PDA

View Full Version : trade idea based on Al's wishes and Montieth Q&A



able
06-05-2004, 07:52 AM
Ok so Al wants out (more or less) and as Montieth said, a most likely option to deal is Dampier, who wants out from the Warriors, who (his statement) also have more talent to trade.

We would like to have Damp here, but we also need a 2 :D

So as a toy I ran this on RealGM:

Golden State trades: C Erick Dampier (12.3 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 32.5 minutes)
SG Jason Richardson (18.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 2.9 apg in 37.6 minutes)
Golden State receives: PF Al Harrington (13.3 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 1.7 apg in 30.9 minutes)
C Scot Pollard (1.7 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 0.2 apg in 11.1 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -16.0 ppg, -9.6 rpg, and -1.8 apg.

Indiana trades: PF Al Harrington (13.3 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 1.7 apg in 30.9 minutes)
C Scot Pollard (1.7 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 0.2 apg in 11.1 minutes)
Indiana receives: C Erick Dampier (12.3 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 74 games)
SG Jason Richardson (18.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 2.9 apg in 78 games)
Change in team outlook: +16.0 ppg, +9.6 rpg, and +1.8 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

Due to Golden State and Indiana being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Golden State and Indiana had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

You have been assigned Trade ID number 1630355

Dampier would, if he keeps up the good work from last year, be a great second to JO, and J-Rich, we all know he can do it. Great talent imo with a very nice shot, slicing ? :D

(just think of Fred AND J-Rich on the same team :D )

Warriors? they ARE going to lose Dampier, that much is sure, it also remains to be seen that once J-Rich is out of hos rookie contract whether he would re-sign with them, surely he can do better then a perpetual lottery team.
What can they get for Dampier if he leaves, contracts and little talent, or flat out nothing.
This could be there chance at a C that has a better fit in their system, who has proven himself previously in the West and was just a bad fit here, combined with an up and coming SF/PF who wants to lead a team in Al,

your opinion ?

Kstat
06-05-2004, 10:06 AM
Ok so Al wants out (more or less) and as Montieth said, a most likely option to deal is Dampier, who wants out from the Warriors, who (his statement) also have more talent to trade.

We would like to have Damp here, but we also need a 2 :D

So as a toy I ran this on RealGM:

Golden State trades: C Erick Dampier (12.3 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 32.5 minutes)
SG Jason Richardson (18.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 2.9 apg in 37.6 minutes)
Golden State receives: PF Al Harrington (13.3 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 1.7 apg in 30.9 minutes)
C Scot Pollard (1.7 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 0.2 apg in 11.1 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -16.0 ppg, -9.6 rpg, and -1.8 apg.

Indiana trades: PF Al Harrington (13.3 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 1.7 apg in 30.9 minutes)
C Scot Pollard (1.7 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 0.2 apg in 11.1 minutes)
Indiana receives: C Erick Dampier (12.3 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 74 games)
SG Jason Richardson (18.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 2.9 apg in 78 games)
Change in team outlook: +16.0 ppg, +9.6 rpg, and +1.8 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

Due to Golden State and Indiana being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Golden State and Indiana had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

You have been assigned Trade ID number 1630355

Dampier would, if he keeps up the good work from last year, be a great second to JO, and J-Rich, we all know he can do it. Great talent imo with a very nice shot, slicing ? :D

(just think of Fred AND J-Rich on the same team :D )

Warriors? they ARE going to lose Dampier, that much is sure, it also remains to be seen that once J-Rich is out of hos rookie contract whether he would re-sign with them, surely he can do better then a perpetual lottery team.
What can they get for Dampier if he leaves, contracts and little talent, or flat out nothing.
This could be there chance at a C that has a better fit in their system, who has proven himself previously in the West and was just a bad fit here, combined with an up and coming SF/PF who wants to lead a team in Al,

your opinion ?

No way in hell is Golden State giving up Richardson AND Dampier for Harrington.....

sweabs
06-05-2004, 10:09 AM
Yeah - there is no way that will happen.

Harrington for J-Rich, first off, is pretty unlikely. Then it's basically Pollard for Dampier...:laugh:.

Kstat
06-05-2004, 10:11 AM
Not to mention JRich is responsible for the few season ticket packages that the Warriors DO sell.........

able
06-05-2004, 10:14 AM
OOhhh but I agree with all those sentiments, but then.....
let reality kick in for a while: Will they be able to improve enough to NOT be lottery bound, under that assumption that Dampier is gone?
In that case will J-Rich sign and extension ?
Does he want to stay ?

I agree it might cost more then I threw out above, but still......

what would make them do it?

Are you sure they can keep J-Rich ?

And let's be honest weirder trades have happened...... right Kstat?

Pig Nash
06-05-2004, 10:51 AM
I really don't think that GS would give us JRich and Damp for just AL and i don't buy that Polly would push it over the top. We'd probably have to throw in FJ. Wouldn't that be funny if the JRich and FJ were traded for each other? Who would we root for in the Slam Dunk Competition?

Hicks
06-05-2004, 11:27 AM
I do believe we could get Damp for Al + Pollard.

This is basically for GS what it was for us last year with B.Miller. One way or another Damp's gone, they just don't want to lose him for nothing.

Ironically, Pollard may once again be the "consolation prize". Then, unlike us, they'll be able to keep their "Turk" in Al instead of trading him to San Antonio for cap space. :D

Pig Nash
06-05-2004, 11:30 AM
How come we didn't want to keep Turk? I think he would have been a nice fit with this group of player.

sweabs
06-05-2004, 11:31 AM
Do you guys think that instead of Richardson we could get Dunleavy out of that deal? I still doubt it - but it'd be nice.

Pig Nash
06-05-2004, 11:32 AM
Why would we want dunleavy? He's another PF/SF tweener! which is what we're trying to get rid of.

Hicks
06-05-2004, 11:33 AM
How come we didn't want to keep Turk? I think he would have been a nice fit with this group of player.


$$$$$

Pig Nash
06-05-2004, 11:35 AM
Ah. And i guess it gives us more space to make moves this summer. (and thats what got mercer off the books wasn't it. i forgot about that)

Mourning
06-05-2004, 11:38 AM
Im happy we didnt take Hedo for ourselves, I dont like the way he plays. Yeah, so he scored some crucial points for the Spurs in our game at San Antonio, whatelse worthwhile has he done for the Spurs, further is he really a guard??? I see him more as a SF who gets played at SG by SA.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

able
06-05-2004, 11:43 AM
I do believe we could get Damp for Al + Pollard.

This is basically for GS what it was for us last year with B.Miller. One way or another Damp's gone, they just don't want to lose him for nothing.

Ironically, Pollard may once again be the "consolation prize". Then, unlike us, they'll be able to keep their "Turk" in Al instead of trading him to San Antonio for cap space. :D

If that is the way of thinking ( and yes i was looking at that) then the trade would be Al for J-Rich, and Pollard as make-up for the loss of Dampier and cap.

I know it is not a "real" option, yet if you look at it, they ARE losing Damp, as simple as that, for nothing, like we were Brad, a "bad" trade is all they can do now SanAn made the trade possible because they wanted Turk, this trade would be "possible" (and i would agree throwing in Fred or another combo) if we got J-Rich, as in : then we would be willing to give them something for Damp.

S&T is a weird science, that is sure. There are a few of them out there that will "opt-out" this year if the rumours are true, which makes the market a whole different one then one filled with major free agents like last year.

Anthem
06-05-2004, 11:43 AM
Im happy we didnt take Hedo for ourselves, I dont like the way he plays. Yeah, so he scored some crucial points for the Spurs in our game at San Antonio, whatelse worthwhile has he done for the Spurs, further is he really a guard??? I see him more as a SF who gets played at SG by SA.

The Kings played him at SF, SG, and PG. They (the players) all thought he was going to be a superstar.

While a trade of Freddy for JRich sounds great on paper, I'm just not sure. Freddy seems mature and easy to integrate into any team setting. JRich? Not so much.

Kerosene, what do you think?

Hicks
06-05-2004, 12:17 PM
I do believe we could get Damp for Al + Pollard.

This is basically for GS what it was for us last year with B.Miller. One way or another Damp's gone, they just don't want to lose him for nothing.

Ironically, Pollard may once again be the "consolation prize". Then, unlike us, they'll be able to keep their "Turk" in Al instead of trading him to San Antonio for cap space. :D

If that is the way of thinking ( and yes i was looking at that) then the trade would be Al for J-Rich, and Pollard as make-up for the loss of Dampier and cap.

It still wouldn't happen though because them adding J-Rich would have been like us tossing in Al or Ron to send to Sacramento.

Ultimate Frisbee
06-05-2004, 01:04 PM
This is almost exactly like the B. Miller situation last year for them... It could happen if they can't find anything better.

Ultimate Frisbee
06-05-2004, 01:07 PM
I do believe we could get Damp for Al + Pollard.

This is basically for GS what it was for us last year with B.Miller. One way or another Damp's gone, they just don't want to lose him for nothing.

Ironically, Pollard may once again be the "consolation prize". Then, unlike us, they'll be able to keep their "Turk" in Al instead of trading him to San Antonio for cap space. :D

If that is the way of thinking ( and yes i was looking at that) then the trade would be Al for J-Rich, and Pollard as make-up for the loss of Dampier and cap.

It still wouldn't happen though because them adding J-Rich would have been like us tossing in Al or Ron to send to Sacramento.

I don't follow your last logic hicks... I think it would boil down to us giving them Harrington for J-Rich...

We also lost mercer (good thing) in the last trade..

Shade
06-05-2004, 01:14 PM
I'd do Al and Pollard for Q in an instant.

C - Foster/Brezec
PF - O'Neal/Croshere
SF - Artest/Bender/JJones
SG - Richardson/Miller/FJones
PG - Tinsley/Johnson/Brewer

:nod:

Ultimate Frisbee
06-05-2004, 01:22 PM
eh.. Q. is a SG that shot less than 40% last year... not my first choice..

kerosene
06-05-2004, 01:35 PM
Harrington + Pollard for Dampier could work. JRich is not getting thrown into that deal though. If we're going to play "rape the other team" then the Al for S&T Kobe rumors might as well fly.

Richardson is good on the break and can shoot the 3 alright but he's not a great halfcourt player or shooter. In the halfcourt he posts up quite a bit and his midrange game needs work (though it has improved). Better than what the Pacers have now, but probably not the best fit. Only defends when it's a full moon too.

Cactus Jax
06-05-2004, 01:40 PM
eh.. Q. is a SG that shot less than 40% last year... not my first choice..

On a crappy Clippers team. He would be open all the time with JO and Artest in the post.

MSA2CF
06-05-2004, 01:40 PM
Harrington + Pollard for Dampier could work.

How about Harrington/Pollard for Dampier/Cheaney(S/T)?

kerosene
06-05-2004, 01:43 PM
Also, Dampier is scheduled to $8M+ this season, I don't see a real drastic drop in salary if it's a S&T deal. A 5 year deal sounds about right. Effectively the Pacers would have traded Miller and Harrington for a 30 year old Dampier who's just had a career year during what was essentially a contract year. Be careful what you wish for.

Cactus Jax
06-05-2004, 01:44 PM
Harrington + Pollard for Dampier could work. JRich is not getting thrown into that deal though. If we're going to play "rape the other team" then the Al for S&T Kobe rumors might as well fly.

Richardson is good on the break and can shoot the 3 alright but he's not a great halfcourt player or shooter. In the halfcourt he posts up quite a bit and his midrange game needs work (though it has improved). Better than what the Pacers have now, but probably not the best fit. Only defends when it's a full moon too.

I always thought Richardson was expendable with Pietrus emerging, and Dunleavy also being able to play just about any position besides center. I agree that this deal wouldn't be enough but I defeinently think Richardson could be traded.

Kerosene, I'm not sure if you saw my 3 team trade with Indiana and Orlando in another topic, but I think Okafor would be a great fit on the Warriors.

kerosene
06-05-2004, 01:49 PM
W's fans think Okafor would be a good fit too. I do think Richardson could be traded, but why included in this deal? Harrington + salary should be enough to get Dampier. The W's are dealing from a position of strength here because if they don't get a deal they like, they'll let Dampier walk and not take back salary. If Richardson is dealt I would see it being for a high draft pick + young player or something similar.

purdue101
06-05-2004, 01:50 PM
what about harrington, pollard, and our first round pick for dampier and their first round pick? i believe they pick 11th, we could probably land a great SG prospect in either iguodola or josh smith with that pick.....gordon may even fall that far. anyways, one of those 3 will be there at 11.

kerosene
06-05-2004, 01:53 PM
Again, what incentive does GS have to swap draft picks? Now, if you want to talk about throwing in another player like Bender then maybe Golden State's pick can be had as well.

MSA2CF
06-05-2004, 01:53 PM
what about harrington, pollard, and our first round pick for dampier and their first round pick? i believe they pick 11th, we could probably land a great SG prospect in either iguodola or josh smith with that pick.....gordon may even fall that far. anyways, one of those 3 will be there at 11.

:hmm: Interesting...

purdue101
06-05-2004, 02:01 PM
you have to look at it this way kerosene. harrington & pollard for dampier is lopsided in GS favor. dampier is around 30 yrs old, harrington is 23-24. dampier also wants out GS , he has stated this publicly. this, along with his age, makes his value low. harrington has a pretty high value b/c of his age, versatility, and small contract. i would pissed off if bird did this deal straight up, i think we can get more outta of GS, like that draft pick.

kerosene
06-05-2004, 02:06 PM
So he can opt out and leave GS. I would hope that Mullin isn't going to get hosed on deals like this. GS does not have it's hands tied here so they're not in a position where they have to trade Dampier. If the choice comes down to letting Dampier walk for nothing, or getting reemed just to S&T him, I think they'll let him walk.

While not a high lottery pick, that pick isn't a "throw in" type pick.

able
06-05-2004, 02:18 PM
It seems some are forgetting that J-Rich is in this leagues just as long as Freddie.

1. Dampier wants out, preferably to the East, what better place then o a contender, i.e. the Pacers.
2. The deal would be not Al for Damp, but an S&T filled in with J-Rich for Al, the rest of the cast can be filled in at random.
3. This is the same "sort" of deal we took for Brad last year, they will look at a "best save" instead of talking from strength, they WILL lose Damp anyway and have 0 guarantee that they can hold on to J-Rich after his rookie contract.

Mourning
06-05-2004, 02:27 PM
Sorry Abe, still dont see it happenning :blush: .

Would love to see it, but I dont think it will.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Will Galen
06-05-2004, 02:51 PM
I looked at this trade myself when Dampier's name come up. My question is, why would we do it?

Has Dampier actually said he would opt out of his contract yet? He is due $8.1 million this year and $8.7 next year. We couldn't or wouldn't pay Brad $7.8 and $8,7 the next two years.

So why would we trade Al for him when Damp makes the same amount Brad does, and we would only have him for two years?

I too don't see this trade happening. Damp isn't going to opt out and agree to a sign and trade for a lot less money. Not even to a contender.

Arcadian
06-05-2004, 02:57 PM
I'm not sold on Dampier. Injury prone and inconsistant. Also what would we have left to get a SG?

Artestaholic
06-05-2004, 06:24 PM
I'd do Al/Pollard/Freddie/#29+Future 1st Rounder
4
Dampier/Richardson in a heartbeat.

MSA2CF
06-05-2004, 07:04 PM
I'd do Al/Pollard/Freddie/#29+Future 1st Rounder
4
Dampier/Richardson in a heartbeat.

Come on, you're David Whiteley, aren't you? :laugh:

TheSauceMaster
06-05-2004, 07:14 PM
I'm not sold on Dampier ethier , kerosene, Will Galen and Arcadian have all brought up great points.

Pig Nash
06-05-2004, 07:47 PM
I agree Saucey. (can i call you saucey?) I think we should look into getting Blount or Dalembert (not likely)

able
06-06-2004, 06:17 AM
I agree wholeheartedly with the objections to damp, I have some more, such as salary, but........
I was making the trade to get J-Rich, Damp was a throw in, a big man, 2 years left on a contract if I'm not mistaken, so no long term commitment, J-Rich is the talented 2 I'm after in this trade, a "fit" for this team in terms of age, drive and talent as well as price.

Have we really missed a "big" this year? yes against Det JO could've used some help, but then again, "if" we had a J-Rich type of player healthy and scoring that much we would have had no problems, as we would have had no problems with a healthy JT and JO.

Al for J-Rich might be more difficult then what i proposed and no I do no think he will bring us T-Mac or Allen (which I think is not a good fit for this team)

Roaming Gnome
06-06-2004, 01:10 PM
I looked at this trade myself when Dampier's name come up. My question is, why would we do it?

Has Dampier actually said he would opt out of his contract yet? He is due $8.1 million this year and $8.7 next year. We couldn't or wouldn't pay Brad $7.8 and $8,7 the next two years.

So why would we trade Al for him when Damp makes the same amount Brad does, and we would only have him for two years?

I too don't see this trade happening. Damp isn't going to opt out and agree to a sign and trade for a lot less money. Not even to a contender.

Makes perfect sense to me but, I wouldn't rule out a lower level deal with GS since Bird and Mully have a past.

kerosene
06-06-2004, 01:56 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with the objections to damp, I have some more, such as salary, but........
I was making the trade to get J-Rich, Damp was a throw in, a big man, 2 years left on a contract if I'm not mistaken, so no long term commitment, J-Rich is the talented 2 I'm after in this trade, a "fit" for this team in terms of age, drive and talent as well as price.

Damp is going to opt out so it's not going to be a two year deal. More like 5 I would think. Longer if he can get it.

beast23
06-06-2004, 04:38 PM
Whether Dampier opts out or not, Al and Pollard will make a combined $12M next season. So a packaged deal with those two to get Dampier will take more from the Warriors end, because there is no way in hell Dampier gets a max contract. And if he did, we would not be interested.

If Richardson is involved, then I somehow think we throw in another player and the Warriors throw in a 3rd player, one with a crap contract.

There's no way we could get off free with Dampier and Richardson without eating something in return.