PDA

View Full Version : Curry made available by GSW



PacersPride
01-21-2011, 06:17 PM
Was spoken Curry is available by the Warriors. Below is an article i found from realgm. According to the report i heard on espn, ellis and curry are replicates of one another. therefore warriors are looking to make a move.

http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/71262/20110121/warriors_looking_to_make_superstar_trade/
Warriors owner Joe Lacob is very interested in making a significant trade to shake up his franchise.

"I'm certainly biased toward doing something -- strongly," Lacob said.

"What I would really love to do is to pull off the deal to get a superstar. There's one or two of them out there."

Carmelo Anthony is the most discussed star on the market, but Lacob admitted that the forward is likely headed elsewhere.

"We've had discussions with Denver," Lacob said. "And I think it's possible. But unfortunately, he clearly wants to be one place geographically."

Lacob also expressed the willingness to deal any player on Golden State's roster, while calling Monta Ellis the team's "core, franchise player."



Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/71262/20110121/warriors_looking_to_make_superstar_trade/#ixzz1BiNTtPhA

CableKC
01-21-2011, 06:22 PM
You've lost me.....where does it say that Curry is available?

The closest thing that I can assume from this is that Curry would be available if Melo was on the table...but my guess is that Curry is not...even if Granger was the Player in question.

Curry is a much better PG then Monta is. If they move Curry...they'd better get a very solid ComboGuard that can play some decent PG minutes that can distribute the ball.

I think that the Warriors should stand pat....they don't need a major shakeup.....they are sometimes inconsistent....but I think that they are far more competitive this year under Coach Smart then Coach "I just want to break the record" Nellie last season. They have a very good core and a decent coach...why shake things up after a few months?

NewEra
01-21-2011, 06:26 PM
I guess Wilbon on pti said it was 100% curry will be traded. Anyone interested?

PacersPride
01-21-2011, 06:28 PM
You've lost me.....where does it say that Curry is available?

The closest thing that I can assume from this is that Curry would be available if Melo was on the table...but my guess is that Curry is not...even if Granger was the Player in question.

Curry is a much better PG then Monta is. If they move Curry...they'd better get a very solid ComboGuard that can play some decent PG minutes that can distribute the ball.

the article never specifically states it. it was reported verbally on espn that curry will be made available, and that the GM thinks Curry and Ellis are too similar to keep both in the backcourt.

I was under the assumption Curry was a SG, would not make sense to pursue if he is a point guard.

jcouts
01-21-2011, 06:29 PM
I would give up virtually anyone on our roster to get Curry or Ellis in Indianapolis.

Gamble1
01-21-2011, 06:34 PM
the article never specifically states it. it was reported verbally on espn that curry will be made available, and that the GM thinks Curry and Ellis are too similar to keep both in the backcourt.

I was under the assumption Curry was a SG, would not make sense to pursue if he is a point guard.
I would trade Collison for Curry plus our first or Rush plus our first.

Curry could play both pg or sg IMO and in this system he would probably function better than any pg we have.

McKeyFan
01-21-2011, 06:37 PM
I would trade Collison for Curry plus our first or Rush plus our first.

Curry could play both pg or sg IMO and in this system he would probably function better than any pg we have.

Fine. But you really don't want to make major trades based on JOB's system, do you?

PacersPride
01-21-2011, 06:37 PM
I would trade Collison for Curry plus our first or Rush plus our first.

Curry could play both pg or sg IMO and in this system he would probably function better than any pg we have.

True. I thought that awhile ago, Curry would be a good fit for an obrien style offense. i do not want to see us give up DC. i would do the rush and 1st but not nearly enough.

unless Curry can play SG, would not be interested. like the idea of Bird letting salaries expire and take adavantage of teams who have to reduce salary.

CooperManning
01-21-2011, 06:38 PM
Just for fun:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4gubtac

Gamble1
01-21-2011, 06:42 PM
True. I thought that awhile ago, Curry would be a good fit for an obrien style offense. i do not want to see us give up DC. i would do the rush and 1st but not nearly enough.

unless Curry can play SG, would not be interested. like the idea of Bird letting salaries expire and take adavantage of teams who have to reduce salary.
He played sg the majority of his college career so I don't think it would be a problem for him. His biggest problem is that he is small for a sg in the NBA and thats why he started playing pg his final year in college.

Fine. But you really don't want to make major trades based on JOB's system, do you?
Curry would translate well in most systems which is why you throw a bone out there and see what the Warriors are asking.

Doddage
01-21-2011, 06:52 PM
I just don't know where Curry would fit with DC on board here. You would have to choose one over the other to be the starter, and neither belong on the bench or starting at SG. I don't think us and GS are good trading partners (although I must say, I would love to have Udoh here).

CooperManning
01-21-2011, 06:59 PM
I just don't know where Curry would fit with DC on board here. You would have to choose one over the other to be the starter, and neither belong on the bench or starting at SG. I don't think us and GS are good trading partners (although I must say, I would love to have Udoh here).

That's definitely a concern. If Curry could play 16-20 minutes a game at SG it could work though.

TinManJoshua
01-21-2011, 07:07 PM
Just for fun:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4gubtac

"With this trade you have decreased this team's projected wins by 7."

Gamble1
01-21-2011, 07:09 PM
I just don't know where Curry would fit with DC on board here. You would have to choose one over the other to be the starter, and neither belong on the bench or starting at SG. I don't think us and GS are good trading partners (although I must say, I would love to have Udoh here).
Curry is better than DC and its not even close. Don't get me wrong DC is good but Curry is a better scorer and is not bad at passing either. I would ship collision out in second for Curry.

As far as trading Granger you guys are out of your minds and I can't reason with crazy people. ;)

A little video on Curry for those who like to watch a pg with a good bbIQ.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX63P5oImmE&feature=related

croz24
01-21-2011, 07:11 PM
I just don't know where Curry would fit with DC on board here. You would have to choose one over the other to be the starter, and neither belong on the bench or starting at SG. I don't think us and GS are good trading partners (although I must say, I would love to have Udoh here).

curry's too good a talent to pass up imo and could easily play the sg position with a different defensive philosophy and added frontcourt depth. defense is more about positioning than size anyway.

you want udoh and are willing do deal granger? why not something like...

pacers receive:
udoh
curry
gadzuric
2011 unprotected 1st

gsw receive:
granger
hansbrough (try to replace hansbrough with mcroberts)

pacers74
01-21-2011, 07:15 PM
I really don't think we have the pieces to get Curry. We would have to give up Granger, Hibbert, and maybe DC to get him. They are trying to make a play for Melo. I would love Curry. I would give up Granger straight up for him, but not him and Hibbert.

pacers74
01-21-2011, 07:17 PM
curry's too good a talent to pass up imo and could easily play the sg position with a different defensive philosophy and added frontcourt depth. defense is more about positioning than size anyway.

you want udoh and are willing do deal granger? why not something like...

pacers receive:
udoh
curry
gadzuric
2011 unprotected 1st

gsw receive:
granger
hansbrough (try to replace hansbrough with mcroberts)


There is no way GS gives up their 1st and Udoh too. We would have to be the ones giving up our first and more to get Curry.

presto123
01-21-2011, 07:17 PM
I'm always changing my mind about Granger being trade-able. If he was consistent all the time I would say no way. The Granger that comes down and launches 3's early in the shot clock and doesn't hustle and pouts to the officials I would trade. But when Danny is good he is real good.

croz24
01-21-2011, 07:23 PM
There is no way GS gives up their 1st and Udoh too. We would have to be the ones giving up our first and more to get Curry.

no, we would not have to give up granger and a 1st to get curry. at this point, hansbrough likely has more value than udoh as well. i don't get the fascination for udoh myself, but adding him was to appease pd members who want him.

pacers74
01-21-2011, 07:27 PM
no, we would not have to give up granger and a 1st to get curry. at this point, hansbrough likely has more value than udoh as well. i don't get the fascination for udoh myself, but adding him was to appease pd members who want him.


It's not about Udoh or the first. GS will not do Granger for Curry straight up. They think Curry has too much upside. He is averaging 18 ppg, 6 apg, and almost 2 steals a game in only his second season.

BringJackBack
01-21-2011, 07:28 PM
Well, I think Danny is another one of them "superstars" that GS wants.. I don't know what it would take to get him but I do know that for ourselves Collison and Curry wouldn't be all that great working together, however; Curry, 2011 1st, Udoh for Danny and Tyler/Josh sounds okay to me if there is a way to get that to financially work.

croz24
01-21-2011, 07:29 PM
It's not about Udoh or the first. GS will not do Granger for Curry straight up. They think Curry has too much upside. He is averaging 18 ppg, 6 apg, and almost 2 steals a game in only his second season.

says who? most gsw fans i've seen have been nothing but frustrated with curry so far this year in terms of his ability to create, decision making, being too passive at times, and defense.

pacers74
01-21-2011, 07:33 PM
says who? most gsw fans i've seen have been nothing but frustrated with curry so far this year in terms of his ability to create, decision making, being too passive at times, and defense.

They are trying to offer him up to get in the Melo sweepstakes.

croz24
01-21-2011, 07:37 PM
They are trying to offer him up to get in the Melo sweepstakes.

so you are saying they wouldn't even offer curry straight up for granger, yet they would offer curry + 1st round pickS + likely udoh or wright and probably biedrins for a not much better version of granger in melo?

pacers74
01-21-2011, 07:41 PM
Here is the article that everyone is talking about. It is there owner being interviewed. He is a little down on Curry. I still don't think he would trade Granger for Curry. Although, I would love them too.



http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2011/01/20/joe-lacob-interview-part-2-on-possibly-trading-ellis-or-curry-trying-to-trade-for-carmelo-evaluating-smart-and-more/
Joe Lacob interview, Part 2: On possibly trading Ellis or Curry, trying to trade for Carmelo, evaluating Smart, and more

Posted by Tim Kawakami (http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/author/tkawakami/) on January 20th, 2011 at 8:45 pm | Categorized as NBA (http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/category/nba/), Warriors (http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/category/warriors/)
Not too long ago, during a casual conversation a few weeks before he officially took over the Warriors, Joe Lacob lightly told me he planned to make his management style as transparent as possible.
“Ask me any question,” Lacob said back then, “and I’ll answer it. That’s only way I want to do this.”
I said that’d be great, and figured: Easy to say when you’re not yet the official owner. Then you get tangled up in agendas and long-term concerns and agent talk and all that.
Well, today, Lacob thoroughly kept to his word, answering as directly and specifically about many sensitive topics that most GMs–let alone owners–would never address so literally.
Part 1 of this interview was the general stuff. Here, in Part 2, Lacob zeroes in on the heart of the matter:
What’s he going to do about the Warriors’ small backcourt, about Carmelo Anthony, about Keith Smart, Andris Biedrins and what the new owner’s role was in the departure of trainer Tom Abdenour.
* Lacob praised Monta Ellis as the “core, franchise player” and said he’d like to see more out of Stephen Curry, then openly acknowledged he could trade either guy, if it’d make the team better.
* Lacob said he doesn’t understand some of the things coach Keith Smart does during games, but he thinks Smart is finding his way.
* He said the Warriors have held discussions with Denver to try to get involved in the Anthony situation, but that it looks like Anthony only wants to go elsewhere (the Knicks).
There’s more. Much, much more.
I don’t know if he’ll keep doing this, or if he’ll get admonished by the league or other executives (or players) for being so straightforward, but I’ll say, for now, it’s incredibly refreshing.
—JOE LACOB interview transcript, Part 2/
-Q: We’ve talked before about what you call the architecture of this team, and you said a while ago that you weren’t sure about the way it’s structured. Could you do something big that changes it up entirely—and I’m talking about the Curry-Ellis backcourt?
-LACOB: I love our backcourt. I think they’re the best offensive backcourt in the NBA. I think defensively, not the best. I really like those guys as individuals and I like them as players.
But I have to be honest, it depends—if we got offered a great situation, would I break it up? Yes.
-Q: Which guy would you be more willing to trade?
-LACOB: I don’t know the answer to that. I think… anyone can be traded.

-Q: Before I’ve assumed that Curry was someone you would never want to trade…
-LACOB: He has a great long-term future in this league. He’s a terrific young man and a terrific player. Really, really like him.
You know, he’s not playing at the level that I think he would be happy with right now. His minutes are down a little bit. A lot of that’s due to substitutions for defense and maybe his ankle injury, coming back from that, a combination. Could be a variety of issues.
Whereas you would look at Monta and you’d say he has exceeded expectations. The guy is clearly right now our core, franchise player. There’s no question. And…
Does that mean that Curry would be traded, or more likely to be traded than Ellis? Not necessarily. It really depends… this is all dependent on what you’re going to get in return.
-Q: Is this team shaped the way you want it to be? Are you still two or three players from what it has to be?
-LACOB: I think it’s one piece from being a pretty darn good basketball team. Into the playoffs or maybe even a couple rounds into the playoffs. It might be, though, a few pieces from being a contender.
I think we clearly need to improve, one, our offensive low-post presence. Two, our defensive low-post presence needs to be better.
Three, our overall team defense. Individually we’re not the best defenders in the league. We have some good defenders and some not-so-good. But you can still be a good defensive team if you’re a good team defense. And we’re better… I sense that we’re getting a little better, but we have a long way to go.
We might be better if we had a defensive stopper kind of guy on the perimeter somewhere.
-Q: Dorell Wright?
-LACOB: He’s good. But having another one probably would be helpful.
And I think finally, overall depth. Still I think the bench is doing a better job than it did, because we’ve got a healthy roster now and people are used to playing with each other. We’re working out the kinks on combinations.
We’ve certainly gotten I think pretty good performance out of guys we maybe didn’t anticipate—Radmanovic has stepped up and he’s an interesting threat off the bench right now when he’s on. He’s a 6-10 guy that can shoot threes, pretty hard to defend.
Acie Law has come in and given us some good minutes. Solid. I think we can trust him out there.
Reggie (Williams) has been inconsistent but he’s showing signs of improving every day. And when he’s good, he’s good. He could probably be a very good defensive player. Probably in the off-season will learn that better. But he’s a guy that’s got the green light from Keith and he could score.
Amundson I think has been exactly what we anticipated—coming off the bench, giving you some energy minutes and I think overall been pretty effective and we’ve been pretty happy with that acquisition.
Who am I missing? (Brandan) Wright, I mean I was surprised last night. He hasn’t obviously earned many minutes to this point.
-Q: (Ekpe) Udoh.
-LACOB: Udoh is young and developing. We think he has, and I think he has certainly a lot of potential.
I’d like to see him get some more minutes than he’s gotten. But it’s coach’s decision to bring him along a little more slowly and give him some confidence and put him in certain match-up situations, I guess.
-Q: You’ve brought up Keith Smart’s decisions—maybe not the most consistent rotation, and now beginning to reduce Curry’s minutes in certain match-ups. Do you like what he’s doing, do you understand what Keith’s doing?
-LACOB: There are times that I do not understand it. I think he’s experimenting a fair amount with rotations. I was in his office yesterday, he had on his board all the… that’s what he had on his board, all these different rotation combinations. So he’s obviously thinking about it a lot. This isn’t random.
He’s a very cerebral guy. There’s a method to his madness to this point, I think. There are times I don’t quite get it and I think he’s still trying to work the kinks out, trying to understand what he has.
I think that he would tell you that it’s been very inconsistent in terms of what he’s gotten off of his bench. So I think he’s struggling to find combinations. And as of late, I think we’re starting to get some of that. We need more, to be a better team.
-Q: On the Curry stuff… do you worry that Keith pulling him for such long stretches will bother Curry over the long-term? Is that concerning to you?
-LACOB: It’s not concerning to me. The question is whether it’s concerning to him. I guess it could be concerning to him, to a player in that situation. I think he’s mature enough to understand that he has to accept coach’s decisions.
We may be talking very different two weeks from now. This is really only since December that this has happened. It’s hard to say, is that because of his ankle, is it because of Keith changing his mind on certain defensive situations?
Let’s give it a little more time and see. I think he’s certainly a very big contributor still. And even when he’s not getting as many minutes… he made the key basketball last night to put us ahead. He also made a mistake, he admitted, on the defensive end.
So there you have it: There’s sort of both sides of it. But you’ve got to remember, he is a second-year, 22-year-old player. As good as he is, and he is good, I’m not sure there’s a player from the draft last year that I would take over him. You can name… Tyreke Evans? Personally I don’t think I would do that.
-Q: Ricky Rubio (I was kidding).
-LACOB: He’s not in. So it’s hard to see it too negative here on Curry. Yeah, I’d like to see him do a little more. I think he’s capable of a little bit more. But hard to be too negative when right now there’s not a player from that draft that I think we’d trade him even-up for.
-Q: Is Larry Riley your general manager for the long-term? Are you still evaluating him?
-LACOB: He’s being evaluated, so is everybody.
-Q: Keith Smart?
-LACOB: Everybody.
-Q: Robert Rowell?
-LACOB: Everybody.
-Q: How long is this evaluation process going to go?
-LACOB: I’m going to wait until the end of the season. After the season’s over, when I’ve collected a lot of information, and I’m meeting everybody in this organization individually… there’s a lot to learn coming in here.
Sometimes it’s very easy to sit down to say, oh, that guy’s not doing a very good job. But first you have to learn what they do. And then you could ask the question, are they doing a good job?
I’m very much—and Peter is, too—we spend a lot of time meeting people here. I sit in executive staff meetings. I not only have to see what people do individually but how they interact with other each other. It would be hard to go making a lot of changes right now without disrupting… we’re right in the middle of the season.
I probably came in here originally thinking that, by around now, a couple months, I would be able to make some big changes. I’ve decided now I want to wait until the end of the season, because it’s the right thing to do. I think it would disrupt things too much.
There are going to be changes made. There have been some changes made, small ones. And I want to see… I certainly want to see from a basketball side—Keith and the team—we want to play through the season and see what we really have. And I think I’ll be able to have a lot more impact.
-Q: Is the evaluation on Riley almost—let’s see you make a deal at the deadline?
-LACOB: No. Not at all. Because it’s really not entirely in his control. It depends on what those other teams decide to do. We’ve made a lot of offers. And you can’t force someone to make a trade.
Larry and I interact almost every day. I would say Larry’s doing a very good job. Larry, he’s out there scouting college teams and players, preparing for the draft, which is what he should be doing, personally. We have scouts who do that, too, but he personally does that. He’s on the phone with other GMs every day. He and I have actually come up with trade scenarios and we’ve presented them. I mean, we’re working on this every day.
Larry, you know, is a lot craftier than his persona, perhaps, comes across. He’s a smart guy. He’s been around basketball for a long time. I’m enjoying working with him.
-Q: Just watching you courtside during games—looking not very happy when the Warriors lose—it’s easy to assume you are more than itchy to make a move to put your stamp on this team. How antsy are you?
-LACOB: I think that’s human nature. I wouldn’t be human if I didn’t want to change something to make it better. And I’m an impatient guy. So yeah, I would love to make some changes, love to make some trades.
But I’m also… I don’t want to do anything real foolish. I don’t want to bring a guy in who’s going to be disruptive or not make sense economically for the long-term or fit with the team’s plans for the long-term, what we see we want to build.
There’s no doubt about the fact that I would love to improve the team before the trade deadline by making a deal. There are players out there that we really like, that we’ve targeted, that Larry’s targeted. But I can’t say whether we’re going to get it done or not.
I haven’t been through this at this level. I’ve been through it peripherally with the Celtics.
-Q: It’s a weird year, too.
-LACOB: And it’s a very strange year, because no one knows what’s going to happen with the CBA. Look at the whole Carmelo… I mean, I don’t think he knows what he’s doing. So it’s not easy to go out and just target a guy and go get that done.
-Q: Can you say what types of players you’re targeting? Are they young players still on their rookie deals or maybe some veterans who are making some large dollars?
-LACOB: I think there’s a couple of different types—there’s certain needs we feel we have on the team. We’ve talked about those, right? Low-post presence. We’d love to improve ourselves in the low post, offensively and potentially defensively.
Now, one way we could do that is if Andris (Biedrins) could kick it up a notch, to perform at a level that he once was, at one point, performing at for this organization.
And I think he’s really trying. And we’ve seen some hints the last few days. Last night, I thought, we saw some hints of that. Maybe it’s going to come back.
He’s a valuable player. But right now I can’t sit here and say we’re getting enough out of that position. So that’s certainly a place from a need standpoint that we’ve targeted.
Look, if we could get any really good player, whether he be a 3, 4, a 2, whatever you want to call it, a really good player that could just make us a better basketball team, we’d consider doing that.
-Q: But proven centers tend to make a lot of money…
-LACOB: They do. And there’s very few are that good.
-Q: I can’t really think of any sure-fire centers you could get in a trade right now.
-LACOB: We’re more likely to succeed at improving at that position in the off-season, right? Through the draft or through some… free-agent acquisition. There’s definitely a few free agents coming up this year that could help us—at least three.
So that’s more likely. I think the more likely thing is for just a really good player that we could swing a deal for at the deadline and that would fit in our long-term plans and make us better.
What I would really love to do is to pull off the deal to get a superstar. There’s one or two of them out there.
-Q: Are you in on the superstar who’s available now?
-LACOB: The one?
-Q: Can you get involved in the Carmelo Anthony deal?
-LACOB: We’ve had discussions with Denver. And I think it’s possible. But unfortunately he clearly wants to be one place geographically. At least, it appears. And I mean one very specific place.
So that’s what makes it hard. You can want something and you can offer a lot to get it. But that doesn’t mean you’re going to get it. These guys have the ability to control where they want to go to some extent.
-Q: You think you could put together a deal that would satisfy Denver, though?
-LACOB: I don’t know for a fact if that’s true. They’re not clear. But we certainly… let’s put it this way, we think we have better assets to go after someone like him, that caliber, than most of the teams out there that are being talked about.
-Q: Including the team he wants to go to…
-LACOB: I think so.
-Q: That’s a major deal to be discussing. That’s four or five of your best guys. That’s a lot. Could you do this for another player or is he the only one?
-LACOB: I think there are a few players out there of the caliber that would be transformative for the franchise. And if we have a chance to make a move to transform the franchise to another level of success, we’ll do it.
-Q: You said the ownership group is willing to go into luxury tax. Are you talking about for one year or would you consider committing that kind of money for a long period of time?
-LACOB: We don’t know what that means, long-term.
-Q: You’re right, with the CBA questions. Let’s just say, are you willing to commit to a much higher payroll for a significant amount of time if that means increasing the talent level?
-LACOB: I don’t think that’s an issue at this point. If we had to do that in order to make a move to make ourselves significantly better, let’s say, by the trade deadline, we would do it.
-Q: People are going to see this and say, Geez, Lacob could trade Curry, he could trade Ellis… Do you want people to be thinking that anything like that is possible?
-LACOB: Well, the fact is, it is. We’re willing to do anything to improve this team. I told you. There is nothing that is going to stop us from winning and winning at a high and consistent level for the Golden State Warriors. Nothing.
I intend for this to be the icon franchise of the NBA, period, end of story, and we’re going to do it. And the only question is when.
-Q: You talk about getting to 28-27, and the trade deadline is right after that. If you’re not at 28-27, could you become, in some ways, a seller?
-LACOB: Probably not. No, we like the team we have right now. I think we have a lot of good pieces. You know, would we transform it pretty drastically if we got a transformative player in return? We would, if it made sense for us.
But if that doesn’t occur, and that is the likelihood, then we’re pretty darn happy working more incrementally. Maybe we pick up a piece that isn’t transformative, but that gets us incrementally better. And then we go into the off-season and we yet again got incrementally—hopefully substantially incrementally—better.
We’re not going to stop.
-Q: You’re not going to blow it up.
-LACOB: There’s no reason to blow it up. We’re on the upswing.
-Q: When you talk about Riley and Rowell… are their existing contracts—I think Larry has one more year, I assume Rowell has many more years—a factor when you’re deciding whether they stay with this team?
-LACOB: Are you asking whether their contracts are a factor?
-Q: You ate $6M with Don Nelson, which is a big gulp.
-LACOB: Well, that should tell you everything you need to know.
-Q: But maybe $6M is enough and you say you can’t eat any more. But you’re saying no.
-LACOB: That has no bearing.
-Q: The decision on those guys, will it happen quickly?
-LACOB: I don’t have a specific time that I’m going to make that decision by. We’ll make it when we think it’s the right thing to do. We’ll wait ‘til the season’s over and then we’ll make an evaluation, start thinking where we want to go.
-Q: Are you in here every day now?
-LACOB: I’m here every day, unless I’m on the road with the team or… I still have some residual responsibilities with my old job. I’m on various boards of directors. But otherwise I’m here day and night.
-Q: What have you learned generally about this franchise? Just the structure of it.
-LACOB: I’d say it’s pretty much what I expected. There’s a lot of good people here. There’s a good team that Larry’s put together.
The thing that’s really nice, that I’m really happy about, is that the locker room is such a good place. You know, it’s not fun to come in and deal with a bunch of bad guys. I don’t have that problem. I’ve pretty much inherited…
-Q: It’s better than it was.
-LACOB: I’m lucky. I’m very lucky in that sense. So that part is probably better than I anticipated.
And I’d say there’s a lot of good people here, too. There are parts of the way the organization runs which are at least at this point unclear to me, as to why they run that way. I’m trying to understand those, either by directly interviewing and talking to people and participating in staff meetings…
Peter likes to say that one of the companies, I forget which one it was, he took over, he came in and everyone wanted to make all these changes. He was running a movie company. But it took him a year to really go through and understand the business, understand what he had, understand who really should go and who he was going to replace them with.
Am I saying it’s going to take a year? No. but it does take a little longer than people think. This is not a sprint, to me, as a business. I’m in the for the long-term. I want to build the base carefully and successfully and have something that’s going to be enduring for the long-term…
I want an enduring organization. And that’s probably true with the team, too, although I’m a little less patient there. And I do think that you can turn a basketball team around, as the Celtics did, with one or two key moves. Especially when you’ve got a core that… you’ve got some good pieces, and we do have that.
-Q: Could you add another basketball executive, even besides Larry. Are you in that process? You’ve got guys like Kevin Pritchard and Steve Kerr who aren’t with teams right now. Could you hire one of those guys?
-LACOB: I don’t know yet. I don’t really feel the need for that, to be honest, at this point. I think Larry’s pretty darn good. He’s doing a good job. And I’m extremely involved in it on a daily basis.
If you’re not involved, sometimes you don’t really know what you don’t know. I’m day and night. So there’s not much I don’t know in this organization.
-Q: Are you talking to GMs to set up trades?
-LACOB: No, I let Larry do that. Agents? Yes. Other ownership groups? Yes. I try to learn what they do. But am I specifically in negotiations with general managers on trades and so forth? No, that’s Larry’s job.
-Q: Did you have any influence on Tom Abdenour leaving (for San Diego State) as trainer?
-LACOB: Tom asked whether he should accept this position which he was offered. And I have to be honest, I think Larry and I both thought it was a good opportunity for him. Actually, a very good opportunity for him.
I think he was at a point where he probably figured, time to make a change. He had been here a long time. And I think we gave him some advice, with respect whether it’d be something he should pursue or not.
-Q: Were you disappointed by some of the medical treatment since you’ve been here?
-LACOB: No, not necessarily. The David Lee situation clearly was a very unusual one. I was not excited… by the turn of events or the series of events, the way that unfolded. It was a little difficult. We were on the road—I was there, and I don’t think the medical treatment in New York or potentially in Chicago was ideal.
Part of it, we don’t have a doctor that travels with the team. And it really required that. To really make an over-riding decision, we would’ve needed to have a physician on site. So what we did, we obviously got him back here, I got him back here as soon as possible, and we got him treated here, whatever it took…
There probably are some things that could’ve been done that might’ve been better in this process.

pacers74
01-21-2011, 07:43 PM
so you are saying they wouldn't even offer curry straight up for granger, yet they would offer curry + 1st round pickS + likely udoh or wright and probably biedrins for a not much better version of granger in melo?

No, I was saying we would have to add value to the trade, not them. We would need to add in our first and another piece. They would not need to add pieces to the deal, we would.

BringJackBack
01-21-2011, 08:04 PM
How good do you guys think Curry is right now? How about in his prime?

BornReady#6
01-21-2011, 10:17 PM
I would pull off this 3 way trade and be done with it all, and definitely play Curry at the 2, he did it that first year in college and balled, and Eric Gordon isnt that much bigger and gets things done.

Pacers get: Favors, Curry, Outlaw, Biedrins, Brandan Wright, Morrow, Lakers 2011 1st round pick through the nets

Collison, Price,
Curry, Morrow, Dahntay
George, Outlaw, Posey
Favors, Hansbrough, Wright
Roy, Biedrins, Foster


Why?? Because it get us young, real young, gives us a great 2nd unit also, we move to the end of the 1st round, but we are still in it.



Nets get: Granger, Ekpe Udoh, Radmanovic(expirer), Gadzuric(expirer), Rush, and Lance.

Harris, Farmar, Uzoh
Rush, Lance, Sasha
Granger, James, Radmanovic
Udoh, Humphries,
Lopez, Gadz, Petro

why? They keep both of their 2011 and 2012 1st and 2 round picks, while getting Granger, Udoh, and Rush, making them relevant again.



Warriors get: Murphy, Ford, Dunleavy, McBob, their 2011 1st round pick back from the nets, Pacers 2011 1st round pick, Rockets 2012 1st rounder through the nets..

Ellis, Ford, Law, Lin
Dunleavy, Bell,
Wright, Williams,
Murphy, McBob,
Lee, Admunson


Why?? This move puts the Warriors to build whatever kind of team they want this offseason, and the picks, and money to make it happen. With a base of all stars Ellis and Lee, 2 1st round picks this year and next year, and a decent free agent class this year, and an excellent one next year, the warriors could be true contenders, and not just maverick pretenders.

I know its a lot, but I think it works, and I like it.

pacer4ever
01-21-2011, 10:20 PM
I would pull off this 3 way trade and be done with it all, and definitely play Curry at the 2, he did it that first year in college and balled, and Eric Gordon isnt that much bigger and gets things done.

.

Eric jr can actually play defense Curry cant. Curry is purly a one in the NBA if we had a backcourt of DC,Curry that would be easliy the worst defensive backcourt in the NBA

xBulletproof
01-21-2011, 10:24 PM
Holy Mary ...... that is a ginormous trade. On first glance I don't see a ton wrong with it. It would require GS being willing to start over but by goodness that's a ton of expiring contracts.

Wow. That would be one hell of a young team for us though.

BornReady#6
01-21-2011, 10:25 PM
Eric jr can actually play defense Curry cant. Curry is purly a one in the NBA if we had a backcourt of DC,Curry that would be easliy the worst defensive backcourt in the NBA

Ill admit I havent watched a ton of GSW games, but I did watch him in college, and he played good D there, and he is averaging 4 rebounds and 2 steals this season, thats not bad at all, especially for his size/ position.

eric gordon, only 2 rebounds, 1 steal, and if you compare their game logs, Curry is a much better defender on the D board, and steals wise, the stats paint a different picture.

pacer4ever
01-21-2011, 10:30 PM
Ill admit I havent watched a ton of GSW games, but I did watch him in college, and he played good D there, and he is averaging 4 rebounds and 2 steals this season, thats not bad at all, especially for his size/ position.

eric gordon, only 2 rebounds, 1 steal, and if you compare their game logs, Curry is a much better defender on the D board, and steals wise, the stats paint a different picture.

Rebs mean nothing at the SG postion. Steals dont tell u anything about how they play 1v1 defense or team defense which EJ is very good at. steph not so much he isnt a very good defender at all.. Im getting ready to watch GS vs SAC should be a fun one I am a big Curry fan BTW

hoops_guy
01-21-2011, 10:32 PM
I would pull off this 3 way trade and be done with it all, and definitely play Curry at the 2, he did it that first year in college and balled, and Eric Gordon isnt that much bigger and gets things done.

Pacers get: Favors, Curry, Outlaw, Biedrins, Brandan Wright, Morrow, Lakers 2011 1st round pick through the nets

Collison, Price,
Curry, Morrow, Dahntay
George, Outlaw, Posey
Favors, Hansbrough, Wright
Roy, Biedrins, Foster


Why?? Because it get us young, real young, gives us a great 2nd unit also, we move to the end of the 1st round, but we are still in it.



Nets get: Granger, Ekpe Udoh, Radmanovic(expirer), Gadzuric(expirer), Rush, and Lance.

Harris, Farmar, Uzoh
Rush, Lance, Sasha
Granger, James, Radmanovic
Udoh, Humphries,
Lopez, Gadz, Petro

why? They keep both of their 2011 and 2012 1st and 2 round picks, while getting Granger, Udoh, and Rush, making them relevant again.



Warriors get: Murphy, Ford, Dunleavy, McBob, their 2011 1st round pick back from the nets, Pacers 2011 1st round pick, Rockets 2012 1st rounder through the nets..

Ellis, Ford, Law, Lin
Dunleavy, Bell,
Wright, Williams,
Murphy, McBob,
Lee, Admunson


Why?? This move puts the Warriors to build whatever kind of team they want this offseason, and the picks, and money to make it happen. With a base of all stars Ellis and Lee, 2 1st round picks this year and next year, and a decent free agent class this year, and an excellent one next year, the warriors could be true contenders, and not just maverick pretenders.

I know its a lot, but I think it works, and I like it.

Holy ****, bravo. This is a solid trade. Put it in the trade proposal. Admittedly I am not put on by taking on Outlol's contract but getting back Favors and Curry makes everything better.

hoops_guy
01-21-2011, 10:38 PM
How good do you guys think Curry is right now? How about in his prime?

Right now he's very, very solid. 19.8 per game per36 and he's not getting the minutes he deserves because he's stuck with Ellis (or the other way around). Sadly, eventually he'd make Collison expendable. That is sad because I love Collison's game.

In his prime, he might be a Steve Nash some day, no lie. Cordobes can back me. Did you see the halfcourt lob a couple nights ago? Not many can pull that off. Such solid shooting skills with passing ability is amazing.

I would do Curry for Granger straight up, and we should really be trying to push Golden State's buttons because his value is lowish.

pacer4ever
01-21-2011, 10:44 PM
Hope Curry gets traded would be good for him. He needs to be the pg and run the show. Curry and Monta dont fit well together. He needs to play with a bigger SG than Monta. Would really help his game.

BornReady#6
01-21-2011, 10:56 PM
Holy ****, bravo. This is a solid trade. Put it in the trade proposal. Admittedly I am not put on by taking on Outlol's contract but getting back Favors and Curry makes everything better.

:buddies: thnx man! It goes through on trade machine too http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4dr7cju

Says Nets benefit most also, I think this trade does what GSW is about to do anyway, because Curry, Ellis and Lee are really their core, and getting 3 picks for Curry and experience for the rest of the year, and then tons of money. All teams get out evenly in this one.

graphic-er
01-21-2011, 11:47 PM
I would pull off this 3 way trade and be done with it all, and definitely play Curry at the 2, he did it that first year in college and balled, and Eric Gordon isnt that much bigger and gets things done.

Pacers get: Favors, Curry, Outlaw, Biedrins, Brandan Wright, Morrow, Lakers 2011 1st round pick through the nets

Collison, Price,
Curry, Morrow, Dahntay
George, Outlaw, Posey
Favors, Hansbrough, Wright
Roy, Biedrins, Foster


Why?? Because it get us young, real young, gives us a great 2nd unit also, we move to the end of the 1st round, but we are still in it.



Nets get: Granger, Ekpe Udoh, Radmanovic(expirer), Gadzuric(expirer), Rush, and Lance.

Harris, Farmar, Uzoh
Rush, Lance, Sasha
Granger, James, Radmanovic
Udoh, Humphries,
Lopez, Gadz, Petro

why? They keep both of their 2011 and 2012 1st and 2 round picks, while getting Granger, Udoh, and Rush, making them relevant again.



Warriors get: Murphy, Ford, Dunleavy, McBob, their 2011 1st round pick back from the nets, Pacers 2011 1st round pick, Rockets 2012 1st rounder through the nets..

Ellis, Ford, Law, Lin
Dunleavy, Bell,
Wright, Williams,
Murphy, McBob,
Lee, Admunson


Why?? This move puts the Warriors to build whatever kind of team they want this offseason, and the picks, and money to make it happen. With a base of all stars Ellis and Lee, 2 1st round picks this year and next year, and a decent free agent class this year, and an excellent one next year, the warriors could be true contenders, and not just maverick pretenders.

I know its a lot, but I think it works, and I like it.

LOL there is no way the Warriors take back Dunleavy. That would drive attendance way down. Fans would be livid. Doesn't matter if he is an expiring contract. Though there is a chance that Dunleavey would just not even report and maybe ask for a buyout. Cause he hasn't any desire to play there either.

hoops_guy
01-21-2011, 11:50 PM
LOL there is no way the Warriors take back Dunleavy. That would drive attendance way down. Fans would be livid. Doesn't matter if he is an expiring contract. Though there is a chance that Dunleavey would just not even report and maybe ask for a buyout. Cause he hasn't any desire to play there either.

...

...They could just waive him, you know like the Bobcats did with Dampier or how we did with Eddie Jones a couple years back...

pwee31
01-21-2011, 11:51 PM
Curry is only available in a package for a superstar... we don't have one of those on our team

Mackey_Rose
01-22-2011, 12:08 AM
for a not much better version of granger in melo?

That is unbelievably insulting to Carmelo.

Mackey_Rose
01-22-2011, 12:17 AM
:buddies: thnx man! It goes through on trade machine too http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4dr7cju

Says Nets benefit most also, I think this trade does what GSW is about to do anyway, because Curry, Ellis and Lee are really their core, and getting 3 picks for Curry and experience for the rest of the year, and then tons of money. All teams get out evenly in this one.

LOL at any trade in which the Warriors are taking back both components of the infamous Murphleavy duo.

Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that's a bit of a deal-breaker.

A second stint with those guys together, even if it's just or a few months? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

d_c
01-22-2011, 12:27 AM
That would be a terrible trade for the Warriors. They trade Curry and Udoh and don't even get a starter level player in return. Their first round pick that goes to the Nets is heavily protected and won't be given to NJ unless GS makes the playoffs.

Curry isn't untouchable. Nobody on a team like the Warriors should be. He can be had just like everyone else, but the price will be fairly high.

d_c
01-22-2011, 12:57 AM
I think that the Warriors should stand pat....they don't need a major shakeup.....they are sometimes inconsistent....but I think that they are far more competitive this year under Coach Smart then Coach "I just want to break the record" Nellie last season. They have a very good core and a decent coach...why shake things up after a few months?

They may stand pat, but the reality is that they are in the same boat as the Pacers: They are in need of some true bigtime talent. Granger and Monta are nice, but neither guy is Batman. Until then, there are simply too many teams with better players on their roster. Curry is a better longterm guy to keep around, IMO, because he plays team ball and has a true position. Monta is basically a poor man's Iverson.

FWIW, plenty of fans are complaining about Keith Smart and his substitution patterns and such as well, if that sounds familiar at all.

croz24
01-22-2011, 01:52 AM
That is unbelievably insulting to Carmelo.

i was considered a troll at one point on this board for wanting granger traded a couple of years ago and stating he was nothing more than a great #3 good #2 option. so, of course i do not think granger is close to carmelo's basketball abilities. HOWEVER, granger is under contract and at very good, if not great value for his production. the team melo goes to will still need to lock him up long term and that will be at a max salary. therefore, factoring in the finances of it all along with basketball ability, yes granger is not far off from carmelo.

PacersPride
01-22-2011, 02:23 AM
eric gordon > stephon curry

would like to see Bird make it happen.

croz24
01-22-2011, 03:01 AM
eric gordon > stephon curry

would like to see Bird make it happen.

i would agree but i don't think there's any way the clippers trade ej. ej already is proving to be a better all around player than granger in just his 3rd year.

PaceBalls
01-22-2011, 04:39 AM
I would give up virtually anyone on our roster to get Curry or Ellis in Indianapolis.

Absofnlutely, not Ellis... but Del Curry on the Pacers would be a dream come true. I would trade Danny Granger in a heartbeat for him.

Foul on Smits
01-22-2011, 04:41 AM
Absofnlutely, not Ellis... but Del Curry on the Pacers would be a dream come true. I would trade Danny Granger in a heartbeat for him.

I know we're looking for veterans, but Del Curry? I dunno. :-p

PaceBalls
01-22-2011, 04:46 AM
I really think Del is something special, he is one of those players a bad team should give up anything to get. That is us. I heard the talk about picking up veteran players... but why the hell would we do that? Del is better than any "vet" the Pacers could get anyway...

Kemo
01-22-2011, 04:57 AM
I would pull off this 3 way trade and be done with it all, and definitely play Curry at the 2, he did it that first year in college and balled, and Eric Gordon isnt that much bigger and gets things done.

Pacers get: Favors, Curry, Outlaw, Biedrins, Brandan Wright, Morrow, Lakers 2011 1st round pick through the nets

Collison, Price,
Curry, Morrow, Dahntay
George, Outlaw, Posey
Favors, Hansbrough, Wright
Roy, Biedrins, Foster


Why?? Because it get us young, real young, gives us a great 2nd unit also, we move to the end of the 1st round, but we are still in it.



Nets get: Granger, Ekpe Udoh, Radmanovic(expirer), Gadzuric(expirer), Rush, and Lance.

Harris, Farmar, Uzoh
Rush, Lance, Sasha
Granger, James, Radmanovic
Udoh, Humphries,
Lopez, Gadz, Petro

why? They keep both of their 2011 and 2012 1st and 2 round picks, while getting Granger, Udoh, and Rush, making them relevant again.



Warriors get: Murphy, Ford, Dunleavy, McBob, their 2011 1st round pick back from the nets, Pacers 2011 1st round pick, Rockets 2012 1st rounder through the nets..

Ellis, Ford, Law, Lin
Dunleavy, Bell,
Wright, Williams,
Murphy, McBob,
Lee, Admunson


Why?? This move puts the Warriors to build whatever kind of team they want this offseason, and the picks, and money to make it happen. With a base of all stars Ellis and Lee, 2 1st round picks this year and next year, and a decent free agent class this year, and an excellent one next year, the warriors could be true contenders, and not just maverick pretenders.

I know its a lot, but I think it works, and I like it.



The day the Warriors take back Dunleavy and Murphy .. is the day I will eat my own shorts...

lol

ISN'T GONNA HAPPEN!




.

rexnom
01-22-2011, 04:58 AM
I really think Del is something special, he is one of those players a bad team should give up anything to get. That is us. I heard the talk about picking up veteran players... but why the hell would we do that? Del is better than any "vet" the Pacers could get anyway...
On a related note, Michael Curry would be a great veteran pick-up for us.

croz24
01-22-2011, 05:40 AM
I really think Del is something special, he is one of those players a bad team should give up anything to get. That is us. I heard the talk about picking up veteran players... but why the hell would we do that? Del is better than any "vet" the Pacers could get anyway...

how old is del nowadays anyway? old man definitely had some game.

ballism
01-22-2011, 07:29 AM
Well, Curry, Ekpe Udoh and Biedrins for 3 1st picks and expirings is a terrible deal for GSW. Biedrins is a bit overpayed, but not 'Eddie Curry' overpayed. He's a decent starting young C. You can do much worse than pay 9 mil a year for a 24 year old center who can give you 11-11 when totally healthy.

I'm sure GSW fans could live with Dunleavy and Murphy on their bench for a few months, if the rest of the deal gave them anything to cheer about. It won't though, it sets them back a few years, and there's no guarantee they'll find anything close to Curry, Udoh and Biedrins with those 3 picks.

johndozark
01-22-2011, 08:19 AM
Wow, S. Curry's highlights video is impressive.

But, if S. Curry and M. Ellis do not belong on the same team, neither do S. Curry and D. Collison.

S. Curry might be a hair better, but I would hate to break up what we have going with D. Collison.

Both Curry and Collison need to play in a similar offensive system to be fairly compared at their best.

But, for what it is worth, here are their Basketball-Reference.com career per-36 minutes comparisons on some key stats:

Collison:
FG% .470
3 pt. %: .390
FT% .871
Total Rebounds: 3.4
Assists: 6.8
Steals: 1.3
Blocks: 0.1
Turnovers: 3.2
Fouls: 1.6
Points: 16.4

Curry:
FG% .463
3 pt. %: .432
FT% .901
Total Rebounds: 4.2
Assists: 6.0
Steals: 2.0
Blocks: 0.3
Turnovers: 3.0
Fouls: 3.3
Points: 18.1

Pretty similar, really. My guess is that they also pretty similar in struggling a bit in one-on-one defense.

xIndyFan
01-22-2011, 08:34 AM
trading for curry means goodbye to collison. that much is obvious. they are both way too small to play together. if curry cannot play with ellis, then he cannot play with collison.

curry > collison. i get that. but is he enough better to make a real trade [ie one the GSW would take]. i don't think so. the truth is both collison and curry are average starting PG's right now.

pacer's have much bigger needs than a incremental improvement at the point. :shrug:

johndozark
01-22-2011, 09:03 AM
I agree.

Ozwalt72
01-22-2011, 09:30 AM
I'd trade Collison, George and an unprotected first for Curry.

I think.

xIndyFan
01-22-2011, 09:35 AM
I'd trade Collison, George and an unprotected first for Curry.

I think.

i wouldn't. curry would have to be derrick rose or rajon rondo to do that.

Ozwalt72
01-22-2011, 09:37 AM
i wouldn't. curry would have to be derrick rose or rajon rondo to do that.

Curry's a deadeye shooter with solid playmaking skills and quick hands. He's Collison on spinach.

The first feels like too much to me, but I'd at least have to think about it.

ballism
01-22-2011, 09:47 AM
For Derrick Rose I'd trade the whole team tbh.
I'd also do a Collison+George+1st for Curry though in a heartbeat. He has a chance to be close to Steve Nash. Maybe even better. Same IQ, toughness, shooting, quickness in the paint, better vertical, better awareness on defense - way below on passing, but he's improving at it so quickly, and already better at it than most pgs, including Rose.

His stats are quite missleading because he plays with Monta, and he didn't have any decent big to pass to last year, and for most of this year (with Lee being injured). I know Collison's stats are very missleading too due to the system, but Curry can be really really special. A superstar special.

Honestly, I think this whole 'Curry is available' thing is a bogus. Possibly even created by GSW themselves, trying to push up Monta's asking price.

BornReady#6
01-22-2011, 01:50 PM
Well, Curry, Ekpe Udoh and Biedrins for 3 1st picks and expirings is a terrible deal for GSW. Biedrins is a bit overpayed, but not 'Eddie Curry' overpayed. He's a decent starting young C. You can do much worse than pay 9 mil a year for a 24 year old center who can give you 11-11 when totally healthy.

I'm sure GSW fans could live with Dunleavy and Murphy on their bench for a few months, if the rest of the deal gave them anything to cheer about. It won't though, it sets them back a few years, and there's no guarantee they'll find anything close to Curry, Udoh and Biedrins with those 3 picks.

Well here is hoping that you see what Biedrins is by next season. He is only putting up 6 and 9, with only 2 double doubles, and has disappeared as of late, this season in what was supposed to be his break out season, and has reached his apex.


So basically the warriors get rid of 2 people they have shopped already this season, and a headache player that has a big contract and has never panned out, for tons of expiring contracts, and 3 first round draft picks, by the begining of the 2013 season, they could be the team in the west, especially with the all the old guys that will be soon done.

Biedrins is basically an athletic Pryzabilla, and if have continues to get hurt, he wont even be that, at best he is a good mediocre defensive back up center, most warriors fans consider him a bust, and dont want his contract.

Udoh has only played in a handful of games this season, and hasnt produced, thats why they have already shopped him.

Think about what they could do with Ellis and Lee as a base, then 2 draft picks, there own, and the Pacers, plus a top tier free agent, then two first rounders from next year, and another top tier free agent. Come on, it isnt that bad?

vnzla81
01-22-2011, 02:04 PM
Curry > Danny

Curry >> DC

If I had an opportunity to get Curry I would trade anybody.


<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/818YaFLwSuM" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

BornReady#6
01-22-2011, 02:25 PM
To make it fair, I should have given GSW the net 1st rounder, unprotected, and Nets kept GSW. With that in mind then they do this:


Draft Kanter with the nets pick and Jordan Hamilton with the Pacers pick. Then sign Wilson Chandler, Thad young and Big Baby with all your loot. Then resign Li, and bring back Azuibuke. I would even sign Greg oden to be your back up center.

Ellis, Li
Chandler, Azuibuke
Young, Hamilton
Lee, Big Baby
Kanter, Oden

Then they also have 2 1st rounders to pick or trade for 2012, and the 2012 free agency.
I love speculation.

d_c
01-22-2011, 04:06 PM
Udoh has only played in a handful of games this season, and hasnt produced, thats why they have already shopped him.

There's been no such indication. I mean, as part of a shot in the wind offer they made for Carmelo, he's probably been included. But no, there has been no indication that they're shopping Udoh.

The only benefit the Warriors would get is dumping Biedrins and his final 3 years, but that's it. Other than that, Monta, Lee and a couple of draft picks in what is expected to be a weak draft isn't much to build around.

ballism
01-22-2011, 04:13 PM
Well here is hoping that you see what Biedrins is by next season. He is only putting up 6 and 9, with only 2 double doubles, and has disappeared as of late, this season in what was supposed to be his break out season, and has reached his apex.


So basically the warriors get rid of 2 people they have shopped already this season, and a headache player that has a big contract and has never panned out, for tons of expiring contracts, and 3 first round draft picks, by the begining of the 2013 season, they could be the team in the west, especially with the all the old guys that will be soon done.

Biedrins is basically an athletic Pryzabilla, and if have continues to get hurt, he wont even be that, at best he is a good mediocre defensive back up center, most warriors fans consider him a bust, and dont want his contract.

Udoh has only played in a handful of games this season, and hasnt produced, thats why they have already shopped him.

Think about what they could do with Ellis and Lee as a base, then 2 draft picks, there own, and the Pacers, plus a top tier free agent, then two first rounders from next year, and another top tier free agent. Come on, it isnt that bad?

Well, we just seem to value these assets very differently.
First, I don't value all those first rounders all that much. Those are all mid round picks. Even if you change one of them to Nets unprotected, that's still likely out of top 5 with Granger and Rush on Nets, and in 2011, which might be a weak draft.
So, you are trading Stephen Curry, a rookie lottery pick, and 24 year old center for 3 crappy picks. You are basically blowing up one of the youngest cores in the NBA, when that core is already close to .500, and all you get are some bad picks and a chance to maybe sign someone?

I get that you aren't high on Biedrins, but the fact is, he's 24 and he has shown he can play. He's very inconsistent, he can't shoot free throws, he's been injured. But he's 24, and on his best day, he will get you 20 rebounds. Yeah, he gets 9 mil a year, that's overpayed for what he gives this year, underpayed if he ever returns to his best form - which is likely, since, again, he's 24.

Again, that's just my view, GSW fans probably have more insight about those assets. But I think this deal would be similar to Wizzards throwing in John Wall just to get rid of Gil Arenas a few months ago, and getting some expirings and mediocre picks back. And honestly, it would be better in Wizz case than in this GSW deal, since Arenas is payed 20 mil a year, and is actually old, slow, has guns in his locker and poops in his teammates' shoes. Honestly, when paying 9 mil to a 24 yo center (who's got the talent to be worth those money) is GSW fans' biggest problem, as a Pacers' fan I'm jealous. No need to blow up that team yet.

PacersPride
01-22-2011, 04:18 PM
Is Eric Gordon available next offseason (2012), as a RFA or something. Can we outbid the Clipps for Gordon? Also, anyone think Gordon would play for Indiana, playing alongside Griffen in LA would certainly have perks.

In reference to Curry, i would prefer to simply keep DC, then give up more than we really need to in order to acquire the guy. Additionally, there may be contracts that teams have to move after the new CBA takes precedence.

d_c
01-22-2011, 04:21 PM
Is Eric Gordon available next offseason (2012), as a RFA or something. Can we outbid the Clipps for Gordon? Also, anyone think Gordon would play for Indiana, playing alongside Griffen in LA would certainly have perks.


Assuming it doesn't change in the next CBA, the home team can always offer the most money. And after next season, the Clips are allowed to match any offer. I'll assume that rule in the CBA isn't changing either.

Whatever the case, the Clips can keep Eric Gordon as long as they're willing to pay up. And they will be forced into paying up.

ballism
01-22-2011, 04:27 PM
Donald Sterling. This guy makes me doubt if Gordon and Griffin will stay with Clippers for long.

BornReady#6
01-22-2011, 04:40 PM
Donald Sterling. This guy makes me doubt if Gordon and Griffin will stay with Clippers for long.



Thats sensible, but comparing throwing in Biedrins on the Curry deal to Wall on the Gilbert is questionable.

ballism
01-22-2011, 05:20 PM
Thats sensible, but comparing throwing in Biedrins on the Curry deal to Wall on the Gilbert is questionable.

Well, I suppose lets agree to disagree. I would never ever consider throwing in Curry just to get rid of a questionable contract. Not even if Biedrins was Arenas. When we payed Troy Murphy 11 mil a year, I never thought "hey, lets trade Murphy away, give them Granger, and get some mediocre picks, this will make us good". I believe Curry is more talented than Granger btw, and Biedrins is better, cheaper and younger than Murphy.
It seems you just don't value GSW talent as much as I do, so we can never agree here :)

BornReady#6
01-22-2011, 06:53 PM
I like Golden State, and Curry, but it seems you have mis understood me. At no point did I mention throwing an all star caliber player in on a trade, I referred to throwing the bust, and overpaid Andris Biedrins in on the Curry deal. This guy is not worthy of a starting 5 spot at all, but would be a great back up on a championship team. He does have good defensive sills, but he is very inconsistent, and has zero leadership capabilities. The way most people see it is, he is a soon to be 25 year old, over paid, oft injured, headache. I loved him coming into the league, but like most Golden State big men that they have drafted as of recent, he just isnt panning out. This was to be his big break out season, instead its more like his most disappointing. After 7 years in the league, 5 developing, playing decent in 06-07, fighting injuries the two last season, Andris is proving that he is a bust.

The season numbers:

avg. 6pts, 9rebs.

only 2 games scored double digits (10,28)

only 1 double double(28&21)

only 11 games has he pulled down double digit rebounds (1/3)

averaging 27 minutes in 33 games and 33 starts


Im not saying he isnt a good basketball player at all, I am just saying that Udoh isnt working out, and has been shopped all season, Curry is on the block also, and Biedrins is an overpaid veteran player who has lost a ton of athletisicm and is basically Darko's clone now.

idioteque
01-22-2011, 07:04 PM
It would take Granger/DC for Curry/Biedrens to get Curry to Indianapolis. I doubt the Pacers would be willing to give up that much and I probably wouldn't blame them. Curry could be really great, but DC will be fine next year if the new regime implements an offense conducive to his strengths.

pwee31
01-22-2011, 07:10 PM
Wow.. talk about 3 unnecessary pages. Curry is not going to be a Pacer

xBulletproof
01-22-2011, 07:12 PM
Wow.. talk about 3 unnecessary pages. Curry is not going to be a Pacer

According to a lot of people on here, Collison was never going to be a Pacer either. Rule nothing out.

croz24
01-22-2011, 07:15 PM
Wow.. talk about 3 unnecessary pages. Curry is not going to be a Pacer

and look at you contributing to the 3, soon to be 4 pages.

pwee31
01-22-2011, 07:21 PM
According to a lot of people on here, Collison was never going to be a Pacer either. Rule nothing out.

I thought a lot of people thought Collison was a possibility, seeing that he was backing up Chris Paul and all :confused:

Point guard is the least of our worries. Why trade away the core of your team to start from scratch with Curry?

I mean he's a good player... but so is Collison?

Some folks on here are quick to jump to the new best thing in their mind. Collison is starting to play really good ball, even under the coach we have.

Curry made available (for Melo discussions by the way) and folks are throwing are players under the bus. It's funny b/c I remember around draft time, a lot of folks didn't even want Curry until the Knicks liked him at #8.

Won't even bring up those drooling over Favors (who hasn't shown much behind Humphries)

xBulletproof
01-22-2011, 07:32 PM
Won't even bring up those drooling over Favors (who hasn't shown much behind Humphries)

Agreed on Curry, but it's not impossible. That's all.

Favors ..... you're just wrong about. Per minute he's on par with Garnett and Dwight Howard in their first season. He's 19 and playing 20 minutes per game. I have no idea how that's not showing much. And he's the same age as Garnett and Howard were straight out of high school, even with a year of college.

Merz
01-22-2011, 07:46 PM
I would pull off this 3 way trade and be done with it all, and definitely play Curry at the 2, he did it that first year in college and balled, and Eric Gordon isnt that much bigger and gets things done.

Pacers get: Favors, Curry, Outlaw, Biedrins, Brandan Wright, Morrow, Lakers 2011 1st round pick through the nets

Collison, Price,
Curry, Morrow, Dahntay
George, Outlaw, Posey
Favors, Hansbrough, Wright
Roy, Biedrins, Foster


Why?? Because it get us young, real young, gives us a great 2nd unit also, we move to the end of the 1st round, but we are still in it.



Nets get: Granger, Ekpe Udoh, Radmanovic(expirer), Gadzuric(expirer), Rush, and Lance.

Harris, Farmar, Uzoh
Rush, Lance, Sasha
Granger, James, Radmanovic
Udoh, Humphries,
Lopez, Gadz, Petro

why? They keep both of their 2011 and 2012 1st and 2 round picks, while getting Granger, Udoh, and Rush, making them relevant again.



Warriors get: Murphy, Ford, Dunleavy, McBob, their 2011 1st round pick back from the nets, Pacers 2011 1st round pick, Rockets 2012 1st rounder through the nets..

Ellis, Ford, Law, Lin
Dunleavy, Bell,
Wright, Williams,
Murphy, McBob,
Lee, Admunson


Why?? This move puts the Warriors to build whatever kind of team they want this offseason, and the picks, and money to make it happen. With a base of all stars Ellis and Lee, 2 1st round picks this year and next year, and a decent free agent class this year, and an excellent one next year, the warriors could be true contenders, and not just maverick pretenders.

I know its a lot, but I think it works, and I like it.

That trade would Curry Favor(s) with me.

Not so much for the Warriors...no...no terrible pun for that one.

Tom White
01-22-2011, 07:51 PM
I really don't think we have the pieces to get Curry. We would have to give up Granger, Hibbert, and maybe DC to get him. They are trying to make a play for Melo. I would love Curry. I would give up Granger straight up for him, but not him and Hibbert.

You gotta be kidding, right?

ballism
01-22-2011, 08:06 PM
It would take Granger/DC for Curry/Biedrens to get Curry to Indianapolis. I doubt the Pacers would be willing to give up that much and I probably wouldn't blame them. Curry could be really great, but DC will be fine next year if the new regime implements an offense conducive to his strengths.

Yep, that's more in line with what I think Curry's value is. Not saying we should do it - when Hibbert is extended, it would be too pricey for two limited centers. Besides, Collison/Monta backcourt doesn't make much sense for GSW either. But Curry is already at Granger's level or very close to it, and his upside imo is by far bigger than Granger's or Collison's. So it would be a fair deal.
Anyway, I don't know why GSW would trade Curry at all. The way I see it, he's their cornerstone. If they want to trade anyone, it should be Monta while his value is high due to good season.
As for Ekpe Udoh, he's kind of a dissappointment for a 6th pick, but that's because he's been injured for the first few months, and hasn't played at full strength yet. He's definitelly not a throw-in at this point. He has load of talent. Who would just throw away a super athletic big guy without seeing what he can do first?

In the end, I'm not ready to believe the whole 'GSW is shopping Curry/Udoh' idea. Maybe they can be had for a superstar, but that goes for almost any player except 10 or so untouchables.

pwee31
01-22-2011, 08:33 PM
Agreed on Curry, but it's not impossible. That's all.

Favors ..... you're just wrong about. Per minute he's on par with Garnett and Dwight Howard in their first season. He's 19 and playing 20 minutes per game. I have no idea how that's not showing much. And he's the same age as Garnett and Howard were straight out of high school, even with a year of college.

I personally don't see it. I really wanted Favors around draft time if we were to land #2 or #3, but I just don't see it. He'll likely be a solid player, but I don't see the franchise type player. I've been wrong before.. might be wrong now, but that's my opinion

Pacersalltheway10
01-22-2011, 09:55 PM
I'd trade Collison, George and an unprotected first for Curry.

I think.

seriously? :eek: no offence but that's got to be one of the worst deals the pacers can do. You dont know how collison and george are going to turn out( which both look pretty good) but you also dont know how well curry is going to turn out.

BornReady#6
01-22-2011, 10:36 PM
Why do some poster get mad at posts they don't agree with? Ill admit this is a far fetched trade, and will probably wont happen, but its fun to speculate, off the speculation. There isn't much going on in Pacer land as of late, and the I like many others enjoy analyzing and messing with NBA rosters, and it must be kinda popular, or we wouldn't have things like NBA2k11, or the NBA trade machine. I don't necessarily care for every thread that involves personal complaints or pd events, but I don't complain and question their existence. I guess I'm just trying to say, cant we all just get along?

Hicks
01-22-2011, 10:49 PM
and look at you contributing to the 3, soon to be 4 pages.

The difference being that he's making an observation about the thread as opposed to contributing to what is probably fruitless speculation. Not that there's anything wrong with doing either one.

1984
01-23-2011, 06:38 AM
Offense is our numbe on problem - thats why you don't trade Danny.

ballism
01-23-2011, 06:48 AM
Offense is our numbe on problem - thats why you don't trade Danny.

Subpar talent is our number one problem. You trade anyone if you can upgrade it.