Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Curry To Go

With the Knicks finally poised for considerable salary cap space in 2010-11, the LeBron James countdown has officially begun. More than a year and a half before it’s possible, New York is already salivating at the chance to welcome James to the fold. But it’s no foregone conclusion that The King will join the Knicks. James says championship contention is his top priority, and we should take his word for it. If that’s the case, the Knicks have a long way to go to before they can secure James. Building a championship level supporting cast will be a difficult journey. And it’s one that must begin with the trade of Eddy Curry.

The Knicks will be expected to lure a second superstar to play sidekick to James. According to current salary commitments, the Knicks will have enough room under the cap to offer two free agents the max if they don’t re-up their current core of young players–Nate Robinson, David Lee–and pick up the team options on Wilson Chandler ($2.1M) and Danilo Gallinari ($3.3M). To keep their youngsters, and still sign two max FA’s, the Knicks must unload Eddy Curry’s contract ($11.2M) without taking on 2010-2011 dollars.

Curry has his flaws, but due mostly (or exclusively, really) to his scoring talents, he’s still an above average center in a league that starts Udonis Haslem, Zaza Pachulia, and Robert Swift at the pivot. Curry’s not playing right now, so a trade is highly unlikely. But we can dream of the day the Knicks’ league-leading pace will artificially inflate his per game numbers. Better yet, we can speculate on how exactly to get rid of him.

Mr. Curry to the Courtesy Phone
For the sake of argument, I’m assuming that teams that would want a player like Curry are in need of: (a) bench/low post scoring; (b) big man depth; (c) are playoff bound in 2008-09; (d) and won’t have cap space in 2010 anyway.

Also, for the sake of argument, I’m assuming that the Knicks are literally willing to give Curry away. If I were Donnie Walsh, I’d trade Curry for a sack of potatoes, as long as the tubers’ contract expired on July 1st, 2010. Of course, the Knicks could get lucky and find a team that’s willing to trade an unprotected first round pick for Curry, but for that to happen, they’d probably have to trade Isiah Thomas to the Clippers first.

None of the following deals are likely, but to prevent the absurd, I’ve omitted possible trades to teams like Chicago and Milwaukee that may need a player with Eddy Curry’s skill set, but don’t want Eddy Curry.

CHARLOTTE Nazr Mohammed & Adam Morrison for Eddy Curry
Off-court, Charlotte would prefer to unload Gerald Wallace’s contract. On-court, they need a center to move Emeka Okafor back to his more natural power forward position. Okafor’s defense can cover for Curry’s lapses, and vice versa. They’d be great platoon partners.

Charlotte won‘t make the playoffs this year, but they are looking to reorganize their team. Various rumors suggest they’re ready to give up on Morrison, and could use Curry’s scoring instead. The salaries match, but Nazr has 2010 money on the books, so the Knicks would only save about $4 million. The Knicks would decline Morrison’s option and renounce his rights.

With Nazr for Curry, they’d have an easier salary to unload in the off-season, and that $4 million in savings can help off-set the salary commitment for their 2009 first round draft pick.

NEW ORLEARNS Mike James & Hilton Armstrong for Eddy Curry
The Hornets are getting absolutely nothing out of James and Armstrong, with the former losing his rotation spot to Devin Brown and the latter doing his best impression of a lamp-post fifteen minutes a game. With front court depth a major issue heading into the post-season, the Hornets could jettison two players who don’t contribute for a third big man who can provide scoring punch when Tyson Chandler or David West take their breathers.

Curry has always been an embarrassingly bad rebounder, so it may come as a surprise that he could actually help the Hornets in that regard. Believe it or not, his career rebound rate is slightly superior to Armstrong’s. And Curry would do it while scoring twice as much. We focus on Curry’s flaws so often, we often forget how many teams play total stiffs just by virtue of them being the tallest guy in the gym.

The Hornets are playoff bound and will need some help to get past the Lakers. Curry doesn’t come cheap, but one wonders if they’d be willing to roll the dice with the man-child, picking him up to provide the front-court depth and second-team scoring they so desperately need.

DENVER Steven Hunter and Chucky Atkins for Eddy Curry
Like the Hornets, the Nuggets can trade two players who have spent most of the year in business suits for a productive big man. Considering they’ve played Renaldo Balkman at the pivot, they could use a center that puts the ball in the basket.

Hunter and Atkins come to the Knicks for blatant salary implications, while Denver gets another scorer. In fact, with Denver’s trade exemptions, they could acquire Curry without giving anything more than a 2nd round draft pick in return. But considering that Denver is reluctant to pay the luxury tax, the Knick could do them the favor of taking back some monetary flotsam in return.

Playing the Field
There are other deals that make less sense. Would Dallas trade Jerry Stackhouse and Antoine Wright for Curry? It would help their bench scoring, but eat up their 2010 salary cap flexibility. Maybe Atlanta could unload two unproductive point guards in Speedy Claxton and Acie Law for Curry. Washington could trade the Knicks two centers who don’t even play: Etan Thomas and Darius Songalia. But stuck in the Eastern Conference basement, and with a pair of intriguing, young bigs, would they bother? Would Sacramento shuffle about salaries, getting Shareef-Abdur Rahim and Mikki Moore off the books for Curry?

Knicks fans are dreaming of bringing James to New York in 2010. But unless the Knicks can unload Curry’s contract before then, it’s unlikely they’ll be in position to assemble the championship-level supporting cast James demands. Considering the cost of Curry, the Knicks will have to get creative to clear him in time for what could be a very special summer.

50 comments on “Curry To Go

  1. Danisrob

    Any chance Eddie Curry opts out if he isn’t playing the next season and a half?

    Could turn into Marbury 2.0

  2. BiggieSmalls

    the only way to move curry is to expand the trade and sweeten it with viable players.

    Curry, Lee and Malik to Dallas for Stackhouse and Howard works under the cap. Dallas needs help in the middle and Howard needs a change of scenery. Stackhouse is barking for a trade and doing a three for two would be more practicle for our roster.

  3. Michael Zannettis Post author

    If Curry doesn’t play the next season and a half, I doubt a team is going to offer him more than $11.2M as a free agent. So I doubt he’ll opt out.

    Better question, any chance we can build up Jeffries’ value to the point that we can trade him at the deadline next year to a contender in need of perimeter defense?

  4. DS

    Biggie – Come on, man. Your post began logically but Dallas is not giving up Josh Howard for Curry.

    I worry that we will have to part with either Chandler or Lee.

  5. caleb

    Great analysis, Mr. Z.

    One thing – I don’t know that we have to freak out completely about 2010. We could sign a big star then, and another one the following summer. LB knows that.

    Of the three possibilities above, New Orleans seems most likely… the only option, really. They’ve botched their cap as badly as anyone in the league. Curry wouldn’t really make it worse and he actually would be an upgrade on Armstrong – not many teams you can say that about. You can call Curry average, but I can’t think of five starters in the league who are better. Zaza Pachulia had 18 rebounds in a game last week! That’s a month worth for Curry. btw, the Hawks signed Zaza for $16 million the same summer we gave Jerome James $29 million.

    I’d also see the Hornets as a top destination for Marbury if there’s a buyout – playing the role of Jannero Pargo.

    Anyway, Curry is more likely to be traded in the summer, or next year. Why? 1) Less risk – his contract will have less time to run. 2) He might have more value, if he gets even moderately in shape and gets back on the court; 3) most important – more teams will make moves that take them out of contention for the LeBron sweepstakes. As you point out, no team will take Curry if it means missing out on free agents.

    But it will take a sucker.

  6. Caleb

    Curry, Lee & Malik for Howard & Stack is advantage Dallas, IMO.

    I don’t want Josh Howard – nothing against him, but it’s the same as Shawn Marion – we’d either have to let him walk in 2010, or re-sign him just as he turns 30, overpaying on the way. Not sure he’s any better than David Lee right now, and in 2 or 3 years he definitely won’t be.

    I would NOT give up David Lee to move Curry. I WOULD gauge his value in terms of draft picks or guys on rookie contracts – same with Nate and Chandler. Not selling low, but if we could get back, say, a top 10 for Lee or a top 20 for Nate, I’d consider it – factoring in that it would help the salary cap as well.

    Chandler is overrated, IMO, but he’s on his rookie deal for two more years so I doubt there’s a worthwhile trade. Maybe something like this…

    Chandler (or Gallinari) to Jersey; Nate Robinson & a lottery-protected pick to Denver; JR Smith & Sean Williams to the Knicks.

    I know the Nets and Knicks hate to work with each other, but otherwise it makes some sense.
    - Smith seems out of favor for some reason. Nuggets get Nate-Rob for the scoring, and a nice draft pick.
    - Nets might need a little extra to sign off, like a 2nd rounder or a Balkman, or giving up a lower pick – like the Dallas pick.
    - salary-wise it’s a wash for the Knicks, but as much as I like Nate I’d much rather spend the dough on JR Smith… and we’d get ourselves a young big man. If Williams is too iffy, substitute Josh Boone or Ryan Anderson.

  7. Z

    We have Curry hypothetical deals all the time here, but it’s really hard to even play the trade machine with because none of us have any idea how Eddy’s uninsured heart handicaps his value. The Knicks may be the only team willing to take a player with a condition like that, and now even the Knicks won’t play those guys!

    (Since none of us really know the reason Curry is inactive (it can’t just be that he’s fat), is it possible that Walsh is incredibly gun-shy about playing guys with weak hearts?)

    Also, I think Shareef was bought out by the Kings (he’s a coach now, I think), which is too bad because he and Kenny Thomas were a perfect fit together for a Curry + Rose deal. Too bad.

  8. powellm

    I’m not sure that I buy the fire-sale analysis, though I agree it very much matches the philosophy and direction of this franchise.

    For those overly-patient souls who insist Donnie Walsh is wise to hock this season and perhaps the next one in hopes of snaring King Lebron, I direct your attention to today’s Araton piece on the lowly and soon to be homeless Nets (A perfect zeitgeist franchise). In the cold fastness of the Meadowland barrens, Rod Thorn has for the second time in a decade deftly and quickly constructed a very nice young team that is all about future upside.

    And, as Araton points out, Thorn has accomplished this before. Six or seven years ago, he took a broken franchise and in a single year crafted an NBA finalist. Twice a finalist, actually. Then, five years later, he faced with an aging team that was over the hill and over the cap. Rather than settle in and do the Hope & A Dream routine with the Lebron lottery, he made clever trades (Kidd for Harris & two picks was felony robbery) and very good draft picks.

    The net result? The Nets could be in a conference finals next year. The Knicks, meanwhile, will traded away a 20/12 player (Randolph) and a 20 ppg scorer (Crawford) and probably an above average NBA center for spare parts, mostly aging and one with a faulty heart valve. I should note that all of the traders players were 30 or younger. And this will leave us whining and wheedling and praying that Lebron decides he’d like to spend his prime on a (possibly) rebuilding Knick franchise.

    Yours in hoop dreams

    Michael

  9. Richard Wellner

    Listen here, on the surface and with my villager logic, please attach D. Lee with Curry and let’s get us some fire!

  10. Gian Casimiro (SSoM)

    I’ve thought about a Curry and Rose for Brad Miller and Kenny Thomas scenario but since the Kings aren’t a good team, I figured they would want to be in position for 2010, as well. They only have 29 million locked up for 2010 and Curry doesn’t help them in the present so I doubt they bite.

  11. jon abbey

    “The Nets could be in a conference finals next year.”

    are they going to be playing in Europe? because they’re not going to be in any conference finals in the NBA.

    anyway, Thorn had a lot more to work with than Walsh did, and he was lucky he could still get Dallas to mortgage the farm for Kidd when he did, he almost missed the window on that.

    I’m only going by your summary of the piece, but that seems like a typically ignorant NY Times sports editorial, spinning everything as far as they can in a certain direction in order to try to “prove” an invalid thesis. those editorials are a consistently embarrassing part of that paper, the more of their colummnists they can get to take packages, the better (at least Murray Chass is finally gone).

  12. KD

    I like your stuff a lot, but you can’t put together a post about Eddy without at least mentioning his uninsured contract in every other paragraph. This isn’t trading Zach Randolph. This permeates everything about Curry’s case at this point.

    Even for spare parts and cap relief, no team is going to trade for a contract that they might have to pay themselves should Curry have to bow out of playing or worse.

  13. BiggieSmalls

    Dallas is not giving up Josh Howard for Curry.
    ————————–

    They would for Curry and Lee with Malik’s expiring deal giving them more room in 2009

    I think Howard’s athletic game would be a good fit for what D’Antoni is trying to do here. With the FOUR incidents in Howards recent past he has defineitly worn out his welcome in Big D. Especially the recent words that the national anthem is for white people is getting a lot of negative pub in Texas.

    Howard has a team option for 11.8 mil in 10/11 so it gives flexibility and a chance for him to prove himself in a new town

  14. TDM

    It appears that the trade scenarios above assume that the Knicks will free up the roster spot currently held by Marbury. Otherwise, a two for one won’t work. That said, none of these proposed trades are especially appealing other than for salary dump reasons. Personally, I’d rather see Curry get some playing time this season to increase his value (ala Randolph). Duhon can feed the post which is exactly what Curry needs. Remember, Curry was very (well, at least fairly) effective when Jamal was running the point and distributing inside for the easy buckets. If memory serves, he was leading the league in fg% in 06-07.

    I’d really like to know why Curry isn’t playing. Is it because he’s fat, injured or both? If he isn’t getting burn because he failed to keep himself in shape, why can’t the Knicks stop paying him? It doesn’t seem right that a player can simply eat himself out of the league and expect his team to keep paying to fill his trough.

  15. Italian Stallion

    It’s sort of hard to compare Howard and Lee because they are such different players and also play different positions, but I think Howard is the better all around player now. He’s a reasonably efficient scorer with a fairy high usage and also has excellent atheleticism and a decent 3 point shot. Perhaps in a couple more years they will flip/flop as Howard gets older, but that could easily be 5 years away.

    Either way, I don’t see Dallas giving up Howard for Lee/Curry. If they played Curry at Center, where do they play Lee with Dirk getting all those minutes at PF. If they use Lee at C (which I don’t see), what use is Curry. Maybe Curry and someone else (Chandler for example, but that would be hugely retarded for the Knicks)

    To move Curry and that huge salary, we are probably going to have either give away a good player like Lee or hope that Curry gets in good enough shape to play reasonably well and find a desperate team. I don’t see Dallas in the equation though unless they want Curry and someone else.

  16. Z

    “Kings could always move Brad Miller, whose $12 million expires in 2010.”

    I admit I haven’t watched the Kings play in quite some time, but doesn’t Brad Miller actually play? From the KB stats page it looks like he’s in there for 35 minutes a game. He may not be worth $26 million over the next 2 years, but he’s certainly better value than Curry, who is due $30 million for 3 years.

    Kenny Thomas has no value in the league. Neither did Shareef. As it is, now, I don’t think there is a trade partner there for Curry (though they love Lee in Sac).

  17. Caleb

    It appears that the trade scenarios above assume that the Knicks will free up the roster spot currently held by Marbury. Otherwise, a two for one won’t work.

    Knicks can do a 1 for 2 or 3 trade and buy people out (or just release them).

    since the Kings aren’t a good team, I figured they would want to be in position for 2010, as well.

    I don’t think Kings will want Curry either (he sucks and they have Spencer Hawes) but we all know the chance of LeBron signing in Sacto = 0%. So, I expect them to try and trade those big expiring contracts for a real player with a real contract, rather than play the FA game.

    you can’t put together a post about Eddy without at least mentioning his uninsured contract in every other paragraph. This isn’t trading Zach Randolph. This permeates everything about Curry’s case at this point.

    I don’t think Curry’s heart is THAT big an issue – especially next year. Let’s say he’s totally uninsured. Let’s say he drops dead a year from now. It would be a tremendous tragedy, but in cold hard business terms – what we’re talking about here – his team is only out $17 million. It’s also very unlikely; it was only one doc’s opinion and Curry has played NBA ball (or a version of it) for 3+ seasons since then. The heart condition is a handicap to a trade, but not insurmountable.

    I think Howard’s athletic game would be a good fit for what D’Antoni is trying to do here.

    Howard has definitely worn out his welcome in Dallas, and he could definitely help a contender, but his next contract will take him to his mid-30s, and we can spend that $10 million a lot, lot better in the free agent markets of 2010, 2011 & beyond.

    The Knicks, meanwhile, will traded away a 20/12 player (Randolph) and a 20 ppg scorer (Crawford) and probably an above average NBA center for spare parts, mostly aging and one with a faulty heart valve. I should note that all of the traders players were 30 or younger. And this will leave us whining and wheedling and praying that Lebron decides he’d like to spend his prime on a (possibly) rebuilding Knick franchise.

    Even if we’re spurned by LeBron, Bosh AND Wade, the Randolph and Crawford deals are good moves. With cap flexibility we can trade for other good players – or wait until 2011 – but something tells me our money won’t have to go beggin. The Knicks were awful WITH Randolph and Crawford and their contracts blocked any major moves before 2011.

  18. Ben R

    You mentioned that Charlotte would rather move Wallace and there was a rumor that Charlotte was interested in a Curry-Wallace swap so if that is a possibility isn’t it a good one. Wallace seems much more moveable than Curry. We could then swap Wallace for cap space and maybe even an asset.

    Also I think if we are truly serious about signing two max free agents in 2010, moving Jeffries even at the cost of Gallinari, Nate or a future first seems to be a good idea.

    The other place I would start in trade idea’s is with Denver. If we could get Smith, Atkins, and Hunter then sweetening the trade seems to be a good idea. How about Curry + Gallinari for Smith, Hunter and Atkins or Curry + Nate or Curry + a first round swap this year(top 3 protected) or Curry + our 2012 pick. Any of those options would solve two problems it would remove about 6-7 million off our 2010 books and it would give us a starter at the 2 in 2010 to make the team more attractive to LeBron.

  19. Caleb

    I love JR Smith – I just don’t see any chance that George Karl wants Curry on their team. They’re not hurting at center – they have Nene, and Birdman looks good in his comeback.

  20. Italian Stallion

    I think Thorn did an absolutely incredible job with the Nets other than resigning Carter to such a long term deal. If you are going to rebuild, I don’t think resigning an aging player to a contract that will be hard to move makes much sense when your youth will be peaking when he’s already done. I also don’t think they will make the conference finals next year, but I was WAY more optimistic about their chances of being a good team this year (even playoff potential) than the consensus. If anything, they appear to be even better than I thought because Lopoz is contributing so much so quickly.

  21. Ben R

    What about a three way with Charlotte and Denver:

    Curry for Wallace for Smith, Atkins and Hunter

    Wallace can play the 2 in Denver and we get Smith and expirings in Atkins and Hunter.

    If Charlotte really wants Curry it makes sense for Denver and for NY.

  22. Ben R

    Why would Charlotte trade Wallace for Curry?

    I do not know but I heard rumor they were interested from multiple sources a couple of weeks ago when we were trying to land Harrington.

    Supposedly we did not bite because Golden State did not want Wallace.

    I think Charlotte wants to move Wallace so maybe they would move him for Curry, I would even be willing to sweeten the trade, with Nate, Gallinari or our 2012 pick.

  23. Italian Stallion

    I think Charlotte wants to move Wallace so maybe they would move him for Curry, I would even be willing to sweeten the trade, with Nate, Gallinari or our 2012 pick.

    There’s no chance at all the Knicks would throw in a sweetner like that. If they did, I’d become a Nets fan. :-)

  24. Owen

    Wow. Hilton Armstrong. The answer to on of my favorite trivia questions. Which NBA center is a worse rebounder than Eddy Curry.

    There were quite a few geniuses on this board who correctly speculated that after a few games in a run and gun offense Crawford and Randolph suddenly would become tradeable. I never saw that coming.

    But I will make the same mistake again, possibly, and say that I don’t see Eddy Curry ever getting traded. The only thing I can imagine would be a medical retirement which David Stern would engineer in order to get Lebron and Bosh to the Garden.

    But the stupidty of NBA gm’s knows no limits, so perhaps it can happen.

  25. Italian Stallion

    Owen,

    Curry can defintely be traded, but he’s going to have to get on the court and prove that he’s healthy and fit enough to actually contribute.

    Last year was a disaster for him (and the Knicks) because his touches, minutes, etc… dropped so much with the addition of Randolph and then he got hurt.

    But in the prior year, he was a fairy hot ticket. After a slow start, he was averaging 20 pts a game at a very high efficiency and became the focal point of many defenses as well as the Knicks offense. Despite teams keying on him (usually doubling him and sometimes tripling him), he was still dropping close to 20 a night.

    As Knicks fans we know he can’t play any defense, doesn’t board much, can’t block shots, and can’t pass out of the double etc…

    But if the Knicks can somehow get him fit, work him into this offense, and he reverts to his prior form (or close), there will be teams interested in his offense if they can pair him with the right power forward.

  26. Ben R

    IS – You were just suggesting we throw in Lee as a sweetener yet you do not want to throw in Nate, Gallinari or a 2012 1st round pick. Lee is much more valuable than any of those three things.

    Plus in my opinion Lee is also a much better player than Nate, Gallinari or most likely whomever we can take in 2012.

  27. TDM
    It appears that the trade scenarios above assume that the Knicks will free up the roster spot currently held by Marbury. Otherwise, a two for one won’t work.

    Knicks can do a 1 for 2 or 3 trade and buy people out (or just release them).

    My understanding was that Walsh was opposed to buying players out. For example, they dumped PEJ in lieu of buying out Roberson.

    As long as Curry isn’t playing, I think the Knicks are stuck with him.

  28. Italian Stallion

    IS – You were just suggesting we throw in Lee as a sweetener yet you do not want to throw in Nate, Gallinari or a 2012 1st round pick. Lee is much more valuable than any of those three things.
    Plus in my opinion Lee is also a much better player than Nate, Gallinari or most likely whomever we can take in 2012.

    I’m not suggesting we do anything specific. In general, I think including a player with Curry might turn out to be the way we get rid of his contract, but I’d have to see the details to see if I like the specific deal.

    I would never consider throwing in Lee, Nate, Gallinari, or a first round pick for Wallace. I guess I’m less of a Wallace fan than some people and don’t even see why we would need him.

  29. daaarn

    I know I jumped the gun, but when I first saw the post title, I thought we had actually gotten rid of Curry (bah, stupid misleading title haha), only to be disappointed when I found out this was just a hypothetical trade scenario post. Aw well, maybe next time…

  30. Caleb

    My understanding was that Walsh was opposed to buying players out. For example, they dumped PEJ in lieu of buying out Roberson.

    As long as Curry isn’t playing, I think the Knicks are stuck with him.

    Walsh is opposed to doing buyouts because it’s giving something away for nothing. If he was able to lose Curry’s contract in the transaction, that’s not nothing – he wouldn’t blink.

    They liked Roberson enough to give him a guaranteed contract this summer – all PEJ got was an invite to training camp. I guess you could say they chose cutting PEJ over buying out Jerome James, or Marbury, but that’s another story… PEJ probably isn’t an NBA level player so it wasn’t a high-stakes decision.

  31. Caleb

    Wallace is pretty similar to Josh Howard – I actually like him a little better, but then again his medical history is a bit scary – lots of injuries. Don’t know that I’d want to re-sign him to a long-term deal in 2010 – in which case I wouldn’t trade a Lee, Robinson or draft pick to get him.

  32. Nick C.

    I think that would work, but I dont’ know about giving up Nate, he adds a lot of energy that these guys won’t replace. These teams know they will lose LeBron, Wade etc so they might as well get something, ratehr than nothing and see them all be seduced by the bright lights of the Big City.

  33. Z

    Here’s a HYPOTHETICAL trade, not to be confused with an actual trade, or even a feasible trade, but one in which all teams end up happy (some more than others)–

    Hornets get: Eddy Curry

    Heat get: Brad Miller, David Lee, Jared Jeffries, Mike James

    Kings get: Stephon Marbury, Malik Rose, Hilton Armstrong, Nate Robinson

    Knicks get: Shawn Marion, Mark Blount, Kenny Thomas, Udonis Haslem, and Mikki Moore

    (Knicks would send off $76 million and take back $76 million, but all expiring by 2010. Maybe Walsh could tax each team 1 draft pick as a convenience fee…)

  34. Italian Stallion

    Wallace is pretty similar to Josh Howard – I actually like him a little better, but then again his medical history is a bit scary – lots of injuries. Don’t know that I’d want to re-sign him to a long-term deal in 2010 – in which case I wouldn’t trade a Lee, Robinson or draft pick to get him.

    Wow, we have different views on Howard and Wallace. I think they are close (as are their stats), but I would tend to favor Howard. I think he’s done more consistently and on a much better team.

  35. Thomas B.

    Knicks get: Shawn Marion, Mark Blount, Kenny Thomas, Udonis Haslem, and Mikki Moore

    Well that does solve the size problem, but what do we do for guards? You are left with Roberson, Duhon, and Richardson (really a SF). I see no reason to think Mobley will play. Any word on what this heart condition is?

  36. njhoop

    “The Nets could be in a conference finals next year.”
    are they going to be playing in Europe? because they’re not going to be in any conference finals in the NBA.
    anyway, Thorn had a lot more to work with than Walsh did, and he was lucky he could still get Dallas to mortgage the farm for Kidd when he did, he almost missed the window on that.
    I’m only going by your summary of the piece, but that seems like a typically ignorant NY Times sports editorial, spinning everything as far as they can in a certain direction in order to try to “prove” an invalid thesis. those editorials are a consistently embarrassing part of that paper, the more of their colummnists they can get to take packages, the better (at least Murray Chass is finally gone).

    The NY Times b-ball reporting is definitely anti-Knick in general (they’ve also decided to remove them from the front page of the Sports section even if there is nothing else in the sports world going on) However, I do think Araton is correct in his praising of Thorn. If you just take the Carter deal (I hate the guy, but it was a steal at the time) and the Harris deal (which includes 2 number one picks, not lottery protected) that’s a pretty good resume right there. They are a very long way from a conference final, but have some nice young players and a budding superstar, whereas we have role players and cap space.

  37. Caleb

    Wow, we have different views on Howard and Wallace. I think they are close (as are their stats), but I would tend to favor Howard. I think he’s done more consistently and on a much better team

    That doesn’t sound too different — I agree they’re pretty close, and pretty similar. Almost the same size. Same age. It’s not Wallace’s fault that his teammates are worse. He’s a better rebounder, more efficient scorer and puts up bigger numbers in blocks and steals, but of course the role is a little different. Howard has been much more durable.

  38. o_boogie

    Thorn’s best move was trading Jason Collins for Stromile Swift. Collins doesn’t even deserve to be in the D-league. It was a total miracle that another team actually wanted him.

  39. Caleb

    Hornets get: Eddy Curry

    Heat get: Brad Miller, David Lee, Jared Jeffries, Mike James

    Kings get: Stephon Marbury, Malik Rose, Hilton Armstrong, Nate Robinson

    Knicks get: Shawn Marion, Mark Blount, Kenny Thomas, Udonis Haslem, and Mikki Moore

    hmmm…
    Kings clear all their cap space this summer and get Nate Robinson too. Nice.

    Hornets get Curry for nothing, except a it of extra $$. Possible

    Heat give up Marion/cap space & Haslem, for Lee and a year and a half of Miller. Chalmers/Wade/Beasley/Lee/Miller… They might do better for Marion, but… maybe.

    BUT!
    NY comes out the loser. Basically, we give up Lee AND Nate, in order to move Curry. We get Haslem and Marion — but Marion is getting older; he’s in decline, and the money it would take to re-sign him this summer could be much better spent in 2010, 2011, etc.

  40. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

    I like your stuff a lot, but you can’t put together a post about Eddy without at least mentioning his uninsured contract in every other paragraph. This isn’t trading Zach Randolph. This permeates everything about Curry’s case at this point.

    I agree that Curry’s heart condition should have been mentioned. When the Knicks signed him to 6 years and made him the “franchise center”, a heart condition is something to take notice of. However for a team that’s going to pick him up for 2-3 years as a reserve scorer I don’t see it as being that big of a deal.

  41. Z

    “When the Knicks signed him to 6 years and made him the “franchise center”, a heart condition is something to take notice of. However for a team that’s going to pick him up for 2-3 years as a reserve scorer I don’t see it as being that big of a deal.”

    Or maybe it’s the other way around–

    If all he’s good for is as a reserve scorer for 2-3 years, your $30 million is probably better invested in an insured contract.

    However, if you’re making him your “franchise center” for 6 years, heart problems matter less because “he’s so freakin’ awesome that he’s worth the risk! And besides- if we find someone even awsomer to play center everyone will want him as THEIR franchise center! But it won’t matter because I’m never going to trade him, ever, not in a million years, not even for Michael Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain’s 7′ 5″ love child!” (all of which must have been going through Isiah’s mind in October or 2005…)

  42. jon abbey
    “The Nets could be in a conference finals next year.”
    are they going to be playing in Europe? because they’re not going to be in any conference finals in the NBA.
    anyway, Thorn had a lot more to work with than Walsh did, and he was lucky he could still get Dallas to mortgage the farm for Kidd when he did, he almost missed the window on that.
    I’m only going by your summary of the piece, but that seems like a typically ignorant NY Times sports editorial, spinning everything as far as they can in a certain direction in order to try to “prove” an invalid thesis. those editorials are a consistently embarrassing part of that paper, the more of their colummnists they can get to take packages, the better (at least Murray Chass is finally gone).

    The NY Times b-ball reporting is definitely anti-Knick in general (they’ve also decided to remove them from the front page of the Sports section even if there is nothing else in the sports world going on) However, I do think Araton is correct in his praising of Thorn. If you just take the Carter deal (I hate the guy, but it was a steal at the time) and the Harris deal (which includes 2 number one picks, not lottery protected) that’s a pretty good resume right there. They are a very long way from a conference final, but have some nice young players and a budding superstar, whereas we have role players and cap space.

    sure, Thorn’s done a nice job and should certainly be praised. I read the actual piece in the meantime, and the part about the conference finals was added by the poster above, Araton didn’t go nearly that far.

    anyway, while Thorn has done a good job, Kevin Pritchard is operating in a whole different galaxy. Portland right now is so good and so young, they could lose 5 young, talented guys (including the ones still stashed in Europe), and barely notice.

  43. VA

    The Knicks have to keep David Lee and sign him to a reasonable contract. He is exactly the type of hard-nosed player they need to complement LeBron or whomever they sign in 2010.

    As for trading Eddy Curry, maybe they could trade him to the Pacers for Rasho Nesterovic (one year left on his contract)? The Pacers aren’t going to be players in the 2010 Free agent market. They could use a solid scorer in the post to complement Granger and Ford. And Troy Murphy can handle grabbing the boards that Curry doesn’t. This trade could turn the Pacers into a playoff team almost immediately. Your thoughts?

  44. Ted Nelson

    Before the season it was assumed that exactly what Thorn was doing was rebuilding and making a run at LeBron: he effectively traded Richard Jefferson for Yi Jianlian in a move that cleared cap space for 2010. He’s built a good young team, but he had a lot more to work with (thanks to himself) than Walsh (thanks to Isiah). If you can find someone who would trade you Devin Harris and 2 1st rounders for Zach Randolph I’d be very surprised after Walsh struggled to give him away.

    If the Knicks were trying to throw the season do you really think they would have traded Jamal Crawford for Al Harrington instead of a pick or two (plus worthless expiring contract)???????

Comments are closed.