If We Have to Get Rid of Anybody, We Should Get Rid of Don Nelson

I am so fed up with Don Nelson with the Monta Ellis and Jamal Crawford stories.

Check this article out.

Again, I would not trade Monta Ellis over innuendos. Instead, let's get rid of Don Nelson before he has a chance to break the wins record and destroy the Warriors and move Keith Smart in as head coach. At least, Keith Smart preaches defense.

Evening Scoop: Nellie Destroys Another Team?

By: Bill Ingram Last Updated: 3/6/09 5:42 PM ET | 1400 times read


We've been on a Mavericks riff this week, due in large part to owner Mark Cuban's explosion in the media and his team's expected response (one big win, one big loss). For several years there have been plenty of people wondering "what if" with regard to Steve Nash, but much of that talk died down when the Mavs got to the Finals for the first time ever without him. The "what if" talk has kicked back into high gear now that Devin Harris, who the Mavs traded for Jason Kidd last season, is having an incredible season. Gregg Popovich even brought into question the Mavs' move to waive Michael Finley as he talked about how brilliant Finley has been for San Antonio.

For two of those moves, we have one person to thank. It's not Mark Cuban. Cuban has always done what the team thought gave them the best chance to win a championship. The Finley move saved the team a ton of money in salary tax, but money has never been Cuban's primary concern. One of the primary reasons the Mavericks waived Michael Finley was because their head coach - Don Nelson, at the time - made them believe he wouldn't be healthy enough to play out his contract.

Steve Nash was finished at the end of the 2003-04 season, according to Nellie. He told the media (and Cuban) constantly that Nash's back was so bad that he had to closely monitor minutes, and that signing him to a new contract would be a huge mistake. Indeed, Nash's scoring was down that season, and every time he stepped off the court Nellie had a circus of trainers quickly working to get him on his back and on ice on the baseline. Nellie made sure everyone believed Nash's days in the NBA were over.

Only they weren't.

Cuban refused to get into a bidding war when the Phoenix Suns made their pitch to Nash, who has since lined up two MVP trophies as well as four trips to the All-Star game.

Not bad for a guy who was "done" five seasons ago.

The same can be said of Finley, who despite being a walking corpse in Nellie's estimation has played in all but five games over the past three plus seasons with the Spurs. Gregg Popovich called him one of the team's most important additions, especially on the defensive end. Who knew? Nellie never asked him to play any!

That brings us to today, where sources in Oakland reveal that Nellie's genius plan for the Warriors is to try and force Jamal Crawford into opting out of his contract by refusing to play him. He's not even bothering with the ice routine or the trainer circus show on the sideline, he's simply planning to let him sit at the end of the bench and atrophy for the rest of the season.

We're not talking about Stephon Marbury or Jamaal Tisley, who caused so many problems that their teams paid them to just STAY AWAY. This is Jamal Crawford, one of the nicest, hardest-working guys in the NBA. And by the way, he's a 20-ppg scorer and loves to pass the ball, as well.

Aren't we just about finished with the Nellie nonsense? He did his best to wreck the Dallas Mavericks and how he's rumored to be pillaging the Warriors. At what point will the Warriors give HIM the Stephon Marbury treatment?

Then again, maybe that's his goal. In Dallas his end game seemed to be to get as much money as he could get from Mark Cuban and then skedaddle as far West as his horse could carry him. He's still trying to sue Mark for money he feels he's owed, despite the fact that Mark paid him in advance on a contract Nellie never honored. Maybe he's trying to cause so much trouble in Oakland that the Warriors pay him to go away.

We may never know what goes on in the mind of Don Nelson, but this NBA observer thinks it's time to pack him in ice with the rest of his Bud Light and send him on his way before he further ruins another NBA franchise.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=11851

 

Here's another reason why Chris Mullin is a great guy while Don Nelson is a low down snake-in-the-grass motherf*****.

The void of Chris Mullin is a factor in latest turmoil surrounding the Warriors
March 7, 8:57 AM

The headlines haven’t been pretty: “Monta unhappy with Warriors” and “Nelson tells Crawford to opt out.”

And all I keep thinking is: Where is Chris Mullin?

First, a quick story or two.

Two years ago around this time, Baron Davis, then a Warrior, was in Los Angeles rehabbing a knee after undergoing arthroscopic surgery in mid-February. He had been rehabbing for about three weeks, and there was uncertainty about when and if he’d return.

The Warriors were 10 or so games below .500, per usual. The fact of the matter was that the Warriors were fading and Davis was dawdling.

Mullin, the Warriors’ executive vice president of basketball operations, hopped on a plane and headed down to L.A., where he spent a couple of days with Davis. The two worked out together, played one-on-one, ate together, talked hoops and pretty much reconnected.

Over the course of their time together, in his own understated way, Mullin delivered the message that needed to be delivered: It’s time to get back and join your team.

Davis got on a plane and met the team in Detroit, where the Warriors wound up blowing out the Pistons. That, of course, started the 16-5 run that eventually led to “We Believe.”

Story No. 2 … After that one-of-a-kind season, Warriors coach Don Nelson started making noise about a new contract, even though he was under contract for the following year. Nelson wanted some more money or another year and it looked as if it was going to be a problem.

Things eventually worked out, and when Nelson was asked how it all worked out, he cited none other than Mullin. Apparently, according to Nelson, Mullin’s continuous “Do the right thing” lectures paid off.

Now, fast forward to March 2009, with Monta Ellis back home in Mississippi with either a family emergency or personal grudge. You decide. And with Nelson telling Jamal Crawford that he wants him to opt out of his contract at year’s end.

And again, the thought is: Where’s Mullin?

Here are a few places where Mullin isn’t: In Jackson, Mississippi, figuring out what’s going on with Ellis; or in Milwaukee, telling Nelson he has no business talking to a player that way.

By now, we know Mullin has been isolated or alienated, whatever you want to call it. Or perhaps from management’s perspective Mullin’s checked out.

Still, it's a fair question: Would all this be happening if Mullin were in charge?

http://www.examiner.com/x-441-Golde...is-likely-a-factor-in-Warriors-latest-turmoil

 

Love Nelly or hate him, having Jamal opt out is a great thing for the Warriors.

 

Don Nelson is the biggest joke of a coach in the NBA.

His offensive game plan: Shoot
His defensive game plan: What?

Nevermind hes a raging drunk...

 

I'm not a big fan of Crawford's game, and I also hope he opts out, but why the hell did we trade for him? Surely we could have gotten another expiring contract for Harrington if that was the plan? Somehow the franchise ended up even more screwed than being saddled with a disgruntled Harrington, it's amazing. Only the Warriors have that kind of mojo. Well, OK, maybe the Clippers too.

 

Yep, plus Harrington only has a player option for 1 year -- he is off the books at the latest by 2010, the most important free agency year in sports history. Craw, on the other hand, has a PO for two years, which means if he takes it, he doesn't come off until 2011.

I didn't really get that either, although I didn't know what type of player Craw was then like I do know. In hindsight, it makes no sense.

 

You're right, having him opt out would be great for the Warriors because Crawford would be an expiring contract for the 2010 season and a lot of teams including the Warriors would go for that. Also, it would mean more likely we keep Monta. However, the main point was Nelson should not have negotiated it like that, and it caused a huge disruption during the season with the team and upset fans even more. This coming right after the benching of veteran players.

The other point is who does the negotiations for the Warriors? That isn't clear and Rowell needs to make that crystal. Rowell committed the big stoopid on that and still continues to do so. He needs to put a leash and muzzle on Nelson.

You bring up a good point. If Nelson/Warriors (?) wanted the expiring contract, then he should've just kept Al. Regardless, it was a mistake to take Crawford if he wasn't going to fit. As usual, the Warriors didn't do their homework, but was just reacting. Crawford seems like a good guy with what he said in response to Nelson, while the Warriors were the ones who made the mistake trading for him.

Second, if Crawford opts out, then his 2010 and 2011 salaries come off next season. If he doesn't, then we got him through 2011.

 

I love Nellie. I guess that's an unpopular vote these days, but I think he's great. All the things being said about him this year are just based on media reports and speculation. His time on the radio with fans is heavily screened, not his fault. I can't really judge a guy on these things unless I'm in the locker room with the team. I can't judge a guy because he was given the most lopsided roster in the NBA.

 

You have to separate the coach and the GM side of Nelson. Since we are talking about Crawford, I think it was Nelson who wanted him in the first place. He said Monta Ellis was his STARTING point guard for about a year, remember? And then after a couple of games, he took Monta off his PG rotation. Then, Nelson tried Crawford at the point, and now he's disgruntled with him at the point. Crawford can play the point, just not the way Nelson wants him to. So, Nelson is acting like a crybaby and trying to get what he wants. Clearly, Nelson screwed up royally in his approach with Jamal.

 

I like what Nellie has done for the franchise in general. Despite my gripes, he made us relevant again after 11 years of irrelevancy. But I'm not attached to him, and wouldn't mind seeing how a different philosophy affects the team. I mean, he's finally playing Randolph at PF instead of C -- even at SF a bit. But for how many years now has he gone with one big man and four smalls? At times no big man. There were several stretches of games there where Harrington was the starting C and Jax was the PF. I'm sorry. I think run-n-gun is exciting, but you can't win with Harrington at C.

Further, we have big guys who have been drafted just to please Nellie, and still they ride pine. How long did it take Brandan Wright to see the floor? And then mostly at Center, where he just got abused. Randolph is finally getting PT because of the tank-job, but if the Warriors were half-way in the PO race, AR would be on the IR, or D-League.

I wouldn't mind seeing how a conservative, defensive-minded coach would do with our roster. To, at some point, see a line-up of:

Monta
Belly
Randolph
Wright
Biedrins

I don't think we will ever see that under Nellie. But Maybe under some other coaches who value bigs more. I would love to see a coach who values defense, though. Because that attitude affects everything else. That would really help build chemistry. Especially with the younger players -- it would teach them to play the right way.

Nellie's way of teaching the youngs is flawed. He thinks pulling them for one mistake is tough love, but really it's faulty. It's a double standard, when he allows his vets to run amok and set every bad example there is to set. I would love to see a coach who teaches the young guys to value defense, hard work and good attitude. Maybe if we had a coach like that we wouldn't have seen Monta go from a goody-two-shoes to (if the rumors are true) a whiny prima donna in the huddle.

However, I don't blame the Crawford thing on Nellie. There should have been a better deal made, but it was what it was. We got rid of a player who didn't work and got a guard who might fit the up-tempo style. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone could have seen how Crawford would affect chemistry and team play. It's not really Crawford's fault. He plays next to Stephen Jackson so he gets his cues about what's acceptable from Jax.

If he went to the Spurs, do you think he would be doing five straight and-1-mix-tape possessions for bricks? No. Because Duncan would slap him and Pop would bench him.

Here, however, it's a zoo. He's got Nellie telling him to shoot any time he wants, whenever and where ever he wants, and he's got the team leader Jackson throwing tempertantrums and shooting 40-foot fast-break threes for fun. Crawford got here and said "Damn, this is going to be fun! I wonder what my And-1 nickname will be here in Golden State?" I like "The Phantom," because when he's on defense, point guards go right through him like he's not even there.

 

I don't think Nellie wanted Crawford. I think Crawford was the best available player for Harrington, who Nellie clearly didn't want (I don't think the Warriors as a whole wanted him).

Monta was designated our starting PG before he got injured. Nellie still says he sees Monta playing PG in the future. He took him off PG duty because of Monta was slow to get back into things. I thought that was a good move. Let Monta do what he does comfortably and have all the other stuff fall into place.

Crawford isn't a very good PG, IMO. Not sure what Nellie did wrong here except tell the truth to him.

 

I agree with Alley Oop on the Don Nelson thing. He's a benefit in some ways, but other times you wonder if he's a detriment just like our sh1tty ownership who don't know what the f they are doing. Our ownership has got to be the worst considering all the lotto picks we got and nothing to show after they reach the end of the rookie scale contracts.

In hindsight I think Kwan was right regarding being more conservative with our spending, but I tended to believe that the FA's we signed/players we traded for were good for parts of the game we suffered at (Turiaf: big man depth, defensive toughness, fundamentally sound; Maggette: Will try to take it into the hole, can score inside and from midrange, can rebound; Crawford: can shoot, drive, pass.

One of the biggest problems is we didn't have Monta Ellis who is supposedly the building block of our franchise and we lacked his ability to penetrate into the lane and instead opted for Crawford who tends to launch it or has problems finishing the play and Maggette who is like a black hole. Another problem is chemistry: we got 3 players who are all high volume shooters that don't play much team D and fail to pass to an open player. Another problem is injuries and Don Nelson relying on his key guys for 40+ minutes a game in an 82 game season. Another problem is we still lack the ability to control the glass. If we could recover our own missed shots and get putbacks, we don't have to be as good on defense to beat most mediocre teams. We also settle for long shots which causes long rebounds and then fastbreaks going the other way. We don't take care of the ball... I doubt Sjax, Monta, Crawford can avoid 3 plus turnovers a game. That's a lot of points off turnovers assuming our defense just doesn't care about getting back.

I think the only good news is that Crawford and Maggette still have good value. It's not like in the case of Foyle where we had to end up buying out/waiving the guy. Nobody wanted him!

 

Good point. That would suck if we dropped big $$ on these guys only to see them go Foyle on us. But you're right, they do have value, and they have good numbers, which is usually the main sticking point in a trade/signing.

Stats are great for trades, but they so don't tell the whole story. I mean, can you imagine a guy who gets 18.8 points and 4.4 assists who you would want less on the team than Crawford? I'd take Shane Battier over Crawford, and he's only putting up a third of the numbers as Craw (6.5 points, 4.8 rebounds, 2.2 assists). Why? Because he means more to his team with those numbers than Crawford does to our team with his numbers. Battier for Crawford would mean more wins for GS.

But good basketball minds know this, and know that trade would probably favor GS. Hopefully we can find a knucklehead GM who's so enamored with stats that he thinks Crawford / Maggette are actually worth what they're getting paid. Gimme a back-up role player! Give me Raja Bell and Boris Diaw! Give me Battier! Take the 20-point scorer! Seriously, at this point, that combined $20 mils going to Craw/Mags is so better spent somewhere else...

 

It's amazing to me that you guys don't see Nelson was the one manipulating things and was the one responsible for getting rid of Harrington at the trade deadline, even though he was an expiring contract. First, Nelson and Harrington got into it and Nelson has a long history of not getting along with some of his players. Second, when Harrington wanted the Warriors to trade him, Nelson wanted David Lee first, but the Knicks weren't stupid and would not trade him for Harrington. Next, the Knicks wanted the Warriors to take Eddy Curry and the Warriors didn't want to touch him with a hundred foot stick. Still, for whatever reason, Nelson did not want cancer Harrington on the team even though he was an expiring contract and other teams wanted him. For example, if DJ Augustin did not get injured, and Mullin was still in command, then he may have been able to get Raymond Felton in a sign-and-trade.

Finally, as the trade deadline neared, Nelson settled on Crawford because he could play some point and he thought would form a solid back court player with Monta at PG. It didn't matter that the Warriors would have a logjam in the back court. In fact, Mullin was the one who went to Donnie Walsh in order to get it done because the Knicks and Warriors weren't talking. Regardless, it did not last long for Nelson to change his mind. It just drives me wild that Nelson doesn't do his homework and just makes trades by the seat of his pants. I'm not sold on his claim that Monta is his PG. He changed his mind pretty fast on Monta as being his PG after he came back. Or what about the defensive coordinator that he appointed. I haven't seen any improvement in the Warriors defense. Thus, it's hard for me to take whatever Nelson decides on seriously. He may be getting senile or maybe he has a drinking problem we don't know about. Above all, I question how much Don Nelson wants to develop a young team when he admits he came back to coaching the Warriors because of the money. He practically arm wrestled Cohan to give him a two-year extension.

Don't think I'm blaming just Nelson in regards to the Warriors problems, but without a strong GM to reign in the GM side of Nelson, then I rather he not be here. If he's going to be allowed input on trades, or worse be the one who decides on player personnel, then I rather he not be here. Besides, I think Keith Smart would be a better coach to develop a young team. Nelson is better with a veteran squad who are pretty much set, especially at PG.

 

How do you know all this?

 

It's elementary my dear AO. A lot of it has to do with history and what Don Nelson has done TO his teams and not for them. So far, we had going in reverse chronological order -- Nelson vs Crawford, Nelson vs Mullin, Nelson vs Baron, Nelson vs Mario Elie, Nelson vs Owens, and Nelson vs Webber. Those are the ones I know about since becoming a Warriors fan and some of them have been reported extensively.

First, why did Nelson and Harrington have a falling out? Even if they did have a falling out, other teams were able to handle it without trading the player, but not Nelson and the Warriors. Instead, they have to go trade Harrington for someone who did not work out. They did not have to trade Harrington at that time if the deal wasn't right. They could have waited until after the deadline. But we don't even know who's running the ship this season, so I can't blame all of the Warriors internal problems on Nelson. I certainly don't see Mullin as the one who wanted Crawford because he was out as GM already. Rowell? Why would Rowell want to trade a guy who was expiring after next season for someone who could be around for an extra year? Besides, we needed help at PF/C than another backcourt player, so Harrington did not have to go. That leaves Nelson. Nelson with his big, fat ego. Nelson with his blunt ways and turning people off. Nelson with his rubbing people the wrong way. I mean why did Nelson even have to talk about his plans with Jamal? Certainly, you don't score points with your current employees by saying something like that and something has to be wrong with Nelson or he wouldn't do such things. Nelson has a long history of such boorish and bully behavior and he hasn't changed. If another player said that to Crawford, then he would face disciplinary measures.

Again, I don't want Don Nelson to have to do with any personnel matters on the Warriors. He was wrong about Crawford and the way he treated him and was wrong about Monta Ellis at PG. I think he's wrong about continuing to play small ball and not playing two bigs together and would like to see Biedrins play more. I still am confused about his appointing a defensive coordinator when the Warriors don't even play defense. I'm not too crazy about sitting veterans down like the way he's doing. If he thought about the rooks and sophs in the first place, then he would not have to resort to such drastic measures when time has become short. I rather have Keith Smart as the coach because I don't think he can do a worse job and he would know how to handle young players and would preach defense. Even Mike Montgomery would be a better man for the job for this young team than Nelson.

 

The Randolph situation would've chewed up Smart and spit him out. Instead, Randolph is playing under pseudo-control. Jax and Magette wouldn't be able to take Smart's benching for stretches (inevitably that would happen with them). And Mike Montgomery???? Are you serious? I think you lost every ounce of credibility with that statement.

The only coaches that I'd rather have coaching this team right now are Pop and Sloan. Neither of which are going anywhere for the foreseeable future.

 

I believe we wouldn't have had a Randolph "situation" if Smart was the head coach. No doubt, Randolph is immature and not ready to play, but Smart would've confronted him about it and sat him down if need be. I just don't think he would've made it as big a deal as Nelson. Nelson doesn't mind getting his tirades in the paper, but when a player gets their's on him, then he cannot handle it. The guy comes unglued. I really think there's something wrong with Nelson. Maybe he's gone senile or the years of hard drinking has finally caught up to him.

Smart has been working out with the younger players as long as I remember. I don't go to Warriors games anymore, but when I did last year, I always tried to go early and watch shoot around. Smart was the guy working with the younger players, so I know he knows how to handle them.

And how do you know what Smart will do with Jax and Mags? I think Smart will do a better job than Nelson in blending the youth with the vets. Who knows? We may still have our expiring contract in 2010, Harrington right now if Smart was the coach. I'm pretty sure we'd have a better record. Nellie ball sucks for our team right now.

And Mike Montgomery would be a good teacher for a young team such as the current Warriors. There's no doubting his credentials in regards to that. He's had the background to be more patient and has had success in the college ranks. He will do a better job as a teacher and being patient than that fat, dumb bastard Nelson.