Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: This Week In GIFs

Trading Partners: New York Knicks or Cleveland Cavaliers

I'm going to list these in the order of most beneficial deal in our favor, to least.

 

New York Knicks

 

1st proposed package

 

New York gets: Monta Ellis, Lou Amundson, Jeremy Lin

 

Golden State gets: Landry Fields, Danilo Gallinari, Eddy Curry

 

Why New York does this deal:

 

Monta Ellis - Monta and Amare Stoudemire would make excellent teammates. He's a big time player who belongs in a big time market. Although Monta is a bad teammate to a perimeter scorer, he's a great teammate to a dominant, athletic big. As Ellis gets to the paint whenever he wants, Stoudemire resides there, and remains a scoring threat even when Monta is handling the ball a lot. Amare can do what nobody else on the Warriors' roster can, and it would be futile for defenses to even try to react to the Ellis drive, while worrying about STAT stepping in, being maybe the best finisher in the league at his position.

Amare Stoudemire does not need a point guard. He's the kind of big who creates his own offense, and prefers it that way. When a play is designed to set up a big on the block, or even isolate him, a playmaking point guard becomes less of a priority. Amare doesn't need an angle to take advantage of opponents. He outmatches most anybody he sees.

All in all, I believe that Amare Stoudemire is possibly the best teammate in the league for Monta's particular style. Although the addition of Anthony might crowd the offense, it makes me cringe when I think about what that Big 3 would be capable of doing to even the best team. Monta has the dump off or the kick out with STAT and Melo. Amare has two mid-range shooters to pass out of the double team, plus can play off their scoring efforts in the paint. Melo can defer to either Ellis or Stoudemire as a primary ball handler.

Mike D'Antoni knows who Monta Ellis is. He's watched Monta single-handedly destroy his teams in Phoenix. Given the style Coach D plays, I could imagine his excitement of the idea of adding Ellis to his roster.

 

Jeremy Lin - He's a sweetens things a bit. Everybody knows about the Asian population in New York. There's a huge, huge market that Jeremy could appeal to over there.

 

Lou Amundson - Undersized for replacing what they'd lose in Eddy Curry, but a very good replacement for the oft injured Ronny Turiaf. Amundson would be a good teammate for STAT. He never needs the ball to be effective, plays great help defense, and is an outstanding offensive rebounder. He cleans up after Amare.

 

-

 

Danilo Gallinari - Imagining a line-up with both Danilo and Carmelo could cause one to become perplexed. Gallinari has size, but is more of a natural scoring wing who needs his touches. With Carmelo playing the same position, there wouldn't be enough playing time to go around. Even if Danilo were to make the permanent move to PF, he'd still be a perimeter oriented offensive player, and out of his element on the defensive end. Unlike Ellis who prefers to get to the paint, Gallinari would not be as effective teaming up with Carmelo. Not to mention, the Knicks would have to pay Gallinari a very respectable contract, which would tighten the purse dramatically if Melo were to come to town, essentially playing 2 guys of the same position close to 30m. 

 

Landry Fields - He's the big loss. This is essentially what they're giving up in value in order to get Monta. Carmelo would be an upgrade at the SF position, making Danilo expendable, but what Landry Fields does can not be emulated at the 2. Albeit, Ellis alone is a huge threat on offense, and his penetration makes Amare Stoudemire even more dangerous than he already is. Monta is simply too valuable from both a marketing and talent vantage point.

 

 

Why the Warriors make this deal:

 

Danilo Gallinari - He doesn't have the same market pull as he would in NY obviously, but Steph Curry would do a fine job laying out the welcome mat for him. Curry and Gallinari give you unbelievable fire power from the perimeter in a high tempo game. They are perfect teammates - made for eachother. Both are unselfish, both can handle, both are demonic off the ball.

With Steph handling, Danilo becomes a target anywhere on the floor. In turn, when Danilo has the ball, Curry is an even bigger target off the ball. To add insult to injury, DG is a huge wing who sets a nasty screen. With David Lee being the passer he is, Danilo also being a very good passer at the 3, Steph could play like an off-guard, even in a set where he's running the point.

As David Lee and Andris Biedrins improve the paint production, or even an additional player is brought in to help or make that cause worthy, this starting lineup could rival Run TMC, in terms of shooting, ball movement, and explosiveness.

 

Landry Fields - He's got a chance at being the best glue guy in the league from his position. Just an unrivaled teammate who plays the game chivalrously. Like Stephen Curry, Fields has a special, special feel for the game. He limits his weaknesses and plays to his strengths with conviction. He probably makes us the best rebounding team in the NBA with Galley at the 3, Lee at the 4, and Biedrins at center.

Unlike Monta, he effects the game in so many ways without the ball in his hands. He'll take what Steph will give him, and he's an outstanding finisher. He maximizes the potential and growth in Stephen.

Our starting perimeter players would fit together like a jig-saw. I honestly don't see any flaws in a perimeter tandem of Curry - Fields - Gallinari, in terms of chemistry.

 

2nd Proposed Deal

 

New York gets: Monta Ellis, Jeremy Lin

 

Golden State gets: Landry Fields, Tony Douglas, Eddy Curry, 2011 1st round pick

 

 

Cleveland Cavs Deal

 

Cleveland gets: Monta Ellis, Lou Amundson

 

Golden State gets: 2011 1st round pick, Anderson Varejao, Christian Eyenga, Ryan Hollins

 

Why Cleveland does this deal:

 

Monta Ellis - I have an easy time imagining how many young Cleveland fans are turning to teams like OKC for hope right about now. Never have I seen such a pathetic, broken franchise. Of course Monta doesn't deserve damnation, but he instantly makes the Cavs twice the team they are now, in terms of being watchable. 24 losses in a row can cause even the most stonewall owner to keel over and spew all over his children. Something has to be done.

They can make a change now, and get a star player along with the salary cap, or they can keep their salary and try their hand at a player in the draft. Either way, a team as horrible as the Cavs can be taken advantage of during trade discussions.

 

Why Golden State does this deal:

 

2011 1st round pick - Jared Sullinger, Perry Jones, and Enes Kanter. This draft contains some quality big men who could be franchise changers. The Cav's pick would certainly be a top 3 choice, and consequently we'd have a shot at these players. Their pick would put us in a position to evaluate our roster, and make the pick in accordance to what direction we choose to go. Maybe we trade Stephen Curry and draft Kyrie Irivng. Who knows...point is, having the no. 1 overall pick would be a huge, huge advantage in a year of evaluation like the Warriors are experiencing.

 

Christian Eyenga - I like his youth/athleticism off the bench. I also like the prospect of moving Reggie Williams into the starting line-up for this year under review. The idea is to force the potential of Williams' production by moving him into the starting line-up, building his confidence through a big spike in his minutes. This way we can further justify an extension by season's end, or not. If so, he'll have gained experience and confidence, fully prepared to come in next season as our primary scoring threat off the bench.

 

Anderson Varejao - Great defender, solid rebounder. He's always going to be a tradeable asset despite his sizable contract, and his abilities allow us some breathing room if we decide either Biedrins or Udoh to be expendable come draft time and our hearts are set on a star big man.

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!

Comment 208 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Around SB Nation

Morning Cup of Canis (5-9-2012)

May 2012 from Canis Hoopus - 213 comments

The offseason begins.

May 2012 from Posting and Toasting - 389 comments

Comments

Display:

Oh.....really?

Landry Fields and Danilo Gallinari = Crap
A top 3 pick + a 10 and 10 big man = Crap

How? Explain to me how either of those would equal crap. Oh, yeah, you wanted to talk about Andre Iguodala and Jrue Holiday. I forgot.

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 10:53 AM PST up reply actions  

After NYC trade:

PG: Curry – 36
SG: Fields – 32
SF: Gallinari – 32
PF: Lee – 36
C: Biedrins – 32
-
6: D. Wright – 26
7: R. Williams – 22
8: Udoh – 10
9: Law – 10
10: Radmonavic – 3

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 10:55 AM PST up reply actions  

I'd start Dorell over Gallo.

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 6, 2011 11:52 AM PST up reply actions  

sure

I mean you shouldn’t go wrong either way. The reason I personally would start Gallo, is because of Wright’s playmaking abilities. They’re sharper than Danilo’s, and I think they’d be more useful in the 2nd unit for stretches when Curry is sitting and you’re relying more on others to initiate and create.

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 12:43 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

On the flipside

Gallinari can give us much more isntant offense in the secondd unit. I’d have him as the 6th man, manu style. Come in with about 4-5 mins left in first quarter, leave him in till half. Repeat in second half.

And a small ball lineup of Curry, Fields, Gallinari, Dorell, DLee would be mighty fun to watch and really abuse certain teams.

by tafkasam on Feb 7, 2011 11:27 AM PST up reply actions  

Same

But it’s the same logic as when Manu was the 6th man.

I don’t get why more teams don’t do it to be honest. Stagger your minutes more, always have a top offensive player on the court and close our quarters well.

Granted the current Warriors don’t have this luxury, but in a few years it’d be nice to have depth to have a Wilson Chandler or Gallinari type off the bench.

by tafkasam on Feb 7, 2011 11:25 AM PST up reply actions  

This ain't the rotation!

Notice that we have 28 minutes at the 4 and 5 that Lee and Biedrins do not occupy.

Then notice that Udoh/Radman play 13!

I know Acie is a small/power forward, but even with his 10 big man minutes that still is 5 minutes where we are super-small ball.

"Morrow... That's a two pointer!"
-Kevin Harlan for the 22nd time during an NBA 2k11 exhibition

by don't leave Morrow! on Feb 8, 2011 5:49 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm interested in their draft pick

Their players aren’t that great, although Varejao is having a good year. Does a top 3 overall pick not intrigue you? Guys like Durant and Griffin don’t appeal to you?

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 11:01 AM PST up reply actions  

In case you didn't know...

Varejo is out for the season with a torn right ankle tendon and he hasn’t played for the past month.

by YoMamaIsAgiant on Feb 6, 2011 11:57 AM PST up reply actions  

yeah

I forgot about Varejao. Pretty much eliminates that proposal. There are ways of working something else out with Cleveland with the same centerpiece, but as an afterthought, I don’t think even their management is dumb enough to deal their pick. I don’t think they do business.

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 12:30 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

This draft doesn't have a Griffin or Durant.

"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."

by kenntoe on Feb 6, 2011 5:36 PM PST up reply actions  

It has some guys with high ceilings

who are capable of becoming franchise players.

There will never be another Griffin or Durant.

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 5:57 PM PST up reply actions  

They WON'T give up their draft pick for ANYTHING!

"Morrow... That's a two pointer!"
-Kevin Harlan for the 22nd time during an NBA 2k11 exhibition

by don't leave Morrow! on Feb 8, 2011 5:50 PM PST up reply actions  

Ramon Sessions?

would be a nice back up pg, don’t you think?

Serving it up night in and night out -Steph "The Chef" Curry

by dont_stop_believin' on Feb 6, 2011 12:22 PM PST up reply actions  

I’m waaaaay more interested in Varejao than HIckson.

Thing A

"Correlation between inability to use the reply button and general crappiness of analysis: pretty high." -Sleepy Freud

by sam23 on Feb 6, 2011 8:35 PM PST up reply actions  

Can’t do it. I hate Varejao. Huge puss.

by DubsFan408 on Feb 6, 2011 11:14 AM PST reply actions  

If we’re going to dump any of our guys on Cleveland, it’s very possible to just swap him for their top draft pick. There is still the LeBron trade exception they have yet to use, so unless they have too many players on their roster a simple swap of picks for a player should do without having to rosterbate too much.

by WYK on Feb 6, 2011 12:03 PM PST reply actions  

Cavs wouldn't trade their pick.

It’d be the stupidest

"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."

by kenntoe on Feb 6, 2011 5:38 PM PST up reply actions  

Maybe if they could package Jamison’s big contract with it. He has no place in their future.

by Uwe Blog on Feb 6, 2011 10:25 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Are you absolutely certain that the Cavs wouldn’t be enticed to trade their top pick in what appears to be a weak draft for say, Monta “25 PPG” Ellis or David Lee? The pick will likely only land them another project, whereas whatever talent they receive in trading the pick could at least make them somewhat relevant (or as relevant as you can get after losing 24 straight games). Considering their affinity for taking in somewhat overrated players to gain immediate returns, I wouldn’t be surprised if we could sucker them into exchanging the opportunity to draft Kyrie Irving or Terrence Jones for one of our good but defensively inept stars.

by WYK on Feb 6, 2011 11:10 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

You also forgot Dan Gilbert's the owner!

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 6, 2011 11:24 PM PST up reply actions  

Yes, absolutely.

They won’t be relevant just by adding a quality starter. They would rather have a super young guy.

"Morrow... That's a two pointer!"
-Kevin Harlan for the 22nd time during an NBA 2k11 exhibition

by don't leave Morrow! on Feb 8, 2011 5:51 PM PST up reply actions  

i only like the first idea

I would love to see Monta and Stat on the same team. I would become an instant Knick fan. They would be an unstoppable duo. Plus D’Toni’s run and gun system… so sexy!

As for the Warriors, I like Gallo. Smooth shooter and he is fearless. Fields is having a good year as a rookie as well.

Win win for both teams in my eyes.

by Monta THE Boss on Feb 6, 2011 12:09 PM PST reply actions  

They would be an unstoppable duo.

Meh. They’d be pretty fun to watch, especially offensively, but I suspect they’d find themselves regularly stopped by Miami, Boston, Orland and/or Chicago, if they even got that far.

They’re not a contender to begin with, and I’d guess flipping Fields and Gallo for Monta takes them a slight step backwards.

Question is probably moot, since the Knicks seem to be on the verge of landing Melo (for better or for worse). But even if for whatever reason that deal crashes and burns, it’s hard to imagine anyone in their FO pulls the trigger on a Monta trade. And if the Melo trade goes through as expected, the last thing the Knicks will want to add to the mix is a pricy, undersized, offensive-minded, ball-dominant scoring guard.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Feb 6, 2011 12:31 PM PST up reply actions  

appreciate the input

I meant they’d be unstoppable offensively. Its hard to imagine any team in the league consistently putting to rest an Ellis, Carmelo, and Stoudemire trio. It appears they’re slow to stop them individually as it is. Even Boston would have holes in a defensive scheme against those guys. The additions of Anthony and Ellis would make them an elite eastern team.

As you pointed out, Carmelo will probably come to the team. They won’t keep Danilo around if this will be the case. We’re essentially looking at a swap with Fields for Ellis, straight up. Concerning NYC’s future plans, this would be the only move to effect it.

I disagree about NYC’s management not particularly interested in Monta. Not that it would matter if the Melo deal crashed or burned, since any deal they’d make now would be before the FA period, anyway.

 Semantics aside, Monta has what it takes to squeeze a crap load of money out of a big city. I wouldn’t underestimate a franchise’s objective to accomplish that.

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 1:53 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

I also see no reason why Knicks would do this

They were hesitating to make this same trade for Carmelo. And I believe they value Melo over Monta.

The way Gallinari is playing, I think we’d have a hard time getting Galo + expiring for Monta.

by tafkasam on Feb 7, 2011 11:29 AM PST up reply actions  

imagine if Knicks somehow land Howard in 2012

Felton
Monta
Chandler
Amare
Howard

fuuuuuu.

"Thank goodness for Stephen Curry, Ekpe Udoh, David Lee and Dorell Wright, because they’re the only positives we’ve got going forward."- Warriors "fan"

by HerFavColor on Feb 6, 2011 12:56 PM PST up reply actions  

They want Melo too much.

by DubsFan408 on Feb 6, 2011 2:22 PM PST up reply actions  

And Isiah apparently.

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 6, 2011 2:33 PM PST up reply actions  

and now paul

fack

It's lonely being the only Warriors fan at UMass :(

by j-spliff415 on Feb 10, 2011 11:51 AM PST up reply actions  

thats about as likely

as the Heat signing Howard in 2012

Chalmers
Wade
LeBron
Bosh
Howard

Thing A

"Correlation between inability to use the reply button and general crappiness of analysis: pretty high." -Sleepy Freud

by sam23 on Feb 6, 2011 8:38 PM PST up reply actions  

Who is this Chalmers guy? They would need to do something about that as well.

"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."

Frank Zappa

by qin on Feb 7, 2011 7:20 AM PST up reply actions  

Exactly

They’d fail in finals with Chalmers. They need a superstar like Derek Fisher or Steve Kerr

by tafkasam on Feb 7, 2011 11:30 AM PST up reply actions  

Steve Kerr was pretty damn good. I liked him on Facebook!

by DubsFan408 on Feb 8, 2011 5:03 PM PST up reply actions  

Hell no

no way I’m rooting for Cavs. They don’t deserve Monta.

"Thank goodness for Stephen Curry, Ekpe Udoh, David Lee and Dorell Wright, because they’re the only positives we’ve got going forward."- Warriors "fan"

by HerFavColor on Feb 6, 2011 12:28 PM PST reply actions  

agreed

this is going to sound petty of me, but after having LBJ for 7yrs, the Cavs deserve to ‘suffer’ for a while don’t you think?

I wish I never had to sleep.

by DMJR on Feb 6, 2011 3:46 PM PST up reply actions  

No, not at all.

They live in Cleveland. Isn’t that bad enough?

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 5:09 PM PST up reply actions  

LMAO!!!!

True…. I hate Cleveland.. I hope they suffer for another 50 years!!!!!

Fear is the Mind Killer

by dubzero23 on Feb 6, 2011 8:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Personally, if I was a Cavs fan I'd be leading the channeling all my hate at Ferry/Gilbert

Mullin/Cohan type ineptitude.

How can you not surround LBJ with better talent? The hardest thing to do in the NBA is get a true elite caliber player to build around. The fell into one who happened to be a home town boy. They thought cause he was from Ohio, he wouldn’t leave while they cycled in mediocre role players. Seriously, do you see them now? Imagine if LBJ was on the Warriors, we are fighting .500 without him. With it’s possible we’d be a #1 seed. I don’t even like the guy, and to an extent feel he’s overrated by many, but that doesn’t change the fact he’s one of maybe 5 players in the NBA who will take any supporting cast to the playoffs.

No we won’t trade Hickson for Amare, :head exploding:

by tafkasam on Feb 7, 2011 11:33 AM PST up reply actions  

I’m not sure if that’s fair. In such a small market, they didn’t have the luxury to spend as much as they wanted, or make hyper unethical backroom deals like the Lakers. That team was essentially set up to fail by the league.

One can only hope a hard cap is instituted in the new CBA, and deals like Pau Gasol to the Lakers will no longer be tollerated, as they reek of malfeasance. Then again, this is business, and ethics are not terribly prevalent in such endeavors…

Amnesty for all immigrants! Boycott Arizona! RIP GURU

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Feb 7, 2011 6:28 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't agree

Cleveland had the <a href=“http:// ”http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/2009/08/2009-2010-team-payrolls/" target="_blank">http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/2009/08/2009-2010-team-payrolls/" >3rd highest payroll in 2009-2010. Yes they are a small market, but the way they spent was awful. The trades they made were uninspired.

They never got a legitimate second option. Yes Lebron is elite, but you can’t expect to beat a healthy Boston or Orlando who had 4-5 players better than Clevelands second best. In each of the last two years, when you looked at Clevelands starting 5 v. Boston or Orlando’s you had to say “Ok Lebron is the best player on the floor, the 2nd thru 6th players were all on the opposing team”.

Cleveland had 3 years where Lebron had clearly established himself as an elite player, they needed to make a trade for another all-star caliber player to ease to burden and make them more dynamic, and never did.

Yes Cleveland is not LA. But a trade is a trade, and most players would jump at opportunity to go to a team which has a real chance to win it all.

by tafkasam on Feb 8, 2011 10:03 AM PST up reply actions  

I haven't really looked into very deeply

But I gotta say, Memphis seems much better off after they traded Pau, no?

deals like Pau Gasol to the Lakers will no longer be tollerated, as they reek of malfeasance.

"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep

by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 8, 2011 11:36 AM PST up reply actions  

Before the trade, in the previous two full seasons in which Pau had been fully healthy, the Grizz had gone 49-33 and 50-32.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Feb 8, 2011 8:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Sorry, but I am not capable of the innocence required to think Jerry West didn’t hand Gasol to the Lakers on a silver platter. I realize he was no longer GM, but in the real world that is even more incriminating.

Amnesty for all immigrants! Boycott Arizona! RIP GURU

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Feb 8, 2011 9:22 PM PST up reply actions  

I agree with you.

It seems like the Cavs made a series of short-term moves so they could say, “Look, we’re doing something to surround LeBron with better talent!” rather than being patient and making smart moves, even if it meant passing by a few opportunities.

by Ronaldinho on Feb 8, 2011 10:07 AM PST up reply actions  

mo williams wasnt a bad pickup

it was a start toward building a supporting cast. also, varejao plays well alongside a superstar. the jamison trade also was a plus (not the contract tho), and gibson was a nice find off the bench for them

honestly, i think the front office did their part. i really think their mistake was focusing EVERYTHING around lebron, when really they needed to run more through the entire team rather than lebron. when he left, it looked like that entire team had never played with each other before

It's lonely being the only Warriors fan at UMass :(

by j-spliff415 on Feb 10, 2011 11:54 AM PST up reply actions  

No.....no.

I agree Mo Williams is a good fit next to Lebron and so is Anderson V. Jamison was a horrible trade pretty much. Could have gotten much better player probably. But the problem is, if their 2nd and 3rd best players are those guys, they’re screwed.

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 10, 2011 8:38 PM PST up reply actions  

I'd probably do this deal.

But then again…not sure.

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 6, 2011 1:23 PM PST reply actions  

I like the first NYK trade...

PG: Curry
SG: Wright
SF: Gallo
PF: Lee
C: Andris

This team would have nice size…nice contracts…nice defense…and a nice bench with williams/udoh/amundson/fields coming in off the bench

I’d hope we also make a move to trade our expirings while we’re at it…but with E.Curry added to our expirings, maybe we’d have decent cap space after the move for next season to go after a FA this summer

You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk

by LostHawkGSW on Feb 6, 2011 1:27 PM PST reply actions  

Monta's contract

We’d use the money to resign Gallo. He’s on the last year of his rookie contract, if I’m not mistaken. I’d try to sign him to a 4 year deal at 32m. We can then save the extra 3 million + our expirings towards resigning Curry, Reggie, and Fields.

I’d like to see us use the 3 million dollar trade exception Morrow earned us.

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 2:07 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

nice defense?

how? Gallo is a crappy defender..Wright can’t guard 2’s, we still have the same soft front court.

That’s much worse than what we have now.

"Thank goodness for Stephen Curry, Ekpe Udoh, David Lee and Dorell Wright, because they’re the only positives we’ve got going forward."- Warriors "fan"

by HerFavColor on Feb 6, 2011 2:23 PM PST up reply actions  

Wright can guard 2's my dude.

But i’d prefer to start Fields and Wright, Gallo off the bench as a better version of Radman. Fields can defend, shoot, and most importantly, rebound.

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 6, 2011 2:33 PM PST up reply actions  

+1

I think you’re right. Dorell has solid lateral movement out there. I’m with you about starting Fields. The only thing about Danilo is his higher ceiling. I think if you develop him with superior minutes, the outcome could be an inside-out scoring threat. He’s aggressive and confident offensively, and if you put him on the block with that touch and allow him to develop the fadeaway as a go-to-move, like Dirk, he can cause a lot of match up problems.

The pleasure of D. Wright is his versatility on both ends. I think you can play him as a 3/2 and give him 30 minutes a night, even as a 6th man.

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 2:41 PM PST up reply actions  

But Gallo is nowhere near Dirk in terms of low post game and rebounding.

Dirk’s really special. Gallo has a good offensive game but he can’t really rebound. We need rebounding.

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 6, 2011 3:13 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't know

I’m not sure how advanced Dirk really was at Gallo’s age. He’s very young. I won’t look for the quote, but Dirk said that Danilo is a better player than he was at that age. That’s pretty high praise coming from a player like Nowitzki.

Dirk didn’t really have the low post game coming into the league. That’s something he developed over the years, and he stayed hungry doing it. Gallinari shares that same hunger for winning – He shares his father’s legacy.

As far as rebounding goes, with Dirk playing the 4 the majority of his career, it’s hard to really gauge what kind of numbers Gallo is capable of putting up from the 3. I’m not saying they’re carbon copies of each other, but he can definitely develop into a pure shooting forward who can score inside and do some of the same things similar to a Dirk Nowitzki. Either way, I think he’s got more potential than Dorell.

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 3:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Gallo is closer to a poor man's Durant than Dirk

He’s a wing. Yeah he gives you nice mismatches at the 4, but he’s a SF all the way.

Not a knock of course. Just the type of player I see him as. Good ball handler too.

by tafkasam on Feb 7, 2011 11:35 AM PST up reply actions  

that's not much improvement though

Fields is alright, but our biggest problem is our front court, not Monta.

"Thank goodness for Stephen Curry, Ekpe Udoh, David Lee and Dorell Wright, because they’re the only positives we’ve got going forward."- Warriors "fan"

by HerFavColor on Feb 6, 2011 4:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Fields would solve our rebounding issues which do stem from Monta.

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 6, 2011 4:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Fields has been excellent for NY this year. Plus minus has its shortcomings. Wins produced has its shortcomings, but when both of them show him to be excellent, it’s tough to dismiss.

by jae on Feb 6, 2011 4:50 PM PST up reply actions  

Yes

And then adding the eye/brain test (Landry has always just come across as a smart guy/player) it’s pretty clear NY should be high on their steal of the draft, therefore unlikely to include his incredibly valuable rookie deal in any trades.

by supersugarCrisp on Feb 8, 2011 4:02 PM PST up reply actions  

Except

they offered him in a deal for a player they’re likely to have a great chance at getting in the offseason, anyway….

by lilboots on Feb 8, 2011 5:31 PM PST up reply actions  

no they don't

they stem to Lee not being able to box out

"Thank goodness for Stephen Curry, Ekpe Udoh, David Lee and Dorell Wright, because they’re the only positives we’ve got going forward."- Warriors "fan"

by HerFavColor on Feb 6, 2011 6:15 PM PST up reply actions  

Our biggest problem

I’d be slower to say our front court (I’m assuming you’re referring to our big men) is our biggest problem. Lee has been excellent since taking off the band-aid, and Andris Biedrins looked like Samuel L. Jackson just got a hold of him and chained him up for a spiritual reawakening or something.

Either way, the both of those guys are starting to produce more or less how we expected them to, while our bigs off the bench are holding up their end of the bargain, IMO.

Monta immediately produces two huge problems, imo:

1) Offense. He controls the pace of the game through his usual high FGA’s. His volume shooting and handlng of the ball are decidedly consequential to how our entire offense is run. When you’re fundamentally a bad defensive team, and you rely so much on your offense to win or lose a game, this is a huge deal.

This will sound like hate, but I assure you it’s not. When Monta is out and Curry is in, we play better. So when our offense is deciding the game, and Monta is pretty much only effective on that end, doesn’t it kind of bother you that we play better without him?

2) Defense. He can’t recover when he’s beaten, and he knows it. Like Coach Smart was saying, it’s almost impossible for one player to stop another alone, with the new rules. Add this philosophy to being physically outmatched, knowing that you don’t stand a chance after biting on the initial move, and there’s really not much left to do except lose.

Shoring up the perimeter defense allows your bigs to pick and choose their battles. With defenders constantly being beaten on the perimeter, you loose the luxury of playing “smart” interior defense. In the latter part of the game, you’re looking at your starting center playing hesitantly with 4-5 fouls instead of 3.

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 5:30 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Front court is our biggest problem.

Our lack of a low post option forces us to rely on our guards, hence our perimeter oriented offense. Granted we’re something like #1 in 3pt% but still, when you live and die by the jumpshot you’re just not going to be very consistent.

Until we get an enforcer, I have little faith in our D.

"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."

by kenntoe on Feb 6, 2011 5:47 PM PST up reply actions  

I agree.

We can’t dictate the pace of a game with perimeter scoring alone. That puts us at a huge disadvantage. At the same time, I think our current bigs are capable of contributing more to wins than losses when they’re producing.

We need a center with size who can score and defend. But we need to change our backcourt and add depth as well. The trade only takes care of one of these problems. It’s not easy to work over an entire roster with one deal.

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 5:56 PM PST up reply actions  

I really like the first deal, if it could be pulled off. I think that it creates some really nice new dynamics for our roster. The added height and depth alone make it worth looking at. Add in the potential for another perimeter defender, and the youth of the principle talents, and I’d do this deal.

The only reason I don’t see it happening is because of the impending Melo trade. New York is thinking they will steal Melo for very little, and maintain the depth and chemistry they’ve developed so far this season. They think that they are a deep playoff team with Melo this year.

I see Zeke doing this trade, but probably not Donny Walsh.

by Uwe Blog on Feb 6, 2011 10:45 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

You nailed it

With this:

“This will sound like hate, but I assure you it’s not. When Monta is out and Curry is in, we play better. So when our offense is deciding the game, and Monta is pretty much only effective on that end, doesn’t it kind of bother you that we play better without him?”

What gets me is how Monta’s fans simply fail to see it. How? I don’t mean to be too rude, but what the hay. I’m left, usually upon talking to a Monta fan, thinking their hoops IQ/awareness must not be very high either if they simply completely fail to see/understand the subtle to sometimes not so subtle ways in which Monta hurts the team out there, despite his sometimes badass play.

And to make matters worse, Monta himself doesn’t at all sense these things, which in turn means since everyone wants to be positive and support him, they end up putting up with the very things that hurt us. And we haven’t even touched on his end of Q/H/game situational awareness or lack thereof.

It’s in the way Monta kills positive hoops flow. It’s in the way he telegraphs what he does. I.e. having to shoot, forcing his shots when:

a. He’s hot, as in a heat check, but to the point he makes it way too obvious, wasting possessions on immaturity he doesn’t even sense as a bad way to play the game.
b. When he’s not hot, to get himself going instead of letting the game come to him.
c. When he’s involved in a “star player mano a mano” thing, i.e. if a player on the other team and him have both been scoring well lately in the game, you can almost bet Monta will try to yet again put a dagger in, whether or not it’s a good shot.
d. Just in general his game is to rear back with the ball, assess where he can go, while all along completely taking the flow out of the game for his teammates.

Now, is Monta the only player in the league that does this stuff? No. But he’s our worst offender and it’s just soooo obvious. You can see it in his face/body language. Other players, smarter players know it, see it happening, and take advantage of his transparent tendencies.

It really amazes me that so many folks who call themselves hoops fans don’t recognize all the little things Monta does that hurt the team out there. As Jae says, plus minus and other evaluations aren’t perfect at all, but when they consistently say what the eye test ALSO says…..

I do recognize Monta’s talent. I’m not a “hater” other than i really despise that mindnumbing saying. But, these are the facts of life with Monta. I only hope our frontoffice sees it too and gets while the getting is good and before Monta’s injury risk style sees him lose all value.

by supersugarCrisp on Feb 8, 2011 4:19 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

I hate to parrot myself..

But I think Monta can be a point guard on the right team. If he’s got a scoring big like Howard or Stoudemire, along with another star somewhere between 1-5, that team won’t need to run many plays to be effective on offense. I think that’s a situation where he can be extremely successful.

Don Nelson tried to force him to play point guard for a reason. The problem was our roster surrounding Monta, when he tried to be a point guard. Our players weren’t good enough to create for themselves on a consistent basis. They needed a passer, someone with knowledge of the game to set them up in a favorable position. This is not the case with superstars, because they can usually get anywhere on the court, whenever they want.

When you’ve got a team full of average to below average guys, having a player like Monta run the point makes things disastrous. Since they don’t have a playmaker, they’re rarely in the best position to be effective. This causes both Monta and the rest of the team to become frustrated, and it results in Ellis essentially looking for his own offense almost every trip down, when he’s supposed to be a “point guard.”

Monta wouldn’t need to create for a team with a couple other stars. He can give them the ball essentially anywhere in their area, and they can run the iso. I think he’s perfectly capable of doing that, especially with a respectable coach.

by lilboots on Feb 8, 2011 5:52 PM PST up reply actions  

I disagree. Monta's just not a good enough ballhandler.

We saw it in the preseason this year – teams threw a full-court press on him a few times when he was the primary ballhandler, and he couldn’t deal with it.

His dribble just isn’t good enough – that sloppy, up-by-the-ear dribble doesn’t give him enough control when faced with a pressure defense.

by Ronaldinho on Feb 8, 2011 6:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Probably, you're right.

He doesn’t protect the ball fundamentally to play the position without his share of turnovers, but then again, if he’s in a position where he’s on a team with an abundance of stars (guys who touch the ball a lot), you’re not relying on him to do a lot of orchestrating, hence the potential turnover rate would be toned down a bit, as opposed to him being relied on so much to set things up from the perimeter.

I don’t know, man. It’s pure conjecture on my part. I don’t think his ball handling is really as bad as you make it out to be.. A large amount of his turnovers seem to stem more from dribbling in the lane surrounded by defenders or taking the ball to the teeth and getting caught up in the air. I don’t see his pocket picked much when he’s breaking up the press or when he’s got a guy alone in front of him on the perimeter.

Either way, his tendency to play 1-on-3 should diminish significantly if he’s got to explain to two other guys in the post-game locker room who have each averaged 25+ points a game why he turned the ball over when they were wide open.

by lilboots on Feb 8, 2011 6:13 PM PST up reply actions  

Either way, his tendency to play 1-on-3 should diminish significantly if he’s got to explain to two other guys in the post-game locker room who have each averaged 25+ points a game why he turned the ball over when they were wide open.

Well, the simple truth is that he’s basically playing with those guys already: David Lee and Curry are both high-efficiency, high-volume scorers, and unfortunately Monta has demonstrated that, even on his bad nights, he will usually insist on taking his shots at the expense of them (when they’re having good nights.)

So I have a hard time thinking that he’s somehow change the way he played if somehow two all-NBA types were on the roster. Furthermore, how he might play with, say, Lebron and Gasol on his team is pretty much irrelevant to his value to us.

by Ronaldinho on Feb 8, 2011 7:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Well, the simple truth is that he’s basically playing with those guys already:

Sort of. David Lee to me is unique as a player who has once in his career averaged 20 ppg. Although scoring average may not comply with the true marrow of the game, the audience it receives is overwhelming in terms of decoration and notability. Lee is a strange beast, as he doesn’t take heed to the attention his all-star appearance has earned him, while others who have put together numerous big scoring years feel the entitlement of having the ball in their hands at all times.

In other words, I think Carmelo would feel this entitlement much stronger than Curry, as Anthony has been in the year for awhile now and is a multiple all-star. It would not take long for him to voice his honest opinion than a Stephen Curry, a guy who’s equally capable on the offensive end, but nonetheless a 2nd year player.

Stoudemire would undoubtedly make a fuss. If anyone thinks Melo’s opinion of himself is too high, “STAT” is an entirely different beast.

Furthermore, how he might play with, say, Lebron and Gasol on his team is pretty much irrelevant to his value to us.

I totally agree. Like I said, it’s all conjecture. It’s sort of fun to imagine how his situation would pan out though on a team like a DEN, of LAL, or DAL… I’m simply trying to find a model situation where an undersized scoring 2 can be used to it’s fullest potential, being the rarity and somewhat of an albatross that it’s proven to be.

by lilboots on Feb 8, 2011 8:54 PM PST up reply actions  

In other words, I think Carmelo would feel this entitlement much stronger than Curry, as Anthony has been in the year for awhile now and is a multiple all-star. It

Sure. I think that a player like Carmelo, Kobe, or maybe even LeBron just wouldn’t put up with Monta’s play, and would insist on blowing the team up.

And they’d have the credibility that even the fans who weren’t very sophisticated would understand. But right now the Warriors would have a major PR problem because there are a lot of fans who think that Monta is our best player.

But it might take being humbled by a trade like that to bring out the right attitude. I don’t know. But in any event, it has to start with something we’re not seeing: a coach who’s going to pull him when he plays dumb. If we don’t have that, we’re going to have problems.

by Ronaldinho on Feb 8, 2011 9:54 PM PST up reply actions  

Does monta take so many shots because he’s selfish or because Smart gives him a free leash and his teammates support it?

I still don’t think he’s selfish. He’s proven not to be in the past (07-08). But coaching/system and better teammates go a long way.

by tafkasam on Feb 8, 2011 10:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Does monta take so many shots because he’s selfish or because Smart gives him a free leash and his teammates support it?

The thing is – an unselfish player doesn’t take dumb shots even when its okay with his coach and teammates.

It feels like you’re stretching here to place the blame for some aspects of Monta’s play on anybody but Monta. Yes, I’d like to see Smart drop the hammer now and then – but while that means I may also blame Smart, I don’t see how it absolves Monta.

by Ronaldinho on Feb 8, 2011 10:03 PM PST up reply actions  

Thank Jesus..

that you or anybody on GSoM is the general manager of the Warriors.
Who in the draft reminds you of Durant or Griffin??
Trading Monta is taking a step backwards.
Roll players are not enough to make it to the playoffs or win the finals.

by godhatesUs on Feb 6, 2011 5:28 PM PST reply actions  

haha

Thanks for the kind words. With all due respect, we haven’t done crap with Monta in the starting line up. People who have been in the game since your grandmother was in short pants have assured that we never will.

Griffin or Durant? Nobody. A franchise player who keeps you in those playoffs you mentioned year after year? Yes. We’re talking about franchise players here.

When you have the power of choosing first in an NBA draft, you wield a very powerful weapon in terms of improving your roster over the next 10 years. Big men are hard to come by, and this draft will produce a great wealth of them.

I would thank Jesus if more fans wised up and stopped acting like Monta Ellis is some kind of untradeable, misunderstood, basketball god. He’s not. How blind are you? Can’t you see that despite the quick first step and the acrobatics, he hinders our team from taking any “step” forward? He hinders us on both ends. It’s a fact.

Does the fact that he can get his shot off at any time make you salivate? This can be a blessing or a curse. But I think a lot of people forget that 2 points, is 2 points. What’s the difference between Steph reading a screen and sticking the jumper, or Monta beating 3 defenders and putting in a 360 layup off the glass?

If the team plays just as well or not better with Monta off the floor, then wouldn’t these “roll” players help our cause if they improve on our weaknesses? And yeah, Gallinari and Fields are not bad players.

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 5:48 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

When you have the power of choosing first in an NBA draft, you wield a very powerful weapon in terms of improving your roster over the next 10 years. Big men are hard to come by, and this draft will produce a great wealth of them.

Joe Smith would like to have a word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Roye

by Elevation Sensation on Feb 7, 2011 1:42 AM PST up reply actions  

Haha..

So would Michael Olowawhocares and Kwame “Touched by His Airness” Brown. High picks certainly do not provide the Men’s Warehouse guarantee. You could have a lovely weekend with Todd Fuller and his therapist discussing exactly this.

But you know what, as naive and prattling as this sounds, I’m beginning to trust the Warriors scouting team a little more lately. With Lacob now in charge, and that clown Christopher out, I think management could play out the responsibility that comes with having the top pick, a lot better than they have in the past.

by lilboots on Feb 7, 2011 8:59 PM PST up reply actions  

hahaha!

too soon, but I’m with you!!

"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep

by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 8, 2011 11:37 AM PST up reply actions  

Not that I think this

It’s just what I expected to come after my initial comment. I wanted to beat whoever it was going to be, to the punch. I think Epke is going to be a very solid role player. You need those. I’m content with having a few draft years where you pick up a role player who does his duty. This is always much better than drafting a bust, which the Warriors are sadly not unaccustomed to doing.

Udoh will work hard to improve, and then he will get to a point where he will stop improving. Reports support that he is constantly occupied, which is all, I think, that any conscience entity should ever hope to do…

by lilboots on Feb 8, 2011 9:01 PM PST up reply actions  

I would thank Jesus if more fans wised up and stopped acting like Monta Ellis is some kind of untradeable, misunderstood, basketball god. He’s not. How blind are you? Can’t you see that despite the quick first step and the acrobatics, he hinders our team from taking any "step" forward?

Can’t you see that you don’t receive equal value in trades? Although his salary is quite reasonable, Monta is not likely to garner much of anything in a trade. It is a virtual certainty that he will not be traded. If you want to add useful conjecture to the conversation, don’t bother with Monta.

Amnesty for all immigrants! Boycott Arizona! RIP GURU

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Feb 7, 2011 6:38 PM PST up reply actions  

It's no use lilboots

There are fans, many, who just fail to see Monta’s shortcomings to the full extent.

These are the same guys that were likely ballhogs on the playground, or style over substance guys. (We’ve all played with these guys.)

A lot of folks love to set up the Monta as a victim of profiling thing. Like he’s from the country or the south and even though he “talks funny” he’s really smarter than “all us haters” think. That kind of thing.

There are few more amazing/beautiful players to watch than Monta when they’re on, and to some extent that’s how a lot of people rate players. By what they’re capable of at their peak performance, not what their overall value settles out as from the whole body of work.

Monta represents the average to less than average intelligence crowd who feel they come from a misunderstood place and all us haters are just hating. It’s not their fault, they simply do not SEE the stuff that makes us say this. Something in them, whether it’s that they are emotionally invested in Monta or something like that, makes them simply gloss over the vast array of things Monta does that hurts the team (i think some see some of it, but quickly rationalize it or something.)

None of us asked to be born. I’m not getting all into intelligence to get all elitist or anything, just that some people aren’t as bright as others and those that aren’t are more likely to be fans of players that aren’t as bright as others. No big deal as long as ones frontoffice is bright.

by supersugarCrisp on Feb 8, 2011 4:34 PM PST up reply actions  

Wow, so many bs assertions and unnecessary condescension in so few words.

What ‘the bimbo coles experience’ (great name btw) said pretty much sums it up.

What offer have you seen that makes you think we are getting better with trading Monta? I’m waiting…. I wrote below I WOULD do this trade, but NYK would not. What does that tell you?

Kind of like Biedrins isn’t it. Sure we can dump him and hold hope we can do better in free agency, but thats an awfully big gamble isn’t it. Just dumping talent because you think you can sign someone better? Worked for Miami right? How did it go for NJ, Minnesota and all the other salary dumpers approaching summer 2010.

No Monta is not elite. And as much as I like him on a personal level, I love the general aggressiveness and toughness he plays with, I would trade him, if it made the team better. But no he does not hurt our chances to win. No matter how you slice it he does NOT in the current team. He did last year, this year numbers show him having the second highest +/- on the team (82games.com).

I’ll even give you Curry has potential to be a better player…. if he cuts the turnovers down that is. At the moment he is incapable of running a winning team because he can’t consistently take care of the ball, but I digress. I do think he’ll get it.

Maybe monta needs to share the ball more, that’s also fair.

But our team is better without Monta? I’m curious whose shots he’s really taking? We’re not the lakers where Kobe is eating Gasol and Bynum’s shots. We don’t have any elite players period who monta is inhibiting. Dumping Monta to play Deggie and Dorell 40+ minutes a night sounds like a 25 win team to me.

So until I see an offer, a legitimate one where we can move Monta to improve the roster, what’s the point? To give you the ability to arrogantly claim your smarter or have a higher bball iq than everyone? To readily disregard all the games we won because of Monta’s play, but make sure to post immediately after bad games ‘he shot us out of it’.

by tafkasam on Feb 8, 2011 5:32 PM PST up reply actions  

to sum up my rant

We do not have very much talent on this team. Not enough high end talent or depth. So how does trading one of our better players make us better unless we’re getting value in return.

He doesn’t hurt our opportunity to win. There are players who will help us win more. I have yet to see anyone around the league offer a trade for Monta which gives us that.

Less you think Mayo and Thabeet would make us better?

by tafkasam on Feb 8, 2011 5:35 PM PST up reply actions  

I know not everybody loves WP, but it's worth pointing out:

Monta is not one of our best players according to WP48. In fact, according to that metric, he is – by far – our worst starter.

Even more damning is that his backup is only .008 behind him, this year, despite having what most of us would consider a disappointing season.

Nevertheless, because some people over-value PPG and highlight plays, that presents us with an opportunity. We have a player who’s actual value may be substantially lower than his perceived value.

When that is the case, you should seek to trade that player.

by Ronaldinho on Feb 8, 2011 5:49 PM PST up reply actions  

hmm...
I have yet to see anyone around the league offer a trade for Monta which gives us that.

Don’t mean to sound like something of a prat, but how do you know this? It’s very rare for teams to go public with what they offer and what they don’t. It’s just not wise to do that if you’re a GM. It doesn’t help anybody involved in anyway.

The only way I think that’s useful is when you’ve got a trade partner who’s trying to milk you for a shakedown, knowing very well that you want to trade your asset ASAP.

You then make it known to the world that another offer has been from a separate team that is just as good if not better. Then the former trade partner has to come to you with their hands out like that old girlfriend who just found out what she left you for wasn’t all he cracked up to be.

by lilboots on Feb 8, 2011 6:22 PM PST up reply actions  

Fair enough

I’m just saying, Monta’s impact is viewed as way too extreme on both spectrums. He’s good. Very good. He’s not elite, he’s not a cancer, he isn’t killing us, he isn’t us to a title by himself.

But he is a very good player who has improved, who has shown signs he will continue to grow because he’s matured and works hard. So why must it be so extreme? If the right offer comes trade him. That’s all.

Otherwise, let’s appreciate what he does. He’s NOT a cancer. Nor is he unwilling to share the ball. Problems with the offense might be more to directed at Smart who has clearly vested his job in Monta’s hands. If you feel he has it too much, that’s probably on the coach more than Monta. He’s a willing passer, not the best passer, nor does he possess the best vision, but, I don’t get why he’s viewed as selfish. Perhaps it’s bitter feelings over his lashing out (IMO rightfully) last year.

by tafkasam on Feb 8, 2011 9:02 PM PST up reply actions  

To be honest with you

I’d like Monta to stay on the Warriors as a 6th man. You and I both know that this would be a futile suggestion. You’d probably be escorted to a limousine along with your children, and never be heard from again.

Anyway, it’s the fact that he’s a starter that’s the problem. He will never be out of a starting lineup as long as he’s scoring the way he does.

by lilboots on Feb 8, 2011 9:10 PM PST up reply actions  

He's way more than a 6th man

But that’s a different discussion.

I’d like to see how good this team can be with a better offensive philosophy, a productive center who can play defense, and a better bench (2 players, one who is a reliable scorer)

I am confident we’d be a playoff team. Not much higher than a 50 win team at best though. So yeah we’d have to make a move.

Eitherway, we can trade whoever to make us better. I love curry, but if New Orleans or Utah wanted to trade there PG I’m interested. I love Monta, but if we can turn him into a legitimate post player, I’d do it. etc. etc. etc.

by tafkasam on Feb 8, 2011 9:33 PM PST up reply actions  

I’d like to see how good this team can be with a better offensive philosophy

One of the things that amuses me, in the context of talking about Monta, is that that Monta is probably the single biggest problem with our “offensive philosophy.”

Yeah, I’d like to see other things improve. I’d like to see more pick-and-rolls done with both Biedrins and Lee. But the #1 problem with our offense is the way it bogs down when Monta is dominating the ball. If we solved that, we would solve a lot of our problems.

by Ronaldinho on Feb 8, 2011 10:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Isn't this a coaches responsibility?

And it’s also a bit short sided to disregard his ability to penetrate opening up shots for others.

Just saying, “Monta, do you” as our last second plays, while kind of funny, and exciting when it works tells you a whole lot about Smarts current philosophy and why Monta tries to do so much.

by tafkasam on Feb 8, 2011 10:02 PM PST up reply actions  

But he is a very good player who has improved, who has shown signs he will continue to grow because he’s matured and works hard. So why must it be so extreme? If the right offer comes trade him. That’s all.

It’s a question of what the “right offer” has to be.

You have some fans who think that it’s crazy to trade him for anything less than an elite player. I haven’t seen anybody say that we need to trade him no matter what, but I, for example, would do Monta-for-Fields in a heartbeat.

I don’t think anybody is advocating trading Monta just to be rid of him – although I think he could do with a bit more time on the bench – but some people have the opinion that he’s so good that there’s no way to get fair value for him. I disagree. I think there’s lots of ways to trade him and end up with as good a player – not someone who scores as much, but the game is about more than that.

I think Monta would be a great sixth man.

by Ronaldinho on Feb 8, 2011 9:58 PM PST up reply actions  

hmmm Fields for Monta?

That does leave a major offensive gap. Yes, Curry and Lee can score more. At same time, Curry handling more means more turnovers. We have one less player who creates for himself etc.

On the flipside, (in context of Fields + Curry’s expiring for Monta) would give us a lot of cap flexibility.

I don’t know how I feel about it to be honest. I’d do Gallinari + fields, i doubt NYK would. I’d probably do Fields + Chandler too. Infact I’d prefer that cause he’s a better defender.

by tafkasam on Feb 8, 2011 10:05 PM PST up reply actions  

I think "creating for himself" is overrated.

We might have to run a more structured offense, but I think that’d be a good thing.

But generally, when a team trades a high-volumer, moderate-efficiency player for a high-efficiency, lower-volume player, they improve. Teams don’t suddenly have a hard time getting shots.

by Ronaldinho on Feb 8, 2011 10:10 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm just saying it's putting a lot of faith in Curry's ability to run a team

I’m not there yet and I think it’s a valid concern. If we had Paul, Rondo, DWill etc. I’d feel a lot better about that.

Then again, judging by what Fields did his senior year at stanford, i don’t think it’s unreasonable to think he can’t score a lot more.

Eitherway, how the heck did Fields fall to 34 and Monta to 40. ;)

by tafkasam on Feb 8, 2011 10:17 PM PST up reply actions  

Out of curiosity

What would you think NY’s response would be towards a Monta for Fields + Felton deal, instead? This way they have some more cap room this off-season. Would you find that offer agreeable?

by lilboots on Feb 9, 2011 2:20 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Why would NYK do this though?

Felton is in consideration for most improved players in NBA.

I know they want CP3, Deron or an elite PG if possible. I think they need Felton to make it work.

If NYK would consider that deal (I don’t think they would unless they had a PG lined up) I’d be more interested in a 3way where felton went elsewhere and we took something from someone.

Not that I dislike Felton, I just think if we trade Monta we’re deadset on making Curry the true PG. Felton won’t help this.

by tafkasam on Feb 9, 2011 2:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Felton's actually tailed off quite a bit lately.

He was on pace for most improved, but has been pretty mediocre since December.

by Ronaldinho on Feb 9, 2011 2:14 PM PST up reply actions  

True

But general point stands. There are few coaches who run a more PG centic system than D’antoni.

Felton won’t be traded unless they got something lined up.

by tafkasam on Feb 9, 2011 2:55 PM PST up reply actions  

He’s also got a considerably large contract. I’ll say this, if NY signed Carmelo and kept Fields while trading Gallo for a prospect or high pick, they’d be in a favorable position – almost assuredly better than they would be after any trade for Monta. I just have the feeling that Ellis wouldn’t be the end of it.

 I’ve learned never to underestimate a big market team’s hunger for scoring guards. Although NY’s fanbase has a nasty reputation for unrest once the losses begin to stack, even so, they’re still a big city team looking for big names.

by lilboots on Feb 9, 2011 3:53 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Out of curiosity

What would you think NY’s response would be towards a Monta for Fields + Felton deal, instead? This way they have some more cap room this off-season. Would you find that offer agreeable?

They’d also have the option of keeping Gallinari, and then trading him next season for suitable talent while he’s still under his rookie contract.

by lilboots on Feb 9, 2011 2:20 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Out of curiosity

What would you think NY’s response would be towards a Monta for Fields + Felton deal, instead? This way they have some more cap room this off-season. Would you find that offer agreeable?

They’d also have the option of keeping Gallinari, and then trading him next season for suitable talent while he’s still under his rookie contract.

by lilboots on Feb 9, 2011 2:24 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Sorry

I’m the guy who doesn’t know how to post with his phone.

by lilboots on Feb 9, 2011 12:30 PM PST up reply actions  

Monta represents the average to less than average intelligence crowd who feel they come from a misunderstood place and all us haters are just hating. It’s not their fault, they simply do not SEE the stuff that makes us say this. Something in them, whether it’s that they are emotionally invested in Monta or something like that, makes them simply gloss over the vast array of things Monta does that hurts the team (i think some see some of it, but quickly rationalize it or something.) None of us asked to be born. I’m not getting all into intelligence to get all elitist or anything, just that some people aren’t as bright as others and those that aren’t are more likely to be fans of players that aren’t as bright as others. No big deal as long as ones front office is bright.

An important facet of intelligent behavior is the ability to analyze information and form logical conclusions. By making cliche’d generalizations that do not refer to anything I said, you have failed completely in this regard.

My statements were about Monta’s trade value, not my opinion of him as a player. As has been reported ad nauseum by the media, from sources within the organization, Monta’s trade value is very low. This means that people that are paid to determine whether to make trades, not banal fans that can barely construct a sentence, have been unable to find an agreeable transaction including Monta.

This has nothing to do with my style of play in pick-up games, or my basketball IQ, but rather reports of facts. Are you capable of grasping this concept or are you too busy formulating your next platitudinous response? Oh wait, I forgot you’re not “getting all into” intelligence. Duly noted.

Amnesty for all immigrants! Boycott Arizona! RIP GURU

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Feb 9, 2011 7:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Plz.

"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."

by kenntoe on Feb 9, 2011 2:11 AM PST up reply actions  

trust me..

I’m all over Fields and Galinari’s nuts.
If the Knicks didn’t give them up for Melo i doubt they would for Ellis.

“Guys like Durant and Griffin don’t appeal to you?”
let it be known that there isn’t a franchise changing player in this draft.

Monta is the gift and the curse. He’s a superstar though, he’s proven that he could pass the ball, he doesn’t back down on defense even though he’s 6’3. My point is that he can improve on his weaknesses.

We saw a different warrior team against the bulls.
Monta made all his free throws, shot 50%, etc.

I rather him improve on his weaknesses then trade him away to wait for another scorer like him. You trade him for the pieces in return you listed above and we will struggle on the offensive side.

Argument aside me and you both know he isn’t going anywhere before the deadline and neither is Stephen Curry. We need to improve our bench when it’s all said and done.

by godhatesUs on Feb 6, 2011 6:03 PM PST reply actions  

If the Knicks didn’t give them up for Melo i doubt they would for Ellis.

Sort of different circumstances. Melo hasn’t been shy about expressing his interest in New York. In turn, New York hasn’t been shy about their interest in Melo. Since his contract is expiring very soon, and both suitors are so horny for each other, then why would NYC give up value for something they’re going to get this off-season, anyway?

let it be known that there isn’t a franchise changing player in this draft.

In almost every draft, there’s a player available who can take you forward by leaps and bounds, especially if you’re already a decent team. It sort of supports what GM’s/fans say when they talk about being “one guy” away. Nobody says that one guy has to be a Blake or a Kevin. The idea is that he takes you to a new level.

I rather him improve on his weaknesses then trade him away to wait for another scorer like him.
My point is that he can improve on his weaknesses.

I don’t know, can he? I’d like to believe he could. Offensively, he lacks any glaring weakness. The only problem is, we’ve already got a guard in the same back court who is probably a better scorer and a much better teammate.

You trade him for the pieces in return you listed above and we will struggle on the offensive side.

I’m not so sure. I don’t think Gallinari and Fields + Curry doing the majority of the ball handling would hurt our offense at all.

Argument aside me and you both know he isn’t going anywhere before the deadline and neither is Stephen Curry. We need to improve our bench when it’s all said and done.

+1. You’re probably right. We definitely need to improve our bench, and Riley probably holds off on Monta until further word from the boss.

I will say this though, if Riley pulls off a gutsy trade for Monta, and we show significant improvement over the 2nd half of the season, Riley may solidify his position as our GM.

The important thing for Riley to do is to separate his vision from Lacob’s. This way Joe Lacob won’t be as confident that he could easily do Riley’s job.

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 6:46 PM PST up reply actions  

Lacob called..

Monta the franchise player not Curry.. surprisingly i doubt Ellis goes anywhere this year.

then why would NYC give up value for something they’re going to get this off-season, anyway?

What makes you think NYC would take on the contract of Monta Ellis if they do plan to max out Melo in the off-season or sign and trade? plus they’re the same caliber of player.

It sort of supports what GM’s/fans say when they talk about being "one guy" away.

uhm we’re aren’t one guy away.

I’m not so sure. I don’t think Gallinari and Fields + Curry doing the majority of the ball handling would hurt our offense at all.

All winning teams have at least one go to guy, right?
Fields is a perfect role player. Galo is a shooter.
I wouldn’t mind them around Ellis, but not for him.

by godhatesUs on Feb 6, 2011 10:52 PM PST up reply actions  

Why do people take Lacob's quotes seriously?
Monta the franchise player not Curry.. surprisingly i doubt Ellis goes anywhere this year.

In he summer he said opposite. “We have two good players, Curry and Lee”

Personally I think he values the team over the individual and wouldn’t shy to trade anyone if it bettered us. That said, I’m not sure a deal where we trade our best player for two pretty good players, who are younger with upside to be better appeals.

I think it would for one major reason. Gallinari’s qualifying offer comes in 2012. Meaning we’d get an extra 7 mil in cap space by clearing Monta. That would give us the legitimate money to get a big man. Kendrick Perkins perhaps? DeAndre Jordan/Marc Gasol? They appeal too. Could we also have money left over to get that 3rd guard we desire? Shannon Brown? I don’t know. Perhaps we’d have to overpay on both regards.

Curry, Fields, Dorell, Lee, Biedrins with Gallinari, Perkins and possibly a Jason Terry type? IF you’re high on Curry’s potential you have to look at that as a very appealing option in terms of building.

That said, trading Monta for Fields and Gallinari has such a Cohan feel to it, aesthetically. We could not get anymore suburban prep-school clean cut looking. Kind of annoys me just because of that. Though obviously not a reason to not do the trade.

by tafkasam on Feb 7, 2011 11:41 AM PST up reply actions  

haha

Yeah, we would definitely catch the white boy fever with that trade. Never really thought about it.. But I know what you mean. Its always good to have some “edgy” guys on your roster, even if the bark is usually louder then the bite.

by lilboots on Feb 7, 2011 7:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

white boy fever

In fairness, I’m pretty sure Fields is as much of “white boy” as Steph Curry or Blake Griffin.

Hmm, Curry/Fields/Griffin. Now there’s a threesome to build a team around. Maybe throw in Obama as head coach…

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Feb 7, 2011 11:36 PM PST up reply actions  

It's not like the Lakers are the Detroit Bad Boys either...

Just a funny anecdote. And an always appropriate jab at the Cohan-era philosophy of team building.

But yes, given the cap flexibility we’d have with a motivated management + the upside of Gallinari and Fields (Curry, Fields, Landry all 22 years old) I would probably make that trade.

by tafkasam on Feb 8, 2011 10:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Somewhere Derek Jeter figures into all this.

ESPN be damned.

"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."

by kenntoe on Feb 9, 2011 2:16 AM PST up reply actions  

Er...

The Knicks don’t currently have a draft pick to trade (and if they did, they’d use it for Carmelo not Monta)…and the Cavaliers wouldn’t consider trading their pick (guaranteed top 5 at this point; best shot at #1 overall). None of these trades have the possibility of happening.

I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.

by Brownie13 on Feb 6, 2011 6:03 PM PST reply actions  

The Knicks wouldn’t trade for Carmelo because he’ll sign as a free agent this off-season.

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 6:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Where will they get the money if Monta's there?

They pick up a large amount (more than $8M minimum) in salary for NEXT YEAR. That would leave them with only $8M in cap space for this off-season, instead of the $16M (and what they would need to outright sign Carmelo Anthony) they are currently projected to have.

I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.

by Brownie13 on Feb 6, 2011 6:52 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm no cap guru. I'm very hazy on the rules

But look at Denver’s payroll. They’ve got 84,000,000 dollars invested in players. That doesn’t seem like 58 mil to me…

Amare and Felton are the only significant contracts that span beyond this off-season. Felton will be in his final year.

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 8:11 PM PST up reply actions  

...

I think that in the future, before proposing trades you should at least understand the cap a little. Denver’s 84M has very little to do with actual cap space that New York has to sign other teams’ players in the off-season.

I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.

by Brownie13 on Feb 6, 2011 10:04 PM PST up reply actions  

I know a little. I know that they don’t have any commitments other than Amare’s contract to worry about after next season. I also know that you can pay a player a lot more towards the end of his contract compared to the beginning. Like I said, I’m no cap guru, but it appears NY has done a fine job keeping their future payroll clear.

Btw, Denver’s payroll suggests that you’re allowed to sustain a guy’s contract while adding talent, even if you’ve gone over the cap. I think that has a lot to do with it. They can design Anthony’s contract to fit around the others on their team this off-season. He could make significantly more in the 5th year of his deal than the 1st.

by lilboots on Feb 7, 2011 7:25 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

You can only increase a players salary over the course of a contract to a certain extent. Say they ended up with $8M instead of $16M, they could not pay Carmelo more at the end to make up for it. It’d only be a $1-2M increase per season. He wouldn’t sign for that and they will not jeopardize their cap space to sign him to get Carmelo for Monta.

The biggest thing here is that teams CANNOT go over the salary cap to make free agent signings (other than the smaller exception contracts like BAE and MLE). They can only do so when re-signing their own players. Monta would compromise their ability to sign Carmelo to a large contract.

I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.

by Brownie13 on Feb 8, 2011 4:39 AM PST up reply actions  

I guess

we differ in rating players. I’d be wary of using any system where a player’s declared worth is determined by some fan-hype.

by lilboots on Feb 6, 2011 6:20 PM PST up reply actions  

at least it is a good start

So we don’t have go through options like Monta for Landry Fields. Trade a star for a star. Everything else is salary dump for nothing, like what we have been doing since 90s.

by ILoveWarriorsGirls on Feb 6, 2011 8:17 PM PST up reply actions  

Trading Monta for Landry would be a coup.

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 6, 2011 8:21 PM PST up reply actions  

for knicks

"Thank goodness for Stephen Curry, Ekpe Udoh, David Lee and Dorell Wright, because they’re the only positives we’ve got going forward."- Warriors "fan"

by HerFavColor on Feb 6, 2011 8:31 PM PST up reply actions  

I'd rather have Afllalo over Fields either way

I don’t put much stock in guard rebounding.

"Thank goodness for Stephen Curry, Ekpe Udoh, David Lee and Dorell Wright, because they’re the only positives we’ve got going forward."- Warriors "fan"

by HerFavColor on Feb 6, 2011 9:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah.

You should. I’ll just say this: If Fields weren’t on the Knicks’ they’d be challenging last year’s Warrior rebounding ineptitude. The dude’s their 2nd best per minute rebound even when playing SG… You don’t think on a team where we suck at rebounding, we could use someone like that?

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 6, 2011 9:10 PM PST up reply actions  

as an immediate fix? sure

as a long term fix? hell no. I’d rather have bigs that are competent at doing the “big” stuff. Like physical play, boxing out, intimidating smaller players from driving into the paint etc.

"Thank goodness for Stephen Curry, Ekpe Udoh, David Lee and Dorell Wright, because they’re the only positives we’ve got going forward."- Warriors "fan"

by HerFavColor on Feb 6, 2011 9:12 PM PST up reply actions  

or you can have your small lead the league in fastbreak points

"Thank goodness for Stephen Curry, Ekpe Udoh, David Lee and Dorell Wright, because they’re the only positives we’ve got going forward."- Warriors "fan"

by HerFavColor on Feb 6, 2011 10:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Except he doesn't anymore.

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 6, 2011 10:13 PM PST up reply actions  

he's the second...

"Thank goodness for Stephen Curry, Ekpe Udoh, David Lee and Dorell Wright, because they’re the only positives we’ve got going forward."- Warriors "fan"

by HerFavColor on Feb 6, 2011 10:44 PM PST up reply actions  

I honestly didn't know that.

Where do you get your info?

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 6, 2011 10:59 PM PST up reply actions  

it was on the screen during some Heat game a week ago

Lebron was first, Monta second..Don’t remember who the other ones are.

"Thank goodness for Stephen Curry, Ekpe Udoh, David Lee and Dorell Wright, because they’re the only positives we’ve got going forward."- Warriors "fan"

by HerFavColor on Feb 6, 2011 11:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Amazing.

Let me get this straight, herfavcolor. So going by what you’ve just said, if the guards on the other team out-rebounded our bigs, we’d still have the advantage on the glass? Really? You’ve got a rare gift for logic. :)

A possession is equal to a possession. If rebounds equal possessions, then how does a possession recognize a player’s height, weight, and color?

This is probably one of the most misinformed statements I’ve ever heard here. I’m surprised Gov’ didn’t hold your feet to the fire.

by lilboots on Feb 7, 2011 7:40 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

He didn't say that.

He was talking about roles. If you have big men who do their jobs, blame will no longer fall on guards for not rebounding; nor should it ever. Sure, if your team sucks at hitting the glass you would definitely benefit (on the boards, not necessarily overall) from a better rebounder at any position. However, if Monta didn’t have to worry about the big guys not getting the rebound, he’d be able to play much more to his strengths, like getting out on the fast break for easy points.

For the most part, he’s right. Rebounding is nice to have from everyone, but it isn’t something guards are required to do when looking at team success. Rebounding numbers from guards like Fields are an anomaly, and based on circumstances. He wouldn’t average that many rebounds even on our poor rebounding team. The thing is he’s a much better rebounder than either of the guys the Knicks have run at SF and PF for most of the season (Chandler and Gallinari). Were the Knicks’ players more typical of what you see on other teams, his numbers would not be nearly as high. He’s even more of a SF himself, but because of Gallinari’s height as a shooter/scorer, he plays SG next to Danilo’s SF.

So what HFC was saying is that BIG MEN should be held accountable for rebounding, not guards. And that’s the truth. Monta does so many other things that Fields cannot (especially on offense), that Fields being a good rebounder for his position doesn’t matter on the big scale of things when there are good big men in place.

So like he was saying, it would fix our rebounding issues temporarily, like a band-aid, but when push came to shove we’d get out-rebounded anyway by a team that had big men doing that job rather than their guards. We’d also get out played in the back court because we no longer had a dynamic scorer (Monta). We’d lose in two places instead of one. So fixing the real problem (our front court rebounding) would be a much better solution than replacing our SG with a better rebounder.

I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.

by Brownie13 on Feb 8, 2011 4:54 AM PST up reply actions  

Rebounding is nice to have from everyone, but it isn’t something guards are required to do when looking at team success.

An extra rebound from a guard has exactly as much impact on the outcome of a game as a rebound from a center. Guards don’t get as many rebounds because they tend to be shorter and they tend to be in locations on the court where fewer rebounds can be had, but a deficit because your guard is outrebounded by 2 boards 5 to 2 is just as detrimental as a center being outrebounded 12 to 9.

This notion that guard rebounding is somehow less important is fantasy.

Were the Knicks’ players more typical of what you see on other teams, his numbers would not be nearly as high.

That’s entirely your conjecture. Given how stable rebounding rates are for players, it’s conjecture that does not have much if any evidence to support it, no matter how much “common sense” you believe it to have. Good rebounding guards tend to be good rebounding guards regardless of their teammates.

by jae on Feb 8, 2011 8:47 AM PST up reply actions  

And good rebounding guards will not outrebound good rebounding big men.

That’s a fact. It’s not going to happen with any regularity at all. In order to win a battle like that, you need a big man to take on their bigs.

Do you really think our rebounding issues will be solved by adding Fields? Will he stop guys like Boozer and other from bullying us on the glass? Guys like Bynum, Gasol, and Odom? Like Zach Randolph? Like Kevin Love? Like Jordan and Griffin? Really? Really? He’s stop our big men from getting pounded? Good luck with that.

By the way, what statistical evidence is it that supports what you said? I’m not questioning that it exists, just where I could find it.

I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.

by Brownie13 on Feb 8, 2011 12:28 PM PST up reply actions  

Do you really think our rebounding issues will be solved by adding Fields?

I really think it would help considerably.

Will he stop guys like Boozer and other from bullying us on the glass? …[snip long list that builds a strawman, not an argument]…He’s stop our big men from getting pounded? Good luck with that.

No, he wouldn’t match up against opposing bigs, but that’s not been any more of a problem than being outrebounded in the backcourt. Position by position, PG, SF and C combined are, on average, outrebounded by about a board a game. SG is outrebounded by almost twice that, as is PF. Our rebounding deficit as a team is as much a problem in the backcourt as it is in the frontcourt.

He’s stop our big men from getting pounded?

Nonsequitur.

By the way, what statistical evidence is it that supports what you said? I’m not questioning that it exists, just where I could find it.

Wages of Wins and references therein. You may not agree with the conclusion of the model that was created out of it (wins produced) but the data are pretty clear. A rebound is a rebound and rebound rates for players are very, very consistent over time.

by jae on Feb 8, 2011 1:28 PM PST up reply actions  

I figured.

A rebound is a rebound, but rebounds should be created by big men, and for the most part, are. Whether it’s actually grabbing the board themselves or boxing out and creating opportunities for guard rebounding, they are the ones who are going to have the biggest impact on the glass. Will Landry Fields making sure to box out his SG (or SF) help as much as David Lee (or any other PF) finally putting a body on the opposing bigs? Not at all. Most time, SG and SF are way less likely to crash the glass (especially offensively where we struggle the most) than a PF or a C.

I’d like to take a look at the types of rebounds he gets. Are they at the glass while taking them away from an opposing player? Or is he collecting a lot of them on uncontested or long rebounds? The key is that trying to make up for big man deficiencies at a different position will hurt out team in the long run. It’s very rare that a smaller player is actually down inside battling for the rebound against bigger players, and that’s why we struggle. Our bigs don’t get initial position and are unable to either box their player out, get a hand on the ball (to tip it to a teammate, which happens many many times a game and the guard is given credit for the board even though it was much more a pass by the bigger player), or grab the board themselves. As a consequence guys like Boozer, etc. are able to get the offensive rebound, and a guy like Fields is not likely to stop that. He’d definitely help a good amount initially (by collecting the longer rebounds that out team sometimes seems incapable of getting), but that problem would be mitigated by players who were actually fighting down low rather than waiting for the ball to come to them (much like a guard, btw).

Obviously, you put Fields on any team over Monta and the rebounding would be better, but depending on the team and teammates, the effect would be much smaller in some cases.

What Monta provides is what guards should for the most part. His defense and rebounding could be improved, but Monta is so much better at what guards should do than Fields, that Fields benefits in rebounding really don’t convince me in the slightest, even with the poor rebounding team now. Good band-aid, not a good solution.

I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.

by Brownie13 on Feb 8, 2011 2:40 PM PST up reply actions  

Monta is so much better at "what guards should do" than fields?

I want my guards to play defense. Landry is better than Monta in that department – he gambles for steals less, and stays in front of his man and keeps his opponent’s FG% down, which is more important than gambling for steals.

I want my guards to take good shots. Landry is better than Monta in that department – witness the difference in TS%. Landry’s is incredible. Monta’s is average.

Furthermore, the notion that somehow Monta’s missing rebounds are just easy “team” rebounds that anyone would get sort of misses the point – in fact, it’s so silly that I don’t see how you can possibly miss the absurdity of the logic you’re using.

If the rebounds Landry gets which Monta doesn’t were rebounds that anyone could get, if they weren’t contested, then Monta would get them, too. But he doesn’t. Monta is a bad rebounder, Fields is a very good one.

You say that “big men” should be creating our rebounds, and it’s true that our backup bigs have not been adequate rebounders this year, but if anything, following your logic, that means more rebounds for Monta to grab. But he’s not getting them. Those “team” rebounds which our backup bigs aren’t getting (our starting bigs being pretty good rebounders) are another source that should be, by the logic you’ve been using padding Monta’s stats. ANd yet they’re not.

Between his low-efficiency offense and his porous defense, Monta is actually a net NEGATIVE on EFG% as a shooting guard (source: 82games.com) – and that probably overstates his value since Monta looks much better according to EFG% than he does by the more-useful TS%.

It seems to me that Monta is only better at doing the things you want a guard to do if you have a very narrow definition of what you want a guard to do (that is to say, score a whole bunch of points, without regard to how many possessions you use to score them). That’s a pretty narrow, and, quite frankly, game-losing definition of what you want a guard to do.

by Ronaldinho on Feb 8, 2011 3:02 PM PST up reply actions  

Obviously, you put Fields on any team over Monta and the rebounding would be better, but depending on the team and teammates, the effect would be much smaller in some cases.

That’s your conjecture. Don’t confuse that with anything that you have actually supported with evidence or anything more than your assertion that it would be so.

by jae on Feb 8, 2011 3:05 PM PST up reply actions  

How in the world is an understanding of the game of basketball not evidence?

I get that I didn’t give you a number, which seems to be what anyone who overvalues pure statistics seems to crave, but are you really trying to argue that if a rebounder, when put on a team of better rebounders than they currently play for, is going to get the same amount? Really? Is Kevin Love going to get an equal amount of rebounds playing for a team with another good rebounder?

Obviously, my point is that on a team lacking something (and lacking it in an awful way), a guy like Fields might be an ok fix. He won’t however, fix the bigger problem.

Since you want a number, I’ll give you two. 10.6 and 9.1. Those are Luol Deng’s rebounding rates, career and this season. And that’s with Boozer and Noah on the court together for only a short time this season.

Last season, Kevin Love was a good rebounder. This season, with Al Jefferson gone, he’s also well above his previous rates, especially on the defensive glass. Less rebounding around him, more rebounding he does. It doesn’t meant that he actually became a better rebounder. His circumstances just changed.

As another example, why is Wade’s rebounding rate this season so much higher? There are less good rebounders around. And he’s helping the team by doing that, but he’s not going to stop Dwight Howard from getting the rebound he wants most times.

I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.

by Brownie13 on Feb 8, 2011 4:50 PM PST up reply actions  

How in the world is an understanding of the game of basketball not evidence?

I don’t consider the assertion that something is so to be any indication of an understanding of basketball. I also know that what people are certain they know without doing more systematic studies of it can often be wrong, no matter how right their gestalt take on it feels to them.

There is a diminishing return on putting two very good rebounders alongside each other. But the effect is not nearly as extreme as many make it out to be. The effect of putting better rebounders on the court together is to have a better rebounding team, not completely additive of their individual totals, but definitely presenting a favorable situation for their team.

As another example, why is Wade’s rebounding rate this season so much higher? There are less good rebounders around. And he’s helping the team by doing that, but he’s not going to stop Dwight Howard from getting the rebound he wants most times.

That’s an example of the strawman you’re perpetrating, not anything at all close to what I’ve been taking about. I don’t find that arguing against strawmen is all that constructive. If you’re going to remain obtuse to the point that a rebound gathered by anyone on your team is as valuable as any other, I do not see any reason to continue the dialog. You appear to be arguing with yourself.

by jae on Feb 8, 2011 5:37 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

The effect of putting better rebounders on the court together is to have a better rebounding team, not completely additive of their individual totals, but definitely presenting a favorable situation for their team.

Case closed.

by lilboots on Feb 8, 2011 8:35 PM PST up reply actions  

How is that not the argument?

I’m arguing that Fields (being a good rebounder, I never denied that) is putting up good rebounding numbers because New York is not a good rebounding team. It’s a similar situation for Wade this season. There are less good rebounding big men on his team, so he’s picked up some of the slack.

Now, I understand that Monta isn’t a guard that’s prone to do that (where as Fields and Wade and others are), but my point is clear, and Wade’s situation is very similar to Fields’. It’s not a strawman.

You’re simply coming from a very different school of though/point of view/etc. You value a number that you think explains what’s happening. I think the game (and even some parts of the game) is far too complex to be completely understood by a number. The evidence that you say suggests rebounding is done just as well when you’re guards make up for disadvantages also suggests that David Lee and Andris Biedrins should be rebounding at an unprecedented rate. However, Lee’s rebounding is terribly, terribly down even when playing on this team, who is just slightly better at rebounding than the Knicks that he played for last season.

Forgive me if I take that evidence with a grain of salt. Because, as you said above, because someone says it’s so, doesn’t make it so. I’m sure you’ve heard the terminology “Lies, damn lies, and statistics.” The whole reason that exists is because you can make numbers say pretty much anything you want depending on how you collect them. What bball stats does is try to put their own cause after seeing effect. Their conjecture isn’t any more relevant than anyone else’s. Because so many times, someone can see the same numbers and come to a different conclcusion. I’m more inclined to believe those who’ve seen both the numbers and the game.

I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.

by Brownie13 on Feb 9, 2011 5:05 AM PST up reply actions  

Nevermind.

Just forget it. I should have stopped before writing this post.

I really don’t want to go back into a debate about statistics and this is where it seems to be leading. No thanks.

I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.

by Brownie13 on Feb 9, 2011 5:14 AM PST up reply actions  

It’s a similar situation for Wade this season. There are less good rebounding big men on his team, so he’s picked up some of the slack.

If you think this is what is going on with Wade, then you aren’t paying close enough attention to his career.

You are drawing conclusions from a selective and simplistic reading of the data.

The whole reason that exists is because you can make numbers say pretty much anything you want depending on how you collect them.

No, you can’t. Or, rather, if you do, you leave fingerprints on the numbers that show how you’re being selective with your dataset.

Like what you’re doing with Wade.

If you want to claim that somebody is doing this with the data, at least have the integrity to say HOW they’re doing it. To ignore statistics because some statistics are possible to manipulate is just stupid.

by Ronaldinho on Feb 9, 2011 7:05 AM PST up reply actions  

As another example, why is Wade’s rebounding rate this season so much higher? There are less good rebounders around.

Compared to this last year, yes. Compared to what Miami’s had for his whole career? Nope.

Try again.

by Ronaldinho on Feb 8, 2011 5:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Yes...

because “try again” is evidence.

It’s very clear that his rebounding numbers were consistent until this season. Now, they’ve jumped up very considerably.

Miami’s rank in DRB% since Wade entered the league:

5, 2, 1, 14, 24, 19, 6, 11.

So, coming into this season, the Heat had been in the top 6 in 4 out of 7 years and had been below average just once. With the exception of that year, the Heat have been pretty consistently a good rebounding team. It’s very odd that his rebounding jumped up so much this season. It’s because the big men aren’t doing the rebounding (however if you watch games, you see they do a good job of boxing out).

I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.

by Brownie13 on Feb 9, 2011 4:53 AM PST up reply actions  

It’s very clear that his rebounding numbers were consistent until this season.

No, it’s not.

Here are his per/36 rebounding numbers:

4.2, 4.8, 5.3, 4.5, 3.9, 4.7, 4.8, 6.6

And by reb percent:
6.8, 7.8, 8.7, 7.3, 6.6, 7.8, 7.8, 10.7

I see a pretty big variation there, with this year being the best. But, for example, his third season is also pretty good.

And his third season was one when they had Shaq and Mourning and Haslem all playing significant minutes.

Hence: your analysis is simplistic, selective, and stupid.

So try again, please.

by Ronaldinho on Feb 9, 2011 7:08 AM PST up reply actions  

8.7 is still closer to the next lowest number (7.8) than it is to this seasons’ 10.7. While it is higher than the rest of his rebounding rates, it still doesn’t compare to this season.

Not sure what could have caused that spike (maybe he felt they were actually in pursuit of a championship?), but it doesn’t diminish the argument that his numbers have seen a much larger jump this season.

As far as trying again, no thanks. I;ll stick with this.

I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.

by Brownie13 on Feb 9, 2011 1:15 PM PST up reply actions  

but it doesn’t diminish the argument that his numbers have seen a much larger jump this season.

Nobody is arguing that his numbers haven’t gone up this season.

What I’m arguing with you about is the cause. You’re claiming that it’s because of the lack of other good rebounders on the team. That is the causal relationship for which the evidence does not support.

You offered a simplistic analysis. I showed why it’s wrong. If you want to stick with it, well, I guess I can’t fault you, but it’s a strange cat who keeps repeating an argument which has been shown to be faulty.

by Ronaldinho on Feb 9, 2011 1:27 PM PST up reply actions  

2011 draft is crap

"Thank goodness for Stephen Curry, Ekpe Udoh, David Lee and Dorell Wright, because they’re the only positives we’ve got going forward."- Warriors "fan"

by HerFavColor on Feb 6, 2011 7:48 PM PST up reply actions  

JJ Hickson has one of the worst APM in league past 2 years...no thanks.

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 6, 2011 7:55 PM PST up reply actions  

JJ Hickson

is statistically one of the worst players in the NBA. On par with Andrea Barfnanny.

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Feb 6, 2011 8:18 PM PST up reply actions  

How did the Cavs not trade this guy for Amar'e...

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 6, 2011 8:20 PM PST up reply actions  

Lebron didn't want to..

he signed off on everything

"Thank goodness for Stephen Curry, Ekpe Udoh, David Lee and Dorell Wright, because they’re the only positives we’ve got going forward."- Warriors "fan"

by HerFavColor on Feb 6, 2011 8:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Do you have reason to believe this?

I’m pretty sure he’d have loved to have a player like Amare.

Unless you’re a real conspiracy theorist and believe he wanted Cleveland to fail so he could leave. Now that would be just evil…

by tafkasam on Feb 8, 2011 10:08 AM PST up reply actions  

But he’s beefy!

Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!

by Supafishal on Feb 7, 2011 3:21 PM PST up reply actions  

Woah

A terrible player and a pick in a bad draft for a star? Great idea!

/Sarcasm

‎"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

by dubzfan on Feb 7, 2011 12:05 AM PST up reply actions  

If anything, Cleveland wouldn’t make that deal. It would never be the other way around.

I really like Kanter. He’d make a great teammate to David Lee. Jones intrigues me as well.

 Before you go signing off the draft, try to look at some of the guys available, and remember other drafts that were assigned the same label, but turned out quite different.

Consider Rondo’s position when he was selected…hmm… Think a few teams would want that one back? Point is, in any draft, with the right scouting and a tiny bit of luck, we should be able to find a guy with the no. 1 pick who could help this team more than Ellis can.

by lilboots on Feb 7, 2011 7:53 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Hickson? Really?

He is putting up some numbers (decent) on an awful team.

He couldn’t really even put up more than 8.5 and 5 on a cavs team last year with Varejao, Shaq and Big Z. You think he beats out Lee and Biedrins for minutes?

by tafkasam on Feb 7, 2011 11:43 AM PST up reply actions  

You think Smart would ever play him?

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 6, 2011 11:45 PM PST up reply actions  

Give them Lou and Bell or something

"Thank goodness for Stephen Curry, Ekpe Udoh, David Lee and Dorell Wright, because they’re the only positives we’ve got going forward."- Warriors "fan"

by HerFavColor on Feb 7, 2011 12:01 AM PST up reply actions  

get AR back

This is impossible until next season, since there is a “no reacquiring” rule for players traded away unless they are waived within the year.

by WYK on Feb 7, 2011 12:31 AM PST up reply actions  

really? wasnt it ok after half a season?

i havent been keeping up with these cba changes

Goal: 8 seed!

by dso on Feb 7, 2011 4:17 AM PST up reply actions  

The restriction definitely applies for the entire season. I’ve always thought it was a rather pointless restriction though, since a team that traded away certain players during a given year obviously wouldn’t want to trade for them again immediately. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have traded the player away in the first place. And if they really wanted the player back for whatever reason (under rare circumstances like that Illgauskas trade last season), the rule goes out the window since the team can claim the player off waivers in a prearranged agreement.

by WYK on Feb 7, 2011 12:59 PM PST up reply actions  

I’ve always thought it was a rather pointless restriction though, since a team that traded away certain players during a given year obviously wouldn’t want to trade for them again immediately

The reason for this rule has little to do with player value and everything to do with preventing teams from finding loopholes in the CBA regarding the salary cap. Trades between capped teams require that neither team receives more than 125% +100k of the salary they sent out. The restriction on reacquiring exists to prevent teams from trading a player who makes the salary work as part of a package and then flipping him back as part of an agreement for the player they really wanted in a second trade. For example say team A has a $9mil./yr player and a $10mil a year player and want to acquire team B’s 12.5mil/year player. The $10m and $12.5m players can be swapped, but the $9 and $12.5 mil can’t unless ‘cap filler’ is used. Without the rule, the teams could swap the 10 and 12.5, then team B could send back the $10mil player for the $9, since those salaries are close enough, effectively swapping the 9 and 12.5 mil players, though the CBA would not allow that as a single trade.

At an extreme, without this two teams could move a player back and forth a few times, each time being able to get 125% of what he was being paid and you can pretty quickly get around the trade restrictions.

Also, It’s not quite so easy to just “claim a player off of waivers”. A team needs to have cap space to do this. What generally happens isn’t that a team claims someone off of waivers to get him back, but that he clears waivers completely. No one claims him (since mid season, generally no one has cap space to do this) and the player becomes a free agent and signs back for a vet minimum with his original team.

by jae on Feb 7, 2011 2:51 PM PST up reply actions  

Knicks arent going to trade for melo

people are saying that if the knicks arent going to trade galo and fields for melo, then they’re not going to trade them for monta.
why would the knicks give up anything for melo? its obviously, with certainty that melo is going to sign with ny in the offseason so ny is not going to give up anything for what they could get for free.

by samgyupsal on Feb 7, 2011 1:37 AM PST reply actions  

somebody's smoking A LOT of something

Cleveland give up their top 3 pick when they’re all about rebuilding now!!!!?!

Monta and Amare good teammates???? two great players that should NEVER have to share the same ball – because they won’t

by joegiant on Feb 7, 2011 8:14 AM PST reply actions  

they’re all about rebuilding now!!!!?!

You didn’t read Dan Gilbert’s memo? He guaranteed that he’ll give Cleveland an NBA title before LeBron ever sniffs championship gold. You don’t win championships when you’re “rebuilding” with guys like Antawn Jamison and Mo Williams. =P

by WYK on Feb 7, 2011 1:03 PM PST up reply actions  

Good post Boots

What I liked most is that this was well thought out. Plus it’s nice to see GSOM members monitor their posts, and respond to comments and criticisms with thought out rebuttals.

The interesting point that Samgyupsal brought up, (above), and which your trade with the Knicks relies on is that Melo could wait out the year to sign with another team. If this is the case, then we could see Denver trading to Dallas, as Cuban said he wouldn’t mind “renting” Melo for the chance to go deep into the playoffs to entice him to stay. Here’s from an article on Hoopsworld on why the Knicks would trade for Melo this season:

The Knicks ability to “extend-and-trade” for Carmelo after the season becomes more complicated without Curry’s ending deal and would require the Knicks to part with multiple and bigger assets like Raymond Felton to make the salary cap math work.

The Knicks by virtue of the NBA’s salary cap holds for free agents would be unable to sign both Carmelo Anthony and Wilson Chandler in the off-season, so it would be one or the other in free agency which is why Chandler is being mentioned in this rumor.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=18694

What I don’t get is how players publicly conveying that they will sign with a team isn’t tampering. There is an unfair advantage for the Knicks if they know they get Melo regardless. If this was the case, the only reason they would give up Gallinari, Fields and whoever else for Melo would be for a playoff run this season. If they wait, then as with the Monta trade, they could trade for another all star caliber player and have yet another “Big 3” lineup, possibly with Felton still at PG.

Saying that, Felton is 6’1" and having Monta alongside him is just as much a defensive liability as what the Warriors have now, (as Gov said). I agree with your argument for Offense and Marketing. If Iggy is still available, it might make more sense to go after him or another big 2 Guard. But as this is a Dubs Blog, I see what you were doing and agree it has potential to improve both teams. Do this, then use expirings plus one of those 2nd rounders we got for Morrow or CJ to snag a backup PG and we’re looking good. BTW didn’t see the trade machine so here:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4gh6m8v

Curry/Lee/Monta= Wins

by danielholl on Feb 7, 2011 10:02 AM PST reply actions  

Monta a point guard?

Thank you for the encouraging word. I will admit that I get a little too defensive amidst these little fairy tale trade proposals, but I’ll admit that with flying colors as a man who obviously has way too much time on his hands to ponder such ridiculous and unimportant circumstances. My crime becomes a little more passable amongst the fellow trespassers of the fantasy gm world.

Anyways, I appreciate the link. Interesting read. I’ve paid the consequences for underestimating Cuban in the past, and I’m forced to recognize him now as one of the most fearless and capable owners in all of sports. If anybody can convince Carmelo to play for him, its Cuban.

I will say though, Stoudemire has surprised me equally as something of a leader, and I think its fair to say that NYC has both more pieces to build a winning future, and the most attractive metropolis in the league – the kind of environment big stats player’s dreams are made of…

On topic, and I know Ill catch a lot of heat from you and some others for this, but here it is:

 I think Monta can start at point guard with that big 3. Hear me out. As all 3 of the best players do their best work 1-on-1, and the ball will undoubtedly be in one of their hands the majority of the time in a half court set, is a pure point guard a priority?

If those three players prefer to create their own offense, and they all demand touches, do they need a distributor? Was Derrick Fisher anything more than a solid defender and a shooting guard in a 1’s body?

The reason why Monta never worked at the point for us is simple: We lacked the star power.

D’Antoni is able to stress pushing the ball up the court with Monta at point (which is how he prefers to coach, anyway), and Monta is allowed to defend against players his own size.

A pure point guard like Felton, or perhaps somebody cheaper can come into the game once Melo or Amare have sat down, and they can direct the 2nd unit, running more plays within a set offense. Push the ball and run the iso with the starters, call the plays from the bench for the 2nd unit.

by lilboots on Feb 7, 2011 8:41 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Carmelo, Monta, Amare.

That’s one limited, overrated, expensive core, that probably doesn’t get you homecourt in the first round of the playoffs, even in the East.

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 7, 2011 8:57 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't know...

The important thing is if they don’t know. I know millions of fans (and some GM’s) who would subscribe to that trio on a 4 letter poll. I agree it would be overrated, as most offensive players really are…. but 1st round of the playoffs? In the east?

I think you slip defenders between the cracks on the roster and maybe a few vet’s who think glory is around the corner and all they gotta do is revel a bit in their role and take a pay cut to claim some hardware before their careers burn out….might make things interesting, at least…

by lilboots on Feb 7, 2011 9:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Lets just say this.

2 of the 3 are bad rebounders. All 3 of them are bad defenders. Only Amar’e has recently been an efficient scorer in the last 3 years. Melo and Amar’e are terrible passers. Monta is a bad one if he plays the 1 (above average if he plays the 2). I’m not seeing how that gets them a top 4 seed? There’s still Boston, Miami, Chicago, Orlando, Atlanta. They’d have to pass two of those teams….not happening probably.

Keith Smart is challenging Red Auerbach to be the greatest coach of all time.

by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 7, 2011 11:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Question for GSoM: What do you rate Gallinari and Fields upside as?

I think Fields could be the ultimate glue guy (term they love to use on toastin and postin, but i think it’s an apt assertion). I don’t ever expect him to be a high scorer, but thats fine, everything else he does is good.

Gallinari, I go back and forth on. I could see him exploding to being a near 25 point a game scorer on high efficiency. Offensively he does most everything. At same time, it hasn’t happened yet, so why will it happen next year?

by tafkasam on Feb 7, 2011 11:45 AM PST reply actions  

If we did the trade, I'd also want D'antoni

Aside from fact, he’s one of my favorite coaches. He’s also the most likely coach to get Curry to his full potential. And thats what we’d need if we traded Monta

by tafkasam on Feb 7, 2011 11:48 AM PST reply actions  

I Think The Timberwolves Are A Much More Likely Trading Partner.

The greatest weakness of the Timberwolves is their backcourt and their greatest strength is their frontcourt. The Warriors greatest weakness is their frontcourt and thier greatest strength is their backcourt. With this in mind, I think a trade of Curry for Beasley would benifit both teams. Other pieces could be added as will for example B.Wright for Brewer.

by giantsrainman on Feb 7, 2011 4:15 PM PST reply actions  

eeeeeeeeee!!!

I’d shriek like a woman if we had to run Ellis at the point. I suspect he and Beasley handling the ball would be strikingly reminiscent of the Monta – Maggette duo. I’d be f’in pissed in a major f’n way if we f’n made that f’n trade go f’n down. F that. :)

by lilboots on Feb 7, 2011 8:48 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

With this in mind, I think a trade of Curry for Beasley would benifit both teams.

Arrrgh…reading that was like pouring lemon juice directly into my eyeballs

Please never mention this horrible thing again!!

"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep

by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 8, 2011 11:43 AM PST up reply actions  

Why do people constantly talk about trading Monta?

That is a ridiculous thing to suggest. Why trade your best, most consistent player? Would Miami trade D. Wade? Would the Spurs trade Duncan? Would the Lakers trade Kobe?

The idea is: you keep the good players and you replace the ones around them as necessary. Monta is not a piece you give up in hopes of getting something better.

by MikeAucksbigg on Feb 8, 2011 1:47 PM PST reply actions  

The answer to this can be found on almost every post within the site.

by lilboots on Feb 8, 2011 2:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Why trade your best, most consistent player?

You usually do not want to. The conclusion that Monta is our best player is debatable and there’s much evidence that he is not. The conclusion that he is our most consistent is also not nearly certain.

Would Miami trade D. Wade? Would the Spurs trade Duncan? Would the Lakers trade Kobe?

These players are all much better than Monta. It’s not even close in any of the cases. That three other teams that are very successful wouldn’t trade players much better than Monta is a terrible, terrible argument.

The idea is: you keep the good players and you replace the ones around them as necessary. Monta is not a piece you give up in hopes of getting something better.

Terribly narrow minded thinking that seems clouded by the conclusion that Monta is better than he is. He has a high ppg average and it’s very difficult for people to divorce themselves of the notion that this must mean he’s very good.

A better idea is to get better players, repeat as necessary. Making a marginal “star” an untouchable building block is a recipe for failure.

by jae on Feb 8, 2011 3:14 PM PST up reply actions  

Sorry but the Knicks wouldn't do this.

We supposedly have no interest in Monta, according to a report in the summer.

Partially functional, half of me is comfortable, the other half is close to the Cliff, like Mrs. Huxtable

by King Henry the 2nd on Feb 8, 2011 1:48 PM PST reply actions  

I'm in favor

of the first trade.
Monta < Fields, Gallinari
Eddy Curry…if he can suit up with at least…10 games left, im up for it.

I’m against the Cleveland trade..
we’d be giving up Monta for basically Varejao..who’s out for the season..We still have a chance this year..I don’t wanna give it up that easily.
If we do make a trade with Cleveland, I’d want Anthony Parker, JJ Hickson, Mo Williams, AND Varejao. Monta, Lou, Gadzuric, Bell, Lin, and Wright for them. (= just playing..like that’d happen.

by LGW on Feb 8, 2011 3:29 PM PST reply actions  

fields will be a knick for at least 7 years

It's lonely being the only Warriors fan at UMass :(

by j-spliff415 on Feb 10, 2011 11:55 AM PST reply actions  

not gonna happen

knicks are pretty happy with where theyre at right now. its why theyre not going ballistic for melo or paul (like desperate). fields is in their long term plans

It's lonely being the only Warriors fan at UMass :(

by j-spliff415 on Feb 10, 2011 9:24 PM PST up reply actions  

Hmmm,

not sure I agree with you at all. The fact is, they were going ballistic for James (like desperate). When that didn’t happen, they were pushing for a Melo trade despite Anthony’s public statements about wanting to play in NY, anyway. Reportedly, the Knicks already offered a deal involving Fields, even though there’s a large chance that they could sign Carmelo without giving up any assets for him.

I don’t mean to sound rude, but you seem extremely confident in something that’s allegedly already suggested otherwise. What we do know for sure, is that the Knicks are clearly in pursuit of a star player to match with Amare Stoudemire.

 What happens if Carmelo decides to resign with Denver? What then? Would Carmelo sign a contract with the Nuggets out of respect for that franchise under the pretense that they’d trade him to a desired team after the contract is reached? It’s really impossible to tell at this point. I don’t think you know more about it than anybody else really.

by lilboots on Feb 10, 2011 11:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Why is there so much talk of trading Monta?

Why can’t we just build a team around him, he’s really good.

Rockin' D-Lee's jersey in Seattle

by pax217 on Feb 14, 2011 11:33 AM PST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


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)


GSoM Crew -------------------------

Atma-160_small Atma Brother ONE

Gw090_small Fantasy Junkie

Natehead_small Nate Parham

--------------------------------------------------------

Small Hash

Small dj fuzzylogic

600px-olympic_rings_square olympicmike

Small IQofaWarrior

Shutterstock_10276351_basketball_mind_small Evanz

--------------------------------------------------------

We_still_believe_small R Dizzle

Small Adam Lauridsen

Small jae

Gsom_tony_small Tony.psd

Kanji_love_small Sleepy Freud

Japan_by_miaumi_small YaoButtaMing

Drmlg_logo-gmail_small Poor Man's Commish

Nellie2_small Feltbot