Grade Larry Riley's Off-Season
by callahan on Sep 21, 2010 12:01 PM PDT
Email
PrintLooks like Larry Riley's been dissed enough. He's the one who should be credited for making the Warriors' deals. Or blamed. How would you grade what Riley has done so far?
This is what Riley has done so far this off-season:
September 13 2010Signed forward Louis Amundson.
September 8 2010
Signed guard Rodney Carney.
July 22 2010
Signed guard CJ Watson and traded him to the Chicago Bulls for a 2011 second-round pick.
July 21 2010
Signed guard Jeremy Lin.
July 13 2010
Signed guard Dorell Wright and signed guard Anthony Morrow and traded him to the New Jersey Nets for a conditional 2011 second-round pick and a player exception.
July 7 2010
Signed forward Ekpe Udoh.
July 9 2010
Traded guard Kelenna Azubuike and forwards Anthony Randolph and Ronny Turiaf and a 2010 second-round pick to the New York Knicks for forward David Lee.
Draft 2010
Selected forward Ekpe Udoh (6th overall pick).
SEASON 2009-10 June 22 2010
Traded forward Corey Maggette and the 44th overall pick in the 2010 draft to the Milwaukee Bucks for guard Charlie Bell and center Dan Gadzuric.
June 21 2010
Traded the 34th overall pick in the 2010 draft to the Portland Trail Blazers for the 44th overall pick in the 2010 draft and cash.
Read more: http://hoopshype.com/general_managers/larry_riley.htm#ixzz10Bw3Hyhw
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
660 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Here's my biased opinion
I would have rather have seen Cohan’s people all go, but I think Larry Riley should get the most credit for making a case for staying.
I give him a C+.
1. He should’ve drafted Greg Monroe over Ekpe Udoh. Udoh could prove me wrong, but he’ll have to have a heck of a half season if Monroe does well.
2. I like the David Lee deal. Lee and Stephen Curry will be part of the future and there could be an all-star or two all-stars there. We’ve said the same thing about Ellis and AB with Mullin, but I think we’re closer to getting an all-star with Lee and Curry. Riley was trying to get Amare before Lee. This is his biggest deal. It’s definitely better than AR and Curry or AR, Ellis and AB with Mullin. The neg on David Lee is his defense which will have to be addressed elsewhere.
3. Riley’s second biggest deal was getting rid of Maggette and his contract. Excellent deal.
4. Third would be shoring up the bench. It’s coming along and looks a lot better than before. I still think we need a 3-pt shooter and backup PG. Lin’s a big question mark.
5. Overall, the general consensus is the Warriors are still cellar dwellers in the West. The key is how are we shaped up for the future to get another key piece if Monta Ellis and AB aren’t the answers. What will Riley do to address this situation? The Warriors could be out of the running for Carmelo Anthony because of lack of first round picks to deal. Of course, that wasn’t Riley’s fault, but Mullin’s.
The negs on Riley are that he didn’t fire Don Nelson and move Keith Smart up. He didn’t do enough to stockpile second round picks.
Not firing Nelson really drops his grade in my book. I’d give Riley a C+ when he could’ve gotten a solid B or even a B+ if he gets another solid bench player for cheap. If Riley was sharp enough to fire Nelson and get Avery Johnson when he was available, then I’d give him a solid A. He would have gotten rid of the perception that he was Nelson’s puppet and poised the Warriors for big positive changes in the near future!
"Go ahead. Make my day."
Overall, the general consensus is the Warriors are still cellar dwellers in the West.
I agree that’s the overall consensus, but I think the people with that consensus don’t know what they’re talking about….
I’m curious how you think Riley could have gotten another solid bench player for cheap?
by Missing Barry on Sep 21, 2010 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions
+1
I agree that’s the overall consensus, but I think the people with that consensus don’t know what they’re talking about….
That sentence is applicable across innumerable disciplines and deserves its own cult following.
play like a 1 man guy
by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 22, 2010 2:08 AM PDT up reply actions
They might not be "cellar dwellers" anymore, depending on you definition
But they’re still a lottery team… Probably somewhere around the 10th best team in the west. All the playoff teams (except maybe Phoenix, although I still think Phoenix is better than the Dubs) are better than the Dubs, plus Houston. This I can be pretty confident about, except being unsure about Phoenix. I also think the Clips will probably surpass us, and I wouldn’t be in the Kings and Memphis do too…
by freerandolph on Sep 22, 2010 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions
This I can be pretty confident about
Meh. You can be pretty confident about anything you want, but being confident about stuff doesn’t make it likely to happen. For what it’s worth, the Wages of Wins projection formula pegs the Warriors for 45 wins next season, #8 seed in the west.
Yeah, it’s just one projection system among many, but it least it is a system, based on statistical indicators that have been tested and frequently held true. On the other hand, your assertion that “they’re still a lottery team … probably somewhere around the 10th best team in the west” is not based on anything other than your personal opinion — the “OOMA” system. That’s cool, I guess, but if you’re not going to support your opinion with any evidence, statistical or anecdotal, you shouldn’t expect anyone other than you to be persuaded by it.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 23, 2010 6:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Let me add an extra point ( ;
Given how thin we are, everyone is going to need to stay healthy for the whole season to make that WOW prediction come true. A major injury at any position is going to cripple us again. Maybe the formula somehow adjusts for that, but most of the other possible playoff teams are deeper than we are.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
this is what I was thinking too
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 23, 2010 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
The system you're using is just someone's opinion about how to predict these things...
Give me some numbers in the past when teams have made some significant changes to their roster of what the stat you’re using predicted their win total would be and then what their actual win total was. I would bet that the stat isn’t a good predictor because humans are generally pretty bad at setting up systems to predict the future.
Anyway, do you really disagree? Who do you think the Dubs are better than? OKC? SA? LAL? POR????
by freerandolph on Sep 23, 2010 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions
. I would bet that the stat isn’t a good predictor because humans are generally pretty bad at setting up systems to predict the future.
It’s easy to set up a stat to predict the future if the future resembles the past but in that case it’s also so obvious that a stat isn’t needed for anyone with eyes. If Binky and DLee stay healthy I’m predicting 47 wins not based on their past stats but based on my take of their potential from watching them play.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 23, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t disagree or agree, because you’ve given nothing of substance to disagree or agree with. I disagree with your belief that your out-of-your-[hat] prediction method is as tested and reliable as the Wages of Wins formula. The burden is on you to show otherwise, or at least to explain your rationale. You’ve still given the board … zip.
Personally, I don’t think it’s that hard to imagine something along the lines of the WoW scenario: i.e., that the Warriors will finish ahead of SAC, UTA, NOH, MEM, HOU, MIN and LAC. Obviously, any prediction system is flawed; but some (the OOMA system, e.g.) are much more flawed than others.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 23, 2010 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions
I know I have been suspicious of the Warriors chances at the playoffs
but for what it’s worth I do agree that it isn’t technically hard to imagine the Warriors beating any of those teams, I just think it’s an uphill battle to beat enough of them.
Quick question: did you accidentally leave off Phoenix?
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 23, 2010 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
The WoW rankings, for what they’re worth, have the Ws behind Phoenix. I’ll post them here so people don’t have to take the time to click and read the small type.
Wages of Wins Preliminary Team Rankings 2010-11
Based on 2009-10 performance
Adjusted Wins (minutes played and available wins)
(Numbers rounded)
--
62-20 Portland
60-22 LA Lakers
57-25 San Antonio
55-27 Dallas
48-34 Denver
47-35 Oklahoma City
46-36 Phoenix
45-37 Golden State
--
41-41 Sacramento
41-41 Utah
40-42 Memphis
39-43 New Orleans
35-47 Houston
24-58 Minnesota
14-68 LA Clippers
Note that they have the Ws closer to the #5 seed than the #9 seed. Again, for what it’s worth…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 23, 2010 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
btw, those aren't Wages of Wins rankings
their Arturo Galletti’s who uses WP, but he also does some other stuff with the data.
62-20 Portland?
If it’s based on 2010 performance what did portland do to increase their wins above the lakers?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 23, 2010 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions
A full season of Marcus Camby, and an improvement in overall team health (they won 50 games last year despite having nearly as many injuries as the W’s) would definitely make Portland a strong challenger to the Lakers.
Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!
It should be noted that the list comes with the disclaimer that there’s no “age modeling” considered. I would guess that the numbers of Camby, who’s 36, and already slipping a bit, deserve some downward adjustment. Ditto Phoenix with 36 y.o Nash and 38 y.o Grant Hill. And I’d guess the converse goes for a young team like OKC…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 23, 2010 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Ditto Phoenix with 36 y.o Nash
Steve Nash is a highlander.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 23, 2010 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
It should be noted that the list comes with the disclaimer that there’s no "age modeling" considered.
I’d like to know how they model for last year’s injuries? I don’t see any statistical reason to expect portland to suddenly be better than the lakers.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 23, 2010 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions
He mentioned that this is a first draft. He didn't adjust for likely minutes played, injuries, age or any rookie contributions.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 23, 2010 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions
He mentioned that this is a first draft. He didn't adjust for likely minutes played, injuries, age or any rookie contributions.
well if you don’t adjust for any of that stuff then it should be the lakers world champs and portland a quick exit?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 24, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
That's assuming the Lakers were the best team last year.
And that everyone’s roster stayed the same.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 24, 2010 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, I think that means that guys like Oden and Joel figure into the Blazer's production.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 24, 2010 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, I think that means that guys like Oden and Joel figure into the Blazer's production.
I’m sure they do but it also means the model is doing some speculating since Oden din’t have a great 2009-10 season?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 24, 2010 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Keep in mind things like injuries. Take this hypothetical – let’s say there’s a 25% chance of a teams best player getting hurt in any given season (made up number). 3/4 of the time, the Warriors will be fine. On average, 2 teams ahead of them will suffer quite a bit, though. So 3/4 of the time we should beat out two of the teams that are ahead of us (assuming we’re #9) simply from injuries, and that doesn’t even start to take into account things like aging, random variation, etc.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions
I would bet that the stat isn’t a good predictor because humans are generally pretty bad at setting up systems to predict the future.
Actually, that’s not true. We’re come with some pretty phenominal things to predict the future. Like, say, physics. Statistical modelling does a fantastic job of predicting a whole bunch of very complicated systems.
What’s interesting to me is that while you (and others) raise some reasonable concerns, and point out ways that statistics can be wrong … you don’t seem to be willing to apply those same caveats to your own analysis.
If you think that the future is inherently uncertain, and that there are a lot of hard-to-know variables involved in predicting the Warriors’ performance, then how can you be so “monkeys will fly out of my butt” confident about your own prediction?
Forgot to reply to the second half of this:
Who do you think the Dubs are better than? OKC? SA? LAL? POR????
I don’t think the Warriors will be better than OKC, POR, LAL, or Dallas.
On the other hand:
San Antonio was clearly in decline last season, and that should continue.
Phoenix lost one of the best offensive players in the game (Amare) who was coming off a career year, and hasn’t made any meaningful moves to replace him. They should be substantially worse.
Denver really appeared to be falling apart last season. It’s usually hard to get value for a “star” in a trade, so even if he’s overrated (which he is) they may struggle to get enough back. They could be a lot worse.
Sacramento? Memphis? Those teams didn’t do anywhere close to what we did to improve, plus we’re getting a good player (who basically gave us nothing last year) back from injury in Biedrins.
It’s not inconceivable that the Warriors could leapfrog all of those teams, which would get us the fifth spot. With Kobe getting older and Bynum already hurt, the Laker’s position is vulnerable. OKC is looking really dangerous, but if you’re going to talk about injuries they’ve got nothing if Durant goes down.
I’m not saying I expect us to catch those two teams. I’m saying that if you’re going to get all pessimistic about our injury chances, apply the same standard to everyone else. San Antonio is VERY catchable if Duncan gets hurt.
At the end of the day, predictions are something of a crapshoot no matter what. Make enough of them, and you’ll be right sometimes and you can blow your trumpet, while quietly lurking in the background and hoping nobody notices when you miss.
But the notion that the west is some sort of uncrackable edifice seems hard to justify. Even Dallas – with their center upgrade, I think they’re a tough nut to crack, but they’re counting on Kidd to keep bringing it and he was exposed in the playoffs last year after a great regular season. If he falls to earth because people stop fearing his speed and take away his three-point shot, they’re absolutely beatable.
Well, it’s really not someone’s opinion about how to predict things. It’s someone trying to come up with an objective model that best describes how to predict things. Those models tend to do a lot better than human opinion on whatever subject we’re talking about.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Monkeys
Monkeys will jump out of your butt, before this team as its stands now, makes the playoffs.
Well that works out then, ’cos I just signed up to be a simian surrogate mother. ;-P
Care to explain why you think they won’t finish ahead of the seven Western teams with lower WoW ratings?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 23, 2010 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not necessarily saying I agree or disagree with the prediction
But I do have a problem with the process as it stands.
Although Wins Produced has been proven to be pretty consistent year over year, I still don’t like the idea of simply taking last year’s WP numbers and saying that’s what they will perform this year. It has all the normal problems that you have to deal with in prediction making (small sample size, regression towards the mean, aging effects, etc.) A simple way to improve the method would be to weighted mean of the past 3 seasons and apply some age adjustment (a well known method that in basketball is called SPS, baseball is called Marcell The Monkey Forcasting, and in football is called Koko the monkey Forcasting. It’s so simple, a monkey can do it, get it?) You could simply use the past 3 years of WP48 or, better yet, use three years of the components of wins produced and apply age adjustments to that, then get a new WP48 from your projected components. Doing so would greatly improve the accuracy, and it’s not much extra work.
Of course, non of this takes into account players shifting teams and roles, which will likely causea change in a players production as well. So there’s even more to be skeptical about with these predicitons.
I’m not saying they’re wrong, just that they are built on a shaky foundation.
Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!
The x-factor for me is Smart
With a healthy roster and Nelson, I would feel confident the Clippers, Kings and Memphis would not pass us. Now I don’t know what to think. Nelson isn’t a perfect coach but he is better than 2/3rd of NBA coaches and certainly knew how to ‘out-scheme’ coaches with comparable talent.
If you can guarantee health, I’d be very, very comfortable betting on the Warriors to be significantly better than the Clippers, Kings and Grizzlies. Of course, we’ve seen how likely a healthy roster is the past few seasons….
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Out of curiosity why?
I will give you kings. In my opinion they might be best of the 4 teams being discussed long term cause of potential or Tyreke and Cousins and nice surrounding pieces but they aren’t there yet.
Otherwise,
-Memphis has a nice group that should improve upon last year. I doubt they’ll keep Gasol, after last year and thus take a step back, but this year they should be over .500
-Clippers, possibly true. Upon further examination I realize I was just high on Blake Griffin. Otherwise Eric Gordon is a nice player. Kaman is good and Baron is of course, the x-factor. Del Negro claims he wants to run, if he can implement that Baron might actually do something positive
Because a healthy Warriors team is a very solid team.
The Grizzlies…..meh. I see no reason to think they’ll be better than last year – seriously, who on that team is supposed to improve? I see 6 reasons to think they’ll be worse – and those 6 reasons are the 6 previous seasons before last one where Zach Randolph was a team killing black hole bum. Regression towards the mean can be a killer. I think Gasol, if given the chance, could be much more of an impact player than he currently is, but problem #7 – unless/until Randolph goes somewhere else, he’s not going to get the role he should.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions
seriously, who on that team is supposed to improve?
Why can every starter except Z-bo not improve? None are old or veteran. Also another year together will only make them better. OJ Mayo could improve, Gasol will improve on little things, Rudy Gay showed signs over summer, we all know his potential. And anyway, continuity is best recipe for success in basketball. Well and talent ;)
Overall I still think they will be more or less same record as last year (.500 team). But i still don’t believe Warriors are much better than that
Sure, they could improve, but most of them are really at the point players are typically plateauing at their peak. Actually, looking at it Gay is a year or two younger than I thought, so he might have a little improvement left, I question how much. I’m not a big Mayo fan, especially since he showed basically no improvement from year 1 to year 2. They also seemed to have a pretty good health record last year. In addition, I don’t think they were a .500 team last year – between ZBo playing over his head and the team getting lucky (pythag 37-45), I just don’t think they’re all that good. If they all of a sudden decide to be smart and feature Gasol, I’d be more on board with them being tough, but right now I just don’t see all that much to like about that franchise. I suppose Conley has a chance to step up his game.
I also think a healthy Warriors team is a .500 team at worst. We have a legitimately good offense, from the starters to the bench, and a good rebounding team. Defense will still be the weakness, but being able to rebound will significantly improve that, as will being able to field an actual traditional lineup, plus the addition of Dorell gives us at least one guy to play wing D. The good offense offsets the weak defense, and the good rebounding puts us above average.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions
On the otherhand
Why would they get worse? Other then your ZBo theory, in general his poor play has been on awful teams where he’s been ‘about his’ a la maggette. I see no reason he can’t hold his production in same system with same supporting cast. Perhaps he finally found the right home? Whats worse is, you can’t use this theory for him than expect David Lee to continue all star production when he’s NEVER done that before last year. Just been on the Biedrins level of solid productive role player big man.
Furthermore one more year together, should make them slightly better. At worse (barring injuries) the same.
When I compare our rosters, I see this
PG: Curry is clearly better than Conley. Conley could improve to a good PG, but Curry will continue to improve to a better one
SG: Gotta give it to Mayo last year, but at same time I think Monta will improve from his horrid year. I’m going to call it a push.
SF: Gay is better. Wright might be better for us though. Judging by summer with team USA though, this could be Gay’s year. Memphis
PF: I’ll take David Lee. But ZBo is not much behind him
C: A big edge to Gasol last year. I expect Gasol to continue to improve as he’s simply a) more skilled and b) a better defender cause of size. Biedrins return to form makes it a lot closer, but I’d rather have Gasol.
Bench: Us, but it’s not forgone. Not with Brandan Wrights injury issues, Reggie Williams small sample size. If they play way they should, then we’re fine. We know what Lou, Carney and Bell bring. Much needed hustle and defense first attitude.
I just think as it stands, we are very similar teams. If everything goes according to plan, right players develop (for them Gay, followed by Mayo and Gasol continuing) both teams can make case for being mid 40s to 50 win team. If things don’t break right (selfish play, some injuries) both teams could easily be in low 30s to worse.
I think us and memphis are the 2 teams with the best chance of making the playoffs that didnt last year. I see Phoenix falling out aswell as Utah.
Pheonix is seriously a slightly different version of We Believe Warriors
PG who runs the show:
Nash → Baron
A bunch fo gunning wings who will play the 2 thru 4 position- JRich, Grant Hill, Dudley, Childress , Hedo, even dragic —
> Jack, Monta, Barnes, Peitrus, Harrington, Buike
Bigs who run court well-
Lopez, Frye, Warrick → Biedrins, Harrington
They are actually deeper BUT the big if is if Lopez can hold his late season form for a whole year (which will be necessary)
And why Utah, they made playoffs basically without Boozer in 08/09. As much as I dislike Jefferson, if theres one coach who could maximize him, I’d say it’s Sloan. More so I am a big fan of Millsap (for what he is)
As much as I dislike Jefferson, if theres one coach who could maximize him, I’d say it’s Sloan.
I think this is a very important point. Sloan, more than any coach in the league, seems to be able to reign in guys who are shooting beyond their ability to make shots. I remember when Donyell went there and went from the pathetic low 40’s % shooter to one of the more efficient scorers in the league. His shot volume went down, but the shots he continued to take were the good ones. If Sloan can do that with Jefferson, have him fed in the paint and never take shots outside of that comfort zone, Utah will again be dangerous.
by jae on Sep 28, 2010 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Rec’d jae. The well earned respect that Sloan commands is amazing. Still remember last year how Utah waltzed into Oracle like a well oiled machine. They just dripped with the “well coached” juice.
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 28, 2010 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Jefferson's efficiency will go up, most likely.
If for no other reason than Utah doesn’t post up their bigs that much. If he gets 20%+ of his shots off cuts like Boozer did, he’ll see a spike in his TS%.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 29, 2010 3:02 AM PDT up reply actions
As for West
(In no ordeR)
I feel confident:
Lakers
Dallas
San Antonio
Portland
OKC
Utah
are locks to make playoffs barring a serious injury situation
Pheonix, Houston are solid bets. Denver i’m waiting to see with trades but otherwise i’d have them as a lock. So where are Warriors exactly? We need a little luck with injuries to teams ahead of us cause as of current rosters I rate Warriors 10th in west.
I just think Phoenix will realize how hard the west is without that dominant big man. Nash can work miracles and if he can take a aging Grant and J-rich to the playoffs he’s the best PG of alltime. As far as Utah goes I think they will win about 5 less games than they did last year without Boozer and Korver. I dont think Sloan and Jefferson will mesh.
Yeah but look at depth at wing position. Hill’s age won’t matter, he’s not vital.
As for Amare. Well they will be fine if they can get rebounding out of there bigs. The scoring won’t be as big an issue I think… i mean Amare will be missed but still
It will be interesting to see them make up for Amare’s absence. Every other team in the West has a legit big man except them. Now they’ll feel how we felt last year. Hill and J-Rich cant compensate for the loss of a Allstar big like amare. They dont even have a shot blocking threat besides lopez.
It will be interesting to see them make up for Amare’s absence.
Weren’t they like the 3rd seed last year? They could be a lot worse than they were and still make the playoffs.
They dont even have a shot blocking threat besides lopez.
That was true last year, too.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 27, 2010 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions
True, they were the third seed, but they were only 4 games up from the 8th seed….
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions
But they were like 12 games up on the 9th seed
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 28, 2010 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
They have A LOT more wings than just jrich and Hill
Hedo, Childress, Dudley. I expect them to use a lot of Nash, 3 wing, Center lineups. Like I said… we believe-esque.
NAsh, JRich, Hedo, Childress, Lopez can be a match up nightmare. Also Dragic is a VERY good young player
They’ll be fun for sure.
I don’t see the comparison to We Believe defensively. The Warriors forced tons of turnovers back then, and had a team of similar sized, fairly long, athletic wings that could switch everything without giving the other team a much better matchup than they had before. That lineup is going to have to do everything in it’s power to hide Nash and Hedo from the ball.
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah Nash is pretty ball dominant
But so was Baron. I think Pheonix’ wings are just as good at passing, running and We beileve Warriors.
As for defensive point. Ok we know Nash’s short comings but rest are very capable of forcing turn overs and running. Childress I think was a huge signing for them. JRich we know well, Hill, Dudley, Hedo are good wings at forcing turnovers with the first two being good man defenders as well.
Finally speculation, I get what you’re saying about we believe running much more than Suns. ITs just speculation on my part. There is no way they can play exact same system they did without Amare (who is such an offensive force). I can easily see lineups with Childress or Dudley or even Hedo at PF, which will force you to run a bit more.
Eitherway I’m excited to watch them. I think they will be most exciting team in NBA, and no one else is truly built like them.
I wouldn’t count on Hedo to do anything defensively, including forcing turnovers. But really, I was just being specific to defense, I see similarities offensively.
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Just dont see how Phoenix will be more exciting than the dubs this season. Steph actually has guys who can finish at the basket now. With the pick and rolls between him and Lee/Beans to the lobs he can throw to the Wright’s/Carney/Amundson we should be the most exciting team in the league and I didnt even mention Monta’s game.
I dunno what to expect from Keith Smart. Suns were arguably more exciting last year anyway. Nash is a magician, as much as I like Curry he’s got a LOOONG way to go to get into Nash’s level.
He made 1 nash-like play last year and all of GSoM errupted into a jizz-tastic orgasm. Nash does that a handful of times every game
This is not to say, I think GSW is boring, not at all. But Suns are always “fun” to watch. From a pure aesthetic point of view they are set for my favorite type of basketball. PG, 3 wing players, 1 post player. 4 of the players are good 3 point shooters, lots of slashing and outside shooting. I know it’s not the most effective winning formula, but it is fun.
The suns only have 1 exciting player in my opinion. Lee,Monta,Steph,Carney,Amundson, and even Lin should make the dubs more exciting but thats just my opinion.
Lee,Montay,Steph,Carney,Amundson, and even Lin should make the dubs more exciting
I’m going with LBJ,Wade,and Bosh plus crew, them against the lakers should be a very exciting finals.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 28, 2010 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
I find Big Z the most exciting
From a goonish, lock stock and two smoking barrels/Snatch eastern european contract killer sort of way.
So you find lou amundson and Rodney Carney exciting? They are good signings but not exactly exciting…
Outside Curry and Monta. I find suns players much more exciting. Doesn’t mean they are better but just more exciting.
Playing with a good passer like Curry yes they’ll be exciting. I dont remember seeing Curry throw any alley oops last year because he didnt have anybody who can get up and finish besides Randolph who was Injured by the time Steph really got going.
I’m hoping we don’t see too much of Rodney Carney on the court. Also, is Amudson really that athletic where we should expect him to be finishing alley oops often…?
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes he is and I want Carney coming off the bench everytime Dorell goes to the bench. Carney is athletic enough to guard most wings in the league. With the amount of focus Curry will get from defenses he’ll be able to get alot of lobs in the air. Just wait and see. Highlight central. Thats the main reason I think he wanted Wesley Johnson so he could have a guy who can finish around the basket.
Carney is athletic enough, sure, but everything I’ve ever seen and read about him says he’s not a good defender. Instincts, effort….just not there.
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Synergy rates him as an above average defender...something we definitely need.
REPLY TO DONUT
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 28, 2010 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions
If he plays D, then I’m ok with him coming off the bench for Dorell.
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions
So who would u prefer to guard Durant him or Reggie? Those are the only 2 options if D.Wright comes off the floor.
Obviously Carney,
but Carney isn’t all that good of a defender. He’s a good defender, but there is a reason that the Warriors got him for absolutely nothing. He isn’t a special defender and he doesn’t do anything else.
Really, there isn’t anyone in the league I want guarding Durant. You practically need Durant Rules on him.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 28, 2010 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, I forgot that we play OKC every game of the season. We play less than 5% of our games against Kevin Durant….. :\
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Durant,Melo,Artest,Butler,Jefferson etc. My point is who do u want guarding the best 3’s in the league.
Durant is a unique thing
there are no SFs that can score like him. He’s long and he’s unique.
Jefferson, Artest are barely scoring threats. Butler is, but even he isn’t that special a scorer.
And even with all of this, Carney isn’t even a starter. He’ll probably get 10 minutes a game. It’s so meaningless.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 28, 2010 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions
On Artest, to be honest, I want whoever he feels he’ll do the best against to guard him – so he takes more shots. I’d much, much, much rather have Artest taking shots, regardless of who’s guarding him, than Gasol getting touches….
Durant is really the only one that concerns me.
by Missing Barry on Sep 29, 2010 7:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Also, is Amudson really that athletic where we should expect him to be finishing alley oops often…?
Amundson can elevate enough to do the job and is quick enough to get in position to finish the alley oop. Whether or not he has the hands to catch and finish is a different matter. He can get ahold of the ball well enough to be a good rebounder, so perhaps this is an unwarranted concern on my part.
After watching that….I’m surprised you’d single him out as a big time alley oop threat? We have guys like Wright, Udoh, Biedrins (hey, being tall makes it easy!), Dorell and Monta out there…I’m not seeing anything particularly special about Amudson. Anyways, alley oops aren’t really a meaningful part of basketball – entertaining, sure, but just not common enough to make much difference in terms of winning/losing….
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions
My bad that was the wrong link. Here’s the 1 that shows what he can do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEWjwwhZMI0
And I agree it does not make a difference but its exciting and thats what we was talking about. Last year only person that had the lift to catch a alley was Randolph.
Ah that is more impressive than the other one. Most impressive player in that play? Dragic….that was an AMAZING pass!
How we all forget that Wright is a very good athlete. He definitely can get up. And I maintain Biedrins can simply because he’s tall (though it won’t be nearly as cool looking, of course). We’ll see with Udoh, too.
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions
hmmm, apparantly Lin is exciting and Dragic is chopped liver
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 28, 2010 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Dragic is exciting i totally forgot about him. But Lin being able to dunk makes him more exciting than Dragic.
But Lin being able to dunk makes him more exciting than Dragic.
Compared to PuffDragic JaoLin looks slow and old. Dragic has the magic motor of a RajaRondo.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 28, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
If Lin was keeping up with Wall and wall is as fast as I think he is u are way off saying lin is slow.
If Lin was keeping up with Wall and wall is as fast as I think he is u are way off saying lin is slow.
there’s summer league fast and NBA games fast. Lin is gonna look about as athletiic as Mike Dunleavy once the league gets his number.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 28, 2010 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I’ve never heard anybody say Lin was slow until now. In college he was blowing by guys easily. Did u see the UConn game?
I’ve never heard anybody say Lin was slow until now.
I’m not saying he’s slow just that he won’t look so fast against real NBA players. He’ll have to learn to adjust his game for the bigger and better defenders, just blindly heading to the rim is not gonna work.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 28, 2010 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I've heard that he's pretty close to average
athletically. Not slow, but not as fast as Dragic. Who can probably shoot better and is better at attacking the basket. And they’re like the same size.
I just think that Dragic is one of the better backup PGs in the league. At least as good as CJ. Lin is an undrafted rookie out of Harvard. I think my reluctance to proclaim Lin “exciting” is completely reasonable.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 28, 2010 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Lin can dunk? I mean, let’s get this straight – EVERYONE in the NBA can dunk, the question I’m asking is whether Lin is the kind that will be dunking over people?
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I kind of feel bad for Lin
Being a bay area kid and in a heavy Asian-American community he’s going to be under extra scrutiny. Then again if he’s successful he’ll get way more praise than deserved
Well, exciting is very much in the eye of the beholder. For me, any team with Steve Nash is exciting.
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Taking a team to the playoffs when more than half the NBA makes the playoffs hardly qualifies for Nash as “the best PG of all time.” Frankly, he’s not qualified for that conversation because of his atrocious defense. There have been other great offensive PG’s, too….and unlike Nash, they weren’t the worst defenders in the NBA when they played.
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions
I see us being better at all 5 positions.
I really don’t like Rudy Gay as a high volume option, but I think he has some more room to grow. He’s very athletic, and if he can cut back on his midrange jumpers and take a 3 instead, and try to get fouled more he could be a pretty good player. He’s actually a decent defender too.
But Dorrell Wright is the better defender, rebounder, passer, and he’s a higher efficiency scorer.
Steph > Conley
Monta (at his best/not at his worst) > Mayo
DWright > Gay
Lee > Zebo
AB (healthy) > Gasol (but i think they’re about equal)
Gasol doesn’t rebound that well, and Biedrins is an amazing rebounder. Not much of a difference in scoring production but i think Memphis underutilized Gasol, so i’d say they’re about equal.
Bench: Us as long as we stay healthy.
But Memphis has a nice little core, but seriously overpaid Gay. And probably won’t keep Gasol.
REPLY TO DONUT
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 27, 2010 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Great kool-aid
Gasol is better than Biedrins at almost every facet of basketball. Biedrins averages more rebounds than Bosh, Pau too. Do you think he’s better than them too? Without getting into fact Gasol’s a much better defender than Andris…..Gasol had a 61.7 TS% with a much more diverse offensive game. He can actually create for himself. Gasol also doesn’t have a career 5.1 PF per 36 average (meaning Biedrins has trouble staying on floor). I see no real argument.
Gay is better than Wright. Even if he’s grossly over paid, and i’m not a fan. It’s not disputeable. It’s not a question of whose contract I’d want more. It’s who is better
It’s not disputeable.
I agree with you on Gasol, but I don’t know about this. Rudy Gay isn’t all that good. He isn’t much of a defender, he rebounds like a 6’5" guy, not a 6’8" freak, not a good shooter, an awful passer, not a good scorer in general. At least Wright does some of those things.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 27, 2010 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions
and I should say
I prefer Wright for our team. But Gay really got all the tools and SEEMS to be putting it together. I suppose we shall see. Like someone said before. They’d be better off with say… marcus camby @ PF than ZBo if only to increase touches to Gasol, Gay and Mayo.
Actually you know whose become REALLY underrated in that regard? Lamar Odom. Guys become the ultimate ‘role player’ if you can call him that. 11.2 rebounds per 36, 3.8 assists, excellent D on PFs.
He was good at FIBA,
but who knows.
Yeah, I really like Lamar Odom as a player. I really think that him and Manu Ginobili are the only two legitimate 6th man of the year candidates every year.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 27, 2010 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not sure increased touches to Mayo or Gay is a good thing. To Gasol….yes, I do believe it would be.
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Mayo is a good shooter. near 39% 3 pt shootyer and 55.1% TS%. He’s not a first option, and in fact you might be right, his touches are about on par with what he should get. Still I don’t see your point ‘minimal improvement’. He improved from 53.9 TS% to 55.1 TS%. That’s from average to above average. Why can’t he improve it a little more too? What mostly changed was he took better 2 point shots, less mid rangers more to the basket.
As for Rudy Gay. I’m not sure other than, he seems to be turning corner with Team USA and the raw talent is undeniable. And if I was a memphis fan, I’d be hoping he’s turned the corner with that contract
Clearly Gasol needs more useage and shots though.
The way I see it with OJ is two years ago he had a bigger role in initiating the offense. Last year he was basically a jump shooter. So that accounts for the difference in his TS%. Giving him more shots means he’s going to have to start creating more, similar to his first season. I don’t think he does that well. So that’s my thought process – he’s fine in the role he’s in, maybe he can even improve a bit with some extra experience/development, but to get him more shots means a bigger role that he’ll do worse in.
On another note, I’m not a big fan of judging guys by what they do on other teams in other roles over the summertime, especially given that it’s mostly non-NBA competition. Until Gay starts showing that improvement in an NBA environment, it’s not something I personally would look at.
The best thing Memphis could do is make Marc a much bigger part of their offense. I’d be a lot more optimistic about them if they did. Until they do, I see a pretty mediocre team.
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions
The best thing Memphis could do is make Marc a much bigger part of their offense. I’d be a lot more optimistic about them if they did. Until they do, I see a pretty mediocre team.
Goes to your david lee point. How are we so sure they won;‘t use Gasol more? What I know is Gasol is a better player than Biedrins and if used correctly it won’t be a debate-able point.
Well, my reasoning is if they didn’t use him more last year, seeing as how their personnel is mostly unchanged, what reason is there to think they’re going to change thier philosophy now? Especially with the rumors that Gasol is leaving, if they aren’t factoring him into their future then they don’t really care about his development. Given that they just committed a bunch of money to Rudy Gay…..
We’ll see how they use him. I’d also like to se how he does with a bigger role before declaring him better than Biedrins. I have no doubt he can do more offensively, the question is how much, since I see a pretty big gap to make up becuase of Biedrins rebounding advantage?
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions
I just don’t see your argument at all. Gasol might have a better offensive game, but he sure isn’t used that way in Memphis. Biedrins scores and passes just as much, while also doing it incredibly efficiently. Bringing Bosh or Pau into the argument is a huge strawman – when Marc starts putting up the offensive numbers they do, then let us know, until then it’s not relevant.
I also think you overestimate Marc’s defense. Dude isn’t athletic. Pick and roll defense, help defense, and defense in general away from the hoop matter, too, and Andris is better at those.
The point of bringing up rebuonding is that it’s a huge aspect of basketball, and Biedrins blows Marc away at it. Nobody judges players JUST on their rebounding, so just stop with that nonsense right now. Given that Marc doesn’t really do any more than Biedrins elsewhere and Biedrins blows him away in rebounding though…….
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Biedrins hasn’t been able to score without a PG. Site all the efficiency stats you want it’s still bs because guy is very limited. I give him credit for to playing outside himself but he depends on others to function.
Gasol can function with no point guard. Offensively there is no question. Just cause Gasol may be under utilized does not mean he isn’t 3 times the player offensively Biedrins is. If Gasol was on the Warriors I imagine he could be 15 to 20 points efficiently
As for defense again I strongly disagree. You need to watch him more. He anchors paint like a center should. I don’t really care how his perimeter/high post defense is cause that’s not a centers responsibility. I want a guy who controls paint and post
But we’re talking about what the Warriors and Grizzlies are going to do as a team next year, right? So Gasol’s offensive talent isn’t really what’s important, it’s his offensive production that matters to this conversation. And Biedrins produces on a similar level to him. Gasol might have the talent to do a lot more if he was given the opportunity, which is fine but just isn’t relevant to this conversation unless Memphis actually does give him the opportunity….
I personally don’t agree that he “anchors the paint”. When I think of that, I think of a guy who protects the rim and rebounds, in addition to the post D. I don’t believe Gasol does either of those. Defense is harder to evaluate, though, maybe I’m wrong. Next time I see them play I’ll pay attention to it.
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions
(I also forgot to mention earlier Biedrins fouls at a pretty average rate for a C, which is pretty solid given he actually plays help D and the sheer number of possessions he’s having to help out on wings attacking the rim since our wings let up dribble penetration like a sieve….)
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions
But do we know Gasol won't increase his touches?
Coaches aren’t stupid. I wouldn’t be surprised if he sees his number called more and more.
In the end of the day, I think Gasol is a better player by a size-able margin than Biedrins. This is where my coaching comment comes into it. If Nelson was our coach I would feel 100% confident we’d finish ahead of Memphis cause I believe Nellie generally knows what to do with his players. But with Smart I’m not so sure.
Well, many coaches do make many bad decisions. It still seems a number of NBA decision makers haven’t really figured out the idea/importance of efficiency yet. I do think it’s a valid thought that a coach should see Gasol needs more touches, I just wonder…..why didn’t they see that last year, and what’s going to change so they do see it this year?
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
When Gay starts scoring efficiently, let me know…..
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions
See this is where you need to back things up.
Gasol didn’t even score that much. Who cares if his offensive game is more diverse if he isn’t using it that much? Biedrins scores more efficiently, and is a much better rebounder and passer. Gasol’s defense isn’t really that good because he’s so slow, but i guess it’s better than Biedrins.
REPLY TO DONUT
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 28, 2010 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I wouldn’t call Gasol an edge to Memphis at all. Maybe if he had a big role where he could make an impact, he would be better than Biedrins, but the way Gasol is used, Biedrins is actually a better player. Biedrins does just as much on offense as Gasol does, is a much, much better rebounder, and is better defensively. Yeah, Gasol has better size and is probably a better post defender, but Biedrins is much better at every other aspect of D. Edge is easily to the Warriors.
Anyways, I don’t like going line by line comparing lineups like that. I don’t think it gives you very good analysis.
Other then your ZBo theory, in general his poor play has been on awful teams where he’s been ‘about his’ a la maggette. I see no reason he can’t hold his production in same system with same supporting cast. Perhaps he finally found the right home? Whats worse is, you can’t use this theory for him than expect David Lee to continue all star production when he’s NEVER done that before last year. Just been on the Biedrins level of solid productive role player big man.
Well, you really can. In Lee’s case all he did was get an increased workload. He’s shown his whole career he’s been capable of being that kind of guy, he’s just never been given the chance. Essentially he used to be where Marc Gasol is now – a player who should be used more often than he is, who’s shown he can be effective when he does get a chance. If Marc broke out because Memphis started running their offense around him, it would be completely different than ZBo last year.
ZBo last year all of a sudden put up average efficiency numbers, and based on what we know about efficiency and regression towards the mean….well, it’s not likely to continue. Especially since he’s really the same player in the same black hole role he’s always been. I don’t see the point in bringing Maggette into this – Maggette has always been an efficient scorer wherever he’s been, in whatever situation he’s been in. I guess that’s kind of like how ZBo has always been an inefficient scorer, whever he’s been, in whatever situation he’s been in…?
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions
It was the overall consensus of the experts on Yahoo which is why I threw that in there.
Sorry, I didn’t post earlier, but have been extremely busy trying to keep my head above water.
The West is tough, so I want to see the W’s beat Sacramento and the Clips. It would also be telling if they beat San Antonio and PHX, two playoff teams that could be on their way down. Denver would be another team with the Carmelo Anthony situation they have now.
I think if Riley got Pargo, he would be a good player for the minimum. The other way is what he seems to be good in — finding a D-League backup PG. But I rather have Pargo in our situation. Even though we have Charlie Bell, we still need a vet at PG instead of another rookie.
"Go ahead. Make my day."
I think if Riley got Pargo, he would be a good player for the minimum.
Pargo is not an NBA caliber player anymore. Not even a deep, end of bench sort of guy. He’s the guard version of Mikki Moore or Devean George. I’d rather take a shot on a d-league guy. There’s a chance he could be good. That doesn’t exist with Pargo- he’s a known bag of crap.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 24, 2010 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Deavean was actually pretty good last year tbh.
REPLY TO DONUT
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 28, 2010 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Based on what?
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 28, 2010 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Very nice +/- numbers.
Shot the 3 well, and often. That’s pretty much it, but he helped us out much more than i thought he could. Pretty much was a career year for him. I wouldn’t have minded him back for minimum because he can shoot the 3.
REPLY TO DONUT
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 28, 2010 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions
God I hate Devean George. I hope he doesn’t coem back. I hope he goes to the Lakers and has a hand in them losing in the Finals.
by Missing Barry on Sep 29, 2010 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions
I used to hate him.
But i liked him after this season.
REPLY TO DONUT
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 29, 2010 7:35 AM PDT up reply actions
The negs on Riley are that he didn’t fire Don Nelson and move Keith Smart up
Is that the GM’s job description?
I’m not a fan of Smart, I really would rather see both of them gone, but since I’m not sure there are currently better options….I think it might be best to keep the status quo in place a year before finding someone new….
by Missing Barry on Sep 21, 2010 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Mussleman?
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
The big thing was to get rid of Nelson.
Maybe Riley learned from Nelson and was instrumental in having him resign. LOL.
I rather have seen Riley fire Nelson and get someone like Avery Johnson when he was available. AJ plays pick and roll and emphasizes defense. He’s fiery and has a winning record — 188 – 65 .743.
I think Smart deserved a chance. He’s a good interim coach if he can’t cut the mustard because I think he’ll keep the run and gun style. It’s not my preference though.
"Go ahead. Make my day."
Depends on Curry, Randolph and Lee
For me, the results of this summer will depend on how the players play together. I think the biggest key here will be how Curry takes leadership from the point guard position. I think theres a chance he will do very well. The biggest disappointment for me will be if Randolph turns into a terror, a dominating, elite big man, and Lee is only above average. I think theres a chance this could happen as well.
Yall know I gave the guy a A. He did everything he said he wanted to do at the end of the season. He said he had to get sure up our rebounding problems and he did. He said he wanted to bring in some veteran guys that knew what the NBA was about and he did. He said he wanted to bring in players with a defensive mindset and he did. I dont know what else people expect him to do in 1 offseason. Keep in mind that at least 3 other teams wanted David Lee and Riley got him here. At least 2 other teams wanted Lin and he got him here. At least 3 other teams wanted Amundson and he got him here. Unlike the Maggette deal we didnt have to grossly overpay for anybody to sign here. People finally are wanting to be here. We are a more gritty defensive minded team than we was last year.
by J-RIDAH on Sep 21, 2010 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
I surprisingly agree with 95% of the stuff you say J-RIDAH and I appreciate the discussion posts. If We are healthy, we are making the playoffs (especially if the Nuggets trade Anthony to the East Coast), R. Williams will be in the running for 6th man, we will finish at about even in the rebounding differential, and last but not least, Ellis will have a great year.
Thats what I dont get. How do people think we are not playoff contenders is beyond my comprehension. We are better than 2 of the teams that were in the playoffs last year, Phoenix and Utah. We are healthy now and should be expected to outrebound most of the teams in the league with Beans coming back. And we are better on defense.
You have no idea whether the Warriors are better than Phoenix or Utah. They could be but don’t expect it. Also have to be better than the other six you didn’t mention. Plus better than the Rockets and Hornets (hey, you can make the “their healthy this year” arguement too if you want) plus the Kings and Clippers improved. Plus the Grizzlies were better than the Warriors last year and not much has changed.
The playoff hunt is much more crowded than you think but for what it’s worth there is reason to hope at least.
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 21, 2010 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Im saying the dubs will be better than Phoenix and Utah if the top 3 guys stay healthy. My point is the west is open and people saying the dubs are at the bottom with Minny are wrong. Its funny because last year writers was saying the Warriors needed to address the rebound and defense issue and when they do address it they still say we aint good enough for playoff contention and dont even state what we need to improve on besides the coach and front office.
not quite as positive on the Warriors depth as you are
but I would agree the Warriors are above Minny. Although I don’t recall many writers grouping the Warriors as battling it out with Minny for last place. Seems the Kings, Warriors, and Clips are more often paired together with Memphis all over the place.
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 21, 2010 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions
my comment here is full of all kinds of fail
techincally just have to be better than 6 of the following: Clips, Kings, Grizzlies, Rockets, Hornets, Suns, Phoenix, Denver (threw them in because zero clue what is going to happen and refuse to even consider Minnesotta as having a shot). That is all kinds of crowded
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 21, 2010 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions
At least 2 other teams wanted Lin and he got him here. At least 3 other teams wanted Amundson and he got him here
Haha, Lin and Amundson make him look good? what about the fact that they are not difference makers? Maybe he shoulda been looking at better options? You are a very easy grader, hope you don’t actually teach school.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 21, 2010 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions
What better options do you have in mind?
amundson was easily the best remaining free agent.
by GSW Fan4Life on Sep 21, 2010 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions
true
but then again it’s not exactly an Earth shattering amazing signing at the same time is all
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 21, 2010 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Lin is a rookie
how can you fault a GM for picking up a cheap prospect who clearly has talent? Seeing as Curry is going to get the bulk of the minutes at PG this season, it made sense to “downgrade” from CJ, and spend that money in the front court where we need much more help.
Amundson was a significant role player for a team that won over 50 games. He was clearly a difference maker. He was one of the best rebounders and shot blockers in the league last season. He had a WP48 of 0.190, second highest on the Suns behind Nash.
score and score...
im VERY pleased with those two guys..
by PIRATEWARRIOR on Sep 22, 2010 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think that Lin factors into a grade one way or another until he’s played and shows that he can do something. But that goes both ways. It doesn’t help or hurt Riley’s “offseason” grade.
At worst, Lin costs the rookie min for a couple of years (I think — I don’t know the details on the guarantee on the second year). Eating that is almost never a problem for a team. It’s not enough impact to make a full letter grade into a minus. You can always sign another player for the vet min. At best, he’s locked in for a second year after which we’ll have Arenas provisions rights so he cannot be grabbed by another team if he winds up being a player. It becomes a major plus if Lin becomes a real player, though that’s still unlikely. Undrafted FAs can sometimes wind up working out. This is the exception though.
Amundson on the other hand is a plus. His play indicates that he can add a few wins to the team at a price less that what you normally pay to add a few wins. It’s probably more wins vs what we’d wind up with if and when another big goes down as it means playing a real NBA rotation player to fill in for Biedrins or Wright or whatever frail big predictably goes down. That’s better than plugging the gap with a Mikki Moore clone or a NBADL stiff like Hunter. I recall some (probably ONLXN) rightly criticizing management last year for going into the season with predicatbly frail bigs and Moore as the 4th big (which he was when it was clear that Wright was out for most if not all of the season). Yes, it would be nice if we had another real center vs plugging that with one of 3 PF-sized guys when Biedrins rests or isn’t available. But better a guy who can play some who is a tad out of position than someone who “in position” still sucks.
Amundson is also not breaking the bank if he winds up being a non-factor, but that’s less likely. He can rebound. He can block shots. He doesn’t take stupid shots.
by jae on Sep 22, 2010 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Lin's contract
His contract is partially guaranteed (I think 50% of 500k) for the first season which means the first date they need to make some sort of determination on whether or not he is a player is January 10th, when contracts become guaranteed.
This may be important if they need a roster spot at that point in time. Either way, it’s still chump change so it may not be a determining factor like it was in the past when they were dangerously close to the tax.
Because the first year is partially guaranteed, I believe it means that the second year has to be only partially guaranteed as well. I am assuming that the second year is a team option.
play like a 1 man guy
by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 22, 2010 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions
It is hilarious to me that anyone even mentions Lin. He is an undrafted rookie, signed for PR value by a new owner that is very aware of who his fanbase is. I hope he works out, but come on, he’s behind Charlie Bell on the depth chart. He’s the 5th guard at best (out of five on the roster).
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
Well:
September 13 2010
Signed forward Louis Amundson.
I’ll give this move a B+. A center was needed, but none were really available at this point. Made due with what was out there, but perhaps could’ve moved a bit quicker earlier on. Needing depth at C wasn’t a new problem.
September 8 2010
Signed guard Rodney Carney.
B. Not really inventive, but a cheap wing that can play defense is nice, and everybody likes highlights.
July 22 2010
Signed guard CJ Watson and traded him to the Chicago Bulls for a 2011 second-round pick.
F. Meh. I don’t like this at all. Perfect backup PG/SG on a cheap salary. Could have afforded his salary and stayed below the tax threshold. As it stands, the Dubs have 0 backup PGs now. Awkward.
C. Whatever. It’s a nice story, probably won’t matter much.July 21 2010
Signed guard Jeremy Lin.
July 13 2010
Signed guard Dorell Wright and signed guard Anthony Morrow and traded him to the New Jersey Nets for a conditional 2011 second-round pick and a player exception.
A+. Wright is an absolute coup. I lobbied for him in many of those WE NEED A SMALL FORWARD fanshots, and I’m glad the team listened to me (because that’s obviously what happened, right? Right?!). Losing Morrow is sad because everyone likes a goofy, skinny three point shooter, but he became expendable when Reggie came along.
July 7 2010
Signed forward Ekpe Udoh.
See below.
July 9 2010
Traded guard Kelenna Azubuike and forwards Anthony Randolph and Ronny Turiaf and a 2010 second-round pick to the New York Knicks for forward David Lee.
C. Yeah, yeah, I get it: David Lee is great. I still maintain this is entirely too much value to give up in a S&T. The only reason a team should venture into such illogical territory is for one of the top 10 players in the NBA. David Lee ain’t that.
Draft 2010
Selected forward Ekpe Udoh (6th overall pick).
F-----------------------. Those are all minuses. Those minuses combine to form the mark of shame that anyone involved in this decision should have etched into their forehead. Indefensible and awful, this pick sums up everything that can go wrong with draft “strategy”. Take a lap.
SEASON 2009-10 June 22 2010
Traded forward Corey Maggette and the 44th overall pick in the 2010 draft to the Milwaukee Bucks for guard Charlie Bell and center Dan Gadzuric.
A. Had to happen. Would’ve liked if at least one useful player came back, but it had to happen.
June 21 2010
Traded the 34th overall pick in the 2010 draft to the Portland Trail Blazers for the 44th overall pick in the 2010 draft and cash.
F. Buying draft picks is smart, selling them is dumb.
Overall: C-
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 21, 2010 1:25 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
F. Buying draft picks is smart, selling them is dumb.
Well here there was a specific draft pick that has already been used. So I assume you have a really good player you thought the Warriors should have picked with that 34th pick. Who was that player who was available at the 34th spot that made this move worth an F?
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 21, 2010 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I would've been fine with any of these players:
Armon Johnson, Darrington Hobson, Jarvis Varnardo, Devin Ebanks, Jerome Jordan, Gani Lawal, Latavious Williams, Ryan Richards, Solomon Alabi, Willie Warren, Derrick Caracter, Stanley Robinson, Charles Garcia, Brian Zoubek, Mikhail Torrance.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 21, 2010 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I guess I don't see how that is an F unless you really think those guys all stand out as really productive NBA players.
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 21, 2010 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions
The 34th pick has quite a bit of value. The only way that move isn't an F for me is if the Bucks absolutely required a second round pick in this year's draft to take Maggette.
That seems unlikely, but it’s the only way it becomes a positive. In that case, kudos for turning the 34th into some cash.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 21, 2010 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I really don’t see much value in second round picks.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions
There's value.
These are the top 12 players in 2000-2006 drafts, with their draft positions: http://arturogalletti.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/untitled48.png
Tons of 30s and 40s and some 50s in there.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 24, 2010 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions
With enough second round picks, sure, a team should find useful players….but there are a lot of second round picks, and most of them don’t make the NBA.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course. They have less value than earlier picks, obviously.
But good scouting departments can find players.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 24, 2010 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
I just don’t think the whole total production / total number of players drafted equation works out very favorably for second rounders. I’m honestly not sure it’s much better than looking at the undrafted guys and best D-Leaguers. Probably a little better, but overall, just not worth very much.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Monta Ellis was a number 40 pick
My understanding is both of the Lakers 2nd round picks are projected to be pretty good. That being said if this the worst thing Riley did this summer he did pretty good.
And how many other number 40 picks turned into NBA players? It’s easy enough to find the exceptions in the second round, but if you aren’t looking at all the guys who failed (which is most 2nd rounders), it’s not too relevant.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Armon Johnson or devin ebanks
probably ebanks since we really needed a SF at the time. Lakers got a steal
by GSW Fan4Life on Sep 21, 2010 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Good break down and a rec
The only two points is I would split up the D Wright (which is I agree an A+) with loosing Morrow (D) losing a weapon like that coming off the bench hurts.
And what we got for Maggette I would give a C for the same reasons that you listed.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
Did the Warriors have use their mid level exception to resign CJ?
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 21, 2010 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions
No.
They had Bird rights and could exceed the cap without using a or part of the MLE.
play like a 1 man guy
by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 22, 2010 2:30 AM PDT up reply actions
that's what I thought
so basically the CJ or Louis comment does not apply
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Right, unless J-RIDAH knows something about the Wariror overall budget and roster-space usage plans
In his J-RIDAH’s defense, you actually could make the argument that Riley doesn’t want mulitiple little, multi-year deals adding up and chewing up next year’s cap space. With Amundson’s player option and CJ’s 3.4m for next year, that adds up to $6m+ of cap space (negating most of Vlad’s expiring) and it would also eat up the last roster spot, which they may want to use in case of injury without having to release Lin.
But, you are correct in that CJ, had no affect on the MLE. Since the Warriors had his Bird rights, and could sign him under normal CBA rules, there was no need to invoke an “exception”.
play like a 1 man guy
by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 22, 2010 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions
It's not an either/or scenario.
Louis was signed with a portion of the MLE (I’m assuming). Dubs had CJ’s Bird Rights, so they could’ve gone over the cap to sign him. Could’ve easily had both.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 21, 2010 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Really, Udoh is an F-?
Draft 2010
Selected forward Ekpe Udoh (6th overall pick).
F———————————-. Those are all minuses. Those minuses combine to form the mark of shame that anyone involved in this decision should have etched into their forehead. Indefensible and awful, this pick sums up everything that can go wrong with draft "strategy". Take a lap.
You think the difference between Monroe and Udoh at the 6th pick makes our draft a complete failure? Indefensibly so, even? Did I miss the crowning-of-Monroe-as-superstar-consensus-party, or something? I mean, I’m not a huge fan of the pick, either, but let’s not jump to such drastic conclusions so soon.
The only real problem I see with the pick is that we could have moved down to grab Udoh. In that sense, I give it a C because I’m assuming (perhaps naively) that we explored those options beforehand and came up with zilch.
Anyway, until we see Monroe and Udoh play in actual NBA games, can we agree to make this an Incomplete or something?
by Lacob's Ladder on Sep 21, 2010 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
You forgot a few minuses.
It was an F———————————-.
We could wait and see how they play, but that would be results-based analysis, which isn’t very helpful. You have to ask yourself, based on the information available at the time, did the Warriors make a good decision? I think the answer to that is: absolutely not. Udoh could go on to average a triple double and lead the league in Models Partied With On Boats With Vodka, but it wouldn’t change the fact that his selection at 6 was bad process (just bad process with good results, or, dumb luck, as we like to call it).
If the Warriors’ plan (as was stated) was to get a player that was “ready to contribute” (which is probably unsalvageable bad process in and of itself since rookie production is insanely hard to predict), then they probably should have drafted someone who at least produced in college. Ekpe Udoh, though I love him, wasn’t that. Not only wasn’t he that, he wasn’t anything else. He’s an old rookie with limited physical tools who didn’t produce well in college. Pretty much 0-fer on that one.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 21, 2010 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions
We could wait and see how they play, but that would be results-based analysis, which isn’t very helpful
Huh? This is the ONLY way to evaluate a draft pick.
You have to ask yourself, based on the information available at the time, did the Warriors make a good decision?
You have to give a professional basketball team that employs scouts and other talent evaluators the benefit of the doubt here. You’re basing it on photos off the internet and your opinion on how he performed in college. I actually thought he made quite a big impact on that Baylor team, from the little that I’ve seen, but what do I know?
Larry Riley said that he felt Udoh was the right player who could make a contribution right away and addressed a critical need for the Warriors, which contradicts everything you’ve stated.
Next TK article: Monta dropped E with Sam Amick - bloodsweatdonuts
by Doctor Kajita on Sep 21, 2010 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Results-based analysis is not good analysis.
Huh? This is the ONLY way to evaluate a draft pick.
There are two parts to any decision:
The process includes all the various factors that go in to determining who is drafted (or what is done with the pick in the event of a trade), and the outcome would be the result(s) of said choice. Because we never have the benefit of knowing how a choice will turn out (time travel, I’m looking at you), basing your choices on impending results (which are out of your control) is rather impossible.
For example, if I manage a baseball team, and I decide to pull my starter, who has been dominant but thrown 125 pitches, for my stud closer, and my closer loses the lead, was that a bad decision? No. It was the right decision, but the outcome was shitty. We focus on process because it’s repeatable and within our control. To be successful in sports, you have to cultivate sound process and follow through on it, regardless of the outcomes. If your process is truly sound, the results will take care of themselves.
Here’s a handy graph: http://i52.tinypic.com/w1ycrt.jpg
You have to give a professional basketball team that employs scouts and other talent evaluators the benefit of the doubt here. You’re basing it on photos off the internet and your opinion on how he performed in college. I actually thought he made quite a big impact on that Baylor team, from the little that I’ve seen, but what do I know?
Photos on the internet? How do you know I’m not a scout? Or how are you able to quantify my level of knowledge of Ekpe Udoh? I’ve watched Udoh play no less than 15 times. I feel I have a good observational grasp of his skillset and his impact, and the statistics he’s accrued do not run counter to my intuition.
And I think Larry Riley was wrong. His word is not canon, and I think he’s shown his fallibility. There was nothing that Udoh showed in college that signaled he was ready to contribute right away. That’s a ridiculous statement. Even if Udoh had produced at a higher level, predicting rookie contributions is an exercise in futility. That shouldn’t be the basis for your selection.
Larry Riley said that he felt Udoh was the right player who could make a contribution right away and addressed a critical need for the Warriors, which contradicts everything you’ve stated.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 21, 2010 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions
All this discussion about Udoh basically brings the logical conclusion that the draft pick should not be included in a grade for Riley "at this time".
Spider you killed your argument by stating that even if Udoh turns out to be great that you would then consider it “dumb luck”. Riley seems to have a “purpose/vision” behind his selection based on the role/fit for the pick related to the others available at 6th(and his vision for summer trades/team reconstruct that he had in mind) which is a “process” and quite frankly many of the GM’s seemed to make their picks based on hype rather than the "process"that you describe. Now Riley’s process in making the pick may turn out to be the wrong move but if Udoh surprises you by being a great pick how can you then call it dumb luck just because you dont like at this time. An F is your emotional reaction in my opinion and not much of a process in itself…but I would not not give him an A for it either if I “had” to assign a grade to the draft pick at this moment in time. Dont forget that Riley had a process/vision for the moves that he was planning to make after the draft which Udoh does seem a part of the plan….the question should be that now that we see the plan/team as re-tooled by Riley who in the draft would have been better as a low post defender C/PF etc. than Udoh.
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 21, 2010 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions
It's not my argument. I didn't come up with the idea to separate process and results.
Here’s a good article: http://www.ussmariner.com/2010/05/18/process-and-results/
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 21, 2010 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Read the article spider...
The authors definition of “bad process” seemed to be as he stated… making personel moves that were contrary to what “everyone” thought should have happened…not sure what/who he was refering to….pretty light weight baseball article about good/bad process related to the Mariners no less. I could not relate any of this to Riley other than that you feel that Riley’s "process was “bad” because “everyone” disagreed.
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 22, 2010 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions
The point was the separation of process and outcome.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 22, 2010 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
That is the point of the article, but you seperated those two things poorly.
Its an interesting idea but most processes that people go through in the NBA draft have a lot of thought and logic behind them… His process was likely very legitimate. It probably involved lots and lots of scouting. Lots of discussion with scouts. Lots of thinking about the future vision of the team and what the Dubs needed. And the Picking Udoh as the player who would most give the team what we need.
The only way I could see you arguing that the “process” was bad, is by saying that he haphazardly picked a player without much info. You could also say that you don’t agree with the conclusion of his process, but that doesn’t necessarily mean his process was bad…
It also doesn’t make sense to separate the process and result completely in my opinion. You don’t win a championship for having a good process. You win a championship for having good results. You can’t really judge a process in a vacuum without looking at the results. Would people be so obsessed with how good OKC’s process has been of building their team if they weren’t winning? Nope.
by freerandolph on Sep 23, 2010 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, but how do you get those results?
The most reliable way to good results is good process.
Larry Riley’s goal was to get a rookie who could contribute right away. Already there’s a massive flaw in his thinking. From there it gets worse, because he picked a player who didn’t contribute in high levels in the areas he was picked to contribute in (defense and rebounding). Unless he showed he was a completely different player in private workouts (a non-competitive setting), I’m not sure what they saw.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 23, 2010 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
There is a place for results in the judgment of Udoh, because good results may indicate a better process than what we initially thought. Those results might be because Riley knew things about Udoh we did not. That said, it’s really not hard to envision it working out in a way that gives strong evidence to a bad process. The way I see it, Udoh has to do one of two things to support the notion that it was a good process: come in and contribute immediately (though I’ll give him more leeway here then I initially would have because the injury, which Riley could not foresee, will set him back some), or turn into a defensive presence – not just a good defender, but an excellent one, both as a shot blocker and as an overall on ball defender.
Otherwise, we just drafted a 23 year old who wasn’t very good in college, which is generally a pretty crappy draft strategy.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions
The baseball article makes a whole lot more sense if you know who the author is and follow the baseball statistics movement going on….
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions
True. I probably should have prefaced it a bit more.
Sometimes I forget Dave Cameron isn’t on everyone’s required reading list.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 24, 2010 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions
How do you know I’m not a scout? Or how are you able to quantify my level of knowledge of Ekpe Udoh? I’ve watched Udoh play no less than 15 times. I feel I have a good observational grasp of his skillset and his impact, and the statistics he’s accrued do not run counter to my intuition.
If you’re an NBA scout, then I’m really a doctor. I’m not here to evaluate you, but your argument against Udoh is nothing but conjecture. So my conjecture is that you’re grading something undegradeable at this point. The one thing to grade Udoh on is performance in the NBA yet you’re conveniently dismissing it. Clever.
Next TK article: Monta dropped E with Sam Amick - bloodsweatdonuts
by Doctor Kajita on Sep 21, 2010 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions
That just isn't the case.
See the above article. We’re not talking about grading Udoh’s performance as an NBA player, that hasn’t happened yet. We’re discussing the process that led to him being selected 6th in the draft. That has happened and we can analyze it. We have yet to see what the outcome is (Udoh’s contribution to the Warriors) but that has no bearing on the analysis of the process.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 21, 2010 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions
We’re not talking about grading Udoh’s performance as an NBA player
We are talking about, because it’s rational, grading Riley on the Udoh pick after we’ve seen Udoh play.
YOU’RE talking about separating process and results because it fits your F grade argument. I’m not going to argue with your grade – by all means, it’s your opinion and choice to feel that he deserves an F. But I will argue that it’s pretty stupid to grade a draft pick just based on the process that led up to it.
Next TK article: Monta dropped E with Sam Amick - bloodsweatdonuts
by Doctor Kajita on Sep 22, 2010 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Although not a fan of the Udoh pick, I would have to agree with you on this
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Your signature is funny.
Next TK article: Monta dropped E with Sam Amick - bloodsweatdonuts
by Doctor Kajita on Sep 22, 2010 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions
And the sig looks gsom specific …now I gotta go see if wally has the same sig when he is at hm on sactown ha!
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 22, 2010 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
can you edit it so different sig's pop up?
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
But I will argue that it’s pretty stupid to grade a draft pick just based on the process that led up to it.
especially since it was reported that the process was basically …. he wore a nice suit to the tryouts and said he wanted to be here?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 22, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
If Riley worked out both Udoh and Monroe and Aldrich and seen footage on all of them and actually went to texas to attend a Baylor game and decided to take Udoh knowing his job was on the line I’d think he take the pick more serious than taking a guy for a suit and a smile.
If Riley worked out both Udoh and Monroe and Aldrich and seen footage on all of them
but apparently didn’t bother to watch footage of PaulGeorge?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 22, 2010 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
If that is the only reason they chose him then yeah, goofy process
I have a feeling that report was way over simplified though.
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions
It's really unlikely they picked him for non-basketball reasons.
Riley isn’t that dumb.
But, ultimately, you can’t grade a draft pick for a couple of years, most of the time. That’s even more the case because of the wrist injury.
At this point, all we’re doing is grading the Udoh pick badly because the conventional wisdom says it was a reach. By making that pick, Riley is saying the convention wisdom was wrong. Since the conventional wisdom is frequently wrong, there’s a limit to how much sense it makes to grade Riley down because of that pick until we see how it shakes out.
This really is neither here nor there but there is a whole lot of rationalizing going on in there
Since the conventional wisdom is frequently wrong, there’s a limit to how much sense it makes to grade Riley down because of that pick until we see how it shakes out.
If you are going to take that approach then what happens when people aren’t using conventional wisdom to say the pick is wrong?
I say go nuts making the arguement it was a bad pick. Given there is so little information to go off of there are going to be a wide variety of opinions but it’s not the end of the world either way so long as it’s somewhat rational.
(That being said, I have a hard time arguing the process was bad given I really am not sure how they ended up picking the guy. I have a hard time believing everything people say in press conferences but maybe I just am not up to date on all the behind the scenes chatter.)
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, let me be clear -
I happen to agree that it’s hard to come up with a justification for Udoh. I think it’s a bad pick.
But …
Because he rejected the conventional wisdom, Riley should be judged very harshly if this pick doesn’t work out (that is, if the players taken in the 5-10 picks behind him end up being consistently better than him). On the other hand, shouldn’t we wait until Udoh has a chance to show his stuff before we declare the pick a failure?
Not really.
Riley wanted a player who could contribute right away. He took a player who didn’t really contribute in college.
That’s dumb.
Don’t need to wait to see him play to know that was a dumb decision.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 22, 2010 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
didn’t really contribute in college
Hmm…didn’t they get to the Elite 8? I thought Udoh had something to do with that.
He didn't contribute at a high enough level to warrant drafting him 6th as a player to provide an impact at the NBA level, no.
Lacedarius Dunn and Tweety Carter were the stars of that team. Udoh, Lomers and Acy were complimentary.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 22, 2010 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn't really follow them, but...
This one’s pretty simple: So long as Baylor doesn’t implode, they will roll. The Bears recently finished a torturous (for me) three game sweep of the Texas Longhorns in the span of five weeks, squeaking out an overtime win in Austin before easily disposing of the Longhorns both in Waco and the Big XII Tournament. You’ve probably heard of the dynamic backcourt duo of LaceDarius Dunn and Tweety Carter, but Baylor’s most important asset — and the reason they’ve so drastically improved since last year — is the interior eraser Ekpe Udoh. The junior transfer from Michigan rebounds and blocks shots as well or better than anyone in the country and is being eyed by NBA scouts as a potential high first round pick. When Baylor’s defensive focus and intensity on the perimeter matches what they get from Udoh on the interior, the fluid, explosive offense more than takes care of the rest.
From an SBNation preview of the tourney.
I remember watching the tourney and Vitale and all those guys talked more about Udoh. That’s the only reason I knew who he was before the draft. I think you’re underrating his effect on that team.
Maybe. I followed them pretty closely, though.
Udoh was important, I’m not doubting that. But he was a role player. He was Bynum or Horry or Kendrick Perkins. They’d miss him if he was gone, but he wasn’t carrying the team or anything.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 22, 2010 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Kendrick Perkins led the Celtics in blocks and rebounds.
Is he not a role player?
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 22, 2010 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course, it doesn't really matter. The point isn't that he was a role player, it's that he didn't fulfill his role well enough to warrant the 6th pick.
Aldrich was a role player for Kansas, but he played his role at a much higher level than Udoh did (for example).
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 22, 2010 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions
if you're only looking at offense
Udoh’s role on the defensive side was huge (by all accounts)
you disagree with that?
I'm accounting for his defense as well.
He played the role of shotblocker in a defensive scheme that doesn’t exist in the NBA. Considering they don’t play 5-on-5 at the Combine anymore, that means the only time anyone ever saw him play man-to-man defense (since ages ago at Michigan) was in private workouts, which hardly simulate game conditions. From what I saw in the limited times he matched up out of the 2-3, he’s very good at challenging shots with his wingspan, and has good defensive fundamentals, but his lack of strength is a real problem in terms of post defense. If you watched the Duke game, you can see how easily Zoubek moves him around at times.
But it’s hard to say how good he’ll be against face-up 4s, or how well he can defend the pick and roll, because he was never in those situations.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 22, 2010 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe, but it helps replicate how teams function.
There are stars and there are non-stars. Role player is just a term for a non-star.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 22, 2010 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think this is true at all. It ‘replicates’ it only in the perception that there is the primary scorer (who is important) and other parts that are much more replaceable. That’s a terrible paradigm for classification and observation.
Eh, you're jumping to conclusions.
Star refers to a player that offers the level of rarefied production, scoring or otherwise, that results in a sizable amount of his team’s wins. Plenty of people do this while scoring very few points: Ben Wallace in his prime was a star, Dennis Rodman was a star, Rajon Rondo is a star, Gerald Wallace is a star, Kevin Love is a star. On the flip side, Stephen Jackson is a role player, Carmelo Anthony is a role player, Monta Ellis is a role player, Danny Granger is a role player, so on and so on.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 22, 2010 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think role player is usually used the way you’re putting it. If you told most people that Carmelo Anthony is a role player and Kevin Love is a star (the former I agree with, the latter probably isn’t quite there yet, but I guess that depends on how you define “star”), you’ll get laughed out of the room. The way the terms are used is very different from the way they should be used.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Melo is not a role player
A role player plays a relatively small part in the overall scheme of the team offense and defense. Melo plays a huge role in Denver’s offense. That’s not a role player. A role player is a guy like Steve Kerr who could do one thing well (shoot 3-pointers) when it was necessary. But the overall make-up or style of the team was not built around Steve Kerr. In other words, guys like Kerr are interchangeable. Morrow could have been Kerr. But MJ, Pippen, and Rodman were stars because they were not replaceable and the style of the team reflected each of their contributions.
If Baylor’s overall defensive scheme was built around Udoh, then he was more than a role player. Just like Ben Wallace was more than a role player.
Sure he is.
Carmelo is a guy who does one thing well: put up shots. From the wing position. That’s it. If that isn’t replaceable, then I don’t know what is.
But MJ, Pippen, and Rodman were stars because they were not replaceable and the style of the team reflected each of their contributions.
Does that describe Carmelo to you?
If Baylor’s overall defensive scheme was built around Udoh, then he was more than a role player.Well, it was built around the entirety of their front line and Dunn at the top. They had Udoh, Anthony Jones and Josh Lomers when they rolled it out to start the Big 12 tournament two years ago, all with 7’+ wingspans, and Dunn provided good pressure at the top. So Udoh’s length definitely played into it, but I don’t think it was built solely around him.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 23, 2010 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
So you agree with me?
I’m confused. In the first part, you say Carmelo isn’t a role player, but then you say he’s replaceable.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 23, 2010 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions
doesn't really fit my definition of either
but he has the influence of a star without the usefulness
What if the Warriors drafted him to be a similar type of role player in the NBA?
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't doubt that they did.
But I doubt that he’s got the ability to be that. And I don’t think his ability would inspire me enough to invest the 6th pick in him.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 24, 2010 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not going to comment on how important Udoh was to that team (I really don’t know), but I just want to point out that article praises his rebounding, even though he actually didn’t rebound all that well….
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions
two things
1) we don’t know his REB% which is a better indicator than reb/min
2) He averaged ~4 blocks/36 minutes, which could in theory lower his rebounding rate
Statsheet does have rebounding %’s. His are still weak.
As for point 2, I’m sure it is a factor, but I expect him to continue blocking shots in the NBA, so it’s still there to lower his NBA rebounding, right?
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions
his
OREB% = 29
DREB% = 23
comparing with Cousins
OREB% = 20
DREB% = 24.8
Cousins was a little bit better in DREB%, but Udoh had awesome OREB numbers.
Not sure where those numbers are from.
Ken Pom has him at 12.8 OR% and 17.9 DR%.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 24, 2010 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions
ah, nevermind
statsheet is just calculating the percentage or team rebounds (not total rebounds). My bad.
I’m not seeing where those numbers are coming from either? At statsheet I’m seeing the following:
Udoh: 12.8% oreb, 17.7% dreb
Cousins: 20% oreb, 24.8% dreb
Aldrich: 13.5% oreb, 25.3% dreb
Davis: 10.8% oreb, 23.7% dreb
Udoh’s rebounding still looks weak to me. He’s ranked 93 in oreb% and 319 in dreb%. Cousins is ranked 2 and 31, Aldrich 58 and 24, and Davis 222 and 55, respectively.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2010 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
On the other hand, shouldn’t we wait until Udoh has a chance to show his stuff before we declare the pick a failure?
Absolutely, because we should all be willing to admit we’re not experts and don’t have enough information on Udoh to judge him yet. We need to at least see what he does against NBA competition. The Warriors DID have a lot more information on Udoh than us, so we need to understand that they might know something we didn’t, and whether that’s true or not should show up in Udoh’s NBA performance. That said, I don’t think we need to give Udoh all that long to perform. Dude’s 23. If he isn’t ready to go from the start…..then it was a stupid pick.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I think they watched workouts and film of Udoh and saw a good basketball player. That’s the process. I just don’t think Udoh’s big red flags – mainly his age and his lack of effectiveness offensively were taken into account nearly as much as they should. Udoh seemingly impressed some people with his “versatility” and “variety of skills” and what not….but those things didn’t lead to effective offense, and I really question whether the Warriors staff looked at that or whether they just used their “scouting eye” and saw the skills and assumed that will make him an effective player.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, it’s not really just conventional wisdom, it’s also the statistical side of things, which really is something most GM’s in basketball are still weak at….
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions
*sigh*
I’m not talking about separating process and outcome because it fits my argument, it’s because that’s what good analysis consists of.
Udoh as a player is not getting and F. What’s getting an F is the thought process that led to Udoh being drafted 6th. I’ll be rooting for Udoh, and I hope he does well, but I also understand that if this process informs all future draft picks, the Warriors will be proper fucked on that end.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 22, 2010 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Understood
2 guys walk into a bar... I don't remember the rest of the joke but your mom is a whore.
by Doctor Kajita on Sep 22, 2010 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions
But so far you have not really shown that you have managed to fiqure out or look deep into what Rileys thought process was. So why waste all this typing to grade it. Lets just leave out that grade plus anything related to Lin.
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 22, 2010 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions
No, I have not yet figured out how to get inside of Riley's brain. Working on that.
In the meantime, I have his public statements to go off of, all of which have been repeated ad nauseam in this thread and elsewhere.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 22, 2010 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Huh? This is the ONLY way to evaluate a draft pick.
If you take a list of the top 20 players available in any ‘consensus’ draft list and blindly pick one, sometimes the pick will turn out to be a very good player. Sometimes it won’t. If it turns out to be a good player, this does not mean that the process of blindly picking was a good process.
The available evidence that we know of indicates that Udoh was not a wise pick. He was outperformed by guys who meet the same position need who were drafted later, some whom look to be as “NBA ready”, all of whom are younger (and may have more “upside”) as a result. Either the Warriors ignored this information or thought that other (usually less reliable as it would be) information was better to go on.
I find a process that ignores many things that are demonstrably well correlated with future success (e.g. certain statistical measures) in favor of things that are less clearly linked with NBA success (e.g. “a good tournament” and “great workouts”) to be a flawed system. I can evaluate the system based on how it generally performs. The uncommon exception does not make the methods that picked the exception better. It just means that you can get lucky. When the broken clock is right those two minutes a day, it is no less a broken clock.
Okay, so would you give this pick an F minus plus infinity?
2 guys walk into a bar... I don't remember the rest of the joke but your mom is a whore.
by Doctor Kajita on Sep 22, 2010 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Well said, and I hope your points of emphasis aren’t lost on the crowd. The Warriors had more information available to them then us. If their information did tell them something about Udoh that made it a smart pick, that will bear out in the results. So while it’s right that we need to judge the process, we have to realize we don’t have perfect information on the process and the results will tell us something about it.
I hate the pick for the reasons you lay out, but I realize my judgment of the pick is still preliminary.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions
You have to ask yourself, based on the information available at the time, did the Warriors make a good decision?
You don’t have all the information, though. You don’t know what Riley and scouts saw in the workouts. You don’t know about things like work ethic, etc. Stats are very important, I’m not going to argue with that. But there may have been some red flags with Monroe that we simply don’t know about. So, yes, based on the “internet information” that you have, I agree Udoh was not the best pick. But an F——— or whatever, would imply to me that he wasn’t the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th best pick at that spot. That is something I’m not so sure about. There were reservations about pretty much every player after Cousins (and hell, even Cousins, himself).
Come on, Evanz.
You don’t have all the information, though. You don’t know what Riley and scouts saw in the workouts. You don’t know about things like work ethic, etc. Stats are very important, I’m not going to argue with that.
I know you’ve read Arturo’s piece on the draft. I know you know how awful GMs are at evaluating talent and making the proper selection. Let’s not fall into the fallacy of appealing to authority.
But there may have been some red flags with Monroe that we simply don’t know about.
Why is everyone bringing up Monroe? I didn’t say anything about him.
So, yes, based on the "internet information" that you have, I agree Udoh was not the best pick. But an F——— or whatever, would imply to me that he wasn’t the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th best pick at that spot. That is something I’m not so sure about. There were reservations about pretty much every player after Cousins (and hell, even Cousins, himself).
What is it with these “internet photos” and the “internet information”. Is there some sort of second rate information that only the internet knows about. Like I said, I’ve watched Ekpe Udoh play basketball in a competitive setting no less than 15 times. No “internet information” needed. Your blind trust in Riley and his staff is a bit troubling. You really think that the best player available at #6 was Ekpe Udoh? You’re telling me that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, every single GM drafting 1-5 got it right and took the 5 best players in the draft and that Udoh was the sixth?
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 21, 2010 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions
You really think that the best player available at #6 was Ekpe Udoh?
Why do you ask that question, when you know I said this:
So, yes, based on the "internet information" that you have, I agree Udoh was not the best pick.
Well, the quotes make it sound like that information is specious.
And not something you would want to base your assertions on.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 21, 2010 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm just saying that history says the five best players probably didn't go 1-5.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 21, 2010 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions
but this isn't about what we will know 5 years from now...
the question is whether on draft night those were the “right” picks. That’s always the question. It’s easy to second guess the choices after they are made. I haven’t seen an objective retrospective prediction that does a better job than reality.
Based on process, I disagree with probably the Turner pick and the Johnson pick.
Turner plays the same position as the 76ers best player, and they have a gaping hole at the PF and C positions. Seemed like a silly pick. Minnesota has about 10000 wing players and could use a C not named Ryan Hollins or Darko. Other than that, the rationale for picking Wall and Cousins makes sense. I’m not sure how good Wall is or will be, but he has the tools to be a franchise cornerstone, and I can’t find fault with taking a shot.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 22, 2010 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not sure how good Wall is or will be, but he has the tools to be a franchise cornerstone, and I can’t find fault with taking a shot.
Right, and this assessment doesn’t have much to do with metrics…which is where I disagree with Arturo. I don’t think you can draft simply (or even mostly) based on metrics. There are just too many variables with college ball for that.
I differ with him (and Berri) there, too.
I’ve made a comment or two on WoW to that effect, but didn’t get a response. I think PAWS/40 is a good metric, and it’s shown it’s predictive power, but is still to unreliable to be given as much credence as they seem to give it.
This is the best thing I’ve seen written about PAWS:
Comparing college PAWS40 to NBA WP48 revealed that more than 80% of the drafted college players who posted a PAWS40 that was one standard deviation below the mean managed to post a career NBA WP48 that was below the mean (this was true whether you looked at players after three or five seasons). If you look at players with a PAWS40 that was one standard deviation above the mean, though, between 60% to 65% went on to post a career WP48 that was above average. These results suggest that identifying poor NBA performers with college data is easier than identifying outstanding NBA performers. Or in other words, if you play poorly in college, it’s likely that you will play poorly in the NBA. Excelling in college, though, is not a guarantee of future success.
Again, the mean PAWS40 is 10.2. One standard deviation is 2.8. So a player who post a PAWS40 below 7.3 have a very good chance of not being very good players. Posting a mark above 13.0 indicates that above average performance in the NBA is more likely, but not quite a sure thing.
The thing is, not many guys who are considered highly ever post a PAWS/40 one standard deviation below the mean. They’re usually right at or slightly above the mean, and that description of the predictive power offers no insight for the players in that range.
Also, when using PAWS/40 to point out how amazing guys like DeJuan Blair were in college and how they should have gone higher, they tend to neglect explaining how Nick Fazekas and Ryan Bowen haven’t worked out. Of course, the reason for drafting John Wall is the same reason Ryan Bowen isn’t the greatest NBA player ever.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 22, 2010 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions
You have to ask yourself, based on the information available at the time, did the Warriors make a good decision? I think the answer to that is: absolutely not.
And what were the myriad other options available to the team at the time that make the Udoh selection warrant the absolute worst grade possible? I’m curious what you thought they should have done instead.
The 6th pick was pretty much the worst position in a draft that was considered a “5 player draft.” This means that it had virtually no trade value since every pick between 6-10 was a veritable crap-shoot. And, although Udoh was largely considered a reach at 6, any other player other than Monroe would have been a reach at 6 as well. Really, what else was Riley to do than draft to fill need, since there was no obvious Best Player Available?
by Lacob's Ladder on Sep 21, 2010 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Don't believe the hype.
And what were the myriad other options available to the team at the time that make the Udoh selection warrant the absolute worst grade possible? I’m curious what you thought they should have done instead.
If Riley’s aim was really to get a player that could “contribute right away”, then I can’t help him. I’m not in the business of predicting rookie production because that’s silly. If he wanted to draft a player that was more skill than potential, that I understand, and I would say that Cole Aldrich was probably a better choice. Udoh was drafted for his defense and (I assume) rebounding, Aldrich provides both those things, but with the caveat of actually having done them in college. Beyond that, though, aiming to draft a role player at #6 is silly. Trade down, take multiple picks, etc.
The 6th pick was pretty much the worst position in a draft that was considered a "5 player draft." This means that it had virtually no trade value since every pick between 6-10 was a veritable crap-shoot.
That’s rhetoric. I guarantee you that the first five players taken aren’t (and won’t perform like) the best players in the draft. I’d venture a guess that’s probably never happened. Even in 2003 when it should’ve been easy as hell to get it right, Dumars still took Darko (and Carmelo went ahead of Wade and Bosh).
And, although Udoh was largely considered a reach at 6, any other player other than Monroe would have been a reach at 6 as well. Really, what else was Riley to do than draft to fill need, since there was no obvious Best Player Available?
Then trade down. Or trust yourself. The Udoh picks lacks invention and it lacks creativity. The Spurs are a great example of good process. They routinely find amazing value at the end of the first round (or in the second round) because they’re smarter than everyone else, and they trust their decision making.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 21, 2010 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Wasn't it reported that we were tirelessly trying to move the pick?
I have to assume that finding a suitable deal was difficult, considering the consensus among the league was that the 6th-14th picks had little discernible difference in value.
by Lacob's Ladder on Sep 22, 2010 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Insofar as I know, it was reported that Riley wanted to move down, but only if a player was involved.
And that’s what killed any deal. I’m not sure what the truth is (either way).
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 22, 2010 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Really, what else was Riley to do than draft to fill need, since there was no obvious Best Player Available?
I agree entirely with your assessment that pick 6 in a consensus top 5 draft is terrible, killing trade value and opening any pick for questioning. But defending Udoh as a pick for need opens up criticism that the pick wasn’t even the best at filling need. For various reasons there’s solid arguments that Davis, Monroe or Aldrich a) fit that need as well b) were better players with c) “more upside.”
It must have been the suit and tie then. Seriously.
2 guys walk into a bar... I don't remember the rest of the joke but your mom is a whore.
by Doctor Kajita on Sep 22, 2010 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions
The more and more I think about it, the more I like Ed Davis at that spot, especially once we moved Randolph….
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Athleticism. And age is very, very, very, very important.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Everytime I ask how is Randolph more athletic i get ignored. And whats the big deal in age if its gonna take AR two more years to learn his game? The guy still makes a ton of mistakes and we dont know if Udoh will make those same mistakes and if it will take any time to know his game.
Long, lanky forward with a great deal of upside … His length and agility makes him very unique playing on the wing
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Wow. I have no idea what just happened. I typed out a long thing with all of what NBAdraft.net and DraftExpress say about the two of them physically, and that’s the only thing that posted. Grrrr.
Not gonna repeat my effort, but look at their NBADraft.net and DraftExpress profiles. While Udoh has things like “lacks explosiveness”, Randolph’s explosiveness and athleticism are praised with “strength” being his only knock (and Udoh’s strength gets knocked a bit, too). Udoh is seen as a solid athlete. Randolph is much more than that.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
But the Numbers dont lie. Randolph is not faster,stronger or a higher Jumper than Udoh is. So I dont get what makes him a better athlete when Udoh has the same combine numbers only he is 25-30 pounds heavier than Randolph and stronger.
Randolph is not faster,stronger or a higher Jumper than Udoh is. So I dont get what makes him a better athlete
then you need to learn how to evaluate film.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 24, 2010 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions
So film trumps combine numbers? If thats the case they shouldnt have guys go thru the combine just look at film and see who’s faster and stronger.
If thats the case they shouldnt have guys go thru the combine just look at film and see who’s faster and stronger.
If you know what you are looking at yeah. better would be to have them play pickup games in various combinations of your choice to narrow it down but film of actual games is a lot more useful than some raw measurement numbers.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 24, 2010 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
So film trumps combine numbers? If thats the case they shouldnt have guys go thru the combine just look at film and see who’s faster and stronger.
Yes, and that’s what they do, whether you’re talking football or basketball….
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Plus you can have those guys workout against each other in the predraft workouts….
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
But the Numbers dont lie.
Sigh. You’re not getting it. “The numbers” aren’t an accurate gauge of athleticism. We keep telling you that. They’re designed to be an experiment to simulate what happens on a basketball court. They’re a poorly set up simulation that does not accurately reflect what happens on a basketball court. They’re bad numbers. A vertical jump tells you how high a guy got his feet off the ground from a standstill, with time to gather himself and without moving. That’s what it tells you.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Rebound. Right now, that’s probably it. I think he can also get off a much higher volume of shots, but until he starts scoring efficiently, that’s not a relevant point.
As I said, the two big factors are age and athleticism. Do you think Udoh could do anything on the court as well as Randolph did last year when Udoh was 20?
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
No I dont. However I think Udoh will figure out his game sooner than Randolph and it will be a much shorter learning curve. His age does not matter. Nobody expects him to be a allstar. I think he is a guy that will play within his game and protect the rim. Come march who would you rather have guarding Dirk
Udoh or AR?
Age always matters. Young guys improve. Old guys not so much. Come March, I just might rather have a guy that can rebound a missed shot….
Total output always matters. You can hide a guy on offense, but he’s still going to participate in offense, so it still matters. Maybe a little less, but that doesn’t mean a guy just doesn’t have to play a facet of the game.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I think u only care about a guy improving if u expect him to be a star.Or if he stinks. People want Randolph to improve because they think he can be a star. I dont expect for Udoh to be any different than he was at Baylor. A defender that plays within his game.
Actually, I care about guys improving based on their age, because the research indicates that’s how it tends to work. That’s why I like someone like Monroe’s potential. It’s why I like Randolph. Age matters, and it matters a lot.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions
This is what I mean when I said i expect Udoh to be who he is. In the 04 draft Telfair went ahead of Jameer Nelson. The hope was for Telfair to turn into a allstar in 2 to 3 years. Here we are 6 years later and Nelson is the same guy he was in college and is contributing to a winning team and Telfair is still a clump of potential. I think its the same thing with Randolph. I dont think he’ll ever be what people expect him to be. And I think Udoh will be the same player he has shown he was in College nothing more nothing less. We can debate for days if Davis and Monroe have more potential but for this team I think Udoh was the best pick for what he can do on both ends of the floor in our system.
My problem isn’t necessarily the strategy of going lower potential but more ready to contribute immediately. My problem is Udoh, right now, isn’t that good.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2010 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
"The numbers" aren’t an accurate gauge of athleticism.
As an example of this, Kevin Love has a higher max vert than Ekpe Udoh. His standing vert is better than Randolph’s. His lane agility is 0.02 slower than Udoh’s. His 3/4 sprint is 0.07 faster.
By these numbers, it looks like Kevin Love is comparable to Udoh athletically, while also weighing almost 20 lbs more.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 24, 2010 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Too early to judge Udoh as a failure/success
However, the Warriors could’ve moved down & gotten Udoh which kinda bothered me as well. I’m not so sure that options were explored to move down. Sometimes, I’m getting the feeling they fell so deeply for Udoh that they were afraid to move down.
Well, to move down requires someone else that wants to move up….
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m going to give Udoh an incomplete. I don’t agree with the choice, but I’m gonna give the guy a chance.
I think the David Lee trade is more like a B. If Riley could have sold them on Brandan Wright instead, it would be an A.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 21, 2010 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Give the Man Some Respect
Anyone who voted below a B, deserves to get their GSOM membership revoked. A- in my book.
Generally statements like that should be accompanied by an argument, with evidence, to support them…..
by Missing Barry on Sep 21, 2010 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Membership revoked!
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 21, 2010 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Damn, guys. That sounds pretty legit.
Guess I’m out.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 21, 2010 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions
I hate comments like this
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 21, 2010 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions
A- is what I'd give also.
If only there was A- … I would’ve picked that option.
1) Brought in David Lee & has him signed to a long term contract —→ Really like this move because the Warriors are a really bad rebounding team “A”. Lee also has the ability to score. He’s not Duncan or Malone but he can give you some solid offense from the PF position. Combination of Lee & Beans means the Warriors will have 20+ rebounds from C & PF. Also, what I think most ppl overlook concerning Randolph, he would have to receive a new contract while we’re still waiting for him to unleash his “potential”. Why would Randolph show any loyalty to the Warriors?? It’s possible that he doesn’t resign w/ Warriors & it’s also possible that he never realizes his potential. At least this team has a solid PF locked in for years.
2) Dorrell Wright —> Love this player & think he fits in well “B+”. One of the few Warriors who can play D & he can run the floor & he’s a decent rebounder for SF. Beans+Lee+Wright = Rebounding edge when comparing Warriors to most front lines in the league. Even the Lakers & Celtics can’t put an all-star @ every position. Wright is a good fit @ good price
3) Unloaded some big contracts —→ excellent “A+”. I’ve read comments from some claiming Riley didn’t get enough for Mags & other salary dumps. However, I don’t think it’s realistic to expect talent to come back when you’re dumping salary onto another team. Of course, you’ll never turn down talent which is offered to you but the other teams also have a GM. Expecting them to accept your big contracts & also give you back talent is usually too good to be true.
4) Jeremy Lin —> Not worth a grade because he’s cheap & unproven & might not get enough minutes to make an impact. It is great that the Warriors were able to generate so much fan interest with a player who most likely won’t get much playing time. I’m still rooting for Lin though & hope he does well.
5) Draft —> Where to start …. “D”. Udoh could’ve been drafted later on in the first round. Even if Riley felt Udoh was the best player for the Warriors @ that point, he should’ve been aware that he can move down & Udoh would still be available. Giving away the 2nd round pick was also dissappointing. Take a shot at a draft pick, plz. Riley knew the Lee trade was in the works & therefore knew the Warriors would be VERY SHORT on front court depth. Take a front court kid just to add some depth at least. Especially considering how many injuries this team had just last year.
6) Amundson —> “B+”. Amundson is not a franchise player but considering what he brings to the table & his low salary, I think this is a really good signing. Plus it helps address some of the front court depth issues.
7) Holding onto Ellis —> “A”. Keeping Ellis & seeing how he works out Lee & Curry combo is a really smart move. Doesn’t mean Ellis is untouchable but I don’t see Ellis trade value going down after one season so why not try him out & see if the Warriors have the dynamic trio to make the jump to consistent playoff team. If the Ellis can’t fit with the team then by all means try to trade him. However, the potential upside is too good to not even bother trying it out w/ Lee & Curry.
====
Riley really accomplished a lot this offseason. Warriors could use some depth @ center but almost every team in the league is looking for center depth, so it’s tough to blame Riley for this. I’d prefer another experienced guard to backup Curry but maybe they believe in Lin.
Riley can’t fire Nelson, so there’s no point in using the coaching position to evaluate Riley.
Felt the most recent draft unfolded could’ve been handled better.
I'll give him a B
I think Lee was an upgrade and the most important part. Not a fan of the Udoh pick but at the very least I understand the logic behind it although I disagree. For me those two the two most important decisions this offseason and the rest is essentially window dressing.
Think they could have kept CJ Waton but at the same time can’t really complain about the other signings. I guess keeping Morrow would be nice but have a feeling they would have lost the bidding war either way plus they do have Reggie at the backup spot and I like him more. Amundson and D. Wright were nice pickups and Lin was a fair gamble. Can’t see Carney meaning much but hey not bad considering the options. The Maggette trade was good but I would think (could totally be wrong) that they would need to free up more salary to make it more meaningful.
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
As someone that understands the logic of the Udoh pick, I’m curious – can you lay the logic out for me and give me a framework you’d use to judge how Udoh does in the NBA to tell whether it’s a success or not?
For instance, my own thought process is that while I don’t like the pick, I see two ways it can be a successful one – way #1 – Udoh comes in and is ready to contribute immediately. If you’re going with a 23 year old rookie, he should be NBA ready. Way #2 – his defense really is all that, and makes up for his lack of offensive effectiveness/rebounding. So I’m going to judge him on whether or not he meets one of those two things. If he doesn’t, I feel pretty confident saying Riley missed his red flags that were pretty apparent (in which case, bad process).
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions
My sentiments echo yours. I think I wrote something similar post-draft.
I think a key for Udoh, if he is a defensive whiz, he should still find one thing he can do reasonably well on offense. It’s a formula that has worked well for Battier, another defender who can defend multiple positions and isn’t a complete offense liability because he can hit the spot up 3. If he does, we get a quality player who adds wins (even if it happens in a silent and underappreciated manner) who is on rookie scale for the best years of his career. He can be an above average defender with a single offensive skill and help. If he doesn’t, he’s going to have to be a much better individual shut down defender than 90% of the league or prove that his college rebounding underpredicted what he’ll do in the pros. I do not see either as particularly likely.
I don't know. I already feel pretty confident saying Riley missed his red flags.
I’d feel a lot better if Riley offered some specific comments like: we brought him in to the workout setting and were really impressed with his ability to play man defense/defend the pick & roll/etc., but that’s not what I heard or read. All the interviews with Riley he talks about his all-around skill level. He even goes so far as to say that he wasn’t drafted for his defense. He talks about his elbow jumper, and his ability to pass and run the floor, and, well, his upside is what got him drafted. That all tells me that Riley just missed it.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 24, 2010 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
A solid B
If ever a guy made lemonade out of lemons in a terribly stressful situation it is riley. He totally exceeded my expectations and put together a roster that IF had a real coach who showed he did not die on the bench, would be a very competitive team. Knowing the team was in process of being sold made coach hiring a very difficult if not impossible chore…maybe a guy like hubie brown would be a caretaker for a year or mike fratello again knowing he would be a caretaker……..OR my first choice is offer Jeff Van G anything he wants to get out here……gotta’ get rid of fatso….Smart is totally amateur hour and knows nothing about defense as he has demonstrated.
I’m giving him a B. This gives me room to change it to an A or a C (or worse) once the season starts. He shed bad contracts that we endlessly complained about, addressed a specific need (rebounding) with a high-profile acquisition (he made the Warriors players in the most historic FA market in NBA history) and showed that he’s willing to take a risk (no risk, no reward…I like that) rather than rely on hopes. In a vacuum, I actually think the loss of Turiaf and Azubuike is good because their health is questionable.
I like that the Udoh pick was to address a specific need (defense) even though it was an unpopular move; I don’t necessarily believe in drafting the “best player available.” What does that mean anyway?
I like how each of his FA signings were to fulfill a certain role on the team. I like how all those players were signed to small contracts and how they are all relatively young. It means that they will want to prove themselves and play hard. I like how all those guys are nice guys with no ego.
I’m impressed that a lot of his moves were the same move that the fans have been echoing all summer long. It means he’s able to deliver when called upon, which we didn’t think possible given his ties with Nellie and the Warriors reputation for being dysfunctional losers.
I really like Riley’s demeanor and honesty. He never over-promised, sugar-coated, or diverted issues for the most part. I think Mike Singletary should take notes!
Next TK article: Monta dropped E with Sam Amick - bloodsweatdonuts
by Doctor Kajita on Sep 21, 2010 3:43 PM PDT reply actions 6 recs
well said
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 21, 2010 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Rec'd Doc you get an A..another good post of several this summers.
Of course the fact that I agree with your points “helps” in my grading. ;-p
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 21, 2010 7:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I gave him an A- "on the curve"because he not only exceded my expectations but I also doubt that anyone else could have made better moves.
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 21, 2010 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
My thoughts exactly. I think Riley did the best job any GM could do under the circumstances. He goes out and get a allstar and what he gave up he replaced and some could say upgraded. Udoh has all the tools Randolph has. Amundson and Turiaf are very simular only difference is Amundson only costs half of what Rony was making. And Buike was replaced by Carney who id rather have than AZ coming off a major knee injury. So what he did was flip AR,Rony and AZ for the same kinda players just at a cheaper price and Added D.LEE. That old Cowboy Riley is the Warriors MVP right now. He got us Curry and D.Lee and this time next year I think he’ll be praised for getting us Udoh instead of the guys that went behind him.
by J-RIDAH on Sep 21, 2010 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with you on pretty much everything but Udoh. We’ve had the discussion, so no need to get into it here, I’m just curious about your comment that he has the same tools as Randolph? I think that Randolph has better physical tools and is 2 years younger are very, very important and favorable points in Randolph’s favor….
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions
It may take Randolph 2 more years before he knows his game as in what he can or cant do. Physically Udoh and Randolph are the same. They do the exact same things on the floor. Udoh is a better passer and post player. They both can hit the jumper and they both can handle the ball and dunk. Who knows who the better shot blocker is but Udoh seems to have better timing.
I wouldn’t call them the same physically at all. Udoh is bigger and stronger, though Randolph still be maturing in that aspect. Randolph was slightly taller at the combine (and may have grown since then), and had 2 and a half inches in standing reach, so he was also longer. Most importantly, though, is Randolph is explosive. Udoh? Not so much.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Watch Lebron James or Dwyane Wade or Dwight Howard. That’s explosive. It’s quickness, it’s jumping, it’s how a guy explodes past or above others. Athleticism is something you see (because there aren’t any good tests for it, at least in the basketball world).
You wanna see it? Check out this, this or this (more the second one). Or if you really want to know explosiveness, check out the second highlight here.
Udoh? Sure, decent athlete, has a couple of nice plays here (and a lot of others that show a lack of explosiveness), but he’s not a special athlete or anything.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions
You wanna see it? Check out this, this or this (more the second one). Or if you really want to know explosiveness, check out the second highlight here.
Can… can we call tradesy backsies with the Knicks? I forgot how fun it can be to watch Randolph.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 24, 2010 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Randolph is explosive. Udoh? Not so much.
Was Udon the guy the assistant coach manhandled in a tryout? I can’t see Rudolf taking that.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 24, 2010 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Well:
I like that the Udoh pick was to address a specific need (defense) even though it was an unpopular move; I don’t necessarily believe in drafting the "best player available." What does that mean anyway?
I guess it means that instead of drafting for need in Udoh(defense, rebounding, hustle, energy)… we could’ve went with a player that most experts claim to have a better chance in being successful like Monroe or “the best player available”.
Or a player who brings defense while also being a much, much better rebounder like Aldrich….
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Great post
Overlooked Turiaf and Azubuike until reading your post and you do make good points concerning both of them. Also agree that all these small contracts is a huge plus.
Whether good or bad, there is a definite logic behind each of Riley’s FA signings.
It’s odd that this comment was rec’d so many times. The assigment was to “grade the offseason moves,” not sit on the fence and wait for the season to start.
I agree with most everything else you said though, so rec’d ( ;
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
Thanks for the REC's guys
Everything my fingers type turns into gold, apparently. If I use Dragon Naturally Speaking, I would probably get banned.
2 guys walk into a bar... I don't remember the rest of the joke but your mom is a whore.
by Doctor Kajita on Sep 22, 2010 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions
and I find it odd you need to call people out for a rec'ing a comment just because it didn't follow the "assignment" like you thought it should.
Obviously, something resonated in what he said, regardless of what the “assignment” was.
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Gave him a C
Not hating or anything.. I still think we’re a player away from competing in the west. It’s gonna be a struggle to get the 8th seed right now. We need our boys to play some defense, cause we have rebounders now.
PFortyy :)
'11 Champs!
I gave him a B
I think Larry Riley did as good a job as anyone could have done in his situation. Although I will miss guys like Randolph, Turiaf, Morrow ect I can’t get mad at having David Lee, agurably a top 5 PF in the NBA, in Golden State. A Curry/Lee combo will be deadly this year. I also love the signing of Dorell Wright who I think was held back somewhat in Miami and should have a breakout year in GS. I hated the Ekpe Udoh pick at first(mostly because I wanted Cousins) I understand why Riley picked Udoh. He brings defense and BBIQ and should be ready to go on day 1(well when he is healthy haha) I also like signing Rodney Carney as well as getting Louis Amunson who i think fill big bench roles on our team. I really like this team and I think we have a good shot at the playoffs this year if we can stay healthy and play better defense.
Golden State Warriors Fan 4 Life!!!
Owner: Joe Lacob, Peter Guber
GM: Kevin Prichard
Coach: Brian Shaw
Over 1,000 wins online with GSW in 2K10
..............SC30..............
I wanted Cousins also
If only some of the teams ahead of Warriors had dropped the ball. Dubs just draft too late in the first round to pull it off.
If only some of the teams ahead of Warriors had dropped the ball.
If only we had dropped the ball, continuously dropped the ball and turned it over and lost meaningless games to the T-wolves and Blazers that we won in the waning games of the season, then the pick would have been ours. Seriously, why didn’t we run Hunter out as the starting point guard in the closing few games. We never got the chance to see if he could handle it. Didn’t we need to “see if he could play the position before giving up on him as a point guard.”
Just imagine if we had this exact same offseason, but with DeMarcus Cousins (or even John Wall!) instead of Udoh….
Man, that would be an A++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Just imagine if we had this exact same offseason, but with DeMarcus Cousins (or even John Wall!) instead of Udoh….
or if we’d just signed Lee as a free agent and kept rudolf.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 24, 2010 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Any time you trade a bunch of question marks for an All-Star, you get an A.
'Like' my band. I mean, it'd be awesome if you did that.
I wanted Monroe over Udoh but I can admit I was wrong to Boo at oracle when the Udoh pick was announced. We needed Defense much more than anything Monroe could have gave us. And offensively it is not a big disparity between Udoh and Monroe.
Yeah I kinda wanted Monroe as well but I have to wonder if we would have all been complaining about about the soft, no defense/Nelli influence if Monroe had been chosen.
The question seems to be whether Davis or Aldrich would have better at what Udoh is supposed to bring to the table.
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 21, 2010 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah the best thing people said about Monroe was he could pass. If you are a Big and thats your best feature i’ll pass. Monroe does not make teams change their offense like Udoh does. Plus Udoh’s motor and work ethic has never been debated. Monroe’s has.
The best thing I say about Monroe is he’s 19. And as someone who’s defended Udoh’s offensive versatility, I’m surprised you’re not more bullish on Monroe’s offense. He has a pretty diverse skillset on offense – he has a variety of skills that he used to be a better passer than Udoh, score more, and score more efficiently, while doing it from the high post, from the block, on post moves, on jumpshots…he has a pretty legitimate offensive skillset, which is even more impressive when you realize he’s had 3 less years to work on it than Udoh.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree with Monroe’s offense. But we need more defense than Offense and Udoh is a much better defender. Seriously with Steph,Monta,Lee and Reggie Offense is the last thing we need to improve on.
I actually agree with that, but it doesn’t change that there were still better picks available. If you want defense first, Aldrich or Davis were better picks.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions
I dont think Aldrich fit Riley’s style of play. He said as long as he’s here it’ll be uptempo style of play. I dont know about Davis. If yall think he’s better than Udoh it is what it is time will tell. In my opinion Brandan and Davis are too simular.
In my opinion Brandan and Davis are too simular.
Your opinion is likely overly influenced by the jerseys they wore in college and the repeated throwaway that they’re both “skinny PFs”. I suspect that were they not both from UNC, no one would consider them “too similar”. They didn’t play the same type of game in college, not even close and they aren’t particularly similar physically. Brandan was a weak rebounder in college. Davis was very, very good. Brandan was rail thin and didn’t sport a frame that looked like it would fill out much. Davis started college a good 15 pounds heavier than Wright, looked like he’d put on muscle and did exactly that. He was much stronger than Wright. Wright is quicker and seems more ready to try to score.
I’d say if anything, Davis was physically most similar to…..Ekpe Udoh. And he’s way younger and already better. Yep, I’d much, much rather have Davis.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
If you want to compare Udoh and Monroe, you have to include the age difference. It’s probably the single biggest factor in Monroe’s favor. For instance, let’s compare what Udoh and Monroe did at the same age (age 20):
Monroe: 34.2 mpg, 16.1 ppg, 9.6 rebounds per game, 3.8 assists per game, 1.2 steals per game, 1.5 blocks per game, 56.6% TS%.
Udoh: 20.3 mpg, 5.0 ppg, 4.0 rpg, .8 apg, .7 spg, 1.9 bpg, 48.4% TS%.
Makes a pretty huge difference when it’s put in the context of age.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions
I am not sure how to grade someone before they take the test
If the Warriors make the playoffs he gets an A. If the team is 40 plus wins and in the chase at minimum he gets a B. If this team come February is on pace for 30 wins and we are all discussing Harrison Barnes then Riley gets an F. Injuries are not an excuse. When you trade for injured players, draft injured players, and fail to have proper back-ups then you can’t use injuries an excuse.
The 3 other things I will be watching.
1) What does he do with the Radmanovic and Garzuric expiring contracts. He must move them at the deadline for something of value. He can’t let them expire like last year (Claxton and Bell). I believe the Warriors are like 8 or 9 million over cap so letting them expire still won’t give them much room to sign free agents. A Dale Davis for Baron Davis trade would be great.
2) How does Randolph perform in New York. If he has a big year and shows huge improvement that will knock Riley’s grade. (I am assuming Lee will do well in Golden State) If Randolph is not showing much sitting on New York’s bench then Rileys grade goes up
3) Similar to point number 2 is Greg Monroe. If he is soft and not making an impact in Detroit then Riley drafting will look better. If Monroe makes all rookie team then Riley should take some heat. I realize Udoh is injured but when you hear things that he has no value if Warriors wanted to include him in a trade that is a concern.
How does Randolph perform in New York. If he has a big year and shows huge improvement that will knock Riley’s grade.
Really an unfair way to evaluate a trade. Riley has to make a decision based on the information he has now. And right now, David Lee is the much better player.
I am not sure how to evaluate a trade if I don’t compare players who were traded for each other. David Lee is 6 years older and makes 10 million more dollars per year. I hope he is better. If Randolph wins the Most Improved Player award and the Warriors win 34 games. My guess is Riley will be taking some heat.
I am not sure how to evaluate a trade if I don’t compare players who were traded for each other.
Thats fine to compare players, but don’t comparing players AFTER the trade really isn’t fair. Right now, Randolph has a lot of potential and Lee is by far the better player. Riley made the wise decision to go with the proven talent over potential. If Randolph wins MIP, it still would be the best decision because he had no way of knowing the future.
Also, If Randolph become a star in NY (big IF), how do we know he still will be a star with the Warriors?
If Randolph breaks out, that won’t raise any questions to you about what we were doing to hold him back here? That we should have known how hard he was working to get better? I mean, I’m all for judging the process, too, but our management by this time should have a very good idea of what Randolph is and if he breaks out next year, I think they should have seen that coming. Either that or it’s an indication that our organization wasn’t capable of helping Randolph have that breakout, which is just as damning.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Great idea. Too bad the Warriors didn’t make that move last year when Butler was available from Washington. He is going to be tough to get away from Dallas. Money is no object when it comes to the Mavs, plus Warriors will only be a few million under cap.
Why do you want Caron Butler so much?
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 21, 2010 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Assuming Beidrens is back to the player of a couple of years ago then I would consider small forward to be the Warriors weakest spot. Butler is an 18 points, 6 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 – 3 steals a night solid player. He is athletic two time all-star who can shoot the ball (85% free throws) and probably wouldn’t cost a ton since he turned 30.
I personally don’t see how it happens, since Dallas wants to win now but if there was a way to get him I would be all for it.
Caron Butler is closer to 2 assists than 4.
It’s also more like 1.5 steals a night. And his career TS% is .524.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 21, 2010 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Dorell seems like he could turn into a pretty nice player if he stays healthy.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions
When you trade for injured players, draft injured players, and fail to have proper back-ups then you can’t use injuries an excuse.
Sure, I can agree with that. I just don’t see how Riley has done any of those things. Udoh is injured now. He wasn’t injured when we drafted him. David Lee was injured for the World’s – he wasn’t injured when we traded for him. We’ve made moves to increase our depth at certain spots – if we end up needing a backup PG, I think we can hold that against Riley since we essentially chose not to resign CJ, but in all other cases I think Riley’s done everything possible to increase our depth, and he was not acquiring injured players. So yes, injuries are an excuse because they’re really just not in Riley’s control.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions
I guess I forgot Dorell, yes, I do think he’s an injury risk, but at the price we paid, that seems like a pretty reasonable risk to take…
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
What evidence do you have of that? Speculation only.
Sure Riley leaned on Nellie’s advice..wouldnt you?
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 21, 2010 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions
If u think Nellie liked the Udoh pick when Monroe was available u know nothing about Nellie. None of the guys being brung in are Nellie players.
Knowing Nellie...
…he would’ve drafted a guard/wing like George, Hayward, or Henry and traded Monta by now.
Good point.
There’s just no way I can picture Nellie turning down Monroe or Udoh.
Shame on all u people who gave Riley a bad grade and were the same people saying last april we need to upgrade our defense and our rebounding.
P.S- With all the small forwards available in our price range I think D.Wright was the best guy to target.
Shame on all u people who gave Riley a bad grade and were the same people saying last april we need to upgrade our defense and our rebounding.
C-B seems good to me. We definitely need to upgrade our D. Adding Lee helps a lot with rebounding, but he’s a horrible defender.
Thats what Udoh/Beans is for. By no means should Lee be guarding the other teams best Big. He had to do it in NY because it was either him or Al. But here he’ll have beans and Udoh to do that. So when Miami comes around Beans should be on Bosh.
And most teams dont have two good offensive Bigs. They mainly have a Defensive/Rebounding big starting and a Offensive Big that can do it all.
I don’t think you realize this, but Beans is averageish on defense. So again, our defense still needs improvement.
Beans can guard any big in the league except Dwight and Shaq. Im not saying he can shut guys down but he has the skills that will stop him from being a liability like Lee was last year. And again I believe Udoh was selected to guard the Nowitski’s and the Gasol’s and the Bosh’s of the nba.
Ha, Udoh….He wasn’t much of a good player in college (been over this a bunch of times). Honestly, I’m hoping he can just come off the bench and give us quality back up minutes. I have a really, really hard time believing that Udoh can guard Gasol or Dirk. Those guys are really good offensively, especially Dirk.
Yao is pretty damn good when he’s healthy, Bynum is starting to emerge as a top center in the NBA (when healthy of course). And that’s just the center position…..Beans can guard any big in the league except Dwight and Shaq
Udoh was as good as any Big was in college last year and was the most versatile Big aswell. No other player in the NCAA that entered the draft could do all the thing Udoh could do on both ends of the floor. I think Udoh will eventually be able to guard all those guys. If not his rookie year his sophmore season. He has all the tools to do so he just has to watch film and learn guys tendencies. He is as good as a passer as Monroe is. He is as good as a defender as Aldridge is. He has as good a jumpshot as any big did. He is not as dominant as Cousins is but again we was not on the board. So to make it seem like there is a big disparity between Udoh and Monroe and Aldridge i have to disagree. Udoh is more athletic than both of those guys.
They may not have been as versatile
but most of them were better at a few things than him. Aldrich was better defensively (at least as a shotblocker and rebounder), Monroe was a better passer and had a more polished offensive game. Cousins was dominant on the glass and as a scorer. Favors was better defensively than Udoh.
Also- it’s not Aldridge. It’s Aldrich.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 21, 2010 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I always mispell Aldrich’s name. Sounds like Lamarcus’ name. But Favors was not a better defender than Udoh. And neither was Aldrich. Is there much of a difference between Udoh’s and Monroe’s passing? Basically what he have is a jack of all trades. Again just watch the footage of Udoh playing
http://bit.ly/d8x6H1
and tell me the guys that went behind him is better suited for this team. I just dont see it.
I disagree about Aldrich for sure
and even if Udoh is a better defender than Favors or a better passer than Monroe- he’s 23. Both of those guys are 19. You’d expect him to be better right now, by a lot even.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 21, 2010 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions
The guy was the 3rd option on Offense. As far as defense goes how much better do u want him to be? Maybe Averaging 5 blocks at 22 is good enough.
Maybe for him to average as many blocks as Aldrich? ;)
To answer your question honestly, I wanted him to rebound. He didn’t do that.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Lomers was the Center for the team and they played in a 2-3 zone and he played PF. I’ve never seen a PF dominate the boards in a zone. Most of the boards go to the Center or at least they should.
Well, he was an even worse rebounder at Michigan….
And if he’s blocking all those shots, he should be around the basket to rebound, right? I’ll also point out Udoh was a similar rebounder to Carmelo in college….
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
He was worse at everything at Michigan. He got much better his year off and the year at Baylor. And in a zone you dont have to be around the basket all the time to get blocks. I’ve seen Udoh guarding sf’s at the elbow. But yeah in a zone you should be near the basket but the center is the closest to the basket.
The point is it’s evidence that it wasn’t the zone that was preventing Udoh from being a good rebounder. Lomers only played 17 mpg, by the way. Ekpe was by far their best rebounder, the problem being that he still wasn’t that good.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Thx for the Baylor/Duke game connect Ridah. That was one of the few Baylor games that I saw this year and it was nice to revisit the footage. Udoh showed a well rounded skill set and really moves down the floor quickly. Offence moves as well as a strong defensive presence against that big Duke team.
I like this guy as well….the criticism seems to be his age more than anything. He may never become an all star(and I doubt any of the pics above 5 will) but he may well become a solid big that the Warriors will be fortunate to have.
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 22, 2010 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree. I think Udoh is now what the team wanted Randolph to be. He is more mature and probably is more coachable than AR is. They have the same athleticism. Just about the same vertical. Udoh is bigger he weighs around 240. So I think Riley should get credit for getting rid of AR for a Allstar and bringing in a guy who can do the same things AR did except is a better low post player on both ends of the floor. Thats the main reason I gave him a A. On draft night alot of critics was saying it makes no sense bringing in Udoh when u have Randolph who plays simular to Udoh. Now it all makes sense.
It’s not just his age, it’s that he didn’t turn that “well rounded skill set” into real production. He was a pretty ineffective offensive player. I don’t care what skills you have, if you don’t use those skills to be an effective player, you aren’t very good.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Is there much of a difference between Udoh’s and Monroe’s passing? Basically what he have is a jack of all trades.
Yes, while Udoh is a good passer, Monroe was excellent. Also, you call it “jack of all trades”, but most of those things you talk about Udoh didn’t actually do well. Having a jumpshot is nice, but if you’re scoring inefficiently with it, it’s not providing any meaningful value.
Not only did Aldrich play pretty comparable D to Udoh (Aldrich blocked shots at a higher rate, for instance), but he also rebounded well. Rebounding is extremely important….
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Udoh was as good as any Big was in college last year
Haha, delusional? It was reported that Cuz had the best PER of any big man over the last eight years.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 22, 2010 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I repeat he was not on the board. And Riley said he would have taken Cuz had he been available. But numbers wise it is not a big difference in what Cuz did and what Udoh did. I said Cuz would eventually be a allstar so im not arguing who was the better pick of course i wanted Cuz.
You said "Udoh was as good as any Big was in college last year"
You did not say “Udoh was as good as any other Big on the board when the Warriors picked.”
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
I know what I said and I stand by it. He didnt have the best PER numbers but his averages was as good as any Big in the NCAA last year. If those guys couldnt stay on the floor as much as he did maybe its something to that.
so if you knew what you said and you stand by it
then why on earth did you have to tell him “I repeat he was not on the board.” Nobody argued he was on the board.
And don’t play the “If those guys couldn’t stay on the floor” crap. You know darn well the other players people are talking about were on much deeper teams in much tougher conferences. Also, per36 stats and are waaaaay more important when you are looking for prospects then college totals, unless you think Tyler Hansborough and the Kurt Thomas’s of the world are really the best prospects in their draft classes.
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Who was in a tougher conference than Udoh was? And Udoh was the 3rd option on offense for a elite 8 team so his team was also deep.
You don't think Kansas and North Carolina are in tougher conferences than Baylor?
Just curious, who was the third option on offense for that George Mason team that did well in the tournament a few years ago?
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
er
brainfarted with Kansas
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Except that they really weren’t. When younger guys are doing better than you….not a good sign for your future….
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
And something tells me Cuz will be in foul trouble most of his career be it physical or technical.
This doesn’t make me feel any better that we ended up with the 6th pick. I would LOVE to have a psycho-Cousins.
2 guys walk into a bar... I don't remember the rest of the joke but your mom is a whore.
by Doctor Kajita on Sep 22, 2010 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Once again I said I wanted Cousins the most in the draft second only to Evan Turner. When I was at Oracle and seen the Kings take him It ruined my day. I wanted Cuz on the dubs as our starting center. It didnt happen but i wanted him.
I understand that, J-RIDAH
But then you post something like this. It’s like you’re desperately trying to validate our 6th position by saying something negative about Cousins. It’s childish.
2 guys walk into a bar... I don't remember the rest of the joke but your mom is a whore.
by Doctor Kajita on Sep 22, 2010 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Bro, I appreciate your faith and contributions to GSW and GSoM respectively, but try to put some of your comments in perspective and give them more thought. We’re all guilty of saying stuff without thinking, but we should try to keep it moderate.
2 guys walk into a bar... I don't remember the rest of the joke but your mom is a whore.
by Doctor Kajita on Sep 22, 2010 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Its thought into everything i write. I just dont articulate it the way you guys do. Im used to debating cats in the barbershop and in the gym and hoop court. Im still adjusting to this online debate thing. I’ll keep your advice in mind tho and try to be more informative with what I write if it can avoid me having a longer debate about my posts.
When you write something, you have the luxury of thinking through exactly what you want to say. And you also have the luxury of editing what you write before you hit post. I wish GSoM had an “edit” button though…
2 guys walk into a bar... I don't remember the rest of the joke but your mom is a whore.
by Doctor Kajita on Sep 22, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Things like per36 is a term I never seen or discussed before i got on here. If i was to go to the gym today and mention that to the guys they would look at me like I had on a green hat with a pink bill. So thats the only problem I have on here. U dudes are stat geeks for the most part and I have to get used to debating with stat guys as opposed to debating with guys who debate by what they see not the actual per.
hate to break it to you but you don't always debate by what you see either
Mr. 20/12
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
I have to get used to debating with stat guys as opposed to debating with guys who debate by what they see not the actual per.
Do you realize that most of the “stat geeks” on this forum watch a tremendous amount of basketball?
You’re setting up a false dichotomy here between people who watch vs people who use stats.
I have no idea how much basketball anybody watches. Just because a guy knows numbers dont mean he watches basketball. I said im used to debating cats at the gym and barbershop that base they debates on what they see in the games they watch. Not what some stat website says.
Just because a guy knows numbers dont mean he watches basketball.
And just because a guy likes stats doesn’t mean he doesn’t watch basketball. The point is that you shouldn’t make those assumptions in the first place. What you should know is that all of us stat guys on here watch a lot of basketball. I watched every Warriors game last season. That’s pretty typical of us “stat geeks.”
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 22, 2010 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions
What assumption did i make? U talk as if I said stat guys dont get layed and only watch hoops all day.
Nothing in particular
but know that all of the stat geeks on here watch a lot of basketball.We watch just as much or more than you, even.
Just because a guy knows numbers dont mean he watches basketball.
This is true. You can’t make that assumption. I’m telling you that we all watch a lot of basketball.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 22, 2010 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions
And just because a guy likes stats doesn’t mean he doesn’t watch basketball.
Corollary: just because someone doesn’t understand statistics doesn’t mean he can actually pick up on things via direct ad hoc observation. My experience has been that the individuals who seem to see to be the best individual observers are also interested in statistics and those who are most adamantly opposed to statistical measures tend to be overly impressed with superficial but rather meaningless qualities. They also tend to be the most influenced by statistics but don’t admit this. Unfortunately, the statistic that seems to dominate their observations is points per game, one of rather limited utility on its own.
I’m far from a “stat geek” but I’ve been able to have pretty good debates on this forum and others alike because I’d like to think I can put my thoughts/arguments down on paper adequately. There are guys here who are “stat geeks” that can’t do it.
I also learned that beating a dead horse is pretty disgusting.
In other words, know when you have no argument and concede. There will always be smarter people.
2 guys walk into a bar... I don't remember the rest of the joke but your mom is a whore.
by Doctor Kajita on Sep 22, 2010 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I would also love Cousin
But I don’t see anything wrong with J-Ridah’s assertion. Cousins has proven to be a loose cannon in college, high school etc. Does that make him bad? ABSOLUTELY NOT. But it doesn’t mean he won’t be somewhere between Stephen Jackson and Rasheed Wallace tech happy. I also believe it’s true. I still want him on my team cause what i’ve seen of him, all star talent. Perhaps more.
I still question the assertion that “Cousins has proven to be a loose cannon”. I’ve yet to see any strong evidence to prove this. I mean, we’ve gotten some hints and rumors, enough to make one at least suspicious, but proof? Nothing even remotely close to proof.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Loose Cannon may be wrong word
I didn’t mean it in way you’re taking it. Perhaps word i’m looking for is temperamental. Temperamental definitely. He’s shown that with lashing out on court, shoving players, attitute, techs, and just generally being frustrated easily.
That’s not the worst thing though. He’s highly competitive. I mean it can be at times, but I’d take a temper with that talent.
I will say
usually guys in the league who have these types of rumors flying around tend to eventually show why. Not saying Cousins will explode or anything but technically there might be something there that makes him a bit unpredictable and not entirely dependable yet. Time will tell.
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 27, 2010 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, or they make for a nice cover story about the obstacles they overcame. ;)
(Or both, see: Artest, Ron)
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, yeah I mean the guy can still be a "loose cannon" or whatever and still be successful
Look at Webber and Sheed (other than Sheed’s love of the pot, Cousins really really reminds me of Sheed from a general standpoint). For what it’s worth, Cousins will certaintly be memorable. I just hope he puts it all together sooner rather than later and fully expect some bumps along the way.
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 27, 2010 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah well Walley...
Good point on Cousins wally…wish warriors had him though ha!
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 28, 2010 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
and if the Warriros drafted Cousins you would be calling him a hall of famer already and saying all the foul stuff is blown out of proportion
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
i highly doubt
Biedrins could guard Marc Gasol or Brook Lopez 1-on-1 without giving up a significant amount of points
COME. ON. YOU. SPURS.
by Tom Huddlestone on Sep 23, 2010 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
?!
Beans can guard any big in the league except Dwight and Shaq.
Bean’s can’t guard about half the centers in the NBA at any sort of special level (read: them producing significantly below there average) How much of that is due to rest of team? I’m not sure, but I’ve never been very impressed with Beans post defense. He’s good off the weakside though.
Post D is definitely the weakest part of his game, but the good news is “their average” tends to be pretty weak, most C’s don’t do much offensively, so it’s not a big issue. It’ll also be interesting to see how his post D improves once our wings stop letting up so much dribble penetration. Post D is largely about establishing postiion, and when you’re always helping….well, I don’t care who you are, you aren’t going to effectively guard your man.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Our defense is not going to be good, but hey, if we had good defense AND offense we’d be a legitimate championship contender. Are you really going to hold it against Riley that he didn’t turn us into one overnight?
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Danny Ainge did it, Pat Riley did it
Now thats the bench mark.
Seriously, I really dislike it to be honest. I prefer to see teams built like OKC or Portland, but I won’t complain if we magically did pull a big 3.
shame on you?
get that junk out of here
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 21, 2010 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe Riley felt the same about Udoh as this writer does
Every year a few unexpected players come out of nowhere to have big seasons and grab first round and lottery (top 14) spots in the NBA draft. Meet Ekpe Udoh, the big man who led Baylor to the Elite Eight, during their first NCAA tournament appearance in 60 years.
Ekpe UdohHe’s a “nightmare” for opponents to match up with, because he’s 6’10 with a 7’5 wingspan, and a 235 pound frame. He attacks on offense and stalks on defense, being an impact player in every facet of the game. He’s an improving offensive player, a true thinker on the court, with the heart of lion, and that’s exactly what Ekpe’s first name means translated…"Lion".
He’s of Nigerian blood, but has an American game, as Ekpe Udoh (pronounced, first name: ‘Epp-Ay,’ last name: ‘You-Doe’) is a bigman with more versatility and feel for the game than your average low post player. His overall decision making finding teammates and his feel for what to do on the low block was impressive both during the season and in the NCAA Tournament, and will be an added bonus at the next level.
Certain players play the game with a passion for success. They just seem to be winners, the kind of players that make everyone around them better. Udoh has some of those intangibles.
Post players that can play defense are desirable, but they don’t always drafted high because of this skill. Udoh is one of the best defenders in college basketball and those skills should translate to the pro level. When guys post him up, they are often asking for trouble.
He does a great job of figuring out what his opponent is going to do and taking it away from him. On some occasions, players tried to fake one way and then spin right for the jump hook, only to have it smacked right back in their faces, usually only an inch or two from their release. Cutters and drivers to the basket that think they have space on him, usually find they have taken the wrong angle and are a lot further from the rim then they thought.
On many of these drives he refrains from stupid fouls and just allows the shooter to throw up a brick and doesn’t bail them out. This has allowed him to remain aggressive, while not succumbing to the foul trouble that many aggressive shot blockers fall into. Udoh plays smart, like a savvy vet. In fact, many of the fouls he got whistled for were offensive fouls where opponents drew charges under the basket.
His defensive prowess comes as no surprise, after all he was a Big Ten All Defensive Team member during his last year, and won Michigan’s Wayman Britt Outstanding Defensive Player award as well.
There’s not a team in the NBA that couldn’t use a guy like Ekpe. He runs the court like a gazelle. And is a very quick jumper, with a quick spin move and a wing span like a condor. He rarely lays the ball in when he scores and more often then not finishes with a ferocious slam.
Ekpe UdohThe biggest difference for Udoh between Michigan and Baylor was how he handled his post play. At the college level, you have to double team him, but when you do; his passing skills are put on display. For many post players, passing is a lost art. It’s something they pick up as pros out of necessity, while never really mastering it.
At Baylor, Udoh was second on the team in assists with an average of 2.7 per game. When he gets to the pros, that number could be even higher as the players are much better shooters and his passes are usually right on the money. Whether it’s a cutter or an open shooter, he finds people. His passing skills keep the offense flowing as he’s looking for you as long as your open. This has really opened up Baylor’s offense and is another reason they had such a strong season.
Another thing you have to look at when drafting someone is whether they are coachable. Can this player improve, or is it a, what-you-see-is-what-you-get kind of guy? Udoh is notorious for being a hard worker and proved it the year he sat out when transferring to Baylor from Michigan, by becoming a much more offensively skilled post player.
If there’s an area he needs to improve on, it’s a better jump shot and free throw shooting. He has solid form and can even step out to the three point line. If he continues to work hard on his shooting; he should be able to improve in this area each year he’s in the league.
Udoh has an intriguing power forward package, will that be enough to make him a lottery pick come draft night? Time will tell.
http://www.nbadraft.net/node/20213
by J-RIDAH on Sep 21, 2010 8:28 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Maybe Riley felt the same about Udoh as this writer does ?
That writer sounds like Udon’s PR guy, I don’t think that’s a real sports writer.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 22, 2010 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
are you trying to say you are not convinced by an unknown writer who has written a grand total of two articles (one on bleacher report)
who makes an arguement based on intangibles and the fact that Udoh’s first name means “Lion”?
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
are you trying to say ?
Haha, were you convinced?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 22, 2010 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
color me skeptical
although to be fair, just from reading about Udoh’s life and seeing interviews he has done, really cool guy and hope he kicks butt.
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions
just from reading about Udoh’s life and seeing interviews he has done, really cool guy and hope he kicks butt.
Oh yeah, he seems like a nice guy and should be a useful player but I didn’t get the star vibe I get from Cuz and PaulGeorge. I woulda traded up for Cuz or taken George if no up trade was possible.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 22, 2010 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
George wasnt a pick of need tho. Id rather have Dorell guarding Melo and Durant than I would George. Udoh’s defense is more needed than George’s offense.
yeah I am just not the biggest Paul George fan
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
George wasnt a pick of need tho.
I always go for the best future player not the best now or the position of need and Cuz and George look like the best chance to get a star from this draft. Some would say Wall but if I had the top pick I’d take Cuz over Wall and lower down George over anyone left at 6th pick.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 22, 2010 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think there was a chance the Warriors could have traded into the top 5
I don’t think Minnesotta would have traded down (unless the Warriors wanted to give up AR without receiving Love – I have a hard time believing the TWolves were willing to part with Love AND trade down) and I am almost certain none of the other top 5 teams would have done so.
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Riley said if he traded down he wanted a player for it. Nobody wanted Monroe bad enough to give up a player for that 6th spot.
um, okay?
Did I say they should have traded down? What bearing does this have on the conversation?
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
of you were talking to SCU why don't you reply to him instead of me
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 22, 2010 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
It's pretty hard to tell who you're replying to when you reply to the wrong guy
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 22, 2010 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Man, this whole Udoh wingspan thing has gone way too far. Does nobody bother to look at the dude’s standing reach? I also think he does the exact opposite of “attack” on offense…..
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
my thoughts exactly
J-RIDAH keeps asking the question about what is different about Udoh and Randolph. Here’s the answer. Randolph has an attack mentality when he catches the ball. He’ll face up his man and look to aggressively take it to create a shot for himself, because he knows at times he explosiveness and first step are enough to get by his man. Udoh is more of a team guy, he’ll make the right (but not spectacular) pass, or he’ll take an open jump shot if he has it. If a play is run for him to get the ball on the low block, he’ll make an offensive move and try score the ball, because that’s what the play expects him to do. In short, Udoh is a defensive guy first, and attempts not to disrupt the offense when he’s on that side of the floor.
by Tom Huddlestone on Sep 24, 2010 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Randolph is a 6’11 guy that cant play with his back to the basket. How many of those are successfull in the NBA? Udoh can play with his back to the basket and can guard the low post better than AR. Thats much more valuable than a guy attacking the basket. And the Attacking AR does do dont make up for the bad shots he takes in games.
Randolph is a 6’11 guy that cant play with his back to the basket. How many of those are successfull in the NBA?
The ones that play defense, block shots and rebounds. He’s also really fast and explosive compared to guys that would defend him. He’s quick enough that there is talk about him playing SF eventually. He has the handle to go by his man. He actually converted that into the ability to the FT line pretty well last season, where he shoots a high percentage.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 24, 2010 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
There has never been a 6’11 guy that has been a allstar that cant play with his back to the basket. And for all that explosion why isnt his field goal percentage higher? If he cant guard guys on the low block and cant play with his back to the basket he’ll have to be a small forward. He is better off trying to be the next durant if he cant post anybody up. AR only plays help defense. He cant guard a scoring PF in the league.
I was thinking that Marcus Camby had been an All Star
I guess not. He’s made All NBA defense and is a 1 time DPOY. I’d rather have that than an all star.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 24, 2010 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Remember that Randolph could just be coming out of college right now. That he doesn’t have a refined post game now doesn’t mean he never will. And it remains to be seen whether Udoh really has any sort of post game, it’s not like he had a dominating one in college.
If Randolph develops into a Josh Smith type player that also rebounds….that’s a pretty decent guy to have. Or he can go the Chris Bosh/Kevin Garnett route – his stats actually don’t compare too poorly to theirs. I wouldn’t necessarily bet on it happening, but it’s a distinct possibility. Not many guys have NBA post games at age 20. It’s really not as big of a deal as you’re making it. At the same time, not many guys score 18.5 points per 36 at age 20….
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions
(Main point…..age age age age age age age. It matters.)
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Agree and Disagree
Experience level matters more. Both Randolph and Udoh are raw in terms of basketball coaching/playing compared to say Steph Curry. Udoh’s age means there upside might be lower than say Derrick Favors, but doesn’t mean he doesn’t have A LOT of room for growth into a good player.
A couple of points. Research indicates “aging curves”, that is, the typical development of players, is a function of age and not a function of experience. Second, just from a logical perspective, I don’t really think the “he’s only played basketball for a few years” line made much sense. Without thinking deep about it, sure, it might seem like being raw means more room for growth, but thinking deeper about it….unless the guy is working harder, all I see is a guy starting from a lesser talent level, which is a bad thing, rather than a good thing. It effectively lowers his ceiling:
FTL = CTL + W
Basically I think of it like that – future talent level = current talent level + the amount of work you put into your game. If you start more raw than someone else, that means you have to put in all the work required to get to the point they’re already at, PLUS you have to match the amount of work they’re putting in to keep pace with their improvements. So basically the way I see it is it means Udoh (or whatever “raw” player we want to talk about) has to work harder just to be an equal player to someone less raw than he is. The assumption here being that being that the player who’s more “raw” is a worse player than the one who’s less “raw”.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions
At the same time
He’s competing with players much more developed than him, so you can’t expect to see growth at the same rate of other players. It will have peaks and valleys. Clearly you have to work hard first and foremost. No disagreement there.
I’m just saying because of his relative inexperience, he has room and potential for more growth than your average 23 year old. But there’s no indication he will reach it.
Let me think about this
The signing of Amundson was great, considering the fact he was the best available big man and we got him. A
Rodney Carney was also a good signing mainly because he has some upside, and the ability to guard multiple positions and it looks like it fills up more minutes with someone who is at least a decent NBA player. B
C.J. Watson in the sign and trade I think was done for money reasons. C.J. was a good backup but we can probably fill his shoes fairly easily and for cheaper down the road. We ended up paying Amundson less money than C.J. got which I think is impressive. C
Signing Jeremy Lin I think is a great move, Lin fell into the Warriors laps basically because he was a fan growing up, but we basically got our second round pick without having to actually have a second round pick. Lin could be bad but we have other people that could fill his minutes. A
Signing D. Wright was a fantastic move considering what we are paying him and what caliber of player he could be for us. Putting an emphasis on defense at the SF position I think is a great step in the right direction. A
Letting Morrow go hurts, but sharp shooters like Morrow are being paid more and more money these days. I will follow Morrow as he was one of my favorite players on the team for the last few years. I would have really liked to keep Morrow but Reggie Williams seems to have a better all-round game and will fill in nicely for Morrow next year for a cheaper price. D
Ekpe Udoh would not have been my choice for a draft pick and I completely agree that the decision to draft him at 6 wasn’t the right choice, we should have traded the No. 6 pick for a pick higher up and gotten some more depth while we were at it. Last years draft had depth and even if Udoh got drafted before our turn came up there would have been someone comparable we could have drafted. D
I really like the Lee trade. We have a proven PF who can rebound and score efficiently. Lee isn’t great on defense which means we have to get a stopped down low at the center position(Biedrins played proficient defense earlier in his career.) All and all I think that history will prove the Warriors right on this trade, Randolph has potential to be a great player but I don’t think that he will reach where Lee is right now. A
The Maggette trade was something that many people think “needed to happen” where as I think that we netted very little for a player Maggette’s caliber. The Bucks are going to be better next year in part because of Maggette, where as the Warriors won’t be much better this year with Gadzuric and Bell. In the end it has to be seen as a wash though as the Warriors cleared up money for the future that they can use to sign a player as good or better than Maggette. C
Overall I think Riley deserves at least a B for his efforts, I think most of the moves people can criticize him on are ones that he had to make or was forced to make for financial reasons. In the end Riley made the team better and added many ways for the Warriors to improve still. If the Warriors start the season off to a good start I would love to see some of our expiring contracts net a good player. if we don’t start off to a hot start the expiring contracts could still be used to grab a good free or multiple productive pieces in free agency next year.
Overall B(for now) A(if we use our expiring contracts to get a good player)
by brutusbrutus on Sep 21, 2010 11:16 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Those expiring contracts are the wild card
Those expirings have the potential to really improve this team. Not sure if the best move is to use them in trades or let them go & try to do something in FA.
Well last year our expiring contracts didn't really get us much
hopefully that will change, I have a feeling it will.
by brutusbrutus on Sep 22, 2010 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Actually Brutus,it is quite possible that Udoh will provide us with the depth we need where we need it the most ! It looks like that was exactly Rileys strategy with this pick as a C backup and at PF if Wright disapears. That pick looks like a B grade to me or C+ minimum. I am not convinced that Monroe, Aldrich or Davis are such obvious better choices…time will tell.
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 22, 2010 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions
What don’t you like about Monroe, Aldrich or Davis? I think all 3 have something to offer, and what you’re looking for is your own preference, but one of those 3 should be able to fill whatever it is you think we should have been looking for….
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions
I know Riley brung all those guys in for a workout besides Davis. I trust Riley enough to think that he seen something in Udoh that he didnt those other guys.
But “seeing” something is just one part of the evaluation process. If he “sees” something, like a nice jumpshot and a guy that scores a bit and passes on offense, he might “see” a good offensive player without using additional information (like statistics!) to realize that his offense isn’t actually “effective”…..
My concern is that he didn’t do a good job of taking Udoh’s big red flags into account – rebounding, lack of effective offense, and age, and I’m not sure Riley really understands how to evaluate those things, as statistical analysis in basketball is still….lacking, to say the least.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
I am not down on any of those players but have to admit that Aldrich somehow would have been my least favorite at the time(although since the Thunder made some effort to grab him—mucho respect for the Thunder management—-I could see the error of my ways)
Anyway my point was that at this time I do not see a huge gap between them and Udoh.
After time passes however it will be a good bet that 2or 3 after #6 picks will emerge and we will all complaining about how we missed the boat. Good to remember that with the exceptions of Ellis and Curry we have not made the “perfect” pick in recent drafts(maybe AR will prove that wrong…someday over the rainbow) and neither have most other GM’s around the league.
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 26, 2010 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Good thoughts, Callahan (even if I disagree with a lot of them). One thing I think would improve this diary is to include the pricetags of these signings on your list, as without that as context it’s impossible to fairly assess Riley’s performance. I think it’s key to keep in mind that we got Dorell Wright, Rodney Carney, Lou Amundson and Jeremy Lin for roughly $8M a year total. When you consider that Maggette is due to make $9.6M this year, and another $21M the two years after that, you realize how savvily Riley has worked the financial end of things.
My overall Riley report card, to date:
A+ for the cheap depth signings
A+ for Curry @ #7
C- for Udoh @ #6
B+ for the Lee trade
C for letting go of Morrow
A for dumping Crawford, Jackson, and Maggette for expirings
B+ for not “selling low” on Monta and Biedrins
A+ for seeming to have a clear vision for the overall roster and pursuing it aggressively
--
A- total
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 22, 2010 8:40 AM PDT reply actions 4 recs
I think that your grades are pretty "spot on" sleepy.
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 22, 2010 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions
I like those grades
The Udoh and Lee grades may change a bit over time (both going up I hope). The only place I disagree is the B+ for not selling low on Monta and Beans. If it’s a straight up grade, it’s maybe a B/B-. But if it’s graded on a curve, which I am, then I give them a solid A. The fact that we did not just dump their salary, or get taken advantage of by another team, marks a significant change in direction for the Warrior’s organizaiton imo.
by WestCoastWarrior on Sep 22, 2010 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions
could we have signed Morrow
and still acquired Amundson? Also, if we signed Morrow to a 3-year, $12M+ deal would that limit our ability to get another major free agent? I think it’s important to carefully consider those questions before grading that decision a “C”.
I wont grade yet
I need to see how AR and Ammo do first, those losses will define the offseason IMO since both have tons of potential and were young and cheap
" Only build on positives , don't stack the negatives...Instead of criticizing , what was a positive?" - Donavin Darius
"There is nothing like a wise phrase or quote to help convince others that your decision makes sense." - Anon
"If you're ever in a fair fight, then your tactics suck." ಠ_ಠ
When can you grade?
Just this up coming season, or do you have to wait until every player involved in the trade is done and through with their career?
by WestCoastWarrior on Sep 22, 2010 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Right now
B-
" Only build on positives , don't stack the negatives...Instead of criticizing , what was a positive?" - Donavin Darius
"There is nothing like a wise phrase or quote to help convince others that your decision makes sense." - Anon
"If you're ever in a fair fight, then your tactics suck." ಠ_ಠ
I don't think you can grade them on it like that.
You grade them for the information they have at hand, and Lee is far better than Randolph. Letting go of Morrow was stupid.
REPLY TO DONUT
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 22, 2010 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions
If both turn out to be big time players and were not as good as we think we can or could be
It was a failure to me
" Only build on positives , don't stack the negatives...Instead of criticizing , what was a positive?" - Donavin Darius
"There is nothing like a wise phrase or quote to help convince others that your decision makes sense." - Anon
"If you're ever in a fair fight, then your tactics suck." ಠ_ಠ
I give Riley a C+
He has made a few good moves this offseason and he has made some head scratching moves as well. I don’t know why he would draft Udoh and then go out and get David Lee. They play the same position.. I liked getting rid of maggette, and I loved the signings of LIn, carney, wright and amnudson.
I don’t know why he would draft Udoh and then go out and get David Lee. They play the same position.
First off, it’s generally unwise to draft someone based on perceived positional “need.” Needs have a way of changing; and in the event of actual logjams, moves can be made. It’s always best to maximize your chance of drafting a good NBA player. Ruling out prospects based on the position they play lowers your chances of landing a good NBA player.
Second, it’s never a problem to have multiple skilled big men. Ideally, you want to have at least four. The Warriors gave up two (Randolph and Turiaf) for one in the Lee trade, so making up for that shortfall in the draft, assuming we were also going after the best player available, was not a priori a bad idea.
Third, Udoh’s one NBA-quality skill — shotblocking — is also the one area in which Lee is weak. As big men go, they seem pretty complementary.
That said. I don’t like the pick. But if Udoh had shown himself in college to be an efficient scorer and a beastly rebounder, I’d love it.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 22, 2010 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
That said. I don’t like the pick. But if Udoh had shown himself in college to be an efficient scorer and a beastly rebounder, I’d love it.
So, basically, if Udoh was Ed Davis, you’d love it.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Haha, basically. Though I would also wonder why there were two Ed Davises in the draft, and why we decided to select the one we did.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 22, 2010 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I SAY B
but really i feel like an A-
clearly the the draft of Udoh is the most suspect move… but if i remember correctly no teams wanted to trade up for our pick… but had we traded down and still netted udoh i feel it would be very decent draft given the circumstances..
overall we are a better team so far in my opinion which deserves a good solid grade.. if we improve every year like this we will be a championship team..
Better Than Before
Our standards are so low after the last 17 years, that picking up one potential difference maker in Lee, seems like a huge deal.
When you look at the big picture, this franchise is still two very good players away from scaring anyone. We are starting to get some good pieces, but this franchise needs a real direction.
I am more concerned about Lacob and Guber than I am about this year. They are still out begging for investors and when paying luxury tax was brought up to Lacob, I thought he was going to cry. These are not good signs that they will be committed to winning.
Bottom line is Riley has done a better job, but will it be enough to make this team go anywhere but back to the lottery?
No
Also have to point out that We Believe was kind of a gimmicky team, with our best lineup featuring Al Harrington bombing away from the center position. But talent-wise, no.
COME. ON. YOU. SPURS.
by Tom Huddlestone on Sep 23, 2010 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I disagree but fair enough. I think Steph will have the same numbers Baron had the season of the We Believe team. I think Monta will have a better year than J-Rich did. I think D.Wright could be a step down than what stack jack was tho. D.Lee will most def have a better year than Al had and beans who knows what he’ll be. And our bench is deeper and better than the we believe team. Just my opinion.
Our perimeter players were quite talented on We Believe
Baron/Jack/JRich/Monta were better than Curry/Monta/Reggie are now. The bench on We Believe was not bad too, I’d take Barnes/Pietrus over DWright/Bell/Carney. A straight DLee to Al comparison is kind of unfair, as they are completely different players. But I do agree it is an upgrade, mainly because Al couldn’t rebound his position decently if his life depended on it.
COME. ON. YOU. SPURS.
by Tom Huddlestone on Sep 23, 2010 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions
U think Monta was better then than he is now? I disagree. Also when comparing the We Believe team you have to take into account that this team has a much better frontcourt. Biedrins/Brandan/Amundson/Udoh is better than the we believe frontcourt. I also think reggie is a better offensive player now than pietrus/barnes ever was.
In a way, 06/07/08 Monta was better than he is now, because he didn’t dominate the ball, was much more efficient in terms of higher FG% and lower TOs while still putting up ~20ppg, and didn’t have the huge ego he has now, since he used to have to answer to Baron/SJax. I’d argue that the whole of his game hasn’t changed much since We Believe, only that he’s gotten more confidence and puts up more shots (worse ones) now that he’s top dog.
I agree that we have a better frontcourt now than we did then. Reggie Williams is a much better offensive player than both Pietrus/Barnes, but doesn’t provide the hustle/D/intangibles that proved invaluable in our brief playoff run.
The center of my take on it is that Baron Davis then is better than Steph Curry now. Davis put the team on his back and led us to the promsed land (which turned out to be the second round of the playoffs, whatever). Curry at this point in his career is not the swashbuckling leader that Davis was back then. Also, with SJax as his vice-captain, the Warriors had two veteran leaders who knew how to get it done. Curry is still too young to step into that role, Lee has never been to the playoffs, and Ellis is just not that guy, despite what he says.
COME. ON. YOU. SPURS.
by Tom Huddlestone on Sep 23, 2010 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions
U think Monta was better then than he is now?
Many people use ‘better’ in a highly subjective manner. In terms of how his play was compatible with winning basketball games, Monta then was much better than Monta was last year. It’s not even close.
But then again, it’s not unreasonable to think Monta’s overall skillset has improved since then, the important difference being how he uses that skillset. If he goes back to using it how he was before….well, he might be even better at doing what he did before.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions
i really don't think it has improved, significantly at least
Maybe his mid-range jumper is a little more solid than it used to be, but he still uses the same spin move, still relies on an ultra quick first step to beat his man, still does those crazy circus shot layups, I think you get where I’m going. He claims to have “matured” over this past off-season, let’s see him start by taking better shots and understanding the concept of a team offense, not just catch the ball put your head down and go.
by Tom Huddlestone on Sep 24, 2010 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe his mid-range jumper is a little more solid than it used to be
I know it was worse last year than in 08.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 24, 2010 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not sure we really know that, I would strongly suspect any sample statistics we compare would not match up very well in terms of difficulty of the shot….
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Could be true. I’d lean towards his skills being “better” rather than “worse”, given that he’s had a couple more years to practice them, but I’m not sure it’s a big difference.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions
this franchise is still two very good players away from scaring anyone.
Depends on the players, right? I mean, they’re one really good player (LeBron James) from being likely the best team in the NBA.
I’m still curious what you kind of a direction you’re talking about. They just unloaded a whole bunch of young kinda-sorta good players to acquire likely their best frontcourt player since Webber. They filled in the holes with savvy, cheap depth signings. All the guys they’ve acquired seem like solid character guys, in addition to being (mostly) productive and efficient players. The acquisitions and the core are all in that age 23-27 “sweet spot” — not so young that we have to watch them learn how to play at the expense of winning, but young enough to be at their absolute physical peak (with still a bit of upisde, in the case of a few of them). And young enough that in 2-3 years they’ll all still be in their primes.
The direction seems pretty clear to me: stop the losing right now. Make a strong play for the playoffs this year. Make ourselves an appealing destination by winning. Build around Curry and Lee. Give Monta and Biedrins a fair chance to see if they can’t shake off last season’s poor perforamce and return to their previously high levels of play. Stockpile some expiring contracts and see if our newfound winning ways can’t lure another big fish (Oden, e.g.)
What for you would constitute a “real direction”?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 23, 2010 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
The direction seems pretty clear to me: stop the losing right now. Make a strong play for the playoffs this year. Make ourselves an appealing destination by winning. Build around Curry and Lee. Give Monta and Biedrins a fair chance to see if they can’t shake off last season’s poor perforamce and return to their previously high levels of play. Stockpile some expiring contracts and see if our newfound winning ways can’t lure another big fish (Oden, e.g.)
If people want to identify a common thread throughout the years of Cohan-era failure it is the lack of that. This is what sets this new era of Warriors basketball apart from the past, even more than the sale of the franchise. I think it was hard for everybody to see for a while because Riley had to make multiple moves to unwind a lot of the big contracts that were on the books from Mullin/Rowell.
From all indications, Lacob sees what Riley is doing and is impressed which should make us all optimistic about the new ownership.
play like a 1 man guy
by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 23, 2010 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I dont know what more Riley could have done this offseason. And those that criticize him dont seem to have a clear idea of what they would have done differently.
At this point, the major criticism seem to center around picking Udoh or not trading down to pick him. I suspect if the ping-pong balls had been kinder, Larry Riley would have become exponentially smarter.
play like a 1 man guy
by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 23, 2010 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions
definitely true
If we had ended up with a Cousins and Wesley Johnson, there would be a lot less complaining going on around here
COME. ON. YOU. SPURS.
by Tom Huddlestone on Sep 23, 2010 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions
People actually still think Phoenix is dangerous. With a aging Grant and Nash and no real Big how far can they go? They dont have a Big unless u consider Hedo and Hakim legit Bigs.
With a aging Grant and Nash and no real Big how far can they go?
1. Nash is a highlander. He will be good till he decides to hang it up.
2. Robin Lopez is a legit big. Good defender. He’s capable of running the PnR and he’s a good rebounder. Channing Frye can play a little too, but he’s such a weak defender. They still have Ropez.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 23, 2010 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah
I said that he “can play a little.” He really isn’t anything special. Great 3 point shooter, though.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 23, 2010 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Did I say anything like that at all?
I said that he’s a legit big. I wasn’t comparing them to any team in the league.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 23, 2010 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions
I didnt say u said it. It was just a question. Because to me Beans could do everything Lopez does on a nightly basis but he never gets the credit as being a legit Big. We have 2 legit Bigs maybe even more while phoenix only has 1 and they are expected by the media to have a better season than us. Baffles me.
Sorry, I got defensive for some reason
Robin is probably a better post defender, but I value Biedrins more. Better rebounder, scorer, more mobile, better passer.
They might have a better season than us because they are better at most positions. Better PG, better SG, better SF, great guys off the bench in Dragic, Childress, Dudley and Frye.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 23, 2010 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions
I would have to say Phoenix
REPLY TO DONUT
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 23, 2010 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions
has the best bench in the league,
they almost beat the Lakers pretty much.
REPLY TO DONUT
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 23, 2010 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Amare wasn't their bench was he?
And i think adding Warrick, Childress, and Hedo will help their bench.
REPLY TO DONUT
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 23, 2010 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions
I think we have a better bench aswell.
You’re crazy. Even with the departures of Lou (who was good) and Leandro (who was pretty much irrelevant), they have a very good bench. The addition of Josh Childress basically makes them better than last year.
Look at our depth: we don’t have a quality back up PG. They have Dragic. We have 1 quality back up wing in Reggie. They have 2 in Dudley and Childress, who is probably better than Reggie by himself. I’m not sure what they’re going to do with the Hill-Turkoglu situation. We have 1 proven quality back up big in Lou. Wright has played well in his minutes, but he’s hardly proven. Udoh is a rookie who will miss half the season. They have Channing Frye and Hakim Warrick off the bench. I’d probably call that a win for us even though we don’t really know what we’re getting.
Overall, though, they kinda kill us there. They have one of the 3 best benches in the league, along with Portland and Orlando.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 23, 2010 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Havent seen Childress play in a few years. As far as im concerned he is in the same space as B. Wright as far both been out of the league so who knows what to expect. Charlie Bell and Dudley are equal in my opinion. Channing Frye is decent and a good 3 point shooter but Reggie is better than anyone on they bench. Udoh/Warrick is a tossup in my opinion. I know im gonna catch flack for that but hey thats my take on it.
different players
Warrick is long too but has shown he can provide some offensive spark off the bench. Dragic is a sick backup PG and we don’t have anyone near as good as him. Frye is an X-factor for them because he’s so important for their offense since he can space the floor from the center position. I sure wish we had someone like that, it’d make smallball that much more effective.
by Tom Huddlestone on Sep 24, 2010 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I dunno man. Childress was really good when he played in the NBA. He then went to Europe and tore it up. He’s not old yet- he can still play.
Charlie Bell and Dudley are equal in my opinion
Well, no. Dudley is a really good 3 point shooter and a good defensive player, capable of guarding the 2-4. He’s also a good enough rebounder where that isn’t much of a loss. Bell is a 6’3" swingman. His defense is okay, but he’s probably not as effective as guarding 2s as Dudley. Bell is a 0 minutes per game kind of player. Dudley is a 20 minutes per game kind of player. In this case, you’re just totally wrong.
Udoh/Warrick is a tossup in my opinion.
I can see that. I said that we have better frontcourt depth than they do. I just don’t like their depth that much there. I would like it more if they kept Amundson. If they kept Amundson, I’d probably give the advantage to them.
Reggie might be the best bench player, but they have most of the next best depth players. That might actually be Childress anyway. He’s a killer rebounder and defensive player.
Dude, you’re really just being a homer. They have like 5 useful bench players. We know that we have 2. We might have as many as 4.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 24, 2010 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Childress is a question mark until I see him play again. Im not as high as Dudley as you are. And by us having the better frontcourt bench trumps them having better wings coming off the bench. Like I said before Brandan Wright is just as big of a question mark as Childress is. Both could kill or stink it up.
Childress is a question mark until I see him play again
He’s 27. You’re ready to proclaim a guy in Udoh that was older than his competition and really not all that great in college as the next Marcus Camby, but you can’t admit that a guy who was once a good NBA player, is still in his prime and only went to Europe so that the Hawks wouldn’t re-sign him, will probably still be pretty good. That is outrageous.
Im not as high as Dudley as you are
Clearly, but you’re very wrong if you think he’s in the same class of player as Bell. Charlie Bell is nothing anymore. He’s a 0. He might even be less than 0. Dudley is a solid rotation player. You’re straight up wrong about the guy. This isn’t just a difference of opinion- he is better than you think. I’ll admit that he’s not great. He’s not a starter, but he would get solid minutes on any team in the league. He would probably get 20 minutes a night on the Warriors, mostly at the 3 and 4.
Like I said before Brandan Wright is just as big of a question mark as Childress is.
You say a lot of things. It doesn’t make it valid.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 24, 2010 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Ha I forgot Phoenix has Hedo. That’s a pretty big step down for them.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah I dunno why they went after Hedo while getting Childress. If anything, David Lee should have been their first priority in the offseason. But I think they acquired Hedo so Nash can play off the ball at times.
Seriously
swap DLee for Amar’e
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 26, 2010 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Let me upgrade ya.
REPLY TO DONUT
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 26, 2010 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions
well I have a strong feeling the Knicks would have said no since they could just sign Amare on his own and get separate assets for Lee
Maybe they could have gone for Dragic?
"Melo is waay better than Roy."~ J-Ridah
"I want to see how we play with D.Wright before we think about the melo trade ." ~ J-Ridah Part II
"I said that because even tho Melo is a good player we shouldnt give up key pieces to get him. In order to get him we’d have to give up Ellis,Udoh and probably wright just to rent him for a year. No player in the league is worth that much for 1 year. Not even Lebron." ~ J-Riday Part II: The Explanation
by wallywagon11 on Sep 27, 2010 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd go with a B-
1. I can’t stand the Udoh pick. We’re not going to be title contenders any time soon, so might as well swing for the fences and take a guy with some potential, not a 24-year-old who’s destined to be an NBA role-player.
2. Liking the David Lee trade. Best thing we did all off-season by far. Provides hustle, scoring, rebounding, albeit at the cost of interior D (not that we had much of that to begin with).
3. Other acquistions are a wash. Losing Randolph sucks because of his potential, losing Morrow sucks more due to sentimental value. Amundson can provide the same energy that Turiaf did. Jeremy Lin purely a marketing ploy. DWright/Carney give us a different look at the 3 than we had last year but not a huge improvement. Bell/Gadzuric don’t really even register on my radar.
In the end, this Warriors team will be better than last year because there’s no way we can be as injury-ridden as we were last year, and because of the acquisition of David Lee, which will take some pressure off of Curry/Ellis. Reggie Williams’ continued development will also help, albeit to a lesser extent. The rest of the roster turnover in my eyes is a lot of fluff since none of the guys we picked up are significant upgrades and none are proven winners who provide that winning assurance.
COME. ON. YOU. SPURS.
by Tom Huddlestone on Sep 23, 2010 1:23 PM PDT reply actions
Just curious. What can Randolph do on the floor that u dont think Udoh cant do? Randolph only has the edge because of age but as far as what they can do on the floor I dont see a difference at all between Randolph and Udoh besides Udoh weighing more and having more of a post game.
Age and athleticism. And age goes a long, long way. Compare what Randolph did last year to what Udoh did in college at a similar age. Not even comparable.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
In which aspect is it not comparable? Was anthony a impressive scorer last year? I think udoh could have better shooting% numbers as a rookie than AR did last year. And once again Udoh was not drafted to be a Offensive dominant player. He is a low post player that can hit a jumper. He already has a better post game than AR has or maybe will ever have. But he was drafted for his defense. So lets say at the very least if Randolph is 1A and Udoh is 1B doesnt Riley get credit for drafting 1B and flipping 1A for a allstar?
In which aspect is it not comparable? Was anthony a impressive scorer last year? I think udoh could have better shooting% numbers as a rookie than AR did last year.
Dude, Udoh, in his rookie season, is going to be 2 years older than Randolph is. I said compare what they did at the same age.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Randolph
Runs the floor better, is more athletic, also much more explosive offensively. The key here is the potential: in college we saw Randolph at times leading the fast break, facing up defenders and slashing to the hoop for either a strong finish, a short jumper, or getting fouled and going to the line. Obviously this has yet to translate to the NBA level, but his optimistic long-term projections were once listed as a Chris Bosh-lite or something like that. Meanwhile, Udoh’s long term projection is something like a PJ Brown; solid defensively, good rebounder, capable of hitting open mid-range jumpers.
I would have liked to see the Warriors keep Randolph in hopes he could realize even a fraction of his vast potential. But we got DLee instead and I’m happy with that too.
COME. ON. YOU. SPURS.
by Tom Huddlestone on Sep 23, 2010 1:32 PM PDT reply actions
How is Randolph more athletic when he does not run faster than Udoh Is not stronger than Udoh or does not jump higher than Udoh. The numbers are too close to say AR is more athletic. Here’s both of their combine numbers
Udoh
No step Vertical 31.0
Max vert 33.5
Bench Press 10
Lane Agility 11.15
3/4 court sprint 3.29
Randolph
No step vert 29.0
Max vert 35.0
Bench press 7
Lane Agility 11.86
3/4 court sprint 3.26
Being that Udoh weigh’s more than Randolph thats pretty impressive. And this is when Randolph weighed 197. If he has gained weight like some say i can imagine he is not faster or jumping higher if he packed on 30 pounds.
It's been pointed out to you before
that the athletic combine numbers don’t accurately represent a player’s athletic ability. How often is a player just sprinting the 3/4 court? Does the Lane Agility test even represent a player’s quickness in the lane?
Draftexpress described Udoh as having “average explosiveness” while praising Randolph’s.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 23, 2010 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions
So explosiveness means that much to u from a Big that has no post game and is rail thin. Hmm who does that remind me of?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Hh5NWDb6w
It looks great on highlights but it’ll never lead u to the promised land.
Explosiveness means that Randolph is a better athlete than Udoh. All I am saying is that those combine numbers you keep quoting probably don’t mean that much so you should probably stop quoting them. I am not saying anything about Randolph’s lack of post game or size.
Big that has no post game and is rail thin. Hmm who does that remind me of?
Reminds me of Marcus Camby. Lengthwise and athletically, Randolph is closer to Camby than Udoh is to Camby.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 25, 2010 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions
If there is 1 player in the recent history of the NBA Randolph should remind u of its Darius Miles. Their games are identical. And I think Randolph will have the same career Miles had. Injuries and all.
Yeah, but there isn't just 1 player
he also reminds of Marcus Camby, or even KG to an extent.
Obviously, these comparisons are insufficient. Let Anthony Randolph be Anthony Randolph.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 25, 2010 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions
If there is 1 player in the recent history of the NBA Randolph should remind u of its Darius Miles. Their games are identical.
Interesting observation, except for the fact that this statment is false. Their games are not identical. They’re both tall and thin and reputed to be very good athletes. Randolph has shown himself to be somewhere between a good and very good rebounder. Miles was not. Given the value of rebounds, that’s enough to take the “identical” part and make it completely worthless.
Interesting observation, except for the fact that this statment is false.
I love the effeciency of your words Jae. Reminds me of a professor that I had at univ as well as that Harvard prof in that movie with Timothy Bottoms as a law student. Did you see that flick ? ;-)
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 26, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Also meant to ask if you are teacher, Jae?
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 26, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
You come to GSoM with a skull full of mush, and you leave…
… with a skull full of mush. ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 26, 2010 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Good one.
Sleepy here is a quarter. Take it, call your mother and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a blog critic. ;-)
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 26, 2010 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m really not sure what you’re arguing against. The point is Randolph’s athleticism is an asset he has that Udoh doesn’t. There are a lot of factors that make a good basketball player. It is one. More of it = better. One important point is that most superstars tend to have a pretty impressive physical package, from Garnett in his prime to Lebron, Wade and Howard now. Randolph has that.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2010 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Guys like Boozer and Duncan also are very good and are not very athletic. The thing is im not expecting Udoh to be a superstar. U guys expect that out of Randolph and im happy I dont have to suffer while he’s letting yall down. Amare may be able to teach him some things but it wont work unless he gets some size.
Amare may be able to teach him some things but it wont work unless he gets some size.
He’s already got Garnett size and that worked out pretty well for him.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 25, 2010 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Like I said D.Miles 2010.
Pretty thoughtless of you.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 25, 2010 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions
And this is one of the reasons I hate comparing one guy to another he might remind you of so much. It doesn’t mean anything more to say he’s like Darius Miles than it does to say he’s like KG or Josh Smith. If you had a whole population of similar players and could give me the average of them, then sure, that might be somewhat useful, but just picking a player out of the blue and saying he’ll end up like him? Well, Anthony Randolph is Anthony Randolph. He isn’t Darius Miles. He isn’t KG or Josh Smith.
by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Like I said D.Miles 2010.
On boards like this, it’s very rare that the words “like I said” are followed by an accurate observation. This is not an exception.
I’m not sure what it is about those three words. “As I previously mentioned” doesn’t seem to have the same baggage, but the likelihood of “like I said” being followed by an astute observation is vanishingly small.
The thing is im not expecting Udoh to be a superstar
You have said that he is going to be like Marcus Camby. You expect him to pretty much be a superstar.
Also- in this line of posts, we were only talking about Randolph as having elite athleticism. No one said that he will be a superstar. That came from your head, not our mouths.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 25, 2010 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the people who dont like the trade for Lee dont like it because they think Randoph will be a allstar if they dont think that it makes no sense to dislike the trade. But if u dont expect that my bad.
I do like the Lee trade,
but I also think Randolph could be very good and I’m rooting for the guy.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 26, 2010 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m sure that plays a big factor for anyone who dislikes the Lee trade. I would guess it’s the full combination overall though – how much we’re paying Lee combined with what we gave up from a talent perspective.
by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions
6 years 80 million for a 20 and 11.7 guy can be considered overpaying by some. But in a market where Travis Outlaw can rob teams I dont know if its overpaying. We begged for a rebounder and got 1 and we’ll still have enough money to sign a second tier free agent next summer. We had to pay the 80 or another team would have and got him.
I’m not even stating my own opinions here, just throwing out something that I think is at least a somewhat reasonable thought. And that thought goes, right, paying Lee what we’re paying him is fine. The difference is we had to also give up some decent talent in addition to the contract.
by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
20 and 11.7 guy
Who doesn’t have a legit post-game and is a miserable defender. I still like him, but his 20 and 11.7 isn’t the same as a Tim Duncan 20 and 11.7.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 26, 2010 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions
The contract is fine, giving up that much value in a S&T is not.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 26, 2010 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
It was a weird situation to be in. We couldnt sign him outright and we had to give up talent to satisfy NY, With all 3 of those guys that were traded was coming off a injury I think we got the best of the deal by far. I can see if we gave up a allstar caliber guy or a double double guy to get him like a beans or a Monta. We gave up potential for a allstar. The Amare trade would have been giving up too much.
I don't know.
Somehow I doubt anyone else was offering a package as good as the Warriors’. Trading cheap, young talent for the right to pay David Lee into his decline is troubling.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 26, 2010 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with that as far as the talent goes. The teams that wanted him were NJ,Phoenix and Minny. I cant see any of those teams having better pieces to give up than what we had as far as players go but they had the draft picks to give up like Utah did to get Jefferson. Also I keep thinking about rumor Randoph’s agent saying he wanted 60 million for Randolph to resign when his contract was up. Id much rather have Lee at 6/80 than AR at 6/60.
Offers from other teams is only a small part of the equation.
It was a sign and trade. We had to convince Lee he wanted to come here and agree on a price and then make salaries match. The Knicks got one player who could be a factor in building for something bigger. That was their price for eating up $12mil in the cap space they’d been angling on getting for several years. They weren’t going to take back baggage and nothing more for the rights to help us out.
They needed that cap space for Lebron. The Lee deal went down after Lebron went to Miami.
With Radmanovic’s expiring there were a lot of options. For example, Radman + Wright + Turiaf works salary wise and is still an outstanding package for a S&T (where the usual fare is a TPE or maybe a draft pick).
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 26, 2010 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Radman + Wright + Turiaf works salary wise and is still an outstanding package for a S&T
I don’t think it’s an outstanding package. If I’m NY, I look at that and say “why should we spend $12mil on those guys?” What’s their incentive to make the deal? Turiaf? I think we overvalue him in these parts. He’s a throw-in, but not really an item of much interest. Brandan? Maybe, but coming off a year he missed, I don’t think they invest in him either. It’s a steep amount of salary to keep on the books for the opportunity to give him a one-year trial.
If NY sees nothing they want in that trio, and my guess is that they wouldn’t, then they may as well say no-go and save their money to shop elsewhere.
Well, the Knicks took Turiaf (with the player option he'll likely exercise) so I'm assuming they have some interest in him.
The Knicks needed bodies. Especially big ones. They had five players under contract and one of them was Eddy Curry, so I think Turiaf had more value to them than most. Even still, replace Turiaf with Azubuike, that’s two expirings and one solid young player, and that’s still a ton to give up in a S&T. There just isn’t a precedent for giving away talent in a S&T, and it’s a dubious one to set, I think.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 26, 2010 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, the Knicks took Turiaf (with the player option he’ll likely exercise) so I’m assuming they have some interest in him.
We took Bell. Did we have interest in him? The reality is that trades wind up being about the finances more than talent in many, many cases.
There just isn’t a precedent for giving away talent in a S&T, and it’s a dubious one to set, I think.
That’s only moderately related to the issue of what it was going to take to get Lee here. You seem to think that a lowball package would have done it. I do not think that this is the case. I don’t see why NY would have taken the garbage you’re suggesting.
I don’t see why NY would have taken the garbage you’re suggesting.
If Lee really wanted to come here then the garbage might have been the only viable offer they could have gotten? If he refused to sign for any other deal then what else could they have done?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 26, 2010 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Those situations aren't analogous.
We took Bell. Did we have interest in him? The reality is that trades wind up being about the finances more than talent in many, many cases.
Bell and Gadzuric were the only options on the Bucks’ roster to make the salaries match. Turiaf was not, which implies the Knicks had some preference for him.
That’s only moderately related to the issue of what it was going to take to get Lee here. You seem to think that a lowball package would have done it. I do not think that this is the case. I don’t see why NY would have taken the garbage you’re suggesting.
That’s entirely related to the issue. That isthe issue. I think the Warriors gave up a ludicrous amount of talent for the right to sign a player, and not an elite one. That troubles me. David Lee had no future value to the Knicks, they did not need to be compensated for his potential contributions. It’s a coup for the Knicks that they pulled one very good player and one potentially very good player out of a departing free agent. That just doesn’t happen (and for good reason). The Warriors should have offered a fair package, and if the Knicks didn’t take it, so be it.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 26, 2010 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Warriors gave up a ludicrous amount of talent for the right to sign a player, and not an elite one.
I guess I do not consider Turiaf, Azubuike and Randolph “a ludicrous amount of talent.” I consider Randolph to be a talented player who has been rather enigmatic and is by no means a sure thing to be productive. I consider Turiaf to be a fan favorite, but infinitely replaceable and a reasonable filler piece but not the sort of player that you hold up any deal over. I consider Azubuike similarly with the added negative that he’s hurt and questionable to be a contributor.
The “ludicrous amount of talent” was Randolph.
It’s a coup for the Knicks that they pulled one very good player and one potentially very good player out of a departing free agent.
Your definition of “very good” is rather generous. No one we sent out qualifies as ‘very good’.
That just doesn’t happen (and for good reason).
And it didn’t happen, unless your definition of “very good” gets so lenient as to start including undersized backup centers who can’t rebound their position, at which point the words stop having any real meaning.
I said one very good player and one who has the chance to be very good. That's two. In a three player outlay. Turiaf obviously isn't included in the "very good" category.
Kelenna has been very good in the NBA, considering both his contract and his production, and he seemed poised for a rather big season through a stunningly small amount of games before getting injured (which of course doesn’t mean much, but still). Even if you want to take the “very” off, he’s good and has value. And Randolph has the potential to be very good: he has already produced at an above average rate, is 21 years old, is a tall person (and tall people who don’t suck are hard to find) and is still under team control for two seasons at a dirt cheap rate. That’s quite a bit of value, is it not?
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 26, 2010 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Kelenna has been very good in the NBA, considering both his contract and his production, and he seemed poised for a rather big season through a stunningly small amount of games before getting injured (which of course doesn’t mean much, but still).Even if you want to take the "very" off, he’s good and has value.
Take the “very” off. It’s a distortion of the word if you leave it on. Azubuike was good, a mildly above average player before he got hurt. That’s a big qualifier there. He has value, as does Randolph, but it’s not that great.
And Randolph has the potential to be very good
Yup. And he has the potential to be an enigmatic guy who doesn’t live up to that potential as well.
That’s quite a bit of value, is it not?
It is not out of line with what you’d give up for a big man with proven production.
Who here is expecting Randolph to be a superstar? What does Randolph even have to do with Udoh? All we were talking about is athleticism and how combine numbers aren’t a very good measure of it. Athleticism, like any other factor like shooting, rebounding, ball handling, etc, is a factor that makes a player better at basketball. And most superstars have it. Even Tim Duncan has a pretty nice combination of physical traits (another reason why I just lump all physical traits into athleticism!) – he’s not explosive or anything, but there just aren’t that many guys out there with his size and coordination, and while he doesn’t move like Dwight or anything, he still moves pretty well for his very good size. As for Boozer – well what’s holding him back from being a real superstar? Defense. You know what would help him be a much better defender? If he were more athletic.
by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t know what to tell you if you really think Boozer, a guy who has never once in his career averaged as much as one block per 36 minutes, is as athletic as Ben Wallace was in his defensive prime. That’s an absurd comparison.
by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions
(And it also means either you were completely contradicting yourself earlier when you said Boozer isn’t athletic, or you think Wallace wasn’t athletic…..which would be very odd.)
by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Which is funny, because Randolph is pretty similar to KG from a physical standpoint.
I also think of KG. I also think of Shawn Kemp, Amare, Dikembe, Hakeem, The Admiral, Amare, Ben Wallace, Zo, Dwight, Josh Smith, Tyrus Thomas, Stromile Swift, among others. Wallace is definitely not out of place among those names.
by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Randolph has all the tools KG has besides the post game and that kill mentality. But I personally dont think he’ll ever be close to the player KG is just because he dont seem as mentally tough to do what KG does and put in that work KG puts in. I can be wrong and unlike alot of ppl I admit when im wrong.
Well, again, it goes back to age. KG didn’t just develop into the superstar he became over night. It took some years. Thus far what Randolph’s accomplished actually does compare fairly well to what KG did at the same age.
I generally assume any player we’re talking about will never be close to the player KG is. Very few players ever become that good.
by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I can be wrong and unlike alot [sic] of ppl [sic] I admit when im wrong.
Have you admitted you were wrong about Boozer and Wallace being similar athletically? How about the poor comparison of Darius Miles and Anthony Randolph with their “identical games”? Both would be excellent places for you to show that you actually do admit when you’re wrong.
To me I see nothing in Wallace that is different than Boozer athletically. And AR is a better rebounder than Miles so I was wrong saying their games are Identical.
To me I see nothing in Wallace that is different than Boozer athletically.
And this puts you in a minority opinion. I noted that it’s easy to find those who praised Wallace’s athleticism. It’s easy to find those who have negative opinions of Boozer’s athleticism. Finding those who say that Wallace was not gifted athletically or who praise Boozer’s athleticism is worthy of praise is much more difficult. This should suggest to you that perhaps what you see and your perception of their athleticism is deeply, deeply flawed.
It’s possible that your minority opinion is spot on, that Wallace and Boozer not different athletically and the majority opinions are all off base. It’s possible, but given that your claim seems to run counter to quite a bit of opinion, if you want anyone to pay any credence to your opinion, you should at least try to back it with a coherent argument beyond “to me I see nothing”.
The majority isn’t always right, but given that the only evidence you’ve presented is your opinion backed by absolutely nothing, I see no reason to think that your opinion on this matter is worthwhile. I see much more reason to believe that the claims that Wallace is (or at least was) a very good athlete and Boozer was not are credible.
Neither is all that athletic is my point. They probably have the same attributes just wallace hustles more on the defensive end. D.Lee is very athletic and dont get alot of blocks. Its more about effort and timing than it is athleticism.
I just completely and utterly disagree then. Wallace has many shortcomings as a basketball player. Athleticism was never one of them. He was an extremely good athlete. I really don’t know what game you watch with some of your takes on these guys athleticism…..
(Another reason I just throw all physical attributes into athleticism – length is a huge factor in blocking shots/defense, and while it might not qualify as athleticism by some’s standards, I find it much easier to just include it for conversations like this)
by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Great combination of strength/bulk/length to go along with the way he moves – good lateral quickness, jumping ability, straight line quickness…..his only real weakness was height, but his length at least made up for it to a large degree. The only reason he was in the NBA at all, though, was because of his physical attributes.
by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I think Ben Wallace and Boozer are about the same in athleticism.
Search on Ben Wallace and “athleticism” and you’ll find many praising it. Search on Boozer and athleticism and you’ll find it described in less savory terms. I think that you’re probably severely underestimating Wallace’s athleticism.
A quick search around the interwebs…
Once considered the best defensive post player in the League, despite his stature. Regularly won matchups with taller opponents due to his ridiculous combination of strength and athleticism.
Unseld was intrigued by Wallace’s athleticism and interior skills
It’s not hard to find quite a bit of talk about Ben Wallace being rather heavily reliant on his athleticism and for many to attribute that directly to his success. I’m not sure where you’re getting the impression that he’s not "all that athletic", but yours seems to be a minority opinion that seems not to have much evidence behind it.
The interesting psych thing about loosing AR and not drafting a 19yr old future potential player is that “not” having a someday future potential guy on board takes away that “future hope” factor for many fans(especially since Udoh may not be the best "ready to contribute guy anyway),
AR brought that in spades. Curry has already proceeded on to “expected future all star” in the minds of many rather than "potential. That consideration is something that our new owners would take into account more than Riley who is more concerned more about the next couple of years. I think Lacob could have appreciated the marketing potential of a George/Aminu pick.
I found that as much as I loved getting Lee on our team I was like "ahhhh man " about loosing AR and it took me a few days to get over loosing Buike and Turiaf as well.
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 26, 2010 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe I just trust Riley too much. Because when mullin was the GM I hated about 70 percent of the things he did. But when Riley traded Randolph and Rony I knew he’d replace them with equal or better players and he did in my opinion. But that gets back to the whole Udoh/Randolph thing and im thru with that. As far as dubs fans loving potential I agree with everything u said. They’d rather take potential over a established player because that potential guy can be a star 1 day but that goes back to the whole telfair/Jameer thing. I think we all should just trust Riley not that we have a choice now but he has delivered from the draft to the D-League so far.
that goes back to the whole telfair/Jameer thing
You really should stop picking one example that goes along with your point. It’s confirmation bias, pure and simple, and not particularly useful for evaluating anything. It’s not any more meaningful than pointing to Dwight over Emeka to say you should go with potential. Neither statement is anything but anecdotal evidence (anecdotes aren’t evidence!) picked precisely because they fit the point they’re trying to support.
by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I make that comparison because knowing how much this fanbase loves potential id bet the majority would have wanted Telfair over Nelson or Kwame over Pao if u want another comparison.
Sigh. I don’t want another comparison. I don’t want any comparisons. It’s bad analysis. It’s anecdotes, and you can find them to support either side, which is why they’re so worthless.
by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
but his optimistic long-term projections were once listed as a Chris Bosh-lite or something like that. Meanwhile, Udoh’s long term projection is something like a PJ Brown; solid defensively, good rebounder, capable of hitting open mid-range jumpers.
Going by the “optimistic long-term projections” is going to leave you disappointed over and over again. How likely someone is to realizing the optimistic projection is rather important. That gets lost in the hype most of the time.
just curious
What do you guy’s think will be Randolph’s ceiling? He’s still so young, and there just isn’t that many young guys around who have shown his type of talent. He does come with a LOT of hype, mainly produced by some of us dubs fans when he was still one of us, but he showed some flashes of being a damn good NBA player.
My thing is this – Udoh won’t even show flashes of the brilliance that Randolph displayed at times. He’s solid, that’s it. Not saying he’s completely devoid of talent, but he’s nowhere near as talented as Randolph is. And we all know in the NBA, if you’re not contending for a championship, you’d do well to stockpile as much talent as you can in hopes that you one day get to that point.
COME. ON. YOU. SPURS.
by Tom Huddlestone on Sep 23, 2010 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
LOL, Huddlestone?
The most underrated passer in premier league. And yet he looks like an offensive lineman. So immobile and lazy
Surprised to see that there's nothing on here about Nelson's...
RETIREMENT!
Is Don Nelson going to Hawaii forever now?
my opinion
disclaimer: my opinion is simply that. so is yours. opinions are like belly buttons..we all have one.
Overall a B as in good so far.
Likes:
David lee signing. Great value, fills major need:lowpostscoring/rebounding. Defense will improve with playing natural position and weakside defenders like beans..
Dorell wright. brings defense and some scoring/3pt shooting.
Dumping the magette contract..frees big $$$ for a Big team piece TBD..
not stated but being patient and not trading away beans and montay for
crackerjacks..
Amundson, Lin, Carney signings..bench depth
Meh: Carney signing, CJ Watson trade (i know, i know salary), and Udoh pick. (But I can see why this pick is appealing, although he seems to have gotten the W’s curse already=injury)
Undetermined but possible grandslam= talking his old friend Nelson into retiring???
Anyone else but me think Chicago has had a determined but kick butt off season?
Anyone else but me think Chicago has had a determined but kick butt off season?
I’m a little skeptical how Boozer + Noah will play with Rose. From what I saw with team USA, Rose is ready to make that leap he was showing at end of last season. Boozer is undoubtedly a great player but maybe not best fit. Then again, they got a smart coach who could work with Rose especially on defense where he has tools to be every bit as good as Rondo
Is Rose’s lateral quickness that great?
The good thing about Boozer is at least offensively, he is a good team player. He can pass, he can score (and efficiently), he can operate from all over the floor (other than shooting 3’s), he’s shown the ability to be a solid offensive rebounder to create his own opportunities….so it’s pretty difficult to find a place he doesn’t fit.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Rose laterally is quick. Not as quick as he is north-south, but then again few are. He’s got tools to be a good defender, but clearly lacks the fundamentals.
NO i totally agree with you about Boozers offensive game. My point was he’s a half court player, and Rose, in my opinion, will do his best in an up tempo system.
At least Noah can run, though. There’s always room for one guy (especially if he can shoot a trail jumper) not to run with a running team, and it’s even easier if said guy can get a rebound and outlet well to start the break/secondary break.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Chicago had a great offseason.
If they can get an offensive system in place that doesn’t revolve around the worst shot in basketball, they’ll be just fine.
by Spider Jerusalem on Sep 27, 2010 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
At the end of the day.....
It looks like the Warriors have a good “foundation” going for a decent near future team and if the right moves are made over the next 2 years we could possibly be in position to see some post season play. Sac and the Clips building a good foundation as well so it will continue to be a struggle. An unusually healthy year could see us +.500 but I am not expecting playoffs this year even if we are healthy.
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 27, 2010 10:16 AM PDT reply actions
How many games are you expecting the Warriors to win?
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
I have to give Riley an A-
Based on what he could do. Warriors were a supposed nonfactor in summer of 2010, and they grabbed a player better than anyone expected. The only real loss was Randolph and he was hardly a proven commodity. Otherwise Turiaf and Azubuike are very replaceable and were replaced (sentimental feelings aside).
The major criticisms I read here, are not trading Monta or Biedrins. But considering both had poor seasons, what was he able to do without either a) getting less value or b) straight salary dump? Neither would be beneficial to Warriors.
The only real question mark for me was pick of Udoh. Still, I am willing to be patient, as we can’t just just yet. Odds are against it being a good pick though.
It should also not be overlooked, but the team seems COMPLETELY reenergized. Both new players and the remaining key pieces (Monta, Curry, Biedrins) look increasingly optimistic. That makes a difference.
C+
C+ seems about right at this point. I’m still very curious what the plans are for Bell, Gadzuric, and Radmanovic. How will their slots and salaries be used to conserve space for an impact player for next year [or maybe this year if GS is creative and fortunate]? I like Biedrens and I believe we need a more versatile option maybe in combination with him. I really like Marc Gasol. His offensive game is improving, he’s stout enough to defend larger players, and he’s a smart team player. So, If GS targets and gets Marc Gasol, or someone in that range [Robin Lopez?], I would give him an A- for players.
Of course, coaches make a huge difference so that long-term hire will also be a factor.
Of course, coaches make a huge difference so that long-term hire will also be a factor.
They make far less of a difference than most think. Data indicates that only a few coaches regularly seem to get more out of their players than others.
Yep....I would put Sloan in the "few coaches" category.
But I have think hard to add many more.
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 28, 2010 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Jackson apparently has a similar effect. Couple that with having truly great players and you get 10 championships.
For most of his career, Nellie qualified as one such coach. Players who had previously played for other coaches tended to perform better statistically under him for a few years after arriving. It wasn’t huge after you controlled for age and whatnot, but it was detectable. It wasn’t a case where you should even worry that someone performing well under Nellie was a result of his “system”. Guys who can play were still productive elsewhere, just not quite so much.
Pop, Sloan and Jackson are it for me.
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions
No D'Antoni?
Did you see what he did with Nash? Nash went from good point guard to great point guard while aging.
REPLY TO DONUT
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 28, 2010 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Pop, Sloan and Jackson are it for me.
Yep thats about where I stop as well.
by Only In Fairfax on Sep 28, 2010 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions
He's got a B in my book now.....
If he gets Carmelo he gets downgraded to a D-. I say this because we’ve got a good group of guys right now, and I don’t want to give up the farm for Melo. IMO he’s overrated and would not be worth all we give up. Let me stress….I like the TEAM we have now, seems like a group of guys who compliment each other and will work well off one another. Lets see what we have now before making any drastic changes.
by SmittytheCutman on Sep 28, 2010 2:28 PM PDT reply actions
I agree with everything except the overated part but be prepared to be called a homer by these other guys.
Huh? I think a lot of us agree with everything Smitty said. Carmelo is overrated. Do not want. Also not worth what we’d give up. We have a solid team. Our players complement each other (still lacking defense! but oh well). They should work well together. Agreed on all points!
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions
They can both be overrated
Melo is a top 20 player, maybe top 15.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 28, 2010 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Top 10? In what way? Dude doesn’t play defense, he’s a black hole offensively and does absolutely nothing to create for his teammates, and he doesn’t even score that efficiently! Seriously, what about that is top 10? I don’t even consider Nash a Top 10 player, and he’s a much, much more dominating offensive force than Carmelo Anthony….
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions
good defender
You’re wrong. He is, at best, an average defender. He’s probably not even that.
I think he is unstoppable on offense
While he is hard to stop and clearly a very skilled scorer, his offensive production isn’t that special. Another part of offense is a player’s ability to pass. Melo is a bad passer.
So what we have is a good scorer who is also a black hole, is a pretty good rebounder and a poor defender. Sounds kinda like Corey Maggette, except Corey is a freakishly efficient scorer and Melo is merely average.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 28, 2010 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions
You think he is unstoppable on offense. I assume you’re only talking about his scoring and ignoring the part where he doesn’t do anything to create for teammates. Well, we can look at what he does as a scorer…..and it’s not that impressive. His volume is impressive, but his efficiency is not. How is that “unstoppable”? He gets “stopped” at the league average rate, if “stopped” means how likely he is to miss a given shot……
If you think he’s a good defender, well, you’re defending that side on your own. I’ve never seen anyone else credit him with being a good defender at any point in his career.
by Missing Barry on Sep 29, 2010 7:22 AM PDT up reply actions
I agreed with everything except Nash not being top 10.
REPLY TO DONUT
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 28, 2010 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions
He just gives so much back on the defensive end….
by Missing Barry on Sep 29, 2010 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm starting to think you can mask him pretty well though.
REPLY TO DONUT
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 29, 2010 7:36 AM PDT up reply actions
What’s making you think that? I think it’s really hard to mask guys at either end of the height spectrum (PG’s and C’s) because they match up terribly against the rest of the other teams lineup, and their teammates match up poorly against their counterpart……
By far the easiest player to hide on D is a wing.
by Missing Barry on Sep 29, 2010 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Thinking about it a little more, I’d say PF/C are definitely the hardest place to hide a guy, not sure which is more difficult. PG next. Wing is definitely wayyyy by itself in how easy it is to mask.
by Missing Barry on Sep 29, 2010 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
They had to mask Magic Johnson
and many think he is a top 5 player of all time and probably the best player in the league at the time.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 29, 2010 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
I can’t speak to whether or not they “had” to mask Magic, but I’d say Magic’s size would give him the versatility to essentially be masked like a wing, rather than a PG….
by Missing Barry on Sep 29, 2010 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I agree completely
there are very few trades for Melo that I would like.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 28, 2010 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Pretty much anything involving some combination of Monta and/or expirings is the only thing I’d consider….
And even then, I think I might rather have Monta. Cheaper, and doesn’t take touches away from the guys I want to have the ball – Curry and Lee (and can complement them by moving well without it).
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions
And I’d give Monta up if it was just him and garbage in the trade if Melo signed a extension.
seems pretty obvious, guy.
I must look like a dork.
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 28, 2010 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Given how much I expect Melo to make, I think I’d rather have him NOT sign an extension…..
I really, really dislike the idea of committing that kind of money to Melo.
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I was going to vote A but...
I voted B due to not re-signing Morrow and trading CJ for practically nothing.
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
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
- David West hilariously denies each and every one of his young fans a high-five (VIDEO)
- Behind the Box Score, where the Miami Heat are moving on to the conference finals
