The ink is all but dry on the Knicks’ latest free agent splash, guard Jalen Brunson. But is there a case to be made that the signing is more risky than it’s been made out to be?

As of the writing of this, it seems likely that our New York Knicks are going to be signing Mavericks guard Jalen Brunson in free agency for a contract in the neighborhood of four years and $110 million. Considering this news and the rumors that preceded it, many Knicks fans, writers and podcasters have discussed the merits of obtaining Brunson ad nauseum.

As is becoming of the smartest fanbase in basketball (just don’t go to Reddit), these points have been made articulately and are quite persuasive. Despite that, I have had a tickling in the back of my mind that signing Brunson to the rumored contract would be a mistake, and more so, that the process that caused it is a troubling sign. Being the beaten down Knicks fan I am, I have laid out my chief concerns with the Brunson acquisition in three categories: the player, the contract, and the front office.

Before I get into some of Brunson’s on-court concerns, let me just make it clear that Jalen Brunson is a good basketball player, no further qualification needed. However, he has some limitations that make him, I believe, an awkward fit on the Knicks. Let’s start with something his soon-to-be coach has valued a lot (too much) in his tenure so far.

Defense/size

Thus far in Tom Thibodeau’s tenure, he has shown an unbearable preference for size out of his lead guard, including the abomination of Elfrid Payton two seasons ago or the absurdity of Point Burks last year. Brunson, at about 6-foot-1.5 with a 6-foot-4 wingspan, lacks the size of even an Immanuel Quickley (6-foot-3 with a 6-foot-8 wingspan), who lacked for minutes last season under size king Thibs. Brunson has become a wonderful offensive player despite his lack of size; however, his small stature and wingspan is a concern on the defensive end. While there are many problems with public defensive metrics, for what it is worth the Mavericks’ defense was about 3.5 points per 100 possessions better when Brunson was off the floor. The Knicks, when they have had success under the Leon Rose regime, have done it on the backs of a solid defense with few weak links. Brunson is not nearly the singular defense destroyer that Kemba Walker was this past season, but for a team built on defense, the weakness at the point of attack could create larger defensive problems (especially in a starting lineup that may contain two other poor defenders in Julius Randle and Even Fournier). All that being said, Brunson was a phenomenal offensive player in Dallas, more than making up for any defensive deficiencies, but I’m just not sure he’ll be the same player in New York.

Spacing

Brunson in Dallas feasted at the rim, in the midrange, and shot a great percentage on catch-and-shoot threes. He was as good of a sub-star offensive player as existed. If only he could take the Dallas ecosystem, personnel, and coaching with him. The obvious assumption to make is that he will not be playing with anyone as good as Luka Doncic to absorb attention from him in New York, and while that is true, is actually not a major concern. Brunson, in a not tiny sample size, has managed to play really well with Luka off the floor and maintain his efficiency as well. The bigger problem is that, other than the heliocentric Luka (and to a lesser extent Brunson himself), Dallas’ whole offense and personnel catered to one ball dominant player. Dallas lineups often included 5-out compositions with either Porzingis (before he was traded) or Maxi Kleber manning center. Brunson, to his credit, is an artist in the paint and has repeatedly been amongst the league’s best finishers despite his subpar height and athleticism. This conducive environment just will not exist in New York. Mitchell Robinson is a great lob finisher and vertical threat, but he will constantly be either rolling or in the dunker’s spot taking up space. In addition, of the Knicks’ projected starting five, the only positive floor spacer projected to be out there is the shooting guard (whether that’s Fournier, Quentin Grimes, or IQ). The other two positions, Barrett and Randle (assuming no trade) are ball dominant players in their own right and lack the high-volume efficient shooting to make them positive spacers. This lack of synergy also brings up the next question…

Does Brunson move the needle?

Even though I am writing this article, I just want to preface this by saying I hate the phrase “move the needle,” as it has a tendency to diminish good non-star players. At the risk of doing just that, I borrowed the phrase to really ask the question of: how much better does adding Brunson really make the Knicks? My conclusion of “not that much better, if at all,” mainly rests on two points: (1) Brunson’s impact will be muted by the factors discussed above, and (2) the marginal difference between Brunson (with his impact so diminished) and Year 3 IQ is insignificant in terms of affecting winning. As we have already gone through (1) in detail, let’s focus on (2). At the risk of sounding like an absolute homer (which I am, but still think I’m right), Quickley at the end of last season took a leap and needs to be given the keys. Quickley has already shown proof of concept into how he fits on the Knicks, in the starting lineup (last year Quickley was the only player on the Knicks that had a positive point differential playing next to Randle). The main advantage in terms of fit that IQ has over Brunson is his ability to stretch the floor with his pull-up 3-point shooting. IQ’s willingness to take them, even if they’re not going in, bends the defense in a way that Brunson does not (to say nothing of the effect when they go in, as they were to close the season). Of all the Brunson traits that translate without Luka, his 3-point shooting is last on the list, as most of his taken threes were open and off the catch. Quickley also comes incredibly cheap, as he is in the third year of his rookie scale contract. Speaking of contractual value…

Brunson’s reported contract

The exact details of the contract has yet to be reported (such as whether ascending or descending, full four years or player option) but it has been reported that the current offer is for four years in excess of 100 million dollars (either $104 million or $110 million, depending on your news source). One hundred is a nice round number that causes some sticker shock, but when comparing the AAV for players around the league, (especially point guards) it’s not a grievous overpay. That may make a signing justifiable, but not necessarily smart. 

Brunson’s value was what? When?

Most NBA teams generally try to sign contracts that will be considered “value” contracts by the league at large. This is a moving topic and can depend on the play of the player, the inflation of the salary cap, and the individual idiosyncrasies of rival teams. About seven months ago, Dallas had the chance to offer Brunson an extension worth $55 million over four years, but neglected to. This was not one of those extensions where the team never offered it because it wasn’t going to get accepted (in fact, there are reports Brunson was hurt by Dallas’ refusal to offer the extension). Dallas, at the time, just did not see the value of Brunson at that number. Suffice it to say, things have changed. The reason why mainly has to do with how Brunson performed over the latter half of last season and in the postseason, specifically in the series against Utah (where Luka missed games). Without taking anything away from how Brunson played, essentially doubling his value over the course of six months is enough to cause concern that the value is there at that number. Brunson is 25, coming off his best season by far, and is about to see a contract that people would have laughed at before the season (sound like anyone we know?). Brunson shouldn’t have the drop off that Randle did this past season (to be fair, it was a historic drop off), but there is historical precedent for this value to be questioned. Devil’s advocate, Fred VanVleet is a pretty good comparison for Brunson, and FVV has retained his value and then some. 

Where have we seen this before?

I have tried to write this without responding to arguments I have heard generally in favor of signing Brunson, as I sometimes think straw men are built up in articles. Many people have made arguments in favor of signing Brunson, such as the Knicks have to use the cap space now, otherwise RJ’s extension will go eat the rest of it; the cap pretty much always goes up and should go up somewhat significantly in 2025 (with the NBA’s new TV deal); and that Brunson is in the middle of the pack among NBA starting point guards at his new salary. These arguments are cogent and fact-based, but they are eerily similar to arguments made around this time last year. The run-it-back free agency that the Knicks participated in, in the name of preserving the value of the players and not wasting cap space, was nothing short of a disaster. Every contract they signed (with the possible exception of Alec Burks) was a negative value contract. They reportedly tried to move off of a number of those veterans and could not without attaching draft equity. Even Kemba Walker, what was supposed to be the “lowest risk” signing, required four second round picks to dump (after he torpedoed their season). The arguments about positional salaries sound a lot like the ones used to justify overpaying Fournier and extending Randle too early. It’s possible that Brunson is the exception to this trend and outperforms this contract, but given the fact that this is already being looked at with some trepidation or “LOLKnicks” from the league at large, and that it will be hard for Brunson to be as good, I consider that unlikely. Lastly, signing Jalen Brunson specifically makes me believe that the front office does not necessarily even care about whether this was a “value contract.”

Family matters/ties

The moves made by the Leon Rose front office can be sorted into two buckets: the “value” bucket and the (Vin Diesel voice) “family bucket.”

The value moves are easy to see, moves such as trading back in the first multiple times, trading out of the draft for value multiple times, picking up additional picks for salary (thanks Ed Davis). These moves are generally applauded in the wider “analytics” community and perhaps have cause Thibs to use his favorite curse “Hinkie” a time or two in the Knicks war room. There are some who have critiqued the front office for being too cute and trying to “win” every trade. Even most of the moves made last offseason were made under this paradigm (look at the team options/ non-guaranteed years), because the goal was that the contracts remained movable (just a slight miscalculation on the numbers).

The departure to this generally value-based thinking is for the “family” moves. These are the dreaded CAA, “why did you hire an agent as your GM?” type moves. It’s hiring Thibs, it’s trying to trade up for Obi, it’s taking Obi at all over better fits (or not trading down), it’s extending Randle after one good season instead of trading him at his highest value, and it’s signing Jalen Brunson to this contract. When we look at why the Knicks are departing from their established MO to go after a non-star, you must wonder how much the familial connection plays a part. The connection between Brunson and the Knicks goes deep and has been covered in greater detail elsewhere, but the highlights include Jalen’s dad Rick Brunson coaching alongside Thibs for years at multiple stops (including with this Knicks this upcoming season), and that Jalen’s agent is Leon Rose’s son. The use of the term family was not an exaggeration. It’s the kind of relationship that, if things go sour, can lead to words like collusion, nepotism, and bias. 

All that being said, I really hope I’m wrong, and that this all works out swimmingly. Let’s go Knicks and thanks for reading.