ImageImage

Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go?

Moderators: VCfor3, SD2042

User avatar
SD2042
Senior Mod - Grizzlies
Senior Mod - Grizzlies
Posts: 24,604
And1: 2,413
Joined: Mar 05, 2002
   

Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#1 » by SD2042 » Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:06 am

Hakim Warrick is heading towards free agency come July 1st. In his four yrs as a Grizz, he's been producing solid numbers, especially in the season when Pau Gasol missed the majority of the season. The Grizz had their chance of signing him to an extension and they selected to pass on those opportunities. They also had their chances of trading him to see what players with value could come back in exchange for Hak. Since the Grizz are in cost cutting mode, should Hak be resigned, S&T or let go all together?


Personally, I feel that Hak should've been traded a couple of yrs ago when his value was really high. I don't know who in particular the Grizz could've gotten back for Hak. At times, despite Hak's numbers, it appears that the Grizz are sitting on their hands to whether they wish to resign him or not. Players like Warrick are replacable as they contribute to the squad from off the bench at in the starting lineup at times. Since the Grizz have been indecisive on keeping Warrick, I won't be surprised if he another team offers him a contract and he takes the offer. Look for Hak to wear another team uniform come fall 2009.
User avatar
GrizzledGrizzFan
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,571
And1: 161
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
Location: Just south of Memphis, as the crow flies...
     

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#2 » by GrizzledGrizzFan » Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:00 pm

Only keep him if you can do so really inexpensively. If he's going to command more than that S&T is fine by me. Get a low first/early second round pick.
Image
User avatar
SD2042
Senior Mod - Grizzlies
Senior Mod - Grizzlies
Posts: 24,604
And1: 2,413
Joined: Mar 05, 2002
   

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#3 » by SD2042 » Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:28 pm

That could work if that were to happen.
hptmatthew
Senior
Posts: 570
And1: 3
Joined: Jan 25, 2007

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#4 » by hptmatthew » Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:31 am

Hakim Warrick is a known quantity by this point in his career. He is offensively very able and pretty much inert on the defensive end.

That will make it easier for the market to find out what he will command.

My guess is that they make him the QO, with a promise of sixth-man and spot-starter status-and I think that's a mistake. The Grizzlies have to set their sights higher than Hakim Warrick.

S&T for a wing defender would be optimal, IMO.
jefe
General Manager
Posts: 8,174
And1: 634
Joined: Apr 27, 2005
Location: memphis

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#5 » by jefe » Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:04 pm

Hak's a limited player that should be paid a limited salary IMO. If he can be retained for less than the equivalent of the MLE, then I'm all for it - the MLE or higher and he can walk.

Edit: I also think it was a mistake not to put him on the trading block before the deadline, because one of the 29 other teams will probably offer him the MLE.
User avatar
SD2042
Senior Mod - Grizzlies
Senior Mod - Grizzlies
Posts: 24,604
And1: 2,413
Joined: Mar 05, 2002
   

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#6 » by SD2042 » Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:55 pm

They had their chances last season and season before that and still they didn't execute a move to get back some type of value to help better the team.
User avatar
rag-time4
Rookie
Posts: 1,216
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Location: UC Davis, Cali
Contact:

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#7 » by rag-time4 » Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:53 am

SD2042 wrote:Hakim Warrick is heading towards free agency come July 1st. In his four yrs as a Grizz, he's been producing solid numbers, especially in the season when Pau Gasol missed the majority of the season. The Grizz had their chance of signing him to an extension and they selected to pass on those opportunities. They also had their chances of trading him to see what players with value could come back in exchange for Hak. Since the Grizz are in cost cutting mode, should Hak be resigned, S&T or let go all together?


Personally, I feel that Hak should've been traded a couple of yrs ago when his value was really high. I don't know who in particular the Grizz could've gotten back for Hak. At times, despite Hak's numbers, it appears that the Grizz are sitting on their hands to whether they wish to resign him or not. Players like Warrick are replacable as they contribute to the squad from off the bench at in the starting lineup at times. Since the Grizz have been indecisive on keeping Warrick, I won't be surprised if he another team offers him a contract and he takes the offer. Look for Hak to wear another team uniform come fall 2009.


I thought his numbers have been pretty terrible, especially in the season where Gasol was injured. That season, he had an assist to turnover ratio of 0.9 assists to 2.0 turnovers... defensively he had a combined blocks + steals to turnover ratio of 0.9 to 2.0 turnovers.

His career blocks average is 0.4 Steals is 0.5

It's pretty much consensus now that his defense is horrible. Which is why the Grizzlies were so terrible that season when Gasol went down. Warrick shoots a high percentage and can get to the foul line. He's a good scorer. But by playing him as a big man you totally sacrifice your interior presence defensively and on the glass. The Griz should have started Big Jake along with Swift that season, and given Swift 40 minutes a game with Pau out. Instead they jerked Swift around and the team sucked. They still sucked when Pau came back. They showed signs of life when coach Barone took over and went 3-3 with Swift and Gasol getting big minutes together, then they decided to put Swift in the doghouse and they sucked again.

Warrick is a player that's never been used right, but his coaches have been too cowardly to do something unorthodox and play him at SF. What the hell have they been afraid of? Bad defense? Better have him on the perimeter, especially when they have had shot blockers like Pau, Stro, Darko, and Arthur to deploy behind him to provide help.
User avatar
SD2042
Senior Mod - Grizzlies
Senior Mod - Grizzlies
Posts: 24,604
And1: 2,413
Joined: Mar 05, 2002
   

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#8 » by SD2042 » Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:36 pm

I mean no harm, but how would T-sak made a difference next to Stro. Unfortunately he was too slow as molasses and inconsistant to be effective on the floor. Why else he hasn't been back in the NBA in three sseasons. At best, he was nothing more than a center who was useful for six fouls in a half court scheme.
tisbee
Starter
Posts: 2,206
And1: 0
Joined: Dec 24, 2004

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#9 » by tisbee » Sun Mar 1, 2009 9:59 pm

Young bigs have been getting between $3mil(Landry) and $4mil(Turaif). I seriously doubt Warrick will get close to $4mil in next yr's market,esp w/so many teams looking to keep costs down.

Out of curiosity,would you think Memphis might trade either the 09 Orlando,or the 10 Lakers First for Carl Landry? I think the Rockets need to move a player to get some spending room and I believe you are just enough under cap it would work.
User avatar
rag-time4
Rookie
Posts: 1,216
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Location: UC Davis, Cali
Contact:

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#10 » by rag-time4 » Sun Mar 1, 2009 10:18 pm

SD2042 wrote:I mean no harm, but how would T-sak made a difference next to Stro. Unfortunately he was too slow as molasses and inconsistant to be effective on the floor. Why else he hasn't been back in the NBA in three sseasons. At best, he was nothing more than a center who was useful for six fouls in a half court scheme.

Juwan Howard and David Wesley have never been effective, due to their own extreme lacks of athleticism, but they had long careers. Who knows, maybe Jake got more money to play elsewhere.

Next to Stro, Jake provides toughness - a physical presence in the paint, whereas Warrick causes a gaping hole in terms of paint presence. The Griz were really good with Swift and Lorenzen Wright starting together in 04/05 when Pau got hurt, and Wright is no better than Jake, so it might have worked out better.
boogiesdad
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 9,104
And1: 52
Joined: Apr 19, 2003
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#11 » by boogiesdad » Mon Mar 2, 2009 12:16 am

Until we can find a better player its best to keep him for 5 to 6 million a year.......

Blake Griffin would look great in a Grizz uni
User avatar
rag-time4
Rookie
Posts: 1,216
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Location: UC Davis, Cali
Contact:

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#12 » by rag-time4 » Mon Mar 2, 2009 12:41 am

boogiesdad wrote:Until we can find a better player its best to keep him for 5 to 6 million a year.......

Blake Griffin would look great in a Grizz uni

If they kept him they should trade or bench Rudy Gay and play Warrick at SF.
User avatar
GrizzledGrizzFan
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,571
And1: 161
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
Location: Just south of Memphis, as the crow flies...
     

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#13 » by GrizzledGrizzFan » Mon Mar 2, 2009 3:37 am

rag-time4 wrote:
boogiesdad wrote:Until we can find a better player its best to keep him for 5 to 6 million a year.......

Blake Griffin would look great in a Grizz uni

If they kept him they should trade or bench Rudy Gay and play Warrick at SF.


If Warrick had an adequate outside shot and could even remotely guard the 3, I'd be all about keeping him. But he can't.
Image
Downtown
Head Coach
Posts: 6,876
And1: 577
Joined: Jun 30, 2001

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#14 » by Downtown » Mon Mar 2, 2009 5:28 am

If they re-sign Warrick, I'm assuming he's getting a raise. Therefore you would assume they would feel a need to play him a fair bit if they give him a salary increase? So if they draft a power forward with their own pick, where does that leave Warrick and Arthur? Would Heisley pay for Warrick to be the backup combo forward to Gay and whoever they draft, or would he use the lower paid Arthur for backup power forward and try to bring in a sixth man backup to both Gay and Mayo?

I think it will come down to how much it will cost to keep Warrick. If it's cheap enough they do it, if not they let him go and try to fill in his role with a couple of cheaper players. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I think that's how management will look at it.
User avatar
SD2042
Senior Mod - Grizzlies
Senior Mod - Grizzlies
Posts: 24,604
And1: 2,413
Joined: Mar 05, 2002
   

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#15 » by SD2042 » Mon Mar 2, 2009 7:06 am

rag-time4 wrote:Juwan Howard and David Wesley have never been effective, due to their own extreme lacks of athleticism, but they had long careers. Who knows, maybe Jake got more money to play elsewhere.

Next to Stro, Jake provides toughness - a physical presence in the paint, whereas Warrick causes a gaping hole in terms of paint presence. The Griz were really good with Swift and Lorenzen Wright starting together in 04/05 when Pau got hurt, and Wright is no better than Jake, so it might have worked out better.


Yeah, both of them managed to have long careers. It was due to their offensive prowess they provided on the court when they were at the highlights of their careers. Not pure athleticism.

As for Wright vs. Jake. How is it Wright wasn't any better than Jake when it was Wright who showed more tenacity and fire at the center position for as long as he was able until the last season with the Grizz when he showed signs of wearing down after playing five seasons as an undersized center in the first place?
User avatar
rag-time4
Rookie
Posts: 1,216
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Location: UC Davis, Cali
Contact:

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#16 » by rag-time4 » Mon Mar 2, 2009 8:20 am

SD2042 wrote:
rag-time4 wrote:Juwan Howard and David Wesley have never been effective, due to their own extreme lacks of athleticism, but they had long careers. Who knows, maybe Jake got more money to play elsewhere.

Next to Stro, Jake provides toughness - a physical presence in the paint, whereas Warrick causes a gaping hole in terms of paint presence. The Griz were really good with Swift and Lorenzen Wright starting together in 04/05 when Pau got hurt, and Wright is no better than Jake, so it might have worked out better.


Yeah, both of them managed to have long careers. It was due to their offensive prowess they provided on the court when they were at the highlights of their careers. Not pure athleticism.

As for Wright vs. Jake. How is it Wright wasn't any better than Jake when it was Wright who showed more tenacity and fire at the center position for as long as he was able until the last season with the Grizz when he showed signs of wearing down after playing five seasons as an undersized center in the first place?
What about Wright made him tenacious? His terrible help defense? His constant cursing whenever he made a poor play (which was often)? He wasn't aggressive enough offensively and didnt get to the line enough. Lots of soft half-hooks and mediocre mid range shots.

The Griz would have been much better off starting Gasol at C and Swift at PF back in the glory days, but they were intent on babying Pau and giving him the luxury of a smaller defender and a smaller matchup on the glass. Gasol has played a lot of center for the Lakers and they got to the finals. I always have seen Wright as a scrub who got way more minutes than he deserved and held back the team from greater success. I don't see him being any better than Jake, and I certainly think Swift and Jake would have worked out better than Swift and Warrick, which was a disaster, though Swift didn't even play all that much.

GrizzledGrizzFan wrote:
rag-time4 wrote:
boogiesdad wrote:Until we can find a better player its best to keep him for 5 to 6 million a year.......

Blake Griffin would look great in a Grizz uni

If they kept him they should trade or bench Rudy Gay and play Warrick at SF.


If Warrick had an adequate outside shot and could even remotely guard the 3, I'd be all about keeping him. But he can't.
His outside shot is good enough! Play him at SF with the current Griz roster and he becomes the best post-up player on the team.
User avatar
GrizzledGrizzFan
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,571
And1: 161
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
Location: Just south of Memphis, as the crow flies...
     

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#17 » by GrizzledGrizzFan » Mon Mar 2, 2009 3:04 pm

His outside shot is good enough! Play him at SF with the current Griz roster and he becomes the best post-up player on the team.


Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. One thing Warrick currently has in his favor offensively is that he's typically guarded by 4's. When he's guarded by 3's his outside game evaporates.

One thing I'd revise in my position is that if we could keep Hak very inexpensively as a rotation filler and he was happy, go for it. 3 years at $9 million I could see, anything beyond that - no.
Image
User avatar
SD2042
Senior Mod - Grizzlies
Senior Mod - Grizzlies
Posts: 24,604
And1: 2,413
Joined: Mar 05, 2002
   

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#18 » by SD2042 » Mon Mar 2, 2009 4:06 pm

rag-time4 wrote:
What about Wright made him tenacious? His terrible help defense? His constant cursing whenever he made a poor play (which was often)? He wasn't aggressive enough offensively and didnt get to the line enough. Lots of soft half-hooks and mediocre mid range shots.

The Griz would have been much better off starting Gasol at C and Swift at PF back in the glory days, but they were intent on babying Pau and giving him the luxury of a smaller defender and a smaller matchup on the glass. Gasol has played a lot of center for the Lakers and they got to the finals. I always have seen Wright as a scrub who got way more minutes than he deserved and held back the team from greater success. I don't see him being any better than Jake, and I certainly think Swift and Jake would have worked out better than Swift and Warrick, which was a disaster, though Swift didn't even play all that much.

[quote="rag-time4"]

What made Ren tenacious was is ability to become the enforcer the Grizz desperately needed at the center position. He was playing undersized and underweight for the position, but he didn't let that stop him at all. He brought that sense of leadership, fierce maddog mentality to the team when they had no one else capable of playing the position at the best ability that he did. Ren main purpose wasn't to the offensive end as it was to the defensive end. Most games, yes he would be at the mercy of your Shaqs' TDs' your Amares' and so on. Ren could only do so much given he was already undersize and weight to play the center position in the first place. And playing at the position in those conditions takes a toll on the body. Don't believe me, ask Brian Grant. He was forced to be in the same situation as Ren due to Alonzo Mourning's kidney sickness. And Grant is only 6'9 and 230lbs compare to Ren's 6'10 and 235-240lbs. What did Jake Tsakalidis brought to the table? Next to nothing.
vanjulio
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,539
And1: 60
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Newport, RI
Contact:
 

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#19 » by vanjulio » Mon Mar 2, 2009 4:37 pm

He has no value to us for a new contract. We have let FAR GREATER assets go for nothing. It would be insane to change the formula now and make exception for a player with such inconsistent play.
==========================
Memphis Grizzlies Never Die
User avatar
rag-time4
Rookie
Posts: 1,216
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Location: UC Davis, Cali
Contact:

Re: Warrick: Keep,S&T or let go? 

Post#20 » by rag-time4 » Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:11 am

SD2042 wrote:
rag-time4 wrote:What about Wright made him tenacious? His terrible help defense? His constant cursing whenever he made a poor play (which was often)? He wasn't aggressive enough offensively and didnt get to the line enough. Lots of soft half-hooks and mediocre mid range shots.

The Griz would have been much better off starting Gasol at C and Swift at PF back in the glory days, but they were intent on babying Pau and giving him the luxury of a smaller defender and a smaller matchup on the glass. Gasol has played a lot of center for the Lakers and they got to the finals. I always have seen Wright as a scrub who got way more minutes than he deserved and held back the team from greater success. I don't see him being any better than Jake, and I certainly think Swift and Jake would have worked out better than Swift and Warrick, which was a disaster, though Swift didn't even play all that much.



What made Ren tenacious was is ability to become the enforcer the Grizz desperately needed at the center position. He was playing undersized and underweight for the position, but he didn't let that stop him at all. He brought that sense of leadership, fierce maddog mentality to the team when they had no one else capable of playing the position at the best ability that he did. Ren main purpose wasn't to the offensive end as it was to the defensive end. Most games, yes he would be at the mercy of your Shaqs' TDs' your Amares' and so on. Ren could only do so much given he was already undersize and weight to play the center position in the first place. And playing at the position in those conditions takes a toll on the body. Don't believe me, ask Brian Grant. He was forced to be in the same situation as Ren due to Alonzo Mourning's kidney sickness. And Grant is only 6'9 and 230lbs compare to Ren's 6'10 and 235-240lbs. What did Jake Tsakalidis brought to the table? Next to nothing.

Well Wright certainly wasn't only player playing his best while being undersized at the center position, because Stromile Swift also played center, and played better than Wright did. Remember how the team always got off to slow starts?? Howcome Swift isn't known for being tenacious and a great lunch pail guy when he was more effective than Wright was even though he was even more undersized?

I disagree that Wright was being played for defense. His offense and defense are both poor. I think he was being played for his toughness and physical play in the paint. As you said, he was the team enforcer if you will. I think that Jake is the same. Jake sucks offensively and defensively, just like Wright, but he's also a physical presence in the paint.

If Wright was still with the team in 06/07 I would have been all in favor of playing him at center with Swift at PF, rather than Swift at center and Warrick at PF. But they didn't have Wright, they had Jake.

GrizzledGrizzFan wrote:
His outside shot is good enough! Play him at SF with the current Griz roster and he becomes the best post-up player on the team.


Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. One thing Warrick currently has in his favor offensively is that he's typically guarded by 4's. When he's guarded by 3's his outside game evaporates.

One thing I'd revise in my position is that if we could keep Hak very inexpensively as a rotation filler and he was happy, go for it. 3 years at $9 million I could see, anything beyond that - no.
Warrick has always been good at exploiting his quickness advantage over other 4's, I'll give you that. But if he is played at 3 who cares about his outside game? The Griz have Mayo now, as well as Conley and Jaric. If Darko was allowed to play more, he's a good perimeter center on offense.

Actually I've noticed that the Griz use Darko as a low post player far too often. He seems more comfortable as a face up player further from the basket. Play Warrick at SF and use him as a low post player. He could be effective even against zone defenses, because he has experience playing against bigger defenders.

Return to Memphis Grizzlies