What role does Stephen Castle play here? He wants to be a PG/wants the ball in his hands. If I'm trading Mitch it's not to move up in this draft IMO.
I guess my question is does trading Mitch guarantee I-Hart is staying. Are we not limited to paying him the early bird scale which maxes at $17.5 million per year, so whether we keep Mitch or not would not seem to impact I-Hart unless he tells them he will stay for $17.5 mill only if he is guaranteed the starting center spot.
TheGame wrote:I guess my question is does trading Mitch guarantee I-Hart is staying. Are we not limited to paying him the early bird scale which maxes at $17.5 million per year, so whether we keep Mitch or not would not seem to impact I-Hart unless he tells them he will stay for $17.5 mill only if he is guaranteed the starting center spot.
In a way, it does. As much as it pains me to admit it, it doesn't make sense to to spend $30M on the center position unless you have Jokic, Embiid, Bam and, maybe, KP. Mitch is my guy and I don't feel comfortable trading him. His defensive contributions are to make up. But I can't really argue if the FO choose iHart. The tax aprons are a bitch.
Seeing how the Knicks' biggest need is for a big man, trading Mitch for a guard or a pick appears counterintuitive.
As much as keeping the platoon intact sounds great, you have to balance the budget and we can't spend 30-35M on the C position when we are about to hit the lux tax. This team proved it can be really good without Mitch and he's not reliable enough to justify the combined spend. Was pretty obvious he would be shopped.
Getting #6 for him sounds ridiculous though. Like when people were saying we would get the #2 for him and draft LaMelo Ball lol.
NGL I kind of like the idea of drafting Zach Edey. He was banging 3s at the combine and looks like he will be a legit shooter from there in his career. A nice yin/yang with iHart. Sometimes these big time college players who get overlooked as pros end up being REALLY good. i.e. Brunson, Draymond etc...
We are one of the best spots for Edey with our methodical pace, and on paper he and Brunson seem like it could be a very interesting fit if Edey ends up being a player. Thibs likes his platoon so even off the bench, Edey will have a legitimate role.
DLeethal wrote:As much as keeping the platoon intact sounds great, you have to balance the budget and we can't spend 30-35M on the C position when we are about to hit the lux tax. This team proved it can be really good without Mitch and he's not reliable enough to justify the combined spend. Was pretty obvious he would be shopped.Getting #6 for him sounds ridiculous though. Like when people were saying we would get the #2 for him and draft LaMelo Ball lol.
NGL I kind of like the idea of drafting Zach Edey. He was banging 3s at the combine and looks like he will be a legit shooter from there in his career. A nice yin/yang with iHart. Sometimes these big time college players who get overlooked as pros end up being REALLY good. i.e. Brunson, Draymond etc...
We are one of the best spots for Edey with our methodical pace, and on paper he and Brunson seem like it could be a very interesting fit if Edey ends up being a player. Thibs likes his platoon so even off the bench, Edey will have a legitimate role.
He is worth the gamble. Could fill a need as a go to guy for the 2nd unit which McBride, Hart, Bojan can play off of as an alternative to targeting a natural PG. Use the MLE on someone like Issac.
Deuce, Hart, Bojan, Issac, Edey could be a very strong 2nd unit.
Wouldn't be mad at all with a Edey, Holmes & Dunn draft.
Knicks don't make it pass Philly without Robinson on one leg out playing IHart on two. Robinson was getting DPOY buzz before his December injury and then muscled through the playoffs. I don't see the Knicks trading him when they can save more than his salary by releasing Bogdanovic.
VDesai wrote:What role does Stephen Castle play here? He wants to be a PG/wants the ball in his hands. If I'm trading Mitch it's not to move up in this draft IMO.
If I am trading Mitch and 24 for 6 and Nance, it’s so I can package the #6 and Bogs (and more as needed) for either Bridges or Markannen. Not to actually have the #6 draft pick on our roster. Basically aggregating resources to make the bigger move. Nance, for instance, would eat up Bogs minutes at backup PF. I don’t know whether this rumor has legs, but it feels like a bigger plan.
EwingsGlass wrote:VDesai wrote:What role does Stephen Castle play here? He wants to be a PG/wants the ball in his hands. If I'm trading Mitch it's not to move up in this draft IMO.
If I am trading Mitch and 24 for 6 and Nance, it’s so I can package the #6 and Bogs (and more as needed) for either Bridges or Markannen. Not to actually have the #6 draft pick on our roster. Basically aggregating resources to make the bigger move. Nance, for instance, would eat up Bogs minutes at backup PF. I don’t know whether this rumor has legs, but it feels like a bigger plan.
#6 and Bogs ain't getting it done for Lauri or Bridges. Houston (allegedly) offered to return Brooklyn's picks for Bridges and the Nets still declined. Also, Mitch and 24 seems to small a package for 6. I agree, there's got to be more to this if this rumor is even true.
I am not getting rid of Mitch. Our defense needs a rim protecting center
BigDaddyG wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:VDesai wrote:What role does Stephen Castle play here? He wants to be a PG/wants the ball in his hands. If I'm trading Mitch it's not to move up in this draft IMO.
If I am trading Mitch and 24 for 6 and Nance, it’s so I can package the #6 and Bogs (and more as needed) for either Bridges or Markannen. Not to actually have the #6 draft pick on our roster. Basically aggregating resources to make the bigger move. Nance, for instance, would eat up Bogs minutes at backup PF. I don’t know whether this rumor has legs, but it feels like a bigger plan.
#6 and Bogs ain't getting it done for Lauri or Bridges. Houston (allegedly) offered to return Brooklyn's picks for Bridges and the Nets still declined. Also, Mitch and 24 seems to small a package for 6. I agree, there's got to be more to this if this rumor is even true.
You are right. I did include the parenthetical “and more as needed”. My point is that I think 6 is more about being a moveable asset than a rotation piece.
EwingsGlass wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:VDesai wrote:What role does Stephen Castle play here? He wants to be a PG/wants the ball in his hands. If I'm trading Mitch it's not to move up in this draft IMO.
If I am trading Mitch and 24 for 6 and Nance, it’s so I can package the #6 and Bogs (and more as needed) for either Bridges or Markannen. Not to actually have the #6 draft pick on our roster. Basically aggregating resources to make the bigger move. Nance, for instance, would eat up Bogs minutes at backup PF. I don’t know whether this rumor has legs, but it feels like a bigger plan.
#6 and Bogs ain't getting it done for Lauri or Bridges. Houston (allegedly) offered to return Brooklyn's picks for Bridges and the Nets still declined. Also, Mitch and 24 seems to small a package for 6. I agree, there's got to be more to this if this rumor is even true.
You are right. I did include the parenthetical “and more as needed”. My point is that I think 6 is more about being a moveable asset than a rotation piece.
I don’t think it’s a rumor, more of an idea connecting pieces of rumors. NO is looking for a center, hey Knicks have an extra one who’s from Louisiana!
NYKBocker wrote:I am not getting rid of Mitch. Our defense needs a rim protecting center
If we have to choose Mitch or iHart, i choose iHart.
DLeethal wrote:As much as keeping the platoon intact sounds great, you have to balance the budget and we can't spend 30-35M on the C position when we are about to hit the lux tax. This team proved it can be really good without Mitch and he's not reliable enough to justify the combined spend. Was pretty obvious he would be shopped.Getting #6 for him sounds ridiculous though. Like when people were saying we would get the #2 for him and draft LaMelo Ball lol.
NGL I kind of like the idea of drafting Zach Edey. He was banging 3s at the combine and looks like he will be a legit shooter from there in his career. A nice yin/yang with iHart. Sometimes these big time college players who get overlooked as pros end up being REALLY good. i.e. Brunson, Draymond etc...
We are one of the best spots for Edey with our methodical pace, and on paper he and Brunson seem like it could be a very interesting fit if Edey ends up being a player. Thibs likes his platoon so even off the bench, Edey will have a legitimate role.
Except Hartenstein is leaving in free agency. Mitch’s contract is reasonable for what he gives you which is an excellent rim protecting defensive Center. We don’t get past the Sixers in round 1 without him and we definitely missed him in round 2.
TheGame wrote:I guess my question is does trading Mitch guarantee I-Hart is staying. Are we not limited to paying him the early bird scale which maxes at $17.5 million per year, so whether we keep Mitch or not would not seem to impact I-Hart unless he tells them he will stay for $17.5 mill only if he is guaranteed the starting center spot.
I’d rather just keep Mitch. We have him under contract 2 more years his cap hit is $14.3 million next season and then it actually decreases the year after to $12.9 mil.
Philc1 wrote:DLeethal wrote:As much as keeping the platoon intact sounds great, you have to balance the budget and we can't spend 30-35M on the C position when we are about to hit the lux tax. This team proved it can be really good without Mitch and he's not reliable enough to justify the combined spend. Was pretty obvious he would be shopped.Getting #6 for him sounds ridiculous though. Like when people were saying we would get the #2 for him and draft LaMelo Ball lol.
NGL I kind of like the idea of drafting Zach Edey. He was banging 3s at the combine and looks like he will be a legit shooter from there in his career. A nice yin/yang with iHart. Sometimes these big time college players who get overlooked as pros end up being REALLY good. i.e. Brunson, Draymond etc...
We are one of the best spots for Edey with our methodical pace, and on paper he and Brunson seem like it could be a very interesting fit if Edey ends up being a player. Thibs likes his platoon so even off the bench, Edey will have a legitimate role.
Except Hartenstein is leaving in free agency. Mitch’s contract is reasonable for what he gives you which is an excellent rim protecting defensive Center. We don’t get past the Sixers in round 1 without him and we definitely missed him in round 2.
If Hartenstein is leaving in free agency then they won’t trade Mitch, obviously.
jaydh wrote:NYKBocker wrote:I am not getting rid of Mitch. Our defense needs a rim protecting center
If we have to choose Mitch or iHart, i choose iHart.
Only one has a shot at being able to survive starter’s minutes. 
If this has any legs, I would think it's to use with bogs and other picks to flip for bridges. I don't see how a George trade works
jaydh wrote:NYKBocker wrote:I am not getting rid of Mitch. Our defense needs a rim protecting center
If we have to choose Mitch or iHart, i choose iHart.
But...we don't have to choose?
MaTT4281 wrote:jaydh wrote:NYKBocker wrote:I am not getting rid of Mitch. Our defense needs a rim protecting center
If we have to choose Mitch or iHart, i choose iHart.
But...we don't have to choose?
Yup
Philc1 wrote:TheGame wrote:I guess my question is does trading Mitch guarantee I-Hart is staying. Are we not limited to paying him the early bird scale which maxes at $17.5 million per year, so whether we keep Mitch or not would not seem to impact I-Hart unless he tells them he will stay for $17.5 mill only if he is guaranteed the starting center spot.
I’d rather just keep Mitch. We have him under contract 2 more years his cap hit is $14.3 million next season and then it actually decreases the year after to $12.9 mil.
I want to keep Mitch too primarily because of his contract. I would offer I-Hart the max we can offer ($17.5 mil) and if he does not accept, then we just look for a cheaper option. There will be 2 or 3 decent centers we can get for around $12-$13 million a year.
