The Knicks have a serious problem in Marbury. They will do handstands to lose him. The Blazers have too many players for too few minutes - that, and we are about to have a logjam at the SF. For all that, a feisty backup PF would be a VERY good fit. So try this out: Trade Ike, Raef, Frye and Outlaw, in return for Marbury and Lee. Pay off Marbury (good riddance), and keep Lee. Why NY does it: Gets rid of Marbury. Brings in a body over 6'10" in Frye. Brings in a serious shooter and jumper in Outlaw. And cap relief in Raef. Why the Blazers do it: Removes impending logjam at the SF (Batum and Webster with Rudy/Roy become the rotation there). Removes Outlaw, who, while awesome in flashes, gums up the offense. Trades Frye who will not see enough playing time to develop further at Portland (if he has more developing to do). Get a great team player and PF in Lee who is a very nice complement to Aldridge. Quantity for Quality. The trade works http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...15~2772~509&teams=18~18~18~18~22~22&te=&cash= What do you think? iWatas
How does this make our team better? We trade all our money, Frye, Outlaw and Ike for basically David Lee? Who does not want to be a backup PF anyways? I would not do this trade. No way.
that would be decent, but frye would hate to go back to ny, and lee wants 40 mpg, decent fantasy deal though.
I like the deal. The reason it won't work has been said already though. Lee wants, and franklly should get, 40mpg or so. I think Raef will find a home this season with a team struggling on the floor and at the ticket office. That free money the owner would be getting would be a welcomed sign I'm sure. Charlotte is looking to make some money, and they suck Miami is looking to make some money, and they have to think they aren't winning anything this year The Clips are struggling Memphis sucks again, but they are young....not making money though Phoenix is cheap as hell, and they could make a move later in the season depending on how they are doing Milwaukee would be a good target based on money Washington would be a great target. There are others I am missing I'm sure
As others have mentioned the deal would be "fair" (sort of), but David Lee is set to be able to make about 9 to 10 million per year and will undoubtedly be a starter somewhere in the league at this time next year, not a backup for Lamarcus. But Stephon Marbury? Ugh, talk about introducing a cancer into your locker room ... and a bona fide, team killing cancer, not a pretend one like Zach or Darius.
Oh, no intention of keeping Marbury. He never sees the inside of the locker room, let alone a hardwood floor. The question is whether the Blazers really benefit from being 2-deep at every position. I think we do - our second unit is amazing, and won the game last night. Rudy and Outlaw and Pryzbilla would each start for the majority of teams in the league. Are they complaining? With 20+ minutes a night, it appears to be OK. Our problems when Webster comes back are going to be serious. I think Batum is the best choice for SF for this team. Adding Webster and Outlaw, plus the 3-guard mix at times (Rudy or Roy) means there is not enough time for players who need that time to be beneficial for the team. So *someone* who plays SF has to go. I think that person is Outlaw, but Webster would be OK with me if it got value back. If we could trade an Outlaw and Batum for Gerald Wallace, would we? The reason I like this deal is because it gets us a very good (but not star) quality PF when Aldridge is not playing well, or needs to rest. Less showed last night that he is a heck of a baller, on both ends of the court. Does he want 40 mpg? Sure. Might he settle for 20-25 on a team that is contending (and will be for years to come)? I think he might. The conversation is worth having, to see. Portland is not a wonderfully exciting place like NY, but it is WINNING. That means a lot to the kinds of players we want on our ballclub. So I think the deal is good -- IF Lee is happy with the proposed role here. BTW, he would also be excellent injury insurance. iWatas
The only way Portland does this trade is if Lee is consulted, and says he'd like to come to Portland and understands his role. He is going to get a fat salary anyway. His career will be longer if he does not pound out 40 mpg anyway. If *he* wants to come and play with us, and NY likes the deal, then I think it would be awesome. iWatas
What you just described is called tampering and is severely punished (if caught) according to the rules of the CBA.
Lee is about the last piece that NY has to entice people to take bad contracts. They have no real reason to trade Marbury away, since he is an expiring. I think Outlaw can fit well with D'Antoni possibly, but they need to use Lee to move Curry or Jeffries, not to get rid of Marbury, when they can just buy him out. And then, the other issues others mentioned about Lee starting, or playing minutes and what not.
Folks are not reading my posts clearly. Firstly, I am NOT suggesting Marbury ever makes the flight to Portland. He is bought out, at full price. The Knicks are saved from the humiliation of doing this. Secondly, it is NOT necessarily tampering to find out if Lee wants the deal or not. The question can and should go through the Knicks themselves. Is there any problem with this? Surely players are occasionally consulted before they are dealt; I have seen reference to it before where players say to their team "I am willing to be traded to X, but if you trade me to Y, I won't play." iWatas
Ok fine, no Marbury, but we end up with Lee who is entering the final year of his contract and is undoubtedly a starting quality power forward in the league who will almost certainly be able to get 10+ million for his services next year. You think the Blazers should throw that kind of money at a player so he can play 20 to 25 minutes a night? I know Paul Allen has deep pockets, but that's just bad business. Secondly it would be incredibly wasteful to take on Marbury's bloated 20 million deal and get nothing out of him, when we have Raef's 13 million dollar deal insured for 80% of its value after 41 games. Furthermore, the type of role you've outlined for Lee calls for 20-25 minutes a night, so I take it Lamarcus should be expected to settle for 23 to 28 minutes a night? Isn't that just asking for trouble by basically telling Lamarcus, "You're our starter and PF of the future, but you're going to have to split your time with Lee?" If you're willing to move Lamarcus to make room for Lee then this deal could work, but those two would not be able to coexist harmoniously. And frankly I think I'd rather have Lamarcus' versatility and sweet shooting to compliment Greg than a hustle guy like Lee who makes his living on the low blocks.
If the goal is to win basketball games, neither is wasteful. It is a question of what gets you the most value for the money. Backups *are* paid good money, and our own backups will be demanding starter-quality money when their contracts come up again - because, after all, Rudy/Pryz and Outlaw are all starter-quality players. As I asked higher up: is it beneficial to have 10 quality players? So far this season, the fact that our bench is so strong has made a BIG difference in the results. But I agree that it is unconventional, and MAYBE unworkable over time, depending on the egos involved. If we have 10 players who want to WIN, then it is workable. But if players (including Rudy/Outlaw/Pryz) will not be bench players at the cost of winning, then you are right. We need to do what other teams do, which is to get the best starting 5 we can, and have a decidedly inferior bench. Right now we make Blake split time with Sergio, Oden with Pryz (the latter, BTW is 100% professional about it), Rudy with whomever. Why should the PF position be exceptional? Either this model works, or it does not. If it does not, then we might as well start shopping Rudy et al. I, for one, hope it DOES work. And if Lee would be happy here, then this is a good deal for the team. iWatas
