Golden State Of Mind: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: BTB's Final Preseason NCAA Hoops Bracket

Now that we know

Now that we know....

1. ....that Curry is our point, this must mean that Ellis is our 2 of the future. Trading him would essentially wipe-out the value of drafting Curry. Why would we want to replace Ellis when we can pair his superior slashing sklls with a better distributing and 3 point shooting version of himself?

2. ....that Randolph is going to be a beast and that Morrow can bomb from behind the arc, this must mean that the front office wants to hold onto them. Couple this with #3 below, and the implication is a front office that must focus on what the team will look like in 2011-12. I know this sucks for us Dubs fans who are starved for wins now. But the trading of JRich and letting go of BD sealed this fate. It's not the worst place to be, to have talent like Ellis, Curry, Randolph, Morrow, and Biedrins. But that talent is not going to be in it's prime for another three years. WE NEED TO FACE THIS REALITY. So if we're too gunshy to trade these guys, or if we can't get equal market value for them (which I think is the case), then the shrewdest move would be to stick with them, let them develop, and then either lock them up again or shop them to get maximum value later.

3. ....that last year's terrible front office shenanigans have crippled us in the trading and free-agent market, this must mean that we have no choice but to stand pat and develop our young talent. The Ellis moped disaster and alienation of the team's saviors in Baron Davis and Chris Mullin, have really shifted our reputation around the league. It's true, they were the centerpieces of the We Believe magic in '07. They were the reason that many of you probably contribute to this blog. Two years ago we were perceived as an up-and-coming destination, with the best fans in the world and an exciting brand of hoops. Now, why would any free agent want to come to Golden State when he could help resurrect the franchise and be loved by the fans, and still be dropped like a bad habit??!! Enough said.

4. ....that nobody wants Maggette's contract, this must mean that we're locked in with Ellis, Biedrins, Jackson, and Maggette. Not a bad core of contracts, but Maggette's really limits our flexibility. That's ok as long as our young talent develops. Maggette still averaged 18.5 ppg and 5.5 rpg while shooting 46% from the floor. That's a very efficient line for Nellyball. I'd have no problem if Maggette was our 6th man in 2011-12.

So..........

Now that we know all of these things, the team must use the pieces it can trade, and/or the mid-level, to add a player that would help us look our best 2 or 3 years from now. A rugged rebounder is the number one priority. We can block shots, but to add a physical presence that can either come off the bench or start between Randolph and Biedrins against bigger teams, would be huge (no pun intended). A player like McDyess would be great, but he wants to help a team win a championship, same with Marion really. These kinds of players will have a pick between Cleveland, Houston, Boston, etc. They're too old for us anyway. The Warriors, on the other hand, need to be looking at a semi-young player that can board and be around for a while. While I really like Wright, it just doesn't make sense to have him on a team with Randolph and Biedrins. The same goes for Azubuike. I love his game. But we can't have him on a team that already has Ellis, Maggette, and Jackson. These redundancies of skills need to be thinned on this roster.

So................

Now that we know all these things, my sense is that the Warriors should be throwing all of their efforts into acquiring Paul Millsap. He just had his breakout year, and still can be had for a good price. David Lee would also be great but he's a year or two ahead of Millsap, thereby making him impossible for us to get. Once again, established players with options are kind of out of our range. Our glut of young talent should also make our next two or three 1st round picks for sale. The Jazz need cap relief desperately and they're probably stuck with Boozer and Kirilenko (nobody wants those contracts). So why not offer two promising young pieces in Wright and Azubuike, as well as two expiring contracts in Belinelli and Claxton, and then throw in as many 1st round picks as it takes to get Millsap? Claxton's deal is especially sweet because it is covered 80% by insurance, meaning Utah would basically save 4 million for their cap this year as well. Millsap is looking at teams like Oklahoma City. Though Durant is elite, I think we have a better supporting cast, and a more desirable fanbase and location. Why wouldn't he come here if we offered him a good, 4 year/40 million dollar extension? With the limited flexibility and unmovable contracts we have already, locking him up at this price would be our best play.

Assuming we re-sign the appropriate players, this would be our core for the next 4 years:

Curry, Ellis, Randolph, Millsap, Biedrins, Jackson, Maggette, Morrow, Turiaf.

Their last couple years together could be pretty special.

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!

2 recs  |  Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Lets wait

and see what the future seasons hold.

by Adobo Ranger on Jul 3, 2009 9:26 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Wright, Azubuike, Belineli, Claxton + 1st rounder for Millsap? No thanks. I wouldn’t mind Millsap on our team, I just don’t see a reason to give up a lot for him. That’s before considering the 4 years/$40 million we’d be paying him.

by Missing Barry on Jul 3, 2009 9:58 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Won’t work anyhow. A big raise to Millsap makes him BYC. Almost impossible to trade for him alone.

by jae on Jul 3, 2009 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

other option

we could try getting bass. he does some similar things that milsap does. use mle on bass?

by $TMONEY$ on Jul 3, 2009 10:03 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Bass is a poor man’s Millsap. Similar, but not as valuable. Not worth the MLE.

by jae on Jul 3, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bass would be good too-that kind of player

Missing Barry: “give up a lot”- I would say Wright, Buike, Belo, Claxton and a 1st isn’t much considering how many young pieces we have already. We’re stuck with the 4 (Ellis, Bieds, Jackson, Maggette) and Curry, Randolph, and Morrow are only going to develop if they get substantial minutes. There are only minutes leftover for one more player to be a part of the everyday rotation. So why not get the best player possible for that 8th slot in the rotation?

That’s all I’m saying

by eastbayglory on Jul 3, 2009 10:32 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I get that, I just see it as Millsap isn’t that much better than Wright. We’d be taking on his contract and saving the Jazz money. I don’t see a reason to also give them more.

by Missing Barry on Jul 3, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If we keep overvalueing our failed draft picks and refuse to trade them

We will be stuck in the same position forever. I like Azubuike, and Bellinelli MIGHT be a decent backup guard if he can reduce his brain dead mistakes (the ones where he completely forgets who he is guarding and his man gets an easy fast break layup), but if we can package these two with Claxton’s contract and a future 1st rounder, pull the trigger. Millsap, Bass, Landry, Lee, these are the type of guys the Warriors are missing. Workhorses that don’t need the ball to be affective, play hard, gobble up rebounds like its thanksgiving dinner, add an element of toughness to the team. Millsap might not be a possibility, but if Brandon Bass is an unrestricted agent, I wouldn’t have a problem with using the MLE on him to backup Randolph at the 4. That would add the inside rebounding and toughness we desperately need (sorry folks, but Wright is just not cut out for this team. He’s not bad, but 3 twig bigs just doesn’t cut it in the NBA.)

by Pearlsofwisdom on Jul 3, 2009 11:02 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

This is also another part of the equation – someone like Brandon Bass, while not as good, is close enough that we can go after him without giving up anything, and pay him a lot less for similar enough levels of production.

I’m not against trading pieces, I just don’t see a reason to trade them just for the simple sake of trading them. Maybe a deal comes along later that we need to throw them in for. We have to keep making smart moves and refrain from giving things up for less value than they’re worth just because we don’t feel the need to keep them around.

by Missing Barry on Jul 3, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Millsap, Bass, Landry, Lee, these are the type of guys the Warriors are missing.

And none of them are readily available in trades. Assuming that Nellie wants any of these “bangers” and history suggests that he values speed over bulk, it will be very, very hard to a) convince them to come here without overpaying them, b) pay them enough without working it as a sign-and-trade, c) convincing their teams that we have something worth giving them that they’ll then have to pay for and d) make the numbers work since the newly signed guys will all be BYC.

Seriously, there’s no reason to waste time thinking about this. It’s just about as useful to thinking about how we could genetically engineer a Michael Jordan clone to rapidly grow and join the team. It’s only slightly less improbable.

by jae on Jul 3, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Honestly? I don’t think the Warriors’ needs are as simple as "point guard " or “rugged rebounder.”

As stated in other threads, the Warriors have average to above average players at every position, and go 2 or 3 deep at some position. Obviously the big problem is an almost complete lack of star power. Having average guys at each position just means you’ll win 25-30 games; the key is getting a guy that’s way better than average. Or two of them.

At any rate, the only move to be made is to take some of that depth and forge a big upgrade somewhere. The AK47 trade bandied about isn’t necessarily a big upgrade, but it’s an upgrade. Getting a guy like McDyess is a marginal upgrade over the Warriors’ existing backup PF (Wright), if at all.

Thing C

by markdash on Jul 3, 2009 11:31 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I was thinking about that. Would having “average” guys at every position mean you would be expected to win 40 games? Intuitively it does, but then again I feel like just having average guys isn’t good enough. Maybe I’m giving the Warriors’ players too much credit by saying they’re average at all positions.

Thing C

by markdash on Jul 3, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, let's look at the Warriors last year:

We were above average at C for most of the year. We were significantly below average at PF for most of the year (until Randolph started getting major minutes). We were slightly above average at 3 when Mags was healthy, but probably average overall given that he wasn’t always. We were below average at 2 (Jackson can be an above average player, but he wasn’t last year.). And we were below average – by MILES – at 1.

And we got 28 wins with no stars, but three positions below average, one position average, one position above average.

To me, that argues that a team of “average” starters has got to be well above 30 wins.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 3, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I actually think that might even be too charitable ...

When Mags plays the 4 he’s clearly below average. Buike – who I like – is probably a below average player. So I suspect we were below average at the 3, as well.

But this shows the potential value of Randolph. If he comes in as an above-average 4, the Mags gets to play 3 exclusively, where he’s above average. Jackson is better as a 2 than as a 3, so that helps. So then it’s just a question of filling the gaping hole at point.

(Incidentally, I’m on board with the Mags-as-6th-man strategy. He’s better than Buike, but I think the team will probably work better with Buike in there, because there’s only one basketball on the floor at a time).

by Ronaldinho on Jul 3, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Buike – who I like – is probably a below average player.

Just about spot on average for a 2 in terms of overall production. Which would be good, if he wasn’t manning major minutes at the 3.

by jae on Jul 3, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Have you looked at McDyess' stats over the last 2 months of the season?

He’s a totally different players than Wright, and more productive and experienced. But we don’t want his age anyway. I suspect that the average guys that you refer to will become well above average over the next couple years if given a chance

by eastbayglory on Jul 3, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I suspect more than not wanting McDyess is that there’s not really anything appealing for him here. He can go to a contender for what he’s going to be offered. Our only hope would be a long term deal at the MLE, which would just be stupid.

by jae on Jul 3, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Considering that they’re pretty similar in terms of overall production (Wright is a much more efficient scorer, McDyess a better rebounder, neither turn the ball over much), I can’t see any compelling reason to prefer a guy like McDyess who is not only much older but is likely to decline next year whereas Brandan Wright is likely to get better. Plus Wright already exists on the team, whereas the Warriors would have to pay extra to bring in McDyess. I can’t see why they would do so.

Thing C

by markdash on Jul 3, 2009 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Trading Monta would wipe out the value of drafting Curry?

Only if we don’t get anything in return for him.

Also, we shouldn’t pencil in Curry for major minutes just yet. He’s got to prove he can do it on this level. Furthermore, can Curry and Monta work as a backcourt tandem?

I don’t think the following lineup is terrible if Monta and/or Curry can actually play the point:

1: Monta/Curry
2:Jackson/Monta/Morrow
3.Buike/Mags/Jackson
4.Randolph/Turiaf/Wright
5.Beidrins/Turiaf.

If that team was well coached, played good defense all around the court, and MOnta and Curry work as point guards (not counting on it), I think that’s a low-to-mid-40s win team. That’s all dependent on things like Jackson not trying to take over.

If Wright finds a motor and earns real minutes (REALLY not counting on it), and Randolph expands his game to improve the 3 (not counting on it) and Monta is as good as he was pre-injury (not counting on it), I think we’re sniffing 50 wins.

The problem is that there is a lot of optimism in those assumptions. If neither Monta or Curry can really play point, then we have four shooting guards. Jackson thinks he’s a team leader – all evidence to the contrary – and that gives him license to do whatever he wants, which means he hurts the team. Team defense? With Nellie as our coach? We don’t believe. Wright finding a motor would be awesome (being able to run a frontcourt of him, Biedrins, and Randolph could solve a lot of our rebounding problems) but in my experience players rarely discover motivation later in their careers, unless they’re in a contract year.

So the obvious moves are, in fact, to trade some of our shooting guard talent for a point guard, or for a 3 who rebounds well and isn’t a bog hall, locking in Randolph at the 4. Adding a beefy 4 rebounder/defender (Nellie won’t play him anyway) won’t help us that much unless you think Randolph can play the three, which, at this point, is more a matter of faith than anything else.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 3, 2009 11:38 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

All I can say to respond to you, Ronaldinho

Curry was drafted to play with Ellis because he’s a point. Ellis is clearly not. We’ll just have to see if the two of them work together.
I don’t really know what your point about assumptions is. Don’t assumptions have to made every off-season so that a GM and coach can put a team together? Who knows if Randolph can play the 3. We’ll see. He seems to have the skills, so lets see.
As far as trading for a point, Why??? We have Curry. We aren’t going to be great now, so why trade for an experienced point now?
Time is on our side because we have youth. As time goes on, all these questions will be answered. We don’t know anything except that we’re pretty much stuck with this core and that it’s pretty talented.

by eastbayglory on Jul 3, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is Curry really a point guard?

Or is he a smallish combo-guard, who plays “point” because he’s often the smallest guy on the floor?

I don’t think it’s that obvious that he’s a point guard.Most people think Curry has a higher ceiling than Flynn – but why’d Flynn go higher?

Simple: Because Flynn is seen as a pure point guard, and Curry’s mostly notable for his scoring.

A lot of very smart people who watched Curry a lot more than I did are saying, “No doubt about his talent, but is he really a PG?” On the other hand, if Nellie knows one thing, it’s guard talent.

I hope you’re right. I’m just not so certain as you are.

Don’t assumptions have to made every off-season so that a GM and coach can put a team together?

Yes. But as a rule of thumb, it’s a bad idea to assume that every question you have about your team is going to get resolved positively.

by Ronaldinho on Jul 3, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

so besides Curry being a point

what other assumptions are you referring to?

by eastbayglory on Jul 3, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Your whole motion on signing Millsap

is based on the Jazz signing Millsap to that extension than we trade for him. The Warriors have no cap to play with (just the MLE) and Millsap will earn more than that.

Lets say the Jazz do sign him why would they trade him to us for unproven players. They didnt want Boozer to stay cause they want Millsap as the 4 for the future.

The problem is the Warriors dont have a SUPERSTAR. Well you can make the claim that the only superstars are LBJ, Kobe, Dwayde, Melo?

Even if so they dont even have a star. You need stars to win in this game.

The only players on this roster that have star potential is Ellis and Randolph (maybe..long shot…shot in the dark…curry…way too early to tell).

If ellis makes the jump to 25 ppg, which I think he can, and Randolph puts up 17 and 9 and if everything goes their way they can possibly be around 45-48 wins.

Current roster and best case scenario your just wishing for a .500 season.

by CSalMJS on Jul 3, 2009 1:55 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Superstars

You forget about: Howard, CP3, D-Will, Amare, Bosh, KG, Pierce, Duncan, Dirk, Roy, and Yao.

by ZaMzAm FiRe on Jul 3, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Definitely, Millsap would only be moved if the Jazz find their cap situation unbearable

By overwhelming them with pieces that we probably can’t use effectively anyway (Wright, Buike, next year’s #1), maybe we can get their attention.

But my guess is they’ll probably ride it out, pay the luxury tax one year, and then let Boozer walk next offseason.

Of course I agree with your point that we don’t have superstars. And yes, best case next year might be .500. But I’m trying to take stock of where we are and what the best move might be moving forward.

Maybe our current talent develops into a legit playoff team or at the very least, into actual tradable assets. Either way, I don’t see how we woo a superstar to the Bay without letting our youth develop and our reputation heal. That’s all I’m saying.

by eastbayglory on Jul 3, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It has nothing to do with getting their attention and everything to do with a S-‘n’-T for a guy due to get a big, big raise is near impossible.

by jae on Jul 3, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with everything you're saying

It is a long shot, but given our current contract situation, we should try.

The point of the post was to wrestle with where we are: 1. locked up with many contracts for the next 4 years 2. not a desirable free-agent or trade destination 3. still very talented but young and in need of development and playing time. My point was that acquiring a Millsap or Lee type player would be a better focus for this team than breaking the bank for an Amare or Bosh. Staying pat with what we have is also a better option than the latter.

by eastbayglory on Jul 3, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, we really shouldn’t try. It is virtually impossible to pull off a sign and trade for a guy coming off a low dollar contract who will be getting a big raise and expecting an even bigger raise to come to the Warriors. The numbers don’t work. It is not worth considering if you believe what you are considering is even remotely in the realm of reality. It really isn’t much different from saying we should consider going back in time and drafting better. We might be better off with a Millsap or Lee, but we don’t have the means to get one.

by jae on Jul 3, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

so a sign and trade would be more suited for Boozer or Kirilenko. I see what you're saying.

But I suspect that the Jazz will ride out the luxury tax hit and just let Boozer walk next offseason. Even if they would offer Booz or Ak47, I say it’s not worth it because of my larger point, which is that we’re not going to be at the best juncture to make a win now move for another couple years.

Are there any Millsap-like players that you think we can afford? or do you think we should just stick with Wright and see what he can do?

by eastbayglory on Jul 3, 2009 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"

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

Start posting about the Warriors »

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

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Help Fire Don Nelson By Signing Petition
We_re_back__small
Terms of Service and Moderation on GSoM...
Small
Five Good Things So Far
484214594_82b6b3554a_small
The Warriors as Simpsons
Drmlg_logo-gmail_small
Live-Tweeting from Row 8!!! (GSoM's Charity Auction seats)

Recent FanPosts

Small
Don't trade Stephen Jackson
Pitofdespairguy_small
Warriors Chemistry and Leadership
Drmlg_logo-gmail_small
Jonny Flynn, Wayne Ellington, Corey Brewer: Summer Glimpse to Fall For-Real
Sp_baron_edited_small
Could the Warriors run the triangle offense?
Small
Would you be opposed to trading Ellis?
Australian_flag_reduced_small
Miami Interested in Stephen Jackson Trade
Small
Who is your starting 5 if you ran the team?
Follett_small
The Golden State Warriors players have already given up on Don Nelson
Photo-225x300_small
On Mikki Moore, Anthony Randolph, and 'Done' Nelson

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

GSoM Motto

"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"

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

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

Chef_randolph_gs_small Tony.psd

Japan_by_miaumi_small YaoButtaMing

Small jae