RUMOR: Warriors Trying to Deal Patrick O'Bryant for Hakim Warrick

by Atma Brother ONE on Nov 27, 2007 2:22 PM PST in Rumors

Check out this interesting tidbit from this week's ESPN Magazine (p. 124):

To get Andris Biedrins help inside, the Warriors have looked into stealing Hakim Warrick from Memphis for struggling center Patrick O'Bryant. Good luck with that.

Thinking back to the 2005 NBA Draft I was a big fan of Hakim Warrick and hoped the Warriors would take him with the #8 pick. The Warriors instead took Ike Diogu who never won over coaches Mike Montgomery or Don Nelson. Warrick seems to be in a similar situation with Grizzlies head coach Marc Ivaroni who isn't a fan of Warrick's D [Commercial Appeal].

Coming out of Syracuse I projected Warrick to be a big time shot blocker and mainstay in the nightly SportsCenter highlights with his crazy hops and Inspector Gadget reach. To date Warrick hasn't been the shot blocker I thought he would be, swatting away a measly 0.3 shots in about 13 minutes of play over his career. But I could see him being a perfect fit with this run and gun Warriors squad. Maybe his supreme shot blocking skills that he displayed in college will resurface as well.

Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!

Make the jump to watch Hakim jump!

Update (1:03pm 11/28/07): Check out what the good people at Memphis Grizzlies fan blog 3 Shades of Blue think about this rumored deal.

[biggflavor]

Hangin' with Hakim!
(AP Photo/The Dallas Morning News, Michael Mulvey)

I'd be shocked if the Dubs could pull off this trade as it would essentially be exchanging a DLeaguer with next to no NBA success (or playing time for that matter) for an uber-athletic forward just one year removed from an efficient scoring and rebounding season. Still, imagining Warrick start a fast break with a huge weakside swat and then finishing a Boom Dizzle led fast break with a highlight jam on the other end of the court is solid gold.

Would POB for Hakim Warrick be a heist for the Warriors? A fair trade for both sides? Think it'll go down?

99% of rumors never happen, but 99% of them are fun to talk about!

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Uh

I would be all for this trade.

by danschmeck on Nov 27, 2007 2:25 PM PST reply actions

I'd rather...

...have and play POB. It's a shame Nelson disagrees with me.

by Zack Vank on Nov 27, 2007 2:26 PM PST reply actions

very interesting

Warrick is probably more ready to contribute than POB or Wright:

better body, more NBA ready
proven offense, when Gasol was out he was pretty effective

Economically, there's advantages as well, he's locked in at the rookie scale for another year after this at least, so it's guaranteed cheap depth, likely a replacement for Croshere's roster spot next year.

He's young and got loads of raw talent.

The ONLY downside is that he's a PF and not a C, which means he might block Wright.

Given that Mbenga has played well enough to earn a rotation spot, it seems like POB is expendable. Cashing him in for a young talent seems like a solid move.

Note that POB for Warrick does not not work straight up according to Real GM. The Grizz will need to add another body, probably Andre Brown who's gotten no burn. The other problem is that a 2 for 1 doesn't work since we're full on the roster.

It's probably doable without too much work, and I'd be on board with this.

24 > 23

WE NEED A BACKUP POINT GUARD

AIM: Jetforze

by OptionZero @ Golden State Of Mind on Nov 27, 2007 2:36 PM PST reply actions

Warrick

Warrick is something of a combo forward. He hasn't shown the perimeter skills to play the 3 and hasn't rebounded like you'd want your 4 to. Rebounding is unlikely to develop to what you'd want at the 4, but as a combo, it's adequate. He's ridiculously similar to Harrington in this regard.

He could block Wright some. They're similar in that they're not exactly your prototype 4, but not really wing players. Both are very athletic, Warrick having an edge in strength, Wright in speed.

A two for one isn't out of the question--nothing prevents it-- but it means we'd have to be release someone immediately though they'd still count towards the cap. (Phone call for Troy Hudson. It's your real estate agent on the phone. You don't have a real estate agent? You should. It's foolish to try to sell your home without one. You weren't selling your home? Well, Bay Area real estate is still probably a good thing to have, but since you aren't going to be playing here anymore--oh wait, did I forget to mention that we're sending your worthless ass on its merry way?)

I'd love to see if there was a way to get Kyle Lowry out of them to make things work. It would require cutting someone else from the squad to avoid losing him, but if Troy Hudson has to go, so be it. (No, don't wake me up. I'm enjoying this dream.)

by jae on Nov 27, 2007 2:55 PM PST up reply actions

I dunno...

At the end of the day, POB's still a 7 footer who has a presence in the paint, blocks shots, rebounds, and has shown flashes of having an adequate offensive game too.

What exactly is Hakim Warrick going to bring to the table?

More offense? That's it. He's not gonna board for us, with his size he's not going to defend the post for us, he's not gonna block shots for us. He doesn't shoot the 3 so at PF he's not even going to spread the floor for us. At best, he'll get a couple dunks here and there, get destroyed by bigger PF's in the post, while taking away minutes from young Brandan Wright and veteran Austin Croshere.

by jlagace on Nov 27, 2007 2:51 PM PST reply actions

I agree with you

Warrick's athleticism and length in our system is intriguing, and this could be a good deal for us, but POB is still so young and i really like the guy and his game.

by Proof on Nov 27, 2007 4:08 PM PST up reply actions

tasty

Do it, but only if that Beatnuts track played every time he got on the court, for the duration of his actual playing time. I think I could dunk if I had that as my soundtrack.

by redape on Nov 27, 2007 3:04 PM PST reply actions

You know...

...I love Nelson, but sometimes I don't understand him. POB has a "breakout" game against the Clips in our first win, so what does he do? Signs a career nobody in Mbenga, and doesn't give POB a damn minute in the next six games. I just don't get it.

by Zack Vank on Nov 27, 2007 3:16 PM PST reply actions

Blocks

Maybe some of his shot blocking has diminished by having to play man D instead of the 2-3 zone like they do every freaking possession at Syracuse? It's way easier to block a shot coming from off the ball.

A trade that would work would be POB+Monta for Lowery+Warrick. Probably less likely now that Conley is hurt, but perhaps possible now that Lowery's biggest fan (Jerry West) is now out of the picture. I'm not sure I'd do it, but it would solve our "pure" backup point guard issues.

Manute Bol stole my lunch money

by manute-o on Nov 27, 2007 3:27 PM PST reply actions

Or

I think Mullie might throw wright, kosta, and andris too for gasol(I am being sarcastic).

by biedrinsismyhero on Nov 27, 2007 3:39 PM PST reply actions

Swift

I was actually kinda high (as were others) on Stromile Swift a couple seasons ago. But we know how he panned out. I'd definitely take a shot at Warrick over POB even though I'd like to see more of O'Bryant on the floor this season. I'm surprised he hasn't been getting the PT like last year.

Anyone think we'll make a move for Varejao now that he's about to burn bridges with Cleveland?

by mojo X on Nov 27, 2007 4:14 PM PST reply actions

f varejao

Like I said somewhere else, I would absolutely hate to have that clown on my team.
I know he brings hustle and all that, but I spent all the playoffs last year cursing his flopping goofy ass, and I'll be damned.....

then again, like any homer fan, as soon as he was on the dubs, I guess I'd say "way to take a charge!"

by panhandlelegend on Nov 28, 2007 3:45 AM PST up reply actions

Nooooooo!

POB is young and will develop. He had a great game recently and showed some stuff that only makes you wonder for the long term.

Warrick is better for one year but then you'll still want someone to play C. There's got to be some patience here.

Mbenga got time because Nellie knows him and he could put a body on those big bodies in the East. POB will still get his chance.

Nothing better than "The City".

by philsmith75 on Nov 27, 2007 6:26 PM PST reply actions

POB

Since the Warriors did not option the POB for next year, it's not clear that he's more than a one year option either. At the end of the season, he's an unrestricted free agent and can decide to move on if he so desires. We have no right to match and other teams can pay him whatever they can afford. While he may be back, it's doubtful that he's in anyone's long term plans. The Warriors have already admitted that they weren't planning on long-term patience with the POB.

by jae on Nov 27, 2007 6:48 PM PST up reply actions

POB or Warrick

POB is tall and getting pretty decent but doesnt fit with nellie ball.
warrick is slightly older but very athletic but so far crap and short.
i lik POB better cuz i've actually seen him play and his ok now. but warrick crap the times i've seen him play
KEEP POB

by gswLLBatman on Nov 27, 2007 11:38 PM PST reply actions

Warrick would be........

A MONSTER in the Nellie Ball system.
Athleticism, explosiveness, and blocking OH MY!!!
Yes, the Warriors play a lot of zone. Warrick would fit perfectly into that mode, and regain his old shot blocking prowess. I believe that with some work on the outside jumper he could be a monster at the 3 and already an adequate 4 on most teams. But on the run and gun Dubs, lets just say Warrick could be the sprinkles on the frosting that is Diddy, the filling that is Jack, and the 'flower and egg' that is the rest of the roster. Please Mullin/Nellie put the cap on what would be the most amazing restructuring of a franchise that I have ever seen.

by Sneaky275 on Nov 28, 2007 4:19 AM PST reply actions

My bad fellas, checked the diaries...

but didn't go down far enough on the main articles.

I think we would definitely be getting the best of the deal, but the one think I would be worried about is having Wright get less development time.

I think as a orgainization we invested too much into Wright(J-rich/#8) to have him sit behind another PF in our rotation?

I think has shown a lot of potential when he's been on the floor, the more we can season him, the sooner we can see what the team has on it's hands.

by esco41510 on Nov 28, 2007 1:06 PM PST reply actions

Concorde fallacy

The trade for Wright is a sunk cost. It's gone and irreversible. What we've invested to get him should not influence future decisions as nothing can change this price we've paid. There's a loss fallacy, that since he cost so much, we have to try as hard as possible to get something out of him, but it's a fallacy that tends to make for really bad decisions.

The only equation that makes sense is looking at Warrick and Wright and figuring out which one will be better. IF Wright will be better, there is no reason to get Warrick, but this has nothing to do with the fact that we gave up Richardson. If Warrick is going to be a better option, then the equation is whether Warrick is worth more than Wright and whomever we'd have to invest (in trade and future playing time) to get a productive Warrick vs what we'd have to invest (in future playing time [but not what we've already spent]) to have a productive Wright. Considering what we paid for Wright shouldn't enter things as the choice to not have him isn't there. This is a sunk cost that doesn't change regardless of what happens. We cannot undo the past investment.

Thinking about past investments causes people to try to squeeze value out of things that have no value to give. It then becomes an emotional argument. It is the same sort of thinking that caused the Warriors to overpay Dunleavy ("we cashed in a #3 pick on him, so he has to be good--therefore let's give him a big contract to keep him, give him playing time he doesn't appear to deserve to try our absolute best to make him into something that he actually isn't, investing more money and time into a lost cause).

This is not to say that I think Warrick will be better than Wright. Actually, I don't. I think Wright has more potential in the moderate term. It's merely about the strategy and why the Warriors shouldn't let Richardson enter.

by jae on Nov 28, 2007 2:27 PM PST up reply actions