Shams - Mikal Bridges extended four-year, $150 million

[Luv those Knicks]

Now he has a trade kicker and is negative value instead of an expiring that could be used in a trade. It sucks that our front office is run by a player agency instead of basketball people.

Derrick White will make $28. Nobody is bringing $200 onto their cap for Walmart Derrick White. Him walking next year for more than we'd offer is laughable MSG CAA propaganda for casual counting stats fools.

Teams don't sign a player for 4 years, 150 to trade them, they sign them for that kind of deal to keep them around for a while, so it's true, he's less tradable now, but NY has their key players all locked up now. Brunson, Bridges, OGA & KAT.

They could in theory, trade Josh Hart, who isn't making that much and Mitch with his expiring deal is certainly tradable. I'm not going to trash them for signing Bridges instead of exploring trades with him. I think that's a perfectly acceptable team building move.

It's not building anything. It's not team building. It's player appeasement by a front office run by a player agency.

OK, I just saw this and I thought I'd respond.

Technically it is team building. This is, for better or worse, the team they've built. The Nova Knicks + Kat, OGA, Mitch & McBride. Thibs famous 6 player rotation (7 during playoffs). That's the core they built and that's what they're running with.

If you want to call it player appeasement, well. You have the right to your opinion, but the front office guys, the Numbers guru (I always forget his name) and Leon the wheeler/dealer Rose, thought the Knicks had a better shot locking up Bridges over letting him hit free agency in a year. Yes, Bridges is harder to trade now, but that's something they gambled on, that locking him up meant more to the team than keeping him as a trade chip. As I noted, they have a few possible trade chips.

Just don't do anything. Which essentially in every case since going back to Melo's extension the Knicks would have just been better off doing.

Every move? Including Brunson's extention? Mitch? McBride? Hart? Randale? (who got us KAT). You think they'd have been better off not doing any of those signings?

You would have preferred not extending any of those guys? I don't know if you believe that, but that's what you said.

Run this team back next year with a completely crippled East with 2 of the best 5 players out for the year, and Giannis being old and surrounded by junk.

If it's more of the same then who cares. Why do you want Bridges until **** 2030, when he's 33 and a poor mans Wesley Matthews.

What would you have done instead? The picks are already spent. We can't get the 5 picks back. Bridges could have played the year on an expiring deal. He could have been trade bait. We could have lost him for nothing like we did with I-Hart over the off-season next year.

What brilliant outcome would you expect from not extending him? Would you have traded him? Remember, trades are unguaranteed to happen. It's one thing for a team like NY to hold onto a player like Bogs, who they don't mind losing for nothing, but hold him as a trade chip. Losing Mikal for nothing would have hurt, and could have happened next off-season.

You're saying it's a bad move, but what would have been a good move?

Letting OGA walk last year?
Extending Quickley instead or keeping RJ (who did sign at a discount, but RJ wasn't that good).

Keeping nobody and building around our draft picks? Well, that ship has sailed. I understand not liking the Bridges trade, but I think NY resigning him to this deal was a solid move.

I hear you criticizing, but you're not saying what you'd have done instead.

[Adelheid]

Mike Brown will be tested even this early in his hire, that whether if he could raise the play value of these guys relative to their contracts.

[jvsimonetti0514]

With this new cba and players not really making it to free agency anymore maintaining salary slots seems to be more important than ever before. So getting Mikal to sign an extension, even if it’s more than I would have liked to pay him, gives them a 37.5 million dollar salary slots to play with. This will be important especially if the Knicks are still Giannis hunting. Look how they managed the Kat situation. They were far apart with Randle and could stack 2 contracts together to make a max salary slots and this seems like they’re trying to do it again with Mikal.

[BKlutch]

Read on Twitter

So Mikal could have waited a year, become a free agent, and if he were successful, signed for an additional $100M beyond what his extension calls for. Not too shabby, either way. Let's hope he makes us all grateful for the extension.

[Adelheid]

that is indeed the bad part if mikal wasnt extended; because pundits say he could have gotten much more in the open market

[Zero-in-box]

Read on Twitter

So Mikal could have waited a year, become a free agent, and if he were successful, signed for an additional $100M beyond what his extension calls for. Not too shabby, either way. Let's hope he makes us all grateful for the extension.

I know I say this and there is always a team to jump in and throw ridiculous money at someone.

But, who exactly would have given Mikal this kind of contract?

I mean, I love Mikal - he's a really really solid, decent player. But who would have given him this kind of money? The Brooklyn Nets?

[BKlutch]

Read on Twitter

So Mikal could have waited a year, become a free agent, and if he were successful, signed for an additional $100M beyond what his extension calls for. Not too shabby, either way. Let's hope he makes us all grateful for the extension.

I know I say this and there is always a team to jump in and throw ridiculous money at someone.

But, who exactly would have given Mikal this kind of contract?

I mean, I love Mikal - he's a really really solid, decent player. But who would have given him this kind of money? The Brooklyn Nets?

It's hard to know. One team makes an offer, another raises their offer, and a small bidding war raises the contract amount considerably. Or, nobody wants him for near that amount and he gets less.

[Moose]

In a tough market with few options, Randle received $33 mill a season coming off a so so year.

I don't know if Bridges would exceed this new contract in free agency, but it would have been close to this amount, assuming he wasn't worse than last season, and for sure would be close or more if we played better than last season.

OG is making $6 mill more per year than Bridges, and though I preferred Bridges at $35 mil per year, this contract is a must if you weren't going to execute a trade.

Now it's time to hope that Bridges has a better season that the last one and hits threes at a significantly higher percentage.

[JayTWill]

Read on Twitter

So Mikal could have waited a year, become a free agent, and if he were successful, signed for an additional $100M beyond what his extension calls for. Not too shabby, either way. Let's hope he makes us all grateful for the extension.

I know I say this and there is always a team to jump in and throw ridiculous money at someone.

But, who exactly would have given Mikal this kind of contract?

I mean, I love Mikal - he's a really really solid, decent player. But who would have given him this kind of money? The Brooklyn Nets?

The Knicks are the only team that could have offered him a 5 year max starting at 30% of the cap next year with 8% raises each year. Other teams could have offered him a 4 year max starting at 30% of the cap with 5% raises each year.

Last off-season the Sixers were reportedly willing to offer OG a 4 year max even with his injury history and him getting injured twice with the Knicks. The Knicks were able to retain OG at a deal starting at 26% of the cap instead of 30% but they also offered him a 5th year player option.

I could see a younger team with a bunch of cheap rookie contracts trying to make a splash after being bad for many years putting the Knicks in a similar position with Mikal next off-season as they were with OG last off-season.

If the Knicks gave the same deal as OG starting at 26% of the cap next year Mikal would be making $10M more next year and he would have had a player option at a bigger number at the age of 34. Getting him at 20% of the cap without having to give him a 5th year player option on the downside of his career is not a bad deal for where they are currently at imo.

[seren]

To me the only relevant information is how the deal changes the team makeup. With this deal, if we try to operate under the second apron, it would mean losing Mitchell and replacing him with at best a tax MLE. That is not good. The deal is just fine if we extend Mitchell and operate over the second apron. If we decide to cheapen on Mitchell, that would be a disaster.

[dakomish23]

Should have always been a Knick.

MILLS will go down as one of the worst FO people in history, not just for our franchise

[JayTWill]

To me the only relevant information is how the deal changes the team makeup. With this deal, if we try to operate under the second apron, it would mean losing Mitchell and replacing him with at best a tax MLE. That is not good. The deal is just fine if we extend Mitchell and operate over the second apron. If we decide to cheapen on Mitchell, that would be a disaster.

Depends on how much Mitch gets on his next contract. If he gets $10M or less next year they could keep him and potential still stay below the 2nd apron. I don't know what Mitch's market value is with his injury history. He is great to have when he is healthy and in shape but you never know when you are going to get that Mitch. I'm hoping last season was a turning point for his injury issues and the management of his health. Moving on from Mitch or keeping Mitch is a gamble either way.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

To me the only relevant information is how the deal changes the team makeup. With this deal, if we try to operate under the second apron, it would mean losing Mitchell and replacing him with at best a tax MLE. That is not good. The deal is just fine if we extend Mitchell and operate over the second apron. If we decide to cheapen on Mitchell, that would be a disaster.

Depends on how much Mitch gets on his next contract. If he gets $10M or less next year they could keep him and potential still stay below the 2nd apron. I don't know what Mitch's market value is with his injury history. He is great to have when he is healthy and in shape but you never know when you are going to get that Mitch. I'm hoping last season was a turning point for his injury issues and the management of his health. Moving on from Mitch or keeping Mitch is a gamble either way.

Ofc it's wishful thinking because Mitch is my favourite knick and one of idk my favourite 3 players in the league, but I genuinely think Mitch will have turned the comer on health issues.

At some point he was a little too heavy. And he was sabotaged by Embiid and so on. But, overall, he seemed to be in a great place at the end of last season. Obviously can't shoot a ft for lick. But mkay

On the money side, I did the calculation in some thread about two months ago? Iirc the maximum extension rounds out at about 68/4. And that seems pretty fair for both sides to me aorn. If offered 10 per year I think Mitch would walk. Remember, he had 6/4 for his first four years in the league - pretty easily the worst pay for a productive player itl at that time.

[spree2kawhi]

To me the only relevant information is how the deal changes the team makeup. With this deal, if we try to operate under the second apron, it would mean losing Mitchell and replacing him with at best a tax MLE. That is not good. The deal is just fine if we extend Mitchell and operate over the second apron. If we decide to cheapen on Mitchell, that would be a disaster.

Depends on how much Mitch gets on his next contract. If he gets $10M or less next year they could keep him and potential still stay below the 2nd apron. I don't know what Mitch's market value is with his injury history. He is great to have when he is healthy and in shape but you never know when you are going to get that Mitch. I'm hoping last season was a turning point for his injury issues and the management of his health. Moving on from Mitch or keeping Mitch is a gamble either way.

Ofc it's wishful thinking because Mitch is my favourite knick and one of idk my favourite 3 players in the league, but I genuinely think Mitch will have turned the comer on health issues.

At some point he was a little too heavy. And he was sabotaged by Embiid and so on. But, overall, he seemed to be in a great place at the end of last season. Obviously can't shoot a ft for lick. But mkay

On the money side, I did the calculation in some thread about two months ago? Iirc the maximum extension rounds out at about 68/4. And that seems pretty fair for both sides to me aorn. If offered 10 per year I think Mitch would walk. Remember, he had 6/4 for his first four years in the league - pretty easily the worst pay for a productive player itl at that time.

He’s not one of my favorite players in the league, but he sure is a beast and worth that kind of money in the current environment. What’s more, we really need him. He should start and I also think he can stay healthy going forward.

[JayTWill]

To me the only relevant information is how the deal changes the team makeup. With this deal, if we try to operate under the second apron, it would mean losing Mitchell and replacing him with at best a tax MLE. That is not good. The deal is just fine if we extend Mitchell and operate over the second apron. If we decide to cheapen on Mitchell, that would be a disaster.

Depends on how much Mitch gets on his next contract. If he gets $10M or less next year they could keep him and potential still stay below the 2nd apron. I don't know what Mitch's market value is with his injury history. He is great to have when he is healthy and in shape but you never know when you are going to get that Mitch. I'm hoping last season was a turning point for his injury issues and the management of his health. Moving on from Mitch or keeping Mitch is a gamble either way.

Ofc it's wishful thinking because Mitch is my favourite knick and one of idk my favourite 3 players in the league, but I genuinely think Mitch will have turned the comer on health issues.

At some point he was a little too heavy. And he was sabotaged by Embiid and so on. But, overall, he seemed to be in a great place at the end of last season. Obviously can't shoot a ft for lick. But mkay

On the money side, I did the calculation in some thread about two months ago? Iirc the maximum extension rounds out at about 68/4. And that seems pretty fair for both sides to me aorn. If offered 10 per year I think Mitch would walk. Remember, he had 6/4 for his first four years in the league - pretty easily the worst pay for a productive player itl at that time.

Yeah, I understand your optimism for Mitch. I'm hoping that the reduced weight along with possibly having a coach that is more concerned with minutes and health management will help Mitch. I don't know Brown's philosophy on minutes but I can't imagine it is any more strenuous than Thibs' who consistently pushed Mitch up to 30+ minutes despite his body constantly breaking down.

I have my concerns about offering a 4 year deal to Mitch through his late 20's/early 30's. If he hasn't been able to take care of his body in his early 20's i'm not sure if it will get easier as he gets older. Being as this is a contract year I expect him to try to be in his best shape this year but I do worry about paying him a larger amount of money as he hasn't shown the greatest commitment to the game.

The Rockets just re-signed Adams who has his own injury history but had a huge impact for them in the postseason to a declining 3 year/39M deal. If the Knicks could get Mitch for a similar deal starting around $10M but increasing they could still have some wiggle room under the 2nd apron even with Mikal's new contract. Offering Mitch a 4 year/$68M seems like a bit much to me. That's a $17M average for a guy that just played 17 regular season games averaging 17 minutes.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

Depends on how much Mitch gets on his next contract. If he gets $10M or less next year they could keep him and potential still stay below the 2nd apron. I don't know what Mitch's market value is with his injury history. He is great to have when he is healthy and in shape but you never know when you are going to get that Mitch. I'm hoping last season was a turning point for his injury issues and the management of his health. Moving on from Mitch or keeping Mitch is a gamble either way.

Ofc it's wishful thinking because Mitch is my favourite knick and one of idk my favourite 3 players in the league, but I genuinely think Mitch will have turned the comer on health issues.

At some point he was a little too heavy. And he was sabotaged by Embiid and so on. But, overall, he seemed to be in a great place at the end of last season. Obviously can't shoot a ft for lick. But mkay

On the money side, I did the calculation in some thread about two months ago? Iirc the maximum extension rounds out at about 68/4. And that seems pretty fair for both sides to me aorn. If offered 10 per year I think Mitch would walk. Remember, he had 6/4 for his first four years in the league - pretty easily the worst pay for a productive player itl at that time.

Yeah, I understand your optimism for Mitch. I'm hoping that the reduced weight along with possibly having a coach that is more concerned with minutes and health management will help Mitch. I don't know Brown's philosophy on minutes but I can't imagine it is any more strenuous than Thibs' who consistently pushed Mitch up to 30+ minutes despite his body constantly breaking down.

I have my concerns about offering a 4 year deal to Mitch through his late 20's/early 30's. If he hasn't been able to take care of his body in his early 20's i'm not sure if it will get easier as he gets older. Being as this is a contract year I expect him to try to be in his best shape this year but I do worry about paying him a larger amount of money as he hasn't shown the greatest commitment to the game.

The Rockets just re-signed Adams who has his own injury history but had a huge impact for them in the postseason to a declining 3 year/39M deal. If the Knicks could get Mitch for a similar deal starting around $10M but increasing they could still have some wiggle room under the 2nd apron even with Mikal's new contract. Offering Mitch a 4 year/$68M seems like a bit much to me. That's a $17M average for a guy that just played 17 regular season games averaging 17 minutes.

I do see your side of the argument. I just think Mitch is such a beast if you want to match up with Jokic or Chet or even Wemby, over the next few years. If you had Giannis, then fine. But KAT doesn't cut it. I mean this is assuming that the Knicks are all in to actually win now. Which they pretty much have to be.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

I have my concerns about offering a 4 year deal to Mitch through his late 20's/early 30's. If he hasn't been able to take care of his body in his early 20's i'm not sure if it will get easier as he gets older. Being as this is a contract year I expect him to try to be in his best shape this year but I do worry about paying him a larger amount of money as he hasn't shown the greatest commitment to the game.
.

Just isolating this paragraph because I think it's an interesting discuss. I think my view is that it is often easier for players to be in better shape (contact and w/e injuries apart) in their late 20s. They've got a better grip on what works for them.

[JayTWill]

I have my concerns about offering a 4 year deal to Mitch through his late 20's/early 30's. If he hasn't been able to take care of his body in his early 20's i'm not sure if it will get easier as he gets older. Being as this is a contract year I expect him to try to be in his best shape this year but I do worry about paying him a larger amount of money as he hasn't shown the greatest commitment to the game.
.

Just isolating this paragraph because I think it's an interesting discuss. I think my view is that it is often easier for players to be in better shape (contact and w/e injuries apart) in their late 20s. They've got a better grip on what works for them.

I don't know. I guess that is possible if you are truly committed to learning, growing and maximizing your potential. I'm not sure if Mitch is that type of player yet. Maybe last year was a turning point where he learned from the process of that extended rehab how to take care of his body.

Maybe he is someone that will collect one last big pay check and get tired of putting his body through the wear and tear of the game and fade out until his early 30's. I'm glad to have Mitch on the team but he isn't a highly skilled player. He has to play a very physical brand of basketball in order to be effective.

Let me mention Mikal so we don't get too far off topic I'm sure Mikal's history of availability was a factor in his contract offer. Mitch's availability will be too.

[seren]

Depends on how much Mitch gets on his next contract. If he gets $10M or less next year they could keep him and potential still stay below the 2nd apron. I don't know what Mitch's market value is with his injury history. He is great to have when he is healthy and in shape but you never know when you are going to get that Mitch. I'm hoping last season was a turning point for his injury issues and the management of his health. Moving on from Mitch or keeping Mitch is a gamble either way.

Ofc it's wishful thinking because Mitch is my favourite knick and one of idk my favourite 3 players in the league, but I genuinely think Mitch will have turned the comer on health issues.

At some point he was a little too heavy. And he was sabotaged by Embiid and so on. But, overall, he seemed to be in a great place at the end of last season. Obviously can't shoot a ft for lick. But mkay

On the money side, I did the calculation in some thread about two months ago? Iirc the maximum extension rounds out at about 68/4. And that seems pretty fair for both sides to me aorn. If offered 10 per year I think Mitch would walk. Remember, he had 6/4 for his first four years in the league - pretty easily the worst pay for a productive player itl at that time.

Yeah, I understand your optimism for Mitch. I'm hoping that the reduced weight along with possibly having a coach that is more concerned with minutes and health management will help Mitch. I don't know Brown's philosophy on minutes but I can't imagine it is any more strenuous than Thibs' who consistently pushed Mitch up to 30+ minutes despite his body constantly breaking down.

I have my concerns about offering a 4 year deal to Mitch through his late 20's/early 30's. If he hasn't been able to take care of his body in his early 20's i'm not sure if it will get easier as he gets older. Being as this is a contract year I expect him to try to be in his best shape this year but I do worry about paying him a larger amount of money as he hasn't shown the greatest commitment to the game.

The Rockets just re-signed Adams who has his own injury history but had a huge impact for them in the postseason to a declining 3 year/39M deal. If the Knicks could get Mitch for a similar deal starting around $10M but increasing they could still have some wiggle room under the 2nd apron even with Mikal's new contract. Offering Mitch a 4 year/$68M seems like a bit much to me. That's a $17M average for a guy that just played 17 regular season games averaging 17 minutes.

He did play the most important 18 games in the playoffs with a huge impact. He ended up playing 35 percent of all the Knick games last season.

A healthy for 82 games plus playoffs guy who does Mitchell’s impact on the floor is a 27-35 million a year player (think a range from Hartenstein to Gobert).

And again the context is important. Cap wise there is little to no distinction between a 17 million a year Mitchell to 10 million a year. In both cases, we are over the second apron (barring other moves). If anything, it might be better to give him a higher number just so that he is a bigger contract in potential trades that you can match.

Unless we have a plan for a trade this season and they need that expiring contract, better to give him the largest extension. We can make the last year as team option to have some flexibility. A two plus one or three plus one would be ideal

[Capn'O]

Who would have given him that kind of money? What he got is about par.