The Simmering Starbury Idea
by Tom Ziller on Jan 11, 2009 9:42 AM PST
in Free Agency/Trades
Email
PrintStephon Marbury's expiring contract has been discussed regularly around here since the summer. I'm not sure, however, that we've considered it since the absolutely disastrous downturn in late November.
It's worth noting given Marc Stein's latest theory on the reason the Knicks haven't excused Starbury to date:
The other explanation mentioned often at the D-League Showcase, among [Donnie] Walsh's fellow executives in the stands at Utah Valley University, is that Walsh would prefer to hang on to Marbury's expiring contract through the Feb. 19 trading deadline. Just in case the Houston Rockets decide they want to disassemble their nucleus by offering up Tracy McGrady (whose contract expires in 2010) … or the Sacramento Kings say they're willing to part with Brad Miller (and Kenny Thomas to help make the salary-cap math work) … or the Miami Heat unexpectedly consent to part with Shawn Marion.
"Donnie still thinks he can trade Steph," one Western Conference executive said.
As we've been over: Brad Miller is too good to give up for just cap space. There needs to be another asset, preferably a young point guard or forward, maybe a pick or an option to swap picks.
An extra $8.7 million in 2009-10 cap space -- that's an asset. Is it enough? That's the question Geoff Petrie has to answer. Remember when Portland played with New York solely for cap space, the Steve Franchise trade? Well, in that case the Blazers lost something like four years of salary for a player (Zach Randolph) admittedly more productive (but less vital) than Miller. The Blazers also got back a medium-level prospect in Channing Frye. The Kings would be dropping only one year of salary and assumably receiving no real prospects.
I assume such a deal would end with the quick buy-out of Marbury, which means (barring the addition of a Knicks pick) this trade would be made solely and completely for the Summer '09 or trade deadline '10 market. There's no other benefit of the deal, except for some low-level "clearing the starting role for Spencer Hawes" stuff that seems a bit overrated at this point (considering how much Hawes played and shot on Friday).
Assuming a top-5 Kings pick that plays in the NBA next season, Bobby Brown picking up his option and a $2 million Mikki Moore buy-out, the Kings would have $20 million to play with on the market this summer. Without the deal, the Kings have the mid-level and a few expiring contracts. It's debatable which would be an advantage. 2010 expirings should be in demand in six months as teams make a last gasp to get space. So it becomes a question of whether you can get a better player (or better players) by trade or free agency with tons of cap space this summer, or whether you can find a better player using Miller and Thomas as expiring contracts this summer or next winter.
I have no clue. I trust Petrie, Cooper and Levien to make the right decision and make sure Miller isn't lost for naught.
76 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Do you think we could work a swap of picks?
Something like our 2nd rounders this year and next year for their First rounder this year? (In addition, of course, to the players you named)
If there is a pick or a David Lee involved
I say do it. I don’t think the Rox are giving up T-Mac. The Heat probably want more for Marion. It’s possible Petrie could pull out a 3 way. Marion/Douby to NYK, Starbury/Lee to us, Miller/K9 to Heat.
www.mancancook.net
OK, pull the trigger
I would swap Miller/Thomas for Marbury straight up. The shipping out of K9’s(woof’s!) contract is probably of greater value than what we can hope to receive from Miller in the way of youth or a pick.
Remember also, this is us doing a contract $ swap for this year, but eliminates $21 million in contract for next year. Think about that. Miller/Thomas are probably worth $7-8 million, and we’re slated to pay $21 million in 09-10. This would put the Kings under $40 million going into next year with nine players on the roster, and that includes Mikki Moore, who could still be bought out. That kind of cap flexibility would be awfully nice to have come the off season and/or draft day.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jan 11, 2009 11:15 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Brad is worth more than cap-space
and I think we can get more.
K9s value is actually creeping up some(from zero mind you), I hope Natt plays him some more and he continues looking good.
As for Z’s final question, its a guess but I think there may be an opporotunity to snap up a really good player in a trade as other teams download for 2010. Trade assets, expirings are what will be needed.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 11:20 AM PST up reply actions
My point is: lets not be hasty
Yes, I’m back in the GP camp on that – frustrated as I am.
I think we need at least one juicy expiring into next summer and maybe next season.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
LTTG, Brad is worth more than cap space
He could potentially be worth enough to get us out of one of the worst contracts in the NBA. Kenny Thomas is earning over $17 million between this year and next year. 24 minutes of reasonable play in one game does not change that.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jan 11, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I get you
but consider my thought on having an expiring thats desirable next summer – when 2010 is really looming for teams
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 11:27 AM PST up reply actions
We need to clear something
but give up all our expirings now? When there might be some future opportunity to get a real asset? Brad will be worth just as much in the Summer.
Its a tricky business,
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions
Considered
But if we’re already under the cap we have the room to make those deals. If we go into next season with the roster as/is, we have less flexibility. For example (and this may not be the best example), Charlotte was able to obtain Jason Richardson for their #8 pick because they had cap space. Wouldn’t you like to have that type of option on draft day as it pertains to either/both of our picks? Just to have the option of entertaining the deal?
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jan 11, 2009 11:32 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
That is a great example
but if we could have both, some cap room and some expirings, that would be ideal. It may be aiming high, but eventually something will go our way – we’re due!
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 12, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
You're still missing the point
Why would you even want expiring contracts when you can have cap space?
Cap space allows you to do ANYTHING that expiring contracts can do, and more.
Not for a GM or owner who wants to unload
and save face for his fan-base at the same time.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 12, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly
Detroit’s A.I. trade, for example. Dumars basically traded Billups and McDyess for cap space … but it looked like a trade for A.I. on the surface.
Thank you sir
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 12, 2009 1:09 PM PST up reply actions
Great point
I will totally concede this point . . . save for one thing.
I think it’s safe to say that in “name value” K9 << Miller <<< Iverson.
Can Detroit sell the Billups deal with (modified for sake of the example) an expiring Kenny Thomas?
Iverson is a “superstar”, a “franchise” guy . . . Miller is neither of these things, and he’d be our best possible “expiring contract” for a scenario like this.
What you’re talking about sounds like the reasoning to trade Miller for Marion, because it’s easy to sell the general Kings fans on the fact that Marion is an All-Star . . . but if Marion can’t get you out of K9’s contract, then the deal doesn’t get done (which is what we’ve seen).
All that said, I see where you & LttG are coming from . . . I just don’t think it’s reasonable to think that K9 can be traded while still holding on to Miller as an ending for next year.
Truth
But I don’t think we’re talking about a Marion, we’re talking about the Chance of nabbing a frontline guy with a longer contract as some team unloads.
Yes, Miller is no superstar like AI, but he’d still give a GM/owner some cover.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 12, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions
To be clear
In the Marion example, the HEAT would be the ones acquiring the longer contract that “some team” was unloading.
In that example: Marion = A.I. & Miller = Billups
NEXT YEAR, Miller would potentially be playing the role of A.I.
Sure
we’re halfway through this season though.
Miller would be considered expiring by a lot of people now, r they could play it that way for thier fans.
Anyway, my point in this tangled web somewhere is just what I think you said, Miller might have even more value in the summer.
IF we could unload kenny some other way – I think that would be great and may open some extra options.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 12, 2009 1:45 PM PST up reply actions
Well...
IF we could unload kenny some other way – I think that would be great and may open some extra options.
And there’s the rub.
Personally, I’ve let go of that idea. If it happens, I’ll be thrilled . . . but after the Bibby & Artest trades failed to ship him out, I don’t see a situation in which K9 isn’t attached to a better player (most likely Miller or Salmons) if he’s traded.
Having it doesn't mean you have to spend it
I have to agree with Section’s on this. As I said before cap space = Flexibility. If we can free ourselves from K9’s $9M contract we can make offers to RFA like Lee. We can also look at acquiring Boozer, or Marion, or trade for Wallace. Or, we can make some one year offers to role players and still be able to get into the 2010/11 FA market.
Trading for players or picks limits your options. Do you really what the players the other teams want to give up, or take a gamble on a draft pick being able to help when you don’t even know where the pick will be in the draft. Money talks. Show me the money!!!!
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
Its a tricky thing as I said
and I don’t claim to know.
But if we got rid of BMiller, K9 now, Bjax is gone, SWilliams is gone, even Douby at the end of the season. What expirings do we have left to trade to a team that doesn’t have cap space but wants/needs it?
Its a tough call but if GP could figure a way to unload Kenny + something and keep Brad, we’d be in pretty good shape I think. Thats probably a ‘best case’ scenario though….
HT – you can’t trade for Wallace or whoever (?) if you have nothing to give back, that was my point.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
We'd already be under the cap
We wouldn’t have to have the expiring contracts. We could trade our 1st round pick and John Salmons for Chris Bosh (for example), and it would work, because we would have the cap space to do it.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
If you have cap space you don't have to take anything back
That’s the point. If Charlette wants cap space or just wants out of his contract which is $9.5M, we can just offer some future 2nd round pick with conditions that make it unlikely we’ll every have to give it up. So, for K9’s $8.8M contract we get Wallace for $9.5M. Then Charlette can take their new found cap- space and trade for who they really want.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
LB doesn't want cap-space or rookies
He’s old, he wants to build a team now. (Just in that example)
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
Once Wallace is gone LB can go after anyone
He isn’t restricted to dealing with a team that wants Wallace. With his new found cap space he can package anyone he wants and still acquire $9.5M in contracts more than he has to give up. Flexibility Or he can go after FA’s, or he can save it until 2010/11 by only signing one year contracts.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
Flexibility example
This article by TZ over on AOL Fanhouse speaks of Memphis being the only team that could take advantage if Monta Ellis forced a trade out of Golden State (read the article, you’ll understand).
The deal is not likely to happen at this point, but while you are a team on the re-build, wouldn’t you like to be amongst the few teams that could take advantage of other team’s fire sales. Wasn’t it a fire sale in Washington that brought us Webber, as well as the (albeit short term) success of the Ron Artest deal?
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
Sure - and I'd like both IF we could swing it
(the Artest example had little to do with any salary flexibilty on our part though, we gave up Peja)
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 11:46 AM PST up reply actions
My point regarding Artest
was as it applied to taking advantage of a fire sale.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
Sure
and with 2010 looming, having a good Player like Brad available, even if that team has no intention of re-signing him, would give cover to teams looking to fire sale.
But we do have to find a way to shed K9, we do need that much space now, I agree. If GP can fin another way, packaging Bjax, SWilliams, whatever, than he should try. If using Brad is the only way. . . .
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
Isn't that what he's been doing?
By all accounts, Petrie tried to handcuff K9 to both Bibby & Artest (with no luck in either case).
Now he’s trying to hitch him to Miller with limited success.
That was a year and more ago
Now, as there is less and less time on both K9 and Brads contracts, things ‘may’ be changing. A yr + has gone by, and BMiller at 32 is still putting up good numbers.
Now with only 1 year left on that contract that expires prior to 2010, a contender trying to get over the top now – or even a rebuilding team who wants to stay respectable or some mentoring for a young player….
If i was a contender and I could add Brad without sacrificing too much, I’d do it.
Now thats me, but I think that idea is perculating. We’ll see.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 12, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions
Define "too much"
Taking on K9’s contract would be too much if I was a GM interested in acquiring Brad Miller.
If Petrie can ship out K9 with Miller, then he should do so, and see what else he can add on as a bonus.
When 2010 is looming for a whole lot of times that will have cap space
in bigger better markets. Why do Lebron or Bosh come here when they can go to New York or Jersey, or even stay where they’re at, and make just as much plus be in a bigger market?
I would rather overpay Boozer, Lee, or Milsap than wait till next summer hoping someone comes our way
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Jan 11, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Boozer might be had now
for Salmons + Mikki (?)
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 12:37 PM PST up reply actions
They're openly talking now in Utah
about whether CJ Miles is an answer for them at SF, even before he came up lame, and they’re fighting for the 6-8th spot right now (in 9th today?)
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions
As we’ve been over: Brad Miller is too good to give up for just cap space.
That’s true about half the time, so I’m with Section214. If you can dump Miller with KT’s contract, you do it. I still don’t see how Miller could possibly fit in New York, but I’d take that deal in a minute.
Shut up and Coach
Can't say I agree
This gives the KIngs a chance to package a 2 for 4 deal somewhere else if this doesn’t work out for the Kings. (Maybe a Beno Udrih/Mikki Moore deal for Kirk Hinrich?)
The point I’m making is, that among other things, the Kings can’t be picky with dealing Brad Miller. He just doesn’t have that type of value. If he did, you could get more. (And Channing Frye is not valuable.)
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
And assuming tix sales continue like they have....
The Maloofs can just chill on free agency and not take such a big loss next year while they get ready for the summer of LeBron(yes, I know this can’t actually happen for practical/publicity reasons).
If yr not happy with the results, lower yr expectations.
Sure it could
But I doubt it will happen, as there are other way to use that money to make the team competitive.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
The two trades I have always supported for cap reasons are
1. Brad/K9* for Starbury
2. K9*/Mikki/QD for Marion
The only reason you would hold on to Brad is if you have illusions about the team getting a little better this season and winning a few more games. Any trade that would get Brad AND Mikki out of town and off the books early is a trade the Kings should make. Before we can get serious about rebuilding we have to get serious about dismantling.
Does anybody know who the Kings sent to the D league showcase this week?
K9* – (Woof) deleted out of respect for Kenny’s 2 decent games this week.
"We are in the business of kicking butt and business is very, very good." - Charles Barkley
No need to worry about Mikki
small buyout for next season, which is making him look attractive I’d guess.
Now, Mikki + K9 + Bjax or Sheldon works for Marbury, helps us next year and doesn’t hurt NY for 2010.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
Hell D'antoni
might even like Mikki in that system and keep him for next season…
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions
Why would NY do that deal?
They can just let Marbury expire, as opposed to spending $8 million for Thomas next year for the privelige of having Moore for another $6 million.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
But
B-Jax and Mikki will be coming off the books anyway (less Mikki’s buyout.) I say free Brad and K-9, dump the expirings and see what you can do as everyone starts trying to make room next year.) Unless you think a team is really going to give up a major player or number one pick for B-52, there’s no reason not to. People keep talking about exoirings as somehow better than cap space, but unless the team is planning on playing the expiring (not just looking for cap space), cap room is actually better because you get the space w/o even paying for one year.
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
by SavageBeast on Jan 11, 2009 12:05 PM PST up reply actions
Well thats the possible opportunity
someone Might give up a very good player, with a longer deal, for Brad. It happens all the time and as I said, since he clearly has value, he gives cover to a team wanting to do so…
Anyway, I’d love to get rid of K-9 but if we could do it another way, that would be best. There are valid arguments ere though that NO One will take him unless packaged with some sort of asset.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
I'm with you
on getting more for Brad if we can. But I can’t imagine any team taking on K-9 this year unless he is packaged with something of value. There is no way any team wants to take on his contract unless we take an equal or worse contract back. So in this case, what we are getting of value for Brad is K-9 going bye bye. If we do something worthwhile with that space, it is at least as good as getting something straight up for Brad.
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
Mikki buyout
I don’t know why everyone assumes Mikki is getting bought out next season. My bet is that it doesn’t happen unless the Kings draft another big man.
Shut up and Coach
Interesting thought
I guess I’d want to hear your reasoning. Do you think that Mikki is worth what we are paying him? At least to us? I can’t easily see that, but I could be missing something.
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
You may be right
There going to draft a big with one of their 1st rounders, but still that isn’t enough if Brad & K9 are moved. So they may keep him
But, if they use the cap space from moving Brad & K9 for a FA big, then they should be able to find a backup Big for a lot less then $6M.
Now, if they can’t move K9, then Mikki goes and K9 becomes the backup since their going to have to pay him anyways. Which could be why he’s seeing so much PT now. They want to be sure he can still contribute, and their planning to move Mikki. His buy out makes him a great add on to a trade.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
I think Mikki is gone soon
no matter what (and we’ll get something for him). But just my opinion based on which way the wind seems to be blowing.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 12, 2009 1:14 PM PST up reply actions
I think this is a perceptive observation
Mikki’d be a real good 9th or so man on a playoff team, and actually there are teams out there that need that.
The more you guys work the trade machine, the happier I am GP is our GM.
Yeah? Who?
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
Utah, Orlando, Boston, Atlanta(?), Miami, Toronto, Phx, ect..
There’s hardly a playoff team that couldn’t use a back-up team player Big man either for real minutes or insurance.
And his contract is very cheap at this point by NBA standards with that buyout next season.
You don’t agree?
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 13, 2009 9:11 AM PST up reply actions
Nope I don't Why I said what I did
Utah isn’t going to pay for Moore to come there with Millsap & Boozer around. Orlando is too close to the tax, and Moore does make 5.6 million this season (or something like that). Atlanta’s too cheap, Boston doesn’t really need Moore, they need ballhandling more or less, Miami is too close to the tax, and there isn’t a cheap contract they can give up in the same range that will net the Kings the loss of Moore, Toronto is also too close to the tax (they had to deal some cat to get under the tax themselves—the same way the Nuggs did), and Phx ain’t going to take extra tax money on as well.
In otherwords, Moore makes too much money for a scrub. If Geoff was behind Moore’s signing, maybe he should retire.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
Its hard
But Playoff teams make trades at the deadline every year. I stil think there’s a chance for a Utah deal for Boozer, Salmons + Mikki +
(they have other expirings to trade that don’t see floor time as well)
I don’t have the time or inclination to go through every team, but I’m sure there are possibilities up to and including outright release if they’re planning on the $2mil buyout next year anyway.
NY with Douby for M Rose springs to mind
Cleveland has the expiring pieces to do Something – and will I’m sure, dispite what they say.
Toronto certainly has what they need, though I’m sure they don’t view him as a long term answer. i don’t now what being close to the tax has to do with anything.
Miami is a couple of mil under the tax so they could give back less and be OK
A lot of teams if we’re williing to take back a real two yr contract (not sure we are)
anyway, things can always be done, things are always done this time of year, don’t be so emphatic.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 13, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions
For example
New Jersey is fighting for a playoff spot and has dead weight salary to match in Stro Swift, and the Nets could use a little depth up front. And The Nets were interested in re-signing Moore, just not at that price. So they could use him. I just don’t think that they’d give up much to get him.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
And I don't think we expect much
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 13, 2009 2:33 PM PST up reply actions
The Nets seem reasonable to acquire him
So, yes I could see that. (And look folks, now is the exact time for a firesale.)
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
Section
Would you like to explain the difference of firesale of, say Danny Ainge, and Mikki Moore or Brad Miller?
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
I think its entirely plausible
The Kings give up Mikki for a matching expiring contract to save the two million dollar buyout and some tiny concession (a 2nd round pick or some marginal prospect or you get the idea).
For specific teams or trades, I don’t have any on hand, but the concept makes a lot of sense to me.
The more you guys work the trade machine, the happier I am GP is our GM.
If they were planning on just letting him expire
They’d have released him by now.
They don’t need space to sign DLee as he’s their FA
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 12:05 PM PST up reply actions
Money isn't NYs problem
that have that HUGE local TV contract, its cap space, and it doesn’t apply to you’re own guys…
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
They have it but that doesn't mean their willing to throw it away.
Not only will they have to pay K9 $8.8M but they’ll have to pay a Luxury Tax of $8.8M.. That’s $17.6M plus the remainer of this year for our 3 players just go get our of Marbary’s $20M. I don’t think so.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
Why is he still there then?
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 12:44 PM PST up reply actions
They make $50 mil/yr on thier TV contract....
and are soooold out.
"You keep on using that word
I do not think it mean what you think it means"
by lietothegirls on Jan 11, 2009 12:46 PM PST up reply actions
He's still there because they do care about the money
They’d rather get something for their $20M then just piss it away. Otherwise he’d be gone by now. Also, if they didn’t care about money, why didn’t they resign Lee.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
It's different for NYK
The Knicks need to have those expiring contracts to use as trade bait because they’re so far over the Salary Cap that they’re into the Luxury Tax already anyway.
A team like the Kings can get under the Salary Cap and use that cap space to make moves like:
- Richardson – for – 1st Rounder
- Kurt Thomas & two 1st Rounders – for – nothing
- Camby – for – nothing
Even without Starbury’s money on the books, the Knicks still couldn’t make a deal like that, so for them his contract is worth more on the trade market than the space it would give them when it expires.
Basically, everything you’re saying for the Kings is true for the Knicks . . . just not so much so for the Kings.
I didn't say space I said money
I did forget to hit the reply button, but I was replying to your suggestion of MM+K9+Bjax for Marbury. My point is if they keep Marbary his salary is gone next summer when Lee is a RFA and they will have to match any offers to keep him. Your deal means they have the added expense of K9’s contract next year. And they could use that money to resign Lee. It’s not worth $8.8M next year just to lose Marbury from the trade deadline to the end of the year since he’s not even in the areana let alone on the bench.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
