Knicksfan wrote:martin wrote:It's the playmaking and space movement that the Knicks will miss.
Goga for the win!
It is going to hurt. He definitely turned himself into our best center. FO has to move on getting a good replacement.
martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:martin wrote:It's the playmaking and space movement that the Knicks will miss.
Mitch creates vertical spacing that Ihart doesn't though.
That literally doesn't matter much though. Otherwise Mitch would be considered good offensively cause he is one of the best at the vertical stuff and it hasn't enhanced his offense.
vertical spacing doesn't matter?
When you run a P&R with a big man rolling, the threat of the lob means opposing bigs have to stay on Mitch, OR someone else has to rotate over. IT MATTERS.
Mitch scores the same as Ihart, except Mitch shoots 70% for his career.
Neither are really good offensive players but to say vertical spacing doesn't matter is a reach.
Ihart had a nice passing game though, but I think with Mikal and Randle we'll be more than fine there.
really interested in who we pick up though.
GustavBahler wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:martin wrote:Honest question: Would any of you taken the $74M for 4 over the $87m for 3?I would have stayed in NY 100 out of 100 times.
Me, 100 percent, and I guarantee anyone reading this they would do the same in his position. He can set up generational wealth per freaking quickly. He gets to be a key cog on the best regular season team in the league and a team that's on the rise. I think once everyone puts down the koolaid they would say the same thing. If not then, maybe everyone would stop deluding themselves after they went home and talked to their wife
What might have kept iHart in NY was if the offer came from a cellar dweller, and not a contender. In OKC iHart gets paid with a decent shot at a ring.
BUT if Championship is what he wanted, our odds are slightly better than OKC.
We did not have any lob throwers so whatever vert spacing mtch has does not matter. Tyler might be that but he won't be in the rotation and with iHart gone Mitch will be with the starters anyway.
nycericanguy wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:martin wrote:It's the playmaking and space movement that the Knicks will miss.
Mitch creates vertical spacing that Ihart doesn't though.
That literally doesn't matter much though. Otherwise Mitch would be considered good offensively cause he is one of the best at the vertical stuff and it hasn't enhanced his offense.
vertical spacing doesn't matter?
When you run a P&R with a big man rolling, the threat of the lob means opposing bigs have to stay on Mitch, OR someone else has to rotate over. IT MATTERS.
Mitch scores the same as Ihart, except Mitch shoots 70% for his career.
Neither are really good offensive players but to say vertical spacing doesn't matter is a reach.
Ihart had a nice passing game though, but I think with Mikal and Randle we'll be more than fine there.
really interested in who we pick up though.
You get the different between matter and matter much, right? And why it hasn't added much to Mitch's capability to score, right?
franco12 wrote:GustavBahler wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:martin wrote:Honest question: Would any of you taken the $74M for 4 over the $87m for 3?I would have stayed in NY 100 out of 100 times.
Me, 100 percent, and I guarantee anyone reading this they would do the same in his position. He can set up generational wealth per freaking quickly. He gets to be a key cog on the best regular season team in the league and a team that's on the rise. I think once everyone puts down the koolaid they would say the same thing. If not then, maybe everyone would stop deluding themselves after they went home and talked to their wife
What might have kept iHart in NY was if the offer came from a cellar dweller, and not a contender. In OKC iHart gets paid with a decent shot at a ring.
BUT if Championship is what he wanted, our odds are slightly better than OKC.
Thats true,especially in the West, but iHart will be on a team that can go deep in the playoffs. That and the $$$ was enough for him to sign. IDK if ihart would have gone to a team like the Pistons.
I mean, those numbers are insane. I am more intrigued how OKC got to that number for him. Happy for him. I just need to understand how that AAV came to be. Did someone miss do their math wrong?
GustavBahler wrote:Garrett2010PSD wrote:Yeah this is a loss. I like Precious, but he is not a center.Knicks will miss Ihart's size, rebounding, and passing. He fit this team perfectly.
Bridges made the Knicks take two steps forward but losing Ihart made the Knicks take a step back.
It also doesn't help that Mitch, his replacement is injury prone.
I don't have a specific name at the moment, but I would like to see the Knicks trade Mitch, Deuce, and possibly some low end draft capital on a good, durable center who has similar skill sets to Ihart.
Losing Ihart is not a move to just shrug off as no big deal. He was an important part of this team.
I wouldnt want to trade Mitch for anything but another elite defender/rebounder. Easier to find another iHart than another Mitch. We need a backup good enough to hold the fort for those games Mitch will miss. We need Mitch for Embiid/ KP/ Jokic matchups.
If Mitch wasn't such an injury risk I would agree with you. But it is possible he won't even be there if we play the Sixers.
this offseason is reminding me of 2016, when teams were giving out huge money to anyone because the cap was going up. And so many of those deals ended up being awful, a bad contract is a bad contract no matter how much the cap might go up.
nycericanguy wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:martin wrote:It's the playmaking and space movement that the Knicks will miss.
Mitch creates vertical spacing that Ihart doesn't though.
That literally doesn't matter much though. Otherwise Mitch would be considered good offensively cause he is one of the best at the vertical stuff and it hasn't enhanced his offense.
vertical spacing doesn't matter?
When you run a P&R with a big man rolling, the threat of the lob means opposing bigs have to stay on Mitch, OR someone else has to rotate over. IT MATTERS.
Mitch scores the same as Ihart, except Mitch shoots 70% for his career.
Neither are really good offensive players but to say vertical spacing doesn't matter is a reach.
Ihart had a nice passing game though, but I think with Mikal and Randle we'll be more than fine there.
really interested in who we pick up though.
There is a world of difference offensively between Mitch and Ihart. Mitch is only a dunker who is a foul line liability
Garrett2010PSD wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Garrett2010PSD wrote:Yeah this is a loss. I like Precious, but he is not a center.Knicks will miss Ihart's size, rebounding, and passing. He fit this team perfectly.
Bridges made the Knicks take two steps forward but losing Ihart made the Knicks take a step back.
It also doesn't help that Mitch, his replacement is injury prone.
I don't have a specific name at the moment, but I would like to see the Knicks trade Mitch, Deuce, and possibly some low end draft capital on a good, durable center who has similar skill sets to Ihart.
Losing Ihart is not a move to just shrug off as no big deal. He was an important part of this team.
I wouldnt want to trade Mitch for anything but another elite defender/rebounder. Easier to find another iHart than another Mitch. We need a backup good enough to hold the fort for those games Mitch will miss. We need Mitch for Embiid/ KP/ Jokic matchups.
If Mitch wasn't such an injury risk I would agree with you. But it is possible he won't even be there if we play the Sixers.
Thats true, its a gamble. I would just hate to lose what Mitch brings to the table without a really good plan B. Maybe a young player with some serious upside.A season or two away.
What about Paul Reed if the Sixers release him? That is a rumor going around.
Also talk Bucks willing to move Lopez.
Garrett2010PSD wrote:What about Paul Reed if the Sixers release him? That is a rumor going around.Also talk Bucks willing to move Lopez.
How do we trade for Lopez without moving any of our big guys or Nova guys?
The best Center we could probably get is Jarrett Allen. Cleveland has been rumored to want to make a big move for a while now.
ESOMKnicks wrote:Garrett2010PSD wrote:What about Paul Reed if the Sixers release him? That is a rumor going around.Also talk Bucks willing to move Lopez.
How do we trade for Lopez without moving any of our big guys or Nova guys?
Can we S&T Burks and Precious?
Garrett2010PSD wrote:The best Center we could probably get is Jarrett Allen. Cleveland has been rumored to want to make a big move for a while now.
No way to get anyone at these salary slots now without trading away our NovaCore or trading Mitch, which makes no sense if you are trying to ADD center depth.
Something else interesting.
The Bridges trade is not finalized yet.
What if Knicks convince Nets to also include Day'ron Sharpe in the deal?
Before the draft we heard Nets were open to moving him for multiple 2nd round picks.
Knicks could drop another 2 seconds in to make this work.
Mitch's contribution on offense is on the boards. Ihart is a great offensive rebounder - Mitch is even better. The problem with Robinson is he hasn't stayed healthy. If he's manages to stay healthy than it isn't that big of a lose - but it's a big IF
Marshall Green
@MarshallGreen_
·
2h
Mitchell Robinson has played in 59 games 1 time in the last 4 seasons
