Knicks · Brunson imaginary discount (page 3)

newyorknewyork wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:Brunson cooperated with the front office and his deal was structured to give them enough flexibility to continue building the team around him.

It is not about how much Brunson left on the table by not locking in X amount of years, etc. regardless of whether it sets him up for a bigger deal sooner.

Brunson is the opposite of Melo who squeezed the franchise for every penny he could. He arrived by forcing a roster depleting trade which backfired on him. The FO then had less assets to build or trade with to continue building the team.

Brunson has been fair with the Knicks by comparison because he is ten times smarter than Melo was about what it takes to build a winning roster.

Yes, the Knicks would need to pay him a giant salary the next go-around, but that is about the nature of today's NBA as a business, not Brunson.

The one thing I would object to a no-trade clause. They are terrible and ruin franchises, because sometimes you need to part ways and reboot.

Not exactly a fair comparison. Brunson's father played for the Knicks during the 99 finals run, and Brunson was around it. Brunson has known Leon Rose basically his whole life. His father also is an active coach on the Knicks. NBA was going into a potential lockout when Melo was to enter FA.

Most importantly, the Knicks are actually run by competent people. None of this was the case leading to Melo getting traded to the Knicks. Narrative is often put on Melo for "forcing" his way to the Knicks through trade. But its more on the Knicks for being an incompetent org putting themselves in that situation. Than relying on Melo to save the Knicks from its incompetence. Walsh drafted Jordan Hill over Derozan, Brandon Jennings, Jrue Holiday, Jeff Teague etc once Steph was off the board. Even though D'Antoni needed a G for his system. Nabbing any one of these players would of allowed for an asset to fall back on or reduced assets needed to be moved in the deal. Walsh essentially got back nothing for All Star David Lee, when his value should have netted a lottery pick. So another asset for the Knicks to fall back on lost. When Knicks did trade for Melo. They were in position to clear all cap with Billups expiring contract and the available amnesty from the lockout. Knicks could have potentially cleared cap and built a whole team around Melo after letting Billups expire for better overall and end game results.

I absolutely agree on the Knicks FO incompetence. For years I screamed into the void: GET A PG! but nothing. We tried to turn Toney from a decent SG into a PG and we ruined that player due to the stubborn refusal to prioritize the PG position. Our FO was a nightmare.

That does not change my POV about Melo's character. He was a guy who clearly needed surgery in mid-season, not a major operation, but a needed one and in his never-ending vanity he decided to play through the discomfort just so he could qualify for one more AS game. The man was all about himself regardless of the failures of the organization he was in. Melo had no leadership skills and he was only qualified as a person and a type of player to be the second banana to a better player or at least one with superior leadership skills.

So, yes, a top level PG should have been the goal. Having a quality floor general in their prime would have been the best thing for a team with Melo, someone who would guide him better than he could guide himself. Melo's judgment with the game on the line was some of the worst I've ever seen from a so-called superstar. He needed someone else to be his brain on the floor.

Rookie wrote:

martin wrote:

Rookie wrote:After watching him in the AS game 2 years in a row you can clearly see that while he is a star player he is not on the same level as ‘super star’ players. In that light I think his salary/contract is very reasonable.

Comparatively role players like Bridges and OG are clearly over paid and Towns who gets paid like a super star hasn’t really played like one or shown that he can be the difference maker. Brunsons contract is the last one that I’d complain about on this team.

I don't get that. Because their forte is on the defensive end and are not stout offensive players?

No, because as role players I would give them a lower salary slot. It’s not like they were allowed to test the market. We basically bid against ourselves. If I look around the league, I don’t see many role players making near max $$. I can’t even name one. I guess that was the premium paid for keeping the assembled parts of this team together for a defined time period but I still consider those contracts overpays.

On the defensive side of the court, do you think OG is one of the best? I do. He is like one of the top 15 defenders in the league.

That's exactly the salary slot he is in. Role player on offense, demon on defense.

BlueKnickers wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:Brunson cooperated with the front office and his deal was structured to give them enough flexibility to continue building the team around him.

It is not about how much Brunson left on the table by not locking in X amount of years, etc. regardless of whether it sets him up for a bigger deal sooner.

Brunson is the opposite of Melo who squeezed the franchise for every penny he could. He arrived by forcing a roster depleting trade which backfired on him. The FO then had less assets to build or trade with to continue building the team.

Brunson has been fair with the Knicks by comparison because he is ten times smarter than Melo was about what it takes to build a winning roster.

Yes, the Knicks would need to pay him a giant salary the next go-around, but that is about the nature of today's NBA as a business, not Brunson.

The one thing I would object to a no-trade clause. They are terrible and ruin franchises, because sometimes you need to part ways and reboot.

Not exactly a fair comparison. Brunson's father played for the Knicks during the 99 finals run, and Brunson was around it. Brunson has known Leon Rose basically his whole life. His father also is an active coach on the Knicks. NBA was going into a potential lockout when Melo was to enter FA.

Most importantly, the Knicks are actually run by competent people. None of this was the case leading to Melo getting traded to the Knicks. Narrative is often put on Melo for "forcing" his way to the Knicks through trade. But its more on the Knicks for being an incompetent org putting themselves in that situation. Than relying on Melo to save the Knicks from its incompetence. Walsh drafted Jordan Hill over Derozan, Brandon Jennings, Jrue Holiday, Jeff Teague etc once Steph was off the board. Even though D'Antoni needed a G for his system. Nabbing any one of these players would of allowed for an asset to fall back on or reduced assets needed to be moved in the deal. Walsh essentially got back nothing for All Star David Lee, when his value should have netted a lottery pick. So another asset for the Knicks to fall back on lost. When Knicks did trade for Melo. They were in position to clear all cap with Billups expiring contract and the available amnesty from the lockout. Knicks could have potentially cleared cap and built a whole team around Melo after letting Billups expire for better overall and end game results.

I absolutely agree on the Knicks FO incompetence. For years I screamed into the void: GET A PG! but nothing. We tried to turn Toney from a decent SG into a PG and we ruined that player due to the stubborn refusal to prioritize the PG position. Our FO was a nightmare.

That does not change my POV about Melo's character. He was a guy who clearly needed surgery in mid-season, not a major operation, but a needed one and in his never-ending vanity he decided to play through the discomfort just so he could qualify for one more AS game. The man was all about himself regardless of the failures of the organization he was in. Melo had no leadership skills and he was only qualified as a person and a type of player to be the second banana to a better player or at least one with superior leadership skills.

So, yes, a top level PG should have been the goal. Having a quality floor general in their prime would have been the best thing for a team with Melo, someone who would guide him better than he could guide himself. Melo's judgment with the game on the line was some of the worst I've ever seen from a so-called superstar. He needed someone else to be his brain on the floor.

We should have done that Bulls trade for Jimmy B(offseason before he broke out) and draft capital. Made so much sense at the time given we weren't going to compete within that window of his contract. Was envisioning that Shump & Butler wing stop when rumors were circulating.

martin wrote:

FrenchKnicks wrote:Salaries increase by a certain max percentage year after year, they’re not linear.
But that really is not the point. He made that decision to earn a LOT MORE, not LESS, and certainly not a sacrifice.

I tried my best to explain it. Sorry I was not able to express myself correctly enough.

Again, if you just lay out the potential numbers, you wouldn’t have to guess.

I really do not understand why you are attacking me, I shared numbers by memory (sorry for the inaccuracy of a couple of mil/ year) and corrected them by bringing a source/ article to give you the details. My point was that Brunson would actually earn much more money than sacrificing money overall.

IMHO:
- articles always mention he took a 113M discount, but it is not a good number to have in mind (more like guaranteed money vs. potential earnings in the NFL)
- part of Brunson's decision was also about maximizing his overall career earning by taking less on his previous extension
- I did not like Brunson latest interview mentioning the "sacrifice" he made

I tried to bring a point on the forum and was happy to have a debate with different points of view.
It is fine if you think I'm wrong about that.

Enjoy the rest of the season, I am not good at posting opinion on a forum I guess

FrenchKnicks wrote:

martin wrote:

FrenchKnicks wrote:Salaries increase by a certain max percentage year after year, they’re not linear.
But that really is not the point. He made that decision to earn a LOT MORE, not LESS, and certainly not a sacrifice.

I tried my best to explain it. Sorry I was not able to express myself correctly enough.

Again, if you just lay out the potential numbers, you wouldn’t have to guess.

I really do not understand why you are attacking me, I shared numbers by memory (sorry for the inaccuracy of a couple of mil/ year) and corrected them by bringing a source/ article to give you the details. My point was that Brunson would actually earn much more money than sacrificing money overall.

IMHO:
- articles always mention he took a 113M discount, but it is not a good number to have in mind (more like guaranteed money vs. potential earnings in the NFL)
- part of Brunson's decision was also about maximizing his overall career earning by taking less on his previous extension
- I did not like Brunson latest interview mentioning the "sacrifice" he made

I tried to bring a point on the forum and was happy to have a debate with different points of view.
It is fine if you think I'm wrong about that.

Enjoy the rest of the season, I am not good at posting opinion on a forum I guess

You think I am attacking you by asking you to show your math?

You think there wasn't a big discount. The easiest way to see what Brunson did or did not give up is to just show what he did take and what he could have gotten in the 2 different scenarios.

Like, this is just basic stuff? We don't even have to guess or wonder at what the discount is cause we can just do the math?

This is like math or finance 101 and you already made an assumption mistake that was more than 100% off?

FrenchKnicks wrote:

martin wrote:

FrenchKnicks wrote:Salaries increase by a certain max percentage year after year, they’re not linear.
But that really is not the point. He made that decision to earn a LOT MORE, not LESS, and certainly not a sacrifice.

I tried my best to explain it. Sorry I was not able to express myself correctly enough.

Again, if you just lay out the potential numbers, you wouldn’t have to guess.

I really do not understand why you are attacking me, I shared numbers by memory (sorry for the inaccuracy of a couple of mil/ year) and corrected them by bringing a source/ article to give you the details. My point was that Brunson would actually earn much more money than sacrificing money overall.

IMHO:
- articles always mention he took a 113M discount, but it is not a good number to have in mind (more like guaranteed money vs. potential earnings in the NFL)
- part of Brunson's decision was also about maximizing his overall career earning by taking less on his previous extension
- I did not like Brunson latest interview mentioning the "sacrifice" he made

I tried to bring a point on the forum and was happy to have a debate with different points of view.
It is fine if you think I'm wrong about that.

Enjoy the rest of the season, I am not good at posting opinion on a forum I guess

Question though?

If Brunson took the 5 year $269 contract instead. Would he not still be able to collect another super max contract? Could he not have took the 5 year $269 mil contract and still put in a player option at his conveniency(year 4 of it) to maximize his earnings?

Thus he would have played out his PO year in 2025 = $24.9mill
Then he would have signed at 5 years $269mil while playing out 3 years of that contract. Opting out in his 4th year to collect his final max contract at 33.
Collecting around $150+mil over 3years + $24.9mil playing out the final year of his previous contract. Earning $174.9+mil over this 4 year span. While still positioning himself for super max.
Instead he opted out of $24.9mil, and would collect $113mil over these 3 years of this current contract before opting out for his new contract. If he were to do so, at age 32.

So in terms of maxing out the most money he could have. I don't think the route he currently took accomplished that. Unless I'm missing something?

FrenchKnicks wrote:

martin wrote:

FrenchKnicks wrote:Salaries increase by a certain max percentage year after year, they’re not linear.
But that really is not the point. He made that decision to earn a LOT MORE, not LESS, and certainly not a sacrifice.

I tried my best to explain it. Sorry I was not able to express myself correctly enough.

Again, if you just lay out the potential numbers, you wouldn’t have to guess.

I really do not understand why you are attacking me, I shared numbers by memory (sorry for the inaccuracy of a couple of mil/ year) and corrected them by bringing a source/ article to give you the details. My point was that Brunson would actually earn much more money than sacrificing money overall.

IMHO:
- articles always mention he took a 113M discount, but it is not a good number to have in mind (more like guaranteed money vs. potential earnings in the NFL)
- part of Brunson's decision was also about maximizing his overall career earning by taking less on his previous extension
- I did not like Brunson latest interview mentioning the "sacrifice" he made

I tried to bring a point on the forum and was happy to have a debate with different points of view.
It is fine if you think I'm wrong about that.

Enjoy the rest of the season, I am not good at posting opinion on a forum I guess

You would be 100% correct if, and these are big IFs:

A) players did not get injured, ruining a chance at a future contract or even a future career (they do get injured)
B) money that a person gets today wasn't more valuable than the same amount in the future (it is more valuable because of inflation and being able to invest it and make it grow by the time future comes)

So that's why your logic is faulty. He did sacrifice

FrenchKnicks wrote:

martin wrote:

FrenchKnicks wrote:

DLeethal wrote:He definitely took a big paycut and gave us a big discount during his peak prime years and is bearing a ton of risk in hoping he will get the mega payday when he's past his prime instead.

He made a business decision to earn more money over the duration of his career.
The discount was actually 3 or 4 mil, same as Bridges.

Candidly, you seem to be pulling these numbers out of your ass.

Show us the math and then maybe you'll have a point.

I will try.
Here’s one article explaining it:

« Jalen Brunson’s 2024 contract extension earns him a guaranteed $156,549,124 with an average annual salary of $39.1 million. If he had waited for one more year and signed the contract in 2025, Brunson would have been awarded a $269 million maximum contract. »
>> this is the $113 million « sacrifice » which is mentionned in many articles.

« While it seems a purely altruistic gesture, it is a well-calculated bet on his career and Knicks’ success. By locking in $156.5 million in 2024, Brunson not only secured an impressive deal but also positioned himself for a massive contract down the road. The current deal includes a player option for the 2028-29 season, and if he opts out in 2028, he’ll become eligible for a four-year, $323 million extension. But if he waits until 2029, he could command a staggering $418 million extension. »

If you compare the two scenarios over the same four-year span (not taking into account the 5th year) : Brunson really took an initial $37 million paycut over four years, with a $113 million of total risk (ie. career ending injury), in order to be able to sign a 323 or 418 mil extension.

That is why I am saying that it is a business decision, a calculated move to maximize his career earnings.
Nothing wrong about that, but many articles make it look like he took a $113 mil paycut to help the Knicks.

In the end, he will greatly benefit from that decision.
Now, do you want the Knicks to sign him to $80 mil per year starting at age 32?

Honestly, the amount is staggering but Brunson’s game is not built on speed. However, those troublesome ankle injuries concern me as he gets older they will worsen.