Larry Brown's next stop might be Golden State

USDS, that terrible ball we saw was definitely because of our roster that Mullin and company committed millions of dollars to keep together for the next 4 or 5 years. GMs don't make those kind of moves because they had money to burn. They expect the coaches to play the guys they've signed long term and the rookies to develop however they need to be developed so they turn out the right way unlike Pietrus and Dunleavy have being just thrown out there and given the pressure to be like Jrich.

When most of our bench depth is not that much better than our starting lineup, who can you go to for experience and having that natural feel for the game? It's not like we have Clif freakin' Robinson to come in and save the day or Speedy Claxton or some other sixth man. We lost all of our good vets in attempt to play guys like Pietrus or Biedrins more and they are progressing very slowly. They still make mistakes that a natural ball player wouldn't. Everything those guys do is based off athleticism and trying to be more active than the other team and they can't stay on the floor consistently. I mean who do we go to off the bench when our bench is so limited?

The Warriors history speaks for itself. Until they have a better team design in offense and they play some defense they ain't going anywhere under any coach. If this team is a scoring team like the Suns, well they better shoot free throws, get those offensive rebounds and handle the ball through traffic better. I don't see one outstanding ballhandler on this team that can score except for Baron Davis, but I hate it when that guy scores. He is such a low % guy like Antoine Walker. How can anybody be called a good shooter and not shoot free throws? Then the other reliable ballhandler, Mike Dunleavy Jr., just doesn't stand out at all and he's so slow at small forward, they shove him at power forward just to create some dribble penetration and allow other scorers like Jrich and Pietrus to be on the floor at the same time. Pietrus isn't a reliable decision maker when handling the ball... Jrich and Fisher probably aren't that great attacking the lane through traffic because one dribbles off his foot quite a bit and the other can't finish.

Here's what we need:

experienced and athletic backcourt: They need to shoot, pass, drive, and posess all the knowledge of the game

small forward: Needs to play like Jrich and do a bit of everything; post up; shoot; but primarily score off passes from the big men inside or the guards on the outside

frontcourt: Needs to rebound, play under control but play physical, intimidate, needs to catch and score from midrange or point blank from either side of the post, needs to shoot free throws at least 60-70% and have a few lessons in footwork down, must understand positioning, screen setting, how to read opposing offense motions, how to stop smaller guards from scoring inside, how to pass from the outside in or the inside out. Either the center or the power forward should be a good passer and they must match up well against the other team's starting big men.

We solve this problem we'll be in the playoffs just like the Clips. Position doesn't have to match up, but the roles do i.e. Dunleavy can play shooting guard at small forward while Jrich plays small forward at shooting guard. However, Murphy can't be playing small forward at power forward. He needs to be a inside guy, or the center does. Either way, we ain't getting that level of offense or defense or dirty work from either Murphy or Foyle. We may get it from the bench depending on how they develop. Which is why they ain't thrown in right away because they are missing something we don't see and we're playing Foyle/Murphy because that is what Mullin chose to roll with for the next 4-5 years.

 

If you want to see a good balanced roster check out the Clippers. Their bench may not stand out as the hottest, but they've got a solid starting lineup of inside and outside players and they aren't that bad on interior D. So therefore the ball can move around in a variety of ways and the inside game stays honest and so does the shooting on the outside. Plus a lot of those guys have a great midrange game and shoot well from the line especially Sam Cassell on both of those things. When was the last time we had a great midrange shooter that took those shots rather than settling for threes? When was the last time we actually made most of our free throws? When was the last time we had a guy who could rebound and also block shots and score inside? That's why I can't wait for Diogu to get a starting role. Throw in Ellis's Tony Parker type quickness and we've got a guy who can attack the lane anytime he wants just like Speedy Claxton. He'd then have to learn how to be a point guard and run the team.

The other balanced rosters, of course, are in the playoffs. And whether or not they have pure point guards, they've got a setup guy or two and some inside players and they can either shoot free throws really well or play some extremely tough defense (without picking up fouls) to slow down the other team.

Our team design is not very pretty %'s wise on scoring or defense and the coach can't control the guys not being able to make free throws or stay in front of their assignment on defense or make open shots near or away from the rim. Blame Mullin a lot more if we're blaming Monty because this team didn't have a chance at the playoffs unless our 2nd half of the last season counted towards it. Which it doesn't. Historically, we also play well near the end of the season and screw ourselves out of a higher draft pick and then miss out on a franchise player and fool ourselves into thinking that our current core is so strong that we can make the playoffs next year. Wrong again!

 

i am always up for a new coach because i personally think we are a good team even though we have some trouble at some positions. look at the bucks, the bulls, the lakers and the kings. I think we are a better team than all of them but the problem is that they are coached better. we can beat all those teams but the problem is that the other teams are a team that is coached well

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post">Is this the fans or the media's speculation of things? Just wonderin because I don't know if I believe in this whole Baron-Monty feud. Plus, I'm not even sure a coach should/shouldn't have to act like a Dunleavy Jr. and be calm and seemingly passive. I don't know if Monty has lost control of the team, but it's more about if the team is understanding how to play together and if they don't they should be fired. I tell ya the reason the out of bounds plays are great is because they got a small forward who can pass and guys like Murphy/Baron/Fisher/Jrich who can catch and produce. Take away Pietrus and Foyle and Dunleavy from scoring, you got execution there and less momentum killing plays. The big problem with translating all of this to a motion offense is you need at least some inside presence in the form of a center and you need the point to understand how to intiate and set up plays. We don't have that because the centers are too raw or unproductive in catching the ball and finishing or the point guards aren't the type who possess any court vision or patience while running offense.

What we got here is lazy ball where we try to run n' gun but we don't play defense or rebound half as well as the Phoenix Suns. Their frontline kills our frontline even though we've got taller and heavier players. On a slow team that struggles on defense we really needed to keep a tight ship on executing offensive plays and playing tough team defense. Every bad choice of an outside shot we hoist it fuels the other team's running game because our transition defense and defense against dribble penetration really sucks.</div>

I don't believe the whole Baron/Monty feud either, and I'm basing the lack of respect on my own feelings. One indicator was when Monty called a play at the end of the game (I forget what game, I'm trying to forget the whole season) that called for a quick shot, yet Baron just dribbled the clock down and took a last second shot, and we ended up losing. Also when Baron would just let any point guard blow right past him on defense with no reprecussions. Also just the looks on players faces after a failed attempt at winning.

I just try to imagine if Avery Johnson was our coach, or McMillian or Karl or Dunleavy, these coaches demand respect and the players will leave it all out on the court for these guys, I just don't see it with Monty. I think Mario Elie could demand that type of respect and would get guys to play hard, play defense, and would call out players like Dunleavy or Baron when they aren't cutting it.

My ideal situation would be for Larry Bronze to come in here for 2 years with Mario as his waiting in the wings successor. If Mario doesn't want to wait that long, than get rid of Monty right now and replace him with Mario, don't wait until the allstar break or after the season. Monty has seemed overmatched maybe even more so this year, than his previous. I mean let's say that some how we get to the playoffs next year (Baron is healthy and cares, Jrich is an allstar, Ike=Karl Malone, Biedrins=a healthy Tyson Chandler, Monta=Devin Harris, Dunleavy realizes the first 60 games actually do mean something), can you imagine how badly we would be outcoached by, Pop, Avery, D'antoni, Fratello, Karl, Dunleavy, Sloan, Phil, and whoever Sacto hires?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AnimeFANatic:</div><div class="quote_post">Yeah I'd want Brown also (maybe), he'd play Foyle way too much. And I absolutely despise that guy. Brown has a much better chance of succeeding here than NY. But I feel Sacramento will get Brown, the Maloof's said they want a defensive minded coach. Who better than the soon to be available Brown. Brown also likes to wind the clock down, which means less fast breaks probably, which Baron is the master of. Brown is 50/50 to me, but I'd take him over Monty.</div>

I agree Anime FANatic. Why would Brown want to come here when he had the same kind of problems in NY? Why would any NAME coach want to come here? Yes, he'd be a better fit for the Kings, but really don't think Brown is going anywhere.

That said, a coach like Larry Brown is a big deal because then the players would have to go through a new system again. May as well keep Monty (can't believe I said that) and fire him if he doesn't produce next season. Elie or Smart are still there last time I checked.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting upsidedownside7:</div><div class="quote_post">"Let?s get the stats out of the way when discussing this past season. The Warriors went 7-14 in games decided by three points or less. That is the most games decided by three or less for any team in the league (21). Also, the most losses (14). Going through the schedule, the Warriors played 32 ?wire job? games. These were games decided in the last two minutes, with the team up or down by no more than three points. The Warriors went 9-23 in those games. Now, 23 heartbreaking losses out of 48 total is an incredible amount for any team." http://www.nba.com/warriors/interactive/fi...og_april06.html

How could anyone possibly excuse this stat? If we were blown out every game that is telling you don't have enough talent, you need a couple more years of the lottery. The 9-23 win loss record concerning the "wirejobs" is a complete joke. Not only did we have the opportunity to win all of those games, any good coach gets you to at least .500.</div>
I think you've circled in on the most important issue for the Warriors: close games. Where we differ is in how we view them.

You look at the Warriors' poor record in close games and say, "Montgomery can't win the close ones, let's get a new coach." I look at them and say, "This team is so close to being good, getting another coach would only delay the team from getting over the hump as they learn the new coach's system."

Honestly, I think a valid argument can be made for either side. My personal belief is that a more complete understanding of the offense and defense, and better team chemistry will be what puts the team over the hump. I assume your answer is getting a coach who has a proven record of winning those close games and clutch players who cah deliver. This debate doesn't really have an answer, because GM's disagree about which philosophy is better.

When I was first thinking of how I would reply, my intent was to show you a list of all the teams from the last ten years that have gone from an extended period of being bad to being good (think Mavs and Kings in the late 90's) and show you that the vast majority of the time, the team had the same coach for the last couple of years of being bad as it did when it was good (i.e. Nelson and Adelman).

But when I researched it all, I found that there is a coaching change during this transition from bad team to good team almost as often as no coaching change.

Now it's my personal belief that the coach is too often the scapegoat for a team's yearly ineptitude. Impatient fans demand a change and it's easier to fire a coach than trade a player (or have the GM fire himself), even when the coach isn't the problem. And, therefore that teams would be better off keeping their coach for longer than two years (a la the Clippers finally keeping a coach and it finally leading to success). I can't help but think the Warriors would be in the Clippers' position now if they had kept Musselman, and that they will be in that position in a year or two if they keep Montgomery.

 

Like I said...

1. 9-23 concerning the wirejobs. If your playing competitive basketball until the last two minutes, there is NO EXCUSE to lose...NONE. That's called choking. The roster isn't an excuse if those same bums are getting you the opportunity to win. Matching the same win total as last year & 9-23 is the hard facts. Call it whatever you want but it's choking.

2. If your going to have to depend on every variable clicking together for Montgomery to get to .500 then your going to wait a long time. When Baron stays healthy, Dunleavy's shot falls, Richardson becomes a better ball handler, Ike learns Defense, Mullin gets a center, Mullin gets a backup PG etc. He's had 2 years and it's probably going to be longer than another 2 to sort out this mess. The chances are slim to none this all works out unless Mullin pulls Garnett. Time for a high risk move since your obligated to numerous liabilities. I don't see Garnett being traded, so Brown is your best bet to make a dramatic difference.

3. It's either Monty or Brown. That's it. Elie, SVG, Silas all these names will not be hired. Mullin said he was keeping his word to Monty and ensured he's coming back next year. Unless a huge opportunity comes by to not only ensure a playoff team but consumer confidence to raise season ticket #'s, their going to stick with Monty. Silas, Elie, SVG isn't going to a huge dramatic effect towards $$$ to go back on their word and isn't going to guarantee a playoff spot for them so they won't want to pay for two coaches at once.

4. All our players have warts. Baron is lazy, JRich can't dribble, Murphy doesn't try on defense etc. To say that Brown can't come here because of these player's weaknesses doesn't make any sense. If they haven't gotten it to this point (years) they are not going to get it. If it's not going to work, then ship them off and save yourself the time. If they aren't going to get better after playing with a CHAMPION coach, then forget them. Every player is already expendable so what's the fuss about keeping them? This guy fits...keep him, this guy doesn't....trade him. Point is to get the most out of what you got and I don't see anyone capable of being a Duncan, Lebron, Kobe so your not losing anything if you trade them for a piece you need. Ensure a winning environment and then worry about who to keep happy. The best player Brown ever shipped out of town was Larry Hughes, the same player we shipped out of town because of Jason Richardson. Ridding of a Larry Hughes to actually win isn't a big deal.

5. If Brown only stays two years, that's fine. It's Management's job to ensure a winning environment after he's gone. Does Phil worry about Chicago while he's on the Lakers now? No, he was hired to get Jordan a ring and he did. The end. Hire Brown to get this team to the 5th to 8th seed, teach them how to play and then he can leave. If Management hires another Monty and our organization goes to crap, that's not Brown's responsibility...that's Mullin's. That would be the exact same thing West did with Hubie Brown.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">I think you've circled in on the most important issue for the Warriors: close games. Where we differ is in how we view them.

You look at the Warriors' poor record in close games and say, "Montgomery can't win the close ones, let's get a new coach." I look at them and say, "This team is so close to being good, getting another coach would only delay the team from getting over the hump as they learn the new coach's system."

Honestly, I think a valid argument can be made for either side. My personal belief is that a more complete understanding of the offense and defense, and better team chemistry will be what puts the team over the hump. I assume your answer is getting a coach who has a proven record of winning those close games and clutch players who cah deliver. This debate doesn't really have an answer, because GM's disagree about which philosophy is better.

When I was first thinking of how I would reply, my intent was to show you a list of all the teams from the last ten years that have gone from an extended period of being bad to being good (think Mavs and Kings in the late 90's) and show you that the vast majority of the time, the team had the same coach for the last couple of years of being bad as it did when it was good (i.e. Nelson and Adelman).

But when I researched it all, I found that there is a coaching change during this transition from bad team to good team almost as often as no coaching change.

Now it's my personal belief that the coach is too often the scapegoat for a team's yearly ineptitude. Impatient fans demand a change and it's easier to fire a coach than trade a player (or have the GM fire himself), even when the coach isn't the problem. And, therefore that teams would be better off keeping their coach for longer than two years (a la the Clippers finally keeping a coach and it finally leading to success). I can't help but think the Warriors would be in the Clippers' position now if they had kept Musselman, and that they will be in that position in a year or two if they keep Montgomery.</div>

You have your opinion and I have mine. We can only see what happens.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Mister Jennings:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't believe the whole Baron/Monty feud either, and I'm basing the lack of respect on my own feelings. One indicator was when Monty called a play at the end of the game (I forget what game, I'm trying to forget the whole season) that called for a quick shot, yet Baron just dribbled the clock down and took a last second shot, and we ended up losing. Also when Baron would just let any point guard blow right past him on defense with no reprecussions. Also just the looks on players faces after a failed attempt at winning.

I just try to imagine if Avery Johnson was our coach, or McMillian or Karl or Dunleavy, these coaches demand respect and the players will leave it all out on the court for these guys, I just don't see it with Monty. I think Mario Elie could demand that type of respect and would get guys to play hard, play defense, and would call out players like Dunleavy or Baron when they aren't cutting it.

My ideal situation would be for Larry Bronze to come in here for 2 years with Mario as his waiting in the wings successor. If Mario doesn't want to wait that long, than get rid of Monty right now and replace him with Mario, don't wait until the allstar break or after the season. Monty has seemed overmatched maybe even more so this year, than his previous. I mean let's say that some how we get to the playoffs next year (Baron is healthy and cares, Jrich is an allstar, Ike=Karl Malone, Biedrins=a healthy Tyson Chandler, Monta=Devin Harris, Dunleavy realizes the first 60 games actually do mean something), can you imagine how badly we would be outcoached by, Pop, Avery, D'antoni, Fratello, Karl, Dunleavy, Sloan, Phil, and whoever Sacto hires?</div>
I would like Larry Brown too, but we definitely won't be a lock for the playoffs unless our team starts getting bigger in the middle and the power forward spots and we play some defense and execute plays. Hard to do when our big men and small forwards suck so much. Point guards don't really help if they arent running plays but there's nowhere to throw the ball into, the other team just dares us to shoot in a zone or they pressure us in man-to-man and we can't beat individual defenders.

Like wtwalker was saying, I think losing close games has more to do with our inexperience and the fact mentally weak guys choke so bad on playing defense without fouling or making free throws or wide open shots or taking care of the ball...

Coach isn't the one controlling the guys not making free throws or not running plays or not doing this other stuff. There's just few reliable guys on our roster. The players won't get a free pass and neither will the coach. So, whatever problems are really happening, I hope Mullin fixes it and I hope he doesn't cause more problems when he makes moves. I hold players and the coach accountable, but I know that our players really do suck. Most of them I mean. I look at supposedly less talented teams like Memphis or Chicago but those guys play defense, they run some plays, they block more shots than we do, they can shoot, they can handle the ball, etc, etc. Sum of the parts....man... sum of the parts must equal the whole. We've just never had talent that fits nor the experience to get to the playoffs. We've also never had that anchor at point guard or center.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting upsidedownside7:</div><div class="quote_post">Like I said...

1. 9-23 concerning the wirejobs. If your playing competitive basketball until the last two minutes, there is NO EXCUSE to lose...NONE. That's called choking. The roster isn't an excuse if those same bums are getting you the opportunity to win. Matching the same win total as last year & 9-23 is the hard facts. Call it whatever you want but it's choking.

2. If your going to have to depend on every variable clicking together for Montgomery to get to .500 then your going to wait a long time. When Baron stays healthy, Dunleavy's shot falls, Richardson becomes a better ball handler, Ike learns Defense, Mullin gets a center, Mullin gets a backup PG etc. He's had 2 years and it's probably going to be longer than another 2 to sort out this mess. The chances are slim to none this all works out unless Mullin pulls Garnett. Time for a high risk move since your obligated to numerous liabilities. I don't see Garnett being traded, so Brown is your best bet to make a dramatic difference.

3. It's either Monty or Brown. That's it. Elie, SVG, Silas all these names will not be hired. Mullin said he was keeping his word to Monty and ensured he's coming back next year. Unless a huge opportunity comes by to not only ensure a playoff team but consumer confidence to raise season ticket #'s, their going to stick with Monty. Silas, Elie, SVG isn't going to a huge dramatic effect towards $$$ to go back on their word and isn't going to guarantee a playoff spot for them so they won't want to pay for two coaches at once.

4. All our players have warts. Baron is lazy, JRich can't dribble, Murphy doesn't try on defense etc. To say that Brown can't come here because of these player's weaknesses doesn't make any sense. If they haven't gotten it to this point (years) they are not going to get it. If it's not going to work, then ship them off and save yourself the time. If they aren't going to get better after playing with a CHAMPION coach, then forget them. Every player is already expendable so what's the fuss about keeping them? This guy fits...keep him, this guy doesn't....trade him. Point is to get the most out of what you got and I don't see anyone capable of being a Duncan, Lebron, Kobe so your not losing anything if you trade them for a piece you need. Ensure a winning environment and then worry about who to keep happy. The best player Brown ever shipped out of town was Larry Hughes, the same player we shipped out of town because of Jason Richardson. Ridding of a Larry Hughes to actually win isn't a big deal.

5. If Brown only stays two years, that's fine. It's Management's job to ensure a winning environment after he's gone. Does Phil worry about Chicago while he's on the Lakers now? No, he was hired to get Jordan a ring and he did. The end. Hire Brown to get this team to the 5th to 8th seed, teach them how to play and then he can leave. If Management hires another Monty and our organization goes to crap, that's not Brown's responsibility...that's Mullin's. That would be the exact same thing West did with Hubie Brown.</div>

1. I think any coach in the league will tell you there is a BIG difference between the first 46 minutes of a competitive game and the last 2. The defense gets a lot tighter, the team goes to its bread and butter plays on offense, and perhaps most importantly, winning teams have the confidence and discipline to know how to win those tight games.

I guarantee you that whenever the Warriors go up against one of the top teams in the league, that team is thinking, "it doesn't matter who is in the lead with two minutes left, we're going to pull it out because we're better."

2. I'm not asking for every variable to click, but I do think there's a much better chance of the team clicking if they stay together and develop chemistry. Take a look around the league, nearly every successful team has had a core group of players together for several years, and in most cases, had them together before they were successful.

I don't mean to single you out here, but I can't stand when fans call for a high risk move. The Warriors have done far more of what you would call "high risk moves" than any other team in the league. They've repeatedly changed coaches, traded their marquee players, changed GM's, etc., FAR more than any other team. I do agree that it is time for a radical change in the direction of the team, and that is: NOT MAKING MAJOR CHANGES EVERY YEAR OR TWO.

3. Its just Montgomery for me. I've made my feelings clear about Brown.

4. Its not a matter of Brown not being able to remedy a player's deficiencies. It's a matter of the Warriors not being Larry Brown-type players. He was successful in Detroit because he took a bunch of disrepected, defensive-minded veterans who all had chips on their shoulders and had them fully buy into a system that was ideal for them. The Warriors have a bunch of young kids, who are offensive-minded, and have all been labeled "savior of the franchise" at one time or another (i.e. the complete opposite of disrespect).

If you think Brown is going to come in here and turn this thing around any quicker than Montgomery, I think you're wrong. That is not to say Brown isn't a better coach than Montgomery, he's much, much better. I'm just saying that Brown has much more work to do to make this a Larry Brown team.

5. If Brown comes in here, you'd better hope he stays more than two years, because it's going to take a lot longer than that to turn this into a Larry Brown team.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">1. I think any coach in the league will tell you there is a BIG difference between the first 46 minutes of a competitive game and the last 2. The defense gets a lot tighter, the team goes to its bread and butter plays on offense, and perhaps most importantly, winning teams have the confidence and discipline to know how to win those tight games.

I guarantee you that whenever the Warriors go up against one of the top teams in the league, that team is thinking, "it doesn't matter who is in the lead with two minutes left, we're going to pull it out because we're better."

2. I'm not asking for every variable to click, but I do think there's a much better chance of the team clicking if they stay together and develop chemistry. Take a look around the league, nearly every successful team has had a core group of players together for several years, and in most cases, had them together before they were successful.

I don't mean to single you out here, but I can't stand when fans call for a high risk move. The Warriors have done far more of what you would call "high risk moves" than any other team in the league. They've repeatedly changed coaches, traded their marquee players, changed GM's, etc., FAR more than any other team. I do agree that it is time for a radical change in the direction of the team, and that is: NOT MAKING MAJOR CHANGES EVERY YEAR OR TWO.

3. Its just Montgomery for me. I've made my feelings clear about Brown.

4. Its not a matter of Brown not being able to remedy a player's deficiencies. It's a matter of the Warriors not being Larry Brown-type players. He was successful in Detroit because he took a bunch of disrepected, defensive-minded veterans who all had chips on their shoulders and had them fully buy into a system that was ideal for them. The Warriors have a bunch of young kids, who are offensive-minded, and have all been labeled "savior of the franchise" at one time or another (i.e. the complete opposite of disrespect).

If you think Brown is going to come in here and turn this thing around any quicker than Montgomery, I think you're wrong. That is not to say Brown isn't a better coach than Montgomery, he's much, much better. I'm just saying that Brown has much more work to do to make this a Larry Brown team.

5. If Brown comes in here, you'd better hope he stays more than two years, because it's going to take a lot longer than that to turn this into a Larry Brown team.</div>
I definitely agree with all of this, but I'm just a big fan of Larry Brown. But you could say getting Larry Brown would be like starting Mickael Pietrus without Baron Davis in the lineup. Just like it'll prove to anyone that Pietrus ain't ready to start over Dunleavy, it'll prove just like replacing Montgomery with Larry Brown won't get the team that much better than it is now.

I see the current roster as mediocre and too young/raw as its always been. While some fans say it's playoff worthy, history has shown that we lack defensive ability, team chemistry, experience to close out the second halves, inside presence, and consistency in go-to scoring (There's no real anchors on the outside or inside on this team to set the tone). I think it's up to the GM to make whatever moves he can in the time given to him to make this a competitive team, but I definitely know it won't be a cakewalk nor will it happen over night. Until I see a roster on paper that shows a bunch of players that have the experience, the defensive effort/ability, the inside-outside game coupled with unselfishness, at least one post player, a sixth man, a playmaker, and a dribble-drive penetrator, I'll believe we have all the roles required to make a team. I just don't believe we were a playoff team because of the play of the second half of last season. You can't win by settling for high volume threes and not playing D and not shooting free throws. Especially when that type of stuff works in games that don't matter to us because the outcome of the season has already been decided. Teams that control the tone can seriously turn up the juice anytime they want. So I agree with Wtwalker about 4th quarters not necessarily being the coach's fault. There were some questionable calls from Monty and the staff, but I also see the players doing dumb stuff and replacing them with another guy probably wouldn't solve much either. Our bench has been pretty lousy...

I wholeheartedly believe the reason why we shoot threes is because there's nobody that can score inside or finish driving down the lane, and the players are too uncomfortable running a set offense that they have to remember. Plus, if the refs allow rough play, teams won't be afraid to body up on guys like Baron or Jrich and have them shoot some from the line. It'd be like hack-a-Shaq on all of our guys. But the teams we face pretty much know they can play honest D and it'll cause us to panic and force up some bad shots. Some even stay away from man-to-man coverage and dare us to shoot from the zone... or they play off the center and collapse onto the guy handling the ball. That crap only failed one time when Foyle was the warrior's leading scoring in this one game against Sacramento.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">

I don't mean to single you out here, but I can't stand when fans call for a high risk move. The Warriors have done far more of what you would call "high risk moves" than any other team in the league. They've repeatedly changed coaches, traded their marquee players, changed GM's, etc., FAR more than any other team. I do agree that it is time for a radical change in the direction of the team, and that is: NOT MAKING MAJOR CHANGES EVERY YEAR OR TWO.

</div>

I'm only going to answer to this part because there's no point saying the same thing over and over again.

As far as making changes? There's a reason we've made changes and that's because everything we've been doing hasn't gotten us results. Mullin sat back this entire year and didn't make one change when we all knew we needed a center. Your result? 34 wins. All of our changes have been for the better. Jamison, Fortson, Sura, Joe Smith, Musselman, etc. The only harmful changes were Webber (Cohan), Arenas (not our decision) and trading Tim Hardaway for chump change. You have to make GOOD decisions in order to justify not making a play and I don't see any. The only good thing consistency brought us was Richardson, our own free agent.

No payroll left, college coach that has a lame system and bunch of overpaid players. Do anything you can to get some more wins so you can trade these pieces that don't fit and get some ones that do because these guys outside of Baron and JRich aren't going to get you much. I'm talking to myself so there isn't much of a point to continue talking about this debate. You guys can stick by Monty if you want, don't expect me to because the guy is trash. Until he's fired you know what my stance is...Montygomery is a BUM!!!!!!!

There is no upside with Monty, what you see is what your gonna get.

 

I think we've pretty much explored all the issues that relate to this thread. We're pretty much going to have to agree to disagree on what's left and let time be the judge.

But I did want to comment on this part.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting upsidedownside7:</div><div class="quote_post">As far as making changes? There's a reason we've made changes and that's because everything we've been doing hasn't gotten us results. Mullin sat back this entire year and didn't make one change when we all knew we needed a center. Your result? 34 wins. All of our changes have been for the better. Jamison, Fortson, Sura, Joe Smith, Musselman, etc. The only harmful changes were Webber (Cohan), Arenas (not our decision) and trading Tim Hardaway for chump change. You have to make GOOD decisions in order to justify not making a play and I don't see any. The only good thing consistency brought us was Richardson, our own free agent.</div>

I disagree with you on one point here and I'm confused on another.

I disagree with you that trading Jamison was a good move. What do the Warriors need right now? A small forward who can shoot from the outside, doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective, is a very good rebounder, and can provide low post scoring. Gee, wouldn't Jamison fit in pretty well?

(God I hope AlleyOop, AnimeFANatic, and Run BJM are reading this because I'm about to demonstrate that I'm not an out and out Dunleavy supporter.)

Sure Jamison was indirectly responsible for the Warriors getting Baron (Jamison was traded for Van Exel who was traded for Dale Davis who was traded for Baron). But that doesn't completely rule out the possibility that Mullin would have made a different trade for Baron. He still would have needed a pg and Baron still would have wanted out of New Orleans. Also, it's very unlikely Mulln would have spent as much money on Dunleavy as he did, if he resigned him at all.

Let's face it, Jamison would be a much better fit with the Warriors right now than Dunleavy. He's turned into a great 3 point shooter (nearly 40% from 3 last year compared to the 32% he shot in his best year with the Warriors). Still rebounds well at 9.3 a game, and would be an excellent third option on offense (20.5 ppg). Warrior fans just thought after five years Jamison was incapable of getting any better. He was pushed out in favor of Dunleavy and since then, the team has been much worse off for it.

Now on to the point of confusion.

How can you say that every move was a good one when one of those moves was hiring Montgomery?!? And if Musselman wasn't the right coach in your eyes either, was hiring him in the first place the right move? Since you're going back to the days of Hardaway and Webber, so will I. If every hiring and firing of each coach the past 12 years was a good move, does that mean the Warriors should have stuck with Nelson all this time? Personally, I think I'd probably like that more than you, since it would have at least brought a sense of stability to the team. It probably also would have meant the Warriors would have ended up with Dirk in '98 instead of Jamison.

But hey, you're happy with the changes the Warriors have made.

My question to you is, if the Warriors haven't made any bad moves, and they have made A LOT of moves, just how many more moves do you think they'll have to make before they're good?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">I think we've pretty much explored all the issues that relate to this thread. We're pretty much going to have to agree to disagree on what's left and let time be the judge.

But I did want to comment on this part.



I disagree with you on one point here and I'm confused on another.

I disagree with you that trading Jamison was a good move. What do the Warriors need right now? A small forward who can shoot from the outside, doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective, is a very good rebounder, and can provide low post scoring. Gee, wouldn't Jamison fit in pretty well?

(God I hope AlleyOop, AnimeFANatic, and Run BJM are reading this because I'm about to demonstrate that I'm not an out and out Dunleavy supporter.)

Sure Jamison was indirectly responsible for the Warriors getting Baron (Jamison was traded for Van Exel who was traded for Dale Davis who was traded for Baron). But that doesn't completely rule out the possibility that Mullin would have made a different trade for Baron. He still would have needed a pg and Baron still would have wanted out of New Orleans. Also, it's very unlikely Mulln would have spent as much money on Dunleavy as he did, if he resigned him at all.

Let's face it, Jamison would be a much better fit with the Warriors right now than Dunleavy. He's turned into a great 3 point shooter (nearly 40% from 3 last year compared to the 32% he shot in his best year with the Warriors). Still rebounds well at 9.3 a game, and would be an excellent third option on offense (20.5 ppg). Warrior fans just thought after five years Jamison was incapable of getting any better. He was pushed out in favor of Dunleavy and since then, the team has been much worse off for it.

Now on to the point of confusion.

How can you say that every move was a good one when one of those moves was hiring Montgomery?!? And if Musselman wasn't the right coach in your eyes either, was hiring him in the first place the right move? Since you're going back to the days of Hardaway and Webber, so will I. If every hiring and firing of each coach the past 12 years was a good move, does that mean the Warriors should have stuck with Nelson all this time? Personally, I think I'd probably like that more than you, since it would have at least brought a sense of stability to the team. It probably also would have meant the Warriors would have ended up with Dirk in '98 instead of Jamison.

But hey, you're happy with the changes the Warriors have made.

My question to you is, if the Warriors haven't made any bad moves, and they have made A LOT of moves, just how many more moves do you think they'll have to make before they're good?</div>

That's the entire point, hire people in the organization to make a GOOD decision. Making a move or not depends on whether your actions produce results. If your obligated to guys who can't get it done, then dump them. Therefore ridding our problems of Jamison, Fortson, Musselmen etc. were good. Adding players and a coach in a hopeless scenario isn't going to work itself out. Montgomery & Foyle were complete disasters. If you make a bad hire and hope it all works out will only waste time and money.

As far as Jamison, no way I take that guy here. Dunleavy is a superior defender at this point compared to Jamison and Dunleavy is simply average. If we didn't trade Jamison and traded for Baron, that means Jason Richardson couldn't have been retained for 70 million due to being excessively over the cap and probably dealt for Baron. No way you could keep Baron, Jrich and Jamison. Even if Richardson wasn't an issue, I wouldn't want Jamison here. The ideal SF would be someone who can hit an open shot and defend....that's not Jamison. James Posey, Ron Artest, Danny Granger would be ideal. We need defense from that position more than anything else. You watch the playoffs? Jamison's got the same problems...doesn't try on defense and can't take control at the end of the game. 86 million for that? That was one of Mullin's good moves.

"But hey, you're happy with the changes the Warriors have made. "

Ridiculous. Instead of stuffing words in my mouth with weren't even linear to what I said, try reading the rest of my quote: "All of our changes have been for the better. Jamison, Fortson, Sura, Joe Smith, Musselman, etc. The only harmful changes were Webber (Cohan), Arenas (not our decision) and trading Tim Hardaway for chump change. You have to make GOOD decisions in order to justify not making a play and I don't see any. The only good thing consistency brought us was Richardson, our own free agent."

In that quote did I mention Montgomery? How did I mention firing Nelson a good thing? It doesn't a 140 IQ to take the message meaning when your GM makes mistakes, he needs to clean house. Montgomery sucks, clean house. That's not calculus. Your argument is for not making a change and to stick it out, mine is to clean house break away from this obligation when your not getting desired results consistently. Nuff said. If they had to clean house multiple times because of their mistakes, then that's a whole problem within itself that you don't understand.

"My question to you is, if the Warriors haven't made any bad moves, and they have made A LOT of moves, just how many more moves do you think they'll have to make before they're good?"

That makes zero sense. Never did I say the warriors made GOOD moves unless they were ridding of their mistakes. If they made good moves I wouldn't want Murphy, Foyle, Montgomery and Fisher gone and we would have made the playoffs within 12 years....right? Right. Again, that comes to good decision making. Don't care about how many moves it makes as long as it's the right one.

 

First, I don't know why Jamison's move is a good one. Jamison gets average of 15 mils and Dunleavy will get average of 9 mils per year. In terms of production, Jamison basically double both points and rebounding. And, if you think we can't have all Davis, Richardson and Jamison, combination of Dunleavy and Fisher or Dunleavy and Foyle are already more than Jamison's salary and Fisher and Foyle's combinations are right there with Jamison's. Also, Jamison's deal will end in 2 years, while none of their deals will end in 3 years, Dunleavy being 6 years. And, I would take 20/10 with Jamison anyday than any of those two signings. And, we are keeping those contracts for long time, so keeping Jamison along with Davis and Richardson are not a breaking point. Also, who said Jamison can't hit the open jumper when he shot 39% from 3 pts? Bottom line is that we dumped Jamison to clear caproom and to give Dunleavy a chance. And, we quickly filled Jamison's salary slot with Fisher and Foyle's salaries, and Dunleavy has been a bad fit with this club ever since he was drafted, who can't neither hit open jumper nor defend. Also, Dallas traded Jamison for Stackhouse and Harris, while we ended up with nothing. No matter how you look at it, it has been a horrible job by Mullin.

Second, getting rid of Muss was a good thing? Man, I still do remember when we had firece arguments in the eve of Muss' firing. I was against Muss' firing and you were for. And you even liked Monty's hiring back then, when I said college coach will have very little chance of succeeding. Even if we imagine that Muss was a bad coach, there is no way that Muss' firing was a good thing, since Monty has been much worse coach than Muss in basically every aspect.

I mean, what's the deal here? You said removing Jamison and Muss were good moves, but both coaching and SF positions went worse considerably ever since those moves happened, and you are one of the most harsh critic toward Monty now as well. Are you saying those moves are good, because they are not perfect fits, so that removing them regardless of future consequences are good moves? If so, exactly where does it end? Because, there is no perfect fit in every 5 positions even in championship clubs...

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jurassic:</div><div class="quote_post">Why would Larry Brown leave a team where Marbury is the star and go to a team where Baron Davis is the star? Coaching in GS would be just as frustrating, Davis is Marbury with a couple extra pounds and a worse pg%. The only difference is that the Warriors have more veterans that would be willing to listen.</div>
There is no comparison with Baron + Marbury. Marbury OPENLY dissed a coach with an NBA title,while there were "body language hints" Baron MIGHT be frustrated at Montyballs rather clear shortcomings.

Brown is a mercenary who's getting a bit burned out by health issues and stress. Even IF there's a Knix buyout...he would expect us to hook him up for mega $ after we shell out to pay Monty's fare outta here . So then Larry has "his way" and,yeah,we may find he does some of the bad stuff of Montyball...but at least with a better done system,better skills development (if you are his guy) but generally apt to waste whoever he'd doghouse.

I tend to think there are other,better options. I HAD gone into this past season thinking there was hope for Monty,that he'd gone from the stuffy stanford perimeter game to the Run+ Fun Baron blitz ...because that so obviously WORKED. WRONG.... ..as if we never had a stretch winning at 60%,Monty reverted to bad habits,seemed blind to reality,managed to set back young players, totally wasted Z,mucked up Murphy and Pietrus. Monty tried to turn Baron into a cheap copy of Fish,Pietrus into a cheap copy of Dun,Diogu into a cheap copy of Foyle....now what kind of mindset does that? How could he stiffle the gag reflex?

That Monty seemed to need a month or more to adapt..or just see the obvious seems a concern. That he failed to even LOOK at Monta at PG,when we had blown the playoffs,lost Baron...that is pathetic.

I saw about 3 weeks when Murphy was defensing the elite PF's well,ripping boards at about 15 per,scoring. and I think that showed something....to me.....Monty? musta been his nap time,maybe he has a relationship with Dun and Fish that's beyond the usual.

From all I have seen,we do best when Monty throws in the towel,or when he felt the new dude (Baron) didn't know the system (aka-anarchy in a waltz tempo) and settled for "just run and improv or whatever"

I can only conclude that almost ANY coach,or a mannequin in a suit and tie could do better.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Kwan1031:</div><div class="quote_post">First, I don't know why Jamison's move is a good one. Jamison gets average of 15 mils and Dunleavy will get average of 9 mils per year. In terms of production, Jamison basically double both points and rebounding. And, if you think we can't have all Davis, Richardson and Jamison, combination of Dunleavy and Fisher or Dunleavy and Foyle are already more than Jamison's salary and Fisher and Foyle's combinations are right there with Jamison's. Also, Jamison's deal will end in 2 years, while none of their deals will end in 3 years, Dunleavy being 6 years. And, I would take 20/10 with Jamison anyday than any of those two signings. And, we are keeping those contracts for long time, so keeping Jamison along with Davis and Richardson are not a breaking point. Also, who said Jamison can't hit the open jumper when he shot 39% from 3 pts? Bottom line is that we dumped Jamison to clear caproom and to give Dunleavy a chance. And, we quickly filled Jamison's salary slot with Fisher and Foyle's salaries, and Dunleavy has been a bad fit with this club ever since he was drafted, who can't neither hit open jumper nor defend. Also, Dallas traded Jamison for Stackhouse and Harris, while we ended up with nothing. No matter how you look at it, it has been a horrible job by Mullin.

Second, getting rid of Muss was a good thing? Man, I still do remember when we had firece arguments in the eve of Muss' firing. I was against Muss' firing and you were for. And you even liked Monty's hiring back then, when I said college coach will have very little chance of succeeding. Even if we imagine that Muss was a bad coach, there is no way that Muss' firing was a good thing, since Monty has been much worse coach than Muss in basically every aspect.

I mean, what's the deal here? You said removing Jamison and Muss were good moves, but both coaching and SF positions went worse considerably ever since those moves happened, and you are one of the most harsh critic toward Monty now as well. Are you saying those moves are good, because they are not perfect fits, so that removing them regardless of future consequences are good moves? If so, exactly where does it end? Because, there is no perfect fit in every 5 positions even in championship clubs...</div>

-Musselman sucked. There's a reason he hasn't been offered another coaching gig and it's because the entire team turned on him. Monty is a nice guy, bring him in to develop the kids and send him on his way. If he could get the team to .500 basketball, mission accomplished. After 2 years it's safe to say he's not cut out for the league and he failed on all accounts...How does the the things I said in the past change anything now? It doesn't. After watching Monty for two years, I want him gone. It was clear he was in over his head after year 1. Musselman getting 4 extra wins doesn't make me want him to come back either. Get somebody who has experience, thanks.

-Jamison's role was scoring. With Ike, JRich and Baron calling for the ball he wouldn't fit on this team and with the other options they could afford to trade him. Did I say Dunleavy is even good? No. Posey, Artest, Granger would be ideal and Jamison still does not play ANY defense. There is NO WAY they were going to resign Jason, Baron and Jamison. You can delude yourself if you want but those cruddy signings of Fisher and Foyle were going to happen regardless. Mullin hated speedy and wanted Fisher to run the point guard position. We didn't have Baron at that time so that was still a need. Whether Jamison or Richardson were here Mullin would have still hated speedy. Dampier was on the verge of being traded so Mullin needed a center and signed Foyle. Again, whether Richardson or Jamison were here the center position is something he needed to address. It's obvious they needed a center and a point guard regardless who they were deciding to build the team around. I'm not saying those signings were great or even okay, I hate those moves but your deluding yourself thinking they would have kept Richardson, Davis and Jamison. If anything Davis would have been the odd man out if Jamison wasn't dumped because nothing would have changed Mullin wanting Foyle and Fish unless he had a time machine and there wouldn't have been an expiring contract for Baron Davis.

"Also, who said Jamison can't hit the open jumper when he shot 39% from 3 pts?"

I don't know who said that because I sure didn't.

"The ideal SF would be someone who can hit an open shot and defend....that's not Jamison. James Posey, Ron Artest, Danny Granger would be ideal. We need defense from that position more than anything else. You watch the playoffs? Jamison's got the same problems...doesn't try on defense and can't take control at the end of the game. 86 million for that? That was one of Mullin's good moves."

Ideal SF would be someone who can hit an open shot and defend. AND DEFEND. PLAY DEFENSE. JAMISON CAN'T PLAY DEFENSE.

"Are you saying those moves are good, because they are not perfect fits, so that removing them regardless of future consequences are good moves? If so, exactly where does it end? Because, there is no perfect fit in every 5 positions even in championship clubs..."

They obviously weren't good fits if you haven't made the playoffs in 12 years. If Mullin goes around and makes another bad move, that's his problem. It's like the hot girl that keeps dating jerks. She lets some guy bang her for a few months, she finally realizes he was using her and dumps him. Goes to another jerk and the whole cycle starts again. Two wrongs don't make a right. Mullin's the hot chick that keeps have sex with jerk after jerk. I'm advocating for the girl to leave the jerk and find a man.

I know I sound like a d*ck in these threads but the arguments have turned ridiculous and have nothing to do with the initial topic. It's nothing personal but I get annoyed easily and I'm annoyed now. I say Monty is not cut out for the job and we start arguing about journalists and whether the quotes in the paper were real. Well, it doesn't have any bearing on Monty's performance so that doesn't really change my argument. Then someone brings in the argument of staying the course and not make changes. That's fine but that argument doesn't have any bearing on Monty's performance. If he was doing good I'd be advocating no change. If someone isn't cut out for the job, their not cut out for the job. You can wait ten years, that person still isn't cut out for the job. Now dealing Jamison was a bad move? Jamison wasn't even around for the Montgomery days. Whether you agree or not this is just reaching for anything.

Is this where you guys want to find some hole in any current argument to alleviate the Monty argument? There's no point because they have nothing to do with Montgomery's performance the past two years.

 

First, I also want to see Monty gone asap. As much as I would like to see the team sticking with the plan, I just don't see much proof that either Monty or Mullin are capable of doing anything good even if we stick with them for next 10 years. Monty failed to adjust in NBA for last two years, and even stand up players like Richardson or Foyle said they do not know what Monty is doing. Also, in terms of finance, what Mullin did in one year span is actually worse than what Twerdzik did, and I don't see him coming out from this caproom hell he created, unless he can pull Garnett trade out of this mess.

Second, I would not jump into this discussion if there wasn't a topic for Jamison or Muss, but since there is, I jumped in. If you don't wish to continue, do not respond back. But, as long as you respond, I will most likely respond back, because I do feel strongly about both issues.

For Muss, have you ever look at his 2nd year's roster? How in the world anybody expect .500 from that roster? If you give Muss this year's roster, then I can understand. However, he basically received far less talent and brand new team because he lost Arenas and Jamison. But, he showed great adjustment by changing the team from run and gun to half court offensive/defensive team, and still managed to win 37 games. If you just judge a headcoach without regarding the roster, that also makes Jerry Sloan, Scott Skiles, and various other coaches including Larry Brown bad coaches. And, what's the true meaning of the coach 'losing' the team? There is no question that Muss wasn't liked by players. However, if he truly lost the team, players shouldn't play hard like we saw many many years with coaches like PJ or even Brown in NY. Instead, players under Muss played extremely hard till the end. In contrast, I can see Monty is generally popular with players. But that doesn't make players to play hard every day. So, whatever Muss was doing, he was pushing the right button for players to play 100%, and that's just fine with me. Also, Muss didn't get a job for two years because he isn't a proven coach like Jackson, Brown or Karl. However, good coach not getting a job for years aren't exactly uncommon. Coaches like Hubie Brown, Dunleavy, D'Antoni, Fratello and number of good coaches didn't have a job for years. But that didn't mean they are bad coaches, and when they came back, they proved to be successful coaches once again. Bottom line is that if you want to make Muss' firing a 'good' decision, the alternative has to be better one. If you have a financial plan that only break even in worst situation, and you decide to choose different plan that lead you to a bankrupcy, that's not a good choice by any stretch of imagination, and that's what happened to us.

For Jamison, who said Jamison can't stay with bunch of scorers? Last time I check, Jamison won 6th man of the year with Dallas, where there are tons of scorers and far more than current Warriors roster. Jamison really is a dream player for pg like Davis, because he has a good hand, and once he catches the ball in traffic, he will most likely score in any situation. And, don't assume that we would have signed both Fisher and Foyle regardless of Jamison. First, if we kept Jamison, we would never had a caproom to resign Fisher. Also, if we had Jamison, we would have gotten different players with less salaries as well; Fisher's signing would have been avoided and instead of giving Foyle a ridiculous contract, we might have seen Dampier for Thomas and Mohammad to reduce cost and fill two roster slots instead of one. And, who knows what other package we might have provided for Davis? Bottom line is that Jamison's trade was made because of the caproom and Dunleavy, not because of "I will trade Jamison's trade for expiring contract, so that we can trade Davis in the future". Did Mullin spend salary relief from Jamison wisely? No. He quickly filled that room with his first two signings, Fisher and Foyle, and he added Richardson and Murphy's early extensions. Also, did Mullin trade Jamison, so that we can get that ideal SF, who can shoot and defend? No to that either. Dunleavy was, is and will be a below average defender and now he can't even shoot. Just like Muss' one, if your original plan performs break even at worst, and if you change a plan which bankrupts later, that's not a good choice at all.

Again, if you feel annoyed and choose not to respond back, I am just fine with it. However, if you plan to respond back, just prepare to be annoyed once again...

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Kwan1031:</div><div class="quote_post">First, I also want to see Monty gone asap. As much as I would like to see the team sticking with the plan, I just don't see much proof that either Monty or Mullin are capable of doing anything good even if we stick with them for next 10 years. Monty failed to adjust in NBA for last two years, and even stand up players like Richardson or Foyle said they do not know what Monty is doing. Also, in terms of finance, what Mullin did in one year span is actually worse than what Twerdzik did, and I don't see him coming out from this caproom hell he created, unless he can pull Garnett trade out of this mess.

Second, I would not jump into this discussion if there wasn't a topic for Jamison or Muss, but since there is, I jumped in. If you don't wish to continue, do not respond back. But, as long as you respond, I will most likely respond back, because I do feel strongly about both issues.

For Muss, have you ever look at his 2nd year's roster? How in the world anybody expect .500 from that roster? If you give Muss this year's roster, then I can understand. However, he basically received far less talent and brand new team because he lost Arenas and Jamison. But, he showed great adjustment by changing the team from run and gun to half court offensive/defensive team, and still managed to win 37 games. If you just judge a headcoach without regarding the roster, that also makes Jerry Sloan, Scott Skiles, and various other coaches including Larry Brown bad coaches. And, what's the true meaning of the coach 'losing' the team? There is no question that Muss wasn't liked by players. However, if he truly lost the team, players shouldn't play hard like we saw many many years with coaches like PJ or even Brown in NY. Instead, players under Muss played extremely hard till the end. In contrast, I can see Monty is generally popular with players. But that doesn't make players to play hard every day. So, whatever Muss was doing, he was pushing the right button for players to play 100%, and that's just fine with me. Also, Muss didn't get a job for two years because he isn't a proven coach like Jackson, Brown or Karl. However, good coach not getting a job for years aren't exactly uncommon. Coaches like Hubie Brown, Dunleavy, D'Antoni, Fratello and number of good coaches didn't have a job for years. But that didn't mean they are bad coaches, and when they came back, they proved to be successful coaches once again. Bottom line is that if you want to make Muss' firing a 'good' decision, the alternative has to be better one. If you have a financial plan that only break even in worst situation, and you decide to choose different plan that lead you to a bankrupcy, that's not a good choice by any stretch of imagination, and that's what happened to us.

For Jamison, who said Jamison can't stay with bunch of scorers? Last time I check, Jamison won 6th man of the year with Dallas, where there are tons of scorers and far more than current Warriors roster. Jamison really is a dream player for pg like Davis, because he has a good hand, and once he catches the ball in traffic, he will most likely score in any situation. And, don't assume that we would have signed both Fisher and Foyle regardless of Jamison. First, if we kept Jamison, we would never had a caproom to resign Fisher. Also, if we had Jamison, we would have gotten different players with less salaries as well; Fisher's signing would have been avoided and instead of giving Foyle a ridiculous contract, we might have seen Dampier for Thomas and Mohammad to reduce cost and fill two roster slots instead of one. And, who knows what other package we might have provided for Davis? Bottom line is that Jamison's trade was made because of the caproom and Dunleavy, not because of "I will trade Jamison's trade for expiring contract, so that we can trade Davis in the future". Did Mullin spend salary relief from Jamison wisely? No. He quickly filled that room with his first two signings, Fisher and Foyle, and he added Richardson and Murphy's early extensions. Also, did Mullin trade Jamison, so that we can get that ideal SF, who can shoot and defend? No to that either. Dunleavy was, is and will be a below average defender and now he can't even shoot. Just like Muss' one, if your original plan performs break even at worst, and if you change a plan which bankrupts later, that's not a good choice at all.

Again, if you feel annoyed and choose not to respond back, I am just fine with it. However, if you plan to respond back, just prepare to be annoyed once again...</div>

No I'm not annoyed with this debate. The ongoing debate of Montgomery turning into all these smaller debates was what was making me crabby. I wasn't talking down to you, your one of the better posters on here.

As for the debate of Muss and Jamison there really isn't much of a point going into that. Never really liked those guys. I was glad we had a fresh start but I certainly didn't wish for any of this to come into our future. Mullin's not head and shoulders above St. Jean at this point.