Truth Hurts
by hardcore on Mar 16, 2009 12:12 AM PDT
215 comments
This will be a painful off-season, and to get better we will have to entertain trading Randolph, along with either Monta or Andris. Some of you will stop reading right there, and refuse to entertain those possibilities but I’d challenge you to suggest how we’d improve markedly by standing pat – and hoping everyone develops and stays healthy. To my knowledge, non-playoff teams do not stand pat and become playoff teams. Even factoring in a healthy Ellis, and improved Wright & Randolph, are you confident going into next year with this roster?
Our FO backed us into a corner that will require a difficult and painful decision to extricate ourselves from: it's not a question of who would we want to trade but who do you want to get and what player(s) will it take to get the deal done? Thanks to decisions made last summer, notably the Jackson extension and Crawford contract, we really have few pieces of value to other clubs to improve this off-season.
Lots of Role Players. Our roster is littered with several players of limited trade value, but who could fill in gaps left by including other players in a trade. We have several role players who wouldn't fetch a starting PF much less an All Star even if you added them all together: KAz, Marco, Morrow, Watson, and Turiaf (yes, he's valuable, yes we love him, but he's a role player on a playoff-caliber team). But depending upon who we have to move in a trade, any could be contributing rotation players next year if not relied upon to start. Leave Kurz and Davidson out so as not to insult people's intelligence.
Overpaid Veterans.
Crawford simply isn’t going to be desirable due to his contract. Jackson is a Nelson favorite and Rowell tied his wagon to him last summer. Although he’s overpaid, Maggette could have some value if paired with other player(s).
Potential Starters.
We have two young, inexpensive players with p-p-p-p-potential (spit it out) but who'd have to be packaged together and/or paired with contract(s) to match to fetch a starting PF much less an All Star: Randolph & Wright. Randolph’s stock is certainly on the rise, Wright, more quietly, is acquiring a body of work that can be assessed. Both could be starters in the league down the line, and maybe more. But it’s still maybe. And please don't even suggest moving either of them for another PG. We do not need another PG (see below) and we should never trade big for small again.
So, that leaves Monta and Andris as our only legit talent who also have reasonable contracts that would be the center-piece of a trade for a starting caliber PF. Monta is coming off an injury and hasn't sustained a stretch of playing healthy yet, so other GMs may be a bit wary still. Andris may be more valuable to GSW than he'd be to many other clubs due to our style & lack of depth, but that's just a guess.
Trading Andris to land a PF doesn't make us enough better that we’d improve our position dramatically in the West. So we might entertain the right trade using Monta (ya, I know, blasphemy. name a better option and I'm all ears)
Target a PG or PF? We have Ellis & Jackson slated to start next year, backed up by Crawford (who isn't likely to be traded nor opt out) & CJ (Marco, improvement noted, is not a PG). We need a Bosh/Amare-type PF more than a PG. (The fact both are FA-to-be yet we can't even entertain that option thanks to prior FO decisions makes this hurt a bit more, but reasonable arguments have been made for why we weren’t likely to land them as FA anyway.) Add the right PF and everyone else slides into place: Turiaf backs up Andris and we have the C position locked, Wright backs up at PF if he’s not dealt.
Options
If we could trade Maggette + Randolph + another role player for the right PF, would you?
We'd be stronger inside, use Maggs' contract and AR's potential to land a legit PF to pair with Andris and Monta and Jax. Slide in remaining role players at SF. With Crawford off the bench we'd have scoring + rebounding & defense (Turiaf).
If we had to trade Monta + Wright + another role player for a legit PF?
(Skeptic & goldenboy your votes don't count, we know, we know ...). We'd slide Crawford into the starting PG alongside Jax, draft an heir apparent, and use CJ as a backup. Randolph could be used at both backup PF & SF, perhaps in concert with Maggette, so we’d still be strong offensively.
Do you want to stand pat?
We aren't getting squat without losing Monta or Andris, and/or Randolph/Wright + Maggette. If you don't want to allow for that possibility then we are relying on the same cast of characters to develop and take us to the promised land - anyone want to go into next season replacing Kurz and Davidson with just our middling draftees (based upon our current position in a weak draft)?
Nice corner we're in, eh?
Do we stand pat & draft, or do we have to entertain moving Monta and/or Randolph to realistically compete in the West? Truth hurts, but anything less isn't realistic.
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 |
215 comments
Email
Print
Comments
target
a pg.
we need to stop throwing away possessions.
by saintdee on Mar 16, 2009 12:31 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
we need to stop SHOOTING away possessions as well ...
we take so many ill-advised shots early in the shot clock with few or no rebounders ready we might as well count those as turnovers as well … target a PF who we’d actually think about feeding in the post, and we’d have defenses getting in foul trouble, we’d still get to the line a ton, plus we’d kick out for good looks when they double teamed, and then we’d have a rebounder or two in the area … not to mention we’d be able to guard opposing PFs without playing our two centers side-by-side …
by hardcore on Mar 16, 2009 12:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nice.
fantasy world you live in.
PFs you describe are almost impossible to get unless you have a ton of cap space or valuable trade assets of which we have very little of.
A true PG is a more reachable target. We just need someone who can pass and shoot properly. MWill would have worked if he was a better shooter.
by saintdee on Mar 16, 2009 1:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A true PG is a more reachable target
name some. I’m not necessarily saying youre wrong, but I cant think of any PGs who are reasonable trade targets this offseason who will make a significant difference. Paul, Deron, Rondo, Calderon, and Harris are all likely off limits. Sure maybe a couple vets like Kidd might help a little in the short term but I dont see any real difference makers out there that are any more reasonable targets than the type of PF he is describing.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 16, 2009 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
+1
the best option is to see if Monta can stay moped free this summer and practice running the point all summer in trining camp and preseason. If Nellie really does use a Jax/Monta(which I really hope he does) next season, that would be ok with me. Jax has the distributing ability to take off some of the pressure from Ellis.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 16, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jax/Monta backcourt*
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 16, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly I dont love Monta at the point, but thats probably the best realistic option in the backcourt next year.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 16, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hinrich is a true point. Was considered one of the best up and comers just a couple of years ago. One bad year, one year of injuries, on Rose draft and now he’s a back up. He’s an excellent defender, very heady player, good passer, but not great shooter. Still, a true PG.
by jmaaan on Mar 26, 2009 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
PFs you describe are almost impossible to get unless you have a ton of cap space or valuable trade assets of which we have very little of.
Precisely, which is the the point – we’ve backed ourselves into a corner and now would have to entertain using a valuable trade asset – Monta, Andris, Anthony, etc. – to markedly improve and if we are trading one of those assets we need to maximize return in a PF, not a PG. Sans Monta, Crawford and CJ could man the PG while we draft another to groom. If we unload Maggette’s contract on someone and include Randolph to do so we need to replace them with a big.
Would you trade Monta straight up for a chance to draft Griffin?
by hardcore on Mar 16, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would you trade Monta straight up for a chance to draft Griffin?
The answer is Yes.
But if you flip the question… Would you trade Griffin straight up for Monta?
The answer is No.
by lightz0ut on Mar 16, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no.
griff is not a proven NBA force.
monta has been.
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawk on Mar 16, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And yet
Not a single NBA GM wouldn’t trade Monta for Blake Griffin in a heartbeat.
For one thing legit 4s are a much rarer commodity than tweener guards. For another: Griffin, for the next three years, will be earning roughly a third what Monta makes.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 16, 2009 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
ummm wrong...griffin is a huge risk..you never know how a great college player will turn out
somehow i doubt you actually know whether every gm would take that trade
"so much losers" - hiero
by montamazing on Mar 16, 2009 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's a risk
I wouldn’t say a huge risk. There’s a 90% chance he’s not as good as Monta in 09/10. Once he’s got his feet set in the NBA, that number drops drastically. Plus, as a PF, he’s more valuable and rarer.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 6:20 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
True
I don’t know how many GMs would take Griffin at rookie payscale over Monta at $11M per. But I can extrapolate from my sense that, unless you’re a worse Warriors fanboy than I am, it’s a total no-brainer.
Just of curiosity, how many GMs do you think would take Monta at $11M over Griffin at $4M?
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 17, 2009 6:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
Only a team that makes confusing moves that are unpredicatable and don’t show any kind of direction would trade Griffin at rookie pay scale for Monta and his current contract. Too bad the only team that fits that description already has Monta.
by freerandolph on Mar 17, 2009 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't say Monta has proven he is an NBA force
He’s proven he can be, at stretches in a season. But until he finishes a season with that February numbers I’m sure someone, if not you, will point out, he’s hasn’t proven anything.
by lightz0ut on Mar 17, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If finishes an entire season as a guard scoring 26 PPG on 60% shooting he'll be in MVP contention
He doesn’t have to be thaaat good to make an impression.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 18, 2009 6:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice article
Definitely a head-scratcher. I’m not even gonna offer any suggestion/comment as to what I would do because I am not confident of whatever answer I would come up with. I’d just wait and see what the front office will do. Even better, who will do it. Will it be Nellie? Rowell? Riley?
by lightz0ut on Mar 16, 2009 12:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
er, how did that get posted? oops...
I don’t understand why you think we need to trade for a PF. We have two PFs, at low costs and high potential. What we need is someone to run our offense, to handle the ball so the ball chuckers have to wait their turn, to show true leadership. The way I see it, we should trade our PG-esque players for a real PG, and if we have to package a big in there to get the trade done, so be it.
by FishStix on Mar 16, 2009 1:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
also one of the main things we should be looking for is a PG who can play D. As it stands, Marco is our only PG-esque guy who shows defensive intensity. If we somehow were able to keep our bigs, and trade away a few guards for a PG that could run BOTH ends of the floor, then AFAIK we could stand pat for another season or two while our young bigs grow as players and bulk up.
by FishStix on Mar 16, 2009 1:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
D?!
who plays D? ah so, I see your point.
why do we need a PF? aren’t you tired of small ball? tired of getting beat by second shots, not being able to defend opposing bigs, not having someone decent to put on the block and throw the ball into and expect a decent outcome?
Marco is not PG-esque imo, he’s a SG who can penetrate and kick a bit from the wing but he cannot handle pressure coming up the court. And I doubt our role players, even packaged together, get us a PG of the stature you’re suggesting …
so, will put you down in the stand pat column …
by hardcore on Mar 16, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WE NEED A POINT GAURD! not a power forward
by 123707THIZZ on Mar 16, 2009 3:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why does every say we need a pf,
check out Steinmentz article about this
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sports/Steinmetz-Randolph-is-the-answer-for-Warriors-at-power-forward—41071082.html
We got Biedrins at the 5 and either AR or BW at the 4, Im ok with that front court.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 16, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh,
I think sam wants to see him round out game and get more consistent before labeling him as our future and a multiple time all star.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 16, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha
its really not that I dont LIKE AR. In fact I do like him. I love watching him play, and I’m excited about his future. Its just that I dont let that excitement cloud my view of reality. Thing B basically nailed this for me already but I’m just not ready to declare him our franchise 4. We don’t even know if he’s a 4 moving forward. (I actually tend to think thats probably where his future is, but last I heard Nellie still seems to think his future is at the 3) Neither one of those guys would start at the 4 for more than a couple of playoff teams, and the ones they would start or even be significant role players for have MUCH better talent at the other spots. I know I seem like a grump about most of our guys but its not that I dont like them. I like Randolph. I like Monta. I like Maggette. I like Jackson. But, call me crazy, I dont see Monta/Jackson/Buike/Randolph/Biedrins with Crawford/Marco/Maggette/Randolph/Turiaf doing much more than MAYBE competing for the 7th or 8th seed next year at best. Sure we can hope Randolph and Wright will get a lot better over the next couple years, but unless they become all-star types they arent going to significantly improve the team. People who want to stick it out with this roster and wait for the young guys to become stars also ignore the fact that two of our top 4 players are about to move into their 30’s and are both signed to long term deals. Is it unreasonable to think those guys are probably going to get worse over the next couple years?
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 16, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I will never agree to a biedrins trade.
that’s just dumb and you all know it.
Is it just me or everytime the team loses, there’s always talks of trade talks?
Kelenna is mine...;>
by girltothemax on Mar 16, 2009 7:20 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
is it just me or everytime the team loses, there’s always talks of trade talks
No I think there have been talks of trades every day since about the time we realized just how bad we are….since like November
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 16, 2009 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Naw, the girl is right.
Every time the team loses there is trade talk. Too many people getting too emotional after every loss…
by freerandolph on Mar 16, 2009 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
then
how do you explain those like me who still want to trade guys like maggette even after he plays well and we win? Its not like I’m alone in this, I think the majority of us recognize we aren’t a very good team even after a win.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 16, 2009 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1,
I advocate trades more after wins, so people dont get delusional about playoffs next season with the same(but healthy) roster.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 16, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will never agree to a biedrins trade
agreed:
Trading Andris to land a PF doesn’t make us enough better that we’d improve our position dramatically in the West.
however there was talk of trading him in a package for Kevin Garnett a while back, which you might have entertained, no?
by hardcore on Mar 16, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it just me or everytime the team loses, there’s always talks of trade talks?
It’s you. The trade talk is there all the time .
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 16, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The truth is...
No one is being traded this month, or next. Let’s continue to see what we have, how the kids develop, and who plays well with whom. There will be plenty of time this summer for trade and draft fantasies. We have lots of good pieces and, due to injuries and inconsistent development, we still don’t know how they fit best together.
That said, PG is our biggest need. But I hold out hope Monta or Marco will show better promise by the end of the year.
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
by fotd on Mar 16, 2009 9:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
sorry for jumping the gun – you’re right, some are not ready to face the truth yet. So, of course we can wait to discuss this later, but this is far from a fantasy – more like a nightmare that our team has to consider trading it’s best player(s) just to get to the playoffs much less contend …
PGs are easier to draft and trade for than PFs. If you want to wait another season to see if Wright & Randolph can hold down the PF position, draft a PG this year to groom & and hope for the best. FWIW if I had tix in 113, I’d expect more from my franchise …
by hardcore on Mar 16, 2009 9:36 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Perhaps, if you gave me the name of a PF you think we have any chance of getting, I could wrap my head around giving up Randolph or Wright with Monta. Being real, I want to give our big guys another year.
Re: PG v PF. To make my point; a C Paul or a D Williams would make a bigger difference to this team than a Bosch or a Garnett, IMO. Not that any of those are remotely possible. I’m happy waiting to see if a PG becomes available while seeing how our pieces grow. While Monta may not be our PG of the future, he is only going to get better at doing what he does. This year is an aberration and his trade value is now at a low.
And regarding my season tix investment, as a business man, I understand the bottom line. But, as a fan, I keep hoping for ownership that will consider Warrior’s basketball more like a rich man’s toy.
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
by fotd on Mar 16, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if you gave me the name of a PF you think we have any chance of getting, I could wrap my head around giving up Randolph or Wright with Monta
Therein lies the conundrum. If he actually gave a name he would either shoot too low and it wouldn’t be worth it, or he’d shoot too high and it’d be a fantasy, or he’d shoot about right… in which case said player would likely not be remotely available and would provide a marginal improvement at best, and we’d be majorly selling low on Monta unless he shows that he’s 100% back by the end of the season.
If we could get Amare for Wright and Monta, I’d probably pull the trigger, but we’d probably have to throw in a draft pick and we’ve already given up protected firsts for Marcus Williams. There’s also evidence to suggest that Amare is not available anymore: Phoenix chose him over Porter after they didn’t like what they could get for him in a trade.
What say you hardcore? Who could we realistically target for a package built around Monta?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 16, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Already addressed the two most obvious choices, Amare & Bosh, in the post – as well as why we aren’t likely to be able to land either. Odom is another.
David Lee (NY) and Jason Thompson (Sac) are two young PFs who’ve shown they belong as starters in the association who come quickly to mind. If we could get either for Maggette + Randolph I’d do that for both talent and cap purposes. Obviously secondary players and salaries have to get matched in any deal, and that’s no small matter. But once we entertain the league in the possibility of Monta being available, we’d see his true trade value.
Keep in mind I’m saying we likely need to include Monta or Randolph to attract enough value (not that they’re equal), not both (see post). In short, we have to give up value to get value. My preference is not to stand pat, and recognize no one is irreplaceable on this roster.
by hardcore on Mar 16, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Huh?
Thompson is not better than EITHER Wright or Randolph, and Lee is better at the moment, but I still think that Wright and Randolph, both have the potential to be better than him
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 16, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough, though I think Thompson is sturdier overall and particularly defensively – looking at how he did vs us would be interesting … don’t forget the value of moving Maggette’s contract tho
by hardcore on Mar 16, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep,
I am more than ok with moving either Wright or Randolph to get rid of Maggette’s contract. I wouldnt be expecting much in return.
Wright and Randolph both have strengths and weakness, but I am good with either of them starting and getting 30minutes a game next year at the 4.
Something I have floated around is Maggette, Crawford(if he doesnt opt out), AR or BW, and Marco or Buike for Jermaine Oneal’s expiring contract and first rounder or 2. With the current economy though, the Heat might not want to part with JOneal’s expiring.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 16, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't like the deal.
Actual cap space won’t fix our problems. Giving up one solid player and a good prospect to get under the cap doesn’t really help us. We aren’t in a position to draw anybody really good in FA without drastically overpaying (see Maggette, Corey) IF we did that deal we would end up having to pay a good player All-Star money and you’d spend the next year trying to figure out who we could package him with to get rid of his contract.
I’d actually be more happy getting a guy with a big two year deal that could help us for one year and then become a large expiring contract that we could package together with prospects/picks for a great player if one becomes available.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 16, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly, the Maggette haters would have the exact same thing to say about the next guy
Corey Maggette is about what we can expect to sign with cap space. We’re not getting this mythical “solid PF” because they cost more.
If you want a “solid PF”, here’s what you do: Free up $15M in cap space and sign Josh Smith to a 5 year $90M contract. Anything less and Atlanta keeps him (OK, you might have gotten away with 5/$80M). This was the case last year, it will be the case this year for a comparable player (solid, but not game changing PF). Elton Brand, old used to be all star after a season lost to injury, went for $80M/5. Would you rather be paying a 34 year old Elton Brand $19M in 2012 or a 33 year old Corey Maggette $12M?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 6:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather
be paying Josh Smith. Easy. He’s younger, even more athletic, plays a position of need, wouldnt be one of the most untrade-able players in the league, isnt nearly as good of a scorer but is infinitely better on d,,,,,,in short, exactly what the team shouldve been looking for this offseason. Sure he’d be overpaid at 15 mil per, but because he is younger, less injury prone, and plays defense its a much better deal for us. Wright becomes a pretty nice trade chip.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 7:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind that $15M is the starting salary
That goes up 10% yearly. Keep in mind that we’re at the luxury threshold right now, so for salary purposes, it’s fair to say that if you’re adding Josh Smith right now and taking away Corey Maggette, you’ll have to find $7M more to cut from our roster.
Start here:
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine
You could drop Stephen Jackson
You could drop Turiaf and Wright
You could drop Turiaf and Kelenna
You could drop Jamal
You could drop Kelenna, Wright, and Belinelli
No matter what you do, you can’t fit that kind of salary for Josh Smith into our roster without killing us at another position. And that’d just be cycling and it’d get worse for the next few years. Maybe you have a more inflated opinion on Josh Smith. Here’s our best roster if we could magically fit Josh Smith at $15M.
Get rid of Jamal:
Monta/CJ
Jax/Belinelli/Morrow
Kelenna
Smith/Wright/Randolph/Davidson/Kurz
Biedrins/Turiaf
Get rid of Turiaf & Wright
Monta/CJ
Jax/Belinelli/Morrow
Kelenna
Smith/Randolph/Davidson/Kurz
Biedrins
Get it? We’d be extremely thin at SF no matter what we did, and we’d either be extremely thin at either Center or Guard. And our starting lineups wouldn’t scare anybody. And we’d have $80M tied up in a guy who likes blocks more than rebounds and 3 pointers even though he’s a career 26% 3 point shooter. We’d have an MLE to throw out at an Air France type.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmm..
Monta/CJ
Jax/Belinelli/Morrow
Kelenna
Smith/Wright/Randolph/Davidson/Kurz
Biedrins/Turiaf
-I’ll take it. Keep in mind its much easier to find a decent contributor at the 2/3 for a MLE or minimum salary than it is to find a 4. Also its interesting that you put Morrow as a 3rd two rather than as a backup 3 just to make your argument look a little better. I think most of us would like to see a Buike/Smith/Biedrins frontcourt with Morrow/Randolph/Turiaf getting significant minutes behind them. The oldest guy there is 25 and its pretty solid defensively, and rebounds adequately. It obviously lacks a post presence, but in Nellie’s system its the kind of a hole we could live with. Plus, like I said, Wright or Randolph become pretty decent trade pieces. Also keep in mind that with a team full of under 25 talent playing most of the minutes perhaps management rehtinks its “shoot for the 8th seed NOW strategy” and doesnt extend Jax making his veteran savvy, toughness and 2010 expiring another valuable trade chip at the deadline. Do you think some kind of a Wright/Jackson/Belinelli package couldnt have brought us a couple nice young guards?
There are a ton of variables to consider here and its useless to speculate on what kind of a lineup we’d be looking at right now, but I’ll just go back to saying I’ll take the younger, more athletic, less injury prone guy who plays a tougher position to fill and contributes far more defensively.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
its interesting that you put Morrow as a 3rd two rather than as a backup 3 just to make your argument look a little better.
It’s interesting how he’s listed as a SG, instead of a SF to make my argument look better.
Fine:
Monta/CJ
Belinelli/Morrow
Jax/Kelenna
Smith/Wright/Randolph/Kurz/Davidson
Biedrins/Turiaf
Look better to you?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it doesnt matter
like I said before I’ll take it anyway you list it, it was just amusing that you tried to emphasize the lack of depth at the 3. We have an incredible logjam there now so would dumping the two worst contracts on the team at those spots really be a BAD thing?
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We have a log jam at the 2/3
It’s really all the same with Nellie. And having 3-4 competent players isn’t a log jam, especially when one of them can spot time at PG.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and
we’ve done just fine finding guys who can contribute at the 2/3 for Nellie without having to pay them 10 million per. We havent been so good at finiding young 4’s or guys who play defense and rebound.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who are these guys we've plugged in?
Are you talking about Monta & Kelenna? Or are you talking about JRich, Corey Maggette, Stephen Jackson, and Jamal Crawford?
Good luck finding the next Monta Ellis and having him be game ready from setting foot on the court.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m talking about Azubuike, Morrow, CJ Watson and yea, I guess Monta Ellis too. Not to mention the numerous training camp 2/3’s we’ve had over the last few years who have been fairly impressive in pre-season minutes but got sqeezed by our LOG JAM at the 2/3. He doesnt have to be a guy who is game ready as soon as he steps on the court our roster is packed with 25 and under guys, we can give them a season or two to grow together and not have to worry about sitting veterans with big contracts who are virtually undtrade-able.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK
So your solution to the 2/3 guard is to put Morrow, CJ Watson, Kelenna Azubuike, and the like in there as starters?
Clearly, we are not operating on the same wavelength.
My whole point was that Josh Smith at $90/5 would be untradeable and a bigger financial mistake than Corey Maggette at $50/5 years.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My whole point was that Josh Smith at $90/5 would be untradeable and a bigger financial mistake than Corey Maggette at $50/5 years.
I agree with that, but we would be a better team with Smith than with Maggette. I’m not even a big JSmooth fan boy, but imagine a roation of Ellis, Jackson, Azibuike, Smith, Randolph, Wright, Biedrins, and Turiaf would be better than what we got.
Also with signing Smith instead of Maggette, you get to atleast hope that Smith will improve and get better, while Maggette had topped off an has no where to go.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 17, 2009 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just wanted to reply to this comment because its funny how small the space gets when so many people are replying.
And thats all.
by freerandolph on Mar 17, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How small can it get?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 18, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is that all?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 18, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look better to you?
No, too loaded at the 4 spot and weak at the point and the 2 spot.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 17, 2009 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wright or Randolph become pretty decent trade pieces.
For what? We have no cap room, because we gave Josh Smith $5M/year more than he’s worth.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And like I said Jackson certainly becomes a bit more expendable as the only player on the roster even close to his 30th birthday.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK
Now we’re trading Wright and SJax for… well, let’s see:
Monta/CJ
Belinelli/Morrow
Kelenna
Smith/Randolph/trash
Biedrins/Turiaf
We’re ok at the 4 & 5, but we have a risky PG solution and zero depth or very limited talent at the 2/3. And we’ve got fill those holes with $10M of contracts? Yeah, have fun with that.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but we have a risky PG solution
haha thats the EXACT same situation we have at PG now except we dont have Crawford. Again is that a bad thing?
zero depth or very limited talent at the 2/3. And we’ve got fill those holes with $10M of contracts? Yeah, have fun with that.
And again I like my chances there just fine, we’ve got a decent track record of finding 2/3’s who play well in this system on the cheap. You honestly dont think we could get one guy capable of playing a few minutes at point and/or a couple guys to play the 2/3 with a Jackson(expriing in 2010)/Wright offer? Seriously, dude?
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you really think a starting lineup of Monta/Jax/Kelenna/Smith/Biedrins is going to make the second round of the playoffs… ever?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sooner than Monta/Jax/Maggette/Wright/Biedrins will
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and nobody
on that team is as untradeable as Maggette, so we have more flexibility if it doesnt work
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You think you can find a trade partner for Josh Smith making $18M?
Good luck!
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
umm….well the Hawks could probably trade him to us right now for Crawford and Maggette, sooooo………..
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK
So in 3 years you’d turn Josh Smith around for the equivalent of two guys you’re currently villifiying? great plan.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As in
We tried but missed, now we’re going to trade him for an expiring and a bad contract? Do you notice some synergy between the two sides of our conversation? An overpaid Josh Smith is about what you can expect to get for an expiring contract.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously dude?
If we move Monta back to the 2 guard with a normal sized PG, we’ll get manhandled every game, so unless you’re talking about an oversized PG, that ain’t a solution. And you’re looking at getting two or three Mike Pietrus types to throw in with Kelenna?
Sorry dude. Not buying how this is a competitive team.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m only saying MORE competitive than we are now. We have the potential (yea, I used the p word) to be far better than we are now, and the kids arent being blocked by overpaid vets.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're not competitive now because we haven't trotted out a healthy team the entire season
and the kids arent being blocked by overpaid vets.
I… I… I thought you were better than that. I guess I was wrong. The kids would not be competitive, or they would be playing now. Don Nelson likes winning, he’s not going to sit players that would help him win.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The kids wouldnt be competitive. Youre right. But the old guys arent competitive either. We arent healthy, but do really expect Corey Maggette to ever be fully healthy for a full year as he gets older? Do you expect Jax to stay as healthy as he has this year? Monta’s injury was huge, but with him we MIGHT be competing for one of the last two spots. Could that lineup with Smith compete for one of the last two spots if you assume health? Sure. If they dont are we better off with an under 25 squad than we are now with 2 guys around 30 getting 35-40 minutes a night? certainly.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and
nevermind the fact that Josh Smith is just a whole lot more fun to watch than Maggette.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is not fun when he shoots jumpshots
Karma
by Sabonis4Ever on Mar 17, 2009 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude
We need to calm down or focus. We’re talking about too many things, too fast, and in too many places. I can’t keep this up much longer.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you expect Jax to stay as healthy as he has this year?
He wasn’t, didn’t he have serious finger and wrist injuries that made him useless as a shooter in Dec until he sat for a few games?
But the old guys arent competitive either.
This team hasn’t been competitive because they’ve been massively injured and they’re not uber competitive in the first place.
If they dont are we better off with an under 25 squad than we are now with 2 guys around 30 getting 35-40 minutes a night?
Not really if we’ve got $16M-$18M a year tied up in a guy who’s good but not great.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but at least he rebounds and plays defense and isnt horribly out of position at the 4.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Josh Smith’s not a good rebounder. Both Wright and Randolph have rebounded better than Smith in their NBA careers so far — Randolph’s rebounded much, much better.
Josh Smith is a pretty damn flawed player. Going to the mat for him would be a mistake.
by onlxn on Mar 17, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yay!!!
We agree on something!!!
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that I would rather not have
Josh Smih and his contract, than have him. But I would trade Crawford(if he doesnt opt out) and Maggette for him in a heart beat.
DFIB you said
We’re not competitive now because we haven’t trotted out a healthy team the entire season
I disagree, I think it might have to do with the lack of talent on our roster. Keep in mind, that Phoenix, Dallas, Utah, Portland, New Orleans, San Antonio, LA Lakers, Houston, and Denver have all had their injuries, and they are way, WAY,
WAY
, better than us. Injuries have nothing to do with our lack of competetiveness.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 17, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'd agree tha
Utah, San Antonio, and LAL are way, WAY, WAY better tan us. But the rest are just better than us to varying degrees. And none of them have had injuries as bad as we have. I’m not saying we’d be world beaters or anything (I think we’d be fighting for 9th with Phoenix right now completely healthy, while Phoenix is missing a little STAT), just that the judgment of our team from you and Sam is driven by the overall performance from this season in which we’ve had injuries left and right. Our team has no chemistry because they’re all new and nobody knows their role because they’re all new and every week somebody else is getting injured and we’re constantly filling in different people at different positions.
I’m not saying our roster is perfect, it’s far from perfect. I’m just saying that you can’t simply blame Corey Maggette for everything. He isn’t as bad as you people make him out to be and neither is our team. Let’s not trade Corey Maggette and one of our promising young talents for the sake of getting rid of Corey. If superior talent is available, great.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
GSW 23-43
Houston-No McGrady(pretty much all year) lost Artest and Yao for a few games, and a Battier for alot of games.
44-25
Denver-Carmelo hurt for a few games, and some other minor injuries
43-25
Portland-Oden and Webster hurt for alot of the year, Roy out for a few games
42-25
New Orleans-Chandler and West banged up half the season, Peterson out, Peja hurt as well
41-25
Dallas-Stackhouse and Howard injured basically all season, several other minor injuries
40-27
Phoenix-Stoudemire out, Shaq and Nash banged up during the year, other injuries for role players
36-31
You really think we have been injured that much worse than those teams, that we would be in competeetion if all off these teams were at full strenght?
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 17, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously dude...
First, keep this in mind:
I think we’d be fighting for 9th with Phoenix right now completely healthy, while Phoenix is missing a little STAT
I’m don’t consider the Warriors better than any of these teams. I’m saying that if we’d been relatively healthy, we’d be fighting with Phoenix for that last spot in the lottery, not contending for a championship. Here’s my review of the injury situations of the teams you mentioned. I’m going to reference the starters as they are both the best players and the easiest to track:
First, the Warriors
Players over 60 starts – 0
Players over 50 starts – 2 (If you combine Crawford and Harrington you get another)
Jax played on a busted wrist all December, Maggette played on busted hamstring for the first half of the season. Not to mention Belinelli’s busted ankle and BWright’s dislocated shoulder. We’ve been banged up top to bottom.
Houston
Players over 60 starts – 2
Players over 50 starts – 2
McGrady has admittedly been more injured than in past seasons, but he’s never played a full season in his career and he’s logged 784 games. You can’t really expect more than half a season is left in his tank. They’ve had their share of injuries, sure. But, then again, they’re better than us in the first place. Next year? They’re old, they’re not getting McGrady back, they’re not getting better they’re getting worse.
Denver:
Players over 60 starts – 2
Players over 50 starts – 5
Anthony has missed as many as Jax, and he’s the worst of their starters. They’ve been healthy by any stretch of the imagination, especially considering they start K-Mart and Nene.
Portland: Oden has been injured, sure. Other than that,
Players with over 60 starts – 3
Players with over 50 starts – 4
Webster is a small forward who last year averaged 10PPG on 42% shooting and 38% from beyond the arc. They’ve given his minutes to Rudy Fernandez and Nick Batum, and they’re pretty deep. Webster is not missed. Roy missed 4 games. Nothing to cry about for them.
New Orleans:
Players over 60 starts – 2
Players over 50 starts – 4
Tyson has been banged up, but he’s still started 44 games. All of their other starters have played in over 50 games. They don’t really have anything to complain about.
Dallas:
Players over 60 starts – 3
Players over 50 starts – 3
Also keep in mind that Jason Terry, who plays 33MPG has averaged that over 59 games and is their second scorer. Relatively healthy. Howard has played 45 games, or ~ 66% of Dallas’ games. I don’t see how this is “basically all season”.
Phoenix:
Players over 60 starts – 1 (Shaq, mind boggling)
Players over 50 starts – 4 (When you combine Jason Richardson and Matt Barnes – who started all 11 games in November before Richardson was acquired, you get 5).
Yeah, Amare is injured now, but he started 53 games before that. Shaq & Nash have each started 60 and 59 games respectively out of 67. Shaq has been rested on the second half of back to backs.
What do all these teams have that we haven’t? Continuity and health. Yes, you can expect some injuries over the course of an 82 game season. But we’ve been hit the hardest. And that’s not only hurt our ability to put the best guys out on the floor, but killed any chance to build any continuity & chemistry throughout the season.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
woops, meant to put that last 'way' on bold
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 17, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are a ton of variables to consider here and its useless to speculate on what kind of a lineup we’d be looking at right now
Ummm, actually, no. You’ve got a salary cap and you’ve got to stay under it. If you’re going to overpay for Josh Smith at $15M this season instead of Corey Maggette at $8M this season, you’ve got to find $7M on the existing roster to cut. It’s really very simple.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a lot of variables as in-maybe we do something else with Harrington’s contract, maybe we dont extend Jax, maybe we cant sign Turiaf, maybe we deal Wright before the season begins, maybe maybe maybe……
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All of these "maybes" become infintely more difficult when you've got $5M (escalating) extra tied up
maybe we cant sign Turiaf
Maybe that was one of the options I listed.
maybe we deal Wright before the season begins
Maybe for an expiring contract?
maybe we do something else with Harrington’s contract
Maybe we find the one team under the cap to give us a $4M SG for him? Those sorts of things?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point was simply that there are too many maybes to speculate on, but when you simply compare Maggette at 10 and Simth at 15, Smith is the better deal for this team. Is he perfect? No. Is he better than Maggs? yes.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe this is where you misunderstand me
Maggette at 10 and Simth at 15
Maggette makes $8M this season. For a $90M/5 year contract, the starting salary is around $15M, but escalates to $20M at the end. So if you’re comparing it to Maggette’s average take, you’ve got to look at Josh Smith as being $18M.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you said 80/5 for josh, so 16 average vs. 10, yea I’ll take it
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He got $65 from Atlanta
Without a real competing offer. If we offer $80, do you really think Atlanta doesn’t match? To steal him away, you’d have to offer more.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No I’m not certain Atl does match an 80/5 offer. If so I’m not heartbroken about it, I’d sign a lesser player to a much shorter deal. My point isnt that Smith is perfect, its that Maggette (for that amound of years/money) on a bad contract scale is worse than Rowand and approaching Zito
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maggette is a bad contract
We’re not arguing about that. We’re arguing about whether it’s worse to sign Maggette to a $10M per contract or Josh Smith (or similar) to a $16-$18M per. I think they’re equally overpaying by 20-30%, but that the larger contract is far worse because it completely hamstrings the organizations ability to do anything within the salary cap.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where are you getting your numbers for Smith's contract
Smith is getting 10 this year and it goes up to 13 his last year.
If your talking about offering a hypothetical contract that ATL wouldnt match I think 12.5 per year would of gotten him.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 17, 2009 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Humm...
For some reason, I thought he was getting $65/5. My bad. Didn’t properly do my research. Both Sam and I agreed that Atlanta would have probably matched $80M/5, so it’s kind of a moot point though.
On to your point, 12.5/year for 5 years gets you to 62.5M/5 years. He’s getting 58M/5 years. Do you really think Atlanta would have dropped him with nothing in return over that extra 4.5M? If you go to 12.5M starting (~70M/5 years), they might think about letting him go, but they still would have hung on to him.
You’d definitely have to go higher than that.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats the risk though,
I would offered smith 70m/5 years(I would offered Emeka Okefaor the same thing), slight overpay but not ridiculuos. If ATL matches, oh well, we go to plan b, let the kids develop and wait for Foyle, Jackson, and Harrington to get off the books and go into the 2010 off season with a boatload of cash.
And I am not talking about Wade, Bosh, or James. But we could of tossed our hat into the Amare sweepstakes. If we couldnt land that, we could of gone after a Joe Johnson(12m) AND a aging Manu Ginobli(8m) to complent our youth.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 17, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
joe johnson
will get close to max money….
by tafkasam on Mar 17, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
hed be 29 and a borderline all star. Just pointing out that theyre are alot of talent available that summer
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 17, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you offer Smith $70M
They offer Monta $75M. You screw with me, I screw with you.
If you just let the cash sit around, Monta’s and Andris’ agents eat that up, because it’s their job.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
u'd have had to do a sign and trade...
give them bwright or something
by tafkasam on Mar 17, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would give up
BW to get rid of Maggette’s contract for nothing. If we can get a mid to bottom first round pick that would be great.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 17, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm glad you're not our GM, Bob Johnson
We’d have 7 guys on the payroll for $30M and be rolling in cap space… you know, for 2010 when all the free agents are going to come out and want to play for us. What? Some are going to sign extensions this offseason? Many are going to re-sign with their current teams because they an offer more money and an extra year? Doesn’t matter, we have cap space!!!
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'd rather not spend and spend when the time is right.....
look at the top teams, no1 overpays for orle players…. boston pays 3 guys and rest r mle and lower…. lakers… spurs?
by tafkasam on Mar 17, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Luke Walton? Mostly true though, thats the only one that comes to mind from those 3 teams
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We'd slide Crawford into the starting PG alongside Jax, draft an heir apparent, and use CJ as a backup. Randolph could be used at both backup PF & SF, perhaps in concert with Maggette, so we’d still be strong offensively.
The problem with this is Crawford doesn’t show a desire to be a facilitator as much as he does a shooter? I’d also(note ALMOST)rather have MarcoPolo playing point than Crawford or Montay for that matter. So we’re probably screwed? We could get a better PF from the trade or we could get a better point guard but I don’t see us being able to get both? In an ideal world for various reasons I’d keep Rudolf, Rony, CJ, Magette and Morrow and trade all the others and start over.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 16, 2009 9:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
able to get both
if we traded Monta, which I’m loathe to do but would for the right PF, Crawford would be a one year bridge to the drafted heir apparent PG – after which we’d have both a legit PF and a new PG. We’d have to hit the mark both times – on the trade and in the draft – but I don’t see another way other than waiting and hoping …
by hardcore on Mar 16, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Crawford would be a one year bridge to the drafted heir apparent PG – after which we’d have both a legit PF and a new PG
OK, If you assume we can hit the lotto this year then it sounds a lot better.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 16, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm actually beginning to think....
a handling 3 would be ideal. Point forward. Monta-Jack backcourt is good… if we have a 3 who can handle and is smart, unselfish, I think we’re fine. Remember the Bulls did fine during the jordan era w/o a real point guard. Of course they had Jordan, but Pippen often handled and distributed as well. Monta + Jack + a 3 who can handle would work. Currently w/ Maggette (or buike ) we have a blackhole who doesnt pass. and if we go crawford, monta, jack our defense is VERY Soft. Moving Jack to the 2 and finding a long 3 who can distribute would be ideal.
I’d be willing to give Bwright/Randolph at 4 rotation another shot because I dont think we can find an upgrade. We could overpay for a brandon bass type player but it probably isnt the best longterm solution. Biedrins/Turiaf at 5 is fine. The player who comes to mind is Tashaun Prince (or Lebron)… but stepping out of fantasy land I dont really know.
Hedo is a restricted free agent. Orlando cant afford him and stay under the luxury cap, i’m unsure if theyd be willing to go into the cap for him, so possibly open to a sign and trade. I think he’s quite underrated team player, although he’d probably fall into your ‘overpaid vet’ category
Otherwise looking to draft i’m not really sure. Terrance Williams
by tafkasam on Mar 16, 2009 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Making that 3 our free agent aquisiiton i think w/ the draft pick we have 2 routes...
a PF (perhaps jordan hill) leaving us w/ 3 young PFs and i’d say we would then have to trade BWright for a backup PG
or a PG (lawson anyone?) to packup monta and come in and give us small quick backcourt (a la nash/barbosa) and thus leave wright/randolph
by tafkasam on Mar 16, 2009 10:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Our best option
Is to trade Monta. Hate to say it, but he probably has the most value. A trade of Monta would free up the 1 and 2 positions which will make S-Jax be able to slide to the 2 and possibly AR to the 3. The best trade partner would be with the Toronto Raptors:
We will get:
Bosh
Kapono/Bargnani
Raptors get:
Ellis
C-Mag
Wright
Warriors get their big man and either C/PF depth or Swingman depth. Raptors get a new Franchise player in Ellis, a PF starter replacement, and a starter or 6th man in C-Mag. All are long term players.
In the draft with our 1st rounder pick at 1-3 or 7-9 we will draft the best PG available and we choose from Teague, Jennings, Holiday, and Lawson. Lawson or Jennings are my picks primarily because of their speed and fast break skills.
We will also have some money to sign some bench players or a starter at SF (Odom?). MLE should be available too.
This puts us at:
PG: Jennings/Lawson/Crawford (Opt Out)
SG: S-Jax
SF: Buike or Randolph
PF: Bosh
C: Biedrins
Reserves: Turiaf, Watson, Marco, Bargnani/Kapono, Kurz, Davidson, Morrow
Come 2010 Free Agency. With C-Mag’s, Bosh, and Crawford’s contracts off the books we’ll have about 30$ Million to spend on Free Agents. We can re-sign Bosh or go for other Marquee players.
Brandon Jennings. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.
by ejdacanay on Mar 16, 2009 11:58 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
hard to believe
no one picked up on your idea ejdacanay – a deal that has the potential to actually appeal to both teams, and that lineup would be a significant upgrade without losing the depth so many on GSoM seem to cherish… only concern = would we want to put ourselves in position to trade Ellis for Bosh and then lose Bosh in 2010? If we could pull this deal, I’d hope we’d lock Bosh up longer with a Jacksonesque extension. Anyway, well thought out.
by hardcore on Mar 21, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea
If a scenario liek this was to happen, I would want us to lock him up long term. However, if we don’t we’ll have plenty of money in the biggest Free Agency crop of the decade.
Brandon Jennings or Ty Lawson. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.
by ejdacanay on Mar 25, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
would we want to put ourselves in position to trade Ellis for Bosh and then lose Bosh in 2010?
hell yeah , it would be a win-win situation.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 25, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
State of the team...
Nice post Hardcore. You did a pretty good job of laying it all out there. Here’s my take on the situation.
We have some positions that are “solid” and some that are question marks. I see them like this
PG: ? Will Monta do a reasonable job at point without hurting the overall efficiency of his game? That’s a question I’d love to have the answer to. Maybe we will have a better idea by the offseason. If he can make that transition then I’d be happy to draft someone like Lawson and call that position solid.
SG: Solid We have a number of guys that can play here and play here pretty well. Jackson, Buike, Morrow and to a lesser degree Crawford and Marco. Nothing to write home about but definitely NBA quality depth there.
SF: Solid Overpaid or not Maggs is a quality starting SF. I know he doesn’t start but he plays starters minutes and produces well from the position. We also have a good amount of guys that can play here. Jackson and Buike particularly.
PF: ? We have two guys here who could be NBA starter quality or better. Wright seems to have talent for scoring efficiently and keeping himself in the doghouse of the coaching staff. He will have to fix whatever it is that keeps pissing them off if he wants to earn starter minutes (his numbers have been good enough to this point). Randolph has really improved since the beginning of the season. He seems to be understanding his role better and slowing down a bit. He has played well enough to make me think he could also be a starter for us next year. We’ll see…
Center: Solid This is one spot where I think we have an above average center with an above average backup so I will call this a hair better than solid.
So here is the thing. Even if all of the question marks pan out we don’t have that good of a team. We are at best “solid” (average basically). Unless one of our young PF’s turn into KG we aren’t going anywhere. We could compete for a playoff spot and maybe even make it past the second round if everything breaks our way in the next couple years but that is our extreme best case scenario. More likely we’ll be bit by the injury bug or be disappointed by the progress (or lack of progress) of our youngsters.
My point is this, We aren’t in a position to fill any single hole. Everything should be on the table for any player that is a high level player. If we had a shot at getting a game-changer wing player we should get him, despite being overloaded. I don’t care what position our fantasy all-star player would play. If we can get a high level point guard, cool, get him. If we can get a high level PF, cool, lets do it. If we can get a great center, by all means do it (though this would be the last position I’d look at). And so on.
We still don’t have that one or two players to build around. We have a couple guys who could end up being one of those players but so does every team. If we can turn some question marks into a great player that wants out of his situation (like KG did, or Amare and Bosh were rumored to) we have to do it. We actually have enough depth that we could trade away most of our desirable assets and still field a competitive team so long as we actually got someone really good in return.
I don’t really have confidence that the front office understands this, but that’s how I feel about it. In fact, the very actions of extending Jackson and trading away what could have been our only desirable expiring contract (for another tweener with a worse deal) proves that they are not really on the same page as me. Oh well…
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 16, 2009 12:40 PM PDT reply actions 5 recs
Excellent post OM,
Here is my thing, I feel like we are good at the 4 with either Randolph or Wright getting the starting nod and gettng 30 minutes a game there next year.
If Nellie is serious about Jax/Ellis backcourt(which is a great idea in my book) than we are thin at the 3. Buike is a solid bench player and is more of 2 anyway and Maggette….well I just dont like Corey Maggette and Nellie seems to be set on him being the sixth man anyway. PG and SF, we got a first round pick and the MLE to solve those problems.
JKidd/Sessions + Jeff Teague or Rubio/Lawson + Josh Childress, are a couple of ideas in my head. Of course making a major trade is still my #1 option.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 16, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure...
There are some minor fixes that could make us a bit better. I’m not sure if any of those you suggested
are realistic or not. Obviously if we could luck into a guy like Rubio we would be having a completely different conversation next year.
I don’t agree that we’d be thin at SF though. Maggs will get the lions share of the minutes and produce pretty well even if he’s not the most likable player on the team. If Nellie insists on playing him off the bench Buike has been good as a starter at the three. He could start there and then pick up some minutes at SG as well.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 16, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
i think for rubio....
if we win lottery we can discuss the new path, but until then we should act like in all liklihood we wont get rubio or griffin
by tafkasam on Mar 16, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I gotta go mostly with you and against Thing B on this one. I like the idea of moving Jax back to the 2 like both of you and I dont really see us being thin at the 3. I think WS110 is letting dislike of Maggette and he’s ridiculous contract cloud his perspective. Buike/Maggette is probably kinda close to as good of a combination at the 3 as Biedrins/Turiaf at the 5. Giving it s a “solid” ranking seems fair. The only problem I see there is that Maggette has been fairly injury prone. It doesnt leave us with much depth WHEN he gets hurt next year. However I also wouldnt mind seeing Randolph play a few minutes there next year if Nellie really is convinced thats where his future is.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 16, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point...
I’m assuming good health and with Maggette that isn’t really a smart assumption. Though considering our depth at SG/SF we could live with a rotation of Jackson, Morrow and Buike. Not to mention Crawford and Marco.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 16, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I figure if I keep ignoring Crawford he’ll go away.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 16, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
I think that was Nellie’s plan too before Crawford’s agent made a big fuss.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 16, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On second thought....
I feel good about BW or AR at the 4. What really is killing me is our log jam at the 2/3[and my complete dislike of Maggette’s style of play and his horrid contract are clouding my judgement :) ]. What I would really like to see is use either BW or AR to move Maggette and looking to deal MB or KB .
After re-reading what both of you said(OM and Sam) I get what you guys are saying. I just think our roster isnt that good and we are going to have to do a major makeover this offseason, so we can build from future.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 16, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Am I the only one...
that gets confused by some of these two letter abbreviations? I feel bad because I tend to use them sometimes (AR and AB in particular) but when I’m reading I have the hardest time figuring out who we are talking about. I stared at MB and KB for a long time before I figured out MB was Marco and I still don’t know who KB is.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 16, 2009 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoops my bad OM,
KB is Buike, like shells said.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 16, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
After re-reading what both of you said(OM and Sam) I get what you guys are saying.
That’s pretty much the entire point of OM’s original post.
I just think our roster isnt that good and we are going to have to do a major makeover this offseason, so we can build from future.
You have to give up some assets to make a “major trade”. The only way it happens is if we’re stealing a super talented upset guy. We could give Phoenix something like Wright, Maggette, and Buke for Amare. We could give Toronto a similar deal, but we’re only getting better through a major trade if we’re getting by far more talent than we’re sending out. Just look at the Celtics trades for Ray Allen & KG. Look at the Lakers trade for Gasol. There’s one reason, and one reason only, they got so much better after those trades. They gave up way less than they got in return because they were taking advantage of the situation. You can beg and plead for a case like that to come along, but it’s not likely going to happen and there WILL be other teams competing pushing up the price. We were in both the KG & Gasol trade discussions, but we either didn’t have the assets they wanted (a problem for teams whose “roster isn’t that good”) or weren’t going to offer fair market value (a problem for teams looking to get significantly better by giving below fair market value).
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 7:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s one reason, and one reason only, they got so much better after those trades. They gave up way less than they got in return because they were taking advantage of the situation.
They gave up cap room, which is why the Maggette contract is SO terrible. We honestly wouldve been better off signing Scott Pollard to a 1yr 10 million dollar contract than signing Maggette. Pollard’s expiring wouldve been a much bigger trade chip than Maggette will be anytime in the next 4 years and probably wouldve been able to make a serious run at Bosh or Amare with a big expiring and a couple young prospects. If not then we ridiculously overpaid a guy for one year and we’re right back where we started last offseason with a little more cap room and a slightly MORE horrible team (oh NO! a better draft pick!) Did anyone realistically think adding Maggette and Turiaf while subtracting Baron would make us a better team than we were last year? It continues to boggle my mind.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did anyone realistically think adding Maggette and Turiaf while subtracting Baron would make us a better team than we were last year?
You act as if that was a choice, when it wasn’t. Ronny Turiaf, at $4.5M/season is a steal.
We honestly wouldve been better off signing Scott Pollard to a 1yr 10 million dollar contract than signing Maggette.
If this was such a great deal, then why didn’t Portland get anything of value in return for their $12M trade chip? Having an expiring contract is all well and good until you actually have to do something with it. It’s not as easy as a fan would think. You could use the “Oh, but the economy went sour” defense for why Portland didn’t move their trade chip, and that’s probably got something to do with it, but don’t you think Cohan & co wouldn’t have done the same thing? Don’t you think Portland still would have moved it if they could have got something good in return?
The only way having an expiring contract helps you is if somebody just wants to give away talent. You’re asking for a handout, and you’ll get an overpaid player who’s got too many years on their contract.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If this was such a great deal, then why didn’t Portland get anything of value in return for their $12M trade chip?
they had plenty of offers (guys who are better than or at least dont have as bad of contracts as Maggette) they wanted to save that money to extend their young guys. And like I said we wouldnt HAVE to deal the big expiring but it certainly gives us much more flexibility than we have now. Worst case scenario we’d be a few games worse than we are now with a bunch of money coming off the books. OH NO!
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And like I said we wouldnt HAVE to deal the big expiring but it certainly gives us much more flexibility than we have now.
If we’re not moving the guy, you’re just paying Scott Pollard $10M to sit in his house. Great move.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is exactly what Portland did with LaFrentz and his contract is universally acknowledged to be more valuable than Maggette. The team is going nowhere soon so really what did you get out of having Maggette out there (sometimes) than you wouldve gotten from Pollard at home? You won probably 5 more games at best, and you kept Randolph, Wright, Azubuike, and Morrow off the floor. Congratulations!
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is exactly what Portland did with LaFrentz and his contract is universally acknowledged to be more valuable than Maggette.
ctually, LaFrentz signed that contract a long time ago, so Portland didn’t have a choice about paying him, only a choice about whether or not to trade him. You, on the other hand, would be deliberately paying Scott Pollard $10M to do nothing.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
obviously
The Scott Pollard example was an extreme example. My point is a short term deal to a guy not as good as Maggette wouldve put us in a much better position.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
You guys are out of control… =P
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 17, 2009 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes
but how else am I supposed to avoid the fact that I have a final in 6 hours?
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Drugs?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha, pass
actually I gotta go study, thanks for the procrastination session though
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I gottag et bak to work
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Show me one viable basketball player who accepted a 1 year contract as a free agent over $3M
No player in their right mind would accept a one year contract of that value, unless it was what they could get on a 3 year deal anyways.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or what they could get on a 2 year deal maybe? And yes I’m suggesting something a bit unprecedented, obviously. My point is just that a short term contract to a guy who isnt as good as Maggette wouldve been far better than signing Maggs. Pollard at 1 yr/10 mil is an extreme example
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And yes I’m suggesting something a bit unprecedented, obviously.
There’s a reason it’s unprecedented. Guys who can play don’t accept short term contracts unless it’s for:
A) A championship
B) Their current team, which allows them to become an unrestricted the next year
C) Their agents are on crack
It doesn’t happen, and it won’t happen. The owners would love it, but it’s a negotiation. The players wouldn’t allow it.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said for a guy who isnt as good as Maggette. Since you seem to think we would have a huge hole at the 2/3 without him, take someone like Maurice Evans for example.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you'd pay Maurice Evans $10M for one season
I don’t know what to say. You’d rather pay Maurice Evans $10M for one season when you could have him for 3 seasons for that kind of money than pay Corey Maggette a bit more than the Spurs were willing to. Yikes.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
than pay Corey Maggette a bit more than the Spurs were willing to
It was quite a bit more than what SA offered.
What I would of done in the offseason is go for Brand or Okafor and if we couldnt get them, just circle the wagons, and let Al and Jack come off the books and have boatloads of cash in the 2010 off season. Signing Maggette doesnt
a)make us good enough team to make the playoff
or
b)give us young guy to build around the future
it was a horrible move that is going to cripple this team. Would you trade Maggette and Wright for Josh Smith(salaries come close to matching up)?
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 17, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since you seem to be the expert
It was quite a bit more than what SA offered.
What exactly did the Spurs offer? I was under the impression that it was MLE for 5 years, somewhere around $30M-$35M/5 years. It’s less, but they can also offer a championship, not something we can.
If we whiffed on that, and Brand (which we did), and Okafor (do you really think we didn’t consider that?), and JSmoove (I’d be offended if they didn’t at least test the waters there), your option is to give it to the young guys?
Then we’d be overpaying Monta & Biedrins instead of Maggette. Great.
Would I trade Maggette & Wright for Josh Smith? Maybe. I’d probably pull the trigger.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah we offered quite a bit more than the MLE, obviously I dont know exaclty what SA offered. If we have to overpay to get talent, why would we overpay for a 30 year old Corey Maggette?
Then we’d be overpaying Monta & Biedrins instead of Maggette. Great.
You lost me here. Why would we give these guys more money, just because we can?
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 17, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Part of the negotiation with Monta & Biedrins was
“Hey, we’re rubbing up against the luxury tax here. We can’t go any higher”.
If we were under the cap and had $8M before we had to start paying lux tax, their agents would have said, “Hey, what’s another mil?” and we’d be paying a bit more for their services. I forget where I read that, for all I know, it could have been TK :-P. It makes sense to me though.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fantastic post
I was gonna start going line by line to express what I agree strongly with….but its essentially the entire post. Some highlights I really liked:
So here is the thing. Even if all of the question marks pan out we don’t have that good of a team. We are at best "solid" (average basically). Unless one of our young PF’s turn into KG we aren’t going anywhere. We could compete for a playoff spot and maybe even make it past the second round if everything breaks our way in the next couple years but that is our extreme best case scenario. More likely we’ll be bit by the injury bug or be disappointed by the progress (or lack of progress) of our youngsters.
We still don’t have that one or two players to build around. We have a couple guys who could end up being one of those players but so does every team.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 16, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We still don’t have that one or two players to build around.
This really nails it. Our third through seventh-best players are just fine, and as Geoff Lepper has pointed out, our eight through twelfth-best players are probably better than anyone else’s. The problem is that our two best players — Monta and Biedrins — are very good, as opposed to great.
On the other hand, being “solid” at five positions is rarer than you might think. Most teams, even most playoff teams, have genuine holes somewhere. If Monta can hang at the point and Randolph and Wright can sustain their production over extended minutes, we’d be above-average at every position except maybe shooting guard. Not significantly above average anywhere, but above average all the same.
What NBA teams are built like that — no true stars, no true holes? I think the team that best fits this description is actually Atlanta. Nobody you’d confuse with an All-Star — since his one monster season two years ago, Joe Johnson’s been good but not exceptional — and just about everybody on the team has some obvious flaws. But they have a pretty solid player at every position, and as a result, they’re 39-28. Do I think the Hawks have a championship in their future? Nope. But they’re a good team.
I don’t really disagree with anything in OM’s analysis, and like him, I think we should be willing to give up a lot to get a real star. But I just thought I’d throw a glass-half-full viewpoint out there. Starless teams will never win championships, but they can be fairly successful. From here, being a Hawks fan looks pretty damn good.
by onlxn on Mar 16, 2009 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We'd have to get somebody willing to trade their star for our 8-12 depth
If we lose out on the lottery, and we can convince Phoenix to take this year’s first rounder (assuming it’s #6 or #7), BWright, and Maggette (and cap filler) for Amare, we should do it.
Al Horford is only in his second year, he’s still got some improvement there… but he’s really their only hope. They busted with Marvin Williams & Acie Law, which screwed them.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 7:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’d have to get somebody willing to trade their star for our 8-12 depth
once again, thats where Corey Maggette’s contract comes in and ruins everything.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Explain
What would you have done with that money. Remember, if you don’t do anything with it, you’ve got to give it to Monta & Biedrins and make them overpaid.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What would you have done with that money.
Not given a long term mega-deal to a guy with a long list of injury problems and inconsistent play at one of least needy positions.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh...
That doesn’t answer the question. I’m guessing because you have no answer. Because there really wasn’t much better to do with it. Or would you rather be paying Gilbert $100M/5 years to watch him sit on the bench this season and the forseeable future? Or would you rather have paid Brand $80M, including $19M after his 34th B-Day?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two equally bad, but far more costly overpays
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha
I said NOT give a long term maga-deal to a guy with a log list of injury problems, and inconsistent play about to turn 30.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
Come up with a better option that WAS on the table last year. Because if you don’t, you’re paying Monta $13M/season and Andris $11M/season. Purely hypothetical, but I’m 100% sure that going up against the luxury tax was part of the negotiating strategy.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And like I said before giving a 1 yr 10 million dollar offer to player not as good as Maggette wouldve been a better deal.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I'm saying above
That’s a pipe dream. No player would ever accept that deal.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No player would ever accept that deal.
No player in the NBA would accept a one year 10 million dollar offer? Seriously?
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
See above
Show me one viable basketball player who accepted a 1 year contract as a free agent over $3M
No player in their right mind would accept a one year contract of that value, unless it was what they could get on a 3 year deal anyways.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they would if they would likely get a 1 year $4mm deal instead. There are plenty of players out there who are just not that good. Scott Pollard included. The question is what team would pay a $3mm guy $10mm. If you have the cap space you can always take back more salary than you trade. And I don’t buy the argument that we would have had to pay Monte or Biedrins more. Honestly, do you think their agents give a damn about anybody else but their own guys? If they can get $15mm for Monta, they would have, Biedrins be damned. They got what they could get. The W’s stupid decision to overpay for Maggette is a separate issue, IMO.
by jmaaan on Mar 26, 2009 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure
that the way the cap/lux tax level is set up we wouldve been better off signing a guy to short term contract than just saving the cap space, I don’t think we would be able to take 10 million back if we just hadn’t signed Maggette. (or 8 since thats what he’s making this year)
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 27, 2009 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll buy that
You could give two virtually worthless guys $4M just to sit on the bench. But that doesn’t help you get to the playoffs which was still the point at the time. You can look back now that Monta busted himself up, Maggette was injured for the first half of the season, and we’ve had some internal strife, and has won only 25 games and say “there’s no way this was going to make the playoffs”, but the team won 48 games the year before, had one significant roster change (Baron → Maggs) and a ton of young guys, including two starters who’d recently been in the MIP discussions, who were going to improve their game. It is very reasonable to expect that team would have been able to be 0.500 or better which makes the playoffs every year except last year (and looking like this year too).
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 27, 2009 6:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
had one significant roster change (Baron → Maggs)
that’s a pretty significant change, though. could’ves and should’ves aren’t the same as do and did. last year we were a 48 win team. this year we are not.
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Mar 29, 2009 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell, I’d give up more than that. I’d still do Monta/Wright/Randolph for Amare, and I say that as a guy who thinks more of that trio than most. If getting a top-15 player requires blowing up our team, we shouldn’t hesitate.
by onlxn on Mar 17, 2009 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A whiner who's had microfracture knee surgery and a serious eye injury?
Who doesn’t rebound all that well and doesn’t really like playing defense. Not Monta, Wright, and Randolph. Monta and Wright or Randolph, I’d do it. But only after we see what we’ve got in the draft. If we’ve got the #1 pick, draft Blake and keep the youngsters!
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True — the draft pick’s a key variable.
There are some question marks surrounding Amare for sure, but no more than were surrounding Baron when we traded for him — Amare’s a better player than Baron was. Amare was one of the ten best players in the league when playing in a system like ours, and he’s only 26. I’d take the gamble on both health issues… he’s already reached an elite surgery since the knee injury, and eye problems don’t tend to linger.
I’m not saying I’d be happy to give up Monta, Wright and Randolph. I like all three of those guys a lot, and I think all three have genuine potential. But a star big is worth paying for. And I doubt we could get Amare for much less.
by onlxn on Mar 17, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Earlier in the season, I'd probably be with you
But Monta’s starting to show some of his old form, Randolph is showing a little substance with the promise, and STAT is injured, again. And he got real whiny about the coach not using him the way he wanted. What happens when Nelson retires and somebody comes in with a defensive mind set? Are we going to have to ship Amare out for a bag of beans because he’s old now?
The way I see it is: Monta/BWright/Randolph for Amare doesn’t make us a contender next year or the year after. We still have a lot of questions marks. Thus, it’s not worth it. Either Monta or Randolph could become a star in their own right, and Amare really only gets us to 5-8 range instead of 7-10, still with no chance at contention unless we get lucky in the draft or Anthony Morrow morphs into Ray Allen and Belinelli morphs into Manu with distributor skills.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I feel you. It’s true, it doesn’t look quite as good as it would’ve six weeks ago. With Randolph’s improvement and Monta’s seeming return to form, along with Wright looking sharp as ever since coming back, we would be punting on a lot. I guess the reason I’d be tempted is that I believe Nellie would give Stoudemire starter’s minutes, whereas he may keep sitting on Randolph and Wright in favor of smallball. It’ll take a certain type of PF to get Nellie to commit to a regular lineup, and I worry that Randolph and Wright, as promising as they are, don’t fit that type.
by onlxn on Mar 17, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he gives STAT starter's minutes...
Maybe he starts sitting Biedrins more. You never know what’s going through his head. But I still trust that he’s trying to win and take over the top spot. From my stance, that’s probably his only reason for continuing to coach. And I think Randolph fits the “Nellie PF type” to a Tee.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I trust that he’s trying to win — I’m not questioning his motives. But he’s shown a hesitation with these two guys that hasn’t really been justified by their play, and I think stylistic fit has something to do with it, especially in the case of Wright.
by onlxn on Mar 17, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
marvins too young
w/ too much potential to be a bust…. but fact they picks him over chris paul and deron williams will ALWYAS look bad
by tafkasam on Mar 17, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
meh
I was thinking the same thing, especially because I feel like everytime I happen to catch even 5 minutes of a Hawks game this year some announcer is gushing about Marvin’s talent and the “breakout season” he’s having this year….but then I went and checked out his per stats and they still look pretty bad. He’ still young and I wouldnt put him in the Kwame/Darko category just yet, but he seems to be on his way.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
BTW...
Rec for a well written, well researched, and eye pleasing (pictures do wonders) FanPost.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 16, 2009 12:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I rather get Rubio instead.
And minds as well trade Wright. Package him with Maggs for a good pf.
by warriorfan4life on Mar 16, 2009 1:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
5% chance he'll enter this draft.
Probably less.
Brandon Jennings. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.
by ejdacanay on Mar 16, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1st of all
no need 4 a power forward with randolph developing. kaz has proven he can start wright is the only one who is tradeable an marco. STAND PAT ME8 WILL BE GREAT ALONG WITH RANDOLPH AN BEANS
by nateoak10 on Mar 16, 2009 8:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
With no clear player to build around
(even Monta I’m hearing) the team is stuck in limbo. All we can do is play the waiting game and see how our players turn out. For the offseason, we settle on a rotation, no more shuffling lineups every game, trim the excess players, and just let the players play. Or just neglect the team and wait for Nelson to retire, hire Avery Johnson, and a savvy front office comes in. I don’t know how we have the energy to ponder this stuff for free.
by GoldenBlue on Mar 16, 2009 11:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Sam
When you’re done with your final, come take a bow with me.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 17, 2009 9:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
(bows)
and to be honest, looking back I think I was taking out some of my “I’m totally unprepared for this final” frustration on Maggette this morning. I still despise the contract, but saying its approaching Zito territory may have been a bit extreme.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 17, 2009 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but saying its approaching Zito territory may have been a bit extreme.
Ya think? ; )
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 17, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if itm akes u feel better
warriors gave adonal 6 years 42 mil
mags 5 for 50 looks GREAT in comparison
for only 3 mil a year more we get a guy who averages more rpg and 4-5 times the ppg :-)
by tafkasam on Mar 24, 2009 11:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
calm down
i would lend an opinion that hardcore’s ‘truth’ post is jumping the gun (in some ways) in terms of trading one the the Dubs’ best players to land a PF. i will elaborate below, but in reading the main post i just got a feeling that such a huge deal would be rushed at this point in time.
some additionally HUGE factors that must be included in trade discussions/scenarios would be: a) the state of the front office and b) don nelson
Front Office: f*cked up
the power struggle of recent years has been well documented, and shouldn’t be ignored in looking ahead. from what i understand rowell is cohen’s guy, and nelson is aligned pretty heavily with rowell. and now nelson’s former right hand man (harris i think) is the assistant GM. the move from lead assistant coach to assistant GM MIDSEASON is a pretty weird one if you ask me. so this off-season we’re likely to see mullin leave, and the rowell-nelson-harris alliance take over entirely. what will this mean?
1) i’m thinking ellis will be traded in the offseason because he was a mullin guy (am i correct in thinking it was mullin who signed him to the extension). it was mullin who helped ellis through the moped fiasco(personally), it was mullin who did not want to suspend him…and the rowell side who created the friction by suspending ellis and whispering about voiding the contract.
2) because nelson will have such a heavy influence in the front office, i think team moves will be dictated by nelson’s desire to be #1 on the all-time coaching wins list. thus, veterans given a lot of playing time, and the team (nelson or rowell) won’t fully commit to a youth movement, as it probably should. so i would not be surprised to see more brain dead moves like the maggette signing, or bringing in a jamal crawford type veteran.
Team: talented without a clear purpose
the mix of veterans and youth on this team kills me. why give long term contracts to ellis and AB the same year as jackson and maggette??
the team is too young to compete at a playoff level RIGHT NOW in some areas: ellis (no extended playoff experience, or go-to-guy experience) AB (improving but a few years away from his prime) wright (improving but years away) randolph (improving but is really young) turiaf (good defensive talent, lacks a lot of big game experience)
but the team also has quality veterans capable of competing RIGHT NOW in the playoffs: jackson (putting up great numbers, great player but over 30) maggette (provides a great punch off the bench) crawford (can heat up from outside and score on any team)
the problem is that the second group is at their peak, and will decline in the coming years, and the first group will take years to develope. there’s no equilibrium of talent.
what the Dubs SHOULD do in my opinion is trade maggette and crawford immediately. then give heavy minutes to ellis at PG, randolph at PF, and AB at Center. To me, those three guys should be the building blocks…and in 3-4 seasons they can hit their primes at a high level. most importantly keep randolph and give him minutes, the guy has electrifying talent and can be a perennial all-star if he works at his game (IMO).
what the Dubs will PROBABLY do given the front office situation is trade ellis (a mullin guy) this offseason. and will probably trade for a veteran pg that can play in the up tempo and help get wins now… but winning 40-45 games over the next 4 seasons while jax/maggette decline will hurt when randolph leaves due to lack of playing time.
by Brickowski BOOM on Mar 24, 2009 5:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
wow, somebody (sort of) agrees?!
what the Dubs SHOULD do in my opinion is trade maggette and crawford immediately
I agree, this would be ideal, albeit difficult to fathom → who is going to take them off our hands, and without us having to throw in some younger, less expensive talent in order to receive anything of value in return?
what the Dubs will PROBABLY do given the front office situation is trade ellis
not even I think trading Ellis probably will happen … but then, how is it jumping the gun? – I wrote it would be during the off-season … I like your analysis of the Mullin vs Treo FO, but think maybe even Nelson sees Ellis fits his system pretty well and he’s going to get that win record regardless barring an unforeseen disruption in his tenure. I think he only moves Monta if he’s hoping to get beyond the first round and is willing to roll the dice big time …
by hardcore on Mar 25, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
would rowell force an ellis trade? i got the idea in reading (news articles, blogs) that there’s a rift between ellis and the front office. i thought that this was the rowell led suspension and contract voiding rumor…
maybe after mullin leaves the FO will still see the value in ellis, but i’m thinking the rift will cause a trade…
by Brickowski BOOM on Mar 26, 2009 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Randolph our starting 4
Wow. Earlier in the year jae and I had a pissing match over Randolph. I said he had been compared to Bosh and that he could become a very good player. I liked his comfortable and good looking shot, his length, athleticism, fire and wirey strength that could be developed. Now, mind you I was looking at a guy who was drafted in the double digits and a guy who I think has a much higher upside than Wright.
However, even I can’t imagine him being our starting 4 next year. I mean, a guy shows some promise and we’re going to give him a starting role? He needs to come off the bench as a back up and get 15 minutes a game next season. Work hard on strength, boxing out, learning NBA fundamentals, and ideally playing some back to the basket offense. Right now he’s an excellent athlete with an improving outside shot and good shot blocking skills. He rebounds because he’s athletic and active, not because he’s fundamentally solid, and so he loses some key defensive rebounds. Yes he has very good potential, but he’s several years away from really being able to be considered a good starter in this league, IF he continues to develop.
Bottom line is, if we’re going to be a good team we need a more polished 4. An average vet for a couple of years would be fine in conjunction with Randolph.
I’ll finish by saying that I’m convinced that Wright will always be a role player. He can score efficiently around the basket, but he can’t create scoring for himself. Either by back to the basket play or face up play away from the basket. His points need to come from scraps or from other players creating for him. He doesn’t have the fire to be a good rebounder but does have the length to be a decent defender. His role in this league will be as a bench player who can contribute on D and score efficiently on scraps around the basket. Valuable, but not starter quality. And certainly not worth the high value some are putting on him at such an early point in his career.
by jmaaan on Mar 26, 2009 10:38 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I mean, a guy shows some promise and we’re going to give him a starting role?
Yes, thats what bad teams with youth do. I don’t think anyone expects him to log 40 or even 36 mpg as a starter next season, but unless we acquire a better option than we currently have on the roster theres no reason he shouldnt start at the 4 and get 25-30 mpg.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 27, 2009 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
PG
And as far as the 1 goes. Ellis hasn’t proven he can handle it. Maybe next year he does. But I agree with most that we need a real 1. Yes, Sessions is available, maybe. But one person we haven’t discussed much lately is Hinrich. He’s a big 1 who can defend both backcourt positions and run an offense.
In terms of the draft, there are some decent 1’s in the draft this year, particularly as back ups, but next year is the year of the point guard. If you really want to draft a 1, try to add a draft pick for next year and hope we can luck/trade into a position to get one of the good ones. I’d be fine trying Monte at 1 next year and if he doesn’t come around, trading him at the deadline and trying to draft a 1. Or, we can say f it, trade for Hinrich and trade Monta for a big this offseason.
by jmaaan on Mar 26, 2009 10:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Who do we trade for Hinrich?
he makes 11million. So we are talking Maggette or Crawford. Unfortunelty for us they are both garbage and everyone knows it. So now we have to toss in Marco, Buike, AR, BW, or our first round pick. That doesnt really seem worth it for a ‘solid at best’ point guard. And I dont imagine Hirich playing beside Monta will be something Nellie will like anyway because of the size issue.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 26, 2009 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would probably do Beli plus Crawford for Hinrich ….but the Bulls wouldn’t.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 27, 2009 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who do we trade for Hinrich?
Hindrich is a guard version of dunleavey, someone you want to trade away not for.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 27, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hinrich is a guard version of LeBron James, someone you want to trade for not away.
Feel like explaining your reasoning?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 27, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or, I guess if we're limiting ourselves to white guys
Hinrich is a guard version of Larry Bird, someone you want to trade for not away.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 27, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Feel like explaining your reasoning?
Yeah, he’s just not ever gonna be very good, as soon as they could the bulls got a better guard.
How long did it take the warriors to figure that out with dunleavey? What resemblance do you see between Lebron and Hindrick anyway?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 27, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
as soon as they could the bulls got a better guard.
That’s like saying that Al Jefferson is no good because Minny traded for Kevin Love this year. Did you know that NBA teams can play 5 players at once? And that sometimes it’s good to have some overlapping skills? Umm… they lucked into the #1 draft pick and took Derrick Rose. It’s not like they jettisoned Hinrich so they could hire Beno Udrich off waivers.
What resemblance do you see between Lebron and Hindrick anyway?
Ummm…. they both have names? They both play in the eastern conference? They both play for playoff teams? None really, but that was my point. Kinda like I don’t really see any resemblance between Dunleavy and Hinrich other than that they’re both current white NBA players, but that has no bearing on whether or not Hinrich is a good or bad player.
What resemblance do you see between Dunleavy and Hinrich beyond the fact that they’re both white? Hinrich is a solid defender, Dunleavy not so much.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 27, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What resemblance do you see between Dunleavy and Hinrich beyond the fact that they’re both white?
I just posted it above, both are never gonna be good enough to be worth going after. Like dunleavy Hindrich has been a big “potential” never developing. I picked him on a fantasy team once so I’ve seen his suckiness first hand.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 27, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A much easier solution is to
offer the BAE to Chris Quinn. He can shoot the 3 ball and is ok at running an offense. He would be nice to have a traditional pg behind Ellis.
Low risk, Low reward, a nice stop gap mesure while we find out if Monta can play the 1 or not.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 26, 2009 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
stand pat
if you think we’ll be better next year b/c we’re missing a player or two, then you haven’t been paying attention to the previous 15 years. it’s precisely those feelings of “we need to make a move” that have screwed the W’s each and every season. by your own admission, we have very little that other teams want and the parts that are desirable are more valuable to us (goose, monta) than they would be to most other teams. let’s see where we draft, let’s see what the free agent market brings, else, i’m inclined to stand pat.
i have serious trouble seeing how another panic stricken off-season will help. just think about where we’d be if last season the FO didn’t freak out when boom split. think of the money they’d be sitting on, and think how our record would be pretty much the same (f-ing terrible). conversely, we are in cap hell, have a bunch of useless players and we’re still bad. we won’t get any better by signing another maggs or crawford.
the reason we have so many role players is b/c the FO has been trying to plug holes made by “making moves”.
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Mar 29, 2009 10:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
well, I think I can claim to having paid attention over the past 15 years, but if you’re experience following the dubs is only 15 years, you need to do a little more study – try 30-40 years back to catch up …
I disagree that the move to sign Maggette as a FA put us in cap-hell; the moves to extend Jackson and trade for Crawford after the Maggette signing have done so. Had the FO stopped at adding Maggette we would not be in bad shape at all, and with the Jackson and Crawford decisions they knew about the Maggette contract and chose to make those decisions anyway. So the FA signing = cap hell argument rings hollow, and imo was not a panic move as much as the Crawford trade was.
I agree with you that if we make a move just to make a move, or a panic-move, then we’re screwing ourselves. We can be better next year if we make the right move to upgrade the roster, while we might be better if Monta and the rest of the starters stay healthy, if BOTH Wright and Randolph develop, and if we get a draft pick that can contribute. I am not at all convinced by anything anyone has posted here or anywhere else that standing pat makes us better than making a move that immediately upgrades our roster significantly.
moving Monta for a legit PF, such as Bosh, would not be a panic stricken move at all – it’d be an upgrade of significant proportions at a significant position – will refrain from restating the copious arguments from the Bosh thread for you, but the arguments are sound and thoroughly examined (at least by GSoM standards). Adding Bosh makes us a WC contender imo, and at least a legit rather than fringe playoff roster. Whether we could land him, and keep him, is the question. If we could add a legit PF without losing Monta or Andris all the better, but I don’t see that happening.
Given the choice between standing pat and being a fringe playoff team or moving Monta and having the strength inside to contend for the WC, I’ll take the latter.
by hardcore on Mar 29, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know about "cap hell"...
but they would still be over the cap without the extension to Jackson and the Crawford trade. These would be our numbers this offseason:
Monta $11m
Harrington $10.0m
Biedrins $9m
Maggette $8.9m
Jackson $7.7m
Turiaf $4.1m
Azu $3.1m
Wright/Randolph/Belinelli $6m
That’s a total of $59.8m, or about $1m over the cap.
Even in the Summer of LeBron, only Jackson and Harrington would come off the cap, leaving a cap figure of $43.9m (assuming the Warriors take out their options on Wright, Randolph, and Belinelli) but NOT factoring in their next 2 draft picks, which will probably come to about $5m total (48.9m and counting) and the remaining 2 “ghost contracts” (another $900k, for a total of $49.8m).
That COULD be about $9m under the cap, but there’s been widespread speculation that the cap will actually decrease this off-season, meaning that a figure of $7m under the cap is more likely.
Essentially, being $7m under the cap is pointless. You can offer a guy almost that much in the MLE, so it’s not like you have superior bargaining position. Once the Maggette contract was given out (given the Azu, Biedrins, Turiaf and Ellis contracts), the Warriors’ salary cap prospects were pretty much shot for the next 5 years. Jackson and Crawford were not judicious moves, to be sure, but they really won’t make much a difference in the team’s ability to sign a marquee free agent.
by markdash on Mar 29, 2009 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
being $7m under the cap is pointless
we simply disagree, on a point which is now moot because the damage is done
by hardcore on Mar 30, 2009 6:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
