FWIW: Warriors announcer on radio talking trade

NW · Post #1 » by NW » Fri Nov 7, 2008 8:47 pm

Bob Fitzgerald, the Warriors radio and TV guy, was just on the radio in the Bay Area talking a possible 3-way with GS getting Gerald Wallace, Knicks getting Harrington and Bobcats getting Lee and Curry.

He works for the organization, so, you never know

NySpartan4 · Post #2 » by **NySpartan4** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 8:49 pm

NW wrote:Bob Fitzgerald, the Warriors radio and TV guy, was just on the radio in the Bay Area talking a possible 3-way with GS getting Gerald Wallace, Knicks getting Harrington and Knicks getting Lee and Curry.
He works for the organization, so, you never know

thanks for the heads up and EDIT your thing!

HellsKitchen · Post #3 » by **HellsKitchen** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 8:51 pm

We're giving up Lee and Curry and just getting back what is essentially an expiring? Wouldn't that have to be sweetened up a bit for us?

Big Chan · Post #4 » by **Big Chan** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 8:52 pm

There better be a Belinelli and a pick coming or i will be pissed.

sol537 · Post #5 » by **sol537** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 8:56 pm

I'm sure there's filler involved. Lee is too valuable for that. If we get back a pick and/or a young prospect, I could see Walsh pulling the trigger.

drj · Post #6 » by **drj** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 8:57 pm

Lee and Curry is a high price for Harrington. I'd hope for more -- Belinelli would be a good start.
But if that's all that is out there I would accept this deal. Curry has no place here and Lee is not a great fit, and most importantly this would be a huge step towards 2010 capspace.

Post #7 » by **NoLayupRule** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:00 pm

no way lee is involved in that crap deal IMO. there is no way we give up that much potential for Harrington who is just not worth it at all!!!

TheBluest · Post #8 » by **TheBluest** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:00 pm

I knew Lee was going to be gone. I thought Malik instead of Curry but hey the writing was on the wall 2yrs ago concerning dumping bad contracts Lee would have to couple one. If no picks or young prospect is involved it's a bad trade but one that has to be made considering our circumstances.

Fury · Post #9 » by **Fury** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:01 pm

We better be getting back Felton, Morrison, Wright, Bellineli, and/or Randolph if we're giving up Lee.

Sandman321 · Post #10 » by **Sandman321** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:02 pm

I don't understand why the Warriors would want Gerald Wallace. Maggette signed there cause he wanted to be a starter, so what would they do with both of those guys?

Fury · Post #11 » by **Fury** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:03 pm

Gerald Wallace can play some PF.

KnicksGadfly · Post #12 » by **KnicksGadfly** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:03 pm

they better get better value for lee. that's just a waste.

blueNorange · Post #13 » by **blueNorange** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:04 pm

NoLayupRule wrote:no way lee is involved in that crap deal IMO. there is no way we give up that much potential for Harrington who is just not worth it at all!!!

what potential??

lee is a backup.

GuyverADL · Post #14 » by **GuyverADL** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:04 pm

Sandman321 wrote:I don't understand why the Warriors would want Gerald Wallace. Maggette signed there cause he wanted to be a starter, so what would they do with both of those guys?

Exactly unless they plan on moving Maggette?

Deal is confusing unless they plan on play Wallace at the 4.

TheBluest · Post #15 » by **TheBluest** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:04 pm

Fury wrote:Gerald Wallace can play some PF.

They also have some insurance in case Monta's situation doesn't get resolved and they now don't have to give Jackson an extension. Wallace also give them defense. I think Jackson becomes trade bait if Wallace can prove to work with Nellie.

livintoolive · Post #16 » by **livintoolive** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:05 pm

Walsh better be feeling a lot of demand for Zach Randolph. Otherwise, i'm gonna be pissed if we don't have Lee when we seriously try to move Randolph.

Slimpack · Post #17 » by **Slimpack** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:06 pm

I'd do it if a young prospect were thrown in. Preferably one with more potential than Marco Bellineli.

RyGuy24 · Post #18 » by **RyGuy24** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:08 pm

Fury wrote:Gerald Wallace can play some PF.

Way more than some. He's played almost excusively there last season and so far this season.

GuyverADL · Post #19 » by **GuyverADL** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:09 pm

TheBluest wrote:
Fury wrote:Gerald Wallace can play some PF.

They also have some insurance in case Monta's situation doesn't get resolved and they now don't have to give Jackson an extension. Wallace also give them defense. I think Jackson becomes trade bait if Wallace can prove to work with Nellie.

I think negotiation for Jackson's salary might not be going so smoothly.

Wallace is younger than Jackson. they could slide Maggette over to SG and start Wallace at the SF.

Very athletic wing man.

blueNorange · Post #20 » by **blueNorange** » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:11 pm

livintoolive wrote:Walsh better be feeling a lot of demand for Zach Randolph. Otherwise, i'm gonna be pissed if we don't have Lee when we seriously try to move Randolph.

lee has no place on the team and chandler is clearly better than him both offensivley and defensivley in the power foward position.

and yes, chandler is a power foward.