Trivia time: With the exception of LeBron James going to the Cavaliers and the Lakers, how many times over the last 20 years has a top-25 player left a team above .500 for a team that finished that same season below .500 in free agency? 

If you’re struggling to find the answer, you’re probably thinking about this too hard. 

Give up?

It has happened a grand total of one time, with Amar’e Stoudemire joining the Knicks in 2010. After a 29-53 season, New York gave Stoudemire a bloated, uninsured contract, and he averaged 55 games per year in his first four seasons before being bought out in his fifth season. Turns out that outside of this one time, good players like going to good teams, preferably with other stars too!

My good friend Jonathan Macri laid out in a recent newsletter that the path for the Knicks to be even a mediocre team next year is slim. There is no star walking through the door. New York could attempt to raise their floor by signing a player like Fred VanVleet, or they may prefer to sign players to one-year contracts to wring out every ounce of future assets as they can instead by selling to the highest bidder (call it the Marcus Morris strategy).

The spotlight as of late has been squarely focused on 2020 and 2021, and with good reason: this offseason impacts next season, which in turn impacts the following offseason, which includes the draft lottery, the draft itself, and free agency. Today, I’m going to flip the script and take on another topic: the 2022 offseason. Because there’s a great chance that the Knicks don’t find immediate success within the next two offseasons and are better positioned for 2022. Of course, before we get to 2022, we do have to touch on 2020 and 2021.

“Why all the doom and gloom? Anything could happen next year!”

Sure — the Knicks, bolstered by better coaching and development, could take a step forward next season. We should consider what the 2020-21 schedule may look like though, as it could severely impact New York’s record.

According to Shams Charania of The Athletic, the NBA is considering “in-market competition with reduced travel and an amount of fans — instead of the bubble environment it is playing in currently.” That could mean more games against the Atlantic Division in a potentially shorter season. Why a shorter season? As WFAN’s John Schmeelk pointed out, and as some (including yours truly) have wondered aloud, the Summer Olympics in Tokyo could have an impact on how long the season lasts. 

Such a plan would limit coronavirus exposure for players, personnel, and even fans. The emphasis of in-market competition and a shorter season would be incredibly important. If so, how do the Knicks — and the teams whose draft picks they own (the Mavericks’ first rounder and the Pistons’ and Hornets’ second rounders) — perform next year?

The Knicks went 6-17 against the West last year and finished 15-28 versus the East. Is that a cause for concern for those who wish to be bad next year? Likely not, when you consider that the Knicks went 2-11 within their division, which is tied for the second-worst intra-division record in the NBA. The 2-11 Warriors have the second overall pick in this year’s draft and a healthy Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson, and the 2-10 Timberwolves traded for D’Angelo Russell and own the first overall pick in the draft, so both should see improvements. 

Even tougher for the Knicks is that the Atlantic is arguably the most competitive division in the league. Half of the playoff teams the past two years were from the Atlantic division. The Nets will have Kevin Durant, the Sixers have never lost to the Knicks when Ben Simmons plays, the Celtics are in the Eastern Conference Finals, and the Raptors won a title last year and were a couple made shots away from being in the Eastern Conference Finals instead of the Celtics this year. In a standard season, teams play their division rivals about 20% of the year. If the amount of division games increases, and the total games played decreases, the Knicks are S-C-R-E-W-E-D. 

On the surface, the Mavericks wouldn’t get the benefit of beating up on bad teams in the East. When you dig deeper though, Dallas did better against the West than they did against the East this year. What’s more, the Mavericks went 10-4 against their division. Could the Rockets actually blow it up? Will the Grizzlies regress? Will the Spurs tear it down as best they can? Will the Pelicans have a healthy and productive Zion Williamson? It seems that the two biggest things standing in the Mavericks’ way are playing in the clutch and health. Yet Dallas played a total of four games without both Luka Doncic and Kristaps Porzingis, and while it’s a small sample size, they managed to go 3-1 anyway. The West will be a bloodbath, but more division games would increase the likelihood Dallas makes the playoffs, thereby impacting where their first round pick will land.

The Pistons and the Hornets each play in the NBA’s two weakest divisions. The Pistons went 5-10 against their division and the Hornets went 2-7 against theirs. However, Detroit only played one game against a division rival (a loss) after the trade deadline when they dealt Andre Drummond and bought out Reggie Jackson, and went 1-13 in their last 14 games. The more wins the Pistons have next year, the better the Knicks’ lottery odds could be. The fewer wins the Pistons have, the better their second round pick is for New York.

Similar could be said of the Hornets. It’s not uncommon that a team performs well when their best talent plays well and loses when their best players are struggling. The Hornets were 16-19 when Devonte’ Graham recorded a true shooting percentage above 50, and 7-21 when he did not. If Graham can be efficient on a more consistent basis next season, if the Hornets’ first round pick can create immediate value, and if the front office signs a quality free agent like Christian Wood, Charlotte could finish ahead of the Knicks once again in the standings. If not? Hello, improved second round pick.

I assure you that this won’t be a Chris Paul article, but we can’t not talk about him.

There are several questions to consider behind trading for Paul, but here are the four I find most pertinent: 

1. Does Paul raise the ceilings of the players around him?

2. What would acquiring him mean for the 2021 draft and free agency? 

3. What would New York deal for him?

4. How does taking on his salary affect team building?

Raising the ceilings of the players around him should be viewed as a positive, even if it impacts your draft positioning in 2021. And if the draft is as deep as those who closely follow it believe, then that actually gives you the chance to make a playoff push and still wind up with a high quality prospect, whether you make the playoffs or fall just shy. After all, while increasing your lottery chances is great, the teams with the seventh- and eighth-best odds have moved up the last two drafts while the teams with the first-, second-, fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-best odds have all moved down. Playing against the Atlantic could be brutal no matter who the Knicks acquire this offseason. Paul’s age could also force him to miss games — which, again, if you’re an enthusiast of losing, helps your argument more than hurts it. However, a shorter season decreases the likelihood he misses time.

In terms of acquiring Paul, would dealing the oft-maligned Julius Randle, a depressed asset in Kevin Knox, and a future protected pick like the Mavericks’ in 2023 really be worth getting upset over? A Paul trade isn’t a preference of mine; I would rather sign VanVleet for half Paul’s salary than give up assets for Paul’s contract. With that said, I don’t think the package I just mentioned should be anger-inducing in the slightest. I would rather acquire assets to take on Paul’s contract, but the market decides that, not the Knicks. Here’s a few other potential Paul suitors:

• Bucks: Paul is probably the best upgrade Milwaukee could get right now. Would a 36-year old Paul keep Giannis Antetokounmpo in Milwaukee for another year, let alone five?

• Sixers: One of Al Horford and Tobias Harris has to go. Do the Thunder want to take on that type of contract? Attaching picks would be vital, and you can always use more first rounders, but OKC does not need more future picks. If the preference is to be more flexible financially, a third team with cap space (Pistons?) would need to be included as a dumping ground.

• Suns: Phoenix hasn’t made the playoffs since the 2009-10 season. Paul could help remedy that drought, but how does that affect Phoenix long term? Deandre Ayton is set to hit free agency the same year as Paul, so Phoenix would pretty much be kissing their future cap space goodbye.

If New York wishes to bow out of such a trade because Paul costs something, that’s another story. Perhaps, though, the most important asset to Oklahoma City is getting Paul out, because he impedes their rebuild plan and has that $45 million player option for 2021-22. 

The opportunity cost with the fourth point is likely the most important one to me. Giving up anything of value to take on a player who could decline at any moment — all the while eating over a third of your salary cap the next two seasons — is not savvy in the slightest. If you want to keep your options open in 2021, you don’t acquire Paul. There are two doors, though:

Door one: The Knicks do not acquire Paul and are quite bad. They have solid odds at obtaining a top-five pick. They will have cap space for two stars, and if they fall just shy, can easily make room by trading away salary or trading for a star and absorbing the rest of the money. We know that signing top free agents to a bad team is remarkably slim, but you miss every shot you don’t take.

Door two: The Knicks do acquire Paul and are not as terrible. They have meh odds at obtaining a top-five pick, though Paul’s advanced age may not change that very much. They will not have cap space for another star, and while they can make room, the question is, what game-changer wants to play with players barely old enough to drink and a player almost old enough to be their father in Paul?

So if the NBA implements a schedule next season with even more division games than we’ve seen before, how much damage is Paul really doing? If the Knicks are going to lose with or without him, if the haul to acquire him is palatable, and if the Knicks know 2021 free agency success is unlikely, there is a solid argument that exists for obtaining him. It’s not one I prefer, but it has its merits.

I fully understand the desire to keep your cap open from year to year, so much so that it’s a philosophy I subscribe to frequently. Yet if the Knicks know they won’t be in position to land top talent because they haven’t yet shown tangible success, why are they keeping so much of it open? Why not consider taking on a deflated contract during an unprecedented time that is wreaking havoc on teams around the league?

In one of my handful of perfect worlds, the Knicks try their best next year and land where they land. They probably don’t achieve much, which is fine when you consider the 2021 draft. Four top-40 picks next year, a collection of young players, plus oodles of cap space to sign a free agent to a bloated one-year, JJ Redick-esque Sixers contract, could all contribute to a 2022 playoff push. Suddenly, you’re viewed as a team on the rise, where winning seems possible to star free agents.

LeBron James and Anthony Davis have one last dance of their own in Los Angeles in 2021-22. The Bucks make enough improvements this offseason where Giannis Antetokounmpo decides to take it year by year, signs a one-year deal, and hits free agency the next year, when the 2022 class is stronger. This would take the Mavericks and the Heat out of contention for Antetokounmpo, as the two teams would have to pay Luka Doncic and Bam Adebayo, respectively, in 2021 instead.

Once the season concludes, the Knicks try to sell Antetokounmpo and Davis on the idea of playing together in New York with a team trending upwards. Los Angeles tries to retain Davis and sell Antetokounmpo on playing with Davis and an almost 38-year-old James. The trouble is that the Lakers will lack a solid supporting cast and will have a dearth of first round picks over the next seven years. The Raptors will be an option for Antetokounmpo as well, and his connection to Masai Ujiri will be of significance. 

We’re unlikely to live in that world, but a man can dream. Let’s instead operate in a more likely world, one where Antetokounmpo signs a long-term contract in 2021 and Davis re-signs in Los Angeles until 2022, when he’s eligible for a 35% max contract. The 2021-22 Knicks would essentially be where they are now, but with better and more mature young talent. Is it really worth it for a potentially mediocre team to keep two max slots open? And if not, should the Knicks examine the salary dump market? Let’s explore!

We should set some ground rules for this offseason.

• In this scenario, the Knicks are not “buyers” on the trade market whatsoever. In other words, we are ruling out the idea of the Knicks giving up assets other than cap space (i.e. no Paul).

• Any salary dumps expire in 2022 at the latest, so as not to nuke any plans in the long-term future. For example, bringing in Al Horford for the rest of the length of RJ Barrett’s rookie scale deal because you want a couple late first round picks is near-sighted, especially since those picks aren’t guaranteed to hit either. I would much prefer a clean cap sheet and an upgrade in international scouting to bolster the margins.

• Any free agents who should provide positive value would be signed for a maximum of three years. Why three and not two? If the front office believes free agents can retain value after year two, they can be moved with relative ease (and for an asset) before year three.

Here are all the salaries of $5 million or more for 2022 free agents who could be viewed as negative assets and do not have team options or non-guarantees in their contracts.

• Blake Griffin

• Terry Rozier

• Taurean Prince

• Will Barton

• Jeremy Lamb

• Al-Farouq Aminu

• Delon Wright

• Kyle Anderson

We will now rule some of these players out.

• Why would the Pistons attach assets to trade Griffin when Detroit is going through a rebuild of its own?

• We know that the Hornets were interested in dumping Terry Rozier this past year. How does acquiring Rozier help the Knicks in the 2021-22 season, when they would be looking to compete? How does he help with positive development this year? Spoiler: He doesn’t, even if the Knicks do not draft a lead guard this year.

• Would the Nets be willing to make a deal with the Knicks? The two haven’t conducted a trade together since 1983, so count me as skeptical.

• What assets do the Mavericks have to part with to dump Wright that the Knicks don’t own already? Dallas can’t trade a first round pick until 2026. Also, why would the Knicks help the Mavericks when such a move could influence the value of Dallas’ 2021 pick?

• Would the Grizzlies be open to dumping Anderson, considering they play in a small market? Memphis doesn’t need the cap space right now and will have the ability to spend quite a bit in 2021, so I’m dubious that they would dump him unless it’s because of COVID-related money problems for ownership.

We are now left with three (3) players who are viable dumping options. Their salaries range from around $10-15 million, which is pretty palatable. And if a great opportunity arose and the Knicks acquired one of them, it wouldn’t be impossible to flip said contract a year later, either.

Of the three players available, Aminu strikes me as the least likely to go anywhere right now. The Magic recently lost their best player in Jonathan Isaac to an ACL tear in the bubble. Orlando went 15-19 (44.1%) with Isaac and 18-21 (46.2%) without him in the regular season. Barring injuries or the front office stripping down the roster, the Magic are likely to be in purgatory next year: playing at a 35-40 win pace with a low ceiling moving forward.

Aminu played in only 18 games due to a torn meniscus, and in those 18 games he was putrid on the offensive end. And when I say putrid, I mean putrid. Aminu’s never been much of a shooter, but this man shot worse than Dennis Smith Jr. did across the board, except for at the charity stripe — and even then, his 65.5% was only 14.6% better than DSJ’s, despite the same number of attempts per game (yes, for every free throw Smith Jr. made last year, he missed another on average).

Aminu’s defense, though, which has always been his calling card, was on par with past seasons. He’s disruptive in passing lanes and is frequently deflecting the basketball. So while his points per possession offensively was in the second percentile, his points per possession allowed on the defensive end put him in the 92nd percentile, per Cleaning the Glass.

With all that under consideration, is attaching an asset to move Aminu really that important to the Magic? Perhaps it comes down to COVID cost cutting and nothing more, as the Magic project to have at least $122 million in salaries next season. Would they be willing to part with an asset in order for ownership to save some dough?

As for the Knicks, how does adding someone who shrinks the floor benefit them? Yes, maybe his play leads to a decrease in wins for our tanking enthusiasts, but the Knicks will lose games anyway. They might as well lose games while the players they care most about have room to operate.

The Knicks have, on average, (barely) ranked better on offense than defense over the last six seasons. I understand the asset point of view, but I think I would rather the Knicks re-sign Moe Harkless and look to shop him than trade for Aminu. Harkless is far more efficient than Aminu, although much of Harkless’ shots come at the rim, whereas Aminu takes more shots from deep. The problem, though, is that Aminu doesn’t make more shots from downtown. On the other hand, Aminu outshines Harkless on the defensive end and on the glass. I would prefer not to sign Harkless or Aminu, but if one had to be selected, I’d take Harkless. Considering how mediocre Barrett, Ntilikina, and Knox are, and that Robinson seldom attempts shots outside of the paint, going with the younger, more efficient player without any pressing knee concerns feels like the better play. 

Next, we have Will Barton. The Nuggets have Paul Millsap, Jerami Grant, and Mason Plumlee coming off the books once this season concludes. Barton has been affected by a sore knee and did not play in the bubble.

Barton isn’t very efficient on offense. He’s a slasher who can score, and is above average on the boards. He can keep defenses honest, and while he shouldn’t be a primary option on offense, he would be a significant improvement over what the Knicks had last season. 

The Nuggets are currently in the Western Conference Finals for the first time since 2009. Their owner, Stan Kroenke, also owns the Los Angeles Rams and Arsenal F.C. In other words, if there’s a person who would feel serious economic impacts of a pandemic, it would be Kroenke. If Kroenke is all-in on building a contender and is willing to spend, Barton’s salary won’t be dumped. Perhaps a three-team deal could be worked out, with the Nuggets using Barton’s salary to acquire another player and the Knicks taking on Barton’s contract, but that seems unlikely. Or maybe the Nuggets want to re-sign Grant and need to clear salary in order to do so. If that situation arises, the Knicks should look to take on Barton’s contract. New York should ask for Denver’s pick in 2021, which feels fair considering that Barton’s injury and 2021 player option could compromise New York’s future plans.

Lastly, we have Mr. Lamb. Similar to the previous players listed, my namesake has also dealt with a significant knee problem, having torn his ACL in late February. Lamb’s a capable starter who doesn’t need the ball in his hands a ton to operate. Most of his shots come from behind 3-point range, although he has only connected on greater than 35% of them over the course of a season twice in his eight-year career.

The Pacers are in one of the more fascinating positions in the East. There has been rampant speculation about the future of Victor Oladipo on the team. They owe at least $35 million a year to Myles Turner and Domantas Sabonis. Indiana just fired their coach almost immediately after giving him an extension. They are 3-16 in their last 19 playoff games, having been swept three of the last four years. Ownership is heavily invested in the mall industry and consumerism isn’t exactly sky-high right now. The Pacers are the only team in the NBA to have not held a draft pick in the single digits in 30 years. They have enough talent to make the playoffs, but not nearly enough to advance past the second round. Their projected payroll for next season is $121.5 million, and that’s without guaranteeing T.J. McConnell and without taking their mid-level exception into consideration.

At the rate the start of the 2020-21 NBA season is going, Lamb should be healthy enough to play in game one. How often he plays after a severe injury is another story. If the Pacers trade Oladipo and receive a player like Caris LeVert, Kelly Oubre, or Tim Hardaway Jr. in return, how much do they really need Lamb on the roster? Then factor in that Indiana could bring back Justin Holiday for cheaper, and suddenly, Lamb could find himself on the outside looking in with the Pacers. He’s making $10.5 million each of the next two years. Keeping Lamb won’t catapult Indiana into the luxury tax, but it’s still $10.5 million more than Indiana would probably like to spend.

If the Pacers are primarily motivated to get Lamb’s salary out the way because of COVID, the Knicks should offer Reggie Bullock and the rights to the Hornets’ 2021 second round pick for Lamb and Indiana’s 2021 first round pick (lottery protected).

In a vacuum, this deal favors New York. Of course, there is no true vacuum in life, and we need to consider the financial ramifications for Indiana. Though Bullock and Lamb are not the same player, the Pacers would be getting a cheaper player to serve in a backup role ($10.5 million versus $4.2 million), if we’re to assume Lamb would be pushed to the bench anyway. 

If you’re the Knicks, you get a player you can start from a team with money troubles and you move up 15-20 spots in next year’s draft. You get the privilege to move up because you are agreeing to take on the burden of his contract, which dips into 2021 cap space. Another reason why I consider this if I’m the Knicks is because of a potential dump-and-pump: if Lamb plays well enough, he builds up his value. He can either benefit your team from a development and/or win-loss standpoint, or he can be dealt elsewhere because he’s a decent player on an expiring contract. Trading Lamb in 2021 and acquiring a long-term asset for him — like a quality draft pick or a high floor player on a rookie salary — gives you more ammo to pursue a star in a trade.

This move — the type where you buy low and sell high — is the exact type of transaction the Knicks should look for this offseason. The free agent market is potentially shallow these next two years, and New York projects to have plenty of cap space. Using your leverage to sign a couple quality free agents to short-term contracts is fine and dandy, but turning your cap space into future assets needs to be a goal as well. Plus, while it really shouldn’t matter all that much, and while the science of it is debatable, every asset acquired this offseason and potentially the next one could be considered a byproduct of the Porzingis trade. Between the initial trade and the Marcus Morris deal, the Knicks have acquired what project to be three first round picks and a second round pick that could easily be one spot out of the first round. Adding to that pile, especially given Porzingis’ injury concerns, makes the deal look more prescient. As we know, though, it isn’t about the total picks you acquire, but how you use them instead. Finding talent in the draft or trading your picks for a star becomes more possible with moves like these.