SB Nation User Blog: dso

[OffTopic] Thoughts on Prop 8

dso — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:24:57 -0000

Disclaimer: please, for a second, remove from your mind temporarily the cliches forcefed into you these last few weeks. You can go back and tout the "it's wrong, it's unfair", "separate but equal", and the "it'll be taught in schools!!!" argument afterwards.

The first thing that really irks me is the argument that marriage is a fundamental right. It is not. I don't know when Locke's social contract and the concept of inalienable rights included marriage, and perhaps it can be placed under the umbrella of "the pursuit of happiness", but marriage is too deeply connected with religion to be under the jurisdiction of law and the social contract. Instead, marriage should viewed as an extension of religious faith and be granted religious freedom in gay marriage. If their church approves gay marriage, it should be allowed. If their church disapproves of gay marriage, it should not be allowed. Therefore, though marriage itself is not a specific "fundamental right", it is an expression of faith, and so an interpretation of marriage should not be forced by law.

The ironic thing is that any church in good standing with God should wholeheartedly reject the premise of gay marriage. The Bible is very clear as to the gender orientation of marriage. Thus, one would think that even if the government is impartial in its view on marriage, no Christian church would allow gay marriages to transpire. But they are happening. Is the government forcing the church's hand? Or are churches independently taking the wrong path?

If it is the latter, there is no basis for a proposition to redefine marriage. However, if it is the former, then the existence of prop 8 makes sense. Unfortunately, I think it will be very difficult to prove that the government is coercing the church to accept gay marriage, especially since many gay marriages are done without a church's backing.

Thus, if marriage is seen as an extension of "freedom of religion", then I don't think the church has any right to vote Yes on 8. I say this even though I am Christian and am wholeheartedly against gay marriage. We should not be using the government to support our beliefs. We should understand that government is imperfect and that it is our duty to God to maintain the integrity of marriage through our own independent decisions. However, if conclusive evidence can be shown that the church can be coerced into allowing gay marriage, then perhaps a proposition makes more sense. As of now, there is no proof, just hypothetical scenarios.

K that's it for now. to summarize my position, I believe gay marriage is wrong but I do not believe the government can condone/endorse a religious position, and marriage is very much a religious institution. If the government or individuals misconstrue the acceptance of gay marriage as a basis to attack the church, then we're going to have drama. But as of now, I can't vote yes on prop 8.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional notes:

- The idea of gay marriage being taught in schools is not a relevant argument to the support of prop 8. Gay marriage is allowable right now in California. Gay marriage has not been taught in schools ( a few random cases can be seen as anomalies, not proof). Now, if gay marriage is forcibly taught in schools, then the church has a right to fight against it through some sort of amendment, once again upon the premise that marriage is an extension of religious belief and the government cannot force anyone to choose a religion.
But as of now, there is no proof beyond hyperbolic predictions and the education system of Massachusetts: but what happens is one state does not equate to that exact same scenario happening here.

If gay marriage is taught in schools, let's fight it to hell and back. But as of now, schools should perhaps take a neutral position in references to marriage, using the statistical majority of heterosexual marriage as a "normal" position but realizing that homosexual marriage is plausible depending on the interpretation of the respective church. However, even this neutral stance should be altogether avoided until a student is "of age" -- an ambiguous term, yes, but one that needs to be defined asap.

- The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible.

- Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.

- Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights.

- The idea of "equality for all" is another argument that needs to be clearly defined before anyone starts popping off about it. Same with "separate but equal" denouncements used by the "No" crowd. The only reason prop 8 should not be passed is because of marriage's position as a religious institution and the government should not be allowed to force a religion onto someone. "Equality" is overrated. If you want equality, take your income and subtract it by mine, then split the difference with me. K stfu.

- the "it's wrong, and it's unfair" is another brainless argument employed. First off, it's redundant. Second, you're not explaining why. Third, if your argument for it is that marriage is an unalienable right, you're wrong. Finally, if you think a church is discriminating by not allowing gay marriage, you're even wronger. A church has every right to follow its belief, and homosexual acts fall under our definition of sodomy.

edit: made things clearer

If this thread isn't appropriate for this blog, please remove it as you see fit mods. I understand this is a basketball blog; I just think this will be an interesting discussion to have regarding one of the more controversial current issues.

Harrington Trade Possibilities [updated 11/1]

dso — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:58:55 -0000

I. Potential Trades with confirmed sources:

1. Harrington for Curry:

But the length of Curry's stay could be brief. The Knicks are one of several teams that have contacted the Golden State Warriors about disgruntled forward Al Harrington, though the Warriors are said to be more interested in a package built around David Lee (16 points, 11 rebounds, 5 assists against the Heat).

One source told ESPN.com that Golden State's best offers were coming from two Western Conference rivals, but that management would prefer to ship him to the East. A straight up Curry-for-Harrington deal would appear to fill needs for both clubs, although Golden State would be taking on an extra year of salary and making a risky investment in a player viewed by many around the league as too undriven emotionally to ever be an impact player on a contending team.

ESPN's Daily Dime

Notes: Honestly? I don't know much about Curry besides his nickname was Babyshaq, he has a heart condition, and that he's out of shape. could he fit into our system? How would we use him? Off the bench? He doesn't play any D and doesn't get any boards -_- For someone who's 6"11, 290+ pounds, thats a travesty.

2. Harrington for Jamal Tinsley

The Pacers are among the teams, sayeth NBA front-office sources, with interest in trading for Golden State's Al Harrington, who went public this week with a request to be traded that he's been voicing privately to the Warriors for about eight months, according to one informed estimate.

Sources say, however, that Harrington is rooting for a different destination, less than thrilled with the idea of a third stint in Indiana. I'm told that the Warriors, furthermore, are highly unlikely to consider taking on Jamaal Tinsley, no matter how much they need a veteran point guard after losing Baron Davis in free agency.

Although there's suddenly considerable chatter around the league about Harrington -- who can play multiple positions, shoot with range and carries a contract with only this season and next season to go at a sum of $19.2 million -- it doesn't appear that Golden State is in any rush to part with him. Yet.

Our own Chris Sheridan reported earlier this week that New York is seriously interested as well. That shouldn't be too surprising given that Harrington, as another team executive notes, certainly looks like "Mike's kind of power forward," referring to new Knicks coach Mike D'Antoni. The Warriors, though, are understandably uninterested in the players New York wants to peddle: Eddy Curry and, of course, Stephon Marbury.

ESPN Weekend Dime

Notes: Well, firstly the salaries don't match, so we'd have to add another player. As for Tinsely... he reminds me of a fatter, less motivated Baron Davis. Similar offensive deficiencies in terms of laziness. Similarly gifted in handling and passing/seeing the floor. SImilarily selfish and similar character issues. Baron, when motivated, is just a much more powerful force going to the rim than tinsley.

Still, something has to be said for a kid who racked up 23 assists a game as a rookie.

Starters MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS

Jamaal Tinsley 45 6 15 .400 0 1 .000 7 8 .875 2 9 11 23 1 1 5 2 19

Starters	MP	FG	FGA	FG%	3P	3PA	3P%	FT	FTA	FT%	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
Jamaal Tinsley	45	6	15	.400	0	1	.000	7	8	.875	2	9	11	23	1	1	5	2	19

basketball-reference.com

What do you guys think?

Some Thoughts from Game 1...

dso — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:00:21 -0000

I think we all expected this. And in a way, I'm proud the Warriors played them that close. But I think the closeness of the score belies the actual disparity in talent/execution between the teams. Even with home court, fresh legs and barrage of threes, in the end the Horents were a better team and knew what to do to win.

Let's go over the good the first...

1.) Action Jackson: Yes, he fell off in the 4th quarter. Tired legs and whatnot. But he was awesome throughout 90 percent of the game. Hitting threes, finishing well, dishing off, assuming primary ball handling responsibilites. Now, in a best case scenario, we'd have Jackson handling the ball maybe 30-40 percent of the time, not 70-80 percent of the time as he did in game 1. But of course, we can't do that without a pg.

2.) Kelenna Azubuike: What a solid player. Strong finisher, great defender, great energy player. This guy needs more playing time and needs to have some plays run for him.

3.) Maggette: He's pretty fast. And he's a pretty good shooter too. But what's best is his ability to get to the line and hit those free throws.

4.) Biedrins' defense: In fact, when Biedrins fouled out in the 4th, i knew things were bad and you could tell Biedrins knew it too. There was no one else who could gaurd Paul at that point in the game: Jackson was too tired, and no one had the close out speed to give Paul space to prevent him from driving while affecting his shot when he went for the J. Paul's shot looked bad that game and Biedrins was a huge part of that.

5.) Turiaff: Our new Foyle. Great blocks and great attitude.

As for the bad

1.) Harrington needs to go: Here's why. We have Jackson Maggette Azu Harrington. Essentially, they're all small forwards. But out of the 4, Harrington is the dumbest and the softest. He might be a good person or whatever. But he's a redundant part that does not have a strong basketball IQ and is too soft. Trade him for ANYTHING, ANY kind of pg help, and we're fine.

2.) Point Gaurd Play: From Demarcus's Nelson's 2 turnovers in three minutes to CJ watson's airball to the near heart attack Nelson gave me out of the timeout in the closing minutes, our point gaurds look outclassed, outmatched, and frankly, stupid.

3.) Weak Execution on the Fast Break: But this is to be expected when you lose your top two fastbreak-ers in Ellis and Davis over the course of the season. Azu did a pretty good job at this department, but it's a big fall-off from the near invincible fastbreaks we had with Ellis running last year.

And actually, that's about it. It was a pretty good game and we fell just a little bit short. Add in any sort of decent point gaurd play, let alone Ellis, and we win that game.

Some closing thoughts:

I feel very strongly about Harrington. He needs to be traded: redundant, soft, stupid. I don't care about his personality; this is who he is on the basketball court. I say we trade him for Ben Gordon. It's better than nothing and you know Chicago doesn't want to get rid of Hinrich.
You have to wonder about Mullin's drafting. I mean, we've needed a power forward for... 3 to 4 years now, and that's all Mullin's been drafting. But you're telling me not one can come in to play 5 to 10 minutes of energetic defense on David West? Either Mullin is failing or Nelson is wrong.
Marcus Williams, you fat piece of sh*t. Go run a few miles every day and get us some consistency at the 1. It's good for us and it's good for you.
Monta, you're an idiot.
I heard something like 20+ road games in the first two months? If we come out .500, we're GOLDEN.

That's all. overall an encouraging game and perhaps a moral victory, but I think we're close enough to being a successful team that we shouldn't settle for that.

Let's squash this JRich talk.

dso — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:40:28 -0000

Plain and simple.

For whatever reason, JRich was the odd man out. Management made the decision. If you want to hate on management, then stop reading here. You are justified in your argument, especially with the sad history of our organization. Proceed to enlighten us with your denouncing of management in the posts below.

So JRich was going to get traded. But should Mully have traded him last season, especially if the intent was to make the playoffs? Simple answer: no. He shouldnt have traded him so early. YOu can throw stats and arguments all around as much as you want, and if you feel you have such an argument then you can stop reading here too. But in my opinion, "addition through subtraction" arguments are retarded. Why? You lose Iverson, Iguodala starts scoring bunches. Does that make the Sixers a better team? No! Only with the addition of Miller do the Sixers see some improvement.. but within the context of last year, we got nothing from Wright and lost JRich. So it doesnt matter if Ellis's numbers went up due to more playing time. His increased production does not a better team make. And one thing JRich would have provided was depth. HE could have backed up the 4 in Nellieball. That's a lot of positions covered by a single player we lost, and even though KAZ covered some of it, having KAZ and JRich would have been better than KAZ and Wright. simple.

But if you accept the fact that management wanted to trade JRich, then it becomes a question of when. If they wanted to make the playoffs last season, maybe trading him so soon was a mistake. They could have waited for the trade deadline. They could have... other things. But we do know this. If the Warriors waited too long, they would have been stuck in the position of the nuggets, giving away a valuable player for a second round pick. So in that aspect, Mullin played it safe. He offered him for trade during a time that caught other GMs by surprise, netting us a pretty high pick and hopefully solid player.

This is what it boils down to people: when. JRich was going to go, sad as though it may be. Trading him that early hurt our team's ability to make the playoffs. We could have used him this year. but waiting too long would have got us nothing.

it's much akin to Billy Beane trading away star pitchers two years before their contract expires. of course, we're not as bad as Beane.

once again, that's all this is about. when.all of you arguing that our greater win total was due to addition through subtraction... you're wrong. All those who refuse to acknowledge the many ways he could have helped us this year... you're wrong. but even those who are in the right, you also have to be prepared to give a when. When was JRich going to go? and for what?

that's all. JRich, we love you, we miss you, and we could have used you last year.

LETS GO WARRIORS

Whatever we do, TRADE OUR DRAFT PICK

dso — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:50:12 -0000

I think history has proven that this current administration is bad at drafting: Fat Ike, POS.

Coupled with an overabundance of developing players, along with the real need for a PG, and the greater possibility of acquiring someone good by adding our draft pick...

And also since management has decided NOT to be a rebuilding, developing team and has put in some effort to win...

Hence, I think it's time to commit to the present and forego the future, and to do so by trading away our no.1 for 2009.

What do you guys think.

Front Office needs Testicular Fortitude

dso — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:26:48 -0000

Whether for good or bad, I think we can all agree that the departure of Baron Davis can be generally described as "disruptive". Gone is the security of spectacular, if not mercurial, point gaurd play. Gone is the chemistry and swagger of the BD/StackJack duo. When BD leaves, he takes with him the title of "best player" on the Warriors, leaving a void that our young players can only hope to fill.

But the vacuum of BD's departure is not limited to the court of basketball. He takes with him an albatross contract that provides us with huge salary cap relief. He also takes the inconsistency of his health, which we can only hope to fill with more durable, dependable players. And so and so forth.

But the point of this entry isn't to extol or denounce Baron Davis and who he was, or what he will be, as a basketball entity regarding the Warriors. I am writing this at 8:38 in the morning in Korea to urge the front office to show some consistency in their approach and not waver around like an insecure 15 year-old who just got cheated on by her first boyfriend. Continuing the analogy, the recent announcements since Baron left is much reminiscent of a girl I dated when I was 16, she was 15. For now, let's call this girl "Evil Whore".

"Evil Whore" actually wasn't too evil because I didn't understand the concept of monogamy at that age. But the mutual decision to part ways was immediately followed by a series of crazy, almost unbelievable rumors: jumping from guy-to-guy every few weeks; getting a nose-job and eyelid surgery; gaining weight/losing weight; and etc.

Point being is that the Warriors are doing the exact same thing. Jilted by one love, it appears the front office is doing every and anything to remind the world that WE DONT NEED BARON. This, i guess, isn't too bad because it shows a certain amount of "care" by the Warriors front office, in some ways appeasing the fans. But after the debacle of the Foyle/Murphy/Dunleavy/Fisher contracts, the front office had been showing a consistent pattern in shaping this team:

1.) Follow the market and match it; don't set it: This philosophy had led to several frugal and well-spent signings, especially in our not-overpaying for Barnes and Pietrus last year.

2.) "Now" is important, but don't trade the future away for it: I don't think it's fair to say that the Warriors are thinking only for the future. They were/are, however, trying to do much in balancing both the present and the long term competitiveness of the team.

3.) Draft Bigs, acquire Smalls: In many ways, this is a failed strategy, as none of the bigs drafted have amounted to anything... yet. But that's the risk of drafting bigs: you have to wait for them to develop.

The adherenece to these three steps has led to many consequences, the first being the continued persistence in not acquiring aging big men, even someone as game-breaking as Kevin Garnett. It has also led to the excising of Dunleavy, Murphy, and even JRich, since the front office re-evaulated their contracts even after-the-fact and decided that they had overpaid compared to the market. And it has led to a seeming glut of long, athletic forwards/centers who we aren't quite sure how they're going to develop, as well as a gaping hole at the point gaurd position (which we had even before BD left).

Did the Warriors follow the right strategy? Since the Warriors were thinking long term, and the long term has yet to come, I don't think a fair judgement can be made. if the Warriors had played a "win-now" card, the best case scenario would have led to a team like the Celtics, while worst case scenario, you end up being like the old Rockets with an ancient Barkley, Olajuwon and Pippen. The present strategy the Warriors seem to have been following could have led to Portland-type results. But my point isn't that one strategy is better than the other, it's that: if you picked a strategy, you better commit to it. Because any plan, no matter how good, will fail if the executor commits only half way.

So i've explained my point. I've explained my "thing". I've used bold letters, numbered points, etc. Now here's my question to management: WHY ARE YOU PROSTITUTING YOURSELF TO ARENAS, BRAND, AND WHATEVER OTHER "MAN" YOU FEEL CAN FILL THE VOID?

Let's think, peoples!

Offering Arenas max money: Let's see... score first point gaurd... volatile personality... huge ego... injury history... hmm. The only difference I see between Gilbert and Baron is a few years in age. But you know what Baron has that Gilbert doesnt have? A huge ass. And yeah, you might laugh, but Baron's body allows him to rely on strength just as much as speed, and strength lasts longer than speed. And of course, one must ask why the front office would offer nearly 20 mil a year for Arenas when he's not as good as Baron, who only wanted 13-15 mil.
Offering Brand a Max Contract: WTF. I really wish I could hear the front office's thinking behind this. First, Brand sucks. Numbers don't account for the effectiveness of a player, and if you ever watched Brand's post game, it's like having a stronger, lumpier Antawn Jamison, though Brand is a better rebounder and shot blocker. Second, Brand's coming off a huge injury. For all we know, he may never be the same. Third, WTF, with the "W" standing for "WHY" and not the usual "WHAT". WTF would you try and acquire a player that will lead to the eventual retardation of the players we've drafted over the few years. Fourth, WTF, (this time the W means WHAT). If you're willing to spend so much money on a B-level talent while sacrificing the development of our youth, as well as perhaps eventually trading our young talent away, WTF!? Wasn't that why we DIDNT GET KEVIN GARNETT? Fifth, if Brand accepts, the eventual result is that we traded Baron for Brand, but paid more money. Does a Baron for Brand trade come even close to being fair?!? Of course not!

As a fan, I really don't mind what strategy the Warriors employ. I may have differences in opinion but I will always respect an opinion if it is adhered to with steadfast determination. But in the last few days, the Warriors have shown such a pathetic desparation and wavering from their core strategy that I can't help but be disgusted. So, going back to the title: testicular fortitude. Or in other words, GROW SOME BALLS.

A Suggestion for those Charity Fundraiser Things

dso — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:18:39 -0000

You know how like... certain charitable organizations say they'll pay X amount of money for some cause for how many threes the Warriors make?

Well I say... one of these charitable organizations, if they knew anything about basketball, should start a Baron Free Throw Drive. For every free throw he makes, 20 dollars go to charity.

And for every three pointer he takes over 3, 20 dollars is taken away from charity?

This way maybe we can GUILT him into getitng his ass into the hole. STOP RELYING ON THE THREE DIDDY!!

The Prodigal Son Returns

dso — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:21:36 -0000

    As all may know, Pau Gasol has been acquired by the Lakers.

    This comes at the heels of the news that a once-favored, since-hated and now-returned Warrior has returned to Oakland in Chris Webber.

    Because much importance was placed in Webber's signing as a preventive measure for the Lakers' own desires for a substitute big, the acquisition of Gasol comes as a huge disappointment. Not only have they succeeded in finding their center, but they have a found a legitimate All-Star with an impressive skill set and a long resume of personal success. Imagining a "Twin Towers" roster with the manchild Bynum and the skilled Gasol patrolling the paint -- with the multi-faceted Odom to boot - can cause great fear of the Lakers' new super-frontcourt. And though Webber was once an All-Star in his own right, even the most cursory comparison of the two seems to largely favor the Lakers.

    So it is not surprising to find many Warrior fans wanting more, to trump the Lakers again and accelerating an arms race of sorts. But I'm happy where we are, even while acknowledging that Pietrus should probably be moved, or that our backup pg situation is still a bit shaky no matter how well Watson has been playing. I'm happy because of what our broadcasters consistently repeat and what every true fans knows: for this team, it's not about the stats, it's not about the theorycrafting, and it definitely doesn't make sense if you look at the box score. The Warriors don't make sense by any educated analysis. But when you and I assert the mantra of "We Believe", we're not only re-living the glorious playoff triumphs of last year. We're asserting faith.

    And where there is faith, there is love.

    14 years ago we drafted a player that would blast us through the ceiling of limited playoff success. For once, we would have a legit big; but not just any center: a prodigy. Great hands, length, leaping/finishing/passing ability... he had it all. A physical specimen. We placed our hopes and dreams into him, only to watch it unravel in the most devastating fashion. In this, I don't need to elaborate: most of you know the story by heart.

    For 12 years, a player, a coach and a team went on different paths. The player attempted to reach greatness on his own, and seemed ever so close in reaching it; but in spite of his unbridled ability he failed. Everywhere he went, it seemed, he would reach some sort of limited success, but always he would disappoint: the Kings, the Sixers, the Pistons. As he grew older the longevity of this pattern would shorten. And through his struggles he was afflicted with a debilitating injury to his knee, which would not hampered his ability to play, but combined with his own shortcomings it served to humble him.
    The coach also went his own path. For 12 years, he also achieved a limited sort of success, bringing promise and rebuilding to multiple franchises. But he, too, never reached the long-sought goal, and though he mentored several supremely talented players, he never appeared to be satisfied.

    And for 12 years, the team went to shit. All the hopes had gone into this one player; but he had left. The coach, angry and remorseful, also left the next year riddled with guilt. Abandoned by both, the team suffered through the longest streak of failure ever known in its existence. But a funny thing happened on the 13th year. The coach came back, and time had changed him. He was still a pain in the ass to those adherents of protocol. He still drank way too much; still cussed and screamed, still played his same old games with the media. But he had changed, and for the better: he was wiser, kinder, more aware of his own shortcomings while still understanding his strengths.

    He brought us back to the playoffs, and we all rejoiced. But he knew his work was not done, and though he loved the team he knew there was a huge abyss that he needed to fill not only with talent, but in redemption for his past mistake. And so the next year, pushing his own pride aside, he reached out to his prodigal son.

    Now, the prodigal son returns.

    It's way more than numbers. It's even more than strategy, though I could make a solid case for Webber's potential effect for our game: His mere presence is a body to shield Biedrins, which should help offset the rebounding disadvantage. His passing ability takes a huge burden off Baron - something that Jackson, and to a lesser extent, Ellis and Barnes - have tried to fill but have not really succeeded. His outside touch is something nonexistent in our current front court (besides Croshure); he can still finish well inside. All that being said, when comparing Gasol and Webber at the end of the year, it is more than likely that Gasol will post better numbers, and perhaps the Lakers may have a better record at the end of the year.

    But it's not about numbers. Look at today's boxscore: all the experts thought that Baron would impose his revenge upon the hapless Bobcats by going for 30 something and recording a near triple-double. But in our biggest blowout of the season, Baron had a quiet five points, six assists... and yet he was huge. He destroyed JRich and Boykins, those old Warrior favorites. When a team blows out another by 30 something, there's usually a huge individual abnormality in the stat line - but our highest scorer had 21 points. We got destroyed in the middle again to another pretty-good big man (Okafor going for 21 and 18) but it didn't matter. We ran all over them, to the point I felt sorry for JRich, because I know he misses it here. I know he wishes he was still a part of us, because for the Warriors, there's something more.

    There's something more, and when you apply it to this situation of the Lakers and the Warriors both acquiring a center, there's much less to fear. Because the Lakers, in their usual glitzy and superficial fashion, went for a player who has never won a playoff game, who has never even had a secondary talent to play with, who plays no defense and who scores the quietest 19ppg in the league. They don't know him, they've never played with him, and they have no idea how he will contribute or detract from their "team's" chemistry (substitute Kobe for "team"). In short, they went for the numbers without thinking too much of the effect, when all evidence shows that this year, this NBA, is all about chemistry.

    But the Warriors... we went back to the past. Mullie, Nelson, and Webber... a GM who was the epitome of Run TMC, a Player who was supposed to carry TMC to the future, and a Coach who failed to bridge the transition. But we not only went to the past to get Webber, we went back to bring back the old fans who gave up, who saw a franchise explode and were reminded that sports isn't always a break from ugly reality. It started last year when a lot of the fans - including some bandwagon hoppers and sunshine patriots - wanted to be a part of the playoffs again. But now, with Webber back, there will be a true reunion: not just with fans, old and new, but with a father and son.

There will be much rejoicing. The firstborn lamb will be slaughtered, a new cloak will be donned, and there will be much feasting and drinking. Perhaps, just like the parable, there will be a ring as well.

    LETS GO WARRIORS

Pure Speculation: Boris Diaw

dso — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:46:43 -0000

maybe trade for him? i'll start with the minuses:

huge drop off from two years ago
9 mil a year
Doesn't really address our most pressing need (backup pg, imo), while probably requiring Monta Ellis to make the trade
If he plays 4, will take playing time away from Wright.
overweight last year compared to the year before

But as for the pluses...

HUGELY versatile player; played the 4 and the 5 last season
He cannot coexist, or so it seems, with Amare Stoudamire, so he probably wants out
Averaged 7+ rebounds, 6+ assists two years ago... would look great as a 4 for us
GREAT court vision. a trio of stephen jackson, baron davis and Diaw would make a really fun, great passing team.

wut do you guys think? with our TPE and with his playing situation, (as well as the Suns' well documented desire to shed salary), it's not impossible. his value is pretty low right now so we could probably get him easily. and for all the players we have available at the 4, none of them are proven, and diaw could help with that.

"Nelson declares Wright as no help for the year." Source?

dso — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 02:48:03 -0000

I'm sorry to have to make a diary of this but in this thread -- http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/story/2007/7/10/32537/7076-- it was said that we should go for a big man because Nelson had already declared Wright to be of no help for the year.

With Nellie declaring that Wright isn't ready to contribute this season, I'm pretty sure the Dubs will have to add another big man.

So i asked twice on the thread for the source and have not yet been provided with one. I'm sorry that i have to keep asking but this statement is huge to me, and i need to see where it came from. For me, if this was truly said by Don Nelson, then it shows a lack of foresight by the front office to trade JRich, a quantifable known, for a player who we thought would have some sort of potential for the following year. After all, Nelson will at most coach the next two years. Why would he trade for a player that would provide him no help whatsoever this year?

Pree, all your abilities as a writer aside, all your history as a Warrior commentator aside, where is the source?