Just trade all our draft picks

by warriorsvictim on May 1, 2009 3:54 PM PDT

I have been away for a while, maybe I missed it, but I am surprised no one has posted a request to just trade all of our draft picks this year plus players if necessary so we can get a solid veteran.

What the hell are we going to do with another rookie or two? We are the youngest team by far already and cannot deal with another player who has 1 or 2 years of college and serious holes in his fundamental understanding of NBA basketball.

There has to be a team out there who would trade a solid player for 3 draft picks plus a crawford or belinelli. At least Detroit, Toronto, Clippers, Bucks come to mind as all need to make some serious changes this year or next, plus there are probably several other teams who would also fit the bill.

Somebody please school me on the NBA's contractual restrictions on trading picks for veteran players. I am sure there are limitations on how you value a player versus a potential contract.

I just dont see the logic in grabbing another young guy with upside.

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!

Tweet Comment 37 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

this might actually be a good idea

how bad would it really be if we just DIDN’T acquire any youngsters for another year?

…that is, unless we land a top 3 pick of course.

by Run Dubz on May 1, 2009 5:11 PM PDT reply actions

maybe we can use it as bait to get a trade for outlaw or josh howard

by nateoak10 on May 1, 2009 5:38 PM PDT reply actions

Blazer fans HATE Outlaw… what do you see in him?

by antihero on May 1, 2009 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions

how do you know?

by gswfan1 on May 1, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions

They really do, at least on all the boards i've read

by 123707THIZZ on May 2, 2009 1:07 AM PDT up reply actions

im sure they think the same about us and stack jack

i dont know bout you but i love the dude even though he makes me angry sometimes

by gswfan1 on May 2, 2009 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions

There has to be a team out there who would trade a solid player for 3 draft picks plus a crawford or belinelli.

How do we trade 3 draft picks away this year? Do we have an extra pick that’s coming our way? (I also thought we’re without a second rounder.)

by jae on May 1, 2009 5:51 PM PDT reply actions

We are

Were one and done. So we might as well pick up the BPA, unless of course A deal comes along that will fill a need.

There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.

by qin on May 1, 2009 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Youngest team by far?

Too bad that most of those players are not contributors. Three of the Warriors’ mainstays (Crawford, Jackson, Maggette) are 29 or older.

There was a thread a while ago where someone gave a calculation of how relevant the age is, and I’m pretty sure that Portland had more young guys play more minutes than the Warriors did.

by markdash on May 1, 2009 7:46 PM PDT reply actions

crawford and maggs wont be here next season…

You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk

by LostHawk on May 1, 2009 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions

I like your crystal ball,

I hope it’s not broken…

Thing 2

by olympicmike on May 1, 2009 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah...

There was a thread a while ago where someone gave a calculation of how relevant the age is, and I’m pretty sure that Portland had more young guys play more minutes than the Warriors did.

That was WS110 and you can find his stuff here and the follow up here.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on May 1, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions

thanks for the links

the Grizz did pop into my head as well but I didn’t recall if they were part of the conversation at the time.

by markdash on May 2, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Portland is a great model for the Warriors.

We need to get rid of Crawford, and maybe even Maggette and let the youth we have play. That stat is wack becasue Monta is going to be right there with Jack in minutes next year. Belinelli, Wright, Randolph, and Morrow need should(will?) get more playing time next year. That of course means that will have to preforme well enough to cut the minutes of Jack, Maggette, Monta, and Azubuike. But I believe in the young players on this team. That allows our more veteran, perhaps better, players to be healthy and well rested for the playoffs.

by myk on May 2, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Damn hella spelling errors.

Blame it on the wake n bake

by myk on May 2, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions

Portland is a great model for the Warriors.

Step one: get a player as good as Brandon Roy.

If we cannot accomplish this, the Portland model isn’t a particularly good one.

by jae on May 2, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

getting any first-tier impact player

entering, like Roy, or in his prime is the simplest model to adopt, and with this team’s owner plus the incumbent players’ contracts, we will not see them adding a premium-priced vet, that so many here are fond of dreaming on. Portland combined repeated years of high picks with aggressive trades—the woe-yrs went through the phase of high picks during the st.jean era and mullin’s first year, but mullin went for a quick fix in the Davis trade. Without Davis that initial half season, they land another high lottery pick. Two of the best players in the recent past, Arenas and Davis, departed with no value coming back, and the remains of those high picks are Jackson, crawfor-, and Wright.

by the.monk on May 2, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions

Step -1:

Get Paul Allen to buy the Warriors.

Step 0: Get Kevin Pritchard to be the GM.

Now you may proceed.

by markdash on May 2, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Well you have step -2

Have die hard fan base.

"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''

by Sabonis4Ever on May 6, 2009 1:10 AM PDT up reply actions

check

by Run Dubz on May 6, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions

Portland has the youngest playing rotation

Raef LaFrenz screwed up our avg age, and he lived in Kansas ‘rehabbing’ his knee all season.

"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''

by Sabonis4Ever on May 6, 2009 1:07 AM PDT up reply actions

playing rotation

What is this “playing rotation” you refer to? Is it like when one of your starters gets injured and you have to “rotate” somebody else in? I don’t get it.

I understand that the Warriors had a few old guys, but when the every single guy on your bench is either a rookies or a D-League call up, it’s unfair to devalue them when calculating the team age. The fact that they’re not ready to be a major contributor does have a significant effect on the team performance (rotation is shorter, old guys play more and get injured & tired more, etc.).

I will give you guys that LaFrentz shouldn’t have been included in calculating your age.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK

by Dubs fan in Boston on May 6, 2009 6:36 AM PDT up reply actions

No

Playing rotation is who is actually playing and using the minutes.

"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''

by Sabonis4Ever on May 6, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions

More to the point ...

… what Veteran can we get for a few draft picks who will turn us into a contender?

by Ronaldinho on May 1, 2009 8:38 PM PDT reply actions

let’s trade all one of our draft picks for a solid vet. sounds great, but i’ve gotta say, i really don’t see any takers on a “7th pick + overpaid jamal crawford deal for an actually good nba player” trade. but maybe that’s just me

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 2, 2009 1:15 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs

Its a good idea

Except you really dont even need to move that far down.. who says the the spurs or another playoff team on the fringe wouldnt take this deal and all we would have to do is move down? Pick up a pg to groom for the future while ditching a bad contract?

Im making the call now, putting my money in vegas it happens. Welcome to the team Patty Mills/Jonny Flynn

by pinkycheal on May 4, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree with you 100%

The Blazers have a young good team. But that’s all they are. They have to wait. I don’t want to wait anymore. I wanna start winning and contending now.

by Golden Boy on May 2, 2009 1:45 PM PDT reply actions

A top 7 pick is valuable

I failed to look up our pick situation this year, good catch, but I think a team like Detroit or San Antonio whjo is playing well with a lot of veterans has to be interested in an earlier draft pick while dumping a solid veteran.

I ahve not taken the time to target any specific player/team, but I think our pick is more valuable than we might currently believe

by warriorsvictim on May 4, 2009 4:11 PM PDT reply actions

If it's such a valuable thing, why would you want to get rid of it?

Especially since we’re a crappy team nowhere near contention.

I just dont see the logic in grabbing another young guy with upside.

The teams who drafted LeBron, DHoward, CP3, DWill, Wade, Melo, Durant, Roy, Rose et al. say hello. Ditto the ones who drafted Jordan, Bird, Magic, Isiah, Stockton, Ewing, Hakeem, Duncan…

I dunno, keeping your first round pick when you suck seems pretty logical to me. But if you want to trade all our other picks after the first round, I’m totally cool with that. Think we could get a solid starter for our 4th, 5th and 6th rounders?

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on May 4, 2009 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree with you but

Those guys were, in order:

1st, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 4th, 1st, 3rd, 6th, 1st, 2nd, 16th, 1st, 1st, and 1st picks in their drafts.

Exactly one of those guys would be available with a #7 pick, which is the Warriors’ theoretical slot.

There are plenty of HoF caliber or highly productive players who were 7th picks through the end of the draft.

by markdash on May 4, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions

There have been good players taken later in the draft. Odds do not favor that with most picks that low though. Sure, it helps to be able to identify talent, but some of that, I firmly believe, is just plain luck. Getting lucky a few times happens, but it will usually be attributed to some skill even if it wasn’t.

by jae on May 4, 2009 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions

True but

Most of those 1s, 2s, and 3s were awarded via lottery, which we still have a totally non-zero chance of winning. This diary would make much more sense if it came after the lottery, or added the qualification “assuming we don’t hit the lottery.”

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on May 4, 2009 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions

True enough

I had assumed that the fanpost had that qualification in unspoken form. If you didn’t read it the same way, then we are in agreement.

Although I favor keeping the pick even if it’s #10 (which is possible, but highly unlikely).

by markdash on May 4, 2009 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions

Broy was drafted 6th

Not 4th fyi

"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''

by Sabonis4Ever on May 6, 2009 12:53 AM PDT up reply actions

yup

traded #4 tyrus thomas for broy…

bet chicago would like broy-rose backcourt

by tafkasam on May 7, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions

We have limited avenues for improving the team. Our players are difficult to trade for talent due to the contract situations and we’re not in a position to be buyers on the market. It means that we either get better by drafting well or by doing something to get rid of the bad contracts. If it costs us the draft to get rid of the bad contracts, it’s a gamble that we’ll be able to make better use of the newfound cap space than we’d have been able to do drafting.

Dumping Maggs or Crawford is only a plus if their departure makes it more likely that we’ll be able to pick up better players. It so often sounds like people forget this step.

by jae on May 4, 2009 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions

Exactly...

Dumping Maggs or Crawford is only a plus if their departure makes it more likely that we’ll be able to pick up better players. It so often sounds like people forget this step.

This is one of those things that even the smartest of posters lose track of. There has to be a plan. Giving away assets to get rid of a bad contract won’t help the team. Our problems won’t be solved just by cleansing our palate of the contracts that we don’t like.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on May 4, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions