Simple Idea

I guess I’m the delusional one because I believe there would be upside in getting young players like Randolph that could help this franchise, with the requirement that we take a guy on a 1 year deal.

My next point is if trading for Curry and getting rid of him saves us money/headache in the long term, it would be stupid not to cut or buyout him, or other players out.
 
Bearwith me here:
Remember in NBA trades, the salaries that leave each team have to nearly match up in order for the deal to happen, so not only would we be taking on Curry’s 11million but we would be ridding ourselves of 11million or so immediately, leaving out current cap looking the same but possibly changing the way our future cap looks.

 Now say we make a deal that involves Posey’s 2 year contracts at 7ish Million a year, Dahntay’s 2 year contact at 2.5million a year, and Solo’s 1 year deal at 1.5million. We would be taking on a grand total of Eddy Curry and 11million dollars, however we would be effectively saving 10million dollars long term because Dahntay and Posey have 2 year contracts. So as a team, as you put it, in dire financial trouble, saving 10 million dollars at the cost of a year of Posey and Dahntay would be fantastic. But wait there is more.

After landing Curry, we would not just merely cut him. We would instead call his agent and discuss a buyout and even if this buyout saves only 5-10% that could be almost a million dollars, bringing the grand total of saved money to $11million dollars. Well worth it, in my opinion.

I have never once argued for trading for guy and consistently dumping them, however, if trading for a player then cutting him saves us money, we must do so.

The point I am attempting to make, and have been attempting to make, is that there is upside for us by taking on Eddy Curry in the right deal because the Knicks want to get rid of him and will be willing to give up a young asset or take on long term money to save some cash now. And with the CBA Deal coming up, I would rather have more money on the books in 10/11 rather than 11/12 and beyond.

I am, by no means, arguing that Curry would help this franchise by playing, however if we can get out of a multi year deal or 2, and save money longterm, by letting the Knicks save some $ this year, then it would be a smart move on our part.

With all that said, I do not envision Curry getting moved at all, unless it brings NYK Dampier back (who has a non guaranteed deal and they could cut him before a certain date in October and save 13million immediately. If I were the Pacers GM, Dampier could possibly be my current top target). The reason NYK will not move Curry is because in the NBA, with the way the cap is structured almost all the teams spend over the cap and pay into the luxury tax, many times not allowing them to go after free agents in the offseason. This is why there is value in expiring deals, such as Curry’s, because once his contract comes off the books they will then have cap room to sign another player, that is, if 11million gets them under the cap. Lastly, If a trade is made with the Knicks that involves Carmelo or Paul before the year’s end, I would bet my bottom dollar Curry will be involved due to this expiring $11million.