Rehashing the 2007 GSW trade

[greenway84]

I was just thinking about the Tinsley and Shawne for AL rumor.

Basically this would be like us giving up Tinsley Jackson, Bayless, and Shawne for Murphy, Dunleavy, J. Jack, McRoberts, Rush, and us keeping AL. Seeing as Sarunas left the NBA. Powell, Mcleod were released by both teams. Ike was traded for Jack, McBOB, and Rush. So basically we traded 3 off court issue players and a potential young for one of the best sg/sf in the league last year. potential young sg. servicable backup pg. small exp. a large contract. and we keep AL. I say we win.

[Bucky O'Hare]

The Warriors just traded a future 1st rounder for the Net's Marcus Williams

[greenway84]

damn

[count55]

I don't know how you work Rush, Jack, & McBob into the equation.

Also, GS was looking for significant financial relief in the deal, which they got. If, for some reason passing understanding, GS were to trade us Harrington for Tinsley & Williams, that would negate some of that freedom, but they'd still be ahead on the financial side.

Ignoring the financial side, and a possible Tinsley/Harrington, we did begin to see some returns that indicated that the production from the key players involved (Murphleavy vs. Al/SJax) was evening out, and arguably tilting in the Pacers favor, particularly post All-Star break last year.

However, while we are growing more comfortable with some of the on-court results, any Golden State fan will rightly point out two things: We will end up paying Murphy and Dunleavy about $20mm more than they will pay Al & SJax over the next three years, and they have won 57% of their games since the trade and one playoff series, while we have only won 43% of our games and missed the playoffs both years.

[MillerTime101]

He put Rush Jack and Mcbob in the trade because we got Diogu from GS and we would of had our draft pick anyways.

Anytime you get the best player in the trade ( Dunleavy ) it is hard to say you made the wrong move.

[joew8302]

I don't know how you work Rush, Jack, & McBob into the equation.

Also, GS was looking for significant financial relief in the deal, which they got. If, for some reason passing understanding, GS were to trade us Harrington for Tinsley & Williams, that would negate some of that freedom, but they'd still be ahead on the financial side.

Ignoring the financial side, and a possible Tinsley/Harrington, we did begin to see some returns that indicated that the production from the key players involved (Murphleavy vs. Al/SJax) was evening out, and arguably tilting in the Pacers favor, particularly post All-Star break last year.

However, while we are growing more comfortable with some of the on-court results, any Golden State fan will rightly point out two things: We will end up paying Murphy and Dunleavy about $20mm more than they will pay Al & SJax over the next three years, and they have won 57% of their games since the trade and one playoff series, while we have only won 43% of our games and missed the playoffs both years.

Golden State fans can point on the winning% and all since the trade, but I believe that stat is very deceptive. Basically they have been a healthy team and guys like Matt Barnes and Monte Ellis have came from nowhere to become studs. I would argue their play has been more of a reason for the success than Jackson and Harrington.

On the Indiana side, since Murphleavy has got here Jermaine has never been real healthy and Tinsley went crazy shooting off guns and getting himself in trouble. That left these guys coming into a situation where we had one of, if not the worst pg situations in the NBA with a proven All Star PF that can't stay healthy. With this situation they were set up for failure. I think both Troy and Mike have played very well for the Pacers overall.

If you want to point at winning %'s for an answer as to who won the trade be my guest, but I personally believe that is a very deceptive statistic in this case.

[count55]

I think it's foolish to try and assign winners and losers in trades, in general. Golden State was trying to accomplish one thing (get their finances in order) while the Pacers were trying to do another (move a specific player, bring in guys who fit better around JO and continue to compete for a playof spot in the short-term).

Golden State certainly got their finances in order, but they've lost Baron Davis and arguably made an ill-advised signing in Corey Maggette. However, they enjoyed some unplanned short-term success.

The Pacers failed generally on their initial goals and hopes as they swooned immediately after the trade, the players, specifically Murphy and Diogu, were horrible fits with JO, and Ike Diogu, the gem, was a complete bust, shipped off as valueless cap filler in the Rush/Bayless trade.

Now, we're at a point where the trade may work out better in the long-term for the Pacers because of the level of play both Dunleavy and Murphy provided, and the issues created by Al's struggles in GS and Baron Davis's departure. The trade almost certainly forced the Pacers hand on JO, though its tough to say whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Ultimately, the trade probably did more of what Golden State intended it to do, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it worked out better for them than the Pacers. Also, it may turn out that the Pacers end up, in the long-term, getter more and better production from Murphleavy than GS does from Al/SJax, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it worked out better for the Pacers than it did for the Warriors.

Essentially, there isn't an overwhelming need to "win" a trade. (In fact, trying to "win" trades on a regular basis, I believe, is ultimately counter-productive.) You simply need to be able to positive results out of it. I think both teams have in this case, so I don't see a reason to claim victory for the Pacers.

[dc]

Let me put in something on this from the Warriors' perspective: From just the Warriors' perspective, no human on the planet can argue that the team isn't better off after making this trade (both short term and long term).

If they didn't make this trade, right now we'd be heading into the season talking about the Warriors possibly breaking the Clips' record of 14 consecutive years not making the playoffs.

The trade helped them end a 12 year playoffless streak, helped them pull of a historic upset while they were at it and provided financial/cap relief.

As far as some of the other factors discussed here in this thread:
-Matt Barnes is not a stud. He had one good year. He signed elsewhere on a MINIMUM contract.
-The Warriors made a poor decision to sign Maggette after letting Baron walk, but that has nothing to do with this trade.
-Dunleavy had a very nice season and deserves nothing but praise for his play since joining the Pacers, but he was not one of the best SF/SGs in the league last year (as was stated here), unless you want to make that list a rather long list. Props to Dunleavy, but c'mon.

[joew8302]

It doesn't have to be a long list at all. Did you see the numbers Mike put up last year? Look at his shooting %. Please put together a list of SF's that matched his production last year, I bet it will be a pretty short list.

I do hear what you are saying though. I recognize that is not the same Dunleavy you saw in Golden St. His play has been great with Indiana tho. Matt Barnes was a stud in the playoffs though. Regardless of what he signed for this year, a throw in guy that had a big impact was an important piece.

[basketballwacko2]

I think the jury is still out let's see how many games the Warriors win this season. They board thinks they're gonna stink.

you can't include the bayless/diogu for Rush and Jack as part of that, makes no since.

[dc]

It doesn't have to be a long list at all. Did you see the numbers Mike put up last year? Look at his shooting %. Please put together a list of SF's that matched his production last year, I bet it will be a pretty short list.

Guys at SG/SF who were/are better:
Paul Pierce
Kobe
Tmac
Lebron
Ray Allen
Kevin Martin
Carmelo
Richard Jefferson
Vince Carter
Manu Ginobili
Caron Butler
Brandon Roy
Josh Howard
Joe Johnson

Regardless of numbers, I would take take all those guys over Dunleavy except for maybe Carter at his age/contract. And big surprise: all those guys listed except for Kevin Martin are/have been recent all-stars.

Guys roughly in the same neighborhood with Dunleavy:
Kevin Durant (who will soon be in the list above)
Rudy Gay
Stephen Jackson
Turkoglu
Rashard Lewis
Corey Maggette
Richard Hamilton

[joew8302]

I can live with those lists. I still think speaking statistically he had a better year than Joe Johnson, Ray Allen and Tmac. I am not saying he is a better player by any means, but statistically speaking I think he had a better year.

[Bucky O'Hare]

It doesn't have to be a long list at all. Did you see the numbers Mike put up last year? Look at his shooting %. Please put together a list of SF's that matched his production last year, I bet it will be a pretty short list.

Guys at SG/SF who were/are better:
Paul Pierce
Kobe
Tmac
Lebron
Ray Allen
Kevin Martin
Carmelo
Richard Jefferson
Vince Carter
Manu Ginobili
Caron Butler
Brandon Roy
Josh Howard
Joe Johnson

Regardless of numbers, I would take take all those guys over Dunleavy except for maybe Carter at his age/contract. And big surprise: all those guys listed except for Kevin Martin are/have been recent all-stars.

Guys roughly in the same neighborhood with Dunleavy:
Kevin Durant (who will soon be in the list above)
Rudy Gay
Stephen Jackson
Turkoglu
Rashard Lewis
Corey Maggette
Richard Hamilton

That would still put Dunleavy around the top third of SG/SFs in the league last season.