Mitchell Robinson vs. Myles Turner

[HopelessKnick]

Been discussing this with a friend of mine, going back and forth on who is the better fit and is likely gonna pan out better. This is of course in light of the constant rumors about the Knicks being interested in Myles Turner and Thibodeau wanting a 5 that can stretch the floor and open up the lane for Randle.

The Pacers are rumored to want either 2 first round picks or one first round pick and a promising young player. The Knicks could probably meet both demands. They'd likely offer Toppin + a first round pick. I think what seems clear is that having Mitch AND Turner makes no sense as long as you don't plan on playing Turner part-time at the 4. So I don't think having both is a viable option going forward.

Looking forward to your opinions.

[Jalen Bluntson]

Mitch.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Robinson is a better player, the only thing Turner has on him is floor spacing and that comes at a cost of toughness and rebounding. He's not some sniper from three either, he's below league average as a shooter.

God forbid we play the Sixers in a series anytime in the next few years with Turner, Embiid has dominated him worse than he did Drummond.

[Kampuchea]

Turner would take assets in trade and we’d be handcuffed into his contract demands since we traded for him and wouldn’t want to lose him.

Mitch we can just sign and likely for less than Turner.

Given that, Mitch.

[robillionaire]

Turner is a better fit although he’s been on a slump and Mitch has played well the past few games. But we really need some more floor spacing. I don’t think you can really win in the playoffs with a big with no offensive ability as a starter

[Jalen Bluntson]

Indiana trying to go to Sizzler thinking they're gonna get multiple first Rd picks and promising young players for Turner and LeVert.

[Deeeez Knicks]

The cost for Turner per those rumors are too high. I would not give up picks/young players for him.

The question for Mitch is if we are planning to resign him and if we can resign him for a good deal. If not, then get what you can.

IMO, we should try to resign Mitch for a reasonable deal. He has been playing well, and makes a huge impact when he does. Plus showing nice chemistry with RJ. If he can keep that up and stay healthy then well worth keeping.

[DOT]

Mitch is a better overall defender

Myles is the better shot blocker, and provides spacing by being a threat from 3

Also, while we need to make a decision on Mitch's contract this year, Myles only has 1 year left on his deal, at 18 million, and I can't see his asking price going down, plus he will be unrestricted and can just leave if he gets a better offer

I'd trade for Turner in the right deal. I think having a 5 that can shoot, even average, while being a good shot blocker is very valuable and can open up the offense

Especially because the biggest question mark about Mitch is his health and fitness. If I knew he'd stay healthy, I'd keep him, but it seems like every other game he's getting something tweaked, and even though he's working himself back into shape, it's clear he's not as mobile as he used to be.

[Synciere]

Not sure I get the Turner infatuation. Is there some sort of analytical data that suggests he’d make us a better team?

[knicksNOTslick]

We could find floor spacing big men that don't demand that much money or assets. The priority should be for a PG anyways. I wouldn't waste our assets when we already have Mitch. You just need to have diversity in your rotation in order to counter your opponents defense.

I would stick with Mitch and find him a backup big that can shoot. Trade Noel once he's healthy and keep Taj and Sims as insurance in case of injury.

No to Turner. Keep Mitch. Instead, find a PG that can run the offense to maximize Mitch's potential on offense, and also be able to shoot a 3 and play D.

[Chanel Bomber]

Mitch is a better fit if you want to build primarily around RJ and feature him in the offense (since he needs a PNR big).

Turner is a better fit if you want to build around Randle and unclog the lane by having more spacing on the floor.

These are two good role players. But who you choose depends on the player(s) you want to run your offense through, or how you want to run your offense. So the answer to this question depends a lot on how you feel about RJ and Randle (or whichever star you want to bring in).

[Jalen Bluntson]

Mitch is a better fit if you want to build primarily around RJ and feature him in the offense (since he needs a PNR big).

Turner is a better fit if you want to build around Randle and unclog the lane by having more spacing on the floor.

These are two good role players. But who you choose depends on the player(s) you want to run your offense through, or how you want to run your offense. So the answer to this question depends a lot on how you feel about RJ and Randle (or whichever star you want to bring in).

RJ and Mitch all day every day and twice on Sunday.

[robillionaire]

Mitch is a better fit if you want to build primarily around RJ and feature him in the offense (since he needs a PNR big).

Turner is a better fit if you want to build around Randle and unclog the lane by having more spacing on the floor.

These are two good role players. But who you choose depends on the player(s) you want to run your offense through, or how you want to run your offense. So the answer to this question depends a lot on how you feel about RJ and Randle (or whichever star you want to bring in).

Let’s say hypothetically they intended to keep the Randle and RJ pairing, which center would be better then in your estimate?

[moocow007]

The Knicks have more money than any other team. They are not the Pacers who just simply cannot afford to resign all of their players regardless of whether it would create any cap space or clear cap space. So the notion of contracts is less of an issue for the Knicks especially if the players are worth those contracts (key here is worth the contract not simply contract). Worth the contract makes him an asset and provide the Knicks the potential to get even better. Not worth the contract makes him a deadweight that will hurt the Knicks attempts to get better. It's not the money not being available to be used. It's the use.

As far as is Turner worth 2 1st round picks? It depends on what type of picks we're talking about and not some fantasy notion (again) that all 1st round picks have great value (or even good value). 2 1st round picks like the Charlotte pick is at the end of the day is not that great a value and therefore is closer in being ok. 2 1st round picks from the Lakers (which is being bandied about as "So you're saying there is a chance...yeah!!!" type of reality)? That's basically guaranteed to be crap regardless of how many years in the future it may be. That's why just about everyone is saying the Knicks fleeced the Hawks on Reddish even though Reddish is hardly anywhere near as proven as impactful as Turner. Now if they are looking for 2 first round picks from the Pistons or the like, then yeah, that's a lot harder to stomach.

And before anyone says "but you can't play both Mitch and Turner..." (aka the "fit" argument). Each move doesn't mean the last move right? It's about maneuvering yourself to build assets so you can potentially make other moves at some point now or in the near future. Teams that know how to do that are the franchises with the front offices that can turn things around an maintain things (see Warriors). Same with the "but what if they keep Randle and RJ" fit question. No one on this team is in the area where they cannot be dealt cause they are too valuable for this franchise going forward no matter what hot streak their on.

So...there is no blanket statement about this Turner not being worth 'X' or LeVert being worth 'Y' without actually determining what those variables are. X = 2 Pistons 1st? X = 2 Knicks 1st? X = 2 Lakers 1st? Completely completely different areas of the value spectrum. It's like with Reddish right? If you were told that in order for the Knicks to get Reddish they'd have to give up a young player and a 1st most people on this board would have said heck no. Right? But if we clear that 'young player' = Knox and '1st' = a completely lottery protected 1st that can turn into 2 2nds that's a whole different ball park.

[Chanel Bomber]

Mitch is a better fit if you want to build primarily around RJ and feature him in the offense (since he needs a PNR big).

Turner is a better fit if you want to build around Randle and unclog the lane by having more spacing on the floor.

These are two good role players. But who you choose depends on the player(s) you want to run your offense through, or how you want to run your offense. So the answer to this question depends a lot on how you feel about RJ and Randle (or whichever star you want to bring in).

Let’s say hypothetically they intended to keep the Randle and RJ pairing, which center would be better then in your estimate?

Well I don't want them to keep the Randle-RJ pairing. So there's that.

If they kept both players long-term (I really hate your question lol), I don't know. I guess Turner would make some sense, because you can then run the RJ-Randle PNR, and also allow space for an attacking guard should you find a way to acquire one. If the RJ leap as a PNR ball-handler is real, which is tbd imo, then I guess Mitch makes a lot of sense. My issue is that neither Randle nor RJ has really distinguished himself this season besides some short stretches of good play. Water gun to head, I'd say Mitch, unconvincingly. I like both as role players.

You?

[robillionaire]

One thing about Turner is that he’s just under contract this season and next at 18M a year so if he’s a flop at least we don’t have to keep paying him. You somehow get Fournier out of here in the trade and it clears 20m off the books 1 year early

[robillionaire]

Mitch is a better fit if you want to build primarily around RJ and feature him in the offense (since he needs a PNR big).

Turner is a better fit if you want to build around Randle and unclog the lane by having more spacing on the floor.

These are two good role players. But who you choose depends on the player(s) you want to run your offense through, or how you want to run your offense. So the answer to this question depends a lot on how you feel about RJ and Randle (or whichever star you want to bring in).

Let’s say hypothetically they intended to keep the Randle and RJ pairing, which center would be better then in your estimate?

Well I don't want them to keep the Randle-RJ pairing. So there's that.

If they kept both players long-term (I really hate your question lol), I don't know. I guess Turner would make some sense, because you can then run the RJ-Randle PNR, and also allow space for an attacking guard should you find a way to acquire one. If the RJ leap as a PNR ball-handler is real, which is tbd imo, then I guess Mitch makes a lot of sense. My issue is that neither Randle nor RJ has really distinguished himself this season besides some short stretches of good play. Water gun to head, I'd say Mitch, unconvincingly. I like both as role players.

You?

I’d say Turner in that scenario because the spacing would be more important, but it doesn’t have to necessarily be Turner. Can be another stretch big. I see Mitch more as a bench rim runner center. They could both work on this team in theory as a 1-2 punch. But I don’t think I’d want to pay Mitch what he will demand in the offseason to be a bench center either. I guess we will see

[Jalen Bluntson]

We need a PG. Not another C.

[The Lamma]

Turner would take assets in trade and we’d be handcuffed into his contract demands since we traded for him and wouldn’t want to lose him.

Mitch we can just sign and likely for less than Turner.

Given that, Mitch.

^^^This

What makes this not an apples and oranges comparison is cost. And IMO they are already close in value without factoring that in.

But looking at the cost: we'd have to cough up two first rounders for Turner (or a 1st plus probably Obi or Grimes) and that puts me into full Judge Smails territory with their phone call

Spoiler:

PS Mitch is shooting 78.9% right now

[Spree2Houston]

Mitch can defintely shoot 3s. He may not shoot it at a high % (neither does Turner) but he has it in his bag. I just think the coaching staff doesn't want him shooting 3s

Here are clips of him shooting 3s

https://www.facebook.com/NewYorkKnicksNation/videos/mitchell-robinson-shooting-from-3/2578339192407631/

https://www.facebook.com/NewYorkKnicksNation/videos/mitchell-robinson-shooting-threes-in-an-open-gym/533985323934611/