# The Road to Financial Flexibility (w/ Celtics and Pacers)...



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

For the life of me, I never understood why Knick management seems so poor at working angles. Marquis Daniels has been an unrestricted free agent for the past several weeks and it has not seemed to cross Donnie's mind that this could be the type of ticket we need to free up some big dollars. Daniels made about $8 million last year and is hoping to get more than the $1.5 bi-annual exception the Celtics have to offer. The only hiccup is that the Pacers don't want any salaries coming back their way and definitely do not want a baggage player like Tony Allen. Allen plays a position of need for the Knicks, however, and could be a servicable backup for us. 

I could definitely see the Knicks being able to pawn off Eddy Curry in this three way deal. How about:

*Celtics Trade:*
Brian Scalabrine...PF
Tony Allen...SG
Eddie House...SG
JR Giddens...SG
Bill Walker...SF

*Celtics Recieve:*
Marquis Daniels...G/F
Eddy Curry...C

*Pacers Trade:*
Marquis Daniels...G/F

*Pacers Recieve:*
Trade exception

*Knicks Trade:*
Eddy Curry...C

*Knicks Recieve:*
Brian Scalabrine...PF
Eddie House...SG
Tony Allen...SG
JR Giddens...SG
Bill Walker...SF


The Celtics are one of the few teams in the league right now that play a style of basketball suitable to what Eddy Curry does on the floor and capable of masking some of his defensive flaws. At 26 years old and a former all-star candidate, I think the Celtics would be willing to roll the dice especially for several nonfactors like what they are giving up who would be effectively replaced by Marquis Daniels. 

The Knicks get the financial fleibility they have been looking for and the green-light to sign Ramon Sessions. I honestly don't like any of the Celtic players we'd be recieving but I would keep Brian Scalabrine who has been a fan favorite wherever he has gone; I'd cut everyone else beside Eddie House/Tony Allen.

The Pacers recieve something much more valuable than adding payroll and that is the option of not adding payroll while maximizing your ability to bring in someone at some point in time with that trade exception.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

No chance in hell the Celtics give up all of that for Eddy Curry. They'd have no back court depth whatsoever and getting one player doesn't fulfill that need.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

urwhatueati8god said:


> No chance in hell the Celtics give up all of that for Eddy Curry. They'd have no back court depth whatsoever and getting one player doesn't fulfill that need.


Those very same players can resign with the Celtics since the Knicks could not keep that many on their roster. Besides, Daniels played 32mpg last season with the Pacers; while Allen and Pierce played 40mpg each. That wouldn't leave very much time for any other players in the backcourt to begin with and yet the Celtics still likely could bring in Jerry Stackhouse, Bruce Bowen and/or Stephon Marbury using the remaining mid-level exception, lower level exception or at the veterans minimum; all of whom would be better options than the players they'd be giving up. Add Curry to the mix, who is head and shoulders better than any talent we'd be recieving in that package and I believe we'd have a deal.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

No they couldn't. Rasheed Wallace was signed to the full mid-level exemption and they do not have a lower level exemption this year. The only players they can sign this year to more than a minimum contract are players who's bird rights they have retained from last year. Also, the Celtics only have two trade exceptions of under 800,000 dollars so they deal wouldn't work out under the conditions of the collective bargaining agreement anyway. Trade exceptions cannot be coupled to acquire a player; the trade exception has to be of equal or greater value of the player's contract being acquired or it cannot be used. Also, they're still giving up way too much for Curry in that trade who has little to no value left anymore. It would make a lot more sense for them to just trade a player or two directly to Indiana for Daniels.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

There are two scenarios where I can see Eddy Curry's contract being disposed of. The first one is the obvious one that's been rumored with Houston who does not have a center lined up for next season. That one goes something along the lines of this: 

*New York trades*:
Eddy Curry

*-and any one of-*
Cuttino Mobley
Al Harrington
Chris Duhon, Jared Jeffries, and Wilson Chandler

*Houston trades*
Tracy McGrady

Trade 1
Trade 2
Trade 3

The acquisition of Mobley would be more of a salary dump for them with insurance covering 80 percent of his salary while the other two would be more to acquire additional pieces. With their two star players being injured, they will need offense and Harrington's P.E.R. was almost that of McGrady and would probably be a worthy acquisition for them to replace the injured McGrady. Duhon and Jeffries would make the least amount of sense, but it has been rumored as well. The Knicks would probably have to throw in an additional piece for that in which case I would have no problem including Wilson Chandler just to get rid of the 18,160,263 dollars of contractual obligations in 2011. Once again, I am of the opinion that he only has a limited ceiling anyway where he is at best a fourth best player on a top four team in a conference and I think he's being highly overrated. Doing so would give the Knicks 47,543,900 dollars in cap space assuming Robinson is retained for the qualifying offer and they keep his bird rights or 50,454,977 dollars if they let him walk. Three max contracts would cost 49,706,722 dollars for any three members of the '03 draft class.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

urwhatueati8god said:


> No they couldn't. Rasheed Wallace was signed to the full mid-level exemption and they do not have a lower level exemption this year. The only players they can sign this year to more than a minimum contract are players who's bird rights they have retained from last year. Also, the Celtics only have two trade exceptions of under 800,000 dollars so they deal wouldn't work out under the conditions of the collective bargaining agreement anyway. Trade exceptions cannot be coupled to acquire a player; the trade exception has to be of equal or greater value of the player's contract being acquired or it cannot be used. Also, they're still giving up way too much for Curry in that trade who has little to no value left anymore. It would make a lot more sense for them to just trade a player or two directly to Indiana for Daniels.


I totally forgot about Rasheed's signing with Glen Davis recently reupping. That certainly rules out the MLE but to my recollection they can still use their veteran's minimum. Also, Marquis Daniels and Eddy Curry's contract would likely fall within 15% of $13 million, which is what the Celtics would be giving up. This means that such a deal would work. Additionally, the Celtics would be giving up nothing for Curry aside from expiring contracts....exactly what the Rockets would be giving up except there expiring contract is tied to one of the best players in the league. And you think those Rocket deals make more sense?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

urwhatueati8god said:


> There are two scenarios where I can see Eddy Curry's contract being disposed of. The first one is the obvious one that's been rumored with Houston who does not have a center lined up for next season. That one goes something along the lines of this:
> 
> *New York trades*:
> Eddy Curry
> ...


Rumors don't make it true and it certainly doesn't mean it makes sense. I fail to see the purpose of giving up one of the best players in the league for Eddy Curry. Whose to even say that Eddy will play more games than Tracy next year following the season he came off of?


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> I totally forgot about Rasheed's signing with Glen Davis recently reupping. That certainly rules out the MLE but to my recollection they can still use their veteran's minimum. Also, Marquis Daniels and Eddy Curry's contract would likely fall within 15% of $13 million, which is what the Celtics would be giving up. This means that such a deal would work. Additionally, the Celtics would be giving up nothing for Curry aside from expiring contracts....exactly what the Rockets would be giving up except there expiring contract is tied to one of the best players in the league. And you think those Rocket deals make more sense?


The deal with the Celtics for Curry barely fits under the provisions of the C.B.A. Marquis Daniels to anything more than 2.7 million doesn't work in the deal.

The Rockets don't seem to want McGrady back next year which is why they'd consider the deals mentioned. Anything they could get back for a player who will play 1/3rd of a season at most on a season that is essentially lost for them would be icing.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

urwhatueati8god said:


> The deal with the Celtics for Curry barely fits under the provisions of the C.B.A. Marquis Daniels to anything more than 2.7 million doesn't work in the deal.
> 
> The Rockets don't seem to want McGrady back next year which is why they'd consider the deals mentioned. Anything they could get back for a player who will play 1/3rd of a season at most on a season that is essentially lost for them would be icing.


$2.7 million is better than $1.5 million, which is his only option at this point. The Rockets may not also want McGrady back next season but that doesn't mean they'll take back lesser valued players with contracts unfavorable to the one their sending out simply for the sake of it. They can get a better deal for McGrady especially with swingmen like Richard Hamilton, Ray Allen and Michael Redd supposedly available.


----------

