Makes total sense and I would make it in a heart beat
Makes no sense at all
I like the trade but would want Utah to add another player
I have a trade scenario that I believe would work for both parties involved:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
This is a win - win for both teams.
Why for Utah?
Utah wants to unload Andrei Kirilenko's contract, he is still owed 56 million the over the next 2 years. With Harpring and Korver, Utah is is covered at the 3 spot. Also, Utah has been accepting calls on Boozer, they deny it publicly but it has been reported by many different news sources. He is still owed 43 Million between this and next year and they would like to dump his salary as well.
Marbury and Rose's contracts will give Utah 106 Million dollars back after the season! They loose Boozer's toughness in the paint but as far as his rebounding, they get Lee who is just as good a rebounder and can score in the paint as well. He will probably become a legit double double in this league, so that is a wash. Utah gains Lee's running and mobility but they loose out on the grit that Boozer has; but Lee will come at a fraction of the price. They could resign Lee to a decent contract extension and still have 80+ mil left to sign some players and still stay under the cap.
Why for NY?
With Curry and/or Randolph on the roster, they lack any toughness in the paint; Boozer would bring that to the team. He could be paired up with either player and add the contrast that is needed. He would bang the boards and bleed off the double teaming that Curry and Randolph gets (especially Curry). Andrei Kirilenko gives NY a proven perimeter defender that they desperately need! Andrei Kirilenko's value has dropped over the past 2 seasons, mostly on the offensive side, but his D is still top notch and again, the Knicks have outside scorers.
Your starting line up would potentially be:
Crwaford or Chandler
The Knicks could still try to move Randolph and having Boozer on the team, would allow the Knicks to basically move him for cap relief instead of trying to get something back in return. So this would give Walsh some freedom.
I don't see a down side to this trade for either team. Yes, NY does extend their cap hit a few more years but at least these are players that will produce and address needs. This would not be an Isiah move to make a move, this trade would make sense (in my opinion).
"The Knicks are back" - Amare
The Utah Jazz already have Deron Williams. They don't need Stephon Marbury. The Knicks need Stephon Marbury. F*(k all trades involving Marbury. He's the best player on this team, and he has an expiring contract.
The Knicks should be worrying about getting rid of Eddy Curry and Quentin Richardson(last year's least productive starters on the Knick roster) and they should also worry about packaging those scrubs with Jeffries or Balkman, so that we could get rid of some of these extra small forwards on our team. The Knicks should also try to get rid of Mardy Collins. He's helpless. He shot 32% last year, and he shot 36% in the Summer League. If the Knicks do that, they'll be on their way to success.
PS- Good post, Akamu! *thumbs up*
i like to speculate... but boozer come on
Last edited by MSGKnickz33; Jul 24, 2008 at 08:53.
sorry, but IMO, Utah wouldn't make this trade... they'd lose half their season ticket holders.
1. they have Deron and could not justify bringing in Stephon, even if it is for cap reasons. It's not a knock on Steph. It's just that if you have a top point guard on your team like the Bulls, Spurs, Suns, etc. have, why would you bring in another top point guard to pay him millions and play behind the main guy?
2. Boozer and Kirilenko are rated way above Lee. Not a knock on Lee either. I love David Lee's game, but you're talking about an Olympian in Boozer and Kirilenko, one of the most versatile players in the NBA (shoots threes, blocks, steals, rebounds, runs, etc.).
If it's true that Utah is willing to trade these guys away, I would explore separate trade scenarios for each and that way improve my chances of landing at least one of them because bringing in two high profile players for long term contracts all of a sudden is just too risky and could have an undesired negative effect on our rebuilding plans.
I think it would be easier to go after Kirilenkobut Utah would certainly want David Lee coming to them if they're doing business with the Knicks and having Boozer on the team just works against them trading for Lee. Anyways it would require a third team, a sign or trade of Lee or some hard bargaining to convince them to take Malik, Jerome James, etc.
Anyways, it still doesnt make sense, so I'd rather look elsewhere...
desde la cuna del chango
I don't c how Utah will benefit from this move. If they want expiring contracts, then just let those 2 players contracts expire. The only good piece they would get is DLee and they would have to offer him a contract extension. They can use that money on Boozer.
Knicks need to let our current expiring contracts expire for once!!!!!!!!!!
As far as Utah not needing Marbury, I totally agree! They don't want or need Marbury the player but that wasn;t the reason for the trade; it was getting the contract not the player. Utah has been trying to dump AH47's contract for 2 years and they are seriously considering dumping Boozers as well.
Metro.... Don't get your reaction!!!! Over the years we have been synonymous with our opinions on the lack of D the Knicks have and their 1 dimensional game. I totally thought that you would buy into this!!
Utah might want an additional piece to make this deal and as long as it is NOT an unconditional 1st round pick; I would add another piece. Letting the contracts expire will put them into 2011 since Boozers contract doesn't expire until after the 2010 season and AK's after the 2011 season. This move gives them room to make a tremendous amount of moves during this up and coming off season.
I think this solves all Knicks problems and totally adds cohesion to the team. Utah retains a strong power forward in Lee and looses AK47's contract as well. If we had to add a top 10 protected 1st round pick, I would still do it.
Homer, I've been cosigning 95% of the things you texted.
But this is a total fail becaue
1. Walsh strickly is plannin to get under the cap.
2. We're going to be a full tempo team, Boozer and Kirilenko are strickly half court players
3. I don't see how far we can go with Boozer as our best layer, David Lee can average 18 and 10 easily. Boozer isn't the type of PF we need in this system.
4. I don't see Utah even asking for Marbury, out of all teams and out of all coaches, it just seems farfetched.
5. This is a move a team who's CLOSE to winning a championship would do, we're not half close and so all this move would do is kill our cap space, and keep us at mediocrity for a couple other years.
6. You and I have fought against Isiah and his goons of Isiahsexuals, this seems like a very Isiah-like move, so I was just surprised overall by the thread; I wouldn't have expected this.
Lets just get under the cap for once and see how it works out.
This doesn't make sense to you guys!?!?!?!?! Then, I must have misunderstood all the posts that I have read over the past 3 years!
ok let me tell you why this trade wouldnt work.
1- The knicks need marbury, atleast for this season- you cant start robinson, roberson, or duhon at PG.
2- D-LEE is the knicks best player, hes a hustle player and i dont see anyone else on the knicks who do that very often.
3- Im down for getting rid of malik rose, but theres no way in hell utah will give us AK47 and Boozer, they are 2 of the best players on the jazz's roster.
Yes Lee is a hustle guy but Boozer is a dominant low post player on both sides of the ball. Also, he has one thing that Lee doesn't have and that is the ability to box out his player in the post. Lee doesn't defend well, he rebounds great but not a good defender.
The Knicks DO NOT need Marbury! You will see the Knicks either trade his contract or dump him; watch. Mike D didn't want him in Phoenix and he doesn't want him in NY.
robinson, roberson and duhon are just as good as Marbury playing the point. They aren't near Marbury on the offensive side but they can run an offense as good as Marbury.