Arenas or Baron?

[Chris Cohan]

Here's a hypothetical that runs through my head whenever I think about impending "cap room" and all that good stuff.

Jrich was traded to stay under the tax. Of course we were gonna demand a pick back since we weren't going to take salary (read: "talent") but if that pick had been Yi, it would be a Joe Barry Carroll/Parish & McHale level blunder of a trade.

So what if? Jrich were still here this past season, taking bad shots out of Baron and Jack's hands. Jason plays the 3 where he belongs, Jack plays the 6th man/energy/defensive spark role spelling Monta at the off guard and Jason at the 3 (where he belongs.) We don't take Belli because we've got quality shooting. We draft Crittendon or Smith getting a big or PG that we needed to fill need.

Baron/Monta/(Crittendon or Smith @ PF)
Monta/Jack/Jason
Jason/Jack/Pete/Bukie
Al/(Smith or Critt @ PG)/Barnes/Pete/Cro
Dre/Al/Cro/Obee/Kosta


That team doesn't go 0-6 while Jack is on house arrest. That team wins 2 more games, plays more watchable basketball, and doesn't require the 3 backcourt players to burn out in 44mpg for the first 40 games. In fact, Jason's presence FORCES backcourt rotation and sharing of minutes.

We come into this offseason with Baron opting out to cash in on his consecutive playoff appearances, and Monta is moved to PG full time with a backup already drafted, a quality shooter on his wing, and us in position to get a top 8 pick this year in a Baron S&T deal or an outright trade if he doesn't opt out.

Wright might turn out to be a spuerstar freak. He might be Tayshaun on steroids. That would make the path we've chosen a good one, but mark my words, if Brandan turns out to be anything less than a star, we botched the asset management again. Every player is more valuable being dealt from a succssful team. But the way we played it, we flushed a season down the drain without nearly enough talent to expect to win as many games as we did, and we didn't develop or use several of the assets we had.

We got Belly, we didn't pt Monta at PG full time, we didn't have good shooting, we didn't have any depth, we didn't have good rotations, we didn't have heart, we didn't make the playoffs, we didn't do anything with Wright, and we probably lowered Baron's asset value by not making the playoffs, and exposing his minutes limitations despite making his 82 games.

You guys look forward and fear that we won't make the most of the Baron expiring asset, but in my view it's a very real concern that the "maximize your assets" ship sailed last summer when we dealt Jason for Yacht gas. For this chosen course of action to be the best, Brandan has to hit the cover off the ball. I'm not saying he can't, but we could be getting Love, or Randolpg or Arthur and expiring change, still have Jason, and be rid of you hated Baron if we'd been willing to pay some effin tax for two effin years.

I continue to have little or no faith in our front office basketball decision-making. The lux tax tail wags the asset management dog around here. That's bassackwards in every investment discipline I've ever seen.

This post is riddled with so many what-if's and assumptions about player behavior and production we've never had any reason to expect, that I don't see why we'd want to return to it.

But since you wanted to start over again and try to not have to acknowledge that you're not making any headway....

[Sleepy51]

Um . . . no. I've engaged everything you've said in this conversation that has made sense. I've intenalized the parts that I felt have value and you have helped to shape and clarify my thinking on the issue, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of your conclusions, hypotheticals and opinons.

I'm agreeing to disagree on the questions of opinio, and even on the question of what questions are questions of opinion. That's going to have to be enough for you because you've stopped making sense, and it's giving me a headache.

[Chris Cohan]

I wasn't involved until you got into all this:

Sasha V, Ronny T, Posey and Powe type players are not guys you can lock in to one year deals, or league minimum contracts. They have NBA ability and teams willl be willing to commit multi year NBA money to them. We dealt away a top #2 talent on our team to keep from bumping into our hard cap (for just one year.) I don't know what it's going to take for folks to acknowledge that we have had (and look to continue to have) a bonafide hard cap in this franchise. The lux tax is a hard cap for us. That dynamic limited our scope of available players last summer.

Cro and Thwebenga weren't "lazy" moves. They were cheap moves. We wouldn't take on any multi-year salary. That catastrophically limited the player pool we could look at. The signings weren't lazy; the fiscal policy is.

At this point Rowell's much ballyhooed "mastery" of the salary cap consists solely of saying no to anything but minimum spending of any kind. After the Foyle, Murphy, Dunleavy disasters, Rowell took us out of the contract extension business. It's a been a blanket policy that is no more insightful than Mullin's "pay EVERYBODY and the Free Agents will line up at the door of a losing team" policy. Well . . . maybe a little more insightful, but it's not string theory or anything.

The blanket policy combined with the hard cap is going to cost us. It already has in terms of Jason, and it will again very soon in terms of Monta. We're not going to lose him, but we're going to overpay him vs. what an early extension when he was a bench player, struggling PG project would have cost. I made a definitive call on Monta's talent the first time Monty let him on the court, and you can go back and find my "he reminds me of Isiah Thomas/Nate Archibald" posts circa 05/06 to prove it. An early extension for Monta before this past February would have come MUCH cheaper than the new contract will this July. Dre's agent knew whay his man was worth so there wasn't much hay to be made there, but we have blown a discount opportunity with Monta.

The problem is, Rowell terminated relations between the talent evaluators and the business office. You are supposed to let your talent people tell you who to invest in and who to stay clear of. Our talent people clearly blew those recommendations for the first generation of Rowell's tenure, but what does he do? Instead of holding people accountable and replacing failures with talent people who can be trusted, who had track records to be trusted, he kept them on as lame ducks under a one size fits all, basketball irrelevant policy. Someone is this organziation should be getting paid to say: "I'll bet my job on this player's talent." Unfortunately, Rowell is writing checks for that service, but he's not taking the guy's calls, and won't replace him with someone worth trusting.

Net net, what Monta's 60% shooting month is going to cost the franchise (over time) will probably end up being in the same ballpark as paying the player personnel department "Monty money" to go home would have cost.

That's just one example, but the refusal to take on long term salary/talent in a S&T for a hot Pietrus last summer, or any trade activity where we take on salary (read: TALENT) is born of the same policy. "I don't trust anyone to spend money anymore." That's not how you run a business. If you don't trust the people that work for you, go get new people. You don't just eliminate an entire job function because you made the mistake of hiring a casino greeter to do it.

[Sleepy51]

-= original quote snipped =-



This post is riddled with so many what-if's and assumptions about player behavior and production we've never had any reason to expect, that I don't see why we'd want to return to it.

But since you wanted to start over again and try to not have to acknowledge that you're not making any headway....

Is this the first time you've read the post that started the conversation? See at the top where it says "hypothetical"?

If your closing arguement is that I'm making this all up, then we've both wasted a tremendous amount of time here. For me, this was a really interesting conversation where we juxtapposed largely contradictory points of view. I enjoyed it for the most part, but I really wasn't trying or expecting to convince you of all people of anything. But it was a good conversation. Don't ruin it now by trying to declare victory. I have a different perspective than you. We view the same events through different peceptual lenses. I'm ok with that.

Have a good night Ro.

[Chris Cohan]

I think it's best if you not mix reality with your fanciful rants about Warriors management unless you want to do the work to support your wide-ranging and ultimately (and circuitously, once safe) abandoned assertions about the team's management and player relations.

[Sleepy51]

I think it's best if you not mix reality with your fanciful rants about Warriors management unless you want to do the work to support your wide-ranging and ultimately (and circuitously, once safe) abandoned assertions about the team's management and player relations.

I'll do as I please sport. If my rants don't pass your sniff test, feel free to mock, ignore or rebut. That's what we do with yours.


I was really walking away from this thread, but you are everywhere and I ran into this gem in the first thread I jumped to:

It does seem unlikely there will be much action this offseason. Next year is the beginning of some real sweepstakes. Most young players already talking $8 million per year and up should be preserving their unrestricted status for these upcoming markets at all costs if they're not getting the market rate for what they are form their current teams.

Whether we like it or now, Ellis and Biedrins are already securely planted in the $10 million and up market class as top-8 producers at their respective "positions." If Nelson's new talk is really development-centric and they're only going to get better with more playing time and more responsibilities as they command team focus and investment on those terms, the price goes up. Especially once the cold hard reality of Baron Davis returning for his cool $18 million sets in on everyone.

The Warriors aren't here to just "win now" no matter how much Bob Fitzgerald wishes it to be so.

I might be a huge Warrior Homer if the tough talk is lived up to.

I could swear you've told me no less than a gazillion times in this thread that Monta was absosmurfly getting 8 mil in any hypothetical 2007 negotiations. Last time I checked, 10 mil was more than 8 mil. 2 million more in fact.

Monta's value has gone up. We agree, and with that I rest my case (and my nutz) on the words that came from your mouth. The last word is yours as, I'm sure it can only help me.

Have a good night Ro.

[Chris Cohan]

I think we hit that point several times and, in the post of mine you inadvertantly deleted and elsewhere, I detailed why "hypothetically" 1. That was only a starting point 2. That acknowledged starting point actually opens on to a higher number if SERIOUS talks actually ensued 3. the team actually saves money over 7 years even if they give him 10 now relative to paying him starting at $8 or more for 6 years last year.

You disregarded the luxury tax implications and the factual contract status of Ellis.

Well, you can't have it both ways. So we're STARTING at $8 million just to TALK and even if that were the starting salary, the team would have ended up paying more for 6 years than they now will for 7 years of Ellis due to the reality of the NBA contractual field.

If you don't care about reality once the discussion really gets going, fine. But you cannot now attempt to marginalize the discussion because you're not making any relevant or realistic points.

And if you're trying the old "my original post" routine after we have been away from it for some time, I refer you back to the original poll you hijacked.

So, good night to you, Mr. Dismissive Moderator.

[floppymoose]

don't say it
don't say it
say anything
but don't say goodnight.... tonight

[$Money$]

I voted Areans. Still miss him like Fergie misses her blanket. He's younger, he works harder and is a more fierce competitor, oh and better interviews.