Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="OttoinGrotto, post: 4330932, member: 297"]
But think of how illogical what you're saying is. You're saying rather than make a move on a guy that provides some insurance that you'll be good, you'd rather not, increasing the likelihood that you're not good. Which is what you're trying to avoid.

Mitchell's got years on his deal, and he's not going to leave the Knicks. He'll sign another contract.

With an actual perennial all-star in the fold, the franchise floor rises. We're not talking about a "maybe he reaches that level" guy like Barrett, or a flash in the pan all-star like it looks like Randle is (unfortunate, btw, I like Randle and think he gets more flak than he deserves). We mean a guy that's an Eastern conference all-star game fixture that's probably making all-NBA on occasion.

I know it's the Knicks, but come on - who doesn't think they could build around that?* You can put a team around that player that competes, at least to the degree where those picks aren't going to be lotto or anything. Sure, years down the road catastrophic injury or something could happen that blows up a season, but having that pick on hand isn't going to fix that season, it's a consolation prize.

I think the impasse on this trade is because the protected picks the Knicks can offer from other teams just don't have a lot of upside. The Jazz probably aren't getting a lot of legit talent in this trade, it's all speculated talent on the picks.

*The Jazz don't believe they can because they know Mitchell's out when free agency hits, so better to trade him now and start the rebuild when he has more value due to the additional years on the deal.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?