Page 1 of 7

Al for...

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:12 am
by d1mex

Re: Al for...

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:19 am
by bigstrads
d1mex wrote:http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=308~165&teams=18~9&te=&cash=

Al for Crawford?

Thought?


No for me..............we need a floor leading PG, not a shoot first chucker.

I dont think the Knicks would take that either, as they seem to be pretty high on Crawford and he is playing more and more, and contributing more and more.

Whereas Al...........they dont really need him.

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:57 am
by TMC
If we trade Al for a player (it could be for picks), it has to be a PG or PF, in that order. Any other player does not fit a need, and it would be more of a problem than anything. We already have a bit of a logjam of forwards and scorers outside.

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:04 pm
by first off
1. knicks are not going to give away their ONLY good player.
2. Warriors have enough SGs! Monta, Stephen, Mags (when he was in LA), Morrow, Marco, Azu. NO MORE
3. like some one above said, Al for a true PG or a true PF, that's it.

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:31 pm
by Mr. Crackerz
first off wrote:1. knicks are not going to give away their ONLY good player.
2. Warriors have enough SGs! Monta, Stephen, Mags (when he was in LA), Morrow, Marco, Azu. NO MORE
3. like some one above said, Al for a true PG or a true PF, that's it.


triple critism from the guy who usually always recieves it. This is a new change of senarios. :mrgreen:

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:18 pm
by first off
Mr. Crackerz wrote:
first off wrote:1. knicks are not going to give away their ONLY good player.
2. Warriors have enough SGs! Monta, Stephen, Mags (when he was in LA), Morrow, Marco, Azu. NO MORE
3. like some one above said, Al for a true PG or a true PF, that's it.


triple critism from the guy who usually always recieves it. This is a new change of senarios. :mrgreen:


hey man, I like a good discussion. I'm fine with you guys dissing my idea's, just give me a reason why. if you guys just agreed with me it'd be boring as shiit. plus I'm too lazy to do Fantasy Basketball, so this is my cheap substitute (gets me to watch different teams).

:agrue: until your fingers are sore (or you do bigs' avatar!).

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:29 pm
by Quazza
No for me. We have a ton of our own Crawfords, and i noticed he has 3 years left on his contract. No thanks



(but keep em comin first off:)

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:22 pm
by bada
If we were to trade with the Knicks, I would not mind getting a piece of Nate Robinson. Maybe I am biased because of being a Washington Husky fan but I think he would thrive here. But my assumption would be that D'antoni (or however you spell it) would like a guy like that.

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:39 pm
by Quazza
bada wrote:If we were to trade with the Knicks, I would not mind getting a piece of Nate Robinson. Maybe I am biased because of being a Washington Husky fan but I think he would thrive here. But my assumption would be that D'antoni (or however you spell it) would like a guy like that.



we're when D'antoni first got to NY, one of the first things he said was how much betterRobinson is than he realised. That said they have a heap of PG's atm

Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:07 am
by TMC
bada wrote:If we were to trade with the Knicks, I would not mind getting a piece of Nate Robinson. Maybe I am biased because of being a Washington Husky fan but I think he would thrive here. But my assumption would be that D'antoni (or however you spell it) would like a guy like that.


If we trade with the Knicks, David Lee is the only guy I want. Of course, he's probably the last guy they'd trade...

Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:15 pm
by d1mex
Keeping with the Knicks, a report has it that there offering either Curry or Randolph for Al.

Curry hell no, but Randolph is intriguing. Yes hes fat, but hes pretty productive actually.

Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:58 pm
by TMC
d1mex wrote: Randolph is intriguing. Yes hes fat, but hes pretty productive actually.


The only thing that intrigues me about Randolph is when he's gonna kill someone. That guy is a nutjob, and also a blackhole on offense. No, thanks. I'd trade for Marbury before Randolph, and that should say enough about the kind of player I think he is.

Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 1:11 pm
by bigstrads
TMC wrote:
d1mex wrote: Randolph is intriguing. Yes hes fat, but hes pretty productive actually.


The only thing that intrigues me about Randolph is when he's gonna kill someone. That guy is a nutjob, and also a blackhole on offense. No, thanks. I'd trade for Marbury before Randolph, and that should say enough about the kind of player I think he is.


Totally agree with that............atleast with Marbury, you know your gonna get 7+ assists, given the minutes, whereas with Randolph your gonna get a space eating/shot eating/minute eating/burger eating headcase cancerous tumor.

Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 1:12 pm
by Slammin40oz
i think al for randolph would be something to take a look at. randolph would help the warriors really spread the floor. who do the warriors have right now that can command a double team? ellis? ok but what about down low? and he pulls 10 boards a game..give biedrins some help! turiaf would do that if he started at pf but they got him to be backup andris.

Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:10 pm
by E-Man
ceddy wrote:i think al for randolph would be something to take a look at. randolph would help the warriors really spread the floor. who do the warriors have right now that can command a double team? ellis? ok but what about down low? and he pulls 10 boards a game..give biedrins some help! turiaf would do that if he started at pf but they got him to be backup andris.


biedrins pulls down more than 10 boards a game. he gets doubled down low (or at least will be once people notice that he's beasting down there). and al spreads the floor on offense way more than randolph does because of his ability to hit the 3 more consistently and at a bett clip than randolph.

if we trade al i think we should trade him for another backup center and fillers (if needed...maybe a guard), that way turiaf can start alongside biedrins since that has been our most effective and best frontcourt with maggs at the 3. if we get a backup center that can play D and rebound then we're good.