Agent Zero For Radman,Wright,and Bell anyone?
by CurrysKillinGoDubs on Dec 10, 2010 4:11 PM PST
Email
Print
Maybe sixth man or making monta expendable for a star SF? maybe a 1st rnd pick? draft top 10 is looking pretty nice right now, a sweet back up to steph"the franchise" curry?
Hear me out on this one....does anyone else feel like monta brings that stephen jackson "im cocky but never can be better than a compliment to a star player" attitude? He thinks its his team but his leadership skills lack, he has glaring holes in is game and doesnt pride himself on the "I let my hard work speak for itself attitude rub off on my team mates"
attitude it takes to be a leader. Bottom line ladies and gentlemen i say we sell high on monta for a bigger stronger 2 guard that doesnt have an ego that is not well deserved. I will keep him on the top 5 most cockiest warriors that have never done anything worth mentioning until he at least makes an all star team
PS Stop dribbling into quadrupale teams and taking fade away jumpers MOVE THE BALL and Oh Yea, Enjoy Keith Smarts only year as an NBA HC
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
81 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Do this trade but it only helps with monta going forward with this team.
Gilbert areanas would be a perfect backup gaurd off the bench. can score, decent defense and can play both pg and sg. could be a jason terry like6th man. And maybe could put the warriors into the 8th spot
What did monta poll have to do with this anyway?
by Belinelli's the savior on Dec 10, 2010 4:17 PM PST reply actions
Stupid Trade.
Have you seen Gilbert’s contract? We should be grateful he didn’t sign with us as a free agent.
by warriorsnut on Dec 10, 2010 4:25 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Gilbert Arenas’s contract crushes salary caps and eats babies. This move would be unforgivably wrong.
It slays me how the familiarity and nostalgia of a past player impacts personnel pipe dreams. I think just in the past week I’ve seen calls to bring back Baron, JRich, and now Gilbert. Guys, Dampier was available! How did we not start the Bring Back Damp Movement??
by ivanbe on Dec 10, 2010 4:26 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
You should start a Gilbert Arenas’s contract joke series, much like those of Chuck Norris. It would be hysterical, try this one on for size,
“Gilbert Arenas’s contract is responsible for the US trade deficit.”
“Gilbert Arenas’s contract causes Global Warming.”
That would be hilarious, as would a “Agent Zero’s Contract” Twitter account spouting off ridiculousness.
http://www.sportsgalleryweb.com
http://www.sportsgalleryweb.com/giantsarechamps.htm
http://www.sportsgalleryweb.com/dorell.htm
by Sports Gallery on Dec 10, 2010 4:54 PM PST up reply actions
J-Rich is the only guy from yesteryear I'd like to see back
But as a FA signing. Don’t think he’ll be making 14M per anymore.
by Doctor Kajita on Dec 10, 2010 4:58 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I suspect we'd get JRich back and find ourselves wondering "hey, what happened to that guy's scoring efficiency?"
He’s reaping a lot of benefit from playing with Nash.
He could reap benefits from playing with Steph too
by WestCoastWarrior on Dec 13, 2010 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
Let's be a touch bit realistic here.
Steph isn’t close to the playmaker Nash is at this point in their respective careers.
What were you saying then? Your point seems to be somewhat fuzzy and ill-defined. What sort of effect would you expect playing alongside Curry would have on Richardson’s production?
It was just a response to an equally fuzzy and ill-defined statement
I love the amount of stats, advanced stats, and “statistical analysis” that many people bring to this website.
However, I dont think it needs to be a prerequisite for making a comment, especially when its in response to a comment that was stated mostly the same way.
by WestCoastWarrior on Dec 13, 2010 3:28 PM PST up reply actions
I love the amount of stats, advanced stats, and "statistical analysis" that many people bring to this website.
This is relevant to the conversation how?
However, I dont think it needs to be a prerequisite for making a comment, especially when its in response to a comment that was stated mostly the same way.
And no one said or even implied that it it was necessary. I asked for clarification on what you were trying to get across because your prose did not make it clear. I did not ask for stats. I didn’t even imply it. I did want a better explanation in prose, because it wasn’t clear from the words you wrote what you were driving at.
It still isn’t.
It was pretty equal to the comment it was a response to.
How is it that you are so clear about the “prose” of the previous statement:
He’s reaping a lot of benefit from playing with Nash.
Yet you are confused and want a better explanation in prose by this prose?:
He could reap benefits from playing with Steph too
Why is one so acceptable, and the other is so unclear, fuzzy, and demanding of a better explanation?
by WestCoastWarrior on Dec 13, 2010 4:40 PM PST up reply actions
What’s not clear is what those “benefits” are, what sort of advantage over a baseline point guard Curry would impart on Richardson and what sort of evidence you derive this conclusion from.
You still didnt answer my question Jae.
We both made the same depth of response (THIS guy will benefit from THAT guy), that you are only questioning me suggests you dont think Curry cant be an above average point guard next year?
He is struggling, but I think its just a bump due to a lot of factors, which are all hot words, but still true (sophmore slump, along with playing for Team USA, .). Just the exhaustion from the sophmore slump and playing for team USA, compounded by not having a a true backup could be enough, add in the inevidable growing pains as he pushes boundaries of what he can and cant do, adjusting to all the new Warrior changes from a new coach, teamates. He is still leading his class, and his per48 assists are around 8 I think, which arent too bad.
by WestCoastWarrior on Dec 13, 2010 11:18 PM PST up reply actions
The question of whether Curry can become an above-average point guard is irrelevant.
Because Nash is much, much more than an above-average point guard.
His per 48 assists are around 8, which is a strange way of looking at it, I suspect you do that math because “8” sounds like a good assists number.
Of course, Nash’s per 48 assists number is 14.5. So when you give it appropriate context, that 8 doesn’t sound very special, now, does it?
Curry could be above average and still be much, much worse than Nash at creating for his teammates. And therefore you would expect a significant drop in Richardson’s performance if he joined the W’s.
Dude, how many times do I have to say that Im not saying Curry is better than Nash. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT NASH IS REALLY GOOD, BETTER THAN CURRY.
Your comment:
The question of whether Curry can become an above-average point guard is irrelevant.
should be aimed elsewhere because I was only responding to a question that directly asked this question:
what sort of advantage over a baseline point guard Curry would impart on Richardson
I think it does have importance, but it does not mean Curry is better than Nash, so yes, 14.5 is bigger than 8. Nash is impressive. I expect Curry to be good at creating for his team next year.
Curry could be above average and still be much, much worse than Nash at creating for his teammates. And therefore you would expect a significant drop in Richardson’s performance if he joined the W’s.
That could be true. But this is where your argument is flawed. His efficiency is a function of several factors. His PG’s ability to create for his team would be a big factor in Richardson’s efficiency, and going from Nash to Curry, you’d expect to see a negative impact on his effiency. However, that is one of many factors. It is an important factor that might carry more weight than the rest, but still is only one factor. Other factors may include his role on the team, his mentality (do they need him to score, or to be more of a veteran leader doing other things for the team), minutes played, offensive matchups (if he’s a 6th or 7th man would he play more against bench players?), having other guys on the team who can create (Lee), age…
I’d expect a drop in efficiency too, but I’m not convinced it’d be as epic as your making it out to be. And since you made the initial statement, Im curious at 30-31 years old, just what type of expectation do you think Warriors fans have of JRich?
I’d still love to see him retire a Warrior!
by WestCoastWarrior on Dec 14, 2010 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
Actually, it's not at all similar to the previous post.
Because the body of the previous post had context created by the headline.
Your post did not. SUrely you can see the difference, there, right?
I dont really see it. Can you please explain, or lets drop it?
These are the posts in order. Please explain how mine is out of context. You mention context created by the headline, but JRich was not mentioned in the headline. When the idea of him playing for the Dubs was brought up, I chimed in. Please explain this context that my comment doesnt fit with.
J-Rich is the only guy from yesteryear I’d like to see back But as a FA signing. Don’t think he’ll be making 14M per anymore.
I suspect we’d get JRich back and find ourselves wondering “hey, what happened to that guy’s scoring efficiency?” He’s reaping a lot of benefit from playing with Nash.
He could reap benefits from playing with Steph too
Please explain why this is out of context.
by WestCoastWarrior on Dec 14, 2010 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
Why, then, make the comparison?
JRich is getting a tremendous number of assisted buckets thanks to Nash.
He would get fewer playing alongside Curry.
That would hurt his production, probably significantly.
I was responding to what you wrote:
He’s reaping a lot of benefit from playing with Nash.
When I read that, I assumed you were talking about in comparison with his numbers from previous years (i.e Charlotte Bobcats, or entire career including past GSW years).
Even if Curry isnt as good as Nash, and even if playing with Nash boosts JRich’s ratings more than playing with Curry (from his career totals, or from his Charlotte days), I’d assume that playing with Curry would also boost his percentages as compared to his career, or previous years leading up to Pheonix.
by WestCoastWarrior on Dec 13, 2010 3:19 PM PST up reply actions
I’d assume that playing with Curry would also boost his percentages as compared to his career, or previous years leading up to Pheonix. [sic]
Do you think that playing alongside Curry would help him more than playing alongside Baron?
IDK
Quick guess I’d say those are the 3 best PGs he would play with throughout his career if he came back to the Dubs (Nash, Baron, Curry).
Efficiency might go up as a function of playing with a top 3 PG (of his career), and playing reduced minutes as a backup/supporting SG. IDK
by WestCoastWarrior on Dec 13, 2010 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
Well, that's an interesting statement.
I never would have concluded that’s what you meant based on what you wrote in the context that you wrote it.
But unfortunately, I don’t think it holds much water. First of all, there isn’t much evidence for a Curry bounce, just yet, as far as playmaking goes. Secondly, JRich has other years with excellent PGs – such as Baron – and did not put up numbers that are particularly special, by his standards. And I don’t see any reason to think Curry is a better playmaker – at this point in his career – than Baron was that season.
If you want a more comprehensive statistical argument, look at the percentage of Nash’s assists that joe to JRich. Or just watch them play. Richardson and Nash have the sort of synergy that we hope, at some point, to see between Curry and Lee. It’s hard to imagine that JRich’s performance wouldn’t go down if you took that away.
Nor is there any particularly reason to think that fewer minutes would result in better production for him.
I never would have concluded that’s what you meant based on what you wrote in the context that you wrote it.
What context did I write it in?
I read your comment that we would all wonder what happened to JRich because he benefits from playing with Nash. I simply said I think Curry brings benefits too. Thats all. Not that Curry is better than Nash, which seems to be what you thought I was saying.
It’s hard to imagine that JRich’s performance wouldn’t go down if you took that away.
In my followup, I agreed with you that he might see a dip in efficiency, compared to playing with Nash. But I dont see any reason to think his overall totals would dip too much just because he is with Curry (age and playing time might be factors though).
Secondly, JRich has other years with excellent PGs – such as Baron – and did not put up numbers that are particularly special, by his standards.
I was going to mention that his numbers didnt seem to shift much when playing with Baron, except to dip down from what I saw. That would seem to support that playing with Curry wouldnt hurt his overall totals. The flip side of that would be if he had insane good numbers with Baron, it’d be more difficult to produce that with Curry.
by WestCoastWarrior on Dec 13, 2010 5:17 PM PST up reply actions
I was going to mention that his numbers didnt seem to shift much when playing with Baron, except to dip down from what I saw. That would seem to support that playing with Curry wouldnt hurt his overall totals. The flip side of that would be if he had insane good numbers with Baron, it’d be more difficult to produce that with Curry.
Huh?
Okay, well, we need to clarify terms, because I can’t make heads or tails of what you just read. Are you talking about Jrich’s production being hurt – relative to his time with Nash? Or relative to his career numbers?
Because actually his last year with the Warriors was his 4th-worst in terms of efficiency.
But I’m totally baffled by your logic where you suggest that if he had played better with Baron, that would make it harder for him to play well with Curry. Can you explain what your thinking there because it seems nonsensical.
But I’m totally baffled by your logic where you suggest that if he had played better with Baron, that would make it harder for him to play well with Curry. Can you explain what your thinking there because it seems nonsensical.
I guess we have different ideas of logic. To me it’s logical that if a player had a career offensive year (for example), when he was 25, and part of that could be attributed to playing with a top PG in a highly productive system, it would be more of a challenge to match the success of that year at age 31 with a new pg, in a lower production system. The bar for that year was set so high.
On the otherhand, if his years with a PG a few years ago were not all that great, amongst the lowest (compared to the rest of his career), it’d be easier to reach that bar of comparison, which would be a relatively low bar to reach.
You actually seem to be using similar, if not the exact same logic with him and Nash. That because his bar is set so high playing with Nash, it’ll be hard to reach that on the Dubs.
relative to his time with Nash? Or relative to his career numbers?
I’ve already answered what I thought about this. From Nash to Curry I’d expect his efficiency to drop, though Im not sure how much. (I wouldn’t expect him to be a focal point on offense, and that might have a positive influence on his efficiency). Overall career, I dont see any reason to expect his efficiency to drop just because he is playing with Curry. Overall career, it might even go up.
by WestCoastWarrior on Dec 14, 2010 10:25 AM PST up reply actions
Ah, I get it.
You’re not talking about his production in absolute terms. You’re saying if he was mediocre then, he’s more likely to be mediocre now. That I can agree with.
I don’t see it as “the bar being set so high” – it doesn’t matter where the bar is. If JRich was a barely passable SG playing with Nash, reaping the benefits he’s getting currently, then he’d still be worse playing with a lesser PG.
Or, to put it more simply: Richardson is getting a ton of easy looks because of how he and Nash play together. With almost any other PG in the league, including Curry-as-he-plays-so-far, he won’t get those easy looks. Therefore his production will be worse.
In other words, it’s a relative argument, not an absolute one. It applies no matter how good or bad JRich is playing: he’ll still be worse without Nash.
“On the otherhand, if his years with a PG a few years ago were not all that great, amongst the lowest (compared to the rest of his career), it’d be easier to reach that bar of comparison, which would be a relatively low bar to reach.”
THis is where I feel like you go off the rails. Because getting over a low bar is not meaningful. Who cares if JRich is better than the seasons when he was bad, if he’s still not yet good. You see, because you wrote, in the post that confused me:
“I was going to mention that his numbers didnt seem to shift much when playing with Baron, except to dip down from what I saw. That would seem to support that playing with Curry wouldnt hurt his overall totals. The flip side of that would be if he had insane good numbers with Baron, it’d be more difficult to produce that with Curry.”
This reads, to me, like you’re switching from a relative argument to an absolute one. Although maybe it’s just unclear. In any event you say that his numbers dipped down with Baron, and somehow that means they wouldn’t dip down with Curry, which just seems weird.
“Overall career, I dont see any reason to expect his efficiency to drop just because he is playing with Curry. Overall career, it might even go up.”
Yes. He might do better than .530TS% on a different team. But if you traded or signed Richardson, and got, say, a .535TS% player, wouldn’t you be sorely disappointed?
In 7 seasons playing without Nash, Jason Richardson has passed .530TS% (his career average) twice, despite having other years in there with excellent point guard play. Of course, a lot has changed, and a lot of veteran players see a slight upward creep in their TS% as they get more savvy, maybe that would happen to him, too.
But overall, I have a hard time expecting Richardson, divorced from Nash, to be an above-average efficiency player.
Good breakdown
I was just coming from a place that assumption. Maybe Im wrong. My assumption is tha JRich is a Warrior fan favorite, and of all the players in the league, we are probably most familiar with his game.
From Nash to Curry might be a downgrade, but we know what we are getting when we sign him (with or without Nash), and playing with Curry might be a good thing for him, though not as good as playing with Nash (high bar), perhaps as good or better than playing with Baron (low bar).
I feel Im being clear, but I guess Im not.
by WestCoastWarrior on Dec 14, 2010 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
I was just coming from a Place OF assumption
not that assumptions. oops
And thanks for the breakdown, all good points.
by WestCoastWarrior on Dec 14, 2010 11:12 AM PST up reply actions
I just hurled my snack onto my computer screen.
by Only In Fairfax on Dec 10, 2010 4:37 PM PST reply actions
I think I'd rather have Monta than AI
I'll sell this vacant lot and settle down in a place I've only read about in books about Miles Davis.
by Reverend_Randy on Dec 10, 2010 4:55 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
And I think
Gilbert is probably about the 2nd least desirable player in the league as far as a team’s top 8 would go. I can only think of Shard as worse.
I’m not really one to quote Adam Sandler movies, but
“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. "
I'll sell this vacant lot and settle down in a place I've only read about in books about Miles Davis.
by Reverend_Randy on Dec 10, 2010 4:58 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'd rather have Gilbert and Shard than Elton Brand
But yeah, I’m grasping at straws with that….
Why?
He is younger/better/cheaper and more durable.
by Only In Fairfax on Dec 11, 2010 11:56 AM PST up reply actions
OH lord no
I’m all about Andre Iguodala. Allen Iverson, not so much. All of the problems I have with Monta magnified.
I'll sell this vacant lot and settle down in a place I've only read about in books about Miles Davis.
by Reverend_Randy on Dec 11, 2010 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
Ok, got the computer screen cleaned up.
At least Rev got me chuk(le)ing with that Adam Sandler quote.
by Only In Fairfax on Dec 10, 2010 5:16 PM PST reply actions
We need more humor before the Heat game starts!
by Only In Fairfax on Dec 10, 2010 5:17 PM PST reply actions
A ridiculously overpaid player, one who, while once good, was never every productive enough to justify the current contract. He hasn’t had a healthy season in several years and has seen more or less every aspect of his game decline. At the vet min, I’d love to see if he had something in the tank. At ~$20mil per for 3 years after this? No thanks.
by jae on Dec 10, 2010 6:12 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Just a general rule, lets avoid the worst contracts in the NBA.
by GovernorStephCurry on Dec 10, 2010 6:41 PM PST reply actions
no way, let's go completely the other way!
the all-NBA bad contract team!
PG: Arenas
SG: …? (help me out here GSOM)
SF: Rudy Gay
PF: Rashard Lewis
C: Darko
"Trade Radmanovic. We don’t even want nobody for you, we’ll let you go. Just get off our team".
-Mistah FAB
by Duby Dub Dubs on Dec 14, 2010 9:35 AM PST up reply actions
A few years ago, we could have said Dunleavy but not only is he playing a lot better, his contract is expiring.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is Monta Ellis when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
Rudy Gay has actually been pretty good this year
not amazing, not worthy of his contract, but most of the other players on that list, like Shard and Gil, are actually bad. He’s kind of having a reverse contract year- get the big contract, so then he plays harder. A mitigating factor is that he’s also young. His WP48 is like .144 on the season.
At the 2, I might have to go with Rip. I realize this isn’t his natural position, but it looks like Brandon Roy might be a good bet at 3. He just got on a 5 year max extension. His stats on the season are like 18 PPG, 3 RPG, 3 APG and a TS% of .519. Awful.
I'll sell this vacant lot and settle down in a place I've only read about in books about Miles Davis.
by Reverend_Randy on Dec 14, 2010 5:00 PM PST up reply actions
NO, just no...
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Dec 10, 2010 9:01 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
"Maybe sixth man or making monta expendable for a star SF?"
just a plain laugh out loud.
by Cpt. Jack in the Box on Dec 10, 2010 10:32 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
the wizards would laugh at us
really. theyd cry from the laughing. arenas may be a wackjob, but he’s a hell of a lot better than any of those three.
by dubious dubz on Dec 11, 2010 10:29 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
The wizards would be laughing with joy at anyone will to take arenas off their books.
dubious comment dubz , just sayin.
by Only In Fairfax on Dec 11, 2010 12:00 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Monta's now at .7 WP48
At his best this season it was near .180 which really isn’t very good given only a small sample, so i really don’t get why people keep saying Monta’s playing well and Curry’s not. If you only counted the first week…maybe but right now, Curry’s clearly our best player and Monta’s looking like garbage again.
by GovernorStephCurry on Dec 11, 2010 2:42 PM PST reply actions
At his best this season it was near .180 which really isn’t very good given only a small sample,
“Very good” is subjective, but it’s significantly above average. 0.180 makes you not quite elite, but someone who is much, much more part of a solution than part of a problem. That’s a player who will net his team 10+ wins on his own. If you can have everyone on your team producing at that level, you’ll come close to the single season win record. Of course, it’s rare to have an entire team do that. Generally, most of your win production comes from a small number of players.
Well, he's not close to .180 now.
by GovernorStephCurry on Dec 11, 2010 4:12 PM PST up reply actions
Gov , sorry but how can you watch our team play and start with that Monta is looking like garbage stuff again.
Please stop with that “garbage”.
by Only In Fairfax on Dec 11, 2010 4:46 PM PST up reply actions
I don't hate Monta.
I just accept he’s not playing very well. All i care about are the Warriors winning, and the way Monta plays (ball hog, no defense, tons of mid range jumpers at near 35%ish rates) kill this team at times. He has the ability to be a very good player, but that’s very dependent on him not being selfish, playing off ball, and taking good shots. He’s stopped being selfish now, but he’s not playing off ball and he’s not taking good shots now. How can you take 7 shots a game from mid range when you’re shooting near 30% there and you are shooting great at the rim and within 10 feet? That’s a team killer right there.
by GovernorStephCurry on Dec 12, 2010 1:18 AM PST up reply actions
Gov
I gotta admit that I over reacted to your “Monta’s looking like garbage again”.
What the stats are not really showing is the frustration of a stretch of a tough schedule segment with a shallow injured bench, gimpy and injured starting playmaker, star PF with only 60% of his normal game due to chewed up elbow(at least we hope thats the reason), nice new young SF who plays like a star some nights but is relying only on his outside shot to bring his offense and will probably not ever reach the elite status we need at that position. A servicable C with a decent contract but low offence. We have dumped most of our offensive scorers with bad contracts,attitudes and misc reasons for a “future” with flexibility……..which leaves us with the one guy who brings somewhat consistant scoring and durability night after night) although he makes the mistake of killing his effeciency when no one else seems to be showing up admitedly)……and then I see him called garbage and then well…..I admit it…I lost it.
by Only In Fairfax on Dec 12, 2010 12:03 PM PST up reply actions
just get over it.
we will not be competitive until we improve our defense. I like monta and curry, but I’m a warriors fan. I don’t still follow Antawn Jamison or Matt Barnes, I like the guys and I wish them well but I still enjoy watching the warriors after all these players have come and gone. I don’t care who we move, so long as we make a move that results and some form of passion and tenacity on the defensive end.
To be fair
he has been garbage for a stretch. As good as he was for the first 8-10 games, he’s been that bad for 10 of the last 12 or whatever.
I'll sell this vacant lot and settle down in a place I've only read about in books about Miles Davis.
by Reverend_Randy on Dec 11, 2010 5:22 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah.
It’s one of those things: after 10 games, his WP48 was fantastic … and to move from fantastic to below average that quickly says something very very bad about how well he’s played during that stretch.
But, of course, it’s not so easy to notice that he’s been stinking up the joint because he’s still scoring a bunch of points.
I am a HUGE Agent Zero fan
And was distraught when we lost him, and saw him succeeding in DC. But even I can’t justify that contract.
I’d only take him if we got Washington to tack on some young talent like Javale McGee. Even then it’s financially straps us to only make roster upgrades via trades.
I’d only take him if we got Washington to tack on some young talent like Javale McGee. Even then it’s financially straps us to only make roster upgrades via trades.
It might be even worse than that, if there’s a new, harder cap.
We might find ourselves unable to extend players like Curry without jettisoning other good players in talent-losing trades.
Do not assume there will be a Bird exemption or a mid-level exemption in the new CBA.
Do not assume there will be a Bird exemption or a mid-level exemption in the new CBA
man, it’s going to be interesting to see what happens with this.
Maybe we will see more FAs freeing up in the next couple of years
"I cannot believe the depth of "Smart's" ineptitude…it goes deeper than David Lee’s elbow wound"
by Duby Dub Dubs on Dec 14, 2010 3:09 PM PST up reply actions
This is the dumbest idea ever
No one wants 0’s contract.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Monta IS the leader of the Warriors. His attitude has been just fine this year. Is it wrong for humans to show a little frustration? He’s been doing it all alone this year (well had help from Curry but 2v12 won’t do it in the NBA). The Warriors suck and you are just using Monta as a scape goat. He’s doing everything he can to help this team win but no one is stepping up, what do you want from the man? So the Lakers should have traded Kobe from 05-08 right, cause he was doing it all himself (not the best comparison but you get the point)?
Here is the real problem: What this team needs to do is.
1) Dumb coach. We need a new coach. One with an ACTUAL plan. Someone who knows how to utilize this team’s strength in running. Someone who is charismatic enough to light fires up these players behinds.
2) We need a real small forward because Mr. Inconsistent, DWright is not a legit starter.
3) Whose our 6th man? Mr. Dissapointment, Reggie Williams? Nah he’s been working on his brick house this year. Get real, we need an actual bench who will come and play every game. Not one who will put up 2 points in 7 games and then come out the 8th/9th/10th game with 20 points or whatever.
"If you never really had any money, then what's another year to wait for it. As I've grown in college, you kind of learn to be patient. And if you do, good things will happen for you." -52
Mr. Dissapointment, Reggie Williams? Nah he’s been working on his brick house this year.
Actually, Mister Brickhouse is shooting extremely well this year: .586 TS, a “drop-off” of precisely two points from last season, when we all thought he was the bees knees.
FWIW, that’s miles vastly better than the Monta’s 541. Which is to say, Monta sharing the ball with Reggie (and Curry) is generally much more conducive to winning ballgames than his “doing it all alone.”
I think we’d all agree that the shallowness of the bench after Reggie has been one of this team’s big problems. I think Lou and Udoh will help greatly in this regard, but how nice would it be to be able to bring in Morrow and CJ instead of Carney, Lin and Vlad?
Also totally agreed with your point #1. I’d add that one of the jobs of our new coach with an “actual plan” should be to get Monta to buy more into the team concept — specifically, accept the fact that hoisting Js isn’t his game. From what I’ve seen, it looks like Smart has basically given him free rein to do his thing. How many times this season has he taken him aside after a dumb shot and given him a stern talking-to? Even once? Monta’s clearly been more efficient and team-oriented this year than last, but he hasn’t been stellar, and lately he’s showing some worrisome signs of regression.
Man, what I wouldn’t give for Doc Rivers and some UBUNTU…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 12, 2010 5:55 AM PST up reply actions
easy response to that.....
If your even mentioning Kobe and monta in the same paragraph you obviously arent even worth debating with…ill go monta and brandon roy maybe but thats even an easy debate on who is better….monta is a cancer just like his pimp stephen jackson…PS come back with a response for monta when he at least brings his team to the playoffs as an 8th seed
by CurrysKillinGoDubs on Dec 16, 2010 1:50 PM PST up reply actions
If your even mentioning Kobe and monta in the same paragraph you obviously arent even worth debating with
I find it’s the people who aren’t open to new ideas that aren’t worth debating this.
I'll sell this vacant lot and settle down in a place I've only read about in books about Miles Davis.
by Reverend_Randy on Dec 16, 2010 6:51 PM PST up reply actions
Contracts are the first issue that came to mind
I think it’d mess up our whole structure that has been cleaned up pretty well imo.
For that reason alone, and without giving it much more thought, I’d say no.
by WestCoastWarrior on Dec 13, 2010 12:23 PM PST reply actions
No.
I’d rather have a half-year rent for Carmelo Anthony than get Agent 0’s contract.
That would be kind of fun, for just one year. Our bigger need, though, is probably a two that can play defense. Monta or Steph can play the 1 and one gets traded.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is Monta Ellis when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
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)
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Create-a-Caption: ‘Hey! Hey, I like your name!’
- A closer look at a big night for Brandon Bass, who ate well because Rajon Rondo kept feeding him
- Kevin Garnett takes a little shot at Philadelphia’s ‘fair weather fans.’ His words, not ours (VIDEO)
- Eight wounded in a shooting as fans spill out into the streets surrounding the Oklahoma City Thunder’s arena
- Behind the Box Score, where a special Oklahoma City Thunder team is moving on
