We could get Harrison Barnes?

[Notanoob]

Didn't Rodney Stuckey have one awesome playoff series too? Come on now, one series should not cause you to ignore what he's been doing the rest of his career. He can shoot and defend as of now, but every other part of his game is questionable and needs work. This is a guy who spent two years in college and is in his second year in the league too, so it isn't as if he's super raw either. The guy is not a creator. He's failed in his role as a sixth man, that's why the Warriors have been looking for cheap bench help via trades. I would not count on him to develop into anything more than a serviceable starter, even though he still has potential. And in any event, I don't think that the Warriors are looking to move him. He's cheap as chips right now, and they are dead set against paying the tax.

[Clarity]

Well, its clear many havent seen Harrison Barnes play yet lol

This reminds of the guys who loved the Josh Smith signing who now say "hes such an idiot".

[Damon_3388]

His series against SA, a team that was 1 long Ray Allen 3 away from winning a title was nothing short of jaw dropping. He did that as a rookie.

17.3 ppg in 41.2 mpg on .435 shooting from the field and .300 from downtown (his numbers for the SA series) is "jaw dropping"? Ok then...

[mercury]

Not much of an improvement over Singler...
Hopefully folks will stop talking about Singler as just a toss in trade fodder.... he has legit value as a 2/3

[Q00]

Not much of an improvement over Singler...
Hopefully folks will stop talking about Singler as just a toss in trade fodder.... he has legit value as a 2/3

Singler is starting to make me think we could have found a short term answer at the 2/3. Whatever we end up getting in FA/trades (a SG or SF) I'd almost be cool with just starting Singler at the other spot next year. He's giving us exactly what we needed from an offensive perspective. He's now 21-42 on 3s (50%) and 45% FG overall as a starter. Hard to ask for much more out of a starting 2/3 role player. I doubt he maintains that 50% going forward, but I don't see any reason he shouldn't be capaple of being a consistent 40% 3pt shooter, which even that would be great for this team.

Plus if we just kept him as a starter at only 1 mil/yr, it would allow us to spend that much more on the best SF we can buy.

Defensively it might be best to have someone different starting at both 2/3 next year, but I don't think he's the problem as much as Jennings. Singler at least hustles and plays hard on defense.

[Phenomenonsense]

I'm not following. There is no 'hardcap' in the NBA, and exceeding the salary cap only effects your ability to sign FAs. If we had traded Monroe to them before the deadline, they would have RFA rights to Monroe, and if we traded now he he would be S&T. Those are both ways of getting around the cap. There's no penalty for going over the cap--in fact I'd guess most teams are over it by at least a couple million.

If you're talking about the luxury tax, they still have options for next year. They're committed to about $62m next year, so assuming a Monroe S&T starts at $12-13m, they could dump one of the rookie-deal guys they don't use and be at around $72m, which is roughly the tax line. They'd have to fill out the roster creatively, but it's doable.

Are you just saying that the salaries in the trade itself (Monroe for Barnes) wouldn't match? That's true but it's a different issue from their cap/tax situation. I'd guess they would want to trade away Lee before taking on Monroe anyway. (For the record, I do NOT support trading Monroe for Barnes!)

If you want to argue semantics that's fine and dandy, but there is essentially a hardcap. Going 4 million over the tax line makes it so that you have no flexibility and nothing to offer FAs. You can't get SnT players, you can't sign any deals longer than 3 years, you can't use MLE or Bi-annual exceptions, you can't take back as much salary in trades. There are probably other things I'm not remembering either, but basically you can't pay anyone anything and have little flexibility, not to mention the fact that three million dollar players cost you like 20 million in the new tax. In order to get Monroe, and keep Klay, they would have to be okay with paying several hundred million in taxes (probably. I'm exaggerating).

Secondly, they have 65 million and twelve players per hoopshype. Any "Sign and trade" wouldn't work because of "soft-hard cap." In order to take on Monroe they would have to give us Speights, Barnes, Klay, Ezeli, Nedo, and Kuzmic while not picking up Green's option. That is unless they wanted to give us Lee or Iggy.

I was saying that trading for Monroe pre-deadline would be useless for them given their cap situation. When i said "salary cap" I meant luxury tax. They basically would be choosing between Barnes + Klay, or getting Monroe and having to decide if they want to pay Klay seven billion in (including luxury tax) as well. It would be worse than the Nets situation because their tax situation would get worse because they'd be over the tax for years and it gets more punitive.

I didn't mean this mean-spiritedly, just didn't see why the Warriors couldn't S&T. They won't have cap room for a while, but they still have flexibility for adding guys via sign and trades. The new sign-and-trade rule is that the team that receives the player has to be less than $4m over the tax line (so somewhere between $76-77m). So the Warriors could pick up Green's option and sign Monroe for $11m next year they'd still be okay. They'd be paying the tax, which they probably don't want to do, but it would still work under NBA rules. They would also presumably trade someone back, which would decrease their salaries.

Also, 2015-6 is the first year they need to pay Klay a non-rookie salary, and by then they only have their big-money 4 and a couple of rookies on the payroll. Lee expires after that season, by which time they can pay Barnes if they wanted to. Adding Monroe would make this harder but they could still make it work. (Though to be clear, they'd have no reason to be paying two offense-first, defense-challenged PFs big time money.)

Also, this is semantics but the luxury tax isn't anything like a hardcap, it's just a financial penalty for going over a certain line (a hardcap is defined by there being no way to exceed it, like in the NFL). 4 teams are over the tax this year, I think there were 6 last year (?). And the 'repeater tax' is pretty bad but it only applies if you exceed the luxury tax for three seasons, so you can go over for a few seasons and just get the usual tax penalty.

Oh goodness, I'm not going to go over everything you said again, since you started out by ignoring the fact that teams 4 million over tax line cannot sign and trade.

[sc8581]

Not much of an improvement over Singler...
Hopefully folks will stop talking about Singler as just a toss in trade fodder.... he has legit value as a 2/3

Singler is starting to make me think we could have found a short term answer at the 2/3. Whatever we end up getting in FA/trades (a SG or SF) I'd almost be cool with just starting Singler at the other spot next year. He's giving us exactly what we needed from an offensive perspective. He's now 21-42 on 3s (50%) and 45% FG overall as a starter. Hard to ask for much more out of a starting 2/3 role player. I doubt he maintains that 50% going forward, but I don't see any reason he shouldn't be capaple of being a consistent 40% 3pt shooter, which even that would be great for this team.

Plus if we just kept him as a starter at only 1 mil/yr, it would allow us to spend that much more on the best SF we can buy.

Defensively it might be best to have someone different starting at both 2/3 next year, but I don't think he's the problem as much as Jennings. Singler at least hustles and plays hard on defense.

Singler should be starting and getting most of his minutes at SF, he's just way too slow at the 2. We need to add a stud SG and I think the rest of the pieces fall into place after that, whether it's Monroe or Smith at the 4.

[SF_Warriors]

Barnes' ceiling is a slightly better Wilson chandler. Solid, but not spectacular (unless you count the occasional poster)

He is a very streaky shooter. He is only reliable as a spot up shooter. Fade aways and off the dribble or post ups are very hit and miss, and often are off mark.

He has good size and athleticism, but he is not elite or special in those regards.

His handle is mediocre. I cannot see him creating shots as a main option, but he deifintly can go at guys like Drummond one on one.

He is still young and has potential, but wouldn't say he's better than singler at this point much less be able to play like harden at 22, who averaged 19 points on 50% shooting

In the playoffs, he did have great games, but also very poor ones. He is definitely playing below expectations this season.
Not sure what I would want for him in a trade. unless Monroe is offered and the numbers ($$) somehow worked, not sure what else I'd want. I already know Drummond is untouchable. I like singler, but if that's the offer I'd rather just stick with barnes and roll the dice that he will be good.

[Clarity]

His series against SA, a team that was 1 long Ray Allen 3 away from winning a title was nothing short of jaw dropping. He did that as a rookie.

17.3 ppg in 41.2 mpg on .435 shooting from the field and .300 from downtown (his numbers for the SA series) is "jaw dropping"? Ok then...

People that form their entire opinion based on stats annoy me.

[Damon_3388]

People that form their entire opinion based on stats annoy me.

They annoy me too.

What I'm saying though, is there was nothing about his output in that series that was "jaw-dropping" as you've mentioned. Most decent NBA players, given the minutes and touches, can produce like that.

[HotelVitale]

People that form their entire opinion based on stats annoy me.

They annoy me too.
What I'm saying though, is there was nothing about his output in that series that was "jaw-dropping" as you've mentioned. Most decent NBA players, given the minutes and touches, can produce like that.

He also got a TON of open looks in that series. I only saw three games, but one was his best game and he really just stood around shooting 18-footers that the defense gave him. He should get credit for that but I wasn't especially impressed and didn't think we were seeing a superstar in the making. I'll give it another watch when I get home though, since I trust Clarity's memory.

[HotelVitale]

I didn't mean this mean-spiritedly, just didn't see why the Warriors couldn't S&T. They won't have cap room for a while, but they still have flexibility for adding guys via sign and trades. The new sign-and-trade rule is that the team that receives the player has to be less than $4m over the tax line (so somewhere between $76-77m). So the Warriors could pick up Green's option and sign Monroe for $11m next year they'd still be okay. They'd be paying the tax, which they probably don't want to do, but it would still work under NBA rules. They would also presumably trade someone back, which would decrease their salaries.

Oh goodness, I'm not going to go over everything you said again, since you started out by ignoring the fact that teams 4 million over tax line cannot sign and trade.

First paragraph, third sentence. The Warriors salary situation is not good--they're paying too much to Bogut and Lee and they had to give top dollar to Iggy--but I'm still seeing that, if they really want to do a S&T this offseason, they could do it with some simple moves. And if they're creative in the future they can avoid paying the repeater tax without too much difficulty. (They would have an abysmal bench though).

[Phenomenonsense]

I didn't mean this mean-spiritedly, just didn't see why the Warriors couldn't S&T. They won't have cap room for a while, but they still have flexibility for adding guys via sign and trades. The new sign-and-trade rule is that the team that receives the player has to be less than $4m over the tax line (so somewhere between $76-77m). So the Warriors could pick up Green's option and sign Monroe for $11m next year they'd still be okay. They'd be paying the tax, which they probably don't want to do, but it would still work under NBA rules. They would also presumably trade someone back, which would decrease their salaries.

Oh goodness, I'm not going to go over everything you said again, since you started out by ignoring the fact that teams 4 million over tax line cannot sign and trade.

First paragraph, third sentence. The Warriors salary situation is not good--they're paying too much to Bogut and Lee and they had to give top dollar to Iggy--but I'm still seeing that, if they really want to do a S&T this offseason, they could do it with some simple moves. And if they're creative in the future they can avoid paying the repeater tax without too much difficulty. (They would have an abysmal bench though).

Monroe is signing with them for less than his 13.8 (based on this years' cap) million dollar max contact? I'm not going to argue with you while you keep changing the rules of engagement. Everything I said was "GSW could not take Monroe based on the assumption that Monroe will be making 13.8 million." It is fine if you want to say "BUT GSW could take Monroe if he didn't make that," just know it is a stupid argument.