In various reports including Chad Ford (who I can't stand because he hates the W's) it says the Warriors are asking too much in return for Damp, but they don't say who they are targeting or what is too much, has anyone heard anything? I wouldn't suspect Slomile and Earl Watson would be too much, but they are usually the only names I hear when trying to get rid of Damp, and I don't think we want to bring in Toine from Dallas. Any rumors, news or thoughts would be appreciated.
I heard Memphis talks are dead, LA talks are dead, Dallas talks may still be alive... I think LA would rather go for Big Z from Cleveland or grab that big guy Dasagna Diop. Anyway you cut it someone's gotta be desperate for a center... You can't make the playoffs if you're a donut squad. If nobody takes Damp, we might just re-sign him and bench his ass. If he walks, we get extra cap space and he'll have to go for whatever is left of the MLE, a team he doesn't want to play for, or go for the absolute minimum.
It's going to be real interesting to see what happens with Damp. I do think we have to acknowledge the possibility that Damp may sign with LA for the MLE this year and then try and get a bigger contract next year. It will be a huge hit to his pride and his pocket, but that may be what it comes down to. Personally, I love the fact that Mullin has high demands for Damp. For so many years, teams have been dealing with Saint who would do a deal just to do a deal, now they're having to deal Mullin and he seems like a much tougher negotiator. At this point I'd want Mullin to continue to hold out for whatever he's asking, and if Damp leaves via another team's MLE, so be it. I'd accept that because, in addition to getting the cap space, Mullin would set a precedent for future negotiations as a guy who's not going to be bullied into a bad deal.
^ Exactly. The Warriors lose nothing by demanding a lot for Damp, because few teams now have cap room left to sign him, and the ones that do aren't what he's looking for (Atlanta, the Clippers). I like these hard negotiations which proves Mullin isn't going to be forced by a player or a rival GM to make a deal.
I agree Higgins may be the GM but it cannot be denied any longer who is in charge of the Warriors and that someone is Mullin. I am glad that we finally have someone that cares about the Warriors and its not just going through the motions. The Warriors shouldn't have to take anybody's leftovers. The talk on the radio here in Long Beach is that the Lakers should get Dampier and give the Warriors Devean George and Slava Medevenko. I had enough of the rest of the NBA getting the best of the Warriors when it comes to trades. Screw everybody, if Mullin can get what he wants for Dampier then don't accomodate Dampier with a sign and trade.
I agree Mullin should ask for too much. Usually players that opt out of their contracts are major forces to be reckoned with. Dampier is not. He doesn't have a lot of competition so he looks much better than he is. If Damp walks we have immediate cap space. Not only that but we really won't drop off that much if we lose him. Foyle ain't great but Dampier never carried the team. Don't ever make a deal out of fear, first rule in business and it looks like Mullin knows the same.
What's the sign and trade rule again? You can't do a sign and trade for someone unless there is also a player in that trade that has at least 2 or 3 years left on his contract? So we basically can't sign and trade Dampier for let's say 4-5 years for an expiring contract like Zyldrunas Illgauskus or a backup center like Scot Pollard unless it includes a 2-3 player? I mean it's better to get something for one year than nothing. I forget how the hidden rule of sign and trade works. But dangit we have to have protection in case Biedrens is not ready or Foyle gets reinjured and we can't use Eschmeyer.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> What's the sign and trade rule again? You can't do a sign and trade for someone unless there is also a player in that trade that has at least 2 or 3 years left on his contract? So we basically can't sign and trade Dampier for let's say 4-5 years for an expiring contract like Zyldrunas Illgauskus or a backup center like Scot Pollard unless it includes a 2-3 player?</div> No... the player that is being signed and traded is the one that has to be signed to a contract of 3 years or longer, but only the first year has to be guaranteed
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Warriors Redux:</div><div class="quote_post">No... the player that is being signed and traded is the one that has to be signed to a contract of 3 years or longer, but only the first year has to be guaranteed</div> Which, by the way, is how we got Popeye Jones last year... he was signed to a 3 year contract but only the 1st year was guaranteed.
Oh gotcha, thx Redux. BTW anyone reject a possible trade for a center that has one year left on his contract? I mean I'm ready just to deal him so we at least have some cheap protection in the middle (as well as good trade bait come february and the warriors are looking to make a push for a superstar that isn't happy with their team anymore i.e. Paul Pierce )
