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.

Sometimes you draft Walker Kessler, sometimes you draft James Wiseman.

And we would be significantly letting Mitch walk to draft Kessler because we would’ve wasted a draft pick.

I would virtually guarantee that Mitchell Robinson would bring back less than that.

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.

Sure, you could replace some portion of what he does with Walker Kessler, but that just makes Kessler crazy valuable on a rookie deal – it doesn’t make Mitch not valuable.

The Celts thrived in a long stretch without RWIII who is a far superior player to Mitch (and even that was debated by some here.) That kind of player, even in its best manifestation, is far easier to replace than some here think. I think that was borne out during this last stretch.

If we were offered two firsts for Mitch, would you take it?”

As it turned out, the Spurs accepted a protected first rounder, two second rounders and Khem Birch.

I would virtually guarantee that Mitchell Robinson would bring back less than that.

The degree to which Mitch is overvalued here never ceases to amaze me. He’s a market value player this year, and a somewhat above that value due to his descencing contract in the next 3 years. But let’s not act like his contract is anywhere near as advantageous to us as Randle’s or Brunson’s (or IQ’s for now). It’s just not.

I think we’ll be much, much better with Mitch back.

I do think he’s more replaceable than Brunson or Randle (I’d question IQ much as I love him) because Mitch can’t single-handedly win a game for you like Jalen and Julius can (at least of late). But he’s hugely valuable.

“Z–man says:
January 19, 2023 at 20:51
The Knicks will certainly miss Mitch. I won’t.”

This is kinda what I meant when I said that not having Mitch has been a good thing for the Knicks in the big scheme of things. Most of us would have been “okay” with a 7-6 record WITH Mitch. This stretch showed that while he is a vital part of the team, he is far more replaceable than Brunson, Randle, or even IQ. Mitch can be trade bait and losing him can actually improve the team if it is done correctly. This stretch has demonstrated that in spades.

Big Green Al on Bucksblogger just posted “this would be the worst loss of the season”