Another draft fanpost: BPA vs. Need
by ffgolden on May 20, 2009 8:34 PM PDT
84 comments
There seems to be a Holiday Movement growing in the last few days. Let me get this out of the way: I didn't watch much of his play at UCLA, and don't have a strong opinion about how good of a pro he'll turn out to be.
My problem isn't with Holiday, but with the primary point of reasoning behind drafting him: that he has the size and PG abilities to play alongside Monta in the backcourt. Should this be our main focus going into the draft?
Here's what we know:
- Nelson isn't known for playing young, green players, unless they do one or two things really well.
- Nelson thinks Monta's future is at the point, and plans to play him there this season. Remember, he said this long before Baron left the team — it's not something the team is saying just because they don't have any other options at PG.
- Nelson wants to play Jackson at the 2 because of his lack of rebounding at the 3, his good perimeter defense, and his ability to post up smaller players.
Nellie could certainly change his mind, as he is wont to do, but I'm not gonna assume so until I hear some suggestion of it.
So, knowing what we know, why pick somebody like Holiday based on the assumption that he'll suddenly be playing alongside Monta for the majority of the game? Is he such a polished point guard that Nellie will scrap the plan, move Monta back to the 2, and Jack back to the 3? It's much more likely that he'll be playing off the bench for a short amount of minutes, if at all.
I don't mean to pick on Holiday. If he's the best player available at #7, then by all means, Riles should select him. But if Thabeet's available, and he's deemed the best player on the board? Pick him — he can help bolster the frontcourt. If Jennings is determined to have the better value? Pick him, I don't care if he's not as good a fit alongside Monta in the backcourt. If Harden falls? Pick him, find a place for him in the backcourt or use his value in a trade.
We need more talent, period — we shouldn't pigeonhole ourselves because we think a certain guy will solve such a specific perceived need, especially when our knowledge of Nellie's plans is contrary to that solution coming to immediate fruition.
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!
6 recs |
84 comments
Email
Print
Comments
the rookie point could just be montas back up
ME8 for MVP
by NH101 on May 20, 2009 9:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I always like bpa
bpa gives you best value for your pick and if you’re a half way descent gm you shoul be able to make trades but Nelson and riley will draft for need. hopefully they trade down.
as you said nelson just wants to win. I think Riley is with him as he’s said he knows if we don’t make the playoffs he won’t be here long. so they are on the same page. Personally i’m tired of “building” really tired of it. Plus we have a really young team already. Don’t we already have a farm team in Oakland? Well. there pitching is still young this year.
We sell out nearly every home game don’t we? Ellis Goose & AR and get some “compliment” guys that know there role (i.e. Morrow)
by Balance on May 20, 2009 10:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree wholeheartedly that we should be drafting BPA. There’s alot of reasons why:
- Whoever we’re drafting is going to sign a contract for at least 3 years. They’ll be around for awhile. We shouldn’t draft for only what we think we need for this upcoming season.
- Don Nelson is only signed on for 2 years. Whoever we draft this year is going to be here long after the fat man has retired, therefore we DON’T need to draft someone that fits in his “system”.
- In 2 years, Stephen Jackson and Maggette will have tired legs from Nelson riding them for the whole two years. We shouldn’t be against drafting their replacement during this draft.
- I know we already have Biedrins at C and Ellis at SG (or PG or whatever his position is) locked down in the longterm. But, at #7, we have the opportunity to draft someone potentially better than either of those two. Biedrins and Ellis are good, but not great, and could be valuable trading chips if the opportunity presents itself.
Maybe if we had Lebron or Dwight Howard I would advise against drafting at certain positions, but in our case, we just need to pick the best player available. We can improve ourselves at any position, really. We just need a talented player.
That being said, Jrue Holiday just might actually be BPA at #7, depending on how you look at it. His freshman year was almost identical (production-wise) to Westbrook’s sophomore year at UCLA, and Westbrook turned out to be a very good pick at #4. It’s rare to find a big PG with a complete game (rebounding, defense, passing, etc).
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on May 20, 2009 10:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
we will draft someone who fits nellie's "system"
i mean besides a few players, most of them can “fit” his “system” but riley and nellie are in charge. obviously they’ll draft someone that they can use or expect to use in the future. i doubt nellie cares or has any regard for the team after he leaves so he could really care less.
by gogoldenbears on May 21, 2009 7:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can a scenario like this happen?
Warriors package the 7 pick, Jamal Crawford and some filler
to a team like lets say Utah for a sign and traded Millsap and a first rounder pg like a Maynor or Patty Mills?
my code name is "kelenna bahongpuki"
by VonteegoCummings on May 21, 2009 1:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I should elaborate.
For starters, it is a safe rule to assume that any hypothetical trade that involves ‘sign and trade’ is too improbable to waste much thought on. Sign And Trade are the three ugliest words of any fan site’s trade proposals. While they happen, I have yet to see one where enough serious consideration is given to why the proposed one would occur since it must be seen as beneficial to both teams and (and this is the one that most people just plain ignore) to the player, who is in no way compelled to agree to one.
So on this principle, a reflexive ‘no’ to any s and t is a very safe bet.
More to the point on this one:
Crawford cannot be traded at this point, not while he still has the option to opt out, so there will be no such trade with a draft pick and Crawford. Millsap cannot be part of a ‘sign-and-trade’ until the free agency period, also after the draft. So just based on league rules, that trade cannot happen. Further, making the numbers match in such a scenario is improbable as a sign-and-trade with Millsap puts him in base year compensation space, meaning that it is unlikely that Utah could take back Crawford’s salary. Making the numbers work would take more players coming our way, not imaginary players but real players under contract, which makes this deal rather difficult.
Additionally, I do not see Utah wanting a zero on defense like Crawford (who is only moderately useful on offense) nor see the sort of cooperation that would get Millsap to want to play here vs Utah keeping him there. While some contrived scenario of Utah picking for us, us picking for Utah, Crawford waiving his opt out and the two teams picking for the other only to swap the picks in a month or so when free agency starts, Millsap is not agreeing to a sign and trade before the draft (which would have to be totally a wink-wink deal), before seeing what sort of free agent interest there actually is. This would leave the teams picking for each other with a key part of the trade totally up in the air, dependent on Millsap coming around later and depending on Utah having sufficient cap filler to send out to us to fit Crawford’s salary in.
So as described, the trade is illegal. As a deal that Utah would like, it is unlikely. As the basis for a more elaborate series of player movement, it is far, far to easy to come unhinged to seriously consider the merits of it from a talent standpoint.
See how much easier it would be to just see proposed sign-and-trade and just say it won’t happen?
by jae on May 21, 2009 3:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
millsap was just a scenario i conjured up
basically, if i could parlay the 7th pick (since there are no IMPACT players after the 1st 2 picks) and some of our vets into lets say a PF and a PG, that would be great..
Thanks for the explanation.
my code name is "kelenna bahongpuki"
by VonteegoCummings on May 21, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On Dan Patrick show this morning
SI writer Ian Thompsen said there’s no way Stephen Curry will fall past Nellie and the Warriors at 7. I don’t put a whole lot of stock in that, but it is a thought that hasn’t been kicked around here much (at least not compared to all the Holiday and Jennings talk)
Thing A
by sam23 on May 21, 2009 7:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Dont waste your time w/ Dan Patrick
Dude is Poo Poo
by bonbrillio on May 26, 2009 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dan Patrick might not be a good radio host,
but the information came from Ian Thompsen. Curry is a good player that might get picked before he deserves to be. If he does fall to us, maybe we should grab and we can either keep him or trade him later that night, should be a few teams intrested in the kid.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on May 31, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh
Steph Curry= volume shooter, undersized (maybe he does belong with Nellie)
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
by Supafishal on May 21, 2009 8:07 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
in all fairness to curry, he needed to be a volume shooter. no one else on that team could score. he’ll probably be a decent 6th or 7th man somewhere. if it’s here, i won’t punch a hole in the wall or anything, though i’d guess at that spot there’d be someone who i’d want more.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on May 21, 2009 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We need to try and draft someone at 7
With a higher ceiling than just a decent 6th or 7th man.
by pbra17 on May 23, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“higher ceiling” in this draft also means “lower floor.” curry’s a pretty safe bet to be a productive player and considering no one that we could get at 7 really has superstar potential, getting a safe bet isn’t exactly a disaster.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on May 24, 2009 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
and while I think Curry probably projects as a 6th or 7th man, I think its unfair that most people tend to say thats his ceiling. Honestly I think he may have almost as much star potential as most of the non-Ruio or Griffin prospects in this draft.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 24, 2009 4:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His ceiling is a solid roleplayer starter. Shoots, runs the point, plays hard on D. He just doesn’t have the physical tools to become any more than that. Holiday, Jennings, Derozan, Thabeet (and others) all have way higher potentials. Probably lower floors, too, but my thoughts are: we’re picking #7 for a reason. We aren’t about to win a championship, to get to the point where we are, we need a couple home runs.
by Missing Barry on May 27, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The notion that we can predict a player’s “ceiling” strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. I just went back and looked at the scouting reports on Brandon Roy at draft time, many saying that he projected to be a solid role player. No one predicted superstar. No one.
by jae on May 27, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There isn’t any prediction involved when talking about a players ceiling – basically it’s a focus on what a players weaknesses they won’t be able to overcome are, and a statement of how good they will be if they develop the rest of their game. As for predicting whether the player will reach that ceiling…well I’m with you there. In Curry’s case, he’s limited by his lack of athleticism. Even if the rest of his game reaches superstar levels, he’s never going to be able to break a defender down the way Tony Parker can because he just isn’t quick enough. His lack of athleticism will also hold him back on D.
As for Brandon Roy, Draftexpress said this about him in their draft report:
“There is very little he doesn’t do, whether it is creating his own shot, finding his teammates for open looks, defending just about any position, and showing up in the clutch when his team needs him most. His smooth, calm style of play makes him both effective and efficient.”
“While it has taken him four seasons to get here, the question now must be asked: what’s not to like about Brandon Roy?”
NBAdraft.net had pretty good things to say:
http://www.nbadraft.net/players/brandon-roy
Obviously they underrated Roy, but their scouting reports did have some clues as to what he would become. Most people probably just thought it was unlikely he’d be as good as he is.
by Missing Barry on May 27, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a big UCLA fan so I love anyone coming out of UCLA
I was real big on Westbrook but I’m not as big on Holiday. I’d like to have him but for some reason, I feel like Jennings would be a better fit. I think it’s all the talk about his “growth” and change of attitude since playing pro ball.
"Maybe I need somebody that can save me from the parts of myself that keep making me crazy" -Slug-
by drizztismoneybaby on May 21, 2009 11:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Holiday seems to be of a wild card,
I would rather even have Johnny Flynn, who probably has less of a ‘ceiling’ but looks to be slightly more ready and looks to be in a more traditional point guard mold.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on May 31, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I very much agree. “BPA” is the credo to go by — a bad team shouldn’t worry about fit, especially when our roster is already such a weird one to begin with. And really, the last thing the team should be thinking about is finding our new starting point guard in this draft, for the simple reason that other than maybe Rubio, none of these guys are likely to be good enough to justify sliding Monta over.
An X/Monta/Jack/Randolph/Biedrins lineup is a worse rebounding lineup, and almost assuredly a worse defensive lineup, than Monta/Jack/Maggette/Randolph/Biedrins. For the first lineup to be preferable, X would need to be an impact offensive player, and while I’m no scouting expert, I don’t see Holliday, Jennings or any of these other guys getting to that level. They’d need to bring a combination of scoring and playmaking that was significantly more valuable than Maggette’s scoring, and that’s no easy task.
That’s not to say we should steer away from point guards, or even that we should close the door on starting one if he proves himself. If we take Brandon Jennings and he blossoms all of a sudden, great — slide Monta over and see how it goes. But the odds aren’t likely that, at 7, we’ll get a guy worth junking the Monta-at-PG experiment for.
by onlxn on May 21, 2009 11:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
D Partrick on Curry and the warriors
Curry is the one guy in this draft that worries me. Worries me in the sense that he has the highest potential for us to one day be saying, “damn, we should’ve drafted that guy”. I still don’t want to see it happen, but I also wouln’t be too upset.
by Balance on May 21, 2009 11:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Curry shoots well, seems to handle the ball well, but carries the double edged mark of not being regarded as a player out of HS (hence playing at Davidson) and not consistently facing top talent (a result of playing at Davidson). I put him in the ‘I just have no clue’ category.
by jae on May 21, 2009 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he’s going to shoot well at the nba level and will probably be a solid pick and roll guard for that reason (plus the quickness). i wouldn’t get my hopes up about him being a great player, but put him on the right team and he’ll succeed. if he could play mo williams to someone’s lebron, i bet he’d be up to the challenge.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on May 21, 2009 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curry’s problem is a lack of athleticism. He’s never going to be able to consistently create shots for himself or teammates. Nor will he ever be a lockdown defender. He simply isn’t big/quick/strong/long enough to accomplish these things. He’s a great shooter, and showed the ability at times to effectively run the point. His potential is limited, but he should turn into a good role player. Curry at 7 is a HUGE reach – we should get a lot more with a #7 overall pick than him.
by Missing Barry on May 21, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
While it maz be true, I am suspicious of anz attempt to put limits on a plazer’s potential. I remember more than a few suggesting that while Roy could be a useful plazer, that he had limited ‘upside’. I still suspect that much of the evaluation of Curry is based on him going to a lesser school, largely because he was overlooked out of HS. This will continue to flavor people’s opinion of his ‘athleticism’ regardless of his true abiities.
by jae on May 21, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re actually getting a Missing Barry scouting report. I’m actually a huge Curry fan, I watched them play (on tv) every chance I got. Basically, I consider myself very knowledgeable when it comes to basketball, and here is what I saw: Teams would give Curry absolutely no space whatsoever because he was such a deadly shooter. He got his shot off anyways. His release is so quick, his range is almost unlimited, and he’s obviously a dead-eye shooter. He also had nice moves to get his jump shot off. However, despite how closely he was played, he often struggled to break down his defender because he really wasn’t quick enough. It’s not as apparent against lesser competition, but especially when he played Duke and Gonzaga (games I watched), he really struggled to get by Mills (when Mills guarded him) and struggled with the length/athleticism of the Duke players like Henderson. He also plays way below the rim – he’s short so it’s expected, and guys like Tony Parker and CP3 do too, so it’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a red flag that he lacks the explosiveness to really be a great NBA player.
He ran the pick and roll pretty well, and he has good basketball IQ (makes the right read most of the time, good vision, good feel for being in the right place and reading his defender both with the ball and without), so I think he should be an effective PG, though his passing wasn’t spectacular (but solid enough that he should be good enough at it). The bottom line that I see is in the NBA, where it’s a huge step up from college in terms of athleticism, he’s going to struggle to break anyone down and get into the lane to create for his teammates, and it’s not like he has Kidd’s vision and passing skills to be really effective on the perimeter. That said, he’s such a great shooter that I still think if he runs the point well, those two things can make him a solid starter. But that’s his ceiling.
by Missing Barry on May 21, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
nice writeup. funny thing is, i think that this post makes me disagree with your opinion about him at the 7 even more than i did before. like i said, i wouldn’t be ecstatic about the pick, but if we can get a solid starter (though he’d come off the bench for as long as we had monta, no one wants to play those two together for considerable minutes) at that spot in such a weak draft, i think you have to consider it. there’s a lot of shaky picks in the 6-12 range in this draft and i guess if we could get someone who would immediately contribute as our backup point guard and would grow into a role as a good 6th or 7th man, i would not be devastated.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on May 21, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I woulnd’t mind having Curry on our team – I think our real disagreement comes from the value of the #7 pick. I think we can get more than that. There are guys available who can become better than that – I personally want Jennings, who I’ve seen play, he’s the real deal. Supposedly he’s matured a lot as a person/player, though I take those reports with a grain of salt. If he pans out you’re looking at a Tony Parker caliber player. If we had a pick more around #20 (or maybe #15 in this draft), I’d love to pick Curry.
by Missing Barry on May 21, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Jennings likely won't last to #7
And Curry likely won’t last to #20 (or even #15).
Memphis would love to get Blake Griffen at #2, but that’s not going to happen either.
Jennings might fall because there are too many guys seen as possessing “equivalent talent” and he’s out of Europe, so the NBA folks won’t have seen as much of him. Curry won’t last past #12.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
R Dizzle = Wannabe AB1
by Dubs fan in Boston on May 22, 2009 6:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably all true. Hopefully Jennings falls. I think picking Curry that high is a little above where he should go, but I wouldn’t doubt some team likes what he has to offer and pulls the triggers higher than the 15-20ish range.
by Missing Barry on May 27, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So... what's your point?
You’d like to draft players later than they’ll actually get drafted? Me too. If Blake Griffen drops to #3, we should definitely try to trade up to get him.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
R Dizzle = Wannabe AB1
by Dubs fan in Boston on May 27, 2009 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is we’re speculating about the player we want long before the draft and a lot can happen. I would like Jennings at #7. That’s a lot more likely than Griffen dropping to #3…as in actually a plausible scenario. This subthread also contains decent discussion about Curry’s prospects – so the real point is just to discuss possibilities and values of players relevant to the Warriors draft pick, and I don’t understand your hostility towards this…
by Missing Barry on May 28, 2009 6:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right,
and thats why the Warriors FO should make a list of the best 7 players in the draft and put the in order and when its our turn to pick, we should take the highest player on that list available.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on May 31, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m definitely starting to like the Curry idea more and more. I’d take him over Jennings right now.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 24, 2009 4:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
at the same time, it would be good to have a real big time playing point guard. I definetly hope the Warriors go BPA, I would be delighted with Curry, Jennings, or Flynn.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on May 31, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're not a good
enough team to worry about filling needs. Pick BPA and stockpile talent. Put ourselves in a position to package players for a star/superstar later.
I don’t think we can go wrong with Evans, Jennings, or Holiday.
With Rubio threatening to pull a Steve Francis (ironically to the Grizzlies) it could have a ripple effect on the rest of the lottery. Does he go back to Spain? Do they start negotiating trade scenarios for the swapping of picks? Can we get in the mix?
It’s undeniable, no matter how dysfunctional an Elgin Baylor-less Clippers franchise is, I don’t think they can pass on Blake. Now for the rest of the draft? If Rubio is packaged, it’s pretty much a lock the Thunder get Thabeet at 3 right?
Sacramento at 4 and Minnesota at 6 would probably be the strongest suitors for a package for Rubio. Beno Udrih isn’t a very good point guard and he’d be better suited coming off the bench. Randy Foye is better suited for the off-guard position. I’d even say Washington would be interested in trading for Rubio. Give them the luxury of putting Agent Zero at the 2 when (and if) he ever gets healthy. Don’t count out D’Antoni and New York either.
It’s just going to be so difficult to gauge who will be where. The Warriors scouts have a lot on their plate. They better not focus in and fall in love with a certain player.
Every team in the NBA is weary of adding salary one year before the free agent bonanza. Even if Memphis can’t keep Rubio, they’ll still be in excellent position for 2010. Only $34M on the books next season. Only bad contract they have is Marco Jaric.
Memphis/Sacramento
Ricky Rubio, Marco Jaric, Greg Buckner for Kenny Thomas (expiring), Ike Diogu (expiring) Jordan Hill (4th) + 23rd pick, maybe a future lotto protected 1st?
Memphis/Washington (Thabeet goes 3rd, Jennings goes 4th)
Ricky Rubio, Marco Jaric, Greg Buckner for Antawn Jamison, Jordan Hill
Memphis/Minnesota (Thabeet goes 3rd, Jennings goes 4th, Hill goes 5th)
Ricky Rubio, Marco Jaric, Greg Buckner for Demar Derozan, Future 1st round pick, Mike Miller
Plain and simple, it’s a damn crapshoot on who’ll be available when we pick.
For good measure
Memphis/New York (Thabeet 3rd, Jennings 4th, Hill 5th, Holiday 6th, Evans 7th)
Ricky Rubio, Marco Jaric, Greg Buckner for David Lee (signed and extended), James Harden
by phiLthyphiL on May 21, 2009 12:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How about we trade our team for the best player we can get,
draft BPA at 7, and sign a whole bunch of scrubs to one-year deals and start the team from scratch.
by ZaMzAm FiRe on May 21, 2009 1:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I suspect that our entire team would bring back contracts that would last far longer than one zear. Starting from scratch is difficult to do. It requires more than one zear of sacrifice. And sucking when zou actuallz thought zou were trzing to put together a real team is not the same thing as sacrifice. For rebuilding, we’re still at stage one.
by jae on May 21, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would've been a lot easier without the Maggette signing and Jackson extension.
And keeping Al would’ve helped too.
by ZaMzAm FiRe on May 21, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would be legitimately excited about the Warriors if all 3 of those were true. A core of Wright, Randolph, Biedrins, Ellis with a good salary situation, cheap guys like Buke and Morrow, a young guy that might be a decent role player down the road in Bellinelli, and money to add a real impact player. Unfortunately, we live in reality, where Cohan owns the Warriors and we’re the same dysfunctional franchise we’ve been since the mid-90’s.
by Missing Barry on May 21, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What kind of accent is 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 May 27, 2009 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, Like when I have too much bier?
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 May 27, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's what we know:
Just cherrypicking off the OP
1. Nelson isn’t known for playing young, green players, unless they do one or two things really well. Like Nash, Dirk, Webber, Spree, Howard, …. the assumptions around GSoM that Nelson won’t ever play rookies is not often challenged, just wanted to challenge the assumption – he has and will play talented players who understand the game whether young, old, short, tall …
2. Nelson thinks Monta’s future is at the point if he is ever to become a star in the league, and plans to play him there this season. Remember, he said this long before Baron left the team — it’s not something the team is saying just because they don’t have any other options at PG. Agreed
3. Nelson wants to play Jackson at the 2 because of his lack of rebounding at the 3, his good perimeter defense, and his ability to post up smaller players. And because his playmaking skills take some of the pressure off of playing Monta at the PG. An additional benefit is the option of playing a bigger (gasp!) lineup
by hardcore on May 21, 2009 2:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Nelson youth assumption
Nash was a two-year veteran when he first played for Nellie; Dirk played 20 mpg his rookie season, mostly off the bench; Spree was 22 when he was drafted; Howard played 4 years at college; and Webber was really, really good. I know that you weren’t necessarily challenging my statement, but rather the assumption that he doesn’t ever play rookies, and I agree with you on that — he does. But usually only if, as you say, they are talented and understand the game. He’s not one to play them just to play them — they’ve got to help him win games.
by ffgolden on May 21, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nelson also hated Webber, which actually adds to the viewpoint that he hates rookies.
by Missing Barry on May 21, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He didn't "hate" him he was just really really hard on him and Web didn't like it.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on May 21, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hate may be a strong word, the bottom line is they didn’t get along.
by Missing Barry on May 21, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats for sure
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on May 21, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nelly doesn't want to be a babysitter
I agree with your comment. Basically, Nelson just doesn’t like dealing with young guys who think they are entitled to P.T. just because they have talent. He wants players with experience and work ethic. More proof: who started last season at point guard for us. It just turned out that although Nelson had the experience, he just couldn’t shoot. Nelly (and Riley) were also high on A-Mo when nobody else was because of his experience.
At the beginning of the season, Nelson and Randolph clashed because Randolph just wanted to get on the court and jump around and turn the ball over. Once he got some experience under his belt and a better feel for the game, they didn’t have any more problems.
by NextSeason on May 22, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What experience?
A-Mo had no experience. He was a rookie buddy.
by ZaMzAm FiRe on May 23, 2009 3:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think he meant 4 years at college...
"so much losers" - hiero
by montamazing on May 23, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nelson has said on a number of occasions that Monta will have to be able to run the point to be a true star (or something to that effect). I think this often gets confused with Nelson thinking that Monta will necessarilz be able to do this. I do not think this is the case. It is more that it is the onlz option for Monta to reallz blossom and currentlz, the onlz option for the Warriors. Does not mean it is the ideal situation.
by jae on May 22, 2009 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
True, but they just invested $60 mil in him. One would think that they did so with the intent to put him in a position to maximize his potential, and maximize the return on their investment. Whether he does so at the point, or ever, is yet to be seen.
by ffgolden on May 22, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The overall state of affairs in Warrior managment does not lead me to automaticallz assume that dealings and moves are made with sufficient claritz and foresight to conclude that when thez gave Monta the contract, thez had a plan for him. Given that thez have made moves that most clearlz do NOT maximiye investments in some cases, I see no reason to believe that thez had a moment of claritz in this particular instance.
by jae on May 23, 2009 1:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
true, and frequently mis-construed
just the way you describe, jae, folks project that nelson believes in ellis’ ability or potential to become a top lead guard, when he only trusts what his eyes tell him. It was Mullin more than anyone else who thought ellis would become someone special—nelson is more pragmatic and tries to utilize a player to maximum effect. The bar is set ridiculously high for 2-guards, the very best all defend better and run their teams more than ellis ever will, while most teams make do with functional but not great point guards.
by the.monk on May 22, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't forget about. . .
Mitch Richmond – rookie of the year and Tim Hardaway, runner up to David Robinson the following year.
by range on May 24, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not that it matters
Riley more or less said that we were picking for need.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on May 22, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
fortunatelz
or perhaps unfortunatelz, everz position is a position of need for the Warriors.
Back to the original topic, I feel that need CAN and SHOULD be a factor for drafting. However, I don’t think it should hold anzthing more than tiebreaking status. That is, if two plazers are “tied” or verz close on a draft board, you can use position/plaz stzle to choose one or the other because he’s a better fit. It’s when teams ignore value and draft solelz on need that zou get into trouble.
by markdash on May 23, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was funnz. Good joke, or a drunken JAE giving up his secret alt-account?!?!?
Thing 2
by olympicmike on May 23, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was a joke. Prettz good, right?
Ying!
by markdash on May 23, 2009 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I must say...
you have been bringing the funny lately.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on May 23, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was easy...
ok guys, shut the blog down until training camp.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on May 24, 2009 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think
Harden will be the BPA and most NBA ready player in this year’s draft. Should we draft him, he would be our starting 2 guard at the start of the 2010/11 season. Count it.
by bonbrillio on May 26, 2009 7:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
he will probably be gone by the 7 pick, but i’d say that he’d have a shot to start sometime after the all-star game this season.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on May 26, 2009 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
trade the #7 pick
in a package featuring any of the following players: crawford, azubuike, maggette, belinelli…for a VETERAN player. this team is too young to accomplish anything for at least 3-4 years, and i think there is a great need for a veteran player to teach the young guys (ellis, randolph, wright, biedrins…) how to conduct themselves as professionals. i’m talking work ethic, social responsibility to their community, how to be a team player, how to win big games, the mental side of basketball, the hunger of winning, etc, etc ,etc. the young guys on the DUbs have talent, but need to learn the intangibles to be really successful.
and by Veteran player i mean a player who is 30+ years and has WON AN NBA CHAMPIONSHIP!!! this is important as guys who have won something demand more respect from young players. no offense to S Jax or Jamal Crawford, guys getting up there in age, but they haven’t won anything…and who really trusts the character of the team in Jackson’s hands??
i’m fine with the plan that Ellis be the PG of the future…but he has no idea how to play the position. NBA coaches (how old is Nellie?!) are less effective in 1) teaching nba talent a new basketball skill set and 2) demanding enough respect from a player for that player to LISTEN to him and learn. it’s reasonable to believe a 22 year old is not going to listen and learn from a 40, 50, 60 year old coach….i think a young player can only effectively learn from a respected peer (aka veteran teammate). for ellis to learn PG, i say bring in the best possible (old) PG to teach the youngster how to orchestrate an offense.
so to sum a long winded argument….the warriors must add the right veteran player via making a trade, maybe involving the #7 pick , or signing a free agent. the team has loads of talent, but is too young and has no direction and leadership.
by Brickowski BOOM on May 27, 2009 9:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
no offense to S Jax or Jamal Crawford, guys getting up there in age, but they haven’t won anything
The 02-03 NBA championship San Antonio Spurs starting off guard was Stephen Jackson.
by jae on May 27, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoops
d@mn!! i forgot about that. thanks for correcting my mistake (S Jax’s championship early in his career tends to be forgotten through his mid-career “gun” issues, etc). i’d still like to see a veteran PG added to the team to teach ellis how to play the position.
by Brickowski BOOM on May 27, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
im a Suns fan
We’re looking to get young now that our window is closed. What would Warriors fans think about taking Steve Nash and the 14th pick for a player and your 7th. I know Nelson loves him like his child, and it would work for your up-tempo style.
by Funky Flapsack on May 27, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A sign and trade? I’m pretty sure Steve Nash is a free agent.
Personally, I’m not a fan of the deal if it somehow worked. I want a PG who can play defense. Monta and Nash together could possibly be the worst defensive backcourt in the history of basketball. The offense would sure be fun to watch, though.
by Neon on May 27, 2009 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if Steve Nash was a free agent why would he want to come to Golden State,
the problem is that last year we had to overpay to grab a MLE to come to the bay by giving him a 5 year 50 million dollar deal. This off season all we have is the MLE, not sure why any good player would realistically take the same amount of money to come play for us.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on May 31, 2009 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NA$H
Nash will make a little over $13 million next year and said that he will ask for more in his next contract. That’s a lot of money for a 35 year-old with a bad back who doesn’t play defense.
by Neon on May 27, 2009 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When my next annual review comes around at work, I’m going to ask for twice what I’m currently being paid.
Which is to say, what a player wants, what he deserves and what he gets are all often wildly different.
by markdash on May 28, 2009 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am down with drafting BPA, but more saying that we should draft whoever we think has the most value rather than team need. Because it is really hard to distinguish who is actually the best player available.
I don’t know if that made any sense, maybe I’ll just keep that thought in my mind, where it sounded better.
by belilaugh on May 27, 2009 9:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
