Maggette and the whole FA mumbo jumbo
Hey guys, been awhile since my last post here. This might be my first diary since we move to SB Nation. Hopefully, I'm still known to some.
Anyway, been a spectator for awhile, just enjoying some of the good reads here. But lately, I've seen alot of people throw out Free Agent names as if we can get any player not signed to a contract just like that. Well, it doesn't work like that. So here's some of my insights, for what it's worth....
We overpaid Maggette. We have to. We're not getting him for the same price a team like Spurs would give him. Whether it is a waste of money remains to be seen, we need at least a year to judge that. But let's get this issue out the way, it was either to overpay or to not have him. There's no in between on this one, especially with a team like Spurs actively looking for his services.
If we are gonna pay him that money then we should've just signed it to Okafor, Iggy, Smith. Sadly, it's not as simple as it sounds. The Clippers just proved that by getting the 34yr. old Camby. Yes, throwing the money their way is easy and I'm guessing the Warriors are willing to do it at least to 1 of the 3 i mentioned. However, actually getting them is not. If I am not mistaken, all those guys are RFAs so we can very well offer them money and sign them to an offer sheet, but then their mother team has a week to match. Within those 7 days, we can't make a run at any other free agent. Basically it will just be a waiting game. Unless their team is lying and they don't really intend on keeping them, the only scenario we can get them is if we overpay - which in this case will likely cost us more than 50. Any of those 3 players can very well love our team but there's no way we get a budget deal for them because then it'll be instantly matched by their home team. The Clipper probably realized the same thing. They can take a gamble and sign somebody to a fat offer sheet, but they also risk missing out while they are within those 7 days. The bottom line is, we would have to offer the max or very close to it to sign either of the 3. Remember they already turned down a considerable offer that's why they are in this position. (Iguodala walked away from 57M, Okafor on 65M). Anything less or close to those numbers, chances are their team would match.
We should've just saved our money for next season. What money? If we intend to make room to sign what you think will be a better value player, we're probably gonna have to let either Monta or Biedrins walk away. I'm sure some will not have a problem with that and say go ahead. But then, it's back to square one... will that player be an unrestricted FA? If he is, will he want to come to the Warriors? Think about it, losing Baron and possibly losing Monta or Biedrins to make a run for a free agent means we're probably gonna be worse than we have been the last two seasons. So, really our drawing point would be money which I'm pretty sure a couple of other teams would be capable of offering as well (See Brand, Philly). The bottomline is, we would have to overpay for anybody who's made a name for himself to come here. Until we reach contender status, we will have to spend money to get guys.
Well, that's it for now... let the love/hate flow....
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!
9 recs |
117 comments
Comments
My thoughts
I was out of town when I first heard about the Maggette signing and I was shocked. The Warriors had two main needs: a good big man, and a solid point guard. Giving that much money to Maggette did not solve anything. If it did anything, it just created even more of a log-jam than we already had at the 2-3-4 positions. I know that he was the best player available and we did what we could to better ourselves, but there had to be somebody else out there that, though was not as talented, would help more.
I like Maggette, just not as much as some.
by sfsfsfgiants on
Jul 16, 2008 12:00 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
JRICH
i’d rather have jrich over maggette. they’re worth the same amount. if we wanna get cheaper, we should just have kept MP2 and signed a big man like okafor.
by SIZE 15 on
Jul 16, 2008 10:22 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
how do you sign
a big man like Okafor? he’s not an unrestricted free agent and if the Dubz throw big money at him, there is a chance that another team could swoop in and sign ellis/beans to an offer sheet during that time. And then when the Bobcats finally match the deal, the Dubz could end up losing one of their own plus not get Okafor.
by misterjennings on
Jul 16, 2008 10:35 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
we got enough money
we planned on signing brand to a crazy contract and they said had enough money to give monta and biedrins what they want. so there’s no reason not to be able to afford okafor. and i was suggesting it if we havent signed maggette. it can happen.
by SIZE 15 on
Jul 17, 2008 12:00 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Would you have tossed the money they’d marked for Brand all in Okafor’s direction? (OK, that’s actually not possible since the max for a player of Okafor’s years in the league isn’t as much as they offered Brand but…) Okafor is a good, productive player. Rebounds, blocks shots, plays hard. He’s also not the offensive weapon that Brand is. I suspect that Charlotte would still match any offer that he gets.
I know it seems like there’s no penalty for trying, but that’s not entirely true. It cuts into time to shop for guys while your offer is waiting and you’re not able to extend offers to other guys. It then sets a price that Biedrins is likely to try to command and gives him a firmer negotiating point. It’s also not wise to be the team that pisses off everyone else by jacking up the price on RFAs. It’s probably mild, unspoken collusion, but it does seem like there’s hesitance to put offers in front of guys who are likely to be matched because in doing so, a new price standard gets established. I’m sure that this could be modeled with game theory. My guess is that under most parameters, since there will be many more encounters in dealings with other teams, the cooperative “don’t jack up the price by forcing us to match your highball offer for our better players” is mutually beneficial.
by jae on
Jul 17, 2008 9:48 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Much Love
Anger subsiding…someone with common sense…FINALLY. Thank you Lightzout. U should really post more often. Maybe it would drown out all the recent crappy posts by some of the noobs on here. Anyways, it seems like some of the guys on here have a short term memory. Mentions of “saving our money” to get UFA’s to sign with us is always mentioned. Don’t they remember that we threw a $90 mil offer to Brand and were still turned down? Yeah, I would love to get Deron Williams over here if he decides to not re-sign with Utah, but does he even WANT to play here is the question.
by turbulence24 on
Jul 16, 2008 12:14 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Good job
Solid analysis…hope to read more
Ellis to the rim!
by Sprewell4President on
Jul 16, 2008 12:37 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
+1
Oh yeah baby, feel you
Playoffs!!??
by PAWarrior on
Jul 16, 2008 12:48 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Also
I think the single biggest note to everybody who second guesses every move is that EVERYTHING is a risk. There are very rarely any slam dunk moves made by any team. My advice….wait to see how everything plays out before you call for a firing of our GM. The great thing about sports is “you never know.”
Playoffs!!??
by PAWarrior on
Jul 16, 2008 12:54 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
enjoy waiting with your GM in tow
the bottom line is that the CM signing is exactly symbolic of the state of the franchise which Mullin has constructed – STILL overpaying for a FA (ala DFish), and one that doesn’t fit our biggest need. He isn’t improving upon previous mistakes.
We are STILL WAITING for everything to play out from all his previous eff-ups including poor drafts (POB, Kosta, Marco, ect.), poor contract decisions (still paying Foyle), poor management of Baron’s situation (losing him for nada – and no, we didn’t essentially “trade” Baron for CM), lack of taking advantage of the TPE to land a PF to help us get to the playoffs last season (ala KThomas?).
Mullin’s apologists will hasten to add he threw big coin at Brand – “he tried” they’d whine. He also desperately threw money at Arenas, the truest sign he was is a full-speed tail-spin after Baron left him standing at the door empty handed. I don’t want my leader acting out of desperation. They’d add we “couldn’t” use the TPE – which I maintain is partially bs. It was a choice, and it wouldn’t have precluded signing our own RFAs entirely. We could have traded our #14 for a vet using the TPE, and still resigned them. Remember, it was Mullin himself who sold us all on the flexibility the TPE gave us to improve the roster further.
Mullin has perpetuated the GS situation of not being able to attract FAs by allowing the franchise to wallow in mediocrity – what FA wants to come here? We’ve evolved into the NBA hinterlands, a region formerly occupied by the expansion clubs. Don’t blame ownership, they ponied up for all those ridiculous contracts, over-spent for Fisher, Maggette, et al., and even paid Montgomery not to coach (which, they may have been doing longer than they realized). Had we used the TPE, made the playoffs, and ADDED to the core perhaps we have Baron, Jackson plus another big time player to add to all the young’ns and we become an attractive, playoff-bound team to FAs.
Apologists will point out that CM matches our style – he does & two summers ago I wrote that he’d make a great addition. That he’s replacing Barnes & MP, that he’ll fit in perfectly opposite Jackson, etc. While I don’t disagree with any of that, the fact remains that the wing position is the most easily filled in the NBA and we just plunked $50m down on a very good but not great player who is essentially a replacement for MB&MP – again, without addressing our biggest needs.
Quality NBA clubs draft the BPA and use FA to meet roster deficiencies. Mullin does the opposite of that, as evidenced by recent picks (POB, Bellinelli) and signing Maggette.
We will be waiting now. Longer than most of us realize. We have no choice but to go young and build for the future. One part of that future we might not look forward to is how Jackson takes to a team that is young, not playoff bound, and in the lame-duck year for the coach. We’ll see. The great thing in sports – in addition to “you never know” – is that the future can always look brighter than the present. Which, come to think of it, also is perfectly symbolic of GS under Mullin.
by hardcore on
Jul 16, 2008 7:54 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
1 recs
Blah blah blah... Waaah waaahhh waahhhh
There were no ACQUIRABLE PFs at the trade deadline worth getting. Kurt Thomas? Umm… you want to give up our first rounder for Kurt Thomas? That might have got us to the first round, but not further (and then we’d be without our #20 draft pick). The Spurs, on the other hand, could use Kurt Thomas to compete for the CHAMPIONSHIP while only giving up a #28 draft pick, basically a guaranteed second rounder. Much different.
We are not the Celtics or the Spurs which are good teams and can get older FAs to come to try to get that elusive championship. The Warriors don’t play in LA, NYC, or (to a lesser extent) Miami, so we can’t draw them with the social scene.
If we used the TPE, we wouldn’t have been able to sign our RFAs Monta/Beans without going in to lux tax or we would have been trading our draft pick for somebody like Maggette, who we got anyways (and we’ve got Randolph, hey that’s cool).
Our biggest needs are PG & PF. There are no PFs available worth going after (Josh Smith doesn’t count, and we tried Elton Brand). There are no good PGs available, and the idea has always been for Monta to become a PG.
He made some bad signings in the past, but he hasn’t made any going forward. I’ll gladly take Maggette’s efficiency for 22PPG on 14 FGA with a 1-1 game. I’ll gladly pay 10M for that.
You have to realize that until things change, the Warriors ARE NOT a “quality NBA team”.
If you hate Mullin and the state the Warriors have been in for the last 15 years, go root for somebody else. Stop moaning and groaning about nothing.
by Dubs fan in Boston on
Jul 16, 2008 9:59 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
re Thomas, Ellis et al.
re Thomas – he is but one example, others have been exhaustively explored over the past 12 months since acquiring the TPE. I suggested him LAST summer. He could likely have been gotten for less than our 14th pick then since SEA had already swindled a couple of firsts for him. As for the difference between the 20th (?) & 28th pick, it seems historically not that significant when looking at who sticks in the league drafted in the 20s. Thomas’ contract expired this season, so using Thomas for example we wouldn’t have impacted our ability to re-sign the RFAs this summer, but it would have helped us get to the playoffs last season – essentially we’d have traded JRich for Wright (the future) and Thomas (present playoffs) as well as sending a message to players and fans alike about the direction of the franchise. Get your analysis straight before slinging arrows.
re Ellis – not sure what you are responding to in my post there, but whether or not the rumors of GS being interested in Billups or Crit are true, there certainly is doubt about Monta’s ability to grow into the PG, and at least some consensus that he needs pairing with a big guard. For what it’s worth, since we’re rebuilding (or should be) why would we add a vet PG – to mentor Monta? Been there with Baron. Let’s see what Monta can do. With Jax and now Maggette, we can put him there with a big enough guard alongside him most of the time.
re Maggette – like you, I’m happy to have him. Unlike you I’m unhappy we had to overpay to get him. I’m most unhappy that this seems like the overpaying we did for DFish and we are trending in that direction.
Unlike you, I’m unhappy with the job Mullin is doing – still. You have to realize the reason we are not a quality NBA team, as you say, is Mullin’s decision making. “He made some bad signings in the past, but he hasn’t made any going forward” to which I’d ask which ones are the “going forward”? POB? Bellinelli? AR? Maggette? Would you include misreading Baron’s situation as past or going forward? Would you agree that desperately throwing wads of coin at Arenas would have impacted our ability to re-sign Monta & Andris without getting into the dreaded luxury tax realm? That decision alone would have wasted all the vaunted flexibility gained from the JRich trade since we wouldn’t have made the playoffs and wouldn’t have been able to keep Ellis&Andris.
If we land Turiaf, I’ll be pleased (I’d also suggested that in an earlier post), but if the rumors of trading AB or Harrington for another guard come to pass, I think that’s a mistake whether or not LAL matches the Turiaf deal.
I’ve been rooting for this team for three times those 15 years, and will continue to do so but I will never stop holding management accountable for repeated mistakes – maybe nothing in your eyes. You might want to reconsider whether it’s prudent listen to the message rather than to shoot the messenger.
by hardcore on
Jul 16, 2008 10:45 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
1 recs
If the biggest black marks on Mullin’s recent moves are POB, Belinelli, AR and Maggette, then he’s not doing THAT badly.
POB was a terrible, terrible pick. It’s worth noting that a team with the ninth pick these days is more likely to get a solid rotation guy than a star or even a starter; we didn’t whiff on a bunch of All-Stars by taking POB. Still, we should’ve gotten at least a solid rotation guy out of that pick, and we didn’t. A bad move, that wasted a pick, if not money.
I’m not a Marco fan. I don’t think he’ll end up being much. Still… that was the eighteenth pick in a middling draft. No home runs were available there, and lest we forget, we also netted Brandan Wright that year. I think Marco was a poor pick, but in the scheme of things, it doesn’t matter much.
Randolph might never amount to anything, and if you’re not in the mood for another project, I get it. But Randolph was a BPA pick… that was a pure upside selection. I don’t put much stock in the early returns on him, but they’re certainly not negative. Randolph seems like a data point against your argument, not in favor of it.
You agree that Corey Maggette will be useful to this team. You think we overpaid for him… I do too. I don’t think it’s an overpay on the level of the Fisher signing, and it’s worth keeping in mind that we paid him that to keep him from seeing what the Brand-less Clippers would offer to retain him. If they wouldn’t have been interested, then we threw $10 million in the garbage for no reason. If they would have - and the Camby move suggests they wanted cost certainty over shooting for restricteds - it was a totally defensible move, given that this is a cap window we have to take advantage of.
I don’t consider myself much of a Mullin apologist. I don’t think he’s one of the best GMs in the league by any stretch. He’s made a lot of mistakes in the draft and has overpaid for several guys. Like you, I didn’t like how we handled Baron’s opting out… offering Arenas max money struck me as a bizarrely clumsy move.
It’s still worth pointing out the degree to which our talent level has improved over the last four seasons, without our payroll ballooning out of proportion. Worth pointing out that if Turiaf goes back to the Lakers, we’ll still be the team with the most cap space this summer. Worth pointing out that Mullin’s garnered us four genuinely interesting young talents with star potential (down the line for Randolph), despite having never picked higher than eighth. Worth pointing out that we won 48 games last year, enough to give us home-court advantage in the first round if we’d been in the East, and as many regular-season games as we won the year we won the title.
This isn’t 1975, and we aren’t in the Eastern Conference. We’re not in a great position… maybe not even a good one. But teams need real luck to become championship-level—they need #1 overall picks, cities that lure guys, blockbuster trades with sympathetic GMs on other teams, guys that become NBA First-Teamers out of nowhere, or some combo of both. (As always, the Pistons are the bizarre exception to the rule.)
How many opportunities has Mullin had to put this team on the map? I’d say one—the possible Garnett trade last summer. By all accounts, Mullin tried hard for Garnett, and by many accounts offered a better package than Boston did. It didn’t work out.
It’s not clear when another chance like that will come along. In the interim, we were, and are, a credible and entertaining team. I’d prefer “championship-level” to “credible and entertaining”, but a championship-level NBA team is pretty hard to come by. I’ll take “credible and entertaining” for now.
by onlxn on
Jul 16, 2008 11:18 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
we all know the re-signings of his early years were the “blackest” marks … I do appreciate your glass is half-full approach, and agree with much you say – particularly putting a fair context around these later moves.
Marco’s pick rankles because Mullin claimed to have followed him for years and MB was hailed as the stealthy move – either Mullin was a poor judge of talent or lying based upon Marco’s performance last season.
Also agreed, we need some luck (having the #1 pick and choosing Joe Smith that year bites – and no, I’m not blaming Mullin for that!) but we need some vision in the GM spot and I see what Mullin is doing as more “reacting” than “rebuilding”. Although I’d love a repeat of ‘75, I’d settle for playoff-level on a (more?) regular basis.
by hardcore on
Jul 16, 2008 11:49 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bear in mind...
...when evaluating these picks like Marco, POB and Wright that Don Nelson is, whyile at times great, also at times a stubborn jerk who hold grudges. The best game of POB’s career was immediately followed by the signing of DJ Mbenga, a guy who from a my perspective wasn’t/isn’t fit to hold POB’s jockstrap. Nelson has a tendency to send the wrong messages to players who struggle under him. I think when POB’s career is over, he’ll likely end up being the kind of solid pro that warranted a 9th pick.
by Zack Vank on
Jul 17, 2008 6:34 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
maybe splitting hairs, but my read on Nelson is that he is a bit like Felipe Alou when he managed the Giants – these guys want to win today’s game, and worry about tomorrow later. In Nelson’s case, my interpretation is that he is trying to win every regular season game possible to pass Lenny Wilkens on the all time wins list and of course get to the playoffs as a result. We also missed the playoffs with 48 wins, as many have pointed out that is an unusual case.
That strategy does not bear any fruit developing young players or saving the legs of his veterans obviously, and he gets well deserved criticism on both counts.
In evaluating Marco, and Mullin’s picking him, my interpretation is KAz beat him out for minutes pretty fair & square, as such that pick was a waste – hopefully Marco proves me wrong but I just don’t see him being a productive rotation player regardless of the system, coach, etc. I stand on my point above about Mullin either being a poor judge of talent in Marco’s case, or worse …
by hardcore on
Jul 17, 2008 9:21 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
the problem
w/ Marco was that his offense didn’t make up for his get driven by every single player (even slow footed Gordon Giricek) defense.
same sort of problem w/ POB except he picked up fouls all the time. outside of the occasional fans that deluded fans into thinking POB was this great defensive player, opposing centers scored at will against POB. lateral quickness wise, he doesn’t belong in the NBA. he should be thanking whoever started the initiative to allow zones. he has the offensive talent to beat out scrubs like the geezer version of pj brown (or did he retire?), leon powe, brian scalabrini and kendrick perkins, but whether he will is another story.
even though summer league is guard-oriented and doesn’t mean much even if you’re successful, the fact that he struggled there is a warning sign. ppl point to his d-league stats, but d-league success means even less than SL if you consider nick fazekas’s d-league stats are 19 ppg 10 reb 55% vs his summer league stats (granted he’s playing 13 less minutes) are 6.6 ppg 4.4 reb 40.5%. consider too that kaz and quiet storm had Kobe Bryant like numbers…
http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/index.jsp?player=nick_fazekas
http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/index.jsp?player=cj_watson
http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/kelenna_azubuike/index.html
brandan has the opposite problem where his defense won’t make up for his limitations on offense until he is physically strong enough to defend the post. which judging by SL, it looks like he’s still another year away from doing. i saw the 2nd SL game & the 1st Q of game 3 and was encouraged to see he at least knows what he’s doing in terms of defensive rotations and angles.
wright will probably be in the rotation this year. nellie will hide his lack of bulk by playing him alongside either turiaf or harrington.
by the evil monkey on
Jul 17, 2008 12:28 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
re: Brandan @ SL
Agreed, he looks like he’s still maybe a year away. But it’s good to see him try to bang, either down low or up top. He’s doing a lot of pushing for position (not always successful), and he doesn’t appear afraid to do it. He does look a bit bigger too, esp. in his upper arms and chest. He’s getting there…
by b.radley on
Jul 17, 2008 12:42 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Excellent post Onixn....
I remember too clearly the Gary St. Jean Era, and I’ll ride with Mullin any day of the week (and twice on Sunday), rather than go back to those days.
Mullin does not have an easy job but he’s trying and compared to St Jean he’s doing well. Mullin will improve.
by goldenstatefan on
Jul 17, 2008 3:51 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Warriors
You say the Warriors are not a quality NBA team and therefore cannot make quality moves.
But sometimes i believe we’re not a quality NBA team BECAUSE we do not make quality moves.
JRich was traded a whole year before he needed to be traded. Unless Cohan called for a pure expensive-cutting move, the JRich trade was unnecessary. Did Mullin not see Baron had an opt out clause this offseason? Did he even consider it at all, or did he just blindly refrain from taking into account all future possibilities. If Jrich wasn’t traded, and Baron still opted out, we could’ve still kept Monta and Biedrins. Instead, we used the cost-savings from trading our heart and soul away to overpay for older Corey Maggette this offseason.
If we had held onto JRich, shopped him at the deadline but couldn’t trade him, shopped him at this year’s draft and couldn’t trade him, and lost either Monta or Biedrins because of the luxury tax.. then yeah, we lost one of them for a reason and that sucks. We just lost JRich for no good reason. (We’ll see how Wright turns out).
I’m 100% we would’ve made the playoffs with JRich. Maybe we wouldn’t have been champions, but who cares? At least we’d be trying to win. There’s all this talk that we don’t have the “championship big man” to take us there, but no player like that is ever going to come here if we keep losing talent. They don’t want to come to rebuilding teams like we are now. We should always be striving to compete, and if we get lucky one year in the draft, or a disgruntled big man becomes available, then yeah we have the opportunity to go to the next level.
There was absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t have traded for Kurt Thomas. A 1st round pick, are you kidding me?? Good teams don’t care about that crap, look at the Suns they trade away all their picks and they seem to be doing just fine. We’ll never be a good team if we value a late lottery pick more than a chance to fill a big need of ours at PF and possibly push farther into the playoffs.
The Foyle buyout was pure idiocy. We bought him out to save a roster spot for who? Troy Hudson? To have the extra money to sign who?? Hudson, Croshere, and Kosta Perovic? The buyout was a bad mistake to cover up a worse mistake. The right thing to do would be to hold onto the contract until it becomes expiring. That’s what the Lakers did with Kwame Brown and we all know how that turned out with the Pau Gasol trade.
etc etc
by YaHeard on
Jul 16, 2008 12:34 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
100% certainty on something that cannot ever be proven one way or another is no different from 0% certainty.
by jae on
Jul 16, 2008 12:41 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
JRich was traded a whole year before he needed to be traded. Unless Cohan called for a pure expensive-cutting move, the JRich trade was unnecessary. Did Mullin not see Baron had an opt out clause this offseason? Did he even consider it at all, or did he just blindly refrain from taking into account all future possibilities. If Jrich wasn’t traded, and Baron still opted out, we could’ve still kept Monta and Biedrins. Instead, we used the cost-savings from trading our heart and soul away to overpay for older Corey Maggette this offseason.If we had held onto JRich, shopped him at the deadline but couldn’t trade him, shopped him at this year’s draft and couldn’t trade him, and lost either Monta or Biedrins because of the luxury tax.. then yeah, we lost one of them for a reason and that sucks. We just lost JRich for no good reason. (We’ll see how Wright turns out).
The critical variable here is just how valuable J-Rich is.
I love J-Rich. I miss him. On a purely pragmatic basis, however, I regard him as significantly less valuable than Monta and Biedrins - not even in the same league. And, yes, I regard him as slightly less valuable than Maggette. J-Rich wasn’t particularly relevant to our future one way or another - he was a pretty good shooting guard, being paid about what he should’ve been. That’s a fine piece to have, but it’s nothing to build around. If holding onto J-Rich would’ve cost us Biedrins or Monta (and I really, really doubt we would’ve been able to move J-Rich for space at any other point), it would’ve been disastrous NOT to trade him.
Do I think we would’ve made the playoffs with J-Rich last year? Yeah, probably. There’d have been hidden costs, in that Monta might not’ve gotten the minutes to blossom the way he did… I don’t think it’s absolutely 100% that we’d have made it. But I think we probably would have, and it sucks that we didn’t.
But let’s flash back a year. If somebody told you, a Warriors fan, that
A) we’d trade J-Rich for a genuinely promising young forward and cap space,
B) we’d sign Maggette the next year with that space, who’s a good bet to at least equal J-Rich’s production,
C) and that in the season between we’d win 48 games,
I mean, don’t you think you’d have taken that deal? J-Rich for Maggette and Wright, and our winningest season in fifteen years in between? As much as I loved J-Rich, I’d have jumped all over that. We just had the misfortune to win 48 games in an absolute strike-of-lightning year, the one time in NBA history when that wouldn’t get you into the playoffs. I was disappointed as hell that we missed out this year, but I can’t fault the front office for not anticipating that it’d take 50 wins to get in.
I think it’s reasonable to complain about not getting a guy like Kurt Thomas. Again, I don’t consider it a sure thing that we’ve have made it with him, but I’d have liked our chances a little better. That said, first-round picks do have some trade value, especially when you’re not a no-brainer playoff team. I’m not personally convinced that Thomas would’ve been worth it, but it’s legitimate to claim that he would’ve been.
As for Foyle, I just don’t see the logic in keeping him, given the discount he gave us. You don’t hang on to a player you can’t use for three years, just so he becomes a commodity as an expiring… that’d have been an enormous waste of a roster spot. Not to mention that the Brown/Gasol trade is hardly business as usual… it was an absurdly lopsided trade to the point that other coaches and executives wanted trading rules to be amended as a result. We were never going to get a star with $7 million worth of an expiring Adonal Foyle. With the buyout, we got an extra roster spot for three years and about six million bucks worth of space a year earlier than we would’ve otherwise. I think most teams would’ve taken that buyout from a player they had zero interest in using, and who had zero current trade value. The Foyle extension was lunacy, but the buyout didn’t compound that lunacy, by any means.
On a general note, the idea that missing the playoffs lessened our appeal to the big names out there strikes me as odd. Players aren’t stupid - their feelings about this franchise, for good or bad, won’t be changed by us going 48-34 and finishing ninth. Stars will come here if we land the right draft pick or make the right trade or if the numbers work out. They won’t shy away because of something as trivial as missing the playoffs one year - we take that a lot more seriously than they do.
by onlxn on
Jul 16, 2008 1:14 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
jrich and foyle
different strokes for different folks. I would rather have a starting lineup right including Ellis/JRich/SJax vs. Ellis/SJax/Maggette. And I’d rather have seen the Warriors in the playoffs last year too (which would be probably,although uncertain) than not.
But I heavily disagree on Adonal Foyle. We saved just ~$3mil/yr from the buyout, which hasn’t had any significance yet. We used the savings to sign a bunch of crap like Webber and Perovic and Hudson. The valuable “extra roster spot” was wasted. Our rotation consisted of 7-8 players all year long, and I don’t foresee that changing either this year. I woulda rather had Foyle cheering on the bench for us these years with the slight hope of him having trade value at the end.
And that wasn’t just a bogus trade. The big blockbuster trades are FUELED by large expiring contracts (regardless of which cruddy players they belong to), you can’t argue that.
by YaHeard on
Jul 16, 2008 3:09 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
C’mon… that was a ridiculous trade.
It’s true that expiring contracts can play a part in big trades. They are very rarely the key part of a trade. Yes, Minnesota got Ratliff’s expiring contract for KG, but the main piece they got was Al Jefferson… none of last year’s big trades, in fact, were about acquiring expiring contracts, except the Gasol trade. When Shaq got traded to Miami, the Lakers’ main goal was adding talent. When T-Mac got traded to Houston, the Magic’s main goal was adding talent. Teams want talent in return for superduperstars, not cap space.
Cap space can be a good sweetener to a deal. It’s true that Foyle’s expiring would’ve been useful in that sense. But his ‘09-’10 cap figure was going to be, what, $6.5M? That’s not a game-changing figure… that doesn’t get you halfway to a superstar or anything like it. It would’ve been a useful piece, is all.
I agree that we haven’t used the roster spot on anything useful yet. In terms of the cap, the buyout only dramatically affects the ‘09/’10 number, so the benefit kicks in next year… I’m not convinced that anything big will come of it. But I’m not convinced that anything big would’ve come from an expiring Adonal, anyway. Every team has expiring contracts of that size. They’re useful when they come along, but you shouldn’t plan years and years in advance around them.
by onlxn on
Jul 16, 2008 3:46 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The expiring contract was key in the Gasol deal and in the Garnett deal. The Garnett deal also included Jefferson, but without the expiring contract, I’m not the least bit convinced that the deal would have happened. The deal was about getting a new player and getting some cap relief in the not distant future. When Shaq left Miami, it was at least in part about getting out from the last $60 mil of Shaq’s contract. When Baron came here for Speedy and Dale Davis, it was all about cap room. When Kidd went to Dallas, Van Horn was signed to a contract entirely to be an expiring contract. There were other parts of the deals in some cases, but without the expirings, many of those deals don’t get done.
Foyle’s cap figure for this year would have been around $10mil. Because of the buyout, it’s only in the 6 to 7 range, but without buyout, it would be full MSRP, full sticker, no cash rebate. There’s no guarantee that the expiring contract would have netted anything as you usually have to include some other part with potential on-court value, but it’s possible. It’s a possibility that I don’t fault management for not taking. It did keep them under the lux tax, and say what you will about that decision, but dollar for dollar plus opting out of the tax revenue sharing is a pricey thing to do for a borderline playoff team. Paying the tax for a contender is a different thing from paying the tax for borderline.
by jae on
Jul 16, 2008 4:00 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We saved ~$3 mil last year and this year. What was done with the savings doesn’t reflect on the fact that the money, if he was on the roster, was would have been wasted.
You appear to be set in your opinion that you’d want to pay him for the off-chance that someone would want his expiring contract at this year’s deadline. Others do not share this same opinion.
by jae on
Jul 16, 2008 3:48 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We're all forgetting...
the knee issues that were starting to develop. I don’t know how many games he missed in CHA due to any knee issues, but it’s scary when you have an athletic SG who thrives on his jumping. I think Mully saw an opportunity to get a young, athletic big and gambled that JRich might have future knee problems. He got rid of him while his value was high.
by goldenstatefan on
Jul 17, 2008 3:54 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agreed
He’s already changed his game from a penetrator to a jump shooter after the knee injury. We didn’t really need another jump shooter, and Monta turned out to be a far better penetrator…at least vs. JRich at this stage in his career…
by b.radley on
Jul 17, 2008 4:34 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The Suns may be OK now...
But they are going to be hurting in a few years, as the sun sets on Nash (so to speak). However, I will say this for them: they have $20MM expiring in 2010 (Shaq), the “Year of the Free Agents”. I doubt that is a coincidence. When you back out and look at that trade over the next 3 years, it might make Kerr look like a genius—even if they don’t win a title. Because they had clearly bet EVERYTHING on winning it all, and were about to get the gun held to their head by Marion. They may have traded him one year too soon, but it might still work out in the end. So, actually, maybe you’re right. Maybe you just go for it every year and let the cards fall where they may… I agree that “rebuilding” is a strange limbo to be in, because you can be there forever…
by b.radley on
Jul 16, 2008 3:55 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The Suns...
...traded away Luol Deng’s pick. They’ve traded away a number of picks for cash and gotten nothing tangible in return. If you think the Suns are “doing just fine” with their low draft emphasis policy, I have to strongly disagree with you. Maybe if they’d been a little more smart about it they’d have some young guys to fill out the roster. I don’t know about you, but the Suns don’t look so powerful to me right now, and their neglect for refreshing the talent pool through the draft is a big reason why.
by Zack Vank on
Jul 17, 2008 6:38 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm with you...
That was basically the point I was going to make, until I realized that their “win now” strategy did land them with Shaq’s $20MM expiring during the hottest free agent market in memory. So that’s kinda interesting, and probably not a coincidence. Still, that $20MM will likely end up buying them one premiere player or two decent ones (think Maggette), and in the meantime they’re just getting older. I hear you there, believe me.
by b.radley on
Jul 17, 2008 11:27 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They traded Marion for Shaq
I highly doubt they made the trade because Shaq’s contract expires next year. They looked at their team and knew they had no answer to West/Chandler, Gasol/Bynum, or Duncan. They needed to get another quality player down low, so that’s what they got. And they still sucked.
by Dubs fan in Boston on
Jul 17, 2008 11:43 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well obviously they traded Marion for Shaq
But I’m just saying that I bet the expiring contract was another reason they did it. I didn’t make the 2010 FA connection until the other day, but I’m sure Kerr was thinking about it…
by b.radley on
Jul 17, 2008 12:43 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And I'm saying it wasn't much of a factor
See how Deron Williams just got extended? It’s gonna happen a lot more. You can’t plan 2 years out in the NBA (or much of anywhere else for that matter)
by Dubs fan in Boston on
Jul 18, 2008 6:28 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Drafting & Mullin
Drafting is more or less based on luck. The members of this site love to point out that his history in the drafts as being horrible but it wasn’t like he drafted Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan. And Mullin wasn’t there to draft for Kobe Bryant when he was still available (hell, the Hornets traded Kobe away).
Quick points about his draft history:
POB – Mullin AND Mike Montgomery drafted for need and POB was the best center available. Outside of Ronnie Brewer, Aldridge (who was mostly an unknown and was traded twice), and Brandon Roy the 2006 draft was horrible. His lack of production with us is due to the fact that POB was drafted with Mike Montgomery as coach. It’s debatable how well POB would have done had Mike stayed as coach instead of being bought out, but it’s fact that POB just lacked the athleticism needed to play in Nellie’s team.
Belinelli – This was a guard that Nelly himself was looking for and Mulin agreed. I like him as a player period. Yes in hindsight now it would probably would have been better to draft Javaris but then we didn’t know what we know now.
Marco’s lack of minutes (or performance as some like to say) was basically due to Nellie riding the starters, that is not debatable but fact. Marco came out for significant minutes in 3 games and one was a blowout against the Bobcats. When he came out against Memphis he was very productive and the same when he came out against the Suns (the game Baron was benched). He along with Wright and Watson came close to coming back in the Suns game too. Some may say “but Wright played more minutes that means he’s NBA ready and he’s the better pick during that draft”. Simple answer “no”. Wright played due to need. Biedrins came down with appendicitis, C Webb and Croshere were injured (again), leaving us only with an inconsistent MP and Al who was in Nellie’s dog house at the time and was basically used as the designated 3-point shooter.
Kosta – He was a second round pick and all second rounders are largely based on luck. We can’t say Mullin was stupid for passing on Daniel Gibson and Paul Millsap in that draft because all the other teams passed on Gilbert and Monta. To make matters worst for the other teams; Gilbert is an All Star, Monta is a projected All Star while Gibson and Millsap are both just very good rotation players.
Now I don’t like how Mullin has run this team thus far. I say thus far because the current free agent period is still young and we still have lots of time. But it’s his bad moves thus far that outweighs the good moves. The TPE and the way the Baron situation was handled without a clear plan B at PG are my examples for disliking how Mullin’s been as a GM SO FAR .
The part about “moaning and groaning” is completely ridiculous. It is because I’m a fan of this team that I complain. As a fan I want my team to get better and it would be damn weird if I was happy over the state of the Warriors over the past decade. You cheer for something positive not negative.
by gunwing54 on
Jul 16, 2008 2:06 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The 2006 draft was horrible, but Mulgomery made it all that much worse. When you’re drafting for need, that need is a big man, you don’t have a high pick and it’s an off year, you’ve taken what’s a long shot (finding a quality big) and made it more difficult. No, there weren’t really much in the way of stars to be had after the POB, but if you abandon the notion that needing a big means you have to draft one, and if you abandon the notion that failing to get a star is the same thing as failure, you start seeing some reasonable opportunities.
Would Brewer have been better, even if he seemed to duplicate the 2-3 position you had players at? Hell yeah. Would Farmar or Rondo or Marcus Williams have been better, especially given that you KNEW you had a point guard who was fragile and no real backup? Hell yeah. I know people will say that the point guards were “a stretch” and that would have been “too high” to take them, but I suspect that’s because almost everyone has the same strategy that is shown to be flawed year after year that ignores the fact that after the top few picks, getting a guy who is solid but unspectacular is probably better than taking that one in a thousand swing for the fences.
by jae on
Jul 16, 2008 2:30 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
if memory serves, Mullin was “sure” he could reshape that roster – he even announced he’d be trading one if not both Murphy & Foyle prior to the draft so the POB/Kosta picks looked better in the light that Mullin might have to take bpa for the trades rather than the picks (not a great GM philosophy either) – then found out he was saddled with his albatrosses
you point out SEVERAL better alternatives in that draft & your last line strikes a chord: Mullin is the exact opposite and even said so this year – he’s going for the HR rather than the single, double, etc.
by hardcore on
Jul 16, 2008 6:32 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think his problem is that he’s thinking HR before the pitch is thrown. He’s still swinging at balls bouncing in the dirt.
by jae on
Jul 16, 2008 10:30 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Luck?
I would disagree about what it takes to be a good drafter. Sure, some of it is luck, but the majority of it is based on solid player scouting. There is a reason that some coaches are known for being great drafters… they can see right through the pretenders to find the guys that can help the team. Maybe second rounders are based on picking the best player, but the first round is based on scouting, I would say.
by sfsfsfgiants on
Jul 16, 2008 2:33 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
How do you differentiate between “solid player scouting” and luck? Given the small number of players most GMs draft, I don’t think it’s really possible to tell the difference between solid scouting and luck for most guys.
by jae on
Jul 16, 2008 4:01 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Time will tell
You cannot tell if a coach is a solid scout for a couple of years. Sure, coaches will get lucky, but you cannot get lucky three, four times, and if that is what is happening, something more is going on than just the coach getting a lucky break. Good point, though. But, yeah, time will weed out the good from the lucky.
by sfsfsfgiants on
Jul 16, 2008 4:09 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You can’t get lucky three or four times? Why not? How much time is needed to separate out the good from the bad? With an average of one pick in the first round and one second rounder (who in most cases doesn’t ever get past benchwarmer), there aren’t that many opportunities to differentiate ‘luck’ from ‘scouting’, especially when we know that higher picks are more likely to pan out.
It just seems to me that it’s pretty common for the actual draft, at least through the first 20 or so picks, to fall out very closely to many of the mock drafts, presumably by amateurs. If you took the consensus of several mocks for the last decade of drafts and projected those on the actual draft order, I suspect that some GMs would look “brilliant” in the hindsight of total and complete luck, while others would look like morons. In a normal distribution, a few people get lucky several times.
That the actual drafts look pretty similar to many of the mock drafts indicates to me that luck could be (and almost certainly is) a prominent component. So either there’s a whole lot of people with pretty similar ability to identify and misidentify talent, or there’s a consensus that builds that people are afraid to deviate from for fear of being labeled an idiot. The excuse “well, that’s where most people had him going” is used to cover up a whole lot of bad picks and “well, everyone else missed on him too” is used to excuse failure to identify talent.
by jae on
Jul 16, 2008 5:11 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Name an example?
Over the course of four or five years, about the time I feel you can prove yourself, you can get between eight and ten picks. If five or six of them turn out to be solid players, I feel like you just proved yourself. Especially if you can turn low first round picks or second round picks into solid players, you just proved yourself.
by sfsfsfgiants on
Jul 16, 2008 5:35 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sample sizes
I’m not sure what, statistically, qualifies as a persuasive sample size, but do you really think 8-10 draft picks is enough to “weed out the good from the lucky”? Would 10 MLB ABs enough for you to gauge the quality of a hitter in baseball? How ‘bout 10 FGs to judge the quality of an NBA shooter?
As a general rule, human beings are way too quick to impart praise, blame, and significance, and way too superstitious to accept the vast number of things that are determined by pure chance.
Sign ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on
Jul 16, 2008 6:33 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Different sports
Baseball and football and football are completely different sports, with different sample sizes. And you cannot just change it up as you did. I would say that five or six years of football drafts can tell who is good vs who is lucky, just like in basketball. Baseball, not so much. That is all luck.
by sfsfsfgiants on
Jul 16, 2008 6:41 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So baseball drafting is all luck
While football and hoops drafting all skill?
Dude, as long as you deal in such absurd absolutes, I think you’re going to have a hard time getting close to the truth.
Obviously they’re different sports. I was making an analogy. If there’s an area where the analogy is flawed, please point it out. I kind of buy hardcore’s “drafters have more time to make a decision than shooters or hitters” argument, but only to a point.
There is a very good chance that in a 6-8 year span, a monkey trained to pick the highest-ranked player remaining on DraftExpress’s big board would outperform the savviest GM in basketball (or even JAE!). Therefore, the sample size is still way too small to weed out luck — try as you might.
Sign ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on
Jul 17, 2008 4:23 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
a monkey trained to pick the highest-ranked player remaining on DraftExpress’s big board would outperform the savviest GM in basketball
Not if the GM took the time to see every player in person and ask a few questions and watch him run thru some skill tests. For the high prices they pay these players you’d think they would spend a little cash and take some time checking them out but apparently they don’t?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on
Jul 17, 2008 8:47 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, that's the thing
It doesn’t matter in this instance how much time the GM took checking the players out, or what a genius he was, or what kind of army of top scouts he hired, or what team of stat geeks he used to crunch numbers. Bobo, the trained monkey, would still occasionally outperform him over a ten-draft sample.
That’s why the sample size is too small to weed out luck.
Sign ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on
Jul 17, 2008 9:44 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bobo, the trained monkey, would still occasionally outperform him
Well if it’s ocassionally then sure, but not regularly.
If these guys can’t get it right they could hire me to do it., I’d work for cheap women.
If it’s really just a matter of luck then they might as well just throw the names of the players in a hat and draw them out for the teams and save all the drama of a draft!
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on
Jul 17, 2008 10:30 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Right
But we’re not talking about regularly. We’re talking about one 8-10 draft sample. Over 80-100 drafts or 800-1000 drafts, a savvy guy like JAE would probably start to outperform Bobo. In 8-10 drafts, I’d be much less confident that I wasn’t measuring statistical noise.
Obviously drafting is not “just a matter of luck.” It’s a combo of skill and luck, like so many things in this world. The point is that 8-10 drafts, like 8-10 FGs, or 8-10 ABs, isn’t enough to distill one from the other.
And heck, even over 800-1000 drafts, I might take my chances with Bobo over Chris Mullin… ;-)
Sign ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on
Jul 17, 2008 11:07 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think that they do check them out. I suspect that there’s quite a bit of scouting, of background research. But all the research in the world can’t change that to some degree, it’s an inherently unpredictable system.
There are guys who do great in workouts who can’t play and guys who play great against one level of competition but freeze up at the next. Then there are guys who don’t work out great, but play great. Ellis’s combine numbers were pretty poor. He wasn’t among the faster guys. He was among the slower guards if memory serves. Is that the least bit like what we’ve seen when he’s playing, where he appears to be as fast as just about anyone in the league?
by jae on
Jul 17, 2008 9:53 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
reads suspiciously like a straw man argument ;)
well at least apples and oranges – a GM has months, if not years to evaluate prior to making a pick in a cozy, well refreshed draft room while the hitter has less than two seconds to discern a pitch and a shooter maybe only slightly more time under a shot clock no less to get the shot off … so ya, I’d have to say a GM, over 5years, can be better evaluated than the others …
agree with the second part
by hardcore on
Jul 16, 2008 6:43 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I completely disagree with your premise
There are a TON of GM’s that have been consistently successful in the draft, at a variety of spots in the order.
Guys like Dumars, Buford/other Spurs brass, and even Isiah Thomas have done consistently well. Not all home runs, but it absolutely is not a crapshoot.
Think of Danny Granger- a ton of people knew he was going to be a good player, yet teams passed on him because of bad scouting and/or poor management. It was lucky that the Pacers got him, but the teams passing on him for losers like Korolev was not bad luck on their part.
by dprodigy19 on
Jul 16, 2008 3:01 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
True dat
Its not luck WHO you draft but WHERE you draft. i.e. Spurs and Duncan.
Put a little mustard on it
by The Barnes Supremacy on
Jul 16, 2008 5:22 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sure....
The draft lottery is completely based on luck, and I dont like the way they do that, but that is another issue. However, who you draft is more skill than luck, which is pretty much what you said, if I get what you are saying.
by sfsfsfgiants on
Jul 16, 2008 5:36 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
How do you quantify “skill” vs. “luck”? Was it skill that Warriors GMs took Ellis and Arenas in the second rounds? Yeah, I know, different GMs, one who was almost certainly near incompetent and another on whom the jury is out, but may well be a moron as well. So two potential morons can luck into two fantastic players in the second round.
And it’s similar to the returns in terms of player quality that San Antonio, a franchise widely regarded as well run and good at spotting talent got in Ginobili and Parker (who was a 1st rounder, but was picked at the tail end of the 1st). In that time, the Spurs also took a few other good players in the second round, Udrih, who has shown he’s a real NBA player although not a star, and Scola, although his rights were sent away before he ever played for them. So we’ve got two superb picks and a good pick from the good GM to go against two superb picks by morons. If random chance can explain the morons getting someone good, can’t it also explain what happened with the Spurs? Or more to the point, how could we tell the difference?
I’m not arguing that there aren’t guys who are better talent scouts, but saying it’s more skill than luck implies that there’s some way to measure, else it’s just like, your opinion, man. I’m not sure there is a way to measure it.
by jae on
Jul 16, 2008 11:07 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Dumars, the draft genius who successfully passed on Melo, Wade and Bosh for Darko.
by jae on
Jul 17, 2008 2:03 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That doesn't count
It’s not fair for you to cite evidence that goes against my theory. I’m calling my MOMMY!!!
by Dubs fan in Boston on
Jul 18, 2008 6:29 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
SPEAKING OF KOBE...
i had a trainer close to kobe’s dad. he was bound for the lakers no matter who picked him. all the gm’s were warned by his dad that if he didnt go to the lakers, cuz it is a big market, kobe would go to europe. he got his wish and the rest is history. his dad knows whats up. he played in the nba and it was unheard of before to demand on going to a big market. now, thats all we hear of.
by SIZE 15 on
Jul 17, 2008 12:40 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
...which makes it shocking that KG stayed in Minny all those years...
Seriously. Which franchise player wants to be stuck in Minny? Cold, boonies, small endorsement potential. Really only works for someone who likes to stay out of the limelight—like’s their privacy, etc. But if you want to be a star, would you go to Minny? Or Milwaukee? Or Charlotte? Or Memphis? Or…?
by b.radley on
Jul 17, 2008 11:32 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
KG seems like he might be that kinda guy
A little uncomfortable with the intense limelight and certainly OK being in a lower profile place. He also clearly didn’t have handlers telling him to go to Europe or whatever. Also remember that Kobe grew up in Italy, so his dad certainly would have connections over there to make Kobe’s situation go well over there (and he speaks italian, etc. so he would be able to actually have a life). That and you risk injury.
by Dubs fan in Boston on
Jul 17, 2008 11:47 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Drafting bowie and jordan
i dont understand why the blazers get blasted for not picking jordan. nobody knew jordan was going to be the greatest ever. if you didnt know that going into that draft, i think you would pick bowie also cuz you already had a great wing in clyde the glide. if i was the gm, i would have picked bowie too cuz he was a beast in college. thats one reason why we shouldnt feel bad that we didnt draft a certain player. most teams draft cuz of need especially in the lottery. and a lot of players develop a certain way cuz of the team they land on. for example, if the warriors got millsap, he wouldnt have played as much cuz he didnt fit teh system but he’s a perfect fit for the jazz. its just pure luck sometimes
by SIZE 15 on
Jul 17, 2008 12:54 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bowie was a beast in college? Over three years, he averaged 13 points, 9 rebounds and a bit above 2 blocks a game. He shot 52% from the field. Good, but not phenomenal for a 7 footer in college. His best season, his second saw him average 17ppg. Nice? Sure. Beast? Not by my definition.
by jae on
Jul 17, 2008 9:57 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Injuries ruined Bowie.
No one could predict that. Same as Ralph Sampson. Same as Livingston?? It’s not all obvious without a crystal ball. I agree with SIZE – on paper Bowie was the pick. They already had a wing, and Hakeem was gone.
by b.radley on
Jul 17, 2008 11:36 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If "they already had a wing" enters the discussion
Then they’re drafting for need, not BPA. Whether Bowie or Jordan was projected to be a better player is moot. And from the stats posted by JAE, Bowie was not a beast.
by Dubs fan in Boston on
Jul 17, 2008 11:51 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
although the theory was...
that Bowie had big upside. So it was more like a misread on the BPA, methinks. But probably with a little “need” in the mix, for sure.
by b.radley on
Jul 17, 2008 12:45 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sampson actually played very, very well for a couple of years, moreso than Bowie. And Sampson was considered a much, much better prospect based on much more dominance in the college game. He was a beast and was on his way to a HOF career before injuries derailed him.
You couldn’t have predicted the injuries Bowie was going to have, but he didn’t scream out that he’d be a star based on what he did in college. It suggested he could be a good, productive player (which was what he was as a rookie).
by jae on
Jul 17, 2008 2:10 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So you're saying
you would have picked that Jordan guy #2?
Shameless Tarheel fanboy.
Sign ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on
Jul 17, 2008 2:16 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agreed re: Sampson
I grew up in Houston as a Rox fan, and the Sampson injury was a major, major setback for the franchise. I mean, look at how dominant Hakeem became in the 90’s. Now imagine him playing power forward next to a healthy Sampson. That would have been a scary front court.
by b.radley on
Jul 17, 2008 3:48 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i agree somewhat
i agree somewhat but foyle ad harrington are off cap next season so we would have 16 million more in cap space
by montadaboss on
Jul 16, 2008 1:03 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Foyle reduces to 600k next season. Harrington will NOT be off the cap next year. He’s under contract for this coming season and the next. He is due more than $10mil in 0910.
by jae on
Jul 16, 2008 9:29 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Too much
Maybe I am speaking for myself, but I have always thought that Harrington has made way too much money for what he does… a streaky three point shooter with little face-up down-low basketball. He is a good player, but I see him as a sixth man to a role player, at best. I feel like Harrington earns maybe five or six million, but nowhere near the ten million that he will be making.
by sfsfsfgiants on
Jul 16, 2008 9:34 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Indy's Maggette
Indy signed Harrington the summer he was the B-FA-A just like Mullin recently signed and overpaid Maggette – their good fortune to be FAs in a weak FA market.
Had Indy not overpaid him, Harrington might have landed here in the first place. Then again, we probably couldn’t have unloaded Murphy & Dunleavey for Jackson etc.
you agree with Nelson, who has consistently said he’d be a better 6th man, unfortunately we don’t have a better 5th
by hardcore on
Jul 16, 2008 9:43 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah....
I didnt mean for this team, he should be a 6th. I just meant, in general, he has the perfect makeup to be a great sixth man. Maybe on a team like the Spurs or Pistons that are deep at nearly every position. He would just be a good luxury to have, a guy like Al coming off of the bench. Too bad the Warriors dont have that good power forward yet so that they can afford to drop Al into that slot. I doubt that Al would like being a sixth man, though.
by sfsfsfgiants on
Jul 16, 2008 9:56 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You can speak for me on that. Harrington makes way, way too much. He’s never been a particularly productive player. I wasn’t a fan when Mullin tried to overpay him in free agency and I’m not a fan now.
by jae on
Jul 16, 2008 10:22 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Some
people just don’t understand that cap space rolls over like Cingular minutes.
=P
by phiLthyphiL on
Jul 16, 2008 1:31 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
funny
its funny how everyone wants to trade all our young players for these old ass, pass their prime players that we most likely will be renting for just a year or two. It’s going to take more than one season to say which of our young players is a bust. We haven’t even given them an opportunity to play and yet everyones branded a bust. A lot of GSW fans already sound so desparate and so angry and the season hasn’t even started yet.
by hawk0924 on
Jul 16, 2008 12:27 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Why?
It’s the storied history of a Warriors franchise that has ALWAYS banked on young,mediocre players, hoping that the slimmest glimmer of potential will turn a limited, athletic dude (BWright) into a top tier perennial allstar (Kevin Garnett). I think folks are just sick and tired of the misplaced optimism behind the “what ifs”.
by Hoof on
Jul 16, 2008 1:06 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agreed
We saw the hope after the 2007 playoffs, then just like that it’s gone and now we’re back to the same promise that was given out during our horrible years. “Just wait”.
I don’t mind waiting for Marco and Wright, but not at the expense of trading away our best player without a plan B. But I agree with hawk on how people are already labeling Marco as a bust. How can he be a bust without being given credible minutes? POB can probably be labeled a bust because he wasn’t even productive in Nellie’s system during our Summer League games.
by gunwing54 on
Jul 16, 2008 2:23 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"Everyone" does not want to do this.
“trade all our young players for these old ass, pass their prime players ”
Hey Jae, Have you seen any stats of years of playing experience for the players on championship teams? Do the old ass players win more rings than young players? What is the average years of experience for the top players in the game?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on
Jul 16, 2008 4:07 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Don’t have those numbers unfortunately. It would be interesting though to see what sort of correlation there is between experience and playoff success.
by jae on
Jul 17, 2008 2:12 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Interesting
I’d love to see a study like that.
While we are at it can we do one to see if there is any correlation between political experience and Presidential success =P
"...OlympicMike is clearly the Barack Obama of GSoM"-Sleepy
by olympicmike on
Jul 17, 2008 2:32 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
any correlation between political experience and Presidential success =P ?
I was just listenin to this, here’s one theory about where they get those guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLaA9tepRY
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on
Jul 17, 2008 2:53 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If anything… Mullin knows talent. We drafted like 20 allstars but traded all of them. So don’t knock on Marco and Anthony Randolph and Hendrix… Just be patient.
by bojangles408 on
Jul 16, 2008 6:40 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Who was the last all star that the Warriors drafted? In the last decade, I count two (*Arenas and either Jamison or Carter, depending on which one you claim should be attributed to our GM). Neither of whom was drafted under Mullin’s watch.
20 is only off by a factor of a whole lot.
by jae on
Jul 16, 2008 11:11 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Mullin
I’m I big Mullin apologist but I think he gets way too much criticism. This team has gone from 34 (I think) to 42 to 48 wins in the last three years. And it’s a young team that could improve. We all knew if Baron left this year the team would take a step back but I think they’ll be competitive. Someone posted that the easiest positions to fill are guard positions. Mullin has done a great job (Monta round 2, Kellena D-league, Jackson – trade, throw in baron as point guard in one-sided deal.) filling those positions without having or using high draft picks. Meanwhile whenever he has a lottery pick he goes for a big man he thinks has a chance to be really good. It’s taking a chance but those guys are out there and its worth it. (Stoudamire, Josh Smith, Al Jefferson, Boozer, Bynum, Biedrins, David West- all mid to low lottery picks or lower) If Randolph and Wright turn out good all of a sudden he will look like a draft genius (throw in the Biedrins pick and the Monta pick). I don’t really understand why people want to throw money at Marion or some other high priced forward when it won’t make us championship caliber anyway. We have a ton of forwards on the roster. What this team needs is a backup point guard. Or just a guard who can handle the ball and take pressure off Monta, let him play off ball a bit Like a lot of posters I think Monta is better at 2, but he’s talented enough to play point if he wants to. How about extending offer to restricted free agent Delonte West. Perfect backup for Monta. Tough combo guard, can drive, shoot the three, and pretty tough D. Plus he’s a funny character. Cleveland just signed Gibson so maybe they won’t match offer.
by gsfool on
Jul 16, 2008 7:53 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Camby
Would have been nice on the Warriors. I’m just saying
by pree on
Jul 16, 2008 8:32 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Camby
Can’t argue. As long as they were giving him away. With Camby this team would look kind of legit.
by gsfool on
Jul 16, 2008 9:30 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
as long as they were giving him away
Sorta like free pizza?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on
Jul 16, 2008 9:48 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Camby vs. Maggette
Now that’s a pretty valid argument seeing we could’ve have had Camby for the same conditions. No other factors we’re really involved (we’re in the same div so that doesn’t make a difference, it was a management move… doesn’t matter how Camby initially feels about the trade).
The question now is, would it be money better spent if we got Camby instead of signing Maggette???
I have to mull over this first before I answer.
by lightz0ut on
Jul 16, 2008 10:18 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
in the short term...
Camby would be better just by an inch because he is what the Warriors lack; defensive presence in the paint, rebounding, shotblock. But if we added him to our team, this would set back the development of Wright (as Camby would play 4 if in the same lineup with Andris) or we would of done a sign and trade deal with Beans where we can go after another 4 player to play aside Camby or get a backup PG. Maggette would be somewhat better in the long run because he doesnt set back any players development. Corey and Camby brings different assets to the Warriors where one brings scoring/ drawing fouls ability while the other if a defensive presence.
by Spee-D on
Jul 16, 2008 11:39 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
interesting – I’d’ve thought it just the opposite: short term = Nelson wouldn’t play AB & Camby together cuz neither is a good outside shooter so we’d be paying two guys big $ to play one spot, while CM fits Nelson’s system very well. But Nelson isn’t going to be here long. Long term = AB is younger and we’d need to fit PF around him rather than Camby, who’s contract only lasts 2 yr. and i agree that might be BW, we’ll see ... moot now, but interesting to ponder how events this summer will affect the post-Nelson Warriors
by hardcore on
Jul 17, 2008 9:06 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
NO LIFE
seems like you got a lot of time on your hands buddy. go out and do something
by SIZE 15 on
Jul 18, 2008 12:14 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Who are you?
Calling out Tony.psd who uses his free time (and his PAID TIME) to create cool stuff including pictures for the rest of us to enjoy and buy. Tony, give this poor fool a link to your website.
by Dubs fan in Boston on
Jul 18, 2008 6:31 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
DAMN...
i was just playin man..we’re all GS fans here. send me your link tony and prove me wrong
by SIZE 15 on
Jul 18, 2008 2:14 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yea I know...
Sometimes I spend too much time doing what I love… drawing… photoshoppin’... Adobe Illustratin’... graphic designing… back when i was like 19, all I did was smoke pot, get laid, go clubbing and get into a lotta trouble… I worked 40 hours a week making less than $500 dollars every 2 weeks at the mall and I was this close 2 dropping outta college…
Than 1 day some teacher saw potential… and helped me harness my skills… I could have stayed working at a mall but instead, shaped up… started my design career… got married and with my skills- use the money I own to buy a house, pay my bills and enjoy life. That was the whole plan. Oh well I learned this a looooooooooooong time ago- you can’t please anyone :-P
http://www.tonydotpsd.com/ (sorry it hasn’t been updated in a month…)
http://www.myspace.com/tony_xpress
Have a Great day!
by Tony.psd on
Jul 19, 2008 10:21 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
THAT WAS PRETTY DAMN GOOD!
gotta admit, you’re really good at what you do. you shut me up real well! good job…
by SIZE 15 on
Jul 19, 2008 12:09 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
hahahahaha
Well- in the past I’ve been known 2 lose my cool and it ended up getting so lame- GSoM is a public site- every1 is a critic so let it be LOL. I’m blessed 2 have GSoM let me post my work here, it’s opened a lot of interesting and new doors for me 2 expand my clientele!
Be Easy!
by Tony.psd on
Jul 19, 2008 1:13 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
returning the favor....DAMN!
Somebody had a sausage and egg mcmuffin for breakfast! hahaha
by lightz0ut on
Jul 18, 2008 11:25 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
we didn't really over pay
..that much
I think 45/5 would have been better than 50/5 but think about it:
near 90% FT
one of the top players in getting to the line
good defense
good rebounds
20pts/game
those are all great qualities, and I think that considering how much players cost these days, 10 million a year is pretty fair.
I think replacing davis with him might not make us drop that much.
With Baron there was a leader/playmaker, but also some sloppy shots and a smaller line up.
With Maggette we now have a bigger line-up, a good wing defender who also can attack the basket like a lineman.
I expect the Warriors at 36-45 wins next season. Thats vague, but still my best guess at this point.
by dancingchiapet on
Jul 17, 2008 2:41 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
work ethic
that counts for something in the warriors case. we have a solid core of young players who have potential to become very good in the next 2-3 years. bellinelli, randolph and wright headlining that group. a sort of role model whose work ethic can be envied can only be a good thing for the dubz’ youth. the stories of maggette having to be locked out of the gym? that’s a player i want playing for me. i read some interview where mullin mentioned maggette being a good influence on the young players, and i have to agree.
i’m not saying that this quality merits his “big” contract, but perhaps helps justify an additional 1mil/year or so. but i have to agree with the original poster: we have to wait and see if maggette is worth his contract; it’s too early to make judgements that he’s not.
by Run Dubz on
Jul 17, 2008 8:00 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Avatar
Nice mask lightz0ut . I can haz one too?
Who's your Dizzle?
by Fluid1 on
Jul 17, 2008 9:12 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
A mask to to Mask lightz0ut crying
Don’t Cry
by goldenstatewarriors on
Jul 17, 2008 11:14 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
lightz0ut Quit crying
Quit crying, just because things didn’t go your way and your not in charge quit crying about it.
Stop whining about the pass and look at who we can get now with what we have.
Quit being a baby little girl.
We got who we got.
If your really mad got write to the warriors management about your issues.BABY
by goldenstatewarriors on
Jul 17, 2008 11:13 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
how bout you start reading first?
Obviously, you only bothered to read the bolded parts of my diary, and proceeded with your idiotic sounding comment.
Learn to read the whole thing first before writing an ignorant comment.
by lightz0ut on
Jul 17, 2008 11:48 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs















