By making the signings of Malcolm Brogdon and Landry Shamet official, the New York Knicks have shined a light on a bizarre turn of events: They might trade a young player to create room for someone who hasn’t generated enough interest to receive a guaranteed contract.
As SNY’s Ian Begley notes, both Brogdon and Shamet are on Exhibit 9 deals. That effectively means they have non-guaranteed salaries, and can be waived at any time. Since the Knicks only have room for a single veteran contract while staying beneath the second apron, just one of Brogdon and Shamet can make the final roster.
Yet, league sources told Jake Fischer of The Stein Line that New York is starting to “weigh various trade scenarios” that allow it to keep both guards. Fischer name-checks Pacome Dadiet, the No. 25 pick in 2024, as potential collateral damage for this vision. Given the roster’s sheer number of guards, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see Tyler Kolek is on the chopping block as well.
The Knicks are playing a dangerous game
Certain pundits and fans will not see the harm in making room for both Brogdon and Shamet at the expense of Dadiet, or Kolek. After all, the Knicks have telegraphed that neither will play a role this coming season.
That’s different from saying the two youngsters are lost causes. Kolek has his flaws as a scorer, but he’s arguably New York’s second-best passer. The Athletic’s Fred Katz also pointed out on an episode of Katz and Shoot that Dadiet’s practice performances basically live in Knicks lore.
Punting on whatever potential these two have shown is a big-time risk when viewed through the lens of the prospective payoff. Keeping Brogdon and Shamet has no long-term value to New York. The team wouldn’t have their Bird rights, so there’s no guarantee they’d be back after this season. Heck, there’s no guarantee the Knicks would even want them back.
Neither Brogdon nor Shamet is a lock to crack the top eight or nine of head coach Mike Brown’s rotation. New York could feasibly be giving up on Kolek or Dadiet for the right to house an end-of-bench placeholder.
New York should steer clear of thinking too short term
There is no world in which any of this makes sense. It is even more nonsensical when looking at the team’s salary structure. The Knicks are already working within tight financial margins. That’s why adding both Brogdon and Shamet is an issue in the first place.
Financial gymnastics will only get tougher from here. That increases the value of cost-controlled deals for New York. Dadiet is under contract for the next three seasons, during which time he’ll never make even 3 percent of the salary cap. Kolek has three years of team control left on his agreement as well, and will never make even 1.5 percent of the salary cap. It doesn’t get much more team-friendly than that.
No one’s denying that Brogdon and Shamet could play more than Dadiet and/or Kolek right now. But the Knicks can’t afford to think in the shortest possible terms.
It would be one thing if they were trading Dadiet or Kolek for a major rotation upgrade. It is another thing entirely to give up one of them for the chance to barely move the immediate needle, while also compromising the bigger picture.