Pietrus Wants To Stay With Golden State

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post">The thing is if we knew how to make the right decisions every single time and we knew what opportunities to go after, we'd probably be doing what Mullin and Montgomery are doing right now....
I personally think Mully and Monty have made some questionable decisions, but we might take it as bonheaded because we don't know the context of what they were trying to accomplish. </div>

True, we're all fans that are emotional about the team, and I agree that we get a very limited, filtered perception of what is really going on in the GS headquarters. You think you hear about a Jermaine O'Neal trade and then all of a sudden Baron Davis is a Warrior.

No doubt, we all speculate about decisions involving the Warriors.

I'm not talking about second-guessing past decisions, however. I'm not saying using hindsight to say "Oh, the GM should have done this, should have done that."

I'm saying that, during the time when Dunleavy's contract was an issue, it appeared that every possible influencing factor in the equation weighed on the side of not issuing him a contract. I know I was adamant about it at that time.

Of course, I'm sure Mullin had legitamate reasons for offering such a blockbuster deal to such an under-achieving player.

What I'm not willing to concede is that Mullin "thought of everything," as if he had weighed every possibility and thought it through.

Even Kasparov doesn't see 20 moves deep into every line of every variation. Why? He's human. He can't.

What I'm saying is that it is possible for you, me, or anyone else, to think of something in regards to the Warriors that Chris Mullin and his band of staff members has never thought of.

I'm not second guessing or lashing out emotionally.

In my personal opinion, at that time I was firmly arguing that Dunleavy should not get a contract. Let him take a 1 year tender. Let his agent make threats. Let him walk. Hell, let him blow up into an All Star and go somewhere else. There was just no way he deserved a fat contract.

Yet, he got one. I'd like to know why. Care to explain?

 

Dude, I'm in the same boat as everyone else that said, "do not give a contract to Dunleavy until he starts playing up to his talent level". The guy didn't deserve anything that a role playing jump shooter would get. Ignoring upside, the way he was playing for the last four years was probably worth the MLE. But I get ya.

I'm sure if we knew what the league was doing in terms of trades or what sports agents were doing for their clients or we became aware of what talent there was in the CBA or in the foreign leagues, I'm sure we could come up with something. I think it's kind of funny that Ben Wallace and Brad Miller and some of these other undrafted guys emerge as impact players in the league. Maybe it's time for us to get lucky.

 

I think we got lucky with Monta Ellis. Now it's a question of whether we can keep him or not.

Like Earl Boykins.

And Brian Cardinal.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AlleyOop:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm saying that, during the time when Dunleavy's contract was an issue, it appeared that every possible influencing factor in the equation weighed on the side of not issuing him a contract. I know I was adamant about it at that time.

Of course, I'm sure Mullin had legitamate reasons for offering such a blockbuster deal to such an under-achieving player.

What I'm not willing to concede is that Mullin "thought of everything," as if he had weighed every possibility and thought it through.

Even Kasparov doesn't see 20 moves deep into every line of every variation. Why? He's human. He can't.

What I'm saying is that it is possible for you, me, or anyone else, to think of something in regards to the Warriors that Chris Mullin and his band of staff members has never thought of.

I'm not second guessing or lashing out emotionally.

In my personal opinion, at that time I was firmly arguing that Dunleavy should not get a contract. Let him take a 1 year tender. Let his agent make threats. Let him walk. Hell, let him blow up into an All Star and go somewhere else. There was just no way he deserved a fat contract.

Yet, he got one. I'd like to know why. Care to explain?</div>
I'll give you my best explanation. But before I go into it, I have to say that every time I heard or read that Mullin was serious about signing Dunleavy before the season began, I openly questioned his motives. I fully agree with you that all the signs that we fans could see pointed to waiting untill the summer of '06 to make a decision on Dunleavy and/or Pietrus as the right decision.

Here's a thread from last October that talks about Dunleavy's contract right after it was signed. In it, I give my take for why Mullin made the deal:

link

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting me:</div><div class="quote_post">While I don't agree with it personally, there is a lot of logic to what Mullin did. Simply put, Dunleavy got the market rate for a player of his age, productivity, and potential.

A) Dunleavy is at best the 5th best player to come out of the '02 draft class, and at worst the 8th best. Yao and Amare signed max deals, Boozer signed a 6 year/$68 mil deal, Prince signed a 5 year/$47 mil deal. Butler, Gooden, and Nene, the other players from '02 that are Dunleavy's caliber, have yet to sign extensions (I believe).

Other players of Dunleavy's caliber that have signed contracts recently have also helped set the price on Dunleavy. Along with Prince, Bobby Simmons also signed a 5 year/$47 mil deal.

C) Murphy, Richardson, and Foyle signed comparable deals last year given their respective levels of production. There's no way Mullin could have gotten away with lowballing Dunleavy.

Again, I'm not happy about Dunleavy getting that much, but it's really the market rate for him. The Warriors are certainly going to have salary cap/luxury tax problems the next couple of years and will probably have to let Pietrus and Zarko walk. And if Biedrins develops, they'll probably have to package a first rounder with Foyle to have room to resign him.

I know everyone here hoped the Warriors could keep all their guys together, and that if someone had to go, many would have prefered it be Dunleavy, but I don't think it was possible in today's market.

The good news is this: Mullin isn't really spending out of control. At least, not any more out of control than the rest of the GM's (btw, I always feel funny calling him the GM even though he isn't, but he's really the decision maker). That means the salary cap is going to keep going up and the luxury tax line is going to keep getting pushed back as well.

Just look at the '03 draft class: Lebron, Carmelo, Wade, Bosh will all get max deals. Hinrich, Ridnour, Kaman, and Josh Howard will all get at least as much as Dunleavy. Next year Dunleavy's deal is not going to look bad at all.</div>

And in case anyone thinks I'm a Mullin apologist, read my comments from two other Dunleavy extension threads that took place before Dunleavy signed the contract. To paraphrase, I was totally against signing Dunleavy to an extension last summer and thought that if Mullin did sign him, it would be for at least $42 mil.

link #1
link #2

Now as for your other issue AlleyOop, I will happily conceed that it's possible to think of elaborate trades involving 15 different players and 10 different teams that Mullin has never thought of. But that's a separate issue. When we're talking about basic things such as whether Mullin weighed the pros and cons of signing Dunleavy to an extension in '05 or waiting until '06 to make a decision, I'm never going to think that Mullin didn't weigh every RATIONAL factor in those types of decisions.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post"> I'm never going to think that Mullin didn't weigh every RATIONAL factor in those types of decisions.</div>

Fair enough.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">Just look at the '03 draft class: Lebron, Carmelo, Wade, Bosh will all get max deals. Hinrich, Ridnour, Kaman, and Josh Howard will all get at least as much as Dunleavy. Next year Dunleavy's deal is not going to look bad at all.</div>

In comparison to all those players, Dunleavy's deal looks atrocious. But, in regards to the 2002 draft, I'm not going to try to say Mullin should have drafted differently. Frankly I didn't even know who Amare Stoudamire was then.

However, at the time of the contract deal, I had a pretty good feeling of who Mike Dunleavy was. And, IMO, it was evident he did nothing -- nothing -- to warrant the type of $$$ he got.

I completely disagree that we paid "market" value for the guy. I mean, what's the going rate for a back-up shooting forward who can't shoot?

Now, I'm being critical here because we're talking about that contract. Honestly, I'm a Warriors fan, and I root for all these guys. And Dunleavy has, at times, shown hints at why he'll be a servicable back-up in this league, on the right team. However, at the time of that contract signing, whatever was going on in practice, whatever intangibles we're unaware of, Dunleavy had not proven he could consistently produce in a real-live game.

He was given ample PT to prove himself.

He did little with those minutes, and failed to prove himself. Yet Mullin went and signed him to a big-ride $$ deal.

Whatever Mullin was looking at that day, whatever factors he had carefully weighed, it is my humble opinion that he "missed" something.

He should've saved that cash for a better player. Like Pietrus, or whoever else would come along.

BTW, I like the threads you provided -- IMO you wrote well.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AlleyOop:</div><div class="quote_post">I completely disagree that we paid "market" value for the guy. I mean, what's the going rate for a back-up shooting forward who can't shoot?

Now, I'm being critical here because we're talking about that contract. Honestly, I'm a Warriors fan, and I root for all these guys. And Dunleavy has, at times, shown hints at why he'll be a servicable back-up in this league, on the right team. However, at the time of that contract signing, whatever was going on in practice, whatever intangibles we're unaware of, Dunleavy had not proven he could consistently produce in a real-live game.

He was given ample PT to prove himself.

He did little with those minutes, and failed to prove himself. Yet Mullin went and signed him to a big-ride $$ deal.

Whatever Mullin was looking at that day, whatever factors he had carefully weighed, it is my humble opinion that he "missed" something.

He should've saved that cash for a better player. Like Pietrus, or whoever else would come along.

BTW, I like the threads you provided -- IMO you wrote well.</div>
First off, thanks for the compliment. But now I have to disagree with you when you say that compared to the numbers Bobby Simmons and Tayshaun Prince put up and what they're projected to do, Dunleavy's contract is atrocious. Just compare the career stats of these guys up to this season:

Simmons
Prince
Dunleavy
For those of you too lazy to click on the links, in the '04-'05 season:
Simmons averaged 16.4 points, 5.9 boards, and 2.9 assists in 37.3 minutes.
Prince averaged 14.7 points, 5.3 boards, and 3.0 assists in 37.1 minutes.
Dunleavy averaged 13.4 points, 5.5 boards, and 2.6 assists, in 32.5 minutes and was the only one of the three to improve every year in all percentage categories.

Now Simmons and Prince are much better defenders than Dunleavy and Prince played on a much better team. But Dunleavy's numbers had gone up every year in all 8 major categories (with the exception of his rebounds and assists taking a slight drop from year 2 to year 3). You can't say that about Prince or Simmons. Also, I think Dunleavy gets shortchanged when it comes to his defense. Because as I have said, the team says Dunleavy is by far the team leader in charges taken, which is basically a steal. I'm sure Dunleavy takes more charges than Prince or Simmons, so that should figure into any arguments about them being better over all defenders when looking at steals and blocks only.

Based on those numbers, and his rate of improvement, Dunleavy was projected to average about 15.5 points, 6 boards, and 3 assists a game, while shooting around 45% from the field, 40% from 3, and around 78% from the line, during this past season. Jason Richardson has made similar improvements in his game from year to year, so it's not like it's out of the question to expect these numbers from Dunleavy. And, like it or not, 5 years/45 mil is about the going rate for a young guy who puts up those numbers and has shown improvement every year.

Now, if you want to talk about ample time to prove themselves and missing out, let's talk Pietrus. He regressed just as much as Dunleavy did this year. His shooting percentages were down, and with the exception of his rebound average being slightly higher, all his numbers in the major statistical categories were down, even though his minutes went up.

Pietrus had a worse PER (player efficiency rating) than Dunleavy, and, in fact, has NEVER had a higher PER than Dunleavy in ANY year.

When you look at the numbers or his play on the court, how can you possibly say that Pietrus is more deserving of the minutes or fat contract than Dunleavy? The only reason I can think of is that Dunleavy hasn't lived up to his billing as the #3 pick in your eyes the way Pietrus has lived up to his billing as a #11 pick.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">AlleyOop and Jason Voorhees,

You guys made a basic mistake when reading my post. I said Mullin THOUGHT of everything, I never said Mullin hasn't made any mistakes. See, it's possible to think of everything and still make the wrong decision. I was one of the first to criticize Mullin for some of the decisions he's made, but I'd never say Mullin didn't think of something.</div>

I'm glad you explained. Usually when someone says they thought of everything, it means that person has evaluated the situation from all sides and came to a GOOD decision or a decision that can be explained to someone even if it is not popular. Of course, we know Mullin didn't come to a good decision on Dunleavy, other personnel and contracts, so he needs to figure out where he went wrong and correct it.

You know, Mullin was talking about Monta and how he doesn't rush things like many rookie players. In other words, they are too quick and don't let the play develop. Tom Tolbert mentioned it first as Monta plays "slow." Not slow as in not fast or quick, but "slow" as in having the patience of a veteran to know when the right time is to execute the play. I think Mullin should've done the same thing. He's been a little quick to pull the trigger on some of the moves he made, e.g. Foyle, Fisher and Dunleavy with their contracts. I compared it to he likes to Buy It Now as people are want to do on eBay instead of waiting to bid.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting jason voorhees:</div><div class="quote_post">You know, Mullin was talking about Monta and how he doesn't rush things like many rookie players. In other words, they are too quick and don't let the play develop. Tom Tolbert mentioned it first as Monta plays "slow." Not slow as in not fast or quick, but "slow" as in having the patience of a veteran to know when the right time is to execute the play. I think Mullin should've done the same thing. He's been a little quick to pull the trigger on some of the moves he made, e.g. Foyle, Fisher and Dunleavy with their contracts. I compared it to he likes to Buy It Now as people are want to do on eBay instead of waiting to bid.</div>
I think that's a great point.

By the way, I just did a little checking and found that Caron Butler also signed a 5 year contract extension for around $46 mil. Butler averaged 15.8 points, 5.8 boards, and 1.9 assists while playing 35.7 minutes with the Lakers in '04-'05, so his contract and statistical numbers would be about the same as Dunleavy, Prince, and Simmons' numbers at the time he signed an extension. And he did not show the same improvment that Dunleavy showed from year to year. Basically he had a good rookie year, really bad second year, and a good third year, then got his extension.

 

Well, first off, take a look at my "Pietrus' time is up" thread:

http://www.justbball.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52973

I actually believe he's failed to prove his worth. Just like Dunleavy has, IMO.

I'm not saying Pietrus is more deserving of $$, I'm only saying that, at the time when Mullin signed Dunleavy, it was obvious that Pietrus was pushing in that direction, and that Mullin should have saved his cash to keep his options open, in case Pietrus busted out, or to sign someone else who came along.

In hindsight, I'm glad Mullin didn't sign Pietrus to a long-term-deal. But I'm not talking about hindsight.

Dunleavy could very well bust out and become the MVP of the league in a few years. But I'm only addressing Mullin's decision-making process--his mentality--that summer when he signed the under-achieving Dunleavy.

My point is that, at the time of the deal, Mullin's choice to hand Dunleavy a fat wad of $$ was a poor move demonstrating limited vision. He could have waited an extra year, kept his options open, reserved the $$ in case Pietrus broke out (or even Biedrins for that matter), and given Dunleavy the incentive to get out there and prove that he deserved to get paid. Typically, this is what all the other GMs do, unless they have a Dwayne Wade on thier hands.

To, me, from a tactical stand-point, the deal made no sense.

Maybe Mullin did "think of everything." Maybe he thought on it too much, and wrapped himself into a brain-fart, convincing himself that Dunleavy is the next Chris Mullin (minus flat top).

Maybe he was fooled into considering all of the rational factors on the table equally; that Dunleavy's from Duke, he's a coach's son, he's the next Red Auerbach of X's and Os.

Maybe Mullin spent 3 months, 15 hours a day, locked in the think tank, going over footage of Dunleavy from college. And finally, he emerged one day, sweaty and tired, his brain soft and fried from over-analyzing, convinced that Dunleavy is his new franchise player.

Regardless, it was a dubious deal to make.

But I'll forgive Mullin -- no one's perfect, right?

BTW, stepping in-front of guys to flop for a charge is not good defense, IMO. It's a lazy NBA habit, it's bad basketball, and dangerous for everyone involved.

Dunleavy flopping on Earl Boykins is...well... priceless.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AlleyOop:</div><div class="quote_post">Regardless, it was a dubious deal to make.

But I'll forgive Mullin -- no one's perfect, right?

BTW, stepping in-front of guys to flop for a charge is not good defense, IMO. It's a lazy NBA habit, it's bad basketball, and dangerous for everyone involved.

Dunleavy flopping on Earl Boykins is...well... priceless. </div>
If it's all the same to you, I'd like to table the pros and cons of taking a charge for some other day.

I do think Mullin could have signed Dunleavy for less if he'd waited for a year, as I have always thought, as just about everyone here thought. My priorities for this thread were just to get people to look at a bigger, more objective picture, when looking at Mullin, Dunleavy, and Dunleavy's contract. If I've done that, great, if I haven't, I don't know what else I can say.

 

Like everybody mentioned, timing of Dunleavy's signing was way too early, and it gives basically no benefit to sign Dunleavy that early. Amount? Sure, it looked awfully overpaid when he was signed, and with the dismal 05-06 season, that contract rivals J. James' contract now. But, with the league's setting, where teams overpay young and promising players, it was not hard to predict that Dunleavy would have gotten 9 mils per year even without other players, like Butler, Simmons, and other players' new contract. So, why did Mullin sign Dunleavy that early? It really is simple, because Mullin really likes Dunleavy and he sees himself from Dunleavy. I tried to come up with other logical reasons, but at the end, this seems to be the only answer. Is it right act for GM? No. Is Mullin's obsession toward Dunleavy healthy? Absolutely not. But, it happens all over the place with former players being GMs. Dumas brought Hamilton for Stackhouse, which looked like a landslide favorite trade for Wiz, Thomas brought both Marbury and Francis, and tried to acquire Davis as well, and there are number of occassions where former GMs bringing players which resembles themselves as players. Ever since Dunelavy was out for the draft, Mullin flew over to make sure Dunleavy stayed in the draft, Jamison trade was made behind Saint (still a GM at that time) and he learned that trade via ESPN, Muss, who didn't like Dunelavy at all, was fired despite what he did in two years, and even in 05-06 season, we had zero SF other than Dunleavy, and getting an extra SF wasn't even an issue. If you bring all those puzzles together, it's not hard to figure out why Mullin signed Dunleavy as soon as possible; Mullin just didn't want to lose Dunleavy, and he didn't want to take any kind of risk of losing Dunleavy, such as possible agent's threat, poor season from Dunleavy or better performance from another player, who may threat Dunleavy's position, despite rookie contracts are heavily favored toward the team. Ever since Dunleavy came out, Mullin loved him, and the way Mullin interviews, I doubt that 05-06 season has discouraged Mullin's fate.

I know there are still a lot of Mullin supporters out there, simply because Mullin was a great player, and if they want to disregard my theory so be it. But for years, I have supported Saint, and it's because i saw good reason from most of his moves, so I do not go blindly attack GMs just because the team is doing bad. In contrast, I saw awful a lot of moves, which looks far more like moves of average fan standpoint, instead of GMs and coldblooded business men should make. Once I get some spare time, I may post my thoery on Mullin...

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AnimeFANatic:</div><div class="quote_post">Were there fans that said we should keep Dunleavy and trade Antwan?</div>

Awful a lot. As a matter of fact, there were more Dunleavy supporters than Jamison's supporters, and people were really for removing Jamison to give Dunleavy a starting job. Reasons? First, Dunleavy plays the basketball right, while Jamison plays funny (neverminding the fact that just playing 'right' doesn't equal a production). Second, Jamison gets max and he is not a max player (while convinently ignoring the fact that Dunleavy would have gotten a fat contract in the future, which he got later). Third, Jamison can't play defense and Dunleavy is an above average defender... (-.-). Forth, Dunleavy has more upside than Jamison (also ignoring the fact that Jamison had improved his game over nearly all his career). I observed basketball forums regulary for nearly 10 years, and those are general traits of causal fans.

1. Young and unproven players are always better than proven players, so we should cash in older players for young players.

2. "Insert any headcoach" can't coach. If good thing happens, it's because of players, and if bad thing happens, it's because of the coach.

3. I just made 7 team, 35 players trade. And, I have little or no clue about financial side, because it's complicated and boring.

4. The team must be balanced from 1 to 5. PG should pass first, SG and SF should know how to shoot, dribble and do basically everything, PF and C should post up, rebound and defend the middle. If anybody fails to that equation, we should really consider tear down the team and get a right piece, no matter how the team is doing.

5. Hustle over talent and production (Foyle over Dampier)

6. Second best choice in the draft is unacceptable no matter the circumstance.

7. "Insert your favorite team player" is the best, and we should build the team around with him being the center piece.

8. I can make a bold statement anytime I want, because it's internet and nobody will check back even if my statement turns out to be completely false. Heck, at the worst, all I need to do is to change the name.

9. Above all, my logic is the best, no matter how convincing other people's logics are.

Good thing most of fans in here are all educated fans...

 

I think I'm #4 and #9, Kwan

 

Thank you Kwan for one of the best and entertaining summaries of fan forums. #1, #3 and #5 probably drive me the craziest. At times I find myself defending a player or move just to provide balance.

The one thing I struggle with in all this Warrior discussion is Mike Dunleavy. I understand how he could be special with his size and skill set, it's just that I don't see where he has mentally shown he is going to flip a switch and be what Mullin and Montgomery think he can be. For the sake of this team I hope he can.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">There are times when I think fans have a tendency to get a little delusional. This is one of those times.

....While it may seem like they didn't think of something after the fact, trust me, they did.

....The one thing I do know, Mullin thought of everything.</div>

Well, IMO, I have to say you'd be delusional to blindly "trust" that Mullin has "thought of everything."

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">My priorities for this thread were just to get people to look at a bigger, more objective picture, when looking at Mullin, Dunleavy, and Dunleavy's contract.</div>

Hmm. Well, IMO, by claiming that you're willing to simply trust that Mullin had "thought through everything," you're not encouraging objectivity. You see, you're already approaching the issue with a pre-determined notion of General Managers, Mullin, and the notion of rationale itself.

Being objective, IMO, is being willing to stay open to the realms of possibility, that -- even though he gets paid millions to do it -- perhaps Mullin did "miss something" in his evaluation. Perhaps, not.

Of course, we're human, and thus incabable of being purely objective; the fact that we're alive means we bring pre-concieved notions and experieneces with us into any given thought process, whether we intend to or not.

But, I digress. By saying something like "I don't know what Mullin's reasons were, but trust me, he thought of everything," doesn't, IMO take into account the objective facts before us. Rather, you simply assume that there are good reasons why Dunleavy is getting paid alot of money right now. I guess that's easier, but it's still not satisfying.

 

Mullin does have an obsession with Dunleavy and he said this offseason he would not let friendships with the players affect his decisions when looking for trades. So I could only assume he gave that contract to Dunleavy because of some bias. Cause no logical GM would do so.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post">I think I'm #4 and #9, Kwan </div>

Haha, yeah. I don't think anybody can escape from #9 to certain extent. And, I think that's what the message board makes interesting. Heck, without that, we can all have a nice tea party instead .

 

Nothing really important to say, but this probably one of the best threads I've read on here in a while.

And Kwan's observations about basketball forums was hilarious and right on pretty much.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">By the way, I just did a little checking and found that Caron Butler also signed a 5 year contract extension for around $46 mil. Butler averaged 15.8 points, 5.8 boards, and 1.9 assists while playing 35.7 minutes with the Lakers in '04-'05, so his contract and statistical numbers would be about the same as Dunleavy, Prince, and Simmons' numbers at the time he signed an extension. And he did not show the same improvment that Dunleavy showed from year to year. Basically he had a good rookie year, really bad second year, and a good third year, then got his extension.</div>

How can you put Dunleavy and his career numbers with other SFs who make that much? I'd take Butler, Prince, Battier or even Kevin Korver and his relatively cheap contract over Dunleavy or Pietrus. Almost every team has a better starting SF than our combo. The only team that has a weaker one is Portland with Miles and Khrypa.

Maybe you still like Dunleavy, but I've given him enough chances to make good. The only thing is Mike is BYC so we're stuck with him whether we like it or not. Hopefully, he'll do what Mullin thinks he can do at 15-6-6. Heck, I'll take 12-5-5. I mean I'll still root for him and not boo him unless he continues to throw up bricks like this past season. Next season, Dun will have to put up or else we're stuck with another untradeable. Meaning he'll have to pass up the 3-ball, drive to the basket, get to the line, make his FTs, rebound and make plays when he gets the ball in his hands. Even the most hard core Dunleavy fans will have to admit that. A guy with his size and skills should be dominating and being aggressive at the SF position.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Kwan1031:</div><div class="quote_post">Awful a lot. As a matter of fact, there were more Dunleavy supporters than Jamison's supporters, and people were really for removing Jamison to give Dunleavy a starting job. Reasons? First, Dunleavy plays the basketball right, while Jamison plays funny (neverminding the fact that just playing 'right' doesn't equal a production). Second, Jamison gets max and he is not a max player (while convinently ignoring the fact that Dunleavy would have gotten a fat contract in the future, which he got later). Third, Jamison can't play defense and Dunleavy is an above average defender... (-.-). Forth, Dunleavy has more upside than Jamison (also ignoring the fact that Jamison had improved his game over nearly all his career). I observed basketball forums regulary for nearly 10 years, and those are general traits of causal fans.

1. Young and unproven players are always better than proven players, so we should cash in older players for young players.

2. "Insert any headcoach" can't coach. If good thing happens, it's because of players, and if bad thing happens, it's because of the coach.

3. I just made 7 team, 35 players trade. And, I have little or no clue about financial side, because it's complicated and boring.

4. The team must be balanced from 1 to 5. PG should pass first, SG and SF should know how to shoot, dribble and do basically everything, PF and C should post up, rebound and defend the middle. If anybody fails to that equation, we should really consider tear down the team and get a right piece, no matter how the team is doing.

5. Hustle over talent and production (Foyle over Dampier)

6. Second best choice in the draft is unacceptable no matter the circumstance.

7. "Insert your favorite team player" is the best, and we should build the team around with him being the center piece.

8. I can make a bold statement anytime I want, because it's internet and nobody will check back even if my statement turns out to be completely false. Heck, at the worst, all I need to do is to change the name.

9. Above all, my logic is the best, no matter how convincing other people's logics are.

Good thing most of fans in here are all educated fans...</div>

All really good points Kwan. The only one I mildly disagree with is "5 Hustle over talent and production (Foyle over Dampier)." I know what you mean because there were fans who liked Foyle over Damp, but wouldn't think of Damp first as Mr. Talent and Production. Avery has demonstrated that the Warriors had two backup centers playing starting center all these years. That is, Damp plays more alive when he's backing up someone. Not that he doesn't have any talent or production, but he does better coming off the bench. Foyle? Well he doesn't.