GSW - NOP

Moderators: loserX, Trader_Joe, Mamba4Goat, Andre Roberstan, BullyKing, Texas Chuck, pacers33granger, HartfordWhalers

Godaddycurse
Head Coach
Posts: 6,287
And1: 3,163
Joined: Nov 13, 2019
 

GSW - NOP 

Post#1 » by Godaddycurse » Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:04 am

(Will need to be midseason trade)

NOP trades: Hart, Sato, Temple
GSW trades: Wiggins, top 20 protected 2022 1st (becomes 2 seconds if not conveyed)

Why for NOP: Wiggins is the most overpaid but also best player out of the 4 in the deal. Imo they need a consolidating trade for their backcourt (there is a big glut there). Wiggins will expire when Zion needs a new contract as well

Why for GSW: save ~4.5M+tax this year and tons more next year. Trio coming in adds some nice veteran depth

JV/Hayes
Zion/
Ingram/Murphy III
Wiggins/NAW
Graham/Lewis

Wiseman/Looney
Green/OPJ
Hart/Moody
Thompson/Poole
Curry/Sato
Mamba4Goat
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 10,168
And1: 6,833
Joined: Dec 13, 2013
Contact:
   

Re: GSW - NOP 

Post#2 » by Mamba4Goat » Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:05 am

If the star FA market continues to dry up and the protections are slightly lowered I’d do it. NO has a somewhat viable path to max space before paying Zion and it’s at least worth giving that a chance.
Rest in peace Mamba. There'll never be another Kobe.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 69,006
And1: 65,136
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: GSW - NOP 

Post#3 » by Texas Chuck » Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:12 am

I realize you protected that pick strongly and only gave the Pels one shot at it, but even with that I'm not sure they are do even a chance at a late 1st here. I get that the Warriors potentially really benefit from that savings next year but Hart is a pretty big downgrade from Wiggins to realize it. Pretty big gamble on Klay's health or a concession that we aren't really trying to contend.

My concern for the Pels is will Wiggins defer offensively and continue to try defensively when the best players are younger than him or will he revert back to bad old habits? At this cost though I'd take the gamble though. Little to lose and potentially he fills a real hole for them.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
Brick Layer
Junior
Posts: 322
And1: 104
Joined: Jul 01, 2021

Re: GSW - NOP 

Post#4 » by Brick Layer » Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:20 am

Wiggins' contract expires in the summer of 2023. GSW is better off keeping their starting small forward Wiggins and their 2022 first because GSW wants to contend rather than pinch pennies trading a solid starter in Wiggins for bench depth.
Godaddycurse
Head Coach
Posts: 6,287
And1: 3,163
Joined: Nov 13, 2019
 

Re: GSW - NOP 

Post#5 » by Godaddycurse » Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:29 am

Brick Layer wrote:Wiggins' contract expires in the summer of 2023. GSW is better off keeping their starting small forward Wiggins and their 2022 first because GSW wants to contend rather than pinch pennies trading a solid starter in Wiggins for bench depth.


Hart's deal is not guaranteed and sato is expiring, so it's like 100+M of savings next year.. not just pennies :wink:
Brick Layer
Junior
Posts: 322
And1: 104
Joined: Jul 01, 2021

Re: GSW - NOP 

Post#6 » by Brick Layer » Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:34 am

Godaddycurse wrote:
Brick Layer wrote:Wiggins' contract expires in the summer of 2023. GSW is better off keeping their starting small forward Wiggins and their 2022 first because GSW wants to contend rather than pinch pennies trading a solid starter in Wiggins for bench depth.


Hart's deal is not guaranteed and sato is expiring, so it's like 100+M of savings next year.. not just pennies :wink:

By the time next year rolls around GSW will have a much better grasp about just what Klay Thompson can actually bring to the table. Until GSW knows what Klay has left, any decisions about next year should wait until next year when Wiggins will be expiring.
User avatar
zimpy27
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 21,727
And1: 21,978
Joined: Jul 13, 2014

Re: GSW - NOP 

Post#7 » by zimpy27 » Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:00 am

I'm a fan of Wiggins to NOP though I'd want Ingram pushed to SG.

I also think if GSW does this trade then they want saving this season and probably pull trigger before trade deadline if team is not doing so well.

What would OKC need to take on Sato and Temple?
"Let's play some basketball!" - Fergie
lordjeff05
Veteran
Posts: 2,670
And1: 641
Joined: Mar 01, 2010

Re: GSW - NOP 

Post#8 » by lordjeff05 » Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:06 am

I like it a lot. My only issue is that arguably the biggest issue is who to play at the 5 that can both space the floor and protect the rim ( that the Pels can afford after this trade).

This move bumps BI up a position which I am strongly in favor of and adds more talent and shooting at the wing, but even with that additional length and shooting we still have an issue long Rene at the 5.
hoosierdaddy34
Analyst
Posts: 3,439
And1: 2,910
Joined: Dec 05, 2016
 

Re: GSW - NOP 

Post#9 » by hoosierdaddy34 » Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:19 am

The ship has long sailed on Golden St trading just to get off of Wiggins contract. That’s not happening.
Godaddycurse
Head Coach
Posts: 6,287
And1: 3,163
Joined: Nov 13, 2019
 

Re: GSW - NOP 

Post#10 » by Godaddycurse » Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:23 am

hoosierdaddy34 wrote:The ship has long sailed on Golden St trading just to get off of Wiggins contract. That’s not happening.


Id argue the opposite and that it's more possible now because
A) their tax bill is huge
B) Thompson if not 100 percent means they wont contend anyways
C) wiggins value is at an all time high so cost is lower to dump him
hoosierdaddy34
Analyst
Posts: 3,439
And1: 2,910
Joined: Dec 05, 2016
 

Re: GSW - NOP 

Post#11 » by hoosierdaddy34 » Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:42 am

Godaddycurse wrote:
hoosierdaddy34 wrote:The ship has long sailed on Golden St trading just to get off of Wiggins contract. That’s not happening.


Id argue the opposite and that it's more possible now because
A) their tax bill is huge
B) Thompson if not 100 percent means they wont contend anyways
C) wiggins value is at an all time high so cost is lower to dump him


As long as Steph is healthy, none of that matters. They will only make moves that are best for him and winning.

You guys keep looking at these Warriors and Lakers issues with a small market thought process. It’s all about doing what’s best for their aging stars and they have the financial wherewithal to not look at every decision with the tax implications that other teams have to worry about.
User avatar
Coxy
RealGM
Posts: 42,210
And1: 11,220
Joined: Jun 17, 2008
Location: Brought to you by the Splash Fam
   

Re: GSW - NOP 

Post#12 » by Coxy » Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:17 am

Wiggins is the best player, GS already have the best player here. No thanks.

I care not for Lacob's savings. No GS fan does.
Little Digger wrote:Can the Warriors file a lawsuit against Oubre?
Nate the Great
Senior
Posts: 652
And1: 274
Joined: Dec 13, 2019
     

Re: GSW - NOP 

Post#13 » by Nate the Great » Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:14 pm

The Warriors giving up a conditional first round pick to get worse, just to save money, is pretty much the opposite of what they have said they want to do. This trade, by making them less competitive, decreases the team’s value, thus costing them money in the long term. This makes no sense for the Warriors at all.

Black Lives Matter
lordjeff05
Veteran
Posts: 2,670
And1: 641
Joined: Mar 01, 2010

Re: GSW - NOP 

Post#14 » by lordjeff05 » Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:58 pm

hoosierdaddy34 wrote:
Godaddycurse wrote:
hoosierdaddy34 wrote:The ship has long sailed on Golden St trading just to get off of Wiggins contract. That’s not happening.


Id argue the opposite and that it's more possible now because
A) their tax bill is huge
B) Thompson if not 100 percent means they wont contend anyways
C) wiggins value is at an all time high so cost is lower to dump him


As long as Steph is healthy, none of that matters. They will only make moves that are best for him and winning.

You guys keep looking at these Warriors and Lakers issues with a small market thought process. It’s all about doing what’s best for their aging stars and they have the financial wherewithal to not look at every decision with the tax implications that other teams have to worry about.


Here’s my issue with your line of reasoning. If The Warriors continue to try competing for a championship, they can’t do it while paying Wiggins a max contract. And although I agree that Wiggins has salvaged his reputation, anyone that the Warriors would want to trade with will not look at Wiggins as a net positive.

Smaller expiring contracts are an easier package to pair with existing assets then Wiggins is. So even if you believe the Warriors will continue to want to compete this is still a better package than keeping Wiggins.
hoosierdaddy34
Analyst
Posts: 3,439
And1: 2,910
Joined: Dec 05, 2016
 

Re: GSW - NOP 

Post#15 » by hoosierdaddy34 » Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:02 pm

lordjeff05 wrote:
hoosierdaddy34 wrote:
Godaddycurse wrote:
Id argue the opposite and that it's more possible now because
A) their tax bill is huge
B) Thompson if not 100 percent means they wont contend anyways
C) wiggins value is at an all time high so cost is lower to dump him


As long as Steph is healthy, none of that matters. They will only make moves that are best for him and winning.

You guys keep looking at these Warriors and Lakers issues with a small market thought process. It’s all about doing what’s best for their aging stars and they have the financial wherewithal to not look at every decision with the tax implications that other teams have to worry about.


Here’s my issue with your line of reasoning. If The Warriors continue to try competing for a championship, they can’t do it while paying Wiggins a max contract. And although I agree that Wiggins has salvaged his reputation, anyone that the Warriors would want to trade with will not look at Wiggins as a net positive.

Smaller expiring contracts are an easier package to pair with existing assets then Wiggins is. So even if you believe the Warriors will continue to want to compete this is still a better package than keeping Wiggins.


My problem with that is that it’s not worth using up assets to break up his contract. The difference in value between 3 neutral to slight negative value contracts vs his contract is not worth paying to break it up.

And while they sit and wait for a bigger trade to develop, if one even comes, he does enough defensively and at the SF position that losing him most likely downgrades them in the short term. They don’t want to make winning games any harder than it needs to be given the competitiveness of the league this year.

Return to Trades and Transactions