http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/scor....nba/index.html <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The Golden State Warriors have a lot of nice young pieces but they won't move Ike Diogu. The recent buzz has the Warriors setting their sights on a player like Paul Pierce over the riskier Ron Artest. -- hoopsworld.com</div>
If we got Paul Pierce, that would be great since he's from Oakland. Our payroll would be pretty heavy in terms of perimeter players, though. We'd be like the Nets with Kidd, Carter, Jefferson. The only risk is that Paul Pierce opts out in 2007/2008 and he'll probably do it, too. I don't know if we'll have the cap space to re-sign him unless Fisher and Foyle are gone by then and the rookies have been given reasonable deals. When it comes to trading for all-stars I'd rather have Pierce than Artest, though. Pierce in Oakland might be a good fit and he gets to play small forward instead of shooting guard. If he's a true 6'6 and weighs 230 lbs, he could be a scoring nightmare for the slower guy guarding him at the wing.
I don't know how we can get Pierce. Obviously, big contracts have to involved to get Pierce's max deal, and only viable trade is involving Murphy. If we trade either Davis or Richardson, it's hardly an improvement, and they obviously won't take Foyle or Dunleavy. So, it boils down to Fisher or Murphy, and obvious choice is Murphy. But trading away our best rebounder for a scorer, when our biggest problems are rebounding, interior defense, inside scoring and anything involve with big man? Maybe, like Artest trade, we can get a big man out of it, but still I don't see any truth in it. And, if there is any truth in it, we may be shopping Murphy hard...
I don't think Pierce is available at this time, especially not for a Murphy/Pietrus type deal like the rumored Artest deal. If I was Ainge, I'd only bite on a deal that included JRich, which probably won't happen. By the way, as far as I know Pierce is from Inglewood, not Oakland.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting 44Thrilla:</div><div class="quote_post"> By the way, as far as I know Pierce is from Inglewood, not Oakland.</div> BTW it says Paul Pierce is from Oakland. I don't know where he spent most of his youth, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Pierce Nevermind, found my answer. http://www.kidzworld.com/site/p6212.htm Yeah he did grow up in Inglewood, but was born in Oakland. Yeah, I don't think there's any trade that makes sense between the two teams.
Pierce for Murphy is a go; who cares about rebounding if you get Pierce, I mean Pierce, Baron and JRich is starting something (not quite Kidd/Vince/RJeff because those guys are unbelievable).
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting philsmith75:</div><div class="quote_post">Pierce for Murphy is a go; who cares about rebounding if you get Pierce, I mean Pierce, Baron and JRich is starting something (not quite Kidd/Vince/RJeff because those guys are unbelievable).</div> Pierce Baron Jrich = Jkidd VC Rjeff
I would streak in the streets if we got Pierce. He can get to the line and is as good as Kobe imo. Doubt we can get him though. Ainge has been looking for a stud point guard and almost dealt Pierce to Portland for their #3 pick and filler but Pierce said he wouldn't report so the deal fell through. Ainge is in a position to hold for the best offer, Walsh isn't. Pierce>Artest but Artest can come cheaper and is realistic.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting upsidedownside7:</div><div class="quote_post"> Ainge is in a position to hold for the best offer, Walsh isn't. Pierce>Artest but Artest can come cheaper and is realistic.</div> Yes, and he's an electronics expert too.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Kensaku:</div><div class="quote_post">Yes, and he's an electronics expert too. </div> I don't think he got the job did he? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">-- As a rookie with the Bulls, Artest applied for a part-time job at Circuit City.</div> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writ...r/11/22/artest/ Expert my ass, I went to circuit city and those guys don't know jack there.
Pierce,Artest,R. Lewis,KG.....none of the above? Any of those guys is an asset,of course,but what the cost is,matters a lot. Of the guys coming and going,who will be the best value in 2 years/ Who is most apt to skip out to the "Big City" for the big deal,who gets better and who fades? If we dealt Murphy and ? to get Pirce/Artest,we'd need to get some quality size back. Over the years,this franchise has a good record for getting midsize players. Its the GOOD big man who has been hard to get. The W's gave up M Richmond and C Mullin to get lesser talented-but bigger players,gave Penny and 3 #1 picks for Webber. Since 1990 the W's spent 5 first round picks on big men who did not last 5 yrs in the NBA. If for example the cost of getting Artest/Lewis/Pierce is that Murphy gets replaced by Potapenko or S Pollard...we are screwed. Diogu,Biedrens,Taft,all look like very bright futures,but thats birds in the bush. We still don't know who is durable,who can produce,who will,or won't foul out in 15 min. unleavy "sux" yet Dun outscored Magliore by 2pt per game last year...and yet Mags gets hyped as a big time player while Dunleavy gets no respect. The deal is that 6-11 just does not occur much in the gene pool.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting REREM:</div><div class="quote_post">The deal is that 6-11 just does not occur much in the gene pool.</div> That's so true. But not only that, having 6-10"++ guys that have skills with good frames, strength, and decent mobility don't occur much in the world gene pool. We'd be fools to trade any one of Biedrins, Taft, Diogu right now. All of them have tremendous upside. Maybe not Diogu as much, but at this point he's super important to the team and he offers big man skills. Not too many big men are coordinated in their footwork to score as much as Ike I'd bet. When Ike gets the ball he was doing a point per minute.
Id think the Celtics would demand Richardson in this deal. Pierce is actually a superior player to J Rich. If they didnt want Richardson then theyd want all the W's good players not named Baron and Jason. Even though it would drain the W's of depth, theyd still have Davis,Richardson,Pierce....that would be sick. Doubt it happens.
Personally as a player I would rather have Artest because of his defense. The offense is almost a toss up between the two, but the defense of Artest makes him a better overall player than Pierce IMO. I would not kick Pierce out of bed though, figuratively speaking in basketball terms...
[quote name='GiantMidget']Id think the Celtics would demand Richardson in this deal. Pierce is actually a superior player to J Rich. If they didnt want Richardson then theyd want all the W's good players not named Baron and Jason. Even though it would drain the W's of depth, theyd still have Davis,Richardson,Pierce....that would be sick. Doubt it happens.[/QUOTE A couple of years ago,easily Pierce was better. Now? I give J Rich the edge. Pirce has become a little less the consumate all round team guy,he's noticed that scorers get the big bucks. He's also changed a little in his attitude,can get a bit negative. Not big changes,I'm not saying he is a slacker or whiner. J Rich is quicker,more athletic,a bit younger and has yet to do or say anything negative. His game continues to get better while Pierce,a little older,has leveled off. I would rather have Pierce than Artest. I am not confident Artest stays long term and 2-and-gone sucks if we gave up rising talent. Pierce also is very capable of carrying the offense,and is a pretty good defender. What would be bad...this keyboard has an odd tendency to not do an e after an i,so I've been getting Pitrus,or Pirce,and have to go back and hit that e again. If we have both Pietrus and Pierce,I'd go nuts......I can live with that.
There are two things here that stand out to me: First, the likening between a trio of Baron, JRich, and PP to Vince, Kidd and RJ is a dubious one at best. Rarely do three bonafide perimiter guards coexist as well as those three in Jersey. Of course, having a terrific player at each of the 1, 2, and 3 positions is a good thing, but rarely does a trio like that find synergy. And there is a reason for that. For three terrific scoring guards to play together so well, it takes a rare combination -- a cocktail if you will -- of strengths and contributions to reach synergy. There must be a sacrifice of ego. One guard must concede isolated touches and resign himself to getting his points off secondary means. This is Jefferson's role. Sure he gets a few pick-n-rolls and a few spot up Js, but the majority of his scoring is done in transition, off loose balls, alley-oops, tip-ins and put backs, and easy fast break points. He doesn't have the ball in his hands -- to make plays -- nearly as much as Vince, and he seems comfrotable with that. Remember, he averaged 22.5 ppg last year, and only 18.5 ppg this year. With the emergence of Vince as the go-to guy (25 ppg) Jefferson has embodied his role as the swingman "complimentary" player. Lastly, for the backcourt trio to really find synergy, the point guard needs to really embody two key traits -- vision, and leadership. J Kidd is the general of the Nets. He leads by example and has the vision to conduct the show. He is constantly finding ways to get people open and get people the ball. His mastery of the point guard role -- running the show and getting teammates easy shots -- has become such a lethal weapon that it allows him to actually score -- 15 ppg. He knows when to make plays and dish, and he knows when the defense has honored that weapon too much -- and left him wide open to shoot the ball himself. Looking at the potential trio in GS, several of those elements are there, but it is an awkward mix. First, looking at the 2 and 3, if I was coach I would require JRich to concede some of his touches because Pierce would be the go-to-guy, ala Vince. Pierce is a much better playmaker 1-on-1 and all around get-it-done scorer. My problem here is that I'm not sure JRich would make an adequate adjustment to the "complimentary" role like Jefferson has. I can see him getting some tip-dunks and some fastbreak points, but he just doesn't move well enough without the ball to become a threat away from the ball. Jefferson doesn't seem to need the ball in his hands, and really with Kidd at the helm he knows just be active, run, stay alert, and he'll get the easy points. Let Vince go 1-on-1. It might be hard for JRich to concede the star role to Pierce. Second, Baron is a different point guard than Kidd. He's better. You see, IMO Baron should really be the man on this team regardless of what other star is here. Baron should always have the ball in his hands and create plays. J kidd's game is enhanced by guys getting open to make plays. Baron's game is enhanced by guys getting ready to catch the ball while he is busy making plays. What Baron needs is a couple guys just like Ike to get in the paint, get their butts down and their hands up, and get ready to catch the easy dish or put-back on a Baron drive. What Baron does not need is a guy who wants to take 20+ shots a night, ala Pierce. Sure, it's a neat concept that he and Jrich have embraced eachother and formed a high-scoring partnership, but really JRich isn't playing like he did last year during their run. Last year JRich was a high-energy, above-the-rim hustle player who allowed Baron to create and just got open for dishes and alley-oops. This year, JRich is much less aggressive, caught standing more often and jacking up a lot of stationary threes. Have you noticed how many more alley-oops JRich had last year than this year? It's because, IMO, he's not moving without the ball nearly as much. And he's jacking up more treys. Now imagine Pierce here, who would need as many if not more 1-on-1 touches than JRich. It might get convoluted. I am a big fan of JRich. He's worked hard every year on his game to improve, and it really shows. But right now, he's not playing like he used to. He seems to be moving a little slower and content to settle for jacking up a three. I know eventually he'll get back to his high-flying, strong rebounding, hustle-play making self. Heck, he's still scoring 22 a game, it's not like he's in a slump. But, for the GS backcourt to really be explosive, he needs to do less 1-on-1 stuff, shoot less threes, and instead move with out the ball -- ala Jefferson -- so that he'll compliment Baron better. JRich actually needs to take a page out of Pietrus' book. Perhaps Pietrus' coming back will spark JRich. Pietrus is a high-energy, move-without-the-ball hustle player who finishes above the rim. I've got a hunch that Baron loves when he's on the floor becuase a) he doesn't need the ball in his hands he plays tough defense and most importantly c) he's ready to clean-up / finish when Baron drives. Actually, not to knock JRich but IMO a combo of Baron, Pietrus and Paul Pierce is more synergistic than Baron, JRich and PP because Pietrus can naturally fill that complimentary role. His style of play compliments Baron's game and would allow Pierce more touches. Now, mind you, JRich is more valuable than Pietrus, but it's just that in this given scenario Pietrus would be a better fit than him as the complimentary player, IMHO. As it is, if the Warriors want to continue to start JRich at the 2, then Paul Pierce is not the type of player the Warriors need. They need a player to compliment Baron's game, because frankly it really should all revolve around Boom Dizzle. So, an active big man is the ideal piece to get. With the way Dunleavy has played lately, he's really showing signs of being able to compliment Baron. Hopefully that aggressiveness will continue. Murphy, however, is resorting to too much 1-on-1 play. His spot-up shooting is perfect for a Baron kick-out, and he has been a great asset to Baron in that regard. But lately, he's not rebounding or defending well, and he is trying to create way too many plays off the dribble, 1-on-1. For him to compliment Baron, 90% of his points should come off of stretch-the-defense catch-and-shoot jumpers when Baron penetrates and kicks it out. Unfortunately, Murphy's strayed away from that role. What's worse, his trademark strength of rebounding -- the ol' double double -- isn't really a strength lately. So, in order to compliment Baron's game -- and thus become a stronger team -- the Warriors should bench Murph, slide Ike to the 4 and find a true center to play 5. I know, easier said than done. But that should be the aim. Trading for a third perimiter scorer like Pierce -- a volume shooter at that -- would only detract from Dizzle's effectiveness and clearly should not be Mullin's game plan. Perhaps even a lineup of 1)Baron 2)JRich 3)Pietrus/Dunleavy 4)Ike 5)Foyle might be more effective. It means more touches for Baron (with Murph off the floor) and with Ike at the 4 instead of 5 I can really see him flourishing. The other thing that stands out to me is that clearly Artest would be a better fit in GS than Pierce, should he keep his head on straight. Get that guy to play the 3 and you can throw my previous rambles out the window. You may have already.
