# OT: Jamison/Van Exel trade official.



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Dallas/Warrior trade 



> Antawn Jamison and Nick Van Exel are the kingpins in an eight-player trade between the Mavericks and the Golden State Warriors that was agreed on Friday night, the Star-Telegram learned.
> 
> The trade can't be approved until Monday when the NBA offices open.
> 
> ...


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Pg: Nash
Sg: Finley
Sf: Jamison
Pf: Dirk
C: Lafrentz

Now, every 'powerhouse' WC team has made a trade to improve. What about us?!?!?!:upset:


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

*Here is link*

Link to trade 


Source of trade


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Siouxperior</b>!
> Pg: Nash
> Sg: Finley
> Sf: Jamison
> ...



AND Fortson, he can really help. He's tough inside, and can rebound. Wonderful trade for Dallas. Wow, the west is gonna be so fun to watch this year......theres like 5 All-Star teams for Pete's sake!!


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

I think it benefits both teams...although, maybe Dallas gets a little better deal.

Dallas get a bit of inside presence, and a nice starting SF.

G-State saves big money long-term on Jamison and Fortson, and open up the SF spot for Dunleavy...


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

What's the deal with Golden State? Is it their goal to permanently suck?


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Now lets get on the phone and get Van Exel


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

If this is true, the Warriors are idiots. They're getting Van Exel, no prize himself, and absolute junk for Jamison (an underrated star in the making), Welsch (a solid prospect), and Fortson (reputation belies production). This is incredibly one-sided. The Warriors get smaller, older, and weaker all in one go. This has to be wishful thinking or is missing an important piece.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Warriors are getting screwed in this deal


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Van exel is the reason dallas beat portland in the first round , I dont think this helps him ,


----------



## dr-dru (Feb 9, 2003)

no..warriors have an idea of what they are doing. next year will be one of the biggest star-filled free agencies in years. by losing jamison AND fortson that gives the warriors many many millions for next season. keep in mind, kobe is a free agent next year. i personally think van exel can do better than arenas, and dunleavy will be a good player in the future. no need for the tweener jamison anymore.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

I think one of the biggest mistakes with it is them throwing in Welsch. He got a lot of positive reviews before the draft last year, and many experts were convinced that he was going to be a solid player in this league. Was he so awful that the Warriors felt the need to just throw him in after one season in which he barely played?


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

People in warriors chat are mad , arent the Warriors over the cap ,


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

The Warriors were robbed blind. If Gary St. Jean doesn't lose his job after this blunder, Warriors owner Chris Cohan should have his head examined.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dr-dru</b>!
> no..warriors have an idea of what they are doing. next year will be one of the biggest star-filled free agencies in years.


Dude, none of those guys are going to sign with Golden State. I know money is big draw for players, but those guys can still get money and play on teams that aren't in an NBA wasteland. 

You can also count on Van Exel to go back to his usual grumpy self now that he's with a loser again. 

If I was a Warrior fan I would be pissed. Heck, as a Blazer fan I'm pissed because the incompetent Warrior franchise just made one of our rivals better.


----------



## dsakilla (Jun 15, 2003)

GS is over the cap, but Foyle($4,400,000) and Sura($6,166,667) both come off the books next year, as well as Avery($5,445,600). So GS should be under, but i don't know if they'll be enough under to make a run at the big guns.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

also, you have to wonder if any free agents will want to go to GS even if they have money? Denver and Utah had a boat load of cash this summer and look what they came away with. Denver did get Andre Miller, but that's about it. Utah got squat.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

Nash/Welsh
Finley/Abdul-Wahad
Jamison/Najera/Howard
Dirk/Fortson/Raef
Raef/Bradley/Fortson

Even though that lineup is good there is still to much O and not enough D.... and no Fortson can't play D in fact the ONLY thing he can do is rebound so I am half way expecting the Mavs to make another trade. Maybe Raef+fillers for A. Davis or something along those lines.


----------



## dr-dru (Feb 9, 2003)

yes i know...deep down inside i am pissed. what looked like a promising future for the warriros has turned to waste. i'm just trying to be optimistic.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> Now lets get on the phone and get Van Exel


Package centered around Sabonis is too late, but if they are dumping, it would had been in their interest.

-Petey


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

If Van Exel's deal really did expire this off season this deal might have some semblance of reason behind it. But since he's got a player option for another 2 years it doesn't give the Warriors any cap relief. Golden State must think Dunleavy is ready to bust out and Van Exel will be HUGE. Maybe they really liked it when Arenas was the focal point of the offense and they thought Dunleavy complemented him very well. Could be they expect Van Exel to give them 25 and 10 a game and everyone else will kind of follow suit and they will make the playoffs. Sounds like too much optimism from Golden State's side of things.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NateBishop3</b>!
> also, you have to wonder if any free agents will want to go to GS even if they have money? Denver and Utah had a boat load of cash this summer and look what they came away with. Denver did get Andre Miller, but that's about it. Utah got squat.


GS seems to be a little better location than Utah, and might be more desirable...

GS might not have a boat load of cash, but they probably have enough to offer a guy like GP a decent deal...He's from the area, so he might like to end his career there...:whoknows:


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I think Van exel will do the same thing he did with Denver , he will demand a trade , What about I thoght he was suppose to be their starting point


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

what about speedy I thought he was suppose to be the starting point


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ebott</b>!
> If Van Exel's deal really did expire this off season this deal might have some semblance of reason behind it. But since he's got a player option for another 2 years it doesn't give the Warriors any cap relief. Golden State must think Dunleavy is ready to bust out and Van Exel will be HUGE. Maybe they really liked it when Arenas was the focal point of the offense and they thought Dunleavy complemented him very well. Could be they expect Van Exel to give them 25 and 10 a game and everyone else will kind of follow suit and they will make the playoffs. Sounds like too much optimism from Golden State's side of things.


If he is not happy, I think he might opt out. After the big boys are paid, there will always be some money to throw around, he can get a piece for sure.

-Petey


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> what about speedy I thought he was suppose to be the starting point


I really don't think Speedy is cut out to be the starting PG, he was more a replacement for Boykins. If G-State did want him to start, NVE could probably play SG...:whoknows:


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> 
> 
> Dude, none of those guys are going to sign with Golden State. I know money is big draw for players, but those guys can still get money and play on teams that aren't in an NBA wasteland.
> ...


Exactly! People overestimate the value of being under the cap. How many big name free agents are there every year? Maybe 5 or 6. How many sign with a new team. Maybe 1. Getting under the cap to land a free agent is an idiotic strategy and it rarely works.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

ok this is really frustrating...

Dallas gets better.... 
GS gives away good tlent

and we could have had Jamison, Fortson and Welsh easily

I wanted Welsh last year at the draft...

we had someone by the name of Sabas with instant team salary relief, but did we trade him to GS. :nonono: NOOOOOOOOOOOOO


We could have sent Sabas + DA or Patterson or ? easily


Jamison would have made a good SF on our team
Fortson would have been nice, but not a backup center
And Welsh would be a great guard... tall too.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> 
> Heck, as a Blazer fan I'm pissed because the incompetent Warrior franchise just made one of our rivals better.


You may be pissed because the Warriors *did* make the Mavs better, but the Warriors don't care about that. They care about ramification to their team.

I think this is the first proactive move towards a future the Warriors have made in a long time. They were in the worst, dumbest position possible: a bad team *and* over the cap.

That means bad with no room to get better. Losing Arenas even took away that chance to get better. As things stood, the Warriors were looking at being bad, with Jamison, for years.

This allows them to get rid of two huge contracts, one of them a player who barely even plays in Fortson. Fortson's numbers are pretty good from a couple seasons ago, except for the fact that he thought he was a go-to guy and kept killing the team's offense. He had a terrible attitude and wouldn't play hard if he didn't start and get shots.

Jirii Welsch is a nice name from the 2002 draft, but he was abysmal last year. He had no shooting ability and looked lost. Perhaps he'll prove the Warriors wrong, but he's certainly not painful for them to give up.

Van Excel will probably keep them at least as good this year as they would have been had they not made the trade and the trade will greatly improve their future, by giving them cap room and the ability to make moves to better themselves.

Of course, I'm generally no fan of St. Jean, so he'll likely screw up that room to maneuver....but, pretending he's a competent GM, this move is great for the future. Layden only dreams he could free up space like that.


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Maybe Nash has something up his sleeve. I don't see us standing pat. When the season ended, and when we hired Nash we were promised 'a lot of changes' . So far, we let all our character guys walk for nothing, and kept the biggest A-hole on planet earth..Sheed.:upset:


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> ok this is really frustrating...
> 
> Dallas gets better....
> ...


Hmm, The Blazers probably would of turned it down 'cos Jamison and Fortson have long-term expensive contracts...they are serious about reducing payroll, Sabas could of been traded for a number of good players.

:sigh:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Exactly! People overestimate the value of being under the cap. How many big name free agents are there every year? Maybe 5 or 6. How many sign with a new team. Maybe 1. Getting under the cap to land a free agent is an idiotic strategy and it rarely works.


This is only true when you *disassemble* a *successful* team to do it.

The Warriors, minus Arenas, were going to be horrible, with or without Jamison. What, exactly, are they sacrificing to this strategy? Nothing, really. Jamison is a good player, but overpaid. He's paid like a superstar but isn't one. Losing an overpaid good player is not a real blow.

A team that has some good talent that throws it away to get under the cap *is* making a silly mistake. The Warriors are over the cap and bad. That equals no change in goodness for years.

Being under the cap at least gives them a *chance* to turn things around, if they can lure a top free agent. A good chance? No. A better chance than a capped-out bad team? Yes.

I was a huge critic of the "tear it down, get under the cap" strategy for the Blazers all spring. That's because the Blazers would actually be sacrificing a competitive team to do it. I don't think it's a bad strategy when you sacrifice essentially nothing to do it.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

sweet mary of god

how can we sit around while other teams get so dam good.....

i know, some of you will say.......jamison and fortson have no D, well, wether he can play D or not, Jamison got 20+ points a game last year, along with 8 or so boards. 

godammit.....


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

I hear ya Minstrel, but why is it the crap teams are always "looking at the future?" Are we talking 2035 here? Golden State has been looking toward the future for 15 years. At what point do you actually start looking at the present and try to win some ball games now? When the fans stop caring and your team moves to Memphis?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> I hear ya Minstrel, but why is it the crap teams are always "looking at the future?"


Because their presents are crap. That's what it means to be a crap team. 



> Are we talking 2035 here? Golden State has been looking toward the future for 15 years.


In the Warriors' precise case, they have had horrible GMs in Dave Twardzik and Gary St. Jean. And they still have one. So yes, their "plans for the future" keep dying. That's what being an incompetent GM is, your efforts are failures.

The fact still remains, when your present is pathetic, you have to build for the future. What's the point of winning 20 games with Jamison when you may win 20 games without him and with Van Excel, plus you improve cap situations for future years?



> At what point do you actually start looking at the present and try to win some ball games now?


As soon as you can. But the Warriors were not going to win games now, with Jamison. They would have been horrible with him, they'll be horrible without him. What have they sacrificed? Meanwhile, they've gained some flexibility for the future.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

I can't argue with some of your points, but I disagree that the Warriors were still crap coming off this last season. They made a good run at the playoffs in the tough Western Conference. They were on the upswing. Now it's back down to the bottom again. How are you going to move forward when you keep taking two steps back? 

It must suck to be a Warriors fan. I know a lot of us are overly critical of the Blazers, but look on the bright side - at least our team is competative every year.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> I can't argue with some of your points, but I disagree that the Warriors were still crap coming off this last season. They made a good run at the playoffs in the tough Western Conference. They were on the upswing.


But you're neglecting a key point here. They had already lost 90% of what had fueled that run at the playoffs last year...Gilbert Arenas.

Arenas played like a star last year and, yes, if the Warriors had been able to keep him, they could have played for the present. Once they lost him, it was back to the scrap heap for the team



> Now it's back down to the bottom again. How are you going to move forward when you keep taking two steps back?


I would blame all their previous crappy moves for the "one step forward, two steps back" lack of progress. That's what put them in this weak shape. However, now that they're there, you can either say, "We'll ride what we got to *another* decade of losing," or, "Let's clean out this cesspool and try and build something legitimate."

Again, though, if I owned the Warriors, I'd now approach St. Jean and say, "Thanks for the one sane move you've ever made for this franchise, now clean out your desk. I want a competent GM to handle the next building job."



> It must suck to be a Warriors fan. I know a lot of us are overly critical of the Blazers, but look on the bright side - at least our team is competative every year.


You can get a much greater appreciation for Whitsitt by looking at some of the GMs other teams have to watch in agonized torture...like St. Jean.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*All I can say is*

The Warriors got totally bent over in this deal. Dallas will be better, but they may lack some of the scoring punch they had off the bench last year.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I don't think it's a bad strategy when you sacrifice essentially nothing to do it.


They traded their best player. How can they expect to lure a free agent when the free agent will have no decent teammates? Recipe for disaster.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

but Nash is really good at interviews.... 

someday he might even do a trade or two

Note: Yes I am trying to be patient, but its really hard to do when everyone else is making seemingly good moves to get better. This improves Dallas in my opinion.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> Note: Yes I am trying to be patient, but its really hard to do when everyone else is making seemingly good moves to get better. This improves Dallas in my opinion.


True, but who's to say that we haven't improved as well? Sure, no trades...but ours is the only team that won't have to adjust to any added pieces this season. If Randolph and Woods can step up the way we believe they can, we may have 'added' two of the better young players in the league to our team without even making a single deal. 

Sometimes good management means not doing a damn thing.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

This aint as bad as it seems for GS....

At least it opens up playing time for Dunleavy at SF. He did do very well in the summer leagues....

PG-N.Van Exel/S.Claxton/A.Johnson
SG-J.Richardson/M.Pietrius
SF-M.Dunleavy/M.Pietrus
PF-T.Murphy/?????
C-E.Dampier/A.Foyle

Murphy, J-Rich, Pietrus and Dunleavy make a very good young core.....


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: All I can say is*



> Originally posted by <b>hasoos</b>!
> The Warriors got totally bent over in this deal. Dallas will be better, but they may lack some of the scoring punch they had off the bench last year.


I don't think either team drastically changed in strength. Yes, the Mavericks added a good inside player (but a 'tweener, still leaving them lacking in toughness a bit) but they lost Van Excel. Van Excel was nearly as valuable as Nash in the playoffs last year and possibly more valuable than Finley in the playoffs. The Mavericks lost a very good player in NVE.

NVE vs. Jamison? Pretty even in talent. The Mavericks also took on a bad contract in Fortson and a disappointing prospect in Welsch.

So, unless Fortson turns things around entirely with his attitude and becomes productive in a way that doesn't hurt his team's play (team-oriented production, rather than selfish production), I don't think the Mavericks really improved.

And if Fortson remains a cancer, they added payroll for nothing.

The Warriors didn't improve their roster, either, but did improve their future outlook a bit.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

You can not even attempt to say Dallas did not get much better in this trade.......

22ppg, 7rpg....thats all i have to say


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> They traded their best player. How can they expect to lure a free agent when the free agent will have no decent teammates? Recipe for disaster.


Jamison may have been their best player, but he wasn't worth his salary. He's a good player, but not a star.

Really Van Excel is probably as good as Jamison, and his contract expires much sooner.

And yes, the Warriors will have to make some moves between now and when they want to play the free agent market if they hope to actually succeed in luring someone.

Dunleavy Jr. is going to have to become good. They have to hope Richardson is more than just a leaper. They have to draft well (they'll have a pretty good pick this year, I'm guessing) and maybe add a lower level free agent first.

They have a ton of work ahead of him. Don't get me wrong...the golden gates of Heaven haven't just opened up for Golden State. More like the rusty gates leading from the sewer into a dusty basement have opened up. They have a chance to move upwards....how far, depends on how well they exploit this chance.

But they'd have *no* chance without this deal. With no cap space, they'd be the Knicks. Stuck in badness with no way to get better.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ThatBlazerGuy</b>!
> You can not even attempt to say Dallas did not get much better in this trade.......
> 
> 22ppg, 7rpg....thats all i have to say


Then you didn't watch the playoffs last year. NVE had a bunch of 20- and 30-point games.

But I guess Jamison *does* fill a need for Dallas...they really needed an undersized jump-shooting front-court player. They had a lack of that before this trade. 

As far as 22 ppg and 7 rpg goes, firstly, Jamison won't get that on the Mavericks and, secondly, NVE can likely get 22 ppg and 7 apg on the Warriors.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Well, Nick isn't going to be playing anymore playoff games this year, and we know how he is when he's in that kind of situation. He'll likely cause problems and eventually force his way out. The Warriors will have traded their top player for nothing. 

Maybe there's another deal in the works. Maybe NVE (and scrub) for RP, Mcinnis and a first rounder? :yes:


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: All I can say is*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Van Excel was nearly as valuable as Nash in the playoffs last year and possibly more valuable than Finley in the playoffs. The Mavericks lost a very good player in NVE.


NVE was more valuable than both Finley and Nash during their playoff run (IMO).

The only player that played a more important role during their run was Dirk, and even he became the second option down the stretch.

NVE will be missed a lot and it appears that Nash will be asked to play big minutes this season. Not a good formula (IMO).


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> Well, Nick isn't going to be playing anymore playoff games this year, and we know how he is when he's in that kind of situation. He'll likely cause problems and eventually force his way out. The Warriors will have traded their top player for nothing.


Not at all! NVE has the ability to opt out of his contract and the Warriors only win even more if he hates being on a bad team and opts out.

With NVE on their books, they stand to be under the cap by a decent amount. *Without* him, they will be massively under the cap. If you want to play this strategy, might as well do it all the way.

For those who think the Warriors have little to no chance at signing a big-name free agent, keep in mind that there have been soft free agent years, where prospective free agents haven't found the big offers they were hoping for. In such markets, if the Warriors were to step into the breach waving dollars, they would have a shot to win a big name.

I would never say it's a high percentage chance. But it's higher percentage than being capped out and bad.



> Maybe there's another deal in the works. Maybe NVE (and scrub) for RP, Mcinnis and a first rounder? :yes:


That could work quite nicely for both teams, assuming Patterson and McInnis are off the books after this season. If they aren't, then the Warriors would have no incentive to move NVE. They'd be in the *same* financial shape with worse players.

I don't know the contract situations of Patterson and McInnis.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

No need for all the hand wringing, fellas. So what if Dallas improved? They were already most likely better than Portland the coming year, anyway. Remember, cutting down payroll without tearing the team apart and missing the playoffs is a 2-3 year process, so moves like this Dallas one don't really affect where the competition will be when Portland presumably makes its next serious playoff push.

The biggest impact of this trade? Making one of Portland's closest non-playoff pursuers weaker! With Utah in the crapper, Denver and Houston perennial question marks, and now Golden State looking awful on paper, the odds of Portland missing the playoffs while "rebuilding" are mighty slim. Look on the bright side, this actually helps the Blazers in a sense.

Dan


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I don't know. The more I look at this deal the more I think maybe this could work out for the Warriors. Like Minstrel said, Arenas was one of the biggest reasons for them making a push for the playoffs. Van Exel's game is a lot like Arenas' except that he's a seasoned veteran. With Dunleavy at the 3 I'm thinkin they're a much better defensive team cause Jamison didn't play a lick. Could be they're so high on Pietrius they figured Jami had to go to clear time for him. The only real problem with this trade, IMHO, is Van Exel's advanced age. Maybe he doesn't take his option and the Warriors can find a scoring point guard on the market. Jamal Crawford will be a restricted free agent. 

I'm thinking it's all good but then I'm also adding a possitive cause I think moving Jamison and Fortson are addition by subtraction. It's a heck of a lot harder to think that way when you're an actual fan of a team. Look at us with Rasheed.

I don't know if this trade really does Dallas a whole heck of a lot of good. I think it improves them cause Jamison gives them some of the interior offense they're lacking and Fortson some toughness and rebounding. But Van Exel was a big part of their playoff success. If Nash or Finley slump like they did or are injured they don't have a backup guard with the goods like Van Exel. They're better, but I don't know if it's enough to move them out of the 5 spot everybody seems to think they're gonna have.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

I question whether this trade really benefits Dallas?
Yes they appear better on paper, but are they really a better team.

Adding another sensational offensive player to a sensational offensive team dose no necessarily make it better. What it does is adds another player who will require shots, thereby taking away from the output of others to establish his.

I question whether the Mavs can average much more than the 103 ppg they averaged last season (105 ppg the year before).
I doubt it; the new talent will only redistribute the scoring a bit _more_ evenly amongst more players. Which should (in fact) be more difficult to defend.

_A trademark of Jamison is that he does not share the ball. When he gets the ball 8 out of 10 times you know where it’s going._ 

I can definitely see the development of chemistry issues in their future.

--------------

*The good and the bad*


- They lose their toughest and most clutch player (Van Exel the closer), and add another soft player In Jamison. …(*Bad*)

- They are now a more versatile offensive team and they will be very hard to defend, but they have become even worse defensively (if that was at all possible). …(*Good/ Bad*)

- They now have a starting forward tandem that can interchange at both spots. However neither can defend either spot. …(*Good/ Bad*)

- Fortson is the acquisition I think will most benefit them as he is an extremely tough player (something they have lacked), however he is not a good defender of long forwards and he offers very little offensively (he will not be needed for that however). …(*Good*)

- The acquisition of both Jamison and Fortson instantly makes the Mavs a better rebounding team (which was one of their flows in seasons past). …(*Good*) 

---------------

Some will definitely disagree with me for saying this but I like the Blazers chances against them even more now. They lost the player that basically was the difference between the two teams a year ago and replaced him with a very good player who is the epitome of soft (Jamison). I can already envision the Blazers bullying this team into submission (whether that _will_ be the case is debatable).

One thing I know for sure is this:
There is definitely something about Jamison that brings out the best in Wells.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> The biggest impact of this trade? Making one of Portland's closest non-playoff pursuers weaker! With Utah in the crapper, Denver and Houston perennial question marks, and now Golden State looking awful on paper


Golden State already looked awful on paper, with Arenas gone for *nothing*.

Swapping out Jamison for NVE really doesn't change their team strength very much. Golden State was a playoff non-factor before the trade and they're a playoff non-factor after the trade.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Good discussion going. I think it will be fun to watch the West this year to see how everything turns out.

I generally agree with the arguments of Minstrel on this. 

A couple of points not yet mentioned. Jamison is a bad piece to be building a team on, because he is a tweener. GS benefits because now they can build with more a more solid foundation. However they do sacrifice some in the next couple of years.

Dallas isn't building around Jamison. The issue is, does he bring something better/different to put them up on top. He and Fortson may together do enough. Bascially they add rebounding. Which was a relative weakness for Dallas. Dallas loses some outside scoring for mid-range scoring and offensive boards. Dallas truly becomes the new Whitsitt model experiment of throwing together talent with not too much regard for chemistry. I think it will be fun to see what Nellie does with this group. They still lack defense, but now they have more interior type bodies to try to slow opponents down.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

This trade also clears up more space for Troy Murphy...

Golden State has a pretty bright future with Murphy, Dunleavy and Richardson.

Plus, guess what they have that we don't...

A top notch point guard rotation AND a solid center rotation. Doh!

If Dunleavy has a good year and Qyntel doesn't, watch out for Golden State...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

GS has some nice pieces, but Richardson isn't one of them IMO. That guy has at least as many negatives (a little undersized, poor D/shooting percentage/attitude/intangables, and he put the head of mother of his kid through a wall this offseason) as positives (great athletism, nice dunks). Maybe they are eyeballing letting him go after this season (his deal will be up) and turning the 2 over to their lotto pick Pietrus? Who knows with Saint and Cohan though, they are the worst.

I think Jr. is ready to step up this year, and feel he'll be at least as good as Jamison as far as overall impact. He may not score as much, but he involves his teammates and has good all around play. Alongside Murphy, they have a solid pair of good sized, versitile forwards for the future. 

Dumping Fortson and Jamison's oversized deals should help them reload in the future. If they have max level capspace, the fact that the Bay Area is a top 5 market should help them attract top talent moreso then many other destinations with room.

STOMP


----------



## KIDBLAZE (Jul 8, 2003)

> You can not even attempt to say Dallas did not get much better in this trade.......
> 
> 22ppg, 7rpg....thats all i have to say



He might not be as good as he was last year. he might just turn out to be a solid contribitor. Remember Stoudamire when we got him 20ppg 9rpg. and now look at him 13 and 6


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I think Nick will demand a trade , I like Ruben Jeff and 1st rounder for Nick Van exel


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

nve had a few good games. But he choked his butt off the previous year against the wolves and the kings when the mavs needed him. I'd rather have more front court helpd (jamison and fortson) than nve. Fortson is a young player. nve is getting older. He's disgustingly overpaid (12 mil this year) and that's way too much for a 6 man


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>INTELLECT</b>!
> 
> [Nick Van Excel is] disgustingly overpaid (12 mil this year) and that's way too much for a 6 man


He's not disgustingly overpaid for his ability. Dallas used him as a sixth man, but he's far more talented than that. He was no worse than Dallas' third best player.

NVE is paid less, per year, than Jamison, and NVE's contract expires sooner.

Digustingly overpaid is Fortson. He's been a pure cancer and while he had nice stats two years ago, it was at the expense of the team as he played for himself at the expense of team offense. He fancies himself a go-to guy. I'm sure Dirk will enjoy watching Fortson try to be the offensive force that makes the Mavs go.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*i just got home and read this*

VanExcel is clutch !!!!!!
why would you trade him??

I don't get this trade at all.

Jamison is practically invisible in the NBA..
Fortson..i don't think so.
His best games are in the past.

And why does a team without a prayer of the playoffs get two
terrific point guards??
It's a waste.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*Dime magazine see it differently*

http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=1589190


----------

