DOES ANYBODY OPPOSE AQUIRING MAGGETTE ?

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

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13536
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 9:15 pm
Nobody wants to be a 3rd string point guard. The only reason Bynum latched on was because he's trying blow up and get himself a bigger contract with more minutes elsewhere.

Sure, we can sign a rookie (for a short term fix)... but don't expect Williams (or whoever we'd draft) to stay longterm with us. 3rd string is a job for has-beens, talent-less players, and rookies.

I believe TMC said these true words: "point guard is one of the easiest positions to fill, but one of the hardest to fill well". Very true.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 2:41 am
I'm pretty happy with Fish as our backup. I wasn't before this season, but he's played pretty well. I certainly don't like his contract, but he does an ok job (even if I think he's more of a SG in a PG body than a real PG).

So... why trade him?, I think Murph is more expendable. If we can land a good player and it requires to trade Fish, then ok. No backup shoud be untradable. But I wouldn't offer him up in trades. That only lowers his value.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21381
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 8:08 am
The PG position is a bit of an issue because though Baron is a star, another season playing half the games and he is not a star at all! Fisher as the starter for half the season is alright (this season he was decent) but with the development of Ellis, either Fisher or Baron is expendable. Reason is because Monta would obviously deserve more court time as either starting PG (maybe in two seasons) or as 1st backup PG. If Baron gets injured again next season for as long as he has, then he is money not so well spent but at least Ellis gets more court time. Point is that Either Baron or Fisher has to be traded to make some space for Ellis but at the same time, if Baron gets traded and no PG is received in the trade, either Fisher (not great) or Ellis (too early) would be the starter or, if Fisher gets traded, Baron could get injured and then Monta starts but there is no backup!

Point is - Baron has to play alot next season or he is really the one that has to go because it stuffs things up. Unless Monta Ellis can be backup SG as well, he will not get anywhere near enough court time with Baron and Fisher ahead of him
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13536
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 11:58 am
What's your definition for "a lot" of games for Baron Davis...?

Since I'm not going to buy that he's "magically" healed, I'd say 65 games or more would be the bar.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21381
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 1:36 am
For me, Baron Davis has to play at least 75 games next season ot he is just not worth it!

Nash, Kidd and other great PGs and SGs play nearly every game and they usually mean the difference between their team winning or losing, as Baron still does here
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13536
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 11:33 am
I hope (in time) Baron Davis can come back and play a full-time schedule (like Big Z did with his career in Cleveland), but I just don't think it will happen next year. I think he'll play around 65 games (which is a little better) and hobble through the playoffs on a bad knee, which will (ultimately) force us out of the 1st round.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21381
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2006 7:18 am
I hope he plays close to the full season. If he doesn't, Mullin should try to find a GM that wil give great talent in for Baron
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13536
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2006 12:14 pm
That's the problem; I don't think any GM out there would. The best we could probably get for him would be expirers (like we gave New Orleans).

If Baron Davis plays 65 games a year, than I'd rather have that than to give him away for expirers.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image

Starting Lineup
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:53 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2006 3:04 pm
Agreed, but Fish shouldn't be looked as a starter thus BD ( and he'll always be ) has to play @least 70 games. True, nobody wants 2b a 3rd stringer, but thats exactly what Miles/Bynum did + Dun handled the ball a little bit. The worst thing about it is that LAC are division rivals, so to speak---***030***---
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21381
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2006 9:01 pm
#32 wrote:That's the problem; I don't think any GM out there would. The best we could probably get for him would be expirers (like we gave New Orleans).

If Baron Davis plays 65 games a year, than I'd rather have that than to give him away for expirers.



What your basically saying is that Mullin was wrong to trade for Baron, since he will only be at work 50% - 65% of the time!

Baron is great but if he only plays as much as he did this season next season, I'd trade him for a player like Mike James. At least he plays nearly every game and has shown very good production. Raptors might even say no to that :?
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13536
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2006 9:29 pm
migya wrote:What your basically saying is that Mullin was wrong to trade for Baron, since he will only be at work 50% - 65% of the time!

Where did I say that...? Baron Davis is a proven all-star caliber player. If he plays 65 games a season and all we had to lose in return for that sort of guy was Dale Davis & Speedy Claxton, I consider that a bargain. It was a great move by Chris Mullin. Besides; 65 games is not 50-65% of the time; it's actually 76%. If that's how much we need to settle for in order for Baron to get back into regular season shape (where he can play a full schedule again in the near future), than why not? I'd rather have a fully functional team surrounding a 100% healthy Baron Davis in 2 years than rush his recover and only hope for him to play 50-60 games for the remainder of his career. That's why I don't really care that he's taken time off since mid-March.

migya wrote:Baron is great but if he only plays as much as he did this season next season, I'd trade him for a player like Mike James. At least he plays nearly every game and has shown very good production. Raptors might even say no to that :?

Raptors WILL say no that. At the moment, Baron Davis is seen in an almost Grant Hill sort of light. He's one of the more injury prone stars in the league. That means if we decide to trade him (which would be a bad move, in my opinion) we'd have to settle for expirers... or we'd be drastically overpaying (in terms of talent). There's no equal trade for Baron Davis right now (as the Hornets found out last year).
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21381
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2006 9:37 pm
#32 wrote:
migya wrote:What your basically saying is that Mullin was wrong to trade for Baron, since he will only be at work 50% - 65% of the time!

Where did I say that...? Baron Davis is a proven all-star caliber player. If he plays 65 games a season and all we had to lose in return for that sort of guy was Dale Davis & Speedy Claxton, I consider that a bargain. It was a great move by Chris Mullin. Besides; 65 games is not 50-65% of the time; it's actually 76%. If that's how much we need to settle for in order for Baron to get back into regular season shape (where he can play a full schedule again in the near future), than why not? I'd rather have a fully functional team surrounding a 100% healthy Baron Davis in 2 years than rush his recover and only hope for him to play 50-60 games for the remainder of his career. That's why I don't really care that he's taken time off since mid-March.



Baron is a star but if he is only playing 55-60 games like he did this season or even 65 like you said, that would still be a waste! You can"t have your star PG, one of the two best players on the team and the player that makes the team go as the floor general, absent a third of the time!!!!

Baron stated in the preseason that he was in great shape and working out well to be healthy for the new season - Worked out like Garbage!!!!
Point is that Baron Davis may never play close to a full season again!
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13536
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2006 9:59 pm
migya wrote:Baron is a star but if he is only playing 55-60 games like he did this season or even 65 like you said, that would still be a waste! You can"t have your star PG, one of the two best players on the team and the player that makes the team go as the floor general, absent a third of the time!!!!

A quarter of the time. And it seemed to work for New Jersey in the past few years (Jason Kidd played 67 & 66 games, respectively, in the 03-05 seasons). Baron Davis can still make a huge impact on Golden State in 65 games.

migya wrote:Baron stated in the preseason that he was in great shape and working out well to be healthy for the new season - Worked out like Garbage!!!!
Point is that Baron Davis may never play close to a full season again!

But do we want to be the team that gave up on him? I say we give him another couple of years. What harm can it do?
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 2:15 am
I'd be happy with him playing 65 games. In his last 4 seasons he has played more than 65 games only once (and not a lot more, just 67 in 2003-04).
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21381
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 5:58 am
Don't get me wrong, Baron is a great player and someone brought up a stat that the Warriors won 63% of the games he played this season! That is real good! The problem is that it will be a constant hassle not having him healthy!

I'd really like Mullin to find a fairly young PG, that is healthy, to take Baron's place if he is not healthy next season. Maybe Monta Ellis can turn into that PG (possible)
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
PreviousNext

Return to Trades

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron