Knicksfan wrote:

martin wrote:It's the playmaking and space movement that the Knicks will miss.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/DJAceNBA/status/1807797082670948668

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/fbl_sam/status/1807803624422060229

Goga for the win!

GustavBahler wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

martin wrote:Honest question: Would any of you taken the $74M for 4 over the $87m for 3?

I would have stayed in NY 100 out of 100 times.

Me, 100 percent, and I guarantee anyone reading this they would do the same in his position. He can set up generational wealth per freaking quickly. He gets to be a key cog on the best regular season team in the league and a team that's on the rise. I think once everyone puts down the koolaid they would say the same thing. If not then, maybe everyone would stop deluding themselves after they went home and talked to their wife

What might have kept iHart in NY was if the offer came from a cellar dweller, and not a contender. In OKC iHart gets paid with a decent shot at a ring.

BUT if Championship is what he wanted, our odds are slightly better than OKC.

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:It's the playmaking and space movement that the Knicks will miss.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/DJAceNBA/status/1807797082670948668

Mitch creates vertical spacing that Ihart doesn't though.

That literally doesn't matter much though. Otherwise Mitch would be considered good offensively cause he is one of the best at the vertical stuff and it hasn't enhanced his offense.

vertical spacing doesn't matter?

When you run a P&R with a big man rolling, the threat of the lob means opposing bigs have to stay on Mitch, OR someone else has to rotate over. IT MATTERS.

Mitch scores the same as Ihart, except Mitch shoots 70% for his career.

Neither are really good offensive players but to say vertical spacing doesn't matter is a reach.

Ihart had a nice passing game though, but I think with Mikal and Randle we'll be more than fine there.

really interested in who we pick up though.

You get the different between matter and matter much, right? And why it hasn't added much to Mitch's capability to score, right?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5608368/2024/07/01/knicks-isaiah-hartenstein-thunder-free-agency/

GustavBahler wrote:

Garrett2010PSD wrote:Yeah this is a loss. I like Precious, but he is not a center.

Knicks will miss Ihart's size, rebounding, and passing. He fit this team perfectly.

Bridges made the Knicks take two steps forward but losing Ihart made the Knicks take a step back.

It also doesn't help that Mitch, his replacement is injury prone.

I don't have a specific name at the moment, but I would like to see the Knicks trade Mitch, Deuce, and possibly some low end draft capital on a good, durable center who has similar skill sets to Ihart.

Losing Ihart is not a move to just shrug off as no big deal. He was an important part of this team.

I wouldnt want to trade Mitch for anything but another elite defender/rebounder. Easier to find another iHart than another Mitch. We need a backup good enough to hold the fort for those games Mitch will miss. We need Mitch for Embiid/ KP/ Jokic matchups.

If Mitch wasn't such an injury risk I would agree with you. But it is possible he won't even be there if we play the Sixers.

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:It's the playmaking and space movement that the Knicks will miss.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/DJAceNBA/status/1807797082670948668

Mitch creates vertical spacing that Ihart doesn't though.

That literally doesn't matter much though. Otherwise Mitch would be considered good offensively cause he is one of the best at the vertical stuff and it hasn't enhanced his offense.

vertical spacing doesn't matter?

When you run a P&R with a big man rolling, the threat of the lob means opposing bigs have to stay on Mitch, OR someone else has to rotate over. IT MATTERS.

Mitch scores the same as Ihart, except Mitch shoots 70% for his career.

Neither are really good offensive players but to say vertical spacing doesn't matter is a reach.

Ihart had a nice passing game though, but I think with Mikal and Randle we'll be more than fine there.

really interested in who we pick up though.

There is a world of difference offensively between Mitch and Ihart. Mitch is only a dunker who is a foul line liability

Also talk Bucks willing to move Lopez.

Garrett2010PSD wrote:The best Center we could probably get is Jarrett Allen. Cleveland has been rumored to want to make a big move for a while now.

No way to get anyone at these salary slots now without trading away our NovaCore or trading Mitch, which makes no sense if you are trying to ADD center depth.