Warriors fan here, my condolences to not obtaining a higher pick. (Trade Scenerio)
by TICAL-MATIC_15 on May 20, 2009 9:37 PM EDT
55 comments
First of all, I think the Wizards are a couple of role players and veterans away from being legitamate contenders in the Eastern Conference. That being said, on behalf of myself (Golden State Of Mind not yet consulted). I would like to propose a trade.
This all came to mind when I heard that your guys are shopping the pick, supposedly. Also due to the fact that I beleive you guys are a veteran away from being a top tier team in the NBA, which would leave me talking about the 5ht pick.
1) Arenas is one of the top players (not just PG's) in the league. He just needs to find out a way to stay healthy.
2) Caron Butler from what i've seen is the vocal leader of this team and some say is stuck between SG and SF. Stephen Jackson would be a great fit. He can pass the ball and play some PG to take burden off of Arenas. Great defender and is ALSO a vocal leader.
3) Depth is a major issue on this team and a prolific scorer coming off the bench would help A LOT. Corey Maggette would bring in some instant energy and scoring off the bench.
4) An extremely weak draft in the sense of talent. #5 wouldn't have that much of an impact on this team with potential 09-10 All-Star talent in Arenas, Butler, and maybe Jamison. We're talking about a BETTER 07 Playoff Warrior team.
PG: Arenas, James, Dixon
SG: Jackson, Young
SF: Butler, Maggette
PF: Jamison
C: Haywood, McGee, Thomas
It would be a step in the right direction as your 3 All-Stars are 3-4 years until they reach the end of their primes. Just look at the Celtics, traded young for veterans to eventually win a championship.
We, on the other hand, are a MESS, We need to find a direction. We go young and that's it.
The Trade Specifications:
WAS trade #5, Songalia, Stevenson, Blatche, Pecherov, and McGuire to GS for Jackson and Maggette.
This represents the view of the user who wrote the FanPost, and not the entire Bullets Forever community. We're a place of many opinions, not just one.
0 recs |
55 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Jackson and Maggette?
That would create a serious logjam for at the two-guard/SF slots. I always thought Jackson was a decent defender but I can’t see him and Arenas meshing at all. Plust I would hate to give up Dominic McGuire because I see him having a large role in this team as a defensive weapon. Any chance we can get Anthony Randolph away from you?
"Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home." --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on May 20, 2009 9:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There's only one untouchable on this team.
and that’s AR. He was the ONLY bright spot on our team last season. You can have ANYBODY just not AR. As for Jackson, he brings in leadership and championship experience (Spurs). If you look at his time with us, we were a better team with a top PG running things (B-Diddy) and Jackson as a 2nd or 3rd option. That’s why I think he would be perfect on your team. Maggette on the other hand will give you points on any given night. Wanna get to the free throw line in a tight game? Bring in Maggette. Jackson a decent defender? hmmm… he had Dirk on LOCK in the playoffs and guarded KOBE pretty damn well. He’s a great defender. From what you are saying, i’m willing to give away Turiaf. Tops in the league for blocked shots and no doubt has energy.
by TICAL-MATIC_15 on May 20, 2009 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn
I just had to ask. I had heard good things about Anthony Randolph. I will continue to jealously covet him!
"Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home." --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on May 21, 2009 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hehe I think every team has a player like that
By the way, with us it’s Javale McGee.
by pantslessyoda1 on May 21, 2009 1:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm jealous you guys have a center with so much potential
We were scared he would’ve turned out to be another Patrick O’Bryant..guess we were wrong! lol!
by TICAL-MATIC_15 on May 21, 2009 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would the salaries match?
I’m not too concerned about any kind of logjam situation since we can always just swing another deal with someone who could use Jackson or Maggette (I’d rather have Jackson). I’d be cool with the deal, although I’d be even cooler with it if we could snag one of your cheap three point shooters, since we don’t really have any snipers on this team other than Arenas.
by pantslessyoda1 on May 20, 2009 10:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The salaries match. Trade machine proof.
Sure you can have our snipers. Your choices are Belinelli and Azubuike.
by TICAL-MATIC_15 on May 20, 2009 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who wants Corey Maggette right now?
Why would anyone else trade for him when we traded for him?
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 20, 2009 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He can get to the line when you want to slow the game down
and actually hit the free throws. Can finish strong in the post for 3 point plays. Decent shooter but will attack the rim at will and WILL score most of the time.
by TICAL-MATIC_15 on May 20, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You forgot that he's owed 40 million dollars over the next four years
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 20, 2009 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, I agree. Taking on Maggette for a further trade is a bad idea, his contract is too large and too long and it’ll be very difficult to get a talented player back in exchange.
by NBR on May 23, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ew
Why would we want Corey Maggette?
How about Jackson and #7 for Songaila, Stevenson and #5?
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 20, 2009 10:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd like to keep both picks if we could.
But you can have ANYBODY on this team but AR. Take Nellie if you want.
by TICAL-MATIC_15 on May 20, 2009 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really want anyone on your team badly enough to trade out of the lottery
Sorry.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 20, 2009 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing worth #5
but Blatche, Pesh and Deshawn for Azubuike and Turiaf works for me.
by Jheiser3 on May 20, 2009 10:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't want to give up McGuire either
How about this instead:
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pyfdw2
- pick + Songaila + Blatche + Stevenson + Pecherov
for
Stephen Jackson + Kelenna Azubuike
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 20, 2009 10:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That should say
the #5 pick + Songaila + Blatche + Stevenson + Pecherov
for
Stephen Jackson + Azubuike
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 20, 2009 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a great trade. I’m sold.
(1) Getting out from underneath that Songaila contract, and moving Stevenson in the process. Lovely.
(2) Stephen Jackson and Azubuike alongside Caron Butler on the wings. That’s an excellent wing rotation. Both Jackson and Azubuike are good defenders too.
(3) The team still holds onto it’s expiring contracts of Thomas and James. That still leaves the team with major trading assets, or possible cap flexibility if they let them expire. The Wizards would also still hold Young and McGee, two other quality trade assets. There’s a brilliant chance there to make further trades and finish out the team with strong veterans.
Big fan of that trade idea. I think it’s an excellent deal for Washington … bad deal for GSW.
by NBR on May 23, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No again
We have to give up both #5 and Blatche for Stephen Jackson and Kelenna Azubuike?
That’s ridiculous.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 20, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, not "ridiculous"
Just very lopsided and not appropriate value for Blatche + #5.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 20, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So - wait
The Wizards need:
an upgrade at Shooting Guard
3-point shooting
Perimeter Defense
Low post banger/rebounder
The Wizards have:
Some bad contracts (Songaila)
Some bad players (Pecherov)
A bad example for young players (Blatche)
A log jam at PF
A Luxury Tax problem
So the Wizards give up the #5 pick in the draft – a very, very poor draft -where pick #5 won’t even garner a starting quality player
PLUS an under-performing, 4th year player that has shown no interest in WORKING to improve his body or game….. PLUS some throw in’s to make the salaries work…..
FOR a Starting quality Shooting Guard (Stephen Jackson) who averaged over 20 points per game (on 41% shooting), 5 rebounds and 6.5 assists per game. Said player (Jackson), by the way, just happens to be a very good perimeter defender…. and has always had a True Shooting % over 50%….
PLUS a young, athletic Small Forward averaging 14.4 points per game (on 46% shooting) that can shoot the 3-pointer (45%), and with a 56% TSP – - – throw in 5 rebounds per game…. Oh, and by the way, not a bad defender either.
PLUS it shaves $2 Million off the Wizards total salaries….
So this trade frees up the log jam at PF (so that McGee can actually get some run) – fills in three of the Wizards immediate needs (upgrade at Shooting Guard , DEFENSE, and 3-point shooting)…
Not sure how that’s ridiculous
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 20, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If anything
The Warriors are not getting enough value for Jackson and Azubuike
But hey, I didn’t make the original trade proposal either….
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 20, 2009 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I said, I'm willing to give up ANYBODY for your 5th and the right to keep our 7th
That would be a tremendous trade. We are a mess and we need to find a direction and stick to it.
by TICAL-MATIC_15 on May 21, 2009 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rook, you realize a 50% true shooting percentage is awful, right?
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
Actually, I didn’t
{grin}
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 21, 2009 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But
His per was 16.2 last year.
Most of the Wizard’s Shooting Guards were UNDER 10… With the exception of Nick Young, at 13.12
Even if you look at career statistics, Deshawn has always been around 12
Jackson would be a definite upgrade at Shooting Guard
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 21, 2009 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus, true shooting percentage can be affected by how much someone has to manufacture their shot
If Steve Jackson’s on the Wizards, he’s probably the fourth or even fifth option (I never understood why we didn’t go into Brendan Haywood more often in 2007-2008), so most of his shots will either be open threes or twos taken during mismatches. Or we could use him as a sixth man who can run the second unit.
The true shooting percentage does scare me, though, and it wasn’t that much better when he was with the Pacers or Spurs, so maybe my logic’s flawed. Really, I’d like to avoid seeing anyone on a winning team with a ts% below 53 taking any shots at all.
by pantslessyoda1 on May 21, 2009 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are there two (2) Mike Prada's on this board?
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 21, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I changed my posting name
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now You Need
To find an avatar of Gheorghe Mureşan in a suit and tie, to go with your new professional name.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on May 21, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here you go
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Gheorghe_Muresan.jpg
You can crop that one
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 21, 2009 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And He's Got the Skinny 80's-Style Tie
Prada, he’s all yours!
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on May 22, 2009 8:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like this one
It would free up a lot of salary for us. But we would need their #7 in return to make it worth while.
Dear Diary, JACKPOT!!!!!!!!!!
by Evander holyfield on May 20, 2009 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
But we would need their #7 in return to make it worth while.
This draft is simply “terr-bul”, to mimic Charles Barkley. Why do we need the 7th pick? I think the proposed trade is lopsided on our behalf as it is. I would do the deal as proposed.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on May 21, 2009 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Likewise
We’d still be thin at PF, but if we shore that up with a veteran banger for a chunk of the mid-level, I think we’ve got a solid squad.
by sierradave on May 21, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh plus
(sorry for the double-post)
That leaves us with our two expirings still intact. If EG can’t find a team with a decent backup PF in need of cap space in 2010, then he isn’t nearly the genius we’ve made him out to be…
by sierradave on May 21, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whats in it for the Warriors?
You’d be trading two of your main rotation guys for a bunch of role players. No salary cap relief or anything. What’s in it for the Wizards? Thats almost half of our entire roster. Do the warriors even have enough roster spots open? 6 players for 2 doesn’t normally happen.
A trade between these two teams would probably be based on the swap of the two lottery picks, as stated above. If there’s a specific player the Warriors liked at #5 it would be more likely to go down. I could see us giving #5, Blatche, and Etan’s expiring for #7 and Stephen Jackson, but not half our squad.
Dear Diary, JACKPOT!!!!!!!!!!
by Evander holyfield on May 20, 2009 11:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I mean, they're rebuilding, so it would make sense for them to drop anyone over 27
It’s just a matter of getting good value for their guys. At the same time, I think that they could conceivably be a playoff team again if they could just stay healthy and get a real point guard.
by pantslessyoda1 on May 20, 2009 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You hit it right on the spot.
We have no plan. And this trade would make it easier for us to build chemistry for our young players and shore up hope for the future.
by TICAL-MATIC_15 on May 21, 2009 9:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is half of a squad
That won 19 games last season. And it isn’t the good half either. Your roster space point is a good one, but besides DMac and McGee, I’m fine with letting any non-starter walk.
Prada’s proposal is even better in that regard. Leaves us without Magette’s contract woes, and leaves us with DMac, McGee, and Young. Sounds good to me.
by sierradave on May 21, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would say Biedrins Maybe
But he has a pretty large contract, right? Like 10 or 11 mill a year with 4 or 5 years left? Not worth it at that price.
by DT711 on May 21, 2009 9:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Plus he's Golden State's only real center
I know he’s in Nellie’s doghouse all the time, but would they really want to trade one of the top rebounders (at least per minute) in the league?
by pantslessyoda1 on May 21, 2009 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most Likely Not
Bu the OP said anyone but Randolph, so I figured I’d throw him out there.
by DT711 on May 21, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's not in Nellie's doghouse.
The only person that’s in Nellie’s doghouse for a fact is Crawford.
by TICAL-MATIC_15 on May 21, 2009 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way, why doesn't Biedrins play more?
From what I’ve seen, he’s looked like a great young center, almost like a slightly more skilled Tyson Chandler. Does he just miss a lot of assignments on defense or something? Not hustle enough?
by pantslessyoda1 on May 21, 2009 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i like it...
save the mcGuire and we’ll give you Thomas. The poet should thrive out near hollywood.
I think jackson would fit in nicely here. He ran the point all last year from the Golden state games i got to tune in for. That is a crucial thing i think to possess in finding a potential runnign mate with gil in the backcourt. This way gil will be able to run off screens and pop up for the three. I think magettee but i feel he is just a more developed NY at this point and will def steal his minutes. which is not a bad thing especially if we are looking to compete next year. blatche may need to go to the jazz or the spurs to resurrect his career.
by stlballa on May 21, 2009 1:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
My concern with Jackson
Is he uses a ton of possessions pretty inefficiently. Career usage% is 23.8, career TS% is a mediocre 52.4%. He also turned it over a ton last year, indicating he kept dribbling into crowds instead of moving the ball.
If he would stop shooting so much, then he’d be a real asset, since he does have excellent ball-handling ability and can pass the ball really well. I just wonder about whether he’ll realize he’s a role player after several years in Golden State when they foolishly made him a top option.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 1:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's why I'd ask for Azubuike or Morrow too
I never like Azubuike’s game when he played, but his numbers are pretty impressive: 45% from three, 56.2 TS%, etc. I always thought he was a jacker, but while he doesn’t pass much, he also uses way less possessions than Nick Young. Maybe he’d be a better option than Nick.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, this question will be answered quite boldly.
The reason why Jackson shot so much last season was because he felt that he was the ONLY player that can get us to win games. That proved to be a dreadful experience. Once and if he gets dealt to you guys, he’ll FINALLY realize his past mistakes. Reason for that? He won’t feel like a liability anymore. Not as much as he was here. As soon as he steps in as a Wizard, he’ll IMMEDIATELY acknowledge that the burden of having to be a primary option will be lifted off his back (Ex. When he got dealt to the Warriors, he acknowledged the fact that Baron was the primary option and Jack was 3rd behind Richardson) Jackson will have an immediate impact vocally and most importantly on the court. Now, Arenas will have two major options to play with. Not to mention this quote… Tim Duncan: “He’s the ultimate teammate” (2003 NBA Champions)
by TICAL-MATIC_15 on May 21, 2009 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That usage percentage is his career usage, dude
Not his usage with Golden State. I’m not suggesting he’s selfish. I’m suggesting emphatically that he shoots a lot. He also passes a lot, which means he needs the ball in his hands a lot. That’s a problem when we already have Arenas, Butler and Jamison.
If you look at his four highest usage%s, they’re with four different teams. This isn’t just a Golden State thing. This is who Stephen Jackson is. Stephen Jackson can give you decent, but inefficient scoring, great passing for a two-guard but also a high turnover percentage and good defense, but he needs a lot of the ball in his hands to do it.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
In my eyes. Jackson needs to be a 2nd or 3rd option to win basketball games. He’d also need a good point guard to do so. You look at the teams he’s been to, only the successful ones had great pg’s. Spurs had Tony Parker, Jack helped win a CHAMPIONSHIP. Jack went to the Hawks, he was the 6th leading scorer in the league post all-star break (Again, no good PG on that Hawks team, thus the mentality to be the primary option), Jack was traded to Indiana where he had a good point guard in Tinsley and helped them get into the 2nd round (Would have gone farther if Artest wasn’t suspended). Traded to Golden State to play with a great PG in Davis and help us to our first playoffs in 13 long years. 07-08 Season was phenomenal, obviusly 48 wins didn’t help us to go to the playoffs, but that was ONE HECK OF A WESTERN CONFERENCE. 08-09, No great PG and Jackson had to have his mindset on being the primary option with Monteezy injured. Jack had another Atlanta Hawk season with us last season. Basically Jackson will THRIVE if he has surrounding players around him.
by TICAL-MATIC_15 on May 21, 2009 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I appreciate your endorsement
I’m skeptical, but it’s nice to hear anyway.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I generally agree with you
But I think some of the turnovers last year were probably a result of him having to basically play point guard. He seems like he’s been a lot more reliable in the past.
by pantslessyoda1 on May 21, 2009 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
