RealGM

Mitigating Factor: Knicks GM Donnie Walsh has been offering Al Harrington around for ECs (expiring contracts), then insisting the other team takes Curry or Jeffries, as well. Gee, thanks, Donnie! Really, you're throwing one of them in for me free of charge? How nice of you! He's the annoying guy in your fantasy league whose e-mails you finally just start deleting. Donnie, you need to get a little more realistic. And soon.

Bill Simmons wrote: What do you do if you own New Orleans, a .500 team that has $73.1 million committed this year and $71.8 million committed next year? Do you just suck it up and lose $12 million in tax money for these next two seasons on top of significant revenue losses? Or do you do something to change your destiny. You know … like …

(Hornets fans are screaming right now. I'm sorry. They have to hear it. They need to know.)

Like giving away David West …

(They're screaming, "No! Don't say it! No!" but it has to be said. I'm sorry.)

Or … (gulp) … Chris Paul?

Fake Trade 1a: Gallinari, Curry and $3 million to Minnesota for the Mark Blount/Brian Cardinal ECs. Basically, Minnesota would be paying $10 million next year to get Gallinari for 2011, 2012 and 2013. Total financial commitment: $23 million. Isn't a lottery pick and potential 50-40-90 percentage guy worth $23 million over three years (just $9 million for the last two), especially for a team stupidly playing the "we're waiting for Ricky Rubio, so tuck yourself in and enjoy three years of losing and misery!" card? Of course.

they (Minnesota) have almost $23 million in expiring contracts to play with, but it would be crazy for them to add 2010-11 payroll when they aren't going anywhere and have made it VERY clear that they don't care for two years. Word on the street is that they won't even discuss Rubio trades with other teams. That's amazing. Look, there is no bigger Rubio fan than me. But he's not a sure thing. This isn't like waiting for Larry Bird to finish his 1978-79 Indiana State season … and even worse, it's two seasons and potentially three. If you're a floundering NBA doormat struggling to generate revenue, and you just spent the past 10 years proving to your fan base that they shouldn't have faith in the decision-making for the team, can you really play the "Just Be Patient" card?

Being a Wolves fan is like sitting in an airport gate waiting for news on a delayed flight. Do you think we'll take off today? Any word yet? Only it's going to be like that for the next two years. At least.

moss_is_1 wrote:They could get rid of Okafor, or Peja..

shrink wrote:

moss_is_1 wrote:They could get rid of Okafor, or Peja..

They need to move Peja, but don't have the trade value to do it without Paul. Getting rid of Okafor + West cuts some of their salary, but Chris Paul woulddemand a trade anyway.

Bill Simmons wrote:Being a Wolves fan is like sitting in an airport gate waiting for news on a delayed flight. Do you think we'll take off today? Any word yet? Only it's going to be like that for the next two years. At least.

GopherIt! wrote:Saw this Bill Simmons article on ESPN. Some of his trade ideas are fairly interesting (Gallinari/Curry to Minny for exp is interesting) but the T Wolves part is a joke. Not at all bitter are we Bill???

here's a bit from the article:

Fake Trade 1a: Gallinari, Curry and $3 million to Minnesota for the Mark Blount/Brian Cardinal ECs. Basically, Minnesota would be paying $10 million next year to get Gallinari for 2011, 2012 and 2013. Total financial commitment: $23 million. Isn't a lottery pick and potential 50-40-90 percentage guy worth $23 million over three years (just $9 million for the last two), especially for a team stupidly playing the "we're waiting for Ricky Rubio, so tuck yourself in and enjoy three years of losing and misery!" card? Of course.

they (Minnesota) have almost $23 million in expiring contracts to play with, but it would be crazy for them to add 2010-11 payroll when they aren't going anywhere and have made it VERY clear that they don't care for two years. Word on the street is that they won't even discuss Rubio trades with other teams. That's amazing. Look, there is no bigger Rubio fan than me. But he's not a sure thing. This isn't like waiting for Larry Bird to finish his 1978-79 Indiana State season … and even worse, it's two seasons and potentially three. If you're a floundering NBA doormat struggling to generate revenue, and you just spent the past 10 years proving to your fan base that they shouldn't have faith in the decision-making for the team, can you really play the "Just Be Patient" card?

Being a Wolves fan is like sitting in an airport gate waiting for news on a delayed flight. Do you think we'll take off today? Any word yet? Only it's going to be like that for the next two years. At least.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ortCat=nba

Tirion wrote:
he's right, check out the wiretap. if Kahn is standing pat, there will be no Timberwolves fans in the building in two years.

Esohny wrote:

Tirion wrote:
he's right, check out the wiretap. if Kahn is standing pat, there will be no Timberwolves fans in the building in two years.

He's actually not right; Simmons is basically never right.

And you act like Kahn standing pat on trades this season(assuming that actually happens) means the roster is set in stone forever. If he does nothing, we still go into next season having added a top lottery pick and at least one other 1st round prospect, probably two, probably Pekovic, and whoever else we sign with the gobs of cap space we'll have. And that's barring any draft day trades, which Kahn hasn't commented on at all.

knicksNOTslick wrote:I'm willing to put money on it, that if Jeffries traded before the deadline...that the Knicks won't have to part with Hill, Gallo or Chandler just to get rid of him. For Curry, yea that's a given BUT people, especially non-Knick fans, are severely underrating JJ's value just because he's overpaid. The dude has one extra year left, his contract is around $7 million so a team not in the running for the 2010 free agency and has a scrub on an expiring similiar to the size of Jared's contract would probably trade for him especially if Walsh adds $3 million. The cost to the opposing team that has him in the 2010-2011 would be around $4 million which is a reasonable value for Jeffries. So with that said, why do the Knicks have to give up on Jordan Hill just to get rid of Jeffries?

makeitstop wrote:It amazes me how some of these dopes even get jobs as sports writers in the first place.

putiger78 wrote:You maybe trade Hill to get rid of Curry, but you definitely wouldn't use Gallo just to unload Curry... and as far as Jefferies, you are better off keeping him than using an asset to get rid of him... I think he could be traded potentially for expiring(s) without attaching an asset.

putiger78 wrote:I no longer have any illusions of getting Curry traded, its just not going to happen. He is here till he expires. My only hope for him, and maybe this is wishful thinking is that next year he can be a contributor off the bench in a limited role... and then he expires and we part ways amicably. He isn't getting traded and I am not wasting Gallo, Chandler, or any future picks just to get rid of him. 2010 isn't the last year of free agency.

Pharmcat wrote:people need a reason to take curry of our hands, there is no denying that

Iommi wrote:Does anyone else find it ridiculous that Simmons took Kahn saying, "We're willing to wait for Rubio" to mean, "We're planning on not giving a **** about basketball for the next two to three years."? I have to say I find it amusing and interesting when he does it to other teams, but making untrue statements about teams, then clowning on them for it, isn't very funny when Minny's the target.