http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2009/4/9/828111/meeting-with-robert-rowell-8th-apr Do you believe him or not? A lot of this comes down to whether you believe RR or Kawakami.
I've been to enough of these season ticket holder functions to know it's a lot of bullsh*t . I've even been to ones that Don Nelson has held. That's what these guys get paid for -- to bring in the shills for another season. Bottom line. I'm not going to tell you how to spend your money, but I rather look at past season results, how the team looks going into the new season, who management are, especially whoever is in charge of player personnel, who the coach is, and what players they are going to keep, and get a look at who they're trying to get. The best ones are when they discuss individual players. As pitiful as Tim Kawakami's writing is, it is still better than what Rowell just said. If Rowell did not read newspapers or blogs, then how does he know about Tim Kawakami? Usually, at these Warrior functions, they don't talk about most of these things because they have not been successful. When they have been successful, it's much easier to talk about the past season and the management and key players are usually set. Just reading the above, I still wonder who is in charge of the team. It doesn't sound like it when you have different teams of people doing the key managment functions. I doubt they really offered a decent contract to Baron when it got down to the nitty gritty. I believe what Chris Mullin has said about it and that was they offered Baron an extension for three years around $36 M, in addition to the $17M he had if he did not opt out. Rowell probably didn't go for it without the performance clauses. The JRich comments just goes to show that he and Mullin had other disagreements. We know Crawford is on the trading block, but it still bothers me that they continue to promote Monta as the PG. He's been given the chance and he's shown that he's a better SG. Of course, it doesn't fit too well with the Jackson - Ellis back court then. Anyway, I think one gets more honest opinions as to the state of the Warriors from the media and this board. If Rowell answered more questions about players and made clear who was in charge of player personnel, then we all have more positive feelings and warm fuzzies from this meeting.
Jack earned his money this year. I'm not sure if he'll be able to keep it up for the length of his contract, but his improvement made him a keeper.
I'm not questioning that at all. I love Jack and what he's done, but his contract sucks for the team in the long run. What if we're not able to sign Randolph to a contract when it's time to do so?
AR is signed through 2013, so Jack's contract will be expiring. In hindsight, I think the Warriors were smart to extend Jack even though they had to pay through the nose. Rowell was raked over the coals over the Jack extension and I think you're still pointing to that. With Jack, we have a chance to make the playoffs next season. Jack is valuable because he can play PG or point forward. I rather look to trade Crawford or Mags and so far we've heard that Crawford is on the trading block. If the W's start talking about trading Mags, then I'd read Tim K. a lot less.
Damn right I'm still pointing to that! It was just really bad for the team. A team that is built on youth. Jack's best contribution to the team was two seasons ago as the 3rd or 4th option. And I still believe that is his best role. Yes, he had a tremendous season but his good stats are also marred by bad stats (i.e. turnovers, sub-par FG%...stats that show he tried to do too much and proves he should not be the #1 or even #2 option). If he can keep his TO's down and his FG% up with less FGA's, then I don't mind him staying with the team long-term. I'm willing to be patient with Jack and his contract, but the point is his contract extension was the most unnecessary thing to execute at that point in time. Usually those things get done towards the end of a player's contract. But nope, RR decided to do it two years ahead of time. I never said trade Jack. I'm just responding to the guy who posted the interview with RR. It doesn't seem like the Jack extension was discussed and I think it should have been. We have a shot of making the playoffs next season with or without Jack; with or without Crawford, and with or without Maggette. I don't understand your Tim K comment.
Where is neither? I don't believe either Rowell or Kawakami entirely. Mullin is gone because this season turned out to be bad? Uh, what did he expect from this team with Davis gone, moped accident, and tons of injuries? Don't we still have tons of young talents thanks to Mullin? What did Rowell exactly do to help this club? Jackson's extension? Crawford trade? Maggette signing? Pissing Monta off with not giving up that void thing? Losing Davis? Davis one is another thing. Do Rowell actually expect Davis would agree on performance based contract, when no other NBA player has that type of contract (as far as I know)? I don't know whether the rumor is right or Rowell's right. Either way, Rowell really didn't want to retain Davis, and what he just said sounds like an excuse, knowing that Davis won't accept that deal (or hope he is smart enough to realize that). Rowell kept mentioned the word "Business". Then, he also failed at business, because before Rowell involved heavily, we had huge caproom in 2010 to try our luck even after Maggette's signing. Instead, he stuffed that caproom with Jackson's unnecessary extension and Crawford trade, made this team essentially insolvent till 2012. Kawakami? He has too many history to be considered legit. Nice job 'predicting' that Monta will never play with Warriors. For Jackson... Yeah, you can argue that he earned his money this season. But then, we didn't extend him for this season or next season. We extended him for 2010 to 2012, when he is 33 to 35 years old for 9 mils per year. So, this year's performance has little to do with the extension. Sure, Randolph's contract CAN go to 2013 when Jackson's contract runs out. But, that means he will be unrestricted FA after 2013, and we will risk losing him for nothing. Most of superstars usually gets an extension after their 3rd or 4th year and forgo 5th year contract, and the way Randolph is developing, I seriously doubt that we will drag his contract to 5th year. If that's the case, both Jackson and Maggette's 20 mils contracts will be a burden resigning Randolph, or we may have to give up something for sake of resigning Randolph because of their contracts. Not going to lie to you. I hated Jackson's extension more than Maggette or Crawford's deal. At least their deals have some logic to it. But Jackson? What's the point of resigning him now when we can see him for next two years then decide? While I love how he gives 100% and can play multiple positions, he also dominates balls and shoots number of bad shots. If he is your 2nd or 3rd option, he is great. But then, if he is your 1st option, he can also poison the team with his bad habits. And, he will be 33 to 35 years old when that extension kicks in. I mean, how many SGs maintain their skill level when they are 33 to 35? Nobody knew how this team would turn out after Davis, and the first thing we should do is to wait to see how the things would turn out, and make a decision as late as possible. We did not get a bargain nor were in the position to lock Jackson up right now. But, Rowell just decided to jump the gun and gave Jackson an extension. It's like dumping your fortune to stock market right after the market crashed (ex: AIG at $60 per share). Sure, the market has been reliable till now. But, the market just crashed, and it wouldn't be the worst thing to wait how the market would turn out instead of jumping the gun. But the bigger problem is that we could have sizable caproom in 2010, probably the biggest FA market in NBA history. As much as I like Randolph and other young players, the current team's potential is bottom half of PO (and we didn't even know about Randolph at Jackson's extension). In another word, we need a star to become contender, and we could have a large cap room to sign an max contract if we kept Jackson and Harrington's contracts as it were. It was a rare chance for us to have, and it's not like we had to give up anything to get that chance. Instead, Rowell just threw a white towel with Jackson's extension for no good reason and ended our chance of getting that superstar. If he cares about 'business', shouldn't he at least take care of our financial situation? We will see (unfortunately) how Rowell will lead this team. But, so far, he is right next to Twerdzik level, and he can sink even further...
Ooh, that's a tough one... Yeah, you're right. All three signings were gawd-awful, but Jackson's was the most hair-brained. In terms of Chess, it was like sacrificing a rook for a pawn without any tactical reward. How terrible of a business move can you possibly make, Rowell? Oh, no, of course not, don't even consider 2010 FA year. No. Just give Jax a good-faith contract now, even though he's already signed anyway. Flexibility? Who needs it!? Flexibility is totally overrated in business. In this league. Nah, much better to throw all your eggs in one basket before the auction even opens. The entire league was laughing out loud the day Rowell gave Jackson that early extension for no reason.
Yeah, when I first heard him interviewing at the beginning of season, I was hoping that at least he manages salary better than Mullin. It turned out that his salary management is as bad as Mullin ver. 1. I guess when he said 'business', it meant Warriors not paying luxury tax and nothing else. No wonder other people said Warriors have no long term vision...
I've been reading and posting on Tim K's blogs because I didn't want to post too much negativity here . I disagree with you about Jack, and I wasn't a big Jack fan with Baron here. At the time, I didn't think Jack earned a big extension, and was ready to wait, but this season he showed he deserved it. It's the one thing Rowell did as a positive. With Baron gone, we needed Jack. And if you asked your question to Rowell, I think he would've gave you a better explanation as to why. Nelson is a reactionary coach. He's not very good in regards to long-term planning, e.g. he played Monta too many minutes the first game he returned. I don't think he's the one to take rooks/sophs and develop them into a contender; He rather win now. Jack stabilizes the team and gives them a shot to get to playoffs next season, as well as help the young players develop. He's Captain Jack and head of the Warriors' ship. So, for the next two to three years, I hope Jack fills that role -- the leader of the team and the guy with the ball in his hands.
What the money means is, is that the ball will be in that person's hands more. Jack will be the leader of that ship. Monta will get a lot, too, but not as much because he won't be playing PG. Let's face it, he's not a PG no matter what Rowell or Nelson says. AB will get his, too, but he'll have to go get it. What's interesting will be what happens to Crawford and Mags and whether this team goes out and gets a real PG.
