VDesai wrote:The Mitch decision is far from obvious. Obvious impact and role, but completely a wild card from an injury standpoint. Defensive oriented 5s also not the hottest market in terms of salary or trade packages. Will be fascinating to see what happens with him and this team in the future.

IN the now, I feel like in this rehab, he came back a bit more mobile and was showing signs of having better touch around the rim initially.

I have a different take. You need to only find a team or 2 who NEEDS that type of player and that's that. We know they are out there. Phoenix traded for Nick Richards. Lakers did their thing with Williams until they didn't; they need a specialized 5.

Are there buyers out there for Mitch's type of talent? I think there are enough to create a market, and that's all that is needed.

Lakers. NOP. OKC went hard after a C last year.

Mitch has near solidified that he is a solid playoff player. Still a risk but he has performed at a high level, and that'll be good enough for a desperate enough of a team. He is one of one in this league for his archetype.

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Knicks can make a trade for a 20M player with Mitch, Tucker, and Deuce and/or Dadiet/Kolek.

I'd rather let Bridges contract expire or trade him, and keep MItch/Diadet/Kolek.

In my defense I forgot that he had another year.

There is no defense for letting a contract expire. Zero GM's in the NBA left Mikak's contract expire, that's what gets you fired.

Not supposed to eat the soap Martin

Im ready to move on from Bridges wether it makes sense or not. Felt the same way about Allan Houston. A good player who should be coming off the bench but probably wont.

Letting a player of Mikal's caliber walk after you know what they gave up for him and his close relationship with Brunson is a thousand layers of dumb.

Dislike a player all you want but let's not be foolish just sot show your own dislike for someone.

I dont dislike Bridges, I dislike his place in the rotation. For what he's going to be paid to re-up, too much spectating as a starter.

I think he would have a real shot at 6th man of the year. Have said it for months. You dont say that about a player you dislike.

DLeethal wrote:Knicks can make a trade for a 20M player with Mitch, Tucker, and Deuce and/or Dadiet/Kolek.

Technically yes, but they would still need to replace those roster spots and probably don’t want to hit the second apron. It becomes challenging to trade for another player with a salary that high.

Philc1 wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Mitch 13M, Deuce 4.7M, Tucker 1.8M, Dadiet 1.8M, Kolek 2M.

And we are somehow packaging that for what? Deuce I agree is excellent trade bait but I’d better get back an upgrade and not some flashy name who is past his prime that’s Isiah level nonsense.

Im not here to bring every conceivable trade opportunity to the table. There are dozens you can think of. Lakers have pieces and I like Desmond Bane a lot. Those are two teams that are gonna be active on trade market.

HofstraBBall wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Knicks can make a trade for a 20M player with Mitch, Tucker, and Deuce and/or Dadiet/Kolek.

I'd rather let Bridges contract expire or trade him, and keep MItch/Diadet/Kolek.

In my defense I forgot that he had another year.

There is no defense for letting a contract expire. Zero GM's in the NBA left Mikak's contract expire, that's what gets you fired.

Not supposed to eat the soap Martin

Im ready to move on from Bridges wether it makes sense or not. Felt the same way about Allan Houston. A good player who should be coming off the bench but probably wont.

Letting a player of Mikal's caliber walk after you know what they gave up for him and his close relationship with Brunson is a thousand layers of dumb.

Dislike a player all you want but let's not be foolish just sot show your own dislike for someone.

I dont dislike Bridges, I dislike his place in the rotation. For what he's going to be paid to re-up, too much spectating as a starter.

I think he would have a real shot at 6th man of the year. Have said it for months. You dont say that about a player you dislike.

You lost me at “Houston should have been coming off the bench” lol.
A point about Bridges. Have said all year that he is just a role player. Even mentioned Deuce should start over him in last game and have Bridges come off the bench.
What IF the issues we see are scheme oriented? What IF he changes his mindset. Thought Divo was better with the starting unit because he would still look for his own shot and not automatically defer to Randle and Brunson. At the end of the day, we have 5 valuable picks for him. So what would be the best return on investment? Involve him further in offensive schemes? Work with him to be more effective and aggressive? Or cut ties and take a loss?

Again, not a fan of his but thinking best way to get the most out of the trade.

We had Sprewell who was one of the best two way SGs in the league. Instead of bringing Houston off the bench, JVG moved Spree to SF, where he had to defend bigger players.

I think part of the problem is the way Brunson plays which is a lot like Melo. Use up most of the clock, and find a teammate if there is no good look with the shot clock running out. I think Bridges needs the ball more to succeed, and thats hard to do next to a high usage player like JB.

Bridges seems too often content to let the game come to him, instead of crashing the boards in traffic, put back dunks. Not David Lee-bounds. Just not aggressive enough as a starter. He could come back next season with a more aggressive mindset. Lets hope.

DLeethal wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:Mitch is not untouchable, and I think Huki will be ready to contribute next year, he already showed more than Sims ever did.

but just hard to envision who we'd trade Mitch for that would give us similar impact at that price.

I just think you have to explore it, it would be stupid not to. His value is going to be sky high this offseason, and he will remain one of the riskier players in the league with injuries, and he's going into a lame duck contract year. But he's pretty deadly in this 15-20 minute backup role, so keeping him is an option as well.

I think there is no doubt Knicks would have moved Mitch at the beginning of the year for a C they would count on for more than the 17 regular season games but I also wouldn't put it past this FO that they were also asking most every other team what they thought of Mitch just in general and what his return value wss.

It'll be a good lead in to this summer.