Isn't it fun when I put myself out on the line, though? You won't see me back-peddling. I guessed wrong. I still don't mind the trade, though
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AlleyOop:</div><div class="quote_post">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.</div> Did someone say they needed someone to check stats? Ok, first thing: rebouding on a team with a good center. In 02-03 Murphy averaged 10.2 boards in 31.8 minutes. That was the year Foyle and Damp platooned at center. They averaged a combined 45.9 minutes a game and 12.5 boards a game. In 03-04 Murphy only played in 21 games due to all his injuries. He averaged still 6.2 boards in only 21.8 minutes. Damp was the primary center, and he averaged 11.9 boards in 32.5 minutes. So there wasn't a season where Murphy played along one good rebounding center for a full season, but the numbers certainly show Murphy rebounded well while playing alongside good rebounding centers. Ok, now on to the question you asked. Here are Murphy's rebounding numbers the past few years with his league rank: 05-06 10.0 rpg (5th) 2.6 orpg (9th) 04-05 10.8 rpg (5th) 3.6 orpg (5th) 03-04 not among leaders due to injury 02-03 10.2 rpg (6th) 2.9 orpg (19th) So his offensive rebounding numbers were a little below his regular rebounding numbers, but he still did well on the offensive glass. In 02-03 he ranked 19th in the league, but he was playing alongside Dampier who was 9th in the league at 3.0 orpg. Oh, and Atlanta was a slightly below average rebounding team last year with a -0.2 rebouding differential last year while the Warriors were about the 8th worst in the league with a -2.2 differential.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AlleyOop:</div><div class="quote_post"> 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.</div> Harrington with Murphy numbers at small forward would be incredible. It won't ever happen though. Murphy's a great rebounder because he's got skill, length, hands, positioning instincts, good read on the glass, and technique (and a stronger leg base since rookie year). That often kicks the ass of more athletic players who aren't as gritty. As probably some have mentioned before, technique often beats guys with track and field athleticism or lots of size. If there's no skill in how to take advantage of it, it's never used as mismatch in their favor or used as a means to play consistently. Guys who have great skill in a few things and play within their limitations are generally more consistent because they won't try to do anything outside their game and they'll focus on the things they are strongest at. But even though guys like Murphy have some unique strengths, his limitations are something that is preventing us from playing good help and transition D, inside scoring, and passing the ball around. Guys either aren't mentally comfortable being decision-makers or playing in contact or guys aren't physically suited for certain playing styles like post-play or weakside defense. Like we'll never see Murphy blocking shots consistently. We won't see Dunleavy breaking down defenders who react more swiftly to his movement. This is especially if the other team has great help defenders. We might not see Dunleavy or Murphy post up very often despite them being very, very tall for their positions... They're just players with a lot of limitations and there's few other guys who bring out their play to a higher level and that can take advantage of the few strengths they have. The ideal situation is to find the key players on this team and surround them with guys whose limitations won't be a problem for this team and they'll have the kinds of strengths this team badly needs. Hopefully, it will all fit together and they'll develop chemistry and get better each year because of it. The bad news is we have 3 positions we're not sure should be starting anymore if we're building upon Jrich/Baron Davis (Murphy/Foyle/Dunleavy aren't setting the tone). We've got to start somewhere and I think the backcourt gets us closest to the playoffs. Building a prototype frontcourt will be tough since size is hard to find, but that's why we drafted all these big men recently (to do the things that guys like Foyle/Murphy don't do well, in addition to doing the things that they already do so well).
I don't believe Golden State fans should be too concerned with the current roster and having this big urge to make a move. It isn't smart to make a move just to make a move. The Warriors were this close from winning several more games last season. One of the problems doesn't have anything to do with the roster. The problem was that the bench was used terribly. Each time when the Warriors have gone hot, it's always been because of the bench, including when Baron first arrived, the beginning of last season, and finally a bit at the end of last season when Montgomery said what the hell, this 6 of Baron, Fisher, Jason, Dunleavy, Murphy, and Foyle, and maybe add in Pietrus a little, ain't working so well, so why not play the younger guys, aka the bench. Montgomery still doesn't know what he has on his bench, as he is saying, Foyle's the starting center...blah blah blah... I am sorry, I know people will always say that I am too hard on Montgomery, but he did an absolutely terrible job last season. It wasn't even Baron who was the lone man kind of opposite from Monty; both Dun and Murph had problems as well, including the whole bench, besides Fisher and maybe Pietrus. Improvement at the head coaching position will be a move that will help the team much more than any plausible deal available now for the roster. The Harrington deal is interesting because SF is a position of some weakness for this team. Also we don't know the contracts or the players that would be involved, if this deal did go down. If it's Harrington for Pietrus AND Murphy, then that could be a little too much money for him. Also, for some reason I am thinking that Pietrus' defending will be more important to the team than another scorer who outside of last season wasn't a very good shooter from the perimeter. If it's Murphy for Harrington, straight up, which the Hawks may not want, then I'd lean more towards the deal and stick some faith into Diogu. (This is a little off topic but...)I'd be interested in dealing Murphy and anyone from the Fisher deal to the Spurs for Michael Finley, Brent Barry, and Luis Scola. That would help this team with shooting(which they were 29th in the NBA last year in), ball handling, leadership(which they have very, very little of), experience, and some help at the SF/SG positions(both players are 6-7). Also Luis Scola, I believe would make a fine backup to Ike Diogu, from what I have heard. Also both Finley and Barry are expiring contracts, so if getting some salary space for players like Biedrins, Diogu, Pietrus, Ellis, Zarko, etc. is important, then this could be the way to do it as well. However maybe the Spurs don't want Murphy?... Also looking over some stats, I can't believe this, but I am kind of leaning toward just having one highly paid SF in Dunleavy than two, with Harrington. Harrington is not a good ballhandler, as his career assist/turnover ratio is 1.9/2.07. I really don't see a clear-cut advantage that Harrington brings that Dunleavy can't bring. Last year aside, I believe Dunleavy could be just fine. I can't believe I am saying this, but I'd like to just be content and work with Dunleavy back to his career numbers and finding his role on the team, which he often stated he did not find or feel comfortable in most of last season, and hope his regular three point percentage of 35% comes back, which would be better than Harrington's average of 29%. Also I like Mike's FT% and assist/to ratio much better than Harrington. Like one may be concerned with; maybe his stats are a bit inflated because of the team he plays on.
Harrington isn't going to get 9-10 boards a game. Murphy has him beat in that department. Harrington is going to be a fine fit next to Ike. Murphy wasn't a 3 point shooter when he played with Jamison, he shot from 15-18 and that worked fine. Ike has the range to do the same. Ike can also handle the basketball, use either hand, get to the line and shoot FT's better than Jamison, Dunleavy, Murphy. Offensively Ike's more talented then I ever imagined. If Harrington was playing next to Fortson, then I'd be worried but he isn't. The main thing I'm concerned about is his defense. He's too slow to guard that position but like I said, he's about the same as Dunleavy in that regard. What you're giving up in speed you're gaining in strength. Harrington also gives you a more efficient scorer. Sure Murphy averages 15 a game but what's his field goal %? What's Dunleavy's? Do they score with shooting jumpers? Can they finish around the basket? Defensively we're not going to be a very good team. We weren't going to be one with our options anyway. You have Ike, Zarko, Murphy and Dunleavy at the forward spots. Obviously this team is being built with the focus on offense. I'm fine with that as long as it's done efficiently. Collect "real" offensive weapons and follow in the Mavs footsteps. Mullin wants his 15-5 from that 3 spot, Baby Al will give it to him. I haven't seen much of Harrington except against the W's and back in Indy when he got owned by Paul Pierce but I don't think many of you guys have watched him play. If we do manage to pull this deal, I think we need a few scrub roleplayers on this team. Someone who can hit an open shot, defend, play hard. Maybe another rebounder to push Foyle further down the bench.
I wanted to elaborate on this quote but the board wouldn't let me edit my post. "Mullin wants his 15-5 from that 3 spot, Baby Al will give it to him. I haven't seen much of Harrington except against the W's and back in Indy when he got owned by Paul Pierce but I don't think many of you guys have watched him play." His handle is good for his size and can shoot off the dribble. Jamison, Murphy or Dunleavy can't do that. His face game is better than you think. He can also finish with either hand.
I'm the first to admit I have not seen Harrington play that much last year. There have been to many players with bloated numbers on bad teams, look at the W's in the past. The W's may give up a long term deal only to immediately sign another long term, expensive contract. The W's have an mix of players playing out of traditional roles. They have a guard who plays like a small foward, a power foward that plays like a small forward and a starting center that cannot catch the ball. Their best post up player is their point guard. Teaming Harrington with Murphy would be role reversal but might be effective. Can you imagine Harrington in the post kicking it out to Dunn for three.... brick. If the deal does not involve Dunn, I would rather try and get a young, cheaper SF. Someone like Graham from the Raptors for Air France. Let Dunn build up his confidence and get comfortable. His trade value might go up and his BYC status goes away. Dunn may actually turn into a servicable SF for some team, not the W's because the fans can seem to get over being picked #3 in a weak draft. I'm just not sold on giving another long term contract to Harrington, while he is an upgrade he still is limited. A non traditional roster can still win in the NBA if the pieces compliment each other. I also believe that long term contracts should be saved for the all around players not limited players.
I just read that now Denver may be involved as a third team to assist us in getting HArrington. Would this mean that we most likely would not be giving up both Murphy and Pietrus or that Pietrus will end up in denver? Could this also mean that Harrington is not getting as big a contract as Murph/Pietrus combined? Which i think would be paying him too much.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Clif25:</div><div class="quote_post">Also looking over some stats, I can't believe this, but I am kind of leaning toward just having one highly paid SF in Dunleavy than two, with Harrington. Harrington is not a good ballhandler, as his career assist/turnover ratio is 1.9/2.07. I really don't see a clear-cut advantage that Harrington brings that Dunleavy can't bring. Last year aside, I believe Dunleavy could be just fine. I can't believe I am saying this, but I'd like to just be content and work with Dunleavy back to his career numbers and finding his role on the team, which he often stated he did not find or feel comfortable in most of last season, and hope his regular three point percentage of 35% comes back, which would be better than Harrington's average of 29%. Also I like Mike's FT% and assist/to ratio much better than Harrington. Like one may be concerned with; maybe his stats are a bit inflated because of the team he plays on.</div> Thank you. I'm not saying Harrington isn't better than Dunleavy right now, he is. But he's not so much better that it would justify putting Dunleavy and his huge contract on the bench. The improvement, even in the best case scenario, just is not worth it.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">Thank you. I'm not saying Harrington isn't better than Dunleavy right now, he is. But he's not so much better that it would justify putting Dunleavy and his huge contract on the bench. The improvement, even in the best case scenario, just is not worth it.</div> Good point. Although I think Dunleavy is an ideal 6th man because he can play so many different roles. IF Baron gets 3 quick fouls, Dun can run the point. If, say, Harrington gets 3 quick fouls, Dun can play SF. Hewouldn't be $$ wasting away on the pine. He may actually see the same amount of minutes due to his versatility. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">Did someone say they needed someone to check stats? </div> Leave it to Walker to check stats, lol -- thanks for posting those. But I think you're numbers are a little off for 05-06. I just checked NBA.com, and you've got (5th) for total and (9th) for offensive, but it looks like he was (6) for total and (14) for offensive in 05-06. Also, about playing alongside a good rebounding center, you didn't mention last year, 05-06, when the Warriors got nothing from the center position. between Beans and Adonal they got 4.8 rpg / game. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post"> Murphy's a great rebounder because he's got skill, length, hands, positioning instincts, good read on the glass, and technique (and a stronger leg base since rookie year). That often kicks the ass of more athletic players who aren't as gritty.</div> I don't really agree with you here. I think he is a good rebounder for his position, but I also think Murphy is flat-footed, has no hops, is slow, and gets tired easily. He's good, but I don't think he is a great rebounder. Rebounding is about center of gravity, positioning, foot work, and anticipation of the bounce. A 6'7" guy can own a 6'10" guy on the glass if he understands how to box-out and anticipate the bounce. I'm not going to give Murphy high marks here. Again, he's good, no doubt. His numbers indicate that. But, IMO, Murphy's numbers are a little inflated. Last year, we got little production from any other big. Murphy was the only player over 6 boards a game (Dun 4.9, Ike 3.3, Foyle 5.5, JRich 5.8, Beans 4.2). Further, IMO, Murphy is not a physical force in the paint. I think Diogu is a bigger "presence" in the paint. Murphy doesn't really seem to bang or intimidate the opposition. IMO many of his boards come off one-n-dones where he's the only guy to clean it up. Many Warrior playuers seem to defer to him on the defensive board, like it's his "domain" and so he should take it. It's almost like they want to help him pad his stats. I know I've seen several balls bounce between, say, Dun and Troy, or JRich and Troy, and Dun will hold up his hands away from the ball like "it's all yours Troy." It's kind of like when you yell "same team!" because two guys are about to fight for the board, and so one will back off, except that there's no confusion or potential conflict, it's just that the Warriors players consciously seem to defer to Troy when a rebound is in question. Also, I swear I've seen Troy Murphy fight Adonal Foyle for loose rebounds. I've seen him get in "volley-ball" tipping matches with Foyle (not blatant, but still pretty clear) to secure his rebound. Course, I've seen Foyle box his own teammate out on plenty of occaisions, so I guess it's fair play lol. I'm not going to argue that Troy Murphy isn't a good rebounder. He is. But IMo he is not a "great" rebounder, and he's not particularly "tough" or "gritty." He prefers to shoot threes and try cross over dribbles rather than bang inside. He rarely seems to dominate any match-up physically. But he's been getting better. He definately has gotten stronger each year. And improved his shot. What I do pose is that, IMO, losing Murphy will not impact the Warriors rebounding numbers as drastically as many people seem to think. It's not like we'll just lose 10 boards a game. Many other players will pick up the slack. Dunleavy may collect that extra 1 or 2 now, who knows, Walker, he could even average 6 or 7 a game And with Harrington coming in, between Harrington, Diogu, and Dunleavy, the forward spot could definately produce good numbers on the glass. Harrington might not average 9 or 10, lol, but it is indeed possible if he gets 35 minutes a night. But even if he gets 7, and Dun gets 6, and Ike gets 6, that right there is more than the F spot produced last year for the Warriors.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">Thank you. I'm not saying Harrington isn't better than Dunleavy right now, he is. But he's not so much better that it would justify putting Dunleavy and his huge contract on the bench. The improvement, even in the best case scenario, just is not worth it.</div> Good point. Although I think Dunleavy is an ideal 6th man because he can play so many different roles. IF Baron gets 3 quick fouls, Dun can run the point. If, say, Harrington gets 3 quick fouls, Dun can play SF. Hewouldn't be $$ wasting away on the pine. He may actually see the same amount of minutes due to his versatility. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">Did someone say they needed someone to check stats? </div> Leave it to Walker lol But I just checked NBA.com and I think you're numbers are a little off for 05-06. You've got (5th) for total and (9th) for offensive, but it looks like he was (6) for total and (14) for offensive in 05-06. Also, about playing alongside a good rebounding center, you didn't mention last year, 05-06, when the Warriors got nothing from the center position. between Beans and Adonal they got 4.8 rpg / game. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post"> Murphy's a great rebounder because he's got skill, length, hands, positioning instincts, good read on the glass, and technique (and a stronger leg base since rookie year). That often kicks the ass of more athletic players who aren't as gritty.</div> I don't really agree with you here. I think he is a good rebounder for his position, but I also think Murphy is flat-footed, has no hops, is slow, and gets tired easily. He's good, but I don't think he is a great rebounder. Rebounding is about center of gravity, positioning, foot work, and anticipation of the bounce. A 6'7" guy can own a 6'10" guy on the glass if he understands how to box-out and anticipate the bounce. I'm not going to give Murphy high marks here. Again, he's good, no doubt. His numbers indicate that. But, IMO, Murphy's numbers are a little inflated. Last year, we got nothing from the center position. Murphy was the only player over 6 boards a game (Dun 4.9, Ike 3.3, Foyle 5.5, JRich 5.8, Beans 4.2). Further, IMO, Murphy is not a physical force in the paint. I think Diogu is a bigger "presence" in the paint. Murphy doesn't really seem to bang or intimidate the opposition. IMO many of his boards come off one-n-dones where he's the only guy to clean it up. Many Warrior playuers seem to defer to him on the defensive board, like it's his "domain" and so he should take it. It's almost like they want to help him pad his stats. I know I've seen several balls bounce between, say, Dun and Troy, or JRich and Troy, and Dun will hold up his hands away from the ball like "it's all yours Troy." It's kind of like when you yell "same team!" because two guys are about to fight for the board, and so one will back off, except that there's no confusion or potential conflict, it's just that the Warriors players consciously seem to defer to Troy when a rebound is in question. Also, I swear to god I've seen Troy Murphy fight Adonal Foyle for loose rebounds. I've seen him get in "volley-ball" tipping matches with Foyle (not blatant, but still pretty clear) to secure his rebound. Course, I've seen Foyle box his own teammate out on plenty of occaisions, so I guess it's fair play lol. I'm not going to argue that Troy Murphy isn't a good rebounder. He is. But IMo he is not a "great" rebounder, and he's not particularly "tough" or "gritty." He prefers to shoot threes and try cross over dribbles rather than bang inside. He rarely seems to dominate any match-up physically. But he's been getting better. He definately has gotten stronger each year. And improved his shot. What I do pose is that, IMO, losing Murphy will not impact the Warriors rebounding numbers as drastically as many people seem to think. It's not like we'll just lose 10 boards a game. Many other players will pick up the slack. Dunleavy may collect that extra 1 or 2 now, who knows Walker he could even average 6 or 7 a game? And with Harrington coming in, between Harrington, Diogu, and Dunleavy, the forward spot could definately produce good numbers on the glass. Harrington might not average 9 or 10, lol, but it is indeed possible if he gets 35 minutes a night. But even if he gets 7, and Dun gets 6, and Ike gets 6, that right there is more than the F spot produced last year for the Warriors.
^Yeah, my numbers seem a little off from what Kwan posted for some reason. I got them from espn. As for fighting for rebounds, he may well have been fighting Foyle for rebounds, but that can happen. I've fought guys on my own team for rebounds. It's not intentional, you're just looking up at the ball and concentrating on getting it so much you don't know who you're going up against. I'd rather have Murphy secure the ball and realize after the fact that he was fighting his own man for the ball than give up an easy offensive rebound and easy put back by the other team's player because he thought the guy was his own teammate. Now Danny Fortson, there was a guy who consciously fought his own guys for rebounds.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">Now Danny Fortson, there was a guy who consciously fought his own guys for rebounds.</div> I think he put Antawn Jamison on the IR
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting bayareafan85:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm the first to admit I have not seen Harrington play that much last year. There have been to many players with bloated numbers on bad teams, look at the W's in the past. </div> Good point bayareafan85. Also, there's intangibles and multiple dimensions to a player's game that's going to factor in. Sometimes 18ppg is all everyone pays attention to rather than assists, turnovers, or recognizing what their roles were on other teams. Like Fisher has a great assist to turnover ratio when didn't need to do anything with the ball once he brought it up and his stats don't really indicate how important he can be as a catch and shoot shooter (he's probably the league's most dangerous threat when he's left open or when he's contested and he's not having to dribble the ball before shooting). So I agree that stats don't always show the whole picture because they aren't detailed in describing how they do in a situation (tempo, was the shot contested, where was the shot taken, does he score mainly from the right side of the basket or can he go left, etc) <div class="quote_poster">Quoting bayareafan85:</div><div class="quote_post"> The W's have an mix of players playing out of traditional roles. They have a guard who plays like a small foward, a power foward that plays like a small forward and a starting center that cannot catch the ball. Their best post up player is their point guard. Teaming Harrington with Murphy would be role reversal but might be effective. Can you imagine Harrington in the post kicking it out to Dunn for three.... brick. If the deal does not involve Dunn, I would rather try and get a young, cheaper SF. Someone like Graham from the Raptors for Air France. Let Dunn build up his confidence and get comfortable. His trade value might go up and his BYC status goes away. Dunn may actually turn into a servicable SF for some team, not the W's because the fans can seem to get over being picked #3 in a weak draft. </div> Yeah, I hate our mixed up lineup. When our guards play bigger than our big men and our big men shoot better free throws than our guards... that's painful. All-around we're still pretty pitiful on perimeter and interior D. Transition defense totally lags behind transition offense. The only "running" team that really controlled the tempo of the game was the Pistons and they ran because they made some great stops, but they were also patient enough to grind it out on D again to make it a low scoring game. So, the Pistons were able to control the tempo of the game because they went on huge defensive runs and also ran the type of plays where they knew Rip Hamilton or Chauncey Billups could get the high % or to the foul line. Another team we could say controlled the tempo (most of the time) was the Phoenix Suns, but they had lots of athletic secondary ballhandlers and passers, and plenty of guys who could shoot and also defend some. If we tried to copy them, we did a crappy job with our frontline and our backcourt. Nash can shoot. Marion can finish and defend. Raja Bell can play both ends of the floor. Joe Johnson could handle the ball, shoot, defend, pass. Diaw could do the same only more limited range and more versatile. Guys like Amare Stoudamire and Marion played bigger than their true positions. So I kinda believe if we didn't have a nightmare of a mismatch and we have certain roles that are missing, we should have built a more balanced team around Jrich where maybe the SF and the SG roles are reversed. The rest we can build traditionally since point guard (the quickest, one of the most skilled, most team-involved player like a Quarterback) and the center (The biggest, toughest, fiercest guy on the floor) are the most important positions on the team. I don't really think SG or PF or SF are as important to build around unless they can emulate the presence of a center or the quickness and the ability to make others around them better like a true point guard would. The warriors just don't have much direction or a foundation to build from and they keep trusting our current (bad) teams... <div class="quote_poster">Quoting bayareafan85:</div><div class="quote_post"> I'm just not sold on giving another long term contract to Harrington, while he is an upgrade he still is limited. A non traditional roster can still win in the NBA if the pieces compliment each other. I also believe that long term contracts should be saved for the all around players not limited players.</div> Me neither, but here's the thing. If a non-traditional player isn't that great of a player (like Nowitzki SF/PF or Gilbert Arenas PG/SG) then building a team to fit one guy that isn't a superstar, is risky business. I don't think Jrich is a superstar, but I think we should have picked one player like Jrich in '04 and then picked a complimentary SF to emulate guard (which was Dunn). We could then have looked towards finding the point guard that can run a team like a point guard, and finding a center/PF to pound the ball inside with. After all, it is a guard's job to set up the big players and break down defenses and spread the floor with shooting. I think guys like Jrich/Dunleavy could be made better if they had a real big men under the hoop. Unfortunately those are hard to find, and its why teams miss the playoffs if they don't have a center or PF to emulate big guy presence. Look at how long it took the Clippers to finally turn around (added point guard and added center, clippers suddenly became more unselfish with inside/outside ball movement and pure position players). Also, why do we think the Wolves are struggling despite having one of the best big men in the league (aside from also missing point guard)? Also the Rockets (not this year) turned around when they got Yao Ming and they actually got Steve Francis to pass to him (but not as much as he should). It goes on and on. This team needs to find a gem at center and somebody that can be a long lasting point guard for this team or this team's not going to do much. It's going to be selfish, static, unorganized without that floor leader or guy who is going to make an impact around the basket. Even most NCAA championshp teams have at least one star on the outside and one star on the inside near the paint. The formula has never changed except in the rare case a guy was so dominant nobody could stop him, and all he needed was another star backcourt player. MJ/Pippen or maybe even Rick Barry/Phil Smith?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Clif25:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't believe Golden State fans should be too concerned with the current roster and having this big urge to make a move. It isn't smart to make a move just to make a move. The Warriors were this close from winning several more games last season. One of the problems doesn't have anything to do with the roster. The problem was that the bench was used terribly. Each time when the Warriors have gone hot, it's always been because of the bench, including when Baron first arrived, the beginning of last season, and finally a bit at the end of last season when Montgomery said what the hell, this 6 of Baron, Fisher, Jason, Dunleavy, Murphy, and Foyle, and maybe add in Pietrus a little, ain't working so well, so why not play the younger guys, aka the bench. Montgomery still doesn't know what he has on his bench, as he is saying, Foyle's the starting center...blah blah blah... I am sorry, I know people will always say that I am too hard on Montgomery, but he did an absolutely terrible job last season. It wasn't even Baron who was the lone man kind of opposite from Monty; both Dun and Murph had problems as well, including the whole bench, besides Fisher and maybe Pietrus. Improvement at the head coaching position will be a move that will help the team much more than any plausible deal available now for the roster. The Harrington deal is interesting because SF is a position of some weakness for this team. Also we don't know the contracts or the players that would be involved, if this deal did go down. If it's Harrington for Pietrus AND Murphy, then that could be a little too much money for him. Also, for some reason I am thinking that Pietrus' defending will be more important to the team than another scorer who outside of last season wasn't a very good shooter from the perimeter. If it's Murphy for Harrington, straight up, which the Hawks may not want, then I'd lean more towards the deal and stick some faith into Diogu. (This is a little off topic but...)I'd be interested in dealing Murphy and anyone from the Fisher deal to the Spurs for Michael Finley, Brent Barry, and Luis Scola. That would help this team with shooting(which they were 29th in the NBA last year in), ball handling, leadership(which they have very, very little of), experience, and some help at the SF/SG positions(both players are 6-7). Also Luis Scola, I believe would make a fine backup to Ike Diogu, from what I have heard. Also both Finley and Barry are expiring contracts, so if getting some salary space for players like Biedrins, Diogu, Pietrus, Ellis, Zarko, etc. is important, then this could be the way to do it as well. However maybe the Spurs don't want Murphy?... Also looking over some stats, I can't believe this, but I am kind of leaning toward just having one highly paid SF in Dunleavy than two, with Harrington. Harrington is not a good ballhandler, as his career assist/turnover ratio is 1.9/2.07. I really don't see a clear-cut advantage that Harrington brings that Dunleavy can't bring. Last year aside, I believe Dunleavy could be just fine. I can't believe I am saying this, but I'd like to just be content and work with Dunleavy back to his career numbers and finding his role on the team, which he often stated he did not find or feel comfortable in most of last season, and hope his regular three point percentage of 35% comes back, which would be better than Harrington's average of 29%. Also I like Mike's FT% and assist/to ratio much better than Harrington. Like one may be concerned with; maybe his stats are a bit inflated because of the team he plays on.</div> I agree. Except for the bench part. I think there's a reason why Musselman/Montgomery was very reluctant to throw Pietrus in or Biedrins (project) or any other rookie like Jiri Welsch (these players may not know what the coach is trying to get them to do and they can't be trusted sometimes if they're raw players). The only exception of a rookie getting big minutes was Gilbert Arenas because for a undersized college shooting guard, he was a step above everyone else that was trying to play point guard (we had no pure point except for Earl Boykins who was clearly a backup and Bob Sura who was not a good playmaker). A guy could be age 17 and make nba shots, but I don't think Monta Ellis is at that level that Gilbert Arenas was in his rookie year, so experience and all-around talent matters some. I'm not sure Ike Diogu was going to get quality minutes anyway if none of our guards recognized him or Biedrins down low when he's right there (hence the need for a pure point). IMO it was better to play up the trigger happy guards and get them off our team. Plus, when our team couldn't dribble penetrate at SF/SG/PG we had to go with Dfish at shooting guard, Dunleavy at PF which robbed away playing time away from Ike Diogu and put Pietrus in an unnatural position at SF. He's clearly a lightweight body that is more effective on 6'6 guards or short combos. Also, Pietrus is a roll of the dice because he doesn't know how to use his talents effectively. It must be tough for a coach to put him in and he looks lost or does the kind of things that make you cringe, like foul when over the limit, or turn the ball over by running over the defender... This is especially if the coach called the play for somebody else or said what the situation was and these guys don't even know... Jim Barnett had to point out that was Pietrus was doing it all wrong, so I'm sure he knows the playbooks better than we do because he sees all the practices, talks with the coaches, and is around these players to know more about what they're actually doing wrong. In an ideal situation Pietrus would just be a Ricky Davis type player that could be trusted not to turn over the ball, not to kill the offense as much, and score at will. Pietrus could do that, but his decision-making is bad. Chris Webber in the NCAA tournament bad.
