Rumor: Warriors holding out for 1st round pick or cash from Magic for C.J. Watson
by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 11, 2009 8:47 AM PDT
in Rumors
100 comments
UPDATE (11:58 am): Check out some related thoughts from the good folks over at Third Quarter Collapse.
This is what the Warriors are trying to do to the Magic right now. [via i282.photobucket.com]
JUMP!
My partner in trying to make some of the slowest parts of the NBA offseason interesting Adam Lauridsen has the 411 in Watson's Future, My Nightmare Rotation, and Wright's Ups and Downs [Fast Break]:
the Magic's preferred offer for Watson is apparently a chunk of the Turkoglu trade exception, a second round pick and the rights to Milovan Rakovic (read the Magic summer league bio here - he didn't play due to the absence of a contract, possibly to keep him available as an easier-to-move trading chip). It sounded earlier this summer as if the Magic and CJ had worked out the numbers on a deal, so the sticking point here is likely the Warriors holding out for a first round pick, cash, or both.
If the Warriors can net a trade exception, a second round pick, and Rakovic for Watson I'll be impressed. If they can steal a first round pick from the Magic for Watson I will be amazed. Neither move is going to directly help the Warriors improve one bit on last season's 29 win disaster, but that's still some good stuff.
Building off what my another one of my partners in trying to make some of the slowest parts of the NBA offseason interesting JAE noted earlier in Belinelli Traded, World Does Not End: State of the Warriors after the trade, Nellie and Riley seem to be going out of there way to stockpile trade exceptions and expiring contracts (Speedy Claxton- $5.2 million, Acie Law- $2.2 million, Devean George- $1.6 million, and possibly Brandan Wright- $2.7 million). Who knows if they'll land a major impact player before opening night Wednesday October 28th at the Roaracle against the Yao and TMac-less Houston Rockets (see 2009-2010 Golden State Warriors Schedule + 82 "Unstoppable Baby!" Predictions) with these cap friendly contracts- fingers still crossed- but I do expect them to be major trade players in-season and at the 2010 trade deadline. Remember that's when Speedy had his most amazing act for the Dubs the first time around (see Warriors Acquire Two-Time All-Star Baron Davis From New Orleans- Warriors.com).
Wat's on:
- Rumor: Magic and Warriors talking sign-and-trade for C.J. Watson
- RUMOR: Magic to Sign Warriors Restricted Free Agent C.J. Watson
0 recs |
100 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Seems like everyone’s playing this right thus far: it makes sense for the Warriors to demand a first-rounder, at least for now, and it makes sense for the Magic to refuse to part with that, at least for now.
If the Magic don’t budge, there’s really not much worthwhile for us in the package they’re offering. Any TPE we get for CJ will be close to worthless, as it can’t be combined with players, and second-round picks are close to meaningless. I guess Rakovic could be an end-of-the-bench big, but nothing about him screams “get this guy now”.
Still and all, if it’s the best we can get, I’d hope we make that deal, for CJ’s sake. We have no room for him, but he’s good enough to deserve the chance to play somewhere else.
by onlxn on Aug 11, 2009 9:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
I wouldn’t mind settling for Ryan Anderson
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 11, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think thats true. I assume Barnes, Gortat, and Bass will all play a lot more minutes than Anderson. Their roster is pretty unbalanced with a lot of depth in the frontcourt and not much in the backcourt. If you figure Howard and Gortat will eat up all the minutes at the 5 that leaves Gortat, Lewis, Carter, Barnes, Bass, and Pietrus at the 3/4. There’s plenty of depth there even if Carter and Pietrus play a lot of minutes at the 2.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 11, 2009 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d imagine Carter, Pietrus and Barnes will spend all their time at the wing (keep in mind this isn’t the Warriors, Barnes is a 3), and Lewis might spend some time at the 3 (he barely played any 3 last season, but really him and Turkoglu were pretty interchangeable at 3/4, but Turkoglu was always classified at the 3). That leaves some big man depth, and seeing as how Anderson is a legit 4 that can shoot the ball, I’d imagine they’d want to keep him. Bass just isn’t that good and doesn’t seem like a good fit next to Howard at all.
by Missing Barry on Aug 12, 2009 6:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, judging by their fans on Third Quarter Collapse there is little likelihood Orl would include Anderson for CJ Watson. I wouldn’t either.
by hardcore on Aug 12, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2nd round picks
Yeah, Monta is worthless.
by bojangles408 on Aug 11, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sigh.
Of course there are some 2nd round picks that turn out fine. But there are more, a LOT more, that don’t amount to anything. In general second round picks are pretty worthless because teams don’t want to clear the roster spot for a project. Many will just freely waive their picks before the season.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 11, 2009 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CJ Watson
I have a better idea. We give the Magic Acie Law and Speedie Claxton and cash, then we resign CJ Watson.
What has Acie Law even done to solidify a spot on our roster? Now we are going to let CJ Watson go? CJ cannot defend, but he was a consistant scorer and like Anthony Randolph, CJ played very well the last month of the season.
by CrustyRim on Aug 11, 2009 9:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I seriously doubt Acie Law will be in our rotation… in fact, I doubt he even suits up much.
If you assume that Biedrins, Turiaf, Randolph, Wright, and whatever extraneous big take up all the minutes at 4 and 5, that leaves 144 minutes a game for Monta, Jack, Maggette, Azubuike, Morrow and Curry. If you assume an average of 32 minutes each for Monta, Jack and Maggette, you’re left with 48 minutes per night for Azubuike, Morrow and Curry to split. That’s arguably too little as it stands, without injecting CJ or Law into the mix.
CJ is a vastly better player than Acie Law, but Law’s expiring contract is more useful to us than CJ’s production. As much as I like CJ, I don’t see the fit for him here.
by onlxn on Aug 11, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CJ is a vastly better player than Acie Law, but Law’s expiring contract is more useful to us than CJ’s production.
I doubt it is if we want to win? Now that crawford and Marco are gone we need CJ.
Montay and curr-bury are two poor bets to pin all our point guard hopes on? CJ has at least shown he can play the position as nellie wants it played, Law hasn’t and I think speedy is not swift?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 11, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Montay and curr-bury are two poor bets to pin all our point guard hopes on?”
Let’s be honest here, CJ hasn’t shown any more ability to be a PG than either Monta or Curry at this point. You could argue he’s shown less ability than Monta so far. 3.4 and 3.9 assists per 36 in his two years. CJ is basically a SG even more undersized than Monta…
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CJ hasn’t shown any more ability to be a PG than either Monta or Curry at this point.
but he’s stepped up when we needed him and now we are down to less choices so we’ll probably need him again.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 11, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we need C.J. to “step up” things have gone so horribly, horribly wrong that it’s not really worth thinking about. The number of minutes available aren’t many. Adding an additional body to compete for them is subject to some rather significant diminishing returns on the investment. Resources are not limitless.
I have been underwhelmed with him as a point guard, as much as I’ve been underwhelmed by Monta in the role. It remains to be seen if Curry can perform there at the NBA level, but to say he’s a poor bet and that somehow justifies Watson, who has shown that he isn’t really a point guard requires some convoluted logic.
by jae on Aug 11, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we get Rakovic's rights
Does that add anything to the warrior’s cap situation and can he be traded the same way as other players?
by mosdl on Aug 11, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rights are free. Only contracts count towards the cap.
by jae on Aug 11, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So it seems then that the warriors are interested in the player, as getting his rights does nothing financially to the team
by mosdl on Aug 11, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But even the rights to a player can be considered a trading chip. Doesn’t mean they want to play him or sign him to a contract for that matter.
WARRIORS BASKETBALL!!! Patiently waiting for a title...I may be waiting for a long time...
by JustSomeName on Aug 11, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he has shown alot more than curry so far
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
by montadaboss on Aug 11, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If by that you mean he’s shown an ineptitude for playing PG, whereas Curry has yet to show anything…sure.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CJ is not an inept point guard
He is not a starter but hes a nice 8th or 9th guy on the bench…seeing a top 4 team in the league thinks of him that high.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
by montadaboss on Aug 11, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His career high is 3.9 assists per 36 minutes. To put it bluntly, he’s not a distributor. Monta has shown more ability to get his teammates involved than C.J. thus far. Basically, CJ is an undersized 2, much like Monta (but not nearly as good, and more undersized). The only thing that makes CJ look like a PG is his height.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
seeing a top 4 team in the league thinks of him that high...
… relative to what is available on the FA market now, and to their PG depth, yes. However they also did not go overboard in the offer to CJ even when compared to some other backup PGs in the league
by hardcore on Aug 11, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Awesome idea!
Yeah, every team in the league with little to no salary cap room is willing to take on our garbage contracts.
by Aemoc on Aug 11, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a 1st rounder for C.J.??
Lets do it!
Trains , planes, and automoblies,.... better have my donuts!!!!
by dubzero23 on Aug 11, 2009 11:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
a magic 1st rounder
Means a 20something pick since they will be really good most likely.
by mosdl on Aug 11, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we can trade it to Houston
They have a GM who knows how to get value out of late round picks. It’s valuable to someone…
by b.radley on Aug 11, 2009 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A 20th something pick isnt a bad thing to have,
you can either get players with limitations that will become solid role players, or gamble on top prospect players that came out too early, have injury problems, or off court problems. Its a 1 in 3 chance you get a solid role player, or even a 1 in 10 you get a starter or even a star.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Aug 11, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
with their cap numbers looking almost the same for the 2010/2011 season i don’t see why the magic would want to cleave to that guaranteed money.
i don’t particularly think the pick will be useful to the warriors aside from another stockpiled trade asset though.
by so ill so d0pe on Aug 11, 2009 11:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
One key thing that a 1st rounder from the Magic next year or the year after does, even though the pick itself is not likely to bring a quality player, is that it allows us to trade our first rounder next year in the right deal. Presently, we cannot deal our future 1sts for another 4 years as the Marcus Williams deal and the restriction on trading away 1st rounders in successive years blocks us from using the 2010 pick as bargaining material in a trade. Holding another 1st removes the latter restriction which prevents us from including a first in a package for another player.
by jae on Aug 11, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I usually wouldn’t question you – but, are you sure
1. that the MW trade requires GSW to send a #1 in all cases? I’d thought there was a scenario in which it reverted to a Rd#2 pick, and thus wouldn’t impact our ability to move our #1.
2. that the MW trade impacts our draft all 4 years? I know there is some flexibility of when the trade gets completed, but if they don’t take the pick in any given year we still have it to use or trade based upon having used the previous year’s #1, don’t we?
by hardcore on Aug 11, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty sure about this.
If the pick remains protected for 3 years (starting in 2011) and isn’t conveyed to NJ, it converts to a second rounder (or maybe it was 2 seconds; they’re usually worthless so I tend to forget). The issue is that until it’s conveyed or until we somehow manage to change the terms, we have to behave as if it’s not available and we won’t know when it’s going to go away until the actual year it gets traded. We can’t presently trade the pick in any of those years because it might be spoken for in any of those years and unlike airlines, where they appear to be able to sell more seats than they have an hope that someone doesn’t show up (or tell someone he’s shafted if everyone does) the CBA doesn’t allow you to trade what you do not have.
The MW pick impacts our 1st round draft for 4 years or until the pick is conveyed and our 2nd rounder the next year (unless a first is conveyed). It impacts our 1st next year in that we cannot trade it yet without having another 1st to replace it. The league has rules about trading away consecutive future 1sts as well. Can’t do it (though if you have another 1st from another source, this ban is lifted. For the time being, we have traded away our 2011 pick, so we cannot trade the 2010 pick as they would be consecutive picks, even though the 2011 pick might not go away. We don’t know that yet.
There are ways around this if we can change the terms of the pick (e.g offer to remove restrictions on 2013 in return for agreeing to send it that year and not earlier). But overall, the MW trade, even though it’s unlikely to send off a particularly valuable pick, still manages to make things difficult for future dealings.
by jae on Aug 11, 2009 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
couldn’t we structure the trade such that it covers the MW scenario? we make a similarly structured deal with Orlando for a conditional 1st that reverts to two 2nds if not made in the same time frame as the Nets. If the Nets take the first from the MW trade, we could then take the first from the CJ deal. We’d then be able to cover our sequential 1st Rd pick issue.
by hardcore on Aug 11, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Magic would have to give up a player as well in this deal in order to meet Watson’s contract demands. So in reality we would be taking on an expiring contract (JJ reddick??) and a 1st rd pick in this deal. That is two more trade assets for the Warriors.
by nocal81 on Aug 11, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CJ’s not demanding anything: GSW made a qualifying offer to retain the ability to match any offer to him as an RFA, the Magic offered more and we could have let him go, matched, or work out a trade.
by hardcore on Aug 11, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, if the Magic offered more and he agreed to their offer sheet, we cannot work out a trade at that point. At that point we can match and keep him or let him walk, but he’s untradeable at that point. He hasn’t signed an offer sheet, probably because no actual offer has been made as the Magic and his agent are trying to work out a way where he won’t get an offer that’s a no brainer to match. Those offers would be small, which he doesn’t want, but without some sort of deal involving the Warriors, small is all the Magic can presently offer.
Worst case scenario is that he gets fed up, signs a low ball offer sheet and we match, meaning we’d likely have disgruntled player (when gruntled players are what we need now) who wants to be elsewhere and who cannot be traded until later in the season.
by jae on Aug 11, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CJ is said to be asking for a multi year deal with escalating yearly figures starting at around 3 million and going up. The link was provided earlier on the site. I will attempt to find and post it
by nocal81 on Aug 11, 2009 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt it
There are reports that says Magic might sign one of the veterans like Tinsley and Williams. They already have a healthy Nelson and veteran Johnson so why would they give up 1st rounder for Watson who will pretty much be a back up in this league. I will be surprised if the Magic gives up their first round, a good price is a second rounder plus trade exception. I would love if we get Ryan Anderson in exchange of Watson.
Waaaarroirs
by puffylove on Aug 11, 2009 12:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They cannot afford either Williams or Tinsley. Both will be demanding more money then Watson. If Orlando truly needs a backup PG with their cap situation this may be one of the only options. We are at a position of strength right now. Why not ask for a top return?
by nocal81 on Aug 11, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why don' t they take it?
Some of Hedo TPE, 2nd Rounder and the rights to Milovan Rakovic.
Monta Ellis- 23 ppg 5 asst 5 rebs 2 stls
Get Back to Basketball, your Mopeding too much!
by Sinigang on Aug 11, 2009 2:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Because a TPE means nothing to the Warriors.
Look we burned 10 million dollar TPE we got in the J-Rich deal. A TPE is just going to sit used. Plus we have leverage on Orlando because they don’t want to sight Watson using one of their exemptions to sign him. Unless Watson comes up with another suitor the ball in Golden State’s court. Hell I’d even take a conditional 1st rounder (so long as it doesn’t expire or turn into 2nd rounder).
As for Milovan Rakovic. he’s such an obscure project that not even Draftexpress.com has an relevant information on him. Though, Nellie’s boy Donnie did draft him for the Mavs in 2007. So we could imply that Nellie might have a trick up his sleeve with that guy (but that just conjecture more than anything else).
A Sonics fan without a team... but after 6 seasons now of GS Warriors season tickets have convinced me to adopt the boys from Oakland.
by mcwalter44 on Aug 11, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
TPEs aren’t something that are traded. They are not a thing that can be handed from one team to another. The TPE is a mechanism allowing teams to complete trades when they are over the cap. The trade does not need to be simultaneous. If a team does not use up all of the space they created by sending a player out in one deal, they have a year to use it in another trade. It’s just empty space for another trade. It does not change hands.
However, if the Magic and get Watson to agree to a contract that fits with the first year smaller than the TPE that they have, then the Warriors can do a sign-and-trade with Watson where we don’t have to take back any salary and we’d create a fresh new shiny TPE of our very own equal to whatever we signed Watson for at the point of trading him.
If we get anything back for Watson that doesn’t come with a cap hit, it’s a bonus over letting him walk. Creating a small TPE probably won’t help anything, but it might. It’s another chip that may or may not be useful at some point in the future, as would be a draft pick or the rights to Mxyzptlk.
by jae on Aug 11, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
the trade exception will be half what we sign CJ because of BYC
making the TE even more meaningless. But whatever, its more than what we got for Belinelli.
by Bob on Aug 11, 2009 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True. Though BYC isn’t always half of a player’s contract, it likely will be with any contract he’s willing to sign and almost any contract he’s willing to sign will trigger BYC. It will be at minimum the size of a min-salary contract which could help ever so slightly, though odds don’t favor it.
by jae on Aug 11, 2009 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well judging that the magic are gonna be playoff contenders next year and most likely the year after.
i wouldn’t mind trading our own 2nd round pick for a 1st rounder next year or the year after. they would probably want to do it because they don’t really have a backup pg (i think), and jameer nelson is still questionable on being happy.
2009-2010 chef's menu:
Buike Burgers
Stack Jacks (singles, doubles, triples)
Beans
Magnuggets
Randolph's Red light specials
Stephen's Curry
Ronny-O's
Speedy Dogs
Acie's arena apple pies
Bwright's Blocks of Brownies
Devean's three ring/three scoop sundaes
CJ (calmansi juice, free refills courtsey of AMMO)
Monta's Mississippi Milkshake
by seven72deuce on Aug 11, 2009 2:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
whoops not happy
i meant healthy.
2009-2010 chef's menu:
Buike Burgers
Stack Jacks (singles, doubles, triples)
Beans
Magnuggets
Randolph's Red light specials
Stephen's Curry
Ronny-O's
Speedy Dogs
Acie's arena apple pies
Bwright's Blocks of Brownies
Devean's three ring/three scoop sundaes
CJ (calmansi juice, free refills courtsey of AMMO)
Monta's Mississippi Milkshake
by seven72deuce on Aug 11, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Position Of Strength
Watson is a Restricted Free Agent, which means we have the right to match any offer he receives, i am not saying we will, but we have the right. The Warriors are playing this the best they can, actually genius to some extent. The Magic cannot afford to sign Watson straight up, they don’t have the cap room. So they need to work out a sign and trade. So this means we are at a position of strength right now. Trade Watson to the Magic for JJ reddick and a 1st rd pick. By giving up Reddick the Magic would be able to offer Watson the money that he is demanding and it also gives us another expiring contract. Orlando is in contention mode right now so the pick would be in the late 20’s . The ball is in Orlando’s court. Do they want Watson or not? It doesn’t matter to the Warriors if they get him, they have no invested interest except for taking advantage of the situation.
by nocal81 on Aug 11, 2009 3:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
JJ Redick is better than CJ Watson.
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2009 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No he's not.
Redick and a 1st is probably asking for too much, but Redick is pretty much worse across the board.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 11, 2009 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If by worse across the board you mean a better offensive player, than sure. Based on what I saw in the playoffs, he also looks like he’s capable of becoming a decent on ball man defender, too. Statistically they’re pretty close, it could go either way, but you have to at least acknowledge that it’s not clear cut the way you make it sound (and the way I made it sound here, though I went into more detail later)…
by Missing Barry on Aug 12, 2009 6:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Otis bring Goran Dragic from Phoenix...............................
I think that Otis Smith should take a look at Goran Dragic from phoenix this guy is a star in the making, he can defend, score and more important he can pass the ball like a young Steve Nash, I can see this guy doing very well in the NBA in two or three years from now, I think he will be a perfect choice as a third point guard for Orlando. Otis Smith if you read this comment please take a look in Goran Dragic……………………….
by roger40 on Aug 11, 2009 3:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Otis Smith if you read this comment please take a look in Goran Dragic……………………….
Hey! No helping the opposition.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 11, 2009 4:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
“Hey! No helping the opposition.”
Well, let’s assume he’s right about Dragic. Going from Phoenix to Orlando gets Dragic out of our division and into the other conference (which is good for the Warriors)…
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve totally been hoping and praying that someone gets Dragic out of our division already.
This could be the break the Warriors need to make the playoffs!
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 11, 2009 11:53 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Franny? Because a 1st rounder is not gonna happen...
Why not go after Fran Vasquez? The Magic still hold his rights, and according to the Orlando Sentinel he is not coming over here this year.
“Don’t get your hopes up that Fran Vazquez will join the Magic for the 2009-10 season, Magic fans. Vazquez, the 6-foot-10 Spaniard who spurned the Magic after he was picked 11th overall in the 2005 draft, still has another year on his contract in Europe, Magic General Manager Otis Smith said moments ago” – http://tinyurl.com/r9wytr
I would definitely give up CJ for a chance to bring in this guy…averaged only 13ppg/7rpg in Spain last year, but it’s better than nothing.
by warriorfan4eva on Aug 11, 2009 4:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I can't believe we're playing hardball using CJ
but give away Belinelli for crap. Our front office cracks me up.
by Bob on Aug 11, 2009 5:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
cj
played better than bellinelli last year. so idk what you’re talking about
by the bay area on Aug 11, 2009 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CJ is better than Belinelli. And we really don’t know that they haven’t been playing hardball with Marco since last season.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 11, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but give away Belinelli for crap.
Totally different situations. The FO decided not to pick up the option on Marco and at that point he pretty much became an expiring contract. We just got a player that probably wont complain and the FO picked up 1.5mil in the process. We don’t have to help the Magic out at all here, but if they think a back up point guard is their biggest worry (given AJohnson is their backup and Nelson’s shoulder) and can prevent a another finals trip, asking for a bottom of the first round pick isnt ridiculuos at all. That being said, I think the Warriors should bring back Watson.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Aug 11, 2009 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"or cash"
not to stoke the fires unnecessarily, but there is the possibility that all GSW wants is $$$ in order to let (another) surplus guard leave their bench to join the fringe of another team’s rotation
by hardcore on Aug 11, 2009 5:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The point i am attempting to make is that this is a win win situation for the Warriors. Assuming Golden State’s brass has no intention of retaining Watson then we will acquire something of more value then just letting him walk. As i have pointed out before Watson is one of the only “affordable” PG for the Magic. They cannot afford Tinsley or Williams. They cannot work out a trade for either and have it fit under the cap without giving up a rotation player in return. By acquiring a 1st rd pick and Reddick a valuable expiring contract we pull a fast one on Orlando. And trust me this has happened in the NBA before
by nocal81 on Aug 11, 2009 7:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You have some points, I just don’t see why the Magic will give up a 1st rounder and Reddick for Watson. First of all, Reddick is arguably better than Watson (I’d rather have Reddick), so it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for them to include him AND a 1st round pick (which is also probably worth more than Watson). We should get something out of this, but I see that much as being unrealistic…
by Missing Barry on Aug 11, 2009 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
eddick is arguably better than Watson (I’d rather have Reddick)
Why M.B.? Can you make that argument for me? I’m just not seeing it at all. Redick is pretty similar to Marco (I’d argue he’s probably even a little bit worse) and CJ has pretty clearly been better than Marco the last couple years.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 11, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont agree with you sam that Reddick is decidely worse than Watson. I think he is an ok player. That being said, I would rather have Watson (on the Warriors), just because he atleast has the ability to masquerade as a pg and Reddick does not.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Aug 11, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only PG aspect of Watson is his height. He’s a pretty terrible distributor of the ball. Reddick is a better shooter than Watson unquestionably, and has, at this point, scored more efficiently than Watson at a slightly higher rate (career rate is pretty much the same, very tiny edge to Redick). I also like what I saw out of Redick in the playoffs defensively. He doesn’t force any turnovers which is bad, but he showed some ability to be a pretty decent on ball defender.
I aslo don’t get where you think CJ has been clearly better than Marco. If you look at their stats from last season, CJ was only marginally better than Marco. Given his lack of PG ability, CJ just really isn’t a very good player. He’s a more undersized, much worse version of Monta.
by Missing Barry on Aug 12, 2009 6:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s a pretty terrible distributor of the ball.
Simply untrue. CJ doesn’t rack up assists at a huge rate, but his A/TO ratio is excellent — last year it was equal to Rodney Stuckey’s, and better than that of genuine PGs like T.J. Ford, Beno Udrih and D.J. Augustin. CJ rates as a better passer than combo guards like Jamal Crawford and Allen Iverson. People crap on his passing because he screwed up a couple fast breaks, but he’s actually pretty good at it. He’s a dramatically better passer than Monta.
CJ was miles better than Marco last year, and his edge in passing was a huge part of the reason why. I don’t think CJ is a pure point, but he’s a lot closer to being one than you give him credit for.
by onlxn on Aug 12, 2009 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are we looking at the same numbers, the ones that put his assist per 36 minutes rate at 3.9 (a career high, but also his career average). All you’ve done is throw out a bunch of bad distributors to try to make Watson look good by comparison. Compare Watson to any actual PG’s. Aaron Brooks, for example, is a shoot first type PG but still has a 4.5 assist per 36 rate for his career and put up 5.2 as a rookie. One of your examples, TJ Ford, accumulates more than twice as many assists per 36 minutes as Watson. 3.9 to 7.9. Beno Udrih is at 5.1 assists per 36 for his career and DJ Augustin at 4.7. Even Monta had a season at 4.4 per 36. Looking through this, actually, all of your examples are bad. Rodney stuckey racks up 5.5 assists per 36. Even Iverson is at 5.4 per 36 and Crawford is at 4.6, both better than Watson (though they may get theirs simply by dominating the ball). Even Corey Maggette gets 2.7 assists per 36, which isn’t that much worse than Watson…
You used a bad stat to try to defend Watson. First, is a ratio an appropriate way of valuing assists and turnovers? Probably not. Second, are turnovers as much an indication of ball distribution as assists? No. Getting called for a charge is a turnover. Getting your dribble stolen is a turnover. To some extent turnovers factor into passing, but many turnovers also come from other activities, so players more involved in the offense may have an inflated amount of turnovers relative to their passing turnovers. The point is you’ve picked a completely inappropriate gauge to measure Watson with. He simply is not a good distributor, and the facts back that assertion up.
by Missing Barry on Aug 12, 2009 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One more point about A/T ratio to illustrate why it’s not a good stat. Using TJ Ford as an example, who you said has a worse A/T ratio than CJ. Last season Ford had a down year assist wise, but we’ll use last year for this, anyways. CJ Watson had an A/T ratio of 2.24, while Ford only had 2.18. Per 36 minutes, CJ averaged 3.9 assists and 1.8 turnovers, while Ford averaged 6.2 assists and 2.9 turnovers. So Ford averaged 2.3 more assists per 36 minutes while only averaging 1.1 more turnover. When you look at it that way, it doesn’t look the same, does it? Is the increased number of assists more positive than the increased number of turnovers? It may or may not be, but the point is, the ratio can be misleading like that and tell you a completely different story than the rate numbers do.
by Missing Barry on Aug 12, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You used a bad stat to try to defend Watson.
Assist/turnover ratio isn’t a perfect way of assessing how much a player’s passing leads to wins, but it’s certainly better than simple assist totals. A guy who has 10 assists and 6 turnovers is probably hurting his team with his passing; a guy who has two assists and no turnovers is probably helping his team with his passing. Yes, you ideally want your point guard to rack up a bunch of assists, but you also want him to avoid turnovers when he has the ball. CJ does an excellent job of that, and while you may think that shouldn’t count towards his merits as a “distributor”, I do.
are turnovers as much an indication of ball distribution as assists? No.
You’re right! Which is why it’s good that people actually tabulate the types of assists and turnovers that players accrue. 82games.com has an adjusted stat of “assist to bad pass turnover”, which accounts for the types of assists guys record (3-pointer, jumper, close shot, dunk), and only includes passes off turnovers. I think you’d agree that that’s a better measure of passing ability than just plain assist to turnover ratio.
By that metric, CJ Watson is one of the best passers in the league. He tied for 13th best ratio with Lebron and Chauncey. He rated better than Rajon Rondo, Andre Miller, Jason Kidd and Mike Bibby. I think you’ll agree that those four guys are point guards.
Now, that’s not the whole story. Volume does matter… a guy who records eight assists and two turnovers does more to help you than a guy who records four assists and one turnover. And indeed, when 82games accounts for passing volume (I’ll confess that I don’t know exactly how they weigh the two variables, but their track record is good), CJ takes a tumble down the list. Still and all, he rates as a more productive passer than Mo Williams, Jamal Crawford, Derek Fisher, Iverson, Augustin… significantly better than Aaron Brooks. Ben Gordon is called a “combo guard”, and his passing doesn’t rate anywhere near as well as CJ’s.
None of this makes CJ a pure point guard. He isn’t one… his assist totals are too low for that moniker. But when you contend that CJ is “a terrible distributor” or “an undersized 2”, you are, in point of fact, wrong. When CJ passes, he passes very, very well, and his passing is good enough to earn him the “combo guard” label, at worst. Frankly, I’d feel a lot better about this upcoming season if I thought Monta could learn to pass anywhere near as well as CJ.
by onlxn on Aug 12, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Man I usually dig your comments (even when I disagree with your stances), but I think you really overanalyzed the situation here with some questionable metrics.
With his low volume dime totals and nice shooting I’d rate C.J. Watson as a “a terrible distributor” and an “undersized 2”, which I’ve detailed in the past many times. Watson is not the guy you want running your offense. Rondo, Miller, Kidd, Bibby- yes. Watson- nope.
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!"
by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 12, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t want him running my offense either. I wouldn’t take CJ over any of those four… nor did I say I would. I don’t think CJ is good enough to start in the NBA, and while defense is the main reason why, the fact that he’s not a high-volume assist guy is part of that, too.
But he’s a useful player, and a better player than Marco and Redick and several other players he’s been compared to here. And the complaints about his passing are overblown. His results are not bad for a backup point guard.
by onlxn on Aug 12, 2009 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll give you that it seems 82game’s stats that you’re using now are much better than your original simple A/T ratio. However, we’re still back to the ratio problem with their stats (in addition to not knowing how important they rank volume). Is 5 assists and 1 turnover better than 12 assists and 3 turnovers? Ratiowise, yes, but when you look at it in volume – the second player had 7 moree assists and only 2 more turnovers, it looks like the second player was more productive. CJ’s volume is very, very weak, because he’s really just not a distributor/creator for teammates, a trait you want in a PG.
I stand by the fact that he’s a 2 in disguise – in fact, if you go back to 2007-2008 (since Ellis was injured and didn’t qualify for this year), you’ll find Ellis’ passing A/T ratio was better (barely) than Watson’s by 82games’ stats. Watson had a slightly higher volume and silghtly higher passing rating because of the volume, but overall they were pretty much at equal places. That’s with Ellis playing the 2…so yes, Watson looks very much like a 2 as well.
I just want to note that I do place importance on turnovers, and Watson does do a good job of limiting them, however, on the whole, Watson just doesn’t bring enough positive PG traits for me to view him as one.
by Missing Barry on Aug 13, 2009 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is 5 assists and 1 turnover better than 12 assists and 3 turnovers?
No. In terms of its probable impact on winning, an assist is worth about half of what a turnover costs you. 12 assists and 3 turnovers is about twice as good as 5 assists and 1 turnover.
by jae on Aug 13, 2009 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reddick is a better shooter than Watson unquestionably, and has, at this point, scored more efficiently than Watson at a slightly higher rate
Watson’s TS% was better than Redick’s last year.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 12, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was also Watson’s best year for TS%, and Redick’s worst. Redick’s career TS% is higher, and he’s been better than Watson’s best year 2 of his 3 seasons in the NBA.
by Missing Barry on Aug 12, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats pretty misleading
Last year was only Watson’s 2nd year and he played 4 times as many minutes as he did in his first year. Redick played way more minutes last season than he did in his first 2 seasons combined. They might be similarly good shooters or similarly efficient scorers but saying Redick is “unquestionably” a better shooter is just false.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 13, 2009 4:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My original statement, where I said that, was based on their career numbers. Redick’s career TS% is higher than Watson’s. There’s really not much more to say.
by Missing Barry on Aug 13, 2009 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but in the season where both players played way more minutes than the rest of their career combined, Watson was better. That’s more than enough evidence to say Redick is not “unquestionably” a better shooter.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 13, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess if you want to pick and choose which season best suits your purposes. I could easily counter by showing how consistent Redick’s has been over all 3 seasons, and noting that both seasons previous he was at the exact same line (which was higher than Watson’s this year). Basically, any time we pick a certain year while ignoring others is suspect, so I think the best compromise is career, obviously because it supports my argument. :)
by Missing Barry on Aug 13, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reddick is arguably better than Watson
I don’t think he’s got CJ’s heart?
CJ played 24 min per game last year with 2.5 R,2.7A,1.2S,9.5P which translates to 36 min. numbers of 3.7R,4A,1.2S,and 14P , not too bad for a cheap backup with a good attitude and crowd appeal? and jae says his 36 per game projections would likely improve if he actually played 36 min.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 11, 2009 9:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How is it that CJ’s number will improve if he averaged 36 minutes? When just last week the same poster said Wright’s numbers would go down given the same example???
by nocal81 on Aug 11, 2009 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“I don’t think he’s got CJ’s heart?”
Let me know the next time “heart” wins a basketball game. In all seriousness, if you’re talking about toughness and effort and such, give me any example where CJ manned up on D the way Redick did in the playoffs. I also like how conveniently CJ’s numbers would likely improve if he averaged 36 minutes, but Redick’s would not?
by Missing Barry on Aug 12, 2009 6:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Riley playin hardball
Gerald Madkins.
by gorrillas on Aug 11, 2009 11:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"I Don't Think He Has CJ's Heart"
Did you watch him play at Duke? As a Blue Devil fan, and one that has gone to a couple games in Durham i will tell you one thing. JJ is all heart and passion. That said CJ is a better player then Reddick who may not amount to anything more then a 10th or 11th man. But the reason for taking him is because of the expiring contract and it would allow the Magic to offer CJ more money then they can now. Wherever JJ ends up he won’t be in the rotation it’s just to once again stockpile another expiring contract, but this time receive a draft pick as well. If we were to receive Reddick in this deal then i would take a one or two 2nd rd picks instead of a 1st rd pick due to the trade flexibility that he provides to the warriors to go a long with Claxton, Law, George and Wright.
by nocal81 on Aug 11, 2009 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we were to receive Reddick in this deal then i would take a one or two 2nd rd picks instead of a 1st rd pick due to the trade flexibility that he provides to the warriors to go a long with Claxton, Law, George and Wright.
theoretically yes, but realistically there are few three-for-one deals in the NBA, much less 5+ player deals (our own deal with Indy not withstanding) so the actual benefit of accumulating tons of expirings really rests in our chances of becoming a player in the ’10 FA market. Or, just cutting costs.
by hardcore on Aug 12, 2009 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That said it still remains to be seen if our FO has made the decision to do anything worthwhile with the contracts they have received this off-season and the acquisition of Reddick would leave that same lingering question.
by nocal81 on Aug 11, 2009 11:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Watson was
A steal for us. Generally you keep the steals but in our case were just so loaded with guards we have to make room for the guards with more upside (morrow/curry). It would be really sad to see Watson on the bench when we know he could be a 2nd stringer on many elite teams. Nelly HAS to play Curry 18+mpg this season because you can’t just keep the top scoring player in the NCAA who also would’ve been projected to be a top 5 candidate for ROY if he were on any other lottery team on the bench… right?
by bojangles408 on Aug 12, 2009 1:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Watson sucks. Players that suck are not “steals”. A steal is a useful player like Azubuike, or a player like Randolph if he turns into an All-star. A steal is not a crappy 11th man that only got PT on a not very good team because of injuries. A little harsh on Watson, he probably doesn’t “suck”, but I really don’t see why everyone’s so enamored with a guy that shouldn’t get regular PT.
by Missing Barry on Aug 12, 2009 6:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really don’t see why everyone’s so enamored with a guy that shouldn’t get regular PT.
because the alternatives likely suck more? we know what CJ brings and that he can plug the holes without too much damage till the starters return. Constant player turnover will not build a stable team.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 12, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Constant player turnover will not build a stable team.”
Constant end of the bench turnover is pretty unimportant. As long as the main players stay, the team is stable. CJ is not even close to being a main player.
by Missing Barry on Aug 12, 2009 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As long as the main players stay, the team is stable.
The main players need a backup so why not keep the best backup we have instead of training another one? Every part of a team is important in it’s own way.
BTW, When will we know for sure about CJ’s fate?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 13, 2009 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We already have plenty of 2’s to back up Monta, though…
by Missing Barry on Aug 13, 2009 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We already have plenty of 2’s to back up Monta, though…
We had them but Crawford’s gone and Marco’s gone . Curr-bury is untested so CJ is the best option unless I’m forgetting another guard?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 17, 2009 11:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nelly HAS to play Curry 18+mpg this season because you can’t just keep the top scoring player in the NCAA who also would’ve been projected to be a top 5 candidate for ROY if he were on any other lottery team on the bench… right?
Well according to jae’s stats the average rookie played 17.6 min for the last half century or so but I’d still keep him on the bench if he can’t handle NBA defenses.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 12, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why Not
Sorry. My last post was messed up.
Well why not? Watson doesn’t do much. He only helped out at the point guard position while Monta was injured. But here’s the thing, Orlando has Carter, Dwight, & Lewis now. I don’t see a future first round pick anytime soon. I really can’t see it right now. I think it’ll take forever. But if I had to choose between cash and first round pick, I’ll take the first round pick for the future sakes of the Warriors. Why are the Magic so interested in Warriors? Pietrus, Barnes, and CJ? There we go.
by Tmanmako12 on Aug 12, 2009 7:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What about Ryan Anderson
He is a perfect fit for there system, but then again he’s a perfect fit for ours as well… can shoot the 3, spaces the floor well, rebound, tries on defense and he is a norcal boy.
He’s no star but neither is cj
by tafkasam on Aug 12, 2009 10:10 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.
