Warriors, the next generation
by Peterman700 on Mar 14, 2010 12:20 AM PST
Email
Print
Yes, I would like season tickets please for the Warriors please. Wait....why are you laughing? I am serious. I would like courtside tickets, and you know, you might as well give me the whole season....all 41 home games please. Sarcasm? Nope. I am excited about the Warriors future. The reason for that insanity is because the team is so bad, and so typical that things have to improve. I think by improve a cleaning of the entire management staff, the coaches, and well, most of the freaking players too.
Trade every single player and draft pick, except Curry and Ellis, and get a big man in here. Chris Bosh please.
The Warriors would win 20 more games with just those three out there.
Can someone who makes decisions for the Warriors get a clue? Buy a clue? Rent a clue? How long can we suffer as fans with this dismal and dysfunctional basketball?
I have spent the last 15 seasons waiting for this team to become a playoff threat, and every year it's the same damned thing. There has got to be one guy out there willing to come in here and fix this mess. The statistics don't lie. Sure the Warriors have lost a lot of games to injury, I am aware of that. The team is flawed, just like most failed teams. Flawed from the draft, flawed from trades and just plain disgusting.
Trade everyone, even Eliis and Curry. The Warriors are not going to win without ONE player who can take over games in the paint.
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!
171 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Another delusional Warrior fan...
Welcome.
by Cpt. Jack in the Box on Mar 14, 2010 12:39 AM PST reply actions
This is not the best time to ask for Bosh
Especially after his lack luster performance with Tolliver guarding him
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
One game is meaningless.
Hey Kobe scored 81 points in one game….hes the greatest player of all time!
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
Exactly.
Its ridiculous to say that this is a bad time to want Bosh because he had a bad night tonight. He is still one of the best young big men in the league.
by freerandolph on Mar 14, 2010 3:19 AM PST up reply actions
I know one game is meaningless
I was just implying that this was a bad time to post that right after we played. Just bad timing
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
I don't know why we would trade everyone else but Monta and Curry...
We probably couldn’t get anyone good for any of them except maybe a decent player for Randolph. Maybe. Also, I still don’t really believe that Monta and Curry will work well together. I know, its shocking isn’t it! They had a good game and worked together well tonight, doesn’t that mean that it will work that way every game for the rest of their careers!?!?!? (sarcasm)
I'm really tired of people getting so drawn in by what happens in one game, or even a few games.
Lately the words been, “Trade Monta!” But if he puts together a couple more good games that will change. And then when he has a couple bad games after that it will change again…
by freerandolph on Mar 14, 2010 3:24 AM PST up reply actions
Trades.
What positive results have the Warriors delivered via the draft, trades or free agency?
Sure we’ve had some nice stories, but the team still sucks.
I just wish we had an owner who REALLY cared.
[img]http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0eTH2sm73rf3u/610x.jpg[/img]
via the draft?
They’ve actually done a very good job drafting over the past 10 years.
considering their respective draft slots I think you’d have to say Curry, Randolph, Ellis and Arenas have been excellent selections. Biedrins, Murphy, Pietrus, Richardson and Belinelli have all been adequate players for where they were drafted. O’Bryant, Diogu and Dunleavy have been misses, but I don’t think three bad first round picks, only one of them towards the top of the lottery, makes for all that bad of a recent draft history. Come to think of it I’m not sure you can really criticize their trade history this decade all that much this decade either as they came out on the winning end of the two biggest trades they made.
Thing A
I'm amazed by how bad we've been and how we've never had a very high selection in the draft. The years that we had semi-high selections were bad years.
If we had the 5th pick in the draft, in 2003 instead of 2001 we could have drafted Bosh. We got Dunleavy with the 3rd pick. In other drafts we could have got Roy, Paul, D Williams, Melo, and some other top tier players.
I agree though, that we haven’t done badly in the draft with the picks we’ve had.
by freerandolph on Mar 14, 2010 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions
we haven’t done badly in the draft with the picks we’ve had.
Well, we haven’t exactly done anything amazing with them, either. Sure, ending up with a Kobe or Amare or Nash or even a Granger with a not top 3-5 pick is unusual, but when you’re talking about 10, 15 years, the odds become a lot more favorable for that kind of thing. The closest thing we’ve drafted to a superstar since Webber is Arenas (and obviously that didn’t work out for us), despite years of fairly high picks to get someone like that. You have to look at opportunity cost, too, and I don’t think it’s too unreasonable to think we had a decent chance of finding a better top talent than we’ve had to build around at some point.
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions
We've drafted Jamison, Webber, Ellis, Arenas, Richardson, and some players who still could turn into something including Curry, Randolph, and Wright.
That doesn’t seem bad by my standards.
by freerandolph on Mar 14, 2010 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, not bad, but still a weak on producing top level talent once you take into account we ran Webber off after 1 season and had Gil stolen from us after 2. 3 seasons of top talent over 15+ years for a team that’s been in the lottery every one of those seasons but one? I’m not trying to say it’s bad, I’m just not sure we can say it’s “good”, either.
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I see what you're saying
When looking at how we’ve done in the draft I’m not taking into account players leaving, just how well we’ve been able to pick good players to draft. I also think its misleading to point to all those years of us being in the lottery because most those years we’ve had picks that were in the 7-12 range, and rarely a top 3 pick. If you look at a team like the Thunder who build young talent quickly, it has more to do with lucking into high picks in draft classes where they could find good talent at those picks. If the Thunder had the second pick in last years draft instead of the one a few years ago they might have Thabeet instead of Durant…
Anyway, I think the Warriors have done fairly well at drafting with the picks that they’ve had.
by freerandolph on Mar 14, 2010 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Since 1995 (the beginning of our run of lottery picks), we’ve had the following picks: 1, 3, 5, 5 7, 8, 9, 9, 10, 11, 11, 11, 14
Four top 5 picks, 5 more top 10, 3 top 11’s, and only one outside of that. So…..feel free to interpret that how you see fit. I’m still in the camp of not bad, but not good, either.
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions
I just think you have to take into account the particular draft that those picks were in also.
because I think most teams probably would have taken Dunleavy with that pick at number three.
Also they did pretty well with their #1 and both of the #5’s. But they weren’t able to keep any of them.
by freerandolph on Mar 15, 2010 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions
- was Joe Smith. I wouldn’t call that doing pretty well…..
And again, I don’t think it’s fair to look at any of the picks individually and blame them for not having the hindsight to know exactly who was going to be good, but the overall track record hasn’t produced much top talent, and I think they’ve had enough high picks that it isn’t unreasonable to expect them to come up with something better than they have over that amount of time. If we were just gambling on high upside guys, sure, we might have picked a Kwame Brown, an Eddy Curry, and a couple more complete busts, but if we came out of it with one KG it would make it all worthwhile. KG + 4 busts > 5 decent players (once you get KG or whatever other superstar, you become more risk adverse with your strategy)…..
I think most teams probably would have taken Dunleavy with that pick at number three.
I’m not sure I agree with this. I’m not saying Dunleavy wasn’t generally regarded as the third best prospect – but I believe teams tend to range pretty greatly on their evaluations and who they want, even if Dunleavy was the consensus #3 maybe only 10 teams would take him there and the other 20 would have a different preference, and those preferences might include 5 different other players. Basically, simply rearranging the order of picks will produce very different results, in my opinion – not more accurate results or anything, mind you, just different results.
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions
ok, well i guess its ridiculous of us to speculate on exactly how many teams would have taken Dunl jr. because neither us us know
But it was by no means a ridiculous pick. And my mistake about the number one pick, that was not a good one, haha.
by freerandolph on Mar 15, 2010 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd rather have David Lee than Bosh
(well i’ll take either).
David Lee over Bosh? nooooo way!
Curry, Ellis, Morrow and AR are the core…
trade Beans
trade Maggs
keep Buike, Turiaf, Wright, and Bell
draft Turner or Cousins, whoever is available
pick up Free Agent
1st option BOSH
2nd option LEE
3rd Option GAY
4th Option Boozer
i left out the usual suspects Lebron, Wade, Johnson because they won’t come near us unless we already have a legit Big Man along with Monta and Curry…
We must keep our core this time, I’m tired of rebuilding…Can we win again?
by Oakland2NYC on Mar 14, 2010 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
well said
we finally have a decent, young core on our team. we shouldn’t trade monta, randolph, or curry. Build around them and we will have a playoff team. Patience is the key to success.
OWENS! OWENS! OWENS! OWENS!
- Joe Starkey
by 9ersDubsGiantSharks on Mar 14, 2010 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Riley admitted it last month in an interview, and I agree
No free agent wants to come here, I think his exact words were “We just can’t get them to come here, we just don’t have an established winning culture.” Its in the Monte Poole article on the teams yahoo page, I think its from a couple days ago, don’t feel like posting a link.
The backcourt definitely impressed CB4 last night, but the only way we could get him is through a sign and trade. Biedrins Turiaf and the 3rd pick? We’d probably have to give up Monta, Curry or AR though. Honestly Bosh would probably rather go to Miami and play with DWade than come here though
If we really feel the need to upgrade the talent, we’re either going to have to give up AR, Curry, or Monta. I’m not really down. If we were trading anyone else, we’d need to sweeten the deal with the pick.
Personally I feel with BWright/AR at pf and a Monta/Curry backcourt, our biggest need is at SF. Ideally someone with length, and athleticism who plays solid d and still scores near 20ppg. We don’t need a defensive stopper, but that wouldn’t be too bad either
The two guys I would most like to get would be Granger or Iguodala. Rudy Gay would also be a good option, Tayshaun Prince would be a good fit too, he’d probably be the most available on that list as well.
I actually think Nellie really wants to get someone who can guard the opposing teams best wing player. That’s why if we keep the exact same roster we have now, I can see Nellie running this lineup a lot
Curry
Ellis
Bell
Maggette
and one of our 4 main big guys at center.
I know that lineup makes you worried, but small ball has a weird way of working with this squad.
Granger or Igoudala would be ideal
Maybe not Gay, because we don’t need his inefficiency and poor defense, but I love the idea of Igoudala or Granger in our backcourt. Unfortunately, the only way we could acquire Igoudala and his 12 million/ 5 years contract would be to trade Monta, or trade Biedrins. It’s a stretch, but I would trade our draft pick + Maggette for Granger or Igoudala.
by golden_solitude on Mar 14, 2010 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions
To get Granger or Iguodala we would need more than Maggette and the pick
throw in Azubuike, or Morrow, and still we may need to throw in the second rounder or next years first as well.
Prince and filler could be had for maggs and the pick
I agree that Maggette plus the pick isnt likely to land Granger or Iggy, but why would you want to give up the lottery pick for 30 year old tayshaun prince? Prince is still a better defensive player than Maggette, but he’s not an efficient offensive player where Maggette is one of the most efficient in the league and he rebounds worse than Maggette despite being several inches taller, and he’s actually averaging fewer assists per36 this year than Maggette. For defensive reasons I’d be very happy with a Prince for Maggette swap but is it worth throwing in a potential top 3 pick? No way.
Thing A
This is EXACTLY what we should do.
EXACTLY.
I’d be willing to give up Wright though.
by Throw up the Dub on Mar 15, 2010 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Don't trade Biedrins!
This is so short-sighted. Biedrins, if you don’t realize, is the only legitimate center on the entire roster – and yes, that includes Turiaf. Turiaf is a backup in this league, nothing more. Biedrins is 24 years old, 7’ 240 lbs, and has averaged double doubles the last two seasons he was healthy. And that’s playing 30 minutes/game. Biedrins is here to stay. You’ll see when he’s healthy again, really healthy, this trade talk will be history. Maggs doesn’t need to be traded either. Just draft another young big man and let them play!!!
2010-11 Predicted Lineup:
Curry (Watson)
Ellis (Morrow, Williams)
Biedrins (Turiaf)
Maggette (Buike, Randolph)
Wright (Favors)
Now you have a team that can go small or big. Bigs with good hands that can pass.
I like Biedrins, too, but there’s no reason we can’t trade him if we can legitimately upgrade our roster….
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Beans + Randolph 4 Howard + Pietrus
(I miss Pietrus)
numbers are meaningless
3,4,5 it doesn’t really matter what you call it on this team
Randolph is obviously not a PF or C.
what are you talking about???
Positions are definitely not meaningless. It is not always important to distinguish between things like a 4 and a 5, but the difference between a 3 and 4 is usually pretty big. Thats why people always notice, and are upset, when Nellie plays Maggs at the 4. And Randolph is a 4, by the way. Thats why he always plays at Power Forward…
by freerandolph on Mar 14, 2010 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Randolph is not a 4
Can he play one-on-one against Carlos Boozer or Chris Bosh or Amare? When he can do that, you can say he’s a 4. At 215 pounds, he’s too thin to be “power” forward – remember, that’s what the “P” stands for.
In case you didn't know
Anthony and Chris Bosh are the exact same size at 6’10/208 lbs. Kevin Garnett is only three lbs. heavier then Anthony, so he’s not “too thin” to play the 4.
by golden_solitude on Mar 14, 2010 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions
My bad my bad
but what you’re trying to say is that you’d rather play him one on one out on the wing, against guys like LeBron and Carmelo?
by golden_solitude on Mar 14, 2010 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions
dude!
The point is you have to acknowledge what his limitations are, and that’s exactly why I said the numbers are meaningless. Not every player in the league fits the traditional classifications. Randolph is in between the 3/4. You can’t put him out there against Boozer and expect him to shut him down. He can succeed, but only in certain lineups with other bigs to help on defense.
So enlighten me on these "certain lineups"
by golden_solitude on Mar 14, 2010 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Favors will be a 4
Unless he gets to 6’11, I’ve heard he’ closer to 6’9
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
Yeah the positions all do seem the same when you make up how big players are.
by freerandolph on Mar 14, 2010 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions
he's certainly not a 3...
he’s a nightmare dribbling when pressured and his jumper is bad, he’s turn over prone. He’s NOT A 3.
no bingo
tweener actually tends to refer to guys who dont have the outside game to play 3 and dont rebound, shot block, or score efficiently enough to play inside. Randolph rebounds more than enough to play inside.
Thing A
Yeah I really don't even see it as a question...
Randolph has always been played at the 4 and sometimes at the 5 when there were injuries. He is not a 3.
by freerandolph on Mar 14, 2010 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I would say yes, he can guard most 4’s.
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 7:26 AM PDT up reply actions
sure, you can say anything you want
Unless he puts on 20 pounds, he’s going to pick up so many fouls on most nights guarding bigger guys, that he won’t be able to stay in the game. So, yeah, he can technically be assigned to guard 4’s, but he’d be much more effective guarding guys like Carmelo or Durant than Boozer or Bosh. At least, at this point in his career. The W’s don’t really have anyone else who can stop Carmelo, Durant, Kobe, so why not put someone who’s quick and long out there and force them to drive to the basket where Biedrins and Wright can help out? That makes more sense to me, than Randolph playing down low with his back to the basket. He’s just not strong enough to hold that space.
Because I don’t think Randolph will be very effective on 3’s, so you’ve got two poor alternatives, and I’d go with the one that suits his skillset better. Overall he’ll be a more productive player, right now, playing the 4 because it better suits his skillset. Not all 4’s are huge post presences, either – even types like Bosh/KG don’t rely on the low block all that much. Your focus is on one very specific part of the game – defending very good offensive 4’s down low, but there are plenty of other things that are good for Randolph being at the 4. His rebounding, his shot blocking, his ability to defend 4’s out on the wing, and athleticism to guard the pick and roll. Saying he can’t guard Boozer doesn’t tell us anymore than me saying he’d be a great matchup against Rashard Lewis defensively. He couldn’t guard Lebron, he couldn’t guard Kobe, he’d have no chance against Igoudala, or someone like Maggette, Melo would eat him up – Melo is bigger (in terms of bulk)/stronger than Bosh!
Yeah, Randolph has some strength issues, but his rebounding and ability to protect the rim are valuable down low, and his height/length still allows him to protect the basket somewhat even when he’s being pushed around. He’s shown no ability to be an effective perimeter player, so for both now and in the future, he’s a better fit as a post player than a wing. He’s even had some success at C this year, despite his lack of bulk.
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Man give the kid a break, because that’s exactly what he is, he’s still only 20 years old and still developing physically, hell he can even possibly get taller. He can be an elite 4 with time, and I like his game so far and the fact he has more passion to be great than most players. Imagine his frame when he’s 25, he’ll be a beast!
by wileyschmitt on Mar 15, 2010 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
He does enough good stuff now that we don’t have to carry him for 5 years waiting for him to develop. Excluding Wright (just because of injuries we really don’t know what we have with him, he may or may not be better than Randolph), he’s the best PF on our team.
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Probably not, but it seems like a good thing to me for us long term at least.
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah you're right
With all of our other blossoming talent how could we wait five years on Randolph. Lets trade him for trash and laugh at how stupid the other team is for waiting five years. (sarcasm, in case it wasn’t obvious)
I think its ridiculous not to wait on him and I also doubt it will take five years before he is any good. I bet he’ll give us something valuable next year.
by freerandolph on Mar 15, 2010 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions
His game will defenitely take off in the next season or two, it already has taken some big strides since last year, but what I meant specifically is that he will reach his physical peak in about 5 years or so.
by wileyschmitt on Mar 15, 2010 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, my comment was in response to the guy who commented on your comment
He said something about how we can’t afford to keep Randolph around for 5 more years until he’s good.
But first of all, why not? If he’s gonna be good in five years, keep him around!
Second of all, its not like he won’t continutally get better in between then and now. Its not like hes gonna suck for the next four years and then in fifth year become an allstar.
by freerandolph on Mar 15, 2010 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions
For sure, let’s not have regret getting rid of another guy with a world of potential, and could be the guy we ultimately needed.
by wileyschmitt on Mar 16, 2010 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions
It seems to me that we are actually more solid at the 3 for the next year/or 2 with Buike/Maggette/Morrow
This looks like a draft were we might pick up a strong future low post man C/PF to help solidify our currently shakey AB/AR/BW tall and thin “power” trio. Then we go for the SF at second round/next year draft/trade. Assuming the #1 and possibly #2 picks will not be available to us.
by Only In Fairfax on Mar 18, 2010 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Uhh??
What are you talking about?
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
There's that
but unlike the rare 6’10 guys capable of playing the 3 such as Odom or Prince, Anthony has no mid range game (or long range game for that matter), and his shot-blocking and rebounding skills would be more practical down low.
by golden_solitude on Mar 14, 2010 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions
sorry I meant to say
decent at best mid range game
by golden_solitude on Mar 14, 2010 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions
so let me get this straight
“Because he’s make a bad small forward” is not a good enough reason to play him at PF. The point is either way he plays out of position. He’s a tweener. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but you have to surround him with the right personnel.
Ok
What you want in a Small forward: Someone with good handles and an ability to drive. Some rebounding. An outside shot, preferably up to 3 point range. Someone who can defend small forwards.
What you want from a Power forward: Rebounding! Defensive abilities on bigger players. Shot blocking abilities. On offense its less clear because there are power forwards like Dirk and KG who are really good and not back to the basket inside-scorer kind of \power forward.
I see Anthony Randolph as power forward who is skinny right now and needs to put on weight. Maggs and Buike (although they’re not great players) are what I think of as small forwards.
by freerandolph on Mar 14, 2010 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions
+1 randolph, so we draft Cousins as a great complement with AR and AB.
BW will probably be injured 50% of next season.
by Only In Fairfax on Mar 18, 2010 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions
-1 Cousins
Here’s why I don’t like Cousins for the pick. I don’t think you ever want Biedrins and Cousins on the floor at the same time. You want to draft someone that can play alongside Ellis, Curry, Maggette/Randolph, and Biedrins on the court at the same time. The (big) guys I think can do that in this draft are Monroe and Favors. Now, if you want to draft Cousins and trade away Biedrins, that might work. I’m not sure about Cousins from the standpoint of his “issues”, but it might be a risk worth taking. The real unknown here is how Randolph/Wright develop. It just makes it so much harder to make the right pick.
For example, if we knew right now that Randolph was capable of averaging 15/10 a night and coming up with 2 blocks/game, and playing 30 minutes for an entire season, I would say, let’s draft Cousins and try to trade Biedrins, or let’s draft Evan Turner and start him at SF, with Randolph and Biedrins in the front court. Maggette could come off the bench or be traded. The same scenario can be made for Wright. The issue is that we really don’t know what these guys are capable of doing, so that’s why I lean toward drafting yet another PF, just to increase the odds that much more of actually developing a good young post player.
+2 Cousins
Randolph is a 4, not a 3, and Beans isn’t that good. At his best he is about average. We can play Randolph at 4 and Cousins at 5.
by freerandolph on Mar 18, 2010 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions
"Ellis, Curry, Maggette/Randolph, and Biedrins"
Since you wrote Maggs/Randolph I figured you had them playing the same position. It seems like you were going position by position and leaving a hole to be filled at PF…
by freerandolph on Mar 18, 2010 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Why can’t Biedrins and Cousins play together?
by Missing Barry on Mar 18, 2010 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Not enough speed. We need to have at least one big running up the floor with Ellis and Curry at all times.
I can see that if we want to run, but I don’t see a problem with slowing it up at times. Curry doesn’t even get up and down the floor that fast (not saying he’s bad in transition, just he’s not very fast in transition).
by Missing Barry on Mar 18, 2010 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions
If you draft Cousins, I’m assuming the plan would be to have him start and play big minutes. Assuming Biedrins is still starting and playing big minutes, that would mean they’d be playing together, no? That would be more than “at times”. Cousins might turn out to be a good player, but unless the W’s radically change their style next year, I don’t see hot that’s a good fit. Someone like Favors can come in and run up and down the floor, get rebounds, and guard most PF’s in the league. Cousins would have more trouble guarding PF away from the basket. Again, that’s if you would play Cousins and Biedrins at the same time. I think it can work with Cousins, but you’d have to trade Biedrins.
Well, it seems to me Cousins can play some PF and some C, so if Biedrins is playing 30 minutes a night, that’s 18 minutes for him at C without Biedrins, and we might give him another 8-10 with Biedrins? Personally, I actually would like to play at a slower pace anyways. I don’t like our current style, it’s not effective right now, and we’re a losing basketball team with it.
by Missing Barry on Mar 18, 2010 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Honestly, I see Cousins becoming another Eddy Curry. Here’s a scouting report that year:
Positives:
Nicknamed “Baby Shaq” by some prep basketball observers, Curry has the physical tools to dominate in the paint. He has explosive leaping ability, quickness and agility that belies his massive frame. Curry’s hands are sure and his footwork is good enough to indicate that he will eventually develop into a lethal post-up threat. Curry has a soft touch on shots in the paint and is a powerful dunker and rebounder. He blocks shots well and runs the floor effectively when he is not fatigued.
Negatives:
Curry’s stamina and intensity have been questioned by observers who felt that he did not dominate prep opponents as consistently as he should have. At times, Currly displays an annoying tendancy to dribble the ball in traffic, but this is a flaw that can be corrected through patient coaching. Hopefully, Curry’s near Shaqesque FT shooting can also be corrected. While he is not fat, there are concerns that Curry possesses the body type to develop a weight problem down the road.
At this level, those concerns about conditioning and weight are usually really bad warning signs. While Cousins might have plenty of talent, I just don’t see him sticking around the league that long. I know I could very well be wrong. But that’s my opinion.
by observers who felt that he did not dominate prep opponents as consistently as he should have.
It’s a good sign that Cousins has been playing at such a high level in college, I would think.
Also, every individual is unique. I hate the whole “pick a player he reminds you of and assume he’ll turn into that player” attitude. What does looking at Eddy Curry tell us? If Cousins doesn’t show enough intensity, doesn’t work hard enough, let’s his attitude become a problem, he’ll probably wind up with a similar career. On the other hand, he could actually work hard and stay in shape….and Curry does have some skills, so we could see him harness a similar skillset into an All-star package. The important thing is to try to figure out what you think the liklihood for these scenarios and everything in between is.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 6:48 AM PDT up reply actions
What I am thinking with Cousins is that most of the time he definitely would not be on the floor the same time as AB.
He is only 19 and would need to gain NBA experience but could definitely have impact as a backup center with about 20 min a gm or less in tandum with AB/Turiaf(and there will be injuries etc.) if AB does not come back from the dead we will have our future center in training. If he does we still have the young beast in training and available when we need that body verses AB’s. Meanwhile Cousins also has some PF handles as well. He actually has a good high post gm as well. He isnt speedy but he gets down the floor with the speedy UK team and is a size balance to our other bigs. To me he looks like the missing muscle/link for us when we face teams like Orlando, LA, Utah, Atlanta, etc. Later if he becomes the dominant center that he looks to be then our worst situation is that we move AB or Turiaf. Having him with AB next yr does not change our running gm but gives us a way to throw in some low post muscle when we need it while he is developing over the next 2/3 years. Dont forget that he brings great footwork and soft hands with other skills and is a scoring minded big. His stats per are the best of the bigs in college as a freshman in a NBA body that is still developing. As much as I love Turner I would take Cousins with the #2 pick from what I have seen up to now. But we have a great T to see more as well as the workouts. If we end up at 4/5 pick he and Turner will be gone anyway.
by Only In Fairfax on Mar 18, 2010 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions
If you press the “up” button, it shows you the comment it replies to.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 6:50 AM PDT up reply actions
The point is either way he plays out of position
So why not just play him at the position where he has the bigger upside?
by golden_solitude on Mar 14, 2010 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions
you're not getting the point
The guy who makes more sense to play at PF is Wright, not Randolph. Wright may be able to put on more weight. It really doesn’t look like Randolph can. Of course, one solution is to draft a guy like Favors who really has a PF body.
Stop quibbling
Randolph is a 4, period.
by golden_solitude on Mar 14, 2010 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions
he rebounds above average for a PF
that alone is a good enough reason to play him at PF. He’s an excellent weakside shotblocker/defender. Another reason to play him at 4/5. He finishes well around the rim/gets to line. do i need more reasons?
you guys don't get it
It doesn’t matter what you call him. He’s not going to play against Bosh, Boozer, or Amare one-on-one. He’ll get roasted night in, night out. It’s just not going to happen.
meh
he can put size on easier than develop into a SF. Think of a young garnett physically
you r forgetting advantages he has being skinnier though
no PF can keep up w/ him in open court….
it's called small ball cause we play maggette/buike @ PF
not when its randolph
Thats just not true, he rebounds at a better rate than any of those guys and blocks shots as well as either. He’s far more of PF than he is a SF. In fact, he’s far more of a C than he is a SF. It seems like the rest of us have presented you with some evidence and your only counter is “you guys dont get it…” followed by opinion or nonsense.
Thing A
What this all comes down to is this: Randolph’s skillset is an ideal fit for a 4. He hasn’t shown he has the skillset to play 3 even remotely capably, whereas he does have good qualities of a 4. His weight/strength isn’t ideal right now, nobody is denying that, but Garnett was really skinny once, too. Randolph is only 20 years old, I can’t tell you how much weight he’ll put on, but he definitely will bulk up and increase his strength some, and at that point, he’s exactly what you want in a 4. To play wing he has to completely change who he is as a player. To play post he’s a 20 year old that needs to add some weight and strength. That’s why he’s a 4, because the second thing is almost inevitable, while the first is a bad idea.
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I never said he should play "3"
I said the numbers are meaningless. He can’t guard the “4”. He could potentially guard 3’s out on the wing.
He outrebounds most 4’s he matches up against, rebounding (and thus ending the other team’s possession) is a HUGE part of defense for 4/5 players. You still haven’t said why you think he’s any better guarding 3’s than he is 4s. If he doesn’t match up well defensively against either I’d rather have him play closer to the rim where his offensive game plays better and where his most valuable skill (rebounding) is put to use more often.
Thing A
I wouldn’t mind Randolph at the 5 to be honest. At the 3? No way in hell.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
Agreed
I think if he played 5 he would have to play with a big strong 4 though, and its probably best if he plays 4 with a big strong 5
by freerandolph on Mar 14, 2010 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions
As long as he's on the court.
I think his learning curve will explode once he gets a consistent run of 30+ minutes a night. I’m hoping his efficiency jumps back up with that consistency.
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)
Trade every single palyer? Be realistic at least.
We have a lot of quality players so why would we want to start over? One big move could make or break the team, but at least we have the pieces to make a big move. Bosh is the right move, but he would have to want to come here, and after last night I’m sure Golden State moved up a bit on his list of possible destinations. Now let’s say he would want to be a Warrior, the only realistic way to get him is through a trade, and we would have to willing to part with some talent that a lot of us wouldn’t want to let go of, being the pack-rats some of us are. But this trade could be huge and help both teams. Huge meaning a lot of players. Here we go….. Bosh, Bargnani, and Belinelli (the big B’s) for Ellis, Biedrins, Randolph or Wright and our draft pick. Toronto I think would have a competitive lineup with Biedrins-Randolph-Turkoglu-Ellis-Jack and backups like Derozan the draft choice and Calderon. Plus our lineup would be greatly improved obviously because of the addition of Bosh, but also improved greatly from getting Bargnani in lieu of Biedrins. I’m not hating on Biedrins, it would just be an upgrade at that position, and Bargnani’s excellent perimeter shooting (plus good free throw shooting) would great for the Warrior’s. I at first thought Bosh would be the Warrior’s 5, but depending on who’s in the game he can play the 4 or the 5 at different times of the game. Now here’s what our starting lineup might look like…..Bargnani-Bosh-Maggette-Morrow-Curry, not too shaby, if you like Morrow being a big part of the team, and I do. After that, we would just have to figure out who else to resign, and I hope we can keep at least one of the two veteran role players around (Bell and George). We might be stuck with Radmonavic, he’d be worth keeping if he came at a better price. I like Hunter, but we might not need him with this team. Reggie Williams hopefully won’t get too many good offers from other teams so we can sign him, and Anthony Tolliver I hope could stick around as well. We would have a ton of quality guards to use in those 3 guard linups Nellie always uses, but it wouldn’t be small ball quite so much since 4 of the guards aren’t actually that small (Azubuike, Bell, Morrow, and Williams all over 6’ 5"). I know some of you will say that we need new ownership to make a deal like this happen, but it’s just an idea in hopes of a team that could compete in the West, and at one point win it, sooner than later.
Are you kidding me??
Its not realistic, but its a lot better than what we currently have. That team would challenge for a playoff spot in the West, and would be at least the 5 or 6 seed in the East. Building a team around Bosh and Curry would be really sweet. Just thinking about it makes me salivate… Anyway, uh… Its not as good as I would like, but not too shabby in my opinion. Also not realistic.
by freerandolph on Mar 14, 2010 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions
I know it would be a long shot but...
the only reason it could work (still saying IF Bosh wanted to come here) is because we can offer Toronto a player like Randolph and a high draft pick, there’s no other teams that can make an offer like that.
by wileyschmitt on Mar 14, 2010 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions
NJ could offer a better big player (Lopez) and likely a better draft pick if they really wanted to. Minnesota could offer a better big player (Love) or several other young players (rights to Rubio or Flynn or Jefferson) and likely a better draft pick if they really wanted to. The Clippers could offer a lottery pick and Blake Griffin. The Pacers could offer a high lottery pick and Granger. The Wizards could offer a high pick plus Blatche. The Kings could offer Thompson and a high lottery pick. The Jazz could offer Millsap or Boozer in a sign and trade along with the Knicks’ draft pick. So yea, actually a lot of other teams could make an offer “like that.”
Thing A
I am not kidding you. It’s a shabby lineup. We’ve got a shabby lineup now as well and that lineup might be better than what we’ve got, but it’s still shabby. There’s some problems with that lineup, significantly, you’ve got the worst rebounding 7 footer in history in your front court and defensive liabilities (Bargnani if only because he can’t secure a rebound to save his life) in at least 4 spots on the floor. Toronto is a terrible, terrible, terrible defensive team, presently even worse than the Warriors. That’s half the game. Really, it is. I know it’s hard to look past offense and looking at Bargnothing’s shooting seems to make him look like an ok player. He isn’t.
Doesn't even matter.
A team with Curry and Bosh would be good. Add is Morrow to sharp shoot some 3’s and some other role players and thats a decent team. Not chamionship caliber, but good, and building around two young players in Bosh and Curry would be something more exciting then I’ve ever seen on the Dubs in the last 15 years, besides We Believe.
by freerandolph on Mar 14, 2010 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions
We would be making the deal for Bosh, getting Bargnani would be worth it.
by freerandolph on Mar 14, 2010 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Bargnani is very, very good offensive player and his contract isn’t that bad (about the same as Biedrins contract). But the thing is he would add a new dimension to the offense because he scores in a lot of ways and can spread the floor, he’s shooting a very high percentage this year and shows steady improvement overall each year. Turiaf will bring defense and energy off the bench to compliment Bargnani’s game. I just feel that with the Biedrins/Turiaf combo you get too much lack of offense from that position. Bosh’s game is overall well rounded (to say the least, and he is who this deal is pretty much about), and between the 3 bigs you would get a well balanced front court.
by wileyschmitt on Mar 14, 2010 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Eh, Bargnani is a good offensive player, but I think you’re stretching it a bit. He does nothing to create for others (1.1 assists per 36 minutes this year, 1.3 for his career), his efficiency is above average but not amazing or anything (55.9% last year, 55.8% this year, where 54% is about average), and he scores at a decent but not great rate (17.6 points per 36 last year, 17.7 this year). He’s a decent offensive player, but he’s not that good, and his negatives are pretty bad….
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Pretty much what MB said, Bargnani is an OK offensive player (his inability to create 2nd chance points for the team with offensive boards at least negates his ability to spread the floor) and he’s absolutely atrocious at both rebounding and defense. Biedrins’ is a solid passer, efficient scorer, outstanding rebounder, and much closer to average defensively than Bargnani. He certainly has his flaws and he may not be worth 9 mil per, but I’d much, much, much rather have him than Bargnani. Turiaf and Bargnani might be the worst rebounding center tandem in NBA history. I’m not totally opposed to this deal simply for Bosh, but I think giving up 3 good players who are all at least very close to being worth their contracts AND taking on an awful long term contract for a pretty bad player might be a little too much for Bosh.
Thing A
Turiaf and bargnani wouldn’t be a rebounding combo, they would be a would be combo of efficient offense and efficeint defense, plus Turiaf gets to the boards for the minutes he plays, plus he’s a very good shot blocker. But that doesn’t even matter because Bosh gets 11 per game, and remember our guards are learning how to get to the boards as well lately, watch Curry, Morrow, or Watson and how they get in good position for rebounds. Who woulda thought Curry would have double digit rebounding games.
by wileyschmitt on Mar 14, 2010 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions
You can’t just say your centers “aren’t a rebounding combo.” Every team in the NBA has to depend on their center position for some rebounding. Bosh has significantly increased his per minute rebounding this season which is encouraging but his career rate is still about 9 boards per 36 minutes. Thats not a bad rate at all and if he can repeat his 11 boards per 36 that he’s posting this year you have a fantastic rebounding 4…. but you still have an awful rebounding two headed center… and a frontline that would likely still be average at best on the boards. Bargnani is slightly above average in terms of offensive efficiency but like I stated somewhere above his inability to create 2nd chance points for his team goes a long way towards negating that. His awful defense and poor defensive rebounding more than negate any small efficiency value he may provide on offensive end. You can’t put Turiaf in on every defensive possession and Bargnani in on every offensive one. If you could you might have an adequate, but still very bad rebounding, center. Yes the rebounding we get from our guards is encouraging, but I can’t think of any really good teams in NBA history that have had below average rebounding from their bigs.
Thing A
You could have Bargnani in for around 24 to 26 minutes total, and take him out after we’ve built a solid lead at times, which we do often, and bring in Turiaf to play along side with Bosh, which would be a nice overall frontcourt, and not blow the lead like we’ve do all the time. Plus Turiaf and Curry seem to work very well together, especially on pick and rolls, and I think he deserves more minutes at times. I know Bargnani isn’t the best choice, but I just think if a big deal was to go down he might be involved. The best case scenario would be that we could get Bosh for Biedrins, a prospect, and our draft pick (depending on the selection), but I think it would take more than that since Biedrins had a very sub par and injury plagued season (I don’t think too many teams are going to want the worst free throw shooter of all time). But since they would still have Bargnani and not need Biedrins, we might have to deal Ellis, a prospect, and the draft pick to get Bosh.
by wileyschmitt on Mar 15, 2010 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions
You could have Bargnani in for around 24 to 26 minutes total, and take him out after we’ve built a solid lead at times, which we do often, and bring in Turiaf to play along side with Bosh, which would be a nice overall frontcourt, and not blow the lead like we’ve do all the time.
It’s really not that simple. Building and losing leads comes down to point differential, where offense and defense are equal parts. What a guy contributes towards point differential isn’t really dependent on his offense or defense – the premise that we can bring Bargnani in and build up a lead is flawed, just as the premise that we can bring in a defensive player to hold it is flawed. At the end of the game when the other team has a time limit on catching you it can make sense (slow it down on offense then play D), but we’re talking about what, 6 minutes out of 48 in the games that this actually applies? Almost the entire time what matters is a guys total offensive and defensive contributions.
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions
You're right about that....
That 6 minutes of holding a lead is the time you take out players like Bargnani, Maggette, or even Ellis in certain games, but I just like the idea of using different lineups depending on the opposition and what’s going on in the game, which is why I think having a versetile front line would be useful. The guys I like in that last stretch though are Curry, Williams, Morrow, Tolliver, and Hunter or Turiaf.
by wileyschmitt on Mar 15, 2010 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions
he's a good offensive player
thats not what we’re lacking. Certainly not another jump shooting 4 w/ no other skills
Bosh will not ever sign a contract with the warriors period. Lets get over it.
by Only In Fairfax on Mar 14, 2010 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions
What are you close friends with him or something?
by wileyschmitt on Mar 14, 2010 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Doesn't have to be
No superstar wants to come here and we don’t have the money
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
but also improved greatly from getting Bargnani in lieu of Biedrins. I’m not hating on Biedrins, it would just be an upgrade at that position, and Bargnani’s excellent perimeter shooting (plus good free throw shooting) would great for the Warrior’s.
Well, you may not be hating on Biedrins on purpose, but you definitely are. I think you greatly underestimate just how bad Bargnani is at every other aspect of basketball. He’s a good shooter and decent scorer overall, but he’s arguably as bad as anyone else in all of basketball at every single other skill. Bad defense? Check. Horrible, horrible rebounder, arguably the worst in the NBA considering his size/position? Yep. Good passer? Nope. He’s a pretty not good basketball player overall.
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions
We're not getting a big name free agent..
We need to trade Maggette first of all.. He just doesn’t show up AT ALL late in games.. Ever. His defense is just bleh, he doesn’t seem to try and when he thinks his man is gonna score, he just friggen flops lmao…
Trade Maggs for a bunch of scrubs, then waive the scrubs.. Draft Turner, re-sign CJ, Tolliver, Hunter Reggie and Morrow, let Bell go (he’ll sign with a contender), draft some random 2nd rounder like Devan Downey from South Carolina, then sign some random summer league dude after training camp and see how we go from there..
Biedrins | Turiaf | Hunter
Randolph | Wright | Tolliver
Turner | Azubuike | Random Summer League Dude
Ellis | Morrow | Williams
Curry | CJ | Downey
There we go, a 15 man roster! This lineup is not playoff contenders right away, but with Riley as GM, I don’t see us making any major moves to grab an all-star caliber player. Looks like we just have to keep getting young talent and see if they turn out to be good players or not… I just wanna see how we play when we’re all healthy. It’s definitely an exciting team to watch, and after next season with Nellie gone, we could really do some damage in the west.
I actually want to see this happen
It looks like a good young team with potential. After this we can start to see what needs to be done in order to become better. Either let them develop or make moves
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
our 15 would have radmanovic instead of Tolliver or Hunter because he’s under contrct for next year.
Keep Vlad on the bench than
We don’t need him to play
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
Also Turner over Maggette would make us a better team in 3-4 years, 2 years is an absolute minimum
But for now, Maggette is definitely better than Turner, plus with Monta being our only other player who gets to the line or rim at will, we need him. Or at least some other veteran SF with a legit offensive game. I’ve also been impressed with Corey’s defense on other SF’s this year. We just don’t get to see it that much…
My man crush on Azubuike
Makes me want Maggette gone ASAP lol. We haven’t had a good young core like this for a while now, I’d much rather kick Corey out the door if it means Turner is a Warrior.
Of course Maggette is the better player at the moment, but I’d rather see what Turner can do at SF. He fits right into our young core, Corey is better off helping an already established team. Don’t get me wrong, Maggs is a great player, great person and teammate to have in the locker room. Turner is going to be friggen amazing though.
We need to find an identity.. Maggs isn’t going to help us find one.
He just doesn’t show up AT ALL late in games.. Ever.
Great point and an overlooked one. Ellis hasn’t really shown too much either, but he’s at least shown he can close out games. That game winner two years ago and getting some key steals against Joe Johnson this year. He has a killer instinct, he just needs to polish it a little so he doesn’t make mistakes (TO’s). Curry has an even bigger killer instinct.
Maggette…nothing. When he gets into a flow, it’s usually early on or in the 2nd or 3rd quarter. He never seems to finish out a game strong or when you NEED his scoring. If not scoring, then rebounding or defense. None of that happens. That’s why he’s overpaid and that’s why we need him gone.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 15, 2010 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Monta has a sense of the moment
Like against LAL the clutch 3, the steals and his rebound in the end. And if that shot would have went in that game goes into OT with the momentum on our side, and if we win all of a sudden we praise him for being clutch. Just by the bounce of the ball. He needs polish but he can definitely become a clutch player
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
Now that's just silly ...
So you’ve got this player who shoots way too much, and because some of that “shooting way to much” includes shooting at the end of the game, he now has a sense of the moment?
Monta is an efficient volume scorer this season. Him missing a big shot in crunch time is, well, typical. He’ll make a bunch of them too, of course … because he shoots a ton.
Sense of the moment? Monta has rarely met a shot he doesn’t like. OF COURSE he’s going to shoot it there.
TS% is what you want. ~54% is average.
by Missing Barry on Mar 18, 2010 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions
You're right, if he made it, we'd be praisng Monta
But Monta probably should have dished it to Morrow, who was all alone or back to Curry,. because they both are more capable shooters..In all the years,
I remember one buzzer beater from Monta, where he was fed by Baron. He’s been a poor clutch shooter. He’s often flustered in last minute and split second judgments. Defensively of course, we can attest to the fact that he made poor last second judgments on defense that have cost us a couple of games against the Nuggets That’s not to mention seconds lost when he didn’t listen to Nelly’s plan to take the ball without calling a timeout in the closings seconds in a loss against?—Cleveland?
He works and plays hard, and I hope in the future he can become a more timely shooter.
.
by War Years Legacy on Mar 17, 2010 11:45 AM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
