Why am I posting a rebuttal to another blog here? Because Adam Lauridsen is still listed as a GSoM front-page writer and the Merc's blog system isn't set up to handle the length of argument I want to write.

That said, I haven't seen this type of post here before, so I am a bit leery of posting it. I'm also not sure if this violates some unwritten blogger etiquette, if so, I apologize and I'll be happy to delete it.

Original Article

The Warriors are fond of repeating their mistakes. The rumored trade for Amare Stoudemire would be just another example of the team's lack of creativity when it comes to poor decision making. Last summer Baron Davis defected to LA and left the team desperate to land a big name player. Arenas and Brand said no to Cohan's millions, but Corey Maggette said yes.

What do the proposed Stoudemire trade, Baron Davis leaving and the Maggette singing all have in common? If you answered "not much", you'd be correct. Lauridsen disagrees . . .

Although the Stoudemire extension and trade wouldn't be as big a mistake as the Maggette signing, there are plenty of less-than-flattering comparisons to consider when evaluating the move.

I don't actually accept that the Maggete singing was a mistake. He's an incredible scorer, rebounds decently and can play defense when motivated (read: like most NBA defenders). He's great in his sixth-man role. The salary is probably a bit high, but not unmovable, especially in a year or two (see Crawford, Dunleavy & Murphy).

Team needs - Last summer the Warriors needed a replacement point guard, a real power forward and improved defense. Corey Maggette answered none of these needs. Arguably, he made them all worse - killing ball movement, giving Nellie a smaller mismatch option at PF that displaced Randolph and Wright in the rotation, and playing defense only Jamal Crawford could love.

The Warriors offered Arenas and Brand huge contracts, those were the best "replacement point guard" and "real power forward" available on the market. It's not like they didn't try to address those needs. They also had two lottery picks with upside in Wright and Randolph at the PF.

The one true statement is that he killed ball movement when he was in the game and starting, which was 19 games. Off the bench, he's asked to score. How games did he start at PF? 9. Why was he starting at PF? Because the team's options were Wright, who started when healthy and giving effort, an out-of-control, insubordinate and turnover-prone Randolph and Turiaf who was the only back-up center. That was actually a good spot to use Maggette since he did have the mismatch on offense and, when your PF has a mismatch on offense, you don't want him to pass unless a double-team comes. I fail to see the error in judgment here. Maggette actually gave his best defensive effort when at PF which is in no reasonable way comparable to the complete absence of defensive effort from Crawford. That's just a dishonest comparison.

This summer, we've solved our power forward issues with Randolph's development and have a potential point guard fix in Curry, but still need to improve dramatically our team defense. Stoudemire does nothing to solve our defensive problems - and like Maggette, probably makes things work [sic].

Correction: Don Nelson and Anthony Randolph solved "our" power forward issues with Randolph's development. I make this point here because he criticizes Nelson throughout without giving him credit for sitting Randolph, sometimes in favor of Maggette, until he practiced hard and played under control. If Randolph readily admits this was the best thing for him, why is it so hard for the media? Randolph has done his part by reportedly working like a madman in the gym.

As far as defense goes, you can play Stodumire along side Turiaf or Randolph which gives you one good 6-10 defensive player with an elite offensive player who can block shots. With Randolph, you get the rebounding too. Does Lauridsen want Emeka Okafor to play along side of Turiaf or Randolph? What availible player would be a better fit?

If Nelson plays him out of position at center, we lose our best remaining defensive player in Turiaf. If Nelson plays him at his true position, power forward, we lose minutes for the only reason most people still care about this franchise, Anthony Randolph.

Didn't Phoenix play him primarily at center for when they were a really good team, playing a knock-off of Nellie-ball? He's almost assuredly going to be the starting center here if he comes. There is absolutely no reason that he can't play along side Randolph or Turiaf. This is a non-argument supported by nothing.

You can argue we have a need for low post scoring - although Nelson's teams have always favored slashing and jump shooting over post offense and have made no effort to develop their post players. Assuming we have such a need, it's not clear that Amare would meet it all that well given his gradually increasing reliance on his jump shot (don't take my word for it - check out 82games.com, which lists 55% of Amare's shots as jumpers). Most of Amare's inside points come from put-backs and dump-off passes - two areas Biedrins and Randolph had adequately covered last season. The end result, as with Maggette, is a player that duplicates our current strengths while potentially making our weaknesses even worse.

This paragraph is illogical. First, It starts out criticizing Stodumire for taking too many jump shots, which is not a bad thing considering his high FG%. The other advantage to an efficient, jump-shooting center is that the opposing center must come away from the basket to guard him which opens up the lane for drivers like Monte, Bukie and the dreaded Maggette.

Then he says that Stodumire duplicates what Biedrins and Randolph bring to the table as an inside scorer. Biedrins would leave in every Stodumire trade scenario so what's wrong with replacing his high-efficiency inside game and adding the jump-shooting dimension. It's not duplication if Biedrins isn't here to be duplicated. Also, it apparently isn't duplication if it is Biedrins and Randolph playing together with the same inside game but it is with Stodumire.

Talent displacement - If we learned one thing from the 08-09 season, it was that Nelson would go to great lengths to play his veterans ahead of Randolph, Wright, and even Biedrins in the low post. For the first two-thirds of the season we saw Maggette, Azubuike and even Jackson on occasion at power forward. The results were rarely impressive, but Nelson repeatedly returned to his one big man line-up. Adding Maggette to the line-up didn't occur in a vacuum. His addition caused a minute squeeze, with the players arguably in the best position to help the Warriors in the future losing out.

Again, Wright started when he was giving effort and healthy. Randolph wasn't ready to play (see above) and Andris played a career-high 30 minutes per game. Turiaf also set a career-high in minutes. Jackson started 10 games at PF, Buike 6 (seems like it was more). Again, Maggette started all of 9 games at PF so I'm not sure what "great lengths" Nelson went to other than to assess the situation and try different things to see if they would work.

With Amare, Nelson would gain a veteran big who can score. The team wouldn't be giving him max money to ride the bench, so I'd expect his minutes to be heavy (and considerably greater than Andris' playing time last year). With Stoudemire pulling major minutes at center, however, we have no reason to believe Nelson would suddenly back away from his one big man approach.

He'd start and center and Nelson would likely start Randolph next to him. How is that bad?

Maggette, Azubuike and Jackson would still be on the team. We've added two guards - Law and Curry - who are likely to see time in the rotation.

Versatility and flexibility aren't bad things. Nelson will play Maggette and Jackson. If there aren't enough minutes to be had at the 2 and 3 for everyone, then Azubuike will likely be the odd man out. I also don't see a problem with Maggette backing up the 4 for specific matchups. Law could be the 12th man on this team, so listing him as a factor in the Amare argument is kind of a reach.

It's not at all hard to imagine a Stoudemire-led team where Randolph and Turiaf are getting fewer minutes than they did to close the 08-09 season.

It's not hard to imagine a lot of things, but it is hard to make an argument as to what would cause this to happen.

Under this reading of Nelson's habits, the Stoudemire move doesn't help us become a more balanced team. It only helps Nelson roll out a more offensively potent small-ball line-up. Of course, that approach may make the Warriors a better team than they were in 08-09 (setting the bar low here), but the pro-Amare partisans out there should consider the possibility that the trade could enable Nelson in his small ball tendencies and result in Randolph once again spending heavy minutes on the bench.

How is starting Stodumire at center and Randolph at PF with 6-8 Jackson at SF or SG "small ball"? How did Randolph end up on the bench?

There are sections on "ball-movement" and "team chemistry", which I'm going to skip do to the length of this and because I don't disagree with the particulars but I disagree with the premises and the conclusions which can't really be effectively argued as both sides of the discussion would be heavily rooted in speculation.

Injury history - Corey Maggette also came to the Warriors with a reputation for being fragile. Once again, he lived up to his history in the league with an assortment of injuries keeping him out of 31 games. Stoudemire eventually bounced back from the micro-fracture surgery, but racked up another potentially chronic and career threatening injury last year with his detached retina. Micro-fracture surgery has improved since the days of Jamal Mashburn and Alan Houston, but there's still considerable risk of re-injuring the knee. Zach Randolph, former poster boy for microfracutre recovery, missed extended time this season with soreness in his left knee, the same one that was operated on in 2005. Since the surgery is relatively new, there's simply not much information on how a repaired knee will hold up through the roughly 400 games we'd be signing Amare to play on a five-year contract. There are injury risks with all players. Amare for 60 games a season is a lot better than many players for 82, but as with Maggette we'd need to go into the contract with our eyes open regarding the potentially catastrophic risks.

I don't think anyone is arguing that's not a risk. It's a decent argument against trading for him although I doubt most of us know the long-term prognosis for a detached retina and the newer microfracture surgery.

Ultimately, the Amare trade is a closer call than the Maggette signing because Stoudemire is a better player. Just as the Warriors were arguably better this season with Maggette getting some minutes than if they hadn't had his production at all, the Warriors with Amare should win a few more games in the immediate future than if they didn't have him. But fixating on small gains in the immediate future is exactly the type of short-sighted reasoning that has led Cohan and company into the same mess year after year.

I'm not entirely sure how this trade, barring injury, doesn't set this team up for a good 3-4 year run, considering the fact that they'd have to extend Amare at least 3 years past his option. The rest of the team is under contract or, at worst, RFAs over that span. So how far long-term should the Warriors be thinking?

Swapping Biedrins for Stoudemire doesn't help the Warriors in the areas the areas of most significant need (point guard play, defense), poses a significant risk of stifling the "internal development" we usually hear so much about during the off-season, doesn't get us a stand-alone star capable of elevating the play of his teammates (Amare has only won with Nash, Marion or Shaq playing leading roles), and will kill our flexibility for the long-term to make a move if/when a real difference maker, addressing our real needs, becomes available.

Defense is the same issue with or without Amare. The Warriors retain their best two interior defenders in Turiaf and Randolph so it doesn't hurt them that much. They drafted a point guard and traded for another one so that area has been reasonably addressed. I'm not sure which "real difference-maker" he's expecting to come along but I'd rather the team take a shot with that team rather than sitting on cap flexibility just in case "real difference maker" becomes available. That doesn't sound like an actual strategy.

Warriors fans are understandably suspicious of being patient, given our history of waiting only to get nothing in return. The roster as it stands today, however, has more young talent locked up for the foreseeable future than any Warriors' squad since RUN-TMC and Webber. To my eyes, that talent simply needs this year (and probably a new coach) to turn the corner into a perennial playoff threat.

Where did the "new coach" shot come from? You mean the only good coach this team has had in 20 years? What better coach is out there and why would he be a better fit for this roster, with or without the trade? What other available coach would have stood up to Randolph and produced the best resolution for everyone involved? That's just a cheap-shot that makes no sense. How is it not clear what's been happening here? Do people think the team went from 34 wins to 42 to 48 to rebuilding for 1 year (completely improvised since Baron and Monta were supposed to be there) to now when we see a really good roster taking shape? Do people think this is a coincidence? How about the last time Neslon was here? Or when he took an abysmal Dallas team from garbage to an elite team? It's time to give Nelson some credit for some of the good things he's done. Calling for his replacement at this point is misguided at best.

The decision to blow this team apart for a questionable win-now acquisition like Stoudemire simply because we're tired of being patient is precisely the type of move we've bemoaned in the past and blamed for keeping the franchise from becoming a consistent winner. Simply because the team needs change does not mean that any change is in the team's long-term interests. We made that mistake with Corey Maggette - and we're about to make it again.

Trading your starting center for an arguably better starting center and throwing in your backup PF and 5th guard is not "blowing up the team". With or without the trade, the Warriors should be a pretty good team this year and even better over the next 3 years. That's long-term enough for me.

I can't really think of any. To me this is really cut-and-dried. I am only asking this question because I keep seeing Crawford opting-out as a factor in trade threads and possible 2009-10 line-up discussions.

He is set to make approximately $9.3m next year and $10.1m the next so that's what he has at stake. We know why the Warriors want him to opt-out: He's simply not better than the guys that play ahead of him and you don't want to devote 1/6 of your salary cap to your 3rd or 4th guard. Unfortunately for the Warriors, that is not their choice.

Poll

Will Jamal Crawford Opt Out?

17%

Yes, and please see my explination in the comments section below!

35 votes

30%

No, and I promise to stop including it in trade scenarios and hypothetical 2009-10 line-ups.

62 votes

51%

No, but I am personally willing to lend him my moped.

105 votes

202 votes | Poll has closed

Continue reading this post »

I have always wondered what the value of Assist-to-Turnover Ratio was. More specifically: Why that particular ratio?  I understand that it is supposed to be indicative of a player's ability to make good decisions with the ball, but I cannot figure out how this ratio is a good way to measure that.  What it basically tells you is how many Assists a player has per Turnover by taking a player's total Assists and dividing it by his total Turnovers. Not that Assists and Turnovers are completely unrelated events, but they hardly have a cause-and-effect relationship like, for example, Field Goals Attempted and Field Goals Made.  

Poll

Do you think Assist-to-Turnover Ratio is a useful statistic?

12%

The only ratio I like is trading 2 for 1.

7 votes

14%

No.

8 votes

49%

Yes! And it counts!

28 votes

12%

Why aren't you proposing an inplausable trade scenario?

7 votes

12%

What?!?! You can't combine the TPE with players?

7 votes

57 votes | Poll has closed

Continue reading this post »

With the Departure of Jason Richardson, Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, Ike Diogu, Zarko Cabarkapa and Adonal Foyle the 2007/08 Warriors roster is going to be full of players that we have little history with as fans.

Mickael Pietrus if he stays, would be the longest tenured Warrior, followed by Andris Biedrins. That's not a whole lot of time to bond.

So now that we have a Baron, Andris, MP and a bunch of guys who have been with this team 2 years or less, who is your favorite Warrior? Not just who is the best, but the guy you really pull for because you connect with him as a fan for whatever reason.

For me it was kind of a process of elimination and the criteria is pretty much a combination of three things:

Game (includes clutch)

Personality

Intangibles: Attitude/Sportsmanship/Back Story

Based on that, I came up with this:

1. Andris: His game is rebounding, blocking/changing shots, scoring from really close and picking up a lot of ticky-tack fouls and the mouthing the words "C'mon man" to the refs. The thing that I like most about his game is that he knows his limitations and stays within himself. Personality and Attitude-wise, every interview I've heard he's been funny and humble. Perfect guy to root for. My new favorite Warrior.
2. Matt Barnes. His game is doing a little of everything: scoring, rebounding, defending, handling, hitting the three.And I love the long arms in the passing lanes and he's prven to be clutch. He's also really funny in interviews. There was an interview with Fitz and Brooks where he clowned Baron's beard for a good two minutes. The back story is great too. He'd probably be my favorite if I thought he'd be around beyond next year.
3. A distant 3-way tie for 3rd for various reasons:

I love almost everything about Stephen Jackson but his obsession with referees hurts the team. It  bothers me that he just can't prioritize the team or his teammates above complaining about every call or non-call.

Monta's laziness with the ball handling and his odd personality kind of put me off. But he is probably the most likely to be my next favorite if he can take better care of the ball.

Baron is an amazing basketball player. A pleasure to watch. He is a superstar. I'm glad he's on the Warriors. I just don't like his personality or his attitude. Personality-wise, I don't like the way he is charming and all smiles for TNT/ESPN but is cold and hurries for the FSN post-games. It says a lot that he cares so little about us, the local fans but is willing to turn on the charm for the national audience. The attitude thing is ongoing, but the game in Seattle during the 2005/06 season where he was getting outplayed by Luke Ridnour and Baron responded by shoving him and being a punk. I think this was also after Ridnour was selected for Team USA instead of Baron. That's just weak.

I'm sure everyone has their own reasons for why someone is his or her favorite Warriors player. My question for you now that we've had so much roster turnover is:

Who is your favorite current Warriors' player/players and why? What is your criteria for a player being your favorite?

Poll

Who's Your Favorite Warrior

3%

Austin Croshere

6 votes

9%

Kelenna Azubuike

18 votes

23%

Baron Davis

45 votes

8%

Matt Barnes

17 votes

10%

Monta Ellis

19 votes

13%

Marco Belinelli

25 votes

0%

Al Harrington

1 votes

22%

Andris Biedrins

42 votes

8%

Stephen Jackson

16 votes

189 votes | Poll has closed

Disclaimer #1: I know this was somewhat discussed  DJ Fuzzylogic's Yi post: The Global Economic Logic to Yi's NBA Destination, but I wanted to focus on how the Bucks have seemingly seized the moral high ground in this debate. By that reasoning I don't think it's a "repost" of the same topic, rather a focused discussion of one facet of a larger issue. Also, way way too long for a comment.

Anyhow . . .

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/marty_burns/07/05/yi.bucks/1.html

Some around the league, in fact, are applauding Harris for not being cowed by the demands of an agent, while acknowledging that he might have taken a bit of a risk. . .

"They did the right thing," Williams added. "If he was really the guy they wanted, they should be applauded. They went with their gut and said, 'He's the guy and we'll teach him to like German food and bratwurst and 10-degree weather in January.' Yes, I would definitely respect them for what they did."

It's interesting how the Bucks are being praised for trying to "preserve the integrity of the system". This is the same system that a lot of people criticize for preventing poor, urban 18-year-olds from going into the NBA. Which, and I'm the first one to agree that everything in America has an element of racism involved (hooray for blanket statements that will distract from the main point of the post), is primarily about not paying for a population of players that will sit on the bench for a year. Instead they get to, as a group and with no competitive advantage to any team, pay for a more polished product that is more likely to produce sooner yet remain under team contractual control during more productive years (19-23 vs 18-22). That's pretty much institutional collusion. In other words, it benefits the wealthy owners.

This is not a moral issue, at least not the type of moral issue that the media and NBA team execs are making it out to be. It's about business and leverage. Yi and his "handlers" (a creepy term the media has adopted for this story) have some right now, albeit not a lot, and they are using it. As they should.

This is not a benevolent system, these owners are very very rich men who belong to a very exclusive investment club. They pay athletes millions of dollars because they make 100s of millions of dollars in return. The also continuously collude to make the system benefit that end. When the agents/players find a way to game the system, the owners (NBA/Stern) counter by changing the system: Salary Cap, Luxury Tax, Bird Rule, Arenas Rule etc . . . All designed to take leverage away from the players. Sound like any other institution you've been a part of? Hint: The Bucks owner, Herb Kohl, is a U.S. Senator.

So why are the Bucks, valued at $260M, being applauded for their moral fortitude?

Two reasons:

1. Spin. The Bucks want to paint this as a moral issue. The good guys trying to preserve order vs. the bad guys who want to upset the balance of this fair and egalitarian draft system. This is important because the Bucks have to sell this draft decision to its season ticket holders and the rest of their fan base.  

What makes this spin job so easy?

2. The institutionalized morality of law. I think a lot of the NBA execs, not to mention most of the fans an the media, truly believe that, because the Bucks hold Yi's draft rights, they hold the moral high-ground. This is part of living in a 1st world society. We are taught to believe that: Rule = Good, Not Following  the Rule = Bad. This is so ingrained in our consciousness that our first reaction is to side with the people following the rules because, after all, that's what good citizens do. So when we hear about Yi, telling the NBA that he's not going to follow the rules, our probable first reaction is "who the hell does this guy think he is? Why is he so special?". The same thing happened with the when T.O. wanted to renegotiate up his contract with the Eagles (why is Nellie getting the opposite reaction?). The Bucks and the NBA have this mindset on their side an it is a huge PR advantage.

All of this spin benefits the Bucks by applying more pressure on the Yi camp by painting him as a villain. That can not be helping his marketability. Also, the Bucks have now crafted a PR safety net for themselves if the Yi gamble doesn't pay off. Almost like "bad GM insurance" (see Twardzik, Dave). So now the worst case scenario is the Bucks lose Yi and come out looking like victims of an evil plot of questionable legality. Brilliant.

Disclaimer #2: Sorry for such a serious post. Blame the Pacers. If it weren't for them I'd still be spending all of my GSOM time writing "why Dunleavy is an overrated tool" posts (seriously, he's not a good passer!). Also, I know we're supposed to stay away from politics because this is a basketball (aka fun) blog, but this "basketball" issue is really about a complex political power struggle between a lot of wealthy parties (Bucks, China, Fegan, The NBA) trying to be spun as a black and white ethical issue. By that reasoning, I think this post is 95% justified/appropriate.

*********************************************************

I gave this diary a plug on Ballhype. Hype it up!

- Atma Brother #1

Ballhype - Why are the Bucks being praised for their "Courage"?

Poll

Agree?

33%

Yes

3 votes

22%

Uh huh

2 votes

0%

Yep

0 votes

44%

Totally

4 votes

9 votes | Poll has closed

Retread in Seattle.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/warriors/ci_6296946

The Seattle SuperSonics have scheduled a Thursday news conference amid reports that the team has hired P.J. Carlesimo as its new coach.

Team officials refused to comment Tuesday on a report that first appeared on the San Antonio Express-News Web site, which said Carlesimo had been chosen by Sonics ownership.

Good god. I really am not looking forward to hearing his grating voice on the sidelines. This is something that can not and will not work. He can never have the respect of an NBA locker room.

Does he deserve a second chance? My initial reaction is yes, it's not his fault he got choked. But my second reaction is that he should have known what he was dealing with in Spree and that his lack of respect for his star player shows that he was unaware of the sociology of the NBA despite coaching in Portland prior to that.

I'm sure he's learned and I'm sure he's mellowed, but he's always going to be kind of a joke based on what happened to him. We'll see . . .

Weird article. Just basically telling Pacers fans not to be jealous. That's sad.
The only point the article tries to make is that the Warriors didn't benefit as much as we think they did from the trade. Which is dead wrong, especially considering the chemistry and, not coincidentally, the defensive intensity it helped solidify.

Strangely, he also doesn't mention DunMurpy or the massive amount of money they took on. He doesn't even try to go to the "Diogu is the real key to this trade" card. Why do they have to pee on our parade?

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/web_070504.html?rss=true

Without question, Stephen Jackson has been a major contributor. He also was ejected twice (sound familiar?) during the Dallas series - and fined heavily by Coach Don Nelson. Al Harrington, however, hasn't adapted well to being moved to center (sound familiar?) and has slipped to the fringe of the rotation. Sarunas Jasikevicius and Josh Powell rarely shed their warmups.

The fact is, the Pacers probably wouldn't have made the playoffs had they kept the roster intact. Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird accurately identified a dysfunctional team that was teetering on the brink of total collapse and acted to make a major change. If anything, the trade delayed the inevitable because it provided the new energy that led to the only real surge of the season in late January and early February.

Here's a bonus feature on the front page called "Dunleavy, A Breath of Fresh Air".
http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/0607_review_dunleavy.html