Moderators: HartfordWhalers, Texas Chuck, BullyKing, Andre Roberstan, loserX, Trader_Joe, Mamba4Goat, pacers33granger, MoneyTalks41890
Pinkyring wrote:Warriors front office has been bad the last 12 months, trading dlo for wiggins when they could've added better cheaper pieces now adding almost 100m for a role player in oubre, just doesnt make sense
Andre Roberstan wrote:HartfordWhalers wrote:Just for this forum's sake, adding a Wiggins for Horford swap would be swell.
Don't you put that evil on me Ricky Bobby
gswhoops wrote:HartfordWhalers wrote:Just for this forum's sake, adding a Wiggins for Horford swap would be swell.
Defeats the point of adding more wings, but would be worth it for the lolz.
Texas Chuck wrote:Oh and I've had a really good off-season so far. But give me a giant heaping bowl of crow on all things Warriors:
I insisted they would trade one or both picks -- Nope
I insisted they should trade Wiggins -- Uh Uh
I said they probably don't spend TPE -- looking like it.
Just serve it up with some fresh salsa please because I got a lot to choke down.
Balkman32 wrote:It’s kind of weird that the compensation hasn’t been announced.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
DISABLED PLAYER EXCEPTION -- This exception allows a team which is over the cap to replace a disabled player who will be out for the remainder of that season (it can also be granted in the event of a player's death). This exception is granted by the league, based on an application from the team and a determination by an NBA-designated physician or Fitness to Play panel (see question number 62) that the player is substantially more likely than not to be unable to play through the following June 15.
If this exception is granted, the team can acquire one player via free agent signing, trade or waiver claim, to replace the disabled player:
The team may sign a free agent for one season only, for 50% of the disabled player's salary or the amount of the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, whichever is less.
The team may trade for a player in the last season of his contract only (including any option years)2, who is making no more than 50% plus $100,000 of the disabled player's salary, or the amount of the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception plus $100,000, whichever is less.
The team may claim a player on waivers who is in the last season of his contract only (including any option years), who is making no more than 50% of the disabled player's salary, or the amount of the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, whichever is less.
MoneyTalks41890 wrote:Yes please. Lotto prot 21 GS 1st, same in 22, then 2nds, maybe?
Prospect Dong wrote:MoneyTalks41890 wrote:Yes please. Lotto prot 21 GS 1st, same in 22, then 2nds, maybe?
GS have a pick going to memphis in a couple of years, so you'd need to work around that - perhaps you already did?
Catchall wrote:I don't think they're overreacting to Klay's injury. They were probably going to sign a player like this to replace Iggy.
Resistance wrote:How fat is the Golden State wallet?
DISABLED PLAYER EXCEPTIONDISABLED PLAYER EXCEPTION -- This exception allows a team which is over the cap to replace a disabled player who will be out for the remainder of that season (it can also be granted in the event of a player's death). This exception is granted by the league, based on an application from the team and a determination by an NBA-designated physician or Fitness to Play panel (see question number 62) that the player is substantially more likely than not to be unable to play through the following June 15.
If this exception is granted, the team can acquire one player via free agent signing, trade or waiver claim, to replace the disabled player:
The team may sign a free agent for one season only, for 50% of the disabled player's salary or the amount of the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, whichever is less.
The team may trade for a player in the last season of his contract only (including any option years)2, who is making no more than 50% plus $100,000 of the disabled player's salary, or the amount of the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception plus $100,000, whichever is less.
The team may claim a player on waivers who is in the last season of his contract only (including any option years), who is making no more than 50% of the disabled player's salary, or the amount of the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, whichever is less.
Soulyss wrote:Hard to Imaging that the GSW are willing to pay $134M tax bill without Klay. Wiggins on the move for depth & salary reduction perhaps?
Chris Porter's Hair wrote:Soulyss wrote:Hard to Imaging that the GSW are willing to pay $134M tax bill without Klay. Wiggins on the move for depth & salary reduction perhaps?
I'm not sure what it is going to take. This is what Warriors fans have been trying to tell everyone here for a year now, and nobody wants to listen.
There have probably been 100+ trade threads here that amounted to, "The Warriors trade Wiggins and get worse. Why? To save money." And every time, Warriors fans say, "Our ownership is printing money. They're going to spend money if they think it makes us a better team." And nobody believes us.
Then the TPE comes up, and everyone says, "They won't use that TPE. It would cost them a lot of money!" And Warriors fans say, "If it will make them a better team, they won't care. They'll spend the money." And nobody believes us.
And honestly, with the changed prognosis for this year, if things had changed, I wouldn't blame our owners. But it doesn't appear to have. And when we use the TPE, instead of people saying, "Huh. I guess they really will go deep into the tax to try to improve the team.", people (with the notable exception of Texas Chuck - props to him), respond by saying, "But they'll need to save money! I bet they'll trade Wiggins and make the team worse."
This is why I largely stopped trying to participate in Warriors trade talk here.
MoneyTalks41890 wrote:Chris Porter's Hair wrote:Soulyss wrote:Hard to Imaging that the GSW are willing to pay $134M tax bill without Klay. Wiggins on the move for depth & salary reduction perhaps?
I'm not sure what it is going to take. This is what Warriors fans have been trying to tell everyone here for a year now, and nobody wants to listen.
There have probably been 100+ trade threads here that amounted to, "The Warriors trade Wiggins and get worse. Why? To save money." And every time, Warriors fans say, "Our ownership is printing money. They're going to spend money if they think it makes us a better team." And nobody believes us.
Then the TPE comes up, and everyone says, "They won't use that TPE. It would cost them a lot of money!" And Warriors fans say, "If it will make them a better team, they won't care. They'll spend the money." And nobody believes us.
And honestly, with the changed prognosis for this year, if things had changed, I wouldn't blame our owners. But it doesn't appear to have. And when we use the TPE, instead of people saying, "Huh. I guess they really will go deep into the tax to try to improve the team.", people (with the notable exception of Texas Chuck - props to him), respond by saying, "But they'll need to save money! I bet they'll trade Wiggins and make the team worse."
This is why I largely stopped trying to participate in Warriors trade talk here.
I would simply contend that most iterations of Wiggins trades do make the team better at the cost of draft picks, which don’t suit up.
Return to Trades and Transactions