SB Nation User Blog: onlxn

Hornets Fire Byron Scott

onlxn — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:51:51 -0000

Hornets Fire Byron Scott

I'd think this would make a Jack trade to New Orleans a bit more unlikely, at least for the near future. Their wings continue to be horrible, but my guess is they'll want their new coach (whoever that ends up being) to get his bearings before they shake up the roster as well.

DG --> F/C

onlxn — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:28:32 -0000

A thought prompted by one of DFiB's and my patented ramble-offs.

So things got pretty dire pretty quickly up front. Biedrins is out for at least two weeks, according to the latest reports... Ronny could conceivably come back as early as tonight, but even if he does, we've only got three big men, one of whom is close to useless. We need to do something about this. It'd be great if we could wring a big out of whatever deal gets Jack off our hands, but it's not clear when that deal will happen... it might not happen till December or February, and we need help now.

A complicating factor is that we don't have many roster spots available. Almost every spot is filled by either a rotation guy, (Biedrins, Ronny, AR, Wright, 'Buike, Maggette, Morrow, Jack, Monta, Curry), a useful expiring contract (Law, Speedy) or a guy who can't yet be traded (CJ, Mikki). But there is one spot left to play with.

Devean George is currently hurt, and even healthy, would give us nothing on the court. He's one of the worst offensive players who still has a job in the NBA, his fading lateral quickness has made him a non-asset on defense, and he rebounds horribly for his size. We wouldn't get any value from playing him. I don't think we'd get any value from packaging him into a bigger trade, either... his $1.6M expiring contract is only our third-biggest, and you don't see teams taking on bunches of little expirings in trades, due to roster constraints. We could just let his deal expire, but I'm not sure what the point would be... even if we managed to dump Jack for a '10 expiring, we'd only be a wee bit under the cap, essentially in the same MLE territory we'd be in otherwise.

Simply put, Devean George isn't really worth anything to us. We should turn his roster spot into a big body we could use right now. There are three way to do this:

1) We could simply drop George and pick up the best available big we can find. He doesn't have to be great. Even if he's worse than Mikki Moore, he'd still help us right now... better that some big scrub waste fouls on Shaq than Maggette or somebody. We're starting to face some bigger teams. We're not going to last long without a fourth big body we can use.

2) We could trade George to a team looking to save a tiny bit of dough, for a big whose contract is a year longer. Possibilities on that front: Alexis Ajinca of the Bobcats, James Johnson of the Bulls, Hamed Haddadi of the Grizzlies. All three guys have failed to make their teams' rotations thus far; all three play for franchises that might want to shed '10-'11 payroll for one reason or another; all three have some potential; most critically, all three are not Devean George. It's more than possible that these teams wouldn't want to punt on these guys' potential so quickly (although I'd bet Haddadi's available, even with Thabeet's injury)... we might get hung up on if we offered these trades. That doesn't mean it's not worth making the calls.

3) We trade George for a big who also expires this year, sending money along to make it worth the other team's while. Essentially, we use George to buy a player, in much the same way the Raptors used George to buy Marco from us. Devean and cash to the Heat for Jamal Magloire? Devean and cash to the Nets for Sean Williams? Devean and cash to the Blazers for Juwan Howard? Devean and cash to the Raptors for... dare I say it... Patrick O'Bryant?

I'm not gonna lie. None of these options are pretty. But in my mind, they're a lot prettier than playing Cleveland, Boston, Portland, Dallas and San Antonio in eight nights with two credible big men and Mikki Moore, which is exactly what we have to do starting Tuesday. That stretch is gonna be ugly either way, but it's going to be soul-killingly horrible unless we add another big body. Dumping Devean George seems like the best way to add that big body.

ESPN's Future Power Rankings -- Warriors don't do so good.

onlxn — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:48:51 -0000

ESPN's Future Power Rankings -- Warriors don't do so good.

Link may not work for you, as this is an Insider article (NOT TO BRAG). Anyway, John Hollinger and Chad Ford projected each team's future for 2010-2013. It's just one of those silly exercises ESPN does to keep people clicking, but I thought their breakdown of the Dubs was pretty interesting. Here's how they ranked us in the five categories they discussed:

1) Players ("current players and their potential for the future, factoring in expected departures"): 16th out of 30. Sounds about right to me. We lack the superstar and defensive chops you need to have a truly bright future... on the other hand, the people who think we are unusually untalented are pretty far off base. A fair amount of potential, a fair amount of risk... our roster rates about to be roughly average overall. No arguments here.

2) Management ("quality and stability of front office, ownership, coaching"): 30th out of 30. We are last by a mile... we got 9 points out of a possible 200. At this point, I'd be hard-pressed to disagree.

3) Money ("projected salary-cap situation; ability and willingness to exceed cap and pay luxury tax"): 26th out of 30. We'd surely jump a couple spots if we do dump Jack, and even beyond that, I think this may be a little low. Cohan has been consistently willing to approach the luxury tax threshold; he hasn't been willing to exceed it, but IMO, he hasn't had a great reason to. If we dump Jack, I think we should be in the 18-20 range. Lots of teams have bigger money constraints than we do.

4) Market ("appeal to future acquisitions, based on team quality, franchise reputation, city's desirability as a destination, market size, taxes, business and entertainment opportunities, arena quality, fans"): 24th out of 30. Ouch. Kind of hard to argue with, though. We have a solid arena and great fans... that's about it.

5) Draft ("future draft picks; draft positioning"): 8th out of 30th, because we stink. I actually think this is a little high, given that we owe the Nets a (protected) pick.

Overall: 26th out of 30, with this summation: "If Cohan sells the team and the Warriors hire a competent management team and a new coach, their fortunes could change quickly, given their talent. But for now, Golden State is the most dysfunctional team in a league that has several strong candidates for that title."

Pretty solid analysis, if you ask me. What do other people think?

Five Good Things So Far

onlxn — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:35:51 -0000

This four-day layoff came at a pretty inopportune time. Usually you don't have a lot of time to dwell on a bad loss, because another game pushes it aside; thanks to our odd early schedule, we've still got a while to go till we can wash the taste of that Suns game out of our mouths. It's got a lot of us feeling worried and cranky. And to be sure, there are issues aplenty: Jack's a headache, Randolph's screwing up again, Monta's slowing himself and the team down by trying to play point guard, and we're already razor-thin in the frontcourt, two games in.

Still, I feel good about this season. I like this team, and I like our future. Here are five reasons why.

1) Stephen Curry! I am not saying that he'll be Steve Nash. I'm not saying he'll be an All-Star. I'm not even necessarily saying he'll be an above-average point guard. But I think we've seen enough to say that *we have a point guard*, a guy who can play and defend the position credibly. That's a great, important thing for this franchise... it means we don't have to live and die with Monta's development.

2) Kelenna Azubuike! Hot damn, he's looked fantastic... glad to hear he's been practicing with the first unit, because he absolutely deserves to be considered for a starting job. There's of course a dark cloud to this silver lining: I think it's pretty much a no-brainer that 'Buike will opt out of his contract this summer. That adds urgency to the drive to trade Jack, as we'd ideally get a clear sense of what we have in Morrow and 'Buike before we'd decide whether or not to extend them. Right now, 'Buike's making a pretty compelling argument that we should at least think about keeping him around.

3) Andris Biedrins! For all the talk of the MJM trio's selfishness hurting Curry, I'd say Biedrins has actually been the most affected... there hasn't been any sustained effort to get him involved in the usual screen-and-rolls of years past. But I think Biedrins has looked pretty good out there, and in particular, his passing seems noticeably better. His assist rate took a jump last year, and while we're only two games in, considering the smoothness with which he's been finding people, I'd expect another little jump this year. That'd good be, not only because it'll make him a better player, but because it may make Nellie more willing to give him consistent starter's minutes. Biedrins will never be a Nellie-friendly type of player, but I'd improved passing would make him a lot more palatable to the big man.

4) Don Nelson! I'm not going to pretend that I think that Nellie's doing a stellar job... any athletic team with defense as woeful as ours is not being coached perfectly, and Nellie continues to think that Jack's more useful than he is. But I do think that Nellie's doing an overall *good* job, as opposed to last year. He's generally playing his best players and deploying lineups that make sense; as much as I hate seeing Maggette at power forward, I can at least understand where it comes from when the alternative is Mikki Moore. Nellie's going to war with a rookie at the point at the risk of alienating a star veteran; I think that's the right call. And he seems very good at knowing how to coax smart play out of Randolph.

I do think that this roster's brightest moments will come under a different coach. Between Monta and Maggette's abilities to get to the hoop, the efficiency of Biedrins, the sharp-shooting of 'Buike and Morrow and the promise of Curry, this is actually *not* a team that needs the offensive genius of Nellie to figure out how to score. This roster's big limitations are on the other side of the ball, and that's a side where Nellie just doesn't give you much. In a weird way, I think Nellie's a poor fit for this roster. But Nellie *is* a very good coach when focused, and he seems genuinely focused again this year. I hope that keeps up... if you ask me, Focused Nellie is 8 to 10 games per season better than Tuned-Out Nellie.

5) Stephen Jackson! Okay, okay... Stephen Jackson is not a Good Thing for the Warriors right now. But we've heard a number of rumors about possible destinations for him, enough so that it seems likely that we'll be able to dump him for '11 expirings at worst, and possibly better. I'm frankly shocked by that; I wouldn't have thought he'd bring back that much even *before* he demanded a trade. But luckily for us, it would seem that a lot of GMs overrate him almost as much as Rowell and Nellie do. If his unhappiness forces us to get from under his contract, he will have actually done us a huge favor.

I really like this team. I want Jack gone yesterday, and I'll admit to being a little tired of The Corey Maggette Show, and I'm ready for Monta to start playing like Monta again, but overall, I think this is a fun, likeable bunch of guys with some real upside. Playoff-bound this year? Nah, but there's real promise here. Not in the usual "we're the Warriors and we suck so we need to pretend there's promise" sort of way, but in a "dang, we actually have pretty interesting young players at every position and a decent cap situation if we can get Jack gone" sort of way.

Of course, if we lose to Memphis at home on Wednesday, OMGSEASONZOVERFIREROWELLLARRYELLISONetc. But for now, that glass is looking mighty half-full to me.

"Stephen Jackson Is In Desperate Need Of Self-Awareness"

onlxn — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:39:03 -0000

"Stephen Jackson Is In Desperate Need Of Self-Awareness"

A post from the brilliant Tom Ziller of FanHouse... it's a week or two old, but I didn't see it posted here (apologies if it was). While he doesn't go into any real number-crunching, he estimates that Jack is no better than the seventh-best player on the Warriors. Just some red meat for those of us who want him gone.

Would You Dump Monta To Dump Jack?

onlxn — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:35:31 -0000

Geoff Lepper mentioned this thought in his most recent 48minutes column, and it's indeed an interesting thought. We want to get rid of Stephen Jackson, but he has negative value... we'll probably either need to take back crap in return or pair him with an appealing piece to get something decent. Monta is still an appealing piece overall, especially if he starts the season decently, and he's also a guy who's an awkward fit for us, both in relation to Curry and possibly personality-wise. If we do end up trading Jack this year (God willing), I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Monta shipped out along with him.

So let's say this was possible. Let's say we could trade Jack and Monta for expiring deals... for now, let's say Jack and Monta for McGrady. I don't think Rockets would agree to this trade, even if McGrady never plays again; they have a better version of Jack in Ariza, and a GM as savvy as Morey can do better with their coming cap space than Monta and Jack. But let's say he goes on a drinking binge and calls Riley or Nellie and offers this deal. Should we take it?

It's close, but to me, I think it'd be worthwhile. The subtraction of Monta and Jack would leave us with a rotation that looked something like this:

PG: Stephen Curry (30), CJ Watson (18)

SG: Anthony Morrow (32), Kelenna Azubuike (16)

SF: Corey Maggette (32), Kelenna Azubuike (16)

PF: Anthony Randolph (32), Ronny Turiaf (16)

C: Andris Biedrins (32), Ronny Turiaf (16)

It wouldn't be quite that neat, of course... Mikki Moore would probably soak up ten 4/5 minutes a night when some of the bigs get in foul trouble, Wright will grab a few minutes if and when he's healthy, and of course more injuries would muddy the picture further. But this would pretty much be it.

I like this lineup, for six reasons:

1) It features eight guys at their natural positions.

2) All eight guys are efficient scorers (assuming Curry rediscovers his stroke).

3) All four backcourt members can shoot the three (again, assuming Curry's return to form).

4) This is a better rebounding lineup than any that features Monta at the two and/or Jack at the three. This is, in fact, a downright *good* rebounding lineup, if Curry's rebounding is anywhere near the level projected.

5) This is an efficient allocation of minutes, with everybody getting the playing time they deserve. As things stand, useful players like CJ and Azubuike will rarely see action... in this scenario, we'd get value out of their presences.

6) This is, at least as far as we know, a 100% drama-free group. It's basically Kawakami-proof.

There are, of course, some problems. Our defense would suffer without Jack; our aggregate playmaking would be worse; we'd be punting on Monta's possible superstar potential. But to me, none of these quite qualify as dealbreakers. We had the league's worst defense last year *with* Jack, and our younger guys might develop more quickly if they're not told he'll be there to bail them out (which, again, he usually didn't last year). Our assist totals would go down, but so would our turnovers; I don't think our overall playmaking would suffer much. And if Monta can't play the point, as it seems like he can't, he probably *doesn't* have superstar potential... he's an undersized two who doesn't shoot threes and is iffy on defense. He's as good as anyone with that description could possibly be, but that falls a bit south of "superstar".

Don't get me wrong... we'd be worse this season without Monta and Jack, particularly if the injury bug hits again. But I doubt we'd be more than 5-6 games worse than if we had them. And next summer, we'd have enough room to sign a max player, no matter how low the cap goes. Who would that be? I have no idea... I don't think we'd land any A-list guys. But the flexibility would sure be nice.

So, overall, yeah. I think I'd be okay with saying goodbye to Monta if it meant saying goodbye to Jack and getting cap space back. But it's really all predicated on Curry panning out. If he's as good as we all hope, Monta is thoroughly expendable. If he's not -- if his shot doesn't return, if his playmaking doesn't live up to projections, if he can't defend credibly -- it's probably too risky.

It's yet one more reason why I'm excited to see Curry's regular-season debut tomorrow night. If this kid's a star or anything close to it, things will get very, very interesting.

What do y'all think? Is Monta + Jack better than or worse than 2010 cap space?

Poll

If we could dump Jack and Monta's deals for expiring contracts, should we do that?

YES!

95 votes

NO!

136 votes

231 votes | Poll has closed

Trading Jack: The Ultimate Price

onlxn — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:36:37 -0000

This thing got ugly quick. I don't think we're yet past the point of no return... Jack's a sane and intelligent guy, and it's not impossible that he'll shape up come Opening Day and things will quiet down a little. But the odds of that aren't looking very good. Jack has created a nasty feedback loop, where trading him becomes both more necessary and more difficult. There's no way we're getting any expiring '10 contracts for him... there's no way we're getting anything of real value here. The guy's looking pretty radioactive right now, and the only way we'd be able to move him would be if we took a horrible contract back. I'm talking HORRIBLE.

We're Warriors fans... we're used to staring horrible in the face. So let's look at the worst case scenario. Let's assume it comes down to the grossest contract in the league. Let's talk about Stephen Jackson for Eddy Curry. (We'd have to throw in one of our expirings to make the trade work... I threw in Speedy, but Law would work too.) If there were no other possibilities, if it came down to trading for Curry or nothing, should we do it?

The argument against is pretty simple. Eddy Curry is a horrible player on a horrible contract, a malcontent, a fat and lazy bum, a blight on the earth. Wherever he goes, locusts and vultures and spiders follow soon after. The very idea of him is almost depressing beyond belief. The sheer negative power of the karmic combination of Eddy Curry and this franchise could create streams-crossing levels of risk to the universe as a whole. It's not hard to argue against this trade.

I'm going to argue *for* this trade. My argument has five pillars:

1) This is a trade we could make tomorrow. The Knicks would love to get out of the Eddy Curry business. They're about the only bad team that can feel somewhat confident that Jack will play hard for them. They could use another decent player to try to attract free agents. Above all, they could use as much '10 cap space as they can find, to try to attract free agents... this would give them $2.8 million more of it. There's an argument that we should wait till the deadline to find a more attractive deal, but that deal may never come... come February, there will be many more appealing guys available than Jack. Pressing the dreaded Eddy Curry button now would end this headache.

2) We actually could use a power forward, and we're not likely to get any decent ones in return for Jack. On the rare occasions when Eddy Curry plays, he plays a position of need for us... he plays that position badly, but he's probably not much worse than Mikki Moore. I'd rather see Curry out there than Moore, for entertainment value, if nothing else.

3) An unhappy Eddy Curry would be much less of a distraction to this franchise than an unhappy Stephen Jackson. An unhappy Jack brings a lot of baggage: "We Believe" memories, captaincies, friendships with other Warriors. There'd be no baggage with Eddy Curry. He's just some goof we'd be adding for non-basketball reasons. No history, no fuss, no problem. If he's feeling down, he doesn't even need to show up. What do we care? He sucks, after all.

4) Curry's contract expires in 2011 (assuming he exercises his player option next summer, which he absolutely will). An $11.3 million-dollar expiring contract always has value as a trade chip, no matter what the economy's doing. There are always going to be some teams that need to shed payroll for one reason or another... come February of 2011, those teams are going to be mighty interested in Eddy Curry all of a sudden.

5) Even more intriguing than the prospect of trading his contract, though, is the prospect of simply letting it expire. This trade would leave us with Monta, Beans, Maggette, Turiaf (assuming he exercises his player option), Randolph and Curry under contract for a total of about $40.7 million dollars, with 'Buike, Morrow and Wright as our relevant free agents... depending on the cap level, we could have $12-15 million to play with before we re-sign any of those guys. This would be a pretty interesting situation.

2011 will be a much weaker free agent market than 2010, of course, but it'll feature a smaller number of bidders, as well. There definitely won't be that many *attractive* bidders -- most of the destination teams will have already shot their wad this summer. 2011 is a year where we might actually win the bidding for somebody. And who might that somebody be?

Andrei Kirilenko will be 30 to start the '11-'12 season. That's not young, and he's not necessarily the type who'll age gracefully... there'd be some risk to signing him. But you can't tell me that a Curry/Monta/Maggette/Kirilenko/Randolph/Biedrins/Turiaf core doesn't sound at least a little interesting. Would a $26 million two-year deal be enough to nab a thirty-year-old Kirilenko? I think it's at least possible.

So, yeah, I'd do it. If it came to it, I'd trade Stephen Jackson for Eddy Curry. Would you? Would you pay... the Ultimate Price?

Poll

Would you trade for Eddy Curry, if it was the only way to get rid of Stephen Jackson?

Yes. Double Currys FTW!

205 votes

No, no, a thousand times no. Shame on you, onlxn.

403 votes

608 votes | Poll has closed

Thoughts On Preseason Game #2 (GS @ LAL)

onlxn — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:31:06 -0000

(I figure it'd be good to discuss the first game most of us were able to see... if a mod puts up a recap, feel free to remove this.)

So, that wasn't pretty. There was no real reason to expect it to be... if you only have two real NBA-quality bigs in uniform, the Lakers are not the team you want to play. Add in the absence of 'Buike and the early exit of Monta, and this was bound to be ugly.

Still and all, I gotta say that I was delighted to see the boys again. Fun to see Randolph's hyperness, fun to see Morrow's quick release, fun to see Maggette being his jostling, frustrating self. I like these guys!

You can't glean much from a preseason game, but if we're not gonna overanalyze, why are we here? Thusly:

1) If Stephen Jackson's body language looked familiar, that's because it was identical to Al Harrington's body language around this time last year. Tunnel vision, gunning, no interest in fighting through screens (that was Jack who gave Sasha those open jumpers), *zero* rebounds. The idea that Jack is a brilliant team leader becomes more comical by the month... it's a PR gimmick he invented, a savvy one, but an empty one. If we can move him for contracts that expire in '11, I think we've got to consider that. It would be good to not have the guy anymore.

2) Curry! He reminded me of a young Monta, actually -- more shooting and less driving, o' course, but another little combo guard who can do a lot of stuff and makes his share of mistakes. I'm very, very excited about him, but I'm not convinced that giving him heavy PG minutes to start his NBA career is the right move... learning the league *and* the position simultaneously is a lot to ask. He seems like he's at least annoying on defense, which is a start.

3) God, I love Randolph. I don't know if he'll get as good as we all hope, but he's pretty damn entertaining as it stands.

4) There was something exciting about watching Morrow catch fire and realizing that last year really wasn't a fluke... that we really got a pretty good player out of nowhere. If the franchise's plan is to promote Randolph, Curry and Morrow as our nucleus for the future, this game accomplished that, if nothing else. I heart those three.

5) Not much to say about the other returning vets. Glad to hear Monta's okay. Biedrins was Biedrins, and it's weird how nobody thinks that's an important thing anymore... we still have a good young center here, people. I didn't have any beef with Maggette's game, as it's not like we should expect him to be able to cover Pau Gasol.

6) I didn't see much in the four non-Curry newcomers. Law's numbers look good, but really he shot a lot of free throws because Lakers kept bumping into him randomly, not because he was making things happen. He's playing hard, at least, and I guess he's probably good enough that we wouldn't miss CJ if we threw him into a package deal near the deadline. Moore didn't look at all useful... Pruitt didn't show anything to make you think he's a must-sign. It did put a smile on my face to see Speedy, and he did okay in limited time. But really, if any of these guys play significant minutes, something's gone wrong (which it already has, with Wright's injury... I hope we're trolling the D-league for an improvement on Moore).

Overall, it was vintage Dubs basketball: a bunch of fun plays, porous defense, tons of mistakes. Most of the guys played hard, though, and for a night where we faced the world champs and were several rotation guys short, it could've been worse. A .500 season isn't out of the question. But the first order of business should be to get Jack out of there... he's making a stink, he doesn't lead, he doesn't rebound, he doesn't shoot well, and his defense isn't nearly good enough to solve our problems on that end. Thank him for the good times and send him on his way... let's kill "We Believe" once and for all and see what the young 'uns can do.

Nash Agrees To Two-Year Extension With Suns

onlxn — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:41:42 -0000

Nash Agrees To Two-Year Extension With Suns

My guess, though I could be wrong, is that this will lead to an extension for Amar'e once he's proven he's past his eye issues. They seem to be circling the wagons around what they have, the upshot for us being that 1) an Amar'e acquisition is almost surely dead at this point, and 2) the Suns will continue to be a competitve team this season, making our snagging a lower playoff seed a tough challenge.

How Much Would You Give For Amar'e?

onlxn — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:20:07 -0000

The thread jae started about a possible trade for Amar'e Stoudemire (trying to get used to the apostrophe) has been one of the best around here for awhile. It's covered a lot of ground and inspired a lot of useful, thoughtful discussion. It's also revealed one simple fact: collectively, we seem pretty conflicted about this trade. Amar'e offers big upside, but any trade would involve giving up a lot of talent and taking on a lot of financial risk... there are arguments in both directions. Some GSOMers think we need to grab this guy at all costs, some GSOMers think it's not worth messing with the young talent we have, and some GSOMers fall somewhere in between.

I have no hope of ending this debate, nor any desire to do... as I said, it's been a great discussion, and people on all sides are making excellent points. But I do want to try to get a rough sense of how many people are taking each position.

There are obviously thousands of possible offers we could make, a few of which have been suggested by people (including me), but most will never come close to happening, and trying to account for all of them would bog us down, at any rate. Let's stick to the various packages that the teams have actually discussed, according to reports: the base package of Biedrins/Wright/Belinelli, that package plus Curry, or that package plus Curry and Azubuike. (A Biedrins/Curry/Belinelli configuration was briefly rumored, but didn't seem to have legs, and it'd mess up the math anyway.)

So. How far would you go? Package A? Package B? Package C? No offer? Any offer? Where you at?

Poll

Which Amare package would be your final offer?

No offer -- let's stick with the guys we have

66 votes

Biedrins, Wright, Belinelli

241 votes

Biedrins, Wright, Curry, Belinelli

15 votes

Biedrins, Wright, Curry, Azubuike, Belinelli

4 votes

Whatever it takes to get the guy

6 votes

332 votes | Poll has closed