Nalod wrote:Hindsignt. We blast them if we lose him yet we’d blast the team if they upped him before the season and he got hurt.

Teams lose players all the time without compensation. Sometimes you get caught in a squeeze. Fact is Leon, Perry, Aller whomever has figure in their head before during, and after the season based on what he is. I’d sign him to what ever it takes as long as I can trade him down the road. That seems to be the type of decison you want. Can you move him if someone became available?

I can bang my head on the table all day but I’d defer to Aller who gonna crunch the numbers. At the end of the day Mitch and his agent have to agree.

Me? I like his game but he has no offensive game. Can’t play him in last two minutes because his FT%. That keeps his price down. I don’t go over 15mil. But im guessing.

So how does it work. We offer 15 and somebody else offers more. Can we match and he stays or is the choice up to Mitch, assuming the pay is equal. Similar to bullock correct? What Dallas gave him is exactly what we wanted to give him. And he chose Dallas right? I’m confused on rumors vs facts

blkexec wrote:

Nalod wrote:Hindsignt. We blast them if we lose him yet we’d blast the team if they upped him before the season and he got hurt.

Teams lose players all the time without compensation. Sometimes you get caught in a squeeze. Fact is Leon, Perry, Aller whomever has figure in their head before during, and after the season based on what he is. I’d sign him to what ever it takes as long as I can trade him down the road. That seems to be the type of decison you want. Can you move him if someone became available?

I can bang my head on the table all day but I’d defer to Aller who gonna crunch the numbers. At the end of the day Mitch and his agent have to agree.

Me? I like his game but he has no offensive game. Can’t play him in last two minutes because his FT%. That keeps his price down. I don’t go over 15mil. But im guessing.

So how does it work. We offer 15 and somebody else offers more. Can we match and he stays or is the choice up to Mitch, assuming the pay is equal. Similar to bullock correct? What Dallas gave him is exactly what we wanted to give him. And he chose Dallas right? I’m confused on rumors vs facts

Mitch is NOT a RFA, so we can't match and keep.

Dallas gave Bullock a 3 year mostly guaranteed contract (3rd year is half money guaranteed), the Knicks probably only offered him a 2 year deal with a 3rd year team option.

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:I would match any offer up to $15m per year and if he doesn't get offers that high - I would offer him $12m. If he gets $15m or higher (or decides to leave) - of course we should go for a sign and trade. I see this happening with Dallas since they are reportedly interested and they have Brunson in possibly a similar situation.

I'm not sure it works like that. He's a UFA so I don't think the Knicks can match. Bird rights or not his max is capped at 48. If Detroit offers him a 60/4 contact, we are screwed. Robert Williams and Jarrett Allen are the baselines.

So your understanding is not correct.

Today, all the Knicks can offer Mitch is a 4 year contract up to about $50M.

But they have his Bird Rights, so after June they can offer him a 5 year deal at whatever they want. Other teams can only offer him a 4 year deal in June.

Respect👍 The thing about a correct answer, it sounds right. I will then take back my statement about giving him whatever he wants. I think something like the Allen deal is reasonable 80/4.

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/utah-jazz/rudy-gobert-13340/cash-earnings/

I agree, his agent should be comping it. Question is how does knicks FO see it? Or Dallas? Detroit? Teams rumored with interest.
What is not seen is time missed in the previous two seasons.
Is Rudy the prototypical center now or the Unicorn Joker/enbiid/Vooch type that can shoot?

Funny, Bargnani was way ahead of his time!LOL. Injuries really hurt his career of course.

foosballnick wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=goberru01&p1yrfrom=2016&player_id2=robinmi01&p2yrfrom=2022

If I'm Mitchell's agent, I'm humping the Gobert comparison.

If I'm the Knicks FO I look at the entirety of Mitch's career and impact to the team to date when evaluating how much to offer him. This includes his availability (injury history) as well as the fact that he played only 31 games last year and the team finished 4th an has been largely available this year and the team is out of the running. This tells me that although his advanced stats may be comparable to Gobert's early career - there are other positions of need with the Knicks which have higher impact on winning/losing (i.e. point Guard and Rose's performance last year having a higher degree of impact on wins and losses). Personally I want to keep Mitch - but his salary should not come at the expense of not being able to fill the need at PG.

Detroit has eyes on Mitch, they have a ton of money and he would be great there. We will see.

The cap space thing is done for the Knicks. That ship sailed last year. #1 thing now is keeping talent, developing guys and nailing the draft.

foosballnick wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=goberru01&p1yrfrom=2016&player_id2=robinmi01&p2yrfrom=2022

If I'm Mitchell's agent, I'm humping the Gobert comparison.

If I'm the Knicks FO I look at the entirety of Mitch's career and impact to the team to date when evaluating how much to offer him. This includes his availability (injury history) as well as the fact that he played only 31 games last year and the team finished 4th an has been largely available this year and the team is out of the running. This tells me that although his advanced stats may be comparable to Gobert's early career - there are other positions of need with the Knicks which have higher impact on winning/losing (i.e. point Guard and Rose's performance last year having a higher degree of impact on wins and losses). Personally I want to keep Mitch - but his salary should not come at the expense of not being able to fill the need at PG.

You aren’t paying Mitch based on past performance. That’s what poorly run franchises do. You pay him based on his potential to produce for you in the future

A much more accurate comparison is Marcus Camby not Rudy Gobert. Scott Layden gave up on Camby in 2001 because he was considered injury prone and missed a big chunk of the prior season in which the team missed the playoffs. Trading Camby was a stupid idea, set the Knicks back years and Camby won DPOY and had a long career in the nba as one of the league’s best defenders for another 10+ seasons

Give Mitch a legit PG not only will he continue to be a defensive beast he will become a lob dunk machine

foosballnick wrote:

fishmike wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=goberru01&p1yrfrom=2016&player_id2=robinmi01&p2yrfrom=2022

If I'm Mitchell's agent, I'm humping the Gobert comparison.

If I'm the Knicks FO I look at the entirety of Mitch's career and impact to the team to date when evaluating how much to offer him. This includes his availability (injury history) as well as the fact that he played only 31 games last year and the team finished 4th an has been largely available this year and the team is out of the running. This tells me that although his advanced stats may be comparable to Gobert's early career - there are other positions of need with the Knicks which have higher impact on winning/losing (i.e. point Guard and Rose's performance last year having a higher degree of impact on wins and losses). Personally I want to keep Mitch - but his salary should not come at the expense of not being able to fill the need at PG.

thats all nice but its the NBA, not the office. Players get contracts based on what they can do, and often they are paid on the hope of what they can do. Things like injury history may shy some away, but nothing is more valuable than impact talent and Mitch's size and athleticism are special. Paul George, Kahwi, Durant, Irving, Hayward, Blake... tons of guys get big money coming off injuries because if you can to a post season with them healthy its all worth it.

Detroit has eyes on Mitch, they have a ton of money and he would be great there. We will see.

The cap space thing is done for the Knicks. That ship sailed last year. #1 thing now is keeping talent, developing guys and nailing the draft.

Point was not to let Mitch go....but rather not to break the bank to re-sign him. If Detroit wants to lay down $20M per year - I would let him fly. IMO unless you have to 2 or 3 superstars to pay, the Cap always has to be managed and you cannot afford to significantly overpay guys who are not superstars.

fishmike wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

fishmike wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=goberru01&p1yrfrom=2016&player_id2=robinmi01&p2yrfrom=2022

If I'm Mitchell's agent, I'm humping the Gobert comparison.

If I'm the Knicks FO I look at the entirety of Mitch's career and impact to the team to date when evaluating how much to offer him. This includes his availability (injury history) as well as the fact that he played only 31 games last year and the team finished 4th an has been largely available this year and the team is out of the running. This tells me that although his advanced stats may be comparable to Gobert's early career - there are other positions of need with the Knicks which have higher impact on winning/losing (i.e. point Guard and Rose's performance last year having a higher degree of impact on wins and losses). Personally I want to keep Mitch - but his salary should not come at the expense of not being able to fill the need at PG.

thats all nice but its the NBA, not the office. Players get contracts based on what they can do, and often they are paid on the hope of what they can do. Things like injury history may shy some away, but nothing is more valuable than impact talent and Mitch's size and athleticism are special. Paul George, Kahwi, Durant, Irving, Hayward, Blake... tons of guys get big money coming off injuries because if you can to a post season with them healthy its all worth it.

Detroit has eyes on Mitch, they have a ton of money and he would be great there. We will see.

The cap space thing is done for the Knicks. That ship sailed last year. #1 thing now is keeping talent, developing guys and nailing the draft.

Point was not to let Mitch go....but rather not to break the bank to re-sign him. If Detroit wants to lay down $20M per year - I would let him fly. IMO unless you have to 2 or 3 superstars to pay, the Cap always has to be managed and you cannot afford to signific

antly overpay guys who are not superstars.

why? What does that get you aside from losing your starting center? Letting him walk does nothing for the Knicks. Mitch is 23. Bring him back.

Let me frame it another way. Lets imagine Detroit offers Mitch $20M over 4 years. As GM you are saying you would counter higher....think $20M over 5 years. Then the Knicks would also have to re-sign RJ to a max extension probably over $20M as he will be eligible for up to 25% of the cap.

So if you go this route you will have.....

Randle @ up to $30M through 25/26
Mitch @ $20M through 26/27
RJ @ >$20M likely through 25/26
EF @ >$18M through 23/24

You won't be able to bring in or pay a PG.......you winning with that core as most of your salary cap?

foosballnick wrote:
Let me frame it another way. Lets imagine Detroit offers Mitch $20M over 4 years. As GM you are saying you would counter higher....think $20M over 5 years. Then the Knicks would also have to re-sign RJ to a max extension probably over $20M as he will be eligible for up to 25% of the cap.

So if you go this route you will have.....

Randle @ up to $30M through 25/26
Mitch @ $20M through 26/27
RJ @ >$20M likely through 25/26
EF @ >$18M through 23/24

You won't be able to bring in or pay a PG.......you winning with that core as most of your salary cap?

Let me frame it another way- Robinson or not the Knicks are already capped out for next season- they will be limited to the 10 million non tax payer MLE. Since you want to open space, let's assume the Knicks don't and add 8 million in salary from their first round picks.

Booya! We enter FA with 45 million in salary and 80 million in cap space. Our roster has four guys- Randle and Fournier, plus the 2022 rookies But RJ cap hold is 33 million. Is RJ going to cut a deal before before RFA for less than that. Why would he? So unless your plan is to let RJ walk, that figure goes up to 77 million. Toppin Quick Grimes McBride have team options for 15 million. Are we letting them walk too? Keep them and we are at 92- still enough for for a 33 million slot.

What about Cam? He has an 18 million cap hold. I don't think it's a win for the franchise if he ends up walking for nothing. One season and 10 games isn't an ideal return. Let's hope he's good enough that we want to keep him. So now we have 15 million in cap space. Rose has a team option for 15 million as well, but let's assume we let him walk.

You can rework the numbers and show me a different way but it seems that, barring trades, you value 5 million extra in cap space in 2023 (remember the NTP MLE is 10 million) over keeping Robinson. Seems dicey.

Jmpasq wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

fishmike wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

fishmike wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=goberru01&p1yrfrom=2016&player_id2=robinmi01&p2yrfrom=2022

If I'm Mitchell's agent, I'm humping the Gobert comparison.

If I'm the Knicks FO I look at the entirety of Mitch's career and impact to the team to date when evaluating how much to offer him. This includes his availability (injury history) as well as the fact that he played only 31 games last year and the team finished 4th an has been largely available this year and the team is out of the running. This tells me that although his advanced stats may be comparable to Gobert's early career - there are other positions of need with the Knicks which have higher impact on winning/losing (i.e. point Guard and Rose's performance last year having a higher degree of impact on wins and losses). Personally I want to keep Mitch - but his salary should not come at the expense of not being able to fill the need at PG.

thats all nice but its the NBA, not the office. Players get contracts based on what they can do, and often they are paid on the hope of what they can do. Things like injury history may shy some away, but nothing is more valuable than impact talent and Mitch's size and athleticism are special. Paul George, Kahwi, Durant, Irving, Hayward, Blake... tons of guys get big money coming off injuries because if you can to a post season with them healthy its all worth it.

Detroit has eyes on Mitch, they have a ton of money and he would be great there. We will see.

The cap space thing is done for the Knicks. That ship sailed last year. #1 thing now is keeping talent, developing guys and nailing the draft.

Point was not to let Mitch go....but rather not to break the bank to re-sign him. If Detroit wants to lay down $20M per year - I would let him fly. IMO unless you have to 2 or 3 superstars to pay, the Cap always has to be managed and you cannot afford to signific

antly overpay guys who are not superstars.

why? What does that get you aside from losing your starting center? Letting him walk does nothing for the Knicks. Mitch is 23. Bring him back.

Let me frame it another way. Lets imagine Detroit offers Mitch $20M over 4 years. As GM you are saying you would counter higher....think $20M over 5 years. Then the Knicks would also have to re-sign RJ to a max extension probably over $20M as he will be eligible for up to 25% of the cap.

So if you go this route you will have.....

Randle @ up to $30M through 25/26
Mitch @ $20M through 26/27
RJ @ >$20M likely through 25/26
EF @ >$18M through 23/24

You won't be able to bring in or pay a PG.......you winning with that core as most of your salary cap?

It would be Isiah Thomas all over again. Highest payroll in the league and in the lottery. RJ is nowhere near a max player either

Uh no we would be paying young developing players to spend their primes here. We just need a PG and we will be back in the playoffs next season

If it was Isiah again we’d a traded RJ and Mitch for Dame and then given him a max extension

Philc1 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=goberru01&p1yrfrom=2016&player_id2=robinmi01&p2yrfrom=2022

If I'm Mitchell's agent, I'm humping the Gobert comparison.

If I'm the Knicks FO I look at the entirety of Mitch's career and impact to the team to date when evaluating how much to offer him. This includes his availability (injury history) as well as the fact that he played only 31 games last year and the team finished 4th an has been largely available this year and the team is out of the running. This tells me that although his advanced stats may be comparable to Gobert's early career - there are other positions of need with the Knicks which have higher impact on winning/losing (i.e. point Guard and Rose's performance last year having a higher degree of impact on wins and losses). Personally I want to keep Mitch - but his salary should not come at the expense of not being able to fill the need at PG.

You aren’t paying Mitch based on past performance. That’s what poorly run franchises do. You pay him based on his potential to produce for you in the future

A much more accurate comparison is Marcus Camby not Rudy Gobert. Scott Layden gave up on Camby in 2001 because he was considered injury prone and missed a big chunk of the prior season in which the team missed the playoffs. Trading Camby was a stupid idea, set the Knicks back years and Camby won DPOY and had a long career in the nba as one of the league’s best defenders for another 10+ seasons

Give Mitch a legit PG not only will he continue to be a defensive beast he will become a lob dunk machine

I disagree with the first bold. Camby had a reliable 18ft jumper and was able to play with his back to the basket, two things Robinson seems to lack. A better comparison is D. Jordan and we are all witnessing how much his offensive production has dropped since he “lost” his hops.

I’m with you on the second bold though. With a legit playmaker on the ball, Mitch will be a consistent threat with lobs.
With that said, Sims looks very much like Robinson in his first year and feel he can fill that “lob threat” role if Robinson walks. The Knicks will be starting over in the developmental process but I think that’s the best route to go if Robinson demands 20mil a year