DG --> F/C
by onlxn on Nov 11, 2009 11:33 AM PST
33 comments
A thought prompted by one of DFiB's and my patented ramble-offs.
So things got pretty dire pretty quickly up front. Biedrins is out for at least two weeks, according to the latest reports... Ronny could conceivably come back as early as tonight, but even if he does, we've only got three big men, one of whom is close to useless. We need to do something about this. It'd be great if we could wring a big out of whatever deal gets Jack off our hands, but it's not clear when that deal will happen... it might not happen till December or February, and we need help now.
A complicating factor is that we don't have many roster spots available. Almost every spot is filled by either a rotation guy, (Biedrins, Ronny, AR, Wright, 'Buike, Maggette, Morrow, Jack, Monta, Curry), a useful expiring contract (Law, Speedy) or a guy who can't yet be traded (CJ, Mikki). But there is one spot left to play with.
Devean George is currently hurt, and even healthy, would give us nothing on the court. He's one of the worst offensive players who still has a job in the NBA, his fading lateral quickness has made him a non-asset on defense, and he rebounds horribly for his size. We wouldn't get any value from playing him. I don't think we'd get any value from packaging him into a bigger trade, either... his $1.6M expiring contract is only our third-biggest, and you don't see teams taking on bunches of little expirings in trades, due to roster constraints. We could just let his deal expire, but I'm not sure what the point would be... even if we managed to dump Jack for a '10 expiring, we'd only be a wee bit under the cap, essentially in the same MLE territory we'd be in otherwise.
Simply put, Devean George isn't really worth anything to us. We should turn his roster spot into a big body we could use right now. There are three way to do this:
1) We could simply drop George and pick up the best available big we can find. He doesn't have to be great. Even if he's worse than Mikki Moore, he'd still help us right now... better that some big scrub waste fouls on Shaq than Maggette or somebody. We're starting to face some bigger teams. We're not going to last long without a fourth big body we can use.
2) We could trade George to a team looking to save a tiny bit of dough, for a big whose contract is a year longer. Possibilities on that front: Alexis Ajinca of the Bobcats, James Johnson of the Bulls, Hamed Haddadi of the Grizzlies. All three guys have failed to make their teams' rotations thus far; all three play for franchises that might want to shed '10-'11 payroll for one reason or another; all three have some potential; most critically, all three are not Devean George. It's more than possible that these teams wouldn't want to punt on these guys' potential so quickly (although I'd bet Haddadi's available, even with Thabeet's injury)... we might get hung up on if we offered these trades. That doesn't mean it's not worth making the calls.
3) We trade George for a big who also expires this year, sending money along to make it worth the other team's while. Essentially, we use George to buy a player, in much the same way the Raptors used George to buy Marco from us. Devean and cash to the Heat for Jamal Magloire? Devean and cash to the Nets for Sean Williams? Devean and cash to the Blazers for Juwan Howard? Devean and cash to the Raptors for... dare I say it... Patrick O'Bryant?
I'm not gonna lie. None of these options are pretty. But in my mind, they're a lot prettier than playing Cleveland, Boston, Portland, Dallas and San Antonio in eight nights with two credible big men and Mikki Moore, which is exactly what we have to do starting Tuesday. That stretch is gonna be ugly either way, but it's going to be soul-killingly horrible unless we add another big body. Dumping Devean George seems like the best way to add that big body.
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!
7 recs |
33 comments
| Add comment
Email
Print
Comments
Interesting
Do what the Raptors did to us? I like it. Marco had done well for them.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "You're a rookie"
by dubzfan on Nov 11, 2009 11:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
i would trade George for Haddadi in a second
BTW rec’d
30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ
by Lat We N Trash on Nov 11, 2009 12:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This is something that should have been done...
as soon as Wright got injured. And then, as soon as Turiaf got injured. And then, as soon as Biedrins got injured. Has Riley been too busy with this Jackson fiasco to look at our ravaged front court and not realize that another body is needed?
by ffgolden on Nov 11, 2009 12:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Glad I could help
Devean and cash to the Raptors for… dare I say it… Patrick O’Bryant?
MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!!
Given that Biedrins is now out for 2+ weeks, they DEFINITELY need to do something… especially given that none of our remaining bigs has shown any propensity to not foul people so he can stay on the floor. If we can turn Devan George into somebody marginally useful, that’s a good thing. The alternative is: “start tanking so early that nobody notices and just thinks the team is terrible.” But I hope Nellie and the players have too much pride for that.
Are the Nets actually that down on Sean Williams?
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 11, 2009 12:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Are the Nets actually that down on Sean Williams?
Good question. Williams seems exactly the type of stopgap we need if we don’t want to start throwing games: athletic big man who can run the floor, grab a few boards, defend the rim, give up his body, and pick up his six fouls, while giving Randolph a little room to maneuver. Yeah, he seems like a headcase and an offensive zero, but he’s still a better option than, for example, a POB Redux.
Nets are pretty stocked with tall dudes (Lopez, Yi, Boone, Najera); more importantly, they’ve already declined the fourth year option on Williams, so clearly he means nothing to them beyond his $1.6M expiring contract (interestingly, exactly what George has). Perhaps we can leverage their good will from the Marcus Williams trade to get them to bite on a meaningless “good faith” George/Williams swap, along the lines of the deal that sent Belinelli to the Raps?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 11, 2009 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's an interesting idea
The problem is that the Nets are already a SF wasteland, with Bobby Simmons, Jarvis Hayes, and Trenton Hassell already on the books. PF/C is where they have depth issues, not the swingman spots.
That said, stranger things have happened (like the Warriors giving up a young talent on a rookie deal for a scrub, for example)
by dprodigy19 on Nov 11, 2009 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
PF/C is where they have depth issues, not the swingman spots.
It’s true, and yet he’s only logged 31 minutes in their first 7 games. My sense is that they’d be down to cut bait on him. Worth asking, if nothing else.
by onlxn on Nov 11, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, the Nets wouldn’t actually want George… no one would. We’d need to put in enough money to make it worth their while. But I think that might be doable.
by onlxn on Nov 11, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds plausible
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 11, 2009 2:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even if he’s worse than Mikki Moore, he’d still help us right now
uh, not likely
too early to throw in the towell folks? just asking, just asking …
by hardcore on Nov 11, 2009 9:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This seems like as a good a place for a rant as any.
By all accounts, Mikki Moore is a swell guy. I bet I would enjoy having a beer with him. I bet I would enjoy playing Mario Kart with him. I bet I would enjoy laughing with him as our friend tries to convince us to accompany him to a water park. I wish Mikki Moore all the best in the world.
But man alive, Mikki Moore is bad at basketball.
Foylesque hands. An inability to rebound that is almost impressive. No offensive technique. No ability to alter shots. No ability to provide help defense. No real ability to control players in the post. What… the… hell.
We have had uncommonly bad luck with the health of our bigs, but still. It’s an outrage that this guy is logging significant minutes for us. We need to do something about this, STAT.
by onlxn on Nov 12, 2009 12:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
You forgot to add the fact that he doesn’t try to challange any shots.
In fact, you could have made a shorter post by lising the things that Moore does well: Talks on defense and initially gets in between his man and the hoop, you know, before he doesn’t try and stop him from putting the ball in said hoop.
I haven’t seen this kind of well-rounded suckiness since THUD.
I’d take Adonal Foyle and a pinky-swear that he’d never take a contested shot over what I’ve seen from Moore.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 12, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought of throwing Adonal into the possible trade targets, actually. I agree — I’d rather have Adonal. If you’re going to insist on having a skill-free 34-year-old, take the humanitarian poet who might still block the occasional shot.
by onlxn on Nov 12, 2009 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Foylesque hands? ouch. Is that why it takes him so long to go up after he “catches” the ball. I’ve seen a handful of times where he gets the ball wide open underneath, doesn’t do anything, defenders finally rotate to him and he ends up taking a fade-away 5 footer.
Btw, think the only reason George hasn’t been moved is that his contract can be used to help make deals work. Like Jackson for Josh Howard doesn’t work, but Jackson + Devean for Howard does.
by homer simpson on Nov 12, 2009 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably true. But Jackson & Law for Howard also works… Jackson & CJ will work when CJ becomes tradeable in a month, ditto Mikki (although we should probably keep him around, bad as he is). It’s a rare package trade that requires George’s contract as opposed to someone else’s. Given the desperate straits we’re in, I think it’s worth trading him now.
by onlxn on Nov 12, 2009 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Still not a whisper about trading for size. Oy gevalt. Well, here’s another argument for adding a big body, not that anyone outside the organization is really arguing against it at this point.
Thus far, we are getting our shots blocked more often than all but two other teams in the league. This is despite the fact that we’ve only played two teams with any real affinity for the block, in the Clippers and Pacers. Our seven opponents have recorded 5.1 blocks per game against everyone else, right at the league average… they’ve blocked us seven times per game. No NBA team in this decade has gotten blocked that often over the course of a full season. In the last five seasons, only one team, last year’s Bobcats, has gotten blocked as often as six times a game.
Now, on one level, no big deal, right? You’re going to miss dozens of shots per game, no matter who you are, and if a couple extra misses are due to blocks, so be it. Besides, a smaller team is gonna get blocked more often. It’s not the end of the world.
On the other hand, this is a new trend for us. Last year we played tons of smallball… we got blocked 5.1 times a game, just above the league average. ‘07-’08, same thing… 5.1 times a game, just above league average. ‘06-’07? 5.0, just above league average. We’ve used plenty of small lineups since Nellie came back around, and those small lineups have never gotten stuffed like this. Size is not the main issue. So what’s going on?
Here’s the thing: we’re not only playing small lineups. We’re also practicing against small lineups. With only two bigs dressing, your second unit also has to play smallball by definition. Our starting lineup against Indy was Monta/Morrow/’Buike/Jack/Moore… the fivesome they scrimmaged against beforehand was Curry/CJ/Law/Maggette/Randolph. In preparing for the Pacers, a big team, our starting lineup faced three point guards, a small forward and a power forward.
That teaches you misleading things. If you’re Stephen Curry, practice is drilling into you that you only have to account for one shot-blocker when you drive to the hoop. If you’re Anthony Randolph, practice is drilling into you that there’s only going to be one other big guy on the court, and he doesn’t have a prayer of blocking your shot. And if you’re Stephen Jackson or Corey Maggette, practice is drilling into you that the power forward who’ll cover you is only as big as Corey Maggette or Stephen Jackson.
The result? Stephen Curry is getting blocked 8% of the time, more often than Brandon Jennings (who defenses are focusing on) and as often as Tyreke Evans (who drives a lot more than Curry does). Anthony Randolph, despite his length and quickness, is getting blocked 10% of the time, more than he did in his error-prone rookie season. Stephen Jackson is getting 8% of his shots blocked, up from 6% last year. And Corey Maggette, who got blocked 7% of the time last year, is getting blocked an absurd 13% of the time so far this year… one of every eight shots he takes is stuffed back in his face.
This is a problem. This is a big problem. Even if you use an unconventional lineup, you have to be able to scrimmage against a conventional lineup… you have to let your players face a reasonable simulation of an NBA team. Curry/CJ/Law/Maggette/Randolph is not a reasonable simulation of an NBA team. The Pacers were not likely to field a starting lineup of Danny Granger, Dahntay Jones, T.J. Ford, Earl Watson and Luther Head.
Yes, injuries are the big issue here. But for the love of God, turn Devean George into a big body our starters can at least scrimmage against. We’re learning bad habits, and it’s only going to get worse from here.
by onlxn on Nov 13, 2009 11:26 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
How many points are we getting in the paint relative to other teams? That’s a pretty important factor I would think – shoot more often inside, get more shots blocked, but generally I imagnie you’ll have a high success rate when it’s all said and done.
Obviously we should be looking into whatever stop gap we can find for the time being, though.
by Missing Barry on Nov 13, 2009 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
According to 82games, we’re actually shooting less from inside than last year. They don’t keep tabs on “points in the paint,” but they define each shot taken in a game as either a jump shot, a “close” shot, a dunk or a tip. In ‘07-’08, Baron’s last year, 63% of the shots we took were jumpers. 67% of the shots we took last year were jumpers… this year, it’s up to 70%. We’re scoring a bit more efficiently than last year, but that’s mainly thanks to Morrow’s insanely hot start. Overall, we’re getting to the hoop a bit less often, we’re getting to the foul line a bit less often, and we’re getting blocked a ton more often. If smallball is paying any dividends on offense, it’s sure hard to see.
by onlxn on Nov 13, 2009 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even if you use an unconventional lineup, you have to be able to scrimmage against a conventional lineup…
Is there a rule against building a practice only opposition team of big tough guys?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 13, 2009 3:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Are people down on Biedrins/Randolph as starting C/PF?
I’m cool with those 2 as starters and I like Turiaf coming off of the bench…..Mikki Moore sucks. I would trade George for Hamadi or S. Williams….couldn’t hurt us.
I doubt the Warriors cut George because his contract will be paid and then they would have to pay minimum salary to the replacement-cost the team more money.
by Bellringer21 on Nov 13, 2009 3:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
If the Warriors cut George, they lose the ability to package him should someone become available by the deadline. Short term thinking rarely benefits the team. I can’t see anyone we trade George for on his own being more than a quick fix that won’t really fix things and I can’t see anyone signed at the min. helping much either. While it’s painful to watch in the short term, holding George, Acie and Speedy as expiring contracts to see what’s available as part of a package holds more promise than the sort of player who will be available for George alone. Moore is terrible. We could very well get his clone though in anyone that George will bring in trade.
by jae on Nov 13, 2009 11:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If the Warriors cut George, they lose the ability to package him should someone become available by the deadline.
The idea that George will be useful in a package down the line is a complete fantasy. Three players whose expiring contracts total $10 million are not remotely as valuable as one player whose expiring contract totals $10 million. Packaging all three of those contracts requires the team we’re trading with to cede two roster spots beyond the one their traded player is vacating… that’s not likely to prove appetizing. And that’s assuming that we wouldn’t be sending other players along in a deal, which we almost definitely would. It’s also assuming that this package deal would require George’s contract as opposed to Mikki’s or CJ’s.
It just doesn’t work that way. Little expiring contracts don’t actually facilitate big trades. They facilitate small trades… “Devean George for a big man” type trades.
Moore is terrible. We could very well get his clone though in anyone that George will bring in trade.
Moore’s terrible, but a clone of Mikki Moore would be a lot more useful to us than a clone of Devean George. It’s not about getting a good big player, it’s just about getting another big player, to get spot minutes and scrimmage against. Devean George’s contract won’t be used for anything else… the opportunity cost is zero. This is worth doing.
by onlxn on Nov 14, 2009 4:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I see that this issue pushes your buttons like no other, and you’ve got some significant errors in your reasoning here.
The idea that George will be useful in a package down the line is a complete fantasy. Three players whose expiring contracts total $10 million are not remotely as valuable as one player whose expiring contract totals $10 million.
Why? If the other team is interested in the cap space, not the players, why is the three-headed version less valuable?
Packaging all three of those contracts requires the team we’re trading with to cede two roster spots beyond the one their traded player is vacating
As you put so simply in another thread “you are wrong.” It doesn’t require the sacrifice of a roster spot. It just requires that they cut the players immediately, in the complete admission that the deal is about salary. Trade for Law, Speedy and George, cut two (maybe all three) upon arrival. Similar things have happened elsewhere.
It just doesn’t work that way. Little expiring contracts don’t actually facilitate big trades. They facilitate small trades… "Devean George for a big man" type trades.
I don’t think you’ve justified that at all beyond your assertion that it is so, and counter evidence suggests this doesn’t have to be the case.
Do you consider trading for Richard Jefferson a “big trade”? I realize he’s not a big man, and I tend to think he’s significantly overvalued, but he was due $14mil a year this year and seemed to generate the sort of buzz that he could make a possitive impact. He was not acquired for one expiring worth $10.6mil but for 3 contracts that added up to about that. He was had for three much smaller contracts in Bowen, Oberto and Thomas, none of whom were going to make more than $4mil this year. Is there some magical threshold that George falls below where his contract is less likely to be included in a “make the numbers work” package than those guys? Really?
The three contracts can be bundled together and they can be done without a trading partner sacrificing a roster spot. A team acquiring them doesn’t have to keep them. Bowen was immediately cut. Oberto was immediately traded again (and then cut). Why can another team not do the same with players we trade them?
Devean George’s contract won’t be used for anything else… the opportunity cost is zero. This is worth doing.
Please be aware that you’re voicing an opinion, one I hope you will realize isn’t as solid as you’re presenting it. The actual opportunity cost may be high (if you acknowledge that you were mistaken about how a package can be put together) and it may be low (if you think it won’t happen either because of the “you can’t really package three small contracts” [which is false and poor justification] or you think that the Warriors will screw up packaging all three [which is more likely to be true, but doesn’t offer much hope that they’d do better with another decision]), but it most certainly is not zero. You were probably speaking hyperbolically. I hope you were.
Look, I’d rather have another big on the team as well, but I also realize that this team isn’t going anywhere this year and we differ that there may be value in trying to package the three headed expiring contract. Your assertion that it basically can’t be done ignores that it has been done. If at the trade deadline, George is still here, cut him and pick up someone from the D-league, but until then, the contract does have potential value.
by jae on Nov 14, 2009 9:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I see that this issue pushes your buttons like no other, and you’ve got some significant errors in your reasoning here.
Possible… let’s take a look.
Why? If the other team is interested in the cap space, not the players, why is the three-headed version less valuable?
I’ll explain.
As you put so simply in another thread "you are wrong." It doesn’t require the sacrifice of a roster spot. It just requires that they cut the players immediately, in the complete admission that the deal is about salary.
It does require the sacrifice of a roster spot. You of course don’t have to keep Law, Speedy and George, but if you trade for them in midseason, they count towards your fifteen-man roster from the moment you acquire them. If you have fifteen players already, you have to waive two of them, even if you cut George and Speedy one millisecond later.
Do you consider trading for Richard Jefferson a "big trade"? I realize he’s not a big man, and I tend to think he’s significantly overvalued, but he was due $14mil a year this year and seemed to generate the sort of buzz that he could make a possitive impact.
I do consider that a big trade. However, it was also a significantly different trade from the George package deal you’re proposing, in two ways:
1) Bowen and Oberto’s contracts were only partially guaranteed, meaning the Bucks actually saved money by acquiring them and cutting them. That was not an insignificant factor in the deal… the Bucks were desperate to lower their cap figure this year, which isn’t easy to do in a trade.
2) More critically, this trade took place over the summer, when roster limits weren’t in effect. Right before Opening Night, teams have to cut their rosters down to fifteen. If this trade had taken place during the season, the Bucks would have had to cut two players. There’s a reason you don’t see three-for-one deals in midseason.
You know how many deadline deals in the last twenty years have involved one team taking in two more players than they sent out? Four.
2.22.01: Washington traded Juwan Howard, Obinna Ekezie and Calvin Booth to Dallas for Christian Laettner, Loy Vaught, Etan Thomas, Hubert Davis and Courtney Alexander.
Atlanta traded Dikembe Mutombo and Roshown McLeod to Philadelpia in exchange for Theo Ratliff, Toni Kukoc, Nazr Mohammed and Pepe Sanchez.
2.24.05: Atlanta traded Antoine Walker and cash to Boston for Gary Payton, Tom Gugliotta, Michael Stewart, and a future first-round pick.
2.19.09: New York traded Anthony Roberson, Jerome James and Tim Thomas to Chicago for Larry Hughes.
Three trades in twenty years. In the first three trades, the teams taking in the extra guys were horrible teams, teams that lost 63, 57 and 69 games in their respective seasons… they were so talent-poor that they were willing to cut a couple players on their roster to save money. The fourth trade was different… Donnie Walsh had traded Sefalosha earlier that day, so he only had to burn one roster spot, not two.
That’s the sum total of midseason NBA trades, since 1987, that have been imbalanced by two players or more. And all four trades were imbalanced by only two players. If the idea is that we’re going to package Speedy, Law and George to get a guy, we’d have a real tough time packaging them with somebody else.
So is there an NBA team that 1) will be looking to shed payroll in February, 2) has a player with a big contract to deal, 3) has a player with a big contract they’re willing to deal, 4) has a player with a big contract to deal that we want, and 5) is so desperate to make the deal that they’ll drop a player or two from the end of their bench to make it work?
I don’t think there is. I’m not saying I’m right; I just don’t see which team that would be. Kevin Martin is exactly the type of player we don’t need… I’m in no mood to take on Al Jefferson’s contract, nor Antawn Jamison’s. I’m happy to walk through each team in the league to check, but I’m not seeing a team with the right contract and the right motivation.
Is there some magical threshold that George falls below where his contract is less likely to be included in a "make the numbers work" package than those guys? Really?
No. But you’re contending George’s contract will complete a package trade in a way that Mikki’s wouldn’t. George’s contract is only $300K more than Mikki’s; in a trade of the size we’re discussing, $300K is essentially a rounding error. There are not many package trades that George’s deal would complete that Mikki’s wouldn’t. Trading Mikki costs us a big man, but so what? We’d already acquired one with George in this scenario, and this theoretical package deal would give us the roster space to add another.
Now, there’s one important difference between George’s contract and Mikki’s: George can be traded before December 15th, while Mikki can not. So if a package deal became available to us in the next four weeks, George is the only one of the two we could include. But now we’re keeping George because we think an extremely rare type of package trade would pop up two months before the deadline? We’re stretching things a little thin at that point.
The three contracts can be bundled together and they can be done without a trading partner sacrificing a roster spot. A team acquiring them doesn’t have to keep them. Bowen was immediately cut. Oberto was immediately traded again (and then cut). Why can another team not do the same with players we trade them?
Because it’s the regular season, and the fifteen-player maximum is in effect. For all the hand-wringing about roster sizes shrinking due to financial hardship, almost half the teams in the league have maxed-out rosters; another eleven teams have only one roster spot available. The six teams that have two roster spots available are the Hawks, Bulls, Nuggets, Lakers, Magic and Sixers… three teams aiming to win a title, and three teams jockeying to stay in the Eastern Conference. It is not likely that any of these teams will send us an attractive piece for expiring deals in midseason. The two closest matches I can find are Samuel Dalembert and Jamal Crawford. While Dalembert would certainly help us up front, his contract would be a net negative for us… if we trade for Jamal Crawford again, needless to say, the universe will explode.
Please be aware that you’re voicing an opinion, one I hope you will realize isn’t as solid as you’re presenting it. The actual opportunity cost may be high (if you acknowledge that you were mistaken about how a package can be put together)
Was I mistaken? I didn’t contend that package trades were against league rules… I contended that George wasn’t going to help us make a deal. Perhaps I phrased it sloppily; instead of saying “the idea that George will be useful in a package down the line is a complete fantasy”, I should’ve said “the idea that George will be necessary in a package down the line is a complete fantasy”. But I stand by the point. And the Richard Jefferson deal does nothing to refute it. George will cost a team that acquires him the full amount of his salary, unlike Bruce Bowen, and he will cost a team that acquires him a roster spot, unlike Bruce Bowen. Big, big variables.
and it may be low (if you think it won’t happen either because of the "you can’t really package three small contracts" [which is false and poor justification]
Again, league rules allow it. But can you find an example of three small contracts being packaged in midseason for one player, when roster sizes are constrained?
(We are both, of course, ignoring the possibility that the Warriors could package these expirings for more than one player. But the idea of trading expiring deals for a bunch of littler pieces, on a crappy team where viable players are already rotting away on the bench, doesn’t sound appealing to me, nor to you, I’d imagine.)
or you think that the Warriors will screw up packaging all three [which is more likely to be true, but doesn’t offer much hope that they’d do better with another decision]),
Agreed. I think they’ll screw up anything and everything… their ineptitude doesn’t point in one direction or the other.
but it most certainly is not zero. You were probably speaking hyperbolically. I hope you were.
In a strict sense, of course I was speaking hyperbolically. There could be a blockbuster trade that only Devean George’s contract could allow. Any move you make precludes other moves; you can never guarantee that any piece you trade away wouldn’t have netted something more valuable down the line.
But we’ve all whistled this tune before, year after year, haven’t we? We applaud the Warriors for holding onto Pietrus in his last year, because his $3 million expiring deal could be packaged for something; we defend the decision to hang onto a bench-bolted Marcus Williams, because you never know when a $1 million expiring contract will come in handy. Meanwhile, the actual team rots on the vine. While we’re hoping for a blockbuster move that involves Pietrus, we quietly go a year without a good backup point guard and miss the playoffs. While we’re looking for a game-changing trade to throw Marcus WIlliams into, Nellie loses interest in playing any actual power forward for two months and we piss a season away.
We have five players whose contracts expire this year: Speedy, Law, George, Mikki and CJ. George’s is the third-biggest, and not far above the veteran minimum; as the least useful player of the five (at least Mikki and Speedy “play” important positions), his contract has the lowest ancillary value of the five. His contract is fully guaranteed. This is not exactly Raef LaFrentz’s Expiring Contract, here.
I’ll tell you what: let’s see if we can find a plausible deal that requires Devean’s contract as opposed to someone else’s. I don’t mean this in a confrontational way… I’m curious to see if we can do it. If we can find one potential trade that would help the Warriors, that the other team might conceivably agree to, that requires George’s contract to work, then I’ll agree that we should keep him. If we can’t find one potential trade like that, will you admit that there’s not much point in keeping George around?
If at the trade deadline, George is still here, cut him and pick up someone from the D-league, but until then, the contract does have potential value.
We agree that the contract has potential value. I think the chances that that value will be realized in a big trade, that wouldn’t work with Mikki instead of George, are negligible; as such, I’d rather convert the value of his contract into a big man who can help us now. You would rather gamble on that big trade down the road and forego adding a big man now. Fair enough. But let’s at least try to construct that trade down the road, so we have a more solid sense of why we’re going to war with two bigs game after game.
by onlxn on Nov 14, 2009 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
oh god no...
Now we have two people on the board that are obssessed with the quote function and answering every sentence!
Arhrghrgrhggrhg! ;)
GSOM Blog Beast!
by BritWarriorGSW on Nov 16, 2009 2:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now we have two people on the board that are obssessed with the quote function and answering every sentence!
It could be much worse.
Arhrghrgrhggrhg! ;)
See? Now it’s worse.
by jae on Nov 16, 2009 9:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Somebody needs to dust off the cobwebs from the ROD BENSON MOVEMENT
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on Nov 13, 2009 6:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Oy.
So, Brandan Wright got hurt on October 4th, cutting us down to four bigs. At that point, the situation was already dire… it was time to turn George’s roster spot into a big body, by hook or by crook. In the forty-five days since, we have done nothing about this problem, even as injuries reduced us to two bigs, even as circumstances reduced us to seven healthy guys last night (and probably tonight). Make no mistake: we have had horrible, horrible luck on the health front. But we are not completely powerless to change our lot. Most teams don’t put themselves in a position to field seven players on a given night… when things get that dicey, they find a way to bring someone on board.
And it’s not like bigs can’t be had. Even if you just restrict yourself to guys who’re already in the league, there’s plenty of talent available. A partial list of bigs who’ve come available since October 4th:
October 12th: the Sixers release Stromile Swift. Now, Stromile Swift was never very good, and last year he was downright horrible. But he was a genuinely useful player every year of his career until last season, and it’s not like the guy’s ancient… he doesn’t turn 30 till Saturday. Even last year, he put up 12.1 points, 9.0 rebounds and 1.6 blocks per 36 minutes, albeit with a poor shooting percentage and a foul rate that wouldn’t allow him to stay on the court for nearly that long. 15 minutes of Swift per night would do a ton for us right now.
October 20th: the Wolves get Nathan Jawai and cash from the Mavs for a conditional second-round draft pick in 2012. In other words, the Mavs had one player too many… they gave Jawai to the Wolves for free, and even helped pay his salary. Now Jawai’s giving the Wolves 14 minutes of good production of the bench every night, with 14.7 points and 8.6 boards per 36, a league average shooting percentage and a low turnover rate. At 6’ 10", 280, he weighs 35 pounds more than any Warrior. He’s also, by all accounts, a delightful guy, and was an immediate hit amongst players and fans in Minnesota. He’s given them beef, solid play and a bit of sunshine in an otherwise dark season. Again: this guy was almost 100% free.
October 21: the Jazz waive Goran Suton, a 6’ 10" 245-pound second-round pick, a quirky center who’s weak inside but shoots jumpers well and passes well. Does he sound like he’d be up someone’s alley? Also, the Hawks waive Courtney Sims, a 6’ 11" 245 26-year-old. He was the MVP of the D-League last year, averaging 22.8 and 11 and shooting over 60% from the field. Five other bigs were waived this day as well; three more were waived the next day.
November 11: the Wizards waive Paul Davis. Davis is pretty bad, worse than the four previously mentioned players. Why do I mention him? Because at this point, we were already down to only Randolph and Mikki… November 11th was the day that the (also-injured) Pacers smacked our tiny behinds. If you’re Larry Riley or Don Nelson, and on the heels of that game you see that a 25-year-old 6’11" 245-pound center has just been waived, do any synapses fire in your brain? Don’t you think you’d say, “Hey, big guys! I think league rules allow us to GET one of those!”
November 13: the Rockets waive Pops Mensah-Bonsu. The Raptors picked him up on waivers and re-signed him on November 17th, on a day that is also known as “yesterday”. This one drives me nuts.
Pops Mensah-Bonsu played 283 minutes in the league last year, enough to get a sense of his game. In those 283 minutes, he grabbed 113 rebounds. That’s 14.4 rebounds per 36 minutes: more than Randolph, more than Biedrins, more than Dwight Howard. In fact, had he had enough minutes to qualify, Pops Mensah-Bonsu would’ve ranked as the best rebounder in the entire NBA. You can’t extrapolate that that’d hold up by any means, but it’s fair to say that this guy is a great rebounder.
We are the worst-rebounding team in basketball. That is not our only problem by any means, but it is a huge problem, possibly our biggest. Pops Mensah-Bonsu is an elite rebounder. Pops Mensah-Bonsu only makes $825,000 this year. Pops Mensah-Bonsu is healthy enough to play basketball right now, unlike eight of our fifteen players. We still didn’t pick him up.
If we’d wanted Mensah-Bonsu, you know what we needed to do? Make one phone call and send one fax. That’s it. Our record is worse than Toronto’s; we had waiver priority over them. All you need to do is to notify the league of your interest. We failed to do that. The result? A team with thirteen healthy players, including six bigs, added a useful power forward at minimum cost. And a team with seven healthy players, including only two bigs, did not.
As I see it, there are four possible reasons why we did not acquire Pops Mensah-Bonsu:
1) We didn’t think he was good enough for it to be worth it.
2) We thought he had value, but not as much as Devean George.
3) Nellie likes the excuse of playing short-handed and undersized.
4) We were too busy dealing with Jack stuff.
No matter which of the four reasons is true, our front office comes out looking completely incompetent. Pops Mensah-Bonsu is good enough for a bad and injured team to pick up, and he is more valuable than Devean George; if your team’s braintrust thinks otherwise, your team’s braintrust is running a little low on brain. The “Nellie loves excuses” thing… that’s a theory that’s been bandied about for years, and I don’t know that I take it seriously, but I see where the theory comes from. Whether or not it’s true, it’d certainly reflect badly on the team if that were the motivation here. As for the final reason… I’m sure the Jack situation was time-consuming. But a decently-run team would have the attention span and energy to work on other roster issues at the same time. When a guy’s put on waivers, the Commissioner’s office notifies all the other teams, so it’s not like we didn’t know Mensah-Bonsu was available. Even if Riley was on the phone with Charlotte and Cleveland for hours every day, he couldn’t have told a lower-level front office employee to make one phone call and send one fax?
I’m sorry to keep beating this dead horse, but this dead horse shouldn’t be here anymore. This is gross incompetence. The front office is not taking simple steps to give its team a better chance to win right now, and the players and the fanbase deserve better than that.
by onlxn on Nov 18, 2009 10:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Great post. Good points, good evidence…something could have been done, and it wasn’t.
by Missing Barry on Nov 18, 2009 10:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
From Yahoo Sports:
• F Brandan Wright(notes) (torn labrum) underwent surgery Oct. 9. His recovery time is estimated to be six months, so there’s a good chance he won’t play at all in 2009-10.
• C Andris Biedrins(notes) (strained groin and abdominal muscles) was told to take two weeks off after experiencing what he thought was back pain in the Nov. 7 loss at Sacramento. He will be re-evaluated after the two-week layoff and could miss additional time. He did not accompany the Warriors on their current five-game road trip.
• C Ronny Turiaf (sprained left knee) missed an eighth consecutive game after suffering the injury Oct. 30. An MRI revealed no damage, but progress has been slow. Warriors coach Don Nelson told reporters Tuesday that he expects Biedrins to return before Turiaf, which means the backup center could miss most of the rest of the month.
This problem is not going to resolve itself anytime soon. For the love of God, Warriors, do something.
by onlxn on Nov 18, 2009 10:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
