we need an inside presence. that's what we should be focusing on right now. it would be (at least) a short-term solution to our backcourt-heavy offense. the intangibles resulting from spreading the defense would be HUGE for this team. i haven't seen harrington enough to know how well he passes, but it looks like he gets a few dimes per game. maybe it's just because i'm real down on dunleavy, but i think it would be an immediate upgrade. however, there's other guys i'd rather have obviously...maggette for instance.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting upsidedownside7:</div><div class="quote_post">I gotta stick up for Harrington. He's no star but a starter, Dunleavy isn't a starter. Harrington isn't marginally better, he is flat out better. Harrington is one of the many guys Dunleavy couldn't guard if his life depended on it. Harrington has his warts but there is no way that guy isn't a CLEAR upgrade to Dunleavy. Harrington is what he is, a scoring tweener that can finish inside, has a decent jumper, his defense comes and goes and has a history of consistency. Dunleavy is what he is...a 6th man.</div> If Dunleavy was on a team where the only other players were Antoine Walker two years ago and Joe Johnson and a bunch of kids last year, I'd expect him to put up big numbers too. Since you brought up the Dunleavy vs. Harrington match up, I'd like to refer you to the four games the teams played against each other the past two years: 2/23/05: 101-96 Warriors win. Harrington has 14 points on 7-16 shooting, 4 TO's and no steals or blocks. Dunleavy has 18 points on 8-18 shooting, 1 TO and 1 steal and 2 blocks. 3/12/05: 105-92 Warriors win. Harrington has 17 points on 8-17 shooting, 1 TO, 3 steals, and 2 blocks. Dunleavy has 22 points on 7-15 shooting, 1 TO, 1 steal, and no blocks. 11/02/05 122-97 Warriors win. Harrington has 18 points on 9-17 shooting, 3 TO's, 3 steals, and no blocks. Dunleavy has 11 points on 3-10 shooting, 7 TO's, 1 steal, and no blocks. Now to be fair, Dunleavy and Harrington weren't matched up against each other this game. Harrington was up against Murphy who was 8-8 from the field and Dunleavy was up against Childress who was 3-9 from the field. 3/7/06 113-106 Hawks win. Harrington has 21 points on 7-15 shooting, 3 TO's, 1 steal and no blocks. Dunleavy has 13 points on 4-11 shooting, 2 TO's, 2 steals, and no blocks. Again, Dunleavy and Harrington weren't on each other this game. Dunleavy was up against Josh Smith who has 12 points on 4-7 shooting, 3 TO's, 1 steal, and 4 blocks. While Harrington was up against Murphy, who had 6 points on 3-6 shooting, 4 TO's, 1 steal, and no blocks. I don't know about you upsidedownside7, but I don't see those games as Harrington dominating Dunleavy. Dunleavy outplayed Harrington in the first two games, Harrington outplayed Dunleavy in the last two. See, if you actually bothered to look up the box scores before you made comments like that, you might see that the grass isn't actually greener on the other side of the fence. Now AlleyOop, first off, many apologies for not proof reading my post before I made it, clearly you were fascinated with my misspelling of fascination. I hope to not let it happen again, but if it does, I trust you will be right there to point it out. I wasn't specifically referring to you, btw, so you can put that fear to rest as well. It was just a general comment that I've noticed over the past year or so with fans here, more for Chandler than Harrington. But as you can see from upsidedownside7's post, some fans here like Harrington as well. Now onto what you said about Harrington. Like I said before, his numbers are largely due to the fact that he went from being a bench player on the Pacers to the man in Atlanta, of course his numbers are going to go up. Now his PER did jump up nearly two points from two years ago to last year. It looks like that was largely due to Harrington really cutting his turnovers (per touch, not the regular TO stat) down and his dramatic improvement in 3 point shooting. But since the average PER is 15.00 every year (with a range of about 5-28), the difference between Dunleavy and Harrington's PER's over the past three years really isn't that great. Even though Harrington's is going up and Dunleavy's is going down, they're still both average sf's in the league. So if their production is about the same, then the question is ?fit?. Personally, I think Dunleavy is a better fit, since he doesn?t need to score to be effective. If you surround Harrington with other scorers (as was the case when he was in Indiana), what are you left with? Add to the fact that the Warriors need to improve their low post scoring at either the pf or c spot, and you have even less scoring touches for Harrington.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting boogielew:</div><div class="quote_post">or the Snow/Gooden for Fisher/murphy trades revisited how about fisher - pietrus- and murph for zach randolph - outlaw and blake?</div> Dumping Fisher is a good thing but there's no way I'd take Drew "Bong-rips-are-Gooden" over Al Harrington. Further, no matter what the trade (unless it was for Foyle straight up) there's no way I want Zach "I-commit-a-felon-and-Randolph-away-from-the-Law" on this team. Don't like him as a player.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AlleyOop:</div><div class="quote_post">and-Randolph-away-from-the-Law"</div>
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">If Dunleavy was on a team where the only other players were Antoine Walker two years ago and Joe Johnson and a bunch of kids last year, I'd expect him to put up big numbers too. Since you brought up the Dunleavy vs. Harrington match up, I'd like to refer you to the four games the teams played against each other the past two years: 2/23/05: 101-96 Warriors win. Harrington has 14 points on 7-16 shooting, 4 TO's and no steals or blocks. Dunleavy has 18 points on 8-18 shooting, 1 TO and 1 steal and 2 blocks. 3/12/05: 105-92 Warriors win. Harrington has 17 points on 8-17 shooting, 1 TO, 3 steals, and 2 blocks. Dunleavy has 22 points on 7-15 shooting, 1 TO, 1 steal, and no blocks. 11/02/05 122-97 Warriors win. Harrington has 18 points on 9-17 shooting, 3 TO's, 3 steals, and no blocks. Dunleavy has 11 points on 3-10 shooting, 7 TO's, 1 steal, and no blocks. Now to be fair, Dunleavy and Harrington weren't matched up against each other this game. Harrington was up against Murphy who was 8-8 from the field and Dunleavy was up against Childress who was 3-9 from the field. 3/7/06 113-106 Hawks win. Harrington has 21 points on 7-15 shooting, 3 TO's, 1 steal and no blocks. Dunleavy has 13 points on 4-11 shooting, 2 TO's, 2 steals, and no blocks. Again, Dunleavy and Harrington weren't on each other this game. Dunleavy was up against Josh Smith who has 12 points on 4-7 shooting, 3 TO's, 1 steal, and 4 blocks. While Harrington was up against Murphy, who had 6 points on 3-6 shooting, 4 TO's, 1 steal, and no blocks. I don't know about you upsidedownside7, but I don't see those games as Harrington dominating Dunleavy. Dunleavy outplayed Harrington in the first two games, Harrington outplayed Dunleavy in the last two. See, if you actually bothered to look up the box scores before you made comments like that, you might see that the grass isn't actually greener on the other side of the fence. Now AlleyOop, first off, many apologies for not proof reading my post before I made it, clearly you were fascinated with my misspelling of fascination. I hope to not let it happen again, but if it does, I trust you will be right there to point it out. I wasn't specifically referring to you, btw, so you can put that fear to rest as well. It was just a general comment that I've noticed over the past year or so with fans here, more for Chandler than Harrington. But as you can see from upsidedownside7's post, some fans here like Harrington as well. Now onto what you said about Harrington. Like I said before, his numbers are largely due to the fact that he went from being a bench player on the Pacers to the man in Atlanta, of course his numbers are going to go up. Now his PER did jump up nearly two points from two years ago to last year. It looks like that was largely due to Harrington really cutting his turnovers (per touch, not the regular TO stat) down and his dramatic improvement in 3 point shooting. But since the average PER is 15.00 every year (with a range of about 5-28), the difference between Dunleavy and Harrington's PER's over the past three years really isn't that great. Even though Harrington's is going up and Dunleavy's is going down, they're still both average sf's in the league. So if their production is about the same, then the question is “fit”. Personally, I think Dunleavy is a better fit, since he doesn’t need to score to be effective. If you surround Harrington with other scorers (as was the case when he was in Indiana), what are you left with? Add to the fact that the Warriors need to improve their low post scoring at either the pf or c spot, and you have even less scoring touches for Harrington.</div> Please give me a break...please. You have to bring up stats from Dunleavy's one single good stretch of basketball to skew the stats? If he played like he did after we got Baron Davis, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We would be happy with Dunleavy and talking about something else. To be fair Murphy guarded Harrington? Fair to your ridiculous argument? LOL, yeah I'm sure Dunleavy could shut him down on the block. For all I know, you could have failed to mention Murphy guarded him in those first two games as well. It's not like it matters because Dunleavy eventually went on to CHOKE which is the initial problem. Any other stat you want to use to compare their stats? How about 18 and 6.5 boards to 11 and 5. Scoreboard. Ask every single GM in the league and see who's a better player, Harrington or Dunleavy. Hell ask every person on this board and they'll take Harrington over Dunleavy. LOL @ you.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">Now AlleyOop, first off, many apologies for not proof reading my post before I made it, clearly you were fascinated with my misspelling of fascination. I hope to not let it happen again, but if it does, I trust you will be right there to point it out. </div> <div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">Even though Harrington's is going up and Dunleavy's is going down, they're still both average sf's in the league. </div> Well, I think this is the area that sways me. I wanted to grant you some leverage in that comparison by pointing out that Harrington gets more minutes than Dunleavy, so the numbers/per/game stat isn't completely telling. I thought numbers/per/48 minutes would be more accurate. Though he scored 18.6 to 11.5 over Dunleavy per game last year, I thought over 48 minutes that difference would come down somewhat. But it doesn't. Last year, per 48 minutes, Harrington scored 24.3 ppg to MDJ's 17.3 ppg. That's still a differential of 7 more points per 48 minutes, almost identical to their "per game" stats. Further, The most telling aspect is that Harrington has shown steady improvement in scoring every year for 4 seasons, while Dunleavy has failed to do that. Granted he became the man in Atlanta, but not every player can take on that challenge. Harrington has, and while he's no All-star, that's not what this discussion is about. It's about an offensive upgrade over Dunleavy, and I think it should be clear that Harrington will provide an instant upgrade for the Warriors at that position. You say that you see no evidence that Harrington will be any better than he is now. Isn't his consistent, steady improvement in offensive production, over a long time span, at least a sign of encouragement that he might continue to get better? Again, I actually like Dunleavy's game, if he'd just get out there and play it. At times he's been the best player on the floor. And when he has "a night," and gets hot, boy that's fun to watch. The problem, as most people here emphasize, is that he just disappears for long stretches. Sure he may blow up and score 25 points, 11 rebounds, 5 assists, and 3 steals, but his season average of 11.5 points and 5 rebounds as a starter tells us that he hasn't been able to sustain that level of play. Harrington's earned more minutes, but he's sustained a high level of production over the season to average 18.6. BTW, here's some numbers for all Forwards in the NBA (this includes SF and PF): Scoring per game: Al Harrington ranks #18, Dunleavy ranks #49. Scoring per 48 minutes: Al Harrington ranks #21, Dunleavy ranks #79. These numbers include all players, not just qualified players. Last year, per 48 minutes Harrington scored more than Richard Jefferson, Peja Stojakovic, Kenyon Martin, Nocioni, Ricky Davis, Antoine Walker, Ron Artest, and Rasheed Wallace. He may not be an all-star, and he may have some short comings. I'm not "fascinated" with him at all. I'm just comparing him to our current starter at SF. And looking at the numbers above, it's clear to me that he's at least improved each year, earned the right to be a #1 option in Atlanta, carried that torch, and established himself over this time span into a far superior offensive player over MDJ.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting upsidedownside7:</div><div class="quote_post">Please give me a break...please. You have to bring up stats from Dunleavy's one single good stretch of basketball to skew the stats? If he played like he did after we got Baron Davis, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We would be happy with Dunleavy and talking about something else. To be fair Murphy guarded Harrington? Fair to your ridiculous argument? LOL, yeah I'm sure Dunleavy could shut him down on the block. For all I know, you could have failed to mention Murphy guarded him in those first two games as well. It's not like it matters because Dunleavy eventually went on to CHOKE which is the initial problem. Any other stat you want to use to compare their stats? How about 18 and 6.5 boards to 11 and 5. Scoreboard. Ask every single GM in the league and see who's a better player, Harrington or Dunleavy. Hell ask every person on this board and they'll take Harrington over Dunleavy. LOL @ you.</div> What are you talking about man?!? Tell me what's ridiculous about my argument instead of doing this lame "LOL @ you" thing. All I see is a guy who's totally blinded by how much he dislikes Dunleavy, saying things that just aren't true. And any time I point out something you've said as wrong, you call it ridiculous and say things about Dunleavy's game that you've "seen" but can't back up. And since you questioned the first two games I mentioned, I don't know if Dunleavy was matched up against Harrington. Antoine Walker was the other forward in the first game and Josh Childress in the second. And it does matter because you tried to say that Dunleavy couldn't guard Harrington, so I showed you how they actually did in the games they played against each other instead of arguing like you and saying something like, "Dunleavy could drive past Harrington all day." See, it's just opinion with nothing to back it up. As for this 18 and 6.5 to 11 and 5, scoreboard thing...wow, put me in my place...Have you ever heard of descent players putting up good stats on horrible teams? Maybe I could do some equally lame "Mullin agrees with me...scoreboard" thing back at you, but that won't solve anything. Look, you don't like Dunleavy, I think he's better than you think. I'm really getting tired of arguing with you about him though. But, I keep doing it because (hopefully) the more I argue with you, the more other people will see that Dunleavy isn't as bad as they think. And ask any GM who is better, or any fan? Well, I don't know about you, but I can't ask any GM. If Mullin trades for Harrington and starts him over Dunleavy, then we'll have an answer for one GM. As for fans on this board, well, that doesn't really matter either. All of us are fans and we're all wrong a lot. Who knew there would be this much interest for Fisher? Who knew most GM's don't see Murphy as having a bad contract? I certainly didn't. All we do is speculate, I just try to look at things as objectively as I can. I hope in the future, you begin to do the same. If you respond to this, please give me something to debate rather than just calling my arguments ridiculous. It doesn't add anything to this discussion in my eyes when you do that.
AlleyOop, I will absolutely concede that Harrington is clearly a better scorer than Dunleavy. But I thought most of everyone's problems with Dunleavy were that he couldn't defend other sf's? The way I see it, the Warriors have enough offensive firepower, and if they need any more scoring, it's post scoring. Unless the Warriors have Harrington playing pf, he's not going to be able to provide what the Warriors need. Just look at the Warriors when they had Damp, Fortson, and Jamison all trying to operate in the post at the same time. It didn't work. If the Warriors had Harrington at sf, playing alongside Diogu and whoever is at center, the team is going to have the same clogged lane that they had with Jamison.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">The way I see it, the Warriors have enough offensive firepower, and if they need any more scoring, it's post scoring. Unless the Warriors have Harrington playing pf, he's not going to be able to provide what the Warriors need. Just look at the Warriors when they had Damp, Fortson, and Jamison all trying to operate in the post at the same time. It didn't work. If the Warriors had Harrington at sf, playing alongside Diogu and whoever is at center, the team is going to have the same clogged lane that they had with Jamison.</div> That's a good point. I'd rather have a quick, athletic swingman who can defend at the 3, I dunno like Ronnie Brewer? Someone who could finish in the lane. But Dunleavy's not doing that for us. Maybe he'll bust out. Maybe not. Between Harrington and Magette, I'd take Magette any day. And I agree that Harrington in no way would help our defensive woes. But he gets paid the same amount as Murphy, and he can shift to the 4 position at times. So I wouldn't mind getting him because it would definately upgrade the team. He can shoot, too -- he's not all back to the basket. He can stretch the D. He's not the first guy I would try to go out and get. But if Atlanta wants to trade him for Murphy, I'd do it hands down. He would be an instant offensive boost over Dunleavy, and I'll take that, and worry about defense and open lanes later.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">What are you talking about man?!? Tell me what's ridiculous about my argument instead of doing this lame "LOL @ you" thing. All I see is a guy who's totally blinded by how much he dislikes Dunleavy, saying things that just aren't true. And any time I point out something you've said as wrong, you call it ridiculous and say things about Dunleavy's game that you've "seen" but can't back up. And since you questioned the first two games I mentioned, I don't know if Dunleavy was matched up against Harrington. Antoine Walker was the other forward in the first game and Josh Childress in the second. And it does matter because you tried to say that Dunleavy couldn't guard Harrington, so I showed you how they actually did in the games they played against each other instead of arguing like you and saying something like, "Dunleavy could drive past Harrington all day." See, it's just opinion with nothing to back it up. As for this 18 and 6.5 to 11 and 5, scoreboard thing...wow, put me in my place...Have you ever heard of descent players putting up good stats on horrible teams? Maybe I could do some equally lame "Mullin agrees with me...scoreboard" thing back at you, but that won't solve anything. Look, you don't like Dunleavy, I think he's better than you think. I'm really getting tired of arguing with you about him though. But, I keep doing it because (hopefully) the more I argue with you, the more other people will see that Dunleavy isn't as bad as they think. And ask any GM who is better, or any fan? Well, I don't know about you, but I can't ask any GM. If Mullin trades for Harrington and starts him over Dunleavy, then we'll have an answer for one GM. As for fans on this board, well, that doesn't really matter either. All of us are fans and we're all wrong a lot. Who knew there would be this much interest for Fisher? Who knew most GM's don't see Murphy as having a bad contract? I certainly didn't. All we do is speculate, I just try to look at things as objectively as I can. I hope in the future, you begin to do the same. If you respond to this, please give me something to debate rather than just calling my arguments ridiculous. It doesn't add anything to this discussion in my eyes when you do that.</div> I can back this up. From the Indiana's BENCH Al Harrington outproduced Dunleavy in field goal percentages, points and rebounds. He was in the mix as sixth man of the year. He had Jermaine, Reggie, Ron Artest all infront of him and managed to produce in a contender like situation. Like I said he's no star but he deserves to be a starter. http://www.nba.com/playerfile/al_harrington/index.html You do realize you make countless excuses for Dunleavy...right? Harrington plays with Antoine Walker and Joe Johnson...so? Dunleavy plays with Baron Davis and Jason Richardson. Harrington gets double teamed, Dunleavy never gets double teamed. Harrington got his points and rebounds before and after Walker as well but you didn't mention that. Al's PER points are only 5 points higher? Well if you're using the PER argument then you'd be better off keeping Murphy signing Harrington and benching Dunleavy since his is the lowest. Everyone knows Murphy must go, PER doesn't hold much weight alone and making an excuse of only 5 points higher on top of that doesn't help. It's these arguments that hold zero weight. Arguing for the sake of arguing is going to get you at the same spot, Dunleavy isn't a starter. I don't have add much if you're bringing these half assed arguments. They are all argumentative, can easily be disputed and do sound ridiculous. I'm not trying to intentionally be rude but they all sound like the deluded girlfriend sticking up for her loser boyfriend. Only 5 PER points? LOL that's not a reason to ignore an upgrade. You might as well mention +/- statistics which have proved to be worthless. Like I said Harrington isn't a star but a starter. Dunleavy isn't a starter. If this is that aggravating for you, then maybe you want to take a look in the mirror and repeat the grass is greener line. You're deluding yourself with Dunleavy buddy. Harrington has his warts but he's a clear upgrade over Dunleavy and fits better for this team than Murphy. I've watched him a few times against the warriors and back in Indy but his strength, aggressiveness, ability to score, consistency and being with a contender (Indy) would give us something we are lacking. A young starter with experience, consistency and athleticism. Why would Mullin pursue him if he wasn't? I don't feel sorry for you if this is giving you a hard time, you're taking the time to debate me dude. You can easily walk away.
Upsidedownside7, show me where I've made an excuse for Dunleavy, in this thread or any other in the past couple of months. All I have been doing is refuting unfounded claims by you and other anti-Dunleavy people. I told you the last time we got into this on draft night, that I think Dunleavy has his problems, and I listed them. It has nothing to do with me being unreasonable, quite the opposite in fact. I don't like it when fans take a player, ANY player, and make them their whipping boy for all things wrong with the Warriors. When Jamison was on the outs with fans a few years ago and Dunleavy was their golden boy, you couldn't find a more vocal Dunleavy critic than me. Anyone who was on the espn board 3-4 years ago (Custodian, Kwan, and others), who can remember that far back can back me up. Now clear something up for me, I've reread what you said about PER, and I don't get this "five points higher" thing. Where did that come from? Harrington's PER over the past three years has been 14.92, 14.32, and 16.08. Dunleavy's has been 15.04, 14.52, and 12.51. That's a 3.5 point difference last year, and for the most part they've both been right around 15, which is the league average. If you don?t think it?s useful, that?s one thing, but if you do try and use it, at least get it right. If you don't want to argue stats, and just want to say, "Harrington is CLEARLY better than Dunleavy," and insist that anyone who disagrees with you has a mancrush on Dunleavy, that's fine. I just disagree. Another question: if the Warriors traded Murphy for Harrington (and sign Harrington to a similar deal as Murphy), that would mean they'd be spending roughly $19 mil a year on your small forwards for the next 5-6 years, and it'd make it almost impossible to resign Diogu and Biedrins (and Taft). That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Do you think Harrington is worth that kind of money/commitment?
I'm in agreement with 707to805 on how inside presence is a priority. It's why we've been drafting big all these years and why Mullin isn't looking completely lost in terms of a franchise direction. Plus, like Kwan pointed out in an earlier thread is that inside scoring from the center is so hard to find, that the power forward should be counted on to score inside on a weaker matchup. The problem is our choices of big men to guarantee a consistent anchor inside the paint is either Zach Randolph or Carlos Boozer. These are guys I absolutely hate on defense, but at least they score inside and get us something like 20/10 at high fg% and reasonable free throw % as well. Personally, I don't want any of these guys unless Ike is proving that he can't do a starter's job consistently and also that Cohan is willing to pay luxury since both are expensive max or near-max paid players. I also got to back Dunleavy on the whole Harrington thing. Dunleavy fits in way better as an extra ballhandler and passer that will make others around him better. He's the kind of player that Richardson, Fisher, Murphy, whoever don't quite fit (aside from any rookie that didn't play much). Now if Dunleavy was having his '04 year with Baron and we had an inside presence that could catch, I think Dunleavy would be an asset. But like UPSD said, how often does this guy freakin' show up? If there's no consistency, what he does only looks good in concept. That's another issue though... Both Baron being healthy and Dunleavy being consistent. Then there's wondering if Ike can handle starter. I think we need both Baron/Dunleavy to be at 100% in order to do well enough to make playoffs. Richardson and Diogu would be icing on the cake because they got two guys to set them up. That would be way better chemistry than another selfish tweener SF/PF scorer like Harrington would be IMO.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">Upsidedownside7, show me where I've made an excuse for Dunleavy, in this thread or any other in the past couple of months. All I have been doing is refuting unfounded claims by you and other anti-Dunleavy people. I told you the last time we got into this on draft night, that I think Dunleavy has his problems, and I listed them. It has nothing to do with me being unreasonable, quite the opposite in fact. I don't like it when fans take a player, ANY player, and make them their whipping boy for all things wrong with the Warriors. When Jamison was on the outs with fans a few years ago and Dunleavy was their golden boy, you couldn't find a more vocal Dunleavy critic than me. Anyone who was on the espn board 3-4 years ago (Custodian, Kwan, and others), who can remember that far back can back me up. Now clear something up for me, I've reread what you said about PER, and I don't get this "five points higher" thing. Where did that come from? Harrington's PER over the past three years has been 14.92, 14.32, and 16.08. Dunleavy's has been 15.04, 14.52, and 12.51. That's a 3.5 point difference last year, and for the most part they've both been right around 15, which is the league average. If you don?t think it?s useful, that?s one thing, but if you do try and use it, at least get it right. If you don't want to argue stats, and just want to say, "Harrington is CLEARLY better than Dunleavy," and insist that anyone who disagrees with you has a mancrush on Dunleavy, that's fine. I just disagree. Another question: if the Warriors traded Murphy for Harrington (and sign Harrington to a similar deal as Murphy), that would mean they'd be spending roughly $19 mil a year on your small forwards for the next 5-6 years, and it'd make it almost impossible to resign Diogu and Biedrins (and Taft). That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Do you think Harrington is worth that kind of money/commitment?</div> If we traded Murphy for Tyson Chandler we have 100 million dollars invested in the center position. Does it mean you pass on the deal? No. Clearly Chandler is better than Foyle. That doesn't mean you pass on improving your roster because of prior decisions that SUCKED. Dealing with mistakes can be dealt with later and there's no guarantee the kids outside Montay would even command a lot of money. We can dump Fisher to some playoff team if it helps you sleep at night. Paying Harrington Murphy money is inflated, but what else are you going to do? If we're not trading Richardson, there is zero chance of attaining a star like Iverson, KG, Jermaine etc. Mullin's been working on it all year and look where it's gotten him, nothing. Harrington is the best and most likely guy we could get dangling Murphy or Fisher. He fits with some of our weaknesses and is a starter. I'd love someone like Odom, Marion, Artest but we're not getting those guys unless Richardson is on the table. I doubt even Baron could get one of those guys. We got him on the cheap for a reason. Sorry, I got the EFF stat wrong. I hope that felt good. Uh yeah, you've been making every excuse to not get Harrington and to sh*t on Pietrus. Then what are you saying we should do? By eliminating every threat to Dunleavy and mentioning nobody else, the message you're saying is Dunleavy should remain the starter. You can bring any skewed stat you want, the facts are the facts...Dunleavy is a sixth man. He's had 4 years to make his mark, had all the opportunities in the world and hasn't produced. Harrington produced as a sixth man and as a Hawk yet you downplay his consistency. Then what else do you suggest? DUNLEAVY? Is that why Mullin said we need upgrades at the 3,4 or 5 spots? Heh. Standing like General Custard to the very last stand LOL. Another ridiculous argument I read is mentioning Harrington would make a bad fit at SF because he and Ike would clog the middle which is false. Ike has consistent range from 18 and can handle the ball. Not only that but Dunleavy isn't a good shooter. Throughout the season DunDun was left wide open most of the time and never had a consistent stroke producing awful shooting %'s. Ike's a more offensively efficient and skilled version of Murphy so the "we need more space for shooting" argument doesn't hold up. Harrington has an inside/outside game with a decent jumper and takes primarily shots he's capable of making. You also have two guys crashing the glass on the offensive end like most good NBA teams. Safe to say Dunleavy provides neither except his court vision and passing. If Baron Davis is our franchise player and has the ball in his hands most of the time, then where does Dunleavy fit? Unless he can learn to shoot, he doesn't. There's no point even getting this charged up about this. If Mullin lands Harrington, he'll start as a PF and Dun starts at 3. After a while Diogu will produce, push Dunleavy out of the starting rotation, Harrington starts as a 3, and we'll have this argument later. If none of the kids manage to beat Foyle, we're not making the playoffs anyways. Getting an upgrade at the forward position is 2nd priority but if we have the chance to do it, do it. I see no reason not to unless Harrington demands something insane like the Max or close to it.
All of these rumors have been ended because Tyson Chandler is a Hornet now. PJ Brown and JR Smith for Tyson Chandler... Good trade for both teams... Your thoughts?
