Try sign Okafor instead of Biedrins?

by dhp318 on Jul 3, 2008 2:30 PM PDT

Okafor is a restricted free agent under the Bobcats who are a really, really cheapass frugal team, so I don't think it would be a stretch to say we could steal him from them as long as we're willing to give up Biedrins? I'm not sure how much either would actually command, but you don't hear much about Okafor because he's on Charlotte so I suspect he's somewhat undervalued, and therefore he wouldn't be significantly more than Biedrins.

Okafor is considered a Center and prime defensive center at that who has the ability to bang in the paint and grab boards. He's exactly what we need. Of course, if we get Brand... WE SHOULD STILL TRY STEAL OKAFOR! and then try push the price on Josh Smith so the Hawks overpay and then can't pay up for Childress who we try take for the midlevel. This doesn't solve our point guard woes by any means, but there's no way we can do that anyways on teh free agent market, so we should stockpile amazing talent to trade later.

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!

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Do

we have the cap space to sign okafor, brand, AND Smith??

by arsunik on Jul 3, 2008 2:47 PM PDT reply actions

I think he meant try to up the price for Smith

so we force ATL to match and therefore can’t pay Childress. All in all, he’s proposing we get Brand, Okafor, and Childress, not Smith.

"Monta is the MAN." -Bob Fitzgerald

by WarriorForLife on Jul 3, 2008 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions

by so ill so d0pe on Jul 3, 2008 2:47 PM PDT reply actions

+1

by AJC3317 on Jul 3, 2008 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions

+2

"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006

by flipgatey3 on Jul 3, 2008 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions

No freakin way. Forget about Brand already. Only have enough space to sign either Okafor or Smith.

by buzzer beater on Jul 3, 2008 2:53 PM PDT reply actions

Why exactly do you think that the Bobcats are a “cheapass frugal” team? Is there evidence that they won’t pay people? They’re an expansion club. In their first year, they were limited to a lower salary cap. Since then, they’ve acquired young players through the draft, traded for a player considered at least marginally overpriced, and re-signed their only significant FA at a price that was at least market value. Larry Brown is anything but a retread coach and they offered him a 4 year deal.

by jae on Jul 3, 2008 3:16 PM PDT reply actions

lol

Especially when compared to our team…

Bring on the BD Show!!!

by dajrichshow on Jul 3, 2008 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions

Okafor wants to be a 4

Part of why Okafor is hoping to move on – besides leaving the woeful bobcats – is that he wants to play the four spot more. A frontcourt with he an Biedrins would be nice for any coach not named nellie – who wants his four spot to shoot threes. sigh

Warrior fan for life - where we are "always just a big man away" from total domination

by buttafingas on Jul 3, 2008 3:53 PM PDT reply actions

except neither has a post game

problem with AB and BWright is they are both slimjims, but at least BW has game. Neither AB nor Okafor has much of a postup game—something we sorely need if we want to open space on the floor.

by b.radley on Jul 3, 2008 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions

One last thing...

Remember the intense debate at draft time over who was going to be better – Okafor or Howard? Man, that seems like along time ago

Warrior fan for life - where we are "always just a big man away" from total domination

by buttafingas on Jul 3, 2008 3:54 PM PDT reply actions

childress for mid-level exception is ridiculous

that’s basically like giving him stack-jack money. either jackson is the best deal in the world (and i might argue that, he’s a stud) or that’s WAY TOO MUCH money for a role player like childress. we paid pietrus $3.5MM last year; they are comparable. mid-level will end up being double that; pay your 4-6th men mid-level. childress is more like a 7-9. remember, maggette might go for mid-level right now. he eats josh childress for lunch.

by b.radley on Jul 3, 2008 4:08 PM PDT reply actions

childress is a sixth man

he’s probably the best sixth man out there (ginobili doesn’t count). He’s amazing productive, can run the floor, plays defense, and undervalued imo.

by dhp318 on Jul 3, 2008 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions

Stephen Jackson

Is a role player too, at least on a good team. He and Childress aren’t exactly comparable — Childress is more of a skinny PF, Jackson more of an initiator — but if you twisted my arm to decide between them I’d probably take Childress. He may lack Jackson’s fire and charisma, but he kicks his ass statistically (particularly in efficiency from the floor, where the two are like night and day) and he’s 24 and trending up across the board, while Jack has plateaued and will be 30 next season.

2007/08 stats: Childress / Jackson
—
FG%: 57.1% / 40.5% (!!!!)
TS%: 52.3% / 64.7%
Reb/36: 5.9 / 4.0
Ast/36: 1.9 / 4.1
Stl/36: 1.1 / 1.3
PER: 17.8 / 15.2

Sign ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 3, 2008 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions

Oops

Flip those True Shooting % numbers!

Sign ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 3, 2008 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Oops X 2

Make that 53.6% for Jack. Read the wrog line.

In any case, Childress is ridiculously efficient from the floor, while Jack is painfully close to poor for a player who’s otherwise so savvy.

Sign ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 3, 2008 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions

jax vs childress

@ djp318: best sixth man out there? on the 20th best team in the league. i’d argue that his production is more a testament to the eastern conference and the hawks lineup/needs than to his killer ability.

@sleepy: their games are not comparable. jax shoots a lower percentage because he shoots 8x as many 3’s as childress does. bring JC here, let him start taking 3’s, and watch his numbers plumment. the reason his % is so high is because he primarily scores off of put-backs and layups. have you seen his shot? it’s uglier than marion’s (ok, it’s a toss up - no pun intended). of course he’s going to out-rebound jax - jax is at the 3-point line more often (and by design, based on the offense). they are just not comparable.

all i’m saying is that both players are products of their systems. and given the choice, i’d take jax. i’d take childress for $3MM—maybe $5MM, but not an escalating MLE that gets up into the $6-8MM range…

by b.radley on Jul 3, 2008 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions