Weighing the Rumor: cases for and against a deal for Stoudemire
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 12:24 AM PDT
in Rumors
336 comments
Firstly, these rumors are worth discussing because the trade is entirely plausible. It meets several requirements of a realistic proposal. There is an argument for it from both team's perspectives. It could benefit both teams.
But importantly, it stings a bit. It is not some far-fetched scheme that somehow transforms a sign-and-trade of Kurz into Lebron James. We are talking about giving up a young, quality center with a reasonable, well designed long term contract for the duration of his peak years. Add to it some assortment of young guys who have performed reasonably well in limited time and have (and I use this word with great hesitation) potential to be better than pretty good players. This is not a freebie. It means giving up something real, something you do not want to give up. Still, it is a deal that could net us one of the few dominant big men, a guy who has shown he can score a bunch of points with elite efficiency. Stoudemire is a rare talent and has in the past been real, real close to the sort of high octane player who you can build a winner around. Opportunities for the elite big man do not come around often, and your odds of winning it all go up considerably if you have one. And this is why this subject is worthy of debate.
Just for starters, any deal assumes an extension for Stoudemire as the gamble on a one and done should mean immediately rejecting the deal. But the assumption of an extension should mean the assumption of a Max contract extension. He will not come cheaper. So assuming these things...
The case for Stoudemire:
There are not many guys who score as efficiently as Stoudemire with his shot volume. He takes shots and makes shots. He gets fouled and he converts from the line. In the paint, there are very few guys in the game who are as lethal as Amare and other teams know it. If you play against him, you have to figure out a way to contend with his considerable abilities, else pay a penalty for poor planning, a penalty that usually shows up in the "L" column. We want what he can do and there are not many chances to get a player like him, especially one who is still in the prime of his career.
In the past, Amare has been a reasonable rebounder. Some years, he's been even better than that. He has played a combination C/PF roll for the Suns and would likely be the nominal center after a trade, and he's done it well enough to see his team win far more often than not.
And that, as short as it is, is a real strong case for getting him. Odds do not favor that anything we give up, no matter how promising it is, will match that value. That is, if we get what we have seen.
The case against a deal:
The real worry is not that we would have to give up too much. There is not any sure way to know, though it seems that in most NBA trades, the team that gets the best player wins and a greater volume of lesser talent and "potential" rarely if ever outperforms one dominant guy. So for now, I try not to think too much about Brandan Wright (with a world of potential) or Marco Belinelli (with less than a world of potential, but still seemingly capable of producing), or even the newly minted Stephen Curry (who is in the wonderful position of never having played a game and is thus just oozing with "potential"). Odds do not favor any of them being a dominant player just because so few players ever are. It could happen, but that seems to be said of several players every year, and yet here we sit with two winning seasons and one playoff appearance in the last decade and a half. We could discuss their potential, but better money says that these guys remain afterthoughts "oozing with potential". Potential does not win games.Market your deal on potential. If we can get a buyer for it, you make the sale. Sure, in negotiations, try to keep the best parts you can, but do not get distracted by what this trade will likely mean.
No, the real worry is that we will not get the best player in the deal, though we will pay like we did and pay for years to come.
My fear is that the proposed trade will be Biedrin and change, not for the Amare Stoudemire who led the Association in scoring efficiency just one season back, but rather a lesser version. Do I mean the knee? The microfracture seems to have been dealt with. He has played better since the surgery and has not missed games because of it. The eye? A freak accident. It is more likely to be a recurring problem than Biedrins's no longer extant appendix, but only slightly more likely. Ignore it. It is not a real concern. I do not mean these things.
The fear is time. The real fear is that the decline in rebounds and FG% last year was not just a lack of motivation due to having to share the paint with Shaq, but the early stages of a decline in skill. Few guys his size have ever been as explosive, as quick and nimble as Stoudemire. But one player who might have rivaled him in such regards was Shawn Kemp. Or at least the under 27 version of Kemp, before a bulging waistline robbed him of enough speed and agility to turn him into a bloated (in both body and contract) version no longer capable of driving his team into the win column. When your game is so significantly reliant on overwhelming athletic ability, a decline in this ability for whatever reason means a less effective player. A fully effective Stoudemire did not quite get his team to the finals. Close, but not quite. We are not likely to see him improve at his age, but should his deal run into his early to mid 30s (and an extension on his contract will almost certainly mean that) means we are likely to see his maximum earnings come after he has lost a step. Or two. Or three.
The fear is also that the Amare Stoudemire who could score nearly 27 points on just over 16 shots does not exist without Steve Nash to get him the ball. Indeed when Nash was not on the court, Amare's production declined significantly. Nash is one of the best in the game at improving the offense of his teammates. But he does not come with the deal, so the Amare we get is unlikely to be able to match that sort of production. He will undoutedly still be very good, but very good may not be good enough, especially when it is all but certain that Stoudemire will command a max contract, making it unfeasible to acquire another dominant player if he turns out to be insufficient.
Either of these fears should be enough to give pause to sending out a quality center for the opportunity to put $16mil a year, increasing by a couple of million each year, into his pockets regardless of what happens on the court in the future. There is no money-back guarantee if the guy who you ink to a max contract turns out to be a thing of the past sharing a name (and bank account in which you deposit ridiculous sums of money) but not game with the player you thought you were acquiring.
This is a one time opportunity in more ways than one. An opportunity to hit big, perhaps big enough that paying the back end for his declining years would be worth it. But also an opportunity to blow another half decade waiting for a mistake to come off the books. We have been waiting for mistakes t come off the books for a long, long time, but just because we should be used to it does not mean we should continue to accept it.
And though I would tend to discount most of the 'high potential' kids tossed into the deal, we are not talking about giving up spare change to take this chance. Andris Biedrins, for his faults, is still a good player, a good starting center, something that is tough to come by. He has a responsible contract that does not grow and will look better and better in years to come. He is young and should see this contract though the best years of his career. While substantial improvement may not occur, he is still at an age where players tend to refine their game. It is unlikely we have seen his best. And already he does several things better than most in the game. He is a very good rebounder. Rebounds help win games and it is highly unlikely that Stoudemire would equal his production on the glass. While not as flashy as high octane offense, silently ensuring more clean possessions for your team has great value towards getting your team into the win column.
While Biedrins does not yet appear to be much of an individual defender in the paint, I am of the mind that Biedrins' value would be much more apparent on a better team. Already his rebounding meant that the team was as good defensively as they were when the better post defender but weaker rebounding Turiaf manning the middle. If guards were forcing the opposition to take bad shots from the perimeter, a fantastic rebounder – and nonsense about how his totals are "inflated" aside, Andris is a fantastic rebounder – would be even more valuable. There would be more missed shots to haul in and fewer chances to be abused in the pain. Each defensive rebound means a defensive stop. It means getting the ball back without surrendering a bucket. Real defense. Half the game. But that was not the Warriors' game last year. Guards did not prevent the entry passes to big men who can take Biedrins one on one, or two on one since he often had Corey Maggette "backing him up" (and I use the terms real, real loosely) at PF to go against the opposition's big men.
No, Biedrins does not have a polished offensive game. But per minute, he scores more than the average center and he does so without needing to have the offense designed for him. It may be nothing but "dunks and layups and putbacks" but they count just as much as a rainbow jumper or crafty spin move, and if was so easy to convert these, why then do so few players actually manage to do so. It is an exceptionally under-appreciated skill, and one that helps wing games.
And yet, we did not win many games last year, and without something to shake it up, the improvement we are likely to see hinges either on the ever elusive "internal development" or a whole lot of luck. Those are not things that suggest you hold your cards and pray you have already drawn a winning hand. Those are things that make a move, especially one that offers as much as thing one might, look enticing.
A conclusion?
Do not take the relative length of the pros and cons to mean one is more favorable than the other. The devil we know is more easy to discuss and perhaps superficially more appealing. But this does not make it better just in that regard. It is a very, very close call. Tantalizingly seductive yet terrifying nonetheless. Were it that Stoudemire would agree for a shorter extension, or less than Max money, it would not be. Were it that Biedrins was a couple years older, or Stoudemire a year or two younger, it would not be.
But as it is, it is not an easy decision. If you think it is, think harder.
17 recs |
336 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Great post
The devil is in the details, but I don’t want a big man who averages 8.1 boards in 37 mins in play in a fast paced offense. Forget the name recognition and he played like a poor man’s Bosh last year. If Amare of last year is the Amare of next year, even a straight Bieds for Amare trade stinks. STAT’s ceiling is much higher than any player in the deal (probably), but last year’s decline in value means that Amare probably isn’t worth Bieds+Wright+Curry. Ya, STAT could be the 2004 version, but it’s just as likely that we get bad knees/contract/attitude from the deal.
by Free Zarko on Jun 27, 2009 12:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Beware the paralysis of analysis –
especially without considering the intangibles…especially chemistry!
Otherwise a rarional approarch/discussion/conclusion
by streetballer on Jun 27, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
great post
rec’d especially for this-
But as it is, it is not an easy decision. If you think it is, think harder.
Thing A
"no homo"
by sam23 on Jun 27, 2009 12:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm done thinking hard on this one
I’ve flip flopped a few times but the uncertaintity is too vast, lets move one and pick up someone cheaper, maybe Camby, Boozer or some lesser name. Try to keep Beans
by T-Money on Jun 27, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Giving up Biedrins and Wright for only Stoudemire means for a painfully think frontline
and if rebounding was a problem in seasons past then I’d like to see who atma or the talking heads pin a rebounding deficiency on without Andris and Brandan and only Amar’e to fill the void.
by so ill so d0pe on Jun 27, 2009 12:52 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
by so ill so d0pe on Jun 27, 2009 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice Post...
I just think that even though it stings and there are major risks, it would be foolish not to gamble on Amare. His upside is just to intriguing….We have been mediocre for far too long not to gamble.
I will miss Rocky/Wright and will miss the idea of Curry suceeding as a Warrior but sometimes you just have to hope for the best.
by StephenJaaackson! on Jun 27, 2009 12:52 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
For the last time....
Stephen Curry is not going anywhere. Don Nelson came right out and said it yesterday….“We are not trading Stephen Curry. We did not draft him to trade him. Any trade scenario that comes along will not include Stephen Curry.So he can relax now and buy a house and get ready to play Warriors basketball.”
For those who didn’t get to see this, it was on Chronicle Live yesterday. Greg Papa did an interview with Nellie and it came straight from the horse’s mouth. Also, Larry Riley made a statement to support that of Nellie’s and also made it very clear that Monta Ellis is not going anywhere either. So, y’all can stop the Monta trade rumors as well.
As far as Amare goes, I think he would have been worth it a couple of years ago but not anymore. Why not go after Chris Bosh instead? Or wait till Amare opts out of his contract in 2010? The Warriors would still have pieces to move and I just don’t feel good about trading for a guy who might not want to re-sign with the Dubs Anyway. Crapshoot of a trade in my opinion but I feel like I would rather hang on to Beans and watch him continue to get better and be under appreciated by the rest of the league.
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
by mrod on Jun 27, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Dunleavy is a natural 4” (straight from the same scotch fueled horse’s mouth).
Bosh doesn’t want to sign an extension with anyone right now. Getting either player without an extension worked out would be rather unwise.
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's why I would be more inclined to wait for a guy to hit FA
or know that a potential FA was wanting to come here and play/sans extension. And Nellie may love his scotch but he was definitely not boozed up during that interview. It was at the press conference for Curry. So why would they even bother having a press conference fir Curry if they were just gonna turn around and trade him?
Think about it….
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
by mrod on Jun 27, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why have the press conference? Because they aren’t sure they’re going to trade him and it’s what you do with new draft picks. Why spoil the relationship with the player that you may wind up keeping, even if it’s not certain? Interest also increases the perceived value. It looks like we really, really, really want him. He must have value, we’re saying he’s untouchable! (“Ok, we’ll include Curry, but you have to include <x,y,z>”)
This is gamesmanship. I suspect that the Warriors really do want to keep him, but no one is untouchable if the deal is right and the word of an NBA coach/GM about future player movements is never to be trusted.
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are going to have constant cynics (jae you’ve done a good job filling this role), and I understand the viewpoint, but hearing Nellie and Riley say the things they did last night convinced me that Curry is staying a Warrior.
Two things from his statement lend credence to the fact that Nelson isn’t lying: “Any trade scenario that comes along will not involve Stephen Curry.” Its not as if he is denying the trade rumors about Amare coming to Golden State. He is simply saying that if that trade goes through, Curry will not be involved.
Secondly, he tells him to “relax and buy a house”. Now, if Nellie had any intention of parting with Curry in an Amar’e trade, that would just be downright messed up to tell him to buy a house out here. As much as I’m aware of the fact that Nellie is a cantankerous old drunk, I don’t think he’d stoop that low.
by randolphforpresident on Jun 27, 2009 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually i thought it was a funny rhetorical ploy, and over the top on Nelsons part. Most players are advised not to buy a house in the town the play in….until they are established (and even then many are advised not to). Houses are a common negotiating ploy too (a recent example: jay cutler putting his denver area house on the market to make his trade demand more poignant).
All it does is emphasize the warriors desire to keep him, but as for whether he is truly off limits, you can’t read that into it.
Prospective parent of new pick, Zack Wheeler. Projectable Righty stolen from the braves. Of course, I stalk my son's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/zackwheelerbaseball
"Obviously I’m not doing things like going toe-to-toe with a ninja. Find me a ninja, for one."--Brian Wilson
by haverecords on Jun 28, 2009 1:18 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think we should take any statement by Nelson
as a unconditional truth. While I do believe that Nellie really likes Curry nobody is untouchable on the team at the moment, espicially if you attempting to get a 6 foot 10, 26 year old perenial All Star.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jun 28, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stay objective jae...
"Dunleavy is a natural 4" (straight from the same scotch fueled horse’s mouth)…OR that slippery slope will fall you along side of TK!!
Remembering that it was you that said last year that an Warriors’s invitation to balling summer league was the kiss of death… You would have thrown Morrow away.
by streetballer on Jun 27, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There were A LOT of people not wanting Morrow
Even after his coming out party that the Clippers hosted for him
by 123707THIZZ on Jun 28, 2009 12:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nelson to Jordan Hill: "you won't get past us at #7"
by hardcore on Jun 27, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought he said “he’d probably be the pick if he was available at 7”
Thing A
"no homo"
by sam23 on Jun 27, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you said it all
tough decision
my thoughts -you may gamble on young improving players -not max money
30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ
by Lat We N Trash on Jun 27, 2009 12:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this
Gambling on young improving players, at worst, leaves you with a team that can at least still has the flexibility to improve. Gambling on max money and losing leaves you entirely screwed.
Outman, fighter of the Hitman, champion of the K, he's a master of scoreless innings and friendship for everyone.
by walk off bunt on Jun 27, 2009 3:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
our FO decisions have rarely left us with the flexibility to move, this is a rare opportunity
we may turn away from it, but opportunities like this do not come around often – all the more reason it is a painful decision
by hardcore on Jun 27, 2009 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very tough decision!
We have been on the ‘tough’ end of the stick way to many times to NOT feel a little queezy thinking about giving up so much for ‘X’. Im holding my breath either way.
Proud Sponsor Of: FITZ AND BROOKS KNBR Monthly Photo Contest AND your San Jose Giants!!!
http://www.greenlightjerky.com
by GreenLightJerky on Jun 27, 2009 1:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Love your posts, jae
found a typo: “a good staring center”
by IQofaWarrior on Jun 27, 2009 1:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He's another Billy Owens
No trade! Don and a Weak GM traded Mitch Richmond for damaged goods in Owens and dammit if history isn’t repeating itself. Why isn’t Phoenix building around Amare if he is still young and at a high level? Because he is going to break down. We went thru this with Webber, too, the second time, but at least that was at tryout prices. This is max contract and it is a bum deal.
No way Amare is going to be worth our younger and just ready for prime time players. Beans, Wright and Belli are developing, and once again we let go players without getting advantage of what they are ready to do. I would rather build on what we have than break it down again by giving up so many promising players.
At least all our guys can run the floor, there is no guarantee that Amare’s knee will hold up. Microfracture recovery is not a high percentage recovery, I believe. If he can’t run he wont play.
I swear you just have to wave a shiny object at Warrior Management and they go all ga-ga. over it.
by PuraVida on Jun 27, 2009 1:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
you’re comparing a 26 year old Stoudemire to the aging version of Webber that could barely trot up and down the court we brought back?
Thing A
"no homo"
by sam23 on Jun 27, 2009 2:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um, nothing you said really has any validity whatsoever. He’s another Billy Owens? How is a 26 year old All-Star C/PF remotely like a really good draft prospect that was a solid but not great player? How is a 26 year old All-Star C/PF anything like a 34 year old, former All-Star PF/C?
“No way Amare is going to be worth our younger and just ready for prime time players. Beans, Wright and Belli are developing, and once again we let go players without getting advantage of what they are ready to do. I would rather build on what we have than break it down again by giving up so many promising players.”
Jae made a reasonable case for going with younger players, and if that’s your opinion, fine. You clearly are not even attempting to look at what Amare brings, or are so caught up in our players “potential”, you fail to realize they’re unlikely to live up to it.
by Missing Barry on Jun 27, 2009 6:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
chemistry, and the second law of thermodynamics
b.jenkins (3 dot column or blog) just put up an interesting summary of stoudemire butting heads with both d’antoni and porter, and how important a role nash had not only on the court but in the locker room. biedrins is a team-first guy, also a rebound and defense-first player. as we have all batted back and forth and around, adding stoudemire would still leave the deficiencies in boards and defense, perhaps lessening their impact with his high efficiency scoring. will he help the team to enough wins to create positive chemistry, when winning under d’antoni (who wanted greater focus on d from stoudemire among other things) didn’t suffice? biedrins isn’t a dominant rebounder or defender, but he’s reliable and his teammates and coach know exactly what he brings.
stoudamire’s physical decline is inevitable. isn’t it overly optimistic to think it won’t become significant at some point in the five year span of the extended max contract? to me, the max price including the possible high-i.q. floor leader curry (such a player is affordable only as a draft pick and investing the 1-2 seasons of on-the-job) is too high. nelson at season’s end said the team needed passing, defense, rebounding in no specific order, and curry actually helps address one of those more than stoudemire does in any of the categories, when losing biedrins is part of the equation.
by the.monk on Jun 27, 2009 1:27 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
all i know
if we don’t make the trade we better have a damn good team next year or else a lot of people here will be complaining that we should have sold the farm for stoudamire
by AJC3317 on Jun 27, 2009 1:32 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Really good synopsis of the issues involved.
To me, this is the point that hasn’t been discussed enough:
This is a one time opportunity in more ways than one. An opportunity to hit big, perhaps big enough that paying the back end for his declining years would be worth it. But also an opportunity to blow another half decade waiting for a mistake to come off the books.
The potential costs here are ENORMOUS, in three ways:
1) Money. A max commitment to Amare eats up any financial flexibility we might’ve been hoping to find in the next several years. For that to be worth it, Amare needs to be AWESOME.
2) Trade chips. Like jae, I am okay with trading guys like Wright, ‘Buike (not in the most recent rumors, but has appeared in earlier ones) and even Curry. (Totally okay with trading Marco, whose value to us is negligible.) However, trade chips are pretty valuable… we’d probably want to make another move or two subsequent to any Amare deal, and we’d be well-served to leave ourselves some pieces to do it with. ‘Buike, an average swingman on a tiny contract, is an attractive trading piece; Wright, a young and fairly effective power forward on a rookie contract, is an attractive trading piece; Curry, America’s current sweetheart, is a very attractive trading piece. Losing even two of those three on top of Andris would severely limit our trading flexibility in the future. For that to be worth it, Amare needs to be AWESOME.
(As an aside… I am by no means surprised by Wright’s presence in these rumors, as Nellie’s distaste for him is obvious. But it’s worth noting that Wright would fit this team a lot better with Andris gone, and not just because we’d be undermanned up front. As jae reported recently, the Warriors didn’t do well with both Wright and Biedrins on the floor, presumably because the presence of two-non-shooters messed with our spacing. With Andris gone, Wright could assume the role of the layup-and-putback garbageman, a role he’s played very well so far.)
3) Team shape. This trade would more or less commit us to going all-in on an undersized, over-the-top run-and-gun style… I don’t think “Nellieball” is the exact right term for this style (his coaching has involved many configurations over the years), but it’ll do for now. This team would be fun. It would also be tiny. A Monta/Jack/Maggette/Randolph/Amare lineup sounds comically bad defensively, and certainly no better on the boards than last year’s team. Sure, the offense could be good enough to outweigh that, but for that to happen, Amare needs to be… AWESOME.
I don’t discount the importance of trying to get a guy like Amare Stoudemire. He’s a very, very good player, better than anyone who’s currently on the Warriors. If we’re going to get better, at some point we’re going to need to swing for the fences on a guy like this. Most of our few fond memories from the last fifteen years came as a result of swinging for the fences on Baron, who was never as good of a player as Amare was at his peak. Guys like this don’t come available often.
But there are real questions here. Amare had an off-year for him last year, particularly in the rebounding department… even with Randolph’s minutes increasing, we can’t afford any dropoff there. There is real reason to believe that he’s much more effective when playing with a great point guard… he’d be going from Steve Nash to a bunch of guys whose ability to even play the point is in question. He could drop off a fair amount and still be pretty good, but, I mean, I don’t want to give up Andris Biedrins for a rich man’s David West. We need this guy to be AWESOME, and we’d want him to continue to be AWESOME for four or five years. Could he be? I’m not convinced.
With all this, I can’t say that I’m not intrigued. It’d be fun as hell to have the guy, and I doubt we’ll get another shot at a guy of this calibre any time soon (Bosh seems intent on going into free agency, and may not quite be Amare-calibre anyway).
But to me, the tiebreaker may be Nellie. We would be skewing our roster comically far in one direction to please a coach who’s only going to be here one more year. Yes, the front office talks a lot about keeping the high-octane style going even after Nellie leaves, but that’s a pretty narrow box to put yourself in when looking for a coach. Not many coaches have been successful with run-and-gun philosophies in the last decade… there’s basically Nellie and D’Antoni, and we ain’t getting D’Antoni. Even if Nellie could somehow coax 45 wins out of this little group of gunners, would we have any confidence in the next guy being able to do so?
It’s super-close, but I say no go, I think. The upside is big, and fun to dream on, but the downside is big too, and must be considered.
by onlxn on Jun 27, 2009 1:35 AM PDT reply actions 12 recs
Some of these comments are long enough to be a post
Great post though
Oakland Raiders Fan
Golden State Warriors Fan
San Francisco Giants Fan
San Jose Sharks Fan
MMA Fan
USC Trojan Fan
by i love sports101 on Jun 27, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1!
A Monta/Jack/Maggette/Randolph/Amare lineup sounds comically bad defensively, and certainly no better on the boards than last year’s team. Sure, the offense could be good enough to outweigh that, but for that to happen, Amare needs to be… AWESOME.
Also, a lot has been made of the ‘upside’ that Amare brings, but relatively little has been made of the upside that having a healthy team brings with young improving pieces. Even when (relatively) healthy last year, the guys we trotted out were so young that no one, other than Jax, Ronny and Biedrins, really knew their role.
During the brief span when Monta came back for the 2nd time last year, we did relatively well- relative to the rest of the season. And I know we are a long long way from the 48 win season two years ago, but part of me thinks that when these players eventually grow into their roles, ie Morrow @ 2/3 off the bench, Randolph from the beginning of the year @ 4, MONTA FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR simply on the court- good things are bound to come.
These posts, yes by Jae and now Onlxn, have definitely helped me realize that THIS trade is not a good one for us, where as I was previously on the fence. Personally, I still feel Belinelli will be a good player, and the same goes for BWright (just imagine if the guy could stay healthy!) From each of those guys we saw flashes of exactly the reasons why Mullin made the move to ship JRich (ultimately bringing both of them here).
Everything above goes w/out even mentioning Curry (ruined that just now). I say we give our present roster a shot at the first part of the season, and if by December/January we OUGHT to make A move (not this one) we should as long as it builds upon the direction which I think we are beginning to see develop. Amare, make no mistake, is a great talent. But is he worth dismantling the roster for and further hamstringing us from making additional moves, should we lose all our trade chips?
I say NO. Rather we’d be better off adding quality pieces to the puzzle, similar to Turiaf- who didnt break the bank and provides a ton of value.
Chris Cohan- YOU'RE FIRED!
by bonbrillio on Jun 27, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
These posts, yes by Jae and now Onlxn, have definitely helped me realize that THIS trade is not a good one for us, where as I was previously on the fence.
Interesting, because in the process of thinking about it, I went from ‘against’ to being ok with it.
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha
Yeah, I’m still on the fence myself, or pretty damn close to the fence, at least. Walking through all the specific issues, you find a lot to worry about, but the big picture is a sad-sack franchise grabbing a top-tier big man… from that perspective, it seems like something we should do.
If I have to say “for” or “against”, I think it’s still against. But if a deal goes down, particularly one of the saner-sounding versions (Biedrins/Wright/Belinelli, for instance), I’ll probably be more excited than worried.
by onlxn on Jun 27, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are more “against” arguments. I have to remember that this doesn’t mean they are better arguments. Standing pat and waiting for things to develop just hasn’t worked for us, even if it seems so nice, safe and comfortable.
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It could work here. Its not like we’re dealing with Murphy, richardson and dunleavy and waiting on development.
Again, just because waiting on development hasn’t worked in the recent past, doesn’t mean it won’t work now (and you know this).
To be sure, the warriors have to make a trade, given the lack of fit with the roster. That doesn’t mean that THIS trade, at the advertised cost is the way to go. It may be…but its risky, and if it doesn’t work out (and it may well not, soudemire has his share of questions, as you know)—the next 5 years will be doomed.
Prospective parent of new pick, Zack Wheeler. Projectable Righty stolen from the braves. Of course, I stalk my son's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/zackwheelerbaseball
"Obviously I’m not doing things like going toe-to-toe with a ninja. Find me a ninja, for one."--Brian Wilson
by haverecords on Jun 28, 2009 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
for the record, i’m still on the fence for the trade.
I’m for waiting it out for a bit so as to maximize leverage and prudent decision making based on more intelligence gained.
I again draw attention back to what other offers might be out there:
An atlanta package built around Josh Smith? Depends who else they include, but Smith is only a little better (and a little pricier) base than Biedrins. Neither one is likely to improve much, and neither one will is a star that can make you a contender: just a nice, young piece. So can atlanta top Wright, and Belinelli? Its hard to see it, unless they include some pieces they probably shouldn’t.
Prospective parent of new pick, Zack Wheeler. Projectable Righty stolen from the braves. Of course, I stalk my son's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/zackwheelerbaseball
"Obviously I’m not doing things like going toe-to-toe with a ninja. Find me a ninja, for one."--Brian Wilson
by haverecords on Jun 28, 2009 1:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Josh is not better than Biedrins, but I would probably suppose that many around the league would perceive him as such. His rebound rate is way worse and he’s just not a good shooter. He’s extremely athletic, of course, so there’s a possibility that he could just “put it all together” and have an insanely good all-around game, but I am skeptical at this point. Plus he’s getting paid $2-3m more than Biedrins each year for the rest of his contract.
Thing C
by markdash on Jun 28, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everybody’s better then Biedrines, haven’t you been reading all the posts lately??
Who needs a center anyway, way over rated.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Jun 28, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be "ok" with this trade to
becasue I see it as a lateral move. In terms of media attention and local interest(season tickets), this is a good deal. As far as the actual team, I think as for as this year is concerned it is a lateral move, it may make us a little better this year than if we don’t do the trade. As for years to come, we’d be gambling with A LOT of money on the continuing health and stellar play of Amar’e, that is a big gamble, Phoenix doesn’t even know how he’ll be. The gamble could pay off. If we don’t do the trade we’re gambling on the vast improvement of our youngsters for a couple years, especially Biedrins and AR. I wouldn’t consider myself to be a gambling man, so I’d go with the conservative approach.
I’d keep what we have for the season to come and see how good this team is. If we suck or are really disappointing, AND Amar’e is showing something special, we’d probably be able to offer the same package around december/january and get Amar’e with a max offer. This approach prolongs gambling big money, allows us to see what are youngsters, particularly AB and AR, are worth, and leaves us the option of aquiring Amar’e. This to me is the best approach.
by myk on Jun 27, 2009 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Overemphasizing the Skepticism about Amare
will only make the decision harder. Amare is a proven All-Star and will more than likely play like one until 30. When you have a chance to get an All Star under the age of 30, do it. Look at what Baron Davis did for the Warriors and Davis wasn’t even an all star (though he should have been one a couple times in his career). The reason the Warriors need to get Amare is because all stars change the game. Now one of the most important aspects left out of this fanpost/shot was Brandan Wrights potential to be a very very good, possibly (notice I said possibly) all star forward. Wrights game is very raw and I believe that if he stayed at North Carolina for a year more or two, he would have been a top 5 pick. Wright’s length will undoubtedly help him considerably and his shot is unblockable (those baby hooks). Not to mention that Wright was playing so well last year until the Lakers game where he injured his shoulder. Either way, I believe this will be a win/win situation for the Warriors, but if I had a choice…..I would take Amare. Name a power forward not Chris Bosh who is better than Stoudemire. You clearly can’t say that Gasol is better and although Garnett is good, he’s not as good as he once was. Therefore you take Stoudemire even with all his negatives.
by Jayd92009 on Jun 27, 2009 1:40 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
ALL-STARZZ GET DUNKZ!!!!!!
When you have a chance to get an All Star under the age of 30, do it.
Should we trade this type of package and hand a max contract to David West? “All-Star” is almost meaningless.
Thing A
"no homo"
by sam23 on Jun 27, 2009 2:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
onlxn made a very good point about how the trade would really force us into a brand of small ball. Stoudemire might be the best power forward in the game, though that’s not based on last year’s model, who most clearly was not (and was not better than Gasol last year either). But this deal doesn’t look like it’s for Stoudemire the PF, but Stoudemire the center. Normally, I don’t put too much on that difference. it’s become somewhat arfificial, but I don’t like Stoudemire as my last line of defense. In some sense, Randolph may be better suited for that and if he’s really grown to 6-11 or close to 7-0 and is up around 225, he’s not too far from Biedrins’ size either. But if that isn’t how it’s going to go down…well, I worry about how this goes beyond a high scoring gimmick with a max contract.
I don’t know where you figure that Amare is likely to play like an all-star until he’s 30. He scored like one this year, but he didn’t rebound like one. Scoring gets you votes, but a big who scores but doesn’t rebound doesn’t get you wins. I don’t know if we saw attitude problem or the beginning of a decline, but it’s not at all a given one way or another that we’d get the version from 2 years ago, as if we don’t, it’s money wasted for a max contract. And again, we’re not getting Nash. I looked at the with/without Nash split a year ago and hope Warriors management is doing the same. There was a big difference. Stoudemire was still good, but he wasn’t better than Gasol in that light.
Brandan may well wind up being good. He’s played well when he’s played already. I just don’t think it’s going to be here, not with Nellie as the coach and Randolph around.
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 5:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Complements and a compliment.
am swayed by your with/out Nash analysis, primarily because I am always conscious of the context of the player’s performance as much as (actually, more than) the individual statistical breakdowns … and your observation re Amare’s productivity differential also reminds me that some of us haven’t fully factored in the with/out Randolph -
Amare as C does not sound as attractive, and ordinarily I’d agree that we’d be committing to small-ball for a long time. That is until we remind ourselves of a couple factors that all have to do with how players complement each other’s skill sets
First, the PF Anthony is showing he is becoming is a splendid match for Amare, and am looking at more than just potential. He’s shown a penchant for rebounding & shot blocking that in combination with AS, should quiet the argument against obtaining Amare due to rebounding at least somewhat. As Randolph’s minutes would be increasing he’d be replacing some of the differential between Andris & Amare’s rebounding, and then some perhaps. In any case, If I could choose between the pairing of or Amare-C or Andris-C + Randolph at PF, I choose Amare.
Second, we aren’t done dealing, nor is it likely Amare would be the only big we’d acquire over the next few drafts/off seasons. It will be easier obtaining a complementary player for Amare than getting another Amare to complement the roster we currently have. The bigs we have today are a mismatched set, adding Amare cleans up the deficiencies in skill sets among them. Plus, assuming we have an Amare-Randolph set for the next several years, we have a nice balance of a young PF on the rise even as the veteran declines.
Third, if we were to have to include Curry in this deal, I’d certainly hope we’d be getting Clark in return if for no other reason than for depth, and an inexpensive big to replace Wright’s role. Although I think Wright is the better player, Amare is the best player in the deal and I think we still come out on top both in the short and long term.
All this is, of course conjecture. On paper PHX’s roster most certainly should have done better than it did last year even counting injuries. How the batter is mixed sometimes is as important as the ingredients in it. No one knows how much better Amare-Randolph is, but my take is we gotta go for it.
And, Great post, thanks for upgrading the quality and coherence of the front page.
by hardcore on Jun 27, 2009 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
great post jae,
After weighing the pro vs the cons the question boils down to this two part question will Amare Stoudemire be as dominating(or close to it) without Nash and will he be able to sustain that for the next 4-6 years? If he can, than I think you make the deal. Waiting for our youth to develop has not worked and its hard to point to any of young players and saying that ‘this guy is going to turn into a stud and lead us to playoffs for years to come.’ A Ellis/Curry/Morrow/Jackson/Maggette/Randolph/Stoudemire/Turiaf 9 man rotation should be able to get us into the playoffs (if of course Amare is playing atleast nearly as good as he does when playing with Nash.)
Can Stoudemire be as good without Steve Nash? The stats would say no, but Stoudemire is a freak athlete and a great runner for a big man. In ‘Nellie Ball’ Amare should be able to get his stats possibly not as efficient without Nash, but I still would expect that he would be in the top 5 big men in the game.
Can Stoudemire keep that pace for the next 4-6 years? I dont think he can. Amare is a guy that relies on his athleticism. He is only 26, but what happens when he gets to be 29? No change, slows down, or falls apart? Then there is also the knee issue. While he looks like he is back to 100% the last couple of seasons, we can never be posistive that those knees wont come back to haunt him later in his career.
So ultimately this is tough call, losing a very solid and reliable(in terms of play quality on the court and staying healthy) 22 year old center and some other decent trade pieces is tough. But I think you do it, the chance we can become a good team with the trade is much than without the trade. Unless Wright and Curry blossom into all stars, we probably look back at this trade and say it was a reasonable one even if Amare can’t live up to our expectations (which of course would be an ultimate nightmare, saddled with his contract for the next 6 years….is a scary thought)
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jun 28, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stoudemire is my vote...
And this trade will get done without Curry. That’s my hope, and probably the only hope the Warriors have if they want to win a championship within Nelson’s reign.
Golden State Warriors fan since 1984. The Filipino sensation!
The loudest Warrior fan in Section 208, Row DS, Seats 15-16.
by RayAlmeda on Jun 27, 2009 1:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
were not trading Curry
Oakland Raiders Fan
Golden State Warriors Fan
San Francisco Giants Fan
San Jose Sharks Fan
MMA Fan
USC Trojan Fan
by i love sports101 on Jun 27, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
… an option, we wouldn’t trade him.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 27, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
see my post above. ^^^^^^
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
by mrod on Jun 27, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This trade really can get done without Curry. I’m not sure if someone else has posted this, but if the Suns feel desperate to move him and can’t get a better offer other than Belinelli, Wright and Biedrins, then it’s possible. It’d probably have to be at least a week into July or so, but there’s just over four months until the season begins. There is time.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jun 27, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We will never win an NBA Championship under Don Nelson.
A strong emphasis on Team Defense will.
Romes Mac Mojous
by ROMESdavidWOOD37 on Jun 30, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good post, as usual, Jae.
I do think you are—perhaps purposefully—underappreciating a major aspect of the ‘con’ position.
Quite simply, the purported players to be traded from the warriors. What the warriors do have, is a lot of talented players, which do not fit together. But the players in quesiton have value beyond Biedrins, the value of which you spell out well (though you undercut his value as an effecient cleanup man on offense, and good help defender (though he does struggle on the pick and roll).
These players are the warriors chips. Along with the development of a few of the young players who stand a good chance to develop well and further (Randolph, Morrow, and maybe Ellis) these ‘potential’ laden players have real value, and the warriors should not overspend these assets. The current deal floated in the media would be an example of that. The warriors
What other teams would be able to match the package the warriors can put up, sans Curry? It does’t seem many can. This leads to an associated consideration:
There is little loss on sitting on a Curry-less package. The suns will very likely be in the situation they are in now, at least until the trade deadline. The Warriors will have a much clearer idea of what they have in Curry. If he’s what Nelson is saying, then of course he won’t be moved. If not, well, the suns would still have interested likely, as their current enthusiasm would only be slightly lessened if he doesn’t play much at first. In sum: the warriors can afford to wait it out. It isn’t clear the suns can.
Prospective parent of new pick, Zack Wheeler. Projectable Righty stolen from the braves. Of course, I stalk my son's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/zackwheelerbaseball
"Obviously I’m not doing things like going toe-to-toe with a ninja. Find me a ninja, for one."--Brian Wilson
by haverecords on Jun 27, 2009 2:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ack.
The current deal floated in the media would be an example of that. The warriors (from above)……
may need to move some of these assets later to pick up a useful role player, and thus need to keep as many as possible.
Prospective parent of new pick, Zack Wheeler. Projectable Righty stolen from the braves. Of course, I stalk my son's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/zackwheelerbaseball
"Obviously I’m not doing things like going toe-to-toe with a ninja. Find me a ninja, for one."--Brian Wilson
by haverecords on Jun 27, 2009 2:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The other positive to waiting is that the Claxton and Law contracts can become part of the conversation later in the summer. Phoenix obviously isn’t dead-set on cutting salary in an Amare deal, as evidenced by their willingness to deal now, but you’ve gotta figure their financial worries haven’t gone away all of a sudden. Maybe we can sub an expiring in along with Biedrins instead of another young ’un.
by onlxn on Jun 27, 2009 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
playing devil’s advocate – waiting has its perils too: other clubs put together a proposal, one of the players in the package gets hurt in a freak moped incident or pickup game, or the Suns go in a different direction for any sort of reason
I hope we negotiate as hard as we can but get this deal done in early July
by hardcore on Jun 27, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely true… a lot of moving parts here. Where did I read that the Hawks were assembling an offer involving Josh Smith? I’d think a Biedrins package would be a bit more attractive, if only because of his more reasonable contract, but yeah, there are definitely risks in waiting.
by onlxn on Jun 27, 2009 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the expiring contracts are the issue, it’s entirely possible to make a deal in principle long before that. That happens all the time and they get announced. The deal could all but be finalized now if they agreed on the price and extension issues. The positive on waiting would be to explore other options before committing.
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure… nothing officially prevents either team from committing these pieces right now. But in practice, I can’t remember a deal that was agreed to seven or eight weeks before it could be made official. Whether that’s because the lag time opens front offices up to a lot of second-guessing, the lag time increases the risk that an involved player will get hurt, or what, I don’t know. But I can’t recall a deal with a lag time that big. There may be something I’m forgetting.
I’m not necessarily advocating waiting till August… if we want Amare, we should probably try to do something soon. But if a deal didn’t happen in the next couple weeks, and Amare was still available in August, I’d think those contracts would become a bigger part of any conversation between the Suns and Dubs.
by onlxn on Jun 27, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bring Him To Oakland!
No question about it! WE WANT AMAR’E! What’s it going to cost? If it is for Biedrins, Wright, and Belinelli, then OK. Biedrins would be a huge loss, but the other two are only players that have “potential” as of now.
I just read an article at www.OaklandSportNews.com that quotes Nelly as saying that Curry won’t be part of the trade at all. Thank God! As long as Cap’n Jack, Ellis, and Curry are not part of it… and we aren’t giving up more than 3 guys… pull the trigger on this deal and bring a great post scorer into Oakland. I really think that he would fit in extremely well.
by ShowtimeBuchanon on Jun 27, 2009 2:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
seems like a very PR post above from showtime
however, because of kirilenko’s unique skillset, i’m convinced he’d have a better effect on our team than stoudemire, which is of course an extremely risky deal. amare doesn’t like playing center, and kirilenko, at times, we could play at 4 different positions. the team needs to get better defensively, they can’t just keep adding 20 point scorers. that isn’t the way to build success. plus, we could get kirilenko for so much less than that (maggette, speedy’s expiring, one more piece), the stoudemire deal shouldn’t even be on the back of our minds
by steelekord on Jun 27, 2009 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
seems like a very PR post above
must say -very poor and simpleminded PR that is
30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ
by Lat We N Trash on Jun 27, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and why has phoenix been shopping him so persistently if he's the answer?
by steelekord on Jun 27, 2009 8:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Because there’s one year on his deal and he isn’t resigning. If they don’t trade him, he leaves for nothing at the end of the year.
by Missing Barry on Jun 27, 2009 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm skeptical
on one hand – like many of us, i know the impact that a guy with Amare’s skills would bring to our team.
on the other hand … the last two significant big men we aquired were: no cartilage in his knees Chris Webber two years ago. And even more painful – trading for Ralph Sampson, who knees were shot.
we run.
you need knees to run.
" Sleepy Floyd is Superman!!!"
by CoachBarry on Jun 27, 2009 8:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Webber just isn’t a comparable situation at all. Dude was 34. Sampson was a similar age and was never healthy after his first two years in the league, but that doesn’t mean Amare will or won’t be healthy going forward.
by Missing Barry on Jun 27, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amare has played a couple of full seasons on the surgically repaired knees without any apparent problems. That doesn’t worry me. I worry more that the sort of attitude that allows you to just stop rebounding like he did (and his rebounding declined when Shaq wasn’t in the game) indicates something more. Is he losing the explosiveness? Is he losing focus? The latter he might get back. The former? Not as much.
I don’t think we know which player would show up. The very very good one would be, very very good. The other one wouldn’t.
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
how about we trade buike??
beans, wright, belinelli, and buike for amare and maybe someone they dont use a lot…
we cannot give up curry
by baydestrian_415 on Jun 27, 2009 8:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Excellent, insightful post jae! I think it is too easy to undervalue what Andris brings to the team in terms of rebounding and scoring “garbage points” which is not particularly sexy, but does help win games. What worries me about the trade for Amare are the following:
1. The possible attitude issues that are rumored.
2. Although he seems to be recovered from the knee surgery, will that hasten his physical decline in the next few years?
3. We will be a weaker rebounding team without a doubt.
4. Where are we going after Nellie?
onlxn raised a great question as to what will happen to our playing style after Nellie leaves. This doesn’t seem to be discussed very much. Are we going to bring in Dave Arsenault to coach? There may not be too many options to retain our style. That makes me think a little about the resistance Amare showed to last years attempt to install a more traditional playing style in Phoenix.
All said, this still leaves me somewhat undecided; the pros and cons each really do carry some heavy weight.
by Jeffo on Jun 27, 2009 9:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Options?
Another reason the Warriors are fine with potentially missing out on Stoudemire is that they have other options. Riley declined to comment about the reported trade talks, per team policy.
But he said next on the agenda was to address the big-man issue by, preferably, nabbing a veteran power forward who can create offense inside.
For example, the Warriors still can make an offer to Toronto for All-Star power forward Chris Bosh or to Utah for power forward Carlos Boozer, and keep Curry.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/warriors/ci_12701692
Id rather have Bosh..He’s more of a team player
by highflya on Jun 27, 2009 9:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I’d rather have Bosh too. He’s younger and seems to have fewer issues, even if his best years haven’t been as good as Stoudemire’s. (Might be the Nash factor, might be that Bosh will still get a bit better, might be that Stoudemire is just plain better.) but I wouldn’t trade for either without an extension in place. A Bosh extension would cover his peak years and not follow him into the declining years. But Bosh has been pretty up front that he wants to wait to become a free agent. Trading for the one-year rental without a guarantee of more service? No thanks.
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d prefer Amare over Bosh, but the bigger factor in which one we go after (assuming an extension for both) is what we have to give up, both in talent and in contract extension to make it worth. Figure out a value for Bosh and Amare (as I said, I would say Amare’s value is higher), and see which one you can acquire at the best ratio of value to cost.
by Missing Barry on Jun 27, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh
your point with Bosh not having Nash raises a question I meant to ask you when you were talking about Nash and Paul being so elite in the impact they have on the players around them and how efficiently they score. What about Calderon? Eyeballing it I would guess he would be a fairly distant 3rd or 4th but certainly in the next tier with Deron Williams and Kidd, am I wrong?
Thing A
"no homo"
by sam23 on Jun 27, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Calderon is a good playmaker and raises his teammates’ FG%, but not like Nash or Paul. It’s a bit behind what Williams and Kidd did too, though it’s tougher to rate as his teammates that he’s supposed to help improve aren’t as good to begin with. I don’t think it’s a linear scale, but that’s guesswork at this point.
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1 for bosh. He’s been putting up number without a distributor. toronto may not demand as much and it would be nice to trade to a team we don’t have to see a billion times over the next few years with our old players.
by jobrien9 on Jun 27, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s been putting up number without a distributor.
huh? Calderon?
by homer simpson on Jun 27, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
he put up numbers with t.j. ford as the starting pg too. ford isn’t much of a distributor, so i’d say the statement is valid.
by rjnarayen on Jun 27, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(1) TJ Ford started 1 season in Toronto 06-07 (and only played 2 seasons in Toronto), he averaged 29.9 minutes while Calderon averaged 21. The following season Calderon was the starter. then TJ was traded to Indy.
(2)TJ Ford is a fairly good distributor in his own right – per 36 he averaged 9.5 & 9.4 assists those 2 seasons.
(3)Bosh’s 2 crappiest seasons of TS% came in his 1st 2 years with Rafer Alston, probably just him getting better – but that’s the exact same for Amare – 1st 2 seasons were his lowest, came with Stephon Marbury.
I think both %‘s are legit with or without a distributor, but if you’re going to make that argument with Amare, you’d have to make it with Bosh.
by homer simpson on Jun 27, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
TS% is something that generally rises in a player’s first few years. Players get better at shooting, but also figure out how to draw fouls, which shots to avoid, how fast the game is and their teammates get them involved in better situations.
The split for Amare is with and without Nash in the same season. Without Nash over the last few years, he isn’t as good. I’ll dig up those numbers again soon, but it was pretty significant.
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
TS% is something that generally rises in a player’s first few years.
Yeah, which is why i put “probably just him getting better” & “but that’s the exact same for Amare.” My point was more “but if you’re going to make that argument with Amare, you’d have to make it with Bosh” because they’ve both played with some pretty good distributors.
The split for Amare is with and without Nash in the same season. Without Nash over the last few years, he isn’t as good. I’ll dig up those numbers again soon, but it was pretty significant.I’d also be curious to see Bosh’s splits with whoever TJ Ford’s replacement was (Ukic?) vs. Calderon.
Though it might not even be a distributor thing as much as it is playing with good players. Hasn’t Pau’s TS% shot up since joining Kobe & crew down in LA?
by homer simpson on Jun 27, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They’ve both played with good distributors, but Nash is significantly better than anyone Bosh has played with in that regard.
Gasol has been better in LA than he was in Memphis, where he was already rather good. Most players tend to do better when playing for Phil Jackson, though it’s hard to separate out the coach from the fact that anyone not named Kobe or Jordan has had the luxury of having a high scoring guard who demanded heavy attention and could also deftly find the open man.
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but Nash is significantly better than anyone Bosh has played with in that regard.
of course, but Amare TS% is a lot higher than Bosh’s.
maybe it’s me, but isn’t this about the fact that the W’s don’t have an established distributor which might affect Amare and jobrien9, forgetting that Calderon/Ford were in Toronto, posted that Bosh wouldn’t have to make that adjustment?
Gasol has been better in LA than he was in Memphis, where he was already rather good.i’m more curious in how his TS% has been well above 60% since joining the Lakers. He had that 27 game stretch at 63.9% and shot it at 61.7% last season. That’s a pretty dramatic increase from what his career average was before joining the Lakers at a pretty advanced age. it’s likely the Kobe attention factor you mentioned.
I tried looking at the Celtics for these last 2 seasons, and while all 3 had seasons 2-4% above with Pierce & Allen having career bests & KG having one season 0.1% lower than his career best, no one has had the singular jump Pau’s TS% suddenly received. In year 1, KG & Pierce had their 2nd & best seasons respectively, and in year 2 those guys dropped and Ray flourished. So maybe in year 1, Ray helped space the floor and in year 2 defenses began to focus inside & therefore Ray got better looks.
anyway, it’ll be interesting to see the numbers you dig up.
by homer simpson on Jun 27, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed....and Boozer gets hurt too much. And he's a dirty player
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
by mrod on Jun 27, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mean I agree about rather having Bosh than Stoudamire
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
by mrod on Jun 27, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we do this deal,
I’d prefer if:
a) (and this may be moot at this point) Curry is not included in the deal, and
b) that an extension is not a condition of the trade. Wouldn’t we have bird rights if he didn’t sign an extension? Give him a try for a year and if he’s anywhere near the Amare of old, THEN re-sign him. If he sucks, then let him walk (after he opts out or plays out his optional year 2, which he would probably do if he really did suck). Sure we would have given up Andris (and hopefully just loose change), but at that point we should have some cap space to go out and get a replacement.
by Run DNC on Jun 27, 2009 9:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
“Wouldn’t we have bird rights if he didn’t sign an extension? "
No, at this point he’s an UFA, and we have no more leverage than any other team in the NBA. The only thing we could possibly have going for us is he likes his year in the Bay Area and prefers to stay if he gets a comparable offer from GSW as his other top offer(s). Essentially we end up with 1 year of Amare and then nothing for our troubles. Trade + no extension = terrible for the Warriors.
by Missing Barry on Jun 27, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The bird rights would be traded along with him.
Thing C
by markdash on Jun 27, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So … after absorbing the verdicts from the heavy hitters (jae, Ford, Lauridsen, AB1, all the assorted GSoM “Things”, et al.), and a bit of surfing on the bright side of the sun, and I’ve shifted my position from on-the-fence-but-pro to on-the-fence-but-against. At the very least, I think we need to cool off and make it clear to PHO and Amare that we’re more than happy to walk away from a deal if the extension and the parameters of an extension aren’t to our liking.
One possible deciding factor that I think should be underlined is O-N’s point about the semi-redundance of Wright and Biedrins. Obviously BW isn’t nearly the rebounder AB is, but he fills a similar role as athletic, active garbage cleaner / swooping floor-runner / weakside help defender. Like Biedrins he has great hands and a knack for finishing at the hole. He’s 21 and as he grows into his man-body could, I think, return at least to the decent rebounder he was his rookie season. It’s a little puzzling how much of an afterthought he seems in discussions of this deal. If AB and Curry are really the linchpins of the deal, I think we need to to just pull Wright off the damn table.
Line in the sand: OK, but only if the extension isn’t outrageous, and only if we don’t have to “throw in” Wright.
Note to Lat We n Trash: if Biedrins goes, does that mean GSoM loses you? If so, that’s a pretty big strike in the “anti” column for me…
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 27, 2009 9:44 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
He’s 21 and as he grows into his man-body could, I think, return at least to the decent rebounder he was his rookie season.
Yeah. It’s always dangerous to assume that a guy’s rebounding prowess will improve, because it almost never, ever does. But you can at least construct a half-assed argument as to why Wright might get better.
The thing about Wright is that he’s actually a good offensive rebounder… it’s the defensive boards where he’s weak. And while you can’t say for sure, I think this might have something to do with his length and athleticism. Simply put, Wright is such a freak that he’s able to grab a decent number of balls without being in proper position. This works on offense… defensive players are “supposed” to get the rebound with proper positioning, but a long, quick dude can snare some balls away from them even so. On defense, it’s a different story. You don’t want a guy to try to use his length… you want a guy to box out effectively. Wright currently doesn’t, at least not on a consistent basis. If he started to, his rebounding would go from “average” to “good”.
The counterargument is that if Wright were going to start boxing out effectively, he would’ve done it by now. That’s a pretty fair argument… you’d think you’d learn your basic basketball lessons after a year with Roy Williams and two with Don Nelson (although the main lesson Nellie seems to be trying to teach Wright is “YOU SUCK, KID!”). On the whole, I’d imagine that Wright’s rebounding won’t really improve. But I don’t think improvement is outright impossible.
It’s a little puzzling how much of an afterthought he seems in discussions of this deal.
Seriously. I know Nellie doesn’t like him, and I expect him to be shipped out somewhere before long. But is there anything more bizarre than the idea that both the Warriors and Suns regard Wright and Marco as more or less equally valuable?
by onlxn on Jun 27, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The counterargument is that if Wright were going to start boxing out effectively, he would’ve done it by now.
i do think he tries to box out on occasion, but at 205 lbs vs 230-260 lbs, he just gets pushed so far underneath the rim that even his length can’t get a hand on the rebound.
by homer simpson on Jun 27, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're right about Wright sometimes boxing out
the problem that I recall from this season was that he doesn’t rotate over to help his teammate get the rebound. Once he was standing on the baseline just watching the ball bounce on the rim instead of moving back into the paint to help get the rebound. Another time, Dampier blocked out Turiaf into the baseline, and Wright didn’t rotate over to help box out Dampier from getting an offensive rebound. In both cases, Wright was yanked moments later.
by IQofaWarrior on Jun 27, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heavy hitter?
Since when did I become a heavy hitter? I’m the class clown. Nothing more, nothing less.
by Atma Brother ONE on Jun 27, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Note to Lat We n Trash: if Biedrins goes, does that mean GSoM loses you? If so, that’s a pretty big strike in the "anti" column for me…” – Yeah, he’s a great source of online streams, plus he’s a cool guy too.
by IQofaWarrior on Jun 27, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
after absorbing the verdicts from the heavy hitters (jae, Ford, Lauridsen, AB1, all the assorted GSoM "Things", et al.), and a bit of surfing on the bright side of the sun, and I’ve shifted my position from on-the-fence-but-pro to on-the-fence-but-against
+1, I think I kinda fell victim to the “ooooh shiny!” effect Stoudemire has in my initial reactions, and my general feeling that we desperately need to trade some of our quantity of young useful players for a higher quality player or two. As much as I love Biedrins its still not really the sacrificing of him, Wright and Belinelli that give me reservations, its simply that I don’t think giving Amare a max contract is a good idea at all anymore.
You do raise a good point about Wright being much of an afterthought (I heard at least two KNBR hosts try to remember his name and then refer to him as “somebody else too” when talking about who we would be giving up in the deal) but I’ve almost completely given up hope that we’ll get equal return for Wright OR ever see him get a lot of minutes here. When I think more about it I probably shouldn’t be wo willing to give up on the idea of Wright as a really good and really important piece of this team, but I think that sort of thinking is similar to the way a lot of GSoMers view the Wright situation.
Thing A
"no homo"
by sam23 on Jun 27, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I kinda fell victim to the "ooooh shiny!" effect Stoudemire has in my initial reactions,
We are all trout, simultaneous mesmerized by the shimmer, while something in our brain fears that it just isn’t right. If only we were smart enough to tell the difference between the lure with the dangerous barbed hooks and the tasty guppies.
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1, I think I kinda fell victim to the "ooooh shiny!" effect Stoudemire has in my initial reactions
Yeah, I’ve been back and forth more than a couple times now. The fact is it’s a gamble. At this point I don’t see it so much as sticking with our guys vs trading for Amare. I see it more of trading for Amare vs waiting for another opportunity and hopefully using our assets to trade for someone else.
If we want to get significantly better we will eventually have to make a big move. It seems like we have the pieces necessary to make that kind of move. Here we have a genuine opportunity, but once we commit to Amare, that’s it. If something better comes along at the deadline (when we can package our new expiring contracts with our young talent) we won’t be in a position to get involved.
I’m nervous, but I could come around… I just don’t know what I would do if it was my call.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jun 27, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just don’t know what I would do if it was my call.
Hope that Cohan isn’t too cheap to loan you a coin to flip?
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
That’s just about right. At the moment (could change by the time I hit post) I think I’d do the deal.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jun 27, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its a high risk reward type of deal.
If Amare can be close to the same player sans Nash and keep that production for the next 5 years it would be A+ trade, but at the same time a complete franchise destroying disaster if he is terriable and is crushing our cap with his max deal……
I’m like you mike, I am changing my mind every 15 minutes, but gun to the head situation I think I do the deal. If Amare does his thing, we are almost a lock for the playoffs for the next 5 years.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jun 28, 2009 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If something better comes along at the deadline
… ok, I’ll bite – like who?
by hardcore on Jun 27, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea...
I didn’t have anything particular in mind. These things all seem absurd until they actually happen. Maybe Chris Paul will demand a trade…
Yeah, I got nuthin’. The thing that I keep thinking about is how silly it sounds to propose a trade for an elite player… until that player is available.
Honestly, I don’t think anything better will come along, which is why I’m leaning toward pulling the trigger. I’m just having a hard time with the idea of cashing out all of our assets and committing to Amare long-term. He excites me and scares me at the same time. Kind of like my wife… ; )
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jun 27, 2009 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
You also said that Turiaf was a better player than AB. =P
It was pretty clear that if the W’s were going to make a big move it would have to include Andris or Monta, and with Monta’s value at a low point it only makes sense.
So are you ready to become my personal informant yet? If you want to send me an email it’s pretty easy to figure out. Do you Yahoo?
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jun 27, 2009 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No can do...not even from someone else's account.
However, you can figure there are at least two to three more moves on the board.
by streetballer on Jun 27, 2009 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and "I" and others would still say he is...
Pound for pound…dollar for dollar…heart for heart…I need not go on…
Enjoy the Summer leagues…
by streetballer on Jun 27, 2009 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kind of like?!
I’m with you, except for the part about your wife of course ;-O
I’m for pulling the trigger on AB, MB, & BW for AS w/an extension
that still leaves us some assets – ignoring Monta and Randolph, Maggette and KAz have trade value, not to mention Curry, and Jackson might have some value though I’m skeptical (fwiw I posted there was no way we’d be able to unload Crawford, so I’m obviously an expert!)
and am with you about proposing trades, though am guilty of same because I’ve long felt (and posted) that we needed to be ready to part with either Andris or Monta for a Bosh or Amare – and now we have the opportunity … passing on Amare now is either the result of being too passive to gamble on a tough trade, or paralysis of over analysis. Phx is primed and ready to let Amare go for less than he’d command in any other year of his contract while healthy. Now is the time to strike while the iron is hot.
The alternative is to replace Crawford with Curry, make another minor roster tweak or two, and hope internal improvement and improved health will be enough to get to the WCF. That’s not much of a gamble, because the odds are stacked against us there. If there was a gamble worth taking, it’s Amare.
by hardcore on Jun 28, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curry
I dont think Curry should be in the discussion from what I understand he wasnt expected and now that he is in the Warriors draft all of the sudden they want him in Phoenix to go with our players as well. I say take a hard line and say no deal if we have to if they expect Curry also. Just tell them the the deal is off and maybe we could go after Bosh instead or someone else with that kind of deal. Why get Amare for Curry and all those players? When we probably get someone even better like Bosh? Just tell them to keep Amare he doesnt play defense and is always injured like Yao anyways.
by robbin on Jun 27, 2009 9:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Stoudemire isn’t “always injured like Yao.” He had a major injury several years ago that has not been a problem since. The eye injury was a freak accident and though I have no proof, I think that if he wasn’t butting heads with management and teammates last year, it would not necessarily have been a season ending one. Other than that, he’s been available and healthy.
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“I say take a hard line and say no deal if we have to if they expect Curry also.”
I agree with your logic that now that we have Curry why should we also throw him in the deal when he wasn’t before. But I don’t like this taking a hard line and not including Curry. Curry has some amount of value to us, and we need to negotiate so if we include Curry, that means they lose that amount of value elsewhere in the trade. It’s not like we have to retain Curry at all costs, we just should let the Suns know to include Curry means the other pieces aren’t going to be as good.
by Missing Barry on Jun 27, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Legitimate post threats are rare
what do the jazz, lakers, spurs, magic, and celtics all have in common? someone in the low post that can open the game up for everyone else on the team. the jazz manhandled the warriors down low in the playoffs using boozer. Tim duncan has again and again killed us by the fact we have to double him down low opening the game up for parker and ginoboli. the lakers have pau gasol to do the same. Why would we not want to trade for a low post threat that can be as dominant as amare? right now, we have nothing close to this. No one is going to double biedrins because they know what he’s going to do, he has only one move. Wright is the same way, they both just turn right shoulder and try to hit the lefty hook.
To me this is a NO BRAINER. the warriors number one problem for years and years is that their half court offense has sucked. this gives it a chance to be a legitimate half court offense and at the same time, amare still has the athletic ability to keep up with the fast paced 7 second or less offense.
by jobrien9 on Jun 27, 2009 9:53 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
To me this is a NO BRAINER. the warriors number one problem for years and years is that their half court offense has sucked.
No. The Warriors problem has been that they:
1. Don’t have enough talent
2. Don’t play defense
3. Pay their players way more than they’re worth and thus can’t easily add talent
4. Don’t have enough talent
5. Don’t have enough talent.
Half court offense may be a small problem, but it’ll get fixed if we resolve the 5 issues above.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 27, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Always back to the word “talent” with you. Offensive efficiency in half court = good, so he does have a point. Obviously defense is a big weakness. But adding these things kind of goes hand in hand with adding more of the word “talent”, no?
by Missing Barry on Jun 27, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offensive efficiency in half court = good
True. However, when you’re evaluating last year’s Warriors team, you’re looking at Jax & JC taking most of our shots in half court sets (Jax & JC taking most of our shots = bad). Replacing those two mediocre players with better offensive players like Monta & Maggette = good. Now, Jax brings some stuff to the table on the defensive end, so I’d still rather have him than Maggette, but the game of basketball is multi-faceted. We need to have better players than we had last season, plain and simple. It’s not rocket science, nor have I ever claimed that my opinion is rocket science. The devil is certainly in the details of who’s better, etc., but picking one small part of the game of basketball (half-court offense, transition offense, transition defense, etc.) will always be ignoring the vast majority of any player’s contribution. We need better basketball players on the Warriors team… or at least our good players need to stay healthy.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 29, 2009 6:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously I agree with you that we need better players and more talent. You said this:
“but picking one small part of the game of basketball (half-court offense, transition offense, transition defense, etc.) will always be ignoring the vast majority of any player’s contribution.”
I think often the argument thrown out isn’t necessarily picking one part of the game of basketball and saying “hey we need to improve our half court offense so let’s think about players that will do that”. Rather, it’s a situation like this where it’s “Hey, Amare is a talented player let’s go out and get him. He’ll probably improve our half court offense since he’s a legit post scorer.” It’s saying Amare IS that talent improvement we’re all looking for, and just theorizing about specific aspects of our team will improve with his presence.
In the end though, I think all those that want to trade for Amare want to because he’s a good basketball player that we think will add “talent” to our team.
by Missing Barry on Jun 29, 2009 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
can’t emphasize that first one enough
Thing A
"no homo"
by sam23 on Jun 27, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
4 and 5 seem to be the ones we really need to concentrate on.
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what do the jazz, lakers, spurs, magic, and celtics all have in common?
Management with a clue?
by jae on Jun 27, 2009 9:56 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
lol. i guess you can answer this is many ways…
by jobrien9 on Jun 27, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curry
Amare could be good to have or he could break down for the four players we give them and Curry becomes a star. Id rather have a yong team until we can compete in the playoffs them make a deal for a big piece to bring us closer to a championship. Right now amare just puts us probably in the bottom half of the playoffs and gets rid of the future to build any further than just 8 place or 6th at best. We would trade so much away we couldnt get past that mark of being in the last plaoff spots for years. On the other hand if Curry develops we could have next years draft and more players to throw into a trade to add to this team and contend for the higher spots.
by robbin on Jun 27, 2009 10:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This is a little overdramatic, we aren’t including our 2 biggest long term building blocks in this trade (Monta + Randolph). If you think it’s too much to trade, that’s certainly reasonable, but it’s not like we’re trading the entire house just for Amare.
Just for the record, in a draft widely considered extremely weak at the top, Curry was the 7th overall pick. Nobody is expecting him to become a “star”. More like a productive player.
by Missing Barry on Jun 27, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The missing numbers about Andris Biedrins
First of all great thoughts my man. The concerns about Amare are all very, very legit, but again I’ll say- if you’re the Warriors and you’ve sucked so much for so long, you honestly have nothing to lose. Pull the trigger.
JAE and I have been going back and forth on Biedrins’ value for literally years. I doubt we’ll ever agree on his worth to a team and particularly this Warriors team.
Here’s some numbers I think are important to highlight, which Tim Kawakmi brought to light in his recent Dubs report card.
1) Andris Biedrins had the WORST Season Plus/ Minus on the team
Season plus/minus: -182. Surprisingly bad number; the worst on the team. Biedrins had a -.110 per-minute total, significantly worse than the team average.
2) Warriors and Biedrins this season: .322 With and .450 WITHOUT
They were 9-11 in games he didn’t play, 20-42 in games he did play.
Now it was a wacky season and without #1 I wouldn’t put that much weight into this, but it’s pointing towards a trend.
I don’t buy that he’s as valuable as people have made him out to be given 1 and 2 and that amazing spring 07 We Believe run where he was essentially benched. You replace Biedrins with a focused and non-pouting Amare on the Warriors (big assumptions I’ll readily admit) and there’s no way you see anything like 1 and 2. No way. (It’s a guess, but I’d go “all in” to find out if I’m right).
3) Amare is stronger than Biedrins and about the same height
Andris Biedrins: Height: 6-11 + Weight: 240
Amare Stoudemire: Height 6-10 + Weight: 249
I’m not buying that Biedrins is a naturally better body at the center spot than Amare. If Biedrins has the physical stature to play center, than Amare’s just fine.
4) Anthony Randolph at 19 was better than Andris Biedrins at 19
I will miss Biedrins work on the glass the most. I didn’t appreciate the soft defense, but he brought it every night in that area. No question.
But I think part of what you have to bank on is that Biedrins’ rebounds and blocks are indeed replaceable. The guy I point you to is Anthony Randolph who figures to be playing big minutes next year alongside Amare.
At 19:
- Andris Biedrins per 36: 10.2 rebounds and 1.7 blocks
- Anthony Randolph per 36: 11.6 rebounds and 2.4 blocks
Now it would be nice to have both, but I really don’t think you can play them together for long stretches. AR is still a low percentage scorer for a PF/ C. Neither is a proven high scorer. I believe/ project/ trust/ hope that Amare and AR are a great 1-2 punch. They should complement each other very well.
And remember AR’s been doing work this summer. I’d be willing to bank on him stepping that up even more. (I honestly don’t know what’s gotten into me with Randolph. I’m the last guy to buy into a raw big man with “potential” but this guy intrigues me like nothing else.)
If you can get a possible top 5 or top 10 player in the NBA in a trade where the centerpiece is Biedrins you’ve got to do it. Biedrins shouldn’t (and likely isn’t) what’s holding up this deal for the Warriors. It’s most likely the 5 year extension/ max money and parting with Curry (probably irrational although Nellie commands respect with his talent evaluation abilities).
On a different note- I have clearly not been a fan of Wright’s performance with the Warriors to date. I honestly expected a much, much better player. BUT, holding onto to Curry right now instead of him seems questionable. Let’s see…
by Atma Brother ONE on Jun 27, 2009 10:03 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Branden Wright
We have to realize that until BW gets in the weight room he will never live up to his potential:
Has anyone noticed how weak he is? A guard can block his shot with their pinkie =)
He is at a great disadvantage, he needs to get his scrawny arse in the weight room and start a proper diet to pack on twenty pounds of muscle right now:
There is not a doubt in my mind that he will be transformed, he won’t be a soft body that you can puch around , and he will have some upper body strengths when it comes to those put backs:
AR is reported to have put on 20 pounds, and he was naturally strong to begin with, but by adding 20 pounds of muscle will only make him that much stronger when it comes to every facet of the game:
There is no place in this league for a little scrawny wimp that feels like a marsh mellow when you black him out, that is the key to his success is getting stronger in both the upper body as well as his lower body, if I was his trainer I would try to pack on 20 to 25 pounds this year and another 5 or 10 next year:
then he may tip the scales at 195 =) J/K, close to 230, which is acceptable for a guy almost 7’
by ForestGrump on Jun 27, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Note on Biedrins’ plusminus: yeah, it was the WORST among regulars, but that’s a bit deceiving since it was very mildly negative: -2.0. (I don’t think I’ve ever seen a plus/minus chart as flat as that of last season’s Ws; the whole team is crowded around 0). The two previous seasons it was very strongly positive (+6.9, +5.6). I’d attribute the downtick to (1) Turiaf, despite being a far inferior boarder, bringing a crazy, infectious defensive intensity AB sometimes lacks; (2) Biedrins being semi-injured/rusty for stretches; and (3) smallish sample size.
On the team record, I’d also cite small sample size, due more likely to the team’s constant injuries (to Monta, e.g.) than anything real. Obviously we’re a much better team with Biedrins than without.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 27, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Complements and a compliment.
Again, Agreed 100% on the complementary skill sets between AS & AR.
Nice job supporting the point with stats (even if you used TK to do it!)
by hardcore on Jun 27, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And remember AR’s been doing work this summer.
And what makes you think Andris, or the rest of the NBA for that matter, hasn’t? Just because Anthony Morrow says “Man, he always wants to go to the gym”? Kobe might be taking a break, but that’s because he just played 22 months of top notch basketball and his 30 year old body needs a break.
BUT, holding onto to Curry right now instead of him seems questionable.
I wonder what you perspective would have been on “holding onto the #7 pick over Wright”…
top 5 or top 10 player
At one point in his career, Amare was a top 10 player, and for a brief moment you might have been able to argue top 5 without being laughed at. He’s not that good anymore. LBJ, Kobe, D-Ho, Melo, Gasol. And that’s only from the “Final 4”. Furthermore, we don’t really have any idea how he’ll be able to deal with not having Nash feeding him the ball. Nash and SSOL have really helped his numbers a lot, and we shouldn’t overlook this.
And, as Sleepy points out below, we had a bunch of injuries this year. Monta was available for 10 games that Biedrins played in. Of the 20 games Biedrins didn’t play in, Monta played in 15 of them.
The other thing that’s not being mentioned is that STAT will command 18M+/season. Biedrins makes half that. If STAT isn’t AWESOME, it’s a huge failure. Biedrins isn’t AWESOME, he’s paid like he’s “good” and he’s “really good”. Let’s not F that up unless we have some reasonable guarantee that STAT is going to be AWESOME or is going to accept less than 14M/season.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 29, 2009 6:53 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
And what makes you think Andris, or the rest of the NBA for that matter, hasn’t?
Well maybe Andris and the rest of the NBA has been working just as hard, but AR is just learning how to get better. You obviously realize that player generally improve the most in their first 5 years in the NBA. The point he is making is that we know what we are going to get from Biedrins(which is very good and solid) but we just don’t know how good AR can or will be.
At one point in his career, Amare was a top 10 player, and for a brief moment you might have been able to argue top 5 without being laughed at. He’s not that good anymore.
Fair enough. But Amare is still young at 26 and maybe a change of scenery is what it takes to fire him up to take his game to where it was. Amare is still one of the top 5 big men in the leauge.
Furthermore, we don’t really have any idea how he’ll be able to deal with not having Nash feeding him the ball.
jae posted some splits from us. Some disparity but not as bad as most of us would believe. Also even though Amare said he prefers to play the 4, when he was the 5 in a fast uptempo system he was dominant. He has a decline since the arrival Shaq, hopefully as our focal point in our uptempo system he can take his game back to that level.
And, as Sleepy points out below, we had a bunch of injuries this year.
Yeah I agree. If we can stay fully healthy we should be able to take our win total from 29 to maybe 40. If your ok with that, fine. I think we still need to greatly upgrade out talent.
Biedrins makes half that.
Biedrins makes half that because he is a far less of the caliber player of Amare.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jun 29, 2009 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
jae posted some splits from us.
For some reason, I read top down :-P. A good argument that quelled some of my fears, but I still don’t agree that we can overlook his knee and his eye… ok, I doubt his eye is going to continue to be much of an issue.
Yeah I agree. If we can stay fully healthy we should be able to take our win total from 29 to maybe 40. If your ok with that, fine. I think we still need to greatly upgrade out talent.
I’m happy with that for next year. With zero roster changes, I’m ok with that because we’re a very young team with a bunch of question marks that are currently at the extreme negative end. There’s no way Monta performs as badly as he did this last season, there’s no way AR reverts to “whiny fall 2008” AR, and there’s no way Morrow, Wright, Belinelli, Kelenna, get any worse and they could all easily improve significantly. OK, Morrow and Kelenna might not be top 5 3pt shooters in the NBA, but they’ll continue to be pretty darn good. Plus, we’ve got Curry coming along, etc. We have a lot of very promising young parts, so I’m perfectly fine with “borderline playoff team” right now.
Biedrins makes half that because he is a far less of the caliber player of Amare.
He’s not the caliber of Amare, but Amare is not getting any younger, he relies on athleticism, and there’s no guarantee that he’ll perform at the level he has in the past. Paying him like he’ll perform like he did at his peak is terrible. Which is why I said that I’d be happy at 14M/season. Biedrins is more valuable than any other 9M/season player in the NBA. If it’s just Biedrins (and filler) for Amare and we can get Amare to sign a reasonable contract, I’ll do backflips. But if it’s Biedrins, Curry, Wright, Kelenna for Amare and he’s demanded 18M/season, I’m going to be sick. There’s a lot of room in between those two.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 29, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it’s just Biedrins (and filler) for Amare and we can get Amare to sign a reasonable contract, I’ll do backflips. But if it’s Biedrins, Curry, Wright, Kelenna for Amare and he’s demanded 18M/season, I’m going to be sick. There’s a lot of room in between those two.
I think most of us are somewhere on the spectrum. I have accepted that Amare is going to demand the max extension and we are going to have to give it to him if we trade for him. Thats a huge risk, but I think I am ok with it. I dont want to go thru a string of 5-7 seasons of 37ish wins a year. I think I am ok with Biedrins, Wright, Azibuike, and Belinelli for Stoudemire. No Curry. Not because I think he will become the next Steve Nash (like Nellie has already come out and said), but because he does have a chance to be a special player and has great trade value.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jun 30, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have accepted that Amare is going to demand the max extension and we are going to have to give it to him if we trade for him. Thats a huge risk, and I have accepted that as the reality of rooting for the Warriors for the next 3-4 years. Sigh… I hope it turns out well.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 30, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amare here
Could be great if we hold out and maybe we dont have to give them Curry? Maybe they do the deal and we have instant playoff satisfaction with Curry, Stephen Jackson, Amare, and Mante Ellis. That team could be real dangerous. Maybe even a contender if Curry turns out to be real good. I think if the Suns are considering doing the deal without him then our GM is a genius if pulls it off without Curry in the deal and we have real contender possibly next year depending on how Curry pans out and Amare gels with the Warriors.
by robbin on Jun 27, 2009 10:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This trade would be our big 2010 FA signing
Except coming a year earlier. Let’s face it-we will not have enough under the cap to make a big signing in the 2010 free agency. Amare is as good a name as anyone that will be there. You gotta give talent to get talent. A woeful franchise like the Warriors needs to take a big chance. Live or die by a big move like this.
The last big move we made was acquiring Baron. I believe he was around the same age as Amare when he came here too. Look at how that worked out for us. Riley needs to close his eyes and pull the trigger on the trade and hope for the best-what better option do we have at this point?
by Captain Jack on Jun 27, 2009 10:18 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
even with little cap room, its not like big time FA’s are going to look our direction. i don’t even remember the last time the warriors signed a bit time free agent without forcing their hand via trade.
by jobrien9 on Jun 27, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bottom Line
I don’t care about all the stat comparisons, the potential, and the lot of players we would give up to get Amare.
The Warriors need a SUPERSTAR!
Look at what happened when Kevin Garnett was traded to the Celtics. Shaq and now Gasol to the Lakers. If teams are willing to dump salary at the expense of their future, then let them! Don’t be on the outside looking Warriors as another SUPERSTAR is traded in front of your very two eyes! Get him now!!!!
How good is Minnesota now? How good will they be in 5 years. Jefferson is legit, like Biedrins, Gomes not as good as Wright and of course the two draft picks…the jury is still out.
I really don’t see what all the over-analysis is about. He’s a superstar, trade for him dammit!!!
Byron
by DoomandGloom on Jun 27, 2009 10:27 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
The “overanalysis” is about the fact that Amare is not as good Gasol, not nearly as good as KG, and not in the same realm as Shaq in his prime.
The devil is in the details, son.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 27, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gasol is a better passer than Stoudemire, but Amare’s better than him at everything else…
by Missing Barry on Jun 27, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends which Amare
Last season’s Gasol was also a better rebounder than last season’s Amare, his equal in scoring efficiency (both .617 TS%), and, anecdotally, a more active defender. Basically, a better player overall. If Amare can inch back to the rebounder he was when he was 24 (17.0 TReb%, 20.5 in the playoffs), or the efficient scorer he was he was when he was 25 (.656 TS%!!!) he can be better than Gasol — or at least equal, in which case the fact that we wouldn’t have to gag every time we beheld his face could be a tiebreaker.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 27, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last year was also Gasol’s highest TS% in his career (only year >60%), whereas Amare has pretty consistently been at or better than his efficiency level last year (Amare does it while scoring at a higher rate, too). Last year was also Amare’s worst rebounding year of his career, whereas it was Gasol’s 2nd best. Has Gasol improved and Amare regressed? That’s the only case where Gasol is an equal or better player than Amare, in all other cases Amare is better (and younger).
That said, I think the biggest point in your favor would be how they age – Amare’s game is much more reliant on his athleticism while Gasol’s is much more dependent on his length and skills. I think it would be a pretty fair argument to say that Gasol will probably age better than Amare, but I’m not ready to buy the fact that Gasol is better than Amare now.
Oh forgot defense – let’s just say it’s neither of their specialty. Gasol’s length probably helps him more consistently though Amare has much more defensive potential if he just focuses and puts the effort in…
by Missing Barry on Jun 27, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair, Gasol has had 2 seasons at above 59% and their career rebounding ’s are pretty close 14.8 vs 14.1%. So you could say that Gasol’s been far more consistent in this area and hasn’t been trending downward.
I actually think Gasol is a pretty decent defender albeit a somewhat soft one and he’s had less serious injuries & been more durable than Amare. Gasol hasn’t been the headcase that Amare’s been and seems like more of a team player.
The real difference between those situations and this one is
(1)that Amare isn’t joining any other star players over in Oakland.
(2)It was Kwame + kids with potential for Gasol. It’s Andris + potential guys for Amare. Kwame was hardly a key piece for the Lakers. It was a 100% +Gasol type trade. This is an Amare minus Biedrins trade.
if Amare’s physical checks out & a contract can be worked out, I’d still do it.
by homer simpson on Jun 27, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
also to be fair, Gasol statistically blocks a higher % of shots than Amare.
by homer simpson on Jun 27, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Missing Barry already stated that in the post I believe I was replying to.
Gasol is a better passer than Stoudemire, but Amare’s better than him at everything else…
by homer simpson on Jun 27, 2009 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looking through their blocked shots rates…I don’t even know what to make of either of them. They were both terrible at it last year (compared to the rest of their respective careers). Gasol was consistently better than Amare when he was in Memphis, but the last 4 years Amare has been overall better at it than Gasol.
by Missing Barry on Jun 28, 2009 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A case for Amare's rebounding.....
Prior to shaq arriving Amare was averaging 11.7-12.7 rebounds per 40 minutes which is good but not great. Does anyone see validity in a Shawn Marion Comparison to Anthony Randolph. Athletic slasher, well above average rebounder… neither really shoot the lights out. PHeonix rebounded fine with Amare-Marion front court….. I think Amare-Randolph can be fine. More so the offensive presence we’d get inside is more than worth it
by tafkasam on Jun 27, 2009 10:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
A point people arent bringing up
Amare is open to singing an extension. Cohan does not seem open to giving him close to max money…
by tafkasam on Jun 27, 2009 10:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks jae for a nice summary and laying the table for a balanced discussion.
I’m in the camp of >>Stoudemire is too risky.<<
I loved his game a few years ago. I am not sold he would be the same player as a Warrior for all the reasons you and many other good posters summarize. My contribution to this discussion comes only as a vote (in case management is listening) from a long time STH to stay with the current front line (more or less) and imrove the periphery. I’d like to see if AR becomes our AS. I’l like to keep our young centers together. See how Monta and/or Curry work out at point. Consider a trade to improve our peripheral D, ie: Prince or Kirilenko. Maintain our flexibility. Because of a very poor season last year, the worth of each individual Warrior is lower than it should be. A major trade now would be a classic case of selling low and buying high.
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
by fotd on Jun 27, 2009 10:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
“A major trade now would be a classic case of selling low and buying high.”
I think the key we need to look at is how much we get and what we give up to get it. I’m all for Amare, but it’s extreme to go as far as to say “WE MUST GET AMARE!”. Let’s evaluate the trade market, and if we find a deal that legitimately makes us better, go for it, but if we find ourselves in a sell low buy high situation, we need to realize that and not make a deal.
by Missing Barry on Jun 27, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He does not deserver a max contract
And to say we need a superstar is the wrong way to look at it.
by dubzfan on Jun 27, 2009 11:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Eh, star players are what win in the NBA. He may not deserve a max contract, but guys that do are hard to find, and even guys that don’t but are still good enough that they get a max contract are hard to find, too. The alternative is we wait and hope we somehow come across a top 10 player in the league at some point. Are we confident that’ll happen anytime soon?
by Missing Barry on Jun 27, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
paul milsap anyone?
I think to Seem Paul Milsap would fit this team perfectly……
he’s a young up and comer who seems like he could play in the run and gun style……
i know he’s a restricted free agent….anyone know what we have to give up?
would giving him our full mid-level exception be enough?
by LightGreenKush on Jun 27, 2009 11:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
From what I’ve heard the Jazz are making him a priority so they’ll match anything we offer, unless we offer way more than he’s worth…
by Missing Barry on Jun 27, 2009 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We all know the Suns want Curry in the deal...
but it seems to me that Nelson loves the kid and doesn’t want to trade him. Nelson’s been comparing him to Steve Nash and saying what a great point guard he will become. I think when Curry fell into our laps, plans changed and Nelson/Riley’s thinking on the trade changed. This is why I think there is a possibility that Monta Ellis would be the centerpiece of a deal for Stoudemire now. We know that the W’s relationship with Ellis has been “rocky” this past year and Nelson isn’t a huge believer in Ellis. I could see Nelson going back to Kerr in these last couple of days saying “Were not trading Curry, but what about Ellis?” I’m not saying trading Monta instead of AB would be the right move but I also wouldn’t be surprised if Nelson looked to make it now that we have Curry.
by Sharunas Marchulenis on Jun 27, 2009 11:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
the deal would probably look something like...
Monta, BW for Amare
by Sharunas Marchulenis on Jun 27, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd do that
But would they? They need a center.
Throw in Davidson/Kurz and Speedy… ? Doubt they’d bite.
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
by fotd on Jun 27, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Monta, Wright and Turiaf for Nash and Stoudemire?
+/- pieces to make it work…
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
by fotd on Jun 27, 2009 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t imagine that’s even close to a financial match, nevermind the fact that PHX would never do that.
Thing A
"no homo"
by sam23 on Jun 27, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If one of the “pieces” was Maggette…
Eh, you’re right. PHX would never do that.
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
by fotd on Jun 27, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They would never do that deal,
A quality combo guard, a 21 year old project, and a back up hustle center for an aging fan favorite 2 time MVP and one of the best young big men in the game….
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jun 28, 2009 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Big Picture
I have been reading everybody’s posts that have been placed. And they are very good ones too. I want to give a scenario of things possibly to come. Biedrins- although talented and has played the center position well, not very good defensively for a big guy. Tends to let other big men push him around in the paint. Moves well away from the ball, good rebounder, etc.. He exceeded well when Baron Davis was with the team. But enough about him already. As we know, its about getting the right pieces that fit. The proposed Stoudemire trade probably and most likely not the only proposal that will go down. If you look at the current proposal and look at the rest of the roster, no way can GS be done. Too small and too many guards. However, its about role players. See its not about if AS can run the floor on this team, its more of what his role will be in the system when all of the pieces are collected. If you remember when Baron came, two other players came also in different trades. (Jackson/Harrington) Some of this is mentioned in other posts about other trades that might happen. I dont think that Claxton is going to be around long, seeing that he was shipped out when Nelson first came back (correct me if I am wrong). Maggette is someone else I would look to be moved also. Depending on how this AS trade goes down and whatever comes behind it, is going to determine what kind of team gets out on the floor. But I must point out though, its going to be about role playing here folks. AS comes, it would be better to place him at the 4 and Randolph at 5. Stoudemire is more productive playing at PF anyway. Could he be the player he was two years ago? Its possible. The Shaq factor- when Shaq was in Pheonix he was the man and will be no matter where he goes. So now your team starts trying to run the ball through your center, who is an all-star also. And you dont get the looks you used too, and takes you out of your game. Sometimes too many allstars can screw up the chemistry of a team. And I think in some sense, that was the case in Pheonix. Sometimes a change of scenery is in order to put you back where you need to be. AS coming to GS is intriguing, and possibly giving up AB, BW, and MB who have not established themselves in the NBA may not sit well with many of us. The big picture is how does he fit in the puzzle of a team that needs a lot? I would aslo agree to move Jackson to his natural spot at SF. The question becomes is who will be at the point? Will it be Curry or Ellis? That would be a point to find out just how versatile Curry really is and what he can do with the ball, away from the ball and if he can command the floor. Also it should be pointed out that Biedrins was drafted as a PF and converted to a C and would fit more with a finesse type team where his skills would be more exploited. But I know, when you like a players game, its hard to let go. Time will tell exactly what exactly the W’s have up their sleeve.
by Revp on Jun 27, 2009 12:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Please use paragraph breaks
It’s very hard to read what you wrote without them.
by IQofaWarrior on Jun 27, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No to Amare
This guy benefited greatly from the passing ability of Nash and all the pick and roll situations they performed over the years. Nobody on this team can consistently perform the pick and roll like Nash can so Stoudamire will never put up quite the effeciency numbers he will here. He’s not that active defensively, ( if he wanted he could be a beast like Dwight Howard ) and he doesnt fight for enough rebounds. Not a tremdous passer either.
I don’t mean to totally dump on this guy because he is a tremendous athlete with physical gifts that are heightened when he plays in a up-tempo style offense. If he came here we would have a pretty good chance of going to the playoffs but I think we would be giving up too much to get him and I don’t think we would be able to do much in the future as far as improvement because of his contract.
What did i tell you...didn't I say they would win? Yeah that's right I did didn't ? Wait.. what? They LOST?!?!?
by greenbean on Jun 27, 2009 12:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Monta for Amare
Man I hope you guys are wrong. I think Ws would be fools to make that trade. Why? Monta is younger, cheaper and I think arguably just as good as Amare. Jae mentioned the Nash factor as contributing to Amare’s #s. I think the D’antoni factor is just as important. The Amare we remember averaging 26 pts and 2 blocks was playing in D’antoni’s system which I think inflated his value. I remember seeing him on all NBA first team (i think) and thinking yeah he’s got the numbers, he’s a force and plays for a really good team but does he really belong there with Dirk, Kobe etc? Last year without D’antoni his #s were 21 pts 8 boards (granted still with a high shooting %) take away Nash those numbers probably go down a little more. Look what happened to Marion after he was traded.
Of course there is the counter argument that Nellie’s system also inflates offensive #s but the point that Amare is not quite as elite as his past #s indicate still stands. Monta is coming into the prime years of his career. Let’s see what he does. We have a guy in AR who could be every bit as good as Amare in a couple of years.
With regard to Biedreins trade I remember Amare saying he didn’t want to play center in Pheonix when they had him there and Marion at PF. But that is where he would play unless we moved Turiaf there and isn’t Turiaf more of a backup 5 and isn’t AR supposed to be the future 4.
I don’t understand the concept that Monta is suddenly expendable due to acquisition of Curry. I like Curry but he was a top prospect in a soso draft and comes with a lot of red flags-played for Davidson, is he a true point, is he an NBA athlete, has a size issue similar to Monta but without the explosive athleticism that scares other teams. Will other teams fear Curry in the same way they do Monta? Doubtful. I hope so. I think he’ll be pretty good but he’s a long way from showing that he can perform like Monta at NBA level.
by gsfool on Jun 27, 2009 12:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Monta is not arguably just as good as Amare
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jun 28, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, you can argue it, but half of an argument is being wrong.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maggette and a second rounder for Prince, Wright for Bass
by polar on Jun 27, 2009 12:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I like the first trade and don’t hate the second. My caveat would be that although Bass would help, you know what you’re getting- toughness some rebounding and scoring off bench, pretty decent outside shot, however is that worth giving up on Wright now. How about seeing what he can do for a full year. He doesn’t cost us much and if he starts blocking shots, rebounding and using that crazy length he might be worth a lot more than Bass in a pretty short time.
by gsfool on Jun 27, 2009 1:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Plus I like the tandem of Ronny and BWright, I think they complement each other really well. Since Ronny likes to take jump shots and pass the ball around and BWright uses his length and quickness to nab rebounds and putback the garbage. Ronny would play more like the PF on offense but the center on D. That is also some serious shot blocking power.
AR and Biens are also a terrific pair. Good complement. We should se what this front court can do. I think this is the best frontcourt I can remeber the Warriors having. I was only born in 88 though
by myk on Jun 27, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
neither rebounds very well at all. I actually like AR playing with Turiaf much better.
Thing A
"no homo"
by sam23 on Jun 27, 2009 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the the chat and feedback, the bottom line for all of us is this: expect the worst and hope for the best scenario(s).
by Revp on Jun 27, 2009 1:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Potiental
I hate that word.I don’t even know if I spelled it right.
Its time for a change...
by RunNdGun on Jun 27, 2009 1:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
look at the KG trade
its the best example fo what can play out in this kind of trade. Even when you give up a guy with huge potential like an al jefferson, the other team still wins out because they get the better player, KG, in the prime of his career, not while he’s still developing. The warriors have guys like jackson and ellis who are ready to win now and would fit with amare, or the dubs could wait it out and see what kind of players wright, randolph and curry turn out to be. tough choice but i would go with amare
by StocktonNEP on Jun 27, 2009 1:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Curry et al
I read all these posts and wonder if I have been watching the same team. The Warriors need defense in the paint and in the back court. They need someone to bring the ball up the court that does not turn the ball over. Why is that important? You can’t win turning the ball over. You can’t win if the other team is going to get into the paint and score without challenge.. They are loaded with talent on offense and young guys with potential. Ok so you want to keep Curry and get Stoudemire—same team different faces—loads of offense, no defense, a logjam of 2s and 3s, no real center or menacing power forward. Curry another Jamal Crawford? I don’t get it. This team should be headed to the second round of the playoffs at minimum with just a couple of role players, but no, let’s just Nellie ball into oblivion, no muscle, no ball handlers, no defense.
by CitizenE on Jun 27, 2009 1:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
yup
we should really trade Nellie for amare. No D = no W’s
Feelin like Chauncey I'm just tryin get my Bills Up
by P-40 the Ballatician on Jun 27, 2009 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope Riley isn't that stupid
enough to even add Curry to the deal.
Biedrins, Marco and Wright is already a lot given up.
This post makes me think harder on the trade.
Too much of a gamble on Amare, play it safe and keep Biedrins, Marco an Wright.
Biedrins isn’t valuable offensively like Amare.. but he has better team chemistry, defense, and good hands for a 7fter.
The players the W’s SHOULD be looking to trade are 2 of the 3 stooges that didn’t even show up the last game of the season, Maggette and Monta.
We’re stuck with Jax anyways.
So why trade those 3 players who are young, good teammates, and actually showed up on the last game.
What ya’ll think of this trade:
Warriors get: Nash, lottery pick Earl Clark
Suns get: Wright, Marco, Stephen Curry & others
7
by AlbinoWhale on Jun 27, 2009 2:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ahhh
Wright is a bust to begin with. He wasn’t worth it for at all. I like Baby Rocky and Biedrins, but for Amare. I will misses you too. I have to moved on.
by warriorfan4life on Jun 27, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nash will be a warrior someday
but only when he’s fading into obscurity.
Feelin like Chauncey I'm just tryin get my Bills Up
by P-40 the Ballatician on Jun 27, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if Amare joins us with Curry still on board
We would have to wait a minimum of 2 seasons for Randolph and Curry to round out into solid players – then shoot for the title. Amare will be 29 or 30 when we make a run. That gives us 2 seasons at most before his body will undoubtedly slow down, significantly. I would be fine with him easing into a role player at that age, but he has no defensive skills to fall back on, unlike Garnett and Rasheed, when his offensive game is limited. So, I am conjecturing that by the time we are ready to compete, he won’t be the same.
He might be enough to get us into the playoffs for valuable experience and by the time he is 32 or 33, he would be at the end of his contract for us to sign someone else when the team is in it’s prime.
He most likely won’t net us a championship, but he may bring us close enough for the team to benefit from the experience.
The King of the East shall move his kingdom to the West. 2010.
by GoldenBlue on Jun 27, 2009 4:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So, I am conjecturing that by the time we are ready to compete, he won’t be the same.
to elaborate, I mean that his reduced offensive production won’t be enough to compensate for his lack of defensive work. He has expressed willingness to work on it, but we don’t know what his current priorities are.
The King of the East shall move his kingdom to the West. 2010.
by GoldenBlue on Jun 27, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you kidding? Have to do the trade.
I have read some of these posts and can only shake my head. Do you people even understand the game of basketball? AK47 is a far superior player to buike. And Amare is far superior to AB. I love AB. Very good player and solid guy. BUT, if you can get a superstar, and Amare is a superstar, you have to do it. What I have not seen anyone mention is how much easier the game is going to be for Monta, Randolph, Maggette and everyone else with Amare getting double teamed. You have a true go to guy, who is a great free thrower, for the end of the game. He will take the pressure of Capt Jack and we have seen what an outstanding player Capt Jack can be when he doesn’t have to do everything. I do think we should hold out and make them accept buike instead of Curry. That might be too much and the Suns will eventually accept what we are offering. But look at cleveland, with lebron and a bunch of scrubs, they had the best record in the NBA. Take away lebron, and we have far superior talent. With Amare, we are a top 5 team in the west. Not a championship team until Monta and AR live up to their potential, but a consistent playoff team. And after all the years of suffering, I will take that.
by larocque43 on Jun 27, 2009 6:05 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
No one is saying AB > Amare Stoudemire. Have you read all the ‘points’? The big worry would be handing Amare a max deal and watching him not preform as well without Nash and our cap being totally screwed till he becomes an expriring contract in 5 years.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jun 28, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Post & although sexy: No to Amare
Although the classic business model is that the higher the risk, the higher the reward, lets drop this trade talk. Each team needs 1 superstar to build around, but like stated before, we need passing, rebounding, and defense. Amare doesn’t help us with any. In order to win more, we need to play better D. Amare is more of an offensive minded big and we wouldnt have anyone to get him the ball. Even without Amare we still have one of the best offenses in the L. I’ll take the D thank you, no pun intended.
1. Money / 2010 FA class
Amare has got to be thinking he wants his name among Lebron & big name co.
There’s no way he’s going to stick around in the bay. This guys just looking to get paid.
There’s a high chance that we would end up with him shorter than we would hope
If we eventually pay him the money on his mind, I just don’t think we can maximize the investment, once you get paid, you get laid and then faid. There’s at most a 5 yr window with a locked up amare. 1-2 if he decides to go elsewhere
2. Trailblazers model
I hate BWright, but this trade would destroy a good nucleus that we have going (mainly referring to Beans). Look at what Portland has done. Those guys aren’t going anywhere. Once we figure out the PG situation (curry fixed that), we are still a threat in the weaker than yrs past West. I really like how Marco plays, but I don’t think we or nellie give him enough time of day. Marco can pass and score. I feel like there’s a long term window if we keep our pieces. we are still a threat with what we have now.
Feelin like Chauncey I'm just tryin get my Bills Up
by P-40 the Ballatician on Jun 27, 2009 6:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I like the trade
Is Beans still included in the trade too? If so, I’ll surely miss him…
by justinleagueheroes on Jun 27, 2009 8:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Monta instead of Beidrins
Then I would do the trade. I’d rather build a team around front court players (Beidrins, Randolph, and Amare → what a sick lineup). Good guards are a dime a dozen these days. Plus, Warriors are risking losing a good, not great, but a good center just for a possible 1 year fix. Not guaranteed Amare will sign on with the Dubs beyond 2010. You know what you get in Beidrins, an extremely solid producer and a great teammate. Not worth a possible one year fix.
Monta, BWright, and Marco for Amare.
by MasuWarrior on Jun 27, 2009 9:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see why the Suns would consider this package considering they’d be trading big for small. That is a mistake in any sort of trade, especially involving when all-star calibur bigs. Wright will not be able to adequately fill the presence in the middle vacated by Shaq and Stat. Plus, they’ve already got Barbosa and J-Rich (and maybe even Barnes if he resigns) manning the wings to run with Nash, making Monta and Marco almost as redundant as our glut of swingmen.
by WYK on Jun 27, 2009 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you larocque43
for also not drinking the biedrins is awesome , a.s. is horrible kool-aid by the homers.
People take off the rose colored glasses. A.S. made the OLYMPIC team. He is a four time NBA allstar. This is not David West one year wonder. This is a talented big man who can play BACK to the BASKET. Does anyone understand what that means to a basketball game? It is why CLEVELAND went out and got a 37 year old man who can’t move! Offense changes things—especially if you’re in Don Nelson’s system.
Beyond that Amare, although not known for his defense has over 600 and nearly 400 steals in his career. Not bad for a guy not known for his defense. Oh did I mention almost 4000 (3884) rebounds. A Carlos Boozer guy only has about 400 more and last time i didn’t hear people complaining about him. That guy can barely jump to block a shot. (I didn’t say it Bob F. did). Now, before the spin pundits try to play with those numbers and be smarty pants—just hear me out.
HE AINT BAD. He will probably stay good in a fast paced system offensively and defensively because phoenix was similiar to G.S.
He Will make others better around him on offense and probably on defense.
So suck it up cry about biedrins, hope they don’t curry out of it, and pray that it happens. PEACE
by 11allstar on Jun 27, 2009 10:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
for also not drinking the biedrins is awesome , a.s. is horrible kool-aid by the homers.
Are you familiar with the phrase “strawman argument”? You appear to be familiar with the practice enough to engage in one.
Who said Stoudemire is horrible?
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 12:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh did I mention almost 4000 (3884) rebounds. A Carlos Boozer guy only has about 400 more
Vince Carter has 4243. Tracy McGrady has 4777. Can we try them out at starting C?
Now, before the spin pundits try to play with those numbers and be smarty pants—
Whoops.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 28, 2009 1:39 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
thank you 11allstar
about time someone with a brain thought of something good to post. Is it just me, or is GSOM and the media taking it too far and brainwashing everyone into thinking stoudemire won’t be good for this team. Which is also ironic since Kawakami seems to be the only one knowing the Warriors need to shakeup their lineup. Where are all the postive posts about Stoudemire. All I see are “Should we Get Stoudemire?” “Stoudemire is not what we need.” What we need are posts that are “What Stoudemire brings to the team.” or “A Chance to make noise in the playoffs.” We had Brandan and Andris last year and look what it got us, 29 wins. Hoping to become better is worst than becoming better, and the Warriors will most certainly become better with Stoudemire.
by Jayd92009 on Jun 28, 2009 12:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Is it just me, or is GSOM and the media taking it too far and brainwashing everyone into thinking stoudemire won’t be good for this team.
It is just you.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 1:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
See ur trying to brainwash me already jae!
Why should we believe u and atma brother? R u guys nba analysts or anything? No!! (for some
reason my reply button is working…)
by Jayd92009 on Jun 28, 2009 2:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What makes someone an “NBA analyst”? Do you have to get a degree in it? Is there a certification process?
I’ve heard a bunch of stuff said by paid TV personalities hired to be NBA “analysts” that showed that they did not actual analysis. Some of them are morons who got their jobs by being funny and friendly and having once played the game. I’ve read some real analysis that was thoughtful well crafted science written by people who most likely have other day jobs (or once had other day jobs before the economy tanked). You can believe me or Atma or anyone else as you please, but the argument “who are you to say” isn’t a rebuttal to anything. It’s an ad hom. attack that ignores any of the actual substance. If you can find flaws with the substance of what I’ve presented, bring it on. That’s exactly what makes for an intelligent board. If you’re just denying because ESPN doesn’t sign a paycheck over to me, it’s entirely your loss.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 2:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some of them are morons who got their jobs by being funny and friendly
Hey how do you think I got my job?
by Atma Brother ONE on Jun 28, 2009 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is an old saying...
Those who can —> Do
Those who can’t —>teach/coach
Those who can do neither —>analyze.
This site and other me too’s fit the 3rd scenario. Go Figure!
by streetballer on Jun 28, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You forgot the last two…
Those who can’t analyze —> “commentate”
Those who can’t “commentate” —> post on blogs
;-)
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 28, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those who can’t analyze and, at a loss to try to discredit the analysis in any meaningful way, try in vain to make up “old sayings” that are not old sayings.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
JAE...Bernard Shaw (1856–1950). Man and Superman. 1903.
He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.
Not sure how old you are…but I consider 1903 old.
Over the years, we have watched —>your strengths are in your thorough approach —> analysis. ALthough we may disagree with your conclusions…there is respect. Please be careful of the slope you find your self on above…you will find yourself sholder to sholder with TK.
by streetballer on Jun 28, 2009 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, I am familiar with the Bernard Shaw quote. That’s not what you posted though. I was commenting on your addition, which is not an old saying but your snide way to discredit without adding substance.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Haha
Over the years, we have watched —>your strengths are in your thorough approach —> analysis. ALthough we may disagree with your conclusions…there is respect. Please be careful of the slope you find your self on above…you will find yourself sholder to sholder with TK.
If you keep comparing Jae to a gossip columnist I’m afraid your credibility will be flushed down the toilet. =P
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jun 28, 2009 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
those who can't
didn’t listen to their teachers
by hardcore on Jun 28, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So...
If everyone listened to their teachers, there’d be no “Those who can’t” left, thus no teachers to educate the future “can” folks. Which means that there’s a purpose to my laziness in school!
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 29, 2009 7:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
-as of right now, i like what i see.
1. curry/law
2. monta/morrow
3. jackson/maggette
4. randolph/wright
5. biedrins/turiaf
notables. (pick two)
buike/ belinelli/ kurz/ davidson/ watson/ claxton,
Is it worth giving these guys a chance to show what they have when all is healthy?
by FANofDUBS on Jun 28, 2009 2:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
When all is healthy= Not a playoff team
We’ll go from 29 wins to 37 wins tops.
by phiLthyphiL on Jun 28, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s about right unless some possible, though not necessarily probable things happen. From Curry/Ellis we get a real point guard who improves an overall offense or Randolph becomes an efficient scorer to add to an impact rebounder and can play consistently enough to consistently play enough to make an impact. Also possible but I’d consider to be far less probable: Wright becomes that impact PF or Morrow becomes a front line 2. If these things happen this year, the team could contend for the last playoff spot. It would take something even more improbable to be much more than that.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d add one more X-factor: the possibility that the team evolves a little bit more of a defensive culture. If Monta’s return convinced Jack to try to be the defensive leader again, rather than the overall leader… if Monta re-committed himself to playing presentable NBA defense… if Nellie made defensive improvement a real emphasis starting in training camp… that could make us 6-7 games better.
I don’t expect this to happen. Neither Nellie, nor Monta, nor Jack, has even really mentioned defense all summer, and the safe assumption is that they’ll all basically ignore it again, to the team’s extreme detriment. But it’s another conceivable way that we could improve.
by onlxn on Jun 28, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the roster
Azebuike and Watson. But what this brings to light is the above: they need a point guard that can keep other point guards in front of him and out of the paint on d and dribble the ball without turning it over. They need a power forward who can rebound and dish out some misery on the defensive end in the paint—a real point guard as a starter and a 20 minute muscle guy off the bench. Curry, Stoudemire—they don’t need those kinds of players., and I’d be more than happy to see them dump Curry, Wright, Bellinelli, and Law for just that.
And for those who are writing off Monta—beware, he is a rare talent, who was injured last year but already has shown he was a better passer than the year before, He improves at a rather imressive rate. The only ceiling for him is will he learn how to play defense and avoid turnovers. He has shown that he is able to upgrade his game. How high really will be up to him.
by CitizenE on Jun 28, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another day, another opinion…
So I think we’ve got to get Amare. What other top-tier guys A) might be traded in the next season or two, B) might be willing to extend here, C) would remotely fit our needs? Bosh seems intent on free agency… trading for Rondo doesn’t seem easy given the two rosters, plus he’s got some question marks of his own… the Jefferson trade takes Parker off the table… I’m not sure who else. I mean, anything could happen… Chris Paul could get tired of the money troubles in New Orleans and force a deal, or whatever. But we’re not likely to do better than Amare. He is very good — he’s been a top-10-15 NBA player before, and is young enough so that being one again isn’t an impossibility (though I’d kinda doubt it). He seems willing to extend with us, albeit at the max. He fits our style. He gives us something — a big man with range — we don’t currently have.
Does he have warts? Sure. Would we have to overpay him? No doubt, and that worries me. But we have to be realistic about our future. We have neither the cap space nor the cachet to attract a free-agent superstar, and while we’re crappy, we’re not crappy enough to have a good shot at a top-3 pick anytime soon. Anthony Randolph could become a superstar and lead us to the promised land, but he didn’t even look like he belonged in the league six months ago… you don’t pass up an Amare Stoudemire because of a guy like that.
A superstar isn’t likely to show up if we stand pat. We’re looking down the barrel of a lot of 35-47 years and 7-10 draft picks unless we do something to shake things up. This would certainly qualify. We’d have to overpay Amare, and that could hurt us down the road for sure, but the risk is worth it. There are worse ways to spend your money than overspending on a top guy.
The more I look at it, the more I think we’ve got to reel this one in. But with one caveat: we need to do everything we can, short of offering Randolph, to keep Biedrins out of the deal. Throw Curry back in, throw Wright in, throw Monta in… anyone besides Biedrins and Randolph. Monta/Curry/Buike/Wright/Turiaf for Amare and a deadweight contract? Absolutely. You want Morrow? Take him. You want a future first-round pick? No problem — take two. Meanwhile, we start rumors in the Phoenix area that Robin Lopez has gained thirty pounds of pure muscle, and send Steve Kerr anonymous e-mails claiming that trading for Latvians makes you gay. Will it work? Probably not… I think the Suns are too smart to accept a package that doesn’t include Biedrins. But it’s worth some intense negotiating to make sure of that.
Because a three-man big rotation of Biedrins, Stoudemire and Randolph would be the foundation of a truly promising team, a Warriors team with more potential than any we’ve seen in a long, long time. With Biedrins as your starting 5, Stoudemire as your starting 4, and Randolph as the first sub for either off the bench, you have a young, athletic, elite-rebounding frontcourt that gives you several different looks. That’d be the most promising trio of bigs on the NBA. And we’d have all three guys for at least three years.
Any scenario that leaves us Biedrins, Amare and Randolph is positively rosy. Any trade we’d make would leave us with some swingmen (Maggette and Jack, at the very least), so we’d be covered everywhere except the point. If we traded away both Monta and Curry, we wouldn’t have a point guard, but to be fair, we’re not sure if we have a point guard even with those guys. And there are point guards to be had. We can offer our MLE to Sessions, Miller, Bibby or Kidd, or we can just sign a Brevin Knight type to hold down the fort and try to nab a PG with our expirings in mid-season. Backup PG? We just re-sign CJ for a little bit of money. A lot of folks seem to have forgotten this, but CJ’s a pretty decent little player.
As I said, I don’t think this’ll work. I don’t think the Suns bite on a Monta package. We will probably have to give them Biedrins, and if that’s what we have to do, we do it.
But that should be our absolute last resort. Biedrins is much more important to this team than Nellie realizes. And if we can keep him and Randolph and add Amare to the mix, the sky’s the limit.
by onlxn on Jun 28, 2009 11:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Suns throw a pie in our faces for
offering them 3 swingmen to add to Nash, Barbosa, J-Rich and offering to trade an All-Star big for some smalls and skinnies. Even then…really? Tay, Curry, Buike, Wright, AND Turiaf? And you’re willing to throw in future 1st round picks also?
A Biedrins + Amare + Randolph core surrounded by 7 D-Leaguers is just as bad as what we have now. You’re suggesting we give up entirely on the draft and rely solely on FA as if Golden State (Oakland) is one hot little destination. Plus you want to bring Randolph as the first sub off the bench?
Just keep the deal as is and INCLUDE Curry. I’m not anointing him the next Jesus Shuttlesworth/Mike Bibby/ Steve Nash/ great point guard because he made a few passes out of a double team. He could very well be the next Dell Curry. But you shouldn’t let Dell Curry stop you from snagging an Amar’e Stoudemire.
by phiLthyphiL on Jun 28, 2009 11:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Suns throw a pie in our faces for offering them 3 swingmen to add to Nash, Barbosa, J-Rich and offering to trade an All-Star big for some smalls and skinnies
They probably do throw a pie in our faces, sure; I don’t think they’d go for it. But I don’t think your characterization of the package is quite right. Monta and Curry are combo-type guards… Wright’s 4, and Turiaf’s a 4 who sometimes plays a 5 on TV. Only ’Buike’s an actual swingman.
Even then…really? Tay, Curry, Buike, Wright, AND Turiaf?
That’s too much now? I thought this offer would get a pie thrown in our faces.
Yeah, I’d do that, if that was what it took to keep Biedrins (and Randolph). I like all five of those guys, but I don’t regard any of them as mission critical. Turiaf is a nice piece for a good team, not a guy who’ll get a bad team good. Wright has real promise, but he’s never going to reach that promise here. ‘Buike is a very credible swingman, but he’ll never be a star, and with Jack, Maggette and Morrow at the swings, we wouldn’t particularly miss him. Curry? Fun as hell, and I’m excited about him, but let’s not get carried away with the honeyroom… he was the seventh pick in a notably weak draft. As for Monta… well, I like the guy a lot. There are a million question marks around him, though — is he healthy, is he happy, can he play point, will he defend — and it wouldn’t be the worst thing if all those questions went away.
Obviously it’d be great to give less than this. Obviously we’d love to keep Curry in any situation where we give up Monta… obviously we’d rather keep Turiaf if we could. But this is a scenario where we’d be getting a borderline top-twenty player without giving up our two most valuable pieces. It’s gonna have to get pretty bloody.
And you’re willing to throw in future 1st round picks also?
I mean, I’m not eager to. But yeah, if that’s what it takes. Trading for Amare locks us into a certain window to compete… it’s a statement that we’re getting off the “rebuilding” hamster wheel. If you’re not rebuilding, picks are less important.
Now, obviously if the Amare’d roster falls apart and we suck, we’ll really, really miss those picks. That’s a risk. But a Biedrins/Amare/Randolph trio is worth that risk.
A Biedrins + Amare + Randolph core surrounded by 7 D-Leaguers is just as bad as what we have now.
One of the guys you’re loath to give up is a former D-Leaguer… I’m not necessarily terrified of D-Leaguers.
But more importantly, that’s not what I’m suggesting. If you did the trade I outlined above (pretty much off the top of my head), you get this:
PG: ??
SG: Stephen Jackson
SF: Corey Maggette
PF: Amare Stoudemire
C: Andris Biedrins
Key Reserves: CJ Watson, Anthony Morrow, Anthony Randolph
That’s not three good bigs surrounded by D-Leaguers… that’s a roster that’s a point guard away from being a pretty solid eight-man rotation, with a good small, a good swing and a good big on the bench. So our 9th through 12th best players are a lot worse. So what?
You’re suggesting we give up entirely on the draft and rely solely on FA as if Golden State (Oakland) is one hot little destination.
By no means. I’d love to keep all of our picks if we can, but I’d put them on the table if necessary. And I don’t think Oakland’s gonna turn into an attractive landing spot for FAs all of a sudden, but I do think there will be a number of pretty good point guards on the market, and that some of them won’t get more than the MLE. Could we snag one, offering our MLE, Nellieball and the numbers-swelling it brings, and the chance to work a two-man game with Amare all night? Not sure, but I wouldn’t hate our chances.
Plus you want to bring Randolph as the first sub off the bench?
I do. And that’s probably the biggest risk of the whole scenario — asking him to come off the bench. But handled smartly, there’s no reason it couldn’t work. There are enough minutes at the 4 and 5 so that each of Biedrins, Stoudemire and Randolph could play 36 minutes a game. In practice, foul trouble would keep both Biedrins and Randolph from getting quite that many minutes, so you’d need a fourth big, a Davidson type, to smack guys around for ten minutes a night. But the point is, Randolph wouldn’t be hurting for minutes.
Would his ego be hurt by coming off the bench? Maybe. But tell him he’ll win Sixth Man of the Year. If he shows enough, and if he and Amare prove capable of holding down the fort defensively now, maybe a year from now we trade Biedrins for an elite point and Randolph becomes a starter. But I think you could have him on the bench for a year, if he gets 30 minutes a night.
Just keep the deal as is and INCLUDE Curry. I’m not anointing him the next Jesus Shuttlesworth/Mike Bibby/ Steve Nash/ great point guard because he made a few passes out of a double team. He could very well be the next Dell Curry. But you shouldn’t let Dell Curry stop you from snagging an Amar’e Stoudemire.
I think Curry’s best-case scenario is a good bit better than his dad, but I agree with you. Curry isn’t irreplaceable. You shouldn’t let Stephen Curry stop you from snagging an Amare Stoudemire.
But you shouldn’t let Don Nelson stop you from keeping an Andris Biedrins, either. Biedrins does a lot of important things here, and will continue doing them long after Nellie’s sailed home to Hawaii. Let’s get Amare Stoudemire, but let’s keep Andris Biedrins if it’s the slightest bit possible.
by onlxn on Jun 28, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Adding future first rounders is tough for us. You cannot trade away all your 1sts in consecutive drafts (without receiving a 1st in compensation in one of them). Our 2011 is spoken for even if the protection means it might not go away until 2012 or 2013. This means we cannot trade away the 2010 unless we do something to get back another 1st rounder in either 2010 or 2011. We also cannot trade away the 2011, 2012, or 2013 pick since we do not know we’ll have it to trade.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True. Realistically, we’d have to offer picks years in the future, which isn’t super-enticing… I don’t think those would interest Phoenix too much. But I do think we should be willing to put whatever picks we can on the table.
by onlxn on Jun 28, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The CBA limits the number of years in the future you can offer a pick. I believe there’s a seven year window. Until the Marcus Wiliams deal is completed or we obtain another pick to replace it, we cannot send one away, which means the next 4 years are on hold. I am not sure if we can trade th 2014 pick yet either in case the 2013 one is the one conveyed. I’m almost certain we could’t trade it save as a conditional, possibly not being conveyed until 2015.
The Williams deal really does make things much more complicated. Who would have though?
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tay, Curry, Buike, Wright, and Turiaf would both get a pie thrown in our faces and would seem too much from our standpoint (if that makes any sense)
I was actually supportive of trading Monta pre-draft/on draft night and keeping Biedrins. With the Bosh rumor, I was looking forward to a Tyreke, Randolph, Bosh, Biedrins lineup. Now with our focus on Amare…I’d be all for a
Monta/Wright/ Curry for Amare deal. Which again would get pie and spit in our faces. I like Bookie and Turiaf and feel they’re so much more valuable to us and essential in keeping around. That’s why the prospect of being able to nab Amare while keeping Monta and Randolph seem so appealing. But I do understand your take on pairing Amare with Biedrins rather than have Amare masquerade at C next to Randolph.
The whole thing about throwing in 1st round picks just isn’t about giving up picks in the 20’s if we’re playoff-bound/contenders. You can still find good complementary pieces at fractional costs if you draft well as evidenced by Boston, San Antonio, Houston, etc. I’m not saying that we have the ability as those franchises to draft well late, but you’d be forfeiting the opportunity to even try. And the other point as you brought up, if the trade falls to shi*, then we’re really losing out on those first rounders.
Kelenna Azubuike is definitely a special case of a D-Leaguer. I can’t really think of a better D-Leaguer in the NBA right now. CJ Watson is serviceable. It’s pretty tough to say that we’ll find D-Leaguers just as good as Bookie. Or even Watson for that matter. Even then, the lineup you threw out there still has Maggette in there and if he’s your starting SF, I don’t believe for one bit that you’re a championship contender. If CJ Watson and Anthony Morrow are your two of your three best bench players, we’re not championship contenders the slightest bit. Even if you included Chris Paul or Deron Williams in that lineup, I don’t think it’s a championship contender. The bench would be way too thin (in quality)
Championship-contending would be much more realistic IMO with Monta, Amare, Randolph, Jack, a PG w/ Morrow, Azubuike, Turiaf, Maggette coming off the bench.
by phiLthyphiL on Jun 28, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the lineup you threw out there still has Maggette in there and if he’s your starting SF, I don’t believe for one bit that you’re a championship contender
Possibly not… Maggette’s defense is, to put it diplomatically, less than championship-calibre. He’s not a bad player, though. He’s an above-average small forward overall, not much above average, but above average. Most NBA teams, including most championship contenders, start at least one player that’s worse than Corey Maggette. He’s not a gaping hole.
If CJ Watson and Anthony Morrow are your two of your three best bench players, we’re not championship contenders the slightest bit.
Who’re the seventh and eighth-best players on the Nuggets? Kleiza and Anthony Carter, maybe? How about the Cavs — what, Boobie Gibson and Wally Szczerbiak? The NBA champs’ seventh and eighth-best guys are Walton and Farmar? I don’t think a Watson/Morrow combo is drastically worse than any of those tandems. The second and third guys off pretty much anyone’s bench are fairly limited players.
Teams contend for championships because of their top five or six guys, not their deeper benches. Depth is highly, highly overrated. We should know… we had maybe the deepest bench in the league, and we still sucked.
I’m not dismissing your concerns. We may need a better small forward to contend, we may need a deep bench to contend… both those things are quite possible. But, in my opinion, we’ll definitely need a good center to contend. Stoudemire isn’t that guy. He’s a great player, and he can play center sometimes… maybe even a lot of the time. But you don’t want him as your go-to center in every situation… the defense and rebounding are just too iffy. Ronny, also, is not a starting-calibre player… his rebounding is poor, and he fouls too much to play starter-level minutes consistently.
Biedrins is a genuinely good center, somewhere in the top third of starting NBA centers. He’ll get you boatloads of rebounds on each end of the floor, he’ll score efficiently (from the field, anyway), and he bodies up opposing centers better than many think… he mainly struggled with outside shooters last year, and that had a lot to do with the utter lack of help he was getting from teammates in guarding the basket. He’s an above-average player at an important position, and things are much easier with him than they would be without him.
Championship-contending would be much more realistic IMO with Monta, Amare, Randolph, Jack, a PG w/ Morrow, Azubuike, Turiaf, Maggette coming off the bench.
That team is certainly deeper and more offensively explosive than mine… it’d be a damn fun team. But the rebounding and defense would be worse by a good bit, both because of the absence of Biedrins and because Monta at the two makes us smaller and weaker. Moreover, three of the first four guys off the bench are swingmen, which makes it hard to get everyone minutes.
Which team could realistically compete for a championship? Neither, really… even a huge move like this one doesn’t get us all the way there all of a sudden. But a lineup with Biedrins has some flexibility in matchups that a lineup without him doesn’t. With a PG/Monta/Jack/Randolph/Amare lineup, you have to play mismatches off being smaller and faster every time out, kind of like the “We Believe” team. As the Dallas series proved, that can work great, for a while. But as the Utah series proved, eventually you’re going to run into a bigger team that figures you out. A team with Biedrins, Stoudemire and Randolph doesn’t have to play smallball… it’s one of several options for Nellie (or his successor) to choose from. And I think that’s worth a lot.
by onlxn on Jun 28, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We don't need a frontline
Why would you want to get one of the most explosive big men in the game who offers scoring muscle and beef, when you can field 4 gaurds and biedrins on the floor? It seems to have worked the past two seasons. Look at the Lakers and the Magic they made it without big men right? Biedrins rebounding numbers are inflated because he’s the only player on the floor for the warriors thats over 6 foot 5. He’s a very good player but he’s no Amare. You add Amare and suddenly the warriors are a force. Don’t get me wrong I think we need a point gaurd and another big man too but Amare is one hell of a start.
by jloom21 on Jun 28, 2009 11:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Biedrins rebounding numbers are inflated because he’s the only player on the floor for the warriors thats over 6 foot 5.
And this explains how Turiaf, when he was the only bigman on the floor, did not rebound any better here than he did in LA, when, by your “logic”, his numbers too should have been "inflated? (Hint: it doesn’t.)
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
disagree jae
Turiaf’s focus is on blocked shots so it doesn’t disqualify the theory that Andris’ rebounds are inflated. He played with Harrington, pietrus, maggette all at PF. So you can’t really assume that the theory of inflated numbers is not an accurate assumption. If Turiaf focused purely on rebounds as Andris does maybe he would have a higher rebounding rate with GS.
Personally I do not think the rebounding discussion is relavent to this trade. Andris is not the answer. Rebounding is a Team issue. We will allway be a poor rebounding team until the team changes. losing Andris’ extra rebounds per game will have a minimal effect on our team rebounding. Andris + Randoph vs Amare + Randolph will both rebound just fine. Until we get rebounds from the SF we will continue to be a poor rebounding team.
by Balance on Jun 28, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm. So miraculously, the amount of increased effort in blocking shots exactly countered the amount of “inflation” he would have received vs. how easy it was to rebound in LA such that his per minute rate stayed almost completely identical? How far fetched do you really want to go with this one?
I’m calling BS on that one too. Given that his per minute rate for blocking shots when he was a starter was lower than his rate when he was a reserve (indicating he wasn’t going after blocks are much) and lower than it was in LA, but when not blocking shots as much as he was the year before his rebound rate increased by less than one half rebound per 36 minutes, your explanation for why Turiaf showed no inflation because he was just going for blocks is bogus.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not really far fetch at all. Blocking shots or attempting often times can take one out of defensive position to rebound, i.e makes it harder to box out. Considering that turiaf is able to both block shots and still rebound at comparable rate as he did in LA my tell more of a story than you are absorbing. It’s not far fetched at all to assume that a dramatic increase in blocks could very well lead to a decrease in rebounding effecientcy. Beidrins rebounding rate may not be effected at all by his team but your wrong in assuming i’m saying that your math/ logic doesn’t prove inflated theory wrong. If Bean went to LA and had the same rebounding rate then we could be sure, but it’s completely logical assumption that a 7 foot guy on a small team that doesn’t rebound well could rebound better than if he was on another team were there would be more competition for rebounding. Placing Goose next to Garnett and Camby would most likely decrease his rebounds per minute. He’s obviously a great rebounder but the theory of inflation could very well be true.
by Balance on Jun 28, 2009 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You didn’t seem to follow. When Turiaf was going after blocked shots, he was out of position. When he was put in as a starter, he did not go after the blocks in the same way and not surprisingly, got fewer blocks. But he didn’t get a whole lot more rebounds. If charging after blocks was costing him rebounds, it wasn’t costing him many else when he stopped, he would have improved more than the half a rebound per game that he improved.
The issue again is how is it that if being the lone big bumps up Andris’s rebounds, it shows very, very little effect on this with Turiaf even when he wasn’t going after blocks, even when he was blocking shots at a lower rate than he did last year. It is a far-fetched explanation to say that Andris’s rebounds were “inflated” but Turiaf’s weren’t in this light.
For what it’s worth, the term you are looking for is not “inflated” but “diminishing returns” a phenomenon that exists, but does not seem to be nearly as important as most people hypothesize.
by jae on Jun 28, 2009 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not saying that biedrins is a bad player or can’t rebound he’s great but he’s only solid at best. We need Amare because he will always be able to do things Biedrins will not. Like take the ball in the half court and create his own shot and score from the post Amare is a beast and when you put him back into a run in gun offense he is and will be amazing. Amare creates open shots for everybody on the floor Biedrins does not. Amare is a go to guy Biedrins is not. Turiaf’s number were down because he wasn’t involved in many games due to injury or just being benched and there’s a reason for that, he’s not that good. Look at all the teams in the final four, all had big men who could bang around. Our interior defense was horrible because we had no frontline now Amare may not be a great defender either but his offense makes up for it. But like I said Amare isn’t the answer but he’s a great start we still need a point and a shot blocking center who can rebound (Camby or Chandler). We still have a long way to go. Small ball doesn’t work so we can have every great gaurd in the league but no beef up front means no playoffs again.
by jloom21 on Jun 28, 2009 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs