Are Warriors better without David Lee?

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes


All Star
Posts: 3128
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 19
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:30 pm
We offered the trade and the Raptors declined, not sure why the warriors would do that. That is what is perplexing.

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:37 pm
Yes, it is perplexing why we would try to trade Lee for Bargs.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:05 am
Location: Oakland California
Poster Credit: 35
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:05 pm
Clear some room for Jack and Landry...
From "we believe", to "we belong", to "we gon beatcho ass!"

Image
Image
Image

Image
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:05 am
Location: Oakland California
Poster Credit: 35
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:15 pm
Warriors are willing to pay tax, but still want to spend smartly. That's why they are considering David Lee trades
Lee has $44 million left over the next three years. But with the emergence of Curry and the growth of Barnes, it seems an inefficient use of money. Lee is a really good player. But is he worth $15M over next three years? What holes can be filled with that money?
As Yahoo! Sports reported, the Warriors talked to Portland about getting Aldridge and Toronto about Bargnani. For about the same money as Lee, Aldridge would give the Warriors much of what Lee and Landry gave but with one salary. Bargnani, an expiring contract, could have saved the Warriors some $30M.
The reality is, Lee's role on the team is likely to decrease while his money increases. And his limitations (defense, inability to stretch to 3) make his salary seem even less justifiable. What you can glean from Golden State's willingness to test the market on Lee is that they aren't blinded by owner Joe Lacob's affinity for Lee. They are willing to trade Lee. Chances are, though, they won't find a deal they can swallow


-MT2
From "we believe", to "we belong", to "we gon beatcho ass!"

Image
Image
Image

Image

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:16 pm
That makes more sense if we were to keep Landry and Jack.

All Star
Posts: 3128
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 19
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:21 pm
That would make sense, they are limited with Jefferson, and Beans contract. I think in that case they would sign one of them then not both. Things are tight financially, looks like front office is finding all type of venues to make things work. Would love to keep one either Jack/Landry but do so without trading Lee. With an injury prone Bogut, injured Festus, and Beans I think Lees' value is up in my eyes.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:05 am
Location: Oakland California
Poster Credit: 35
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:24 pm
If Lee had something like a 11 or 12mil/year contract, he would be more valued. At 14 mil a year (15 next year) your ass is gonna get shopped.

Anyway, the front office was probably thinking this when they proposed a trade for Bargs. Would you rather have David Lee or Jack/Landry/Bargs?
From "we believe", to "we belong", to "we gon beatcho ass!"

Image
Image
Image

Image

All Star
Posts: 3128
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 19
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:30 pm
For Bargs though ? dude has been on the block for a min, a major slap in the face to Dlee. But i read on they would save $30 Mill which is a huge amount of money, but don't expect the team to play at the same level as they would with Lee. 2014 things will be alot more laxed with Beans and RJ of the books.

All Star
Posts: 3128
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 19
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:42 pm
Bargs is not an expiring contract, he has two years at 11 mill, and 12 mill, warriors could still have money but majority of that would be after the 2014 season. Warriors still save $20 million after all is said and done. But how effective would Bargs be here, and also there would be no dead weight after Beans/RJ are off the books. I have not heard too many good things about Bargs.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:05 am
Location: Oakland California
Poster Credit: 35
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:22 pm
warriorsstepup wrote:Bargs is not an expiring contract, he has two years at 11 mill, and 12 mill, warriors could still have money but majority of that would be after the 2014 season. Warriors still save $20 million after all is said and done. But how effective would Bargs be here, and also there would be no dead weight after Beans/RJ are off the books. I have not heard too many good things about Bargs.


So you'd pick Lee over the combination of Jack, Landry, and Bargnani?
From "we believe", to "we belong", to "we gon beatcho ass!"

Image
Image
Image

Image

All Star
Posts: 3128
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 19
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:46 pm
8th ave wrote:
warriorsstepup wrote:Bargs is not an expiring contract, he has two years at 11 mill, and 12 mill, warriors could still have money but majority of that would be after the 2014 season. Warriors still save $20 million after all is said and done. But how effective would Bargs be here, and also there would be no dead weight after Beans/RJ are off the books. I have not heard too many good things about Bargs.


So you'd pick Lee over the combination of Jack, Landry, and Bargnani?


Don't see how we can possibly have all 3 on board, Rumor is Jack is asking for $7 mill, and am sure Landry will be asking about the same with 3 year deals most likely, so that would be 14 million, plus $12 million of Bargs. I could be wrong but don't see we can do that financially but if we could I hesitant but that would add much needed depth.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:05 am
Location: Oakland California
Poster Credit: 35
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:10 pm
warriorsstepup wrote:
8th ave wrote:
warriorsstepup wrote:Bargs is not an expiring contract, he has two years at 11 mill, and 12 mill, warriors could still have money but majority of that would be after the 2014 season. Warriors still save $20 million after all is said and done. But how effective would Bargs be here, and also there would be no dead weight after Beans/RJ are off the books. I have not heard too many good things about Bargs.


So you'd pick Lee over the combination of Jack, Landry, and Bargnani?


Don't see how we can possibly have all 3 on board, Rumor is Jack is asking for $7 mill, and am sure Landry will be asking about the same with 3 year deals most likely, so that would be 14 million, plus $12 million of Bargs. I could be wrong but don't see we can do that financially but if we could I hesitant but that would add much needed depth.


The point would be to lessen the luxury tax blow. Where we currently stand, we're ~2 million below the tax threshold. Lee get's paid ~14 mil. Barganani gets paid 10.75. You do that deal, you gain 3.25 mil in cap space and you have about 5.25 mil before you reach the tax threshold. Let's just say Jack commands 7 mil a year, and I'll give a ball park number for Landry at about 6 mil. You'll be about 7.75 over the tax line. For the first 5 mil, you pay 1.5 to the dollar. after the first 5 mil, the next 5 million dollar tax range would be 1.75 to the dollar. In this scenario, your overall cap figure would be 78 mil, and the overall tax money you'd be paying is ~7.3 million dollars.

If we keep Lee and offer Jack and Landry the same amount, 7 million and 6 million dollars respectively, your overall cap figure would be 82 million dollars. In this scenario, the overall tax money you'll be paying is 11.25 million.

Just to put things in perspective, the OVERALL money you'd be spending on the roster for the 1st scenario would be ~85.3M. For the 2nd scenario, the overall money spent on the roster would be ~93.25M
From "we believe", to "we belong", to "we gon beatcho ass!"

Image
Image
Image

Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13539
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 53
PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:16 am
Yes. I'd WAY rather have Lee and either Jack/Landry than Bargnani and both bench players. Not even close. Nobody in that scenario holds a candle to Lee's production.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:23 pm
I don't know what I would rather have, but at least the move Lee for Bargs makes sense to me now and I don't think the front office was high off their ass.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:05 am
Location: Oakland California
Poster Credit: 35
PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:21 pm
I don't think I'm the only one who thinks Lee is overrated. Honestly I think the entire league is under the impression that Lee is overvalued.
From "we believe", to "we belong", to "we gon beatcho ass!"

Image
Image
Image

Image
PreviousNext

Return to Warriors Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest