Would GS bite on this trade?

[syfy9]

Paul Pierce, Avery Bradley, Bass, and the 16th
for
Harrison Barnes, Andris Biedrins, Richard Jefferson, and Ezeli



PG: Curry, Jack
SG: Bradley, Thompson
SF: Pierce
PF: Lee, Landry, Bass
C: Bogut


You know, when I look at the Warriors now, I can't really identify any legit vet presence - a vet that's won a title, that knows what it feels like to win and what you need to sacrifice in order to achieve it. Pierce fits in - he can come in and say, "This is how you win a championship", and show the young players how to be successful in the post season.

Fundamentally, this after trade team looks like it has a really flexible offense/defense oriented attack. Thompson or Bradley coming off the bench, it doesn't matter. Both will wreak havoc on one side of the floor. Jack and Pierce become locker room leaders and give the team the vet presence they need to be truly successful. Bogut is the classical big man, and while the other bigs are small, they're scrappy and talented players.

[indeedproceed]

Of all the trades that involve Harrison Barnes coming back to Boston, this is probably the most feasible. I still don't think it's likely, but I do think it doesn't get a flat out 'you're nuts, go away.'

At this point though, I don't think Barnes is on the table for a one-year rental of Pierce, and I don't think Bradley is a guy they value too high. They love Klay Thompson, and they'll have more than adequate backups in Jack and Rush next year, plus Bradley's performance didn't really inspire confidence in us as fans this year, I doubt it really got the attention of other GMs around the league.

[LooseCannon]

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

[Yoki_IsTheName]

Of all the trades that involve Harrison Barnes coming back to Boston, this is probably the most feasible. I still don't think it's likely, but I do think it doesn't get a flat out 'you're nuts, go away.'

At this point though, I don't think Barnes is on the table for a one-year rental of Pierce, and I don't think Bradley is a guy they value too high. They love Klay Thompson, and they'll have more than adequate backups in Jack and Rush next year, plus Bradley's performance didn't really inspire confidence in us as fans this year, I doubt it really got the attention of other GMs around the league.

This is why this trade, while maybe feasible, wont be entertained by the Warriors.

He's no AB but Rush is their BEST perimeter defender. He can defend and can play either wing spots. Oh, and he rebounds well for a guard and can shoot (if he's playing he'll be the third Splash Brother).

They will not give away Barnes who's really getting to his potential now for Pierce who may only play for one more year. Bradley could be a sweetener if Rush isn't in the team. Even then, they dont need Bradley,  not for that price.

[syfy9]

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.

[indeedproceed]

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.

[syfy9]

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.

[indeedproceed]

See its not so much that they couldn't use Bradley or Pierce, it's that the price they would cost is just too much for GSW to logically pay. It would be like if (salaries notwithstanding) the Celtics offered Garnett and Pierce straight up to OKC for Ibaka and Perkins.

OKC would love Garnett as the defense's anchor, and would love to have Pierce's boon on the second team, but at the cost of a 24 year old Ibaka, it's too much.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

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...

[Who]

No -- Harrison Barnes and Ezeli have more value than that.

[Geo123]

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

[nickagneta]

The player the Warriors would want from the Celtics would be Garnett and the Celtics are not getting Harrison back in return. The Warriors need a healthy inside presence that they can count on to be there and give them rebounds and defense and some scoring.

They thought Bogut that player but he has proven to be able to hold up as well as an ice sculpture in the Gobi Desert. The longer the playoffs went the worse he played and less minutes he played. David Lee is a lot of things, a defensive presence isn't one of them.

The Warrios love their youth and young backups like Jack, Rush, Green, Ezeli, Harrison, Curry, Thompson, etc. But they need Curry's ankle to be healthy, Lee to get better from his injury, and someone to rely on inside rather than Mr. Glass himself, Andrew Bogut.

[LooseCannon]

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.

[nickagneta]

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.

[LooseCannon]

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.