Offseason Q&A: Tim Kawakami (San Jose Mercury) Part 4 of 4

We saved the best part for last. In this segment we cover the probable extensions for young Warriors Monta Ellis and Andris Biedrins, their flaws, and Tim's picks for the 2k8 playoffs.

Use your hops!

 

**********

Golden State of Mind: In your recent handy breakdown of the probable extensions for Monta Ellis and Andris Biedrins  you broke down some of the things to expect this offseason in their contract negotiations. Before that in your Warriors next season: A last stand or a whole new beginning? piece you alluded to both young players being "very talented, but obviously flawed..." What are these flaws and do you think they'll ever be able to overcome any of them?

Tim Kawakami (4/23/08): Yep, I figured people would notice that wording on Biedrins and Ellis' future. FLAWS. That word does draw attention. I'm not trying to be mean. But there are obvious things about both players--both very good players, by the way--that affect the way the Warriors can play. I think it's important for management and coaches and fans to recognize it.

-ELLIS: On the plus side, obviously, he can score, just a tremendous finisher. But the flaws: He's small and he plays tiny on defense, yet he's not a point guard and probably always will need help handling the ball in any situation.

So that means the Warriors have to put enormous pressure on their other perimeter defenders--Monta can never guard a tough 1 or any kind of good 2 or else the Warriors are getting torched. That means the Warriors point guard alongside Monta must be able to handle a lot of things defensively. When Baron wasn't able to or didn't want to, the Warriors just got killed by perimeter players this year.

The way Don describes it: Monta is going to need help on defense his whole career, the same way Steve Nash has needed help. That's a big give-up, by the way. Nash is an amazing player on offense (he's a point guard, so there's an advantage he has on Monta--Nash can get defensive help from a 2, which Monta can't get because he is the 2), so Nash more than makes up for it. Will Monta be that good that long? We'll see. And he'll always need a bigger guard beside him, who can initiate offense. That's a tricky puzzle, because you start thinking, well, who is that big guard who can defend and initiate? Not many. That's a limiting thing. 

-BIEDRINS: On the plus side, he's a non-stop worker with great hands and a tremendous sense of spacing and weakside defense. I wanted this guy out the floor when he was a teenager (and when Montgomery wouldn't play him) and all he has done is get better every year. But the flaws: Not a pure shotblocker, gets pushed around by strong offensive players and does not and will not ever hit the medium-range jumper.

So when Biedrins is out there, he's one big man--and if you're playing fast, you can't have another non-shooting big man out there with him. Just can't do it. Yet Biedrins also needs help against strong players (Nellie didn't even really try to put him on Boozer in the playoffs last year). That's a big match-up problem. Like with Ellis, it's limiting: How many really mobile tough big men who can shoot are out there? I've got KG on the list, Boozer... not that many others.

I like Biedrins' game a lot. But having him out there does limit what you can do with everybody else because it's tough to put multiple non-shooters on the floor at any one time, and yet you still need to help him with the rumblers. That's a very thin niche for such a talented guy, yet there it is.

Are they centerpieces or are they add-ons? Centerpieces get 5 years, $55M, and add-ons get 3 years, $25M.

What's your take on that question?

Tim Kawakami (4/23/08): Excellent question. Tough question. Glad I asked it and tried to avoid answering it, until now. I definitely don't think either Ellis or Biedrins will accept anything close to 3 years, $25M. But I don't know if I'd give both the big, big money.

If I had to do it, and I was guessing along with Mullin at the same time, I'd say the market for Monta is around 6 and $55M to $60M--because he can finish and he might be a 27-point per game guy in a year or two, at a very high FG%. That's special stuff. That translates to any system. But he's not a max guy. He's just not.

And I'd say Biedrins would be less, probably 6 and $48M to $52M, because of the non-shooting thing and the non-rumbler thing. Kaman got large money, but he's a post scorer, even if he's a clumsy one. Dalembert got huge money, but he's a low-post defender. Biedrins isn't quite either thing. He's high %, no question. But there are guys who can do what he does--maybe Brandan Wright, by the way... So I'm not saying Andris is an add-on, but he's not quite a break-the-bank guy, either.