ll have no problem getting another team.

I get the reasoning behind Bullock, but he’s the one true 3&D guy on the roster and seems to really help the Knicks identify on the floor. He won’t be easy to replace in the draft. There’s hardly ever any plug and play 3&D guys. You basically have to replace him with either a star, or at least a better version of what he is, which isn’t easy to find. Take someone like Danny green who is a free agent this summer. How much will be make and how much better is he really than Bullock ? He’s better but is it significant?

I understand that but we have to upgrade on Reggie or Burks and Burks gets the nod for me. I like Reggie and tbh I'm not going to be pissed at all if we resign him but at the end of the day he's a decent defender but he's nothing special on offense. Worst comes to the worst Burks can just fill in for him in starting lineup.

Yeah Burks could fill in and do a solid job. The only concern is would the defense take a step back? At this point the identity of this team is a top 3 defense. Bullock is a huge part of that, Burks isn't.

I'd keep Bullock over Burks depending on cost, if I had to choose. Burks can score in bunches but I haven't been convinced by his defense. I feel like that second unit with Burks and IQ is struggling to find its identity where I think both IQ and Burks want to be the primary scoring option. I think IQ is the primary and he needs guys willing to move off the ball a bit or he just makes his own shot. I am not sure where the coaching is with Knox and his development, but I am not sure you lose a lot by plugging Knox in for Burks. I really like Knox/Toppin chemistry.

the two priorities should be Rose and Noel. Either guys can start or be critical role players off the bench.

Noel is 26 and there is no way if Mitch is the starter he's going to be an 80 game guy. He's just not built that way. So even if we are committed to Mitch and Mitching being the starter we are going to need a high end back up and Noel certainly fills that.

I suspect in an empty FA class he might get some juicy offers, but if he's open to being mostly Mitch's backup I would give him 4 years $50mm ($12.5. even). It locks him into a staff/role/team he's excelling on and likes. Hopefully its enough to keep him.

For Rose it would be the same but shorter 2/$25mm

I had originally thought we should grab a veteran floor general (it would be costly) by offering Conley or Lowry 2/$50mm ish but I like the idea of brining Rose/Noel back for that money.

Be it frank, or any other player if we have better alternatives coming in then we move on. We can’t see the effects of a potential trade in real time and opportunities it creates.
Look at Boston, Kyrie leaves after he was traded. That depleted them. Kemba is a shell of his former self this season. Maybe he gets better. Now if Kyrie stays, and Haywood healthy that core is incredible. Perhaps there is a path if AD wanted to go to Boston and resign they make a big trade. There were windows for them that did not open. Bad luck with Haywood and Kyrie. They came close and there are too many “What ifs” to reconstruct in real time.

My point is the guys all listed long term? Really if none of them stick we good as long as “the unseen” supplements what goes out with better coming in. We have more assets on the roster and picks coming than I can recall with a ton of cap space and cap flex that so many things are possible.
Can’t see it, but its there.