Curry was owed roughly 5 million of his 11+ million contact.(Note here - Even though we paid more of his contract than he was owed Minnesota can't keep that money as it would circumvent the cap - This has been answered before so there is not extra savings there). We essentially traded the following:
Curry (owed 5 million), AR (owed around 1 million more + has two more years) and gave Minny 3 million cash.
We received Brewer who is on the last year of a 3.7 mill contract (team option for 5 next year).

So, we essentially gave Minny AR and $2 million for Brewer.

My question is: Where there no other teams who wanted AR who were also under the salary cap? It just seems that we got a player back who in as many words Mike said isn't going to play as he is a liability on offense (though Jeffries isn't?). I don't get it, I can't believe more teams wouldn't have taken a chance on AR and given us more back, even if it would have put them over the cap into luxury tax (if they thought enough of AR).

earthmansurfer wrote:My question is: Where there no other teams who wanted AR who were also under the salary cap?

Wasn't just about being under the salary cap.

It was being far enough under the salary cap to limit what had to be sent back to the third team.

Curry and Randolph was over $13m. Brewer was just $3.7.

One thing lost in the reporting of this trade was how close the Knicks were to maxing out what they could take in in comparison to what they sent out salary wise. They stretched the CBA rule to the very limit.

Knicks couldn't take back a better, more expensive player than Brewer. It would have changed the math.

Only team out there could have also gotten done what the KNicks need to do was the Kings.

Everyone imprint this into their impression of the trade. Minnesota was one of two teams than could facilitate this deal.

That gave them leverage.