RealGM

Curry, Richardson, Crawford, James, Jeffries and Robinson

for

Hughes, Snow, Marshall, Newble, Simmons, S. Brown, CLE '08 lotto-protected 1st and CLE '09 2nd

Trade ID #4389538

CLE sacrifices financial balance in order to try to compete for James.
Gibson, Crawford, James, Gooden, Ilgauskas
Robinson, D. Brown, Pavlovic, Varejao, Curry



NYK receives alot of financial relief for a lineup that hasn't measured up to standards. I know Knicks fans feel that their players are worth more via trade, but the truth is that most of their guys are overpaid and on long deals. With Marbury's deal expiring in '09, the same time as Snow's and Marshall's, the Knicks would be in great financial shape by next summer.
Marbury, Collins, Balkman, Lee, Randolph
Snow, Hughes, Marshall, Simmons, Morris

If there's really nothing available anywhere else, I would probably do it. Our defense inside would be pretty crappy, though. And we still wouldn't have a pure PG.

I don't think your interior D would be all that bad; Curry would be a SERIOUS offensive punch off the bench (something CLE lacks when Gibson starts), and working alongside an unselfish stopper like Varejao, the interior won't be as porous as NYK's D with Eddy.

It's true you wouldn't have a pure PG, but there is plenty enough capable ball-handling in the Gibson-Crawford-James lineup.

Taking on the two JJ's is what really blows for CLE about this deal, but stomaching that means getting back on track to being a very dangerous team in the East.

I really think this is THE solid deal for both teams, that has been starting us all in the face this entire season. I am waiting, however, for the inevitable NYK fans' reaction...

I'm going to introduce this deal to the team forums, and see what a wider audience thinks.

its a fair trade for both teams imo

I wouldn't trade Curry for that package by himself.

#1knickfan wrote:I wouldn't trade Curry for that package by himself.

You're not...you're adding a compilation of players to Curry that add up to negative value. Adding them makes the deal better for you, not worse.

I can't see the Cavaliers taking on Jefferies and James and Q-Rich's longer contracts just to get Curry as a backup and Jamal Crawford, even if Hughes gets to go the other way.

This trade makes no real sense for NY. I mean what exactly is the goal? To trim 1 years worth of salary while getting even worse players that doesn't help give them what they need? Why? For a lottery protected 1st rounder?

Just because a team (the Knicks is struggling) doesn't mean that they should take an even more aggravating overpaid SG and a bunch of inconsequential role players from a team that, without Lebron James, honestly would be worse than them.

loserX wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



You're not...you're adding a compilation of players to Curry that add up to negative value. Adding them makes the deal better for you, not worse.

I can't see the Cavaliers taking on Jefferies and James and Q-Rich's longer contracts just to get Curry as a backup and Jamal Crawford, even if Hughes gets to go the other way.

But I don't see a lot in the way of expiring contracts or valuable commodities coming are way so what's the point. We're better off with Curry and the turds with slightly longer contracts.

How about: Trade ID #4390397

Zach Randolph, Crawford, Collins, Jeffries, James, $3 million cash
for
Hughes, Snow, Marshall, Newble, Damon Jones (waived), 08 top 10 protected first round pick

CLE:
Ilgauskas/Varejao/Jones/James
Randolph/Gooden/Simmons
James/Jeffries
Gibson/Pavlovic/Brown
Crawford/Collins/Brown

^

pennyspree, your deal is along the same vein, but I think your have skirted the major clincher in a deal of this type: dumping this much salary without some sort of compensation in the form of youth is unrealistic. Nate is not too much to ask, and with an elite PG on the horizon for the Knicks in the '08 draft, it shouldn't sting too much.

Just because you don't see all expirings, DOESN'T mean there aren't serious financial rewards in this trade for NYK. Moocow007, you should be able to fully understand this. The bulk of this deal involves shipping 4-year contracts for 2-year ones. The Knicks save over $7mil off of this year's cap, which also saves them in luxury tax penalties. Over the course of all the contracts, New York saves over $77 MILLION, and lines them up to be fiscally healthy just in time for a monumental FA crop.

Let's get real: the Knicks are currently 8-24, good for the 4th-worst record in the NBA. They aren't competing for the post-season, and the growth potential for this veteran lineup doesn't look great. This is the soundest move for them to make right now.



Now for the Cavs, I think this could right the ship in Cleveland. The critical flaws of Crawford (ball domination) and Curry (shoddy defense and rebounding) are masked by their new teammates, and their scoring ability should shore up an offense that languishes near the bottom of almost every team statistic on that side of the court. But loserX, I disagree with your assessment that this deal is just about Jamal and Eddy. Nate Robinson would be a great career backup to Gibson, and Jeffries is a versatile defender that should find time all over the court for Brown. Richardson and James (Jerome, that is) just aren't healthy, but can provide extra depth when at 100%. As in all trades, there's a bit of risk/reward for the Cavaliers, but IMO it's likely a big step in the right direction.

ecuhus1981, I've decided the the original deal you proposed would be better if we kept Newble and gave them Jones, as Newble is in our rotation at times and Jones is unhappy here. I also would give up an 09 1st, not the 2 picks you involved in the trade.

Curry, Richardson, Crawford, James, Jeffries and Robinson

for

Hughes, Snow, Marshall, D. Jones, Simmons, S. Brown, CLE '09 lotto-protected 1st

I think swapping Jones for Newble is fair, and would clean up the ball-handling duties rotation in CLE.

But if you do that, you shouldn't remove picks. It would need to be sweetened for NYK not to have any expirings coming their way. I'd say upgrading the '09 2nd to a '10 1st is the cost of that swap, with the '08 1st still in the deal.

ecuhus1981 wrote:I think swapping Jones for Newble is fair, and would clean up the ball-handling duties rotation in CLE.

But if you do that, you shouldn't remove picks. It would need to be sweetened for NYK not to have any expirings coming their way. I'd say upgrading the '09 2nd to a '10 1st is the cost of that swap, with the '08 1st still in the deal.

Well, if you want to get into specifics, Brown has an expiring contract.

Anyway, I think an 09 1st is plenty of sweetner for the Knicks. They are dumping a TON of salary on the Cavs in this deal, and the only long contract they're taking back is Hughes. It's not like they're going to have cap room in 2008 anyway, so an expiring contract doesn't have much value to them.

ecuhus1981 wrote:^

pennyspree, your deal is along the same vein, but I think your have skirted the major clincher in a deal of this type: dumping this much salary without some sort of compensation in the form of youth is unrealistic. Nate is not too much to ask, and with an elite PG on the horizon for the Knicks in the '08 draft, it shouldn't sting too much.

In my deal, Cavs keep youth in Brown and Simmons and also get Mardy Collins. He is more of a pure PG, who would be a good complement to Crawford and Gibson. Nate is more of a scoring guard, who after the trade the knicks would probably value more as we would lose alot of scoring as a result of this trade.