View Full Version : Could Carroll be trade?
playoffs...PLAYOFFS?
12-09-2008, 01:58 PM
Looks like the Knicks are in the market for a shooter....I really think Carroll could be a good fit for certain teams. Not so much ours right now.
But are the Knicks a good fit? Is a trade with Carroll involved a possibility?
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/80650-knicks-in-market-for-shooter
I think Matt would be a good fit for them but for me it depends on what we have to take back from the Knicks to move him...it would have to work for us...
spectre
12-09-2008, 02:07 PM
Looks like the Knicks are in the market for a shooter....I really think Carroll could be a good fit for certain teams. Not so much ours right now.
But are the Knicks a good fit? Is a trade with Carroll involved a possibility?
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/80650-knicks-in-market-for-shooter
As Slam proposed, Hammer for Jeffries. Another option could be with Philly and Evans. I don't particularly like him but the boy does suck in those boards...which is a huge need for us.
Felton for Prez
12-09-2008, 02:11 PM
I have always thought the Sixers trade was more likely. While Matt's contract is declining, I don't see the Knicks taking that one on during "Operation Suck A** for 2 Years".
Given Matty's PT lately, I really hope we can find a team for him where he'll get some run.
As Slam proposed, Hammer for Jeffries. Another option could be with Philly and Evans. I don't particularly like him but the boy does suck in those boards...which is a huge need for us.
I personally thing Evans is better bang for the bucks but is there any chance 76s want to move him...for Matt?
spectre
12-09-2008, 02:28 PM
I personally thing Evans is better bang for the bucks but is there any chance 76s want to move him...for Matt?
The Sixers actually inquired about Hammer this past summer (LB said we weren't interested)...and the trade piece their fans thought most likely was Evans. I haven't visited their boards much lately, but they're having a MAJOR disappointing start to the season. A shooter for the cost of a guy who only gets 10 mpg should be an easy choice for them.
FFP I agree the Sixers deal is more likely, but I'd prefer Jeffries for his on ball D. Wasn't he the "stopper" for the Wiz a few seasons back? I seem to remember him having the ability to really lock down an opponent.
He played good "D" for the Wizards but is not the rebounding force as Evans...and frankly he is 2 milliom more than Evans...just not sure he is worth the money...(IMO I thought the Knicks way over paid him at the time)....and he has had some injury problems since he's been with the Knicks...I'm just not sure (even though he's 6'11") with his thin frame he holds up well at the 4...
spectre
12-09-2008, 02:56 PM
He played good "D" for the Wizards but is not the rebounding force as Evans...and frankly he is 2 milliom more than Evans...just not sure he is worth the money...(IMO I thought the Knicks way over paid him at the time)....and he has had some injury problems since he's been with the Knicks...I'm just not sure (even though he's 6'11") with his thin frame he holds up well at the 4...
You and me both brother!
The years were the worst part though. Injury is also a valid point.
Funny thing; we're sitting here talking like management will actually make a sensible trade when we know they'll probably deal Crash or Hammer for another tweener wing. They just can't seem to help themselves.
and he has had some injury problems since he's been with the Knicks.....
Dec 5, 2008: Missed 18 games (leg injury).
Oct 28, 2008: Leg injury, mid-November.
Nov 13, 2007: Missed 5 games (sprained right knee).
Oct 29, 2007: Sprained right knee, inactive list.
Feb 6, 2007: Missed 1 game (back injury).
Feb 3, 2007: Back injury, day-to-day.
Dec 18, 2006: Suspended by the NBA for four games for fighting on Dec 16 against the Denver Nuggets.
Dec 11, 2006: Missed 22 games (broken left wrist).
Oct 30, 2006: Broken left wrist, inactive list.
Aug 8, 2006: Signed as a restricted free agent by the New York Knicks to a five-year contract.
That is why I lean towards Evans if we're just looking to move Matt...injuries and a bigger contract....one hope I do have for the FO is they've resisted making a stupid trade up 'til now so maybe they will actually make a trade that will help...(I can always live in hope):biggrin:
I know this is a radical idea but wouldn't be nice to have a player (even for a "small" trade) that a couple of teams wanted to trade for...maybe then the FO would not mess it up and could actually come out ahead in a trade (although JRich was a good one for us) and maybe just maybe start working like a smart organization...would be nice...
tamburello
12-09-2008, 05:54 PM
Because Jeffries' contract won't expire before 2010 anyway, Knicks wouldn't be against taking Carroll's contract in salary aspect.
They've been looking for guards since they've made it clear that they will not play Stephon Marbury anymore. That's why they've opted for Anthony Roberson although the supporters love Patrick Ewing Jr. (and he might have been able to contribute).
But... is Carroll the type of guard they've been looking for? I doubt it. Remember, they won't be using 3 guards anymore, who were on their roster before the season opener. Stephon Marbury, Jamal Crawford and Mardy Collins... All of these guys have the ability to bring the ball, actually all of them are considered to be combo guards. But none of them are with the team now and Donnie Walsh wasn't able to replace them as of now. The only players that can carry the ball to the other court are Chris Duhon and a little Nate Robinson. Robinson is also battling with injuries recently, that forces Duhon carry the whole playmaking load. In last 6 games, Robinson played only once and see how many minutes Duhon played in the other 5 games: 40, 45, 44, 33 (blowout loss to Cavs) and 48!
So, if Carroll comes to the MSG, do you think Duhon's minutes will be reduced to an acceptable level? I don't think so, Carroll is not even close to being a combo guard, all I was trying to say that I'd never accept Carroll if I were Donnie Walsh. Only two other players average more minutes per game than Duhon in the league, he plays a huge 40.2 mins per game. Walsh should be looking for a solution to it and Carroll is not the answer.
But on the other hand, Philly is still lacking outside shooting, offseason additions Rush and Marshall are not solutions definitely. Considering they have no plans for 2010, Carroll's contract might not be an issue. Sixers are 27th in 3pt pct, Bobcats are last in total rebounds, defensive rebounds. Although he hit the rock bottom this season, Matt Carroll is a career 40.5% 3pt shooter, Reggie Evans is now 6th in total rebounds per 48 mins in the league.
The both players are difference makers by no means, they would not cause dramatic improvements, however, they could surely help their new teams. I'd like to know why the GM's aren't considering such a deal. A straight Carroll for Evans deal is working under cap rules.
ALong13
12-09-2008, 06:03 PM
Honestly Carroll has gotten on my badside this season...and even part of last season...Right now I'd be willing to trade him to anyteam willing to give us:
A sugar free donut (for Sean May)
A bottle of Water (If possible mountain water)
And a case of Skim Milk (For Sean May to go with his sugar free donut)
I personally think that Evans is a bum.
TheBeagle
12-09-2008, 11:27 PM
I have always thought the Sixers trade was more likely. While Matt's contract is declining, I don't see the Knicks taking that one on during "Operation Suck A** for 2 Years".
Given Matty's PT lately, I really hope we can find a team for him where he'll get some run. Well, Matty is a Philly boy, so I think it would do him a world of good to go play for the hometown team instead of riding pine here. Reggie Evans, while a human Tazmanian devil with lots of energy, is jealous of Othella Harrington's offensive game, and he's a bit of a "dirty" player....but hell, maybe we could use somebody like that to piss off the opposing players and such. I wouldn't be against this one at all, as it would be beneficial to Matt and us.
I personally think that Evans is a bum.
I'm not excited about Evans or Jeffries but if I had to pick between the two (and they were my only choices) I'd have to take Evans...do I like him as a person...not really...but do I like him for the team...only slightly better than Jeffries (and a lot of that has to do with Jeffries injury history and bigger contract)...frankly I'd like to see Matt traded so he has a chance to play some where...he obviously does not fit LBs plans and we need someone to help EO50 rebound...if Evans is the best (shudder) we can do so be it...but I'd still rather see Matt and someone as a package for a big that could actually start and be productive...I just don't see that happening...
I think the FO is talking/trying but as many have pointed out we either don't have what other teams want or what they want we're unwilling to give...if we (the FO) waits it out maybe something will give...I don't know but I'd rather wait it out than make a bad trade...although Matt for either of these guys is not a particularly bad trade I just don't see it much help...some but not much...but I also concur he is not playing here so why not try something...if it is something then Evans is the better rebounder with a better contract...
Ampsportsduo
12-10-2008, 04:08 AM
One thing to consider is that as bad as Carroll's contract is now, it becomes much more favorable, even a good contract, by this time next year.
As for the two players being discussed, Jeffries doesn't do anything particularly well (including stay healthy). His FG% for a player his size is abysmal. Reggie Evans is 6'8" tall, meaning the team remains horribly undersized (ie more 'dang we got out-rebounded again' threads). Evans himself is not a bad rebounder, but he's not a leaper by any means.
Trading Carroll for Jeffries is a bad deal, period. Trading for Evans is mediocre at best. I understand that Carroll provides little to the team from the bench, but a frontline of EO and Evans is not a complimentary one. They both are defense-minded and score best off rebounds or dump off passes. If the team is going to trade a player for a PF, ideally the player should have some semblance off an offensive game, otherwise the gain for this team will be minimal.
One thing to consider is that as bad as Carroll's contract is now, it becomes much more favorable, even a good contract, by this time next year.
When it still has 4 years on it?
How?
Evans is a liability in every aspect of the game outside of rebounding.
And he's a punk.
One thing to consider is that as bad as Carroll's contract is now, it becomes much more favorable, even a good contract, by this time next year.
As for the two players being discussed, Jeffries doesn't do anything particularly well (including stay healthy). His FG% for a player his size is abysmal. Reggie Evans is 6'8" tall, meaning the team remains horribly undersized (ie more 'dang we got out-rebounded again' threads). Evans himself is not a bad rebounder, but he's not a leaper by any means.
Trading Carroll for Jeffries is a bad deal, period. Trading for Evans is mediocre at best. I understand that Carroll provides little to the team from the bench, but a frontline of EO and Evans is not a complimentary one. They both are defense-minded and score best off rebounds or dump off passes. If the team is going to trade a player for a PF, ideally the player should have some semblance off an offensive game, otherwise the gain for this team will be minimal.
Wait it out is the way to go because any asset that we have is gone when we trade it...and again (glad we agree Amp) will bringing in either of these guys really help...not really...
Mustachio
12-10-2008, 12:13 PM
When it still has 4 years on it?
How?
Evans is a liability in every aspect of the game outside of rebounding.
And he's a punk.
I'm with you. how is 4 years 4 million dollars for Matt Carroll any better?
he's getting very little burn and when he does there's nothing he brings that someone else already on the roster couldn't bring. A trade involving anything and Matt's contract is a good one I think. It just makes sense.
Ampsportsduo
12-10-2008, 01:05 PM
I'm with you. how is 4 years 4 million dollars for Matt Carroll any better?
Next season is the last year of Carroll's contract being bad. At this time next year, means that when they go to trade him a team will be looking at future years of 4.3, 3.9, and 3.5 million. As the salary cap increases, his cap number shrinks. This season his contract will be 8.6% of the team's cap. Next year, it will be 7.7%, then 6.8, 6.0, and finally 5.2% (if he takes the option). As his impact on the payroll decreases, the desirability of his contract will increase. When compared to the contracts of similar players, his cap number is much more friendly going forward.
Matt Carroll has proven he has the ability to be in the top ten of 3p%. That skill is desired by many teams, and as his contract becomes smaller they'll be much more interested in acquiring him. It was not the amount that scared of the Nets, but the duration. Waiting a year will allow not only the length but also the price tag to become more desirable.
Next season is the last year of Carroll's contract being bad. At this time next year, means that when they go to trade him a team will be looking at future years of 4.3, 3.9, and 3.5 million. As the salary cap increases, his cap number shrinks. This season his contract will be 8.6% of the team's cap. Next year, it will be 7.7%, then 6.8, 6.0, and finally 5.2% (if he takes the option).
And he'll still be a guy who can't get any burn at all and who can't drop a marble in the ocean at the moment.
He's about as untradable as Jerome James right now. The only way that changes is if he can shoot his way out of his slump, but there is no way that he'll get the chance to do that.
Ampsportsduo
12-10-2008, 01:26 PM
People in the NBA know Matt Carroll can shoot. They also know that LB's offense isn't predicated on people shooting 3's.
If GM's thought Matt being on the bench was because he wasn't capable, why would teams be inquiring about him?
He's about as untradable as Jerome James right now.
The Hyper Bole, almost as big as the Super Bowl.
People in the NBA know Matt Carroll can shoot. They also know that LB's offense isn't predicated on people shooting 3's.
And yet Swish is taking 4.2 a game, DJ is taking 3.8 a game, Ammo is taking 2.8 a game and Felts is taking 2.1 a game?
Hammer is getting his shots (when he is in), they just aren't even close to going down.
And yet Swish is taking 4.2 a game, DJ is taking 3.8 a game, Ammo is taking 2.8 a game and Felts is taking 2.1 a game?
Hammer is getting his shots (when he is in), they just aren't even close to going down.
Very valid...Matt really needs to take advantage of any PT he gets....but the team (as a whole) is not taking as many 3s as we did last year and certainly not as many shots (with LB wanting slow and better shots) which I have no problem with...but it is on Matt to perform when he gets the chance...
Ampsportsduo
12-10-2008, 02:32 PM
And yet Swish is taking 4.2 a game, DJ is taking 3.8 a game, Ammo is taking 2.8 a game and Felts is taking 2.1 a game?
Hammer is getting his shots (when he is in), they just aren't even close to going down.
I'm not disputing that Carroll has been struggling, I'm just not in favor of trading a guy that can shoot but isn't for a guy that can't fill any need other than being tall. I'm not opposed to trading him, but I would rather see the team get a younger player that can potentially be a part of the future building rather than a player that will most likely be on the bench or off the team in two years.
One of the gripes this season has been about closing out games. Adding a big man that shoots a low percentage from the field and the free throw line will likely mean he's on the bench in crunch time, and the Cats will be the same undersized team late in the 4th.
Yes, this team is shooting a lot of 3's, but that's not what LB wants. When the team shot 27 3's against Denver earlier this year, it was the most ever by a LB coached team. Unfortunately, the lineup that gives this team the best chance to win is undersized and lacks a big man that can consistently draw his defender out of the paint to open driving lanes and the result is more 3's than LB would like.
spectre
12-10-2008, 02:56 PM
but I would rather see the team get a younger player that can potentially be a part of the future building rather than a player that will most likely be on the bench or off the team in two years.
If you can come up with a viable trade that will do that and get rid of Hammer's contract I'm sure the front office would be all ears.
If you can come up with a viable trade that will do that and get rid of Hammer's contract I'm sure the front office would be all ears.
The FO should be coming up with it...not the fans...but teams do inquire about Matt and some of our other players...the FO should make a trade that helps now or at least (if for a young player) has real potential to help later...not just contract exchanges...
spectre
12-10-2008, 03:07 PM
The FO should be coming up with it...not the fans...but teams do inquire about Matt and some of our other players...the FO should make a trade that helps now or at least (if for a young player) has real potential to help later...not just contract exchanges...
What makes you think they aren't trying?
As hard as it is to get a trade to work under the CBA rules AND satisfy other teams' fans on the RGM trade board it's even harder in real life.
Most aren't going to want to give up a young guy with potential (most likely on a rookie deal) for a struggling 3 pt specialist at full MLE.
What makes you think they aren't trying?
As hard as it is to get a trade to work under the CBA rules AND satisfy other teams' fans on the RGM trade board it's even harder in real life.
Most aren't going to want to give up a young guy with potential (most likely on a rookie deal) for a struggling 3 pt specialist at full MLE.
I am giving them the benefit of doubt this time spectre...I think they're trying to make a good trade for what little we seem to have to offer other teams...I don't see them jumping at "crap" trades so far so I'm giving them the benefit that they are trying....
spectre
12-10-2008, 03:23 PM
I'll bet you that LB is on their ass much more than we are. In this he's on our side I have no doubt.
I'll bet you that LB is on their ass much more than we are. In this he's on our side I have no doubt.
...and I hope that is exactly the case...and we can't afford one screw up since we have very little wiggle room...
Ampsportsduo
12-10-2008, 03:48 PM
If you can come up with a viable trade that will do that and get rid of Hammer's contract I'm sure the front office would be all ears.
Becoming desperate to trade him will only garner less in return. This team is not a role player away from a deep playoff run, so rushing to trade seems to me to be little more than a shell game.
A potential young big that I would inquire about would be Cedric Simmons in Chicago. He's not in their rotation, but he's young, physically gifted and has the ability to score some on the offensive end.
A potential young big that I would inquire about would be Cedric Simmons in Chicago. He's not in their rotation, but he's young, physically gifted and has the ability to score some on the offensive end.
......and can't sniff the court on a team with a front line weaker and thinner than ours.
Ampsportsduo
12-10-2008, 04:04 PM
......and can't sniff the court on a team with a front line weaker and thinner than ours.
He's behind Drew Gooden and two lottery picks in Tyrus Thomas and Joakim Noah. Both of the lottery picks were the Bulls picks and Simmons was a throw-in piece of a big trade. The Bulls have little motivation to play him or make him a developmental focus.
If you're going to make snarky responses at least include a fact every now and then.
He's behind Drew Gooden and two lottery picks in Tyrus Thomas and Joakim Noah. Both of the lottery picks were the Bulls picks and Simmons was a throw-in piece of a big trade. The Bulls have little motivation to play him or make him a developmental focus.
If you're going to make snarky responses at least include a fact every now and then.
I'm all about facts, and the fact is, that Simmons is in his 3rd year in the L and hasn't cracked more than 12mpg - and that was his rookie year. He is a guy who has never done anything.
Not only that, but 3 years and 3 teams. That says a lot.
The Bulls have a major void at in the front court, and although Noah and TT are DEEP in the dog house in Chi Town, Simmons can't get a sniff, and nor could he any where else.
There is a reason he has been a throw in in trades.
Ampsportsduo
12-10-2008, 05:19 PM
I'm all about facts, and the fact is, that Simmons is in his 3rd year in the L and hasn't cracked more than 12mpg - and that was his rookie year. He is a guy who has never done anything.
He's 22 years old. You could say he came out too early, but to suggest he'll never do anything at this young age is awfully presumptuous.
Not only that, but 3 years and 3 teams. That says a lot.
Yes, it says that Cleveland was willing to trade an expiring contract for a young kid because they saw potential in him. Then he was a salary match-up in an 11-player deal. The Cavaliers wanted veteran help because they're in the hunt for a title now and Simmons was expendable. What negative is this supposed to illustrate again?
The Bulls have a major void at in the front court, and although Noah and TT are DEEP in the dog house in Chi Town, Simmons can't get a sniff, and nor could he any where else.
The Bulls have a major void at center, not at PF, which coincidently is the position Simmons plays and the Bobcats need. As for those two being DEEP in the doghouse, they average a combined 38 minutes per game. Pretty shallow doghouse if you ask me.
There is a reason he has been a throw in in trades.
See, he's only been a throw-in on one trade. The other was a trade specifically for him. It goes back to the whole facts thing.
I'm not here to suggest that Cedric Simmons is the end all and be all, but I was asked to produce a young PF that might be available that could help the team, and I think I've done that.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.6 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.