Maggette's future
The season has come closer to an end and early in the season we wanted Maggette out of the picture. Since he has been coming off the bench he has been great for us and is up for 6th man of the year. I have grown very fond of him as he is a decent rebounder and a good scorer but sometimes I just get so very mad at him! When he passes up on a open pass to go body seek, it really hurts are team and in key times.
strengths:
-Great scorer.
-Gets to the line at will.
-One of the better 6th men in the NBA.
-Good rebounder.
-Exciting in the open court.
-Solid mid range game.
-Athletic freak
weakness':
-Tunnel vision.
-Won't pass.
-For as many times he gets to the line he should shoot a higher percentage.
-Bad defender.
-Turn overs an issue.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=497
Comment...
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!
0 recs |
239 comments
Comments
maggette should be traded this offseason. right now he has high trade value.
Gerald Madkins
by gorillas on Mar 21, 2009 10:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
I think that contract prevents him from having “high” trade value, but this is probably the highest its gonna get until he becomes an expiring.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 22, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
TRADE HIM ASAP!
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 21, 2009 10:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
no way
proven scorer off the bench he’s a keeper
by Warriorfan on Mar 21, 2009 11:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
there are much better things that we can get in return for maggs that fill voids we have on this team.
Gerald Madkins
by gorillas on Mar 21, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
as much as we love/hate Maggs
he doesn’t fit into the Warriors system… or is it Jamal?Or Jackson?
NO ITS ROWELL
trade him!
We Believe
by RunNdGun on Mar 22, 2009 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hes good..but hes 30 and hes 50 mil 5 years..
and a player that always is sacrificing his body like him wont last 5 years.. plus when he gets put in the games he just kills the passing game and we go 1 on 1 isolation
by gswfan1 on Mar 21, 2009 11:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
my take on it..
we just signed him to a 5 year contract…trade hi it just proves we dont have a plan.
is it safe to say chan and rowell equal=nba al davis?maybe.the only plan we have is me8 beans an ar are the future players and plan number 2…..we dont hae 1.teams like the blazers an thunder have a plan and they are going to turn out very well.they are also young just like them…if we can get a plan together w have the players to be a playoff team.
by nateoak10 on Mar 21, 2009 11:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i meant trading him in the 1st sentence
by nateoak10 on Mar 21, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think that there’s any question that we don’t have a plan. Keeping him won’t fool anyone into believing that we do.
by jae on Mar 22, 2009 1:26 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
we didn't have a plan, but if
in executing a plan once we’ve set a clear course we trade him, then it would be evidence of having a plan
I’d imagine as a player Maggs is more attractive to other teams than Jackson and probably Crawford, though his contract is longer than Jamal’s.
by hardcore on Mar 22, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we just signed him to a 5 year contract…trade hi it just proves we dont have a plan.
changing the plan is better than having a bad plan
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 22, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's a true Warrior
Fits perfectly on a team with absolutely no system, which the Warriors are. Ruins the uptempo game by stopping the ball whenever he gets it, and getting fouled so much. Concerned with nothing other than getting his, like the rest of the squad. Nobody else wants him because they’re all saving money for ’10 free agency. Which, because of him, the Warriors will have no part of.
by LakerFan24 on Mar 21, 2009 11:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why not?
I want the Warriors to be successful. A real California rivalry is great for the game, like early in the decade with Sacramento. But seeing as I have the utmost respect for Warrior fans (your building is ALWAYS sold out, regardless of record, while people in Sac scalp free tickets), I would absolutely LOVE to see the Warriors and Lakers play meaningful games. It would be good for the game.
by LakerFan24 on Mar 21, 2009 11:35 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
trade him..
we have bukie who is a slightly better pass (by default only because he is more willing), makes less than half and other than that have the exact same skill set. him or jamal needs to go for cap relief. both have been true soldiers and very professional, but one has to go for the betterment of our team, filling our weakness or at the very least cap relief.
by IndubitableBayAreaGM on Mar 21, 2009 11:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i really like maggette
as of late but if we have a chance to trade him this offseason,i say do it. i can see him being our ideal 6th man like right now in the future when we get better but The thing is, would anybody want him if were trying to shop him around?i highly doubt anyone would take him.
by GSwarrior on Mar 21, 2009 11:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
sorry man
but the guy doesn’t add anything to the team. are you in love with those meaningless stats he’s putting up, or is it more that he was so HORRIBLE as a starter playing 40+. same guy limited minutes. he’s taking minutes away from KA, a true player, all-around player, play in the flow player, pass the ball player, muscles with purpose player.
by KeepdaCore on Mar 21, 2009 11:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think everyone can agree that if we can get something good in return, then we should trade him. That point is basically moot. His contract goes too far into the future in proportion to even optimistic predictions about his production near the end of his contract.
I think the real question is in whether we should trade him for nothing more than salary cap room, i.e. an expiring contract.
If this is the goal, I think it is important to consider the fact that even though it may seem like we are selling high given his production, the current economic climate is making owners much more picky about what kind of contracts they want to be committed to. Expiring contracts are at a premium for almost all teams at this point, as well as young players still on the rookie scale.
Given this, it seems unrealistic that teams are going to trade anything ‘good’ for Maggette,
In contrast, almost all teams are looking to get rid of previously bearable bad contracts.
A much more realistic option is simply exchanging bad contracts with another team, but then we are kind of back where we started.
However, I am suspect of the current plan of the Warriors management.
We have been ‘developing’ youngsters for so long, we have become a symbol for mediocrity in the league. Our ability to evaluate talent is the draft has left us perpetually abysmal on the court. Maggette has looked like a contributor as of late. Perhaps we need to stop thinking about 2010 and start thinking about winning as soon as possible. We have been on the fortunate sides of trades in recent years, but letting contributors go for talent evaluated by our current staff seems like the same thinking that has gotten us here, repeated.
by Jonblaze on Mar 22, 2009 12:45 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
i like me some maggs
he is more of a team player than people give him credit for. i never say “boy maggs sure is hogging the ball tonight”. he doesn’t try to be a superstar unless his number is called and he is an incredibly consistent scorer. (plus he loves to swing it to morrow in the corner!)
by HoLdEmUP on Mar 22, 2009 1:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
honestly
Maggette has really surprised me this season. You guys aren’t mentioning how he took the 6th man role and upgraded his game. I think having a guy who can get to the line helps us out in situations where our half court offense is slow. There are still times where he shoots too much, but I would say been as consistent if not more than Jack, and he doesn’t get technicals.
by bayareaballa on Mar 22, 2009 8:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
he has really shown that he can be valuable to pretty much any team as a 6th man. That said, in games where he’s absent, you really don’t miss him that much. He is one of the best iso players, but his passing ability, court vision, selfishness, make him not really an asset to the team, just instant scoring…
If we could trade him (along with a few others benchies) to get that coveted PG we all know we need, I’d do it in a heatbeat. I’d also not mind having him for another few seasons if we can’t trade him.
by FishStix on Mar 22, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
C. Magz
between him and stephen jackson – the worst decision making and shot selection in the league. Get rid of him!
by D3F1N1T3 on Mar 22, 2009 9:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comparing Jax’s shot selection to Maggs misses a bunch. Maggette is scoring 19 points on 13 attempts, getting to the line regularly and coverting 47% of the shots he takes. That’s ridiculously efficient. Jax is hiting about 41% of his shots and takes 4 more attempts to score 2 more points.
by jae on Mar 22, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep him or Trade him,
either way, it should be fine.
Keep him- stay a 6th man and flop, and get foul calls.
Trade- that’s fine, no more bad contract, and a decent player in return or draft pick!
Can you choke without coughing?
by AlbinoWhale on Mar 22, 2009 9:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If he continues to play at this level, it's really not a bad contract
5 years at 50 million is a pretty good deal for a player who can draw 9 fouls a game and give you around 21 points and a couple boards in limited minutes off the bench. Can he sustain it? shrug thats a coin flip, his past stats. are against him but in the past he was playing more minutes then he was now.
One thing to consider is that if we are going to move forward with our lineup change of Jackson to the 2, then we will need someone to backup Buike at the 3. If you decide you want Randolph at the 3 then we will need a backup for Wright at the 4. At this point, its obvious that Crawford will be gone and either Belinelli, Morrow, or Watson (most likely Watson as Nellie has commented he envisions Belinelli playing backup point).
A bench consiting of
Belinelli, Morrow, Magette, Randolph, Turiaf plus etc. is pretty legit to me
by kyzah on Mar 22, 2009 10:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
you forgot
his 3 biggest weaknesses
-about to turn 30
-injury prone
-way overpaid
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 22, 2009 10:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That’s the real problem. He won’t sustain this for the contract because guys his age don’t. If there’s a buyer willing to take on his salary for a marginally useful piece in return, it’s going to be better for long term management. He’s playing real well, but at 34, I wouldn’t expect anything close to this.
by jae on Mar 22, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’ll be 33 when the contract ends, and as an expiring, he’ll be valuable in that fifth year no matter how he plays. We really only have to worry about his performance through age 32.
I don’t disagree with the general thesis — a banged-up guy like Maggette isn’t likely to age well, and that’s the worst thing about the contract. But let’s not overstate it. In year four he’ll still be younger than guys like Duncan, Chauncey and Jamison currently are, and in year five he’ll be an attractive trading commodity. We should trade him if we can get value for him, but if we can’t, the risks aren’t as bad as some may think.
by onlxn on Mar 22, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But let’s not overstate it. In year four he’ll still be younger than guys like Duncan, Chauncey and Jamison currently are
Who is overstating? Maggette was never anywhere near the player Duncan and Billups are and Maggette has been far more banged up in his 20’s than any of those guys were. Throwing out those kind of names when assessing Maggette is rather misleading.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 22, 2009 11:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m not contending that Maggette’s at the level of Duncan and Chauncey. I was responding to this specific point by jae:
He won’t sustain this for the contract because guys his age don’t.
The riskiest year of Maggette’s contract is the fourth one — his age-32 season. Jae’s point is that most guys get significantly worse at that point. I think he’s overstating the case. Here are all the players in the league, good and bad, that are 32 years old:
Kevin Garnett, Stephon Marbury, Raja Bell, Brad Miller, Tim Thomas, Wally Szczerbiak, Chauncey Billups, Maceo Baston, Jeff Foster, Rasho Nesterovic, Brian Skinner, Greg Buckner, Damon Jones, Vince Carter, Eduardo Najera, James Posey, Rafer Alston, Raef LaFrentz, Michael Ruffin, Calvin Booth, Tim Duncan, Matt Harpring, Antawn Jamison.
A lot of these players are bad, but that’s not the point. The point is, how many of these guys are dramatically worse than they used to be? Not too many, that I can see. LaFrentz is done, of course, and Marbury is Marbury. Duncan and Garnett have each maybe lost a step, but they’re still two of the ten best players in the league… Carter and Billups are playing as well as they ever have. Most of those guys are pretty much doing what they usually do. Being 32 isn’t as much of a death knell for NBA players as it used to be.
There are three caveats I can think of, none of which strike me as terribly important.
- “You’re forgetting all the guys who washed out of the league by 32. Most players aren’t even playing more at that age.” True. But Maggette is a guy who has played at a fairly high level, year in and year out, for about a decade. Guys like that don’t tend to wash out of the league by 32. The crop of players listed above is the most appropriate group to measure future Maggette against.
- “Maybe these guys’ stats are still okay, but their defense has gotten worse as they’ve aged.” Possible… I think there’s something to the idea that defensive ability goes first. But Duncan, KG, Billups, Bell and others on this list still seem up to the task. More to the point, this is Corey Maggette. What defensive ability does he have to lose?
- “Corey Maggette is way more banged-up than almost all of these guys.” This is the most salient point. A lot of these guys actually are pretty banged up — Duncan and Garnett have quietly taken horrible poundings over the years, and guys like Bell and Posey are extremely physical players — but Maggette plays a more physical style than most. He’s a good bet to miss 15 or 20 games every year.
But every time Maggette gets hurt, he comes back at his previous level, and that’s not a fluke. As his guns can attest, the guy is a gym rat… he’s more committed to physical conditioning than most guys on the above list. He knows how to play hurt, and how to play well hurt (it’s not like he’s currently healthy). His injuries conceal the fact that he’s actually one of the more consistent players in the league… he’s turned in the same pretty-good season for years on end now. What he does works. He needs strong legs to do it, but he’s kept those legs strong despite a bunch of injuries to them.
That’s not to say that he couldn’t get hurt to the point where he misses a season or retires. Any long-term NBA contract’s one freak injury away from being an albatross, and Maggette’s a somewhat better candidate for a freak injury than most. Barring that, I’m not convinced that we’re going to see his level of play downgrade significantly over the next couple years. When the guy gets hurt, he tends to get healthy again, and to play exactly the way he’d been playing.
Is it a great contract? No. A good one? Not really. Should we trade him if we can? Sure… ’Buike’s not as good yet, but he’s cheaper, younger and healthier. Point is, the Maggette contract’s not a guaranteed disaster for the franchise. There’s a good chance it works out just fine.
by onlxn on Mar 22, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Kevin Garnett, Stephon Marbury, Raja Bell, Brad Miller, Tim Thomas, Wally Szczerbiak, Chauncey Billups, Maceo Baston, Jeff Foster, Rasho Nesterovic, Brian Skinner, Greg Buckner, Damon Jones, Vince Carter, Eduardo Najera, James Posey, Rafer Alston, Raef LaFrentz, Michael Ruffin, Calvin Booth, Tim Duncan, Matt Harpring, Antawn Jamison.
See, I’d say theres a pretty big difference between the player every single one of those guys were when they were 29 and the player they are now. The only ones still playing at a very high level were the ones who were significantly better than Maggette in their 20’s, and very few of those guys have been playing in the NBA since age 19, have had number of injuries and play as much of a contact oriented game as Maggette. Cosidering his awful start and the amount of time lost to injury this year I’d argue we are getting a bad deal this year. At best, we are overpaying him only a bit this year. And as jae points out, guys simply don’t get better at 29 years old. So theres essentially ZERO hope Maggette’s value will match his contract over the 3 seasons. Sure, MAYBE he’ll have some value as an expiring in another 3 years (though LaFrentz didn’t bring Portland anything of value, so its entirely possible that he’ll be more valuable simply coming off the books than as a trade chip) but in the meantime its an awful deal.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 22, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
See, I’d say theres a pretty big difference between the player every single one of those guys were when they were 29 and the player they are now.
Really? I don’t see it. As I said, Duncan and KG are both a bit less productive (though still extremely productive), and role players like Wally and Najera are reaching the end of the line. But most of these guys are doing more or less what they normally do. Chauncey’s playing as well as he was when the Pistons won the title; VC is having a good VC season. Antawn’s actually having his best season in a while. Rasho’s last two years have been better than his previous three. Rafer Alston’s playing like Rafer Alston. James Posey’s playing like James Posey.
I’m not saying that this group is as good at 32 as they were at 29… they’re not. I’m not saying the gap isn’t nearly as big as you’d think it would be.
So theres essentially ZERO hope Maggette’s value will match his contract over the 3 seasons.
I’m not necessarily saying he’ll be worth his contract. There’s a good chance he won’t be… moreover, there are far too many variables, including leaguewide financial variables, to know exactly how his contract will look a couple years down the road. I think it’s a mediocre contract at best. But you and others have argued that it’s a terrible, disastrous, crippling, “awful” contract. I don’t think it is, and the age thing is a part of the reason why.
by onlxn on Mar 22, 2009 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but if it is ALREADY a bad contract and he can only get worse and theres a strong possibility he’ll miss a large portion of time due to injury and he plays a position we could fill with younger and much less expensive guys while getting AT LEAST close to similar production and possibly more……how can it be anything other than an awful contract?
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 22, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but if it is ALREADY a bad contract
I just don’t agree that it is. We’re paying Maggette $8.275 million this year. His production, even with the missed games accounted for, has been about worth that much. Seriously, look around the league… $8.275 million, for a pretty good player who misses some time, is an okay price. Next season we pay him $8.938 million, and he’s likely to be worth that. Farther down the line? It gets a bit dicier. But right now, we’re getting decent value for our money.
and he can only get worse
Or he can stay at the same level, as he’s done for years on end. But you’re right — he certainly ain’t gonna get better.
and theres a strong possibility he’ll miss a large portion of time due to injury
There’s a strong possibility that he’ll continue to miss 10 or 15 games a year with various little injuries, and that does dampen his value. But is he likely to suffer a serious, season-ending injury just because of his style of play? I’m not sure. He’s played in the league for a decade without incurring anything like that… he had a nagging foot issue, but he worked his way out of it. Maggette is banged-up, but he’s not exactly fragile. He tends to be able to give you 60-65 games of pretty good play year in and year out.
and he plays a position we could fill with younger and much less expensive guys while getting AT LEAST close to similar production and possibly more
Two points here.
1) At the time Maggette was signed, he was a significantly better player than Azubuike. The gap has closed somewhat this season because Buike’s game has taken a big step forward, mainly because he’s become a great three-point shooter. That’s good for the team, and it does make Maggette more expendable. But I don’t blame the team for not counting on significant improvement from Azubuike, considering that he didn’t develop all that much between his first and second seasons.
2) NBA contracts have value in a vacuum, regardless of a particular team’s composition. Good player + good price = good contract, no matter how redundant that good player may be on his particular team. A good contract means a useful commodity. Take ’Buike’s contract, for instance. Decent player at a great price. That contract isn’t somehow worse because ’Buike’s redundant with Maggette… it’s still good value for the money.
…how can it be anything other than an awful contract?
An awful contract is max money for a non-superstar, or a big contract for a guy who’s not useful. Maggette’s is neither. It’s a contract for a pretty good player at a decent per-year price, that runs two years longer than it ideally would. It’s far from our best asset, but it’s not the Eddy Curry contract, and it’s not the Rashard Lewis contract, either. It’s a mediocre contract. It’s not an awful one.
by onlxn on Mar 23, 2009 1:40 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
$8.275 million, for a pretty good player who misses some time, is an okay price. Next season we pay him $8.938 million, and he’s likely to be worth that. Farther down the line? It gets a bit dicier. But right now, we’re getting decent value for our money.
Possibly he might be worth that value to an other team, but not on this team where we are saturated with wing talent. On our roster he is simple the most overpaid wing that is the least likely to keep up his production. But since we are talking about his trade value, he might be semi worth his value, but why would a team give anything useful for a moderate performer. Keep in mind his offense stats will be viewed to be inflated by the rest of the league because he plays in Nellie’s system.
Who’s the buyer here? I can only imagine a playoff team that wants that ‘missing piece’ type of veteran bench player. Which of those teams would give up anything of value for him.
There’s a strong possibility that he’ll continue to miss 10 or 15 games a year with various little injuries, and that does dampen his value.
Yeah it does. If your talking about him being worth 8 million and change, factor that over 65 games and it doesnt seem as good of a deal.
At the time Maggette was signed, he was a significantly better player than Azubuike.
At the time the Warriors signed Maggette, it was a horrible contract. What was the plan there, Maggette isnt good enough to take us from being a non playoff team to playoff team when we lost our best player. Why invest in a guy that is average and not getting any better. At the time, the Warriors had Jackson, Azibuike, Randolph, and Belinelli all slated to play the 2/3.
Good player + good price = good contract, no matter how redundant that good player may be on his particular team. A good contract means a useful commodity.
I would say that he is an above average player thats over paid, at the wrong side of 28 and locked up for 4 more years. I really have a tough time beliving their our too many teams in the NBA right now that would want Corey Maggette for free.
An awful contract is max money for a non-superstar, or a big contract for a guy who’s not useful.
No way you can limit an ‘awful contract’ to that. VInce Carter (all star) paid pretty reasonable looks like an awful contract for New Jersey And an awful contract can be something even much smaller. Jason Kapono, Luke Walton, Jared Jeffries are all examples of awful contracts, even though they are not that big of contracts.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 23, 2009 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Possibly he might be worth that value to an other team, but not on this team where we are saturated with wing talent.
That wing talent is shooting guards who wanna play point or dribble out the clock and shoot while Corey is the only one who wants to go to the hole and draw a foul every time( and he even out assisted the “point” last game ) so do some sorting of talent before deciding he’s superfluous.
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 23, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two questions that I would like to see WS110, and/or Sam answer
Sam & I already had a rather lengthy discussion about this, but I never got a satisfactory answer:
1. What would you have done with the $8M, if not sign Corey? (keeping in mind that you have only 2 weeks left, 30 other suitors for just a few players, and any money you leave on the table will get gobbled up by Monta & Andris’ agents)
2. Show me one player that has been acquired in free agency for ~$8M that you’d rather have. You can’t splurge for a $10M player because we didn’t have that much money.
If you actually look at what $8M buys in the NBA, you’ll realize that getting Corey at that isn’t the worst thing in the world.
On our roster he is simple the most overpaid wing that is the least likely to keep up his production.
Jamal Crawford makes more money, is far less efficient as a scorer, is a worse defender, and is just 5 months younger. Yeah, so he’s the most overpaid wing.
On direction, we’d just won 48 games last year. The only player of major significance we were losing was Baron, but Monta was going to shift to PG as a scoring PG. Our lineup looked like:
PG: Monta (CJ)
SG: Jax (Belinelli, Kelenna)
SF: TBD (Kelenna, )
PF: Harrington (Wright, Randolph)
C: Andris (Turiaf)
With Kelenna being a young guy who hadn’t proven himself and the only real SF on the roster, you bet we needed some help at the SF position.
You may disagree with the idea that Monta can handle the PG position (in Nellieball, you don’t really need a pure PG), but you can’t argue that this is a team that doesn’t need a SF or that this team isn’t close to competing for a playoff spot with another solid player. Just because Monta got himself messed up, Corey injured his hamstrings, and TMNT got fed up with being a PF in Nellie’s system doesn’t mean that there was “no direction”. You may disagree with the direction that was chosen, and you may not like the players, but unless you can actually point to a better direction and/or better players that could be acquired for comparable compensation, get off your high horse and face up to reality. The Warriors are not great team, they’ve been saddled with a tough road this year, and they’ll be light years better next year.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 23, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
That just about nails it. The timing is important. It was a use-it-or-lose-it spending situation. I’m not sure that Monta’s agent gets more from the Warriors, but they couldn’t just carry over the cap room for next year.
The interesting things they could have done involve trades that, when under the cap, aren’t subject to the 125%+$100k limitations (aka "salaries must match). That was a time when they could have looked at brokering deals to try to secure some young talent and/or picks in return for taking on a bit more salary in a deal. Specifics? Can’t think of any though I would have looked hard at the Bucks and seen if they would have been inclined to send Sessions (far more obtainable then than now) our way in return for a bit of help staying under the tax.
(Potentially important: at the time of the Maggette signing, Turiaf wasn’t on board. We could have spent a bit more than we did on Maggette on someone else, but then it better be a big, as Andris was going to be without a backup.)
by jae on Mar 23, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying that Monta would have gotten $8M more
But that between Monta & Andris, they’d have gotten more money.
The issue with looking for trade partners is the timing. This was towards the end of the free agent feeding frenzy. Maggette was one of the last “impact players” available and it was looking strongly like he was going to San Antonio for something like $5-6M for 3-5 years. We not only had to pry him away from SAS, but we also had to get somebody, anybody, on board before there were no free agents left. What happens if we look for trade partners and Maggette, etc. all sign with other teams? Making trades takes time, something we didn’t have at the time. What happens if we’re looking for trade partners and can’t offer Turiaf that steal of a deal because we’re in negotiations with another team for a stud PF that never materializes because they’re asking too much and we’re offering too little?
Sessions would have been a great pickup in retrospect, but just as he was far more obtainable before this year, he was also far less desirable. What would you have given up for a second round draft pick who only got playing time in the 17 NBA games that the Bucks decided to tank last season? He may have been interesting, but he certainly wasn’t somebody you’d expect to hand over starting PG duties to.
In short, there was not enough time to evaluate the more lengthy prospects (trade partners, S&T partners, etc.), and somebody needed to be signed. You could argue that the FO didn’t properly evaluate all of the potential situations properly: What if Baron screws us and opts out after saying he wouldn’t?. I think they did a pretty decent job with what they had in front of them. Maggette wasn’t signing for much less unless somebody was promising a run at a championship.
We tried to spend some money on a big, who’s name is Elton Brand. But it didn’t work. I’m sure we would have offered something to Josh Smith if they thought they’d be able to get Smith and keep Monta & Biedrins. But if we offer Smith a contract starting at $11M-$12M, they offer Monta $13M and Biedrins $11M. Who else was remotely available at a price we could afford? Nobody, really. We could have made an offer for Iggy, but then Philly would have done something like offer Josh Smith or Monta, and Atlanta would have… meanwhile Maggette would have signed with San Antonio and we’d have been stuck holding the bag with nothing to show for an offseason except losing our best player and overpaying for our existing talent. Signing Maggette was at worst the lesser of two evils.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 23, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sessions would have been a great pickup in retrospect, but just as he was far more obtainable before this year, he was also far less desirable.
I’ll pat myself on the back and remind that last summer, he was a young unknown who I thought the Warriors should try to get. Nothing he’s done this year is out of nowhere. What would I have given up? The first rounder that Mullin gave up for Williams comes to mind.
by jae on Mar 23, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Williams was certainly worth less than Sessions
He had a few years in the league and hadn’t shown much of any promise. He was acquired with distant future well protected draft pick. Sessions, despite not being on people’s radar, would have commanded something marginally useful.
I do recall you talking about Sessions, but before this season, he would have been expected to be a good backup PG. Nothing to write home about.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 23, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do recall you talking about Sessions, but before this season, he would have been expected to be a good backup PG. Nothing to write home about.
He only had roughly 17 games under his belt, but they were a pretty amazing 17 games…..I’m not so sure he wouldve cost more than Williams but I think the idea of a Wright for Charlie V and Sessions trade was floated more than once around here. At the time I think its a deal the Bucks wouldve jumped on and it wouldve been a FAR better deal for us than signing Maggette for 5 years.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the idea of a Wright for Charlie V and Sessions trade was floated more than once around here
it was, by several folks … too bad FO wasn’t reading GSoM!
by hardcore on Mar 23, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, in terms of breaking the bank for Smith (who likely would still have been matched), Maggs wasn’t a bad choice. I work under the assumption that it wasn’t possible to get him for less, but even though ONLXN has subsided my worries about his future play a bit, I’m still worried that he’s a season or two away from being a $10m cheerleader.
by jae on Mar 23, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We'll just have to wait and see
Cuz I doubt he’s going anywhere any time soon.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 23, 2009 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not like I’m not worried about that… he’s a risky player, and it’s a risky contract. But the Warriors could well get full value out of the signing. The truly terrible contracts are the ones that require the player to magically become better than they’ve been to return decent value. Maggette’s contract simply requires him to stay at his current level for a couple more years. That’s by no means a given, but it’s a decent possibility. The guy’s already taken a number of hits, and he’s still here.
by onlxn on Mar 23, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but his salary increases over the next couple years, he’ll need to do more than have a couple really bad months, a month lost to injury, and a couple of good months every year to play up to the value of that contract.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question for ONLXN/DFiB
If Maggette isn’t a bad value for his contract why doesnt any other team want any part of him?
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Maggette isn’t a bad value for his contract why doesnt any other team want any part of him?
I’m not sure that’s true. What makes you think that there isn’t another team that would want him on the roster at his pay? Just because he wasn’t traded? I don’t think they were shopping him all that hard. I’m sure they were looking to get something in return.
If we didn’t care what we got back I’m sure I could make a pretty big list of trades involving Maggs that the other teams would do.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 23, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not involving Eddy Curry? I’m sure there are SOME deals, but would any team be willing to give up anything they wouldnt trade for nothing if they could? I doubt it.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
would any team be willing to give up anything they wouldnt trade for nothing if they could?
Strangely enough “nothing” seems to be one of the most valuable assets in the NBA.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 23, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
true
which is why I say I would’ve been much happier giving a guy like Evans a 1 year 8 million dollar deal. Sure its even more of an overpay than Maggette, but because we arent the kind of team that can dramatically improve via free agency acquiring valuable trade chips and improving our draft position is the best plan. Evans for 1 yr 8 mil or even 2/16 does both better than Maggette at 5/50.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’re not going to agree on this, because it involves pure hypotheticals. My belief is that Maggette is somewhat moveable, for the same reason that he was a hot commodity last year — because what he does is valuable. You believe otherwise. Neither of us has any evidence to defend our side, so I guess we gotta leave it here.
by onlxn on Mar 23, 2009 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a couple really bad months, a month lost to injury, and a couple of good months
This isn’t a very accurate summation of Maggette’s season.
Maggette’s season so far divides neatly into three parts.
1) He played in 16 of the first 20 games. This was not Maggette at his best — it took him a while to adjust to the fact that his good three-point touch of the previous year was gone (it seems like it’s coming back a bit, incidentally), and we lost a bunch of games.
But in this period (five-and-a-half weeks, not “a couple months”), Maggette was not nearly as bad as conventional Warrior fan wisdom would believe. Even in this unusual down period for him, he averaged 19.1 points on 13.6 shots per game. He averaged 1.40 points per shot during this time, which is great. No other Warrior — not Biedrins, not Morrow, not Wright — averages that many points per shot on the year. Maggette’s scoring was, in fact, deadly efficient during this period. If it seemed bad, that’s only because it was slightly less deadly efficient than usual.
Defense? He wasn’t good. But the main problem with Maggette during this time wasn’t his defense… it was the fact that he was being played out of position. There’s no point in revisiting the debate over Nellie’s coaching job this season, but suffice it to say that Corey Maggette is not a power forward, and nobody should’ve thought he was. When he played his natural position during this period, we actually did quite well.
Maggette was an easy scapegoat for our early struggles. He was our new big-ticket item, he plays a selfish-looking style of basketball, and he got schooled defensively, particularly at the four. But Corey Maggette was not the reason we started so poorly, and he was not “really bad” during this period. He played a bit below his usual level, and he struggled at the four, but overall his production was pretty decent.
2) Maggette then missed the next fifteen games. That’s bad. No arguments here.
3) Maggette then returned, and has played in 33 of our last 35 games. And he’s been excellent. In those 33 games, he’s scored 18.7 points on 12.3 shots per game, for an absurd point-per-shot ratio of 1.54. You know how many heavy-minutes NBA players averages better than that on the year? Three — Dwight, Nene and Shaq.
Overall, Maggette’s scoring production has been fantastic. By points per shot — not a perfect metric, but a good one — he’s the sixth-most efficient full-time scorer in the NBA, behind the three big men listed above, Kevin Martin (!) and Amare. And at 28.8 points per 48 minutes, he rates as the 14th most prolific scorer in the league, behind some guys you’ve heard of (DWade, Kobe, Lebron, Granger, Dirk, Durant, Melo, Martin, Jefferson, Parker, Villanueva, Devin Harris and Brandon Roy). Maggette scores often and efficiently, and that’s really, really valuable.
On the downside, he’s missed 21 of our 70 games, so exactly 30%. That’s a lot. And his defense isn’t good. But
a couple really bad months, a month lost to injury, and a couple of good months
isn’t the right way to put it. A more accurate synopsis of Maggette’s season would be “a good season, with six weeks lost to injury”. The missing six weeks suck, but on the whole it’s still been a good season, more or less worth the money we paid him. If he has four more seasons like this one, the contract will have out worked okay. Not great, but just fine.
by onlxn on Mar 23, 2009 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Maggette’s points per shot is amazing, but isn’t it bad that using that metric is the ONLY way to make him look like he’s worth the money. You ignore the fact that he’s fairly one dimensional. He scores very very efficiently, I’ve never denied that, and that is valuable it might even be close to 5yrs 50 million dollars valuable if he wasnt 29 and all but guaranteed to miss a significant amount of time to injury. Also hearing you tell it you’d think Maggette was an average defender and distributor at the 3, he clearly is not. But we’re going round and round, neither of us is gonna convince the other.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But we’re going round and round, neither of us is gonna convince the other.
OK,. I’ll settle it. Maggette stays, he’s unique enough to be worth keeping. Now Sammy you can drop someone else of your choice to make it even?( but not Rudolf, Rony, or Morrow).
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 23, 2009 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well I might drop Crawford even ahead of Maggette…..though his contract is shorter so I’m not sure. If I have to choose someone else it obviously has to be Jack.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I have to choose someone else it obviously has to be Jack.
OK, now what do we do with that money?
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 23, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maggette’s points per shot is amazing, but isn’t it bad that using that metric is the ONLY way to make him look like he’s worth the money. You ignore the fact that he’s fairly one dimensional.
I didn’t ignore that fact… I mentioned it several times. Maggette is a great scorer, a decent rebounder, a subpar passer and a downright bad defender. But that adds up to a good player. One-dimensional players can be good, if that one dimension is important enough. Scoring efficiency certainly qualifies.
He scores very very efficiently, I’ve never denied that, and that is valuable it might even be close to 5yrs 50 million dollars valuable if he wasnt 29 and all but guaranteed to miss a significant amount of time to injury.
A bit of common ground here. We agree that a player of Maggette’s skill set could be worth the commitment the Warriors gave him if other factors — age and health — were in place. We agree that his age and his injuries are the biggest problems with the contract, and that those problems prevent it from being a good contract. We just disagree on how big those problems are, and how not good the contract actually is.
Also hearing you tell it you’d think Maggette was an average defender and distributor at the 3, he clearly is not.
I don’t recall saying or implying either of those things. Maggette is a genuinely bad defender. He is not the worst defender in the league, and he’s not the worst defender on our team — he’s much more useful defensively than Crawford, CJ or (thus far) Monta. But he’s bad at it. It’s a flaw in his game.
Passing… he’s been a presentable passer at the 3 at times in his career, but he certainly hasn’t been good this year. He’s not the worst passing small forward in the league — Rudy Gay and Josh Howard are worse, to name two — but he hasn’t helped us with his passing. He’s done it rarely and inefficiently. It’s another flaw in his game.
On the other hand, Maggette is actually a pretty good rebounder for a small forward, something he never seems to get credit for from Warriors fans. This year, he’s rebounding at a higher rate than Luol Deng, Posey, Tayshaun, Durant, Caron Butler, Pierce, Rudy Gay, Josh Howard, Danny Granger, Hedo Turkoglu… you get the idea. (The Warriors’ pace inflates his numbers, but only very slightly… even adjusting for that, he’s better than all those guys except for Deng and maybe Posey). Maggette is an above-average rebounder for his position, actually something of an asset on the boards. He’s more one-and-a-half-dimensional than one-dimensional.
But we’re going round and round, neither of us is gonna convince the other.
And yet we type.
by onlxn on Mar 23, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"and yet we type".....more
he’s a solid rebounding 3, but I wouldn’t give him too much credit. He plays in an uptempo system where there are a lot of shots (and a lot of misses) fired up every night AND he plays the 4 quite a bit so he’s asked to rebound quite a bit more than a lot of those 3’s you mentioned. I have no doubt that if we had Granger, Gay, Howard, Deng, Prince, or Pierce playing Maggette’s role on our team they’d rebound at least as well as he has (not to mention all of them earn significantly less and/or are significantly younger and/or are significantly better than Maggs). Thats not to say he’s a poor rebounder and I think your assessment of him as one and a half dimensional is fair. But he’s a major liability on defense. The fact that he isnt the worst defensive player on this team is meaningless, I can’t think of one very good team where he wouldnt be the worst defensive regular. Guys who are one and a half dimensional players and are very bad at HALF the game shouldn’t be averaging 10 million a year for 5 years when they are headed toward the stage in their career where they should be starting an at least moderate decline. Especially when they have poor injury track records.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 2:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maggette’s rebounding % (not just the raw totals) is very, very much in line with what he’s done all his career. The up-tempo game and the high number of opportunities as a 4 doesn’t significantly impact his rebounding. Actually, his rebounding is down a bit from what it was in LA in terms of %.
by jae on Mar 24, 2009 4:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but it should be up at least a little considering he is asked to rebound more? Couldnt this be an area where he might be starting to show his age a little bit? I know we went over this about a year and a half ago with Artest, and you pointed out that guys who move from the 3 to the 4 don’t usually improve their rebounding % much. But those guys do tend improve their rebounding numbers at least slightly. The fact that Maggette’s numbers are probably not as high as most probably wouldve projected them to be considering the time he’s spent playing the 4 and the increased opportunities is at least a little concerning?
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it depends heavily on whether or not his “playing PF” actually means assuming the role of a PF, hanging near the basket and sticking to a big man or if it just means that the Warriors are going with 4 wings and he’s the tallest guy out there so he must be the PF. If the latter case, it’s not much of an advantage. If it’s the former, he should see his numbers increase slightly, but it’s not like he (or anyone else) turns into Kevin Garnett because the coach isn’t playing two legit bigs.
I honestly think that the 1-5 designations are overly simplistic and don’t capture enough what’s going on. If being asked to play PF, Maggette appears to be doing exactly what he’s done when asked to play SG, save that the guy lighting him up is taller in the former case.
by jae on Mar 24, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
good point, but it seems to me that he is streaking down the court after a shot goes up far less than he was in L.A. Clearly he’s not playing the role KG is in Boston, but he looks like his assignment is to rebound more than it was in Clipperland. Unfortunately it appears this just means he’s getting boxed out a whole lot more.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately it appears this just means he’s getting boxed out a whole lot more.
Well… at least he’s there to need to be boxed out, rather than letting the other teams’ center and power forward double team Andris, right?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha
true I guess, but so would whoever else we had in his place. Its not like we have to play 4 on 5 if we’d never signed Maggette.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does the name Al Harrington ring a bell?
He might have been there, but was he really trying?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was meant for comedic effect.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1) He played in 16 of the first 20 games. This was not Maggette at his best
It was also Maggette trying to play through two injured hamstrings. He was not healthy until he took a 2+ week break and came back, and he’s been extremely solid since then.
Evaluating Corey Maggette on his performance in those first 16 games is like evaluating DWade on his performance last year when he was injured all the time and the Heat sucked anyways. Last year, he was a star who looked like his time was past. Who would trust a team to a guy who couldn’t even get them past the worst record in the league? This year, he’s in the MVP conversation and taking his team to the playoffs. What a difference a little health and a better supporting cast makes!
IMPORTANT
I am not saying that Corey Maggette is as good as DWade, nor am I saying that he will lead us to the playoffs next year (that’s Monta’s job). I am merely pointing out that both Corey (this year) and DWade (last year) played through injuries and were written off as guys who were worn out from getting knocked down too many times and would never be good again. Only, since their injuries cleared up they have returned to form.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
right, but thats kinda my point
but the problem is that we can/should expect Maggette will both miss significant time to injury AND play a significant number of games less effectively due to injury based on what he’s done in the past. The number of games he plays hurt and/or misses aren’t going to suddenly decrease as he gets older. He’s not going to start healing form his injuries any faster either. D-Wade isn’t 29 and doesn’t have the injury history Maggette has.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
D-Wade is 27
And has misses more games per year than Maggette. (Not counting this year, Maggette has missed 20.2% of games, DWade has missed 23.2%). DWade spent an extra two years in college, so he’s got a bit less wear and tear on his body and at times he’s taken to wearing light body armor under his uniform, but he crashes to the basket and the floor way harder than Maggette ever has. DWade isn’t young anymore.
And hamstrings are a special kind of injury. They’re notoriously hard to come back from because you keep tweaking them. Marvin Harrison was ineffective for an entire season because of that. Issac Bruce too I think. Maggette doesn’t have a history of recurring hamstring injuries, he just gets banged up. Next time it’ll be his ankle or his shoulder and he won’t play ineffective minutes. He’ll sit until it heals.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Next time it’ll be his ankle or his shoulder and he won’t play ineffective minutes. He’ll sit until it heals.
Is that supposed to be reassuring? Yea D-Wade is 27, but if Maggette were 27 instead of 29 it wouldnt be nearly as bad of a contract.
Hamstring injuries are actually pretty easy to keep from re-occurring if you strengthen your quadriceps or hamstrings (its about proportionality)….those injuries tend to be recurring injuries among NFL players (particularly backs and wideouts) is because they HAVE to have quads that are much stronger than their hamstrings. Its a problem Wade could easily correct.
(years of being preached to about hamstring/quad muscle proportionality by my A.T.C. dad finally pay off :-) )
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A hamstring injury is clearly the type you can try to play through
An ankle injury is one you really can’t do as well with. You can try, but if it’s effecting you you’re useless and you’ll reinjure it constantly. A hammy, if you stretch it properly, you probably won’t reinjure it every game, but often enough that you’ll feel well enough to play, but not well enough to go 100. That was my point. The problem wasn’t that he got hurt in the first place, that’s going to happen. The problem is that he tried to play through it and failed miserably. Remember when Jax was shooting 20 with a busted wrist for like 3 games? He learned, rested, and came back his normal self.
I also suspect that Wade will get old sooner than you’d expect. Either he’ll morph into a jump shooter and be less effective, or he’ll just get too banged up and retire or something. He misses more games than Maggette, and that’s counting a season where Maggette had a serious foot injury and missed 2/3 of the season.
Remember this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzvFAcbS0RE
Yeah, except now it’s “Fall 7,999 times, get up 8,000”, that takes it’s toll.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I assume that you're talking about long term "reoccuring"
When you’ve already injured it, you have to let it heal before you can go all out on it again. You can re-proportion your hammy/quad, but it’s not going to help an already injured hammy, is it? Plus, re-proportioning takes a lot of working out. It’s not something you can do in the middle of a basketball season when you’ve got to get back to work ASAP.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus, re-proportioning takes a lot of working out. It’s not something you can do in the middle of a basketball season when you’ve got to get back to work ASAP.
Actually no, its actually requires more not working out certain muscles than it does working them out. No one gets NFL style leg proportions by working their muscles out evenly. Letting you quads rest while continuing to work hamstrings can have surprisingly quick results. Yes this does assume a healthy hamstring to begin with, but my point is that the hammy injuries don’t have last Wade’s whole career if he doesnt want them to. I’m sure the way his built now is intentional as it suits his phyiscal style of play but the hammy injuries arent exactly something we should assume will continue to flare up every year.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
my point is that the hammy injuries don’t have last Wade’s whole career if he doesnt want them to
I was talking about Maggs’ injuries. I don’t know that Wade has had a single issue with his hammies. He hurt his shoulder pretty bad… I don’t know what else. Maybe his knee? That’s pretty common.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry if I was confusing going back and forth and all..
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sessions would have been a great pickup in retrospect, but just as he was far more obtainable before this year, he was also far less desirable. What would you have given up for a second round draft pick who only got playing time in the 17 NBA games that the Bucks decided to tank last season? He may have been interesting, but he certainly wasn’t somebody you’d expect to hand over starting PG duties to.
Look back at some of the fanposts from last summer, several of us said he’d be a great guy to have split the PG duties with Monta.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And plenty of people think Jamal Crawford is a viable solution to split the PG duties with Mona
And there were plenty of people who thought Marcus Williams would be passable, or that CJ Watson can do that. Lots of people think lots of things, doesn’t mean they all work. I just saw some guy who was convinced that 15 2 4 65 42 51 was going to win him the lottery.
I fail to see why people would reasonably expect 17 games, during which time his team was in full tank mode, can be used as the only evidence for why a guy is ready to produce at a high level. He certainly would have been an interesting asset at the right price, and he would have been a “solid backup who could maybe become more,” but there were certainly no assurances. Furthermore, the Bucks knew more about what he’s worth than anybody else (practice, knowing what plays he was running correctly and what he was screwing up, etc.). They wouldn’t have accepted market value. You can talk about how you’d have offered more because he’s a success now, but again, that’s retrospect for you.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 6:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sessions didn’t play much, but the “full tank mode” doesn’t change what he did. It’s not like tanking somehow allowed him to hand out assists while keeping down turnovers or get rebounds. What he did on the court he really did, and it mirrored more or less what he was in college too. 17 games? Hell, that’s half a college season. Given the way players can skyrocket based on a good tournament showing, I’d not discount it so quickly.
There were no assurances, but nonetheless, it was possible to identify him as a potential target, one that the Bucks might have been willing to part with for a number of reasons, mostly because they had other guys at that position and we were in a position to help them out with their looming lux tax issues. Yes, they had insider info from practice, etc. No, that doesn’t mean that they’d accurately assess his future. They had more information. That doesn’t mean they actually knew more. The league is littered with players who were not properly assessed by their previous teams.
I wouldn’t have counted on him to come in and keep Monta as a 2, or even guarantee that he’d be able to step in, but I thought him an interesting possibility in both the long and short term.
by jae on Mar 24, 2009 6:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Certainly, he was an interesting possibility
If you read my comments, you’ll see that I pretty much agree with your assessment:
He certainly would have been an interesting asset at the right price, and he would have been a "solid backup who could maybe become more," but there were certainly no assurances.
But what do you give up for that kind of player?
The league is littered with players who were not properly assessed by their previous teams.
This is true, so let’s look a what the Bucks did in the offseason after Sessions’ strong performance:
They shipped out Mo Williams and brought in Luke Ridnour. They shipped out the guy ahead of Sessions on the depth chart and brought in a guy they knew wouldn’t be an impact player as a starter. Even before Williams blew up this year, that was a serious downgrade, and a strong indication that they were planning on handing the reins to Sessions with Ridnour as a back up and/or plan B solution.
The Bucks very clearly valued Sessions and weren’t giving him up without some serious compensation. What do you think it would have taken for Milwaukee to bite?
Given the way players can skyrocket based on a good tournament showing, I’d not discount it so quickly.
Just because scouts are idiots and give more weight to performances just because they’re actually watching the game this time (instead of all those 1-8 clunkers they missed during the regular season), doesn’t excuse you from doing the same. If your friends jump off a bridge, will you? Two wrongs don’t make a right. Didn’t you listen to your mom? Or do you follow the politician’s motto: “Well, at least I’m not as bad as him/her!”?
That being said, there is something to be said for guys who can step up their game in that “win or go home” situation. It certainly isn’t everything, but it does speak to their ability to perform in crunch time.
To summarize, he would have been an interesting possibility, but the Bucks were certainly asking for more than we were willing to give up for their projected starting PG.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suspect that the move for Ridnour had as much or more to do with his shorter, lower dollar contract vs. Mo. Williams than it did some faith in handing the job over to Sessions. They were over the luxury tax and made deals that put them right under it.
I’d have given up as much as they gave up for Williams. The Ridnour trade went down in August after Bogut was signed and after they knew what the tax threshold would be. The Bucks returned a million less in salary this year and are on the hook for less over the life of the contracts traded. Given that they’re within a mil of the tax threshold, I think that’s significant and I think that Milwaukee was motivated to make moves for money more than because of some evaluation of Sessions. We cannot know one way or another, but it does not strike me as implausible at all that they’d have dealt Sessions as part of a package that got them under the cap in some other way had we stepped in before the Cleveland/OKC trade when we still have cap room to absorb a contract (e.g. taking Gadzuric off their hands).
The Bucks might have asked more than we would be willing to give up. The certainty of that statement though is far from a given.
by jae on Mar 24, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clarification: I’d have given up as much for Sessions as the Warriors gave up for Marcus Williams.
by jae on Mar 24, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And there's no doubt in my mind that Milwaukee would have started rolling on the floor laughing at an offer of a lottery protected 1st rounder in 2011 (or whenever it was)
They at least had some expectation that he might be ready to contribute in a serious role. Marcus Williams, on the other hand, was useless to the Nets as they had a younger, better PG in Harris.
As for taking back Gadzuric and his 6M+ contract, what would you have given them for Sessions (a backup PG with potential) and Gadzuric (a virtually worthless, old big man, with 3 years and $20M left on his contract)? Would we have had to match salaries? Would it solve Sam & WS110’s wet dream about ignoring Corey?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, see, this is where the timing of when we had cap room comes in. We wouldn’t have to give Milwaukee anything in return or match salaries as we were under the cap. We could have taken their virtually worthless bigman off their hands, absorbing his salary and in return, getting Sessions for our trouble. It’s predicated on not having signed Maggette in the “there were other things to do with cap room other than simply spend it” sort of way.
Clearly we cannot know what Milwaukee actually thought of Sessions and how they’d react. You are speculating that they were high on him. I am not as convinced. He was a second round pick. It’s not clear that they were ready to part ways with Mo Williams other than that he was a piece they could move to get under the lux tax. It really does appear to me that the tax was their primary motivation. It’s not clear that moving Williams was.
by jae on Mar 24, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's no way they could have got away with moving Williams for tax purposes without a viable solution at the PG
And if you literally just give away young talent (young talent that had just set your team’s assist record, I might add), for the sake of dropping a bad salary, you’re going to lose a lot of respect from your fan base. They’d have had to take something back.
Who knows. Sessions & Gadzuric is certainly a viable answer to my question for WS110 and Sam, and it’s certainly plausible that Milwaukee would have accepted Sessions and Gadzuric for a second rounder… or a future protected first rounder. Especially if we threw in Belinelli so their fanbase wouldn’t cry bloody murder.
I don’t know that they were extremely high on him, and clearly getting under the tax threshold was a motivating factor in moving a relatively young overpaid starting PG (Mo Williams). Of course the real answer is somewhere in the gray region. Milwaukee was asking for more than the Warriors were looking to give up, Sessions was an unknown commodity, and Maggette was a known free agent they wouldn’t have had to give anything for.
Plus, Monta is our PG of the future, why do we need another one!?!??! I know how you feel about Monta as a PG, and I pretty much agree. Monta will never be a pure PG, but hopefully we can get by with a scoring PG, emphasis on scoring. But the above is definitely the mentality of management.
And as I’ve said before, there’s always the risk that the trade doesn’t go through. Thus, we end up with no trades, no free agents, and only retaining some of our existing talent, losing our star, and going backwards as a franchise. That would have been terrible from a PR perspective.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have answered your question several times,
to keep it short, what I would of done in the summer post Baron’s opting out.
Offer contract to Brand(which we did and took less money to play else where)
Offer reasonable contract to Emeka Okafor and Josh Smith(which would of probably been matched)
If(when) those offers got matched I would of gone after a role player(Childress, Mason Jr, Turiaf, Evans) and waited 2 years for Al Harrington, Stephan Jackson, and Adonal Foyle to come off the books. We would of have had enough room under the cap to offer a max contract in 2010.
My whole point is that we were not a playoff team and we lost our best player. Maggette is not close to being good enough to make up for the loss of Baron and make up ground and get into the playoffs. So we should of signed a role player to shore up our holes, let the youngsters develop and find out which youngsters were keepers and wait till 2010 to grab a All Star to compliment our young talent.
Signing Maggette is like going all in so we can maybe make the 8th seed of the playoffs.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 24, 2009 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few comments
1. Getting playoffs experience is very useful for our younger guys. It helps build a history of success, internal goals, shows them what it takes to get there, what it takes to win once you do get there, etc.
2. You can talk about a “role player”, but that’s still completely and utterly nebulous. I asked for specific guys we could have gone after because I don’t think there aren’t any of these guys who are the perfect “role player” that would accept a short 2 year $20M contract. Sam seems to want to just give a contract like that to Mike Pietrus because he’d get the same over 4 years or whatever, which is ludicrous in many ways (sets a bad precedent, announces to fans “Hey, we’re gonna suck for the next few years by choice!”, etc.).
3. There will be very few all stars available in 2010 because most will re-sign with their current teams. And the ones that are available will be looking to NYC and other more desirable destinations.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
3. There will be very few all stars available in 2010 because most will re-sign with their current teams. And the ones that are available will be looking to NYC and other more desirable destinations.
That’s true. Angling for one is going to backfire for most teams who attempt it. That’s true of any strategy, which is why any talk about emulating a previously successful strategy is destined for some failure.
by jae on Mar 25, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its only more true now,
because of the economy tanking and salaray caps projected to shrink the next few years. In the summer it was a forgone conclusion that James and co would opt out and atleat test the free agent waters.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 25, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A foregone conclusion by whom?
The media salivating over the possibility of LBJ in NYC? Right, they don’t have an ulterior motive in suggesting that. Their job isn’t predicated on stirring up drama in the NBA.
Sure, there’ll be a bit less money floating around, but in July, 2008, it was two years away. Lots of things can happen in that time. NYC has cleared up tons of cap space, and will continue to do so. They could theoretically sign 2-3 prize free agents. When prize free agents leave a team, that former team becomes a player in the free agent market. If James opts out, Cleveland has $$$ to throw at somebody, if Bosh opts out, Toronto has $$$ to throw around, etc. If James signs with NYC, that takes one player off the “prize free agent” board (James) and doesn’t change the number of teams looking for other prize free agents (Subtract NYC, add CLE). The players have all of the power because there are so many buyers and because each of them has a lucrative contract with their current team and can choose to stay if they like. Which brings to mind, what exactly would the Warriors have to offer in 2010 as a team that has not only historically sucked, but deliberately sabotaged their last few years, had numerous quarrels between their front office and players, have an aging coach that isn’t going to be around much longer… would you really sign with that team? I wouldn’t.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again,
as I have said a few times, I wasnt talking about the LBJ’s or the Dwayne Wade’s of the world. Im talking about….The Boozers’s or the Joe Johnson’s of the world. Yeah we might have to slight over pay, but there are alot of several second tier type guys that would be available. We could of added a veteran like PP, Ray Allen, or Manu to compliment our young team. Im not going to sit here and name every potential 2010 free agent but there are alot and a few would be intrested if we were the highest bidder.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 25, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
3. There will be very few all stars available in 2010 because most will re-sign with their current teams. And the ones that are available will be looking to NYC and other more desirable destinations.Its easy to say that now in hindsight. At the time, nobody expected the economy to plummet this bad, and no one imagined the cap shrinking. The reason players will resign now is because of the shrinking cap and their max deals will get smaller the longer they wait.
You can talk about a "role player", but that’s still completely and utterly nebulous.I gave you 4 specific guys we could of gone after, yes 3 of them were restricted but I think the addition of Turiaf plus Mason Jr or Childress wouldof been great. If they got matched Mo Evans for a similar deal he signed with ATL would be a nice veteran option off the bench.
Getting playoffs experience is very useful for our younger guys.Sure, but not more important than playing time. We were not a playoff team and we lost our best player and team leader. Hence the need for a rebuilding project. Why sacrifice that to make some type of crazy low probablilty push for the th seed.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 25, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
....
sorry, I messed up with the quote button
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 25, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well that renders your entire argument null and void
HAH!
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been over it before and I'll go over it again
July, 2008 Warriors outlook:
PG Monta
SG Jax
SF ???
PF Harrington
C Biedrins
Bench: Kelenna, BWright, Watson… Belinelli, Randolph
$13M before hitting the cap threshold.
That’s a pretty solid team. Especially if Monta can continue to progress as a basketball player and make some improvements as a distributor. It’s not a team you just blow up and start over with.
What does it need? A high quality SF and another backup big man, preferably somebody who can play a little center, but not be a big lumbering oaf.
Enter Corey Maggette & Ronny Turaif. A good SF who can get to the line and score efficiently (something Baron never did), and a big man who can play some solid inside defense, hustle, and provide “chemistry”. That’s a solid 9 man deep team. It’s not winning a championship, but you can expect that team to compete for a playoff birth. Add that to the fact that it’s the youngest team in the league already, and you get a decent team now that could mature into a good/great team.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not winning a championship, but you can expect that team to compete for a playoff birth.
That team cant win a championship. Isnt that the ultimate goal, to atleast compete for a championship. The 07 and 08 team were good teams but they were not championship teams. Baron opting out gave us a great oppurtunity to rebuild and try and build a team that could compete for a champion a few years down the road.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 25, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see...
Do you have a “Championship or bust” bumper sticker on your car?
Would you take a playoff team, blow it up and rebuild just because you don’t have Kobe, LeBron, Howard, Duncan, or KG? How do you plan on acquiring said superduperstar? Just by throwing wads of money at them? I’d do it by building a culture of winning as an attraction to free agents, but clearly you don’t agree with that methodology, so how would you do it? Through the draft? Do you plan on tanking every season until you get that guy who you know, you just know, is going to be a superduperstar in 4 years? What if it doesn’t quite look like it’s panning out two years later? Blow it up again?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you have a "Championship or bust" bumper sticker on your car?
Nope, but I bet you got a 8th seed or bust on your bumper. I said the goal of NBA franchise is to try and compete for a championship. Do you disagree with that?
I would keep the roster flexiable until you have a couple of players that might be can take you into the second round of the playoffs or farthur every year ad build your roster around those guys. Till that time, keep your options open. Why commit to a roster that isnt playoff material and add a decent back up big and a average NBA starter and gamble for the 8th seed?
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 25, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would keep the roster flexiable until you have a couple of players that might be can take you into the second round of the playoffs or farthur every year
Right now, who can say they’ll consistently or have consistently gotten to the second round of the playoffs or further (Only 8 teams do this every year)?
Cleveland – LeBron… LeBron
LAL – Kobe, Gasol
San Antonio – Duncan (and I guess Parker & Ginobili)
Boston – KG, Pierce, Allen
Orlando – Dwight Howard
That’s it really. Atlanta can’t say that, Detroit has fallen off.
Do Utah & New Orleans count? They’ve got CP3 & DWill.
What’s my point? If you’re looking for a player or two that can “consistently get you to the second round and beyond”, you’re basically asking for a future hall of famer. Every single team that can do that now has one, if not two or three. How did each get there?
Cleveland – Lucked into the #1 pick one year
LAL – Lucked into Kobe in that he dropped so far because he said he only wanted to play in LA… and they’ve got a long history of success and can draw free agents.
San Antonio – Lucked into the #1 pick.
Boston – Tanked to get a high lotto pick in effort to pick up Durant or Oden, got unlucky and missed the top two picks, already had one real all star, and got extremely lucky in that two future hall of famers were readily available at 60 cents on the dollar at the same time for varying reasons.
Orlando – Lucked into the #1 pick.
So, of the 5 teams that can “consistently make it to the second round”, 3 of them lucked into the #1 pick in drafts with special players (A 25% chance at a once in 3-5 years opportunity), and the other two have won 32 NBA championships combined (along with many more finals appearances, often against each other), are basketball royalty, and are thus desirable free agent destinations and whiny potential draft pick destinations.
So your master plan is to get to the 2nd round of the playoffs by piddling around with deliberately crappy rosters because you don’t want to commit to anyone unless they’re a future hall of famer. Great plan. Good luck with that for the next 25 years.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great plan. Good luck with that for the next 25 years.
We see the future and it looks a lot like the past?
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 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We see the future and it looks a lot like the past?
except for the part where we have a plan.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 25, 2009 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A plan being:
Draft a guy and when he turns into a superduperstar build a team around him? Yeah… we’ve had that plan, it’s just that Webber got pissed at Nellie. Other than Part A (draft superduperstar) hasn’t exactly worked out.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 26, 2009 6:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cleveland, Boston, LAL, and Orlando,
definetly, but also New Orleans, Utah, Portland, Denver, San Antonio, Houston, and Atlanta. They have assembled most of the pieces and now its time for those teams to tweak the team enough and add a few chip pieces to get them there. I never said sit on your ass and do nothing till you get the first pick in the draft in a year where there is a Duncan or a Lebron James. I said keep your roster flexiable and aquire good young talent and see if something can put you in the right direction.
You seem hell bent on keeping us between the 7th to the 10th seed in the West so that we stay relatively competetive.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 25, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
I didnt realize that 11 teams could “consistently make the 2nd round of the playoffs” despite there being only 8 spots.
But we can evaluate the others if you like as well:
New Orleans – #4 draft pick. They’d been a playoff team for a few years with Baron Davis at the helm, but he and a few others got injured, were jettisoned, and the team was rebuilt around CP3.
Utah – Historically good team. John Stockton, Karl Malone, Jerry Sloan. They were expected to continue to be a playoff team until injuries derailed their 04-05 campaign, they sucked, and drafted DWill.
Portland – Consistently bad team in the last 5 years or so. And, what do you know it, they lucked into the #1 draft pick in the year two “once in a few years” prospects came down the line. They have potential, but let’s wait to see them actually play a playoff game before annointing them “consistently going to make the 2nd round”.
Denver – Drafted 3rd in one of those rare 5 “once in a few years talents” drafts. Did I mention that they’ve been to the playoffs every year since Melo was drafted? 5 years and 5 first round appearances (for the record, those seeds were: 8,7,3,6,8. The year they had the 3 seed, they were tied for the 8th best record in the Western Conference and lost to the Clippers 4-1 in the series, prompting a rule change). They’re the kind of team that’s been hanging around the playoffs waiting for that one last acquisition, and voila! Chauncy Billups seems to have done the trick. How’d they get there? By getting rid of a way overpaid Allen Iverson… Humm… getting to the playoffs for a few years with an old overpaid guy who’s liable to break down any minute. Sound like the Warriors with Corey Maggette? Methinks a little.
San Antonio – Already covered.
Houston – Can you say “lucked into #1 pick” again?
Atlanta – They’ve been horrible for a long time. And they really aren’t that good now? Horford was a #3 pick who’s panned out so far. Marvin Williams was a #2 pick. So they got two top 3 picks (not to mention that they would have given the Suns their draft pick in 07 if they hadn’t got in the top 3) but they ain’t getting past the 2nd round (and that’s if they get past the Heat, which I’m suprised you left off the list). They’re an interesting bunch, but they’re just the best of the rest behind the top 3 in the east, and that ain’t getting you anything but a spanking from LeBron in the second round.
For the Warriors, I’d rather see a competitive team (like the Nuggets) than one that I’m going to be half rooting to lose as soon as the all star break hits (like Atlanta).
You may not have said “sit on your ass till a great player comes along”, but I think it’s pretty clear that that’s what you need to get to the “second round and beyond”. And if you don’t value competing for a playoff spot, it’s “second round and beyond” or bust, then you’re not competing for anything until a truly great player just lands in your lap. Which means you’re sitting there twiddling your thumbs until said hall of famer comes around/falls into your lap.
I said keep your roster flexiable and aquire good young talent and see if something can put you in the right direction./blockquote>
How about acquiring talent that actually helps win games instead of endlessly keeping flexibility? As I’ve said to Sam before, “Woo flexibility! Woo cap space! Now, what are you going to do with it?” Cap space doesn’t win basketball games. It’s an interesting notion, and it can sometimes be useful, but not often. It’s like keeping lots of cash around in your portfolio: it’s tempting to think that you’ll be able to spot good buying opportunities, but in the end you just end up holding cash when it should be invested somewhere.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weird quoting...
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously
The best way to get one of those great players in the draft is to invest in players who are untradeable and keep you locked into the 8th through 11th spots. That way your lottery odds are consistently horrible.
You can keep saying that teams “lucked” into guys, but when it’s like 10 teams and some of the “luck” involves 3rd and 4th picks in the draft, it’s obvious that something more than luck was at play. Like teams realizing they were stuck in a cycle of eternal mediocrity, choosing to blow it up and getting a high draft pick to build the team around.
by markdash on Mar 25, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I phrased my sentence about the second round of the playoffs poorly. What I meant to convey was that there are about 11 teams right now that have a good chance to win the championship(4 teams) and the others are just a tweak, role player, or expirience away from getting to that level(the other 7)
Do you need a superstar? Yes, and there are only 4-7 big time players right now and not everyone can have one. So your advice to Atlanta is not to bother showing up in the playoffs since they probably wont get past the second roun and till they get a superstar not to try?
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 25, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So your advice to Atlanta is not to bother showing up in the playoffs since they probably wont get past the second roun and till they get a superstar not to try?
How did we get from me advocating that the Warriors could use some playoff experience even if they’ve got no shot at winning and you saying “championship contender or bust” to you accusing me of saying Atlanta might as well not show up? I’m confused.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
just a tweak, role player, or expirience away from getting to that level
Yeah… so are the Warriors. Take advantage of one sad sap GM and/or unhappy star and we’re there. If Bosh makes some noise this summer, swipe him for the next two years’ draft picks (including a top 7 pick this year) and Maggette on draft night (so salaries match).
Monta
Jax
Kelenna
Bosh
Andris
Bench: Crawford (or young up and coming $8M PG), Turiaf, Wright, Randolph, MLE player, Belinelli, Watson.
Offensively unstoppable, deep in the trenches, possibly trade Crawford with Wright or Randolph for an additional piece.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 things,
Yeah… so are the Warriors.
1.Wow we must have a different conception of the phrase ‘tweak of the roster’. Going all out for Bosh is making a major trade something I am advocating.
2.Secondly the Warriors are not close, however with Ellis’s improved play of late. I am undecided on how extreme of a makeover(they do need some changes) the team will need. Once we find out where our draft pick is, we can decide what our next move is.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 25, 2009 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Methinks you misplaced a comma and a period
And you’re right, I may have been a little strong with the Warriors, but that Warriors team is more of a contender than Portland next year (not to mention that Oden’s injury history is already as long as Maggette’s and he also already looks older than Maggette, but I digress). What “little tweaks” does Portland need to legitimately compete for a championship? How about Atlanta? They both need serious upgrades in personnel.
There are 5 teams (Boston, Cleveland, LA, Orlando, and San Antonio) that are in championship contention. Utah and New Orleans are almost there, but I don’t see how they’re going to leap that hurdle. The others are not close.
Denver? Puh-leeze, they’re old and they have zero assets. What are they going to do short of shopping Nene/K-Mart for a current all star?
Show me what the heck Houston is going to do to compete.
San Antonio hasn’t been healthy all season. They still could rear their ugly head and take Kobe & LeBron out for one last hurrah.
Utah and New Orleans are the only two who are legitimately a small roster change away.
Maybe NO could upgrade Peja, but he’s on the hook for 3 more years at $13M each year. He’s not going to be any easier to move than Maggette and they don’t have assets like Wright, Randolph, and a top 7 draft pick.
Utah has run out of time with $800K Paul Milsap, they’ve got to pay the man if they want to just keep the status quo, which isn’t good enough to challenge for a championship. I don’t see how they can give Milsap anywhere near market value AND add enough talent to get them over the hump. Dump Kirilenko? But who’s gonna take his 50M over 3 year contract?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont know if that lineup can make the playoffs.
On paper the roster looks ok, but the west is deep and its not a Nellie ball lineup. Its much better than this years(not saying much) but definetly not a playoff lock.
On a side note, we cant trade 2 first round draft picks in back to back to years per CBA rules, and plus next years first isnt ours to trade away at the moment. Also Maggette and Bosh’s contract dont match.
Secondly, lets not get carried away. Why would Toronto trade Chris Bosh for Corey Maggette and 2 first rounders.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 25, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
That team would just be at the top of the heap of the “not quite contenders”. Let’s not get carried away.
Now, explain how Portland can become a contender without a similar move.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you hate Portland?
They’re in a giant logjam for the 2nd-7th seeds, they’re one of if not the youngest team in the league, and their 1st overall draft pick center has hardly even played for them this year.
All they need is for the youngsters to grow up and gain experience, and for Oden to give them a reasonable contribution for them to become real championship contenders (if they’re not one already, that is).
by markdash on Mar 25, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hold on, my friend
First, where did I say I hate Portland? I just said that they’re not a championship contender, which they aren’t. Do you really think they’ve got a chance at LA? And even if they somehow get past them, you think they could handle LeBron? Really? Both LA & Cleveland in back to back series? That’s the road (pun intended) they’ll have to take.
And on Oden, 50 games isn’t “hardly ever playing”, it’s actually playing pretty often. If 50 games is “hardly ever playing” then the Warriors have like 5 players who’ve “sometimes played” this season.
Oden was also injured most (all?) of his only season in college, he tore up his knee before playing a minute last year, and he messed up his foot early this year and people were scared it wasn’t worse. Big guy with knee and foot problems? What about him doesn’t scream “giant injury risk” (pun intended, I’m on fire!)? Don’t get me wrong, he looks like a really good player, but would you take even odds that he will have played 250 games by his 5th year in the league knowing that he’s only played 50 through his first 1.75 seasons?
Portland is OK, but they’re not contending this year. I don’t think they’re a bad team. However, I do have concerns about the future of a team that’s riding on the performances of like 8 guys who’re still on their rookie contracts while somehow paying luxury tax finding a way to re-sign these guys. LaFrentz and Miles’ contracts coming off the books will help, but they’ll have some tough decisions to make with resigning Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Bayless, Batum, Outlaw, and Rodriguez in two years. They each make between 2M and 4M this year, they’re each worth at least twice that much. Roy and Aldridge will certainly command $10M/year contracts, Oden probably too. Having Paul Allen writing the checks will help some, but he’s going to have to pay through the nose to keep that core together, and unless they all mature a lot, that core is not going to challenge LeBron before he retires. Especially if he keeps taking ONLY $13M and lets his team go get free agents who want to win a championship with him.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You said
and I quote, “What "little tweaks" does Portland need to legitimately compete for a championship? How about Atlanta? They both need serious upgrades in personnel.”
When you have a team that’s very close to the 2 seed as is, and they’re the youngest team in the NBA, plus their star center has been injured for most or part of the year (and if he’s been healthy, it’s his first year anyway, so there are some growing pains) you don’t need “serious upgrades in personnel.”
I will say it again, if the Blazers just keep maturing, and get growth and good health from Oden, that alone will make them championship contenders. Adding a piece here or there via the MLE will not hurt, of course, but I would vehemently disagree with “serious upgrades in personnel.”
Obviously the Lakers are better, and the Cavs are better, but in a year or two, who knows? Kobe’s on the wrong side of 30, LeBron might leave, who knows. It won’t take much for Portland to be the best team in the NBA in a couple years.
by markdash on Mar 25, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Portland might need a serious upgrade. They’re a young team, but the ‘internal development’ angle rarely takes playoff mid-seeds and makes them into contenders.
There’s very few players good enough to anchor a championship team, who produce so much by themselves to make it possible. There are fewer of these real franchise players than there are guys who get labeled as “franchise players” and get paid like them.
If Oden continues to develop and stays healthy, he might be the difference they need. If he becomes a defensive force without the fouls (which is something players do tend to get better at) they might have a shot. But if he doesn’t, it won’t happen. They won’t win a championship with just minor tweaks.
by jae on Mar 25, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's true
that usually you require a superstar to win a title—the 2004 Pistons were basically the exception that proves the rule.
Still, Brandon Roy very well might be that player for the Blazers. And while I am extremely pessimistic about Oden’s prospects in the pros, if he lives up to his pre-draft projections he could also be that player.
Again, the Blazers MIGHT need some serious upgrades to win a title, but it’s hardly cut and dried.
by markdash on Mar 25, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
Roy is a star. He could make the leap to superduperstar, but I doubt it. The rest of their team is solid, true. Oden, pre-draft, was supposed to be a stud center. But then again, so were Kwame Brown and Eddy Curry. Yes, so were Duncan and Shaq, but my point is that it’s not a given that Oden and Roy become everything people expect them to be. If that were the case, the Warriors are only “internal development” away too… Monta just needs to become a PG, Randolph just needs to mature into that KG/Rodman/Camby mutant, and BWright needs to become a solid stopper. But is that going to happen? Prolly not. The Blazers are closer and the likelyhood that they become a contender is better than the Warriors, but they’ve lucked into the #1 draft pick and drafted the best center prospect in 10 years. It’s not a “strategy” we can easily duplicate.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 26, 2009 6:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oden has already shown more than K.Brown or E.Curry ever did in terms of his ability to impact wins.
by jae on Mar 26, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was referencing Oden pre-draft
Yes, he’s already better than Kwame, but just because he’s better than Kwame and he could realistically become a player on the level of a Duncan doesn’t mean he’s going to get there. He may very well become a very player in the league, but let’s wait till he actually gets there an shows that he can say healthy for a season before saying “All Portland has to do is wait for Oden to become awesome, then they’ll compete for a championship.” That’s really all I was saying.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 26, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you list an awful lot of teams who have a player who only “comes along every once in few years” If more than 1 in 3 teams has at least one (and several have 2 or more) of those guys isn’t it a bit odd we haven’t had one in close to 2 decades? Maybe because we’ve been living with this “shoot for the last 2 playoff spots” strategy.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 25, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If more than 1 in 3 teams has at least one (and several have 2 or more) of those guys isn’t it a bit odd we haven’t had one in close to 2 decades?
I think it’s because the bay area has so much going for it that basketball is just not as important here as it is in other cities so the fans don’t demand as much. The owners know this and can save some money by putting out mediocre teams. The A’s and Giants seem to have a similiar mindset, it’s been quite a while since they were really good.
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 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Giants?
It hasnt been nearly that long since the Giants had a true superstar though. And theyve shown a willingness to do what it takes to acquire one. The lack of a salary cap also hurts the A’s here, I’d say the niners and raiders would be better examples….the Giants have also been really good a lot more recently than any other non-Sharks bay area team.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 25, 2009 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also-Lincecum is the closest thing the Bay Area has to a superstar right now, and sadly the Giants or A’s may just prove to be the closest thing we have to a really good team.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 25, 2009 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the Giants have also been really good a lot more recently
I must have missed that, I can only recall the earthquake year world series. A’s versus Big ants
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 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe, I haven't watched much baseball
since Reggie Jackson went to NewYork
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 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you're constantly planning how to mitigate failure
You will assure that you never succeed because when opportunity comes knocking, you won’t be ready for it.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you want to constantly add Corey Maggette
like band aids to your problems to try and keep you afloat, You never solve the real problems and continue your run of medicority.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 25, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Turiaf, we got him, cheap too. Excellent pickup
Mason Jr was washed out of the NBA three years ago, and isn’t exactly lighting the world on fire now, despite killing the Warriors because they left him open (which is how I suspect he gets a lot of his points… because Parker & Duncan draw all of the attention). What exactly would have made him a “great” pickup? He certainly wouldn’t have helped us compete on the basketball court as a starting SF.
Childress was offered 33/5 by Atlanta and refused it. You’d give Childress 40/5 rather than Maggette 50/5? Would Childress have taken that? He certainly would have been an interesting option, but we’d have had to beat out his current team AND Europe to get him. He’s getting 32.5M for 3 years from Olympiakos. Maybe he’d have accepted less than $10M/year, but not by much.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would of offered Mason 3/21 million. He can play off the ball well and is an excellent shooter. He is a veteran that Nellie can play immediately. If he took SA’s offer or Wash matched, oh well. But that would of been nice pickup.
As for Childress, I read on ESPN insider that ATL offered him less than the MLE and that infuriated him, so I dont know where you got your 33/5 number from. Without hesitation I would of offered Chilress 40/5 than Maggette 50/5. I would of front loaded(to try and prevent ATL from matching) and would of tossed in the last year as a player option to entice Childress even more. He is long versatile, relatively young and seems more able to adapt to our team. He would of been so much easier to trade down the line than Maggette if we chose to get rid of him.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 25, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/hawks/stories/2008/07/23/childress_hawks_greece.html
http://www.hoopinionblog.com/2008/07/details-on-childress-contract-cap.html
Could be completely unbased, but it comes up a few places.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We can’t become a team that competes for anything more than one of the last 3 playoff spots without getting lucky in the draft or pulling off a major trade. We have to drastically overpay aging vets like Maggette. So wouldn’t the smartest thing to do be acquiring as many trade-able assets as possible? The best way to do that is to sign guys to short term deals. Yea, I’d rather have Pietrus or Evans on a one or two year deal because their trade value would be more valuable to this team than Maggette’s play.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 25, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good post...
1. What would you have done with the $8M, if not sign Corey? (keeping in mind that you have only 2 weeks left, 30 other suitors for just a few players, and any money you leave on the table will get gobbled up by Monta & Andris’ agents)
That’s the thing. You have to go back and look at things in perspective. At the time of this signing everything still made sense. Monta would step in at point and get his chance. We needed someone who could help replace Baron’s scoring (hoping Monta could become a playmaker). We had money to spend that would disappear as soon as we signed AB and Monta (even if they still got paid the same amount). We may have overpaid, but given the circumstances it would have been far worse to let the opportunity pass by and have the ownership pocket the savings.
At that point you could look at the moves management was making and still see some semblance of a plan. Once they decided to extend Jackson and ship out Harrington for a redundant player at longer money was when things started to go sour in the FO IMO.
The Maggette signing wasn’t a brilliant stroke by any means but it wasn’t as bad as some make it out to be.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 23, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The wheels were starting to fall off, Harrington was getting pissed
They didn’t want Jax following suit. They chose between Jack and Al, and Al lost. Al didn’t get an extension, knew he wasn’t going to be a Warrior long term, and demanded a trade because he wanted to be on a team that might pay him going forward. He was just an expiring contract to the Warriors, and he wanted to be somewhere where he’s more than that.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 23, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suspect that the Harrington trade demands coincided pretty directly with the day after he heard that Jax’s agents were talking to the Warriors FO about an extension.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 23, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think so...
I had been emailing with Pree privately for a while and he told me about the Harrington trade demand sometime last season well before the trade deadline. I was actually really surprised how long it stayed out of the press. The Warriors basically thought they were better off with him than with anything they could get for him so they decided to keep him despite him repeatedly asking to be traded. IIRC the only reason things heated up was because a private conversation between TK and Al’s agent became, uh… not private.
Harrington’s gripe from what I understand was with Nellie and had nothing to do with contract negotiations. He didn’t think that Nelson was “using him right”.
I can understand the need to move Al once it blew up. The thing is that at that point we had already signed Maggette, extended Jackson, and Monta was hurt, so it would have made a lot more sense to trade him for an expiring contract. NY reportedly had either Crawford or Rose’s expiring contract on the table and we chose Crawford (likely to fill the hole at pg/sg because of Monta’s injury). Again, it’s easy to justify each move, but to me that was a big mistake (as much as I do enjoy watching Crawford). Bigger than signing Maggette and about the same as extending Jackson IMO.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 23, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
If Crawford opts out
It looks like a decent move, shore up the PG/SG situation while Monta’s out. If he doesn’t opt out, it’s the worst by far… though the jury’s still out on Jax.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 23, 2009 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If...
That’s a huge if, but yeah if he opts out it would have been a good trade.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 23, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on your mode of thinking
He would have shored up the PG/SG spot, but also cost us a few ping pong balls. We’ll see. Hopefully we got the right ping pong balls this year though.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 23, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
at the time conventional wisdom said
crawford would opt out.
by tafkasam on Mar 23, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
I didn’t get that impression at all. What makes you say that?
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 23, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. What would you have done with the $8M, if not sign Corey? (keeping in mind that you have only 2 weeks left, 30 other suitors for just a few players, and any money you leave on the table will get gobbled up by Monta & Andris’ agents)
As I’ve said before, the timing is the ONLY legitimate excuse for overpaying for Maggette, BUT it doesnt excuse the length of the contract. I still suspect they couldve had Maggette on a 4 or maybe eve 3 year deal. If not I wouldve offered a much shorter term contract (1 maybe 2 years) to a guy who isnt as good as Maggette. A 8 million dollar expiring contract would have more value to this team than Maggette.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still suspect they couldve had Maggette on a 4 or maybe eve 3 year deal.
What makes you think that? I don’t have a high opinion of the recent performance of our front office, but I doubt they maneuvered themselves into offering two full seasons that they didn’t have to.
According to rumors at the time, Maggette was being offered the MLE for four or five years by a couple very, very good teams. Maggette is a guy who’s generally played on crappy teams… playing on a title contender may well have meant a lot to him. I don’t think it’s all unreasonable to think that we had to raise the per-year from $6 million to $10 million to convince him to come to a low-profile small-market team that had just missed the playoffs and lost its best player. Why would he have come here for any less?
A 8 million dollar expiring contract would have more value to this team than Maggette.
That’s currently true, because we’re having a bad season. But the plan wasn’t to have a bad season… the plan was to make the playoffs. That might well have happened if Monta hadn’t gotten hurt and if the front office hadn’t foolishly turned Al into Crawford. If we’d been in playoff contention, Maggette would be worth more to us than a mid-sized expiring contract. With Monta all year, Maggette might’ve meant the difference between 45 wins and a playoff spot and 40 wins and another spring spent at home.
On a bad team, almost every big contract looks bad… you’d just as soon throw them all back and try again. But the Warriors didn’t think they were a bad team last summer, and they may not think they’re a bad team this summer. They seem to think they can contend for the playoffs next year, and I happen to think they’re right. If they do contend, Maggette won’t seem like a problem… he’ll seem like an asset.
by onlxn on Mar 23, 2009 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think it’s all unreasonable to think that we had to raise the per-year from $6 million to $10 million to convince him to come to a low-profile small-market team that had just missed the playoffs and lost its best player
well then its not worth it. If you have to almost double the average salary………..seriously?
That’s currently true, because we’re having a bad season. But the plan wasn’t to have a bad season… the plan was to make the playoffs.
Being a possible 7th/8th seed at best is not worth sacrificing that amount of flexibility. Again did you or anyone really think Maggette was gonna make us any better than any of the top 6 teams in the West? If the majority of us recognized we were a bad team last summer, did the front office really not recognize that?
If they do contend, Maggette won’t seem like a problem… he’ll seem like an asset.
Maggette isnt a problem, his contract is and will continue to be a problem unless they can somehow find at least one (probably 2) more very good player(s) despite not having the flexibility Maggette’s salary could provide.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well then its not worth it. If you have to almost double the average salary………..seriously?
The fact that we’d have to pay much more than another team doesn’t necessarily prove a contract isn’t worth it. Good players sometimes sign with contenders for the league minimum, when they’re in fact worth several times that much.
Teams like Utah and San Antonio were offering Maggette as much as they were allowed to offer him. We had the cap space to exceed those offers… we ended up having to exceed them by a lot to get the guy. That’s too bad, but it doesn’t somehow prove that it’s a terrible deal.
Being a possible 7th/8th seed at best is not worth sacrificing that amount of flexibility. Again did you or anyone really think Maggette was gonna make us any better than any of the top 6 teams in the West?
Nope. But I did (and do) think that there is real value to this franchise in making the playoffs a couple years in a row. This team needs to prove itself — to its fanbase, to free agents, to potential coaches, to advertisers, to everybody. It’s nice to have the attitude of “title contender or bust”, but real teams don’t work that way, and they shouldn’t work that way. Making the playoffs is a worthwhile goal for this team, and in my opinion, it is worth sacrificing some flexibility for that goal, especially when that flexibility wasn’t all that impressive to begin with.
If the majority of us recognized we were a bad team last summer, did the front office really not recognize that?
We weren’t a bad team till Monta got hurt… that, some injuries, the dumb Crawford trade and (in my opinion) some bad coaching turned us into a bad team. The Monta/Jack/Maggette/Al/Biedrins team that was assembled over the summer was a very reasonable lineup, a very decent bet for the playoffs. Our solid performance since Monta’s return demonstrates that.
Maggette isnt a problem, his contract is and will continue to be a problem unless they can somehow find at least one (probably 2) more very good player(s) despite not having the flexibility Maggette’s salary could provide.
I agree with that, but I don’t think it makes sense to vilify Maggette’s contract as the one thing that kills us. Crawford’s a much worse player, and the Jack extension was much, much worse. The alternative to signing Maggette was not having Maggette, and not improving our core of talents. The alternative to extending Jack was… not extending Jack. We’d still have the guy. We’d just have some flexibility to work with, too.
There are three problematic contracts on our books, not one. Of the three contracts, Maggette’s was the only one that we acquired through at least defensible logic, and the guy has played well. It’s not a great contract, but I just don’t see why it’s the touchstone for what’s wrong with this franchise. The team’s made at least five moves in the past twelve months that were worse.
by onlxn on Mar 23, 2009 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
-If Crawford opts out that move is light years better.
-The Jackson re-up was worse, but if we’re already committed to trying to be a 7th/8th seed (and it was the Maggette contract that locked us into that goal) then a happy Jack is absolutely necessary.
……I guess the other moves you’re talking about are letting Baron walk and……..maybe the reported offers to Arenas and Brand? Arenas was a terrible idea, I’m not sure about Brand though I wouldn’t have been too excited about breaking the bank for him and letting Baron walk was something I thought was a huge mistake at the time and I don’t know how much his play in LA proves it was a good move. I can’t imagine what other moves you might be referring to.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 2:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t count the Baron thing or the Brand thing… my take on those moves is similar to yours. You can argue either side on them, but I don’t think you could call either move terrible. Both were thoroughly defensible decisions.
I regard these five worse moves than signing Maggette. Not all are “moves” in the sense of player transactions… they’re stupid and costly decisions by the franchise.
5) Not firing Mullin after his removal from power. Makes the team look petty, schizophrenic and amateurish. How much luck do you think we’re going to have finding a good GM candidate after that?
4) Publicly threatening to void Monta’s contract. I thought the fine and suspension were totally appropriate, and I don’t even have a problem with the team quietly looking into the possibility of voiding. But publicly holding that over the guy’s head, when it wasn’t likely to be worthwhile and wasn’t even likely to work, was beyond stupid. You thought we were an unattractive destination for free agents before?
3) Trading Al for Crawford. It’s become the consensus around here that that move will have be a fine one if Crawford opts out. I find that mystifying. Letting Al sit for two years and using his expiring in ‘10 would’ve been infinitely more valuable than a one-year rental of an unhelpful player, who leaves us with basically the same amount of cap space as the MLE. Crawford opting out is better than Crawford not opting out, but it’s still a terrible return on an appealing contract. Hell, as Knicks go, Malik Rose would’ve been a much better return than Crawford. At least we would’ve had his contract as a trading chip this deadline.
2) Extending Jackson. Just indefensibly stupid. The idea that we have to extend Jack to keep him happy is crazy. What if he decides this summer that he won’t be happy unless we extend him through his 44th birthday? You can’t let players, especially non-stars, steer the boat like that. If the team hadn’t extended Jack, he’d probably have ended up playing the same way. I’d rather have him motivated to get himself a big contract in two years than feeling all warm and fuzzy about being signed for five.
1) Offering Arenas a max deal. You hate the Maggette contract… imagine if we were paying twice that much to have Gilbert dress nice and blog.
by onlxn on Mar 24, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Nice list...
Kind of depressing though… rec.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 24, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
5 and 4) Because so many of the “insider” reporters have turned out to be nothing more than rumor-mongering self promoters this year I don’t pay much attention to the Monta contract/front office mess drama. But yea going public with threats to void the contract of the guy they dubbed the future face of the franchise just months earlier isnt the smartest move, nor is shutting out an at least adequately respected basketball guy and leaving him some weird awkward lame duck status. allegedly.
3)You’ll get no argument here that Rose wouldve been a better deal, but I don’t think quite so many people should be so totally miffed at the Crawford deal. Its not at all crazy to think we need a guy next to Monta who is
1) big enough to defend 2’s
2) has some range. An accurate outside shooter would be nice, but a guy with range is necessary. Somebody in the backcourt needs to stretch the D and Monta doesnt. Crawford is “deadly” from outside in the same way Baron is/was; he’s not terribly good from outside, he can get incredibly hot, and is always a threat to the D
3) can handle the ball and help Monta with the distribution duties.
-ok so in theory Crawford works. Clearly the front office decision makers should have known that regardless of his size Crawford doesnt defend ANYONE and he plays more like he’s 5’5" than 6’5". It was a bad decision and theres no excuse for them not knowing about these major flaws in Crawford’s game, but you can at least see what they were thinking. If he opts out its still a worse move than Rose, but its not even close to Maggette. If he doesnt opt out, he’s a more less useful player than Maggette but we don’t have to live with him for nearly as long….its about even.
2) Jackson entire game relies on him being motivated. He’s a good distributor and defender only when he wants to be. To be even a bottom rung playoff team we NEED him to want to be both those things. Being a bottom rung playoff team is something we essentially committed to when we signed Maggette. Sure its terrible to put so much weight in the hands of one mercurial player who isnt even close to being a star, but he’s the team leader and we didn’t really have a choice. If we’d signed a somewhat worse player than Maggette to a one or two year deal and NOT extended Jack we would have had at least two very trade-able large contracts. Now we have none and are locked in at chasing that elusive and coveted 8 seed for the next 4 years. Its a bit of an assumption, but I don’t think the Jack extension is nearly as likely without Maggette so I place part of the blame there.
1) No question. Worst contract offer ever maybe. One of the handful of players/contracts I wouldnt swap Maggette for.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
by the way
Because so many of the "insider" reporters have turned out to be nothing more than rumor-mongering self promoters this year I don’t pay much attention to the Monta contract/front office mess drama.
I miss Pree
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we’d signed a somewhat worse player than Maggette to a one or two year deal and NOT extended Jack we would have had at least two very trade-able large contracts.
Stick with the one tradeable contract. You can’t just sign a guy for a one or two year deal that’s anywhere near as good as Corey Maggette. Unless you’re LA and that player is either a “has been” Karl Malone or a “has been” Gary Payton. Or I guess you’re Boston and that player is a “has been” PJ Brown or a “has been” Joe Smith… etc.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and my point all along has been a guy that isnt nearly as good as Maggette signed to a very short term deal is a much more valuable asset in today’s NBA than Maggette.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
basically I just mean that its better to increase the per year significantly than to increase years….especially for a 29 year old. Obviously you cant increase Maggette’s per year salary any more so it wouldve been smarter to overpay a lesser player more per year for fewer years….and/or take a gamble on a younger player.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(in Nellieball, you don’t really need a pure PG),
What Nellieball team has ever been mildly successful without one? I’m not saying there isnt one but none come to mind. I don’t know much about his old Bucks squads, but Hardaway, Baron and Nash are basically pure PGs (unless you define a pure PG as someone who isnt a good scorer)
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
80s milwaukee bucks
hence creation (or popularity) of point forward. like you i dont know too much, but what i have read is neither guard were ball handliers so he ran his offense thru his SF.
You can say alot about nellie, but 1 thing i give him alot of respect for is his creativity and his success with it. You can blame him for this season, but i doubt any other coach could get more out of the current team this season, with all the injuries….
by tafkasam on Mar 23, 2009 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i doubt any other coach could get more out of the current team this season, with all the injuries
and I doubt any other coach would build a team so it had these problems
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 23, 2009 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in most cases coaches dont build teams...
i dont necessarily disagree w/ build of team… eys we’re thin upfront but i’d rather be thin and play small ball w/ athletes who CAN play as opposed to the former warriors… signing stiff big men because they r 7 feet tall… also now we have a surplus of swing players, which can be a trading asset…. although its unclear what we can reallly get
by tafkasam on Mar 23, 2009 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
btw i think we can be successful w/ monta at PG
w/ a ball handling sf…. is it ideal? probably not…. jordans bulls didnt have a true pg… parker for the first couple championships was basically like monta, score score score. i never thought fisher was a great pg for lakers even in his prime.
what all these teams had was multiple players capable of being ball handlers and initiating the offense, GREAT ball movement…. and of course world class players. as GREAT as it’d be to have cp3 or jason kidd in his prime etc, have teams w/ this pg centric identity won championships anytime recently? The closest would be detroit w/ chauncey and they were more a team w/ great movement than just a great pg
My point is unless we find a way at rubio or a real true class PG, we’re better off running this type of offense w/ monta at PG than say…. getting raymond felton or some other avgerage pg for the sake of starting a pg.
if theres any player at the 3 we could get who fits that description of a pippen or ginobili i think our team would be alot more efficient. of course i realize im speaking of 2 all star caliber players (1 who is a hall of famer). In the draft, earl clark really intrigues me. When he is on, he looks like probably the best player in college (better than griffin) but he can be such an enigma and fade, or looks disinterested…..Turkaglo is a restricted free agent, although not the sexiest name, he is a very efficient player and would be a perfect fit. I dont know how we could get him, but orlando is in luxury tax territory. its not inconcieveable theyd consider a sign and trade…
Perhaps Randolph will develop into this player but it wont happen for a few years if it ever does. His ball handling for a 19 year old (youngest player in nba) w/ his size i ridiculous…. still i remember a certain young lebron even at 19… and randolphs passing/handles r nowhere NEAR his league so its could be alot to insinuate, he’ll all of a sudden become a passing machine w/ no turnovers…
by tafkasam on Mar 23, 2009 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who’s the buyer here? I can only imagine a playoff team that wants that ‘missing piece’ type of veteran bench player. Which of those teams would give up anything of value for him.
This year? Nobody, I guess. But teams do sometimes need scorers, and Maggette is a better scorer than most. Maybe Portland decides they need another scoring threat… maybe the Rockets do. Maybe Toronto needs to retool after losing Bosh. Maggette is not just a volume scorer, he’s a quality scorer, and there’s value in that.
If we do trade Maggette in the next year or two, I wouldn’t expect to get anything great back… I imagine most other teams would regard his contract as the mixed bag we now seem to. But I don’t buy the idea that he’s untradeable.
Yeah it does. If your talking about him being worth 8 million and change, factor that over 65 games and it doesnt seem as good of a deal.
Right… effectively it makes his cost $10-11 million. Less appealing.
But Maggette is an elite-level scorer. He’s 14th in the NBA in points per minute, and he takes fewer shots than the guys above him. All the guys ahead of him on that list who have reached free agency make more money per year than Maggette except for Devin Harris, who just took his game to a new level (and will consequently take his salary to a new level this summer).
People pay a lot for truly good scorers, because they’re worth it. Maggette’s not very good at anything else, so his contract isn’t a steal, and he’s signed for too long, so his contract isn’t even very good. But we’re paying the going rate for a scorer, nothing more.
What was the plan there, Maggette isnt good enough to take us from being a non playoff team to playoff team when we lost our best player.
The theory was that improvements from guys like Monta and Biedrins, plus the benefits of a larger lineup, would balance gap the gap between Baron and Maggette. I don’t think that was a bad gamble. But Monta got hurt, Al turned into Crawford and we had an injured and mismanaged couple of months. That stuff’s not due to the Maggette contract.
Why invest in a guy that is average and not getting any better.
Maggette’s an above-average player. At small forward, Lebron, Granger, Durant, Melo, AK47, Pierce, Tayshaun and Caron Butler are all better than he is. Rudy Gay might be a little better. Maggette’s at least as good as anyone else… at this point, he’s more productive than guys like Artest and Josh Howard. I’d say Maggette’s about the 10th-best small forward in the league. That’s no All-Star, but that’s a solidly above-average player. Players like that tend to get around ten million dollars a year, and in wins, they’re probably worth about that much.
At the time, the Warriors had Jackson, Azibuike, Randolph, and Belinelli all slated to play the 2/3.
Randolph was (and still pretty much is) an extremely raw rookie, and Marco was so bad last year that he shouldn’t have figured into any future plans… to his credit, he’s improved. At the time Maggette was signed, we had Jack and ‘Buike at the 2/3 and nobody else. And again, ’Buike didn’t necessarily look like a starter-level player at the time… he has also improved, in surprising ways.
Small forward wasn’t a gaping hole for us at the time Maggette was signed, but it was an upgradeable spot. Maggette upgraded that spot.
I would say that he is an above average player thats over paid, at the wrong side of 28 and locked up for 4 more years. I really have a tough time beliving their our too many teams in the NBA right now that would want Corey Maggette for free.
I’m assuming you mean they wouldn’t want his contract for free… anyway, I wasn’t calling Maggette’s contract “good”. I think it’s mediocre. If we tried to trade him, I think most teams wouldn’t have interest. But I don’t think we’d find zero interest from anybody. This is a guy that most of the best teams in the league badly wanted last summer. He’s now making more money than they were willing/able to pay, so some of them wouldn’t find him interesting now. But a couple very well might.
No way you can limit an ‘awful contract’ to that. VInce Carter (all star) paid pretty reasonable looks like an awful contract for New Jersey.
It’s not a great fit for them right now because of the Summer of Lebron looming on the horizon, but that’s not a terrible contract. They were close to a deal with Portland where they’d get some genuinely interesting talent back, in addition to cap relief. Vince Carter is not some immoveable millstone around their necks.
And an awful contract can be something even much smaller. Jason Kapono, Luke Walton, Jared Jeffries are all examples of awful contracts, even though they are not that big of contracts.Those are bad contracts, but they’re not really crippling to their respective teams. If you sign a couple role players to oversized contracts, like the Bobcats or the Isiah-era Knicks, yeah, you can get yourself in serious trouble. But if you have one guy like that, it’s not the end of the world. It’s just a silly waste of money.
Maggette’s contract isn’t crippling to this team, nor is it a completely silly waste of money. It’s definitely an overpay (more in time commitment than financial commitment), but it’s not wildly off the mark… if you lopped a year off of it, or $2 million a year off of it, it’d be a totally decent contract. I get not being excited about Corey Maggette. His contract’s not great. But it’s not terrible, either.
by onlxn on Mar 23, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
…actually, DfiB said all this better above. Oopz.
by onlxn on Mar 23, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At the time, we didn’t even have Azubuike. He was a restricted FA, but it wasn’t clear that they’d retain him. They matched his salary offer from the Clippers, but remember that there was talk about going after Evans.
by jae on Mar 23, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure the Evans talk was posturing
Either that or a Plan B.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 23, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not so sure
IIRC, we were looking at Evans for less money than Buike but as soon a Childress left for Europe Evans got a bigger offer from ATL and once that happened we matched Buike.
It was completely our decision on whether or not to match Buike so there was no need for a Plan B. I think we were just checking the market to see if we could get similar production for less money. We thought we could with Evans (and may have) but the Childress situation had trickle down effects all the way to the Ricky Davis signing in LA.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 23, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
had trickle down effects
…I thought 99.9% of GSoM agreed that such a thing doesn’t really exist! ;-)
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
Very well done.
I do believe in trickle down effects though. I believe that having an idiot for a President for eight years had some pretty interesting trickle down effects (see your 401k). =P
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 23, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the Summer of Lebron looming on the horizon
is a mirage, imho, most of those FA will re-up with their clubs
by hardcore on Mar 23, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it’s not the Eddy Curry contract, and it’s not the Rashard Lewis contract, either.
Its not the Eddy Curry contract or the Jerome James contract. Youre right he’s not a useless player, but I think Maggette’s contract is VERY comparable to the Rashard Lewis contract. Lewis makes more money but he’s a much better fit for his team and plays for a winning team. If Maggette was the kind of signing that had the potential to take this team from being average to well above average I wouldn’t mind the overpay nearly as much, but did anyone honestly think this team was going to be average without him or more than a very low playoff seed with him?
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sam
That’s a completely different issue.
1. Rashard Lewis would have been readily available for much, much less than the $110M they got him for. Word around the street was they could have got him for something like $70M. I doubt they could have gone that low, but it’s fair to say they just gave him an extra $20-$30M… just because.
2. They’re winning because they have Dwight Howard. Seattle was… OK, because they had Ray Allen. Rashard Lewis was second banana in Seattle, and he could reasonably be considered 3rd or 4th banana in Orlando (behind Hedo & maybe Jameer). He’s certainly not driving their success and he’s definitely riding on the coattails of the most dominant young big man in the league since Shaq.
3. Overpaying Maggette by 30% means you’ve effectively lowered your cap by $2M to $3M. That means going from an MLE player to a Kelenna. Overpaying Lewis by 30% is a $5M to $6M cap drop. That means going from a Monta to a Pietrus.
Lewis by no means whatsoever takes that team from “average to well above average”, what’s done that is the maturation of Dwight Howard and to a lesser extent Jameer Nelson & Hedo Turkoglu. Rashard Lewis may have some minor effect, but he’s a terrible defender, a bad rebounder, and if you look at his stats since he’s arrived in Orlando, he’s become a smaller and smaller part of what they do. His minutes have gone down each year, his shot attempts have gone down, and his scoring has gone down. He is not the reason for their success. He is the reason they’re on the outside of the title contention group instead of leading it.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 6:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. I’m not quite so sure how you can say Lewis would have been readily available for less when you say almost doubling Maggette’s next best offer was necessary.
2. Yea they are winning because they have Dwight. But when you have a superstar like Dwight locked up at less than market value you can overpay for some other guys. I’m not saying Rashard isn’t a terrible contact (remember I said it was comparable to Maggette’s) But the plan to put Dwight in the middle and just surround him with quality shooters is a very good plan. They wouldve been hard pressed to find a guy who can shoot as well from the 4 spot as Rashard. He also wasn’t signed at age 29, he wasnt as injury prone as Maggette and they signed him so that his contract expires at the same time as Howards meaning they can be sure to lock Dwight up on a max AND add another player at that time.
I disagree that Lewis isnt a big part of what they do. His presence makes it incredibly difficult to double team Howard with 2 bigs. Thats an incredibly significant contribution that shouldnt be dismissed so lightly. Don’t get me wrong its also a terrible contract, but it successfully fits with their plan both financially and on the court. Its not the best way they could have spent that money but its not any worse than us signing Maggette.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He shoots 39%
That’s OK, but not $16M great. Matt Bonner, Troy Murphy, Boris Diaw… these guys are all just as good at shooting from outside. If they wanted a PF who could shoot the 3 and play crappy defense, they could have easily got one for less.
But when you have a superstar like Dwight locked up at less than market value you can overpay for some other guys.
It doesn’t make it more OK for you to overpay them, you’re still costing yourself the ability to compete. It’s like if Cleveland went and paid Big Z 15M/year. Sure, they could still compete, but that doesn’t make it a good idea, nor does it make him any bigger part of what they do.
You still don’t seem to get my point. It’s a bigger contract, and thus a bigger financial mistake. Paying CJ Watson $3M/year may be a mistake, but it’s a drop in the lake compared to paying Maggette $10M/year, which is subsequently a drop in the ocean compared to paying Lewis $18M/year.
You can argue that “Maggette’s old, Maggette’s old”, but I think onxln pointed out that people don’t really start declining until they’re past 32, which would be after the 4th year of his contract when he’d be a “valuable cap space trade piece”, or whatever.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And youre missing my point about how much Rashard does for them on the court. I’m not saying it was a good signing. It was awful so obviously there were better and/or cheaper alternatives. But he was young and he has a fairly unique skill set that they needed for their basketball plan (maybe the part thats confusing you is the part where an NBA franchise seems to have both a financial AND on-court plan) Given the players already on the Magic roster and what their cost and given the players on our roster and what they cost, the moves are equally bad at worst/best(I confused myself so I dont know which to use, but you get the point)
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can argue that "Maggette’s old, Maggette’s old", but I think onxln pointed out that people don’t really start declining until they’re past 32, which would be after the 4th year of his contract when he’d be a "valuable cap space trade piece", or whatever.
Actually, that’s not quite what he showed. What he showed is that there are some guys who are still performing at a very high level at 32. Of the players he listed, some are noticeably worse, some are not. It’s an uneven and not completely predictable decline, but some players do decline before 32.
by jae on Mar 24, 2009 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
as a bench scorer in his current role, he an sustain value. Playing 25-32 mins (I expect his minutes will go down as he ages and rest of our team improved) he can still do what he does best, even a step or two slower. That being said we essentially paid 5 years, 50 mil for a glorified 6th man. For a team like the warriors thats bad business.
by tafkasam on Mar 23, 2009 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep him!
A guy who can make me hate his ability to draw fouls even when he’s on our own team is worth having. Best 6th man in the league? Yeah Corey I’m talking about you!!
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 22, 2009 11:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
but when has his ability to draw fouls helped the team to wins
or momentum changes. or was it more stat stuffer stuff?
by KeepdaCore on Mar 22, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but when has his ability to draw fouls helped the team to wins
just a couple of games ago he won with fouls, IIRC he scored all but 2 of his points on freethrows.Read bojangles408’s post below for more.
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 22, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Best 6th man in the league? Yeah Corey I’m talking about you!!
Manu Ginobili, Jason Terry, Nate Robinson, Leandro Barbosa, and AK47 would all like a word with you.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 22, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ak starts now
an nate rob starts now and sumtimes barbosa so…..
by nateoak10 on Mar 22, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
all of them have already come off the bench enough times to qualify for the award so…..
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 22, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ummm you know we did sign him for
getting to the foul line. The games that we’ve won this season are mostly because of him. He kept us in the game with getting to the foul line. He single handedly made our team the 2nd best team to get to the free throw line. I don’t know if most of you guys know how important that is in this league. Now he is adding passing to his game and only taking it to the whole if there is no other play available. He is average like what 4 assists the past 3 games or so.
by bojangles408 on Mar 22, 2009 12:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
he is nothing more than addition by subtraction.
the ball movement is way better without him. now if he was driving and kicking out to morrow for 3, i’d be impressed, i’ve never seen that. i wonder how much more of an impact morrow would have if those ball hogging players would just pass him the ball. he slows down the offense, we have to many talented players for any one individual pound the rock. did u see how stale the game against the clippers got when maggette kept charging into people, even barnett and fitz commented.
by KeepdaCore on Mar 22, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is average like what 4 assists the past 3 games or so.
great sample size.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 22, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha.
On the season, he’s averaging a paltry 1.9 assists per game.
And it’s actually only 2.7 apg over the last three games: 8 dimes total.
And one of those games (v. LAL) he picked up 7. In the other two (v. PHI & NO) he picked up one and zero, respectively.
On the bright side, he did average 7 assists per game in that one game against the Lakers. So there’s that. Which is nice. ;-)
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 23, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i dont think maggette is tradeable yet.
Too many years on his contract. If is a team interested I’d listen but Ive come to realization we wont move him for a few years
so for next year. I want crawford gone, either by opting out or traded in package with some1. Probably trade buike or bellnelli too. Not that i dont like them, but they r probably our most tradeable assets at swing positions. Bring in a SF who can pass! (hears to hoping tashaun all of a sudden takes a baseball bat to dumars car and wants out of detroit!).
Mags as our 6th man
by tafkasam on Mar 23, 2009 11:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Did anyone here watch the last 10 years before the We Believe era?
We lost tons of games by mising free throws or not being able to get to the line in crunch time.
yes, the contract was too rich, get over it.
Magette brings something we have been lacking for a long time. He is the perfect 6th or 7th man for a lot of teams, not just ours. We just need to get a valid starting 5.
Turiaf and Magette as 6th and 7th men off the bench? That sounds great to me!
by warriorsvictim on Mar 23, 2009 11:44 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Oh yeah, I forgot. You won 48 games last year and made the second round the year before that without shooting a lot of free throws. I think the 110 points allowed per game have a lot more to do with the losing record than not getting to the line, unless you get to the line about 50 times per game. And the point is when he shoots all those free throws it ruins the tempo of the game that the Warriors need to be successful. Phoenix was last in the league in free throw attempts for the past several years and have been one of the elite teams in the league, hell they got screwed out of at least one trip to the Finals during that span. Amount of free throw attempts isn’t necessarily important, it’s team percentage.
by LakerFan24 on Mar 23, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hell they got screwed out of at least one trip to the Finals during that span.
Hah. Right. Keep convincing yourselves of that one.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 23, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ill agree with the tempo point
Free throws or not, maggette is an efficient scorer for minutes and shot attempts however you want to define it. Free throws, dunks who cares. efficiency is efficiency. And with stack’shoot everyshot avaiable’Jack you need efficiency.
his scoring efficiency per shot taken is better than everyone of thwe top 15 scorer’s except Dwight howard.
by tafkasam on Mar 23, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We lost tons of games by mising free throws or not being able to get to the line in crunch time.
yes, the contract was too rich, get over it.
So now we lose a ton of games by getting to the free throw line and hitting a decent % of them……….great.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
The getting to the free throw line and making them is definitely the problem. We need to stop doing that.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 6:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m just saying we’re still losing just as many games……maybe free throws weren’t our number one problem. Maybe we shouldve invested the 10 million dollars per year for 5 years on someone who could improve our DEFENSE rather than hurt it even more.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting idea
Got any ideas? Or still just theories?
BTW, I’m totally on board with dumping Jamal for some cap space. That cap space is going to turn into the perfect $10M/year PF that we need. Woo cap space!
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
I’m kinda feeling like an arse today.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe you missed every significant trade of the last couple years-cap room is now THE most valuable trade chip. Trading expiring or near expiring contracts is the only way this franchise is going to get significantly better unless they hit draft lottery gold. The best way to get expiring or near expiring contracts isn’t to sing 29 year old guys to 5 year deals.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 24, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Magette is not posting up on fact breaks
how the hell is magette slowing down our tempo when we are in a half court set, the shot clock is running down, and we have limited offensive options?
I dont think you are really watching the games.
And we are losing games now due to lack of defense. Lack of anything else has only been a factor about 3 times this season.
by warriorsvictim on Mar 23, 2009 4:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
when we pass, we win
when we dont pass, we lose
maggette = lose.
pretty simple…he doesnt fit our half court offense. our half court offense relies on mismatches created by moving the ball around and also creating open oportnuities for corner 3s and cutters
maggette doesnt help our offense other than making the numbers look good for HIMSELF.
ship maggs out
ship crawford out
throw in cj to the deal if we need to
we are rebuilding the team into a young team…the only “untouchables” (people that cant get traded for equal or greater value, and people who we can build on) are:
Andris, Ellis, Randolph, Wright (people who we should build around)
and also people that i think would be assets to keep:
Morrow, Turiaf, Buki
imo everyone else is expendable, and everyone else should be used to try to get rid of maggs and crawford! we need to be building around the people i mentioned, and need to get the best player available in the draft! we have a lot of potential and mark my words…if the stuff i mentioned happens we WILL be a PLAYOFF team next season.
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 23, 2009 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"untouchables" (people that cant get traded for equal or greater value)
well Maggette, Crawford, and Jackson cant be traded for equal or greater value either. They probably cant really be traded for anything other than an Eddy Curry type
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we can prob
try to trade em in combination with someone like CJ to get a decent deal…even an expiring contract…especially since imo watson and maggette have lately made their trade value pretty decent
crawford…i just hope he opts out
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 23, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think thats drastically overrating all of those guys trade values. CJ is a guy some teams might like as an end of rotation guy, but he isnt likely to make someone want to take on the bad contracts of the other two.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 23, 2009 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
because the Warriors’ half court set involves ball movement, which Maggette ruins every time he gets his hands on the ball. The team is at its best when everyone is touching the ball and it is swinging.
by LakerFan24 on Mar 23, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Over Magette
I am over Magette. Trade him! Everytime he comes in lately I have noticed the game is slowed down due to him getting to the line and having tunnel vision and passing up the open man just so he can go to the line-it slows down the pace. The Warriors are a fast paced team…
Keep it simple
by Jedi1761 on Mar 23, 2009 6:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I hate guys who'd rather score two points on a possession
by getting to the line and sinking free throws at an 80% clip than kicking it out to a guy who shoots 3 pointers at 40%. Those are the kinds of decisions that lose us basketball games. We need to take more lower percentage shots.
As a preemptive response to the “But Morrow shoots 48%!”:
Making 80% of two free throws results in 1.6 points per two attempts (and in reality he’d get a few "And1"s). Making 48% of your three pointers, while impressive, still only results in 1.44 points per attempt.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 6:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And guys who shoot 40% from three don't cost $10m per season.
They cost $3-5m per season, i.e. Matt Bonner.
by markdash on Mar 25, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't get it
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point was that Maggette at the FT line is a more effective scorer than the best 3pt shooter in the league
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gotcha
I guess I’ve disagreed with so much stuff you’ve written in this thread that I automatically assume what you’re saying is wrong.
My bad!
by markdash on Mar 25, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve disagreed with so much stuff you’ve written in this thread that I automatically assume what you’re saying is wrong.
Just because we disagree doesn’t mean that one of us is automatically right and the other wrong. We’re probably both wrong :)
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way!
I could totally be an effective NBA GM.
In fact, we would be hanging banners by year 3 of the markdash regime!
Man, my dream last night was SO AWESOME.
by markdash on Mar 25, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude...
Puff puff pass.
Don’t be this guy:

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 25, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just because we disagree doesn’t mean that one of us is automatically right and the other wrong. We’re probably both wrong :)
That depends on who you’re disagreeing with.
by jae on Mar 25, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you disagree with GB are you automatically right?
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 25, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This thread reminds me why I hated school
I don’t think I’ve read so much history since college.
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 24, 2009 2:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 


















