Perfect year to trade our first round pick..........
by Carmelballin on Mar 28, 2009 6:10 PM PDT
71 comments
Okay, this is stemming off of the last post and some people suggested maybe trading the first round pick. I think there is no better time than now to do so. Any other year, I wouldn't want to give up a 7th pick, however, consider these circumstances:
1. This years draft class isn't as good as the past few years. There is no one out there that I really think will impact us, and if he does it wont be immediate.
2. After Blake Griffith, there are mediocre big men and the better players are guards. The last thing we need is another guard (especially if we really are having Monta play point for us, which I still am skeptical about).
3. The number 7 pick will be attractive to many teams around the league. Even if we have to package one of our young guards (Randolph, Morrow, and Ellis being untouchable), it may still be worth it and we may be able to land a star or impact player.
4. Even if we do trade our first round pick and maybe another player to go along with it, we'll still be deep.
5. Also, it seems as though in the past, our second round picks have been more rewarding than our first round picks anyways haha.
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
0 recs |
71 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I sort of agree
however, this draft class is deep for PGs, which we’ll need since I don’t think cj’s coming back. I say we could trade down
by Lincoln Logs on Mar 28, 2009 6:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
uhh
we could pick up
HASHEEM THABEET. 7’3 263lb. center out of Conn.
"I got game like Stuart Scott...
Fresh out the ESPN shop..."
by siniGANGSTER.GSW on Mar 28, 2009 6:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
why?
I was all aboard the Thabeet bandwagon at first but now see him as a project that never gets where it is supposed to go.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why
wouldn’t we pick him up. He’s a big body that bang down low. Isn’t that what we are lacking? Defense and boards. What ever happened to Hendrix? We should have never sent him down. Because his body could have been utilized in alot of Nellies numerous lineups. Besides, if we want to be a championship team, we need someone that can stop the Pau’s, Supermans, Duncan yoyos and etc.
"I got game like Stuart Scott...
Fresh out the ESPN shop..."
by siniGANGSTER.GSW on Mar 28, 2009 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hendrix isnt in the NBA and wasnt drafted till the second round.
Blame him, not Nellie, for not being in the NBA
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Loosing hendrix was a mistake
we really coulda used his defensive abilities.
by FishStix on Mar 30, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hendrix appears to be mired in the D-league for now. No one else is taking a chance on him either.
I’m not sure what sort of defender he’d have been. He was rather athletic for a big man(in the agility drills and sprints, he was actually quicker than Wright or Randolph — go figure) and has a knack for grabbing rebounds. But he also has a knack for fouling early and often that hasn’t gone away. There’s a place for a bruiser in some situations, but generally, sending people to the line is not a good defensive strategy and he’s inclined to have that happen.
by jae on Mar 30, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How high would you draft DeSagana Diop?
That is exactly what Thabeet is, no better no worse.
A shot blocker and shot changer defensively who is incredibly limited offensively and is an OK but not superior rebounder.
by dprodigy19 on Mar 28, 2009 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At the end of the first round.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Mar 29, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about Thabeet keeps from him becoming Mutombo?
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 29, 2009 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about Thabeet keeps from him becoming Mutombo?
The general probability that few players wind up being as good as Dikembe was?
Dikembe had a very good, productive career. Nothing that Thabeet has done (or hasn’t done) precludes that at this point. Thabeet has shown himself to be a solid rebounder and a great shot blocker and doesn’t try to do more than he can on offense. What’s most impressive to me is that he stays out of foul trouble more often than not. That’s a major plus. If Thabeet’s improved rebounding (he was substandard for a guy his size last year) is indicative of a new skill or learning curve that will translate to being able to continue to do the same against NBA sized guys, he’s got a shot at being a quality contributor. If it’s just figuring out a way to beat up on 6-8/6-9 centers that he regularly encounters, he’s going to have a short, undistinguished career.
by jae on Mar 30, 2009 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is both spot on and always the case with foreign giants who don't have much playing experience
And I think that’s pretty much what Sam was saying. His comments were in response to the OP who said “Thabeet is going to suck” without providing a shred of evidence for such an opinion. Nobody knows what he’s going to be. Is he going to be a good rebounder & shot blocker? Yes, he’s 7’3". Is he going to be a great rebounder & shot blocker? Remains to be seen. Is he going to be a great offensive force? Highly doubtful. Is he going to be adequate? Maybe, remains to be seen. He’ll certainly be between a Diop and a Mutumbo, but that’s a pretty wide range. At #7, is there going to be a better option? We’ll see. Hopefully that question will come up while Blake Griffen is en route to his first Warriors press conference though.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 30, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully that question will come up while Blake Griffen is en route to his first Warriors press conference though.
Bingo.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Mar 30, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea, thanks
I wasn’t at all saying “Thabeet is lock to be the next Mutombo!” (I think both you and jae understood that I wasn’t) I’m just saying its a little quick to dismiss him as “no better and no worse than Diop.”
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 30, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
JAE & I may have understood
But lesser minds typically require things to be completely 100% spelled out for them.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 31, 2009 5:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thabeet has bust written all over him
Gerald Madkins
by gorillas on Mar 28, 2009 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what we can get, trade, etc.
trading the pick in a weak draft isn’t a bad idea, but every GM knows the value of these picks too
Blair (Pitt) – his stock has to have risen despite Pitt’s guards practically handing Nova a trip to the Final Four
by hardcore on Mar 28, 2009 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its not like “this draft isn’t deep” is our private little secret. The value of the pick corresponds to the kind of player available at 7 so I don’t see why trading our pick this year is any better or any worse than any other year.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 7:33 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Exactly
It’s not like they’re going to pull the wool over another team’s eyes who thinks that this is some superdeep draft.
However, if some team falls in love with a player, the Dubs could be in a position of strength, though I think alot of GM’s will want to trade out of the 4-10 range.
by dprodigy19 on Mar 28, 2009 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its not like "this draft isn’t deep" is our private little secret.
This is true. But at #7, there will be someone who really likes a certain player and will be willing to trade for him. The trick will be evaluating that player for our needs, finding the team who wants him, and working out a suitable trade. And it’ll have to go down on draft day. Not an easy task.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 30, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea, I hadn’t really thought about trading it to some team targeting a specific role player type at 7
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 30, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly?
I’m not going to take your post seriously if you’re talking about “Blake Griffith.”
by markdash on Mar 28, 2009 10:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i say we trade down and pick jrue holiday
Gerald Madkins
by gorillas on Mar 29, 2009 12:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Draft,
Terrance Williams out of Louis Ville.
And do not trade him, trade Monta instead.
Can you choke without coughing?
by AlbinoWhale on Mar 29, 2009 10:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Trade down
And grab Lawson.
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 3:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Trade our first round pick in a package for Chris Bosh. Maggette, Wright, Bellineli, + 1st RD pick = Bosh?
by NICKelodeon on Mar 29, 2009 9:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If Rubio in this draft
I would keep the pick and draft him.
by warriorfan4life on Mar 29, 2009 10:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If Rubio is in this draft
He’ll be gone before #5
by dprodigy19 on Mar 30, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
anthony morrow untouchable?
why? because he has no D and once in a while he against crappy teams he will shoot lights out?
Don’t get me wrong, for an undrafted player, he’s no slouch. But calling him untouchable now is ridiculous. He is not the next Ray Allen.
by misterjennings on Mar 30, 2009 7:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He could be the SG version of Ben Wallace
You never know. But not even LeBron is untouchable… you’d just have to give up a lot to get him. Everybody has a price.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 30, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or how about Michael Redd. Outside of scoring, neither one contributes much. Wallace in his prime affected the game so much more with his defense and rebounding.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Mar 30, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Except we’ll hope that we don’t give Morrow a fat $90M contract before realizing that all he can do is shoot. I’d love to have Redd at $7-8M/year. $15M? Not so much.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 30, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dare you to come up with a package that Cleveland would accept for LeBron.
Seriously. Chris Paul + David West + three first round picks? I guess.
by markdash on Mar 31, 2009 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kobe, Howard, CP3
They’d accept that. Past that it’s negotiation.
Let’s put it another way. If Bill Gates offered you everything he owns in return for… one night of “companionship,” you’d take it, right? Everybody has a price.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 1, 2009 6:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
one night of "companionship,"
What, like holding hands and cuddling?
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 1, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not realistic
Not only do those players play for different teams, but that deal couldn’t work under the current CBA.
by markdash on Apr 1, 2009 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, to an extent...
but to me the bottom line is we need a decent roster shakeup. If trading our first rounder is necessary for us to get the guy(s) we need, than I’m all for it. I’d also be just as down to trade CJ/JC/CM/Beli/ other expendables and keeping our 1st rounder, especially if we get a good PG or backup PG.
by FishStix on Mar 30, 2009 12:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
oh and I agree on the statement that Monta Randolph and Morrow are semi-untouchable.
by FishStix on Mar 30, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do we need a "decent roster shake up?"
All the good teams are good at least in part because they’ve played together for a while. This is true in everything. You play with somebody long enough, you learn what they like to do so you can be in position to help. You keep shaking up the roster, nobody knows their responsibilities, nobody feels like a “team” and they’re more likely to just “go and get theirs”, etc. You need continuity.
Yes, you keep good teams together, but you’ve also got to be kept together to be any good.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 30, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are we good enough?
I know you have a higher opinion of this roster than most of the regulars here. I know you believe that injuries were the biggest reason for this season being a failure. I am wondering though how far you take those beliefs. Do you really think this team is good enough to stand pat? What level of tweaking is necessary, in your opinion, to make us a factor in the west?
I’m sure this team could be much better next year if everyone is reasonably healthy and everyone learns their roles and so on, but the problem is that this team could get much better and still be kinda meh. I’d still watch, and I’m sure I’d enjoy the development of Monta, Randolph, Morrow and Wright but is that really a recipe for success in your opinion?
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 30, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Do you really think this team is good enough to stand pat? What level of tweaking is necessary, in your opinion, to make us a factor in the west?
We would have been good enough to be in that 7-10 range of the playoff push this year if we’re remotely healthy. If any of our younger players (Monta, Biedrins, Kelenna, Randolph, Wright, Morrow, CJ, Belinelli) show any growth, I think we move toward the top of that realm next year. Are we going to challenge for a championship? Not a chance next year, I don’t like to project our past that.
Do we have any idea what our roster is capable of? No. Right now, we’ve got a problem in that we have a whole lot of bad evidence and little good evidence. We never had our whole team together. Maggette looked pretty terrible for the first part of the year, Nellie’s been fighting with Crawford & his agent, the youngsters have shown “longupsidepotential” but nothing concrete, and Monta hasn’t really shown he can handle being a PG. But none of these have occurred in a vacuum, you can’t definitively say “Well, Monta was making some progress but he’s not getting any better.” because there hasn’t been enough time for him to A)Heal, and B) Practice with the team. We don’t really have any great “tradable assets” because nobody had a career year or anything. We had a lot of issues this season and really never put a completely healthy team out on the floor. We don’t know what we have, and our recent performance has been pretty sub-par. So, to me, any evaluation of talent based on recent performance will be a gross undervaluation.
From an outsider’s perspective, everybody on our roster has lowered trade value except the youngsters, who are interesting from a “upsidepotential” perspective, not a “real production” perspective. If we push our assets to the market, we’ll be getting 60 cents on the dollar for some players and 80 cents on the dollar for others. Sure, a good trade that improves talent is always a good thing. But how are we going to convince anybody to give us comparable talent for Maggette? How are we going to get somebody to give us comparable talent for Monta?
If you can show me somebody willing to give up good talent for our assets, great. I’m all for a trade that improves our talent base. But let’s not cycle the roster for the sake of a “decent roster shakeup,” as FishStix put it. Pushing your assets onto the market is not a way to get fair value in return. You make minor tweaks and strike when opportunities present themselves.
Right now, there might be such an opportunity. With stupid GMs holding onto their cash for the 2010 extravaganza, there may be fewer buyers for Bosh if Toronto is looking to sell. Some of the Bosh trade proposals look reasonable, but any trade with Toronto would be taking advantage of their own poor situation with Bosh possibly leaving Toronto with nothing in return. If we could convince Bosh to sign an extension, it would be a very suave move to acquire him because he’s likely to leave Toronto anyways, so giving Toronto anything in return is a bargaining chip.
Again, let’s not make any hasty decisions based on recent performance. We can all agree that this team underperformed this year. Whether you believe they’d be challenging for a playoff spot or not, we wouldn’t have been the 25 win team we are now if we’d had a remotely healthy team and we won’t be a 25 win team next year with any luck with health, any of the expected growth of the youngest team in the league, and a top 7 draft pick. Let’s not cycle the roster for the sake of “making a roster shake up”. Let’s not push our assets out to market, because the value of our assets is low right now.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 31, 2009 6:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the response...
I definitely appreciate your perspective and your optimism.
But let’s not cycle the roster for the sake of a "decent roster shakeup," as FishStix put it. Pushing your assets onto the market is not a way to get fair value in return. You make minor tweaks and strike when opportunities present themselves.
I think that is a very fair statement. I guess the argument would come in as to what is a legitimate opportunity and what is not (Bosh, Amare, etc). As fans we unfortunately have very little real evidence about what is realistic and what is not. I do find it encouraging to hear that management is pursuing the Bosh situation so far as it could become an opportunity depending on how Toronto and Bosh himself feel about their options.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 31, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
100% agreed
You make minor tweaks and strike when opportunities present themselves.
You should never make a trade for the sake of making a trade. But keep this in mind. We are not good. We are bad. We are a very bad basketball team. DFIB, you think that we can compete for the 7th seed if completely healthy next season, I disgree. I sincerly hope our front office realize that this is a bad basketball team and is actively and aggresively trying to find ways to dramatically improve the talent level of this roster in the off season.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 31, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a bad basketball team
We have bad assets and not very many of them. It will be very difficult to convince somebody to give us a good player in return for bad assets. It’s like you’re saying “Man, this sucks, bologna again. Hey, Timmy, would you give me your lunchables for my bologna sandwich? No? Danny, how bout your leftover Zachary’s deep dish pizza? I’ll give you my bologna sandwich and whatever my mom gives me tomorrow.” Sorry dude, nobody wants your bologna sandwich… except for the kid with the ketchup sandwich.
I sincerly hope our front office realize that this is a bad basketball team and is actively and aggresively trying to find ways to dramatically improve the talent level of this roster in the off season.
No shhh sherlock. Trying to find ways to improve their team is, like, their job, and stuff. Do you think Cleveland’s GM isn’t out there trying to see what he can get for Big Z, etc.? You bet yer arse. The fact that our FO is “actively pursuing any and all trade options” doesn’t mean they will find one that actually improves the team and is worth the risk. You can be upset that they put us in the predicament we’re in (I’m not that upset, but clearly we differ on that), but please, please, please don’t be upset if they don’t make any roster changes in the near future. If you’ve got some inside information that LBJ was on the table for Maggette & Crawfart, by all means, cry bloody murder. But, if you don’t have inside information about what’s been on the table, you don’t know what you’re talking about. In that case, whining about how “Our team sucks, we need a trade to improve our talent base” and clamoring for a trade that takes our team from bad to good just sounds like… well, whining.
If it happens, great. But I’m not holding my breath expecting Toronto to gift wrap Bosh for a bag of peanuts in the form of a package built around Corey Maggette, Belinelli, and Wright. If we’re giving up any more, we’re trading a lot of good young pieces for a guy who doesn’t immediately make us a title contender, but make us older and takes away our room for improvement. To me, that’s settling for bottom tier playoffs.
If we trade Maggs, Wright, and Belinelli for Bosh
Monta/Craw/Jax/Bosh/Biedrins with Kelenna/Randolph/Turiaf/“#7 pick in 2009”/CJ off the bench? That’s a playoff team that could become more.
If we trade Biedrins, Randolph, and Belinelli
Monta/Jax/Maggs/Wright/Bosh with Kelenna/Turiaf/“#7 pick in 2009”/CJ off the bench? That’s a marginal playoff team that’s not likely to get much better.
As a GM, you should always be on the look out for trades that improve your team. The reason trades don’t happen very often is that it’s tough to find a trade that improves both teams and it’s tough to find a trade partner that will give up more than they’re willing to get in return. So, go find Chris Wallace and Kevin McHale and see what they’re willing to part with. Offer them your #7 and next year’s pick for OJ Mayo or Kevin Love. See if they bite.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 31, 2009 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All the good teams are good at least in part because they’ve played together for a while.
I don’t necessarily agree with this. Boston stands as the prime counter example, but even Portland got good by upgrading their roster from year to year.
What teams went from bad teams to good teams without acquiring better players but through letting their team gel in place?
Shaking up the roster for the sake of making a move isn’t wise, but the team won’t improve substantially without getting substantially better players. Luckily, in basketball, it doesn’t take many players to make the leap, but I think it’s naive to suspect that we’re just waiting for people to learn their tasks and that will make the team into a winner.
by jae on Mar 30, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Maybe I was a little short in my previous response
Boston took advantage of two special circumstances. Minny was going to lose KG for nothing if they didn’t do something, and do it fast. Seattle was LOOKING to lose Ray Allen. They actively wanted to get rid of everything Seattle fans associated with and get rid of any player who’d stand up for the fans when they started moving the team. I’m not saying that special circumstances don’t come up, and in fact, the Chris Bosh situation may end up being similar. But you’re agreeing with my main point:
Shaking up the roster for the sake of making a move isn’t wise
As for your question,
What teams went from bad teams to good teams without acquiring better players but through letting their team gel in place?
Does Portland count yet? Or are they still too young and too lucky for getting Oden? The’ve definitely gone from bad to OK to good at least so far through not trading their assets in wholesale roster cycling. Would they have been better off if they traded away Roy 2 years ago to get rid of Raef LaFrentz’s contract? I doubt it.
San Antonio stayed great despite the loss of Robinson without making any big trades.
Jordan’s Bulls went from good to great by letting Jordan, Pippen, and Grant play together rather than trading Pippen & Grant for proven veterans.
Do the current Lakers count? Sure, they added Pau Gasol, but they’ve also lost Bynum to serious injury twice in that time. Walton, Odom, Farmar, and Fisher (is it any surprise to anyone that he’s playing better now than he did here or in Utah?) are all integral parts of that team. Heck, even Vujacic is still kicking around.
Looking on the other side of the coin, did Minny ever do anything with KG? They made the conference finals once. They also made lots of trades to try to upgrade their talent. Nothing ever worked.
Just as there are many instances where teams made blockbuster trades to take them over the top, there are just as many teams that made giant trades and failed miserably AND teams who didn’t make giant trades and still succeeded. You, more than anyone, would agree that we need to make moves that improve our talent base, whether that’s drafting, trading, or signing free agents. Right now, very few of our trade assets are going to be properly valued on the open market. That’ll make it tough to improve our talent base. We’ll see.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 31, 2009 6:55 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
i agree w/ dubs fan
We’ve been too injury plagued this year to make a decision. After next year, if monta, biedrins, randolph dont look to be progressing…. bellinelli, buike, bwright still are what they are then you look to start making moves. But the whole trading draft picks, or picking for need as opposed to best player available is why warriors have been one of the worst franchises of last 15 years.
Literally there is no trade we can realistically make that will make us a western conference contender next year. (I mean unless some1 things maggette, bwright + buike for lebron is gonna happen.) We need to stay the course, draft well, make some tweaks and see how it develops. Look at portland, utah and San Antonio. I think they are models. Yes San Antonio got extremely lucky picking duncan, put they grabbed parker and ginobili out of nowhere. Portland we are all familiar with. Broy was looked over his draft year to players like tyrus thomas and shelden williams for more ‘upside’. Utah continually drafted well and develops players well. In 2006 they got ronnie brewer 14 (we took patty O 10th) and millsap in 2nd round. I think we’d look really nice with those 2.
Yes this may be a “weak” year, but it doesnt mean there arent quality players available.
by tafkasam on Mar 31, 2009 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
IMO They best move rowell and cohan can make
is hiring a capable GM with a long term vision.
by tafkasam on Mar 31, 2009 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to extrapolate on the Lakers...
Kobe was pissed and demanding that either he be traded or the Lakers trade for a marquee player for him to play with because they’d been mediocre for two years, getting knocked out of the playoffs in the first round (specifically mentioned here was using Bynum as a trade chip to acquire said marquee player).
What did the Lakers do? Nothing.
They did nothing because they couldn’t get good value for Kobe, they couldn’t identify a good player they could get for a fair price, and they knew Bynum was far more valuable than his market value.
What happened? Bynum was pretty good and they went 25-11 before he went down. Only then did they decide they needed to make a trade, only then did they find the right trade partner, Memphis. Gasol stepped in right where Bynum had left and you know the rest of the story. But the first, most important things they did were:
1. Not trade their star who was unhappy because they couldn’t get fair market value for him
2. Not trade their young talent for some other star because they couldn’t get fair market for their player
Wait for your opportunities.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 31, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How exactly does this apply to the Warriors?
The Warriors have nobody even in the same universe as Kobe, and nobody with as much upside as Andrew Bynum had a couple years ago.
by markdash on Mar 31, 2009 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Lakers had playes asking for trades
And players asking for other players to be traded. They were a middling team. They improved by not taking drastic measures… which is what I’m advocating for this Warriors team. It’s not really that complicated.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 1, 2009 6:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Portland hasn’t just kept the team together and started winning. They dumped dead weight in Z.Randolph, acquired a better point guard, and added a good young center (they’d be better if he could stay healthy and play full time, but his contribution has been real even if not flashy). While they haven’t had a major roster shakeup, their year-by-year improvement over the last 3 seasons has been with the addition of a key player or two on their roster each season. The bulk of their increased production has come not from players improving but from the new players.
The Lakers might count in that they got better by letting Bynum improve, except they weren’t really bad to begin with. Their improvement at the beginning of last year can be attributed entirely to Bynum’s development, but the team didn’t ‘gel’, nor do they meet the qualification of going from bad to good. They were a borderline playoff team at about .500 for a few seasons. That is not bad. Gasol has been a big, big part of the ‘development’ since his arrival brought them back to winning. The ‘gelling’ that took place disappeared immediately when Bynum went down before Gasol was acquired. They went back to playing .500 ball immediately. Similarly, the Bulls did not go from bad to good, as they were a winning team, not a contender but not a losing team) before Pippen and Grant started playing regularly and well.
My question was what team has gone from bad to good without acquiring better players. The ‘bad’ part is key because right now, we’re not a mediocre team looking to get good. We’re a bad team. This doesn’t mean making a blockbuster, and certainly simply moving players for sake of shaking things up every year isn’t good, but to make a big leap forward, we need either a young guy to step up beyond what should be expected or to acquire a new player who plays substantially and contributes substantially. Expecting much improvement from waiting for players to gel together rarely happens.
Looking on the other side of the coin, did Minny ever do anything with KG? They made the conference finals once. They also made lots of trades to try to upgrade their talent. Nothing ever worked.
Minnesota made some stupid moves. They never actually upgraded their talent and in some cases, predictably downgraded it. McHale looked like a genius getting Garnett. I suspect he got lucky, because virtually every other move he made was terrible.
I do agree that our trading chips are limited and I suspect that the value of many of our players is greater to us than to other teams. I don’t think we can expect major improvement via trade OR by letting things just develop unless Monta is a better point guard (and healthy) than he’s ever shown himself on path to be, Brandolph develops into a full time stud at PF, or we hit a homer in the draft. The first two are the closest I can see to ‘gelling’, but I don’t see them as probable avenues to get up to much better than mediocre. It will take big, big leaps by our players to go beyond that. Our personnel for trades right now scream ‘lateral move’ or ‘downgrade to dump dead weight’, which will either result in similar less than stellar results or a substantial step back.
If the Bosh (or Stoudemire) situations deteriorate such that their teams are looking to dump to get something back then it’s a potential situation to look at, though Bosh won’t get you near the improvement that Garnett could have, and if the price is too steep for us, it could be a lateral move. We could easily give up enough talent to be just like Toronto is now. I suspect that might be the case too, as since we have no expiring contracts to trade with, a trading partner is going to want talent in lieu of potential cap space.
by jae on Mar 31, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Humm… Portland made a bunch of roster changes, then wound up with a crappy record and didn’t blow everything up? They had Raef LaFrentz’s contract that they easily could have traded with Brandan Roy to get something in return. Why didn’t they? Maybe lucking into Oden had something to do with it, but we’ll never know. The bottom line is they stayed pat. What did Portland do this offseason? Nothing (OK, they traded Jarrett Jack for Jerryd Bayless, who hasn’t done much). What happened to their team. What happened to their performance? They went from a 0.500 team to a 0.630 team. I’m sure you’re going to discount that by saying something like “Yeah, but Oden was injured last year”, to which I’m going to say “Yeah, but the entire Warriors roster was injured this year”.
They [the Lakers] were a borderline playoff team at about .500 for a few seasons. That is not bad.
Tell that to Lakers fans.
Similarly, the Bulls did not go from bad to good, as they were a winning team, not a contender but not a losing team)
Both the Lakers and Bulls teams saw marked improvement without making major trades. So what that they weren’t “bad” by your standards. They leaped from borderline playoff teams to a championship team and a championship contender (that “contender” label may be dropped in a few months). That’s serious improvement. I’m sorry it doesn’t fit into your “bad to good” zone, but I’m not looking for a team to go from “bad to good”. I’d like this team to become great. With a healthy Monta all season, we’d have been a 35 win club this year. With a #8 or better draft pick, Randolph, Wright, Biedrins, Morrow, Kelenna, Belinelli, CJ, and Monta going forward, we’ve got plenty of youngsters who’ll keep improving and getting better. Will they necessarily get there? No. But giving up 2 or 3 of thosee youngsters for a proven player knowing that said player isn’t going to make us a championship contender and that we may even already have the skills they provide is the definition of spinning the wheels and being happy with mediocrity.
I’d be much happier rooting for the roster as is to make it to the playoffs than rooting for Craw/Jax/Maggs/Bosh/Biedrins with Kelenna, Turiaf, Wright coming off the bench knowing that they’d get to the first round of the playoffs and that’s the best they’ll ever do. If Toronto will accept something like Maggette, Belinelli, and our draft pick (Top 3 protected of course), we can talk.
Minnesota made some stupid moves. They never actually upgraded their talent and in some cases, predictably downgraded it. McHale looked like a genius getting Garnett. I suspect he got lucky, because virtually every other move he made was terrible.
Yep, that’s true. McHale got lucky and sucks at life. This is more evidence that the Boston situation isn’t exactly how “trading your young pieces for proven talent” works out. But the fact of the matter is that before KG left, Minny had been trading away their assets to try to get proven players to put around KG and failed… miserably. They did make bad trades because they thought they had enough talent with KG, they wanted to keep him happy, and they wanted to just get some proven talent to put around him. Then they went around trying to clean up the mess every time. (As an aside, what makes you think our FO is going to do any better?)
You and I have explained this to many, many people. There are many ways to improve your team, but it always boils down to one thing: “Is this move you’re making improving your talent?” Right now, that answer is going to be no for any and all trades involving Corey Maggette or Monta Ellis… and likely Andris Biedrins, Anthony Randolph, and Brandan Wright as well because we are not going to get fair value in return.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 31, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And you do realize that bad teams tend not to keep the players on their roster, right?
They either draft the best young players in the world or they make wholesale roster changes by trading those draft rights. Which means that the sample size of “bad teams that kept their roster together” is rather small. Which kind of makes it hard to prove or disprove your point. We could talk about OKC, they’re going to be good next year or the year after. But they will have had top 5 draft picks three years running (and will have something like 5 first round draft picks in the next two years), so that certainly counts as roster changes. If Arenas comes back next year, would that count? See what I’m getting at? There are very few teams that have kept the core together unless those teams are at the top of the food chain.
My point was that the kneejerk reaction of “Oh, our team was bad, we need a ’decent roster shake up” is a ridiculous and stupid idea. In order for that to work, you have to increase your talent level. In order for you to increase your talent level, you’ve got to convince some schlub to take less talent in return for the talent he’s sending out. That’s not typically the case when you’re a bad team making trades.
Furthermore, if you’re always making a roster shake up, any and all players you bring in will just look at it as “just another stop in my career” as opposed to somewhere they want to play, a team they want to compete for.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 31, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But giving up 2 or 3 of thosee youngsters for a proven player knowing that said player isn’t going to make us a championship contender and that we may even already have the skills they provide is the definition of spinning the wheels and being happy with mediocrity.
Absolutely no argument with that. Bosh is good, very good, but I don’t think he’s good enough by himself to overcome whatever talent drop it would cost to get him. Stoudemire can be that good as well, maybe in some ways better, but he seems like an even bigger risk given his ability to quit playing well when he’s unhappy. A talent mortgage for either would, I suspect, be nothing more than a lateral move with less long term potential.
Now if Chris Paul got pissy with the Hornets’ management and tried to force a trade…(hey, I can dream can’t I?)
by jae on Mar 31, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely no argument with that. Bosh is good, very good, but I don’t think he’s good enough by himself to overcome whatever talent drop it would cost to get him.
100% agree. But the hope is that we can build around Chris Bosh, if we did get him. We would hopefully be left with atleast either Ellis or Biedrins and possibly some of our younger pieces. Is that good enough to become a contender next season? No. Probably not even in 2 or 3 seasons. But hopefully we can get Bosh to resign and we build around him for the next 3 seasons and we do become a force. You need superstars to win in this league(with the notable exception of the Pistons for the last 5 years). Chris Bosh is not a superstar. Their are only 4-7 depending on who you put in that class. But he is in the next level and we dont have anybody even close right to that level right now.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 31, 2009 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm...
This is actually a really interesting post to me. I think we all agree that Bosh is in that “not-quite-superstar” tier. Better than anything we have right now but not enough to build a title contender around (with but not around, if that makes sense).
Now given the fact that in Basketball with so few player on the court improving the quality of you best player is usually a good thing, even if we did send out more overall talent, getting the best player in the deal could theoretically be better when rebuilding the team.
I don’t know. I keep going back and forth with the Bosh scenarios. When looking at the possibilities there seems to be a pretty fine line between a good move and a bad move for us. I think the biggest lesson for me is the fact that I personally over-rated Bosh before looking at him more closely this year with all the trade talk.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 31, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How do we "build around Chris Bosh" even if we get him to re-sign
We won’t have many good young trade assets any more, we’ll be a bottom tier playoff team and won’t have any good draft picks to trade. We’d blow our load getting Bosh and then not have anything left to go after better talent. Unless you’re talking about waiting for Maggette/Crawfart to become expiring contracts, but we’d still have to extend Bosh, and he’s not going to compromise on money unless you’re already a contender… which we wouldn’t be. He’d eat into our cap just that much more. It’s really going to be tough to improve with proven talent after getting rid of the existing talent.
My stance is that we’re not bad enough to sell it all for draft picks and we’re not good enough that we can part with our young assets for a proven player and make a championship push. We’re kind of in limbo, let’s see what our team can actually do before making any hasty decisions.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 1, 2009 6:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’d eat into our cap just that much more.
That’s really the heart of the matter. Whether he’d be extended as part of the trade or we’d re-sign him later, chances are that we’ll be paying top tier money for a second tier guy. That could make things tricky.
Of course right now we are paying second/third tier money to a bunch of average guys, so maybe it wouldn’t be that big of a problem. =P
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 1, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The issue for me is that Bosh will want a max contract and will probably get it from someone. IMHO, a max contract really should go to one of the very few players who can actually make you a title contender and I do not believe Bosh to be such a player, though someone will, someone who likely loses out on the Lebron-stakes or doesn’t get Wade and just HAS to SPEND!
The max salary for a player with his years of service will start at about 17 million more or less (depending on where the cap is). Right now Andris and Monta combined make about 20 million.
My assumption is that it would cost us one of the two plus some ‘future asset in form of picks (which gets complicated with the Marcus Williams fiasco) or a Brandolph player. (If it costs both, not worth it, though dumber things have happened.) So essentially, with regards to the cap, the difference between a (Monta or Andris) and Bosh lineup and the one we have would be $6 – $8 mil, or a “MLE type player”. Now that’s where things get trickier. There’s so much handwaving about “picking up someone for the MLE” but that can be good IF you’re an attractive destination and spend it wisely or stupid if you’re using it to lure in someone who really shouldn’t be paid that much, but hey, all you have to offer is money.
So the question is: can the MLE salary difference, plus keeping the youngsters we have to either develop into a contributor such that (‘futureassets/picks’)+monta+andris+$6mil[ equivalent money to add w/MLE and/or stay under tax] > bosh+(monta OR andris)-(futureassets/picks)? I don’t see the latter as a wise move for a lousy team because it banks on one thing: Bosh leading us upwards, something that hasn’t happened it Toronto, and doesn’t leave much recourse if it doesn’t work. The biggest problem the Warriors have now is that their dumb contract acquisitions have left them with fewer recourses than to see if a youngster becomes a star and Monta shines as a PG. The trade essentially cuts the possibilities in half without replacing it with a surer thing.
Obviously if the deal could somehow negate a Crawford/Jax/Maggette salary, it changes the equation, but I don’t see how the salary matching would really get us rid of the bigger part of any of them.
by jae on Apr 1, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You make some good points but this is what I have in mind,
best case scenario of course.
We find a trade that works for both us and Toronto, something llike Biedrins, Wright, First Rounder and Belinelli for Bosh. We use our MLE on a versatile swingman like Josh Childress. We use the BAE on a decent point guard like Chris Quinn. We bring back Davidson, Kurz, and Watson to anchor the bench.
Ellis/Crawford/Quinn/Watson
Jackson/Azibuike/Morrow
Childress/Magette/Kurz
Randolph/Davidson
Bosh/Turiaf
Now is that team good enough to contend for a championship? Of course not, but that team is good enough to make the bottom half of the playoffs for sure. Next off season we lose our first round pick(via making the playoffs/Williams trade) but we then have our MLE to use again and Crawford’s expiring contract. Im not going to hypothesis on who we should chase then, but depending on what our strenghts and weakness our on the court next year, we will get a decent idea on where we need to get better. The MLE and Crawford’s expiring might not be good enough to make us a championship team but if we play the cards right hopefully we can atleast become a legit force in the west.
I dont think anything I have said I wanted the Warriors to do is to outlandish, or unattainable. To me it seems like a much better path than ‘staying the course’. You were dead on when you said:
My stance is that we’re not bad enough to sell it all for draft picks and we’re not good enough that we can part with our young assets for a proven player and make a championship push
But we do have an excess of young good assests that play similar posistions. Its time to pick who we are going to go with and trade the other ones to improve other areas.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Apr 1, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We use our MLE on a versatile swingman like Josh Childress
That is exactly what he rejected from the Hawks. I don’t see how a year of making more money in lovely Greece changes that.
Next off season we lose our first round pick(via making the playoffs/Williams trade) but we then have our MLE to use again and Crawford’s expiring contract.
That offseason we’ll have to resign Bosh, Randolph (maybe we’ve got a team option for Randolph), Kelenna, Morrow. We will not have any money left over to add anything past the MLE. That team would be stuck in “middling playoff team” mode unless Randolph turns into a superstar, eclipsing Monta & Bosh.
But we do have an excess of young good assests that play similar posistions. Its time to pick who we are going to go with and trade the other ones to improve other areas.
Duplication isn’t the worst thing in the world. Especially if the duplicates are young promising players at a difficult to position like PF. Both Wright and Randolph have shown a lot of potential. Keep both of them, and you’re likely to have a good starting PF for years to come. And isn’t that kind of what Bosh is? If you’re lucky, you’ll have two and can trade one as a “proven asset” to fill another hole. If we were the Lakers and were staring at mid-20s draft picks for the next 5 years and needed one hole filled to be a contender NOW, yeah, trade away one of your “upsidepotential” PGs and a few draft picks along with some cap space to that guy who’s in “SELLSELL!” mode. If you’re the Warriors with holes at the 1 & 4, and no real strengths, trading away potential future stars for one star is not going to make you a contender.
Furthermore, when you look at the season we just had, we have NO IDEA how good our team is at full strength. Now is NOT the time to make any major adjustments because the information we have is so faulty.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 1, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That lineup, after re-signing Bosh to a max contract, will run in the neighborhood of 70-75million. That’s lux tax territory for a team that well probably maxes out as borderline playoff. And that assumes that we can use the MLE for a productive player rather than tossing it long term at a Derek Fisher since a 5 year full mle was the only way to make GSW an attractive destination for a player better suited to take a vet minimum.
by jae on Apr 1, 2009 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LAWSON!
The more I watch this tourney and the more I witness the ineptitude that is the Warriors half court game- the more apparent the ONE GUY for the Dubs is Ty Lawson. I don’t care where we draft him, trade up, trade down- don’t matter. Ty Lawson should be wearing the Royal Blue and Gold (yes- ditch the orange and navy blue) next year.
Anything less would be uncivilized (or warrior like).
by bonbrillio on Mar 31, 2009 10:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
