Realist Trade part 2: The controversial sequel
by solanumbrella on Feb 3, 2010 4:39 PM EST
35 comments
Yo guys, I have another trade for your review. The Description of why it makes sense is posting on my site,
The trade, in principle, is as follows:
Trade 2:
Knicks get: Josh Howard (1 year, 10.8 M), Anthony Morrow (1 year, 736 K), Brandon Wright (2 years, 2.6 M) and a trade exception worth 457 K
Mavericks get: Corey Maggette (4 years, 8.9 M), Marcus Landry (1 year, 457 K)
Warriors get: Jared Jeffries (2 years, 6.4 M), Nate Robinson (1 year, 4 M), Wilson Chandler (2 years, 1.2 M), Toney Douglas (2 years, 996 K) and a trade exception worth 736 K
I don't think you guys are all going to like this trade, but I personally think it would be a delight.
Additionally, there's a second edition of the trade that is much less likely, but I decided to include because it's not likely either of the trades would happen, anyway.
Let me know what you all think.
Later.
0 recs |
35 comments
Email
Print
Comments
this is pretty ugly
mavs never do this in a million years – maggette isn’t enough of an upgrade for Dallas to take on that albatross contract.
and from the Knicks’ side, i think we’re giving up way too much talent for cap relief. even if we can hang on to Morrow, it’s still slanted way in favor of the Warriors. i have no faith in brandon wright’s ability to stay healthy, or become a useful piece in the NBA.
by latrell chokewell on Feb 3, 2010 5:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Fair points.
Brandon Wright could be a far better player than Wilson Chandler if he got burn, in my opinion.
I guess that’s where we differ.
Also, I don’t think you realize how good Maggette has been this year. All Dallas ever cares about is “this year.”
www.biggiantorange.blogspot.com
by solanumbrella on Feb 3, 2010 11:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
These trades usually seem like desperate attempts to get rid of Jeffries...
this trade’s better then the last one I guess…
I’d rather just see what we can do just giving up Nate and Jeffries (no one else).
Rectum? Damn near killed em!
by FreeBradshaw on Feb 4, 2010 10:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
i disagree
I don’t see this is a wise move for us. Dallas has been looking to get rid of Josh Howard for the last 2 years. He has sorta grown into a headcase of sorts. Not entirely different from Nate….a lot of little things that build up to be big things. He’s an excellent player, but he also seems to miss handfuls of games from ankle injuries and such too. Consistently. On a team hurting for PGs, it doesn’t make much sense for us to give up 2 of our 3, especially given an offseason that is VERY weak on the PG side.
I actually might not give up Chandler for Howard straight up… but thats just me.
Also, if Dallas wants to move Howard because of his perceived attitude…Maggette is not the guy you bring in to replace him.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Feb 4, 2010 11:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you understand.
We could bench Josh Howard for the rest of the season, or even ask him not to come to the games.
The only reason we’d want him is because he’s an expiring contract.
www.biggiantorange.blogspot.com
by solanumbrella on Feb 4, 2010 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yea I agree
I’m not all that jazzed about this trade, but props for realizing the need to not only shed Jeffries contract, but to also include a player of value. Dumping Jeffries is really fucking important. I know this is obvious, but sometimes I wonder if everyone realizes that gravity of the scenario. Most teams are in the same boat as the Knicks and do not want to take on new salary, except for a few legit contenders who want impact players. Nate Robinson does not qualify, so we have to give up a player of value. I know Chandler is playing well, JHill shows promise, yadda yadda. We should give one of em up. For Josh Howard, Ray Allen, Kenny Thomas, or whoeverthefuckelse. It’s irresponsible not to do so.
"But when he saw it, he just put his hands up and they couldn’t give it to him. It just fell to the ground, I-I don’t, you know … So, that showed me he had great experience..." - Jeff Van Gundy
by Anthony Bonner's Subpoena on Feb 4, 2010 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Its irresponsible to give up nearly half of our young talent base for a few bucks
Of course its important that we move Jefferies. But its NOT just about the money. We have to build a future roster and NOT just be continuously rebuilding. Walsh has made this clear. Otherwise, we would have just dumped whatever player salaries to match up with Tracy McGrady’s contract and made the move already. It’s very important to move Jefferies, but its not panic time.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Feb 4, 2010 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait
Its not just about the money? Cuz I think its precisely about the money. Pardon the haterism, but we obviously come from two schools of thought on this one.
The “young talent base” you speak of, in terms of players who attract stars, is made up of two players, Gallo and Wil. Nobody else matters. In the eyes of the rest of the league, JHill is a possible bust, Nate is a mascot, TD is barely rosterable, and Lee is an expiring. Nobody is taking on Jeffries contract so they can get one of those four, so let’s stop assuming that we can just pair one of these guys and get McGrady or other large expirings. I don’t want to rumormonger, but it sounds like Philly might offer Iguodala, which beats the pants off any Knick proposal.
On Knick side of the coin, building around young, non-star players without a major star (or two) is most often the path to mediocrity. Four years ago, the Bulls could have had Garnett, but instead chose to hang on to Deng, Tyrus Thomas and Nocioni and a pick. At the time, those guys were highly valued, but in reality were close to their ceilings. The Celtics from 04 were awash in highly touted young talent, but had the good sense to ship most of them for a legit star. They won the chip the next year.
This is a league of stars. You need two to win and right now we have none. If a team, particularly a large desirable market team, can position itself to acquire two stars, it should do so.
"But when he saw it, he just put his hands up and they couldn’t give it to him. It just fell to the ground, I-I don’t, you know … So, that showed me he had great experience..." - Jeff Van Gundy
by Anthony Bonner's Subpoena on Feb 4, 2010 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But look at Boston now man
teetering on the edge of mediocrity. This is their last good year without a massive overhaul. They have one star in Rondo and a bunch up washed up, injury prone players from a decade ago, while the bulls are gonna be good for years because they kept the talent that they wanted to develop and made some good draft picks. If the celtics don’t emerge from a weak conference and win that one year, then you call that experiment a colossal failure.
Don’t pull an IT and try to win it all right now at the expense of the future.
by Ray Smuckles on Feb 4, 2010 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
See, actualy, the "expieriment" in Boston worked.
They won a title!! It ALWAYS about winnign a title. The future isn’t based on potential. Golden State had all the potential in the world when they beat Dallas. DALLAS has had great potential for the last 5 years. Boston absolutely made the right move because they won it all and have been close ever since. Yeah, they are nearing the end of the Allen/Pierce/Garnett trifecta, but they would make those moves all over again if they had to. It doesn’t always work. Look at LA. They brought in fucking Karl Malone and Gary Payton to play with Shaq and Kobe. AND they signed for basically pennies on their worth! How did they fare?
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Feb 5, 2010 9:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's cherry picking a bit I think
The Bulls had the worst odds to land the #1 pick in the Rose draft, and he’s the only player on that team worth a damn. Of the guys they would have given up, only Deng still gets starter minutes, while Noce is a role player on a bad team and Thomas is a bust. And they’re barely a playoff team in a historically weak conference. I think its pretty obvious they should have gotten Garnett.
Boston won a championship and is currently top 3 in the conference. If the Knicks were to be able to guarantee that outcome, they’d do it without blinking.
And, yo, I’m not saying we should purge our team so that we can sign Zach Randolph, Marbury, Joe Johnson, or anyone like that. I’m all for a youth movement when they alternatives are less than savory, but I think we can all agree that that isn’t the case. There are 3 unhappy superduperstars in smaller markets, two of whom are on uncompetitive teams. Its no secret that we have a shot at these guys, if we just play our cards right. I’m no economist, but the opportunity cost seems worth paying.
"But when he saw it, he just put his hands up and they couldn’t give it to him. It just fell to the ground, I-I don’t, you know … So, that showed me he had great experience..." - Jeff Van Gundy
by Anthony Bonner's Subpoena on Feb 5, 2010 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No. The Knicks are not going to get a guy like Howard simply to bench him, etc.
We may be looking for capspace but Walsh isn’t desperate enough to make a move like this. I understand more than you might think.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Feb 4, 2010 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But you say things that indicate your lack of understanding toward this trade.
Such as:
I actually might not give up Chandler for Howard straight up… but thats just me.
Dallas’s role in this trade is only to receive a legitimate second banana (Maggette) for a player that don’t like anymore and want to get rid of sooner rather than later. Actually, getting rid of Wilson Chandler has NOTHING to do with Josh Howard at all. Josh Howard is being exchanged for Maggette, and the only reason I included the Knicks in the trade at all is because this is a Knicks website and I’m a Knicks fan.
The trade does not see a single significant member of the Knicks going to the Mavs for any significant member of the Mavs (significant = for more than one season). The Mavericks need a small forward, Maggette has been a top 5 small forward all year.
Chandler only factors in to getting players from the Warriors. Now, my mistake with this trade was not realizing that Brandon Wright has been hurt, but other than that, you are focusing entirely too much on Josh Howard, who would be gone at the end of the season anyway.
www.biggiantorange.blogspot.com
by solanumbrella on Feb 4, 2010 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude. It doesn’t matter who is traded for who. Fact is, in this trade, NY gives up Chandler/Robinson/Douglas/Jefferies and ends up with Howard/Morrow/Wright.
I read your explanation on your sight and you make a fine argument. I just don’t buy it.
Dallas is out cus of Maggette. He is like paying for Josh Howard for another 3 years. Dallas wants to move Howard, but Maggette isn’t a chemistry guy. He wants to start and he needs a lot of touches (pause). He also is a minor injury risk. happens every year. He is playing well this year, but other than his FG%, his numbers are normal for him.
Golden State is probably out, but who the hell knows. Nelson is completely unpredictable and there are rumors of GSW up for sale. They HAVE said repeteadly that they are high on Wright and Randolph. When both are healthy, I would beleive Nelson really wants to pair them with Biedrins and another SF to rotate the frontline and 6th man. Injury aside, I don’t think they give up Wright, but again, no one is untouchable there.
I don’t see NY pulling this trigger either. First off, it leavs us with Duhon/Hughes at PG. This offseason is VERY light on PGs too. Walsh keeps saying he wants to make the ‘right’ move. He also says not to assume everyone is gone after the season. This doesn’t seem like the only way to move Jefferies contract and I think NY wanst to keep Chandler because of his play and his cheap contract. We still need our 12-15 rosters spots after this summer and I don’t think Walsh’s plan is 2 max guys and 10+ minimum players. That won’t lead to wins next season, nor this.
But what the hell does any of us know?!
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Feb 4, 2010 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point, none of us know shit. Most of all me.
Good points, man. Sorry if you felt like I was insulting you. I just know that Dallas is always froggy and Maggette’s looking great this year.
But again, you’re right.
It’s all speculation gentlemen (and ladies)! Other people should post trades too!
www.biggiantorange.blogspot.com
by solanumbrella on Feb 4, 2010 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no worries. You did more than just throw players into the machine
theres logic to it, and credit goes for putting your perspective out there. I’m just a critic with very few of my own ideas.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Feb 4, 2010 6:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have to add too...
I hate the ESPN Trade Machine.
All it can tell you is if the salaries match up. Very rarely do teams make strict salary cap trades. There is no way to take into account the non-monetary value a player has to that team. Nor the likeliness of said team to trade that player. So sure, we can orchestrate a 3-team trade netting us all of these all-star caliber players and young rising stars, but it’s worthless because trading is more than just an umbers game. The Trade Machine is just a waste of time.
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Feb 4, 2010 11:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
totally disagree
the trade machine gives fans of all teams hope. and who doesn’t want hope?
for instance, i hope that these three teams aren’t smart enough to make this deal:
Philly gets: Josh Howard
Dallas gets: Al Jefferson
Minnesota gets: Andre Iguodala
Philly clears money, the Wolves balance their roster, and Dallas gets a huge piece to make a title run. or if the Wolves want to clear cap too, mix in Erick Dampier and let the Mavs get Jeff + Iggy.
i love coming up with ideas like this. be creative! it’s like playing the lottery. you practically never win, so all of the fun is dreaming about what you would do with the $$. that’s what the trade machine is all about.
by latrell chokewell on Feb 4, 2010 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
On Jeffries' contract
Yes, if the Knicks want to sign a max FA and keep Lee, they probably need to get rid of Jeffries contract. But if they DON’T get the max guy they want, then it would suck having given away Chandler or one of these other young guys to NOT get a max guy. I wouldn’t include Chandler or Gallo, and I’d be hesitant to include TD or Hill in a Jeffries trade.
There are still options if Jeffries is on the payroll July 1. Like, let’s say the Knicks got some guy from Cleveland to agree to sign with them. They could instead pull off a sign and trade and give them Chandler or Hill, thereby clearing up enough space to sign Lee. If they can’t get that guy to sign, they still have their young guys and they can try 2011.
by fuhry on Feb 4, 2010 1:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
josh howard would have fit in well in the isiah era.
by pmsjerk on Feb 4, 2010 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maggette would be a Knick already
if IT was still the GM.
Rectum? Damn near killed em!
by FreeBradshaw on Feb 4, 2010 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry fellas..
Tanking the season might have some appeal if we still had our draft pick, but why tank it for Utah? Cap space?! Who would want to come to the Knicks if there is nothing to build around? Chandler for Josh Howard’s expiring contract, Anthony Morrow would be the worst move in history. There are NO contracts signed with no free agents, or even one of those guys comming out and saying the want to be a Knick. You could wind up with nothing at all.
by gaga71 on Feb 4, 2010 7:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
ARGH!
Frustrated!
www.biggiantorange.blogspot.com
by solanumbrella on Feb 4, 2010 9:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not true
we would have Anthony Morrow and Eddy Curry. Thats a start, isn’t it?
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Feb 5, 2010 9:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wayy better trade then giving awy jordan hill..but still…wont the knicks be torn with whether or not to resign howard…and i dont like lebron and howard very mch….not as mch as say..lebron and johnson
<follow me @theinfamousazad
by zlander on Feb 4, 2010 9:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
yo
knicks get: lbj, shaq, varejao, danny green
cavs get: duhon, hughes, darko, curry, mobley
espn trade machine said its successful so i think it could work out
by enron4515 on Feb 4, 2010 10:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
please note
cuts payroll by a few mill and opens up a roster spot
by enron4515 on Feb 4, 2010 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
too lopsided
cavs should throw in boobie gibson
by latrell chokewell on Feb 5, 2010 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what if we change our uniform colors to gold and wine?
could we trick him into thinking he resigned?
"you're the Rod Thorn in my Chris Bosh side."
by Chris Child's Fist on Feb 5, 2010 9:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not worth it
Them uniforms are uuuuugly.
by fuhry on Feb 5, 2010 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So basically
We would be building the 2010-2011 New York Knicks EVEN MORE from scratch, because we lose Robinson’s bird rights and the remainder of Chandler’s contract. We lose our top guards = we don’t sign any big FA’s this summer. End of story.
I'm gonna be the only A-hole that owns a Nic Batum jersey that doesn't live in France. Awesome.
by CoRBBall on Feb 11, 2010 11:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
