We send: ZBo. (3,000 years, 14.6 m)

We get: Marquis Daneils (1 year, 6.8 m), Jamaal Tinsley (3 years, 6.7 m)

We buy out: Big Snacks, Marbury

Tell Tinsley: Raise your trade value, we'll help you resurrect your career

Tell Daniels: you were a cap throw in. We'll trade you if we can, or buy you out.

What we get:

Smaller, more tradeable parts. Our cap hit decreases by 8 million in 2010, for sure, with a chance to trade tinsley away in the next 2 years.

What Indiana gets: A low-post presence that is a rebounding machine. Zach could easily get above the 20-10 line with all the caroms that come off the rim in O'Brien's scheme--and Zach doesn't even have to move!

So, I feel pretty good after this afternoons happenings.

I think the Clips/Sonics trade is in the Knicks favor. It seems that the trade involves Eric Gordon--not Westbrook (my favorite, if we're choosing in the top 10). 

It seems that we know who the top four are going to be: Rose, Beasley, Mayo, and Gordon. That means that the Knicks can choose from any of the people on their list, I think. Right?

Chad Ford also reports that the Spurs pick at 26 is for sale. I wonder if there'll be a shooter there (or by trade) that would be a better fit than, say, Balkman--if Balkman would be of interest to the Spurs, that is.

Fanhouse has suggested an interesting trade opportunity for the Knicks.

Basically, TJ Ford and #17 pick go to PHX for Diaw.

Then, the Knicks could deal #6 to PHX for Barbosa, #15, and #17.

Would that be worth it?

I'd like to do it if it meant being able to trade up a little bit from there and get Brandon Rush, or stay put and take Mario Chalmers at 17 and the best available player at 15.

Rush is a nice piece that could be really good on D and a great shooter: two current backcourt weaknesses. And we could live with Starbury/Barbosa at the point for a year. I think then you can take the best available trade for one of the other backcourt players.

Okay, hypothetical here:

We get the 2nd spot in the lottery. Rose goes first to the Warriors (hey--it's my hypothetical, and I don't care if they only have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery), and we're sitting at #2.

Do we take Beasley? Do we trade down? What do you all think?

Me: I say we trade down to the top 8 or so, pick up some assets (like getting our 2010 first rounder back, as well as the 2 2nd rounders we don't have), and take the best player available. Maybe we even get Seattle to bite and pick up a guy this year (Darrell Arthur?) that allows us to buy out one of our hulking behemoths.

Basically, I just want to start the conversation: what can we get in a trade down, and is it worth more to us than the second coming of Derrick Coleman?

Goose Gossage misses the good 'ole days:

"But there's no one to pass the torch anymore, no one to teach the young kids how to act. The Mets did a lot of that [celebrating] last year, and look how it came back to haunt them."

Gossage told the Record that he would have never been allowed to celebrate like Chamberlain. His teammates would make sure of that.

"I'm trying to think of what would've happened if I did what Joba did, especially if I was a rookie," he told the Record. "The veterans would've sat me down so fast, it would've never happened a second time. Truthfully, there would've never been a first time."

I didn't like what Joba did, either. Frankly, it's a little bush. I believe that Barry Sanders' Dad said it best: "Act like you've been there before." But Goose Gossage sounds cranky here.

Couldn't Goose have called Joba himself? Or called Mo? Someone? Complaining to the press about how Baseball used to be a purer game (make your own Greenie joke here) is irritating, frankly.

Every time I hear a former ballplayer whine about something like a fist pump when they ignored asses full of nandrolone, greenies, racism, juiced balls, etc., I just have to sigh.

And post, too, I guess.

cross posted at ontheperiphery.wordpress.com