Good news for the Warriors on the free agent front?- Matt Barnes

by dallaswarrior on Jul 12, 2007 9:03 AM PDT Comment 25 comments

So it is obvious that many of us are sad that we haven't made any moves since the JR trade. So I thought I would bring everyone a glimmer of hope, that we can resign Barnes.
It looks as if Barnes hasn't been getting the offers he has desired and many teams think he is a product of Nelson's system. Maybe we can get him back for cheaper then we thought.

http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/268925.html Is this enough of a move for you to be satisfied with? Can we just sign Barnes and you be happy? I for one wouldn't be too upset if he was our only FA signing because I think we can now get him at a reasonable price.

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!

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Sounds Bitter Though...

He thought the Warriors would bring the money, but he's gotta realize that he is a second tier free agent. He's probably luking at Walton and Kapono and thinking he could make that kind of money. Realistically, he will start to get offers now that the big boys are gone. I don't like the part about signing a "big money" agent to get the "big money." But he should look at the "starter" Stevenson in Washington who is not getting everything he wants. I say we sign Barnes 3 years 13.5, with starter incentives. We'd love to have him, but not 5+ per

by belli nellie on Jul 12, 2007 9:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

another article backs this up

So it looks like it is true and it all makes sense with the new salary cap.

Matt probably can only play for an up-tempo offense anyways like us or Phoenix. I don't think his passing is that good meaning half-court offenses are not good for his game.

So he doesn't get his mid-level but for a journeyman to get 4mil/year is still good. He's just upset cuz his market value went down. Market value isn't always what your actual value to a team is. Look at Rashard Lewis

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=237505

by ballerjl on Jul 12, 2007 9:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I am sorry are we now labeling posts based on

the player? Just want to know so next time i will get it right? Someone added the Matt Barnes at the end of the diary, so I was just wondering

THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S

by dallaswarrior on Jul 12, 2007 9:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

label

Something like this would probably be best titled, "Report: Barnes not getting offers" ...and the rest of the content is fine as is since you posted a link.

by OptionZero on Jul 12, 2007 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dont understand, Do I have to label it

with such exactitude?

If i do that is fine but option zero are you helping moderate this or what?

THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S

by dallaswarrior on Jul 12, 2007 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

don't listen to him

put whatever title you want. option zero just feels like he needs to try to be important

by travisl212 on Jul 12, 2007 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am asking because I have noticed that a lot

of the diary names are being changed. I was wondering if we were supposed to start changing them too thats all.

THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S

by dallaswarrior on Jul 12, 2007 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i know

and hes trying to make you change them, and im telling you that you shouldn't have to change your diary title just to make optionzero happy

by travisl212 on Jul 12, 2007 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I added it

I thought it would be helpful just to specify exactly who the diary was pertaining to. Haha, I can't say I'm really in favor of set in stone rules, but whatever you think makes sense. I thought adding Matt Barnes would make the title more effective.

by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 12, 2007 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thats fine, I just didn't know if there was

a rule change for the diaries.

THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S

by dallaswarrior on Jul 12, 2007 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

For the Sake of ...

my goldenstateofmind username, the Warriors must trade for KG.

by JimBarnett2KevinGarnett on Jul 12, 2007 9:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

this is good news

I understand Barnes deserves to get paid, and rightfully is looking for a multi year offer.

For the Warriors, however, it seems like they have brightened up a bit. The old Mullin probably would have given Petrus 4 years, $36M and offered 5 years, $30 to Barnes already. Good to see some measure of control.

If we can get Barnes down to $3.5M, it'd be awesome.

by OptionZero on Jul 12, 2007 10:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I've often argued for

a productivity factor in contracts.

Example...rebounds/minute played/season or assists/minute played/season or even break it down to rebounds/possessions/season. You can range the player's pay scale so less than performers get less and upside performers get more. Would guarantee some stability in keeping productive players happy when they have a blow out year and give people like Foyle a lower salary due to non performance. Can also be used to incentise performance?

Just a thought.

by streetballer on Jul 12, 2007 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

so an incentive laden deal?

I think those work best in a sport like baseball where individual stats matter the most but signing a non guaranteed money incentive laden contract in bball would probably resort in the player putting himself ahead of the team and going after his stats. Matt Barnes might turn into a chucker instead of the glue guy that he has been. Plus, look at Nellie. He is holding out because he wants his playoff incentives to become guaranteed. I think it makes for discontent all around....but it works great for a guy like Frank Thomas.

by JimBarnett2KevinGarnett on Jul 12, 2007 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You would have to work some TEAM

stats (performance) payouts into the deal as an overrider. Good point. You would have to have "buy in" from all the players with the ultimate GOAL being TEAM performance.... Championship? Next level in playoffs? Winning record?

There is so much time and effort spent in defining caps and MLE and how to three team deal around the league...why not spend some time and create some contract diversity with variable payouts? Oh well...back to work..

by streetballer on Jul 12, 2007 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL @ MATT

He's probably looking for a big contract ever since he saw what Kapono got. He has to know that Golden State is the probably the only team where he would be good. Anywhere else and he'll be a scrub again.

Can't blame him for being upset about the lack of offers though. I guessing that Matt is kind of cheap. Not saying that it's a bad thing though...

I remember watching an interview of him, the reporter goes, "When people ask you for tickets for the game, do you give them courtside?"

Matt: "HELL NAH. Just some 2nd level seats, aint nothin special."

by Five Ten Entertainment on Jul 12, 2007 11:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

He actually said

"lower level seats, but ain't nothing special", so he's not THAT cheap!

by yehyeh82 on Jul 12, 2007 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since Barnes

Doesnt seem to be commanding the MLE, It sounds to me like maybe we could resign him and add another free agent as well if we can find one that can fill a void for the MLE or less, or work a S&T with MP. with Foyle being somewhat tradeable after this season and Sarunas expiring next year (if he is still here)along with the raise in cap and tax cutoffs next year,we should still be able to resign Andris and Monta without having to pay the tax.does this sound correct? If so that may not be too bad

by azw on Jul 12, 2007 11:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

He shouldn't get upset

Like the saying goes, its a business-you've been a journyman for your entire career Matt. You made some good play's in the playoffs and helped the TEAM get there, but to get butthurt because some other team is a schmuck giving Kapono that kind of $, come on Matt my boy. Give the owners and GM's around the league something to chew on, not just last years average numbers on a Atypical offense. I love Matt Barnes. I'm a huge UCLA fan and when I saw him at the Warriors player day back in early October '06, I said, man, I hope we land Matt because he can help us out. Well, he stayed while all the other guys like Taft were shipped outta here. Please Matt, don't get all greedy on us. Realize you are who you are and be happy that you are playing good minutes and getting paid $4,000,000 for 7 months of work. The past 3 years have been different. Don't phuck it all up for us just because you got some deserved love last year. Prove to the NBA you are worth $7,000,000/year, just do it with us in '07-'08!!!

by gabezgsw on Jul 12, 2007 11:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Is there room?

Looking at next year's salary structure, and assuming for now that Garnett is not headed towards the Bay, its not clear to me that Barnes fits the warriors future plans.

First of all, if the warriors are looking to avoid the luxury tax, and also plan to add a back-up PG for the next couple years (insurance to Baron & help for Monta) then there is literally barely enough room to fit a 5 million/year player under the projected tax level next year (~70 million dollars). When I say this, I am assuming Monta & Biedrins combine for 13-14 million dollars next year, Kazu, Powell, Kosta, and Lasme are payed 600k to 900k, and POB is let go either this year or next year.

So the question becomes is Barnes the best place to spend that money. In my humble opinion, no. I appreciate Barnes' roll in the playoff run as much as the next GS fan, but with the drafting of Wright, Barnes has become somewhat redundant:

Barnes is a forward through and through. He will not play the off guard position as some have suggested, and Nelson seems to prefer SJax guarding a forward rather than a guard (so playing Barnes at the 3/4 and Jackson at the 2 isn't what the warriors are looking to do in my opinion).

Obviously Barnes also does not solve the warriors problems in the post or on the boards. He played center last year, but I'm sure Nelson would rather have 1 more post-defender/rebounder/maybe shotblocker in the rotation than a 6'7" forward who acts like a center.

Wright, Jackson, and Harrington will take the load of the minutes at both forward spots and quite frankly a backup for Biedrins is much more important than another forward who could play center in the run & gun. The warriors know their weakness, and paying Barnes doesn't fix it.

Just my two cents

by BingBluNT on Jul 12, 2007 11:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Giving Barnes

3-4 million will NOT put us into luxury tax next year, especially with $4 mil coming of from Sarunas, and if POB still stinks then we could dump his $3 mil. I just don't see Barnes pushing us over the top.

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/golden_state.htm

by yehyeh82 on Jul 12, 2007 12:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Adding Barnes would not put us over the luxury next year, but it would prevent us from adding another 3-5 million dollar contract. So unless the warriors pay a few million of luxury tax, Barnes would be the only player added and Biedrins would still be all alone down low.

by BingBluNT on Jul 12, 2007 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Key roleplayer

He is a key role player though and if he can sink shots like he did against Dallas more often he is a bench player that we need to go deeper in to the playoffs.

Unlike Michael Pietrus, who we can afford to lose it would hurt alot more if we lost Barnes since he is a much more versatile and capable player

by ballerjl on Jul 12, 2007 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

he is a key role player but at this point, he's more of a luxury than a need. Unfortunately, the warriors still have a couple needs that will likely require all the cash they can pay without penalty.

You won't get any argument from here that Barnes is a very nice player: can hit the outside shot, lots of energy, okay rebounder, makes some nice passes inside the paint, and fits into the chemistry of the team (last year he actually created a lot of the chemistry).

BUT, at this point acquiring one more legit bigman is much more important. I'd love to have Barnes here to 1) give the warriors more options (Barnes, Harrington, Jackson, and Wright would be fabulous depth & Jackson could slide to the 2 a little) and 2) to give Wright more time to develop.

Barnes is a good option. But unless the warriors think they can trade Foyle, POB, and a 1st for that needed post-player, I do not think Barnes is the best option, and would be willing to wait till next year to find someone else.

by BingBluNT on Jul 12, 2007 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Our

back up PG for BD will probably be Pierre Pierce from our summer league squad. It seems like he has a real chance to make the team and if that happens we'll have our back up to BD for most likely the league minimum so that will give us more flexibitly with our MLE.