[Random Trade] Unspectacular (But Possibly High Reward) T-Mac Trade

Fair enough. Although I disagree with you on Hinrich. I don't understand how you can readily admit that he did a great job defending a 6-8 player who is one of the top 10 most talented scorers in the NBA for an entire seven-game series, and then proceed to discount his defense due to his size. And believe me, 6-3 is a big difference from how tall Lowry is (listed as 6-1? Probably closer to 5-11). I think you can give Brooks, Hinrich and Lowry each a good chunk of minutes without crowding any one of them out of the rotation. Or, this trade would give Morey added leverage in contract negotiations with Lowry. As some have pointed out, it is not a given that Kyle will be a Houston Rocket next season. Having a PG/SG like Hinrich in the fold would make the loss of Lowry much easier to take.

Because there isn't a "Random Trade" thread like there used to be on this BBS. Believe me, I don't like scrolling through every random trade idea. But I wanted to share some thoughts that I knew would provoke some discussion among posters about the relative "unsexiness" of a T-Mac trade package that might actually make the Rockets a better team.

I disagree that Hinrich is on the decline. He's only 28 years old. He's only had one notable injury in his career. He is a gamer. Again, I know he's overpaid. But he's not on the decline. He's in the prime of his career and has at least another 2-3 seasons before he starts to decline.

 

Frankly, I don't think the Knicks are getting Lebron or Wade, no matter HOW much cap room they create. I think the Knicks are delusional in this regard, and I would like to see Morey take advantage of this delusion. Maybe they are able to land a guy like Amare somehow, but even then, I don't see that Knicks team making too much noise in the East. Hence, I think the pick would end up being a mid- to late lottery pick. With the Rockets' current management and coaching staff, I just don't see them ever getting many picks that high in the draft. Morey could turn that pick into a MAJOR piece.

Typically, when a pick falls within a protected area (i.e., if the pick is top 10 protected and that pick end up being in the top 10), then the obligation will carry over to the following year, usually with less protection.

This is what ended up happening in 2003 with the Grizzlies' first round pick. Several years prior, the Grizzlies traded a protected first rounder to the Pistons in exchange for Otis Thorpe. Well, the Grizzlies never got good over the following years, and the pick was never transferred to Detroit, since it kept falling within the protected range. But that protected range kept getting smaller and smaller until, in 2003, when the pick was ONLY protected if the Grizzlies got the #1 pick (which would have been Lebron), Memphis got royally screwed in the draft lottery and got the #2 overall pick. They had to give that up to Detroit, who (unfortunately) used that pick to take Darko Milicic over the more heralded Carmelo Anthony.

This is also what ended up happening this year with the Knicks' first rounder to the Jazz. If teams don't carefully craft their draft pick protections to account for their teams possibly being continuously bad, it can come back to bite them in the ass. (Thanks, Isiah!)

 

The big difference now is that James is an expiring contract. Trust me, the Knicks would GLADLY take Jerome James's contract over Jared Jeffries's right now.

Yeah, we rarely agree on anything.

The difference between my assumption and yours is that my assumptions are based on objective reality, whereas to assume that the Clippers would choose to forego being major players in free agency, just for the sake of assuming that, makes little sense.

But I'll play your game. ASSUMING that the Clippers decide that making a play for Shane Battier's contract is a better idea than making a play for a major free agent in 2010, then I agree that a Battier/Cook for Camby trade would help the Rockets open up enough cap room to either make an attempt at a major free agent (with still a little less than the max to offer) or at least bring in a second-tier guy like Carlos Boozer. But that's at the cost of a guy like Luis Scola.

Frankly, I'd rather have Shane Battier, Luis Scola and Kirk Hinrich over just one guy like Carlos Boozer anyday.

 

The problem for New York is that they've basically painted themselves into a corner. For the past 2+ seasons, they have been telling their fans that the Knicks will be turned around quickly in the summer of 2010 with the addition of one or two superstars. This has been what has gotten them through the misery of the past two years. But now they realize that they cannot accomplish this goal without dumping Curry and/or Jeffries.

Forget the Rockets, NO TEAM will take on Curry or Jeffries without getting a future first rounder from New York. There really isn't anything else of value that the Knicks have. Remember, both David Lee and Nate Robinson are 1-Year Bird players who can veto any trade. Jordan Hill doesn't look like he's much of a player. The Knicks WILL NOT trade Gallinari. What does that leave them with as far as trade assets? Only a future first rounder. And with its next available pick for trade not coming until 2012, there will have to be the additional enticement of some relatively limited level of protection in order to get a team to make a deal.

Honestly, the Knicks SERIOUSLY screwed up last season when they turned down an offer from the Kings of Kenny Thomas for Jared Jeffries and Nate Robinson.