KG to warriors?

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, 32

User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 18315
» Fri May 18, 2007 3:13 am
migya wrote:KG is now more tradeable than ever and for cheaper than ever.


That's true.

migya wrote:Something like Harrington, Pietrus (resigned), Barnes (resigned) and this draft's 1st rounder would probably be enough to get him.


That's not. :wink:

I think he will be traded, but, at the very least, the T-Wolves will end up with Jermaine O'Neal for him, not spare change like you're proposing.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21846
» Fri May 18, 2007 3:26 am
TMC wrote:I think he will be traded, but, at the very least, the T-Wolves will end up with Jermaine O'Neal for him, not spare change like you're proposing.



They will be incredibly lucky if they get anywhere near the caliber of Jermaine! Superstars never get the same in return and this will be no different! Harrington and Barnes would either instantly start or get over 30mins a night for that pathetic plastasine team!
User avatar

Franchise Player
Posts: 9163
» Fri May 18, 2007 3:57 pm
What'll be interesting is if the Warriors can't land Garnett. Who do they turn to? They surely can't head into next season with the team they have currently if they plan to go deeper in the Western Conference. Do you take the chance like they did by trading Richmond for Owens(premiere perimeter scorer/player for upcoming size)? What may keep this from happening is if Mullin and Nelson can't get over the past.
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Fri May 18, 2007 5:28 pm
TMC wrote:
migya wrote:KG is now more tradeable than ever and for cheaper than ever.


That's true.

migya wrote:Something like Harrington, Pietrus (resigned), Barnes (resigned) and this draft's 1st rounder would probably be enough to get him.


That's not. :wink:

I think he will be traded, but, at the very least, the T-Wolves will end up with Jermaine O'Neal for him, not spare change like you're proposing.

Exactly. Kevin Garnett will be traded for Paul Pierce, Jermaine O'Neal, Luol Deng & Hinrich, ect, ect, ect...

There are plenty of teams in the East willing to throw half of their best players at the Timberwolves for a chance at Garnett.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21846
» Fri May 18, 2007 9:51 pm
No superstar is traded for equal talent! Everyone should know that by now!
Garnett will get the Twolves something like Deng and Gordon at best and I doubt the Bulls will do that for a star that is even older than gasol is and they rejected that proposal. The Warriors are now a team that has more young talent to offer that tossfuk McHale! Likely the Twolves ill want to send Garnett's highly paid rectum over to the east but they will want talent above all else because they are looking the manure pit right now!
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Sat May 19, 2007 12:21 pm
Superstars also are never traded within the same conference. Everyone should know that by now, too.

... And you think Harrington, Pietrus, and Barnes are more attractive than Ben Gordon and Luol Deng!?
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21846
» Sat May 19, 2007 8:11 pm
Throw in one or two first rounders and that is fair. True about never traded to the same conference, except Vince Carter, Clyde Drexler and Charles Barkley, off the top of my head
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Sat May 19, 2007 10:43 pm
As with the BS Kirilenko-for-Pietrus trade, I think any Minnesoda fan will laugh you out of the building if you offer them loose change and a bad contract in exchange the league's best player. Call me crazy.

If anybody besides migya thinks this trade is plausable, please speak up.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21846
» Sat May 19, 2007 11:01 pm
As I've said, the TWolves will likely have to trade KG soon because he is not going to stay with them once his contract ends in two years. Yes, my proposal is not including the major stars of the team, being Baron, JRich or Monta (in the eyes of most GMs likely) but Harrington is very good player that is versatile, Pietrus still has potential in the mind of McHale no doubt, Barnes had a very good season and two 1st rounders are included. That is a substantial amount, probably more than most teams are willing to give.
As I've said, I'm not sure KG is the player the team needs now. The team has done incredibly at the end of this season and I want to see the same group of players back, with the addition of one PF that fills the needs. I'd rather Gasol over KG because he is younger and plays inside more than KG who is more midrange happy
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Sat May 19, 2007 11:12 pm
Well. Excuse me if I think this idea sounds as crazy as the following ideas:

migya wrote:Warriors - Murphy or Diogu, Dunleavy, Taft or Foyle or Fisher
TWolves - Garnett

migya wrote:Name three big guys on the TWolves other than KG, and maybe Eddie Griffen that have unique skills like Murphy, Zarko and Taft!
Murphy - Scores well with the jumper all the way to the three and is a very good rebounder
Zarko - Shoots, runs and handles very well
Taft - Very athletic, can score around the basket, rebound and block

Kevin McHale will be thankful to be able to deepen his roster, which is quite thin right now!

migya wrote:Murphy, dun and/or Pietrus, Fisher, Taft and this draft's 1st round pick could be enough


Forgive me if I don't think Harrington, Pietrus, and Barnes is attractive... but, obviously, we have different standards. Afterall, I didn't think Murphy, Zarko, and Taft for Garnett was a realistic trade either...
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21846
» Sat May 19, 2007 11:24 pm
32 wrote:Well. Excuse me if I think this idea sounds as crazy as the following ideas:

migya wrote:Warriors - Murphy or Diogu, Dunleavy, Taft or Foyle or Fisher
TWolves - Garnett

migya wrote:Name three big guys on the TWolves other than KG, and maybe Eddie Griffen that have unique skills like Murphy, Zarko and Taft!
Murphy - Scores well with the jumper all the way to the three and is a very good rebounder
Zarko - Shoots, runs and handles very well
Taft - Very athletic, can score around the basket, rebound and block

Kevin McHale will be thankful to be able to deepen his roster, which is quite thin right now!

migya wrote:Murphy, dun and/or Pietrus, Fisher, Taft and this draft's 1st round pick could be enough


Forgive me if I don't think Harrington, Pietrus, and Barnes is attractive... but, obviously, we have different standards. Afterall, I didn't think Murphy, Zarko, and Taft for Garnett was a realistic trade either...



Just like you to cloud things to try to make your opinion look better :roll:

Those trades I proposed a year or more ago! At the time, they were more than viable. Murphy was a double double player that lloked he cared about getting better (which ofcourse ended up him getting worse and only you seemed to think he was a very good player), Diogu was a great prospect that did great with the court time he had (he had some very big performances like the one in Detroit that showed his capabilities), Taft had very good performances in the limited time he had and had not gotten injured yet (he did very well at the beginning of last season when the team had a great first month before it all collapsed) and Zarko had unique skills and did decently in his very limited court time (that was before his back injuries as well). Fisher also had a good season last season for the Warriors and was an attractive piece for a team looking to improve like the TWolves.

The facts are much better than twisted statements!
User avatar

Franchise Player
Posts: 9163
» Sat May 19, 2007 11:41 pm
Well there are some ingenius GM's out there who'd take a bloaded contract, clueless young talent, charmin soft rebounding, and a throw in for much solid and better overall players. I'm not saying McHale is one of 'em, but who are we to say?
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21846
» Sat May 19, 2007 11:47 pm
xbaywarrior wrote:Well there are some ingenius GM's out there who'd take a bloaded contract, clueless young talent, charmin soft rebounding, and a throw in for much solid and better overall players. I'm not saying McHale is one of 'em, but who are we to say?



At the time McHale may have gone for such a trade. Taft looked like a potential star at PF with all the physical skills needed to be great. Murphy was a good contributor that consistently got double doubles. Now these players wouldn't get even a 2nd rounder from anyone
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 18315
» Sun May 20, 2007 2:13 am
xbaywarrior wrote:Well there are some ingenius GM's out there who'd take a bloaded contract, clueless young talent, charmin soft rebounding, and a throw in for much solid and better overall players. I'm not saying McHale is one of 'em


Yes, he is. That's why there's always a chance for a dumb trade with him... :wink:
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Sun May 20, 2007 11:31 am
migya wrote:Just like you to cloud things to try to make your opinion look better :roll:

Those trades I proposed a year or more ago! At the time, they were more than viable. Murphy was a double double player that lloked he cared about getting better (which ofcourse ended up him getting worse and only you seemed to think he was a very good player), Diogu was a great prospect that did great with the court time he had (he had some very big performances like the one in Detroit that showed his capabilities), Taft had very good performances in the limited time he had and had not gotten injured yet (he did very well at the beginning of last season when the team had a great first month before it all collapsed) and Zarko had unique skills and did decently in his very limited court time (that was before his back injuries as well). Fisher also had a good season last season for the Warriors and was an attractive piece for a team looking to improve like the TWolves.

The facts are much better than twisted statements!

How did I "twist" or "cloud" anything...?

I simply quoted you, straight from the horse's mouth, and you got all butt-hurt because you finally see how ludacrous those trades sounded. Arguing and trying to rationalize your former opinion doesn't help you. Just count your losses and move on.
In a year, you'll be saying the same thing about this Harrington, Pietrus, Barnes garbage... :roll:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests