BigDaddyG wrote:

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 think 4 years, $48M is about right. That's Timelord money and is in line with the tier of player Mitch is. But it only takes one desperate team.

Omer Asik got a $60 million deal 7 years ago. Mitch is gonna get paid on the open market probably not by us since he’s not CAA

Philc1 wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

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 think 4 years, $48M is about right. That's Timelord money and is in line with the tier of player Mitch is. But it only takes one desperate team.

Omer Asik got a $60 million deal 7 years ago. Mitch is gonna get paid on the open market probably not by us since he’s not CAA

Philc1 wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

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 think 4 years, $48M is about right. That's Timelord money and is in line with the tier of player Mitch is. But it only takes one desperate team.

Omer Asik got a $60 million deal 7 years ago. Mitch is gonna get paid on the open market probably not by us since he’s not CAA

The game has changed a lot in seven tears. Ask was out of the league by 2017 at the age of 29/30.

Mitch can get more money on the open market. Honestly seeing him walk and the Knicks get nothing in return will be more nauseating than watching Alec Burks play pg 35-40 minutes a night for 60 games

next year Burke will be our starting Center!

franco12 wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

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 think 4 years, $48M is about right. That's Timelord money and is in line with the tier of player Mitch is. But it only takes one desperate team.

Omer Asik got a $60 million deal 7 years ago. Mitch is gonna get paid on the open market probably not by us since he’s not CAA

The game has changed a lot in seven tears. Ask was out of the league by 2017 at the age of 29/30.

Mitch can get more money on the open market. Honestly seeing him walk and the Knicks get nothing in return will be more nauseating than watching Alec Burks play pg 35-40 minutes a night for 60 games

next year Burke will be our starting Center!

Lol

Philc1 wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

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 think 4 years, $48M is about right. That's Timelord money and is in line with the tier of player Mitch is. But it only takes one desperate team.

Omer Asik got a $60 million deal 7 years ago. Mitch is gonna get paid on the open market probably not by us since he’s not CAA

The game has changed a lot in seven tears. Ask was out of the league by 2017 at the age of 29/30.

Mitch can get more money on the open market. Honestly seeing him walk and the Knicks get nothing in return will be more nauseating than watching Alec Burks play pg 35-40 minutes a night for 60 games

More so would have been to sign him with a chronically bad foot. Think forward, Simms might be good in teh defensive role and we might draft a good 5. One door closes but another opens.

If one door opens and another closes, your most likley in Jail……..LOL

jskinny35 wrote:While I prefer the Knicks resign Mitch it may be that Mitch wants to move on (assuming he gets reasonable offers in free agency). In that case - I just hope the FO has planned for this scenario so we can work a sign and trade or quickly pivot to pick up a serviceable player in his place. I'm thinking Richaun Holmes (Sac) may be worth a look as Sims most likely won't be ready.

This year I would the draft a big man’s draft, there’s about 4 1st round center prospects off the top of my head who I like better than Mitch.
I’m not spending money for a starting center who doesn’t space the floor in 2022, and add to that, a bad free throw shooter. Our offense is 4v5 every possession.
Every playoff team off the top of my head right now has a center who space the floor. Even the Nets have Albridge.

Philc1 wrote:

MaTT4281 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:Knicks should pay the man his money.

Yes.

Especially if you want to build around RJ. Great chemistry between the two.

We actually have two good young players and now watch them both leave for nothing

Explanations have bee given to you on how this works. You type many things but say nothing but parrot empty statements often.

Jmpasq wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:I was way off on the situation with Mitch. He will want Capella money. Looks like we are going to lose him for nothing if he is UFA. I doubt we match the roughly 18 mil contract he is going to get. Worst case scenario....damn it

I can't see Mitch getting 18 million a year.