Would you do this deal for Eddy Curry?

[JSD]

I would never, under any circumstance, want a lazy punk like Curry.

But it's not about obtaining Curry...

But having him on the roster along with his contract would be crippling to this teams payroll structure.

Unless we're getting top 10 to top 20 talent right now its not worth taking on that salary. The Knicks don't have that sort of talent. Giving up Ray makes it a completely awful idea.

The only awful idea was you posting in this thread because clearly you didn't read it. 

Please don't assume I didn't read a thread because I disagree with you, its rude and condescending.

Even with the buyout and waive "wink wink" we'd be losing Ray for a crucial amount of the season and for next year. We simply couldn't afford to pay him his market value with the payroll structure of the team. Others have pointed this all out to you.

But feel free to dismiss my opinion because "I didn't read the thread".

Pay who's market value? Ray's?  And if your just repeating other posters why bother? Just to tell me I have "a completely awful idea" your the one being rude and condescending. 

[wdleehi]

This needs to get back on track or it gets locked. 

[ssspence]

I would never, under any circumstance, want a lazy punk like Curry.

But it's not about obtaining Curry...

But having him on the roster along with his contract would be crippling to this teams payroll structure.

Unless we're getting top 10 to top 20 talent right now its not worth taking on that salary. The Knicks don't have that sort of talent. Giving up Ray makes it a completely awful idea.

The only awful idea was you posting in this thread because clearly you didn't read it. 

Please don't assume I didn't read a thread because I disagree with you, its rude and condescending.

Even with the buyout and waive "wink wink" we'd be losing Ray for a crucial amount of the season and for next year. We simply couldn't afford to pay him his market value with the payroll structure of the team. Others have pointed this all out to you.

But feel free to dismiss my opinion because "I didn't read the thread".

Pay who's market value? Ray's?  And if your just repeating other posters why bother? Just to tell me I have "a completely awful idea" your the one being rude and condescending. 

He’s right – you’re not getting enough in return for the contracts you’re taking back, particularly when the Knicks would likely give up Gallinari if you’d just take on one or the other. The Cs don’t need to trade Ray to do that.

I do agree the Cs may need to take on one bad deal to get a good young player, but this isn’t the deal.

[Chris]

I would never, under any circumstance, want a lazy punk like Curry.

But it's not about obtaining Curry...

But having him on the roster along with his contract would be crippling to this teams payroll structure.

Unless we're getting top 10 to top 20 talent right now its not worth taking on that salary. The Knicks don't have that sort of talent. Giving up Ray makes it a completely awful idea.

The only awful idea was you posting in this thread because clearly you didn't read it. 

Please don't assume I didn't read a thread because I disagree with you, its rude and condescending.

Even with the buyout and waive "wink wink" we'd be losing Ray for a crucial amount of the season and for next year. We simply couldn't afford to pay him his market value with the payroll structure of the team. Others have pointed this all out to you.

But feel free to dismiss my opinion because "I didn't read the thread".

Pay who's market value? Ray's?  And if your just repeating other posters why bother? Just to tell me I have "a completely awful idea" your the one being rude and condescending. 

I am not sure if someone else already brought this up, because I don't have the time to read the entire rest of the thread, but he has a great point about losing Ray.  If we were to trade him, and then resign him for the minimum when he gets bought out, there is little to no chance he will return next year, since you lose his Bird Rights, and he will likely get a contract for more than the MLE.

So basically, the C's would be forced to try to replace Ray and Daniels (again, no Bird rights) with just the MLE, or try to trade Curry or the gangly guy for a starting quality shooting guard.  And even though they would be expiring contracts, they would not have much value at that point, unless the C's were taking a terrible contract off someone else's hands...and there are going to be much fewer of those as there have been in the past this summer, since so many guys are expiring this year.  

Basically, it is a terrible trade idea.

[Chris]

BTW, does anyone else remember the last time Danny traded an expiring contract in order to get a talented young player and a couple draft picks, while taking on a bad salary?  Yup, Raef and Jiri.

While those picks were nice, I think we have seen a lot of growth by Danny since then, and he has realized how much it can cripple a franchise to take on a bad contract.  A bad contract can set a team much further behind than any non-superstar talent can put them ahead.

[JSD]

I am not sure if someone else already brought this up, because I don't have the time to read the entire rest of the thread, but he has a great point about losing Ray.  If we were to trade him, and then resign him for the minimum when he gets bought out, there is little to no chance he will return next year, since you lose his Bird Rights, and he will likely get a contract for more than the MLE.

Actually, I brought this up in my OP. This trade makes bringing in a 35 year old shooting guard a lot more difficult. But a renounced Ray Allen in 2011 is an MLE player anyway, and if the Celtics decide not to pay the MLE (in general) because of a bloated payroll that's where DG steps in to start (moving Pierce back to the 2).

So basically, the C's would be forced to try to replace Ray and Daniels (again, no Bird rights) with just the MLE, or try to trade Curry or the gangly guy for a starting quality shooting guard.  And even though they would be expiring contracts, they would not have much value at that point, unless the C's were taking a terrible contract off someone else's hands...

This is simply untrue... As long as where under this CBA expiring contracts will remain a solid asset for any NBA team. Under this scenario the Celtics could bring in a solid SG with reasonable contract if necessary.

and there are going to be much fewer of those as there have been in the past this summer, since so many guys are expiring this year.

This only increases the value of expiring contracts. God knows what teams will be looking to shed payroll in 2011 but if history has taught us anything there will be several. 

[ssspence]

BTW, does anyone else remember the last time Danny traded an expiring contract in order to get a talented young player and a couple draft picks, while taking on a bad salary?  Yup, Raef and Jiri.

While those picks were nice, I think we have seen a lot of growth by Danny since then, and he has realized how much it can cripple a franchise to take on a bad contract.  A bad contract can set a team much further behind than any non-superstar talent can put them ahead.

Different era. How many years did Raef have on his deal, 5, 6? And Danny traded for Raef et al in large part because he liked Raef as a player better than he liked Mr. Vegas.

I'd be in favor of taking on a deal like Gadzuric's or Jeffries' or the like (i.e. one or two years) if it meant adding a real talent who could be a Celtic for a number of years to come. And I'd trade for a player with more years if a) he was servicable (think Nocioni) and b) we got back an A level talent (think Thompson -- this is the deal Danny has always asked for from the Kings).

Outside of Elton Brand I can't think of a single NBA contract that looks like Raef's did, when "max contracts" were handed out too recklessly. Sure, there are few bad ones (Baron Davis and Lamarcus Aldridge and Emeka Okefor come to mind). But generally guys are getting smaller, shorter deals.

Or maybe it's just that the Cs are smarter now that's influencing my thinking.

[JSD]

I would never, under any circumstance, want a lazy punk like Curry.

But it's not about obtaining Curry...

But having him on the roster along with his contract would be crippling to this teams payroll structure.

Unless we're getting top 10 to top 20 talent right now its not worth taking on that salary. The Knicks don't have that sort of talent. Giving up Ray makes it a completely awful idea.

The only awful idea was you posting in this thread because clearly you didn't read it. 

Please don't assume I didn't read a thread because I disagree with you, its rude and condescending.

Even with the buyout and waive "wink wink" we'd be losing Ray for a crucial amount of the season and for next year. We simply couldn't afford to pay him his market value with the payroll structure of the team. Others have pointed this all out to you.

But feel free to dismiss my opinion because "I didn't read the thread".

Pay who's market value? Ray's?  And if your just repeating other posters why bother? Just to tell me I have "a completely awful idea" your the one being rude and condescending. 

He’s right – you’re not getting enough in return for the contracts you’re taking back, particularly when the Knicks would likely give up Gallinari if you’d just take on one or the other. The Cs don’t need to trade Ray to do that.

I do agree the Cs may need to take on one bad deal to get a good young player, but this isn’t the deal.

I don't see Walsh giving up DG without losing both those unwanted contracts. As he's shown with the Randolph situation he isn't afraid to wait. Obviously, I'd love to land DG for our expirings that don't include Ray.

[JSD]

BTW, does anyone else remember the last time Danny traded an expiring contract in order to get a talented young player and a couple draft picks, while taking on a bad salary?  Yup, Raef and Jiri.

While those picks were nice, I think we have seen a lot of growth by Danny since then, and he has realized how much it can cripple a franchise to take on a bad contract.  A bad contract can set a team much further behind than any non-superstar talent can put them ahead.

Different era. How many years did Raef have on his deal, 5, 6? And Danny traded for Raef et al in large part because he liked Raef as a player better than he liked Mr. Vegas.

I'd be in favor of taking on a deal like Gadzuric's or Jeffries' or the like (i.e. one or two years) if it meant adding a real talent who could be a Celtic for a number of years to come. And I'd trade for a player with more years if a) he was servicable (think Nocioni) and b) we got back an A level talent (think Thompson -- this is the deal Danny has always asked for from the Kings).

Outside of Elton Brand I can't think of a single NBA contract that looks like Raef's did, when "max contracts" were handed out too recklessly. Sure, there are few bad ones (Baron Davis and Lamarcus Aldridge and Emeka Okefor come to mind). But generally guys are getting smaller, shorter deals.

Or maybe it's just that the Cs are smarter now that's influencing my thinking.

And that's the thing too, I'm trying to think of a team that would give up a top level prospect for an expiring. I'd love the Celtics to supplement "future" into their "win now' mode. That's why I threw this deal out there.

[Chris]

Well, I suppose I just don't think Gallinari is a top level prospect.  I think he is a middle of the road prospect with the potential to be a good NBA player in a few years.  To take on significant salary, like this deal would do, while also losing control of Ray for next year, it is going to take a lot more than a guy who may be a good NBA player in a few years.  They need a true, rising star who will be a franchise player in a few years.  Otherwise, it is not worth it.

[ssspence]

Well, I suppose I just don't think Gallinari is a top level prospect.  I think he is a middle of the road prospect with the potential to be a good NBA player in a few years.  To take on significant salary, like this deal would do, while also losing control of Ray for next year, it is going to take a lot more than a guy who may be a good NBA player in a few years.  They need a true, rising star who will be a franchise player in a few years.  Otherwise, it is not worth it.

I agree.

[Who]

I see Gallinari as an efficient version of Hedo Turkoglu. A very efficient 22+ppg threat + 5+apg who can run your offense. Along with steady contributions defensively + hopefully on the boards.

A perennial All-Star player who could become an All-NBA player.

[ssspence]

I would never, under any circumstance, want a lazy punk like Curry.

But it's not about obtaining Curry...

But having him on the roster along with his contract would be crippling to this teams payroll structure.

Unless we're getting top 10 to top 20 talent right now its not worth taking on that salary. The Knicks don't have that sort of talent. Giving up Ray makes it a completely awful idea.

The only awful idea was you posting in this thread because clearly you didn't read it. 

Please don't assume I didn't read a thread because I disagree with you, its rude and condescending.

Even with the buyout and waive "wink wink" we'd be losing Ray for a crucial amount of the season and for next year. We simply couldn't afford to pay him his market value with the payroll structure of the team. Others have pointed this all out to you.

But feel free to dismiss my opinion because "I didn't read the thread".

Pay who's market value? Ray's?  And if your just repeating other posters why bother? Just to tell me I have "a completely awful idea" your the one being rude and condescending. 

He’s right – you’re not getting enough in return for the contracts you’re taking back, particularly when the Knicks would likely give up Gallinari if you’d just take on one or the other. The Cs don’t need to trade Ray to do that.

I do agree the Cs may need to take on one bad deal to get a good young player, but this isn’t the deal.

I don't see Walsh giving up DG without losing both those unwanted contracts. As he's shown with the Randolph situation he isn't afraid to wait. Obviously, I'd love to land DG for our expirings that don't include Ray.

Their plan to rebuild this summer is currently royally ****ed.  Think about it from the Knicks perspective -- They would give up ANYTHING for you to take Eddy Curry, much less he and Jeffries.

I posted last week I believe they would give up a combination of two of Chandler, Gallinari and Hill provided we'd take Jeffries for our expiring contracts. But I still don't think it'd be a great deal for the Cs when you see what it will do for the Knicks.

I think you a) overestimate Gallinari (he's Peja -- a nice shooter who can do little else but rub his bad back), and b) misunderstand how screwed the Knicks are without further 2010 salary relief. And no one is going to make them an offer for either Jeffires or Curry -- much less both -- without insisting on a very good package of young players. 

[Who]

Short term,

I see Gallinari as being capable enough to match Ray Allen's offensive contributions but not his defensive contributions.

But at 6-10, with good length, and with the team defense that the C's have, I think that Gallinari would be more than serviceable defensively against two guards and/or as a secondary wing defender (with Pierce taking tougher assignments when needed, which will be more often than it is with Ray). Plus Gallinari is a plus rebounder for a two guard which Ray no longer is.

I think the team will take a slight dip after the proposed trade with Gallo taking over Ray's role, but I also think Gallinari makes a large enough contribution to keep the title window open.

[ssspence]

I see Gallinari as an efficient version of Hedo Turkoglu. A very efficient 22+ppg threat + 5+apg who can run your offense. Along with steady contributions defensively + hopefully on the boards.

A perennial All-Star player who could become an All-NBA player.

Take off those rose-tinted glasses, amigo....

He has 18 assists this season -- total.