Just for the Hell of it: Amar'e Stoudemire?
So it came out today that the Knicks offered him to nearly every team in the league, virtually for free. Basically, any team could package together any group of bad contracts, and the Knicks would deal him.
Stoudemire Now a Problem for Knicks - NYTimes.com
This past summer, the Knicks offered Stoudemire to nearly every team in the league — "available for free," as one rival executive put it. But they found no takers because of his diminished production, his health and his contract, which has three years and $65 million remaining (counting this season) and which is uninsured against a career-ending knee injury.
Now, I assume the vast majority of you would be against the deal, and honestly I would too at this point, but let's say he comes back in the next couple of weeks, and manages to stay healthy for the duration of the season. Would you be any more interested considering the risk?
If we drafted Shabazz Muhammad, and the Knicks were still worse with a healthy Amar'e, would you do Tyrus for Amar'e? We would have enough room to take the rest of his deal due to the fact that Diop and others are coming off the books. Tyrus is owed roughly 18 million over the next two years, while Amar'e is owed roughly 45 million. A huge gamble, I know, but consider:
Shabazz/Gordon (Assuming we would let Henderson walk if we did this deal)
Amar'e/Low end FA/Draft pick if we end up with the Blazers pick or Mullens if the price is right
I know this is insanely unlikely, but do you take the risk if the decision was yours?
Also, I know, I know, trade forum, but that place is dead.
Again, really, very, totally bored.