In what can only be described as a head-scratching move, the New York Knicks are reportedly looking to re-sign Landry Shamet, the guard who has made a name for himself as a reliable shooter, but not much else. The decision, still pending due to roster constraints, raises more questions than answers. While Shamet’s 3-point shooting ability could be seen as an asset to a Knicks team that has long struggled with perimeter shooting, the path to his return is laden with complications. The Knicks now find themselves at a crossroads, needing to make difficult roster decisions that could have long-term implications for their team-building strategy.
At face value, re-signing Shamet might seem like a harmless transaction. He brings floor spacing, a skill the Knicks desperately need to complement their bruising, post-oriented frontcourt. His ability to stretch the floor could unlock driving lanes for the likes of Julius Randle, Jalen Brunson, and RJ Barrett. In theory, Shamet’s 3-point shooting could prove beneficial to the team’s offensive flow.
But let’s dive deeper into why this move is not as straightforward as it seems. The Knicks’ roster is currently filled with players who are already competing for similar roles. At the guard position, New York has Jalen Brunson as their undisputed starting point guard, and behind him, they have a collection of players that includes the likes of Immanuel Quickley, Josh Hart, and even the newly acquired players for the season. Adding another guard like Shamet may seem redundant, especially when the Knicks are already packed in the backcourt and could use upgrades in other areas like wing depth or interior defense.
Moreover, Shamet is far from a game-changing addition. Despite his ability to shoot the three, he has not proven to be a consistent contributor in other facets of the game, such as defense, playmaking, or creating his own shot. His performance has been inconsistent, with occasional hot streaks but too many cold stretches. In fact, his inability to carve out a prominent role on his previous teams only underscores the risk the Knicks are taking by re-signing him.
This leads to the question: Should the Knicks really prioritize another shooter over bolstering other areas of the roster? The team’s glaring weaknesses—such as depth at the forward position and defensive reinforcements—could take a back seat if Shamet is brought back. With an already jammed backcourt, New York might be overlooking potential upgrades at other positions that would help them in the long run.
Furthermore, the Knicks are a team in flux, trying to build a contender, but there are serious concerns about their direction under head coach Tom Thibodeau. The Knicks have been known for overvaluing role players and marginal talents in the past. While Shamet’s shooting is certainly useful, his addition to the roster might become just another example of management chasing marginal improvements while ignoring more significant needs.
On the flip side, there is a possibility that Shamet, under the right system and coaching staff, could thrive. His three-point shooting could allow him to flourish in a designated bench role, where he’s tasked only with providing scoring from the perimeter. The Knicks could benefit from an increased shooting presence, especially in clutch moments when offensive droughts have hurt them in past seasons. Yet, this could only materialize if the Knicks manage to free up roster space in a manner that doesn’t hurt their overall team chemistry.
Roster Decision: A Do-or-Die Moment for the Knicks’ Front Office
For now, the Knicks have to make crucial decisions. Re-signing Shamet means they will need to shed someone from the roster—most likely a player on the fringes who could have contributed elsewhere. The question becomes whether keeping Shamet is worth losing depth or trade flexibility in the process.
In conclusion, the Knicks’ move to re-sign Landry Shamet is not as simple as it seems. While his shooting provides clear advantages, it’s also clear that he is a luxury addition to a team with more pressing needs. The front office’s gamble here might pay off, but it could also trap the Knicks in yet another cycle of roster logjams and missed opportunities. The real challenge is whether New York can balance its immediate needs with the bigger picture—something that’s remained a struggle in recent years.
If Shamet is indeed brought back, the Knicks must make sure that every move they make after this decision enhances their chances of true contention. The risk of overstocking on guards, while neglecting vital areas like wing defense or big man depth, could be the Knicks’ undoing once again