Chad Ford reported in today's insider that a "source" in Chicago claimed that the Warriors were doing an extensive background check on Curry. The three way deal that Ford keeps suggesting is as follows: 1. Warriors send Dunleavy to the Clippers 2. Clippers send Wilcox and Simmons to the Bulls 3. Bulls send Curry to the Warriors I'll just go ahead and mark Custodian as being for this deal, but what about everyone else? As I see it the pros are that: 1. The Warriors would get a legit low post scorer. 2. They would open up space for Pietrus as sf. The cons: 1. If Curry becomes their starting center, Foyle's contract turns into an absolute anchor. 2. The Warriors would be replacing a guy (Dunleavy) who has a high basketball IQ and could become adept in Montgomery's offense with one (Curry) who has never been known for his ability to work in an offensive structure. 3. A couple of years from now there will be a huge log jam at pf/c with Foyle, Curry, Biedrins, and Murphy. The question marks: 1. Would Curry grow up if he was in Oakland? Is playing in his hometown what's keeping him from growing up or is Curry just immature and unmotivated? 2. Would Montgomery's experience as a college coach help him develop Curry? Probably. But is Curry the type of player Montgomery would have at Sanford? Probably not. Does that matter? I don't know. 3. If Curry becomes a long term answer with the Warriors, what happens to the other guys? How far behind Curry is Biedrins in terms of development? Does Foyle just become an expensive anchor at the end of the bench? 4. Since this is a contract year for Curry and Dunleavy, how much would each demand before going to another team? As I see it, trading Dunleavy for Curry would be a move that would be reminiscent of the St. Jean era. Trading for a talented, though be it unproductive player, right after you had drafted a guy that plays that position and signed another to a huge extension. I'd rely on Saint's judgment to bring Curry in, because Saint has an eye for talent, but I'd say Curry just doesn't "fit" with the Warriors. I'm not sold on Mullin's eye for talent yet. Also, Even though it seems like the Warriors would be clearing a log jam at sf by moving Dunleavy, the log jam at c is actually bigger. Just imagine 2-3 years down the road if the Warriors had Curry and signed him to an extension. They have Foyle making 8-9 mil with another year or two left on his contract and Biedrins ready for serious playing time. You'd run a major risk of doing with Biedrins what Portland did with Jermaine O'neal: not playing him because of depth issues and trading him the year before he becomes a player in the league. The bottom line: I'd stick with Dunleavy and run a three man rotation between sg/sf with Dunleavy, Richardson, and Pietrus (btw, that's what I wanted to do a couple of years ago with Richardson, Dunleavy, and Jamison and if they'd kept Jamison they wouldn't need to trade for an inside scorer right now). It would be a lot easier than running a four man rotation at pf/c with Curry, Foyle, Biedrins, and Murphy.
I actually wonder why we couldn't just leave the bulls out of the deal and take wilcox and simmons for dunleavy. Seems like a better deal to me. The way Simmons lit up Mike D. and wilcox seems to be everything that Curry is and less Downside or motivational/coaching worries. i realize that leaves a log jam at two positions but then again it would give us more options to make other deals.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting boogielew:</div><div class="quote_post">I actually wonder why we couldn't just leave the bulls out of the deal and take wilcox and simmons for dunleavy. Seems like a better deal to me. The way Simmons lit up Mike D. and wilcox seems to be everything that Curry is and less Downside or motivational/coaching worries. i realize that leaves a log jam at two positions but then again it would give us more options to make other deals.</div> Every small forward just lights up Dunleavy I thought. And if he got Wilcox I would be upset because that's the b we could have drafted in the first place like I had wanted. If we get Simmons too that would be getting too much but okay I'll take it But if the trade happens to be for Curry, I'd take it as well because we're not obligated to re-sign him if he plays subpar and we can always trade him to Jerry West. And if he's not there we can trade him somewhere else because big men are that coveted in the league. We also have Murphy to help spread the floor and rebound for Curry which could be a nice offense. Plus Montgomery would include the big man in the paint unlike Musselman's offense wouldn't do a lot of times. This trade also sends Dunleavy back to daddy where it allows us to win more games against the clippers. Junior can be nervous in all his games, get yelled at by his dad for letting Pietrus dunk all over him, and miss tons of shots and give our other small forwards an opportunity to light him up or blow by him to dunk over Chris Kaman. I like it a lot.
From a clipper fans' standpoint, that's a horrible deal for us .. Wilcox and Simmons for Dunleavy?? Right now, I'm not too sure I would trade either of those guys straight up for Dunleavy, let alone both of them. The Clippers are lacking depth, so trading two quality players away makes little sense to me....I certainly hope this rumor is totally fabricated and all in fords imagination
I agree with NMG, Wilcox looks like he is finally breaking out for the Clippers with his opportunity to get a decent amount of minutes while Kaman was out, and Simmons has been nothing short of magnificent for them, I always though Simmons could become a good players on a team when he was with Washington, now he is finally getting his shot in LA and proving himself, If I were the Clippers I wouldnt involve myself in this trade, I think Chicago gets the best deal out of it but then they have a log jam at SF...Luol Deng, Bobby Simmons, and Nocioni..
great trade for the warriors; stupid trade for chicago and the clips...the clips get another wing player and lose a nice post player who still has room to develop...bulls get a young post player and nice wing but nowhere near the ability of curry...warriors get the post presence they desperately need to try to complement richardson...plus pietrus can step right in and take dunleavys minutes...
Mark me down for either side of the trade, we need somebody down low badly. Who cares if Foyle is an anchor, the way he played us, he deserves to be thrown into the bay and be a real anchor...
It's like Mullin tried to do a backflip this offseason to impress us all only he couldn't tuck his legs under, it's upsetting and at the same time it's funny. We just have to be patient I guess... I mean generally people are patient with the mentally challenged right? So I guess we be patient for another 50 years or so, but feel free to rant away because I totally agree. These contracts hopefully won't be as bad as it feels.
