Warriors And Pacers Talking About Tinsley?

MillerTime101 · Post #101 » by **MillerTime101** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 3:34 am

Night Angel 1 wrote:The Warriors wouldn't trade for both Tinsely and Daniels, it's put them over the luxury tax. Al for Tinsely or Daniels would mean you guys would have to throw in the filler.

Actually the article suggests they would be looking to acquire both, in that case Randolph and Wright would be the only salaries that would work alongside Harrington. Im not saying thats the deal that is going to get done, just stating a fact.

Post #102 » by **Gremz** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 8:03 am

Tinsley + Daniels + Graham for Harrington + Perovic + Hendrix works on trade checker, but i'm not exactly sure if it puts GS over the luxury tax. It looks like it might with ShamSports info. Just a thought.

Post #103 » by **floppymoose** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 8:49 am

MillerTime101 wrote:
Night Angel 1 wrote:The Warriors wouldn't trade for both Tinsely and Daniels, it's put them over the luxury tax. Al for Tinsely or Daniels would mean you guys would have to throw in the filler.

Actually the article suggests they would be looking to acquire both, in that case Randolph and Wright would be the only salaries that would work alongside Harrington. Im not saying thats the deal that is going to get done, just stating a fact.

Al + Kelenna works if Kelenna agrees to a trade.
Al + Marco + Kosta works just fine.

not that I think any of these ideas would happen...

Post #104 » by **Gremz** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 9:47 am

I would've thought that Kelenna would have a bit of value. Am i wrong?

Kuq_e_Zi91 · Post #105 » by **Kuq_e_Zi91** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 1:03 pm

Marco! I call driving the Marco Belinelli fan bus if he becomes a Pacer. I'm not so sure if we'd have many passengers though..

Post #106 » by **mizzoupacers** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 1:59 pm

tbabyy924 wrote:Marco!

Polo

Honest to God, I could visualize Golden State trading for Tinsley. Maybe it's time to go take my temperature and make sure I'm not running a fever.

Post #107 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 2:13 pm

Didn't Kosta Perovic just sign in Spain (Pamesa Valencia) and get released from his GS deal?

He's not going to be a part of this deal. It would jeopardize his situation with the Spanish team too much.

Post #108 » by **floppymoose** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 6:29 pm

^^^ It's looking that way on Kosta. I'm not clear on the details of whether we will retain rights (and thus whether those rights can be traded), but it's possible that he is no longer tradable.

Post #109 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 6:52 pm

floppymoose wrote:^^^ It's looking that way on Kosta. I'm not clear on the details of whether we will retain rights (and thus whether those rights can be traded), but it's possible that he is no longer tradable.

Apparently, he's going to be waived and forfeit all of the salary owed him (essentially, a buyout for $0). He's going to have to clear waivers, thus I think for the contract to go through, he's going to not be available for trade and the Warriors will not retain rights no him (though I do think Kosta would give them right of first refusal if he ever comes back to the NBA as gratitude for their willingness to help him in this endeavor.

Post #110 » by **Grang33r** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:39 am

Well if Bird lands Wright, he will be a pure genius. Thats all i gotta say about that.

basketballwacko2 · Post #111 » by **basketballwacko2** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:37 am

Guys there's no way in hell we get any of their young players in a deal for JT. We'll have to give them Williams with JT just to get Harrington. And I doubt they even do that.

Post #112 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:19 pm

basketballwacko2 wrote:Guys there's no way in hell we get any of their young players in a deal for JT. We'll have to give them Williams with JT just to get Harrington. And I doubt they even do that.

Correct. Without giving up multiple 1st round picks and Shawne, we're not going to come close to giving up enough value to get a young lottery PF like Anthony Randolph or Brandon Wright in a Tinsley deal. Seriously. Tinsley is negative value. We're going to have to compensate just to bring him up from negative value to Harrington's value. Then, to try and get a Randolph or Wright, we're going to have to give up a TON of value/talent/picks just to get GS just to consider it. This just isn't going to happen. It'd more likely have to involve Granger as well to get Randolph or Wright in addition to moving Tinsley for Harrington, which, I assume, all of you would be against.

HicksvsKnicks08 · Post #113 » by **HicksvsKnicks08** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:12 pm

Scoot,

Do you think it's out of the realm of possibility that Granger is not as "untouchable" as people think?

Post #114 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:48 am

HicksvsKnicks08 wrote:Scoot,

Do you think it's out of the realm of possibility that Granger is not as "untouchable" as people think?

I'm thinking that management has made Granger untouchable unless an even better, young stud is available in trade (think LeBron, Paul, Aldridge, Roy, etc.).

Shawne Williams may be talented, but he's such a knucklehead that I don't think the management trusts him enough to do anything but hope he develops behind Granger, because they sure as hell aren't going to bet an entire rebuild around him.

Post #115 » by **Gremz** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:59 am

No one is untouchable, but he certainly is invaluable, and his on court performance is only part of the reason why.

Post #116 » by **Grang33r** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm

Gremz wrote:No one is untouchable, but he certainly is invaluable, and his on court performance is only part of the reason why.

Right, the guy is an awesome role model off the court too, as well as a star on the court. He's unotouchable. He'll see his money soon.

Post #117 » by **floppymoose** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:46 pm

Also, GS isn't a good fit for Granger, even if he were available and even if Indy were willing to lose him to move Tinsley. Nellie is going to use Randolph at SF later, and Maggette sooner. Granger makes it very crowded. I don't think GS would be interested in Harrington/Randolph for Tinsley/Granger, and I don't think the Pacers would be interested in Harrington/Maggette for Tinsley/Granger. (Actually, Warriors might be unable to do that even if they liked it, due to lux tax - Granger expects a big payday.)

old rem · Post #118 » by **old rem** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:07 am

Gremz wrote:Tinsley + Daniels + Graham for Harrington + Perovic + Hendrix works on trade checker, but i'm not exactly sure if it puts GS over the luxury tax. It looks like it might with ShamSports info. Just a thought.

Perovic's gone and we don't want 2 more G's and whatever Graham is ( buy out comes to mind)
with us giving our regular PF and another PF (I like Hendrix more than Graham-Daniels)

Think Tinsley and ? For Harrington and we don't get a bunch of stuff we right away want to dump.

I'm not sure who GSW would take that the Pacers don't mind losing

greenway84 · Post #119 » by **greenway84** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:41 pm

Tinsley
Shawne
McRoberts
---------------
Harrington

Post #120 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:23 pm

old rem wrote:
Gremz wrote:Tinsley + Daniels + Graham for Harrington + Perovic + Hendrix works on trade checker, but i'm not exactly sure if it puts GS over the luxury tax. It looks like it might with ShamSports info. Just a thought.

Perovic's gone and we don't want 2 more G's and whatever Graham is ( buy out comes to mind)
with us giving our regular PF and another PF (I like Hendrix more than Graham-Daniels)

Think Tinsley and ? For Harrington and we don't get a bunch of stuff we right away want to dump.

I'm not sure who GSW would take that the Pacers don't mind losing

Closest would probably have to be Tinsley/Williams for Harrington, as Nelson would probably use Williams much more as a PF than a SF in kind of a Dirk Nowitzki-type mold. Of course, he ain't no Dirk, let alone he could barely hold Dirk's jock-strap, but that same type of long-range jump shooting PF with the ability to slash to keep the defense honest.