| Author | Thread |
| AUTOADVERT |
|
Knixkik
Posts: 35948 Alba Posts: 0 Joined: 7/24/2001 Member: #11 USA |
newyorknewyork wrote:PatCummings wrote:DLeethal wrote:Knixkik wrote:DLeethal wrote:Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL: This is what I’m thinking. The Knicks just proved they can win a title without Mitch when you think about it. Signing Mitch and trading him next year sounds great, but what if he gets hurt? Now you have to attach a pick to offload him. He will no longer be on a good contract. It will be market value. And if you’re over the second apron next year, you can only go over one more time in a 5-year window. So now you’re up against a crunch for the rest of that window with everyone wanting an extension. I’m not opposed to going over, but I see more advantages to staying under right now since the only loss is Mitch. A big loss, yes, but this speaks more to my confidence in this front office to figure out how to replace him. I’m happy we won a title, and I want to continue with this group and make it as sustainable as possible. The rules are meant to prevent sustainability, and I want to work around that. |