PDA

View Full Version : Would a GS trade really be that bad?



themachotaco
07-01-2004, 11:11 PM
Several threads over the past few weeks have talked about trades with GS, and a recent one by Bread included a trade proposal that had

Ind recieves
Erick Dampier and Jason Richardson

GS receives
Al Harrington, Fred Jones and Scot Pollard
(with the notion that Pollard could be swaped with Foster if GS wanted him instead)

Many in that thread balked at it, particularly if we included Jeff. I'm a relatively new poster and had some ideas on this, so I wanted to throw them out on a new thread to see if this made sense to anyone else...

I wouldn't mind this trade, nor the inclusion of Foster because what we get back accomplishes our three big 'musts' for the summer:
1. A SG with a shot who can create
2. Size and scoring in the paint to balance with JO
3. Balance our roster and help define roles

PG - Tinsley - AJ
SG - JRich - Reg
SF - Artest - Bender
PF - JO - Cro
C - Dampier - Harrison/Pollard

Some dislike Dampier, but look at some numbers... he's a 12-12 (+1.85 bpg) guy this year, ranking #1 in o-rebounds per game. Also suprisingly, 9th in efficiency per 48 mins.

Jeff was 6-7 (and .33 bpg), 9th in o-rb per.

Even at half his production, Dampier is still slightly more productive than Foster with the bump in the blocks category. He may not be the hustle player that Jeff is, but can bang and perhaps offer more helpside defense.

I really like what this gives us on the offensive side of the ball too. So often in the playoffs our offense was exposed because we only had 2 players who could score vs 5 defenders. Everyone and their brother challenged Foster to shoot. Tinsley was hobbled, and even though I liked the idea to look to drive, he had no legs under his shots, layups included. Reggie passed up more shots than a fat kid passes up diet coke. The defense only had to defend JO and Ron. There were brief moments where someone else made them pay, but no consistency to that at all.

This trade, with a healthy Tins of course, gives us 5 starters who all are threats to score. Something the Pistons exposed us AND the Lakers as big faults.

What about our bench? some might ask.
We would rely more on Bender, true, but isn't that about time? We would rely more on Croshere, and when he has consistent minutes is that such a bad thing? We would rely more on Reggie, who certainly should feel free to take more shots, and don't you like your odds of Uncle Reg vs. the other team's bench?

What about losing Fred? some might ask. You are fooling yourself if you think that JRich is not an improvement over Freddie. Fred is a special player, and he will only get better, but Richardson is in the same category, with a little more development, and experience starting.

What about our financial situation? some might ask.
Hoops hype has the following
Harrington 13 mil over 2 years
Jones 4 mil over 2 years (incl TO)
Foster 26 mil over 5 years (9 mil over next 2)
That adds up to 26 mil for those three in the next 2 years. Let's consider 5 years out...
Harrington will want at least an equivilent contract (6mil avg/yr), so even if he just gets a 1 mil/avg raise, he'll be 34 over 5 years
Jones will likely get a similar contract to what Artest, Harrington, or Bender got after their rookie contracts, let's be conservative and estimate 6 mil/year avg. He'll be total 22 mil over 5 years.
And we already have Foster for 26 mil.
That's 82 mil for three players over the next 5 years.

Richardson is 8 mil over 2 years (incl PO)
Dampier is a FA... we could give him 18 mil over 2 years to equal our players over the same time.

Imagine Richardson gets a raise to 8 mil per, and Dampier's total contract is 9 mil per. JRich is then 40 mil over 5 years, and Dampier's is 45. That's 85 mil for 2 players over 3 years.

Most would say that proves the point, the GS deal would cost us more, and that's true, only slightly. I argue that it redirects our costs to more appropriate places. Our three players include Harrington (who LB says will not start when JO and Artest are both here), Jones (who DW says is not our SG of the future), and Foster (who avg 20/g in the POs, and most agree is not our C of the future). So that's 82 mil for 5 years for backups.

The GS players bring us two players who will start, JRich for at least those 5 years, and Dampier more than likely, unless he is surpassed by Harrison. Bender, Croshere, and maybe even Reggie can earn their salaries.

Over that five year period, Croshere and Pollard's salaries both come off the books, that's 37 mil in savings, beginning in the 4th year. Reggie's 12 mil comes off, too, so that's 49 mil saved. A core of ED, JO, RA, and JR would be signed together through 08/09.

I know this was a long post, I apologize... but what's the downside? Thanks for reading.

(I'll give you that GS may not go for it, I want to know what is the downside from our POV)

Kegboy
07-01-2004, 11:27 PM
Don't apologize for the long post. It's very well thought out.

Personally, I don't see much problem with this. Yeah, Dampier might be a CTC guy just looking for his new contract, but let's face it, he's still a better C than Jeff. And Richardson, while not a good defender, is still a starting caliber guard, something Freddie will sadly never be.

There's some risk, but I don't see us giving up all that much. If Dampier bombs, we've still got Marvin. If JRich flames out, well, again, I don't see Freddie ever being more than a 3rd guard anyway. Sometimes you've got to roll the dice.

If we can get these two for Al/Fred/Scot, I say we definitely do it. If we have to substitute Jeff, I understand the hesitation, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. You could always get them to throw in a re-signed Custodian to do the dirty work. :nod:
---
:duel:

Young
07-01-2004, 11:32 PM
The downside could be the fall of Dampier, he has had one good year and that was his contract year, He is what? 29? 30?

I was for Dampier and still am to a certain extent but i'm reading that he wants big dollars that he is no where near being worth. He is worth 6 million, 7 at most, based on averaging 12-12 but who knows if he will keep it up.

J-Rich isn't really a risk, he is a pretty decent player as far as i'm concerned.

Anthem
07-01-2004, 11:35 PM
If Dampier bombs, and we're paying him more than we would have paid Brad Miller, then I see that as a significant downside.

Kegboy
07-01-2004, 11:37 PM
If Dampier bombs, and we're paying him more than we would have paid Brad Miller, then I see that as a significant downside.

$45M is alot less than $70M. Of course, I think Roomie's right, that he's gonna want more, and some idiot (like Sacramento last year) will pay him that much.
---
:duel:

Anthem
07-01-2004, 11:47 PM
[quote=Anthem]$45M is alot less than $70M. Of course, I think Roomie's right, that he's gonna want more, and some idiot (like Sacramento last year) will pay him that much.

Not only do I think he'll demand more than 45mil, I also think that even if he agreed to it Golden State wouldn't.

Hoop
07-02-2004, 01:06 AM
I pray we don't get Dampier, just don't like anything about him. He'd be OK if he was cheap, but at the kinda money he'll get. :puke:

I don't care much for J Rich either. He's a great athlete, but has a low basketball IQ. He doesn't help our outside shooting problem either (28% 3Pt last year, 33% Career).

RA231
07-02-2004, 01:47 AM
I pray we don't get Dampier, just don't like anything about him. He'd be OK if he was cheap, but at the kinda money he'll get. :puke:

I don't care much for J Rich either. He's a great athlete, but has a low basketball IQ. He doesn't help our outside shooting problem either (28% 3Pt last year, 33% Career).


I would rather have Fred Jones over J-Rich. His contract is much lower and a better shooter. The only bad thing about him is his size. I like Dampier and would trade Harrington and Pollard for him.