Who Would Give Up Andris Biedrins to Get Al Harrington?

Biedrins is garbage

 

Nice argument Chuck.

Here's my counter argument for such a great statement,

Chuck is garbage.

 

If you wonder why Warriors fans are called the most knowledgable fans in the game Chuck, watch Biedrins in two years. Quote me if you want.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AnimeFANatic:</div><div class="quote_post">AlleyOop,

If you HAD to trade one, Biedrins or Monta, who would you let go?</div>

Uggh, AF, don't pull my heartstrings like that!

That's like asking which would I rather lose -- a hand or a foot.

It's a tough call. Athletic 7 footers (still hitting growth spurts) are rare in the NBA. They're the type of player who could change a franchise. Look at Dwight Howard. That kid is ice cold money and will dominate for the next 15 years. Obviously Beans isn't close to being there yet, but Howard is a good comparison IMO because he's strapped, explosive, and athletic, but most of all he likes to play inside.

That's rare these days. Many athletic big men like Nowitzki, Gasol, Jermaine O'Neil, Rasheed Wallace, Kevin Garnett like to play not necessarily on the perimiter but many times 15 feet from the basket. They like to face up in triple threat and possibly drive or shoot jumpers. Of course they have good low-post moves when they use them, but IMO it's rare to find an athletic 7 footer who prefers to spend the bulk of their minutes on the block, banging inside, defending, and grabbing boards. Howard and Beans have at least this much in common. Plus athleticism.

What type of player Beans will grow into remains to be seen. He's already grown significantly since draft day IMO, and has produced what's been expected as a project rookie and second year fill in at center. If he gets the starting role he very well could put up decent numbers this year (8 points 8 rebounds would be great for year three IMO). He defends, goes after loose boards, and can catch and finish when Baron needs him to. That's all I really ask for a center on this roster (was it really that hard Foyle?)

As for Monta, this kid is like Spiderman. He's a blur. He's in front of you one second and straddling your center's forehead for a two hand jimmy-jam the next. He's got some of the best hops in the league. He's got a spring and boost in the lane that's eerily similar to D-Wade. Obviously he ain't a shade of what D-Wade is yet. I don't mean to over-hype but seriously he has that kind of change-direction-cross-over-and-still-dunk-from-a-step-inside-the-freethrow line type burst that I've only seen from a handful of players. He can drive the lane, go off one foot, spring like a deer, meet a defending 7-foot center in mid flight, and make complete contact bumping bodies: what is special is that the defending center now descends from his jump while Monta just hangs there in mid-flight, suspended like the Matrix for an extra second or two, and shoots a little last-second jumper.

Plus he defends. With tenacity. How can you not love that. Call me a homer, but how can you not love everything about this kid? From all the articles I've read, the interviews with him on Ralph and Tom I've listened to, the featurettes on him during Warrior telecasts, and background stories I've read about him, everything tells the same story: He's humble, has forged a solid spirit and character from the adversity he faced in his upbringing, has great manners, is well spoken and uses "yes sir or yes ma'am," is said to be utterly a coach's dream to work with, has impeccable desire and work ethic in practice, is lightning quick, can jump out of the gym, has a burning fire to compete and win, takes pride in having a defense-first mentality, will disrupt and hassle the opposing point guard / 2-guard on almost every play, already in his rookie year showed the ability to learn and adapt during the course of a game, doesn't commit stupid fouls, has much to learn about the NBA but still plays intelligently as any good student does, and seems like he could play blind-folded; the game is just natural for him.

Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong but I remember reading a quote from an assistant coach last year saying Ellis is the best shooter on the team.

So, I'd keep Monta.

But I'm glad this is theoretical because I wouldn't trade either of them!

BTW: http://www.draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=289

 

We hear of things like his work eithic and his defense first attitude, it sickens me that he isn't playing heavy minutes. Players who try as hard as him and have even a third of Monta's skills usually end up in an All Star game at one point in their career. I hate seeing Monta's year being killed by Monty.

 

The thing about Biedrins that makes him so valuable is his hands. The guy flat out has great hands. His ability to catch the dump down pass from a penetrating guard or forward and finish with a dunk is very rare. With the fundamentals eroding in today's NBA and big men not knowing how to rotate defensively, having a center that can catch like Biedrins is a very valuable weapon.

Now in the Ellis/Biedrins debate, I'd probably go with Biedrins for the above reason. Ellis is a very exciting player, but he's not necessarily a rare talent. Skilled, athletic big men with great hands, a willingness to play in the paint, and a desire to improve are very rare. The Warriors are lucky to have a stockpile of them right now, but I consider Biedrins to be the best.

I have a question about Ellis and I want to see if other people have thought the same thing. I get the Arenas comparison and I think it's valid, but every time I think of Ellis being another Arenas I say to myself, "No Self, Ellis is much smaller than Arenas." But he's not. He's the same height and he doesn't weight that much less. The only thing I can think of is that Arenas' wingspan is about 7" longer than Ellis'. Is that it or is it something else or is it nothing and I'm just crazy.

(Don't be afraid of option c) it wouldn't be the first time I've heard it.)

 

Too early to judge Ellis' skills at point guard, but he's a great offensive/defensive shooting guard prospect that can get to anywhere he wants (Unless he still really isn't comfortable going left with the ball). But I'm with Wtwalker on the reasoning for keeping Biedrins. There's always some 6'3 Dajaun Wagner or Louis Williams or Leandrinho Barbosa that just looks dynamite going coast to coast. I don't think we need so much little man scoring as we need dominance in the paint, weakside defense, good shooting %'s, and toughness on the glass. Biedrins isn't looking so hot in his improvement, but he does a lot of good things that a big man should know how to do. Right now Biedrins is looking like raw Tyson Chandler who could block shots, rebound, hustle his ass off. He's got the potential to be a good defensive player, which is defintely better than Foyle although sometimes Foyle-like when the defense isn't strong in areas besides shotblocking or he's missing opportunities to cash in on easy points... (Below 40% free throws is like missing layups or dropping passes)

I haven't seen enough of Ellis over time to grasp whether he can play point guard or if he's going to be a shooting guard in a point guard's body. If Ellis is going to be the overscoring type, then I don't know how we will feed big men in the paint and avoid taking ill-advised shots if he were to play point.

Still... hmmm.... I'll gamble here and say Ellis will be a successful star-like player and he could become a nice scoring combo that can make others better. There's something about this high schooler that I like in a combo guard. He's got a very nice attitude as far as we can tell, he's got poise, he's aggressive, he seems coachable. He's got a lot of advanced scoring abilities as a guard and great on the ball defense! Lord, knows we suffer on both ends when we don't have dribble penetration, on-ball defense like when we had with Baron Davis healthy or Speedy Claxton healthy. Besides, our current bigs may not be offensive players anyway. I'd go with the Ellis/Ike inside-outside threats and throw in POB or some other center that's a lot readier. Biedrins looks great, but I'm not sure in his current body he could ever be a center and his shooting range isn't that great to be a power forward. He's got some ballhandling skills, can pass pretty well, has good floor awareness, but he's just kind of weak and he spazzes out and picks up all these fouls when he has a chance to block a shot. He can't even shoot free throws as well as Joel Pryzbilla, a defensive center.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">but every time I think of Ellis being another Arenas I say to myself, "No Self, Ellis is much smaller than Arenas." But he's not. He's the same height and he doesn't weight that much less.</div>

I can answer that for you. They aren't the same size. According to NBA.com, Arenas is 6'4" 210 lbs while Ellis is 6'3" 177 lbs. So Arenas has him by 30+ pounds. And a significant portion of that is probably muscle. Arenas is strapped. He's got huge shoulders like Dwight Howard or Baron Davis. Ellis is wirey strong, but he's built more like Allan Iverson. For being much lighter though, Ellis isn' weak. He's pretty scrappy. But IMO Ellis is quicker than Arenas.

As far as the ellis/Beidrins debate, I think I'll have to go with option c: keeping them both and hoping they develop into a starting core for this franchise!

 

... and Pietrus is like Jordan!

I fell for that one long ago

 

Does it really matter? I've lived in Oakland since 1983, not a LONG time, but long enough to witness some of the biggest bone-head moves in the history of the game by the team less than 15 minutes from my house. Let's remove the Todd Fuller, Joe Smith, Passing on Kobe drafts, let's just think winning. Since I've been a warrior observer, in my estimation, and you may disagree, they have made exactly ONE move to win championship, and that's acquiring B. Diddy (Barron Davis). One might say picking Chris Webber (the whinner) but once he got here, what did they surround him with? Scrubs, bench players turned starters. Anyone can tell you that the warriors are a pit stop for success stories: Tyrone Hill, Donny Marshall, Gilbert Arenas, Twon', etc, etc.
I said all that to say, "does it really matter?" If they don't trade or do trade will they really have all the right pieces AT THE RIGHT TIME to make it and win in the playoffs? I don't think so. I think the Warriors are a "day late and a dollar short" franchise. They lack the confidence on the court and in the front office to see themselves successful and produce fans that see them successful. The game of basketball (NBA) is more than trades, it's swagger, smarts, and solid business decisions. The Warriors picked 2, count em 2, 7 foot centers in a league that is migrating toward Dirks, Amare's, and Bosh's. The Warriors are attempting to take a 2006 team, back to the 90's! There are no Kareems, Hakeems, or Ewings in this league! This shows me that even with the right pieces they will always lack the ability to put those pieces together.
I'm not hating on this team, I have friends that play for the Warriors, I'd love to see my homey get a ring, this team just has a knack for bad decisions and shipping guys too early or too late and signing guys that are too hopeful or past hope. In closing the trade is not the turning point for this team, mentality is the turning point, and with weak minds, even the greatest players and business men will fall.

Peace and Blessings,


Em Dee 44 aka Intelligence From East Oakland

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">One might say picking Chris Webber (the whinner) but once he got here, what did they surround him with? Scrubs, bench players turned starters. Anyone can tell you that the warriors are a pit stop for success stories: Tyrone Hill, Donny Marshall, Gilbert Arenas, Twon', etc, etc. </div>

If you consider Tim Hardaway, Chris Mullin, Latrell Spreewell, and Ronny Siekely scrubs then yes... they surrounded him with scrubs. Also, they had Gatling and Alexander off the Bench with Legler and Keith Jennings... (not an incredibly deep team, but if Webber would've been a man and played that year, that team had a shot)

 

The C role has changed-in large part because the PF role changed. The real athletic-high skill 6-11,7-0 guy now is used as a pf because the role allows him to exploit his mobility,skills,range,relative to C where a guy now tends to be more like a goalie in some cases. Still-if you got 5 on the floor,however roles are defined you need guys that get it done.

Harrington? He was interesting,has enough stuff to upgrade over Dun-but give Murphy AND Biedrens...no way.

Harrington is A Jamison Lite-less rebounds by plenty-less offense-okay but at best average D---and at $9-$10 mill..hardly an econo move. The Warriors have a pretty bad history of reaching for big men. We made many of our worst moves-drafts in a desperate effort to get some size. Do we now deal the 2 best 6-11+ guys we had in about 20 years? Not for Harrington.

The Warriors need to mostly park Foyle. Great guy and on the bench he may expand the young minds of his teammates-in non BB areas. Meanwhile-we get someone who specializes in teaching the inside game. I want Murphy to be playing SOME C. That CAN be done-he's been willing to make adjustments-even some that should not have been suggested. The guy is not near as limited as the W's crappy system made him seem. As a C/PF his value goes up-whether as a keeper or trade bait. Meanwhile-Biedrens plays a lot-and Taft-O'Bryant get generous minutes. If Biedrens-Taft-POB each improve 30%...we become a much tougher team.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chuck:</div><div class="quote_post">Biedrins is garbage</div>

High praise from a dumpster diver

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting misterdrake44:</div><div class="quote_post">Does it really matter? I've lived in Oakland since 1983, not a LONG time, but long enough to witness some of the biggest bone-head moves in the history of the game by the team less than 15 minutes from my house. Let's remove the Todd Fuller, Joe Smith, Passing on Kobe drafts, let's just think winning. Since I've been a warrior observer, in my estimation, and you may disagree, they have made exactly ONE move to win championship, and that's acquiring B. Diddy (Barron Davis). One might say picking Chris Webber (the whinner) but once he got here, what did they surround him with? Scrubs, bench players turned starters. Anyone can tell you that the warriors are a pit stop for success stories: Tyrone Hill, Donny Marshall, Gilbert Arenas, Twon', etc, etc.
I said all that to say, "does it really matter?" If they don't trade or do trade will they really have all the right pieces AT THE RIGHT TIME to make it and win in the playoffs? I don't think so. I think the Warriors are a "day late and a dollar short" franchise. They lack the confidence on the court and in the front office to see themselves successful and produce fans that see them successful. The game of basketball (NBA) is more than trades, it's swagger, smarts, and solid business decisions. The Warriors picked 2, count em 2, 7 foot centers in a league that is migrating toward Dirks, Amare's, and Bosh's. The Warriors are attempting to take a 2006 team, back to the 90's! There are no Kareems, Hakeems, or Ewings in this league! This shows me that even with the right pieces they will always lack the ability to put those pieces together.
I'm not hating on this team, I have friends that play for the Warriors, I'd love to see my homey get a ring, this team just has a knack for bad decisions and shipping guys too early or too late and signing guys that are too hopeful or past hope. In closing the trade is not the turning point for this team, mentality is the turning point, and with weak minds, even the greatest players and business men will fall.

Peace and Blessings,


Em Dee 44 aka Intelligence From East Oakland</div>
If we are talking about bad management and bad ownership, yeah. That is pretty much why the Warriors continue to go through these cycles of rebuilding. The Warriors do not have anybody that knows how to put together the people that know how to build a team.

It is like bad teachers trying to teach bad students. A good teacher at least has a chance if the student is semi-smart and semi-motivated.