RealGM

Trade#1-

Milwaukee:

Bobby Simmons
Dan Gadzuric
2008 1st Rd Pick

New York:

Stephon Marbury
David Lee
Renaldo Balkman


Why Milwaukee does TRADE?

Milwaukee has interest in Stephon Marbury's expiring contract next year because by trading almost 20 million in salary between Bobby Simmons, Dan Gadzuric, and 2008 1st Rd Pick, the Bucks will have roughly 15-17 million in cap space in the summer of 2009. The Milwaukee Bucks total salaries in 2009/2010 will be around 29 million, and thus, will have enough cap space to get a marquee free agent in the summer of 2009 to add to a nucleus of Michael Redd, Maurice Williams, and Yi Jianlian.

Why New York does TRADE?

By trading away Stephon Marbury's expiring contract, the New York Knicks can draft their starting SG of the future in OJ Mayo. Yes, I initially wanted Marbury's contract to expire, but I realize that we are nowhere near getting under the cap after Isiah Thomas made the Randolph trade. In the summer of 2010, the Knicks won't have enough cap space to get Lebron James unless Jamal Crawford or Eddy Curry opt out of their contracts, which is both unlikely.

No thanks.....we'll take Mayo if he's available with that pick......

Toss in David Lee and Balkman and we'll think about it.....

thats just awful I love Lee but he is not worth a top 10 pick.......... COME ON!

paulpressey25 wrote:No thanks.....we'll take Mayo if he's available with that pick......

Toss in David Lee and Balkman and we'll think about it.....

No, we won't.

IDK. I'm not blown away by any of the prospects this year, even the top few.

If we ended up at 7-8, I'd give a look at Lee (a productive player already), and Balkman (defensive prospect on the wing, which is likely what we'd be drafting anyway), and massive salary cap purge. Of course follow-up deals would be needed, but this is a start.

Redd for Larry Hughes + Chicago 1st (10th pick)

CV for Kyle Lowry

Draft Thabeet @ 10

Sign Childress with MLE


Mo - Lowry
Hughes - Bell
Childress - Mason
Yi - Lee
Bogut - Thabeet

Sessions
Balkman

Potential trade chips at the break include Mo, Marbury's expiring, Balkman, Desmond's expiring, Bell, etc... Plenty to choose from.

At the very least, the defense should be improved. Bogut would certainly have to step up as a 17-19 point scorer and Mo would have to chip in with 17 or so too. But, Rome wasn't built in a day. This would be a step toward changing the pervasive attitude here.

Alternate trade to Redd for Hughes +10.

Redd + 2nd rounder for LaFrentz (expiring), Jarret Jack, 13th pick

Losing Redd, Simmons, and Gadz contracts in a single summer.

ECity34 wrote:Trade#1-



and thus, will have enough cap space to get a marquee free agent in the summer of 2009 to add to a nucleus of Michael Redd, Maurice Williams, and Yi Jianlian.

How about a big fat no to that "nucleus"

paulpressey25 wrote:No thanks.....we'll take Mayo if he's available with that pick......

Toss in David Lee and Balkman and we'll think about it.....

What do you mean no thanks!

YES YOU DO TAKE MARBURY! Especially if you get a coach in here who can coach him who he respects!

What are you talking about!? That is what is wrong with all of you! You are not gonna win in this league without taking 'risks.'

Here we are with no wins to put in a pail and you are nitpicking on every player!

You should take Randolph and or Marbury and stop this stupid merry go round...of band aids and losing!

Some players need a change of scenery. Marbury is no worse then CBell or Mo Williams in attitude and Basketball IQ! And he is more talented and guards on the ball better!

NotYoAvgNBAFan wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

What do you mean no thanks!

YES YOU DO TAKE MARBURY! Especially if you get a coach in here who can coach him who he respects!

What are you talking about!? That is what is wrong with all of you! You are not gonna win in this league without taking 'risks.'

Here we are with no wins to put in a pail and you are nitpicking on every player!

You should take Randolph and or Marbury and stop this stupid merry go round...of band aids and losing!

Some players need a change of scenery. Marbury is no worse then CBell or Mo Williams in attitude and Basketball IQ! And he is more talented and guards on the ball better!

This is the only reason i like it when there are Knicks trade proposals.

What the **** are we going to do with cap space? Sign a big name free agent? Forget about it.

The only way we're getting a star is if we draft them in the lottery and they have to come here.

Okay, so we'd have cap space, what has that done for us in the past? Oh yeah, we overpaid...even at the time when he was healthy, for BSims...anyone say Kenny the Snake? The way that this team is to rebuild is through the draft. This year we have another chance early in the draft to grab another "new" face of the franchise. We simply can't exchange that for expiring and role players. We need our new star (no 'bury jokes) before we get excited about rollers like Balkman and Lee.

paulpressey25 wrote:No thanks.....we'll take Mayo if he's available with that pick......

Toss in David Lee and Balkman and we'll think about it.....

No, I don't think we do. I would seriously not wanna see the original proposal if I dismay the improved one so much.

midranger wrote:IDK. I'm not blown away by any of the prospects this year, even the top few.

That's where I'm at.....I'm assuming we end up with the #7 pick and Beasley, Rose and Mayo are all gone. I can't get excited about what is left at that point. I'm not sure what is left at #7 is as good as David Lee.

Plus if we dump those salaries of Bobby and Gadz we've then got Marbury to trade as a big expiring at the deadline rather than try to use FA the next summer.

And as noted you try and make a CV for Lowry trade to get your PG.

I see no particular reason not to do this trade. It's not about cap space. It's about flexibility, and this deal also brings us a rebounder and a wing defender. I'd wait until the draft to do it to make sure I'm not trading Mayo, but otherwise, I have no problem with it.

Three more years of Gadz is just not a palatable thought for me.

emunney wrote:I see no particular reason not to do this trade. It's not about cap space. It's about flexibility, and this deal also brings us a rebounder and a wing defender. I'd wait until the draft to do it to make sure I'm not trading Mayo, but otherwise, I have no problem with it.

Three more years of Gadz is just not a palatable thought for me.

I'd want the Knicks to take back Williams and Villanueva and give us Robinson and Chandler, but otherwise, it's a done deal.

Don't forget everyone, cap space can be used in trades, as well.

One of the absolutely worst trades I've seen over here. We trade a top 8 pick just to get cap space that we won't be able to use on anyone?

You DO NOT trade lottery picks for role players.

Rockmaninoff wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I'd want the Knicks to take back Williams and Villanueva and give us Robinson and Chandler, but otherwise, it's a done deal.

So you want to trade Williams for Boykins Jr. and Villanueva for Chandler? Nothing like screwing us over.

Rockmaninoff wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I'd want the Knicks to take back Williams and Villanueva and give us Robinson and Chandler, but otherwise, it's a done deal.

Don't forget everyone, cap space can be used in trades, as well.

HAHA. Wow.

So not only do you want to give up a top 10 pick, you want to give up two better prospects than what we get back. Nate Robinson is undersized TRASH, and Chandler can barely get off the Knicks bench.

I think some people are so enamored with "chemistry" guys that they think we could win with 12 Bruce Bowen's on the roster. That is not how it works.

If we're trading this years pick, it's in a package to move up for Rose/Beasley or for an established NBA player. That's it.

midranger wrote:IDK. I'm not blown away by any of the prospects this year, even the top few.

If we ended up at 7-8, I'd give a look at Lee (a productive player already), and Balkman (defensive prospect on the wing, which is likely what we'd be drafting anyway), and massive salary cap purge. Of course follow-up deals would be needed, but this is a start.

Redd for Larry Hughes + Chicago 1st (10th pick)

CV for Kyle Lowry

Draft Thabeet @ 10

Sign Childress with MLE


Mo - Lowry
Hughes - Bell
Childress - Mason
Yi - Lee
Bogut - Thabeet

Sessions
Balkman

Potential trade chips at the break include Mo, Marbury's expiring, Balkman, Desmond's expiring, Bell, etc... Plenty to choose from.

At the very least, the defense should be improved. Bogut would certainly have to step up as a 17-19 point scorer and Mo would have to chip in with 17 or so too. But, Rome wasn't built in a day. This would be a step toward changing the pervasive attitude here.

wow

i really like that

LUKE23 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



HAHA. Wow.

So not only do you want to give up a top 10 pick, you want to give up two better prospects than what we get back. Nate Robinson is undersized TRASH, and Chandler can barely get off the Knicks bench.

I think some people are so enamored with "chemistry" guys that they think we could win with 12 Bruce Bowen's on the roster. That is not how it works.

If we're trading this years pick, it's in a package to move up for Rose/Beasley or for an established NBA player. That's it.

Here come the dogs out to attack. Roof! Roof! Fine, take Villanueva out of it. He can go elsewhere. But, neither Williams nor Villanueva are prospects. They are what they are.

Yes, I would want Robinson. Every player that isn't a superstar or a precious lottery pick with 'potential' is trash to you, so that isn't really indicative of anything. I'd want him as a scoring combo guard off the bench.

It's not about chemistry, it's about better players. Better players aren't just super scorers, they can also be 12 and 10 guys.

I think some people are so enamored with "potential" and hopes and dreams, and lottery picks, that they forget that 75% percent of draft picks never do squat in the league. This is a trade of our lottery pick for established NBA players.

The bolded part is never going to happen, so you might as well forget it.

Rockmaninoff wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Here come the dogs out to attack. Roof! Roof! Fine, take Villanueva out of it. He can go elsewhere. But, neither Williams nor Villanueva are prospects. They are what they are.

Yes, I would want Robinson. Every player that isn't a superstar or a precious lottery pick with 'potential' is trash to you, so that isn't really indicative of anything. I'd want him as a scoring combo guard off the bench.

It's not about chemistry, it's about better players. Better players aren't just super scorers, they can also be 12 and 10 guys.

I think some people are so enamored with "potential" and hopes and dreams, and lottery picks, that they forget that 75% percent of draft picks never do squat in the league. This is a trade of our lottery pick for established NBA players.

The bolded part is never going to happen, so you might as well forget it.

Nate Robinson is a horrible basketball player. Isiah Thomas is enamored with him, that is all you need to know. He cannot guard anyone with any size and he's a 42% shooter. So he's inefficient and he cannot defend. Does that sound familiar? Mo Williams is no question a better player than Nate Robinson.

I'm not against trading the pick in the right deal. Most likely that means dealing up in the draft or dealing for a quality veteran, established player. You do not deal it for garbage, and that is exactly what Nate Robinson and Wilson Chandler are. On top of that you want to give up a PG that does have trade value (even if many don't like him) in Mo Williams.