Offseason Boredom: Warriors Offer C.J. Watson $4.5 million over 3 years
by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 17, 2009 2:48 PM PDT
in Rumors
Email
PrintUPDATE (8/18/09 8:31am): And it don't stop!
Warriors guard Watson has few options [Inside Bay Area]
Warriors general manager Larry Riley has turned down all the offers he's received for Watson, the latest and most significant coming from the Orlando Magic, according to a person close to the talks. Riley turned down a first-round draft pick, cash and a reserve guard, the source said.
Riley Working Magic with Watson? [Inside the Warriors]
So, with Watson’s only option being a sign-and-trade, his agent, obviously, goes to work looking for a deal. Riley, weighing Watson against what he’s being offered, has said no each time. The latest offer: a first-round pick (which would likely be a really late first-rounder), cash and a guard on the bench (one that is under contract - so likely Anthony Johnson because certainly it wasn’t J.J. Redick. or Jameer Nelson) The result, the Warriors are likely going to get Watson at a bargain. Either Watson will play for the qualifying offer, which is just over a million. Or Watson will sign for three years and $1.5 million a year - which is likely below market value (if Watson were an unrestricted free agent).
Watson Staying With Golden State? [Hoopsworld]
Keep in mind that any deal over the $800,000 Watson earned last season makes him a Base Year Compensation player, and in a sign-and-trade deal the Warriors could only take back 50% of Watson's first year salary, meaning to have any real value to the Warriors, Watson's first year salary would have to be north of $4 million. A Trade Player Exception has no real asset value unless it's over $2 million. A deal involving Anthony Johnson at $1.9 million means a first year salary of almost $4 million; a deal involving J.J. Reddick means a first year salary of almost $6 million - astronomical numbers for C.J. Watson.
Trading Watson: No Time Like the Present [Fast Break]
================================
Jump for the 4-1-1 about the Quiet Storm!
Alex Kennedy has all the "juicy" details over at RealGM. Here's C.J.'s take:
"I haven't decided if I'm going to take that or sign the qualifying offer. I still have to decide but that is the deal on the table."
Get paid C.J.
Another meaningless summer move brought to you by the Golden State Warriors!
Still waiting for that big offseason splash from the Warriors? Still waiting for them to make a high impact move this offseason?
I sure am. Aside from possibly getting the steal of the 2009 NBA Draft in Stephen Curry (the most popular Warrior yet to play a game), the Warriors have done ZERO to fix the many gaping holes in this roster that are obvious to even your average Laker fan. Chris Mullin's gone. I was expecting more than just a lot of talking, posturing, and overrating the "ridiculous upside" on this roster.
Memo to Warriors front office: A shot at a young superstar big man in Amare Stoudemire for a center with ZERO post game who can't guard a single 4 or 5 in the league, a "power" forward who has done next to nothing in the league, and some change would be a great a start! Keep Steve Kerr on speed dial.
From the vault:
RUMOR: Magic to Sign Warriors Restricted Free Agent C.J. Watson
First thing's first. CJ Watson is NOT a point guard just as his D-League stats would have predicted when the Dubs called him up 1.5 seasons ago. Last season he averaged 0.4 more assists/ 36 than... Ronny Turiaf. That shows that Ronny's willing to share the rock of course, but it also shows that Watson's court vision is isn't exactly point guard material- even backup point guard material.
Rumor: Magic and Warriors talking sign-and-trade for C.J. Watson
Sign-and-trades are very difficult to architect in the NBA and I wouldn't be surprised if this dragged out for awhile. Props to the Larry Riley and the Warriors though. I doubt they really want to hold onto Watson, but they're really trying to milk the Magic here. Maybe they can get a 2nd round pick out of this at the least. Looking up and down the Magic roster, the only player I'd rate worse than Watson who the Magic might be willing to deal for him is J.J. Reddick. With 2-guards and swingmen Monta Ellis, Stephen Curry, Stephen Jackson, Anthony Morrow, Corey Maggette, Kelenna Azubuike, Marco Belinelli, Acie Law, and Speedy Claxton, it would pretty much be pointless to unnecessarily muddy that grouping with another 12th man type player.
Rumor: Warriors holding out for 1st round pick or cash from Magic for C.J. Watson
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).
146 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
sigh..
another guard that might or might not get playing time, although i love C.J (Hes one of the few players we had with solid defense) this is not what we need.
Its so damn hot... milk was a bad choice
ya but marco was a whiny little biach
and would have made twice as much money at least. Good move for the money.
by crab dribble cocktail on Aug 17, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions
so marco making 1.5 million is twice the contract of Cj
who theoretically would be paid 1.5 million in this contract. wow. shows your bias with ABSOLUTELY no factual evidence.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
FYI – he would want more on an extension probabaly $3M/yr. So ya he would be twice as much. If he doesn’t get it he will simply go Euro for cash. That is the cold hard facts of the matter.
by crab dribble cocktail on Aug 17, 2009 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Given that these are facts, I assume you can back them up with evidence?
by Missing Barry on Aug 17, 2009 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Cj's D was complete trash
are you joking?
by livingthedream on Aug 17, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I think you replied to the wrong comment?
by Missing Barry on Aug 17, 2009 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Wait! Your saying CJ had solid D?
I thought he was consistant….in his awfulness. The dude can steal, that’s it. Other than that he killed us last year
unpredicted injuries.
maybe he’ll limit it to predicted injuries this year?
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 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions
nobody predict any injuries!!!
OK, my head is firmly stuck in the sand. I know nothing , even if you waterboard me I won’t speak of injuries.
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 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions
watson healthy @ 1.5m > ellis injured @ 11m.
seems obvious, but let’s give credit to watson for playing most of the season with a damaged right arm too. as for injury predictions: I predict ellis will miss at least twenty games, and watson is better insurance than law, until curry is certified ready for significant playing time. All the while, and more so after curry shows his readiness, watson could be useful in those popular multi-player trades.
“I predict ellis will miss at least twenty games”
Based on what? One freak injury in a moped accident that isn’t remotely basketball related? Or is this based on the 77 and 81 games he played the previous two seasons? If you want to predict Maggette will miss at least twenty games, you at least have some reason to say that, I just don’t see why you’d make a completely baseless prediction like this…
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions
people change
it’s just a guess, based on the severity of the ankle injury and the emotional distress to a large degree provoked by Rowell’s response. Ellis is clearly one of the keys to the team’s success, but I’m not completely confident in his sturdiness or reliability, so my prediction comes from my lack of faith.
Emotional distress and injuries are unrelated though. It sounds to me like you should be making a prediction he doesn’t fully return to previous form this year instead of getting injured. His ankle has also had enough recovery time that it should be fine by now, and that’s the only injury concern he’s ever had.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions
watson healthy @ 1.5m > ellis injured @ 11m.
In no way, shape, or form do I agree with that statement. Endorsed by me.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
Oh come on.
CJ’s PER 36 is MUCH better then Ellis PER 0
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Aug 18, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Memo to Warriors front office: A shot at a young superstar big man in Amare Stoudemire for a center with ZERO post game who can’t guard a single 4 or 5 in the league, a “power” forward who has done next to nothing in the league, and some change would be a great a start! Keep Steve Kerr on speed dial.
Honestly, if we don’t make a big move for Amare or Bosh in the next few months I will have lost whats left of the faith I had in our FO.
Andris + Wright/Watson/Law/Claxton/George (some combination of these players) for Amare or Bosh could really drastically change the climate for the Warriors in a positive way. Regardless of how the outcome is, we would at least know that we are trying to win and we are not being disillusion about or players skill or lack there of.
It really disturbs me to think that there are a lot of fans against an Amare deal that involves those players. Delusional expectations from our “solid” players is not going to help us become a perennial playoff team. An all star big man to play along side Monta/Jackson/Randolph will.
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawkGSW on Aug 17, 2009 3:21 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
because you guys are so amazed by curry that he can't be the guy who gets us Amare.
Amare for Wright, biedrins, and curry is a steal. get over the homerism. Amare Stoudemire is worth Stephen Curry.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
That’s what i’m trying to say. Basically anyone should be expendable for Amare. I am hoping though that the moves we have been making are to get us a better deal for Amare.
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
Amare is an old man
…doesn’t play D or rebound well enough to deserve a max contract, and isn’t an ideal center.
He could work out. But the risk of bust is so huge, I DO NOT want the W’s to pull that trigger. Ditto Bosch.
Yeah, we’ve been thru this discussion before. I just hope that if the W’s do have a move up their sleeve, it involves expirings and Maggette for a defensive 3. I want a whole year of Beans, Randolph, Morrow and Monta to show what they can do before we give up on that.
If patience = delusional , then impatience = desperate.
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
It really disturbs me to think that there are a lot of fans against an Amare deal that involves those players.
Obviously as a general NBA rule, you should always be willing to flip a bunch of good players for a great player. Still, there are a bunch of perfectly undisturbing reasons to question an Amare deal. Foremost:
1. We have no idea that a deal can be swung without Curry. Until we hear otherwise, we might as well assume it can’t. Bucher seemed pretty convinced that Curry was a key piece; for all we know he was the centerpiece. If you support a deal on the (mostly reasonable) grounds that we shouldn’t have “delusional expectations from our "solid" players,” you should be perfectly willing to make the deal with Masala.
2. Deal only makes sense if Amare is willing to sign an extension. From everything we’ve heard, he has no particular interest in playing in GS. Obviously you don’t give up AB and Wright ++ for a year rental of anybody. (Well, I’d consider it for a year rental of LeBron, since he’d give us a championship shot, but not for a second-tier star like Amare).
But let’s take a big leap and assume that Phoenix will take the deal sans Curry and that Amare warms up to GS and decides to agree to a nudgenudgewinkwink extension. There are still a bunch of compelling secondary reasons to question a deal:
3. Amare’s a probably a worse defender than Biedrins, on a team with awful defense.
4. Amare’s a worse passer than Biedrins, on a team with no point guard.
5. Amare’s a much worse rebounder than Biedrins, on a team that needs rebounding.
6. Amare isn’t really a center. He happens to play the same position as the one guy on our team with a legit chance of blossoming into a franchise player. Indeed, there’s a strong likelihood he would steal minutes, shots, and opportunity to grow from our best young player.
7. Brandan Wright is cheap, young, productive and shouldn’t be considered a “throw-in.” Trading two big men for one leaves us with only three legit bigs.
8. Amare’s extension will almost certainly be max-level, effectively hitching the franchise’s wagon to a cranky, injury-prone second-tier star PF for the next 5-6 years.
Overall … it’s close, but I’m still on the NO side of the Amare fence — really, with or without Curry. I’m a bit closer to the YES side if the target is Bosh, since he’s a year and a half younger, more durable, not coming of an alarming downturn in his numbers, and not as much of an unmitigated ballhog as Amare. But so far haven’t heard that the Raps remotely interested in a deal centered around Biedrins and Bosh.
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 17, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 9 recs
The way Iook at it is not what Amare lacks. Rather, what Amare will bring. He will bring a dominant force on the offensive end with very high efficiency. He will bring respect back to the Warriors nationally. He will make us a guaranteed playoff team (as long as everyone is healthy).
An unproven, 7th pick, should never be what is holding back a deal for a relatively young, proven, all star big man.
A poor defensive big man that has no real offensive moves (Andris) should not be whats holding back this deal.
An unproven PF (Wright) who is clearly not an integral piece for Nellie should not be holding back this deal.
If this deal involved Monta or Randolph, then we could have reservations. Ellis has proven to be a rising star who can be very efficient, a good rebounder and strong in the passing lanes. Randolph has shown glimpses of stardom.
But the deal involves neither of these players. The deal involves some role players, an unproven college player who hasn’t seen a minute of a real NBA game, and a solid center who has shown no real improvement in his offensive post moves or even his defense. The biggest thing is, these are solid/mediocre players on a BAD team. If a BAD team has an opportunity to turn those players into a proven all star, regardless of the teams needs it should be pursued to the fullest.
People say that we need this, we need that. What we need is a star to build around. We have very solid rising stars in Ellis and Randolph, but having a proven star to be their core will only help our team as long as it is not the last move being made.
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawkGSW on Aug 17, 2009 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
The way Iook at it is not what Amare lacks. Rather, what Amare will bring.
Actually, no: the way I look it at is what he lacks and brings, compared to what the players we’re giving up lack and bring. Call me crazy.
He will bring a dominant force on the offensive end with very high efficiency.
Exactly what Corey Maggette brings. (And don’t tell me what Corey’s weaknesses are: the way you look at a player is what he brings).
He will bring respect back to the Warriors nationally.
Only if the team plays well. With no true point guard, no true center, only three big men who can tie their own shoelaces, poor rebounding and poor defense, we may not be as respected as you hope.
He will make us a guaranteed playoff team.
LA, SA, POR, DEN, DAL, UTA and NO all say hi. PHO, HOU (yes, even without Yao), and possibly LAC and OKC will all want that #8 seed too. Show me my guarantee.
An unproven, 7th pick, should never be what is holding back a deal for a relatively young, proven, all star big man.
Basically agree … but what if the deal were to include the equally “unproven” Blake Griffin instead of Curry? I for one would take Griffin over Amare in a heartbeat, and I think most NBA GMs would do same. Yeah we’re talking about a #1 pick, but where exactly do you draw a line between #1 and #7? #2? #4? What you keep asserting as though they were iron-clad rules are in fact very loose guidelines.
A poor defensive big man that has no real offensive moves (Andris) should not be whats holding back this deal.
I disagree that Biedrins is a poor defender. He shies away from direct contact way more than I’d like him to, but he’s a quick, active weakside defender with a good nose for the ball. Last season per 36 minutes he averaged more steals (1.2 to 0.9) and blocks (1.9 to 1.1) than Amare. Add in his vast superiority as a rebounder (13.4 to 7.9 reb per 36) and it’s not so clear to me “he shouldn’t be what’s holding back this deal.”
An unproven PF (Wright) who is clearly not an integral piece for Nellie should not be holding back this deal.
Agreed.
If this deal involved Monta or Randolph, then we could have reservations.
Your sails lose a whole bunch of wind here. If anything Monta is more flawed, less valuable player than Biedrins. If he ever becomes a legit PG, he could be a star, but then we’re into the realm of “potential” that you seem to have so little patience for. If he simply is what he is, he’s a dynamic undersized shooting guard with poor defensive skills … not exactly the type of guy you refuse to give up for a superstar, or even a borderline superstar like Amare. As for Rudolf … I think we’re all pretty much in agreement there, though if you really want to ignore potential, why wouldn’t you throw him in too? Does potential count for something or doesn’t it?
If a BAD team has an opportunity to turn those players into a proven all star, regardless of the teams needs it should be pursued to the fullest.
“The fullest” would include Randolph.
People say that we need this, we need that. What we need is a star to build around.
Basically agreed. But I’d rather sit tight and take my chances on Randolph becoming that guy than going all-in on a guy who looks to me like the second coming of BD — that is, easily good enough to be the best player on a mediocre team, but way too flawed to take you anywhere interesting if he’s actually the best player on your team. And hey, if Randolph were to blow up so much that Amare became the second-best player on the team … well we’d be in damn fine shape with or without Amare. And as I said above, I think there’s a decent chance Amare’s black-hole-like presence in the post could seriously impede Randolph’s blowing-up process.
Overall: thumbs kinda sorta down.
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 17, 2009 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Can we get that guy?
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
by kenntoe on Aug 17, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Him for Ellis and Azebuike?
I would be so happy if that happened.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
I’d be willing to go so far as to throw in Brandan Wright. Call me crazy, but yeah, I’d do it…
by Missing Barry on Aug 17, 2009 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions
But he needs to sign an extension
A rent a Wade is just as bad as a rent an Amare.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
“A rent a Wade is just as bad as a rent an Amare.”
No. That is not true. A rent a Wade gives us a legitimate shot at the championship. Yes, Wade is that good. Plus I think it at least gives us a shot to resign him, after that talentless garbage he played with in Miami he might see the young guys with actual potential and some talent here and decide he likes it. But the first point is more important, Wade makes a championship contender, Amare makes us a playoff contender.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Basically agreed, though it really depends what we’d have to give up for Wade. If we could get him for, say, Monta and Wright, I agree that we might be a borderline championship contender. If we had to give up Randolph or Biedrins, I’m not sure we’re quite there.
(p.s. — You gotta love the fact that we’re on the subject of Wade simply because I posted a silly picture of him. Ah well: it’s still a good sight less silly than a lot of the stuff that’s being posted in the “Keith Smart” megathread…)
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 18, 2009 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions
re. Silly picture.
It must be a combination of the doldrums of summer + Warrior inactivity + GSOM + Booze.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
Well, I participated out of fantasies of rooting for Dwayne Wade in a Warriors jersey (and yes, if I went into detail, those fantasies would be wildly inappropriate).
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions
How about Ellis and Randolph?
I think I’d grit my teeth and do it.
Wade
Jack
Maggs
Turiaf
Biedrins
--
Curry, Wright, Morrow, Kelenna, CJ + a big body
I think that’s a much better bet to make the playoffs (and maybe a bit of noise there) than our current team minus Curry, Wright, Biedrins and plus Amare. Not that anyone’s offering us Wade for Montay and Rudolf…
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 17, 2009 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s really a somewhat good comparison, though. What do they bring to the table? They both score efficiently and at a pretty good rate. Stoudemire is better than Maggette in both regards, and in fact is among the elite players in the league at these things, but Maggette is very good at them as well. What else do they bring to the table….well, you can argue neither of them bring anything more than that. Maggette’s a decent rebounder, but besides last year, Amare has been, too. Neither of them plays much D. Neither of them is much of a passer or really does much to get their teammates involved offensively.
by Missing Barry on Aug 19, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
The point is amare is a way better player than corey maggette and they do not bring EXACTLY the same thing. Yes, they do put up similar stats in the same categories, but amares are higher in every category, which is why he is a 4 time all-star. He also brings to the table an INSIDE presence which corey maggette cannot match
These are fair points, that’s why it’s only a somewhat good comparison. Amare is better. He also gives us a big man that can create his own shot, something we don’t currently have. The point is in terms of their skillsets, they’re fairly similar in what skills they have, even if the differences you pointed out exist.
by Missing Barry on Aug 19, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
they do not bring EXACTLY the same thing.
This is what is knows as a “straw man” argument.
EXACTLY what Corey Maggette brings, if you want to portray my statement fairly, is “a dominant force on the offensive end with very high efficiency.” Yeah, “dominant” may be a slight overstatement, but overall I think that’s a pretty fair assessment, no? Corey’s a scoring machine who rebounds his position reasonably well and does little else. The fact that he’s a 6’6" small forward, not a 6’10" power forward who brings an INSIDE presence, is pretty clear to most of the readers here, I suspect. Maybe you should take a poll to be sure?
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 19, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the INSIDE aspect of this makes a lot of difference. Amar’e is not only enough better to draw a significantly higher number of double-teams, one of the people who is teaming up on him is the opponent’s best or 2nd best rebounder. Maggette is usually single teamed by the opponent’s 3rd best rebounder. The fact is, Maggette goes to the hole with his defender and if he gets past him, the opponent’s center or the opponent’s PF will help. When Amar’e takes it to the hole, there is only a center left to help. So Amar’e is always going to create more catastrophe’s for opponents.
He’s not only drawing the opponent’s best or 2nd best rebounder to defend him, only one other big man is available to help when Amar’e goes to the hole rather than 2 big men. The increased number of offensive rebounds obtained by an Amar’e shot, his higher FG%, his better TS%, the fact that a Maggette is easily replacable while an Amar’e is not, is a world of difference. It’s not that hard to have Amar’e on the floor and have a SF as good or better than Maggette on the floor at the same time. However, it’s very difficult to have a Maggette on the floor with a PF of Amar’e’s calibur.
There is no contest.
I hate those normal-sized midgets. What are they called again? Oh, yeah. People.
by Naticus on Aug 19, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I stopped reading after you compared amare stoudemire to corey maggette
Actually, my bad: I meant to credit the great Adam Lauridsen for that clever comparison, and neglected to. Damn lack of editing features!
Obviously it’s flawed comparison, but as MB points out, by degrees. At the very least it’s good point of departure for an interesting discussion, no? Not once did I say (or suggest) that they were equal in their production; I was just using the Corey example to bring some perspective to what I thought was a rather simplistic pronouncement about Amare’s strengths. I voiced a bunch of other concerns about Amare, too — none of which you or Hawk seem particularly interested in addressing.
But yeah, if you want to fixate that one point: yes, Amare’s better than Maggs. And yes, he’s an ALL-STAR. Two points for you. And a cookie.
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 19, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Amare wants money
Amare said in Jim Rome burning show that in order to get moved to Gsw, he would have to sign an extension, so he wasn’t against coming to the Warriors he was against being traded before signing an extension. Basically, he doesn’t want to be in new spot and risking playing one year in a new system only to end up having a lousy year and losing millions.
Waaaarroirs
by puffylove on Aug 18, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
says it all really...
I dont dislike the guy….in fact I think he has developed very nicely over the last year. However, he is probably surplus to requirements and we seriously could not have created soem greater value to the club with someform of trade with Orlando????
So…if you were CJ what would you do? Take the money and say…probably a true value for what I am worth and be happy? Or turn down the offer and try to get more court time with another team to prove greater value for someone else? I am sure CJ would hav liked to have been in orlando rather than here, probably a similar amount of playing time, but at least he would be part of a certain playoff team….
Here…not so much at the moment…
It's about heart, It's about fight, It's about being a Warrior!
by BritWarriorGSW on Aug 17, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions
This says it all
Last Tuesday a report from a different writer, Adam Lauridsen of the Bay Area News Group, said the Magic offered the Warriors enough of the Hedo Turkoglu trade exception to cover Watson’s new contract, as well as a second-round draft pick, and the draft rights to Milovan Rakovic.
What else do we want. A trade exemption to add to our expirings(that we could possibly trade), a second round pick, and rights to a pretty solid big man who is still developing.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
The TPE is worthless to anyone but the Warriors.
You can’t put it together with any other players.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
TPE’s cannot be traded. The wording in the quoted text is misleading. The Magic could take him from us using their TPE, but we would not get a TPE from Orlando. The TPE we would create would be equal to the BYC value of Watson’s contract and it cannot be combined with anything else to get a higher priced player.
I wish we could just trade CJ for Fran Vasquez's rights.
Awesome…if it happened. The trademark for any Warrior Rumors.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
ya lets make a trade for a guy who may never play in the NBA. That would go over well. Plus not sure how you balance saalries when the guy is not played in the league yet.
by crab dribble cocktail on Aug 17, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions
You don’t, that’s what the Magic’s trade exception is for.
by Missing Barry on Aug 17, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Why?
We have enough guards who can’t play defense.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
Atma, I didn't know it was possible to turn this into a bash on Andris,
yet you found a way. Congratulations.
a center with ZERO post game who can’t guard a single 4 or 5 in the league
So do you mean to imply that if the Warriors traded Biedrins for Amare that they would be better defensively? Even if you don’t take into account rebounding, but especially if you do, that is clearly false.
Also Biedrins may have no post game, but he’s still one of the most efficient scorers in the league.
Are we really signing Watson for 3 years? Why? We don’t expect to come up with something better than an undersized 2 in the next 3 years? This really isn’t a big deal, $1.5M is barely consequential, I just don’t understand what the process for deciding CJ Watson needs to be on our team for the next 3 years was (especially since we’re into taking cash for players we don’t see figuring into our future plans)…
I get the feeling Nellie just likes the guy.
And/or maybe they’re laying the groundwork for a blockbuster involving Monta or Steph…
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 17, 2009 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t disagree with anything you said, but I’m curious to hear whether you voted “bad deal” or “insignificant.” I’d like to hear why anyone would say this is a bad deal.
Thing A
I voted bad move. 1.) I just don’t like Watson that much, and was kind of looking forward to him leaving. 2.) I just don’t see the direction we’re going with this. That’s pretty much it. :)
by Missing Barry on Aug 17, 2009 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, forgot, 3.) As far as I can see, CJ Watson is a SG in a PG’s body, to at least the same degree Monta is…
We have enough wings, this is just taking a roster spot unnecessarily.
by Missing Barry on Aug 17, 2009 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions
fair enough
but even you said its “barely consequential.” I just don’t see why 126 people (so far) would say “bad move.” But then again, the “great move” voters make only slightly more sense to me.
Thing A
I rarely vote how I actually feel. I go with the most extreme version I can find of what I actually feel to make a statement!
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Haha
then you must love Atma’s polls.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Aug 18, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
We don’t expect to come up with something better than an undersized 2 in the next 3 years?
For our purposes CJ is fine He knows nellie’s game, gives 110% and don’t whine. We could do a lot worse for 1.5 mil, hell we’ll pay Curr-bury that much to see if he’s a bust or not.
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 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions
I’d rather do better for $3M though, especially if it doesn’t involve a 3 year commitment to a player. I’d also rather pay to find out if a player can develop into a very good player than commit 3 years to a backup, undersized 2. I’m not saying that Watson’s a bad player to have on the end of the bench or anything, or that we’re even overpaying him, just that there’s no real reason to make any sort of commitment to a player like him. I think at worst we could easily replace him with an equal talent for that price, and at best that player has more potential (simply being 6’5 instead of 6’2 would qualify as “more potential”). Hey, maybe CJ proves me wrong, his assist numbers did improve at the end of the season, maybe he does turn into an actual PG. Not the decision I make, but really, this is a long paragraph for an issue that’s really just….whatever.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions
It really disturbs me to think that there are a lot of fans against an Amare deal that involves those players.
I have to agree with sleepyfreud, getting Amare should be a NO! Amare doesn’t address what the W’s really need, which is a REBOUNDING,DEFENSIVE,PF that can score. We know Amare can score so can everyone on the W’s, but if we are giving him a max deal possibly shouldn’t he bring some other skills we lack besides just scoring?
Lets not rule out Brandon Wright, he scores effortlessly (especially when given the true chance and is healthy,remember that nuggets game?) and has length & talent. Besides Amare would stunt the growth of a Randolph, because Amare believes he’s due to be the next top tier pf, his plan=tunnel vision, thus stunting the youth growth and i don’t know if that will help the team in the long run. I agree a move needs to be made but giving up two 6’10, 6’11 players for an injury prone,STAR-ved pf I don’t think works long term.
by DFIRST on Aug 17, 2009 7:41 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Why are people looking at filling needs with a BAD team? Why not go after one of the best players available to build around. We would still even be keeping the core of Ellis/Randolph/Jackson.
I still cannot comprehend why people are thinking about filling needs when we are not an established team yet?
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawkGSW on Aug 17, 2009 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Why are people looking at filling needs with a BAD team?
I was just gonna say that. I agree with Sleepy that there are too many question marks surrounding Amare to pull the trigger on that deal (especially with Curry involved) but because this team is so bad I don’t think “Amare doesn’t fill any of this team’s needs” is a very good argument against the trade on its own.
Thing A
Very interesting thoughts on why “filling needs” doesn’t make sense for a team like the Warriors.
I liken it to draft philosophy. You don’t draft for need (unless you’re legitimately 1 rebounder, defender, passer, etc from a title). You take the best player available. Always.
Similarly when you’re a perpetual not-so-super lotto participant, your primary objective isn’t to fill needs (e.g., Warriors need defense, rebounding, and passing). It’s to acquire talent and improve the overall hoops quality of the roster.
Amare does that and he has an infinitely better chance of being an All-Star/ All-NBA caliber player next season that ANYONE on this Warriors roster.
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!"
by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 17, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions
We agree on everything right up until this part:
Amare does that and he has an infinitely better chance of being an All-Star/ All-NBA caliber player next season that ANYONE on this Warriors roster.
Well, technically, I guess he does have a much better chance of being an All-Star because he’s such a big name, I’m just not entirely convinced he would DEFINITELY be the best player in the trade, and if there’s a pretty good chance we’d be giving up the better, younger player with a more favorable contract plus a few nice prospects I don’t like the deal. I’m pretty on-board with blowing the whole thing up and starting almost completely from scratch, but Amare is definitely not the guy I want to be building from scratch around.
Thing A
I don’t see this: “better chance of being an All-Star/ All-NBA caliber player next season that ANYONE on this Warriors roster” as being too important. In fact, I think the focus on “All-star” takes away from the real discussion of what a player does or doesn’t bring to a team. You have good points Atma, I just think ending with the All-star stuff takes away from your real argument somewhat.
I actually just had this very conversation about baseball players and it was ultimately concluded by most of the people involved that people calling someone an All-star as justification that they’re good usually means they can’t come up with any better evidence of the players worth…
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions
When your team sucks, you do whatever it takes to get the best player available. You do not worry about what the player does or doesn’t bring to the team. The biggest selling point should be that we will be keeping our two most talented players in the trade too.
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawkGSW on Aug 18, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions
“When your team sucks, you do whatever it takes to get the best player available.”
No, you do whatever it takes to find pieces that can be used long term. Simply taking the best of what’s available now can, and often will, prevent you from acquiring something better in the future. With Amare there is a legitimate concern he’s a one trick pony and simply doesn’t bring enough to the table to make him worthwhile as a franchise cornerstone. I’m all about acquiring the most talent possible and worrying about fit later, but in this case, I can definitely see the argument that we don’t want to hitch our wagon to Amare and we should wait and find somebody more worthwhile.
This ties nicely into my points about calling someone an “All-star”. If Amare was a real franchise player there would be enough real arguments to what he brings to the table that you don’t have to make the point that “he’s an All-star!” The problem is, he doesn’t bring all these things to the table. Defense is half the game, and he barely plays it. Rebounding is incredibly important, especially out of big men, and his terrible production last year in that aspect is a huge concern.
What’s the opportunity cost of acquiring Amare? It means for the next 5-6 years (I assume that’s how long a max contract/extension would be?) our franchise player is Amare Stoudemire (and we lose the talent required to trade for him). Is the next best option better than that? It very well might be. You may think it’s worth it, but you have to at least acknowledge the fact that there might be a better long term move for the Warriors out there, maybe not this year, but at some point in the next couple of years. It’s definitely not a clear cut issue.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions
No, you do whatever it takes to find pieces that can be used long term. Simply taking the best of what’s available now can, and often will, prevent you from acquiring something better in the future.
I don’t agree with your final conclusion (that Amare isn’t worth it and I don’t believe they’re going to find a better long term move than this young former All-NBA PF unless they luck into the #1 pick), but I actually like this point a lot. Too many times I hear Warriors fans/ management (plus other teams) saying they’re worried about the future and they had to make a silly move now.
Witness the irrational logic behind destroying a playoff team to build around flawed cornerstones Monta Ellis and Andris Biedrins. There will be better options than these guys coming in through the draft and with player development.
There’s a reason Biedrins keeps slipping in those “top 5-10” center discussions. I wouldn’t be surprised if 2nd year pro Brook Lopez even surpasses him next season.
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!"
by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 19, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions
I wouldn’t be surprised if 2nd year pro Brook Lopez even surpasses him next season.
Wouldn’t surprise me, either. I like Lopez a lot; after a slow-ish start he really seemed to come on. Just to throw out FG% (cos I’m too lazy out TS% and per 36 minutes numbers by month):
1st Half of season: Oct .504 / Nov .463 / Dec .508
2nd Half of season: Jan .610 / Feb .571 / Mar .584
Given that kind of trajectory, and his reputation as a hard worker, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Lopez is a Top 5-10 NBA center next season, Heck, with Yao gone, he may be in the running for #2.
As for our old pal Be-a-drinsch: yeah, I agree that his game is probably too flawed to be a “cornerstone” in the strictest sense; but I still don’t see why you think paying $9M per year, non-escalating, for the age 22-27 seasons of an athletic, rebounding beast who suits Nellieball to a tee and plays the toughest position in the NBA to fill (need we go through the depressing list of his predecessors?) is such an unwise allocation of resources. Both financially and in terms of his super-complementary, meat-and-potatoes game, he seems to fit with almost any possible plan for the team’s future. At worst, his age, skill-set, and reasonable pricetag make him highly desirable trading chip in the event a better big man comes along (Amare or Bosh, e.g.). Without AB in the fold, could we even dream about landing players like Bosh and Amare? (A: maybe, but we’d probably have to be willing to give up Randolph instead).
I dunno, to me Biedrins’ contract was as straightforward a decision as Turiaf’s or Kelenna’s. Not only is it not “irrational” — I just don’t see any conceivable downside.
As for Monta … well, unless and until he starts to show some maturity, leadership, and court vision, you could be right that locking him up at $11M per was a bad move, or at least a substantial overpay. I’d guess that right now around the league there’s a lot less interest in his contract than in AB’s. In defense of the signing: at the time of it, he was coming off 3-4 consecutive months of doing a pretty passable impression of Dwyane Wade. Good timing for him; somewhat crappy for the team (esp. since we missed the playoffs anyway, wretched Warriors luck). But since nobody, other than Skeptic con Urquell, could have predicted Mopedgate, I think we should probably give him at least one full healthy season before passing 100% judgment.
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 19, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions
FWIW, apparently Stoudemire got back to working out yesterday.
I’m no longer at all disappointed that a deal hasn’t been made. It would be foolish to extend and trade for a guy that isn’t able to work out enough for you to do any due diligence on his ability to play. Let’s let Amar’e spend a bit more time getting into shape so he can be properly evaluated before sending out good chunks of our team and agreeing to pay him max money until the end of time.
I’d be happy to send off those “good chunks”. Do people not remember that Brandan Wright is damaged goods as well? Wright hasn’t demonstrated much in the NBA. Biedrins missed 20 games last season and had a pretty horrid finish to last year’s season. These are “good chunks” on a horrible team.
I’ll bet Amare blows up big time this season. He’s an unworldly athlete in a league of all-world athletes and unlike the hyper-physically awkward Andris Biedrins he’s actually shown a propensity to add important elements to his game (i.e. a solid midrange jumpshot to keep his scoring potent).
I remain disappointed that the Amare deal has not been made. Even if it’s a “one year rental” (the Warriors would have his Bird rights and I seriously doubt he leaves), that’s pretty much a guarantee that the Warriors will at the very worst be far more watchable. I’d bet on them making the playoffs with him as well. Minus an extension the burden of proof is on Amare to have a blow up season with the Warriors. If he fails, he can kiss his last chance at a max contract goodbye. At the worst one-year-rental-Amare is a great sign and trade. The Warriors have all the cards here.
Sleepy- good points above on Biedrins and Monta. To be honest I had no problem at the time of the Monta signing. It made perfect sense and the terms seemed reasonable, but then again the Warriors should have done a been background check on the guy. Who knows if he’ll even recover from the moped injury. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking it wasn’t serious. He was shut down last season for a reason.
The Biedrins signing did not need to be done last season though- at all. He had ZERO offers from other teams and didn’t seem to spark any interest. He wasn’t the “sexy” offseason splash for any team and the other GMs knew this. If he was on the market right now they could get him for a fraction of that price- especially given the missed games and minimal improvement other than rebounding rate. Last summer he still had “potential” in many people’s eyes. Now I doubt anyone is really expecting him to be a top defender, add much to his fairly nonexistent low post game or even the simplest jumpshot. It’s not the worst contract in the league at all right now, but it could look very bad in a year or two if there’s no improvement and there’s more injuries.
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!"
by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 19, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Fair points.
Basically agreed that the “potential” ship has probably sailed for AB — or at least that now that he’s the ripe old age of 23, and coming off a bit of a “plateau” season (better rebound rate, worse efficiency from the floor, better assist rate, worse turnover rate, negligible plus-minus), we should probably start to assume “he is what he is,” give or take.
One thing that especially bummed me out last season was his regression in FT%. I mean, I never expected him to be Rick Barry, but I thought he could at least build a bit on the 62% he managed in 07/08. At age 22, reverting to 55%, and at times looking even more clueless than that, seems like a pretty bad harbinger. I know FT% doesn’t count for that much in terms of wins (the Lakeshow did OK with Shaq bricking half of his FTs) but it counts for a lot in terms of my peace of mind and aesthetic enjoyment. I do really love the idea of a future Warriors team built around two 90% FT shooters (Morrow and Curry) and one 80% guy (Randolph; even if he’s 70-75% now, his sweet stroke looks good for 80% to me). Heck, I get happy in the pants just watching the way Curry and Morrow release the ball …
Anyway, even if AB is nothing but “what he is” — an elite rebounder with a nice touch around the rim, quick feet, great effort/attitude, a brutal FT stroke, and average defense — that’s easily worth $9M a year in my book.
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 19, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions
even if AB is nothing but "what he is" — an elite rebounder with a nice touch around the rim, quick feet, great effort/attitude, a brutal FT stroke, and average defense — that’s easily worth $9M a year in my book.
Well none of these guys are worth what the sport pays them but that’s another story.
I’m happy with Dris for now because if Rudolf can play under control and not hurt himself I think the tandem will be pretty good. Lots of rebounds, Rudolf abusing the rim pretty regularly, Dris slippin in when the defense keys on Rudolf. Add Rony and BrokenWing and we’re pretty sound at the front.
I’m more concerned with our point guard situation, no real point talent…one trigger happy rookie who’s never been in an NBA game, one damaged dwarf combo guard, a Law of average, old speedy(not) and CJ ? Actually makes me miss Crawford and Marco and that’s not a good way to feel.
The middle ground seems solid if unspectacular with Jax, MoreO, Maggete, Kellena so I’m expecting a .500 season more or less.
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 19, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Well none of these guys are worth what the sport pays them but that’s another story.
Of course they’re worth it. Not only would multiple other teams in the NBA have paid Biedrins as much or more than the Warriors did, but he could probably get a similar amount in Europe as well
Thing C
Of course they’re worth it.
Yeah, they’re real saints. They do a vital service to mankind. They create new medicines? minister to the poor? teach our kids?, negotiate peace?
Oh wait they play a manufactured game for pay and dream up shoes to entice poor kids to spend money they don’t have. and we want to pay them millions?
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 19, 2009 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions
“and we want to pay them millions?”
Yes, yes we do. Look at how much money people drop to see them play, that’s a pretty clear indication that we do want to pay them millions.
by Missing Barry on Aug 19, 2009 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Look at how much money people drop to see them play,
and that’s a good thing? If we payed the players according to their benefit to society we could charge a lot less for tickets and put the money to better use. Fans could use the difference to bulk up their IRA’s or charitable contributions.
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 19, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Ah, so being entertained isn’t a benefit to society. Creating memories that will last a lifetime (We Believe, for instance) isn’t something we should value. I see…
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 7:13 AM PDT up reply actions
so being entertained isn’t a benefit to society. Creating memories that will last a lifetime
Haha, I din’t say we wouldn’t be entertained, I just said tickets would cost a lot less if people were paid according to their intrinsic contribution to society. Haha, No one ever reads what I say, they just refute what I don’t say.
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 20, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
But the implication of people being paid on their intrinsic contribution is that the only important thing is the intrinsic contribution. I understand what you’re saying, I’m just taking the analysis farther – obviously what an athlete adds to society intrinsicly isn’t worth what they’re paid, I don’t have a disagreement with that, so I ask the question…why should that be the determining factor in their pay? Simply looking at it from a different perspective doesn’t mean I’m not reading/comprehending what you say…
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I apologize for the human race, which unfortunately often puts such things as amusement and pastimes ahead of charity, generosity, kindness, and friendship.
Still, we are the way we are. I don’t see a point in lamenting that. (“How dare humans have sex for fun instead of volunteering down at the soup kitchen!”)
Thing C
How dare humans have sex for fun instead of volunteering down at the soup kitchen!
I don’t think it has to be one or the other, women who volunteer at the soup kitchen are very sexy.
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 20, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions
BrokenWing
Instant classic. That may be the best yet. I now want hang on to BrokenWing, just ’cos his nickname is so much cooler than STAT…
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 19, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions
You do have some fair points – I thought it was funny that while Amare’s rebound rate has been regressing you credit him with adding elements to his game while Biedrins rebound rate improves but he doesn’t add elements to his game. I do see your general point on the issue, I just think the rebounding thing is a very important factor you didn’t give enough credit to. That said, Amare’s career rebounding has been…odd, to say the least. I see no reason he can’t plausibly get back to where he was at his peak…
by Missing Barry on Aug 19, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions
+1
Combo guard is the last of our “needs,” and yet I’d trade that same Amare package for DWade in a heartbeat. I’m totally cool with blowing it up, but if I blow it up I want to shoot the moon, not whack my head on the bottom of a satellite and float around in low-earth orbit for a couple months before crashing back to earth. Amare is simply not a franchise player like Wade. At his peak, he was probably Wade’s equal in terms of productivity, but he never had close to Wade’s leadership qualities. And if he produces at the level he did last year, he’s a lot closer to an empty 20-10 guy like Z-Bo or Al Jefferson than he is to a true franchise guy like Wade.
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 17, 2009 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions
To be fair to Amare, while last year he took a big step backwards for some reason, his best year was arguably the year before that, so he’s not too far removed from that kind of performance. I could definitely see a change of scenery getting him back to that point.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions
True, the numbers before last season are pretty spectacular, and jae definitely assuaged a lot of concerns with his studies that showed not too much off a drop-off in his play without Nash (in smallish sample sizes). What still concerns me is that he’s played the vast majority of his career with the best distributor in the NBA, and by plus/minus he’s never been close to the best player on his team. I just don’t think he’s a “prime mover” on a good team — certainly not defensively (see Garnett, Kevin), and possibly not even offensively. And as I keep repeating: if he gets back to his peak level, he’s almost certainly going to “freeze out” Randolph to some degree. There’s basically no precedent for him “playing nice” with another good post player, and some precedent for him clashing with one.
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 18, 2009 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions
because the team isn't nearly as bad as it looks
and a broken Amar’e pretty much guarantees that the Warriors continue losing with the same consistency that they were post-Webber/Nelson I and Spree/Carlisimo. It is that big a risk.
Despite Atma’s insistence the Dre can’t hang with other centers in the league, his production begs to differ – and he fits the Warriors well. With Turiaf to back him up the Warriors match up well with most teams at center. Randolf (and to a lesser extent Wright) can score, rebound, and defend all but the biggest and best when they get on the court (which will hopefully be a lot more this year.) Jackson/Magette/Azu are a great combination at SF. Jackson/Azu/Morrow/Monta/Curry are a strong combination at SG. Monta/Curry/Watson at point guard has potential to be very good. This combination also has potential to fail miserably.
The Warriors have two needs. They are the same two needs they started the off-season with: a legitimate pass-first point guard and a strong defensive, rebounding PF/C ( Ben Wallace would have made my day) for depth and match-up problems (like Duncan, Yao, and Boozer.) Maybe Ellis and/or Curry step up to meet the PG problem (I hope so. The season is riding on it.) So far the role-player PF/C issue is un-addressed.
The Amar’e trade meets neither of the teams needs – the ones that cause them to be “bad” – and actually (with the trade that was discussed) makes the situation worse by further reducing our front court depth and rebounding ability. If he’s healthy Amar’e probably makes up for this by being Amar’e Stoudamire for near 40 mins a night. If he’s healthy. For 40 mins a night.
Swap Monta for Dre in the Amar’e trade and I take it in a heartbeat (and I still really like Monta Ellis.) Ellis and extras is dealing from a position of strength to get stronger. But Phoenix would never do that, even if Ellis wasn’t come off of an injury himself. They have Nash and even less in their front court than we do.
Amare likes playing center
Amare said he likes playing center because that can create a mismatch. He also noted he isn’t only used as center or pf primarily but he plays something he calls point center. Depending on which teams he will be used differently. I think he could coexist with AR but he can’t with shaq cause shaq takes a lot of space for his game.
Waaaarroirs
by puffylove on Aug 18, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Does the Dubs have enough money next year to sign a Chris Bosh-type of player?
Btw, I like C.J. Watson more than Law and Claxton, but C.J. probably won’t get much playing time.
Does the Dubs have enough money next year to sign a Chris Bosh-type of player?
No.
Btw, I like C.J. Watson more than Law and Claxton, but C.J. probably won’t get much playing time.
Well he’ll get more playing time than Law or Claxton. I assume everyone likes CJ more than Law and Claxton right now. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Speedy and Acie never play a regular season minute in a Warriors jersey.
Thing A
I’m getting tired of these posts/fanposts.
Basically, the only way for the Warriors to avoid criticism is to not make any moves at all!
(Insert “WarGames” reference here.)
I bet if the Warriors decided to fire a member of their marketing department and replace them with a new college grad, people would rolleyes and say “ANOTHER MEANINGLESS MOVE, STUPID WARRIORS FOR JERKS!” Do you people not realize that moves involving the Claxton/Law expirings can’t be made until 2 months after the Crawford trade? That would be a week from today, by the way.
As for my take on the offer? I wish there were a “good” or “fair” option, as I wouldn’t say it’s “great.” But it’s solid enough. Watson is an efficient player who will never be a great PG, but he’s definitely as good or better than some of the other backups out there, and he’ll cost half as much. These may not be headlining moves, but it’s important to have a decent bench, and Watson is a capable backup.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 17, 2009 8:19 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
(Insert "WarGames" reference here.)
—What is the primary goal?
—To win the game.
(Strangely, this how I envision you at your computer, young markdash…)
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 17, 2009 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
With Ally Sheedy standing behind me? You’re giving me entirely too much credit.
Also, I’m 31, gramps. :)
Thing C
Ah well. Then you may have to settle for the grownup version of Ms. Sheedy… :,-(
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 17, 2009 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions
DO NOT WANT?
WTF, you got a lot to learn.
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 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions
but I found this amusing
How desperate was this paparazzo? I love how they had to put a picture of the younger picture of her AND her most famous movie on there. 
http://coopgrafik.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/ally-sheedy.jpg
Thing A
Yes. I would have voted if there was a "Good but not Great" or "Meh" Option.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m as “Meh” on CJ as the next informed Warrior fan, but i’ll give it to the guy—he seems to have a pretty good work ethic. Maybe his utter failings on D has more to do with inexperience (I’d hope so). Hopefully with plenty of room to get better. On a different team, Like say the Magic, I’d bet SVG would get the most out of CJ on defense. Unlike Nellie who gives free passes to his guards to open the floodgates to the rim if they can knock down a jumpshot (and by jumpshot, I mean jumpshot ONLY).
But towards the end of the year, I’d say CJ moved from being classified as an undersized two to a combo guard-lite. I hope upon the highest of all hopes that if CJ comes back, that he learns how to run a proper fast break.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
Towards the end there he was running the break pretty decent
He was just missing the dunks :)
He was just missing the dunks :)
Haha, you want perfection? Remember this is the Warriors we’re talking about ,not practice.
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 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Sadly, we have to wait longer for George to be usable in a trade. But yeah, that’ll be good. Maybe we’ll hear some interesting trade talks or maybe a trade is in the works and will transpire on the day the restriction expires. Hope something good.
Also, I agree with CJ comment. I say, good move. Definitely keep C.J., unless someone makes a better offer. He might end up in a deal with Biedrins, Wright and expirings for hopefully Bargnani. heh heh
I hate those normal-sized midgets. What are they called again? Oh, yeah. People.
What is Watson's trade value?
On Insider today it said that the Magic offered a First, cash, and a reserve guard by Riley declined it.
""We’ve had substantial interest for C.J. Watson in regards to sign-and-trades," Riley told the newspaper Monday. “We haven’t had an offer that’s exceeded C.J.‘s value. We like C.J., and we’ll be working toward bringing him back.”"
Once I saw the first round pick in that story I was wondering why we didn’t pull the trigger.
[obligatory “let’s hold out for Howard” comment here]
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 18, 2009 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions
I tend to agree with Barry.
I doubt that offer was the real offer. Seems too good to be true. Although the value of that 1st rounder is low. A high second round pick is probably better. I’d rather have CJ than any of the Magic’s backup guard.
Frankly, the Warriors’ moves have been perplexing this summer. They haven’t really gotten better. It’s like they’re cutting the fat.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
They haven’t really gotten better. It’s like they’re cutting the fat.
This could be a good thing, maybe it portends an ownership change?
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 18, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
yea, I'm not sure as to whether they are good moves or bad just yet.
Say, If we parlay our crud (speedy, Law and George) + an asset at the deadline for a veteran for the second half push, I’ll then be ready to say it was a good move. But if we let these guys expire, or even worse, let them play (!!!), It’ll be yet another strike against the Warriors by me (current count is up to 1,478 and counting).
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
Simply put, I don’t believe that offer was extended. You know Cohan would have jumped at the cash….
But seriously, a first, cash and a reserve guard is more than Watson is worth – I don’t see the Magic offering that much and I don’t see the Warriors turning it down. Keep in mind, while the 1st would be the very end of the round, acquiring it would give us flexibility we don’t currently have to deal first round picks (given our Marcus Williams trade situation), so it does have value.
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions
On Insider today it said that the Magic offered a First, cash, and a reserve guard by Riley declined it.
This doesn’t sound real. The “reserve guard” part sounds wrong since the Magic lack many bodies in the price-range to make a deal like this work when sending back a player. The only player who I can see the Magic sending out that meets the “reserve guard” criteria is Redick. The BYC limits on Watson in a sign and trade makes it difficult for us to bring him back.
I think Insider is making things up in a slow basketball news month.
interesting
In the comments section in MT-2’s blog, a poster said the Warriors were holding out for Ryan Anderson. This is a totally unconfirmed rumor, but it’s interesting nonetheless. Anderson seems like he’d be a player Nellie would like, seeing as how he played Rob Kurz and unholy amount of minutes. Anderson seems to be a better Kurz, although probably not by much. I’d take that deal though, since we need frontcourt depth rather than a 3rd PG making $1.5M.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
BAm...Bam...bam ,, I know I am beating a dead drum.... But sign and trade CJ and Get Ramon Sessions NOW!!!!!!! beating loudly!!!!!!
This would then require trading our glut of guards away but I am down with that, Can you imagine, Monta, Sessions and Curry as Warriors for the next 5 Years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Add Randolph and Biedrins and you have a hell of a core for years to come, Trade Cj and devean george for Gortat, then I am fine with Jax and Maggs sharing 3 spot but draft or trade for a young 3 and we have a hell of a foundation…..
at or near mle, yes I can see them letting him walk.....
This is Milwaukee we are talking about…
Watson for first rounder sounds good
Woow, I can’t believe Warriors will let auch opportunity get wasted unless and this is the catch, unless Ellis won’t start as a PG but start at SG. This means CJ might compete with Curry at PG position and if he wins, then he will start. I mean why else would u hold on a player for this long if u don’t believe he will get plenty of mins or at least 20 mins a game. Anyone agrees?
Waaaarroirs
Surprised the Warriors didnt work out a 1 year deal
I know Watson would have a hard time swallowing that, but coming from the DLeague he should be happy with whatever he gets. I would also think it would be a positive thing to be available next year with all the big free agents. There will be a lot of movement and he will have more options
by warriorsvictim on Aug 19, 2009 11:20 AM PDT reply actions
The qualifying offer is a one year deal. The Warriors have extended the QO to Watson. It’s in his court to decide if he wants to take it or not.
Were the Magic in a position to make him a multiyear offer, similar to the one we offered? If not, I don’t see the need to work out something more than the qualifying offer to Watson, though if they were (or any other team interested in Watson, if there were any more), it makes sense that we’d work something out with him that’s similar to what we’d expect he could get from another team.
by Missing Barry on Aug 19, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
plus, why hitch yoru wagon to Golden State for too long
As a player I would be worried about where the team is headed in case a sign and trade does not happen
by warriorsvictim on Aug 19, 2009 11:21 AM PDT reply actions
I'm guessing CJW is coming back
.. since Williams is reported as signed with the Magic and we have not heard of any one else being interested. Sure, this doesn’t rule out the Magic trading for CJ, but it reduces his value to them.
Lots of people reporting that 1st rounder was offered. It’s hard to see anyone offering any more. I’m guessing CJ stays as insurance unless someone offers the warriors that backup big defensive body they want.
I wouldnt sign CJ until i low-balled Iverson first, like a 2mil 1 year contract, if he is desperate enough. This will destroy our guards development, but he will showed our wanna-be PG how ball-hogging is done properly.
This will destroy our guards development,
But will improve our entertainment value 1000%
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 23, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
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)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
