Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/londonstheory/status/1987679596159053949

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:We have enough not to rely on Mitch for more than 40 games or so, if he's healthy for the playoffs he's a game changer.

His value is higher to us than it is to another team via trade.

So I think you keep him, because he's unlikely to get a huge deal. He's not a guy a team is going to sign for $20m+ and expect 60+ games and 25mpg+.

So I think he can stay hopefully something like 3/50m. Or even taking it year by year and giving him more per? maybe 1 year 18m and then go from there kinda thing.

I’m getting iHart PSD reading your post

was so happy when we got Ihart but then he got kind of underperformed, 5ppg, 6rpg his 1st season. So I kinda thought, "well this is why he's bounced around a bit, he's just a role player" was a bit better 2nd season and big in playoffs, but I never felt he'd get $30m per year. I thought we had just enough to keep him at $17m per year and 4 years and the fact that he loved it here.

That was franchise altering when he left and after his 1st season it's not what I expected.

For me, iHart was both injured his first year and trying to focus on his role, something that may not have been explicit or demanding in his previous stints. Also, the roster turnover generally kept things in flux.

Knicks find themselves in that same position with Mitch contract wise. It takes just 1 team with aspirations. OKC minus iHart probably does not a chip. Teams can see or maybe know that with Mitch, health aside.

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:We have enough not to rely on Mitch for more than 40 games or so, if he's healthy for the playoffs he's a game changer.

His value is higher to us than it is to another team via trade.

So I think you keep him, because he's unlikely to get a huge deal. He's not a guy a team is going to sign for $20m+ and expect 60+ games and 25mpg+.

So I think he can stay hopefully something like 3/50m. Or even taking it year by year and giving him more per? maybe 1 year 18m and then go from there kinda thing.

I’m getting iHart PSD reading your post

was so happy when we got Ihart but then he got kind of underperformed, 5ppg, 6rpg his 1st season. So I kinda thought, "well this is why he's bounced around a bit, he's just a role player" was a bit better 2nd season and big in playoffs, but I never felt he'd get $30m per year. I thought we had just enough to keep him at $17m per year and 4 years and the fact that he loved it here.

That was franchise altering when he left and after his 1st season it's not what I expected.

For me, iHart was both injured his first year and trying to focus on his role, something that may not have been explicit or demanding in his previous stints. Also, the roster turnover generally kept things in flux.

Knicks find themselves in that same position with Mitch contract wise. It takes just 1 team with aspirations. OKC minus iHart probably does not a chip. Teams can see or maybe know that with Mitch, health aside.

we have bird rights on Mitch, how much can we technically even pay him?

crazy that KAT vs Ihart is a legit discussion but it is. I think Ihart over KAT makes us better overall.

Totally forgot about the bird rights, good call. As long as the Knicks aren’t hard capped, which they shouldn’t be next year, they can extend Deuce and Mitch at whatever price.

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:Knicks make Semi finals with KAT.
I love Ihart but Leon did good.

iHrt joined a western conference semis team and took them to a chip

yes, and given we had no control over iHarts surge and OKC blowing out the contract it is what it is.
Sometimes you just have to be thankful for what you got.
With Mike Brown, and its early yet, this is likley the best team Mitch has been surrounded by and he looks great. IHart would also with likley better health. Mitch has been awesome but would Claxton perhaps be also?
My point is not lamenting about what happend but we succeeding anyway.

Getting iHart really opened up things for Chet. The chemistry really enhanced Chet and might have aided in him being healthy enough to contribute to the chip. Mitch we hope can do the same for KAT.

Let's talk about Mitch. He completely neutralized Wemby. Every time Wemby chucks up a 3, that's a win for the defense. Let him do stuff any 6 foot guard can do. Wemby was the difference between SA getting blown out and beating
the best. Mitch is straight up kryptonite.

Mitchell got 55% of available offensive rebounds vs. SA. That stat won't count for the regular season but no worries, MRob is getting 28% for the season. The All time record is Dennis Rodman at 20%. If oreb% were points, he'd be averaging 50 a game.

Only thing holding him back is his free throws. Any team not fouling Mitch on every play is playing stupid. He needs to swallow his pride and go granny shot. It's the difference between an 80 million and 20 million deal. Now that the Knicks are for real, smart teams are going to exploit him. Stupidity just cost every SA player 300k.

JesseDark wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:We have enough not to rely on Mitch for more than 40 games or so, if he's healthy for the playoffs he's a game changer.

His value is higher to us than it is to another team via trade.

So I think you keep him, because he's unlikely to get a huge deal. He's not a guy a team is going to sign for $20m+ and expect 60+ games and 25mpg+.

So I think he can stay hopefully something like 3/50m. Or even taking it year by year and giving him more per? maybe 1 year 18m and then go from there kinda thing.

I’m getting iHart PSD reading your post

was so happy when we got Ihart but then he got kind of underperformed, 5ppg, 6rpg his 1st season. So I kinda thought, "well this is why he's bounced around a bit, he's just a role player" was a bit better 2nd season and big in playoffs, but I never felt he'd get $30m per year. I thought we had just enough to keep him at $17m per year and 4 years and the fact that he loved it here.

That was franchise altering when he left and after his 1st season it's not what I expected.

For me, iHart was both injured his first year and trying to focus on his role, something that may not have been explicit or demanding in his previous stints. Also, the roster turnover generally kept things in flux.

Knicks find themselves in that same position with Mitch contract wise. It takes just 1 team with aspirations. OKC minus iHart probably does not a chip. Teams can see or maybe know that with Mitch, health aside.

we have bird rights on Mitch, how much can we technically even pay him?

crazy that KAT vs Ihart is a legit discussion but it is. I think Ihart over KAT makes us better overall.

Totally forgot about the bird rights, good call. As long as the Knicks aren’t hard capped, which they shouldn’t be next year, they can extend Deuce and Mitch at whatever price.

Mitch has definitely shown his worth in the Cup Championship so how much do we offer him next year?

3 years 70 million with a team option on the final year?

KEEPCAMBYNY wrote:

JesseDark wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:We have enough not to rely on Mitch for more than 40 games or so, if he's healthy for the playoffs he's a game changer.

His value is higher to us than it is to another team via trade.

So I think you keep him, because he's unlikely to get a huge deal. He's not a guy a team is going to sign for $20m+ and expect 60+ games and 25mpg+.

So I think he can stay hopefully something like 3/50m. Or even taking it year by year and giving him more per? maybe 1 year 18m and then go from there kinda thing.

I’m getting iHart PSD reading your post

was so happy when we got Ihart but then he got kind of underperformed, 5ppg, 6rpg his 1st season. So I kinda thought, "well this is why he's bounced around a bit, he's just a role player" was a bit better 2nd season and big in playoffs, but I never felt he'd get $30m per year. I thought we had just enough to keep him at $17m per year and 4 years and the fact that he loved it here.

That was franchise altering when he left and after his 1st season it's not what I expected.

For me, iHart was both injured his first year and trying to focus on his role, something that may not have been explicit or demanding in his previous stints. Also, the roster turnover generally kept things in flux.

Knicks find themselves in that same position with Mitch contract wise. It takes just 1 team with aspirations. OKC minus iHart probably does not a chip. Teams can see or maybe know that with Mitch, health aside.

we have bird rights on Mitch, how much can we technically even pay him?

crazy that KAT vs Ihart is a legit discussion but it is. I think Ihart over KAT makes us better overall.

Totally forgot about the bird rights, good call. As long as the Knicks aren’t hard capped, which they shouldn’t be next year, they can extend Deuce and Mitch at whatever price.

Mitch has definitely shown his worth in the Cup Championship so how much do we offer him next year?

3 years 70 million with a team option on the final year?

I do wonder what the discussion is with Mitch and Leon.

Mitch only plays ~50 games a year because of his injury history and then load management. Perhaps 50 healthy games is just the goal now for him to get to playoffs and then Beast.

If you are only available in that type of situation, what are the contract goals for both sides?

martin wrote:

KEEPCAMBYNY wrote:

JesseDark wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:We have enough not to rely on Mitch for more than 40 games or so, if he's healthy for the playoffs he's a game changer.

His value is higher to us than it is to another team via trade.

So I think you keep him, because he's unlikely to get a huge deal. He's not a guy a team is going to sign for $20m+ and expect 60+ games and 25mpg+.

So I think he can stay hopefully something like 3/50m. Or even taking it year by year and giving him more per? maybe 1 year 18m and then go from there kinda thing.

I’m getting iHart PSD reading your post

was so happy when we got Ihart but then he got kind of underperformed, 5ppg, 6rpg his 1st season. So I kinda thought, "well this is why he's bounced around a bit, he's just a role player" was a bit better 2nd season and big in playoffs, but I never felt he'd get $30m per year. I thought we had just enough to keep him at $17m per year and 4 years and the fact that he loved it here.

That was franchise altering when he left and after his 1st season it's not what I expected.

For me, iHart was both injured his first year and trying to focus on his role, something that may not have been explicit or demanding in his previous stints. Also, the roster turnover generally kept things in flux.

Knicks find themselves in that same position with Mitch contract wise. It takes just 1 team with aspirations. OKC minus iHart probably does not a chip. Teams can see or maybe know that with Mitch, health aside.

we have bird rights on Mitch, how much can we technically even pay him?

crazy that KAT vs Ihart is a legit discussion but it is. I think Ihart over KAT makes us better overall.

Totally forgot about the bird rights, good call. As long as the Knicks aren’t hard capped, which they shouldn’t be next year, they can extend Deuce and Mitch at whatever price.

Mitch has definitely shown his worth in the Cup Championship so how much do we offer him next year?

3 years 70 million with a team option on the final year?

I do wonder what the discussion is with Mitch and Leon.

Mitch only plays ~50 games a year because of his injury history and then load management. Perhaps 50 healthy games is just the goal now for him to get to playoffs and then Beast.

If you are only available in that type of situation, what are the contract goals for both sides?

My guess is Mitch and Dolan are BFF's.

Therefore, Mitch will be a Knick forever.