I'm getting really tired of all these trade scenarios that involve people taking jeffries and curry. They are not assets. The only way we would get someone of quality is if we trade Chandler, Gallo, or Lee. Of the three, Chandler is least attractive at this point. If one of these three isn't traded, then I'm 99.9% sure we are not going to acquire a key player this year. The only decision that has to be made is if we try to sign Lee sooner rather than later OR if we move on and target 2 big FA's this summer.

"I will pick their brains, [as] they are out there looking at pro teams," Walsh said. "Who do you think can play that we don't know about or don't see a lot? That kind of thing. We have guys who know the teams. But it takes two to tango."

Maybe Sergio Rodriguez, Steve Blake or DJ Augustin. That's the kind of trades the Knicks can make with what they have.

arkrud wrote:Dreaming is not a crime, it's a pleasure.
Don't take it way from us mister obvious.

apparently not so obvious with all the scenarious / wishes being posted. I'm not saying its a crime, just saying the majority of the trade proposals I've seen on the UK site are less than likely (e.g. Nash)

A trade is possible so there is no crazy talk.

Eddy Curry is unmovable unless we break the bank for Houston. Hill, Chandler, Douglas, 2nd round picks, Curry for broken down TMac who we agree to waive immediately. Then, yeah, maybe.

----The CRAZY TALK that needs to stop is the few who are dying for Donnie to make a cap killing trade so we can sneak into the playoffs with 35 wins and get swept in the first round. That's the crazy talk that needs to stop.

WindsorPl wrote:Tangible trade assets we have are the expirings, Al and Nate. That can get you some decent players.
From Berman, Donnie talking about his scout meeting:

"I will pick their brains, [as] they are out there looking at pro teams," Walsh said. "Who do you think can play that we don't know about or don't see a lot? That kind of thing. We have guys who know the teams. But it takes two to tango."

Maybe Sergio Rodriguez, Steve Blake or DJ Augustin. That's the kind of trades the Knicks can make with what they have.

Id be willing to give up TD--he's not a PG and he's 6-1. I don't think he is a bad player--and could potentially do well in a 6th man role. But force-feeding the PG position isn't happening.

sebstar wrote:

TMS wrote:Fishlips & Curry's contracts are albatrosses, not assets... we need to add assets to unload either one of them, & even then finding a taker will be nearly impossible.

See, I disagree. They would be albatross' to me if they extended for a few more years, but they expire in a year and a half. If a team is not able to participate in this upcoming free agent pool, that contract becomes a huge asset.

But we would obviously have to pair one of our contracts with one of our tangible assets, such as a Jordan hill or chandler to make it enticing.

those contracts only become an asset to teams that are looking to dump contracts of even longer length, & considering the type of talent we're talking about here in FL & Curry, you won't get much either way... they are a hindrance to any trade we wanna make... Donnie's insistence on including 1 of those contracts to teams looking to make deals with us for any of our expirings is turning teams off left & right.

i'm not saying a Fishlips trade is impossible, but we'll have to throw in some of our assets to get a deal done, which pretty much means he's an albatross & not an asset.

kam77 wrote:What about JJ for TJ ford? It actually saves IND money so we don't have to worry about sweetening an albatross contract.

TJ Ford > Duhon

> Duhon = Playoffs

Playoffs = LeBron

when u add in FL's 15% trade kicker it only really saves them 500K

kam77 wrote:Are you factoring the trade kicker once or twice? It doesn't carry over into next year if he is traded this year. He gets more this year, but the same he would've got next year.

Doesn't it raise the entire worth of the contract by 15% regardless of when the player is traded?