Randolph deal in place?

The Puck · Post #1 » by **The Puck** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:17 pm

According to this there is contingent deal in place for Randolph for a 2011 first rounder.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/p ... D5s550Y2NI

Post #2 » by **C.lupus** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:27 pm

Interesting. I guess Telfair is off the table now?

Visigoth · Post #3 » by **Visigoth** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:30 pm

Dubs fan here. Enjoy Randolph. He may actually come to flourish in your system, but be ready to watch some of the most frustrating basketball of your life!

Post #4 » by **C.lupus** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:35 pm

Visigoth wrote:Dubs fan here. Enjoy Randolph. He may actually come to flourish in your system, but be ready to watch some of the most frustrating basketball of your life!

If there is anything we are good at it is watching frustrating basketball.

teven_1 · Post #5 » by **teven_1** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:57 pm

C.lupus wrote:
Visigoth wrote:Dubs fan here. Enjoy Randolph. He may actually come to flourish in your system, but be ready to watch some of the most frustrating basketball of your life!

If there is anything we are good at it is watching frustrating basketball.

I just hope he's frustrating enough! we have high standards for frustrating basketball, hope he can live up to them

teven_1 · Post #6 » by **teven_1** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:04 pm

The Puck wrote:According to this there is contingent deal in place for Randolph for a 2011 first rounder.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/p ... D5s550Y2NI

PF or SF? both? maybe a little C also? This team has a lot of potential, but as we get younger and younger I'm starting to fear Kevin Love will be filling for social security checks before our team hits .500 (I jest)

IAWolf · Post #7 » by **IAWolf** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:11 pm

Our team actually gets older with this deal. A 2011 first rounder would very likely be younger than Randolph.

Torcher · Post #8 » by **Torcher** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:18 pm

I would like this deal. We get a young, tall atheletic PF/C with plenty of room for him to grow.

9abovetherim · Post #9 » by **9abovetherim** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:23 pm

I hope he will get som PT 4 u guys

teven_1 · Post #10 » by **teven_1** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:23 pm

IAWolf wrote:Our team actually gets older with this deal. A 2011 first rounder would very likely be younger than Randolph.

that's true but age is only part of the equation. You have rookies like Cousins who play younger than their age and then you have rookies like B. Grififn who play with maturity. Just saying,
also we could have used this pick in a package to get a vet.
Edit: having said that I am intrigued by this guy and am not all that opposed to the move.
Edit2: then again is this guy taking minutes from Tolliver and Pek? we spent money on those guys!

Dewey · Post #11 » by **Dewey** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:32 pm

My guess is a player swap could easily be added, but the Randolph for pick may be pretty much a done deal. It's been rumored for a looooong time.

I think the bigger question will be what we do after adding Randolph to the existing roster ...

teven_1 · Post #12 » by **teven_1** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:35 pm

Dewey wrote:My guess is a player swap could easily be added, but the Randolph for pick may be pretty much a done deal. It's been rumored for a looooong time.

I think the bigger question will be what we do after adding Randolph to the existing roster ...

Might as well Cryogenically freeze ourselves until next season. Things will be better then

Post #13 » by **revprodeji** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:42 pm

1.) Consider the source. I am not saying it is not true, I am saying that the Post is known to exaggerate the completion of deals. (Not to annoy KrapHead but I will ask around).

2.) It cannot be our pick because of the Clipper situation. (If you owe a pick with protection, you cannot trade that pick until the protection is confirmed.) It must be the Utah or Memphis pick. The Post makes it seem like it is our pick.

abrewbro68 · Post #14 » by **abrewbro68** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:49 pm

Why continue to go after forwards. Would it be too much to go out and get a legit starting 2 guard?

teven_1 · Post #15 » by **teven_1** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:51 pm

We are really enamoured with AR's potential, but I took feel we reallly need a 2 guard. Then again we get a vet 2 guard, we need to move Web or Wes...

Post #16 » by **revprodeji** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:55 pm

If we get a vet SG it would probably require Pek+Wes. So bringing in Randolph could be a condition for a SG move.

Post #17 » by **C.lupus** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:59 pm

I was just thinking something along those lines rev.

EddyCool · Post #18 » by **EddyCool** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:00 pm

I have to assume we're talking about the Utah pick. It's nice to think about adding Randolph in terms of how he was thought of by the Warriors, but that isn't the case. I'm not trying to bring up bargaining leverage and implying that his value is lower than his potential because of D'Anotni's doghouse or something... just that, he's squarely into that project that probably isn't panning out phase.

This season, Anthony Randolph has scored 28 points and grabbed 34 rebounds. That's comparable to Love's (albeit historic) game against the Knicks. I'd still plan for AT to be the first and main big forward off the bench this year and beyond. The biggest upside is if he can get some burn at center to be that athletic such-and-such we're always throwing around.

Still, I'm for it, if only because I don't want 3 more rookies next season. I'm hoping we put together a little something after the all-star break so we can get that pick to the Clips out of the way. If it doesn't turn out to be someone exciting that we're lined up for on draft day, I hope we can work out a deal where the Clips take it then anyway for a little something-something (DeAndre would probably be out of the question since they could roll the dice on the 2012 draft without it).

teven_1 · Post #19 » by **teven_1** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:08 pm

revprodeji wrote:If we get a vet SG it would probably require Pek+Wes. So bringing in Randolph could be a condition for a SG move.

that is exciting. I like Pek, but as long as we hang on to Tolliver we can survive AR not panning out.

but dear god, what SGs are even available?

Post #20 » by **revprodeji** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:10 pm

Teven, that is the issue. We need a SG that can handle. Iggy is the natural target, but I think we give up too much value if it is Iggy for Wes+Pek considering Iggy's contract situation and how much better of a fit Wes/Turner would be.

It is hard to call Randolph a project when he did perform in GSW. He might not be "Magic" but he would be a very good bench player that can guard multiple positions and fit very well in the up-tempo high post passing action we do.