It's another edition of Knicks Mailbag, with SNY NBA Insider Ian Begley ready to answer your questions surrounding the team. Let's get started...
Have the Knicks been in conversations with teams about centers they can trade for? - @jmere09nyc
Yes. Before the draft, they checked in with at least one team with a center under contract. Obviously nothing came to fruition. The team contacted by the Knicks was ultimately unwilling to part with its big man. The Knicks’ approach in this check-in was more than just due diligence, according to the team the Knicks spoke with. They were genuinely trying to get a deal done. Was this because they knew Mitchell Robinson would not be back? I don’t know the answer to that, but logic tells you they wouldn’t have put a call in if they thought Robinson would be back. If the Knicks want to stay under the second apron next season, Robinson would have to take a significant pay cut to return to the team.
You can make the argument that Robinson is the best unrestricted free agent on the center market. The Lakers are among the teams in need of a center. Reports have linked the Lakers and Robinson. SNY hasn’t independently confirmed those reports, but Robinson will certainly have interest from teams around the league.
If the Knicks lose Robinson, they will have to find a serviceable center via the trade market or free agency.
Free agency will be difficult because they will not be able to offer much more than a minimum deal. The next place to turn is the trade market. Maybe Moussa Diabate is available from Charlotte after they drafted a big man to add to their large center rotation? The Knicks have previously showed interest in Goga Bitadze, Yves Missi and Nic Richards. I’m sure they will look at all options on the table if Robinson does not return.
Could a yearly pay cut with more years added work? I don’t see any other team giving him more than 2 years? Maybe? - Via Kenny
The Knicks can give him a five-year deal. So they have the opportunity to offer more guaranteed money in the scenario you propose. But the Knicks can also offer him more money annually than he is making now. They would just have to exceed the second apron to do so.
Do you think staying under the second apron is to protect from Mitch injury issues? - Via @therealgmlopes
If you go over to sign him you’re basically stuck if he has his yearly injury. If they can keep him and stay under the apron, that’s not an issue. Also staying under leaves S&T as an option for him.
This would make sense to me. If you are worried about committing multiple years to Robinson due to injury, that’s understandable. But I can’t wrap my head around why the Knicks wouldn’t want to exceed the second apron this offseason.
The penalties are significant (as ESPN’s Bobby Marks explains in this video) but this team just won a championship.
Owner James Dolan has never been shy about spending money. Why would that change now? Dolan said in a WFAN interview recently that he didn’t want to go over the second apron. He reiterated that stance internally prior to the draft. He has not shared the specific reasons why he does not want to go over the second apron.
The strongest pushback to staying under the 2nd apron is BOS won while over it and DEN won + then immediately lost depth bc of it. If NYK believes this group can win multiple titles why should preserving future flexibility take priority over retaining everyone on the title team? - @Brock_Aller
This is a question that will hang over this offseason until it’s explained to the fan base. Every title team loses players. But this situation is different because the Knicks can spend the money to retain Robinson and Landry Shamet. By staying under the second apron, they will have to choose one or the other.
