Knicks · The really short off season for knicks! How to run it back? (page 11)

DLeethal wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:Mitch is pretty irreplaceable, especially with rookies and vet min guys. I don't see any benefit to just letting him go.

IDK, he was not really a huge positive for us in these playoffs and close to a non factor in the finals. His FT shooting makes him unplayable at times and the hack-a-mitch coupled with Towns foul trouble proved to be a big liability. He had some big plays, but so did Alvarado, that doesn't make him irreplaceable. I love Mitch, but I don't think he is irreplaceable on this team. You aren't gonna replace his rebounding and defense 1 for 1, but could you get someone in here that overall provides a new look and comparable total benefit? Probably.

We can draft Zuby at 24 and Reed at 31. Both are seniors with NBA ready bodies. I think that combo could outperform Mitch when factoring in everything they can do

PatCummings wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:Mitch is pretty irreplaceable, especially with rookies and vet min guys. I don't see any benefit to just letting him go.

IDK, he was not really a huge positive for us in these playoffs and close to a non factor in the finals. His FT shooting makes him unplayable at times and the hack-a-mitch coupled with Towns foul trouble proved to be a big liability. He had some big plays, but so did Alvarado, that doesn't make him irreplaceable. I love Mitch, but I don't think he is irreplaceable on this team. You aren't gonna replace his rebounding and defense 1 for 1, but could you get someone in here that overall provides a new look and comparable total benefit? Probably.

We can draft Zuby at 24 and Reed at 31. Both are seniors with NBA ready bodies. I think that combo could outperform Mitch when factoring in everything they can do

Yes agree !! That’s my dream draft even if we somehow kept mitch. Tarris reed jr can actually put the ball on the floor and has elite defensive traits.

Zuby to me is the perfect Knick style fit. Both players could intertwine with our core and be very effective off the bench.

Kinda salivating over a bench of

Kolek
McBride
Mo
Zuby
Reed jr.

I see Kolek as the qb of that second unit labfor easy dunks and wide open 3s also 4 defensive studs help kolek’s lack of defense.

Now if I can pull out the pipe and say Shamet gives us a sweet heart deal just to come back and we just improved our bench.

fitzfarm wrote:

PatCummings wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:Mitch is pretty irreplaceable, especially with rookies and vet min guys. I don't see any benefit to just letting him go.

IDK, he was not really a huge positive for us in these playoffs and close to a non factor in the finals. His FT shooting makes him unplayable at times and the hack-a-mitch coupled with Towns foul trouble proved to be a big liability. He had some big plays, but so did Alvarado, that doesn't make him irreplaceable. I love Mitch, but I don't think he is irreplaceable on this team. You aren't gonna replace his rebounding and defense 1 for 1, but could you get someone in here that overall provides a new look and comparable total benefit? Probably.

We can draft Zuby at 24 and Reed at 31. Both are seniors with NBA ready bodies. I think that combo could outperform Mitch when factoring in everything they can do

Yes agree !! That’s my dream draft even if we somehow kept mitch. Tarris reed jr can actually put the ball on the floor and has elite defensive traits.

Zuby to me is the perfect Knick style fit. Both players could intertwine with our core and be very effective off the bench.

Kinda salivating over a bench of

Kolek
McBride
Mo
Zuby
Reed jr.

I see Kolek as the qb of that second unit labfor easy dunks and wide open 3s also 4 defensive studs help kolek’s lack of defense.

Now if I can pull out the pipe and say Shamet gives us a sweet heart deal just to come back and we just improved our bench.

As long as we’re talking draft dreams, I’m seeing lots of mocks where Ekuba Okorie is being selected in the low 20’s. He’s one of the best scorers in the draft and is also one of the youngest. He’s dropping bc this is a really strong PG draft. He’s 6’2” with a 6’8” Wingspan. I feel like Deuce + 55 + future 2nd(s) gets it done. Teams concerned about payroll but want a proven 3&D POA guard will value Deuce. I give him a pass bc he was coming off an injury but we won that title in spite of Deuce. This is also the last year of his bargain contract. It may be difficult for us to keep him after this year

It also provides an opportunity for Kevin McCullar to join the rotation. If he looks good next season we can sign him to a low cost long term deal like we did with Deuce.

DLeethal wrote:Honestly Dolan putting himself back front and center has been the only blemish on this playoff run. It just doesn't seem like this new high horse of his is going to lead anywhere good.

I don’t mind as long as he isn’t shadow GM’ing. The Knicks won it all he deserves to brag publicly. That said, as a Mamdani supporter I feel terrible that Dolan doesn’t need Mamdani to vote for him

PatCummings wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Honestly Dolan putting himself back front and center has been the only blemish on this playoff run. It just doesn't seem like this new high horse of his is going to lead anywhere good.

Yes. I’ve hated Dolan for so many years but haven’t minded him as much since Rose took over bc Dolan stepped aside. Hopefully Dolan stops talking soon. My owner hatred is laser focused on Woody

Woody solidly replaced Dolan 6 years ago as worst owner in professional sports.

newyorknewyork wrote:Brunson is also now in contention for face of the league, MVP and superstar contention status. Does his FT attempts now get a bump? In Game 5 we saw him figure out how to use the over aggressive defense against itself. Drawing multiple 4 pt plays.

Brunson with Shai's whistle? Could 3peat on that

technomaster wrote:BTW, I'm still blown away how KAT was called for arm bars - what the heck were Wemby's arms doing there in the first place? Does the NBA not call reaching in fouls or over the top fouls?

If you are Wemby you can do over the top all day everyday. And if a guy's head happens to be in the way of your arm- well that's a clear foul against that guy

Robinson is a sizing issue. He’d have to take a real discount to stay here. Maybe take a 1 year deal (no trade clause) and get a bit better sizing next year?

Shamet - Same issue as Robinson. Sizing issue. If I am Shamet and someone offers more money, probably have to take the money and run. It’s a business.

Alvarado. Same sizing issue.

KAT extension. If KAT opts out of his last year and signs for less, then all these other guys can get “paid” next year with the difference.

Hart - It’s a team option, but if he keeps something steady - in the 16mm range, he can keep this squad together.

My priorities are

1 Diawara
2 Robinson

The others are good dudes, but if they need to get paid, I understand.

DLeethal wrote:Knicks only one 53 games last year and as someone already said Landry was really the only guy off the bench who made a sizeable impact for the playoff run. I don’t see why we can’t retool the bench and win more games and match bench success in the playoffs next year. Whether we win again or not is not really gonna be hinged on the bench.

That was me.

We went on our epic playoff run because of our starters and Shamet.

Everyone else on the roster played a provisional role at various moments, but nobody else was consistently a core element of the giant uptick in production after Game 4 in the ATL series.

The ability to repeat is going to hinge on the starting five's continued harmonization more than anything else. Considering how the team didn't truly click until the playoffs, there is reason to believe they can continue to learn more about how to play off each other to actually improve as a starting unit.

There is continued upside to the starters, particularly KAT and OG who have evolved the most this season and may not be done doing so.

The ability to retool by moving the pipeline players into the rotation and drafting well should strengthen the team while managing cap considerations.

If MO, McCullars, Kolek and maybe Dadiet deliver on their potential they are collectively a step up from Clarkson, Alvarado and Deuce as whole.

Mitch and Shamet are to me the only question marks. Everyone else can be replaced with our pipeline and the draft.

Mitch can be replaced. I'd like him to stay, but if re-signing him makes it hard to sign Mo and Shamet than I'd draft bigs and let him go. Maybe Huk stays as part of the Center depth.

Shamet is the one bench player I'd priortize retaining. The guy is a winner.

And Diawara is the one young player you have to figure out how to retain due to his potential all-star talent.

If it came down to Diawara vs. Shamet, I'd have to prioritize locking down Mo. His upside is that big.

BlueKnickers wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Knicks only one 53 games last year and as someone already said Landry was really the only guy off the bench who made a sizeable impact for the playoff run. I don’t see why we can’t retool the bench and win more games and match bench success in the playoffs next year. Whether we win again or not is not really gonna be hinged on the bench.

That was me.

We went on our epic playoff run because of our starters and Shamet.

Everyone else on the roster played a provisional role at various moments, but nobody else was consistently a core element of the giant uptick in production after Game 4 in the ATL series.

The ability to repeat is going to hinge on the starting five's continued harmonization more than anything else. Considering how the team didn't truly click until the playoffs, there is reason to believe they can continue to learn more about how to play off each other to actually improve as a starting unit.

There is continued upside to the starters, particularly KAT and OG who have evolved the most this season and may not be done doing so.

The ability to retool by moving the pipeline players into the rotation and drafting well should strengthen the team while managing cap considerations.

If MO, McCullars, Kolek and maybe Dadiet deliver on their potential they are collectively a step up from Clarkson, Alvarado and Deuce as whole.

Mitch and Shamet are to me the only question marks. Everyone else can be replaced with our pipeline and the draft.

Mitch can be replaced. I'd like him to stay, but if re-signing him makes it hard to sign Mo and Shamet than I'd draft bigs and let him go. Maybe Huk stays as part of the Center depth.

Shamet is the one bench player I'd priortize retaining. The guy is a winner.

And Diawara is the one young player you have to figure out how to retain due to his potential all-star talent.

If it came down to Diawara vs. Shamet, I'd have to prioritize locking down Mo. His upside is that big.

I completely agree. Shamet is most replaceable. Mitch is a difference maker, a guy we can throw on the top tier Cs in the league and a weapon off the bench nobody else has. You’d like the keep him and draft a reserve that’s better than Hukporti. But fact is Mitch barely contributed to a championship run. That shows we don’t NEED him to be successful.

Mo is the guy we can’t lose. His ceiling is too high and he brings a rare element and loads of lineup flexibility if he becomes an every night guy off the bench. He’s also a piece that can keep us contending past the 2 year window if he pans out.

DLeethal wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Knicks only one 53 games last year and as someone already said Landry was really the only guy off the bench who made a sizeable impact for the playoff run. I don;t see why we can;t retool the bench and win more games and match bench success in the playoffs next year. Whether we win again or not is not really gonna be hinged on the bench.

That was me.

We went on our epic playoff run because of our starters and Shamet.

Everyone else on the roster played a provisional role at various moments, but nobody else was consistently a core element of the giant uptick in production after Game 4 in the ATL series.

The ability to repeat is going to hinge on the starting five's continued harmonization more than anything else. Considering how the team didn't truly click until the playoffs, there is reason to believe they can continue to learn more about how to play off each other to actually improve as a starting unit.

There is continued upside to the starters, particularly KAT and OG who have evolved the most this season and may not be done doing so.

The ability to retool by moving the pipeline players into the rotation and drafting well should strengthen the team while managing cap considerations.

If MO, McCullars, Kolek and maybe Dadiet deliver on their potential they are collectively a step up from Clarkson, Alvarado and Deuce as whole.

Mitch and Shamet are to me the only question marks. Everyone else can be replaced with our pipeline and the draft.

Mitch can be replaced. I'd like him to stay, but if re-signing him makes it hard to sign Mo and Shamet than I'd draft bigs and let him go. Maybe Huk stays as part of the Center depth.

Shamet is the one bench player I'd priortize retaining. The guy is a winner.

And Diawara is the one young player you have to figure out how to retain due to his potential all-star talent.

If it came down to Diawara vs. Shamet, I'd have to prioritize locking down Mo. His upside is that big.

I completely agree. Shamet is most replaceable. Mitch is a difference maker, a guy we can throw on the top tier Cs in the league and a weapon off the bench nobody else has. You;d like the keep him and draft a reserve that;s better than Hukporti. But fact is Mitch barely contributed to a championship run. That shows we don;t NEED him to be successful.

Mo is the guy we can;t lose. His ceiling is too high and he brings a rare element and loads of lineup flexibility if he becomes an every night guy off the bench. He;s also a piece that can keep us contending past the 2 year window if he pans out.

Shamet is easily replaceable? Do you realize how good his shooting was in the playoffs? Who are you going to get to replace that? We haven't had a bench shooter like that since Steve Novak. And Novak was useless on D where Shamet is respectable.

DLeethal wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Knicks only one 53 games last year and as someone already said Landry was really the only guy off the bench who made a sizeable impact for the playoff run. I don’t see why we can’t retool the bench and win more games and match bench success in the playoffs next year. Whether we win again or not is not really gonna be hinged on the bench.

That was me.

We went on our epic playoff run because of our starters and Shamet.

Everyone else on the roster played a provisional role at various moments, but nobody else was consistently a core element of the giant uptick in production after Game 4 in the ATL series.

The ability to repeat is going to hinge on the starting five's continued harmonization more than anything else. Considering how the team didn't truly click until the playoffs, there is reason to believe they can continue to learn more about how to play off each other to actually improve as a starting unit.

There is continued upside to the starters, particularly KAT and OG who have evolved the most this season and may not be done doing so.

The ability to retool by moving the pipeline players into the rotation and drafting well should strengthen the team while managing cap considerations.

If MO, McCullars, Kolek and maybe Dadiet deliver on their potential they are collectively a step up from Clarkson, Alvarado and Deuce as whole.

Mitch and Shamet are to me the only question marks. Everyone else can be replaced with our pipeline and the draft.

Mitch can be replaced. I'd like him to stay, but if re-signing him makes it hard to sign Mo and Shamet than I'd draft bigs and let him go. Maybe Huk stays as part of the Center depth.

Shamet is the one bench player I'd priortize retaining. The guy is a winner.

And Diawara is the one young player you have to figure out how to retain due to his potential all-star talent.

If it came down to Diawara vs. Shamet, I'd have to prioritize locking down Mo. His upside is that big.

I completely agree. Shamet is most replaceable. Mitch is a difference maker, a guy we can throw on the top tier Cs in the league and a weapon off the bench nobody else has. You’d like the keep him and draft a reserve that’s better than Hukporti. But fact is Mitch barely contributed to a championship run. That shows we don’t NEED him to be successful.

Mo is the guy we can’t lose. His ceiling is too high and he brings a rare element and loads of lineup flexibility if he becomes an every night guy off the bench. He’s also a piece that can keep us contending past the 2 year window if he pans out.

We can’t lose Mo for sure. He offers the wide range of outcomes and upside. As far as Mitch vs Shamet, I hate to say I’d probably prefer to keep shamet if I had to choose. He’s going to be cheaper. And he’s proven that he can play big minutes in the playoffs. For all of Mitch’s unique talent, it’s hard to play him more than 15 mpg due to the intentional fouling. He just can’t stay on the floor. Shamet can play 30 mpg in a finals game. Mitch can’t. But even so, I want to keep everyone.

fitzfarm wrote:Speaking of Kat did you guys see the interview/ podcast where Kat said he’d be willing to take a JB like discount 100m to keep the core together.

That was awesome to hear

I’ve been saying for a looooong time money has marginal utility. These guys are already at generational wealth and the smart ones are asking the right questions like “you can’t buy anything that brings the joys of winning”

I hope they do what KAT says and all get together and figure it out.

Knixkik wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

BlueKnickers wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Knicks only one 53 games last year and as someone already said Landry was really the only guy off the bench who made a sizeable impact for the playoff run. I don’t see why we can’t retool the bench and win more games and match bench success in the playoffs next year. Whether we win again or not is not really gonna be hinged on the bench.

That was me.

We went on our epic playoff run because of our starters and Shamet.

Everyone else on the roster played a provisional role at various moments, but nobody else was consistently a core element of the giant uptick in production after Game 4 in the ATL series.

The ability to repeat is going to hinge on the starting five's continued harmonization more than anything else. Considering how the team didn't truly click until the playoffs, there is reason to believe they can continue to learn more about how to play off each other to actually improve as a starting unit.

There is continued upside to the starters, particularly KAT and OG who have evolved the most this season and may not be done doing so.

The ability to retool by moving the pipeline players into the rotation and drafting well should strengthen the team while managing cap considerations.

If MO, McCullars, Kolek and maybe Dadiet deliver on their potential they are collectively a step up from Clarkson, Alvarado and Deuce as whole.

Mitch and Shamet are to me the only question marks. Everyone else can be replaced with our pipeline and the draft.

Mitch can be replaced. I'd like him to stay, but if re-signing him makes it hard to sign Mo and Shamet than I'd draft bigs and let him go. Maybe Huk stays as part of the Center depth.

Shamet is the one bench player I'd priortize retaining. The guy is a winner.

And Diawara is the one young player you have to figure out how to retain due to his potential all-star talent.

If it came down to Diawara vs. Shamet, I'd have to prioritize locking down Mo. His upside is that big.

I completely agree. Shamet is most replaceable. Mitch is a difference maker, a guy we can throw on the top tier Cs in the league and a weapon off the bench nobody else has. You’d like the keep him and draft a reserve that’s better than Hukporti. But fact is Mitch barely contributed to a championship run. That shows we don’t NEED him to be successful.

Mo is the guy we can’t lose. His ceiling is too high and he brings a rare element and loads of lineup flexibility if he becomes an every night guy off the bench. He’s also a piece that can keep us contending past the 2 year window if he pans out.

We can’t lose Mo for sure. He offers the wide range of outcomes and upside. As far as Mitch vs Shamet, I hate to say I’d probably prefer to keep shamet if I had to choose. He’s going to be cheaper. And he’s proven that he can play big minutes in the playoffs. For all of Mitch’s unique talent, it’s hard to play him more than 15 mpg due to the intentional fouling. He just can’t stay on the floor. Shamet can play 30 mpg in a finals game. Mitch can’t. But even so, I want to keep everyone.

contractually we are limited to what we can offer MO. Mo if offered more then what we are allowed to offer would have to choose to take less to remain. Let's hope the glow of the championship, team friendships, and promise of continued development behind OG and Hart helps him choose to remain.