The Knicks are weighing the idea of making a “considerable” one-year contract offer to free agent big man DeMarcus Cousins in the event that they miss out on top free agent target Kevin Durant, reports Marc Stein of The New York Times (via Twitter).
As Stein reiterates in a follow-up tweet, the Knicks are widely expected to shift their focus to one- or two-year contracts if they strike out on this year’s elite free agents, a group that consists of Durant, Kyrie Irving, and Kawhi Leonard.
However, it sounds like New York still plans on attempting to field a competitive roster in that scenario, rather than fully relying on its young prospects for a second straight season. As we heard on Wednesday, the Knicks would be seeking “high-level” rotation players who wouldn’t necessarily require a long-term investment. Cousins could fit that bill. Terry Rozier was also named on Wednesday as a possible target.
Cousins, 28, didn’t look like his old self this season after returning from a torn Achilles (and a torn quad later). Still, he has a full offseason to work on getting back to full strength, and even when he’s limited, the big man can be an effective offensive weapon. In 30 games for the Warriors in 2018/19, he averaged 16.3 PPG, 8.2 RPG, 3.6 APG, 1.5 BPG, and 1.3 SPG.
Durant remains the Knicks’ top target, and while there’s no indication yet on which way he’s leaning, ESPN’s Brian Windhorst (video link) said this morning during an appearance on Get Up that the Warriors – who remain confident about their odds of keeping KD – would be interested in exploring a sign-and-trade deal with the Knicks or Nets if Durant decides he wants to go east.
Golden State likely wouldn’t be seeking any assets in that scenario, but could create a giant trade exception in a sign-and-trade, which could be used to acquire someone else. Of course, the Knicks and Nets should both be able to sign KD outright using their cap room, so they’d have little incentive to help out the Warriors, as Windhorst acknowledges.
Might as well sign nobody then trade for bad expiring deals and tank again
Well Boogie can easily pursue his standup career in Manhattan, for once a rumor actually makes sense for both sides, unlike KD, who has absolutely no reason to play in NYC.
Not a bad move as long as it doesn’t interfere with their tanking next year. Still one major draft pick away from being able to make a dent into the free agent market.
How on Earth wouldn’t boogie get multiple years.
I’m not taking any less than 3 years if I’m him
Uhhh cus he’s coming off 2 major injuries, and even before he got hurt, was a net negative player his entire career. Boogie was overrated before he got hurt, didn’t impact winning, and looked horrible last season. A one year deal is likely the most realistic option for him, especially if he wants to maximize dollars.
So essentially, “if we don’t get one of the really exceptional players available, we’re going to go ahead and spend that money anyways.”
A lot of second tier free-agents just got a reason to be more hopeful.
Well, at least for one year. I don’t think it’s actually a bad idea for the Knicks.
They can make themselves more attractive to the second tier, non-max free agents by paying more. It’ll just be on a one year deal.
Then, the Knicks will still have flexibility moving forward, yet they can also field a more competitive roster for next season..
People might say, well no they should just tank again if they don’t get their guys, but having a winning season will do a lot more for their franchise than a pick that could be anywhere from top 5 or top 7…They’ll look more attractive to free agents, plus it’ll boost their stock of their assets and younger players, if they can put together a playoff run…
Wrong.
Adding another top pick to play with/be traded with Barret and Knox would be key.
Yeah and in three years they can trade whoever they take for cap space
Can someone clarify on a Sign and Trade for me? IF that were to actually happen would it allow him to get the 5 year max instead of the 4 since technically GS is the one signing him?
That would be the only incentive I can think of that would prompt KD and one of the NY teams to go for that
No, he’d still only be able to get four years.
I don’t think it’s realistic that the Knicks or Nets would be amenable to a sign-and-trade unless they get something out of it, and it’s hard to imagine what that would be.
The only reason I could think of would be Brooklyn needing to move one more player to create the room necessary for KD’s max. But even then, they could make that move with another team instead of doing a sign-and-trade with the Warriors (like in 2017 when the Celtics needed a little more room for Hayward and sent Avery Bradley to Detroit instead of doing a S&T with Utah).
Thank you! And yeah, since it doesn’t get him a fifth year, I just can’t imagine this happening.
The problem is for GSW to do a sign and trade they would need to get back a lot for it. It would mean the difference of $50 million a year in tax revenue GSW would pay if they do a sign and trade. That means like 3 #1 draft picks and a very good starter. That is why a sign and trade with Durant is impossible.
The Warriors technically wouldn’t really need to take back anything in a sign-and-trade if the goal is just to create a big trade exception to use elsewhere. Durant for a heavily-protected second-round pick would work.
But again, it’s hard to see why the Knicks and Nets would be motivated to do that (if anything, I feel like the Warriors would have to send a pick of their own to incentivize them).
you missed the point on a sign and trade would put GSW way above the cap and it would cost them a extra $50 million in salary tax so it makes 0 sense to do that. Why would they want to pay $50 million for a trade exception?
The Knicks/Nets would be the ones paying Durant in a sign-and-trade. Unless they took back players, it wouldn’t cost the Warriors any more than if KD signed outright with another team. In that scenario, they’d only be on the hook for extra money if they used the trade exception on someone.
Luke wouldn’t KD be eligible for a greater yearly salary if GS did a S/T, or would the yearly salary be the same if say he just signed outright with the Nets? I know it’s a four year time frame regardless.
It’d be the same amount as if he signed outright with a new team. The ability to get any more money (or years) via a sign-and-trade disappeared in the 2011 CBA.
Thank you
So, you strike out on the top free agents and the answer is bring in the one guy that can’t play with Mitchell Robinson, stunting his growth for another year.
Typical Knicks move.
Boogie would stretch-4?
There is no point in signing Boogie if the Knicks are serious about developing Robinson. Don’t spend just to spend. Bring back Jordan and sign one maybe two more vets for mentoring responsibilities.
You know it’s gonna be Melo and Vince in the end..
To me, he’s a guy you’d bring in if you signed KD, but couldn’t get a second guy. Not someone you’d bring in if we strikeout, and put with the young / undisciplined group we’d have. Certainly, he’s not a leader by example.
But there isn’t an obvious path if we strikeout. Bringing in former top 10 picks to “develop” in to part of the core didn’t work last year, With eight 1st-3rd year players already on the roster, and the same staff, I wouldn’t go there again. Younger vets would help, but not if they have no path to being part of the core (they’ll be looking to their next landing spot).
Older, position specific “mentors” are silly. Young players can always benefit from the advice and examples set by older players, but that usually takes when the older players are part of the team’s core as well. What young players truly need, to develop, are defined expectations, consistent minutes and accountability. That’s on the coaching staff to make happen.
1+1 Max?
Forget Cousins, get Randle & develop the kids. Maybe retain Jordan. MG it’s the mad season.
DMC to Dallas makes sense
Or Boston
Does not seem like the soundest of ideas. Hopefully the Knicks are just spitballing. Robinson shows a lot of potential to just sit on the bench.
Maybe Robinson shows some potential but… seriously DMC even if never gets to the level he had before the injury is still way better than Robinson will ever be, simple as!
I agree, but it is the length of the deal they are thinking of that gives me pause. If they were thinking of a longer deal, I think it would make more sense. But for what is likely a one year deal, it seems they should just let Robinson develop. One year of DMC, if he would even take it, just doesn’t seem to have any long term benefit.
Be careful walking around MSG, Mills’ plan might come flying out of an open window above.