Trade Idea with Knicks

[saltlover]

Both the Celtics and Knicks have contracts and players that don't work for them.  What if we swapped?

Knicks get:
Humphries
Bass
Wallace

Celtics get:
Stoudamire
Earl Barron (S&T to make salaries work)

The Knicks are paying Amar'e $44 million over the next two years, and their hope is he can play 20 minutes a night.  With Tyson Chandler also beginning to break down, the Knicks front court is getting a little shallow.  This gives them two healthy players to fill the breach at the 4/5.  Wallace's contract isn't great, but he'd be very functional in a backup role, and could lighten Anthony's load a bit.  And his contract looks a lot less worse in the context of Stoudamire's.  The Knicks add payroll (and luxury tax owed this year) but wipe off about $6.5 million next year (and against the more expensive repeater tax) so they're coming out near the same in dollars.  The biggest downside is Wallace's contract in 2015, but by then it will be in its final year and easier to move.

The Celtics clear payroll and roster spots this year, getting beneath the luxury tax and clearing some of the power forward glut.  They take on more salary next year, but were probably over the cap anyways, and clear Wallace's contract for more room in Rondo's free agency year.  Meanwhile, Stoudamire could be a great fit with Rondo, and with all the bodies the Celtics will still have at the 4/5, he doesn't need to play all that many minutes.  If the Celtics get really lucky, he has a somewhat rejuvinating year, and decides to opt of his contract to procure one last long-term deal (a la Iggy), which clears a ton of cap room for next season.  If not, they're not much worse off than when they started, and have yet another trade exception, this one around $8.6 million, and another non-guaranteed contract, to acquire things at the deadline or next offseason.

Thoughts?  Does New York say no because trading Stoudamire makes it look like they failed?  Am I underrating him?  Is his uninsurable contract an issue for the Celtics? Does someone need a pick going their direction?

[BASS_THUMPER]

why we trading healthy players for broken down ones..?

really?

[Mazingerz]

Amare's contract will be an albatross if he can't play this season; No thanks, pass for me.

[saltlover]

why we trading healthy players for broken down ones..?

really?

Because we don't like our healthy ones and want to play young players at the same position instead.

[gpap]

This could certainly be possible with one caveat.

Might want to take out Wallace.

The Knicks (from what I've read) don't want any long-term salary beyond 2015.

However, I did read on hoopsworld.com that the Knicks would have interest in Humph if he was available.

Maybe something like Bass and Humph for Amar'e and filler (draft pick) etc.

[saltlover]

Amare's contract will be an albatross if he can't play this season; No thanks, pass for me.

It ends after 2014-2015.  It's not like we'll have oodles of cap room anyway, unless we trade away picks to clear out Wallace's and/or Bass' contracts anyway.  If we didn't do this trade, we'd be staring at using our trade exception and Bogans non-guaranteed contract as ways to add salary.  We're in pretty much the same shape here.  Amar'e's contract is terrible, I admit, but taking it on doesn't really change our game plan for next summer, and it clears up more space the following summer to add a big free agent and give Rondo a max or near max salary.

[saltlover]

This could certainly be possible with one caveat.

Might want to take out Wallace.

The Knicks (from what I've read) don't want any long-term salary beyond 2015.

However, I did read on hoopsworld.com that the Knicks would have interest in Humph if he was available.

Maybe something like Bass and Humph for Amar'e and filler (draft pick) etc.

I don't think it would be a good deal for the Celtics if the Knicks didn't take Wallace.  Failure to do so would add $10 mil to next season's payroll and make the trade exception the C's got from the Nets much less usable.  Wallace will be much more moveable as an expiring in two years than right now.

[gpap]

This could certainly be possible with one caveat.

Might want to take out Wallace.

The Knicks (from what I've read) don't want any long-term salary beyond 2015.

However, I did read on hoopsworld.com that the Knicks would have interest in Humph if he was available.

Maybe something like Bass and Humph for Amar'e and filler (draft pick) etc.

I don't think it would be a good deal for the Celtics if the Knicks didn't take Wallace.  Failure to do so would add $10 mil to next season's payroll and make the trade exception the C's got from the Nets much less usable.  Wallace will be much more moveable as an expiring in two years than right now.

Yeah, well who knows. Maybe the Knicks would want to move Amar'e bad enough that they would take Wallace?

[syfy9]

I like it. Stoudemire still showed that he could play at an above-average level for a couple of months last season, before he got hurt. It would clear up playing time and fix our PF log jam. Stoudemire would also be a good tutor for Sully - STAT is a master at being the roll man in pick n rolls. He and Rondo would be great, and maybe Sully could pick up a thing or two.


I say take out one of Bass/Wallace/Humps and put in a shooting guard to fix our SG log jam, though.

[saltlover]

I like it. Stoudemire still showed that he could play at an above-average level for a couple of months last season, before he got hurt. It would clear up playing time and fix our PF log jam. Stoudemire would also be a good tutor for Sully - STAT is a master at being the roll man in pick n rolls. He and Rondo would be great, and maybe Sully could pick up a thing or two.


I say take out one of Bass/Wallace/Humps and put in a shooting guard to fix our SG log jam, though.

The Knicks are pretty full at SG too tho.  The league is a little full on that position these days (and yet, teams still pay for them).

You could also give backup minutes at the 3 to any of Lee, Bogans, and Brooks, which would help clear out some of that SG logjam.

[LooseCannon]

The Knicks are pretty full at SG too tho.  The league is a little full on that position these days (and yet, teams still pay for them).

That because there are a lot of SGs whose main skill is scoring and a lot of teams tend to overpay for scoring.

[connor]

I actually LOVE this idea at the moment, except I don't see the Knicks taking on Bass as well. They can probably sell taking on Wallace if he can improve over his dismal season last year, but taking on Bass negates half of the value of Humprhies' expiring deal since he is on the hook for 6m next season.

I really don't see next offseason as one that will have many opportunities for the Celtics to make major moves unless some trades for disgruntled stars come on the market. 2015 on the other hand seems like its just brimming with potential impact free agents and this deal would have us swimming in cap space to put together with our stockpile of assets.

To answer your other questions:
1) I don't think the Knicks walk away from a deal like this because they are worried that it will look like they've failed with Amare, but I do think that they'd only start considering this option once the season starts and they've had some setbacks/problems with Amare. There is too much talent there for them not to at least see if he can be salvaged.

2) You're not underrating him when you consider the injury history. Yes he is by far the best player in the deal, but what's the point in keeping talent on your roster that can't keep themselves on the floor?

3) I don't see why the uninsurable contract would be a huge issue. It seems as if we are poised to tank this year and I don't see us making any major moves to help us compete next year. So while it would suck to have to pay that money to a guy who might spend most of his tenure here in a suit and tie rather than a uniform, at least in the process the Celtics' will be a bit more interesting and most likely picking up some very good young talents in the draft.

4) I figure fans on both sides would be wanting a pick heading in their direction, which probably means that no picks being included is fair enough.

[saltlover]

I actually LOVE this idea at the moment, except I don't see the Knicks taking on Bass as well. They can probably sell taking on Wallace if he can improve over his dismal season last year, but taking on Bass negates half of the value of Humprhies' expiring deal since he is on the hook for 6m next season.

I really don't think Bass would be the sticking point.  The Knicks could amnesty Amar'e next offseason and still be over the salary cap, so it's not like Bass's salary costs them any flexibility.  I think a team like NY is one of the better places for Bass to wind up, since his salary for 2014 doesn't get in the way of any of their plans.  If they don't take him, it's $7 million less that they spend, but that $7 million can't go to a different player, and his roster spot isn't a waste, since he's a capable frontcourt contributor, even if slightly overpaid.

I definitely think Wallace would be the bigger problem, as his deal runs beyond Carmelo's, and they'd like to add another star around him.  Still, it'd be a movable expiring for a sign-and-trade by the time the 2015-2016 season rolls around, and if he bounces back a little over the next two years, it won't be nearly the impediment that it is today.

[moiso]

It doesn't make us better in the short term or help us in the long term.  I bet Humphries will be about as productive as Amare when factoring in games played.

[LilRip]

it sometimes still boggles my mind how terrible the C's roster looks for next season. anyway, on to the OP's idea...

i don't hate it, but i don't love it either. For the C's, i think this is move is non-bearing. The only thing i fear is that since Stat will definitely be injured for an extended period of time, it might forcefeed our young guys too much minutes. Sounds weird right? But being left with Sully and Olynyk and Fab Melo and Faveroni as the only big men might be too much of a load for them and might ultimately hinder their growth. The season is an 82-game grind, and none of those 4 have ever played with a schedule like that. Injuries could be a legit concern as those bigs try to grind it out.

in terms of financial flexibility, since the C's don't figure to be much of a player for next year's free agency as well, i don't see how it can hurt. but then again, i don't have the overview that management has.