VDesai wrote:But now that I think about it, if Denver got nothing from Minnesota, why did we acquire Ronnie Corey Brewer for Eddy Curry and Anthony Randolph. We couldn't get more for those 2?

My guess was capsace, and because the trades went to two teams, the Knicks contributed $6 million

VDesai wrote:But now that I think about it, if Denver got nothing from Minnesota, why did we acquire Ronnie Brewer for Eddy Curry and Anthony Randolph. We couldn't get more for those 2?

Because the Knicks needed Curry's $11m off the cap to take back the salary they did.

Minnesota can absorb his cap hit.

Denver, not having to take an equal amount of salary back as they give up, get's luxury tax savings.

Capology 101.

Knickoftime wrote:

VDesai wrote:But now that I think about it, if Denver got nothing from Minnesota, why did we acquire Ronnie Brewer for Eddy Curry and Anthony Randolph. We couldn't get more for those 2?

Because the Knicks needed Curry's $11m off the cap to take back the salary they did.

Minnesota can absorb his cap hit.

Denver, not having to take an equal amount of salary back as they give up, get's luxury tax savings.

Capology 101.

So Knicks essentially freed up space by moving Curry that allowed them to trade with Denver without having to salary match?

SupremeCommander wrote:

VDesai wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

VDesai wrote:But now that I think about it, if Denver got nothing from Minnesota, why did we acquire Ronnie Corey Brewer for Eddy Curry and Anthony Randolph. We couldn't get more for those 2?

My guess was capsace, and because the trades went to two teams, the Knicks contributed $6 million

But $3 mil went to Denver and $3 to Minny- I'm a little confused as to how this worked. Did Curry/Randolph technically pass through Denver? Im thinking there has to be more behind because Curry and Randolph for just Brewer certainly is bad. Just am curious at the logistics of how this trade was processed.

*I think* Curry's salary had to be traded for Melo to come to the Knicks. I don't think Denver wanted to assume his salary at all. Why would the Wolves assume Curry's contract? To upgrade from Brewer to AR.

My speculation, anyway

The $3 mil they are getting for Curry means they won't really have to pay him much, if anything. Essentially they just swapped Brewer for Randolph and didn't have to throw in any picks or anything- they made it out pretty well as facilitators.

I do not want us to keep him. Flip him to another team like The Bucks for some kind of pick and player Dooling and a 2011 second rounder or something.

Juice wrote:There's almost no redeeming factor here for acquiring him unless we trade him to another team A.S.A.P. This clown isn't even Larry Hughes 2009-2010. He has no future with this team going forward. He has a 300% 2011 Cap Hit which comes to about $11.2mil compare that to Chandler's $6.5mil. The only thing he provides is 26gms worth of depth(maybe playoffs depth) that's it. He's a total misfit in this system. And he can only be traded by himself.

I do not want us to keep him. Flip him to another team like The Bucks for some kind of pick and player Dooling and a 2011 second rounder or something.

It might make sense to keep him - we aren't going to look to be shopping the FA market in 2011. Maybe in 2012, but I think we're going to need have assets stocked for another trade.

Brewer is an asset. And can play.

What is the downside of getting him again?

crzymdups wrote:

Juice wrote:There's almost no redeeming factor here for acquiring him unless we trade him to another team A.S.A.P. This clown isn't even Larry Hughes 2009-2010. He has no future with this team going forward. He has a 300% 2011 Cap Hit which comes to about $11.2mil compare that to Chandler's $6.5mil. The only thing he provides is 26gms worth of depth(maybe playoffs depth) that's it. He's a total misfit in this system. And he can only be traded by himself.

I do not want us to keep him. Flip him to another team like The Bucks for some kind of pick and player Dooling and a 2011 second rounder or something.

It might make sense to keep him - we aren't going to look to be shopping the FA market in 2011. Maybe in 2012, but I think we're going to need have assets stocked for another trade.

Brewer is an asset. And can play.

What is the downside of getting him again?

He's not re-signing here for the QO($3.5-4mil) with an impending lockout and he'll probably get at least around the QO 3yr deal from someone. Why have him around when we're looking at keeping 2012 salary as slim as possible and we need to build around the core with cheap assets. Brewer is not a cheap asset after 26gms. We need picks and open roster spots to get players we need and want. We have wings too in Fields/Walker and possibly even Williams if he wants to come back on a 1yr deal. We need a backup point guard/a center/and a backup 2 guard...... Brewer solves none of our long term nor short term problems besides being a capable body for the time being.