Lacob & Co. in Attack Mode

[old rem]

Id do the Curry+7 for Kemba+2 quick. Curry has way too many injury concerns at such a young age to invest in, and you can't pass up a player like MKG.

With that being said, if we can somehow get there 2 while keeping our 7, robbery lol. You take that without looking back.

Curry>>>>Kemba.

At #2....if I'm GSW...I take Robinson. At #7,I still like Sullinger. I would CERTAINLY not downgrade PG and rather than grab our rare shot at QUALITY big....go get a wing...AGAIN.

Meanwhile...If I look at the Bobs, PG may be the spot where the Bobs actually have some quality and depth.

[azwfan]

There's no denying Monta had the harder matchup each night...

As far as Rondo for Curry, that was a total failure, I remember guys here who didn't like the deal... And man we missed out. That lineup would've been Rondo/Ellis/Wright/Lee/Udoh with Klay and other guys coming off the bench.

The Paul thing included a bunch of young guns, we would've had Tyson sign here, probably would've had a starting 5 of Paul/Ellis/Wright/Lee/Chandler.

Though I'm pretty stoked about what we have now and in no way, shape or form do I trade Curry + 7 for Walker + 2... A few ankle injuries and people forget how dominating Curry is when he's in the game. Defenders cannot give him space, how many PG in this league can you actually say not to go below a screen... Very very few. Westbrook Rose Parker are all guys people play under the screen with the big hedging out and then the guard retrieving.

The problem with Curry is that he doesn't burn defenders when they don't give him space, because he can't go around them. He's the opposite of Rondo. But still effective, just frustrating.

I honestly don't think he's going to hold up well in a playoff series with the adjustments opposing coaches will make... and we got Jackson for our adjustments.

[old rem]

I thought it was a clean Curry for Paul trade (with filler to make numbers work)? Curry/Klay/Udoh is a whole different ball game, I wouldn't be happy at all with that.

That "filler" would be in the area of $10-12 million....so...not seeing who that might be without NOH seeing the filler more as NEGATIVE stuff.

There are RUMORS with substance and rumors with NO substance...or that skip key details.
GM's do NOT announce who they seek or who they put on the block,as a rule. There are cases where it's a guy like Jackson, who demanded a trade..and GSW plainly wanted him out anyhow.

Reporters, bloggers can jump to conclusions. Some fringe guy working at the office can tell his girlfriend -who tells her brother-who tells some guy at a bar. However...the guy at the bar may be all BS...has no sister,no real info.

Sometimes "teams talking" is true, but GMs do a LOT of talking,and any "idea" may fall apart in just a few minutes.

It is VERY rare to have accurate details on the terms of ANY deal that got seriously discussed and...never happened. There were YEARS of " Monta to Memphis" or Iggy to GSW" rumors, and at some point every star in the NBA was about to go to the Knicks or Lakers....and none of it happened.

[Twinkie defense]

I was ready to trade Curry for CP3 or Rondo, but it would be a mistake to trade Steph now, you'd be selling him low, like the Bucks sold Bogut low.

[Kaymak]

I was ready to trade Curry for CP3 or Rondo, but it would be a mistake to trade Steph now, you'd be selling him low, like the Bucks sold Bogut low.

If you had the chance to flip Curry for the #2 pick, would that be selling low ? I don't think so.

[Kaymak]

Id do the Curry+7 for Kemba+2 quick. Curry has way too many injury concerns at such a young age to invest in, and you can't pass up a player like MKG.

With that being said, if we can somehow get there 2 while keeping our 7, robbery lol. You take that without looking back.

Curry>>>>Kemba.

At #2....if I'm GSW...I take Robinson. At #7,I still like Sullinger. I would CERTAINLY not downgrade PG and rather than grab our rare shot at QUALITY big....go get a wing...AGAIN.

Meanwhile...If I look at the Bobs, PG may be the spot where the Bobs actually have some quality and depth.

Kemba's ankles>>>>>>> Curry's ankles

I agree with you though, when Curry is healthy he is way better than Kemba. The problem is that it doesn't matter if he's never on the court.

I wouldn't be doing the deal for Walker though (obviously) it's MKG who is EXACTLY the type of player we need.

[turk3d]

The deal was never Curry for Kemba, it was Curry for the #2 (presumably MKG). Then it was Kemba for #7 (a little sweetener for Bobs(, the idea being that if we traded Curry then the need for another point guard with Kemba making sense long range (we'd go out and get a veteran FA ti start(. I don't think anyone was suggesting a Curry for Walker deal straight up (except for the Bobs maybe).

[Jester_]

Complete and utter nonsense. Go figure your take is that if a PG does well it's Curry's fault, and if a PG did badly it was thanks to Monta. Monta couldn't guard a paper bag.

Opponent PG's against Curry: 20.4 ppg 10 ast 5 TO on 15 PER
Opponent PG's against Monta: 28 ppg 8 ast 5.5 TO on 20 PER

So yeah, Monta got a lot of steals as evidenced by the low assist numbers by opponent PG's, but otherwise he was absolutely shat on. Overall, Curry was a much better defender -- even against shooting guards.

I didn't even have to bring up RAPM, it's that obvious. Your take is simply complete bs, there's no two ways around it.

Do we have stats that take into account which point guards Monta guarded vs Curry? It could have been that Monta got the harder assignments where Curry would be clearly overmatched. I asked about this way back but never got a response.

We'd need a stathead like EvanZ to answer that. At face value that shouldn't make a difference because that would mean Curry is being forced to guard shooting guards. So when Monta is guarding Rondo, Curry is guarding Ray Allen. Monta Ellis is simply a god-awful defender.

Curry is way better for this team offensively and defensively than Monta ever was. I don't think we need to argue our case though, hopefully he comes back healthy this year so people can see what he'll do for his team.

He's a franchise calibre shooter with good playmaking skills, and he's a decent defender too. I can't wait till he's shooting 40 ft daggers to shut up a crowd on the road in the post-season next year.

[Sleepy51]

Monta Ellis is simply a god-awful defender.

Except that team gave up fewer points with Ellis on the floor than off this year. You've overplayed every stale negative take on Monta all season long and been wrong on your facts over and over and over again. Let it go already.

On Court Opponent Scoring: 107.11 points per 100 possessions
Off Court Opponent Scoring: 107.30 point per 100 possessions

http://basketballvalue.com/player.php?y ... 012&id=417

[Jester_]

Monta Ellis is simply a god-awful defender.

Except that team gave up fewer points with Ellis on the floor than off this year. You've overplayed every stale negative take on Monta all season long and been wrong on your facts over and over and over again. Let it go already.

On Court Opponent Scoring: 107.11 points per 100 possessions
Off Court Opponent Scoring: 107.30 point per 100 possessions

http://basketballvalue.com/player.php?y ... 012&id=417

What are you talking about? You literally just linked me to a page which shows his 1 year adjusted +/- to be a miserable -3.71 and you're arguing that I'm wrong about our team being better with him off the court? And let's just compare that number with Steph Curry's from the same website: http://basketballvalue.com/player.php?y ... 012&id=821

Gee, that's not convincing at all.

And your numbers are wrong. Opponents scored 114 points per 100 with him on the floor versus 110 with him off the floor.

http://www.82games.com/0910/09GSW4.HTM

[Sleepy51]

For the SEASON, the numbers from basketball value are correct. They include his play on both the Warriors and Bucks. If he were the god awful defender you claim, he would have been a negative for the season. He is not a great defender, and he's a bad defender when it comes to chasing an off ball assignment. But on a not completely incompetent defensive team, his results were better than on the hapless Warriors.

He ended the season with a positive +/-. His +/- was BETTER on a good team, something I've been pointing out about Warriors players who have been overused and misused in the wrong roles for some time.

And I did not compare him to Curry. I addressed your specific claim that he is a "god awful defender" He is not. In a better situation, he was capable of helping a team on the defensive end. He was overtaksed in GS. He was asked to create turnovers at an impossible rate on a team that lacked the basic abilitie and filmstudy to execute even the most rudimentary fundamental team defensive concepts. On a team that has actually been coached on the defensive end, and with players who have been literate in 5 on 5 concepts, Monta was not a hindrance on D.

[Jester_]

Er sorry, linked to the wrong year. You're right, this year we did better with Monta on the floor 109 with him on vs 110 with him off: http://www.82games.com/1112/11GSW4.HTM

i.e he was a non factor. Curry on the other hand, opponents scored 105 with him on 111 with him off.

Either way my point stands. Curry was a good defender, Monta in his best year was negligible.

[Jester_]

He ended the season with a positive +/-. His +/- was BETTER on a good team, something I've been pointing out about Warriors players who have been overused and misused in the wrong roles for some time.

And I did not compare him to Curry. I addressed your specific claim that he is a "god awful defender" He is not. Your take is stale and has been for some time.

I'd like to see those numbers.

If a player in his best year can be described as "not a liability" as best, yeah, he's a terrible defender.

[Sleepy51]

Er sorry, linked to the wrong year. You're right, this year we did better with Monta on the floor 109 with him on vs 110 with him off: http://www.82games.com/1112/11GSW4.HTM

i.e he was a non factor. Curry on the other hand, opponents scored 105 with him on 111 with him off.

Either way my point stands. Curry was a good defender, Monta in his best year was negligible.

I did not compare Monta to Curry.

And if I did, I would note that Curry missed about 60% of the season, so his numbers are have to be considered in the context of a team that had to play rookies or 3rd stingers in his place when he failed to show up ready for duty on a regular basis.

[Sleepy51]

Er sorry, linked to the wrong year. You're right, this year we did better with Monta on the floor 109 with him on vs 110 with him off: http://www.82games.com/1112/11GSW4.HTM

[Jester_]

The initial discussion had to do with Ellis's defense versus Curry. There's a lot of apologism about how Monta was used badly, yet somehow Curry apparently never was. Monta Ellis is a bad defender, and at his best he has no impact.

Curry has progressively gotten much better since his rookie year. The entire point of the regularized +/- is to cut out the noise and provide a statistically significant result despite context, so it really doesn't matter how much time he missed.

When he was on the floor, he was an above-average defender for a point guard. Monta Ellis had the best year of his career by far and had an RAPM of +0.1.

Congrats. Sure proved me wrong!

[Sleepy51]

The initial discussion had to do with Ellis's defense versus Curry. There's a lot of apologism about how Monta was used badly, yet somehow Curry apparently never was.

Um, Curry hasnt' been over or misused because he only shows up for every other day of work.

This is one of the big holes in the on/off stats (which I like) that point out the need to considered on/off numbers in context. Curry's on/off numbers are exaggerating his impact because the options to use in his absence have to be OVERUSED and overtasked beyond typical expectations for their station. Klay and Jenkins would have had better +/- results if they hadn't been pressed into early extensive service by Curry and Nate's injuries. The team was of course worse without Curry but worse both by virtue of Curry's contribution and doubly by virtue of the prolonged and extensive absence of his contribution.

[Sleepy51]

The entire point of the regularized +/- is to cut out the noise and provide a statistically significant result despite context, so it really doesn't matter how much time he missed.

The impact of noise is a function of sample size. Noise gets louder when the sample size is smaller. The noise gets really loud when a player missed more than half the season.

[Jester_]

You're using his time off as a crutch for a flawed argument. So because he missed a lot of time, he's being used properly? Do you realize how little sense that makes? If anything, his absence would contribute to being misused since there isn't enough time for Jackson to figure out how to use him adequately (particularly with a lack of training camp and being a new coach). Not to mention the fact that he was playing on a shaky ankle and was rarely playing at a 100%.

Either way, your take is wrong. Curry was +2.1 last year and -0.3 in his rookie year (especially impressive considering how long it took him to adjust), missing a combined total of 12 games altogether.

Ellis was -3.4 and -2.9 both those years, missing a total of 20 games altogether. Face it, you're wrong.

[Jester_]

Derrick Rose played 9 more games than Steph. If your little "noise" argument is even remotely accurate, his RAPM should also be a significant outlier.

+2.3 this year, +2.2 last year. Wrong again.