Framework of a Franchise

by dprodigy19 on May 17, 2008 6:07 PM PDT

Hey guys,
I write for a blog (Vegan Fish Tacos) and have been working on a feature called "Framework of a Franchise" where I go through a team and talk about what they have and where they should go to maximize their roster. Finally got around to doing my hometown Warriors, and figured I'd post it here. I don't want to whore out our blog, but I'll link to the post below and at the bottom, because the formatting is nicer and it would help the blog out alot if you Digg/Reddit/Ballhype/whatnot it should you like it, and those links will stay on the site (of course). Put your mittens on your kittens and away we go!
Here's the link to it on the site (Vegan Fish Tacos)

Where the are now: The Warriors have one of the most compelling collections of prospects in the entire league, especially when combined with Don Nelson and his notorious knack for experimenting. The team has a sort of veteran core with Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson, and Al Harrington along with a young group headed by Monta Ellis, Andris Biedrins, and Brandon Wright. Also of note is that almost the entire roster is up for free agency this offseason, which makes them a fascinating team to examine. They have been on the fringes of the playoffs the last two years (once in and once out), but the growing improvement and talent of the Western Conference could prove to be the most daunting part for the boys in Oakland. The other major factors for the Warriors is their owner: Chris Cohan appears to be closer to the Rod Sarver group of owners, so there will not be much time spent in this space talking about the possibility of the Warriors going full-bore and paying the luxury tax. If only Larry Ellison could buy the team…

The Timetable of Contention: In effect, the personnel of the Warriors lends itself to two different (and largely distinct) timetables. One is the immediate possibility, where the Dubs probably have about three seasons to peak and perform before Jackson and Baron lose effectiveness, and that could get cut quickly if Baron succumbs to injury like he has in the past. The other timetable, which is the one I’ll use for this, builds around the younger guys. That team would be most ready to compete in about 2 years (which coincides with Jackson and Harrington coming off the cap), so the timing would be from 2010-2011 until around 2014. What makes the Warriors so special is that their young guys are incredibly young for their experience, with both Beans and Monta possessing three years of experience and being just 22 years old.

How to utilize the Timetable: The first major concern for this plan is understanding the confines of the Cohan era. As stated, it is incredibly unlikely that he would pay the luxury tax, so an operating assumption of a $5m margin underneath that level is the absolute maximum when devising a plan. Working with a more long-term goal in mind has a few key costs and a few benefits for Golden State. The costs are that a few of the pieces that are already in place lose a great deal of value, but they are still movable. First and foremost is Baron Davis. I love Baron as much as most Warriors fans, but the salary he is looking for simply is not feasible with the Warriors’ cap structure. Luckily, he still holds value to many teams in the league since he is a fantastic player who would be perfect in the right scheme. Amazingly, there is a perfect fit laying around in the LA Clippers. With the Lakers’ return to prominence, the Clippers using some of their cap space (and some talent) to make a major splash with an LA guy with definite wattage could do wonders for both squads. The best scenario for both teams is to swap first round picks and move the enigmatic Shaun Livingston to GSW for Baron. This serves a few purposes, as it allows the Clippers to retain some of their cap space to make another move (either getting a good bench player or a back-up C) and gives the Warriors some talent coming back, along with maintaining some cap flexibility.

The next step is signing both Biedrins and Monta. What makes them so important for the long-term is that they have the capability of playing within Nellieball or moving to a more conventional system, which may be necessitated when Nelson retires (probably after this season). Biedrins also solidifies the Warriors at the Center spot, which is exceptionally important in a West that will have Greg Oden, Amare, and Al Jefferson for the foreseeable future. Interestingly, the market has been somewhat set for both players in the past few months when Jefferson signed his extension with a starting salary of $11m and Kevin Martin’s starts at $9.2m. It seems reasonable to put the combined pay for the pups at $20m for next season, however it shakes out (my guess: Beans at $10.5 and Monta at $9.5).

After that, the goal is to work around that timetable to build the best possible team. What becomes pivotal are the 2009 and 2010 offseasons, because the Warriors would have cap space thanks to the youngn’s being set under long-term contracts and the older guys expiring. Mullin could either just wait out Jackson and Harrington expiring after the 2009-2010 season or try to be pro-active and move them for contracts that would expire next offseason. Both strategies are sound, but what makes the most sense to me is to try and move Al Harrington to a team like the Knicks for one of their expiring contracts (probably Malik Rose) and a pick/prospect like Balkman or the right to swap firsts next year (within a range, of course). This allows the Warriors to spend more time playing the younger big men and Harrington’s slightly longer contract is no problem for Dolan and Co, with adding Harrington being a major plus for D’Antoni’s system. Jackson is a harder situation because his history makes the market a little more sour for him, but he could be moved if necessary.

As for the draft, there is one player who is a scary-good fit in Don Nelson’s system, and it’s not someone that comes to mind quickly. Kevin Love has one of the most advanced skillsets for a player coming into the league in my lifetime, and there is no coach better suited to utilize it than Nelson. He is slower than most, but he has a great sense of his body, and his outlet passing when coupled with his underrated rebounding makes him the perfect player to ignite the Warriors’ break. Against some teams, Nellie could even just send Monta on the shot so he could be ready for a full-court rocket and an easy bucket whether that shot goes in or out. Additionally, the combination of Love, Wright, and Biedrins could play in every permutation and could dominate the minutes for the PF/C positions in the long-term, eliminating a major hole.

Naturally, trading Baron makes the PG a strong need, but Mullin would need to be wary of the Alex Smith Rule: When you have a position of clear need and a high level of performance is required at that spot for team success, do not reach on a player who is not an optimal fit. It is far better to wait and get the right player, because the wrong guy would take minutes and lower the potential of taking a better player down the line (draft, free agency, or trade). Derrick Rose would be fantastic, but is not a rational possibility, so waiting on someone to come down the pike is far better than putting a square peg in. The second round player could be either a developmental wingman like Kyle Weaver/Jamont Gordon or a contributor big like the criminally underrated Maarty Leunen.

A team built around that core would have approximately $38m committed to the 2009-2010 cap (including Jackson and every pick in 2008 and 2009). That would be enough to make a substantial offer to a player in that class or just hold on to the money for the following year. One particularly fascinating option would be Rudy Gay, who is a restricted free agent next year (or unrestricted the following year) and will likely be looking to leave Memphis if they’re not competitive for a team with the right money and situation. (Plus, his jersey would sell like gangbusters in the Bay Area.) We can assume that most of the other young guys in those classes are going to stick with their teams, but the offers could be enticing.

In Short:
2008 offseason
1. Sign and trade Baron Davis to the LA Clippers along with the Warriors 1st for the Clippers first and Shaun Livingston (3 years at $4.8m base)
2. Re-sign Monta Ellis and Andris Biedrins
3. Draft Kevin Love (1st round) and Maarty Leunen (2nd round) in the 2008 NBA Draft
4. Trade Al Harrington to the New York Knicks for Malik Rose and the right to swap first round picks
5. [EDIT] Sign a back-up SF to a 1 year deal
6. Sign and trade Mickael Pietrus if possible (but I’m assuming he just signs somewhere else).
7. Re-Sign CJ Watson and/or Patrick O’Bryant if the price is right

2009 Off-Season
1. Draft Jrue Holliday (1st Round) and Jeremy Pargo (2nd Round) in the 2009 NBA Draft
2. Sign Trevor Ariza for 3 years @ $3.5m base
3. Try to sign Kelenna Azubuike if possible

2010 Off-Season
1. Sign Rudy Gay
2. Draft Nihad Milutinovic in the 2010 NBA Draft

Your 2010-2011 Golden State Warriors:
PG: Jrue Holliday / Shaun Livingston / Jeremy Pargo
SG: Monta Ellis / Marco Belinelli / Jrue Holliday
SF: Rudy Gay / Trevor Ariza / Josh Carter
PF: Kevin Love / Brandon Wright / Trevor Ariza
C: Andris Biedrins / Brandon Wright / Maarty Leunen

As always, comments/diatribes/questions are much appreciated, either in this space or on the post on the blog itself. Thanks for reading this far...
The site

Poll

Which would you prefer?

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!

2 recs | Comment 55 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

LAC deal doesn't work

the way you propose.

The Clips aren’t under the cap enough to assume Baron’s contract while only sending out a S/T with Livingston. Mobley and/or Tim Thomas would have to be included. Since we’re giving up the best player in the trade, why not keep our own pick? Seattle got to keep their pick last year when they traded Ray Allen.

Why swap picks with NYK when you only move up one spot? With Randolph, Curry and Lee on their roster, they’re not likely to take Love.

I would hate seeing Barnes around for another year. He’s always been garbage in my heart.

It is too hard to predict FA signings multiple years away since teams can resign or trade players away. Gay could already be signed to a long term deal by then.

If we’re picking at 5-6 as you suggest, It would be criminal for us not to take OJ Mayo if he’s available. He’s exactly the 2 guard we need next to Monta. He’s has decent size and strength for the 2, and has playmaking abilities. We all know Monta needs another play maker out there with him on the court. Mayo also is a great shooter. He’ll bring the thunder to Monta’s lightning.

I know we’re all clamoring for a big, but we’ve got to see what we have in Brandan first before we give up on him. I’d love to see Love in Oakland however. But not if Mayo is still on the board come selection time.

Responses?

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on May 17, 2008 6:30 PM PDT 0 recs

1. The Clippers do have the money to sign Baron if they S+T Livingston because they lose his cap hold. Plus, Maggette is opting out and I’d expect EB to as well if they want to sign him long term (and they’d use Bird for that).

2. The NYK swap is a future one, sorry if I didn’t make that clear.

3. Barnes is a cheap, easy fix for the SF spot for one year. If there’s someone better, that’s 100% fine, but it’s hard to find a guy without moving another piece or using more cap.

4. I’ll speak from experience (as a Pac-10 fan and college hoops junkie): OJ Mayo is NOT the type of player GSW should want. He’s shoot-first, selfish, and his best value is playing the 1 with a ball-handling SG/SF (and no, Monta isn’t that guy at all) so he keeps his defensive advantage but doesn’t dominate the ball.

5. Speculating about free agents is a necessary evil. Of course Rudy can sign an extension, but my logic is that he would consider bolting for essentially the same money in a better location on a better team. Am I saying he’d do it for sure? Of course not, but it’s feasible and serves as a general idea, since someone will be available.

6. Getting another big isn’t giving up on Brandon in any way, shape or form. Non-starters can play starter minutes, especially when Beans has alot of shorter stints. Every team should aspire to have three starter-quality bigs, and that’s exactly what B-Wright would be.

by dprodigy19 on May 17, 2008 7:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

OK.

I wasn’t sure (or maybe i skimmed), about your perspective on Maggette and Brand’s ETO’s.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on May 17, 2008 8:02 PM PDT up 0 recs

I choose to respectfully disagree with you on OJ.

I think you’re right in that he needs the ball to be effective, and might not be able to guard longer, quicker shooting guards in the league. But it’s never been as if he didn’t care for defense. He brings it on the defensive end and think he brings the right kind of willingness to dig in and hustle.

The Mayo that started the year, wasn’t the Mayo that ended the year. I think he felt to pressure to live up to the hype that Beasley and Rose were delivering. Sort of went through a lull in the middle of the season. But towards the end around the Pac-10 tourny and the NCAA tourny really turned things on. He’s not going to be a point guard in the NBA. He’s going to be a combo guard that can play point. I think he sets his teammates up great, but not often as he sets himself up of course. But that’s because he knows he’s the best player on the court. His teammates weren’t that great last year either.

Monta needs to play with a big guard that has playmaking abilities and can shoot from the outside. OJ compliments Monta’s game perfectly. Not to mention the fact that he could switch to the point and run alongside the second unit with Marco at the two. A Monta-Belinelli backcourt = disaster.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on May 17, 2008 8:12 PM PDT up 0 recs

Mayo

would be perfect. I was down on Love, but I’m coming around a little. Though I think Westbrook would be almost as good a compliment to Monta as Mayo would be. Too bad those 3 will probably all be top 10 picks. The proposed deal to get the clips’ pick, livingston and maggette is the only Baron trade that I’ve seen that makes ANY sense at all. Its ridiculous to discuss specific moves for next offseason and beyond because so much changes.

by sam23 on May 18, 2008 1:32 AM PDT up 0 recs

If Baron is going anywhere... It won't be until after the draft

Baron cannot be traded until after July 9th, which makes the proposed Clippers trade impossible. Well that is unless sometime before the draft, he hands the Warriors written notification that he plans not to opt out.

See Kawakami’s: Who the Warriors are allowed to trade before July 9: It’s a very short list

You seem to be forgetting that…

If the Warriors want to make a deal before July 9, and that importantly includes draft night June 26, they have very few players who can be traded.
That’s because they have so many who are about to become or can become free agents and by NBA rule, you can’t trade players who can or are about to become F/As…

Baron Davis can’t be traded before July 9, unless and until he gives the Warriors written notice that he will not be exercising his opt-out clause–deadline June 30; such early written notice is highly unlikely in Baron’s case since he gains almost nothing by doing it;

"To be a great champion you must believe you are the best. If you're not, pretend you are." - Muhammad Ali

by Dubs Wise on May 23, 2008 5:25 PM PDT up 0 recs

good ideas

Overall I like a lot of your ideas. However, I wouldn’t personally count to predictions of who will be good 2-3 years for now or even if we will be sure to be able to get them.

I like the idea of trading Baron for Livingston + a pick in some sort deal. I think Baron is great, but not worth the money anymore. Also, Monta is on pace to be amazing and having a pass-first point guard like livingston would be a great fit. Also, sending Baron to LA would be nice because that is where he grew up.

Also, trying to get Love is a great idea. Our best bet at a solid PF is to invest on someone young and I think his is one of the best bets right now.

by dancingchiapet on May 17, 2008 6:34 PM PDT 0 recs

OK, I'm sold

Nice diary, dprod. I share chiapet’s skepticism about projecting lineups 2-3 years down the line, but overall I appreciate your pro-active thinking.

On Kevin Love: I think I may have unfairly thrown the baby (Love) out with the bathwater (that loudmouth Iggy). With his toughness, smarts, perimeter game, and passing skills, Love would make close to an IDEAL frontcourt mate for Wright and Biedrins. I could even see that as our long-term starting frontline, with Wright sliding over to be a matchup nightmare at the 3.

OK, maybe I’m drinking the Iggy Bruin Kool-Aid, but if we could figure out a way to get Westbrook AND Love out of this draft, I’d probably give up anyone on our team not named Wright, Ellis, or Biedrins.

Westbrook
Monta
Wright
Love
Biedrins

Just feels like an exciting, crazy athletic, well-balanced starting 5. They’d probably take their lumps for a year or so, but after that, look out. Keep Jack around as the team captain / spiritual leader / continuity provider / sixth man extraordinaire; and add a few other wily, versatile vets (Harrington, Barnes, whatever we can get in the way of productive salary matches for Baron, etc.)

It’d be painful to part with Baron, the heart and soul of the team, but the more I think about it, the more it seems like now might be the time. His value may never be higher. We’re not going anywhere interesting with him. One more serious knee injury and we could end up getting nothing for him.

Plus, if we got Love, I wouldn’t ever have to change my webpin — ai, the Chinese character for love…

Sign ^^^^ !!!

by Sleepy Freud on May 17, 2008 7:29 PM PDT 0 recs

love is the

best outside shooter on that starting five. I love Westbrook too, and I’m much higher on Love now that he’s shedding the baby fat and working on his athleticism, but I dont know about that squad. Could Wright really play the 3? Wouldnt want to minimize Love’s strenghth and post game by having him spread the floor. Westbrook/Mayo would be so perfect next to Monta though, that I’m starting to think trading Baron to move up and nab one of them would be a really really good idea.

by sam23 on May 18, 2008 1:36 AM PDT up 0 recs

Wright at 3

Well, I think he’s quick enough to guard threes, which is the key. His length would be an absolute nightmare for the Carmelos and Battiers and Josh Howards of the world.

On offense, I’d guess Love would play kind of a Laimbeer/Longley/Okur high post 5 (that is, when he wasn’t igniting breaks with his crazy outlets) with Wright and Biedrins knifing and rolling to the rim from all angles. On the downside, none of the three is a Duncan or Boozer-like threat posting up on the low block, but then Nellie hates doing that anyway. In a pinch, I think Love is plenty strong and wide enough to be the low-post guy; and his ridiculous passing skills out of the post might make up for his shortness and limited arsenal of “true” post moves.

I dunno, I’m not smart enough about hoops to know it would work, but my gut just says Love-Wright-Biedrins would be an incredibly effective mix. They’re currently 19, 20, and 22 respectively. Imagine them all 2-3 years from now, when they’ve matured physically and had time to develop some synergy? Scary.

In the backcourt, you’re right that it’d be nice to have someone who can stretch the D with his perimeter shooting. A guy a little longer than Monta wouldn’t hurt either. Mayo probably fits the bill, but it’s hard to imagine us trading up to get get both Mayo and Love. I dunno, if we could luck into Westbrook at #14, don’t you think Monta / Westbrook / Jackson / Belinelli/ Azubuike would make for a pretty exciting and versatile backcourt, overall? Leave it to Nellie or Smart to figure out exactly how the combine them to wreak maximum havoc…

Sign ^^^^ !!!

by Sleepy Freud on May 18, 2008 5:17 AM PDT up 0 recs

I do

like that young team a lot. But we would need Westbrook and/or Monta to develop a consistant outside shot to open things up. I’m afraid the three frontcourt guys would clog the middle a lot making it difficult for Monta and even Westbrook to do what they do best: attack the basket. Thats why Mayo would be so perfect for this team, but youre right its very unlikely they could land Mayo AND Love.

by sam23 on May 18, 2008 11:07 AM PDT up 0 recs

To me the best comparison

for Westbrook is Rajon Rondo with less pg skills. Even though Westbrook is around the same height as Monta, he plays longer than he is due to his wingspan and athleticism. I think Rondo is Russel’s best case scenario.

I’d like to see a bigman rotation of AB-Wright-Love. They all do something different on the court. With AB you’ll get defense and rebounding. Wright can run the court, block some shots, and has a sweet hook shot, and Love brings the perimeter shooting, low post game, outlet passing and is a good rebounder. Shoot all these guys can rebound, which is a great thing for this warrior team.

Can’t wait until tuesday. I hope we luck out but expect to be picking at 14. But one can hope that Stern says this:

The 14th pick in the 2008 NBA Draft belongs to…............................The Portland Trailblazers!!!!

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on May 18, 2008 11:49 AM PDT up 0 recs

I wouldnt

say Rondo is Westbrook’s BEST case scenario, but it is a good comparison anyway.

by sam23 on May 18, 2008 4:07 PM PDT up 0 recs

yeah but we are in deep s__t if Stern says anything other than

The 13th pick in the 2008 NBA Draft belongs to…….........................The Portland Trailblazers.

If he says anything other than that, we might as well not even try next season because the Blazers will be ruling the league for years to come.

by belilaugh on May 18, 2008 10:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yea, that'll be up there with...

With the First overall pick in the 2008 NBA Draft, The…............New York Knicks select__.

I just don’t want the Knicks picking up a Rose or a Beasley that’s all.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on May 19, 2008 12:14 AM PDT up 0 recs

Don't Even Get Me Started on the Knicks

I still remember the lottery (I think it was the first one) when they basically stole Patrick Ewing from the Warriors.

by Hoopachoo on May 19, 2008 5:58 AM PDT up 0 recs

hi sleepy...

“Westbrook, Monta, Wright, Love, Biedrins”
just wondering… if monta and beads are worth $10mil each next year. and these 5 together are taking “their lumps for a year or so”. isn’t there a timeline prob there? this looks like a short-lived proposal when signing time comes. if they all turn out to be as good as expected, will the dubs have the $$ to keep them??

by oldskool on May 18, 2008 3:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

btw..

I know a girl with the same chinese character tatooed on her lower back.. maybe we go to the same massage therapist??

by oldskool on May 18, 2008 4:04 PM PDT up 0 recs

PS

It’s BRANDAN. If we’re going to plan our future around him, let’s start by spelling his name wright.

Sign ^^^^ !!!

by Sleepy Freud on May 17, 2008 7:33 PM PDT 0 recs

Thanks Sleepy

I can never get that straight- probably because I’m convinced Brandon sounds better than Brendan with his last name.

It feels appropriate to give my background on the UCLA guys- I’m a UCLA Alum (Class of 2007), so I’ve seen Westbrook play a ton and Love a few times (and met both a few times as well). Westy is a great kid and will be a good pro, but he is not a PG. Incidentally, he has better court vision and passing touch than Darren Collison, but that doesn’t make him a starting quality NBA Point. That said, his optimal role in my book is playing primarily off-guard and then playing some spot minutes at PG (like 5 per game), sort of like what Monta can do if necessary.

Kevin is an amazing kid- works hard, well spoken, charismatic. He’s the type of guy who people on the Net (fans of other teams) will hate on because the media will love him more than they should, but he does all of the little things that make purists fall in love too. I’ve never seen a player who is better at consistently being in the right place at the right time. One of the best examples of this is on Shipp’s “Holy Shipp” game-winner against Cal, Kevin would have probably been able to get a put-back in the 2 seconds left because he read the angle perfectly. I went to the Final Four this year and was blown away by how much better he was at that compared to Hansbrough, Dorsey (who is an arrogant piece of garbage), and Hibbert last year. Also, his passing (both outlets and otherwise) is the best from a big man since Walton, no doubt. You could run an offense through him with the right pieces around him (coughPortlandcough) . He’s going to be a productive player in the league, and he would thrive under the right coach and the right system, and the Warriors are just about the best combination for that.

by dprodigy19 on May 17, 2008 7:52 PM PDT up 0 recs

Westbrook

is young enough and has the raw skills necessary to become a legit point guard. He has the right mentality and he would be a good guy to pair with Monta-(sorta like Stevie Franchise and Cutino Mobley a few years back, neither was a true shooting guard, neither a true PG, but they were a great backcourt for a short time period)

by sam23 on May 18, 2008 1:40 AM PDT up 0 recs

Mixed review

Like Keynote said, the proposed trade doesn’t work and I liked a lot of what you had to say. You obviously put a lot of thought and work into your blog, which I actually read as Vegas Fish Tacos and wondered what the heck…..

And Barnes? Were you serious? If you had to watch him play all season you would only want to bring him back because you felt sorry for him, but usually that isn’t the criteria in pro sports.

I like Love a lot but don’t know where he’ll be taken. Most certainly not 14. I had thought about some trade possibilites with New York given that D’Anonti would be gung ho to get Baron and the Knicks seem to have no end to their spending. They might give Baron the level of salary only he thinks he and his agent thinks he deserves. But what about Marbury’s expiring contract and the number 5 pick. Or Lee and Robinson plus the TPE for Baron. I’m not sure we can use the exemption in that way even though folks have explained it to me far too many times. I think NY is a more realistic trade partner than the Clippers.

CWebb is undoubtedly the answer but I forgot the question.

by commish on May 17, 2008 7:53 PM PDT 0 recs

The Barnes thing

That was actually just a toss-in, since I’m confident MP will go somewhere else (which is probably smart regardless). There is no emotional connection, just a guy to fill the void for one season if necessary. Would be 100% fine with a Bobby Jones-type or someone else.

by dprodigy19 on May 17, 2008 7:55 PM PDT up 0 recs

Keynote?

That made me laugh.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on May 17, 2008 8:13 PM PDT up 0 recs

me too

by sam23 on May 18, 2008 1:41 AM PDT up 0 recs

Speaking of MP

I could see doing a sign and trade with NY for both Baron and MP. I’m sure Baron would rather be in LA for family reasons, but he’d also like the limelight of the Big Apple. And MP wants to be closer to the Islands mann. I say Mully shake down Walsh one more time but this time the trade would make more sense for Donny boy.

CWebb is undoubtedly the answer but I forgot the question.

by commish on May 17, 2008 7:58 PM PDT 0 recs

The Knicks are a possibility

The problem is that they don’t have any assets that are reasonably tradeable besides their pick, which I have a sneaking suspicion will become Derrick Rose. The only other guy is David Lee, and I just don’t see it.

The other big benefit for Baron in LA is that it’s better for any film-related stuff he’d like to so.

by dprodigy19 on May 17, 2008 8:10 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well

They’re only getting Rose if they luck into a top 2 pick. As the #5 or 6 seed (they’re tied with the Clips, not sure who won the coin toss between them) their chances of doing that are slim: either 18.5% or 13.4%. If they don’t hit lotto, maybe they decide that BD is a better bet than Gordon, Mayo, Gallinari, Love or whoever’s available at 5/6? Hard to imagine they’d have any interest in Love, as he’s somewhat or redundant to Lee. Say Baron and POB (S/T) for Marbury’s expiring contract and the #5 pick?

The Big Apple could be pretty cool for BD’s directorial career, too…

Sign ^^^^ !!!

by Sleepy Freud on May 17, 2008 9:19 PM PDT up 0 recs

NYK

Won the toss between them and LA. If the Lottery plays true, the Knicks will pick before the Clips at 5.

The Knicks have an 8.6% chance of winning the #1 overall.
The Clips have an 8.5% chance of winning the #1 overall.

I’m not sure of the exact percentage of each team lucking into the top 3 though.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on May 17, 2008 10:01 PM PDT up 0 recs

It's not an odds thing

Let’s just say that there is an interest for the NBA in having a flagship franchise (now with management more in Stern’s liking, undoubtedly)

Of course, there’s no factual basis, just a strong gut feeling

by dprodigy19 on May 17, 2008 10:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

Er

It’s an odds thing.

Are you sure about that math, kenntoe? Based on my reading of the wikipedia NBA lottery entry, the Clips and NYK would average out their chances of a lottery pick, giving them each a 7.55% shot a #1 pick, and about an 8.4% shot at the #2.

So, assuming it’s Beasley #1, Rose #2, that gives them each about a 16% shot at Rose. About as likely as, say, Kobe missing a free throw — i.e. possible, but unlikely. We should be prepared to swoop in on one of them if and when they don’t hit lotto.

Sign ^^^^ !!!

by Sleepy Freud on May 17, 2008 10:29 PM PDT up 0 recs

I used the ESPN draft lottery machine.

They have a % for each team’s odds for winning the lottery, such as Miami has the best chance to win at 25%, with Seattle second at 19.9% and then Minnesota at 13.8%. I believe these %’s are just the odds for the first overall pick, and not their cumulative % at landing in the top 3.

Link: ESPN Lottery Machine

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on May 17, 2008 11:21 PM PDT up 0 recs

Right

The ESPN lottery machine lists the odds just as wikipedia explains it: 7.6% for NYK and 7.5% for LAC (I guess they give the leftover unsplit pick to the team who wins the coin toss).

Cumulatively:
Odds of landing a top two pick: 16.0%
Odds of landing a top three pick: 25.4%

Of course, this assumes it’s not all fixed…

Sign ^^^^ !!!

by Sleepy Freud on May 18, 2008 5:36 AM PDT up 0 recs

"luck" into a top 2

just like LA “lucked” into Pau

by sam23 on May 18, 2008 1:42 AM PDT up 0 recs

For some reason

I don’t think we will be trading BD to the Clippers to further his film career :-)

We should do a poll to see if the community would like to use our team’s greatest trading asset (BD) or sign him for up to three more years after this season. I would guess the community would say keep BD; and I feel that way too unless he ends up bitter because of the relatively new negotiating tenor of the Dubs and most franchises. The big paydays seem to be over except in rare occasions. I would be surprised if Baron gets what he thinks he deserves.

CWebb is undoubtedly the answer but I forgot the question.

by commish on May 17, 2008 8:32 PM PDT 0 recs

It's a little different than that

No team wants an unhappy guy, so for the Clippers, getting a Baron who is more enthused to go there is a major selling point, to say the least. Look at all the trades of major players (Shaq, KG, BD the first time, etc)- the best player in the deal was the lynchpin in making it happen.

The other big factor is that the Clippers actually have a measure of negotiating leverage, since theoretically they could get Baron straight-up if they convinced Brand to opt out and had him agree to a new deal in principle (but not signing it until after Boom Dizzle signed).

As was said somewhere else, having a great PG who is expiring is a nice asset, but there’s no way to have him, Monta, and Beans while staying under the luxury tax, as far as I can tell.

by dprodigy19 on May 17, 2008 10:06 PM PDT up 0 recs

Wait. I'm pretty sure the NBA-CBA relationship...

Set rules in place to keep teams from bending the rules.

Otherwise we’d see more teams do this.

For the Clippers to assume Baron’s contract, you are correct that they need Brand and Maggette to opt out. However, along with opting out, i believe the Clips renounce the Bird rights that go along with offering Brand that extra year and maximum salary that goes with it. If they assume Baron’s contract, they won’t have the cap room to offer Brand a lucrative long term contract. And i do believe Brand is a priority this offseason. I don’t think they’d take on Baron if that means they can’t resign Brand.

Correct me if i’m wrong someone, but I’ve heard this before.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on May 17, 2008 11:29 PM PDT up 0 recs

Actually, it's fine

The best example I can think of offhand is Melo waiting to sign his rookie contract until the last day so the Nuggs could go after more free agents, but there are plenty of others.

There are rules about not going around the CBA (which has been ignored in recent years in certain cases), but Brand opting out would not be one of them.

by dprodigy19 on May 18, 2008 12:18 AM PDT up 0 recs

Found this:

What does renouncing a player mean?
As detailed in question number 30, free agents continue to be included in team salary. By renouncing a player, a team gives up its right until the following June 30 to use the Larry Bird, Early Bird, or Non-Bird exceptions (see question number 19) to re-sign that player. A renounced player no longer counts toward team salary, so teams use renouncement to gain additional cap room. After renouncing a player, the team is still permitted to re-sign that player, but they must either have enough cap room to fit the salary, or sign the player using the Minimum Salary exception. The exception to this is in the case of an Early Bird free agent who is coming off the second season of his rookie scale contract. Such players, when renounced, are treated as Non-Bird free agents. After renouncing a player, a team can still trade the player in a sign-and-trade agreement

I’m sure this applies to the Clips and Brand situation. So theoretically Brand could still return to the Clips in this scenario, if A) The clips have enough cap to afford Baron and Brand contracts at max salary, or B) Brand chooses to come back for the MLE.

Link: http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#33

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on May 18, 2008 12:35 AM PDT up 0 recs

MLE for a year

Tell me if I’m wrong, but I’m reading as if Brand signed at the MLE for a year. On June 30,2009 the Clips would have Bird rights on him again.

by Psion on May 19, 2008 5:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

I guess so.

But the idea here is that Brand wouldn’t come back for just the MLE.

Philly would gladly offer Brand a contract for much more than that. The Clips could match but they’d go into the luxury tax with Baron around as well.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on May 19, 2008 6:52 PM PDT up 0 recs

Good diary

On a semi-related note. If Baron doesn’t opt out, doesn’t that mean the Warriors have a 17.2 million dollar expiring contract of a really good point guard? Couldn’t that chip be huge near the deadline?

by belilaugh on May 17, 2008 9:26 PM PDT 0 recs

Damn, Gonna ruin those fish tacos if you put Vegan in them!

2008 offseason
1. Sign and trade Baron Davis to the LA Clippers along with the Warriors 1st for the Clippers first and Shaun Livingston (3 years at $4.8m base
Can Livingston even walk? Before the injury he had promise but now who knows?
Your team projections make me want to throw up( or become a Clips fan) Why rebuild again before we’ve finished the last rebuilding? Was the one playoff appearance enough for everyone? Time to blow it up for another 13 years? Pretty soon we’ll be playing junior high kids and talking about how good we’ll be in 10 years. Do you have any idea what it takes to win in the NBA? ( it takes experience, money, superstars, it doesn’t take young, cheap, or mediocre)

by Skeptic con Urquell on May 17, 2008 10:45 PM PDT 1 recs

You're right

It takes superstars, or at least great players, to win in the NBA. It doesn’t particularly matter how young or inexperienced they are. Check how old LeBron, Howard, Deron, and CP3 are, or how old Bird, Duncan and Magic were when they first led their teams to the finals.

You’re also right that it doesn’t take mediocre — which more or less describes our core of Baron-Jackson-Harrington, the three guys we’re currently most committed to financially. If Jackson were Kobe/Wade and/or Harrington were Garnett/Duncan, your “stick with the vets” refrain would have a lot of merit. As it stands, the experienced, veteran group of winning superstars you keep whining that we need to hang onto is a pipe dream.

How long do you think it will be before Monta-Wright-Biedrins is a more effective “Big 3” than Baron-Jackson-Harrington? A month? A year? And how will those Big 3s stack up in 2-3 years?

We’re rebuilding the team as we speak, whether you like or not. It’s the way it should be when you’re a mediocre team like us. If we do it the right way, we could be a serious, perennial playoff contender within a year or two. I’m not sure trading Baron for the rights to Mayo or Love is the “right way,” but it least seems like it gives us a real chance to build a young, balanced playoff core, a la Utah or New Orleans. What’s your alternative plan? To boldly move into the 2010s with a team built around Baron-Jack-Harrington and some crappy veteran castoffs?

Sign ^^^^ !!!

by Sleepy Freud on May 18, 2008 6:32 AM PDT up 0 recs

I think a good comparison is the Chicago Bulls of a little while ago.

They had Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, the second overall pick in the 06’ draft and cap room.

What they should’ve done is package the pick with a player and get a superstar. This is what everyone was harping on with the Bulls. In the NBA superstars win championships. The Bulls had no superstar or face of the franchise. Deng at best is a solid number 2. Gordon is a great reserve and spot starter. Hinrich is solid but unspectacular. The should’ve traded for Gasol or Kobe when they had the chance to get that nice mixture of young and old on the team.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on May 18, 2008 11:42 AM PDT up 0 recs

Going backwards

“If Jackson were Kobe/Wade and/or Harrington were Garnett/Duncan, your "stick with the vets" refrain would have a lot of merit”
In April 2007 we were 8-1 after figuring out how to use the new guys and after Jason got back from his injury. What were we in april 2008? I don’t want to look cause I know we sucked. The high scorer in 4 or those 8 april 08 wins was JRich and now he’s gone and we are worse. That’s why I’m pissed!
If something is working the logical path would be to tweak it a bit and ride the winner. We shoulda got a big man to bolster the post up game and came back stronger in 08 instead of worrying about how to pay monta 2 years down the road. monta is not the big man we needed! 2 guard was not one of our 07 shortcomings! We only needed a big and a back up point guard to be ready play 2008 but they spoiled the chemistry by moving Jason , so Baron wears down, Harrington gets discouraged, Pietrus gets pissed, Barnes gets frustrated and the new players were basically useless. We went from a promising we believe team to a disappointing we doubt team in one season. Same thing that happens anytime things start to look bright in warrior town, our management must have a fear of success?

by Skeptic con Urquell on May 18, 2008 9:35 PM PDT up 1 recs

asdf

For all you saying we could trade BD for Marbury and their pick, you guys are ridiculous. Why on earth would you want to subject our young core to a cancer like Marbury? The only way I’d want him on our team is if Stack Jack was going to keep his gat in the locker room so he could off him as soon as he did something retarded.

Stephen Jackson catches on the wing and faces up against Vujacic. When Jax looks down and sees Vujacic, his eyes light up. He pulls out his nine, screams "Thug Life" and empties the clip, then drives in for a basically uncontested layup.

by J Rich 4 MVP on May 17, 2008 11:29 PM PDT 0 recs

who

said anything about BD for Marbury? Marbury as a throw iin with their pick to make salaries work maybe, but I dont think anyone really suggested aquiring Marbury AND expecting to ever don a W’s uniform. Im not endorsing that type of trade either, Im just saying I doubt anyone suggested Baron for Starbury

by sam23 on May 18, 2008 1:45 AM PDT up 0 recs

Well

If we’re going to pry the Knicks #5 pick, I thought removing their “cancer” might sweeten the pot a little for them. He makes the salaries work, and comes off the books at the end of the year. Obviously I don’t want him, but if he came stapled to Love or Mayo I could grin and bear him at backup PG for a year. Maybe we keep him in a plastic bubble or something to keep him from infecting our young core?

Sign ^^^^ !!!

by Sleepy Freud on May 18, 2008 5:50 AM PDT up 0 recs

offing marbury

if that happened, would his contract come off the books immediately? if so then trade Baron for Marbury and have Jax blast him immediately, then sign Brand.

by misterjennings on May 18, 2008 7:09 PM PDT up 0 recs

why change

why change so much?? we are gettin better, all this takl about these ridiculous trades with baron and such, ya i wouldnt mind trading al, but we dont need that much change we made playoff history then regular season history with 48 wins and no playoffs we just need to tweak a few things, pick up a free agent that can scrap, make good draft picks and not overpay baron and monta

by FeartheBeard4 on May 18, 2008 3:04 PM PDT 0 recs

well..

there’s a lot of discussion going on right now about the dubs off-season plans because a large part of our roster becoming free agents and our 2 top draft picks will show the direction the dubs are going in. and with barons opt out, we could lose him without getting anything valuable in return. and it’s great to visit all the possible scenerios and ruling out the less feasible. and taking the more plausible ones in consideration.

I just bet that if mullin were reading our posts on this board, we would be doing him a big favor!

by oldskool on May 18, 2008 4:23 PM PDT up 0 recs

I like Love; we need new faces

If we could land Love in the Draft without any trading, I’d do it. Sleepy said it best. Love, Wright and Andris sounds good.

Last year I was very against splitting up the team to land KG. I may have been too much of a loyalist, but I liked who we had. I was bitter at the JRich move, but it needed to be done on a monatry basis.

This year, I could care less if Harrington, MP2, Barnes, Kroshere, POB, Kosta and CJ were outta here for some legit talent. Keep the core(BD, SJax, Monta, Andris, Buike, Belinelli and Wright), draft well and trade some players outta here for some talent and I’ll be stoked. I think Mullin is going to put together a better more rounded squad this year and hopefully there will be a lot of new faces.

Oh yeah, get Joey Dorsey in a Dubs uni somehow!

by gabezgsw on May 19, 2008 9:11 AM PDT 0 recs

I agree almost

I think that list of players to go is the same as mine but i would take harrington off the list. I think his value isn’t that great, so his expiring contract will be good to have next year. Right now, though I would be seriously considering to trade baron. His contract is expiring, his value is probably at its highest right now, he is expensive, and right now is the best time for us to invest in Monta and A.B.

by dancingchiapet on May 19, 2008 2:13 PM PDT up 0 recs