Good(en) Deal for Cavs Exposes Bad Deals for Warriors

by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 14, 2006 9:29 AM PDT in News

Bay Area product Drew Gooden and the Cleveland Lebrons have reportedly agreed on a 3 year contract at about $23 million. That works out to a little over $7.5 million a season. The Cavs got a steal here for a player who does the little things, has the potential to be a rebounding force, and has yet to reach him prime.

Compare Gooden's shorter and cheaper reported contract to Mike Dunleavy's 5 year deal at almost $9 million a year and Troy Murphy's at almost $10 million a year and you're basically comparing a franchise that has a clue to one that doesn't. We won't even get into Foyle's deal.

Also check out mydedgerbil555's diary harringtons gone go for gooden for some more great GSoM community discussion on bringing Drew Gooden back to the Bay.

Gooden's key in the key. (photo Garrett W. Ellwood/NBAE via Getty Images)

How do you think Gooden's contract stacks up against Dunleavy's and Murphy's? Should he be getting more money?

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Hell no

There is really no contract that stacks up to Dunleavy's, so it's best to not even try to compare. I don't consider this a steal because Gooden just kind of stinks. He somehow ends up with good numbers, but they don't really correspond with what he brings to the team. He plays like the first 15 minutes of the game, and then you basically never see him again. He never does anything in crunch time and he always disappears for long stretches. There's a reason he's already on his third team.

His contract is slightly better than Murphy's just because it's cheaper and shorter, but I would almost rather have Murphy's 14/10 for $3 million more than Drew's 10/8. At least Murphy's isn't an enigmatic headcase. I can only assume that now that he's got a fat contract, Gooden will become even more of a frustrating mystery man.

by Jud Booshler on Aug 14, 2006 11:46 AM PDT 0 recs

Give Mully a break!

I am shocked at how much you guys slam Mully and Co with every move they made or didn't make. The fact of the matter is, Troy Murphy is a double double guy with an offensive upside. He has improved his game tremendously after each year and he would be a valuable addition to a team with a true post presence. Imagine if Shaq had Murph to kick out to when he got double teamed. You can't fault him for our lack of a post player and you can't blame Mully for extending him. There is something to be said for continuity.

As for Dunleavy, I agree, he is not worth it, but he does have the skill set necessary to be a great player, his mental makeup is what is in question. I think Mully thought Dunleavy would be a taller version of him. Still, when teams get desperate, he is not a bad prospect in a trade environment, it didn't happen over the summer, but thats because teams aren't up against the wall yet.

Say what you will, but Mullin brought in Baron, drafted Diogu and Ellis, and got Fisher. We have one of the best backcourt tandems in basketball with developing young players in the post. Be happy we have a GM with the balls to go after someone he wants instead of sitting pat all day every day.

by garin423 on Aug 14, 2006 1:12 PM PDT 0 recs

big Mully fan

I'm a big Mully fan, loved what he did for the franchise as a player, what he fought through as a man, but as a GM he has to be evaluated on the results of his moves -

He WAY overpaid for Foyle

Dunleavy became Dundun

Barren showed less leadership than Custer

Mully promised big changes to the roster and ...

... despite Murphy being a double-double and good team guy we can't even trade him for a needed spare part

the contract extensions and trades HAVE to be how he is evaluated, the draft is still too early to tell - how will undersized PF Ike pan out? And Ellis? POB? As for Beedy and MP, they are what they are and hoping for more may be pure fantasy

but the biggest mistake was hiring Monty, because the coach can't win games but he can lose them, and he hasn't payed off for the Woes either

Mully is accountable just like anyone else ... look at the Raptors, the Hornets, even the Blazers - other teams are making moves to revamp flawed rosters. GS hasn't, and the few faithful are rightly impatient with the GM

by hardcore on Aug 14, 2006 2:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

Mullin's mistakes.

Murphy may be a double-double guy, but I'm not sure about his "offensive upside." I consider him likely an asset because he's a good rebounder and rebounds are important, but on offense, he's shown that he's a low percentage shooter who scores by taking a bunch of shots. He scores like a guard would, launching from outside, which means he misses many shots and doesn't have as much of an oportunity to get the offensive board accordingly. I can't fault him for a lack of a post player, save that he plays power forward and as such he should be a post player. Since he's not able to play another position, Murphy on the floor means giving up one of two positions where a team can expect to get baskets in the paint.

I don't think Murphy has improved each year. He showed he could be a very good rebounder in year two. Since then, his rebounding has remained the same or slipped. He's shown that he can hit the 3 point shot often enough to make him think that he should take it, but not often enough to make up for the complete lack of presence in the paint.

by jae on Aug 14, 2006 5:39 PM PDT up 0 recs

Murphy in wrong system

IMHO Murphy would be a very productive player under a different System. Scott Skiles relies on the PF stepping out and taking uncontested jump shots off of guard penetration and ball movement. PF Darius Songalia filled this role last year for Chicago and he was their most productive PF until he injured his foot and sat out the season and playoffs.

by joe sez on Aug 14, 2006 8:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

Water under the Bridge

Dunleavy's contract is water under the bridge. "we" all have to let go of the past and use him. He's not injured (Houston), drunk (Miles), uncoachable (Marbury) or insubordinate (Francis). GSW can't seem to find a way to use Mike. I hope they do find a riole for him since he's talented and not nearly the liability he's made out to be.

Mullin's draft picks were good. Ike and Andris are good prospects and should contribute this year. Monta seems a steal for a mid-2nd round pick.

Center's seem to be Mullin weakness. Andonal's contract was a world class mistake. His picks POB and Costa are questionable -- "unimaginative" and drafted to fill a need which our survey says is the top explination for a draft bust.

by joe sez on Aug 14, 2006 9:00 PM PDT up 0 recs

What about running E. Muss out of town?

This was his worst move. Its been written here before that Musselman revitalized this franchise with spare parts and chewing gum. He's tough on players and he's never laced him up. Enter the workout freak on the lifecycle to step up and defend his underachieving players. Mullin put on the rose-colored glasses too many times signing character guys and a character coach. This is my first post btw, and let me say, in order for the Warriors to win, they must put out maximum effort on D and still run their half court offense. They did it for a stretch in December last year, but couldn't sustain it much longer than a week. It takes a tremendous desire to win and leadership. The only leader I see in the whole organization is J Rich.

by eshock on Aug 15, 2006 12:38 AM PDT up 0 recs

Welcome eshock!

We're looking forward to more great posts from you.

Here's some more on Muss:
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/story/2006/6/4/122222/4464

http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/story/2006/6/16/105842/686

93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?

by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 15, 2006 8:50 AM PDT up 0 recs

Thanks, I love the passion here

I've been lurking for a while. ATMA, you've been keeping things interesting during a boring off season/draft for the W's. I've stopped myself from blasting some of the trade diaries. Not a good way to introduce yourself, I know. But, Mullin has painted himself into a tiny corner. Luckily, the way the NBA is right now, we'll have massive trading chips when these contracts are a year from expiring. Maybe the Chef will be ready to ball in 2008. I hope I'll be motivated to get a diary up before then. On a positive note, I do appreciate the late season thrills the Warriors have provided me over the last 3-4 years. If we can commit to defense every night and use those young legs advantageously, then I think the Monty era can work.

by eshock on Aug 15, 2006 12:32 PM PDT up 0 recs

bad teams and free agency don't mix

An interesting post...not because of the players involved, necessarily, but the issue it brings to light:
Whether Gooden is comparable to Murhpy (or even Dunleavy for that matter) is debatable, but let's say they were equal...this just illustrates the problem with free agency as a means to improve a struggling team. A poor team traditionally will have to pay above market value for a given player, which I realize is no news flash to GSoM readers, but consider that this creates a situation where they aren't getting value for their money, which dooms them to forever overspending just for the opportunity to become mediocre, rather than horrible (as a truly great player on the FA market is out of the bad team's reach).
I mean, look at the players we're focusing on when it comes to sign-and-trades: Harrington? Wilcox? These are the E.C. Colemans and Sonny Parkers of their generation; by the time I'm taking my kids to games, nobody but the most zealous NBA fans will recall their names.
This is why it's all about the draft when it comes to improvement. Would anyone be playing on the Cavaliers for their respective salaries if LeBron wasn't on the team for them to gravy train into the postseason (and henceforth be called "great role players" as opposed to a "mediocre players")?

yohan

by yohan on Aug 14, 2006 1:45 PM PDT 0 recs

Mercenaries

Hughes is being paid huge bucks to play for the Cavs -- he's overpaid. The Cavs have too much money tied up in role players. I think they peaked with the assembled roster and will never make it past the 2nd round.

This year's free agent crop was weak. Great guys like Wade and James and Bosh want to resign their first big contract before they go FA to avoid career ending injuries before cashing in with a huge contract.

A bad team can sign a good player for two reasons: Money and minutes. Money talks and players are mercenaries who will go for the money most every time and playing for a "bad team" they'll figure to get more minutes.

The exceptions are for guys who want to win a ring -- walker and payton for the Heat.

Bad teams are bad becuase they have salary locked up in marginal players, a losing and or cheap team culture and/or a marginal host city resulting in fewer endorsement dollars and a dull night life.

GSw have a great market, fans and facilities. It's really hard to blow it for 12 years given the locality and geographic assets.

Or so I think....

by joe sez on Aug 14, 2006 8:47 PM PDT up 0 recs

2nd round?

I'll take it!

Seriously, I'd rather take being stuck in the 2nd round then being stuck in the lottery.

And I do agree that the Cavs haven't made the best moves the past 2 years. Still, they're way better than the Warriors.

93 'til Infinity: The Warriors' playoff drought?

by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 14, 2006 9:39 PM PDT up 0 recs

I'd pass

Winning "it all" isn't everything but you need to try.

I never understood why sports writers criticized the Buffalo Bills for four appearances and four losses in the Superbowl. It's a tremendous accomplishment and great football.

I'd rather try and fail executing on a good plan than get good with a bad plan knowing you'll never make it. That's a premediated defeat and cop-out. That's the Cavs.

The Cavs are making bad moves. The Cavs will peak and then lose James after they flop for the next few years -- then what? Gooden was a decent signing but Hughes was a mistake that will sto them from upgrading. Or so I think...

The Warriors need to turn around a losing attitude and blame the coach-team attitude. It would be a very good start to get into the playoffs by playing hard. It would be foolish to retool just to make the playoffs and not have a realistical plan to get better and go further.

If you peak like the Bills -- so be it. They were playing to win it all.

by joe sez on Aug 14, 2006 10:15 PM PDT up 0 recs

2nd round...

You do realize that the Cavs took the Pistons to 7 games in the 2nd round, right? I think they have a chance to make the conference finals with the team they have.

by LancerEvoV on Aug 15, 2006 10:42 AM PDT up 0 recs

good point

thats a big reason weve been bad so long. the only good draft move weve made is arenas and we let get away (i dont see jrich as a good pick because he was pretty m uch the projected pick form the start). the raptors are gonna be good cuz they got bosh as will the hornets cuz of paul. the cavs got james and the nuggets got melo the list goes on. 07 might be the perfect year to get ourselves back on track but i'm also willing to bet itll somehow get screwed up

by mydedgerbil555 on Aug 14, 2006 3:42 PM PDT 0 recs