nycericanguy wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:Achiuwa is a decent fallback option. he's not good but he's a minutes filler, he buys time until you can get KAT back in.

I don’t like Achiuwa he’s small. Bring back Hukporti

i mean i'd want both back... or one and KP.

Jock Landale. He is Australian Isiah Hartenstein. Sign him to taxpayer MLE

The 4 players that will probably take these spots are
Huk, McCullar, Kayil, (K)Nickel.

Huk $2.5mil, McCullar $2.5mil, Kayil $1.5mil, Nickel $1.5mil = $8mil.

To stay under the 2nd apron and retain Mitch.

Knicks would have to have drafted 6 players in the 2nd round this past draft. With the plan of paying them rookie mins at $1.3mil.
To go along with Huk & McCullar at vet min. Thus filling 13 rosters spots
This would have allowed them to trade Deuce & Dadiet saving around $4mil. Which still would have only freed up $10mil to offer Mitch.
Then would need to push Alvarado to opt out for a long term deal elsewhere.
Or had Alvarado opt in to trade him to clear his salary at $4.5, minus $1.3mil covered by the 2nd round pick roster spot for a $3.2mil savings.

So end of the day even with all that. Dumping Deuce, Alvarado, Dadiet, trading out of the first and maneuvering to draft 5 2nd round picks this past draft.
Knicks still would have only have around $13.2mil to offer Mitch.

Looking at the numbers, will see if Shamet is retained as well. If not then Dadiet, McCullar, Nickel will be fighting for that backup wing spot.

BlueKnickers wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:So Dolan is not on the same page as our FO

Reports saying Mitch will walk because of it

If you're Dolan and you trusted your FO up to now, not sure why you wouldn't reach into your wallet now and go over the apron

It reminds me of a client who said to me, "It is not that I can't afford your price, I just want to stay rich by paying less."

That's how some rich folk think.

Methinks Dolan was hands off the whole time and not communicative enough with Rose about the long term planning. It would explain why the FO may be blindsided by Dolan now.

Dolan fired Thibs. FO was against it. Worked out ok

What are your sources?

First time I've heard it was a unilateral move by Dolan to fire Thibs.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7269240/2026/05/11/knicks-76ers-mike-brown-owner-james-dolan/

https://sports.yahoo.com/video/james-dolans-bold-decision-propelled-173539079.html

https://frontofficesports.com/james-dolan-knicks-thibs-mike-brown/

There is a world of difference between the owner taking responsibility for a decision vs. an owner and front office not being in alignment on that decision.

Again, there is no information provided that indicates Dolan overrode the FO and made any decision they were opposed to.

Considering Rose's historical relationship with Thibs, the obvious move is for Dolan to take the hit when Rose's friend Thibs gets canned. In no way does that mean Rose or the FO was against the decision.

Ok whatever you say

Philc1 wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:So Dolan is not on the same page as our FO

Reports saying Mitch will walk because of it

If you're Dolan and you trusted your FO up to now, not sure why you wouldn't reach into your wallet now and go over the apron

It reminds me of a client who said to me, "It is not that I can't afford your price, I just want to stay rich by paying less."

That's how some rich folk think.

Methinks Dolan was hands off the whole time and not communicative enough with Rose about the long term planning. It would explain why the FO may be blindsided by Dolan now.

Dolan fired Thibs. FO was against it. Worked out ok

What are your sources?

First time I've heard it was a unilateral move by Dolan to fire Thibs.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7269240/2026/05/11/knicks-76ers-mike-brown-owner-james-dolan/

https://sports.yahoo.com/video/james-dolans-bold-decision-propelled-173539079.html

https://frontofficesports.com/james-dolan-knicks-thibs-mike-brown/

There is a world of difference between the owner taking responsibility for a decision vs. an owner and front office not being in alignment on that decision.

Again, there is no information provided that indicates Dolan overrode the FO and made any decision they were opposed to.

Considering Rose's historical relationship with Thibs, the obvious move is for Dolan to take the hit when Rose's friend Thibs gets canned. In no way does that mean Rose or the FO was against the decision.

Ok whatever you say

Why are you responding like that?

I wasn't trying to dunk on you. It is a logical discussion about inferences being made.

You were implying it was strictly Dolan's decision and I was clarifying your interpretation of events to say it almost certainly was done with the FO on board.

You cannot infer from the news clippings you provided there was any indications this was a unilateral decision by Dolan. The only certainly is Dolan took credit for making the decision and that is the only certainty about the public statements made.

The real inference I was trying to point to is Dolan was running cover for Rose. That is the logical inference to be made, not that Dolan did something the FO was opposed to.

Philc1 wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:There is a huge drop off after Mitch. He's irreplaceable and the best at what he does. If I was Leon I'd be looking to trade Deuce and Kolek and try to see if we can get close to a $15M offer.

I don’t think $15 mil per does it. Hartenstein got way more and he’s not better than Mitch.

Good news is there are guys available who can be serviceable backup Centers. Huk we ca. also resign and I liked what he showed last season

iHart is not better than Mitch?

Somebody should make a poll.

Philc1 wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:So Dolan is not on the same page as our FO

Reports saying Mitch will walk because of it

If you're Dolan and you trusted your FO up to now, not sure why you wouldn't reach into your wallet now and go over the apron

It reminds me of a client who said to me, "It is not that I can't afford your price, I just want to stay rich by paying less."

That's how some rich folk think.

Methinks Dolan was hands off the whole time and not communicative enough with Rose about the long term planning. It would explain why the FO may be blindsided by Dolan now.

Dolan fired Thibs. FO was against it. Worked out ok

What are your sources?

First time I've heard it was a unilateral move by Dolan to fire Thibs.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7269240/2026/05/11/knicks-76ers-mike-brown-owner-james-dolan/

https://sports.yahoo.com/video/james-dolans-bold-decision-propelled-173539079.html

https://frontofficesports.com/james-dolan-knicks-thibs-mike-brown/

There is a world of difference between the owner taking responsibility for a decision vs. an owner and front office not being in alignment on that decision.

Again, there is no information provided that indicates Dolan overrode the FO and made any decision they were opposed to.

Considering Rose's historical relationship with Thibs, the obvious move is for Dolan to take the hit when Rose's friend Thibs gets canned. In no way does that mean Rose or the FO was against the decision.

Ok whatever you say

PHilC forgets Leon works for Dolan. For Leon to even extend Thibs the year before Dolan has to sign off on it. My guess is for him to do that requires Leon to present his case and parameters. Seems like Dolan has championship expectations this year and was public about it. Thats on Leon. Ok, it worked out. The team imporoved every year and won a chip. For all we know it was Dolan that wanted Thibs extended as well.

If Thibs stayed does Mikal not extend? If so, that ****'s up a lot of things. You lose those picks with nothing in return.
Thibs did something in Chicago that pissed off his FO: He did not play his bench. It infuruated them! Look it up.
I think despite all the love Thibs is Thibs and in a Larry Brown kind of way it was time to move on.

Dolan had to sign off and eat Thibs contract. Dolan heard the players exit. We saw some disention on the bench in time outs. We saw players get run into the ground. with heavy minutes.

They all owned it.

ToddTT wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:There is a huge drop off after Mitch. He's irreplaceable and the best at what he does. If I was Leon I'd be looking to trade Deuce and Kolek and try to see if we can get close to a $15M offer.

I don’t think $15 mil per does it. Hartenstein got way more and he’s not better than Mitch.

Good news is there are guys available who can be serviceable backup Centers. Huk we ca. also resign and I liked what he showed last season

iHart is not better than Mitch?

Somebody should make a poll.

Hartenstein is better offensively but Mitch is one of the best defensive players in the entire nba. Remember our window supposedly closed when Hartenstein and Divincenzo left

BlueKnickers wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:So Dolan is not on the same page as our FO

Reports saying Mitch will walk because of it

If you're Dolan and you trusted your FO up to now, not sure why you wouldn't reach into your wallet now and go over the apron

It reminds me of a client who said to me, "It is not that I can't afford your price, I just want to stay rich by paying less."

That's how some rich folk think.

Methinks Dolan was hands off the whole time and not communicative enough with Rose about the long term planning. It would explain why the FO may be blindsided by Dolan now.

Dolan fired Thibs. FO was against it. Worked out ok

What are your sources?

First time I've heard it was a unilateral move by Dolan to fire Thibs.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7269240/2026/05/11/knicks-76ers-mike-brown-owner-james-dolan/

https://sports.yahoo.com/video/james-dolans-bold-decision-propelled-173539079.html

https://frontofficesports.com/james-dolan-knicks-thibs-mike-brown/

There is a world of difference between the owner taking responsibility for a decision vs. an owner and front office not being in alignment on that decision.

Again, there is no information provided that indicates Dolan overrode the FO and made any decision they were opposed to.

Considering Rose's historical relationship with Thibs, the obvious move is for Dolan to take the hit when Rose's friend Thibs gets canned. In no way does that mean Rose or the FO was against the decision.

Ok whatever you say

Why are you responding like that?

I wasn't trying to dunk on you. It is a logical discussion about inferences being made.

You were implying it was strictly Dolan's decision and I was clarifying your interpretation of events to say it almost certainly was done with the FO on board.

You cannot infer from the news clippings you provided there was any indications this was a unilateral decision by Dolan. The only certainly is Dolan took credit for making the decision and that is the only certainty about the public statements made.

The real inference I was trying to point to is Dolan was running cover for Rose. That is the logical inference to be made, not that Dolan did something the FO was opposed to.

I gave you articles showing what happened and it doesn’t fit your confirmation bias. Ok that’s fine. Now you got Nalod to the rescue writing 75 paragraph essays about how it was impossible for Dolan to overrule the front office on Thibs even though it’s all over the internet.