PDA

View Full Version : Golden State



pacergod2
04-20-2010, 10:03 AM
Here is an idea:

Corey Maggette 3 yr, 30,786,207
#4 pick in 2010

for

Tyler Hansborough 3 yr, 7,179,899
TJ Ford 1 yr, 8,500,000
#10 pick in 2010

This deal is basically a huge salary dump of Maggette, who Golden State I don't believe is enamored with. They realize they overpaid for him. Maggette could be a great guy to bring off the bench, but I realize his ego might not warrant that. They pick up a young PF who has a marketable name and reduce a huge amount of future salary, since they are selling the team. They also get another player at 10 who should be very good to help build their core around. We would be trading up to grab Derrick Favors at four and to get something positive in return for TJ Ford. Golden State would be one place I think that TJ would do well. I don't know that we would be willing to take on the money though.

I would also swap out Dunleavy for Ford, but they would have to send us back a minimal contract in that scenario. Plus they would also probably buy Dun out versus keeping Ford.

This would still give us a lineup of:

PG - Price, #40, #56
SG - Rush, DJones, Dun
SF - Granger, Maggette
PF - Murphy, Favors, McRoberts
C - Hibbert, Foster, SJones

judicata
04-20-2010, 05:17 PM
This is an interesting scenario, but it is pretty risky for both teams, especially the Pacers.

GS definitely does not need more guards, and IN certainly does not need Indiana. Basically this whole trade revolves around how good each team thinks Favors will be.

GS needs bigs, with this trade they get two rolls of the dice in the #10 (Patterson? Udoh? Davis?) and Hansbrough (injury?) instead of one.

Indiana, on the other hand, bets those same guys' futures that Favors will be better than both combined. I don't like that gamble personally, even straight up, and certainly not with so much extra salary. Essentially, IN gives up three chances at getting a better player (or combo of players) than Favors if you consider the $20m in salary that they would otherwise be able to use in FA.

NappyRootz
04-25-2010, 11:12 PM
This is an interesting scenario, but it is pretty risky for both teams, especially the Pacers.

GS definitely does not need more guards, and IN certainly does not need Indiana. Basically this whole trade revolves around how good each team thinks Favors will be.

GS needs bigs, with this trade they get two rolls of the dice in the #10 (Patterson? Udoh? Davis?) and Hansbrough (injury?) instead of one.

Indiana, on the other hand, bets those same guys' futures that Favors will be better than both combined. I don't like that gamble personally, even straight up, and certainly not with so much extra salary. Essentially, IN gives up three chances at getting a better player (or combo of players) than Favors if you consider the $20m in salary that they would otherwise be able to use in FA.

Great post ..................I wouldn't have looked at it that way initially but I think that you are right.

I doubt GS would be interested in moving away from one of the big 4 picks regardless. If you put Biedriens in there instead of Maggette they probably woould but I cant see us adding that much salary even for Favors.

d_c
04-26-2010, 07:08 PM
Not a bad trade, but remember the only way the Warriors end up with Favors is with the #3 or #4 pick. I haven't looked at the specific numbers, but there's about a 20% chance of that. If the W's get the #1 or #2 pick, they take Wall or Turner. If they get the #5 or #6 pick, Favors is most likely not available.

And it's also not likely that Monroe somehow drops to #10. This isn't a bad trade, but it's heavily predicated on some pretty low percentages.

speakout4
04-27-2010, 07:14 PM
Haven't we received enough lousy contracts from GS already?

jeffg-body
04-28-2010, 12:18 AM
No thanks on this one, we already picked up two albatros contracts from them.

Justin Tyme
04-28-2010, 07:21 AM
Sorry, not interested in spending 15 mil to move up 6 spots in the draft, nor interested in taking on Maggette's ridiculous contract for 3 years.