Harrington to Golden State?

<div align="center"><font size=""4"">Golden State Or Indiana?</font></div>
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Jul 11 - The San Francisco Chronicle reports Al Harrington called it an even split between Golden State and Indiana if a sign-and-trade deal can be worked out with the Atlanta Hawks.

"I figured that a lot of people would have interest, and they're taking a very strong look at it," Harrington said about the Warriors. "So we'll see what happens." </div>

 

I read both Janny Hu's and Marcus Thompson's articles on Harrington. (Here are the links for anyone who wants them: Hu and Thompson.) And while I'm ready to concede that just about everyone on the Warriors wants Harrington, I still think its a bad fit.

The best spin I can put on it is that Harrington will come in and be expected to have a similar role that Jamison had when he was here. And, looking at Jamison's game, the Warriors could use someone like him. But I just don't think he'll solve a lot of the Warriors problems. Their cap situation will be slightly worse than it is now if the deal is for Murphy and Pietrus. They'll be a worse rebounding team. Their outside shooting won't improve much. And I don't know about their post game, because while Harrington says he wants to post up small forwards who he has a size advantage over, that doesn't leave much of an offensive role for whoever is playing pf and c.

If Harrington comes here and the Warriors make the playoffs, I'll be happy to admit that I was totally wrong about this. But until that time, mark me down as being strongly against this move.

 

Maybe it's more about ticket sales? Warriors totally duped fans last season and if they add Harrington in a big trade expect more ticket sales and hype again. Anyway, whether or not it makes the Warriors better or worse I want to see the trade happen. Lets just wait and see what happens, we're one day away.

 

I'm with wtwalker on the reasoning here. I've got a totally different philosophy for what this team needs and it sure doesn't need more limited range scoring/post scoring at odd positions (positions that aren't PF/C, because like wtalker mentioned, "what do F/C do on offense if their roles aren't to post up on the blocks?"). Plus does Harrington offer anything defensively when he's too slow for small forwards or too weak against power forwards? Sounds like the whole Murphy/Dunleavy or Murphy/Jamison dilemma all over again...

What I'm saying is that the SF/PF Harrington deal would ignore everything else like our financial situation, perimeter defense, shooting range, offensive rebounding, chemistry, ballhandling, and the all-around type of play/teamwork to get everyone else involved. We would still lack a secondary playmaker that virtually every playoff team has: From Diaw to Mobley to D-wade to Lamar Odom to Ginobilli). If Baron gets shutdown, can Harrington reliabily handle the ball and make decisions better than Dunleavy? I don't think so. Harrington is a scorer and he's got a scorer's mentality. I don't think he'll make the extra pass and he'll be a bigger version of Fisher. Very limited, especially if he's not even as good as Ike Diogu or Elton Brand when playing undersized as power forward.

Let's also talk about building on to what we already have (Jrich/Baron as a foundation). For anybody that doesn't know the roles of a shooting guard versus a small forward, a shooting guard is like a scoring version of a point guard. (Both guard positions can be a scorer's mentality, but they must do so within the flow of the game, let the game come to them, and work primarily to get the ball inside by breaking down defenses, moving off the ball, to run the break, or to attack with the ball).

The small forward is generally considered the all around scorer that can do damage in the post, take somebody off the dribble, score from anywhere, and is a blend between shooting guard and a bigger forward. We're talking a real offensive mismatch with a wide array of finesse/power type skills. (A good prototype is a healthy Grant Hill, Lamar Odom, Rashard Lewis, Carmelo Anthony, Dirk Nowitzki (SF/PF), Kevin Garnett (SF/PF) or Lebron James, all these guys have some passing ability, a nearly unlimited offensive game, good rebounding, some ballhandling, and post skills). Past small forwards that were excellent were Chris Mullin/Larry Bird/Rick Barry/James Worthy/Elgin Baylor/Scottie Pippen/Dominique Wilkins and so forth.

Since Jrich has swapped roles with the small forward (as the dynamic all-around scorer), I almost feel that we need that secondary ballhandler to replace Dunleavy. He should also be the defender and passer that the shooting guard should be. (See Kerry Kittles, Doug Christie, Aaron Mckey and their roles on once-championship caliber teams with scoring small forwards and "point guards" that get doubled a lot. We need that "glue guy" that can take over as a point guard in ballhandling, shooting, passing, or whatever needs to be done. Now I'm not saying Jrich can even compare or live up to those past/present small forwards, but he needs an unselfish perimeter teammate that will fit him since he's our best guy to build around (for now). Dunleavy used to be very efficient complimentary player, but the problem is he's an easy target because this team has very little all-around talent inside, we had some bad point guards in our time, and we have no impact players scoring in the paint for us to take pressure off the perimeter.

The other thing is I think Dunleavy isn't that bad of a defender, he at least comes to help out on a poor rotation. He's just weak and slow. Compare that to Murphy who rebounds, but is pretty weak and slow as well, and lazy when it comes to help D. Ever since that contract or that hard foul from Shawn Bradley, he's become somewhat of a wimp. Of course, I know that he prefers to stand still so he can get good positioning on defensive boards, but he's got to help out because the new nba handcheck rules are making it harder and harder to stay closer on a defender individually. So if we had a laterally quick guy, he's still got to play off a bit. I think this is also why Pietrus gets whistled a lot for things that looked perfectly legal a few years ago. Our team needs 5 quick guys ready to work together in closing the other team's passing lanes or ability to attack. Help defense of course, moves only as fast as its slowest guy because the other team is going to attack that defensive liability.

Anyway, I want to replace Dunleavy in the worst way, but not with a guy who is a crap fit and only scores. The SF should be able to rotate between G/F and take over some point guard duties because we know Jrich really isn't a true shooting guard. I would gladly trade Jrich if a true shooting guard came up and he was equally as good in scoring effiency or better. But I think we need that small forward that compliments the perimeter that we have. I think Dunleavy is that guy for now because we couldn't swing a trade for Granger, we didn't draft Ronnie Brewer (who may be more of a guard anyway), and we missed out on Diaw/Joe Johnson type trades when they were on the block.

 

Put me on the bandwagon. While my thread "memo for next season" is still fresh in my mind, I dont understand how people can think that adding Harrington to this team will not make us better.

1. How long will we have to suffer by watching Dunnothing as our starting SF? How long have we been calling for an big athletic SF and not an undersized G/F (Pietrus ring a bell)? Dont get picky. Sure he is not TMac or whoever your dream SF addition would be, but he sure is a huge step up from Dunleavy. We cant have 5 starting players who are All Stars. Be thankful it is him and not Dunleavy.

2. The same can be said for Murphy. How long do we have to suffer from his game? How long have we been calling him to be sent off? This allows Harrington to spot in for him at PF and let Diogu and company grow. I think they are ready. They have different games, but I think they will be better than Murphy. Sure Murphy is an automatic double/double, but that does not really matter to me if he is the only guy rebounding. I want a more athletic guy there too. I have been saying this since Murphy signed his extension and now guys are saying his contract is too large etc. Now you have the chance to and you get cold feet?

3. Granted, I dont think of Harrington as the savior, but he alone will be a dramatic improvement in if anything scoring and athleticism than Murphy and Dunleavy put together. Thankfully we did not have to do that and we get away with sending off only Murphy. I like his game, but I would rather have a power guy who can post up consistently inside and score 18-20pts per game easily. Harrington has not even peaked yet. He is a young guy and we will have a great young back court with him Baron and Jrich.

4. This guy is almost as good as getting someone like Marion from the Suns. Both guys are tweeners, athletic and can score. They are not the saviors, but they are not even close to being scrubs. They are closer to being All Stars than our current forwards for sure. So quit crying. He is the best thing out there. (unless you are dreaming about landing Garnett or Jermaine Oneil)

WAKE UP!!!!

 

Quit crying, WFS93? All right... just don't get tons more upset if we overpay him for 5+ years like all the other offseason guys we've signed and something better pops up at all-star break or next offseason.

Then who will be crying? All of us. If we're not playoff-ready yet anyway, let's not screw all flexibility in the months to come because Dunleavy or Murphy suck and we can't stand them being on the same team together. You can't fix a mistake with another type of mistake. Fans can be impatient, but I hope the GM sure isn't. We're screwed if he gambles wrong with no backup plan.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post"> All right... just don't get tons more upset if we overpay him for 5+ years like all the other offseason guys we've signed and something better pops up at all-star break or next offseason.
</div>

We all know the saying, hindsight is 20/20. I dont have a crystal ball to see what kind of deals will be available at the all star break, or next offseason, or 4 offseasons from now. All I know is Al Harrington is way better than either Murphy or Dunleavy in terms of scoring and athleticism. We all hoped Pietrus would pan out, but he just is not big enough to guard guys like Dirk and does not play smartly enough for us. Besides he is a FA soon anyways so he will be gone basically. All I can say is I am looking at the now and I know Harrington is better than what we would be giving up for him NOW.

I also think that Baron lost complete confidence in Dunleavy with the way he started out the season. We all remember when team chemistry went down the drain and Golden Boy started calling out Baron. Baron AND Jrich are both calling HARD for Harrington even though he will likely start at SF where Dunleavy plays now. That HAS to say something. If he is good enough for Baron and Jrich our 2 potentially All star players, he is good enough for me to replace Murphy/Dunleavy...

BTW, I wont consider it over paying him if he gets around the projected 5 year $50m deal which seems awfully similar to Dunleavy/Murphy's contract if he scores at least 18ppg like he did the last 2 seasons...

 

I'm with WFS93 on this one, if we go into this season with essentially the same team as last year there will be a mutiny by the players and fans. I like the addition of Al for a few reasons, first, correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't he be making close to what Murph makes? Around 10 mil a year? Also, if we were able to get rid of Fisher and now possibly Murph, and we were able to get rid of a max contract with Tawn, what makes you think we are in any different of a position?

Second, he is young and seems to be boys with Baron and Jrich, or at least they have more in common then Murph, and it seems Baron needs to be happy to play well.

Third getting Al relegates Dunleavy to the bench where I think he can excel and become a more well rounded Mike Miller. Dunleavy can be the first guy off the bench for either Al or Ike, with Al moving to the 4. It was pretty obvious that Baron and Dun don't co-exist very well, so this would give Mike an opportunity to handle the ball more with the second unit, initiate offense or start firing away.

Lastly, it just shakes thing up a bit, Murph can't be happy hearing his name come up with every single trade rumor, it's obvious he's a little too limited to be an effective PF in the West and can't be on the court at the same time as Dun.

I do see all your points Custodian, but there seems to be too much wishful thinking, and we all want something to happen right now. Plus if Indy or Minny is struggling at the break, we still have the pieces to get something done. I'd be extremely happy if we got to keep Mickael (for this year), and it was just Murph for Harrington.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Mister Jennings:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm with WFS93 on this one, if we go into this season with essentially the same team as last year there will be a mutiny by the players and fans. I like the addition of Al for a few reasons, first, correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't he be making close to what Murph makes? Around 10 mil a year? Also, if we were able to get rid of Fisher and now possibly Murph, and we were able to get rid of a max contract with Tawn, what makes you think we are in any different of a position?

Second, he is young and seems to be boys with Baron and Jrich, or at least they have more in common then Murph, and it seems Baron needs to be happy to play well.

Third getting Al relegates Dunleavy to the bench where I think he can excel and become a more well rounded Mike Miller. Dunleavy can be the first guy off the bench for either Al or Ike, with Al moving to the 4. It was pretty obvious that Baron and Dun don't co-exist very well, so this would give Mike an opportunity to handle the ball more with the second unit, initiate offense or start firing away.

Lastly, it just shakes thing up a bit, Murph can't be happy hearing his name come up with every single trade rumor, it's obvious he's a little too limited to be an effective PF in the West and can't be on the court at the same time as Dun.

I do see all your points Custodian, but there seems to be too much wishful thinking, and we all want something to happen right now. Plus if Indy or Minny is struggling at the break, we still have the pieces to get something done. I'd be extremely happy if we got to keep Mickael (for this year), and it was just Murph for Harrington.</div>

I could not have said it better. Well put. I especially agree with your sentiments about starting the regular season with our only major offseason activity after 12 straight seasons of not reaching the post season is trading away Fisher and drafting POB...

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Warriorfansnc93:</div><div class="quote_post">We all know the saying, hindsight is 20/20.
</div>
What??? How can I be looking at things in hindsight if this Harrington deal hasn't happened yet? I'm making an opinion the opposite of the pro-Harrington jockers. Based on what I've seen from the guy on two different teams over the span of 4 years I've seen him play, I think he's a bad fit and we'd be giving up too much for him in those trade scenarios. It'd be nothing more than a desperate and crap lateral move that could potentially steal more playing time away from our big guys because Harrington plays more like a power forward than he does a small forward.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Warriorfansnc93:</div><div class="quote_post">
I dont have a crystal ball to see what kind of deals will be available at the all star break, or next offseason, or 4 offseasons from now. All I know is Al Harrington is way better than either Murphy or Dunleavy in terms of scoring and athleticism. We all hoped Pietrus would pan out, but he just is not big enough to guard guys like Dirk and does not play smartly enough for us. Besides he is a FA soon anyways so he will be gone basically.
</div>
That's two things you have down: Scoring and athleticism. Where is the rest? Dunleavy + Murphy + Pietrus, collectively still bring more to the table than overpaid Harrington and they could potentially bring more in return if their values are up. They all came off a bad year and trading them now for just Harrington is a complete waste and a bad investment, especially if Harrington sucks as a starter and is better off a sixth player. What if it turns out that all Harrington does is hog the ball, score, take touches away from the true PF/C's on this team and doesn't have the quickness or strength to guard either SF or PF position. You figure a guy that athletic or strong would get more rebounds, blocked shots, or would stick to one position he can play. He's a damned tweener.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Warriorfansnc93:</div><div class="quote_post">
All I can say is I am looking at the now and I know Harrington is better than what we would be giving up for him NOW.
</div>
And thank the gods, you're not GM! You'd make Isiah Thomas look like executive of the year.

Think about that for a second and why the GM in a rebuilding mode shouldn't be solely focussing on the NOW.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Warriorfansnc93:</div><div class="quote_post">
I also think that Baron lost complete confidence in Dunleavy with the way he started out the season. We all remember when team chemistry went down the drain and Golden Boy started calling out Baron. Baron AND Jrich are both calling HARD for Harrington even though he will likely start at SF where Dunleavy plays now. That HAS to say something. If he is good enough for Baron and Jrich our 2 potentially All star players, he is good enough for me to replace Murphy/Dunleavy...
</div>
Well F*** Baron. At least elf boy played in almost all the games in last season and he still shot better than Baron's dismal shooting %'s. A point guard that shoots in the high 30 %'s, has been injured almost half the games in a season for the last 3 seasons, can get to the line anytime he wants and doesn't make free throws? That's embarassing as Dunleavy being a consensus top 3 pure shooter and not being able to knock down open jump shots consistently.

If Baron/Jrich wants Harrington, well that's good for them, unfortunately they aren't paying the bills or worrying out the future outlook of this team. I wouldn't be suprised if a relationship soured when we start losing again because Harrington isn't the right fit at SF or PF. This is a knee jerk situation for everyone because Dunleavy came off a bad year and Mullin has done a horrible job addressing the small forward situation much sooner (even before Dunleavy/Pietrus had the crap years). Now, there's all this pressure to lock up the best available guy this season that we may not want later on because he doesn't add to the chemistry. We may be hard pressed to move this deal if nobody wants fair value for him.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Warriorfansnc93:</div><div class="quote_post">
BTW, I wont consider it over paying him if he gets around the projected 5 year $50m deal which seems awfully similar to Dunleavy/Murphy's contract if he scores at least 18ppg like he did the last 2 seasons...</div>
You think Harrington will still score 18ppg with guys like Baron/Richardson/Ike on the floor and Harrington playing small forward instead of power forward? What about defense, rebounding and passing? Atlanta is a totally different team, different conference, different context so stats don't really show the whole picture of what he could do for us out in the bigger Western Conference (just look at Murph man and how small he plays). If we're starting tweener Harrington at PF in the West we're going to get smoked and if we start him at SF, we may just end up just as one-dimensional as we are now. It's not the same as playing Elton Brand or Carlos Boozer or Zach Randolph there. And lastly, Dunleavy's lack of scoring wasn't so much the problem, it was his ability to fit in, keep defenses honest, add to the chemistry, and take the pressure off Jrich in the ways he needed it. A higher volume of inside scoring and less playmaking at the SF spot won't change things if we've got nobody who can help deliver the ball to Jrich/Baron or other scorers inside.

Remember Larry Bird? "It's not who scores the ball, it's who can get the ball to the scorer." It's one reason why we never win despite having excellent scorers on the roster. Defense and control of the paint is another problem if only one guy scores the ball at one time and the rest aren't doing anything to aid that production or slow the production down from the other team.

 

Ok, I see your points. What would you suggest then? To start the season as is with no major improvement in this team and just hope for some reason they magically improve their winning percentage to over .500%

The way I see it is it seems like every team in the western conference who was either better than us or right there with us did something to try to improve their team. All we did was get rid of Fisher's contract and draft a soft project at center...

That to me is unacceptable.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Mister Jennings:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm with WFS93 on this one, if we go into this season with essentially the same team as last year there will be a mutiny by the players and fans.
</div>

Well, this is why Mullin shouldn't have stood pat after a meaningless win streak in '04-'05, keeping the same team as beginning of '04 despite defensive and inside scoring problems. He also jumped the gun on Dunleavy. Mullin intended to wait on Murphy/Richardson for next season, but he balked on holding out. He then thought Dunleavy would also have a career year much like Murphy/Richardson, but the key difference was that Dunleavy hadn't proved anything tangible like the other two. He frequently disappeared and the things he did simply weren't noticeable enough to affect the game or other players.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Mister Jennings:</div><div class="quote_post">
I like the addition of Al for a few reasons, first, correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't he be making close to what Murph makes? Around 10 mil a year?
</div>
If it's Murphy for Harrington that would be more fair than giving them Pietrus. That would be b.s. Again, I'm not convinced that Harrington is a real starter on our team, so I think his value is lower than what other teams probably might see him as in terms of scoring numbers. Murphy for Harrington would be a wash IMO. More scoring, less touches from our other players, still the same problems as ever before. Plus Harrington might even take away more playing time from PF position since he is more like a PF.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Mister Jennings:</div><div class="quote_post">
Also, if we were able to get rid of Fisher and now possibly Murph, and we were able to get rid of a max contract with Tawn, what makes you think we are in any different of a position?
</div>
The key difference in the Fisher and Antwan deals was we were trading for cap space or draft picks or both. We received several players that could help now, add veteran presence and provide shorter term contracts. With the Murph/Piet or Murphy for Al Harrington, it just gives us one long term contract player for two players and he'll probably be as overpriced as Murphy but having the same or less amount of dimensions to his game (especially rebounding and outside shooting). I'm assuming we're paying him to be starter at SF and that is a big time investment which could be harder to dump later on unless we package something to get teams to take it. I don't think he's going to put up outstanding numbers because the Warriors are a slightly better scoring team than the Hawks so his role might bump him down to 3rd or 4th scoring option below Ike/Baron/Jrich.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Mister Jennings:</div><div class="quote_post">
Second, he is young and seems to be boys with Baron and Jrich, or at least they have more in common then Murph, and it seems Baron needs to be happy to play well.
</div>

This is a basketball team not a friendship club. The question is can Harrington play a pure position and do it the right way? I think he's too much in-between and he's not the type of guy to make the extra pass. Only one guy out of five players can score the ball at one time and I believe we need more setup guys and ballhandlers. We also need strong defenders. Harrington is as questionable as Dunleavy or Murphy. So this possible move could wipe out rebounding/distance shooting from Murphy or perimeter defense/open court scoring from Pietrus. If those two players are valuable to us in some way, there's got to be another team thinking the same and willing to give up more for those guys than just Harrington.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Mister Jennings:</div><div class="quote_post">
Third getting Al relegates Dunleavy to the bench where I think he can excel and become a more well rounded Mike Miller. Dunleavy can be the first guy off the bench for either Al or Ike, with Al moving to the 4. It was pretty obvious that Baron and Dun don't co-exist very well, so this would give Mike an opportunity to handle the ball more with the second unit, initiate offense or start firing away.
</div>
Dunleavy ain't no sixth man, you have to put the ball through the hoop, play good D or do whatever is needed to do that. If he was barely a starter now, I doubt he'd be a sixth man because a sixth man could start. At least South Dakota was rookie of the year that one year and he proved for a lot longer streaks that he could start for the Grizzlies.

I also disagree that Dunleavy doesn't co-exist well with Dunleavy. Dunleavy is the only guy that looks to set up the point guard because nobody else does. He'll throw alley oop passes, he'll bounce pass to hit him inside. The problem with Dunleavy is his shot absolutely sucks and even in a 45% field goal year, he's streaky game to game where he'll get 6 of 6 one game and 0 for 6 the next and a series of 3 for 6 games where he's barely noticed. Then let's look at Murphy who ball hogs it with the jab step, Foyle drops the passes, Jrich feels obligated to score since he's the team's most efficient scorer... Harrington wouldn't replace Dunleavy that well as starter and he'd be doing a lot of the things that Murphy still does to not help the team.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Mister Jennings:</div><div class="quote_post">
Lastly, it just shakes thing up a bit, Murph can't be happy hearing his name come up with every single trade rumor, it's obvious he's a little too limited to be an effective PF in the West and can't be on the court at the same time as Dun.

I do see all your points Custodian, but there seems to be too much wishful thinking, and we all want something to happen right now. Plus if Indy or Minny is struggling at the break, we still have the pieces to get something done. I'd be extremely happy if we got to keep Mickael (for this year), and it was just Murph for Harrington.</div>

Wishful thinking? All I'm asking for us is what Wtwalker was saying. Let's wait for a better opportunity. We don't buy high and sell low. We don't need to fix a big mistake with an even bigger mistake or simply make a lateral move that doesn't do anything or makes things worse. Harrington seems like the best option for the moment to some people and I think a rebuilding team shouldn't be thinking about right now when they're not quite there yet anyway. There's always a chance that Pietrus/Dunleavy could rebound from bad years. If we get their values up, then we can trade multiple players rather than trying to dump just one like Al Harrington. Murphy + Pietrus at high value could get a lot more IMO.

Besides, the only thing that really attracts me more to what Atlanta has to offer is they've got a glut of small forward rookies that can also play guard. What about Josh Childress/Marvin Williams/Josh Smith for Biedrins/Taft/POB/Zarko? Those guys have to give up at least one of them. It's insane why we'd look to just Al Harrington, a SF/PF former high school standout to play SF out in the West and rob time away from our platoon of power forwards. Bad, bad fit IMO.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Warriorfansnc93:</div><div class="quote_post">Ok, I see your points. What would you suggest then? To start the season as is with no major improvement in this team and just hope for some reason they magically improve their winning percentage to over .500%

The way I see it is it seems like every team in the western conference who was either better than us or right there with us did something to try to improve their team. All we did was get rid of Fisher's contract and draft a soft project at center...

That to me is unacceptable.</div>
That's because you're impatient and your mindset is still in playoff contention mode rather than rebuilding mode. We can still keep Jrich a la Elton Brand on the Clips. But we need a better core surrounding that player's production. That will take time and patience.

So what is the course of action? Well considering Mullin's inability to sign a contract without having the player overpaid for 5+ years and winding up on the bench a year later... I think we should look for trades by all-star break so Mullin doesn't get molested by any more sports agents. We could dangle a few young pieces (hopefully ones we won't regret later on or won't be able to sign), maybe offer a pick if we're risking it. Maybe some teams needs a trade exception or they're willing to give up a draft pick for it. This year also might be the time to stock up on extra picks if 2007 is a deep draft year.

I guess what this boils down to is Mullin having the right assets to begin with and recognizing the right opportunities when it comes across to him. The trade should sell itself, not the person b.s.ing. So far Mullin's made like one "good trade" and that's it. The rest he's either made moves to dump players, acquire picks, or standing pat. He doesn't really follow up on a move like he has a direction to work from. As a GM, I don't think he's got the ability to win because he still has to build from the draft and he really set himself back in '04 when had a virtually clean slate with money and he f-ed up his salary resources on crap players that weren't worthy of starting. He did so because he felt he had built something "playoff worthy", and that was just bad judgement... like his drinking problems of years ago.

If we kept Foyle/Fisher at reasonable prices and contract lengths, they wouldn't be that bad because other teams might want them then. But this is why GMs who have no experience in putting together winning franchises, shouldn't be GMs... and it's also why we should blame the ownership for putting another "name with no game" type personnel in charge. We should've gotten key guys who've had experience making franchises successful. Those are the guys we should overpay. I'd take Danny Ferry over these suckers like Isiah Thomas or Chris Mullin who only draft well, but can't build upon their drafts, and are more famous for the way they played basketball than managing a team.

But if I'm Mullin, I'd keep acquiring picks if I could, find good veteran depth from other teams, develop Ike/Jrich/Ellis/Baron until we can find an nba ready small forward or decent mid-level center. Lots of things change at the deadline. I don't think we're that far away in landing a good player or getting to the 7-8th seed, but then again, center is a big role and the other four players around it are unproven or they aren't that good. It's an immense role to find somebody that can protect and dominate the paint in spurts, but having a good power forward and a decent center with an above average backcourt + above average small forward could make a huge difference. It's all about balanced inside/outside/transition/halfcourt play and I can't express enough grief over the way our current team is constructed with a soft jump shooting power forward and a center with no hands and a pure shooting small forward that can't shoot, plus a backcourt that can't shoot free throws or shoot very well. My goodness, it's like a parody of a basketball team. At least we're not Atlanta, though. Talk about f-ing up the Chris Paul pick. To me this isn't hindsight because Chris Paul would have gone number one if his size wasn't a factor and the need for a decent center wasn't so high in demand for almost every team. I wish Chris Paul Jockers could tell those guys running the Hawks, "We told you so!" I mean, playmaking point guards make that much of a difference! If one finds some additional scorers, a power forward or center to go with that point guard, look out.

Anyway, I hope the Warriors put themselves into a great position to land somebody of impact rather than settling for some other team's bench castoffs... Let's think about what fits and solves multiple issues rather than get the nearest guy and remove two above average role players who could be more valuable months later.

 

[quote name='custodianrules2'] We also need strong defenders. Harrington is as questionable as Dunleavy or Murphy. So this possible move could wipe out rebounding/distance shooting from Murphy or perimeter defense/open court scoring from Pietrus.

I think the rebounding will be replaced by Ike and also collectively.

As far as defense, I can't say that I've seen Al play more than 10 times live (5 years of season tickets),but I can't imagine he is worse than Dun or Murph, here is John Nerdilinger's (Hollinger) assesment of Al, not a glowing review, but he gives him some props for D

As I mentioned in the section on similarity scores, Al Harrington was the most "common" player in this season's book. Over the past 20 years 75 different players had a Similarity Score of 98 or greater when compared with Harrington, the most of any pro player. This fact should permanently end the "Harrington as rising star" discussion. He is what he is: a generic NBA forward who is decent at everything but truly good at nothing. His per-40-minute stats have never hinted at the star potential that his "tools" supposedly indicated he had, and in truth his physical skills hardly seem phenomenal either.

Harrington certainly has some positives, however. He can punish small forwards in the low post from the left block and is an above-average defensive player at either spot. He also has range out to the 3-point line and is capable of taking bigger players off the dribble when he plays the power forward spot. However, he lacks the go-to move of most top scorers and isn't athletic enough to leap over defenders in traffic to get himself easy shots. As a result, his PER hasn't climbed above the mid-teens.

Harrington is a free agent after the season and could be traded by Atlanta by the time this book is published. With Smith, Williams, and Childress making up the team's forward rotation for the foreseeable future, Harrington isn't filling a need anyway. The Hawks would be better off if they parlay him into a decent center or point guard.

Most similar at age: Juwan Howard


But seriously, Custodian, you'd be happy starting the season with what we have now?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Warriorfansnc93:</div><div class="quote_post">Put me on the bandwagon. While my thread "memo for next season" is still fresh in my mind, I dont understand how people can think that adding Harrington to this team will not make us better.

1. How long will we have to suffer by watching Dunnothing as our starting SF? How long have we been calling for an big athletic SF and not an undersized G/F (Pietrus ring a bell)? Dont get picky. Sure he is not TMac or whoever your dream SF addition would be, but he sure is a huge step up from Dunleavy. We cant have 5 starting players who are All Stars. Be thankful it is him and not Dunleavy.

2. The same can be said for Murphy. How long do we have to suffer from his game? How long have we been calling him to be sent off? This allows Harrington to spot in for him at PF and let Diogu and company grow. I think they are ready. They have different games, but I think they will be better than Murphy. Sure Murphy is an automatic double/double, but that does not really matter to me if he is the only guy rebounding. I want a more athletic guy there too. I have been saying this since Murphy signed his extension and now guys are saying his contract is too large etc. Now you have the chance to and you get cold feet?

3. Granted, I dont think of Harrington as the savior, but he alone will be a dramatic improvement in if anything scoring and athleticism than Murphy and Dunleavy put together. Thankfully we did not have to do that and we get away with sending off only Murphy. I like his game, but I would rather have a power guy who can post up consistently inside and score 18-20pts per game easily. Harrington has not even peaked yet. He is a young guy and we will have a great young back court with him Baron and Jrich.

4. This guy is almost as good as getting someone like Marion from the Suns. Both guys are tweeners, athletic and can score. They are not the saviors, but they are not even close to being scrubs. They are closer to being All Stars than our current forwards for sure. So quit crying. He is the best thing out there. (unless you are dreaming about landing Garnett or Jermaine Oneil)

WAKE UP!!!!</div>
1. Harrington is a scorer. The Warriors don't need another scorer unless it is a post up scorer. The only way you can have your post up scorer be your small forward is if either your pf or c is a perimeter player. Murphy is that perimeter big man, but he's the guy being traded. I'd be much more ok with this trade if it was Dunleavy being traded instead of Murphy, because Murphy's game would compliment Harrington's the way it would have complimented Jamison's.

2. I haven't been calling for Murphy to be sent off. You say you think the young guys are ready. I say that in two years you'll be calling for them to get traded, just like every other Warrior fan in favor of youth has embraced, the cooled to, then outright hated every young player that's come through this franchise in the past six years. Richardson is the only player to survive that process.

3. This is the one that I really don't get. Warriors are good at: Scoring. Warriors are bad at: Rebounding. So why on earth are you wanting to trade the team's best rebounder for another scorer when it's not a post up scorer? You say Murphy's double double didn't matter because it came on a bad rebounding team, I say, "then why that heck are you getting rid of the team's best rebounder?!?"

4. Harrington is no Marion. He can't score like Marion, but more importantly, he's no where near the defender that Marion is. How much the acquisition of Harrington hurts the team's chances of getting an all star big man depends entirely on how big a contract Harrington signs. If the salary increase is small enough to keep Harrington from becoming a BYC player (a 20% increase to his previous salary of about $6.7 mil), then it's going to be a reasonable salary and there won't be any restrictions on trading him. If Harrington does become a BYC player, he's going to be overpaid and nearly impossible to move for the next year or two.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Mister Jennings:</div><div class="quote_post">

But seriously, Custodian, you'd be happy starting the season with what we have now?</div>
No, but it's no reason to start making a trade RIGHT NOW for the sake of making a trade, especially if what we have now with Murph/Pietrus puts us in a better position to make a better trade that actually fits our needs because of easier to deal contracts. This is especially if Pietrus and Murphy stats are up and they're rebounding from bad years. The poor play last season, I felt, had had more to do with the lack of a true playmaking point guard and a decent starting center. Face it, the quickest, arguably most skilled to run offense and the biggest guy on the floor don't exist on this team (because Baron was hurt and nobody acted like a center).

No point guard, no center, no playoffs, unless power forward or shooting guard can emulate those two franchise positions. It's why Garnett/Lebron James don't really have their work cut out for them until they get more of a team that fits around them and can score inside and outside. That's why Cleveland losing Boozer would have been a big blow if Boozer wasn't hurt so much and demanding a lot of cap. Luckily, they got Illgauskus who can score some in the paint even though he's more finesse these days probably due to injury and age.

I wish we had an inside presence and a guy that could break down defenses... Mullin missed out on some opportunities to spend his money more wisely at the very beginning and its costing him. I think another similar bad investment move will all but destroy this franchise via the luxury tax. I think jumping onto the Harrington bandwagon because he's the only player available RIGHT NOW is one such bad investment that I see. We just have to wait because our GM screwed up long term on a short term goal to make the playoffs with what we had in '04.

Harrington + Dunleavy long term? Yuck... No thx.

 

OMG -- collectively in one day yall have typed an encyclopedia. Unabridged.

But uh, yeah, let's do the trade. Why? I say why not

 

Ok, first of all, I agree with everything Custodian has said to this point.

The problem with the Warriors is not that they don't make enough moves, it's that they make too many. There isn't a team in the league that makes more deals than the Warriors, so if the question is: would I be disappointed if the Warriors opened the season without making another trade, my answer would be no.

That is not to say that I think the Warriors roster is fine the way it is. It is certainly flawed, but what most fans don't seem to care about is that the wrong move can make the team more flawed and set them further back. Case in point: Derek Fisher. He was seen as somewhat of a coup by some fans, because he was a free agent that was desired by several teams, but the Warriors got him. It turned out to be a bad move by the Warriors and most fans came to strongly dislike Fisher after the first year.

I think Harrington will be in the same boat. Everyone keeps pointing to his 18.6 ppg average. But as Custodian pointed out, that was on a very bad Hawks where he was the first or second option. Next year he's going to have to defer to Richardson and Davis, who should average about 25 and 18 ppg respectively (this is based on what they've averaged the past few years). Harrington will not avearage 18.6 points next year.

My answer to the question of what the Warriors should do next is this: wait. It's frustrating, but it's what is best for the franchise. I don't believe the way the team played at the beginning of last year was an aberration, it was the team playing to the best of it's ability. I don't see why they can't play that way again next year. I would like to see a trade made for an upgrade at pf or c, but Harrington is not it. I would wait until the Warriors find a guy who is it.

 

A Murphy for Harrington swap is fine for me. We would still have Dunleavy to be a valuable 6th man to rotate in at various positions. Let Ike play 4.

I've always felt that Murphy's RPG were inflated because no other Warrior ever collected the defensive glass. He's not strong. He doesn't have hops. He doesn't box out. How does he get that many boards? Well, because our center position averages about the fewest RPG in the league. No one else on the Warriors grabs rebounds. Murphy gets all of the easy defensive rebounds and the one-and-dones. He even fights with teammates for rebounds. He's not a parituclarly strong rebounder. Put him on a team with a good rebounding center and that number will plummet, IMO. Biedrins is already a superior rebounder to Murph.

I haven't checked the numbers, but I'll bet that, even though he average one of the best RPG in the league, Murphy's offensive rebounds were below average for his position. Someone want to check that out?

So swap Harrington for Murph. Heck, Harrington might end up averaging 9 to 10 boards per game on this roster.

 

Bah, you lazy soul .

Actually, Murphy grabbed 2.6 OR per game, and while it's 14th in the league (9th in the league), it's not a bad number at all. And, last year, he actually grabbed 3.6 OR per game (3rd in the league), so he is one of better OR rebounder. This really surprised me too.

I am on the fence on Harrington deal, and depends on details, I can go either way.

Harrington will help in short term. Anybody, including hopefully better version of Dunleavy, will outproduce what Dunleavy did in last season. And, if we can trade Harrington for Dunleavy, I will personally help Dunleavy packing. But the chance of that happening is less than Bush, Saddam and Osama having a tea party at Ground Zero. So, best scenario to me is to sign Harrington for MLE, because the court ruling may prohibit sign-and-trade. Even if Harrington is not a savior and we have to sit on Dunleavy's 45 mils / 5 years contract for long, long time, that would be a very good value for a player like Harrington.

Even if we trade Murphy for Harrington for something like 7 mils per year, I will go for it as well. It does open up a chance for Diogu and other young PFs, and it also shed some $ as well.

However, if we give Harrington like 50 mils / 5 years, I would be against it. Murphy is not a right fit and we do need to find mins for Diogu and other guys. However, Murphy is walking double-double guy, and he still has a lot of value. As a matter of fact, he is our only big ticket to acquire any superstar, because we won't trade Davis or Richardson, and we won't be able to trade Foyle or Dunleavy. So, once we trade Murphy one way or the other, we are basically set for some time. Even if Harrington duplicate what he did last year, which is doubtful, Murphy with same contract will have more value than Harrington.

Also, while Harrington will help, he is by far no perfect fit. He is not a powerful offense/defensive inside presence we are looking for, and he is essentially a worse version of Jamison. And, we have Dunleavy and his 45 mils/5 years paper weight to carry. Considering we have all those problems, do we really want invest 19 mils per year at SF for long, long time? As we can see on today's salary cap article, our finance is in bad bad situation, so we can't just committ huge $, because that player marginally help us. I mean, didn't we sign Fisher, because he also helps us marginally?

If his contract is relatively small and/or short like two years, I will be all for it. However, if we give him Murphy like contract and exchange him for Murphy, I won't like it at all...