Rumor: Jermaine O'Neal + Anthony Johnson for JRich, Troy, Monta, and Biedrins

by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 12, 2006 8:53 AM PDT in News Comment 13 comments

Bob Kravitz of the IndyStar offers this deal to bring Jermaine O'neal to the Warriors:

Jermaine O'Neal and Anthony Johnson to Golden State for Jason Richardson, Troy Murphy, Monta Ellis and Andris Biedrins. If the Pacers do in fact want to trade O'Neal, they're not likely to get back another front-line All-Star. Richardson at least could start at shooting guard for years to come, Murphy is solid, Biedrins is young and promising, and Ellis could be an All-Star someday.

Let's just say... that's not cheap. Two starters (one being a future All Star), one highly regarded prospect, and the one minute man for an All Star big man (who by the way is Bad!) and a backup to Baron who looks like Nate Dogg? S-T- double E- P!

Would you trade JRich, TMurph, Monta and Biedrins for Jermaine O'Neal and Nate D-O- double G?

Also see: Rumor: Al Harrington- Even Split between Warriors and Pacers

99% of rumors never happen, but 99% of them are fun to talk about!

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Wow that trade sucks.

We might as well add Baron to the deal. Why would I want injury plagued Jermaine O'Neal with injury plagued Baron Davis on the same team? And without JRich and Monta, I would be disappointed.

by DaAzNJRiCh on Jul 12, 2006 9:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Uhh...

Lopsided for the Pacers.

by Yoyo on Jul 12, 2006 9:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

No way.

Why give up our up and coming star, JRich, for an older star? Plus Monta and Biedrins have potential. Its the classic case of getting someone past their prime for your future. In this case, its way too much. JRich is our best player right now. O'Neal is not Shaq but he's getting pretty worn down by now. It smells like the OJ and Jim Plunkett trades of the past. Desperation.

The Warriors have enough to get most anyone without giving up JRich.

by philsmith75 on Jul 12, 2006 10:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Substitute Pietrus for Ellis

And I'd have to seriously consider the deal. The reasons for considering such a deal are that bigs are much harder to come by than are 2G's. I'm a huge J-Rich fan but it's easier to find a 2G in this league than it is to find a dominating big. Having a back court of Davis and Ellis would be small but I think it could work. If we're also able to trade for Al Harrington then we'd have a starting five of Baron, Monta, Al, Ike and Jermaine. I think that would break our playoff drought.

PT-42

by norcaldevilasu on Jul 12, 2006 10:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not Saying I Would Do It, But...

J. O'Neal is only 27 or 28 and is an elite big man. It seems like shooting guards are a lot easier to replace than centers. I guess I'm just not convinced that J. Rich is going to get much better.

by Googs on Jul 12, 2006 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not a Good Deal

To me, JRich plus one of Biedrins and Monta Ellis is enough of the value to Jermaine O'Neal considering his injury history and bad shooting percentage for a big man.

Anthony Johnson is definitely not worth Murphy plus Biedrins/Ellis.

A rip-off in favor of the Pacers.

by MightyReds2020 on Jul 12, 2006 10:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

dont do it

they would be giving away way to much for a backup and a power forward, j-rich in that deal doesnt work for me

by badnamedwarriorfan on Jul 12, 2006 11:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Bad Deal

This reminds me of the commercial where the guy says "you look just like my ex-wife" to his girlfriend's mom.

Very bad trade for the Warriors. For those who think O'Neal is a dominant big man, he's not. He is a very good player who is more of a PF than a true C in my mind. He just doesn't mix it up down low with bigger guys. He has also had a lot of injury problems for such a young guy, not to mention the attitude problems. If you leave Monta and Andris out of the deal, I would probably do it. Troy and JRich would be a fair trade for those two. Though I would hate to see JRich go, 2 guards are much easier to come by than gifted C/PFs.

by chrisz42 on Jul 12, 2006 1:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'd pass

Quite quickly. It doesn't help us win now, and it doesn't help us win in the future.

by jonathan on Jul 12, 2006 2:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Hell nah, thats crazy. Jus like other dude said all Jermaine does nowadays is get hurt. Why would you give up your most consistent player and hardest worker in J-Rich. And an up and comer in Monta. U give up 2 much 2 get one good player and a decent player.

by JRichIsStillAGodButBiedrinsIsABeast on Jul 12, 2006 3:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

uhhhhhhh.

Hell naaaah. That is a really stupid trade. What exactly will this trade to for us? I'll tell you what. It'll help us get rid of our franchise player, our left-handed shooting big man, our second-year guy who has great potential, and one of our foreign big men who has a great game every now and then. And what we would get back out of it? A strong power forward who on an annual basis gets injured and a veteran pointguard who can play tough D and is a decent shooter.

I really don't see this trade benefitting us. But it most definitely gives a HUGE edge to the Pacers. And if this deal went down, it could possibly be one of the worst trades in Warriors history.

by WarriorFanForLife on Jul 12, 2006 3:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes. . .But...

The deal works -- and works well -- but only if you pull Monta from it. Gotta keep Monta above and beyond anyone, since this kid had extreme potential to be a superstar. They can keep Johnson, who's just another 40% shooter anyway. The Pacers still come out OK, and we get O'Neal. Works for me -- but not with Monta.

by johnl on Jul 12, 2006 4:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

Two concepts at play here in favor of the Warriors:

"Whoever gets the better player gets the better end of the deal". The theory has great prescendence (Shaq to Miami, Barkley to Phoenix, Kareem to the Lakers, etc.)
Always trade a good big man for a good little man.

The specific deal is only rumoured, but with some tinkering I'd make the deal.

by clem on Jul 12, 2006 8:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs