RUMOR: Golden State Warriors and Minnesota Timberwolves talking Anthony Randolph and #4 pick in 2010 NBA Draft
by Atma Brother ONE on Jun 3, 2010 9:03 PM PDT
in Rumors
Email
PrintUPDATE (6/4 7:53am): Here's the view from Minnesota on this rumor from Canis Hoopus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope was one big NOPE this past season.
Anthony Randolph- Hope Beyond the Hype :: 2009-2010 Golden State Warriors Player Recaps and Previews
Jump for the 411!
Over at ESPN.com Chris Broussard writes Sources: Randolph part of trade talks:
The Minnesota Timberwolves and Golden State Warriors have had discussions about a trade that would send forward Anthony Randolph to the Timberwolves, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the talks.
No trade is imminent, but the Timberwolves have strong interest in acquiring the 20-year-old Randolph. The Warriors, who own the sixth pick in this year's NBA draft, would like to move up to get a higher selection. Minnesota has the fourth pick.
Related
- Randolph to T-Wolves FanShot + Discussion
- Anthony Randolph for Kevin Love? Talking through some speculative Warriors trade ideas [Talking Points] -- FanShot + Discussion
I can appreciate that the Warriors are not fixated on Anthony Randolph. Don't get me wrong I can appreciate Randolph's per 36 numbers and all that jazz, but the fact remains that he simply hasn't played much winning basketball. He has never played on a winning team in the pro's (not entirely his fault of course) or college or even high school. Randolph has an immense amount of physical talent and god given ability, but more often than not he plays basketball like a chicken with his head cut off. You know it's bad when a low hoops IQ player like Monta Ellis is yelling at you because you're not executing properly.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Randolph blossom on the Warriors, but I just don't see it happening. Actually I just don't see it happening in the NBA... ever. I hope I'm wrong, very wrong, but right now Randolph looks like Stromile Swift Part II or Tyrus Thomas Part II- one of those superbly gifted athletes who just can't play pro hoops all that well.
After getting screwed in the 2010 NBA Draft Lottery it would be neat to see the Dubs move up to the TWolves #4 slot. That's a shot at Derrick Favors, DeMarucs Cousins, Wesley Johnson, or maybe even Evan Turner.
Could be interesting, you interested?
Straight outta Minny-- Canis Hoopus
Archive: RUMOR: Anthony Randolph like every Golden State Warrior on the trading block
643 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What makes you think he ends up like Swift?
A very productive rookie year and a 2nd year where he showed promise and some improvements but got injured?I’m sorry I see 0 evidence that he is not going to be that good, I think it’s more of people’s impatience than anything else. I’d rather have AR than Cousins honestly. If the Twolves get him they will be getting a steal and there best big since KG.
TK must be so proud of himself, making his own story than having it go on ESPN where he wishes he was. Too me we should not trade AR for anything less than CB4
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia
AR would be the TWolves best Big since KG???
Really??? Thats an interesting take considering Al Jefferson and Kevin Love are in Minn…
by Brothaplease09 on Jun 3, 2010 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Love is good
One will be moved though. Also Al is a very skilled player but I am confident AR shuts all his haters up and turns out better than either of them
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia
Keep the faith brotha, I love AR too but I’m getting a little impatient…I considered this past year a step backward for AR
by Brothaplease09 on Jun 3, 2010 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions
May I ask why?
He played very well, it was just the injury. When players sit our for a while I notice fans lose faith in the player and forget what they have seen but that may just be me. It’s just been 2 years I don’t know how anyone could be impatient with a 20 year old
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia
When has he whined?
And do you really think a guy getting jerked around as much as he is will change this franchise?
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia
If I am to believe media reports, (which is a seperate topic to debate) he has frequently complained about playing time.
And it isn’t fair to blame him for the franchise’s failure, even the last two years, but he hasn’t done anything to improve it either. Right or wrong, that’s why people are impatient with him. The want a winner and he isn’t changing that yet.
he isn’t changing that yet
So why are we impatient? This is what happens when a team is impatient, they trade young guy for ready now guys and it comes back and bites them. This is the 1st time in our miserable recent history we have had promise. We can’t mess it up now
Find me an article where he says he complains about his time cause I have never seen one (if it’s ESPN or TK that doesn’t count)
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia
"I considered this past year a step backward for AR"
What !!! How ? we barely saw him play. When Nelson’s plan was to finally made a him a starter, he got injured. Warriors would make the biggest mistake to trade Anthony Randolph. If nothing else, give him one more year as a starter with consistent minutes to assess him
That’s why it was a step back. It’s not his fault, but you want to see a young guy like that make progress and he didn’t because he didn’t play.
Well, he did increase his assists, points and efficiency. I’d call that progress, though I’m not sure where I’d set the bar for “how much” progress I’d like to see….
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions
PPPPPPPAAAAAAA----- LEASE
If you put in the Curry that we know now, the Curry with a great calmness when on the court, a great eye for the pass, and an even better shot to keep the defense honest……..if you put him in with Randolph(+20lbs) it is going to be deadly. Once they build a relationship on the court as far as knowing where Randolph is going to be or where he wants the ball it is going to be like Nash and Amare. Except they will just be younger and less polished. But I know Curry will work his butt off and I have seen Randolph work his off too in the last to summers off. If they trade him it is going to be a say day.
Good points.
AR is a great player for his age. Be patient and hope for a new coach.
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 Jun 3, 2010 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions
AR + 6th for 4th = HELL NO
AR for 4th = Maybe
But with 2 years under the belt of AR, I think it’ll be more detrimental to the team than beneficial.
"I tell him straight, 'If you're going to lead, you have to be the first to practice. You have to come in, get your work down and be prepared for practice,' " assistant coach Keith Smart said. "He needs to figure out why he is having stomach problems and he's got to watch how LeBron (James), Kobe (Bryant) and D-Wade (Dwyane Wade) work. He needs to mimic that if he wants his teammates to speak volumes about him." -Keith Smart on Motna Ellis
by ejdacanay on Jun 3, 2010 9:15 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
In my opinion
AR + 6th for 4th = Not unless the Warriors don’t have any faith in Randolph. If they’ve evaluated him and really think he isn’t going to become anything, then I say go for it.
AR for 4th = Probably. Cousins or Favors are just too good to pass up, unless the Dubs think Randolph will be really good anyway.
by freerandolph on Jun 4, 2010 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions
There's no chance the Wolves would do #4 for Randolph straight up.
If they’re shying away from taking DeMarcus Cousins fourth owing to his immaturity, Randolph basically carries the same tag along with injury concerns…. They won’t bite on that.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
no injury concerns here
the poor kid twisted his ankle. He is made of stone. He has Garnett’s physique.
He is only 20 and I can wait for BB IQ to develop. He has the raw skill. The only potential knock on AR the Warriors might sell me on is that he is more of a head case than we all see. They see him in practice… If they feel he is too much of a loose cannon, it would make me very disappointed, but I could see myself possibly admitting Nellie was right a few years from now.
Shoot.
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
It’s kind of a lot to move up 2 spots, but in the NBA, I think that’s a pretty big deal. I like Randolph, but he’s still too thin to be a PF that will be able to stay healthy long term. Talent-wise, AR probably has more talent than anyone we will end up taking. I would rather trade Monta for a veteran big man.
He's up to 235-240 now
So he is no longer thin, a user on here has seen him in person and says he is much bigger.
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia
Was going to mention the muscle gain
Trading him without taking a look at him in the pre-season would be idiotic.
"I tell him straight, 'If you're going to lead, you have to be the first to practice. You have to come in, get your work down and be prepared for practice,' " assistant coach Keith Smart said. "He needs to figure out why he is having stomach problems and he's got to watch how LeBron (James), Kobe (Bryant) and D-Wade (Dwyane Wade) work. He needs to mimic that if he wants his teammates to speak volumes about him." -Keith Smart on Motna Ellis
I can’t believe, for the second year in a row, people are still buying into this “muscle gain” garbage like it’s meaningful. Do you not remember last year when everyone made a big fuss about it….and he was still skinny when he showed up….?
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, he did gain muscle last off-season. Compared to his rookie season, he was noticeably bigger this season.
Who knows? Maybe he is even bigger going into this year’s training camp.
"Monta is the MAN." -Bob Fitzgerald
by WarriorForLife on Jun 4, 2010 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks.
"Monta is the MAN." -Bob Fitzgerald
by WarriorForLife on Jun 5, 2010 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, he was bigger, but still 210, 215ish. People were all about the 20 pounds of muscle he gained the how he was a legit 7 footer. Seems they’re jumping all over the hype again this year. Seriously, if you believed all the reports, Randolph would be 7’ 245 pounds right now. He’s clearly not.
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions
You know his agent will say anything, he’s on AR’s payroll, I doubt he’s put on 40 pounds, that would take a lil longer for him. Matter of fact I gaurantee he’s not even 230 by the time the season begins…
by Brothaplease09 on Jun 3, 2010 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions
What would you say if a user on this site said he knew him and saw him?
And said he was a lot buffer?
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia
I’d say show me in Summer League or opening night…
by Brothaplease09 on Jun 3, 2010 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions
What would you say if a user on this site said he knew him and saw him? And said he was a lot buffer?
I’d say he’s probably lost a lot of his hops that were his game. We don’t need him buffer, we need him smarter.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 3, 2010 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
True that
Randolphs BBall IQ is god awful…not exactly a player you’d call crafty
by Brothaplease09 on Jun 3, 2010 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I would say
dont get too excited. Im sure if someone on here saw randolph in public, when he isn’t around other professional basketball players they would think he was HUGE.
by GOLDstandard on Jun 3, 2010 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions
This guy knows him though
Not just a random stranger
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia
The two spots are from 6th to 4th in a four-player draft.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Meh. Wasn’t last year a “two-player draft”? Oh wait, it was — only the two players were drafted #4 and #7.
Sacrificing Randolph to rectify our rotten luck with the ping-pong balls is utter madness. We’re talking about our second-most valuable commodity — our best shot (such as it is) at a true franchise big man since Webber. Given his tender age and how little time he’s had to strut his stuff, I would tread extremely cautiously right now. Unless we can swing an absolute swindle of a deal, all we should be doing is stockpiling assets until the new regime comes in. Pick the BPA at #6; and if we really don’t like any of our options, trade down. Wait until the new coach and the new GM have had a chance to evaluate these guys, with fresh, impartial eyes, before shipping them off willy-nilly.
I mean, I do generally respect Nellie’s assessment of young’ players talent and potential. His eye for real NBA talent, more than his tactical skill, may be his best quality as a coach. At the same we’re talking about a guy who’s erratic, possibly alcoholic, highly emotional, and frequently unprofessional. We’ve seen evidence of what can happen when he gets into one of his irrational ego-wars with a young stud big man. The last time it happened he succeeded in torpedoing the franchise for 13 years.
A lame duck regime can be a dangerous thing. Someone needs to intervene now and tie these mofos’ hands.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 4, 2010 7:34 AM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
I sympathize in a big way.
You seriously don’t have to explain the horrible feeling of cashing in chips to rectify bad lottery luck to a Wolves fan. This franchise has been in existence for 21 seasons, now, and never moved up relative to its slot based on record. Never. Always down.
I also totally agree about the perceived tiers in a given draft, but basically we’re talking about what the market will bear. You’re really paying to ameliorate risk at the very top of the draft. Cousins is a tipping point this time, at about 4th overall, because he’s such a home run / bust possibility, but he’s got more value than Wesley Johnson on that market.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
by feral on Jun 4, 2010 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I also totally agree about the perceived tiers in a given draft, but basically we’re talking about what the market will bear.
True, though you have to realize that everyone has the option of NOT making the trade. If Randolph forced the Warriors’ hand and this was the best the Warriors could get, then I’d grumble about it and accept my fate. Since he hasn’t, I’m not particularly thrilled about trading away a really, really interesting player for 2 draft spots… which leads me to my next point.
You’re really paying to ameliorate risk at the very top of the draft.
Reducing risk is not reason to trade any asset when you can just wait and see what happens, not in the NBA.
This potential trade is not going to happen before the draft. It may be agreed to before the draft, but it won’t happen until the TWolves pick is on the clock. Nobody in their right mind is going to trade a valuable known piece just to “ameliorate risk.” Without knowing who’s actually going to be available, this is just taking an unnecessary crapshoot. The Warriors will target certain players, as will the TWolves. There will be a trade in place where the Warriors say “If our guy is available, we’re making the trade.” Plain and simple. The trade will only be made when the quantities are known.
Remember when the Phoenix draft room got all giddy when the Warriors pick came up last year? Phoenix had the same deal in place: “We’ll give you Amare for the #7 pick and other pieces if our guy is there.” Whoever their guy was (prolly Curry) was there and they got excited because they thought they’d got what they wanted. Unfortunately for them, the Warriors liked Curry more than the Amare deal and called it off. The same might happen with the Warriors & TWolves.
That this rumor is out there means either one of two things:
1. The media need something that isn’t LeBron or Celtics/Lakers to talk about because every other fan base is tired of hearing about that BS, and is just grasping at straws to make up some “rumor.”
or
2. The Warriors really, really like some player who might be available at 4 but gone by 6 and are willing to pay for him.
I’d put my money on #1, but who really knows. And then you have the whole team sale negotiations going on and it’s highly unlikely that any drastic move like this is going to happen.
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 4, 2010 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions
And if you're talking about mitigating risk by trading up for a guy instead of waiting for him to come to you...
I’m not sure I call that risk… and you don’t trade an interesting, quality, young player like Anthony Randolph for two draft spots when the player you want might just slide down to you anyways unless you really, really, really like that player over the other players that will be available at #6 AND you really, really, really don’t like Anthony Randolph. You might be able to convince me of one of those two things, but not both.
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 4, 2010 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Wholly agree.
I bet there were some talks. But one of hundreds of such “talks”.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
Trading Randolph at this point to move up two spots would be absolutely ridiculous.
by randolphforpresident on Jun 4, 2010 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions
our best shot (such as it is) at a true franchise big man since Webber.
You must be joking your’e comparing AR to Webber. Webber made an impact on the Warriors immediately. There’s really no debate.
I agree. In that sentence I didn't really see a comparison to Webber either
probably because he wasn’t really comparing him to Webber in the first place.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
(Hint: It’s not a comparison to Webber)
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Why would anybody rec this?
Ok, I get the point you’re trying to make, but to set it up with
Meh. Wasn’t last year a "two-player draft"? Oh wait, it was — only the two players were drafted #4 and #7.is beyond idiotic.
The only thing in feral’s post was an assertion that the top 4 picks in a 4 player draft (or the top 2 picks in a 2 player draft) are the most valuable. Unless you have a time machine, the fact that the results came out differently after the fact doesn’t make it any less true predraft. Your example is especially stupid in light of the fact that neither of the consensus two best players from last year’s draft have played a game yet. Blake Griffin could come in as a 20/10 big man and Rubio could be the Kidd/Nash hybrid he was billed to be, in which case they would be better than Evans and Curry.
The point he was trying to make is that
we hype up these drafts as having X players, and it usually happens that the assessment was wrong. Last year, it was a two player draft. Depending on how things turn out, there might be 4 or 5 star caliber talents drafted in these two players. I don’t see what’s especially stupid about that.
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on Jun 5, 2010 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions
The point is fine.
The setup is phenomenally retarded.
There’s also the issue of the actual point being irrelevant. It was a reply to feral’s remark that, this being a four player draft, moving from 6 into the top 4 will cost a lot. Sleepy Freud’s ability to cite hindsight on a draft that’s already happens in no way disproves that.
to set it up with [Sleepy’s first paragraph] ] is beyond idiotic.
The setup is phenomenally retarded.
Haha. Mentally challenged, please.
Seriously, man: if anything is “phenomenally retarded,” it’s to imagine that anyone wouldn’t grasp the concept that a #4 pick is more valuable than #6. I think I’ve made my feelings on this hypothetical trade (the basic version not including Love) pretty clear, but I’ll summarize: I don’t like it, for reason perhaps more emotional than rational. I understand that the fact that we popped #6 when we had a much better aggregate shot at the #1, 2 or 3 is a sunk cost; at the same time, to start dangling our second-most valuable asset to redress this “loss” feels a bit like digging the hole deeper, or picking at a scab. I’d rather sit tight and take our small (but hardly minuscule) shot that the guy we pluck at #6 ends up better than the #4 guy. Is this really such a difficult position to fathom?
You sound like a reasonably smart cat, John Doe. I love getting a fresh perspective from non-Warriors fans. Unlike some of the visitors we get here (CaseyCheesecake and pookeyguru, for e.g.), you seem capable of contributing something to the board beyond trollish one-liners, flame wars, and noise. I guess all I’d ask, is that, knowing that most of the people here are highly emotional (not to say clinically insane) when it comes to the Warriors, you make a real effort to put yourself in our shoes.
There will be no extra point!
I like Randolph, but he’s still too thin to be a PF that will be able to stay healthy long term.
Young guys do grow bigger. Guys like Bosh and KG haven’t had problems because they’re thin…..
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions
KG's rookie season
He was around the summer league team, but didn’t play on it. Our team folks were seriously concerned that his shorts might fall off in game action, because he had no waist at all.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Golden State Warriors and Minnesota Timberwolves talking Anthony Randolph and #4 pick in 2010 NBA Draft ?
That would suck cause Nellie wouldn’t get Cousins or Favors with the 4th spot so we’d still be small. Rudolf is still younger than Johnson with more upside so WTF?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 3, 2010 9:23 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
THAT would be a nightmare.
So if Cousins ended up going #6 to Minny, it means we traded Randolph AND Cousins for Wesley Johnson. OMG…. horrible.
by Bob on Jun 3, 2010 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I bet that's who were targeting too...
Cause Riley wants to win now since he knows he is soon on his way out… Ugh
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia
No way.
If the Warriors get the forth pick by trading Randolph they have to go big. I don’t think they’re dumb enough to deplete an already thin front-court without some sort of plan.
by freerandolph on Jun 4, 2010 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
the idea is you get Kevin Love over DeMarcus Cousins…perhaps Minn wants that??
by Brothaplease09 on Jun 3, 2010 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Love for Randolph plus a 4 for 6 swap would be great.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions
C'mon Skep.
Thought you knew that Wes is the Smokescreen.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
Thought you knew that Wes is the Smokescreen.
I don’t know anything about this management when it comes to getting bigs. remember they took Dunleavey over Amare due to “issues”
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 3, 2010 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions
In 2010
That’d be like taking Gordon Hayward over Cousins.
Hayward is way overrated. He shouldn’t be taken in the lottery.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
This is definitely not the same thing as Dunleavey over Amare
Since it was a surprise that Amare became so good, especially so quickly. And everyone expected that Dunleavy would be a better pro than he turned out to be…
by freerandolph on Jun 4, 2010 12:33 AM PDT up reply actions
I will say…trading Randolph+6th pick for the 4th pick is a bad deal. I like the idea of Kevin Love+4th pick for Randolph and the 6th pick…not sure why Minn would do that though because Love’s development is currently ahead of Randolphs
Absolutely no to that one from Minnesota.
They wouldn’t do Love for Randolph straight up. Why’re we imagining that they’d like to swap picks along the way, too?
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Welcome to GSoM feral.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Queensbridge whaddup!
Say it….
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
I think your comment showed great insight
Brilliant! Bravo!
There are some guys smarter than me, some guys better looking, I take comfort in the fact that there is no guy that is both.
Actually I live in Seattle.
But if you’re implying that I’d rather live in Sac than the Bay, you’re absolutely correct.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
Maybe we should adjust our stats to per36 years of age? -- ElRonToro
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Enjoy your time in sackramento, bro
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on Jun 5, 2010 8:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I always do.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
Maybe we should adjust our stats to per36 years of age? -- ElRonToro
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Why is it a given that they wouldn’t flip Love for Randolph straight up? Kahn’s stated issue with the Love/Jefferson combo is that they’re not a good defensive tandem. Randolph’s potential as a dominant defender at the rim is his main — or possibly only — clear advantage over Love. Also, rather anecdotally, Love and Jeff don’t seem to like each other that much (though you as a Wolves fan are probably a much better judge of this).
I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to imagine that in Kahn’s eyes Jefferson’s and Randolph’s and skills and personalities might mesh slightly better than Jefferson’s and Love’s. And “slightly better” is all we’re talking about when comparing the #4 pick to the #6.
On planet earth: I think the sum total of this “story” is that Warriors might want to move up to #4, that the Wolves have inquired about Randolph, and that some preliminary discussions regarding pick-swapping scenarioes have taken place. Which is to say, I’ve probably been getting my undies in a bunch for nothing. I hope.
There will be no extra point!
Come on...
it shouldnt be hard to see why they wouldn’t flip Love for Randolph straight up.
If all Love could do was rebound. If he was blind and deaf and dumb but he could rebound like he does, he would still be worth more, because of how great he rebounds, than AR, as of right now.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions
it shouldnt be hard to see why they wouldn’t flip Love for Randolph straight up.
It’s not. It’s also not hard to come up with reasons why they might consider it: a bit more length, better fit with Jefferson, more potential as a defensive stopper, bigger upside. I personally wouldn’t be that happy with a straight Randolph-for-Love swap, mostly because of the “upside” thing. If we had a legit star or two in place, I would take the safe bet, but on a team mostly devoid of stars, I prefer to try and shoot the moon. I think there are a more than a few people on this site who feel the same way. If this is how we feel, there’s surely a converse argument from the perspective of the Wolves, one of the few teams in the league who with an even sorrier collection of talent than ours.
There will be no extra point!
Love is not part of their sorry collection.
He’s their star. DD machine.
The Wolves would be “shooting for the moon” by trading away their best player for AR. AR is the Warriors version of Donte Green who everybody wants to keep forever and ever for a future that will disappoint our expectations.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Hmm... Randolph is 20!!! Green is 22 and is a poor rebounder with lower TS
They are the same yeah right!
Quite possible. Likely, even. Still, it sounds like you might be a bit unclear on the concept of “shooting the moon.” Have you not played Hearts? If you’re ballsy, smart, and/or lucky, you can shoot the moon.
There will be no extra point!
I've experimented against the computer.
Maybe that’s the best way to continue this scenario…NBA2k or something.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions
I could be an idiot here but
I would take the safe bet, but on a team mostly devoid of stars, I prefer to try and shoot the moon
I struggle with this logic and I to be honest I am not really sure why. I guess it’s one of those things where if Randolph is really as immature as the Warriors or the media (whoever is leaking it) make it sound, then I wouldn’t really want to pin my hopes on that guy. What if he does blow it up on the court putting up something like 18-9 or better yet is a head case off the court? I dunno, I think I would still prefer the guy who is somewhere around 15-10 without all the drama.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
Nope, nope, nope.
Al and Love really like each other. Their friendship and the friendship between Brewer and Gomes are the only two pairings that we Timberwolf fans actually hear about (though hopefully the players like each other in general).
I’m going to take a risk and hope Wes Johnson falls to #6. I wouldn’t include Randolph to Minnesota unless Love was involve.
I like the idea of waiting
I just don’t trade AR….
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia
I’m against a trade up in this draft, all the players have equal bust or bloom potential (except Wall and Turner who are studs).
I just hope Randolph or Wright become a legit force and contributors to winning basketball this year…
by Brothaplease09 on Jun 3, 2010 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Wright is a nice insurance policy for trading AR.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
agreed but lets just hope Brandon Wright can get past the shoulder injury, once that shoulder starts acting up, it usually never gets quite right again. It wouldn’t hurt if Wright showed up with 20 more lbs to his frame as well…
by Brothaplease09 on Jun 3, 2010 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I think people are tending to forget that Wright is also very good with a beautiful hook shot. Let’s just hope Johnson falls to us, which I can see happening.
I'm not as worried as some.
Wade had a similar injury, he came back to be pretty okay.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
You know what would make sense?
Trading Wright and the #6 for the #4 pick.
But the Warriors don’t make sense with their basketball decisions. The management is on their way out, so they want to do one last trade to screw this team up.
yea. Wright is a very similar body build and style of play as AR. Except write has a better BBIQ, a more developed Offensive game and played on some winning teams prior to the pro level. Don’t forget that before he got injured last year, He was apparently considered by far the best player in camp.
by dannyschmanny on Jun 14, 2010 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions
agreed but lets just hope Brandon Wright can get past the shoulder injury
Wright has gone on record as saying that the shoulder injuries are a protest against people who haven’t figured out that his first name is “Brandan”.
by jae on Jun 4, 2010 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I'm not as opposed to trading AR as some of you.
Actually I think it’s bordering on ridiculous as far as his value goes. Although that’s to be expected.
The way I see it, it’s AR for #4. The 6th pick may or may not be the throw in. I don’t know if Minnny does it if Johnson isn’t there at #6. I just don’t think the 6th holds much value at all.
I wouldn’t even do AR for KLove straight up. But I would do AR for #4, basically Cousins.
I just can’t get past the fact that AR still is a spaz on offense. IF only he had bigman skills.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
You would rather have Cousins than Love….? …really?
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions
I think I would too
Cousins will be more hit and miss, but has the potential to be really, and I mean reallllllyyy, good with that big frame of his. Love doesn’t really have the same ceiling, he also doesn’t have as low of a floor, but I would rather take the risk.
Love is already a good player, he’s very young, he’s going to improve substantially. Cousins has yet to show anything in the pros, isn’t a great athlete, and seems like he might have serious “intangible/mental” red flags. I loved what Cousins did at Kentucky. That’s still college basketball. He’s not going #1 for a reason. He’s still a prospect, and one that’s not even a big time can’t miss prospect. Give me Kevin Love without thinking twice. Good player who’s almost a lock to be very good (or even better)? Yes please.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, But I'd rather fill out our roster.
I like the potential balance of a Wright/Cousins/Biedrins frontcourt rather than a Wright/Love/Biedrins front court.
The only reason why I’m willing to part with AR is because we have (hopefully) a healthy Brandan Wright on our hands. He was touted as the better half of the Wright/Randolph duo. Plus I’m really high on DC. A Curry, Cousins, Monta, Wright and Azu lineup looks pretty sweet to me.
Another reason why I like Cousins over AR is that he’s literally 3x his body size, and has actual bigman skills. Something we’ve desperately lacked for decades.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
I like Cousins a lot, too, but the uncertainty factor there is big. He’s not a Shaq-like prospect coming in, I can’t take him over a guy as talented and established as Love.
I like the potential balance of a Wright/Cousins/Biedrins frontcourt rather than a Wright/Love/Biedrins front court.
Curious, care to go into detail?
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm a Wolves fan, and I'd look long and hard at this comparison.
Love is a joy to watch on the boards. Cousins…. hang whatever colored flag you want on the kid, he has a level of skill that is just unreal for someone with his body at his age.
Over on Canishoopus we’ve spent a while poring over the guy’s history. As fans we don’t have first person access to the character stuff, but it starts to look a little like a mirage on the examination we can do about it. Meanwhile, you look back at his High School clips, and Cousins is doing all sorts of stuff faced up back then; his rap coming into college was supposed to be that he hung around the perimeter too much.
Any team taking him on had better do the due diligence, but he’s immensely skilled for 19.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
I think a number of us over here have similar thoughts on Cousins. I’ve been asking people for evidence of his red flags and haven’t really gotten anything of substance back. That said, he’s still a prospect. Guys who have high ceilings, are very young, and already good in the NBA > prospect who hasn’t proven anything.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Cousins' biggest red flag is his lack of athleticism.
I still see Jamaal Magloire when I watch him play.
by Spider Jerusalem on Jun 5, 2010 3:07 AM PDT up reply actions
I just can’t get past the fact that AR still is a spaz on offense. IF only he had bigman skills.
AR’s main move is where he barrels into the defender and the while falling, screams, and throws up a prayer.
AR is a bench player at best. I think if he was going to be a great player he would have shown us something already. Yes he can block shots, but he can’t defend players smaller than him or players bigger than him. I wish we could take part of Curry’s brain and put it in AR’s head, then he’d be better.
There’s no way in hell that Minny would trade #4 straight up for AR, unless this a horrible draft that is 3 deep.
by brewitt on Jun 4, 2010 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
AR is a bench player at best. I think if he was going to be a great player he would have shown us something already.
You mean like blocking shots, the physical potential to be a dominant and versatile defender, rebounding at a high rate, scoring at a high rate, and even creating for teammates a little bit? Yeah, he does all those things already. Bench player at best? That’s absurd.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
He's been a bench player thus far for a reason..
He’s had a chance in practice and in games to show his potential. Maybe he’s a late bloomer I don’t know. He’s young 20 years old fine, point taken. The fact is that he should have spent more time in college polishing his game. Instead he has to do all of the stuff at the NBA level on his own now to improve and reach his potential. This means that it is his responsibility which he probably isn’t even ready for. Maybe he’s a late bloomer, but if he plays like he’s shown us thus far, he’ll provide some energy off the bench.
Further, I don’t buy into the arguments that Nellie was just trying to hold him back. That’s nonsense. I think Nellie didn’t want the kid to destroy himself by losing all self-confidence by failing continuously.
just curious, I didn't see much of AR last year
But what is the definition of failing continuously? That seems a bit strong.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions
My point is simply that some young players need to be treated with “kit gloves”. Don’t get me wrong AR showed signs of athletic greatness. However, if he were to see long durations on the floor then the probability would be that his weaknesses would have been fully exposed. In otherwords, put him on the floor watch him explode then when he starts making dumb mistakes you take him out. AR did some good things and at the same time he did really dumb things on the floor which caused him to get yanked.
He is a young player and like I said in another post, AR is a player that should have spent more time in college to polish his fundamental basketball skills.
I would agree with you if we were a playoff team.
But we’re not. I’m not totally sold on AR and if we could get the 4th pick straight up or Love in a package I would pull the trigger.
The truth is, though, these trades are unlikely and he will most likely be on the team next year. If he is on the team, he needs to play for a couple of reasons.
He needs the experience if he is ever going to get better. I’m not totally for waiting for him for a few more years, but you can’t just keep taking him out of games when he makes mistakes or he won’t learn how to work through them. This is especially true because I doubt we are a playoff team next year with our roster as is. Now, if we start winning a lot and keeping his dumb ass in while he’s making mistakes keeps us from doing that, then of course he needs to come out. But if he’s on the team next year, he needs to play to work some of these things out and so we can better evaluate what we have in AR.
Having said that, I’m open to trading him today, and next year if he increases his value or keeping him for 15 years. Whatever makes us the better team.
Randolph for the 4th pick straight up? …really?
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions
I think you’re really overestimating how valuable the 4th pick straight up is….
by Missing Barry on Jun 7, 2010 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
I won’t speculate what Nellie’s motivates are. Nellie is….well, he’s Nellie, I don’t know how else to put it. He operates in his own world, which sometimes works out great, other times not so much…….
I’m also not sure where you argument is, other than “he’s a bench player because he’s been a bench player”….
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
"he’s a bench player because he’s been a bench player"…
that does sound kind of circular doesn’t it? My point is that if there were genuine reasons why he should be starting he would be starting if the goal is to win a game. Now if the goal is to tank games without regard to losing, then that changes everything.
Ha, yeah, in my opinion the goal should have been to tank. Maybe if we did a better job of that we’d be in position for one of the top 5 guys?
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions
AR is a bench player at best. I think if he was going to be a great player he would have shown us something already.
Is AR great? No. Could he be? Maybe. Is he destined to be a bench player? I don’t think so. He has far too much upside to gauge that right now. Ironically, I think Kevin Love is an ideal example of a bench 4 in the league. He lacks exactly what AR has: the athleticism and size to compete with/defend starting calibre 4s.
Confront racism: Boycott Arizona
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Jun 4, 2010 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I disagree.
I think his defense (though not good) is underrated and is hoops IQ, rebounds, and shooting makes him a starter. Plus he is a very good passer and with the athletic bigs we have now, I think he would be a nice compliment.
i don’t think the IQ is there. They tried making him a starter before he got hurt this year. They just couldn’t keep him on the floor because he got into foul trouble so fast on often, lazy or dumb plays. And in that time frame, didn’t seem to show any forward progress.
by dannyschmanny on Jun 14, 2010 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Kevin Love a bench player? Really? Have you seen how good he already is?
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions
I have. He is very skilled but physically over matched by most 4s.
Confront racism: Boycott Arizona
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Jun 5, 2010 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions
And yet he’s still one of the best rebounders in the NBA and scores points at a high rate at slightly above average efficiency…..
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I can attest from personal experience that physical ability/size can be largely counterbalanced by simply boxing out and knowing which way the ball will bounce, but that doesn’t make up for not being able to contest shots by larger/more athletic players.
Confront racism: Boycott Arizona
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Jun 5, 2010 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions
He will never be effective at defending the rim. I don’t think any of us think he is, either. He is strong, though, and given his basketball IQ and ability to box out/rebound as effectively as he does, he should be a good on ball post defender. Much like rebounding, using your strength to establish position and effectively keep your man from the rim is effective. That’s useful defense. Combine that with him being a legitimately good offensively player already, and a monster rebounder, and I really don’t see any argument that he’s a bench player. He’s a good player. He should be paired with someone that complements his game, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s a legitimate starter.
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions
He's actually pretty good defensively, better than Randolph, anyway.
He’s not the quickest human ever, but he is rarely out of position, rarely stands up when in ISO situations, and uses his wide/strong body to good effect.
Overall, he allows .84 PPP, which is pretty damn good (and only .65 in ISO situations, so his lack of athleticism seems pretty overblown).
By comparison, Randolph allowed .91 PPP overall last season.
by Spider Jerusalem on Jun 5, 2010 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
how did you access these stats?
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Jun 7, 2010 5:50 AM PDT up reply actions
How many different ways do I have to correct you on this?
Randolph fits the bill of a better defender, but in terms of actual production, he’s at best Love’s equal at this point. Randolph does the big things that people notice (blocks, basically). Love does more of the little things that add up to better defensive production (rotation, awareness, post defense, rebounding). The end result is that Love is a better defensive player.
The Warriors and Wolves with both players off the court are equal defensively (112.5 vs 112.4 points allowed per 100 possessions). With Love on the court, the Wolves improved to 112.3. With Randolph on the court, the Warriors got worse, dropping to 113.9. You’ll notice Randolph also hurt Golden State’s offense, whereas Love was the Wolves’ best offensive player.
Obviously, one would hope and expect that Randolph becomes the better defender eventually. But right now, all he is, like most everything else in his game, is unrealized potential.
by John Doe on Jun 5, 2010 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Are those numbers from 2009-2010?
Randolph didn’t play large enough minutes for those numbers to mean anything.
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on Jun 5, 2010 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Assuming the draft goes Wall/Turner
That leaves us with a choice of Cousins and Favors. Is giving up AR worth it for one of these guys, who at this point are just unproven College prospects?
AR has put on bulk, should be healthy, and has another year of growth on him.
At 6 ,someone may fall to us, a better gamble than trading up. Can it be Cousins or Johnson? If not we have a choice in Monroe, Aminu, Udoh, or Patterson. I rather go with the latter.
"I tell him straight, 'If you're going to lead, you have to be the first to practice. You have to come in, get your work down and be prepared for practice,' " assistant coach Keith Smart said. "He needs to figure out why he is having stomach problems and he's got to watch how LeBron (James), Kobe (Bryant) and D-Wade (Dwyane Wade) work. He needs to mimic that if he wants his teammates to speak volumes about him." -Keith Smart on Motna Ellis
by ejdacanay on Jun 3, 2010 9:41 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Not true at all. AR has shown us he is a good player.
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 Jun 3, 2010 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd rather have Randolph than Cousins or Favors.
If the trade doesn’t include the sixth pick, I’m marginally against it.
But Randolph + the 6 to move up two spots to the fourth pick in a two player draft?
Are you freaking kidding me? That’s moronic.
by Ronaldinho on Jun 3, 2010 9:46 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
+1
agreed.
Gotta give Randolph another shot. Third year is make or break, not second year, especially when he had a freak ankle injury.
My icon is a testament to the Dubs ability to play defense.
by JR Repertoire on Jun 3, 2010 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions
I hear 2, 5 player draft thrown around.
I think its a 3 player draft. Cousins, Wall, Turner are the only guys I’d piss myself happy with.
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Jun 4, 2010 2:09 AM PDT up reply actions
+1 I agree it's only a three players draft so trading up to four is not very smart imo
especially if we have to give up maybe our biggest hope for stardome
Favors is going 3rd to NJ
So even if you don’t like him, 4th overall will still get you one of the big 3 you covet.
I'm not sold on either Cousins or Favors
so giving up our biggest hope(but allready tested) for another hope does not cut it for me. But hey that’s just my opinion.
Wes and Favors could both be really good players though...
I bet Wes will be in the allstar debate by his second season.
People have talked about Wall being a franchise guy.
I don’t know if he is or not. Everybody talks about Wall and Turner being no-brainer 1-2 … and then the discussion starts.
Unless people are seriously talking about taking Favors #1, then this is a two player draft.
Yes, there’s another dropoff after 5 Cousins-Favors-Johnson. But it’s a smaller one.
I have the same suspicion that he is overhyped, but I think his floor is an above average PG and his ceiling is d-will territory. Have no clue how likely stardom is but there’s more potential there than Turner and perceived as a slightly safer bet than Cousins (though I expect Cousins to have the better career)
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Jun 7, 2010 5:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Why wouldn't you rather have Favors?
I could see not wanting to gamble on Cousins’ issues but Favors is a LEGIT post player with a LEGIT post player’s body. Just as athletic. Could play alongside Wright more easily…
I mean, I bet he’d only set you back about a year when it comes to waiting for a player to develop. Cause in a year i bet he’d be just as “successful” as AR is right now.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Favors is a LEGIT post player
Other than the whole not being a legit impact player in college, much less the NBA. But yeah, whatever….
Let’s remember guys like Favors are prospects, and frankly, his body of work to this point isn’t overly impressive, and that’s at a much lower level than the NBA.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions
He plays in the post, works on his post game, has body for the post, doesn’t shoot outside 12-15 feet…
But sure if you want to perpetuate nelli-ball then don’t get him.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions
He plays in the post, works on his post game, has body for the post, doesn’t shoot outside 12-15 feet…
So does say, Brendan Haywood. The question is – is he good, not “is he a post player”. I don’t care about system, and I do prefer guys who shoot closer to the rim rather than farther. But talent trumps all. I want good players.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
He’s probably better than Turiaf, but I’d rather have Biedrins/Wright/Randolph than him going forward (I’m hopeful on the health front!)….
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Indeed.
But that’s not the question. It’s not a question of if I’d like to add someone of Haywood’s (or better) ability to the team or not.
It’s a question of if I want to give up Randolph to do it. Or, Randolph and Monroe.
Randolph has question marks – half of which might vanish simply by replacing our coach – but so does Favors.
ALso bear in mind that if Favors is so clearly better than Cousins, then he won’t be that at #4.
Cousins and Favors provide different things for your team. But both will probably be an upgrade.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions
But both will probably be an upgrade.
Over who?
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Uhhhh
Any big of the bottom 5 teams with the exception of Brook Lopez.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh sorry I misread your comment. My bad.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't.
It’s not remotely clear to me that either of them would be better than a healthy Beidrins or a healthy Randolph.
The one area where I would expect them both to be better, over the careers, than Beans and AR is one-on-one defense against larger players … but that’s not a skill that most players have from day one, even if they end up being very good at it.
From day one:
Cousins
Biedrins
Favors
Randolph
Wright.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions
I think you're a little too in love with a college big man who has major question marks about him
He’s not a guy who’s really demonstrated the ability to take over games. Cousins is a not-very-athletic big man who is so much bigger than other college players that its hard to tell how well he’ll do when he’s face by guys who are just as big as he is, but more explosive.
Offensively, Wright was much better in college, although not as much of a rebounder. So how do you see so clearly that Cousins will be that much better than him now?
It’s really really hard to evaluate college big men these days, since those with any skill leave school so quickly. There is a huge amount of uncertainty, which means I think we need to be very cautious about pencilling anyone in as a starter-quality player on day 1.
I don’t think Cousins is a bad athlete personally, he’s decent, just not that explosive. I’d give him an “average” for athleticism by NBA standards.
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions
We'll see
is the only real settler here.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 5, 2010 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions
It'll be interesting to see ...
… and I want to emphasize that I certainly am not claiming that Cousins will never be better than the guys we currently have.
But on day one, as casey suggests … that seems a little optimistic.
If Beans comes back healthy and returns to form, then I would agree with you.
But honestly, I doubt that happens (but I hope to god I’m wrong).
But I think they are far and away better than Randolph. This is of course based on what I’ve read about the two seeing as they haven’t played in the NBA (there is a reason they are going to be picked in the top 5). I agree that they will be raw on day one but I just feel AR is that much more raw than they are. He’s very intriguing but he has done nothing to make me think he has improved his post game on defense or offense.
I do love the rebounds and blocked shots though.
You really think they’re going to be that good? I think you’re really, really, really overhyping these guys. Rookies don’t tend to step in and be really good players, and the ones that do who also have a high ceiling (like Favors and Cousins)…..well, they get picked #1, not top 5.
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Even then.
Rarely, and I mean rarely, do rookies come in and have star-like seasons right away. It hardly ever happens, no matter how good they are.
by Spider Jerusalem on Jun 5, 2010 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I am assuming Beans will be back healthy.
Although if not, that really changes things. But why assume that he won’t be?
I think you’re being pretty harsh on AR. His TS% went up 15 points from his first to second years, and he was playing the best basketball of his career – by far – when he went down with an injury.
Look, for example, at his splits of FG% (I don’t have TS% splits) by month. There is a very clear and dramatic trendline there, and while the sample size is small, it’s not ambiguous. His foul rate was much better in December and January than it was in November, suggesting his defense is improving. Even his turnover rate was clearly trending in the right direction, to say nothing of his passing and blocked shots.
The numbers paint a pretty convincing picture of a young player who was starting to get it before he was sidelined with an injury.
Please don't do it!
Somebody could slip to us at #6, so we won’t have to make a deal. Even if nobody slips, I still say don’t do it. I’d imagine there would be either Love or Jefferson in a deal because it wouldn’t really make sense for the Wolves to have all three. I guess I wouldn’t be too mad if it were Love + 4 for Randolph + 6. Then we would probably take Johnson I am assuming. Curry, Ellis, Johnson, Love, Biedrins with Wright coming off the bench would be pretty good. I still want to see Randolph become a solid player on our team though.
Haha don't you think this deal would be dependent on who doesn't fall to us?
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
Absolutely
I would take Love and the 4th for AR and the 6th. But like someone else already said i dont see MINN doing that.
What would moving up two spots get us?
It’s likely 1, 2, 3 will be Wall, Turner, Favors. We still won’t get one of them. So basically we ensure an option of Cousins or Johnson, either of which might be there at 6. So we give up Randolph to do what? Get a player we have a chance to get already. I don’t think that would really be worth it if we were trading C.J. Watson even. Now if we could get Favors, that would be a different story. If not, I’m fine with the 6th pick.
Is Don Nelson going to Hawaii forever now?
I think a trade would happen only if the player the Warriors want isn’t there at 6. Surely you wait to see what’s available to make your move.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
And we would then trade...
Randolph and the 6th pick for someone at the 4th?
really sound worth it at all?
that’s a solid draft pick for a solid draft pick and a player with a ton of upside
no go
Is Don Nelson going to Hawaii forever now?
Cousins won't slide to sixth.
There are a handful of teams – conspicuously including shrewd teams like Portland and Houston – who’ve expressed a lot of interest in that 4th pick on the grounds that Cousins may be there. (Daryl Morey, for example, has been scratching around looking for implausible ways to get #4 or #5 if it comes to that; Cousins is his kind of numbers, if you know what I mean.)
Either Minnesota or Sacramento is going to draft him and trade for assets in return rather than just letting him slide to 6th.
Wes Johnson, on the other hand, is pretty plausible. ‘Cause that’s what you need: perimeter shooting and finishing in transition.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
that’s what you need: perimeter shooting and finishing in transition.
Actually, we have that in abundance. Problem is, it’s concentrated at the 1,2,4 and 5 spots. Buike, Morrow, and ReggieFTW can all play a bit of 3, but they’re all undersized there. What we lack is a legit full-sized NBA SF who can shoot from the perimeter and finish, handle a little, and is long and athletic enough to guard the Durants and Melos of the world.
Of course, what we really lack is a big time NBA star, but in the absence of that, Wes Johnson does seem like a really nice fit here.
There will be no extra point!
That would be my point.
Actually, we have that in abundance.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
ReggieFTW
I’ll call him that when he makes his first game winner. For now it’s still our friendly neighborhood ReggieWTF.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
So let them trade for him.
We don’t really want or need cousins anyway, do we? :S
Is Don Nelson going to Hawaii forever now?
Kevin Martin, Cousins, healthy Yao – that is a team I want to watch. If Morey is drooling over him I feel very reassured of my Cousins crush.
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Jun 7, 2010 6:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Some dude on ESPN.com made this comment. No idea if he's telling the truth or not, but it makes sense.
Minniesota6: “Heard from my buddy that works in the Wolves’ front office and he said the only way the deal happens is if Golden State is able to select Wes Johnson.”
by duballers23 on Jun 3, 2010 10:15 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
So wait, if we draft Wes Johnson at 6, we’re going to trade Randolph for the 4th pick? Getting a bit confused here.
It'd happen on draft night, after the two picks go down.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
According to Rusty Simmons....
Warriors would take Wesley Johnson #3 if they had option. Rate him 3rd best player in draft.
What is "well documented"?
Rusty Simmons can see the future of the NBA?
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions
He means that it’s been reported that the Warriors rate Johnson the #3 talent in the draft. Whether that’s a reasonable assessment is a separate question.
There will be no extra point!
Oh i see.
Yeah sounds like a smokescreen then.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions
The logic is pretty strong
Considering the team will be sold, Nelson/Riley are in a ‘win now’ mode. They think Johnson gives them best opportunity for next year.
Cousins is also the anti-nellie player.
Also when you have Wright and Randolph the need for Favors isn’t high. Granted I would’nt pass on him, but you follow.
That's terrible.
I will be so angry if we pass on Cousins, and/or Favors for Wes Johnson. Stupid move. Hurry Larry buy the team before the screw us – again.
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 Jun 4, 2010 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions
What is our big board? Did he say?
1. Wall
2. ET
3. Wes
4. Cuz?
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia
If this is true
Bye bye AR, cause he will be there at 4.
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia
This is all speculation at this point
so not worth talking about. The only thing I will say is that trading Randolph to move up two slots will never happen, that is pure insanity. I know that this is a nice time filler in the off season, and most of the ideas are just silly but even the Warriors management is not stupid enough to move up two spots for any of these guys.
I've been reading through Mock Drafts and Actual Drafts from past years
Things never go according to plan. Remember Rubio was a LOCK for number 2 last year for a long time. People slip all the time….giving up Randolph to draft where we were SUPPOSED to go in the first place just sounds bad to me.
My icon is a testament to the Dubs ability to play defense.
Agreed. I damn near pissed myself thinking Rubio could fall past the Wolves to us.
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Jun 7, 2010 6:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Rec'd Atma
this part:
*
I can appreciate that the Warriors are not fixated on Anthony Randolph. Don’t get me wrong I can appreciate Randolph’s per 36 numbers and all that jazz, but the fact remains that he simply hasn’t played much winning basketball. He has never played on a winning team in the pro’s (not entirely his fault of course) or college or even high school. Randolph has an immense amount of physical talent and god given ability, but more often than not he plays basketball like a chicken with his head cut off. You know it’s bad when a low hoops IQ player like Monta Ellis is yelling at you because you’re not executing properly.
Could not agree with anymore. Look he’s got potential to be a good player, but anyone who thinks he’ll be a star is really delusional. I’ve seen young Kevin Garnett, Amare, Gasol etc. etc. heck young Rasheed… And Randolph’s nowhere near those players.
He’s just athletic which gets him some dunks, blocks and rebounds. Useful enough but not an impossible commodity to find.
anyone who thinks he’ll be a star is really delusional.
Anyone who thinks they can predict with absolute certainty one way or the other is even more delusional.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 3, 2010 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions
I absolutely predicted Mike Dunleavey's flop in 2002
I’m on a hot streak.
In all seriousness, i think his perceived value is higher than his actual value
Perceived value....
….who values AR outside of the Bay?
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 4, 2010 6:23 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Do you have any knowledge of how well- or ill-regarded he is among NBA GMs, or are you just trying to stir up stuff?
There will be no extra point!
Hes probably right though
Every team has a player like AR with tons of potential who they are excited about. I think we value him much more than team GM’s do.
Except our young player has given us legitimate reasons to value him that highly. Other fanbases get excited about players like Jason Thompson.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions
If there was a rumor that the Kings could move up 2 spots just by including Thompson in the deal
I would be pretty okay with that
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
Ha, sorry to rip on you guys, it was just convenient. ;)
(But Randolph is a much better piece to have than Thompson!)
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
jerk :)
Thompson is all kinds of frustrating. And the advanced stats that Ziller put up on his were all kinds of confusing because I swore his defense was worse than the stats suggest. I keep telling myself “it’s okay, once Nene learned to stop fouling he became a really good player” but I might just be torturing myself. At least he is likeable I suppose.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Hey, I’d much rather see the Warriors and Kings battling it out for the WCF than anything involving the Lakers….so let’s hope both Randolph and Thompson take big steps forward?
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Hey, I’d much rather see the Warriors and Kings battling it out for the WCF than anything involving the Lakers
Agreed but we only think that way because it’s been a long long time (maybe not really ever) since the Sacramento Kings and Warriors were really competitive at the same time. Once that happens (if ever) then it could one day be a rivalry too.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
True, but as long as you don’t have Kobe Bryant on your team, I’ll despise you less than the Lakers!
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Do you have any knowledge that AR is widely coveted?
No.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
Maybe we should adjust our stats to per36 years of age? -- ElRonToro
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
He's their Donte Green Pook.
So you know how they feel.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I know how you love to troll, but they’re really not remotely similar players.
There will be no extra point!
No they arent.
Didn’t say they are.
They’re EXACTLY similar with how the fans feel about them though.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Meh. Not any more “exact” than comparing Randolph to Blake Griffin, or Ricky Rubio, or Greg Oden, or Derrick Rose, or Jason Thompson, or Tyreke Evans, or any other talented kid with upside.
Seriously, what’s the point in comparing Randolph to a guy with a career 13.1 pts / 4.9 boards / 1.0 block per 36 minutes, other than trying to get a rise out of people?
There will be no extra point!
no it's not the player he is saying is similar
It’s the fan’s view of them. A lot of Kings fans compare Green to Rashard Lewis like you guys compare AR to Bosh.
A better way to think about it is that, whenever anyone says anything about trading Greene people will say “No, we can’t have another Gerald Wallace situation where we trade a young prospect and he kills it for another team!” This is what caseycheesecake is referring to.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
Yeah Rashard Lewis really is killing his team with his 120 mil. $ payroll
and his absymal performance.
it's kind of funny I just made a gerald wallace/Rashard Lewis reference in the same comment
Given they both signed contracts at the same time that were completely wacky in that one was pretty pricey and the other was pretty affortable
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
+1
Stop killing the guy. His point is Kings fans believe Donte Greene can be an elite SF the say Warriors fans believe about Randolph @ PF. Both have shown glimpes but ultimately largely inconsistent.
For what it’s worth I 100% see what he is saying. I’ve seen Greene be a lights out defender, and frustrate teams defensively with his length and lateral quickness. I’ve seen him get weakside blocks like Lebron, while manning the other teams best wing. I’ve seen him shoot great from outside. (I’ve also seen him go 1-6 with an 0 for 4 from outside and get lazy on defense).
I’ve also seen Randolph do comparable things for a PF
Not killing him, just pointing out that the comparison is a silly one, or at least no more apt that comparing Randolph to any other young talented kid with a ton of upside. Anecdotes aside, Randolph’s actual NBA production is at a completely different level from Greene’s. It’s just as reasonable to compare Randolph to Derrick Rose — another kid withe solid-but-unspectacular numbers whose current rating among fans and observers includes a fair bit of “friendly projection” based largely on his elite physical tools.
Sorry, tafkasam: I’m usually a pretty good judge of when someone is looking for a reasonable discussion and when one is shamelesly trolling. Casey has proven himself amply capable of the latter in the past (for one thing, he’s never owned up to some outrageously homophobic comments he made here a few weeks ago). When a KIngs fan comes in a thread like this and writes, to a fellow Kings fan, “he’s their Donte Green,” it doesn’t take a genius to see what he’s up to.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 4, 2010 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Anecdotes aside, Randolph’s actual NBA production is at a completely different level from Greene’s
Not what he was saying
When a KIngs fan comes in a thread like this and writes, to a fellow Kings fan, "he’s their Donte Green," it doesn’t take a genius to see what he’s up to.
If you really want to know, Pookey is high on Donte and doesn’t like AR much and caseycheeseycake isn’t nearly as high on Donte as Pookey is. If anything he was needling Pookey a bit too. He wasn’t trying to start anything
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Sleepy just doesnt like me cause i called him a "stat-whore" a while back.
Also i said he looks for ways to be offended.
How somebody can read “he’s their Donte Green” and get offended is remarkable.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
yeah but at the same time
If he doesn’t really know you very well and you throw out the “stat-whore” line, don’t be surprised if he doesn’t give you the benefit of the doubt all that often.
(Apparantly I like to argue everything)
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Sleepy just doesnt like me cause i called him a “stat-whore” a while back.
Haha. I honestly don’t remember it. I seem to remember having more of an issue with your showing up on the board and making a bunch of gross generalizations about people you don’t know.
Also i said he looks for ways to be offended.
Sure. Until you can explain why you used the word “gay” as an insult, and then continued to justify it / evade it when you were called out, I’m going to assume you’re a homophobe. And yeah, sorry, I do find homophobia offensive, same as racism or any other form of bigotry.
How somebody can read "he’s their Donte Green" and get offended is remarkable.
Meh, I’m not really offended by it. I’ve just seen enough of your shenanigans to know what you’re up to.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 4, 2010 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
BTW
To paraphrase what i said that offended you so hard: “Isn’t it GAY that we [got screwed by the lottery].”
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Which is an inappropriate thing to say, and you didn’t really respond when called out on it….
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I dunno, maybe acknowledge your mistake, apologize, promise it won’t happen again in the future? Not telling you what you have to do, just suggesting things that would reflect better on you as a person….
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Really?
Would it have been more “appropriate” to say:
We sure got screwed by the lottery?
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions
…really? Because in that case, you’re not using the word “gay” in an offensive way.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
If you’re offended by that, I don’t see why you wouldnt be offended by saying the Lottery took us out to a nice seafood dinner, had sex with us, and never replied to our texts until we caught it freak dancing at the club with a new guy two weeks later.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions
…
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 Jun 4, 2010 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I missed that, but yeah ...
Completely inappropriate to use gay in that manner.
I know lots of kids do it these days. Doesn’t make it ok.
I know lots of kids do it these days. Doesn’t make it ok.
Yeah it does. Language is constantly evolving, gay once meant happy, then homosexual, so why can’t it now mean lame? The kids will decide what it will be in the end so you are wasting your time worrying about it. Ask Cartman if you don’t believe me :>)
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 4, 2010 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions
So would you be cool with someone saying “that’s so Mexican” [or other ethnicity of your choice] to mean lame?
I mean, using “gay” in that way doesn’t hurt my ears the way some other slurs do, but it’s still a slur. If you wouldn’t say it around someone you knew were gay, why would you say it on a public board?
There will be no extra point!
So would you be cool with someone saying "that’s so Mexican" [or other ethnicity of your choice] to mean lame?
But Mexican is a nationality while gay is just a free roaming adjective. However I could see mexican being used someday to mean tenacious, adaptive, inspiring, etc. much like rap has redefined the N word to be a symbol of respect.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 4, 2010 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions
My bad
should i have referenced, instead of Donte Green (a personal reference that i, personally, can relate to how you feel personally), perhaps the other 1,938 young kids in the NBA that are loaded with potential?
So silly of me.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Sleepy’s point doesn’t change, though – Randolph already does more on the court than almost every single one of those players. It’s not just about him being young and athletic, the kid does stuff on the court that’s a very good sign for his future.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Uh…you’re saying AR does more on the court than almost every other “young kid with potential”?
I hope you’re not saying that…
Also, why are we talking about this? I was talking about how fans viewed and felt these players within their respective organizations.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Yep, he rebounds, he scores, he blocks shots, he even gets some assists (not great, but not bad, either). I guess the point is of course fans get overly excited about their own young prospects who they have yet to see their faults, but I think we have good justification to get excited about ours. Our excitement isn’t just based on the bright amber glow of prospecthood. Randolph does good things when he plays, too, in addition to all his “potential”.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
*sigh*
Shall i start over? You seem to be a little dense. Unfortunately for you, this might even become more confusing…
Based on what the Golden State Warriors fans have seen regarding Anthony Randolph, I believe that the way they see him and feel about him is the same as the way the Sacramento Kings fans see and feel about their player, Donte Greene, based on what the Sacramento Kings fans have seen and how they feel about his play. Sacramento Kings fans feel Donte Greene can be a star, but other teams probably don’t feel the same to the extent that the Sacramento Kings fans feel. Similarly, the Golden State Warriors fans feel Anthony Randolph can be a star, but other teams probably don’t feel the same to the extent that the Golden State Warriors fans feel.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Except by looking at Randolph’s stats compared to Greene, there isn’t much of a similarity. I never heard any team interested in Donte Greene….
Are you trying to argue with a Kings fan about how Kings fans feel?
Really?
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions
You dont need to.
It doesn’t matter what player i compare as long as I’m comparing how the fans feel about them.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
A term I use: Emotional Doppler effect.
One’s perspective changes one’s perception of a player/wave. For example,
When a player’s on your team his future’s approaching, and one perceives those ‘waves’ in one way. The race car is approaching.
When he leaves your team his future’s going away; you hear the ‘sound waves’ differently. The car has passed you, and is speeding away.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
by feral on Jun 4, 2010 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I completely 100% understand that. I summed that up succintly with my “bright amber glow of prospecthood” statement. Is it really necessary to call me dense, especially when I understand what you’re saying? What YOU aren’t getting is that Randolph’s stats are good, and Greene’s are not. We have more actual reality based evidence to back our hopes for Randolph than you have for your hopes with Greene. That’s the point. You’re talking about young players with potential, but our young player with potential is better than Donte Greene, or the 1,938 other young players with potential. Our young player with potential actuallys plays well We have real reasons to be excited about his future. There are real reasons we, and other franchises, should place a high value on Randolph.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions
So....
I better go back over to STR and tell them to change how they feel about Donte. BRB.
Oh I’m back. They said they still feel like he can be a star. Just like you feel AR can be a star.
…What now?
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions
well if that's the case he has made it for you several times now
but you keep making him repeat it. Might want to let it be.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
You're missing his
are you stupid or just being obtuse?
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on Jun 4, 2010 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions
What’s your point? That you’re excited about Greene, and we’re excited about Randolph? Ok…..so?
My point is we might feel the same way, but our guy is a whole lot better than your guy. That’s not a ‘feeling", that’s something that can be strongly, strongly supported by objective evidence.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
So I just went over to StR and found out that Kings fans feel Tyreke Evans can be a star.
Is there any particular reason you chose Greene rather than Evans to make your comparison? Can we start calling Randolph “our Tyreke Evans”?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 4, 2010 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
If we're going down this road
I just hope nobody throws Curry into this madness.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Haha. Donte Greene is the Kings’ Steph Curry!
Or something…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 4, 2010 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
I may need a Venn diagram to make sense of all this…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 4, 2010 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
It's just like watching the movie Primer
(about 10 people across the internet got that joke)
To be fair, I get where caseycheesecakes is coming from at least with his initial comment, I just wouldn’t have pushed it so far. Not trying to throw the guy under the bus.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Here's a story: It's called A Simple Story
Dedicated to Pookie (the man i was originally talking to about this)
A man walked into a bar and sat next to Sleepy. He says “hey how do you feel about AR?” Sleepy says “he could be a star”.
Then he looks to the right and says to [random king fan] “how do you feel about Donte?” [RKF] says “he could be a star”.
The man thinks to himself, “that is similar.”
The End.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Let me fix your story a little bit
A man walked into a bar and sat next to Sleepy. He says "hey how do you feel about AR?" Sleepy says "he could be a star".
Then he looks to the right and says to [random king fan] "how do you feel about Donte?" [RKF] says "he could be a star".
Then the man goes up to a basketball analyst asks, “Who is better Dante Greene, or Anthony Randolph?” The basketball analyst replies, “Whose Donte Greene?”
We get the point you’re trying to make; Warrior fans think Randolph will be a star while Kings fans think Greene will be a star. That’s nice, but as MB pointed out, Randolph is much better than Greene whether you think Greene will be a star or not.
I’m not comparing players. I’m comparing fans.
is this a hard concept?
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Haha, sounds good. One minor edit: we replace “Donte” with “Tyreke,” the moral of the story doesn’t change, and everyone’s happy. ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 4, 2010 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Why not? Is the moral of the parable any different if you replace the name “Greene” with “Evans”? If so, why?
There will be no extra point!
ug
Yeah sorry I didn’t click the “up” button. Thought you were referring to the second parable which is right above your comment. You might want to make that distinction.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
OK, here you go.
A man walks into a bar and sits next to Sleepy. He says, “Hey how do you feel about Randolph?" Sleepy says, "He could be a star.”
Then he looks to the right and says to [random King fan] "How do you feel about Evans?" [RKF] says, "He could be a star."
The man thinks to himself, "That is similar."
The End.
There will be no extra point!
No Sleepy, you still don't get it
Because a few Kings fans think Donte Green is destined for stardom, it totally invalidates how Warriors fans feel about Anthony Randolph.
Maybe some reading will help:
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 4, 2010 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Sacramento Kings fans feel Donte Greene can be a star, but other teams probably don’t feel the same to the extent that the Sacramento Kings fans feel.
It’s one big game, what team a player is on should not affect the way we see them. If you can’t look at other teams players with the same eye as your own teams players you are too whipped by your team.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 4, 2010 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions
I actually think he would agree with you on that
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
what team a player is on should not affect the way we see them
Realistically, it does, in every case. As hard as we try, we just aren’t wired to be objective. The best we can do is to look at the objective evidence and apply it in a standard way across players….
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Trust me
Caseycheesecake is not saying Donte is as good as AR.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
the fact people are jumping on you technically
shows that it’s very similar to how Kings fans hype Greene. So congrats on proving a point I suppose.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
It's really more of a justification for those feelings
You’re comparing a player that virtually all Warriors fans are very excited about to a player that some Kings fans are excited about and saying “See, both fan bases are excited about these guys who are young, so the two players must be similar.”
It’s a completely overly simplistic read on the situation, and you’re using it as an excuse to compare two players who produce at vastly different rates on a Warriors fan site. You’re deliberately stirring the pot using a silly oversimplified comparison. Let’s try this one:
Anthony Randolph, like LeBron James, has galvanized his fan base into thinking he can lead their team to a championship… only he has fallen short thus far.
See how that statement was true? See how I compared two players who are not remotely similar in quality based on a silly oversimplified comparison? See how moronic my statement was? Can you please try to phrase a comment or argument in a fashion that makes sense instead of things like:
Tyreke Evans is like Marco Belinelli, Kings fans love Evans just a little too much, just like Warriors fans loved Belinelli too much in 2008.
True? Yes. Comparing similar players? Not at all. A useful comment? Not remotely.
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 4, 2010 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
you sure this one was meant for me or caseycheesecake?
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
Meh
I find its usually easier to read when you make a comment in line with a discussion as opposed to having other people come along and make comments between your point and the one you’re responding to.
Besides, this
the fact people are jumping on you technically
shows that it’s very similar to how Kings fans hype Greene. So congrats on proving a point I suppose.
is pretty much you agreeing with his stupid point… so it’s to both of you, so there :-P. So, how bout it:
Tyreke Evans is like Marco Belinelli, Kings fans love Evans just a little too much, just like Warriors fans loved Belinelli too much in 2008.
Am I right, or what?
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 4, 2010 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions
And...
Do you think I should head over to StR and see what kind of response I get?
By the way, whenever I see StR, I keep thinking that stands for Shoot the Rock for some reason…
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 4, 2010 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions
So congrats on proving a point I suppose.
Why would I add the words “I suppose” on there? I understand if it’s hard to read sarcasm but anyone who was in here when we were having this conversation would know I was trying to get him to stop pushing his comparison. You can see from the comments that I tried to make sure and get across what cheeseycake was saying and then tell him to stop and that it was understandable that people might not give him the benefit of the doubt.
I understand it was overly simplistic I never argued i t wasn’t. I was not stirring the pot and I don’t really appreciate you ripping on StR as “stands for Shoot the Rock for some reason…”
Did I say anything bad about GSoM? Was I really stirring the pot?
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
and I might be overly sensitive as well
I honestly had no idea what “Shoot the Rock” was for. Apparantly I thought it was an insult.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
Basically don't tell me I am deliberately stirring the pot
Trust me, if I were to have introduced a Greene/AR comparison I would have backed away early on that and not been pushing it. I wouldn’t even do it to begin with because I understand how that would get people here defensive. I was trying to get him to drop it. I didn’t try to push any agenda, I don’t hate the Warriors and heck, I don’t think Donte Greene is as good as AR in the first place.
I don’t lie and I don’t try to stir stuff up for the sake of pissing off fans of a different team. I just like talking Kings and Warriors. Yes I consider myself a Kings fan, they are my favorite team so they get that distinction. I don’t get my kicks trying to talk trash about how one player is better than the other.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
And just to make it clear about the AR/Greene comparison
I am only going to explain it once. Pookey made the comment about nobody perceiving AR to have value outside of the bay. Cheesey then brought up “He’s there Donte Greene.”
Now I personally thought this was funny. Why? Over at StR I have personally struggled talking about Donte Green. Every time I talk about the possibility of the team trading him I get a lot of heat and people keep telling me how he has the potential to be a star and we “can’t have another Gerald Wallace” situation. Pookey is a very staunch supporter of Greene (he’s not a Kings fanboy, he just has very strong opinions on things. I might not agree with him on this one issue but it doesn’t really matter). Pookey has been pretty open about his support of Donte.
So when Pookey says the whole “who values AR outside of the Bay Area” line and caseycheese cake says he “he is their Donte Green Pook you know how they feel” I thought it was funny because it was a silly little swipe at Pookey. As in, Pookey jokes about AR having no value yet he has his Donte Green obsession. Sorry I actually so it as more of a “you claim AR is overrated in the Bay Area? What about you and everyone else with Donte?” type line.
So yeah I didn’t decide to rail against the guy for that line and I tried to offer a short explanation of that background for people. At the same time, I can understand people taking offense to it, particularly with caseycheesecakes record here and I even mentioned that to him. When he kept pushing the comparison over and over again, I tried to tell him to chill out.
I didn’t create any other comparisons, I didn’t do anything that would have deliberatly stirred the pot. If you looked at my comments I think it’s safe to say I was being pretty frickin reasonable and nice about the whole thing. And now I get called out? What was I suppose to yell at the guy and crack jokes about living in Sacramento?
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
Error -- Sorry I suck at typing today
“Sorry I actually thought was more of a "you claim AR is overrated in the Bay Area? What about you and everyone else with Donte?" type line.”
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
and while you're looking over all the comments
please note the time on each one. I think it’s pretty darn clear I wasn’t “deliberately stirring the pot.”
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
I didnt say the players must be similar.
No it wasnt a useful comment…i was only talking to Pookie about the way you view AR. Then you guys got all crazy homerfied rageoid on me.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Because you said something stupid
and continually insisted that it was valid.
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on Jun 4, 2010 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Anthony Randolph, like LeBron James, has galvanized his fan base into thinking he can lead their team to a championship…
Haha, I must have missed that memo.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 4, 2010 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Casey is only partially right
Yes, fans tend to fall in love with their team’s players, and often inflate their value. Morrow, Buike, Williams are all guys that in the back of our minds, we think (or have once thought) have the potential to be special in some way. (Of course, fans also have the ability to quickly forget the positives they saw only a year ago, but that’s another issue.)
Now, the reason Casey’s point is faulty, and caused people to get mad, is because Randolph’s case IS different. WHY? Because it’s not only Warrior fans that see the boundless potential. The King’s infatuation with a player like Greene may be comparable to the Warrior’s infatuation with a player like Morrow and maybe even Wright, but it means something when people from outside the franchise recognize your player as special. Friends that are fans of other franchises often talk about Randolph and how he needs to be coached by a real coach to become a star. Bill Simmons even has often called for Randolph to be traded only to get him more minutes, because he sees Randolph as being special and one of the most entertaining players in the league. Donte, unfortunately for Kings fans, draws nowhere near that kind of attention from outside his own team fan base.
So yes, while we both inflate the value of some of our players, Randolph’s current value is actually pretty justifiable.
Bill Simmons even has often called for Randolph to be traded only to get him more minutes, because he sees Randolph as being special and one of the most entertaining players in the league.
While I agree that the national attention is what separates Randolph from the rest of the “Hey guys, I think young player X on our team is really awesome” type players, and I respect Simmons’ basketball knowledge, please don’t reference Simmons as an expert opinion on these things. He’s not an expert. He has some interesting takes, and can be a good second or third reference to back up a primary reference (you know, like the US National Team selection committe), but it’s worthless to use his “hey this guy is fun to watch” rankings as evidence that Randolph is a good basketball player.
When is TSG going to jump the shark, already?
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 4, 2010 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Sorry...
pet peeve of mine.
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 4, 2010 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Mine too, simply because I can’t stand Simmons!
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Fair enough.
My intention was to argue that people from outside the team and its fans talk highly about Randolph, but by using Bill Simmons as the only source, I didn’t do a good job of it. The article you posted does a better job of making the point.
Look he’s got potential to be a good player, but anyone who thinks he’ll be a star is really delusional. I’ve seen young Kevin Garnett, Amare, Gasol etc. etc. heck young Rasheed… And Randolph’s nowhere near those players.
I think you should go back again and check the stats of what Randolph has done compared to what they did (throw guys like Bosh in there, too) at a comparable age. You might be surprised by how well Randolph compares.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Useful enough but not an impossible commodity to find.
Yeah. Because the league is full of guys who rebound a his rate.
I think you’re being unfair with the KG comparisons. KG is one of the top 25 players in the history of the league. Randolph could not be as good as KG and be a really great player.
Secondly, there are things which Randolph does better than KG did a similar point in their caeers – such as rebounding. And as a third-year player, KG was not a dominant defensive force. It wasn’t until his fifth season that he really became “KG.” He was too skinny to be an effective man-up defender his first couple of years.
Of course, he also didn’t have Randolph’s teachability issues. And even if Randolph were better as a second-year-guy, I don’t think that means very much because KG became KG because he just kept getting better and better.
But I do think there’s no way you can realistically look at KG’s first two seasons and confidently say, “This guy is going to be the centerpiece of a championship team, and could be the best PF in the game for much of his career.” Hindsight is 20-20. Those first few seasons, McDyess and Rasheed were looking like the guy you wish you had taken in the 1995 draft.
If we move to 4 we are taking Wesley Johnson
I almost 100% garentee it. And that’s ok, but only if a big comes @ #6.
If we move to 4 we are taking Wesley Johnson,And that’s ok, but only if a big comes @ #6.
But that would be trading Rudolf, a guy with high potential for Johnson, a guy with journeyman potential? Would make more sense to use the 4th to pick favors or BigCuz then get johnson with the 6th if they think they have to have him. But do we really wanna have Rudolf come back as a star to haunt us?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 3, 2010 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions
I think Johnson has more than journeyman potential.
I’d agree on taking Cousins 4th but i think if minnesota passes on him, sac will too. Just a hunch.
As the Kings fans say...
They say Petrie will go BPA. If Cousins falls, he’ll have to have totally bombed team by team interviews and struggled against inferior competition in workouts. It could happen, but what do you think the odds of Cousins getting the business from Monroe, Aldrich, Udoh, Davis…
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
Right, but couldn't BPA be Aminu
I don’t want to read in too much, but he’s getting Tyreke type comparisons as a draft climber. On raw potential, he could easily be an elite wing
I hope so.
Then we wouldn’t have to make a trade imo.
I drool for Curry/AR/Cousins
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
The only way this should even be considered is
if Kevin Love is also involved, or if a future 1st of some sort is also involved. Or if it’s a draft day trade where we know for certain that Derrick Favors will be available.
Lots of love here for Randolph
Hope he reads this!
But, in all seriousness, if we can get favors or cousins, we should do whatever it takes. These guys dominated in college and have far more potential than AR. AR is a tremendous athlete – especially for his height – but he’s not a great basketball player. Favors and Cousins are.
We’re a ways away from being a playoff team, but guys like favors or cousins with curry running the show is going to get us there faster than ar.
Of course, if we make no trade – then hopefully I am totally wrong.
by tjmax on Jun 3, 2010 10:56 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I like your style.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
I still don’t get the Favors love. Roughly 12 and 8 in 27 minutes is dominating?
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Jun 4, 2010 2:20 AM PDT up reply actions
the love is due to two things
1) potential – guys already has the body to be a force in the league and is on; going to fill out more:
from DX: “Derrick Favors’ measurements (6-8 ¾ without shoes, 7-4 wingspan, 9-2 standing reach) are excellent as well, giving him enough size and length to slide into the center position (once he bulks up) and giving him terrific dimensions for a power forward. As the youngest player in the draft, Favors needs to continue to add bulk to his 245-pound frame, but that doesn’t appear to be an issue at all. As time moves on, he will continue to fill out and add muscle in the weight room”. – 245 lb frame but still needs to add bulk? wow. AR, if we are really lucky, will max out at 240. Favors’ measurements are similar to Dwight Howard when he was at combine. I doubt he’ll hit the weights like Dwight did, but even if he gets up to 250-255 he’ll be a force. Dwight is 265.
2) skills – you can go to DX to read the strengths – but a couple standouts include stuff we need: efficiency, defensive fundamentals, excellent rebounder, freakish athleticism.
Other than Wall, and maybe including Wall, I think Favors will be the best player in the draft when all is said and done. I’d give up the ranch for him.
I think Favors will be the best player in the draft when all is said and done. I’d give up the ranch for him.
I’ll just point out that it doesn’t seem anyone else shares your sentiment….
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions
I really really wish the Kings could get him
but I understand where you are coming from too
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
maybe we've read different things
But some of what I have read says that Turner will be very good, maybe great, similar to brandon roy (who I’d call very good). They also say he does everything real well, a great all around player. This suggests he may have a great career – maybe make an all star team some day.
Cousins evaluations are all over the map. But he is rated in most mock drafts as lower than Favors – for whatever that is worth.
Wall is everyone’s consensus #1 for good reason. But if he is the next Derrick Rose, and I think he might be better, is he going to be the best player out of this draft?
Now, Favors, on the other hand – has been compared to Stoudamire, Dwight Howard, a young Antonio McDyess, etc. I don’t know if that is true, but the size and tools are all there. A great big man > a great pg in this game.
A great big man > a great pg in this game.
Definitely, and that’s one of my hesittations. If Favors (or Cousins) were really great prospects, they’d be taken over Wall/Turner in a heartbeat. Big men are more valuable, and teams pick them high in the draft for that exact reason – hitting on a big man is huge for your franchise.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
favors is moving up
I’ve seen in some places that he might be the second pick over turner.
Especially if Philly wants to stick with Iggy.
If he does indeed move up (or even gets real consideration), I’ll move a little closer to your side of this discussion….
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
ok - i need to get back to work
thanks for the discussion – no matter what happens on the 24th, the future looks bright for the dubs!
I’m actually pretty optimistic for us, I think we have a decent group of talent right now, we just need some health and hope that at least one or two of our young guys really develop….
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Possibly, but if they’re a concern when drafting him, they’d have to be a concern when trading for him….right? Unless we pay the Wolves a little bit now for the right to swap Randolph and Cousins two years down the road when we know more about Cousins and how he develops……iBanking!
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions
If Favors (or Cousins) were really great prospects, they’d be taken over Wall/Turner in a heartbeat. Big men are more valuable, and teams pick them high in the draft for that exact reason – hitting on a big man is huge for your franchise.
Great point. Probably the best I’ve read in the entire thread.
They are great prospects.
Wall is being called the best prospect since Lebron and C Paul by some, so its unfair to say that if they were “great prospects they’d be taken over Wall/Turner.” And Turner won the POY and is being compared to Roy. And either of Cousins or Favors still could go 2nd though it seems unlikely now.
The funny thing is that a lot of people are talking about this not being a great year for the #1 pick.
So you have a combination of Cousins not being a top-two pick, and a lot of people saying that top pick might not even be all that this year.
I don't think that's what they mean.
It’s not great because Wall doesn’t seem to be a LeBron type talent. And Cousins is one of the reasons people would say having the #1 pick isn’t as important because DeMarcus could potentially be better than Wall.
I’d compare this draft to 2005 – A #1 who people really liked but who people thought might not end up as the best player in the draft (Bogut), a consensus #2 who might didn’t fit a team need (Marvin Williams), a debate at 3 & 4 (Deron, CP3), a “safe” pick at #5 (Felton), and then a drop with players who could go anywhere from 6 to 18 and then some potential sleepers after that.
The big difference is that the consensus #2 is a better known commodity like CP3/Deron while 3 and 4 are the wild card like Marvin.
Will Utah and Indiana go whiter? @ www.soulhonky.com
If Favors (or Cousins) were really great prospects, they’d be taken over Wall/Turner in a heartbeat.
Over Turner sure but not over Wall. John Wall is clearly a top prospect. But Cousins should be #2 based on his size and skill set.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 4, 2010 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Favors dominated in college? On what planet? Randolph puts up better stats in the NBA than Favors does in college. Cousins may have serious mental/intangible red flags, and isn’t the greatest athlete. These guys are prospects, remember that. They haven’t shown they can do things they did (or in Favors case, didn’t even do!) against lesser competition in the NBA. Randolph has. Throw in just how young and athletic Randolph is, and I think you’re really, really, really overvaluing prospects. If Cousins/Favors were really that good, they’d be considered for the #1 pick. Big men are more valuable than wings. Yet there are two wings who are better prospects than them….
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Based on history. Seems to be role players, late first round picks, or second round picks.
Here’s the history:
2000:
The Bulls sent the #7 pick (Chris Mihm) to the Cavs for the #8 pick (Jamal Crawford) and cash.
The Rockets sent the #9 pick (Pryzbilla) to Milwaukee for Jason Collier and a future 1st.
The Magic sent the #10 pick (Keyon Dooling), plus Corey Maggette and Derek Strong to the Clippers for a future 1st and cash.
2001:
Clippers sent the #2 pick (Tyson Chandler) + Derrick Skinner to the Bulls for Elton Brand.
Hawks sent the #3 pick (Pau Gasol) to the Grizzlies for Shareef Abdul-Rahim.
Nets sent the #7 pick (Eddie Griffin) to the Rockets for Brandon Armstrong, Jason Collins, and Richard Jefferson.
2002:
Knicks sents #7 pick (Nene), Marcus Camby, and Marc Jackson to Denver for Antonio McDyess, Frank Williams, and a 2nd round pick.
2003: None.
2004:
Clippers sent the #2 pick (Emeka Okafur) to the Bobcats for the #4 (Shaun Livingston) and the #33 (Lionel Chalmers)
Wizards sent the #5 pick (Devin Harris), Christian Laettner, and Jerry Stackhouse to the Mavs for Antawn Jamison and cash.
Suns sent the #7 pick (Luol Deng) to the Bulls for the #31 pick, a future 1st, and cash.
2005:
Blazers sent the #3 pick (Deron Williams) to the Jazz for the #6 pick (Martell Webster), #27 pick (Linas Kleiza), and a 2006 1st rounder (a spare one they had from Detroit, which ended up being 2006’s #30: Joel Freeland).
2006:
Bulls sent the #2 pick (LMA) and future 2nd rounder to the Blazers for the #4 (Tyrus Thomas) and Viktor Khryapa.
Wolves sent the #6 pick (Brandon Roy) to the Blazers for the #7 pick (Randy Foye)
Celtics sent the #7 pick (Randy Foye), Raef Lafrentz, and Dan Dickau to the Blazers for Sebastian Telfair, Theo Ratliff, and a 2008 2nd rounder.
Rockets sent the #8 pick (Rudy Gay) and Stromile Swift to the Grizzlies for Shane Battier.
2007:
Celtics sent the #5 pick (Jeff Green), Wally, and Delonte West to the Sonics for Ray Allen and the #35 pick (Big Baby Davis).
Bobcats sent the #8 pick (Brandan Wright) to the Warriors for Jason Richardson and the #36 pick (Jermario Davidson).
2008:
Wolves sent the #3 pick (OJ Mayo), Marko Jaric, Antoine Walker, and Greg Buckner to the Grizzlies for the #5 pick (Kevin Love), Mike Miller, Brian Cardinal, and Jason Collins.
2009:
Wizards sent the #5 pick (Ricky Rubio), Etan Thomas, Darius Songaila, and Oleksiy Pecherov for Mike Miller and Randy Foye.
by JSML on Jun 3, 2010 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
The deals at the top of the draft
Are sending more in return than role players, late first picks, or second-rounders.
Notable exceptions include stuff like the Celtics trading #7 overall to be rid of Raef LaFrentz’s contract. The Suns have done a handful of those sorts of trades, to their fanbases’s dismay.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Kinda scary for you guys, no?
That last two trades involve the Wolves getting the better of the other team. Tread lightly…
Hoping we can be like the Blazers instead of the Wizards or Grizzlies
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Jun 7, 2010 6:12 AM PDT up reply actions
My dream lineup was
PG – Curry
SG – Williams
SF – Iguodala
PF – Randolph or Wright
C – Cousins
That’s probably not going to happen.
If the deal goes through, AR for the 4th pick..
We could be looking at this Nellie Ball line up
PG – Curry
SG – Ellis
SF – Johnson
PF – Monroe
C – Biedrins (A revamped healthy version please.)
With Curry and Monroe as the play makers. Very fast team. I kind of like it. We don’t improve defensively though.
Or this line up:
PG – Curry
SG – Ellis
SF – Johnson
PF – Wrigt
C – Cousins
Yeah, I don't think he's going anywhere.
Not enamoured with him but I don’t think the FO is going to trade him at this point.
Trade Beans, Monta and Mags
Maggette and 6th for #4
Beans and Monta for Iggy (take brand if we need to then cut him)
My Stupid Trade Idea . . .
GSW receives: Love, 16th pick
MIN recieives: Randolph, 6th pick
Then . . .
GSW receives: 10th pick, Foster (expiring), Rush (expiring)
IND receives: 16th pick, Maggette
Then . . . Dubs draft P.George with 10th pick
PG: Curry, ???
SG: Ellis, Williams
SF: KAz, George
PF: Love, Wright
C: Beans, Turiaf
Bring on the " you’re an idiot " and/or " they would never agree to that " comments.
by ChronicMasticator on Jun 4, 2010 12:16 AM PDT reply actions
First seems reasonable
But why would IND take on Maggs contract (especially when they have a pretty good SF) and trade for a 16th pick when they already have the 10th. that doesn’t make much sense to me, but maybe I’m undervaluing Maggs production, but I doubt it.
Disagree
If you redid the 2008 Draft, Love is still a top 5 pick, but Randolph is now a top 7 or 8 pick at worst. If you put both players in this Draft, they are both top 8 picks, if not top 6 picks. So the question becomes, is the difference between Love and Randolph equal or greater than the difference between Paterson/Aminu/Monroe/etc and a guy like Aldrich/Whiteside. You’re definitely getting the more known quantity with Love, but the amount of potential your trading away in Randolph and another high lottery player, will cap the ceiling on the team’s potential. Love is a nice player, but in a League centered around Star’s and above-the-rim play, Love is destined for a career as a 4th option on a good team. You can find a similar type player in Paul Millsap, but I don’t know of anyone advocating giving up Randolph for Millsap.
As for the Indiana trade, the problem is that Indiana’s best and highest payed player is a SF like Maggette. Moreover, Indiana only has two players under contract after this coming year; Granger is one of them. So, sinking $25+ million into the SF position seems a little foolish. Those expiring deals Indiana has will be extremely sought after in February when attention is turned to the impending free agency of Carmelo Anthony.
I think you’re underselling Love some. Yes, his athleticism is going to hold him back some, but to be that good at that young of an age is a really good sign for him. Dude is skilled and can really play basketball. He already scores well, he’s one of the very best rebounders in the league, is a great passer….at age 21, even despite his athleticism, that has the makings of a guy who can easily be an impact player on a good playoff team.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Love is 20
We should go back and look at those 20 year old advanced stat rankings for Randolph and see where Love falls. I think he’s a guy who will look like your 3rd or 4th best player even as he’s producing like your second best. If you can pay him to be a 3rd or 4th guy, that gives him even more value.
Just saying, despite his appearance, advanced stats tell us he’s anywhere from the 10th to the 40th best player in the league. That’s something.
Why? I’m a Millsap fan, but it’s not like he’s awesome or anything, he doesn’t seem to have much defensive potential, his rebounding is down, and he probably won’t improve that much in general……
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions
When was the last time...
we got 2 good/great players in a single draft?
2001
J-Rich & Gil.
"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 Jun 4, 2010 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions
and troy murphy
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 12:49 AM PDT up reply actions
I believe we got Jiri Welsch, too, if I remember right!
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions
there was alot of excitement with that draft
is it possible the warriors go for the 4th and keep the 6th as a selling point to the new owners? Would it be easier to market the team to fans with Steph and 2 new faces, than Steph and his d-leaguers?
It would take more than Randolph
Obviously Curry is off limits. Monta and Biedrins have neutral value at best to the Wolves. Wright, Morrow, and Azubuike are role players and/or question marks. Maggette is negative value.
I don’t know. It might not be possible. It would have to be some giant “Godfather offer” of you guys giving up Randolph, Wright, Morrow and a future pick for #4, Hollins, and Gomes. In other words, something you probably wouldn’t do.
My thinking was IND would basically be getting a 20PPG scorer for free. Honestly, what’s the difference between the 10th pick and the 16th pick in the draft? We all agree that the talent level drops after the top five picks.
by ChronicMasticator on Jun 4, 2010 12:39 AM PDT reply actions
For free?
Pretty sure Maggette is getting paid alot more long term then what they giving away. Plus, it’s the Pacers, the one team hemoraging the most cash in the entire NBA, losing somewhere around $20 million last year alone. Horrid idea. Plus the fact that they already have Granger at SF.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions
also the time team really suffering from an image problem with the home town fans
Whether fair or not, Maggette has a bit of a rep in the league.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Yep. The Warriors would love to give away that 4 years, 44 million "for free".
The Pacers are in a nice position with all of their expiring deals but they need to get a PG, SG, and PF. I agree that the 10 to 16 drop isn’t that big of a deal but it would probably take Monta to get the Pacers at all interested. Maybe they swap expirings and 10 for Ellis?
I’d then really push to get the Love/4 for AR/6 deal. If the Warriors can somehow get that to work, they could have: Curry, Xavier Henry (10), Wes Johnson (4), Love, and Biedrins. With Henry and Johnson being able to shoot and defend, that would be a pretty deadly team in an up-tempo system.
Will Utah and Indiana go whiter? @ www.soulhonky.com
Curry, Xavier Henry (10), Wes Johnson (4), Love, and Biedrins.
Now we’re talking. Where’s Monta, though? 6th man?
There will be no extra point!
Monta went to Indiana for expirings and the 10.
It’s the problem with a trade with Indiana. The Pacers would never go for Maggette and I’m not sure they could agree on how much to give up for Monta, since I doubt people would be thrilled with Monta for expiring contract and the 10 (and the Pacers don’t have a lot of sweetener on their roster. I doubt people are fired up about Tyler Hansbrough or AJ Price.)
Will Utah and Indiana go whiter? @ www.soulhonky.com
I doubt people would be thrilled with Monta for expiring contract and the 10
I wouldn’t exactly be thrilled with it, but I’d probably do it. #10 has some intriguing prospects, Henry among them. Though I’d guess Reggie Williams or Morrow would initially start over Henry.
Curry
Williams
Johnson
Love
Biedrins
—
Bench: Wright, Morrow, Turiaf, Azubuike, Henry (or Aminu, Aldrich, Monroe, etc.)
There will be no extra point!
I think AJ Price is hurt for the year, or his career, or something. I was hanging out with a bunch of UConn fans last weekend who said something about it, but didn’t really pay much attention to what they said.
AJ Price – verb – to hastily throw up an offbalance 3 pointer from at least 3 feet behind the 3 point line with lots of time remaining on the shot clock. Example: Man, I was watching the Clippers last night, and Baron Davis pulled an AJ Price at least 4 times.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Give it up man
You can dream of Randolph for Love, but 4 for 6 tacked on simply isn’t happening.
Regardless of how much of a fit Randolph is in MInnesota, Love has considerably more value. The Wolves don’t need to and will not add a pick swap to make it happen. Frankly, as a Wolves fan, I’ll be extremely pissed if a Love for Randolph swap happens already.
DO NOT TRADE AR
There is no one in the draft at the 4th pick that’s worth trading AR for…..
Favors? He’s probably gone at 3 but he is even more raw than AR is at the moment. AR is more athletic and has a better outside game.
Cousins? He’s 292 lbs…… That is monstrous and he’s only 6’10". He might be bigger, but AR has better shot blocking ability and has much more athleticism than Cousins. In our run and gun offense, Cousins will barely make it past half court before we get a shot off.
Johnson? Poor man’s Marion and not worth getting rid of a PF for another SG/SF type. Just look at our roster…. Buike, Williams, Maggette, Morrow…. do we need another?
DO NOT TRADE ANTHONY RANDOLPH!!!!
You would seem more objective....
…if you used more exclamation points, capital letters, and lied about players’ heights more.
Trading Randoph to go up 2 picks---
is even more youthful anxiety.
To me there are big risks involved with Favors, Cousins and Johnson. The only potential huge payoff would be Cousins. Favors is like a picking a racehorse by watching him trot around the track, there’s very little statistical evidence he could be great. I’m not saying none of them could be. But passing on the players who could fill the void in our team for Johnson sounds rather stupid to me. Johnson’s a good kid, but he’s almost 23 and I think he should have been further along by now. AR, as has been pointed out, has his risks but has performed with high numbers in NBA competition. None of the draft picks have and there is some uncertainty that they ever will.
IMO, AR and a small contract filler for Love is the only trade that would really help us. But as I ’ve said before I ’d sooner keep AR. But I do think Monta would look real good in a very heavy down jacket.
by War Years Legacy on Jun 4, 2010 1:15 AM PDT reply actions
Trading Randolph
The only way I do it is if we trade Beidrins and Randolph for the #4 pick and Al Jefferson. Throw in the #6 pick if we have too. Assuming we trade the #6 pick, the our lineup looks like this:
PG- Curry
SG- Ellis
SF- Azu/Maggette
PF – Jefferson
C- Cousins
That’s legit by my standards.
Cousins and Jefferson are too similar; you wouldn't want them both.
If the Warriors are trading up to get Cousins, then dealing Randolph makes less sense. Of all the big men on either team, Randolph might be the best complement to Cousins. A twin towers of Cousins and Biedrins might be OK but quicker PF’s could give them trouble.
Will Utah and Indiana go whiter? @ www.soulhonky.com
Biedrins AND Randolph for a crappy player like Al Jefferson? Why?!
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Of all things that franchise needs, why the hell are they after a PF, when there is already not enough playing time for both Love and Jefferson. Randolph didn’t get enough playing time with the Warriors, how exactly would he get more in Minnesota when his position is pretty much the only position they are set in.
I think Randolph would complement both Love and Jefferson well. They would play together, not all compete for one spot.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions
disagree
unless randolph can hit that outside shot consistently
And he has been working on it. I’m thinking more defensively. It’s not like Randolph right now has an offensive strength in terms of post vs. outside/high post, so you can just put him wherever you don’t want to put the other guy. They’d all clean up the boards, you’d have a bigger stronger guy down low to bang bodies defensively and play post D (Love/Jefferson) and an athletic quick guy to guard guys who stay farther from the rim who can also help protect the rim. Seems like a good fit to me.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions
This is the core of why Kahn's interested in Randolph.
It’s a defensive thang. If you saw the game, a week from the end of this season, in which the Wolves gave up 34 points on 14-22 shooting to Anthony Tolliver, you would absolutely understand.
They crave athleticism in their frontcourt, particularly in terms of blocks and defensive help. Al Jefferson is an open wound defensively.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Yeah, that’s what we’ve heard around here. I think Kahn is right, pairing an athlete like Randolph next to Love/Jefferson would make a lot of sense (though like you say, Jefferson’s lack of D is going to hurt regardless, but this could make it hurt a lot less).
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Book's completely out on the guy.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
With the 16th and 20 something pick...
Couldn’t Kahn just pick up Craig Brackins or Larry Sanders? They might do just that if they want to get younger.
How’s the perimeter defense over there Feral?
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
Oops, I meant if they want to get more athletic in the frontcourt.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
The perimeter defense?
The Wolves plead the 5th on that.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Love can hit the outside shot. Randolph complements him very well.
One reason the Warriors/Wolves are always in trade rumors is because Biedrins and Randolph are great complements to Jefferson and Love. Those frontcourts as is don’t really work while Randolph/Love and Biedrins/Jefferson are much better.
Will Utah and Indiana go whiter? @ www.soulhonky.com
Agree
Love and Jefferson both have the bulk to defend centers. They lack the height and/or leaping ability to contest shots at the rim.
A combo of Love/Randolph or Jefferson/Randolph would be center-by-committee, with each player contributing some of the necessary attributes of a center defensively.
Why are they bringing in these guys?
According to the Chronicle this morning, the Warriors are working out:
Udoh
Aldrich
Whiteside
Gordon Hayward
Ryan Richards
No mention of Aminu or Johnson. Well, there’s still a couple weeks left yet.
Well, one paper said Riley wouldn't have brought in prospects if they landed
higher in the lottery. But since they dropped to 6, I don’t think Riley is as sure of himself on those group of guys.
Makes me think he really is targeting either Johnson or Cousins.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
Idk why but i voted yes
I meant to say no because AR is only 20 years old and he has superstar potential
Fear is the Mind Killer
Haven't seen a trade in this thread I'd do yet as a Wolves fan
I think you guys value AR quite a bit higher than most. That’s with all due respect, most fans do that with their young guys. But trading him for the 4th pick, or for Love, even if we got the 6th back? No way. He wouldn’t even start for us, we still have Al. And AR’s value went down after last year. Kevin McHale is not walking through that door, guys. This deal is not happening.
by museum on Jun 4, 2010 7:45 AM PDT reply actions 4 recs
Can you be a contender with Love at his peak??? No!
Can we be a contender if Randolph lives up to his potential??? Yes!
So I’m glad if this trade never happens. Like I stated before even if Randolph don’t live up to his hype he will still be a very solid player BUT if he becomes a monster PF west coast better watch out.
sorry to say this
but the bball skills, the fundamentals, just are not there for AR. His strengths are athleticism, aggression, hops, length, and all these attributed make him looked more skilled than he is – especially on a team like the Warriors.
His ceiling, in my opinion is as the third best player on a playoff team, similar to guys like Kenyon Martin or LaMarcus Aldridge
To be great you need the combo of great fundamentals, amazing athletecism, and a great work ethic and attitude
I just don’t see this combo in AR
So our opinions differ nothing wrong of that. Just because YOU don't see it in him
it doesn’t mean someone else(who is actually involved in NBA) won’t or that he doesn’t have it in him. Don’t be sorry fot it it’s just your opinion it’s not AR fate.
what have you seen that suggests he will become a monster PF?
can you give specific examples that suggest he has a great work ethic, attitude, and the fundamentals to reach this status you think he can get to?
Can you give examples that he has not got all that or some of that? If you read closely (which obviously you don't) I didn't said or stated
that he will become one. I just sad that his ceiling is much higher then Love imo. We as fans don’t know a drop of what goes on in practice and behind close doors. And media nowadays is only looking for drama and sensation so I take whatever I read with a grain of salt. Are you a Warriors insider? If you are then I might look more deep into what you say if not then it’s just your view of situation.
And media nowadays is only looking for drama and sensation so I take whatever I read with a grain of salt
Totally disagree. How often when you hear about players being a head cases and it turn out to not be true? Members of the media depend on players for access. Trust me, they are waaaaay more likely to protect a player than throw them under the bus for something that is made up. I guarantee you there is some truth to the AR stories.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
Allright what did AR actually do that you can say he's a headcase?
Some truth is not the whole truth. There are countries in the world that G.W.Bush bombed just because it was just a pinch of truth behind real reasons so I don’t get your logic at all.
What does this have to do with countries being bombed?
Completely out of context there. I don’t even know where to begin with that example (and I am pretty sure global terrorism intelligence information is a bit more complicated than NBA trade rumors).
I’ve been around a few of the media people who work follow the NBA (just Kings and Warriors) and I hear a few pretty surprising stories about players that do not get printed. Often the good ones that don’t get printed are only because the players want to keep them private (by the way, Curry sounds like a really really really cool person) and often the bad ones are just not printed because they don’t want to throw the player under the bus. I don’t see these people looking for sensationalizing and printing this stuff so I am basically saying I disagree with the idea that the media just prints out drama for the sake of it. But then again, maybe you are thinking of someone in particular in the media
I don’t really have anything to add here. I would just end up repeating myself so … I got nothing.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
Good points, in Randolph’s situation, I’d like to point out the media has given us some really conflicting information about him. Last summer he was all the rave. Then he was in Nelson’s dog house and everyone was piling it on him. I’m not sure we’re getting much “truth” through all the noise, and it seems to me people can interpret it however they feel to fit their beliefs, right or wrong.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions
So, kinda like the medias coverage of Kobe? Just noise.
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 Jun 4, 2010 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions
The thing is
based on the talent and skill of the Warriors last year, Nellie had NO REASON to be so inconsistent with AR’s playing time UNLESS AR didn’t deserve to play.
He would play 30 minutes one game, 4 the next. (Totally screwed my fantasy team) I find it hard to believe that if he was everything you guys say about him, either Nellie is retarded or AR is a TAD bit overrated.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions
his production was pretty darn good
IMO it seems like a little of Nellie retarded/AR did something to piss everyone off.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
Yeah he was supposed to be my steal of the late rounds.
Turned out Tyreke was.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
He performed when he played. I honestly don’t know what to make of the Nellie PT thing. Let’s be honest here, it’s not like Nellie’s past reflects well on how he deals with players, especially young and potentially immature ones.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
He performed when he played
Which is why nobody understands why he didn’t play more. Haha. I guess there is no explaination short of asking Nellie.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
False
He was the rave of THE SUMMER LEAGUE. Nelson thought he’d made strides by dominating that. Nelson said, the way he looked he’d come in as starter @ PF. He said, he saw growth in his game.
Then he came into camp apparently with an ego. Stopped doing the little things (like rebounding), thought he was too big for the dirty work, didn’t even know the plays and got himself in the doghouse. It’s fair to say, he was probably overrated because it was SUMMER LEAGUE. And Nelson/Riley put too much stock into it, and really it was only the little things that made him successful last year
I don’t know how it’s any clearer. He thought he was a star, most of his teammates lit him up for his laziness as exemplified by Monta (who I don’t particularly like as a player) yelling at him on the court for not knowing ANYTHING about plays run. Nellie relegated him to back up 5 cause it was only position he could play (read: SIMPLEST)
I heard a recent interview with Russ Turner on KNBR (who just took UC Irvine job), but was one of Nellie’s assistants. Of course it had KNBR Fitzs bias, but he basically said “Randolph is a kid who WANTS desperately to be a big scorer, a 20 ppg guy, and has potential but the coaches are trying to get him to work on little things and refine his game.”
I didn;t even need Turner to say this. It was painfully obvious whenever you watch him play and he is not on a tight leash from Nellie. He gets ball and thinks he’s Kobe. He’s not a worker, which is just sad, because he has all the physical gifts to be amazing, but the basketball IQ of a 10th grader.
There are two people who annoy me more than anything about Randolph. The “ooh and ah” fans who forget all his poor plays with one monster block or dunk. And the stat-fetish junkies, who constantly point to a good rebounding rate. Guy only rebounds when Nellie kept him on a tight tight leash. Anytime he got freedom to play he made no effort to do anything other than shoot 18 footers or try and drive at the rim (which he can’t really do since he’s a mediocre ball handler).
by tafkasam on Jun 4, 2010 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
excellent points all around
I like AR, but these issues you point out are reasons to be concerned.
I think it will click for AR at some point, maybe next season, maybe in a few – but it hasn’t yet.
If we have a chance to get Favors or Cousins, guys who will be better in the long run, and possibly the short run – we should do what we can.
He was the rave of THE SUMMER LEAGUE
That’s not it at all. If you look back to last summer, you’ll find I was one of the biggest skeptics of the summer league performance. Summer league doesn’t mean crap. I’m not basing this on summer league at all. The media talk wasn’t just about summer league, it was about Randolph’s work ethic, about how he was a gym rat working out all the time and improving daily, putting on weight. I don’t care about his summer league performances. I’m just pointing out that the reports on things like his work ethic have been very mixed. People were saying very, very good things about his maturity and work ethic previously.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
no need to get personal - we're all fans here of AR and the Dubs
I have seen the following examples that concern me:
1) he seems more interested in being a face up player when the team needed him to learn some post moves and improve his post defense
2) when he tries to play d in the post he gets manhandled by guys with more strength and weight
3) he makes a lot of turnovers because he lack fundamentals and tries to do too much
4) he seems to think, based on his play on the court, that he can just jump over people or out hustle everyone as opposed to using strategy, finesse, poise, and positioning
5) his childish reactions at times to tough love by Nellie (right or wrong on Nellie’s part) tells me he is immature
6) Finally, imagine him on a team that plays a half court style of bball for a coach that wants players to play smart, what type of minutes would he get?
OK – now give me examples to refute all the above.
he seems more interested in being a face up player when the team needed him to learn some post moves and improve his post defense
We need him to be an effective offensive player. No need to pigeon hole him like we could only use one role. There are a lot of things this team could use to improve.
2) when he tries to play d in the post he gets manhandled by guys with more strength and weight
Young skinny guys get stronger. Defense is something that generally comes along slowly. He has the length and athleticism to be an excellent defender. Of course he’s going to struggle against strong guys in the post right now. Pair him with a big that complements him. Problem solved.
3) he makes a lot of turnovers because he lack fundamentals and tries to do too much
He’s 20.
4) he seems to think, based on his play on the court, that he can just jump over people or out hustle everyone as opposed to using strategy, finesse, poise, and positioning
He’s 20.
5) his childish reactions at times to tough love by Nellie (right or wrong on Nellie’s part) tells me he is immature
He’s 20. Young guys learn. They develop. They improve. Randolph is at the point in his career where players typically improve substantially. He’s already productive. Those are good things.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
hmm I would say just that. Would you give up on your 20 year old son with the potential to be the next great(musician, scientist, sport star,...)
Just because he has some flaws ??? I’m done with this conversation because it feels like we are beating a dead horse here. I have my beliefs and you have yours. Time will tell.
Bye and have a nice day.
buky and Missing Barry
I don’t think what we are saying is as far apart as you suggest.
You both think that AR has the potential to be a dominant force in the league and I think he has the potential to be very good, but not great.
Responding to evidence with conjecture about potential seems like a weak argument though. I know he is 20, but we have to look at his game so far.
I’d rather judge a player on what they have done as opposed to what they might do.
Allright. Vlade Divac was a very good player who done some good things for his teams.
Waht the hell were the Lakers thinking trading him for an unproven 18 year old Kobe Bryant who done nothing before to show he can be even a player in the NBA get it ;-).
Kobe, at 17 yrs old had articles done on him in SI
Similar to when LeBron came out – everyone knew that Kobe was going to be very very very good. Had he been born five years later, when the trends in drafting players changed, he would have been a top three pick.
AR has not at all shown anyone that he will be a dominant force in the league like Kobe is
Team need maybe?
Did Charlotte need a veteren C or a 19 year old SG?
by caseycheesecake on Jun 4, 2010 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions
at the time
Hornets were looking to assemble a smart, veteran team. At the SG spot they had some scrub named…. Dell Curry. The year before he had been 6th man of the year so they felt set at SG. They needed a center bad and Vlade had been playing great the year before. Sadly, I am old enough to recall all this.
Also, times were different then, when KG was drafted #5 in 1995 people were shocked a high school player was taken so high. Kobe was drafted in 1996.
Not really my point tjmax said that "everybody" allready knew how Kobe it's going to be the next great thing
If “everybody” knew that do you really believe Charlotte would trade him for an aging solid C even if they would have 5 sg on the team?
It's also odd that the "everyone knew" argument comes from a Warriors board.
If everyone knew how good he was going to be, why did the Warriors draft Todd Fuller?
Will Utah and Indiana go whiter? @ www.soulhonky.com
At the time, there were a lot of complaints online about drafting Fuller over Kobe.
The problem was that Kobe made it clear that he would only play for the Lakers.
Drafting Fuller may still have been dumb (it would have made more sense to draft Kobe and trade him for Divac if you want a center).
The point with Kobe is that people recognized his talent enough for him to actually have leverage. He wasn’t going to play for a anyone but the Lakers, and everyone knew it.
I have no memory of the situation, but did that really happen? If I was an NBA GM, I honestly wouldn’t care – I’d pick him if I thought he was deserving of the pick and make him play for me. With European players it’s a little different (think Rubio), since they have the leverage to just stay in Europe, but really, what other realistic options would Kobe have but to play for your team?
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Kobe now claims that he would have gone to Charlotte but every report was that he would only go to Los Angeles (it’s one of the reasons people hated him from the jump.)
But, at the time, I don’t think anyone had Kobe in the top 5 over AI, Camby, SAR, Marbury, and Allen and it wasn’t a given that he was the next big thing.
Will Utah and Indiana go whiter? @ www.soulhonky.com
He was allegedly going to play in Italy
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on Jun 5, 2010 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Seeems like a pretty empty threat to me. Even if he does go to Italy, the team retains his draft rights. He’s gotta come over eventually….
by Missing Barry on Jun 7, 2010 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
That's my memory of it.
I can’t say my memory was perfect, but I was pretty engaged with the team at that point.I was hoping for Dampier – and I remember the team coming under a lot of criticism on a.s.b.p.gs-warriors for taking Fuller over Kobe.
One of the many dumb things George Shinn has done as an owner.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
Maybe we should adjust our stats to per36 years of age? -- ElRonToro
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Yep. They actually agreed to the trade BEFORE the draft
The Hornets were coming off of a 50 win season and knew they weren’t going to be able to afford to re-sign Alonzo Mourning. They needed a center, saw their options might be Erick Dampier, Todd Fuller, and Vitaly Potapenko so they decided to trade the pick for Vlade.
They could have cancelled the deal but the GM wanted to win now and give rookie head coach Dave Cowens a veteran.
Will Utah and Indiana go whiter? @ www.soulhonky.com
Had he been born five years later, when the trends in drafting players changed, he would have been a top three pick.
OR
Had he not told every team that he would refuse to play for anyone but the Lakers, even though they held the 25th pick that year.
It wasn’t an issue or timing or teams’ thought process. The only thing preventing Kobe from being a top 5 pick was the fact that he was already such a tremendous asshole at the age of 17.
I’d rather judge a player on what they have done as opposed to what they might do.
Well, again I’ll direct you to the 19/20 year old performances of guys like Garnett, Bosh, Rasheed Wallace and such. The two things we’re concerned about are “how good can he possibly be” (potential) and “how likely is he to reach that” (likeliness of reaching his potential). I don’t think there’s any question about his potential. It’s among the best out there. How likely he is to be good…..eh, much more of a question mark, but again I’ll point out how young he is and how much guys at that age tend to improve, along with how productive he already is when he plays.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
at 19/20
Bosh, KG, Rasheed all better than AR – don’t just look at the stats, watch the actual games. I watched Rasheed at UNC and thought he was going to be an all time great – he’s certainly not met the potential he showed in college. KG and Bosh were dominant in the league at the age of 20 – KG got 18 and 10, Bosh was getting 22 and 9. AR got 11.5 and 6.5
On the run and gun warriors, AR should have actually had better numbers than this.
You’re completely ignoring the whole “minutes played” aspect of things. Per game numbers are meaningless. You have to control for minutes played.
don’t just look at the stats, watch the actual games
Sorry for using evidence? As opposed to “I thought this” “no you’re wrong I think this!”…..
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
per game numbers are not meaningless
if you can dominate a game, you get more minutes per game.
if you can’t because you lack fundamentals, bball IQ and an ability to play defense then you play less minutes per game.
Seriously, and I don’t mean to direct this at you, but a lot of posts in here think per game stats mean LESS than stats per minute. That is simply ridiculous. By this logic, high energy guys like Dragic would be better than Steve Nash, or Blair would better than Duncan.
If you are a star and play like a star you get minutes like a star. AR has yet to do this.
a lot of posts in here think per game stats mean LESS than stats per minute
I get that impression too, although I don’t think it’s quite that simplye
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
a lot of posts in here think per game stats mean LESS than stats per minute
Per minute stats mean more than per game stats. Per game stats are meaningless. This is true. However, what you’re missing is we know that how much you play matters. Cite a players minutes per game. if two players do well per minute, and one plays 30 minutes and the other 15, the one who plays 30 minutes is giving his team twice as much! Rate * volume. It’s simple math. It’s not that we ignore MPG, it’s just that you have to find out the rate a guy produces at seperately, which is exactly what per minute stats do. If there’s a worthwhile difference in MPG, include MPG with the per minute stats.
Also, you’d be surprised by how little MPG affects players per minute stats.
By this logic, high energy guys like Dragic would be better than Steve Nash, or Blair would better than Duncan.
Strawman. This is just you misunderstanding the arguments. Nobody suggests that. Looking at per minute stats don’t suggest that. It’s making up reasons to distrust good statistics. Also, Steve Nash’s per minute stats blow Dragic’s away. Duncan’s per minute stats are better than Blair’s, as well. Funny how the stats actually work, huh?
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Confused
Per minute stats mean more than per game stats. Per game stats are meaningless. This is true
Typo?
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, I probably didnt’ word it well, but basically he said “a lot of posts in here think per game stats mean LESS than stats per minute” like that’s a bad thing that we think that. So I’m saying it’s true, we think that, because that statement is true. Per game stats mean a lot less than per minute stats. Per game stats are basically pointless.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions
The reason I thought it was a type
was because of the next sentence
However, what you’re missing is we know that how much you play matters
Just because, technically how much you play can also be worded how much you play per game.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
damn you barry!
I was copying and pasting nash’s per 36 compared to Dragic’s and you had to up and jump ahead of me
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
I had this argument yesterday
I said KG was better in his second year than AR, but nobody seemed to agree with me, because AR’s per minute stats were better. Of course, he only played 22 mpg.
Of course, he only played 22 mpg.
It’s a valid point that KG gave his team more minutes. Minutes = good. What if we had played AR 35 minutes a game, though? Per minute played, he was at least as good and maybe better than Garnett…..soooo……all Garnett did was play more minutes, so that matters in terms of past value, but how does that matter in terms of future value?
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I think it is valuable in that there is a bit more certainty given the fact that Garnett's per 36 was from a larger pool of minutes. That and the fact he was really young gave him a high value.
Obviously Randolph’s value is tied to his higher per 36. I personally like the fact Garnett’s per 36 was from a larger sample size.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions
not sure if that is my best explanation I could have given
(multi tasking sucks)
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Larger sample size = good, no doubt. But then again, the added uncertainty from Randolph’s sample works both ways – sample error could be making him look worse than he is, too!
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
As a sidenote
I know I have said I am not a huge fan of per 36, but this is somewhat tied into when I do in fact like using per 36 numbers. Not huge on using it to judge players already getting starter minutes but I think it is a great indicator of when a player should be getting more minutes.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
You seem like a reasonable fellow, so I’ll ask you – why don’t you like per minute numbers (whether it’s per 36, per 40 or per 48, all the different variations I’ve seen)?
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
(For guys getting starters minutes, that is)
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions
To be honest, it's sort of hard for me to explain
I am at work so I can’t really try and dive into it too much at the moment. I don’t think this is the clearest way of thinking about it (which is probably why I struggle with my thoughts on the subject) but I think of it as being akin to batting average.
And crud I am afraid I am going to have to leave it at that. Gotta go.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Well I think it’s akin to wOBA, so take that! ;)
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm brainfarting
What is wOBA again? White Obama?
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
The baseball rate stat you need to be using if you aren’t.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions
per minute numbers are fine
for players that get somewhere close to starters’s minutes. When AR plays 30+ a night, then it’s reasonable to compare per minute to someone who plays 36 or 40 per game. He needs to figure out how to stay on the court.
And for players that don’t. The point is what you do per minute played – that’s how good you are. How much you play is the other consideration needed for your total production, but that doesn’t make per minute numbers any less useful.
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions
He needs to figure out how to stay on the court.
And it appears that he was doing just that when he got injured. Despite playing on a team where the coach didn’t want to play two non-jumpshooting big men at the same time, he was averaged his career best in minutes, he was bringing his foul numbers down, and was basically delivering improvements in every aspect of his game.
Um it's not close. Can't believe someone said Randolph was better
The Wolves won 14 more games (40 win team) and he was best player.
If you wanna get into advanced stats, highest win share
you're mixing cause and effect
We couldn’t play him more minutes because he fouls too much and is not disciplined enough on offense. Look at his 52 TS%. Not very impressive.
He averages something like 4.5 PFs
per 36. That’s hardly a huge foul rate. He doesn’t play very much because he makes goofy decisions and is prone to being gassed, or so Nellie says.
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on Jun 4, 2010 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions
He averages something like 4.5 PFs per 36. That’s hardly a huge foul rate.
You may not think it’s a lot, but it would be 20th most in the entire league. Committing that many fouls not only gets you in foul trouble but also sends the other team to the FT line more often and messes with the flow of the game (for a team like the Warriors). It’s not horrendously egregious, but it’s still pretty bad.
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 4, 2010 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Randolph commits .1 more fouls per 40 minutes than the average PF, according to hoopdata.
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions
It's not a cripplingly high amount
It’s not like he’s getting 7 per 36 or even 5 per 36. It’s a lot for sure, but you could consistently give him 30 minutes a game and he wouldn’t be in danger of fouling out.
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on Jun 5, 2010 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Not sure if this is context of a potential Love/Randolph idea
But if it is, then it should probably be mentioned that Love is an attractive piece because he too has potential. It factors in regardless, I just think you would prefer the guy with potential who has a more proven track record.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
His ceiling, in my opinion is as the third best player on a playoff team
Based on what? His good rebound? His potential to be a great defensive player? His potential to be a great offensive player (he already shows the ability to score at a high rate, even if it’s not efficiently yet)? His freakish athleticism and real young age? Randolph compares very favorably to the star big men in this league when they were his age. He has everything you want in a guy, potential-wise. Doesn’t mean he’ll live up to it. But it’s there. Not sure why you’re capping him so low.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions
this isn't low at all
right now he is the third best player on a team that will be lucky to win 35 games next season.
I like AR – but haven’t see the work ethic or fundamentals or attitude that suggests he will be better than the ceiling I stated. I hope I am wrong, but can only go by what I have seen
right now he is the third best player on a team that will be lucky to win 35 games next season.
I know Steph is first….whose second? How would we be lucky to win 35 games? We won 26 with D-Leaguers, with a healthy roster I’m sure we’d get 35 easily
monta ellis is second best
as for the d-leaguers –
Tolliver and AR had very similar numbers this year –
about 12 pts and 7 boards. But tolliver is a more fundamentally sound player.
he gets more assists and turn the ball over less.
This just makes my point. Clearly, AR will have a better career than Tolliver, but despite his vast athletic superiority, AR’s season was worse than Tolliver
Monta Ellis as our second best….That’s debatable.
Tolliver and Randolph did have similar PPG, RPG, but Tolliver played 9 more minutes. Also, Randolph had more blocks and was more efficient.
But tolliver is a more fundamentally sound player.he gets more assists and turn the ball over less.Randolph is 20 years old, he’ll work on that. And comparing minutes played would help. Tolliver sucks, don’t know why you’d even compare him to Randolph.
tolliver does not suck
he’s a solid bench player.
I am comparing them because they play the same position and posted similar numbers.
As I said, AR is going to have a much better career than Tolliver – but he has a long ways to go and I haven’t seen enough evidence to tell me it will happen soon.
How does he not suck? Because he’s a good rebounder? Seems like an inefficient scorer to me. Jacks up waaay too many shots, especially 3’s.
he sucks if he is a starter
but he shoots 43% from the floor, hustles, does the dirty work, gets key boards at important times, has a super attitude and is extremely bright, in other words – a solid bench player that most teams would be happy to have
also the threes are how the dubs play
like it or not. not- in my case.
he makes 33% of his threes, not good, but not horrible
he makes 33% of his threes, not good, but not horrible
Making a third of your 3’s is pretty bad. It’s basically equivalent to 50% TS%. That’s not good at all. Anthony Tolliver sucks. Anthony Randolph, right now, is a much, much, much better player than Tolliver. Tolliver is basically replacement level – he should be a journeyman picked up by teams when they need a body.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions
based on what is he "much, much, much" better?
Stats suggest they are pretty even right now. AR may have slight edge, but he isn’t much, much, much. Another thing to consider is how well the team plays when each is on the court. When AR was on the court the team, at times, seemed leary of what he might do. For good reason. Tolliver, at least, knows his limitations and gets the most out of his lesser talent, he defers to players better than him.
AR will obviously BE much better, but right now the discrepancy isn’t as huge as you suggest.
also, tolliver should be judged not on his three point %. He is PF and if he was on any other team would not be allowed to shoot them.
Randolph rebounds a lot more. He scores a lot more. He gets a lot more steals. A lot more blocks. Tolliver was slightly more efficient this past season, but their career percentages are better and I believe more in Randolph’s upward trend (since that’s what young players do). Randolph >>> Tolliver by any way you look at it, at least any way that’s meaningful.
If we can’t judge Tolliver by what he’s done, what should we judge him on…?
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
On less shots too, with worse production in everything other category.
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 Jun 4, 2010 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Unfortunately
that’s the only one. everything else favors Randolph.
Hi Lisa. Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers.
by Reverend_Randy on Jun 4, 2010 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions
And that’s only if you look at their last year. Their career TS%‘s are equal, and as I said elsewhere, I believe more in Randolph’s improvement being a real step in the right direction because that’s what young players do, whereas Tolliver’s….some of it’s probably the Warriors offense, but some of it is probably just sample error. I don’t think there’s any real upward trend there.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Everyone raved about his work ethic last summer. Dunno why people can’t stick to an opinion. Everyone raved about his attitude and how much better he was getting and how much he wanted to improve and win, too. Not suggesting those are the correct opinions, but it doesn’t seem to me there’s strong evidence/consensus on anything right now. Without good evidence, and since none of us know him….I think those are pretty weak arguments. Young guy with poor fundamentals. It happens. He should improve.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Also, a ceiling is meant to be a maximum attainable limit. Sounds to me you’re talking about how “likely” he is to reach his potential, which may or may not be a valid point, but sure seems a lot more reasonable to me than claiming he has a low ceiling. That kind of production + age + athleticism puts a very, very high ceiling on what he can become. Not sure how likely it is, though.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions
it is certainly hard to project
a player’s future.
But if people are thinking that AR is going to be a dominant force in the league – let’s compare him to some that actually are and see if he has given EVIDENCE to suggest he will become one.
Dwight Howard – also not the most fundamentally sound player, especially on offense, BUT – AR will never be as big and strong as Dwight which is a big part of his game
Pau Gasol – also bigger and stronger but super fundamentals, has both finesse and strength, and a great attitude and work ethic. AR is more athletic and a better ball handler outside of the paint – but other than that I can’t see him coming close to Pau.
Amare Stoudamire- if AR has a ceiling as high as we hope – this might be it. But AR was a dominant force right when he entered the league, at the same age as AR did. His size and strength also may not be reached by AR.
Tim Duncan – please. don’t get me started.
AR can be, and I really hope he will be, a very good player. But dominant big men are few and far between.
If you’re going to look at it that way, I think Bosh and Garnett would be the best comparisons. They’re the most similar, physically and skillwise, to Randolph.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
I might be completely wrong on this
But personally I would think Josh Smith
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Sure, I could see that some, too. Smith was always a little bigger than Randolph, though – even in HS Smith wasn’t super skinny (I saw him and Dwight and Randolph Morris play a few times). I also think Smith had more advanced outside skills – mostly ballhandling.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
apparantly I think "ability to get in coach's doghouse is a skill"
Probably should file that one under “detriment to potential” and not skill. I will shut up now.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Possibly. It’s not a bad point, but I will point out that Nellie has some history of handling these situations poorly, too.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
why whatever do you mean?
Is there a sarchasm button? I swear the four greatest inventions not created yet are (i) fusion power (ii) a solution to male pattern baldness (iii) a sarchasm button for the internet and text messaging and (iv) a time machine. Level of importance not necessarily in that order
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions
"Sarchasm." I love that typo.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
lol
I am so used to typing sarchasm that I apparantly forgot how to spell sarcasm
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
A while back a singer know said she had a "soar throat"
Sounded like a good thing.
The sarchasm, then, is the gap of understanding that results from one side not recognizing sarcasm in the other. The sarchasm is wide, on the Web.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
a solution to male pattern baldness
already here….a razor
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 4, 2010 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah not for people like me
If I ever start going bald I am screwed. Shaving the head while being ridiculousy white and not having the ability to grow much facial would probably make me look more like a skin head than anything else.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
Shaving the head while being ridiculousy white and not having the ability to grow much facial would probably make me look more like a skin head than anything else.
LOL , works for Boozer?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 4, 2010 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions
no
boozer has the weird small line around the face beard. I got the random patchy spot beard that only gets filled in on the neck
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
I got the random patchy spot beard that only gets filled in on the neck
Worked for Yassar Arafat?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 4, 2010 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions
He’s at least part Latino, isn’t he?
I don’t know, he just has that skinhead inmate look down quite well.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 6, 2010 12:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Josh Smith seems likely
KG was getting 18 and 10 at this point in his career.
Smith is similar to AR in that what he lacks in bbal iq and fundamentals he makes up for in athletecism and energy.
But, Josh Smith is also a guy who is your third best player on a good playoff team.
Its similar to guys like Steph Jax and J-Rich, on the warriors they were our best players at times, but on good teams they would be third best. AR is in that category imo.
I think you and I are thinking more big picture when talking about AR. Now I don’t necessarily mean that as a compliment like we are the only ones that “see what he truly is” I just mean we are more focused on what his general impact is likely to be.
I think others when they talk about potential with AR, they are specifically thinking “this skill set is similar to this type of player and this type of production.”
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions
I think others when they talk about potential with AR, they are specifically thinking "this skill set is similar to this type of player and this type of production."
I can only speak for myself, but when I talk potential, it’s not really anything to do with comparisons to other players, it’s about looking at a guys physical tools, his age, and what he already is, and figuring out the best possible scenario. Potential = ceiling = best possible outcome. It doesn’t have anything to do with “likely”.
Now, moving on to “what his general impact is likely to be”….it’s a very valid question. I’m not sure I know. When I think of “likely”, things like work ethic and where he already is and the application of average aging curves come to mind. Based on what I’ve seen from Randolph, I think those are positives. He’s already pretty good for his age. He’s at the part of his aging curve where players, on average, improve substantially. His work ethic? It’s unclear to me whether it’s good or not. All that looks to me like it’s “likely” he’ll be a fairly productive player. Superstar? I don’t think superstar is ever the “likely” case with anyone, but he at least has a decent shot at it compared to most other players, so I’ll take my chances with him. If the average chance of becoming a superstar is 5%, I’d guess Randolph’s chances of becoming one were 15-20%. Still fairly unlikely, but better than you’d get with most others.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
If the average chance of becoming a superstar is 5%, I’d guess Randolph’s chances of becoming one were 15-20%.
(These numbers are just random numbers to illustrate the point)
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
KG was getting 18 and 10 at this point in his career.
KG was getting more minutes per game than Randolph, and didn’t mess up his ankle. There may have been legit reasons why he was getting more PT (fewer fouls, plus defense, e.g.) but in terms of per minute production, NBA sophomore Randolph was a more prolific scorer and a much better rebounder than NBA soph KG.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 4, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
KG once averaged 24 pts, 14 rbds, and 5 dimes in a season
I just don’t see that ever happening with AR.
KG got more minutes per game primarily because he was the better player.
KG was SO good when he was younger – he is half that good now.
KG was SO good when he was younger
Absolutely, but not when he was 19 or 20. When he was that age, he wasn’t doing the things Randolph has.
I just don’t see that ever happening with AR.
“I just don’t see”. Ok, but by itself, that’s not a real argument. This is where you need to support your position with evidence. What about Randolph makes you “not see that ever happening”?
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
do you think he will get these numbers?
ok – I’ll make a deal with you – 10 to 1 odds.
In five years time, we look at AR’s numbers. If he has a season where he gets 24,14,5 I will pay you 1,000. If not, you pay me 100.
I thought tjmax offered better discounts than that
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
I am all for arguing and what not
But I think you are going to have to chalk this one under Agree to Disagree. Pretty everything that can be said has been said.
Personally I am not the biggest fan of the per 36 stuff and I haven’t been persuaded otherwise but at the same time I have already argued this with Barry a few posts and there is really no point in just repeating myself.
Besides I like that someone throws up an opposing view.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Adjust to per minute, then.
The only reason anyone’s using 36 minutes as a multiplier is to put the numbers in the range we’re accustomed to comparing – “What would this production look like in a starter’s minutes?”
Per minute is just as arbitrary a criterion. It’s less so than per game, however.
I’d much rather go with the percentage stats, myself. If your team shoots extremely well or extremely poorly, your rebounding percentage is still a percentage of opportunities while you were out there. For a team with Nellie coaching, adjusting for time isn’t controlling the frame of reference near well enough.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
I don’t think “per minute” is arbitrary at all. It’s simply turning it into a rate stat. The amount of minutes you choose is arbitrary. Anyways, I have always wondered about the percentage stats, and how they compare in usefulness. I imagine in most cases they tell you a similar thing.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions
My point is, the slice you use is arbitrary.
We may as well say “per 15 minutes” – “What would he do as a backup?” or “per 12” – how much in one quarter? Heck, break it down by the second, that’s more precise still.
Percentage stats control for things like “pace” better than any rate stat.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Yeah, the number you choose is definitely arbitrary, but I like the “starters minutes” because it seems easy to figure out how good a guys line is since we know what to expect out of a starter. If you broke it down by minute, for instance….the differences would be small and hard to conceptualize, you know?
Pace doesn’t worry me too much, the difference in pace between teams is rarely big enough to worry about. It’s also something you can easily factor in. Percentage for rebounds seems like it could make a lot of sense, not sure about some other things like percentage of a teams baskets you assist (not a criticism, just not something I’m very educated about)…..
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions
We may as well say "per 15 minutes" – "What would he do as a backup?" or "per 12" – how much in one quarter? Heck, break it down by the second, that’s more precise still.
It’s actually not any more precise.
THe point is that all of those stats tell you the EXACT same thing. Whether you compare players by reb/36, reb/24 reb/sec, whatever, you will draw the exact same conclusions about the player’s relative abilities.
It’s not any more precise – it gives you the exact same information. Per/36 is a useful number to pick because it is starters minutes, and it gives you numbers that are similar to per/game numbers for starters, therefore our intuition is already calibrated to understand it.
That is to say, everybody knows what someone who gets 20pt/36 and 10reb/36 is doing – we know that’s pretty good.
But without thinking about it, how good is someone who’s getting .008pts/second?
Percentage stats control for things like "pace" better than any rate stat.
Pace is a hugely overrated factor in analyzing NBA stats. The other problem with percentage stats is that they make a given player look worse if their teammates do better.
If I grab 19% of my team’s reboudns as our only above-average rebounder. Then we trade for another good rebounder … my percentage of our rebounds will drop even if I grab just as many rebounds as I did before. But I’m not playing any worse (and my per/36 numbers may well not go down at all).
This is where you need to support your position with evidence. What about Randolph makes you "not see that ever happening"?
…
Also, 24/14/5? Really? Nobody does that even now.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions
bq. Can you be a contender with Love at his peak?
You definitely can. I don’t see how you can’t. You can be a contender with either one, it’s just that neither should be considered the star of the team.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
"The Wolves can't be a contender starting prime K-Love at PF"
Textbook dumb, bad basketball analysis. Factually, any way you slice it, Love was a top 10 PF last year and didn’t make the Wolves any worse on defense than they already were. He’s better than Randolph.
I'd rather deal with Kahn, anyways.
Thanks for passing on Curry. lol
I honestly feel we should stay at #6 and see what falls. I feel quite comfortable drafting behind Minny and Sac. One of these teams will screw up and a top 5 guy will be there. It’s not even a matter IF it will happen, it WILL happen..
by Bob on Jun 4, 2010 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Which means the Kings are due for a screw up this year
Just like the Warriors.
Point being that just because you (and we) lucked into one of the best players in the draft last year doesn’t mean it’s going to happen again. Other teams won’t be so stupid as to draft the likes of Hasheem the Dream (as in sleepy, not Kareem) or two point guards in a row. And the roll of the dice won’t come up roses for either of us as well this year. Now, I hope it does, and I hope Washington, Philly, New Jersey, Minny, and Sacto all pass on John Wall, but that’s not gonna happen.
You can’t use last years’ draft results as a barometer for expectations for this year. Put it another way, if you guys always drafted a “Tyreke Evans” like player in the draft, well, you wouldn’t be drafting 5th, would you?
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 4, 2010 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Kevin McHale is not walking through that door, guys. This deal is not happening.
Haha. That made me laugh.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
Oh, but he might be. He might be.
The guy’s been rumored in Chicago and now Boston if Doc takes a break.
I hear the Warriors may be moving on….
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!
AR is a piece for the future of this franchise. Don’t you dare do it Riley !!!
Trade Randolph to Phoenix
Timon: Hakuna Matata! What a wonderful phrase
Pumbaa: Hakuna Matata! Ain't no passing craze
Timon: It means no worries for the rest of your days
Timon: It's our problem-free philosophy
Both: Hakuna Matata!
The Lion King (1994)
do u see this
every other team would kill to have Ant. We are just to stupid. Or Larry Riley is anyways.
It's just a plant, it grows in the earth, and if you happen to set it on fire there are some effects...
Yeah this guy
(who obviously represents every other team in the league) would “kill” to get him. You can tell by his totally aggressive and enthusiastic post.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 5, 2010 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Keep AR!!
We need to be dropping big contracts right now. Giving away a small contract with potential huge upside is not the right move at the moment for the Warriors, unless we can get a franchise type player as part of the trade.
AR was lost with Monta as a leader. Lets give AR and Curry a year together and see how AR plays with a true PG and play maker. I think we will see exciting things from the AR-Curry combo, and may even see great things from the two.
Lets focus on dumping big contracts like Maggette, and seeing what value we can get for Monta.
by WestCoastWarrior on Jun 4, 2010 8:49 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
Curry’s dynamic changes things for a lot of players most notably Randolph and Wright. Their games will become easier now that they will have a PG who will take advantage of their size and mismatches.
"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King
The upside of any discussion of trading AR
Is that it could indicate the Warriors feel good about Brandan Wright’s health. If healthy, Wright has been the better player thus far—but of course it remains to be seen if he can stay healthy.
@WorldBLee
OMG! all if this over a stupid Tim kawakami rumor
Kawakami must be laughing his butt off. He started this rumor 3 days ago and now ESPN grabs it runs with it and you would think GSoM would know better.
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!
Could be.
But TK did say he made them up in his head. That was clear in the beginning.
The ESPN article cited that these talks took place at the Minnesota draft combine.
The discussions between the two clubs took place last week when several teams, including the Warriors, sent representatives to Minnesota to watch 42 potential draft picks work out at the Timberwolves’ practice facility.
So yeah, they could have conveniently included TK’s “story” as another anonymous “source” but there was no mention of Kevin Love. Only to move up, which wasn’t in TK’s piece.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
Exactly what I loathe about the idea of trading valuable pieces to move up. It’s not an entirely logical position — sunk cost, blah blah — but I just can’t wrap my mind around giving up a guy with an outside shot a stardom just to rectify our pingpong ball misfortune.
There will be no extra point!
Plus I’d rather have Randolph straight up than whoever is sitting there at #4. These guys are unproven prospects, and if they were as great of prospects as some people seem to think…..well, they’d get consideration for the #1 pick. Big men that are great prospects always do.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
They still have a chance MB.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
Ha, kinda, but not really, since we’d be trading for the #4 pick, meaning whoever was there doesn’t have a chance!
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Don't think of it like that
The lottery happened. It didn’t work out for us. It’s “Randolph for Player X that the Warriors FO really likes and happens to fall to #4.” I guarantee you the FO thinks of the lotto as a sunk cost already.
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 4, 2010 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I Have a (Bad) Dream
The thought of Randolph + 6 for the Wolves #4 conjures up horrible images of Robert Parish + #3 to the Celtics for …JB Carroll. Ouch!
Why would we want to give up on a guy whose gone through the first and worst learning curve (1st 2 years) just to see him take what knowlege and hopefully improved focus to a team when we can have him here? Next, we have to watch another big man struggle through development all over again.
What a lousy recurring nightmare. I think this is stupid and if the Warriors do it then it will another cold winter in the Bay Area. Let’s not forget how young AR is and maturity is a factor that should not be wasted on the impatience of a front office.
"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King
Aye
This hypothetical trade (Randolph + 6th for 4th) has to involve the Biedrins or Maggette contracts. There is no other reason to trade a chip like Randolph unless you are getting an established premier PF like a Bosh, Dirk, or David Lee.
Depends what you're paying for...
If you view the contract against Biedrins’ potential, then it isn’t catastrophic (it’s not Foyle’s deal). But if you view the deal against his production, and evaluate his progression as a player, it is not a great deal (paid more than Varajao, and he’s not even better than Varejao). I like Biedrins personality, but as a player he clearly lack a work ethic (or is a passion for the game issue?) and his failure to develop a single post move or high set shot is really disappointing.
by StJ on Jun 4, 2010 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think you’re really undervaluing Biedrins production. I don’t expect much improvement from him, and I’m ok with that. He’s already productive. He rebounds, he can pass, score efficiently, is active off the ball, can play ok on ball defense….Biedrins is a solid player. Big men get paid a lot. Also, Varejao? Really? Biedrins does every single thing (including off ball defense) except on ball defense better than Varejao, and by quite a bit.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Where did this line come from?
as a player he clearly lack a work ethic (or is a passion for the game issue?)
I have a feeling that if he flailed around like a clown on the court and added a few fist pumps you would not think this way.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
I totally agree
How stupid would it be to trade away a young player with big upside and NBA experience we have been developing for the past 2 years for the chance to draft… A younger project with less upside, no NBA talent, and that we will have to start all over with developing?
Getting rid of ARs small contract does nothing for our contract situation, and getting rid of his talent for a shot at more rookies not named John Wall or Evan Turner doesnt make us any better.
Aren’t you all tired of this?
by WestCoastWarrior on Jun 4, 2010 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
COUSINS
He will bust or burst…I’m really not sure which will happen first, but they are eminent!!! YOUR THOUGHTS PLEASE?
Feelin like Chauncey I'm just tryin get my Bills Up
by P-40 the Ballatician on Jun 4, 2010 10:47 AM PDT reply actions
Damn now my ears are ringing
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
The only thing we know for sure
is that half the guys we are blathering about will be out of the league in 3 years even if they make a squad this year. It is the same thing every year, fans go crazy over some 19 year old guy with little talent who dominated other 19 year old guys with no talent.
A draft pick now doesn’t mean as much as it did 20 years ago when guys had played 4 years at a University, was 21 or 22 and had something to compare with, now it is all a crap shoot. Any guy the Warriors draft will make almost no difference on the Warriors record next year. I would trade the 6th pick in a heart beat for a decent power forward. Unfortunately that won’t happen and the Warriors will get even younger and then the management will brag about how young the Warriors are, been doing that for 20 years now.
I stopped reading after
The only thing we know for sure is that half the guys we are blathering about will be out of the league in 3 years even if they make a squad this year
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Jun 4, 2010 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions
You know it’s bad when a low hoops IQ player like Monta Ellis is yelling at you because you’re not executing properly.
Come on, Atma, if you have a real criticism, make it, but this is just meaningless babble. When you say “Hoops IQ”, what, precisely, are you talking about? I don’t think Monta’s decision making is good, but I’d say he has a pretty high basketball IQ. His anticipation is very good, both offensively and defensively. He moves well without the ball. He reads the defense well without the ball. He does a number of “intagible” qualities I’d describe as “basketball IQ” very well. Blanket garbage that you spew, like it’s Mullin’s fault when Wright, Randolph, Biedrins and Ellis lose trade value after Mullin’s gone and this quote are crap.
I don’t think I’d do this trade, any player available at #4 will just be even less of a known quantity than what AR is, which says a lot. He excelled in the summer league and I remember reading before this last season that his work ethic in the gym and the weight room have improved. I’m not guaranteeing he’ll be great, but he has too much potential and the fact that he’s only 20 making this trade could make us look real stupid in a few years.
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.
McCoven: We're all happy to be wrong.
Why would the Wolves keep Love, Jefferson, and Randolph?
Unless they would make a seperate trade, or they are clueless and think AR can be their SF, I think one of their bigs would be included in a deal with us, and Love makes the most sense because we wouldn’t have to throw in a big contract to make it work. Maybe it would be AR+Morrow/Williams+6th for Love+4th. If Al Jefferson were to be the guy coming to us, then maybe something like AR+Maggs+6th for Jefferson+4th. I wouldn’t like the 2nd one, and I’d rather just keep AR, but if they do make a deal, then I’d prefer the 1st one. Just think about it. Why would the Wolves keep all 3 big men? Love and Jefferson haven’t played well together, so it only makes sense for one to go. Love makes the most sense because he has a way smaller contract. Still, keep Randolph.
Love's value is higher
precisely because he’s on that rookie deal. That doesn’t make it easier to acquire him, it makes it harder.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Because they like Love, they think Randolph is a great complement to Love and Jefferson, and nobody will take Jefferson off their hands?
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh definitely. In response to your next comment, though, I don’t think they’re stacking up at one position. There are two big men on the floor, and Randolph is a good complement to Love/Jefferson, so they could definitely use them in two positions fairly often….
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Enough with this “2 player”, 3"player", “5 player” draft stuff.
Last year there was Curry. Two years ago there was Randolph. Three years ago there was Noah and Brooks. Four years ago freaking Brandon Roy was picked sixth.
What do you know, players get undervalued. We have all talked ourselves into the top 5 or whatever, but there is a good chance when we revisit this draft that at least one of the top five players will have been picked sixth or later.
Using Randolph to move up two spots though down the road we might have been able to get a better player at 6 seems ridiculous to me. Maybe Randolph for the fourth straight up, but this original trade idea worries me. I know the idea of having a new young prospect is exciting, but in Randolph we have a familiar young prospect who already is damn good. Combining that with a pick that could be just as good or better than the fourth pick, though maybe the odds are a bit worse, seems like a terrible move.
(Of course the pick may be a bust too, my point here is mainly that we are sure of the “_ player draft” thing right now, but that does not make it true. And I don’t care what the big names/experts say. Last year Bill Simmons predicted Brandon Jennings would be back in the Euroleagues in a few years. They might have a more educated guess than us, but it is still largely a guess.)
by belilaugh on Jun 4, 2010 2:01 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Last year there was Curry. Two years ago there was Randolph. Three years ago there was Noah and Brooks. Four years ago freaking Brandon Roy was picked sixth.
Misses the point. As you go farther down the draft, your odds decrease. It might be that the top 5 players in this draft all have a 20% chance of being good, and the next 20 players have a 10% chance of being good. So yeah, you expect two players picked from 6-25 to be good, and only 1 from the top 5, but you’re still getting twice as much value out of a top 5 pick than the other ones so it’s worthwhile to trade into it. These are just hypothetical numbers, of course, and in this situation, I think increasing your odds isn’t worth anything close to Randolph, though I do think it would be worthwhile since it does seem 1-5 are a lot better than picking lower than that….
And I don’t care what the big names/experts say. Last year Bill Simmons predicted Brandon Jennings would be back in the Euroleagues in a few years. They might have a more educated guess than us, but it is still largely a guess.
Well, first, let’s not call Bill Simmons an expert (I guess you might have called him a big name, which he is). But yeah, their goal should be to figure out the odds and rank prospects according to that. We expect them to be wrong often, but that doesn’t mean their opinion is bad…….
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Is it really 2 out of 6-25? It seems to me more like 1 out of 6-10. Or are you getting these numbers from somewhere?
I am not arguing the 6th pick is just as good as the 4th pick, that wouldn’t make sense. My point is not that there is just as good a chance in the lower spots (notice I said at least 1 of the top 5, not most of the top 5). My point is that we are not on the outside looking in of a 5 player draft. We will likely have a quality prospect available when we pick. Talking ourselves into it being a 5 player draft to the point where we want to trade Randolph to move up two spots is ridiculous. Sure our odds are lower at 6, but they are not low enough to part with a player like Randolph, especially when quality players like the ones I have mentioned have been picked as low as where we are or lower in the past. If we knew that the top 5 players would go in order in the draft, then maybe it would be worth it to trade Randolph. Knowing that GMs in the top 5/media have wrongly evaluated players before, I’d say take our chances and keep Randolph.
And I chose Bill Simmons because he is a glorified version of most people here.
Is it really 2 out of 6-25? It seems to me more like 1 out of 6-10. Or are you getting these numbers from somewhere?
These are just hypothetical numbers, of course
I was just making them up to illustrate the point.
My point is that we are not on the outside looking in of a 5 player draft.
I dunno, most people do seem to think the top 5 guys are better prospects than anyone else by a noticeable margin. I have no idea what that margin is.
Talking ourselves into it being a 5 player draft to the point where we want to trade Randolph to move up two spots is ridiculous.
Completely agree!
Knowing that GMs in the top 5/media have wrongly evaluated players before
I think this is where my biggest disagreement is. I’m not sure how “wrongly” they evaluated players before. Of course they’re wrong sometimes – look at Curry last year, he was clearly better than most people thought right off the bat, so they obviously were wrong about how talented he was, but just because a pick is bad or a guy drops when he shouldn’t doesn’t necessarily mean the evaluation was wrong – it might just be they played the odds and lost.
And I chose Bill Simmons because he is a glorified version of most people here.
Ha, I’m gonna go ahead and take offense to that….
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Responding to the second blue box/response thing.
I have never been one to put much stock in the consensus, just because the consensus ends up with things like Milicic as part of a group of three (with James and Anthony as I’m sure you know) that are head and shoulders above the rest. And before you mention this is hindsight bias, well, it is, but that is the only way to evaluate these drafts correctly. Because at the time, the consensus rationalized why players like Milicic went at the draft position he did. Which ties in to your next point…
Responding to the second to last blue box/response thing.
I feel like the “odds” that people calculate up are way too incomplete. Not saying I know any way to complete them, but they they seem somewhat inconsistent, or at least it seems that every team has their own evaluation system to calculate a player’s odds of succeeding. The college system is way too imbalanced to get a 100% accurate feel on a player. Players like Curry and George Hill play against much different competition with much different level teammates and coaches than players like Thabeet and Harden (random players, I know). The playing field just does not seem possible to evaluate on until you get to the tournament. But even at the tournament it seems some players get overrated based on their performances (every part of me believes Hayward is going to flop).
To me the whole evaluation system after the very top seems very random. It is probably not as random as I consider it, but still. I remember reading that Randolph was going to be a top 5 pick in some early mock drafts. A month later, and after zero extra games palyed, he falls to us at 14. What really changed between then? I think a lot of overanalysis is put into the draft workouts because scouts need to find the gem that will allow them to keep their job so they start making large distinctions out of tiny, maybe insignificant differences. When half the game (defense) has nothing except for human eyes to evaluate it, there are bound to be misjudgments.
And there seems to be other miscellaneous stuff that comes into play, from Telfair’s deal with Nike to racial stereotypes (inevitably, the white players as a collective have the higher basketball IQs, another measure that is very biased, and the black players as a collective have the greater athleticism). Maybe a player is judged to have higher odds than another player, but the formula that derived those odds involved these non-basketball factors. Who knows.
And for the last part, don’t take offense, I enjoy reading you both. And I’m not sure it was directed at you. the only person I know for sure it wasn’t directed at was Jae, but you, Onxln, and Sleepy are in the probably not directed at tier right under him (and no, I would not consider myself anywhere near that tier, all I know is I am above Skeptic Con Urquell).
all I know is I am above Skeptic Con Urquell
Haha, I’ll concede verbosity to you but not observational skills.
Which tell me John Wall and Cousins should be the #1 and #2 picks. and other than those two and Favors I wouldn’t trade Rudolf for any other player in this draft.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 4, 2010 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Ha, I was really joking about the last point, don’t worry. I didn’t actually take offense.
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Do it now.
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 Jun 4, 2010 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Rambis, the MN coach, is rather concerned with a lack of team height.
Very consistent meme from the entire Wolves FO since his hire. Jonny Flynn notwithstanding.
(They projected Curry as a two, incidentally – a short one. Bad, bad choice, but that was part of the rationale.)
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Actually Rambis and Love had some pretty cold shoulders for a while last year.
It was more of a tough love thing. Rambis sees himself in the kid, only with lots more talent. But yes, one of the reasons Rambis used Love form the bench was to get more “length” in the starting lineup. He started Ryan Frickin’ Hollins in his place, which was insulting.
I don’t see Kurt and Kahn eagerly signing up for Monta Ellis for a number of reasons, among them the prospect of a year with 6-flat Jonny Flynn starting next to Ellis in the backcourt. Gah.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
I know why we’d do it. I don’t know why the Wolves would…
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Kahn is an idiot.
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 Jun 4, 2010 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions
In my opinion I don’t see Jefferson bringing what he does from Minny to GSW. He reminds me of Al Harrington. I do agree if we can keep AR and make a 6 for 4 swap, it might be plausible. Brandon Wright wise, I’ve kinda passed my disappointment of him and hope we can get something for him in a trade if another team would take him.
I think trading Wright now would be a mistake. I’m guessing his trade value is really low, but he’s still a young guys with skills and boatloads of potential. If he stays healthy, he could be a solid player and significantly increase his trade value.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions
AR for 4th pick?
AR isnt the brightest player on the team…He looks confused every time he steps on the court. I would take the gamble on moving up draft. The forgotten player on the dubs is Brandon Wright. We still have him and plan to use him. He actually has a better court sense than AR. Im tired of Sacramento drafting in front of the Dubs. btw Curry should of been ROY!
I hope I’m wrong, very wrong, but right now Randolph looks like Stromile Swift Part II or Tyrus Thomas Part II- one of those superbly gifted athletes who just can’t play pro hoops all that well.
Did you intentionally choose all LSU players, or is that just a coincidence? And if it was a coincidence, is it really a coincidence that LSU tends to produce the same type of players?
Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!
Interesting. Pure coincidence though. Hopefully Trent Johnson can improve the hoops IQ output from there.
I won’t even bring up that former Raiders QB…
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!" | SBNation.com
by Atma Brother ONE on Jun 4, 2010 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s probably important to note that Randolph has shown way more skills than either of them did at his age…..
Expecting Randolph to end up not being better than them doesn’t seem to make sense to me. To be honest, Randolph might already be better than either of them have ever been.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Not that it’s Wrights fault, but just think if this guy becomes a bust. This franchise will have given up so much for that dude to succeed. If you think about it, the front office would end up having traded J-Rich, AR, and the 6th pick for Wright and the 4th pick.
That is true, but if they realize that is becoming a mistake. Fix it now than take the ride to never improve. I agree it’s not wrights fault. It’s just bad luck has fallen upon him to be able to show his potential due to injuries every single season. Even though he does polish up and become a decent forward, it can still cost us when he can’t play a whole season without getting injured.
Well the good news is Wright’s injuries are uncommon ones for basketball, so if he keeps from reinjuring that same shoulder (not a doctor, no idea if he’s at more risk to reinjure it now than before), he doesn’t have a history of real basketball injuries. It’s not like he has weak ankles, you know?
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s not like he has weak ankles, you know?
Haha, but he had his arm ripped off by Pau"Charmin" Gasol?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 4, 2010 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions
GET SOMETHING!
With Randolph, the W’s need to get something for him before they’re faced with getting nothing for him.
I think most can agree that AR becoming a star is about 50/50. 50 that reaches his potential, 50 that he stays an erratic head case.
If the W’s see it that way, then by trading him for something that seems like a surer bet, would mean he serves a positive use for the franchise — as a trade chip.
Randolph has THIS year only to prove he’s not a head case. However, if he doesn’t improve this season (becoming a better team player, better BBall IQ, less selfish) then his trade value becomes crap (SJACK, CRAWFORD, SPREWELL, etc).
There is less risk trading him. There is more risk keeping him. If you’re getting someone that seems like a surer bet, with the less risk option – - then that’s the better option.
Trade him if it gets you a player you covet in return – now.
I think most can agree that AR becoming a star is about 50/50.
which is a lot higher than the chances Wesley Johnson becomes a star.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 4, 2010 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
If we trade Randolph ..
And Wright doesn’t play more than 50 games next season, I’mma be PISSED!
Well let say if we do keep AR, and he doesn’t improve at all, wright still lingered by his injury (might re aggravate it). The warriors gets stuck with another prospect rookie to hope becoming something big from the #6 draft. We will be stuck for another horrible season like this year. I sure don’t want to see that again. I’m tired of our rookies not able to do anything. The players we pull out of D-League are better LOL. Curry is our only exception. Best option is to trade players such as Ellis, Corey, or couple others plus our pick for someone like Gerald Wallace from bobcats =). He would blend into our fast pace game pretty well. A SF who’s terrific in defending big SG, and fast SF. Warriors will have plenty of options this off season.
Love/#6 for Randolph/#4
If we can get that deal done, and pick up Cousins or Johnson with the #4, we should go for it. Love is a significant upgrade at PF – the best one the W’s would have had since Weber. Cousins would be an upgrade at center, and Johnson would be an upgrade at SF. My gut is to go for Cousins, because Curry/Ellis/Johnson/Love/Biedrins is still a small lineup. Next year’s lineup
PG: Curry
SG: Ellis/Williams
C: Cousins/Biedrins
PF: Love/Wright
SF: Maggette/Buike/Morrow
Kevin Love = Carlos Boozer
The more I think about it and look at the numbers this looks like the best comparison. I haven’t seen Love play enough to know if he has the same low post scoring acumen Boozer, but the numbers (and a little guesswork on my part) look eerily familiar.
Randolph for a (young) Boozer ain’t bad at all.
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!" | SBNation.com
by Atma Brother ONE on Jun 5, 2010 9:06 AM PDT reply actions
Love for Biedrins?
Actually (not that this is even possible contract-wise), Love for Andris Biedrins straight up would be pretty interesting. Love is one of the few players in the league who can beat Biedrins’ rebound rate and is actually younger than him.
My fear though is that this is just trading Troy Murphy without a jumpshot and a few blocks for a younger Troy Murphy.
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!" | SBNation.com
by Atma Brother ONE on Jun 5, 2010 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Should have jumped on my bandwagon last year.
When I was making my mock draft last year, I discussed a deal over at Canis Hoops and we agreed on: #6, #28, Kevin Love, and Mike Miller (expiring deal) for #7, Andris Biedrins, and Marco Belinelli. (I had the Warriors drafting Curry and Sam Young)
After Biedrins’ season this past year, I’m not sure that Wolves fans would be as eager to move Love for Andris.
Will Utah and Indiana go whiter? @ www.soulhonky.com
Uh...
Boozer is much better at this moment. He has real post moves, way more solid shot (even if its not out the to the 3) and rebounds better.
But Love is much younger.
by caseycheesecake on Jun 5, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Love is a better rebounder than Boozer, by quite a bit, too. Not that that’s a negative for Boozer – he’s a good rebounder, but Love is among the very top of the league. But yeah, Boozer’s offensive game right now is much better than Love’s.
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
5th in the league in RB/G and 4th in TotRbs…
by caseycheesecake on Jun 5, 2010 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Dude. When you say Boozer “rebounds better” than Love, the strong implication is that he’s actually, you know, better at rebounding — not that he pulls 0.2 more rebounds per game if given an extra six minutes of playing time.
Love 13.8 reb/36 (21.5 reb%) last season,13.3 reb/36 career (21.2 reb%)
Boozer 11.8 reb/36 (19.4%) last season, 11.2 reb/36 career (18.3 reb%)
I mean, if you’re going to cite per game and per season numbers, you could also note that Beno Udrih “rebounds better” than Joey Dorsey…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 5, 2010 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, credibility gone.
Also, major loss of points for comparing 21 year old Love to Boozer, who wasn’t even in the league at that age. Ok, Love now isn’t as polished offensively as Boozer at age 28. Great point.
Also to Atma
I have lost all respect for you. You have no idea what your talking about.
It's just a plant, it grows in the earth, and if you happen to set it on fire there are some effects...
Lets learn from our past mistakes
I remeber being young watching the Lakers and Boston in the playoffs with my uncle in the early 80s. My uncle preceded to to me of when the Warriors were swindled. Robert Parrish and the fouth pick for the number one and a future first round pick. That is known as one of the most lopsided trades in NBA history. The Celtics not only got Parrish but McHale too. Im tired of the Warriors letting other teams take advantage and giving other teams dynasties. This trade being proposed reminds me a lot of this one. I say NO trade. Point blank AR is still young and could be our starting power forward for the next 5 to ten years.
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 its 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
