# Dunleavy gets 5 years 44 mil



## halfbreed (Jan 7, 2003)

*Dunleavy wants 5 year 50 mil?*



> The Warriors fourth-year forward is also working on a five-year extension, and reports out of Golden State believe Dunleavy wants a $50 million deal. The Warriors, it is believed, have offered him a deal closer to $40 million.


http://www.detnews.com/2005/pistons/0510/28/sport-364323.htm


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: Dunleavy wants 5 year 50 mil?*

He doesn't deserve it to be honest. He's proven to be an avg. small forward and looks like a colossal bust. Why would anyone give him that money, when he can't assert himself? I wish he would so he'd be worth the money.

If Darius Miles got money, he's going to get his.


----------



## ssmokinjoe (Jul 5, 2003)

*Re: Dunleavy wants 5 year 50 mil?*

The reality is that teams will pay you for what they think you can do and not what you have done.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Dunleavy wants 5 year 50 mil?*

I would really have to think hard about giving Dunleavy the MLE. He just really hasn't proven anything on this level, and he hasn't shown much to make anyone think he will.

$50M?


----------



## kawika (May 7, 2003)

*Re: Dunleavy wants 5 year 50 mil?*

No, he's not worth that kind of money, obviously (or at least sure hasn't shown he deserves it.) and his weaknesses are manifest. But. I wonder if part of it is that the warriors have, IMHO, done such a poor job of using him in a way, or putting him in a situation, that would emphasize his strengths and hide his weaknesses. I think he'd look better if he were paired with someone besides Murphy. I'm not saying he's worth $10 million a year or was a worthy 3rd overall pick, but i'd give him Mike Miller-ish money, maybe a little less, which is what Golden St. seems to be offering. (But again, if I was already committed to Murphy, as they are, I'd find somebody else to play at the other forwad spot.)


----------



## halfbreed (Jan 7, 2003)

*Re: Dunleavy wants 5 year 50 mil?*

Dunleavy better not get more than 5 yrs 40 mil. He hasn't proven anything yet.


----------



## DaFranchise (Jun 29, 2005)

*Re: Dunleavy wants 5 year 50 mil?*

He hasnt earned it yet. I wouldnt call him a bust yet. Maybe he should come joins us in SOCAL and play for his daddy at a discounted rate.


----------



## ssmokinjoe (Jul 5, 2003)

*Dunleavy gets contract extension*

Story here 



> The Golden State Warriors have signed forward Mike Dunleavy to a multi-year contract extension, Executive Vice President of Basketball Operations Chris Mullin announced today. Per team policy, terms of the deal were not announced.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

*Re: Dunleavy wants 5 year 50 mil?*

Extension in the $45M range 



> The five-year deal is in the $45 million range


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: Dunleavy wants 5 year 50 mil?*

Wow, terrible deal.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Dunleavy wants 5 year 50 mil?*

5 years 45 million was the offical number I heard too.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Dunleavy wants 5 year 50 mil?*

Give me a break. Where does it end?


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

*Re: Dunleavy gets contract extension*

According to yahoo it is 5 yr, 44 mil

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-warriors-dunleavy&prov=ap&type=lgns


----------



## bruindre (Jul 18, 2004)

*Re: Dunleavy gets contract extension*

Wow. I guess the onus is on Pietrus to show he's worth some money..._then_, I suppose we can deal with the 'log jam' at SF.


----------



## Yao Mania (Aug 4, 2003)

*Re: Dunleavy wants 5 year 50 mil?*

Warriors overpay again... seriously, Dunleavy hasn't proven anything yet, I don't know why he deserves this kind of money.


----------



## bruindre (Jul 18, 2004)

*Re: Dunleavy wants 5 year 50 mil?*



Yao Mania said:


> Warriors overpay again... seriously, Dunleavy hasn't proven anything yet, I don't know why he deserves this kind of money.


Can't say that I'm surprised with the money thrown Mike D's way--especially considering that he's Mullin's fav. One of the reasons Muselman got fired was the way he was (or wasn't) playing Dunleavy. Is this as bad as the $$$ we're paying Fish or Foyle? No. Overpaid...you've really gotta look at the going rate for a starting SF in the NBA who can put up 15+ PPG. Defense, I guess, is optional. It was for Mullin in his day.


----------



## halfbreed (Jan 7, 2003)

*Re: Dunleavy wants 5 year 50 mil?*

Rough. Should have said 40 million, take it or leave it. I expect him to be putting up some serious numbers this year now.


----------



## halfbreed (Jan 7, 2003)

*Re: Dunleavy wants 5 year 50 mil?*


----------



## ssmokinjoe (Jul 5, 2003)




----------



## halfbreed (Jan 7, 2003)

*Expectations from Dunleavy*

Now that Dunleavy has signed, what are your expectations from him for the season?

Personally, after the Warriors spent 44 mil on this guy, I think he is a disappointment if he can't be the #3 scorer and a presense every night. He needs to be able to stick his 3s if he is gonna be sitting out there for large chunks of the game also. 

Sometimes you forget when he is on the court. That isn't the way it should be for a guy making that money. He got paid like Bobby Simmons, Tayshaun Prince, and Caron Butler, and should have the same kind of impact on the game that those players do.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

He still hasn't done jack squat even in two games to deserve to be this rich. Damn Mike, prove you're worth it.


----------



## TMC Fan (Jun 20, 2005)

44 Reasons why the signing was a joke (FUNNY)
http://goldenstwarriors.blogspot.com/2005/11/dun-44-part-i.html
http://goldenstwarriors.blogspot.com/2005/11/dun-44-part-ii.html


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

I want 44 million dollars, too. C'mon Mullin, look _my_ way.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

He never plays defense, but he is a shooter.

15M is about right.


----------



## TMC Fan (Jun 20, 2005)

have you watched any warriors games this season? how is he a shooter?


----------



## WarriorFan64 (Jul 4, 2005)

Dawg what you talkin about, he is dangerous from the 3pt line and he has gotten a little better on defense. He is also a shooter.


----------



## dk1115 (Aug 27, 2004)

Ballscientist said:


> He never plays defense, but he is a shooter.
> 
> 15M is about right.


What the hell are you talking about? Juan Dixon is pulling 3 million a year. Gerald Wallace is making 5 million a year. Jesus, even freaking Deshawn Stevenson is pulling 3 million, and he can't even shoot a lick. 30 million for 5 years may be an arguement, but you better be exaggerating if you say 15 million.

To say Mike Dunleavy NEVER plays defense is quite a hyperbole. Just because the guy doesn't average 2 steals a game or something doesn't mean he doesn't play a lick of defense. Maybe instead of posting so much, you should be watching the games.


Oh yes, and I found this picture.


----------



## MarvinWilliams#1in05 (Feb 13, 2005)

HKF said:


> He still hasn't done jack squat even in two games to deserve to be this rich. Damn Mike, prove you're worth it.


You need to go back to your hole, which is the draft board. Your ignorant comments aren't wanted or needed.


----------



## halfbreed (Jan 7, 2003)

HKF is definitely able to voice his opinion any time he wants here. 

And anyways, what has Dunleavy done this year? Did you think he was worth 44 mil after his 2 point 1-8 shooting performance today? Guy needs to step up and be a force.


----------



## RunTMC (May 11, 2003)

I have to say, if I was Mike Dunleavy and I saw Fisher and Foyle getting 36 and 40 million respectively, I'd look at myself and say, "well gosh, I must be worth at least 45," and Mullin apparently agreed. I don't have any higher expectations for the guy because he signed the contract, I think that's silly. Signing a ridiculous contract doesn't suddenly make you a better player, it just means you have a GM that doesn't know what he's doing and/or an owner that doesn't care about money. I expect Mike will continue on the path he's been on since he got in the league. Small incremental improvement, probably top out in a few years between 16-18ppg, 6rpg, 3apg, mid-upper 40s FG% and upper 30s 3p%, and he'll probably stay at that plateau for a few years and then slowly start declining. He'll be a nice little player that's a solid 3rd option. Anything more seems unrealistic at this point.


----------



## MarvinWilliams#1in05 (Feb 13, 2005)

halfbreed said:


> HKF is definitely able to voice his opinion any time he wants here.
> 
> And anyways, what has Dunleavy done this year? Did you think he was worth 44 mil after his 2 point 1-8 shooting performance today? Guy needs to step up and be a force.


Are you honestly judging a player by a couple games in is career? Please tell me you are joking. He has improved every year in the NBA, he has intelligence, potential, and makes players around him better. If you can't see that then you're a fool.


----------



## MightyReds2020 (Jul 19, 2002)

Dunleavy has got off to a (another?) rough start offensively this year, but defensively he has been pretty solid in 3 consecutive games. Consider that it was his defense, not his offense, that got critizised the most in the past, I would think Dunleavy has shown good improvement overall thus far this season.

I am not worried about his poor shooting performance, those will come, though he could be a little more aggressive, as always.


----------



## halfbreed (Jan 7, 2003)

MarvinWilliams#1in05 said:


> Are you honestly judging a player by a couple games in is career? Please tell me you are joking. He has improved every year in the NBA, he has intelligence, potential, and makes players around him better. If you can't see that then you're a fool.


I've been watching him for years, and he has been inconsistant the whole time. I expect any young player to get better every year. I have high expectations for him, and expect that a as a former number 3 pick in the draft he should be becoming a star. He is a frustrating player to follow, as he looks so good sometimes, and horrible others. I don't think its too much to expect him to become a number 3 scorer on the team.


----------



## MarvinWilliams#1in05 (Feb 13, 2005)

halfbreed said:


> I've been watching him for years, and he has been inconsistant the whole time. I expect any young player to get better every year. I have high expectations for him, and expect that a as a former number 3 pick in the draft he should be becoming a star. He is a frustrating player to follow, as he looks so good sometimes, and horrible others. I don't think its too much to expect him to become a number 3 scorer on the team.


How the hell is he supposed to be the number 1 or 2 scorer when you got Barron and J-Rich jacking up 20 shots a game each? He's never had the opportunity to be a number 1 or 2 scorer so that argument is BS. 

Also, you say he hasn't improved? Then why have nearly every statistical category been on the rise for him through his 1st 3 seasons? Could it be because he's improving? No, that couldn't be it. :whatever: ::


----------



## halfbreed (Jan 7, 2003)

MarvinWilliams#1in05 said:


> How the hell is he supposed to be the number 1 or 2 scorer when you got Barron and J-Rich jacking up 20 shots a game each? He's never had the opportunity to be a number 1 or 2 scorer so that argument is BS.
> 
> Also, you say he hasn't improved? Then why have nearly every statistical category been on the rise for him through his 1st 3 seasons? Could it be because he's improving? No, that couldn't be it. :whatever: ::


Did you even read what I wrote?

I never said anything about being a number 1 or 2 scorer. 

I never said he hasn't improved, I said that I expect every young player to improve. I said he was inconsistant.


----------



## ballstorm (Nov 30, 2003)

I just checked his stats after 6 games and I had to make sure that they were for real . 

I mean , 6.6 pts at 25% fg , 4 rbds , 2 assists 


44 m$ ? it's a disaster for the warriors .


----------



## halfbreed (Jan 7, 2003)

Yeah, and I think Pietrus has been taking Dunleavy's minutes as a result.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

Talent-wise, he may be worth the money. He is a unique player.

The stats are not indicative of his ability. I just don't think he really fits well with this roster. His shot %s are way down and he's only getting 6ppg in 30mpg, hardly what he's capable of. It seems he's been relegated to being just a long-range shooter on this squad, which doesn't really take advantage of his abilities. I think Mike would thrive in a more half-court oriented team. Now if they can find one to take on his contract...


----------



## ssmokinjoe (Jul 5, 2003)

RebelSun said:


> Talent-wise, he may be worth the money. He is a unique player.
> 
> The stats are not indicative of his ability. I just don't think he really fits well with this roster. His shot %s are way down and he's only getting 6ppg in 30mpg, hardly what he's capable of. It seems he's been relegated to being just a long-range shooter on this squad, which doesn't really take advantage of his abilities. I think Mike would thrive in a more half-court oriented team. Now if they can find one to take on his contract...


I share your sentiments on MikeD. I've always thought that he could thrive in a more structured offense. Maybe one where he can come off of picks and catch and shoot on set plays. In the Warriors offense it seems like he's expected to find his own shot off of individually motivated drives or opportunity jumpers. I dont think that he'll give the Warriors much offense if they put it upon him to try to just blend into the team. I still think that he is a Very skilled player, but if coach MM doesn't concentrate on getting him out of his slump then i don't see MikeD finding his way out by himself.


----------



## ballstorm (Nov 30, 2003)

I am not a Warrior fan , and I don't want to sound disrespectful , but I think that Dunleavy would have a great career in europe , because his fundamentals are good and his overall knowledge of the game is just above average . 
This being said , he would benefit a lot from playing into a more structured team , such as San Antonio for instance . 
Davis has not played as well as last year so far , and the slump Dunleavy is going through has probably to see with it .


----------



## ssmokinjoe (Jul 5, 2003)

I had an observation during the 2nd Warriors/Bulls game. In the 4th qtr Tim Thomas started playing MikeD very physically. At one point he posted up Mike aggressively and got very physical with him to score a bucket down low. On the next possession he face guarded Mike to try to deny him the ball and then when Mike did have the ball he played him tight and aggressive. 

How did Mike respond? He faced Thomas up, took 2 aggressive dribbles toward him, one step back dribble behind his back, and shot a high archer in his face... nothing but net. 

My point is that Thomas was getting under MikeD's skin a bit and that brought out a very aggressive and competitive looking Mike for a while. And that's the Mike i wish we could see more often.


----------



## bruindre (Jul 18, 2004)

ssmokinjoe said:


> I had an observation during the 2nd Warriors/Bulls game. In the 4th qtr Tim Thomas started playing MikeD very physically. At one point he posted up Mike aggressively and got very physical with him to score a bucket down low. On the next possession he face guarded Mike to try to deny him the ball and then when Mike did have the ball he played him tight and aggressive.
> 
> How did Mike respond? He faced Thomas up, took 2 aggressive dribbles toward him, one step back dribble behind his back, and shot a high archer in his face... nothing but net.
> 
> My point is that Thomas was getting under MikeD's skin a bit and that brought out a very aggressive and competitive looking Mike for a while. And that's the Mike i wish we could see more often.


I think it goes farther back than that w.r.t. Tim Thomas. I remember last year's Warriors/Knicks game where Tim Thomas was essentially running over Mike D. It was pathetic. I think that particular game, with that particular player (Tim Thomas) would motivate me to work on my strength in the off season. 

Unfortunately, because every physical small forward hasn't gotten under Mike's skin, I wouldn't expect to see that Mike very often. Mike was probably looking forward to playing against Tim Thomas (and I'm sure Tim Thomas was looking forward to playing Mike). I was surprised that Scott Skiles didn't play TT in the 1st game vs. Mike.

For what it's worth, Mike's shot was a nice one.


----------

