Kemet wrote:The Knicks FO have to sign MitchRob .. Why? Noel's performances are not dependable after 7 minutes of playing time. And coach Thibs haven't given rookie Sims consistent playing time to evaluate his performance over MitchRob.

You play sims so he can get used to nba speed and timing. Right now sims is not on Mitch level, but thibs needs to play him off the bench, during this stretch run to the draft.

blkexec wrote:

Kemet wrote:The Knicks FO have to sign MitchRob .. Why? Noel's performances are not dependable after 7 minutes of playing time. And coach Thibs haven't given rookie Sims consistent playing time to evaluate his performance over MitchRob.

You play sims so he can get used to nba speed and timing. Right now sims is not on Mitch level, but thibs needs to play him off the bench, during this stretch run to the draft.

Agree totally. I think Sims has shown a lot of potential he just needs more time to develop his game. He’s strong, he’s athletic he just needs to learn all the nuances and that comes with playing

franco12 wrote:So apparently, we started offering less than the max we can prior to June 30th:

But a source familiar with the talks said one of New York’s offers wasn’t close to the max that the club can offer Robinson via extension.

http://knickerblogger.net/sny-source-knicks-mitchell-robinson-not-close-to-potential-extension-before-deadline/

How can the conversation go now. TO me, it's telling Mitch at this point, we'll take care of you - we want to keep you a Knick. It's $48M now, and after June 30th, we'll make sure you can't say no to our offer.

And this has to include a S&T where we get back assets by giving the 5th year vs. the 4 if I recall my facts correctly. That also helps with getting players to a team that is at or over the cap.

We learned from KP the answer was NO.
Most of you are looking at Mitches last 6 weeks and now like “Knicks gonna **** this up like they always do”.

Any team that would bid on him will be looking at the same data and want to see those same xrays and know all about him.
Capella go this money a few years ago when the prototype Center seemed to be defined a bit different. This year we have multiple centers /7footers as MVP candidates which is changing the game. Mitch still has yet to show any offensive game or FT prowess.
YOu don’t get starter money if you can’t be on the court the last 5 minutes of a playoff game being FT liability.
That FT form he has looks awful. Looks like he don’t even care? LOL

I hope we can derive value from him but there is Simms who defensively has come a long way this season and has the body to do well.
He won’t be starting material next season.

Mitch might not be our long term asset but at the very least if we keep him his contract has to be tradable.

franco12 wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:So apparently, we started offering less than the max we can prior to June 30th:

But a source familiar with the talks said one of New York’s offers wasn’t close to the max that the club can offer Robinson via extension.

http://knickerblogger.net/sny-source-knicks-mitchell-robinson-not-close-to-potential-extension-before-deadline/

How can the conversation go now. TO me, it's telling Mitch at this point, we'll take care of you - we want to keep you a Knick. It's $48M now, and after June 30th, we'll make sure you can't say no to our offer.

ONE Of the offers wasn't close to the max? Am I reading this right?

Meaning a lot of the offers were perhaps close to the max?

Isn't this just the usual back and forth? What am I missing?

we probably should have offered the $48M/4 years from the first of the season, recovery no withstanding. There is a bit of hindsight to my statement, for sure- but professionals around the team should have been better positioned to know we'd be where we are with him. Given NBA salaries, this might have been the prudent thing had we been able to sign him. I like him, he seems like a nice guy with some upside still to his game.

But if you are his agent, right now what are you saying? Wait until you are a FA, I'll get you more money.

You offer a guy a 4 year deal without knowing the extent of his foot problem while also watching him gain 20-30lbs he shouldn't have?

If they could, do you think it would be prudent for NOP to offer Zion a 4 year extension at his max?

Philc1 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Philc1 wrote:As much as I love Mitch I’m warming up to using him as bait in a sign and trade for Brunson or Dinwiddie

I love Mitch but I’m willing to go to war with a platoon of Noel/Sims/sign a buy low FA like Cauley-Stein and a much needed upgrade at PG.

thats not much love. Those guys are trash

Beggars can’t be choosers. And both are way better than watching Alec Burks play pg 45 minutes a night

fishmike wrote:

franco12 wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:So apparently, we started offering less than the max we can prior to June 30th:

But a source familiar with the talks said one of New York’s offers wasn’t close to the max that the club can offer Robinson via extension.

http://knickerblogger.net/sny-source-knicks-mitchell-robinson-not-close-to-potential-extension-before-deadline/

How can the conversation go now. TO me, it's telling Mitch at this point, we'll take care of you - we want to keep you a Knick. It's $48M now, and after June 30th, we'll make sure you can't say no to our offer.

ONE Of the offers wasn't close to the max? Am I reading this right?

Meaning a lot of the offers were perhaps close to the max?

Isn't this just the usual back and forth? What am I missing?

we probably should have offered the $48M/4 years from the first of the season, recovery no withstanding. There is a bit of hindsight to my statement, for sure- but professionals around the team should have been better positioned to know we'd be where we are with him. Given NBA salaries, this might have been the prudent thing had we been able to sign him. I like him, he seems like a nice guy with some upside still to his game.

But if you are his agent, right now what are you saying? Wait until you are a FA, I'll get you more money.

this is literally all based on assumptions. The bottom line is the best play for Mitch is to play the season, do as well as you can you can look for the best offer and the ceiling is what Clint Capella got, not 4/$48. If I am Mitch I want $15mm a year, and I can ensure some teams would pay more. There's not a lot of teams that Mitch doesnt help immediately. He's a commodity.

I know he has had trouble with his agents - but absolutely 100% the advise would have been, play out the year, get big money. Maybe if offered day 1, 4 years or 3 years with PO might have had appeal to Mitch as he has had a bumpy first couple years with injuries.

fishmike wrote:

franco12 wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:So apparently, we started offering less than the max we can prior to June 30th:

But a source familiar with the talks said one of New York’s offers wasn’t close to the max that the club can offer Robinson via extension.

http://knickerblogger.net/sny-source-knicks-mitchell-robinson-not-close-to-potential-extension-before-deadline/

How can the conversation go now. TO me, it's telling Mitch at this point, we'll take care of you - we want to keep you a Knick. It's $48M now, and after June 30th, we'll make sure you can't say no to our offer.

ONE Of the offers wasn't close to the max? Am I reading this right?

Meaning a lot of the offers were perhaps close to the max?

Isn't this just the usual back and forth? What am I missing?

we probably should have offered the $48M/4 years from the first of the season, recovery no withstanding. There is a bit of hindsight to my statement, for sure- but professionals around the team should have been better positioned to know we'd be where we are with him. Given NBA salaries, this might have been the prudent thing had we been able to sign him. I like him, he seems like a nice guy with some upside still to his game.

But if you are his agent, right now what are you saying? Wait until you are a FA, I'll get you more money.

this is literally all based on assumptions. The bottom line is the best play for Mitch is to play the season, do as well as you can you can look for the best offer and the ceiling is what Clint Capella got, not 4/$48. If I am Mitch I want $15mm a year, and I can ensure some teams would pay more. There's not a lot of teams that Mitch doesnt help immediately. He's a commodity.