Warriors to make move on Bosh, do we keep Ellis or Biedrins?
At 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!
5 recs |
354 comments
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
biedrins...
we can sign anderson varajao and get same production as AB i love the latvian lefty, but clearly monta has more upside
by tafkasam on Mar 28, 2009 9:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 28, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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
by tafkasam on Mar 29, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by tafkasam on Mar 29, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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
by tafkasam on Mar 29, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“MLE centers” tend to have some significant flaws in their game, like hands of stone and feet of lead.
by jae on Mar 29, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 29, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its pretty amazing how quickly so many have forgotten our decades long drought at center before we had Biedrins.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 29, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 …
by hardcore on Mar 29, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by warriOs on Mar 30, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 homerandflanders on Mar 28, 2009 10:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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.
by FishStix on Mar 28, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
and Crawford…..I might see if the Raptors would expand the deal to give us a little more depth with us puttin Crawford into the deal
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
yea either swapping picks, or removing one of AR or BWright and its a tremendous deal for us
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
would you give up Ellis and Biedrins?
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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…..
by tafkasam on Mar 29, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by Dub4lif3 on Mar 28, 2009 10:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by FishStix on Mar 28, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
AR is not going anywhere period!
by dungeness crabdribble on Mar 28, 2009 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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?
by AlbinoWhale on Mar 28, 2009 11:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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.
by belilaugh on Mar 28, 2009 11:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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?
by belilaugh on Mar 28, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we would be able to offer more money than anyone else.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by belilaugh on Mar 28, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We don’t KNOW, but it does give us a good advantage.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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?
by hardcore on Mar 28, 2009 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 28, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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
by olympicmike on Mar 28, 2009 11:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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)
by dprodigy19 on Mar 28, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
please, let's not revisit GSW history with the vaunted TPE
by hardcore on Mar 29, 2009 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 29, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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?
by jae on Mar 29, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sign and trade Bosh after next season to a team with the room under the cap
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 31, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah right. My three least favorite words.
by jae on Mar 31, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 28, 2009 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by ejdacanay on Mar 28, 2009 11:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Haha
that looks familiar.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 28, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by ejdacanay on Mar 28, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
-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
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by ejdacanay on Mar 28, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by ejdacanay on Mar 28, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by antihero on Mar 28, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh and obviously I’m no expert on Josh Smith’s game either…..unless using League Pass as one of your primary procrastination tools makes you an expert
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by dprodigy19 on Mar 28, 2009 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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
by sam23 on Mar 29, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by ejdacanay on Mar 28, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by kenntoe on Mar 28, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by ejdacanay on Mar 28, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by kenntoe on Mar 28, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by tafkasam on Apr 2, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by kenntoe on Apr 2, 2009 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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…
by tafkasam on Apr 2, 2009 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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"
by YaHeard on Mar 28, 2009 12:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You....
are dumb. Give me Ellis over Turiaf and Morrow everyday.
by ZaMzAm FiRe on Mar 28, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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"
by YaHeard on Mar 28, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by hardcore on Mar 28, 2009 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Powell has been very nearly as effective filling in as the 3rd big this year as Turiaf was last year.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
and thats y there better
there 1 thru 3 is better than almost every player on our roster
by tafkasam on Mar 31, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
He’s a solid value, but I don’t know if he’s an incredible bargain. I think Turiaf is about the same.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by tafkasam on Mar 31, 2009 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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!
by tafkasam on Mar 31, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by olympicmike on Mar 31, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 31, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by fotd on Apr 1, 2009 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by ZaMzAm FiRe on Mar 29, 2009 2:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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
by tafkasam on Mar 31, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by ZaMzAm FiRe on Mar 28, 2009 12:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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.
by amhd388 on Mar 28, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 1:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
correction
there are NOT a whole lot of free agent options
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by tafkasam on Mar 31, 2009 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by HoLdEmUP on Mar 28, 2009 2:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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.
by dprodigy19 on Mar 28, 2009 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
interesting…..none worse come to mind. They have Anthony Parker who would be a 2nd or 3rd best wing on most teams and then nothing else.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 29, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OMG
If the Warriors somehow land Bosh in Golden State, I will for sure renew season tickets
The Time Is Now! Win Warriors Win!
by ballin on Mar 28, 2009 2:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If the Warriors somehow land Bosh in Golden State
Where else would they land him?
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oakland?
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 28, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oo ur soo cool
The Time Is Now! Win Warriors Win!
by ballin on Mar 29, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by ejdacanay on Mar 28, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by hardcore on Mar 28, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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?
by hardcore on Mar 28, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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
by hardcore on Mar 29, 2009 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well we’d also have about 15 million in cap space which is about as valuable of a trade chip as anything currently on our roster. If Bosh leaves its a step back, but its not as big of a step back as acquiring him is forward.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 29, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 29, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
some really stupid buying decisions
almost makes us glad we won’t be players – almost
by hardcore on Mar 29, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
except
the reason we won’t be players is that we already made our really stupid buying decisions.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 29, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+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 0 recs
I suspect you mean you would rather overpay the borderline all star THAN overpay a Maggette type. The way you wrote it, it says you’d want to overpay someone like Lewis and afterwards, also overpay for an ‘average starter’.
by jae on Mar 29, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by hardcore on Mar 28, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes. We’d have a major void at the 1-2 positions. Jack cannot be the #1 perimeter option, which likely would happen if Monta is traded. We might have the same problems Toronto has if we trade Monta for Bosh.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Mar 28, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by dprodigy19 on Mar 28, 2009 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by sam23 on Mar 29, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by dprodigy19 on Mar 29, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by kenntoe on Mar 29, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s also got a lot less experience than any of those guys
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 29, 2009 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by sam23 on Mar 29, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by ejdacanay on Mar 29, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by kenntoe on Mar 29, 2009 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by kenntoe on Mar 29, 2009 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by ejdacanay on Mar 29, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
umm….considering they arent shooting from NBA range the only one of those 3 pt %s that is really GOOD is Lawson’s.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 29, 2009 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember on more than one occassion I saw Foyle somehow have the ball fall out of his hands, onto his foot and roll out of bounds when he was trying to go up for a shot. Some guys can’t even be relied on to get off the shot.
by jae on Mar 29, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by antihero on Mar 28, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"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.
by hardcore on Mar 28, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"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
by marzorg on Mar 29, 2009 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 …
by hardcore on Mar 29, 2009 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by tafkasam on Mar 30, 2009 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by warriOs on Mar 30, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by warriOs on Mar 30, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 3:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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.
by ejdacanay on Mar 28, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by nateoak10 on Mar 28, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by hardcore on Mar 28, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure I could ask for a better problem
Than having too many bigs on an NBA team.
by dprodigy19 on Mar 28, 2009 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by houseofprime on Mar 28, 2009 4:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 28, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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"
by YaHeard on Mar 28, 2009 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
Yea, add a little blogging and some crazy antics and he’d at least be getting Arenas-levels of attention.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 29, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 28, 2009 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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"
by YaHeard on Mar 28, 2009 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
bargnani could work next to...
marion and AB though…. reboundingwise
by tafkasam on Mar 29, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats probably the best possible fit for him……unless he ever ends up playing next to Dwight Howard.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 29, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 29, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You tell him to get out of the way.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Mar 29, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by tafkasam on Mar 29, 2009 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 29, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by tafkasam on Mar 29, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
bosh is an all star
we know hes not lebron, but where he’ll peak as an all around player, its hard to tell
by tafkasam on Mar 29, 2009 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bosh has been putting up nearly identical stats every year since 2005.
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on Mar 29, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
theres more to basketball than stats...
maggette averaged more ppg than ginobili? who is better..
by tafkasam on Mar 29, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by tafkasam on Mar 29, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by sam23 on Mar 30, 2009 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by tafkasam on Mar 30, 2009 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by tafkasam on Mar 30, 2009 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 30, 2009 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lebron’s stats are not “near identical” unless the level of your analysis is to look at a scattered few (usually ppg, sometimes rebounds and assists) and decide subjectively if they’re the same or not. Lebron has improved over the last couple of years. His ‘stats’ indicate as much.
by jae on Mar 30, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 30, 2009 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by tafkasam on Mar 30, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
worse than Kwame? I’m not saying he’s not, just that its pretty close.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 29, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 29, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by marzorg on Mar 29, 2009 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 29, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by marzorg on Mar 29, 2009 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 29, 2009 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by marzorg on Mar 30, 2009 7:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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?)
by jae on Mar 30, 2009 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by marzorg on Mar 30, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 30, 2009 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by marzorg on Mar 31, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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
by marzorg on Mar 31, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 31, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 31, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by marzorg on Mar 31, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 31, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by marzorg on Mar 31, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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
by marzorg on Mar 31, 2009 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not clear WHAT you are talking about, marzorg.
Willing to admit that you haven’t the slightest clue what a win-share means at this point, that you were just fishing for numbers to support a point without the slightest clue what they meant?
by jae on Mar 31, 2009 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by jae on Mar 31, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"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
by marzorg on Apr 1, 2009 6:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As for your personal insults....

Monta Ellis is now unaVOIDable
by marzorg on Apr 1, 2009 6:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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
by marzorg on Apr 1, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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
by tafkasam on Apr 1, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by tafkasam on Apr 1, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
u cant teach him to shoot.
umm….really? Seems to me that shooting is actually a much more learnable skill than rebounding.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 1, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by olympicmike on Apr 1, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 