The New York Knicks are once again playing roster chess, trying to balance veteran depth with financial reality. After signing both Landry Shamet and Malcolm Brogdon to non-guaranteed contracts, the front office is staring at a tough decision. With only one veteran minimum slot left, someone will need to be moved — and Tyler Kolek’s name is now part of that discussion.
Kolek’s salary makes things tricky
Unlike Miles McBride, whose $13 million deal could bring both flexibility and trade value, Kolek’s contract poses a different challenge. At just $2.2 million per season, moving him doesn’t open up much space at all. For a team brushing against the $207.8 million second apron, that number barely registers when it comes to meaningful relief.
That makes trading Kolek more complicated. Any deal involving him would likely need to be paired with additional salary or draft assets to have real impact. For Leon Rose and the Knicks’ front office, the question becomes whether it’s worth losing a promising young guard for such minimal cap benefit.
A promising piece still developing
Kolek, still early in his NBA career, represents upside more than established production. His playmaking instincts and ability to orchestrate an offense make him intriguing as a long-term piece, even if his role this season would be limited behind Jalen Brunson, Brogdon, and Shamet.
From a developmental standpoint, the Knicks would prefer to keep him in-house, groom him behind veteran guards, and see if he can evolve into a reliable rotation player. Trading him now, when his market value hasn’t fully developed, would be a classic case of selling low.
Why McBride remains safer
When comparing Kolek to McBride, the gap in trade practicality becomes clear. McBride, at 25 years old, is coming off his best year as a pro, averaging 9.5 points and nearly 37% from three while playing strong defense. He’s also on one of the league’s most team-friendly contracts, earning just $13 million over three years.
McBride would generate immediate interest around the league. Kolek, by contrast, is a young guard with potential but little proof at the NBA level and a contract too small to swing roster balance. In other words, McBride is the more valuable chip, but Kolek is the easier piece to justify moving — even if it brings little financial relief.
The extension factor
Another wrinkle in this debate is McBride’s looming extension. The Knicks may hesitate to pay him starter-level money when his role is likely capped as a rotation guard. Kolek, meanwhile, is cost-controlled and won’t command serious money for years. If New York believes McBride will price himself out of their plans, it strengthens the case to hold onto Kolek instead.
A balancing act for the Knicks
The Knicks are walking a financial tightrope. Keeping Shamet and Brogdon would give them reliable veteran options, but it forces them to make uncomfortable choices with their younger players. Trading Kolek doesn’t move the salary needle much, yet it would clear the roster space they need.
Leon Rose has to decide if sacrificing a developmental piece like Kolek is the lesser of two evils. For a team already at the edge of cap restrictions, every contract matters — even one as small as $2.2 million.
More about: New York Knicks
