Does anyone know if we could extend Mitch in-season and quickly or immediately trade him?

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:Curious subplot before game 1 is do we extend him or does he go the seaosn and become unrestricted at seasons end. He too has not benefited stability the team now enjoys and its a shame he got hurt last year when he did. His valuation might have been clearer.

With Norlens locked up it affords us room to let him walk or include him in a trade. Its possible knicks look at his ceiling as Norlens and think “Why take the risk”?

That we got Noel as free agent is a plus. That he, Evan and Burks are all on tradable deals. Its important that any player we sign the GM has to consider “could I turn around and trade him tomorrow? Norlens won’t give us 82 games. I doubt Mitch does eitehr. 10-12mm per is about his price. Do we do this, play him then perhaps trade on or the other if Sims shows promise?
Whats good is we don’t have all our chips in one basket. We can pivot in many ways without a big contract.
It opens a door for Miles Turner for fans of his. It opens the door for Jerico Sims. If one gets hurt the other can step in and knicks will be ok.
Not going to worry about beyond this year. If he walks as free agent its a sign our cupboard is full of possiblities. No saviors mind you and no clear path like a blue chip draft pick at the position. Knicks are not depleted and sometimes you let players walk.

Don't know if this has been mentioned but the landscape of what Mitch can do if not retained by the Knicks, and it is thin: Only a few teams will have cap space - I think Spurs will be one of the only teams that are amongst those teams that would have interest. Also, a sign and trade is made more complicated because Mitch is a 2nd round pick and his contract will only count at 50% going out because of salary cap rules or whatever.

Do you think he doesn’t get the MLE from any team?

Do you think Mitch would accept an offer starting around $9.5M versus what the Knicks would offer him?

If there is a perceived disrespect, yeah, I see Mitch taking the MLE to play for a contender.

Nalod wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:Curious subplot before game 1 is do we extend him or does he go the seaosn and become unrestricted at seasons end. He too has not benefited stability the team now enjoys and its a shame he got hurt last year when he did. His valuation might have been clearer.

With Norlens locked up it affords us room to let him walk or include him in a trade. Its possible knicks look at his ceiling as Norlens and think “Why take the risk”?

That we got Noel as free agent is a plus. That he, Evan and Burks are all on tradable deals. Its important that any player we sign the GM has to consider “could I turn around and trade him tomorrow? Norlens won’t give us 82 games. I doubt Mitch does eitehr. 10-12mm per is about his price. Do we do this, play him then perhaps trade on or the other if Sims shows promise?
Whats good is we don’t have all our chips in one basket. We can pivot in many ways without a big contract.
It opens a door for Miles Turner for fans of his. It opens the door for Jerico Sims. If one gets hurt the other can step in and knicks will be ok.
Not going to worry about beyond this year. If he walks as free agent its a sign our cupboard is full of possiblities. No saviors mind you and no clear path like a blue chip draft pick at the position. Knicks are not depleted and sometimes you let players walk.

Don't know if this has been mentioned but the landscape of what Mitch can do if not retained by the Knicks, and it is thin: Only a few teams will have cap space - I think Spurs will be one of the only teams that are amongst those teams that would have interest. Also, a sign and trade is made more complicated because Mitch is a 2nd round pick and his contract will only count at 50% going out because of salary cap rules or whatever.

Do you think he doesn’t get the MLE from any team?

Do you think Mitch would accept an offer starting around $9.5M versus what the Knicks would offer him?

If there is a perceived disrespect, yeah, I see Mitch taking the MLE to play for a contender.

This FO seems to place a value and if player can get more so be it. Gordon Haywood good example if what we know was factual. Norlens could have signed elsewhere. Were we the highest price? Not sure. Is he tradable at this price? Seems so. same with Fornier. I don’t know if we were the top bidder but things have to fit for player and the team. Randle appears to have found the balance. We want him, he wanted to be here. He did not put himself in a position to be free next year and perhaps make more and risk what was in hand. Somtimes the bench mark of success is to realize what you want, not seek max. That could be a goal but its not a “value”.

I am a huge fan of creating value contracts. In contract negotiations currently, I am not sure if we are far off or not. The issue with losing a player to the MLE is that there is no compensation. In a S&T, there is compensation.

With Richaun Holmes getting 4 years 55mm, I think Mitchell’s market is baselines at the MLE and capped between 55mm and 60mm for 4 years — give or take.

So, I don’t think we are arguing max contracts here, I think we are negotiating between 10mm and 15mm per. This team is already over the cap so we aren’t bargaining for cap savings to sign another player. We may be arguing about years to make this contract co terminous with others 2 w/ team option vs 3 or 4.

I have Mitch at 4 years 52mm. I’d sign him today for that amount.

This is all speculation though cause we have no idea what the conversations have been.

EwingsGlass wrote:

Nalod wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:Curious subplot before game 1 is do we extend him or does he go the seaosn and become unrestricted at seasons end. He too has not benefited stability the team now enjoys and its a shame he got hurt last year when he did. His valuation might have been clearer.

With Norlens locked up it affords us room to let him walk or include him in a trade. Its possible knicks look at his ceiling as Norlens and think “Why take the risk”?

That we got Noel as free agent is a plus. That he, Evan and Burks are all on tradable deals. Its important that any player we sign the GM has to consider “could I turn around and trade him tomorrow? Norlens won’t give us 82 games. I doubt Mitch does eitehr. 10-12mm per is about his price. Do we do this, play him then perhaps trade on or the other if Sims shows promise?
Whats good is we don’t have all our chips in one basket. We can pivot in many ways without a big contract.
It opens a door for Miles Turner for fans of his. It opens the door for Jerico Sims. If one gets hurt the other can step in and knicks will be ok.
Not going to worry about beyond this year. If he walks as free agent its a sign our cupboard is full of possiblities. No saviors mind you and no clear path like a blue chip draft pick at the position. Knicks are not depleted and sometimes you let players walk.

Don't know if this has been mentioned but the landscape of what Mitch can do if not retained by the Knicks, and it is thin: Only a few teams will have cap space - I think Spurs will be one of the only teams that are amongst those teams that would have interest. Also, a sign and trade is made more complicated because Mitch is a 2nd round pick and his contract will only count at 50% going out because of salary cap rules or whatever.

Do you think he doesn’t get the MLE from any team?

Do you think Mitch would accept an offer starting around $9.5M versus what the Knicks would offer him?

If there is a perceived disrespect, yeah, I see Mitch taking the MLE to play for a contender.

This FO seems to place a value and if player can get more so be it. Gordon Haywood good example if what we know was factual. Norlens could have signed elsewhere. Were we the highest price? Not sure. Is he tradable at this price? Seems so. same with Fornier. I don’t know if we were the top bidder but things have to fit for player and the team. Randle appears to have found the balance. We want him, he wanted to be here. He did not put himself in a position to be free next year and perhaps make more and risk what was in hand. Somtimes the bench mark of success is to realize what you want, not seek max. That could be a goal but its not a “value”.

I am a huge fan of creating value contracts. In contract negotiations currently, I am not sure if we are far off or not. The issue with losing a player to the MLE is that there is no compensation. In a S&T, there is compensation.

With Richaun Holmes getting 4 years 55mm, I think Mitchell’s market is baselines at the MLE and capped between 55mm and 60mm for 4 years — give or take.

So, I don’t think we are arguing max contracts here, I think we are negotiating between 10mm and 15mm per. This team is already over the cap so we aren’t bargaining for cap savings to sign another player. We may be arguing about years to make this contract co terminous with others 2 w/ team option vs 3 or 4.

I have Mitch at 4 years 52mm. I’d sign him today for that amount.

This is all speculation though cause we have no idea what the conversations have been.

Is This # is base on what you think he may do in the future? .

Because he damn sure hasn't earned a contract like that for what he has done since he's been in the NBA.

Suppose he gets hurt again, or barely improves like he's been doing?

I'm all for giving him what ever he deserves once he can prove he can avoid injury and show growth

EwingsGlass wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

Nalod wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:Curious subplot before game 1 is do we extend him or does he go the seaosn and become unrestricted at seasons end. He too has not benefited stability the team now enjoys and its a shame he got hurt last year when he did. His valuation might have been clearer.

With Norlens locked up it affords us room to let him walk or include him in a trade. Its possible knicks look at his ceiling as Norlens and think “Why take the risk”?

That we got Noel as free agent is a plus. That he, Evan and Burks are all on tradable deals. Its important that any player we sign the GM has to consider “could I turn around and trade him tomorrow? Norlens won’t give us 82 games. I doubt Mitch does eitehr. 10-12mm per is about his price. Do we do this, play him then perhaps trade on or the other if Sims shows promise?
Whats good is we don’t have all our chips in one basket. We can pivot in many ways without a big contract.
It opens a door for Miles Turner for fans of his. It opens the door for Jerico Sims. If one gets hurt the other can step in and knicks will be ok.
Not going to worry about beyond this year. If he walks as free agent its a sign our cupboard is full of possiblities. No saviors mind you and no clear path like a blue chip draft pick at the position. Knicks are not depleted and sometimes you let players walk.

Don't know if this has been mentioned but the landscape of what Mitch can do if not retained by the Knicks, and it is thin: Only a few teams will have cap space - I think Spurs will be one of the only teams that are amongst those teams that would have interest. Also, a sign and trade is made more complicated because Mitch is a 2nd round pick and his contract will only count at 50% going out because of salary cap rules or whatever.

Do you think he doesn’t get the MLE from any team?

Do you think Mitch would accept an offer starting around $9.5M versus what the Knicks would offer him?

If there is a perceived disrespect, yeah, I see Mitch taking the MLE to play for a contender.

This FO seems to place a value and if player can get more so be it. Gordon Haywood good example if what we know was factual. Norlens could have signed elsewhere. Were we the highest price? Not sure. Is he tradable at this price? Seems so. same with Fornier. I don’t know if we were the top bidder but things have to fit for player and the team. Randle appears to have found the balance. We want him, he wanted to be here. He did not put himself in a position to be free next year and perhaps make more and risk what was in hand. Somtimes the bench mark of success is to realize what you want, not seek max. That could be a goal but its not a “value”.

I am a huge fan of creating value contracts. In contract negotiations currently, I am not sure if we are far off or not. The issue with losing a player to the MLE is that there is no compensation. In a S&T, there is compensation.

With Richaun Holmes getting 4 years 55mm, I think Mitchell’s market is baselines at the MLE and capped between 55mm and 60mm for 4 years — give or take.

So, I don’t think we are arguing max contracts here, I think we are negotiating between 10mm and 15mm per. This team is already over the cap so we aren’t bargaining for cap savings to sign another player. We may be arguing about years to make this contract co terminous with others 2 w/ team option vs 3 or 4.

I have Mitch at 4 years 52mm. I’d sign him today for that amount.

This is all speculation though cause we have no idea what the conversations have been.

Is This # is base on what you think he may do in the future? .

Because he damn sure hasn't earned a contract like that for what he has done since he's been in the NBA.

Suppose he gets hurt again, or barely improves like he's been doing?

I'm all for giving him what ever he deserves once he can prove he can avoid injury and show growth

Remember that thread where I disproved your thoughts and feelings with stats and numbers. Can we just bump that thread?

Just remember the contacts that this front office gave out last off season and this off season..

they wont pay 2 centers a combine 20+ million dollars per who bring the exact same thing..in a center less era of the NBA

knicks1248 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

Nalod wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:Curious subplot before game 1 is do we extend him or does he go the seaosn and become unrestricted at seasons end. He too has not benefited stability the team now enjoys and its a shame he got hurt last year when he did. His valuation might have been clearer.

With Norlens locked up it affords us room to let him walk or include him in a trade. Its possible knicks look at his ceiling as Norlens and think “Why take the risk”?

That we got Noel as free agent is a plus. That he, Evan and Burks are all on tradable deals. Its important that any player we sign the GM has to consider “could I turn around and trade him tomorrow? Norlens won’t give us 82 games. I doubt Mitch does eitehr. 10-12mm per is about his price. Do we do this, play him then perhaps trade on or the other if Sims shows promise?
Whats good is we don’t have all our chips in one basket. We can pivot in many ways without a big contract.
It opens a door for Miles Turner for fans of his. It opens the door for Jerico Sims. If one gets hurt the other can step in and knicks will be ok.
Not going to worry about beyond this year. If he walks as free agent its a sign our cupboard is full of possiblities. No saviors mind you and no clear path like a blue chip draft pick at the position. Knicks are not depleted and sometimes you let players walk.

Don't know if this has been mentioned but the landscape of what Mitch can do if not retained by the Knicks, and it is thin: Only a few teams will have cap space - I think Spurs will be one of the only teams that are amongst those teams that would have interest. Also, a sign and trade is made more complicated because Mitch is a 2nd round pick and his contract will only count at 50% going out because of salary cap rules or whatever.

Do you think he doesn’t get the MLE from any team?

Do you think Mitch would accept an offer starting around $9.5M versus what the Knicks would offer him?

If there is a perceived disrespect, yeah, I see Mitch taking the MLE to play for a contender.

This FO seems to place a value and if player can get more so be it. Gordon Haywood good example if what we know was factual. Norlens could have signed elsewhere. Were we the highest price? Not sure. Is he tradable at this price? Seems so. same with Fornier. I don’t know if we were the top bidder but things have to fit for player and the team. Randle appears to have found the balance. We want him, he wanted to be here. He did not put himself in a position to be free next year and perhaps make more and risk what was in hand. Somtimes the bench mark of success is to realize what you want, not seek max. That could be a goal but its not a “value”.

I am a huge fan of creating value contracts. In contract negotiations currently, I am not sure if we are far off or not. The issue with losing a player to the MLE is that there is no compensation. In a S&T, there is compensation.

With Richaun Holmes getting 4 years 55mm, I think Mitchell’s market is baselines at the MLE and capped between 55mm and 60mm for 4 years — give or take.

So, I don’t think we are arguing max contracts here, I think we are negotiating between 10mm and 15mm per. This team is already over the cap so we aren’t bargaining for cap savings to sign another player. We may be arguing about years to make this contract co terminous with others 2 w/ team option vs 3 or 4.

I have Mitch at 4 years 52mm. I’d sign him today for that amount.

This is all speculation though cause we have no idea what the conversations have been.

Is This # is base on what you think he may do in the future? .

Because he damn sure hasn't earned a contract like that for what he has done since he's been in the NBA.

Suppose he gets hurt again, or barely improves like he's been doing?

I'm all for giving him what ever he deserves once he can prove he can avoid injury and show growth

Remember that thread where I disproved your thoughts and feelings with stats and numbers. Can we just bump that thread?

Just remember the contacts that this front office gave out last off season and this off season..

they wont pay 2 centers a combine 20+ million dollars per who bring the exact same thing..in a center less era of the NBA

I am pretty sure this office would be delighted with two top 10 defensive centers with a positional salary just over 20mm. You continue to generalize about things like a center less NBA and ignore the clear and present evidence of a Knicks FO that continued to seek Myles Turner even after re-signing Noel. That positional salary means they value the starting center position up to 19mm today. Myles being a few years ahead of Mitchell Robinson, you cannot help but think they were willing to give up a bit to get those extra years of experience.

While it also speaks to a lack of confidence in MR, your point is just entirely wrong and devoid of fact - if they were willing to trade for Myles Turner after signing Nerlens Noel your implied limitation on salary is simply wrong.

At 10-13mm I can’t imagine the Knicks having an issue resigning MR.

Im more interested if he can do all these things at 270-280!!!

knicks1248 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

Nalod wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:Curious subplot before game 1 is do we extend him or does he go the seaosn and become unrestricted at seasons end. He too has not benefited stability the team now enjoys and its a shame he got hurt last year when he did. His valuation might have been clearer.

With Norlens locked up it affords us room to let him walk or include him in a trade. Its possible knicks look at his ceiling as Norlens and think “Why take the risk”?

That we got Noel as free agent is a plus. That he, Evan and Burks are all on tradable deals. Its important that any player we sign the GM has to consider “could I turn around and trade him tomorrow? Norlens won’t give us 82 games. I doubt Mitch does eitehr. 10-12mm per is about his price. Do we do this, play him then perhaps trade on or the other if Sims shows promise?
Whats good is we don’t have all our chips in one basket. We can pivot in many ways without a big contract.
It opens a door for Miles Turner for fans of his. It opens the door for Jerico Sims. If one gets hurt the other can step in and knicks will be ok.
Not going to worry about beyond this year. If he walks as free agent its a sign our cupboard is full of possiblities. No saviors mind you and no clear path like a blue chip draft pick at the position. Knicks are not depleted and sometimes you let players walk.

Don't know if this has been mentioned but the landscape of what Mitch can do if not retained by the Knicks, and it is thin: Only a few teams will have cap space - I think Spurs will be one of the only teams that are amongst those teams that would have interest. Also, a sign and trade is made more complicated because Mitch is a 2nd round pick and his contract will only count at 50% going out because of salary cap rules or whatever.

Do you think he doesn’t get the MLE from any team?

Do you think Mitch would accept an offer starting around $9.5M versus what the Knicks would offer him?

If there is a perceived disrespect, yeah, I see Mitch taking the MLE to play for a contender.

This FO seems to place a value and if player can get more so be it. Gordon Haywood good example if what we know was factual. Norlens could have signed elsewhere. Were we the highest price? Not sure. Is he tradable at this price? Seems so. same with Fornier. I don’t know if we were the top bidder but things have to fit for player and the team. Randle appears to have found the balance. We want him, he wanted to be here. He did not put himself in a position to be free next year and perhaps make more and risk what was in hand. Somtimes the bench mark of success is to realize what you want, not seek max. That could be a goal but its not a “value”.

I am a huge fan of creating value contracts. In contract negotiations currently, I am not sure if we are far off or not. The issue with losing a player to the MLE is that there is no compensation. In a S&T, there is compensation.

With Richaun Holmes getting 4 years 55mm, I think Mitchell’s market is baselines at the MLE and capped between 55mm and 60mm for 4 years — give or take.

So, I don’t think we are arguing max contracts here, I think we are negotiating between 10mm and 15mm per. This team is already over the cap so we aren’t bargaining for cap savings to sign another player. We may be arguing about years to make this contract co terminous with others 2 w/ team option vs 3 or 4.

I have Mitch at 4 years 52mm. I’d sign him today for that amount.

This is all speculation though cause we have no idea what the conversations have been.

Is This # is base on what you think he may do in the future? .

Because he damn sure hasn't earned a contract like that for what he has done since he's been in the NBA.

Suppose he gets hurt again, or barely improves like he's been doing?

I'm all for giving him what ever he deserves once he can prove he can avoid injury and show growth

Remember that thread where I disproved your thoughts and feelings with stats and numbers. Can we just bump that thread?

Just remember the contacts that this front office gave out last off season and this off season..

they wont pay 2 centers a combine 20+ million dollars per who bring the exact same thing..in a center less era of the NBA

If this is the way of the modern NBA then having two is better than one. Team has two guys that fill the same role and we are able to anchor defense should one or the other need time off.
Second point: Its reasonble to think when a team signs a player, even their own the GM should think to himself “Can I trade this player at this contract tomorrow?” Knicks can go up to 4 yrs 55mm on him. He is under minutes restrictions and won’t start the season right away. Does he protest this? Does he dispute this? Maybe. If he breaks the foot in camp Knicks should not sign him. He should take a shorter deal or take less money for player options in the event he outperforms his deal. He broke his foot and for a guy built to fly thats not good. It was a non contact injury, that is not good. Im not a foot specialist or have privy to his MRI tape like some of you do, so I can’t comment if its one of those bones that is susceptible to reinjury or a potential chronic issue going forward. If so, I play the odds and cut bait and move on.
MItch has not demonstrated to be as special as hoped. He has made great strides and still can get better. Issue is money and length and the crossroads of time. For the fan its 50-50 guess with only the payoff of “I was right1”. For Leon and Perry its real. For his agent and Mitch its real. Step on someones shoe wrong and. Break it again, with his history he becomes a 5mm free agent back up that needs a few yeas to reprove himself. Norlens can attest to that. He needed 3 seasons to reestablish his value in the league to a contract less than what was in front of him and the loss of the income. The movie is there to see.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/NYPost_Berman/status/1441445619864846338

Thought this would be the case when they said he was just working ion free throws this summer. However Alan Hahn did a great session with Knicks fan TV and said Mitch really seems to have gotten it this offseason and is taking his work very seriously and locked in

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/NYPost_Berman/status/1441468497796677633

34 minutes.
11 points (5/5, 100%).
17 REBOUNDS.
3 assists.
2 blocks.

HE'S BACK!