Is the team better without Lee?

[Onus]

single metldown in the fourth due to a lack of interior defense and our small ball lineup. Lee would have at least made that a more legitimate smallball lineup,

Please tell me what this is suppose to imply. Melt down in the fourth due to a lack of interior defense and our small ball lineup. Lee would have made that a legitimate small ball lineup

So our small ball and lack of interior defense caused our melt down, and david lee is suppose to make our small ball lineup legitimate?

So if the only thing you propose to change is lee to our small ball lineup, doesn't that mean he's suppose to help our interior defense since that is what caused our melt down? Otherwise inserting lee doesn't really do anything and it's a dumb and stupid idea.

Don't get mad at other people for not knowing how to express yourself.

[TaylorMonkey]

Please tell me what this is suppose to imply. Melt down in the fourth due to a lack of interior defense and our small ball lineup. Lee would have made that a legitimate small ball lineup

So our small ball and lack of interior defense caused our melt down, and david lee is suppose to make our small ball lineup legitimate?

So if the only thing you propose to change is lee to our small ball lineup, doesn't that mean he's suppose to help our interior defense since that is what caused our melt down? Otherwise inserting lee doesn't really do anything and it's a dumb and stupid idea.

Don't get mad at other people for not knowing how to express yourself.

Lee probably would have secured one of those rebounds or gotten us at least one basket against their small lineup.

Still, the scenario would never happen-- us playing small and inserting Lee only for to prevent at 16 point collapse.

For good or bad, Lee would have changed the texture of the game.

[Onus]

eh ... Lee may have gotten one of those rebounds, but the same could be said for bogut or ezeli or beans, we may have even gotten a stop.

I'm leaning more and more heavily to trading lee for whatever we can get. Ilyasova and udoh would be heaven sent, but Humphries, his expiring, and 2 first are looking more and more enticing.

[TaylorMonkey]

eh ... Lee may have gotten one of those rebounds, but the same could be said for bogut or ezeli or beans, we may have even gotten a stop.

I'm leaning more and more heavily to trading lee for whatever we can get. Ilyasova and udoh would be heaven sent, but Humphries, his expiring, and 2 first are looking more and more enticing.

I agree with just having a big. Humphries sucks. I'd want some defense or interior scoring in return at least.

[Frank Mulely]

One thing I think we can all agree on is RJeff should stay glued to the bench.

[TaylorMonkey]

One thing I think we can all agree on is RJeff should stay glued to the bench.

Didn't he hit a shot or two, a three I think, in Denver Game 2?

[and1GS]

Please tell me what this is suppose to imply. Melt down in the fourth due to a lack of interior defense and our small ball lineup. Lee would have made that a legitimate small ball lineup

So our small ball and lack of interior defense caused our melt down, and david lee is suppose to make our small ball lineup legitimate?

So if the only thing you propose to change is lee to our small ball lineup, doesn't that mean he's suppose to help our interior defense since that is what caused our melt down? Otherwise inserting lee doesn't really do anything and it's a dumb and stupid idea.

Don't get mad at other people for not knowing how to express yourself.

Sorry, i assumed you could comprehend basic sentence structure and lolz, not mad at all. I'll try to clarify it better right off the bat next time as I tend to post in between projects or bites of pizza at work. But still, thought I was pretty clear.

Inserting Lee gives us a different look in a smallball lineup, something I thought Landry was ill-suited for...kinda done beating that dead horse though, as I was only suggesting that this was the only time I can really recall saying 'damn I wish we had Lee right now.' His passing around the elbow makes him a more dynamic smallball 5 than Landry, I don't think that's debatable. And he is especially more valuable in a small lineup when two of, if not THE, main goals of running a small ball lineup are to get up and down and hit wide open shooters.

Here's my shpeel from several posts ago:

Doesn't matter if we took them to double OT, they took us to single metldown in the fourth due to a lack of interior defense and our small ball lineup. (note the period here, signalling the end of a thought and sentence) Lee would have at least made that a more legitimate smallball lineup (did not mention defense anywhere, he would have made a more legit smallball lineup because he's basically a smallball 5), though Bogut really should have been in as I recall most of their points were off drives to the hoop late in the fourth (annnnnnnnnd here's your bit on the interior defense).

[GSForever]

We have our cheap starting PF on the bench. He's name is Festus 6'11 250lbs of manlove. Lee salary is almost impossible to get rid of

[and1GS]

Eh I wouldn't say that, it comes down to how much trash will we take back for him and what kind of a player do we expect in return? After this postseason, I think we can afford getting very little for him, but I am terrified of what happens to our team if/when Bogut misses games.

[GSForever]

Bogut would be a top 3 rebounder in the league without Lee.

[Onus]

[
Sorry, i assumed you could comprehend basic sentence structure and lolz, not mad at all. I'll try to clarify it better right off the bat next time as I tend to post in between projects or bites of pizza at work. But still, thought I was pretty clear.

Inserting Lee gives us a different look in a smallball lineup, something I thought Landry was ill-suited for...kinda done beating that dead horse though, as I was only suggesting that this was the only time I can really recall saying 'damn I wish we had Lee right now.' His passing around the elbow makes him a more dynamic smallball 5 than Landry, I don't think that's debatable. And he is especially more valuable in a small lineup when two of, if not THE, main goals of running a small ball lineup are to get up and down and hit wide open shooters.

Here's my shpeel from several posts ago:

Doesn't matter if we took them to double OT, they took us to single metldown in the fourth due to a lack of interior defense and our small ball lineup. (note the period here, signalling the end of a thought and sentence) Lee would have at least made that a more legitimate smallball lineup (did not mention defense anywhere, he would have made a more legit smallball lineup because he's basically a smallball 5), though Bogut really should have been in as I recall most of their points were off drives to the hoop late in the fourth (annnnnnnnnd here's your bit on the interior defense).

so to combat the lack of defense in our small ball lineup, you want to add one of the worst offenders of interior defense. I think we should just stick with the fact Bogut or Ezeli should have been in.

[and1GS]

They should have been, but if you're going to go with a small ball lineup (not usually done with a focus on defense), Lee is a better choice than Landry, hence my stance that it would have been nice to have him if that was the direction we were going.

I didn't really factor small ball defense into bringing in Lee over Landry at that time because Bogut should have been plan A, which means we wouldn't be running a small ball lineup in the first place. Healthy Lee at the 5 would be Plan D after Ezeli at the 5 or Ezeli/Bogut in the frontcourt. Plan E would be Landry at the 5.

[GSForever]

I'm gonna hate seeing Lee put up an empty 18/11 and seeing my C only get 9/7 next year. Myers/Joe find DLee another destination this offseason

[oaktownwarriors87]

They should have been, but if you're going to go with a small ball lineup (not usually done with a focus on defense), Lee is a better choice than Landry, hence my stance that it would have been nice to have him if that was the direction we were going.

I didn't really factor small ball defense into bringing in Lee over Landry at that time because Bogut should have been plan A, which means we wouldn't be running a small ball lineup in the first place. Healthy Lee at the 5 would be Plan D after Ezeli at the 5 or Ezeli/Bogut in the frontcourt. Plan E would be Landry at the 5.

Lee wouldn't only be better than Landry, he would have actually been on the floor. Landry didn't have anything to do with the Warriors melt down. It was a front court of Green/Barnes that lead to a 16 point comeback. With Lee on the floor there is no way that happens. It gives the Warriors more size, rebounding, length, and another offensive option that can score/pass.

I'm not saying that Lee is a good or even average defender, but the Warriors win if he's on the floor.

[and1GS]

Ya...pretty much where I'm coming from as well. If you're going to go with a tiny small-ball lineup, Lee is the right way to do it. Should we have gone small then though? No, probably not.

[Jester_]

I just checked some numbers... Jarret Jack is significantly better with Lee off the floor. Over 15% jump in TS%. Something to consider. I'm guessing because Lee reduces spacing for Jack to drive into the lane, so he settles for iso jumpers.

[GSForever]

I'm still trading Lee. You can stay in the Lee limovan yourself! Lol

[watch1958]

Lee as training wheels? From GSOM.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/5/10/4 ... y-thompson

[Onus]

Ya...pretty much where I'm coming from as well. If you're going to go with a tiny small-ball lineup, Lee is the right way to do it. Should we have gone small then though? No, probably not.

If you want to go with a tiny-small ball lineup wouldn't you want a big defensive presence to clean up all their mistakes on defense?

[and1GS]

Then it wouldn't be a tiny small ball line-up