Comments on: Dunleavy to Clippers?

By: Andrew Rosenblum

Andrew Rosenblum — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:39:32 +0000

The national media isn’t doing very good analysis, period. I saw another commentator on ESPN who said that Indiana did the trade to improve shooting and rebounding. Troy can do those things, as long as you’re willing to overlook the fact that he can’t guard anyone. And hey, *maybe* he can be the “perimeter 5″ to draw the opponents’ center away from O’Neal working in the block.

But Dunleavy as a shooter and rebounder? Just read Nellie’s blunt comments about his weak work on the boards after Dun lost his starting job! One of the Indy fans put it best: Dunleavy’s like Kyle Korver without the reliable jump shot.

By: Marcus Thompson

Marcus Thompson — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:54:50 +0000

If you’re turning to Barkey and Smith to figure out who got the advantage in a trade, you’re in trouble. Say they’re right. Say Harrington and Jackson aren’t better than Murphy and Dunleavy (which is crazy on its on). Are you seriously going to say that shaving $30-plus million off future salary obligations doesn’t benefit the Warriors? Are you seriously of the opinion that McLeod is a better back-up for Baron than Sarunas?

By: jb

jb — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:07:39 +0000

Barkley was fairly clear that “the trade” helped Indiana and not GS. Smith did not think it helped GS. Mass hysteria in Oakland fueled by Nelson have blinded the local press and the fans
( who already used Dunleavy as a scapegoat,)
Not sure where the concept that Harrington and Jackson are an answer to anything, except to give Davis his buddies to hang with.