The Knicks, fresh off a summer that saw them solidify their core and improve their bench, stand at a crossroads with one final roster spot to fill.1 The choices, Ben Simmons and Landry Shamet, represent two diametrically opposed philosophies for completing a championship-caliber team. One path, trod by the high-risk, high-reward proposition of Simmons, could vault the Knicks into a new stratosphere of defensive dominance and playmaking. The other, a more pragmatic approach embodied by Shamet, promises stability, shooting, and seamless integration into a system already rich with talent. The decision will not only define the 2025-26 season but will also serve as a referendum on the front office’s long-term vision.
The case for Ben Simmons is built on potential, a tantalizing glimpse of what a fully-realized, healthy version of the former number one pick could bring to a team like the Knicks. On paper, he is the ultimate Swiss Army knife. A 6’10” point-forward who can defend all five positions, Simmons’s defensive prowess is not just a selling point; it’s a game-changer. His ability to switch onto anyone from Jalen Brunson to Karl-Anthony Towns would give Mike Brown a level of defensive versatility that few teams in the league can match. Imagine a closing lineup with Simmons, OG Anunoby, and Mikal Bridges, a trio of elite, switchable defenders who could smother opposing offenses. This defensive identity, combined with the offensive firepower of Brunson and Towns, would make the Knicks a nightmare matchup for any team.
Beyond defense, Simmons’s playmaking is another significant asset. He is a career 7.9 assists per game player, a statistic made all the more impressive by the fact that he doesn’t need the ball in his hands to be effective. Simmons’s court vision and passing would create easy scoring opportunities for the Knicks’ stars. He could push the pace in transition, find cutters with pinpoint passes, and act as a hub from the high post, all without needing to take a single shot. This unselfishness is a perfect fit for a team where shots are already allocated to Brunson, Towns, and Bridges. Simmons would be the ultimate complementary piece, a player who elevates everyone around him without demanding touches or a high usage rate.
However, the risk associated with Simmons is equally significant. His injury history is extensive and well-documented. A series of back issues have sidelined him for long stretches, raising serious questions about his durability. A team investing in Simmons is not just acquiring a player; they are inheriting a medical file that could be a ticking time bomb. Furthermore, there’s the question of Simmons’s mental state and his potential desire for a bigger role. While the Knicks’ system would theoretically be a perfect fit for him, a player of his caliber might chafe at being a fifth option, especially if he feels he deserves a bigger role or a more lucrative contract down the line. His past has shown a player who can be sensitive to criticism and whose confidence can be fragile. A high-pressure New York environment, even for a winning team, could be a double-edged sword.
Then there is the matter of his shooting. Or, more accurately, his lack thereof. While Simmons’s game has never been predicated on scoring, his reluctance to even attempt shots from outside the paint has been a major liability in the modern NBA.2 While the Knicks’ core is rich with shooting talent, Simmons’s presence on the floor could still shrink the court, allowing opponents to sag off him and clog the paint. This could make it more difficult for Brunson and Towns to operate in the post and for cutters to find open lanes. The question is whether the benefits of his defense and playmaking outweigh the potential offensive disadvantages.
Landry Shamet, on the other hand, represents the low-risk, high-reward approach.3 He is not a star, nor does he pretend to be one. He is a quintessential role player, a reliable 3-and-D wing who knows his job and executes it without fuss. Shamet’s primary value lies in his shooting. He is a career 38% three-point shooter, and his ability to space the floor is a commodity that is always in demand. With Clarkson already handling shot creation off the bench, Shamet would be the perfect off-ball complement. He could run off screens, spot up from the corner, and punish defenses that double-team the Knicks’ stars. His presence on the floor would open up driving lanes for Brunson and make it easier for Towns to operate in the post.
Beyond shooting, Shamet’s system familiarity and consistency are major selling points. He is a player who understands his role and doesn’t try to do too much. He is a low-maintenance veteran who would seamlessly integrate into the team’s culture. In a high-pressure environment like New York, having a player who can be counted on to do his job night in and night out is an invaluable asset. Shamet is also a capable defender, a player who can hold his own against opposing wings and who understands team defensive concepts. While he doesn’t have Simmons’s versatility, he is a solid contributor on that end of the floor.
The drawback with Shamet is that he doesn’t raise the Knicks’ ceiling in the same way Simmons does. He is a known quantity, a player whose contributions are predictable. While his shooting is valuable, it doesn’t represent a quantum leap for the team. He is an excellent role player, but he is not a player who can single-handedly change the dynamic of a game. If the Knicks’ ultimate goal is to win a championship, the question is whether a player like Shamet, while a solid piece, is enough to get them over the hump.
The Knicks’ decision ultimately comes down to a fundamental philosophical choice. Do they swing for the fences with Simmons, hoping to unlock the superstar potential that made him a number one pick, and in the process, accept the significant risks that come with him? Or do they play it safe, acquiring Shamet, a player who promises stability, shooting, and a seamless fit, but whose ceiling is considerably lower? The answer may lie in what the Knicks already have. With Brunson, Towns, Anunoby, and Bridges, the Knicks have a core that is already championship-caliber. They have stars who can create their own shots, playmakers who can find open teammates, and a defensive identity that is already taking shape. In this context, perhaps the safest bet is the best one. A player like Shamet, who can come in, knock down shots, and not disrupt the team’s chemistry, may be exactly what the doctor ordered.
However, the allure of Simmons remains. The prospect of a team with a defensive trio of Simmons, Anunoby, and Bridges is a tantalizing thought. It is a defensive unit that could stymie even the most potent offenses in the league. It is the kind of defensive potential that could make up for any offensive shortcomings. The Knicks, after years of building and acquiring talent, are now in a position to take a calculated risk. The addition of Mikal Bridges was the final piece of the puzzle, a player who solidified the core and gave the team a two-way star. The addition of Jordan Clarkson and Guersch-Yabusele was a masterstroke, a move that gave the bench a shot creator and a gritty, versatile forward. Now, with one final spot, the Knicks have a chance to take a leap of faith. The question is whether they have the stomach for it.
The decision is not an easy one. On one hand, you have the proven commodity, the reliable veteran who fits the system like a glove. On the other hand, you have the high-risk, high-reward superstar who, if he stays healthy and buys into his role, could make the Knicks a legitimate title favorite. The Knicks front office will have to weigh the potential rewards against the very real risks. They will have to decide whether the team is better off with a known quantity or with a player who could, in theory, take them to a place they have never been before. The final piece of the puzzle is a defining moment, one that will shape the team’s destiny for years to come.
