For the Knicks, the rest of the off-season comes down to a numbers game. Right now there are a maximum of 15 available roster spots … but New York currently has 17 players under contract.

Obviously, two of them have to go, but who?

The answer is far from obvious. Every player on the team was either a) acquired in the past few weeks, b) represents a major financial commitment by the team, or c) is among the coveted young, talented, low-salaried players over which other teams salivate.

It’s an unusual situation brought on by the fact that the Knicks had only one free agent from last year’s squad, backup center Kelvin Cato. He’s gone and won’t be back, but the other 14 players who finished the year in uniform all had contracts for the coming season.

Making things worse was the 3-for-2 trade in which the Knicks dealt Steve Francis and Channing Frye to Portland for Zach Randolph, Fred Jones, and Dan Dickau. That brought the total to 15, and it immediately jumped to 17 when the Knicks selected Wilson Chandler and Demetris Nichols in the draft.

So now, two players have to go.

The preferred option, obviously, would be for New York to trade itself out of the situation. Team president Isiah Thomas might consider dealing Eddy Curry now that he has a better version of the same player in Randolph, although Curry’s heart condition makes acquiring him a non-starter for all but a few teams.

Other potential deals could involve the likes of guards Jones, Dickau, Nate Robinson, or Mardy Collins; in each of these cases the idea would be to trade a player for a draft pick to ease the roster crunch while stockpiling assets for the future.

However, that’s not the only route possible. As we all learned a year ago, Thomas isn’t reluctant to buy out a player’s contract if he isn’t going to play. Much as he did a year ago with Jalen Rose and Maurice Taylor, he might be inclined to say farewell to Malik Rose — the veteran forward still has two years left on his contract but is unlikely to play much. However, he was one of the team’s few reliable post defenders a year ago and could fill that niche again.

Thomas could also buy out Jones and/or Dickau. Both players only have one guaranteed year left on their deals, and dumping them would only involve swallowing around $6 million — chump change by the Knicks’ recent standards.

Alas, Thomas appears to have a liking for both throw-ins from the Randolph deal, and not without reason. Jones was one of his pupils when he coached the Pacers and would be one of the rare Knicks who is as useful on defense as he is on offense. Dickau, meanwhile, is another Knick rarity — a long-range shooter who doesn’t need the ball in his hands in order to be effective.

If both stick, then that makes the situation muddier. One supposes they could cut Nichols, the second-round pick, but if the Knicks end up doing so you have to question what Thomas was thinking by not trading the pick. He already knew by that point that he’d have 17 players if he used the selection; any trade would have been better than just flushing a draft pick down the toilet. (If he’d really been thinking, actually, he would have drafted a European player at that spot and let him cool his heels overseas for a year, but expecting that kind of foresight from the Knicks is asking a bit much).

So if the Knicks can’t trade their way out of it, and don’t wish to cut Rose, Jones, Dickau, or Nichols, then this situation will provide one of the toughest tests of the Thomas administration — facing up to his worst blunders.

Because at that point, Thomas would be all but forced to cut at least one and perhaps both of his worst mistakes — Jerome James and Jared Jeffries.

It’s an expensive proposition. They both make the full midlevel exception and each has multiple years left to run on his deal — three for James, four for Jeffries. Between salary and luxury tax, the Knicks will essentially be paying over $10 million a year each for them to go away.

Yet in basketball terms, it couldn’t possibly make more sense. Could there be two players that are more replaceable than these two? Take James, for instance. The Knicks already have three plodding big men on the roster in Curry, Randolph, and promising youngster Randolph Morris.

Having four players of that size would be excessive, even in the Bad Boys era in which Thomas played; in today’s greyhound style, it’s downright foolish. Besides, James has spent the past two seasons proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he’s utterly worthless; what more evidence do the Knicks need?

Jeffries is a tougher call because he’s had one bad year, rather than two. But as with James, there’s serious replication at his position. Quentin Richardson will return as the starter, and Renaldo Balkman and Chandler can back him up — both of whom do the athletic-energy-guy thing a whole lot better than Jeffries. Beyond them is another small forward, the second-rounder Nichols.

One could argue that Rose would be a better candidate for the ax here, since he was arguably an inferior player a year ago and doesn’t figure to get any better with age. But the Knicks would have four frontcourt bodies left if they cut both James and Rose; I’m sure Thomas would prefer five for security, especially when the alternative is carrying five small forwards, three of whom do the exact same things.

Obviously, the best circumstance remains one in which the Knicks can divest themselves of two players in a trade without having to eat a contract. Perhaps they can indeed deal one player away, but two seems unlikely. Thus, with each passing day, it becomes more and more likely that they’re going to face some tough decisions come October.

That decision takes on an even greater dimension when it comes face-to-face with an area in which Thomas has always struggled: admitting mistakes. By any and all logic, it’s better to cut bait now on James rather than dump a potentially useful player just so James can count money and put on weight for three more years.

But will Thomas be willing to dump one of his most prominent acquisitions? The worry is that when push comes to shove, he’ll once again rely on smoothtalk and a Cheshire grin and pray that nobody notices that giant elephant in the corner wearing no. 13.

jhollinger@nysun.com