Guybrush wrote:Just read on one forum, that a guy is suggesting a deal that would send Beans and Jefferson to Boston, and Jeff Green to GS, along with a filler. Just curious, would you guys go for that?

I don't see why either team would do this. He doesn't make us better, and losing Biedrens would make us worse, unless we are actually getting Bogut back soon. And I don't get why Celtics would take on both contracts, like for what?

I don't know either, but I was confused when I read that their own fan was suggesting that. I would do it. We are playing Beans less than 10 mins per game recently, so it's not like we would lose a lot. Bogut will get back, eventually. And we would get rid off of two of the worst contracts on our team. Green is playing much better D recently, and some Celtics fans are hoping that he could slow down LeBron and Carmelo, cause both Knicks and Heat tend to play them a lot at PF position, and Green is a tweener.

Yeah, after thinking about it, why not get rid of two horrible contracts. We can just use Tyler more, still very limited and give Landry more minutes until Bogut gets back.

We already have a glue-guy tweener with the last name Green.

Acquiring Jeff will demolish Draymond's minutes and after hearing Simmons label him as a guy who can't seem to find a role off the bench, this trade would provide nothing other than a salary dump. Which brings me to my last point: why is Boston suddenly willing to surrender their dowry from the Perkins trade to the tune of an additional $12 million of salary to the payroll? They get worse AND they lose cap flexibility? I don't think we could get Ainge hammered enough to consider this. Both Biedrins ($9 mil) AND Jefferson ($12 mil) cost more than Green ($8 mil).

We're 22-11. Why would we trade for an overpaid and over hyped SF like Gay. There's a reason why we drafted Harrison Barnes.

Plus, team chemistry. The chemistry our team has should NOT BE TOUCHED.

32 wrote:We already have a glue-guy tweener with the last name Green.

Acquiring Jeff will demolish Draymond's minutes and after hearing Simmons label him as a guy who can't seem to find a role off the bench, this trade would provide nothing other than a salary dump. Which brings me to my last point: why is Boston suddenly willing to surrender their dowry from the Perkins trade to the tune of an additional $12 million of salary to the payroll? They get worse AND they lose cap flexibility? I don't think we could get Ainge hammered enough to consider this. Both Biedrins ($9 mil) AND Jefferson ($12 mil) cost more than Green ($8 mil).

For us, the difference would be the fact that Green (Jeff) already proved that he can play in the NBA on a good level. He is not great at the moment, but he is improving. Let's not forget that he just got from the heart surgery, and that he missed a whole year before that. So, he will need a bit of time, and he is getting there, close to 10 PPG where there is not a single play designed for him, improving his rebounds number, and his D is much, much better. Basically, he would be a more complete version of Draymond, or bit more, cause he is far better player on offense, and his D is not bad at all.

I know we all love Draymond, but this would give us a push for a higher sport for the POs, and it would be a big help during the POs.

Though, it was just blabbering from some fan, I'm sure Ainge wouldn't do this. But, it depends who would they have to send as a filler. Don't know who has a bad contract there, along with Jeff...whose is not that bad.

mik0 wrote:We're 22-11. Why would we trade for an overpaid and over hyped SF like Gay. There's a reason why we drafted Harrison Barnes.

Plus, team chemistry. The chemistry our team has should NOT BE TOUCHED.

Because we don't have a wing defender that can hold a candle to him?

Because our weakest position (when fully healthy) is SF?

Because it gives us another gun to open up the rest of the offense?

Because we're a defensive team now and Gay embodies our style of play?

Because it weakens a Western rival who'll go deep in the playoffs with him?

Because he gets you 6 rebounds a game with a legit front court and a slow pace?

Because he's an all-star caliber player?

Because he's still young and has plenty of mileage left?

Because it would only cost a bad contract, an injured player, a draft pick, and a questionable prospect who - with all due respect - slipped from the #2 projected pick down to #7?

There's a plethora of reasons.

migya wrote:Problem then is, we can't afford a bench and probablt to resign Bogut for what he is making now. Gay is just too much salary and the team is winning on the back of great bench play by Jack and Landry, as well as rookie Green. Can kiss them goodbye with another very high salary player.

I say let Barnes show what he can do. Look to trade either or both RJ and AB this offseason or if have to, let them play out there contracts and then have just over twenty million to use again. The team has options with time right now and it's a luxury.

Actually, we would be saving money both years.
Roughly .5 million this year, bringing us under the luxury.

Then next year we would have gays 17million, but shed 11mil from Jefferson, 3 from Barnes, 4 from Rush.
So, would be paying about 1mil less next year.... which is still luxury and max we could offer Jack is 3.5 either way. But owners save 2mil, which doesn't hurt.
They year after that Gay will be paid 19mil, but Beans and Bogut come off the books. So we would be able to resign Bogut, Landry and still be under the luxury. year after that Gay comes off books so would have to decide if we bring him back for less, or if we pay Klay, or if we could pay both... too far out to tell how much $$ they would demand. In the end the $ is not a reason to veto this trade.

I would be on board if Gay was truly the defender 32 says he is. I just don't know if that is true or not. Assuming it is, then I think it is a good deal for both teams.
However would have to note that we won't be able to trade the '14 draft pick becuase we still owe the '13. Soonest possible one is the '15 but not even sure we can promise that becuase there is the possibility that we fall to lottery again... and the league won't let us promise that pick.

And let's give management it's due credit: Salary has never cost this team an acquisition before.

Even when some of us were freaking out over contracts given to Dunleavy, Fisher, Jackson, Maggette, Murphy, Foyle, Richardson... Management figured out a way to move them. I'm always amazed at how we, the fans, concern ourselves with the level of money the owners might save. Lacob said we'll be a luxury tax team. Is that not good enough for everyone?

Odds are, with the Lee-Bogut-Curry machine getting paid, the Warriors aren't going to be major players in free agency for a while anyway. Trade and draft are the tools to improving the roster from this point forward. Sure, free agency will be used to fill in the cracks; to supply the bench brigade, such as Jack and Landry. But anybody thinking the Warriors will be making a huge play for an additional starter via free agency will probably be left wanting.

Last point: no one is denigrating the value of Harrison Barnes. I'm happy we picked him, I see a lot of upside and a huge supply of tools to grow into something starter-worthy. I'm simply trying to illustrate the difference between a solid draft pick who may develop into a nice, well-rounded swingman... And a stud like Rudy Gay. Yes he's overpaid. But does that make him unworthy of a ten-plus-million dollar salary? Of course not. The guy is easily worth $13-$15 per year (in the range of David Lee) and having to chip in an extra mill or two should not blind anyone to the talent of Memphis' franchise player.

So how does defensive rating work? Is that how much he gives up per 100 possessions?

I am still a little skeptical about his defense. I remember when we still had Jamal Crawford I read an article that he was dead last some kind of defensive stat, and the person who was 2nd or last was Gay. So did he really make that big of a leap these last couple of years? I can't say because I don't watch Memphis games.

I do know that he can score. All types of ways too. Fadeaways, attacking the basket, some post moves, everything. I wouldn't even need him to do anything that much outside of cutting to the basket. I think that would be huge for us.

8th ave wrote:So how does defensive rating work? Is that how much he gives up per 100 possessions?

I am still a little skeptical about his defense. I remember when we still had Jamal Crawford I read an article that he was dead last some kind of defensive stat, and the person who was 2nd or last was Gay. So did he really make that big of a leap these last couple of years? I can't say because I don't watch Memphis games.

I do know that he can score. All types of ways too. Fadeaways, attacking the basket, some post moves, everything. I wouldn't even need him to do anything that much outside of cutting to the basket. I think that would be huge for us.

I was going to suggest watch the Grizzlies play to get a feel for it, but we play them Wednesday so that's probably a given. Grizzlies are scary.

Never understood the logic of GMs who try to fix what ain't broken. "Hey we're having a fantastic season. I know, let's put a vital part of the team on the trading block!" Yeah that won't disturb chemistry one bit. Why do fans want to give up on a guy in THEIR ROOKIE SEASON for a bloated contract / overrated player? That's just retarded thinking.

rockyBeli wrote:Never understood the logic of GMs who try to fix what ain't broken. "Hey we're having a fantastic season. I know, let's put a vital part of the team on the trading block!" Yeah that won't disturb chemistry one bit. Why do fans want to give up on a guy in THEIR ROOKIE SEASON for a bloated contract / overrated player? That's just retarded thinking.

You fix what is broken because sometimes it is not good enough. I am sure Popovich agrees with that because a reporter asked him "you won't try to fix what isn't broken, right? And he replied "Ok."

The deal would make sense for both teams, but I don't think the Grizzlies will do it because they want to try to win it this year. So they will look for players that will give them a better shot at winning. I think they are looking for shooters right now.

Blackfoot wrote:

rockyBeli wrote:Never understood the logic of GMs who try to fix what ain't broken. "Hey we're having a fantastic season. I know, let's put a vital part of the team on the trading block!" Yeah that won't disturb chemistry one bit. Why do fans want to give up on a guy in THEIR ROOKIE SEASON for a bloated contract / overrated player? That's just retarded thinking.

You fix what is broken because sometimes it is not good enough. I am sure Popovich agrees with that because a reporter asked him "you won't try to fix what isn't broken, right? And he replied "Ok."

The deal would make sense for both teams, but I don't think the Grizzlies will do it because they want to try to win it this year. So they will look for players that will give them a better shot at winning. I think they are looking for shooters right now.

Bingo.

The Warriors are absolutely having a fantastic season, for their standards. At this rate, they'll make the playoffs with a decent chance to head into the second round. But they have a flaw: they lack a premiere wing defender and this allows guys like JJ Reddick, Marcus Thornton, Aaron Brookes, Joe Johnson, and Danillo Gallinari (among others) to go completely off without any sort of resistance. Kobe Bryant forced and won an OT victory for LA via 40 shot attempts. Chris Paul just hit 10-of-12 (including 5-of-6 for three). We no longer have a Rush or a McGuire to lock up the opposing team's best player and that would be an enormous addition, given the style of TEAM defense this roster displays.

We have no problem acknowledging that Bogut will fix these unstoppable efforts from Vucavic, Cousins, and Big Baby. What's so hard to understand that Gay has an identical DRtG to Bogut and will bottleneck the swingmen in a similar way?

And also... I'd say refusing to improve the roster when given an obviously one-sided trade due to some unproven banter about Harrison Barnes being the catalyst to this team's total chemistry is terrible logic. Youre telling me Lee, Curry, Thompson, Jack, and Landry are suddenly gonna forget how to play off one another because Harrison Barnes isn't there...?

How does defensive ratings work?