The Return of Mitchell Robinson

[Nazrmohamed]

numbers don’t matter when they don’t suit the agenda, 10-4

Why are we doing this. We have 2 solid defensive Cs and the backup stepped up while the starter was hurt. I think your point illustrates that if we have an option to improve our team dramatically, that we've shown that we could get by without Mitch but I wouldn't use it to say that Mitch is responsible for the record entirely. I mean RJ shot horrible the first half, we were experimenting with playing Frznk and Knox at the time. Not to mention the chemistry just came together as the season went on. It happens sometimes. Also Mitch himself was being somewhat limited trying to be attentive to his foul totals, testing new skills. If you have a chance to get Mitch on the court you do it.

But, but but again, the reason why your point is important is this. The reason why Noel's emergence is so important isn't that it proves Mitch isn't as good as we all thought. But when you want something you gotta give up something. And knowing you have Noel and Taj as that ace in your hand might allow you to feel better about having to part with him IF a star becomes available at another position perhaps. Or maybe it means Noel might be desirable in a sign and trade but point is.....we have two starting caliber defensive Cs. That's should be considered a good problem to have that opens up some possibilities. Doesn't mean you have to put either on the trade block but if something presents itself you'll listen.

Focusing on our record before we added Rose, allows buddy to minimize Mitch's impact, despite Mitch having clearly been the better of the two...on both ends...when he was healthy. Same way he quotes Thibs about how Nerlens has stepped up, but ignores what Thibs had to say about Mitch anchoring us when he was still healthy.

Robillionaire in this thread is demonstrating how facts can be used in a misleading way to support obviously wrong conclusions.

I didn't read the whole chain but both of you make solid points. I hear what you're saying but I wouldn't totally disregard his point cuz you can use that data. But yeah, I totally forgot about Rose not being here either. That was huge. Probably the second biggest impact after Julius. I mean RJ improved too but in terms of that jolt to the team Rose saved our season so I agree, its a bit disingenuous to simply point to the record with Mitch

.......but that don't mean I won't use the hell out of it in negotiations. People gotta remember Mitch wants to get paid. People gotta remember we wanna increase our talent and come back next yr better than this one. Hell, there's an argument to be made tthat had the season gone on another 10 games we might've dropped to 6-8th. And I'm not trying to make idiotic short sighted trades. Anybody who's heard me knows I love that top players under 25 list. But don't get too attached to players either where you become unreasonable and won't even listen. We're all amateur GMs, well real GMs are always listening, always open.

[cgf]

Why are we doing this. We have 2 solid defensive Cs and the backup stepped up while the starter was hurt. I think your point illustrates that if we have an option to improve our team dramatically, that we've shown that we could get by without Mitch but I wouldn't use it to say that Mitch is responsible for the record entirely. I mean RJ shot horrible the first half, we were experimenting with playing Frznk and Knox at the time. Not to mention the chemistry just came together as the season went on. It happens sometimes. Also Mitch himself was being somewhat limited trying to be attentive to his foul totals, testing new skills. If you have a chance to get Mitch on the court you do it.

But, but but again, the reason why your point is important is this. The reason why Noel's emergence is so important isn't that it proves Mitch isn't as good as we all thought. But when you want something you gotta give up something. And knowing you have Noel and Taj as that ace in your hand might allow you to feel better about having to part with him IF a star becomes available at another position perhaps. Or maybe it means Noel might be desirable in a sign and trade but point is.....we have two starting caliber defensive Cs. That's should be considered a good problem to have that opens up some possibilities. Doesn't mean you have to put either on the trade block but if something presents itself you'll listen.

Focusing on our record before we added Rose, allows buddy to minimize Mitch's impact, despite Mitch having clearly been the better of the two...on both ends...when he was healthy. Same way he quotes Thibs about how Nerlens has stepped up, but ignores what Thibs had to say about Mitch anchoring us when he was still healthy.

Robillionaire in this thread is demonstrating how facts can be used in a misleading way to support obviously wrong conclusions.

I didn't read the whole chain but both of you make solid points. I hear what you're saying but I wouldn't totally disregard his point cuz you can use that data. But yeah, I totally forgot about Rose not being here either. That was huge. Probably the second biggest impact after Julius. I mean RJ improved too but in terms of that jolt to the team Rose saved our season so I agree, its a bit disingenuous to simply point to the record with Mitch

.......but that don't mean I won't use the hell out of it in negotiations. People gotta remember Mitch wants to get paid. People gotta remember we wanna increase our talent and come back next yr better than this one. Hell, there's an argument to be made tthat had the season gone on another 10 games we might've dropped to 6-8th. And I'm not trying to make idiotic short sighted trades. Anybody who's heard me knows I love that top players under 25 list. But don't get too attached to players either where you become unreasonable and won't even listen. We're all amateur GMs, well real GMs are always listening, always open.

I don't have a horse in this race. I'm neither a mitch fan nor a mitch hater and won't be devastated if it ends up being better for this franchise to trade him than re-sign him.

My only interest in this conversation is pointing out how misleading certain posters in the anti-mitch camp have been both in their critiques of Robinson and by ignoring Noel's warts.

[cgmw]

Dear lord is that a Jarred Allen “$100 million extension” link in the wiretap?

If so, Mitch needs at least $150 million, if not $200m.

[NYKat]

As great as Noel has been for us I don’t trust him... mostly his health...

Mitch is younger, more athletic and more upside, I’ll give the bag over Noel

[FreeSpiritNY]

How about split the bag for both

[HarthorneWingo]

As great as Noel has been for us I don’t trust him... mostly his health...

Mitch is younger, more athletic and more upside, I’ll give the bag over Noel

Funny, every time Nerlens hits the deck writhing in pain, I'm thinking, "That's it, he's done for the year." Then he eventually gets back up, heads to the locker room, and then comes back into the game to make the key defensive plays of the game. That's Nerlens. Amirite?

[JCS]

Dear lord is that a Jarred Allen “$100 million extension” link in the wiretap?

Ifi so, Mitch needs at least $150 million, if not $200m.

2 things are true :

1* Your player evaluation skill needs refinement.

2* 100M for Allen seems too high unless you're convinced he's Rudy 2.0. Number probably floated by his agent.

[Kampuchea]

As great as Noel has been for us I don’t trust him... mostly his health...

Mitch is younger, more athletic and more upside, I’ll give the bag over Noel

Not sure I trust Mitch to be healthy either. Would like both on reasonable contracts but seems unlikely.

[RHODEY]

As great as Noel has been for us I don’t trust him... mostly his health...

Mitch is younger, more athletic and more upside, I’ll give the bag over Noel

But you trust Mitch's health more?

[NYKat]

As great as Noel has been for us I don’t trust him... mostly his health...

Mitch is younger, more athletic and more upside, I’ll give the bag over Noel

But you trust Mitch's health more?

Yup

[NoDopeOnSundays]

If Noel is going to ask for full MLE and Mitch is going to get 10-11 million per, you resign Mitch and let Noel walk. You control the player that has more league wide value because of his age, if you don't believe in Mitch he can still be included in a trade a year or two from signing his deal because he'll only be 23-24 years old. Nobody is taking any kind of package deal that includes Nerlens Noel in it, sorry.


I love it though, so many of you scoffed at my rim runner thread about finding a player exactly like Noel who can do diet version of what Mitch does for less, but now you guys are going to go the complete opposite direction and want to resign Nerlens for like 80-90% of what Mitch would get while letting Mitch go. That's not how you do this, if you wanted to keep Noel he should have been on a multi-year deal already, you don't pay the premium for his performance now, you use Nerlens as leverage against Mitch to resign Mitch on a great deal. But the goal should be to resign Mitch if the money is close between them.

[RHODEY]

If Noel is going to ask for full MLE and Mitch is going to get 10-11 million per, you resign Mitch and let Noel walk. You control the player that has more league wide value because of his age, if you don't believe in Mitch he can still be included in a trade a year or two from signing his deal because he'll only be 23-24 years old. Nobody is taking any kind of package deal that includes Nerlens Noel in it, sorry.


I love it though, so many of you scoffed at my rim runner thread about finding a player exactly like Noel who can do diet version of what Mitch does for less, but now you guys are going to go the complete opposite direction and want to resign Nerlens for like 80-90% of what Mitch would get while letting Mitch go. That's not how you do this, if you wanted to keep Noel he should have been on a multi-year deal already, you don't pay the premium for his performance now, you use Nerlens as leverage against Mitch to resign Mitch on a great deal. But the goal should be to resign Mitch if the money is close between them.

I question whether coming in 2nd in the league in blocked shots (in limited minutes) and being a key contributor to a team that won 80% of its last 20 games is a "diet" version of Mitch. Just because a player us more talented doesn't mean that player is more effective. Health factors in , as does BBall IQ.

If you are talking potential ok...but otherwise....I don't know.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

If Noel is going to ask for full MLE and Mitch is going to get 10-11 million per, you resign Mitch and let Noel walk. You control the player that has more league wide value because of his age, if you don't believe in Mitch he can still be included in a trade a year or two from signing his deal because he'll only be 23-24 years old. Nobody is taking any kind of package deal that includes Nerlens Noel in it, sorry.


I love it though, so many of you scoffed at my rim runner thread about finding a player exactly like Noel who can do diet version of what Mitch does for less, but now you guys are going to go the complete opposite direction and want to resign Nerlens for like 80-90% of what Mitch would get while letting Mitch go. That's not how you do this, if you wanted to keep Noel he should have been on a multi-year deal already, you don't pay the premium for his performance now, you use Nerlens as leverage against Mitch to resign Mitch on a great deal. But the goal should be to resign Mitch if the money is close between them.

I question whether coming in 2nd in the league in blocked shots (in limited minutes) and being a key contributor to a team that won 80% of its last 20 games is a "diet" version of Mitch. Just because a player us more talented doesn't mean that player is more effective. Health factors in , as does BBall IQ.

If you are talking potential ok...but otherwise....I don't know.

Come on man, you're a prisoner of the moment, our defense is better with Mitch and he has more value around the league. I just went back and looked at my thread and you were one of the first in there, you said Mitch was better than Gobert at the same age and mentioned him breaking Wilt's FG record. You've done a complete 180 on Mitch meanwhile my point about him was always that getting max or near max money would cripple us, he wont be getting that now even though he has the potential to post the type of numbers that get rim runners that kind of money. You were fine with the idea of him getting max money then.

If Nerlens were already locked into a 3 year $15-18 million deal I'd be saying we should look into trades for Mitch, but that's not the case. Nerlens is most likely going to get paid, which means he's no longer are bargain, meanwhile we could potentially use him as leverage against Mitch to get a better player on a cheaper than market value deal. Mitch posted better numbers as a starter and our defense was better, you keep him and lock him into a cheaper deal. You do not sign Nerlens at a premium based on 41 games, you let some other team make that mistake.

[RHODEY]

If Noel is going to ask for full MLE and Mitch is going to get 10-11 million per, you resign Mitch and let Noel walk. You control the player that has more league wide value because of his age, if you don't believe in Mitch he can still be included in a trade a year or two from signing his deal because he'll only be 23-24 years old. Nobody is taking any kind of package deal that includes Nerlens Noel in it, sorry.


I love it though, so many of you scoffed at my rim runner thread about finding a player exactly like Noel who can do diet version of what Mitch does for less, but now you guys are going to go the complete opposite direction and want to resign Nerlens for like 80-90% of what Mitch would get while letting Mitch go. That's not how you do this, if you wanted to keep Noel he should have been on a multi-year deal already, you don't pay the premium for his performance now, you use Nerlens as leverage against Mitch to resign Mitch on a great deal. But the goal should be to resign Mitch if the money is close between them.

I question whether coming in 2nd in the league in blocked shots (in limited minutes) and being a key contributor to a team that won 80% of its last 20 games is a "diet" version of Mitch. Just because a player us more talented doesn't mean that player is more effective. Health factors in , as does BBall IQ.

If you are talking potential ok...but otherwise....I don't know.

Come on man, you're a prisoner of the moment, our defense is better with Mitch and he has more value around the league. I just went back and looked at my thread and you were one of the first in there, you said Mitch was better than Gobert at the same age and mentioned him breaking Wilt's FG record. You've done a complete 180 on Mitch meanwhile my point about him was always that getting max or near max money would cripple us, he wont be getting that now even though he has the potential to post the type of numbers that get rim runners that kind of money. You were fine with the idea of him getting max money then.

If Nerlens were already locked into a 3 year $15-18 million deal I'd be saying we should look into trades for Mitch, but that's not the case. Nerlens is most likely going to get paid, which means he's no longer are bargain, meanwhile we could potentially use him as leverage against Mitch to get a better player on a cheaper than market value deal. Mitch posted better numbers as a starter and our defense was better, you keep him and lock him into a cheaper deal. You do not sign Nerlens at a premium based on 41 games, you let some other team make that mistake.

I haven't done a complete 180 on Mitch He's the more talented player but unlike you I can adapt my opinion to new data. New data says Mitch is injury prone , new data also says that Noel is more than a diet version of Mitch in terms of effectiveness.


My point was just that...we need to take that into account.

Not get emotional, post dismissive gifs, create twisted arguments and dig up months old posts that don't really factor in to whats going on lately.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

I question whether coming in 2nd in the league in blocked shots (in limited minutes) and being a key contributor to a team that won 80% of its last 20 games is a "diet" version of Mitch. Just because a player us more talented doesn't mean that player is more effective. Health factors in , as does BBall IQ.

If you are talking potential ok...but otherwise....I don't know.

Come on man, you're a prisoner of the moment, our defense is better with Mitch and he has more value around the league. I just went back and looked at my thread and you were one of the first in there, you said Mitch was better than Gobert at the same age and mentioned him breaking Wilt's FG record. You've done a complete 180 on Mitch meanwhile my point about him was always that getting max or near max money would cripple us, he wont be getting that now even though he has the potential to post the type of numbers that get rim runners that kind of money. You were fine with the idea of him getting max money then.

If Nerlens were already locked into a 3 year $15-18 million deal I'd be saying we should look into trades for Mitch, but that's not the case. Nerlens is most likely going to get paid, which means he's no longer are bargain, meanwhile we could potentially use him as leverage against Mitch to get a better player on a cheaper than market value deal. Mitch posted better numbers as a starter and our defense was better, you keep him and lock him into a cheaper deal. You do not sign Nerlens at a premium based on 41 games, you let some other team make that mistake.

I haven't done a complete 180 on Mitch He's the more talented player but unlike you I can adapt my opinion to new data. New data says Mitch is injury prone , new data also says that Noel is more than a diet version of Mitch in terms of effectiveness.


My point was just that...we need to take that into account.

Not get emotional, post dismissive gifs, create twisted arguments and dig up months old posts that don't really factor in to whats going on lately.

How can you say I can't adapt my opinion, when I'm here saying we should keep Mitch. If the alternative to giving Mitch money is to sign Nerlens to a long term deal, I go with Mitch because it makes more sense. If you think Mitch is injury prone you use that as leverage, you don't get rid of the more talented player when they do similar things and you can potentially get that player on a make good type deal. And he is a diet version of Mitch, he's a worse rebounder, finisher and scorer and despite the blocks and steals our defense is better with Mitch.

Who is emotional? Me bringing up the old post is to show that you actually agree with premise of it, but now you're getting it completely twisted and being trapped in the moment. Signing Nerlens to an MLE is no longer value, if you want to give him 80-90% of the money that would have gone to Mitch you're completely wrong and fail to understand what that rim runner thread was about in the first place. Everything needs to be weighed in terms of value, Nerlens at $5-6 million per year is a great value, if he's getting $8-10 million he's no longer a value and he's clearly played himself out the 5-6 million range, right?

[RHODEY]

Come on man, you're a prisoner of the moment, our defense is better with Mitch and he has more value around the league. I just went back and looked at my thread and you were one of the first in there, you said Mitch was better than Gobert at the same age and mentioned him breaking Wilt's FG record. You've done a complete 180 on Mitch meanwhile my point about him was always that getting max or near max money would cripple us, he wont be getting that now even though he has the potential to post the type of numbers that get rim runners that kind of money. You were fine with the idea of him getting max money then.

If Nerlens were already locked into a 3 year $15-18 million deal I'd be saying we should look into trades for Mitch, but that's not the case. Nerlens is most likely going to get paid, which means he's no longer are bargain, meanwhile we could potentially use him as leverage against Mitch to get a better player on a cheaper than market value deal. Mitch posted better numbers as a starter and our defense was better, you keep him and lock him into a cheaper deal. You do not sign Nerlens at a premium based on 41 games, you let some other team make that mistake.

I haven't done a complete 180 on Mitch He's the more talented player but unlike you I can adapt my opinion to new data. New data says Mitch is injury prone , new data also says that Noel is more than a diet version of Mitch in terms of effectiveness.


My point was just that...we need to take that into account.

Not get emotional, post dismissive gifs, create twisted arguments and dig up months old posts that don't really factor in to whats going on lately.

How can you say I can't adapt my opinion, when I'm here saying we should keep Mitch. If the alternative to giving Mitch money is to sign Nerlens to a long term deal, I go with Mitch because it makes more sense. If you think Mitch is injury prone you use that as leverage, you don't get rid of the more talented player when they do similar things and you can potentially get that player on a make good type deal. And he is a diet version of Mitch, he's a worse rebounder, finisher and scorer and despite the blocks and steals our defense is better with Mitch.

Who is emotional? Me bringing up the old post is to show that you actually agree with premise of it, but now you're getting it completely twisted and being trapped in the moment. Signing Nerlens to an MLE is no longer value, if you want to give him 80-90% of the money that would have gone to Mitch you're completely wrong and fail to understand what that rim runner thread was about in the first place. Everything needs to be weighed in terms of value, Nerlens at $5-6 million per year is a great value, if he's getting $8-10 million he's no longer a value and he's clearly played himself out the 5-6 million range, right?

Where did I say to get rid of Mitch? And yeah you sound emotional when you try to turn it personal and clown me instead of just sticking with the facts of what I said.. All I said is I don't think that Nerlns for the 2nd half (more or less of the season) is "diet" version of Mitch and you tie that into all this other contract stuff.

[Chanel Bomber]

My only concern with Mitch is the free throw shooting.

From .600 his rookie year, to .568 his second year and .491 this year. It's not a positive trend, to say the least.

The advantage of having Taj or Noel in the 4th is you don't have to fear them getting to the line.

Mitch is a liability at the line.

[Phish Tank]

Mitch probably won't be ready to return during the playoffs, despite the hype and optimism around the organization. Additionally, rushing him back isn't really a good idea for someone who's suffered multiple injuries already this season.

With that said, I think you need Mitch to build on the successes we've endured this season. However, Noel's good run with us does bring up some interesting questions with Mitch:

1) Will Mitch be in good game shape to rotate defensively like Noel does?
2) Can he do all of this without fouling?
3) Can he avoid injuries?
4) Can he try to be less clumsy on the floor?

Those are all legit questions we'll have going forward.

[HarthorneWingo]

As great as Noel has been for us I don’t trust him... mostly his health...

Mitch is younger, more athletic and more upside, I’ll give the bag over Noel

But you trust Mitch's health more?

Mitch



Seriously, those two broken bones were freaky unless he has poor bone density. I hope Leon is smart enough to check that out.

[cgf]

Did Mitch have injury problems before this season that I've repressed or is this meme just because he got injured twice during this crazy season?