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 |
109
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 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 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
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 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 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
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 0 recs
Now we have a chance at making the playoffs
Najera Gone and Camby gone
-61ixty
by 61ixty on Jul 15, 2008 7:26 PM PDT 0 recs
Not quite
The clippers just passed us. Unless we make a move, we will be worse than the Clippers…yes the clippers.
by Eggman on
Jul 15, 2008 10:54 PM PDT
up
0 recs
have faith...........
We will be better than the flippers
by DubTownHeat on
Jul 15, 2008 11:01 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Clippers are better now but..
... not that much better. Baron & Camby are booth really good players but both are past their prime. I really think Baron in LA will not be fully focused in hoopin. The duo of Kamen/Camby is one to pay attention to but I don’t think the Clips are a playoff team. Close but no cigar.
copy & paste: geocities.com/nellieballtee
by JonDoe on
Jul 16, 2008 11:30 AM PDT
up
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 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
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
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 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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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 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 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 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 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
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 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 0 recs
Haha LOL
Camby: “such a dominant player” ??!!
are you high?
by GoldenStateDubtronic on
Jul 15, 2008 9:17 PM PDT
up
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
0 recs


