Position of greatest need next year
by bleep on Mar 5, 2010 3:48 AM PST
222 comments
Put yourself in Larry Riley's shoes at the end of the year. Here is your current set of players under contract for the 2011 season:
1: Curry, Watson ($3M + watson's salary, if re-signed)
2: Ellis, Morrow ($11M + 1M)
3: Maggette, Azubuike ($9.6M + 3.3M)
4: Radmanovic, Randolph, Wright ($6.8M + 3.4 + 2 = $12.4M)
5: Biedrins, Turiaf ($9 +$4 = 13M)
Total: $53M + Watson. I included Watson because he will be an RFA. All current d-league callups will be unrestricted free agents.
Sidenote: one thing that jumps out right away is the amount of money injured right now. Turiaf is the highest-salaried player on the court at $4M, followed by Curry's 7th pick rookie deal.
Rather than look at it from the point of who to trade away, what position needs the most upgrade? I'd have to say the 5. It's been two years in a row that Biedrins has had significant injuries, and despite his youth (24), no parts of his game seem to be improving. He is a great rebounder, an OK but not great defender, but has yet to demonstrate any go-to offensive moves, and has no range or foul shooting ability. Is that enough for a starting center on a good team? It was a few years, ago, but given the current balance of the roster, I think this is where an upgrade would be felt the most, followed closely by the 4. With the 3rd pick, the W's could be in line to pick up a 4-5 in Favours or Cousins. But big men usually take longer to contribute out of the draft, so I don't think they would make a huge difference next season. What trade(s) would you make to land a more consistent center?
A few possibilities, in no particular order or skill level:
Dalembert (13M)
Gooden (free agent)
Gortat (6M)
Channing Fry (player option next year for 2M)
Okafor (11M, long contract)
Nazr Mohammed (7M)
Jeff Foster (6.5M)
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!
0 recs |
222 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Pretty Simple
If we can get John Wall (gotta get extremely lucky), then I’d take my chances with Curry and Wall in the backcourt. I would love to see that.
With that being said, I would trade Monta Ellis because its apparent that Monta DOESNT WANT to coexist with Steph. The warriors can get something decent for Monta, i mean the guy is averaging 26ppg. If we could get a decent 4/5, that would be great with maybe a draft pick thrown in there as well.
This is the roster w/o a possible trade for Monta
1. Curry/Watson/Wall
2. Wall/Morrow
3. Maggette/Azubuike
4. Randolph/Wright
5. Biedrins/Turiaf
and a player for Monta Ellis. We can also consider trading Corey Maggette and Biedrins as well.
If we dont get Wall (most likely), we can still consider trading Monta, Maggette, or Biedrins or all.
its apparent that Monta DOESNT WANT to coexist with Steph
Based on what, exactly?
by Missing Barry on Mar 5, 2010 5:39 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
obviously based on the fact that monta faked his own injuries so he could sit on the bench and avoid playing with curry.
letting us know just how much he hates the idea of ellis/curry backcourt.
One rhetorical question
is never enough said.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 7, 2010 3:59 PM PST up reply actions
Pretty simply dumb you mean
That just doesn’t make any sense man, you’re not gonna get much value for Monta in a trade, let alone get a draft pick and a quality low post player (we don’t need a draft pick anyway, we got D-leaguers for days). If we can actually trade Biendrins and get anything for someone to pick up his contract might not be too bad, but I don’t think any team is interested in him after this season, his worst by far. Why do want Wall so bad? There is better players in the draft that can fill a need, but if it were up to me I’d try to shop that pick depending on what # it is. Gotta like the idea of Evan Turner though, it’d be hard to pass on him. Gotta try to sign some of the D-leaguers next year, particularly Reggie Williams, Hunter, and Tolliver, all efficient players and have helped actually keep us in games with the limited # of players, so if injuries are a problem next year we know we have solid guys to fill in. Wall and Curry for the immediate future? I want some of what you’re smokin cuz you’re outta your mind. Let Ellis and Curry figure it out, they already lead the league in starting backcourt points, and Wall might not get played by Nelson in favor of guys he likes better like CJ, Bell, Williams, or possibly Azubuike orMorrow at the off guard. Remember, almost all these guys are very young and you can’t expect it to great right away, young teams need time to gel before they become a force in the league.
by wileyschmitt on Mar 12, 2010 2:38 AM PST up reply actions
Gotta try to sign some of the D-leaguers next year, particularly Reggie Williams, Hunter, and Tolliver,
How would we fit them in when our hurt guys return? If we could lose Rad, George and Bell maybe then we could keep them? and CJ might be gone after last night :>) Only guy on the court who understands lotto balls and nellie chews him out ? Boo !!
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 12, 2010 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
That just doesn’t make any sense man, you’re not gonna get much value for Monta in a trade
I don’t think I buy that. I think we could get plenty of value for Monta in a trade.
There are also not better players than Wall in this draft, no matter the position or need. Assuming we get the number one overall, we take Wall and go from there.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 12, 2010 9:59 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t think we really have a position of greater need. Our problem is we don’t have a lot of top tier talent, and top tier talent wins games – a starting 5 consisting of 5 average starters isn’t a very good team in the NBA. It doesn’t matter what position it is – we need top level talent.
Agreed
Which means you go for best player available in the draft. And the team MIGHT already have players who will develop into your ‘top-tier talent’ in Monta, Curry and (if the light goes on) Randolph. None of the 5’s listed bring even a yawn from me. A much higher priority would be to re-sign Watson and Morrow and convince Raja to stay here.
A much higher priority would be to re-sign Watson and Morrow and convince Raja to stay here.
Eh, whether we resign those players or not is only going to make a very minimal impact on both our short term and long term successs…..
by Missing Barry on Mar 5, 2010 11:43 AM PST up reply actions
I get your points, but it is annoying that you don’t think re-signing nice 5th starters and backups is important. You don’t think Watson and Morrow (two of our most effective players) can be helpful players in the future….yes they can and will be.
If you can’t find that superstar, at least build your assets so you can remain competitive, ship them off for that superstar, or keep them around until you can find that superstar.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 3:00 PM PST up reply actions
Watson and Morrow are rotation players, for sure. However, they are not more than 2nd or 3rd guys off the bench for any good team.
No they are definitely starter/6th man quality. As onixn is pointing out, CJ is playing very well right now. We all know Morrow is one of the most effective scorers in this league, while being a good rebounder for his position. Does his defense leave a lot to be desired? Yes, but the stats show we are a better defensive team than we are normally when he is on the court. Why? He plays good team defense and causes turnovers. Morrow is a starter in this league. CJ could be a starter, but he is already one of the best 6th man this league has to offer.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 3:08 PM PST up reply actions
Monta is just terrible at the 1. He is not the guy to handle the ball that much. CJ and Curry at the 1 will do the job well (and perhaps we bring in one more 1 next year). Morrow, of course, is a great 2 or 3 (especially if he gets a bit stronger and gets more experience… I’m excited about him and his growth!). I think he will be a solid starter or great 6th man for years.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I’ll respectfully disagree. The “effective scoring” of Morrow has been mostly an an energy guy coming in off the bench. Small sample size, but he has been pretty inefficient/inconsistent when put in starting/heavy minute situations. He is definitely a starter for a bad, injured team, but you would have a tough time putting together a valid argument for him starting on a winning team. He is too one dimensional.
Watson is a good back up point guard. The numbers show he is so effective at his role because he has been utilized correctly at that position.
Well, would you be surprised to hear, the more minutes Watson and Morrow play, the better we are. How has Morrow been bad when starting? I tend to see similar results, if not better when he starts.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
He’s just very inconsistent, and it shows itself more when he starts. His game log backs this up.
And, completely outside of his shooting ability, his defense is awful even on this bad defensive team.
He is very good at what he does, which is be a deadly spot up shooter. That skill by itself, on a winning team, is almost always reserved for a player to come off the bench and provide a boost. If he developed some other skills, and improved on his awful defense, maybe he becomes a fringe starter, but he isn’t anywhere near that yet.
Well he has started to develop a game off the dribble. He is becoming effective scoring off the 3 point line. His ball handling is greatly improved, and he is starting to take strides on defense. I don’t see why he can’t start.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 4:19 PM PST up reply actions
I’ll give you Morrow, I’d like to resign him as well, but I’m not nearly as high on Watson as others, he’s a fungible player that shouldn’t be getting heavy minutes for any halfway decent team (poor defender, terrible at creating for others despite being a “PG”…all he really does is score efficiently at a low volume [something that’s becoming increasingly obvious is a very easy skill to find from a replacement level wing based on the Warriors experiences] and not turn the ball over), and Bell’s just old. I don’t see Bell’s contributions, if he can still make them, lasting for very long.
by Missing Barry on Mar 5, 2010 4:53 PM PST up reply actions
I agree on Bell, but CJ and Morrow are looking like keepers. Also, what to you suggest CJ’s a poor defender?
terrible at creating for others despite being a "PG"
But he has a good AST/TO ratio. Isn’t that the stat we use most of the time as a way of gauging a player’s passing ability.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
AR and TOR as well
his AR is 20.05, which is below average for a PG but still not as bad as someone like Monta. His TOR is 8.24, which is very very good for a PG. His A/TO is 2.5, but he only has 2.5 assists to his 1 turnover.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 5, 2010 5:18 PM PST up reply actions
but still that is a great ratio.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 5:36 PM PST up reply actions
But he has a good AST/TO ratio. Isn’t that the stat we use most of the time as a way of gauging a player’s passing ability.
Well, I don’t, because conceptually it doesn’t make any sense to. All CJ does is limit his turnovers, which makes that ratio good. Now, that’s a good thing, don’t get me wrong, but he’s averaging 3.4 assists per 36 minutes. That’s not creating for others. He’s a short SG.
Also, I watch the games, and CJ is a pretty horrendous defender in my opinion. He does create turnovers – a good thing, but in terms of staying in front of his man…..ugh.
by Missing Barry on Mar 7, 2010 1:39 PM PST up reply actions
Limiting turnovers is as important as creating an assist or two more in my opinion.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 7, 2010 1:47 PM PST up reply actions
I’m not talking about an assist or two more. I’m talking I want something like 3-4 more out of my PG.
by Missing Barry on Mar 7, 2010 2:00 PM PST up reply actions
I get what you are saying but 3.4 to 1.3 out of my point guard is better than 7 to 3.5 in my opinion.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 7, 2010 2:37 PM PST up reply actions
And that’s exactly my problem with A/T. How much is an assist worth compared to a turnover? Is increasing your assists by 3.5 and turnovers by 2 a positive or negative? What if he could increase his assists by 3 while only racking up 1 more turnover? Taking care of the ball is good, but again, I’d call CJ a short SG before I’d call him a PG….
by Missing Barry on Mar 7, 2010 2:55 PM PST up reply actions
I wouldn’t call him a short SG because he doesn’t shoot enough. I think the right system for him would be the triangle. Requires good ball movement, shooting, and to take care of the ball well.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 7, 2010 4:12 PM PST up reply actions
The problem with A/T is that using this stat to evaluate PGs makes the radical assumption that a player’s action invariably leads to one or the other. In fact, there are plenty of actions on the court that can lead to TOs but not to assists. A player who doesn’t take risks or drive to the basket a lot, someone in the Brevin Knight or Steve Blake mold, will often end up with a better A/T than a guy like Steve Nash or Chauncey Billups, even though they’re arguably not better at anything on the court (other than risk avoidance, which is an admirable quality in a PG, but would anyone really rather have Steve Blake than Steve Nash?).
I don’t mean to lecture, I just wanted to show how A/T is definitely not the be-all end-all of PG statistics.
Thing C
I don’t mean to lecture, I just wanted to show how A/T is definitely not the be-all end-all of PG statistics.
Does anyone rate them on percentage of their total team field goals the guard assisted on? That might indicate their true importance to the offense and their contribution to wins and loses?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 8, 2010 1:48 PM PST up reply actions
Seems like that’s exactly what AST% at BB-Ref does. “an estimate of the percentage of teammate field goals a player assisted while he was on the floor”
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
Seems like that’s exactly what AST% at BB-Ref does
Now, does it tell the truth? I’ll hafta take a look at it .
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 8, 2010 2:52 PM PST up reply actions
It seemed like most posters on this site used A/T ratio to determine how valuable a passer is. I agree that some passers take more risks to get better assists that help out the team more, but when someone turns it over as rarely as Watson, it is an asset.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 5:19 PM PST up reply actions
I've never really liked A/T ratio ...
I prefer assists/36 and T/36.
THe problem with A/T is that 3 assists and 1 TO in 36 minutes looks exactly the same as 9 assists and 3 TOs in 36 minutes, yet you’re talking about very different players.
Yes, i agree, but i like a low turnover guy coming off the bench, ala CJ.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 7:44 PM PST up reply actions
He’s a short SG.
He’s really neither. The only SGs that can even approach CJ’s low per-minute turnover totals are generally catch-and-shoot guys like Redick, Battier and Quentin Richardson, and most of those guys don’t record assists as often as CJ. Really, no type of player tends to post results like CJ’s 3.4 assists and 1.3 turnovers per 36 minutes, especially if they’re expected to handle the ball a fair amount. The only other NBA player with numbers like that this year is Ronnie Brewer.
It’s a weird passing line, and I’d agree with you that it doesn’t suggest “point guard”. But I’d also argue that a guy with that passing line is more valuable than he might seem at first glance. No player in the league that handles the ball as much as CJ turns it over less often. Given that, it’s not the end of the world that he doesn’t make a ton of plays.
Also, I watch the games, and CJ is a pretty horrendous defender in my opinion. He does create turnovers – a good thing, but in terms of staying in front of his man…..ugh.
I’d agree that he’s not a good man defender, but he’s much better at it than he was a year ago. Moreover, he’s very good at picking his spots in terms of going for steals and drawing charges. He’s a defensive gambler… that’s not a defensive style I like, but he is good at it.
Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis
I’ll give you Morrow, I’d like to resign him as well, but I’m not nearly as high on Watson as others, he’s a fungible player that shouldn’t be getting heavy minutes for any halfway decent team (poor defender
I’m not going to convince you that CJ is a good defender just based on RAPM, and frankly I’m not entirely convinced myself. But can we at least agree that CJ is a better defender than Anthony Morrow?
terrible at creating for others despite being a "PG"
It’s true — he doesn’t create for others very often. However, the Warriors offense does not tend to sputter when he handles the ball — this year, like last year, they’ve had a better offense with CJ on the court.
…all he really does is score efficiently at a low volume
We’re just quibbling over semantics here, but the way I’d phrase it: “all he really does is score very efficiently at a low volume.” CJ’s TS% of .580 is the 18th-best among NBA guards… he’s twenty percentage points ahead of Curry, and only thirteen behind Morrow. Half the teams in the league don’t have a guard who scores as efficiently as CJ.
Also while it’s true that he doesn’t score a lot, it’s not like he’s an outright non-threat, either. CJ’s Usage Rate of 14.8% puts him in league with guys like Steve Blake, Earl Watson, Jason Williams and Jason Kidd.
[something that’s becoming increasingly obvious is a very easy skill to find from a replacement level wing based on the Warriors experiences]
The idea that guys like Morrow, Azubuike and CJ are very easy to find is hard to square with the fact that only a handful of other undrafted guys have made a mark in the league in the last three years. If guys who could score 14 efficient points a night were easily acquired, the league would be a very different place.
and not turn the ball over)
…a massively important skill, particularly for a ball-handler. CH’s tied for the second-best Turnover Ratio among point guards, and the only guy ahead of him is Eddie House, who barely ever even dribbles.
CJ isn’t and shouldn’t be a first option… he’s a complementary guy. But he’s a pretty good one. He helps you win the turnover battle. He helps you win the fouls battle. He shoots effectively when he shoots. You may be right that he “shouldn’t be getting heavy minutes for any halfway decent team”, but among the current Warriors, the one who’d be best able to contribute to a halfway decent team in some capacity is CJ Watson. In his quiet way, he plays winning basketball.
Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis
The idea that guys like Morrow, Azubuike and CJ are very easy to find is hard to square with the fact that only a handful of other undrafted guys have made a mark in the league in the last three years.
Yet at the same time, we’ve managed to find them all in the last few years…..
Maybe that exact player might not be the easiest to find, but wings that can add the same value as them seem to be a dime a dozen. What they do well in terms of scoring efficiency other players might make up in that “defense” word I’ve heard other teams actually try to play – but overall, there are plenty of 6’5 and smaller wings out there that can do a couple of things well but overall are backup quality players….
by Missing Barry on Mar 7, 2010 6:49 PM PST up reply actions
Such as?
I’m not trying to be facetious. I’m not aware of many comparably effective undrafted wings that shown up in the NBA in the last five years. There’s Wesley Matthews and Jamario Moon… who else?
It may seem to a Warriors fan that guys like Azubuike, Morrow and CJ grow on trees, but they just don’t… we were very lucky to grab them so cheaply. Just about every other young wing who contributes as well as they do was a first-round pick, and many of those guys were lottery picks. The fact that we found these guys on the scrap heap does not mean they’re scrap-heap level players. The DeMarcus Nelsons and Coby Karls are the rule… these guys are exceptions.
Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis
I think there are a couple of points driving my assertions. First, I don’t think Morrow or Watson are that good (but I think Morrow is more useful because his biggest asset – his shooting – is such an elite skill), so we’re only talking about end of the rotation players (8-9 man on a decent team). And I do believe the norm is along the lines of DeMarcus Nelson/Coby Karl, but at the same time, when you start bringing D-Leaguers up, they’re only on a max of two 15 day contracts. You go through 3-4 of them and your chances of finding a useful one (talking wings here) go up substantially. So it might take a few failures, but I don’t think it’s out of the question to find guys that can contribute when you look at a few of them. And sure, most guys that end up being that good might be first round picks, but we’re talking late first round picks where you rarely get anyone that good – I don’t see those as being that much more useful or that much better of a bet than some of the better D-League guys.
by Missing Barry on Mar 7, 2010 7:51 PM PST up reply actions
I think there are a couple of points driving my assertions. First, I don’t think Morrow or Watson are that good (but I think Morrow is more useful because his biggest asset – his shooting – is such an elite skill), so we’re only talking about end of the rotation players (8-9 man on a decent team).
Right. We disagree on that — I think CJ is pretty good, not as sure about Morrow — but I get that your claim that you can get comparable talent easily is based on a low(-ish) opinion of these guys, not a high opinion of D-Leaguers.
it might take a few failures, but I don’t think it’s out of the question to find guys that can contribute when you look at a few of them.
Agreed. The core of our disagreement is in the rating of the Warriors in question. I think you can find D-Leaguers that can contribute… I’m less convinced that you can find D-Leaguers that can contribute as much as our guys.
And sure, most guys that end up being that good might be first round picks, but we’re talking late first round picks where you rarely get anyone that good – I don’t see those as being that much more useful or that much better of a bet than some of the better D-League guys.
I think this may have been true a couple years ago, but I’m not sure if it’s as true now. It seems to me that NBA teams have been signing and keeping their second-round draft picks a lot more than they used to, which would mean that fewer players with potential are freely available. I haven’t done legwork on that, and I could be wrong. But the crop of ‘09 second-rounders that are playing decent-sized roles for their teams — Blair, Thornton, Jerebko, Budinger, Brockman, Sam Young, A.J. Price — makes me think teams have gotten more efficient about identifying effective talent come draft time. And if that’s true, the leftover pickings will be a lot slimmer than they used to be… there’ll be a bigger dropoff between the drafted and undrafted.
Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis
Yeah somehow I left out the words “that we disagree on” after “a couple of points” in that first sentence, not sure how that happened…
by Missing Barry on Mar 7, 2010 9:14 PM PST up reply actions
keeping Raja Bell is key
can you elaborate a bit more on the argument against keeping Bell…yes he’s 33 but he has 9 years nba experience. this young team needs a veteran competitor and glue guy. with Bell most of his contribution comes from leadership, teaching the young players how to be a professional, how to practice, how to be a team player, how to WIN. i think these types of factors are what Bell will bring in addition to a gritty defender who can hit the 3.
i’m actually fired up for the Warriors to keep Bell because i think he’s exactly what this team needs (aside from a bonafide superstar player of course) for 2 reasons: 1) the way the team responded when Bell played 1 game this season before surgery, coming off the bench when the team was shorthanded. and 2) since injured players have been required to be at games Bell has been at the forefront of giving high fives and giving specific tutorial to players coming off the court. the guy bleads team player and professionalism…which is one part of many required in building a championship team…
by Brickowski BOOM on Mar 12, 2010 5:31 PM PST up reply actions
with Bell most of his contribution comes from leadership, teaching the young players how to be a professional, how to practice, how to be a team player, how to WIN.
Isn’t that stuff they should be getting from the coaching staff? How much is it gonna cost us to pay Bell for this guidance that should come from a non roster spot?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 12, 2010 8:26 PM PST up reply actions
accountability in the huddle
i think young players relate better to their peers than to coaches, and can be more positively affected by teammates who have been in the league a long time and demand respect.
chauncey billups in the huddle in denver, yelling at teammates to hustle more on defense has a greater effect than a coach yelling at his players to hustle more on defense. there’s an accountability with veteran teammates that you don’t get with coaches in the professional game.
by Brickowski BOOM on Mar 18, 2010 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions
It's a bad thing
to stock up on old talent when your team is young and rebuilding.
I hardly think he’s key. It’d be nice to get him, but don’t get your hopes up or get too disappointed when he signs a small contract with a contender over the summer.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 12, 2010 10:00 PM PST up reply actions
most likely Bell will sign with a contender
he’d be smart to do so, because what he brings could be a key piece to championship caliber team.
but i’m not saying to sign 5 more players that are Bell’s age, and to “stock up” with old players. keep Bell and Maggette as your veterans and base the team around the young talent. i just don’t get the argument that the re-building effort would be aided by having the entire team under 24 and inexperienced?? is that what you mean by young and rebuilding??
by Brickowski BOOM on Mar 18, 2010 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
We need players that can contribute in a positive way on the court. We’re a young team – we’re not going to contend right now, we should be building for the future. Raja Bell will not be able to contribute a meaningful amount for much longer. 33 is close to the end of the road for most players. Basically, he’s old.
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions
i agree on some parts of these arguments
Yes Bell is getting to the end of his career, and 33 is an age players might start to decline. but two reasons you should try to look beyond the “he’s old” argument:
1) i’m not saying Bell should be a major contributor on the floor… just a contributor. and given his competitiveness i would say its likely that if healthy, he would contribute positively on the court for 2 more seasons.
2) building for the future still requires veterans on the team…young players will benefit greatly from having some veteran teammates. that’s fine if the team is young and can’t contend right now, but in the case of Bell i think he would help the development of young players on and off the court.
my point is that we shouldn’t disregard what Bell brings because of his age, and I’m of the opinion the way to rebuild is through a good mix of young and old players.
by Brickowski BOOM on Mar 18, 2010 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Why should we resign Watson?
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
His +/- has been great, he’s got experience and good 1’s are hard to find. We ought to keep him.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
+/- is very iffy at best to decide if a player really makes that much of a difference
I’d rather get a veteran guy thats been around and can bring more stability and mentor ship than CJ. Good 1’s aren’t too hard to find depending on the system
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
Good 1’s aren’t too hard to find depending on the system
Good point guards are hard to find.
+/- isn’t iffy if it backs up everything else.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 8:15 PM PST up reply actions
+/- can be skewed
And it depends on what you want your PG to do, if you want a distributor that may be hard but a scorer like CJ is not. There are many PG’s that are shoot first and are decent
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
Not many shoot first point guards take care of the ball as well as CJ and score as efficiently as him. He is a nice asset we should keep if he is in the 3-4 million range.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 8:26 PM PST up reply actions
Why should we resign Watson?
cause he’s a good backup guard for the price.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 11:09 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think he wants to be here
Remember the Warriors last season offered him a 3 year deal, but he didn’t want to take it. He wanted to go to Orlando, but we matched the 1 year deal.
We did not match a 1 year deal. Watson never took another team’s offer for us to match.
We gave him the qualifying offer (and apparently, a 3 year deal that he turned down—details of this vary depending on the source). The qualifying offer is a 1 year guaranteed deal we had to put on the table to reserve rights to match an offer. When nothing else materialized for him, he took the one year deal from us. Orlando expressed interest, but never officially offered a deal. It’s not clear if that was because initially they thought the Warriors would match or not, but rather shortly, they had used up their MLE to acquire Barnes and someone else whose name escapes me. Even after that, they had a TPE that they could have exercised to get him from us in a sign-and-trade but nothing materialized there either. However much he wanted to go to Orlando, they didn’t prioritize Watson.
they didn’t prioritize Watson.
Not sure if that is the case. Watson was a RFA at the time and if the magic signed him to an offer sheet their MLE would have been tied up. Otis Smith has gone on the record and said he tried several different trade attempts to the Warriors and they were all rejected. The Magic werent getting Watson without our consent (either S&T or by not matching) and it seemed that the Warriors were Hell bent on keeping Watson.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 7, 2010 1:53 AM PST up reply actions
Why should we resign Watson?
Cause he’s “the keeper of the lotto balls”
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 12, 2010 8:27 PM PST up reply actions
Raja said he wanted to stay in Golden State and Nellie wants him there.
"What I've achieved now is something that I always figured I would as a kid. I've had that type of determination since I was a youngster playing around the playgrounds, getting dirty after school." - Amare Stoudemire
I don’t think we really have a position of greater need. Our problem is we don’t have a lot of top tier talent, and top tier talent wins games – a starting 5 consisting of 5 average starters isn’t a very good team in the NBA. It doesn’t matter what position it is – we need top level talent.
Yes, but we also have a problem of accumulated long-term contracts in Ellis, Biedrins, and Maggette. In order to (i) attract top-tier contract (ii) keep them alongside Curry, we’d have to dump at least one of those contracts.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 5, 2010 9:10 AM PST up reply actions
typo
“attract top-tier players”
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 5, 2010 9:13 AM PST up reply actions
Well, we aren’t just going to attract some top tier player anyways – our organization is a joke. To find it, we’re going to have to either draft it or trade for it. I do want to get rid of Maggette’s contract for sure. Monta and Biedrins I’m ok with, because they can fit into our future.
by Missing Barry on Mar 5, 2010 11:44 AM PST up reply actions
I’m not sure what top tier talent would be available for Monta, Biedrins and Maggette.
Monta I could see us getting a similar talent at another position. But that player will probably come with warts just like Monta.
Biedrins’ value has gone down considerably this year. If we already land our center in Cousins, I wouldn’t mind getting back a very good rebounding FC player, and maybe a late lotto pick for him.
Maggette. Can you say salary dump?
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’m not sure what top tier talent would be available for Monta, Biedrins and Maggette.
Nor am I – when I was talking about trading for top tier talent, everyone on our roster is available, and I was talking about any trade involving anyone at all that brings that kind of talent back.
by Missing Barry on Mar 5, 2010 1:26 PM PST up reply actions
Agreed but saying it, and doing it are two different things.
I’d love to land LeBron, Wade or Bosh, but we’d strip mine all of our + assets to get them.
I’m willing to let the core guys grow and just add a piece here and there. We’ve been through enough wholesale changes and we’ve proven that we’re not very adept at the whole trading game. No matter who it is, the Warriors organization seems to make it their mission to ruin our players and depress their value.
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)
we’d strip mine all of our + assets to get them
That’s ok, all of our assets aren’t as good as any of those guys (but that’s also why we wouldn’t be able to trade for them)….
by Missing Barry on Mar 5, 2010 1:27 PM PST up reply actions
That’s my feeling. We can do a’right with Turiaf, Hunter, Randolph and Biedrins at the 5. A team can win with an average center and Turiaf and Biedrins fit that bill. Plus, Hunter is a tough ombrey who can bang with the big boys of the NBA. Nice to have him off the bench. We get a great player out of the draft, as in top-tier, and we’re fine, even if we need to trade to get him. We can trade Monta (not because he’s bad, but because at the 1, Curry is better) and pick up some needed talent. If we keep Raja Bell, I’ll be pretty happy with Morrow and/or Azubuike off the bench at the 2.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I know you hate Wright, but i’d much rather see him than Hunter.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
I hate Wright? I think Wright is great. I just doubt he’s a center.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Well, don’t you think he’d be a great backup for Randolph if not starting over Randolph when he’s playing better.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 3:44 PM PST up reply actions
Given that good, productive 5’s are hard to come by either through the draft, trade, or FA, I think that we need to keep an open mind with Biedrins. Remember the reasons why he was given his contract, which IMO, was and is fair and reasonable.
I think that playing for his national team really took a toll on his body all the while not improving his game whatsoever. He should spend the off-season trying to get healthy and developing some sort of offensive move. I really think he should consider an underhand free throw. I just don’t understand the resistance to that idea. “Because it looks stupid” is a horrible excuse.
So, what the Warriors really should focus on is dumping Maggette’s contract and replacing the 3 position with a defensive-minded 3 like Shane Battier, FOR EXAMPLE.
If dumping Maggette means trading away a young player on their rookie contract, like Anthony Randolph, I think it needs to be considered. Unfortunately, the Warriors have to sacrifice a position of strength, potential, and value in order to fix their mistakes.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 5, 2010 8:28 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Trading Maggs is like trading JC
We won’t need to add a young guy unless we are aiming to sell high (which we won’t). There is always another Speedy Claxton/Acie Law out there
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
Trading Maggs is like trading JC
You really think so? JC had one year left on his contract when we traded him. Maggette has 3.5 years as it stands.
Trading JC was also to make room for Morrow.
Unless you count Azubuike, we don’t really have a player in waiting to fill Maggette’s role.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 5, 2010 9:32 AM PST up reply actions
dubzfan
Sorry, I may have read your post wrong, so I took an argumentative stance. Maybe that was uncalled for.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 5, 2010 9:35 AM PST up reply actions
This is why I hope we draft Turner.
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)
emphasis on hope.
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)
JC still had an option to make his deal longer
I think the way Maggs should stay is if we draft one of the 2 centers (Hassan, Cousins). If we get Aminu, Johnson, Turner etc he should be gone
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
Problem is JC sucks. Maggette is really good at what he does which is scoring and rebounding.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 8:16 PM PST up reply actions
JC sucked in his role
As a 6th man he’s great, Maggs is older, more injury prone with a worse contract.He’s good at what he does and so is JC
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
He's not a more effective 6th man than Maggette
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 5, 2010 11:08 PM PST up reply actions
He fits with his team though
Fits perfectly, that alone makes him more value than Maggs. Maggs wouldn’t have the effect JC is having if Maggs was there
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
How does he fit in better with the team?
He takes away minutes from our other more productive guards. Maggette at least plays a position that we don’t have a clear cut player at. I guess i didn’t mention how much better Maggette is than Crawford apparently.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
Pretty much everything MDB said
I completely disagree with the assertion that JC is a better fit. The main thing that JC would bring in that Maggette doesn’t have is 3P shooting off the bench, which we have a lot of anyway.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
You both realize his point was that Crawford fits better with the Hawks, not with the Warriors, right?
Probably read it more carefully.
I guess so, but he also was saying JC is a better fit as a sixth man in general, which i don’t agree with. He is saying Maggette wouldn’t be as helpful as JC on the Hawks, but i obviously disagree with that.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 5:21 PM PST up reply actions
Oh woops
I thought he said “He fits with this team, though” not “He fits with his team”
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 6:28 PM PST up reply actions
And I also think that Mags could be pretty helpful over there
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 6:29 PM PST up reply actions
I would have trouble believing Maggette would be helpful on any team until he actually contributes to winning.
Not saying that Crawford is a huge reason the Hawks are good (Horford, Smith taking a leap, and JJ having a monster year the biggest reasons), but he has helped.
Maggette has been on 1 playoff team in 11 years. Most of those teams have been pretty awful in fact. I think way too much overvaluing of his shooting percentage is going on. I understand FG% is not a good stat in general, but when you compare it to the rest of his career (51% this year to a career of 45.6%) I would say this year is an anomaly.
And just to be sure there is no confusion, I am not attempting to compare Maggette to Crawford. I am simply pointing out that Maggette is overvalued as a valuable part of good team. This exact problem was already had by the Ws front office.
I don’t think you can score as well as he does, while being a decent defender, and good rebounder without helping your team.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 9:35 PM PST up reply actions
It doesn’t seem very fair to me to hold team success against a guy who’s spent his career on the Clippers and Warriors. Those two organizations were bad before Corey, bad with Corey, and unless ownership changes, will continue to be bad after Corey.
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 9:07 PM PST up reply actions
Before this season, has Crawford been on any good teams?
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 9:53 PM PST up reply actions
Nope.
As was stated, not trying to compare the two. But Crawford has helped the Hawks be very good this year.
With Corey, the point is that nothing he has done proves he can be helpful to a good team, only put up stats on a bad team. But I’ll agree that you cant put all the team failure on one player.
And, in all seriousness, you cant actually try to make a claim that Maggette’s D has been decent at any point. Really? Come on.
Maggette wasn’t putting up inefficient stats on a bad team like you are suggesting. He was playing well, while being surrounded by terrible players, Elton Brand being the exception.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
Point out where I said he was putting up inefficient stats on a bad team. I can’t seem to find it.
He was, however, putting up stats (true) on a bad team (true) his entire career, outside of one playoff year. What part about that claim is false?
In fact, the only year one of his teams went to the playoffs (05-06 Clippers), he missed 60% of their games. While you cannot blame all of a teams failure on one player, if it is a recurring theme for 11 years, he can’t be helping a team win much at all.
And once again, I am not trying to compare the two players (Crawford and Maggette) so if you are using a “but he’s better than Crawford” reasoning, you are missing the point. Both have been on losing teams, both have terrible defense.
While you cannot blame all of a teams failure on one player, if it is a recurring theme for 11 years, he can’t be helping a team win much at all.
Like I said, I don’t think this is a valid line of thought for a player who’s been on the Clippers and the Warriors. Those two franchises losing goes far beyond one player, and short of a legitimate superstar, no player can turn around the mess that are the Warriors and Clippers. I think all pointing this out goes to show is “Maggette doesn’t seem to mind too much when he plays for the worst franchises in the NBA”….
by Missing Barry on Mar 9, 2010 11:20 AM PST up reply actions
In fact, the only year one of his teams went to the playoffs (05-06 Clippers), he missed 60% of their games.
And in those 60% of their games, they went 26-24. In the 32 games in which Maggette played, the Clippers went 21-11. When Maggette wasn’t on the floor, the ‘05-’06 Clips outscored their opponents by 0.1 points per 48… they were, essentially, a dead-average team, a team that would’ve finished ninth that year. When Maggette was on the floor, they outscored their opponents by 6.3 points per 48, about the same pace by which this year’s Lakers and Magic are outscoring their opponents. Maggette was also an absolute beast in the playoffs that year, and a big reason why they beat the Nuggets and stretched the Suns to seven games.
The next year, the Clips got edged by the “We Believe” team for the eighth seed in the last week of the season. It’d be hard to blame that on Maggette, however; the Clips outscored opponents by 1.8 points per 48 when he played, and got outscored by 3.6 per 48 when he didn’t.
‘07-’08? The Clips were downright horrible — with Brand on the shelf, the five highest-minute guys besides Maggette were an over-the-hill Cuttino Mobley, a terribly ineffective rookie Al Thornton, Chris Kaman who played well but missed 27 games, Tim Thomas in the pick of his mailing-it-in years, and a 32-year-old Brevin Knight. Of the twenty guys who played for the Clippers that year, the only guy besides Maggette who scored with even league-average efficiency was Nick Fazekas, who played 260 total minutes.
Maggette did not heal that team’s wounds or anything close to it… no 23-59 teams feature guys putting in downright elite performances. But the ‘07-’08 Clips, who got outscored by a sub-Nets 11.9 points per 48 sans Maggette, got outscored by only 4.5 points per 48 when he played, and their 21-49 mark with him wasn’t nearly as bad as their 2-10 mark without him.
The ‘04-’05 Clippers were more competitive on a per-minute basis with Maggette on the floor… not by much, but they were more competitive with him. The ‘03-’04 Clips were another dreadfully untalented team… of the eleven guys who played significant minutes, seven (Bobby Simmons, Quentin Richardson, Jaric, Predrag Drobnjak, Keyon Dooling, Eddie House, Doug Overton) had True Shooting Percentages of .488 of worse. Again, Maggette didn’t make them good, but he made them a lot less crappy: -7.6 points per 48 without him, -3.2 points per 48 with him.
The point is not that Corey Maggette is not some game-changing great player. The point is that this statement…
I would have trouble believing Maggette would be helpful on any team until he actually contributes to winning.
…does not seem to hold much water when you really go through his Clippers career. Maggette took his game to a new level in ‘03-’04, getting to the line more and scoring more often and more efficiently. For his remaining five seasons in LA, he made his Clipper teams better. If they sucked, he made them suck less. If they were bad, he made them mediocre. If they were decent, as they were in ‘05-’06 and ‘06-’07, he made them pretty good. His poor defense stopped him from providing huge improvements in team performance, but he always provided improvements… from ’03 on, his defense was never as harmful as his offense was helpful.
Since joining the Warriors, Maggette has not provided the same beneficial effects. That’s worth noting, and on some level, I think it’s a valid knock against him. I think it’s much more of a knock against the idea that he’s a useful power forward. And my guess is that he’d again be a net benefit as a player if he were left alone to play his natural position.
I suppose we can’t prove Maggette would be helpful to a good team until he actually gets to play on a good team. But as a small forward, he has been helpful to his teams, not on an elite level, but on a significant level. Given that, and given the fact that smart and successful teams like the Spurs, Celtics and Jazz lobbied hard to sign him two summers ago (prompting us to overpay him), my guess is that good teams would profit from his presence.
Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis
by onlxn on Mar 9, 2010 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Well
he’s no worse than JC on defense. Mags is a better rebounder for his position, and a much more efficient scorer.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 10:45 PM PST up reply actions
And we know Maggette is much better defender than JC. Maybe thats not saying alot about Maggette, but rather Crawford’s ineptitude on that side of the ball.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 9, 2010 6:35 AM PST up reply actions
" But Crawford has helped the Hawks be very good this year."
Has he?
Or has he merely done this usual low-efficiency thing, and been surrounded by enough talent that it doesn’t matter?
(Okay, it’s a little more complicated than that, since Crawford is having his most efficient season, but he’s still below average efficiency).
With Corey, there’s no reason to think he can’t do what he’s done – score efficiently – on a better team. Scoring efficiency numbers tend to be pretty consistent when a player is traded, so one would expect him to be about as good if he was on a better team. DOes that “prove” he could contribute to a winner? No, but it’s very solid evidence. It’s solid enough evidence that anybody claiming to the contrary ought to be under some burden to provide evidence that Corey COULDN"T contribute to a winner, that the problem is something more than his lack of quality teammates.
On the other hand, Crawford really isn’t doing anything special for Atlanta except being surrounded by better teammates.
(Okay, it’s a little more complicated than that, since Crawford is having his most efficient season, but he’s still below average efficiency).
Crawford’s well above average this season – 57.2 TS%. I keep waiting for the “regression to the mean” monster to strike…hasn’t happened yet….
by Missing Barry on Mar 9, 2010 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
I keep waiting for the "regression to the mean" monster to strike…hasn’t happened yet….
maybe it wasn’t jamal? maybe it was his former teams??
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 9, 2010 2:40 PM PST up reply actions
Oh wow
I thought he was closer to average than that. I was thinking like 55-56. 57.2 is pretty great.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 9, 2010 6:53 PM PST up reply actions
I’m all for trading Maggette. From what we have seen of Buike, he has many of the same qualities as Maggette, but can also shoot from 3 and play solid D. Plus, he is getting less than 1/2 of what Maggette is getting.
Sadly, its going to be very difficult convincing another team to take Maggette on the wrong side of 30 with 3 more years of increasing pay.
Another great signing by Rowell and Co.
Who’d have thought we had our own mini-Maggette in our own backyard.
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)
If dumping Maggette means trading away a young player on their rookie contract, like Anthony Randolph, I think it needs to be considered.
Like I said, we’re not bringing in a star through FA, so we shouldn’t be unloading one of our guys that has a chance to be an impact player (Randolph) just to get out of Maggette’s contract. I want to rid us of Maggette, too, but not at the cost of a guy who has a chance to turn into a top tier talent. We need as many of those potential hits as possible.
by Missing Barry on Mar 5, 2010 11:46 AM PST up reply actions
I agree with this.
It is EPICALLY STUPID to dump a guy like AR just to get rid of Maggz.
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)
+1 We are in the position where in the past, management has made it worst by over reacting
….bad moves and bad trades….it seems that we need to have the right draft and a couple of years with this young team uninjured….there are no possible quick fixes.
by Only In Fairfax on Mar 5, 2010 2:05 PM PST up reply actions
So you want Wall because our greatest need next year is point guard? lol.I guess.I think our greatest need is a Center that can actually score and rebound.
Our greatest need is a star player. Wall COULD BE that player.
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
...but we will not have the pick to get Wall so why go on about that.
by Only In Fairfax on Mar 5, 2010 2:07 PM PST up reply actions
I never said we would. But people are saying that ‘we don’t need a guard’ even if we get the first pick.
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
but we will not have the pick to get Wall so why go on about that.
Do you not get the concept of 15.6%? That’s like the chances of Corey Maggette missing a FT. When Corey gets to the line, do you say “he will not miss”?
There will be no extra point!
It would be nice to have
a real gm thats here to stay if we did win the lottery. If we did win the lottery, I would immediately make either Wall and Curry available, and see what the best offer for either and take it. I think teams would qive up quite a bit for Curry or Wall…
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 6, 2010 2:54 AM PST up reply actions
we need to bring back Raja Bell.
Why what does that accomplish for us?
2 or 3 extra wins tops on a lottery team and less minutes for our younger players. Remeber that KA will be back next season.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 6, 2010 2:49 AM PST up reply actions
As a general blog rule, ws110, you can be pretty sure that anything that follows the phrase “like I said” isn’t worth paying attention to. Grammatical issues aside, it tends to suggest a loudmouth who’s more interested in admiring his own opinions than in having any kind of dialogue.
Like I said, I rule. ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 6, 2010 5:30 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The Ws greatest need is big 4 (or 5) who can play strong down low. Randolph/Wright could end up being solid contributors, but their lack of size/strength will hurt them against bigger forwards.
That said, in leadership seminars, it is always talked about that the way to make the most improvement is to increase your strengths. Now, I know business is obviously a different scenario than the NBA, but go with me.
If (still a big if) the Ws luck into the 1 or 2 pick, you obviously take Wall or Turner. Here’s where many will say “then you have to trade Monta or Curry. You can’t have 3 starting guards.” Well, there are 96 minutes available for guards each game. With Turner being 6’7", he can also get some time at the 3, and you have the option of playing them at the same time every once in a while.
You play Monta, Curry, and Turner (or Wall) 30-35 minutes/night, and in their correct position, it is likely (not for sure) that the overall efficiency of each player goes up considerably. Turner can play some PG (or point forward), and obviously Wall is a PG. This allows Monta to go back off the ball where he is best, even if Curry is resting.
As has been said, its hard to find a solid low post scorer, so in the case that they cannot find this, why not improve on the current strength of the team.
Greatest need? A single player, at any position, who is in the top 25% of rebounders and on-ball defenders.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
Biedrins is a top 25% rebounder
no good on ball defenders though
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 5, 2010 5:22 PM PST up reply actions
This year
We have seen Curry, Ellis, and Watson on the floor at the same time a lot. Wall could do a better job defending SFs than any of those guys. I could easily see Don Nelson starting a 1, 2, 3 of Curry, Ellis, Wall with Curry and Wall sharing point duties.
by WheresMyChippy on Mar 6, 2010 11:34 AM PST up reply actions
If we get Wall
We’d trade Ellis or Curry, maybe even both so I don’t think we’ll see them 3 play together.
Yep,
If we can still get Mayo and Thabeet for Ellis, imagine what we could get for Curry. One possible trade I have been thinking of is Curry for Greg Oden (in the case we get Wall). Deal makes sense for both sides, we might have to toss in Wright to close the deal, but Wall, Mayo, Randolph, and Oden. That’s a young team that I can get behind.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 7, 2010 1:57 AM PST up reply actions
With our second round pick I’d look to take a pure PG that could back up Steph and Monta. It is not a certainty that we can retain CJ next year. I’d love to have CJ back next year, but I’d also love a true pg to direct traffic when Steph goes out. I don’t want Monta to be the primary ball handler.
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)
Based on our success with DLeaguers so far
Any chance we dump anyone/everyone except Curry for one really good player? Imagine another team getting their pick of our roster minus one building block.
They could realistically only take 3 or 4 guys.
Next year would be another mess, but the year after that might be scary good.
Quality is better than quantity. That makes a lot of sense for us, but for that same reason, it probably doens’t make much sense for anyone else.
by Missing Barry on Mar 5, 2010 1:58 PM PST up reply actions
You already want to give up on:
Morrow, Wright, Randolph, Buki? I think they are all great value to this team, especially because of their contracts.
I’d be down to trade anyone except those 4 and Curry, unless it was in a package to get someone legit back AND lose maggs contract.
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
Give me something big
A guard or big that can defend or rebound. I’m sick of this fundamental-inept squad we have.
One of the few to have appreciated Cap'n Jax. Do well in NC, get that 8th seed!
Conductor of the "We're Back!" Bandwagon!
Nellie doesn’t seem to care about the little facets of basketball that help you win. He’s very much a flashy, bring the fans to the game coach.
Only thing Nellie has grasped that many coaches don’t is
A) Take lots of 3’s
B) Force lots of turnovers
C) Get to the foul line as much as you can
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 4:22 PM PST up reply actions
Only thing Nellie has grasped that many coaches don’t is
A) Take lots of 3’s
B) Force lots of turnovers
C) Get to the foul line as much as you can
The turnovers seem to be consistent of almost all of Nellie’s teams. Getting to the line? Not something the 48 win team from 2 years ago did well at all. Taking many threes? Not something that’s always been characteristic of his teams either, and this year I think the team would be better off taking more 3s than they have.
Nellie seems to be best at taking advantage of the strengths of his players, largely by favoring the more versatile players who make specific matchups less meaningful. He looks at what works and what doesn’t and exploits the former to his advantage. Unfortunately, this season (and last) he doesn’t seem to be paying attention to it. It may be that when he realizes that nothing is going to really get it done all the way, he’d rather not put in the effort (e.g. getting this low 20s win team to a mid 30s win team doesn’t matter to him, so why try) or it may be that the game has passed him by, but the coach who won many games in the past is a different guy than the guy who slumps on the sideline most of the time. For whatever reason, he’s a shell of the guy who was coaching even 2 years ago.
by jae on Mar 5, 2010 4:47 PM PST up reply actions
I agree. I didn’t realize his teams didn’t shoot 3’s as much as i thought. Having Nash, Finley, and Dirk for 5 years just made me think they took lots of 3’s.
Nellie wasn’t a good coach 2 years ago, and now he is not fit to be coaching an NBA team.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 4:52 PM PST up reply actions
I think it’s his energy and effort level.
I don’t think he’s lost a step in his head. I think he realizes he can’t win so why try.
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 don’t really see the evidence that Nelson has stopped coaching in this way. Yes, I’m sure there are counterexamples, but to the argument I hear the most — “he goes small instead of big” — I say, with what bigs? Neither Hunter nor Turiaf — or Biedrins for that matter — will ever be dominant bigs. Randolph is intriguing but crazy. Is it a given that another coach would have played him more, or got more out of him? Maybe a disciplinarian would have, but maybe Randolph would have reacted even worse. A hypothetical at best.
Not to mention that with 8 or 9 players, like he has had most of this year, there is a limited amount of things that could be done at all. He goes with his most effective players, who most happen to be small given the current state of the roster.
I am a big Nellie supporter, I’ll admit. I agree that he has been less than energetic over the 1st half of the season, but I think that most of that has to do with his health problems. He seems to be doing better over the last 10 games or so. I know; the team sucks, so why not blame the coach? But I think the team would suck no matter who the coach was, this year at least.
As a Nellie supporter, I admit I was surprised with the 3-dot article in the Chronicle that he would have done the Mayo+Thabeet trade “in a heartbeat”. Riley better get more than that this summer, if Ellis is traded.
I say, with what bigs? Neither Hunter nor Turiaf — or Biedrins for that matter — will ever be dominant bigs
While true, they may not ever be dominant bigs, the team has done better with them than without them. The “they’re not dominant so we may as well go with a smallball lineup” is a faulty conclusion. In the past he has gone with his most effective players. This year, there’s strong evidence that he has not done so, that he’s had better, perhaps not good, but better, lineups that he’s eschewed for reasons that remain unknown.
by jae on Mar 6, 2010 2:44 AM PST up reply actions
Exactly. The problem is that our smalls aren’t dominant either… they don’t have some edge in effectiveness that justifies taking even semi-effective big-defenders and rebounders off the floor.
Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis
Position of greatest need next year ?
Someone with size and strength inside. We need to be able to grind out the tough games instead of getting out muscled and worn down. If we could get more rebounds and had a post up game we could slow down the game to save energy and cut down on the injuries.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 11:17 PM PST reply actions
I wouldn’t like to watch a slower game. Nor do I think it correlates at all with injuries. Why would it? Azabuike and Randolph both got injured in half court sets.
I don’t even think it saves energy. I’m sure most players would rather run up and down than be subjected to screen after screen and postup after postup in a halfcourt set.
Why would it?
the same reason that driving thru the neighborhood at 100 mph is more likely to injure someone than driving thru at 50 mph.
Set a production line to Montay Ellis 110% of capacity and crap is gonna pile up on the floor, but run it at a nice Tim Duncan 90% and the sweet rewards tumble out .
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 6, 2010 10:52 AM PST up reply actions
Positions of greatest need:
A tie between owner, GM, and coach?
It all depends on the lotto balls
If we get a top three pick, we need to get turner or wall or maybe wesley johnson (some compare him to Shawn Marion)
If we get a 4-5 pick we get favors or cousins
Either way, we need to move Monta in the off season – something I have hesitated to say in the past. My reasoning is that teams need stars, and he was the only guy on the team with the potential to be one. Curry has proven otherwise. Also, Monta, unlike Curry, makes it tough for others to reach their star potential (Randolph, Wright, Morrow, whoever we draft).
If we get Wall or Turner, we trade Monta (and others) for a Gortat or a Nazr type
if we get Favors or Cousins, we trade Monta for a bigger guard who plays tough defense and has good bball IQ (Joe Johnson? Mike Miller? Iguodala?) – Or maybe Kelena makes a leap.
As good as Curry has been, can you imagine how could he would be if he had a better team around him? We need to try to recreate the Suns from a while back:
Nash – Curry
Joe Johnson – Buike
Marion – Turner
Stoudamire – Randolph (both could play C or F)
Bell – Bell
QRich – Morrow
Then, guys like Gortat, Beins, Turiaf to anchor the C spot (suns had Kurt Thomas, Sean marks, Pat Burke)
This would be a fun team to watch – obviously the talent level is a step down, but the reason Nash was MVP is he made all those guys so much better, hopefully Curry can eventually do the same.
Monta for Gortat is terrible value
JJ is a FA, Mike Miller also would be AWFUL value, and Iggy for Monta straight up won’t happen
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
Gortat is a really good player. I’m not sure it is a good value, considering many GM’s look at Monta’s PPG and go wowza, but we would be getting back a cheap, and highly effective and productive player.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
Gortat is a really good player
Gortat is not a really good player. He is a good backup center and a average starting center in the NBA. A bit better than Turiaf and slightly worse than Andris (circa 2008 of course). Why would we want to trade Monta Ellis for him?
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 8, 2010 12:10 AM PST up reply actions
Do you base that off the stats?
His per 36 is great. Its too bad he is stuck behind Howard, because he deserves 30 minutes a night.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 6:29 AM PST up reply actions
He's a good player
But not worth Monta, no matter your opinion on him Monta’s trade value would be higher than Gortat
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
I agree, but i wouldn’t be completely against a Monta for Gortat+ Jameer/Pietrus.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 9, 2010 6:36 AM PST up reply actions
Gortat is pretty good
Great shotblocker and an above average rebounder. Also he scores pretty efficiently.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 11:26 AM PST up reply actions
Oh
and he’s definitely more than a bit better than Turiaf, but I don’t think he’s better than Andris, even if he is a better shot blocker than Biedrins.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 11:26 AM PST up reply actions
I think he’s pretty comparable to Andris because of his better defense.
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah both high efficiency, great rebounding centers.
Gortat may have to prove he can do this in more consistent minutes to be better than Biedrins, but consider Gortat is a better defender than Biedrins.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 5:23 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, that's true
I still think Andris is better.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 6:29 PM PST up reply actions
I guess
but he barely fits in with our team
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 6, 2010 4:34 PM PST up reply actions
I’m not feeling this Raja Bell thing at all. If there’s anything we don’t need, it’s another shooting guard… between Monta, CJ, Morrow, Azubuike and Maggette, the swing positions are already crammed, and there’s a decent chance our draft pick will add to that logjam. If we trade Monta and/or Maggette, we open up some room, but if we’re tearing the team apart and starting over (as we should), why would we bother reducing the minutes of guys like Morrow for a non-impact vet like Raja?
He has his pluses, and Lord knows we need some defensive help, but pinning our hopes and dreams on a 34-year-old non-star who plays our most overloaded position seems like a mistake to me. The Warriors are broken in a way that no veteran Band-Aids can fix.
Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis
I think he would automatically become our best perimeter defender, but he’s not going to make a difference.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 6, 2010 2:44 PM PST up reply actions
Here's the problem:
Is our biggest need at C? No, not if Biedrins returns to form. How about PF? Not if Randolph and/or Wright continue to develop? Two guard is either one of our biggest weaknesses – if Monta plays like he’s played this year – or our biggest strengths, if Monta reverts to anything like pre-injury form.
PG? Don’t we want to give Curry some room to grow into that position? SF? Mags and ’Buike might be our most consistent performers this year.
That is part of what is so frustrating with this team. The path from here to “good” could take any number of routes, and it’s really easy to see us trading a player to create room for a new guy, and seeing the guy we traded blossom.
Getting a player who’s better than how good the guy we have COULD be … there is no position on the floor where that is easy to do.
Getting somebody who’s better than the guy we have playing that position now? Easy to do at all positions except 3 and maybe the 1.
see.
I think Cousins could be a big upgrade if he plays alongside Biedrins. Cousins can do his thing on the offensive side, and have Biedrins come in when we want a big frontline full of rebounders. I’d start AB, but if he comes back in this year’s form, I’d start to look for takers by the deadline in 2010. Although who knows how the lockout will affect everything.
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)
+1 kenntoe, I would agree that Cousins would be a perfect complement with AB..
…..insurance if AB doesnt develope and could help at the 4 as well if needed.
by Only In Fairfax on Mar 8, 2010 3:28 PM PST up reply actions
Biedrins returning to form is a big if. Even if he returns to form, he won’t be able to foul shoot, or have any range, and is a below-average defender for his position. After the first quarter of the season last year, he hasn’t been great. What evidence do we have that he will return to form next year? A center who can defend the rim is our biggest need right now, and would go the furthest to improve the team.
Yet the strategy of “draft a center because it’s a need” fails far more often than not. The scarcity of real centers means teams who draft them out of need tend to take guys who have not a shred of business being drafted as high as they wind up getting drafted and predictably do nothing. If there’s a good center, someone who can legitimately be seen as best available player, take him regardless of need. If there’s not someone who meets that criteria, no amount of “need” makes it a better pick.
I agree with you. If we somehow move up in the draft, by all means let’s get Wall or Turner. The title of this fanpost is unfortunate. I’m not advocating drafting on the basis of need — it’s not like either of the bigs in the top 5 of draft are guaranteed contributors. I was trying to argue that out of all the positions, center could be improved the most by a trade.
Absolutely true jae but what if the best player available is a guy like Cousins who could also be a beast at PF?
Do we go then for another AR/BW type or draft small?
by Only In Fairfax on Mar 8, 2010 3:33 PM PST up reply actions
Well, the question is simply, how do you get someone better?
I think it’s silly to assume that Beans is going to be as passive as he’s been this year. He’s young, young players tend not to crap out like this.
Beidrins may not be great – I don’t want to rehash that argument – but getting someone better is likely to be a huge challenge. Centers better than Beans are hard to get.
The funny thing is – Beans is actually pretty good at “defending the rim” – assuming what you mean is helping clean up the mess created by a pair of guards who think defense is the thing you put up to keep dehorses in deyard. What he’s not good at is manning up stronger centers, he gets overpowered.
And, again, finding somebody who’s good at that, and has any other skills to speak of, is pretty difficult.
I offered some suggestions in the fanpost. At this point I think that even Dalembert would be an improvement, and he has been rumored to be on the block forever, although next year he will be an expiring contract, so maybe his value will go up.
Maybe some of my suggestions are a stretch — Frye would be overpowered just as much as Biedrins, and I don’t know what Gooden’s defense is like.
He wouldn't
Dalembert really isn’t any good
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 7, 2010 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
I actually think Dalembert is pretty comparable to the good Biedrins of old. Very good rebounder also, better defender, a bit worse offensively…….
by Missing Barry on Mar 7, 2010 2:53 PM PST up reply actions
Not as good a rebounder
and more prone to making stupid mistakes on the court. Good shotblocker, though.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 7, 2010 3:59 PM PST up reply actions
Eh, I don’t think it’s as much stupid mistakes as opposed to him just not being active and sometimes looking like all he needs to do is try harder to be more effective.
by Missing Barry on Mar 7, 2010 4:42 PM PST up reply actions
Beidrins may not be great – I don’t want to rehash that argument – but getting someone better is likely to be a huge challenge.
For a rookie Hunter seems as good as Dre did? and he’s got more strength and weight to bang around with plus a decent freethrow shot?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 7, 2010 12:31 PM PST up reply actions
No, Hunter isn't close to as good as Beans was as a rookie.
Per/36 stats, rookie years:
Beans Hunter
TS%: .570 .495
Reb/36 11.1 7.7
Blk/36 2.3 1.7
Ast/36 1.1 1.5
Stl/36 1.1 0.5
Toc/36 1.1 0.4
PF/36 8.2 6.8
It is not close. Hunter has a small edge in a few categories, but does nothing at a particularly high level. Biedrins was already showing signs of how he’d be a monster at TS% and Reb/36 as a rookie.
You didn’t mention the rookie Biedrins was 18 years old and the rookie Hunter is 26 years old.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 7, 2010 1:49 PM PST up reply actions
I’m not going to argue that Hunter is a better player than Biedrins. I don’t believe Hunter is a starter on a good team. But he has been playing better than Biedrins this year. The strongest argument for youth vs. someone older like Hunter is that the younger player has a lot of room to grow. But the player still does have to accomplish that growth. It is likely, given the overall career arc of most successful players. But in Biedrin’s case, can we say with any certainty that he will get better? Is Biedrins much better than he was as a rookie, even? His outside shot certainly hasn’t improved. His foul shooting has regressed. Has his overall game changed that much? If not, than his youth doesn’t mean anything.
Biedrins likely won’t improve substantially any more than he already has, other than to get back to how he played the last couple years.
Is Biedrins much better than he was as a rookie, even?
Yes. He’s a better defender. He’s a better rebounder. He’s a more efficient and higher volume scorer. He’s a much better passer. He’s a dramatically better FT shooter, unless you want to ignore what he’s done the past two seasons in 403 combined attempts in favor of what he’s done in 25 attempts this year, which doesn’t make much sense. Biedrins is a significantly better player than Hunter, who frankly, isn’t very good. He’s a pretty poor offensive player, a poor rebounder, nothing special defensively…..
by Missing Barry on Mar 7, 2010 8:18 PM PST up reply actions
Biedrins is a significantly better player than Hunter, who frankly, isn’t very good. He’s a pretty poor offensive player, a poor rebounder, nothing special defensively…..
In limited action Hunter has already made shots from beyond Dre’s career distance limit and seems to know what a proper freethrow motion looks like? I kinda like the big guy, his attitude seems very calm and composed like he actually knows this team is a mess but he just smiles and doesn’t tell the other players and just enjoys the freakshow ?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 7, 2010 9:42 PM PST up reply actions
Hunter is a big body, athletic and can push guys in practice.
But if he’s getting anything other than emergency minutes, you should be worried.
by Spider Jerusalem on Mar 7, 2010 11:17 PM PST up reply actions
I think this is about right. He’s probably shown enough to stick in the league as an end-of-the-bench big for a year two. He’s a likeable dude, and he’s willing to smack people… I think he brings some defensive positives to the table. They’re not nearly enough to counteract his inability to score, rebound or avoid whistles.
A good guy for your first unit to practice against. A good guy to send in to smack Dwight Howard around for a bit when your starting center’s getting a breather. A good guy to have on the bench. Not a guy you want to factor into your plans, let alone a guy you shove Andris Biedrins aside for.
Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis
this team is a mess but he just smiles and
I would smile too, if I finally got an oppurtunity in the NBA at age 26 and know that next year it’s back to the D League or over seas.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 8, 2010 12:15 AM PST up reply actions
I think Hunter might be the better defender, but its not by much, considering Hunter’s sky high foul rate.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 7, 2010 9:48 PM PST up reply actions
For a rookie Hunter seems as good as Dre did?
Is that a question? The answer is no.
Whether or not he can “bang”, he can’t rebound as well and doesn’t convert his shots nearly as often. He is not as good a player. As a mid-20s player, Hunter isn’t as good as Biedrins was as a teenage rookie.
by jae on Mar 7, 2010 1:28 PM PST up reply actions
Whether or not he can "bang", he can’t rebound as well and doesn’t convert his shots nearly as often.
I just looked at his stats and for the rookie year Dre had 3.6 ppg, 3.9rpg and .8 bpg in 13 minutes per game. Hunter this year so far has 3.7 ppg, 2.4 rpg, .5 bpg, in 11 minutes per game. So Hunter is about the same on scoring and one and a half rebounds shy of Dre’s rookie numbers. That’s not that much difference considering that we got Hunter for almost nothing and that he’s playin with a lot worse team than Dre rookie’d with?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 7, 2010 1:49 PM PST up reply actions
What's his FG/TS%?
not even close to as good as Andris, so he isn’t nearly as good on scoring.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 7, 2010 2:15 PM PST up reply actions
+1
and multiple the rebounds by 3 to get close to 36 and there is a significant disparity.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 8, 2010 12:17 AM PST up reply actions
Id say our position at owner is pretty weak. And as stupid as this sounds, id rather have a flashy team if we are going to lose all the time, at least its fun to watch sometimes. Cohan has proved that he is completely worthless, only when the stars align, 2007, do we have a competitive team, which our organization also managed to destroy. Pretty frustrating. So maybe sign someone from the globetrotters or something?
Need
In evaluating a roster I try to imagine how many of my players would make a rotation or start
on a top team; Lakers, Cavs,Magic. These are the only real keepers,and with this in mind start the turn over.
Allow some for potential, start dealing to upgrade from there. Sometime it can take more then a year to get gone, but you have to get started on turning over the roster.
Lakers, Cavs,Magic
They all have superstar(s). We need that before we reach that level.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 7, 2010 4:13 PM PST up reply actions
that grammar fib was meant to show Lakers have two-three stars while the other two have one.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 7, 2010 4:13 PM PST up reply actions
Lakers, Cavs, Magic ...
As always, I’m assuming everybody’s healthy and used correctly:
But Curry, Monta, Morrow, and Beans would see time on the Cavs.
Morrow and Curry would see time on the Lakers. Probably Monta, too.
Curry, Monta, and Mags would see time on the Magic.
THe issue is that all of those teams have superstars … and a lot of replaceable role players. If we replaced those role players with guys on our team, it’s be an easy upgrade … the catch being that we’re replacing role players on those teams with guys who are supposed to be stars on our team.
Yeah we aren’t comparable until we get a top 5 player (Lebron, Howard) or two top 10 players (Bryant, Gasol).
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 7, 2010 9:49 PM PST up reply actions
Position of greatest need would be a new owner.
by Spider Jerusalem on Mar 7, 2010 10:53 PM PST reply actions
Lakers,Cavs
I just try to use the top teams as a key for evaluation; you can also compare the W’s top players on how they stack up against the top 8 of the Mavs or the Jazz for instant,
trying to gauge how long it will take to get back to respectability.
trying to gauge how long it will take to get back to respectability.
Easy answer – as long as it takes us to find a superstar, or a couple of lesser stars. Good teams tend to have something in common – top talent. It also happens to be what we’re missing.
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 9:19 AM PST up reply actions
I've pointed this out before, but ...
Compare the Cavs minus Lebron to the Warriors, minus Monta, or, if you prefer, minus Mags, and give us about the same health.
The difference is pretty damn small. You could make an argument that they’re better. You could make an argument that we’re better. Post trade deadline, I’d give them an edge, but it’s not big.
The NBA is about stars.
“Blowing up the team” only makes any sense for the Warriors if it somehow helps us get a star, and right now I don’t see how it helps.
by Ronaldinho on Mar 8, 2010 10:00 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The Warriors should take the best player available.
and hope that three years later he’s still considered the best player that was available :>)
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 8, 2010 1:51 PM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
