A Noodling exodus of a dog kennel, and a bong chewing dip, and how our beloved dipsh*ts can take advantage

After reading this Daily Dime by Chris Sheridan (which doesn't give much stock to me because I consider him, well, a dip), it was interesting to see that he would write about Kenny Thomas. There's a reason he fell out of favor with the coaching staff: He hasn't produced consistently since Adelman left, and even then, wasn't always reliable. So, in a sense, talking about whether Kenny Thomas can be showcased enough is an interesting thought. Can he?

The way I feel is simple: You trade Brad Miller away for cap space, or you get a talented young player in return. Since talented young players are always hard to get, cap space might be easier. And there are a few teams known to want to get 2010 cap space. One, in particular, is the New York Knicks. Would they be willing to deal Marbury for Miller and Thomas? What other possibilities are out there? Hmmm, take it away boys....

Day is night in new york city Smoke, like water, runs inside Steel idle trees to pity Every living things thats died

Gonna hitch a ride Head for the other side Leave it all behind Never change my mind Gonna sail away Sun lights another day Freedom on my mind Carry me away for the last time Oh yeah

Life is like the coldest winter People freeze the tears I cry Words of hail their minds are into Ive got to crack this ice and fly

I already set it up in the beginning, so let's the meat of the argument begin. Why would New York want to deal Marbury for expiring contracts? Because, expiring contracts are more valuable to them in 2010, than 2009, and their cap, as messy as it is, won't be cleaned up until 2010. Why not load another 2 expiring's on? Surely Donnie Walsh is hoping for maybe a better player than Miller or Thomas in return of a trade with Marbury, but by the same token, Sacramento desperately wants cap space to get away from both of those contracts. Right? Marbury is available, shit if he wasn't, he wouldn't have talked all the mess he has in the NY press about this that & the other. (You want specifics, go find them. I'm too lazy. I don't like Starbury. I like his neat 21 million dollars of expiring cap space. And the best part is simple: the Kings can do what the Knicks don't want to, which is buy him out.)

Do I believe the Knicks would consider it? It depends on how bad their financially hurting (not too bad I imagine), and it depends on how much they would want to have some cap room for 2009. Whether they pay luxury tax doesn't matter too much to them, but making a strong run at LeBron in 2010 does. If the Knicks have a ton of expiring contracts (like Brad Miller and Kenny Thomas--those guys are nearly 21 million combined in contracts next season to work with--which doesn't include anybody else on that roster), they perhaps can bring in a star with the collective amount of asset's they've built to bring in a star to bring a winning team back to Gotham.

Clearly, money isn't their issue, but by the same token, you can't have a messy cap and succeed in the NBA over the long haul. The Knicks are a perfect example of this. But, while he's taking the long term approach (no bad deals taken, and only worse one's given away), Walsh has plenty of talent out there on the team that expires already. The Knicks already have Eddy Curry (for just one more season--which gives them another excellent trade chip for the 2010-11 season), on the hook for one more season after 2010, but that's not such a bad thing. They're also on the hook for Wilson Chandler (he's cheap, and young, and fits into D'Antoni's system--he's also talented), and Danilo Galinari would also presumably be on the team as well. Jared Jeffries (another expiring contract the Knicks could package with Curry) will also be on the team as well. So, in otherwords, the mass exodus of bad Isiah Thomas contracts has turned into a conglemrate of net money asset's the Knicks can throw around like a fat cat trying to turn the OJ market.

So, my question is, why shouldn't the Knicks throw their hat into the Kenny Thomas/Brad Miller sweepstakes? Why not throw the Kings an extra 2nd round pick. This is a team trying to draw LeBron right? This is a team trying to snare Chris Bosh right? What about Dwyane Wade? It's conceivable 2 of the 3 would take slightly less money to play @ MSG for the prime of their career's, and to boot, win a championship (another in D-Wade's case) together as the greatest FA class of all time. Everyone will bandy about how the Knicks had all the advantages of the big city to lure those big time FA's, but the truth is, if Donnie Walsh doesn't use those big time advantages to acquire as many asset's as he can, then he's not doing the job the Knicks need. He's clearly the right move for that team at the right time (hello--Mike D'Antoni?), and worse, he's pretty conservative with the type's of players he's acquired over the years. The only negative I can see, is the Knicks not wanting to pay as much luxury tax as they have in the past. But, and I mean this, if there is one team where the luxury tax means absolutely nothing, it's the New York Knicks. In a economic time so troubling that the most famous baseball team of all time just spent 475 million on players in the off-season, the Knicks are a part of that same market.

The NBA is a differnet league when the Knicks are at the top of the game, and worse, if the Knicks do pull off a LeBron James coup, they will be one of the most hated teams in all of the NBA. Knicks fans will be how Laker fans often are now: cocky, beligirent, and out-right cock roachy. Not the real Knick fans (Not that we like them anyway), but the stupid bitch ass crappy wagon fans that jump on a big time moment like LeBron going to the Apple. But, this is still the NBA, and it's still about rings for a guy like LeBron, and the Knicks are nowhere near that. At the moment, they are 6 games under 500 (after that great start), and are sinking as we speak. Sure, they score a ton of points, but they give up a ton of points. This team is nothing, if they don't get LeBron right? Wrong, the summer of 2010 for them is everything, and LeBron is only the start. It's also about Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade and a lot of older stars who have a chance to opt out (and will likely because of the new CBA looming in 2011), and play the new market, particularly with so many teams out there looking for cap space in that salaciously incredible looming market.

Do I think the KIngs have a chance in 2010? How about a snowball's chance in hell? I also know, that a team like the Knicks, are not likely to find a team with 2 expiring contracts in 2010 around 21 million dollars more available than Brad Miller or Kenny Thomas. The smart move, for the Knicks, would be to offer Stephon Marbury (hold out as long as you can to make Marbury into a longer term money asset for your franchise--why not if you're Donnie Walsh), and if you're the Kings, Marbury's expiring contract is exactly what the doctor ordered. Maybe the cap room doesn't draw a major star in 2009 (I don't really see that being what the Kings can use that cap space for honestly), but perhaps they can make a trade that will allow them to entice a team looking to move a star, and the Kings can get after that star, by making a trade with that cap space. I have players that I would think the Kings would be wise to go after, and players I don't think the Kings would be wise to go after. Let's discuss them shall we?

The "I got talent, but I"m a piss ant shit fuck on some bad fucking teams that couldn't wait to dump me for pennies on the dollar, and Bill Simmons is still mad he had to make that comment about me" category: Zach Randolph is a guy who could help the team in some respects. He's on contract through 2011, meaning, if he doesn't work out, all you have is 1 year left of him, and dealing him in the mega market of 2010 may be easier said than done. Another player in this category might be Al Jefferson. I'm not fond of Al for a ton of reasons. He complains too much, and while he puts up a ton of numbers, he rarely has played on a team where he has made a difference for them. Ever. He's always been paired with a better player (Paul Pierce), and that's the only time he's been able to be on a successful team. That being said, I could see him and Martin working together if the price was right for Sacramento. But, I have a difficult time seeing Minnesota giving up on Al quiet yet. And I'm not convinced he's really what the Kings need.

The "I had my brain explored, and for half a season, I looked like the best Center west of Yao Ming, and yet, maybe I was always an Ike Austin clone all along" category: For those who remember Ike Austin, do not cringe as I do not mean harm, to the Kings, or anybody else, for that matter, so if you need to put on your special person helmet, I will not laugh at you. For 2 minutes. But, if I didn't fear this guy being in the "Ike" category, I would totally think Chris Kaman is a guy the Kings should pursue (provided the Clippers ever made him available--which I doubt unless they thought he couldn't stay healthy). He's young (only 27 for next season), and yet, I get this feeling that he's stuck in Clippers land for life. Either he will reach his ceiling, or as long as Dunleavy is there, he won't allow the Clippers to move him for fear he actually becomes something better somewhere else, particularly for a team like the Kings in their same division. But, Kaman is the type of player the Kings should consider.

The "Section already mentioned it once, and I'm not going into it again, but on the outside Boozer makes sense" category: I don't really know what to say about this at this point. i don't like Boozer (he's a mercernary, a jerk, and he used his son's illness as an excuse to get out of Utah--albeit a reasonable one in his defense), and to boot, he's hurt all the time. I just don't know he's worth it. I can grow to appreciate him (not), but I'm not sure he's really what this team needs. He's not exactly going to bring intensity to a team sometimes lacking it. There is talent on this Kings team, and I'm not sure an over the top piece is what the team really needs (See Sixers, Philadelphia). I do think this team needs a veteran big man who can bring out the best of JT & Shawes regardless whose on the court. I also think, the team needs to find a reliable hustling backup who can block shots play post defense, and be an effective role player without needing the ball offensively. This team is very incomplete (also has been hit with the injury bug), has had some bad luck (caught the Knicks at exactly the wrong time), and in general, hasn't always played up to it's abilities. The high draft pick is something the team needs, and can use to attract a top level 2009 pick, and who knows, make the playoffs in 2010. Because as we all know, the Maloof's won't be able to take spending 70 million on a lottery team again.

The "I'm dreaming, and I don't give a fuck what any of you think, and I don't give a shit period, but I want this guy, and I think he's the perfect fit for what this team needs over the long term" category: I'm not in favor of overpaying anybody for the long term, or the short term, but at the same time, I do think this team needs to draw a game changing to the team. I always have liked how he plays (even though I know jaws will drop when I say who it is) because his style has always been condusive to winning on every team he's been on minus the Washington Bullets. Even though he set the record for Technicals (still has it as far as I can tell), and inspired a NBA rule garnerning suspensions after 16 techs, he's still a game changing talent who can make a difference for a team like the Kings. Yep, Rasheed Wallace. When he was young, the only player who ever beat him consistently was Tim Duncan, and I always felt he was matched up wrong on Tim to begin with. Even then, Wallace was an unusual player who jacked up too many shots from 3 (he never got foul calls inside), and sadly, his antics (the tech's), always overshadowed his stellar play. What he could do, and generally did, was play hard, play well with the teammates on the court, and sacrificed his stats for the betterment of his teams. And it showed on the court. Had he not played on the Portland teams in the Jail Blazer era, I think his current time in Detroit would be considered differently. (Yet, if you notice, he's still picking up tech's at alarming rates even now. I don't think it matters a great deal whose coaching.) So should the Kings offer him a 3 year deal in the 7-9 million range? If you can't get an all-star caliber player, and you can't find a talented player to complement your young bigs (Shawes & JT), and you can't find anybody else that really puts you on the radar for a player to make your team better, I say go after Sheed.

Because, for all of Sheed's negatives, he's been on a teams that have averaged (starting with his Bullets stint): 39, 49, 46, 35 (in the 50 game shortened season), 59, 50, 49, 50, and in the interesting 2003-04 season, I think the Blazers were 27-23 when they traded him, and the Pistons of course already a winning team, continued to do so when he got there, and the Hawks won the one game he played for them, in the week where he was the only player to suit up for 3 different teams, but the Pistons did end up winning 54 games in 04-05, 64, 59, and 53 games. (They are currently 21-11 as I write this.) In otherwords, despite aging, the man still has the abilities to play winning basketball, and remains the most talented hooper I've ever seen take the court, including LeBron. So why hasn't he gotten all his talent out? I don't know, but if you ask me, that's the most consistent frustrating thing about him. One moment he plays on the block, the next he shoots 5 3's in a row. But, as I said, he plays with a winning intensity, and if he's got anything left in the tank, he's the perfect type, of "a below the radar move" for the Sacramento Kings,  of player this group needs. I don't think need this team needs fire, but I know it needs to know how to work together, and Sheed can bring some of that.

My last question, of them all, is would Petrie be wise to make a cap space deal for a Stephon Marbury, and would he be willing to buy Marbury out as well? Would the Maloof's? Is there any other form of this deal that could see the Kings also willing to make a deal (like adding Mikki Moore and Quincy Douby, and netting Malik Rose) in return that would see the team garner the rewards of trading away Miller for cap room only? My only question, at this point, would the Knicks bite, and could the Kings swallow the Marbury bullet for the long term implications of making this franchise better? I don't know, but as many have said, a lot can change between now and February. Also, I think it matters a great deal how good your young talent can be when you get around to this summer. You won't find that out unless you deal away some of the older players (Miller & Moore) away to see how Shawes & JT perform. If you find they both are improving at a reasonable rate, than maybe bringing in that over the top star is the absolutely wrong move, and maybe bringing in that lesser glamour idea of the Rasheed Wallace type is EXACTLY what the Kings should pursue. Particularly, if you believe Donte Greene has the type of talent that the team can build around. I'm not of the belief the team has to make drastic moves to improve, but I am of the belief that taking forever to make a decision on how to improve this franchise will hold it back. Therefore, I think the ball is in Geoff Petrie's court. Get goin Geoff. The Evil Cowtown needs you.