Truth & Rumors > NBA

Warriors turned down Paul Pierce trade

Views
8894
Comments
21

07:53 PM ET 04.18 | Could you imagine a Warriors starting lineup of Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, David Lee, Andrew Bogut, and -- Paul Pierce? Yes, the Warriors could have acquired Pierce at the trade deadline, according to Bill Simmons, in return for Harrison Barnes and an expiring contract (either Andris Biedrins or Richard Jefferson). However, they turned down the deal offered by the Celtics, who were rumored to be looking to blow up their roster at the deadline. Simmons believes the Warriors should have pulled the trigger, saying: "They would have been selling super-high on the disappears-way-too-much Barnes" and Pierce would have made them a short-term contender. I'd rather have Pierce's final four years then Barnes' next 10, anyway." The 35-year-old Pierce has spent his entire 14-year career in Boston, averaging 18.6 points per game this season. Meanwhile, Barnes wrapped up his rookie season this year, averaging 9.2 points per game while showing flashes of potential, but lacked consistency. Essentially, this would have been a short-term trade because Barnes obviously has a lot more years left in him than Pierce, and the Warriors were apparently not willing to sacrifice their future for a chance at contention immediately.

Golden Gate Sports

Paul Pierce, AP Photo/Paul Connors Paul Pierce, AP Photo/Paul Connors
April 18, 2013  10:16 PM ET






7

Comment #2 has been removed
Comment #3 has been removed
April 19, 2013  06:43 AM ET

Hmmm... I'm not sure I can really fault the Warriors on this one. I say this as a fan of the Celtics and a long time admirer of the Golden State Warriors... I'm talking "the days of Keith Wilkes, et al". The reason I say this, is that Paul Pierce likely would not take a step back to allow the younger guys to continue to develop. For an up and coming team like the Warriors, disrupting their flow might not be best in their long term interest. Also, and I hate to say it, of all the Celtics, Paul Pierce is the most likely to resort to "hero ball", and that would not be a good thing for this Warriors team... Not to mention what it might do to Mark Jackson's influence. So, yes, on the surface I can understand why folks might scratch their heads on this, but I also understand why the Warriors wouldn't do this deal.

April 19, 2013  07:37 AM ET

Interesting that the Celtics are a much lower seed than the Warriors even though they are in a much weaker conference. The Warriors did OK.

April 19, 2013  08:05 AM ET

Pierce has spent his entire 14 year career in Boston, giving them his all every single night only to have them seriously consider trading him as his skills wane (somewhat). I'm not saying the Celtics are wrong by any means, but I just hope people remember things like this the next time they start vilifying a player because he wants to play out his contract on a given team so he can go to the team of HIS choosing as a free agent. We as fans love to champion loyalty when in reality there is no loyalty in pro sports.

April 19, 2013  08:11 AM ET

Does anyone here run? If so have you ever encountered testicular soreness the day after a high mileage outing? By balls are KILLING ME!

April 19, 2013  08:28 AM ET
QUOTE(#7):

Does anyone here run? If so have you ever encountered testicular soreness the day after a high mileage outing? By balls are KILLING ME!

ummmmmm...... ULTRA TMI!

April 19, 2013  08:28 AM ET
QUOTE(#7):

Does anyone here run? If so have you ever encountered testicular soreness the day after a high mileage outing? By balls are KILLING ME!

. . .

April 19, 2013  08:51 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

As a long-suffering Warriors fan, it pisses me off that they didn't pull the trigger on this trade. They did so many good things to revamp the franchise over the past year or two, and this trade would have been the icing on the cake.Oh well, the future is still bright for the franchise.

It's a give and take trade. Warriors would have gotten a veteran that would have helped lead a young team. Barnes would help an aging C's team. This is head scratching why this trade didn't pull through.

Comment #11 has been removed
April 19, 2013  09:21 AM ET

First off Bill Simmons is an idiot. "I'd rather have Pierce's final four years then Barnes' next 10, anyway." This makes no sense. Barnes is a lottery pick that has shown potential. He isnt going to be consistent with Klay Thompson and Steph Curry jacking up shots. Add David Lee in the mix and Barnes doesnt get touches. That being said Adding Paul Pierce to the Warriors does not make them better than the Spurs or the Thunder so why would you want to salvage your future for him. He isn't athletic, doesn't defend, and is definitely declining.

check out www.nbaonlineblog.com

April 19, 2013  09:32 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

Pierce has spent his entire 14 year career in Boston, giving them his all every single night only to have them seriously consider trading him as his skills wane (somewhat). I'm not saying the Celtics are wrong by any means, but I just hope people remember things like this the next time they start vilifying a player because he wants to play out his contract on a given team so he can go to the team of HIS choosing as a free agent. We as fans love to champion loyalty when in reality there is no loyalty in pro sports.

I understand your point, but I can't figure why people get bent out of shape when a team wants to move a player at the end of his career? Loyalty? The franchise still has to go on even after the player retires, and, for all the put their heart out there and giving there all each and every night?!?!?! They are paid ridiculous amounts of money to do this, so it's not like they are doing the franchise any favors or doing it for free! At the end of the day, franchises owe these players nothing, if they manage their money correctly, they make enough for future generations to live off of, so I see no issue with a team doing what's best for their future...

April 19, 2013  09:45 AM ET

Don't Come Back To LA, Bro.

April 19, 2013  10:11 AM ET

The Best thing the Warriors did was reject this trade. They will be a dominate force next season.

April 19, 2013  10:42 AM ET
QUOTE(#7):

Does anyone here run? If so have you ever encountered testicular soreness the day after a high mileage outing? By balls are KILLING ME!

Not me but then mine are probably not as big. They don't bounce off the ground as I run.

April 19, 2013  11:36 AM ET
QUOTE(#12):

First off Bill Simmons is an idiot. "I'd rather have Pierce's final four years then Barnes' next 10, anyway." This makes no sense. Barnes is a lottery pick that has shown potential. He isnt going to be consistent with Klay Thompson and Steph Curry jacking up shots. Add David Lee in the mix and Barnes doesnt get touches. That being said Adding Paul Pierce to the Warriors does not make them better than the Spurs or the Thunder so why would you want to salvage your future for him. He isn't athletic, doesn't defend, and is definitely declining.check out www.nbaonlineblog.com

You know I agree with your solid points. However looking at what the Knicks veterans have been able to do with a mix of young players I think it Pierce in Golden State would have helped tremendously.

They're basically going into the playoffs with no experience - having Pierce could have addressed that. Plus the future is always unknown so you can't say Warriors are better off keeping the rookie.

Let's see how they fare against the depleted Nuggets.

April 19, 2013  11:38 AM ET
QUOTE(#5):

Interesting that the Celtics are a much lower seed than the Warriors even though they are in a much weaker conference. The Warriors did OK.

Yes. but they are a very dangerous team. It will be a heck of a series against the Knicks. Celts can knock out any team in the East. I won't underrate them at all.. if anything they've got more playoff experience than any of the teams in the East.

April 19, 2013  01:59 PM ET
QUOTE(#17):

You know I agree with your solid points. However looking at what the Knicks veterans have been able to do with a mix of young players I think it Pierce in Golden State would have helped tremendously. They're basically going into the playoffs with no experience - having Pierce could have addressed that. Plus the future is always unknown so you can't say Warriors are better off keeping the rookie. Let's see how they fare against the depleted Nuggets.

I think they will beat the Nuggets how they are constructed. Should be a good series. Im expecting 7 games

 
April 20, 2013  12:27 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

As a long-suffering Warriors fan, it pisses me off that they didn't pull the trigger on this trade. They did so many good things to revamp the franchise over the past year or two, and this trade would have been the icing on the cake.Oh well, the future is still bright for the franchise.

Lol im a warriors fan too and this trade would have sent us back several years. Barnes will be a beast, simmons is clueless half the time. Pierce born in oakland would of been cool seeing him come home, but the dude is washed up. Loving mark jackson and our front office!

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Woodson's next job
    Views
    5338
    Comments
    1102
  2. 2
    'Melo wants to be wooed (like, Howard wooed)
    Views
    1138
    Comments
    806
  3. 3
    Lee on the Yankees' radar (Burnett, too)
    Views
    12237
    Comments
    533
  4. 4
    Farrell defends Fenway's 'sleep room'
    Views
    1219
    Comments
    476
  5. 5
    Rangers pegged as unsportsmanlike divers
    Views
    3231
    Comments
    277

SI.com

SI Photos