The only way I can see it happening is if GS thinks Bradley will be a better player than either Barnes or Ezeli.

They love Klay Thompson, and they'll have more than adequate backups in Jack and Rush next year

Yeah, they really do love the guy, and for good reason. He's 6'7 and has a very high release, demanding a lot of attention. I think that's why Golden State would benefit putting him as Pierce's main back up 3 (as well as back up 2 or starting 2) - he's really flexible in that regard.

You could go big - Curry, Klay, and Pierce

You could go small - Curry, Bradley, Klay, Pierce (Pierce is really strong - could work against undersized 4s)

You could go clutch - Jack, Curry, Pierce

You could go defense - Bradley, Bogut  , Rush

There are so many combinations. Golden State has been playing small ball a lot lately anyway. Your basically taking an already deep wing rotation and making it way more deep and versatile. Replacing a 3 and D guy for someone who's really good at defense and another who's really good at scoring makes for something Mark Jackson would love to figure out how to utilize.

The fact that you don't have to rely on Bradley to handle the ball much means that he can go full throttle on defense for 20-25 minutes a game.

Also, from a financial standpoint, they shed Jefferson and Biedrins' horrible contracts and get an expiring one a la Pierce. I don't know their cap room situation, but taking out potentially 35 million together is pretty good.

Their front court gets better too, imo. All of them minus Bogut are offensive talents that all provide something. Landry pounds it inside while Bass spreads the floor. Lee both spreads the floor and pounds it. Bogut is the defensive backbone. They could use the 16th pick to get maybe Gobert, Plumlee, Noqueira, or trade down and pick up Steven Adams, Dieng, or Withey.

Quote from: syfy9 on May 18, 2013, 01:40:22 AM

Quote from: IndeedProceed on May 18, 2013, 12:40:47 AM

They love Klay Thompson, and they'll have more than adequate backups in Jack and Rush next year

Yeah, they really do love the guy, and for good reason. He's 6'7 and has a very high release, demanding a lot of attention. I think that's why Golden State would benefit putting him as Pierce's main back up 3 (as well as back up 2 or starting 2) - he's really flexible in that regard.

You could go big - Curry, Klay, and Pierce

You could go small - Curry, Bradley, Klay, Pierce (Pierce is really strong - could work against undersized 4s)

You could go clutch - Jack, Curry, Pierce

You could go defense - Bradley, Bogut  , Rush

There are so many combinations. Golden State has been playing small ball a lot lately anyway. Your basically taking an already deep wing rotation and making it way more deep and versatile. Replacing a 3 and D guy for someone who's really good at defense and another who's really good at scoring makes for something Mark Jackson would love to figure out how to utilize.

The fact that you don't have to rely on Bradley to handle the ball much means that he can go full throttle on defense for 20-25 minutes a game.

Also, from a financial standpoint, they shed Jefferson and Biedrins' horrible contracts and get an expiring one a la Pierce. I don't know their cap room situation, but taking out potentially 35 million together is pretty good.

Their front court gets better too, imo. All of them minus Bogut are offensive talents that all provide something. Landry pounds it inside while Bass spreads the floor. Lee both spreads the floor and pounds it. Bogut is the defensive backbone. They could use the 16th pick to get maybe Gobert, Plumlee, Noqueira, or trade down and pick up Steven Adams, Dieng, or Withey.

I'm not saying they couldn't use Pierce, but look at the core. Curry is what, 24? Thompson 23? Barnes 21, Green 23, Jack 26 or 28, Lee, Bogut both sub-30, Rush , Landry mid-20s?

I may be off on some of those ages, but you get the gist.

And then figure they're paying Barnes like 4 mil, and while Im not personally of the belief that Barnes will be on Pierce's level next season, he'll be close, and better in 2 years, at less than a 3rd the price.

It just doesn't really make sense. They're young, and improving, and aren't one of the teams that will be wholly comfortable paying the tax. They simply don't have the upside to pay Pierce 15.3 million dollars next year in the short term when they can pay Barnes to give them 80% or more for a third the price. In the long-term, they are setting themselves back years at the 3 for a 1 year rental.

Well, strategically, I think Bradley is really a guy they could use, especially for the Western Conference.

Chris Paul, Tony Parker, Russell Westbrook, Mike Conley, Ty Lawson, and to some extent: Harden and Bryant - the Warriors don't have the super quick lock down defender that they can throw at the superstar point guards. Jack and Curry aren't labeled as premier defenders. Rush is great, but he's a wing and he's not quick enough compared to a point guard. For the next decade, they could use a 22 year old lock down defender against all those guys.


I just think that the Warriors are awfully looking similar to the Hardaway-Richmond-Mullin era. They were all acquired at a young age and at a young age were doing outstanding things. It was competitive basketball, all right, but it wasn't championship basketball.

Quote from: IndeedProceed on May 18, 2013, 01:54:51 AM

Quote from: syfy9 on May 18, 2013, 01:40:22 AM

Quote from: IndeedProceed on May 18, 2013, 12:40:47 AM

They love Klay Thompson, and they'll have more than adequate backups in Jack and Rush next year

Yeah, they really do love the guy, and for good reason. He's 6'7 and has a very high release, demanding a lot of attention. I think that's why Golden State would benefit putting him as Pierce's main back up 3 (as well as back up 2 or starting 2) - he's really flexible in that regard.

You could go big - Curry, Klay, and Pierce

You could go small - Curry, Bradley, Klay, Pierce (Pierce is really strong - could work against undersized 4s)

You could go clutch - Jack, Curry, Pierce

You could go defense - Bradley, Bogut  , Rush

There are so many combinations. Golden State has been playing small ball a lot lately anyway. Your basically taking an already deep wing rotation and making it way more deep and versatile. Replacing a 3 and D guy for someone who's really good at defense and another who's really good at scoring makes for something Mark Jackson would love to figure out how to utilize.

The fact that you don't have to rely on Bradley to handle the ball much means that he can go full throttle on defense for 20-25 minutes a game.

Also, from a financial standpoint, they shed Jefferson and Biedrins' horrible contracts and get an expiring one a la Pierce. I don't know their cap room situation, but taking out potentially 35 million together is pretty good.

Their front court gets better too, imo. All of them minus Bogut are offensive talents that all provide something. Landry pounds it inside while Bass spreads the floor. Lee both spreads the floor and pounds it. Bogut is the defensive backbone. They could use the 16th pick to get maybe Gobert, Plumlee, Noqueira, or trade down and pick up Steven Adams, Dieng, or Withey.

I'm not saying they couldn't use Pierce, but look at the core. Curry is what, 24? Thompson 23? Barnes 21, Green 23, Jack 26 or 28, Lee, Bogut both sub-30, Rush , Landry mid-20s?

I may be off on some of those ages, but you get the gist.

And then figure they're paying Barnes like 4 mil, and while Im not personally of the belief that Barnes will be on Pierce's level next season, he'll be close, and better in 2 years, at less than a 3rd the price.

It just doesn't really make sense. They're young, and improving, and aren't one of the teams that will be wholly comfortable paying the tax. They simply don't have the upside to pay Pierce 15.3 million dollars next year in the short term when they can pay Barnes to give them 80% or more for a third the price. In the long-term, they are setting themselves back years at the 3 for a 1 year rental.

Well, strategically, I think Bradley is really a guy they could use, especially for the Western Conference.

Chris Paul, Tony Parker, Russell Westbrook, Mike Conley, Ty Lawson, and to some extent: Harden and Bryant - the Warriors don't have the super quick lock down defender that they can throw at the superstar point guards. Jack and Curry aren't labeled as premier defenders. Rush is great, but he's a wing and he's not quick enough compared to a point guard. For the next decade, they could use a 22 year old lock down defender against all those guys.


I just think that the Warriors are awfully looking similar to the Hardaway-Richmond-Mullin era. They were all acquired at a young age and at a young age were doing outstanding things. It was competitive basketball, all right, but it wasn't championship basketball.

Trust me. Bradley is the guy the Warriors dont need.

The Warriors will not give away their future star for an aging one and a lockdown defender. Its not about having a lockdown defender, its about giving up a young guy whos potentially going to be a star in the next two years and breaking up that core in the process. Barnes is becoming very good and is still under a rookie contract. And outside of Curry there is no one on that starting lineup that can create shots for his own. Avery can (can he really?) Lock down PGs but the Warriors offense will take a hit. Pierce game does not fit the run and gun style of play as well. Add to the fact the Barnes is becoming a very good defender and rebounder at SF, Paul would be a an expensive replacement. And they still need to resign Jack and Landry (if he chooses to opt out) doing this deal would cripple them cap wise.


AB is not enough of a sweetener. Pierce maybe gone in a year too. And while its true that they dont have a lockdown defender, they wont break up that core for that kind of deal.

Also, one reason why they traded Monta is so Klay can start, as they believe in him. He's starting to develop as a starter level SG and his defense Is improving. This deal is going to make him go off the bench to give way for Bradley? I'm not sure the Dubs are going to do that...

The answer is no, no they would not...

The player the Warriors would want from the Celtics would be Garnett and the Celtics are not getting Harrison back in return.

Someone should propose a deal where KG and Pierce go to GS and the Warriors send back Jefferson, Biedrins, draft picks, and players who are not Curry, Barnes, Bogut, Lee, Thompson, or Ezeli.

Quote from: LooseCannon on May 18, 2013, 10:37:34 AM

Quote from: nickagneta on May 18, 2013, 10:26:29 AM

The player the Warriors would want from the Celtics would be Garnett and the Celtics are not getting Harrison back in return.

Someone should propose a deal where KG and Pierce go to GS and the Warriors send back Jefferson, Biedrins, draft picks, and players who are not Curry, Barnes, Bogut, Lee, Thompson, or Ezeli.

Yeah, because that makes sense. the Celtics send great players on expiring contracts to Golden State for garbage players on expiring contracts and a really low draft pick.

All that does is condone the ridiculous theory of getting horribly bad next year to tank for a 2014 draft pick which is ludicrous given the two times the Celtics have been burnt by this very strategy.

But at least I'd respect whoever came up with the trade for doing a realistic deal that could get made rather than a ridiculous proposal that has no chance of happening.