NoDopeOnSundays wrote:So, basically, he'll be out past the trade deadline, and if he gets hurt after that point what exactly was the point of keeping him?
It's too big of a risk to rely on him, he got hurt in May, he's not close after 8 months. There are guys that come back from ACL tears faster than this.
I don't think that's that (risk of not contributing) is the right way of looking at it.
If Mitch can play in the playoffs at his expected game then the Knicks are very likely clearly the 2nd best team in the East and have a punchers chance against the Celtics.
Without Mitch, no matter who they could realistically trade him and pieces for, the Knicks look dubious against a slew of teams in the East in the playoffs.
Yes, if Mitch can't contribute you theoretically have "improved" the team a smidgeon by trading him. But, no, that wouldn't actually make a significant difference in the playoffs to the version of reality where Mitch is still out.
The upside off having Mitch is so great - in terms of chances of winning the ECF at least - that there's no probability too small that he's available that justifies trading him.
I'd go even further ... Even if he's out for the season I don't see any point in trading him. He has more value as a trade piece later.
People keep talking about Kessler. But after the Utah game he - or anyone in the ballpark - are evidently not useful players for a Knicks team with ambitions to be a top 4 team in the league.
Not only could Kessler not cope with KAT's best moves. He couldn't cope with _any_ of KAT's moves. How is he going to defend Embiid or Gianni's or Cleveland's bigs ...? Answer ... ineffectually.