Back off Nellie and Jack: It's ROWELL, trick!
Props to faetati for posting the CBS link about Nellie possibly quitting. But he missed a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE part of that article that makes more sense than the silly rumor that Nellie will quit a few days before he will break the world record for wins.
Again, here's the link:
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/12514475/nelsons-abrasive-style-might-have-him-on-way-out
And here is the craziest part of the article, about what Rowell promised to Jack and Ellis earlier this summer which makes a lot of sense:
Jackson said Friday he's not angry with Nelson, but rather with the fact that he was given the impression the Warriors would be "more of a veteran team" this season. Though Jackson didn't elaborate, a person familiar with the situation said his anger -- and Ellis' -- stems from a dinner meeting with Rowell at the end of last season in which the Warriors' president vowed to surround them with a playoff-caliber supporting cast. According to the source, Rowell told the players he was going to build around them and trade the No. 7 pick, because adding a rookie "isn't going to help us."
The supporting cast that Jackson and Ellis were promised could have included Amar'e Stoudemire. But a trade with Phoenix fell apart on draft night, when Nelson refused to part with the pick and instead selected Curry, who is the same player as Ellis, only younger. Ellis couldn't believe it. Jackson was furious. And here we are today.
Please undertand, this was not Nellie's fault. Nellie is going to give his opinion as a coach. But the bottom line is, Rowell is the man who makes these decisiosn. If he always listend to Nellie, we would have kept Baron Davis. The majority of sources say Mullie, Nellie, and the team wanted to keep Baron and offer that 3 year contract and Rowell was the one who nixed it. No one but Rowell wanted to give Jack all that crazy money, and Rowell gave "air-ball" Maggette that ridiculous contract, not Mullie. So if you're going to tell me that Nellie canceled that trade, you're smoking. Rowell agreed to that. Rowell is a freaking moron to say the least.
In retrospect, getting Amare would have been the right thing to do. We got a good rookie, but first of all, he wasn't the best available (obviously it's Brandon Jennings, most of us could see that within the first week but some people *ehem Sleepy ehem* were in denial, but that will end TONIGHT LMAO), and second of all, we've been young for too long so it was time to get a veteran quick and move on with the young guys we have! Rowell wasn't man enough to live up to what he promised our best players.
And now Rowell is trying to be everyone's friend, and the players are upset because they don't feel there is anyone they can talk to:
What's worse, one of the people said, is that the players have to endure laughable team president Robert Rowell trying to be their pal -- the way he did when he usurped then-GM Chris Mullin's authority and signed Jackson to a three-year, $28 million extension last November. Yes, the very same extension that is preventing Golden State from being able to trade him.
"Rowell tries to be their friend, and they laugh at him," one of the sources said. "They don't respect that. ... All these problems and fights in the locker room come from the fact that there is no one the players feel they can communicate with. Nobody."
What a joke. Why don't we all make signs that say "Fire Rowell" on one side and "Sell, Cohan!" on the back?! It would look like the We Believe signs. Anyone got a printing hookup of some sort? Let's pitch in money, mass print them, and mass distribute them in the parking lot one night on a nationally televised game or something. We need the world to know that we are against the Owner and President first before we are against anyone else! Why bandaid the team by trading Monta, Jack or firing Nellie? The problems will continue! Why not fix the real problem first!!!
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!
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't understanad why
Cohan won’t fire Rowell… What does Rowell have? Naked pictures of Cohan? A Cohan sextape?
What is so great about Rowell?!!!
by saintdee on Nov 14, 2009 9:57 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Are you calling us tricks?
What’s wrong with you?
by Jeremy Belvins on Nov 14, 2009 10:38 AM PST reply actions
No silly, it's a reference from that song "I'm in Miami, trick"
I think you’re being sarcastic?
The Warriors aren't playing like the Raiders.
The Raiders are playing like the Warriors.
- Precise Films Productions
An attempt bad humor.
WHat can I say, I’m an impulsive poster.
by Jeremy Belvins on Nov 14, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
Cant disagree that Rowell needs to go and Cohen needs to sell but
that doesn’t change the fact that Nellie is stunting Morrow and Randolphs growth, allowing Jack and Maggs to shoot whatever bad shot they please and shuffling the line up so much that only Ellis knows how much he’s gonna play night to night.(which has been too many minutes by the way). Our top 2 players(Jack and Monta) no longer want to play for Nellie and he is doing a horrible job managing our talent. CJ finally gets to play important minutes and what does he do. He shoots 7-8 with 2 treys, 3 dimes, 2 steals and a block. Didn’t Nellie say CJ was gonna be the starter 1 week before the season started then changed his mind 3 days later. Players need to know their roles and what kind of pt to expect night to night. Name one good team that is inconsistent with their lineup on a nightly basis? You can’t!
Robert Rowell
A brainless suckup with no plan. Thinking back to those season ticket holder meetings that BritWarriorGSW wrote about, I can now imagine him acting like a suck up to the guests, trying to get them to buy season tickets.
Yep... just about..
In the piece I did from the end of last season… he made it very clear that “big” changes were going to be made… he seems to then have said the same thing to Jax and Ellis…. speed forward to the more recent piece I did before the season start “San Quentin Jail break with Robert and Larry” and one of the first things he said to me in our one on one when I asked about the promised big changes.. his opening gambit was “well we got rid of that terrible Crawford contract”……
I have to say…and I didnt say at the time and I should of, is that I would have far rather have had Crawfords contract over Jacksons….any day of the week.
He strikes me as a man that wants everyone to trust him…but simply cannot be trusted……
GSOM Blog Beast!
by BritWarriorGSW on Nov 14, 2009 5:03 PM PST up reply actions
I hate RR and CC as much as the next guy
But he doesn’t play or coach. He’s not the one benching AR and he’s no the one who has tons of turnovers and is selfish. He sucks but Jack, Nellie CC and RR need to go.ASAP
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "You're a rookie"
but first of all, he wasn’t the best available (obviously it’s Brandon Jennings, most of us could see that within the first week but some people ehem Sleepy ehem were in denial,
You called? ;-)
Dude: I have to say I don’t quite get how I’ve become the poster boy for your rants on Jennings. I was actually pretty excited about Jennings before the draft. I would have been totally happy with picking him or Curry. The Warriors, like a whole lot of people (many of whom who know hoops a whole lot better than you), seem to have arrived at a decision that Curry was the slightly better player. It may end up being a mistake in judgment; way too early to tell. But it’s not “denial” to say that the logic behind picking Curry (“best player available”) was sound.
Key phrase in this of course is “way too early to tell.” We’re talking about a sample size of 6-8 games. I mean, I know how hard it is on a board like this to resist ranting and beating your chest when you think you’re right, but given the slow pace at which NBA PGs often develop, it’s probably wise to wait till the end of the season at least before passing judgment. Remember, Billups and Nash took 4 or 5 years to become the Billups and Nash we now know.
Most amusing thing about your Jennings rant(s) is that, on a per minute basis, Curry and Jennings haven’t even been that different so far.
Curry / Jennings 2009-10, per 36 minutes
.513 / .543 TS%
6.5 / 5.7 assists
2.7 / 3.7 turnovers
1.5 / 1.5 steals
Yeah, Jennings has been scoring a lot more, in large part because he’s been shooting a lot more. But if there’s one area where I don’t think we have to worry about Curry, it’s his ability to score the ball. Thirty-plus points per 36 minutes in college ain’t no joke. But again, let’s review this again in 3-4 years, shall we? And in the meantime, try to keep off my nuts? ;-P
As for the substance of your diary: I agree that the Rowell bit in that article was pretty interesting and weird. But if there’s one thing you may learn when and if you grow up, son, it’s that the real world is complex. Quite often, cause and blame cannot be assigned to a single thing or person. It’s highly possible Cohan, Rowell, Mullin and Nellie are all partly to blame for the current mess. Putting Nellie out to pasture is almost certainly not going to solve our root problems, but imho it’s at least a strong step in the right direction.
There will be no extra point!
I agree it’s nonsense to compare Curry and Jennings at this early a juncture.
If Bochy coached the Warriors Bengie Molina would start every game at PG.
by cybermaldonado on Nov 14, 2009 1:47 PM PST up reply actions
but first of all, he wasn’t the best available (obviously it’s Brandon Jennings, most of us could see that within the first week but some people ehem Sleepy ehem were in denial,
I agree with your points Sleepy. At the time of the draft I thought Jennings would be the better NBA player, and obviously I still have the same opinion. At the same time Curry is not some bum that doesnt belong in the NBA. At the time of the draft, almost all draft projections had point guards listed in this order
Rubio, Evans, Curry, Flynn, Jennings, Holiday
or something similar to that. Drafting Curry over Jennings could even be considered the safer pick, it definetly wasnt like taking Jordan Hill over Blake Griffen. If Jennings was on the Warriors at the moment, he would not be putting up the stats that he is now,
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Nov 14, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions
I love you Sleepy
You make this website fun :)
Let’s agree to disagree.
Jennings: rookie of the year, future all star.
Curry: future very good player.
The Warriors aren't playing like the Raiders.
The Raiders are playing like the Warriors.
- Precise Films Productions
Curry: future very good player.
Agreed, but its only a 50% chance that it will be with the Warriors.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Nov 14, 2009 2:27 PM PST up reply actions
No chance Jennings will be rookie of the year
Tyreke Evans has it locked up.
Also, although projecting at this point is kind of silly, I still feel Curry has a much higher possible ceiling than Jennings.
If Bochy coached the Warriors Bengie Molina would start every game at PG.
by cybermaldonado on Nov 14, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions
Thing is
The ceiling for anyone under 6’3" is always going to be pretty limited. Chris Paul is probably the best player that size in my lifetime (if not ever) and even he, when push comes to shove, is always going to be banging his head against his size-ceiling. It’s a big man’s game, and was ever thus. Brandon Jennings is not going to be the exception to this rule.
Evans, on the other hand, definitely looks like he has the length and athleticism to be a Wade-type. Whether he has Wade or Kobe’s heart and will to work on his game remains a pretty big question. That type of mental makeup is pretty rare.
You know who would take over any of these little guys? Andrew Bynum. Right now I think he might be the third-most franchise-y player in the NBA, after LeBron and Howard. And heck: given his sweet looking stroke from 12-18 ft, I might even take him over Howard. Gosh-darned-freaking Lakers. If there’s any decision we should be kicking ourselves about right now it’s Diogu over Bynum. Any possible margin between Jennings and Curry doesn’t even compare to the gravity of that blunder.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 14, 2009 4:50 PM PST up reply actions
You make a good argument about size but,
I still think Diogu over Granger was the big screw up. Granger is Stephan Jackson (a 2 way swingman) just much much better and with out being a head case.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Nov 14, 2009 6:25 PM PST up reply actions
You’d take Granger over Bynum? Seriously?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 14, 2009 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
I think so.
Honestly. You wouldnt. Granger was drafted and highly touted as a defensive stopper and has deveolped into an unstopable offensive force. Give me Granger and above average center (Biedrins) over Bynum and above average singman (Courtney Lee, does he work for you as a young above average swingman?)
Other than the Magic, what premier team has their best player playing the 5? Maybe SA if you count Duncan still better than Parker, and Duncan as a 5….
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Nov 14, 2009 11:29 PM PST up reply actions
I’m surprised you even think it’s close. If there were a draft right now to a build an NBA team from scratch, Bynum is probably the #3 guy I’d pick, behind LeBron and Howard. Granger’s probably not even Top 15. Beyond the fact that Bynum has the rare combo of freakish size (7’0 285) and skill that frequently results in NBA titles, he’s also 4.5 years younger than Granger. Granger, who turns 27 at the end of this season, has only about 3-4 years left of peak play; and by most measures (WP, e.g.) he’s not in the top 15 NBA players right now.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 15, 2009 12:29 AM PST up reply actions
Ok,
Theres 3 or 4 seperate questions here.
1. Would you rather have a big man, wing, or small player to build around?
2. Who is better at the moment Danny Granger or Andrew Bynum?
3. Who would you rather build a franchise around at this very moment, Granger or Bynum?
4. Is Bynum in the top 3-5 players you would build a franchise around?
1- Traditionally, of course you build around a big. Nothing has changed, dominant big> dominant wing or guard. However the game is different today. The days of drop it the big man and let him do work, are a thing of the past. One of favorite stats to look at is usage rate. Carmelo or Brandon Roy might not be as effective as scorers as Dwight Howard, but I don’t know if Howard is better than either of those guys right now.
2- Granger is the better player at the moment.
3- Bynum. Finding quality big men is much harder than finding quality wings. If Danny Granger is your best player, you are about a 500 team. With Bynum its more of who are those guys around him. Bynum isnt and cant be the #1 option offensively, but if there is a pure scorer and Bynum is the second option offensively and best player overall than you have something.
4- Not for me. I am stunned that you would rather have Bynum as your building block over Chris Paul. Paul is a freak. The things he does is incrediable. He doesnt come close to cracking my top 5, and Im not sure where I take this list after that.
James
Paul
Anthony
Howard
Roy
Jennings
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Nov 15, 2009 1:52 AM PST up reply actions
Theres 3 or 4 seperate questions here.
There’s really only one question — the one you raised: whom should the Warriors regret passing on more, Granger or Bynum? In this simple equation, the 4.5 year age difference may be an even bigger elephant in the room than Bynum’s hulking 285-lb. frame. To me, both absolutely dwarf whatever slight edge Granger might have statistically.
But heck, even if we’re talking statistically, and even if we’re only talking about right now: Bynum is currently averaging 20.7 / 11.9 per game on 61% TS. In 1.5 minutes less, Granger is averaging three more points and an extra half-assist, while pulling five fewer rebounds, and giving up 50 points of TS%. I just don’t see how Granger is the “better player at the moment.” And obviously, at age 22, Bynum’s just cracking the surface of his elite-big-man potential, where Granger basically is what he’ll always be: an excellent wing scorer.
As for this…
James
Paul
Anthony
Howard
Roy
Jennings
Are those ranked? Anthony over Howard? And Jennings on the list over Wade? Curious to say the least, WS110.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 15, 2009 2:46 AM PST up reply actions
I'll...
…grant you that Bynum is probably the better pick, but I view all these things through the prism of being a Warriors fan. And from that viewpoint, I sincerely doubt our organization could have drafted and developed a (at the time) raw prospect like Bynum. We would’ve screwed it up, just like always. Also, while I don’t know (and would love to be enlightened) about any histories relating to this, I am fairly spooked by Bynum’s leg injuries at such a young age. Obviously, if you’re gonna have them, now’s the time, but… I dunno. It always gives me pause.
I just don’t see how Granger is the "better player at the moment."
Looking back at Bynum’s stats I am impressed. 2 things, lets see Bynum do it for a whole season. Second I think Bynum does have it ‘easier’ putting up his points as he is the 3rd or so option on his team. He has possibly the best peremiter offensive weopon since MJ on his team. While the offensive weopons outside of Granger are a joke.
Anthony over Howard? And Jennings on the list over Wade?
Jennings was a complete joke, carried over from the other post. I thought you would get that : ).
As for Wade, he is a little bit older and plays a rough style of play. I just dont know about his longetivity. Right now, I would say he is the third best player in the league, but on the premise that these are players that we want to start a franchise with, I’ll take the other 5. I am a big Anthony fan, but push comes to shove, I would do the logical thing and take Howard over him.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Nov 15, 2009 10:03 AM PST up reply actions
I agree 100%, AR4
Thanks for pointing out the critical meeting between Rowell and his players where he promised them something, got them excited and then ’f’d them (my guess that is what the players think of it). It has been said many, many times: You never get lasting success with a bad owner.
by breaker on Nov 14, 2009 1:00 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Is it possible Nellie is tanking just to get even and collect some payback (and a paycheck) for what happened to Mullin?
If Bochy coached the Warriors Bengie Molina would start every game at PG.
I should say that I thought Nellie was personally involved in grabbing power from Mullin, but maybe that’s all wrong. It’s like a soap opera: " Days of Our Warriors".
If Bochy coached the Warriors Bengie Molina would start every game at PG.
by cybermaldonado on Nov 14, 2009 1:49 PM PST up reply actions
hahahahaha
I mean for a guy that says Mullie is like a son to him, I really doubt he had a major role in getting Mullie removed. I’m pretty sure it was the weasel.
The Warriors aren't playing like the Raiders.
The Raiders are playing like the Warriors.
- Precise Films Productions
I know Mullie was never very talkative but
Wouldnt you speak out and clear up all the rumors that your “father” got you fired? I would probably tell a reporter or two to stop blaming my mentor for doing nothing wrong
The entire situation is weird. Maybe we’ll find out the whole truth once Nellie retires.
If Bochy coached the Warriors Bengie Molina would start every game at PG.
by cybermaldonado on Nov 14, 2009 4:03 PM PST up reply actions
well it’s not like Mullin stuck up for his best friend & right hand man D’Alessandro or however you spell his name when he was fired b/c Rowell thought he was leaking information to the press (mainly to Tim Kawakami).
simple answer: Rowell used Nelson to maintain some level of credibility for getting rid of Mullin. Nelson was all too happy to take the money. now there’s more egg on Rowell’s face b/c if Nelson has guaranteed money & a team that isn’t good, he starts to lose interest.
by homer simpson on Nov 14, 2009 9:20 PM PST up reply actions
Let me get this to you straight...
THEY’RE ALL THE PROBLEM!
by Cpt. Jack in the Box on Nov 14, 2009 4:12 PM PST reply actions

by 





















