RealGM

Since Lee's injury the Warriors have been a totally different team playing out of their minds and advancing to the second round. Is Bogut's amazing resurgence and the teams dramatic improved play without Lee just a coincidence or linked to Lee not being on the court.

No, I don't see it. The Denver series was just a perfect chance for Barnes at the 4 or smallball in general because they went small. With every other team which throws in bigs we will wish for Lee. Landry isn't better than Lee.

I am one of the biggest haters of the guy. Dude just flat out can't play D, and is flat out horrible at it.

That said, i don't think warriors are better without him. When he does not settle for jump shoots he can be really good post player. And on rare occasions he can have a good defensive game as well...

Ganji wrote:I am one of the biggest haters of the guy. Dude just flat out can't play D, and is flat out horrible at it.

That said, i don't think warriors are better without him. When he does not settle for jump shoots he can be really good post player. And on rare occasions he can have a good defensive game as well...

Why does Bogut seem so much more impactfull and the team so much better when he isn't playing?

Yes.

Against the nuggets yes, for the rest of the year, there's more to be seen.

Bogut being an impactful player =/= DLee being useless.

I think what we should be saying is that Bogut playing more like a healthy Bogut makes the team a heckuva lot better.

Only flaw i see is he takes away from Curry.

Then again nevermind we are not better without him.

On this current team, probably not. But I do feel that his salary is too large for his contributions. His offense is fine (although i wish we had a PF that could shoot 3's), his D is the problem. Chris Bosh would be an excellent solution in 2014. He can shoot 3's, and defend very well, plus all the other stuff Lee does.

No, don't forget Lee is a big part of the reason GS made the playoffs. He spreads the floor on offense and is an elite rebounder. That said, I would explore a Lee/Klay trade to see if it could net a PF like Horford, Bosh or a SG like Wade or? Not saying they could net a superstar but I wouldn't trade them for anything less. I like Klay also but think GS needs a better ball handler next to Curry.

I think they are better with Lee. However, I think this injury will be good in the long run for the team, because they had to rely on Bogut, Barnes, Green, and it worked out in this series. So next year, when the whole team is healthy, there will be trust built up that wasn't there two weeks ago.

We have more ball movement and better defense without him. I enjoy watching us more without him, I hate when we throw the ball to him and he takes some stupid shot after not being able to back anyone down. I like his heart tho for playing.

First of all, Horford and Aldridge are younger and better than Lee. Since their teams aren't contenders right now, I don't see them having any interest in those trades.

Second, i think the big take away is maybe the warriors don't need to pay lee 37 minutes per game. They can go small next year more often, spread the floor when Barnes and Curry are going.

And finally, i also enjoy the team without him. I like watching players that are athletic, play good defense. For that reason, i've never been a huge fan of Lee. BUT his ugly scoring in the paint this year has kept the warriors in a lot of games. And that's huge.

For me it's this; Would a stretch 4/small 4 do any worse than Lee on defense, where it's widely held he's one of the worst defenders in the league. Probably not.

So offense is the only side he really contributes. Is it more beneficial to have Lee as the hub, instead of Bogut who can pass similarly as well. Probably not. Who's a better screener off the pick and roll? Bogut sets better and stronger screens than lee. So bogut for all intensive purposes can make up the slack on pick and rolls. While he can't stretch a defense out to 18-20 ft the way Lee does, having a small 4 who can hit 3s more than makes up for that, as bogut should be the only one in the paint regardless, so he can stroll down the lane for some massive dunks. The space provided by a stretch 4 is immense as everyone but the center is camping at the 3 point line. So offense without Lee should be sustainable.

Rebounding: it's been highly noted that Lee isn't an impact rebounder regardless of his high rebound totals. He rarely comes up with tough rebounds as he doesn't box out and has short length. The fact we were able to hold our own against the no. 1 offensive rebounding team without him points to the fact his rebounding wasn't sorely missed.

In conclusion, I don't see why he's needed on this team other than to wrestle with other bigs. He doesn't help on defense even though he does wrestle with them, as he's more likely to give up a lay up, even after he's fought for position. The offense is better without him, as everyone is allotted more space with Bogut taking over as the designated picker. His rebounding wasn't missed excluding games 4 and 5 against the nuggets who are the best offensive rebounding team.

Now I'm not advocating always going small, rather allocating Lee's neutral impact of 15+ mill somewhere else, while adding a true defensive 4 in addition to our current small ball.

dr_peb wrote:i think the big take away is maybe the warriors don't need to pay lee 37 minutes per game. They can go small next year more often, spread the floor when Barnes and Curry are going.

Well, during the regular season we had Bogut gone for most of it, Ezeli being a rookie and having hands Foyle would be ashamed of, and Biedrins being....Beidrins. DLee was our best big for most of the season it was only natural he played a buttload of minutes (with the Landry-DLee front). With Bogut playing more like a healthy Bogut (he's still not 100% right now), and Green finding a shooting touch all of a sudden, clearly DLee won't need to play 37 minutes a game. It's going to be up to Jackson to use him smartly...

DLee clearly isn't a type of impact player who can put us over the top like a healthy Bogut can, but I do think he's a productive player. I guess the biggest criticism of DLee is that he's overpaid, which honestly I'd agree with, but I guess I just pretend DLee and Curry's contracts are switched

That said, I remember Lacob saying how he would go into the tax for a team he feels can contend. Honestly, with some health and continued development of our young guys, I do not think we are that far off. I certainly hope Lacob doesn't let DLee's contract get in the way of bringing another impact player. Of course, I'm always for no-brainer trades the Warriors should make.

TLDR version: David Lee is overpaid but still productive, and we shouldn't be trying to dump him at all costs just yet. Obviously, if a reasonable trade offer comes along I would go for it.

@Onus we are not a bette offensive team without Lee. Say what you will about him, but he excels on that end of the floor.

Better without Lee is arguable but that's not considering that he is our higest payed player and will eat a huge amount of potential caproom in 2014. If you consider what could be had with that money yeah he needs to go.

We're not better without Lee, we're better without Lee playing 35 MPG. Lee isn't an addition-by-subtraction case like Ellis or Maggette, but if he's playing 35 MPG it's bad. He shouldn't be playing more than 28 mpg, IMO. Takes away minutes from guys like Green.

If everyone is healthy, then yeah I think the team is better without him.

In an 82 game season though I think he is still has value, given how injury prone Bogut is.