martin wrote:Guys like Mitch and Ja have been blessed with elite athleticism. And generally, this is the biggest difference in why they are where they are.

Mitch has barely started that process, Ja probably been doing it for last decade.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/Mike_Schmitz/status/1498663110655168515

martin, Good research on Mitchell's background. Remember his trainer during his year off basically turned out to be a con man as well.

There was a great video at the draft of Ja's dad working him out. I think he had tires on the court that Ja had to step through before making his shot. Not everyone can be so lucky.

I'm actually OK with overpaying Mitchell a bit. He's been underpaid his first four seasons.

gradyandrew wrote:While Robinson only averages 8.7 boards per game, almost half are on the offensive end (4 per game). A lot of Randle's rebounds are a result of Robinson boxing out. As a team the Knicks are 5 in ORB% and 2 in DRB%.

Agree with this entirely. Let’s get the man a solid offseason. He turns 24 on April 1.

Panos wrote:I find it very interesting that so many people on this board claim to want to "develop the yoots", but then no one wants to sign the players to extensions.
What is the point of this cycle? He's worth too much? Isn't that a good thing?
Here is our first draft pick that is arguably a starting level player, and... what? We'll catch the next bus?
It all just seems like self-flaggelation.

So long as Mitch is healthy there is always a team and a market for rim protection. The guy isnt gonna ask for the max. Bring him back and keep building this thing up.

fishmike wrote:

Panos wrote:I find it very interesting that so many people on this board claim to want to "develop the yoots", but then no one wants to sign the players to extensions.
What is the point of this cycle? He's worth too much? Isn't that a good thing?
Here is our first draft pick that is arguably a starting level player, and... what? We'll catch the next bus?
It all just seems like self-flaggelation.

while that sounds like something that might make for a fun Friday night I totally agree... To me the mistake the Knicks can afford to make is missing the market and overpaying to keep talent. Much different from the days of overspending in trades and draft picks to then overpay the player as well.

So long as Mitch is healthy there is always a team and a market for rim protection. The guy isnt gonna ask for the max. Bring him back and keep building this thing up.

I have a feeling that Mitch is going to ask for a lot (i.e. close to $20M per). Hoping I'm wrong because I really like the kid and want him on the Knicks. The same people clamoring to keep Mitch at $20M over 5 year will be the first in line during a losing streak next season to want to fire the FO for overpaying and locking into Mitch as an untradeable contract or wondering why he's taking away minutes from Simms. Sound familiar?

Martin's post was spot on. Locking into a 5 year contract on Mitch comes down to how much of a desire to further learn and develop the Knicks perceive he wants. Does he want to continue to mainly rely on his athleticism or is he a gym rat who is also working on his low post moves, foul shots and short jumpers? That is the $100M question.

foosballnick wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Panos wrote:I find it very interesting that so many people on this board claim to want to "develop the yoots", but then no one wants to sign the players to extensions.
What is the point of this cycle? He's worth too much? Isn't that a good thing?
Here is our first draft pick that is arguably a starting level player, and... what? We'll catch the next bus?
It all just seems like self-flaggelation.

while that sounds like something that might make for a fun Friday night I totally agree... To me the mistake the Knicks can afford to make is missing the market and overpaying to keep talent. Much different from the days of overspending in trades and draft picks to then overpay the player as well.

So long as Mitch is healthy there is always a team and a market for rim protection. The guy isnt gonna ask for the max. Bring him back and keep building this thing up.

I have a feeling that Mitch is going to ask for a lot (i.e. close to $20M per). Hoping I'm wrong because I really like the kid and want him on the Knicks. The same people clamoring to keep Mitch at $20M over 5 year will be the first in line during a losing streak next season to want to fire the FO for overpaying and locking into Mitch as an untradeable contract or wondering why he's taking away minutes from Simms. Sound familiar?

Martin's post was spot on. Locking into a 5 year contract on Mitch comes down to how much of a desire to further learn and develop the Knicks perceive he wants. Does he want to continue to mainly rely on his athleticism or is he a gym rat who is also working on his low post moves, foul shots and short jumpers? That is the $100M question.

What comparisons would Mitch's agent have to ask for $20M per?

foosballnick wrote:

martin wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Panos wrote:I find it very interesting that so many people on this board claim to want to "develop the yoots", but then no one wants to sign the players to extensions.
What is the point of this cycle? He's worth too much? Isn't that a good thing?
Here is our first draft pick that is arguably a starting level player, and... what? We'll catch the next bus?
It all just seems like self-flaggelation.

while that sounds like something that might make for a fun Friday night I totally agree... To me the mistake the Knicks can afford to make is missing the market and overpaying to keep talent. Much different from the days of overspending in trades and draft picks to then overpay the player as well.

So long as Mitch is healthy there is always a team and a market for rim protection. The guy isnt gonna ask for the max. Bring him back and keep building this thing up.

I have a feeling that Mitch is going to ask for a lot (i.e. close to $20M per). Hoping I'm wrong because I really like the kid and want him on the Knicks. The same people clamoring to keep Mitch at $20M over 5 year will be the first in line during a losing streak next season to want to fire the FO for overpaying and locking into Mitch as an untradeable contract or wondering why he's taking away minutes from Simms. Sound familiar?

Martin's post was spot on. Locking into a 5 year contract on Mitch comes down to how much of a desire to further learn and develop the Knicks perceive he wants. Does he want to continue to mainly rely on his athleticism or is he a gym rat who is also working on his low post moves, foul shots and short jumpers? That is the $100M question.

What comparisons would Mitch's agent have to ask for $20M per?

Guessing he'll use Gobert at a similar point in their career and Capella (who will make just slightly under $20M). Will probably attempt to leverage Detroit and OKC caps space as a bargaining chip. In case I did not make it clear - I would not pay Mitch more than $10M - $15M per year....somewhere in the range of Robert Williams.

Swishfm3 wrote:

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

Camby had a reliable jumper? Maybe he developed one several years after Layden gave him away