Warriors needed a major trade
by puffylove on Feb 18, 2010 1:13 PM PST
Email
Print
In the end of the trade deadline, the Warriors did NOTHING. We are a team in much-needed help on the frontline and we couldn't pull the trigger on Maggette or Ellis. The Bulls traded Tyrus Thomas to the Bobcats for Flip Murray and Acie Law plus a future first rounder. We could have done something better like Raja Bell and CJ for a big man who can help us now and in the future. The Kings traded Martin cause they believe in Tyreke Evans, do we believe in Curry? I am not sure this management believes in him. Curry should be given the keys to drive this franchise to the playoff, I can see him becoming one of the best PG in the league but he needs time to develop without Ellis ball-hog intervening on him. If Houston was willing to take Kevin Martin contract, couldn't we have offered Maggette and Ellis for TMac or Maggette, Ellis and Biedrins for TMac and Landry? Riley said that this team would do something during the trade deadline, HE IS A LIAR, the Warriors management have no clue on how to move bad contracts for good players. Chris Mullin knew it, I wished we would have done something rather then the status quo. Well, maybe we can get John Wall or maybe we can start calling up more D Leaguers after we waive Raja Bell, we needed something and we got NOTHING.
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!
520 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i would of love to get gay but it just did happen i love monta but now who do we pick for the draft ??
BPA.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
Turner
I don’t want the number 1 pick..i want the number 2…seriously, i do…Turner and Curry would be double triple doubles every night, you know what I mean Yao Ming?
by JimBarnett2KevinGarnett on Feb 18, 2010 9:48 PM PST up reply actions
Why couldn't Curry and Wall both get triple doubles every night?
by freerandolph on Feb 18, 2010 9:49 PM PST up reply actions
Explain how a point guard and a small forward effect each others playing time?
banned like chris andersen
Maybe he's like Acie Law
a natural SF
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 19, 2010 1:08 AM PST up reply actions
In most offensive systems, there's no difference in skill set required between a 2 and a 3.
But I’d really love to stop running guys who’s size makes them 2s out there at the 3. I’m tired of giving up rebounds at every position.
MUST PLAY SMALL BALL
whoever we draft, you can assume he’ll play up a position…..
Evan turner- natural 2guard. Play 3
Aminu, Wesley Johnson- Small forward, Play em at 4!
Unless we get a top 2 pick
I think we’ll go big in the draft. Riley has said that he wants to improve the FC. He said he doesn’t forsee drafting a guard unless they are a star (Wall and Turner). Outside the Top 2, there isn’t a surefire star available. In any case my moneys on Riley taking a big in next years draft.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
I like our frontcourt. Sure, we could upgrade, but there aren’t any real upgrades in this draft and in free agency, and sorry, Bosh ain’t coming here.
banned like chris andersen
I like our FC too, they're nice guys.
But obviously Riley is trying to upgrade the center position by dangling Andris around. Come draft time, Riley will go big.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
go big or go home, thats what I always say
Of course, I’m at home right now…
by freerandolph on Feb 19, 2010 1:45 PM PST up reply actions
Since we wont have the 1 or 2 pick most likely lets get a future all star big...Cousins
by Only In Fairfax on Feb 19, 2010 3:53 PM PST up reply actions
15.6% at the 1, 15.7% at the 2, 15.6% at the 3
are our odds. If Cousins ends up being the third, we actually have as good a shot at getting Wall or Turner as Cousins, better shot to get one than Cousins.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 19, 2010 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
Even a small trade
There were OPPORTUNITIES out there. Even a minor deal could have help.
Now we look to the summer for the BIG AMAZING move. Then when THAT doesn’t happen, we’ll look to NEXT season’s trade deadline.
It’s time to blow up the team except Curry -- but only if there’s a management change. With no management change, we can expect more of the same.
Having said that…I think the Roster, without injuries, competes for the 8th spot. But then the W’s are still in bad shape to actually improve beyond that.
Depressing. Ellis has got to be bummed they didn’t make a bold move - even if that would would’ve included him!
NO
No more blowing up the team! Why would we ever do that??? So that we can sign Lebron?!?!? Not gonna happen. We have some young players, now is the time to be patient and let them develop. I predict that if we don’t blow up the team we will make the playoffs the year after next.
I really don’t get why we would blow up the team unless we can get players better then the ones that we have!
by freerandolph on Feb 18, 2010 9:51 PM PST up reply actions
I really don’t get why we would blow up the team unless we can get players better then the ones that we have!
You answered your own question.
This team would certainly be better if there weren’t as many injuries and, if healthy, Nellie didn’t have what’s become a neurotic affection for non-traditional lineups, but the team still isn’t in a state where it’s just itching to develop into a really good squad with that famous “internal development”. Bad teams almost never (and I say almost without actually knowing the exception) become good teams that way. They improve by getting better players, not waiting for the players they have to get better.
Monta is 24. That’s no longer "he’s only range. He’s at that age where what you’ve seen is pretty much it. Improvement, if any, will be marginal. That’s not to say he can’t be a good player and contribute to a winner -he already has- but expecting him to be the focal point is flawed. Andris is 23. I like his game and think he’s undervalued by many, but he’s not going to change much. If anything, he’ll learn defensive tricks, because that’s something big men can continue to learn, but he’s also real close to what-you-see-is-what-you-get.
So for the team as is to really get better, we’re depending on substantial growth from Curry (might happen, but it’s not a solid bet) or Randolph (also not a safe bet, despite his enormous athletic abilities) or a dark horse like Wright, but putting money on that is like betting on the state solving its budget woes overnight and Schwarzenegger finally learning how to pronounce “California” at the same time.
“Blowing up” the team, dumping guys for the sake of making moves and clearing everyone out isn’t a good strategy, but holding pat is equally bad. Up until a few hours ago was the time to see if there were some moves to make that would bring in some additional pieces who might improve to help the team. But that didn’t happen and the assets have now evaporated into short timers.
What players out there would really make us better?
Sorry but the players that were traded would not have made the Dubs any better this season or in the future. The only player who was traded that I would have liked the Warriors to acquire was Carl Landry but we’d basically have to give up Monta Ellis. With Evans, the Kings can make Martin expendable but Ellis isn’t expendable for a role playing PF.
I mean do the names Nate Robinson, Tyrus Thomas, John Salmons, Ronnie Brewer, Antwan Jamison, etc… bring Championships closer? No way.
What was the cost of Amare? The Rockets reportedly offered up Scola, Battier, Brian Cook and multiple Draft picks and were turned down. Imagine what the Dubs would have to offer.
Boozer wasn’t moved either. Same with Bosh.
Mayo for Ellis? Eh.
The way I see it is there were NO DEALS out there to be made that would have made this team significantly better outside of a Maggette salary dump.
The Warriors selected the best path and that is wait to see if we get the #1 draft pick and then see what Draft pick + Ellis/Curry or if they want Wall what Curry or Ellis would fetch in the summer. Kudos to Larry Riley for not panicking and heeding to the wishes of a clearly antsy Warrior fanbase.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Feb 19, 2010 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
Bingo. Lock the thread!
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 21, 2010 7:51 AM PST up reply actions
blowing up the team
we’re 3rd worst team in NBA. Changed NEED to be made. you can say no randolph or curry, i’d agree….. but i mean guys like monta, biedrins may be young but they have more than enough nba exerience for us to know what they are.
perfect example is kings trade… gave up KMart, 26 year old proven efficient scorer. But they gained Landry who is an awesome fit.
we’re 3rd worst team in NBA
We’re really not, though. Despite all the injuries and setbacks we’ve faced, we’re still only 8th worst in terms of point differential (or were a couple days ago), which is a more meaningful way to judge our talent. Given that we aren’t in the playoff race either way, being unlucky as we’ve been is a good thing, gives us a better chance at a good draft position.
by Missing Barry on Feb 19, 2010 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
I take our point differential numbers with a grain of salt. Our average margin of victory when we win is about 17 points, and 9 of our wins were double digits, and 4 are greater than 30. Those games where we really piled it on are probably skewing that number and making us look stronger than we actually are.
I take our point differential numbers with a grain of salt
I agree, good teams win the close games, they don’t pile up points against bad teams, if they get a lead they manage it to save wear and tear on their starters.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 19, 2010 2:16 PM PST up reply actions
Except good teams do blow out bad teams often. And yes, good teams are more likely to win close games because, well, they’re good teams. I dunno, with data like point diffferentials, when you start throwing data out for various reasons that may or may not be properly founded, the data starts becoming questionable. I’m much more comfortable looking at the full sample if we don’t have strong evidence it’s biased. So I’ll take the point differential at face value. Blowout wins mean something, blowout losses mean something.
by Missing Barry on Feb 19, 2010 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
So I’ll take the point differential at face value.
For very good and very bad teams, pythagorean approximations don’t work as well as they do for the middle of the pack. The error on estimating the record of a very good or very bad team tends to increase.
Ok, thanks for the info, is that because pythag assumes a linear relationship but it’s not really linear? We wouldn’t be far enough out for that to really be a problem, right?
by Missing Barry on Feb 20, 2010 8:54 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah OKC should have blown up their team last year, right?
The first half of the season that had like 6 wins or something. They’re so stupid for not blowing up the team then!!! (sarcasm)
by freerandolph on Feb 19, 2010 1:47 PM PST up reply actions
And our situation is like theirs how?
They’ve got a player who many observers think will be one of the best players in the league for the next 15 years, who’s young enough to still be improving.
We … don’t.
Curry, Randolph, Wright, and a possibly high draft pick in the next draft all could have the potential to turn into allstars plus we already have a bunch of decent young players.
by freerandolph on Feb 19, 2010 2:35 PM PST up reply actions
The “decent young players” tend not to take you that far. Stars do. Curry, Randolph and Wright might turn into stars, but if that’s your entire gameplan, it’s flawed. I wouldn’t dump any of them for the sake of it, but I certainly wouldn’t let my GM stand by with that as his plans a, b and c.
(Try writing in the big box that doesn’t bold out all of your post. It’s really much easier to read that way.)
Curry, Randolph and Wright might turn into stars, but if that’s your entire gameplan, it’s flawed.
I’m not really seeing a better alternative, though, are you? If I was GM, I’d be willing to move any of those guys for a superstar, but my attitude is, if a team has a real star or superstar, why would they be looking to trade him and take some combination of those guys back? So that basically leaves us with hoping they develop….
by Missing Barry on Feb 20, 2010 8:56 AM PST up reply actions
Here's the plan
A) Win lottery this year and draft Wall
B) Win lottery next year and draft the best player
…
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 20, 2010 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
Randolph is said to have top 10 player potential
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 19, 2010 4:57 PM PST up reply actions
As opposed to Durant -
who is already a top ten player (maybe even top five) and has the potential to be a top two.
See a slight difference, maybe?
Oh yeah
I know, man. The only person in his list who could even potentially be included in the same discussion as Durant is Randolph, and even then, he’ll be a tier below Durant.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 19, 2010 6:38 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, and he's still getting better. I'm just talking 5 years down the line, not now.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 20, 2010 6:37 PM PST up reply actions
Ah. But that makes no sense in the context of this discussion.
You may be right. Maybe Randolph turns into that. I don’t know. But this whole sub-thread started as a response to FreeRandolph saying that we must think OKC should have blown up their team.
How good Randolph might be, in abstract, five years down the line is pretty irrelevant in that case, except insomuch as Randolph is exactly the sort of player you don’t trade when blowing up your team.
what?!?! i don't get what you're saying at all.
Are you saying that we should blow up the team, but keep randolph (and i’m guessing Curry too)? Who would we trade for? Do you think we could have got a team changing player for Mags and Ellis? Who would we get?
And I’m not saying that you think OKC should have blown up their team. What I said was in response to someone who was saying that we should obviously blow up our team because our record is so bad. I pointed out that OKC had a really bad record and didn’t blow up and now they are really good. All I was trying to say is that being a bad team does not make it so blowing up the team is automatically always the best thing to do, and I think that in the case of the Dubs, blowing up the team is not the appropriate and skilled thing to do right now.
by freerandolph on Feb 22, 2010 12:03 AM PST up reply actions
I'm saying that whether or not we should blow up the team
-and I don’t think we should until we’ve seen these guys play with a real coach -
That there is NO connection between what we should do and what OKC should do. The comparison is moronic because our situations are vastly different.
Well you keep missing my point...
What I said was in response to someone who was saying that we should obviously blow up our team because our record is so bad. I pointed out that OKC had a really bad record and didn’t blow up and now they are really good. All I was trying to say is that being a bad team does not make it so blowing up the team is automatically always the best thing to do, and I think that in the case of the Dubs, blowing up the team is not the appropriate and skilled thing to do right now.
So I agree with you that there is not necessarily any connection between OKC and us, except that we have both been very bad in recent seasons. I’m using them as an example to show that all bad teams shouldn’t be blown up like some were saying.
I think we both seem to agree about not wanting to blow up our team.
by freerandolph on Feb 22, 2010 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
They didnt blow up because they had
already blown it up.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 22, 2010 5:23 PM PST up reply actions
The Warriors have too... How many players from We Believe are still around?
And they’ve blown it up like 5 times in the past decade and a half… Look. I see what you’re saying and it seems like agree with your main point. All I’m saying is that we should give this team chance to develop some more, and I’m arguing with whoever used the Warriors bad record as the reason for blowing up the team by showing them that it isn’t always the best thing to do to blow up a bad team. I think this Warriors team is a good team to not blow up. Agree or disagree?
(if disagree state reason why, and what deal you think was out there that the Dubs should have jumped on, or should they have just given players away?)
by freerandolph on Feb 22, 2010 9:38 PM PST up reply actions
I think this Warriors team is a good team to not blow up. Agree or disagree?
We’re too bad a team to have the opportunity to blow up, no one is gonna take our motley collection of D leaguers, walking wounded, bad contracts,and old has beens?
We could probably trade Currr-bury for another promising point guard and DRE for a specialist center but what good would that do?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 22, 2010 9:50 PM PST up reply actions
The problem is that we DIDN'T blow up the "We Believe" team ...
No, I know that only a few of those players are still around, that’s not the point.
When you blow up a team, you trade players with a plan. You shuffle the old players out and the new ones in order to put in a new strategic vision.
But the only move this team has made since beating the Mavs in that series that had any sort of strategic vision behind it was the JRich trade.
(Now, I don’t want to rehash an old argument – the strategic vision behind that trade may have been wrong. I don’t think it was, but even those who didn’t liek the trade have to admit there was thought behind it – get bigger, get younger, invest that money in Monta and Beans. Wise? Maybe, maybe not. But it was a strategicly motivated move).
Every move we’ve made since then has been a panic move, a desperate attempt to salvage something from a player who’s trade value was rapidly declining.
There was no strategic vision at work in trading Harrington for Crawford. Crawford fit no need. Harrington was a better fit for the team we had and the team we were moving towards.
There was no strategic vision in the signing of Mags. Just “grab a free agent so we don’t look like idiots.” Not thought about how that player fits into the team’s long term plans.
There was no strategic vision in trading Crawford. None in trading Bellinelli. None in trading Jackson.
Those were all “let’s remove a problem” trades on which we got back pennies on the dollar.
Ultimately, it’s not about “the team should have made this move” or “the team should have made that move.” It’s that the team should have made a series of moves which worked together as some sort of plan.
Any sort of plan other than letting Nellie sleepwalk towards missing the career wins mark.
I disagree
Mags was a panic move, and Jack was, but the Jack trade fit with an overall move towards young players. Maybe it wasn’t exactly a conscious plan that the front office put into place (which is disconcerting) but it seems that there has been a clear move to youth, which could be viewed as a legitimate thing to do. I’m glad the Dubs have made the moves they have, except for Baron for Maggs, but I can’t really blame that one on them. I think what they have done recently does follow a model, or plan, or getting young and developing players, whether this was conscious plan or not is debatable.
by freerandolph on Feb 23, 2010 5:44 AM PST up reply actions
A move towards younger players?
We got a guy who’s 33 and another guy who’s 29.
It would have been a motivated move towards youth if they hadn’t just given him a monster extension. CLearly they wanted him on the team, and then they jettisoned him for two guys on the downslope of their not-exactly-spectacular careers.
A move towards younger players should actually net you younger players. Not just get an old guy off your roster.
But expiring contracts don't get you young players
And, since young players are the cheapest players around, you don’t need expiring contracts to get them.
If you’re trying to go young, you trade for draft picks and rookie-contract guys who might benefit from a new environment. Not guys who are on the tail end of their careers.
Do you really believe what you're saying???
The players we traded for are obviously expiring contracts, which you’ve acknowleged. And you’re right, they don’t help us get younger, but next year they’ll be gone. Because they’re expiring contracts… So if you think about it for more then just this season, those contracts help us free up money and the players we traded for who are older will be gone after a season, or less, on our team. It totally fits in with the movement towards youth…
by freerandolph on Feb 24, 2010 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
Sure, the expiring contracts will be gone, but who’s going to replace them?
Young guys with potential? Or mid-level guys who can fill out a roster spot but are essentially journeymen?
Letting George walk at the end of the season only turns the Bellinelli trade into a youth movement if you end up signing a player younger than Belinelli to fill that roster spot.
In any event, the lie that the team is trying to go young is given by the Jackson extension.
One more thing:
“Clearing out old guys so you can get younger” is a reasonable strategy at certain times.
But it’s impossible to square that strategy with at least half of the moves the front office has made: signing Jackson to an extension, for example, or trading Belinelli for George, or singing Mags to that contracts.
Ah. But that makes no sense in the context of this discussion.
I was responding to:
Curry, Randolph, Wright, and a possibly high draft pick in the next draft all could have the potential to turn into allstars plus we already have a bunch of decent young players.
Randolph has top 10 player potential. He’s probably not going to realize it till he’s 25 or 26 if he does at all.
Of course I know that Durant isn’t just potential. I read the box scores, I watch Thunder games whenever I can. He’s one of my favorite players to watch.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 22, 2010 2:54 AM PST up reply actions
There is definitely a difference
But those three players also definitely do have a chance to become allstars. Same with Ellis. Plus a high draft pick. That really doesn’t seem too terrible to me, and would rather keep all of our players and try to build the team, unless we could get a “can’t miss player” in a trade like Bosh. But that has a very slim chance of happening, so I’m sticking with our guys.
by freerandolph on Feb 20, 2010 8:52 AM PST up reply actions
I think that it's conceivable that Curry, Randolph, and Monta could all be top 25 players.
And if that happens, we’re going to be pretty good.
On the other hand, it’s also conceivable that none of them will ever be top 50 players. (Monta was clearly a top 50 player pre-injury. Now? Borderline at best.)
I’d say the latter scenario is slightly (but not much) more likely than the former.
But the difference between a top-five and a top-25 player is huge. Given the choice between LeBron and all three of, say, Joe Johnson, Gerald Wallace, and Josh Smith, does any team in the league take the three? Or, heck, Lebron is such a singular talent that let’s take Durant, instead. Do you trade Durant for those three guys? I think there’s an argument to be had either way … but it’s not open-and-shut.
Im wondering: how would someone evaluate that? What proportion of top-5 players (maybe going off of win values or something) have been on non-perennial contenders? What proportion of teams with three or so top 25 talents have been on contenders?
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Feb 20, 2010 11:38 PM PST up reply actions
+1
Like you, I also believe the current roster have plenty of talents. Let’s wait for everyone to be healthy, give ’em a chance to mold and take it from there. If the majority of the current roster is healthy, you are right, they can make a run for the playoffs. I think Raja will be a good mentor for the younger players. And I think he (Raja) sees the talent in this team and one reason why he wants to stay. That says a lot.
by nightroddude on Feb 20, 2010 9:20 PM PST up reply actions
I can see how we couldn't have made a deal with Chicago.
The Bulls obviously wanted a 1st round pick for Tyrus. We can’t give out future first round picks right now, and we’re sure as hell not giving them our 2010…
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
The Kings destroyed in that deal.
Landry was the best player moved and the Kings got him. Its stupid how well they did that.
As for the Warriors…
This was expected.
Kmart > Landry, sorry. Kmart is one of the most efficient scorers in the NBA…just because he didn’t fit with Evans for a few games doesn’t change that.
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
Landry is a decent rebounder, and good post defender, and he happens to be more efficient than Martin, while having a great contract.
banned like chris andersen
and he happens to be more efficient than Martin
Which in itself is ridiculously impressive. Martin is way down this year from his normal stellar efficiency, but he’s been among the best scoring guards for a few years now. On offense, combining what Martin (normally) shoots with his shot volume makes me value him more, though his defense leaves, uh, something to be desired.
I like that analogy.
I’m real curious to see how things go with Houston. Daryl Morey is clearly a bright guy (though I tend to think Petrie is as well) and I’ve been using him as an anecdotal barometer for intelligent basketball decisions that go against the “conventional wisdom” that has given big time scorers all the cash and made bargains available in less exciting but highly effective players.
Now of course you need someone to score some points. If you contend that a scorer needs to get paid, a highly efficient one who is locked into a contract that, as scorers are paid, isn’t really unreasonable, may be the best way to spend the money.
Now of course you need someone to score some points. If you contend that a scorer needs to get paid, a highly efficient one who is locked into a contract that, as scorers are paid, isn’t really unreasonable, may be the best way to spend the money.
That was my basic thinking, too. Morey has been an incredible judge of talent, especially defensively, and he’s built a team that has had over its salary play a total 46 minutes and they’re contending. If you take away McGrady and Ming, that team’s salary is 34 million and they’re on the cusp of making the playoffs. That really speaks to Morey’s credit, and shows his ability to find bargains.
That said, they do have problem scoring, which is something Martin does exceedingly well. I think he’s willing to punt on Martin’s defense, because he has a ton of guys who defend well, and take on a highly above average offensive player. Martin’s price tag is somewhat high, but because the league values scoring more than anything else in contracts, it’s really not that bad.
And getting a rookie power forward who has looked pretty good in very limited minutes is a nice bonus.
Martin’s price tag is somewhat high,
and he might have already peaked in his game ?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 18, 2010 7:50 PM PST up reply actions
He might be able to learn defense
he’s already an extremely good offensive player.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 18, 2010 9:02 PM PST up reply actions
People made the same criticisms of Allen's defense when he was traded to the Celtics.
And that worked out just fine. It’s amazing what playing on a great defensive team can do for you.
by Spider Jerusalem on Feb 18, 2010 9:15 PM PST up reply actions
I was thinking that the Celtics would be a perfect fit for Martin
he could totally replace Allen in that offense and give them a decent piece for the future.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 18, 2010 10:39 PM PST up reply actions
Interesting...
If/When Larry Ellison buys the Warriors and cleans house; I wonder if he throws a boat load of cash at some of the top GM’s out there today. Maybe we can be the Steinbrenner of the NBA. Interesting thought.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
Is it safe to call him basketball’s version of Adam Dunn?
Martin? a skinny guy who don’t strike out much?? I think not???
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 18, 2010 6:22 PM PST up reply actions
gets on base=offensively efficient
extra base power=3 point shooting
terrible defense=terrible defense
Thing A
Nah, missed shots. Strikeouts really aren’t a big deal, all they really are is outs.
by Missing Barry on Feb 19, 2010 11:08 AM PST up reply actions
Thats what i thought too, but i hear huge arguments how it doesn’t make the defense have the chance at an error and so on.
banned like chris andersen
Those arguments have been put to rest statistically. It’s a little worse, but the difference is so marginal you should treat them as the same. For all the people that talk about moving runners and chances of errors and what not….well, you also don’t hit into double plays when you strikeout. Turns out those things mostly cancel each other out.
by Missing Barry on Feb 19, 2010 11:56 AM PST up reply actions
Interestingly, the difference between a K and another kind of out is quite relevant for a pitcher but quite irrelevant for a hitter. Funny how that works…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 19, 2010 1:15 PM PST up reply actions
I’ve also found that difference….interesting. I guess my best theory is that on average, a pitcher striking guys out is good, but for a hitter that K’s a lot – you’re getting a special survivor bias group of players, the ones that can still be successful despite their K’s. The majority of their population (k’s a lot crowd) doesn’t get a shot, or stick if they do, at the MLB level.
by Missing Barry on Feb 19, 2010 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
with a lead foot like Dunn
a strike out is another out, true. the fleet footed guys who put pressure on the defense with ‘routine’ ground balls present different variables, obviously, and they are generally coached to make contact rather than swing for the fences and strike out/fly out.
the fleet footed guys who put pressure on the defense with ‘routine’ ground balls present different variables, obviously
Ugh, the whole “put pressure on the defense” thing. Yeah, fast guys get infield hits and such, and get credited for hits on those. When they make an out, though….well, an out is an out is an out.
by Missing Barry on Feb 20, 2010 8:58 AM PST up reply actions
another variable
‘productive out’—advancing a runner from second with ø or one out—the properly placed ground ball can set up a run, the k will not. do you follow much baseball?
For all the people that talk about moving runners and chances of errors and what not….well, you also don’t hit into double plays when you strikeout. Turns out those things mostly cancel each other out.
by Missing Barry on Feb 20, 2010 12:13 PM PST up reply actions
To elaborate a bit:
Expected runs with a runner on first and no out: 0.51
Expected runs with a runner on second and one out: 0.69
A properly placed sacrifice bunt or groundout doesn’t really “set you up for a run” — it sets you up for 0.18 of a run.
And this assuming you’re playing for a single run, which is pretty terrible strategy unless you’re in extra innings or have Lincecum on the mound…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 20, 2010 1:28 PM PST up reply actions
Strikeouts really aren’t a big deal,
Compared to hits they are.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 19, 2010 2:20 PM PST up reply actions
But we’re comparing them to outs. Obviously what matters is how often a guy gets on base and how much power he has, but when he does make an out…..an out is an out is an out.
by Missing Barry on Feb 19, 2010 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
… except, as you point out, in the case of a double play.
I’ve often thought that if the rule-makers in baseball wanted to eliminate some of the luck factor from the game, they should consider abolishing the DP, since the reward for the pitcher/defense so far outweighs the skill involved in inducing and turning one. The difference in expected runs between a seeing-eye single and a double play always seems to me outrageously huge for such a minor “true” difference.
Which is to say: every time a Red Sox player hits into a double play, I die a little… :,-(
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 19, 2010 2:42 PM PST up reply actions
No way, man. The double play is great, and some pitchers (GB guys) do manage to induce a lot of them. Take that away and we’d see a lot less sinkerballers and the only pitchers left would be hard throwing guys that can get K’s. I like GB guys – they’re the types of guys that are undervalued their whole lives, always fighting against the odds, and when they get a shot and succeed, it’s nice to see.
Which is to say: every time a Red Sox player hits into a double play, I die a little
Eh, rooting for the Red Sox, you deserve to. ;)
by Missing Barry on Feb 20, 2010 9:01 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, Kenyon Martin isn't very good anymore
Not since the injury.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 18, 2010 10:39 PM PST up reply actions
Kevin Martin is who I was referring to...
by freerandolph on Feb 19, 2010 1:49 PM PST up reply actions
We know, we’re trying to break peoples habits of referring to Kevin Martin with another active players nickname.
by Missing Barry on Feb 19, 2010 2:26 PM PST up reply actions
Kmart is one of the most efficient scorers in the NBA
So is Landry.
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
I like Landry but I’ll take the scoring of K-mart. The guy was leading the NBA in scoring before he got hurt. I think it was a mistake to only get Landry. I thought they already had Jason Thompson and Greene? The big winner in my min is Houston.
The big winner in my min is Houston.
Well, nobody really “lost” much in this trade, all three teams involved got what they wanted and reworked their rosters and cap flexibility much better in the future at the same time. It’s tough to find trades these days where everyone benefits like this one.
Love Warriors, Hate Cohan! - Sell the team! Save us Mr. Ellison!
by JustSomeName on Feb 18, 2010 4:23 PM PST up reply actions
I’ll take the scoring of K-mart
Why? Kenyon Martin isn’t a very good scorer.
I think it was a mistake to only get Landry.
First, they got more than just Landry. They got Jared Hill. They got Larry Hughes’ expiring contract. Jeffries becomes an expiring next year. They supposedly have the cap space for a max deal this offseason. They got out of Martin’s contract – not that Martin isn’t good, but that’s a lot of money to pay to a guy who might not fit in well with Evans. Landry is arguably just as good as Martin – just as efficient, scores a lot (not as much, but still, a pretty decent amount), and more of a complete player overall. Thompson can still play, maybe Hawes gets pushed out of PT by this – that’s a good thing for the Kings. Greene isn’t made for the 4 – he pulls down 5 boards per 36, that means he’s not even an NBA player unless he’s playing wing. I see no downside here for the Kings.
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 4:32 PM PST up reply actions
You mean Kevin* Martin
I think Kenyon Martin is that tattoed fella that plays for the Nugs. Who the hell is Jared Hill?? The downside for the Kings is that they lose their best scorer.
I realized I messed up the trade a bit. Oh well. Kings still get enough expiring contracts, plus Landry who’s pretty comparable to Kevin Martin overall. Good move for the Kings.
I’ll take the scoring of K-mart
K-mart = Kenyon Martin. You can’t start calling someone by another player in the leagues nickname. That was the point I’m making.
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 7:28 PM PST up reply actions
That’s kind of hard to do when the Kings announcers call Kevin K-Mart. So I always think of him when I hear that, maybe it’s because he’s the better player.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
Calling Kevin Martin K-Mart bothers me on so many levels I can’t even begin to describe it….
by Missing Barry on Feb 19, 2010 8:01 AM PST up reply actions
I hear ya, I was just giving my 2 cents as to why I personally regard Kevin as K-Mart (not that it’s right but living in Reno and catching my fare share of Kings games I hear it a lot). And let’s face it, it’s a pretty lame nick name to begin with, I say we just call Kenyon, “lips”.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
i heard a westfall interview
he plans to start landry @ 4, thompson @ 5 for now. Hawes can play with both of them… it’s a start.
I like JT but i am hard pressed to see him as much more than a rotation big long term
I like JT but i am hard pressed to see him as much more than a rotation big long term
At least he’s better than Hawes!
by Missing Barry on Feb 19, 2010 11:57 AM PST up reply actions
The guy was leading the NBA in scoring before he got hurt.
The guy gets hurt a lot. He also plays no defense. I like Kevin Martin, but this is the first Morey move I really don’t like. I know Morey really likes Hayes’ defensive ability and loves Scola so the frontcourt projected to be pretty crowded with Yao returning next year but I just dont like it. Next year the Rockets will rely heavily on the incredibly injury prone Yao Ming and a high scoring but also very injury prone SG…. sounds awfully familiar….
Thing A
I just found this article
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/13594/david-thorpe-on-the-trading-of-kevin-martin
David Thorpe seems to think that Kevin could learn how to play defense. He hasn’t had a consistent defensive system, so he’s actually gotten worse at defense since he first got there.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 19, 2010 1:10 AM PST up reply actions
This is how I see it. Morey knows his stats, and he knows that Kevin Martin is the most efficient scorer this league has seen. He knows he is also a high volume scorer. So with his team struggling with Trevor Ariza’s horrific shooting, he knew what had to be done.
Brooks
Martin
Battier
Scola
Hayes
It seems like Martin has a lot of good defensive players alongside him to help him out. Maybe we see him learn to play defense again, and to realize it is an important part of the game.
Now he has the Knicks Picks for life essentially, with last years pick, the year after next, and the year after that. Morey destroyed the Knicks, and unless the Knicks get Lebron/Wade, they screwed themselves.
banned like chris andersen
Knicks are set up to get 2 good FA’s. Now, one of those being Lebron or Wade vs. them being Bosh/Johnson or some similar combo is the difference between lower seed playoff team and legit championship contender, sure, but I don’t think they’re screwed in either case…
by Missing Barry on Feb 19, 2010 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
I think Bosh and Johnson would be a title contender, if they keep Lee, and add a few pieces.
Bosh is a superstar, a top 5 player in this league.
banned like chris andersen
Bosh is not top 5.
Might be top ten. More likely somewhere in 10-15.
We know what a team with Bosh and nothing else does, and that’s nowhere near what a team with LeBron and nothing else does.
Unambiguously better players: LeBron, Wade, Durant, Carmelo, Howard, (that’s 5) Paul.
Arguably better players: Kobe, Gasol, Duncan, Deron Willians, Josh Smith, Gerard Wallace, Ben Wallace, Marcus Camby, Lamar Odom, Kevin Love, Steve Nash, Oden, Dirk.
Now, I’d clearly rather have Bosh than some of the guys in the “arguably better than Bosh” category because of age/health issues. And Bosh is more exciting and dynamic than a bunch of those guys.
But any way you slice it, Bosh, at best, sneaks into the top ten … and even that’s dicey.
Kevin Love really? Humm I’m going to have to check that out.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
He's having a really, really good season.
He’s not volume scorer Bosh is, but he scores plenty and he’s more efficient at it … plus he’s a better rebounder.
“Top 5” is a bit of a misleading term in a league with such a clear Top 4 and drop-off thereafter. If Durant and Melo are better than Bosh, it’s very ambiguously, imo. Personally, given equal health, ages, and contracts, I’d rather build a team around Pau, Oden or Bosh than Durant or Melo.
Overall point taken, though. Bosh has never shown he’s in the class of player whose presence automatically puts your team in championship discussions. I don’t really see how the Knicks with Bosh and Joe Johnson, and minus David Lee, are that much better than the Raptors as currently constituted.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 19, 2010 1:31 PM PST up reply actions
You would rather build a team around Oden!?!?! Wait until he makes it through two seasons!
Out of those 5 players named, its no question Durant.
by freerandolph on Feb 19, 2010 1:52 PM PST up reply actions
Hence the disclaimer “given equal health, ages, and contracts.”
Remember, this subject here is “Top 5 NBA players” … not “Top 5 building blocks” or somesuch. Durant’s main advantage over Melo, Bosh, and Pau is his age (and by extension, the possibility he could still improve a little). His main edge over Oden is health. If all you have to go by is their recent production when healthy — which should be the criteria in this li’l game — choosing among them is hardly “no question.”
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 19, 2010 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
Durant vs Melo
I think it’s not as close as you think between those two, although I think your larger point is well-taken.
Durent shoots almost 40 points TS% better, scores more points, is .7 reb/36 better, fouls 2/3rds as often, and blocks shots twice as often, compared to Carmelo’s advantages of .4 TO/36 and .6 assits/36.
Even if they were both only going to ever be as good as they are right now, Durant is the clear choice.
Durant is already the 3rd best player in the league, with a chance to pass Wade in the near future.
No one will ever catch Lebron (as long as he’s healthy), because his physical advantage is too severe.
by Spider Jerusalem on Feb 20, 2010 11:31 AM PST up reply actions
Not until Bron is 30, and Durant is still 26.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 20, 2010 6:39 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe.
But Jordan kept a good portion of his athleticism well into his 30’s, and Lebron’s got a lot to lose, but, yeah, point well taken.
by Spider Jerusalem on Feb 20, 2010 8:52 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t believe Wade is a better player than Dwight and Paul.
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Feb 21, 2010 12:13 AM PST up reply actions
I don't know about Paul but I think Wade is better then Dwight.
I think context matter more then people are giving it credit for too. Even the best players in the league have strengths and weaknesses and fit on some teams and styles of play more then others. So its hard to compare players, especially ones that play positions as different as SG and C.
by freerandolph on Feb 21, 2010 2:49 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah
I’d probably have it as Paul-Wade-Dwight for those three. Not quite sure where Du-rant fits in there, though.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 21, 2010 3:39 AM PST up reply actions
Did you see what Wade did last year? He was straight up amazing, not quite as good as Lebron, but on that level….
by Missing Barry on Feb 21, 2010 7:20 AM PST up reply actions
Wade has won a title (as the main guy).
Can’t emphasize that enough. That puts him ahead of Lebron, as well (when you factor in accomplishments).
by Spider Jerusalem on Feb 21, 2010 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
"the main guy" on a team with another very dominant "main guy"
by freerandolph on Feb 21, 2010 12:29 PM PST up reply actions
Not even close, really.
Maybe during the regular season, that could get some traction, but Shaq was merely an above-average player in those playoffs. Posey, Haslem, Mourning, and Jason Williams were all as valuable or more valuable than Shaq in the playoffs. Wade was far and away the main guy, and he carried that team to a title.
by Spider Jerusalem on Feb 21, 2010 4:02 PM PST up reply actions
I would strongly disagree...
What leads you to that conclusion???
by freerandolph on Feb 21, 2010 4:49 PM PST up reply actions
A lot of things.
One, I watched every Heat game in those playoffs, and saw with my own eyes that it was Wade and a bunch of guys (of whom Shaq was one). Any metric I’ve looked at backs that intuition up as well.
Shaq had a PER of of 24.4 (and amassed 6.2 Win Shares) in the regular season in 05-06, which is fantastic for a 33 year-old C. That dipped to 19.9 in the playoffs and a rather pedestrian 1.6 WS (for some perspective, Kendrick Perkins, in Boston’s title run in 07-08 posted 1.9 WS.). Shaq had an ORtg of 100 (not very good), a DRtg of 100 (pretty solid), a rebound rate of 17.6% (strong, and the best on the team, very strong OReb%), and a TS% of .571 (ok, but down from his .586 mark in the regular season, and dwarfed by Wade’s .593 as a SG, which is absurd).
Posey, meanwhile, had a TS% of .614 (which is crazy) and had the second highest WS on the team. Haslem was a decent rebounder, but provided almost 30 minutes a game of solid D, drawing the assignment on Dirk quite often (who was destroying everyone in the playoffs with a 124 ORtg on almost 30% usage). Mourning had a 16% TRB rate, and a sick 95 DRtg, bolstered by his 8.9 BLK%, playing probably the most important 10 MPG in recent playoff history.
I could go on, but the point is Shaq was merely a role player in those playoffs (providing good D and rebounding). Even though he scored 18.4 PPG, it was high usage, low efficiency scoring that really didn’t help his team very much (and his 37% FT was a killer). Shaq was merely one of the guys surrounding Wade in those playoffs.
by Spider Jerusalem on Feb 21, 2010 5:21 PM PST up reply actions
That puts him ahead of Lebron
NO ONE is ahead of LEBRON
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 21, 2010 3:42 PM PST up reply actions
In terms of accomplishments.
Lebron is the most talented player in the league of course (I said that earlier, that no one can touch him so long as he has his athleticism), but until he wins a title Wade has had the better career.
by Spider Jerusalem on Feb 21, 2010 4:04 PM PST up reply actions
but until he wins a title Wade has had the better caree
Wade’s commercials with Barkley forever prevent him from ever being the best player in the NBA. ( look it up, it’s in the rules)
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 21, 2010 4:13 PM PST up reply actions
haha, theres some great acting in those commercials, anyway
I just don’t buy the title argument. It is one important thing to take into consideration, but Lebron is clearly the best player in the NBA. Wade is not and probably has never been over the course of a season. I don’t know exactly what you mean by “Wade has had the better caree®”
Do you mean that players with the most titles have the best careers?
Do you mean that Lebron and Wade are equally good, but since Wade has a title, you’re saying hes the better player?
Are you saying that Wade is worse, but if both their careers were to end today that Wade would be more satisfied with his career then Lebron because he won a title?
Are you saying that if their careers ended today people would see Wade as having had the better career?
Clarify please.
by freerandolph on Feb 21, 2010 4:54 PM PST up reply actions
I'm saying Wade has had the better career.
The point is to win NBA titles. Wade has done that (as a main guy), and Lebron hasn’t. Lebron is clearly the most talented player in the league, and puts up the best numbers, but he hasn’t won yet. Wade has. When it counted, Wade led his team against arguably a superior team (Dirk was having a fantastic season) and found a way to win. Maybe it’s coaching, Wade had Riley while Lebron is saddled with a pretty terrible game coach in Mike Brown, but whatever the reason, he hasn’t been able to win in a superstar’s league while being the brightest star of them all. Until he wins a title, I don’t see how he can have a better career than Wade.
by Spider Jerusalem on Feb 21, 2010 5:26 PM PST up reply actions
We're not talking about accomplishments
only talent.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 21, 2010 5:30 PM PST up reply actions
I know. I feel like Lebron's talent is more or less unrealized unless he wins a title, though.
It’s a bit backwards, yeah, but the NBA is so driven by the top 5 players, and they win titles every year, that it’s hard for me to think of him as really elite until he wins.
But talent alone, in a vacuum, there’s no question.
by Spider Jerusalem on Feb 21, 2010 5:35 PM PST up reply actions
it’s hard for me to think of him as really elite until he wins.
I dunno if that’s fair, though, to this date he hasn’t had much of a supporting cast, and when he’s going up against Pau + Kobe + Bynum + Odom, or Pierce + Garnett + Allen + Rondo….I can’t hold that against him. I think we just have to wait and see how everything turns out and whether he really should have won a title or it’s understandable that he didn’t (as I would argue it is at this point in time).
by Missing Barry on Feb 21, 2010 10:54 PM PST up reply actions
In this case, I do buy the title argument. Wade’s playoff performance in their title run was completely legit, and he almost singlehandedly won that title for them. Lebrons supporting case has been just as good, and Lebron hasn’t done it yet. With similar supporting casts, and with the way Wade carried that team to a title on his back, it’s completely fair to credit Wade for it and hold it against Lebron in this one particular instance (though in general I think title arguments are usually bogus).
by Missing Barry on Feb 21, 2010 10:53 PM PST up reply actions
Oddly enough, I agree that title arguments are generally bogus, and there's a narrow definition of what I consider a legit application of that argument.
In the NFL and the MLB, so many other factors come into play that it’s silly to bring it up. In the NBA, where superstars drive the league, it holds a little more weight, but only when talking about true upper tier guys in contending situations.
Sometimes, like Garnett in Minnesota (or McGrady in Orlando), GM ineptitude is so overwhelming that a guy has no shot; even in a star’s league, you can’t have a bunch of scrubs and win the title. But I think it works with Lebron and Wade, because they’ve had comparable talent (and it’s easy to make the argument Lebron’s teams have been better), and they’re close enough in ability to warrant a direct comparison.
It’s still wildly early in Lebron’s career, and he might win a ton of titles when he finally hangs it up, so it all might be irrelevant quite soon, but that’s just how I see it at the moment.
by Spider Jerusalem on Feb 21, 2010 11:08 PM PST up reply actions
40 points = .040 better
Or four percentage points better. (“4% better” could mean four percentage points better or 4% of his rate, better, which in this case would be about two percentage points better.)
Thinking of shooting percentages as a three-digit # from 0 to 1, meant 40 points in that context.
Sorry if it was unclear.
Oh okay
I had only seen TS% written out like 55.8 or whatever and not like a batting average, which is what you seem to be doing. It wasn’t too hard to understand, but I did want to make sure.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 22, 2010 2:57 AM PST up reply actions
@Ronaldinho: did you intentionally leave off Roy?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 19, 2010 2:10 PM PST up reply actions
No, no, i said if they kept Lee with Bosh and JJ. JJ isn’t great but hes a good player.
Bosh has shown this season that he is a superstar though. If the Warriors had gotten him last year for Randolph and Biedrins, we may have been a playoff team- this year.
banned like chris andersen
If the Warriors had gotten him last year for Randolph and Biedrins, we may have been a playoff team- this year.
Given Bosh’s struggles to get Toronto in the playoffs, I think it’s a little optimistic to suggest he would have transformed our fate this year.
I agree somewhat, but he has a terrible roster next to him. No one rebounds or defends besides him ( not that we would either), but I feel comfortable with ( assuming Stack Jack doesn’t demand trade with Bosh there) this lineup.
Curry/Watson
Monta/Morrow
Jack/Maggette
Bosh/Wright
Free Agent Pick up/ Turiaf/Wright
Azubuike backing up 2, and 3.
Not great, but much better than anything we put out on the floor this year.
banned like chris andersen
I think the top 3 of Bron, Wade and CP3
is basically the top tier, with Bron maybe even having his own tier.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 19, 2010 5:00 PM PST up reply actions
Add Dwight to that list and I agree
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Feb 21, 2010 12:46 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, his offensive game has really impressed me lately
and that might warrant his inclusion to the top tier.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 21, 2010 1:30 AM PST up reply actions
His offensive game is raw, and no better than Biedrins’ but his ability to get fouled, and get tip in’s make him incredibly efficient. Theres so much potential for Howard to develop nice post moves, but he is already unstoppable. Just get your free throws to 65% and then you won’t be stopped.
banned like chris andersen
His offensive game is raw, and no better than Biedrins’ but his ability to get fouled
Have you watched him this year? He’s trying all those things that Andris is, but he’s finishing. He’s also consistently hitting his bank shots.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 21, 2010 5:27 PM PST up reply actions
Honestly, he’s a dunk or foul type of scorer right now. Sure, he may make a nice post move once or twice a game, but he’s not that consistent. Howard is a beast defensively and on the boards, but he is not a great option down low.
banned like chris andersen
When you have that kind of strength and athleticism, sometimes your best option is just to set up down low and try to dunk it as often as possible. Shaq turned in one of the greatest NBA careers for a big man in history doing nothing but that.
by Missing Barry on Feb 21, 2010 10:56 PM PST up reply actions
Shaq seemed to have an array of post moves but maybe thats not true. Shaq was the better offensive player. Howard the better defensive.
banned like chris andersen
Shaq had incredible footwork.
That spin to the baseline was devastating. True, his go-to was the elbow mash and the half-hook/dunk, but he definitely had a repertoire of moves and countermoves.
by Spider Jerusalem on Feb 21, 2010 11:10 PM PST up reply actions
Shaq’s repertoire of moves generally consisted of getting good position, which lead to a lot of dunks and easy layins at the rim. That’s the point I’m making with Howard – he can be effective offensively doing the same thing, so he doesn’t necessarily need pretty jump hooks and 12 foot bank jumpshots.
by Missing Barry on Feb 22, 2010 9:42 AM PST up reply actions
Eh
He isn’t a great offensive player, but he’s made strides. He dunks a lot because he has so much power.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 22, 2010 2:58 AM PST up reply actions
Ok. Carmelo has shown he isn’t better than Bosh. He is a rather inefficient scorer, with bad passing and defense, while Bosh is very efficient, good defender, and good rebounder. Am i missing something?
banned like chris andersen
Am i missing something?
Carmelo is a winner and Bosh is a loser?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 20, 2010 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, you are missing something:
Carmelo this season TS% .564.
Bosh this season TS% .598
You can’t, in the same breath, call Carmelo “rather inefficient” and Bosh “highly efficient.” Bosh is more efficient, but the difference isn’t huge.
Team success isn’t the best indicator of individual quality, but Carmelo has made the playoffs every year in his career, and has usually been the best player on his teams. His arrival coincided with the Nuggets going form being a perennial loser to in the playoffs every year.
Bosh, in the same number of seasons, and in a weaker conference, has made the playoffs twice.
Also, nobody is saying that Bosh is bad. He’s just not even close to being a top five player.
I think Bosh tends to be rather underrated because he's exiled in Toronto.
But he’s been a better player than Carmelo for his career. Carmelo has always had the superior team, and more exposure, but I think Bosh is the superior all-around talent.
by Spider Jerusalem on Feb 20, 2010 11:47 AM PST up reply actions
Bosh is much better than Camelo, once you consider their career efficiency, defense, passing, and rebounding…it isn’t actually close.
Again, i was thinking of Carmelo’s previous TS% at 53%.
Do teammates have a factor into whether or not a team is good or not. Having Nene, Camby, JR Smith, Kleiza, and a 3 headed point guard of Miller/AI/Chauncey during your career have anything to do with winning or losing?
Who has been Bosh’s best teammate over the last 4 years? Bargnani? Calderon?
I think thats a larger issue. Well, Carmelo has had more success than Lebron for the most part….so I guess that makes Carmelo the better player in your eyes…..
banned like chris andersen
Well, Carmelo has had more success than Lebron for the most part….so I guess that makes Carmelo the better player in your eyes…..
Advice for you:
1) Go to google.com.
2) Look up “english tutor.”
3) Hire one.
4) Learn to read.
5) Come back.
6) Re-read what I said about evaluating players by their teams performance.
Again, i was thinking of Carmelo’s previous TS% at 53%.
Oh! I get it! You’re going to cherry-pick Carmelo’s worst recent year, and compare it to Bosh’s best? Or just Bosh’s career average?
They are both having above-average years this year. The gap between their performances is 30 points of ts%. If you think this year is atypical, let’s use their career averages: …
Whoops … the difference in their career ts% is .026 – even smaller.
As for rebounding, yes, Bosh rebounds more, but his career average of 9.1/36 is not anything special for a center, whereas Carmelo’s of 6.1/36 is actually pretty good for a guy who spends most of his minutes at small forward.
Pretty much any metric you look at is going to like Carmelo more than Bosh (also, Bosh is definitely a PF, not a C).
The only thing in Carmelo’s favor is his high usage (depending on how much you value skill curves).
by Spider Jerusalem on Feb 20, 2010 5:02 PM PST up reply actions
He’s not a center!
I think with Carmelo’s height, strength, and athleticism 6.1 rebounds isn’t anything too special.
Bosh is the better player. A .026 TS% difference isn’t huge, but it does separate Monta Ellis from Kobe Bryant, so it’s pretty big difference.
Bosh is a special player, and Carmelo is too, but Bosh is the player who helps teams win.
banned like chris andersen
But it's about the position that Melo plays
You could say “With LeBron’s combination of size and athleticism, everything he does is unimpressive” or “With Durant’s length, he should be leading all SFs in rebounds.”
Monta Ellis from Kobe Bryant
That should tell you more about how overrated Kobe is than it does about the difference between Bosh and Melo.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 21, 2010 5:28 PM PST up reply actions
Well Kobe is at .545 TS (above average)
Monta is at .520 TS (below average)
Its pretty significant still.
banned like chris andersen
yeah
whereas Melo and Bosh are both pretty far above average. Kobe is pretty damn close to average, isn’t he?
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 22, 2010 2:59 AM PST up reply actions
Sorry, i just read the post that I commented on and not the ones before it.
But there is some ridiculous Kobe hating going on on this site. Lately I’ve heard people saying that he is not a top 10 player which seems so strange to me when last year people almost unanimously though Lebron and Kobe were the two best players in the league.
by freerandolph on Feb 22, 2010 9:41 PM PST up reply actions
Well, people think a lot of things that aren’t actually true (or at least supported by evidence).
How many people believe man was created by God, rather than having evolved from other life forms? I hate to equate Kobe-lovers to creationists, but I think the same kind of thinking applies—“I believe it because I believe it,” or in the case of Kobe, “I believe it because of my anecdotal memories.”
Thing C
People have opinions usually that don’t need reason to back it up.
At a Warrior Game a month or two ago, i was sitting in front of two men. They were constantly talking about JJ Redick and how he was convicted of rape. Obviously there is nothing to ever suggest this, and they kept repeating it to people with children around, and those people told their kids JJ Redick is a bad man. It was disturbing. I tried to tell them they were wrong, but no they had already made up their mind. I even tried to convince them, they had mistaken JJ for the Duke Lacrosse players, who were innocent, but still embarassed.
Once again i was told i was wrong. Later in the game, after already listening to their ridiculous comments, they started to tell people that Ellis was convicted of assault, a year ago, and that was why he was out for the season. Eventually some people caught on, but most of the people in my row, and his went out of that stadium believing JJ Redick was a rapist, and that Monta Ellis was a convicted felon. People spread opinions on all types of subjects with no logic or evidence, still the majority of people will just go with it.
banned like chris andersen
Your comment is ironic
Because, although I would agree that people do make claims without evidence, you backed up your claim with anecdotal evidence which doesn’t really mean anything. But I don’t care what the stats say, Kobe is good, man. Real good. Top 10 player in the NBA in my opinion. Theres a reason why last year he was pretty much the unanimous runner up for MVP…
by freerandolph on Feb 22, 2010 11:16 PM PST up reply actions
MVP is often
given to the “best” player on the best team. Kobe lead his team to the second best record, so it makes sense that he was second in voting.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 22, 2010 11:40 PM PST up reply actions
Well enough people (basketball experts) in the league were "Kobe-lovers" two years ago to give him an MVP...
by freerandolph on Feb 22, 2010 11:13 PM PST up reply actions
If you want to make the case for Kobe, go ahead and make it, but let’s at least move the conversation past things like MVP votes….I mean, c’mon! Ryan Howard has won the MVP once, finished second once, and third once, and yet, he’s not even close to the best player on his own team (see: Utley, Chase, arguably the single best player in all of baseball over the last 5 years who’s never even finished higher than 7th in MVP voting in a single season).
by Missing Barry on Feb 23, 2010 12:33 AM PST up reply actions
I don't know why you're so irritated by using winning an MVP as a reason that a player might be one of the best players in the league.
I don’t know who Ryan Howard is, so I can’t argue with you about that (nor do I know if I would even disagree with you if i knew who that was) but it seems to me that an award like MVP is only given to one of a handful of elite players.
by freerandolph on Feb 23, 2010 5:48 AM PST up reply actions
No, it’s given to a player whom conventional wisdom holds as one of the best in the league.
Whether that agrees with who is actually is the best in the league depends on who is doing the voting and what criteria they are using.
Thing C
Ok, but I think most people would agree that a player who is widely considered a top 3 candidate for MVP for a few years is a row is probably one of the top tier, and best players in the league.
I keep seeing people writting about how Kobe sucks, which is ridiculous, unless you just hate Kobe and want to hate him no matter what.
by freerandolph on Feb 23, 2010 10:09 PM PST up reply actions
It’s not that Kobe sucks (and as Warriors fans yes, we are obligated to hate him), it’s just that he’s overrated. He’s still a very good player I wouldn’t mind having….
by Missing Barry on Feb 23, 2010 10:57 PM PST up reply actions
The difference between 1 and 2 is huge in this case
LeBron is just so far ahead of him that it isn’t funny.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 23, 2010 11:15 PM PST up reply actions
Actually, Wade isn’t that far behind Lebron (at least based on last season). ;)
by Missing Barry on Feb 23, 2010 11:23 PM PST up reply actions
Agreed that the difference between one and two is significant
and Kobe might not even be 2, but he is top 5 in my opinion.
by freerandolph on Feb 23, 2010 11:38 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t believe Kobe’s top 5 (though I’m not sure who I think the 5th best player is after Lebron, Wade, Paul, Howard), nor do I think he’s the best player on his own team (Pau). I do think he’s good, and I am curious to hear an argument in favor of Kobe being the top 5 if you’re willing to make one….
by Missing Barry on Feb 24, 2010 10:52 AM PST up reply actions
I really don't have any of those crazy stats that everyon on this site is so into
I haven’t watched Kobe much this year, but I’m assuming that he is playing at the level he has for the past couple years, and at the level I’ve seen him play at a couple times this season.
My arguement for Kobe, is that he is one of the most (if not THE most) clutch player in the league. If I could have one player with the ball in his hands while down one point with ten seconds left in the game, I think that Kobe would have to be the number one choice in the league. Also, the way that he can straight up take over a game is incredible. I don’t think he is as good as Lebron, who can almost single handedly carry a team to the finals. But he did single handedly carry his team to the playoffs a couple times, with bad players around him. Now that he has good players he has adapted his game, doesn’t have as good of stats, but is playing more to win.
I guess my thinking is that if NBA Gms had to draft all the current players again right now for only this current season, I could see Lebron, Durant, Wade, maybe Paul and Howard, being drafted ahead of Kobe. Thats, at worst, makes him the 6th “best” player in the league.
by freerandolph on Feb 24, 2010 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
Kobe's actually not that clutch
Bryant’s last-game heroics are largely an issue of selective memory.
The guy takes a ton of late-game shots, because he’s their ball-handler in those situations, he gets to decide who takes the shot, and wants the shot. He doesn’t, I don’t believe, make them at a particularly good clip.
Just when he does, he gets lots of front-page articles. And when he misses everyone forgets.
He’s one stat that backs that up:
His eFG% (weighted for 3-pt shots) is 48%. His eFG% in “clutch situations” (always tricky, but for this stat defined as five minutes left, 5 pt or smaller lead) is 35%.
That’s a lot worse when the chips are down.
But, of course, if every time you make one of those shots you get five front page stories about how clutch you are, it’s easy for people who don’t watch every game to get the wrong impression.
by Ronaldinho on Feb 24, 2010 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Ahhhhhh! I’ve been working so hard the last couple months to kill that clutch myth around here! Next time you’re watching the Lakers, pay close attention to what Kobe does in end of quarter, end of game and “clutch situations”. If often involves waiving a screen away, going one on one, and settling for a long contested jumper. Now, Kobe probably makes thoes long contested jumpers as often as anyone in the league could taking those shots, and it looks great when he makes them (and he does make them at times)….but overall, it’s a really low percentage shot, and his actual success rate on them is poor. Kobe is probably one of the very last people in the entire league I’d want to have the ball in that situation – not because of a lack of talent – but because his decision making is horrible and hurts his team, even though it makes him look good when he makes it (and nobody replays the highlight 1000 times when he doesn’t). I will say the 3 he hit last night was a well designed play and quality shot. Kudos Phil Jackson.
As for the stats, well, you should be looking at the stats, because they’re a record of what a player actually accomplished. When talking about how “good” a player is, I think it needs to be put into the context of what he does to help his team win – and so you look at what he actually accomplished, and try to put it into the context of what that did to help his team win. There’s still plenty of room for disagreement when looking at this, which is why I’ve been asking for the case against Kobe – someone might look at the same stats as me and see him as a Top 5 player, and I’d be interested to hear their opinion if that were the case, so that’s kind of what I was hoping to get. If you have an argument like he adapted his game to do more to win – maybe you see an increase in assists showing he’s creating for his teammates more, maybe his efficiency has gone up since he’s not forcing as many shots….the point is, arguments like that, if they’re true, should show up in the stats somewhere, or else it’s probably not an observation backed up by reality.
Also, Kobe had some decent talent around him the 3 years he was the best player on his team….not great talent, but some talent, and they missed the playoffs twice and lost in the first round once. Just throwing that out there, take it however you want.
I guess my thinking is that if NBA Gms had to draft all the current players again right now for only this current season, I could see Lebron, Durant, Wade, maybe Paul and Howard, being drafted ahead of Kobe. Thats, at worst, makes him the 6th "best" player in the league.
Well then the question is, how accurate are these GM’s in terms of understanding winning basketball? It’s their job for sure, but that doesn’t mean they’re good at it or correct. They also might be looking for ticket revenue from marketing Kobe? But seriously, just look at GM’s and sportswriters in baseball, a lot of them still don’t get it. 8 years after Moneyball and Brian Sabean still doesn’t understand the importance of OBP. Jim Rice just got elected to the HoF, because these people who are supposed to know what they’re talking about still look at RBI’s and HR’s and batting average as the measures of a players worth. So….even if what you say is true that GM’s would take him 6th at worst, do we know that these GM’s fully understand winning basketball?
by Missing Barry on Feb 24, 2010 12:20 PM PST up reply actions
Who's saying that Kobe sucks?
I’ve written that he might be the third-best player on his team this season, and the past several years has been the second-best.
That doesn’t mean “he sucks” because if you haven’t noticed, the Lakers are very, very good. Saying Gasol is better than somebody doesn’t mean that guy sucks. Gasol is one of the best low-post scoring big men in the game.
Kobe gets a ridiculous amount of press for his contributions to the team. Thereare currently FIVE front page stories on ESPN.com about him hitting a clutch 3-pointer at the buzzer to win the game for his team now that he’s back form injury, but only one of them mention, in passing, that the lakers were 4-1 (.800 – better than their record over the course of the season) without him while he was injured. (And the only one of those the teams they played with a losing record, among those five? Us. Two of the wins were on the road, too.)
Just to be clear, since there’s a tendency for arguments to be hyperbolized on this website: I’m not saying he sucks. I’m not saying they’re better without him. I am saying that he is not their best player, and that because of the amount of press he gets he’s way overvalued by most fans.
The only personal thing I will say this, though: I have friends who’ve worked with him on promotional materials – and they all say he’s a jackass on set. The same people, however, say that Lebron is a joy to work with, and always goes the extra mile to be nice to the “little people” working behind the scenes.
ok, well I guess I was exaggeratting some
I was talking about people like you who say he is the third best player on his team, and people who point out statistics that “show” that Kobe is actually a pretty average player. It seems to be the same people that pull out stats that “show” that Monta isn’t very good also.
Pau is a very good player, but how could you say that Kobe is anything less then the second best player on the team!?!? Actually, i find it very hard to believe that you can even say that he is anything but the first best players on his team, and one of the top 5 players in the league…
by freerandolph on Feb 24, 2010 10:51 AM PST up reply actions
i find it very hard to believe that you can even say that he is anything but the first best players on his team
See, I don’t think this is ridiculous at all. Pau is probably a Top 10 player in the league, he’s very, very good. He rebounds, he scores in volume and efficiently, he plays defense, he passes, and he’s a big man (big men > guards). He contributes a ton to winning basketball. What does Kobe do? Kobe’s deserves all his All-Star appearances, as I’ve said, he’s a good player, but what’s the argument in his favor over Gasol, for instance?
by Missing Barry on Feb 24, 2010 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
I could say the same things for Kobe!
He obviously contributes to winning basketball. He plays lock-down defense. He isn’t the most efficient player but his efficiency is decent considering the load he is asked to carry. He is CLUTCH in a way that no other player on the Lakers has ever been. And he can take over a game in a way no other Laker has ever been able too…
by freerandolph on Feb 24, 2010 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
Except he’s not actually clutch. You’re just remembering the times he makes the shot to win the game, and not the numerous times he misses the shot.
Thing C
Except he’s not actually clutch.
53 plymouths were like that, they had a clutch pedal but you din’t have to use it unless you wanted to.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 24, 2010 1:27 PM PST up reply actions
If you take away the "clutch" argument
which doesn’t actually appear to be supportable (see my other post) what else argues that Kobe is better than Gasol?
I personally don’t think he plays lock-down defense in the least bit. When Kobe is putting the effort in, he’s a very good defensive player, if you wanted to claim he was the best wing defender in the league, I wouldn’t agree personally, but I wouldn’t say your opinion doesn’t have merit. That said, Kobe rarely guards capable offensive players (let’s Artest, Ariza, Butler, Fox and all his other wings do that), he usually floats around in help D not doing much, and he just generally doesn’t even play good defense, much less great defense. Capable – yes, but in terms of what he actually does on a consistent basis, I personally think he’s a below average defensive player.
by Missing Barry on Feb 24, 2010 12:23 PM PST up reply actions
ESPN is so ridiculous….even worse now that they are based in LA. They showed Kobe highlights on defense that weren’t even good, and then they barely showed Memphis is even good, and that is Mayo hit his free throws that they would have won. If i watched the highlights they show, i would have thought it was a blowout the LAkers way.
banned like chris andersen
Have you paid attention to what Odom and Gasol are doing this year?
I wouldn’t make the statement that, over their careers, Odom has been better than Kobe – but I suspect you’re looking primarily at scoring totals.
Let’s compare different areas of their games:
Volume scoring? Kobe is better.
Efficient scoring? Odom is better
Rebounding? Odom is better.
Turnovers? Odom is better
Blocks? Odom is better
Steals? Kobe is better.
Assists? KObe is better but the tiny.
I think it’s abundantly clear that you remember the highlight plays, and not all the little plays. Kobe takes the big shots on that team, so he makes most of the memorable plays. But a memorable play doesn’t count for any more than a forgetable one.
Dude, i would love Kobe on our team. I think he is better than anyone we currently have, but i know if the team is built around him without two or 3 other top players, that we aren’t getting out of the first or second round.
banned like chris andersen
I guess I'm just going by the fact that "experts" (but also most fans also) have been saying
that Kobe and Lebron have been the two best players in the league for the past few years. Unless things have changed significantly, and it doesn’t seem like they have to me, then I don’t get why everyone suddenly thinks Kobe isn’t even the best player on his team…
by freerandolph on Feb 25, 2010 1:36 AM PST up reply actions
Things have changed significantly
they only say things like that because of Kobe’s popularity. He is a borderline top 5 player at the point in time. There’s a reason why Kevin Durant is being considered ahead of him for the MVP (in third place, behind LeBron and LeBron, of course).
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 25, 2010 2:30 AM PST up reply actions
I generally have a distrust of “experts” who haven’t demonstrated actual research into the games to show they have a solid understanding of what “winning basketball” is, especially when the majority of these “experts” are paid to be entertaining and get casual fans to watch (or read, if it’s an article), rather than paid for the quality of their analysis….
by Missing Barry on Feb 25, 2010 8:44 AM PST up reply actions
I watch ESPN to see scores, and to watch games, but i don’t listen to their analysis. It is crap. I’m so sick of watching Kobe highlights for 20 minutes of the season. I’m really disappointed that they put a mediocre Kobe buzzer beater over the suns in the first round in 2006 as the best basketball play of the decade. Now that they are ESPN LA, it’s worse.
Turner Sports is the best sports network out there. TBS and TNT have very good shows, and analysis. I like to watch them very much.
banned like chris andersen
TBS baseball playoffs is the best baseball tv you’re going to get that isn’t the Giants local stuff…
by Missing Barry on Feb 25, 2010 10:25 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t know who Ryan Howard is,
you know, that guy from “happy days”?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 23, 2010 11:32 AM PST up reply actions
haha
Well if he won MVP it is obviously an award that shows only the best athletes of all time can win it.
by freerandolph on Feb 23, 2010 10:10 PM PST up reply actions
Bosh spends a fair number of minutes as the biggest guy on the floor.
And is often matched up with the opposing center, even if Barganini is a little bit taller.
I also think you’re undervaluing Bosh’s teammates (Calderon is very good. Terkolu and Jack are the definition of average) and overvaluing Carmelo’s (Iverson was a substantially below-average player by the time he was a Nugget; Nene has turned into a very good player but really has been very inconsistent throughout his career).
That being said, my goal in this thread is not to bash Bosh. I mean, for crying out loud, I called him a top-15 player in the NBA. My only issue is whether he’d be transformative for us, particularly if we had to give up talent to get him.
I mean, hypothetically, let’s say we give up Magette and Biedrins to get him (which I suspect you would say is a great deal for us). Take our team, minus Maggette and Biedrins, and compare it to Toronto, minus Bosh.
The difference is very small. We have more potential, but they have much more efficiency unless you assume Monta reverts to two-years-ago form.
So my only statement that could really be considered “bashing” Bosh is that I do not think he turns us into a playoff team, assuming we have to give up something reasonable to get him.
What is this TS% statistic?
What does it measure?
by freerandolph on Feb 20, 2010 7:14 PM PST up reply actions
One of the most important single metrics in assessing the value of a player.
True Shooting Percentage: the formula is PTS / (2 * (FGA + 0.44 * FTA)). True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 20, 2010 7:24 PM PST up reply actions
My only beef with TS% is that it doesn't incorporate eFG%
But that’s a minor quibble.
by Spider Jerusalem on Feb 20, 2010 8:53 PM PST up reply actions
It’s essentially eFG% with FT’s added in, though, so I don’t think that’s a real quibble.
by Missing Barry on Feb 20, 2010 10:50 PM PST up reply actions
The Wallace, Odom and Love comparisons shock me.
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Feb 21, 2010 12:49 AM PST up reply actions
Kevin Martin is the most efficient scorer this league has seen.
That’s a bold statement. I even put it in bold font for you. I don’t believe he’s more efficient than a number of the guys above him on this list.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_career.html
Also I didn’t realize the Knicks gave up 2 1st rounders. For a perpetually bad team, when the hell are they planning on drafting someone? I didn’t expect much from Jordan Hill but damn, this offseason will be real interesting for them.
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Feb 21, 2010 12:39 AM PST up reply actions
Huh, I think he might've moved down the list. I thought he was ahead of Dwight
I think, in the right situation, Kevin Martin could basically be Reggie Miller.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 21, 2010 1:32 AM PST up reply actions
He's fourth in ORtg among active players.
Take that for what you will.
by Spider Jerusalem on Feb 21, 2010 12:13 PM PST up reply actions
And Kenyon Martin is not one of the most efficient scorers in the NBA. In fact, he’s pretty poor in that category.
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
Oh, you mean the 30 games that Kevin Martin has played this year
are more relevant than the years of efficient scoring he has given?
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 18, 2010 10:39 PM PST up reply actions
He probably means Kenyon’s old now and isn’t the same player he once was.
by Missing Barry on Feb 19, 2010 7:30 AM PST up reply actions
kmart may be 'better'
but landry will make the ma better team. Kmart will make houston a better team too… both got good players for need and traded from position of strength.
I wanted landry so bad…. houston loves him but they know when yao is back his minutes will diminsh
thats the old kmart
all decrepit and disgusting… kevin is the new and improved kmart. Perhaps we can call him target?
The organization believes in Curry....
But Monta is still, probably, the face of the franchise in there opinions.
Curry is the guy to build around though. I’d still like to keep Monta around see if his type of “ball-hogging” still continues when we have a healthy roster.
With all due respect for the Kings
Tyreke and Martin just COULDNT work together, they BOTH need the ball to play well. But with Curry and Ellis, if Ellis can just find it inside of him and be the bigger man by letting Curry run the show, we’d be in a lot better shape. We’ll see how these last 30 games pan out and if Ellis deferring to Curry is even a possibility…
Love Warriors, Hate Cohan! - Sell the team! Save us Mr. Ellison!
It’s funny that you say that…I feel like we do have the exact same problem. Monta uses possessions like Kobe Bryant (obviously not comparing them skill-wise), pairing him with a point guard who needs to be running the whole show is just not going to work. Monta would be best suited with a PG who is quick to defer and just snaps the ball around (ahem, Mike Conley…) while Curry needs a true off-ball player who can guard bigger 2’s. I will continue to lament the Grizzlies trade opportunity if it was really there. I really believe that Monta for Mayo plus expirings and possibly a pick makes both teams better right now and in the future. Ohhhhh wellllllll….
Monta uses possessions like Kobe Bryant (obviously not comparing them skill-wise), pairing him with a point guard who needs to be running the whole show is just not going to work.
Now, you’re right that that’s how Monta has played this year, but it doesn’t tell you anything that Monta’s best year came playing next to Baron?
Monta would be best suited with a PG who is quick to defer and just snaps the ball around
Couldn’t disagree more. Monta’s showing this year he’s not effective in his current role, which is the role this statement seems to suggest he needs to play. This is exactly what you don’t want, or else you get this years version of Monta, who doesn’t contribute a whole lot to winning basketball.
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 1:53 PM PST up reply actions
Yes but that was before Monta became “the man.” Young players who realize they can score a ton and be that guy don’t change until years down the road. Do you really think any coach is going to get him to play like he used to? For better or for worse Monta has moved up in NBA status and renown and is going to be an extremely high usage, high turnover chucker for years to come…Just my two cents but I really don’t see him changing.
I dunno, I tend to not try to project guys I don’t know by assuming I understand their mindset and attitude. You could be right. What I do know is if we want Ellis to be effective, that seems the best way to do it, so we need to at least try, and if we find out for sure it’s not working….well, then adios, Ellis.
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 2:00 PM PST up reply actions
Agreed...goes to show that Nelli's previous projections of Monta as our point guard was not a great idea
by Only In Fairfax on Feb 19, 2010 4:03 PM PST up reply actions
Nellie’s regular line wasn’t that Monta was going to be a good point guard, but rather to be good, Monta would have to be the point guard. I don’t I ever heard him predict that it would happen.
but rather to be good, Monta would have to be the point guard.
Based on his unique shooting guard skills that seems counter productive doesn’t it? Seems more likely that a big point guard like old BoomFizzle brings out the best in Montay?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 19, 2010 6:32 PM PST up reply actions
Memphis
They traded for Ronnie Brewer and gave up a first rounder in 2011, that showed this team was desperate for SG, if we gave Ellis for Mayo including a big man like Thabeet or Gasol, I would have done it. Anything that would add a big man to this team is a welcome, we needed a big man since last year draft when the Warriors were expected to draft Jordan Hill luckily Curry fell and we got him but we still need additional big man. AR hasn’t amounted to anything so far, Wright is been injured and next year is his contract year so I expect him to be play Dampier game card, so no matter what we still needed a legit big man. Landry got traded that shows Houston was willing to trade him, Ty Thomas got traded, I still think we could have gotten him if we kept Claxton and Bell and took Ty Thomas plus Salmons include some fillers plus give up a protected 2013 first rounder. Tyrus Thomas is worth a first rounder is well ahead of curve then lunatic Prozac taker AR.
Waaaarriors
if we gave Ellis for Mayo including a big man like Thabeet or Gasol
Why not include their next 10 draft picks while you’re at it, and dump Maggette’s contract on them, and take Gay off their hands. Ellis for Mayo + Thatbeet or Gasol? Really? You think that’s a plausible trade scenario?
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 1:45 PM PST up reply actions
Dude
Stop being sarcastic, of course they would need to add some players and fillers to workout, all I am saying Ellis is not untouchable, if a team wants him and we get a big man in return we needed to do it.
Waaaarriors
Yeah, the point is the rumored offer was Mayo for Ellis. Your “fillers” are guys who are young, cheap, big and valuable – in other words, have a lot of trade value. The real “fillers” in a deal like that, if it was even on the table to begin with, would be not very good players, or players with bad contracts, to even out the difference.
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 1:55 PM PST up reply actions
It's not about being sarcastic
They are not going to trade Gasol unless he puts a gun to their heads.
To talk about him as being a part of a trade as anything other than the centerpiece of it is absurd.
/trades gasol for junk+younger crappier gasol brother
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Feb 21, 2010 1:45 AM PST up reply actions
Pau put a gun to their heads.
He was an expensive player who made it clear he didn’t want to be there.
Marc is an inexpensive player who hasn’t expressed any such sentiments publicly. Furthermore, the new CBA, coming into effect before Marc gets a big contract, will almost certainly protect teams like Memphis from being priced out of their own free agents.
Night and day difference.
mayo + Gasol might be
we’d hgave to sweeten the offer though….. ellis + randolph 4 gasol, mayo and fillers. I think they’d do that in a second.
Gasol won’t be there long term, they got thabeet.
I don’t see any reason they’d want to swap Mayo + Gasol for Monta + Randolph…
We’d probably do that, them? I don’t see it.
by Missing Barry on Feb 19, 2010 12:00 PM PST up reply actions
right now no...
but i’m telling u they will NOT give gasol a big extension in 2011 when he’s a free agent. There is reason to believe they’ll move him
New CBA will mean a drastic change in what defines a "big contract."
In fact, I would argue that one of the main requirements of the new deal will be that it protect small market owners enough so that they can afford to keep top talent when they have it.
yes and no
it doesn’t change the fact they have to pay mayo and gay, and it’s evident gasol is lowest on there totem pole of priorities…
if he was higher they wouldnt have taken thabeet
Gay is probably going to walk this off season
They want to give him $10, and he wants $12. He’ll probably be able to get more from the Knicks, Clippers, Nets, Heat… whichever doesn’t end up with a top prospect.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 19, 2010 5:02 PM PST up reply actions
AR hasn't amounted to anything so far
What are you even talking about? You are bashing on AR and then have the gaul to claim Tyrus Thomas would be a much better option? You really need to watch some more basketball. AR was starting to put up serious numbers before he went down with his injury.
by randolphforpresident on Feb 18, 2010 8:45 PM PST up reply actions
How bad is Ellis injury? If he is out 6 more weeks don't you think GSW will shut him down?
Waaaarriors
He's reported to be out for one more week
Time for Curry to show the front office how bright the future is!
Love Warriors, Hate Cohan! - Sell the team! Save us Mr. Ellison!
by JustSomeName on Feb 18, 2010 1:39 PM PST up reply actions
plz can some one telll what the roster is going to look like 2011
monta and curry can t win a ring together
Really?
Curry has played all of 53 games in his entire career, how could you possibly know what Curry and Monta are capable of doing together? Also it takes a whole team to win a ring I don’t see how two players could eliminate any possibility of winning just by being on the same team. Let the guys get a chance to grow together before making any rash decisions.
monta and curry can t win a ring together
Yes, they can. Put Lebron, Bosh, and Dwight Howard in the starting lineup with them, and they’ll most DEFINITELY be able to win a ring. See! I just proved you wrong, sucka! puahahahaha
Love Warriors, Hate Cohan! - Sell the team! Save us Mr. Ellison!
by JustSomeName on Feb 18, 2010 3:59 PM PST up reply actions
But seriously,
You can’t put our chances of winning a ring on two players on a 12 man roster. That’s just unrealistic. You need to gauge what the front offices does now until then, because there are many scenarios where Curry and Monta can win a ring together, maybe not in 2011, but somewhere down the road and with the right personnel, it’s more than possible.
Love Warriors, Hate Cohan! - Sell the team! Save us Mr. Ellison!
by JustSomeName on Feb 18, 2010 4:00 PM PST up reply actions
Not saying that they WILL win one anytime soon but,
There’s also many situations where they CAN win a ring together and where they CANNOT win a ring together as well. Just don’t be so quick to judge, let’s see what happens first…
Love Warriors, Hate Cohan! - Sell the team! Save us Mr. Ellison!
by JustSomeName on Feb 18, 2010 4:01 PM PST up reply actions
A ring???
Dude, they wont even take this team to playoff, how are you thinking about a ring?
Don’t you realize that by the time everyone is healthy, Wright, AR, Morrow, Buike, Curry would need new contracts. I doubt GSW wants to pay any luxury tax, to keep some of these guys you have to get rid of older contracts. Contracts like Maggette, Ellis and Biedrins needs to be moved before we extend the young guys. Management is in bad situation. Ring, how can you win a ring in a dysfunctional management???
Waaaarriors
As the great, Kevin Garnett said, ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE
Remember how quickly the Celtics went from a 24 win season to being the NBA champs in the span of one year through two trades in the off season? Now, don’t take this the wrong way, I’m not saying that the Warriors can do the same, or even get into the playoffs next season no matter how hard they try; hell, Im not even saying I have faith that the Warriors will be in the in the next 3-5 years. All I’m saying is that, your original quote of, “monta and curry can t win a ring together” is far from true. There have been crazier things that have happened in the NBA during one or two seasons and you simply CANNOT judge the chances of us winning through two players when the NBA fields 12 man teams, you just CANT. I can say “Mo Williams and Shaq” cant win a ring together, but with Lebron James, Antawn Jamison, and a pretty good supporting cast, they have a good chance of winning it all this year. Am I right?
Love Warriors, Hate Cohan! - Sell the team! Save us Mr. Ellison!
by JustSomeName on Feb 18, 2010 4:21 PM PST up reply actions
I agree
But you missing my point, by the time anything can happen, young would either need new salaries or would walk away in free agency. Don’t you notice we got so many young guys that would need new contracts in 3-5 years? Who you keep and who you let go?
Waaaarriors
I totally understand your point,
By the time it comes, what the hell will the roster look like and what would we be able to do with the money, right? Totally understand, but you just cannot gauge what can happen so far down the line, there are so many variables that cannot be taken into account. What if someone has a career ending injury, someone gets arrested, someone leaves the NBA to become a buddhist, there’s just way too many variables! You need to remember that these aren’t just commodities or trading cards we’re dealing with, but real living human beings. The only thing you can do is look at the present and what we can do right NOW to get into a better situation in the future, not what we can do in 2 years to get into a better situation in 3 or 4 years.
Love Warriors, Hate Cohan! - Sell the team! Save us Mr. Ellison!
by JustSomeName on Feb 18, 2010 4:27 PM PST up reply actions
Who you keep and who you let go?
You keep the ones that turn into good players, you don’t keep the ones that don’t.
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 4:33 PM PST up reply actions
to keep some of these guys you have to get rid of older contracts.
Well, the hope is a couple of the players turn into studs, and we move on past the ones that aren’t too useful. Your top players determine how good you are, and right now we’re in the process of finding those top players. Right now, the best way to do that is accumulating as much talent as possible, and hope to make deals to acquire stars or that some of our young guys turn into stars…
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 4:22 PM PST up reply actions
Well
See, we understanding each other. So selling high on Ellis and Maggette makes the most sense since we know that we are not a wining team with them, am i right?
Waaaarriors
First, I don’t think Ellis’ value is necessarily at a high point right now, and even if it’s higher than it’s been, I don’t think it’s particularly high. I also think Ellis is a piece of our team that fits into our future (unlike Maggette, who I would have dumped for expirings if we could), and once he stops dominating the ball so much, he’ll be worth his contract. He’s really not paid that much – he’s paid like a good complementary piece, which is what he is, the problem is he’s trying to play like more than that, and unfortunately….well, that isn’t working out so well. He hasn’t been effective this year.
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 4:36 PM PST up reply actions
Good analysis.
Totally agree about Ellis vs/ Maggette. They are both getting the same money, but one is 24, has proven he can be very effective and efficient as a SG playing with a good PG, can create his own shot, and is improving on defense.
The other will soon be on the wrong side of 30, doesn’t have a good jump shot be feels the need to shoot it anyway, doesn’t make any effort to play D (other than slap fouls and flops to try to get a charge), and just doesn’t fit with a young running team.
Nothing I’ve see had “Major trade” written all over it. As sad as this org is I’m willing to think that no news is good news at this point.
So now we wait for the summer bidding wars to end and see who ends up where and THEN see about a deal for Mag’s and Monta.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
I don't understand
Warrior fans believe that we got a good team to compete for 8th position if we were healthy. I just don’t see it. We got two centers both can’t score on consistent basis in Beans and Turiaf, we got two PFs who are still learning the position, neither played enough minutes or remained healthy longtime to be evaluated. Regardless, Wright and AR are not big beefy PF that can guard the Western conference loaded PFs. What Maggette gives us is the same or similar to what Buike gives us. What we need is a big man who can be solid enough to help this team, a guy like David Lee or Tyrus Thomas could have helped us, if we traded for Bass would have helped us. We did nothing and I dont think this team is good enough even if healthy.
Waaaarriors
Tyrus Thomas isn’t very good.
Warrior fans believe that we got a good team to compete for 8th position if we were healthy. I just don’t see it.
We probably wouldn’t have gotten the 8th spot, but ~40 wins isn’t too unrealistic. We’ve played like a 21-32 team this season, with all our injuries, with all our d-leaguer performers. There’s some definite talent on the roster. I’m sorry you can’t see it. Makes me think you should take more time to find out what factors lead to “winning basketball”.
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 1:51 PM PST up reply actions
Lol
Makes me think you should take more time to find out what factors lead to "winning basketball".
Wow, I had the same thought, maybe you not seeing that our small ball is not going to push us above a team like the Grizzles. Big man is what this team needs not a ball hog.
Waaaarriors
I’d rather build around a big man than a guard. Doesn’t mean there are any out there for the taking that would make sense for us to trade for. And we have capable big men, when they’re healthy. Sure, I would like to upgrade them, but how do you propose that? Tyrus Thomas doesn’t upgrade them – regardless of their deficincies, guys like Biedrins still do play winning basketball and have value.
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Add a quality big from the draft and give this group 2/3 healthy years and you would be surprised with what they could do.
by Only In Fairfax on Feb 19, 2010 4:10 PM PST up reply actions
The Bobcats are going to regret that trade since it’ll be like a high pick I bet.
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Feb 21, 2010 1:50 AM PST up reply actions
Warriors needed a major trade
The Bulls traded Tyrus Thomas to the Bobcats for Flip Murray and Acie Law plus a future first rounder.
Somehow those two things don’t seem right next to each other.
Yes, let’s panic and trade away talent for some athletic big man (who’s not even big) who has basically peaked as a player who really isn’t that good. That’s smart. Despite all our injuries, the Warriors have a 21-32 pythag record right now. Given our circumstances, that’s not half bad. Given our youth, our future actually looks pretty bright. I’m a bit disappointed we didn’t find a taker for Maggette, because getting him off the books would have put us in a great position going forward, but overall, I’m still happy with the direction of the franchise at the moment. I don’t see a need for a “major trade” that doesnt involve bringing in a superstar. It seems unlikely there was much out there for the taking…..so, oh well.
You mentioned Tyrus Thomas thats fine if you dont like him, what about David Lee, you didnt say nothing about him, I rather have a guy like Lee then Ellis, you over value him, he will never be a team player, stop dreaming look at current facts, he is a ball hog.
Waaaarriors
I like David Lee. How do you propose we get him, exactly? NY isn’t taking any long term contract in exchange. As for Ellis, I’ve made my thoughts on him pretty clear recently – and you seem to have my thoughts on him way off the mark. Think about it this way: if you don’t want Ellis, what makes you think someone else does? If we can’t build around him and we can build around a big, why would a team that actually has said big want Ellis instead?
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 1:59 PM PST up reply actions
I am sure there is someone out there
Carl Landry got traded for a guy similar to Ellis in Kevin Martin, if we didnt cut Claxton, we would have had enough trading power to get TMac. My point, there are ways to work out deals that Riley clear has no experience in pulling it, Mullin knows how but Riley lacks any credibility and authority to pull anything. Trust me, there were many teams calling about Ellis, we could have done a three team trade but Riley is not a smart GM.
Waaaarriors
Do you think so?
Cause by the way some guys like Sleeper fraud or Missing Barry, Ellis is top 10 player in this league. I just think we are better team without Ellis. I dont care about his 26 avg, someone else will score it, a big man is what we need.
Waaaarriors
Cause by the way some guys like Sleeper fraud or Missing Barry, Ellis is top 10 player in this league.
…?
Where does this come from, honestly? I don’t really even know how to say just how wrong your take on my viewpoint is…
I’ve also said I like Landry, and wish we had him on our team. I just don’t see any evidence Ellis’ trade value was as high as Martin’s…
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
ok
This is from the Mercury news," Yes, the Warriors are apparently serious about holding onto Monta Ellis through tomorrow’s trade deadline, unless they’re knocked over with a monster offer. They’ll keep listening. They have some interested teams."
As you can see teams been contacting Riley, but he wants a monster deal, you dont do a monster trade for a guy like Ellis. He is over hyped by this management and fans. I would take Haslem if they take Ellis, two for one would work. What I am saying, you believe that Ellis can help this team, I think Ellis is hurting this team, any trade of Ellis and getting rid of his remaining contract is a step in the right direction. Just like the Wizards don’t like Arenas now, I see Ellis the same way, a ball hog who thinks he is an all star when he needs to be a team player and allow Curry to lead this team.
Waaaarriors
a ball hog who thinks he is an all star when he needs to be a team player and allow Curry to lead this team
There’s been a lot of evaluation done on Ellis lately, and a lot of people have reached a similar conclusion – that Monta needs to shoot less, pass more, and is more effective when he isn’t dominating the ball. That doesn’t mean we should just dump him for nothing, and it also doesn’t mean anyone’s giving us worthwhile offers for him…
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 2:52 PM PST up reply actions
Cause by the way some guys like Sleeper fraud […] Ellis is top 10 player in this league.
Hahaha. Top 10? No way. More like Top 1!!!
Stay up, man!
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 18, 2010 2:29 PM PST up reply actions
Forgive the man his typo
He’s just got fat fingers
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 18, 2010 5:12 PM PST up reply actions
With the way Ellis has been playing, and given Houston’s stat minded FO, I’m pretty confident saying they’d rather have Ellis than Martin. I really think you’d be hard pressed to find a trade available to us that we couldn’t have made becasue of Claxton. We still had Bell and George to use.
Trust me, there were many teams calling about Ellis
If you have evidence of this, I’m all ears….
Riley is not a smart GM
I’m withholding judgment right now. He really just hasn’t done much, so I’ll wait for something major to happen, or some more time to pass, before I decide this.
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 2:20 PM PST up reply actions
they’d rather have Ellis than Martin
rather have Martin than Ellis, I mean.
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 2:21 PM PST up reply actions
+1 Barry, I found myself very happy that we have avoided something stupid.
Also would be nice if we could trade all the injured recent aquisitions for one decent piece……but we not get an all star through trades unless we blow up the young talent and 1 al star with no other talent around is worse.
by Only In Fairfax on Feb 24, 2010 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
we needed something and we got NOTHING.
Wah.
Now that the deadline’s passed, maybe you can stop trolling (baiting other posters, acting like you’re an NBA Insider, treating everyone who doesn’t share your views like an idiot, etc.) and start trying to be a productive member of the community?
There will be no extra point!
Haha. Yeah, only politicians are bound by basic standards of civility and respect…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 18, 2010 2:00 PM PST up reply actions
Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) that seems to perfectly sum up Riley’s tenure as GM so far. Hasn’t done anything done, hasn’t done anything really noteworthy, yet, either.
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 2:02 PM PST up reply actions
You know I was getting the same fealing about the guy. Seams like all he did was field calls and say something like “nope not good enough” and that was it. Never really got the fealing that he is or was really trying to make any moves.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
That sums it up for me too.
I don’t need to chronicle it. This franchise has made consistent dumb move after dumb move. I’m a little disappointed that they didn’t pull the trigger on anything. Although, I am happy that we didn’t give away some of our best players (even if they aren’t that good).
I’m not really that confident in Riley though. He doesn’t seem that sharp. I don’t know maybe he’s from the midwest or the south or something and he’s a slow talker (not anything against people that are from that region). I heard him interviewed and he seems like he’s a little on the slow witted side.
Riley is to be blamed
If there is someone to be blamed its Riley, multiple teams including the Spurs contacted the Warriors regarding Ellis. I would have loved Dejuan Blair or even contacted the Wolves and gave up Ellis for Kevin Love and Blount (since they got Milicic), they get a scorer they need, we get a guy who can rebound and score. All I am saying if this management wanted to trade Ellis they would have done it, they clearly think Curry and Ellis is going to work, I dont think Ellis is going to be the way he was when Baron was here, that time he was a young guy gotta obey the rules to get the huge contract. Right now, he thinks he is a Superstar player just like Capt Jack thought he was equal to Kobe and Wade. I don’t think Ellis and Curry without a legit big man would lead this team playoff even if healthy.
Waaaarriors
I even like Blair and Love, but if you’re those teams, why would you give those guys up for Ellis?
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
they didn't bought me a big plastic superhero
WTF FTW!
by Lat We N Trash on Feb 18, 2010 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 6 recs
I think the Warriors did the right thing by not making a trade.
We haven’t seen how good this team can be when healthy, so we should wait and see how good they really are. I think that it is fairly clear that the Grizzlies feel like O.J. Mayo is not as good as people may think. The guy is only 22, and they were so quick to offer him in a trade. Also, they have been trying to get Ronny Brewer for months, and drafted 2 wing players this year in Sam Young and DeMarre Carroll. It looks to me like they may not be very satisfied with Mayo, and were trying to get another team to maybe fall for the hype and trade for him.
Yeah I’m not too big on Mayo. He’s not much more than a shooter, and not even that good of a shooter (though better at getting his shot off than most spot up guys).
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 2:26 PM PST up reply actions
The Grizzlies would have been better if they had kept Love instead of trading for Mayo, then they could have drafted Tyreke Evans or James Harden last year instead of Thabeet. I would take a Love and Gasol frontcourt anyday, over one with the black hole Randolph. He gets his stats, but is not a good team player (and he actually has a good cast on his team). I would take a Conley, Evans/Harden, Gay, Love, and Gasol lineup, over a Conley, Mayo, Gay, Randolph, and Gasol lineup anyday. Love gives you the same production (probably better in the future) as Randolp, minus the lack of teamwork and huge contract. Harden is going to possibly be better than Mayo, and Evans is very good and would have been a better fit in the backcourt with Conley.
Randolph really hasn't been a huge blackhole this year
it’s not uncommon for him to lead his team in assists on a given night.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 18, 2010 5:16 PM PST up reply actions
Just a question
If Ellis is as good as you guys think, why we can’t get any big man for him?
Waaaarriors
It's always been an NBA unwritten rule
You don’t trade a big for a small. Especially when the big is close to as good, may be just as good, or better than the smaller player.
You mean to “play” with him or to “trade” for him?
If it’s to trade for him, as db23 said you don’t trade big for small usually and expect the same talent. The exception would be if there was a team out there that had a glut of bigs and were desperate for a guard like Monta to get them to the next level.
If it’s to play with him, well you would have to talk to management about that.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
If Ellis is as good as you guys think
When you say you guys, who are you talking about exactly, and how good do they think he is?
Counter question: if Ellis isn’t very good, why would anyone trade anything worthwhile for him? And bigs are more valuable than wings, so why would someone give up a big for a wing unless they got some significant financial or talent advantage from it?
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 2:54 PM PST up reply actions
Bro, over the years, worst trade has taken place, we landed Baron for free by giving up Claxton and an old man. Come on, some trades that happened today was not logical, for example Tyrus Thomas for Flip Murray and Law, I think thats just like what we got for Crawford except we didn’t even get pick for it (Bobcats are smarter then GSW). Some teams want players to help them to the playoff, others need to dump players. We are neither because Riley has no clue and needs to approval from Nellie, RR and Cohan. That’s why we couldn’t trade for anyone, you keep waiting for something, I dont think this management has a clue. Most team in the West are getting better, even the Kings might be competing for the playoffs next year. How do you guys think a healthy current roster would compete with powerhouses and bottom teams? We are a guaranteed lottery pick this year and next unless we change some of these guys.
Waaaarriors
Just because worse trades have happened doesn’t mean any were available to us recently….
by Missing Barry on Feb 18, 2010 4:24 PM PST up reply actions
Well, you've got a few issues with the Warriors:
First of all, with a lot of salary already committed, adding salary for a mid-level player is just dumb. Who were we going to get? Even if we could have landed Jamison – a player who makes a ton of sense for Cleveland – does he make sense for us?
So it’s hard to see how we’re buyers. I mean, does upgrading Monta in Martin make us significantly better? (Is it even an upgrade)? Landry couldn’t have been had for expirings.
For this team to add salary and get, maybe, five wins better was pointless and counterproductive, so it’s hard to see what we could have done, given what went down.
To be honest
The GM for the Bucks or someone in there used to be with the Warriors, I would have offered him Ellis instead of him taking Salmons. I would take Warrick, Alexander and a bad contract in Gadzuric for Ellis and George.
We would save some money next year plus have a big man who can help now and next year.
Waaaarriors
Wow
Lost a lot of credibility there.
Which is the big man that could help? I missed that part of the deal.
It doesn't have to be a C
It can be 5 or 4 or even a good 3. Maybe get a guy who is no longer needed like Tayshaun Prince for Ellis, or go after Martell Webster plus their huge expiring contract in Darius Miles. You replace Ellis production and save money to go after a big man next year. Moves you do now can improve GSW in the offseason. We will never go after Bosh or Amare, but we can get a guy like Brandon Bass or Gooden. We need a big man and we dont have a cap space clear it by trading. A smart GM can do that, matter fact a mediocre GM can do it like Mullin moved two unwanted players in Troy and Dunleavy, Riley is uncapable and that why he has no credibility. Hope you get it now.
Waaaarriors
Brandon Bass and Drew Gooden?
Do you really want to take more time away from Randolph and Wright. I think Tolliver is good enough and probably very close to Bass talent wise. Gooden will sign with a contender like always.
AR and Wright
Neither has proven anything yet, AR had his chance this year and showed immaturity, Wright is an injury waiting to happen, besides he will be in contract year next year and dont want him t