http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=970407From the Knicks board on the same topic.
Denial
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?
Anger
makeitstop wrote:It amazes me how some of these dopes even get jobs as sports writers in the first place.
Bargaining
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.
Depression
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.
Acceptance
Pharmcat wrote:people need a reason to take curry of our hands, there is no denying that