Knicks · The Mitch Conundrum..... (page 3)
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.
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.
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.
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: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.
even with bird rights I hope that doesnt come into play because that would mean a big payday
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 
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.