Tagged: trade

The Knicks Should Face The Inevitable And Cut Ties With Tyson Chandler While They Can

In 2015 the Knicks will embark on a rebuilding, or retooling, or restructuring process, or whatever McKinsey wants to call it. It is common-knowledge by now that their plan is to surround Carmelo Anthony with a new crop of free-agents, utilizing cap-space. The Knicks will only have significant cap-space if, among other things, they cut ties with Tyson Chandler.

So the Knicks should trade him. I say this as a huge Chandler fan, but an even bigger Knicks fan. The team’s choices for Chandler in light of their 2015 plan are the same as for any player (who has trade value): keep him or trade him. Keeping him entails trying to win with him until his contract expires in a year and a half. But the Knicks cannot win anything meaningful in next year and a half. So they should exchange him for some pieces who can help them win something meaningful beyond the next year and a half.

Doing so could be a real opportunity to reestablish long-term viability, but only if done wisely, in a non-Knicksian manner. Specifically they should not trade Chandler straight-up for an established veteran on a long-term, expensive contract. I recognize that by necessity, such a player must be involved in any trade for Chandler for the cap figures to work. But the veteran should be the secondary part of the trade, an afterthought thrown-in to make the numbers work, and on a deal that expires no later than next year. Otherwise the Knicks will forfeit their 2015 cap space before they get it.

Instead, the centerpiece of the Knicks’ return for Chandler must be a young player who will be on his rookie contract in the summer of 2015. If the Knicks could pull off such a move, they would retain most of the 2015 cap space they are currently scheduled to have, while sporting an additional piece with whom to rebuild around Carmelo Anthony.

I will leave the various permutations to Twitter speculation but some promising young players who will be under contract in 2015 on below-market deals include (with the caveat that I have attempted any analysis here on whether Chandler would make sense for the other team): Andre Drummond, Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, Harrison Barnes, Terrence Jones, Jon Leuer, Jeremy Lamb, Steven Adams, Mo Harkless, Tony Wroten, Miles Plumlee, Alex Len, Terrence Ross, Trey Burke, Bradley Beal, and others.

Additionally, the following players (among others, same caveat) will be restricted free-agents who would be worthy acquisitions despite the risk another team might offer them a contract that the Knicks would have to match: Enes Kanter, Kawhi Leonard, Tristan Thompson, Brandon Knight, Kemba Walker, Markief and Marcus Morris, and Reggie Jackson.

An additional option would be to trade Chandler for a future first round draft pick.

Any of these options would be preferable to letting yet another asset melt away.

Note To Peter Vescey: Easy To Second Guess, Harder To Propose A Better Alternative

It’s easy to second guess.

I think most people are on board with the 2010 plan, recognizing that the team Isiah constructed was going nowhere fast anyway. There are differences around the fringes, such as, did the Knicks give up too much to clear Jeffries and Hill when they already had max cap room? Fine. Fair enough. The New York Post‘s Peter Vescey makes the point in his typically carmudgeony way:

Judging by their reaction, Walsh’s latest moves had gone over big with New York’s renowned “sophisticated” fans. Potentially, he had traded three pristine picks to the Rockets for a micro-surgically repaired 30-year-old (Tracy McGrady) in order to build for the future, yet they anointed him with oil.

It’s fine to disagree with the Jeffries move. There is an intelligent and rational way to do it. We have a great reader/commenter (Italian Stallion) who does it all the time. But the way Vescey did it is just wrong. The Knicks traded a single pick: the 2012 one, which is protected. They also traded Jordan Hill, who may or may not be a contributor in this league. They also gave Houston the right to swap 2011 picks. Depending on how things go, this right may or may not be exercised.

But the Post has taken its penchant for revisionist history to new levels with a decidedly faulty outlook at what-might-have-been:

Despite the reality, had Walsh selected his draft picks more prudently and chosen a path of resistance vs. concession, the Knicks’ current starters would be Randolph, David Lee, Brook Lopez, Brandon Jennings and Crawford . . . and they would own their own first-rounders in 2011 and 2012 instead of the distant hope of landing James, Wade or both.

But wait a minute Peter, surely an astute basketball mind like you would realize that a playoff caliber squad like the one D’Antoni inherited [sarcasm] wouldn’t have had a lottery pick two drafts ago, so they wouldn’t have had a chance to draft Lopez, the “dominant” center on a 6 win team.

But playing Vescey’s game, Lopez would only improve the Knicks with his dominating play and therefore they surely wouldn’t have had the opportunity to draft the amazing Brandon Jennings [sarcasm]. If you want to be completely honest rather than trying to have it both ways, I’d grant you that the Knicks could have been Ty Lawson, Crawford, Lee, ZBo, and Roy Hibbert. AWESOME!!! Move over Raptors!

Anyway, the completely mythical lineup that Vescey proposes has Lee as a small forward (surely he’s capable of containing athletic NBA wings out on the perimeter), two ball dominating guards with poor shot selection and another ball hog at power forward. Surely the recipe for success right?

I dont know as much about Lefty McCorish, Patches O’Barnaby, Solomon “One Foot” Bilzheimer, or Moishe “48-minute clock” Rothman as the venerable Vescey does, but to my novice mind, if my options were Vescey’s impossible fantasy line-up or a roll of the dice coupled with future cap flexibility that has value well beyond Plans A-C that Vescey purports to be privy to, I go with the latter.

Knicks Trade Rumor Round Up

  • Ken Berger writes that the Knicks are interested in bringing back Marcus Camby, but that the Clippers are seeking to get far enough under the cap this summer to bag a max free agent. A third team would have to be involved.
  • Berger also thinks that the Knicks are the most likely destination for Tracy McGrady, even though the Knicks don’t have anything the Rockets want. A third team would have to be involved.
  • A while back Adrian W. at Yahoo! Sports wrote that the Knicks and Bulls were close to an Al Harrington for Ty Thomas swap. According to Berger, Ty Thomas is still on the market, but he doesn’t list the Knicks as a likely suitor. Instead, he cites the Spurs, Lakers, and Nuggets. The Bulls want cap space.
  • Tommy Dee and Alex Kennedy both heard that the Knicks are after Acie Law. Reports say Larry Brown wants a veteran big man.

Knicks Active In Trade Discussions

According to Sam Amick of the Sacramento Bee, who polled sources from around the league, the Knicks have been among the most active teams in trade talks. Unsurprisingly, the Knicks, according to Amick, are primarily looking to trade Jared Jeffries.

Everyone knows the importance trading Jeffries has to the Knicks’ offseason. As an added benefit though, by accomplishing a trade, management would satiate Marc Berman’s mindless demands for a shake-up to preserve the season, as if anything management could do at the deadline, including a T-Mac trade, would help the Knicks make the playoffs this year.

The season is pretty much over for the Knicks [1, 2, 3], and the right move for the team to make would be a cap slashing move to open up more space this summer. That could be a McGrady trade, but it makes little sense to just rearrange the deck-chairs because Berman says so, with an exclamation point.

Just a reminder that the last major move Berman advocated for the Knicks with an exclamation point was to sign Iverson. He called Knicks’ management “Turkeys!”. About six or seven weeks later, he recanted. I’d like to see him admit when he’s wrong more often, but that might require double the amount of space than the Post currently allots him.

Sessions Watch

This afternoon Gery Woelfel of the Milwaukee Racine Journal Times tweeted:

Knicks almost had deal 4 R. Sessions a month ago. Now Clippers apparently close. Mike Dunleavy mum on topic.

But within minutes news broke of a trade sending Rasual Butler and his $4 million salary to the Clippers in exchange for a future second round pick.

Are the Clippers really going to add another $4 million to their books for Sessions?

Hoopsworld’s Eric Pincus, who covers the Clippers, is skeptical:

personally i’m still skeptical that sessions to LAC happens – would Rasual coming make that even less likely? not sure yet


Note – if the Clippers can convince the Bucks to do a S&T for Sessions – the most LA can offer via their trade x is $3.455 mil starting


Clipper source/Sessions “Never out of the hunt for anything that makes us better but we feel pretty good about where we are right now.

I don’t think $3.455 million is what Sessions or Chubster Wells are looking for. If they are going to take that amount, I think they’d prefer to do it in New York to start for the Knicks. Not to compete with Telfair to play behind Baron Davis in a slow offense.

Also, I’m starting to take Gery Woelfel’s info with a smaller grain of salt every day. It’s clear to me that he’s just passing along Chubster’s talking points.

It might be that the Knicks are Sessions’ only real option and that Donnie and Chubster are just waiting each other out. The Knicks though, according to a RealGM report, are not all that interested anymore, though I think that this too is bluster to get Sessions to accept a lower amount.

Stay tuned, as if you had a choice.

Trade Deadline: Morning Roundup

The Knicks are involved in two rumors this morning.

1. Jeffries to the Wizards. This would be a terrific salary slashing move that would go a loooooong way towards enabling the Knicks to keep Lee and sign Lebron. The salary matches in this deal (assuming it’s a one-for-one) are one of Mike James, Brendan Haywood, or Etan Thomas. Who cares which, honestly.

2. Larry Hughes to the Knicks. Various iterations of this trade have made the rounds. In one form, the Knicks send back Jerome James and Malik Rose. In another, the deal expands to include Lee and Jeffries, and the Knicks take back Joakim Noah. I’d be ecstatic if this happened. For one, Jo Noah would quickly put up Lee numbers or better, but with more blocks and toughness on D. What’s more is that the Knicks wouldn’t have to extend him this summer or even in the summer of 2010. So not only would the Knicks replace Lee with a tougher, younger version of Lee, they’d save money by not having to re-sign Lee and also would lose Jeffries.

At that point, the Knicks wouldn’t have to worry about finding a taker for Curry. They would be far enough under the cap even with Curry to sign two max free agents in 2010, while fielding a core of Gallo, Chandler, Noah, and the 2009 draft pick. Unfortunately, the buzz is that this deal is dead. I hope it gets revived.

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.

The Knicks Should Avoid Amare: Reason 3,492

Amare is not on the elite tier. We should all remember that. Sure, he has the talent, but the elite players also have the drive (Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Bosh). Keep that in mind as you read this excerpt from Chad Ford’s latest chat:

Ray (New York): What is Steve Kerr smokin? If I were a Suns fan I would be fuming at the fact my team is even considering trading our youngest, most talented player. If Amare does get traded, do you think its a financial move or a move to get better?

SportsNation Chad Ford: (1:13 PM ET ) Mostly financial. Lots of teams, the Suns included, are hurting right now. The bad economy even effects billionaires. Primarily, the team needs to get under the luxury tax threshold by this summer. That means sluffing somewhere in the neighborhood of $7 to $9 million off the payroll. Ideally they’d cut even more. But it’s also about the team. They are underachieving. They lack any intensity and Stoudemire has been the poster child for that. So both factors are in play. But if the Suns were making lots of money, I think they’d be looking for a different mix in return for Amare.

Bob (Phoenix, AZ): Ray – Suns fan here. Its called addition by subtraction. Amare is a Drama Queen, has not improved, has fallen in love with his J this year, doesn’t play defense or rebound. I can’t wait until he is gone.

SportsNation Chad Ford: (1:14 PM ET ) I think that sort of sums up what I’ve heard from a lot of Suns fans.

So, there you go. I don’t know about other Knicks fans, but I’ve had enough drama to last me the rest of my life as a Knicks fan. I’ve also had my fill of underachievers lacking intensity during the Isiah years, thank you very much. No way, no how, no Amare. At least not as a building block.

Rather, the only reason to trade for Amare is to flip him, since, as Ford acknowledges, if the Suns were not looking for expiring deals, they could get a ton of talent for the guy:

But if the Suns were making lots of money, I think they’d be looking for a different mix in return for Amare.

Landing Bosh Now

The blogojevich-sphere has been on fire with speculation regarding Stephen A. Smith’s reportage that Chris Bosh has already let the Raptors know that his days in the Great Wilds of the North are limited.

The Knicks Blog’s Myles A. Mills throws out a Harrington, Lee, and Jeffries for Bosh deal.

At first I thought this to be a poor use of assets. After all, Bosh is going to be a free agent soon enough. Why spend Lee for Bosh when you can eventually have both?

However, why chance it? If the Knicks could trade Lee for Bosh they’d secure one superstar, which would be enough to lure another in 2010. If they just wait until 2010, they would be one team amid many trying to secure Bosh’s services.

Plus, if the Knicks are to the point where they are hesitant to trade Lee for Bosh then they are entering John Paxson territory, holding onto Loul Deng instead of trading him for Kobe or KG when the opportunity presented itself, and paying Hinrich way  more than he’s worth.

The Celtics weren’t scared to trade all their promising youth to Seattle and Minnesota and it landed them a title.

That said, I don’t think the Knicks have the goods to get a Bosh deal done. Not when Miami can offer Marion and Beasley and Dallas can offer Josh Howard.