PDA

View Full Version : Official Trade for Steph Curry Thread



beezer615
04-05-2011, 11:41 PM
Enough said. Trade options to get him?

Constellations
04-05-2011, 11:43 PM
Some Skittles and a key chain.

Scot Pollard
04-05-2011, 11:43 PM
Oh man...

It seems to me do we really need a PG or do we really want Josh Smith?

I vote, get Josh Smith to be our franchise player.

Psyren
04-05-2011, 11:46 PM
Oh man...

It seems to me do we really need a PG or do we really want Josh Smith?

I vote, get Josh Smith to be our franchise player.

Smith likely would impact the team more, at least in my opinion.

I still think DC is going to get much, much better.

Is he the answer to our PG problems? Who knows. But I'm certainly not ready to try and replace him.

Then again, I'm not against upgrading either.

daschysta
04-05-2011, 11:46 PM
Oh man...

It seems to me do we really need a PG or do we really want Josh Smith?

I vote, get Josh Smith to be our franchise player.

Josh Smith isn't even that highly valued by atlanta fans, and is currently leading atlanta to a win total in the mid 40's despite a roster that is wildly more talented than ours!!!!

Awesome franchise player.

He'd be a nice complimentary piece, but doesn't even resemble a first option.

Scot Pollard
04-05-2011, 11:50 PM
Josh Smith isn't even that highly valued by atlanta fans, and is currently leading atlanta to a win total in the mid 40's despite a roster that is wildly more talented than ours!!!!

Awesome franchise player.

He'd be a nice complimentary piece, but doesn't even resemble a first option.

Then we better get more.

I've people mention getting Al Jefferson and a decent young SG and we'll probably be an Atlanta-caliber team.

I'd take that and name Mike Woodson our head coach (much respect to Vogel too).

We'd be winning and solid in the playoffs and the attendance would rise a lot.

cdash
04-05-2011, 11:53 PM
How much would we really improve with Curry over Collison? They are both crappy defenders, and while I will concede that Curry is probably the better overall player, it is a marginal upgrade. Factoring in what we would have to trade away to acquire him, it's just not worth it. So I guess count me out on Curry.

For what it's worth, Josh Smith is not a franchise player. He is a second or third option on a good team who just happens to fit well with our current roster. He wouldn't make us a title contender (obviously), but no one we have any real chance of acquiring will vault us into contender status.

Kstat
04-06-2011, 12:06 AM
I'm on the fence on this issue. Can I be directed to the unoffical trade for Steph Curry thread?

Hicks
04-06-2011, 12:20 AM
I like Curry, I have nothing against Curry, but I don't consider him to be a massive upgrade over Collison, and he'd be pricey to acquire.

xIndyFan
04-06-2011, 12:25 AM
just a dissenting opinion. fwiw

there are maybe 12 or 15 PG's better than DC. and also better than curry. if you listed all the PG's in order of best to worst, there would be maybe 2 guys in between them. curry just isn't that much better than DC to make an expensive offer for him. plus he is little just like DC. with the same defensive problems. different offensive skills, but not that much different.

pacers don't need a different average PG, they need a top 5, top 10 PG type. someone a lot better than what they have. not just a little better.

beezer615
04-06-2011, 12:32 AM
so his offensive proficiency means nothing? Because you can never have too many guys that can drop 40 on an opponent in a moments notice.

CableKC
04-06-2011, 12:34 AM
There are no trade options to get him cuz there are no assets that anyone would want to give up get him.

A 1st round pick won't do it...much less BRush.

Pingu
04-06-2011, 12:47 AM
so his offensive proficiency means nothing? Because you can never have too many guys that can drop 40 on an opponent in a moments notice.

Agreed. Let's sign Anthony Johnson.

Constellations
04-06-2011, 01:22 AM
so his offensive proficiency means nothing? Because you can never have too many guys that can drop 40 on an opponent in a moments notice.

We need players to play defense. We have offensive firepower. We don't a PG who can drop 20 and then allow 20 on the other end from the other PG. We need players to score and play D. A Point guard specifically. Pass > Shoot > Swipe

croz24
04-06-2011, 01:58 AM
Agreed. Let's sign Anthony Johnson.

since when was anthony johnson a career 43.5% 3pt shooter, 91% ft shooter, 47% fg%? johnsons best season in terms of ppg, apg, spg, rpg, fg%, 3pt%, ft% has never even eclipsed curry's career averages in those numbers. and i think the majority of people who trash curry's defense, really haven't even watched the kid play. curry is very fundamentally sound defensively and typically is giving 100% effort.

The Jackson shimmy
04-06-2011, 06:21 AM
Im not necessarily in favor of trying to pursue Curry. But his hoops-IQ
at the PG spot is much higher than Collison's.

Will Galen
04-06-2011, 06:41 AM
Some Skittles and a key chain.

Depending on the key chain that's probably to much.

Constellations
04-06-2011, 06:42 AM
Depending on the key chain that's probably to much.

Maybe an extra bag of Skittles?

troyc11a
04-06-2011, 07:39 AM
I am not sure about Curry. I think I would rather go after George Hill. He is not only local, but he is big, can shoot, and defend. He might be a more realistic option.

pacergod2
04-06-2011, 11:24 AM
and i think the majority of people who trash curry's defense, really haven't even watched the kid play. curry is very fundamentally sound defensively and typically is giving 100% effort.

This is one thing I love about Curry though. He does play his heart out. I love his natural speed with the basketball. He is very much under control and attentive when playing with the ball. He has the height on DC by about 3 or 4 inches, but he just needs to gain strength. I think Curry is a definite upgrade over DC, because I see DC's biggest strength fading faster (quickness). I agree with some of the others here though, that I doubt we are a much better team with the assets we would have to give up to acquire him.

I think Josh Smith is a much better target in terms of "bang-for-your-buck" in what he would bring us.

No matter what moves we make in the off-season, I think we need to make sure that whoever we bring in must be a significant upgrade. If it is not significant, we are much better off standing pat and allowing the young talent continue to improve and maintain our cap space until the right deal comes along. We will need to use some of that space for our own guys, so there is no rush to just make a move. If Curry is the guy we want, then great go after him, but are we going to have to pay such a heavy premium for the marginal upgrade. Same with Tyler and Josh. They seem to be getting better by the game. Rush, Price, and George continue to show progress. With improvement over the next year, we might have a lot more value out of the assets we already have. I would try to re-sign McRoberts and Foster on a veteran minimum. Other than that, I don't think making a move for a guy like Curry will save our season next year.

Speed
04-06-2011, 12:41 PM
I think you have to almost build your team around him being a shooting guard in a Point Guard body. I like him, I'm just not sure it's a winning formula to construct your team around a guy who may not merit that kind of trickeration.

It's hard to say, Golden State has two guys in Monta and him that are mini shooting guards. So I don't know what he does when its just him you have to think about in building a team.

To me, for the Pacers, its not like you have a pure Point Guard now, so it's an upgrade if you think of it as replacing DC with Curry.

However, to get Curry, you have to give Granger, so I don't see the point. It seems really sideways.

Put it this way, if you trade Granger for Curry, is Curry on a better team than he is now with Golden State? I'm not thinking so.

troyc11a
04-06-2011, 02:13 PM
I think you have to almost build your team around him being a shooting guard in a Point Guard body. I like him, I'm just not sure it's a winning formula to construct your team around a guy who may not merit that kind of trickeration.

It's hard to say, Golden State has two guys in Monta and him that are mini shooting guards. So I don't know what he does when its just him you have to think about in building a team.

To me, for the Pacers, its not like you have a pure Point Guard now, so it's an upgrade if you think of it as replacing DC with Curry.

However, to get Curry, you have to give Granger, so I don't see the point. It seems really sideways.

Put it this way, if you trade Granger for Curry, is Curry on a better team than he is now with Golden State? I'm not thinking so.

Nobody on this board should be allowed to write "trickeration"! lol
But you ask a good question though. I am not sure the Pacers would be any better either. I would rather have a defensive minded, pass first pg who can shoot and score if needed.
But Curry might be a good piece to start with. As long as other moves follow.

Speed
04-06-2011, 02:17 PM
Nobody on this board should be allowed to write "trickeration"! lol
But you ask a good question though. I am not sure the Pacers would be any better either. I would rather have a defensive minded, pass first pg who can shoot and score if needed

Me too, but I think there may not be more than a handful of these guys left in the whole league like this.

Trophy
04-06-2011, 03:19 PM
I am not sure about Curry. I think I would rather go after George Hill. He is not only local, but he is big, can shoot, and defend. He might be a more realistic option.

What I don't like about George Hill is that he isn't exactly an ideal PG.

He only dishes out rougly 2 assists per game and to make a team's offense better, the PG needs to find players well.

He seems more of a SG, which is what the Spurs used him as a few times in the playoffs last season.

LA_Confidential
04-06-2011, 04:26 PM
The thing about Curry is that teams would actually have to game plan against him because he is a legitimate threat to break a game wide open. While I support DC I don't think teams view him in that regard. Problem is any significant upgrade that the Pacers aquire will be pricey so getting him will have to be a calculated risk and hopefully not a lateral move like trading Granger for him.

Collison+George for Curry+1st? I wouldn't boo.

naptownmenace
04-06-2011, 04:35 PM
just a dissenting opinion. fwiw

there are maybe 12 or 15 PG's better than DC. and also better than curry. if you listed all the PG's in order of best to worst, there would be maybe 2 guys in between them. curry just isn't that much better than DC to make an expensive offer for him. plus he is little just like DC. with the same defensive problems. different offensive skills, but not that much different.

pacers don't need a different average PG, they need a top 5, top 10 PG type. someone a lot better than what they have. not just a little better.

Stephen Curry is currently ranked 5th in PGs based on his production.

http://games.espn.go.com/fba/playerrater?&slotCategoryId=0

thefeistyone
04-06-2011, 05:00 PM
I don't know about all this.

The overwhelming sentiment on this board is that we need a pass first pg. Now we want to trade for a Pg that would love to be able to shoot 30 times a game.

I agree with most on here. I would prefer a pass first point that can distribute to Tyler, Roy, and George for years to come. I'm not sure if DC is the man for the job, but you have to give a 2nd year player on a new team more time to develop before canning him.

beezer615
04-06-2011, 05:43 PM
How about as a 2 guard? you wouldn't take DC, Curry, Granger, TYler, and Hibbs, with George off the bench? Send them the first rounder we don't need and BRush. Heck, give em McBob while we are at it.

daschysta
04-06-2011, 06:00 PM
Curry can't properly guard one guards....

You expect him to guard two guards at his size and slight frame?

PacerDude
04-06-2011, 06:07 PM
Curry can't properly guard....

You expect him to guard?

Fixed.

shags
04-06-2011, 07:08 PM
Wouldn't a Granger for Monta Ellis trade make more sense?

Evan_The_Dude
04-06-2011, 07:17 PM
By reading this thread I'm guessing a lot of people haven't seen Curry play. He'd be a major upgrade over Collison. I have no doubts. If you can get him you do it.

Gamble1
04-06-2011, 07:40 PM
I would trade Collison for him and a first round pick but no way do I trade Granger. This is a classic example of 1 step forward and 2 steps back. Curry would cost way too much to get so no deal.

Infinite MAN_force
04-06-2011, 11:23 PM
While Curry is an upgrade over Collison, he shares many of the same weaknesses. Our PG defense won't get any better (worse?), and passing only marginally better if at all. Collison is also a better athlete and has more potential as a guy who can "create" if he improves some on the play making front. I don't think he will be worth it to us for what it would cost to get him.





I think Josh Smith is a much better target in terms of "bang-for-your-buck" in what he would bring us.




I'm much more on board with the Josh Smith idea, in addition because he is a perfect "fit", what he brings to the table will make Granger and particularly Hibbert look more effective.

xIndyFan
04-06-2011, 11:58 PM
Stephen Curry is currently ranked 5th in PGs based on his production.

http://games.espn.go.com/fba/playerrater?&slotCategoryId=0

that's nice, does that mean there are only 4 PG's that you think are better than him. or is it more like 12 or 15 guys. deron williams is not having a very good season, but he is still better. much better. so are a lot of other guys. rajon rondo is 17th on the list. that alone would make the ranking method suspect at best. i have nothing against curry, but he is not enough better than DC to make a huge investment in a small increase in production. DC is an average PG. top 15 at the position or so. so is curry. to improve the PG position significantly, pacers need to look at guys like westbrook or rose or evans or some other top 10 PG type. not another mid level guy.

the PG position is full of really good players right now. to be a top player, a guy has to be really really good. neither curry or DC are that good. they are both in the next level of ability, the middle 10. that is a big improvement from last year. last year the pacer PG's were probably the worst starting group in the league. this year they are in the middle with a couple of 2nd year players. give them a chance to get better. or if not, trade for a guy that is clearly much better. not just a little better.

daschysta
04-07-2011, 12:05 AM
Honestly I think that collison is better than curry next year.

As a starter last year in NO he was widely considered to be at least as good as curry is, another year of experience and not being jerked aroudn by the system and I think at the very least DC makes trading for someone like curry just not worth it.

He's really been quite efficient lately, has cut down on the turnovers alot and even playedi mproved d (not that he doesn't have to work on it more, but he has more potential there than does curry).

PacerPride33
04-07-2011, 12:31 AM
Watching the Lakers-Warriors game makes me want Monta Ellis, not Curry. Yes Curry would be nice but it would take a lot to get him. I think Collison is finally getting comfortable and will be a great PG for the future. I do think it Ellis is worth getting. He has been a stud and is one of the best scorers in the league, exactly what Larry Bird said we lacked. I think Ellis would make Granger much more effective and would be great here

IUfan4life
04-07-2011, 12:36 AM
Would love either curry or ellis. The nickname steve nash 2.0 makes me oh so in love with curry also

d_c
04-07-2011, 01:58 AM
I don't think the Warriors are going to trade Curry. He's on a similar level of talent as Monta, but he's much better at making guys around him better. Monta is a fun guy to watch and all, but having him as a starting SG isn't getting you anywhere unless you have massive talents at other positions. He's better suited as a 6th man coming off the bench for a contending team.

Yeah, he's fun to watch in certain games, much like the one tonight, but he's not leading anyone to anywhere special. If all you want is a nice, fun to watch underdog team that puts on some entertaining performances now and then but isn't going anywhere important, he's your guy. Otherwise, he's nothing you'd want unless you have the luxury of making him a #4 option on your team.

Now if the Warriors are smart, they'll look to trade Monta and get the best value in return they can and rebuild that way. I think they know they know they have to do that, but they'll probably continue sitting on what they have now because they're so busy counting all the money they make from the dumb fans who continue to support a losing product because they're so easily entertained.

I don't think the Warriors and Pacers make for really good trade partners right now anyhow. Granger for Ellis is not a trade the Pacers should make. It's a trade the Warriors should make, but probably wouldn't because Warrior fans are stupid enough to make Monta such a draw at the ticket booth.

CableKC
04-07-2011, 02:51 AM
I don't think the Warriors are going to trade Curry. He's on a similar level of talent as Monta, but he's much better at making guys around him better. Monta is a fun guy to watch and all, but having him as a starting SG isn't getting you anywhere unless you have massive talents at other positions. He's better suited as a 6th man coming off the bench for a contending team.

Yeah, he's fun to watch in certain games, much like the one tonight, but he's not leading anyone to anywhere special. If all you want is a nice, fun to watch underdog team that puts on some entertaining performances now and then but isn't going anywhere important, he's your guy. Otherwise, he's nothing you'd want unless you have the luxury of making him a #4 option on your team.

Now if the Warriors are smart, they'll look to trade Monta and get the best value in return they can and rebuild that way. I think they know they know they have to do that, but they'll probably continue sitting on what they have now because they're so busy counting all the money they make from the dumb fans who continue to support a losing product because they're so easily entertained.

I don't think the Warriors and Pacers make for really good trade partners right now anyhow. Granger for Ellis is not a trade the Pacers should make. It's a trade the Warriors should make, but probably wouldn't because Warrior fans are stupid enough to make Monta such a draw at the ticket booth.
I can agree with you to a certain extent....but there is no Team out there that can afford to make him a 4th option or the 6th Man on your Team...the guy is owed $11 mil a year over the next.

As you suggest....the best way is to make him a 1st/2nd/3rd option on a Team with a VERY good supporting cast of 4 to 5 Players.

However, he is really fun to watch on the offensive end....Monta makes shots that leaves your jaw on the ground.

pacers74
04-07-2011, 06:31 AM
I think the best assets that wil be available for a price we could problaby pay is either one of PF's form Utah or try ofr Mayo again.

Going after Curry or J.Smith is going to take to much to get. Bird or whoever is in charge this summer won't want to give up our best players for them.

thefeistyone
04-07-2011, 10:35 AM
I've watched Curry play quite a few games this year. I can't see a lot about him that screams Point Guard. What I see is a shooting guard trapped in a point guards body.

I don't think he can guard either position particulary well. He's not fast enough to guard the fast pg's and he's not big enough to guard 2's

I would have much more interest in Ellis over Curry, but i'm not sure I would be willing to pay the price for him.

Put me on board with going after Jefferson in Utah. He can play the 4 and 5 and i think he fits our needs better than shot happy guards in goldenstate.

MillerGranger
04-07-2011, 11:33 AM
I think with DC we can do well with Price as a back up, they r developing and getting good. Look at this Pacers team overall, it was all about developing, why not get another player who is a really good player, can fit in, and is still developing? I would love to get a solid Shooting Guard since that might be our worst position, our scoring hardly ever comes from there, a good SG would make a point guards job that much easier and Danny Granger and Hibbert would flourish more with such a spread out defense. My choice would to be for the up and coming Eric Gordon, I personally would love him on the Pacers team.

MillerGranger
04-07-2011, 11:45 AM
whoops double post, Didn't know how forums work

troyc11a
04-07-2011, 07:59 PM
Dont you guys think we could get Curry for Granger and Collison? They would probably do the deal so they could throw in a bad contract like Lee's.

Gamble1
04-07-2011, 08:32 PM
Dont you guys think we could get Curry for Granger and Collison? They would probably do the deal so they could throw in a bad contract like Lee's.
Ya we could get Curry for Granger and Collison but that is the worst deal I have heard yet. Curry isn't that much better than collison and he sure isn't better than Granger.

troyc11a
04-07-2011, 08:46 PM
Ya we could get Curry for Granger and Collison but that is the worst deal I have heard yet. Curry isn't that much better than collison and he sure isn't better than Granger.

I wasnt proposing the trade. I was stating what I think it would take to get him. Other than this trade, I dont see GSW being interested in anything else we have.
BTW - I feel Curry is 2-3 levels ahead of Collison. They are not even in the same league.
Curry = 18/6
Collison 13/5

troyc11a
04-07-2011, 08:56 PM
Do you guys think Collison and our '11 1st Rd pick is enough to bring in Curry? GSW really need to do something since Curr/Ellis are so close to being the same player. I think we would have to throw something else in of value.
I love that trade. We get to keep Granger and add another scorer without giving up anything we need. The last thing this team needs is another rookie. Besides, I dont even know if the Warriors have any interest in DG.