Golden State Of Mind: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: The Nova Blog for Villanova Fans!

Is Buike Expendable and Has He Reached His Peak?

I've been kinda thinking about this for the last couple days. One reason in particular is that people (GSoMers) have been mentioning him in potential trades and that tells me that some think he is expendable. I would think a player becomes expendable when they are no longer usefull, have reached their peak (and its not a very high one), or the return on losing that player would be greater than keeping him.

I think that buike has a lot of usefulness on this team. Hes young, athletic, experienced, and has good ball IQ. In terms of skills, he has pretty good handles, can drive, shoot and play some defense. Just looking at his stats from 2006, his numbers have gone up every year (I think he was 4th in 3pt% last year). But I guess the question is how good will he be in the future?

Personally, I think buike will top out in about 2yrs. Im going to go out on a limb and say his stats will be somewhere along the lines of 18ppg, 5-6rpg, 2.5apg, 1.5bpg. I think these are really decent numbers and will still be "useful" to the dubs for a while if he can sustain it. I guess this is also contingent on how much action he'll be seeing next season. I would expect him to get at least 25 min/game. If maggs get hurt, which history tells us that it isnt unprecedented, buike should be seeing alot of action to get his numbers up.

In terms of the return we could get for buike (alone or in combination with other players) I think it will be borderline to somewhat high. But, I think it would benifit us to keep him out of trades unless it is absolutely certain that the return will be very good. I believe in keeping our young core together and letting them play because of the potential they have. Like everyone else, the only players I'd get rid of are maggs, wright and belli. But I feel for wright and belli as they've been hurt, so pretty much just maggs.

Anyway, Its late and Im tired...cant think anymore. Chime in guys!

Poll
When will buike have reached his full potential?
1yr
54 votes
2yrs
98 votes
3yrs
48 votes
4yrs
20 votes
5yrs
6 votes
those guns will never run out of ammo!!!
93 votes

319 votes | Poll has closed

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!

0 recs  |  Comment 96 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

He is expendable in the right deal

We need something really good back in return like how in the STAT deal when he was thrown in we were giving up to much. A trade for him would warrant a starter in return, depending on the starter that is. He is great off the bench or starting so his value is pretty high I would assume.

Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"

by dubzfan on Jul 23, 2009 1:05 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

The guy has an all-around game, which is rare. He’s also a killer from 3 pt. range. Let’s not forget how little he costs. Is he expendable? Of course, for the right price. Give us sometone we need more that isn’t too costly and obviously, we’ll take it. I don’t think everyone is lining up to take him, though. He’s a great backup and an average starter. That’s something, but it’s not slap-your-own-mama, spit-on-your-neck fantastic.

by Naticus on Jul 23, 2009 1:26 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Everyone one the Warriors is expendable except for Anthony Randolph and Stephen Curry.

Ballin' like its '88!

by manutefor3 on Jul 23, 2009 2:12 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

And Monta Ellis

These guys still need to prove them selves and show all that potential.

Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"

by dubzfan on Jul 23, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

monta too?

I mean, he’s come along way from being drafted last and not getting any playing time. In his defense, everything people said he couldnt do, he did. I remember when he first came on, I thought he was trash and would never get any playing time. Look at him now…20ppg on 50% shooting. Sure he has some things to work on ie. defense, outside shooting and court vision but those things will come in time. I know a lot of people are still pissed about the moped thing but if the end of last season was an indication of anything, he should be back to his old self and maybe even better at the start of next season.

Far as Im concerned, monta was a diamond in the rough and has shattered any potential ceiling that would have pegged him with back then. We need him to do more and im sure he will….just no more mopeds…lol

by Butt Secks on Jul 23, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Stephen Curry should be expendable

Randolph only

Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan

by montadaboss on Jul 24, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

When he gets starter minutes,I expect him to average 16-6-4,he has that"potential"...

besides who wouldn’t want a 6th man/solid starter on their squad for so cheap?
wow,that was basically your story…

by Curry on Jul 23, 2009 3:21 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

i agree

i thinki he can be even better though. I say 18-7-3.5. He is a great rebounder, especially on the offensive boards. He isn’t what i would call a shut down defender but i think he is one our best on the team. I’d like to see Monta, Bukie, Jackson, Randolph, Beans as a starting line up with curry, morrow, Maggs, and Truiaf coming off the bench. I also think that line up would improve our defense while still being able to play a fast tempo game.

by bizz 192 on Jul 24, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I say 18-7-3.5

Still without a minutes played. Still without shots taken. Meaningless, totally meaningless without such data.

by jae on Jul 24, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is statistical harassment a crime?

Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Jul 24, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I can’t say I agree it’s totally meaningless. Any time someone throws out per game stats I just assume it’s under the assumption he’ll be getting starter minutes. So I put those numbers to ~35 minutes per game.

by Missing Barry on Jul 24, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The points are meaningless. 18 points on 18 shots? Not good. 18 points on 12 shots? Different story. Even “starter minutes” is sufficiently vague. that the rebound numbers could float from really good (in the case of a 32mpg starter to rather ‘meh’ in the case of a 40mpg starter. 20% more court time makes a difference.

by jae on Jul 24, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

18 points on 18 shots

hey I’ll take that…that’s shooting 50% (if all shots taken are 2-pointers)…oftentimes I see Jax doing things like scoring 22 points on 28 shots. And Jax is super super expensive.

JR...An All-Time Warriors Favorite!

by MANUTEs BOLs on Jul 24, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

18points on 18 shots is lousy. It means not getting to the line. It’s well, well below average and if you regularly do it, you regularly help your team lose.

by jae on Jul 24, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Points per game is far from meaningless. As an extreme example, a 25+ ppg scorer tends to be a better scorer than a 10 ppg player. Points per game summarizes, albeit somewhat clumsily, the other offensive statistics: you need efficiency, court time, and/or bad offensive teammates. It’s a shame an otherwise handy stat was ruined by ESPN overexposure.

by antihero on Jul 24, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Saying that Azubuike might average 18ppg is meaningless without some context. If he’s pressed into 40mpg, it implies an improvement of about 1/5th of a point over what he does currently. It’s meaningless as such if you’re presenting it as some indication of better play.

by jae on Jul 24, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t see where people are getting their assist numbers from. At no point in his career has Azubuike averaged even 2 assists per 36 minutes, why do you expect his production to ramp up to 4 or 5 a game?

by Missing Barry on Jul 24, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nothing but quintuple overtime games and he never, ever rests.

by jae on Jul 24, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

to me, KAZ >> Maggz. I think he has tons of value and has a really reasonable contract. An underrated good move by the warriors FO by having such a versatile player for 3yr 9 million contract.

LGW

by jpratm on Jul 23, 2009 6:04 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Buike is expendable in the fact that he’s not a star player, and we can fairly easily replace the majority of his production. Belinelli, Morrow, Maggette, Jack, Curry, Monta…we have enough guys to play all the minutes on the wing at a similar level of productivity, so there’s no reason to hesitate to move Buike in the right deal.

by Missing Barry on Jul 23, 2009 7:52 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

see I dont know about that...

Morrow and beli could play the three but not as well as buike. They are all about the same height but buike has more “beef” and can defend better then them. Sure u can move curry and monta to 1/2 and have jack and maggs play 3 but we know how jack and maggs (ESPECIALLY MAGGS) can be. Replacing his minutes will be easy, but replacing them with similar efficiency as buike will be hard.

by Butt Secks on Jul 23, 2009 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m just not seeing it. I like Buike, I’m not advocating getting rid of him, I just don’t see what he brings that’s hard to replace if need be. Role players are role players for a reason, and they’re fairly easy to find and just not that important to a teams success compared to the teams best players. I have no problem giving up Buike in some move, assuming the move makes sense for us.

by Missing Barry on Jul 23, 2009 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

People are way too hung up on Nellie’s “system”. The “system” is players who are versatile, specifically versatile on offense. Beyond that, he works with what he has. Nellie’s track record for finding players he can plug in and get production from is pretty good. This argues that they aren’t particularly hard to find. He’s found them throughout his career.

“Role players” encompasses so much that it’s a mostly meaningless term. Most people use it to cover way too much, but it generally gets applied without much discrimination to “not the primary scorer(s).” Azubuike gives average to above average per minute production, which is good. Average is not a slight; average teams win 41 games.

by jae on Jul 23, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We are stuck with Nellie's system

So we obviously value people who fit the system. Maggs for example has not adjusted to the system very well.

I would imagine that Buike can adjust to other systems.

Plus it seems a lot of ladies on this site are in love with him, so that helps ticket sales!

by mosdl on Jul 23, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What is the “system” to which you refer? What are the parameters of this “system”?

by jae on Jul 23, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Haha

That could be my favorite Skeptic post of all time.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Jul 23, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

actually, we are more like stuck with Jax

He’s immovable…and raises my blood pressure.

JR...An All-Time Warriors Favorite!

by MANUTEs BOLs on Jul 24, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I have no problem giving up Buike in some move, assuming the move makes sense for us.

 Trouble is we likely couldn’t get anything better than him back? He’s a proven role player on our team so why take a chance on an unproven role player ?

" I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I turn, there's someone there, other times it's only me
I am hanging in the balance of the reality of man
Like every sparrow falling, like every grain of sand."

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 23, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Overall that’s pretty much how I feel, too.

by Missing Barry on Jul 23, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I love Bukie

I think Bukie isn’t untouchable as Randolph and Curry but he means alot to our team. I feel Kelenna should be a guy who we keep on our team like Turiaf and Morrow as great role players off the bench that every successful team needs. Having Bukie makes Maggs even more tradeable considering how cheap he is. Kelenna can still improve some but he is already a pretty good player and a better defender than given credit for.

by GSW9 on Jul 23, 2009 8:49 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Since when is Curry untouchable? Dude was drafted 7th in a class weak at the top, has yet to prove anything in the NBA…that’s hardly untouchable. Role players, like Buike, are players that just aren’t that important to the overall success of a team. I like Buike and think he contributes, but if we can bring in star talent to the Warriors, we shouldn’t even think twice about including a player like him (or Turiaf or Morrow) in a deal to do so.

by Missing Barry on Jul 23, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actually, roll players are extremely important to a team’s success. Super stars obviously make the team championship caliber, but without good “roll players” that team will never succeed. Every championship team I can remember has had a guy or guys that do exactly what Buike does best. Not saying the Warriors are a championship level team, but that is the ultimate goal and Buike would be a very nice piece if we get there any time soon. But yes, in the right deal, Buike is expendable just like any player not named Anthony Randolph. I agree that Curry is not untouchable.

by jnormous on Jul 23, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Super stars obviously make the team championship caliber, but without good "roll players" that team will never succeed.

This doesn’t appear to be all that true. While there are teams where the supporting cast is so terrible and the dropoff between the best player and the next best is so extreme that they have a hard time winning (e.g. Garnett’s last years in Minnesota), these teams are rare. Most of a team’s wins come from the 2 or 3 best players on the team and the “role players” factor into a much more subtle difference in win total.

Championship teams of course need production from everyone, but most would still be very, very good with lesser “role players”. But it’s the stars who got them in the position where the role players matter, not the other way around.

by jae on Jul 23, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dubs’ last championship team was chalk full of role players, not to be confused with roll players, they were very complementary in their skills, as well as complimentary of their coach. There was a team worthy of rings without three superstars. One could argue that’s the exception to the rule of course … On the flip side there’s the example of the team that shall not be named but wear purple and gold who lost with several stars, including one Wilt Chamberlain …

by hardcore on Jul 23, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Warriors last championship team ...

… was the definition of the unlikely – and lucky – winner. Their win over the Bullets was impressive, but there were the 4th best team in the league in the regular season.

Unless you describe any team which wins the title as being “worthy of rings” those Warriors have to be very near the top of the list of “teams not worthy.”

Which is fine. This isn’t European league soccer, where what matters is consistency over the course of the season. But just out of curiosity, what, in your mind, would make a team “not worthy” of rings, aside from not winning them to begin with?

by Ronaldinho on Jul 23, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

as I wrote, one could argue that’s the exception to the rule of course – and you did …

I have no idea what the point was, and no interest in your European soccer observations though you might find it noteworthy that GSW team won 48 that year …

the answer to your question is you missed the point in the first place – it’s not absolutely essential to have three superstars to win the championship – any club that maximizes it’s talent and competes to take away their opponents’ opportunities by playing as a TEAM is worthy of winning rings. Hope that was clear enough.

by hardcore on Jul 23, 2009 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The soccer reference was that in those leagues, the champions are crowned by virtue of the regular season record and a point system for wins, losses and (sigh) ties.

It isn’t absolutely essential to have three superstars. Often, players become elevated to “superstar” (a definition that usually, but not always applies to only highly productive players) because they’ve won championships.

the answer to your question is you missed the point in the first place

No reason to get nasty. He asked a question, politely.

by jae on Jul 23, 2009 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So why couldn't Kobe win with Caron Butler, and Odom

but Lebron could get his team to the finals with Boobie Gibson as the second option.

Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan

by montadaboss on Jul 24, 2009 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If he isn't untouchable

then Amare would be a Warrior right now. And you are crazy if you think good role players aren’t important to the success of a team

by GSW9 on Jul 23, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Also with Curry, the FO is saying he's untouchable from the way they are talking about

him and he is off the table in deals. I wouldn’t call him untouchable i’m going off what the FO says and reacts about Curry

by GSW9 on Jul 23, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i’m going off what the FO says and reacts about Curry

You really trust those people to make good decisions? You wanna buy this bridge??

" I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I turn, there's someone there, other times it's only me
I am hanging in the balance of the reality of man
Like every sparrow falling, like every grain of sand."

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 23, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not really

but for right now they say they aren’t trading Curry and why should they if he hasn’t played 1 game yet and has a very high ceiling

by GSW9 on Jul 23, 2009 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Because he gets included in a deal that makes the Warriors better.

by Missing Barry on Jul 23, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah

am what if Curry turns out to be the PG we need and becomes a Superstar, then we just traded away another young talent. Just face it, Golden State is not trading Curry anytime soon unless he proves he’s a bust or demands a trade

by GSW9 on Jul 24, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

what if Curry turns out to be the PG we need and becomes a Superstar, then we just traded away another young talent.

 Haha, That’s what we do! We find them ,train them, then trade them. You can pretty much figure that if we keep him he’s crap.

" I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I turn, there's someone there, other times it's only me
I am hanging in the balance of the reality of man
Like every sparrow falling, like every grain of sand."

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 24, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What if we trade Brandon Wright and that happens? Or Marco Belinelli? Or any other player. So what, thinking like that isn’t a good way to run a team. You think anyone else is going to give us a good player and take back players with no chance of becoming good? What if we don’t trade Curry in a potential deal for a player that makes us better and he DOESN’T become a good player at all?

Look, when it comes to making a trade, you have to assess the value of all your assets. What they give you today and what they’ll give you in the future. If we can make our team better by including Curry, of course we do it. Maybe we put a large value on Curry though, so any trade we make involving him will have to give us a lot back. That doesn’t make him “untouchable”, though.

by Missing Barry on Jul 24, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I am not saying he's untouchable

the Golden State Warriors are. The fact is we are building our team around Randolph, Curry, and maybe Morrow Ellis and Andris. As much as you say he’s not untouchable, the Warriors think that unless Lebron or a player of that status comes here(which won’t happen) they are not offering Curry in a trade.

by GSW9 on Jul 24, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well then I think our opinions aren’t too far off. I can accept that the Warriors probably put a higher value on Curry than everyone else, thus making it unrealistic to trade him. If the Suns were offering us Stoudemire and let us make some deal centered around Curry, I think the Warriors would go for it – the Warriors just think it’s too much if the deal includes both Curry AND Biedrins (and Wright/Belinelli). In the end it may be that we value Curry more than anyone else so a trade involving him is unrealistic (we’d want more back than anyone else would give up for him), but I just don’t think Warriors management would completely refuse to include him in any talks.

by Missing Barry on Jul 24, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Probably right

but Randolph is certainly untouchable for Golden State. He’s a keeper

by GSW9 on Jul 25, 2009 6:31 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agree’d there. The list of players we would trade Randolph for is exactly as long as the list of players whose team would never trade them. Wade, Lebron, Paul, Howard, Roy, Kobe. Probably a couple more on the list, but you get the general idea…

by Missing Barry on Jul 25, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Randolph is certainly untouchable for Golden State.

 So you think they wouldn’t trade him for Lebron? Get outta here.

" I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I turn, there's someone there, other times it's only me
I am hanging in the balance of the reality of man
Like every sparrow falling, like every grain of sand."

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 25, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

LeBron’s expiring! He wouldn’t want to re-sign here! FAs hate Golden State!

:)

Thing C

by markdash on Jul 26, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

“If he isn’t untouchable then Amare would be a Warrrior right now.”

I disagree. I believe Curry was the breaking point in the deal, once we got to the point of including Curry we decided it was no longer a good deal for us. That doesn’t mean Curry’s “untouchable”. If the same deal (Biedrins + Wright + Belinelli for Amare) was Curry + Wright + Belinelli, I think we do that deal.

by Missing Barry on Jul 23, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It sounded like the hangup was Amare signing an extension

Of course we’ll probably never know 100% which one it was.

by mosdl on Jul 23, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

From what i heard

the Warriors were not putting Curry in the deal at ALL. It was either Dre, Wright, and Marco or no deal. Like I said, the Warriors FO are really high on him and said they aren’t trading him, he is hear to stay so unless something changes, he is untouchable. I’m not saying this from my opinion this is from Nellie and Riley’s mouth.

by GSW9 on Jul 23, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Eh, posturing. Nellie doesn’t say a whole lot of trustworthy stuff. My opinion is it’s more a situation where Phoenix has to get Biedrins and Wright in return, since they’ve already traded Shaq, they need to add to the front court. So they wouldn’t substitute Biedrins and Curry. I do think we highly value Curry – but again, it’s not that he’s untouchable as much as we know how much we want to give up for Amare, we offered them the first deal, and in order to include Curry we would take an equivalent amount of value out from the first deal (which is a lot given our opinion of Curry). Basically it leaves a situation where Curry just doesn’t make sense in a deal.

by Missing Barry on Jul 23, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I know

Nellie lies alot but for some reason i believe Nellie about what he has said about Curry

by GSW9 on Jul 23, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

“And you are crazy if you think good role players aren’t important to the success of a team”

The thing you guys are missing, is once you get the stars in place, there are lots of players that can fill the other roles for you. Sure you need them to do well in their roles, but not very good players, when given a couple of roles (say, defense + rebounding) that are their strengths as players, will contribute at a high level. It’s not hard to find these guys that excel at a couple of things the team needs.

by Missing Barry on Jul 23, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Expendable? No. Replaceable? Yeah. Infinitely. He’s not the rare talent that you preserve at all costs. There is a difference between expendable and replaceable and a difference between “giving up on” and “using his value to get parts that may help the team more”.

his stats will be somewhere along the lines of 18ppg, 5-6rpg, 2.5apg, 1.5bpg

Once again, this sort of stat line is meaningless without some notion of how many minutes it takes to get those rebounds and how many shots it takes to get those points. I suspect that he’s very, very close to his peak because most guards (most players actually) are very close to their peak at age 25. They may put up higher totals, but it’s generally because they get more minutes. Azubuike’s shooting overall got better last year. His 3pt % was better than the previous year, but only a little better than the year before, well within a standard error. Most of his stats were. His improvement was there, but it was modest, which is generally what you see for guys his age.

1.5bpg? Doubtful, unless we start playing an exceptional number of overtime games and he never, ever, ever goes to the bench. A 2/3 who averages 1.5 bpg? I’d bet my house that he doesn’t do it. Drexler never did. Pippen never did. Magic Johnson, despite towering over other guards never averaged anything close to that. Jordan haveraged that many blocks twice in his career, both in seasons where he averaged more than 40mpg. For his career, he was not close to that. Really think Azubuike is a more talented shot blocker than these guys?

by jae on Jul 23, 2009 8:58 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

I'm with JAE on this one

First off, I love watching buike muscle up on smaller guards, but he is in no way untouchable. If his perceived value around the association has grown, then the Warriors might want to consider dealing him if they can upgrade one of the depth in one of the three holes in their roster (pg, pf, c).

Also in support of JAE, Azubuike’s true shooting percentage of 56.2% was am improvement over the previous season (53.4%) but down modestly from 06-07 season (57.2%). Same for this effective field goal percentage (52% in 08-09, 50.5% in 07-08, & 52.3% in 06-07). Over his stats show that he’s been the same type of player the whole time he’s been with the Warriors. Granted Azubuike turns 26 in December, so he has some time to develop more, but there is no trend showing he’s going to be 18 ppg unless improves on his minutes played (where in which he averaged 32 mins per game last season). As JAE said, his statistical improvement in scoring from 8 ppg to 14 ppg can directly be attributed in his increased effectiveness from the field and is 33% increase in playing time.

Don’t believe me… check the stats yourself at basketball-reference.com’s webpage for Kelenna Azubuike.

A Sonics fan without a team... but 6 season now of GS Warriors ticket have convinced me to adopt the boys from Oakland.

by mcwalter44 on Jul 23, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

you're right...

His stats will be contingent on his playing time. The 1.5bgp is excessive…0.9 or 1 maybe?

by Butt Secks on Jul 23, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

How many guards average that many blocks per game? How many times did Jordan do it? Pippen? I think you should look at this sort of thing for a general plausibility assessment before putting out figures. Suggesting that he’ll exceed what these guys regularly did ranks high on the “implausible” scale.

by jae on Jul 23, 2009 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I bet buike is gone when his contract is up

Keith Smart= The Next Nate McMillan

by Sinigang on Jul 23, 2009 9:27 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I personally think...

He could be decent but he really needs to work on his driving. I can’t remember how many times he missed lay-ups he should have made. I don’t think he will average close to 20 ppg. I think it will be around 10 to 15 maybe

by the bay area on Jul 23, 2009 9:58 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

His value / his contract...

makes him one of our best players, in my opinion. Also one of our best trading pieces.

by FishStix on Jul 23, 2009 10:20 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

+1

Him and Turiaf have the best contracts on our team for what they give us on the floor

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

by JustSomeName on Jul 23, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1

Thats y im reluctant to part with them unless the return outweighs their loss.

by Butt Secks on Jul 23, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

18ppg, 5-6rpg, 2.5apg, 1.5bpg

Considering how many shooters and scorers we have on this team, I HIGHLY doubt he’ll ever average 18ppg for us. I would think best case scenario, he would average around 12-15ppg. Those rebounding and assist averages seem about right, but those blocks per game are ridiculously high. He doesn’t have the wingspan and isn’t that great of a defender to be able to block more than 1 shot a game. If anything, he would average around 0.6-0.8 blocks per game. And he would average about 15-25 mpg at the 2/3

I think azubuike has reached about his potential. He may get a bit better at defense and may be more efficient, but I think we’ve seen just about everything he brings to the table for us as a basketball team. He’s a very solid 4th or 5th starter or a very good 6th man off the bench. Even though Maggette gets better numbers, he stagnates our offense and I’d rather see Azubuike out there contributing more as a team player than Maggette does. I guess he would be expendable in the right trade if we were able to get a good starter in return, depending on the trade. I love his game and I would love for him to be a Warrior for a long time, but if the right trade came up, I wouldn’t deem him untouchable or anything. At this point, nobody on a 30 win team should be considered untouchable except Anthony Randolph.

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

by JustSomeName on Jul 23, 2009 10:47 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Maggs played more than Buike

And when maggs went down, buike’s numbers jumped up.

Someone should compare maggs as a starter numbers vs buike’s.

by mosdl on Jul 23, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I too, am pretty curious of 82games.com and yahoo.com =)

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

by JustSomeName on Jul 23, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

interesting stuff

Buike as a starter shot better and scored less, but rebounded slightly worse. Buike also turned it over less and blocked the same amount of shots.

And of course he costs way less (though I assume his next contract will be MLE)

So basically it looks like Buike and Maggs produce the same, but Buike is more efficient.

And buike was healthier as well.

by mosdl on Jul 23, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

'more efficient'

yes, azubuike converts contract $$ to productivity more efficiently. m’gette is valued for his scoring efficiency and had a substantial edge, 950 points on 634 shot attempts to azubuike’s 1063 pts. on 845 attempts.

if azubuike maintains his level of play on both ends and again puts in the 30+min./gm., the team is not likely to rise above average (38-44 wins). granted, that’s an improvement over miserable. ideally, i think he’d be the seventh or eighth guy in a 9-10 rotation, but we will probably not see this team reach that level while he’s on the woe-yrs.

by the.monk on Jul 23, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Buike was more efficient shooting

I still don’t see maggs being any better.

by mosdl on Jul 23, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Per possession used, Maggette was more efficient. This isn’t a point of opinion. It’s a fact. Maggette’s ability to score from the line made him more efficient.

by jae on Jul 23, 2009 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

FG% alone is insufficient to show how efficient a player is. Those points a player scores at the FT line count just as much as a point scored on a shot. Per possession used, Maggette was more efficient.

by jae on Jul 24, 2009 3:14 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

azubuike falls into the 'gunner' category

in terms of his points per attempt. generally a good 3-pt. shooter raises that ratio, so his average overall numbers come from a lot of 2-pt. misses and high volume shooting. this might be excusable with the roster depletions last season, but a healthy ellis should mean fewer attempts from the gunners like azubuike and jackson (crawfor- thankfully no longer a factor).

by the.monk on Jul 23, 2009 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

yeah....

the blocks are unreasonable….but I dont think 18ppg is unreasonable…it may be a best case senario thing, but something I think he is capable of given the right amount of minutes.

by Butt Secks on Jul 23, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

How many shots are you envisioning this taking? That’s far more important towards team success than “18ppg” without that parameter attached. Without it, it’s pretty meaningless.

by jae on Jul 23, 2009 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Tell you what… I think Kelenna Azubuike is going to score about 1100 points this year.

How does that make you feel?

Thing C

by markdash on Jul 24, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Remember that...

Monta going to play a whole season. He’s going to take shots away from guys like Buike. Plus you have a gunner in Curry and increased mins for Randolph that will eat into the number of shots he gets. Unless he improve dramatically I’d expect him to stay 14 ppg or less.

A Sonics fan without a team... but 6 season now of GS Warriors ticket have convinced me to adopt the boys from Oakland.

by mcwalter44 on Jul 24, 2009 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t know how old he is right now, but he’ll probably reach his peak in his late twenties,.

by belilaugh on Jul 23, 2009 6:35 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

this kind of comment ruins the discussion

what am i supposed to say back???

Trains , planes, and automoblies,.... better have my donuts!!!!

by dubzero23 on Jul 24, 2009 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Buike can be had

Only way id trade him is with a combination of players thats brings the warriors the best player in the trade ala Carter trade. If its a simple role player for role player forget it.

by Warriorfan on Jul 26, 2009 8:59 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"

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

Start posting about the Warriors »

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

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Moving Forward: The Warriors and The Draft
Small
The Warriors By Regularized Adjusted Plus-Minus

Recent FanPosts

Stephen_jackson_beast_small
Who is the better scorer? Tyfreke or Steph? Who would you vote ROY?
Sp_baron_edited_small
Was Biedrins Free Throw Hampered by his Abs?
Small
Wall for Blake Griffin?
Sonic_rip_small
Greatest Shooters of All Time (Hollinger)
Small
Our Warriors
Small
Position of greatest need next year
Monta_small
Warrior Wonder Standings (February)
Small
Curry- Nash Comparison

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Ads

SPONSORS

2009-2010 Around the Association

2009-2010 Golden State Warriors Preview

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


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

Atma-160_small Atma Brother ONE

Gw090_small Fantasy Junkie

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

Small Hash

Small dj fuzzylogic

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

We_still_believe_small R Dizzle

Small Adam Lauridsen

Small jae

Small IQofaWarrior

T_small Tony.psd

Japan_by_miaumi_small YaoButtaMing

Drmlg_logo-gmail_small Poor Man's Commish

Nellie2_small Feltbot