eddy curry for maggette

fluffhead · Post #1 » by **fluffhead** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:25 pm

the warriors lose two years off of maggs's contract, give him a fresh start
magggs won't hurt the knicks 2010 cap, i think they'll actually gain a little more $$$ to offer free agents, plus he's a huge upgrade on the floor

skflives · Post #2 » by **skflives** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:33 pm

I don't think Warrior fans are that desperate to be rid of Maggette.

don nelson · Post #3 » by **don nelson** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:02 pm

fluffhead wrote:the warriors lose two years off of maggs's contract, give him a fresh start
magggs won't hurt the knicks 2010 cap, i think they'll actually gain a little more $$$ to offer free agents, plus he's a huge upgrade on the floor

Donnie Walsh has been successfully clearing cap space for 2010 and his primary objective is to dump Curry's contract for expiring contracts. The problem is Eddy Curry's contracts runs until 2011 while Maggette runs until 2013. That's not the direction the Knicks are trying to take.

The Warriors don't want to trade for Curry because Golden State would probably be sued for millions by Curry's entourage when Eddy keels over and dies from trying to keep up with the Warriors fast uptempo pace because Curry is afraid Rowell will void his contract. Curry's blood sucking leeches will accuse the Warriors in court of deliberately trying to kill Curry because Golden State obviously knew Curry was out of shape and there was no way Eddy could carry his 350 pounds up and down the floor more than once a game without killing him. Warriors say no.

turk3d · Post #4 » by **turk3d** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:29 pm

don nelson wrote:
fluffhead wrote:the warriors lose two years off of maggs's contract, give him a fresh start
magggs won't hurt the knicks 2010 cap, i think they'll actually gain a little more $$$ to offer free agents, plus he's a huge upgrade on the floor

Donnie Walsh has been successfully clearing cap space for 2010 and his primary objective is to dump Curry's contract for expiring contracts. The problem is Eddy Curry's contracts runs until 2011 while Maggette runs until 2013. That's not the direction the Knicks are trying to take.

The Warriors don't want to trade for Curry because Golden State would probably be sued for millions by Curry's entourage when Eddy keels over and dies from trying to keep up with the Warriors fast uptempo pace because Curry is afraid Rowell will void his contract. Curry's blood sucking leeches will accuse the Warriors in court of deliberately trying to kill Curry because Golden State obviously knew Curry was out of shape and there was no way Eddy could carry his 350 pounds up and down the floor more than once a game without killing him. Warriors say no.

You beat me to the punch on this one Don. The only good thing about it (and I'm obviously being facetious here) is that it would almost be a certainty that EC wouldn't survive training camp and we'd probably be able to drop his salary (isn't there a death clause in the CBA agreement?) thus getting a roster exemption? I really wouldn't want to see that though.

old rem · Post #5 » by **old rem** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:17 am

don nelson wrote:
fluffhead wrote:the warriors lose two years off of maggs's contract, give him a fresh start
magggs won't hurt the knicks 2010 cap, i think they'll actually gain a little more $$$ to offer free agents, plus he's a huge upgrade on the floor

Donnie Walsh has been successfully clearing cap space for 2010 and his primary objective is to dump Curry's contract for expiring contracts. The problem is Eddy Curry's contracts runs until 2011 while Maggette runs until 2013. That's not the direction the Knicks are trying to take.

The Warriors don't want to trade for Curry because Golden State would probably be sued for millions by Curry's entourage when Eddy keels over and dies from trying to keep up with the Warriors fast uptempo pace because Curry is afraid Rowell will void his contract. Curry's blood sucking leeches will accuse the Warriors in court of deliberately trying to kill Curry because Golden State obviously knew Curry was out of shape and there was no way Eddy could carry his 350 pounds up and down the floor more than once a game without killing him. Warriors say no.

....and don nelson didn't even get to the really BAD parts of how this sucks for GSW.

New Team motto.....Dumber than Isaiah!

Actually....Eddy would probably stay in the locker room and watch porno while ordering pizzas. The idea of wasting $30 mill to dispose of a guy who's a 19 ppg scorer would cost some front office guys their careers in the NBA. Evidently some big mega bank would then hire those guys as their new CEO's. Only wastes 1/2 the $ the last guy wasted...looks good on the resume.

Trading for Eddy has to go on the" Idea's list" behind declare bankruptcy and burn down the arena. :roll:

old rem · Post #6 » by **old rem** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:24 am

skflives wrote:I don't think Warrior fans are that desperate to be rid of Maggette.

Uganda was that desperate to get rid of Idi Amin, but currently, not sure how you can trade Eddy

J-Rich- · Post #7 » by **J-Rich-** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:53 am

Curry has worse than negative value

fluffhead · Post #8 » by **fluffhead** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:39 am

the knicks dumped crawford and his enormous contract; the warriors are a team that may actually take curry

old rem · Post #9 » by **old rem** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:48 am

fluffhead wrote:the knicks dumped crawford and his enormous contract; the warriors are a team that may actually take curry

Crawford scored 19 ppg this year. Eddy was neither healthy to play or usable if healthy. He's a lazy bum on D and soft in the boards and a black hole. He's nobody I want anywhere near a young team.

Crawford was a good guy. Can't play much D it seems but he at least tried. If we didn't have so many good young G's now,he'd be welcome to stay.

turk3d · Post #10 » by **turk3d** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:59 pm

Crawford's contract is not "enormously bad" (only 2 years and scores almost 20 a game). Curry's is (same # of years for more money and you can't play him). Plus, the dude appears to have major character issues on top of that. We'd be better off keeping Crawford than trading for that garbage. Might as well trade for Tinsley, at least he can play.

don nelson · Post #11 » by **don nelson** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:13 pm

fluffhead wrote:the knicks dumped crawford and his enormous contract; the warriors are a team that may actually take curry

The only way the Warriors would be interested in Eddy Curry is if he has already died but his death certificate has not yet been officially recorded. This would allow Golden State to avoid his blood sucking leeches trying to squeeze money out of Golden State in a wrongful death lawsuit and the Warriors would not be required to waste any cap space on a player who has no value to the team if he were alive. Crawford may not be a lock down defender but he can score

LiSTWithLani · Post #12 » by **LiSTWithLani** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:27 pm

I'm sorry to ruin this for you don nelson, but I don't think that trade could take effect, as he'd be even less likely to pass the team's physical...

killacalijatt · Post #13 » by **killacalijatt** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:43 pm

fluffhead wrote:the knicks dumped crawford and his enormous contract; the warriors are a team that may actually take curry

sorry to parade on your senerio but they took back harringtons giant enormous contract also

Oakland has been around the top ten on the murder charts for a while now and this trade only adds to the list as there is no way Curry would survive in Nelys high octain offence

don nelson · Post #14 » by **don nelson** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:45 pm

lstern wrote:I'm sorry to ruin this for you don nelson, but I don't think that trade could take effect, as he'd be even less likely to pass the team's physical...

Teams may be willing to waive Curry's physical if they wish to unload their unwanted contracts bad enough. Would Toronto consider moving Banks, Hump and Kapono for a deceased Curry?

old rem · Post #15 » by **old rem** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:31 pm

don nelson wrote:
lstern wrote:I'm sorry to ruin this for you don nelson, but I don't think that trade could take effect, as he'd be even less likely to pass the team's physical...

Teams may be willing to waive Curry's physical if they wish to unload their unwanted contracts bad enough. Would Toronto consider moving Banks, Hump and Kapono for a deceased Curry?[/quote

in a heartbeat.

turk3d · Post #16 » by **turk3d** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:36 pm

Enough of these Eddy Curry jokes. /thread

Does the NBA life insurance policy give double indemnity if you croak on the job? :dontknow:

don nelson · Post #17 » by **don nelson** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:29 am

old rem wrote:
don nelson wrote:
lstern wrote:I'm sorry to ruin this for you don nelson, but I don't think that trade could take effect, as he'd be even less likely to pass the team's physical...

Teams may be willing to waive Curry's physical if they wish to unload their unwanted contracts bad enough. Would Toronto consider moving Banks, Hump and Kapono for a deceased Curry?[/quote

in a heartbeat.

old rem,

You are not a Raptors fans. The answer to my question about whether the Raptors would trade Banks, Humphries and Kapono for a deceased Eddy Curry should come from Toronto fans.

skflives · Post #18 » by **skflives** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:12 pm

I actually hate the deal for the Knicks. We don't save much in 2010. We talk on the much longer contract. And we bring in a headcase who plays a position where we have two young prospects to develop.

gswhoopsman · Post #19 » by **gswhoopsman** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:32 pm

lol, maggette is NOT a headcase...he doesn't have the reputation at all...he came off the bench without complaining, hes known to work out pretty hard etc. Sure hes flawed as a basketball player in some ways, but he certainly NOT a headcase...

I guess its the "warriors" effect...sometimes it sucks to be a warriors fan.