darrell armstrong?!?!
by dsham001 on Sep 18, 2007 7:38 PM PDT
33 comments
According to Tim Kawakami and his latest blog, the Warriors should go after Darrell Armstrong, instead of Jason Williams. What does everybody think about this???
I for one wouldn't like this because Armstrong is 40 years old and I doubt he could run with us. He does not seem like a good fit.
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 |
33 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I guess no one read my comment
Forget J-Will.
Sign Darrel Armstrong
Check out his recent per 40 minute numbers:
4.3 pts
6.0 asts
4.2 boards
2.2 steals
and most importantly:
81 GAMES PLAYED
He is on a non-guaranteed year left in Indy, easily obtained if he's cut for the vet's minimum or cash considerations in a trade if Indy's stingy.
For the visually oriented, check out Yinka Dare's youtube mix. Boy was nuts when he came into the league.
He's still capable defensive pest, getting the steals that fuel our break, he shoots the 3P as well as J-Will, he dishes the rock. In 10-12 minutes...for $800k out of Cohan's pocket...man, that's great.
It does not cost us an asset in Pietrus, either. Low risk, better than freakin GP.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Sep 18, 2007 10:11 AM PDT reply actions
Props to OZ
Personally I never liked the guy but he seems to be a great fit for what we need. He is old and has had a lot of nagging injuries but to his credit he finds a way to play through it and stay on the floor. As far as him being able to run with us goes, we would not be asking him to run for 30-40 min a night, more like 5-15.
I still think that I'd like to throw Monta to the wolves and see how he handles the back-up PG duties, but I'm not so confident to think that we shouldn't get an insurance policy for Baron's knee and Monta's possible inability to run the point. The only problem is he is still under contract with the Pacers IIRC. I wonder how we would get our hands on him.
.
by olympicmike on Sep 18, 2007 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Pacers control
He has explicitly said he does not want to rebuild in Indy, and whether they admit it or not, thats what they'll have to do.
two possibilities:
- Indy cuts him. We sign him for the vet's minimum $1.3M + 500k paid by the league, fine by me.
- Indy plays hardball! Send them cash considerations for his rights. If they want, they can have the rights to Mladen Sekularac, or a conditional 2nd rounder!
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Sep 18, 2007 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
As long as we're showing Yinka Dare mixes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twcgKPIRcio
Per 40 mins: 14 pts 6.9 ast 3.0 reb 1.2 stl. And that's on a slow-paced team not particularly suited to his skillz. Think about Wright, Harrington, Buki, Lasme et al. being on the other end of some of those passes (shudders).
Most importantly, Williams is 31, as opposed to 40. I don't consider the missed 20 games a big deal. We'd have to be pretty unlucky to have both Baron and JWill go down simultaneously.
Pietrus is only an asset if you think he'd be any better than the guy whose minutes he'd be stealing. Personally, I think Barnes, Buki and Beli can be at least as productive. Overall, I'd much rather see Williams/Buki get minutes than Armstrong/MP2.
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 18, 2007 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Comparo
- Armstrong comes at either the vet's exception or a small cash payment to Indy
- J-will requires a sign and trade, always a difficult proposition.
- Frankly, I think J-will is headed to Sac for Artest, but that's just my speculation. J-Wil for Pietrus and Saras doesn't clean up their PG glut, for whatever that's worth.
Relevant numbers (to me, at least):
- nearly identical 3P%
- DA's 2.0stls/40 to J-Wil's 1.2
- DA's 2.9 FTA/40 to J-Will's 2.2 (an advantage seen the last few years as well).
- Despite giving up 1 inch and 20 lbs, Armstrong managed to outrebound (4.8 to 3.0) J-Wil
J-will does have the better AST/To ratio and FT%, but on the balance...i will take DA's production over J-Will
Third, off-court stuff. I don't buy too much into it, but we'll talk about it since we've gotten the economic and substantive production stuff out of the way
J-Wil had the racial slur incident in the Bay a few years ago. He has a history of questionable decision making off the court.
Armstrong knows Al and Jack from Indy, presumably would be a good citizen in the clubhouse.
So, for whatever it's worth, i'll give the nod to Armstrong on this point. It maybe worth nothing or something, who knows.
If we did Saras and Pietrus for J-Wil, I wouldn't cry, but my preference now is for Armstrong.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Sep 18, 2007 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Reading
As for Amstrong, I don't think he can sustain the up tempo game of the Dubs and like OZ I would rather have Pierce than anybody else. The guy because of his baggages, will play motivated, no second chance for him IF. Besides, he have a average range at 3 and can defend the perimeter well.
by muritqua on Sep 18, 2007 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with OZ on this one
I am not sure J Williams would accept being the 3rd PG, not even for a year. I know Darell Armstrong would do it. And for MUCH less $.
The best duo since...
by Tim N Chris Burger on Sep 18, 2007 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Darrell Armstrong 05/06 with Dallas
23% 3-pt FG
8.4 pts per 40
5.5 asts per 40
3.7 turnovers per 40
1.2 stl per 40
That was at age 37. So, yeah, in limited minutes with Indiana last year he bumped up those numbers slightly. I stongly doubt that represents a "real" change in his baseline performance. Unless he's discovered Bonds' pharmacist, he's likely to regress to his Dallas #s, or worse. Even using a basic 3-2-1 projection, he should drop-off radically from last year, and that's without considering his age. I wonder if the steroid era has made people forget what happens to non-chemically-enhanced athletes when they hit their late 30s.
I buy the point about his personality. If people want a guy who's going to get along with his teammates, wave his towel, and not complain about his 8th straight "DNP coach's decision," Armstrong would be swell. If we're looking for someone who can actually be productive in Nellieball for 10-15 minutes a night, or even step in at starting PG if Baron goes down, Armstrong is not our man.
As for Williams, I'm not 100% sold, but if Mulson want to acquire him there are multiple ways to skin that cat. If we really want to hang onto Pietrus, for example, or if they have no interest in Cabbages, we could always just flip them the TPE and swap next year's second rounders. From their perspective, the idea is that with Bell in the fold Williams has zero or negative value, so we're using our financial flexibility to help them out.
Meanwhile, a question for the CBA experts: if we did acquire Williams, would we be able to move him, using close to the full value of his contract, in a trade later in the season? (Say if a sweet deal involving Marion or Kirilenko reared its head?...)
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 18, 2007 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Trade restrictions
He cannot be packaged, however, for 2 months from the date we acquire him if we are over the cap (getting him pushes us over the cap i believe, but i'd have to check.
For your point about Williams having zero or negative value- the very reason you want J-Wil is reason enough for Miami to keep him.
J-Wil's expiring is a prerequisite for any deal involving Ron Artest, who is undoubtedly on the radar for Riley/Pfund.
Because K-Mart's extension pushes the Kings over the cap next year, dealing Artest or Bibby for a large expiring simply makes too much sense not to happen.
Thus, Williams does not have "negative" or "zero" value.
Back to Armstrong: in Dallas, he played even fewer minutes per game (and games) than in Indiana. As '06-07 is both a larger sample and a more recent sample, I don't think we can summarily dismiss his production. Further, his production in '04-05 at age 36 exceeded that of his '05-06 age 37 production.
Perhaps in the sport of basketball, decline isn't a linear slope downward.
All we need is one year from him, and as he is simpler and cheaper to acquire, I cannot see the downside.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Sep 18, 2007 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Not linear
The downside is that he regresses to somewhere close to what he did in Dallas, or the season the before that. Given his age, that's also a more likely scenario than him replicating last year's numbers.
Not a huge downside, obviously: if he sucks, he costs little and sits on the bench and waves his towel, Saras-syle.
Bottom line: there's not much point in getting a backup PG unlesss we're confident he can produce better than Monta, Belinelli and /or Pierre Pierce. I'm pretty confident Armstrong would be worse than all of the above.
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 18, 2007 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions
JWill
I think that it is still critical that we find another point guard that Nelson would feel comfortable putting on the floor. Chances are Baron will go down for some amount of time this year and we need some one to plug in to the rotation when that happens.
My preference would be to see Monta as the primary back-up when Baron is healthy but even if he does well in that role (big if) I wouldn't feel comfortable handing him the keys for 20 games or so while Baron is injured.
.
by olympicmike on Sep 18, 2007 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
How about something a bit more redetn...
Here is a mix of some of J. Will's Heat highlights:
by Joe Frank on Sep 18, 2007 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions
How about something a bit more recent...
Here is a mix of some of J. Will's Heat highlights:
by Joe Frank on Sep 18, 2007 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Yo OZ. . . .
by muritqua on Sep 18, 2007 11:22 AM PDT reply actions
i can
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Sep 18, 2007 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Roster Space
At this point,
The best duo since...
by Tim N Chris Burger on Sep 18, 2007 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions
ugh
Sarunas will get bought out sooner rather than later, which is enough.
Pietrus = take a hike
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Sep 18, 2007 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions
first go for who we could get for the best price$$
armstrong i think would contribute more\
need a backup PG!!
Best seat in the House
by kaszowski on Sep 18, 2007 2:33 PM PDT reply actions
Not sure if anybody still remembers...
All for Black College
He's 40....so what? He can probobly play until he's 50. Great Bball IQ, great personality (not a White Chcoloate), great defensive skillz, and could definately take over Barons "leader" role if he gets injured. I doubt very much White Chocolate could do that, and with JRich and Adonal gone, we don't really have a veteran leader on this team.
Hell, I wouldn't mind him coaching us in a couple years.
Tony.psd = Da Man
http://adonalobsessed.blogspot.com/
See my comment above ^^^
Armstrong can't play till he's 50, or even 45 -- that's the point. Looking at the history of 39-yos in this league, the chances are good that this year or next he'll fall off the table completely. The Ws already have an old former player to teach the young guys -- his name is Nelson. And Baron makes a perfectly good veteran role model, among his other good qualities.
As JRich 4 MVP said during the Payton discussions (paraphrasing): "the Warriors aren't in the business of giving old vets fitting send-offs to their careers."
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 18, 2007 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Armstrong is not Payton
Armstrong hasn't yet.
Betting a miniscule amount that he has one year left isn't a horrible risk, especially since last year was pretty good.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Sep 18, 2007 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Armstrong PER by year
99-00 -- 19.5
00-01 -- 18.6
01-02 -- 16.7
02-03 -- 14.6
03-04 -- 15.6
04-05 -- 11.0
05-06 -- 7.3 (!!!)
06-07 -- 15.1
Given his age, that looks like "falling off" to me, with Indiana getting pretty lucky last year. Again, absent PEDs, people don't establish sustainable new performance levels at age 38.
Acquiring Armstrong, even for peanuts, is a Sabean-esque move.
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 18, 2007 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions
actually
From '98-'04 there is a linear decline, but those last 4 years don't jive.
Once again I point out that the Indiana performance in '05-06 was in even fewer minutes and games, so I must question its probative value.
Having been criticized for my own use of PER alone, I direct your attention to "minutes played".
Prior to being acquired by Dallas in '04-05, he was still playing 28 minutes per game.
Shifting to the part time role playing miniscule minutes in sporadic games for Dallas in '05-06, he had the worst year of his career.
Playing the backup role the whole year in Indy, his production rose again.
A plausible explanation is that he simply adjusted to being a backup.
Again, we are only looking for that 10, 12 minutes of quality defense and some distribution as his contribution. In such a capacity, Armstrong seems capable.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Sep 18, 2007 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions
"Adjusting to being a backup"
A semi-fluke based on small sample size is a better one. The Dallas year is probably also a semi-fluke; his performance level going forward is likely somewhere in between. But if the argument is that the sporadic minutes (10.0 mpg) is what caused his poor play in Dallas, sporadic minutes is precisely what he'll be getting here. If he plays as much as the 16mpg he played with Indy, I'll be shocked (and pissed).
We're both probably splitting hairs here, since I think we both could really take or leave Armstrong. My point is that just listing Armstrong's numbers from last year is misleading, and really no more or less predictive than his numbers from the previous two crappy seasons.
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 18, 2007 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions
If you must ask
I never said Baron was a bad role model, in fact, he's perfect. But simply put, he's probobly going to miss at least 10 games this season.
Those games are very important if we are to make the playoffs, since we're still in that 6-12th seed range.
So, when Baron falls, who's the leader on the floor?
Monta? Jackson? Matt Barnes? You see, while we might have a great coach, if we don't have the leadership on the floor itself, we're not going to be successful.
And even if Black College can't play until he's 45, that's fine. We'll probobly only have him for a year, and I don't think that over the course of a few months he'll just "lose" it.
Actually, that's EXACTLY what we were doing for years and years.
He might be worse, but the point people are trying to get across is that none of those guys are Point Guards. They're all "take it to the hole or shoot" guards. Armstrong is just an excellent, hard-nosed team player that can go in for the extra couple rebounds, dish it when needed, play that hard-nosed, scrappish defense we all love, and, heck, even score it once in a while.
Tony.psd = Da Man
http://adonalobsessed.blogspot.com/
Sorry about your dad
My point is that in the cases of Payton and Armstrong, people seem to underestimate the distinct possibility of a catastrophic "time to hang it up" collapse. Given that we don't need either, I'd just as soon not take that risk.
Alternately, we bring either or both of them into training camp, watch them get absolutely abused physically by Monta and Pierre Pierce (or less likely, vice-versa) and make a decision based on that.
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 18, 2007 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions
ugh
Anyways, the point I want to respond to, that we don't need either...
If our goal is to maintain and preserve Baron's health, then, I do believe we need that 10, 12, or 15 min taken care of at the PG. We aren't so good that we'll be regularly blowing out teams, I assume we'll be in most games and therefore cannot afford even a 10 minute collapse of subpar play.
That we have Ellis and Belinelli (and likely see Jackson handle, ugh) is encouraging, but remember, they also figure into the equation at SG.
What if one of our SG's (Belinelli, Ellis, Azubuike) falters, and the others need to eat more minutes? How will they be able to play in the SG rotation and also be counted on as a backup PG?
That's why for our team, with less certainty in health and expected production, a 3rd option at PG is probably the most pressing need behind backup C, whether it's J-Wil or Armstrong or Pierce or someone we've missed completely.
I'll throw yet another name out there that probably trumps both: Chris Duhon. He's unnecessary with Hinrich/Gordon/Sefalosha/Curry in the fold in the backcourt, and he's on 1 year, $3M. Matt from BlogABull agreed that by midseason, the Bulls might be comfortable enough with that quartet to let Duhon go, they certainly won't re-sign him.
A portion of the TPE + a second rounder or POB might just be enough to do it.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Sep 18, 2007 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Absolutely
Let's just go with that.
Tony.psd = Da Man
http://adonalobsessed.blogspot.com/
hello
by thewarriorsrule on Sep 18, 2007 5:42 PM PDT reply actions
Man,
The best duo since...
by Tim N Chris Burger on Sep 19, 2007 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
