There's talk that Portland wants to move Jamal Magloire. He's in his final year which pays $8.3 mils: Source (http://www.thestar.com) Would anyone give them Murphy for Magloire? Right now Murph's value is high after that stellar performance last night. Magloire comes off the books after this season, giving the Warriors significant wiggle room. I'd rather give them something else, like Foyle and change, but why would they do that? They wouldn't. But they might take Dun-Dun and change...
<div class="quote_poster">REREM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">...and after we turn Baron,Murphy,Foyle and whoever else into expirings we become what...another rebuild project,a team that bleeds talent at the rate it finds some. What would the point be? We got nothing for Jamison,Arenas,Dampier. We repeat. Get nothing for Baron and Murphy. ....next it's J rich and Dun, then Pietrus and Ike, eventually we find some excuse that we need to trade Ellis.. .and our next generation of LOTTO picks have to re-up. Foyle can get his avg $9 mill per from us for 3 years. Bought out-he may get a grand total of $6-$7 mill elsewhere....over 3 years. So...perhaps we'd buy him out...save about $2 mill a year. At season's end-he's a 2 yr deal-easier to unload. At the deadline he's 2 1/2 yrs. Perhaps Foyle and our first gets us a guy xpiring at the end of this season. Perhaps at seasons end,Dunleavy has a little value and him and a pick gets us a guy with a year or two left.</div> That's too negative. Let's start by trading Murphy for expiring. Maybe we could turn those expiring into someone we can use. At least Ike and MP will get more PT at the 4 spot.
Would Danny Fortson be any good for the Warriors this season? He has an expiring contract and he can definitley rebound the basketball. I don't remember if Nelson and Fortson got along when they were in Dallas though. Part of me wants to say they didn't... How about Murphy for Haywood and Jarvis Hayes? One last one: Murphy and Foyle for Al Jefferson, Leon Powe, and Theo Ratliff.
<div class="quote_poster">Clif25 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Would Danny Fortson be any good for the Warriors this season? He has an expiring contract and he can definitley rebound the basketball. I don't remember if Nelson and Fortson got along when they were in Dallas though. Part of me wants to say they didn't... How about Murphy for Haywood and Jarvis Hayes? One last one: Murphy and Foyle for Al Jefferson, Leon Powe, and Theo Ratliff.</div> Think you`re being a bit sarcastic about Fortson. I suppose if he has one year left, then we can cut him. I doubt Washington would go for that deal and am sure Boston won`t go for it either. How about trading for Channing Frye. Mullin loves Frye and he's from the same area as Mulling. He's a bit soft, but would be an upgrade over Murphy. He can rebound and may be able to play better D than Murphy. CHANNING'S STARTING JOB IN DANGER By MARC BERMAN Slideshow image 'FRANCHISE' DRIVE: The Knicks Steve Francis drives to the basket during the first half of last night's game against the Raptors. PrintEmailStory Bottom December 3, 2006 -- The idea of trading Channing Frye last season was blasphemy - as much as Larry Brown tried. But with David Lee emerging as a major force, Eddy Curry becoming the go-to guy in the post and 6-foot-11 Jared Jeffries soon to return, Frye appears to have lost his status as one of Thomas' chief building blocks - and perhaps is close to losing his starting job. Frye's trade value was sky-high last season, but Thomas would not budge. His value has dropped, but there's still interest in the 23-year big man selected eighth overall. The Cavaliers have taken a long look at Frye this season, according to a source, before he got injured eight days ago, spraining his left ankle. Thomas has always had interest in Drew Gooden of the Cavaliers, whom he wanted to swap for Kurt Thomas before Cavaliers ownership put the kibosh on it two years ago. The Lakers were so enthralled with Frye they were willing to depart with Lamar Odom in a package last season. Sadly, it looks like Thomas erred big-time in choosing Frye over Lakers teenage center, Andrew Bynum of Metuchen, N.J, who is averaging 8.3 points-per-game. If Frye wasn't there, Thomas would have taken Bynum, which at the time was considered a major reach, but now would look pretty good. Frye said believes he's still two weeks away from returning, though he ditched the crutches a few days ago. But Isiah Thomas gave a hint that Frye's role might be decreased, and he could be removed as starter. Plus, Thomas this week called the Knicks Eddy Curry's team. When asked if Frye would regain his starting job, Thomas said, "Definitely." But then he added, "Unless Jeffries comes back first." Thomas would not elaborate but Jeffries was signed for his versatility. If Thomas is really stuck on having Lee come off the bench, he could insert him at power forward and keep steady Quentin Richardson at small forward. * Thomas, fighting for his basketball life, said in Detroit he felt this was "professionally, the most pressure" he has faced. It was a stunning remark considering how many big playoff games and championship-round games Thomas has played. "It's different now you have to inspire, motivate and educate," Thomas said last night. "You have to do it in an environment that's particularly tough where you have a lot of doubters and have a lot know-it-alls. "You don't have quiet classroom to teach in. We do have obstacles. That's not to say we can't overcome them. Don't misunderstand me. They're not complaints. They're acknowledgements. You acknowledge the pressure and acknowledge the atmosphere." * Patrick Ewing was in attendance again last night as the halftime ceremony promoted MSG Network's 50-Greatest Garden moments series. . . . Jared Jeffries will get reevaluated tomorrow and could be cleared for full-contact practice. Thomas said he didn't know how many practices Jeffries would need but hoped not many. Jeffries said that he would be back Dec. 15 in Indiana, but it seems like it could be sooner.
So we'd be doing something like Murphy for Frye + malik Rose? Seems to me that Thomas is operating in a situation where a major contract may need the owner's okay Warrior fans have made Murphy the fall guy now,at least a faction of the on-line hardcore. It's become a situation where he has improved many parts of his game-nobody cares or sees-people are as apt to believe in little green men in flying saucers as to believe inevolution. Real world...those Boston,Wiz ideas very much could happen. A Jefferson is a pretty good player but is a guy who has gone so far..but the improvement rate has leveled off. All in all-Murphy is a big upgrade for either team. We ain't exactly getting anyone who's had big time impact. We are settling-in the Warrior tradition-for what's expendable. Frye would be interesting,as he could play some C. Likely we get some baggage in the deal,cap fill
I'm pretty happy with how the Fisher dump for cap worked out, another deal using Murph would be OK with me. Regrettable, but OK. Obviously Foyle or Dun would be preferable, but less realistic.
<div class="quote_poster">HiRez Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I'm pretty happy with how the Fisher dump for cap worked out, another deal using Murph would be OK with me. Regrettable, but OK. Obviously Foyle or Dun would be preferable, but less realistic.</div> It would have been awesome if we could have gotten Boozer and trade Murphy as well...
Boozer is looking worth that contract (sort of), but man is he a risk. Luckily the inside presence and offensive rebounding are sort of hiding the fact he is not a very good defender. Especially paired up with Okur. Having Deron and Ak47 helps some for defensive stuff.
<div class="quote_poster">REREM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">So we'd be doing something like Murphy for Frye + malik Rose? Seems to me that Thomas is operating in a situation where a major contract may need the owner's okay Warrior fans have made Murphy the fall guy now,at least a faction of the on-line hardcore. It's become a situation where he has improved many parts of his game-nobody cares or sees-people are as apt to believe in little green men in flying saucers as to believe inevolution. Real world...those Boston,Wiz ideas very much could happen. A Jefferson is a pretty good player but is a guy who has gone so far..but the improvement rate has leveled off. All in all-Murphy is a big upgrade for either team. We ain't exactly getting anyone who's had big time impact. We are settling-in the Warrior tradition-for what's expendable. Frye would be interesting,as he could play some C. Likely we get some baggage in the deal,cap fill</div> I'd do that Murphy trade in a heartbeat. Likely, we'll have to take NY garbage back like Jerome James, but he has less years on his contract than Murphy. Isiah would have to think Murphy would be an upgrade to his offense. He could be a good pairing with Curry and QRich. I'm not sure about Al Jefferson. Will his game be a good fit here? He seems more suited for the EC just like Murph.
<div class="quote_poster">AnimeFANatic Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It would have been awesome if we could have gotten Boozer and trade Murphy as well...</div> Mullin never said he wanted Boozer I think. He was going to get Mihm in the Utah-Lakers deal.
A lot of rumors are less than nothing. Some are things one team is trying to do--but the other side wans more out of it. Murphy can score and he can rebound. Now it turns out he can pass. Monty did---finally-find that Murph could D good PF's man on man if you insist he stays on that guy. If you let him float about in a zone,he's much too indecisive and afraid to foul someone. Worse-some zone formats also get him far from rebound position. It's frustrating. He's not that far from being a very good asset-but some of the experimental roles are a plus in one way-a negative in another. Whatever role-Murphy does need to be rebounding.
I don't care if Murphy can D one guy like Tim Duncan (who is similar in size and more fluid/quicker/stronger/a bit more athletic/and smarter than Murphy). It is too easy to exploit Murphy on the defensive rotation. If we're trying to match a guard like Ellis on top of Duncan, Duncan is a good enough all-around defender to make it hard for the guard to score on him. But if it's Ellis against Murphy. Shoot, man Murphy ain't going to do anything. This ain't about individual post defense, it's the whole all-around defense and team defense against different and common matchups found in this league. The other team can run plays all the want, get their quickness/strength mismatch by isolating or rotating their players around ours and we'll react and still have Murphy sticking out like the sore thumb he can be. The best hope is we can find somebody more competent with more ability to keep guys like our guards and our best center (Andris Biedrins) out of foul trouble. I mean the reason why Biedrins gets so many shotblock opportunities is because our guards and Dunleavy are so weak trying to play this zone or individual man-to-man defense. We collapse deep inside, but we can't cover enough ground to force the other team to shoot bad shots, especially when their perimeter game gets going. It has to do with footspeed, size, individual skill on defense, ability to play the angles and know when to help and when to stay put. Until we fix that, we can't be a good running team with our other weaknesses. We're not even good enough free throw shooters to make defense a lower priority. It's not just about ft %'s, but ability to draw the foul. We often have the other team get to the line way more often than we do, especially when playing soft away from the paint and going for jumpers. And anytime we try to dribble inside with nowhere to go, we get turnovers, charges, and all kinds of low% crap because our big men aren't good enough outside shooters to draw their matchups out on the perimeter. They ain't Dirk Nowitzki's here. They are more like role players like Matt Bonner or Eddie Griffin (without shotblocking). I get mad about our quality of big men, because that's been the Warriors entire problem. If we lack an anchor inside, it puts too much pressure on the guards offensively. And right now, our guards ain't superstar like Allen Iverson or anything. They're not even Ray Allen. Plus defensive big men are most responsible for the effect they have on the other team's ability to get inside the paint. We have no great defensive bigs.
<div class="quote_poster">REREM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Warrior fans have made Murphy the fall guy now,at least a faction of the on-line hardcore. It's become a situation where he has improved many parts of his game-nobody cares or sees-people are as apt to believe in little green men in flying saucers as to believe inevolution. Real world...those Boston,Wiz ideas very much could happen. A Jefferson is a pretty good player but is a guy who has gone so far..but the improvement rate has leveled off. All in all-Murphy is a big upgrade for either team. We ain't exactly getting anyone who's had big time impact. We are settling-in the Warrior tradition-for what's expendable. Frye would be interesting,as he could play some C. Likely we get some baggage in the deal,cap fill</div> I suppose some may make Murphy out to be the "fall guy" and I may be one of them, but it may be different than the other fans who are looking to get rid of Murphy ASAP. First of all, I agree in some sense with what you are saying. I would say that the Warriors should not actually trade Murphy until Ike Diogu and/or Zarko comes back and are making contributions, or if the team is not in a good spot to make the playoffs by February or January. Honestly I see the Warriors front court having players like Andris/Ike/POB(down the road more for O'Bryant at least). Second- to keep the possibility of having Andris, Ike, and O'Bryant on the team a contract like Murphy's will have to go away. I do not see any likelihood of the front-court staying as it is unless if a contract like Murphy's, Dunleavy's, or Foyle's is of the book. Thus to a minor point into why trading Murphy may be beneficiary is that he is the easiest to move for anything valuable, including expiring contracts. I can see where you are coming from when discussing how Murphy has improved some this season. I mean his blocks are up and his assists are way up. But somehow he falls in the shadow of the offense, which is evident of his game vs. the Spurs where he had 0 FG attempts in 14 minutes. Also if this was Murphy out of college it would probably work a little better because then he would be lighter and more agile and able to run and keep the uptempo game alive. But now he is not a great presense in the paint nor a presense in the uptempo game which brings up concerns. Really, there is no doubt that he can be very productive on the court. But with a diminishing role on offense and a large contract with young players emerging, Murphy is the probably the odd-man out. If there were no problems with salary and future salary problems I would be an advocate of trying to keep Murphy and the whole roster together. But this really is unlikely. As for the trade ideas, you may be right about the Celtics deal. But I think Haywood would beable to play some solid minutes as a Center maybe at a slightly lower though maybe similar level as Frye and Jarvis Hayes would be a decent rental to step in for our injured and highly injury prone back-court.
Great points, Clif. But man, everytime I watch Murphy, he just goes matador on D and some poor Warrior teammate has to suffer the intentional hard foul or go away from his own zone area or man-to-man assignment to help out. The biggest problem, I see is the Dun-Murphy at SF/PF or PF/C when Dun helps out and Dun's guy or Murphy's guy cuts right in. It's right when they got Murphy standing still and Dunleavy out of position. So Dun gets blamed sometimes when it's not his fault, and a guy like Jrich or Baron will have to pound the dribble penetrator or the guy moving without the ball, to save a layup. I just think for all the +'s Murphy brings, there's a few -'s which bring him back down. And then I think about how much he's paid to be this great role player or solid, underrated starter at PF. Opposing teams always look for our weakest link to exploit. I think it's Murphy or Dunleavy on the wing/inside and maybe out on the perimter where Jrich is too slow or Ellis is too small for shooting guard.
I think that Murphy is a better player than he's given credit for, and is far from a player who should be viewed as a detriment to this or any other team. Unfortunately, since he's so expensive, more is expected of him that he can reasonably produce, and with our team suddenly having so much young promise at 4 and 5, it may be time to say goodbye. Think the Wolves could be duped into Murphy + Pietrus + future 1st rounder for Garnett? Nah, neither did I.
<div class="quote_poster">Montaman Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Think the Wolves could be duped into Murphy + Pietrus + future 1st rounder for Garnett?</div>No, but I don't think the salaries come anywhere close to matching KG's. Throw in a healthy JRich/Monta/Andris and substitute Diogu for Pietrus and they might pick up the phone at least. I'd love to have Garnett but I just think the cost would be way too high. We'd end up giving away so much that we'd just become the T-wolves but farther west.
Given what it costs to get a useful big man,I'm not of the opinion Murphy is expensive. It seems to me Nellie can and will find ways to improve Murphy on D,or more specific-to get him playing good D AND rebounding. I have seen Murphy play solid D,and have seen him RBD. He's not slow-but lacks lateral quickness to cover a smaller guy. He should be more than mobile enough for inside D. Anything that has him stray outside gives up the rbd,and can get him switched off on a small fast guy. I really like his " Brad Miller" high post passing. I told Custodian he could add that. I wish I was as certain about the D. Dunleavy has niether the quicks or strength to be special on D. Best case he might like Mullin, be clever,get steals,harrass. In zones he can be okay. Foyle looks lighter,much more agile,and with more hops. That could help. Too bad Nellie didn't get him on Yao sooner. Biedrens is good-but he can't handle an 80 lb weight advantage. I wanted us to get a F whos a tough guy and defender. Barnes is a step in that direction,at least.
REREM, I am just not sure if Murphy is that Brad Miller type creative passer. I don't think passing is his natural instinct. But I could be wrong. I have seen Miller get better and better, but with Murphy and his case, I think there is some cut off and capped out ceiling. I just don't see that effect from Murphy that Brad Miller has in most games with Indiana and Sactown (when he's healthy) In terms of overall assists, steals, and blocks, Murphy doesn't really produce that much in those areas and he's not really improved much. I think Murphy is a solid, but low ceiling player for a few things, but he's no all-star type of passing player like Miller. Typically, the best assist makers in the league that are that big, get all-star votes for being impact players in that way. I don't think Murphy is that good of a playmaker and never will be IMO. I mean he shouldn't be judged by popularity, but I think a large amount of people would agree that his passing might not be there like it is in Brad Miller. It's not apart of Murphy's upside.
Also one time Walker, Kwan, Clif, WFs93, Gohn and the rest of were arguing Murphy's upside three years ago. One time we had predictions for Murphy and I thought he'd have some inside game, but it's never really developed. This year Murphy has improved some improvement in the stat categories like blocks, steals, and assists, but just watching him, it's hard to tell if he's turned a corner. It could be injuries or not injuries. I think he's just limited because he's not really projected to be an inside player to compliment his outside game and without inside game, I guess it's hard for him to pass anywhere but inside. But he's been blind quite a bit to other guys open on the floor. And that IMO makes me believe he's not really an instinctive playmaker that we can run offense through. And defensively, he's just been badly exposed when they put the smaller man on Murphy's side of the paint. The liabilties on defense and lack of go-to inside scorer are what kind of kill us. Also, if we had a great inside scorer, I'd want a good defender to protect him so we can conserve personal fouls. I still think Murphy is largely responsible for a lot of team fouls on his teammates. He just cannot reach in or even contest anything to help out.
Perhaps at season's end it does make sense to deal Murphy-at least if we get value. Right now...Ike and Zarko are on the shelf. Biedrens and Ike have-at times-collected fouls fast. With Murphy's trade value not high now-and us short on size-or size with experiance....it's logical Nellie continues to work on making Murphy a keeper. If the results are not adequate,then chances are higher he is swapped. Short term,The 4 buy-outs,Zarko,McLeod all expire-which is enough $ to sign Pietrus for $7 mill or more,even leaving something towards keeping Barnes or roberson. By the end of NEXT year,ideally some big contract departs-my choice would be Dunleavy. That gets us $ toward Ellis + Biedrens. If one guy---Dun..Murph was out,it would not quite likely cover the $ of extending Monta and Andy-but it would get close enough. The W's are NOT gonna leak talent to keep below the lux-tax line...but I'd figure there's some limits. With Foyle + Baron expiring in a few years,the plan is probably to pay the tax a year or two-try to do a GOOD deal-if it's available,to shed some $-but not firesale the guys we tagged as lotto picks,starters,worth $8-10 mills,until we are pretty sure. I'd give Dun and a rd 1 for Joe Expire and a future rd 2. No problem.
