Knicks Reject Miller and Thomas for Steph? Bad Mojo Rising?

UPDATE (2/19, 9:32 AM): According to Frank Isola, the Knicks rejected the Marbury deal because they are trying to keep their luxury tax payments to a minimum next year. That moderates my bewilderment, slightly.

This I just don’t understand. Marc Stein is reporting that the Kings offered Brad Miller and Kenny Thomas for Steph and the Knicks rejected them. I understand rejecting that proposal if you can get more than that for Steph, like say, Shaq or Iverson, but barring that, why wouldn’t you take on Miller and Thomas, both of whom expire at the end of next year.

For one, Miller can contribute, albiet marginally at his age. He can pass, shoot, and has height.

In addition, both Miller and Thomas can be flipped for assets over the summer or next February, or just come off the books.

I find it wasteful to not use Steph in a trade if there is one to be made that would improve the squad, even if marginally.

If the Knicks are being vindictive, I think it’s a mistake. Sure Steph deserves the treatment he’s been getting, but management shouldn’t put that over the health of the franchise. If the Knicks trade, him and he’s released and signs with the Celtics, well, sanity dictates that you just have to deal with it.

Time will tell whether Stein’s information is reliable, but if it is, and the Knicks don’t get anything else for Steph, then I think management dropped the ball here.

One caveat. I don’t think the Knicks are in cost-cutting mode, but if they are, they can justify letting Steph’s contract expire rather than replacing it with two other contracts that are just as large in the aggregate, but extend over a longer time.

7 comments

  1. Jon

    This trade may offer a tiny present day basketball benefit (which I’m not sure we should even want). I can’t say I care all that much one way or the other. I guess I just don’t see the point in making trades that don’t either (1) substantially upgrade the team, (2) unload a contract that runs past 2010, or (3) land us a piece that could be part of our post-2010 future. It’s just pushing paper around to me.

    By my reasoning here, it should be apparent that I don’t care for the malik rose/nate robinson/jerome james iteration of this trade either. In fact, I think that one is even worse. In this one though, if you swap out Kenny Thomas and replace him with Salmons, I think it might make some sense because, at least there, you’re getting a starting shooting guard on a good contract that would help the team significantly now and be a part of the future.

  2. Virgil

    “IF THE KNICKS ARE BEING VINDICTIVE” COME THE EFF ON. THEY ARE BEING VINDICTICE AND YOU SHOULD KNOW IT…What did they say, we are going to hold on to him to try and trade him. Well now they have a trade partner and they reject it. Do we need to remember that there are 7 people playing in this rotation and they need help. Also while brad miller is not a stud, who the heck on the knicks now can bring his limited ability. Thomas may have more use than any other thomas we have in the organization right now. SO WHYNOT DO THIS DEAL!!!!HELLO DOLAN DAN AND DONNIE ARE SPITEFUL B*****S

  3. JLS125

    Salmons has a 15% trade kicker. I don’t like that or his game.

    Regarding this trade proposal, I feel that D. Walsh wants someone to take back Eddy Curry or Jeffries in a deal. Marbury’s deal comes off the books at the end of this season, that’s $20M off the books in a couple of months. I think he can live with that financially. With that $20M he can go and get him someone that can fill needs. I’m thinking that if he’s going to trade, it’s going to be to take away some more of this garbage that’s on the current roster for the next 3 years (Jeffries, Curry and James).

  4. JLS125

    BTW, I’m impressed with Donnie Walsh. In the beginning of the season everyone wanted him to buy out Marbury and move on and yet, he held onto him thinking that he would be able to trade him later on in the season. So far, he’s been right. Maybe Donnie has a better deal than the one SAC offered on the table. It’s all a poker game right now. Who knows what’s really going on. The Crawford/Randolph trades happened in an instant with no rumors and no idea that those guys were able to be traded so fast.

    Stay Tuned…

  5. Jon

    Well, if Marbury’s deal just melts away, all it does is save Dolan some luxury tax money. It doesn’t enable the Knicks to do anything due to salary cap constraints and the 2010 plan. So its either use it or lose it.

    I don’t love Salmons either but you’ve got to get more for Nate than two garbage players that expire before 2010. He’s on a good contract, has value around the league (lots of contenders like Salmons) and he could slide in right now and give the Knicks a 2 guard, something they desperately need. The trade kicker is only a 1 time payment, doesn’t count against the future cap, and the Knicks can easily afford it.

  6. Virgil

    At this point Stephon just needs to collect the rest of his money and stay home and relax. I envy the hell out of him to collect 20 mil and watch tv and relax all day. He can sign on next year and start fresh. THe knicks organization at this moment suck. Now for the deal of trading nate and jefferies, as much as I hate to give up nate but GOTTA GO GOTTA GO. The more money we can clear to sign anyone but lebron I am happy about.

  7. Heri

    Eureka, did you have to wait this long to feel the ostracized was due to some type of vindictive behavior. Cause and effect, no? Vindictive and ostracized. Welcome to Dolan’s Knicks.

Post a comment

You may use the following HTML:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>