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

[seren]

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

It depends on his performance this year. The FO believes he can do better. And if he does, there are a lot of teams with cap space next summer.

[JayTWill]

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

Obviously if Mitch showed he could be an everyday starter playing 30-35 minutes per game he could be offered I contract in the Gobert/Hartenstein range but he has broken down any time he played 30 minutes or more for a month straight. Personally I see him as a guy even when healthy that we should try to keep at 25 minutes or less and a situational starter.

I used Steven Adams as a barometer for Mitch's contract. They are not the same player but both of them have dealt with some injuries and both of them had a tremendous impact in the postseason with their elite rebounding. Mitch is younger but with a longer history of injuries. Adams got 3/39. Kornet got 4/40 with a team option in the last year. Capela who could be used as an indicator of how Mitch's game may age just got 3/21. I'm not sure Mitch is going to get an average of $17M over 4 years unless he can stay on the court most of the year and that contract would still be a decent sized risk.

As far as the 2nd apron I believe it is at $222.4M next year. I believe the Knicks have around $203M in salary after Mikal's extension for 8 players not including Dadiet's team option. Lets say that they pickup Dadiet's option and they don't move Kolek for a 2nd round pick or something. They would still have $16M to fill out spots 10-14.

If my numbers are correct there would be a huge difference between Mitch getting a contract starting around $10M and one closer to $17M if the team wants to stay under the 2nd apron. They may have to get creative again by trading back out of the 1st round or out of the draft if Mitch got a deal starting exactly at $10M. My numbers may be off though.

[shmeakone]

Think he would have gotten traded if he didn’t accept this offer.

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.

Mikal is better than Derrick White. The reason White is hyped is because he won a ring and got the exposure he did. Replace him with Mikal and they're probably better.

[SelbyCobra]

I ran the numbers a few pages back, but it bears repeating: this is a 20% of the cap deal. This means it is relatively benign financially, and eminently tradable.

At 20% of the cap, it is essentially the same financial impact as

Khris Middleton, 5/$70M deal in 2015
Mike Conley, 3/$68M deal in 2021
Anfernee Simons, 4/$100M deal in 2022
Jalen Brunson, 4/$106M deal in 2022
RJ Barrett, 4/$107M deal in 2023

All of those deals are equivalent to Bridges' new extension at the time they were signed.

[seren]

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

Obviously if Mitch showed he could be an everyday starter playing 30-35 minutes per game he could be offered I contract in the Gobert/Hartenstein range but he has broken down any time he played 30 minutes or more for a month straight. Personally I see him as a guy even when healthy that we should try to keep at 25 minutes or less and a situational starter.

I used Steven Adams as a barometer for Mitch's contract. They are not the same player but both of them have dealt with some injuries and both of them had a tremendous impact in the postseason with their elite rebounding. Mitch is younger but with a longer history of injuries. Adams got 3/39. Kornet got 4/40 with a team option in the last year. Capela who could be used as an indicator of how Mitch's game may age just got 3/21. I'm not sure Mitch is going to get an average of $17M over 4 years unless he can stay on the court most of the year and that contract would still be a decent sized risk.

As far as the 2nd apron I believe it is at $222.4M next year. I believe the Knicks have around $203M in salary after Mikal's extension for 8 players not including Dadiet's team option. Lets say that they pickup Dadiet's option and they don't move Kolek for a 2nd round pick or something. They would still have $16M to fill out spots 10-14.

If my numbers are correct there would be a huge difference between Mitch getting a contract starting around $10M and one closer to $17M if the team wants to stay under the 2nd apron. They may have to get creative again by trading back out of the 1st round or out of the draft if Mitch got a deal starting exactly at $10M. My numbers may be off though.

Regarding the cap, the minimum contracts for veterans count around 2.3 million this year so it should be around 2.5 million next season. Dadiet’s guarantee is small so I assume they keep him. So if we have 4 more minimums (13 players), you have 216.7 million. You have to choose between Mitchell and the 2nd apron at that point. Giving Mitchell the 10 million would already put you over the 2nd apron. Maybe they trade away Hart and then the Mitchell contract size matters but as of now, smaller contract for Mitchell won’t keep us from 2nd apron. At this stage, I would negotiate more on the years (partial guarantees for minimum games played etc) rather than the annual value.

[JayTWill]

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

Obviously if Mitch showed he could be an everyday starter playing 30-35 minutes per game he could be offered I contract in the Gobert/Hartenstein range but he has broken down any time he played 30 minutes or more for a month straight. Personally I see him as a guy even when healthy that we should try to keep at 25 minutes or less and a situational starter.

I used Steven Adams as a barometer for Mitch's contract. They are not the same player but both of them have dealt with some injuries and both of them had a tremendous impact in the postseason with their elite rebounding. Mitch is younger but with a longer history of injuries. Adams got 3/39. Kornet got 4/40 with a team option in the last year. Capela who could be used as an indicator of how Mitch's game may age just got 3/21. I'm not sure Mitch is going to get an average of $17M over 4 years unless he can stay on the court most of the year and that contract would still be a decent sized risk.

As far as the 2nd apron I believe it is at $222.4M next year. I believe the Knicks have around $203M in salary after Mikal's extension for 8 players not including Dadiet's team option. Lets say that they pickup Dadiet's option and they don't move Kolek for a 2nd round pick or something. They would still have $16M to fill out spots 10-14.

If my numbers are correct there would be a huge difference between Mitch getting a contract starting around $10M and one closer to $17M if the team wants to stay under the 2nd apron. They may have to get creative again by trading back out of the 1st round or out of the draft if Mitch got a deal starting exactly at $10M. My numbers may be off though.

Regarding the cap, the minimum contracts for veterans count around 2.3 million this year so it should be around 2.5 million next season. Dadiet’s guarantee is small so I assume they keep him. So if we have 4 more minimums (13 players), you have 216.7 million. You have to choose between Mitchell and the 2nd apron at that point. Giving Mitchell the 10 million would already put you over the 2nd apron. Maybe they trade away Hart and then the Mitchell contract size matters but as of now, smaller contract for Mitchell won’t keep us from 2nd apron. At this stage, I would negotiate more on the years (partial guarantees for minimum games played etc) rather than the annual value.

A rookie vet min I believe will be around $1.3M next season and the Knicks may have 3 2nd round picks next season along with possibly a late 1st that they could trade out of or attempt to shave a few dollars off the contract like they did with Dadiet. Staying under the 2nd apron and retaining Mitch is possible if he accepts a deal starting around $10M. The end of the bench would just be rookies like it was for the 24-25 season.

[Fat Kat]

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

Obviously if Mitch showed he could be an everyday starter playing 30-35 minutes per game he could be offered I contract in the Gobert/Hartenstein range but he has broken down any time he played 30 minutes or more for a month straight. Personally I see him as a guy even when healthy that we should try to keep at 25 minutes or less and a situational starter.

I used Steven Adams as a barometer for Mitch's contract. They are not the same player but both of them have dealt with some injuries and both of them had a tremendous impact in the postseason with their elite rebounding. Mitch is younger but with a longer history of injuries. Adams got 3/39. Kornet got 4/40 with a team option in the last year. Capela who could be used as an indicator of how Mitch's game may age just got 3/21. I'm not sure Mitch is going to get an average of $17M over 4 years unless he can stay on the court most of the year and that contract would still be a decent sized risk.

As far as the 2nd apron I believe it is at $222.4M next year. I believe the Knicks have around $203M in salary after Mikal's extension for 8 players not including Dadiet's team option. Lets say that they pickup Dadiet's option and they don't move Kolek for a 2nd round pick or something. They would still have $16M to fill out spots 10-14.

If my numbers are correct there would be a huge difference between Mitch getting a contract starting around $10M and one closer to $17M if the team wants to stay under the 2nd apron. They may have to get creative again by trading back out of the 1st round or out of the draft if Mitch got a deal starting exactly at $10M. My numbers may be off though.

Read on Twitter

[spree2kawhi]

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

Obviously if Mitch showed he could be an everyday starter playing 30-35 minutes per game he could be offered I contract in the Gobert/Hartenstein range but he has broken down any time he played 30 minutes or more for a month straight. Personally I see him as a guy even when healthy that we should try to keep at 25 minutes or less and a situational starter.

I used Steven Adams as a barometer for Mitch's contract. They are not the same player but both of them have dealt with some injuries and both of them had a tremendous impact in the postseason with their elite rebounding. Mitch is younger but with a longer history of injuries. Adams got 3/39. Kornet got 4/40 with a team option in the last year. Capela who could be used as an indicator of how Mitch's game may age just got 3/21. I'm not sure Mitch is going to get an average of $17M over 4 years unless he can stay on the court most of the year and that contract would still be a decent sized risk.

As far as the 2nd apron I believe it is at $222.4M next year. I believe the Knicks have around $203M in salary after Mikal's extension for 8 players not including Dadiet's team option. Lets say that they pickup Dadiet's option and they don't move Kolek for a 2nd round pick or something. They would still have $16M to fill out spots 10-14.

If my numbers are correct there would be a huge difference between Mitch getting a contract starting around $10M and one closer to $17M if the team wants to stay under the 2nd apron. They may have to get creative again by trading back out of the 1st round or out of the draft if Mitch got a deal starting exactly at $10M. My numbers may be off though.

Read on Twitter

This should not be overlooked, but he did play well again last season.

[BKlutch]

Obviously if Mitch showed he could be an everyday starter playing 30-35 minutes per game he could be offered I contract in the Gobert/Hartenstein range but he has broken down any time he played 30 minutes or more for a month straight. Personally I see him as a guy even when healthy that we should try to keep at 25 minutes or less and a situational starter.

I used Steven Adams as a barometer for Mitch's contract. They are not the same player but both of them have dealt with some injuries and both of them had a tremendous impact in the postseason with their elite rebounding. Mitch is younger but with a longer history of injuries. Adams got 3/39. Kornet got 4/40 with a team option in the last year. Capela who could be used as an indicator of how Mitch's game may age just got 3/21. I'm not sure Mitch is going to get an average of $17M over 4 years unless he can stay on the court most of the year and that contract would still be a decent sized risk.

As far as the 2nd apron I believe it is at $222.4M next year. I believe the Knicks have around $203M in salary after Mikal's extension for 8 players not including Dadiet's team option. Lets say that they pickup Dadiet's option and they don't move Kolek for a 2nd round pick or something. They would still have $16M to fill out spots 10-14.

If my numbers are correct there would be a huge difference between Mitch getting a contract starting around $10M and one closer to $17M if the team wants to stay under the 2nd apron. They may have to get creative again by trading back out of the 1st round or out of the draft if Mitch got a deal starting exactly at $10M. My numbers may be off though.

Read on Twitter

This should not be overlooked, but he did play well again last season.

Is that a picture of Mitch and his love child with Zion?

[KnixinSix]

I ran the numbers a few pages back, but it bears repeating: this is a 20% of the cap deal. This means it is relatively benign financially, and eminently tradable.

At 20% of the cap, it is essentially the same financial impact as

Khris Middleton, 5/$70M deal in 2015
Mike Conley, 3/$68M deal in 2021
Anfernee Simons, 4/$100M deal in 2022
Jalen Brunson, 4/$106M deal in 2022
RJ Barrett, 4/$107M deal in 2023

All of those deals are equivalent to Bridges' new extension at the time they were signed.

Context.

[NYKinMIA]

Read on Twitter

[nedleeds]

Think he would have gotten traded if he didn’t accept this offer.

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.

Mikal is better than Derrick White. The reason White is hyped is because he won a ring and got the exposure he did. Replace him with Mikal and they're probably better.

What is he better at beside being a Knick? Here's the last two years. Im sure you are a great fan.



I like Bridges, but hes not on Whites level. White has 2 all nba defense also. Again my issue is slightly more room under the second apron isnt worth the better clarity we'll have after this season. If we can't make a final with 2 of the best 5 players out and the east the worst it's been since the Kidd led Nets then why get stuck with a go nowhere roster?

[Jalen Bluntson]

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.

Mikal is better than Derrick White. The reason White is hyped is because he won a ring and got the exposure he did. Replace him with Mikal and they're probably better.

What is he better at beside being a Knick? Here's the last two years. Im sure you are a great fan.



I like Bridges, but hes not on Whites level. White has 2 all nba defense also. Again my issue is slightly more room under the second apron isnt worth the better clarity we'll have after this season. If we can't make a final with 2 of the best 5 players out and the east the worst it's been since the Kidd led Nets then why get stuck with a go nowhere roster?

They call that cherry picking.

[VirginiaKnickFan]

Mikal is better than Derrick White. The reason White is hyped is because he won a ring and got the exposure he did. Replace him with Mikal and they're probably better.

What is he better at beside being a Knick? Here's the last two years. Im sure you are a great fan.



I like Bridges, but hes not on Whites level. White has 2 all nba defense also. Again my issue is slightly more room under the second apron isnt worth the better clarity we'll have after this season. If we can't make a final with 2 of the best 5 players out and the east the worst it's been since the Kidd led Nets then why get stuck with a go nowhere roster?

They call that cherry picking.

[nedleeds]

Mikal is better than Derrick White. The reason White is hyped is because he won a ring and got the exposure he did. Replace him with Mikal and they're probably better.

What is he better at beside being a Knick? Here's the last two years. Im sure you are a great fan.



I like Bridges, but hes not on Whites level. White has 2 all nba defense also. Again my issue is slightly more room under the second apron isnt worth the better clarity we'll have after this season. If we can't make a final with 2 of the best 5 players out and the east the worst it's been since the Kidd led Nets then why get stuck with a go nowhere roster?

They call that cherry picking.

The last TWO years is cherry picking? Are you high?

[spree8]

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.

Mikal is better than Derrick White. The reason White is hyped is because he won a ring and got the exposure he did. Replace him with Mikal and they're probably better.

What is he better at beside being a Knick? Here's the last two years. Im sure you are a great fan.



I like Bridges, but hes not on Whites level. White has 2 all nba defense also. Again my issue is slightly more room under the second apron isnt worth the better clarity we'll have after this season. If we can't make a final with 2 of the best 5 players out and the east the worst it's been since the Kidd led Nets then why get stuck with a go nowhere roster?

I agree White is better than Mikal, but why assume we can’t make the Finals or win it all this year? Season hasn’t started n you’re already thinking of defeat?

[Meat]

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.

Mikal is better than Derrick White. The reason White is hyped is because he won a ring and got the exposure he did. Replace him with Mikal and they're probably better.

What is he better at beside being a Knick? Here's the last two years. Im sure you are a great fan.



I like Bridges, but hes not on Whites level. White has 2 all nba defense also. Again my issue is slightly more room under the second apron isnt worth the better clarity we'll have after this season. If we can't make a final with 2 of the best 5 players out and the east the worst it's been since the Kidd led Nets then why get stuck with a go nowhere roster?

Let's circle back to this now that White's not playing with murders row for a starting lineup

[Jalen Bluntson]

What is he better at beside being a Knick? Here's the last two years. Im sure you are a great fan.



I like Bridges, but hes not on Whites level. White has 2 all nba defense also. Again my issue is slightly more room under the second apron isnt worth the better clarity we'll have after this season. If we can't make a final with 2 of the best 5 players out and the east the worst it's been since the Kidd led Nets then why get stuck with a go nowhere roster?

They call that cherry picking.

The last TWO years is cherry picking? Are you high?

White was on a championship level team. Bridges was with the Nets and then had the worst offensive HC in the league last year. Over their careers they are pretty much even talent. You must be high if you can't tell the difference between cherry picking two years out of 9 and actual career numbers.

White has been in a perfect situation. Mikal has not over the last two seasons. It's not that difficult to see reality. You're just cherry picking stats that serve your failed agenda driven post.

Facts and context matter. You haven't used either.

[Jalen Bluntson]

Bridges has an all NBA defense honors. Pick another cherry.

[NoStatsGuy]

i didnt see derrick white make any series winning plays last playoffs.. im just saying.