Marcus Camby to the Clippers?
For a stinking 2nd round pick??? Are you freaking kidding me? Are you kidding? Practice? This is theft, this is madness, this is stupid. I would've given up a first round pick for that. Jeez... practice? We're talking about practice? Not a game, practice? I hate myself and the Warriors Front Office. blah blah blah practice practice practice practice not a game practice practice.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3491156
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!
2 recs |
103 comments
Comments
Nuggets had no choice...
because they where the 4th highest team in payroll. Getting a 2nd round for a 34 yr old player is the best thing that can happen since the days are ticking away. The Clippers used majority of their cap (4mil left) plus MLE.
Baron
Gordon
Thorton
Camby
Kaman
aint a bad lineup.
by Spee-D on Jul 15, 2008 7:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
don't fear Turiaf is here!
what a freaking joke…we wouldn’t have even had to send them a draft pick, we coulda used the trade exception. Like the article says “they just wanted to shed salary”. This is a good move for the clips. The article says that camby is making 7.5 Million a year. Were paying Turian damn near 5 million (it is front loaded). For 2.5 million more we coulda gotten a great rebounder, and, an even better passer. Oh well. Just another day my friends….just another day.
by sarangc on Jul 15, 2008 7:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
he's not that cheap
he’s making just a little over 10 million a year and not the 7.5 everybody is saying
by SIZE 15 on Jul 16, 2008 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
This just makes me want to throw up a little bit, just a little.
by Lifelong on Jul 15, 2008 7:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Warriors should have gone after him
First time poster. I have been on other sites for a while, but some drama pushed me away. I am hoping that this site is better. I have heard some good things.
As for the topic, I wish the Warriors would have gone after him. I think that he would have made a huge impact on the Warriors. This may even send them to the playoffs. A former Defensive Player of the Year for a second round pick? Man, we made a mistake not going after him.
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 7:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I have been on other sites but some drama pushed me away
Welome to GSofM where the drama pulls you in.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 15, 2008 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A reminder
Turiaf will be making $3m less than Camby next year, because his contract is frontloaded.
Nice job, Mullin. Love to see his fanboys defend this
by dprodigy19 on Jul 15, 2008 7:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
we don't need another (older) (expensive) slim
We need Turiaf’s young muscle more. Camby isn’t a PF.
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
by fotd on Jul 15, 2008 7:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
we could work it out
I really do think that we could work Camby into this rotation. A platoon of Biedrins and Camby would work well. Maybe if we need a defensive stop or two, we can move Biedrins down to the four spot and keep Camby at the five. The one problem I would have with this, though, is that we have no big man that can score. I guess we can say this about who we have now, though.
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get why people are saying Camby is done.
Camby is 30-something but was DPOY a year ago and, I believe, second in voting last year. He averaged only 9 points but 13+ rebounds and 3.5+ blocks per game lastt season in 79 games. Not to mention he played in an uptemo system with Denver.
People are bringing up Camby’s remaining 2-year contract, too, which I think is perfect because while his game will decline with age, you can’t realistically expect his averages of 13+ rebounds and 3.5+ blocks to drop to such a level where he’ll have to be a backup by the end of the contract. Another HUGE point with Camby: he’s injury-prone, yes, but he’s been ready to play when the Playoffs come around. Meaning Camby might sit out regular season games, but he’s ready to play when the Playoffs come around.
This was an excellent trade for the Clippers. Camby is not Brand, but this was an EXCELLENT recovery for the Clippers.
by The Daydreamer on Jul 15, 2008 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOLOL
What a great post, I love the incorporation of the AI tirade. Man, Chris Mullin is walkin on thin ice if he’s missin deal’s like this… man… man…...
by BaronsClipps on Jul 15, 2008 7:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
We didn't have enough cap space to pull off a deal like this
It's almost like the Warriors have 6 guys out there... they always have a guy open! - Jon Barry commentating game 3 last year
by gsw4life on Jul 15, 2008 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We did June 30
With the trade exception. And then we had the cap space July 1st, with Baron gone.
by Eggman on Jul 15, 2008 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah... what he said
(BTW u still in tex bro? u gonna get 2k9 when it comes out?)
by BaronsClipps on Jul 16, 2008 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Clippers......
Are spending all there money on injury prone 30 year olds….thats real smart….they keep proving why they are the Clippers, they will continue to blow for years to come….if Mullin WOULD have made this trade he would have been a moron.
by pbra17 on Jul 15, 2008 7:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
there are only 2 more years left
and he’s pretty much in the tail end of his prime. Plus he’s been durable the last few years
by dhp318 on Jul 15, 2008 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i have to agree
at first this sounded intriguing and a nice pick up, but Camby is 34 – that’s an old NBA player who’s skinny as all hell…we’re not talking about Karl Malone in his prime here. Once Camby realizes he’s playing for the Clippers, he’ll quit on them just like Baron will do after game 40 or so. This doesn’t make the Clippers better than what they would have had w/ Brand. Kaman and Camby are a thin front court that will have trouble getting up the floor.
by GoldenStateDubtronic on Jul 15, 2008 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This doesn’t make the Clippers better than what they would have had w/ Brand.
Of course not but it does show they are trying to play for the moment not for sometime after the astroid destroys earth .
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 15, 2008 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course not but it does show they are trying to play for the moment not for sometime after the astroid destroys earth .
Playing for the moment? Okay. Is “moment” defined as October through mid-December? The Clippers are getting older by every move. This is good for the Dubs. Do you really think Baron has another 82 games left when your name is Skeptic? Camby is no answer here. He’s old and if so valuable, why would the Nuggets let him go to the Clipps when all these Western Conference teams are so competitive?
by GoldenStateDubtronic on Jul 15, 2008 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if Camby doesn't work out, his contract is only 2 years.
Camby was DPOY of the year last year and, I believe, second in voting last year. The Clippers basically gave up nothing for him. I think it was an excellent move for the Clips.
If Thornton or Eric Gordon become really good next year, I think the Clips can be dangerous.
by The Daydreamer on Jul 15, 2008 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With that clippers lineup
I can see an eighth seed this year with BDizz and Camby performing well. But after this season, they won’t smell .500 for a while.
by djfivenine on Jul 15, 2008 7:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If anything...
this just smells like Clippers basketball. they’ll look decent for a while, but now they have a lot of scratch tied up in Baron and Camby and they’re both old and getting older…
by GoldenStateDubtronic on Jul 15, 2008 8:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I have a feeling
that Camby will start going to the DL frequently again.
by joestar on Jul 15, 2008 8:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah
camby is good and a great defender but hes a tall ass 34 year old
his days are quite numbered
on the bright side, while this might make the clippers a little better (theyre still gonna suck), the nuggets will now be giving up around 140 points a game without their only defensive presence
by 3Kings650 on Jul 15, 2008 8:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
his contract only has 2 years
it’s not like they signed him for 50/5
by dhp318 on Jul 15, 2008 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't ask me why i wrote this...it just felt right
LUKE! LUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUKE. I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE you LUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUKe. I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE you. -Bill walton the goofiest mofo on the face of this earth.
by sarangc on Jul 15, 2008 8:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
what the $#@%@$#@
dude camby is AMAZING. i feel shammed seeing such a dominant player change places for next to nothing. camby to the clippers for the OPTION TO EXCHANGE 2nd round picks in 2010! WHAT THE HELL
by Foulacy on Jul 15, 2008 8:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Haha LOL
Camby: “such a dominant player” ??!!
are you high?
by GoldenStateDubtronic on Jul 15, 2008 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He isnt dominant... but....
He is a very solid player. As I said before, he is a former Defensive Player of the Year, and, considering the talent in the NBA, that is not an easy award to win. He is a player that would have fit in well with the Warriors. He is a great defender, a good athlete, and has been developing a jump shot as of late. He isnt dominant, but he isnt somebody to sleep on, and he was certainly worthy of a second round pick, if the Warriors were able to pull it off.
Sure, he is old, but he can still produce, as he showed last year.
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
good points
a second round pick is cheap indeed, but i question why the Nuggets would send him to another Western Conf team…something’s up with his health or something’s going on.
by GoldenStateDubtronic on Jul 15, 2008 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
trading in conference and his health
That trading in the conference just isnt that big of a deal anymore. Sure, you try and deal them outside the conference if you can, but teams dont hesitate that much anymore to deal within their conference. You figure that Pau Gasol, Jermaine O’Neal, and Marcus Camby, all very good players, have all been traded within their conferences within the past six months. It is a growing trend that will continue to grow until, I think, it will become nearly obsolete. Again, this is just my feeling on this.
Also, one possible reason why some of the Eastern Conference teams didnt want him was his big contract. Most teams cannot handle an eight million dollar a year player, especially at this point in the offseason after most of the big signings have gone down. The Clippers were one of the few teams that could deal with a contract of that size, considering that they lose Maggette and Brand, while only taking up the shrunken contract of Baron Davis.
The Warriors, with their TE, could have taken him up, money-wise, but at what cost? Signing him would have caused problems signing Ellis and Biedrins for long term deals. Azubuike is another guy that may be nudged out of here as it is. You could almost write him off with a fat contract like Camby.
However, I would have taken a risk on somebody like Camby. As I said, he is a very good player that could have helped this team.
As for his health, there may be something happening. Mid-30 year old big men are always handled cautiously, and this should be no different. I could see how a team would be hesitant to trade for a guy like him, even if it is just for a second round pick.
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The trade exception, having expired, was not an option. Prior to signing Turiaf to an offer sheet, we could have absorbed his salary, but other than that, it was the Clippers of Memphis. Memphis appears to be looking at something else, or holding pat for another year.
by jae on Jul 15, 2008 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Money. They needed a team that could absorb salary. The Clippers were that team. No one else had $8mil in cap space (anymore).
by jae on Jul 15, 2008 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
HE IS DOMINANT
a guy that can give you 20 boards any given night isn’t dominant? one of the very few or, the only one i believe, that got 10 blocks in a game this year isn’t dominant?
by SIZE 15 on Jul 16, 2008 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thank you for pointing that out.
Camby IS dominant.He averaged 13.1 rebounds,3.6 blocked shots last year.Those are dominant numbers.
by gsw-fanatic on Jul 16, 2008 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Camby is absolutely dominant
There are ways to dominate a game without scoring. To suggest he isn’t dominant is silly.
It's almost like the Warriors have 6 guys out there... they always have a guy open! - Jon Barry commentating game 3 last year
by gsw4life on Jul 15, 2008 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dominant...........
IMO dominance is the ability to take control of a game, im not sure camby can do that
Ellis to the rim!
by Sprewell4President on Jul 15, 2008 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very true
That is a great point. There are many players in this game that have a certain job to do, and they do it well. If you are doing everything you are asked to do, I consider that dominating. Jason Kidd, especially at the age he is at now, hardly shoots. However, his rebounding and passing do make him a dominating player. Bruce Bowen, though he may not be a popular (or fair, for that matter) player, does everything the Spurs need him to do on the defensive end, which makes him dominating at what he does. Camby and Ben Wallace are in similar situations, both elite defensive players who excel at blocking shots. They dominate. All four names that I named do not score points, yet they do dominate at what they are supposed to do. At the end of the day, in my opinion, that is all that matters.
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you.
Although Camby isn’t going to score 30 points a game, he does dominate the game defensively. Imagine how many players had second thoughts last year about driving to the hole when they saw Camby, who averaged 3.51 blocks per game, would meet them near the basket. This would be like, in my opinion, saying Ben Wallace in his prime did not affect way the a team played played their offense against Detroit.
by The Daydreamer on Jul 15, 2008 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just realized.
That after this trade, the W’s are in the best position to acquire Marion.
by joestar on Jul 15, 2008 8:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i dont get y d W's want marion
he plays d same position as sjack and AR…and if we get marion, we lose eliis or beans i think? y trade for someone that isnt playing a position that we need?
by japoyy on Jul 15, 2008 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
At this point, we really dont need a guy like Marion. I said it in another thread (or maybe this one) that he would not take us to the playoffs, which is what we need right now. If we could have paired him up with Baron, it would have been a great acquisition, but not at this point.
If we would have traded for Marion, we probably would have had to give up Wright and Harrington, some picks, and some fillers. You figure our lineup to look like this:
C: Biedrins
PF: Marion/Turiaf
SF: Maggette
SG: Jackson/Azubuike/Bellinelli
PG: Ellis/Watson
That leaves us with more holes than we have right now, which is too much. We would have no backups at small forward or the center spot, still have a questionable platoon at point, and no certain direction. Right now, I would rather keep our young’ins and develop them and see what we can get out of them. We cannot afford to start trading them off, though, unless we can get some MAJOR talent, and there is nobody available that I would want.
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points...
Marion though is a swingman who also played PF in Phoenix. So that solves backu-up SF. I would never trade Beans for him, but if the only thing we give up is Al than he basically is an upgrade at PF. Although, I don’t know why Miami would do that trade maybe for a SF and a expiring contract that won’t give them a headache. Having Marion early on basically makes us playoff contenders, and if we fall out of contention we can trade him. I know for sure the Lakers will definitely want Marion if they don’t get Artest. We can get some players out of it like Odom who comes off the books, and Farmar.
Again, the best thing any team can do is look for talent upgrades. If Marion lands here it’ll be great, but to say we don’t need him because we’ll suck is just not true.
by joestar on Jul 15, 2008 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rebuilding vs going all out?
The Warriors are in a very tough spot. No doubt it is a spot that Mullin and Chris Cohan are dreading. They need to decide if they want to hold onto the young talent that they have or trade them for solid players now.
I have said it before, but if Baron was here, I would have no problem shelling out to get Marion, because those two are two players that you could easily ride to the playoffs. You could write in ink, in marker, hell, even on stone, the fact that the Warriors would make the playoffs. I just dont see that happening with just Marion. Marion showed in Miami that he cannot do as well as we think that he can do without a solid point guard. His points, dropped after he went to Miami, which isnt good considering the lack of talent on the Heat. I love Marion. I think he is a good player. I just dont see him as the gamebreaker we need to get in return for trading away our talented young prospects.
The thing about keeping your young players is the chance that Nellie will not play them. However, we do have a lot of good young players that will just get better (hopefully) as time goes on. You figure that our lineup, considering we keep everybody, would look like this in five years:
C: Biedrins/Perovic
PF: Wright/Hendrix/Turiaf
SF: Randolph
SG: Belinelli/Azubuike
PG: Ellis/Watson
Most teams would kill to have a young lineup that looked as good as that one does. There are stars in the making balanced out by role players. I am not a big fan of Mullin, but I do realize that he has set us up good for the future, if we decide to go that route, which I do hope that we should.
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sick of this argument
I hate to say it, but this is just more of the same Warrior Shnzit. How many iterations of young talent do we have to draft, then not use, demoralize, then let go, only to pick up expensive marginal talent to play the same position, as the people we drafted leave and develop on another team? The problem here is consistency. Draft the guys, play them, let them develop chemestry and did I say play them. Don’t keep drafting shooting guards and small fowards using the “best possible athlete” defense only to have duplication at those two positions result in lack of playing time for the young players we already have. Its a vicious cycle. Why not draft and address our needs such as a real PG not a 6-3 SG that we try to make a PG in the guise of Larry Hughes and Gilbert Arenas. Who are the W’s trying to fool? We all know this team needs a true PG to make it all work and all I hear from the brass is alot of lip service and saving face. Come on Magette? We already have Steven Jackson, Belinelli, Harrington and Randolph, do we really need another SG/SF? Which brings me back to my point. All we need now is to have Monte sign a big contract, his numbers come down due to the additional PG duties then have management complain about the luxury tax and later trade him away.
by Ultimate Warrior on Jul 16, 2008 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why not draft and address our needs
when we did that we got guys like foyle, todd fuller, pob, diogu,dunlevey just to name a few. instead of guys like kobe,amare, bynum,rbrewer. look at a team like the blazers who have a bunch young talent that they could use in a trade to fill a position of need.drafting the best possible player regardless of position can help you acquire in a trade the better player in a position of need.
by Rach on Jul 16, 2008 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+10000000000000000
Obviously the Ws’ front office has done its share of stupid things over the years, but “not drafting for need” is not one of them. Indeed, other than the McHale/Parish and Webber debacles, “drafting for need” probably describes all the truly boneheaded moves the Warriors FO has made in my lifetime.
Sign ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 16, 2008 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops
Forgot about all the overpriced long-term contracts (Foyle, Fisher, Dunleavy, Murphy, etc.) Some of those are right down there with the worst of ‘em.
Sign ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 16, 2008 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm baffled
There’s no way the Warriors get Marion without giving up Jackson and likely Harrington.
Marion makes $17.18m next year, so according to the 125% rule, the Warriors would have to give up $13.744m in salaries. Plus, the Heat are already sitting on Haslem, so Harrington’s value is a little lower.
by dprodigy19 on Jul 15, 2008 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is no actual “125% rule”. The rule is that when over the cap, a team cannot take on more than 125%+100k of the salaries going out. This frequently gets misinterpreted as “salaries have to be within 125% of each other”, though this is not actually the case and there are plenty of cases where this is not so. A team under the cap is doesn’t have to make the salaries match. If we’re under the cap (and we still are) we only need to give up as much salary as we’d need in addition to our cap space.
Much hinges on what happens with Turiaf.
by jae on Jul 15, 2008 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jae, you're right but a little bit off
That’s true if the team can stay under the cap with the trade. However, there isn’t a way with the salaries the way they are (with cap holds for Monta and AB, which DO count against the cap for these purposes if memory serves) for the Warriors to avoid the 125% rule.
And if the relevant teams are over (or would be pushed over) the cap, the rule applies. I’d love to see a counter-example to that.
by dprodigy19 on Jul 15, 2008 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As best I can find, there is no example OR counter example and the CBA does not specifically address the case.
This isn’t entirely clear to me after reading Larry’s faq and the CBA language. Neither specifically address the issue of a team under the cap trading to get above the cap. The language of the CBA is that the team under the cap can acquire a player equal to “the team’s room” +100k. It’s not clear if in a simultaneous trade, the outgoing player from a team under the cap then becomes part of the team’s room or not. From a practical standpoint, I would think that it is as it accomplishes the owner’s desire in the CBA: to keep salaries from escalating. But that’s not necessarily indicative that it’s ok.
by jae on Jul 16, 2008 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about randolph? he could play as a back up sf
by monta101 on Jul 16, 2008 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wouldnt have taken him
Given that Camby is a defensive minded player, his age and contract does not work in our favor. he is 34 and has bout 20 mil left on his contract, not so worth it. we got young beans and turiaf as our new middlemen, good enough!
The trade for a 2nd rounder and a 10mil TPE looks like a steal, but I kinda feel bad for the clips now. they spent thier money getting defense, but lacking offense now.
-Go Beach!!
-Bring Back Sprewell!!
by F120man on Jul 15, 2008 8:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
offense?
al thornton, b-d, and kaman are all beasts on the offensive side of teh floor. Defensively? A little challenged.
by dhp318 on Jul 15, 2008 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beasts?
Maybe you and I have a difference of opinion about the definition of the word “beast,” but I dont see Kaman or Thorton as anything more than above average on the offensive end.
Chris Kaman is a guy that, though he had a good season last year, averages barely over ten points a game. That would be like calling Mickael Pietrus a “beast” on offense. Again, he did have a good season last year, but he only scored fifteen points a game. Sure, that is a very solid player, and a guy that can contribute, but I wouldnt call it “beastly.” I actually think that Kaman is a better defensive player than he is an offensive player, averaging thirteen rebounds and three blocks a game last year.
As for Al Thornton, sure, he has a lot of potential, and I see a few All Star games in his career, but he is a hoister. He shoots it nearly every time. This past year, he averaged a little under thirteen points a game, but shot barely over 40%. Again, he has a lot of potential, but for this next season, he has to learn to show a little bit more patience and get a little more diverse in his offensive game to be considered “beastly.”
As for Davis, we dont even need to talk about him. He is an amazing player. If you want a “beastly” player, there you go. No argument from me.
But, yeah, maybe we disagree on what a “beast” is.
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok, so i checked their avgs
and i guess i retract my statement. They have 3 offensively oriented players
i still think kaman is a beast. I think his averages dipped after his injury and stuff, but he does get 3 offensive boards a game, and still, 16/13/3 is beastly. He gets blocks, sure, but he’s just not a good defender.
On the other hand, Al Thornton, I guess I’m just projecting that he will be very good offensively, and fairly mediocre/poor defensively.
Basically, they need defense, not offense. I will admit that BD is teh only true offensive beast there
by dhp318 on Jul 15, 2008 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait a second
you called Ben Wallace “dominant” ? I don’t think he’s “dominant” by any means. We are using “beast” and “dominant” way too loosely tonight. those are words used to describe King James, Kobe and Amare.
by GoldenStateDubtronic on Jul 15, 2008 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For what he does?
I knew I would get crap for calling Wallace dominant. ;)
But you do believe that Wallace, especially when he was with Detroit, was a guy that could take control of a game? That is why I called him dominant.
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
do believe that Wallace, especially when he was with Detroit, was a guy that could take control of a game?
Definitely , If we had the Big Ben in his prime right now we wouldn’t be talking about our problems at center.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 15, 2008 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dont get the wrong idea
I just dont want you guys to think that I was calling Wallace an elite player. He is a good player, but nothing more than that , especially now. But, yeah, he dominated games, nearly every game back then, and did his part to help his team win championships, which I think is pretty dominating.
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm so tired of this
Top quality centers just being given to L.A. teams. I’ve always supported the Clippers, but I really hope I don’t start hating them as much as the Fakers. If it was a fair trade, I wouldn’t be so irritated.
by Golden Boy on Jul 15, 2008 9:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
SEEMS FAIR
At least to the CLIPS and the NUGGS! One team replaces an interior player and the other team sheds $$$. It just doesn’t seem fair to us WARRIORS fans.
After reading all the posts, I think “WHO CARES!!!” I don’t know why “fans” here give MULLIN sh*t for not getting CAMBY. It’s like he’s “Damned if does, Damned if he doesn’t.”
I highly doubt that CLIPS fans are jumping up for joy w/ this trade. Sure, they didn’t have to give up that much, but now they know the CLIPS aren’t going after J-SMOOTH or IGGY, so do you think they’re happy about that and instead getting a good, but old defensive-minded only player?
Let’s just see how the rest of the offseason pans out and once our roster is finalized before we castrate MULLIN! We still don’t know if the LAKERS will match TURIAF’s offer which could potentially give us more $$$ to throw at someone again.
GO WARRIORS!!!
by scottiepimppen on Jul 15, 2008 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I completely forgot about this.
We’ve become the team with the most cap room after this trade. How can the Clips fans be happy when they were close to getting J-Smith, now they get a 34 yr old dominant but fragile center.
by joestar on Jul 15, 2008 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Josh Smith?
Maybe I live under a rock, but I have not heard one thing from any ESPN analyst, any website, any news show, any KNBR update, anything, about the Warriors actually going after Josh Smith. Again, I am new here, so please give me a break if you posted something on here.
As for a Josh Smith signing, though, I highly doubt it because of the signing of Maggette. We will have way too many players in our front court that think they are hot stuff that will want to be starters. That is never a good thing. If we can work it out to get Smith, great, but Harrington will need to go, as will a couple more guys if we want Smith to be happy.
Also, why would Smith want to leave Atlanta? They are one of the best young teams in the NBA in the Eastern Conference competing every year for the playoffs. It seems like Josh Smith would love it there.
One last thing to keep in mind about Smith is that if we do sign him, we can all but say goodbye to Andris and Azubuike. We have no room for fat contracts for Monta, Harrington, Jackson, Maggette, Andris, and Josh Smith. Somebody would need to take a contract off of our hands, and I doubt anybody would give an old shoe for Harrington, let alone an NBA player.
I love Josh Smith, but not more than I love the team we have now, which would have to be gutted to accommodate a guy like him.
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We aren’t even slightly close to getting Josh Smith. We don’t have anything close to the cap room to make an offer that a) he’d accept and b) ATL wouldn’t match.
by jae on Jul 15, 2008 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Atlanta's cap?
I havn’t heard anything about Atlanta’s money situation. Are they looking good? I have heard that they may not match it if it gets too high.
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I meant that the Clippers were getting Josh Smith.
Read closely man, before you write a five paragraph rebuttal.
by joestar on Jul 15, 2008 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh...
Crap, my bad, man. I saw “We’ve become the team with the most cap room after this trade. How can the Clips fans be happy when they were close to getting J-Smith, now they get a 34 yr old dominant but fragile center.” I didnt see the “they” and I thought you meant “when we’re close to getting J-Smith.” Rookie mistake, I guess.
I just have heard so much about how the Warriors are getting Smith from other posters, I wanted to make sure you weren’t one of them.
My bad, again. ;[
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Common Mistake
I do that all the time. LOL
by joestar on Jul 15, 2008 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Geez
First day and I screw up that bad. Nice start….. :p
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
God are you all @!#@!#!@
He’s 34 years old. He plays Center. He will be a back up behind Camby. He is being apid over 8 Million per year and now the Clips have no cap space left for any other studs. That is a team with an old point guard now an old center. It was a HORRIBLE pick up!
by smearthebeard on Jul 15, 2008 9:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He will be a back up behind Camby
Man hes gotta back himself up….......thats rough
Ellis to the rim!
by Sprewell4President on Jul 15, 2008 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Coach Dunleavy: Get off your ass and get in the game, Camby!!!
Marcus Camby: But coach, I’m already…
Coach Dunleavy: Do as I say!!!
Sign ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 15, 2008 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
That idiotic statement must run in the family. I remember hearing a lot of statements like that from Mike.
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wasn't for a 2nd round pick
It was for the right to swap 2nd rounders… so Clippers didn’t even have to lose a pick. Couldn’t the Denver GM at least negotiate his way to an outright 2nd rounder?
It's almost like the Warriors have 6 guys out there... they always have a guy open! - Jon Barry commentating game 3 last year
by gsw4life on Jul 15, 2008 9:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
if thats correct that was dumb. i understand the salary dump but man thats dumb. at least mchale would have gotten the pick
by Rach on Jul 15, 2008 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If McHale was involved Boston would have somehow ended up with cash considerations.
by Nellieball on Jul 15, 2008 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even greater
Since it’s near-inevitable that the Clippers would do better than the Nuggets as presently constituted.
by dprodigy19 on Jul 15, 2008 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
TE
It was also for a trade exception… Is that word taboo around here? =)
by q00pster on Jul 15, 2008 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
stealing from Mullin's PR book no doubt
“The deal was made for one compelling reason,” said vice president of basketball operations Mark Warkentien, who said the Nuggets remain in luxury-tax territory. “The trade exception that we get provides us with greater flexibility and more options for potential deals.” – Rocky Mountain News
wonder what Melo & AI think of that – same as Baron perhaps?
by hardcore on Jul 16, 2008 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
dono about this one
on one hand, davis having two big men who complement each other relatively well will make a field day for efficiency for all three players: diddy, camby, and kaman. on the other hand, camby might impale someone’s eye with that jumper of his and get injured. so who knows.
by dso on Jul 15, 2008 10:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i am ok with this
Yes, it does suck that the Clippers get a steal similar to the Lakers stealing Gasol, but I don’t think the Warriors acquiring Camby would have been that great. He is probably going to be less productive the next two years and he would not have made us a top 4 team.
If you think he would have made us so good then why couldn’t he get it done with AI and Carmelo? It would have just been another team with a scoring backcourt and him getting rebounds.
by dancingchiapet on Jul 15, 2008 11:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
we will still finish better than the clips
bd will gain 20 lbs this summer and pull a hammy just before the season starts and miss the first three weeks of the season.
by Rach on Jul 15, 2008 11:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
also
the clips have done nothing to replace the scoring they lost with maggs and brand leaving. they will struggle
by Rach on Jul 15, 2008 11:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
The Clips’ lineup looks kind of mediocre right now, but I agree that they lack scoring. That’s why I think if Thornton or Eric Gordon develop into good scorers, the Clippers might be pretty good next year.
by The Daydreamer on Jul 15, 2008 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Relying on rookies?
Man, that is one big mistake for them if that is what they are going to do. If you start relying on rookies to score big for you, you will most likely get burned. Thornton (yes, I know he isnt a rookie, but… almost) is a very good prospect and will be a great player someday, but you shouldnt rely on him. And Gordon is in the same situation. Good future ahead of him, but just not a guy that you should rely on to do well.
I think that they should be looking to vets like Tim Thomas to help them out. I like Thomas and think that he could be a wildcard for them next year.
At any rate, I doubt they will be any good next year. They do have a good young core, though.
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thornton averaged like 16-7-3 the last 5 games of the season,
so it’s possible Thornton could bring his game to the next level. I agree it would be asking a lot out of Gordon to be a significant contributor next season, though. But all this Clippers team really needs is a solid, consitant contributer at the 2 or 3.
by The Daydreamer on Jul 16, 2008 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh. Fine move for the Clips, I guess, but nothing we should lose sleep over. I think we’re now slightly better than both the Clips (still very short on efficient scoring) and the Nuggets (no D whatsoever—yes, even less than us). I’d take the seven other West playoff teams from last year and Portland over us, so we’re no great shakes right now, but this weakened one rival without really legitimizing another. I’m all for that.
I was fine with the Turiaf signing, but maaaan, you’ve really got to hope the Lakers match now. Being the team with the most cap space again would open up a bunch of interesting possibilities.
by onlxn on Jul 15, 2008 11:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nuggets "D"
I just wanted to comment on the Nuggets defense. I agree with you that we are better than them on defense for one reason: intensity. As I watch the Nuggets play defense, it reminds me of that rookie pitcher going out to face that megastar legend of a batter…. he goes in thinking, “man, do I have to???” The Nuggets dont seem to realize that defense is necessary to win games. I feel like the Warriors do realize that, but they dont have the personel to do it.
Also, the Warriors do have guys on the team that can play some defense. I see Azubuike as a very solid defensive player, especially on the perimeter. Turiaf is known as a good defensive player inside. Brandan Wright and Andris can both block and board with the best of them and Jackson is feared as a defender.
I look at the Nuggets and what is there? Nothing. The only thing that kept them from getting scored 150 on every game was Camby, and now that he is gone, they are an embarassment. Who is going to step up and play defense? Najara is gone, and I saw him play solid defense, last year, too.I am waiting for them go get killed this next year. I didnt like that they took our spot in the playoffs last year. I am hoping they do terrible.
I know… nice thing to say. :)
by sfsfsfgiants on Jul 15, 2008 11:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Warrior's D
Regarding Denver, they beat us at our own game. Defense is a battle of passion and chemestry. Who wants it more. I feel that a big part of the passion or at least the catalyst for it, is now a Clipper. Injury potential aside management has underestimated the effects #5’s timely plays and steals had. We have alot of nice peices but lack the glue that brings them all together. The thing about Denver is they have two money players that can CONSISTENTLY make the big shot at will the W’s don’t; the closest we have is no where close to that and just cost us $50 Million.
by Ultimate Warrior on Jul 16, 2008 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Defense is a battle of passion
so if bd was big part of our passion and our catalyst then i guess its safe to say that he didnt care enough so the rest of the guys didnt either and thats why we didnt make the po’s
by Rach on Jul 16, 2008 10:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i guess its safe to say that he didnt care enough
I think it’s safer to say he was playing too many minutes to play all out all the time so he made the best of it by using his energy wisely. Boom can play D with the best of them when he’s got backup support on the bench or on the court.
now playing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPIpyB_ZtJ0
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 16, 2008 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good move for both teams. Denver gets the salary relief, LAC somewhat appeases its fans by “going all out.” I don’t think Camby pushes the Clippers into postseason success, though. They’re still stuck in the middle of the 3-4 teams vying for a playoff spot down the line.
It never occurred to me that one man could play with the faith of 50 million.
by imovermyhead on Jul 16, 2008 10:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i agree bd can play d with the best of them
when he wants to. “so he made the best of it by using his energy wisely.” would that be an aknowledgement that he paced himself deffered to lesser players like mb, mp and al when they were all looking for him to make the play
by Rach on Jul 16, 2008 11:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
would that be an aknowledgement that he paced himself deffered to lesser players like mb, mp and al
That would be the expected situation. We pay them to play their roles. You can’t blame Boom for coaching error or shortcomings in other players. He played as good as any guard not picked as an allstar and won us many games before wearing down. It’s a team sport, if we’d still had JRich helping out Boom we’d probably be celebrating another playoff appearance.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 16, 2008 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
your right
i cant blame bd. i agree that its not his fault that nellie would leave him in the game when it was clear that he was tired or just pacing himself so that he wouldnt get tired. jax paced himself to for the same reason as bd. thats on nellie for leaving them in there cuz he thought his bench sucked. its not bd’s fault either that they would hold him out of practice for fear that he would get hurt thats nellie’s fault. but what is his fault is not being in better shape. bd knew what his role was on this team was. he knew that the teams success would be greatly affected by his own individual success or lack of it. its his fault that he wasnt dedicated enough to his team and himself to be in better condition. its to bad that nellie waited so long to bench bd and make his statement.
by Rach on Jul 16, 2008 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BD was just too fat
How many great defensive players at the guard position carry around that kind of weight? You are right when you say he can be a great defender, he just cant keep it up and be great on offense too.
Dont anyone even try to defend BD by using the old bad knees bit…if he lost some weight his knees would have felt 10 times better
by warriorsvictim on Jul 16, 2008 11:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Coulda been a contender......
Hypothetically-If the Warriors had sent the TPE to Denver for Camby, retained Baron (wouldnt he have wanted to stay for a little less with this lineup?) and then accepted the deal Miami is reportedly offering (Biedrins sign and trade+Harrington for Marion) we wouldve had a lineup next year like this-
PG-Baron/CJ
SG-Monta/Bellinelli
SF-Jack/Randolph
PF-Marion/Wright
C-Camby/Hendrix
Landing Camby wouldve forced Cohan to shell out a little more, but it wouldnt have forced us to pay any luxury tax. In fact we would still have the Midlevel to add another vet or two (big man and a shooter) to the bench…maybe Turiaf. The team isnt real deep but I honestly think they couldve been contending with Utah, San Antonio, the Lakers, and New Orleans in the West next year. The team is really perfect for Nellie’s system and doesnt have nearly as many rebounding or defense issues as theyve had for the past two years. Thinking about what coulda been is killing me.
by sam23 on Jul 16, 2008 1:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
wow
i hope that’s not accurate, but yeah, that’s a very good team. lots of ‘ifs’ but none of them are absurd like we’ve seen on these boards in the past. i almost want to ask someone who knows the cap really well to double check that, but am scared that the answer would be “it’s possible and the midlevel would still be there” as you suggest. of course, we can’t really look back on stuff like this with a ‘knowing what we know now’ attitude. could mullin really have been aware of all this before baron opted out? maybe not, but all that i can think about at the moment is, wow, that’s a team.
by cap'n hack on Jul 16, 2008 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure it works
and again that team can match up with any team in the league. We would be crazy injury prone, but it wouldve been well worth a shot.
by sam23 on Jul 16, 2008 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh yeah
that would have been a squad! shoulda, woulda, coulda.
damn.
by GoldenStateDubtronic on Jul 16, 2008 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No bench?
PG-Baron/CJ
SG-Monta/Bellinelli
SF-Jack/Randolph
PF-Marion/Wright
C-Camby/Hendrix
The first team looks great but other than Wright the subs suck? You’d wear out Boom,Jax, Montay etc. with only rookies and CJ for subs. We had enough problems last year with Pietrus, Barnes and Kabuki subbing in, what do you think would happen with all those rooks?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 16, 2008 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 

















