SOURCE: Malik Rose for Brad Miller In The Works?

[Manhattan Project]

Is this something that helps us? Well yeah it is. It allows Lee to move back to the power forward position while adding a center that knows how to play in a system like this. The Princeton offense is something that should make Miller be decent. Miller is a respectable spot up shooter. Now no one is saying that he would be decent on defense, but then again we wont be getting any worse really.

There are a lot more positives then negatives that come from getting a Miller.

[Heat_team02]

I'd love to see Malik/James/Jeffries for Miller/Thomas. That's a steal for us. More than likely it will be Malik + James/TT. Sacto couldn't say no to that.

Not sure why people are still in tank mode, we need to show improvement. Especially next year, I don't want to give Utah a lotto pick. I also don't want to have to pay Joe Johnson max money because we suck so bad that no one else will come here.

Joe Johnson will be one of the players I predict we'll be pursuing along with Chris Paul & Marcus Camby.

In 2010, not only will Jermaine O'Neal's contract will be expiring 22.9 mil, but so will Mark Blount 7.9mil, Udonis Haslem 7.1 mil & Dorell Wright 2.75 mil. And if Wade opts out, add another 15.8mil.

[egreezy]

I think the trade is going to be Malik Rose and QUentin Richardson for Brad Miller, Sheldon Williams, Quincy Douby. I think we're keeping Jeffries for length and defense. He also has more 1 year more on contract.

[nyk2423]

I think the trade is going to be Malik Rose and QUentin Richardson for Brad Miller, Sheldon Williams, Quincy Douby. I think we're keeping Jeffries for length and defense. He also has more 1 year more on contract.

He expires AFTER 2010, which is exactly what we dont need unless we are looking for a FA in 2011.

[StutterStep]

I think the trade is going to be Malik Rose and QUentin Richardson for Brad Miller, Sheldon Williams, Quincy Douby. I think we're keeping Jeffries for length and defense. He also has more 1 year more on contract.

It's a QO that we will not pick up unless he's any good. Plus it's only for 3million. If we do sign a MAX that's real cheap for a guard who can shoot.

[RIPskaterdude]

I think the trade is going to be Malik Rose and QUentin Richardson for Brad Miller, Sheldon Williams, Quincy Douby. I think we're keeping Jeffries for length and defense. He also has more 1 year more on contract.

Why would the Kings trade two expirings (Williams/Douby) for Quentin Richardson?

[Capn'O]

We'd better have a plan for Curry and Effries though.

Primarily we should be trying to trade Lee and/or Nate. The fact their names aren't being mentioned that much right now is concerning because please tell me we're not gearing up to re-sign these two guys this summer?

My hope is a Rose-Thomas/Miller trade would clear the way for a Lee/younger player sort of trade that corresponds. Getting an established big gives us flexibility to move Lee for a less developed player without leaving us totally fcked up front. I.e. solving the problem of resigning him while not throwing the young players under a bus. That would be a good deadline to me.

Curry and Effries? Dude, _nobody_ is trading for Curry and as Kos mentioned earlier Effries is also a liability in a trade, not an asset. These guys are known quantities and really, only Curry has the chance of changing that... if he does, he'll be starting over Brad Miller anyway.

[StutterStep]

I think the trade is going to be Malik Rose and QUentin Richardson for Brad Miller, Sheldon Williams, Quincy Douby. I think we're keeping Jeffries for length and defense. He also has more 1 year more on contract.

Why would the Kings trade two expirings (Williams/Douby) for Quentin Richardson?

SAC didn't pick-up the options earlier in the year?

I don't this trade is feasible on either party's end, as I think coach favors QRich too much.

[RIPskaterdude]

Nope, they are both FA's at the end of this year.

[egreezy]

SAC didn't pick-up the options earlier in the year?

I don't this trade is feasible on either party's end, as I think coach favors QRich too much.

Yeah I forgot how D'antoni has history with QRich, b ut I think we may need Jeffries more then Q

[drj]

The trade I would like to see would be Miller, Kenny Thomas, and Udrih for Rose, Curry, and Mobley.

This saves the Kings lots of $$$, while moving Curry and shaving 4m off of our 2010 cap (Curry deal vs Udrih deal). Plus we need backcourt help, and I still think that Udrih could be ok for us.

[passthedutchman]

I don't see any downsides to this trade except possibly for playing time but if the deal is malik and timmy, we're clearing the minutes that are going to tt anyway, and you can probably subtract jeffries' minutes as well (he's been ok on defense but his offense kind of makes it a wash, and I'm not sure how much anything is going to affect his trade value either way at this point).

the one thing that has been mentioned is the curry factor. if we get miller, it'll be harder to try to showcase curry but we basically just need to get him healthy enough to where a team might take a gamble on him. I can't really see him ever breaking out again for 20 and 7 again for us, even for a 3-4 game stretch.

[Luv those Knicks]

I think, if the Knicks try to give the Kings Jeffries, the Kings response is to ask for a first round pick, period, stop.

Malik & Jeffries for Brad and Kenny doesn't work.

Mikki, as pointed out is an expiring due to his team option.



Knicks could take on a 4 year contract like Udrich for a 3 year contract like Jeffries, and in doing that, shave a million or so off 2010, but I'm not sure it's worth it cause we lose 7 million in cap space in 2011.

Would the Kings take Curry in a deal to Dump Udrich, or do they liek Udrich?


There are a handful of options, due to Kenny's 2010 contract, Brad's 2010 contract and the kings looking to shave salary, but nothing I see that screams benefit to both teams.


If it was Malik for Brad straight up, I think it'd be a done deal, but that doesn't work.

[rpa]

Would the Kings take Curry in a deal to Dump Udrich, or do they liek Udrich?


There are a handful of options, due to Kenny's 2010 contract, Brad's 2010 contract and the kings looking to shave salary, but nothing I see that screams benefit to both teams.


If it was Malik for Brad straight up, I think it'd be a done deal, but that doesn't work.

+1

The problem in making a Kings/Knicks trade is 3 fold:
1) Since the Kings are so close to the luxury tax they can't take back more salary in a trade or else they'd risk losing their tax payout this year.
2) It's my understanding that the Kings' owners have pretty much said "no taking on longterm salary". They may mean for vets only (i.e. the Kings could take on a longterm deal if it was a rookie contract) but that more than likely eliminates the 2 guys the Knicks want to dump more than anything
3) The Knicks don't have any small expiring contracts that could be used as fillers (Robinson & Lee aren't fillers)

Also, I think most Kings fans consider Udrih a bad contract but not necessarily dead weight like Curry and (to a lesser extent) Jeffries. I doubt there's any kind of a trade between the 2 teams unless either:
a) a 3rd team gets involved
b) the deal becomes big where it's basically Marbury for Miller and fillers (though then the problem for the Knicks becomes roster size)

[TrueWarrior]

I dont see how anyone can argue against a trade like Miller for Rose and TT.

TheBluest is still caught up in the fact that he thinks we can trade Curry and/or Jeffries and also get back young players or "assets". We arent trading Curry or Jeffries. No team is that stupid. They suck and their contracts suck. So a deal like a Rose/player for Miller makes sense. It would make us better while also not hurting our 2010 plan which is the only kind of deal Walsh wants to make. You can argue against Miller all you want but hes twice the player Rose is now and he at least gives us some size for the short term.

This is the kind of deal we would make at the deadline. Nothing big but something like this is what I expected. Unless we can get a legit superstar player that is worth giving up cap space in 2010 then we wont be making any big moves for players on a Marbury, Randolph, Crawford level. Its either superstars or bust. No more flawed borderline "stars". Amare is the best player on the market now and some can argue that he isnt even a superstar or a player worth giving up half your team for like Kerr wants. I think Amare is a very good player but not a guy who will carry you and not a guy who you want as your best player. He only averages 8 boards a game and his D is average at best.

So these are the types of trades you can expect from us until 2010. Our options are limited as we wont trade for anyone who runs past 2010 unless they are a legit superstar worth giving up cap space for. So essentially what Im sayin is bring on Brad Miller. People complain about Rose taking up a roster spot and wanting to sign some D League scrub? Well Miller is better than anyone in the D league and can still give you solid minutes at center (of which we have no center). So yea stop bitchin about this deal if it happens. Its a win win.

[passthedutchman]

Would the Kings take Curry in a deal to Dump Udrich, or do they liek Udrich?


There are a handful of options, due to Kenny's 2010 contract, Brad's 2010 contract and the kings looking to shave salary, but nothing I see that screams benefit to both teams.


If it was Malik for Brad straight up, I think it'd be a done deal, but that doesn't work.

+1

The problem in making a Kings/Knicks trade is 3 fold:
1) Since the Kings are so close to the luxury tax they can't take back more salary in a trade or else they'd risk losing their tax payout this year.
2) It's my understanding that the Kings' owners have pretty much said "no taking on longterm salary". They may mean for vets only (i.e. the Kings could take on a longterm deal if it was a rookie contract) but that more than likely eliminates the 2 guys the Knicks want to dump more than anything
3) The Knicks don't have any small expiring contracts that could be used as fillers (Robinson & Lee aren't fillers)

Also, I think most Kings fans consider Udrih a bad contract but not necessarily dead weight like Curry and (to a lesser extent) Jeffries. I doubt there's any kind of a trade between the 2 teams unless either:
a) a 3rd team gets involved
b) the deal becomes big where it's basically Marbury for Miller and fillers (though then the problem for the Knicks becomes roster size)

I think Malik + Tim Thomas (or Jerome James) for Miller + Mikki Moore keeps you under the luxury tax this year and also still saves you money next year, even counting Moore's $2 million buyout. I think the total savings would be about $8 million over two years.

[seren]

The other issue is what you do with expirings if you cannot package them with Jeffries and Curry, which seems difficult at this point. Do you let them expire and use the empty slots for FAs? Or you roll them over to 2010 with deals like this?

I think you push hard to get some value out of these guys, i.e. picks, young players etc. If you cannot, this type of deal is not so bad. We won't be players in FA market as we don't want to sign anyone long term. So why not get a 2010 expiring ala Miller if it doesn't cost us any talent?

[rpa]

I think Malik + Tim Thomas (or Jerome James) for Miller + Mikki Moore keeps you under the luxury tax this year and also still saves you money next year, even counting Moore's $2 million buyout. I think the total savings would be about $8 million over two years.

Yup, that's 1 other option I didn't think of. It really all depends on what kind of value the Kings place on Miller vs. the rest of the league as well as how high they value cutting salary this summer (they're already on tap to cut a LOT in summer '10).

I think they place him in the "enough value that we shouldn't have to take back any salary" class but I could be wrong (and the Maloofs may want to cut salary at the expense of talent).

[TKF]

I dont see how anyone can argue against a trade like Miller for Rose and TT.

TheBluest is still caught up in the fact that he thinks we can trade Curry and/or Jeffries and also get back young players or "assets". We arent trading Curry or Jeffries. No team is that stupid. They suck and their contracts suck. So a deal like a Rose/player for Miller makes sense. It would make us better while also not hurting our 2010 plan which is the only kind of deal Walsh wants to make. You can argue against Miller all you want but hes twice the player Rose is now and he at least gives us some size for the short term.

This is the kind of deal we would make at the deadline. Nothing big but something like this is what I expected. Unless we can get a legit superstar player that is worth giving up cap space in 2010 then we wont be making any big moves for players on a Marbury, Randolph, Crawford level. Its either superstars or bust. No more flawed borderline "stars". Amare is the best player on the market now and some can argue that he isnt even a superstar or a player worth giving up half your team for like Kerr wants. I think Amare is a very good player but not a guy who will carry you and not a guy who you want as your best player. He only averages 8 boards a game and his D is average at best.

So these are the types of trades you can expect from us until 2010. Our options are limited as we wont trade for anyone who runs past 2010 unless they are a legit superstar worth giving up cap space for. So essentially what Im sayin is bring on Brad Miller. People complain about Rose taking up a roster spot and wanting to sign some D League scrub? Well Miller is better than anyone in the D league and can still give you solid minutes at center (of which we have no center). So yea stop bitchin about this deal if it happens. Its a win win.

Well I see what you are saying, but I think the bluest problem with the deal is this:

Brad miller is pretty much shot.. and I agree with that point. I watch the kings play a lot.. he gets blocked by the bottom of the rim a lot..

Brad miller if traded for a non-rotation player like rose, will do either of these things: Take up playing time of guys like gallo and chandler, or put guys like jeffries on the bench, which will further damage any future trade value.. Now we can argue jeffries will never be tradeable, which may be true, but burying him on the bench ensures his value will always be rock bottom...

Is brad miller worth the extra year of salary , especially if we can't dump a jeffries on them? I don' think he is..

Now I hate to speak for bluest in this instance, but I think some of these were his concerns, as well as mine..

[TrueWarrior]

I dont see how anyone can argue against a trade like Miller for Rose and TT.

TheBluest is still caught up in the fact that he thinks we can trade Curry and/or Jeffries and also get back young players or "assets". We arent trading Curry or Jeffries. No team is that stupid. They suck and their contracts suck. So a deal like a Rose/player for Miller makes sense. It would make us better while also not hurting our 2010 plan which is the only kind of deal Walsh wants to make. You can argue against Miller all you want but hes twice the player Rose is now and he at least gives us some size for the short term.

This is the kind of deal we would make at the deadline. Nothing big but something like this is what I expected. Unless we can get a legit superstar player that is worth giving up cap space in 2010 then we wont be making any big moves for players on a Marbury, Randolph, Crawford level. Its either superstars or bust. No more flawed borderline "stars". Amare is the best player on the market now and some can argue that he isnt even a superstar or a player worth giving up half your team for like Kerr wants. I think Amare is a very good player but not a guy who will carry you and not a guy who you want as your best player. He only averages 8 boards a game and his D is average at best.

So these are the types of trades you can expect from us until 2010. Our options are limited as we wont trade for anyone who runs past 2010 unless they are a legit superstar worth giving up cap space for. So essentially what Im sayin is bring on Brad Miller. People complain about Rose taking up a roster spot and wanting to sign some D League scrub? Well Miller is better than anyone in the D league and can still give you solid minutes at center (of which we have no center). So yea stop bitchin about this deal if it happens. Its a win win.

Well I see what you are saying, but I think the bluest problem with the deal is this:

Brad miller is pretty much shot.. and I agree with that point. I watch the kings play a lot.. he gets blocked by the bottom of the rim a lot..

Brad miller if traded for a non-rotation player like rose, will do either of these things: Take up playing time of guys like gallo and chandler, or put guys like jeffries on the bench, which will further damage any future trade value.. Now we can argue jeffries will never be tradeable, which may be true, but burying him on the bench ensures his value will always be rock bottom...

Is brad miller worth the extra year of salary , especially if we can't dump a jeffries on them? I don' think he is..

Now I hate to speak for bluest in this instance, but I think some of these were his concerns, as well as mine..

Hes averaging 12/8/4 tho. I know hes not the player he was but he can still help a team. He shouldnt be playing 32 mpg like he is now but he can def still play and is still a solid big man.

Now Im not saying Miller is going to put us over the edge and all this. But hes a legit 7 feet and is a ball mover. The extra year of salary doesnt mean anything though. This is the Knicks we're talking about. If Dolan thinks Miller will make us more competative and put more fans in the seats until 2010 comes then he will do it. Rose cant even get off the bench now.

Maybe getting Miller also means the need for signing Lee is a little bit smaller. We at least have a decent big man in the meantime.

Honestly I see where you're coming from but nobody wants Jeffries man. Curry will never get traded we know this but Jeffries is the same. This is the best hes going to play and theres no way a team takes on his contract the crap he spews every game. I dont buy it and I dont think NBA Gms not named Isiah or McHale are that stupid.

I think you're just reading too much into the deal. If we can get rid of TT then that would open up minutes for Chandler and Gallo. But we dont know what the deal will end up looking like.

I really dont care if we do this deal or not. But I wont mind if we do it. Its just a meh move. But it def makes us a little better reagrdless of how you think of Brad. Our options are limited like I said so unless we can nab a legit superstar we arent going to be making any bigger trades than this.