Mitch Robinson for a trade exception

[Toine85]

It seems to me that the Knicks need to dump Mitch for cap space to use to re-sign OG and iHart. Mitch is a defensive and rebounding beast, but he's a liability on the offensive side of the ball (especially late in games) and his availability has been suspect for his whole career.

The only teams that could absorb him completely with a trade exception are the Hawks (John Collins TE) and the Nets (Spencer Dinwiddie TE). Unless the Bridges trade is re-worked to include Mitch for a TE, I don't think Mitch is a candidate for the Nets. Nets, in theory, could let Nic Claxton go and take on Mitch instead, but I think that's highly unlikely.

The Hawks could get Mitch as a cheaper, younger option than Capela and then trade Capela for assets. Thoughts?

[Texas Chuck]

I don't think there are assets to be had for Capela especially if you are asking another team to take on his whole contract--remember the Hawks already need to dump salary to duck tax and you have them adding significant money.

I think teams are going to ask the Knicks for assets to take Robinson. None of the cap space teams really need/want him and they know New York needs to clear salary.

[R-DAWG]

I don't think there are assets to be had for Capela especially if you are asking another team to take on his whole contract--remember the Hawks already need to dump salary to duck tax and you have them adding significant money.

I think teams are going to ask the Knicks for assets to take Robinson. None of the cap space teams really need/want him and they know New York needs to clear salary.

The Knicks don't necessarily need to dump Mitch for a TPE. Frankly, they are better off keeping Mitch with no clear path to replace his salary slot that throwing their limited assets to dump the contract.

I think Mitch still has positive value. Sure, he's injury prone but when he plays he's a great rim runner and he's on a very reasonable contract.

[gswhoops]

How much cap does NY need to cut? I'd take a chance on Robinson for Looney/GP2's expirings. Those are probably easier to dump for cap piecemeal than a single 2 year deal.

Mitch to GS, Looney to NY, GP2 to (name your cap space team) saves the Knicks $6M and gives them a decent replacement at backup C.

[theBigLip]

I don't think there are assets to be had for Capela especially if you are asking another team to take on his whole contract--remember the Hawks already need to dump salary to duck tax and you have them adding significant money.

I think teams are going to ask the Knicks for assets to take Robinson. None of the cap space teams really need/want him and they know New York needs to clear salary.

The Knicks don't necessarily need to dump Mitch for a TPE. Frankly, they are better off keeping Mitch with no clear path to replace his salary slot that throwing their limited assets to dump the contract.

I think Mitch still has positive value. Sure, he's injury prone but when he plays he's a great rim runner and he's on a very reasonable contract.

Agreed. NYKs have Bird rights for OG and Hartenstein will likely take the 4 year, $78M deal that is the most Knicks can pay. They don’t have to dump anyone to make that happen.

[R-DAWG]

How much cap does NY need to cut? I'd take a chance on Robinson for Looney/GP2's expirings. Those are probably easier to dump for cap piecemeal than a single 2 year deal.

Mitch to GS, Looney to NY, GP2 to (name your cap space team) saves the Knicks $6M and gives them a decent replacement at backup C.

The Mitch for Looney thing has legs, but unless GS is throwing in a protected 2025 1st the savings isn't enough to justify the downgrade in talent.

Remember, healthy Mitch is a difference making rim protector. For a win now team, you need that on the court.

[gswhoops]

How much cap does NY need to cut? I'd take a chance on Robinson for Looney/GP2's expirings. Those are probably easier to dump for cap piecemeal than a single 2 year deal.

Mitch to GS, Looney to NY, GP2 to (name your cap space team) saves the Knicks $6M and gives them a decent replacement at backup C.

The Mitch for Looney thing has legs, but unless GS is throwing in a protected 2025 1st the savings isn't enough to justify the downgrade in talent.

Remember, healthy Mitch is a difference making rim protector. For a win now team, you need that on the court.

Yeah there's no way I'm giving up a 1st for Robinson until he shows he can stay healthy for a whole season.

[Toine85]

How much cap does NY need to cut? I'd take a chance on Robinson for Looney/GP2's expirings. Those are probably easier to dump for cap piecemeal than a single 2 year deal.

Mitch to GS, Looney to NY, GP2 to (name your cap space team) saves the Knicks $6M and gives them a decent replacement at backup C.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/new-york-knicks-salary-cap-situation-mikal-bridges/41a25955094d99b56b318c74

The most the Knicks can give iHart is a 4-year, $72.5M contract that starts out at $16.2M. That would get them to about $142M before re-signing OG.

With the 1st apron expected to be around $179M, that only leaves them $37M under. Re-signing OG and filling out the rest of the roster will undoubtedly blow them past that threshold. Trading Mitch for cap space would make give them about $51M, which means we could fit OG in comfortably, but then either fill in the rest of the roster with minimum salaried players OR hard-cap ourselves after using the MLE.

I wouldn't mind breaking Mitch into pieces and then selling off the expirings for cap space/trade exceptions. That works too. If I had to choose between two of the three (OG, iHart, Mitch), I would prefer to keep OG and iHart.

[Texas Chuck]

I don't think there are assets to be had for Capela especially if you are asking another team to take on his whole contract--remember the Hawks already need to dump salary to duck tax and you have them adding significant money.

I think teams are going to ask the Knicks for assets to take Robinson. None of the cap space teams really need/want him and they know New York needs to clear salary.

The Knicks don't necessarily need to dump Mitch for a TPE. Frankly, they are better off keeping Mitch with no clear path to replace his salary slot that throwing their limited assets to dump the contract.

I think Mitch still has positive value. Sure, he's injury prone but when he plays he's a great rim runner and he's on a very reasonable contract.

Agreed. NYKs have Bird rights for OG and Hartenstein will likely take the 4 year, $78M deal that is the most Knicks can pay. They don’t have to dump anyone to make that happen.

The issue is the hard cap. NY can't fit in all of OG, Robinson, and IH. And with Robinson's injury history if IH will take the $78M they are much better off with him and moving Robinson--if they can find a taker. And its already going to be really tight to fit in OG, the draft picks, and min contracts. Now if OG leaves they have no issues, but then that makes the Bridges deal seem terrrible.

[mademan]

I don't think there are assets to be had for Capela especially if you are asking another team to take on his whole contract--remember the Hawks already need to dump salary to duck tax and you have them adding significant money.

I think teams are going to ask the Knicks for assets to take Robinson. None of the cap space teams really need/want him and they know New York needs to clear salary.

The Knicks don't necessarily need to dump Mitch for a TPE. Frankly, they are better off keeping Mitch with no clear path to replace his salary slot that throwing their limited assets to dump the contract.

I think Mitch still has positive value. Sure, he's injury prone but when he plays he's a great rim runner and he's on a very reasonable contract.

Agreed. NYKs have Bird rights for OG and Hartenstein will likely take the 4 year, $78M deal that is the most Knicks can pay. They don’t have to dump anyone to make that happen.

Depends on how the Nets deal shakes out. But as stated, the Knicks are currently hard capped. That can change if the details of the deal change

Id be surprised if they couldnt work things out tho. For 6 1st rounders, it would be rude of the Nets not to eat a couple more mil in salary.

[R-DAWG]

The Knicks don't necessarily need to dump Mitch for a TPE. Frankly, they are better off keeping Mitch with no clear path to replace his salary slot that throwing their limited assets to dump the contract.

I think Mitch still has positive value. Sure, he's injury prone but when he plays he's a great rim runner and he's on a very reasonable contract.

Agreed. NYKs have Bird rights for OG and Hartenstein will likely take the 4 year, $78M deal that is the most Knicks can pay. They don’t have to dump anyone to make that happen.

The issue is the hard cap. NY can't fit in all of OG, Robinson, and IH. And with Robinson's injury history if IH will take the $78M they are much better off with him and moving Robinson--if they can find a taker. And its already going to be really tight to fit in OG, the draft picks, and min contracts. Now if OG leaves they have no issues, but then that makes the Bridges deal seem terrrible.

There is still a window where the Bridges trade can be expanded to not hard cap the Knicks. Either way, in addition to the massive picks overpay, the Bridges trade was robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I hate to say this, but I see similarities between the Bridges trade and the Knicks signing Tyson Chandler in 2011. Marginal upgrade in one place creates a bigger void in another, with limitations on how to re-tool the roster for the foreseeable future.

[Toine85]

The Knicks don't necessarily need to dump Mitch for a TPE. Frankly, they are better off keeping Mitch with no clear path to replace his salary slot that throwing their limited assets to dump the contract.

I think Mitch still has positive value. Sure, he's injury prone but when he plays he's a great rim runner and he's on a very reasonable contract.

Agreed. NYKs have Bird rights for OG and Hartenstein will likely take the 4 year, $78M deal that is the most Knicks can pay. They don’t have to dump anyone to make that happen.

Depends on how the Nets deal shakes out. But as stated, the Knicks are currently hard capped. That can change if the details of the deal change

Id be surprised if they couldnt work things out tho. For 6 1st rounders, it would be rude of the Nets not to eat a couple more mil in salary.

I think they are "technically" hardcapped because of the cap holds and team options, but they can easily renounce the holds for Alec Burks, Shake Milton, etc. And decline the team option for DaQuan Jeffries (There's also a team option for Jericho Sims, but might have to pick that up to shore up the backup center slot).

[mademan]

Agreed. NYKs have Bird rights for OG and Hartenstein will likely take the 4 year, $78M deal that is the most Knicks can pay. They don’t have to dump anyone to make that happen.

Depends on how the Nets deal shakes out. But as stated, the Knicks are currently hard capped. That can change if the details of the deal change

Id be surprised if they couldnt work things out tho. For 6 1st rounders, it would be rude of the Nets not to eat a couple more mil in salary.

I think they are "technically" hardcapped because of the cap holds and team options, but they can easily renounce the holds for Alec Burks, Shake Milton, etc. And decline the team option for DaQuan Jeffries (There's also a team option for Jericho Sims, but might have to pick that up to shore up the backup center slot).

Theyre hard capped because trading Bojan for Bridges is a hard capping move. If they add like 5 mill in salary to the deal, theyre no longer hard capped.

[docholliday99]

How much cap does NY need to cut? I'd take a chance on Robinson for Looney/GP2's expirings. Those are probably easier to dump for cap piecemeal than a single 2 year deal.

Mitch to GS, Looney to NY, GP2 to (name your cap space team) saves the Knicks $6M and gives them a decent replacement at backup C.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/new-york-knicks-salary-cap-situation-mikal-bridges/41a25955094d99b56b318c74

The most the Knicks can give iHart is a 4-year, $72.5M contract that starts out at $16.2M. That would get them to about $142M before re-signing OG. With the 1st apron expected to be around $179M, that only leaves them $37M under. Re-signing OG and filling out the rest of the roster will undoubtedly blow them past that threshold. Trading Mitch for cap space would make give them about $51M, which means we could fit OG in comfortably, but then either fill in the rest of the roster with minimum salaried players OR hard-cap ourselves after using the MLE. I wouldn't mind breaking Mitch into pieces and then selling off the expirings for cap space/trade exceptions. That works too.

If the Bridges trade stays as is, the Knicks are taking more money back and they will be hard capped at the 1st apron. If they add Diatkite and Jeffries to Bogs for Bridges, then the Knicks will be hard capped at the 2nd apron. They could trade Randle for Bridges, then the Knicks won't be hard capped, but the Nets don't want to give some of those picks back. The other option would be to add a third team and send Randle somewhere.

Maybe Warriors would like Randle, with Paul going to the Nets and Bridges coming to NY - then no hard cap and much more flexibility.

[gswhoops]

How much cap does NY need to cut? I'd take a chance on Robinson for Looney/GP2's expirings. Those are probably easier to dump for cap piecemeal than a single 2 year deal.

Mitch to GS, Looney to NY, GP2 to (name your cap space team) saves the Knicks $6M and gives them a decent replacement at backup C.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/new-york-knicks-salary-cap-situation-mikal-bridges/41a25955094d99b56b318c74

The most the Knicks can give iHart is a 4-year, $72.5M contract that starts out at $16.2M. That would get them to about $142M before re-signing OG. With the 1st apron expected to be around $179M, that only leaves them $37M under. Re-signing OG and filling out the rest of the roster will undoubtedly blow them past that threshold. Trading Mitch for cap space would make give them about $51M, which means we could fit OG in comfortably, but then either fill in the rest of the roster with minimum salaried players OR hard-cap ourselves after using the MLE. I wouldn't mind breaking Mitch into pieces and then selling off the expirings for cap space/trade exceptions. That works too.

If the Bridges trade stays as is, the Knicks are taking more money back and they will be hard capped at the 1st apron. If they add Diatkite and Jeffries to Bogs for Bridges, then the Knicks will be hard capped at the 2nd apron. They could trade Randle for Bridges, then the Knicks won't be hard capped, but the Nets don't want to give some of those picks back. The other option would be to add a third team and send Randle somewhere.

Maybe Warriors would like Randle, with Paul going to the Nets and Bridges coming to NY - then no hard cap and much more flexibility.

We would not.

[mhd]

The Wizards are a dumping ground and would merely ask for their protected 1st back if that helps. Although they have multiple trade exceptions, I don’t think they have one that fits completely. If you do want to save money and want a decent stopgap, Holmes is expiring

[docholliday99]

I'm not sure the 1st apron hard cap will matter though, if OKC comes in and offers iHart a Bruce Brown type deal but increases it to 3 years, so they have his full rights, say 3/69, will he take it? Knicks can only go as high as 16.2ish.

[docholliday99]

Maybe Warriors would like Randle, with Paul going to the Nets and Bridges coming to NY - then no hard cap and much more flexibility.

We would not.

[R-DAWG]

I'm not sure the 1st apron hard cap will matter though, if OKC comes in and offers iHart a Bruce Brown type deal but increases it to 3 years, so they have his full rights, say 3/69, will he take it? Knicks can only go as high as 16.2ish.

If they do, NY is better off keeping Mitch

[R-DAWG]

How much cap does NY need to cut? I'd take a chance on Robinson for Looney/GP2's expirings. Those are probably easier to dump for cap piecemeal than a single 2 year deal.

Mitch to GS, Looney to NY, GP2 to (name your cap space team) saves the Knicks $6M and gives them a decent replacement at backup C.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/new-york-knicks-salary-cap-situation-mikal-bridges/41a25955094d99b56b318c74

The most the Knicks can give iHart is a 4-year, $72.5M contract that starts out at $16.2M. That would get them to about $142M before re-signing OG. With the 1st apron expected to be around $179M, that only leaves them $37M under. Re-signing OG and filling out the rest of the roster will undoubtedly blow them past that threshold. Trading Mitch for cap space would make give them about $51M, which means we could fit OG in comfortably, but then either fill in the rest of the roster with minimum salaried players OR hard-cap ourselves after using the MLE. I wouldn't mind breaking Mitch into pieces and then selling off the expirings for cap space/trade exceptions. That works too.

If the Bridges trade stays as is, the Knicks are taking more money back and they will be hard capped at the 1st apron. If they add Diatkite and Jeffries to Bogs for Bridges, then the Knicks will be hard capped at the 2nd apron. They could trade Randle for Bridges, then the Knicks won't be hard capped, but the Nets don't want to give some of those picks back. The other option would be to add a third team and send Randle somewhere.

Maybe Warriors would like Randle, with Paul going to the Nets and Bridges coming to NY - then no hard cap and much more flexibility.

I think there is a restriction on stacking minimum contracts in the new CBA.

Operating above the 1st apron in the new CBA is absolutely brutal.