Warriors to make move on Bosh, do we keep Ellis or Biedrins?
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 9:13 AM PDT
Email
PrintAt ESPN.com, on their Saturday Dime, it says that the Warriors are expected to make another huge push at Chris Bosh:
There have been no firm indications yet about the Raptors' willingness to entertain trade offers for Chris Bosh this offseason, but plugged-in sources say it's a lock that the Warriors will try again to make a Bosh pitch at the next opportunity after the Raptors rebuffed every inquiry (including Golden State's) for the lefty Olympian before the Feb. 19 trading deadline….should the Raps decide that it's easier to try to start over rather than try again to assemble a team that's successful enough next season to convince Bosh to stay in Canada as opposed to leaving as a free agent in the summer of 2010.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-090328-29
So who should we give up Monta Ellis or Andris Biedrins? I know most of you are thinking, not this again but with Ellis’s return to prominence its worth looking at the argument again. Likely in the trade Toronto would like to shed the salaries of either Jason Kapono or Marcus Banks. Kapono is a better player with a slightly worse contract. To balance the rest of the deal, hopefully a package of Marco Belinelli, Corey Maggette, and either Anthony Randolph or Brandan Wright (we’ll have the debate again later) will work for both parties.
The Case to Keep Ellis
Ellis is back. Shooting at over a 50% clip and moving smoothly on the court. While it’s possible the ankle was bothering him when he first came back its more likely he was rusty and needed to work his way back into game shape. With an Ellis and Bosh tandem, we have the makings of a potential All Star combo. Ellis is never going to be that guy that can lead his team deep into the playoffs, but playing second banana to a perennial All Star might be his role on a contender. Bosh has played center for a good portion of the year, and it might not be necessary to keep Biedrins around. Biedrins is a steady player but by no means is he a star or have star potential like Ellis does. Traditional NBA logic will tell you the key to building a contender is having an inside/outside combination. With Jackson, Morrow, Turiaf, Azibuike, and either Wright or Randolph, this team might just be a role player or 2 from being a major factor in the west.
The Case to Keep Biedrins
Ellis is back. While we are all excited about that, let’s not forget the gaping holes in Monta Ellis’ game. Ellis will never be confused with Steve Nash in running a team’s offense. At this point there are concerns if Ellis can even masquerade as a point guard. His Ast/To ratio is horrid. His major second deficiency is defense. If anybody watched the San Antonio game on league pass, Sean Elliot was almost laughing at how easily Tony Parker was blowing by Ellis. Ellis doesn’t have the size to cover 2 guards so for Ellis to work on a contender; he would almost have to be paired up with a bigger point guard or an off guard who can share the point guard duties. While in Biedrins we have a rare commodity, a center that rarely gets hurt, and can give you a solid 15-12 every night on the floor with one of the league’s highest field goal %. With Biedrins, Bosh, Turiaf, and either Wright or Randolph we would have one of the most dominating front courts for years to come. Wing men are easier to find and replace in this league than centers. Since Ellis is not a point guard our best bet might be to look to free agency (Bay Area native Jason Kidd?) or the draft for a true point guard to run this team.
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!
394 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I would rather have Ellis playing with Bosh as opposed to Biedrins since we do have Wright, Randolph, and Turiaf on the interior. Ellis is the star of the future in the backcourt, so that’s why I’d keep him instead of Biedrins in this situation.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 28, 2009 9:20 AM PDT reply actions
We would have to give up Wright or Randolph,
as it is, they might also ask for our first rond pick on top of that(which I would still do, unless we pop 1 or 2)
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions
In that case, I wouldn’t do the trade, but I’d rather deal Biedrins along with Wright or Randolph instead of Ellis with Wiright or Randolph. Then, we’d have Wright or Randolph along with Bosh and then Turiaf coming off the bench with another veteran big man that we could go out and sign.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 28, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions
biedrins...
we can sign anderson varajao and get same production as AB i love the latvian lefty, but clearly monta has more upside
we can sign anderson varajao and get same production as AB
um… no.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 28, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
agreed that is a ridiculuos statement, but
With a Turiaf, Bosh, and Randolph frontcourt, we wouldnt really even have to look to replace Biedrins.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah...
Interesting Fanpost. I’m still working my way through all the scenarios and I’m still not sure which way I’d prefer to go. There are definitely some interesting possibilities.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 28, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Basically what we got to trade:
Category 1
Ellis
Biedrins
Categroy 2
Wright
Randolph
First Round Pick
Category 3
Azibuike
Belinelli
Turiaf
and then we got Maggette. My stance on the Maggette signing is pretty well known, but as a trade piece in the scenario, he becomes ok. Meaning he isnt a positive or a minus.
What will be important factors are where we and Toronto draft(if they pop #1 and can get Griffin, they might be alot more willing to part with Bosh) and if they ddemand if we take Banks or Kapono, or both back.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
The big question for me...
is what’s left? There are a lot of semi-realistic trade options but I’m trying to figure out what this team would look like after all these different deals. I’m just trying to figure out how much is too much.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 28, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Worst possible trade I would pull the trigger on is
Biedrins/Wright/Belinelli/Maggette/ and the 1st rounder for Bosh/Banks. Or Ellis sub for Biedrns minus the first round pick.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
So...
that leaves
PG: Monta / Banks
SG: Jackson / Crawford
SF: Buike / Morrow
PF: Bosh / Randolph
C: Turiaf
I think the only way we can add to the roster is the MLE and min deals. We don’t have a second round pick IIRC. We’d be ultra thin up front.
Or
PG: Crawford / Banks
SG: Jackson / Morrow
SF: Buike
PF: Bosh / Randolph
C: Andris / Turiaf
And we’d still have our pick and the MLE to round out that roster. There is a gaping hole at PG and we’d be a little thin on the wing.
I’d obviously rather keep the pick but who knows what they will be asking for. Hmm… it’s a lot to think about.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 28, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Well one thing to keep in mind with those scenario,
is not the upcoming season but the season after that. Where we would be able to gauge the strenghts and weakness of the team and add quote unquote the missing piece with the MLE.
Those rosters are not contenders per say, but they are competetive and good enough to get us to the playoffs(which ironically will take away next years first rounder via Williams trade) and something very tangible to build on.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Maggette’s value is heavily dependent on who we’d be trading with. I don’t see why a borderline team struggling to get it together would want him, but a team in contention might take a flyer.
Bosh is a borderline ‘superstar’. I still contend that he’s not in the limited class of players who can anchor a championship team. If he’s your best player, odds are slim that you’ll contend for a title. If he’s paired with another talent a bit better than he is, you’ve got a chance. Mortgaging the future for him wouldn’t be wise. Biedrins or Ellis (if you thought he’d agree to an extension) and what it takes to make a deal work? Possibly.
Wow,
So you think it might be better to stay the ‘course’ than try to go make a big move for Chris Bosh?
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions
IMO It all depends...
On what it takes to get it done. Bosh is great and all, but he can’t do it by himself. If we have to give up both young forwards and AB and monta and take back crappy contracts you obviously wouldn’t do that deal. The question is what do they want and what would that leave us? Unfortunately we don’t have the answers to those questions.
The devil is in the details. I’d love to get Bosh but it the specifics of the deal will determine whether it was a good or bad move.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 28, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Well thats the thing,
I assuming that either Biedrins(the first rounder if they take AB instead of Ellis) or Ellis, plus one of the 2 forwards and Maggette and Marco would be good enough to close the deal as long as we take back Banks as well. I think something along those lines works for both us( the 2 teams and me an you as GSOM posters : ) ). The question is what are they asking and who else is bidding. I am now hoping that Toronto pops the #1 pick, that will make them alot more likely to get rid of Bosh. They can scoop up Griffin, Biedrins, a first rounder, and either BW or AR. While we can run with Ellis and Bosh.
Your right it will come down to the fine print.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions
staying the course is longer term.
the real q is monta at 26, biedrins at 25 and randolph at 22…. will that be better than monta/bosh combo and prolly a much worse supporting cast.
this is my biggest fear w/ nellie he wont stick for long term
ummm yes
if biedrins is main piece in deal i say yes…. a rebounding center who plays pretty average at best defense is very replaceable as much as we love AB…. he isnt gonna develop into a star. All we’d need next to bosh is a guy a who hussles plays D and rebounds to rotate w/ ronnie.
Yeah a Bosh/Randolph/Turiaf is a great rotating front court,
any combo of those 3 guys at the 4/5 works. Add a Jermario Davidson and a 7 foot slug to practice with and use in emergencies and we are fine.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 29, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
well im saying we can find an MLE center....
we dont need dwight howard… although it’d be nice.
what bugs me is how come we never drafted an of these guys….http://www.draftexpress.com/rankings/NBA-Rights-Held/
hence y spurs, blazers and co r better managed… both short and long term vision
a guy a who hussles plays D and rebounds
You make it sound like that sort of guy isn’t difficult to find. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.
Its pretty amazing how quickly so many have forgotten our decades long drought at center before we had Biedrins.
Thing A
the last time we had a pair manning the C position as good as AB & Moses
was 74-75 with Clifford Ray and George Johnson …
Agree.
Biedrins is a really good center. He has great hands and can run the floor. The only issue is he can’t stay on the floor because of constant foul trouble (not entirely his fault either). People think it is so easy to find a center that can shoot a high percentage (55-63%) from the field and grab 12 boards a game. I don’t understand why people devalue him so much.
As good as Monta is, he limits what we can do because he is a “tweener,” we have to draft a tall point guard because ellis can’t guard the 2 and I just don’t see him as a point guard of the future.
Trade Ellis, Maggette, Wright, Maggette for Bosh. Hopefully we can land a top 2 with our draft pick and get Rubio.
Starting lineup:
PG: Rubio
SG: Jackson
SF: Randolph
PF: Bosh
C: Biedrins
what about Randolph, Bellinelli, Wright, Magguette and 1st round pick??
What you take that? As a Raptor fan, I would most definitely take that trade. Would you guys agree to that deal? Im not saying would Chris Mullin and Bryan Colangelo agree to it, but would you guys agree to it.
by John Park Williams on Mar 28, 2009 10:01 AM PDT reply actions
Pretty sure no one here would trade both BWright and Randolph in the same deal...
one or the other plus any combination of Maggette / Crawford / Watson / Belinelli / Morrow / 1st round pick is more likely.
As much as I like AR and BW imagine a rotation of
Bosh
Turiaf
Azibuike
Ellis
Biedrins
Jackson
Morrow
and a MLE player
thats pretty solid righ there
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
I would do that deal minus the first round pick,
I would swap picks though, so you get the higher pick. Would that work for you guys?
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
I’ll take it. Randolph or Wright turning into Bosh is close to our best case scenario. Clearing Maggette’s salrary is a bonus that is probably worht giving up Belinelli. If the 1st round pick ends up in the top 2 or 3 I wouldn’t do it but assuming its 7, 8 or lower I’d jump on that one.
Thing A
Or best assests are
Ellis, Biedrins, Wright, Randolph, and the first rounder. If we can keep any combination of those 3, I would give up the other 2 and anything else on the roster for Bosh.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
No,
Those are best 5 assests, any combination of 2 other than Ellis and Biedrins.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
but thatswhat ud have to do
you’re getting top teir PF, olympic player and all star…. thats ALOT to give….
but we’d have a lineup of monta, jack, buike, bosh, biedrins…… i wouldnt give both randolph and a 1st though…. i dont even want ot give randolph but i understad he’s key to that trade scenerio…..
i'd keep monta
send away biedrins….but it be said to see biedrins go because we’ve all grown to love him, but on the upside a monta-bosh-randolph future combo is sick, and if we do get bosh i say we keep crawford
I’d still rather not keep Crawford. In our backcourt, I would go with Ellis, Morrow, and Belinelli along with someone that we may draft to play the point guard spot. Plus, Maggette would be pegged behind Jackson on the depth chart and we’d have Azubuike to play at shooting guard assuming that we can use, exclusively, our four big men to play the big men spots at all times.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 28, 2009 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
If Beli could stay healthy...
he could be a legit backup PG in the future. If we don’t trade him, ME8/Beli/draft project could be legit at our PG spot.
Then again, Belinelli does become expendable if we draft a point guard in the first round. We would have two starters in the backcourt with wing players Morrow, Azubuike, and Maggette coming off the bench.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 28, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
AR is not going anywhere period!
by dungeness crabdribble on Mar 28, 2009 10:42 AM PDT reply actions
I agree
AR is goimg to stay in the Bay area. That is one person that I know will on this team for the next couple years. But I’d rather keep Ellis.
by Richboievans on Mar 28, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Ok..
Skill and talent wise, i say keep Monta….
BUT,
Great, fun, friendly teammate, I say keep Biedrins….
If Biedrins go, I’ll sure miss his bench cheering and his good vibes to the team.
Can you choke without coughing?
The thing is, would Bosh really be worth it? There is a possibility of mortgaging the future away, so you would have to look at next year. Is it worth it for next year? Does Bosh instantly make us a title contender? I’m not so sure. The Raptors were never title contenders in the East, and the West is much tougher. We get one season as a 4 or 5 seed, and then what? If Bosh leaves, we are going to be losing more for a longer time than we would have if we didn’t get him. Is a one year rental really worth it? Unless they can get some kind of long term commitment, I don’t think the potential benefit is even worth it.
Bosh doesnt make us a title contender,
but he is a perenial All Star. Lets not get our homerism carried away, AR and BW have a long way to go before they are even close to his category.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m not being homeristic, or whatever the word is. WHat I am saying is, okay, he is a perennial all star, but will he be a perennial all star for the Warriors? Or will he be a one time all star and then bounce somewhere else? And if he does, we just gave away Wright, Randolph, Biedrins, whoever, and now we are stuck with none of them. So to mortgage the future, we better make damn sure that we would be a title contender in the present. And I’m not so sure that putting Bosh on does that. Bosh on Toronto never did it for them, why would it be different for us?
But how do we know that’s enough? What about the rumors of the Olympic players colluding to try and get on the same team come 2010? I don’t believe they have that much behind them but they do remind you that there are other reasons players choose a team. Maybe he wants to be on a winner, or in a bigger market, or close to his hometown, or maybe the extra year on the Warriors contract doesn’t appeal to him because after all the drama that the Warriors have gone through recently he feels that it is not an ideal situation for a player. I have no idea what he’s thinking, but I cannot definitively say that money is the only factor that will go into his decision come 2010, and with the bad rep of the Warriors, that worries me.
I have the same worries
but the alternative is not to go after him, and that’s worse – so, we gamble. Thanks to our FO’s moves last summer, this is the best shot we’ve got – do we not take it?
Bosh won’t make us a title contender on his own.
“Perennial All-Star” shouldn’t be taken as the end word on how valuable someone is to producing wins. Bosh is a rather good player, but his value is largely for offense. That’s important, but it’s half the game. In his case, it’s the half that gets you the largest payday and the best chance of making an all-star team, but there are a number of scoring all-stars who anchor mediocre or worse teams like um, Toronto. As such, I’ve found the reliance on rating someone as a ‘perennial all-star’ to be flawed as a means of assembling a winner. The two aren’t synonyms.
Agree that Wright and Randolph don’t contribute what Bosh does now, but I’ve warmed to Randolph’s ability to rebound the ball, something that really does help wins. Bosh can rebound his position, but Randolph appears to be headed towards some real elite board cleaning. I’m much more hesitant to trade him for the rights to overpay Bosh in the near future, especially given to how Randolph has looked when he’s been taken away from that silly notion that he’s a wing player.
but I’ve warmed to Randolph’s ability to rebound the ball, something that really does help wins. Bosh can rebound his position, but Randolph appears to be headed towards some real elite board cleaning.
Me too. I’m looking forward to the possibility of having him and Andris start next to each other. That would be a very strong rebounding combo. I’m really happy to see such growth from him in his first year.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 28, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Question...
If we do this deal in the offseason will there be a possibility of of including a Bosh extension?
I’m pretty sure there would be, and if so that changes how much I’d be willing to give up. I wonder if that may have been the deal-breaker at the trade deadline.
Thing 2
Well thats when cold hard cash gets involved.
When we get him, we can offer him more money than anybody else in terms of annual raises. If the salary cap is projected to come down the year after next as well, he might want to sign a extension sooner than later, because max salary is a pct of the salary cap.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Well...
I know that a lot of the 2010 guys are being encouraged by their agents to extend this summer, but Bosh probably won’t want to because he supposedly isn’t happy there. I’m not sure if this is a place he’d be willing to sign with but we should really figure that out during the trade process instead of getting him here and then hoping that he will stay.
I agree that we would have all the advantages in signing him, but I don’t think it will be necessary to wait that long. And I’d feel a lot better about trading away most of our assets if we know that he is on board and ready to be a Warrior for the long haul.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 28, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Worse comes to worse
The Dubs either get some space or can leverage a good sign + trade with whatever team he ends up wanting to go to (see: Lewis, Rashard)
3 good things can happen
1 Keep Bosh
2 Cap Space
3 Sign and Trade
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions
4th
He’ll be an expiring $15,779,912 contract which they could use to trade for someone else or a TPE. Assuming he opts out after next year, which everyone is at this point.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 29, 2009 12:03 AM PDT up reply actions
jae,
Hopefully you or someone else can answer this for me. So I know you cant combine the TPE with another player but can it even be used with another player?
For example if we are over the cap but have a TPE of 10 million, can we trade that TPE, a draft pick, and a player with a salary of 4 million for a player that has a salary of 9 million?
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 29, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
First of all, though most journalists get this one wrong, a TPE cannot be traded. A TPE isn’t really a ‘thing.’ It’s the conclusion of a trade. If you are over the cap and trade away a player and don’t get back equal cash, you can essentially “complete the trade” at some future point by taking back player(s) of equal value to the amount you were under on the previous trade for up to a year. It can’t be combined with anything (and Nellie totally flubbed it too once on KNBR a couple of years ago). It’s essentially a fixed cap space that can only be used to acquire player(s) through a trade.
thank you
so the only way we could use it, if there is a player that a team would totally rather not even have on the roster and would want to get rid of him for free, like the Warriors and Jamal Crawford and the Knicks with Jared Jeffries and Eddie Curry
But theoretically you could make 2 seperate trades if the 2(or more) teams couldnt get the salaries to match and atleast 1 team had a tpe. They could make part of the trade and then make a seperate trade to get the other player using the tpe right? Or would the NBA frown upon that? example if we had a 5 million tpe and we made a deal with Toronto and they dont want Maggette so we give em enough salary to get bosh, could we at the same time make a seperate trade with the tpe to get Marcus Banks?
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 29, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not even sure how it was that anyone was anticipating that we’d get a TPE in the first place, so I don’t really follow what you’re proposing here.
How were we supposed to acquire this TPE?
Naw AR is staying here.
And we could trade Wright aka the bust instead. He will never be the pf when say he is. He is pretty overrated. Just because he got a decent jump shots and average offense’s game doesn’t mean he is going to be great. His rebounding isn’t below average. My boi AR pretty much replaces Wright on the defense end already. If AR could develop a jumpshot, and better court vision he is going to put 20 and 10 and 5 in 2-3 yrs. So, Wright is expendable.
by warriorfan4life on Mar 28, 2009 11:50 AM PDT reply actions
I assume 20pts 10 rebs but what is 5 asts or blks?
those number are meaningless with out how many minutes he plays. If he can do that in 20 mins, he would be fantatstic, if it takes him 45 mins not as much. Plus I dont see AR averaging 20 pts any shape or form. Check out how many 20ppg there are at the minute.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions
As important as the minutes played to the stats are the number of shots it takes to get the 20 points.
Randolph, with regular starter minutes (>32) looks to have the rebounding covered. How efficiently he scores seems to be a function of whether he’s being kept home as a 4 (where his rebounding comes in handy) or whether he floats to the wing where he misses more jumpers and turns the ball over. He does seem to be learning though. His numbers over the last couple of months are beginning to live up to the earlier hype.
Our best option is to trade Monta
Is to trade Monta. Hate to say it, but he probably has the most value. A trade of Monta would free up the 1 and 2 positions which will make S-Jax be able to slide to the 2 and possibly AR to the 3. The best trade partner would be with the Toronto Raptors:
We will get:
Bosh
Kapono/Bargnani
Raptors get:
Ellis
C-Mag
Wright
Warriors get their big man and either C/PF depth or Swingman depth. Raptors get a new Franchise player in Ellis, a PF starter replacement, and a starter or 6th man in C-Mag. All are long term players.
In the draft with our 1st rounder pick at 1-3 or 7-9 we will draft the best PG available and we choose from Teague, Jennings, Holiday, and Lawson. Lawson or Jennings are my picks primarily because of their speed and fast break skills.
We will also have some money to sign some bench players or a starter at SF (Odom?). MLE should be available too.
This puts us at:
PG: Jennings/Lawson/Crawford (Opt Out)
SG: S-Jax
SF: Buike or Randolph
PF: Bosh
C: Biedrins
Reserves: Turiaf, Watson, Marco, Bargnani/Kapono, Kurz, Davidson, Morrow
Come 2010 Free Agency. With C-Mag’s, Bosh, and Crawford’s contracts off the books we’ll have about 30$ Million to spend on Free Agents. We can re-sign Bosh or go for other Marquee players.
Brandon Jennings or Ty Lawson. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.
Gotta transfer to the new topic haha
Brandon Jennings or Ty Lawson. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.
-Maggette’s contract does not come off the books in 2010. (I wish it did)
-Randolph has still done nothing to show he can play on the wing
Thing A
It comes off the books via trade w/ Toronto
Randolph just needs to work on his jumper.
Brandon Jennings or Ty Lawson. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.
Randolph’s skill set screams 4. The only thing about him that says 3 are the pre-draft scouting reports. I put a lot more stock in what we’ve seen of him in the NBA than what some scouts projected might be possible. If he’s not showing any signs of being out of position why are so many obsessed with switching his position? I really don’t get it, can’t we just pretend those meaningless pre-draft scouting reports never existed and be happy with him playing the 4?
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Great. You just used up all of your +1s for the rest of the season
I hope it was worth it.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 28, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Slow and steady wins the race . . .
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 28, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
There's no doubting he's a 4. But he can play 3, 4, or 5.
The scenario I’m saying has us getting Bosh to play along side AB at the 4 and the 5. So we obviously can’t put him at the 4. My point was not to say we will develop him into a 3, but to field what can potentially be the best lineup we have. AB, AR, and Bosh are very mobile for their size and having a mobile front court would be great. Like I said there’s no doubting he’s a four, but if he works on his lateral quickness and his jumper he can easily play the 3. Don’t forget that he’s still only 19 and has a long career ahead of him.
Brandon Jennings or Ty Lawson. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.
If me made a deal for Bosh, its very unlikely Randolph would start anywhere. Considering that Wight would be included in the deal and how quickly Biedins and Turiaf tend to accumulate fouls there would be plenty of room for Bosh, Randolph, Biedrins and Turiaf at the 4 and 5. Let him build on the skills he has and develop as a 4. I’d rather have to deal with having 3 very good bigs and another solid one in a couple years than risk trying to make Randolph build a whole new set of skills and play out of position.
Thing A
Sorry, I wrote my response before reading yours. I think we’re making the same point.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 28, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: why are so many obsessed with switching his position
I agree that he’s a perfect 4 if he just continues to improve on the things he tries to do now. Remembering that he’s 19, Nelson is giving him a few things to do and optimize right now but I think the hope is that he rounds into a dominant “basketball player” rather than Biedrins 2.0.
That said, getting Biedrins 1.0 or 2.0 at the 14th pick is a pretty sweet deal, but I think the universal hope is that he can, maybe by age 21 or 22, do a bit of everything well and, here is the most important thing, know when to do what so that it helps the team win. If he can initiate the offense and make plays, he can play along side a limited 4 like BW and a limited 5 like Andris or Turiaf.
Because of the responsibilities Nelson has limited him to (for his and our own good) he can’t really play with more than one of those guys because he doesn’t do enough things to operate effectively at the 3. He has to be paired only one other limited big like AB, Turaf or Wright.
So I think he’s a 4 now with an optimistic view of not just being a 3 but ultimately having the versatility to play 3-4-5. If he can play the 3, then it really solves a lot of the Warriors rebounding and defensive issues. So I don’t think it is necessarily pre-draft hype driving Nelson’s assertion that AR is ultimately a 3, but rather, it is where he ultimately has the most value.
Especially if we understand that being a 3 doesn’t mean he is precluded from playing the 4 or 5 as the situation or match-up dictates. As jae is fond of pointing out, rebounders tend to always rebound and I’m guessing the same can be said for NBA-level shot-blockers so its not like he’s going to lose his ability to play the 4 or 5.
We see this over and over with Nelson: Once a guy really solidifies a core group of skills, Neslon adds another skill. You’ve see it with Azubuike, Morrow, Ellis, Andris, CJ etc . . . Each one of those players solidified what they were already kind of good at and were asked to add more once the core skills were the focus of their games long-enough to became second-nature.
I honestly believe that Nelson is the best thing for AR and I think his new agent sees that. If he is patient and follows Nelson’s program, he is looking at a massive pay-day at the end of his rookie scale. If he was allowed to run wild from day one, he might be an MLE-type player who would be impossible to reign in after 4+ years of being his own boss. There is a reason 13 teams passed on him, he needs coaching.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 28, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
I agree with that, but I look at what happens when Josh Smith (kinda similar skill set) starts thinking he’s a 3 and I get worried.
Thing A
I see Josh Smith like twice a year
I’ll claim observational ignorance. What is it that you don’t like about him at the 3?
His stats seem pretty good. It seems like a decent example of getting rebounding and shot-blocking from the 3 with enough offense and he seems to be getting more efficient the last couple of years although his TS% has remained fairly static and not-so-great.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 28, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions
From what I hear, Josh Smith is a poor perimeter defender due to lack of skill, effort, or overeagerness to block shots. He also likes to float around the perimeter for jumpers.
Those are also some things I’m concerned about regarding Randolph at SF. In the Spurs game, he looked KG-esque on Parker when he got the switch. But he kept biting on Mason’s pump fakes.
The advantages his athleticism bring seem to all but disappear when he plays on the wing. I’m not saying this WOULD happen with Randolph, but Smith isn’t nearly as good of a perimeter defender as he is around the rim, he makes almost no effort to rebound and on offense he sits outside and fires up 3’s at a very poor %. I’m a big J-Smoove fan, but unless he becomes a better and smarter perimeter shooter and starts playing with the same aggressiveness on the perimeter that he has played with inside he’ll never be anything more than an uber athletic but undersized 4.
Thing A
Smith at the 3
It’s a problem of coaching more than anything else. From what I remember, he would take much worse shots because of the change to his role on the offense.
That said, I like him much better at the 3 than the 4 with competent coaching because he can still use his weakside blocking and he isn’t burdened by the bigger PF’s in the league. Ideally, he could play on a team where he could play a split of the two positions (incidentally, Horford should be playing more PF than he is), but there aren’t many teams with the personnel to make that happen.
His contract might have something to do with it as well,
he is a nice 3rd or 4th scoring option and a good defender and good rebounder for his size. But with the fat contract that he now has, he probably feels like he should and can do more. When really he cant.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Thats sorta what he does with Marvin Williams. Williams is the technically the 3 most of the game but on offense Williams plays like a 4 about as often as Smith does. And I have yet to see him come off the perimeter to provide weakside shot-blocking. I obviously don’t watch all of his games, but I have seen enough to say its not a common thing.
Thing A
Great Post
AR was on my draft board for a long time and I was one of the first on GSoM to mention his name. He really did WOW me alot with his 1 year stint in LSU.
But, yea we’re basically getting at the same thing. The reason why he fell so far was because he was raw and needed proper coaching. It looks as if he got the right guy in Nelson, if he matures. And in 3/4 of a season it looks as if he has improved mentally and on the court. He got a rare fire, excellent athleticism, a knack for hustling, unafraid to get his hands dirty, and has youth. As of now, he does look like a 4. But, as we both mentioned, through his natural ability and good grooming he can potentially be a 3-4-5. Call me an AR homer, but I haven’t been this excited with one of our rookies since 01 when we reeled in J-Rich, Troy, and Gilbert.
Brandon Jennings or Ty Lawson. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.
It’s interesting to go back one year and look back. Last year’s most important game of the season was the one at the end of the season against Denver in which we lost at home. Who knows if we could’ve won that game and the one against Phoenix to make the playoffs. We’d then have picked in the 20’s in 08’. It depends on what your opinion is, but would you rather have made the playoffs in 08’ or have Randolph for 09’ and beyond?
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
AR
He was a steal at the #14 spot and we wouldn’t have gone far last year in the playoffs.
Brandon Jennings or Ty Lawson. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.
What about...
the fact that his skill set would apparently allow him to play the 3, where he would out-length and outmuscle practically everyone? Similarly, Monta can most definitely play the 2, but as Nelson pointed out, he will only be GREAT at the 1, due to size. I think that is the case with Randolph. After he gets confidence and experience, if he stays thin, put him at the 3 to DOMINATE and be a STAR. At the 4, he’ll only be a human highlight real, not a star, I think.
by Naticus on Mar 29, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think that it’s a bit premature to say that there’s a ‘fact’ that Randolph has a skill set that allows him to play the 3. He hasn’t shown a reliable jumper (no matter how pretty it looks) or much in the way of perimeter skills no matter how smooth his “handles” are when there’s no pressure on him. He’s shown that around the basket he can do some things real, real well. Away from the basket and the opportunities to use his height to his advantage come less often and the opportunities for him to show that the many draft-time parrots squawking about how he was a “3” were simply saying what they’d read somewhere else. He hasn’t shown that he will dominate or be a star at that position, now matter how many capital letters you use to type the words.
by jae on Mar 29, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
NBA scouts...
disagree. Why doesn’t it appear so? His jump shot has been improving, he can ball handle and has many years to improve his passing. Is it because he can rebound and block shots? Does that DISqualify you from playing the 3 or something? Lamar Odom has played the 3 for the Lakers, and people continue to compare the two.
NBA scouts or ‘draft experts said he should be a SF? I saw many a draft board repeat that, but I don’t have a line on what actual scouts say. Scouts also seemed to think that Darko was going to be a good player, so they’re not without fault.
Randolph can dribble the ball and looks smooth without pressure. He does not have seem to know where to dribble without getting himself into trouble and turning the ball over and seems when he puts it on the floor, he looks great right up to the point where he finds himself surrounded and takes that off balance jump shot. He’s never shown that he has a particular knack for getting assists. I would like to check if his jumper really has improved in the sense of making more shots (the only measure that, in the end, actually matters). He has raised his FG%, but that is largely a result of taking almost all his shots in the paint.
Rebounding doesn’t disqualify you from playing SF, but if you’re placed farther from the basket, you will get fewer rebounds and get fewer blocked shots. Since those appear to be his greatest strengths, it seems that it would be far wiser to play him there, with the occasional switch to show the other skills than to try to force him into another slot where the two things that he seems to do above most players in the association will not occur as often.
Lamar Odom has been someone who has continually disappointed his critics. Though he has some skills that allow him to, on occasions do things that wings do, his game works best when he’s playing a big forward slot. He has played far better when he’s played closer the the basket and the Lakers have been more successful when he’s done so. That Randolph is compared (again, by whom?) to Odom doesn’t really make me think that either should be situated on the wing.
by jae on Apr 1, 2009 12:34 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Lamar Odom has been someone who has continually disappointed his critics. Though he has some skills that allow him to, on occasions do things that wings do, his game works best when he’s playing a big forward slot. He has played far better when he’s played closer the the basket and the Lakers have been more successful when he’s done so. That Randolph is compared (again, by whom?) to Odom doesn’t really make me think that either should be situated on the wing.
Exactly, just like Lamar, Randolph can take advantage of a prototypical bruising PF by using his “wing-like” skills, but that by no means he should be playing SF. This is what makes him a good Nellieball player.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 1, 2009 6:27 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
+1
His limited perimeter skills are much more of an asset facing big men than they are playing against capable wing players. I do hope that his handling and shooting improve but only so he can abuse other PF’s.
Thing 2
Lamar Odom...
is still a great player, whether at the 3 or 4. Randolph is extremely young, as we all know. Nellie thinks he can develop into a 3, and I expect Randolph hopes to be a star and thinks he will be more likely to do that at the 3. I figure, they’re working on it, so I’ll keep my fingers crossed that he’ll develop the vision he needs. The reason I am crossing my fingers is because at the 4, he’ll may always be undersized. IF he can develop into a 3, he is more likely to dominate and be a match up nightmare for opponents.
why do you think he’ll always be undersized at the 4? why do you think he’s more of a matchup nightmare at the 3? Odom is a tougher matchup at the 4 than the 3.
Thing A
agreed
randolph is skinny.. but not WEAK. He is aggressive and rebounds well. He’s no skinnier than KG as a rookie:
http://www.checkoutmycards.com/CardImages/Cards/007/110/07F.jpg
the reason odom never became SF
is because he put on size (he was much skinnier as a rookie) and never really devloped a consistant jumper beyond 15-17 ft. But i do remember when he was drafted he was suppose to be next scottie pippen or whatever small forward who can handle and do ti all….
I remember garnett was initially thought to be a 3 and played a fair amount of it early on because of his athletism.
randolph is too young to project. Right now he is best suited at 4, who knows how his game will develop over the summer and next 2 seasons. Alot of draft sights compare him to a mix of tashaun prince and lamar odom. Both LOFTY expectations. I wouldnt be surprised if he developed a jumper and plays 3 (he has the mechanics)…. i also wouldnt be surprised if it never happens and he stays a 4. Its not to easy to teach some1 to play a position they arent comfortable in
Anyone can make a draft site. It seems that many fall back on taking a draftee and comparing him to players in the league as a proxy for actually looking at the guy’s potential. And many, many of them have very, very superficial comparisons as such that look at build (he’s tall and skinny ergo Bosh or Prince) and nationality (he’s not an American, ergo find a foreign player to compare to). Buy a domain, invest some time, say that Belinelli compares to Ginobili because both are white, not US citizens and have names that end in vowels and bam! be a draft expert.
Odom is a good rebounder. Randolph seems to share that. I’m of the mind that a player should spend most of his time doing the things he’s absolutely best at and for Randolph, it’s hard to imagine that he’ll every have perimeter skills that match his already rather impressive rebounding abilities.
by jae on Apr 3, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Also...
The PURPOSE of putting him at the 3 is for him to dominate and be a star. I never said it was a guarantee. The idea is that at the 3, there is far more potential. At the 4, we may be settling.
Why?
What exactly makes you think that he has more “star” potential at the 3 than at the 4? It would seem that his size has so far not been much of a disadvantage at all playing the PF position. Since he has already shown an ability to play PF despite being undersized and he has shown little ability to play SF why wouldn’t he be more likely to become a “star” playing PF where he could eventually stretch the D and out-quick his man on offense and rebound the ball at an impressive rate and provide good shot-blocking inside?
I seriously don’t get all this talk about him at the three. The guy plays like a PF. That is where his skills are. If he develops more skills around the perimeter, great, that will help him to dominate other fours. He already looks to be a very promising PF. Can’t we just leave well enough alone?
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 30, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
potential at the 3 / 4 & leaving well enough alone
AR’s size HAS been a disadvantage at PF – when Nelson’s matchups work, he doesn’t have to defend a strong low post player, and when he has been forced to defend the low block area, he’s given up several feet of position in the process. His shot blocking only partially off-sets that. If he gets stronger he may be able to defend the block area better, but it could retard his quickness advantage. Operative word: could. All of this is hypothetical, but assertions that AR could play SF is not all dependent upon pre-draft scouting reports, our own Don Nelson asserted that down the line AR’s best position might be SF and hasn’t altered that stance to my knowledge.
AR HAS shown improvement in both his shooting and ball handling, and if he continues that trajectory could become a force at the SF because of his length and athleticism – a strong rebounding SF would do wonders for any team, particularly ours. “Star potential” is anyone’s guess, but at the SF he wouldn’t have to defend the block much, and his weight and strength wouldn’t be as much as an issue while his relative shot blocking and rebounding could dwarf most SFs in the league. If so, that’d be star power. My concern with AR at SF isn’t shooting, it’s lateral quickness to guard a player like, well Maggette – someone who relentlessly goes to the hole off the dribble.
Part of all this talk about AR at the SF could be confounded by another factor not directly tied to evaluating his skills. Namely, if AB, Wright and AR are going to be on the floor together in the future, because Wright does not have any business at the SF, AR would slide into that position.
If we end up with a similar roster next year, I’d imagine AR & BW would split the PF duties until such time as we move Maggette; if we have a major trade I’d imagine one or both are involved … in both cases, in the short term AR at the SF is probably a moot point.
AR’s size HAS been a disadvantage at PF
So much as you can blame any deficiencies in his inside game on his size, I can do the same regarding his outside game. he has been a worse player when he plays on the wing, maybe that is a size issue.
our own Don Nelson asserted that down the line AR’s best position might be SF
Remember, this is coming from the same guy that brought you “Mike Dunleavy is a PF in this league.”
AR HAS shown improvement in both his shooting and ball handling
Really? I guess some. I think that his biggest improvements have been in his judgment. He got much better the moment he stopped trying to dribble the ball as much and started to shoot less from outside. His shot may be improving a bit but the dramatic increase in FG% came mostly from shot selection.
My concern with AR at SF isn’t shooting, it’s lateral quickness to guard a player like, well Maggette – someone who relentlessly goes to the hole off the dribble.
Exactly. He hasn’t been a great defender at PF, but from what I’ve seen he has been absolutely horrible defending on the perimeter. He buys every pump-fake, he lets guys blow by him, and he he gets caught ball-watching when his man doesn’t have the ball yet.
Part of all this talk about AR at the SF could be confounded by another factor not directly tied to evaluating his skills. Namely, if AB, Wright and AR are going to be on the floor together in the future, because Wright does not have any business at the SF, AR would slide into that position.
I’d say that we have a while before that becomes an issue. Let’s let them continue to compete for minutes until we need to make a move. I’m guessing that one guy may prove himself starter worthy while the other may prove himself back-up worthy. If they both deserve more minutes than we can give them then we have a good piece to trade.
_____________________
We don’t have a ton of data from Randolph playing SF (mostly came early in the year) but from what we have he has performed significantly better since he started playing inside. His rebounding and FG% are much better at PF and those are probably the two most important things that a big man can provide.
I don’t know if he will ever be a great player but judging by what I’ve seen he certainly seems to have a better chance at being a great PF than he does being a great SF.
Thing 2
but judging by what I’ve seen
and there, we disagree – amicably I’m sure
you parsed every comment expertly, congrats
we’ll see – if he’s still here, in two seasons …
until then, adios
and there, we disagree – amicably I’m sure
Of course ; )
In fact the tone of my post would have been much friendlier if I wasn’t supposed to be in my car going somewhere while I was sitting at my computer typing it. =P
Strangely enough I’d actually prefer it if I were wrong about him because the idea of AB, Wright and Randolph as a frontline is one of those thoughts that can get you through a season like this.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 30, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions
The fact...
that it doesn’t appear so, speaks well of Randolph, which is why people are optimistic about him becoming a star. At the same time, being that much lighter will wear a guy down. It is extremely demanding to play against bigger players. He is tough, so he can do it. But how much more demanding would it be on smaller players to deal with Randolph? It’s like how Shaq and Lebron have worn down their opponents, being bigger than them (and stronger). Size matters, no matter how much it APPEARS to not be aproblem for Randolph. Regardless, I promise, it’s tiring and demanding to play bigger players.
his jumper could come. I can think of many players with good mechanics who had horrid percentages early on and got better after a couple years.
That happens and it’s clear that many guys learn to extend their shooting range over their career. The best examples seem to be guys who were reasonably high percentage shooters closer in who picked up the three point shot as their careers progressed, guys like Magic and MJ and Drexler come to mind, but players not as accomplished like Sam Perkins also fit this. In the best cases, these guys didn’t shoot the long ball as much early when it wasn’t falling, but as they got better and knew that it was a valuable shot for them, they took it (and made it) more often.
The worry is that a guy who has poor shot selection can extend his range, but won’t necessarily result in much better performance. A guy missing jumpers at 17 feet early in his career but jacking them up anyhow, not really aware of what is a good shot or not (and getting enough feedback on the 30% or so that drop to make them feel like it’s a makeable shot) will get better at the 17 footer and be able to drain it when open most of the time. But when he gets better, they start launching it when there’s a guy in his face and tossing up trash from 22 feet, and stops playing for the high percentage shot. This is why I suspect that while there’s evidence of guys increasing their range, there seems to be less movement in someone’s FG% overall.
I think it’s like baseball and drawing walks. Some guys do learn, but generally, shot selection, like plate discipline, is tough to get through to someone. It happens, but it’s not common (albeit much more common than someone learning to rebound).
This is why I’ve been most happy with the way Randolph has been playing. Last night, all but 3 of his shots came from inside the paint. That’s been a reasonably typical set for him in the second half of the season. He’s taking shots he can make and seems (either by dictation of the coaches or by learning himself) to be figuring out that he shouldn’t try to live off of that jumper.
by jae on Apr 2, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions
The human brain...
doesn’t even reach its full potential until about 25. That he currently has poor shot selection at 19 isn’t cause for alarm. His mood seems teenagerish to me, which he’ll outgrow. Once he does, and his brain fully develops, I suspect his improved faculties will be put to good use (assuming his mood and brain develop normally).
ha
that might be the first player analysis I’ve ever read that said we need to wait for “his brain to develop”
Thing A
Yeah...
I think he’s on to something. But if brain development = good shot selection then I think Crawford needs to see a neurologist.
Thing 2
and thats problem w/ guys like crawford
they were given green light since day 1. NEver learned disapline. Some players naturally have it. Most need a coach who is hard on them as rookies till they discover whats a good shot and a bad shot. But 7-8 years in the league… its really hard to change someone
go here: http://www.nba.com/hotspots/
and view randolphs shot selection. Its not pretty, but what is encouraging. Look at last 10 games? So improved. Nellie is right to keep him on a short leash. Short leash till he learns good shots from bad…. we dont need another al harrington or jack
+1
Judging by his progress lately, he may well develop the ability to play the 3, so we can test whether size matters in the NBA or not. (Actually, I don’t think we need a test. Size matters. Randolph playing the 3 may be a big enough of a match up problem, that it will be more advantageous than him playing the 4. Also, considering his rebounding STYLE, which is about agility & moving his feet, he’d still rebound very well at the 3 and perhaps better, since he’d probably have smaller player defending him.)
by Naticus on Apr 4, 2009 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
His “STYLE” still requires him to be near the ball and it’s almost a certainty that his rebounding would drop where he to spend more time away from the basket. Assuming there’s some magic difference between forward positions (though there isn’t) the worry with Randolph falling in love with the jumper is that it pulls him away from the basket. Presently, he’s among the top 21 in the league in offensive rebounding percentage for players with 500 or more minutes played. He drops to 33rd (still very good) in defensive rebounding percentage. I attribute this difference to being closer to the basket. Take him out, let him float more on offense and spend less time near the basket and his rebounding will drop.
He would be a very good rebounding 3, but the overall output would drop. The number of very effective 3s significantly shorter than him (including off guards who have few problems switching into that role) suggests that the matchup problems that a taller 3 presents, though real, are not so overwhelming to argue that it’s necessarily going to be a big benefit. Given that he’s turning into an elite rebounding 4, it just seems strange to try to fix something that ain’t broke.
Granted...
his rebounding numbers will PROBABLY drop, but Randolph tends to run in from anywhere on the court to pull down boards. At the 3, as I said, at least he’ll have someone smaller trying to compete with him. Furthermore, if we have ANOTHER good rebounder at the 4, then we have 3 good rebounders at the 3, 4 and 5. I will grant that IF we can’t get another good rebounder at the 4, Randolph is OUR best option. However, I don’t think it’s Randolph’s best option for his future and his overall potential. I think his athleticism and apparent hand-eye coordination will lead to his development into a player who can play the 3 or 4. With him at the 3 and ANOTHER good rebounder at the 4, you will dominate the glass. Lastly, I think he’ll be more injury prone at the 4, because we all know rebounding is dangerous (at least all of us who play b-ball). With some guy twice as big as you, pushing you around, it’s REALLY dangerous. That’d be less the case at the 3.
by Naticus on Apr 5, 2009 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
Isn’t it important to take into account what the TEAM needs a player to do above all else? To be successful, the Warriors need another big who can rebound alongside Biedrins. Randolph has shown that he can do that. We don’t need another 3.
Monta is the singular of Montus, of the Montai
you got it right
boy baron leaving was a slippery slope, kind of messed up everything. i love monta but im not sure i love him at point gaurd. this looks like a good lineup. and i like how you have us getting brandon jennings
by hoopscorer23 on Mar 28, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions
I doubt Nellie would like Jennings. He’s small, shoots a low %, turnover prone. He’s not the classic Nellie type of PG, and certainly would have problems defensively along with Monta.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
baron shot a bad %
u cant look at jennings stats in europe. If he went to arizona he would have dominated. He choose a harder path. going to europe and playing against PROs. I think its commendable. I dont know truly how good he is, but he has the confidence and i like that
Baron was already here when Nellie came.
Jennings would probably have the same trouble shooting in the NBA as he did in the EURO League and ACB or wherever he played. Playing in Europe is a tougher league than the NCAA. Have you ever seen Jennings play? He’s really erratic. His shot is truly a sling-shot and is not at all consistent. He’s quick but he’s also a stick. I’d like to see him finish better at the rim as well.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
all i saw of him was high school....
i never claimed i saw him, i said i didnt know but i like fact he was willing to go abroad over college. Its risky. shows confidence and i think will make him a better player EVEN if he struggled instead of star in college. I suppose we’ll see if my statement is true…
I don’t know who I would want to trade, but I do know who I for sure wouldn’t want to give away.
The only 3 guys who I wouldn’t trade away are Turiaf, Morrow, and Randolph.
Turiaf because he’s worth so much more than what we’re paying the guy and value like that is hard to find.
Morrow and Randolph because they haven’t played enough minutes in this league yet to show what they’re really worth. They’re still unknown quantities. Honestly, they could end up being as good as Ellis/Biedrins, we just don’t know yet and it would be dumb to trade them away before finding out.
And that’s it, just those 3 are untouchable in my mind. Now obviously I’m not proposing that we trade 12 guys away for Chris Bosh (nor is it possible), but I would combine the salaries of any other of the 12 guys to match that $16mil for Chris Bosh and I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it, granted a Bosh extension is a given after the trade is done.
Ellis and Wright
-or-
Biedrins and Belinelli
That’s a tough decision
"We Deserve"
You....
are dumb. Give me Ellis over Turiaf and Morrow everyday.
He's factoring in salary too
so it doesn’t mean that he’s “dumb”.
Granted, he didn’t craft such an intellectually air-tight thesis as “Give me Ellis over Turiaf and Morrow everyday.”, but you have to give him credit for not being a lazy a-hole who just called someone dumb for taking the time to actually think through the problem and express those thoughts clearly.
To be clear, I am not saying that you’re a lazy a-hole. Your “You are dumb” comment beat me to the punch.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 28, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
thank you
someone understands what I’m talking about.
IMO, Ellis and Biedrins are about as good as what we’re paying them. They’re above average players with above average salaries. Unfortunately, they probably aren’t All-Star calibur and aren’t good enough to lead a team to the playoffs; and they’ve been in the league long enough now that we shouldn’t be banking on their “potential”. They shouldn’t be untouchable by any stretch of the imagination, especially when they’re the two highest paid players on a very overpaid roster.
I’m not saying Morrow and Randolph are going to be superstars and that’s why they’re untouchable. They’re both very young, very cheap, and talented and we don’t know their ceilings yet.
And Turiaf was just an absolute steal. We’re not going to find another veteran big man like him for less than $4mil/yr.
"We Deserve"
And Turiaf was just an absolute steal. We’re not going to find another veteran big man like him for less than $4mil/yr
The Lakers replaced him just fine with Josh Powell at less than 1/4 of the cost. Turiaf is a good value, but lets not get carried away.
Thing A
depends on how you cut it – they “replaced” Turiaf’s roster spot with Powell, but retooled their frontline with Gasol-Bynum-Odom-with Powell filling in some minutes … I think it’s fair to say Turiaf’s more valuable to GSW as backup C & part-time starting C/PF than he is to LAL where he’d be fourth (at best) on the depth chart at C/PF
Powell has been very nearly as effective filling in as the 3rd big this year as Turiaf was last year.
Thing A
Yeah
Powell filled Turiaf role from last year for the Lakers and the Lakers were smart not to match Turiaf’s deal. But Turiaf is outplaying Powell this year. I think that goes with out saying, not sure if that is what hardcore is trying tosay or not.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions
and thats y there better
there 1 thru 3 is better than almost every player on our roster
The value of cheap rotation-level players is huge in a salary cap/luxury tax/recession environment .
I would not say that anyone on the roster is untouchable. If you can get better, and not just for one season, you do it.
But I will agree as far as “bang for your buck” goes, Morrow and Turiaf are probably at the top of the list.
Turiaf a decent starting NBA center and phenomenal back-up. The other thing about Turiaf is he facilitates the offense without the ball by taking the other team’s big man out of the play. Watch him on dunks and lay-ups by other players in the half-court, he is very good making space. He’s also a good passer.
Morrow rebounds and is getting better at handling, passing, seeing the floor, finishing. He’s taken it to another level in the last week or so. His shooting causes players to fly at him which he’s been exploiting a lot more.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 28, 2009 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions
bang-for-your-buck Azubuike is up there too
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
What about Biedrins?
does he not count because he makes 9 million?
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I love AB
I was talking sub-MLE type money for starter-quality production. AB gets paid right around exactly what he’s worth.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 29, 2009 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Absolutely. He’s getting better too.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 29, 2009 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions
replaceable.
buike is overrated by warrior fans. His defense leaves much to be desired. His passing resembles my little cousins 11/12 year old team. You can find swings who do what he does everywhere. On any decent team hes a bench player averaging 7 ppg. I wouldnt hesitate to trade him in a good offer.
Azubuike’s paid like a bench player, below the NBA average. I don’t know how many minutes you expect him to take to average 7 ppg (and that’s important. Points per game without a reference of minutes played is a useless number), but since he’s a better than average rebounder and much better than average outside shooter, I suspect that he’d get at least average playing time (~22mpg is the average for all players) which, at his scoring rate, translates to a shade under 10 points per game (which, for what it’s worth, is just about the average scoring rate for all players in the league). He is not a good passer, but he’s also not prone to turnovers.
You cannot find swings who shoot >40% from behind the 3 point line or rebound as well as he does everywhere.
I suspect that being critical of a player’s defense is commonplace, that most fans of any team that isn’t a title contender regard most players as somehow flawed on defense. From scanning various teams’ message boards, it seems like the majority of players in the NBA have been criticized as being ‘below average’ (or poorer) defenders. Since this isn’t actually possible, I suspect that there is a disconnect between what ’average defense is and what fans want to see.
by jae on Mar 31, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
So...
90% of us are above average drivers, yet 90% of NBA players are below average defenders? Something like that?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 31, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
buike's rebounding stats are inflated because he plays ALOT of pf
although it’s commendable he never complains and plays the 4 in nellie ball, you cant discount the amount of rebounding opportunities he gets because of position he’s in on defense. He is a good rebounding wing. I still think he’s replaceable. And more than anything his kobe bryant drives to the basket and shots with 3 men on him drive me crazy!
Ah yes, “inflated stats”, so often presented as if it’s a certainty, so seldom has anyone ever demonstrated this beyond saying it is so.
Although I don’t know what their methodology is, 82games.com has KA playing the 4 less than 4% of the time he’s on the court. And since his rebound rate is actually lower this year than it was last year (when he almost never was in the PF position) I’m gonna call b.s. on that one. There’s no evidence that Azubuike’s rebound numbers are ‘inflated’ due to playing some power forward.
by jae on Mar 31, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
82games.com has KA playing the 4 less than 4% of the time he’s on the court.
Don’t they calculate those as the % of the teams total minutes at that particular position? Maybe they do it both ways. Either way it must be somewhat subjective when watching the W’s play with four wings and one big so often.
Thing 2
What I want to know is how they determine who is playing what position since there’s nothing in the official records to indicate this. It is very subjective, not just for the Warriors, but for most teams for most of the time.
There’s no real definition of position in the records and while teams generally introduce two forwards, two guards and a center in their starting lineup, you can replace anyone with anyone, but that doesn’t mean that the guy who just came into the game directly assumes the duties of the guy who went out. There’s nothing stating that a team has to have a PF on the floor, but 82games figures assumes that someone is taking that job and is entirely responsible for it. Do they sort players by height? (which gets into problems when Jax is the tallest man on the floor, but playing pointguard). By some formula? By who got the most rebounds while on the floor? I dunno, but it’s not too much use to me to see the 82games figures without some idea of the methodology.
I agree
…and I always appreciate your analytical approach. But this is one case where I think you can just look at his game. We are getting a DEAL with Azubuike. Anyone who would quibble with his passing and perimeter D should consider his mature consistency throughout every game and steady improvement. Those characteristics should be considered a multiplier, IMO, to his touch from long range and his skills under the basket at both ends of the floor.
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
I'm not trying to write a full essay right now, complete with an introduction that has a thesis,
three body paragraphs, and a conclusion that restates my thesis.
Right, because that would be coherent.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 29, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Man
I hate how we wait until we suck to start trying to make big moves for a legit big man. We should have gotten active like this during the offseason right after the We Belive run.
Some type of line-up of:
PG: Baron Davis
SG: Monta Ellis
SF: Stephen Jackson
PF: Al Harrington
C: Chris Bosh
or
PG: Baron Davis
SG: Stephen Jackson
SF: Al Harrington
PF: Chris Bosh
C: Andris Biedrins
One of those type of line-ups would have been a good place to start in trying to build a contender. The Warriors were amazing in 2007 and the only thing that PREVENTED them from going further in the offseason was their lack of inside scoring and rebounding. That’s basically it.
Of course, the line-ups wouldn’t exactly be like the ones like the two above, but it would look something like that. A couple more extra offseason moves would have added some more depth and we could have been a WCF team by now on the verge of taking it to the next level.
Just ask yourself this, “When are the Warriors going to win their next championship?”.
When you think about it, it seems like we’re never going to win a championship with the way we keep handling our rosters. It’s like the management makes moves for shits and giggles. We always work our way towards getting younger all the time. We kept a core of J-Rich/Dunleavy/Murphy for years, but then when we actually have a core that wins (Baron/Jackson/J-Rich etc) we only keep them for 2 months.
But yeah enough of the mini rant. Where we are now is still pretty good, though. Chris Bosh is still young, so he can fit well with our youth movement. Hopefully we see something like Monta Ellis, Chris Bosh, Brandan Wright and Anthony Randolph owning the league in a couple years.
by Precise Films Productions on Mar 28, 2009 12:20 PM PDT reply actions
uhhhhh
Not Realistic. Toranto are only considering moving bosh now because its evident they will lose hi mto free agency in 2010. Its still unclear whether monta/beans + 3 other players can attain him but 2 years ago definitely not. Monta wasnt Monta (i’d say 07/08 put him on the NBA map). Biedrins upped his game this year, 2 years ago he looked like a possible serviceable center.
Amazing in 2007? They put a late run last 20 games and got a very favorable matchup. Lets be fair. Over the course of a season things even themselves out like they did in 2007/8
I love Monta, but...
the thing with Monta is that we would always have to draft or sign to compensate him. For example, we need a bigger point so that Monta could play the 2 and defend the 1. With Biedrins, we have a really good center, and we don’t have to adjust to his needs. With that said, I’d still rather trade Biedrins because Monta is one of my favorite players to watch, and he can change a game. Trade Biedrins to get Bosh, and take a risk on Thabeet.
the thing with Monta is that we would always have to draft or sign to compensate him
I completely agree, it impacts our draft options, defense, and prompts small ball. It forces our best defender, currently stephen jackson, to guard the opponent’s 2 in most games leaving their front court with more opportunites to out muscle and gain position over our thinner younger players.
Monta is one of my favorite players to watch, and he can change a game
Fun to watch for sure. But can he really change a game? I have yet to see him really take over games for a final push to win it. I also haven’t seen him change momentum any more heavily than players like azubuike can do with a 3. Plus the ability to change a game isn’t exactly a quality I rate highly given that it implies we must be behind to begin with.
From Toronto's perspective
Would Toronto have much interest in Monta? I know Colangelo might be using the Phoenix plan for building an entertaining and competitive team up there and Calderon/Monta could be his new version or Nash/Barbosa, but could that backcourt really be on the floor together for most of the game? I doubt it. I think Biedrins makes more sense for them.
Also they have a ton of money coming off the books this year with Parker and Marion’s expiring deals. I don’t know if they’d be willing to take back one or both of Crawford and Maggette’s contracts, but they do have big holes at the wings and there are a whole lot of free agent options this offseason so I think its plausible they might exchange the smaller, but still bad contracts of Banks and Kapono for Crawford and Maggette in a large multi player deal.
The best deal for us that I could see both teams agreeing to would be:
Biedrins+Crawford+Maggette+Belinelli+Wright+pick(7)
for
Bosh+Kapono+Banks+pick(8)
leaving us with
Monta/Banks
Jacks/Kapono
Buike/Morrow
Bosh/Randolph
Turiaf/????
-I think that leaves us at least 1 rotational big man, a PG off the bench and possibly another wing player away from being a very good team. We’d have some cap room cleared via the trade (roughly 6 million I believe) the MLE?(not sure if we’d still have the MLE if we clear cap room) and the draft pick to fill those spots. Guys like Ty Lawson, BJ Mullens, DeJuan Blair, and Jrue Holiday would be options who could probably step in and contribute something immediately at those spots. Guys like Stomile Swift, Rasho Nesterovic, Anderson Varejao, Brandon Bass, Kwame Brown, Etan Thomas, Jason Kidd, Chris Quinn, Bobby Jackson, Mike James and Brevin Knight are all relatively cheap free agent options.
Thing A
2 things,
In that scenario I think we start Bosh at center and move Randolph into the starting Rotation. Any combination of Bosh, Turiaf, and Randolph can play the 4/5 at the same time. 96 minutes between the 2 posistion. Bosh 38 Randolph 30 Turiaf 27, spare change can be tossed to the small ball fanatics or the Jemario Davidson’s of the world. A major injury to one of those 3 would hammer us, but we can always use the MLE there or possibly tough it out for a year and get a big man the following year.
Secondly lets take a look at Toronto’s projected lineup to give us a better clue if they would pull the trigger
Calderon/Belinelli
Graham/Crawford
Maggette
Bargnani/Wright/Humphries
Biedrins
plus the seventh pick and MLE
If we give em Biedrins instead of Ellis they might come asking for the pick straight up as well. Ellis/Calderon combo doesnt make sense, but Ellis is a better player than Biedrins and you take the better value when you are rebuilding and sort the pieces later.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Yea I wouldve projected their lineup but didnt want to have an incredibly long post..thanks for the assist on that. That Toronto lineup isnt overly impressive, but with Calderon as the centerpiece locked up fairly long term they certainly have a direction. They seem to like Bargnani (though I’m not quite sure why) and his buddy and fellow Italian Belinelli seems to to fit well with their system as both a good backup to Calderon and at the 2. Its a lineup that can certainly play uptempo and play the international style Colangelo seems to favor. I’m pretty sure they won’t be keen on taking both Crawford and Maggette but I think they could have a lot of interest in either one. Maggette is obviously the better player but Crawford comes with a better contract and is sort of a poor man’s Joe Johnson who excelled in that system. I was surprised at how few good wings are available in free agency this summer, which brightened my hopes for finding a taker for Crawford or Maggette.
Thing A
biedrins makes alot of sense for them
he would be a center they desperately need to build next to bargnani. He’s european and under contract. In addition they are high on bellinelli (I’m unsure if its to make bargnani happy or they like him.) Lastly a player like maggette would be attractive cause hes a proven NBA scorer w/ 4 more years contract.
calderon, belli, mags, bargnani, bieds….
also i think monta has lost value because of this season. I’m trying to patient with him and hope he works hard over summer.
screw that i dont want bosh
look at the team he is on now… AWFUL TEAM. it’s not like we have substantially better players either. although, we do have better players.
Toronto
May have had the worst collection of swingmen of any NBA team in the last 10 years earlier this season.
Hard to do well without much scoring there.
OMG
If the Warriors somehow land Bosh in Golden State, I will for sure renew season tickets
The Time Is Now! Win Warriors Win!
Oakland?
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 28, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Bosh is a game changer, a player opponents must game-plan to defend and will make us a contender for WCF immediately
- on the Monta or AB (plus change) for Bosh (plus change) – the correct answer is “either” but Monta for Bosh is a better deal for us all other pieces (change) being equal.
First we’re trading small for big, an unusual benefit and we would have a frontline worthy of competing for the WCF with AB, Bosh, Turiaf, and either AR or BW (assuming one is included in the trade). That is a frontline that can go toe-to-to with any WC team in both quality and depth. If getting to the WCF is our goal, Bosh for Monta is the answer.
Second, Monta is easier to replace than AB, and we are already deep at the wings with plenty of scoring. In short we would be dealing a player from our deepest position on the roster for a player in a position we are “thin” at. Moving AB for Bosh is a marginal upgrade inside, but does not improve us as much. If we must include AB, I’d rather not include either AR or BW.
- on the “debate” about AR’s best future position, while some might think his skills “scream” PF his physique does not. Again, I invite you to compare the ht/wt of WC PFs to our incumbent young’ns and even accounting for 10 lb. of muscle gain per year over the next few seasons, they come up light. AR’s mobility, length, rebounding would all be an even bigger advantage at the SF if we had a legit PF to play with AB & AR (see Bosh above). Admittedly, AR is not an ideal SF either shooting or ball handling but those are also skills to be gained over time. AR’s midrange shot looked smoother in the middle of the season than at the outset, and he’s competitive enough to continue working on his game imo. BW has zero chance of being a SF, so if they are on the roster together and we hope to get them on the floor together, AR at SF is the solution. This is probably a moot point if we make a bid for Bosh, I’d be surprised if Tor didn’t demand AR (rather than BW) in the deal. If we don’t land a legit PF, it’s also moot since AR & BW will split those minutes one way or the other.
by hardcore on Mar 28, 2009 3:12 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs
Excellent Post Hardcore
The reason why I voted Ellis, was because of the ease of replacing him. Look at our current roster, we already have Jackson and Buike, both of whom are starter material and play both the 2 and 3. A trade of Ellis will also make us able to go BPA for positions #1-3. And with a strong crop of Nelson type players available in the #7 range in Lawson, Jennings, Clark, and DeRozan it would certainly ease the pain of losing Ellis.
And yes, our frontcourt would be NASTY. A mobile frontcourt combination of Beans, Bosh, AR/BW, and Moses would be a KILLER. AB and Bosh would match up well against the best frontcourt in the NBA in Bynum/Gasol and our depth makes us as good if not better than LA’s (Turiaf & AR/BW vs Odom/Mbenga)
Brandon Jennings or Ty Lawson. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.
SA & LAL's windows of opportunity
we might see a narrower window for the Lakers than conventionally discussed – and SA’s is already closing. LAL will likely lose Odom, a player under-appreciated for his contributions and versatility. If we had Bosh with AB backed up by Turiaf and either AR/WB we’d be in position to challenge the best of the biggest in the WC. That’s my goal, not just an 8th seed. What I fear is we may have to give away the store to get Bosh (Monta or AB plus Wright AND AR) and that price would be so high as to not give us the same depth at the bigs. And the my nightmare is we trade the farm for Bosh and he leaves without an extension. It’s a gamble to be sure.
And the my nightmare is we trade the farm for Bosh and he leaves without an extension. It’s a gamble to be sure.
In which case we aren’t THAT much worse off than we are now.
Thing A
huh?
we’d’ve traded either AB or Monta plus one or both of our young bigs for essentially one year rental of Bosh – that’s a whole lot worse than where we are right now imo. … unless you think GSW is going to be a playa in the 2010 FA sweepstakes?
well we would have max money to throw at someone. Of course we arent going to be in the hunt for LeBron or Wade, but we could be players for a next tier guy. And we will probably have unloaded either Maggette or Crawford. I’m not saying its not a risk, I’m just saying its not like we’d be breaking up a potential dynasty.
Thing A
Right, thats his point.
We either get Bosh and lock him up or he walks and we have enough room to get another next tier guy. Probably not good enough to get us to the championsip, but good enough to make us a legit team atleast.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions
cap space only matters if FA will come to your team
ah, the fantasy of landing uberstars with cap space has struck again – sorry, I thought most of us acknowledged that the only way GSW lands those types of talents was through a trade for a disgruntled star like Baron or a player not planning on re-upping (and even then it’s not easy, ex KG) and that major FA s aren’t going to choose the Dubs
I dont understand why people here are so caught up that free agents wont come here?
If we offer to pay a guy more than anybody else, he’ll come here. Period. If a guy gets offered the same as he does somewhere else, than yeah then he would have options. In 2010 there are going to be a lot of really good free agents available and hopefully we can snag one to pair with our youth or we keep Bosh. Either way, I like it.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 29, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
If we offer to pay a max salary when others are offering the same, we won’t necessarily get the guy. If we offer max salary and others aren’t willing to go that high, we’re probably overbidding.
In 2010 there may be a lot of really good free agents. There might also be a load of players deciding to stay put for more money from their old club. There will also likely be a lot of free agents that aren’t very good drooling as teams who were burned when the big names didn’t come their way start tossing money at guys that aren’t worth the cash. It’s a recipe for some really stupid buying decisions.
except
the reason we won’t be players is that we already made our really stupid buying decisions.
Thing A
+1
I would rather over pay for a borderline all star(Rashard Lewis, Vince Carter) then over pay average starters(Corey Maggette)
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 29, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions
The reason why I voted Ellis, was because of the ease of replacing him. Look at our current roster, we already have Jackson and Buike
I see where you’re trying to go with this, but imo Jack and Azu cannot, and will never be able to replace what Monta brings to the court. Neither of them combine high efficiency with high number of attempts like Monta does. To me, Monta can be someone’s Robin to their Batman. He’d be a great #2 option on a good team, or a good #1 option on a bad-fringe team (like the warriors). Jackson should never be more than a third option, and Kelenna lacks the quick first step and finishing ability to be more than a good role player.
And with a strong crop of Nelson type players available in the #7 range in Lawson, Jennings, Clark, and DeRozan it would certainly ease the pain of losing Ellis.
Of all these guys, i’d say only Earl Clark is a “Nellie-Type” player. Lawson might never be more than a good backup PG. Maybe, I just don’t know about his outside shooting ability. He’ll be a defensive liability due to his short height. Jennings just is too turnover prone and isn’t a great shooter, necessarily. DeRozen is a lot like Mickael Pietrus to me. All the athletic ability in the world, he just lacks the skill to put it all together. Although DeRozen, unlike Pietrus, still has the time to realize his potential. Still though, DeRozen is not an outside shooter. He’s a guy that’s going to fill the wings and score in transition.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Mar 28, 2009 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
agreed, Monta is both more fun to watch and more efficient. In fact, he’s got a bit of the silent-assassin in him. But we have to give up something to get something, and we are deepest at the wings with players who can start in Monta’s absence. What I didn’t include was this: if we use Monta to get Bosh, we’d need a PG in the worst way. While I think Monta can pull off the transition to PG if he’s back with us, there’s not a chance any of us would want to go into a season with CJ as our starter, Bosh or no Bosh.
Replacing Biedrins
Look at the state of the NBA Center crop, then look at the draft-eligible guys.
This year’s draft doesn’t have a single guy that will come close to AB’s production and next year might if Aldrich comes out, but he isn’t anywhere near the defensive asset Andris is.
The simple fact of the matter is this: A C is worth far more compared to a swingman of (largely) equal value because they are almost impossible to replace considering the lack of supply.
It’s also the reason I was killing for the Warriors to trade up for Brook Lopez, but whatever.
I’m not a huge Thabeet fan, but saying he won’t come anywhere close to Biedrins’ production is a bit unfair. He won’t come close next year but he projects to be a double digit rebounder and defensive force. Sam Dalembert at worst and Deke Mutombo at best. Is that really not anywhere near Biedrins?
Thing A
Double digit rebounder?
SIX guys in the NBA average more than 10 boards a game (Dwight, David Lee, Troy Murphy, Timmy Duncan, Okafor, and Al Jefferson)
Thabeet will not only play enough minutes to touch that group, but he isn’t that type of rebounder. The guys in college who could get 10 a game in the pros are DeJuan Blair, Jon Brockman (who won’t play that many mins if he even makes the NBA), and Cole Aldrich.
And yes, I’d say that Thabeet won’t touch Beans on the offensive end. As I said in another thread, he’s pretty much DeSagana Diop, no better no worse. If that’s enough for you, then that’s fine, but I’d prefer Beans.
Don’t forget Blake Griffin as well imo.
Thabeet’s rebounding per minute wasn’t all that great for his size previous to this year. He’s turned it up this season, but looking at the tournament he doesn’t attack the ball off the glass. He sort of just lets the ball come to him.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
sorry I shouldve said double digit boards per 36. Diop is probably a better floor comparison for Thabeet than Dalembert with Dikembe as his ceiling and Dalembert as a fairly reasonable projection. I love Biedrins but its not like he’s the kind of offensive force other teams build their defensive game-plan around. I think youre slightly underrating Thabeet and slightly overrating Biedrins resulting in a skewed view of the gap between them.
Thing A
I meant position wise, not to find one who is an Ellis clone. Tweener Guards and 2’s are the most common and most widely available position compared to a great big man.
I definitely think any of those I’ve mentioned would be good in the Run-N-Gun system. And I still do think they are Nellie type players: Flashy Guards, +Speed (especially for Lawson and Jennings), apt in the Fullcourt press, all can shoot, all can pass.
Brandon Jennings or Ty Lawson. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.
Of course they can shoot, anyone..you and me can shoot. But shoot Effectively is the remaining question. I doubt Nellie has any use for guys that aren’t great at any one thing. Although I have a little more hope for Lawson than I do Jennings based on production to be an effective backup at worst.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
Its not really fair to compare Lawson to Jennings on production,
Jennings is playing in a completely different league the Lawson. Plus Lawson is older and been in his current system for a few years now.
I think Jennings will have the better career.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 29, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Jennings has the smaller sample size however. Lawson has been productive for 3 years on the collegiate level, while Jennings has had a mixed results European career at best. I agree that Jennings’ potential is higher, but what is the likelihood of him realizing that potential is the only question remaining.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
If I meant "Anyone can shoot"
Then I would’ve listed anyone and everyone. With your sarcasm aside, I meant they all have good jumpers and good range (with the small exception in DeRozan):
Lawson: 55% FG. 48% 3P.
Jennings: 46% FG. 27% 3P.
Clark: 46% FG. 32% 3P.
DeRozan: 52% FG. 17% 3P.
Brandon Jennings or Ty Lawson. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.
I would argue that AB for Bosh is not a “marginal upgrade”; it is a radical change in direction. Bosh is a low/high post scorer who can be your first or second option on offense; AB is a roll man with a very limited offensive repertoire, including an atrocious ft%. With Bosh as a bonafide post option, we’ll be free from JC isos, Jax isos, Maggette isos, etc.
I see Bosh bringing out the best in our perimeter players- Maggette driving into a scrambling defense instead of a set one, Morrow bombing away, PnR with Ellis or Jax or Crawford and letting them make a decision. I think this team needs a Bosh more than a Biedrins.
I don’t know whether Monta is replaceable or not but I wouldn’t be completely opposed to parting with AB.
"marginal upgrade"
good points – poor choice of words on my part, what I wanted to convey was that I see greater overall improvement to our roster as a whole by losing Monta rather than AB, partially due to their positions and partially due to the depth of our roster. I should also admit that as a fan and coach, I tend to view the game from the inside – out, and when evaluating teams tend to start at the C/PF position rather than the perimeter. So I’m partial to bigs. I also think you are right about the different skill sets between AB & Bosh, and I agree we’d be better with Bosh assuming no other major roster changes. I’m not completely opposed to parting with AB “either”, as my original post stated.
"I invite you to compare the ht/wt of WC PFs to our incumbent young’ns and even accounting for 10 lb. of muscle gain per year over the next few seasons, they come up light."
It doesn’t make sense to me when people say that Randolph is too thin to be an effective power forward. One only has to look at the man who is the topic of this post (Chris Bosh) to see evidence that Randolph can succeed at that position. When Bosh came into the league he was the same exact height and weight that Randolph is today. While Bosh weighs 20 pounds more today, it would be nothing special for Randolph to put on that kind of weight over the next couple of seasons. Bosh has shown that a PF with a slim, but chiseled physique can be a perennial all-star.
Monta Ellis is now unaVOIDable
even at 10 lb per year, that's two years away, at least ... plus
there is NO guarantee AR follows Bosh’s path – but he might, I agree. The difference is I don’t want to wait to find out only to discover then it’s not happening and it’s too late … am beginning to realize the quality I lack is patience …
in the event randolph becomes the next bosh or better
(and i dont think itll happen, different type of players, but still should he become an allstar level power forward). Bosh is always tradeable. Lets say in 2-3 years randolph shows real 20/10 potential, creating his own shot, improved passing. Still runs the court well, handles wells, defends better…. Bosh would be what 27/28? He’d be HIGHLY desired. Bringing in talent wont hurt randolph’s game. It’ll force him to up his game
there is NO guarantee AR follows Bosh’s path
Maybe skill set-wise he might not follow the same path, but I think it is pretty much guaranteed that AR will put on weight in the next couple years.
Agreed with everything you said.
rec’d.
What if we kept AR at power forward and put Bosh at the small forward? Bosh already has a jump shot and therefore could play a little farther from the basket that AR.
PG: Draft pick
SG: Jax
SF: Bosh
PF: AR
C: Biedrins
I’m kinda shocked more people voted Biedrins than Ellis. I bet if this poll had occurred 2 weeks ago the results would be very different. Who says GSoM is fickle?
Thing A
Too many Ellis homers
Brandon Jennings or Ty Lawson. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.
i dont think so
we would have logjam with the bigs if we lost ellis for him with wright randolph bosh an andris an ronny
logjam with the bigs
first, if we ever were blessed with such a problem – to have an abundance of riches at the C/PF positions, we’d have the trading pieces to build with
second, in all likelihood we are going to need to include either AR or BW in any Bosh deal – and maybe even both – so at most we’d have four of the following (and maybe only three): AB, Turiaf, Bosh, AR, BW
We just need to keep Monta, Andris, Wright and Randoplh
and build around these 4 guys. I like Bosh but look at the Raptors this year, they have about 25 wins in the weak east.
"If your good at something never do it for free." - The Joker
The “weak east” isn’t really the “weak east” anymore. 3 of the 4 teams with the best record in the league are in the east. Overall I believe that the east has a better record against the west than the other way around this year. There’s not as many teams above .500, but the west has some truly abysmal teams, far more bottom dwellers than there are in the east currently.
Toronto’s record is what it is, not any better or worse because of their opponents.
Toronto’s record is what it is, not any better or worse because of their opponents.
Which also suggests, That Bosh can’t really lead a team, or if he comes to us, we will be instant playoff contenders. He has Calderon and Bargani and if Granger can lead his Pacers to more wins with an even WEAKER supporting class, that says something about Bosh’s inability to be a franchise player who’d be worth giving up a ton of talent for.
I like him, but in all of these trades were giving up alot of talent
by Lincoln Logs on Mar 28, 2009 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions
What makes you say Granger has a weaker supporting cast? I dont think thats true at all. Daniels, Nesterovic, Jack, Murphy, and Ford have all been pretty damn good this year. Also Granger is an outstanding player. Even if it could be proven that Granger>Bosh that doesn’t mean Bosh can’t be one of the two best players on a contender.
Thing A
Danny Granger isn’t exactly a scrub in his own right. He’s the real deal, just doesn’t get any national exposure
"We Deserve"
Granger is a stud.
Still Bosh is a big and really good bigs are harder to find than reallty good wings.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions
He has Calderon (a plus), but he has Bargnani (a minus). Bargnani as a supporting cast and still being able to be close to a playoff spot is a point in his favor. Bargnani might just be the worst regular rotation player in the league and is quite certainly the worst #1 overall in recent memory.
agreed
You wanna know how the Raptors went from being a playoff team to a crappy team? Bargnani became a starter and is getting 30+ minutes per night.
"We Deserve"
bargnani could work next to...
marion and AB though…. reboundingwise
So basically, if he’s playing with guys who are very good at what they do, his overall pathetic play can be somewhat hidden. I say somewhoat though as I’m curious as to who Bargnani is supposed to defend. Marion is versatile enough to cover either forward spot, but Bargnani is incompetent enough to fail at either spot.
I was just pointing out Toranto’s reasons for wanting to trade an all star. Plus (not to generalize) but toranto has a much easier chance retaining european players than American. So they’d eitherwant european player of player who is under longterm contract. They view Bargnani as there future as he was a #1 overall pick, still young and could develop. AB + mags + bellinelli 4 bosh, banks is probably what theyd want. starting lineup calderon, belinelli, mags, bargnani, AB…. No player in danger of leaving for 3-4 years + Cap room losing Marion. That should make playoffs in east.
Now where does that leave golden state? Monta, Jack, Buike, Bosh, Turiaf as our starting lineup….. bwright, randolph, morrow, crawford, banks on bench. Assuming crawford opts out we’d have enough cap wrong to either get a quality 3 (cause buike isnt starting 3 on a playoff team unless he’s in a trevor ariza role w/ kobe, gasol and odom/bynum) or a center. BWright would be tradeable for a reasonable young big who could play 5 next to bosh and rotate with randolph/turiaf.
My overall feeling, I’m unsure. I like the aggressiveness, BUT I wonder if it is the best strategy. Bosh did just turn 25 and has not peaked. I’d stil llike to bring in a GM with a longterm vision like in portlant or san antonio or utah
They view Bargnani as there future as he was a #1 overall pick, still young and could develop.
And that would be fool’s logic. Granted, teams tend to try to squeeze blood out of rocks if they picked them high, and teams often overpay high draft choices when their rookie deals are over, more than play alone would dictate, but where he was drafted at this point shouldn’t matter. He could develop, but into what? Rebounders as terrible as him rarely become even adequate. He’s a tweener in all the worst ways. If they think he’s their future, then the Clippers and Warriors aren’t the worst run franchises in the league.
For what it’s worth, 25 is usually pretty close to peak performance for a basketball player. If there’s improvement afterwards, it’s pretty minimal. What we’ve seen with him is very likely what we’d get. That’s very good, but I don’t think it’s wise to think he’d become the true elite title contender type of franchise player.
peak a 25? i dont know what about that
using 2 power forwards as examples… chris webber and kevin garnett. both were all stars like bosh, but both upped there game. Garnett for example was not the defender by ny means he is today at 25.
bosh is an all star
we know hes not lebron, but where he’ll peak as an all around player, its hard to tell
theres more to basketball than stats...
maggette averaged more ppg than ginobili? who is better..
let me rephrase that
garnett’s stats have declined since he went to boston but hes become a much better TEAM player…. Lebrons stats r near identical but he is better now than 2 years ago….and on that note a player can evolve and become better even if stats don’t show it
I don’t know if KG has become a better team player of if he simply has better teammates….don’t confuse the two. LeBron’s stats aren’t THAT similar, I think he’s taking and making a lot more 3’s this year and his defensive numbers are up reflecting the biggest change in his game this year.
Thing A
KG's alwas been a great offensive player
he’s become more unselfish. Thats largely maturity. but his DEFENSE is whats improved. I remember him with minesota. Not that he was a poor defender but he never had the commitment to defense he has now. Largely because he was younger as is the case with most young stars. He was similar to Cwebb in that regard. For me wen he went to boston his committment to defense completely changed.
I guess what I’m trying to say is I understand jae’s point. But I disagree… while a player is defintiely on his path to stardom or not by 25…. Most players continually improve till about 28 to 30. It may not be as reflective in the statline but thats when budding superstars really push there gameto next level.
I dont know wat this means for bosh, but hes a legitimate all star PF. Duncan, dirk, gasol and garnett r better than him… all are over 30. After that…. the next teir of young PFs…. lamarcus alridge, david west, boozer I take him over. The only 1 i’d say is close is boozer, but his health issues (3 years older… boozer is 28) makes it a toss up in my mind.
a Monta/Bosh inside outside combo....
Jack at 3rd option. Thats the start of a team with legitimate playoff ambitions. Then its a real question of filling the peices correctly. The question becomes how much upside you think Monta has and where he’ll end up.
With bosh because of his size/length we would just need a rebounding 5 OR 4 next to him. For ex. I think we couldget away w/ millsap next to him despite being an undersized 4. Just generally another body, 1 who is committed to cleaning the glass (this assuming we lose AB)
if we dont have to give up our #6 pick, i say we do it
I don’t know if KG has become a better team player of if he simply has better teammates
He has better teammates. People will continually confuse the two. It got Kobe an MVP last year for ‘making his teammates better’, when, without Gasol or Bynum, his team was the same ~.500 club it had been for several years.
theres more to basketball than stats…
maggette averaged more ppg than ginobili? who is better..
There’s more to stats than saying someone’s ppg are higher, too, much, MUCH more. Have you never read anything I’ve written?
Glancing at a stat sheet is not the same thing as analyzing the numbers systematically.
yeah thats y i immediately posted after
i hit post then realized it was a bad comparison. Anyway, on Bosh, I agree its a risk as we’re not sure if he will just be an allstar pf, or if he can elevate to a truly elite PF. But I think its worth exploring
Worse than Kwame. Brown is not a great rebounder, but he’s a ton better than Bargnani. Bargnani is a moderately efficient scorer, but he’s a matchup problem for whomever he’s playing for. He isn’t fast enough to allow you to play him alongside a couple of other bigs, so he’s got to be a big man, but as a big man, he’s a terrible rebounder. Not terrible in the all-too-often throw away “he’s a terrible defender” line that many, many use without any discrimination, but terrible as in ‘his rebounding would be acceptable if he were an off guard, but as a front court player, his inability to board is truly pathological. At least Brown has a position. He’s not particularly good at it, but he’s not a walking compromise.
There is no way
that Kwame Brown is better than Bargnani. As pathetic a rebounder as Bargnani is, Brown is one inch taller and weighs 50 pounds more than Bargnani and averages only 5.5 rebounds for his career. Add that to the fact that Bargnani is a far superior scorer and doesn’t miss playoff games because of tummy aches and it is clear that Brown is the worst #1 pick of this decade.
Monta Ellis is now unaVOIDable
Your clarity that Brown is worse than Bargnani is rather flawed. Are you familiar with the difference between “per game” and “per minute” statistics? It does not appear that you are.
Yes, Brown has averaged 5.5rpg. But that’s 5.5 per game in 22mpg for his career. Brown is not great, but that works out to 8.7 rebounds per 36, almost three more than Bargnani in the same time.
there is a reason why Brown has averaged only 22mpg
he is a truly horrible player, only on an NBA roster because of his size. He has been unable to stick on one team for any length of time and unlike Bargnani, shows no hope of further developing his game. Also, you have yet to address the fact that aside from Brown’s subpar rebounding numbers, he is also a non-threat on offense, having averaged over 10 points once in his career, something Bargnani has done in every one of his seasons. Before you said it, I had never heard anyone say that Bargnani (while he has been disappointing) was in the same class as Kwame and Michael Olowakandi.
Monta Ellis is now unaVOIDable
Please do note that nowhere have I said that Brown was a good player. He isn’t. But I am perplexed why you believe that Bargnani shows hope. He appears hopeless in that he has glaring holes in his game that more than make up for his lone talent of hitting long range shots. Yes, fans get hung up on points per game. It is not my fault that most are not particularly competent at understanding of how little relevance this is to aiding one’s team.
I suspected, apparently erroneously, that the concept meant something to you. Apparently, it does not, else you wouldn’t once again revert to it when discussing Brown’s scoring in per-game units again. Is the concept foreign to you? If Brown has (moderately) subpar rebounding, Bargnani is is a class of of total incompetence not otherwise seen in the NBA. While Brown isn’t an offensive threat, neither did he waste shots. He was a low volume shooter. He and Bargnani are actually rather similar in total offensive efficiency. I realize that most fans do nothing more than pay lip service to defense being half the game, but it is, and where Brown didn’t stand out as incompetent, Bargnani’s inabilty to rebound as a big man or stick with anyone on the perimeter makes him among the more complete liabilities in the game.
It doesn’t bother me in the slightest that you’d never heard anyone else mention Bargnani in the class of worthless #1’s before. I don’t need someone else to tell me that he’s terrible.
i find it funny
that “not wasting shots” is considered a good skill by you for someone making 9 million dollars last year. And if points per game do not satisfy you, then look at the offensive ratings (points produced per 100 possesions) per year of Kwame and Bargnani and you will find that Bargnani enjoys a 20 point advantedge PER YEAR. Just getting out of the way and not being active offensively does not in any way help your team, especially if you are expected for more.
Monta Ellis is now unaVOIDable
i find it funny that "not wasting shots" is considered a good skill by you for someone making 9 million dollars last year.
What someone made does not change what their productivity was. Your argument seems to be hung up on that. If he made the min or the max, his production and his contributions on the court would be identical.
I am curious which “offensive ratings” you’re referencing. I did not encounter one that showed such a marked difference. Dean Oliver’s offensive rating metric Brown has a career ORtg of 102 points per 100 possessions, while Bargnani stands at 101 (this year they’re both sporting identical ratings). Is this what you’re referring to? If not where are you getting this difference. DId you just read the numbers wrong? (Do you believe that 102 is 20 less than 101?)
If he made the min or the max, his production and his contributions on the court would be identical.
I can guarenSHEED you that a high draft pick like Brown will be given many more chances to succeed than a later pick. Despite these numerous chances, Brown is a 27 year old fringe player who will soon become a valuable expiring contract. Bargnani is 4 years younger and, speaking of Rasheed Wallace, Bargnani has an almost identical PER to Wallace in his third year, so giving up on all hope of Bargnani’s improvement is foolish.
Monta Ellis is now unaVOIDable
Care to comment on where you got your “offensive rating” information? You seem to have ducked that entirely.
PER is not by any stretch an optimal measure as to how someone will influence their team’s wins. It rewards people for taking shots even if they are not effective in making shots. I suspect that you aren’t actually familiar with how PER is calculated or what it indicates. I suspect that you’re also not going to point to where you got your ‘offensive ratings’ that showed the 20 point difference. I will regard you as someone worth bothering with only if you can produce your reference.
hahaha who do you think you are?
If you want to “bother with” replying to my posts thats fine and you don’t that’s okay, too. You obviously can’t be that busy if you keep replying on this post. As for the ORtg, that may have been an honest mistake. But you have still yet to respond as to why you think “not wasting shots” is a praiseworthy talent for a number one overall pick. After all, we are arguing who was a bigger bust at the number one pick, and I am sure Toronto would be happier with Bargnani continuing to improve his game and take his bumps than simply stop shooting altogether.
Monta Ellis is now unaVOIDable
But you have still yet to respond as to why you think "not wasting shots" is a praiseworthy talent for a number one overall pick.
Its funny to me, that you keep bringing up salary and draft posistion when talking about a players potential or productivity. Not wasting shots is a good thing. Look at Anthony Morrow and Jamal Crawford. Crawford scores more points per game 19pts vs 9pts. However Crawford shoots 40fg and 333pt while Morrow shoots 48fg and 493pt. Wouldnt you want Morrow to shoot more and want Crawford to not waste so many shots?
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 31, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
i agree with you,
i do want Morrow to take more shots and I think he will continue to shoot at a high percentage, though I am not sure. But Brown is not an undrafted rookie, he was the number one pick in the draft and some thought he would “redefine the power forward position”. And I think draft position has EVERYTHING to do with how big a bust someone is. Morrow would not be a disappointment even he if never made a single improvement. Kwame Brown on the other hand was expected to do a lot and did very little.
Monta Ellis is now unaVOIDable
Kwame Brown on the other hand was expected to do a lot and did very little.
And no one is arguing otherwise. However, this does not alter his actual performance. His pay and draft position may make people more disappointed in him, but it doesn’t change how his play is relative to other players. You seem to interject it as if this wasn’t so. It is a flaw in your thinking to continue to do this.
Who do I think I am? I think I’m someone who presents real evidence and, when I see b.s., call people on it. You presented crap. What you’ve presented has shown gross ignorance of what rate statistics mean or been mistaken. The differences you’ve shown to show how much better Bargnani is on offense turned out to be a major mistake (one that it took a couple of posts questioning you on the numbers before you admitted you were relying on something false.
When someone relies on evidence, and then, when the evidence turns out to be false (as was the case with your ORtg ‘difference) there’s a problem. It indicates that you likely had an opinion and rather than letting evidence help form that opinion, you tried to cherrypick to support that opinion.
It ‘may have been an honest mistake’? Was it or wasn’t it? It was a mistake, so the question is whether or not it was honest. If you thought the statistic meant something (which, if you were presenting it as evidence, you should have) where a higher score is better and indicative of offensive ability, and then it’s shown that in fact, the error showed them to be equal with perhaps a slight edge to Brown and you didn’t change your story accordingly but decided then that the numbers don’t mean anything, you’re engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
Not wasting shots is praiseworthy because if you are not an effective shot maker, it’s better to pass up opportunities you’ll likely fail on to allow more proficient teammates the opportunity. This allows for a more efficient overall offense. Since possessions in a game are equal, the team that makes more efficient use of their possessions wins. Whether or not he was the #1 pick does not change how good a player someone is. #1 picks are not somehow more immune to their missed shots being a negative on their team. You keep bringing that up as if it means something. It doesn’t. I am perplexed as to why you continue to do so.
As I have said in previous posts
draft position has EVERYTHING to do with how big a bust someone is. Someone who is expected to do great things and comes up short is a bust, as opposed to someone who is expected of nothing and produces nothing.
As for the mistake I made, I realized what I did. I averaged the offensive ratings out per year from basketball-reference.com, not realizing that the website has the average there already. So by taking the average of the average given I inflated the numbers.
The bottom line is that so far you have already admitted that Brown’s rebounding numbers are not good, and that on the offensive end he is better off passing than taking a shot and failing. You believe that by doing this Brown contributes to his team winning but the fact is that Bargnani averages more win shares per year than Brown and that number is up to 3.7, a number Brown hasn’t approached since 2006. In fact, Brown will probably begin to decline statistically soon, while Bargnani ONLY 23 is only going to get better as he adds weight and polish. Brown missed that stage in his career and never became anything but a bench scrub. The fact that Bargnani has continued to improve already means that he is less of a bust than Brown and if the “who’s a better player debate” is even close now, it will a joke in a few years.
Monta Ellis is now unaVOIDable
Yes yes yes. You said draft position has everything to do with how big a bust someone is. That’s pretty much the end of anything sense you made, and in a case when you’re comparing Bargnani and Brown, both drafted #1 overall, it’s a meaningless bit of information.
And it’s totally irrelevant for determining how good a player is in absolute terms. Being labeled a ‘bust’ is meaningless in any real sense. A #1 overall can be a flop, be a ‘bust’ in your pea-brained simplistic boxes and still be better than a non-roster invitee who surprised people by even making the squad.
You really should actually learn what these numbers you’re presenting mean. It was pretty embarrassing and you looked (are?) pretty stupid when you errantly presented the offensive ratings, then seemed to disregard them when you were wrong, never acknoweding that they actually contradicted your point. Now you’re presenting ‘win share.’ Do you know what that is? Do you know how it’s calculated and can you explain what it actually tells us? Or are you simply looking at basketball-reference and rather blinding pulling and reporting (sometimes rather inaccurately) what you’ve seen? It comes across much like the latter. You’re free to try to explain why this is wrong, but your track record so far doesn’t lead me to believe you’re likely to find success.
Brown’s rebounding isn’t particularly good, but it’s not horrible. Bargnani is abysmal. There’s not really a comparison. Bargnani might just be the worst rebounding forward (definitely the worst to play substantial time at the 4) in the game. I honestly don’t care how good or bad Brown (who isn’t very good) or Bargnani (who is among the worst in the game) are. I’m more curious why you continue to pretend like you’re even remotely making sense or have an iota of a clue what these numbers you present (and misrepresent) mean.
I honestly don’t care how good or bad Brown (who isn’t very good) or Bargnani (who is among the worst in the game) are.
Then why are you still posting? If you no longer care about your side of the argument and are still posting then you either realize you are wrong or have nothing better to do (which is fine, btw, i enjoy reading about your unique opinion (not being sarcastic)). I used win shares because you said that Brown’s non-shooting helps his team. Because win shares are essentially offensive and defensive ratings put into win form, I wanted to show you that while Brown may be “efficient” with his lack of shots, it is not helping the team as much. Though win shares are often dependent on minutes played there is a reason why Brown’s coaches (there have been many of them so a single coach cannot be blamed) have not put him in the game as frequently as Bargnani. And many of those chances have probably come because he was a high pick.
My argument is that Kwame Brown is a bigger bust at the #1 slot than Andrea Bargnani, and though Bargnani is a little better now, that gap will widen exponentially. You have provided no evidence as to why you think Andrea Bargnani will not improve at all. If you are going to just nitpick and argue against how I argued instead of arguing against my argument then maybe its time you moved on.
Monta Ellis is now unaVOIDable
there is a reason why Brown’s coaches (there have been many of them so a single coach cannot be blamed) have not put him in the game as frequently as Bargnani
Are you aware that Bargnani and Brown have nearly identical minutes per game their second and third years in the NBA? Check it out. Statisically Brown’s stats are slightly better, though I admit just glanced at them and didnt do a deep analysis. Feel free to tell me why Bargnani this season is better than Brown was his third year.
Also Bargnani is only getting minutes right now, because he is a number 1 pick, like you pointed out several times. After people realize he is terrible and not getting better he will probably be getting the same amount of minutes as Brown or possibly run back to Italy.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 31, 2009 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions
for the minutes
i was talking about Brown’s career not just those two seasons. And although Brown performed well in his third season, his career has gone down the drain since then. I am willing to bet that Bargnani does not decline at the age of 24 the way Brown did at 23, if only because that would entail Bargnani not improving his game at all.
Monta Ellis is now unaVOIDable
I am willing to bet that Bargnani does not decline at the age of 24 the way Brown did at 23
Please go check out their stats from their 3rd seasons. They both have PER’s of less than 15(the league average) and PER’s biggest flaw is it doesnt track defense and Bargnani is possibly the worst defender in the league(though our very JC would give him a run for the money). Bargnani doesnt need to ‘decline’ he just has to stay the same, people wll realize he is garbage and he will play less. Which will render him into Kwame Brown but worse. Atlest Brown is tall can be your emergency big man and if you are forced to play him 5-10 minutes in game, it wont be that bad.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 31, 2009 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions
You’ve provided no evidence of anything. You’ve used numbers that were wrong, pulled a figure out that you quite clearly have no concept what it means, gotten confused with the difference between per minute and per game statistics and now put it on me to show anything? Making someone actually present real numbers and making them stand up to the fact that the actual numbers said the opposite of the mistake he’d presented is not “nitpicking”. It’s called being intellectually honest. You are not.
I don’t know if Bargnani will improve, but he can improve a whole bunch and still be garbage. He is a terrible player. His rebounding (or more precisely lack of it) makes him a liability on the court the likes of which rarely occurs. He’s still being used because Toronto is trying to squeeze blood from that turnip. At year three, it looks like Brown was a bit ahead of the curve over where Bargnani is, if only because Brown didn’t have a glaring hole in his game as absolutely crushing as the hole in Bargnani’s when it comes to securing rebounds. Do I think Bargnani can improve substantially in this regard? No, because very very few players do. A player’s rebound rate early in his career is a very good indicator of what it will be later in his career. Do I think that fools who drool over points per game, who haven’t a clue what efficiency means will point at Bargnani’s ability to take more shots and claim he’s better? Sure, but the ignorance of others isn’t my problem.
"I don’t know if Bargnani will improve"
Thank you for admitting that. I think think it is safe to say (correct me if I’m wrong) that we both don’t believe Kwame Brown will make any large improvements, though Bargnani still might.
Bargnani will only have the ability to “take more shots” if he is able to stay on the court. So if his ppg continue to go up, even if his effciency only goes slighly up, it means that whoever his coach is thinks he is worthy of staying on the floor, something Brown was unable to do.
Monta Ellis is now unaVOIDable
Dude...
You really need to learn to attack your opponents’ points rather than their personal insults. The way you completely ignored their points renders any and all points you made irrelevant. Unless you can refute their claims as well as they’ve refuted yours, you’re just a nutjob.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 1, 2009 6:33 AM PDT up reply actions
ive been tryin to have an argument
but ive been gettin called “pretty stupid” and dishonest. I mean…who insults someone personally on a blog? You should only do that to someone’s face.
Monta Ellis is now unaVOIDable
Care to comment on the fact that a number that you presented erroneously showed the opposite of your claim? Care to admit that you don’t seem to know what win-share means?
by jae on Apr 1, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions
dont compare bargnani to kwame
bargnani has hit a shot outside 5 feet. That already makes him less of a bust. His rebounding and defense is bad. With some work he can become average at those though. He might be a bust for a #1 pick, but he isnt a bust in the sense kwame or darko milicic are… He is just looking like more of a role player.
ps i thought about that yesterday. Detroit loves dumars, but man If i was a piston fan and see that they could have had carmelo, dwade or bosh…. I’d be kicking myself VERY hard right now
bargnani has hit a shot outside 5 feet. That already makes him less of a bust.
So… Biedrins is more of a bust than Bagani. Rats.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 1, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
He is just looking like more of a role player.
Yes and his role seems to be shooting the ball, while ensuring that his team doesn’t win many games.
His rebounding and defense is bad. With some work he can become average at those though.
He is so bad at those that he could improve a lot and still not be average.
I noticed that you (and a lot of people) seem to be much more willing to accept a player as good if he can score a bit but is horrible at defense and rebounding than if he is an offensive liability but can rebound and defend a bit.
Bargnani is still in the “we drafted him #1, we need to play the guy” stage of his career. At some point (likely with another team) his minutes will start to more closely match his production.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 1, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
u can teach a guy to defend/rebound
u cant teach him to shoot.
but in all seriousness…. i wouldnt call kwame a good defender or rebounder either… hes a serviceable nba backup. Bargnani is better than that. still not a #1 pick though
u can teach a guy to defend/rebound
u cant teach him to shoot.
From what i’ve seen you are much more likely to improve your shooting and defense than your rebounding.
It seems like defense is often a result of team culture. Some guys just defend no matter what, but for most guys it seems much more like an issue of peer pressure. Defense is effort and focus and if you feel like your teammates/coach expect a certain level of intensity you are much more likely to bring it.
Shooting is a funny one. If a guy shows some ability it’s pretty common for him to improve his range and consistency (to some degree) over the course of his career. Some guys just don’t seem to ever add that skill.
For some reason rebounding is one of those things you are just good at at or not good at. I can’t think of one guy who was a poor rebounder who became a good rebounder. Maybe it’s happened but I certainly can’t think of it.
i wouldnt call kwame a good defender or rebounder either
Me neither, but it is something he can do at an NBA level, even if he isn’t particularly good.
Thing 2
+1
(wait, did I write that?)
The rebounding thing is strange. It does seem like a ‘system’ (for lack of a better word) can influence offensive rebounds to a degree. Insisting that players crash the boards after a shot can have some influence and where guys take shots can have some influence, but defensive rebounding seems to be one of those things that guys can either do or don’t do and how they play seems mostly set in stone.
It’s one of the things that’s perplexing about Brandan. On the offensive boards, he’s reasonably good. He seems to go after shots (his own or someone else’s) and tracks them down well, not as well as magnet like Randolph, who has a chance to be truly elite as a rebounder if he continues what he’s done, but up to the challenges of the NBA. If he had qualifying minutes, he’d be in the top 13 in the league (ahead of Tim Duncan and David Lee fwiw) in offensive rebounding percentage. Some of this is where he plays, near the basket to get the high percentage shots, but some of it seems to be that he gets after the missed shot when he has an opportunity to get the followup shot himself. However, on the defensive end, he doesn’t seem to go after the ball at all and rebounds only if it comes to him. It’s maddening, as it’s not an athletic ability issue, though history suggests that this doesn’t make it any more likely to change.
Re: Brandan
Yeah that is really interesting. Just watching him he seems much more aggressive on the offensive boards. It could be that he is just one of those guys that’s naturally motivated by putting the ball in the basket and that gives him more drive to go after the ball on the offensive boards. Like you said, it’s definitely not a length or athleticism issue.
The only other thing that may partially explain it is his weight. My thinking is that being quick, agile and long will be a much bigger advantage on the offensive glass than the defensive glass. He definitely has a hard time boxing guys out consistently. Either way, chances are that will always be a weakness in his game. It’s a shame because he has shown such promise in all the other important areas for a PF.
Thing 2
u can teach a guy to defend/rebound
u cant teach him to shoot.
Sorry, but actual evidence doesn’t support your assertion.
Perhaps you can teach someone to defend, but it does not appear that it’s easy at all to teach someone to rebound by the time they’ve made it to the NBA. The absolute best predictor of how well someone will rebound late in their career is how well they rebound early in their career. If it was a teachable skill, one would expect this to not be so pronounced.
On the other hand, shooting percentage, though difficult to change, does seem to be more flexible. The long range (3 point shot) is especially pliable to practice as several players have gone to being non-entities in that regard early in their career to being very dangerous from behind the arc. It’s anecdotal, but check out the career three point performance for Sam Perkins, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Al Harrington, Clyde Drexler and Chris Mullin to name a few to see if it doesn’t appear that all quite noticeably improved their three point shooting over the course of their career. Maybe no one ‘taught’ them, but it improved.
Bargnani is not a serviceable backup. He’s an abysmal player. Brown’s rebounding may not be good, but is fantastically closer to being adequate than Bargnani. Writing them off as somehow being similar in rebounding because neither are good is like saying that a grad student living on a TA’s salary and a Sudanese refugee from genocide are in the same financial situation (both poor).
The role that Bargnani plays is ‘loss generator’. Calling him a ‘role player’ doesn’t somehow make the low level of his play more acceptable. His role appears to be to have a nice three point shot, but absolutely nothing else, and holes in his game so glaring that if you use him, you’re much, much, much less likely to win than if you sent him packing.
His inability to rebound is pathological. He could be a role player if there were a single position he could play competently. There isn’t. If he had his stroke and the ability to do something else on the perimeter (like guard a guard) he might be acceptable, but as it is, he doesn’t, so you have to play him as a ‘big’, but as a ‘big’ he costs his team many, many rebounds a game, resulting in wasted possessions and an inability to get a defensive stop. The cult of points per game doesn’t notice this, but it’s true nonetheless. It is not an accident that his defensive on-off court splits indicate that Toronto goes from marginal defensive team to among the very, very worst in the game. It really is half the game, and in his case, he gets less than a zero for his half.
Bargnani’s scoring might look average, but he could improve 10-fold and not be average. The problem is that the thing he needs to improve the most (rebounding) is perhaps that thing that a player is least likely to substantially improve. It doesn’t seem to be something that players can ‘work on’ to get to be much better at as very, very, very few players show substantial improvement in that regard ever.
by jae on Apr 1, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The role that Bargnani plays is ‘loss generator’
YES! Thats awesome jae.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Apr 1, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm still trying to figure out
How a player with a PER of 14.73, which is just slightly below average, could be considered “the worst player in the NBA,” or whatever venom is being spewed in his direction.
I mean, there are lots of guys who are bad defensively, but at least he’s average-ish offensively. That has to count for something, right?
Because PER is a flawed measurement that rewards players for taking more shots and doesn’t adequately address the flaws in a poor rebounder.
And here I thought it was perfect!!!
It only rewards players for taking shots if they are making them.
A player can shoot well under the league average and increase his PER by taking more shots. Yes, he has to make them, but a guy who goes 4 for 10 (40—rather inefficient and if consistently at this rate, usually detrimental) takes another 10 shots and makes another 4, his PER increases even though he’s likely dropping his team’s overall FG in the process. It’s a flaw in the measure.
PER is very good at predicting popular opinion of a player and Hollinger has stated that the metric works because it indicates that players known to be good as good. That really tells us nothing though. It says that it recapitulates conventional wisdom, even if that conventional wisdom is wrong.
As far as I know
PER has been used in simulations and it has been proven to be a good predictor of success.This is according to Daryl Morey, Rockets GM.
You’re acting like Hollinger was trying to reverse-engineer a formula to prove that good players are good, which is preposterous. His purpose is almost the polar opposite, to show which “bad” players are good, and vice versa. (In fact his real purpose is none of the above, just to attempt to accurately show who the best, or most efficient, players are).
Didn't say he loves it
Just that it’s not quite what jae said it was all about.
Obviously PER is highly flawed since it doesn’t really take into account defense (aside from defensive rebounding). Defensive metrics are still very crude, but evolving very quickly. But as far as I know, it’s one of the best player valuation systems that isn’t kept under lock and key by the NBA teams.
The flaw in PER is far more signficant than just not including defense. Its flaw is that in an attempt to reward ‘shot creation’ it rewards high volume, low percentage shooters (at a rate far under league average) so long as their point output goes up even though this can be demonstrated empirically to be detrimental to the team’s chances of winning. That’s a flaw if you are trying to use it to make personnel decisions, a flaw that can make you acquire high scoring, low efficiency players who have PERs that do not accurately reflect their more minimal contributions to the team. It puts a number on the same sort of ‘analysis’ that many, many fans and writers do whenever a high scoring player is acquired, suggesting that it will make a team better without regard to how those points need to be scored.
Did Hollinger make it to recapitulate popular opinion? I dunno. He hasn’t really ever explained the ‘logic’ behind it, but he has defended it by saying that it tends to coincide with popular opinion.
calderon is a good peice
they have no swings. Bargnani really isnt capable of playing with bosh. They recently got a declining shawn marion. I saw bosh come into golden state, own the warriors 30/14 a couple assists. The biggest thing i noticed was he is a better passer and rebounder than I thought but no1 on the team can finish (less you think kris humphries is like dwight howard going to the rim). He spend majority of game on biedrins (they went small to match up).
Its a reasonable question, whether he can “lead” or not. With good coaching and a better supporting cast in 06/07 and 07/08 they did much better
if keep Monta, Andris, Wright and Randolph
we are relegating ourselves to barely competing for the 8th seed for the forseeable future, assuming our key players are healthy all year … we can’t assume Crawford opts out, we can’t assume we can move Maggette, we can’t assume Jackson stays motivated and a good soldier on a perennial loser, nor that we’ll get to upgrade the roster without trading one of those four, plus we can’t assume a low lottery pick will improve us in the W-L department
so, if we stand pat, if that’s your plan, no thanks
Dont let the door hit ya
Ellis,Maggette,Crawford Wright and Bellinelli for Bosh.
We need to keep Beans, Morrow, Randolph and Jackson.
Ellis has a major attitutude problem and he is and I dont think he will ever be a good leader to a team.
As many crappy desicions that Jack makes throughout the course of a game, he still has fire and an un non chalant attitude when on the court.
what attitude problem does monta havE?
he’s same as he’s always been. Or is this just a personal opinion on fact he got tattoes?
as much as ellis is my fav player to watch....
and my fav player on the warriors….
i would trade him in a heartbeat for bosh….we would be instant contenders
to Toronto: ellis, c.magg, b.wright
to GSW: bosh, banks
crawford opts out
lineup:
PG: Banks/Belli/Holiday
SG: Jackson/Morrow
SF: Buki/Randolph
PF: Bosh/Randolph
C: Andris/Turiaf
and in a few years:
PG: Holiday/Belli
SG: Morrow/Buki
SF: Randolph/Buki
PF: Bosh/Randolph/Buki
C: Andris/Turiaf
and a new coach that can play big ball! now thats a lineup with TONS of potential!!
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
Hmmm
Guess that report about Rowell saying we’re moving forward with the youth movement was false?
I’d trade Ellis, just because our team will never be good if Chris Bosh is our center. PF yes, but we need a solid center, and Biedrins is perfect. I love Ellis, and I’d hate to watch it become another Gilbert Arenas situation, but Bosh would be worth it, and solid guards are easier to sign/draft
bosh is 24
not like we’re aquiring jason kidd and pulling cwebb out of retirement
Glad to hear the Warriors still plan on beating this drum… they should.
To me, the question of Monta vs. Biedrins is close enough so that it can’t quite be answered without knowing more context, but my gut is that I’d rather have Biedrins and Bosh than Monta and Bosh. The former plan requires a plan at point guard, and part of me would worry that Nellie would use Bosh a lot at center and sit Biedrins too much. Still and all, I think that’d probably be the way to go. I can’t imagine any package the Raptors would accept (if indeed they’d accept any) that wouldn’t include either Wright or Randolph, and I wouldn’t want to move two bigs for one. And while I’m higher on Monta’s chances of hanging at the point than most — we’ve been doing okay so far… he’s never going to take us anywhere with the level of defensive apathy he’s shown lately. Maybe that’ll change, but I worry that it might not change here.
I do think the Raps would probably prefer Biedrins to Monta. Frankly, I’m not quite convinced a deal would work.
Im not sure they can get a better deal than
Biedrins, Maggette, Wright, and Belinelli and swapping picks for Bosh and Banks
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Both teams need to improve
Desperation begets trades :)
I don't want to get rid any of those two
That’s a really hard scenario right there. As much as having Bosh (IF) possibly becoming the best thing that has ever happened to the Warriors, I still cannot get myself to pick as to who we should let go between Biedrins and Ellis.
Ellis is the kind of player you focus your team around on. He definitely has the ability to be explosive and take over any game.
Biedrins has a very powerful presence inside. His shot blocking abilities and the youthful energy he brings in to every game is very much exciting to any GSW fan. And the fact that he always seem be positive and never complains is a plus for me.
So I really don’t know.
I just wanna keep both.
Kelenna is mine...;>
Ellis is the kind of player you focus your team around on.
If Monta Ellis is the best player on your team, you wont win more than 30 games.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 29, 2009 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions
As good as Ellis is
He brings negative equity on defense. So what if he can average 15-20 points a game if he gives up 20-25
Not sure if its an even 1 for 1,
he is as incredebly efficient scoring for a guard, its ridiculuos.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 29, 2009 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I want Terrance Williams,
to be drafted. This guy is extremely athletic. I mean, he does those cradle dunks effortlessly and a perfect fit for run n gun team. Too bad we have not enough losses to get a good draft pick.
I would keep Biedrins because defense is more important than scoring.
So goodbye Monta, nice knowing ya.
Can you choke without coughing?
We’ll have enough losses to grab Terrence Williams. He’ll probably be projected to end up going around 17th or so when the final mocks are out. With that said, I wouldn’t want him since he’s a wing player and we don’t need any more of those players.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 29, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
hes pass first and rebounds....
much more useful to our rotation…. w/ all our score first no concept of pass wings a la buike/mags etc etc
He’s a great college player and he’s fun to watch, but is he going to get playing time over Jackson, Maggette, and Azubuike? I don’t think so.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 29, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
RRStar
I get what you’re saying about wing players, and it’s true—we do have too many wing players and have a void at the PG and PF positions. But if there’s a wing player that is an upgrade over our own wing players, I don’t think it would be a bad move to draft a wing. Jackson is good, but he’s too turnover prone and shoots a low percentage to ever be a first or second option on offense. Kelenna is just a role player, and Marco still isn’t consistent. If say, a guy like James Harden falls to us, i believe he could be an upgrade to our wing positions. it’s sort of like the logic that led the Raiders to draft Darren McFadden last year when they already had a strong enough running back group. That’s all i’m saying, if Rubio and Griffin don’t fall into our lap.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I agree,
we take the best possible player we can get in the draft. We are rebuilding and dont need to force fit the pieces to the puzzle. If Harden is available we should grab him.
Another thing that bothers me is that we are ‘deep’ at the wings but really they are not very good. Jackson is good, Maggette, Azibuike, and Morrow are role players. Belinelli is a question mark. At power forward we have Randolph and Wright, I like both of them. Unless we can luck into Griffin, I want us to grab a wing and let us try a full season of the Monta at point expirement.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 29, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
just so we're clear
From what you wrote, it appears you think we are more solid at PF with Randolph and Wright than we are at the wings with Jackson, Maggette, Azibuike, and Morrow?
I don’t think that’s what he meant. Just by looking at what would/could be available in the draft, the BPA would be Harden. Even if Monroe and Hill are available, I think Harden still should be the way to go. We can’t bust out again on another draft pick.
Unless we’re drafting Griffin, I don’t think any PF in the draft should be taken with what we have in Brandolph. I’m lazy. Our wings are solid, but not great. Just slightly average-above average. If Harden can increase the output at the SG position, it’s a pick worth making.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I agree kenntoe, BPA is the way to go regardless whether or not it’s Harden or Blair or anyone else … warriorsscore110 can speak for himself on what he meant – as for you, do you think “Brandolph” is enough at PF to get us to the second round of the playoffs much less the WCF? The point I’m trying to drill down to is unless you (the general you, not the personal you) think that Brandolph is the answer at PF to get us to the WCF, we need to make a move, maybe a very very bold move, so we can hope to match up with the LAL/SAS/NO etc. of the conference. Thirty odd years of waiting is getting old, and NBA Champions have a pair of strong inside players – yes, except Jordan’s Bulls, name another – that’s the level we need to at least shoot for imo.
I agree.
I think we don’t have many options. We have to do the best with what we have and hope the progression of “Brandolph” exceeds our expectations. Early returns have yielded promise, but nothing is guaranteed. Getting Bosh without crippling the rest of our squad is a step in the right direction, but even then we wouldn’t know if it’s enough for a Playoff squad, yet alone a WCF team.
I’ve always felt that if we had a true playmaker, our team would be 10x better. The fact that we have Jackson as our #1 ball handler is a doomed plan to begin with. I wonder if GSW management ever placed a call to Detroit for Chauncey Billiups. I thought he’d be the perfect guy for this team. With our frontcourt, I think we could get by okay. Our #1 need is a facilitator at the PG spot. If we had a true pg, it would make the rest of our team better, make chemistry better and get the ball out of Jackson’s hands more often. All pluses in my book.
I guess that’s why I have my hopes for Rubio.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
Looking at the draft,
Other than Griffin I dont think there is a playe that will become better at the 4 than Randolph or Wright. Harden looks like he might be a improvement than anybody on roster at the 2.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 31, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions
100% agreed, which is why I’d proposed a (controversial) trade thread because our FO had left us few other options now …
Speaking of trade threads...
I’m looking at Philly. What are they doing? Looks like their holes are at the 2 and 5, and the 1 if Miller doesn’t re-sign. Anybody know what Andre Miller is looking at/for? Any possibility we could get him for JC’s money after Nellie forces JC to opt out?
Any chance of getting Iggy for Maggette, Brandan & our #1? Monta/Jax/Iggy/Randolph/Biedrins would be an extremely sexy line up.
Who are Philly’s bad contracts? I know they’ll be looking to get rid of Dalambert’s contract, but are they looking to clear out Reggie Evans too? Could we throw in a Turiaf for Evans swap to sweeten the pot? Would we have to replace Wright with Randolph?
What about Maggs, Jax, and Turiaf for Iggy & Dalambert. They’d look like Miller/Jax/Young/Brand/Speights with Maggs, Turiaf, and Sweet Lou off the bench. That actually looks like a pretty good lineup. They’d probably go for it in a heart beat if Jax was expiring next year… grr… We’d look like Monta/Kelenna/Iggy/Randolph/Biedrins with Wright, Dalambert, Morrow, CJ, Belinelli, and our #1 off the bench. Is that an improvement?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 1, 2009 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Any chance of getting Iggy for Maggette, Brandan & our #1? Monta/Jax/Iggy/Randolph/Biedrins would be an extremely sexy line up.
Absolutely love it. Its probably not a top 4 seed in the west, but I would love watching that team so much it wouldn’t even matter. Add JKidd to the bench with Morrow, Buike, Turiaf and another cheap free agent big and youve got yourself a team. Unfortunately I dont think Iggy is goin anywhere.
Thing A
What do you think of the Iggy/Dalambert trade?
Maybe I just don’t know Willie Green, but Jax is a big time upgrade from Green. In talent, we’re definitely giving up more, but they’re taking a little bit more long term contracts and older players. We’d have to throw in some extra incentive. Drat, if only Jax was an expiring instead of a long term contract.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 1, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t like it as much for us, but I’d still probably do it and its probably more realistic from Philly’s perspective
Thing A
its probably more realistic from Philly’s perspective
Which is why I went there. See, unless we’re going to fleece somebody, there won’t be any great trades. There are only a few ways to really fleece somebody, and once there’s blood in the water other sharks will close in.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 2, 2009 6:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I’ve only seen a few of Harden’s games and only the one where he lit up Cal really impressed me. Help me out here WS110 or hadcore, I’m curious what others see in him, I feel like I’m missing something. To me it seems like he doesn’t do anything amazingly well and he tends disappear too often for too long of stretches to be the Brandon Roy type who is a great player without having any one amazing ability.
Thing A
roy stayed 4 years....
i dont remember roy after his sophomore year, where harden currently is. He is only 19. Will be 20 when season starts…..
thats true, but I wasnt trying to compare his game to Roy in particular, I’m just saying I don’t get all the buzz about him. Also Roy wasn’t nearly as hyped after his Soph. year as Harden is now.
Thing A
my only point is
he wont have a BRoy type impact because he’s less developed as of now. Doesnt mean he cant be down the road. BRoy/Joe Johnson would be IDEAL next to monta. Or moving jack and finding a 3 with similar skillset. Like we’ve said many times. a “natural” PG isnt needed in nba, you need a team with good ball movement, and guards who can penetrate (sometime monta does WELL)
when you have four 20+ PPG guards (who can’t pass effectively) on the floor, it’s kind of difficult to have good ball movement
I can only imagine what was going through their minds in the offseason.. “If we can add ANOTHER 20+ ppg scorer, that’s a guaranteed 100 points every night!”
"We Deserve"
I can only imagine what was going through their minds in the offseason.. "If we can add ANOTHER 20+ ppg scorer, that’s a guaranteed 100 points every night!"
That was the formula the Knicks, right to the cellar. Isiah forgot that a) there’s only one ball and b) his 20ppg scorers weren’t particularly efficient nor did they seem to do anything else well. Since 20ppg scorers tend to cost much money, regardless of whether or not they get their 20 efficiently or do anything else on the court, it’s also a quick way to salary cap despair.
If the Warriors get another 20ppg scorer, he better find a way to do it on 12 shots, and he better be able to defend and rebound his position or we’ll see high scoring loss after loss.
by jae on Apr 1, 2009 2:21 AM PDT up reply actions
+1
I think what we need more than anything is a defensive culture. More than a coach who preaches defense, more than a defensive PG out of the draft, and certainly more than another 20 ppg scorer. I don’t know if Bosh is just a scorer or more but I think we need an Artest type, who will teach the youngsters to be scrappy and fierce on defense.
btw for a statistical compairson
BRoy (soph season)- 12.9 ppg, 48fg, 22 3pt, 5.3 rpg, 3.3 apg, 2.7 TOpg, 1.7 stls
Harden- 20.1 ppg, 48.9 fg, 35.6 3pt, 5.6 rpg, 4.2 apg, 3.4 TOpg, 1.2 stls
and for comparison…. broy senior year….
20.2 ppg, 50.8 fg, 40.2 3pt, 5.6 rpg, 4.1 apg, 2.3 TOpg, 1.4 stls
oops sorry...
harden 35.8 mpg
sophmore BRoy- 30.3 mpg
senior BRoy- 31.7 mpg
interesting
if u look at there adjusted 40 minute stats…. sophmore broy and sophmore harden r comparable with harden having a edge in scoring and assists, and broy slightly less to’s and more rebounds
Since rebounds seem to be a better indicator of future pro success than scoring average, I’d give the edge to Roy. Turnovers similarly seem to be a better indicator than assists. Assists numbers in the college game are far more strongly influenced by a team’s offensive sets and the will of official scorers (who are not at all consistent in awarding them), again an edge goes to Roy. I don’t know how Harden will do as a pro, and those measures are not at all certainties, but if the comparison is simply to Roy, Harden does not seem to be as likely to be as good as Roy has become as Roy should have been seen to be at the same point in their careers.
for harden will be more difficult he is smaller
but something to consider ASU runs a SLOW halfcourt set. Washington (under lorenzo romar) preferes to press and run. 1 thing scouts consistantly say about harden is he will be a better pro than college player.
I tend to agree with you, I dont think he’ll be as good as Broy… But that doesnt mean he’ll be a bust either. I’m a BIG fan of brandon roy. Harden has a similar skillset, but he’s trapped in a dwane wade size body. ultimately though, he could become a perfect compliment to monta.
In this draft I think he is 1 of the best players.
what do people think of earl clark?
he’s such an enigma at times. But in terms of skill set, he has every tool to be an all star small foward.
good post
I have been a huge fan of getting Bosh all season long. Howeer, Bosh is a guy who will be looking to get on an experienced team with skillful players like himself and steal a championship. Like the Laker or Celtics. Bosh and KG together, or Gasol and KG together. Say what you want, but thats more realistic than him pairing up with ANdris, i bet he dosnt even know who andris is.
A bay area lova
Take em both!
They can have both Ellis and Beans (though i’d rather have ellis if we can maintain him)! As long as AR is not included, that’s all cool with me!
Ellis to the RIM!
Monta for the win?! YES!
BW
By the way, we should use BW as a trading chip. BW and AR have similar qualities except that AR is better!
Ellis to the RIM!
Monta for the win?! YES!
BW would become superflous if we got bosh
we project AR as a future 3 (whether that happens or not is anyone’s guess) but for the time being he can play backup 4 and 5 cause of his rebounding and shot blocking. BWright is a power forward though. If Bosh comes in he’s the odd man out, unless nellie plans to use bosh at 5, BW at 4 and have an ultra skilled but unable to rebound lineup. Personally I wouldnt mind Bosh at 5, if he had a 4 like millsap or bass (god i’m sounding like fitzgerald here) who can rebound and be physical. Bosh is a good rebounder but not great, and if we lose biedrins in trade we’ll need to bring in another 4 or 5 who can help on the glass
BW/AR/Bosh/Ellis/Biedrins
BW is going to be a decent career backup. He’ll be efficient scoring, play some solid D, be average on the boards, but he’s also a guy who can’t create his shot so he’s very reliant on teammates and system. In other words, he’d be a nice inexpensive backup to Bosh. So, if we need to trade AR to land Bosh, I for one would do it in a heartbeat and be fine with a young BW as the backup 4.
In terms of Beans vs. Ellis, I actually lean towards trading Andris. It’s a little weird, because I like Andris better and he’s at a more desirable position. Additionally I agree that he’s beneficial in keeping Bosh from being forced to play the 5. And as a mobile center with good rebounding, good hands, and no need to clog up the middle offensively, he appears to be a good fit alongside Bosh. While Ellis is becoming a primadona, has not proven to be a point guard, is a very small 2 with defensive liabilities, and is at a position we are stacked in.
So why keep Ellis vs. Beans? Well, I think Ellis is in elite company in one respect- he’s a dynamic, momentum changing player who when he’s on, which is pretty often, can electrify the crowd and his teammates and dominate the game in stretches. What’s unique about him is that despite his major shortcomings, he’s so electic at what he does that he can overcome those issues and still have a major positive impact on the game.
But the biggest reason I choose Ellis is because I think he’s a perfect #2 star on a team. He’s got a whole lot less value, IMO, as the #1 guy on your team. Yet as a #2 he can take over games and allow the #1 space from the other team to excel. So while he’s not a playmaker he actually makes that particular teammate better. And I think it’s healthier for him to clearly be the #2 guy on the team, rather than the “leader”, where his personality doesn’t seem to be an ideal fit.
So while we may seem better on paper with Biedrins, I think we’d actually be more dynamic and win more games with Ellis paired with Bosh.
I think if you have a Bosh/Ellis tandem, Ellis would have to be the #1 option. Bosh is an ideal #2 option with a legitimate scorer like Ellis. Something that Toronto has never had with Bosh there. Well maybe VC for however long he was there.
Given more of a chance, I’ll give BW more of a chance than deciding he’s a career backup. And if he is, he’d be one hell of a backup. If he just realizes that he’s better than most of the 4’s and 5’s he’ll face, I think he’ll succeed. He needs that confidence. You ever notice that if he can get a couple of early, easy baskets he’s a force out there? That all comes with time, but he also needs to make it to the floor first and become more durable.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
you make a good argument
on paper, I’d prefer to keep Andris – but you make a good argument for why Bosh-Ellis would be more dynamic on the floor
ummmm...what?
i find it strange that no one seems to be acknowledging what. to me, is the krux of the motivation behind such a trade: publicity.
it just seems absurd to me that even the dumbest of the warriors brass would think that acquiring bosh for the kind of package we’re talking about would make us playoff contenders, or even significantly better. i think even if you severely underestimate ellis or beans, losing one of them plus wright or randolph is tantamount to an admission of utter hopelessness with regard to building a successful team in the future.
introducing the teensey-tiniest, itty-bitty backcourt in nba history: monta ellis and brandon jennings! 80-win season here we come!
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Apr 1, 2009 6:31 PM PDT reply actions
i see biedrins, wright
etc as role players. Not bad ones, peticularly AB. But those arent the players who put you in the playoffs. You need your ‘franchise’ players first. Look at the lakers. They have kobe/gasol/odom and can more or less put anyone else around them on the floor (josh powell/luke walton anyone?) and make it work. Spurs have there big 3 and then a rotation of players who know there role. I dont know how good monta/bosh will be but they are both allstar caliber players. Have jack at 3rd option then wow, now you do have a playoff caliber team. The peices around them are what will determine how far they will go (whether its fighting for an 8 seed or pushing to top 5. ) But dont tell me AB is irreplaceable.
Look at houston, they found players like scola and landry for yao who can do what biedrins does next to a allstar PF like bosh. The spurs parade kurt thomas, oberto, bonner next to duncan. None of these players are as good as biedrins but they know there role and work fine nex to there star big man, more so you have to give up some to get some back… and ultimately a player like bosh should make us better in the long run. The fact he has 1 year left and wants out of toranto probably brings his value down to the fact we can deal AB, mags and bellinelli and possibly get him?
We have turiaf. He is good, more of a backup but still a quality bigman. We’d need to find 1 more 4/5 who can rebound and defend and we’d be ok. It just takes some clever scouting.
FRONT OFFICE!!
i still think a major factor in the biedrins vs. ellis trade debate is each players’ standing with the front office. the topic of how f%cked up the front office remains a different (longer) story. but within the front office divide, ellis is seemingly in bad standing with rowell, who 1) was pissed ellis lied about the moped (seemingly), 2) slapped him with a suspension this season and 3) was/is rumored to attempt to void ellis’ extension (not sure on this but it has been reported in places).
you can debate the basketball skills of each player all you want, but the non-basketball factors play a part here too. it’s all about who’s in power (rowell, nelson) and who are their “guys” aka who they like. my understanding is ellis is mullin’s “guy”. and mullin is gone this summer.
so if i was betting money on a trade happening this summer, i’d say it would involve ellis because of the moped cover up, suspension, voiding stuff. and biedrins is the guy who will stay. plus a front line of biedrins, bosh, randolph and turiaf would be unstoppable at BOTH ends of the floor in 2-3 years…..IMO.
by Brickowski BOOM on Apr 2, 2009 5:24 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
+1 and a rec, very good point
but if talks are in the works it will also depend on who the Raptors are pushing to get.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Apr 3, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions
AR is going be better than Lamar Odom, but
he isn’t going to be good like Pippen . At most he could be a poorman Pippen, but it all good. I take 20, 10, 5 assists and 2 stl and blks per a game in the near future.
I noticed you left out some stats...
What about 20pt 10reb 5ast 2stl 2blk 40%fg 6tov 5pfl 40min? Would you still take that?
Thing 2
Well
I think he probably develop a decent jump shots by than, and his ball-handing and passing would improves too. And let me guess, your a Brandan Wright fan huh?
by warriorfan4life on Apr 3, 2009 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions
You missed the point...
I wasn’t making a prediction, you were. I was just saying that your prediction left a lot of room for interpretation as to how good he’d actually be.
As for what I think, I think if he gets starters minutes next season (that’s still a big if) he could average around 16pts 12reb 2ast 3tov 1.5stl 2.5blk and 48%fg. But then again that’s not a prediction so much as a projection ; ). I think he’ll be a nice player.
Wright is clearly more polished offensively but Randolph has a good edge in rebounding and just seems to be more active and involved overall. I’m glad we have them both and I can’t wait to see how they mature.
Thing 2
Keep a guard over a big man is the lamest thing ever!!!
Guards come and go and have a shorter shelf life once they loose a step unless they are Dale Ellis and can stripe it they go away. Big men play longer! The whole point in having Bosch is to have him play next to Andris! Not next to the moped ridding problem child to be…. Seriously!
Look at all the guards in the draft……
Look at all the skilled big men almost always a 2-1 if not 3-1 ratio….
by samiam2112 on Apr 4, 2009 12:08 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
umm
So keep ME8 and try to package Beans with Maggette.
Ellis to the RIM!
Monta for the win?! YES!
Forget about Bosh, let’s move Maggette, Jackson or Crawford for some youth and build around Ellis/Randolph/Biedrins
Who exactly is willing to give up youth for Jackson, Maggette or Crawford? Why would some team part with their ‘youth’ for guys who don’t seem to perform up to their contracts and, at least for the first two, are under contract into their mid-30s when they’ll be making more and very, very likely producing less? Fine idea, but finding a taker who is willing to give back something of value is the real trick.
by jae on Apr 8, 2009 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
if only we could take back nothing
then we would have room to sign a big time free agent.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
