Comments on: Miller and Salmons Headed to Chicago

By: gozer

gozer — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:18:13 +0000

No one said anything about the promised land. If Miller and Salmons don’t improve Chicago, you should admit that Donnie was right to pass on acquiring the big dope. Conversely, if Chicago finishes with a better record than the Knicks, I’ll eat my words.

By: Chris Alvino

Chris Alvino — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:29:55 +0000

gozer- If Miller and Salmons (I wanted him more than Miller) do not lead Chicago to the promise land, you cannot say that they would not have helped the Knicks. One of the Knicks biggest problems right now (and for the entire season) has been their lack of depth. We would have added two starters.

But you are right on one thing. Even if we disagree on those two players, there is no use in crying over spilled milk. That deal is done. Enough said about it.

By: da0213

da0213 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:24:07 +0000

You presume teams really want Rose and Marbury strictly because they’re expiring contracts, which are hot commodities given the economy, 2010, etc.

But you really don’t know that they have value for sure.

By: renenyg1

renenyg1 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:22:45 +0000

I would rather trade with Uconn,the whole Kings team is all crap,there is not one player that is worth giving up playing time for our young sqad,Martin contract stinks,the whole team sucks,Salmon is a lazy bum,the whole team can’t play dee,they are the worst team in the NBA,the only reason I trade is to dump Jeffries contract and obsorb cash,we have money let’s weld it with the sister ‘s of the poor,the Kings are in need of cash,we have cash ,Marlbury makes sense because nwe payed most of the contract and we can take next year cash of their hands but they have to obsorb Jeffries or Curry.All their players suck ,this would be the only reason to trade ,I would aLSO FEEL SORRY FOR A CLASSY DUDE LIKE rOSE SENDING HIM TO PURGOTORY.

By: gozer

gozer — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:12:35 +0000

I want to win too, Chris. If you’ve read my comments, you know I do. The difference is, I don’t think Brad Miller helps that cause. And I can’t stand to see you or any other Knicks fan crying over spilt milk here. Heck, I’m paying Miller a compliment with the analogy! If he’s the missing piece in Chicago, then I’ll admit my mistake. If he tanks, however, I expect you to admit your error likewise.

By: Chris Alvino

Chris Alvino — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:57:45 +0000

You are right. I do not pay the bills. But if paying the bills is the problem, then I have not noticed.

By: belikmike23

belikmike23 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:56:56 +0000

http://sprungonsports.blogspot.com/2009/02/nba-trade-deadline-chat.html

By: danilo23

danilo23 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:49:04 +0000

Marcus Camby anyone????
1. We need a shot blocker and interior post defense
2. The guy gets plenty of rebounds and is a good double-double type player
3. SIZE!–we have absolutely none
4. What does his contract look like in the future?
5. The Clippers may be desperate with the kind of season they’re having and may be willing to move him

Any deal proposals?

By: jcmoney

jcmoney — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:45:32 +0000

They hold value to us though, in that they will expire at the end of the season, freeing up cap space and a shit load of cash for the team. The two contracts are worth roughly 27 million, to take back, say, 25 million in salary that will expire in 2010 would cost our team 50 million dollars in cash due to the luxary tax. That may be worth paying for a star, but not for Brad Miller and John Salmons.

It doesn’t mean anything to you because you dont pay the bills, but to pay that much for two guys who will probably not help the team all that much would just be foolish. I understand why youd want people who play vs people who wouldnt, but it has to make sense financially too.

You are not naive to want to win now. I would take a first round exit this year over a lottery pick. But don’t act like Brad Miller would put us over the edge.

And, even if you think he would, we offered Malik Rose for him and the Kings wanted Nate aswell, so that was out of the question. Salmons is due 5.8 million in 2010 which jumps to around 8 mill with the trade kicker, so we couldn’t take that salary back either.

I have been very critical of Donnie so far. The Marbury situation was handled bad. The Mobley situation was handled bad. The fact that we played many games with 7 healthy guys is ridiculous. This was a smart move. Relax and watch the rest of the off season.

By: Mucha

Mucha — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:40:49 +0000

I understand the fact that you don’t like his contract but your statements are wrong in my opinion.

If he doesn’t have to “create his own shots” in New York like you said, that means that he would get better looks and easier buckets. And that would inflate his numbers. The Lakers bench is better than Sacramento’s starting lineup, Martin’s numbers are even impressive from my point of view considering the fact that he draws more attention and has very few options around him. He would get better numbers with a better team because he would get more open shots etc. I think he would be a great fit but that’s just my opinion.

If the Knicks can get Spencer Hawes, now that would be amazing.