Trade Thread (REVENGE OF THE NERDS II: NERDS IN PARADISE)

[FNQ]

If moving david lee is the goal the teams next year that would potentially listen (IMO) are;

MIL- I mean who else do they have down there?
Ersan Ilyasova, John Henson, Ekpe Udoh, Larry Sanders, Samuel Dalembert, Luc Ricard

MIN- IF they are getting sick of Love compalining he's not the focal point infront of Rubio, could be an easy swap.
Lee + who for Love? Straight up would never happen. We'd need Kahn in desperation mode

SAC- I would LOVE Cousins next to Bogut and Lee could bring a level headed vet to a team that desparetley needs one.
If we wanted a sociopath on the team we would have kept Stephen Jackson

CHA- The bobcats are just a mess but lee could fit nicely next to Biyombo. (<-prob wrong spelling sorry)
Agreed, but what do they have that we can use?

TOR- Bargani is out and lee could slide in nicely next to their young center.
See CHA

CLE- Again just a bad team that needs improvement everywhere that Kyrie cant play.
For Tristan? Maybe. Throw in Varejao and I'm all aboard, I'd even include Festus. But I think it would be neat to collect the best, oft-injured Cs in the league

BOS- Wont happen but the C's could use a better post presence next to old man KG.
Who would we get in return? No point in getting Rondo. Bradley's likely off-limits. Pierce maybe, but we'd have to play him at 4. What else is there, Sullinger?

If ATL decides to blow it up we need to throw ezeli and lee and a pick or expiring if its possible to land Horford. He'd make us contenders.

If portland adopts Washington's cannibus policies and places Aldridge on the block see the horford comment.

Best bet. A little lateral, but still an upgrade Lee for love straight up.

[GSForever]

Lee's not going anywhere guys! Just ask Joe Lacob

[GSForever]

Bogut and Cousins would be awesome. I wonder what the asking price would be for him

[FNQ]

"We are not trading Jason Richardson"

"We are not trading Monta Ellis"

If we come out and say that we aren't trading David Lee...

[Onus]

"We are not trading Jason Richardson"

"We are not trading Monta Ellis"

If we come out and say that we aren't trading David Lee...

i can only dream they say so

[cj03]

I doubt Danny Ferry is dumb enough to trade Al Horford. I'm praying he does though...I would trade Barnes and Lee for Horford every day of the week.

[cj03]

Btw, those who think David Lee's contract is fair need to look at Al Horford's: 12 million a year, no escalation. And to think David Lee will make 15 mil at the end of his contract makes me want to puke.

[FNQ]

That Horford is on a good contract doesn't necessarily mean Lee's on a bad one.

Lee's technically on his 3rd contract, Horford his 2nd. Blame NYK and their 1 yr, 9m offer to Lee for that one.

[statsman]

Lee's technically on his 3rd contract, Horford his 2nd. Blame NYK and their 1 yr, 9m offer to Lee for that one.

Yes, the Knicks are at fault for the Warriors offering 6yr/$80M instead of 5yr/$60-63M. No one was offering more at the time. It seems like the Warriors just outbid themselves.

I have hope that the current Warriors front office will be smarter when it comes to contracts. Ankles permitting, Curry's contract is looking like a bargain, especially when you consider that Lee will be making $4M+ more per year in each of the next three seasons than Curry.

[Left*My*Heart]

Lee's technically on his 3rd contract, Horford his 2nd. Blame NYK and their 1 yr, 9m offer to Lee for that one.

Yes, the Knicks are at fault for the Warriors offering 6yr/$80M instead of 5yr/$60-63M. No one was offering more at the time. It seems like the Warriors just outbid themselves.

I have hope that the current Warriors front office will be smarter when it comes to contracts. Ankles permitting, Curry's contract is looking like a bargain, especially when you consider that Lee will be making $4M+ more per year in each of the next three seasons than Curry.

So you know what other teams were offering Lee?

Do you know what other teams were interested in Lee?

[statsman]

Lee's technically on his 3rd contract, Horford his 2nd. Blame NYK and their 1 yr, 9m offer to Lee for that one.

Yes, the Knicks are at fault for the Warriors offering 6yr/$80M instead of 5yr/$60-63M. No one was offering more at the time. It seems like the Warriors just outbid themselves.

I have hope that the current Warriors front office will be smarter when it comes to contracts. Ankles permitting, Curry's contract is looking like a bargain, especially when you consider that Lee will be making $4M+ more per year in each of the next three seasons than Curry.

So you know what other teams were offering Lee?

Do you know what other teams were interested in Lee?

At the time, it was reported that the Nets and the TWolves were also interested, although I question the TWolves because they had Love. And it was hard to imagine that Lee would want to go to the Nets, who had just finished a 12-70 season. In short, there was not much interest in Lee, other than the Warriors and the Knicks, and the Knicks chose to go with Amare.

[old rem]

There's no sense to trade Lee just for the sake of doing something...and trading him for a lesser player....I doubt that gets any leverage. The deal GSW might like? Well....it would be one that you might think unlikely...not some guy some team has been shopping around.

I could see GSW willing to swap Lee for Josh Smith if an S+T is doable and Smith likes GSW as a destination. As for Horford...well...if we wanna overpay, maybe we can get him but then we don't win the deal. Straight up...Lee scores better,passes better...slight rebound edge....and Horford is better on D, does better if needed at C. The difference is not Barnes or Klay. Festus? Perhaps ..but then we have to rely on Biedrins more (who knows how that goes) and hope Landry can be kept (not too likely). Worth mention....Jeremy Tyler has been HOT at Santa Cruz.....he MIGHT return to GSW next year,and be a different player, more consistant. If Landry does escape...can be paid the $ elsewhere....more "Deja Vu" would be that 2 guys to look at are then Anthony Randolph and Brandan Wright.
Randolph has talents,we saw teases of that here. He never got the minutes,role to really refine it. In various locales...when he GOT good usage...his per minute was pretty impressive. He has bulked up a bit, but is still a quick 6-11. Can Jackson bring out his best? Can he be consistant? I'd not that AR is the same size now as Camby and Camby had a career playing C. Were I running the Wolves...I'd have given a look to AR and Love as a 4-5 combo. Love has the bulk...AR has the quicks + Hops...could have been a potent combo. AR's carreer best game...was here...playing CENTER...against Dwight Howard. Despite that unlikely success....AR got injured a week or two later and then bounced to the Knicks,Wolves, Nugs and none tried him in that role or seemed to follow up when he had a Plus game. AR never seemed to thrive as a 5 min guy off the bench. He's been rather impressive when he's played 20-35 min. B Wright is wired different from AR. Wright always was inclined to be efficient and an opportunist if a bit low key. He's not a guy who is looking to be a star.

I liked T Hansborough a lot as a college player. He's about the size of Lee, like Lee is a Hustle guy. Lee is a better mid range J but Hansborough can score in traffic, draw fouls. Hansborough can D. At NC...his D was damn impressive. Indy has not got the max from him on a regular basis. Like AR....TH is a guy who can be MORE but you have to SEE how he can impact,and then make that happen. Relevant to GSW...part of that is that BOTH can be a PLUS on D. They are both different...yet have things in common. For our purposes...both are a tad undervalued, have upside not yet tapped.

While Bogut has been a plus on D when he's 100%....and pretty good on the boards, he OUGHT to be in the offense more and board a bit more. I don't believe he's really fully merged into the whole thing,and I'd think that next year we MIGHT see more of what I think he should be. Another + is that gradually, Festus has become a bit more polished,efficient. Early on...aside from some shot blocks...he was damn raw. There's been progress.

Draymond Green was a solid overall player in college. Here...he's made a mark on D and has been a dissapointment as a scorer. Next year's version MIGHT be a more all round guy.

I'm semi-optimistic GSW can keep both J Jack and B Rush. Landry...with no Bird Rights...can get a deal too good for us to top. Tyler...is Santa Cruz...is getting quality minutes...which has never been the case since his Jr year in High School. The guy had tools but had to PLAY in a team context more that a few random minutes here and there. AR, B Wriight,Hansborough, could all be affordable replacements for Landry.

Given GSW's rise from..what...11 seed to 6 seed...I doubt GSW would be hasty about parting with any core.
The 3 rookies all began to show more reliable producivity late, and the whole chemistry...has looked positive.

[Left*My*Heart]

[/quote]Yes, the Knicks are at fault for the Warriors offering 6yr/$80M instead of 5yr/$60-63M. No one was offering more at the time. It seems like the Warriors just outbid themselves.

I have hope that the current Warriors front office will be smarter when it comes to contracts. Ankles permitting, Curry's contract is looking like a bargain, especially when you consider that Lee will be making $4M+ more per year in each of the next three seasons than Curry.[/quote]

So you know what other teams were offering Lee?

Do you know what other teams were interested in Lee?[/quote]
At the time, it was reported that the Nets and the TWolves were also interested, although I question the TWolves because they had Love. And it was hard to imagine that Lee would want to go to the Nets, who had just finished a 12-70 season. In short, there was not much interest in Lee, other than the Warriors and the Knicks, and the Knicks chose to go with Amare.[/quote]

There were at least a dozen teams interested in David Lee. All of the contenders according to ESPN showed interest and the Blazers were very aggressive in their pursuit. The main issue is what the Knicks wanted in a S&T and if they would match any offer. The Blazers were reported to have made an offer that was rejected, just before the Warriors made their deal.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4306502

It is amazing that this guy is viewed as trash and no other team has any interest in him. That simple isn't true and to say that the Warriors are the only team who was bidding against themselves isn't true either.

[statsman]

Did you read the article you linked? It stated the following:

"Portland could offer all of its available cap space to Lee in the form of an offer sheet that would amount to roughly $50 million over five years."

So, the Blazers could offer 5yr/$50M (note that this was from 2009, not 2010 when the Warriors traded for Lee). That feeds into my argument that the Warriors could have offered 5yr/$60-65M. I don't hate Lee. I hated the extra year and extra $15-20M for the contract. Which is why if the Warriors can find a way to sell high on Lee now, I am all for it.

[Left*My*Heart]

Did you read the article you linked? It stated the following:

"Portland could offer all of its available cap space to Lee in the form of an offer sheet that would amount to roughly $50 million over five years."

So, the Blazers could offer 5yr/$50M (note that this was from 2009, not 2010 when the Warriors traded for Lee). That feeds into my argument that the Warriors could have offered 5yr/$60-65M. I don't hate Lee. I hated the extra year and extra $15-20M for the contract. Which is why if the Warriors can find a way to sell high on Lee now, I am all for it.

Yes, I read the article...That was just the Blazers cap space they could use, there were several other teams working on S&Ts as well.

I agree he has one year too many, but from all the reports at the time, he wasn't "overpaid'.

What I'm pointing out is the fact that there were several teams interested in David Lee in an S&T and teams trying to fit him into their cap space. Historically the Warriors have always had to overpay free agents. To say that the Warriors were simple bidding against themselves isn't true.

David Lee is signed for 6 years / $79.54 million
Carlos Boozer five-year, $80 million deal with Chicago
Amare signed a 5 year $99.7 million with the Knicks

I will take Lee over either of those players and I'm not the only one.

I would love to get an upgrade at the 4 defensively. I was hoping that Ibaka was going to be the odd man out at OKC, which was another team that was in pursuit of David Lee.

[FNQ]

Lee's technically on his 3rd contract, Horford his 2nd. Blame NYK and their 1 yr, 9m offer to Lee for that one.

Yes, the Knicks are at fault for the Warriors offering 6yr/$80M instead of 5yr/$60-63M. No one was offering more at the time. It seems like the Warriors just outbid themselves.

I have hope that the current Warriors front office will be smarter when it comes to contracts. Ankles permitting, Curry's contract is looking like a bargain, especially when you consider that Lee will be making $4M+ more per year in each of the next three seasons than Curry.

Because David Lee was probably banging our door down... he was probably willing to take less to come to a crappy team like ours at a reduced rate. We insisted on paying him way more.

[turk3d]

Bottom line on Lee: No way would a force a trade with him, but with the emergence of this team without him I'd say he is at least expendable. As for trading him, it would depend on what we could get and I think his value is probably going to be pretty high going into the next season.

[and1GS]

Lee's technically on his 3rd contract, Horford his 2nd. Blame NYK and their 1 yr, 9m offer to Lee for that one.

Yes, the Knicks are at fault for the Warriors offering 6yr/$80M instead of 5yr/$60-63M. No one was offering more at the time. It seems like the Warriors just outbid themselves.

I have hope that the current Warriors front office will be smarter when it comes to contracts. Ankles permitting, Curry's contract is looking like a bargain, especially when you consider that Lee will be making $4M+ more per year in each of the next three seasons than Curry.

Because David Lee was probably banging our door down... he was probably willing to take less to come to a crappy team like ours at a reduced rate. We insisted on paying him way more.

Ha, exactly. Reminds me of the Giants when we had to ridiculously overpay Rowand and Benitez just to convince some talent to come to a trash team.

[shazam_guy]

The idea that winning two games against Denver proves we don't need Lee is so dubious I'm not even going to argue about it. But it's dubious.

[cj03]

The idea that winning two games against Denver proves we don't need Lee is so dubious I'm not even going to argue about it. But it's dubious.

What does the statement "we don't need Lee" mean? I mean yes, we could use him, and yes, he has value, but his value is somewhat overrated considering his huge salary. I would love Josh Smith, but no way Ferry does a sign and trade straight up. We would probably need to swing a 3 way deal.