So I was reading Bill Simmons' trade value article this morning and it got me thinking.
There at #20 was Amare Stoudemire and here's what Bill had to say:
"The most likely candidate of any in the top 30 to get traded within the next two months. Look at it from the Suns' side - they're routinely giving up 55 percent shooting nights, they can't get crunch time stops and they don't have anyone to guard Tim Duncan (as we witnessed for the umpteenth time Monday night). If you're Steve Kerr and you're looking at a two-year window with the Nash-Marion era, are you really going to just cross your fingers and hope Amare learns how to play defense between now and June 2009? Or are you going to think, ‘Hmmmmm, I wonder if I can use Amare to improve my team defensively, gain some financial flexibility and maybe even dump Marcus Banks' contract and pick up a No. 1 pick in the process?'"
Now there are some flaws in Bill's thinking. The Suns are actually giving up 46% shooting and have only given up 55% 3 times. Not sure 12% qualifies as "routinely" but it's still not good. They also had their share of "crunch time stops" on Monday and they're 5 & 2 in games decided by 5 points or less. Speaking of Monday, Amare did get abused by Duncan in the first half, I won't dispute that. So maybe the Suns should trade him. Maybe they try to bring in someone that can be a game changer on defense.
Then I realized something... No team in the league has an answer for Tim Duncan (which the possible exception of Boston who doesn't have an answer for Parker, Ginobli or even Oberto). Why would the Suns trade the one guy that doesn't disappear on offense when the Suns play the Spurs?
But like I said, the article got me thinking so I'm open for trade scenarios. If you're going to suggest something, please try and remember at least some of the salary cap rules. Salaries must match within 25% (plus $100K) and draft picks (while appealing to the deal makers) do not account for any salary cap considerations. Amare is making $13,762,775 this year.