A Potential Trade with the 76ers
by bradyk2 on May 21, 2010 3:44 PM PDT
Email
PrintEDIT: In the process of writing this, GSoM member Ekung posted a similar fanshot: Check it out!
Disclaimer: I know trade ideas are generally frowned upon, but this one is based on players both teams are trying to shop, that would quite arguably benefit both teams. If you hate trade ideas, move on now, but this one is interesting, and thought out.
Warriors trade: Monta Ellis and Brandan Wright.
Warriors Receive: Elton Brand and #2 pick Evan Turner.
Let's start with a link: According to sources, the 76ers are willing to trade the #2 pick as long as they can trade Brand's exorbitant contract in the process. The have little need for the pick, as the second best player in the draft is clearly Evan Turner, and they are set at the position with Andre Igoudala. They would need to trade either Turner or Igoudala (or take a worse pick), and if they do the former, they have a chance of shedding Brand's contract.
This is a fantastic trade for the Sixers (we'll get to the Dubs soon): they get rid of their worst contract (Brand's is significantly worse than Monta's), while implementing a fantastic big three of Jrue Holiday, Monta Ellis and Andre Igoudala; there is no team in the league that can guard that 1-3 combination (Holiday is much better than people give him credit for: almost every ESPN analyst has him pegged for multiple All-Star selections).
Next, it opens up the power forward position for Thaddeus Young, whom the Sixers like much more than Brand. Young had already become the starter, and now Marreese Speights, who also had a strong season, can be his primary backup, with Samuel Dalembert manning the middle. That starting 5 of Holiday/Ellis/Igoudala/Young/Dalembert would instantly be the most athletic line-up in the league, and also rather young.
For the Warriors: while they take on another bad contract in exchange for Monta's, it is not at a position that they are over-run with, like Monta's. The Warriors desperately need a back-to-the-basket big capable of scoring, and we're being overly optimistic if we think we can get one in the draft, in FA, or in exchange for Monta, unless it comes with Brand's contract. This is really our only way to acquire an all-star level (and yes, I believe Brand can still play at an all-star level) big. Furthering the position, Young greatly benefited from Brand's mentoring, and under Brand's tutelage, AR can really grow as a player. Andris Biedrins will also greatly benefit: with the low-post scoring responsibility now in Brand's hands, Biedrins will have much less pressure, and be able to focus on rebounding, defense, and moving without the ball/finishing.
With Brand and Turner, the Warriors can implement a much more traditional line-up, which I think we all agree they would benefit from doing. Goodbye small-ball, hello a starting 5 that can at least consider matching up against the Celtics and Lakers: Stephen Curry/Anthony Morrow/Evan Turner/Elton Brand/Andris Biedrins. This team has playmakers, rebounders, defenders, shooters, size, athleticism, and great spacing.
The wildcard for this Warriors team becomes Anthony Randolph. Take Brand out, and AR can play PF. Decide to go small, and Brand can play Center, with AR at the 4. Decide to go big, and Turner, Maggette, or Azubuike can play 2-Guard, and Randolph can play the small forward position. Similar to how the Cavs can choose their 4 players based on the style they want to play, and then throw LeBron in anywhere, I think the Warriors can do this with Randolph - if they utilize their and his flexibility, they could become a very difficult team to guard and prepare for.
All in all, for the Warriors, this follows the typical mold for a successful basketball team, and is very similar to the Suns and Spurs: for the starters, we have a pass-first, but capable scoring PG (Curry/Nash/Parker); a SG who spreads the floor and will make you pay if you leave him open, but is selfless enough that he doesn't demand touches (Morrow/JRich/Keith Bogans); a SF who spreads the floor, plays D, creates for others, can score but is selfless (Turner/Grant Hill/Jefferson); a back-to-the-basket big, capable on D and rebounding, efficient scorer at the PF (Brand/Amar'e/Duncan); and a rebounding and defense oriented, selfless Center (Biedrins/Lopez/McDyess).
Continuing this mold for success, on the bench you need one of your top-4 or 5 players (Randolph/Ginobili - the Suns lack one specific player for this, but on any one night it could be a number of guys); a backup PG capable of making the other team pay offensively if they forget about them (Watson/Dragic/George Hill); an energetic, intense, momentum big (Turiaf/Amundson/Blair), and a few other players capable of being big-time scorers on any given night (Maggette, Azubuike, Williams/Frye, Dudley, Barbosa/Mason Jr, Bonner).
It is obviously a risky move, because you are banking on Elton Brand's health (and, arguably, his resurgence), but all-in-all, I think it is a fabulous move for both squads. I believe, as Lowell Cohn wrote about in this morning's Press Democrat, that it is time for the Warriors to do a complete overhaul: sell the team, get rid of the coaches, Riley, etc., get rid of small-ball, start over. This traditional line-up is a great place to start.
I know many of you will agree, and many more will disagree, but either way, please keep the comments respectful. As with all fanshots, this is merely my opinion. And as the Sixers are looking for such a trade (and have expressed interest in Monta), the Warriors have expressed interest in trading Ellis, and it works financially (ESPN Trade Machine), please don't harass me for being "unrealistic." With that said, I would love to hear all different opinions!
Go Dubs! Unstoppable, Baby!
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!
193 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Elton Brand is finished and has a horrible, horrible contract. So the trade you are proposing is Brandan Wright (the big with the best chance of being a reliable low post scorer next season on our roster) and Monta Ellis for Evan Turner? Does not make any sense to me.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
As I mentioned in the post
Brand and Turner provide us with much better spacing, size, and a more traditional line-up. You may believe Wright is better than Brand, but with his size, he will never be able to post up, box-out, or D-up Pau Gasol. It is not always about skill; an undersized, poor rebounding, jump-shooting PF is not what this team needs.
And the fact that Elton Brand is a piece of burnt toast
might make it difficult for him to guard anyone.
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 21, 2010 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Do you guys think the Dubs get the raw end of this deal? I think the Sixers wouldn't ever do it.
Monta doesn’t fit on their team. He and Jrue would be undersized backcourt. Wright hasn’t proved anything, not even that he can stay healthy. The only plus for the Sixers is getting rid of Brands contract, but that is not a big enough plus warrant trading a player who has the potential to be the next B Roy. Getting rid of bad contracts is important to build a team, but even more important is getting good players…
by freerandolph on May 21, 2010 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions
It's a bad deal for both teams
Monta doesn’t bring anything to the table for them. Elton Brand is feces.
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 22, 2010 12:57 AM PDT up reply actions
I dunno how undersized Monta and Jrue would really be. Jrue’s pretty big and long for a PG, he’s really not that bad a matchup against 2’s. He’s one of the better fits as a PG out there next to Monta, from a defensive standpoint.
by Missing Barry on May 22, 2010 8:01 AM PDT up reply actions
the bigger issue seems to me to be
would the sixers really give up a player who many think can be one of the best players in the league to get rid of a horrible contract. I’m sure that they do really want to get rid of that contract, but I don’t see how getting rid of Brand being worth having to give up Turner. If the sixers had Roy, would they trade Roy and Brand for Monta? I’m not sure, but I don’t think I would.
by freerandolph on May 22, 2010 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions
What does Turner give them that Iguodala doesn't?
A consistent midrange jumper?
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 22, 2010 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions
This really isn't the issue
As the link I provided stated, the Sixers are willing to give up the #2 pick if they can get rid of Brand as well (and if they get something good back).
I wouldn’t be so quick if I were the sixers either, but we’re not. I’m merely stating the facts based on what the Sixers have said they will do.
TO ALL:I understand that people think Brand is washed up beyond return, and that is very valid. But please don’t call my post bad because you don’t think the Sixers would give up the pick or you don’t think the Sixers want Monta Ellis, because they have openly admitted to both. This is not me jumping through imaginary hoops to prove my point, this is merely finding a trade for the Dubs that fits in with what another team would conceivably do.
disagree.
I don’t think Monta is good enough for them to part with Turner for. Sure they want to get rid of Brand’s contract, but what good is cap room if your team sucks, and you don’t have young players to develop and build off of? No cap room and Turner >>>> Cap room and no Turner.
by freerandolph on May 22, 2010 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions
No cap room and Turner >>>> Cap room and no Turner.
If they’re willing to part with the second pick if you take Brand, that suggests that they disagree with your assessment.
Now, depending on what the new CBA looks like, I might agree with you, but this whole discussion is predicated on the rumor that they’re willing to sell the two if you take Brand. That reduces the value of the two dramatically – it should LOWER the cost it takes to get the 2.
"If they're wiling to part with the second pick if you take Brand..."
The point I was making is that I don’t think they would do that for Monta.
by freerandolph on May 23, 2010 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Who knows?
There aren’t a lot of examples of what something like the 2+Brand should cost you. Big dead money has negative value. How much negative value? If they’re willing to spend the two to get rid of it, that suggests it has a lot of negative value.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that we'd be getting the Brand from 4-5 years ago.
But, alas, our time machine is broken.
Brand is not an offensive or defensive presence down low any more.
Brand is not going to contribute anything on the basketball court. You don’t make this trade for him, even in spot minutes. You make this trade because you can afford to pay Brand ridiculous sums of money to do nothing while Evan Turner turns into a star.
Brand and Turner provide us with much better spacing
The spacing with Brand should be just fine with him planted firmly on the bench as his present level of play warrants.
an undersized, poor rebounding, jump-shooting PF is not what this team needs.
A washed up, over-paid cap burden doesn’ t help either.
i love how people say b wright is our big of the future
dude will never be a good pro. There I said it. Crucify me if you must, and boy would I love to be wrong. But other then rumors of last year’s training camp, there’s no reason to believe this guy will come back from a harsh injury and outplay our other bigs .
I don't know if I would say anything so strong as he will never be a good player
But he certainly hasn’t proven to be capable of anything but playing mediocre basketball and getting injured yet.
by freerandolph on May 21, 2010 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Other than the whole playing pretty good basketball in the minutes he has played thing….
For all the people complaining about our lack of a low post scorer, well, when Wright’s played, he’s scored a pretty decent amount very efficiently. He has a post game. He’s not a bad rebounder. He can block shots. The injuries are of course the main point against him, but when he’s been healthy, he’s shown glimpses of being a pretty decent player.
by Missing Barry on May 22, 2010 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions
What do you mean by "pretty decent"?
Has he had number that if he keeps up for extended minutes will give him allstar consideration, or numbers that will contribute a little bit towards winning?
by freerandolph on May 22, 2010 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions
He has been a good player when he has been healthy. High volume efficient scorer, average rebounder, good shot blocker.
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on May 22, 2010 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
The latter. He helps, but he’s not an impact player or anything, and his defense still needs some work.
by Missing Barry on May 26, 2010 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
And IMO if you're Philly....
you’ve got to be thinking: Basically we’re giving up Brand for Monta (Good)
But giving up Evan Turner for Wright. (Not good)
For this to even have a chance of happening, I think we’d have to throw in our #6 pick too.
"Monta is the MAN." -Bob Fitzgerald
by WarriorForLife on May 21, 2010 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions
That is much more reasonable. I still don't think its worth it for Philly though.
If they don’t like Turner, theres still Cousins, and Favors to pick from.
by freerandolph on May 21, 2010 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions
My sentiments exactly.
"Monta is the MAN." -Bob Fitzgerald
by WarriorForLife on May 21, 2010 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions
So the trade you are proposing is Brandan Wright (the big with the best chance of being a reliable low post scorer next season on our roster) and Monta Ellis for Evan Turner?
that part makes perfect sense to me, what I have trouble with is dealing with Brand’s contract and the fact that Philly would probably demand more than just Monta and Wright. I think they’d AT LEAST ask us to include the #6 pick and/or one of Morrow/Azubuike.
Thing A
Well, it all depends on what they think of Monta, really. I honestly don’t think it’s a bad trade for Philly – getting out of Brand’s contract is a big plus, but if they see Monta’s contract as a negative, then I can definitely see why they wouldn’t like the deal, but the more they like Monta, the better the deal becomes for them.
by Missing Barry on May 22, 2010 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions
And heres where a contradiction of a lot of GSoMers lies. (I don't know if you're part of this group MB)
But so many here have adamantly argued that Monta is horrible and that the team has a better chance at winning without him, yet they think that other teams will want him. If Monta really is that bad, other teams know it.
by freerandolph on May 22, 2010 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Memphis is a pretty poorly run franchise. Their opinion should be mostly ignored.
by Missing Barry on May 26, 2010 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions
If Monta really is that bad, other teams know it.
They don’t look at the stats, thats why they are bad teams in the first place.
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on May 22, 2010 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
That Monta is really good but we could only trade him for something bad in return?
by freerandolph on May 22, 2010 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Monta is better than what we could trade him for… yea, I think there are some who believe that.
Thing A
I believe that
when it comes to non draft picks, since those are too hard to guesstimate.
i might be in that camp
But what I have a big problem with is people who say Monta sucks and then say, “we should trade him for Iggy” or some other good player. Its just such a blatant contradiction. And if Monta really does suck, other teams will realize that before they pull the trigger and trade for him.
by freerandolph on May 23, 2010 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I think most of the people who think we could get Iggy
don’t think that Monta sucks. I don’t think we could get close to Iggy with Monta.
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 23, 2010 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Don't know if thats true
I’ve heard a lot of, “Monta is terribly inefficient and hurts our team more than he helps it, so we need to get rid of him. Lets trade him for (insert good players name here)”
Thats not what everyone who wants to trade him for Iggy thinks I’m sure, but I’ve heard that sentiment expressed many times…
by freerandolph on May 24, 2010 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions
There is this thought that
he looks like he has good stats, but he really has terrible stats. Other teams might see that and be impressed.
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 24, 2010 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions
same reason Al Jefferson is paid 10+ M
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 24, 2010 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I really just don't by that.
NBA teams have scouts, I’m sure they have statisticians, they have a general manager. I just don’t see how any team would make any move without having all the information. These people have careers, or a lot of money in the case of the owner, invested in these moves. They really do care about what happens.
by freerandolph on May 25, 2010 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions
You should read "The Wages of Wins."
There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that GMs have, traditionally, done a really bad job of understanding what makes a player good or not.
GMs are not a whole lot different than most fans in that they’re impressed by points per game and tend to have difficulties weighing factors that influence wins appropriately.
While teams may employ statisticians, getting and processing the data and making decisions based on it are different things. Statistical analysis in basketball has yet to penetrade decision making to the same degree that it has in baseball, where there are still holdouts who “don’t believe in stats.” You can have the best report in the world, but if the decision maker at the end goes with his instinct (right or wrong) when it differs from what he’s seeing on the report, it’s meaningless. I remember Mullin being quoted something about how they have statisticians, but they use them to confirm their decisions. Numerical yes-men don’t really help prevent Al Jefferson decisions.
I don't know where you guys are getting your info from
Have you talked to NBA GMs?
by freerandolph on May 26, 2010 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
NBA teams have scouts, I’m sure they have statisticians, they have a general manager
I’ve known a couple GM’s in my life, they’re not always the most qualified to understand the statistical side of things. Also, based on the way I follow baseball, I can tell you that argument definitely doesn’t hold, there are GM’s known to have no clue about statistical principles – Brian Sabean, for instance, or a former GM like Steve Phillips who just said he’s trade Strasburg for Oswalt if he were the Nationals. Yeah, sometimes you get really dumb people in charge of things, who aren’t educated or qualified in the things they should be for their job. Also, I’ve chatted online with a former Giants statistical analyst – he basically says it was best for him to be “seen, not heard” and all his work was pretty much ignored, though this was more like 20 years ago.
I think it mostly applies to statistics, as it really does take an education to understand the subject matter. There are a lot of decision makers out there without the adequate education or mindset to properly use statistical analysis. If baseball’s any indicator, though, we should see a general enlightenment under way.
by Missing Barry on May 26, 2010 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions
A. Would the Warriors do it? They have a pending sale going on and our current regime may not have the power to pull off a major money deal.
B Would Philly do it? What kind of value do they expect to get back for #2 when they cripple the value by adding Brand? I think Philly fans would not be excited about trading the pick, nor do I think they’d want Monta. But on the other hand, Monta >>>> Brand. At least Monta could be moved, wheras Brand would take a miracle.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
nor do I think they’d want Monta
Monta’s coming off a 25.5-5-4 season. Philly fans would be excited about getting rid of Brand and bringing in Monta.
by Missing Barry on May 22, 2010 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Excited enough to swap Turner for Wright? I think they’d love the Monta for Brand part (and they should) but even if they view Monta’s contract/production as a positive I don’t think they could possibly think its a big enough positive to pretty much give away Evan Turner.
Thing A
It's not two separate trades
you shouldn’t view it as such. Obviously Wright for Turner looks especially crumby, but trades aren’t 1 for 1; they’re 2 for 2.
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 22, 2010 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions
or this trade is
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 22, 2010 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions
ok but if one part isnt good enough to make up for the second part why would you make that trade?
Thing A
I don't think it's a good trade for either team, really
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 22, 2010 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I think its great for us.
We lose some pieces and maybe have a down year because of it. But going forward with Curry/Turner and building off of that is better than any two player combo we currently have.
by freerandolph on May 22, 2010 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm just afraid of Brand's contract
especially with a looming CBA negotiation.
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 23, 2010 12:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Well if we didn't have Brands contract we would have cap space and probably sign some
mediocre free agents to contracts that are bigger than we should. I don’t see what the value of the cap space is unless we’re worried about losing Curry, but I don’t think thats actually a problem, I think Brands contract runs out before we have to resign Curry.
by freerandolph on May 23, 2010 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions
The only feasible thing you could do about Brand’s contract, if you’re Larry Ellison, is buy it out. It’s about 50+ mil remaining…buy it out, I’d say. If he is really committed to winning, I think that’s what he’d do. Find a way to make the trade without giving up the 6th pick, and perhaps throw in a Morrow or a Randolph, and Monta. Get Turner back, keep your draft pick, buy out Brand’s contract. I doubt he does that, and I’m not even sure if it’s allowed. But that’s the only possible way to make the trade and have us without Brand’s mammoth contract.
by LarryLegendofOracle on May 23, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
The only feasible thing you could do about Brand’s contract, if you’re Larry Ellison, is buy it out. It’s about 50+ mil remaining…buy it out,
That would get him off the bench but his buy out would still count against our salary cap.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 23, 2010 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
UNless there's another amnesty built into the new CBA.
If the cap is coming down/getting harder, then it wouldn’t be surprising if teams had some sort of provision to jettison a contract or two. The previous amnesty allowed teams to jettison one player and while they were still on the hook for his contract, it came of the salary-cap books.
So there’s a precedent for that sort of thing.
The previous amnesty allowed teams to jettison one player and while they were still on the hook for his contract, it came of the salary-cap books.
If a team thought that might be a possibility then taking brand’s contract could make sense for a team who wanted to win and had the buy out cash to waste.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 23, 2010 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions
The previous amnesty allowed teams to jettison one player and while they were still on the hook for his contract, it came of the salary-cap books.
That’s not quite correct. In the previous amnesty, a team could jettison one player whose salary would come off the luxury tax computation, but still counted against the salary cap. It’s an important distinction if we’re talking about trying to get a free agent at any time ever.
That would get him off the bench but his buy out would still count against our salary cap.
I didn’t know that it would. I thought buying out his contract would leave you with cap space.
by LarryLegendofOracle on May 23, 2010 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't understand your ideas about Randolph
When you compared him to LeBron’s role on the Cavs. Because LeBron can handle the ball (Randolph can’t), pass well (Randolph can’t), shoot the jumper fairly consistently (Randolph can’t) and play on-ball defense at multiple positions. Of course, comparing him to LeBron probably wasn’t your intention anyways, I’m just saying that it was a bad comparison and that your view on Randolph’s abilities may be just a bit of hyperbole. He hasn’t shown any ability to play the 3 in my opinion, and doesn’t play particularly great on-ball defense at the 4 or the 5. He rebounds well, plays good help-side defense and he is good at scoring junk points off of screen-rolls and putbacks. A good sixth man at this point in his career, but not quite good enough yet to start on a good team.
15 going on 16. No, it's not a show on TLC. I'm talking about the Lakers!
When you compared him to LeBron’s role on the Cavs. Because LeBron can handle the ball (Randolph can’t), pass well (Randolph can’t), shoot the jumper fairly consistently (Randolph can’t) and play on-ball defense at multiple positions. Of course, comparing him to LeBron probably wasn’t your intention anyways, I’m just saying that it was a bad comparison and that your view on Randolph’s abilities may be just a bit of hyperbole. He hasn’t shown any ability to play the 3 in my opinion, and doesn’t play particularly great on-ball defense at the 4 or the 5. He rebounds well, plays good help-side defense and he is good at scoring junk points off of screen-rolls and putbacks. A good sixth man at this point in his career, but not quite good enough yet to start on a good team.
I agree completely. Randolph can be a really good sixth man.
But nobody here will believe me that he’s a scrub right now. He can’t stay on the court. He’s a bit ball dominant. He can’t play defense. He’s not as good as even Wright on pick and rolls/catching and finishing. He really can’t do anything except score points off of putbacks/ rebound the ball.
He shoots very inconsistently and I’m not sure he’ll be a starter in this league. He has star potential though.
by LarryLegendofOracle on May 21, 2010 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions
That's what I said
I stated that I believe Randolph should be our sixth man, not a starter.
LakerFan24 – I apologize for being misleading: I did not mean to compare Randolph’s talent level to LeBron’s – I merely meant to compare the flexibility he gives the lineup. What I mean by that is AR doesn’t have any one position that he should be playing. You can go small with him at the 5, play him at the 4, go big with him at the 3, use him as a point forward.
A PF like, say, Glen Davis, you need to make sure there’s a spot open at the 4 for him. You don’t need to do that with Randolph.
I see where you're coming from
I didn’t realize the first time I read it that you had him pegged as a good sixth man, something that I agree he can definitely be at this point in his career. While I may disagree about him being able to play the 3 (I personally don’t think he can), I can definitely see where you’re coming from. You make a good point.
Also, LarryLegend – I think we’ve finally found something that we agree on. Your statements about Randolph are my sentiments exactly. I feel the same way about him as a player at this point in his career, and I kind of wonder what makes so many people think of him as a future superstar. He definitely has the potential to be good though. Dude reminds me of a (really) poor man’s Odom, especially when he was coming up with the Clips. He was kind of similar. It took him till he was about 27 or 28, and 3 different teams to get it all together though. Here’s hoping for the sake of the great Warrior fans that Randolph can develop a lot faster. If not, he’ll still be a good sixth man for as long as he plays because he can contribute in every facet of the game (both good and bad).
15 going on 16. No, it's not a show on TLC. I'm talking about the Lakers!
A PF like, say, Glen Davis, you need to make sure there’s a spot open at the 4 for him.
A PF like Glen Davis needs a spot on the bench, not on the floor.
Oh.
I was under some weird impression that a player averaging <20 minutes a night for a team most likely headed to the NBA finals had some talent.
Ahh what do I know.
Davis is actually playing way over his head as a scorer in these playoffs (TS% of .560 in the playoffs vs .500 during the season), but he’s still a subpar rebounder and not exactly a defensive force. He doesn’t pass the ball and turns it over a fair amount. I guess maybe his scoring in the playoffs has made him a viable option off the bench, but that’s really more a product of the lack of depth the Celts have at the 4/5.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
I never said he was a great player
I said Randolph is a more diverse player than he is. Davis gets 20mpg, and he deserves them, but my point was (with all due respect to my lovely GSoMers, they sometimes have problems reading), that davis HAS to be a PF – you need to surround him with 1-3 and 5. With Randolph, you can surround him with 1,2 4 and 5, 1-3 and 5, or 1-4.
My point was that I’m not actually sure Davis deserves 20mpg. He’s closer to deserving that in the playoffs, but Davis’s play warrants a couple spot minutes here and there. 20 is overkill.
That was jae’s point (if I’m not mistaken) and I was agreeing with him. It was clearly not where you wanted the conversation to go, considering you were making a totally different point, but hey, that’s GSoM for you. Getting sidetracked is part of the fun.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
I was under some weird impression that a player averaging <20 minutes a night for a team most likely headed to the NBA finals had some talent.
Well, he’s significantly more talented than I am, but as NBA PFs go, he’s on the junk end of crappy. He doesn’t rebound well and he’s a low efficiency scorer. I thought it was a mistake when the Celtics re-upped his contract. He’s playing better in the playoffs, but it’s a small sample. Over the bulk (pun somewhat intended) of his career, he’s been a detriment more often than not. He may get 17mpg. Whether he deserves them is a different story. He’s got a terrible, terrible, terrible net plus minus. Yes, a big factor of that is that he’s playing behind Garnett who, although well past prime, is still a good player. Another big factor is that Davis is sup-par at everything a PF should do. If it’s the only position he can play, it’s a shame that he doesn’t play it well.
And I repeat:
I never in my argument said he was any good at all. I was pointing out how much more diverse Randolph is than Davis, who can only play the PF position.
That’s all I ever said jae.
Wow
LarryLegend your thoughts on Randolph are right on!! One thing we can agree on…
by Brothaplease09 on May 21, 2010 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions
I think your take on Randolph is pretty accurate, though I’m not sure why you think he’s a scrub. The strengths he does have – rebounding, off ball D, ability to score a bit are good enough to make him better than a scrub. I’d call Mikki Moore a scrub. Randolph? Definitely good enough, right now, to deserve PT.
by Missing Barry on May 22, 2010 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions
rebounding, off ball D, ability to score a bit are good enough to make him better than a scrub.
He rebounds at a high rate, but fouls a lot and doesn’t really shoot the ball well (sub 53 TS%). He deserves minutes, but only as a sixth man. Even then, he takes those minutes away from himself, and I’m not sure he’s that valuable. Maybe valuable to us, because we’re the smallest team in the league and one of the worst defensive teams and one of the worst rebounding teams in NBA history.
I’d call him a scrub, but opinions differ.
by LarryLegendofOracle on May 22, 2010 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Which PF would you play ahead of him right now?
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 23, 2010 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Rebounding is extremely valuable. He also doesn’t foul as much as you think, but that’s a conversation we’ve been having ni another thread…
by Missing Barry on May 26, 2010 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions
His WP was .016 this year. That is really, really bad.
To give some context:
His shooting fell off a cliff three seasons ago. For most of his career he was about .550 TS%. His last three seasons have been .523/.485/.518. He is not a low post threat any more.
Earlier in his career Brand was a good rebounder, but he’d been an adequate to average one for most of the last five years, and that includes being a downright bad rebounder last year.
Defensively, he’s no longer a presence inside. Last year he registered a career low in blocks and a career high in fouls/36.
In other words: Brand has become a really bad player, the kind of guy who, if he gets significant minutes, probably means you’re not a very good team. Even if he rebounds slightly from last year (assuming that last year was the lingering effects of his recent injuries) he’s still not going to be good, and, let’s be honest, he’s more likely to miss a lot of time due to injury than he is to see his performance improve dramatically. But, of course, with Brand you don’t mind if he’s injured because chances are whomever else you have on your team is better.
Tolliver was better than he was last year. To be fair, Martin and Moore weren’t. But understand that Brand is now a player who fits in the NBA landscape somewhere between Tolliver and MIki Moore.
So you do this trade because you’re willing to pay Brand for the right to draft Turner. That’s the ONLY reason you do this trade, not because you expect any contributions from Brand.
So if the team could move Maggette or Monta, it might be worth it. Turner comes in and takes those minutes, and the salary hit isn’t that bad. But offering Beidrins and drafting Wall leaves us with a weakness at the big spots – we’d be counting on Randolph, Wright, and Turiaf. (And I know some folks like him, but Turiaf is not a good player. It’s okay if he’s your fourth big man, but not your third. Given the question marks surrounding Wright and Randolph, this deal could make Turiaf our #1 or #2 big man. That’s a disaster.)
I disagree
Brand has been horrible for two reasons:
1) As you mentioned, he’s recovering from an injury.
2) The Sixers had no players capable of creating their own shot. When your best offensive player is Andre Igoudala, who can dunk, and maybe hit a wide open jumper, and do little else in the way of scoring, you’re going to force-feed the $100 million post player you just acquired. When that player isn’t comfortable, he’s going to struggle.
The fact is, unless you’re a great offensive player, you’re going to struggle mightily when you’re your teams only option. Especially if you’re a post player. Make Brand a 3rd option, surround him with shooters, and I think he’ll be pretty good.
Obviously, this is just my opinion.
The fact is, unless you’re a great offensive player, you’re going to struggle mightily when you’re your teams only option. Especially if you’re a post player. Make Brand a 3rd option, surround him with shooters, and I think he’ll be pretty good.
There is plenty of evidence to counter this argument, starting from Brand’s own career.
This year in Philly, the team had Igloudala, Holiday, and Ivey – this was not a team where Brand was their “only option.”
Brand was 5th on that team in FGA/36 – in other words, he was their FIFTH option, which is a far cry from being their only option. So your theory that he struggled because he was their only option falls flat on its face just from simply looking at the facts … to say nothing of the fact that it does nothing to explain his falloff in rebounding and blocks, as well as his increased foul rate.
But go further, and look at his earlier career – his best years his team’s only other good player was Maggette – who’s not exactly anything that Igloudala isn’t, and is not someone who knows how to set up another player. And yet Brant had efficient shooting seasons.
If he was performing worse than expected because of the hangover from his previous-year’s injury, you’d expect to see him improve as the year went on and he regained confidence in his body. But in 2009-10, February was his worst month in terms of FG% … followed by a tie between November and April.
When you put it all together, there’s a really simple answer: Brand is part of the problem, not part of the solution. He’ll be going into his 12th season … you should expect him to be having a drop off, not looking for reasons to excuse it.
Brand is cooked.
Somebody in one of the threads had suggesting offering Beidrins for him, and that would be an unmitigated disaster. Who is our starting center? Turiaf, who isn’t good enough to be a regular backup on a good team? Brand, who can’t rebound or defend worth a damn any more? Randolph, who hasn’t demonstrated that he can stay on the floor and gets pushed around defensively worse than Beans does? Wright, who hasn’t managed a full healthy season in two years?
We simply don’t have the big-man depth to give up a player who is one of the few guys who can board adequately for his position for someone who doesn’t deserve to play. We give up Monta or Mags and we have plenty of guys who can fill that role (even if perhaps not quite as well). We give up Beidrins for a guy who won’t contribute, and we have a massive massive hole in our big positions.
You’re really underestimating Iguodala. Also, on Brand’s injury, I’d be inclined to agree….if was he was 25. At Brand’s age, I don’t think it’s wise to expect him to ever recover to his pre-injury form. His explosiveness from the past is gone, and it’s doubtful it’s ever going to come back. He’s past his prime, and on the downside of his career. It might come back a little bit, he might rebound to play better some, but I wouldn’t expect a big change going forward.
by Missing Barry on May 22, 2010 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions
This Warriors team is one of the worst teams defensively and one of the worst teams ever on the boards. We already have shooters. Last thing we need is a Duke player. Except is his name is Carlos.
by LarryLegendofOracle on May 22, 2010 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions
The main concern of absorbing Brand’s contract is well, it’s A LOT of money for a player who is everyone says is finished. He would never work in Don Nelson’s system, but then again, that might be a good thing looking towards the future.
If we were to get Evan Turner with the #2 pick, the obvious choice to include in this trade is Monta Ellis since Turner would take his spot as the SG. Plus, Ellis is currently the highest paid and defined as the “best” player on the Warriors.
The Warriors would be trading away Ellis on the premise that Curry and Ellis cannot and should not co-exist on the same team. The Warriors would be bringing Brand on hoping he can help with rebounding while staying healthy. If he can’t, well, it’s just the price we’d pay to off-load Ellis for the sake of building a Curry-Turner backcourt of the future.
It’s a very expensive price to pay, but it’s “only” for 3 years. Brand’s contract is back-loaded:
2010 – 2011: $15,959,099
2011 – 2012: $17,059,726
2012 – 2013: $18,160,354
Would taking on this contract hinder the Warriors’ ability to sign a FA they covet? Whatever the case, whether it’s the current management or management to be (with the impending sale of the team), they would need to have some foresight as to what they want in a team going into the future, obviously.
If we take Brand for the next three years, what do we do with Anthony Randolph? I think he would have to be moved too. He won’t be happy on this team, with or without Don Nelson. A team with Elton Brand, who you’d have to play if healthy because of the money he makes, would drastically change the way the Warriors play. I think we can all agree that getting away from “small-ball” is a good idea, but the idea of a player not being able to run is kind of worrisome. Then again, I would support a coach who benched Brand if he didn’t play well, regardless of how much he makes.
How would this transaction affect the pending sale of the team? I don’t think it would too much. As far as numbers are concerned, it is a fairly equitable net swap.
I think it affects personnel decisions more than the financial statement. Personnel decisions are tied into the financials, of course, because a team’s goal is to bring in revenue.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
It's hard to say what effect it'll have on being able to sign FAs, because the CBA Is going to change:
But … there’s a very high liklihood that the CBA is going to become more favorable to the owners: lower maxes, shorter contracts, and a harder cap (reduced Bird exemption, less ability to go over the cap for any reason).
That means that Brand’s contract could become even worse – it could well be completely crippling, if in 2012 we have other young players we want/need to play, but that $17m has us up against a hard cap. Also, shorter guaranteed contracts will reduce the value of an expiring contract for trade purposes (these days, you can trade an overpaid expiring stiff for a better player if you’re willing to take on long-term money, but the amount of long-term money guys will have on their contracts is going to go down a lot with shorter guaranteed deals).
Brand won’t get significant PT. He’s that bad. He’ll be our 4th big man, at best. Or, rather, anything better than that and we’re in lots and lots of trouble.
Furthermore, it’s extremely likely that a new owner will fire Nellie even if it happens the day before training camp opens.
Well, even if a hard cap is implemented, Brand’s contract ends before Curry’s ends, so hopefully that money can be used to re-sign Curry (presuming he turns out to be a franchise-type player). But as far FA’s and other players, yes, this contract could be crippling. Good point, R.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on May 21, 2010 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions
If we have Curry, Turner, Monta, Randoph, Wright, and Beans.
Thats an impressive young core (much more impressive than the same players without Turner) we probably don’t need any big FA signings.
by freerandolph on May 22, 2010 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Curry, Turner, Monta, Randolph, Wright, and Beans.
That’s potentially a great lineup … if Randolph and Wright show the ability to deliver consistently what they’ve only been able to do in patches (due to injury, or an inability to stay on the floor due to poor understanding of their responsibilities.)
I wonder if it is reasonable to assume that both of them will do that. It seems more likely that, at best, one of them will deliver on the promise an the other will fade away – in which case the above lineup is still in strong need of a third big man.
The assumption is we can pry him loose by being willing to take on Brand's contract.
Mags + the 6, I imagine, is the offer, although I think that’s optimistic.
If I were running the Sixers, I wouldn’t give up Turner to be rid on Brand, but the rumor is that they’re willing to do that. So then it becomes a question of what we have to do to entice them.
Haha
everyone’s telling me Philly wouldn’t take Monta, and now people think they’ll take Maggs? They already have a SF.
I understood the optimistic part
it’s the “Philly wouldn’t do this, but let’s propose something even worse for them” that I didn’t exactly understand, that’s all. no biggie.
Well, if they're desperate enough to get rid of Brand that they'll over the #2 pick in this draft ...
… then they’re REALLY desperate.
And it’s not at all clear that Maggette is worse than Monta. He scores much more efficiently, after all.
Quite frankly, salary issues aside, I’d much rather have Mags of 2009-2010 then Monta of 2009-2010. He was much better this year.
I addressed all of these issues in my post
most of all, we’re dreaming if we think we can land a good FA (even if we do, he’d be overpriced). And it’s definitely not something we can play for.
Yes, I understand you addressed the issues in your post, but that doesn’t make them right ;-)
I never said “good FA,” I said “a FA they covet.”
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on May 21, 2010 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think we should do that. But if we could throw Maggette in with Monta and Wright I would do it. They get 1 young player that is pretty productive (Ellis), 1 vet that is still productive when not injured (Maggette), and 1 young player that hasn’t played much, but still has some potential (Wright). While we get one of the worst albotross contract in the league and the #2.
Still I doubt they would do it.
the fact of the matter is...
we can’t make any significant moves until corey maggette’s contract comes off the book in three seasons (the same time Elton Brand comes off the book). The warriors should go for a Brand/Turner trade…it’s essentially 2 years of eating Brand’s contract for the rights to Evan Turner for possibly the next decade. After 2 years, Brand and Maggette will be almost 30 million dollar expiring contracts that will be really coveted in trades. Do it!!!
by JimBarnett2KevinGarnett on May 21, 2010 5:31 PM PDT reply actions
Seriously!!!
This is going to be one of those topics that is going to get annoying. Not saying I don’t appreciate the enthusiasm, but realistic there are a lot of flawed ideals with this trade.
For one. I don’t think has any desire to get Ellis. Iggy is a 2 guard, Monta plays best at the 2. Philly has a new coach that is much more traditional than Nelson so I don’t see him entertaining the idea of small ball.
Secondly the only reason the Warriors entertain this Idea is to get their hands on Evan Turner (who I think a lot would love to have). But I feel like the warriors would have to give up Beidrins to get this deal done. And I don’t want to get smaller.
I think Philly would probably like to have Maggs over Monta. But I don’t think they need either therefore will not go for this trade.
Also you know damn well that Philly wants a pick in return. So We will have to give them our 6th. So I just don’t see this happening.
Before you flame me, look at where you're incorrect:
I don’t think has any desire to get Ellis
Incorrect. Philly has been very interested in Monta Ellis.
Iggy is a 2 guard
Incorrect. Iggy is 6’6" and 210, listed as a Forward who can play guard. He has always been Philly’s starting 3.
I don’t see him entertaining the idea of small ball.
Monta is 6’3". Holiday is 6’4" 180. Iggy is 6’6" 210. That’s not small ball.
I think Philly would probably like to have Maggs over Monta.
They already have a ball-stopping SF in in Igoudala.
Also you know damn well that Philly wants a pick in return.
I would give them our 6th. Highly unlikely anyone good is falling to that spot.
You can pretty much guarantee lots of players after the 6th spot will be good.
by caseycheesecake on May 22, 2010 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions
There are always unexpected surprises
But there’s no one out of the top 5, on any draft board, that’s expected to be very decent. After Wall, Johnson, Turner, Favors and Cousins there’s not much. Fariq-Aminu? I’d like him, but not really someone you lust after.
Fariq-Aminu?
No, Al-Farouq Aminu
by LarryLegendofOracle on May 22, 2010 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions
They already have a ball-stopping SF in in Igoudala.
False,Iggy is a very good passer
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia
He's still a ball stopper
He gets assists on a lot of slash-and-kicks, usually after holding the ball for 5-10 seconds. He’s not a very good creator. He’s usually a passer only after trying to score. As someone (john wooden, I think?) once said, “a pass is not a pass when you try everything else first.”
He’s still a ball stopper
You mean on the defensive end, right?
Iguodala is athletic enough to play without the ball.
Although I agree that he’s a shoot-first player.
by LarryLegendofOracle on May 23, 2010 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Iguodala is athletic enough to play without the ball.
He absolutely is. But he clashed with Iverson (when AI was still good), because Iggy thought that he should be the go-to-guy in Philly. Iggy is an exceptionally talented player, and one of the most athletic guys in the league, but, like Amar’e, he thinks that he should be the man, the #1 option, and I don’t think he’s quite good enough to be that guy.
Given his situation, it makes sense that he doesn’t move the ball as much as you want. His teammates suck at playing offense. Also, coaching wasn’t great.
by Missing Barry on May 26, 2010 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions
(Holiday is much better than people give him credit for: almost every ESPN analyst has him pegged for multiple All-Star selections)
non-sequitur
Thing A
I meant fans
People who follow the sixers know he’s good. few others do.
first maggs, now brand?
just call us the Golden State Clippers why don’t ya
C – Andris Biedrins | Ronny Turiaf
PF – Elton Brand | Anthony Randolph
SF – Wesley Johnson or Al-Farouq Aminu | Corey Maggette
SG – Evan Turner | Kelenna Azubuike | Reggie Williams
PG – Stephen Curry | Eric Bledsoe (2nd round hopeful)
It’s an alright trade, we’d have to add in Morrow though .. We look a lot more traditional that’s for sure!
Not bad, I don’t think Brand can run with the rest of the guys though :s If he can show some good post game (on both ends), rebounding and shot blocking(use to be a sick shot blocker) I’d be happy..
Won’t happen though
Eric Bledsoe is projected to go mid 1st round. If not then, I have a feeling he’ll go when the Lakers have to pick.
by LarryLegendofOracle on May 21, 2010 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions
C – Andris Biedrins | Ronny Turiaf
PF – Elton Brand | Anthony Randolph
SF – Wesley Johnson or Al-Farouq Aminu | Corey Maggette
SG – Evan Turner | Kelenna Azubuike | Reggie Williams
PG – Stephen Curry | Eric Bledsoe (2nd round hopeful)
That is a very weak frontline. Even if Randolph proves he deserves to start (and, quite frankly, he already deserves to start over Brand) you’ve still got two frontline starters who you can’t realistically expect to play more than 30mpg. That means you’re talking 36mpg combined of Turiaf/Brand, and you can’t win in the NBA with that as your frontline – and that’s ignoring potential injuries (Randolph and Beans are one year removed from major injuries, Brand two, and old enough that you can’t count on good health).
Alternatively, you could draft big (Monroe or someone like him) – and hope that guy can give you 15mpg as a rookie. Still dicey.
But don’t pencil Brand in for major minutes. He is not the Brand of four-five seasons ago. I think because he was heavily injured for two years, and then played in the Eastern conference, a lot of Dubs fans don’t realize just how bad he’s gotten. Think worse than Tolliver. If he’s a starter, you’re in lots and lots of trouble.
But don’t pencil Brand in for major minutes. He is not the Brand of four-five seasons ago. I think because he was heavily injured for two years, and then played in the Eastern conference, a lot of Dubs fans don’t realize just how bad he’s gotten. Think worse than Tolliver. If he’s a starter, you’re in lots and lots of trouble.
He had a terrible year, but who knows, he may make a comeback. The odds are against him, but it’s still too early to write him off.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on May 21, 2010 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions
"Too early to write him off"
He’s 31, with a lot of NBA miles.
And while you may be right that he could discover something left in the tank, there’s a big gap between “writing him off” and pencilling him in as a starter, or for major minutes, as LarryLegend did above.
If you want to pencil him in as our fourth big man (with someone better than Turiaf as our third) and then see what happens, maybe he proves he deserves more PT, I can get on board with that plan.
But planning to give him major minutes as a justification for trading for him?
Asking for lots and lots of trouble.
Last year:
Brand shot 48% from the field. Add Curry passing to him, instead of Holiday, and that’s 52-54%. Per36, he averaged 15.6 points. Add Curry’s passing/% bump, and the Warriors spacing, which is much better than the Sixers, and that’s 20 points. Per32 7.6 rebounds (he’ll be healthier this season, so probably 8.5), 1.3 steals and 1.3 blocks, with an average 2.1TOs.
Brand’s game may be ugly compared to his former self. And it may be ugly considering his exorbitant contract. But it’s not “doing nothing” as you referred to it.
You stated that Brand would be our fourth big man. Let’s compare him to Randolph, Biedrins, Turiaf and Tolliver (who you seem to believe is superior) from this season, and Wright from the season before.
All stats per36 minutes.
Points: (Brand is 3rd)
Randolph: 18.5
Biedrins: 7.8
Turiaf: 8.5
Tolliver: 13.6
Wright: 16.9
Brand: 15.6
FG%: (Brand is 4th)
Randolph: .443
Biedrins: .591
Turiaf: .582
Tolliver: .431
Wright: .528
Off the bat, it seems that Brand is 3rd or 4th, in terms of offensive abilities.
but wait: The Warriors shot almost 5 more shots per game than the Sixers, meaning their pace is much quicker (they also averaged more assists). This pace, combined with my points about Curry’s playmaking and the Warriors spacing, means Brand’s % and ppg are sure to jump, as I stated, placing him but better than “our fourth big man” as you seem to want to make him.
It’s also worth noting, for those wanting to point out that Brand is an inferior rebounder, that the Warriors’ opponents averaged 5.6 more shots a game than the Sixers’ opponents, and that Brand played most of his minutes alongside Dalembert, one of the league’s best rebounders, and Igoudala, one of the best rebounding SFs in the game.
This by no means suggests Brand is a star. But they do justify him getting more playing time than Anthony Tolliver.
But he had a
TS% of 51.9.
FG% is a poor stat. By TS%, Tolliver was only slightly inefficient and Brand sucked it up.
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 22, 2010 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions
And I think Ronaldinho has WP48 stats in mind
which is pace adjusted, I think.
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 22, 2010 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Instead of looking at FG%, look at TS%.
Brand is bad. You choosing to look at FG% rather than TS% strikes me as an attempt to make Brand look good by ignoring the fact that he no longer gets to the line very often. According to TS%, there were only five Warriors worse than Brand last season: Ellis, Jackson, Radmanovich, Martin, and Karl.
You think Curry will help him? Based on what evidence? Brand isn’t a pick-and-roll type player. Brand isn’t that good in transition. You think he’s going to get 4-6% worth of FG%? Could you provide any evidence at all that this is a reasonable assumption?
You think Brand’s rebounding numbers will come up because he was recovering from being injured? Based on what evidence? As I pointed out in my other post, there was no evidence of him “recovering form injury” this last year. His slow decline from his peak is completely consistent with what you would expect from an older player.
THere is very little evidence that playing alongside other good rebounders significantly hurts one’s rebounding. (That is, after all, the converse of the claim everybody makes about Beans – that his numbers are inflated because he’s our only rebounding. That claim has been roundly debunked on this forum numerous times).
Really, you’re just using lousy statistics and making predictions for which there is absolutely zero evidence.
Does he deserve more playing time than Tolliver? Well, Tolliver shouldn’t be seeing any playing time on an NBA team. He’s a 12th-man, a bench-ender, who’s job on a competent franchise should be high-fiving better players when they come back to the bench after making big baskets. Tolliver sucks, and it’s not worth quibbling whether Brand is slightly better or slightly worse. I concede for the sake of argument, because Tolliver shouldn’t be getting any time except garbage minutes.
According to TS%, there were only five Warriors worse than Brand last season: Ellis, Jackson, Radmanovich, Martin, and Karl.
Well then what’s the problem with trading Ellis for him? ;)
I would be happy to trade Ellis if we got Turner.
But that’s what the deal really is: Ellis for Turner, not Ellis for Brand, because Brand is done.
That may be true
but what’s the problem? we’re still getting Turner, like you wanted. We eat a bad contract that otherwise would go to a mediocre-at-best FA, so….I don’t see the problem.
exactly my thoughts
Theres actually a comment some where above this where I pretty much say the exact same thing as you.
by freerandolph on May 23, 2010 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Given the numbers above, in 2012-13, we would be on the hook for $31m not counting future draft picks, assuming we trade Monta+Wright, in the following players:
Curry Wall Mags Randolph Beidrins, with Brand on the bench.
How do you feel about that starting lineup? Honestly, it’s not too bad if Wall is the real deal, Randolph develops decently, and Mags doesn’t fall off a cliff.
If the team trades Monta, I’m going to assume they sign Reggie to a longer deal to be a third guard … and we really need one more quality big man.
I’m actually pretty okay with that. We’re going to be filling out the roster with a bunch of scrubs, so we’re in trouble if the injury bug hits (especially at the big man spots). But if the team could find another quality big … I’d be really tempted.
WHich makes the question: Does Philly go for it? It’s hard to say. I think giving up the 2 to get rid of Brand is really dumb … so if they’re willing to do it, who know what else they might do.
Why are you putting Wall there?
We wouldn’t get Wall. WA get’s Wall. We get Evan Turner. Which makes the lineup almost better, because, even though wall is better than Turner, Turner is a SF, which allows us to have a larger lineup (Morrow, Azubuike or Williams at the 2-guard), with only 1 ball dominating guard, and Maggette as the 6th man, where he plays best.
haha it's all good man
I just wasn’t sure whether that was a typo, or whether one of us hopped off of the logic train somewhere haha
This by no means suggests Brand is a star. But they do justify him getting more playing time than Anthony Tolliver.
but they don’t justifying taking his contract off Philly’s hands while toliver works for peanuts and ReggieWTF is more NBA proven than turner?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 22, 2010 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions
True Skep, but...
ReggieWTF (great name, btw) is much more NBA proven than John Wall….doesn’t always work that way.
He had a terrible year, but who knows, he may make a comeback.
by LarryLegendofOracle on May 22, 2010 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
haha.
its actually not too bad of a comparison too unfortunately…
by freerandolph on May 23, 2010 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions
don’t worry. you can always trade Brand to NY for Eddy Curry’s expiring contract after they get desperate after none of the big name free agents end up going there.
it’d be pretty sweet if the NYKs somehow also got Arenas then they could rock the over the hill big 3 with Arenas, McGrady & Brand. oh. if that happens they gotta sign Shaq. i guess the 5th guy could be Ray Allen, he’s not as far down hill as the other guys.
by homer simpson on May 22, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Where’s Iverson? lol
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on May 22, 2010 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions
The possibility
of having both Turner and Wes makes me very happy. I think if we can keep our pick we do this trade for sure.
doesnt philly
already have theyre own type of monta ellis in lou williams? did you guys all forget about him? and elton brand is damaged goods, hes to injury prone and i dont see him running up and down with our type of play
lou williams is Phillys Monta?
Thats like saying Azibuki is Our Kobe. Lou Williams couldn’t sniff Monta’s jock. Now thats a pretty picture.
Set a record by getting banned for the 8th time!
After rehab I saw the light and promise to be kinder and gentler!
Probation is a very slippery slope!
by StinkyFingers on May 22, 2010 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Thats like saying Azibuki is Our Kobe
Ir Randolph is our Bosh.
by LarryLegendofOracle on May 22, 2010 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions
He might not be particularly interested in sniffing Monta’s jock, but last season he was much better than Monta at basketball: better passer, better at taking care of the ball, better FT shooter, and much more efficient scorer.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 22, 2010 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I’d take 10 fewer points but a better-than Monta TS% anyday.
by LarryLegendofOracle on May 23, 2010 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
and I repeat:
Philly has expressed interest in Monta Ellis.
Where did
you hear that?
"It's like Will Smith, remember the Fresh Prince? Get the ball don't let nobody else shoot? That's kinda what the offense can be sometimes, and they're just standing around waiting for Monta to make a play"
-MT2
by golden_solitude on May 22, 2010 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-tradebuzz120309
“Before Monta Ellis started on his scoring tear, Philly had hope that his issues with Golden State might inspire the Warriors to take a chance on Brand”
ESPN had something on it in December and around the trade deadline, as well as last offseason.
Posting it as a link, it's towards the bottom of the article
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-tradebuzz120309
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on May 25, 2010 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions
I want a hippopotamus for Christmas.
"It's like Will Smith, remember the Fresh Prince? Get the ball don't let nobody else shoot? That's kinda what the offense can be sometimes, and they're just standing around waiting for Monta to make a play"
-MT2
by golden_solitude on May 22, 2010 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions
I used to play that game.
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on May 23, 2010 1:07 AM PDT up reply actions
FWIW
I talked with Lowell Cohn about this, and he thought it was a good trade, citing that it’d be great if we could get something for Ellis, and that Brand is “a real big man.” (which I think is an under-looked point – size and spacing matters offensively and defensively, regardless of talent). He wondered whether anyone would trade for Wright though, on account of injuries.
Brand is a “real big man” who is also a “washed up shell of his former self.”
Cohn is as delusional as many other fans, though he’s got a job to write about his delusions.
Haha. I wouldn’t be surprised if his idiot child Iggy ghost-writes his material…
Still: much as I don’t want Brand, I’d strongly consider biting the bullet on him if he allowed us to dump Monta and/or Maggs while extracting a lot of cool stuff from Philly. Just for fun, what about a trade-a-palooza of
Monta, Maggs, VladRad, #6
for
Brand, Iguodala, #2
Yeah, highly skewed in our favor, but it could at least test how badly they want out from under Brand. They need big men, so they use the #6 to to grab Monroe (or of they’re lucky, Cousins). Jrue-Monta-Lou is not a horrible guard threesome; and Maggs gives them a semi-legit, Eastern conference-type SF (as opposed to the worthless Thad Young).
On our end, we nab Steph Curry’s man Wes Johnson and #2, then take what’s left over of our tradeable commodoties — Turiaf and Morrow S/T — and flip them to Minnesota for Kevin Love.
Then we sign Shaun Livingston to the MLE.
Curry 38 / Livingston 10
Iguodala 38 / ReggieWTF 10
Johnson 30 / Azubuike 18
Randolph 30 / Wright 14 / Brand 4 (he and his old pal Livingston can chat about stuff on the pine)
Love 28 / Biedrins 20
Or something…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 24, 2010 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions
You can
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on May 24, 2010 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions
*
How do you get Wes Johnson. We just traded the 6th pick. Unless you are taking him with the 2nd !?
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on May 24, 2010 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Good Trade!! If it could be done.
I sort of extrapolated that very same trade from the earlier trade that someone proposed Biedrins, Vlad, #6 , #34 pick for Brand and #2. Then just add Monta for Iggy
which is certainly in our favor, And substitute Maggs for Biedrins so we don’t leave ourselves vulnerable at the center position. I get it. But I’d draft Turner despite what Curry likes. No one else is going to draft Johnson at #2. We can play Iggy and Turner interchangeably at the 2 and 3.
Any team that had Turiaf and Morrow would consider a Turiaf, Morrow a trade for Love a steal.. I don’t know why you think the T-wolves would give Love away like that.
I’d be in favor of trading Monta,and Morrow for Love and Sessions, a very serviceable pass first back up PG, and play Love at Center..But that would take Monta away from your proposed trade.
Ok, then let’s leave Iggy and Maggette/Turiaf out of it and do the first proposed trade and trade Beans, Vlad, #6 , #34 for Brand and the number #2 pick. ( in my mind, Turner ) And then trade Monta/Morrow for Love and Sessions. Not quite as good a deal, but I think a little more realistic.
by War Years Legacy on May 25, 2010 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, I’m working under the probably mistaken general GSoM assumption that the Wolves totally undervalue Love, and see Love/Jefferson as an unworkable big man combo.
Yeah, if they properly value Love, they’ll scoff at either of our deals. Still … given that their GM has stated that his primary concern with Love/Jefferson is their defensive shortcomings, I could see Turiaf being a pretty appealing (and affordable) target for them. Or at least, more appealing than Monta Ellis, who based on last season’s production is essentially a more expensive, slightly less bad version of Jonny Flynn. Can you imagine Flynn and Monta together? Ugh: possibly the smallest, least-efficient, worst-passing, worst-rebounding backcourt tandem in the league…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 25, 2010 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions
I could see Turiaf being a pretty appealing (and affordable) target for them. Or at least, more appealing than Monta Ellis,
I’d probably give them both Montay and Rony for Love.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 25, 2010 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd give them Monta and Morrow
as far as putting new people in the seats, I think Monta would be the most exciting thing ever seen in Minnesota. I’m quite willing to throw Turiaf in place of Morrow but they already have a strong front court with Jefferson, Love and Darko actually having a good stint at Center with them coupled with the fact they have an excellent shot at drafting Cousins if they don’t try to trade up.That leaves Love and/‘orJefferson expendable and while I’m sure they’d prefer to deal Jefferson, his injuries make that complicated. If Rubio ever does become their PG in tandem with Monta, I could see the seeds of a the first backcourt I’ve seen from them in quite a while. They could keep Flynn as a backup or trade him, as well as Sessions, as I mentioned.
by War Years Legacy on May 25, 2010 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Love has more trade value for them, though, and would be way easier to move….
by Missing Barry on May 26, 2010 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions
/drools over that lineup
but your post started with Iggy Cohn bashing and finished with a Kevin Love to the Warriors scenario……… ironically amusing, no? ; )
Thing A
Haha, ouch. Pwn3d!
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 25, 2010 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Terrible Idea. F for effort.
Elton Brand? are you kidding me? let’s forget for a moment the Ws tried to acquire him when Baron bolted. (They also offered a bazillion dollars to super-injured, pre-gun issue Gilbert Arenas.)
This guy is a terrible, terrible fit for a run and gun team. Blech! This guy is so slow, such a defensive liability, so old. Wow. Terrible…
Confront racism: Boycott Arizona
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on May 26, 2010 8:23 PM 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)
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Finally, Shelvin Mack and Robert Pack have a dance dedicated to them (VIDEO)
- Create-a-Caption: Allen Iverson, superfan
- Kobe Bryant-themed Gotye cover song waxes wistful for ‘The Kobe That We Used to Know’ (VIDEO)
- After the city canceled their outdoor viewing party, Oklahoma City Thunder fans work to get it back
- Chris Kaman eats breakfast in room of death, plays Sasquatch, builds giant medieval weapon
