PDA

View Full Version : Warriors after Granger: Old and dead rumor



90'sNBARocked
01-31-2011, 11:13 AM
http://www.mercurynews.com/warriors/ci_17239364?source=rss&nclick_check=1


The Warriors are not getting Carmelo Anthony. As much as they would like to add the Denver Nuggets' All-Star small forward, especially franchise CEO Joe Lacob, just too many obstacles exist for that to happen.

To be sure, it would take something dramatic for the Warriors to get a difference maker at all.

Despite the co-owner's wishes and general manager Larry Riley's efforts, that missing piece is just not out there right now. Things can change, considering the trade deadline is just under a month away. But the season-changing trade is unlikely, even with more than $17 million in expiring contracts as barter.

If it can happen, the Warriors' best bet at a major injection figures to be at small forward.

A legitimate center is a rare commodity in the NBA. Ditto for point guards. (According to one team source, it would take a monster offer to pry Stephen Curry from the Warriors' hands.) The Warriors are locked in with $80 million man David Lee at power forward, and good luck acquiring a shooting guard better than Monta Ellis -- and at $11 million a year.

That leaves small forward. The options at that position are not as unreasonable as the Warriors' nabbing their major need -- a formidable center.

"If Dorell Wright is coming off the bench," one team source said, "we're a really good team. That would solve two problems. It would give us the upgrade in talent, and it would bolster our bench significantly."

Who might such a player be? (Warning: don't get your hopes up.)

Andre Iguodala: The Philadelphia forward has been on the Warriors' radar for a while, according to team sources. But a few things are working against the Warriors. The 76ers (20-26) are eighth in the Eastern Conference, making it unlikely they'll dump a star while in the playoff chase. Rookie Evan Turner has struggled, making Iguodala less expendable. And the Warriors' lack of a desirable center deprives them of the bargaining chip the 76ers need.

Luol Deng: The Chicago forward would give the Warriors better size and rebounding at that position. He also would be the Warriors' most-efficient scorer at that position in recent memory. Obstacles? Deng is due $40 million over next three seasons. Is he that good? Also, Chicago would probably want Ellis but would have to settle for expiring contracts. Is that enough?

Josh Smith: The business of basketball suggests Atlanta will eventually have to trade someone. After posting the third-best record in the East last season, the Hawks are looking at a No. 4 or 5 seed despite having the eighth-highest payroll. Chances are the Hawks won't retool soon. But if they did, Smith would seem to fit at small forward for the Warriors. He affects the games on both ends.

Jeff Green: He is a pending restricted free agent. But Oklahoma City can't go crazy with his salary because it has to save room for Russell Westbrook's extension. Many believe Green is playing out of position at power forward. Instead of keeping Green, the Thunder might want to save the money to go after a true power forward in the future. It would be risky to trade a starter on a rising team, but if Oklahoma City did, Green could work for the Warriors and might come at a good price.

Danny Granger: The Warriors wouldn't mind getting their hands on the Indiana star, whom they passed on in the 2005 draft for Ike Diogu. Granger is a difference maker who could be even better with more help around him. But the Pacers have some $30 million coming off the books. They will be in rebuild mode with Granger and Darren Collison as the core.

Ellis, Udoh, a couple no 1's?

Taterhead
01-31-2011, 11:18 AM
You think Granger is worth Ellis, Udoh and 2 first round picks?

vnzla81
01-31-2011, 11:18 AM
Monta E for Danny? All day and 20 times on Sunday..... :cool:

Trader Joe
01-31-2011, 11:18 AM
I don't see a deal between the two teams that makes sense unless they are willing to part with Ellis.

LetsTalkPacers
01-31-2011, 11:18 AM
Nope, no thanks Ill pass. No deal.

90'sNBARocked
01-31-2011, 11:28 AM
The article said it was not very likely,

outside of Ellis and Udoh , and picks I cant see anything else of value on their roster

Speed
01-31-2011, 11:39 AM
How about Stephen Curry? I can't believe how far he's falling, so quickly.

Heisenberg
01-31-2011, 11:41 AM
Am I the only one that just isn't that interested in Ellis? There's no doubt he's an elite scorer and would be the best player on our team, he just has such defensive limitations and needs built around so specifically it's hard for me to really "want" him if he's going to be a #1 guy.

90'sNBARocked
01-31-2011, 11:41 AM
How about Stephen Curry? I can't believe how far he's falling, so quickly.

I like Curry, although the Warriors GM backed off a little and said that Curry would take a "monster offer" to move him

Problem I see is a very small DC/ Curry backcourt

pacer4ever
01-31-2011, 11:44 AM
I perfer wright why would they want a more $ Dorell Wright who just aves a few more points

Dorell is a steal at 3ys 11m

xIndyFan
01-31-2011, 11:47 AM
no way curry and collison can make up the guard spots. they are just too little. monta ellis >>> darren collison and GSW can't make the 2 little guys into a decent guard combination. there is no way the pacers could with curry and collison.

granger for ellis is not a good deal. not for a team that has playoff plans. ellis is showy, but little. once the teams get to the playoffs, ellis will be posted, shot over and generally abused on defense.

aaronb
01-31-2011, 11:47 AM
How about Stephen Curry? I can't believe how far he's falling, so quickly.


I'd probably do it if it was Curry, a 1st round pick, and VLad Rad (expiring)and Dan Gadzuric (expiring) for Danny and James Posey.

That would clear another 7 Million off the books this summer. Give us 2 first rounders in this summers draft. Clear the 3 for Paul George. AND give us a younger high upside 2 prospect in Curry.


Then we would also have tons of cap space to help facilitate trades over the summer and next year. Similar to how the Memphis Grizzlies have used their cap space over the last couple of years.

Mourning
01-31-2011, 11:48 AM
Am I the only one that just isn't that interested in Ellis? There's no doubt he's an elite scorer and would be the best player on our team, he just has such defensive limitations and needs built around so specifically it's hard for me to really "want" him if he's going to be a #1 guy.

I'm right there with you.

Deadshot
01-31-2011, 11:51 AM
Nothing in this article actually made me believe the Warriors are "after Danny." Would he fill one of their needs? Sure, but that doesn't mean they are actually pursuing him.

Hibbert
01-31-2011, 12:18 PM
I'd do David Lee and Steph Curry for Danny and Paul George + 1st Rd Pick

flox
01-31-2011, 12:22 PM
If we could get either curry or ellis (who is playing at an all star level this year), i'm all for it.

Speed
01-31-2011, 12:25 PM
I'd do David Lee and Steph Curry for Danny and Paul George + 1st Rd Pick

Not me. I'm that high on PG. Who would play Small Forward?

Aw Heck
01-31-2011, 12:25 PM
I think the thread title is a bit misleading. It's less "Warriors after Granger" and more like "Columnist speculates on small forwards that could possibly be acquired by the Warriors."

It's like one of my friends writing an article on what I might want for dinner tonight and listing:
Pizza
Salad
Wings
Chicken
Casserole

And then someone else starting a thread, <b>Aw Heck eating Wings.</b>

graphic-er
01-31-2011, 12:26 PM
DC, Ellis, PG, PF to acquire this off season, and Roy. I could be happy with that. I like Granger alot, but Ellis's offensive abilities are in another league.

d_c
01-31-2011, 12:43 PM
Title of thread should be changed to: "Writer speculates on 5 players players the Warriors could go after but probably won't."

MyFavMartin
01-31-2011, 12:47 PM
I'd do David Lee and Steph Curry for Danny and Paul George + 1st Rd Pick

David Lee isn't much better than what I think Tyler will be and Curry would be redundant with DC. Meanwhile, we're giving up our #1 player (DG) and top young talent (PG) and a first?

That trade would do nothing to address our needs and set us back talent-wise, significantly, and chemistry-wise.

Give me a dominant post presence for Danny or give me nothing.

90'sNBARocked
01-31-2011, 12:49 PM
If the title aggravates anyone feel free to change it

I didnt put that much thought into it

d_c
01-31-2011, 12:49 PM
Give me a dominant post presence for Danny or give me nothing.

You're probably looking at Al Jefferson or nothing. Maybe Derrick Favors if NJ still feels like pulling a big deal after failing to get Carmelo. I'd look at that.

Not getting Aldridge, Amare, Griffin, etc...

CableKC
01-31-2011, 02:04 PM
Trading Monta for Granger is more of a lateral move where we make a "positional trade".

To me...It only makes sense to pair Granger with a Player like Monta....or vice versa.

cdash
01-31-2011, 02:06 PM
Ahhh, the grass is always greener. Granger for Ellis is a lateral move that accomplishes nothing.

CableKC
01-31-2011, 02:15 PM
Ahhh, the grass is always greener. Granger for Ellis is a lateral move that accomplishes nothing.
It is a positional move though that allows us to better fit Monta ( at the Starting SG spot ) next to PG ( at the SF spot ) with BRush backing the both of them up.

But realistically, getting Granger and Monta on the same Team is unlikely for both the Warriors and the Pacers

Really?
01-31-2011, 02:16 PM
Hummm... after all of this trade talk I am thinking that we Really should hold on to Danny... If we want to rebuild he would be a good peace to keep around. His 3 point ability and him being able to play the 4 at times will really be valuable later in his career.

p.s. not touching Ellis if we did do a trade with GS I would rather want Curry.

ilive4sports
01-31-2011, 02:17 PM
It is a positional move though that allows us to better fit Monta ( at the Starting SG spot ) next to PG ( at the SF spot ) with BRush backing the both of them up.

But realistically, getting Granger and Monta on the same Team is unlikely for both the Warriors and the Pacers

And thats so much better than DC, PG, and DG? Doubt it, plus defensively the combo of PG and DG is much better than Ellis and PG.

flox
01-31-2011, 02:18 PM
Ahhh, the grass is always greener. Granger for Ellis is a lateral move that accomplishes nothing.

He's 2 years younger. Thats huge for the primes of of core. In 5 years, Granger is out of his prime, while Ellis, Hibbert, Collison, and George will be at or near their primes.

cdash
01-31-2011, 02:25 PM
He's 2 years younger. Thats huge for the primes of of core. In 5 years, Granger is out of his prime, while Ellis, Hibbert, Collison, and George will be at or near their primes.

You do know why the Warriors are contemplating trading either Ellis or Curry, right? Because they are a horrible defensive combination that gets lit up by opposing backcourts. You trade Danny for Ellis and all of a sudden you have Ellis and Collison in the backcourt, replicating that same problem Golden State has. Yeah, he's two years younger, and that's great, but basketball wise I'm not sure it makes a great deal of sense.

flox
01-31-2011, 02:29 PM
You do know why the Warriors are contemplating trading either Ellis or Curry, right? Because they are a horrible defensive combination that gets lit up by opposing backcourts. You trade Danny for Ellis and all of a sudden you have Ellis and Collison in the backcourt, replicating that same problem Golden State has. Yeah, he's two years younger, and that's great, but basketball wise I'm not sure it makes a great deal of sense.

Then you get rid of Collison. It's simple. I'd much rather have Ellis/Rush/George and whoever we get for Collison than the status quo.

cdash
01-31-2011, 02:30 PM
Then you get rid of Collison. It's simple.

Simple and stupid. You make a largely lateral move trading away your best player for another team's best player, but this guy you traded for isn't a great fit. So to accomodate this guy, you trade another member of your core away for what? You are creating a lot more problems than you are solving here.

flox
01-31-2011, 02:34 PM
Simple and stupid. You make a largely lateral move trading away your best player for another team's best player, but this guy you traded for isn't a great fit. So to accomodate this guy, you trade another member of your core away for what? You are creating a lot more problems than you are solving here.

Lets be honest here, is Collison an elite point guard or someone you could build a team around?

I'm not saying Monta or Granger are, I don't think they are either, but I feel like if you don't think Collison or Monta can coexist, you trade the lesser of the two.

I personally think they can exist, but if they can't, you trade Collison. I feel confident that a lineup of Collison/Ellis/George/Player/Hibbert would work well.

cdash
01-31-2011, 02:36 PM
Lets be honest here, is Collison an elite point guard or someone you could build a team around?

I'm not saying Monta or Granger are, I don't think they are either, but I feel like if you don't think Collison or Monta can coexist, you trade the lesser of the two.

I personally think they can exist, but if they can't, you trade Collison. I feel confident that a lineup of Collison/Ellis/George/Player/Hibbert would work well.

Or you have a little bit of foresight and realize that Monta isn't a great fit and you don't trade for him. It's really that simple. If you are going to trade Granger, you are going to do it to fill holes you already have, not creating more.

Marlin
01-31-2011, 02:41 PM
Why are so many writers in love with the fact that the Pacers will be in rebuild mode after this season because we'll be way under the salary cap?

Newsfalsh, we've been rebuilding for a while. Why would we want to rebuild and give away our best pieces for rebuilding sake now that we can build a competitive team, which is something we've suffered years for? How can that make even remotely sense, I mean, even if you don't watch the P's it's pretty much common sense.

We're closing in to the end of the rebuilding process, not the other way around. Looks pretty clear to me.

Trophy
01-31-2011, 02:44 PM
Ellis is a bit overrated, IMO.

Yeah racks up a bunch of points every game, but he's not a team player.

flox
01-31-2011, 02:44 PM
Or you have a little bit of foresight and realize that Monta isn't a great fit and you don't trade for him. It's really that simple. If you are going to trade Granger, you are going to do it to fill holes you already have, not creating more.

It depends on how you feel about the shooting guard position, and whether or not you believe that Paul George in the future is a 2 or a 3. If you think he's a 2- we have no problems. If you think he's a 3- we have a huge hole at shooting guard.

Speed
01-31-2011, 02:46 PM
Well with that 30 million Bird thinks you can get two quality players. That could make a difference.

What I don't get is, unless they DO use the expirings before the deadline, I don't think they do have all this money they are talking about.

One, they aren't getting 30 million under the Salary Cap, they are losing existing salary to get further below the LUXURY Tax threshold.

Two, who knows how the new Salary alignments will work under the new CBA.

So '30 million this summer' always looks really, really wrong to me.

Maybe, count55 will do an updated article on this whole idea to supplement his work on the Salary cap sticky thread.

aaronb
01-31-2011, 02:47 PM
Why are so many writers in love with the fact that the Pacers will be in rebuild mode after this season because we'll be way under the salary cap?

Newsfalsh, we've been rebuilding for a while. Why would we want to rebuild and give away our best pieces for rebuilding sake now that we can build a competitive team, which is something we've suffered years for? How can that make even remotely sense, I mean, even if you don't watch the P's it's pretty much common sense.

We're closing in to the end of the rebuilding process, not the other way around. Looks pretty clear to me.


Most of the writers are saying that because we are a bad team. Then they look at our roster and realize that the players aren't very good. Coupled with the fact that we just fired our coach, and the GM is openly politic-ing for a contract extension that hasn't come yet.

It's totally reasonable for people outside of Indiana to think the Pacers are needing to rebuild.

Really?
01-31-2011, 02:48 PM
Why are so many writers in love with the fact that the Pacers will be in rebuild mode after this season because we'll be way under the salary cap?

Newsfalsh, we've been rebuilding for a while. Why would we want to rebuild and give away our best pieces for rebuilding sake now that we can build a competitive team, which is something we've suffered years for? How can that make even remotely sense, I mean, even if you don't watch the P's it's pretty much common sense.

We're closing in to the end of the rebuilding process, not the other way around. Looks pretty clear to me.

True and False,

Have been rebuilding for a while but we still have a long way to go. We still have rebuilding with the players, with the coaching and mindset of the team, I think we still have about 3 yrs left of rebuilding to do where we can become a team that can really compete... it's going to take a couple of years for the players to get really comfortable with the new coach(whoever he/she) may be, and then to get into a winning mentality, and to build up our 2nd team.

90'sNBARocked
01-31-2011, 02:51 PM
Simple and stupid. You make a largely lateral move trading away your best player for another team's best player, but this guy you traded for isn't a great fit. So to accomodate this guy, you trade another member of your core away for what? You are creating a lot more problems than you are solving here.

it wouldnt just be Monta bro

I was saying Ellis, Udoh, and some No 1's

might not change your opinion though, and I respect that

CableKC
01-31-2011, 02:52 PM
Lets be honest here, is Collison an elite point guard or someone you could build a team around?

I'm not saying Monta or Granger are, I don't think they are either, but I feel like if you don't think Collison or Monta can coexist, you trade the lesser of the two.

I personally think they can exist, but if they can't, you trade Collison. I feel confident that a lineup of Collison/Ellis/George/Player/Hibbert would work well.
Given that we have only seen DC play under a Coach that runs an offense that does not cater to the strength of most Point Guards ( just talking about DCs stint here in PacerLand this season...not last season )....I do not know whether we have an elite PG or not in Collison.

For now, I will say that we have a solid piece that can complement Granger for now.

Heisenberg
01-31-2011, 02:54 PM
He's 2 years younger. Thats huge for the primes of of core. In 5 years, Granger is out of his prime, while Ellis, Hibbert, Collison, and George will be at or near their primes.People on this forum are far too caught up with age. Ellis came straight out of high school, they were both in the 05 draft class. Granger's played all of 30 or so games worth of minutes more in his career. Ellis's entire game is based on his speed and quickness. Granger's is anything but.

CableKC
01-31-2011, 02:56 PM
it wouldnt just be Monta bro

I was saying Ellis, Udoh, and some No 1's

might not change your opinion though, and I respect that
The Warriors would be stupid to trade Ellis+Udoh+multiple 1st round picks for Granger That maybe an offer that they send to the Nuggets and/or the Heat for Melo or Lebron...but not for a borderline All-Star like Granger.

vnzla81
01-31-2011, 02:56 PM
So first I'm agreeing with UB and now in this thread I'm agreeing with Flox? :wtf:

cdash
01-31-2011, 02:59 PM
It depends on how you feel about the shooting guard position, and whether or not you believe that Paul George in the future is a 2 or a 3. If you think he's a 2- we have no problems. If you think he's a 3- we have a huge hole at shooting guard.

I think he is a 3, and I agree we have a huge hole at SG. I don't think Monta Ellis is the answer though.

cdash
01-31-2011, 03:00 PM
it wouldnt just be Monta bro

I was saying Ellis, Udoh, and some No 1's

might not change your opinion though, and I respect that

Yeah, but that is entirely unrealistic. They wouldn't give up that sort of king's ransom for Granger. If they did, I'd probably do it.

flox
01-31-2011, 03:08 PM
People on this forum are far too caught up with age. Ellis came straight out of high school, they were both in the 05 draft class. Granger's played all of 30 or so games worth of minutes more in his career. Ellis's entire game is based on his speed and quickness. Granger's is anything but.

That is a legitimate discussion and a good concern. You are pretty close about the minutes played, 13702 for Granger, 12064 for Ellis. But Ellis is younger- his body is probably in a better shape. Also, Granger is still currently playing worse- while Ellis is playing better- I feel like Granger is in more danger of regressing than Ellis.

Also, a fastbreak team of Collison/Ellis/George/McRoberts/X would be fantastic to watch.


I think he is a 3, and I agree we have a huge hole at SG. I don't think Monta Ellis is the answer though.

Are there better answers out there that we could realistically get? I don't really think so.

90'sNBARocked
01-31-2011, 03:08 PM
Yeah, but that is entirely unrealistic. They wouldn't give up that sort of king's ransom for Granger. If they did, I'd probably do it.

true

just as I agree with you I would not trade DG for Ellis only

cdash
01-31-2011, 03:10 PM
Are there better answers out there that we could realistically get? I don't really think so.

Can we realistically get Monta? I don't really think so. I have backed off on Iguodala, but I'd rather have him than Monta.

flox
01-31-2011, 03:12 PM
Can we realistically get Monta? I don't really think so. I have backed off on Iguodala, but I'd rather have him than Monta.

Iggy is a good choice, but I feel our offense is worse because I think a lot of times we don't have shot creation, and out of the three (granger iggy monta), I'd have monta for his shot creation ability alone. It would help our our offense a lot.


As for if we could get Monta..I don't see how Granger for Monta wouldn't work.

cdash
01-31-2011, 03:19 PM
Iggy is a good choice, but I feel our offense is worse because I think a lot of times we don't have shot creation, and out of the three (granger iggy monta), I'd have monta for his shot creation ability alone. It would help our our offense a lot.


As for if we could get Monta..I don't see how Granger for Monta wouldn't work.

I agree with that, and share those concerns. I just prefer Iguodala's size, defensive abilities, and all around game. He's a very good and willing passer and he doesn't turn into a black hole on offense like Monta has the tendency to do.

Hibbert
01-31-2011, 03:32 PM
Not me. I'm that high on PG. Who would play Small Forward?

A free agent we sign in the summer. Jeff Green, Wilson Chandler, Tayshaun Prince, Thad Young, AK 47, even Grant Hill. Neither Granger nor George will be as good as Curry is and will be.

Pacersalltheway10
01-31-2011, 03:45 PM
Paul George will be far better than curry . No way I would give up on him already for curry when we already have our future pg. Trading Ellis for granger is only a lateral move if not below lateral.

Taterhead
01-31-2011, 04:08 PM
Ellis is a bit overrated, IMO.

Yeah racks up a bunch of points every game, but he's not a team player.

That sounds more like Danny Granger than Monta Ellis.

Hibbert
01-31-2011, 04:25 PM
Paul George will be far better than curry . No way I would give up on him already for curry when we already have our future pg. Trading Ellis for granger is only a lateral move if not below lateral.

How do you know this? Look what Curry did his rookie year when everyone doubted him. Cant tell me PG hasnt gotten the PT, the first 5 games he got his chance but was not able to do anything with it and the month of Jan. he has played every game and getting 25 + minutes the last 5 games.

Curry is used wrong at GS, he is a 2 not a point even though he is a bit undersized for the 2 spot he still has a sweet shot and quick release which gives him a major advantage.

jhondog28
01-31-2011, 04:28 PM
If Ellis was not on GS then he would be a much bigger star than what he currently is. I would bet that if you polled all the NBA GMs they would rather have Ellis than Granger right now based on on court production. The guy has more talent than most in the league. Problem with Ellis on our team is that he would make our back court tiny and we would get eaten alive. He is just not a good fit at the 2 for us. But he would be gangbusters on a team liek Chicago or playing alongside Jason kidd in Dallas.

cdash
01-31-2011, 04:35 PM
How do you know this? Look what Curry did his rookie year when everyone doubted him. Cant tell me PG hasnt gotten the PT, the first 5 games he got his chance but was not able to do anything with it and the month of Jan. he has played every game and getting 25 + minutes the last 5 games.

Curry is used wrong at GS, he is a 2 not a point even though he is a bit undersized for the 2 spot he still has a sweet shot and quick release which gives him a major advantage.

...who doubted him?

Hibbert
01-31-2011, 04:44 PM
...who doubted him?

A lot of the experts, most memorably Jay Bilas on draft night. Basically saying he was a great college player but didnt see him transitioning into the NBA.

cdash
01-31-2011, 04:45 PM
A lot of the experts, most memorably Jay Bilas on draft night. Basically saying he was a great college player but didnt see him transitioning into the NBA.

I never understood why they had Jay Bilas at the draft. That dude doesn't know **** about the NBA.

I thought most people had come around on him by that point.

Pacersalltheway10
01-31-2011, 04:56 PM
How do you know this? Look what Curry did his rookie year when everyone doubted him. Cant tell me PG hasnt gotten the PT, the first 5 games he got his chance but was not able to do anything with it and the month of Jan. he has played every game and getting 25 + minutes the last 5 games.

Curry is used wrong at GS, he is a 2 not a point even though he is a bit undersized for the 2 spot he still has a sweet shot and quick release which gives him a major advantage.

what do you expect from the first five games of a players career??? Curry didn't do that good in his first five games either. And he has averaged 11 point per game in the last five games. Curry would be a good offensive SG but would killed killed on the defensive end. He can read defences for steals ( PG can do that as well) but he can't go one on one vs a 6'8 shooting guard. but George can. Paul George given experience will be an exellent scorer AND defensive player. It's not all about offense. George is already a better SG than curry. Curry is a pure point guard. we have a point guard and i don't see why Collison for curry would work either. Just another lateral move just like ellis for granger.

oxxo
01-31-2011, 04:56 PM
As I've said over and over. Monta Ellis = offensive black hole. He's been a little better this year, but that's still his game. Same reason AI was never a winner.

And again, before people start saying Ellis = Granger. Volume shooting does not = offensive black hole.

trey
01-31-2011, 05:04 PM
Man I am a loyal fan and I like loyal players. I like Granger a lot and I like that he has been loyal to us, I wouldn't trade him for anyone. I don't know why it seems like a lot of people on this board are eager to trade Danny when he's done so many good things for us, our team's image, and has been such a good influence on our players.

PaceBalls
01-31-2011, 05:15 PM
I'd rather get Curry than Ellis.

90'sNBARocked
01-31-2011, 05:27 PM
I never understood why they had Jay Bilas at the draft. That dude doesn't know **** about the NBA.

I thought most people had come around on him by that point.

Well I tend to agree

but he did nail it when he was on ESPN on draft night saying how he couldnt believe all the teams passing up Brook Lopez

Pacersalltheway10
01-31-2011, 05:36 PM
Well with that 30 million Bird thinks you can get two quality players. That could make a difference.

What I don't get is, unless they DO use the expirings before the deadline, I don't think they do have all this money they are talking about.

One, they aren't getting 30 million under the Salary Cap, they are losing existing salary to get further below the LUXURY Tax threshold.

Two, who knows how the new Salary alignments will work under the new CBA.

So '30 million this summer' always looks really, really wrong to me.

Maybe, count55 will do an updated article on this whole idea to supplement his work on the Salary cap sticky thread.

They are less than $1 million above the cap right now with the current salary cap. With dunleavy, foster, solo, ford and tinsleys 45 million all coming off the books this summer we will be $30 mil below the cap if they keep the current cap and salary cap restrictions and such.

I agree though who knows what could happen with the CBA this summer.

BornReady#6
01-31-2011, 05:39 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 GSW #1 pick from this years draft and 2012 1st and 2 round picks, while getting Granger, Udoh, and Rush, making them relevant again.



Warriors get: Murphy, Ford, Dunleavy, McBob, the Nets 2011 1st round pick 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.Then in the offseason, draft Kanter with the Nets pick, and Jordan Hamilton with the Pacers pick and Keith Benson in the 2nd round. Then they sign Wilson Chandler, Thad Young, Big Baby and bring back Azuibuke and Li to help develop Hamilton the first couple years. Then you have a good young lineup, 2 first rounders in 2012 to use or trade, and money to work with in 2012 free agency.


Ellis, Li
Chandler, Azubuike
Young, Hamilton
Lee, Baby
Kanter, Benson



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

Jon Theodore
01-31-2011, 05:43 PM
If the title aggravates anyone feel free to change it

I didnt put that much thought into it

we know

flox
01-31-2011, 05:48 PM
Well with that 30 million Bird thinks you can get two quality players. That could make a difference.

What I don't get is, unless they DO use the expirings before the deadline, I don't think they do have all this money they are talking about.

One, they aren't getting 30 million under the Salary Cap, they are losing existing salary to get further below the LUXURY Tax threshold.

Two, who knows how the new Salary alignments will work under the new CBA.

So '30 million this summer' always looks really, really wrong to me.

Maybe, count55 will do an updated article on this whole idea to supplement his work on the Salary cap sticky thread.

So our currently salary is 65,098,045, and the current salary cap is 58,044,000 million. We have roughly 30 million dollars coming off of the books, giving us 36,340,157 million in committed salaries next year. You can subtract 800,000 if we cut AJ Price from this, however.

If we do not renounce rights on Josh McRoberts, his cap hold, or "amount of salary held from the Cap Space if we choose to resign him and keep his rights otherwise, we can get rid of that if we renounce rights", is 884,293. Add that to our salary to get us around 37 million. The same with foster, expect the price is around 9.9 million. I'm assuming Foster won't be back and we'll renounce our rights.


Assuming we renounce McRoberts, cut AJ, and Renounce everyone else, we'll have 35 million in committed salaries. Our cap space will be cap - committed salary.

Its definitely not 30 million. It's one of the big reasons why I'd rather trade. Especially with the cap probably expected to shrink under the new CBA. Assuming this year's salary cap stays constant, we'll have 21 million to sign X players. But I certainly don't expect it to stay the same. You are dead right on this Speed.

90'sNBARocked
01-31-2011, 05:50 PM
we know

oh your sooo cool

kid

BringJackBack
01-31-2011, 05:52 PM
90'sNBA is boss. :) :laugh:

BringJackBack
01-31-2011, 06:02 PM
Wow lmao you definitely are the definition of "loose cannon" around here.

90'sNBARocked
01-31-2011, 06:05 PM
Wow lmao you definitely are the definition of "loose cannon" around here.

yep

at least I can admit I am a definite work, or lack thereof, in progress

Im just fired up about tonight

Maybe I will pick on a homeless man tonight so I can feel real tough

/green

For what its worth man, in this economy, the fact I am sane enough to type is impressive

:)

CableKC
01-31-2011, 06:05 PM
So first I'm agreeing with UB and now in this thread I'm agreeing with Flox? :wtf:
You know what that means:
:nuclear:

BringJackBack
01-31-2011, 06:09 PM
Yeah I really can't wait for tonight either

CableKC
01-31-2011, 06:09 PM
How do you know this? Look what Curry did his rookie year when everyone doubted him. Cant tell me PG hasnt gotten the PT, the first 5 games he got his chance but was not able to do anything with it and the month of Jan. he has played every game and getting 25 + minutes the last 5 games.

Curry is used wrong at GS, he is a 2 not a point even though he is a bit undersized for the 2 spot he still has a sweet shot and quick release which gives him a major advantage.
Actually, Curry is a much better Point Guard then Ellis is. I agree, with the way Monta dominates the ball....the Warriors are not effectively using Curry...but he's a very solid PG. If I had to choose either for my Team...I'd build upon Curry at the point rather then Monta. This is not to say that Monta isn't bad....it's just that the Warriors offense flows much better with Curry running the point while Monta is not on the court.

3rdStrike
02-01-2011, 01:30 AM
If the Warriors were desperate enough to offer Curry for Granger straight up you have to jump on it. Granger is gonna be 30 by the time the Pacers are good enough to make a serious run at this rate- best case scenario. I know ppl are attached to him but though he's a very good player he's not an elite talent and isn't going to further grow as a player at his age.

Steph Curry is elite. He would replace Granger's scoring immediately and improve the distribution on the floor. Shooting wise he's got Reggie Miller talent, but he's obviously a better passer and finisher around the rim. Collison - Curry - George > Collison - Rush - Granger. It isn't debatable now and in 2 yrs it'll be even more obvious.

Small pg/sg is not nearly as big a deal in the modern NBA as it's being made to be here.

To think people would scoff at acquiring a rising star but want the team to waste $/resources on dime a dozen, already peaked "B list" guys like Iguodala & KMart....jeez.

Ellis is untouchable and I don't see any other fit between both teams. Granger would make them better than Curry. Curry would make the Pacers better than Granger.

3 8 thee great t h
02-27-2012, 05:02 AM
Is this rumor officially dead.... Just asking?

ilive4sports
02-27-2012, 05:33 AM
Is this rumor officially dead.... Just asking?

considering its a year old, I would imagine so

crunk-juice
02-27-2012, 08:39 AM
Is this rumor officially dead.... Just asking?

:hmm:

pacers74
02-27-2012, 08:50 AM
Stop bringing up old rumors. It is a waste of time. I thought it was a new rumor until I opened it.

bphil
02-27-2012, 09:10 AM
Is there a way to un-thank someone?

Lance George
02-27-2012, 09:44 AM
Christ. I logged on, saw this thread, and thought there were new and exciting trade rumors swirling about. Now I'm disappointed. :(

Heisenberg
02-27-2012, 09:58 AM
cue rehashed 3 page Monta Ellis argument

Trader Joe
02-27-2012, 11:06 AM
This made me almost poop myself when I logged onto PD this morning.

Ace E.Anderson
02-27-2012, 12:00 PM
DAMNIT!

ilive4sports
02-27-2012, 12:44 PM
I hope Vnzla saw it and was running around his house in joy and then realized its a year old :D