jskinny35 wrote:I like Mitch as he represents a hidden 2nd round gem and costs so little right now. I will say it seems we are committed to Randle and with the limited floor spacing and lack of outside shooters - maybe this combo doesn't bring out the strengths of each player. If we do pursue a Lavine deal - maybe we should consider expanding it to try to acquire Lauri or Kornet as well. While neither are anywhere near the defense Mitch brings - they space the floor and are great outside shooters which would help out offensively. Of course if we could somehow convince Mitch (or coach) to shoot from outside of 3 feet it could potentially solve many issues and make Mitch much more valuable. Maybe start an online movement titled "Let Mitch shoot?"

I've always thought that trading one problem for another isn't really beneficial in the long term.

Julius and Obi are the PFs on the team and neither are going to be mistaken for defensive players. Removing Mitch or the likes of Noel will make things much worse for a coach who has let us know defense is first priority.

Got to build upwards, not trade problems

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:I like Mitch as he represents a hidden 2nd round gem and costs so little right now. I will say it seems we are committed to Randle and with the limited floor spacing and lack of outside shooters - maybe this combo doesn't bring out the strengths of each player. If we do pursue a Lavine deal - maybe we should consider expanding it to try to acquire Lauri or Kornet as well. While neither are anywhere near the defense Mitch brings - they space the floor and are great outside shooters which would help out offensively. Of course if we could somehow convince Mitch (or coach) to shoot from outside of 3 feet it could potentially solve many issues and make Mitch much more valuable. Maybe start an online movement titled "Let Mitch shoot?"

I've always thought that trading one problem for another isn't really beneficial in the long term.

Julius and Obi are the PFs on the team and neither are going to be mistaken for defensive players. Removing Mitch or the likes of Noel will make things much worse for a coach who has let us know defense is first priority.

Got to build upwards, not trade problems

nyvector16 wrote:I was thinking about this very question based on the timing of his new contract.

In my opinion the ideal trade for Mitch would be with Warriors for Wiseman...
I think a straight up trade would work for both sides..

Mitch is closer to being ready for the Warriors plans and Wiseman fits us long-term both talent and contract wise.

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:I like Mitch as he represents a hidden 2nd round gem and costs so little right now. I will say it seems we are committed to Randle and with the limited floor spacing and lack of outside shooters - maybe this combo doesn't bring out the strengths of each player. If we do pursue a Lavine deal - maybe we should consider expanding it to try to acquire Lauri or Kornet as well. While neither are anywhere near the defense Mitch brings - they space the floor and are great outside shooters which would help out offensively. Of course if we could somehow convince Mitch (or coach) to shoot from outside of 3 feet it could potentially solve many issues and make Mitch much more valuable. Maybe start an online movement titled "Let Mitch shoot?"

I've always thought that trading one problem for another isn't really beneficial in the long term.

Julius and Obi are the PFs on the team and neither are going to be mistaken for defensive players. Removing Mitch or the likes of Noel will make things much worse for a coach who has let us know defense is first priority.

Got to build upwards, not trade problems

Don't disagree as that trade would create worse defense. Ideally Mitch starts shooting to at least improve floor spacing somewhat.

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:I like Mitch as he represents a hidden 2nd round gem and costs so little right now. I will say it seems we are committed to Randle and with the limited floor spacing and lack of outside shooters - maybe this combo doesn't bring out the strengths of each player. If we do pursue a Lavine deal - maybe we should consider expanding it to try to acquire Lauri or Kornet as well. While neither are anywhere near the defense Mitch brings - they space the floor and are great outside shooters which would help out offensively. Of course if we could somehow convince Mitch (or coach) to shoot from outside of 3 feet it could potentially solve many issues and make Mitch much more valuable. Maybe start an online movement titled "Let Mitch shoot?"

I've always thought that trading one problem for another isn't really beneficial in the long term.

Julius and Obi are the PFs on the team and neither are going to be mistaken for defensive players. Removing Mitch or the likes of Noel will make things much worse for a coach who has let us know defense is first priority.

Got to build upwards, not trade problems

Defense can only take you so far as we are witnessing.

Look how The clippers built there team, with players that can play multiple positions, and shoot from all over the place.

They could have had anybody playing center, Ibaka and Patterson are no bigger theN Randle

I don't care who you are, if your playing FOR Thibs you will play some kind of decent defense even if you suck at it.

If you don't have stretch bigs and shooterS, they will zone defense you to death

knicks1248 wrote:

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:I like Mitch as he represents a hidden 2nd round gem and costs so little right now. I will say it seems we are committed to Randle and with the limited floor spacing and lack of outside shooters - maybe this combo doesn't bring out the strengths of each player. If we do pursue a Lavine deal - maybe we should consider expanding it to try to acquire Lauri or Kornet as well. While neither are anywhere near the defense Mitch brings - they space the floor and are great outside shooters which would help out offensively. Of course if we could somehow convince Mitch (or coach) to shoot from outside of 3 feet it could potentially solve many issues and make Mitch much more valuable. Maybe start an online movement titled "Let Mitch shoot?"

I've always thought that trading one problem for another isn't really beneficial in the long term.

Julius and Obi are the PFs on the team and neither are going to be mistaken for defensive players. Removing Mitch or the likes of Noel will make things much worse for a coach who has let us know defense is first priority.

Got to build upwards, not trade problems

Defense can only take you so far as we are witnessing.

Look how The clippers built there team, with players that can play multiple positions, and shoot from all over the place.

They could have had anybody playing center, Ibaka and Patterson are no bigger theN Randle

I don't care who you are, if your playing FOR Thibs you will play some kind of decent defense even if you suck at it.

If you don't have stretch bigs and shooterS, they will zone defense you to death

FALSE. Go look at the Twolves teams with KAT.

You have to have guys that will commit to it and have skill at it.

knicks1248 wrote:

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:I like Mitch as he represents a hidden 2nd round gem and costs so little right now. I will say it seems we are committed to Randle and with the limited floor spacing and lack of outside shooters - maybe this combo doesn't bring out the strengths of each player. If we do pursue a Lavine deal - maybe we should consider expanding it to try to acquire Lauri or Kornet as well. While neither are anywhere near the defense Mitch brings - they space the floor and are great outside shooters which would help out offensively. Of course if we could somehow convince Mitch (or coach) to shoot from outside of 3 feet it could potentially solve many issues and make Mitch much more valuable. Maybe start an online movement titled "Let Mitch shoot?"

I've always thought that trading one problem for another isn't really beneficial in the long term.

Julius and Obi are the PFs on the team and neither are going to be mistaken for defensive players. Removing Mitch or the likes of Noel will make things much worse for a coach who has let us know defense is first priority.

Got to build upwards, not trade problems

Defense can only take you so far as we are witnessing.

Look how The clippers built there team, with players that can play multiple positions, and shoot from all over the place.

They could have had anybody playing center, Ibaka and Patterson are no bigger theN Randle

I don't care who you are, if your playing FOR Thibs you will play some kind of decent defense even if you suck at it.

If you don't have stretch bigs and shooterS, they will zone defense you to death

martin wrote:

Uptown wrote:

nyvector16 wrote:I was thinking about this very question based on the timing of his new contract.

In my opinion the ideal trade for Mitch would be with Warriors for Wiseman...
I think a straight up trade would work for both sides..

Mitch is closer to being ready for the Warriors plans and Wiseman fits us long-term both talent and contract wise.

Wiseman is a better upside than Mitch and will be on a rookie contract for several more years while Mitch is due for a re-up soon. So, giving up the better player on a more cap friendly contract will benefit the Warriors, how?

Exactly. I wonder though what types of picks GS would ask from the Knicks.

Would the Knicks consider Mitch plus the worse of the 2021 first round picks for Wiseman? Maybe a 2023 2nd round pick too? IDK

Seems like this would have been an option for both GS and the Knicks on draft night. One that was probably considered. Yet the Knicks thought a bigger need was Ball/PG and were happy with MR. Do not see any reason why their view on MR has changed.

Feel this is just another stealth Christian Woods thread by Briggs. Lol

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

Uptown wrote:

nyvector16 wrote:I was thinking about this very question based on the timing of his new contract.

In my opinion the ideal trade for Mitch would be with Warriors for Wiseman...
I think a straight up trade would work for both sides..

Mitch is closer to being ready for the Warriors plans and Wiseman fits us long-term both talent and contract wise.

Wiseman is a better upside than Mitch and will be on a rookie contract for several more years while Mitch is due for a re-up soon. So, giving up the better player on a more cap friendly contract will benefit the Warriors, how?

Exactly. I wonder though what types of picks GS would ask from the Knicks.

Would the Knicks consider Mitch plus the worse of the 2021 first round picks for Wiseman? Maybe a 2023 2nd round pick too? IDK

Seems like this would have been an option for both GS and the Knicks on draft night. One that was probably considered. Yet the Knicks thought a bigger need was Ball/PG and were happy with MR. Do not see any reason why their view on MR has changed.

Feel this is just another stealth Christian Woods thread by Briggs. Lol

I would say that the coaching staff and front office now have more information to work with in regards to Mitch - this whole season - and will make another determination again. But yeah I agree with what you are saying

It's cool to keep mich if you already have a Guards, wings and a stretch big on board.

Why would anyone be opposed to using mitch in a trade to upgrade another position.

I'm not suggesting we trade him for the sake of draft picks or another avg player. I just know we can't bank on Free agency regardless of how much cap we have, that's pretty obvious at this point.

I thought the the knicks would traded Mitch and frank plus our 8th for the GSW #2, and still have enough Cap to sign Noel and Woods