Would You Do This Trade?

by fuhry on Nov 12, 2009 12:13 PM EST

I'm as interested as anyone in seeing whether the new, slimmed down Eddy Curry can come back and add some much needed interior presence to the Knick team. I think he can really help. And it seems unlikely that they will get anyone to take his contract on. Or Jeffries, for that matter.

But I was reading about the Golden State Warriors, and how a couple of anonymous players were indicating the Stephen Jackson situation is making for some pretty bad locker room mojo. And my first thought is that I don't want any of that. I also have no interest in taking on Jackson's horrible extension deal, as it would of course ruin our cap picture for next year.

Or....would it?

http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade.php?tradeid=5278999

If the Knicks traded Eddy Curry, Jared Jeffries, and Wilson Chandler to the Warriors for Stephen Jackson, Speedy Claxton, Acie Law and Brandan Wright, they would take on Jackson's salary for 2010 and beyond. But, in losing Curry and Jeffries' salaries, the Knicks would shave $31 million off their 2010 cap. I think that would get them 2 max players or some additional flexibility to sign Lee and Nate or whatever they wanted to do. For Golden State, they'd be taking a big risk on Curry, but in getting Chandler, a young player with promise, they'd be able to sell this to their fans. Plus, although they'd take a 2010 cap hit, they would be in much better shape for 2011. I don't think they're going to get a better deal than this for Jackson. In fact, I think it's too good. I think we need to demand a first rounder. Maybe exchange our 2nd rounder next year for their first rounder? In any case, I think this is extremely doable.

Should the Knicks do it?

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

sorry man

But why in God’s name would the Warriors do this trade?

by riise on Nov 12, 2009 12:57 PM EST reply actions

Because

They’re desperate to get rid of Jackson, he’s 31, and he has a contract extension that will guarantee he’s going to be overpaid. Who is going to offer them anything better? They take on salary for next year but they are rid of Jackson’s contract on their cap for 11-12 and 12-13. They actually get a young player with some promise (Chandler). And they are also in need of a big, and if Curry comes back and can play the trade is actually pretty good for them. If not, still, they get rid of Jackson without taking on any contracts beyond next year, and they get a young player who might help them.

Again, who is going to offer then any better?

by fuhry on Nov 12, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions

I don't see GS biting on this..

They are definitely trying to rid themselves o Jackson, but this doesn’t improve them much. They already have a very young nucleus…and i think they aren’t interested in taking on more salary then they would be ridding themselves of, especially if they are throwin in a 1st Rd Pick. Curry is still viewed as a bust, and with Don Nelson highly critical of work ethics…Curry wouldn’t last long. Chandler is young and intriguing, yes, but it would seem the Warriors like Azubuike, Ellis, Curry, Morrow, Maggette at the SG/SF spots.

As for the Knicks…. I strongly hesitate with Stphen Jackson. Good player, yeah, but it seems like every team he goes to starts off good, then tanks quickly. Happened in Indiana, and now Golden State. Yeah, NY dumps 2 bad contracts, but they still take on Jacksons (which if they dumped Crawford last year over his, they aint holdin’ this one).
The other guys, Acie Law III and Brandan Wright won’t help NY much either. Law is a tall shooting PG, and Wright is a big injury risk (he should have stayed in school to beginwith)

Its an idea, and i think both teams DO get rid of what they ant to get rid of, but neither really gains what they want to gain either.

by Chris Child's Fist on Nov 12, 2009 3:33 PM EST reply actions

True enough

But if the Warriors think that they are going to get better talent back by trading Jackson, they’re crazy. He’s a good player, but he is 31 and his contract is awful. It’s hard to imagine any GM giving up anything significant for him. And the Warriors are married to him for this year and 3 more years!

As for the Knicks, the other guys in the trade are for salary matching purposes only.

I think my proposal is most likely better than anything they’ve gotten. And since when does Nellie mind taking on another logjam?

It’s not a great basketball trade for the Warriors OR the Knicks. But it could be a way to get rid of Curry and Jeffries’ contracts. And if Jackson plays well here (and he probably will) they could still trade him before the deadline… possibly for even more expirings!

by fuhry on Nov 12, 2009 4:18 PM EST up reply actions

Brandan Wright would be the best player involved in the trade. Don Nelson likes him. Chandler and Stephen Jackson are equal. I kinda want Eddy Curry. He can’t be any worse than what we have. I bet since he lost weight he can even jump.

NBA Team Analysis and Player Comparison

by mindfeck on Nov 12, 2009 3:37 PM EST reply actions

Brandan Wright = alien

Hes not very good. He has size, long arms and monstrously big ears. But he’s clumsy and brittle. Bad enough that we are short on bigs…last thing we need is another big who can’t bang. He was drafted on size and potential and even those at UNC thought he was leaving way early. He is destined to be an afterthought

by Chris Child's Fist on Nov 12, 2009 3:58 PM EST up reply actions

I think if you took out Brandon Wright...

the Warriors might bite. I doubt they’d put him in a trade like this.

I doubt they do it, but no one knows what GS is thinking lately so why not?

"It ain't over till its over"---

by FreeBradshaw on Nov 12, 2009 5:37 PM EST reply actions

i don't want stephen jackson on the team

al harrington is already the knucklehead bane of my basketball existence. and i don’t need his best basketball friend making me more antsy for a bunch more years. and seriously, curry could prove to be valuable. chances are he won’t be 12 mil a year valuable, but i digress. if we do not improve our team or our team’s potential, i think it’s a detriment.

what’s more, i feel like if we can get one superstar this off-season – there will be the next off-season and (even the one after) where we are infinitely more attractive destination to even more great players. it makes sense to hold tight.

you never know. maybe denver will want jeffries to guard tony parker if they met in the playoffs. and maybe they give us a second round pick and use their trade exception (which is huge, yet expires). i dunno how illogical that is, but i just can’t deal with another contract that’s not worth it’s weight.

we have waited too long. but all things come to an end. such as byron scott’s tenure coaching the hornets.

twitter.com/aighttho
http://howmuchyouthink.tumblr.com/

by stingy d on Nov 13, 2009 10:04 AM EST reply actions