A lot in the press about Knicks passing on resigning Mitch. How do they know this?
Are we letting our starting center go? And replacing with whom? Is oft-injured Noel up to the task?
Where are you seeing this?
what press? clickbait or a real report?
Noel is the most injured player Knick I can remember in recent years, he need to go. Mitch we should resign as the max contract he can get is around 12 mil. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. Anything over 15 mil and I don't want him at that money
He will probably seek around 15 to 17
martin wrote:Where are you seeing this?
Why does it feel like you don’t read the home page articles. Who post those articles on this site? I’ve read the same information from this very site. It’s puzzling how you don’t see the same articles, but you are on point when somebody post something that’s inappropriate. I never understood that.
He’s talking about the article titled, we might pass on Mitch since we never extended him or traded him. So basically he’s in control and could walk for nothing, which would be a major blow to the FO.
blkexec wrote:martin wrote:Where are you seeing this?
Why does it feel like you don’t read the home page articles. Who post those articles on this site? I’ve read the same information from this very site. It’s puzzling how you don’t see the same articles, but you are on point when somebody post something that’s inappropriate. I never understood that.
He’s talking about the article titled, we might pass on Mitch since we never extended him or traded him. So basically he’s in control and could walk for nothing, which would be a major blow to the FO.
I'm not seeing any article about that on the Home page?
But this:
He’s talking about the article titled, we might pass on Mitch since we never extended him or traded him. So basically he’s in control and could walk for nothing, which would be a major blow to the FO.
does not equal this:
A lot in the press about Knicks passing on resigning Mitch. How do they know this?
Sure, without a contract in place it's possible he walks for nothing. That would suck. Does not means that the FO has decided against offering a new contract?
blkexec wrote:martin wrote:Where are you seeing this?
Why does it feel like you don’t read the home page articles. Who post those articles on this site? I’ve read the same information from this very site. It’s puzzling how you don’t see the same articles, but you are on point when somebody post something that’s inappropriate. I never understood that.
He’s talking about the article titled, we might pass on Mitch since we never extended him or traded him. So basically he’s in control and could walk for nothing, which would be a major blow to the FO.
I don't look at the Knicks articles cause I find most to be garbage. I inhale a lot of Knicks and bball info from different places.
There is not much out there on Knicks passing on resigning Mitch. Just not there; point it out if I have missed.
I don't know what you mean in the second para
We didn’t extend him for the simple fact that the Knicks are trying to regain some cap space this summer. He has a minimal cap hold. Once other business is taken care of, he will probably be offered a long term deal. The tiny cap hold is worth more to the Knicks right now than the security of a long term commitment. Any reporter should know this.
Knixkik wrote:We didn’t extend him for the simple fact that the Knicks are trying to regain some cap space this summer. He has a minimal cap hold. Once other business is taken care of, he will probably be offered a long term deal. The tiny cap hold is worth more to the Knicks right now than the security of a long term commitment. Any reporter should know this.
Right. OR, Mitch just didn't want to extend yet either.
after learning Derozan wanted to come here and the FO signed Fournier/Burks instead I dont have a ton of confidence but I do hope and assume we resign our center who will be 24 this offseason. He's injured a lot yes but what he can do while healthy really impacts the game and you have to bring that back at 24 years old.
fishmike wrote:after learning Derozan wanted to come here and the FO signed Fournier/Burks instead I dont have a ton of confidence but I do hope and assume we resign our center who will be 24 this offseason. He's injured a lot yes but what he can do while healthy really impacts the game and you have to bring that back at 24 years old.
Did Derozan actually say he wanted to come here? All I could find on it was the typical NY Post / Berman unnamed sources / rumor mill. I want Mitch here as well. But it depends on what salary he is seeking - what if he is asking for $20M?
Panos wrote:A lot in the press about Knicks passing on resigning Mitch. How do they know this?
Are we letting our starting center go? And replacing with whom? Is oft-injured Noel up to the task?
Writing was on the wall when the Noel extension happened. Then again when the team tried very hard to trade MRob by the deadline. Much harder to retain players who were acquired via 2nd round picks and/or UDFA.
He's not reliable to suit up consistently. He doesn't have a league average three point shot. You could argue that his defensive development got better under Thibs but he's not an all world level defender on a consistent basis. Someone in the thread is saying they see MRob getting an AAV of 15-17 and I just don't see that happening in reality.
Team has to think long term about RJ Barrett and Quickley and what it might cost to retain them. Everyone signed this offseason as a FA is coming back except Taj Gibson. That's a lot of money locked into a roster that clearly doesn't fit anymore. You can get by in the pivot at not a huge cost against your cap, lots of teams do it, but what money the Knicks do have has to go elsewhere.
martin wrote:blkexec wrote:martin wrote:Where are you seeing this?
Why does it feel like you don’t read the home page articles. Who post those articles on this site? I’ve read the same information from this very site. It’s puzzling how you don’t see the same articles, but you are on point when somebody post something that’s inappropriate. I never understood that.
He’s talking about the article titled, we might pass on Mitch since we never extended him or traded him. So basically he’s in control and could walk for nothing, which would be a major blow to the FO.
I don't look at the Knicks articles cause I find most to be garbage. I inhale a lot of Knicks and bball info from different places.
There is not much out there on Knicks passing on resigning Mitch. Just not there; point it out if I have missed.
I don't know what you mean in the second para
I don't know what the second paragraph is saying either. But below is the article I was talking about. Not saying it's the same article as the person the started this discussion. But it reminded me of the concerns this article points out.
https://empiresportsmedia.com/new-york-k...
blkexec wrote:martin wrote:blkexec wrote:martin wrote:Where are you seeing this?
Why does it feel like you don’t read the home page articles. Who post those articles on this site? I’ve read the same information from this very site. It’s puzzling how you don’t see the same articles, but you are on point when somebody post something that’s inappropriate. I never understood that.
He’s talking about the article titled, we might pass on Mitch since we never extended him or traded him. So basically he’s in control and could walk for nothing, which would be a major blow to the FO.
I don't look at the Knicks articles cause I find most to be garbage. I inhale a lot of Knicks and bball info from different places.
There is not much out there on Knicks passing on resigning Mitch. Just not there; point it out if I have missed.
I don't know what you mean in the second para
I don't know what the second paragraph is saying either. But below is the article I was talking about. Not saying it's the same article as the person the started this discussion. But it reminded me of the concerns this article points out.
https://empiresportsmedia.com/new-york-k...
Empire Media is reporting on a report from a different paper who quotes a source from maybe one of the teams who is trying to trade for Mitch.
I don't read or pay attention to Empire Media.
Mitch is an UFA. Knicks hold his bird rights. End of story.
Aside from the article mentioned above i don't have a concrete source. Just a sentiment that I've been sensing. Just thought it was worth discussing if y'all want him back and at what price.
Me personally, I'd rather the team not be searching for both a starting level PG AND a starting level center at the same time
they definitely should try to resign him but it will come down to $. He is key to defense and rebounding and if the opponent's center switches he will dunk. He is also home grown
his offense is limited but so was Deandre Jordan's and any number of others
i like Sims too
I don't like Noel for his $$. yes there are things to like about Noel but his injury history and his stone hands are big minuses especially for his salary
Panos wrote:Aside from the article mentioned above i don't have a concrete source. Just a sentiment that I've been sensing. Just thought it was worth discussing if y'all want him back and at what price.
Me personally, I'd rather the team not be searching for both a starting level PG AND a starting level center at the same time
It's more than likely that your assessment is correct on MRob.
If there's an interesting overall discussion on MRob, it's that a small number of decisions in your life young can have a massive long term ripple effect in your life. MRob likely lost 8-10 million total overall by screwing up his situation to the point where he had to avoid the Combine ( to avoid the interview phase) and ended up a 2nd round pick instead of a first round pick otherwise.
I was way off on the situation with Mitch. He will want Capella money. Looks like we are going to lose him for nothing if he is UFA. I doubt we match the roughly 18 mil contract he is going to get. Worst case scenario....damn it
martin wrote:Knixkik wrote:We didn’t extend him for the simple fact that the Knicks are trying to regain some cap space this summer. He has a minimal cap hold. Once other business is taken care of, he will probably be offered a long term deal. The tiny cap hold is worth more to the Knicks right now than the security of a long term commitment. Any reporter should know this.
Right. OR, Mitch just didn't want to extend yet either.
Absolutely possible. Just speaking from the Knicks perspective as to why there wasn’t an offer.
Blogs suck and are color many aspects.
When to sign mitch long term? He broke his foot and really did little last year, by the time he showed up this season it makes sense for him to wait.
The bulls if they got his rights would also be locked to just 55 over 4 years. What did the offer or we just assume knicks were “Stupid as always”? They really going to trade and pay that for a back up beyond this season when they have vooch?
Maybe Detroit wants him and will pay him over the extension amount. Why not wait until free agency?
Remember this guy misses a lot of games, came in and took 25 games to get his legs. What if the foot broke again?
Why can’t fans remember all this and not “We should have signed him becuase we knew he’d exceed all seasons and not break”.
This hindsight idiocy suggested by blogs is why many of us don’t read that shit. It leaves out too much.
All we get is “Knicks might let him walk” and is colored to seem like all the facts don’t matter. They do.
