PDA

View Full Version : Is there any team in the league that should trade for Jared Jeffries?



KnicksorBust
12-26-2009, 03:01 PM
As a diehard Knicks fan (sic) I see a lot of intangibles that he brings. He hustles, he tips a lot of rebounds to teammates, he can block shots, get some steals, guard anyone from 1-5, and he's actually leading the league in charges taken. However his contract doesn't expire until the summer of 2011 ($6.9 million dollars next season) and obviously with our summer of 2010 plan I want no part of him in NY. Since all I get to read is Knicks fans viewpoints, I was curious what fans from around the league think about him as a player. Two questions I'd like answered:

1. Is there anyway you would your team to trade an expiring for him?
2. Is there any team you can see taking on an extra year of his contract for his skills as a defender?

RaptorsFanatic
12-26-2009, 03:05 PM
He freakin' sucks.

KnicksorBust
12-26-2009, 03:16 PM
He freakin' sucks.

Insightful and provocative. Do you write for ESPN?

HuRRiCaNeS324
12-26-2009, 03:25 PM
I doubt you can trade his big *** contract. Barely any teams aren't trying to do something in 2010. He's good, but only on Defense, he sucks balls on offense.

BkOriginalOne
12-26-2009, 03:25 PM
A young team, or a playoff team looking for a 5th big.

Kakaroach
12-26-2009, 03:29 PM
As a Jazz fan it would be nice to have him but we already have way too many large contracts in AK-47 and Okur.

He's good on defense, but I don't think he's great enough for a team to take on his contract.

Trouble87
12-26-2009, 03:50 PM
Insightful and provocative. Do you write for ESPN?

seems very NY Post/Berman-ish to me

Toenail Clipper
12-26-2009, 03:51 PM
Who the hell is Jared Jeffries?

mudvayne387
12-26-2009, 03:51 PM
He won't be the main piece in any trade but packaged with one of the other Knicks players (Chandler, Harrington , Nate) he becomes a bit more tolerable.

nashty13
12-26-2009, 03:53 PM
no way. Not with the moronic contract Isaiah Thomas signed him to. One of the worst deals in history

RocketsRule
12-26-2009, 04:01 PM
I could see a San Antonio or Dallas type team dangling some pieces to try and get him. Heck, after seeing the Lakers' bench, a Adam Morrison for Jared Jefferies and Nate Robinson type deal doesn't sound too bad.

VIP1349
12-26-2009, 04:08 PM
He won't be the main piece in any trade but packaged with one of the other Knicks players (Chandler, Harrington , Nate) he becomes a bit more tolerable.
Agree completely. No way you are dumping this guy alone, but attaching a guy like Chandler, Lee, could get a contender to bite. Otherwise due to the contract, nobody will take this guy.

commonsense12
12-26-2009, 04:19 PM
I could see a San Antonio or Dallas type team dangling some pieces to try and get him. Heck, after seeing the Lakers' bench, a Adam Morrison for Jared Jefferies and Nate Robinson type deal doesn't sound too bad.

Thats actually a good trade and prob would help both sides. Prob one of the better trades i have seen on here in quite some time lol.

Dont know if it works with the cap tho.

RaptorsFanatic
12-26-2009, 04:22 PM
Do we really need a Jared Jeffries thread in the NBA Forum?

limebalz05
12-26-2009, 04:22 PM
Is that the same guy who played for the Hoosiers 10 yrs ago? I didn't realize that some sucker still had him on their roster!!!

Only the Knicks lol

Hellcrooner
12-26-2009, 04:25 PM
every team would love to give them an expiring for jeffries.


ASO LONG as gallinari, hill or chander is coming back in the trade.

Knicks gm should understand that if he wants that dude or curry gone it WILL cost them one of the youngters

sw20
12-26-2009, 04:25 PM
NO team is giving up an expiring for Jeffries so they can pay him another $6.8mil next season. Ask yourself, would you ever sign him to 1yr contract for $6.8mil?

RaptorsFanatic
12-26-2009, 04:28 PM
I don't get it. If New York doesn't want him, why would any other team even consider adding him to the roster?

KnicksorBust
12-26-2009, 04:28 PM
I could see a San Antonio or Dallas type team dangling some pieces to try and get him. Heck, after seeing the Lakers' bench, a Adam Morrison for Jared Jefferies and Nate Robinson type deal doesn't sound too bad.


Thats actually a good trade and prob would help both sides. Prob one of the better trades i have seen on here in quite some time lol.

Dont know if it works with the cap tho.

With the Chris Mihm trade exception I'm pretty sure it works. I wonder what Lakers fans would think. Knicks would definately do Jeffries + Nate for expiring like Morrison.

phoenix_bladen
12-26-2009, 04:28 PM
the knicks are not in a rush to unload salary

they will be able to sign another max free agent the following season after 2010

Raps18-19 Champ
12-26-2009, 04:37 PM
He can fit in with a defensive team.

Hustla23
12-26-2009, 04:40 PM
The addition of Jeffries would make any team a title contender.

Just not the Knicks because he doesn't fit the uhhh... ehem... system.

But for everyone else he's a superstar :)

Tony_Starks
12-26-2009, 04:53 PM
The only team that Jeffires could start on is the Knicks. I can't see anyone willing to swallow that contract for a bench player.

As others have stated if packaged with Lee, it'd be worth eating the contract. I can't see why NY doesn't explore this option more seeing as how if they sign 2 big time FA's next year they won't be able to keep Lee anyway.

lakerboy
12-26-2009, 05:01 PM
I want him but his contract is so awful.

commonsense12
12-26-2009, 05:07 PM
If he is packaged with nate and goes to a team like the lakers who have no chance to sign anyone next year anyways, his salary would not make a difference. To have Nate coming off the bench or putting JJ to defend someone makes perfect sense to them. It improves their bench and could land them another title.

Again that trade would make perfect sense and it would help out both teams.

commonsense12
12-26-2009, 05:09 PM
every team would love to give them an expiring for jeffries.


ASO LONG as gallinari, hill or chander is coming back in the trade.

Knicks gm should understand that if he wants that dude or curry gone it WILL cost them one of the youngters

I agree that curry is not going anywhere but JJ could be of some use on a championship caliber team not looking at 2010 as a time to sign some players.

The knicks would not trade any of those guys just to get rid of Curry or JJ. That doesnt make sense. Worse case scenerio is they wait one more year and then sign a max in 2011.

I Am Awesome-O
12-26-2009, 05:21 PM
No one is going to help the Knicks out without getting heavily compensated. If they are going to get rid of Curry/Jeffries for an expiring contract, they are going to have to give up Gallinari and/or Hill too. It's a gargantuan risk, but it could be worth it.

KnicksorBust
12-26-2009, 05:30 PM
I want him but his contract is so awful.

It's just 1 and half seasons at a little under $7 million. Since you are already over the cap with no chance to get under would you rather a useless Morrison rotting on the bench or Jeffries and Nate? With Fisher/Farmar/Brown relatively ineffective you could have brought in Nate for a scoring spark or put Jeffries on Mo Williams and had Odom/Kobe/Artest just bring the ball up for stretches.


If he is packaged with nate and goes to a team like the lakers who have no chance to sign anyone next year anyways, his salary would not make a difference. To have Nate coming off the bench or putting JJ to defend someone makes perfect sense to them. It improves their bench and could land them another title.

Again that trade would make perfect sense and it would help out both teams.

:clap:

Evolution23
12-26-2009, 05:31 PM
If he goes to LA watch out, cause that team is already def powerhouse and adding jeffries would make them a force on the D. We already know they can score but the bench would be unbelievable with Jeffries.

Hustla23
12-26-2009, 05:33 PM
No one is going to help the Knicks out without getting heavily compensated. If they are going to get rid of Curry/Jeffries for an expiring contract, they are going to have to give up Gallinari and/or Hill too. It's a gargantuan risk, but it could be worth it.
I think people are just losing control of themselves.

Why the hell would they give up their cornerstone players just to get rid of 6 million dollars ?

They already have enough cap space to offer a max contract to a superstar and in addition to that, another 10 million to work with.

They are not going to trade away one of the few valuable pieces that they have in order to dump a contract.

If anything, they can let Jeffries and Curry expire and go after another max in 2011.

kurivaimu
12-26-2009, 06:01 PM
i think the Blazers wouldnt mind a big atm considering Oden and Pryzbilla are out

aNYer
12-26-2009, 06:07 PM
It's just 1 and half seasons at a little under $7 million. Since you are already over the cap with no chance to get under would you rather a useless Morrison rotting on the bench or Jeffries and Nate? With Fisher/Farmar/Brown relatively ineffective you could have brought in Nate for a scoring spark or put Jeffries on Mo Williams and had Odom/Kobe/Artest just bring the ball up for stretches.
Exactly. People need to factor in that some teams don't have cap room and some teams don't care about that because they are trying to win now. There are teams that are over the cap and some under the lux that can use him. And after this season he becomes an expiring that a team can use to match salaries if someone wants to trade a better player. Trades for cap room are not rare these days, and he will be an expiring.

Don't get me wrong its too much money for what he does but its not a 10 year $100 million dollar deal or anything.


I think people are just losing control of themselves.

Why the hell would they give up their cornerstone players just to get rid of 6 million dollars ?

They already have enough cap space to offer a max contract to a superstar and in addition to that, another 10 million to work with.

They are not going to trade away one of the few valuable pieces that they have in order to dump a contract.

If anything, they can let Jeffries and Curry expire and go after another max in 2011.

I also agree with this. People tend to act as if this season or the next is the end of the world. If you want to build a good team you can't only worry about this season as we are obviously not contenders. So for ONE season of cap freedom we are going to give up a building block? Some might be insulted if someone said their team should do that type of deal. After next season Jeffries and Curry will be gone and that becomes $18 million more in spending cash.

aNYer
12-26-2009, 06:08 PM
i think the Blazers wouldnt mind a big atm considering Oden and Pryzbilla are out

I would do any expiring for Jeffries. Problem is Blazers actually have some free cap room, so they might not want to do that.
Edit, actually, they have to sign Roy, and I think LA too, so they won't have the cash. JJ for outlaw and filler would probably work.

commonsense12
12-26-2009, 06:28 PM
I would do any expiring for Jeffries. Problem is Blazers actually have some free cap room, so they might not want to do that.
Edit, actually, they have to sign Roy, and I think LA too, so they won't have the cash. JJ for outlaw and filler would probably work.

Roy already signed. I think he is making 14 mill next year. It does actually make sense for the Blazers to do that, but from what i read on their forum they want no part of JJ. No idea why when they are lacking size and he has been playing very well recently. to give up dead weight and get a guy who can contribute makes a ton of sense to me.

Kakaroach
12-26-2009, 07:21 PM
Yeah Brandon Roy and LMA have already been signed long-term. The Blazers just might be an option for Curry or Jeffries at this point, their desperate for big men with Oden and Pryz being out for the season.

commonsense12
12-26-2009, 07:54 PM
Yeah Brandon Roy and LMA have already been signed long-term. The Blazers just might be an option for Curry or Jeffries at this point, their desperate for big men with Oden and Pryz being out for the season.

I dont think they would want Curry, but JJ is an option i think.....maybe.

aNYer
12-26-2009, 08:13 PM
I thought I heard that Roy agree in principal, didn't know it was locked up, good for you guys.
I get why guys wouldn't want him, most people only care about scoring, and then even beyond that most don't focus on D that much, and highlights never do so you have to actually see him to understand what he is doing for us. 9 straight opponents under 100 from where we were on defense is a big step in the right direction. I think JJ for dead weight does make sense if they are over the cap and are not giving anything up for him. And we are sending him out with a jump shot 10 million times better then when he came, which still isn't great but its a couple of open shots a week :laugh2:

Aboogz89
12-26-2009, 08:27 PM
i think he would be a great fit wit the suns.....he rebounds and plays some defense...nash would make him look like shawn marion!

xbrackattackx
12-26-2009, 08:30 PM
I think...


Jeffries,Nate and Bender.

For

Morrison,Farmar and Powell and the Chris Mihm trade exception.

All three of those are expirings so the Knicks take no new cap on. And get rid of Jeffries Contract. Fair trade since the lakers are doing them a favor getting rid of that contract. Knicks aren't gonna get a better deal to get rid of him.


And for the New York and Portland trade...

Eddy Curry, Jordan Hill,Landry and Douglas

for

Blake,Outlaw,Cunninham and Miller.

That would give Portland a couple of youngsters back for taking Curry's Contract off their hands and giving the Knicks some talent back also. Cause Portland needs big's more than guards. Hill and Landry are a couple of digs to band around,Curry takes up room and Douglas in a pg to replace the one they lost. And New York Drops both salaries and help two teams out while helping themselves out also.


_____________________

So lakers Line up

Fisher/Nate/Brown
Kobe/Sasha
Ron Ron/Bender/Luke
Pau/Jeffries/Odom
Andrew/Dj Mbenga
________________

commonsense12
12-26-2009, 08:33 PM
i think he would be a great fit wit the suns.....he rebounds and plays some defense...nash would make him look like shawn marion!

Only expiring the suns have is ben wallace and i dont even know if that contract can be traded because he doesnt even play.

Anyone know if that contract can be traded?

lakerboy
12-26-2009, 08:34 PM
It's just 1 and half seasons at a little under $7 million. Since you are already over the cap with no chance to get under would you rather a useless Morrison rotting on the bench or Jeffries and Nate? With Fisher/Farmar/Brown relatively ineffective you could have brought in Nate for a scoring spark or put Jeffries on Mo Williams and had Odom/Kobe/Artest just bring the ball up for stretches.



:clap:

It isn't really my money :)

Buss is maxed out, we even sold our picks.

Phil makes $12M a year, and will seek extension. We have no choice.

commonsense12
12-26-2009, 08:35 PM
I think...


Jeffries,Nate and Bender.

For

Morrison,Farmar and Powell and the Chris Mihm trade exception.

All three of those are expirings so the Knicks take no new cap on. And get rid of Jeffries Contract. Fair trade since the lakers are doing them a favor getting rid of that contract. Knicks aren't gonna get a better deal to get rid of him.

Why bender the guy isnt even sure if he can hack it again in the NBA. I think he only signed a 10 day contract anyways. Highly doubt he would be part of any deal, especially because he is also really close to donnie.

commonsense12
12-26-2009, 08:40 PM
It isn't really my money :)

Buss is maxed out, we even sold our picks.

Phil makes $12M a year, and will seek extension. We have no choice.

Not buying that Buss is maxed out. I think he sold the picks because he has enough guys and so few of minutes to dish out. It is a shame that your bench is so bad though.

Lo Porto
12-26-2009, 08:41 PM
As a Jazz fan, I've always thought that Jeffries would be appreciated by Sloan. His contract is absolutely awful, but he does hustle and play D. The Jazz might do a Kyle Korver for Jeffries, Hill, 2010 2nd rounder, plus the most cash allowed ($3.5 million).

The Knicks aren't playing Hill anyway. Utah would spend almost the same this year if you factor in the $3.5, but have to pay Hill and Jeffries for next season. If Utah were to find a way to ship Boozer away for good value (like Monta Ellis, Kevin Martin, etc.), Hill and Jeffries could help fill the void left by Boozer's leaving.

RocketsRule
12-26-2009, 08:41 PM
It isn't really my money :)

Buss is maxed out, we even sold our picks.

Phil makes $12M a year, and will seek extension. We have no choice.

That would obviously be the deciding factor in the deal. But the Lakers are a billion dollar franchise so I don't see why money would be too much of a problem.

commonsense12
12-26-2009, 08:44 PM
As a Jazz fan, I've always thought that Jeffries would be appreciated by Sloan. His contract is absolutely awful, but he does hustle and play D. The Jazz might do a Kyle Korver for Jeffries, Hill, 2010 2nd rounder, plus the most cash allowed ($3.5 million).

The Knicks aren't playing Hill anyway. Utah would spend almost the same this year if you factor in the $3.5, but have to pay Hill and Jeffries for next season. If Boozer were to find a way to ship Boozer away for decent value, Hill and Jeffries could fill the void left by Boozer's leaving.

The knicks are not going to give up a 1st (hill) and 2nd round draft choice to shed 6 mill. That would make zero sense.

xbrackattackx
12-26-2009, 08:47 PM
Why bender the guy isnt even sure if he can hack it again in the NBA. I think he only signed a 10 day contract anyways. Highly doubt he would be part of any deal, especially because he is also really close to donnie.

Think about who else would they give up? Its either Bender or Landry with that trade and I like Bender he has been playing well. But I edited the post to continue the trades trying to Help Portland,Nyc and Laker's out. But you are right about the Donnie thing I didn't think on that. I just Liked him back in his pacer days and he knows Artest already.

commonsense12
12-26-2009, 08:53 PM
Think about who else would they give up? Its either Bender or Landry with that trade and I like Bender he has been playing well. But I edited the post to continue the trades trying to Help Portland,Nyc and Laker's out. But you are right about the Donnie thing I didn't think on that. I just Liked him back in his pacer days and he knows Artest already.

I can understand that but i think he will see if he can play everyday before he is even considered in any trade.

I believe he contacted donnie before the season started to see if he could get a workout. He then walked away from the workout and said he wasnt ready for the NBA. When he felt he was ready, which was recently, he called donnie back up and asked for a chance. I am pretty sure that his come back will be in NY and he wont be traded.

Ansy
12-26-2009, 09:16 PM
The knicks are not going to give up a 1st (hill) and 2nd round draft choice to shed 6 mill. That would make zero sense.

So if they can't get a better deal than that, you would enter the free agency market unable to sign 2 max free agents before taking that deal?

Obviously the Knicks will try to do better, but to say it makes "Zero sense" is going too far. It only makes no sense if there's a better way to shed the contract.

jimbobjarree
12-26-2009, 09:32 PM
if we got most cash allowed and a 1st or one of their young players then sure

commonsense12
12-26-2009, 10:00 PM
So if they can't get a better deal than that, you would enter the free agency market unable to sign 2 max free agents before taking that deal?

Obviously the Knicks will try to do better, but to say it makes "Zero sense" is going too far. It only makes no sense if there's a better way to shed the contract.

First that is a horrible deal and completely one sided in Utah's favor. Second it doesnt make sense to give up a 1st (top 10 no less) and a 2nd round draft choice to free yourself of 6 mill in cap space. So yes the deal makes zero sense. Yes they would enter the market and just sign 1 max and a really good player.

To be honest they would find a much better deal because that one is again completely one sided.

commonsense12
12-26-2009, 10:02 PM
if we got most cash allowed and a 1st or one of their young players then sure

Anyone would do that trade because it is completely crazy and one sided.

Hustla23
12-26-2009, 10:48 PM
I think...


Jeffries,Nate and Bender.

For

Morrison,Farmar and Powell and the Chris Mihm trade exception.

All three of those are expirings so the Knicks take no new cap on. And get rid of Jeffries Contract. Fair trade since the lakers are doing them a favor getting rid of that contract. Knicks aren't gonna get a better deal to get rid of him.


And for the New York and Portland trade...

Eddy Curry, Jordan Hill,Landry and Douglas

for

Blake,Outlaw,Cunninham and Miller.

That would give Portland a couple of youngsters back for taking Curry's Contract off their hands and giving the Knicks some talent back also. Cause Portland needs big's more than guards. Hill and Landry are a couple of digs to band around,Curry takes up room and Douglas in a pg to replace the one they lost. And New York Drops both salaries and help two teams out while helping themselves out also.


_____________________

So lakers Line up

Fisher/Nate/Brown
Kobe/Sasha
Ron Ron/Bender/Luke
Pau/Jeffries/Odom
Andrew/Dj Mbenga
________________
I make the first trade in a heartbeat.

The second trade, no chance. Ever.

commonsense12
12-27-2009, 12:30 AM
I make the first trade in a heartbeat.

The second trade, no chance. Ever.

I agree as a knick fan i make that trade too. I was just curious before why bender was involved.

If that trade did go down i would not want to play the Lakers if i was the Celts or Cavs.

xbrackattackx
12-27-2009, 12:37 AM
I make the first trade in a heartbeat.

The second trade, no chance. Ever.


Just curious (no hate or anything) But why not the second one?

Basically it's

Douglas for Blake.. I think Blake is better.
Landry for Cunninham is both potential forwards
Jordan Hill and Outlaw are both good prospects
Andre for Curry is mainly taking problems off each others hands.


Projected Line ups(If both trades went down)..

Duhon*/Blake*/Miller
Hughes*/Farmar*
Chandler/Outlaw*/Morrison*
Gallinari/Harrinton*Cunninham
David Lee*/Powell*/Milicic*

(And if the players with stars* are expiring contracts)

So projected pay for the Knick's Summer would be...About 12 million so that leaves a lot of cap room. So if its 55 million and the only returning players were..A.Miller(Which would most likely be traded with 2 good young PGs in Farmar and Blake and a Veteran in Duhon),Chander,Gallinari and Cunninham.. That's a descent core to build around. and about 41 million(47 if they trade Miller) to build with. Even if they land no Max Contracts that's enough money to get some great FA. The only thing Knicks are really losing are Hill. Plus Chandler and Gallinari are the Knicks best future players I think.Plus Portland needs some height and would actually give Hill some playing time and Landry. Which they aren't getting on the Knicks. Those guys would fit in Coach Dan's Run and Gun also..Farmar,Morrsion,Blake Outlaw and Cunninham.

Saying if both these were on the table and a way to get rid of those problem contracts I think I would take them.(Cause jeffries and curry are 17 million next year by themselves)

What makes the trade a no go in your opinion?

xbrackattackx
12-27-2009, 12:38 AM
I agree as a knick fan i make that trade too. I was just curious before why bender was involved.

If that trade did go down i would not want to play the Lakers if i was the Celts or Cavs.


I love Bender have since the pacers days! Plus him and Artest already have chemistry together. Plus hes a good athletic forward to come off the bench. And Give us some height.

Lo Porto
12-27-2009, 12:52 AM
The knicks are not going to give up a 1st (hill) and 2nd round draft choice to shed 6 mill. That would make zero sense.

The Knicks want LeBron. The only way to add LeBron is if you also add somebody like Amare, Wade or Bosh. Right now, the Knicks don't have the 2010 cap space to add two max players. However, dumping Jeffries' almost $7 million and Hill's $2.7 gives the Knicks plenty of money to add 2 max contract guys and then add more. Yes they'd be giving up on Hill kind of early, but every Knick fan knows they'd rather have Bosh than Hill anyway. An extra $10 million would be hugely valuable next summer.

To say it makes zero sense is idiotic. Is there something better out there? Maybe, but this trade makes sense.

commonsense12
12-27-2009, 12:53 AM
Just curious (no hate or anything) But why not the second one?

Basically it's

Douglas for Blake.. I think Blake is better.
Landry for Cunninham is both potential forwards
Jordan Hill and Outlaw are both good prospects
Andre for Curry is mainly taking problems off each others hands.


Projected Line ups(If both trades went down)..

Duhon*/Blake*/Miller
Hughes*/Farmar*
Chandler/Outlaw*/Morrison*
Gallinari/Harrinton*Cunninham
David Lee*/Powell*/Milicic*

(And if the players with stars* are expiring contracts)

So projected pay for the Knick's Summer would be...About 12 million so that leaves a lot of cap room. So if its 55 million and the only returning players were..A.Miller(Which would most likely be traded with 2 good young PGs in Farmar and Blake and a Veteran in Duhon),Chander,Gallinari and Cunninham.. That's a descent core to build around. and about 41 million(47 if they trade Miller) to build with. Even if they land no Max Contracts that's enough money to get some great FA. The only thing Knicks are really losing are Hill. Plus Chandler and Gallinari are the Knicks best future players I think.Plus Portland needs some height and would actually give Hill some playing time and Landry. Which they aren't getting on the Knicks. Those guys would fit in Coach Dan's Run and Gun also..Farmar,Morrsion,Blake Outlaw and Cunninham.

Saying if both these were on the table and a way to get rid of those problem contracts I think I would take them.(Cause jeffries and curry are 17 million next year by themselves)

What makes the trade a no go in your opinion?

Blake IMO is terrible and no one has any idea how good Toney is because he hasnt really played. But either way Outlaw and Blake would not be part of the long turn plans, so why give up 2 young guys for players who would not be on the team next year?

The Knicks plan is obviously to sign a difference maker this summer. Whether its Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Johnson or whoever else they are getting someone. If they could get a Max and another good player and combine with Gallo, Chandler, Toney and Hill, then they have something going.

I think most people dont realize is what the Knicks are really looking at for the next 2 yrs. Even if they wait till the summer of 2011 (Curry and JJ expire) and sign another max player added to that whoever they sign from 2010 and the young guys, they will have something pretty good brewing in NY.

commonsense12
12-27-2009, 01:02 AM
The Knicks want LeBron. The only way to add LeBron is if you also add somebody like Amare, Wade or Bosh. Right now, the Knicks don't have the 2010 cap space to add two max players. However, dumping Jeffries' almost $7 million and Hill's $2.7 gives the Knicks plenty of money to add 2 max contract guys and then add more. Yes they'd be giving up on Hill kind of early, but every Knick fan knows they'd rather have Bosh than Hill anyway. An extra $10 million would be hugely valuable next summer.

To say it makes zero sense is idiotic. Is there something better out there? Maybe, but this trade makes sense.

Whats idiotic is accepting that trade. First if Lebron comes to NY he will realize that the Knicks could trade for or sign another player in 2010 or 2011. (If they use or just wait out Curry and JJ expirings). To give up on a top 10 draft choice for a small amount of money like 6 mill is just stupid. Also 10 mill is a good amount of money to get a good player. You add that to Gallo, Chandler, Hill and Toney you have a pretty good team. Your trade i am sorry just doesnt make sense and to be honest i could not imagine one Knick fan agreeing to it.

Also not to be mean that is one of the worst trade proposals i have heard in reguards to JJ. The one with Nate going to LA for Farmer, Powell and Morrison is way better and it actually helps both teams. So i am sure the Knicks will have much better trade proposals then that.

I think what you are forgetting Lo Porto is that JJ is not a bad player he just has a bad contract. He is prob worth 4 or 5 mill but is making 6 or 7 mill. To trade a good player and 2 draft choices just for the sake of getting back 6 mill is just silly and it doesnt make sense.

blastmasta26
12-27-2009, 01:36 AM
The Knicks want LeBron. The only way to add LeBron is if you also add somebody like Amare, Wade or Bosh. Right now, the Knicks don't have the 2010 cap space to add two max players. However, dumping Jeffries' almost $7 million and Hill's $2.7 gives the Knicks plenty of money to add 2 max contract guys and then add more. Yes they'd be giving up on Hill kind of early, but every Knick fan knows they'd rather have Bosh than Hill anyway. An extra $10 million would be hugely valuable next summer.

To say it makes zero sense is idiotic. Is there something better out there? Maybe, but this trade makes sense.
This trade makes sense to me too. It's not that far-fetched, I doubt Mike D'Antoni is sold on Hill anyway, he barely gives him playing time. I don't see it as a deal that would instantly be accepted, but if nothing better is on the table, it would happen.

aNYer
12-27-2009, 04:40 AM
I have to agree that the deal doesn't make sense lo porto, we don't know who is coming or what conditions he has. For the money we have we could probably resign Lee, who would only benefit from having a star player. So if we don't do the trade we could add a 2010 max player Lee and a 2011 max player. When the alternative to that is give up a top 10 draft pick and give up a 2nd round pick in a year when you don't have a 1st round pick, give up a defensive minded combo guard that flashes some talent and in return get $6 million dollars its just not a great idea.Not only that but then you are limiting your self to 2 max players and not much. can't see the Knicks doin gtn

horry1ur
12-27-2009, 05:16 AM
I guess the Lakers could use a player like him and Robinson on our sucky as bench but he has a ugly contract. No Thank you.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
12-27-2009, 11:03 AM
The Bucks have like 6 expiring contracts. But for us to even consider taking on JJ. We would need youngsters coming back. I would even consider trading often injured Redd for JJ,Lee,Robinson. By the way Redd is good friends with LeBron. But Redd isnt a NY 2010 plan of signing a 2010 super star. Redd is more like a third fiddle on a championship team. Besides Redd's horrible contract goes up to $18 million next season. So that would just about eliminate two super star signings. I would almost consider Redd and Alexander for Hughes and JJ.

uprightciti
12-27-2009, 11:49 AM
if you trade jeffries in now you get an additional 30% trade in credit for any new or used Game Stop game

commonsense12
12-27-2009, 11:55 AM
I guess the Lakers could use a player like him and Robinson on our sucky as bench but he has a ugly contract. No Thank you.

Yes he is overpaid but the Lakers are so far over the cap that they cant sign anyone anyways. So pretty much his contract means nothing. If his contract means nothing why say no?

commonsense12
12-27-2009, 11:58 AM
The Bucks have like 6 expiring contracts. But for us to even consider taking on JJ. We would need youngsters coming back. I would even consider trading often injured Redd for JJ,Lee,Robinson. By the way Redd is good friends with LeBron. But Redd isnt a NY 2010 plan of signing a 2010 super star. Redd is more like a third fiddle on a championship team. Besides Redd's horrible contract goes up to $18 million next season. So that would just about eliminate two super star signings. I would almost consider Redd and Alexander for Hughes and JJ.

Yeah i wouldnt want anything to do with Redd and i wouldnt give you any youngsters. Sorry but you can keep Redd and i am pretty sure the Knicks would not take on his 18 mill plus.

Willis
12-27-2009, 12:07 PM
The obvious trade is Mike James from the Wizards for Jeffries. James has the exact same contract number and his contract expires this year. The Wizards bid against Zeke for Jeffries (sorta) and wanted to retain him. They have too many guards, too many players who dominate the ball and need shots, and zero intangible, dirty work guys (well, ok Hayward, maybe Stevenson?). Jeffries is important because he covers for players that don't D - he doubles, blocks shots from the weak side, and takes charges. Agent Zero will gladly make up for Jeffries lack of offense. Mike James will never crack the rotation again with Miller there, and Jeffries could reprise his role from the days when they looked like a dangerous team. If the Wizards still think this is the team they will roll with, and not rebuild now (and can pay the tax for next year) he is the way for them to get better without moving Arenas, Jamison, Butler. If they want to make a run with those three, he would help, if they are giving up on that core, no need at all.

aNYer
12-27-2009, 02:52 PM
The obvious trade is Mike James from the Wizards for Jeffries. James has the exact same contract number and his contract expires this year. The Wizards bid against Zeke for Jeffries (sorta) and wanted to retain him. They have too many guards, too many players who dominate the ball and need shots, and zero intangible, dirty work guys (well, ok Hayward, maybe Stevenson?). Jeffries is important because he covers for players that don't D - he doubles, blocks shots from the weak side, and takes charges. Agent Zero will gladly make up for Jeffries lack of offense. Mike James will never crack the rotation again with Miller there, and Jeffries could reprise his role from the days when they looked like a dangerous team. If the Wizards still think this is the team they will roll with, and not rebuild now (and can pay the tax for next year) he is the way for them to get better without moving Arenas, Jamison, Butler. If they want to make a run with those three, he would help, if they are giving up on that core, no need at all.

I thought the same thing. They wanted Jeffries, were interested in him last season, said they want to trade Mike James, They don't care about cap space cause of their contracts. But it has not happened yet, so I think their must be some sort of reason. I hope it happens though.

Lo Porto
12-27-2009, 03:12 PM
Whats idiotic is accepting that trade. First if Lebron comes to NY he will realize that the Knicks could trade for or sign another player in 2010 or 2011. (If they use or just wait out Curry and JJ expirings). To give up on a top 10 draft choice for a small amount of money like 6 mill is just stupid. Also 10 mill is a good amount of money to get a good player. You add that to Gallo, Chandler, Hill and Toney you have a pretty good team. Your trade i am sorry just doesnt make sense and to be honest i could not imagine one Knick fan agreeing to it.

Also not to be mean that is one of the worst trade proposals i have heard in reguards to JJ. The one with Nate going to LA for Farmer, Powell and Morrison is way better and it actually helps both teams. So i am sure the Knicks will have much better trade proposals then that.

I think what you are forgetting Lo Porto is that JJ is not a bad player he just has a bad contract. He is prob worth 4 or 5 mill but is making 6 or 7 mill. To trade a good player and 2 draft choices just for the sake of getting back 6 mill is just silly and it doesnt make sense.

LeBron is not going to go to NY by himself. It just won't happen. He'll only go if there is some other huge star, ideally Bosh, also heading there. As of right now, you can't afford both to max contracts so you need to open up cap room. My Korver for Jeffries and Hill offer is a decent idea to dump Jeffries. Whether you think JJ is a bad player or not doesn't matter. His contract could get in the way of getting LeBron. His $7 million is getting in the way of a lot. If you sacrifice Hill to get LeBron, it's all worth it. Making my trade idea means that you can tell LeBron to go pick his future teammate and a few other lower salary guys. People will also take salary drops to play with LeBron. You could get LeBron, Bosh and 2 smaller salary guys if you make my trade. Do you even know if Hill is worth it?