Watch out, Clippers John Hollinger, SI.com Ladies and gentleman, we could be seeing something unimaginable. Inconceivable. Thought to be theoretically impossible. I'm talking, of course, about a team becoming a bigger laughingstock than the Clippers. People constantly poke fun at L.A.'s other team, but at this point the Golden State Warriors might be an even bigger joke. Like the Paper Clips, they have a reclusive, unpopular owner in Chris Cohan. As with their "rivals" to the south, they've played a hand in some of the worst trades of recent history -- anybody remember Mitch Richmond for Billy Owens? And it may surprise some to learn that it is the mighty Warriors, and not the Clippers, who have the NBA's longest-running playoff drought at a decade and counting. Golden State's moves in the opening days of free agency should ensure that slump continues for several more seasons. Ironically enough, Warriors fans were breathing a sigh of relief when beleaguered general manager Garry St. Jean was pushed aside after the season in favor of former Golden State star Chris Mullin. But two months into the Crew Cut Era in Oakland, Bay Area hoops fans can only shriek in horror at the destruction he has wrought Before taking the helm, Mullin had been groomed for the position for the past two seasons, presumably so he would get enough experience that he wouldn't do anything horribly stupid. Is it too late for re-grooming? This week's twin insanity of signing Derek Fisher to a six-year, $37 million deal and agreeing to sign-and-trade Erick Dampier for a few of the Knicks' leftovers put the icing on the cake of one of the most ridiculous offseasons in memory. Mullin started things off with the questionable decision to axe coach Eric Musselman, who had made the Warriors surprisingly competitive in his two seasons at the helm and nearly won the Coach of the Year award in 2003. He followed that by a move that is generally blamed on Cohan, although based on recent events we can no longer be sure -- the baffling decision to hire Mike Montgomery from the college ranks, despite the less-than-sterling track record of ex-college coaches and Montgomery's complete lack of pro experience. Yet long-suffering Warriors fans were willing to give Mully a mulligan on those moves -- he's a franchise legend, after all -- and when he selected 18-year old Latvian Andris Biedrins in the draft all appeared to be well. (Seriously, keep an eye on this kid. We talk about the American high schoolers, but Biedrins was in a European pro league at 17 and kicked butt.) Unfortunately, free agency started, and Mullin completely lost his mind. Let's review the Warriors' disastrous July maneuvers: ? Signed backup center Adonal Foyle for six years and $41 million. ? Allowed forward Brian Cardinal to leave for Memphis. ? Signed backup point guard Derek Fisher for six years and $37 million -- the same amount Cardinal received from the Grizzlies. ? Allowed Dampier to leave as free agent, agreeing to sign-and-trade with Knicks for backup center Nazr Mohammed and not-even-good-enough-to-be-a-backup-anymore Othella Harrington.(This deal could still fall apart, but only if Dampier signs with Altanta and leaves the Warriors with even less). An optimist would say that the Warriors have cornered the markets on backups, and it only cost them $100 million. A more rational look at things underscores what a head-scratching offseason this was. Dampier and Cardinal were the Warriors' two best players last season (sorry J-Rich -- play some D first and we'll talk), which the numbers back up. Their performance on a per-40 minute basis was miles better than the four players Mullin acquired, with the duo combining for about 33 points and 23 rebounds. Cardinal and Dampier were also much more efficient shooters than the other four. Given all the money he spent on Fisher and Foyle and the contracts of Harrington and Mohammed, Mullin could easily have used the money he spent to retain Dampier and Cardinal. In fact, it would have cost less. Basically, Mullin gave up two good players to get four mediocre ones. Rumor has it he's also exploring a deal that would exchange two quarters for four nickels. What's more, he'll be lucky if Fisher and Foyle can even hang on to their "mediocre" tag over the life of their respective contracts and not descend into outright awfulness. Since Fisher's deal was the more horrendous of the two, let's focus on him. Fisher is 30 and has six guaranteed years on his contract, which means he'll be 35 in the final season of the deal. Last season only three of the 53 point guards who played at least 1,0000 minutes were that age or older -- Rod Strickland, Darrell Armstrong and Gary Payton -- and none of them were worth anywhere near the kind of money that Fisher will be making. The fact that Payton is one of the three is particularly poignant -- If Fisher couldn't take his job at age 30, than what will he be like at 35? OK, you might say, but that's the final year of the contract. Won't Fisher provide value for Golden State between now and then? Unfortunately, probably not. Look even two years ahead and the news becomes grim. In the third year of his contract Fisher will be 32 years old. Only eight point guards of that age were able to play at least 1,000 minutes last year, and they all had one thing in common -- height. All eight of them were at least 6-foot-3. Fisher, however, is just 6-1, and thus much more dependent on speed that will decline rapidly with age. Additionally, six of the eight had another, perhaps more important thing in common -- they were way the heck better than Fisher. It's one thing if you sign a guy like Sam Cassell or Van Exel to a long-term deal. If he's getting you 20 points and eight assists a night, then even if he drops off 20 percent, he's still giving you 16 and 6, and you can win with guys like that. But if a guy like Fisher, who only averaged seven points a game to begin with, loses 20 percent, you're left with practically nothing. At least Fisher was kind enough to provide some unintended comedy during the press conference announcing his signing. "I wasn't interested in a team that would go for a championship and then in the next year, two years, be broken up," he told reporters. Derek, I don't think you'll need to worry about that "going for a championship" stuff in Golden State. Mullin's free agent haul has left a team with two backup centers (Foyle and Mohammed) and no deserving starter. He has Harrington, who will spend the year battling "tendinitis." And he has Fisher, who will have trouble beating out Nick Van Exel and Speedy Claxton, but at over $6 million a year will be the most well-paid third-stringer in basketball this side of Alan Henderson. What makes it so frustrating is that, as with the Clippers, this team had a chance to be good if they made the right moves. The Warriors finished last season winning 12 of their final 17 games and would have been a playoff team in the East. But by giving up two quality players and getting virtually nothing in return, the Warriors are repeating the familiar pattern of tempting us with near-success and then immediately riddling their feet with bullets -- the same blueprint that cost them Gilbert Arenas a year earlier. It's rare to see an NBA exec so completely outclassed so early in his tenure, but Mullin's moves so far have been the kind of laugh-out-loud stuff we're used to seeing from the Clippers. While L.A. made an uncharacteristic bid for respectability with their pursuit of Kobe Bryant, the Warriors seem headed in the opposite direction. They'll enter their second decade of playoff penury with an overmatched college coach leading a roster depleted by a comedy of management errors. I never thought I'd say this, but maybe the Clippers have finally met their match. http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=watc...cnnsi&type=lgns
Is it me or does this article seem kind of ignorant... especially the parts where he doesn't even analyze the Cardinal signing with Memphis, what Foyle can do with more minutes at starter, Derek Fisher's intangibles and what we can do with NVE's short contract later, or how Dampier wasn't going to go for anything sexier. Sheesh talk about hating. Although I don't agree with the length of those free agent signings, this writer seems to be talking out of his ass and just talking smack. This is why I hate the media.
I've never been a big fan of Hollinger, who's almost too skeptical. It's good to be opinionated when writing articles, but he's so stubbornly pessimistic, I usually skip him. He has a few points about Fisher's contract, but it's not like Fisher couldn't produce with more minutes, even if he does start to slow down. He does provide facts behind his analysis as far as point guards and age, though. Unlike centers, point guards tend to break down on the whole. I personally prefer more informative, less persuasive writing styles, so as I said, it doesn't rub me the right way. I think his criticism of Mullin was a bit too harsh, it's one thing to say bad moves, it's another to call an executive "so completely outclassed." I think that this kind of material is great motivation for the W's, though. Musselman was often known for taking these kinds of articles and posting them in the lockerroom. I'm sure that was Hollinger's intention, to incendiate some readers, anyway.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Zhone:</div><div class="quote_post">I've never been a big fan of Hollinger, who's almost too skeptical. It's good to be opinionated when writing articles, but he's so stubbornly pessimistic, I usually skip him. He has a few points about Fisher's contract, but it's not like Fisher couldn't produce with more minutes, even if he does start to slow down. He does provide facts behind his analysis as far as point guards and age, though. Unlike centers, point guards tend to break down on the whole. I personally prefer more informative, less persuasive writing styles, so as I said, it doesn't rub me the right way. I think his criticism of Mullin was a bit too harsh, it's one thing to say bad moves, it's another to call an executive "so completely outclassed." I think that this kind of material is great motivation for the W's, though. Musselman was often known for taking these kinds of articles and posting them in the lockerroom. I'm sure that was Hollinger's intention, to incendiate some readers, anyway.</div> Yeah. I thought it was pretty bold for a writer to start bashing right away before the season has even started. By the end of next season we can pull this article out if the Warriors do well and start flooding this guy's email box and reminding him how wrong he was. This guy's on my sh list for now.
What exactly was this guy expecting we should do with Damp? He opted out of his contract meaning he didnt want to play here and he said he wanted to play for a contender..Why should we resign him? Hes a bigger risk then Foyle IMO.. Also realistically what team is gonna trade bonified star or big man for Damp straight up. And where with this current roster do we have room for this star? I think too many people think Mullin should be doing some incredible blockbuster trade for a star when right now there is nothing on the table to really fit with this team.
must be a slow week to be writing about the warriors. the fact of the matter is, the warriors are an easy target given their recent history and so it doesn't take much to simply rely on that as the basis of your criticism and then use that as the basis to judge some moves that may or may not be done, without waiting to see what else might happen. firstly, he criticizes the warriors for a trade that has not been finalized yet, and was originated in the new york post without acknowledging that several parties would be helped by the belief that a deal is close...given that dampier was set to meet with the hawks, and presumably the knicks and warriors are talking to other teams about potential deals. secondly, he criticizes the firing of eric musselman using the line "nearly won the Coach of the Year award in 2003" without giving any reasoning for why the warriors might want to fire him, and then regurgitates the line of thinking involving college coaches but doesn't mention any reason why the warriors might want to bring montgomery in...that he is one of the best coaches in basketball (not just limited to college), knows and understands the game extremely well, and has a reputation for developing players and getting the most out of them...something that must have been part of the thinking process, given a team with such a young nucleus. furthermore, this isn't a situation where montgomery is being thrown to the wolves...he's able to stay in the house he's already living in, in the area he's already living in, and is brought into a situation where the team hasn't made the playoffs for 10 years (so there's not as much pressure to win immediately), and where he is not requried to be the coach and gm, and is surrounded by guys who have been around the league and undestand it, with guys like mullin, elie, higgins, and stotts. also, he criticizes the warriors for not resigning cardinal but then gives them no credit for even bringing him in, or boykins previous to that, and utilizing him effectively enough to the point where he could move on to a long term deal. he doesn't look ahead to the warrior's expected roster for next year and see that if the players are healthy, there probably won't be the same kind of minutes available as there was last year. as far as a comparison to the contract given to fisher, he doesn't seem to factor in the warrior's attempts to move van exel's contract (therefore needing another point guard, especially with some questions about speedy's durability) or the fact that there was interest in fisher by several teams and that there wasn't exactly a long list of quality point guards available. and as was mentioned, he also doesn't seem to know the particulars of the dampier situation.
It's fortunate that his job is judged by his ability to incite, rather than the valididity and accuracy of his statement. We'll start a letter campaign in Febuary, it should be clear how wrong he is by then.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting meshgearfox:</div><div class="quote_post">It's fortunate that his job is judged by his ability to incite, rather than the valididity and accuracy of his statement. We'll start a letter campaign in Febuary, it should be clear how wrong he is by then.</div> Most definitely Kinda like how Houston fans went after all those naysayers about Yao. It even got Barkley to kiss some ass
I hope he's wrong. The media is about entertaining, and for non-Warrior fans, this is probably rich reading, but I agree with everyone on this board that this is over the top. That said, he has painted a pretty awful worst case scenario, and some of his facts are correct. Most guys don't perform in this league into their 30's, and I think that the Fish and Foyle contracts will be a huge problem down the road, although I would have done the Foyle deal because I think he'll be an effective starter, and because we needed a center, and the market was thin this year. I think they panicked on Fish. They wanted Barry, who would have made a lot of sense as a combo guard that can shoot the 3. We probably offered BB a similar contract, and when he signed with SA, we offered the package to Fish. This contract is going to hurt us down the road, because that is 6-7 mil/year that would go to re-sign one of our young guys, and I do see a new round of cap problems in about 3-4 years. As for the article, the author states we could have had Damp and Card for the same amount of money as Foyle and Fish. That is some intriguing math. As well, Damp doesn't want to be here any more, and the Warriors don't want an oft-injured malcontent at 9-14 mil/year. So he wasn't ever coming back, and if we only get cap relief, I'm fine with that. The most interesting point is that Fegan represents Murph and JRich, so we might want to play nice with Damp and accomodate a sign and trade. Card is one of those guys you love, but Memphis overpaid, and I'm glad we didn't match that contract. Good luck to him, I hope he is as productive as West and the author believe. If, in a few years, the Warriors don't have the $ to re-sign Biedrins or Pietrus, the author will be, in effect, correct. Once again we will have pursued old guys for too much money, and not a promising future.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting meshgearfox:</div><div class="quote_post"> We'll start a letter campaign in Febuary, it should be clear how wrong he is by then.</div> Or how right he was.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post">what Foyle can do with more minutes at starter</div> If he can stay healthy. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post">Derek Fisher's intangibles</div> Like what? If he has some intangibles, it's because he had Shaq and Kobe. He's still getting older and he's still successful at making the oppossing PG look like an All-Star when he's defending them. He also made some great points. Like the coaching change and the soon to be trade with the Knicks if it pulls through.
You know that is such an easy thing to say about Fisher when he's got two allstar teammates and I don't think Shaq nor Kobe has anything to do with the lockeroom presence Dfish brings, not to mention the big shots he makes, especially that important one where he fired one right over Ginobilli (who btw is no slacker on defense).during the playoffs. Yes he is getting older and I don't agree with the years in signing, but the guy is supposed to be a role player and he's a good role player somebody who is going to help out Speedy Claxton. Plus it's wrong to talk smack about a team unless you wait and see how they turn out first. Also you think he made some great points, how are they great points? They're either grossly one-sided (like how Musselman wasn't a team player within the organization and therefore wouldn't have worked out long term and how Dampier wanted out long before and was playing hard he could up his value enough to be traded) It's an opinonated article that is just meant to talk trash. Last year I could have written about how crappy the Miami Heat were and how their losing streak was going to make them the sorriest team in the East and the fact that Coach Riley didn't even want to stick around to coach at the beginning of the season. But guess what? The heat were playoff contenders and I betcha John Hollinger was there to make some "good points" about the Miami Heat before they ended thier losing streak and started winning. I mean forget it. Waste of time. The guy is just looking for someone to pick on prematurely and I don't skate with that.
I agree that the moves have been skeptical, however, you really cant rag on someone until you see them in action to prove your points. But wants to say, I knew this was going to happen. I would rather say I told you so. You can always apologize if you were wrong...
OMG, Hollinger uncovered something that's never been reported: the Warriors have the longest playoff drought of any team...shocking, I haven't heard that before. Then he goes further into unchartered waters by bashing the Warriors and rehashing ever misstep the Warriors have made. Way to dog pile on the Warriors Hollinger, that took a lot of guts and really showed your journalistic ability to write a smear piece. Actually, I like being the underdog, it takes all the pressure off. Hopefully now that NVE is gone, it may allow the Warriors to do something with Damp other than the NY deal.
You're going to pay someone that much and that long to be a locker room presence? You can get cheaper ones. Role player? He was like that last season. Aside from that big shot, he never really was a factor. If you're going to have someone to help out Speedy, it should've been someone more consistent. He had a great point. You should've kept Cardinal and Dampier. With the transfer of Shaq to the East, a Dampier on your team would reap you benefits.
I would have liked to have kept Cardinal, but certainly not for what Memphis is paying him. Cardinal was great last year, no question, but while he might be able to be as good, he's never going to be any better than he was last year. To me, he's worth 2-3 mil a year, that's the going rate for a solid role player. As for Damp, speaking strictly on talent, I'd much rather have Damp than Foyle (I've always been one of Damp's biggest supporters). But if I had to choose between Foyle at 40.6 mil over 5 years and Damp's asking price of 75 mil over 6 years (which is what the NY deal was reported to be), I think I'd have to take Foyle. While I do believe Damp can replicate last year's numbers if he gets 8-10 touches a game, I don't know how good he's going to be in 3-4 years. By the sixth year of his deal, when he's making about 14.5 mil, I'm SURE I'll be happy the Warriors signed Foyle instead of Damp. As for Fisher, I don't know what Mullin was thinking, or Fisher for that matter. He definately had to get good locker room guys like Fisher so he could make Montgomery's transition from college to the pros easier, but I wouldn't have signed Fisher to that contract. While the Warriors could have gotten a cheaper back up, I don't know who they could have gotten who was a better combination of talent and character who can teach the Warriros how to be winners. I'm sure their top choice was to re-sign Avery Johnson, but beyond that, I don't know who would have been a better mentor.
Obviously this guy didn't bother to say that the reason Dampier had the first great season of his career was because he was playing for a new contract. Second Cardinal is a good role player that hustles and plays as hard as fisher. Heck both Cardinal and Fisher might have intangibles that they bring to the game, but there are three reasons why the Fisher signing makes sense. 1. 3 championship rings. 2. Playoff experience. 3. NBA Finals Experience. Not to mention cluth shooting. Now lets look at the Nets they first fire Byron Scott because Jason Kidd didn't want to play for him. Second The Nets trade Keynon Martin to the Nuggets for 3 first round picks that if I remember correctly are Lottery protected? Third Jason Kidd may be going out the door because Nets management dosen't want to spend money. I think the Nets should have traded Kidd to the Spurs for Tony Parker and then should have giving Keynon Martin his extension.
[quote name='wtwalker77']I would have liked to have kept Cardinal, but certainly not for what Memphis is paying him. Cardinal was great last year, no question, but while he might be able to be as good, he's never going to be any better than he was last year. And most importantly, he's a forward. Fischer plays the second most difficult position to fill in the league. Bringing the ball up the floor and running an offense should not be undervalued. Fischer is a good decision maker, plays the position where that counts the most and is a far more effective defender. I'll miss the Custodian, who wouldn't? But, we lost one guttsy player and replaced him with another, and this one will have more influence on the outcome of the game.
