Mullin says, "Ellis and Beans will be back."

by joestar on Jul 13, 2008 11:02 PM PDT

Theres the link, and I really hope he follows through with this. Most definitely this comes as a sigh of relief for many Dub's fans, but I know some will be disgruntled. Personally I'm glad they'll be back, and no matter whatever some think those two are our core. Starting PG and starting center

The best part about this is that there will be NO MORE TRADE RUMORS involving those two! At least for now.

Discuss my friends

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!

1 recs | Comment 60 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

He did say J-Rich will be back 1 year ago

But roster is he on now?

i hope we win a championship soon

by Da Jrich tribute on Jul 13, 2008 11:13 PM PDT 0 recs

i will believe that when they actually sign

he basicaly told jrich the same thing and we know how that ended up. they can afford to sign both of them w/out going over the luxury tax.

by Rach on Jul 13, 2008 11:14 PM PDT 0 recs

But roster is he on now?

Yeah. I wouldn’t trust Mullin any further than I could throw him.
Even if he plans to sign them isn’t it kind stupid to tell them? That seems like it would take away a lot of our bargaining power? Why do they let exjocks anywhere near management tasks? They should just run them out to gladhand sponsors etc,. then send them off to the golf course or casino.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 13, 2008 11:19 PM PDT 0 recs

that dosnt really take away our power

when they are restricted it doesnt affect our bargaining power at all.

by sam23 on Jul 13, 2008 11:24 PM PDT up 0 recs

it doesnt affect our bargaining power at all.

We can match other teams offers which will be higher if they think we will keep Montay and Dris?
We can also negotiate contracts with them but we are at a dis advantage if they think we will pay them a lot? IIRC a 3 or 4 year guy can ask for a maximum of about 13 mil?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 14, 2008 12:13 AM PDT up 0 recs

there arent many teams with the cap space to chase them

and a team like the clippers that does have the cap space wouldnt want to waste a week chasing a guy they dont have a shot at landing. It would set them back a week in figuring out their roster, and also wouldnt be a great PR move.

by sam23 on Jul 14, 2008 9:37 AM PDT up 0 recs

maybe not, but ...

I questioned why he was saying it when I first heard him saying it months ago for a couple of reasons:

1) what if you’re not Ellis or Beans? How are you supposed to feel? a little less important?? I’m thinking of Baron – he had made it known he was interested in a long term contract before Mullin first said he would match any offer for Ellis or Beans, but Mullin just ignored it thinking he didn’t need to bother addressing it until the end of next season because there’s no way Baron is going to walk away from 17 million. Yea, right. I don’t know – I had to wonder how the guy who busted his ass and played every game of the season was feeling about being left off the short list. I think you can know you’d match any offer without having to broadcast it to the world.

2) and what if another team wanted to play “screw the Warriors” and offer Ellis or Beans something outrageous because they know the Warriors would need to match it?

by centerre on Jul 14, 2008 1:10 AM PDT up 0 recs

bd was using the media

to put public pressure on mully in hopes of getting his big payday. negotiation tactics. kudos to mully for not caving in.

in regards to ellis and beans not many teams have the $$$’s to make an outrageous offer

by Rach on Jul 14, 2008 8:03 AM PDT up 0 recs

not many teams have the $$$’s to make an outrageous offer

But they can still force us to pay more to beat them. They don’t have to worry about going into luxury tax territory if we match their offer?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 14, 2008 9:40 AM PDT up 0 recs

my point that i was trying to make about “not many teams have the $$$’s to make an outrageous offer” is to make a qualifying offer you have to have the cap room 1st to make the offer and only a few teams do. beans and monta are rfa so we would just need to match the offer.

by Rach on Jul 14, 2008 9:57 AM PDT up 0 recs

to make a qualifying offer you have to have the cap room 1st to make the offer

You mean they can’t write an offer that would take them into luxury tax land?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 14, 2008 10:04 AM PDT up 0 recs

ugh...

first, cap space is different from luxury tax.

Second, yes, you need cap room to sign a free agent, or you can use part or all of the MLE to sign a free agent. Teams can’t just go all willy-nilly and sign Beans or Monta to ridiculous amounts of money that they don’t have.

by kinetic on Jul 14, 2008 12:24 PM PDT up 0 recs

I think you’re confusing “offer to restricted free agent” and “qualifying offer”. They are not the same thing.

A qualifying offer is a set amount that a team must commit to that allows them the option of matching a restricted free agent. It doesn’t require that they match offers, but gives them the right. If the player choses, he can accept the qualifying offer and it becomes a one-year contract at the end of which, he’s a free agent.

An offer to another team’s free agent is not called a “qualifying offer.” It’s an offer. If the player is a restricted free agent (because he was eligible to be so and his team extended their qualifying offer, as they need to) then he can sign an offer sheet from the team that wants him. (He does not have to do this with offers—there seems to be a general meme that assumes that restricted free agents will take offers, almost as if they’re compelled to do so. They are not.) Once the offer sheet is signed, his old team has a week to match the deal. In this time, they cannot trade him or negotiate a new deal with him (and they can’t trade him after matching either). It’s match and keep or nothing.

by jae on Jul 15, 2008 11:00 AM PDT up 0 recs

You can't sign FAs if you're in lux tax.

Secondly, and I know this seems complicated to you, just because Mullin says he’ll match any offer doesn’t mean he has to. There’s this thing called “going back on your word”, and it’s very commonplace in the world we live in. I doubt Mullin would match a contract offer of 100M/5 years for either Monta or Beans.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 14, 2008 10:07 AM PDT up 0 recs

This isn’t entirely true. If you have your MLE or BAE, you can sign free agents, and you can always sign players for the vet min. But that’s it. You can’t offer more than that.

by jae on Jul 15, 2008 11:01 AM PDT up 0 recs

This HELPS our bargaining power

It announces to other GMs that signing these guys to an offer sheet will result in them losing a week of negotiations with their other FAs, while providing no benefit because it’ll be matched anyways. Nobody is going to sign them to outrageous contracts because they might be forced to honor those contracts. Reducing the already small number of teams willing to sign the two of them HELPS Mullin’s bargaining power because they’ll almost be forced to take what he offers or take the QO and become a FA next year (this sacrifices a year of pay and risks injury or a year of poor play before they get their contract next year).

Finally, he’s learning from Nellie, he could just be talking out of his behind.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 14, 2008 10:04 AM PDT up 0 recs

I don't know about Monta....

There was a rumor that Monta was interested in the Knicks, and, he actually spoke out about the heat “being a team he would love to join”. I wouldn’t be shocked if he takes the one year tender so he could be an unrestricted FA next year. I say we get this deal done at any cost. It’s clear by now that Mullin has built this team with Monta as a stable, and as such he is worth more to us, than he would be to other teams. I thought, originally he would get 5 years, 50mil. With Maggs signed for 50 and Baron left I was thinking okay, 5 years, 60 mil. Now I wouldn’t be shocked if he gets something in the range of 5-6 years 15 mil a year. I think if we could get it done for 5 years, 65 Mil that would be a deal both sides could be happy about.

by sarangc on Jul 13, 2008 11:37 PM PDT 0 recs

Blog rumors...

Mean about as much to me as sandskrit to a redneck…

All some one needs to start one of these online rumors is a library card and and a yahoo email account. Hell, you don’t even need a state ID.

For me to raise an eyebrow about a so-called posted rumor, I need at least 1 reliable source, preferably a paid writer, because he’s usually a real life person we could trace back to – so we can call him a numbnut, if he’s just talking out of his ass.

As for fanpost rumors; I’ve got high blood pressure from all the grains of salt I’ve taken from those “useful nuggets”. NBA 2k8 online trades were closer to the mark than anything I heard here from those tricky unnamed sources.

If you say Monta wants out, the only way I’m believing it is if you have a sound bite or a youtube vid, kobe style.

"I am the CHOSEN ONE"

by Tim&ChrisBurger on Jul 14, 2008 12:05 AM PDT up 0 recs

...

“Point guard Monta Ellis told the Warriors that Miami is among teams he would love to be traded to”
link: http://www.miamiherald.com/594/story/602990.html

its pretty strong to say you would love to be traded somewhere, especially when the organization has came out and said ur not going anywhere.

by sarangc on Jul 14, 2008 12:39 AM PDT up 0 recs

man...

that doesn’t mean anything. It’s just like the NY papers saying that Monta wanted to go to the knicks. If someone from the bay was mentioning this, than it might be a cause for concern, but local papers always talk up potential trade “rumors” that make their team look good. I know there’s a supposed quote from Monta, but it’s taken out of context and considering the situation should not be taken seriously in any way.

by kinetic on Jul 14, 2008 1:01 AM PDT up 0 recs

IF they were going to trade him

sarangc you KEEP leaving that IF out of there which changes the meaning completely.

by sam23 on Jul 14, 2008 9:38 AM PDT up 0 recs

Of course Monta would enjoy playing in NYC or Miami

Who wouldn’t? Hot babes, cool night spots… that doesn’t mean he hates the Warriors or the Bay Area.

Mullin’s using the “I’ll match any offer” chip, Monta’s using the “Hey, I’d like to play in X,Y, or Z city”. It’s a business that requires negotiation. I’m sure Monta’s agent is telling these “journalists” that he’d love to go there. It’s all part of the dance. Monta’s not getting 5/65. Neither is Beans. Don’t get your panties in a bunch.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 14, 2008 10:11 AM PDT up 0 recs

Sorry to burst your bubble...

But the miami herald scoopers batted like 1-20 last year with their rumors(embarrasingly, I admit, I’ve read that paper quite bite last year). In my mind, banking on a rumor from them is just as bad is relying on what Sam Smith from the Chicago Trib writes.

Those cats are just as trustworthy as the rumormongers on the ESPN.com message boards.

"I am the CHOSEN ONE"

by Tim&ChrisBurger on Jul 14, 2008 11:30 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well the only reason we traded J-Rich

was because the KG trade didn’t fall through. If it did our team would have had BD, SJ, J-Rich, and KG. Sadly it didn’t and now he’s gone. I doubt anything that dramatic would happen again where it would make Mullie not change his mind.

by joestar on Jul 14, 2008 12:08 AM PDT 0 recs

JRich would have been included in the KG trade

There’s no way the salary figures would match up.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 14, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up 0 recs

Not easy being a dub fan

Beans and Ellis improves every year. Would hate to see them go…

Leaves it to Jackson for three...YES!

by GSWFan510 on Jul 14, 2008 12:46 AM PDT 0 recs

More than satisfied.

I’m glad to konw that we have two very important and entertaining players that are resigning with the Warriors. I’m looking foward to see Brendan Wright and Anthony Randolph develop and become our future starting fowards. Al Harrington’s job as a Warrior will always be questioned. But for now, he’s going to be needed and used. Jackson and Maggette should provide some scoring aid.

ALL FOR THE YOUNGSTERS!
MONTA ELLIS
ANDRIS BIEDRINS
BRENDAN WRIGHT
ANTHONY RANDOLPH
(am i missing somebody?)

by CatchAndShoot on Jul 14, 2008 12:59 AM PDT 0 recs

NELLIE'S BELLIE!!!

by joestar on Jul 14, 2008 2:02 AM PDT up 0 recs

Brandan Wright.

by jae on Jul 14, 2008 9:31 AM PDT up 0 recs

Don't forget Brandon Wright.

Sign ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 14, 2008 1:29 PM PDT up 0 recs

i hope biedrins doesnt get more than 5 for 50

hey biedrins, i have a message for you:

yeah, it’s sexy to be skinny. people say you have great hair (though mine is better). but if you’re gonna be skinny, learn to shoot. or if you dont wanna learn to shoot, get buff. Either or. STOP STRADDLING THE MIDDLE CUZ OF YOUR GF

by dso on Jul 14, 2008 2:12 AM PDT 0 recs

You don't gotta hate cuz his GF is hot

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 14, 2008 10:13 AM PDT up 0 recs

Saying they'll match is a ploy to keep the price down

That statement is meant as a scare tactic for teams thinking about signing Andris or Monta to an offer sheet. The other teams are less likely to tie up whatever cap space they have for 7 days (I’m fairly certain that the offer sheet counts against the cap until the original team matches) if the Warriors are going to match it anyways. This way the Warriors are free to negotiate without any serious competition.

It worked last year with MP2, he got no offer sheets even though Miami was reportedly very interested and almost missed the deadline to take his qualifying offer because he was waiting it out to the end because the Warriors claimed they’d match.

Storage is for business, or for family.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Jul 14, 2008 8:55 AM PDT 0 recs

It does count against the cap

What happens if you miss the deadline?

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 14, 2008 10:14 AM PDT up 0 recs

If you're asking about missing the deadline to accept the Qualifying Offer?

The original club is no longer obligated to pay the player the QO amount (which is fixed – I think 125% of last year’s) but the player is still a restricted FA. So, in theory, the orginal club could sign him to a 1-year deal that’s less than the QO if things get ugly but still retain the right to match any offer from another club.

MP2 actually missed the deadline last year by a day or something but the Warriors still gave him his approx $3.5 milion QO amount.

Storage is for business, or for family.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Jul 14, 2008 10:55 AM PDT up 0 recs

The qualifying offers expire in March. I don’t think that Pietrus was close to that time.

by jae on Jul 14, 2008 12:06 PM PDT up 0 recs

The team can pull it back if he doesn't accept by October 1 but the player is still Restricted

If they pull it back prior, he becomes Unrestricted. The QO is oficially DOA on March 1.

Section 4.c.i of the CBA:

(i) A player who receives a Qualifying Offer must be given at least until the October 1 following its issuance to accept it, but in no event may a Qualifying Offer be accepted after the March 1 following its issuance. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a Qualifying Offer may be withdrawn by the Team at any time through the July 23 following its issuance. If the Qualifying Offer is not withdrawn on or before July 23, it may be withdrawn thereafter but only if the player agrees in writing to the withdrawal. If a Qualifying Offer is withdrawn, the player shall immediately become an Unrestricted Free Agent. If a Qualifying Offer is withdrawn on or after July 24, the Team also shall be deemed to have renounced the player in accordance with Article VII, Section 4(g).
(ii) If a Qualifying Offer is neither withdrawn nor accepted and the deadline for accepting it passes, the Team’s Right of First Refusal shall continue, subject to Section 5(a) below.

This is straight from the CBA because the Coon FAQ is kind of cloogy on this one.

Storage is for business, or for family.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Jul 14, 2008 12:22 PM PDT up 0 recs

Right. The team can pull it after Oct 1 (provided that was in the language of the offer), but they are not compelled to. This is different from it expiring. Oct 1 is the point at which they can opt to renounce again if necessary to free up the cap hold.

by jae on Jul 15, 2008 11:06 AM PDT up 0 recs

Poor choice of words on my part. The team's obligation to pay the QO expires on October 1

but the player remains Restircted. If you take it in context with my example, you can see what I was driving at:

So, in theory, the orginal club could sign him to a 1-year deal that’s less than the QO if things get ugly but still retain the right to match any offer from another club.

An incomplete explination on my part none the less.

Storage is for business, or for family.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Jul 15, 2008 12:30 PM PDT up 0 recs

ugh

let beans go

by montazing 192 on Jul 14, 2008 10:47 AM PDT 0 recs

Hmmm. Best center the Warriors have had in a couple of decades. Centers are a scarce commodity. Why exactly would we let him go?

by jae on Jul 14, 2008 12:06 PM PDT up 0 recs

some people...

just really hate on Biedrins. I don’t know why. My guess is that they think anyone who doesn’t look like Dwight Howard can’t be a good center.

by kinetic on Jul 14, 2008 12:28 PM PDT up 0 recs

Here's a list of reason's I've read on this site:

1. He can’t create his own shot/Has no low post game
2. He only shoots within 5’ or closer which is why his FG% is so high.
3. He’s a below average defensive player
4. He’s foul prone
5. He’s got no balls

My thoughts:

1 & 2: I agree with jae on #2 in saying “great, I hope he keeps it up”. Of all the complaints, it makes the least sense. It’s all about turning possessions into points, that’s the purpose of an offense. Who cares how he does it as long as he keeps doing it consistently. To me, that makes #1 somewhat irrelevant.

3 & 4. The poor defense is primarily Atma’s contention, I think he’s an ok man defender and he’s mobile enough to switch out on jump shooters. He get’s a lot of foul calls because of all the scrambling which puts everybody out of position. Another factor is that people like Baron or Monta routinely let his man drive around them so any center is going to pick up a lot of fouls. I also think he gets some of the worst foul calls in the league.

5. You’ll have to ask sarangc. http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2008/7/12/570280/bedrins-for-billups

Storage is for business, or for family.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Jul 14, 2008 12:52 PM PDT up 0 recs

yeah...

the only real complaint against him, is that he’s a suspect defender. I think the bigger problem is that he plays in a system that has horrendous defense, and being the last line of defense, he’ll often look bad.

by kinetic on Jul 14, 2008 1:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

Of all the complaints, it makes the least sense. I

No actually it’s makes the most sense. If Dris had a decent shot he could take some of the pressure off our other guys. The other teams know he’s a crappy shooter so they can leave him open at will. Watch Tim Duncan play for example ands see the difference between Dris and “great”.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 14, 2008 2:09 PM PDT up 0 recs

What kind of pressure? He's surrounded by 4 shooters 90% of the time

What team has 5 shooters on the floor and one of them is your starting center? I don’t understand why he needs to take pressure off the other guys if they are all perimeter players. If they leave him open, he cuts to the basket. That’s one of the ways he gets close-range shots. I’d see that arguement a little more if the Ws had a non-shooting PF or PG. It’s not like the Warriors’ biggest problem last year was scoring points so any additional pressure he put on the other 4 players isn’t significanty reflected in thier scoring.

I value the high fg% because I think the fundamental purpose of an offense is to turn possessions into points. So the absolute best an offense can do with a given possessions is score 4 points and the worst is a turnover which yeids zero points and a better chance for an easy basket the other way. So I think having a guy that’s going to get me 2+ points 60+% of the time, who is also an elite-level rebounder and can defend multiple postions is extremely valuable compared to what we could get for the money.

Duncan’s an MVP-grade talent who can pretty much do anything, we’re not getting him. Who else? KG? I really like the fact that Andris only takes shots he knows he can make. From a strictly offensive standpoint, would you rather have Marcus Camby who can stick that midrange jumper but shoots 46%?

Storage is for business, or for family.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Jul 14, 2008 2:30 PM PDT up 0 recs

It’s not like the Warriors’ biggest problem last year was scoring points

No, the problem is not points , it’s no post up offense. The way we score wears our guys down and apparently requires players with no defensive game. If we had a center who could post up and score with body strength or a good mid range shot we could slow down the game, get some tougher defensive players and have a better change at a championship.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 14, 2008 10:22 PM PDT up 0 recs

This is somewhat chicken-egg. Did the Warriors run their 4-wing, one big offense because Biedrins forced them into it? If they could (would?) run more plays for Biedrins, would Nellie really abandon his 4 wing lineup? (Do we know what would happen if they did try to slow it down and run plays for him on offense? I don’t think we’ve really seen this to know that it couldn’t be done.) Or did their 4-wing, one big offense force Biedrins to fit into it as it was.

It sounds like you’re saying that he’s essentially only going to be effective in the sort of game that the Warriors are playing. I’m not sure that this is something that can be extended as anything other than an opinion based on conjecture. True or not, it’s not something we’ve seen because it seems that Nellie believed that the way he sent his team out there was the best way for the current collection to win games.

The number of teams who have a center who get more effective offensive production than Biedrins is actually pretty small. You can scratch from that list a few guys who are attrocious rebounders and/or defenders, to such a degree that their offense becomes totally irrelevant.

Yeah, it would be great to have someone as good as Duncan. But back here in the real world where someone does not have to be a hall-of-famer to still be a good player, I’m pretty happy with Biedrins. It puts us in the minority of teams who aren’t using a questionable BWS (or BBS) as our center.

by jae on Jul 15, 2008 11:17 AM PDT up 0 recs

It sounds like you’re saying that he’s essentially only going to be effective in the sort of game that the Warriors are playing

Hi Jae. Just from looking at him play it doesn’t appear he has the strength to bang inside or the shot to hit the from the edge of the paint so yeah my take is he’s limited in his ability.
I’d like to see the team able to slow down when necessary and make the tough shots that could close out games. One style of play whether fast or slow is a dis advantage. We’d be better off if we could shift gears and play both. Remember when the Lakers had Shaq? They would play fast with Kobe then when they needed a blow or if the defense figured them out they would switch to Shaq backing them down in the paint. We’ll probably never have a Shaq or Kobe but we could do a poormans version if we had a stronger center. Foyle coulda played the role for a few minutes a game if Nellie wasn’t so one dimensional.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 15, 2008 11:41 AM PDT up 0 recs

You're wrong on the Lakers

Their bread&butter was going to Shaq. When Shaq got double/triple teamed, Kobe was used to attack the basket with jump shooters & Shaq keeping the defense at bay. They didn’t play “fast & slow” any more than a normal NBA team. When they had a transition opportunity with good numbers, they took it. When they didn’t, they went to option #1 (Shaq), and then option #2 (Kobe), and then option #3 (open shooters). Of course it’s not that simple, but that’s the framework.

Every team has a transition game and a half court game. It’s just a matter of what each team is good at. The Warriors, last year, were not a good half court team because they took a lot of jump shots (I assure you Beans took none of those). When the jumpers go cold, players lose energy, etc. With Nellie at the helm, I don’t really see a good half court big man game… I just don’t see it. Maybe he’ll prove me wrong. I think it’s because his offense doesn’t use many plays and the ball is usually in the guards’ hands, and passing the ball to big man is usually a very deliberate decision that requires cutters to stop moving.

We’ll see how it works out this year with Monta running things.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 15, 2008 12:17 PM PDT up 0 recs

nobody is saying...

he’s as good as Tim Duncan. If Tim Duncan is your definition of a good center, than nobody is going to please you.

by kinetic on Jul 14, 2008 3:42 PM PDT up 0 recs

to #2

i agree, that’s a moronic reason to hate on anyone. yeah, he’s way to good, we need to get rid of him. if it’s so easy to do, why don’t more people do it?

all the beans hate is completely idiotic anyway

by AJC3317 on Jul 14, 2008 3:58 PM PDT up 0 recs

some people

are infatuated with big buff black guys and think you must be one in order to be a legit big man in this league. Wake up Kwame Brown lovers!

by misterjennings on Jul 14, 2008 5:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

On. Point.

It had to be said.

Sign ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 14, 2008 6:02 PM PDT up 0 recs

I have in no way advocated giving him away or trading him for Billups or whatever, but another flaw is his FT shooting. It handicaps us a lot because in the last 2 minutes of a close game, he is a liability.

He gets a lot of foul calls because the NBA refs have adjusted to calling flopping good defense. They can’t comprehend going straight up to challenge the shot anymore unless they player is a star, and Biedrins suffers for that

by belilaugh on Jul 14, 2008 7:16 PM PDT up 0 recs

In the last 2 minutes of close games, it’s a liability. The hope is that what he does over the course of 46 minutes helps minimize the number of close games that come down to foul shooting. Most games don’t. The ones that do are conspicuous and as such people tend to focus on them. Not saying that it’s not important to hit FTs, but in terms of winning games, on averge, it’s far less important than hitting shots from the floor and getting rebounds, and less important than getting to the line in the first place.

It should be noted that he’s improved from the line considerably. He’s still not very good, but he’s such that he’s more likely to make one than miss one. Centers in general tend to be among the poorer FT shooters. Having one who is a liability at the end of games seems to be fairly common.

by jae on Jul 15, 2008 11:23 AM PDT up 0 recs