Rumor: Warriors and Kings "flirted with" Nate Robinson + The Monta Extension
by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 5, 2009 2:30 AM PDT
in Rumors
70 comments
A little Kryptonite might help the Dubs play spoiler this season.
Krypto-nate! [via www.sneakerfiles.com]
JUMP like Lil' Nate!
From HoopsWorld NBA AM: Free Agents For Sale?
Nate Robinson: The New York Knicks are playing an interesting game of chicken with Nate Robinson. The word is that Nate has a one-year, $5 million offer on the table and has not accepted it.
The Knicks this week picked up Jason Williams off of waivers from the Clippers, giving them until Thursday to ink a deal with the 33-year old point guard who will work out for the team today. If the Knicks and Williams can reach a deal, Robinson's $5 million may disappear.
Robinson flirted with the Sacramento Kings and the Golden State Warriors, but neither were willing to go long term for Robinson. The Orlando Magic got the sales pitch from Robinson's agent Aaron Goodwin, but the Magic opted for Matt Barnes.
Robinson received a two-year, $10 million offer from Olympiacos in Greece but turned that deal down. The Knicks Qualifying Offer is $2.9 million for next season, so it's not like Nate is out of a job next season, he too may have to warm up to the idea that his payday is 11 months away.
Nate's undoubtedly a fun player to watch and I'd definitely pay to see something like this happen again at the Roaracle:
No question.
However, I'm not too sure he would really help the Warriors all that much given they already have Monta Ellis and Stephen Curry. There doesn't seem to be enough minutes to go around in that backcourt for another undersized combo guard. It would be fun though. No doubt. (I'll admit I'm a sucker for hoops-tainment especially when it comes to a losing club like the Warriors.)
Looking over the numbers, this player comparison of per 36 minute stats from the 2008-2009 NBA season caught my eye though and it seemed worthy of highlighting.
NOTE: I'm usually not a big fan of per 36 minute extrapolations, but here's a case where they make a lot of sense. Both players played almost the same number of a minutes, so per 36 numbers are a good way to normalize their stats for a clearer comparison. Both players also play in high octane offenses with little regard to defense.
Player A (age 24) [Basketball Reference]
- 20.7 ppg (43.7% FG, 32.5% 3pt, 84.1% FT, 54.9% TS)
- 4.9 ast : 2.3 turnovers
- 4.7 rpg
- 1.5 steals
Player B (age 23) [Basketball Reference]
- 19.1 ppg (45.1% FG, 30.8% 3pt, 83.0% FT, 50.3% TS)
- 3.8 ast : 2.7 turnovers
- 4.4 rpg
- 1.6 steals
Who's the boss baller?
...
...
...
Player A Leaps Tall Centers
Player B rides mopeds
Now Monta Ellis did have an injury plagued 2008-2009 campaign (his own doing) and his numbers were down from the previous breakout season, but who is to say that he'll never have any lingering ankle issues again or that he'll rebound to that 2k7-2k8 level without Baron Davis being the primary ball handler and distributor? Is it really all that crazy to think that Nate Robinson will be a better player than Monta Ellis over the course of the next few seasons? I'm honestly not that sure right now.
Another related thought- Look at how hard of a time Nate Robinson is having getting a lucrative long term deal this offseason as a restricted free agent. What if the Warriors didn't play softball with Monta's agent, that guy giving him terrible advice, and made his camp sweat a little last offseason? Think the Warriors could have gotten a better deal than 6 years $66 million dollars? I think so. Instead they're chained to a big money long term contract that could be very regrettable.
Unless you've got the likes of LeBron James or Dwight Howard, I see very little reason to extend your restricted free agents in the NBA. It's a premature decision with very little apparent benefit under the NBA's current collective bargaining agreement, which is designed to help teams retain their own players. Let's say the Warriors waited a year. Would Moped Gate have happened? Would Monta not even be worth extending? Who knows. But what is certain is that the Warriors would be able to offer Monta more money than any other team around the association.
Feeling Nate-Rob on the Warriors? Think Nate > Monta?
Party like it's 2010 over at Posting and Toasting
0 recs |
70 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
No more guards please
Based on the limited times I’ve seen Nate, he looks like he’s got great athleticism and would be fun to watch, but we just shipped out Marco partly because we had too many guards. There’d be no minutes for Nate.
by IQofaWarrior on Aug 5, 2009 3:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Just like you said, Atma, he is another undersized combo guard. We don’t need another one of those.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Aug 5, 2009 3:05 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
The only thing this comparison shows is....
Nate Robinson’s best year = A rusty Monta coming off major ankle injury
It’s too bad they shut down Monta, because now we have to read dumb comparisons like this. He was only getting better as the year went on. He had a rough January and February, which was expected but then he turned it ON.
Averaged 23.5 pts/4.4 asts/4.5 rpgs in 11 games in March
Put up 42 pts/9 asts/9 rebs/2 stls in his final and only game in April
Monta >>>>>>> Nate Robinson
Not. Even. Close!
by Bob on Aug 5, 2009 4:13 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
What Bob said. Nate is basically an undersized shooting guard that can’t run an offense and likes to dominate the ball. By undersized, I mean smaller than Allen Iverson, by a lot (though he is bulkier). Overall, he’s just not a very good player. Monta is much, much better, and we have no room for Nate. I’d rather have a free Devean George than a free Nate Robinson (and I’m not happy we have a free Devean George).
by Missing Barry on Aug 5, 2009 7:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nate is definitely a good player, he is undersized for sure, but his assist average coming in as a back up for duhon is pretty good. better than Monta’s has ever been actually. I still don’t think hes right for us, and never will be, I am beginning to really hate undersized guards and it’s the absolute last thing we need. But saying that nate is not a very good player doesn’t make sense to me, Monta is definitely a better player, but Nate is a very strong player as well. It is not easy to find players with Nate’s ability and marketability. Good for ticket sales for sure, but thank god we didn’t go through with it.
by Essential on Aug 5, 2009 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well it really depends on what you see Nate as. I see him as a 1, with his extreme size limitations that’s really all he can be. For a 1, his assist rate is terrible. It’s better than Monta, but Monta has always played off the ball, whereas Nate (the few times I’ve seen him) has always been the primary distributor. At times he’s shown the ability to score efficiently, but that’s all he can really do, and he seems to me to dominate the ball (and cause the offense to stagnate, very Starbury like of him). Overall that gives you a player that doesn’t contribute much offensively. Combine that with his defensive limitations (mostly size), and you aren’t left with much of a player.
by Missing Barry on Aug 5, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Monta > Nate
Don’t care what the numbers say – Monta has a much higher ceiling – despite being taller.
by tjmax on Aug 5, 2009 7:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I can’t think of another decent player we could use less than Nate Robinson. Do. Not. Want.
by onlxn on Aug 5, 2009 8:23 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
+1
We can get Linas Kleiza for half the price.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Aug 5, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
didn’t Keiza sign with Olympiacos?
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 5, 2009 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think thats the rumor, since he doest seem to be able to get a NBA contract that he likes
but I don’t think its official.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Aug 6, 2009 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is Allen Iverson decent? Thats the only one I can think of.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 5, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trade Monta for our Power Forward. Amare would be nice!
Sign Little Nate and Trade Monta for our Power Forward. Amare, Bosh, or Boozer.
Do this and we will be on our way.
by lastsaint74 on Aug 5, 2009 9:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't...
…really like Robinson too much. Especially when we move forward in the post-Nelson world, since certainly his contract would likely extend past Nelson’s tenure.
by Zack Vank on Aug 5, 2009 11:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
we don't need
a guy who needs a ladder to dunk
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 5, 2009 12:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What?
You’re sarcastic and all, but I’m guessing you’re referring to the little step he put on Howard when he went over him?
by ZaMzAm FiRe on Aug 5, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we should just say "F-it!" until Cohan sells
and just have the most entertaining team possible. Grab Nate so we can have someone participate in the All Star stuff this year and hope Randolph makes it with Curry getting to the Fresh/Soph game.
They will all be super fun to watch during the season and we will just accept the fact that we will not win a championship as long as Cohan has anything to do with the team.
I am totally sick of the lack of opportunity to improve with this team.
by warriorsvictim on Aug 5, 2009 12:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
wow
its shocking how similar their per 36’s are.. the only difference.. were overpaying monta.. n if we were to get nate we would probably overpay him too
by itsAteamGAME on Aug 5, 2009 12:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
NO NO NO NO NO etc.
this is stupid. Im glad that the common sentiment is that Monta is the far superior player. This shouldn’t be discussed.
by MO-ped MO-problems on Aug 5, 2009 12:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Just another bashing of Monta is all I see,
"Monta is the MAN." -Bob Fitzgerald
by WarriorForLife on Aug 5, 2009 12:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Agree totally
If you polled the GM’s in the NBA who they would rather have Monta or Robinson it would be Monta in a landslide.
by crab dribble cocktail on Aug 5, 2009 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes!
Another guard who does not like to pass and can’t play defense and is undersized! Do it!
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
by dubzfan on Aug 5, 2009 1:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with others that the stats comparison is somewhat disingenuous. Can you fairly compare one player’s best season with another player’s worst, injury-riddled, shortened stint? How about the 2007 Monta instead (36m):
Age 22
19.2 ppg (53.1% FG, 23.1% 3pt, 76.7% FT, 58.0% TS)
3.7 ast : 2.0 turnovers
4.7 rpg
1.5 steals
Much better.
by ffgolden on Aug 5, 2009 1:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How is that "much better"?
Nate Robinson age 24
- 20.7 ppg (43.7% FG, 32.5% 3pt, 84.1% FT, 54.9% TS)
- 4.9 ast : 2.3 turnovers
- 4.7 rpg
- 1.5 steals
Rebounds and steals are even. If you look at TS there really isn’t a big difference either.
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!"
by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 5, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you look at TS there really isn’t a big difference either.
3.1%? Thats a pretty substantial difference in TS% Atma, its not that far from the difference between the career TS%s of Jamal Crawford and LeBron James.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 5, 2009 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very interesting
Here’s some TS%‘s from last season for comparison’s sake:
- Chris Paul: 59.9% TS
- LeBron James: 59.1% TS
- Brandon Roy: 57.3% TS
- Deron Williams: 57.3% TS
- Kobe Bryant: 56.1% TS
- Nate Robinson: 54.9% TS
- Vince Carter: 54.5% TS
- Jamal Crawford: 54.5% TS
- Stephen Jackson: 53.0% TS
- Monta Ellis: 50.3% TS
Is 3.1% TS really a pretty substantial difference in TS%? That’s about the difference between LeBron and Kobe last season.
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!"
by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 5, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly!
Are you saying that the difference between LeBron’s efficiency and Kobe’s is negligible? 3.1% is also the exact difference between Jackson and Kobe last season. Would you consider them to be similarly efficient scorers? Monta played 25 games, and less than 900 minutes last year, and was playing hurt for most of them. Using a small, and probably inaccurate sample size like that is misleading. Monta’s career TS% is right around league average despite a horrible showing last season and an even worse rookie year. Monta’s ability to score efficiently is quite possibly his best skill. In his very best years Robinson’s TS% has hovered right around league average, Monta has shown that he has the ability to be much better than that despite the fact that he has yet to develop a reliable outside shot.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 5, 2009 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Monta is definitely a more efficient scorer pre-moped even though Nate produced more ppg per 36. No one’s arguing that.
I’m just not so sure if that makes up for the passing discrepancy and other concerns. Pre-moped and post-moped Nate Robinson was a better passer than Monta Ellis last season. The rebounding and thievery is about the same. Both play in high octane offenses.
Throw in the fact that Nate isn’t a cancer nor coming off a serious injury and it makes you pause. Is Nate going to have a better next few seasons than Monta Ellis?
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!"
by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 6, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Monta is definitely a more efficient scorer pre-moped even though Nate produced more ppg per 36
Looking at career numbers Monta scores .01 ppg less per 36 minutes than Nate. You’re gonna try to downplay a 3.1% difference in TS% but you’re gonna mention .01 ppg more per 36 minutes as an argument against Monta? Thats seems even more biased than calling Monta a team “cancer.”
I’ll take an extra 3.1% difference over about 1 more assist per 36 minutes (that comes with more turnovers too) any day. I’ll especially take it when the more efficient offensive player is more than a half of a foot taller and nearly 2 years younger.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 6, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to be consistent, if we’re comparing Ellis’ pre-moped year with Nate Robinson’s year last year (their best years and most recent healthy years), it was a 1.5 points per 36 difference. I still maintain Robinson runs the “Stephon Marbury offense”. Do not want. I do want Ellis, he’s good and effective without the ball in his hands. He’s also taller than 5’9.
by Missing Barry on Aug 6, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did not mean “Monta is much better than Nate”; I meant, “Much better, I’ve now represented the stats of Monta’s that we should actually be using for this comparison”.
Do they show Monta as being “much better” than Nate? Nope, although the relative ages in the comparison (Monta’s 22 to Nate’s 24) might be relevant.
by ffgolden on Aug 5, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well I think that also depends on your interpretation of “much better.” The stats do indicate that Monta is better, how much better is debatable.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 5, 2009 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Atma Brother one is GSoM's Chris Cohan
REPRESENTING THE BAY TO THE FULLEST!!!
by California KID on Aug 5, 2009 2:40 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Hahaha
Who is the Robert Rowell?
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
by dubzfan on Aug 5, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What are you guys?
The ball boys?
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!"
by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 6, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wth?
ahright…look monta is wayy better than nate.
nate is good, but not on monta’s level.
this is Nate’s best season stats, and monta was just coming off an injury and really rusty and STILL almost had better statistics.
{~R.i.p Sean Taylor #21~}
by Dubz50 on Aug 5, 2009 8:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So why not Ramon Sessions instead? Sure it still adds another guy who needs minutes to the backcourt mess but at least it gives a guy with a very different skill set than anyone we already have. Looking at what’s left in free agency I really don’t have a problem with throwing the maximum mid-level offer at Sessions, and it doesn’t seem like any other team
wants to do that right now.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 6, 2009 12:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well considering we have exactly 0 players we know for sure can play PG….I can’t really find any argument against this.
by Missing Barry on Aug 6, 2009 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He can't shoot 3's
and thats a big deal for Nellie, espicially if he is going to be on the floor with Ellis.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Aug 6, 2009 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it really that big a deal for Nellie? I think far too much gets made of this. Nellie likes offensively versatile players. He likes players who can put the ball on the floor, who pass, who create mismatches. It’s only in his most recent stint in GSW that the team has gone made with the 3pt shot, and I think that was more based on who he had rather than what he went looking for. All things being equal, he’d take the better shooter, but I suspect that someone who can get off good shots, get the ball moving and doesn’t turn it over would get his nod over a someone who is just a shooter.
by jae on Aug 6, 2009 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
3s
One thing you don’t mention is the 32% from 3s is for 5 3s a game in 29 minutes. Robinson went to the Baron Davis school of dribble, dribble, dribble…3 seconds on the shot clock…fade away 3.
I have seen enough of those shots to last a lifetime!!!!
by showie2318 on Aug 6, 2009 8:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
monta
This is why i would still prefer monta over nate, adding nate would just add more 3s and that is something that we def do not need more of. Monta launches less 3s then anyone on the team and that equals to more efficent scoring, now only if we can get jackson to get that through his head we might just be able to run a successful team here.
by blacksamurai33 on Aug 6, 2009 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Allen Iverson
Whats up with this guy? he plays hard….. fast as hell why doesn’t anybody want to sign this guy?
what if the warriors take a flyer on him at say 2 million? he would thrive in west coast offensive (ala nellieball)
by Borntowinn on Aug 6, 2009 12:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Iverson is in love with his shot regardless of whether or not it’s accurate. He doesn’t tend to bring many if any wins with him when he heads to a new team. For a team rebuilding with a young guard core, that doesn’t make much sense.
I’m not sure there’s really much evidence that he’d ‘thrive’ in “Nellieball”. His most successful teams were slow down low scoring teams loaded with above average defenders who outrebounded their man. Iverson can do some amazing things on the court, but it’s less frequent that those amazing things closely coincide with things that will win games.
by jae on Aug 6, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank You
There’s absolutely no reason to think Iverson would do anything but sulk and whine when nellie yanks his minutes around because he’s be a ball hog. Its a non-issue anyways, Nellie has seen Iverson play basketball recently and therefore would not be interested.
Acquiring Allen Iverson would be as stupid as say, acquiring Nate Robinson.
by MO-ped MO-problems on Aug 6, 2009 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently we now judge players based on their worst 8-month stretch ever.
And with that in mind, I now understand why everyone is begging for Monta and Biedrins to be dismissed.
However, when i was stupidly basing my opinions of Monta on his age, and his being an all-star talent in his only two seasons where he started, i seemed to like the guy, and think $10 mil a year for him was better than, say, $7 mil a year for Charlie Villanueva. How naive of me.
by bradyk2 on Aug 6, 2009 1:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ellis has a chance to be an all-star
if the rosters expand and the teams have seven or eight guards (alternatively, three or four star western conference guards are injured or sick at mid-season), or if his team gets to the conference finals with him as its m.v.p. Neither is impossible, nor very likely either.
by the.monk on Aug 7, 2009 12:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
being an all-star talent in his only two seasons where he started?
Which years? I can’t find him on any allstar rosters? I do see that Iverson fellow on there a lot?
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 6, 2009 3:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Talent, not selection.
Like my boy kung-fu panda.
by bradyk2 on Aug 7, 2009 12:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ellis sucks
Warriors fans always over hype their players. Ellis is better than Nate but not to the level that he is worth 66 m for 6 yrs. I compare Ellis to Ben Gorden but without a 3 pt shooting can he develop it yes but that doesn’t mean he will ever be T Parker. He is undersized will never be the pg we are looking for and can never guard even if he is playing the two. Therefore, I personally would rather have jjack or Nate for less then what we are paying Ellis. Such money should be reserved to players who really elevate their team in the winning column.
Waaaarroirs
by puffylove on Aug 7, 2009 11:29 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
I think you underestimate how much players are worth on the market. We’re not paying Ellis superstar money. We’re not even paying him All-star money. We’re paying him like what he is – a good player.
by Missing Barry on Aug 9, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ellis
For those who will say Ellis had gr8 year when we went to the playoff. This was Baron’s team and baron was running the show. Compare biedrins number when baron was here and when he left you will notice my point. Baron made everyone look better because really when baron is healthy he is top 10 pg in the game maybe top 5. Therefore, I personally think our beloved team needs to trade some players and get rid of contracts bad contracts. Here is a good trade scenerio if it plays out with Houston, I believe TMac gets 23 m this year and has claimed he will be ready when season starts. Houston don’t want him and would love to get something good in return. How abt Ellis, Maggette and Wright for Tmac and any other bump included. We get a motivated Tmac on a contract year and if healthy can avg 30 pts in our system. Worst case he comes back gets injured but next year we will have close to 30 m in cap space to go after the best players while still having solid players to play with a superstar that deserves big money. Here our lineup if such trade gets pulled up
Watson (assuming he stays) or Curry
Tmac Morrow reserve
Jackson. Buike
AR. Devan George or whomever
Biedrins. Turiaf
Next year, we can get Chris Bosh or big time player to replace Tmac
Waaaarroirs
by puffylove on Aug 7, 2009 11:54 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
HOLY TOLEDO!
This is absolutely ridiculous. Here’s a tip. If one of the team’s involved in a trade (just to clarify, that would be the rockets in this situation) accepts the deal in approximately one tenth of a millisecond, Its probably not a fair trade. Terrible, terrible, AWFUL, terrible idea.
by MO-ped MO-problems on Aug 7, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Compare biedrins number when baron was here and when he left you will notice my point.
#15, both before and after BD left. ;-)
His stats were pretty similar too — maybe a hair better after Baron left.
Or was that your point?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 7, 2009 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nate is even a bigger defensive liability at his height, the warriors rotate so Slooooowwww they will get killed…
by hkingkong on Aug 7, 2009 1:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yum TMAC
aging, injury-riddled player with poor shooting % >>>>>>>> young, now-healthy player with high shooting %.
by bradyk2 on Aug 7, 2009 5:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So who would you rather have?
Ellis, Maggette and Wright or TMac expiring contract along with the other contracts like Claxton, Law and George to get players like Chris Bosh or Dirk Nowitzki and let say a cheap Hamilton, Mike Miller or Ginobili to play along Curry, AR and Biedrins. Lets be real Ellis and Maggette are over payed players and Chris Mullin always over pays players like J.Richardson, Dumb and Dumber (Dunlevy and Murphy). If we really gonna compete in this league, we need a solid front court player like Bosh, a good shooter like Hamilton and solid bench players like Morrow and Buike. I will take this lineup any day.
Biedrins
Bosh
AR
Hamilton
Curry (Second year if he is good otherwise go with Watson)
Bench
Watson
Morrow
Jackson/Buike
Draft pick or free agent PF
Turiaf
Waaaarroirs
by puffylove on Aug 7, 2009 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well that would be sweet
if Chris Bosh, Rip Hamilton, and another PF all decided they wanted to play for GS.
not. going. to. happen. Look at Bosh. Next year he’s going to have Toronto saying “stay here, you have a house, we’re building around you,” New York saying “come here, we have LeBron,” and Miami saying “come here, we have Wade.” So he listens to GS saying “come here, we won 30 games last year, and you’ll never get yelled at for not playing D again!!!”
Yeah, that’s just not going to happen.
Look, I love the idea of getting a star-studded lineup as much as the next guy, but look at every other team that does that…New Jersey dumped Jefferson and Kidd to have money and now what? Jay-Z is the only person in the arena with a recognizable name. Detroit did that, dumping their best player (Billups) and, yay, Charlie Villanueva is now the face of their franchise.
I would gladly get rid of Monta Ellis if it guaranteed us two all-stars, but it is ridiculous to give up a player with star-potential to take a 10% chance at getting an all-star.
As for Monta Ellis being overpayed….really? he makes $11 million a year…not all that much, really. Let’s look at other 20ppg scorers and their contracts:
Ben Gordon – $11 million (and less rebounds, assists, and steals)
Rip Hamilton – $11 million (and less than 20ppg)
etc. etc. etc. Look at Rashard Lewis. The guy makes $18 million a year. is that too much? maybe. but where would the Magic be without him?? not in the NBA finals, that’s for sure.
Furthermore, look at the top 4 teams in the NBA this season:
LA Lakers – Drafted a franchise player (Kobe), built around him without losing any of their best players.
Orlando Magic – Drafted a franchise player (Howard), built around him without losing any of their best players.
Cleveland Caveliers – Drafted a franchise player (LeBron), built around him without losing any of their best players.
Boston Celtics – Drafted a franchise player (Pierce), built around him without losing any of their best players.
definitely a pattern there.
by bradyk2 on Aug 7, 2009 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We can agree to disagree
I agree with some of the things you said like that Chris Bosh might not come to the Warriors but I highly doubt he will stay in Toronto. Teams like Miami, Chicago, Houston if Yao remains injured can get him. The knock on players coming to the Warriors is the one playoff in 15 years. But check out the names that are free agents next year. There has to be one because most teams will be over the cap with the cap size reducing. Hamilton will be either traded this year or let go next year for one main reason, their future is with Gordon who plays the same position. Ginobli is also available with Jefferson in the daily lineup he will be a huge contract coming of the bench.
Next point, can you see this team being a playoff contender? Like I said in my earlier post, I will rather have a legit solid PF and SG rather than trusting this lineup that is trying to move players around in some weird scheme. Ellis is over payed when he gets 11 m for 6 yrs which equals 66 m. For player that most of us talk about whether he will flourish at the point or would return to his primary position SG (so he could be a huge liability defensively), shows me that we didn’t do our home work when he gave him this huge contract. Listen Ellis is not an all star, he is not hamilton who is one of the best players coming of the screen or has the lethal three point shoot like Gordon. Ellis is good but not 11 m good maybe a 8 m good. Devan Harris avg 21 pts and ditched out more assist than Ellis, yet he is making close to 8 m. J Salmon posted huge career numbers avg close to 20 pts while shooting well. My point is these players are not all star players that we can build around, solid contributors but not franchise players.
Therefore, your logic to build around Ellis like Lakers did with Kobe, Lebron with Cavs, Pierce Celtics and etc is false. Ellis is not a franchise player due to the fact that coming his fourth year we still don’t know what his best position and trust me he will never be a Tony Parker.
Waaaarroirs
by puffylove on Aug 8, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hamilton and Ginobli, a season in the future, are downgrades from Monta Ellis. You could maybe maaaayyybe make a case for Ginobli, but definitely not Hamilton. Why are you trying to throw away a season in which we have one of the most exciting young rosters in the league for the not even guaranteed prospect of getting an older, less talented guard who will be close to the same price as Monta. Whats the upside?
A couple other things Im not so sure about in your post. Devin Harris, I would contend, is an all star type player you can build around.
Also I wouldnt be surprised in the slightest if Monta ends up being better than Tony Parker. Im not so sure their so far apart right now in fact. Monta is more athletic and a better shooter and younger. I guess you would have to say Parker is a better distributor, neither are great defenders.
Mind you, Im not exactly a professional scout, but I believe these claims to be far less outrageous than some of the opinions being expressed here.
by MO-ped MO-problems on Aug 8, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Naticus is right
Excatly, I agree with you 100%. We do have big problems in perimeter defense and neither Ellis nor Maggette combined 21 m will solve this problem. Listen the cap will decrease next year, to have Maggette, Ellis and Biedrins for close to $30 m a year is ridiculous especially knowing we have a cheap owner who is trying to sell this team and get rid of contracts. All I was saying is that a trade for TMac (who might be motivated in contract year) would free up 23 m plus Law, Claxton and George which we will end up with close to $30 m in salary. We keep Biedrins, Curry, AR, Morrow, Jackson, Buike and maybe watson. Next year is a different ball game. There is whole article in espn explaining that teams don’t have flexibility to sign players next year. We will have if this trade happens. You will be able to bargain and get players like Ginobili, Hamilton not for 15 m or 11 m but for 7 or 8 m a year, why? because the market works that way supply and demand. Miller, Lee, Milsap and lots more wanted 10 m every year, they didnt get it. Next year, we can pay max contract to a real superstar and we know that max will be no more than 15 m. But we can also sign other all star players for less than 10 m because that will be the best offer they get. I am just sick and tired of all this rebuilding the team and building around Ellis who hasn’t done nothing to proof he is a franchise player. He is a solid player but has way too many faults in his game to build around him. It is like saying building a team around Ben Gordon come on are you kidding me? No offense to anyone. Earlier post says Boston built around Pierce, Lakers Kobe. Celtics gave away many young players to get real players like Ray Allen and KG. Kobe was crying about his team until he got Gasol and now they have Artest. In this league, you can’t compete with players like Ellis, Jackson, Maggette. You need talent. All I am saying if we have a chance to get rid of stupid contracts, we might suck for a year (It is not like this current roster will win 50 games), but next year we will get talent because our team will have the most cap. Period
Waaaarroirs
by puffylove on Aug 8, 2009 8:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There are only about a half dozen players worth max contract money in terms of their ability to bring back a real shot at a championship. Only 2 or 3 of them will be available next year as free agents. More teams will have max money to toss at them than there are players worth max money. The clear cap room gamble is a high risk proposition, more likely to net us another Magette than anything else.
by jae on Aug 9, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
two or three
Here are some gaming changing players names and their chances of coming to the warriors IMO:
LeBron James (Not)
Dwayne Wade (Not)
Chris Bosh (Might)
Amar’e Stoudemire (Might)
Dirk Nowitzki (Might)
Paul Pierce (Not)
Yao Ming (Not)
Joe Johnson (Might)
Manu Ginobili (Might)
Carlos Boozer (Might)
Except maybe Ginobili and maybe Nowitzki because they are getting old, the rest of these guys are worth $15 m and can help our team with players like AR, Curry, Morrow, Biedrins, Jack still in the mix. Now common sense, are Ellis and Maggette combined $20 m salary better than lets say Joe Johnson being in this team or Chris Bosh. Also Jae look at the teams that you said have max money cap, Sacramento, Memphis, NY, Nets, Oklahoma city, Minnesota of course Houston and Chicago (I might be missing one team). The point is most of these teams are either in the same condition we are or worse with the exception of Chicago and Houston. Huge markets like NY can attract King James but there are ones who will come to the Warriors. Correct me if I am wrong, I don’t think this team will make it to the playoff with this current roster, we are at least two players away from competing and if i am wrong than we will see what happens this season.
Waaaarroirs
by puffylove on Aug 9, 2009 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“are Ellis and Maggette combined $20 m salary better than lets say Joe Johnson being in this team”
Yes. If you’re concerned that we’re overpaying Ellis, look at the list of available guys. Some of them will be resigned by their own club, narrowing the list come next year. Most of them aren’t bringing us a championship anytime soon, the exceptions being the guys we won’t get (Wade, Lebron). Bosh and Amare are the next best, but they both play Randolph’s position. Ellis is worth $11M before Boozer, Manu and Johnson are worth $15M (especially since they’re older and will get a lot of years at $15M). Essentially all we’re doing is making the team terrible for a year just to get back to the same spot we’re in right now, with older players on longer contracts.
by Missing Barry on Aug 10, 2009 7:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“It is like saying building a team around Ben Gordon come on are you kidding me?”
That’s exactly the problem. If we ship everyone out for expiring contracts, we’ll most likely end up using that available cap room for….a player like Ben Gordon. We’ll be terrible next year, end up back to where we already are with new, older, different players fans haven’t invested any of their faith into. Basically, these proposals set us back multiple years for no reason. Jack and Maggette’s contracts irritate me, but it’s not like we have any contracts that are really that bad. We need to assess our talent, let them play and develop (seeing how young we are), figure out how our players will fit together, and then make moves that improve our team overall (taking both short term and long term into account) as they become available.
by Missing Barry on Aug 9, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So here something for a change
Today, I went to buy the Package deals in Oakland arena. One of the sales guy who apparently works there and knows everybody was saying that Ellis will play the two. I told him if that so who will play the PG position? his answer was Curry. I don’t work there and i am pretty sure that the plan was for Ellis to move to the one position. Do you guys believe Curry will start right away as PG? Last year, we started with Nelson on Point. I believe a lineup with Curry, Ellis, Jack, AR and Biedrins will be bad considering the teams we are facing the first month. I think a lineup with Ellis, Jack, Maggette, AR and Biedrins is much better facing tough teams. What you guys think?
Waaaarroirs
by puffylove on Aug 9, 2009 7:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Im going to go out on a limb here and say that im not too worried about what the guy who sold you your tickets thinks our rotation is going to be.
by MO-ped MO-problems on Aug 10, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up 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.
