Boston/New York/Golden State trade idea.

[wdleehi]

I don't see the Celtics wanting to take on that contract if they hope to resign Ray.


And I don't want to replace Ray next year with Jackson.

[ssspence]

Eddie Curry hasn't sniffed a court in a very long time. He's in aweful shape, and even if he weren't he's not a good fit for an uptempo team. He's a poor rebounder, and requires many touches to be successful.

Now I know this is GSW we're talking about, but it's not realistic to imagine ANY team trading for Curry any time soon, much less the Warriors for Jackson who is a productive player (15 assists the other night).

So I see three problems here:

1) Curry is untradable;

2) Add Murrow in and it becomes laughable;

3) Why do we want to help the Knicks achieve their goal of cap space enough to load up around LeBron next summer?

[wdleehi]

3) Why do we want to help the Knicks achieve their goal of cap space enough to load up around LeBron next summer?

LeBron in Clev
LeBron in NJ
LeBron in NY


it doesn't matter.  He will still be in the the East and he will still not be a Celtic.  If a move with one of those teams helps the Celtics now, pull the trigger.

[nickagneta]

I don't see the Celtics wanting to take on that contract if they hope to resign Ray.


And I don't want to replace Ray next year with Jackson.

I like this trade... except for Jackson's contract because, as you said, it would prevent the C's of re-signing Ray. I would take a 35 years old Ray Allen over a 32 years old Jackson and his big, long, contract.

See, you aren't replacing Ray with Jackson, you are replacing him with Morrow, one of the most promising outside shooters the league has seen in a while. The kids stroke is unbelievable and his success is undeniable. Jackson would be replacing Daniels next year, a point SF. Jackson is an excellent passer who the second unit's offense could run through.

[wdleehi]

I don't see the Celtics wanting to take on that contract if they hope to resign Ray.


And I don't want to replace Ray next year with Jackson.

I like this trade... except for Jackson's contract because, as you said, it would prevent the C's of re-signing Ray. I would take a 35 years old Ray Allen over a 32 years old Jackson and his big, long, contract.

See, you aren't replacing Ray with Jackson, you are replacing him with Morrow, one of the most promising outside shooters the league has seen in a while. The kids stroke is unbelievable and his success is undeniable. Jackson would be replacing Daniels next year, a point SF. Jackson is an excellent passer who the second unit's offense could run through.

Down grading Ray to Marrow doesn't make it look any more attractive.

[nickagneta]

Eddie Curry hasn't sniffed a court in a very long time. He's in aweful shape, and even if he weren't he's not a good fit for an uptempo team. He's a poor rebounder, and requires many touches to be successful.

Now I know this is GSW we're talking about, but it's not realistic to imagine ANY team trading for Curry any time soon, much less the Warriors for Jackson who is a productive player (15 assists the other night).

So I see three problems here:

1) Curry is untradable;

2) Add Murrow in and it becomes laughable;

3) Why do we want to help the Knicks achieve their goal of cap space enough to load up around LeBron next summer?

LeBron, I am convinced is ending up in NY or NJ/Brooklyn next year. He'll be there no matter what we do. But if we can add Jackson, keep him away from Cleveland, and add a future star in Morrow(sorry, that's the way I see him. If he starts for the C's in 2010-11 with Rondo/Pierce/KG/Perk he will become almost All-Star level), we help our club tremendously. It would still be tons better than any team NY could throw together with LeBron on it for the foreseeable future.

[nickagneta]

I don't see the Celtics wanting to take on that contract if they hope to resign Ray.


And I don't want to replace Ray next year with Jackson.

I like this trade... except for Jackson's contract because, as you said, it would prevent the C's of re-signing Ray. I would take a 35 years old Ray Allen over a 32 years old Jackson and his big, long, contract.

See, you aren't replacing Ray with Jackson, you are replacing him with Morrow, one of the most promising outside shooters the league has seen in a while. The kids stroke is unbelievable and his success is undeniable. Jackson would be replacing Daniels next year, a point SF. Jackson is an excellent passer who the second unit's offense could run through.

Down grading Ray to Marrow doesn't make it look any more attractive.

Really, you see this kid play at all? His shooting is unreal.

[wdleehi]

I don't see the Celtics wanting to take on that contract if they hope to resign Ray.


And I don't want to replace Ray next year with Jackson.

I like this trade... except for Jackson's contract because, as you said, it would prevent the C's of re-signing Ray. I would take a 35 years old Ray Allen over a 32 years old Jackson and his big, long, contract.

See, you aren't replacing Ray with Jackson, you are replacing him with Morrow, one of the most promising outside shooters the league has seen in a while. The kids stroke is unbelievable and his success is undeniable. Jackson would be replacing Daniels next year, a point SF. Jackson is an excellent passer who the second unit's offense could run through.

Down grading Ray to Marrow doesn't make it look any more attractive.

Really, you see this kid play at all? His shooting is unreal.

And how many players have we seen put up amazing offensive numbers playing in GS under Nellie become average to below average elsewhere?

Not saying that is Marrow, but it is a pattern that can not be overlooked when trading for Ray's replacement.

[nickagneta]

I don't see the Celtics wanting to take on that contract if they hope to resign Ray.


And I don't want to replace Ray next year with Jackson.

I like this trade... except for Jackson's contract because, as you said, it would prevent the C's of re-signing Ray. I would take a 35 years old Ray Allen over a 32 years old Jackson and his big, long, contract.

See, you aren't replacing Ray with Jackson, you are replacing him with Morrow, one of the most promising outside shooters the league has seen in a while. The kids stroke is unbelievable and his success is undeniable. Jackson would be replacing Daniels next year, a point SF. Jackson is an excellent passer who the second unit's offense could run through.

Down grading Ray to Marrow doesn't make it look any more attractive.

Really, you see this kid play at all? His shooting is unreal.

And how many players have we seen put up amazing offensive numbers playing in GS under Nellie become average to below average elsewhere?

Not saying that is Marrow, but it is a pattern that can not be overlooked when trading for Ray's replacement.

I'm not talking about putting up scoring numbers. I'm talking shooting percentages. The kid shot 48% from the field last year, 47% from three. This year he's shooting 56% from the field and 61% from three. I don't care if you are in Nellie's shoot first ask questions later offense or not, those percentages are undeniably great.

Ray, who gets a ton of wide open looks in this offense because of the talent he plays with, didn't have numbers like that last year in his best shooting year ever. Put Morrow in Ray's spot running the same style plays and giving him the ball on the break at the three line, and he's going to be great. And he's going to be world's cheaper and world's younger.

[ssspence]

Eddie Curry hasn't sniffed a court in a very long time. He's in aweful shape, and even if he weren't he's not a good fit for an uptempo team. He's a poor rebounder, and requires many touches to be successful.

Now I know this is GSW we're talking about, but it's not realistic to imagine ANY team trading for Curry any time soon, much less the Warriors for Jackson who is a productive player (15 assists the other night).

So I see three problems here:

1) Curry is untradable;

2) Add Murrow in and it becomes laughable;

3) Why do we want to help the Knicks achieve their goal of cap space enough to load up around LeBron next summer?

LeBron, I am convinced is ending up in NY or NJ/Brooklyn next year. He'll be there no matter what we do. But if we can add Jackson, keep him away from Cleveland, and add a future star in Morrow(sorry, that's the way I see him. If he starts for the C's in 2010-11 with Rondo/Pierce/KG/Perk he will become almost All-Star level), we help our club tremendously. It would still be tons better than any team NY could throw together with LeBron on it for the foreseeable future.

I still see no explanation as to why the Warriors are giving up the two best players in the deal -- in one case a very talented young player on the cheap who fits their system perfectly -- for junk. It's not realistic to imagine Curry being traded for a very good NBA player, or even for an expiring contract. He's not an NBA player anymore.

Meanwhile, to yours and Wdleehi's point, performing this trade doesn't allow the Knicks to get LeBron; it allows the Knicks to get LeBron and sign another high-priced free agent. If you actually believe there's no difference between this (Lebron and another All-Star -- say Joe Johnson or Chris Bosh -- playing for a top NBA coach on a team where other FAs will line-up to take the MLE) and LeBron staying in Cleveland with Sideshow Bob, Boobi Gibson, Mike Brown, a poorly constructed team and ltd cap space, I'd encourage you to think again.

Thankfully since no NBA franchise is foolish enough to trade for Eddie Curry, we won't have to cross this bridge. 

[nickagneta]

Eddie Curry hasn't sniffed a court in a very long time. He's in aweful shape, and even if he weren't he's not a good fit for an uptempo team. He's a poor rebounder, and requires many touches to be successful.

Now I know this is GSW we're talking about, but it's not realistic to imagine ANY team trading for Curry any time soon, much less the Warriors for Jackson who is a productive player (15 assists the other night).

So I see three problems here:

1) Curry is untradable;

2) Add Murrow in and it becomes laughable;

3) Why do we want to help the Knicks achieve their goal of cap space enough to load up around LeBron next summer?

LeBron, I am convinced is ending up in NY or NJ/Brooklyn next year. He'll be there no matter what we do. But if we can add Jackson, keep him away from Cleveland, and add a future star in Morrow(sorry, that's the way I see him. If he starts for the C's in 2010-11 with Rondo/Pierce/KG/Perk he will become almost All-Star level), we help our club tremendously. It would still be tons better than any team NY could throw together with LeBron on it for the foreseeable future.

I still see no explanation as to why the Warriors are giving up the two best players in the deal -- in one case a very talented young player on the cheap who fits their system perfectly -- for junk. It's not realistic to imagine Curry being traded for a very good NBA player, or even for an expiring contract. He's not an NBA player anymore.

Meanwhile, to yours and Wdleehi's point, performing this trade doesn't allow the Knicks to get LeBron; it allows the Knicks to get LeBron and sign another high-priced free agent. If you actually believe there's no difference between this (Lebron and another All-Star -- say Joe Johnson or Chris Bosh -- playing for a top NBA coach on a team where other FAs will line-up to take the MLE) and LeBron staying in Cleveland with Sideshow Bob, Boobi Gibson, Mike Brown, a poorly constructed team and ltd cap space, I'd encourage you to think again.

Thankfully since no NBA franchise is foolish enough to trade for Eddie Curry, we won't have to cross this bridge. 

We will see. Remember, I prefaced this with saying that the Knicks are going to showcase Curry to the Warriors in a game against them. If he is pathetic, very likely, nothing happens. If he shows something(apparently he's lost over 40 pounds and is moving much better), then perhaps they take that chance. I've seen bigger stiffs than Curry get moved with bigger salaries. I would underestimate the lack of intelligence in NBA front offices.

Remember, Jermaine O'Neal has been moved twice with twice the contract Curry has. Raef LaFrentz, Ben Wallace, Mark Blount, Marcus Banks. All big contract stiffs that have been moved, some for good players.

It is possible.

[slamtheking]

This trade definitely brings some good talent our way.  No doubt about that.

My biggest issue with most of these trades that I see here is that they don't really take into account that we simply don't enough minutes for these players.

With this trade our bench would be:

Marquis, Rasheed, Eddie, Captain Jack, Morrow, Shelden (he clearly would not get any minutes), Big Baby (when he returns).

There is no way we could possibly give those players the minutes they deserve or require in order to keep happy.

Ahh here's the great thing. With this trade, Baby and Eddie become expendable into another trade. Maybe send them to Portland for Steve Blake and a pick. Then the bench becomes Wallace, Williams, Marquis, Jackson, Morrow, Blake and Hudson with roster spots a plenty to sign players bought out of their contracts or current free agents to fill a need. Also, as I mentioned earlier, it sets up nicely for next year if the C's decide they don't want to resign Ray.

Not a bad idea to move the current deadwood for someone that should produce more than all of them combined in Jackson (and a promising player in Morrow-->haven't seen him but will go along with your evaluation for this discussion).  The extra move to get Blake and a pick is understandable to get a real backup PG.  Overpaying for Blake significantly IMHO.

My real concern is now we're thin upfront again.  The only bench bigs we have are Sheed and Williams.  What happens if Sheed/KG go down with injury?  We're back to a 3-man big rotation and down to 2 if they both go down.  Too much of a risk.  Picking up what's left on the current scrap heap isn't a valid option either.

If you can find a way to add a serviceable (or better yet, quality) big man to the bench in these moves, this might be worthwhile.  Still not sold on Jackson buying into Ubuntu this year or for the life of his contract.  It would mean the end of Ray's time here without doubt.  Not a gut-wrenching decision for me personally but would like to replace him with someone who's good and a not a headcase.

[ToppersBsktball10]

GS would be stupid to do that.

[ssspence]

Eddie Curry hasn't sniffed a court in a very long time. He's in aweful shape, and even if he weren't he's not a good fit for an uptempo team. He's a poor rebounder, and requires many touches to be successful.

Now I know this is GSW we're talking about, but it's not realistic to imagine ANY team trading for Curry any time soon, much less the Warriors for Jackson who is a productive player (15 assists the other night).

So I see three problems here:

1) Curry is untradable;

2) Add Murrow in and it becomes laughable;

3) Why do we want to help the Knicks achieve their goal of cap space enough to load up around LeBron next summer?

LeBron, I am convinced is ending up in NY or NJ/Brooklyn next year. He'll be there no matter what we do. But if we can add Jackson, keep him away from Cleveland, and add a future star in Morrow(sorry, that's the way I see him. If he starts for the C's in 2010-11 with Rondo/Pierce/KG/Perk he will become almost All-Star level), we help our club tremendously. It would still be tons better than any team NY could throw together with LeBron on it for the foreseeable future.

I still see no explanation as to why the Warriors are giving up the two best players in the deal -- in one case a very talented young player on the cheap who fits their system perfectly -- for junk. It's not realistic to imagine Curry being traded for a very good NBA player, or even for an expiring contract. He's not an NBA player anymore.

Meanwhile, to yours and Wdleehi's point, performing this trade doesn't allow the Knicks to get LeBron; it allows the Knicks to get LeBron and sign another high-priced free agent. If you actually believe there's no difference between this (Lebron and another All-Star -- say Joe Johnson or Chris Bosh -- playing for a top NBA coach on a team where other FAs will line-up to take the MLE) and LeBron staying in Cleveland with Sideshow Bob, Boobi Gibson, Mike Brown, a poorly constructed team and ltd cap space, I'd encourage you to think again.

Thankfully since no NBA franchise is foolish enough to trade for Eddie Curry, we won't have to cross this bridge. 

We will see. Remember, I prefaced this with saying that the Knicks are going to showcase Curry to the Warriors in a game against them. If he is pathetic, very likely, nothing happens. If he shows something(apparently he's lost over 40 pounds and is moving much better), then perhaps they take that chance. I've seen bigger stiffs than Curry get moved with bigger salaries. I would underestimate the lack of intelligence in NBA front offices.

Remember, Jermaine O'Neal has been moved twice with twice the contract Curry has. Raef LaFrentz, Ben Wallace, Mark Blount, Marcus Banks. All big contract stiffs that have been moved, some for good players.

It is possible.

Jermaine O'Neal is (while far from perfect) a legit NBA center. C'mon, the guy can get you 5, 7 blocks in a game. The others you mention were all traded as parts of deals to either a) get talent, i.e. Brandon Roy, or b) to reduce salary -- either theirs or the other player they were traded with / for, i.e. Banks as part of the Marion for Shaq deal. If you chalk up moving Jackson to reducing salary, they can likely go out and trade him for an expiring deal to a number of teams.

I hear you on GMs, but Eddie Curry's loss of 40 pounds still doesn't make him svelt or in shape -- he apparently ballooned remarkably (due to difficult personal issues no one would ask for, regretably) and is still really big and out of shape.

Sorry -- I'm just saying this is a major long shot. 

[nickagneta]

Eddie Curry hasn't sniffed a court in a very long time. He's in aweful shape, and even if he weren't he's not a good fit for an uptempo team. He's a poor rebounder, and requires many touches to be successful.

Now I know this is GSW we're talking about, but it's not realistic to imagine ANY team trading for Curry any time soon, much less the Warriors for Jackson who is a productive player (15 assists the other night).

So I see three problems here:

1) Curry is untradable;

2) Add Murrow in and it becomes laughable;

3) Why do we want to help the Knicks achieve their goal of cap space enough to load up around LeBron next summer?

LeBron, I am convinced is ending up in NY or NJ/Brooklyn next year. He'll be there no matter what we do. But if we can add Jackson, keep him away from Cleveland, and add a future star in Morrow(sorry, that's the way I see him. If he starts for the C's in 2010-11 with Rondo/Pierce/KG/Perk he will become almost All-Star level), we help our club tremendously. It would still be tons better than any team NY could throw together with LeBron on it for the foreseeable future.

I still see no explanation as to why the Warriors are giving up the two best players in the deal -- in one case a very talented young player on the cheap who fits their system perfectly -- for junk. It's not realistic to imagine Curry being traded for a very good NBA player, or even for an expiring contract. He's not an NBA player anymore.

Meanwhile, to yours and Wdleehi's point, performing this trade doesn't allow the Knicks to get LeBron; it allows the Knicks to get LeBron and sign another high-priced free agent. If you actually believe there's no difference between this (Lebron and another All-Star -- say Joe Johnson or Chris Bosh -- playing for a top NBA coach on a team where other FAs will line-up to take the MLE) and LeBron staying in Cleveland with Sideshow Bob, Boobi Gibson, Mike Brown, a poorly constructed team and ltd cap space, I'd encourage you to think again.

Thankfully since no NBA franchise is foolish enough to trade for Eddie Curry, we won't have to cross this bridge. 

We will see. Remember, I prefaced this with saying that the Knicks are going to showcase Curry to the Warriors in a game against them. If he is pathetic, very likely, nothing happens. If he shows something(apparently he's lost over 40 pounds and is moving much better), then perhaps they take that chance. I've seen bigger stiffs than Curry get moved with bigger salaries. I would underestimate the lack of intelligence in NBA front offices.

Remember, Jermaine O'Neal has been moved twice with twice the contract Curry has. Raef LaFrentz, Ben Wallace, Mark Blount, Marcus Banks. All big contract stiffs that have been moved, some for good players.

It is possible.

Jermaine O'Neal is (while far from perfect) a legit NBA center. C'mon, the guy can get you 5, 7 blocks in a game. The others you mention were all traded as parts of deals to either a) get talent, i.e. Brandon Roy, or b) to reduce salary -- either theirs or the other player they were traded with / for, i.e. Banks as part of the Marion for Shaq deal. If you chalk up moving Jackson to reducing salary, they can likely go out and trade him for an expiring deal to a number of teams.

I hear you on GMs, but Eddie Curry's loss of 40 pounds still doesn't make him svelt or in shape -- he apparently ballooned remarkably (due to difficult personal issues no one would ask for, regretably) and is still really big and out of shape.

Sorry -- I'm just saying this is a major long shot. 

Every trade idea posted at this site is a long shot. I don't see this being any more or less a long shot than any others.

And O'Neals days of racking up regular games in a row with good blocked shot numbers are well in the read.