Knicks Morning News (2023.02.15)

“I wish there were a way to take this bet. On contract alone that’s nuts – Poetl is an expiring. Getting a first for an expiring is pretty good; you get a lot more for a player signed for four years to a team-friendly contract, like Mitch. Beyond that, Mitch is much younger and somewhat better. Easy two firsts, possibly with minimal protection.”

I agree that Mitch’s contract situation makes him more valuable, particularly the declining AAV aspect of it.

But personally, I think that Poeltl is the better player, or at least the one I’d rather have in the playoffs. He’s expanded his offensive game a bit, and now takes roughly 15% of his shots outside of 10 feet. We should consider that it wasn’t just any ol’ GM that paid that price for him. But it’s certainly fair to say that Mitch *might* bring back a better return.

“Z-man, you’re cherry picking draft picks, which is exactly what you keep accusing others of doing with the 19th pick…Sometimes you draft Walker Kessler, sometimes you draft James Wiseman.”

I agree that it’s cherrypicking to assume that they would have drafted Kessler if Mitch decided to walk. I only presented it as a possible scenario: “It seems pretty clear that we’d be no worse off if we let him go for nothing and simply drafted Walker Kessler.” However, I did tout Kessler at draft time as a great trade-down target. The larger point is that you can find Mitch analogs outside the lottery in virtually every draft. Nic Claxton is another guy I’d be perfectly happy with as our starting C and he was a 31st pick in 2019. Capela was 25th. Looney was 30th. RWIII was 27th. Zubac was 32nd. Allen was 22nd.

Which is more to say that the ability to find a reliable player for a given role late in the draft has a bearing on trade value.

“And yes, we could’ve gone 10-3….3 of our worst 4 defensive games have come during this Mitch-less period. They were all losses despite putting up ORTGs of 124, 127 & 131. (The 4th was also without Mitch but earlier in the season)…We probably don’t go 7-6 without acquiring Hart either, which changes the calculus.”

I think it’s incredibly optimistic to think we could have gone 10-3 in these last 13 games if only we had Mitch, but one thing we know for sure…we won’t go 4-10 without him, which is what was feared. And your point about Hart kind of makes my argument…that we found a reasonably effective backup plan for Mitch at half the price.

So if we actually *could* get more than two very lightly protected firsts for Mitch, I think it’s fair to wonder what we could do with that draft capital.

BTW I’m hoping that the Mitchophiles are correct, and that we might have gone 10-4 in these last 14 games with a healthy Mitch. We have a similar 14-game stretch after the break, including two games each vs. the Celts and the Heat, plus the Nuggets, Wolves, Blazers, Kings, Clippers and Lakers. Can we pencil in 10-4 with Mitch and JHart leading the way?

“They have provided some limited support for the myth that he helps our defense. Possibly.”

If you can refer me to the post where someone said that Mitch doesn’t help our defense, I’d love to read it.