The Road To Respectability

by onlxn on Apr 4, 2009 2:22 AM PDT Comment 115 comments

(This got really long. I'm sorry for what I've caused.)

Tonight's win -- against a strong Hornets team, despite the absence of our top four players -- was fantastic. It was one of our most impressive, most satisfying and most encouraging games of the season. But more than anything, it got me thinking about this team's most critical flaw.

We lost 34 games last year... this season, we'll probably lose, say, 52. Eighteen games is an ocean's worth of difference, and if we want to make the playoffs again anytime soon, we're going to need to make up most of that. Dramatic improvements aren't easy in the NBA; you usually need a star to show up, and Blake Griffin and Chris Bosh dreams notwithstanding, there's no particular reason to think one will.

So how do we get better? What's the most important thing for this team to focus on going forward?

Health is the easiest answer. A full season of Monta, and fewer nicks and scrapes in general, and we'll certainly improve. But health will be there or it won't... that's nothing that the coaching staff or players can really control.

Rebounding? Rebounding's an issue for us, and an area in which we can improve a bit next season simply by playing two bigs at all times (preferably Biedrins and Randolph more often than not). But let's not forget, we won 48 games last season despite getting significantly outrebounded by our opponents. We have been, and can be, a successful team without being a rebounding force.

Defense? Well, our defense definitely stinks, and ideally we'd improve it. But a team with this roster and this coach is never going to be all that good at defense. The best we can do is to slow the bleeding there a bit. Defense won't be our salvation.

A true point guard? Would be nice, I guess, but I just don't see a pressing need. Our offense has been decent, and it's been quite strong whenever Monta's played. He may not be a true point, but we seem to score just fine whenever we slot him there. I don't see a pure point guard being vital to our improvement.

So what is it? If it's not health or rebounding or defense or a new point guard, what is the key to improving?

The key is simple. To travel down the road to respectability, we need to focus on, well... the road.

Tonight's win clinched a winning record for us at the Oracle on the year. We'll finish no more than six games worse than last season at home, and we might cut that deficit to three or four games. And our 21-17 record is no fluke, either... we're outscoring opponents by 2.6 points per game at home, a better point differential than either the Hornets or Suns have on the year overall. At home, we're an above-average NBA team.

But on the road, we're 6-32, and with a -9.9 PPG differential, if anything, we're a little crappier than that record suggests. No NBA team's had an overall point differential that bad since the '99-'00 Clippers, and that team was no picnic. I mean, we are *disgustingly* bad on the road. We won 21 games on the road last season, and the most we can possibly win this year is nine. There is currently a *fifteen-game* disparity between our home record and our road record.

Now, a disparity between your home record and your road record is natural. Minnesota has identical home and road records this season... every other team is better at home than on the road, and in several cases the gaps are big. The Hawks have as big a gap between their home and road records as us, and Utah's gap is a bit *bigger* than ours... they're 32-7 in SLC and a mere 14-23 on the road. Teams tend to struggle more away from home.

Still, there's nobody quite like us. At home, we play like a six seed... on the road, we play like one of the worst teams in league history. So the obvious questions are 1) why, and 2) what can be done about it?

The first answer people might throw out there is youth -- the idea that our guys are just too inexperienced to pull out wins in front of unfriendly crowds. I imagine this is a factor, but I don't think it's an overwhelmingly large one. Portland is even younger than we are (the absent LaFrentz skews their numbers), and they're a fairly solid 17-20 at home. Memphis and OKC, two young and thoroughly crappy teams, edge us by a game on the road. Young teams do struggle on the road, but they don't usually struggle like *us*. I don't think youth is the whole answer.

Fatigue probably plays a part. Teams play many more back-to-backs on the road than at home, and the second half of back-to-backs are very hard games for teams. I'd think that'd be doubly true for a team that plays at the fastest pace in the league and shoots lots of jumpers. But in fact, we're 5-9 in second halves of back-to-backs... 3-0 at home, 2-9 on the road. 2-9 is pretty bad, but we're 4-23 in all of our other road games, which is only marginally worse. So fatigue isn't really the answer either.

I'd expected the biggest factor to be defense. Anecdotally, my impression is that the enthusiasm of the Oracle crowd spurs this team into more of a defensive effort than they usually give on the road. But the numbers don't bear that out at all. Our opponents score 112.9 points per game in Oracle and 112.6 points per everywhere else, meaning we actually give up *fewer* points on the road. I think our home defense has been a tiny bit better than our road defense, as our opponents score those 112.6 non-Oracle points more efficiently, with fewer shot attempts and turnovers. Still, the difference is miniscule. Our defensive effort on the road is not the problem.

It's our *offense* that's killing us on the road. We take the same number of shots both at home and on the road, but we miss 3.5 more of them on the road, we take 5.5 fewer free throws on the road, we record 3.3 fewer assists on the road, and we turn the ball over an extra 1.5 times on the road, to boot. The result? We score 115.5 points per in Oracle and 102.7 per on the road, for a mind-boggling differential of 12.8.

This is... pretty weird. Most teams aren't like this. For most teams, their worse performance on the road is due to worse defense, with slightly worse offense on top of it. For us, it's all due to a catastrophic drop in our offense. You can explain some of this with context -- our schedule has been home-heavy during our most prolific periods, when Jack was hot and Monta was around -- but not all of it. We just seem to forget how to score on the road. 'Buike, Biedrins, Monta, Randolph and Wright all shoot significantly better in Oracle than elsewhere... Jack only shoots a little better in Oracle, but is much more productive generally there. And Maggette's disparity is absurd: he shoots 54% from the field in Oracle, but only 38% elsewhere.

I'm not exactly sure how a team goes about addressing this, but at the risk of straying too far off the stats reservation, it seems to me that this team could use a little more confidence when it hits the road. I'm not talking about the swagger that a guy like Jack puts forth -- I'm talking about confidence in your offensive game plan and confidence in your teammates. Even in this disaster of a season, the young, flawed Warriors have responded and played well whenever crowds have cheered them on... they've played smart, enthusiastic team basketball in Oakland. On the road, they've settled for isolation and gunning far more often, and it's hurt them horribly.

The key guy is Nellie. Monta can try to lead the offense, Jack can try, guys like Marco and CJ can try in their brief appearances, but really it's on Nellie to make these guys play smart offense. It's his bread and butter, it's something this team can do fairly well when directed properly, and it's not like Nellie's busy teaching guys about defense.

To make the playoffs next year, we'll need to be able to squeeze fifteen wins out of road games. To do that, we'll need to play significantly smarter offense away from home. And that will only happen if Nellie demands it. He's gotten nice offensive play out of this team in Oakland, but he needs to keep their focus sharp elsewhere. Without that, the Dark Ages 2.0 will continue.

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!

11 recs | Comment 115 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

a lot

of things come into play when it comes to the road. Me and my warrior buds talk about it all the time how they are a COMPLETELY different team on the road. The thing about our home record being 21-17 could seriously easily be anywhere from 24-27 wins. heat game? OKC? Cleveland? kings triple ot? The two laker games were tough, even the memphis game the other day was ridiculous. But we have pretty much competed every night on our home court with a few exceptions. One thing is jet lag which does affect how you feel and will affect your play. I heard our last game in Denver in our last road trip the warriors got off the plane in denver about 3 hours before game time?? could you imagine doing that?? But you look at teams like utah, portland and then us and we all have one thing in common that I think affects the play on the road the most and that is our homecourt crowds are the best in the NBA. I would like to think we have the best crowd in the NBA I mean the place still rocks and we are 27-49, imagine if that was flipped around how crazy the oracle would be. But Utah and Portland have great crowds as well and Utah is a completely different team on the road, Portland is decent but still pretty different. Am I saying as fans let’s not be so crazy?? HELL NO!! haha, I am just saying on the road anthony randolph or turiaf dunks and instead of the place going crazy it just gets quiet. So it just affects there game psychologically. Thats why a bench that gets into the game is important on the road, I always see Morrow gettin up cheerin and stuff and I love him for that. I will never forget how much jasikevicius(hard to spell) would always cheer and jump around during our playoff run even on the road. But what I am saying the road is just so much different than oracle especially to these young players, it takes leadership to get them to match there play from home to the road

by FeartheBeard4 on Apr 4, 2009 9:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

To travel down the road to respectability, we need to focus on, well... the road.

and to win on the road we need to fix the other problems.
health? injuries are the results of playin too fast and too hard, that’s why the good teams don’t play this style.
rebounds? trade some scorers for some securers, it helps slow the game pace and helps with the injury problem
defense? get some bigger guards who like to defend instead of score, go for the stop not the steal.
point guard? that’s who implements the above, a guy who can get points at a measured sustained pace, feeding the open player, minimizing the physical effort and dangers.
If we can win without the emotional roller coaster at home then we can do it on the road.

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 4, 2009 10:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

health? injuries are the results of playin too fast and too hard, that’s why the good teams don’t play this style.
rebounds? trade some scorers for some securers, it helps slow the game pace and helps with the injury problem
defense? get some bigger guards who like to defend instead of score, go for the stop not the steal.

Aren’t you a “We Believe” die-hard, Skep? Are those keys to success at all consistent with the idea that we needed to keep J-Rich around?

Improvements in any of those areas would be fine and dandy, and if Nellie will commit to sensible lineups next year, the rebounding issue should largely take care of itself. But Nellie’s not going anywhere, and while we can and probably should tinker with the roster, a strong defensive team ain’t showing up anytime soon. This is a sprint-offense-oriented team for the foreseeable future.

That can work, to some degree. That style brought us all our best basketball memories of the past fifteen years. And if we can commit to smart, unselfish offensive basketball on the road, that style can bring us some more good memories next year.

by onlxn on Apr 4, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We Need A Leader On the Road

There are so many directions people can go with their responses on this.

The Warriors play hard at home because they feel energized by the fans and that normally is good enough to keep the games competitive, but on the road, we obviously don’t have that. So, although there is back and forth about getting a PG or PF this offseason be it by draft, trade, or free agency, we still need a “leader.” Don’t get me wrong, we have a lot of emotional leaders, but I’m talking about a floor general, someone that can rally the troops and keep everyone on the same page. Stephen Jackson is our Team Captain and one of my favorites, but his emotions play too much into his leadership, so I look at him as a supplemental leader, but not a primary one. When you watch Captain Jack get in those modes where he decides he is the only option out there, won’t pass, shoots ill-advised 3s, argues even when there is nothing to argue, don’t you think he needs someone to get him to refocus? Baron was able to do that for him because although Baron is an emotional player, he could channel his team’s emotions, which worked for us.

Defense- I won’t write a lot here, but if we played some defense, we wouldn’t have to score all time. These guys are pros- they played elementary school, high school, and most played college basketball, right? Did they not learn any fundamentals to defense back then? Or did Don Nelson brainwash them?

by pgtogo84bsxy on Apr 4, 2009 11:04 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

We Need A Leader - in the Front Office

you’re right of course about having a strong leader on the court, and you’re right about Jackson – without Baron’s influence, Nelson is the only one who might (but seemingly never did) set Jackson straight or emphasize defense … we stink on defense, and the fish starts stinking from the head

by hardcore on Apr 5, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

we need a PG

a PG leader to facilitate the offense and keep it consistent would help leaps and bounds…also a PG that can actually defend other PGs…the dribble penetration is killin us….and one that can rebound….baron davis did all these and thats why we were ‘successful’ before and thats how we can do better later. draft a PG, make him grow, we’ll be back in no time!

pg + monta + jack + randolph + andris starting….buki/morrow/wright/turiaf/belli bench..could be successful IMO

if somehow we can get a free agent PF or PG that a vet, all the better (amare/odom/kidd/bosh)…if we can get any of those guys, while still keeping ellis and randolph…im down (altho id like to keep andris too)

You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk

by LostHawk on Apr 5, 2009 3:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

that why

we try to get rubio or wait for him to enter the draft. He is like Spanish version of Steve Nash with more hop.

by warriorfan4life on Apr 13, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you though...

I don’t really think that the Warriors really need a point guard. We have been doing just fine with Monta at the point and Jackson will move to the 2 position next year to make up for the play making that Monta does not have.

by Richboievans on Apr 5, 2009 7:51 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs

Yeah, I’m a little mystified by the continued clamor for a point to play alongside Monta. I’m not saying I wouldn’t love to see us snag Ricky Rubio, but the fact is, the Monta-as-point-guard experiment is going pretty well so far.

The litmus test isn’t whether he averages eight assists a game… the litmus test is whether we can compete with him playing there. We’re 15-36 without Monta and 12-13 with him, and he’s been the nominal point for most of the games he’s played. Now, to be fair, that respectable record has a lot to do with the home/road disparity, as Monta’s played two-thirds of his games at home… with Monta, we’re 11-5 in Oracle and a wretched 1-8 elsewhere. Monta probably hasn’t elevated us quite as much as that 13-14 record suggests. Still and all, when Monta’s the littlest guy on the court for us, the offensive results are pretty good. We’ve been scoring efficiently and often with Monta slotted at the point.

The biggest issue with Monta isn’t offensive, it’s defensive. He has generally been a bad defender in the last year and change… he gave a great defensive effort against the Kings the other night, but it’s not a sure thing that he’ll keep that up. What is a sure thing is that Monta has an easier time defending point guards than shooting guards… he can match speed with any point in the league, but bigger guys can muscle him with ease. Monta’s best defensive position for us is absolutely at the point. If we slot him at the two again, it’ll really hurt our defense, and probably hurt our rebounding a little, too.

I don’t think it’d be a bad thing to bring in a new backup point guard to complement Monta, a purer playmaker that could even play alongside him for little stretches here and there. But adding a new starting point guard and shoving Monta back to the two is just not a good idea… the costs would be significant and the benefits might not be.

by onlxn on Apr 5, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But adding a new starting point guard and shoving Monta back to the two is just not a good idea… the costs would be significant and the benefits might not be.

I think most of us on the “we need a point guard” bandwagon believe we need a very specific kind of PG who allows Monta to defend 1’s like Baron did. Monta has provided the team with a big lift, but his playmaking skills are lacking. Yes we’ve been better since he’s been back, but still not very good. The fact that our record has moderately improved indicates only that we added another good player to the team (maybe not even that?) it doesn’t show that our lack or a PG was suddenly solved. It seems obvious to me that the team lacks a playmaker who can get better shots for others. Jackson, Randolph, and Turiaf are all good passers for their position, but nobody is going to confuse any of them with Jason Kidd, Chris Paul or John Stockton. Yes, Monta’s size makes it difficult to put another PG in the lineup, but that doesn’t mean we should go without. I agree that we can’t expect to draft/sign a Ty Lawson type and expect to really compete with a Lawson/Monta backcourt together for 30+ minutes a game. I’d love to see us land Rubio in the draft AND sign Jason Kidd allowing Monta to essentially play the 2 full time, but the chances of either of those happening are slim. If a smaller true PG is the best we can come up with this offseason then I totally agree, Monta must be the starting 1. My (semi-feasible) dream 2009-10 lineup
Kidd/Rubio/Monta
Monta/Morrow/Tony Allen
Jackson/Azubuike/Morrow
Randolph/Powe/Ben Wallace
Biedrins/Turiaf/Wallace
(yea, thats right, we traded Crawford, Maggette, and Wright to Cleveland in a 3 way deal that netted us Powe(sign and trade) Tony Allen and Ben Wallace’s expiring contract, I did say semi-feasible so deal with it)

Thing A

by sam23 on Apr 6, 2009 1:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

With very few exceptions, all teams have to make compromises when assembling their best lineup to try to get the most out of their best players. I am in the “we’d be better with a point guard” camp but recognize that it’s most likely going to mean a smaller backcourt than would be ideal. Finding a guy with floor vision like Baron had and the size (not necessarily height, but strength) that Baron had is unlikely to happen. So the compromise seems to be putting Monta at the point alongside an off-guard who appears better equipped physically to handle the demands of the position with some substandard “playmaking” out of the PG position, or most likely, to pair Monta with a point guard who leaves the backcourt small and at times overmatched against teams with bigger, physical guards. Is this worse than having an offense that stalls and “playmakers” who are high in turnovers relative to their ability to get the ball to guys in better positions to score? I think that entirely depends on the particular player. We’re going to have to face that reality.

The reality of a Nellie coached team is that his “system” is to get who he considers his best players on the court as much as possible, maximizing scoring versatility and willing to sacrifice several things (usually rebounding goes first) to do this. So the fixation with “is Monta able to play point” is somewhat moot. If a better off guard comes along or no changes are made, it’s likely Monta maintains the nominal PG status. If something brings in a PG who can push it up the court, I suspect that Monta spends much of his time off the ball. Is this ideal? Of course not. But do either cripple the team and ensure another sub 30 win season? Not necessarily. In almost any plausible scenario, we’ll be dealing with some situations where some shortcomings will be exposed, but that doesn’t guarantee losses every night.

The magic formula remains: Get better players, repeat as necessary. As I see it, the biggest backcourt upgrade has far less to do with declaring Monta the point guard or not, but far more to do with keeping Crawford and his historically high volume but only moderately efficient scoring and abysmal defense off the court more often.

by jae on Apr 6, 2009 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I pretty much agree with all of this, especially the Crawford part.

Another point, that you tangentially touch upon here: I think it’s easy to get caught up in the semantics of positions, when in fact they’re not necessarily as clearly defined or even as important as we might think. When Monta came up from his mom/ankle hiatus, Nellie said he was going to start running the point. Monta said he’d already been running the point. I thought that was interesting, not only because of the dysfunction it showed, but because you’d have a tough time proving either guy wrong. Was Monta running the point in his first thirteen games back? Was Jack? Was Crawford? All three made some plays, and the offense generally functioned well, so does it really even matter who was labelled what?

In Monta’s twelve games since said mom/ankle hiatus — the ones where he has most clearly dominated the playmaking, as Jack and Crawford have both missed a bunch of them — he’s averaged 4.8 assists and 2.9 turnovers. That’s not great playmaking for a “point guard”, but it’s not leagues away from being acceptable. That ratio of assists to turnovers is only slightly worse than Tony Parker’s career rate, and it’s about the same as Gilbert’s career rate. A scoring point guard can get away with passing numbers like that… you can succeed with a scoring point guard. We certainly succeeded offensively in those twelve games, averaging 115.5 per and shooting and passing well in most of them. (Defense was, naturally, another story.)

I think Baron spoiled us. We got so used to watching elite passing point guard play over the last several years that we’ve now come to think it necessary for survival. It’s absolutely a good thing to have, but teams can and do succeed without it. The Rockets don’t have anyone who rates as a particularly strong passer, and they’ll win 50 games… meanwhile, three of the guys with the best passing numbers in the league are Nash, Calderon and Baron, will be sitting at home this spring just like us.

It just doesn’t seem to me that this team needs a top-tier point to succeed offensively. Monta, Jack, ‘Buike and Maggette can all create for themselves. Randolph and Wright score a lot off putbacks and cuts to the hoop, which has been working fine. Morrow operates best when people find him on the perimeter, but they have been finding him. I do think Biedrins misses Baron, as his offensive numbers are down a little… still, we’ve scored fairly well since Monta returned. I think he and Jack provide an acceptable amount of playmaking.

We do turn the ball over a little too much, and that’s the biggest reason why a Monta/Jack backcourt might not work. It’s a real concern. But Monta getting lit up by bigger guards is a real concern too, and in my opinion, a bigger one. If we’re going to go to war with Monta, I think we should keep trying him as the littlest guy on the floor for us.

by onlxn on Apr 6, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs

I can't believe this only had one REC before I got here

WTF is wrong with y’all. I’d like to believe that the reason Jack was turning the ball over so much is because he was trying to be the playmaker. He turned the ball over 3.9 times per game this year, which is over a 50% rise from his career average. Let’s hope that Monta can acceptably handle the PG role “Agent 8” style and that Jack settles back into his better role of “defensive stopper and backup backup offensive facilitator”.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 7, 2009 6:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah. One of the best things that could happen for us this summer would be a shift in Jack’s focus. His Lebron impersonation attempts were fun at times, but that’s not the best way for him to help this team… the guy’s one of the least efficient scorers we have. More than anything, we need Jack to be our defensive leader, to give maximum effort on that end and to ask more of his teammates on that end as well. Whatever offensive production he provided beyond that would just be a bonus.

by onlxn on Apr 7, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Monta’s size makes it difficult to put another PG in the lineup, but that doesn’t mean we should go without.

Isn’t the obvious solution to void or trade montay and get a full sized 2 guard then we can play any size point guard we want? Why does the team keep trying to work around moped’s shortcomings?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 6, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think there is definitely an argument for this (trading Monta, not voiding him… that ship sailed a long time ago). If he’s flawed no matter where he plays, it’s tempting to move him along.

Realistically, unless we can get a Bosh/Amare type for him, we might be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Other teams will be as leery of Monta’s warts as we are, if not more so, and it’s not like the CP3s and Derons of the world are on the trading block. Monta is a good player, a real contributor despite his weaknesses, and a good fit for a sprinting offensive team. It’s possible that trading him would solve a lot of our problems, but more than likely, we’d just be swapping some of our current problems for some new ones. Most players have flaws you’ve got to work around.

by onlxn on Apr 6, 2009 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

The team keeps trying to work around the shortcomings because the alternatives are (at least perceived) to be greater. Voiding Monta doesn’t net us a full sized point guard automatically. On its own, it doesn’t get us much more than the MLE to shop with, and then we’ve got to find someone to spend it on.

If the desire is to fill out a height-weight requirement, trading Monta could make sense, but if it is to maximize basketball talent on the court, I suspect we will have a hard time getting a replacement 2 who makes the team better. I strongly suspect that the notion of some sort of lineup ‘fit’ won’t overcome this either.

I suspect very much that Monta’s contract cannot easily be voided at this point. It certainly couldn’t happen without a fight by his agent and the player’s union and I don’t think that the league would immediately award his salary back to the Warriors to shop with while it got sorted out. As I’ve said before, there are worse outcomes possible than continuing to pay a not as good as they’d hoped he’d be Monta for years to come, namely an arbitration decision that says that the Warriors are off the hook to pay him but on the hook for some, if not all of the cap hit, something that routinely happens with retired players. A scenario where we’re allowed to release him and not bay him and given an injured player exception to sign another player but his salary stays on the books for purposes of the cap is not far-fetched at all. We do not have a ‘get out of paying Monta free card’.

by jae on Apr 6, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t disagree with this at all. I think a Monta trade could very well benefit this team.

Thing A

by sam23 on Apr 6, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

when monta has been playing we've been missing biedrins and other players for much of that time

"so much losers" - hiero

by montamazing on Apr 7, 2009 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

that respectable record?Monta’s best defensive position for us is absolutely at the point?

12-13 is now respectable? Is this new new math? You kids sure have it easy these days.
I’d suggest his best defensive position for us is on the bench?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 5, 2009 2:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

12-13 is pretty damn respectable compared to 15-36. Nobody’s saying that being a little under .500 is the goal, but we have been a good bit better with Monta in the lineup. And while Monta’s D has been pretty poor of late, he has shown flashes of effective D in his career when covering point guards… he’s basically never looked good defending 2s. He should be our point guard until it’s clear that he can’t handle the job, and thus far, he seems to be handing it.

by onlxn on Apr 5, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Monta has to be our point guard or we have to get rid of him.

If he moves over to SG for most of his playing time we will be tinny, tinny, tinny. Also I was checking out some of that Spanish kid Ricky Rubio and I don’t get it, he’s going to get destroyed when he comes over to the NBA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqLGzkhRHN8

Ignore the R. Kelly song

There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.

by qin on Apr 5, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

rubio

i think he is bit overrated right now and not NBA ready (at least right now)
but still -i believe he can became really great player if he doesn’t get out of gym for 2 years

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u5N3N_7hBU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPSyScRcRRo

30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ

by Lat We N Trash on Apr 5, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

whoa

that move vrs lithuania was crazy

You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk

by LostHawk on Apr 6, 2009 12:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

12-13 is pretty damn respectable compared to 15-36

Haha, but the world doesn’t revolve around the warriors, we gotta compare us to other teams not to our crappy self. When we pass the .60 pct. level for a whole season we’ll be respectable .
Winning has to be a building process, get better each year then make the playoffs, then learn from that and go further next time. We are at in the basement now so we got nowhere to go but up.we got 2/3rds of the way up in 07 but then they threw the elevator in reverse. Any guesses how much altitude they can stand on the next climb?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 5, 2009 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Any guesses how much altitude they can stand on the next climb?

If you’re actually asking, I think this roster absolutely has the potential to be above .500 next year. I’m not saying that will happen… it’d require some competent front office tweaking, disciplined coaching and health, none of which have been in deep supply this season. But several guys — Randolph, Morrow, Azubuike — have taken significant steps forward, and the feared stagnation of the offense under Monta simply hasn’t come to pass. We’ve played much better with two big men on the floor… Nellie finally seems to realize that, and is at least talking about a big lineup for next year that makes all sorts of sense. The sidelining of Crawford, however it might happen, would also help.

There aren’t any Western Conference Finals in our near future, but there is genuine talent on this team. Harnessed properly, it’ll result in a playoff appearance next year. Who knows? Maybe they could even approach the amazing feat of 42 wins that the “We Believe” team achieved. (Incidentally, our winning percentage that year was .512, a good eight games south of your definition of “respectable”. But I know, 16-5, J-Rich is Basketball Jesus, yadda yadda yadda.)

by onlxn on Apr 5, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But I know, 16-5, J-Rich is Basketball Jesus, yadda yadda yadda.)

Yeah too bad the front office din’t know that also? I guess they never studied a team’s progress to the top? If only they’d watched some sports over the years!

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 6, 2009 10:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

So, um

How did basketball Jesus work out for the Bobcats and Suns?

Have you studied a team’s progress to the top, Sports Einstein? Obviously not, but that doesn’t prevent you from spouting your cockamamie “if we had built on JRich and BD we’d be contenders” line till you’re blue in the face. As long as you’re studying, though: why don’t you find me a championship contender — or even a solid, perennial playoff team — who was built around a glorified 3-point-chucking, no-handles, no-pass, no-D shooting guard like JRich and a talented but injury-prone, overweight, and only occasionally motivated PG like BD.

(And maybe don’t post on the subject until you do?)

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 6, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

wow, um, speechless…

slow clap? fist fight? agreement? shock? i don’t know what to feel…

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 6, 2009 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

+1

Thing A

by sam23 on Apr 6, 2009 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shock? How?

Skeptic and I have been having basically this same (amicable) cyber-fistfight since the JRich trade… The only thing that ever changes is the title of the thread, which invariably has nothing to do with JRich.

(Though in fairness, onlxn brought it up in time…)

(Though in fairness, onlxn’s comment was in response to Skep’s “how much altitude can they stand?” comment, which is an extension of perhaps the most cockamamie of all his cockamamie theories — that Mulson intentionally sabotaged the team, in bad faith, because they were afraid of success…)

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 6, 2009 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs

not shock about the argument happening, which takes place every day with more people than you and skeptic, but about the characterizations of j-rich and baron. neither of which that i necessarily disagree with, but that i feel very conflicted about. that we believe team meant a lot to all of us and it’s just sort of shocking to hear so explicitly what we all probably know is true, that it was something of a fluke. what we saw looked special, but the parts involved don’t demonstrate that at all. it was an almost transcendental experience for the team and the fans. i want to believe that the chemistry on that team made the whole more than the sum of the parts, but if you look hard enough at it, it’s very unlikely. hence the conflicted emotions on the matter.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 6, 2009 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

Well said

Basically, Skep’s near-total lack of logic on the subject makes me illogical and gets me to start ripping on pretty good players I used to worship and adore.

Those few weeks in 06/07 were a transcendental experience … and they’re history.

I mean, even if JRich and BD were Kobe and CP3, it’d be history, hence not worth harping on as much as Skep does. The fact that it’s two such demonstrably flawed players, and that Skep has otherwise shown himself capable of pretty solid analytical thinking, makes it that much more maddening to me.

I guess I should take it for what it is — same as with AB1, a totally biased, personal, stubborn, passionate and irrational affection for the old guys. I mean: Monta riding a moped in the offseason is evidence of his irredeemable immaturity, while JRich driving 60 miles over the speed limit with his unbuckled kid in back is totally cool: that tells you about all you need to know. But I keep hoping somehow reality will creep in…

Ah well: we’ll probably have to wait till the team gets good again for that kumbaya moment…

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 6, 2009 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs

i typed “that moment’s coming soon” and erased it a bunch of times. i’m already looking ahead to the 2010 playoffs, but the carrot of “next year” has been dangled in front of us so many times that it’s tough for me to believe that it’s really true. but still, now i just want to think about randolph’s leaps and bounds, both literally and in metaphoric “improvement” terms and picture the playoffs.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 6, 2009 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

rec'd

that entire exchange.

Thing A

by sam23 on Apr 7, 2009 1:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

i’d rec your +1 a few posts up to make it complete, but it would be really sad to rec someone’s +1 on my own comment.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 7, 2009 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How did basketball Jesus work out for the Bobcats and Suns?

How it worked out is not the point. The fact that they did it is the point. It shows a total lack of how winners are built. It’s incredible that a professional management would tear up a team that just made the playoffs instead of tweaking it to improve it for the next year. They should have kept the core and tried to improve it and if that didn’t work make the moves to rebuild the next year. They only saw the core players play together for about the last 6 weeks of the season. The responsible thing would have been to try a whole season of them healthy and see what happened? As a fan I find it very dis-respectful that they can take our loyalty so lightly, and discouraging that they can’t recognize success when it shows up on the doorstep.

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 6, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

#1. It was rather clear that any attempt to keep Monta and Biedrins would mean getting rid of a higher salary player or taking a major trip into the lux tax and possibly paying into the tax before being able to re-sign either. Teams entering the lux tax before they are contenders don’t tend to ever become contenders. Unless they thought the team was a minor tweak from a championship contention, going tax crazy wasn’t going to be a good move. Despite the rabid knee-jerk reaction that teams have to spend to win (a reaction that vastly simplifies things and leads to more bad decisions than good ones) the fiscal realities weren’t going to allow the team to stay together as was. As such…

#2. Someone had to go. Given the in house depth at the 2/3, that looked like it housed the most options. It has also, historically, been one of the easier positions to fill. Of the options, Richardson was paid the most so moving him would clear up the most room. In any trade, there has to be a reason for the other team to want a player and much as we might have rather sent out Pietrus and some other lesser parts, there’s no evidence that such deals existed.

#3. The timing was somewhat important. While some have said that the Warriors should have waited, there was no guarantee that there would have been a buyer to take on a chunk of salary without having to send back matching salary. In the season, it’s very rare for any team to be able to take on a contract like his, so the sort of deal-for-pick-and-no-matching-salary would not have been possible mid-year.

#4. The move DID NOT appear to have a significant negative impact on the team, as the 48 win season was very successful on the court. Only a fluke distribution of very good teams in the west meant that it wasn’t a playoff year. In any other season, it would have and likely could have been a good seed.

Your vision of what the ‘responsible thing’ would have been is not the only view. That you disagree with the move does not make it irresponsible. That it did not result in the team being unable to win (and this notion of 82 games of inertia or momentum is just plain ridiculous) supports the position that the move was not irresponsible, even if there were other possibilities.

by jae on Apr 6, 2009 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

It was rather clear that any attempt to keep Monta and Biedrins would mean getting rid of a higher salary player or taking a major trip into the lux tax

We didn’t need to get Montay, we had a great 2 guard already, 2 guard was not a problem with that team, all it needed was more inside strength. Getting rid of jason would be like the yankees dumping jeter after his first trip to the playoffs cause there was a promising shortstop in their farm system? doesn’t make much sense does that?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 7, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Monta is better than Jason and currently cheaper

End of story. He is a better 2 guard and if he can somehow impersonate a PG well enough, even better. JRich has not improved any of the teams he’s been on subsequently, BWright is a very capable young player who’s had injury troubles this year, but has produced well while on the court.

Getting rid of jason would be like the yankees dumping jeter after his first trip to the playoffs cause there was a promising shortstop in their farm system?

Baseball is a terrible analogy, but if you were given the following SAT question:

Jeter:Shortstop

A. JRich:Shooting guard
B. Foyle:Center
C. Kobe: Shooting guard
D. Baron Davis: Point guard

The answer is not A. Comparing JRich as a shooting guard to Jeter as a short stop is just further proof that you’re either off your rocker or you’re just f-ing with the rest of us. Whatever. Enjoy your delusions. JRich is awesome!

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 7, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

J-Rich was not a “great” 2 guard. He wasn’t Derek Jeter. I mean, even Derek Jeter isn’t “Derek Jeter” in the sense that you seem to mean — guy’s overrated by many — but Jeter was certainly a top-tier overall shortstop for years, one of the three or four best players at his position. J-Rich wasn’t one of the twelve best players at his position. Kobe was better, D-Wade was better, McGrady was better, Ray Allen was better, Rip was better, Redd was better, Iguodala was better, Kevin Martin was better, Vince was better, Joe Johnson was better, Iverson was better, Terry was better, Roy was already better. And there were a number of young guys who were at J-Rich’s level and figured to surpass him, like Gordon, Barbosa, Ronnie Brewer… and Monta Ellis.

The idea that Jason Richardson was anything special is one of the most laughable ideas in the history of this message board. He was a flat-average player at a non-critical position with a bloated contract. Dumping him for a promising young big, cap space and more playing time for Monta was one of the best moves this franchise has made in the last ten years. J-Rich does not belong in the same sentence as words like “great”, “winner” or even “Jeter”, and I HATE Jeter.

Fandom is all well and good, but let’s stop kidding ourselves. The guy was nothing special, and we don’t miss him in the slightest.

by onlxn on Apr 7, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Woah there...

Ronny Brewer? That’s a little bit of a stretch, even by my standards… and I like Brewer. He may be better now, but when JRich was traded he wasn’t anything special.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 7, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Indeed not, but neither was J-Rich. J-Rich was miles ahead on offense, but Brewer was a strong defender from the get-go, miles ahead of J-Rich there. They were pretty close overall at the time, and only one figured to get better.

Who was the better shooting guard in ’07? J-Rich. But which would I have wanted in ’08 and beyond? Brewer for sure, and time has borne that out.

by onlxn on Apr 7, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He was a fan favorite and that’s the main reason why everyone wanted to see him stay. That’s like if Paul Pierce left Boston and they won it all with KG and Ray Allen, just wouldn’t have felt the same…

WARRIORS BASKETBALL!!! Patiently waiting for a title...I may be waiting for a long time...

by JustSomeName on Apr 7, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There was no remorse over not doing it with Antwan Walker

Players move on and so do fans… except ridiculous Warriors fans.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 7, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who was the better shooting guard in ’07? J-Rich. But which would I have wanted in ’08 and beyond? Brewer for sure,

How did brewer get into this? We din’t have brewer, we had jason.
You guys don’t understand the point. The point is not how it turned out or how good Kobe or other 2 guards were, the point is that it was a bad decision at the time based on the goal of getting further into the playoffs next year. and in fact we din’t even get into the playoffs but that is also not the point .
The yankees kept jeter for team chemistry and because it was working for them not just because he was a good shortstop. Any relative competent management would do the same thing with JRich if they had that team and that chance. Study what we had at the end of that season and keep the parts that were working and tweak the one’s that needed it. Jason showed in the playoffs that he was an important part of that team so getting rid of him was not smart from a team building perspective(and don’t say it turned out to be right cause that’s not the point, this is about the decision making process not results, it could have turn out many ways but the decision process only has one correct path, follow the most likely scenario, which would have been to continue the building momentum were were on.) If you guys can’t understand this them maybe you should go to work for the warriors front office, I see a great fit?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 7, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The yankees kept jeter for team chemistry and because it was working for them not just because he was a good shortstop.

The Yankees:

A. Can afford to do that because they’re the Yankees
B. Can afford to do that because they’re in the MLB where they laugh at salary caps.
C. Did that because he was a good shortstop, rather than a mediocre overpaid shortstop.

and don’t say it turned out to be right cause that’s not the point

Ummm… so, in the debate over whether or not trading JRich was a good idea we’re not allowed to use actual production the following year as evidence? The Bobkittens won 33 games in 2006-2007 before JRich got there and 32 games on 07-08 after he got there with no other significant roster moves. You’d figure that a useful NBA player added to a team at zero cost would improve their team. The Warriors, subequently got 6 games better the following year. I refuse to ignore those facts.

Fact: JRich makes way too much money
Fact: We had a good player who’d actually played SIGNIFICANT TIME at his position who could do the job for 1/10th of the cost.
Fact: This player would need to be resigned at an increased cost at a later date, was young and had showed a lot of potential, and would likely be far more expensive than his current contract
Fact: We also had another budding young center who would command a much larger salary than his rookie wage
Fact: JRich was still viewed as a tradeable asset and we had a viable trade partner.
Fact: Finding a viable trade partner once that contract got $1M bigger the following year and we had a bit more pressure to make a move would have lead to a fire sale.

Holding onto JRich would have been making one last push with a deeply flawed team that had no chance of competing with the big boys. And that’s one last push, one year of one last push. Please explain how we sign anybody with $12M tied up in JRich this offseason. If you can’t understand this, maybe you should go work for Mark Cuban, he seems to like spending tons of money on teams that can’t win championships.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 7, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A few areas where the Jeter/JRich analogy falls apart

(Again, with the understanding that you won’t listen to reason on the matter)

1. The Yankees reupped Jeter to an absurd 10/$190M contract in large part because as a team with a payroll $50M higher than any other team, and four times higher than small market teams they could afford to overpay for the decline years of a good offensive player/mediocre defender with huge “celebrity” value for the team. As you may or may not know, the NBA has a salary cap. No one in the NBA has the luxury of being the Yankees.

2. As DfiB points out, SS is a skill position — more the baseball equivalent of PG or C. Jeter doesn’t defend the position well (or even adequately), but his offensive upgrade over the average SS has generally been good enough to make for it. Shooting guard is basketball’s anwser to right field/DH. Rightfield/DHs with Jeter’s offensive numbers, like SGs with JRich’s numbers, are a dime a dozen.

3. Jeter: four rings, and a history of playing for good teams. JRich, no rings and a history of playing for crappy teams.

Oops! What DFiB said…

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 7, 2009 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

four times higher than small market teams

I’m 90% sure that’s a rather low estimate. I think the entire Florida Marlins team makes less than A-Rod. Which would put them at 8 times smaller than the Yankees payroll.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 7, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right

At least by last year’s numbers, the MFY’s payroll ($210M) was 10 times that of the Marlins ($21.8M). (I’m too lazy to look up 2001, when Cap’n Jetes signed his contract). Though in fairness: the Marlins are an aberration, with half the payroll last year of the team above them (TB at $43M). For the GsoM record:

1. NYY $209M
2. DET $138M
3. NYM $138M
4. BOS $130M
….
17. SF $77M
…..
28. OAK $48M
29. TB $43M
30. FL $22M

The great thing about the MFY is that even in this recession, even after being humiliated by the Rays and Red Sox and their superior young-talent-producing machines, they continue to spend like drunken sailors. There was one point in this offseason when their total cash outlay for free agents (CC, Tex, and Burnett) was higher than that of the whole rest of the league combined.

God, they are so fun to hate! It’s really a glorious time to be a Red Sox fan (and hey, I fully paid my dues, just like I’m doing now with the Ws…)

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 7, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s really a glorious time to be a Red Sox fan

just how many world series titles till boston gets to even with the yanks?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 7, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha.

Last millennium is ancient history. By my 21st century count, we’re up 2-0. ;-)

(OK, if you must, the all-time score is 26-7. Only three touchdowns to go!)

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 7, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Study what we had at the end of that season

Okay.

The team went 16-5 to end the regular season. It was an exhilarating stretch of well-played basketball. It also wasn’t nearly as impressive a stretch as as it looked. Let’s look at these 21 games and J-Rich’s role in each.

1) GSW 111, @DET 93: ’Sheed sat out due to injury, we had everybody. Still a very good road win, with a strong J-Rich performance sealing his first NBA win in his home state.

2) @GSW 110, DEN 96: Nuggets were missing ‘Melo, we had everybody. Fine home win, but they were missing their best player, so let’s not get crazy. J-Rich had a fine complementary game.

3) @GSW 99, LAC 89: Both teams healthy (actually we were missing Pietrus). Fine home win. Bad game from J-Rich… he shot poorly, was in foul trouble, didn’t contribute much of anything in 17 minutes.

4) @POR 106, GSW 87: Baron sits out and we get blown out in Portland. J-Rich has a mediocre game.

5) @GSW 117, DAL 100: a spectacular win, breaking the Mavs’ 17-game winning streak, and a sign of things to come. Both teams were healthy. We had a great team effort, and the best game might have come from J-Rich, who was demonstrating a versatility (eight boards, seven assists, four steals) he’s rarely shown before or since.

6) @GSW 106, MIN 86: another strong win, this one against a subpar-but-not-terrible Minnesota team. Garnett’s Wolves tenure was nearing its end, but he did play here. Another good all-around game from J-Rich.

7) GSW 99, @SEA 98: remember Seattle? Fun road win clinched by a Baron jumper with seconds remaining. J-Rich was okay (23 points on 19 shots, three boards, three assists).

8) @UTA 104, GSW 100: no shame in this road loss. Another not-as-good-as-it-looks-but-maybe-okayish line from J-Rich (21 points on 18 shots, two rebounds, two assists).

9) @GSW 135, WAS 128: totally enjoyable, ludicrous win over a decent team, with an out-of-his-mind performance by Baron. J-Rich had a decent game (23 points on 16 shots, six assists, one rebound), but both Biedrins and Monta were better.

10) @LAL 115, GSW 113: close road loss to a good-but-not-great Lakers team, with Kobe going for 43. J-Rich shot terribly (2-for-12) but did enough other things well to still have a decent game. Our best player was Monta, who had 31 points on 21 shots and four steals.

11) SAS 126, @GSW 89: just a horrible throttling at home. Everyone played badly for us except Monta, but J-Rich was especially bad, scoring zero points on eight shots, with only an assist, two turnovers and four fouls in 29 minutes.

12) @GSW 124, PHO 119: Impressive home win over a healthy and very strong Suns team. J-Rich led the way, with a fabulous 36-point, 12 rebound performance… Baron, Monta and Jack all contributed heavily as well.

13) @GSW 122, MEM 117: as unimpressive a win as you can possibly imagine… the Grizzlies were the worst team in the league and didn’t even have Mike Miller. J-Rich did have a great game, though, taking over down the stretch after Baron got ejected and finishing with 26, 6 and 8. Jack and Monta both had strong games.

14) GSW 110, @HOU 99: not as impressive as it looks. McGrady left seven minutes into the game with back problems, and this was back when they actually needed him on the floor. Good game from Baron, and J-Rich continued his hot streak here, with 27 points and nine boards.

15) GSW 116, @MEM 104: another kinda lame win over the league’s worst team, who was missing Mike Miller and Damon Stoudamire. Big game from Baron and a very good game from Monta… average-at-best game from J-Rich (19 points on 16 shots, five turnovers).

16) @SAS 112, GSW 99: the Spurs hand us our final regular-season loss. Not a terrible loss, and actually a better-played game than many of the wins in this period. J-Rich was solid (23 points on 17 shots, six rebounds).

17) @GSW 126, UTA 102: nice big win over a good and healthy team. Jack led the way… J-Rich had a solid complementary night, with eleven points, six rebounds and four assists.

18) GSW 125, @SAC 108: fun road win over a subpar Kings team that was missing Brad Miller and had a gimpy Artest coming off the bench. Baron and Jack led the way, but J-Rich had an unusually efficient game, especially for him, with seventeen points on nine shots, five boards and five assists.

19) @GSW 121, MIN 108: beating the Garnett-less Wolves at home is hardly cause for celebration. J-Rich did have a MONSTER game here, though, with 32 points (on 17 shots!), 12 boards and seven assists. Probably one of the best offensive games he’s ever played. (Ricky Davis scored 42 for the Wolves, much of that against J-Rich, which takes the bloom off of it a little.)

20) @GSW 111, DAL 82: the Mavs kept Dirk, Josh Howard, Stackhouse and Dampier out of this game, and I’m… guessing that had an effect. A joke of a game. J-Rich (14 points on 15 shots, seven rebounds) didn’t do much.

21) GSW 120, @POR 98: the Blazers sat Roy, Aldridge, Randolph and Przybilla. Good production from J-Rich (25 on 16, eight rebounds), but this was not a real game.

After you look at these twenty-one games, here are the main three things you come away thinking:
A) Damn, that was fun.
B) Damn, Baron was great.
C) Damn, we were lucky.

We caught the Pistons without ‘Sheed, the Nuggets without ’Melo, the Wolves without KG, the Rockets more or less without McGrady, and two teams that essentially benched their starting lineups to round out the year. Even bad teams like the Grizzlies and Kings weren’t at full-strength when we played them, and they still gave us trouble. You expect some teams to start easing off the throttle towards the end of the year, but this was ridiculous. Normal luck in opponents and we probably would’ve gone 13-8, finishing 39-43, goodbye season. We played very, very well… five of those wins were downright fantastic. But we were fantastically lucky to get those opponents at those times, and there’s simply no way to overstate that.

Was J-Rich good in this period? Absolutely. He had a number of poor games, but overall this was strong, versatile basketball from a guy not known for it. It was one of the better stretches of basketball he’s ever played. But he certainly wasn’t our best player in this stretch, and I wouldn’t call him our second… Jack was much better defensively here and not far off J-Rich’s offensive pace. Biedrins didn’t have many high-profile games here, but he was certainly more important than J-Rich… his rebounding was much less replaceable than J-Rich’s scoring. Monta didn’t play as well as J-Rich in this stretch, but he continued to show huge potential, and he was actually something of a defensive force for us in this stretch, averaging 2.5 steals per outing and generally causing havoc in the backcourt. Barnes and Al were certainly contributing here.

In this 21-game stretch — one of the most favorable you could possibly cherry-pick to make J-Rich seem important — he was our third or fourth-best player. Not trying to crap on the guy. He played well, and he helped give us some awesome memories. But he wasn’t the main engine of what was going on, and what was going on wasn’t even that great. It was a very successful 21 games, supplemented by a fair amount of luck. It would be easy to overrate their significance, and I’m glad the front office didn’t.

There’s no real reason to walk through the Mavs series, as it’s fondly etched in all of our memories. The main factors there were 1) Nellie brilliantly taking advantage of an opponent he was perfectly suited to beat, and 2) Baron playing the best two weeks of basketball of his life. J-Rich also had a good series, as did Jack, but Baron and Nellie were the stories there. That series was awesome, and also probably unrepeatable. You can’t count on a guy playing that far above his head consistently, and you can’t count on playoff opponents that are so uniquely vulnerable to your strategy.

The Jazz series? Baron was good, J-Rich and Jack were okay, and we did keep the couple first games close. But the shining, overwhelming lesson of that series wasn’t that we needed J-Rich… it was that we needed rebounding. The team simply needed to get bigger. And if they kept Baron AND J-Rich AND Monta AND Jack, how was that supposed to happen?

So they needed to make a trade. And who do you trade? The franchise point guard? The young stud who’s making less than half a million per? The defensive lynchpin with a mediocre contract? Or the decent shooting guard with a bad contract?

You obviously try to trade the latter. And if someone will not only take him, but give you a promising young big AND lots of cap space to use on your young ’uns, you not only do it, you do cartwheels.

Trading Jason Richardson was not the safe move, given his popularity. Even now, folks like you hold against the franchise. But it was absolutely, positively, 100% the right move. And the more you study the situation, the more obvious it becomes.

by onlxn on Apr 7, 2009 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions 7 recs

Wow...

that really took me back. Nice post.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 7, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 7, 2009 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Mavs series

is a one time fluke I guess, sure was amazing though.
Shoulda beat the Jazz though.

by AlbinoWhale on Apr 11, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you guys can’t understand this them maybe you should go to work for the warriors front office, I see a great fit?

They haven’t offered me the job. I’m confident that if the listened to me, things would have gone better over the last year.

by jae on Apr 7, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We didn’t need to get Montay, we had a great 2 guard already

This is why Sam Bowie was drafted by Portland instead of whats-his-name. This is the opposite of why Tim Duncan was drafted by San Antonio. You need great players. Monta>JRich.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 7, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jordan would not be Jordan playing alongside Drexler

http://saboner.mybrute.com

by Sabonis4Ever on Apr 7, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

he’d still be better than bowie

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 7, 2009 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What?

Jordan would not be Jordan playing alongside Drexler

How exactly does playing with another great player make Jordan worse? Wouldn’t you have enjoyed watching Jordan win title after title playing with Drexler instead of Pippen?

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 7, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...they play the same position for one

http://saboner.mybrute.com

by Sabonis4Ever on Apr 7, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha

You don’t think one of them could have played SF? Both wing positions are almost identical.

This sounds to me like an argument constructed by a Blazers fan to mask the pain of missing out on the greatest player of all time and a nice long string of championship basketball.

It’s ok I’d probably do the same thing. =P

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 7, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

I don’t care at all. I wasn’t alive back then. Jordan got to be the man on his team. Drexler got to be the man on his team. The man gets the most shots. Did I say the Blazers would not have been a better team? No, I said Jordan would not be Jordan as we know him today if he had to share the ball with Drexler.

http://saboner.mybrute.com

by Sabonis4Ever on Apr 7, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL.

Jordan and Drexler were both fabulous at everything, including sharing the ball (though obviously, MJ was a bit more fabulous at most things). Drexler averaged roughly 6 dimes per game over his career, Jordan 5. Put those two in the triangle, surround them with a couple of meat-and-potatoes role players (basically, a spot up shooter and a couple of big bodies) and they would have destroyed all comers, year after year.

In short: I suspect Jordan would be very much Jordan as we know him today if he had played with Drexler instead of Pippen. The main person whose reputation would have suffered in that exchange is Pippen. :,-(

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 7, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

poor (hypothetical) scottie…

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 7, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Drexler was half the defender Pippen was

If even that. That is the thing about looking back and saying if this team drafted this player then this would happen. If Jordan goes to Portland maybe he develops differently, maybe Phil Jackson had a bigger influence than he gets credit for. WE JUST DON’T KNOW. Jordan obviously went to the right situation. Maybe he can’t co-exist with Drexler and it hurts his career. What if man….what if?

http://saboner.mybrute.com

by Sabonis4Ever on Apr 7, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jordan was great well before Phil came along to ride his coattails. Jordan was the greatest to ever play the game and your

Jordan obviously went to the right situation. Maybe he can’t co-exist with Drexler and it hurts his career.

would’ve told me that you weren’t alive and watching basketball back then even if you hadn’t said so a few comments above.

Thing A

by sam23 on Apr 7, 2009 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I said maybe 300 times in that comment

and what if 200 times…feel free to nitpick every single one

http://saboner.mybrute.com

by Sabonis4Ever on Apr 8, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and every single one of your “maybe” scenarios is totally ridiculous.

Thing A

by sam23 on Apr 8, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jordan held the record for scoring in the McD’s HS all star game for quite some time. Jordan was not exactly an unknow entity coming out of college, where he was player of the year as a Jr after being regarded as the best in the country as a soph after starting on a Nat’l champ team as a frosh.

He was a dominant player as a rookie. He was regarded as the best player in the game before Jackson was hired to coach the Bulls.

I have never seen a player better than him and I thought that long before he won a championship.

by jae on Apr 7, 2009 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have never seen a player better than him

till Rudolf came along there wasn’t one to see.

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 7, 2009 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jordan would not be Jordan…

At this point I stopped reading and dismissed you as an ignorant buffoon. :-P

Thing A

by sam23 on Apr 7, 2009 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

eh

he might have developed into a slightly different, but about equally great player under different circumstances. of course, if the argument is “he’d never have developed properly as a blazer” then you could make the ignorant buffoon call. there’s just a lot of things that a statement like that could be getting at.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 7, 2009 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know

I was half kidding…….I read the whole thing before dismissing it as ridiculous.

Thing A

by sam23 on Apr 7, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i figured that was the case, i just like to play nice with visitors if they’re respectful. make sure they don’t get the right idea about the discourse around here.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 7, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re a better man than me, I refuse to play nice with Laker fans.

Thing A

by sam23 on Apr 8, 2009 1:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

oops

got my quarrels confused. this is the blazer fan….in that case I halfway apologize.

Thing A

by sam23 on Apr 8, 2009 1:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

that laker fan does not meet my qualifications for a “respectful visitor”. coming on a warriors blog just to say the team sucks would be like me going on a lakers blog to say kobe is unlikable and clearly worse than lebron.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 8, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Getting rid of jason would be like the yankees dumping jeter after his first trip to the playoffs cause there was a promising shortstop in their farm system?

You have put that forward as a question. The answer is no.

by jae on Apr 7, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The answer is no.

So you don’t believe playoff experience is valuable to getting back and doing better next season? or that a group of players that are enjoying success together have more potential than removing one of the main pieces and replacing it?
Maybe it’s not something one can quantify with stats or numbers, maybe it takes an understanding of people and team chemistry to make sense but it’s a very important part of aiming for success.

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 7, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You asked if getting rid of Richardson would have been like the Yankees getting rid of Jeter. The answer is no, it would not be like that.

I pretty my laid out what I thought already. You are free to go back and re-read it, though you seem to have your mind made up that nothing at all justifies trading away a guy from a team that squeaked into the 8th seed 1 win above .500. We disagree. Trying to deride my views as ‘stats and numbers’ and implying that don’t have an “understanding of people and team chemistry” doesn’t help your case. You are free to posit whatever you want about a totally subjective take on ‘understanding of people and team chemistry’ but be aware that it’s just your speculation. I have no reason to believe that you are any more an expert or that your hard-headed opinion has any more weight than if I said that you don’t understand them.

I do know that people who discount statistical analysis when it disagrees with what they thought and interjecting a wholly subjective position don’t really have anything more to stand on than pure faith. If you have that, fine, but don’t pretend that it’s such an absolute and that you have anything other than your gut hunch to support it. I’ve got my gut hunch and some real analysis.

by jae on Apr 7, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do know that people who discount statistical analysis when it disagrees with what they thought and interjecting a wholly subjective position don’t really have anything more to stand on than pure faith.

I don’t discount the results,my only faith is in physics and gravity and that mother nature always wins . I just discount the team decision that made the results. Players are not robots to be summed up by their parts, there’s also the human element which influences the outcome more than the numbers show. Sometimes just having certain individuals on a team elevates the play of everyone else more than the raw statistics of that player would suggest. The 07 team had a good chemistry going between and among the players so to spoil it was not smart no matter what the numbers said.
Now, those that thought the Jrich trade was smart are fully entitled to their opinion but since they agree with management it would be polite for them to stop complaining about the results and our team’s direction wouldn’t it? Since I din’t agree with it I’ve got the legitimate right to keep complaining :>)

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 7, 2009 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now, those that thought the Jrich trade was smart are fully entitled to their opinion but since they agree with management it would be polite for them to stop complaining about the results and our team’s direction wouldn’t it?

Huh? Are you really suggesting that not panning that trade somehow forfeits the right to question the team’s direction? As if that move, and that move alone was the end-all? Are you serious or are you just trolling, because that doesn’t even come close to making sense?

One can think that the move wasn’t bad (for reasons many of us have cited) and still think that the current direction of the team and management is terrible. It appears that you are suggesting that if you don’t pan that move, you aren’t allowed to have problems with the team currently. If so, I kindly conclude that you’re totally nuts.

You have a right to keep complaining, but everyone else has a right to dispute your opinion and to tell you that it sounds like some sort of pathological whining at this point.

by jae on Apr 7, 2009 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One can think that the move wasn’t bad (for reasons many of us have cited) and still think that the current direction of the team and management is terrible.

have your cake and eat it too?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 7, 2009 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

more like

say that one trade was good and others were bad. it’s really not that tricky. watch me: “the j-rich trade was at least acceptable, and probably the best move possible, but the trade for crawford was incredibly stupid. i also think that the offer made to arenas was silly and am glad it was turned down.” see what i did there? there’s no need to say that because management made one move that i agree or disagree with, that i am now forced to hold the same opinion toward other moves made.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 7, 2009 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

have your cake and eat it too?

No, I simply choose to use the brain inside my head and don’t live with the delusional religious belief that if you agree with one decision you forfeit your right to disagree with others. I can only assume that you’re a troll, as I really, really don’t think that anyone could seriously be as stupid as you’re being in that regard.

by jae on Apr 8, 2009 1:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can only assume that you’re a troll, as I really, really don’t think that anyone could seriously be as stupid as you’re being in that regard.

So you don’t think one decision has an influence on those that follow? Things don’t just happen in a vacuum, they are influenced by the past and affect the future. Anyone who claims that we are better off from that decision is delusional, there is no way to know what might have happened if JRich stayed and Boom was happy and other players saw that and wanted to come play here? All we can argue is the odds of success from throwing away proven talent and that it went against conventional improvement paths?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 8, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anyone who claims that we are better off from that decision is delusional, there is no way to know what might have happened if JRich stayed and Boom was happy and other players saw that and wanted to come play here

Skep, you know the two sentences on either side of your comma splice directly contradict each other, right? Unless your point is that anyone who claims we’d be better off with JRich is equally delusional … which I don’t think it is.

It’s really not like you to paint anyone who supports the trade — a group that includes, me, jae, onlxn, olympicmike, and roughly half this board — as “delusional” … have you had your morning coffee yet?

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 8, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Obama regime is making Skep crazy! : )

Thing A

by sam23 on Apr 8, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

ha! holy crap, now i need a go-kart/bumper car! this picture does not stop making me happy.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 8, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Somebody put some Joker style face paint on the man

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 9, 2009 6:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

more like

The Yankees getting rid of Paul O’Neil if he was making about 150% of his market value.

Thing A

by sam23 on Apr 7, 2009 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

after they just made the playoffs for the first time in 15 years.

and o’neill was a big contributor?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 7, 2009 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

~~and o’neill was a big contributor~~ and o’neill was a fan favorite who was a middle of the road starter on that team with a superior player backing him up and making much less money. that seems more like it.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 7, 2009 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

o'neill was out smackin a homer while the backup hid under a towel in the dugout you mean??

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 7, 2009 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

calling j-rich “mediocre” at this point would be a compliment and calling monta “good” is an understatement. monta is simply the better player right now and it isn’t close. i wouldn’t care if he was hiding in the locker room during that series; he’s the better player now. we aren’t getting into a time machine to 2007, we are building a team to in the future. monta accomplishes that in ways j-rich can’t dream of now. monta was better last year, he’s better now, and he’ll continue to be better than richardson. explain to me how having j-rich eat minutes at the same position at an exorbitant price tag is beneficial to this team. particularly considering that wright has played pretty well and will give us some front court depth for years to come.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 7, 2009 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

*building a team to win in the future.

sometimes proofreading is helpful.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 7, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

he’s the better player now.

This isn’t about now, this is about then. you can’t defend that decision knowing what you know now, you have to put it into the context of what a competent management would have done then. If you like the way they think then fine you must be happy now. I’m not cause I see what the other teams are doing and ours looks sad in comparison.

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 8, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And you appear to be either unwilling or incapable of seeing that at the time there were reasons to make the trade.

Get over it.

by jae on Apr 8, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Get over it.

there’s things I don’t get over, Reagen, Bush ,CWeb and breakin up the 07 playoff team. I hold the one’s that do these things accountable forever.

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 8, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well I do not envy your life if your so clearly unable to move on. One can remember and still move on, especially when you cannot change things.

It appears that you find the Richardson trade as one of those points is an irredeemable fault, forever scarring the franchise, after which no good can ever come. Reasonable people can disagree about this, and reasonable people have outlined why they do not think the move was a bad one at the time, why at the time there was a reasonable rationale for it. If you don’t agree with all the reasons, fine, but the stubborn refusal to see that there’s any sense in the arguments others have made is, frankly, pathological.

Rather than actually have a conversation about the points, you’ve descended into saying that supporting it is delusional, making an end run around any arguments others have made. You then seem to repeat over and over that the move didn’t make sense, totally ignoring what others have said. That’s the sort of thing that makes me think that you’re a troll, that you’d rather spend your time stirring things up, trying to make an ass of yourself rather than actually think about the points. It’s either that or you’ve lost it.

Seriously, get a grip. There’s medications that can help with that sort of thing.

(And there’s no reason for the apostrophe in “one’s”.)

by jae on Apr 8, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you’ve descended into saying that supporting it is delusional,

no , I said anyone who claims we are better off is delusional. We were in the playoffs then and deep in the lotto now. What’s your definition of better off?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 8, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We are not better now, but a year ago, we well could have been better. That is not a delusion.

We won 48 games last year. No, that didn’t make the playoffs, but that was much more a fluke of many strong teams in the west than some notion that the team wasn’t as good. Without Richardson, the team performed over a whole season better than they ever had with Richardson. That’s not a debatable point unless you’re ready to reject reality. It was not Richardson’s departure that turned the team to crude. It was the departure of Baron and Monta’s injury, coupled with less reliable defense off the bench with the departure of Barnes and Pietrus. Yet somehow, you appear to ignore that the team was quite good—better than they’d been with Richardson save for a very short, probably statistically insignificant 21 game stretch where, as onlxn noted, they didn’t have a particularly difficult schedule. You ignore this and seem to blame the departure of Richardson on this mess? Strange.

Are you just totally lost on the timeline? Did last season’s record and performance somehow slip by? Did you conclude that playing better over a whole season and missing by a fluke is somehow worse than squeaking in with a poorer record?

by jae on Apr 8, 2009 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did you conclude that playing better over a whole season and missing by a fluke is somehow worse than squeaking in with a poorer record?

Yeah, cause we don’t know how good we’d have been if we’d built on the success instead of torn it apart. Boom might have stayed, Montay might have not got on that moped or might have been traded for a power forward ,etc. The results are not important , it was the judgment that sucked just as it always has when the warriors brass are involved in important decisions.

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 8, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The results are not important

This pretty much summarizes it. You appear to be unable to accept that others can see sense in the move and appear not to care about the outcome.

You appear to want nothing more than to whine.

by jae on Apr 8, 2009 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

but

those were all good things!

Thing A

by sam23 on Apr 8, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You must not have watched Cweb play for the kings?

or Reagen trash the Ca. healthcare and educational scene? or Bush indebt us for decades to fight the iraqi civil war? or the warriors go from playoffs in 07 to lottoffs in 09?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 8, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thing A

by sam23 on Apr 8, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

now add jae screaming get over it and you've got it.

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 8, 2009 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you could have certainly made the educated guess that monta would be the better player, because that’s what management did and they got it right. the signs that monta was going to be a better player were there and then he became the better player. it would be like the bulls refusing to trade heinrich for cap space and young talent because they thought he was better than rose at the beginning the year.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 8, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

More like

O’Neill walking home from first to score the winning run after getting on base via walk with Jeter jogging behind him along the base paths after his walk off homer. Yeah… something like that.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 8, 2009 6:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think atma just hung himself

by so ill so d0pe on Apr 9, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

BOTTOM LINE

We’re not going anywhere without a stable front office. If the people up at top don’t care about winning, then the end product will probably not make it to the playoffs…

WARRIORS BASKETBALL!!! Patiently waiting for a title...I may be waiting for a long time...

by JustSomeName on Apr 7, 2009 11:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs