Golden State Of Mind: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: New media and the Loss of Sportsmanship

Jamal, CJ, Marco and decisions

I strongly believe in the talent on our current team. I feel that we have the right players playing the right roles. The only area I where there 's some trouble is the backcourt. I have a feeling that the starting lineup for the majority of the year will consist of Monta, Jack, Buike, Randolph/Wright, and Biedrins. However this team is injury prone, people on our bench will see a lot playing time. So Maggette, Turiaf, other half of Randolph/Wright, Morrow, Marco, CJ and Jamal will get a lot of PT. I feel that Jamal, CJ or Marco will be more of a general backup guard playing either the 1 or the 2. Teams generally have at most 4 players who play in the backcourt in most games. We will need to get rid of some of ours.

But keeping 2 out of Marco, CJ, and Jamal increases our depth. This task will be easily accomplished because Jamal can opt out, and if he doesn't, he has an expiring contract either after this year or the next. CJ is also a free agent. Marco could be traded. I just can't decide who should stay.

Star-divide

Jamal

Jamal can start at PG or SG. Although if he stays he should come off the bench. He would resemble Jason Terry on the Mavs. Come in and score. He doesn't have any real D, although his hands seem to have gotten quicker while he has been here. He is a vet and he seems to be well liked in the locker room. He also may be difficult to trade. So he could stay here andbe bench player who may need to start every so often do to inuries, Jamal would be great here. The downside is that Nellie seems to have a tendency to start Jamal, and I feel with his ability to get hot, there will be more reason for Nellie to try and start him. It would be better if we could have that scoring off the bench. We would have 2 twenty point scorers and 3 other double digit scorers in the starting lineup. Plus Jamal has two years left if he decides not to opt out. He could possibly hinder the growth of Marco, Morrow, and even Monta. He might be the best shooter of the 3, he's less consistent than Marco or CJ. He would be our Jason Terry

CJ

He's young, and he knows our system. He can also get hot and his passing game has improved. He has no D whatsoever. None. He can get steals, but that's about it. He would definitely be a good backup PG, and he could definitely see PT alongside Monta. There is a very good chance we will be out bid by other teams for him this summer.

Marco

He is the youngest, and he already has better D than Jamal or CJ. He plays the best perimeter D out of any of our guards, behind Jack. He has handles like a PG, he passes like a PG, but he has the body of a shooting guard. He also shoots well, although he seems streaky, but he He is the best compliment to Monta out of the 3 as well. He reminds me a lot of Manu Ginobili. Not obviously based on numbers but based on his playing style. He is still getting comfortable, but he has the most room to grow. He is only 23.

 

 

Towards the end of the season up until now I've been praying that Jamal should leave. But now I'm indifferent. He could go, we could try and sign CJ or, give all the playing time to Marco and Morrow, and maybe another rookie. If he stays he plays a backup role, and can be our 29 year old Jason Terry. Plus he's a vet. In all likely hood CJ is out, Jamal stays. Management may want to trade make a trade, but I don't think we need to. So my conclusion is that we should just let CJ walk, Jamal should stay, and we should make no trades. Because the onyl way we'll get value is by trading Randolph/Monta/Biedrins. Wright and Belinelli are seen as too injury prone, so they don't seem as valuable to other teams as they do to us. But that's great our squad is legit. Just hope they are all trying to work on D and that they can stay healthy.

 

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!

1 recs  |  Comment 76 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

i kinda disagree on some things

for me, this is how wed work in the off season

1.trade maggs for cap space or a draft pic, just get rid of him
2.if jamal accepts his player option hes a pretty good trade piece, trade for a vet backup bigman or PG
3.draft jrue holiday
4.move b right and marco for a good vet PG that could start
5.if we cant move b right and marco we shou;ld make an offer for andre miller in the offseason, his fast break passes are perfect.
6.resign CJ only if its like a 2 million per year deal

by gswfan1 on May 2, 2009 2:55 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

You're on the right track here

uno) 2 of the 3 : CJ, Marco, and Craw will be gone. Most likely CJ and then crawford as trade bate. CJ gives us the option to get monta out of the pg position, bc lets face it…hes not a point. but both cant defend and cj cant score. marco is the truth, fuck rubio, marco can score and has dime child abilities. but he cant defend for now and nelli doesnt like him. LOOK AT WHAT HAVING ANOTHER SOLID GUARD DID FOR THE CAVS. we need to let belli do his thing or get a good point like stated above.
dos) Maggs does screw up everything for us, but he will be hard to get rid of…we’re going to have to bite the bullet with this one.
tres) b right sucks and needs to be traded to charlotte for gerald wallace
cuatro) most important is what you hit on…we need a good swingman. look at what happened to us when we lost JRICH? but this will not be fixed any time soon, bc maggs was our replacement for that hole (in which the bottom fell out on us for) our second need is better forward play. thats why we should dump BW and improve. that way we can have turiaf, AR, and someone better than BW. then we need to figure the pt situation.

by P-40 the Ballatician on May 6, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

look at what happened to us when we lost JRICH?

When we lost him we went on to win 48 games, more than we had in a decade and a half. Was there something else you were driving at? Should we get him back so we can trade him away again and hope that we similarly win 48 games after he departs a second time?

by jae on May 6, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

JAE

Aren’t you supposed to be a mod around here? Shouldn’t you be “keeping it family friendly”?

By the way, P-40, that was a slightly veiled recommendation to NOT say the word that’s spelled like buck with an “f” round these parts.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK

by Dubs fan in Boston on May 6, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

still learning my job.

by jae on May 6, 2009 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

don’t give up what got you where you’re at …

by hardcore on May 7, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

my bad

i blame it on the economy!

by P-40 the Ballatician on May 7, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We need a good swingman?

I don’t know how you’re defining swingman, but most people use it to mean a non-big who plays off the ball and hit spot-up jumpers and/or drive to the hole.

Doesn’t that fit Stephen Jackson to a T? And Azuibuike? And probably Mags, too. Heck, the team’s biggest problem is that we keep trying to get undersized swingmen (Crawford and Monta) to play point.

I like JRich a lot but if you think adding another 2-3 is the solution to this team’s problems, you’re living in bizzaro-world.

by Ronaldinho on May 7, 2009 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

just another swingman isn’t helpful, but adding a swingman who’s legitimately really good would solve a lot of problems. or would at least help solve the team’s biggest problem, not enough good basketball players. if randolph continues to progress, we will have 3 guys who are legitimately above average starters on the team, monta, biedrins and randolph. if you subscribe to the “it’s probably for the best to give monta a shot at the point” theory (as i do) and think that jack is still a solid starter, if not an above average one (once again, as i do), that still leaves room for a good starting swingman to come and add a lot to the roster.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

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

please note that j-rich does not fit my description above. j-rich is not good enough to add much to this roster. he’d just be throwing another mediocre log onto the mediocre dam. i do not advocate giving up anything of value for jason richardson.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 7, 2009 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Warriors just need to get rid of Maggette.

If you want a success story just take a look at mine.

by LighTz707OuT on May 2, 2009 2:59 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

He would resemble Jason Terry on the Mavs.

Terry shoots well. Don’t expect the good results the Mavs get out of Terry to occur from Crawford. They won’t happen. That rather sizable difference in shooting percentage is the difference between a player who regularly helps and a player who doesn’t, even if they seem to score the same number of total points.

by jae on May 2, 2009 4:25 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

off season agenda

get rid of maggs.
get rid of crawford
draft a PG.
sign a PF.

Gerald Madkins

by gorillas on May 2, 2009 4:29 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

i agree on all except

sign a SF! or someone that can play both sf and pf…

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 May 3, 2009 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe

A Shawn Marion or Lamar Odom. They might demand a lot of money though

by i love sports101 on May 3, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

odom/prince/artest

if we can get em, we need to do whatever we can do get em….without losing randolph/ellis/andris

if crawford opts out, we might be able to make some deals to get one of em

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 May 3, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

doesnt foyles contract come off the books as well this year?

Gerald Madkins

by gorillas on May 3, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

foyle's $$ does leave the budget

but don’t count on a big acquisition—they’re not getting the same revenue from season tickets next year, will have to run many more discount promotions. Even if all of that $6m. went to getting a free agent (I predict it won’t be), they’d need to spend very wisely or get very lucky, as occurred with Turiaf’s availability and deal.

by the.monk on May 3, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The bulk of the sites don’t show it accurately, but there’s still a small payout to Adonal this year. It’s about $600k if memory serves.

by jae on May 3, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

agree some of the backcourt needs to be traded

too many of them. of course we’d like to get rid of cm, but that will be near impossible. so the odd men out are cj and mb. i really don’t care as long as am gets his pt.

by KeepdaCore on May 2, 2009 5:05 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

if jaml ends up staying he should be a trade piece. were will the playing time go between him a rookie an marco an maybe cj an morrow off the bench? just lose maggs, see what we can get for marco an wright, draft lawson, figure out the backourt situation and loose maggs for a future pick

by nateoak10 on May 2, 2009 10:02 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

who would possibly be dumb enough to give us a future pick for Maggette?

Thing A

by sam23 on May 3, 2009 1:36 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

not many teams have the cap room to take him on without sending back another bad contract. Those teams that do have that kind of room would probably rather chase free agents like Boozer, Odom or Marion than take 4 years of Maggette.

Thing A

by sam23 on May 3, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

it's conceivably possible

that a team could send us a contract that’s 1 year shorter than Maggette’s, but for the same per-season salary, along with a pick.

However, just the shorter length makes me feel that the Warriors would be the ones sending the pick, even if the acquired player was a complete zero.

by markdash on May 3, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

yea

I’m not saying its totally impossible to move Maggette for another contract. I think it will be difficult and we won’t get much of a player in return, but it wouldn’t be totally impossible. I’m just saying we aren’t gonna be able to swap him for a pick.

Thing A

by sam23 on May 3, 2009 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There is not much bang for your buck with crawford considering belinelli

If i was to keep 2, id keep CJ and belli. Crawford is being paid about 10 mill (i think). Belli can do alot of the same things as jamal…not quite as good but that may even be debatable. Yeah he is a veteran, but do his intangibles as a veteran (leadership, experience ect.) help the team that much and worth 10 mill? probably not.

As for CJ, I agree. Hes a serviceable backup pg. but just needs to work on his D.

by Butt Secks on May 3, 2009 2:05 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

To some degree, Crawford is a sunk cost. There’s no way to decide to just stop paying the $10 mil simply because Belinelli might be as effective at far less money. The moves to get rid of Crawford would probably involve giving up an other asset in order to not pay Crawford as long. That won’t make the team better in the short term. I’m not sure what his veteran intangibles actually are. They haven’t involved winning many games in his NBA career. He has zero playoff appearances. Some of that it bad luck of his being on bad teams. Some of that is his doing.

“Just needs to work on his D” makes it sound like CJ’s problems there are easy to solve. Defense is half the game. Is there evidence that atrocious defenders can just “work” on it and become competent players?

by jae on May 3, 2009 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nellie might have said that, but it still takes someone to trade with. Does anyone want Crawford? I wouldn’t, but GMs have been known to do silly things like pay him what he’s making in the first place or making a panic trade for him, so maybe there’s a non-useless part that we could get for him. I wouldn’t operate as if he’s opting out and I wouldn’t figure on getting something valuable for him in trade. If it’s simply to be rid of him, the cost could be greater than the cost of just doing nothing.

by jae on May 3, 2009 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

and

we cant expect to get anything for him because teams know we dont want him.

I'm gametime_gsw, and I approve this message.

by gametime_gsw on May 3, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Plus, we already made that mistake once...

As in Al Harrington for Jamal Crawford.
More salary and longer contract.

Nice work, front office.

by b.radley on May 3, 2009 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

it can happen

if your team trades for Kevin Garnett and/or hires Tom Thibodeau as defensive czar.

Generally speaking, once a bad defender, always a bad defender, although I would propose that almost every NBA’er has a defensive skill that could be of use in the right defensive scheme or with the right teammates. That’s a far cry from being a good defender, however.

by markdash on May 3, 2009 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I know...

Just judging on their styles of play and what each can be capable of, I dont think we would miss jamal too much (provided we could keep belli).

By no means is CJ defensive problems easy to solve and defense isint his only rough area. Im just saying that if he could “just work” on his biggest problem area (defense), he’ll be ok. He may not get defensive player of the year, but if he works on his defense he will be a much more well rounded player that can help hold or build a lead while giving our starters some rest. Its going to take some time with scrimmages and game time experience, but it can happen.

by Butt Secks on May 3, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I really want to keep Marco

I know we have a lot of guards, and many believe that Marco and Anthony Morrow are too similar, but I really like Marco’s game. Obviously he isn’t the perfect player, but he does a lot of things that can help the Warriors win. We all know he can shoot (some times pretty streaky), but I think the rest of his game is the most important. He has improved vastly on defense, can play both guard possitions, keeps the ball moving, makes the RIGHT pass, handles ball pressure and he really seems to enjoy playing, which I think is infectous. He also has a little flair to his game that I have missed since BD split. He could be paired with Morrow in the back court for some minutes so it’s not like they totally cancel each other out. We also tend to forget that he still is a very young player with little NBA experience. I like both Marco AND Morrow and would like to keep both. If we get rid of any player I think CJ would be the easiest to see out of here. The likelyhood of Crawford and/or Maggette being move is very little and with the hopes of drafting a PG, I think CJ won’t be/shouldn’t be re-signed. I just want to see one more year from Marco before the Warrios decide if he should stay or go.

by jnormous on May 3, 2009 11:35 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

many believe that Marco and Anthony Morrow are too similar

This is even worse than the Manu comparisons… Who says this? People who don’t watch basketball?

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK

by Dubs fan in Boston on May 4, 2009 6:10 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

seriously

they don’t even have the same skin color! Obviously Morrow is more athletic and can dunk gooder, but Marco is a better shooter with more fundamentals, but he’s European so he’s also soft.

Thing A

by sam23 on May 9, 2009 12:25 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

'a little flair to his game'

is one of the things that limits belinelli. when he buckles down and works on building up the basics, like the strength and conditioning work he did to improve his d, or maintaining consistent technique on his jump shot instead of improvising off center release points, he showed improvement. then he would turn the ball over trying passes with too little margin for error, or revert to his mixed form jump shots. he’s still an enigma and his ceiling is probably lower than what his fans want to think—if he does find consistency, how would he really get more than 12-15 min. on a strong team, and if that’s the case, why the fuss over him? he needs to show more improvement by next season than he made between season one and two, and that seems unlikely.

by the.monk on May 3, 2009 11:47 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Blazers need a PG... I'm wondering if we can work out a trade for Crawford?

"There goes Brandon Roy... the best there ever was in this game"

by two buck chuck on May 3, 2009 4:43 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

blazers need a PG?

If you’re the Blazers would you rather have Steve Blake, Sergio Rodriguez and Jerryd Bayless/Brandon Roy running the point or Jamal Crawford? I’d take any of those guys over Crawford.

Thing A

by sam23 on May 3, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

here’s a depressing activity: make a list of teams who would stick crawford on the end of the bench if they knew how to run a basketball team, then try to pick out a trade partner from the remaining teams.

we need to bank on finding a stupid trade partner and even then, we’ll need to toss in marco/wright/our first rounder to make anything happen.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 3, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the only possible takers for crawfor-

that could actually benefit having him, as opposed to the incentives attached to the trade, would either be teams with very raw and inexperienced guards, or a team short of players who can create their own shot. Not completely impossible.

by the.monk on May 3, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

that price tag’s going to scare away at least a few teams like that, but for the sake of discussion say that chicago loses gordon (not completely impossible either). then they might be desperate enough to make a deal with us. i’m not sure who i’d want from the bulls that they’d be willing to deal though. and i assume that sort of problem is one we’d run into often. sure there are teams that would take him from us, but thinking we could get anything of value in a deal like that seems very optimistic.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 3, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ha, finally just got the “crawfor-” thing. love it.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 3, 2009 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

OHHH haha

I thought about for a little bit and now i get =D

by Calamity on May 3, 2009 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Plus, you could get Blake, Rodriguez AND Bayless, COMBINED, for less than Crawfords salary.

by b.radley on May 3, 2009 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Portland has an improving team and they’re in good cap shape such that they may be able to try for a big name in a couple of years. Getting Crawford isn’t an improvement over what they’ve got and will just impede their options after next season, and they don’t really have anything I think they’d be willing to part with to make the salaries match.

by jae on May 3, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The OP is the only Blazer fan who wants Crawford

"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''

by Sabonis4Ever on May 6, 2009 12:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

pritchard is a bit too smart to deal for crawford, unless it is to stash him away as an expiring for 2011 and try later to make a deal to acquire a big time player using him as cap filler. i don’t know if that’s necessarily a good idea, but i want to start telling gms that it is.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 6, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No way we can trade the guys you are suggesting

the cap numbers is coming down this year and a lot of teams are looking for ways to trade guys, not sign expensive players. Several teams are looking at paying luxury taxes unless they can dump salary. You cannot trade in the NBA unless you take back 80% of the salary which means it will be almost impossible to unload Maggette or Crawford. The reason Crawford will not opt out is because no other team will pay him that kind of money. The Warriors are simply screwed because of bad decision making. They have about 5 players they can easily trade because they don’t make much money, Bellinelli, Wright, Randolph and the assorted other bench players.
This is simply a poorly run operation with no direction, and it will be hindered by Nelson who will want to win rather than keep talented young players so he will blithely ask that some young guys get traded and this team will be stuck with Crawford, and Maggette.

by Laoren on May 3, 2009 6:44 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Crawford and Maggs have trade value

just because you dont like them or you look at their salary and think their not as good as whoever they shouldnt make that much your wrong. Every team has players that make more then they should and they get moved all the time. Maggs ability to score will have many teams looking to add him especially teams from the east who play a slower more defensive style of basketball where getting to the line is big. Crawford averaged 19.7 points a game and there are always takers on scorers especially at his height for his position. Now dont expect a starter in return but we can definately upgrade depth with specialists for rebounding or maybe defense

by Warriorfan on May 3, 2009 7:45 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

you're right, they do have trade value.

negative trade value.

The Warriors would have to GIVE UP assets in order to move them.

by markdash on May 3, 2009 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

there were lots of teams looking to sign maggs last summer

you think they all wouldnt want him?and when are trades ever straight up player for player almost never

by Warriorfan on May 3, 2009 8:16 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

they wanted to sign him for way less than we did. we overpaid; his trade value is worse because of this. if maggette were under contract for 6mil per year over 2 more years, there’d be a bunch of potential trading partners. with his current deal, not so much. he’s tradeable (unlike jackson), but we’d have to trade at least one youngster or a pick with him to make it work.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 3, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

+1

Also, even if teams were able (under the salary cap) to just take Maggette or Crawford for free, I doubt many would do so. Certainly nobody would take Crawford, and the list of potential destinations for Maggette would be a very small one (perhaps teams that are both rich and cap-screwed, like Dallas).

by markdash on May 3, 2009 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

none of them were looking to sign him for the price we signed him. from most reports none of them even came close.

Thing A

by sam23 on May 3, 2009 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Patience

Honestly, the smartest thing to do with Crawford and Maggette is nothing. Nothing at all.

As everyone knows, they carry negative trade value and we’d have to lose assets to get them off the team. The best thing we can do is learn to live with our mistakes and learn from them. It’s not worth losing one of our lottery talents just to get them off the cap (we would still be on the border of the salary cap regardless).

Good franchises have patience. They make smart moves when opportunity knocks.

However, our 2008-2009 season was plagued by panic and impatience. I don’t need to list them all here again, you all know what I’m talking about. We would have been way better off if we did next to nothing this offseason, with the exceptions of the small signings (Turiaf, Azubuike, etc) and the Biedrins extension. Everything else we did reeked of panic and lack of long-term vision.

I just hope we don’t end up trading Crawford away for a worse player and/or longer contract. But with no real GM anymore and the clock ticking on Nelson’s race to All-Time wins leader, I’m afraid that’s exactly what will end up happening.

"We Deserve"

by YaHeard on May 3, 2009 11:28 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

We would have been way better off if we did next to nothing this offseason, with the exceptions of the small signings (Turiaf, Azubuike, etc) and the Biedrins extension.

I understand your frustration with a team that couldn’t manage 30 wins, but this is cherry picking. You would have been better off liquidating your stocks in October 2007, but we only know that after the fact. At the time there was some risk involved. At the time of the Biedrins signing, he could have got injured at the Euro championships. You win some, you lose some. Did the FO make more mistakes than good moves? Yeah. Did they get put in tough positions by some players? Yeah. Should they have anticipated those situations better? Yes. Is some of it related to the power struggle that’s left Mullin on the first plane to NYC? Probably. Does that mean next season might be better? Hopefully.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK

by Dubs fan in Boston on May 4, 2009 6:32 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m not frustrated because we couldn’t get 30 wins. I’ve been pulling my hair out ever since our offseason began.

I was a fan of only offering the QO to Monta Ellis. Let him have a full training camp at PG and a season to prove to us that he’s a legit NBA PG. Even though he’d end up being an unrestricted free agent this offseason, we’d still have dibs to re-sign him this offseason plus the negotation power to offer him more years and more money than any other team. Instead, we gave him a bucket full of benjamins and a shiny new moped to play with. The way the Bulls handled Ben Gordon’s restricted free agency is exactly how we should have handled Monta Ellis. And everyone thought I was looney
tunes.

I was a fan of spending our cap space on making big offers to Iguodala or Josh Smith, if not then staying away from big free agent signings. Not offering max deals to Brand and Arenas. And certainly not offering $50mil to perennial loser Corey Maggette.

I was a fan of not trading away Harrington. We should have let him pout on the bench or fake an injury. Then packaged his expiring contract with Jackson’s expiring contract for a superstar at this upcoming season’s trade deadline. We just made a bad situation worse and chances are we’re going to repeat a similar mistake with Crawford. I made a fan post about it while it was happening, then it got deleted and my old username got suspended for some reason.

It isn’t as if “Well we only won 29 games, therefore it was a bad offseason.” It’s the other way around. It was so painfully obvious when our offseason concluded that our franchise was going to be screwed for a long long time, regardless of Monta’s injury.

"We Deserve"

by YaHeard on May 4, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The way the Bulls handled Ben Gordon’s restricted free agency is exactly how we should have handled Monta Ellis.

The Bulls didn’t give him the money because he wasn’t worth what he was asking for (he turned down a 54M extension this last offseason, which means he probably wants $10M more than that… or what we gave Monta) and nobody else was going to give it to him. He’s proven to be exactly what he was expected to be (a shooter and not much else), and will enjoy his unrestricted free agency.

In the real world, Monta Ellis is way better than Ben Gordon. In the real world, Monta is younger and was actually wanted by some teams. If we had just left the QO out there and stopped negotiating, he would have signed with Memphis or something… or gone to Europe. There weren’t any suitors for Gordon, there would have been for Monta. End of story. The Warriors don’t have a monopoly on basketball players, it’s a competitive market. Gordon is an idiot and thinks he’s worth more than he actually is. Monta’s contract seems about right to me… except for the injury.

I knew as soon as BD opted out that we’d be screwed, so HA!

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK

by Dubs fan in Boston on May 4, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If we offered only the QO to Monta Ellis, he is FORCED to accept it. That’s why it’s called restricted free agency. Then the following offseason (this offseason), we get first dibs on re-signing our own free agents before the period that other teams can.

It’s VERY difficult to lose big dollar players to free agency (unless you are really trying to, like Baron Davis this time around). The only “big” names in recent memory that have switched teams because of free agency are Rashard Lewis (max money man), Elton Brand (gimp), Gilbert Arenas (super gimp), and Baron Davis (also a gimp).

It just didn’t make sense to give Monta Ellis all of that money when he hasn’t yet proven he can play the position he needs to excel at to be worth that much money in the NBA.

"We Deserve"

by YaHeard on May 4, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

he's not forced to accept it

he can sign an offer sheet with another team, or go play in Europe, or whatever, as said by DFiB.

Besides, if you offer the QO and he takes it because there’s nothing better out there, if he blossoms in that contract year you just cost yourself a ton of money.

by markdash on May 4, 2009 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're right

I forgot. We still bid against ourselves on that one though..

"We Deserve"

by YaHeard on May 4, 2009 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's pretty standard operating procedure, though.

Lots of teams give their RFAs big contracts. Sometimes it works out well (Iguodala), sometimes it doesn’t (Deng). The key is giving them fair market value.

I wouldn’t say the Warriors got taken to the cleaners, $10m/year is perfectly reasonable for a SG who showed the potential Monta did. Hell, even if he were to remain the same as 2007-08 Monta, that would easily be worth $10m/year.

Unfortunately he likes motor sports, so that contract isn’t looking quite as good anymore.

by markdash on May 4, 2009 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We still bid against ourselves on that one though..

As far as I can tell the NBA economy seems to be far more driven by precedent than by demand. I’m not sure why that is, but it doesn’t seem like negotiations are as effected by what another team can/will pay a guy as you’d expect.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on May 4, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Many, many decisions seem to be driving by a reactive fear. It’s not so much “how will this contract benefit us” but “what will happen if we do not give out the contract.” The fear with the RFAs is that if they don’t get their deals, in a year, they’ll be ticked off and ready to bolt and the only thing that will keep them happy is an even bigger contract. It’s tough to read what the ‘right’ strategy is though. Teams do seem to follow precedent, which is a great way to cover your butt if you’re a GM.

by jae on May 4, 2009 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

As far as ass-covering manuevers go (which are standard for big-league GMs in the US), handing out a sizeable contract to a RFA with upside isn’t the worst manuever in the world.

by markdash on May 4, 2009 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

But SOME moves have to be made.

The roster is a bit of a mess. If we do nothing with Crawford and Maggs, we’ll have to move either Belinelli, Morrow, or Buike (probably two out of the three) just to give PT to whoever’s left. And we still have deficiencies in a number of areas that cannot be solved by patience alone. As much as I fear the FO making a horrible decision, I think standing pat might be equally as horrible.

by ffgolden on May 4, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Keep Marco.
Trade CJ + Jamal for anything.

I said anything.

=Gaucho=

by Gaucho! on May 4, 2009 1:47 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Eddy Curry?

Thing A

by sam23 on May 9, 2009 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

CJ is a free agent.

by jae on May 9, 2009 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh the Irony !

If we hadn’t signed on Crawford and had benefited from the difference that he made regarding several of our few wins this season we could have beat out Sacramento for the worst team slot for the number one pick !!!…….but as every Warrior fan knows we probably would have then been knocked back up to 3rd pick anyway at the lotto………………..

by Only In Fairfax on May 7, 2009 10:56 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

crawford cost us more games than he won for us. harrington rotting on the bench is a better player than crawford stinking up the court.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 7, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"

Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)

Start posting about the Warriors »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
FANS VS. COHAN 2.0 :: You Won't Want to Miss This <--------------
Small
Nelson and his record ...
Small
A Big Man That Could Help Us
Bimbo_quote_small
Giant Public Relations Monster Devours Gilbert Arenas

Recent FanPosts

Images_small
Warriors Should Follow the Thunders Example
Small
2010 NBA Draft: Evan Turner (Possibly better than John Wall at the next level) and Hassan Whiteside (sleeper center)
76968623_small
Highly Radical Rebuilding Plan
Sonic_rip_small
ESPN's Hollinger calls Ellis Overrated
Ramiele_small
Better chance at Wall or new coach?
Sp_baron_edited_small
Contest: What will Monta's Points Scored & Shooting % be tonight?
Small
2 Reasons the Warriors shouldnt draft John Wall
Small
Waiving Claxton Might Be a Good Sign
Small
Trade Idea with Wizards
Images_small
Warriors Should Go After Iguodala

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Ads

SPONSORS

2009-2010 Around the Association

2009-2010 Golden State Warriors Preview

Golden State Warriors 2k9-2k10 Super Preview Blowout Special!


GSoM Crew -------------------------

Atma-160_small Atma Brother ONE

Gw090_small Fantasy Junkie

--------------------------------------------------------

Small Hash

Small dj fuzzylogic

--------------------------------------------------------

We_still_believe_small R Dizzle

Small Adam Lauridsen

West_coast_promo_fb_small Tony.psd

Japan_by_miaumi_small YaoButtaMing

Small jae

Small IQofaWarrior

Drmlg_logo-gmail_small Poor Man's Commish

Nellie2_small Feltbot