Why Mavericks do it: Mavericks are competing for a title and could use another big man in Curry to battle against Bynum/Gasol/Odom trifecta. Gooden returns to Mavs after 30 days, making even more money so he's happy. Gets rid of Carroll's useless 3 more years of contract on books. In addition, for 2010, Curry gives Mavericks another big man option since both Dampier and/or Gooden could be gone. Mavericks are not 2010 free agent players, so they'll have MLE either way to spend. Cuban isn't afraid to take chances and take on salary.
Why Knicks do it: Cap Space. Plain and simple. Opens up another $7 million in cap space for 2010, which could be difference in keeping Lee or getting 2nd franchise player. Carroll's uselessness and future payroll is well worth 2010 cap space. And who knows, maybe Carroll remembers how to hit 3's in D'Antoni's system.
Carroll has a contract that goes less & less every year. Gooden is a useful big who can help them in the playoffs, Curry is not. At least if Curry could block shots you'd have some sort of grounds, but Gooden is both a better rebounder & scorer, and he's expiring, and he's no worse defensively to Curry.
Carroll has a contract that goes less & less every year. Gooden is a useful big who can help them in the playoffs, Curry is not. At least if Curry could block shots you'd have some sort of grounds, but Gooden is both a better rebounder & scorer, and he's expiring, and he's no worse defensively to Curry.
wrong i suggest you take a better look at damps contract the mavs are 2010 players for sure.
Yes as a Sign and Trade, but not in the free agent market. I know Damp's contract is valuable but that has nothing to do with Mavs not being under the cap. Essentially, a team would be willing to give up talent to get Damp's contract to open more cap space for themselves.
But for the Mavs, they can't get below cap no matter what, so Curry's extra salary next year doesn't really hurt them. They actually benefit more with Carroll's contract gone for the future.
Carroll's contract really isn't that bad. Like Beasted said, his cotract goes down every year. The other two guys are basically just "filler" contracts.
The Mavs may need an upgrade at the center spot but getting Curry would not alleviate the problem. In fact, I believe playing Curry would make some of the other positions worse. Curry doesn't rebound, or block shots.
Once again, you don't understand cap rules. Go away.
1. First of all, you are trying to be me. Last year, every trade scenario (or almost all of them) involving the Hawks involved Speedy Claxton. But I had sense enough to understand that he was an expirer, while Curry won't be until next season.
2. Matt Carroll with his long contract and big salary is still better than Curry. No one wants Curry at his present salary. Deal with it.
3. If you had proposed this deal with Jeffries instead of Curry, financially that would have made a little more sense for the Mavs.
you need to stop trying to sell Curry as an asset in these trades if you want them to be taken seriously.
The Mavs give up nothing and they get an extra big man. Why is that bad? What do they give up? Matt Carroll?
There is no downside to this trade for Mavericks, really. If Curry plays well as a backup or if Damp or Gooden go down with injury, Curry could be a huge help.
1. First of all, you are trying to be me. Last year, every trade scenario (or almost all of them) involving the Hawks involved Speedy Claxton. But I had sense enough to understand that he was an expirer, while Curry won't be until next season.
2. Matt Carroll with his long contract and big salary is still better than Curry. No one wants Curry at his present salary. Deal with it.
3. If you had proposed this deal with Jeffries instead of Curry, financially that would have made a little more sense for the Mavs.
Mavs/Knicks Trade Idea
