Would Bulls be willing to part with Noah Essengue?
They have Wilson, Buzelis, Swain, Okoro, Williams & Smith all battling for mins between the 3/4.
Wasn't he previously making $30m?
Who is more worth $25m? IHart or Mitch?
martin wrote:$25m per. Wow
Panos wrote:Wasn't he previously making $30m?Who is more worth $25m? IHart or Mitch?
martin wrote:$25m per. Wow
iHart is at least twice the player Mitch is.
There was a time Mitch was starting over iHart, and then it became clear our team functioned better with someone who maybe didn't have the "dominance" in certain areas that Mitch can portray, but brought different skills to the table. I don't think it's crazy to think there are guys who can outplay Mitch in a 15-20 minute backup role the same way iHart did in a 28-30 minute starting role. They might not be as dominant on the boards but I'm sure someone with a little more touch around the basket, a little more connecting, a little more FT shooting could maybe impact the game more for us off the bench for a fraction of Mitch's soon to be cost.
Bringing back Mitch and Landry is the easy play but if we're playing moneyball, which we are around the aprons, I think there are clever ways to get better and cheaper on the bench.
Mitch can sign a team friendly deal or kick rocks and get hurt for the Lakers. While not being able to stay on the floor because he never learned to shoot a free throw
MaTT4281 wrote:
These Hornet trades have been a bit shocking considering the success they had the second half of the season, so I wonder if trading Ball and Bridges is more of locker room or culture change.
Regardless, I think these trades are going to backfire on them.
DLeethal wrote:There was a time Mitch was starting over iHart, and then it became clear our team functioned better with someone who maybe didn't have the "dominance" in certain areas that Mitch can portray, but brought different skills to the table. I don't think it's crazy to think there are guys who can outplay Mitch in a 15-20 minute backup role the same way iHart did in a 28-30 minute starting role. They might not be as dominant on the boards but I'm sure someone with a little more touch around the basket, a little more connecting, a little more FT shooting could maybe impact the game more for us off the bench for a fraction of Mitch's soon to be cost. Bringing back Mitch and Landry is the easy play but if we're playing moneyball, which we are around the aprons, I think there are clever ways to get better and cheaper on the bench.
I agree. I think Mitch is starting to be overrated. iHart was definitely better than Mitch when he was here. We all saw it. Mitch is also very injury prone and mentally unstable. I don’t see him aging gracefully. Whoever gives him his next contract may end up regretting it
Shamet coming back 4 years 24mil $6mil per!
C position will now either be filled by:
Going over the 2nd apron for Mitch.
Trading Deuce, Dadiet, Kolek
Signing one for vet min.
Would've fit in with the 2000's Blazers
newyorknewyork wrote:Shamet coming back 4 years 24mil $6mil per!
yay. guy does not wilt and when he gets hot teams need to pay attention to him
Chandler wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:Shamet coming back 4 years 24mil $6mil per!
yay. guy does not wilt and when he gets hot teams need to pay attention to him
Discount Donte locked in! Still half the cost. Very likeable guy, love his story, the path he took to earn a spot here, and have very much liked listening to his interviews post championship.
It was pretty much always the case, but official now, Either we're going into the 2nd for Mitch or he's gone. No fancy finagling or tightrope walking to fit him in.
MaTT4281 wrote:Chandler wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:Shamet coming back 4 years 24mil $6mil per!
yay. guy does not wilt and when he gets hot teams need to pay attention to him
Discount Donte locked in! Still half the cost.
It was pretty much always the case, but official now, Either we're going into the 2nd for Mitch or he's gone. No fancy finagling or tightrope walking to fit him in.
yeah I have no idea how they're handling that. Mitch is valuable but we've stood by him during some shitty times when he was an injury waiting to happen, watching his bad FT% get worse, and no development of his offense game at all. Yet through that we still love him. I hope he realizes other situations might not offer the same love, and he and we find a way to keep our weird relationship going.
MaTT4281 wrote:Would've fit in with the 2000's Blazers
As there ever been a faster career decline?
