via wiretap at www.realgm.com, he says he wants to be on a contender, and if we do a trade like the one below, we definatly would be: Golden State trades: PF Clifford Robinson (11.8 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 3.3 apg in 34.7 minutes) SG Jason Richardson (18.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 2.9 apg in 37.6 minutes) PG Speedy Claxton (10.6 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 4.5 apg in 26.6 minutes) Golden State receives: PG Baron Davis (22.9 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 7.5 apg in 40.1 minutes) Change in team outlook: -18.2 ppg, -8.9 rpg, and -3.2 apg. New Orleans trades: PG Baron Davis (22.9 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 7.5 apg in 40.1 minutes) New Orleans receives: PF Clifford Robinson (11.8 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 3.3 apg in 82 games) SG Jason Richardson (18.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 2.9 apg in 78 games) PG Speedy Claxton (10.6 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 4.5 apg in 60 games) Change in team outlook: +18.2 ppg, +8.9 rpg, and +3.2 apg. TRADE ACCEPTED just think: PG: Davis/Fisher SG: Pietrus/Chaney SF: Dunleavy/Najera/Chaney PF: Murphy/L8ner/Bierdens C: Foyle/Davis/Bierdens what you think?
I wouldn't do it. Davis is good but he isn't that good in my opinion. Plus he is injury prone. Not my type of player.
This trade doesn't make sense for either team. Davis would be an upgrade at PG, but is he going to really produce more than the combo of Fisher & Claxton? Also the Hornets have a SG with their draft pick this year and Wesley, so J-Rich isn't needed.
so a player on the verge of being an allstar, plus a great defensive pg w/ good offensive skill and an expirering contract who is a leader for baron davis doesn't make sense??? it does to me, and an allstar pg who is arguably the best point in the league is an upgrade over claxton...it's not davis for fisher and claxton, it is davis for claxton, fisher is still here. hornets have struggled every year at sg, and how confident are they w/ there draft pick that they then gave mopete an offer sheet?
2 years ago, and I would have jumped on that offer. I would like to see if something could happen, but that would not make us a "contender".
I would do it. We would get a 6'3" point guard that has developed his playmaking skills, is a great defender, terrific athlete, great ballhandler, is a great shooter and is an allstar point guard. He's the point guard that Steve Francis should have been. Pietrus/Davis would be one of the best defensive backcourts in the league. Baron Davis is a rare commodity in a point guard in that he does so many things well. Ranks #1 in steals, Ranks #4 in assists, Ranks #1 in 3 point field goals made, etc. I think we'd have to give up another guy just to make sure New Orleans doesn't laugh at us. I think Claxton and Richardson is good but good point guards nowadays are almost as rare as good centers. I would try to keep Speedy as much as possible though.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post">He's the point guard that Steve Francis should have been.</div>C'mon man, don't rub the wound. Anyways, a Davis to Golden State trade would be great, since Baron was a Bay Area product, and a return to his hometown might have an effect that Marbury's return to New York had on him. Davis can be a MVP in the future, and IMO, can be a Jason Kidd with a jumpshot. I'm not sure if the Hornets will trade him though.
Davis wants to go to a team that is already in contention, the Warriors would not fit under that category.
true, but i am sure mullin could convince him w/ this kind of trade, Baron would make the team a contender....and yes he is from LA
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">and yes he is from LA</div>Gee, shows how much I know of players outside of the Houston roster. I get it now. Payton and Kidd are from the Bay Area, while Davis and Arenas are from other parts of California.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Trip:</div><div class="quote_post">Gee, shows how much I know of players outside of the Houston roster. I get it now. Payton and Kidd are from the Bay Area, while Davis and Arenas are from other parts of California.</div> Yeah is from UCLA. BTW Francis is good but he's not a point guard. He could have been the most dominant 1 in the league had he developed his playmaking skills. I'll see what he does in Orlando.
Davis is from south central los angeles, but he played HS ball at Crossroads HS in Santa Monica (near UCLA)...
To be clear, Davis hasn't demanded a trade, and New Orleans has no reason to listen to his demands, as he's contractually bound for 5 more years at about 13 million a year. His agent is actually the one that's recommended it, and trying to get the Hornets to realize that they need to make more moves or they'll have a disgruntled star on their hands. Thus, Davis is tradeable, but that doesn't make him that available. As an all-star and recognized as one of the top PG's in the league, he puts people in seats and the Hornets probably view this as the bottom line. I don't think they'll consider a trade without a star in return, and virtually no team is going to offer that. (Maybe Portland, Indiana, or Dallas will do something, but it's still doutbful.) As far as the trade you proposed, I don't feel that GS would propose that nor would NO accept it even if were so. It just doesn't make sense for either team. NO needs an established product to maintain credibility and GS is devoted to its younger "core." In a non-real world setting, it'd be a cool trade, I suppose.
baron is young and would be a part of that younger core, plus NO would recieve a great replacement at starting pg in claxton while recieving a player on the verge of allstardom(richardson) and an expirering big in cliffy, the reason I would do this is because davis is better than both speedy and jrich, and this move opens up more playing time for pietrus....
I'm not sure that giving up Richardson and Claxton is a good deal for GS, but Davis is a huge upgrade for them. Not sure that GS is exactly the "contender" that he'd be looking for. No offense, but NO had a better record than GS last year, yeh, they were in the east and it won't be as good in the west, but on the other hand GS lost their best player in Dampier. Now if I'm Mark Cuban, and I read this, I'm grabbing my cell phone. He wouldn't pay Nash the kind of money that Davis is making, but Davis is five years younger, and a way way better defender than Nash. The strange thing about Davis is that he gets so many assists, and points, but shoots a relatively low percentange, and his free throws suck. But I'm go after him if I'm Cuban. Perhaps Jason Terry and Stackhouse, or whatever New Orleans wants, the Mavs have wicked depth to work with.
I didn't really want to address this trade proposition further, because it's so unlikely. But on a theoretical level, they'd need more than Richardson, Claxton, and Cliff. If I were in NO's shoes, considering what kind of offers I could get for Davis from other teams, I would also try to grab another of the "core" group from the W's or at least a good role player and a draft pick, while also dumping a bad contract onto the W's. This is because Davis is considered one of the top 5 PG's in the league. (Kidd, Davis, Nash, Francis and Bibby are up there somewhere. Miller, Williams, Billups, Marbury, Parker, Wade, and Arenas are there somewhere, but I rank them a tier lower.) Notice Claxton doesn't even come into the picture after quite a while, and in terms of trade value, potential is worth less than numbers. In addition, PGs are generally more rare. SG's are more common, and Richardson is at most top 10-15 among SGs. J-Rich will also commend a large salary next season and could possibly walk, leaving NO with nothing. Cliffy is a classy vet who'll fit anywhere with the bonus of expiring contract, but he's no deal-breaker. NO will want more insurance for the future in exchange for giving up their franchise player. Thus, we'll have to add something else. Either something valuable now or many things valuable in the future. This would end up destroying the core. Not to mention that no recent team has won with a scoring point guard. Chauncey Billups only changed his manner through hard coaching by Larry Brown. How can Montgomery challange Baron Davis to adapt to his system?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Zhone:</div><div class="quote_post"> Not to mention that no recent team has won with a scoring point guard. </div> Good thoughts Zhone, I agree that GS probably couldn't string together a deal for Davis, at least not without sending at least three starters for him, which isn't in anyone's best interest. But the last statement you made seems a little off. I might say that Parker is a "scoring" point guard. And I might say that Derick Fisher and anyone else on the Lakers are not really "scoring" point guards, but they definitely weren't "passing" point guards either. So since Davis was third in the league in assists, and Nash or Kidd did not win the championship either, I guess "passing" point guards don't win either. Well, I'm confusing myself. Davis is a good passer, and a better shooter. I think if you want to correlate championships to teams that have a dominant big man, you can easily back it up, but not sure passing vs shooting point guards are as relevant.
I suppose it's just in my definition of a scoring point guard. To me, a scoring point guard has a generally higher assist to turnover ratio (and higher turnovers in general), lower FG%, and high PPG average. They also have the ball in their hands are generally the primary option. Thus they look for chances to drive and shoot rather often. The lower FG% is because a scoring point guard has to take many shots to get into a rythym, unless they're hot already for some reason. Davis is a scoring point guard in my categorization because although he passes and creates well, he's the primary option and he has the ball in his hands often. He shoots fairly low FG% (I believe 43% FG and 35% 3 PT are his career bests for a season) and takes a large number of shots. (Other PG generally shoot about 45% or above). Although his assist-TO ratio is 2.33, which is pretty good, it's not quite as good as other PGs. (2.5 and above would be ideal.) He has a high volume of turnovers as a PG because he's taking a lot of shots. You did pick out the right examples to counter me on the point. When I was talking about winning, I was talking about the playoffs, of course. Parker is a fast point guard, and could be a scoring point guard - he has only a so-so FG% and so-so assist to turnover, but he also has a lower PPG average. And, he does have the ball in his hands alot, although mostly when time is winding down. So, he does drive and shoot alot, but in many sitations he's not even the one running the pick and roll. Thus he works with the ball out of his hands, passing first, and really scores on the passes back out more than when he's just bringing the ball up the court. And even though his skills are more akin to a scoring point guard, Pop has done a good job getting him to play a team game (I suppose it does help to have Duncan to pass to.) As for the Lakers, they ran the triangle, which allows for an entirely different system of PGs. Comparisons based on numbers get rather muddled. Kidd and Nash are perennial winners, and although they've never gone all the way, they've given great credibility to the teams they play on.
I think Baron Davis is great. However could the Warriors give up this much for a player that is injured so much? If I thought the Warriors could still give Davis a strong supporting cast after doing the proposed deal, then I'd do it. I mean add Davis to this team without subtracting anything would be awesome. However if we are giving up JRich, Speedy, and Clifford, then it becomes a little risky. If Davis were more healthy and known the be healthy enough to last NBA seasons, then I'd consider it a lot more(also if he were healthy more, this probably wouldn't even be brough up because Davis would probably be a clear cut top PG in the league and known more commonly to be that). But Davis and his injuries could really hurt the Warriors. Also Mike Dunleavy would really have to prove something to me before that kind of a deal as well.
