<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The Warriors are two-deep at every position, think highly of all 10 players they are carrying from last season, and can't stop raving about their three draft picks. So what to do about the free-agent market? "We're actively looking at all our options," general manager Rod Higgins said this week. "It would be stupid for us not to look at it that way." As he wraps up his fifth trip to the annual youth basketball camp in Chicago today, Higgins is in a spot other NBA executives might envy. The Warriors have an almost-full roster without any major holes. They can scrutinize free agents and not feel compelled to overspend -- an ideal thought, considering the shrinking list of available players. Big names commanding equally big money, like Seattle's Ray Allen and Milwaukee's Michael Redd, were among the first to agree to deals. They were followed by dozens more, including former Warrior Larry Hughes and mid-level players Jerome James and Antonio Daniels. The Warriors would like to add a perimeter shooter and another post-up big man, assets coveted by any team. But because Golden State is over the salary cap, it can only offer free agents contracts up to the mid-level exception, worth roughly $5 million. The team used its lower-level exception last season to sign Calbert Cheaney, and under the collective bargaining agreement, the exception cannot be used in consecutive years. Lower-budget shooters who are available include Charlotte's Kareem Rush and New Orleans' Casey Jacobsen, who are unrestricted free agents. Rush's teammate, Jason Kapono, is also a possibility, although he is a restricted free agent and the Bobcats can match any offer. Quality big men are harder to come by, with James headed to the Knicks via free agency and Shareef Abdur-Rahim to the Nets in a sign-and-trade. It's doubtful the Warriors and Dale Davis would be interested in a second go-around, and competition should be decent for Sonics forward Reggie Evans. </div> Source
Why would we need another outside shooter? We already have Baron, J-Rich, Dun, Fisher, Pietrus, Murphy, Zarko, Monta, and even Diogu shoots some deep shots. If anything we need to stop chucking up long jumpers and get some penetration to the rim and more post players.
Casey Jacobsen would be nice, but I think we have too many people as it is. We need to complete a trade where we send 2 players for 1 great player...
2 of the 4 bloated contracts we have signed last season are "shooters". And like Run BJM mentioned we don't need to be shooting more perimeter shots, we need to get fouled more on the way to the rim or get touch fouled in the post. I think what we have now is balanced enough in terms of shooting (off the dribble, set shooting, from 3 baseline, midrange) and we don't need more without taking away minutes from our other guys like Pietrus, Zarko and Dunleavy. Anyway, I think we're fine. To me, Converting 3 point plays in the painted area is a lot better than shooting the 3-ball or the long two where the %'s to hit are lower and there's no impact on getting those big rebounders or scorers inside in major foul trouble. If Tim Duncan or Jermaine O'neil has to sit on the bench because of foul trouble, well that's great because then we don't have to deal with him for a while. Also the big problem I have about strictly finesse shooters who shoot from a set shot, is that they often can't shoot off the dribble because they aren't skilled in that way or they also don't place much effort on defense. Give me the best pure finesse players or pure shooters in the league that play perimeter defense? It's too hard to find. Murphy: Can shoot the 3 ball off the catch in pretty much everywhere. He has his spots. Calbert Cheaney: Expert midrange marksman, especially along the baseline. Pietrus: Is money from the baseline. Jumaine Jones like corner threes. Dunleavy: Is getting better from baseline, but his real game seems to be shooting off the dribble from midrange. Derek Fisher: Like Casey Jacobsen, can hit the 30 foot 3 pointer set shot from anywhere. Like Casey Jacobsen, slow as molasses. Unlike Casey Jacobsen, no jack knife kick after he shoots it. Zarko Cabarkapa: Looks good from the baseline from midrange, is getting better behind the arc, is probably better at the midrange floater or hookshot off the dribble penetration or off the catch on the way to the basket moving without the ball. Richardson: Looks great from midrange and his ballhandling is improving. Hopefully he'll deliver T-Mac like assists in the future! 4 a game ain't bad though. Baron Davis: Streak shot, but he can deliver from anywhere to keep the defense honest. He'll probably have Jason Kidd career shooting percentages. So basically we have all these guys that can score from anywhere and off balance or off the set or of their own dribble. Some are more skilled than others, but we don't want some one dimensional guy that can't cover his own butt on defense or doesn't make anyone else better or has no good important role every night. If we wanted a pure shooter, the best guy would be to get somebody like Peja Stojakavic or Dirk Nowitzki or somebody that shoots above 46% career wise and is a perimeter player. And I don't think the Kings and Dallas are giving them up (unless they whine and beg to be traded to us). Besides Dun and Zarko are Mully's faves and are real close to being those types of players to some degree.
Well, we do have some fundamental holes in this ball club. But, I don't think those can be fixed with simple FA signing via MLE or minor trades. So, I don't expect any move, unless Mullin goes wild and make some maga trades. After all, this club was rolling at the end of last season, so there really isn't a reason to alter successful formular...
Some dude on some other board was claiming Troy Murphy for Eddy Curry via Sign and Trade and signing Reggie Evans. Is that even possibel?
I doubt any major moves happen. Although I could see Murphy getting moved. Tons of season tickets have been sold, so my bet is that the team that people are buying tickets to see will take the floor opening night. Now, come trade deadline... we'll see what happens. I could easily see Murphy getting his typical double doubles and really fool another GM into offering up too much for him. If I were Mully, I'd wait ahile.
I would not give enough for Curry to get him,would not give Murph for Curry. Reggie E could be a guy the W's bid on,but we won't be likely to put up the top offer,as here,he'd be pretty deep on the bench. Curry is poor on the boards,generally no D,not much range,tends to not be in good shape,has medical issue-and figures to get a BIG salary anyhow. Add it up and the W's don't figure to get him. Jacobson becomes interesting if we happen to swap Dunleavy-which likely makes Pitrus a starter. We have often talked about the idea of swapping D Fish-and the consensus is his contract is a poison pill nobody wants...so far. That said,I have seen some deals over the years that are not logical. If Fish goes-a PG needs to arrive,as Ellis is nowhere near ready to play the main backup. A bargain big man? We have a trade exemption which can let us send picks for someone,we could look at the stiffs available as FA's. Probably we have no more than a slim hope of getting a guy who is much more than garbage time. There may be someone with an interest in one of our players,which could turn into something far from obvious.
I agree with your sentiments completely, REREM. Not really sold on any Curry ideas, the idea of Ellis running backup just yet, and our already crowded depth at the 4 position. Just go with Zarko! BTW the rumor was kind of a small one (with really no credibility) from the espn board, I believe. But it was an interesting idea considering there were rumors about Murphy getting traded for Curry in the early offseason of last year. Here, we'll try to stick to the facts, but I thought it was an interesting scenario if we truly wanted to swap a power forward for an offensive center. One in theory, that Baron can make dominate just by opening up the defenses in the middle.
If we can make Curry to sign similar to Murphy's contract, and there will be no heart issue, I would jump on that swap faster than you can imagine. First, Curry is 5, while Murphy is 4. And, we know how hard to get a quality 5. Second, Curry just begin to scrach his potential, while Murphy pretty much capped his potential. Third, Curry's rebounding is very bad for a big man, but he can really dominate inside. Dominating big man in inside is capable of changing the game, and that's why Curry was one of the key reasons why Bulls turned their season around from a dismal start. Even with consistant double double, Murphy won't be able to change the game, and we would be lucky to see Murphy hitting 45% from the field. For Evans, there is no reason for us to add another player using MLE, when we already have very solid 10 men roster. It's like some team spending MLE on Fisher, when they have NVE and Speedy on the roster. Oh wait...
I would rather do Foyle for Curry and maybe add a player. I am not into trading Murphy for Curry. I also think if we make a trade it should be to trade 2 for 1; not 1 for 2. Our roster is full enough already. We have a ton of depth but too many decent players. We need to trade 2 decent players for 1 good player...
Murphy's contract is worse than Foyle's though.... Relitively speaking. Wait until the trade deadline for Murphy though. His numbers should fool a lot of people into thinking that he's much better than he is.
I like both sides of the argument and my take is it's a very tough decision to make regarding something you know you're going to get out of Murphy versus something you may not get anything of now or in the future whether it be heart issues, work ethic, attitude, or Curry capping out his potential early like Olowakandi who is getting near his 30's I think. While Curry has the inside presence to dominate in a game and change the way the game is played, I worry if it's going to be hit or miss every night. With that much money being paid out, that should buy consistency and other things like rebounding, passing out of double teams, etc. What i mean by "hit or miss", is the way Curry plays on the bulls, it seems as if he doesn't really make anyone better unless he's the center of offense. For the amount of high fg% he has, he gets a lot of turnovers, he barely gets any assists on the board, and he's been known to be out of shape at times. His work ethic could be that of Erick Dampier's when it comes to the team, but we could probably use an Erick Dampier right about now, stone hands or not. I do think "potential" is a legitimate argument because nobody except for young Shaq or Dasagana Diop are that big and run the floor the way they do. The difference is Shaq's got all around big man skills, Diop has barely any, and Curry is somewhere in between (closer to Diop of course). It would certainly make an interesting lineup if Biedrins plays power forward instead of center with Curry on the floor or if they put in Zarko or Diogu or Taft at power forward. Who knows maybe Curry could become a good rebounder eventually, but it seems to me the best rebounders are guys that want it more. He doesn't seem to want it and with the ballhogging and turnovers, you figure this guy doesn't have a concept of how to pass or recognize when to kick out. At least Dampier was pretty good in that regard. A center should be able to pass the ball well or decide well in when to pass. I guess the guy's still young, but I dunno if he's willing to learn and wants to get better than he is now. He seems to be playing for contracts and he did start out disappointing. So essentially I'm into Kwan's belief to get a guy who can be dominant when his stock is still low and stuck between CohanHater and WFS93's belief that his contract is probably going to be a bad one if he doesn't live up to expectations or that he'll never live up to expectations and we're better off with Murphy. It would be nice to hold on to Murphy and hope something wonderful happens like KG for Murphy or one of our shooting guards. I would just run around crazy for a week if we had two strong franchise players on our roster.
Curry is a beefy guy who wants to score-who in all other areas has been a slacker. Murph gets his 10-11 boards per...and scores,so to me he's as much a C as Curry. I'd feel more confident that Troy adapts his game. The price tag on Curry will be pretty stiff-and if we happened to get him-in a year this forum would be full of dump Eddie threads as he's such a black hole-one skill guy. Biedrens is going to be a good player-but it's too soon to say how good. He has nice instincts and quickness. I have yet to see a midrange J. He tends to foul-but rookies do get bad calls,and he's going to make that adjustment. Short term he can share the C role, Where his development peaks is rather hard to guess as he has a lot to learn.
REREM, but even though Curry in your book has only one aspect of "potential" in his ability to score like the next best thing to Shaq, couldn't he learn how to rebound along the way and develop more dimensions? It kind of hammers back to your point about development peaks being rather hard to guess. He's still a young player, he's got time, he may have attitude problems, but it could be something that's blown out of proportion by the media like the Nick Van Exel thing. Besides, it's not like we have any center right now that's shown flashes of dominating offensively. I think the price of Murphy could be worth it if the ceiling is there. The question is what kind of faith do both parties have in Curry getting better? If there was a high degree of faith, you betcha the Bulls would hold on to Curry and we wouldn't have a chance of landing him. So if there's a low degree of faith, but we know we're getting offensive impact, we're getting the provisions to cover our ass if he gets hurt, and we're getting a big trade chip because of the demand for any center that isn't a stiff, I think it's a trade to greatly consider even if we're not entirely sold.
I believe every team has holes. The very strong and successful King teams had holes, big holes on defense, but they were able to overcome those holes. The Sonics didn't have the best talent last year and didn't have a very strong low-post scoring option, however they became successful last year as well. Like I said everyteam has holes. Denver's team last year had holes, but at the end of the year, nobody could beat them. Going off this Denver case, along with the other cases, the difference between teams that fail because of holes, and the team succeed despite their holes, are teams with great chemistry and good coaches or at least coaches with good strategies for that specific squad. My first hope is that Mike Montgomery and the roster can come together to play with similar chemistry compared to these other teams, if not with the chemistry that they seemed to have played with at the end of last season. This team has scorers. Everyone on this team can score, and if you want to go with Clifford's theory: Everyone in the NBA has shown at some point the ability to score(I believe he said this after scoring like 30 or 40 points one night a couple seasons ago). For the Warriors, this team has players that can go beyond this, with players that have shown the ability to score(a lot) in the NBA. If Baron Davis, Jason Richardson, and Troy Murphy can get their points, then the rest of the team will be very prosperous. As we saw last year, when Baron was on the court the role players were able to fire with great accuracy. This was because the pressure was finally off their backs, both mentally and by the man guarding them. And since the Warriors already have such strong shooters with good height, getting open looks to players such as Dunleavy, Zarko, Pietrus, Fisher, and possibly Diogu for next year, will be quite easy for this team, as long as they can maintain their good chemistry and Baron Davis(or at least the offense he brings ). Offense shouldn't be a problem, this year, especially with shooters. We have a lot of them, especially as Pietrus was becoming very accurate from there last year. Defensively this team can have a few problems. But this is where the coach and team defense comes in hand. I have heard that the coaching staff has been working on a new defensive scheme for next year, and look to put it in place this season as soon as possible. Also the Warriors do have some good size. How many 6-10(or 6-9) to 7 feet players does this team have? It seems like a lot, with Murphy, Foyle, Biedrins, Taft, Dunleavy, Zarko, and I suppose if you want to add Diogu's wing span, then I guess he could somewhat qualify. On the perimeter we also have Pietrus who is the best defender of course , and Ellis is supposed to be strong defensively(though he could ge murdered if he gets posted up at 179 lbs), and Cheaney can add some stuff, and Baron Davis gets at it a little bit. The Warriors roster lacks when it comes to defense. However with a decent scheme, and players with decent size, hopefully the problem on this side of the ball is minimized. When I look at holes on this team, I don't see it too much in the roster, though there are a couple, like I have said about their defense. However like all successful teams do, they have great coaching or great chemistry to overcome these holes(that every team has) and are then able to win basketball games. I don't have too much faith in Montgomery, but I surely do hope and wish he can do good things with this team.
I pretty much agree with Clif. Just wait and see and give ourselves some realistic goals to work towards like making the offseason for the first time in 11 seasons. We don't even know what type of team we have to be in order to beat the other teams that will make the playoffs. With the comments about Monty it's too early to tell how well he'll do, so I agree with the wait and see approach. I'm sure he's trying to figure out for himself how much attention he needs to put on the players playing the game. He's not a bad coach, but he was stuck in a situation similar to a lot of college coaches being on bad teams who had nba players on it that wouldn't buy into any different ideas. We definitely don't want over-coaching or under-coaching either. It also could be the players don't buy or fit into Montgomery's style of ball or Monty has had to see how his style of ball fits the players. I know Monty wasn't the ideal choice, because in the league, players got all the power because of their huge contracts and the money and time invested in them. So he basically had nothing to earn the player's respect right off the bat except for doing something that was already proven on the NBA level or try to win them over by winning. So he was right that it is more of a player's league and not a coach's league. Can't remember who blasted him for that comment during the pre-season (could have been on another board ) and took everything out of the wrong context, but I agree that Monty will have to make his voice heard or show some kind of impact, or the team will have to find somebody that will. Who knows maybe Monty will develop a lot faster into becoming more like a Larry Brown. If anyone's angry at that notion, just chill out and have some faith.
