Filling the roster: Cheaply?

[FNQ]

You are letting your preference cloud your judgement.

These things can't happen?

The Clippers don't want a PG and a talent upgrade? The Cavs don't want a shooter and a guy to take the scoring load off of LeBron? The Rockets don't want a clutch shooter and good defender (when healthy) at a discounted price? - remember that the Rox have Alston at "PG" for them. They could use another ballhandler.

Regardless of what you like, you can't just dismiss it because of what you think is going to happen. The FO, by all indications of everything going on, is well aware that they aren't extending Baron. Why delve into a FA field where we wouldnt be a primary destination and where most FAs are overpaid anyhow?

Unless Cohan is trying to make us the Oakland A's of the NBA, it would just be foolish for the FO to piss away an asset... again...

But you are assuming Baron's here next year because none of these rumors or possible potential deals have come up yet... mainly because Baron hasn't picked up his option yet. Add into that the fact that the lottery was literally days ago... and what kind of buzz should there be?

[Mylie10]

1.) Battier is an interegal part of the Rockets and I doubt they'd deal him for Jax. You have to assume that houston wants the percieved headache.

2.) Wally's not coming here. I don't mind the expiring 13 mil, but come on.

3.) Houston has to want Jackson. Big leap.

4.) POB to agree to the deal - obstacle. Ifs ands and butts!

5.) Bobby Jackson for part of the TE if Obee's not on board? You're assuming that the FO would use it. Not likely.

6.) Baron and Mags have to agree for this to happen.

7.) Finally do you really think the Warriors want Baron on the Clippers? I don't. At least they don't want to aid them in him going there.

Dude I don't mind your deals as deals go, but your making big leaps against what the FO has been showing us.

All I was asking was for you to come up with scenario's based on who we're dealing with.

[FNQ]

#1/3 are the same, but again - they need people who can take the scoring load off McGrady, people who can handle the ball, and a go-to guy in the clutch. They get all that by sacrificing a little efficiency and defense...

#2- Buy him out. I'm sure as much as we dont want him, he doesnt want to be here. Bay Area fans I'm sure remember this fool dissing us.

#4/5 - Also the same thing. Meant to add Kosta, and if you add him, the W's only add 1.8m in salary in the total of the deals... add Beli? We break even.

#6 - Baron gets to the man and play with a good team in LAC going into his contract year. Maggette gets to play with LeBron on a team that consistently makes the playoffs (because of only LeBron).

#7 - I'm pretty sure that based on our reaction to him wanting an extension, we're well aware of what Baron does to a team... he does not take them to the next level, he's merely a draw and a SC highlight.

There's no bigger leaps in what I'm saying than what you are saying. Tuning one side out because of preference (which is what you are doing) means you want it done a specific way... I'm not saying the points aren't credible, but what makes them any more credible or logical than the reasons I brought up to do the trade?

[Mylie10]

What was my big stretch? Joe Smith and Damon Jones for Al?

The picks might be a stretch, but none of us know what's gonna happen there.

My wanting them to go after another pick is a stretch, i'll agree there. But not an unlikely scenario for a team trying to fill the roster without spending much money.

Your scenario has to get approval on just about every move from almost every source. Except for the picks side of it.

Yes Houston needs more scoring, but would they want Jax, and at the expense of Battier? Doubtful.

Baron may want to go to the Clippers, but do they want to pay him 17 mil, or wait one year and pick him up through FA.

Maggette may or may not want to play in Cleveland.

Plus didn't Hopper say you can't deal Baron / Maggette prior to the draft, so the included picks won't work, right? Not sure.

#7 is your take. The FO knows that even with his warts, he puts butts in the seats and when motivated is amonst the best in the league.

You have to be aware that your take on Baron isn't the way the FO sees it. Even if they're tired of his act, they won't feel great about strengthening a team in their division, unless they feel that they've surpassed the Clips in talent. I think most would agree that if you added Baron to Brand, Kaman, and Thorton, then it could be extremely tough on the Warriors.

Can't you just try and give a scenario based on who's running things around here. I really do like hearing what you think, but the pure Baron hate clouds your judgement.

[FNQ]

lol Mylie... its pointless to argue because apparently your take is correct and everyone else's isn't... Next time you start a thread, make it clear that you have to see it your way to be legit. Everything else is a copout - "you have to get everyone's approval" - you have to do that with FA signings too! With any kind of moves! That's a very Nick move bud.

Hopper was incorrect, as both players essentially have a "no-trade clause"... as soon as they like the deal (re: extensions in place) they can waive their ETO and be dealt. They just cant be dealt while they still have the options..

You think I'm extreme for not just kowtowing to Baron and thinking he'll rebound and play well - I've accepted that Baron has zero resiliency when it comes to his own game. He's proven as much - it takes a personnel change to have him bounce back from quitting.

And just to be clear... based on the FOs actions thus far, my opinion seems to be far less a stretch than yours. There's little doubt in my mind that Ramasar did contact the Knicks, and there's little doubt that the W's did not offer anything close to a reasonable extension.

We know 2 things about the people running things:

1) They're cheap

2) They want to stay good

If we can parlay Baron into some draft picks, you damn well better believe we will. Keeping guys in the 2-5m range of salary for 4 years is good business sense for the cheap guy who runs the show. If we lose Baron for nothing, we run the risk of having a public backlash where ticket sales plummetmuch more so than if we trade him.

[Mylie10]

I've stated constantly that if the deal is good for the Warriors, then they'll do it.

We don't disagree on much other than you hatred for Baron.

I just feel your scenario is based on to many if's and buts. alot of things would have to be accepted by many for it to happen.

I'm sticking to the, FO is being cheap and therfore adding talent as cheaply as possible, but maintaining the winning that's occured so far. We agree here.

They don't want to completely rebuild like you do.

They may or may not deal Baron for picks, but is this really the year to do so? Maybe, maybe not. I thinks it's unlikely.

As for Ramasar and the so-called rumors. This stuff is nothing new. It happened last year. He won't walk away from the money.

The Warriors won't sign him to a huge extension. They could possibly do something that would be far less expensive, but Baron would have to be willing and it probably wouldn't happen until after this next year plays out.

As for FA signings, I only had minor deals this off-season. Nothing was major and of huge signifigance.

Don't you ever compare me to Nick, that's just dirty pool.

So was Baron good at any time last year? Or does everything he's done not count as being productive. Any good with the bad?

I don't think anyone has to agree with the way I laid it out. I just simply asked that when really looking at things people don't throw out the 4 team deals and total rebuilding projects.

I'm not saying I'm right either, who really knows, but one thing is for sure. We're not gonna go over the tax, and we need to add talent.

I believe Baron will be here next season, and I believe he'll be a good soldier. At least until the All Star break

[FNQ]

I'm not even saying they should completely rebuild (obviously not since as soon as the ink dries on the new contract, there will be a new franchise player in GS).

But let's call losing Baron a rebuild.

If we wait til he expires, we 'rebuild' in 09 and get nothing back for him.

If we trade him now for even a mid lotto 1st, we do the 'rebuild' a year early and find out exactly where our team stands.

If you dont like the comparsion, dont act like the guy! You act as if I'm turning a blind eye to the 1st half of the season - I'm not. That's the dirty pool I'm saying Baron is not a consistent player and because of that fact, our team play not only suffers, but the development of our other players also suffers.

Around this time, I was suggesting trading JRich to the Bobs for their #1 and Brevin Knight. And it was laughed at, called unrealistic, especially since we had just won the 1st round in the playoffs.

Our FO is not afraid of making those types of moves that not only save money but are somewhat beneficial for the future. This move would be of exactly the same type and style, so to call it unrealistic is, in fact, unrealistic

[Mylie10]

I'm not even saying they should completely rebuild (obviously not since as soon as the ink dries on the new contract, there will be a new franchise player in GS).

But let's call losing Baron a rebuild.

If we wait til he expires, we 'rebuild' in 09 and get nothing back for him.

If we trade him now for even a mid lotto 1st, we do the 'rebuild' a year early and find out exactly where our team stands.

If you dont like the comparsion, dont act like the guy! You act as if I'm turning a blind eye to the 1st half of the season - I'm not. That's the dirty pool I'm saying Baron is not a consistent player and because of that fact, our team play not only suffers, but the development of our other players also suffers.

Around this time, I was suggesting trading JRich to the Bobs for their #1 and Brevin Knight. And it was laughed at, called unrealistic, especially since we had just won the 1st round in the playoffs.
Our FO is not afraid of making those types of moves that not only save money but are somewhat beneficial for the future. This move would be of exactly the same type and style, so to call it unrealistic is, in fact, unrealistic

I certainly wasn't one of the guys who laughed at or called it unreasonable.

Trading Baron is different, but not completely unrealistic.

you take JRich away from the Warriors and we win 48 games.

You take Baron away from the Warriors....do we win 48? Doubtful.

If we had another fit with Monta to move forward, then yeah let's go for it. If that deal comes along, then yeah you go for it.

I wasn't acting like Nick, don't get your panties in a bunch.

[FNQ]

When you assume people dont know basic information because it isn't listed, who do you think its like? Ya may as well ask me for proof that Baron's value will be lower at the trade deadline

Why do you care about how many wins we have next year? Be it in 08 or 09, we're going to have to take a 'step back' by losing Baron. Why is everyone here so determined to make sure we lose him for nothing?