It’s unclear what number Quickley wanted and what the Knicks were offering. Reportedly, executives think he’s worth 16M-20M/year, which i’m sure is an extension NYK would be happy with, but I think undervalues him in the marketplace. He has the best on/off numbers for a bench player in their first 3 seasons since Manu Ginobili.
If Utah offers 4/$120M, should the Knicks just let him go? If he’s not going to start for this team, it’s an awful lot of resources to commit to him. What’s the max you think the Knicks should be willing to match? Obviously it depends upon how well he plays this year, as he’s still a young and improving prospect.
The Knicks are in an interesting spot here. They have a lot of big contracts on their books. RJ/Randle/Brunson. They’ve paid role players like Mitchell/Divincenzo/Hart. They need to extend Grimes. They may need money for a Brunson Supermax starting in 26-27.
I feel like if the answer is below 30M a year, Knicks should look to trade him before the deadline. Ideally, package him with RJ Barrett and picks for an upgrade to help them compete for a championship. Barrett is signed for 4 more years, and i’m not sure he can be a rotation guy on a championship team.
Alternatively I’m sure he would fetch quite a few FRP at the deadline from a team like Utah or maybe even OKC if they really liked him. Letting him hit RFA and not matching would end up being a disaster, because he is an asset with quite a lot of value. Of course, if you trade him for picks you’re killing your chances of competing this playoffs. Some would say the Knicks have no chance anyway, but they will not approach it that way.
How should the Knicks play this?
I hope it isn’t over 80/4 but he’s a big part of the team. One of the best perimeter defenders in the league too. I could def see a team offering him more than that. Would hate to lose him.
The answer honestly really is contingent upon where the Knicks are as a team at the deadline, IQ’s own play, and how realistic a win-now trade is for the Knicks at that time. It’s contingent upon more factors than just IQ’s value to the Knicks or IQ’s value as a RFA. It’s really a hard question to answer at this time, but IQ is never likely to be a starter in New York realistically, and that is absolutely a factor in how far the Knicks should go in keeping him around, whether it be in the offseason or at the deadline.
We all know the Knicks wanna make a move for a star soon. But we can’t know exactly when that time to strike will be. The team that makes a move, if IQ is involved, will be looking for an extension. IQ’s value is tricky because he is looking to bet on himself on the market and wants a huge deal and of course probably look for a starting opportunity if it’s out there. A team risking trading for IQ and then losing him for nothing…his value isn’t as high in a trade as it appears to some it seems. There will also be questions surrounding the tax that are going to be factored in on the Knicks end. Let’s see where we are in December.
" I’m sure he would fetch quite a few FRP at the deadline …"
Delusion - a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially in New York fanbase
Is quickly even gonna be a Knick past February? All signs point he gonna be in that Embiid trade at the deadline.
Impossible question without knowing how he plays this year which is why he’s banking on himself and Knicks are wait and see. If he plays like last year or better, then they should pay just about whatever it takes. He was awesome. If he’s a little worse then they have to really think about it, if he’s not traded before then.
Truth is, teams just don’t offer RFAs that much on the open market. They don’t wanna wait around to see if the home team matches, etc. We saw it with Reaves. That’s part of the Knicks thinking I’m sure.
I think Quickley gets a similar deal to Jaden and Vassell, maybe a bit more. So if the salary cap is 10% higher Quickley would be in the 5 year 150 million range or more.
It wouldn’t suprise me, that was my first guess. Months ago I was like 100M, but seeing Jaden and Vassell get more I’d imagine IQ is going to want that.
He’s a small guard but he is the Knicks best defender outside of Grimes.
Nah no shot. Those guys are both better and play more valuable positions.
You may think they are better players, but do know every single advanced stat model disagrees with you. Should be noted there are many differences in methodologies across those models and they all have the same conclusion.
You may think those players are more likely to improve from here, but Quickley has been better than either of those guys for the last 3 years. Almost all of the Knicks success on the court has occurred with Quickley on the court. They’ve been mediocre without him.
Also, his position is extremely important. He has the ball in his hands a much higher percentage of the time than either of those guys, and while he isn’t the POA defender those guys are, he is an extremely good team defender and communicator. Think Quickley has far more offensive upside than either of them. Not buying Jaden’s O.
I might be talking out of my ass here, but I think part of the reason why advanced stats loved IQ so much last year is because he was logging so many minutes on an elite bench unit that was dismantling other bench units. Compare that to Vassell playing against starters on the worst team in the NBA.
This is a fair take
Dismantling other bench units to the degree Quickley has done is noteworthy, and usually only done by elite players. It should be noted that when Quickley played WITH Brunson, the Knicks were even more dominant (+13 net rating in the sample this year. of course this is a small sample but we are speaking the history of what happened). You could filter the data however you want for the number of starters on the floor. The on/off signal is so strong it does not matter. Also, rotations across the league are more staggered than ever, so I don’t think the quality of his opposing lineups really differ that much from a starter. You’re pretty much always playing against a few starters at meaningful points of the game. He also played extremely well in his 21 games as a starter himself. He played well as the on-ball PG, the off-ball SG, against the bench, against starters. He performed poorly on offense in the playoffs vs the Cavs, but it should be noted Cavs historically poor offensive series mostly occurred when Quickley was on the court.
You can still have good advanced stats if you are on a really bad team. You know sometimes I actually hear the opposite argument – he only looks good in on/off or RAPM data because the rest of his team sucks so he sticks out. If the team is improving on offense and/or defense when you are in the game, with a big enough sample it will pick it up. For instance, Robert Covington was on the process Sixers. Surrounded by godawful talent. RAPM recognized him as a top 50 player when he was surrounded by G leaguers. Why? Because he’s super impactful defensively. Forced a bunch of steals and deflections. Opponents just scored less when he was out there. When he left, the Sixers went back to getting destroyed.
Now how the coach does rotations can definitely impact how well a player’s signal gets picked up in on/off data. If you’re doing full 5 man unit subs at a time consistently for years, i think on/off data starts to lose a bit of value. The more the lineups mix the more reliable on/off data is.
IQ started 1/4 of the season and often was in the closing lineup
I think the hope is to get him around 80M, but the Knicks imo should match anything up to around 110M without much thought. Anything more than that I guess I trust the FO to make a good decision on.
maybe let the season playout and see how he performs?
as a knick fan im hoping and praying he has great highly successful season
he is def one of the best FT shooters in the league, som had said picking up divnenczo may limit quickleys impact but im not exactly sure bc ik thibs loves quickley
If Utah offers 4/$120M, should the Knicks just let him go?
Yes absolutely. No need to do that.