GERALD WALLACE

Discuss any moves or trades here, real, rumored, made up, you name it!

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

User avatar
Rookie
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:22 am
Location: Evansville, AR
Poster Credit: 4
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:34 pm
Was not tight into the loop on trade deadline day for the Warriors because I didn't expect them to do much. Now I read an article from yesterday that Lacob said he coulda gotten Gerald Walklace for B Wright and Gadzuric from Charlotte but he didn't think he was "right for our team". WTF?! Could we not have used him for the rest of the year to make a push for the playoffs then tried to deal him if it didn't work out? I am open to hear reasons why he would not have worked here for at least half a season such as attitude, injury-prone, etc. I'm sure his contract was enough to make people shy away, but DAMMIT, we can't have just one person playing defense (Udoh). I feel like he coulda helped. Will copy/paste the article or link if anyone wants to read it.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1129
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:53 pm
Poster Credit: 26
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:48 pm
I read somewhere that we weren't really that close to getting him. Portland was giving them expiring contracts plus picks, and we didn't have any picks to give out. I think in the end Bobcats wanted more then what we would be willing to give (Curry), and since we wouldn't do that, they went with Portland.
"Hard Work Beats Talent, When Talent Doesn't Work Hard"
Image

Image : 2010 - 2011
User avatar
Rookie
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:22 am
Location: Evansville, AR
Poster Credit: 4
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:57 pm
GSW Hoops Fan wrote:I read somewhere that we weren't really that close to getting him. Portland was giving them expiring contracts plus picks, and we didn't have any picks to give out. I think in the end Bobcats wanted more then what we would be willing to give (Curry), and since we wouldn't do that, they went with Portland.

This guy was a Bleacher Report contributor and may not have had his facts straight, but seemed to imply that Lacob only had to give the go-ahead and it was a done deal but didn't want him.

Moderator
Posts: 5353
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:21 pm
Poster Credit: 21
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:47 am
wallace's knees are a lot more worn down than his age states. He is only 28, but he can no longer elevate even closely to what he was doing just a few years ago. He was one of those guys that was dependant on his quickness and elevation and those two factors are gone. And i don't think its coming back.
User avatar
Rookie
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:22 am
Location: Evansville, AR
Poster Credit: 4
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:58 am
Mr. Crackerz wrote:wallace's knees are a lot more worn down than his age states. He is only 28, but he can no longer elevate even closely to what he was doing just a few years ago. He was one of those guys that was dependant on his quickness and elevation and those two factors are gone. And i don't think its coming back.

That makes me feel better about taking him on full-time, but can't help feeling that he coulda helped make a push for last playoff spot THIS year right when they went on that post-All-Star slump that really spaced them out of contention, then deal with him after the season. I know 8th spot this year is gonna get drilled anyway, but making the playoffs is an important start. Upside is, if Smart had made the playoffs, they might've extended him!
User avatar
Rookie
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:22 am
Location: Evansville, AR
Poster Credit: 4
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:41 am
Here's part of the article from Bleacher Report:
In referring to the deal the Portland Trail Blazers struck to acquire Gerald Wallace, saying that he had a similar deal on the table, Lacob said, “We could’ve gotten Gerald Wallace—he’s not somebody we thought would make us better. I really believe that. He just doesn’t fit for us. He’s good defensive player, rebounder, certain things that do fit, certain things that don’t.”

How could adding Gerald Wallace by trading away Dan Gadzuric and Brandan Wright not make them a better team?

If he meant that Wallace doesn’t fit in because he plays defense, then yes, Gerald Wallace doesn’t fit in with this team.

I said in the past that the Warriors did fine by not doing anything at the trade deadline, but that was before I heard that quote. I didn’t know they could have had Gerald Wallace for two expiring deals and a Happy Meal.

Lacob really dropped the ball on this one, not only by not trading for Wallace, but then coming out and saying that he could have. Adding Wallace would have given the Warriors the defensive-minded presence they needed without breaking up their core players.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1129
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:53 pm
Poster Credit: 26
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:23 pm
WARRIORHOG8 wrote:Here's part of the article from Bleacher Report:
In referring to the deal the Portland Trail Blazers struck to acquire Gerald Wallace, saying that he had a similar deal on the table, Lacob said, “We could’ve gotten Gerald Wallace—he’s not somebody we thought would make us better. I really believe that. He just doesn’t fit for us. He’s good defensive player, rebounder, certain things that do fit, certain things that don’t.”

How could adding Gerald Wallace by trading away Dan Gadzuric and Brandan Wright not make them a better team?

If he meant that Wallace doesn’t fit in because he plays defense, then yes, Gerald Wallace doesn’t fit in with this team.

I said in the past that the Warriors did fine by not doing anything at the trade deadline, but that was before I heard that quote. I didn’t know they could have had Gerald Wallace for two expiring deals and a Happy Meal.

Lacob really dropped the ball on this one, not only by not trading for Wallace, but then coming out and saying that he could have. Adding Wallace would have given the Warriors the defensive-minded presence they needed without breaking up their core players.



Good point, the only thing I can think of is that Wallace gets 10.6 million next year, and 11.4 the year after that. And we need to get a better center (even though I like Beans, he isn't starting 5 material... nor is Udoh, not yet at least). I know you can say take him this year then trade him... but with the CBA, who knows what team you will be able to trade him to, if at all. Maybe he felt it would be too much of a risk to get stuck with that contract even though he improves your Bench (ala Coery Maggette). Not really disapionted we didn't get him because we need to get a Starting Center and best way is through Free Agency You may be able to do a sign and trade, but if there is a hard cap, then you could end up getting stuck.

I don't know, that's just my two cents on it. If we don't sign a awesome Center in the FA.... then I will be mad.
"Hard Work Beats Talent, When Talent Doesn't Work Hard"
Image

Image : 2010 - 2011
User avatar
Rookie
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:22 am
Location: Evansville, AR
Poster Credit: 4
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:18 am
GSW Hoops Fan wrote:
WARRIORHOG8 wrote:Here's part of the article from Bleacher Report:
In referring to the deal the Portland Trail Blazers struck to acquire Gerald Wallace, saying that he had a similar deal on the table, Lacob said, “We could’ve gotten Gerald Wallace—he’s not somebody we thought would make us better. I really believe that. He just doesn’t fit for us. He’s good defensive player, rebounder, certain things that do fit, certain things that don’t.”

How could adding Gerald Wallace by trading away Dan Gadzuric and Brandan Wright not make them a better team?

If he meant that Wallace doesn’t fit in because he plays defense, then yes, Gerald Wallace doesn’t fit in with this team.

I said in the past that the Warriors did fine by not doing anything at the trade deadline, but that was before I heard that quote. I didn’t know they could have had Gerald Wallace for two expiring deals and a Happy Meal.

Lacob really dropped the ball on this one, not only by not trading for Wallace, but then coming out and saying that he could have. Adding Wallace would have given the Warriors the defensive-minded presence they needed without breaking up their core players.



Good point, the only thing I can think of is that Wallace gets 10.6 million next year, and 11.4 the year after that. And we need to get a better center (even though I like Beans, he isn't starting 5 material... nor is Udoh, not yet at least). I know you can say take him this year then trade him... but with the CBA, who knows what team you will be able to trade him to, if at all. Maybe he felt it would be too much of a risk to get stuck with that contract even though he improves your Bench (ala Coery Maggette). Not really disapionted we didn't get him because we need to get a Starting Center and best way is through Free Agency You may be able to do a sign and trade, but if there is a hard cap, then you could end up getting stuck.

I don't know, that's just my two cents on it. If we don't sign a awesome Center in the FA.... then I will be mad.

Ditto. I think Udoh is turning out to be a great pick. We desperately need his kind of intensity on D, and any offense we get from him is a bonus although he's already as or more productive than Beidrins. Just don't think he's big enough to put against opposing centers the whole game.

Return to Trades

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest