View Full Version : Trade Idea
Not a ground breaker in any sense of the word, but it might help?
Hammer
for
Jared Jeffries
Jeffries costs a little more, but his contract is MUCH shorter. He also plays the 4 and has length and agility.
Might not be the "answer" we are looking for, but might help?
Mustachio
12-08-2008, 03:24 PM
where do i sign?
where do i sign?
LOL.
You are so down on Hammer at the moment Mustachio that I think I could have posted:
Hammer
for
A black snake with an infested arsehole
and you would have responed with:
Where do I sign?
Mustachio
12-08-2008, 03:48 PM
LOL.
You are so down on Hammer at the moment Mustachio that I think I could have posted:
Hammer
for
A black snake with an infested arsehole
and you would have responed with:
Where do I sign?
haha thats true.. but all Matt hate aside. I think its a great idea. I mean even if Hammer was an effective player for us, hes someone we could do without if it brought is any semblance of help on the front line. Hes just not integral to our team success.
the fact that he is playing so poorly just makes it easier.
and at least the black snake would put fear into the opponent.
Felton for Prez
12-08-2008, 05:04 PM
Done, but only if they cover the medical bills to get the snakes arse fixed.
Muttley
12-08-2008, 05:16 PM
I would take a PF over an unused SG.
dnbman
12-08-2008, 05:29 PM
Not a ground breaker in any sense of the word, but it might help?
Hammer
for
Jared Jeffries
Jeffries costs a little more, but his contract is MUCH shorter. He also plays the 4 and has length and agility.
Might not be the "answer" we are looking for, but might help?
I'm I thinking about the right guy? I thought he was more of a swingman type. I didn't realize he could play the 4. Isn't he pretty small and lanky?
I guess he's a lot taller than I thought. I thought he was 6'8-6'9. Had no idea he was 6'11. Did he grow?
I thought he played some 3-4 for the Wizards before going to the Knicks....and Matt might actually be used by the Knicks but even with his contract going down each year I'm not sure that they would make the trade...although there is about a 2.8 million dollar difference in the critical 2010 free agent frenzy year Jeffries has a contract the Knicks don't have to offer (qualifier) so they can save 6.8 without dealing with Matt at all...
...and Jeffries is a lot of money for a guy who is a career 23 minutes 5.3/4.5 guy...I think he is a lot of money that could be used (with some more) for a better player...
...and Jeffries is a lot of money for a guy who is a career 23 minutes 5.3/4.5 guy...I think he is a lot of money that could be used (with some more) for a better player...
Not as much as $5 million is for a guy who is a carrer 20mpg 8.6/2.4 who is only averaging 12mpg and 3.1/1.4 on 36%/11%/87% this season!!
Not as much as $5 million is for a guy who is a carrer 20mpg 8.6/2.4 who is only averaging 12mpg and 3.1/1.4 on 36%/11%/87% this season!!
Not disagreeing Slam...my point is I think we could make better use of the money and try to get a starter which is what we need...we have enough players making too much money coming off the bench...it would be nice if Jeffries brought more to the table for the price and this is not his first injury since he has bee a Knick...he has had them off and on since they signed him...so I see it as just more (not much) of the same...very little help and strapping us with a hard to move contract...but I do think Matt would be a better fit for the Knicks at this point I'm just not sold Jeffries would be much help for us...
I wish I knew a legitimate trade for a big that would not kill our team!!!
spectre
12-09-2008, 02:09 PM
If I remember right Jeffries is a very good man defender. Maybe he could be LB's George Lynch?
I'd do it. Little more per year but we lose a season of salary.
"If" he is really the best player we can get in a trade (that involves Matt) then it is probably the best move...but again I see him as "bench" not starter and we need a starter so guys like McMay can come off the bench...and against my own argument is this...where are we going to get a potential starting "big" and what price do we pay if they can be found? I wish I had an answer...but I just hate trying up the money if there is any hope of getting a starting caliber big this year...
I wish I knew a legitimate trade for a big that would not kill our team!!!
I know. It's brutal trying to come up with something that is some what realistic. Problem is, we are in a position of weakness, so we are going to have to give a little to get a little.
And fact is, Jeffries would probably be a better than any other PF option we have on the roster today plus Hammer is getting next to no burn at all (I'd rather Shannon and Ammo get him mins any way).
It would be nice for the Knicks to add a 2nd, but considering the length of Hammer contract I think that would be doubtful.
Agree that it would free up more time...and I have no problem with S. Brown and Ammo...but I'd like to convince myself that Jeffries is the best we can do for Matt...problem is once you trade that asset (no matter how large or small) you no longer have it...and if more than one team is actually interested in Hammer then let's make it for the best possible player for the team...if indeed more than one team is interested in Matt and that I can't answer...:g:
Ampsportsduo
12-10-2008, 04:47 AM
Matt Carroll at the PF position is more of an answer than Jeffries. While the team needs some height, Jeffries is more prone to stand around the perimeter (aka not rebounding). A big that could stretch the D wouldn't be a bad thing, but Jeffries doesn't have the consistent shot to do it.
As stated, the team would no longer have the asset (Carroll) to trade, and an asset that's very good at one thing is always better than one that doesn't do anything well.
I understand the desire to see this team get better faster, but I'm hopeful that we're witnessing a maturation of the FO from one that knee jerk reacts to every shortcoming of the team to one that has a plan of action that they won't waiver from.
How is it a knee jerk reaction to trade a guy with a stupidly long contract who is getting next to NO BURN AT ALL for a guy who plays our greatest position of need?
Hammer wont be an asset for another 4 years.
This idea is as much about getting out of his contract than anything. The kicker would be trading him for a guy who might be some what useful.
How is it a knee jerk reaction to trade a guy with a stupidly long contract who is getting next to NO BURN AT ALL for a guy who plays our greatest position of need?
Hammer wont be an asset for another 4 years.
This idea is as much about getting out of his contract than anything. The kicker would be trading him for a guy who might be some what useful.
Toronto is trying to trade J. Kapono (big surprise) and teams looking for perimeter shooting will look...but when you look at his contract vs. Hammers...I think Kapono being on the market does nothing but help us if/when we trade Matt...
Ampsportsduo
12-10-2008, 12:11 PM
Carroll's contract won't look nearly as bad in a year, which will increase his trade value, so why trade him for someone that isn't going to help.
I call it a kneejerk reaction, because people see we need a PF, so trading someone off the bench for a PF, any PF is a good deal. It's simply not the case.
It would be like having a five dollar bill in your pocket, but you have no change and you need to use a pay phone (what's that?). So, you starting offering that $5 bill up for change so you can make the call. Just because you aren't using that $5 bill doesn't mean you should be offering it up for 50 cents. If it was an emergency (title run), you might knowing make the trade, but in normal cases you're better off keeping your $5 until you can get equal value.
Mustachio
12-10-2008, 12:20 PM
Carroll's contract won't look nearly as bad in a year, which will increase his trade value, so why trade him for someone that isn't going to help.
I call it a kneejerk reaction, because people see we need a PF, so trading someone off the bench for a PF, any PF is a good deal. It's simply not the case.
It would be like having a five dollar bill in your pocket, but you have no change and you need to use a pay phone (what's that?). So, you starting offering that $5 bill up for change so you can make the call. Just because you aren't using that $5 bill doesn't mean you should be offering it up for 50 cents. If it was an emergency (title run), you might knowing make the trade, but in normal cases you're better off keeping your $5 until you can get equal value.
If you're going to use that analogy... Matt Carroll is more like $1.00 and we need 95 cents.
And the only knee jerk reaction I see, was giving Matt Carroll a contract after a mediocre season.
I think what me and Slam are saying, is that Matt Carroll's contract is just as bad for the Bobcats as not having a PF. So if a trade came up where you could get a PF and get rid of that terrible terrible contract... why in Gods sweet holy name wouldn't you want to take it.
I'm not sure what filling the bench with more "bigs" like Jeffries or Evans really accomplishes either...and frankly they do not have contracts that would be particularly easy to move when they don't work out either...I'm not opposed to trading Matt (and I'm sure the team will at some point in time) but I think to have an impact trade it will involve 3-4 teams and 2-3 players from our team...at this point I'd rather wait it out than play contract circus...
Matt Carroll's contract is just as bad for the Bobcats as not having a PF. So if a trade came up where you could get a PF and get rid of that terrible terrible contract... why in Gods sweet holy name wouldn't you want to take it.
:yeahthat:
2 birds, 1 stone.
No one is saying that a guy like Jeffries would be the be all and end all, but the trade idea is realistic and would help both teams.
If I am paying a guy $5 mil a year I want some PT out of him. As it stands, Hammer is behind Ammo and Shannon so his PT is decreasing by the week.
Why not bring in a guy who is at the very least a chance to start in a position of need while shedding TWO years of a long term deal?
Slam how is Jeffries going to start for us when he could not start for a horrible Knicks team? I'm not saying he is a bad player but he is not an answer other than possibly getting more PT...but the guys (bigs) LB has brought in are not playing and the ones already here or drafted are not playing...?
spectre
12-10-2008, 12:54 PM
We could even call him George. :cool:
George Jeffries getting PT on a bad deal > Hammer getting no PT on a similarily bad deal.
Seriously it is as simple as that.
I think Matt would get PT for D'Antoni but I'm not sure how much Jeffries would get from LB...?
Slam how is Jeffries going to start for us when he could not start for a horrible Knicks team?
Because he was playing behind Lee (who might be better) and now is playing behind Harrington (who is better).
You think that McHuff'nPuff would play in front of Jeffries?
Mustachio
12-10-2008, 01:10 PM
I think Matt would get PT for D'Antoni but I'm not sure how much Jeffries would get from LB...?
i definetly understand your thoughts. I would much rather involve Matt in a mega trade for our future starting PF. but the problem is his contract puts a serious damper on any multiplayer trade we could think up. at least in this scenario... its a win win for both teams. They get the shooter they desire, we get the big we need.
even if neither player gets 6 mins agame... its still a good trade.
and besides...any multiplayer trade we can involve Matt Carroll in, we can involve Jeffries in. In fact he would probably be a better assett in the fact that hes a big.
Ampsportsduo
12-10-2008, 01:15 PM
So if a trade came up where you could get a PF and get rid of that terrible terrible contract... why in Gods sweet holy name wouldn't you want to take it.
Taking on another contract doesn't alleviate anyhing, it just changes the name to the left of the ledger.
If the team takes any of the trades proposed, what would the ceiling of the team's performance be?
This is attempting to plug holes in a dike with your fingers, rather than building a better dike. Short-term it might be better for the team on the court, but these provide nothing long term other than a guy sitting on the bench collecting 5+ million. Similar to the Nazr trade that everyone loves to rip.
Again, Carroll's contract is only a year away from being a desirable commodity.
i definetly understand your thoughts. I would much rather involve Matt in a mega trade for our future starting PF. but the problem is his contract puts a serious damper on any multiplayer trade we could think up. at least in this scenario... its a win win for both teams. They get the shooter they desire, we get the big we need.
even if neither player gets 6 mins agame... its still a good trade.
and besides...any multiplayer trade we can involve Matt Carroll in, we can involve Jeffries in. In fact he would probably be a better assett in the fact that hes a big.
Jeffries would not be an asset if the other team is looking for a shooter...but "if" NY is actually interested in Matt the the FO needs to try and expand the deal to include one or more other teams...if not we're really wasting time talking about what will not happen...
But the same goes (if whomever posted) if the 76s are interested in Matt...the FO needs to try and expand the deal with other teams...I think they need to become more creative and proactive...and who knows maybe they might actually accomplish something positive if they'd try...
Ampsportsduo
12-10-2008, 01:16 PM
any multiplayer trade we can involve Matt Carroll in, we can involve Jeffries in. In fact he would probably be a better assett in the fact that hes a big.
An asset that can do one thing very well is better than an asset that can't do anything well.
Taking on another contract doesn't alleviate anyhing, it just changes the name to the left of the ledger.
Except in this case the name to the left plays a position of need and has TWO less years on his contract.
Mustachio
12-10-2008, 01:51 PM
Taking on another contract doesn't alleviate anyhing, it just changes the name to the left of the ledger.
If the team takes any of the trades proposed, what would the ceiling of the team's performance be?
Again, Carroll's contract is only a year away from being a desirable commodity.
Jeffries contact is 2 years shorter than Matts and he plays a position of need. I dont understand how one year with Matt on the bench makes his contract any more desirable. If anything people will realize that if he isn't good enough to get minutes on the Bobcats... then why in Gods name would I want his contract on our books.
one year from now... Matt will be an unused, underconfident, one trick pony with a 4 year deal worth 4 million a year. I just don't see how that gets anymore desirable to other teams. sure it comes down from what it is now, but so does his trade value every minute he rides pine.
and your saying an asset that can do one thing well is better than an asset that cant do anything well. Dude if anything Matt Carroll has hurt the team in his few minutes this year. Jefferies with his sheer size is more effective on our bench than Matt Carroll is on the floor.
lets review.
Jared Jeffries is better than Matt Carroll in every single way. Its an up move for the Bobcats.
Ampsportsduo
12-10-2008, 02:06 PM
Jared Jeffries is better than Matt Carroll in every single way. Its an up move for the Bobcats.
That's why Matt averaged more defensive rebounds than Jeffries the last two seasons? Woo, a PF that can't rebound, that's what we need!
Matt had a higher FG% last season. With Matt playing closer to the hoop than Jeffries is makes sense.
Jeffries has shot over 60% from the free throw line only once in his career, Matt's never shot lower than 80%. Another big man that can't make teams pay for fouling him, I'm starting to understand why this is such a good deal for the Cats.
So, we can trade one of the best 3-point shooters in the league for a PF that isn't committed to rebounding, shoots a low field goal percentage, and is 50/50 from the charity stripe.
I've seen the light. I'll start printing the playoff tickets.
LB had Jeffries in NY so if he wants him he'll push for the trade...but I have not heard any pushes so I'll take a rain check on Jeffries until LB makes that push...
LB had Jeffries in NY so if he wants him he'll push for the trade...but I have not heard any pushes so I'll take a rain check on Jeffries until LB makes that push...
I think they missed each other by a year didn't they?
That's why Matt averaged more defensive rebounds than Jeffries the last two seasons? Woo, a PF that can't rebound, that's what we need!
Matt had a higher FG% last season. With Matt playing closer to the hoop than Jeffries is makes sense.
Jeffries has shot over 60% from the free throw line only once in his career, Matt's never shot lower than 80%. Another big man that can't make teams pay for fouling him, I'm starting to understand why this is such a good deal for the Cats.
So, we can trade one of the best 3-point shooters in the league for a PF that isn't committed to rebounding, shoots a low field goal percentage, and is 50/50 from the charity stripe.
I've seen the light. I'll start printing the playoff tickets.
True. I'd much rather ride a SG who is humping the pine and can't/shouldn't find PT behind Shannon and Ammo while paying him a small fortune to miss open J's any time he does check in.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.6 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.