Knicks · Knicks Offseason Preview (page 12)

Anyone have any insight on the 42 million cap for OG? Is that his max salary number?

BigDaddyG wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

martin wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:If we need to get a low cost vet to back up Ragu how about Chris Duarte. Knicks wanted to draft him a few years ago . Two way player, off the bench. Don't think he will cost much. Better option the Alec Burks ???

Why you gotta take minutes away from Deuce?

Duarte would be a depth piece. Injuries, suspensions, fouls happen. Duarte would be outside the 9 man rotation but have to have depth beyond the 9 man rotation. That's my opinion every year.

Duarte has been really bad the past two years. Forget about Burks, I'm not sure he's a better option than Duquan Jeffries or Jacob Toppin.

It's OK if you aren't sure- I am.
8-13 from the field at 8-8 from the line in Game 7 for 26 points. You can't say those were garbage time points either. He singlehandedly got the Knicks back in the game in the 2nd quarter. That counts for something.

We're going to have to trade Mitch or Bogs or both.

BigDaddyG wrote:We're going to have to trade Mitch or Bogs or both.

Bogs was always trade bait. He is a more useable EF. You can also tell why we traded Quick. If we are already having money problems with OG. Quick and RJ would be even worse given what Quick wants.

On page 3 or 4 of this thread I did a pretty deep dive into the contract numbers. It really seems like Bogs is a luxury the Knicks can't afford. I don't think there's much of a need to trade him- just give him the 2 million buy out. Unless of course a Bridges trade is possible.

Nets owner said last week that the team needs a realistic appraisal of their situation. It sounded like he was floating a rebuild balloon. Knicks can offer a late first round pick this year and the Detroit second rounder, Milwaukee's next year, and Washington's in the near term, plus two future picks from the Knicks. Only teams with more draft assets are OKC Utah and San Antonio.

gradyandrew wrote:On page 3 or 4 of this thread I did a pretty deep dive into the contract numbers. It really seems like Bogs is a luxury the Knicks can't afford. I don't think there's much of a need to trade him- just give him the 2 million buy out. Unless of course a Bridges trade is possible.

Nets owner said last week that the team needs a realistic appraisal of their situation. It sounded like he was floating a rebuild balloon. Knicks can offer a late first round pick this year and the Detroit second rounder, Milwaukee's next year, and Washington's in the near term, plus two future picks from the Knicks. Only teams with more draft assets are OKC Utah and San Antonio.

If we are to trade for anyone on a decent sized contract we will need Bogey to help match the numbers. Just buying him out means we will have to give up more core players to make any trade for a good player. Unless I am missing something. I am no cap god.

Clean wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:On page 3 or 4 of this thread I did a pretty deep dive into the contract numbers. It really seems like Bogs is a luxury the Knicks can't afford. I don't think there's much of a need to trade him- just give him the 2 million buy out. Unless of course a Bridges trade is possible.

Nets owner said last week that the team needs a realistic appraisal of their situation. It sounded like he was floating a rebuild balloon. Knicks can offer a late first round pick this year and the Detroit second rounder, Milwaukee's next year, and Washington's in the near term, plus two future picks from the Knicks. Only teams with more draft assets are OKC Utah and San Antonio.

If we are to trade for anyone on a decent sized contract we will need Bogey to help match the numbers. Just buying him out means we will have to give up more core players to make any trade for a good player. Unless I am missing something. I am no cap god.

Keeping Bogs while offering OG and IHart new deals likely means no MLE and all the restrictions that come with being an apron team.

Who is a better player you can get with an MLE than Bogdonovic. Dont over think it. Pick him up - he plays a role as bench scorer and his contract would be a 20mm expiring piece that can be used if he doesn't really fit. You can let him go for 2mm, but either you dont replace him or you have to find someone better to replace him with and I dont think either situation is better than having him.

VDesai wrote:Who is a better player you can get with an MLE than Bogdonovic. Dont over think it. Pick him up - he plays a role as bench scorer and his contract would be a 20mm expiring piece that can be used if he doesn't really fit. You can let him go for 2mm, but either you dont replace him or you have to find someone better to replace him with and I dont think either situation is better than having him.

Pretty sure it is more complicated than your analysis.

1) Bogs is a 35 year old wing on the last year of his contract with a $4m guaranteed dead money hit.
2) He has the ability to catch fire, but generally has not seen a shot he didn’t like. Loose trigger and has had an overall negative plus minus while he is on the Court. He’s basically Evan Fournier, but 3 years older. Same people in love with Eaf are the same people in love with Bogs.

3) His contract had value solely as a kick the can model to use a cap filler in a larger trade when combined with picks.

4) Injuries made him more necessary but his lack of conditioning and loose play style took away from the Knicks overall plan. Towards the playoffs, you could see his conditioning starting to come back but that ended prematurely with an injury requiring surgery.

Now, the comments about the use of the MLE are mostly correct. Assume for one moment that the Knicks are both willing to pay OG Anunoby AND that OG’s final contract will not exceed the Max. Just like the Knicks did with Josh Hart, the best economic outcome for the Knicks is to agree on a 5 year AAV, have OG opt in and make up the contract value in years 2-5.

Use some combination of Bogs and other pieces if necessary to add a more functional rotation piece. For giggles, let’s say Bogs, picks for Jonathan Isaac or… Markannen.

With the first year savings on OG, the Knicks have room to use the MLE to fill any additional roster holes caused by the Bogs trade.

Randle 29
Brunson 24
OG 20
DDV 12
Hart 18
IHart 16
Robinson 14
McBride 5
[Isaac] 20
Achiuwa 5
Sims 2
Burks 2
____
Approx $167m before MLE and can fit under the $178 first apron.

Doesn’t have to be specifically these moves and there is room to shave dollars here and there, but the OG extension AAV governs the MLE. But if you end up moving Mitch with Bogs for a bigger name or iHart takes the money, you can pick up Goga Botadze.

Knicks have the absolute ability to have an outstanding 8,9 or 10 man rotation and still have a solid bench. It’s actually really interesting how they positioned themselves.

Just need OG to give them the flexibility.

It all starts with the OG deal. If he opts in and extends Knicks have a lot of options. It's kind of starting to look like PG13 will leave the Clippers. If he goes, that soaks up a lot of the free agency?money out there. With his injury history, maybe OG opts in so he can get a 5 year deal.

On Bogey - I thought we could trade him at $19M pre- July 1 and the acquiring team could drop the contract later for only $2M cap hit.

Is that completely wrong?

Very confused on complications with how we can use Bogey contract.

LivingLegend wrote:On Bogey - I thought we could trade him at $19M pre- July 1 and the acquiring team could drop the contract later for only $2M cap hit.

Is that completely wrong?

Very confused on complications with how we can use Bogey contract.

basically we can use him a trade chip on draft night, would be huge salary relief for another team if they wanted it.

if he's still on the team after draft night we will likely pick up his $19m option to have as a trade chip during the season.

I think if you identify a gem of a MLE signing you have to take it over 35 y/o Bogie. We might be better off without a massive trade at this point anyway. Adding a younger guy to lock up for multiple years OR a more impactful guy with MLE should be higher priority than keeping Bogie around for hypothetical trade scenarios that might never matriculate.

After watching Boston demolish Dallas, I'm much more in favor of going all in in terms of offering draft picks plus Bogs for Bridges.

Or maybe Wiggins? GSW gets the salary cap relief to resign Klay and keep the band together. Wiggins hasn't impressed since the Finals but he was the second best player on a Championship team. Also he has history with This. Probably don't need to toss much if any draft compensation in to make that trade happen.

gradyandrew wrote:After watching Boston demolish Dallas, I'm much more in favor of going all in in terms of offering draft picks plus Bogs for Bridges.

If you are building a team with the specific intent of beating Boston

1) What’s your best lineup using current roster and players that are arguably in the rumor mill/obtainable?

2) Specifically, who do you play at Center to counter KP’s production both offensively and defensively?

3) Does the Knicks’ offensive regime have enough firepower (eFG, ppp) to counter a Boston scheme that ideally takes 40-50 3s per game at a 40% 3pt%. Meaning that they will simply outscore teams reliant on midrange on a points per possession basis?

EwingsGlass wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:After watching Boston demolish Dallas, I'm much more in favor of going all in in terms of offering draft picks plus Bogs for Bridges.

If you are building a team with the specific intent of beating Boston

1) What’s your best lineup using current roster and players that are arguably in the rumor mill/obtainable?

2) Specifically, who do you play at Center to counter KP’s production both offensively and defensively?

3) Does the Knicks’ offensive regime have enough firepower (eFG, ppp) to counter a Boston scheme that ideally takes 40-50 3s per game at a 40% 3pt%. Meaning that they will simply outscore teams reliant on midrange on a points per possession basis?

I only watched a little but saw KP camped under the basket. Maybe they were playing some hybrid zone defense? Mavs couldn’t make a 3. It’s a live or die by the 3 league

DLeethal wrote:I think if you identify a gem of a MLE signing you have to take it over 35 y/o Bogie. We might be better off without a massive trade at this point anyway. Adding a younger guy to lock up for multiple years OR a more impactful guy with MLE should be higher priority than keeping Bogie around for hypothetical trade scenarios that might never matriculate.

Who would be that gem? Would you do it for someone like De'Anthony Melton? I keep coming back to Bogey is consistent mid teens NBA scorer and a 40% 3pt shooter who was playing on a bum wrist for much of the time he was here. He started looking like he was part of the flow towards the end. I see having shooting/bucket getting like that off the bench as a massive weapon for the Knicks. I'm not as hyped about the MLE market - I think the use of this salary slot is best served on what Bogey brings and the wild card of potentially using his contract at the deadline (even if we don't use it, its only 1 yr left).

The reason why there's no answer to guarding Kristaps is why he was called the unicorn when he was here. There's very few true stretch 5s that really shoot it like he can. Turner is kind of a lesser Kristaps in the sense that a lot of teams will take the chance on a 35% guy taking this shots, but Kristaps is another tier above as a shooter and if he gets hot its a true barrage. For them to have Horford and KP is what makes them so tough. Everyone on that team can stretch the floor. The worst shooter is probably Tatum...

We unfortunately never played them at full strength (with OG and Randle). Will be interesting to see with OG available to roam how things would look. Hart does a fair job on Tatum.

DLeethal wrote:I think if you identify a gem of a MLE signing you have to take it over 35 y/o Bogie. We might be better off without a massive trade at this point anyway. Adding a younger guy to lock up for multiple years OR a more impactful guy with MLE should be higher priority than keeping Bogie around for hypothetical trade scenarios that might never matriculate.

The problem with using the MlE is it hardcaps the Knicks at the first apron and will make it harder to execute a big trade later on. I’ll be shocked if they use the MLE. The name of the game is flexibility.

DLeethal wrote:I think if you identify a gem of a MLE signing you have to take it over 35 y/o Bogie. We might be better off without a massive trade at this point anyway. Adding a younger guy to lock up for multiple years OR a more impactful guy with MLE should be higher priority than keeping Bogie around for hypothetical trade scenarios that might never matriculate.

Adding someone via MLE is the same hypothetical as a trade?

Knixkik wrote:

DLeethal wrote:I think if you identify a gem of a MLE signing you have to take it over 35 y/o Bogie. We might be better off without a massive trade at this point anyway. Adding a younger guy to lock up for multiple years OR a more impactful guy with MLE should be higher priority than keeping Bogie around for hypothetical trade scenarios that might never matriculate.

The problem with using the MlE is it hardcaps the Knicks at the first apron and will make it harder to execute a big trade later on. I’ll be shocked if they use the MLE. The name of the game is flexibility.

I think teams should be aggregating talent in a manner that takes them up to the first apron without passing it. As the Cap increases, I think the ability to add competitive salary is meaninful. Moreso, as the cap increases, valuable players on MLE contracts will have contracts that are increasing in trade value. So, DDV is on a valuable contract now. Your next MLE player, assuming it is well thought out and the player executes can be an exceptional value contract. I think the name of the game is to keep adding value contracts until you have your "team" and once there, if you have to go over the apron to keep it together or make minor changes to it, you weight the cost benefit.