It’s not wanting to touch the second apron, that’s it. Dolan didn’t wanna pay, wouldn’t be surprised if they’re trying to get everyone on cheaper deals

He’s only getting the MLE in Boston, which is \(15 million rather than \)20 million. This is just the Knicks being cheap. My prediction is they’ll be cheap with KAT too and they’ll try to coast off of this chip for the next 50 years.

I can’t tell if it’s on purpose or not. He got married this summer so maybe he just hasnt been working out?

I thought it was widely accepted that he was gonna walk considering their current team salary, unless he was up for taking a shit contract for the vibes

Expectation that they’d be willing to go into the second apron after winning a title.

Ok and on the flip side he could easily argue the Knicks just won a championship and should’ve paid up guys even if it meant the second apron to stay competitive

Where has it been reported he is asking for a specific amount. This is pure speculation. Shams only reported what his max extension is that he is eligible for. I think this is less about the money and more to do about the FO keeping flexibility going into FA next summer especially as KAT can’t extend at a lower cap number if he wanted.

2nd apron is killing the league.

It is what made this roster in the first place. Without it Wolves would keep KAT and Knicks would be KAT-less and ring-less.

2nd apron is the excuse.

Your FRP doesn’t get frozen until you’re in the 2nd apron 3 years out of 5, so the Knicks could’ve spent 2 years there without that happening.

The other major restriction is not being able to aggregate salaries in trades, which isn’t really a problem when they have 2 guys making rookie max money and another making supermax money. They can just swap KAT/Brunson/OG to get another “max” player if needed. Not that they can make upgrades like that to begin with after giving up 5 FRPs in the Mikal trade.

In the end, it’s all just an excuse to avoid the exponentially increasing repeater tax.

people say they like parity, but ratingswise there was some analysis done, that people love to watch more when dynasties are in play.

I like parity, but I understand why people like to watch dynasties too.

The 2nd apron is certainly hard to keep teams together, but I don’t think this is a good example. Championship teams have always had trouble keeping their non-stars together. Pat Riley has talked about the “disease of more” for decades in reference to championship teams losing players for bigger contracts.

Think about it, this is most likely the highest value point for a guy like Robinson. He has his ring, why take a paycut? Go get your money now that you’ve done the championship thing. That’s been the case in the NBA for a long long time.

To ur last question, I love the parity but at the same time I stinks not seeing core groups stay together longer. Especially if ur a fan of that team. I’m a Bulls fan so we haven’t sniffed a chip in this era but I can’t imagine being a Celtics fan, seeing them win that chip in 2024, and 2 years later half that core is gone because of money.

As fans we get attached to certain groups even if they don’t win a chip. So I can’t imagine falling in love with a team that won me a chip and then that team disintegrates in 2 years. As a neutral fan it’s hard to watch. You don’t have cores staying together long so it’s hard to associate a team with a group of guys now since they’re always changing.

Now it gets rid of dynasties which I’m cool with. Seeing the same team win every year is boring. But I’d like a nice balance. The 2000s were good after the Shaq Lakers. The Spurs won a lot but it was spread throughout because they weren’t overpowered and teams stayed together relatively long. It’s fun seeing a core group of guys stick together for a while until they finally win a chip.

i personally love it. We get eratic player movement we would never see before. Some of the moves are video game like where you go wtf. Also its nice to see teams try to build a winning team because its a legit challenge. I love the parity. I dont think 2nd apron is killing the league, its the gigantic contracts that some star players get that ends up restricting a team building the roster properly.

I love the parity. It sucked when the NBA playoffs always ended with the same 3-4 teams on top over and over again. You didn’t enjoy Indiana taking OKC to 7 or Knicks winning first title in 50+ years?

Are you kidding? The NBA has never been so popular. The NBA has rightly understood that the league is basically now a reality show/drama/entertainment before anything else. Parity, players changing teams constantly is good for this. Half the league legitimately can compete every year for a chip. The player movement drama is FANTASTIC for media engagement.

The NBA isn’t interested in being the most serious basketball league in the world. They want to be the most profitable and engaging. Why do you think they haven’t fixed the reffing? Because it adds to the drama with big ego refs who occasionally alter game outcomes.

Mitch is a much better defender than Drummond and the past two playoffs proved it. He’s a niche player but he’s so dominant at that niche that it changes games.

Mitch wasn’t just “good” at that thing, he was literally one of the greatest of all time.

Worth going into the second apron over? Debatable.

Drummond was getting ran off the floor against the Celtics in the first round. Robinson is limited offensively, but he a better defender/off rebounder/Rim protector then Drummond.

While Drummond still provides good value as a big, but is Mitch not a way more effective rim protector than Drummond?

Drummond is literally food in drop coverage. I agree he’s better otherwise