Which team objects to this deal?
by wheresmylaptop on Mar 16, 2010 1:11 PM PDT
157 comments
I've read this site for 3+ years, but have never posted. I've researched this pretty thoroughly, but don't skewer me if I've overlooked some cap intricacies. I'm curious what readers think of this 3-team trade, which was successful on the ESPN trade machine. I'm assuming that means it would be successful if completed before July 1 (the current salary cap year).
Disclaimer: This trade assumes that GS wins the #1 or #2 pick in the lottery (31% chance for 3rd-worst record).
To Golden State: Chris Paul, Robin Lopez, Goran Dragic, NO 2010 1st round pick (12-14 range, probably)
To New Orleans: GSW 2010 1st round pick (#1 or #2), Anthony Randolph, Ronny Turiaf, Jason Richardson
To Phoenix: Stephen Curry, Corey Maggette, David West
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yjrdj7l
(Trade machine doesn't factoring in the picks, but they don't have dollar value for trade purposes)
My understanding of this situation is that New Orleans is looking to shed short-term payroll, Golden State is looking to stockpile cheap assets and carve out clear starting roles on a healthy team, and that Phoenix will be looking to gradually replace their older talent with younger talent (without taking on additional payroll).
Golden State roster ('10-'11)
PG: CP3/Dragic/Ellis
SG: Ellis/Morrow
SF: Azubuike/Morrow/Radmanovic
PF: Wright/Radmanovic
C: Biedrins/Lopez
+ 1st round pick (12-14), 2nd round pick (33), D-Leaguer X or re-sign Raja Bell on the cheap if he can play
Net payroll effects (salary numbers are from HoopsHype, with assumption that all team options and player options are taken, but disregarding qualifying offers):
10-11: $300k increase + (~$2.5m difference in rookie salary from worse pick) = $2.2m savings
11-12: $700k increase + (~$2.5m) = $1.8m savings
12-13: $2.9m increase + (~$2.5m) = $400k increase
Why GSW says yes: Chris Paul (only 3 years older than Curry) is the best PG in the league, hands-down. He has earned All-NBA (2x) and All-Defense (2x) honors in the previous two seasons. He is a proven talent in the league. Dragic and Lopez are young, cheap and talented backup players. They are both major rotation players for the Suns, and Lopez could potentially supplant Biedrins as a starter. There are not enough minutes at the 1, 2, and 3 spots for Curry, Ellis, Morrow, Azubuike, Maggette, and a high draft pick (Wall or Turner). This reduces some clutter/redundancy. Randolph needs to be thrown in, or else this probably isn't enticing enough for NO. Ellis and Biedrins are pretty much unmovable with deals that go through 2013-2014 (counting player options). Ellis doesn't have to be a leader.
Hollinger's formula says this will result in 14 more losses for the Warriors. Really? Is that team any worse than the '07-'08 NO team (CP3, Pargo, old Peja, MoPete, West, Chandler, Armstrong, Wells) that came within a game of the Western Conference finals? Only at the PF spot, in my opinion.
Why GSW says no: Randolph and Curry are fan favorites. What is the ceiling for Wall or Turner? Can we count on Azubuike and Wright recovering sufficiently from their injuries? Does it make Phoenix too good?
New Orleans roster ('10-'11) w/Wall
PG: Wall/Collison
SG: J-Rich/Thornton/Peterson
SF: Peja/Posey/Wright
PF: Randolph/Songaila
C: Okafor/Turiaf
...if it's Turner instead of Wall, then Collison starts at PG and this requires a little juggling
Net payroll effects
10-11: ($2.8m) + ~$2.5m from diff. in rookie salary due to better pick = $300k savings
11-12: ($16.6m) + ~2.5m = $14.1m savings
12-13: ($17.8m) + ~$2.5m = $15.3m savings
Why NO says yes: This deal saves them $30 million over the next three seasons. This might be the best value they get for Paul, while still fielding a very competitive team. Collision and Thornton have played incredibly well the past two months in Paul's absence. They will have lots of young assets to package with expirings (Peja, J-Rich, Peterson) at next year's trade deadline if they need a veteran star at the 3 or 4. Tremendous upside for Wall or Turner.
Why NO says no: Well, as one Hornets fan said in a fanpost a few months ago, "Trading CP3 would effectively murder basketball in New Orleans." Yeah...but when LeBron leaves his team, Cleveland isn't going to get anything. At least this deal gets major talent in return and saves dough.
Phoenix roster ('10-11)
PG: Nash/Curry
SG: Barbosa/Curry/Dudley
SF: Maggette/Hill/Dudley
PF: West/Clark
C: Stoudemire/Frye
Net payroll effects
10-11: $2.5m increase
11-12: $15.9m increase, but no more Amare ($17.7m off the books)
12-13: $14.9m increase, but no more Nash ($11.7m off the books) or Barbosa ($7.6m)
Why PHO says yes: Next year's team is stacked (offensively, at least). Curry is the guy they've supposedly wanted all along. He can get 20-25 min/game backing up Nash, and another 15 playing alongside him at the 2 spot. Taking on Maggette for 3 years/$30m is not an outrageous contract for a player of his caliber. Not much dough committed to West. They can slowly phase out Nash and Hill, gradually reducing their minutes while grooming the younger guys. Gives them plenty of room to sign free agents in 2011 or 2012.
Why PHO says no: Team as it stands has great chemistry, and is playing winning basketball right now (41-26, but 9 of those wins are against GSW/LAC/SAC). Suns gambled two years ago by trading for Shaq, and that didn't get them anywhere. Couldn't make playoffs with Nash, J-Rich, Hill, Amare, and Shaq - why would this roster do better?
So, what do GSOM readers think? Which team says no?
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 |
157 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Why are we making a deal for a position NOT at need all while giving away a position that we DO need?
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
All while giving away our 1st rounder. Makes no sense.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 16, 2010 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Because Chris Paul is a more valuable asset than our entire roster combined?
by Missing Barry on Mar 16, 2010 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but you’re mortgaging your future for a position that already is reserved for super stardom (Curry).
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 16, 2010 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions
for a position that already is reserved for super stardom (Curry).
Ah, “reserved for super stardom”. Interesting.
by Missing Barry on Mar 16, 2010 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Ah, "reserved for super stardom". Interesting.
Haven’t you heard? ESPN, Warriors.com, and Bob Fitzgerald are heralding him with ROY honors.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 16, 2010 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions
just because someone says something, doesn't mean its true
Russell Westbrook wasn’t supposed to make an impact on the Thunder coming into the league. Now look at him
by Richboievans on Mar 16, 2010 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Westbrook
He was drafted fifth overall, so he definitely had talent. We just didn’t know if he’d ever live up to the potential and he’s living up to it right now.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 16, 2010 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions
I knoww he was drafted pretty high....
But a lot of analysts thought his arsenal was very limited as well as his court vision.
by Richboievans on Mar 16, 2010 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions
So maybe he gets ROY, so what?
That doesn’t put him in Paul’s class.
Here’s a list of recent ROYs who nobody would trade Paul for, straight-up.
Roy, Okafor, Rose, Stoudamire, Gasol, Miller, Brand, Francis.
Only three recent ROYs would – just on basketball ability – make NO think about trading Paul:
1) Lebron James. Duh.
2) Kevin Durant. On potential, really. NO probably doesn’t do this deal … but neither does OKC.
3) Chris Paul. Oh, wait, you can’t trade him for himself.
Going back further, you wouldn’t trade Chris Paul for Vince Carter at a similar point in his career. You WOULD trade Paul for Duncan, easily. You wouldn’t trade him for Allen Iverson or Damon Stoudamire.
WIth the knowldge of hindsight, you probably wouldn’t trade him for Chris Webber (although at the time everybody makes that deal.)
Shaq, yes. LJ, Coleman, no. David Robinson maybe. Mitch RIchmond no, Mark Jackson no.
So out of the last 20 ROYs not named Chris Paul, you would prefer Chris Paul 15-16 times. Any, quite frankly, the guys who you prefer over him had “superstar” stamped on their foreheads when they were drafted.
Chris Paul is that good.
Of course, we’re not talking about a straight-up trade, but remember, in the NBA, collection-of-pieces-for-a-superstar trades almost always favor the team receiving the superstar.
Tyreke Evans is ROY
You know what I really love, I really love the Lacoste Sport Sweat suit man. The one that looks like the orange that's the same color as fruit loop orange! Houses like clovers, houses like clovers whatever that man says! Twinkle, Stars, Diamonds, Emeralds. We got every color bruh! It's fu@#in crazy man. This fool walked up to me the other day, and was like blood, where did you get them at yo? What, you made them? I said, man we don't make nothin man! We don't make nothin man. We just make your girl give h%@d. When she sees these on sight. She never thought they come in size twelves man. I wear size twelves man!
Tyreke Evans is ROY
Definitely unless the voting is rigged. Of course the NBA is not known for honesty in it’s doings so I could see them shafting Tyreke for their fav poster boy. Sometimes it’s not who you are but who you know.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 16, 2010 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Flush...
"I could be chasing an untamed ornithoid without cause."
by olympicmike on Mar 17, 2010 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Haven’t you heard? ESPN, Warriors.com, and Bob Fitzgerald are heralding him with ROY honors.
sarcasm….////
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions
You haven’t been watching the games?
8th alias and on probation
I promise to be kinder and gentler
by StinkyFingers on Mar 16, 2010 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions
"Why are we making a deal for a position NOT at need all while giving away a position that we DO need?"
Because Chris Paul, when healthy – and there’s some question if we should have long-term concerns about that knee – is one of the best five players in the league. He’s a true superstar.
And the NBA is league all about superstars.
Curry isn’t a superstar, and may never become one. He’s not likely to ever be as good as Paul has already been. There’s no particular reason to think that Wall will be better than Paul.
If there’s a rule of thumb in the NBA, it’s that if you can acquire a superstar you do it. Paul is a superstar.
So, how broke are the Hornets? I think they’ve maneuvered under the luxury tax level, which is the immediate goal. I’ve read differing accounts of their finances, although I know they did take out a loan from the league. Does the owner have a lot of debt maturing in two or three years? As it stands, NO has the 3rd highest payroll commitment for 2011-2012 (behind LAL and ORL).
That’s the only reason I see them trading Paul — to clean up their balance sheet for the next few years. Well, that and the injured knee.
by wheresmylaptop on Mar 16, 2010 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Curry isn’t a superstar, and may never become one. He’s not likely to ever be as good as Paul has already been. There’s no particular reason to think that Wall will be better than Paul.
Normally that is true and if it was just CP3 for Curry-bury there’d be no questions but Curry, Wall, and Rudolf might override the CP3 argument, three marginal allstars might make a better team than one real allstar.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 16, 2010 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions
We'd have to give up Curry, Randolph, Maggette, the pick, and Turiaf for basically CP3, a backup center who is not as good as Ronny, and a backup guard who is not as good as CJ Watson?
Doesn’t seem like a good trade for us.
I’d rather package the 3rd pick, since that’s what we’ll get, along with Corey Maggette and maybe Morrow or Azubuike and try to get Danny Granger or Andre Iguodala.
The upgrade to CP3 from Curry doesn’t seem necessary at this point. I just don’t see why we would make this trade. Our need is to have surround the small backcourt with players that can rebound and defend and produce around 55 ppg a night.
Pairing CP3 with Monta and getting rid of Maggette, Ronny and AR doesn’t solve that issue.
by myk on Mar 16, 2010 1:53 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
+1 for elaborating
;-)
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 16, 2010 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I would LOVE to see us go for Granger.
He would be a perfect fit here, basically a far better version of Jackson.
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
The upgrade to CP3 from Curry doesn’t seem necessary at this point.
Top talent wins games. Chris Paul is a top 5 player in the NBA right now, and probably Top 3. Upgrading to that kind of top talent is very, very necessary for our team. You might think it’s a lot to give up overall, but make no mistake about it, Chris Paul is a huge, huge, huge upgrade for our team.
by Missing Barry on Mar 16, 2010 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe my own opinion only, but I think Deron Williams is slightly better than Chris Paul. But in any case, Paul still could be argued as top 5, top 10 at worst.
I actually also really like Lopez, and I was hoping the Ws would draft him. Dragic is the same as Watson IMO.
Why would NO do this though? No chance. As much as I love him, J-Rich is turning the corner in the bad direction and Randolph is unproven. They are basically trading a known superstar for a potential superstar (Wall/Turner).
I think Deron Williams is slightly better than Chris Paul
In what way? After 2-3 years in the league, I could see that argument, but since then Paul has unquestionably distanced himself from Williams, a player I do like a lot. Paul scores more, does so more efficiently, turns it over less, rebounds more, creates more turnovers, and they’re basically equal in creating for teammates. Not seeing any arguments in favor of Williams at all, really.
by Missing Barry on Mar 16, 2010 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Might just be my preference, but Williams size/strength give him a post up game as another weapon. Having a big PG that can post up is pretty valuable.
Again, just my opinion, I can totally buy the opposite.
I like big, too – would definitely lean towards a bigger guy, but in this case, Paul is just that great, the gap between a very good player (Williams) and him is just too much to go with the bigger guy. Paul is on pace to be the 2nd best PG of all time.
by Missing Barry on Mar 16, 2010 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Given the kind of season Curry is having, it would be stupid to say he won’t be a top PG in the league for years to come. Chris Paul is a top player in the league, but even he can’t make NO win without a good supporting cast. You would giving CP3 a similar roster he has in NO, which isn’t really going anywhere.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 16, 2010 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Not downplaying Curry’s ability, but the Hornets are much better than the Warriors and CP3 is much better than Curry right now. I love Curry and think he has the potential to be top 5 PG in the league, but I wouldn’t for certain crown that as true right now.
Not downplaying Curry’s ability, but the Hornets are much better than the Warriors and CP3 is much better than Curry right now. I love Curry and think he has the potential to be top 5 PG in the league, but I wouldn’t for certain crown that as true right now.
I certainly cannot argue that. I am PRESUMING Curry is going to be in the discussion of top PG’s in the league and I am, by default of being a Warriors fan, a Curry fan. So, I am opposed to this trade idea.
Not only that, NO would definitely say no. CP3 is the man.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 16, 2010 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, if you think 23 year-old Curry can put up 60 assists/6 turnovers for a 5-game playoff series (which is what Paul did, before turning 23) in a year when 48-win teams were shut out of the playoffs…then I’m absolutely undervaluing him.
by wheresmylaptop on Mar 16, 2010 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, if you think 23 year-old Curry can put up 60 assists/6 turnovers for a 5-game playoff series (which is what Paul did, before turning 23) in a year when 48-win teams were shut out of the playoffs…then I’m absolutely undervaluing him.
I don’t think he’ll do that before turning 23 (he’s 22 now). But, I think he’ll be able to have a similar impact, maybe not in similar statistical fashion, but where he can take a team deep into the playoffs, kind of like how he took Davidson to the Final Four.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 16, 2010 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions
sometime in his career.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 16, 2010 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions
but where he can take a team deep into the playoffs, kind of like how he took Davidson to the Final Four.
Haha, that will be a bad year for the NBA if the talent drops to davidson’s conference level.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 16, 2010 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Given the kind of season Curry is having, it would be stupid to say he won’t be a top PG in the league for years to come.
I don’t think it would be stupid at all to not assume a player is going to become one of the best in the league at his position. In almost all cases, I would actually say it’s closer to stupid to assume a player WILL be the exception, rather than the rule.
by Missing Barry on Mar 16, 2010 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
I would actually say it’s closer to stupid to assume a player WILL be the exception, rather than the rule.
True, but I don’t wanna listen ;-)
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 16, 2010 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions
New Orleans was over 500 before CP3 got hurt
And that was w/ him missing previous time too. He can carry a team
Top 3 may be stretching it….
5 or 6 for sure.
Dwight is better than CP3, but slightly.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
There’s a pretty clear cut Top 4 in my mind right now – Lebron, then Wade/Howard/Paul.
by Missing Barry on Mar 17, 2010 6:57 AM PDT up reply actions
I’d go along with that, though for me #2 is pretty clear-cut as well.
2. Howard
3. Wade/Paul
Great bigs are that much rarer than great smalls and great wings; and I always think absolutely dominant defensive bigs like Howard have an impact on wins beyond what most metrics might suggest. Looking at Bill Russell’s numbers, for example, I don’t think anyone would say “this guy must have 11 rings.” NBA teams are complex organisms, but to me the proof that Howard is slightly more valuable than Wade or Paul is in the pudding: the Magic are legit contenders, despite, truth be told, a pretty lame supporting cast (an excellent coach, tho); whereas the Heat and Hornets are are perennial also-rans, and will likely remain so till either of them adds another near-elite player.
MB: I’m giving you one of Paul, Wade or Howard around which to build a team, starting tomorrow. Is there even a question whom you’d pick?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 17, 2010 7:28 AM PDT up reply actions
MB: I’m giving you one of Paul, Wade or Howard around which to build a team, starting tomorrow. Is there even a question whom you’d pick?
Of course not. We both know it’s Howard. If I could pick which I’d rather have on my team last year (based on knowing their production last year), I might go with Wade, though, and would even consider Paul over Howard. One of the biggest reasons I’d build around Howard is positional scarcity, but depending on the situation, I’m not sure that necessarily means he has a bigger impact on the game simply by being a big man, just that he’s more valuable in terms of team building because he’s harder to replace. Also, not sure about the “contender” argument, Wade and Paul both have pretty weak supporting casts, and we’ve already seen Wade win a championship.
Looking at Bill Russell’s numbers, for example, I don’t think anyone would say "this guy must have 11 rings."
Looking at the teams he played on they might, though. ;)
by Missing Barry on Mar 17, 2010 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Granger really?
For his size a terrible rebounder and an even worse passer.
I don’t think a career 5.8 rebound rate per 36 minutes from a SF is bad at all….?
by Missing Barry on Mar 18, 2010 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
I think the #1 thing this off-season is to unload Maggette while acquiring a defensive-minded SF that can rebound and be a spot-up shooter through trade, FA, draft, or a combination of those. We need to do this to reduce all the money that is locked up for years while surrounding the current talent with a role player, not another scorer.
Shane Battier would be perfect. Imagine Shane Battier and Raja Bell.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
Tayshaun Prince?
Detroit has a terrible offense, is maggette, plus a swap in first round picks worth it?
I’d do it but Detroit would probably want to throw in Rip Hamilton, who’s contract is worse than Maggette’s, albeit more deserved. Detroit wants to shed payroll just like everyone else. Trading a negative (big contract) for a negative (big contract) won’t help in the long-run. Maggette is best suited for a contender looking for that 3rd or 4th option and/or ultimate 6th man.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 16, 2010 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
NO says no. Chris Paul is amazing, they’re much better off trying to build around him enough to convince him to stay than jettisoning him to save money. Unless they really think Wall is a sure thing and are guaranteed to get him (and I’m a huge Wall advocate, but don’t believe he’s a guaranteed superstar)…..it makes no sense for them. Paul is that good.
Unless they really think Wall is a sure thing and are guaranteed to get him (and I’m a huge Wall advocate, but don’t believe he’s a guaranteed superstar)…..it makes no sense for them.
And if they do, then it saves the owner $30 million over the next three years. That is the only reason for NO to consider this, but it is an important reason from a business standpoint.
by wheresmylaptop on Mar 16, 2010 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions
And 3 yrs/30 mil is outrageous for a player of Maggette’s “caliber”. His career best efficiency this year is good, but I’ve noticed a knack for him making the ultimate dumb decisions at the worst possible times this year (21 ft fade away jumpers early in the shot clock late in close games, getting stuffed by 3 guys in the paint during last nights late game run, etc.)
It’s high on an annual basis, but there’s only three years left and he can be dangled as an expiring contract in that last year. Compared to other deals inked that summer (Brand, Davis, Arenas or even Ellis), it doesn’t some seem that bad.
by wheresmylaptop on Mar 16, 2010 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Correct, it is still better than Brand and Arenas, two awful contracts. Davis does more than Maggette (facilitate, can play D when he wants to, but still probably not a good contract) and Monta is 6 years younger than Corey, and though he doesn’t score nearly as efficiently, he does a lot more (can distribute, plays some good D).
Mostly, it is a terrible contract for him on the Warriors, and he’s likely to just get worse while the contract gets more expensive.
You’re absolutely right…and that’s why Phoenix would have to eat it if they wanted Curry and West on the cheap. However, if we’re talking degrees of awfulness,trading for a 3/5 of an awful contract to get those two guys isn’t nearly as egregious as a $50m/5yr free agent signing
by wheresmylaptop on Mar 16, 2010 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Davis does more than Maggette
I’m honestly not sure that’s true. Good Baron does a lot more than Maggette. Unfortunately for the Clippers, he’s been the Bad Baron since he arrived. No effort on D, dominates the ball while settling for horrible jump shots, destroying any semblance of team offense and only allowing teammates to get involved when he decides to pass (which rarely comes after he beats the defense to help put his teammates at the advantage)……man we dodged a bullet with Baron (and Brand and Gil for that matter)…
by Missing Barry on Mar 16, 2010 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Dammit, I cant believe I got sucked into this ridiculous post. It even mentions a Hollinger stat. Terrible.
I thought it was a decent first effort, some discussion will help the poster learn more.
by Missing Barry on Mar 16, 2010 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s not like I went out of my way to cite that. They built it into the trade machine.
by wheresmylaptop on Mar 16, 2010 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I was good with it (kinda) untill I saw the disclaimer ref. Warriors have #1 or #2 pick.
My brain says yes but my Curry fanboy heart says no and my emotional Wall/Cousins draft yearings say no.
by Only In Fairfax on Mar 16, 2010 2:27 PM PDT reply actions
No way
not a good trade at all for the Warriors. Curry is starting to near Paul’s level and he is younger and cheaper, so no way. Don’t post trades like this anymore please.
Hate to burst your bubble, but Curry isn’t close to Paul. Even Paul’s rookie year was noticeably better than Curry (same scoring, 2 more assists, less turnovers, more steals, 1 more rebound, same minutes). The only thing Curry really had is better on threes, which Paul has improved to 42% now (the same as Curry).
Wasn’t CP3 playing PG from day 1? Curry hasn’t really had a defined role until the last couple of months. He could have easily averaged 8 assists, if he were PG from day 1. Curry’s SP is several points higher than CP3’s rookie year, and his 3PT% is 15 points higher than CP3’s rookie campaign.
And if we were trading for rookie Chris Paul, then no way this trade goes down. However, this particular trade is for 2x All-NBA, 2x All-Defense, gold-medal winning (most minutes played after Lebron and Kobe) Chris Paul.
by wheresmylaptop on Mar 16, 2010 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Paul is the best point guard in the league.
Curry may potentially be a very good player, but he doesn’t even enter the discussion.
The notion that Curry might somehow someday be as good as Paul has already been would be laughed out of the discussion by anybody not wearing Warrior-homer glasses.
The best-case scenario for Curry is that he becomes as good as Paul offensively, but he’s never going to be as good a defender. And that is absolutely, positively the best imaginable case.
Other than money, the only reason for NO to do this is if they feel that, due to injury, Paul has already peaked – is that meniscus injury something that’s going to slow him down long-term?
Paul is better, period.
The whole “comparing Paul’s rookie season to Curry’s rookie season” mentality is a very poor way to evaluate a players future. You know how you become a Top 3-5 player in the NBA like Paul is? You improve more than everyone else in the NBA until you get to that point (in addition to starting out a good player), where everyone else doesn’t improve that much. Unless you have a very, very good reason to think Curry is going to improve not only an unusual amount, but an extreme outlier amount (because that’s how you become one of the 5 best players out of 450+ in the NBA)…..well, the logic of it just flat out doesn’t work.
by Missing Barry on Mar 16, 2010 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Curry’s SP is several points higher than CP3’s rookie year, and his 3PT% is 15 points higher than CP3’s rookie campaign.
Get off the numbers and take a real look at them. CP3 is a much better defender and a lot stronger offensive player. Finesse can only go so far in the NBA then athleticism takes over.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 16, 2010 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Interesting hypothetical:
Ws get 1st pick and draft Wall. They offer Curry (more valuable than Monta) and Maggette for Granger. I don’t think Indiana gives up Granger unless Curry is involved.
Monta/Wall backcourt with 6’9" Granger at the 3.
- Would Indiana do it?
- Would the Ws do it?
Curry and Mags ought to be worth a heck of a lot more than Granger.
08-09 is looking more and more like a fluke year, rather than a new baseline, for him.
09/10 is equally a fluke year, a new ceiling
I agree that Curry+Maggette should net more than Granger, but we still need to move Maggette before that sheen wears off…
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 20, 2010 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Wait a second ...
Didn’t Granger sign a 5-year, $60m-ish contract in 2008?
He’s MORE EXPENSIVE than Mags, and he’s not as good a player.
If you want to dump Mags, I understand that – but why would you dump him for a worse, more expensive player?
I’m confused.
Because Granger is younger? and less injury prone.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
At the midpoint of this season, by wp48
Maggette was .188 and Granger was .046.
That means that if Maggette was so injured that he only played a quarter as many minutes as Granger did … he’d still be contributing more wins to the team.
I know some people don’t love WP48. Okay, fine, lets say it’s off by a factor of two. Granger still has to play twice as many minutes to contribute the same to wins. And, before you ask: Maggette has only had one season where he’s played fewer than half of Granger’s career average minutes. His career average prior to this year is 1873m/season, Grangers is 2463. So, yes, Granger plays more minutes, but nowhere close to enough to make up for the difference in production. And this season Granger has played a whopping 18 more minutes than Mags.
And he’s more expensive, and has a longer deal.
I don't want to lose AR for another guard
I’d throw in our draft pick and Wright though in a heartbeat for CP3
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
Curry? You want to talk about Curry?
Current ESPN PG rankings (Top 10):
Steven Nash 13.22
Jason Kidd 12.11
Player X 11.51
Chauncey Billups 10.53
Deron Williams 10.33
Baron Davis 9.33
Rajon Rondo 9.24
Aaron Brooks 8.05
Player Y 8.04
Monta Ellis 7.40
As Maxwell Smart used to say, would you believe Stephen Curry is Player X and Chris Paul is Player Y?
Player X (in loss to LAL last night, but had Mark Jackson gushing):
29 pts, 9 ast, 5 reb, 1 stl, 0 TO, 4 PF
Player Y (in win @ LAL, 1/06/09):
32 pts, 15 ast, 3 reb, 3 stl, 0 TO, 1 PF
…and I didn’t spend much time digging for that one
Do people not understand how good Chris Paul is, or that he is 24 years old? Why can’t he get better?
by wheresmylaptop on Mar 16, 2010 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I wouldn;t make a habit of trading my best players and
high draft pick for aguy who is on the injured reserve list and appears to be breaking down.
8th alias and on probation
I promise to be kinder and gentler
by StinkyFingers on Mar 16, 2010 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Do people not understand how good Chris Paul is, or that he is 24 years old?
well, they’re young warriors fans so what do you expect? Give’em a candy bar and they’re giddy..
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 16, 2010 8:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Based on a dubious “ESPN ranking” that’s almost certainly downgrading Paul a ton for missing 30 games? Yeah, I’d believe it.
If your point is that those rankings are very, very silly … you’ve made it well, and I agree.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 16, 2010 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
What he said
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2010 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions
I dont like this
Curry will be elite next year. Definitely top 5 pg. Warriors have been looking for young talent and they found a rookie of the year candidate, they are not trading him.
Curry will be elite next year. Definitely top 5 pg.
Just like Randolph turned into a superstar this year after his summer league. Just like how Wright lived up to his potential when we traded for his draft rights. Just like Morrow is basically Ray Allen in his prime. The point isn’t that Steph won’t be a top 5 PG next year, the point is projecting the future is hard, and counting on people and players to do things out of the ordinary is generally a fools errand.
by Missing Barry on Mar 16, 2010 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions
the point is projecting the future is hard, and counting on people and players to do things out of the ordinary is generally a fools errand.
If that’s the case, how do we know if CP3 would help the Warriors and how do we know he will stay healthy?
The bigger (rhetorical) question is: why would he want to be here?
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions
how do we know if CP3 would help the Warriors
Well, we have lots of evidence that shows us just how good a player he is, and lots of evidence that players of his caliber are incredibly, incredibly important to winning….I think that’s an easy answer. On the other hand….
how do we know he will stay healthy?
The bigger (rhetorical) question is: why would he want to be here?
I have no answer for those. I don’t know.
by Missing Barry on Mar 17, 2010 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, we have lots of evidence that shows us just how good a player he is, and lots of evidence that players of his caliber are incredibly, incredibly important to winning….I think that’s an easy answer. On the other hand….
The Pacific Division is a tough to win in. NO began its decline last season after they had a successful playoff run the season before. I see evidence that CP3’s impact is less and less. But, that’s me nitpicking for this argument’s sake.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions
"Definitely" a top 5 pg?
Williams, Paul, Rose, Nash – clearly, unambiguously better.
Rondo, Billups, Tony Parker, and Evans are possibly better. I expect Curry to be better than some of these guys … but to be a top 5 PG he has to be better than all of them.
So that means that Curry is “maybe” a top five PG next year.
Ehh I rather take a chance on Curry and see how he develops in the future. I know Chris Paul is a better PG than Stephen Curry, but we’re giving up a lot for CP3. A potential star in Wall/Turner, Stephen Curry, Randolph, Turiaf, and Maggs. I think that’s a lot to give up just for 1 guy (even though he is one of the best PG’s in the league).
even though he is one of the bestPG’splayers in the league
Now, you might have a very fair point, but I just want to make sure we all realize Paul is the best PG in the league, and the only real question is whether he’s the 2nd best player in the league (after Lebron of course) or not. He’s top 5 easily. Sooooo…..just realize that when making your point!
by Missing Barry on Mar 16, 2010 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Isn't it funny how we value CP3 than the Hornets do?
The fact that some think Collison can replace him is very telling. More so than this boards endless rants.
8th alias and on probation
I promise to be kinder and gentler
by StinkyFingers on Mar 17, 2010 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions
The fact that some think Collison can replace him is very telling.
Yes, it is. Very telling that some people have no idea what they’re talking about.
For instance, let’s look at what each did when they were 22 years old:
Collison: 15.5 points, 7.5 assists, 3.3 rebounds, 1.4 steals, 3.5 turnovers (all per 36 minutes) on 52.9% TS%.
Paul: 20.2 points, 11.1 assists, 3.8 rebounds, 2.6 steals, 2.4 turnovers (all per 36 minutes) on 57.6% TS%.
Factor in Paul’s better defense, and it’s painfully obvious how not comparable these two are. One’s a backup for a reason, while the other is a superstar. You think it’s a coincidence they’er 8-14 since Paul went down? Or that they’ve outscored their opponents when Paul has been on the floor, but not when he’s been off? On the other hand, NO has been largely outscored when Collison has been on the floor but they’ve outscored their opponents by a little when he’s been off. Those stats aren’t all telling or anything, but in this case they at least suggest the same thing the other stats are telling us – Paul and Collison aren’t comparable, and the team is much, much better with Paul than Collison.
by Missing Barry on Mar 17, 2010 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Isn't it funny how we value CP3 than the Hornets do?
That worked to our advantage with BaronDavis so maybe we can get them to give us CP#3 too?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 17, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
If only we could snag Paul for the modern-day equivalent of Claxton and Dale Davis (say, CJ and Chris Hunter…?)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 17, 2010 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Trading Curry would not make sense
Curry is on a tear and is playing incredible, so somebody comes up with the idea of trading him and other key pieces for an injured star. Why are people even thinking about trading to get better in our strongest position? Shouldn’t somebody be thinking about strengthening one of the teams weaker positions, rather than getting rid of our best player for a player at the same position? This trade would never happen anyways.
Well, the point is superstars win games, and Paul is a superstar. Sure, PG might be our strongest position, but you don’t pass up the opportunity for a superstar, especially when you’re lacking top talent like us. We could use upgrades at every position.
by Missing Barry on Mar 16, 2010 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Curry will never be on Chris Paul's level.
One of the reasons is because Curry lacks elite athleticism. You can give me all the excuses about how athleticism doesn’t make a player or any of that but the best I think Curry can be is something similar to a Steve Nash. Not bad, but Nash isn’t on a tier 1 level with LeBron, Bryant, Paul, Wade, etc… Plus, Curry struggles a lot on defense against quick players. Therefore John Wall should be viewed as a player who has the ability to an elite player who eventually should be better than Curry.
My Ultimate Realistic Mock Draft for 49ers
1A) Anthony Davis - RT Rutgers
1B) C.J. Spiller - RB/KR/PR Clemson
2) Kareem Jackson - CB Alabama
3) Demaryius Thomas - WR Georgia Tech
4) Mike Johnson - OG Alabama
5) Sean Canfield - QB Oregon State
6) Keaton Kristic - OLB Oregon State
7) Dexter Davis - OLB/DE Arizona State
One of the reasons is because Curry lacks elite athleticism. You can give me all the excuses about how athleticism doesn’t make a player or any of that but the best I think Curry can be is something similar to a Steve Nash. Not bad, but Nash isn’t on a tier 1 level with LeBron, Bryant, Paul, Wade, etc… Plus, Curry struggles a lot on defense against quick players. Therefore John Wall should be viewed as a player who has the ability to an elite player who eventually should be better than Curry.
Very few players in the NBA are in the athleticism category of LeBron, Kobe, and Wade. I don’t think Paul is even close to athletic as those guys, actually. He’s very strong and quick, but he’s not explosive. Baron Davis, when younger and healthy, was more athletic than Chris Paul.
There’s a ton of players, legends, who weren’t the most athletic but still were great players. Hmm, there was this guy named Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. I don’t remember them being athletic. I just remember them being really freakin’ good.
Your theory is therefore debunked.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions
There’s a ton of players, legends, who weren’t the most athletic but still were great players. Hmm, there was this guy named Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. I don’t remember them being athletic. I just remember them being really freakin’ good.
Indeed. On the other hand, it was really obvious that those guys were among the best players in the league from the moment they first stepped on the floor.
Also, the league is more athletic now, putting more of an emphasis on those skills.
Lastly, sure, let’s concede the point: a player with Bird or Magic level skills can overcome a relative lack of athleticism.
Do you really think Curry is on pace to be one of the best 5 players in NBA history?
Do you really think Curry is on pace to be one of the best 5 players in NBA history?
No, but I was just making a point. Okay, how about current NBA greats who aren’t athletic? Tim Duncan, Paul Pierce, Carmelo Anthony, Tony Parker, to name a few.
I realize some of these guys are past their prime, but it wasn’t long ago they were elite at their positions, namely Duncan and Parker.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I mean, I wouldn’t put any of those guys in the class of Lebron, but I’d say every single one of the examples you just listed has well above average phsyical traits for the NBA….
by Missing Barry on Mar 17, 2010 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Of course. And I think Curry does too.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions
As a disclaimer, I disagree, but I am curious….in what ways?
by Missing Barry on Mar 17, 2010 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions
In the words of Jim Barnett, “he’s wirey strong.”
LOL
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
As a disclaimer, I disagree, but I am curious….in what ways?
I think he’s got tremendous footwork, balance, and reflexes. You know, they always talk about how he “compensates” for not being as athletic as other guys, but in order to compensate, you need to be athletic. Like I said, what does it really mean to be “athletic?” If it’s just about overpowering and leaping over your opponents, Curry is not your guy. If it means continually duping your opponent, not letting them block your shot, getting double-teamed yet still finding an open man, then yes, Curry is “athletic.” He makes off-balance passes that not only require skill but also strength and coordination. These are not your typical “athletic” tangibles.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
My own classification of athelticism is all the physical traits that contribute to your effectiveness as a basketball player, though I exclude things if their contribution is to “skills” – like Curry is a great shooter, which means he has good hand eye coordination, but I wouldn’t include that in his “athleticism” because I consider shooting a skill, and his coordination in that regard is only important as it relates to that skill. So that’s my take. Obviously it’s subjective and has plenty of gray area, but I think it’s valid as long as I’m consistent in applying it.
by Missing Barry on Mar 17, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
skill vs. athleticism
I do consider this as well. Footwork, balance, and reflexes are probably a combination of skill and athleticism. I think he’s pretty deceptive too. I don’t know what category that falls into.
Definitely subjective and can be interpreted in various ways.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Curry putback dunk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvXh35QON3k
Nothing special, but people should take note.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Thanks! Ha, I actually think that’s the first dunk I’ve ever seen from Curry.
by Missing Barry on Mar 17, 2010 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions
There’s a few videos of him dunking. I think he’s probably a better dunker than CJ Watson. That’s saying a lot, huh? LOL
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
CJ has flubbed a lot of dunks, but he did try to throw down on Wade last year (maybe same road trip as Crawford’s 50-point game?). I appreciate that sort of aggressiveness.
by wheresmylaptop on Mar 17, 2010 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
CJ has been fearless going to the rim. I love it!
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Tim Duncan, Paul Pierce, Carmelo Anthony, Tony Parker
I wouldn’t describe any of those guys as unathletic in the same way I’d describe Curry as unathletic.
On the other hand, I suspect Curry may end up with better skills than Parker.
Dynamic, Explosive, Electric, Dominantonly a few of the words used to describe Chris Paul’s game.
The first thing you notice about Paul is his explosiveness with the ball.
-DraftExpress draft profile on Paul from 2005
At under 6 foot, he’s very small for the pro game. His intangibles and athleticism help to make up for it some
-NBADraft.net
Paul is a very good athlete – he’s just short. I don’t think he’s as athletic as Davis overall, either, but at one point I also believe Baron Davis was far and away the most athletic PG in the NBA – he was basically a slightly shorter version of Wade who didn’t keep himself in as good of shape. Overall Paul is explosive and very athletic.
Hmm, there was this guy named Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. I don’t remember them being athletic. I just remember them being really freakin’ good.
I don’t remember Magic being a bad athlete by any stretch of the imagination, and as a 6’9 PG, I think it’s a huge stretch to asy he didn’t have physical advantages over the competition. He did. Those were the days of 6’5 Charles Barkley at PF – basically, if I’ve learned anything from playing video games over the year, it’s that PF’s used to be smaller, 6’7-6’9 [and not necessarily bulky] was more the norm (notice how guys like 6’10 Horace Grant and 6’9 AC Green are listed as F-C on BB-Ref?).
Your theory is therefore debunked.
Anecdotal evidence has never debunked a good theory. Nobody has said that athleticism is the only thing that determines how good a basketball player is. I don’t know why any attempts to talk about Curry’s athleticism seem to be refuted like we say it’s the only thing that matters. It’s not. It’s one of many, many, many factors that determine how good a basketball player is. Unfortunately, it IS important, and it’s not something a player can really change in any meaningful way. If you look through the lists of the league’s star players over the years, almost all of them had physical advantages over most of their peers. Lebron, Wade, Dwight, Howard, KG, Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Jordan, even Duncan has great size/strength to go with fair athleticism, etc. The only recent one I can think of that didn’t really have anything going for him is Nash (you can add more depending on how far back you want to go – Stockton, Bird, etc, but it’s pretty obviously a small part of the “star player” population) – every other star player has some positive physical traits, and many of them have it in spades.
Curry doesn’t have much going for him phsyically. He has quality height for a PG….and that’s the only thing I can come up with. Again, athletic qualities aren’t the be-all, end-all, just an important factor.
by Missing Barry on Mar 17, 2010 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Good points, MB. I don’t think Curry is as unathletic as people are making him out to be. I mean, what does it mean to be athletic anyway? I think people are a little mesmerized by LeBron James these days and immediately draw comparisons. No one is like LeBron, no one.
That being said, Chris Paul is definitely more “athletic” than Curry and he is definitely better than Curry. But, I still don’t think it’s grounds to blow up your entire team to get a star player. There are better, smarter ways of going about it. Everyone is so enamored that having a star player is the be all end all formula to having success, but you shouldn’t make desperate moves to make it happen RIGHT NOW. We have pieces in place that should help the team develop those type of players. It can’t be proven, but that’s just part of the game, you have to make assumptions and you have to be patient. Acting desperate is just a losing mentality, which now seems to have transitioned from Warriors FO management to the fans.
I feel this trade proposal is a little desperate and very bold. The Warriors tend to do desperate things, but they certainly don’t do bold things. If they did, Rowell and Nelson would have been gone by now.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I feel this trade proposal is a little desperate and very bold.
And I do think someone could make a reasonable case along those lines….
by Missing Barry on Mar 17, 2010 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions
There are better, smarter ways of going about it. Everyone is so enamored that having a star player is the be all end all formula to having success, but you shouldn’t make desperate moves to make it happen RIGHT NOW.
Are there better, smarter ways? In my opinion I see three options:
1) Tank for a top-3 pick (of which the Warriors seem incapable…only 4 wins separate the #3 pick from the #7 pick right now — but hey, sweet 20-point comeback).
2) Grow your own superstar. In the last 20 years, only four guys drafted lower than #5 have made multiple All-NBA 1st or 2nd teams (top-ten player) through nine years in the league:
Kobe, T-Mac, Dirk, and Amare
What do those guys have in common? They didn’t play college basketball, which means it was more difficult to scout them. I say nine years, because that’s the longest you could wait on a player before offering him a 3rd contract. No team waits a decade for a guy to blossom. So, not much historical precedent for Curry becoming a superstar. You have to go back to Kevin Johnson to find an overlooked college player that meets that criteria. (*Brandon Roy is halfway there after three seasons).
3) Clean up the balance sheet, hope a Larry Ellison-type buys the team, build a winning culture, and pay top-dollar for your superstar.
Option 1 requires luck, Option 2 hasn’t happened in twenty years, and Option 3 requires hope and patience.
So yes, if New Orleans was to have a fire sale like the ’97 Marlins, then a trade like this is absolutely the smartest way for a mediocre team with no cap space to acquire a true superstar. Tanking is smart as well under the current lottery system, but sort-of tanking is not.
Other posters have said that this is a superstar league. In support of those comments here is something to think about:
In the last nine seasons, every team (except two, the ’07 Jazz and ’08 Pistons) that reached a conference final had a player who was All-NBA 1st, 2nd or 3rd team (top-15 in the league). Those two exceptions produced 1/4 of the Redeem Team.
by wheresmylaptop on Mar 18, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
And yes I realize my trade involves sending away the #1 or #2 pick (part of option #1 – tanking), but if you look at the drafts from ‘86-’05, only nine of the forty guys picked in those spots would be in a HOF discussion. Four of those guys are centers. So really, you have to luck into a top pick AND hope you beat the odds in making the right choice.
by wheresmylaptop on Mar 18, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions
For your trade to work, it will require #1 (above) to happen, which you seem skeptical of happening.
It’s an interesting trade idea, but like all trade ideas, it’s unrealistic. I’ve never once seen a trade idea actually become reality. So, it’s all fun and games to talk about it. I hope you don’t get offended that I don’t take it that seriously.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 18, 2010 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, mainly my point was that the Warriors won’t be relevant in the next five years without a move like this. They were relevant for two years because Baron Davis played at a superstar level from April ‘07 to March ’08 (and in that second year his stats don’t even show it – it was more about closing out games).
This trade obviously won’t happen, but think about the under-30 superstars in the league: Lebron, Wade, Melo, Paul, Howard, Durant, Roy, Williams, Rose (maybe), Bosh (maybe)
Which one of those guys is most attainable for a team with no cap space, and why?
Chris Paul. He plays for a team with rumored financial troubles, is owed $14 million next year, but can be traded this year while taking back only $6 million (BYC). Actually, the exact same scenario applies to Deron Williams.
My trade won’t happen (GS probably doesn’t even have the most attractive young assets), but I think a trade like this could happen for financial motives.
Without a “desperate” move or a ton of luck, I don’t think GS (and to a lesser extent SAC, MIN — same losing culture, but better cap flexibility after next year) is going anywhere for awhile. Especially since any or all of Lebron, Wade, and Bosh could be coming to the Western conference this summer.
Just trying to think outside the box.
by wheresmylaptop on Mar 18, 2010 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Don't include Rose in your discussion
He’s a product of hype and his yet-unblemished “#1 pick” status. He is no superstar. I take Rajon Rondo over him (and many, many others) any day of the week and twice on game days.
I agree with your sentiment (we need a superstar), but CP3 is not available, much like the other superstars in this league. Unless you’re offering LBJ, Kobe, or some other HUGE name, CP3 is staying put. Sorry. You’re not getting him for an unproven rookie, unfulfilled potential, and some veteran retreads.
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 18, 2010 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Just trying to think outside the box.
I’ll rec you just for that. I appreciate your explanation. I agree with you that “desperate” things need to happen to change the losing culture, but the argument will always remain: the change needs to start with ownership.
Even if the Warriors luck out by gaining a star, the management would somehow figure out a way to screw it up.
That being said, I commend you for thinking outside the box. I said this was a bold idea :)
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 18, 2010 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Hmm, there was this guy named Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. I don’t remember them being athletic. I just remember them being really freakin’ good.
also a lot taller than Curr-bury. Your theory is therefore debunked.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 17, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Eat me.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Fine, John Stockton.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions
John Stockton.
Yeah, if he had some athleticism he might have won some rings?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 17, 2010 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
HA, touche!
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Actually, the only thing that got in the way of Stockton/Malone was Jordan, so I wouldn’t criticize them too much for not getting a ring. The Utah Jazz have been an incredibly successful franchise with great players. They’ve never had the flashiest players but they’re always very tough and fundamentally sound.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 18, 2010 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Yep, the “Jordan effect”. Preventing great players and teams from winning championships. Happens to the best of us.
by Missing Barry on Mar 18, 2010 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
However,
If we get the #1 overall draft pick and get John Wall, I would want to keep Curry temporarily. Maybe trade Curry after the all-star break or after 1 season, but keep Curry around to mentor John Wall and speed up Wall’s learning curve. No doubt that Curry can be a good example for Wall to learn from.
My Ultimate Realistic Mock Draft for 49ers
1A) Anthony Davis - RT Rutgers
1B) C.J. Spiller - RB/KR/PR Clemson
2) Kareem Jackson - CB Alabama
3) Demaryius Thomas - WR Georgia Tech
4) Mike Johnson - OG Alabama
5) Sean Canfield - QB Oregon State
6) Keaton Kristic - OLB Oregon State
7) Dexter Davis - OLB/DE Arizona State
Heck, I don’t see any problem at all with a Curry/Wall backcourt. I think they’d complement each other well. I don’t see any reason Wall can’t be a great wing in the mold of a guy like Wade.
by Missing Barry on Mar 17, 2010 6:58 AM PDT up reply actions
That could work. More than an Ellis/Wall backcourt. But, I don’t know if it’s better than a Ellis/Curry backcourt, at least for a couple years. Ellis, as much of an unpolished game he has, still would have 6 years on Wall. Nothing can replace experience.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 17, 2010 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Nice work
You put a lot of effort into this. Personally I don’t like the trade but you have laid it out well. Hope you post again.
The grass is always greener on the other side for some people
Remember just 10 games into the season when people were hitting themselves over the head saying that we should have taken Brandon Jennings over Curry in the draft and Curry was a disaster…
I don’t see a point in trying to gamble by trading solid young players while neglecting areas where we are deficient. We need bigs, plain and simple. Our back court isn’t the problem. Curry and Ellis have shown that they can play well together when they’re both on the court, although I do admit that Curry defers to Ellis too much when they play and I don’t like that.
Monta is still a great player and Curry is arguably the best rookie in the game so dealing either of these guys should be our next point of interest. We need to get some rebounding and post defense/offense.
by Throw up the Dub on Mar 17, 2010 10:02 AM PDT reply actions
We need bigs, plain and simple.
This refrain is heard around here quite frequently, and the quite frequent response is: “we need bigs better players, plain and simple.” Our memories tend to be rather short term: our stable of bigs looks a lot better when all of them aren’t injured. When healthy and getting regular minutes, I suspect our quartet of bigs (Biedrins, Turiaf, Randolph, Wright) is not that much less productive than our quartet of smalls (Curry, Monta, CJ, Morrow). Well, maybe slightly less productive, given Steph’s recent improvement, but not qualitatively so. If we ever have the opportunity to trade any of those eight guys, or any of our pile of medium-sized guys (Maggs, Buike, Tolliver, Williams, VladRad et al.) for an elite young player, at any position, we’d be crazy not to jump at it, imo.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 17, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Remember just 10 games into the season when people were hitting themselves over the head saying that we should have taken Brandon Jennings over Curry in the draft and Curry was a disaster…
Actually, most of us WEREN’T saying that. Most of us were saying that one should wait a while before jumping to any conclusions.
There were a few people on the Jennings bandwagon, but they were mostly the people who wanted to take Jennings to begin with.
I suspect our quartet of bigs (Biedrins, Turiaf, Randolph, Wright) is not that much less productive than our quartet of smalls (Curry, Monta, CJ, Morrow)or any of our pile of medium-sized guys (Maggs, Buike, Tolliver, Williams, VladRad .
wow, when you see them all listed it looks like the roster of a multi year league champion team don’t it?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 17, 2010 10:55 AM PDT reply actions
If only quantity trumped quality… :,-(
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 17, 2010 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Rather
If only we weren’t all homers and realized that other teams’ bit players were actually really good too…
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2010 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
That’s a pretty….lacking statement. Who says no, and why?
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 6:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Haha. I mean, sometimes “no” is the only response to the fanposts here, but this one really deserves better. I’m not a fan of trade diaries as a general rule, but this is a really a model of how they should be done: well researched, well thought out, balanced, and realistic/painful enough from our perspective to split the Warriors fanbase in two. You gotta love it when a diarist spends puts in that much hard work and gets casually dismissed by some random lurker in five words.
It’s especially rich when said random lurker just posted his own trade diary consisting of a regurgitation of the usual lame fantasy trade “ideas,” with practically zero research or effort… ;-P
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 19, 2010 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
