Rumor: Warriors Trying to Deal for Nazr Mohammed

Dude

Nazr is dissapointing this season, I'd rather have Foyle block shots than have Nazr play. And we give up Barnes!?! No way!

by the optimus dime on Jan 17, 2007 7:52 PM PST reply actions

Holy shart

It would take away Foyle time, but I love Nazr.

I'm really torn. Kinda neutral.

by Zorgon on Jan 17, 2007 7:57 PM PST reply actions

Find another team

you're annoying

BTW, you're also not funnay AT ALL

GO 76ers!!! Don't GO T-Wolves, and Nets!!!

by jgodoski on Jan 17, 2007 10:48 PM PST up reply actions

hmm

i think we should wait and see if we can't get something better

by tadams1080 on Jan 17, 2007 8:01 PM PST reply actions

source?

are detroit papers reporting this?

would u guys be more willing to trade pietrus for Mohammad or maybe get something a bit better than Nazr?

by BimboColes on Jan 17, 2007 8:06 PM PST reply actions

This same source tipped us that something was possibly in the works last night between the Warriors and Pacers, but we couldn't figure it out. Haha, I guess we should've post that one too. Oh well, today was still was good day for Warriors Nation, especially GSoMers!

by Atma Brother ONE on Jan 17, 2007 8:54 PM PST up reply actions

funny

my source tipped me about the pacers/warriors too, but i just didn't have time to post it.

;)

put ur money where ur mouth is atma!

by gsdubz on Jan 17, 2007 10:09 PM PST up reply actions

OK

I will never understand why people get mad at us when we're just relaying whatever we hear or read. We even note on EVERY rumor-- "99% of rumors never happen, but 99% of them are fun to talk about".

We also clearly note on EVERY rumor we post if the source is ours or if it's from someone else. Unlike RealGM or ESPN, we don't try to pass off rumors and insider info that's from someone else as our own work.

Don't blame us or get mad at us- we don't make anything up. We have no interest in doing so, nor nothing to gain.

Last night one of our sources tipped us that something could go down with the Pacers today as well as with a few other teams, but we didn't get any specific that was worth posting. Thank god something specific actually materialized today though!

by Atma Brother ONE on Jan 17, 2007 10:46 PM PST up reply actions

I gotta stand up for the community on this one...

I can't say I agree with you here Atma. The fact of the matter is, if you site a source, you won't be getting blamed if the rumor ends up false. The 99.99% rule doesn't cover unnamed sources, because then for all we know, it could be a justification for posting TOTAL B.S. 9,999 times in order to generate some website hits. I am not saying that you guys would ever intentionally do such a thing, (you don't need to),but what I am saying is as Warrior fans, we are EXTREMELY sensitive to false hope and should be treated with more care. False hope is like the straw that could break the camels back, if 13 years of missing the playoffs hasn't already done that. So, in all fairness to the loyal and patient Warriors fans on here, please keep up what you had been doing (until the little slip today), which is to only pass on and post rumors that are SOURCED in some way, shape or form.

I mean, I see you guys all the time asking for sources of other members' gossip, so shouldn't you be following your own advice?

And to come on here AFTER the trade and say that a SOURCE had hinted it was going down is just TOTALLY uncalled for man... you guys are always going to be my source for all news, even if it wasn't you personally that posted it first it was your site that most of us got the good news from!

I hope you understand me better, but even if you don't, I love you man.

by gsdubz on Jan 17, 2007 11:11 PM PST up reply actions

No thing man

We're one big growing community. The thing is a lot of our sources will only let us post the stuff if we promise them anonymity. Again, this is the same thing you see in the local papers, ESPN, etc. They have to protect their sources just like we do. They'll write "A source said X" which is the same thing we're doing.

If the rumor isn't ours, we're always crystal clear about it and say where it's from, link to it, and quote it instead of paraphrasing it. We encourage everyone in the community to do the same if they got the rumor from somewhere else. But of course if they were anonymously tipped on a rumor and their source wants anonymity, we're not going to expect them to name their source.

Again, we have no need nor interest to make stuff up. This is one of the most heavily trafficked hoops blogs around- and it's about the Warriors of all teams! Rumors are just a small part of what we do here.

Like you know- we're not like some apathetic media. We're Warriors fans and we want to see this team do well more than anything.

by Atma Brother ONE on Jan 17, 2007 11:22 PM PST up reply actions

Hmm.

I really have to agree with GSDubz on this one. Of course sources have the right to be protected, but we're talking about a web log here, not some big publication. What you're doing Atma, ultimately makes the playing field un-level. Can you see that? It seems that typical protocol on these blogs is people posting their reactions to things written in publications that they're able to link to. That way, everyone is able to have a conversation with the same information available. When you come in out of the blue with an unnamed source, how does that help the community? And how is that really fun for the rest of us to talk about, if we have no idea of what kind of a source you have. Saying you had a source about this trade after the fact? Totally unnecessary to say that from a moderator position. I'm not saying you're lying or have a reason to make things up, because I don't think you do. I like this site a lot. This just seems to me like a lack of judgement on your part, or a gap in philosophy. My vote is to just keep these 'unnamed sources' out of it.

Finally hoops hope in the City Of Dope?

by oaklandish on Jan 18, 2007 3:20 AM PST up reply actions

Again

I'm not saying we knew the exact details of the trade, but we were tipped that something was up. Nothing more, nothing less. We had no idea it was this kind of a trade, just a hunch that something was up. Of course, we're not saying we knew about the trade before it happened.

Of course sources have the right to be protected, but we're talking about a web log here, not some big publication.

Not much I can say, but our sources are as legit as theirs. They report what they hear from unnamed sources all the time. At least we have the integrity to credit other people when we're allowed, unlike a lot of others in the industry.

It seems that typical protocol on these blogs is people posting their reactions to things written in publications that they're able to link to.

Definitely, we link to every rumor we can as well, but if someone asks us for anonymity- all we can do is protect their right.

When you come in out of the blue with an unnamed source, how does that help the community? And how is that really fun for the rest of us to talk about, if we have no idea of what kind of a source you have.

It helps the community because they stay up to date with the very latest. Would you rather us not share what we hear? Now that wouldn't be fun.

My vote is to just keep these 'unnamed sources' out of it.

That's holding us to a different standard than your local papers, etc. Why? Unlike them we at least make it clear that it's just a rumor. And unlike them we don't pass off inside info that isn't ours as our own work. And unlike them we are critical of every single rumor. 99% of them never happen and there's a reason.

by Atma Brother ONE on Jan 18, 2007 8:34 AM PST up reply actions

Why to a different standard?

Because you're not a media news outlet! This is a web log! We're all just fans trying to talk about what we know and think about the Warriors. If there was a random fan that kept posting rumors that he had from his 'sources' people would probably get annoyed, no? Now, obviously you're not a random fan, and you do a great job of running the site, but don't you see that because you are in essence just another member of this BLOG, there's no way for us to quantifiably discern the difference between random rumors from anyone and the one's you post? We're all supposed to just be fans in this together. The job of moderator seems like it's more of an organizing position held by someone with good writing skills and a passion for the team. When you begin to separate yourself so much from the regualr posters here, it sort of alienates us.

There are a lot of great sports blogs out there. I found this one because I'm a member of another SB Nation blog - McCovey Chronicles (Giants). What I like so much about that site is that the guy who runs it - Grant - makes it a point to just be another fan/poster along with everyone else. He simply brings up points/writes great (and CITED/LINKED) posts to start discussions, and lets them go from there. If he began posting rumors from unnamed and supposedly'solid' sources, everyone would be up in arms! It simply takes away from the community feel. If we don't all have the same info available, or at least think we don't, how can we be expected to have a fair conversation?

Furthermore, many publications at least site their sources somewhat, as to make them seem more credible. When ESPN or anywhere else posts something like "a league source told us blah blah blah" it sounds like total BS! A league source? Who gives a crap? But at least when we hear something from an 'unnamed western conference scout' or an 'annonymous GM' we know that, barring plagiarism, we are getting info from a real live person who is probably pretty informed. When you just say 'one of our soureces' there is such a wide range of possible credibility that it makes it impossible for us to know how seriously to take it, or really how to approach it at all.

Finally hoops hope in the City Of Dope?

by oaklandish on Jan 18, 2007 2:19 PM PST up reply actions

exactly!

Amen brotha! You said it best right here:

there's no way for us to quantifiably discern the difference between random rumors from anyone and the one's you post? We're all supposed to just be fans in this together. The job of moderator seems like it's more of an organizing position held by someone with good writing skills and a passion for the team. When you begin to separate yourself so much from the regualr posters here, it sort of alienates us.

lol...hilarious, but really well put.

by gsdubz on Jan 18, 2007 5:58 PM PST up reply actions

Good points

You might not see eye to eye with me on, but this has evolved into a news outlet hybrid. That's fine, just a difference in vision.

If there was a random fan that kept posting rumors that he had from his 'sources' people would probably get annoyed, no?

I honestly wouldn't mind as long as the person was being honest and not making up stuff. Maybe that's just me.

He simply brings up points/writes great (and CITED/LINKED) posts to start discussions, and lets them go from there.

I want to be clear that 90% of the rumors we post we link to and reference a source. That should be 100% clear.

Furthermore, many publications at least site their sources somewhat, as to make them seem more credible. When ESPN or anywhere else posts something like "a league source told us blah blah blah" it sounds like total BS! A league source? Who gives a crap? But at least when we hear something from an 'unnamed western conference scout' or an 'annonymous GM' we know that, barring plagiarism, we are getting info from a real live person who is probably pretty informed. When you just say 'one of our soureces' there is such a wide range of possible credibility that it makes it impossible for us to know how seriously to take it, or really how to approach it at all.

Excellent point. From now on if we have an anonymous source we'll make sure to cite a real live person (e.g. a Western Conference scout, GM, etc). Thanks for the advice.

by Atma Brother ONE on Jan 18, 2007 6:44 PM PST up reply actions

Sounds good.

Finally hoops hope in the City Of Dope?

by oaklandish on Jan 18, 2007 6:59 PM PST up reply actions

Well ..

When it comes to giving false hope and how Warrior fans hate it, that's particularly why people like myself who are in the know aren't comfortable with giving you every bit of news we hear. If we're wrong about something we report, we turn into people that gave you guys something to look forward to that didn't pull through. I lose cred as a reporter to you guys and potentially to the team and my sources.

So I have to weigh if it is worth it. Do I put it all on the line so you hear something before it happens?

Sorry, but I don't have the stones to do that because I can't trust any source to that point, not even decision makers and GMs. I lost trust for GMs at the draft, when I was told of a promise to a player from a team by that team's GM. When it came their chance to pick, their guy was on the board and ... they selected someone else. But what about the promise? I asked the GM and he said something that I can't repeat on this family show. So what did I do instead of saying that this Pacer deal was going down? In my very first post here on Sunday I wrote:

In discussions with people around the league, they don't think Murphy has a contract that is too much. He is one of .. maybe nine or ten guys around the league that were in double-double figures nightly. I think only Nash averaged a double-double with points and assists, the rest being premier big men with their rebounding - guys like Dwight Howard, Tim Duncan, Shawn Marion, Elton Brand, and Kevin Garnett. Murphy isn't at that level, obviously, because he doesn't play a low-post game, but his numbers put him there.

With respect to how much some of them are paid, executives I've spoken to feel Murph is paid reasonably. A deal involving him can still get done. Chicago rumors surfaced a few weeks ago, were shot down by a Chicago source, and then came up again. There were whispers of other teams, but I haven't substantiated them and don't want to be a rumor monger.

Foyle is immovable. Doubt he moves anywhere despite the Warriors' best efforts. Dunleavy can still be moved, too, but a lot of people still think he can do better in this system, unlike Murph who looks lost and is in a bad mood.

Was I being unclear and vague? Of course, but I didn't have enough sources telling me to tell you who the team the Dubs were talking to was at that time. At the same time, I was just telling you guys what I heard, that Murphy was movable and that teams were interested and a deal could get done. I had to frame it in the weakest speculative way I could. I played it safe because I didn't want to get hopes up, but wanted to tell you that things were being discussed.

It wasn't good enough for some, who said they'd believe it when they saw it. That's fine .. but I made a believer out of them, no?

At the end of the day, everything you hear is false. Teams are using us in the media and even people in their own organizations who talk to raise value and better themselves.

This is going to sound like it's directed at GSDubz, but it's actually something I feel everyone should know.

Would you rather not have your hopes risen and simply not hear anything at all? If so, don't read the rumors, simple as that.

I learned from Tim Wise that the greatest understanding of people can come from learning what they take for granted. Wise feels that when people take things for granted, "anything that goes against the grain of what they perceive as `normal' will tend to stand out like a sore thumb.

That's exactly what has happened to in today's world. We've come to expect, and therefore take our insiders for granted. Imagine what Warrior fans went through in 1982 when the Warriors had a top ten pick? Who were they working out? Who were they interested in? Imagine the surprise of Dub fans when the name they read in the paper the next day was Lester Connor.

We've all taken our information for granted. With every newspaper blurb posted, we're learning things going on behind the scenes. With every post by insiders, you get a little taste of that crème brulé on the dessert cart that fans could normally never afford.

People didn't have the information they get now. You choose whether you want to believe it or not. The GSoM guys will choose whether to post it or not. If your hopes get up, that's your bad, but in the meantime I'd just be happy that you're getting a possible look into things that are going on at the top of the Oakland Convention Center.

In the past, that possibility wasn't even available. I'd just be happy with that peek, but that's just me.

And if you think you're peeking at something that isn't real, that'll be left for you to decide. I know that I've worked my butt off to have the credibility to be believed, but I'm new hear, so it will come about slowly.

by pree on Jan 18, 2007 2:29 AM PST up reply actions

i gotta go with atma

all atma is doing is posting a rumor that he has heard and i believe he wouldnt post it unless he knew something,

i have been coming here for like 9 months now and from what i have seen from atma, he is just a die hard warrior fan, like most of us here

we all post rumors in our diaries, that seems to be all he is doing

he doesnt make up bizzare rumors like funleavy and murphy for garnett or something like that, lay off the guy, he posted a rumor, it may or may not happen, discuss it, and enjoy

i dont really get the false hope idea, after this offseason i kinda had no hope of a funleavy murph trade, but it happened, most rumors never come about, thats pro basketball, but if there are discussions between the warriors and another team, even if its small, atma should post it, because it is a warriors rumor and personally i like to see whats going on in the front office

atma seems like an honest guy, once i asked him if he was listening to drunk people for rumors, he said no, so i figure this is still the case

by badnamedwarriorfan on Jan 18, 2007 7:05 AM PST up reply actions

I agree with oaklandish

I think the non-media related, normal Warriors AND GSoM fans, agree as well. Atma and any other users here that are somehow affiliated with the media are just being straight stubborn on this one.

An example of when rumors can become true is the Baron Davis trade. I'll never forget that when that rumor came about in news sources, even thought it was like a day before the trade. As a result, it sparked my interest, and I searched the web all night, and eventually hit refresh a bagoogle times, and alas, after the deadline, the news comes out, that B.D. was just traded before the deadline. That is a perfect, and classic example of correctly citing media sources on a good (but quick ) tip, had GSoM been around at the time. Yes, I know espn and others also name unnamed soureces, but with al due respect, when espn.com names their OWN self as a source, they get it right more than .01 percent of the time, it's a lot higher. And a lot of times, all these guys do is reference other news organizations, which is a good and safe niche that you guys should stick to.

I think part of what is going on here, Atma, is your stubborness after the fact in realizing that you MAY have had a potential TIP that SOMEHOW MIGHT have hinted that a Warriors trade would happen, (even though you did not even know the players or team they would deal with), so you are trying to make up for getting the story late by saying you had a source that told you about it! Come on bro, that's uncalled for.

Bottom line, YOU are going to have to find ways to differentiate your anonymous sources... you are simply risking a lot when you post up garbagae anonymous sources somehow so that only the TOP LEVEL garbage is posted on here (if there is such a thing?) if any at all. I feel you post more than enough great links and references to amazing articles all across the web that most of us could never find on our own... that's your niche. And then of course, the discussions that follow it, thanks to your constant updating and tremendous consistency, make this site #1. So, in turn, I guess what I am saying, is that even though we all agree you wouldn't NEED to post anonymous rumors, doing so could actually hurt you guys credibility. I know it makes me angry and not want to read them.... like pree suggested, but that would mean not wanting to visit the site... and that's not a good thing to ask for! I wouldn't say it looks like you are lying to me, but, it kind of looks a little arrogant to me, like "ooh people are gonna read whatever we post anyways, so let's reference anything that comes out of anyone's mouth!".

Feel me? I hope that didn't come off rude... but that's what bothers me and I had to speak it.

by gsdubz on Jan 18, 2007 8:00 AM PST up reply actions

Calm down

Chill my friend. It's not about stubbornness, it's honestly just about passing along whatever we hear. Rumors are just a tiny % of what we do here- this is getting blown way out of proportion. Of course we're not going to put up garbage. We only put up stuff that we hear via a credible source.

Yes, I know espn and others also name unnamed soureces, but with al due respect, when espn.com names their OWN self as a source, they get it right more than .01 percent of the time, it's a lot higher.

You're forgetting that a huge chunk of the time, ESPN didn't get the scoop, but are passing it off like they did. Most of the time they're just rehashing what local media personnel found out and trying to pretend like they did all the work. Very shady. Same goes for RealGm.

by Atma Brother ONE on Jan 18, 2007 8:43 AM PST up reply actions

OK you're deferring from the point now

You've mentioned 1000 times that you hate how other sites just pass on information. OK, we get it, and we've been getting that before you mentioned it, because we see when the same article is on several different sites, or when the same source is quoted by different news channels. That's not what this is about. This is about the fact that sometimes, sites like ESPN DO have their own sources and are right more times than anywhere else. So, let's leave the sourcing to them, professionals, who can back up what they say once in a blue moon, more than .01% of the time.

Ouch. Sorry, but I had to take it there because you're just avoiding what this is really about and REALLY showing to be stubborn on this one bro.

by gsdubz on Jan 18, 2007 12:27 PM PST up reply actions

but I made a believer out of them, no?

well, sort of

playing devil's advocate - could have been a lucky coincidence (though I think not honestly)

the points being made about a level playing field re sources are on target - it's not a level playing field, but it's still a great site

by hardcore on Jan 18, 2007 7:47 AM PST up reply actions

Not Barnes!

I'd rather do anything possible to swing Jackson for a big man.

by ohad on Jan 17, 2007 8:07 PM PST reply actions

steve jax to d-troit?

maybe if some fans there wanted to "invite" him to come back for a big beat-down...

i think we'll need to play jackson in our system for a bit, get his stats up, and then trade him later.

All-time Oakland Warriors: Hardaway, J-Rich, Mullin, Mr. Mean & The Chief

by OaktownWarrior on Jan 17, 2007 8:15 PM PST up reply actions

ummm

we're talking foyle for nazr, right?

Still living in '94.

by texanwarrior on Jan 17, 2007 8:08 PM PST reply actions

depends on what we give up

jackson, foyle (sorry zorgon), maybe pietrus, no barnes though, he is too valuable, nazt isnt worth it

by badnamedwarriorfan on Jan 17, 2007 8:14 PM PST reply actions

I'd dump Barnes

I don't like him...he makes silly decisions a lot. Hustle and effort is all well and good...but going 1 v 5 with a teardrop...eh

-Crypt0naut

by Crypt0naut on Jan 17, 2007 8:14 PM PST reply actions

I'd be fine with that, I guess

The way Barnes has been playing, though (over his head) I don't even think it would present much of an up upgrade for us. I mean talent wise, yes, but production wise there'd be a dropoff (although there's pretty much bound to be a dropoff regardless)

by jonathan on Jan 17, 2007 8:18 PM PST reply actions

defense is priceless

barnes plays defense, and i dont know enough about nazr to comment,

can anyone give some info about nazrs defense, i know he is a great rebounder

thanks

by badnamedwarriorfan on Jan 17, 2007 8:25 PM PST reply actions

I dunno

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3272/career;_ylt=AjDPNfH9H3yjOYLkYlUA9OOkvLYF

I don't know if Barnes plays defense...i thought Mohammed was a defense oriented center.

-Crypt0naut

by Crypt0naut on Jan 17, 2007 8:31 PM PST reply actions

barnes is a good defender

he is one of the better defensive guys around, thats something he brings every night,

nazr is one of the top rebounders according to some websites and an allright defender

by badnamedwarriorfan on Jan 17, 2007 8:34 PM PST reply actions

What is defense in this league?

Seriously, what is defense in this league anymore? Is it quantifiable, through stats? Or is it just a bunch of cooincidences that cause the shooter to miss...

It's like a Bill James question, lol

-Crypt0naut

by Crypt0naut on Jan 17, 2007 8:37 PM PST reply actions

your correct

there is no real stat, other than some places that record how many points are scored on them and how much they affect the other teams shots

its more of people and scouts just checking out a player and saying how good of a defender someone is

by badnamedwarriorfan on Jan 17, 2007 8:39 PM PST reply actions

Nazr is not really that great of a defender

At best he is a poor mans version of an Erick Dampier... a lazy big man with potential but not the heart to play to it... and we already went through that ordeal. Look at what he has really done... He was at NY and did decently (15 and 9 if i remember) before getting traded to the Spurs... where he did semi decent at best at a highly inconsistent rate. Now at Detroit where he was penciled in as the instant starter he has done nothing to prove that he is worthy of a starting spot. What more do you think he can bring to the Warriors? I think nothing at all! It's a bad... BAD move!

by mightymadskillz on Jan 17, 2007 8:58 PM PST reply actions

Trade Jackson

Trade Jackson($6.12M) for McDyess($5.89M) or Maggette($7M).

Only problem is, who wants Jackson?

by unblinded on Jan 17, 2007 9:06 PM PST reply actions

There is no defense stat

But the quintessential stat is probably plus minus like in hockey. It shows that you are actually good for your team in terms of scoring and defense. I don't know why they don't use it.

by DaAzNJRiCh on Jan 17, 2007 10:17 PM PST reply actions

don't like this trade

barnes has been slumping lately but i wouldn't want to give him up, i think he'd be a solid bench contributer. plus if we did trade him, he'd get 40 on us next time he faced us. and it's just nazr mohammed...i mean come on. nothing to even get remotely excited about.

by AJC3317 on Jan 17, 2007 10:58 PM PST reply actions

Do you think Nazr Mohammed would help the Warriors

Not much, He's not consistant or tough. We should hold out for someone better. Wasn't there talk about portland wanting to move Zack Randolf?

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 17, 2007 11:02 PM PST reply actions

i would do it

if it meant to shed more cap room. How about Barnes and Jax for Mcdyess. That would definitely be an upgrade. I agree with one of the other posters on here. Barnes makes too many silly errors to be a constant contributor. He is really cold right now, and is definitely forcing the issue right now. He needs to get back to basics and let the game come to him. He is too trigger happy right now. Don should limit his minutes after Harrington and Jax come in to see what they can do instead.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league. Purgatory is thy home.

by kenntoe on Jan 17, 2007 11:08 PM PST reply actions

I wouldn't do it

I guess it all depends on what we give up, but I don't think I'd do it.

I don't know what's the problem with Nazr, but it looks like he has issues on every team he is. He didn't last long in Philly with LB, then he got traded from the Knicks to the Spurs, where he played an important role on the 2004 championship.

But the following season he barely played in San Antonio and then signed up with Detroit, when after 30 games starting and playing like 20 minutes per night, he was benched in favor of Dale Davis and now they want to trade him.

There's gotta be something in there.

by Jaime Novoa on Jan 17, 2007 11:13 PM PST reply actions

this trade works

Warriors get:

Nazr Mohammad
Antonio McDyess

Pistons get:

Adonal foyle
Mikael Pietrus
Matt Barnes

I believe the warriors might be saving money on this trade since Nazr Mohammed gets less money but has one more year.

check it here:

http://realgm.com/src_tradechecker/3/

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league. Purgatory is thy home.

by kenntoe on Jan 17, 2007 11:15 PM PST reply actions

Nazr

Warriors can't package Stephen Jackson. They would have to wait awhile or just trade him out by himself.

And Nazr has like 4 more years to go after this one.

And on the new offer. I have a hard time seeing Pistons moving McDyess. I could see them moving Dale Davis and Nazr.

by jpgarfunkle on Jan 17, 2007 11:22 PM PST reply actions

well...

as one of Barnes' biggest supports on this site I would have to be against this trade :)
But seriously..this isn't a good deal for the W's. Barnes is cold shooting the ball right now and turning it over a bit more than you would like, but he is still bringing it on D and on the boards.
What this team needs is a long/athletic power forward not a backup center. Ely anyone??
The W's could probably still get Melvin for an expiring contract and a 2nd rounder.

Let's Go Oakland! Gas, Brake, Dip.

by OaktownFunk on Jan 17, 2007 11:27 PM PST reply actions

something to be said for ...

some roster balance - we are still thin along the front line, deep on the perimeter

what was Barnes two months ago, and more to the point, what will he be two-three months from now?

biggest point is, which one has the potential to make the difference in whether we make the playoffs?

by hardcore on Jan 17, 2007 11:39 PM PST reply actions

uh no

NAZRway im goin to want that to happen!

by djchuckdeez on Jan 17, 2007 11:42 PM PST reply actions

Barnes...

isn't untouchable by any means. If we have a chance to get help in the front court, then we should do it. Package him to get Nazr and Mcdyess. Or send him to the Cavs.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league. Purgatory is thy home.

by kenntoe on Jan 18, 2007 6:01 PM PST reply actions