Who would you trade JRich for?

<div class="quote_poster">Kwan1031 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">When I said we are not going anywhere, I meant to say we are not going to challenge for a championship. For making PO, we are pretty close to it. Maybe not this year with insane Western conference, but definitely next year. Also, I am the last person who would like to 'dump' Richardson for expiring contract. However, we do need to dump some contracts in order to resign Monta and Biedrins, and we have pretty unattractive contracts such as Foyle, Dunleavy and Murphy to certain extent. If we get desperate and must get rid of some contracts, Richardson may be 'sacrificed' for quick exit. But, we would love to dump something other than Richardson in two years to resign Monta and Biedrins.

And again, let's not judge Richardson based on his last 12 games. The reasons why he struggled both offensively and defensively have to do with his injury and inability to attend training camp. When he is healthy and still can't adjust, we may have a case. But, now is not the right time.

As I mentioned before, I am not that against trading Richardson for bigs. And, it seems like KG will be on the market pretty soon. J' O'neal? Well, he may not be a superstar like KG, but he is on the level of Davis, so we can definitely live with him. But, why would Pacers want to trade him? I just don't see any good reason for Pacers to swap O'neal and Jackson for Richardson and Murphy. It doesn't improve the team nor dramatically make them worse for a picks and provide a financial relief. It would take a lot more sweetner to make the deal such as Diogu and this year's pick.

Also, another thing to consider is that we really need to collect contracts, which is 2 years or shorter. Because, that's when we need to resign Biedrins and Monta.

I disagree with Richardson's production aspect. First, we are putting way too much trust that our youngstars will be as good as Richardson in no time. One of the reasons why they are doing so well is because other teams didn't make adjustments on them, and they focus on stopping Davis and Richardson, so that young players can benefit from that. They may or may not overcome the barrier in no time. However, I will wait until they prove themselves, and we do not need to trade Richardson immidiately either. Second, it's not Jamison-Dunleavy case where Jamison's existance would prevent Dunleavy's production. Because Nelson is flexible, players like Monta or Biedrins received as much mins as they could receive while Richardson averaged 32 mins, and they will continuously produce what they can whether we have Richardson or not. In other word, if we lose Richardson, we lose 20+ ppg - whatever we receive in return. Third, I strongly disagree with the idea that Richardson's defense is somehow Dunleavy-like. He is not a shut down defender by any stretch of imagination. However, he is also not a horrible defender, who should be leveled as 'he allows as much pts as he produces'. Really, how many elite guards has a reputation of 'shut down defender' as they produce 20 ppg? Maybe Kobe. But, Houston fans are complaining defense on McGrady, Seattle fans with Allen, Boston fans with Pierce, Nets fans with Carter... The list goes on. Fourth, as far as I know, Richardson has been one of league leadinig scorer in 4th quarter. And, this team has problem scoring in 4th quarter. We do need to add players who can score in 4th quarter, not remove it...</div>

I agree with Kwan on everything. For the playoffs though, we need our best big men available to play defense and get high % points inside. Forget the three point chuckers that collect defensive rebounds but don't play consistently tough D, especially weakside help. If we want a player like that we should have drafted that kid that went to Washington (Andray Blatche?) who has a great first step, nice shooting, and is athletic shotblocking rebounder. Or if we kept on developing Zarko's rebounding ability and overall "big" man game he could do something similar to Kukoc/Dirk/Jonathan Bender. I agree about the Dun, Foyle, Murphy contacts being insanely bad for what is coming up. I do not like those players at all because they are not prototype players for the positions they play to be starter or the kind of starting mismatches that guys like Dirk/Garnett/Dwade represent. Can we at least get a little bit quicker, Mullin? Just because they shoot, doesn't mean they make our guards better. There's nobody that has good enough handles and passing instincts to set others up or get inside the rim off the dribble. Our bigs need to get on that block + defend or else we'll all be chucking threes, missing, and getting scored upon in transition at the other rim. > With our guards the way they are, I just totally dislike Murphy, Dunleavy selection because they don't fit with our best players.

 

Rookies like Monta, Biedrins, or Ike may make a lot of mistakes because they are still young and the league will eventually learn to keep up with them, but they have so many intangibles one doesn't think about when making a good basketball team. I like the fact Monta is disrupting the passing lanes on D and is absolutely marvelous (Pietrus-like) when it comes to reflexes and reaction time. I like the fact Biedrins fights for offensive rebounds, is aggressive, and is one of the most efficient inside scorers for somebody that has no real go-to moves. I like the fact Ike Diogu has a pro's game when it comes to inside footwork and he hustles for offensive rebounds. Biedrins + Ike give us a little more physical presence under the rim because of their toughness and the way they use their body to get positioning.

I think everyone knows this, but it's a matter of timing and preparing to get some moves going so we can build a team with these guys (if they continue to improve with time to make us believe they could get to be a top player in their position). Guys like Dun, Foyle, Murphy have always had this limited upside IMO because they just don't matchup well with the other starters in this league in halfcourt or open court. That's my opinion. That's why our chemistry was always messed up. We still need shooters, creators that can pass, but in the nba game we need guys who can match up physically in strength, foot quickness and skill level on both ends. We need guys that can shoot off the dribble, fadeaway, drive in and use that first step, handle the ball left to right, etc. Our big men aren't really guards except for shooting, so I don't see why Murphy and Dunleavy are so important to some when everyone knows they aren't very good defensive players and they just don't space the floor as well as we think just because they are shooters. We have no Lamar Odoms or Kevin Garnetts that can get inside off the dribble at will. Just standstill shooters mostly. We still need Monta, Baron as setup guys. Dunleavy will occasionally fill in this role, but off the bench?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Kwan1031 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">When I said we are not going anywhere, I meant to say we are not going to challenge for a championship. For making PO, we are pretty close to it. Maybe not this year with insane Western conference, but definitely next year. Also, I am the last person who would like to 'dump' Richardson for expiring contract. However, we do need to dump some contracts in order to resign Monta and Biedrins, and we have pretty unattractive contracts such as Foyle, Dunleavy and Murphy to certain extent. If we get desperate and must get rid of some contracts, Richardson may be 'sacrificed' for quick exit. But, we would love to dump something other than Richardson in two years to resign Monta and Biedrins.</div>

I think Monta's contract is up this year according to Hoopshype. He'll be an Early Bird and under the new CBA it will be easier to match any offers he gets because of the Gilbert Arenas provision. Under this provision, other teams are limited in what they can offer Monta. However, in order to extend him to a longer contract, the Warriors can do a major increase for his third year of his deal. It doesn't have to be the standard 8% raises. However, the Warriors aren't under the cap, so I don't think they can offer Monta a bigger deal except the standard 8% raises throughout the contract. Monta may balk at that.

Someone said that Monta has a third year with a team option and it sounds like that's what you're saying Kwan. I checked realgm and they have Monta as one more year. If that's true, then it will be much more difficult to re-sign Monta because he won't be under the Gilbert Arenas rule then. Remember Gilbert Arenas was an early bird free agent, too. Monta can get more money as an early bird and the Warriors have the right to match. However, the Warriors will also have to contend with the luxury tax limits because of the other big contracts they are carrying. The Arenas rule only applies to second round picks with two year deals.

 

As far as I know Monta has one more year on team option. That's what Hoopshype indicates (whenever they have nothing for the next year, that means they know they have a contract but couldn't figure out the amount) and I believe Fitz also mentioned about that as well. We wouldn't get a early bird right for Monta, but we will get a bird right. Therefore, we can resign him as much as possible. Whether he will be a restricted FA or not would be a big issue though...

 

If the Warriors lose Monta Ellis I'll puke

-- perhaps that's a decent reason to consider trades that involve JRich -- the only way to dump Foyle is to offer something enticing -- packaging Foyle with an asset like JRich might be the only way to clear room.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Kwan1031 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">As far as I know Monta has one more year on team option. That's what Hoopshype indicates (whenever they have nothing for the next year, that means they know they have a contract but couldn't figure out the amount) and I believe Fitz also mentioned about that as well. We wouldn't get a early bird right for Monta, but we will get a bird right. Therefore, we can resign him as much as possible. Whether he will be a restricted FA or not would be a big issue though...</div>


I think you're right Kwan. Monta will have full Bird rights. I thought second round picks weren't supposed to get full Bird rights so that they wouldn't make more money earlier than first round picks. Monta would be a restricted free agent because he's been in the league three years or less. If Monta gets an offer like Gilbert Arenas, $65 million, it would mean Cohan would have to nod his head if the Warriors are going over the cap and getting near luxury tax limits.

I still think it would have been better to just do the two year deal and use the Gilbert Arenas provision. Less money involved.

What if the Warriors don't exercise the team option for Monta's third year and let him go to free agency as an Early Bird? Can they still use the Gilbert Arenas proviso under this scenario?

 

Damn, I'm nervous about the salary tax thing and Ellis and how Jrich isn't getting any love for power guard because of the injuries. The salary tax thing is something like the Knicks would pay for, but the Warriors wouldn't. So I doubt the Knicks would do Francis for Dunleavy and Foyle to make the contracts size easier to trade like they did in some trade a few years back, First, it's like a gross unfairness in value for talent, Dunleavy is BYC so his deal would not be tradeable right away, Foyle has a few more years to go before the team option is available., and the Knicks already have a similar glue guy in Jared Jeffries. Plus, they already paid for Jerome James, a bigger overpaid FA bust than Foyle, and they recently drafted Renaldo something something. The Knicks already have Curry and Frye who could play some center. And maybe David Lee could play some C if he plays big enough. I think they have Kelvin Cato too.

Damn Foyle are too hard to trade. If only Mullin could have swung for a year less on each deal or something... Those contract structures are killing us and it's a race against the clock.

BTW the francis deal is a max contract that expires in two years. If we can find a near max or two year max deal we can just buy out or let expire. I'll be happy. We could do something similar to how we got rid of Fisher. But even if we got such a near max or max contract to get rid of a BYC1 and a backup center, I don't know if we still go over the luxury tax line slightly to be able to dump it right away or in a year or two.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Run BJM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">That's why I'd go after Webber since his trade value is low and his 20 mil/year contract comes off the books the same offseason that we have to re-sign Monta and Biedrins.</div>

Who would we trade? That's a monster Webber contract that Philly has. It'd have to be something like Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy Jr. and Adonal Foyle.

I like it But Philly would cry bloody murder and fans would carry torches to the Wachovia center if that ever happened. Philly should just the let the contract expire or they should have to get first round picks (unprotected) from us. But... I do not feel comfortable giving up first round unprotected picks like the knicks did.

Also, I admit we need depth in order to make the playoffs. We could use Murphy and Dunleavy and possibly Foyle for some things.

 

... because Webber would be so hated at the Oracle Arena, he probably would be deactivated.

 

I'm more worried about signing Biedrins than Ellis. Biedrins has the potential to obtain a bigger contract than Ellis. Look at Chris Kaman, he averaged 12pts, 9.6 reb, and 1.4 blks last season and he got signed to a hefty 5 year 50 mil contract.

Biedrins is averaging 13.7 pts, 13 reb, 3.1 blks in his past 7 games and is basically averaging a double double right now season wise. The dude is only 20, his hands are as soft as Murphy's defense, leads the league in FG%, is one of the top in rebounding, and in the top 5 in blks I believe. No where to go but up, salary wise too...

Few weeks ago I said Biedrins would average 14-9 and 2 blks at his peak. Whooo boy was I wrong. Imagine him when he's 25!

He deserves Murphy's contract!

 

Before you even think about trading Monta, check out his last couple of dunks, especially the one against the suns.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Pgballer17 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Before you even think about trading Monta, check out his last couple of dunks, especially the one against the suns.</div>



We've all seen it. Couple hundred times... and I still watch it!

 

<div class="quote_poster">Run BJM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I think it would be smart of Mully/Nellie to explore trade options with MP and maybe trade him at the all-star break along with one of our big contracts for cap relief or a good veteran</div>I think he's going to have to be used as bait to unload one of the Dun/Foyle/Murph contracts. No way can the Warriors sign him (if he continues at anything like what he's been lately) and then have a realistic shot at Ellis and Biedrins. And I don't think he alone is enough to unload Dun or Foyle, most likely that would require moving JRich IMO. So maybe MP with Murphy. That is a package I can definitely see some teams being interested in. With the emergence of Biedrins, I think Murphy is expendable, and the easiest to trade of he, Foyle, and Dun, so I think it's likely he'll be going away this year. MP could certainly be attractive to some playoff-bound team this year who doesn't need to consider signing him permanantly. And though I hate to say it, I wouldn't be shocked to see Ike thrown in as a sweetener to one of these dump deals. It sucks ass but that's the hard, cold world of NBA business. It's clear they were dangling lots of these players around last year and in the offseason, including Murphy and MP, and probably Foyle and Dun, and couldn't get a deal done. Their suspect their trade value is not as high as we'd like to think.

 

Funny how Mullin signed Murphy, Foyle, Dunleavy, and Fisher to long ridiculous contracts to keep together our "core" players. But it turns out our real core players are everyone except those players.

 

Doesn't a 40-50 mill contract sound way too high for MP? I was guessing 25-35.

 

<div class="quote_poster">SkiptoMyLue11 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Doesn't a 40-50 mill contract sound way too high for MP? I was guessing 25-35.</div>

You're right, it is too high. But then again we have a GM who gave Foyle 40 mil and Dunleavy 44 mil.