Comments on: T-Mac Trades That Could Help New York

By: jkid36

jkid36 — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 01:03:34 +0000

loathing—in case you didn’t understand, the only person Houston is losing in the trade is a person who does not play. Darko, Hughes, and Frye from the Suns all are in the last years of their contract, while Hill is a Rookie Lottery Pick with Upside. THAT MEANS they get 20+ mil. in cap relief and get last yr lottery pick at a position they are thin at. Same thing with Phoenix, they get as much cap relief as if they kept barbosa and Amare and get a deeper roster of players, a lottery pick in Gallo. Yes we keep curry and jeffries for another year but you can’t just waive two player (like you said) with Player options for the next year. Just because they do not get traded before the deadline does not mean they will not be traded before free agency starts.

By: Loathing

Loathing — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:52:20 +0000

Two trade ideas I hope you all like. If I remember correctly, if a team goes over the roster limit as the result of a trade, they can waive the extra parties involved to bring themselves back down to the max roster size. If I’m wrong, please tell me.

TRADE 1:
Bucks get Chandler and Jeffries
Knicks get Ridnour
Bucks waive Jeffries and get the SF they NEED.

TRADE 2:
Rockets get Harrington, Nate & Curry
Knicks get T-Mac and Brian Cook
Rockets waive Curry and get lots of bench help.

By: Loathing

Loathing — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:38:37 +0000

Bx4 – Not bad. Right now, I’d say gut the team if it means getting rid of Curry/Jeffries.

Jkid – No. Houston wouldn’t go for it. They’re a contender now and none of those players help them, except the one we AREN’T giving them in your deal. Hill’s too young, Darko sucks and Hughes is another T-Mac, just not as good. They’re not playing him anyway.

By: bbbb00123

bbbb00123 — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:57:41 +0000

Quick trade suggestion..

Dallas gets: Jeffires, Hill, Chandler
Knicks get: Josh Howard

It could work right? Dallas has to take on Jeffries’s contract, but Hill and Chandler are nice young talent. Some would even say Chandler is better than Howard. The Knicks on the other hand get rid of 3!! players that eat up cap room. Both Hill and Chandler are better than worthless filler players, but each one is another 2million or so dollars off our cap room. It gives us an extra 4 that could end up being big possibly?

Just an idea.

By: jkid36

jkid36 — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:44:50 +0000

I was trying to figure out a third team to involve in which the knicks could drastically improve their 8 man rotation. NY-Houston-Phoenix.
Ny gets:
Tracy Mcgrady, Amare Stoudamire, Leandra Barbosa
Phx gets:
Gallo, Harrington, Duhon, Douglas, Mobley
Houston gets:
J. Hill, Darko, Hughes, Channing Frye (Suns)
Obviously their would be draft picks/money involved in a certain respect but, financially the trade works and as to why the other two teams agree to deal? Only Gallo and J. Hill’s contracts run past this season, with the other contracts adding up to the cap relief of holding onto T-Mac and Amare. As for short-term, the Rockets find a big-man project in Jordan Hill and the ex-Knick Frye as well as a chance to stay in the playoff hunt, the Suns get Gallo who is only fit for their (our) brand of basketball as well as Duhon to back Nash and Harrington to fill the stretch-4 spot. Knicks get Barbosa for the purpose that he flourished with D’Antoni and is currently in Gentry’s doghouse. That being said, the Knicks starting line-up post trade deadline:
PG Nate Robinson
SG T-Mac
SF Chandler
PF Amare
C D. Lee

Jeffries and Curry will be assets to trade at end of the season and as much as I despise seeing Jeffries on the floor, let alone shooting, the man can play defense. Curry, he just needs to cut that gross facial hair and come to grips with the fact that, unless a buy out or Declined player option, he will not play in a Knicks uniform, let alone in the NBA next season

By: jaddddd1

jaddddd1 — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:16:30 +0000

Anyone else think we should make the rumored Harrington for Ty Thomas deal that’s out there? Maybe Ty Thomas, Nate, and Jeffries will be enough for Houston to bite on a T-Mac trade if they view Thomas as having more potential to help them in the future than Harrington does this year.

By: Ted Nelson

Ted Nelson — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:13:17 +0000

I agree depending on the specifics. The tone of the last few posts was generally “Chandler stinks and Gallo is amazing.” So that’s where I was coming from. I think using Chandler for nothing but getting rid of Jeffries is a tough call. I would probably go for it because the potential payoff of LeBron AND Wade in Knicks uniforms is so incredibly great. I can see why others wouldn’t, though.

Granger or Richard Jefferson is sort of the top of Chandler’s ceiling. Butler, Josh Howard, and Gay are maybe more in the expected upper end of his range.

I don’t think he was worth a top 5 pick last season, I think Walsh was floating those rumors. I used 2nd rounder to mean basically nothing. As in, let’s not just give Chandler away.

By: TheRooster8

TheRooster8 — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:57:33 +0000

Also Ted, how do you figure he was worth a TOP 5 pick last year….then has played better this year…..and now is worth a 2nd round pick? How does that work?

By: TheRooster8

TheRooster8 — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:40:36 +0000

So basically, you just agreed with me. That was my point. This is not a guy for the long term, not a guy who will be on these supposed future knicks championship teams. So if he is the carrot that helps us shave Jeffries, or even to pick up a decent draft pick, its time.
There is a Wilson Chandler in every draft class, possibly even two. If anyone thinks this guy is the next Danny Granger, I have a 400 pound center from Chicago I’d like to trade them, because he’s the next Shaq.

By: Ted Nelson

Ted Nelson — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:16:35 +0000

“So i’m just not sure why we’ll hold onto him.”

Because he’s become a valuable player and capable of developing a whole lot further. If some team views Chandler as the next Danny Granger/Richard Jefferson and are willing to give up that kind of value in a trade, then sure I would trade him. I wouldn’t just trade a good asset for a 2nd round pick (… something of little value) for no reason, though. If you can use him to clear cap space I would consider it, and when it’s close to time to give him a 2nd contract the situation will be a little different.
If Walshtoni feel like Chandler can finish off the season the way he’s been playing recently the only reason to trade him now is cap space because his value will increase this offseason when people look at a full season worth of solid stats. Walsh was throwing around the idea of Chandler for a top 5 pick last offseason, and after a break out season maybe that’s a possibility. As he approaches his 2nd contract the Knicks might consider taking a shot in the draft rather than overpaying WC in 2011.

Basically, I do feel like Chandler is the type of player who can be more valuable as a trade asset (in part because I think he’ll be overpaid in free agency/an extension… and in part because the Knicks are pretty far away from contention, not one athletic wing 3rd scoring option away), but it’s a matter of when you trade him and what you can get. Maybe you do sign him to an extension/re-sign him if his demands are not ridiculous.