Paul Pierce wont land in Golden State unless Boston is prepared to take bench warmers for him. Chris Mullin wont break up the blockbuster backcourt of Jason and Baron. Unless Boston has their eye on Mike Dunleavy... at which point, I'd give it the green light. They can both shoot from the arc, but Paul's game is more complete. Aside from being a tad bit too short for a small forward, everything else would fit.

he is 6ft 8in. That is quite tall, about average height for a SF.

I think that Dunleavy accepts not being the 1st option and thus not having the ball in his hands easier than what Pierce would. I reckon Pierce would start talking alot and saying that he is the one that should have the ball in his hands in order for the team to win, especially if the Warriors don't win so much. Difficult to see 3 great scorers co-existing like - Baron, JRich and Pierce

Hmmm... I have him listed at 6'6"... and, from what I understood, an average small forward was about 6'7"-6'9"...

I agree, which is why I wouldn't bet that Golden State go after Paul Pierce. Too many cheifs and too little indians is what screwed up mid-90's teams like the Bullets (Webber, Strickland, Howard), the Rockets (Pip, Hakeen, Barkley), and the Knicks (Ewing, Johnson, Houston). Big 3's only go so far... Last season, the Wizards were knocked out early and the Suns didn't make it all the way. People can call San Antonio's threesome a Big 3, but I'm still not sold on Tony Parker being regarded as a star. Call me crazy, but I think thew addition of Van Exel and Finley can only hurt them. Van Exel adds depth (but attitude when they lose) and Finley's going to want the ball more than he'll get it.

Pierce would only cause problems because we'd need him to be a 3-point shooting role player who defends and passes well. There's no way he'd go from being a franchise player to a 2nd or 3rd option.

I think the bigest error in Warriors history, and maybe one of the bigest in NBA history ever, was picking Jo Smith with the No 1 draft pick. I think that year a rookie named Garnet was aveliable.

Joe Smith wasn't a bad pick at all, he performed quite well and was one of the best players for the Warriors for a few years. Now he is a bust and you just don't see any big numbers from him and he is on a bad team where he could have been awesome since there was no good bigs.

Just happened that there was guys like Garnett, Rasheed wallace and Stackhouse in the same draft that have always been very good and Garnett, ofcourse, became great!

Oh man, I think Joe Smith was the biggest waste of a draft pick ever. Even if you didn't want to pick Rasheed or Stackhouse (because not a lot of people had scouted Garnett, so I doubt the Warriors would have taken him first), they should have traded their number one pick for an established star in the league! Joe Smith was a bust of a pick to begin with. That he played decently for the first couple of years on Golden State is irrelevant. His attitude towards us, his gameplay, and his expectations all came back unsatisfactory.

He is at least in the past now and the Warriors have players that play harder!

Murphy may not be a great athlete but he sure does make you smile with admiration with his hard style!

... and no one can deny how good it feels to see him knock down a little jumper in another huge forward's face! The soft touch plus the hard work is an awesome combination.

Player32 wrote:You're suggesting that the "evil Raptor franchise" and the "evil Maverick franchise" teamed up simply to screw Golden State out of some money? What the hell are you talking about? Dallas wouldn't "fake" Golden State into paying Toronto for Antawn Jamison. There's such thing as morals and common courtesy in the real world. You've been watching far too much WWE.

No I am suggesting that Nellie expressed interest in Antawn only to disguise his true interest in Nowitzki. Its neither immoral or discourteous to disguise your intentions in the draft, and pretty typical behavior for Nellie. Your misreading of what I said to somehow get that the two franchises teamed up to screw the Warriors is exactly what I was talking about when I said you need to improve your reading comprehension.

Player32 wrote:

BigW wrote:To recap, I made a claim. Player32 said I was wrong. I backed up my claim with cold hard evidence.

First of all, I never said you were wrong. Unlike you, I believe in differences of opinion. You believed differently than me. Doesn't make you wrong, doesn't make me right. It's an argument.

I said the deal was made before the draft picks were made. You said the deal was made after the draft picks were made. Both of can not be true, one is wrong and one is right. That the deal happened at some point in time is a fact not an opinion. I produced a third party source that established that my assertion was based in fact. You deny that the third party source is accurate without any evidence to back it up.

Player32 wrote:Secondly, your so called "cold, hard evidence" came not from the Warriors themselves, but rather from a 3rd party. The San Fransisco Chronicle is not an unbiased, totally true recap of the Warriors moves. You're acting as though this article is scribed in stone. It's a newspaper, for God's sake, half of everything in it is false.

So rather than concede a point, you posit that newpapers are biased and 50% wrong? Newpapers go to great lengths to be objective and report the facts, except in opinion piece type articles. They make mistakes occasionally, but 99.9% of the time they are right when reporting. This is exactly what I mean by lack of integrity, rather that concede a point you are willing to deny newspapers as an objective source and make wild hyperbolic claims that 50% of what is printed in them is false. If you had integrity you would either concede the point or produce some source that backs up your opinion, denying the veracity of newspapers is an intellectually lazy way out that lacks credibility.

Player32 wrote:

BigW wrote:You're reading comprehension skills are lacking.

English Major with a minor in teaching, my comprehension is anything BUT lacking. You want to talk about somebody lacking English skills; at least I know how to properly spell "your" when referring to another person (especially while insulting them about English, dumbass).

Check your spelling of badly (not badley), it is easy to make a spelling mistake, and a spelling mistake doesn't invalidate an argument.

As an English major you should know that ad hominem attacks are a logical falacy. I was insulting and rude, but I kept my insults germane to the argument to emphasize my frustrations with you misreading what I wrote and the illogical lengths you would go to deny a source. Comments like "You watch too much WWE" and "dumbass" are just insulting without furthering your argument. As an English Major I'm sure you can do better.

Player32 wrote:

BigW wrote:Feel free to admit I was right and reclaim your integrity, Player32.

So, "integrity" would be to simply shrug and agree with you because your ass is getting sore instead of going with what I actually believe? And here I thought integrity had something to do with being true to one's self; not submitting because a Digimon player on a Warriors board in cyberspace is trying to start some faceless crap over useless content that doesn't really matter either way because (not only is it in the past, but) it's not in our hands. You think that sticking to what one believes is right is lacking integrity?

No, integrity is being willing to concede a point when faced with a source that contradicts the factual accuracy of your assertion. Integrity would be producing a source that backs you up. Lack of integrity is saying that the source is inaccurate without any evidence. Lack of integrity is being willing to say that 50% of what a newpaper prints is inaccurate rather than admitting you were wrong or backing up your assertion. Sticking to what you "believe" in the face of solid evidence to the contrary is hardly integrity, however it may qualify you for a post in the Bush administration.

Your point about the whole argument being useless, and me being overly aggressive is valid. Based on your previous posts, I expected you to be reasonable and fairly objective, I allowed my frustration with you misreading what I wrote and refusing to accept sources as valid, to let me be more insulting than was productive.

Player32 wrote:Nah, I'd rather sit back and let you look like an asshole who took a simple debate too seriously (all the while, laughing my ass off at FurZo's comment.) Enzyte and Viagra are definately in order for someone who gets shook so badley about a difference of opinion. But, unlike FurZo, I'm not going to recommend it because, odds are, you have nobody to share the results with. I can't imagine anybody willing to put up with such a belligerent, insecure, whining ass monkey like yourself. Have a nice time telling your Yu-Gi-Oh club about this little episode.

Ah, yes the ad hominem attacks that prove nothing, don't advance your argument, and only shut down further dialog. Sorry but they are all far from the mark.

I think I'll leave the argument where it's at without directly responding. Having an actual conversation in real life would be worthy of further argument, but I'm tired of exchanging comments on a Warrior's forum where it may very well last forever. I disagree with you and I do so on reasonable grounds that others seem to agree with, regardless of you (and only you) labeling my argument "invalid."

I apologize for using insults instead of reason, but I felt that you approached my opinion too harshly and came at me sideways. While I'll admit to withdrawing from logical debate, I don't think either side escapes blame; even though you never flat out called me a dumbass, my anger sparked from the fact that I took great offense to you telling me my reading comprehension was lacking on the grounds that I disagreed with you. Aside from being bitter about the trade every once and a while, it's really not something that matters this much to me. The only reason I took the time and picked your argument apart was because I felt that you took the time to look up an old newspaper article mostly to spite me because (to be bold) you seem like the type of person who takes it personally when others have a disagreement with you.

Never the less, I'm done arguing over something that will never change either of our opinions. I'm not here to make any lifelong enemies and I feel that stopping this debate where it stands will shed my feeling of any ill will towards you in future posts. You seem like an intellegent person, worthy of listening to when posting during topics. I don't want to go into said posts with a biased opinion about the author. Please accept my apology for stepping out of line with rude comments.

people keep saying the Ws made bad moves. I think the store lies in the franchise itself. There are teams that constantly make their players better, and there are teams on which players suck. Warriors is the latter one - it was just a piss poor organization. You go to W's and you're depressed. It's not like winning the lottery when you pick a player - it's an investment, and you have to work on a player to make him better. The W's sucked at it, plain and simple.

Warriors have just had bad management! With guys like Tim Hardaway and Mullin, this team would have been attractive to play for

They're definately turning it around, that's for sure. How far they go is now the question.

I would have to go with all the stupid draft picks. If you just go back and look at all the superstars our scouts missed on. I would list them but I dont have that much spare time and I feel sick to my stomach.

I Am just glad that the past is behind us and the present and the future is bright With Mullin and Higgins in the driver seat instead of someone like TwarzDick