Amare & Sharing
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 1, 2009 10:03 AM PDT
181 comments
Adam Lauridsen's great piece on the rather disturbing parallels between Amar'e and Maggette got me thinking about sharing.
Specifically: has there ever been a great NBA player who was an unmitigated ballhog? Bird, Magic, Jordan, LeBron -- all obscenely good passers, obviously. But even among the great big men ... Duncan, KG, Shaq, and Gasol were/are all excellent passers for their size, generally dropping dimes at 2-3 times the rate Amare has mustered (a paltry 1.4 per 36 minutes, career).
I did manage to find one franchise-ish player who shares the ball as poorly as Amar'e: Dwight Howard -- also 1.4 assists per 36 career. But he's also the best rebounder in the NBA and the Defensive Player of the year, two areas in which Amar'e doesn't exactly excel. And Howard still isn't the type of player who can lead his team to a championship without a ton of talent around him (though given his combination of freakish athleticism and great attitude, I suspect he'll get there).
Closer to home, the three brief, shining periods of success in recent Warriors history seem to have all been fueled by guys who were ace at sharing the rock and getting teammates involved: Hardaway/Mullin, Webber (one of the best passing big men I've ever seen, 4.1 assists per 36 career), and of course BD. Does it not concern anyone that Amar'e is the opposite of these guys?
JAE's latest reports on Amare's decent numbers sans Nash provide some comfort, I guess, but they're based on pretty small sample sizes. Over the course of his career, Amar'e has pretty consistently been the 3rd or 4th most valuable player by plus-minus on the Suns. No great surprise that, on the whole, Suns fans on the Bright Side haven't exactly been clamoring for the team to lock him up long-term.
In sum: we're looking at a player doesn't rebound very well for his size, doesn't play much D, has had microfracture knee surgery and a detached retina, has never been a team leader, is by most accounts a bit of a malcontent, and does not share the ball. Further, as Lauridsen alludes to in his piece, he risks stunting the development of our talented young core -- Randolph, Morrow, Buike, Curry, e.g. -- by being such black hole. All driving + no kicking = dreadfully few touches for the kids. (Sorry, I just wanted to be the only GSoMer other than JAE ever to use the word "dreadfully.")
Analogies abound: A taller version of Corey Maggette? A more efficient, more athletic version of Zach Randolph? A more chiselled version of Al Jefferson? Like all analogies, these are pretty flawed ... but less flawed, I suspect, than comparing Amar'e to a true franchise player. Is Amar'e a winner who makes his teammates better like KG/Duncan ... or a just big body like Jefferson/Randolph who puts up numbers, gets points for his fantasy owners, and collects his (max) paycheck? Do we really want to hitch our entire franchise to this guy for the next 6-7 years?
Yeah, count me fully off the Amar'e B'andwagon. For good. Or at least, till I hear he's on our team. Then I may come sniffing around. ;-)
On a side note, I saw Zydrunas Igauskas sipping coffee yesterday at an outdoor cafe on Spring Street in SoHo. He was long.
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
6 recs |
181 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Thats what she said.
: )
It is the shoes!!!
by LighTz707OuT on Jul 1, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The attractive young woman he was sitting with did appear content.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 1, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought for sure
after the line “I saw Zydrunas Igauskas sipping coffee yesterday at an outdoor cafe on Spring Street in SoHo” you were going to instead say: “His hair was perfect.”
by VidaWantsYourCar on Jul 1, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was lookin for the place called Lee Ho Fooks, gonna get a big dish of beef chow mein….
Actually, it was SoHo New York City, not London.
And it kinda goes without saying that Big Z’s hair was perfect… ;-)
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 1, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All very good points.
It’s worth noting that many big men become better passers with age. It happened with Shaq, with KG, and (less dramatically) with Duncan. That seems to be happening with Amar’e as well… he recorded the best assist rate of his career last season, breaking the record he’d set the season before. His passing numbers are still not impressive — 2.0 assists per 36 is nothing to write home about, particularly on a high-pace team. But his numbers are trending upward.
By that same token, though, so are Biedrins’s. And his passing numbers are more impressive than I’d expected… they’re small, but impressive. Biedrins’s A/TO ratio last season was 1.10, which is not half-bad for a center — that put him above Jefferson, Nene, Ilgauskas, Bogut and Shaq, among others. That has more to do with his ability to avoid turnovers than his nifty passing… still, it’s a positive. (Turiaf’s A/TO ratio, of course, is comically good. At 2.43, he rated even with Raymond Felton.)
Amar’e wouldn’t be a franchise player, a guy who electrifies a team and leads them to the promised land, and nobody should waste their time pretending that he is. But there are only eight or nine of those guys in the world, none of whom will come available. Amar’e is as good as anybody we could realistically hope to get anytime in the next several years, and while he almost definitely wouldn’t take us to the promised land, he could probably get us farther than we’d get without him. Is it worth giving an absurdly huge contract to a guy like that, and punting on a solid young center and some other young pieces in the process? Maybe, maybe not. But I submit that it could be… that Amar’e doesn’t have to be Kevin Garnett for this to be worthwhile. He’s not a perfect guy to hitch your franchise to, but he’s better than most.
by onlxn on Jul 1, 2009 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
His passing numbers are still not impressive — 2.0 assists per 36 is nothing to write home about,
Yeah but he’s not the guard. You don’t want to give him the ball and have him give it up you want him to score when he gets it, a fierce ballhog desire to drive is what we need. The name of the game is score the points not play hot potato with your team mates.
Amare is not the greatest big around but he’s a lot better than what we would give up to get him( a rookie tweener guard from a minor college and a soft center plus some spare parts)and he would add some gangsta class to our squad.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 1, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amare Stoudemire...
…it must be mentioned, is himself a soft center. Gangsta class is all well and good, but if he doesn’t challenge layups or rebound inside, we’ll be gangsta losers.
by Zack Vank on Jul 1, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a fierce ballhog desire to drive is what we need.
We’ve already got Maggette. Why the hell didn’t we win the championship!? ScU, I think you missed Sleepy’s point, as well as the empirical evidence that backed it up.
While I agree that Amar’e is better than the parts we’d give up, the crippling contract and possibility of continued mediocrity regardless is what most of us are concerned about.
by ffgolden on Jul 1, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the crippling contract and possibility of continued mediocrity regardless is what most of us are concerned about
just man up and break the eggs, we’re not getting anywhere waiting for our potential to develop.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 1, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree with that
But I think there might be other moves out there with less risk but equal potential. A three egg omelette is not necessarily better than a two egg omelette, but it’s guaranteed to have more cholesterol.
by ffgolden on Jul 1, 2009 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I was definitely buying into the eggs concept initially — which is why I supported the trade at first. Now, like ffgolden, I just think there have to be better ways to use the eggs before they go bad. What about breaking Maggs, Wright, and Marco (and Speedy’s expiring, if and when it becomes moveable) into a Kirilenko omelette?
Monta/Curry
Jack/Morrow
AK-47/Buike
Randolph/AK-47
Biedrins/Turiaf
I like that more, overall, than any of the proposed lineups I’ve heard with Amare at C.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 1, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Me too. I guess I just can’t get my head around the idea that the Jazz would take Maggette on. But I’d LOVE that deal.
by onlxn on Jul 1, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know if you have read anything I've ever written here
But I’m like the biggest Corey Maggette fan on here.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 1, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have indeed read. And I like Maggette too… I think he gets a bad rap around here. Having said that, with Jack, Azubuike and Morrow around, he’s not a guy we need all that badly. If we could turn him into Kirilenko, a guy who’d do a LOT to address the feeble defense of this team, I’d party and freak out.
by onlxn on Jul 1, 2009 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was just a poke at you from probably the first time we really butted heads
I’d be very happy if he was the principal talent we gave away in a trade for Kirilenko. But, sadly, they’ll probably want a little more than that.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 1, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think most Jazz fans would do backflips over that deal.
I would do it in 7 nanoseconds. Yes please. I don’t know how the Jazz front office feels about it.
The more you try to erase me, the more that I appear.
by clarkpojo on Jul 4, 2009 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I love the idea of AK47 playing for Nellie…..I’d actually probably bring him off the bench to get Buike’s reliable outside shooting in the starting lineup, but yea I love that trade it seems like it makes a ton of sense for Utah too since they are probably about to lose Milsap to the Thunder.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 1, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don’t want to give him the ball and have him give it up you want him to score when he gets it, a fierce ballhog desire to drive is what we need.
A gross simplification to the point of being wrong. You want him to give it up when someone else has a better shot or when he doesn’t have a good look. An offense where everyone appreciates that someone else might have a better shot and can recognize it when true just plain works better than having a black hole in any position. A fierce ball-hog is never something that you want, though if someone is a fierce ballhog, it helps if he’s also very, very good at making his shots.
by jae on Jul 1, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it helps if he’s also very, very good at making his shots.
Well yeah, I’d trust amare to out power most defenses. I’d rather see him bull the basket from close range than toss it out to Jax for a long three.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 1, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he had only about 1.5 fewer assists per 36 mins last year than Marco Belinelli…..the guy so many people around here want us to install as our PG.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 1, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Maggette's problem ...
is not so much pure selfishness as that he’s caught up in his on personal game a bit too much. He doesn’t see the dynamics of space and time flowing around him. Of course he’s great at what he does: scoring points and getting fouled. He just hasn’t developed a ability to extend his awareness outside of what’s going on in the drama of his personal moment.
Monta’s a bit like that too, although I’d say he’s gotten better at seeing & feeling where his teammates are over the past couple of years. Maybe some of that was Baron’s extraordinary awareness rubbing off on him.
Concerning Stoudemire, if that’s truly his achilles heel too, I’d hate to give up a big man who really senses the flow of the game just to have some more inside scoring. Beans is one of the better players at the 5 in the NBA when it comes to playing within the flow of the game.
To sum up, I’m not sure that ‘sharing’ is all that adequate of a metaphor, unless we are talking about 3 year-olds on the playground. These are grown men, they should know that they are a part of something bigger than them, that the don’t have to do anything but let the play happen, to merge with the flow and open their attention outwards. The ball will find it’s way home if they only let themselves merge with the flow. Or in othe words, Let the Force Be with You.
by miguelito on Jul 1, 2009 10:49 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Re: Maggette's problem
He may also be thinking “If we’re trying to score on this possession, then I’m probably our best shot”. In his defense, he’s really good at scoring. I think his problem is that he can’t think beyond that or doesn’t trust his teammates. I don’t think it’s pure selfishness but I could be wrong. I choose to appreciate his ability and try and sympathize with the fact that he’s under-appreciated for what he can do and harshly bagged on for what he doesn’t do.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jul 1, 2009 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's hard to blame him
If you either score, or get fouled and shoot a good FT%, every time you drive to the bucket, it might be pretty hard to convince yourself that passing the ball is the best choice. Shortsighted, perhaps, but reasonable logic nonetheless. I love miguelito’s take on this: if he sees each possession as a “personal moment”, it’s easy for him to miss his place in the bigger picture.
by ffgolden on Jul 1, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can see migelito's perspective too.
I choose to appreciate the rare skill that he possess and ignore the potential for a selfish glory grab. At this point, he’s not getting a bigger contract than the one he has, so we’re all free to speculate as to his motivation.The fact that he agreed to come off the bench, rather than being told, earns the benefit-of-the-doubt as far as what his motivation is.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jul 1, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
fwiw a lot of folks forget that Nelson told him to look to score – we were down w/o Ellis much of the time and we didn’t have a scorer inside to work through …
by hardcore on Jul 1, 2009 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a great point.
I don’t think we consider the metaphysics of the individuals players enough in this forum. Zen and the Art of Corey Maggette.
by BlueInTheFace on Jul 2, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What kind of poll is that?
Ice cream goes with all the rest. It shouldn’t be a separate choice. :-)
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
by fotd on Jul 1, 2009 11:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I can’t believe cake is getting crushed. I love cake.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 1, 2009 11:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm...
…a cookie and pie man, myself. My roommate is of the mind that pie should the default celebratory confection instead of cake. i don’t know if I’d go so far, but there’s nothing more delicious than a flaky, blackberry pie.
I’m a vegan, though, so the whole list is a little hard to shake. Not impossible, though, and I think I’ll try to do a little baking today.
by Zack Vank on Jul 1, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not with the recent heat wave
ice cream all the way!
by IQofaWarrior on Jul 1, 2009 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kobe used to be a ball hog and a superstar at the same time. His game has evolved over the years but he used to be pretty much a black hole.
by Crab Ddribble Cocktail on Jul 1, 2009 11:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
While I’m pretty sure you’ll just say that the stats don’t say everything, Kobe’s assist numbers suggest that this is not true. Since about his third season, his ratio of assists to shots taken has been reasonably steady, fluctuating from season to season, but not trending heavily upwards.
by jae on Jul 1, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whatever, stat boy! He’s like a coach out there!
I mean, did you see how much he wanted to win the championship? The guy was hungry!
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 1, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I read...
…an article today suggesting the Lakers should make Kobe player coach. That strikes me as a terrible idea.
by Zack Vank on Jul 1, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They might as well suggest altering the current CBA, because doing so would be the only way to make it possible for Kobe to be a player-coach.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 1, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They had to close that loophole after Tree Rollins showed just how valuable the player/coach could be.
by jae on Jul 1, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re making a joke, but obviously the rule was implemented because you could pay someone a coaching salary separate from their player salary, and only one of them could be counted under the salary cap.
I guess you could stipulate that player-coaches have all salary included in the salary cap…
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 1, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm... wow....
I don’t know what to say…
I was gonna try to post a funny picture, so I went to google and typed “I’m hungry”, and… I didn’t need to see that.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 1, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The naked... person
The guy eating the fish
The python… all of it. Nothing that looked tasty and made me say “Wow, I’m hungry too!” Nothing. All crap.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 1, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep throw your stats out the window
this tells you everything you need to know
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 1, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s like a coach out there!
maybe a very hated obnoxious coach the other the players would love to frag?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 1, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, NBA players love to ignore their coaches, and his teammates have been ignoring him for years, so he’s got that particular base covered.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 1, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I remember...
…that moment in the Finals when Mark Jackson utter that line. It was during a clip in which Kobe was very aggressively trying to hammer some point home to Pau Gasol, if memory serves. I remembered thinking that the image was positively no different than the sort which would be used to malign Bryant in previous years. He didn’t look like he was particularly communicating his point well- moreover, Pau Gasol was shooting something like 60% the whole series (scoring much more efficiently than Byrant himself) and really seemed to make every play down the stretch that I can recall to mind (again, moreso than the lauded Mr. Bryant).
Basically, the fact that the Lakers can and have won thrilling games because of Kobe’s ability to take over doesn’t mean that how they should ideally play. I could be misremembering, first off, but I seem to recall a stat analysis of his late game performances that rated this last season as one of his least clutch-y ones. It’s the age old thing about clutch scoring- the more you try, the more often it happens, even if Pau or Bynum were open in the post.
I think Kobe is a phenomenal shooting guard. I might even go so far as to say that his absolute peak, when he gets super hot in a big game, is higher than Michael Jordan’s (though over the course of their careers, there’s really no comparison to the ethic MJ put in every game, and Bryant at this stage in his career has likely waited too long to overtake that). That said, I would not trust ANY opinion Kobe Bryant has intellectually about what kind of team should be built around him and what plays to call.
by Zack Vank on Jul 1, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could be misremembering, first off, but I seem to recall a stat analysis of his late game performances that rated this last season as one of his least clutch-y ones.
It was something about how he’s shot poorly, had like 2 assists, and a few turnovers. He wants to make the last shot, so he takes the last shot.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 2, 2009 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I choose cake
because Ima fatty:).
Its time for a change...
by RunNdGun on Jul 1, 2009 12:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Back on topic
as long as Amare can do the other things we expect him to do,passing is a bonus.
Its time for a change...
by RunNdGun on Jul 1, 2009 12:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
But that’s the thing … he doesn’t do all the other things. He’s not a great rebounder or defender, and he doesn’t seem to be a great leader or guy. At the the basic level, he’s just a terrific, really efficient low post scorer. He is basically Maggs (who has also done everything he’s “expected to do”) except that he plays a rarer, more valuable position. Unfortunately, that “more valuable position” happens to be the position played by our most exciting and valuable player. The Warriors “need” a dominant player at any position, but if we’re talking about positional need, the team as currently constituted could use a dominant 3 more than a dominant 4.
Which is to say, when you factor in defense, passing, durability, the likely talent we’d have to give up, and the length of the contract we’d be stuck with, I’d much rather have Kirilenko on this team than Stoudemire.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 1, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, and have for awhile now, that the 3 is where we should be looking for an upgrade. Wright+Buike+Claxton’s contract for Tayshaun Prince sounds about right to me. Dominant, no, but much less of a risk than Amar’e and his perimeter defense is absolutely needed.
by ffgolden on Jul 1, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am definitely in the Kirilenko or Prince upgrade camp. That is the first time I’ve seen Sleepy’s suggested trade for AK47, and it seems possible! I’d love for Utah to take Maggette’s contract. Of course, the reason for both of these trades is to upgrade the perimeter D. I think that’s one area of potential Warrior improvement that gives the biggest bang for the buck.
Since I’m the emotional intelligence guy today (yeah, I know, it’s wearing thin), I have to comment that Maggs, Wright and Marco all seem like better teammates than Kirilenko. Unlike the Stoudemire trade, though, AK47 wouldn’t require a leadership role the same way Amar’e would.
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
by fotd on Jul 1, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Prince or AK47 at the 3/4 is the way to go
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 1, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I am think I am totally off the Stoudemire bandwagon, espicially if we have to give up Curry,
Maggs, Marco, and BW for AK47? Thats sounds ok, but I still think we can still try and swing for the fences with BW in a larger deal. Kirilenko would make us better team than having Maggs(and BW and Marco wont play any way for Nelson) but still not good enough to even sniff around for the eighth seed. Rudy Fernandez is unhappy in Portland, why don’t we go see if they have interest in a Belinelli and Wright trade?
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jul 1, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why is Fernandez unhappy? Seems like he was getting about as many minutes as he would most other places, right?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 1, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4300407
Money of course, but since he is locked into his rookie contract not too much anybody can do about that. Also the Blazers look like they are going to get Heido Turkoglu and with either Heido and Brandon Roy always on the floor, Rudy’s role is limited to shooter and he wants to be an intiator. Plus, I bet he wasnt too pleased that his boy Sergio Garcia got shipped out.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jul 1, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah
forgot about Garcia and I thought Toronto was leading the Hedo race
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 1, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The word out of Toronto is that they want to bring back Matrix,
If I was Toronto, I would accept the fact that Bosh is gone, deal him right now for an expiring and a young prospect type and build for the future. Short of getting to the ECF, I don’t see Bosh coming back.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jul 1, 2009 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rodriguez
God I’m glad I don’t have to correct that any more.
by Sabonis4Ever on Jul 1, 2009 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
woops...
sorry about that, thats embarassing. Good thing we got Blazer’s Edge folks over here to check out threads not even about the Blazers. : )
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jul 1, 2009 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I AM WATCHING ALL
actually just bored
by Sabonis4Ever on Jul 1, 2009 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since you're bored
I’m curious as to how you’d rank your top 5 players, in order, not named Roy. Only if you’re that bored . . .
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jul 1, 2009 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To add on BSD's thought's
what do you guys feel about Webster and Outlaw?
and is Bayless or Batum any good? Will they become good?
Only if your bored of course : ). You guys just got an intresting team, I am curious to see what Pritchard does after grabbing Turk to make you guys major players in the West.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jul 1, 2009 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: You guys just got an intresting team
Exactly! There’s only a handful of teams that I would bother asking that of.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jul 1, 2009 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Outlaw needs to be traded
He can get his shot off at any time, but he is a black hole.
Webster is a mystery after being hurt all season
Bayless has the best work ethic of anybody on the team and now that Sergio is gone he will have many minutes this season to sink or swim.
Batum is a defensive stopper and was only 19 when he played his first NBA game. He has the most potential out of any of our young players not named Oden.
by Sabonis4Ever on Jul 1, 2009 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so still high on Bayless after a pretty awful year? Do most Blazer fans feel the same way? I love the trade up in the draft to get him and thought he’d be a great fit next to Roy, but he surprised me with just how much he struggled to adjust to the NBA game. I know its a small sample size, but you guys have to be at least a little worried right?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 1, 2009 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Bayless would have been the 4th pick in this years draft.
His problems this year on the court were:
Too aggressive on defense, he would be all up in point guards’ grills, all that takes is minutes to learn how the refs are gonna call it. He is agile and fast enough to be a very good defender.
He forgot how to shoot the ball. When he first came to Portland the coaches had to start working with him to have a quicker release. He struggled with his new form and shot poorly. Well he has had a year to work on it. He shot 40% from 3 in college. Once he is comfortable with his new form…we shall see.
He was jerked around from SG to PG. Well we shipped out Sergio so now Bayless has guaranteed minutes. The only time he knew he was gonna play were the couple weeks when Blake dislocated his shoulder. He won flat out won two games for us. But he was also inconstant.
He has only played 500ish minutes in the NBA…most of them in garbage time. There have been many reports on just how big of a workout freak he is…the day after we lost game 6 to Houston, Bayless was training with the Blazer staff.
I was mad when we drafted him, because the Blazers did not have him work out for us. But he won me over with his work ethic. This is a huge year for him.
by Sabonis4Ever on Jul 1, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is agile and fast enough to be a very good defender.
So is Monta Ellis. I’m not saying Bayless won’t learn or won’t be better than Monta Ellis at defense, just that it’s not a given that he’ll be good.
He shot 40% from 3 in college.
Many players do this every year. The NBA 3 is 4 feet farther out in places, and NBA defenders are much better at defending the 3 and the drive. An NBA 3 point shot is something you can definite work on and improve throughout your career (see: Hamilton, Richad), but again, I wouldn’t necessarily expect him to just turn around this year and shoot a good percentage from 3. It’s possible, but not likely. It’s certainly like that he’ll develop a good 3 pointer at some point in his career, but not necessarily now.
But he was also inconstant.
This is typical for rookies. Monta hada 27/8/6 game as a rookie, but he put up some stinkers. Bayless should become more consistent, but you never know.
There have been many reports on just how big of a workout freak he is
People are now yapping about how much of a workout freak Anthony Randolph is. IMHO, everybody in the NBA is a “workout freak.” Everybody is constantly trying to get better because it makes millions of dollars (if not tens of millions) of difference.
the day after we lost game 6 to Houston, Bayless was training with the Blazer staff.
I’m sure the guys who actually played a lot took a few days off before heading back to practice.
Good luck to him, he was supposedly much more talented than some of the players drafted around him, and he could be very good if he settles down and picks up the PG mentality (I see him as a score first PG, ala Arenas). We’ll see, but as with Anthony Randolph over here, I’m going to wait till I see him become superawesome before saying he’s going to be superawesome. There have been just too many failures of guys who were “about to put it together”, but never did.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 2, 2009 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everybody is a workout freak
But he was been constantly singled out, as the biggest one on a team full of them. He has even been flying around the country to workout with his Blazer teammates. I’m not a Bayless fanboy, but he as stowed any prima-donna attitude that one might have from being a lottery pick and getting zero.zero minutes to play.
by Sabonis4Ever on Jul 2, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but he as stowed any prima-donna attitude that one might have from being a lottery pick and getting zero.zero minutes to play.
You know who else did a pretty good job of that? Darko.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 2, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LaMarcus
Przybilla
Blake
Fernandez
Outlaw
by Sabonis4Ever on Jul 1, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
What’s your take on Oden? Do Portland fans really buy that he’s under 30 or do you suspect he’s falsified records?
Would you rather have Durant?
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jul 1, 2009 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ouch,
the last thing you want to do is get a Blazer fan to go off about the non stop ‘wouldnt you rather have Durant’ taunts/questions they get peppered with…
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jul 1, 2009 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wasn't meant to antagonize.
I want t o know how they feel as people who have Oden.
.Personally, in hindsight, I would have picked Randolph #2 after Derek Rose in 2008.At worst #3 after Beasley but an argument for Randolph as the best player inthe 2008 draft could be made considering is rebounding, shot-blocking and ball-handling. But we have AR so we’re partial.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jul 1, 2009 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We also have a year of NBA play to make that judgement, so hindsight is integral to your argument. Despite being a bit of a ’tweener, I think Beasley was the concensus #2 last year. Hell, some people were saying he should go #1!
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 1, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell, some people were saying he should go #1!
- Raises hand sheepishly -
D’oh…
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 1, 2009 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Same,
I thought John Paxon was writing his own pink slip at the draft last year…
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jul 1, 2009 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
[patting myself on the back (way too soon) for thinking Miami shoulda done all they could to move back to land Mayo]
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 1, 2009 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
#2 overall?
Mayo, Westbrook and B.Lopez? I love Randolph, but those guys are all really, really good too BSD!
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 1, 2009 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would take Randolph over any of those players. The magic combination of skills, size, brains and work ethic are all there and they all improved demonstratively over the past 365 days. I may be completely wrong, but I’d be surprised if Randolph isn’t better than those three to the point where an argument wouldn’t even be posed. But I am heavily biased . . .
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jul 1, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d have a hard time choosing from that group….maybe I’d go with Randolph because of his size/skill, but Westbrook is really, really good and if he ever learns to shoot he could be pretty special. Mayo is also already pretty good on both ends….. I don’t know, if there was a do-over on the 2008 draft I’d probably rather be picking 4th or 5th than 2nd.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 1, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont know,
I think I still take all those guys over Randolph. After that I still would have hard time picking between Randolph and Beasley. Head issues aside, Beasley is a freak. With Rose as the gem, I think Maro, Westbrook, Lopez, Beasley, and Randolph are in the next tier below him. I honestly think I would take all of those guys over Randolph at the moment.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jul 2, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes I would rather have Oden
Durant only exploded in the second half of his second season. Greg has only played 60ish games. To think he won’t get better is stupid. We have a legit superstar in Roy. Durant would just take away from Brandon while being one of the worst defenders at his position in the entire NBA. Greg has made us the second best rebounding team in the NBA and hes just a shitty, slow, dumb rookie….for now. Portland was also the most efficient offense in the NBA, with a dumb, slow, foul prone, injury prone Greg.
by Sabonis4Ever on Jul 1, 2009 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just made a 3 pointer!!!
Yee-haw!!!
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 2, 2009 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately, that "more valuable position" happens to be the position played by our most exciting and valuable player.
Haha, We can replace Dris’s “exciting and valuable” moving without the ball with Amare’s power play and come out ahead.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 1, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe...
…he was referring to Randolph, not Biedrins.
by Zack Vank on Jul 1, 2009 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he was referring to Randolph, not Biedrins
but the trade included Dris not Rudolf so we’d still have the stickman’s antics to laugh at, he could play SF if necessary to get his time and let Rony and perhaps someone like Gortat split the center minutes. Rudolf is so raw that it don’t matter much where we put him right now, he could play some PF and more SF just fine.Assuming we’d move either Montay or Curr-bury to get Amare we’d clear up some time in the backcourt for the other players.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 1, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't...
…really see anything in Randolph that suggests he’s a three. He’s supposedly almost 7 feet tall, now, and he’s added a little muscle. I think he’s clearly a natural PF, especially given his skillset.
by Zack Vank on Jul 2, 2009 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he could play SF if necessary to get his time
you’re better than that Skep
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 2, 2009 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you’re better than that Skep
Yeah but I’m not as tall as he is so i’ll defer.
The point is we don’t hafta pass on amare just to watch Rudolf puppyfvck players, we can put the little tyke in there at SF and let him storm the paint from there. Rony, Amare, Rudolf,Jax and Montay would do pretty good dontcha think?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 2, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think...
…playing AR at the three is going to get him fouled out in five minutes. At his present size, reports being that he’s sprouted to 7 feet, I worry that he may be too long and unwieldy to play perimeter defense on top-line SFs.
by Zack Vank on Jul 3, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea amare is not a good passer...
but you have to remember who he has played with almost his whole career, its a guy buy the name of STEVE NASH…who has the ball most of the time just like chris paul, look at ty on the hornets i bet he doesn’t have very many assists either i dont disagree with what your saying but amare has never gotten the chance to have his own team and never will so as long as he is playing in the nba he will be on the recieving end of passes cause thats what he is used to..
by blacksamurai33 on Jul 1, 2009 12:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nash is a very good passer, among the best. That has little to do with Stoudemire’s assist total though. Diaw had no trouble getting assists when playing alongside Nash.
by jae on Jul 1, 2009 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chamberlain led the league in assists
in 67-68. the only C to ever do that. thought that was interesting.
"We're Menudo," -BB
by eshock on Jul 1, 2009 2:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Wow did not know that
mustve been all the passing out of double teams
by Calamity on Jul 2, 2009 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He did it because he wanted to. People said he took too many shots so he made an effort to get as many assists as possible. His scoring rate dropped dramatically when his assist rate went up.
by Missing Barry on Jul 2, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Marquis Daniels?
Stumbled upon this little tidbit from the NJ Star-Ledger’s look at the 2009 free agents
6. Marquis Daniels, Pacers (TO): Indy can’t pay $7.3M; Warriors like him.
Daniels was actually a guy that I was thinking about a couple months ago when I first heard he was going to be a FA….he was a pretty nice Granger replacement for my fantasy team last year and Nellie was the guy who kinda discovered him and gave him a chance in Dallas, so it seemed like a pretty decent idea, but I was actually kinda unimpressed with his stats when I took a closer look. He’s a terrible 3 point shooter (I was surprised just how terrible-23% career) and his ast/to ratio isn’t very good. It seems to me like he’d be a pretty substantial downgrade from any of the wing players currently on our roster. He does seem to get a steal the ball at a decent rate (1.6 per 36 mins) and I honestly can’t remember ever seeing him play defense so maybe thats what his strength is? That would seem odd from a Nellie-favorite. Its extremely unlikely he’d command more than the MLE, and probably not even that much, and as a Nelon-guy he does seem like a likely target. Thoughts?
(Sorry to hijack/temporarily-sidetrack your post Sleepy, I just didn’t think this subject deserved an entire fanpost and fanshots don’t get much feedback.)
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 1, 2009 3:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Pass for the MLE,
I’d toss him the BAE if he was intrested. Wow 23% is quite a bit lower than I thought it would be.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jul 1, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
and the warriors like him? yep. sounds about right.
our team needs…
like an extreme franchise makeover…
it’ll be hosted by danny ainge and depressed fans can tell publicly the shame and sadness they feel about the poor franchise they root for..
by 11allstar on Jul 1, 2009 4:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
if anyone is looking this hard for more rationalizations to avoid making a deal for Amare
then just forget it
Seriously, is Andris a great passer? because that’s who Amare replaces in the lineup, or are we worried that Marco’s passing might not be replaced? or Wright’s?
lots of bigs are not good passers, that’s why they’re not playing guard – if they were, they’d be playing PG (Magic) or SF (Bird) etc.
lots of bigs had great careers, some HOF careers who were poor passers but good scorers – Kareem, Moses Malone, Sir Charles, and the biggest black hole of all time Kevin McHale
that Amare’s not a great passer is almost as good as the “omg his contract!” (whilst we don’t even have a contract to debate over) … As for the contract argument, add up the $ we’d spend to keep not only Andris but also the total including the others involved in the trade over the same period of time, and then ask if you’d rather have Amare than the amigos.
at some point you gotta find your own eggs, and pull the trigger on a deal that’s going to upgrade the talent on the roster inspite of some risk.
by hardcore on Jul 1, 2009 5:13 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
at some point you gotta find your own eggs, and pull the trigger on a deal that’s going to upgrade the talent on the roster inspite of some risk.
Yea but Amare comes with an awful lot of risk. I think its pretty clear there are really good reasons for and against this trade.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 1, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed,
This is the type of trade you save your assests for, however this isnt the trade we should make. At the same time if Amare didnt have the head issues or injury issues why would anybody want to trade a player like him. Risky, risky buisness, but since we won’t give up Curry and Stoudemire doesnt even want to come here, I guess the point is now moot.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jul 1, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The fact that Amare...
…commands the ball in his hands many more times per game than Andris, though, makes his ability to kick it out more significant. Even if their assist numbers were dead even, that would reflect worse on the guy who’s constantly demanding the ball on offense.
at some point you gotta find your own eggs, and pull the trigger on a deal that’s going to upgrade the talent on the roster inspite of some risk.
I don’t get the egg thing, but I assume I’m just missing something… but what you just said is just the rub. It’s not going to upgrade the talent amidst the roster if all Stoudemire can do is score. It would change the talent on the roster, away from one style and into another. But at this point many people, some much more knowledgeable about hoops than I, have come around to this very notion- that breaking the bank (which we would have to do to extend him, it seems rather shortsighted to ignore that, though I guess you’re not worried about it) for Stoudemire is a lateral move because his most glaring flaws are the same as the roster’s most glaring flaws- and at a steeper price than if we kept Biedrins and tried to work some deals with other talent.
by Zack Vank on Jul 1, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The fact that Amare..commands the ball in his hands many more times per game than Andris, though, makes his ability to kick it out more significant. .
His ability to score once he has the ball is much greater than the likelyhood of the guy he’s kicking it out to scoring so he’s smart like a fox. If he was making assists for window dressing we’d be pissed at him. The name of the game is score more points than the opposition, not play nice and share. We could alternate possessions between Amare and Magette and score or freethrow every time and someone here would still criticize them.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 1, 2009 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the egg thing
some people use the phrase “grow a pair” – I was trying to use the metaphor which had been used above
to suggest Amare is not an upgrade over Andris and change is, simply, to be polite: silly – imo we are over analyzing the possible negatives while ignoring the obvious positives. Yes, his scoring is his strength, a go-to presence in the post and a good FT shooter, who will open the floor even more for other players. Plus a reasonable rebounder, who when paired with AR will be more than adequate inside. Would you rather have Andris + AR or Amare + AR? Other than the contract it’s really a no brainer imo.
…. and as far as the contract goes, we would not be breaking the bank, again – far from being shortsighted, please look at Andris contract, add reasonable projected costs for the rest of the players likely to be included in the deal over the same time period as I said, and the trade looks even more fair (not even, but fair), and that’s assuming max deal for Amare, which is not even the case yet …
am tired of arguing the point, and am going to sit back and wait out the period between now and 7/8 …
by hardcore on Jul 1, 2009 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forgot to mention...
…those big men you listed- Stoudemire has a worst assist average than all of them but Malone, who he matches with a 1.4 per game. McHale is at 2 per game, and Barkley and Kareem are both over three, with Barkley the best at 3.9. To say Barkley wasn’t a good passer as a PF isn’t really telling the whole truth about Charles Barkley; he was a phenomenally versatile player, and a dominant one.
by Zack Vank on Jul 1, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ZV, I’m glad you looked those up – I pulled them out of my dusty ol’ memory rather than the wiki wizard
fwiw am not at all impressed that the round-mound had a 3.9, and do agree he was phenom player … though I am a little surprised about McHale, and can only attribute that to the fact that Bird was always on his a$$ about being selfish in the post plus when the double came he was passing to Parrish, Bird, Ainge, and DJ – not a bad scorer in the bunch so odds are somebody was getting a great look.
if you want to turn away from the Amare trade because of his asst # or contract, you’re not alone and there’s nothing I can do to argue with any of you, “group think” wins (see below). No Amare for GS = roughly the same roster we have now, exchanging Curry for Crawford and some other stiff for Kurz, hope for health and maybe an 8th seed for, oh, I don’t know, the rest of the decade? if you’re good with that, you’ll enjoy the ride …
by hardcore on Jul 1, 2009 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is not yet true:
No Amare for GS = roughly the same roster we have now
If we don’t land Amar’e, not only is it not the end of the world, it’s not even the end of the offseason. Our assets will not cease to exist if this trade doesn’t go through. We have a flawed, under-talented roster, and I doubt anyone thinks otherwise, especially Riley.
And realistically, if the trade goes through, what seed does Amar’e make us? Are we suddenly one of the three best teams in the West? I don’t see it.
by ffgolden on Jul 1, 2009 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're right, not yet true ...
certainly not the end of the world, but probably the end of our best shot to make the biggest upgrade in this off season – let me ask this a different way, is there ANY other realistic roster move even remotely possible this off season that would be as significant an upgrade as Amare?
We all know GSW cannot be a major player in FA beyond using an MLE, and short of another blockbuster for another star this is likely the best shot we’ve got to take … you’re right, our assets are valuable – but only if they are used to make us better, and you’re right that we are not talented enough
realistically, and I say this in all seriousness: if we have decent health, the proposed Amare deal not only gets us into the playoffs but through round 2. Which means we are on the cusp of the WC final – maybe not in the top 3 but in the top 4. That doesn’t mean we have to have the fourth best record in the regular season, it means I think once in the playoffs we can win a series with home court advantage, then win a second round series and get to the third round. Remember we are all counting on improvement from AR and others regardless of whether we make this trade ( in fact several posters have all but based their entire hopes and dreams on internal improvement! )
To me, the Amare deal is about being relevant in the NBA, hell even in the WC, maybe having a bit of confidence that we can join the playoff teams since over half the league is in that select club. IMO the current roster, even if healthy, is no lock for even an 8th seed. Our lack of showing in the playoffs over the past decades is putrid, & this o’l fan is just losing patience perhaps …
sigh, this ol’ troll bridge troll is crawling back under the railing now …
by hardcore on Jul 1, 2009 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
is there ANY other realistic roster move even remotely possible this off season that would be as significant an upgrade as Amare?
If we get good, healthy, motivated Amare? Extremely doubtful. But if we don’t get that Amare I think Prince or AK47 would both be bigger upgrades over Maggette than bad Amare would be over Biedrins.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 1, 2009 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm really souring on Prince
He could be a sexy addition to a contender, but not for the Warriors. He doesn’t put us over the top, he’s a complementary piece, a good one, a championship level one, but he’s not at all what we need right now. Furthermore, the impression I get is that he’s much more effective in a “team defense” mode (pushing the ball handler towards the help defense, etc.), whereas AK47 can just play insane on ball and help defense (which we absolutely need unless Monta is magically going to turn into Gary Payton), and not really worry that much about where his help is, etc.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 2, 2009 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t get that impression about Prince at all. His on ball D every time I’ve watched them play is very good.
“pushing the ball handler towards the help defense, etc.”
In fairness, this is how defense is played (unless you’re the Warriors, where the objective is to push the guy to the rim where help defense is not waiting). Maybe he won’t be as effective with the W’s, but neither will AK-47. Prince also has offensive skills (mostly shooting), while Kirilenko does not. Prince is also a man, while AK47 is a little schoolgirl.
by Missing Barry on Jul 2, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Prince also has offensive skills (mostly shooting), while Kirilenko does not.
This is false. Prince has averaged 13.6 pts and 2.8 assists per 36 minutes, with a TS% of .530. Kirilenko has averaged 14.5 pts and 3.3 assists with a .570 TS%. Kirilenko is also a much better rebounder (6.7 to 5.1 per 36), and off-the-charts better at blocking shots (2.6 to 0.7 per 36) and stealing the ball (1.7 to 0.7). Basically, they’re somewhat similar players except that Kirilenko is significantly better at everything.
Prince is also a man, while AK47 is a little schoolgirl.
This is also false. I think. And even if it isn’t, I’d much rather have Kirilenko. ;-)
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 2, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“This is false.”
That’s a very….overly strong statement. Basically, Kirilenko has no offensive skills. He’s not a good passer, ball handler, shooter, nor can he create a shot. His offensive production is a product of the Jazz’s offensive system. Prince may not offer too much on offense, but he can shoot the 3, and if he’s shooting open 3’s and playing D, that’s enough for me (and posting up bad defenders just enough to keep them honest).
Have you ever seen Kirilenko play? He’s like a European soccer play out there – in other words, he’s a little schoolgirl. And I’ll stand by that statement forever.
I have to say, I am surprised by how few shots Prince blocks. Probably somewhat a product of always guarding a wing who’s the type of player you don’t help off. Still, his rates are so low…
Prince is cheaper, and more importantly, I don’t have the hatred of a thousand suns for him…so I’ll gladly take Prince while spitting in AK47’s general direction. :)
by Missing Barry on Jul 2, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Basically, Kirilenko has no offensive skills. He’s not a good passer, ball handler, shooter, nor can he create a shot.
I’m not sure we’re all talking about the same Kirilenko.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 2, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking the same thing. It doesn’t describe the Jazz player I’ve seen.
by jae on Jul 2, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re welcome to give your take on his offensive repetoire. I see a player who gets most of his offense from cuts to the hoop (a staple of the Jazz system) and teammates who are aware of where he is. Being long and finishing are obviously helpful traits and should be credited, but nothing in his offensive game seems to me that it would translate to a more open offensive attack. Maybe I’m underselling his passing skills some, as Sloan’s offense does require some of that, but I haven’t seen anything out of him that involves actually creating shots for himself or others, and I don’t any real skills out of him that would translate to any semblance of an offensive game on the Warriors.
by Missing Barry on Jul 2, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see a player who gets most of his offense from cuts to the hoop
So what do you feel about Dris? Isn’t this pretty much his M.O.?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 2, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually I have said some stuff along these lines about Biedrins during the whole Amare trade discussions. Biedrins does have some pretty amazing hands and finishing ability though – elite level for the NBA. His overall offensive repetoire, though, is lacking. Overall I’m not a huge fan of Biedrins offensive game. Love the efficiency, love that he doesn’t try to do things he’s not capable of, but he really doesn’t have much of an offensive game, so despite his efficiency, his low scoring rate means we don’t get that much extra production out of him on offense than other C’s.
by Missing Barry on Jul 2, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
his low scoring rate means we don’t get that much extra production out of him on offense than other C’s.
For a center, his scoring rate is not low. It’s right about average. It’s a touch above average, but adjusting for pace, it’s pretty much right at average. Somehow, despite not being able to ‘create his own shot’ he manages to give average offensive production out of the center position while taking fewer shots (and thus taking less away from his teammates) than the average center.
by jae on Jul 2, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True. I don’t think my previous statement really did a good job of clearly stating what I was thinking in my head. Centers as a whole have low scoring rates. I’m guessing it’s easily the lowest of all 5 positions, though I do not have any information on that. The relevant point is his scoring production only nets about 1 additional point compared to other centers (based on information you gave us in a previous post). Scoring ranges at other positions (I’m theorizing, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) are larger, so a productive offensive player at another position will likely add more than just 1 point above average for his position.
by Missing Barry on Jul 3, 2009 5:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Centers as a whole have low scoring rates. I’m guessing it’s easily the lowest of all 5 positions, though I do not have any information on that.
This is true. The center position produces the least average offense.
Scoring ranges at other positions (I’m theorizing, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) are larger
The exact opposite appears to be true. On average, the center position provides the least amount of offense, but it also shows the most variation in production. A lower average does not necessitate less variation between players.
This isn’t particularly surprising just given that one of the qualifications of the position is being tall and there are fewer people tall enough to play the position than there are guards. More people are 6-6 than are 6-10. You wind up having to take a larger number of substandard skill/coordination in the big guys to fill out the league, meaning that those who do have these traits stand out even more over the average and the bottom feeders at the position are even worse relative to them.
Replacing an “average” center with one below average can be a bigger loss than an average guard with a below average guard. The variance between players is greater for centers.
by jae on Jul 3, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting. Is it plausible to get you to look at the difference between an average starting C (maybe the 15th best or so C in the league) and the 5th-8th best or so? And then do that with the other positions and quantify how many added points the better player gets out of his offensive production?
I guess I’m having a hard time explaining what I’m getting at, but I just see the added offensive output from Biedrins as less substantial than a player as good as Biedrins (compared to others at his position) at another position. I think it’d be interesting to try to quantify this. I see the point about not having Biedrins, though, we might get stuck with someone who doesn’t do anything at all.
by Missing Barry on Jul 3, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude.
Obviously I’ve seen Kirilenko. A lot. I’ve seen him dominate the Warriors a lot, too — doing all the things I wish our small forward would do: running the floor like a madman, swooping to both rims, playing crazy aggressive man-to-man and help D.
For kicks, here’s another piece of evidence that you’ll surely ignore (as you ignored every other piece of evidence that showed AK-47 to be vastly superior player to Prince, in every way): by plus-minus AK-47 was the single most valuable player on the Jazz last season (+ 8.1) — more valuable than Deron (+ 1.2), or Boozer(-5.9), or Millsap (+ 7.0). So much for your “product of the system” canard. Meanwhile Prince, at -3.0, was the least valuable regular player on the Pistons not named Maxiell.
You admit you’re not objective on the matter. Rather than sling a whole lot of pure BS — “he has no offensive skills,” “he’s a product of the system,” blah blah — why not just recuse yourself and save yourself the embarrassment?
Really the only downside to acquiring AK-47, if you can call it a downside, is that the Warriors, and presumably GSoM, would lose you as a fan. (Or so you say). This would be a bit of a loss, as on most other topics you’ve shown yourself to be a fairly reasonable dude. I, for one, would would be missing Missing Barry. But if it meant we could have AK-47 (for Maggs, Wright, and Beli, e.g.) as our starting SF, I could probably get over it. ;-)
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 2, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t have a problem with your take on AK47 as a player, but I do have a problem with your use of statistics in this case. Stats in basketball still have a long way yet to go in explaining a players worth. I thought your first argument was a decent one, my only real problem being it’s still an opinion (albeit a reasonable and somewhat convincing one), rather than absolute truth.
Honestly, I can’t take +/- very seriously, though. It’s interesting enough to look at, but just has way too many flaws and issues to really draw any conclusions from. As for the other aspects of AK47, the defense you mention is something we certainly could use – both on ball and help D. There’s no denying that. If he plays well in transition he should get some good offensive possessions, too. I just don’t see a player in Kirilenko that will flourish in what we do in the half-court, though. Prince at the very least can spot up because he’s actually a decent 3 point shooter (and run the floor in transition).
I’ve made my stance on AK47 pretty clear, and with me it definitely is more personal than objective. When I look at it objectively, though, I see a player who I think will be less successful here than in Utah. Will he still help us? I’m sure he will. I don’t know to what degree – you could be right that it’s substantial. The only way I would be ok with watching that guy on our team is if it guaranteed us a championship, though. :)
Oh one more thought – evaluating a player without using statistics isn’t “pure BS”. There are knowledgeable basketball people out there that know what to look for. You can watch a player play and tell what skills he has. Stats obviously help in the analysis, but there is a broader range of things than that. I will admit I don’t watch the Jazz often, so there’s certainly the possibility that I’m wrong, but I am confident in my ability to judge basketball skills, so there’s also the possibility that I’m right… ;)
by Missing Barry on Jul 2, 2009 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t like +/-? Fine.
Kirilenko is a better shooter than Prince.
Kirilenko is a better rebounder than Prince.
Kirilenko is a better passer than Prince.
Kirilenko is better at stealing the ball than Prince.
Kirilenko is better at blocking shots than Prince.
OTOH, Prince is better at not turning the ball over. So he’s got that going for him.
(The above are all shown in the players’ TS%, TRB%, AST%, TO%, STL%, and BLK%.)
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 2, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
See, this is where the disconnect comes in. Based on what I’ve learned about rebounding rates from jae’s discussions, you can count me in with the “stats pretty much say everything” group. So yes, I agree Kirilenko is a better rebounder. He’s also better at stealing the ball and blocking shots. Does this mean he’s a better overall defender? Not necessarily, though it’s certainly in his favor. Anyways, our discussion has been focused on offense, so let’s address the fun part of this, shall we?
Better shooter than Prince? Absolutely not, you cannot argue otherwise. You can argue he takes better shots and scores more efficiently, but Kirilenko is a bad shooter. He shoots under 31% from 3 for his career. How is he getting the shots he does? Is it because he’s getting the ball near the basket often in Utah’s offense? Would he score at the same efficiency for another team?
Let’s go to “passing” now. Assists != good passing (necessarily, of course it often does). I’m going to throw out a stat right now that’s very important, so pay attention. Utah leads the league in assists pretty much every single year. That’s Jerry Sloan. This means many things. For our purposes, mostly it means Kirilenko very well maybe a product of the system. You can argue otherwise, and you may be right, but you have to at least take this into consideration. His offensive scoring efficiency may be a result of the assists – essentially he gets the ball put in his hands by others in a place where he can succeed at a high rate. It also means his assist totals probably don’t accurately reflect his passing abilities. Now I’m not saying I’m sure I’m right or anything, but I am saying there is an actual, reasonable argument there that you should consider.
Again, I want to note that my view on whether AK47 should be on the Warriors is completely non-objective. I hate the guy. But keep in mind that’s a different subject than the one on his offensive abilities we’re currently discussing.
by Missing Barry on Jul 2, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better shooter than Prince? Absolutely not, you cannot argue otherwise. You can argue he takes better shots and scores more efficiently, but Kirilenko is a bad shooter. He shoots under 31% from 3 for his career. How is he getting the shots he does? Is it because he’s getting the ball near the basket often in Utah’s offense? Would he score at the same efficiency for another team?
You should have realized from my post that by “shooting” I of course did not mean your narrow definition of “jump shooting” but rather “scoring efficiency.” I am sorry that I did not use a term more amenable to you.
But I see that you do agree that Kirilenko is a more efficient scorer, and that’s what matters. I doubt you can prove anything about Kirilenko getting easier shots because of his team or system, considering that Prince has had Chauncey Billups passing to him for most of his career.
Let’s go to "passing" now. Assists != good passing (necessarily, of course it often does). I’m going to throw out a stat right now that’s very important, so pay attention. Utah leads the league in assists pretty much every single year. That’s Jerry Sloan. This means many things. For our purposes, mostly it means Kirilenko very well maybe a product of the system. You can argue otherwise, and you may be right, but you have to at least take this into consideration. His offensive scoring efficiency may be a result of the assists – essentially he gets the ball put in his hands by others in a place where he can succeed at a high rate. It also means his assist totals probably don’t accurately reflect his passing abilities. Now I’m not saying I’m sure I’m right or anything, but I am saying there is an actual, reasonable argument there that you should consider.
So instead of trying to come up with any sort of logical argument or statistical basis for your position, you try to contradict the measure I used with a bunch of hypotheticals? I’m sorry, unless you can show some evidence of this effect happening I will refuse to believe there’s anything amiss in the statistics I used. You can’t just try to negate other people’s arguments and then call it a draw.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 2, 2009 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
…I tend to find discussions where people realize the limits of their knowledge the most enlightening. You sir, could use a cold dose of reality. By the way, I hardly consider this an argument with a winner and loser. It’s a discussion meant to bring to light all the relevant issues so we all have a better understanding of the full picture when coming to a conclusion.
“I doubt you can prove anything about Kirilenko getting easier shots because of his team or system, considering that Prince has had Chauncey Billups passing to him for most of his career.”
Of course not. And I doubt you can prove Kirilenko’s production will stay the same on another team. That’s why these are opinions. I don’t think you’ve considered the full potential of the fact that Sloan’s team basically leads the NBA in assists on a yearly basis. If nothing else it at least tells us they do something different over there.
“I’m sorry, unless you can show some evidence of this effect happening I will refuse to believe there’s anything amiss in the statistics I used.”
Sigh.
by Missing Barry on Jul 2, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you’re willing to bring something to the discussion besides hypotheticals, seriously, my eyes are wide open. The irony of this is that I am very well aware that I do not know everything. In this case I am using mostly statistical means to determine who the better player is. Obviously there are attributes that can’t be measured, or reflected in statistics. The problem is that if you say you see something in Tayshaun’s game that isn’t reflected in the box score, or that Kirilenko is not as good as his numbers, there are other people in this very thread who say the exact opposite. There is hardly a unanimity of opinion one way or the other. Without one, I tend to weigh the statistical profile rather heavily. In this case it’s a rather convincing slam dunk for Kirilenko.
Now, if you want to frame your argument in terms of contract size (Tayshaun makes about 2/3s as much as Kirilenko) there is a good argument for that. But I just don’t see how, everything else being equal, you could say that Prince is a superior player.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 2, 2009 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now, if you want to frame your argument in terms of contract size (Tayshaun makes about 2/3s as much as Kirilenko) there is a good argument for that.
See, I actually think Kirilenko’s contract is part of what makes him attractive:
• It’s just burdensome enough to make Utah consider moving it for a cheaper but longer deal like Maggs’ (plus some salary relief in the form of Claxton and some real young talent in Wright and/or Marco);
• It’s just long enough (two years) to give us time to see how well he meshes with Randolph, Monta, Curry, Biedrins, and Co., but short enough that if it doesn’t work out, we can let him walk for some massive cap space;
• It takes him up to age 29-30, right at the end of the average NBA player’s prime, unlike the lame Jack and Maggs deals, which linger 2-3 years beyond that.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 2, 2009 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those things can all be said about Prince as well, except that he’s one year older and his deal isn’t quite as big. But a $11m expiring is still big.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 2, 2009 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea but I really don’t think the Pistons will be as eager to move Prince’s contract as the Jazz would be to move Kirilenko’s. Most reports seem to indicate the Pistons want to move at least one of Rip and Prince but their recent acquisitions lead me to believe that moving Hamilton is clearly the priority. I’m not sure a Maggette+Wright+Belinielli package could get us Prince, I’m pretty sure the Jazz would at least listen.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 2, 2009 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well I’m just considering this in a vacuum in terms of “who would you rather have?”
In terms of tradeability, I would agree that AK47 is more obtainable. The Warriors could trade them less salary than AK47’s so the Jazz could save money on the luxury tax when they match offers for Millsap.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 2, 2009 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I really see him as an almost perfect match.
-his contract is the perfect mix of appealing to us but burdensome to his current team as Sleepy outlines
-he’s a guy who I’ve always seen as a guy who really excels when his team speeds the game up.
-he’s perfectly suited to split time between the 3 and 4 which is exactly what Riley has said the team is targeting (and many of us around here agree that that seems to be a good spot to look to improve)
-he’d instantly be one of the top 2 or 3 passers on the team and one of the top 2 or 3 defensive players on the team, two areas I think we can all agree that the team needs to improve.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 2, 2009 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well I’m looking at their game from a scouting perspective, with the question in mind, “Who would perform better next year/over their contract for the Warriors?” I’ve stated my observations on Kirilenko and Tayshuan’s skills and abilities, and I’m more than open to hearing what others have to say. How will these skills affect their performance if they come to our team? These are questions I’m asking to try to promote real discussion. You’ve presented some facts, for instance Kirilenko was a more efficient scorer. That’s a fact, we can look at the past and see that. What does that mean for the future? Will he score at that efficiency for the Warriors?
I like Prince’s skillset, obviously defensively he adds something we don’t have, but offensively I see a guy who can spread the floor with his 3 point shooting ability. If we don’t ask him to do much else besides shoot 3’s (something our offense is fairly good at creating for him), I see an efficient scorer waiting to happen, and I’m ok if he’s not contributing to the offense at a high rate.
What skills does Kirilenko bring to the table? Obviously defensively he’s in a similar boat as Prince (+blocks and steals, no reason to think those would change that I can think of). Offensively, I imagine he’d do well in transition. That’s a plus since the Warriors like to run. What position would he play, though? I think he’d be a much more effective 4 in transition than 3. In a half court set, I really don’t see anything in his game that will contribute. Do you disagree (yes!)? What skills are you seeing? From what I’ve seen, I’m not a fan of his skills, but I’m very open to what other people have seen.
These are more than hypotheticals, these are basketball observations. I’ve presented some evidence (aside from what I’ve seen/known/read) of how Sloan has a very unique system. That should have some effect on Kirilenko. It’s not just a random hypothetical. If you have evidence that players function the same for the Jazz as for other teams, great, I’d love to read it.
Again, these are all my opinions, and are meant to promote discussion. I’m not dismissing what you have to say, in fact I’ve enjoyed most of it. I just don’t see much consideration given to my points. You say I have no evidence, but I’m discussing my observations, so I don’t know what to tell you.
by Missing Barry on Jul 2, 2009 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way, I hardly consider this an argument with a winner and loser.
Then again, you’re not entirely objective in the matter. I’m not either, having instigated it, but I suspect most reasonable people would consider your arguments about Kirilenko pretty loserish, given that (1) you’ve admitted you hate the guy irrationally; (2) you’ve ignored pretty much all the available evidence; and (3) you’ve provided almost nothing in the way of evidence of your own.
Again, dude: you’re not objective. If you just said you hate AK’s guts I think most people would respect that as an emotional take. It’s just bizarre that you keep trying to hammer home a “logical” argument that doesn’t exist.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 2, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, at least we all understand we’re not objective.
by Missing Barry on Jul 2, 2009 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like both guys, but I think Kirilenko is a more realistic target and the guy I’d prefer.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 2, 2009 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like AK47 a lot too, but
here is my worry. Would Nelson ever play a lineup of
Ellis/Jackson/AK47/Randolph/Biedrins ?
That would be a great defensive unit(for the Warriors) and could muscle in some points. I just cant see Nelson ever playing those 3 toghether for more than a 3-4 minute stretch. While Prince he would happily play because of his 3 point shot. However if Prince gets dealt it would be for cap relief and I doubt Detroit flips him for Maggette, however the Jazz might want to move for the reasons Sleepy mentioned above.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jul 3, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I honestly...
…think Kirilenko is the sort of player that could act as a keystone for us. He basically upgrades the SF position with almost every skill that we need a boost to. He’ll board, block shots, defend like a whirlwind- he’s the ultimate NBA swiss army knife.
by Zack Vank on Jul 3, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
here’s another piece of evidence
The bottom line , I recalled that Kirilenko had some head problems so I looked at the most important stat. Over the last three years Prince 82 games every year, Kirilenko 67, 72,70
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 2, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
good point skep
that is one thing nobody had mentioned yet, Kirilenko does come with a lot more injury concerns…..but he’s still averaged quite a few more games per year than Maggette.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 2, 2009 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
~70 games a year isn’t that bad, either. And it’s not like there’s any one serious injury to be concerned about. 82 per year is obviously better, though.
by Missing Barry on Jul 3, 2009 5:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not discounting Prince's abilities
Just saying that he’s far, far more valuable to a good team that plays good team defense than to a team that isn’t great and doesn’t even know how to spell defense.
On the Warriors, Prince would push his man towards the defense… except the defense wouldn’t be there and it’d be an easy layup. Meanwhile, AK47 would take turns with Randolph coming out of nowhere to block the shot of whoever Monta let down the lane.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 2, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d be more than happy with either one in a Maggette+Wright type trade. Either one would be a whole lot more suited to be the 3 playing the 4 in Nelson’s small ball lineups than anyone currently on our roster and both both would immediately become one smartest and best defensive players on the roster. The Villanueva signing makes me question whether Detroit really is looking to move Prince (seems like Prince could cover a lot of Charlie V’s weaknesses and vice versa) and I suspect that with Boozer staying, AK47’s huge contract, and the fact that he doesn’t have rings like Prince, Utah would be a more logical trade partner. If for some reason Kirilenko is overpaid but if he doesn’t work out he’d be a pretty valuable expiring contract next offseason so its not a huge gamble.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 2, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d be more than happy with either one in a Maggette+Wright type trade
Same here. i would prefer AK47, even if we have to toss in Azibuike over Prince. Either player would be a great upgrade over Maggette and we have to get rid of Wright this summer. He is going to get buried on the bench and we have to trade him before his trade value becomes negliable.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jul 2, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
is there ANY other realistic roster move even remotely possible this off season that would be as significant an upgrade as Amare?
I’d argue that AK47 or Tayshaun Prince are bigger upgrades over… whoever is going to be starting at 3, than Amar’e is over Andris. I don’t know if I’d win that argument, but what the hell. [Just noticed that sam beat me to this point.]
I understand your pain, I really do. And I’m not as opposed to this trade as I’ve made it sound like; I’m well balanced on the fence, perhaps 51-49 against at the moment. This could be a great move for the franchise, and I’ll be excited — albeit anxious — if it goes down.
by ffgolden on Jul 1, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with it if Curry isn't involved (60% for)
I’m against it if Curry is involved (45% against)
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 2, 2009 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
realistically, and I say this in all seriousness: if we have decent health, the proposed Amare deal not only gets us into the playoffs but through round 2.
even if we got Amare, the Lakers, Spurs, Nuggets and a healthy Jazz team are offseason favorites to be in the top 4. we’re not getting past the Lakers, Spurs or Jazz if they have home court. Nuggets are the best chance, but we’d have to be 5th or 6th in the West to get that match up and 2 of these 3 are likely going to finish with better records (Blazers, Mavs & Hornets).
by homer simpson on Jul 2, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're headed to Vegas with that crystal ball, right?
just messing with ya, homer … am considering the Jazz are losing Millsap in all likelihood also another player, or two from the rotation while Lakers are looking at trying to re-sign both Odom and Ariza, and the Spurs are another year older (how old is Finley anyway?). Nuggets? also have Birdman to re-sign, and are not historically the most consistent franchise. Plus, every one of those teams is one injury away from dropping out of the upper half of the WC if not the playoffs entirely in some cases …
When someone shows a better option than Amare, without bringing up ridiculous Maggette for AK scenarios, I’ll listen. Until then, I’ll keep hope alive that our FO has the stones to negotiate hard and pull the trigger on the right deal
by hardcore on Jul 2, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lakers are looking to keep both Odom and Ariza? did you miss the Artest signing?
Finley is really old, but the Jefferson trade makes them a little younger…so does the Blair pick.
Why are Maggette+Wright+Belinelli+Claxton’s desirable contract for AK scenarios ridiculous? If you were the Jazz would really prefer to have Kirilenko eat up 34 million in cap space over the next couple years or would you rather get some flexibility, a wing who scores efficiently, a young player who has produced solid numbers in limited time at a position where you could very well lose both your starting level quality players by this time next year, and a young guard who could probably crack the rotation and contribute a little bit immediately? To me this trade is a no-brainer for both sides.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 2, 2009 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes i did, until late last night … and I’m not sure adding Artest is going to make them better and I am sure few but Jackson could manage his and Kobe’s egos, that’s the kind of change that I think can hurt teams above us but that we need to be prepared to take advantage of by upgrading our roster with All Star bigs when they come available on the market
good points on SA
- just don’t think Sloan is going to give up his most versatile player and best defender for a one-dimensional scorer – and throwing Wright + Marco in makes it less attractive to me … there’s been little serious rumors about it in the press (that I saw, may have missed that too) and I don’t think AK is as major an upgrade as AS would be … all that aside, UT may not have expected both Boozer and Okur to re-up so AK may get moved …
by hardcore on Jul 3, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and I’m not sure adding Artest is going to make them better
It won’t.
by jae on Jul 3, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Glad you feel that way, right now I’m saying that replacing Ariza with Artest is, at most, a slight upgrade for this upcoming season. You can forget about 2011-12.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 3, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's more than...
…the passing, just that the passing was the topic at hand. It’s not so much that he needs to be a great passer as it is that the totality of his skills are very likely not good enough to propel us to serious championship contention, but will rather act as a diversion- a marquee name that will allow Cohan and crew to sit back and let more money roll in while maintaining the illusion they’re about winning. As such I tend to view this as a fork in the road, with responsible/efficient team building on one side, and the hail mary on the other. There’s always the off-chance the hail mary pays out, but there’s not a Doug Flutie to be found in this FO bunch.
by Zack Vank on Jul 2, 2009 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
…obviously Barkley at 6’5 or so was one of the biggest anomalies in NBA history at the PF position- but that say, he was undeniably a PF. He played the position for over a decade, and dominated the boards like a guy at 6’10 would’ve. That being so, I view his numbers through the prism of his fellow forward’s accomplishments- Chris Webber, for example, often held up as the gold standard as a passing PF, averaged just 0.2 assists more over his career (per 36) than Barkley did, while Barkley bested Webber at scoring, rebounding, and obliterates him in both FG% and TS%. I think that bears recognition.
by Zack Vank on Jul 3, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Analogies abound: A more tolerant Tim Hardaway?
Good post, especially the point about superstars who don’t pass not really being superstars. Nelson used to say that Baron was his only “dominant player” which he explained as being someone who could do everything (Shoot, Drive, Pass, Rebound and Defend) well. Amare is not that.
Clearly I disagree with is the bit about Adam’s post being good, especially the baseless shots against Nelson. One doesn’t write a 2500 word rebuttal to an article that he agrees with. Also, there’s no evidence that Amare would stunt the growth of the players around him especially considering the fact that there would be plenty of time for AR at the 4. But that’s not really an argument that can be deconstructed to any definitive conclusion since we’re discussing a hypothetical scenario.
Like most people here, I don’t think Amare is a "franchise player". I look at him as an incremental, net upgrade from AB. Combine that with the fact that he’s not a great defender and doesn’t rebound as well as the individual he’d be replacing and I find myself squarely on the fence. Honestly I’m about 51% – 49% in favor because I see him as potentially being one of several really good players on the team. I do like that he can who can score "on-demand".
Your potential stars are AR (best case), Monta (less likely), Morrow (best case Ray Allen worst case Anthony Morrow 2009) and Curry (could be Reggie Miller 2.0 or Anthony Roberson). Everyone else should be looked at as potential areas of upgrade.
The 51% is an "optimistic" 51% based on my (possibly unrealistic) expectation that AR will become that franchise player with Monta and Morrow being the #2 and #3. That’s not even counting Jackson and Turiaf who are probably the team’s best passers right now. Add Amare as a "go-to" scorer at the end of games and you’ve got a potential contender. A lot of "ifs" there, but I’m a fan not a GM. The fact that Nelson is here and thinks that Randolph, Morrow and Curry are going to be stars helps too.
An argument against getting Amare is that Randolph will be due an extension for the 2012/13 season, (assuming he won’t take the QO) and Curry the following year. Singing Amare would likely bring you to at least Curry’s extension-year threatening the luxury tax since you still may have Maggete, Jackson and Ellis making an average of around $10mil. That is, unless the Ws can move Jackson and/or Maggete’s contract as an expiring to clear room for Randolph.
Trade or no trade, I think this upcoming year is going to be a good one from a fan’s perspective.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jul 1, 2009 7:25 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Nicely Put.
I pretty much agree with everything you said. For some reason I am getting kind of optimistic about the upcoming season, as long as Riley/Nelson dont make a move for the sake of PR(Iverson) or anything. I was slightly pro Amare but if that doesnt happen, hopefully we can shop our youth and try and make a move from now till Febuary.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jul 1, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we can now make this the official GSoM group-think consensus on the Amare trade……we’ve reached a verdict just in time for the trade to have died!
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 1, 2009 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trade or no trade, I think this upcoming year is going to be a good one from a fan’s perspective.
I feel like Charlie Brown approaching a Lucy-held football, but I completely agree with this. Dumping Crawford and grabbing Curry did a lot to change my mood. Even beyond those shifts, though, there are a lot of things to feel good about. There’s no particular reason why anyone would play worse than they did last year, and there are good reasons why several guys might play better:
Monta: could put forth more of a defensive effort now that his spot is safe… could possibly improve his playmaking
Randolph: showed dramatic improvement month by month as the league’s youngest player last year — why would he stop now?
Jackson: badly miscast as our first offensive option last year; with Monta back, might re-focus on defense
Biedrins, Azubuike, Morrow, Watson, Wright: all young enough so that some improvement is at least possible
This team won’t be boring, that’s for sure. If you could point to one key for the year, more than any single guy’s development or even health, I think it’s Nellie. Not everyone agrees with me on this, I admit, but I think Nellie essentially phoned last season in, with stubborn adherences to strategies that weren’t working and no attempt to create defensive accountability for anyone except Wright and Marco. This team will not return to respectability until Nellie fully wakes up again. Various factors — the departure of Crawford, the arrival of Curry, the emergence of Randolph — should prevent Nellie from making the same strategic mistakes he made last year… but there needs to be some expectation that guys will play hard defensively. Our roster is young, but it is athletic, and it is thoroughly coachable. They might not play great defense, but they will at least try, if someone makes them. Nellie has to make them.
Anyway, I would be okay with the Amar’e trade falling through… there’ve been enough good points against it in the last day or two to get my needle back to the exact middle of the dial. But this does strike me as a roster in flux, a roster that’s at least one move away from making sense. The Bulls from recent years are a good cautionary tale… it’s great to stockpile young and interesting assets, but it doesn’t do much for you unless you convert them into a team that makes sense. We need to parlay several guys into an upgrade somewhere… the Amar’e trade would accomplish that, albeit at a heavy price. If this one falls through, fair enough, but we do need something like it soon. As much as I like the guys on our current roster, it’ll be a problem if we have them all a year from now. We still won’t be all that good, and we’ll have several guys annoyed about lack of minutes.
All that said, I am pretty excited for November. You’ve done it again, Lucy.
by onlxn on Jul 1, 2009 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Monta: could put forth more of a defensive effort now that his spot is safeRandolph: showed dramatic improvement month by month as the league’s youngest player last year — why would he stop now?
Why is Montay’s spot any safer than it was last year? We’ve basically replaced Crawford with Curr-bury, are you saying he’s not as good as crawford or just not experienced enough yet to take crawford’s former minutes?
We should expect Rudolf to play a bit more conserative as he matures and realizes he can’t have a healthy career playing so wild. Either that or lose him to injury.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 1, 2009 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
…that there are moves to be made. I’d personally be open to take a stab at signing Trevor Ariza (my dream FA signing, unlikely as it is), and playing him at SF with Jack at SG. Assuming Jackson is motivated and healthy, those two could form one of the best wing defense tandems in the league.
by Zack Vank on Jul 2, 2009 12:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You forgot
Monta: Will have had a healthy training camp as the primary PG and will thus be in practice for the first game of the season instead of showing up halfway through after the season had already gone down the drain out of practice from being injured for 6 months.
That should help a TON too.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 2, 2009 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just dont think Monta Ellis is a good point guard. We’ll see, hopefully Ellis can step his game up, but it seems like Curry is the point guard of the future. Maybe Ellis can get his tradrye value back up and we can shop him. Other than Jack and Maggs, nearly every player on the roster is a decent trading piece. Hopefully Riley stays calm and makes a good move when he gets the chance.
I like the roster at the moment, only because of the young pieces and trade assests. However this roster cannot compete for the playoffs, nor will it 2-3 years down the line.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jul 2, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whether or not he's a PG or just the guy who has the ball in his hands
He’ll still be close to (if not better than) the player he was in 07-08. My point was that his 08-09 season should not be used to judge his abilities and that if he came back to “old Monta” form, he would be a vast improvement over the “rusty Monta/Crawfor-” combination we employed last year. Even with zero improvement in the supposedly important “PG department”, Monta will have a much more positive impact on the 09-10 Warriors than he did on the 08-09 Warriors.
We should be shopping everybody, but right now Monta’s value is indeed at its lowest. I don’t buy the idea that “Curry is the PG of the future” and that Monta isn’t (or vice versa) because they’re both completely unproven at the position. Maybe they both are and maybe neither is good enough. However, I’m of the opinion that we don’t really need a “PG” we need a guy who’s good with the ball in his hands (whether that’s scoring, passing, or just not turning the ball over), and who can bring it up the floor without getting pick pocketed. That’s all I want, and I think both Monta and Curry should be able to fill that role.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 2, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we get as lucky with health as we were unlucky last year I think the current roster could compete for one of the last two spots. There are an awful lot of teams in the mix for those last few spots so I definitely wouldn’t go so far as to say its likely, but I thinks its quite possible. With a Prince/AK47 type trade and/or a shrewd MLE signing (Childress?) I’d probably say we’d be among the favorites to grab one of the last spots and be trounced by LA, San Antonio, Denver, Utah, or Portland.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 2, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If nothing else, the moderators should welcome Amare
Call me a fair weather fan (I’m actually not), but I hadn’t posted anything on this site for eons, because I ran out of ways to discuss packaging scrubs in a theoretical trade for Ron Artest,. Since the Amare rumor popped up, I’ve been checking the site 20 times daily and am obsessed. A Stoudamire deal would drive traffic on this site like nothing since the We Believe run.
by BlueInTheFace on Jul 2, 2009 12:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Meh...
Since you haven’t been here, you haven’t noticed that traffic’s been fine. I don’t doubt that adding Amare would get more traffic, but take a look around the SB Nation and you’ll see that even though the Warriors were terrible the last year, we’ve still got the largest blog base than any other blog on SBN by a pretty wide margin.
Welcome back, I hope you stay a while.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 2, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but take a look around the SB Nation and you’ll see that even though the Warriors were terrible the last year, we’ve still got the largest blog base than any other blog on SBN by a pretty wide margin.
Blazers Edge would like a word with you…
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 2, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Went over there just to check before posting that
Their fanpost section is tiny. They’re definitely second, but…
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jul 2, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
Their fanpost section is tiny.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. I think the default settings show ten at a time and the oldest of the ten is a day old (same as here). Of the recommended fanposts none of them are more than a day old. Plenty of triple digit comments. They have a very high turnover there.
During the seasons the open threads there usually dwarf ours.
I’m not really sure how you’d measure “blog base” but it’s safe to say that if ours is larger (which I don’t think is true) it’s probably by the slimmest of margins, and certainly not by a pretty wide margin.
I don’t really care to start a big debate about it (let’s hope nobody from their site gets in on this) I just wanted to give them the respect I thought they deserved. : )
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 2, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not that worried about a big man not sharing the ball much ...
… if he shoots at a high percentage and doesn’t turn the ball over a lot.
Sometimes you worry about that with a post player, if he doesn’t know how to pass out of a double team. I don’t think that’s the case with Amare – I think his game makes him hard to double-team.
I think he doesn’t pass a lot because he’s usually got a pretty good look at the basket, and there isn’t an obvious place to go that’s better. Maggette, on the other hand, does a lot of driving in traffic, and shoots a much lower percentage.
by Ronaldinho on Jul 2, 2009 2:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
