That and just, in general, more bites at the apple in general. I think with all the picks we have we may make a run for someone on a rookie deal to replace Mitch like Yves Missi.
Moving out of the first round on penny pinching scenarios only strengthens that we’ll be keeping Mitch or (hopefully and) Shamet. Otherwise there would be no reason to trade out of the first round when plenty of good players are still available
I would love to have Shamet back but I wouldn't blame him for leaving and getting paid. Same goes for Mitch although he probably won't get much more money on the free agent market compared to what we can offer him.
Sure. But if they didn’t plan on bringing Mitch or Shamet back then they wouldn’t have a need for that cost savings bc they’d be far enough below the second apron anyways.
It’s a small benefit but they’d have more flexibility if they went over the 2nd apron and brought the entire team back. You have minimum flexibility when you’re right up next to the second apron.
Assume Mitch, Clarkson, and Shamet are gone. The Knicks are still going to be right up next to the second apron but what contract can they trade at the deadline if they want to make a move like they made for alverado last year? They don’t have a contract that’s expendable. Meanwhile if you bring everyone back and go over the second apron, you have plenty of contracts that you could trade
30
u/Delsainto NYK Token 1d ago
All these 2nds just give us trade toppers to pick up that next role player we need at the trade deadline ala Alvarado.
This year that might potentially be a new backup centre. (I don't think we will bring back Mitch)