Rumor: Warriors Back in Harrington Trade Talks

by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 18, 2006 4:23 PM PDT in Rumors Comment 12 comments

Al would bring some much-needed athleticism to the Warriors' frontcourt. [NBA.com photo]

We've all heard a lot of Warrior trade rumors this summer, but nothing has yet to materialize except for the Derek Fisher salary dump. Fantasy Junkie called it The Summer of Silence.

In case you haven't had enough Al Harrington to the Warriors rumors, here's another one from Eric Pincus of HoopsWorld.com:

It appears the proposed deal between the Indiana Pacers and Atlanta Hawks, sending forward Al Harrington back to Indiana, has hit a snag.? It's not clear what the specific issue is, but other teams are aggressively trying to get into the action. The most likely alternative to Indiana would appear to be the Golden State Warriors.? A multi-team trade has been discussed, though no specific timeline is apparent as of yet. The Los Angeles Lakers were said to have reentered the race, though they would seem to be a fallback option if a bigger deal cannot be reached. The proposed deal includes as many as three Western Conference teams, along with Atlanta.

Would you consider the Warriors' offseason a success if they managed to land Al Harrington?

Comments

not success but better

id definitely say they improved the team but i wouldn't call it a success but an improvement. this could be what gets us over the hump and into the playoffs. if harrington puts up similar numbers to what he did in atlanta then it might be, but he won't with bd and jrich providing scoring to. we still need a backup point besides monta.

by mydedgerbil555 on Aug 18, 2006 5:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Ugh!

I don't like Harrington at a much lower price. If he were the sort of player who improved a team, it hasn't shown in two years in Atlanta. Moving from one damaged franchise to another isn't likely to really make things better.

Disturbing trend: last year he "discovered" his three point shot, but didn't appear to make it much. It was a detriment overall. Anyone think that he'll suddenly abandone it and help curb the idiotic gunning that we got from our players last year? More realistic is that he comes and fires at will continues to score about 18 points, but takes 16 shots to do so, rebounds are merely adequate and he does nothing to improve the ball movement.

by jae on Aug 19, 2006 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It depends....

...we have to wait and see what we give up. Most likely it's Murph + something. If that something is an unconditional 1st rounder, I'm not liking this at all (espcecially if it's this years). Maybe if it's a conditional (lottery '07, top 5 '08, unprotected '09 for example) pick it's okay. But we cannont jeopardize our future just to upgrade a bit now.

I really hope Mully doesn't go nuts here right at the end just to finally do something. I think he's been patient for the right reasons so far...let's hope he stays strong and only accepts a good offer.

Top 7 of '07 draft = Warriors only chance of being good over the next 5 years

by jgodoski on Aug 18, 2006 6:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh no sigh

Al Harrington is not going to get this team into the playoffs. We're going to have to give up someone useful in a trade to gt him and it's probably PF/C Murphy.

The only player swap that would improve the GSW is getting Al for Dunleavy. GSW would swap one overpaid, average SF (or undersized PF) for another.

"The Hawks have agreed to sign Harrington to a six-year, $57 million deal and then send him and third-year center John Edwards to the Pacers for a future first-round pick."

We're going to have to overpay for Al in an expensive, long term contract given what the Pacers are reported to have offered. Overpaying another average player is the last thing to do. This is a weak free agency class. Al is getting way too much attention.

by joe sez on Aug 18, 2006 9:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well above average

I like Harrington. He's in his prime with extended veteran experience. At first thought, its laughable to hear that he thinks the GSW are a stable organization. There's a lot of talk about strife between players, head coach and management. But, Al is coming from the Hawks. And, one positive thing you can say from Cohan down to Monta, the dubs are pleasant people. One thing I know about Al is that he is a "character" guy. He took in Josh Smith into his home and helped mold his character because Jemaine O'Neal did the same for him when he was a NBA rook out of HS. So, if things fall through for the Pacers, I'd welcome him, even if we had to see Murphy go.

by eshock on Aug 18, 2006 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Murphy

Speculating we lose Murphy....

Al and Murphy are the same age. One went to college and one to the NBA -- at this point, Murphy is now vet too but experienced on a losing team. Al's been a leader but on a very young, losing team so I don't see Al adding that much more winning, veteran experience to the GSW.

Marcus Thompson inidicates Murphy's a coachable guy, a good teammate and "gym rat". Adding Al is at best a net wash on character (maybe Al isn't as classy as Murphy) so I don't see how we get better that way. We stay even at best.

We do get smaller on a team weak at the center position. Murphy can play out of position as C and is a legit and tall PF. Harrington is smaller and plays SF and is undersized at PF. That's why a trade for Dunleavy would be better.

Al is more athletic. The GSW will have to play more smallball without Murphy but he played center when they went small did he not? (not sure) What will the rotation will be? Who will play when Foyle gets hurt or in foul trouble?

by joe sez on Aug 18, 2006 11:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Third question

There are (at least) three issues, the first two of which have been addressed above: how much and for who? As for how much, it would seem the Pacers sought to come in significantly under AH's terms:

... the Pacers came back this week seeking a shorter deal, four years, and for far less money, $36 million, than initially discussed.

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/hawks/stories/0819harrington.html

Perhaps they were hoping for a "hometown" discount or more likely they came to their senses about what was a fair offer. Tellem knows the Warriors and Denver (and Boston?) have players they're trying to move in higher salary brackets that allow us to pay AH more (by moving BD, MD, TM, or AF, Nuggets - Kmart).

Those new deals also could be shorter than the six-year deal Harrington was seeking at the start of the NBA's free agent negotiating period, which began July 1. At least two of the teams, Golden State and Denver, are believed to be willing to discuss six-year deals in the $60 million-to-$65 million range, which would net Harrington $10 million or more per season. ... But even if they were interested in doing four years instead of six, they'd still be willing to pay Harrington a salary in the $10 million per season range. The Pacers, armed only with a $7.5 million trade exception, could offer Harrington a starting salary of only $7.6 million.

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/hawks/stories/0819harrington.html

Even a 4yr/$10m per contract puts Harrington above Dunleavy (5yr/$7.4m) and close to Murphy (5yr/$8.3m). Harrington is 6'9 and athletic, 18ppg & 7rpg for Atlanta but as a starter for Pacers, he averaged 14 ppg and 7.0 rpg which probably is closer to what GS could expect playing alongside BD & JRich. That's better than Dun but less than TM. Harrington is an improvement over Dun only, and more expensive. At 6yr/$60m it's really not viable I wouldn't think. And jgodoski is right about not mortgaging the future by giving up unprotected 1st round picks for a marginal increase now.

The third question is chemistry - and according to an email to the CoCo Times warriors beat writer, Marcus Thompson, Davis has been talking up adding Harrington in exchange for Murphy. On a team with problems between coach and PG, would that exchange help or hurt team chemistry and teamwork?

I agree with joe sez, if Woes can unload Dunleavy for Harrington, it would make sense, if it's Murphy less so but more likely to be agreed to by a third team. And I would not count out Boston being that third team.

by hardcore on Aug 19, 2006 2:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

underwhelming

Who knows what Davis' motivations are for pushing Al. Given the likelihood of this team tanking, I'd be looking for locker room allies more than on court "team" chemistry.

This also proves that NBA players are mercenaries - money talks: GSW are a stable org. I'd say it with a straight face for 10/M a year.

If we get Al, Mike is a dead man walking. And frankly, if we get Al for double-double Murphy, Mullin's goose is cooking. It's a non-significant change that eats more future cap space, makes the team smaller, and eliminates a back-up center.

I'm underwhelmed.

by joe sez on Aug 19, 2006 5:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

Mullin is drunk on 7 footers after drafting the Chef and Kosta.

by eshock on Aug 19, 2006 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dunleavy for Harrington?

Nice post JB. Thanks for linking to that AJC article. It's really helpful.

You know I think a lineup of:
PG: Baron
SG: JRich
SF: Al Harrington
PF: Ike
C: Troy

just might work. The defense inside would be better than last season too. Not great, but improved. The problem is I don't see the Hawks wanting Dunleavy. They're already loaded with 3's.

93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?

by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 19, 2006 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

lineup ideas

... we all trash Monty regularly, including me, but his inability to deal with BD effectively is my gripe more than starting lineup choices (maybe if Beedy could stay out of foul trouble for 3 minutes he'd be on the floor more), GS options were so limited inside last season.
I think he's seen enough of TM at center. Besides GS is undersized at both C & PF with Troy & Ike starting, and defense could assign their center to Ike inside and their PF to Murphy outside ...
With Harrington @ SF having a perimeter shooting PF changes from a liability to strength since it opens the floor for drives by BD, JR, & AH
I like the trade idea mydedgerbill555 brought up from the atlanta journal (AB+MP+ZC) if we could swing it capwi$e

by hardcore on Aug 20, 2006 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

won't work

Murphy at center last year was a disaster. While at forward he's a below average defender, at center he's positively abysmal. While he played a minority of his time there last year, the minutes he logged at center were almost completely responsible for him being a big negative in +/-. I suspect it's because he doesn't have any ability as a help defender at the position to prevent guards and forwards from getting to the hoop at will. With an undersized young PF, this problem will be even more greatly exploited. Honestly, I can see that lineup struggling to win 25 games.

by jae on Aug 20, 2006 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs