RealGM

Say in 91 after the Warriors trade Richmond to the kings the knicks trade their #12 pick and wither Starks or Wilkins to the Kings for Mitch?

Do they win any titles? Mitch was always tough vs Jordan.

Also who was better? Gerald Wilkins or John Starks?

I posed this question some time ago and I think they'd win in 93 and 94.

I read this Thread Title as NOT '91 Mitch, but AS '22 Mitch lol, and immediately had this series of thoughts...

1. What if this wasn't a joke. How funny would that be, that the owner/bozo's running the NYK into the ground would sign a retired player.
2. And then I thought, hmm, if he could get into shape, maybe he could actually help in a bench role?!
3. Ehh, probably not, a bit too old, but still, it was a fun thought.
4. The NYK, comedy 24/7.

Any upgrade over Starks would have made a huge difference.
Naturally a title or two would have been there to get, since they just needed some reliable jumpers beyond just Ewing.
Starks was a wildcard/knucklehead, and ideal for Vinny Microwave role off the bench.
Gerald Wilkins was a bit better overall, but that one is a mixed bag and close.

prolific passer wrote:Say in 91 after the Warriors trade Richmond to the kings the knicks trade their #12 pick and wither Starks or Wilkins to the Kings for Mitch?

Do they win any titles? Mitch was always tough vs Jordan.

Also who was better? Gerald Wilkins or John Starks?

Starks was better than Wilkins.
Wilkins is the more established player in '91 though already probably worse.

At that point neither are 2s that you are happy to start (looking at reputation via the Barry book and production) so I don't think 12 plus either actually gets Mitch IRL.

Fwiw, this also means they lose Greg Anthony (the 12 pick) an acceptable rotation player by the boxcore with a good defensive reputation. So that is a loss to them. Maybe Starks now has to be a combo/third guard (there was some notion that he could play the one in the pinch, though also that he had some tendencies that made that ... sub-optimal). This deal also probably means they don't target Blackman the next year (so either keep their '95 pick or us it to acquire someone else). This may also affect the 3 team trade where the most significant figures to the Knicks are Mark Jackson [and what transpires to be a very late 1st round pick - '93 26th pick Geert Hammink taken] out, Charles Smith and Doc Rivers in (if the loss of Jackson is less tolerable without Anthony ... assuming they felt after '92 [and to a degree '91] Rivers was somewhat damaged and/or declined ... they may actually be more talented at the point though less deep and defensively minded). How the butterfly effect alters the Knicks vision in '92 could be key (in turn changes in Dallas's situation via Blackman might alter the Harper acquisition, though maybe not as Dallas were likely pretty bad either way).

I'd say Mitch had a clear production window of a 3 year long peak/short prime which doesn't align with the Knicks best teams (he peaks 96-98, they peak 93-94). Otherwise he doesn't look that far above average by some of the Reference box composites. Maybe one could argue some are punishing him too much for Sacramento's D (though even after his arrival they were pretty poor on both ends for three years, so it wasn't like he managed to get their O to a good place)

I will say though his RAPM is likely driven by strong on-offs in those last two apex years, the on-offs are solid in years he was I think widely perceived as washed up.