RealGM

With T-Mac probably not playing effectively next season, it means the Rockets are inline to pay him $23M for basically nothing. It will also be impossible to resign Artest without cap relief.

I can't see any team that will be willing to absorb T-Mac's huge contract without giving the Rockets very bad and very long contractsin return. The Knicks can offer Eddy Curry with 3 years remaining.

Curry + Mobley + S&T Sene + $3M for T-Mac + Cook + Barry.

The Rockets trade 3 useless players for Mobely's insured contract and for Curry who can backup Yao and give the Rockets another body down low. The Rockets save around $7M next year to resign Artest and have to pickup Curry for an extra season.

What do you think?

Barry's not going to be traded, so you can forget about that.

Secondly, what's in it for the Rockets? It's a pretty useless trade on our side.

Houston laughs at this. Why on earth would we trade expiring contracts for even more useless players (Curry, Mobley, Sene? Really?)? At least Tmac, Cook, Barry might contribute something. None of the incoming players would see the court AT ALL.

And for the privilege, we get to pay 3 more years of Eddy Curry.

I know Mobley is insured, but if Tmac is as useless as you claim, an insurance company will pick up his contract next season anyway. If he is able to play, we can use him.

Either way, far better to hold on to him and let him expire.

There is literally nothing on the Knicks roster that would convince the Rockets to make this trade.

Nothing on the roster...but a draft pick???

Basically only the knicks would be dumb enough to trade for tmac (but we wouldn't want any of their players) or Detroit who is rebuilding and could use the cap space. Maybe NJ. Who knows, I hope we get Tmac back during training camp....hahah he said it not me. If he can play, trade him while his value is high.

RoxFan08 wrote:Houston laughs at this. Why on earth would we trade expiring contracts for even more useless players (Curry, Mobley, Sene? Really?)? At least Tmac, Cook, Barry might contribute something. None of the incoming players would see the court AT ALL.

And for the privilege, we get to pay 3 more years of Eddy Curry.

I know Mobley is insured, but if Tmac is as useless as you claim, an insurance company will pick up his contract next season anyway. If he is able to play, we can use him.

Either way, far better to hold on to him and let him expire.

There is literally nothing on the Knicks roster that would convince the Rockets to make this trade.

the Rockets generate around $7M of capspace savings through this deal, which will help them resign Artest and Wafer without paying lux-tax. Plus, they save money with Mobely's insured contract. the insurance only picks up the contract one year after a player announces medical retirement. T-Mac is not retiring so you can forget about the insurance paying anything on his contract.

Curry has only TWO years remaining (this and the next one), and he is getting back into shape and can contribute as a backup to Yao. There is very little risk in taking him (only one year).

The other alternative for the Rockets is to pay T-Mac's salary next year for not playing and lose Arterst to free agency. I think this deal makes a lot of sense for both teams.

PocketRockets wrote:Nothing on the roster...but a draft pick???

Basically only the knicks would be dumb enough to trade for tmac (but we wouldn't want any of their players) or Detroit who is rebuilding and could use the cap space. Maybe NJ. Who knows, I hope we get Tmac back during training camp....hahah he said it not me. If he can play, trade him while his value is high.

T-Mac will not be able to play next season. No player comes back a few months after a microfracture surgery. T-Mac will come back in 2010/11. The only trade for him would be for cap savings and the only team which will be willing to absorb his contract is the Knicks (and no - there will be no draft pick coming back for a worthless contract).

roy10 wrote:

RoxFan08 wrote:Houston laughs at this. Why on earth would we trade expiring contracts for even more useless players (Curry, Mobley, Sene? Really?)? At least Tmac, Cook, Barry might contribute something. None of the incoming players would see the court AT ALL.

And for the privilege, we get to pay 3 more years of Eddy Curry.

I know Mobley is insured, but if Tmac is as useless as you claim, an insurance company will pick up his contract next season anyway. If he is able to play, we can use him.

Either way, far better to hold on to him and let him expire.

There is literally nothing on the Knicks roster that would convince the Rockets to make this trade.

the Rockets generate around $7M of capspace savings through this deal, which will help them resign Artest and Wafer without paying lux-tax. Plus, they save money with Mobely's insured contract. the insurance only picks up the contract one year after a player announces medical retirement. T-Mac is not retiring so you can forget about the insurance paying anything on his contract.

Curry has only TWO years remaining (this and the next one), and he is getting back into shape and can contribute as a backup to Yao. There is very little risk in taking him (only one year).

The other alternative for the Rockets is to pay T-Mac's salary next year for not playing and lose Arterst to free agency. I think this deal makes a lot of sense for both teams.

We can do better. I'd rather trade him to Detroit for Wallace and one of their young guards. That way we'd have proven winners and not a cancer like Curry.

PocketRockets wrote:We can do better. I'd rather trade him to Detroit for Wallace and one of their young guards. That way we'd have proven winners and not a cancer like Curry.

Wallace is free agent and why would Detroit pay $23M for a player who is not playing?

roy10 wrote:

PocketRockets wrote:Nothing on the roster...but a draft pick???

Basically only the knicks would be dumb enough to trade for tmac (but we wouldn't want any of their players) or Detroit who is rebuilding and could use the cap space. Maybe NJ. Who knows, I hope we get Tmac back during training camp....hahah he said it not me. If he can play, trade him while his value is high.

T-Mac will not be able to play next season. No player comes back a few months after a microfracture surgery. T-Mac will come back in 2010/11. The only trade for him would be for cap savings and the only team which will be willing to absorb his contract is the Knicks (and no - there will be no draft pick coming back for a worthless contract).

T-Mac has a chance of coming back next season. He wants to be back by training camp, but we all know it will be Jan/Feb.

IT IS HIS CONTRACT YEAR

HTown_TMac wrote:T-Mac has a chance of coming back next season. He wants to be back by training camp, but we all know it will be Jan/Feb.

IT IS HIS CONTRACT YEAR

If he comes back by February it would be a medical miracle. People who get microfracture surgeries don't come back this soon, they just don't, and definitely not at the age of 30, after 11 years in the league. He will probably come back in 2010/11.

Don't worry about his contract. The guy is not going to starve.

No, why would we trade a expiring for more expirings?
McGrady with 1 hand and 1 foot is more valuable than Curry, Mobley.

if the Knicks want him they should give us a package of Wilson Chandler, David Lee, Chris Duhon and a little expiring.

Alex_De_Large wrote:No, why would we trade a expiring for more expirings?
McGrady with 1 hand and 1 foot is more valuable than Curry, Mobley.

if the Knicks want him they should give us a package of Wilson Chandler, David Lee, Chris Duhon and a little expiring.

Neither the Knicks, nor any other team in the league wants McGrady, but the Knicks want to get rid of Curry. The deal is that the Rockets take Curry and get CAP RELIEF so they can resign Artest.

BTW - If you want David Lee in the deal, you can have him, but I don't think the Rockets want or need him.

I'm sure the Rockets want absolutely nothing to do with Eddy Curry.

King Roosk wrote:I'm sure the Rockets want absolutely nothing to do with Eddy Curry.

Agreed, he's even more useless when considering how much he makes. roy10 as for McGrady, I'm like you in that he won't come back as strong, but you have to keep in mind, he didn't have the same micro-fracture surgery guys like Amare had. Not too sure, so don't quote me, but he had the same one as John Stockton who came back within three months. Now McGrady doesn't work that hard, and does have an unclean injury history especially compared to Stockton, but he's aiming to come back by the start of training camp (which is laughable), but it wouldn't be a shock to see him come back sometime early in the season, and definitely at some point next season instead of the 2010 - 2011 season you are claiming.

TMACFORMVP wrote:Agreed, he's even more useless when considering how much he makes. roy10 as for McGrady, I'm like you in that he won't come back as strong, but you have to keep in mind, he didn't have the same micro-fracture surgery guys like Amare had. Not too sure, so don't quote me, but he had the same one as John Stockton who came back within three months. Now McGrady doesn't work that hard, and does have an unclean injury history especially compared to Stockton, but he's aiming to come back by the start of training camp (which is laughable), but it wouldn't be a shock to see him come back sometime early in the season, and definitely at some point next season instead of the 2010 - 2011 season you are claiming.

The entire thing is a pure financial deal so that the Rockets can resign Ron Artest without paying a lot in luxury tax.

I think that the notion of a 30 year old player, with 12 seasons and around 1,000 NBA games under his belt coming back from microfracture surgery in 6 months is ridiculous. I think that the chances of him playing effectively next season are slim to none, and just about everybody knows that.

The question is do the Rockets want to keep Artest or let him walk? I can't see anyway that the Rockets can keep Artest without cutting salary and the only way to do that is move T-Mac. Now, the only team that can take McGrady without giving horrendous multi-year contracts in return is the Knicks. What is the risk here for the Rockets? They get to resign Artest and take on Eddy Curry for one more year. If it works out, Houston wins, if it doesn't Houston losses nothing and can use his $10M expiring next season to get something valuable (a $10M expiring is an asset, a $23M expiring is a liability).

Roy, your an embarassment to the Knick fan base. I am a Knick fan, and what you offered was downright awful.

A much more fair trade would be something like Larry Hughes expiring and Q-Rich expiring for TMAC. Rockets save around 3 million in the trade, get rid of their "Marbury", and get two players who would fit right in with their strong defensive system. Only chance we have at trading Curry is by playing him this year and hope he goes back to his form from 2 seasons ago.

robbysteinz wrote:Roy, your an embarassment to the Knick fan base. I am a Knick fan, and what you offered was downright awful.

A much more fair trade would be something like Larry Hughes expiring and Q-Rich expiring for TMAC. Rockets save around 3 million in the trade, get rid of their "Marbury", and get two players who would fit right in with their strong defensive system. Only chance we have at trading Curry is by playing him this year and hope he goes back to his form from 2 seasons ago.

Thanks, but why would the Knicks trade two active players for a player that doesn't play? Or didn't you know that McGrady just had microfracture surgery?

I don't think you understand this deal.

But Curry is a useless player for us, sure he has talent, but it hasn't amounted to anything the past couple of seasons. He's a pathetic rebounder and a horrid defender, a gifted offensive player definitely, but we can likely get a much cheaper backup that produces just as much impact if not more. We do need a backup C behind Yao, but I'd rather have the Scola/Landry/Hayes than take on Curry and pay him near 10m for two seasons. The idea is OK, but I'm not sure if that's exactly what we're looking for.

I think that the notion of a 30 year old player, with 12 seasons and around 1,000 NBA games under his belt coming back from microfracture surgery in 6 months is ridiculous. I think that the chances of him playing effectively next season are slim to none, and just about everybody knows that.

Effectively? Then yeah, I'd agree, but the notion that you think he won't come back at all next season isn't likely since it's reported it's NOT the same micro-fracture that Amare, Oden, K-Mart and others have had. It's a much smaller procedure, similar to the one Stockton had who came back within 3-4 months. I'm not expecting that, but all signs point toward him coming back at least at some point this season..

Sry, but this proposal is just awful.

The risk is Eddy Curry. He's not going to get ANY playing time on this team. The Rockets also have Artest's bird rights, so cap space isn't the issue here. Even if McGrady doesn't come back, we'd rather let his contract expire rather than taking on the league's worst contract.

EDIT: There's just too much risk involved. If we take Curry's contract, we have a lesser chance to sign a nice player (since our cap will be less flexible due to Curry's contract).

Roy10, your argument hinges on the Rockets not wanting to pay the luxury tax to sign Artest.

Firstly, Les Alexander WILL pay it to keep Artest, of that I have no doubt.

Secondly, if Tmac doesn't come back till 2010-2011, like you claim in your trade, an insurance company will pay most or all of Tmac's contract (just like Mobley), so the money wouldn't matter. Les would come out ahead anyway because we'd get half his contract back in cap space, putting us well under the luxury tax.

Thirdly, if Tmac does in fact come back healthy, that's just gravy. And if he can come back and play at a decent level, why should we trade him to NY?

Lastly, Eddy Curry is a huge, HUGE negative. I can guarantee you Les would rather pay luxury tax this year than be hamstrung by Curry's contract long term.

Essentially, the Rockets have ABSOLUTELY ZERO incentive to make this trade, and therefore wouldn't.

Like others have said, its possible a Wilson Chandler + S&T Lee or Larry Hughes might be something the Rockets would look into, but under no circumstances can I wrap my mind around a scenario in which we would take on Curry.