Trade Baron?

by RonG on Feb 14, 2007 8:48 AM PST

I was listening to KNBR in the car last night and one of the hosts was asked if he thought we should trade BD.

He had an interesting point, which was that even though Baron has played really well this year, we shouldn't be paying him $16 million to go out and play for around 48 games. Unfortunately and through no fault of his own, partial seasons have been the story his whole career.

Since no player ever comes back for less money, the only way to deal with the situation is to package him up and trade him in the offseason.

Does anybody think Baron will play a full season next year? I've lost faith myself.

Is Monta ready for the starting job? At 17 points and 1.6 steals a night, I think so. Yeah, the turnovers are a problem and the assists are low. He has a ways to go, but a trial by fire will make him grow quicker.

What kind of a player could we get for Baron? I'm thinking on the level of Gasol or Garnett, if the other team is desperate and we can package him with a little youthful talent, such as Pietrus.

I want to know what the Warriors faithful think about this. I've heard a lot of complaints about the thought of trading JRich, for many emotional (not rational?) reasons like him being the "heart" of this team or because he's a nice guy. Do we feel the same about Baron?

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

Tweet Comment 36 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Eh....

I wouldn't oppose a Baron Davis trade if it was good... really good. I agree that he really isn't living up to his contract, but he's a great player and a premier point guard. I would limit it only to bigs though... the though of getting rid of him for another guard/swing man makes me sick.

by mightymadskillz on Feb 14, 2007 9:02 AM PST reply actions

He isn't a great player

Great players win

With his injuries he may be on the downside

by Zig on Feb 14, 2007 9:44 AM PST up reply actions

the definition of unfair comment

how many wins did he cost you?

by eshock @ Golden State Of Mind on Feb 15, 2007 9:31 PM PST up reply actions

No.

I say don't trade Baron. I would trade him for someone like KG, but let's face it....if we put him on the trading block right now, it'd be because of his injuries....and who would then want to send a great big package for a oft-injured point guard?

by bradyk2 on Feb 14, 2007 9:33 AM PST reply actions

hello

"What kind of a player could we get for Baron? I'm thinking on the level of Gasol or Garnett, if the other team is desperate and we can package him with a little youthful talent, such as Pietrus."

You realize that other teams know he can't stay healthy as well

We got him for Speedy Claxton but we are going to now trade him for Garnett!!!

by Zig on Feb 14, 2007 9:43 AM PST reply actions

Beat me to it, Zig

Isn't it tiring fighting these battles? The next time a diary crops up proposing a trade of Pietrus, POB, and a PB&J for Dwight Howard, I may just throw in the towel... ;-P

by Sleepy Freud on Feb 14, 2007 9:56 AM PST up reply actions

I'm not proposing a specific trade

I'm just asking what caliber of player you think we could get. I guess you think not much. Fine, but I disagree. Especially with the stats he has.

I should have stressed that timing is everything. Of course next week isn't the right time to start calling people. The off-season will be a different story. Hell, BD might even come back for a handful of games and put up huge numbers. If you time it right, there will be a sucker team desperate to move a talented malcontent and willing to take a risk on Baron.

by RonG on Feb 14, 2007 5:10 PM PST up reply actions

"If the other teams are desperate"?

And why, pray tell, would any team be "desperate" to take our overpaid, bricklaying walking injury off our hands? Would Nellie "make 'em an offer they can't refuse...?"

Sorry if I sound snarky, RonG, but it seems like we've had this discussion in a half-dozen other recent diaries. My position is that we should basically take what we can get before Baron's value becomes a net negative. He's one semi-serious injury away from being an untradeable albatross like Wally Sczerbiak. I'd gladly take an expiring contract like Grant Hill or Theo Ratliff, plus if possible a useful young player with upside -- say Darko, Jameer Nelson, Redick, Delonte West, or Gerald Green.

I do wish people would stop mentioning Baron in the same breath as guys like Garnett. I dunno, it just seems kind of insulting to other teams. The other GMs in the league do actually exist; and they won't just give us Top 10 NBA players because, you know, we really really want them to.

by Sleepy Freud on Feb 14, 2007 9:46 AM PST reply actions

agreed

what do you think about kirilenko?

don't claim to be up to date...but i remember hearing the owner over there wasn't thrilled with him.

by TMC Forever on Feb 14, 2007 11:06 AM PST up reply actions

kirilenko

has a toxic max contract so I am not sure that would be a good idea for the Warriors unless Foyle was invloved

I am not sure if he is having attitude issues or if it is phyisical but he isn't the same

by Zig on Feb 14, 2007 2:34 PM PST up reply actions

Does anybody think Baron will play a full season

"next year? I've lost faith myself.
Is Monta ready for the starting job? At 17 points and 1.6 steals a night, I think so. Yeah, the turnovers are a problem and the assists are low. He has a ways to go, but a trial by fire will make him grow quicker."

Baron could play a full season if he was getting more help from his team mates, he was basically carrying the team on his back this year so it's not a surprise that he would break down. Baron's a very good point guard who we should value and use more effectively, no more 100 mile an hour offense, give him more rest, give him another good big man to work with, become phoenix and Baron will become nash.
As for monta he's ready for a starting job as a #2 guard but not a point guard, he just doesn't have the mindset to be a point. We've got lots of #2's so let's trade monta for an equally talented big man and get more value for our money.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 14, 2007 10:12 AM PST reply actions

Baron hasn't

played a full season for awhile. In fact I think this is the 5th in a row

by Zig on Feb 14, 2007 2:35 PM PST up reply actions

Can this even be done in the NBA?

Nelson seems to love the guy.

Extend his contract, but spread it out for less each year, but increase the total of it. Like they restructure in the NFL.

He can last another 10 years playing 40-50 games a year. But that's about it. So, we would end up paying for his actual value (less per year than he's making now) and keep his skills around for whenever he's not injured.

The ONE trade where you get value for him is to a playoff contender that just lost their PG for the season. IF he were healthy, he can step in and take a team all the way if the other pieces are already there. But the chances of that occurring are rare.

by Gain on 10 on Feb 14, 2007 11:42 AM PST reply actions

with and without Baron

The stalled offense and general lethargic play without Baron indicates that he's far from expendable. All GMs should consider any player tradeable if a good offer comes along, but the formula of acquire and dump "before they become untradeable" is one destined to downgrade talent time and time again.

Getting back an expiring contract for Davis without a player does us no good. On its own, it might get us 5 or 6 million under the cap this off season, a bit less after accounting for any guaranteed salary to first rounders. That's contracts for 9 players (counting a first rounder), so there's got to be at minimum 3 more signees at the league minimum to fill out the NBA mandated contract pool. Roughly, that leaves 4 to 5 million. That's not going to be enough to sign anyone of merit to replace him and isn't substantially different from the MLE which we already have to work with (but don't if we're under the cap, IIRC).

We'd have to get back value to make it worthwhile to trade Baron. The cap considerations are about Cohan's bottom line, but on their own don't look like they'd improve the team unless several other moves were made.

Monta is an interesting combo guard, but he's not really shown the ability to direct an offense. If the assists were there but the turnovers too high or the other way around and if the offense seemed not to stall out with him at the helm, the trial by fire might be a good gamble, but as it is, we'd be expecting him to increase assists (read: see the floor better) AND cut down on turnovers while putting the ball in his hands more. That's much to ask and presents a high risk gamble that has rewards, but not such high rewards justify it. Monta also gives up rebounds, not so vital at the guard position, but his poor rebounding for the position is magnified since the rest of the team seems to lack this still as well.

Just a minor point: injuries seem to be the rule for Baron now, but "partial seasons" haven't "been the story his whole career." He managed to play 82 games his first three seasons, though since then it does appear more likely that the rest of his career will tell the story of 50 game seasons.

by jae on Feb 14, 2007 11:56 AM PST reply actions

Agreed.

Baron is not expendable, even if we get a quality big man for him (even though, as Sleepy and others point out, it's not gonna be Dwight Howard or KG regardless). Monta is not ready to run the point, and frankly, I'm looking forward to him going back to the bench. I love what Monta brings to the table, but I think the team will benefit from him having a much more defined role, i.e. a huge jolt of scoring and defensive energy off the bench. In other words, if you trade Baron, you need a replacement point guard to actually get the ball to your supposed quality big man. Doesn't seem very sensible to me. The fact is, it's very doubtful that the W's end up with an "impact" player before the deadline. Maybe you get Reggie Evans and Dermarr Johnson for Pietrus and Jasikevicous, or something similar(ly optimistic). Evans may make enough of an impact to help us win a few more games. But if this team is going to make the playoffs this year, the players we have now are gonna have to do it. Sounds pretty familiar.

by ivanbe on Feb 14, 2007 1:28 PM PST reply actions

Baron's health

Color me skeptical (con Urquell) that Baron's "carrying the team" is rto blame for his injuries. Skeptic, you know he isn't actually "carrying" us, like in a rickshaw or anything, right? I don't know, it just sounds like wishful thinking. Like any hypothetical, it's impossible to prove or disprove totally, but Baron this year is #23 in the NBA in minutes played per game at 37.5 -- well behind perfectly healthy contemporaries like LeBron and Agent Zero. Last year he was at 36 and the year before that under 35.

Also, JAE, citing Baron's first three healthy years as examples of his fitness sounds like a reach. He's currently in his eighth year of the NBA. Most statistical projections will either downplay five-year-old data or ignore it entirely. Here's Baron's games played the last five years:

02/03 -- 50
03/04 -- 67
04/05 -- 56
05/06 -- 54
06/07 -- 43+?

Now of course the sample size is small enough that this could be a fluke, but I for one wouldn't be willing to bet on it. And more importantly, GMs around the league have to be extremely concerned by it. Given salary and injuries, I would guess Baron's trade value is just a shade above zero at this point. And that's zero, as in nothing, not Agent Zero.

Which isn't to say that his value to us is zero. I totally agree that his ability to run our offense, when he's healthy, is well above "replacement level." I think it's reasonable, if a little short-sighted, to want to hold onto him and see what this group can do together when healthy. But I don't think it's reasonable to imagine Baron's injury history will be a non-factor if and when we try to deal him.

I guess I prefer to ask the question: is Baron a piece of a future Ws championship team puzzle? Given his age, salary, glass jaw, and poor shooting, I would say: highly unlikely. On the other hand, he could be that piece on a team that already has its franchise player in place (for cheap money) ... somone like Orlando. Something like this would work for me:

Trade #1
we get: Jameer Nelson, Grant Hill
they get: Baron Davis, Mickael Pietrus

Trade #2 (because Harrington can't be traded in tandem)
we get: Darko Milicic, Keith Bogans (salary equalizer)
they get: Al Harrington

Not sure they'd go for it, but at least, unlike with the proposed Garnett deals, you can say that this makes the other team marginally better in the short term. A starting five of

Baron
Pietrus/Redick
Harrington
Player X
Howard

Could at least make some noise in the East. On our end, Jameer Nelson could play a perfectly capable point while Monta develops (or if he doesn't). He might not have Baron's playmaking/passing skills, but his shooting (career 46%/76%) is better than Baron has ever managed.

Anyway, Jameer's just one name among many. I don't think it's written in stone anywhere that our franchise player needs to be a point guard. Dallas, Houston, LA and San Antonio seem to be managing perfectly OK with their "complementary" points. Jordan's Bulls did OK too...

by Sleepy Freud on Feb 14, 2007 3:08 PM PST reply actions

But what do those trades really do for us?

I don't think it's written in stone anywhere that our franchise player needs to be a point guard.

Sure, I agree. But in order to get anywhere in the playoffs, don't you need some sort of franchise player? Sure, Nelson is a somewhat dependable replacement, and I guess it'd be fun seeing Darko lurch around, but I'm hard-pressed to figure out how that trade actually improves our team. Are either of those guys "pieces of the championship puzzle"? Highly doubtful.

I know that Orlando trade was just an example and not actually a recommendation, but I've yet to see a trade idea (at least a realistic one) that gave us a legitimate "franchise player"-type that was anywhere close to Baron's stature. I'd rather have Baron for 55 games a year than Jameer Nelson and Darko for 82.

by ivanbe on Feb 14, 2007 3:27 PM PST up reply actions

With a few expections (detriot)

I agree that in the NBA what really matters is that franchise player and an AllStar to play along side

The rest can take care of itself. Suddenly middling players become better. You get a Dirk and suddenly you don't care about an aging Finley

I don't think Monta, AB, J-rich or Baron is that player

I think any of them could be the compliment to that guy though I am starting to write off Baron.

I think there is a short window for any group and that has passed for the J-rich, Baron experiment. Its time to move on. One or both might stay but they have to contiune to look for that franchise guy. Nelson found Dirk. maybe he can do it again

And any talk about the Azubukes, Powell, Cabbage, Harrinton, Jax, Barnes, Pietrus is just noise. It really doesn't matter. These players are all average to below

by Zig on Feb 14, 2007 3:40 PM PST up reply actions

You're right, it's a lateral move at best

I guess the basic idea behind it is that (1) JRich is at least as much of a franchise player as Baron; (2) Monta and AB could easily be more so within a couple of years; and (3) devoting $15M of your limited payroll for a player with so many glaring flaws just doesn't seem wise. Fair enough? And, I suppose... (4) dumping Baron now marginally increases our chances at landing Kevin Durant or Greg Oden, who have the potential to transform this team in ways most of us would never dare dream...

by Sleepy Freud on Feb 14, 2007 3:42 PM PST up reply actions

Yes, fair enough.

Good points from both yourself and Zig. I clearly have more faith in Baron than either of you guys, but... not that much more. Again, my concern is that by moving Baron now, you're not improving the team now--and probably not much for the future, as his stock isn't so high that we're going to be landing high lottery picks for him. But I too am now skeptical that he's any sort of long-term piece of a glorious Warriors dynasty. I haven't written him off, but again.. skeptical.

I do want to mention this, though: according to Hoopshype, Baron only has 2 more years after this one on his contract. I say we keep him until at least February of next season, and if he's healthy, he'll be much more attractive trade bait for a team making a championship push. His contract would expire after the following season, so getting him wouldn't be such a burden for that team. Right now... he's a bit more burdensome.

by ivanbe on Feb 14, 2007 4:19 PM PST up reply actions

I don't think we should move him

either without a great deal (like moving up to get someone in the draft the Nelson wants)

by Zig on Feb 14, 2007 5:41 PM PST up reply actions

Baron's health and what I actually wrote.

You might notice that I most certainly did not cite Baron's first three seasons as evidence that of his overall, Sleepy. Please read carefully. My exact words were " He managed to play 82 games his first three seasons, though since then it does appear more likely that the rest of his career will tell the story of 50 game seasons."

by jae on Feb 15, 2007 1:58 PM PST up reply actions

Sorry, JAE

I saw the 82 and assumed you were using it build a case for Baron's durability. My bad. I'll try to be better about reading thoroughly when I'm off on one of my rants.

But since you're probably the most statistically savvy guy on this site -- certainly way more knowledgeable about hoops than I am -- my question to you is this: injuries aside, do you think a "franchise player" who makes barely 40% of FG and 70% of his FT is capable of leading his team to championship contention? My gut feeling is that it's probably a fatal structural flaw, kind of like, in baseball, having a batting order in which your top 3 guys have OBPs of .300. I guess it might work if Baron were to become a complementary point, like Parker or Billups, but then $15M seems like a lot to pay for that. I guess, best case Baron scenario: (a) we consider the $15M a "sunk cost," (b) Baron realizes his limitations and basically stops taking jumpers beyond 14 feet; and (c) the young cheap guys (Monta, Biedrins) continue to blow up into stars. All in all, I could live with that.

Anyway, thinking aloud...

by Sleepy Freud on Feb 15, 2007 4:00 PM PST up reply actions

Exactly!

Because he's an excellent penetrator and good at distribution, capable of having double digit assists most every night IF he's the third scoring option, meaning he trusts his teammates and has reasonable talent around him.

I'm sure that's what Nelson/Mullins/Higgins are thinking too, since they're retooling the roster to BD's strengths.

If it doesn't work out we're stuck with him through next season at least - it's a tough contract to trade no doubt, but we'll still have that solid foundation of Ellis & Biedrins. That's the future right there - if the dubs play those cards correct we'll be in contention for a decade.

Cheers!

<=>

by Mano de Nada on Feb 15, 2007 4:10 PM PST up reply actions

couldn't agree more

and it is silly not to consider injuries.

by Zig on Feb 15, 2007 6:55 PM PST up reply actions

Baron's value

Since the $15 million is guaranteed, in terms of building from this point on, the real equation isn't "are we getting $15 million in value, but rather can we get more value out of that or some portion of that. I don't know the answer, but I suspect the answer presently is "no."

For what it's worth, I don't think Baron's outside shots are as much a burden on the team as Monta's turnovers (notable because as an often time off guard he's making them while not always the primary ball handler) or Monta and Jackson and Harrington's collective below average (for their position) rebounding. Possession efficiency wins games and a turnover is worse than a missed shot since there's not an opportunity for an offensive rebound on a turnover. Similar arguments can be made for rebounds.

by jae on Feb 16, 2007 9:54 AM PST up reply actions

the only way

baron improves his stock is in his contract year, from a warrior pov. That way, if he's healthy, producing and has an expiring contract, we may get some value in return.

Right now we probably wouldn't even get zach randolph. KG is seriously out of the question as well as PAU. The Grizz want to save a lot of money. If they take baron they wouldn't be saving that much. Plus the talent levels are way off. Right now we'd prolly get expirings and youth that hasn't panned out for other teams (like their versions of MP). Maybe we could net Darko in a 3 way with another team. But i don't think/know it'd be worth it.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league. Purgatory is thy home.

by kenntoe on Feb 14, 2007 5:49 PM PST reply actions

the problem with trading BD

BD is worth more to the dubs than to other teams. He's a very good PG with known limitations and weaknesses who's paid a lot of $$$. And it's impossible to ignore the fact that he's undergoing surgery and potentially done for the season. It's only so interesting to other GMs. We're really not going to get anybody we'd remotely want back (if we could get anbody at all right now frankly).

Yet we'd be silly stupid to downgrade the talent level in a desperate trade for other teams' leftovers. I'd say we're definitely better off keeping him for at least another year. This roster has been dialed in for his skillset, Nelson really likes his game I believe and he is the rare type of player that can carry a team on his back. What he really needs to realize is that he's much more effective via assists than shooting. It's bad if he's your first scorer, very bad; 41% sht %, 25% 3pt %. Stinky bad. But it's nice if he's your third scorer y'know? I'm pretty sure that's what Nelson/Mullins/Higgins are building towards.

If it doesn't work out in another year he's at least a lot more tradeable, with an expiring contract and all that.

Cheers!

<=>

by Mano de Nada on Feb 14, 2007 7:47 PM PST reply actions

YES

I say that we should trade Baron Davis. He doesn't really play alot. He I think is getting payed more than he treally should be getting payed. I think that Baron is a really good player but if we can get a much better player for Baron I wouldn't mind. Think about this Monta Ellis point guard, Jason Richardson shooting guard, Al Harrington small forward, Kevin Garnett or Gasol or who ever they get power forward, and center Andris Biendris. That would be a great line-up.The only problem with the Warriors are they are way to inconsistent.

by laka hata on Feb 14, 2007 9:51 PM PST reply actions

maybe I missed it

but none of you have cited the fact that even Nelson admitted BD was over used early and middle of this season - you don't think the wear and tear on that knee was in part a result of that?

I know I beat Mullin's rear raw on this site, but the lack of roster depth forced Nelson's hand, and it would've been true of Monty too. Now, I'd just as soon they shut down BD, JR, and anyone else integral to next year's success to get them healthy. Give Monta all those minutes to develop now, back up by Gesundtheight or whatever his name is ... maybe even bring POB back to develop in the NBA rather than slam-n-jam league

We won't get value for BD now, if ever. Anyway, he's won me over this year - a big statement cuz I was ready to sheeeeet-can him last summer.

by hardcore on Feb 14, 2007 10:18 PM PST reply actions

Baron's minutes

Very good point.

It's curious to hear Nelson talk about overusing Baron now, since I believe he made noise about keeping his minutes in check before the season too. Season starts, he realizes that Baron is his only dominant player and his backup is McLeod and that goes out the window. Nelson is at least partly to blame. Baron came into camp in shape and playing at a higher level than he had in a while. But then he plays more than 40 minutes more or less every other game and we wonder why he's getting knee we already knew was a potential problem scoped mid season?

by jae on Feb 15, 2007 2:08 PM PST up reply actions

I mean its a fair point

but he seems to get injured every single year, five in a row, regardless

Maybe it was the minutes

by Zig on Feb 15, 2007 6:58 PM PST up reply actions

it's a fair point

but even then 37 min a game isnt an exorbitant # of minutes. add in that they were often playing zone up until recently and that monta has been bringing up the ball for the better part of the season and you'd have to question whether baron's legs arent starting to give way.

by the evil monkey on Feb 16, 2007 11:40 AM PST up reply actions

Baron's minutes.

Oh, they are more than starting to give way. His knee problems go back a few years and the back problem and knee problem are probably related. But it was well known that he had knee problems and accordingly, he shouldn't have played as many minutes.

37.5 is quite a few minutes. Currently, that's 21st in the league. Several teams don't ahve a single player who logs that many minutes. Exorbitant? No, but still high, especially with a known problem.

I don't thin that the 37.5 is as much the problem as that he played more than 40 minutes in about half the games. I think playing 30 minutes one night and 40+ the next is probably more likely to cause a problem than a consistent 37.5 since it means more minutes when he's past the point of fatigue. Injuries and breakdowns happen when you're tired more often than not. It's like a pitcher's pitch count. The abuse comes when the pitcher is tired and gets over their count more than from consistent usage.

Baron's minutes have been poorly managed. We all knew that injuries were a real possibility. Nelson paid lip service to keeping Baron healthy and controlling his minutes early in the year, but as the season wore on, his minutes crept up month by month. The results were predictable.

by jae on Feb 16, 2007 2:37 PM PST up reply actions

sigh

there are plenty of other guys in the league whose minutes are just as "mismanaged" as you put it, guys who have played back 2 back nights, OT games, and the like. and you can't discount that he's also predominantly in zone.

i doubt it's a medical fact that injuries are more common w/ fatigue. fatigue tends to disturb ones concentration.

pitch count is a different beast. it's less relevant to fastballs and even less so to knuckleballs or underhand tosses (softball) than it is to those who throw curves, sliders, & the like.

there's just this thing called durability and baron doesnt have it.

by the evil monkey on Feb 17, 2007 7:48 PM PST up reply actions

Fatigue

It took me all of 20 seconds to find peer-reviewed medical journal articles indicating that the risk of knee injuries increases in fatigued athletes. Medical 'fact'? 'Fact' has precious little meaning in science, but in terms of what our best knowledge is at present, fatigue does seem to be a significant factor in sports injuries. Fatigue appears to produce different biomechanics. This tends to raise injury risk.

When you have someone with an injury history, you want to avoid over-working them to lessen the chance of injury (sorry, it's about as close to medical 'fact' as we're going to get). However, Nelson didn't do this. He instead increased Baron's minutes as the season went on and used him more than most players in the Association. There are quite a few teams that don't have a single player who averaged more minutes. That is a recipe for breakdown in a guy with an injury history.

Yes, Baron is not particularly durable at this point. This in no way indicates that fatigue was not a factor in his latest injury. This situation calls for more management of his minutes, not excuse making about how other players can play major minutes in back-to-backs.

by jae on Feb 19, 2007 9:53 AM PST up reply actions