Harrington: G. Wallace vs. buyout - thoughts?

by bwiles81 on Nov 13, 2008 11:01 AM PST

Everyone is talking about trading Harrington - names of players we might get in return being floated around include Gerald Wallace and Eddy Curry. I think that Turkoglu and Nate Robinson are simply not feasible - Turkoglu had the best season of his career last year and is a huge part of ORL's success, and Nate Robinson is the only player that puts people in the seats at MSG.

As for Gerald Wallace - there has been quite a bit of skepticism of him on the boards recently. However, there are several reasons why I think the Dubs should jump at the chance to get him in exchange for Harrington.

(1) Like Maggette, he gets to the foul line at will.

(2) He is a lockdown defender. We need someone to take the pressure off of Jax on the defensive end. Jax is a great defender, but it saps his energy and makes it harder to sustain his 4th quarter spurts. If Wallace were defending Rudy Gay instead of Jax we would have won both Memphis games.

(3) He has length and is an excellent rebounder and shotblocker.

(4) He would provide a role model for Wright and Randolph. Gerald Wallace is the type of player that those two should aspire to be (though Randolph has a higher ceiling because of his ballhandling and shooting skills).

(5) The man knows how to get out on the break. The focus on the Harrington situation should not be what will help us win games in the short term, but how we can make the playoffs this year and beyond. Once Monta comes back, I predict that the tempo of the team will increase significantly. Wallace would fit into our modified "Nellieball lite" attack perfectly.

HOWEVER...

There are good counterarguments to dealing for Wallace. (1) He is injury prone (though so was BD before he came here and look how that turned out), (2) he has a large contract and (3) he is slightly redundant with Wright and Randolph in the wings.

So why don't we just buy out Harrington's contract? Give him $5 or so million to walk away. He can sign with another team, and we get his contract off the books. Then we can use the money for another deal. Or, (and this would be even better) renegotiate contracts with a few of our remaining players to be more front-loaded so that our cap situation is improved in coming years.

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

0 recs | Comment 34 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Seems like a buyout at such a high price isn’t worth it for us, and we all know how stingy Rowell can be about money…I say trade Harrington away for 2 younger role players to a team that would want a veteran presence in the locker room and further lower the average age of our team.

I don’t think that getting a "difference maker’ like Gerald Wallace would be ideal for our situation, it would reduce the growth of Wright and Randolph, and we’ve all seen that they have shown glimpses of great talent in this young season. It’d be much better for us to clear cap space for the future by grabbing a couple of cheaper contracts in exchange for Harrington.

WARRIORS BASKETBALL!!! Patiently waiting for a title...I may be waiting for a long time...

by JustSomeName on Nov 13, 2008 11:07 AM PST 0 recs

He'll get paid more money if he stays on his current contract.

So a buyout is not feasible. Sorry.

Plus, Al still has some value left to some teams out there. So it would not be a smart move on either parties’ part.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on Nov 13, 2008 11:51 AM PST 0 recs

Isn't that the point of a buyout?

No team is going to pay you more money to leave. They would just waive you. A buyout is supposed to be mutually beneficial. The team saves some money (most of the time very little, but some nonetheless) and the player is free to go wherever he wants.

That being said, $5 mill is way too low of a number for Al to consider a buyout. I’m thinking at least $0.90 on the dollar will be what it takes to buy him out, but I doubt the W’s would want to spend that money without getting something in return. At least I don’t think they are there yet.

As you mention, Al has some trade value left (although it’s diminishing by the day) so that’s the most likely route.

by barrance on Nov 13, 2008 4:48 PM PST up 0 recs

tell him to suck it up

and get him back on the floor!

by Foulacy on Nov 13, 2008 12:26 PM PST 0 recs

We saw how his head was not in it so......

Why put him back on the floor to miss shots, defend badly and no run as fat and hard because his head is telling him he does not want to be here??

No thanks, rather have a hard trying rookie that a pissed off vet with a crushed ego!

BTW did anyone else see he absolute reaming Nelson gave Randolph the other night! When AR missed a couple of basic defending moves and missed his man and they scored Nellie went frickin beserk! His face was scarlet and he tore strips off AR, I thought he was going to hit him at one point!
Sure enough AR was sat down at that point and didnt play again!

:-) Nellie does not like people that cannot remember the plays or where they should be, no matter who they are! Hence why Marcus Williams who is without doubt the best man to handle the ball coming up the court for us, cannot get into the game, as he is really struggling with the plays.

It's about heart, It's about fight, It's about being a Warrior!

by BritWarriorGSW on Nov 13, 2008 12:53 PM PST up 0 recs

"defend badly and not run as fast and hard" should have been...dammit proof read - proof read!

It's about heart, It's about fight, It's about being a Warrior!

by BritWarriorGSW on Nov 13, 2008 12:54 PM PST up 0 recs

Classic nellie

He is hard on people, especially rookies. Though I can’t remember him ever doing that to CJ, and he makes mistakes plenty of times.

by mosdl on Nov 13, 2008 1:47 PM PST up 0 recs

MAGGETTE...

whats the word on maggette tongight anybody know

by montamazing on Nov 13, 2008 1:03 PM PST 0 recs

patience

Wallace vs. buyout – there are plenty of other options that can open up in the near future, even as late as the trade-deadline …

taking a contract on like Wallace’s simply locks us down too much, and we would be counting on being able to trade one of Maggs, Jackson, and/or Wallace not too far down the line. Clearly, that is proving to be difficult even in Wallace’s case. And as you said, they duplicate too much and really can’t all start together when Monta returns unless we want to get even smaller at the PF or bring one of them off the bench. In short, Wallace is overkill at the SF.

Why Rowell has a hard-on to extend Jax is beyond me, but that simply lessens the likelihood that a contract like Wallace’s is coming onto the books.

giving Al a buyout is leaving us empty-handed. At minimum we can get some young player(s) and hope they develop, or we can get yet another potential backup PG (although it seems we’ve cornered the market on those), and at best we get a rotation-ready Fwd that can either start or be an impact sub off the bench.

Wallace vs. buyout are just extremes in the spectrum – we need something in between. And that includes the remote possibility of resuscitating Harrington’s place on the team as crazy as that sounds.

by hardcore on Nov 13, 2008 3:26 PM PST 0 recs

not to mention, can anyone IMAGINE Larry Brown coaching Harrington?

by hardcore on Nov 13, 2008 3:54 PM PST up 0 recs

more than I can imagine Larry Brown approving a Wallace for Eddy Curry trade. Curry actually played ok (relative to the rest of his career) under Brown in NY, but I still cant see Brown not throwing a fit if that trade goes down.

by sam23 on Nov 13, 2008 5:57 PM PST up 0 recs

indeed

a wallace trade could not make less sense. who the hell would start at the four!??

I'm keen on the professional basketball club The Golden State Warriors. I don't fancy other clubs.

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 14, 2008 12:01 PM PST up 0 recs

Um, Wallace...

Last night we had Jackson and Maggette playing most of the minutes at four. I know Wallace isn’t an ideal PF but he is definitely an upgrade on those guys considering his ability to rebound and block shots. We only had a real PF on the floor for about 15 minutes last night (B-Wright). If we had Wallace he would easily be an upgrade at the four and still get some minutes at three while Maggs is resting (assuming he’s healthy).

I know there are some pretty good arguments against the trade (injury history, financial) but I think a lot of people are getting way too hung up on positions. Wallace plays the majority of his minutes at the four as it is now. He is used to playing against bigger guys (probably one of the reasons he gets hurt so much to be fair). The trade would definitely make us a better team.

"...OlympicMike is clearly the Barack Obama of GSoM"-Sleepy

by olympicmike on Nov 14, 2008 12:27 PM PST up 0 recs

agreed

we’d be better, having Wallace is better than Harrington being out injured – in the short term, no doubt.

my objections are in the long term, will we be better – not only making the playoffs ( a bit of a stretch even with Wallace) and beyond.

by hardcore on Nov 15, 2008 6:55 PM PST up 0 recs

IMO

It’s not at all a stretch to say that we’d be better having Wallace than harrington period. Wallace is a better PF than harrington. Al may look more like a PF but Wallace plays more like one. I want my PF to rebound and protect the paint, which are two things that Wallace does much better than harrington.

Having said that, I totally understand the long term concerns. If you see Wallace as an untradable asset then he could limit our flexibility in the future. I don’t see him that way. If Wright develops into the starter I think he will be then you have the option to trade jackson, Maggette or Wallace for an expiring. Not the worst situation IMO.

"...OlympicMike is clearly the Barack Obama of GSoM"-Sleepy

by olympicmike on Nov 15, 2008 8:38 PM PST up 0 recs

How bout

going after Delonte West just before the trade deadline?

by JakeGittes on Nov 13, 2008 5:02 PM PST 0 recs

arent West and Williams doing pretty well together in Cleveland? If Cleveland cant land McDyss they seem like a good fit for Harrington, but I dont know if they want to give up either half of that guard combo.

by sam23 on Nov 13, 2008 5:46 PM PST up 0 recs

West can veto trades.

by jae on Nov 13, 2008 5:49 PM PST up 0 recs

well then forget that idea. He goes deep in the playoffs and makes a couple big 3’s and his value skyrockets far beyond what it would be here possibly getting a couple extra minutes.

by sam23 on Nov 13, 2008 5:54 PM PST up 0 recs

I doubt the Cavs would want Harrington. They have no use for a PF that doesn’t rebound. They have that in Verajao.

WARRIORS BASKETBALL!!! Patiently waiting for a title...I may be waiting for a long time...

by JustSomeName on Nov 13, 2008 5:43 PM PST 0 recs

I disagree

Joe Smith was great in that offense last year. A PF that can clear out for LeBron and hit the outside/medium range J if he kicks out IS what they need. With LeBron, big Z and even and old washed up Wallace, rebounding isnt really an issue for them. Why do you say Verejao cant rebound anyway? Every time I’ve watched him play (admittedly only a dozen or so times) he seems like pretty solid on the boards and most scouting reports say thats one of his strengths.

by sam23 on Nov 13, 2008 5:52 PM PST up 0 recs

Varejao doesn’t rebound? Huh?

by jae on Nov 13, 2008 8:35 PM PST up 0 recs

thanks for reaffirming that, I thought maybe I was wrong/going crazy thinking that Verejao’s strength is rebounding.

by sam23 on Nov 13, 2008 11:17 PM PST up 0 recs

It’s down a bit early this year, but I don’t think they’ve played enough games to get a good read. He’s always been a good rebounder. It may be the only thing he does real well, but he does it well enough to justify his job.

by jae on Nov 14, 2008 12:37 AM PST up 0 recs

so what do you think about Harrington to Cleveland?

Seems to me to be the ideal place for him. He can be the offense part of a three headed PF similar to what they had last year and help Mo Williams carry the offensive load when LeBron is out of the game/quadruple teamed. Plus his contract comes off the books the same time that they have to make their max offer to LeBron and perhaps add another big FA to convince him to stay. I dont really know what, if anything, they have that would be of any value to us,but it seems like a great fit for him.

by sam23 on Nov 14, 2008 2:23 AM PST up 0 recs

Harrington to Cleveland? If they’ll take him off our hands, I’d be rid of him to almost anywhere. In terms of what it does for Cleveland? I’m not sure it helps them much, simply because I don’t think Harrington helps anyone that much. His inability to consistently rebound is a problem anywhere. His problems scoring inside are a problem anywhere. Basically, he’s a jump shooting 3 without the perimeter skills associated with a 3. If he’s draining 3s he helps carry the offensive load. If he’s not, he still shoots a bunch and it may look like he’s done his part in raw points, but it will come at the expense of everyone else on his team’s production. There’s a reason that prior to last year, he’d been a net negative plus minus for several year. It was true on a good team like Indy (first go around) and a bad team like ATL. I suspect that last year was the anomaly. Cleveland may be a better fit for him, but it still won’t make him into a good player. Average at best in the department that counts: making his team more likely to win.

by jae on Nov 14, 2008 9:25 AM PST up 0 recs

OT

the game is on TNT tonight right? Living in Kings country without the NBA package sucks.

by sam23 on Nov 13, 2008 5:59 PM PST 0 recs

The Warriors don't have to do a damned thing

if they don’t want to. They “should” play it smart and not give in to “Trade me now!” bullshit-drama from Al. I love the guy and all but Harrington is clearly over estimating his own value. And the Warriors know that (or at least they should!) better than anyone at this point. Right now, his value is really low because he’s hurt and wants out at the same time! So, the Dubs need to sit tight and wait for the deal that makes sense for the team as a whole. Whatever it ends up being, I hope it’s not just roster filler. Go W’s!

by mrod on Nov 13, 2008 6:38 PM PST 0 recs

I actually like the buy out idea,

he is what I would do. Send Al home and tell him he is a distraction and have Rowell tell him if he wants to talk buyout to contact him. Naturally Al and Fegan(Al’s agent) would do no such thing, and would take it to the players association. There a ruling like, he can us the training facility and practice if he wants, but coming to games would be debated. We see if we can flip Al and a second rounder to Portland, for Lafrents(expiring) and a first rounder. If that doesnt work, we call Al’s bluff, if he picks up his option next year, he is completely full of sh*t. I think he would have to much pride to do that, espicially since any major competetive team would probably offer him a full MLE. We don’t got to trade him, let him sit at home with his ‘hurt’ back

Ellis to the rim.

by warriorsscore110 on Nov 13, 2008 9:31 PM PST 0 recs

Lafrentz AND a first rounder?

You must be smoking. Al’s worth a first rounder only with a bad multi-year contract at best.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 14, 2008 1:13 AM PST up 0 recs

I could see it only if Portland thought theyd be going deep into the playoffs with Al and it would be a pick in the mid to late 20’s. All signs point to Portland being smarter than that. But at this point I dont really see how Al is much of an upgrade over Outlaw/Batum/Webster/Fernandez/Aldridge/Frye and whoever else they have splitting time at the 3/4. LaFrentz is one of their biggest trade chips and I would think theyd prefer to package him with one or two of their cheap young guys and see what big stars may be available closer to the deadline (Marion? Odom? Baron?) The last thing Portland needs right now is depth. Especially softish forward type depth.

by sam23 on Nov 14, 2008 2:31 AM PST up 0 recs