The New York Knicks hope to go from good to great.
This summer questions will be asked. A 2023-24 campaign that ended with 50 regular-season wins and a second-round playoff loss to the Indiana Pacers represented a step forward. But how can the Knicks enter the NBA’s elite?
Could a trade for a star make a difference? Or could a group that destroyed the rest of the league when healthy return for another run together? How should the organization handle Isaiah Hartenstein’s free agency, the looming Julius Randle issue or Jalen Brunson’s advances?
Knicks writer Fred Katz connected with NBA analysis writer Seth Partnow to discuss the biggest stories of New York’s offseason.
Here is their conversation:
Katz: What is your biggest Knicks-related concern heading into the offseason?
Part now: Manage what I like to call the tipping point of team building.
Around the 50-win mark, most teams go from having to find 240 quality minutes to having to find ways to improve already competent production. As I discussed last season, the teams you need to beat to progress are much better than the ones that had the first 40 or so wins.
The Knicks are at that point, or maybe even a little beyond it. Even when injuries increased in the postseason, aside from a few seasons with Jericho Sims, there were almost always five solid or better players on the floor.
But while “solid” gives you a good foundation, a reasonable guarantee of playoff seeding, and a decent chance of winning a round or two, that solidity must be combined with superlative talent once the relevant peer group becomes the short list of title contenders. . It’s as much an emotional conundrum as anything, like deciding which of the players who got them to this point need to be moved or at least see their roles severely diminished.
This is all sort of a long-winded way of approaching the question of what to do with/about Randle. He’s certainly been a big part of the Knicks’ regular season success over the past three seasons. It’s equally safe to say that his two playoff runs have largely been failures with an effective field goal percentage of 40.2 percent in 15 games.
It’s hard to fully imagine the 2024 postseason counterfactual with Randle available. But aside from the end of the Pacers series, where the team crumbled a bit under the weight of injuries to four rotation players, it’s certainly plausible and I think probable that the Knicks were a 16+ game playing team.” “Nova Ball.” ”with three athletic and physically robust guards on the court at all times along with a good back four (OG Anunoby) and one of their two main centers.
Katz: The Randle question is worth pondering, although there is context to add to his playoff performances.
The first in 2021 resulted in a five-game first-round loss to the Atlanta Hawks. The defenders swarmed a player who was not only the Knicks’ top option but his only option. Every element of the offense flowed through Randle that season. The Hawks exploited it.
When he struggled during the Cleveland Cavaliers and Miami Heat series in 2023, the circumstances were different. Brunson was leading the attack, but Randle was also dealing with an ankle injury serious enough to require offseason surgery.
Do these two disappointing seasons mean Randle is destined for continued playoff struggles or were they simply a product of unfortunate circumstances, which wouldn’t hold if the Knicks went this far with Randle as a healthy, No. 2 option in 2025? ?
Part now: These are certainly fair warnings. But on the other hand, we’re trying to win a title here if we’re the Knicks. So how many explanations for the poor playoff performance without positive counterweights should they be willing to accept? Randle will also turn 30 next season, which means we’re closer to the end of his high-level playing career than the beginning.
Katz: The Randle situation leads to the biggest question of New York’s offseason: Should it add anyone at the top?
The starters (Brunson, Donte DiVincenzo, Anunoby, Randle and Hartenstein) dominated during the short time they were healthy in January, outscoring their opponents by 16.6 points per 100 possessions, according to Cleaning the Glass. But the Knicks are also looking for a star.
Let’s say you’re at the top of the organization. To what extent is January’s success taken into account when deciding whether or not to look for a star? Do you aim for a star at all costs? Do you have a limit? And if you’re looking for one, based on the roster that’s already here, what type of player would you consider the best fit?
Part now: If the question is literally “at all costs,” the answer is no. While a player like Paul George makes a lot of sense in terms of immediate fit, New York should at least be mindful of age, timelines and contract status when determining how much of its assets to put on the line for a given deal.
I mention George for a reason, as the Knicks, like everyone else, could use a bigger wing with playmaking and defensive skills.
If a true super duper star at another position becomes available, they shouldn’t be reluctant to push the chips, even if the positional fit and improvement might be less than it would be in terms of essentially improving on Randle by pushing Anunoby to the four to full time and bringing a stellar wing.
But that would be for players like (and I’m just naming names here, not suggesting availability or possible paths to a deal) Joel Embiid, Giannis Antetokounmpo or Devin Booker. For players slightly lower in the league pecking order, like Donovan Mitchell, it would be a bit more prudent as there would be pros and cons to such an addition in terms of the successful playoff identity this season’s team forged.
It’s not that Mitchell isn’t “better” than DiVincenzo, the current starting shooting guard, but how much would that particular trade-off of offensive creation for defensive acumen and activity generate, and would that addition be worth it? To some extent, the Milwaukee Bucks‘ somewhat bumpy experience bringing in Damian Lillard instead of Jrue Holiday should be an example.
To your question about how you weigh January’s success, I would say the overwhelming lesson is that Anunoby is very good, but Randle’s struggles mentioned above should give you pause, as should the fact that there was a considerable calendar component to the January event. streak, as the Knicks went 2-2 against teams that finished above the Play-In Tournament and 10-0 against everyone else after acquiring Anunoby but before Randle went down for the rest of the season.
Katz: Let’s analyze another starter.
What do you make of the Hartenstein situation? Because of a quirk in the collective bargaining agreement, the Knicks can pay Hartenstein, an unrestricted free agent this summer, a starting salary of no more than $16.1 million in his next contract.
What priority should bringing him back have? And if another team comes out on top with a massive offer that lures Hartenstein away from New York, how comfortable would you be if the Knicks headed into 2024-25 with Mitchell Robinson as the starting center?
Part now: Getting Hartenstein for that initial figure of $16.1 million would be a spectacular deal. Depending on which player impact metric you choose, he produced between $28 million and $35 million in value this season. While he wouldn’t be especially confident about matching those numbers in 2024-25, he was legitimately excellent last regular season and especially in the postseason.
At least from a statistical perspective, Robinson’s idea has been better than reality for much of his career. For example, last season Hartenstein scored 1.41 points per 100 possessions better than the league average for centers in terms of rim protection, while Robinson was 1.44 points below average, according to my performance metric. “saved points”.
On the other end, Robinson contributes a lot in terms of offensive rebounding, but Hartenstein is no slouch in that area, and the latter’s acumen enhances and enables the Knicks’ ability to attack in four or five outs. style even without Hartenstein himself being a floor spacer. All that said, he would be extremely worried about losing Hartenstein unless the Knicks had a replacement ready.
Katz: Given the team’s financial situation, over the salary cap and likely over the luxury tax line, finding a worthwhile replacement for Hartenstein wouldn’t be easy.
Of course, there is one more issue I must mention. You didn’t think you’d get out of here without a question Brunson, did you?
Brunson averaged just 32.4 points and 7.5 assists on 44-31-78 shooting during the postseason, dragging an injured team just one win away from the Eastern Conference finals. He finished sixth in MVP voting and was also Second Team All-NBA.
So, Seth, is Brunson, an undersized point guard who has been the subject of debate since he arrived in New York, capable of being the best player on a starting team? And if so, could it be this team?
part now: I think the Knicks were good enough to win a title this season, so yeah.
But, as with any team built around what could (and will, in June!) be called Tier 2 stars, the margin for error in terms of the rest of the roster is much smaller. However, unlike many teams that are forced to scramble, trying to make up the gap with a combination of hope and optimism in their ability to fill minimal roster spots with playoff-capable talent, the Knicks have a deep and well-formed team. group built together with Brunson.
Additionally, as he mentioned earlier, New York has a sizable asset bank from which to draw needed upgrades to the rest of the roster.
To reiterate the point I made, the biggest challenge is finding upgrades in good players, while the more star-driven contenders don’t have to aim for such a small target when looking for upgrades. It’s a difficult situation, but I think that at this point in their tenure, team president Leon Rose and his staff have earned some benefit of the doubt and maybe even optimism that they will be able to thread the eye of this needle in particular.
(Jalen Brunson Photo: Frank Franklin II/KeynoteUSA)
Keynote USA
For the Latest Sports News, Follow Keynote USA Sports on Twitter.