Does Baron have positive or negative trade value?

[The_Believer]

To teams with star wings or big men but no point guard (Celtics, Hawks, Cavs, Lakers, Magic, Clips, etc) Baron has very high trade value.
As a matter of fact, people usually say that Baron's among the top 15-20 in trade value, excluding contract negotiations.

[Chris Cohan]

1. No one excludes contracts in NBA trades.
2. Gotta-make-press pundits were saying he was one of the most talented players in the league fresh off the heels of the first productive 30 game stretch he'd played in over 5 years. It's carried over a bit. Nothing more was being implied by ANYONE about his de facto trade value, which has long been among the ABSOLUTE LOWEST in the entire NBA due to his injuries, attitude, or some combination of the two on top of his big salary.

None of the teams you've listed will be working out a trade for Baron Davis with the Warriors and it has almost nothing to do with whether or not Baron Davis seems to fill a PG void for them. And I suggest you pay far more attention to Rajon Rondo if you think Boston needs Baron Davis screwing up their system and chemistry.

None of those teams have the pieces to give the Warriors better than they can have by getting him to opt out and leave them with the cap space/payroll savings.

[Sleepy51]

-= original quote snipped =-



The volume attack is required when you give two 41-42% career shooters 40% of the team's shots. The Warriors get 4 more shots per game than their opponents. Without getting into the miniscule 2/3 point shot breakdown within those small differential subsets or the incredible regularity with which Jackson and Davis are taking extreme majorities of 4th quarter shots, you've got an equation that adds up to pace factor being all the Warriors have an advantage in. We agree there, and probably on most everything else in this discussion.

The volume attack is intended to overcome the weakness of the roster. I don't see what such a revelation about saying our talent is weak. This team is what we've managed to cobble together climbing out of 13 years of terrible drafting and personnel management. How are we supposed to trade for or sign perfect players when we had nothing but crap to work with 5 years ago?

We've always been overachieving. The premise of this team is that with a little stategery and cunning and the willingness (most nights) to work harder than the most of the lazy NBA (see Jerry West for cite), we can overachieve more often than we underachieve. Of course we have to manufacture an edge. For the most part, the results have been emotinonally and competitively pleasing. This year and back to the second half of last season. Score one for the underdogs.

Then we have the first truly crapatcular game in months (just days afte the best game of theNBA season) and the purists come out of the woodwork to proclaim that we are once again a crappy team? Color me stunned.

Nostradamus has nothing on you guys.

[St.Nick]

Brilliant.

(Sorry Sleepy. I just had to comment on that post.)

[floppymoose]

Fortunately we have hard data to keep it real. In those threads there are fewer sermons from the mount.

[Sleepy51]

ok, so I used the word "strategery" in that post because it's my all time favorite bushism . . . of course, I spelled it wrong

Color me stupid.

[Chris Cohan]

[quote="Sleepy51"][/quote]

Sounds like you're just agreeing with me.
Does that about cover it?

[Chris Cohan]

Fortunately we have hard data to keep it real. In those threads there are fewer sermons from the mount.

I assume the hard data is more of the same about how key Baron Davis is to everything and how brilliant the Nelson fast break attack is.

You have never given a relevant run down of

1. Baron's overall production against +.500 teams
2. The Warriors' situational offensive advantages against +.500 teams.

When you give up more points than anyone else in the league and your leaders chuck ad nauseum as below average NBA shooters, there is no statistical positive of the play besides the volume and the final score.

Looking through the Western Conference teams who don't come close to the Warriors' fast break possessions but somehow outscore opponents to better effect than the Warriors, it's easy to get bored by those still putting out the same old fast break noise as the league continues to find ever-more-regular success in slowing the break and letting the 3 be shot.

Tonight might be a good game but just because the trend of inconsistency and ineffective offense is relatively recent does not mean it is not significant.

Like deflections-as-defensive strategy, the Warriors' style is gimmicky and can often just be flat out bad. But changes seem likely.

I've been pretty consistent about this stance.

[Twinkie defense]

Baron has negative trade value for the Warriors, in that he has more value to the Warriors than to most any other team - same goes for just about everyone on the Dubs' roster, BTW. Even Biedrins, Monta - do you think we could get equal value for them?

[FNQ]

Good GMs can see through gimmick ball... Donnie Walsh caught a ton of crap for his trade with us, seeing a struggling Dunleavy on a bad contract and found a solid player for a malcontent and a mistake of a signing (Al)...

Truth is Baron has negative value.. our speciality is sapping the value of players who really shouldnt be here in a year or two. Screw Baron's injury concerns, screw his attitude - what team is going to trade for Baron, after he's been in this free-wheeling offense for 2 years now? What coach will take on the task of trying to reign him in?

Baron and Jax are Warriors until they leave via FA... there's no recouping any value there.

If the W's offer even 10 a season Baron has to take it... he's found his chucking Mecca..