Rumor: Multi-Team Deal- Dunleavy to Clips, Maggette/ Smith to Hawks, and Harrington to Warriors

by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 21, 2006 9:03 AM PDT in Rumors

From Janny Hu (also check out Janny's recent Q&A with us) of SFGate.com:

Meanwhile, Golden State appears to have received yet another lifeline in its pursuit of Al Harrington. The Hawks' forward is still on the market, despite switching agents from Andy Miller to Arn Tellem, after a sign-and-trade deal between Atlanta and Indiana reportedly was nixed by Pacers ownership.

According to two league sources, the Warriors have revived discussions with three teams on a multiple-player swap, with the principal parts involving Mike Dunleavy Jr. going to the Clippers, Corey Maggette to Denver and Joe Smith to Atlanta, with the Warriors getting Harrington.

Though it would be a thorny transaction to meet salary-cap requirements, Tellem represents both Harrington and Dunleavy. A similar multi-team deal was discussed in Las Vegas during the summer league, according to one of the sources.

Another potential snag, however, appears to be the status of Clippers coach Mike Dunleavy Sr., a main proponent of the team's interest in Dunleavy Jr.. The coach is entering the final year of his contract and would like an extension after guiding his team to the Western Conference semifinals.

This deal is definitely intriguing for the Warriors. It pushes the Warriors up to acceptable level at the small forward spot and weakens a Pacific division rival. I wish the Warriors could end up with Maggette or bring Joe Smith back home (just kidding!), but this is still a good trade for the Dubs.

For the other teams this trade is pretty puzzling. Why do the Nuggets want Corey Maggette? He's a good, solid player, but he doesn't solve their weakness which is outside shooting. Maggette's a slasher who might have a hard time playing with Melo, Camby, Nene, and KMart. Also, I have no idea why the Hawks are still in the Harrington trade talks. They don't need Joe Smith. The Hawks should just be content with letting Harrington walk. Hotlanta looks clueless. And lastly, the Clippers have to be insane to trade for the unproductive Dunleavy at his contract. Could it be like the TV show Family Ties?

Thanks to loyal GSoM reader CoachBarry for spotting this one in his Warriors ready to dump Dunleavy? diary.

Warriors Nation, do you want this rumored trade to go down?

Other related trade rumors:

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

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Trade makes no sense.

Why would the Warriors trade Dunleavy in this roundabout way, in order to end up with Harrington? He doesn't fit on this team any more than Murphy does, and Murph's still here. I mean, if the Clippers are prepared to deal Maggette, why not trade MD for Maggette straight up? Without MD, the W's would need a slashing three much more than a weak four -- so why all this extra trading nonsense? I'd hate to lose Dun, who I still think will be a terrific sixth man in this league, but Maggette is such a much better fit than Harrington would be, and you get this trade done cleanly, with just the two teams. Forget Harrington -- Please!
And riddle me this: why are the W's having JRich undergo "minor" knee surgery in late August? Why didn't they have this done three months ago? What's going on around here?

by johnl on Aug 21, 2006 9:15 AM PDT 0 recs

Dunleavy for Maggette

I'd love to make that trade and I agree it makes much more sense, but I bet it won't go down because:

Trades within a division rarely happen. At least with the multi-team deal the Clips don't have to see Maggette in their division
Mullin and company seem really fixated on Harrington. Why? I have no idea.
The salaries probably don't match up at all.
Maggette for Dunleavy just makes too much sense for the Warriors. There's no way such an illogical front office is capable of pulling it off.

Good point about JRich's surgery being in August. You would think it would be better to have it 3 months ago, but I really have no idea on that one. Maybe they wanted to see if it would heal or take care of itself on its own?

93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?

by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 21, 2006 9:24 AM PDT up 0 recs

Too many question marks.

But hey if the Warriors can trade Dunleavy (plus some incentives, I reckon) for Harrington, it is not that bad and Mully just saved himself a couple of years here.

I am not holding my hope high though.

by MightyReds2020 on Aug 21, 2006 9:28 AM PDT 0 recs

in a heartbeat

i would trade dunleavy straight up for harrington in a heartbeat. neither player is exactly what the warriors need, but at the same time you would be trading "potential" for a given product. i would take harrington's 18 and 6 over dunleavy's 11 and 4 anyday. as for dunleavy being a great 6th man someday, i dont think it matters much for the warriors because we need a starting 5 first! has there ever been a 6th man of the year award given to a player on a crappy team? hell no because if you cant break the starting lineup on a bad team then you must not be all that good.

by jmorales on Aug 21, 2006 10:29 AM PDT 0 recs

heck ya

I would support any trade that gets rid of Dunleavy. However unlikely it may be, I would never turn down Harrington for Dunleavy. Finally the Warriors might be on the smart side of a deal. To me it doesn't matter what position Harrington plays - he is better than Dunleavy, thus the trade makes sense.

by Jud Booshler on Aug 21, 2006 11:12 AM PDT 0 recs

Pacers still in it?

Adding suspense to the way too dramatic drama...

Walsh Says Harrington Deal Still On Table
http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/walsh_harrington_060821.html

93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?

by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 21, 2006 11:15 AM PDT 0 recs

maybe i'm cynical

but i bet Stern is behind all this 'excitement', just generating some buzz in an otherwise slow and unexciting off season.

something tells me he's pulling strings, making these clubs sound like they're making moves when nothing is really expected. I mean c'mon, all this excitement over Harrington?

by dj fuzzylogic on Aug 21, 2006 11:52 AM PDT 0 recs

i agree

i agree with everything your saying... denver doesnt need maggette, clips don't need dunleavy, etc. i would also wish the warriors could get maggette i think they could possibly make something work with the clips in a 2 way trade, but i think mullin is trying to get harrington so he could have an athletic small foward that could also post up. maggette is more like a poor man's j-rich, but i think he could make this team a lot better imagine how athletic they would be with baron, jrich, and maggette.

by travisl212 on Aug 21, 2006 12:02 PM PDT 0 recs

Trade is complicated

Dunleavy's BYC is the factor. The most we could take back while sending him out would be about 5 and a half million. If Harrington would agree to that, I'd welcome him. It's a bit more than the MLE, which seems ok for a guy who may be a bit more than the average player. Maybe he'd agree figuring the other option is just the MLE outright, but it seems that if Walsh and the Pacers still want him, the can offer him more than that.

A trade straight up for Maggette doesn't work due to BYC. We can't take on all of his salary. It's too far off Dunleavy's BYC figure even if Dun is scheduled to actually receive less cash. The four team deal makes it possible because each team essentially takes a bit of the allowable difference in salaries, effectively making 4.5 within 25% of 7.

Funny math, but at least this rumor isn't completely ridiculous on that ground.

It's not a trade that's going to light things on fire. As someone on another board mentioned, swapping with Atlanta means trading with another terrible team. How often can terrible teams improve themselves by shuffling their deck chairs with other terrible teams?

by jae on Aug 21, 2006 1:06 PM PDT 0 recs

Some reasons

The horrible '99-'00 Bulls made the Clippers better (eventually) by trading rookie Elton Brand for just drafted Tyson Chandler. It did squat for Chicago. (Not relevant here).

In this case, each may find a better player fit to a need, coaching style and/or locker room chemistry.

I've read Harrington is favored by Baron and is more athletic so GSW are improved for an acceptable market value.

A rumor last season was the Clippers Coaching/GM thought Maggette (LA press) to had a low BB IQ for the style for what they wanted. I'm sure Coach Dunleavy thinks he knows how to use his son's style of play.

Joe Smith becomes a FA in '07 -- Altanta gets a taller, short term replacement for Al Harrington in 06-07. Not getting better but getting salary flexiblity for 07.

Denver needs a SG and Maggette is an improvmenrt over newly added J.R.Smith.

by joe sez on Aug 21, 2006 1:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

not much incentive for Atlanta

OH, and there are several trades where we gave away a player who made another team better too. Still, I question the logic in acquiring a player who has a track record, isn't likely to become that much better and hasn't shown any propensity to lift a lousy franchise.

I doubt Atlanta likes this deal. If they don't extract another piece (e.g. a pick or a prospect player), Joe Smith for a year in order to help Harrington means Atlanta is essentially spending 7 million bucks for a player they don't have a real desire to have. Were I the Atlanta front office, I'd have no incentive to make this trade without a pick attached.

If we included Pietrus and he went to Atlanta, the deal still works, but means that Harrington comes back starting at 8.5million, which puts it up in the range he was hoping for and in the range that makes him seem like a terrible, terrible investment.

by jae on Aug 21, 2006 2:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

picks

... maybe some of the teams involved are throwing picks into Atlanta's kitty - which to me is as worrisome as the extra cash that AH may end up making - the one thing the Woes have done at least a decent job at is drafting (Arenas, JRich, Jamison) and next year's is potentially strong; we do have a #1 in addition to our own (from the Dampier trade, that depends on Philly not being in the lottery) that we could throw in ...

by hardcore on Aug 21, 2006 3:21 PM PDT up 0 recs

be scared

I don't think much of Pietrus, but the scary thing about any trade is that if we send him out, it not only means we're giving up a piece who might be interesting to someone for a player who might make a difference (Harrington won't) but will mean that we're going to be paying that much more for Harrington to not make a difference.

by jae on Aug 21, 2006 4:28 PM PDT up 0 recs

Thanks. . . .

Your excellent cap explanation above show why shows why we can't trade MD straight up for Maggette -- which in my book would be far preferable to a Harrington trade. But what if we were to throw in another piece or two -- say give Pietrus and/or Cheaney. That should work. Also, perhaps we could package MD and Murphy for Maggette and (I'm reaching here) Radmanovic or Kamen (preferably the latter). Might this be worth a whirl on the trade-O-matic gossip/rumor line?

by johnl on Aug 21, 2006 4:45 PM PDT up 0 recs

BYC

There's no way we can swing Dunleavy for Maggette even-up. We need a third trading partner. Adding another piece of the puzzle doesn't help that much, though there are some scenarios that work.

Problem is that we Dunleavy counts for us at last year's contract, but counts to another team at this year's. In order to make 4.5 only 25% different from 7.4, you need some tricky math. Adding a player who makes between 1 and 1.3 million could work, but you add more and all of a sudden, LA gets over what they can take back in exchange for Maggette's contract.

Dunleavy plus Pietrus isn't feasible. Much as I'd like to get rid of him before he can turn the ball over again or foul to let a team get back in it in the 4th, Pietrus makes too much. We'd have to take something back from LA and there the options are limited. Calbert is a free agent. He might consider a sign-and-trade at the vet minimum, but he doesn't have to. Owens would work once his trade exclusion is gone.

by jae on Aug 21, 2006 5:45 PM PDT up 0 recs

Atlanta

Atlanta is in a legal bind. A court ruling means they may have a new owner if he can buyout his x-partners.

The GM can't let their vet PF, Harrington, go for nothing and shouldn't accept a long term contract.

Joe Smith is a Vet who can play PF for the season. Hawks are overloaded with swingmen so a PF veteran like Smith fits in to their current plans and he is a FA in 07. It's a safe pick for a GM and club stuck in a holding pattern.

I'm not in favor of adding Al Harrington for much more than the MLE.

by joe sez on Aug 21, 2006 7:29 PM PDT up 0 recs