i think it was
2007-02-17 18:33:28 · 7 answers · asked by JasonRichardson23 3 in Sports ➔ Basketball
I think it was a good thing for the Warriors. Harrington and Jackson have been better in GS than they were in Indiana. Murphy has had an awful year and dunleavy is nothing special.
2007-02-17 18:49:48 · answer #1 · answered by Alex S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes,it was a good trade for the Warriors. Harrington and Jackson were good additions for Golden State. But,let's see what happens as there's still quite a bit of season remaining.
2007-02-17 18:57:26 · answer #2 · answered by Lorenzo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it was for the Warriors. They got players that work well with their system and dumped stiffs Dumbleavy and Murphy. The Warriors robbed Indiana with that trade.
2007-02-17 22:19:26 · answer #3 · answered by ccmonty 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends what a good thing means to you....I know that GS took advantage of the deal. Jackson and Harrington have elevated their game. The overrated Dunleavy and Troy are a complement to Mr O'Neal in Indiana....that is it a complement.
For GS it was a good thing...Indiana it was a good thing for O'Neal.
2007-02-17 23:06:03 · answer #4 · answered by Ralph C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
for the warriors yes but not for the pacers
2007-02-18 02:51:31 · answer #5 · answered by NBA Kid 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not for golden state.. gotta have another trade for the warriors
you have all the ballhogs in the team nowt: bdavis, sjack, jrich, harrington no more touches for monta
they should trade sjack for peja, carrol, any 3 point shooter + backup bigman in case biedrins breaks down
2007-02-21 17:21:35 · answer #6 · answered by Noy_Pi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Heck yeah. I'm glad the Warriors got rid of "Dun-Murphy."
2007-02-18 17:16:47 · answer #7 · answered by Roland 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋