Eurobasket 09 thread:

[Coxy]

Its all good, I like the argument sleep. I wasnt expecting ANYONE to like the trade I proposed, and I wouldn't post here If I was worried about peoples unkind words. Im an aussie and you could call me a **** **** **** ass muncher and I wouldn't give a ****. I can pretty much tell who's gonna come in for the cheap shot every time I post anyway, as well as the posters who are pretty decent.

Anyway, all good, moving on.

[Sleepy51]

We'll I've never been one predisposed to "cheap shot" you. We've gotten along quite well. And I hate your trade. I mean seriously hate it. It's not at all personal. The trade is just hideous.

[Coxy]

We'll I've never been one predisposed to "cheap shot" you. We've gotten along quite well. And I hate your trade. I mean seriously hate it. It's not at all personal. The trade is just hideous.

Fair enough. Probably had too many bourbons in me when I posted it anyway.

[Mylie10]

I for one am in the Ralph Barbierri camp of 2 things being equally true.

1.) Andris is available in the right deal.

2.) Someone in the Warriors front office with some power feels that trading Beans for a player who might bolt after a year is bad business.

So, I think Nellie likes biedrins and part of his game. The guy starts for Nellie and is his absolute best pick and roll guy. Nellie loves pick and roll.

But I'd be foolish to think thay Nellie wouldn't deal him in for a big man that can shoot and is considered an upgrade in some catagories.

[Mylie10]

I hate Coxy's deal as well and feel this is a good time to pile on..

VTB

[Coxy]

I hate Coxy's deal as well and feel this is a good time to pile on..

VTB

Im under attack today.

[turk3d]

I for one am in the Ralph Barbierri camp of 2 things being equally true.

1.) Andris is available in the right deal.

2.) Someone in the Warriors front office with some power feels that trading Beans for a player who might bolt after a year is bad business.

So, I think Nellie likes biedrins and part of his game. The guy starts for Nellie and is his absolute best pick and roll guy. Nellie loves pick and roll.

But I'd be foolish to think thay Nellie wouldn't deal him in for a big man that can shoot and is considered an upgrade in some catagories.

I think you make a couple of important points here which should be emphasized in particular #2:

I believe that Nellie/Riley have some limitations on trading Beans and the biggest one I think is that they can't take back more money. That (more than anything) may have been what really killed the Amare deal since it was reported that Amare was looking for a max extension.

If I have my facts straight, it wasn't until it became apparent that the Warriors upper brass was unwilling to give a guy coming off a serious injury (and with a history of them) a full max deal that Amare came out and said he didn't want to play here. The Biedrins/player excuse was just an afterthought imo on his part because I believe if we were willing to S & T for him for a max deal Amare would have been here in a flash. Amare just didn't want to look like the money-grubbing me first a-hole that he is so he came up with that as an excuse.

As for Coxy and his proposed deal(s), I must admit I was surprised by it and I figured that it was either due to the drugs/alcohol or he's a closet Biedrins hater. I always felt he had pretty sane takes (up until this one). Nothing like Sid the Squid. Still waiting to hear something on Biedrins from the homeland.

[St.Nick]

-Q: You said earlier this week that you wouldn’t trade for a pending free agent if you didn’t have some understanding that you could re-sign him. Does that still stand?

-RILEY: I gave you the answer that that would be very difficult for me to do. It’s a little bit outside my comfort zone so to speak.

I would have to consider very deeply what we would need to do if it were presented to us. It would be a tough deal. It would be a hard thing for me to get convinced of. I’m not saying I couldn’t be. But that would be a very difficult thing.

Te other thing that would be associated with would be the asking price, that would be the other thing.. assuming the asking price would be pretty darn high on a good player.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2 ... nanswered/

So as you can see, his statement came right as the trade talks were being made public. Only weeks later were they squashed completely.

I'm not sure where in that quote Riley says anything specific to Andris or particularly strong to the effect of: "I won't trade for an expiring guy." TK is INTERPRETING Riley's statement as such, but it's not what he's actually said there.

Couldn't that statement be just as easily and reasonablly interpreted as: he won't trade for an expiring guy unless the asking price is sufficiently discounted?

The sticking point was Curry, not Dre. Dre was in the deal before we had Curry. That is fact. In the midst of trade negotiations where we just snatched a player Phoenix coveted that wasn't supposed to be available at our slot, Riley's statement about "how hard it would be" is motivated by a newfound position of bargaining strength. It's him grinding away at the asking price after the dealer thinks he has a sale. There is still nothing at all definitive in "it would be hard for me" except that it would definitively receive ample consideration.


I was remembering a comment more specific to Biedrins made after Amare commented that he would not sign an extension here. Maybe that comment wasn't Riley, but whether I remember that 2nd comment correctly or not, it doesn't change that the comment you've highlighted above does not say all of what TK is interpreting it as saying.

But those words were straight from Riley. What TK speculates means as much to me as speculation on the stock market from the guy who picks recyclables out of my garbage bin. But I do take a lot from Riley's quotes, as I think we all should.

Asking him to say "I will never trade for a player about to become a FA" is asking a bit much. The smart GM's never close a window completely, as you never know what might be out there. But yeah, to me considering the context of the situation its pretty clear that he was saying that it would be highly unlikely that he'd make a trade like this for Amare considering what the Suns were asking.

You are right to believe that if the price was lowered sufficiently that a deal could be made, but that changes the entire complexion of the trade. As an example, Biedrins/Brandan/Marco for a re-signed Amare could be acceptable. But if he is unsigned then an acceptable deal might be S-Jax/Brandan/Marco.

Your speculation about having Curry available and how it emboldened Riley to change his negotiation tactics and willingness to trade for an unsigned FA is off, and I can prove it with something from the article.

You said earlier this week that you wouldn’t trade for a pending free agent if you didn’t have some understanding that you could re-sign him. Does that still stand?

You can see that before the draft and before we had Curry, Riley told TK that he wouldn't trade for a pending FA (aka Amare). So even if we'd have been stuck with Jordan Hill, Riley told TK that he was not comfortable with this scenario.

I think your take is off on this one, Sleepy, with all due respect.

[floppymoose]

Most GMs will always feign discomfort at trading their own players when speaking publicly. They don't want their players to be insulted, they don't want other GMs to see signs of a fire sale, and they don't want to make themselves look like idiots for having gotten those players to start with.

[Sleepy51]

You said earlier this week that you wouldn’t trade for a pending free agent if you didn’t have some understanding that you could re-sign him. Does that still stand?

[put back in place for context]-RILEY: I gave you the answer that that would be very difficult for me to do. It’s a little bit outside my comfort zone so to speak.

You can see that before the draft and before we had Curry, Riley told TK that he wouldn't trade for a pending FA (aka Amare). So even if we'd have been stuck with Jordan Hill, Riley told TK that he was not comfortable with this scenario.

I think your take is off on this one, Sleepy, with all due respect.

No, I do not see that Riley said he would not trade for a pending FA. I see that Riley said he was not comfortable and that it would be hard to do. TK interpreted Riley as saying he wouldn't do it. IF Riley said he wouldn't in a prior Q&A, he pretty clearly regretted it, and made a specific effort to corrected TK's interpretation.

You are snipping very selectively. In context, TK paraphrases him as saying a definitive "NO" Riley takes great pains to correct such an assumption.

I gave you the answer that that would be very difficult for me to do. It’s a little bit outside my comfort zone so to speak.

This is an unambiguous correction. The only "NO" in that quote is Riley saying "NO, I didn't say that, I said this."

I realize it's a lot to ask that Riley would give a definitive and ultimate statement in favor or against such a deal. It would be bad bargaining. Everything said on the record has spin (or is being said by an impetuous buffoon.) There is no reason for these guys to give clear policy directives to the public. Given that obvious reality, the context and unfolding of the events is much more meaningful than public pronouncements.

"I am not trading Jason Richardson."

I'm not saying they don't value Dre, or that they are stupid or evil. But getting a star here in trade or free agency IS going to require a gamble. That's a reality that Nellie and Riley both know. They would gamble Dre on such a possibility as long as the collateral damage can be minimized. They have already talked about it, they just haven't gotten the low enough asking price to pull the trigger. The context of the events (including the Bosh talks that we know happened) says Dre was in trade talks for star PF's without a extensions. The Amare deal was in the works until Curry changed the dynamic. A pre-trade extension was simply an unrealistic fantasy (the absence of which gives Riley bargaining leverage) given Amare's circumstances and opportunities. He is going to get near max money. He will want control over where he plays.

[St.Nick]

This is the problem I have with your proclamation, Sleepy. You are stating that specific things happened which you don't know about (and which no one knows about except those directly involved).

We have info that there were "talks" and that the reported pieces involved were Andris and some of our young guys. Reasons why the talks broke down are unconfirmed. Theories abound, but no one can definitively say that it was because of "this" or "that."

There is very specific bit of info which states before the draft and after the draft that Riley was not comfortable doing any deals for Amare should he come here unsigned and at a high price. There is no info to the contrary. So there is no way to dispute that this is why a trade wasn't consumated.

Maybe this isn't why a trade didn't happen, but you really shouldn't state alternative theories in such matter of fact manner, as if they are not theories at all but what actually happened. Thats a pretty irresponsible thing to do from such an influential poster as yourself.

A lot of what makes this board hard to handle is the time wasted trying to disprove bad information. If five people read what you've written and accept it a fact, and they each parrot this bad info and convince five others to parrot them, well then you eventually have a lot of time wasted on arguing over something imaginary.

Sure, its each person's job to adequately filter information before reaching a judgment but there is something else to be said for influential posters stating something and others following them. When those followers repeat something enough it eventually gets accepted into a hazily accepted truth.

Anyways to go back on track, as I said, the only info anyone has about why the deal didn't happen was that our GM didn't feel good about sending out valuable pieces for a pending UFA. You can't say otherwise unless you put a "my guess is that" in front of your statement.

[Sleepy51]

Immediately after correcting TK's "no trade for a free agent" paraphrase, Riley then launches into an unsolicited exploration of what it would take to convince him of exactly such a deal.

I would have to consider very deeply what we would need to do if it were presented to us. It would be a tough deal. It would be a hard thing for me to get convinced of. I’m not saying I couldn’t be. But that would be a very difficult thing.

The other thing that would be associated with would be the asking price, that would be the other thing.. assuming the asking price would be pretty darn high on a good player

He wraps up with a discussion of the appropriate "asking price" for such a situation. He's negotiating. It's not shrouded in a lot of mystery. He's telling Kerr & the world that there's no way he's giving up Curry in a deal for an impending Free agent where we're already building talks around a starting quality top 10 center with a 5 year bargain contract.

I know you would never do it consciously, but it sounds like you let TK's take distract you. Riley isn't saying anything different than what I'm saying. Does he "like" the idea of trading for a FA? Of course not. Would he? Of course he would. They want a deep discount on an unsigned guy. But the events that unfolded do indicate that Dre was available in such a deal. Dre + Curry was not and that's where the deal fell apart.

To believe that this deal was hung up on the extension would require faith that Amare was willing to extend and be traded here for all of his prime years sight unseen. With a historically "less than stellar" ownership group, a coach with a history of big men conflicts and overplaying PF's at the C position, the most youthful teammates in the league, and a great deal of uncertainty about the franchise's direction after Nelson's retirement which would certainly occur during the tenure of any extension. That's a heck of a lot for Amare to swallow as an "injury discount." Realistically, pre-trade extension was not going to happen for a trade to a lower tier destination franchise.

No "franchise" FA (even a half blind, gimpy no-defense, semi-retarded poser :p) is going to hitch their prime years wagon to an "ugly duckling" organization with so many future unknowns until they live in our locker room for a while and realize how awesome we are on the inside. We would have had to convince him to extend after he put on the jersey, so for a deal to be seriously talked about, it had to be under discussion absent the extension.

Were the W's or Suns (on our behalf) talking to Amare about extending? Of course.
Was Amare going to sign such an extension if he knew he was being traded into the abyss? Of course not.

Both avenues were certainly being pursued concurrently, but one of the avenues certainly included a no-extension structure and Dre was the centerpiece of either deal. Riley used TK's misunderestimation to make a positioning statement for that avenue of negotiation.

[oscars]

Still waiting to hear something on Biedrins from the homeland.[/b]

well ... there are no news regarding the Warriors frm him lately in latvain media.. but you should read the interview he gave to Latvias biggest sports paper 2 montsh ago..woow .. there was lots of open stuff regarding Warriors organization.. and i would say he was to honest in that interviw...


shame that i'm to lazy to translate it...

[Sleepy51]

Maybe this isn't why a trade didn't happen, but you really shouldn't state alternative theories in such matter of fact manner, as if they are not theories at all but what actually happened. Thats a pretty irresponsible thing to do from such an influential poster as yourself.

Weren't you just kind of stating an interpretation of Riley's comment as fact until I pointed out that it was indeed a misinterpretation that Riley specifically corrected?

I don't mind at all that you did so. I don't feel manipulated or misled by your line of reasoning. I just don't agree. There are "facts" and there are "FACTS." Our supply of FACTS in this forum is very very very limited. If we restricted ourselves just to such FACTS, we would have a very limited and boring forum. Our "facts" will conflict from time to time. Where one can show a reasoned interpretation to the contrary, it is healthy that we counter each other's "facts" with our own "facts."

As far as "influence" I have never subscribed to that game. To me this is not a contest for validation or allegiances. It's a thriving discussion forum. I don't think what I or you or Sid or anyone who hasn't created a general nuisance of themselves does here needs to change one iota. If you want to follow me around with disclaimers (like I do with Reggae ) you should feel equally free to. Exchanges like this improve the quality of the opinions expressed here. Even if we don't change our minds, both of us walk away from this discussion having considered more of the "facts" that underly our preconceptions and assumptions that we did before you challenged me. I still believe I'm 100% right on this topic, but I believe it even more and with better information than before you brought up Riley's exact quote. If I give a namby pampby softball version of my take, this discussion never gets off the ground because it would be boring.

S51: "IMHO, I think we should be very careful in considering trading Dre."
Nick: "Well IMHO, Riley is doing the best he can. We should have tea together"
[Nick and S51 curtsey to one another]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . . .

I think it goes without saying that I was not in the room when Amare laughed at the idea of extending his contract for a trade to GS. I think it's so obvious that I don't have firsthand knowledge that it would be ludicrous for me to have to say so. It makes no sense for the function or readability of this forum for us all to neuter our opinions with humbling disclaimers. This exchange wouldn't have been nearly as compelling if we both weren't so cocksure that we are right.

Cheers

[St.Nick]

Firstly, I didn't even read TK's opinions on the matter, I just read the interview (which technically was a Q and A session). So its faulty to assume that I am subconciously being influenced by this, just like it would be wrong for me to say that your logic is subconciously being affected by too much Cuban music. Lets just deal with what is actually being said before chalking up another's opinion to psychological forces unseen.

IMO, the Warriors were working on a deal to get Amare. It then failed because Amare failed to sign an extension with GS. Due to this, the trade talks crumbled, as the teams could not find a deal between Andris/Brandan/Marco and whatever lowball offer the Warriors were putting out there for an un-signed Amare.

Its totally plausible that they worked out the parts of the trade before sitting down with Amare and negotiating a contract with him. You gotta put the horse before the cart, of course. Unfortunately the cart turned out to be too expensive (or maybe Amare just wanted to try his hand at FA in 2010, possibly landing in NY, Miami, or Chicago with a fatter contract).

But what seems implausible is that the Suns agreed to Andris, Brandan, and Marco (sigh) for an unsigned Amare, and then the Suns yanked the deal off of the table because the Dubs wouldn't switch Curry into the deal. I mean, come on, does Steve Kerr seem like that tough of a negotiator? The guy is easier to take advantage of than a drunken sorrority girl on Spring Break.

I think Kerr wanted to deal Amare but Amare's refusal to sign an extension lowered his value too much for the Suns to consumate a trade. It had little to do with the W's bargaining inadequacies, cheapness, or lack of obvious common sense in not trading the farm for a guy that would likely leave after one season. The Marco trade was bad, but not that bad.

[Sleepy51]

A lot of what makes this board hard to handle is the time wasted trying to disprove bad information. If five people read what you've written and accept it a fact, and they each parrot this bad info and convince five others to parrot them, well then you eventually have a lot of time wasted on arguing over something imaginary.

I'd imagine that would be hard to handle, and I'd certainly agree that it is time wasted.

We've had this discussion before in private, and now that we've buried various hatchets, I think it's ok to say in public: I know what you want to achieve/improve/influence here and I actually support your goal if not your chosen methods. (I just don't feel the same way under the current regime . . . the closes I can muster is to enjoy the splendor in the grass between AR and Nellie since AR proved the old bastard wrong.)

IMHO the best way for you to promote the change you want to see on this board isn't by wasting your time countering what you believe to be "bad information." You only legitimize such opinions with the amount of attention you direct to them.

Your best course of action for changing the tone of this board is to ignore some of the crap (my compliments on ignoring the worst of the crap lately from a certain nuisance that shall not be named.) Let the pigs wallow in their excrement, and instead offer compelling posts and insights on positive subject matter that inspires the kind of discussion you want to read. You're just feeding the monster by trying to counter every little rant and snark that you disagree with.

It's all about what you choose to manifest. Choosing to smokejump and contest all the injustices perpetrated against the Warriors here just becomes white noise. Choosing to manifest an interesting and thought provoking positive presence on various Warriors issues, independent of and unfettered by the surrounding negativity would draw far more attention and have more merit. There's a HUGE difference between offering a positive message, and countering an onslaught of negative messages. Rise above man, rise above.

My 2 cents, offered in the spirit of our newfound mutual respect.




Now go yourself.

[Sleepy51]

You said earlier this week that you wouldn’t trade for a pending free agent if you didn’t have some understanding that you could re-sign him. Does that still stand?

You can see that before the draft and before we had Curry, Riley told TK that he wouldn't trade for a pending FA (aka Amare).

This is where I got the impression that you had been misled by TK's theorizing, because according to Riley never said he wouldn't do anything. He said he gave TK a very specific answer about how hard it would be and then TK ran with it to assume it meant "no.: I don't know where else you would have gotten that bad information.

[Chris Cohan]

I think we've all grown here today.

[Sleepy51]

Still waiting to hear something on Biedrins from the homeland.[/b]

well ... there are no news regarding the Warriors frm him lately in latvain media.. but you should read the interview he gave to Latvias biggest sports paper 2 montsh ago..woow .. there was lots of open stuff regarding Warriors organization.. and i would say he was to honest in that interviw...


shame that i'm to lazy to translate it...

Dude . . . translate the damn interview before I have to kick you in the snatch.

[turk3d]

Yeah Oscar, let's hear what Andris has to say about all this trade BS. I'm afraid some of us here may not like it.