Whether for good or bad, I think we can all agree that the departure of Baron Davis can be generally described as "disruptive". Gone is the security of spectacular, if not mercurial, point gaurd play. Gone is the chemistry and swagger of the BD/StackJack duo. When BD leaves, he takes with him the title of "best player" on the Warriors, leaving a void that our young players can only hope to fill.
But the vacuum of BD's departure is not limited to the court of basketball. He takes with him an albatross contract that provides us with huge salary cap relief. He also takes the inconsistency of his health, which we can only hope to fill with more durable, dependable players. And so and so forth.
But the point of this entry isn't to extol or denounce Baron Davis and who he was, or what he will be, as a basketball entity regarding the Warriors. I am writing this at 8:38 in the morning in Korea to urge the front office to show some consistency in their approach and not waver around like an insecure 15 year-old who just got cheated on by her first boyfriend. Continuing the analogy, the recent announcements since Baron left is much reminiscent of a girl I dated when I was 16, she was 15. For now, let's call this girl "Evil Whore".
"Evil Whore" actually wasn't too evil because I didn't understand the concept of monogamy at that age. But the mutual decision to part ways was immediately followed by a series of crazy, almost unbelievable rumors: jumping from guy-to-guy every few weeks; getting a nose-job and eyelid surgery; gaining weight/losing weight; and etc.
Point being is that the Warriors are doing the exact same thing. Jilted by one love, it appears the front office is doing every and anything to remind the world that WE DONT NEED BARON. This, i guess, isn't too bad because it shows a certain amount of "care" by the Warriors front office, in some ways appeasing the fans. But after the debacle of the Foyle/Murphy/Dunleavy/Fisher contracts, the front office had been showing a consistent pattern in shaping this team:
1.) Follow the market and match it; don't set it: This philosophy had led to several frugal and well-spent signings, especially in our not-overpaying for Barnes and Pietrus last year.
2.) "Now" is important, but don't trade the future away for it: I don't think it's fair to say that the Warriors are thinking only for the future. They were/are, however, trying to do much in balancing both the present and the long term competitiveness of the team.
3.) Draft Bigs, acquire Smalls: In many ways, this is a failed strategy, as none of the bigs drafted have amounted to anything... yet. But that's the risk of drafting bigs: you have to wait for them to develop.
The adherenece to these three steps has led to many consequences, the first being the continued persistence in not acquiring aging big men, even someone as game-breaking as Kevin Garnett. It has also led to the excising of Dunleavy, Murphy, and even JRich, since the front office re-evaulated their contracts even after-the-fact and decided that they had overpaid compared to the market. And it has led to a seeming glut of long, athletic forwards/centers who we aren't quite sure how they're going to develop, as well as a gaping hole at the point gaurd position (which we had even before BD left).
Did the Warriors follow the right strategy? Since the Warriors were thinking long term, and the long term has yet to come, I don't think a fair judgement can be made. if the Warriors had played a "win-now" card, the best case scenario would have led to a team like the Celtics, while worst case scenario, you end up being like the old Rockets with an ancient Barkley, Olajuwon and Pippen. The present strategy the Warriors seem to have been following could have led to Portland-type results. But my point isn't that one strategy is better than the other, it's that: if you picked a strategy, you better commit to it. Because any plan, no matter how good, will fail if the executor commits only half way.
So i've explained my point. I've explained my "thing". I've used bold letters, numbered points, etc. Now here's my question to management: WHY ARE YOU PROSTITUTING YOURSELF TO ARENAS, BRAND, AND WHATEVER OTHER "MAN" YOU FEEL CAN FILL THE VOID?
Let's think, peoples!
- Offering Arenas max money: Let's see... score first point gaurd... volatile personality... huge ego... injury history... hmm. The only difference I see between Gilbert and Baron is a few years in age. But you know what Baron has that Gilbert doesnt have? A huge ass. And yeah, you might laugh, but Baron's body allows him to rely on strength just as much as speed, and strength lasts longer than speed. And of course, one must ask why the front office would offer nearly 20 mil a year for Arenas when he's not as good as Baron, who only wanted 13-15 mil.
- Offering Brand a Max Contract: WTF. I really wish I could hear the front office's thinking behind this. First, Brand sucks. Numbers don't account for the effectiveness of a player, and if you ever watched Brand's post game, it's like having a stronger, lumpier Antawn Jamison, though Brand is a better rebounder and shot blocker. Second, Brand's coming off a huge injury. For all we know, he may never be the same. Third, WTF, with the "W" standing for "WHY" and not the usual "WHAT". WTF would you try and acquire a player that will lead to the eventual retardation of the players we've drafted over the few years. Fourth, WTF, (this time the W means WHAT). If you're willing to spend so much money on a B-level talent while sacrificing the development of our youth, as well as perhaps eventually trading our young talent away, WTF!? Wasn't that why we DIDNT GET KEVIN GARNETT? Fifth, if Brand accepts, the eventual result is that we traded Baron for Brand, but paid more money. Does a Baron for Brand trade come even close to being fair?!? Of course not!
As a fan, I really don't mind what strategy the Warriors employ. I may have differences in opinion but I will always respect an opinion if it is adhered to with steadfast determination. But in the last few days, the Warriors have shown such a pathetic desparation and wavering from their core strategy that I can't help but be disgusted. So, going back to the title: testicular fortitude. Or in other words, GROW SOME BALLS.