Curry + Biedrins for DJ Augustin + Diaw + BJ Mullens + 2012 1st Rd Pick (won't work in the trade machine just yet because Mullens can't be traded for a few more weeks).
Curry is the one player that has the ability to put NBA basketball on the map for Charlotte. He's also a hometown boy AND he's shown tremendous interest in playing there. Charlotte should be willing to "move mountains" to nab Curry -- it's a franchise-changing move for them. I honestly think we could also get another future pick out of them for this deal.
While getting rid of Curry doesn't seem ideal at face value, this move actually would be a huge win overall: it nets us a decent PG (Augustin) who won't command a huge contract this offseason when his contract expires, an expiring contract for Biedrins (Diaw), a young, cheap Center to replace Biedrins "void" (Mullens), and surefire top 5 draft pick this year. It will also definitely make sure we suck enough to keep our pick as well. We'll be in full rebuilding mode.
From there, we let Monta run the team (into the ground). Play him 40 minutes a night, get his numbers up, and move him in the offseason for the pieces we aren't able to grab in the draft or Free Agency (with our newly found extra $13M or so to spend). Perhaps this is when we can pull off the Monta for Noah trade with Chicago.
The time to trade Curry is now while he's healthy and before we win our way out of keeping our 1st round pick. I think we can all finally agree (even J-RIDAH is finally capitulating) that this team isn't going anywhere as constructed, so now is the time to deconstruct it. This moves helps us do that, and fast.
Quick recap:
Curry for: the ability to dump Biedrins contract, get ~$13M in expirings, get a cheap young Center, and get TWO top 7 draft picks in the 2012 draft.....
Would you do it?
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
1 recs | 199 comments
As much as it pains me to say or type this
Monta has to go before Curry. He’s a ball stopper and stagnates the flow of the game for the rest of the team. Insert Klay Thompson at the 2 and let him learn on the job. his defense cant be that much worse then Monta’s and he plays within himself.
highflya - February 7, 2012
Why not trade both?
Curry to the Bobcats.
Ellis and Lee to the Grizzlies for Gay, Speights and his expiring, Tony Allen, and their 1st rounder
So we would have.
Augustin/Robinson/Jenkins
Allen/Rush/Thompson
Gay/Wright/McGuire
Udoh/Diaw/Tyler
Mullens/Speights
But more importantly, we have the potential of getting 3 1st round draft picks in a very deep NBA draft.
djfivenine - February 7, 2012
I’d think the Grizz might not be interested in this, but I’d do it in a heartbeat if they were.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
would you do it
if they took Tony Allen off the table?
I still would.
djfivenine - February 7, 2012
Most likely.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
Gay is a more valuable player than Monta Ellis.
lilboots - February 7, 2012
that frontcourt is putrid!!
eastbayglory - February 7, 2012
I like.....worth a shot. Nice job.
SmittytheCutman - February 10, 2012
they both need to go; both are inconsistent
HUNGRY HUNTER - February 7, 2012
Curry's been hurt this year, remember
I agree though that he isn’t a franchise player and the fact that people are assuming we should resign him at all costs is puzzling to me.
salary_cap - February 7, 2012
No worries! Charlotte would not that trade.
Only In Fairfax - February 9, 2012
No
doubleteapot - February 7, 2012
+1
dandubz - February 7, 2012
U Monta Jellis, bro?
pax217 - February 10, 2012
why wouldn't you just post this in the other fan shot??
and also, “no” to this trade
Duby Dub Dubs - February 7, 2012
What other fanshot? And, why “no”?
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
the fan shot called "Now is the time to make a trade" - which I assume you've seen, since you paraphrased it in the name of this one
and “no” for two distinct reasons:
1.) Dump Monta before Steph (if possible)
2.) This is a totally unrealistic scenario. Charlottes rebuilding, and extremely doubtful that they’d give up a 1st round pick (don’t forget Steph is up for a new contract soon too). Also, you are assuming we can tank hard enough to keep our pick (from Utah) which I question.
Duby Dub Dubs - February 7, 2012
Wow, I must have done that subconsciously. This genius idea needed its own thread anyway so that it wasn’t lost in the noise of ridiculousness over there ;-)
1. Steph’s value is far higher than Monta’s now. Trading Monta first would be bargaining from a position of weakness. Trading Curry then playing Monta more would increase his value (which just happens naturally, anyway, as his contact shortens) and net us a far better return than doing it the other way around.
2. I think this is far from unrealistic, since it actually serves both teams’ purposes. If they’re rebuilding, then Curry is the perfect piece to do that with. They’re giving up expirings and a pick for a hometown hero, who’s also a great NBA player.
3 (?). Not being able to tank to keep our pick? You’re seriously telling me that a Augustin/Monta/DWright/Lee/Diaw team isn’t worse than we are now!?
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
yup
because the combo would more likely be
Nate/Augustin
Monta
Rush/DWright
Lee/Udoh
Diaw/?
to me, that’s pretty similar to what we got now
Duby Dub Dubs - February 7, 2012
So, you’re basically saying we’re just as good with or without Steph, then? Because the only difference you made to our starting lineup was move two players up from our bench and swap Biedrins for Diaw…
You make Steph sound more expendable than ever!
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
not expendable, it's just a matter of significance
I’m not sure you fully appreciate exactly how horrible the Dubs are going to have to be to keep that #7 pick…sure we’ll be a little worse, maybe 9th worst instead of 11th worst, nbd.
Duby Dub Dubs - February 7, 2012
Our schedule’s only getting harder, not easier. We’ve played so few road games so far, and we’ve shown an inability to beat even the feeblest of teams away from Oracle (NJ, SAC, and even CHA to name a few). We’ve also played the fewest back-to-back (and no back-to-back-to-back) games so far, IIRC. I think our schedule (especially April) will make it easier for us to suck than you think. This move can only push us further down the stairs to the basement, my friend.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
hmm, I hadn't looked in a while, but you may be right
although…if true, I’d rather risk it – keep Steph and hope to naturally settle well below the cream layer
I’m still saying “no” to the trade.
I love Steph, and I’m sick of seeing all my favorite Dubs traded away for rotation-level scrubs
Duby Dub Dubs - February 8, 2012
I hear you. I hope we “settle below the cream” on our own as well. I just don’t think it’ll happen, and getting two tops picks was what I thought was a simple way for us to swallow the tank pill more easily.
But frankly, this trade scenario is highly unlikely because it shows that the franchise is willing to tank to keep their pick. I just don’t see Lacob resigning to losing like that, for good or worse.
Lacob's Ladder - February 8, 2012
Here's the thing:
From what I can tell about this draft class, it’s really deep … in second-tier guys. It looks like you can confidently get a guy who’ll be a rotation player into the teens … but it doesn’t seem particularly deep in elite guys. I mean, it’s Davis, period, right?
So I guess you’d call it deep but not strong. As opposed to last year, which was strong at the top (Irving) but not deep.
I really think the only reasonable route for this team is to continue to make incremental improvements while looking for the right time to make a big jump. I’d call it the Denver model. Obviously no player is untouchable if you get the right pieces back, but you don’t dismantle for the sake of dismantling and you don’t trade young players with elite skills for draft picks unless you’re confident that you’ll be getting a player who’s better than the guy you’re giving up.
Ronaldinho - February 8, 2012
The problem with that route is that, given the personnel we currently have and our league-wide perception as a non-destination team in the NBA, the most likely outcome is a team mired in mediocrity for a long, long time.
Denver, who’s been a perennial playoff team for almost the last decade, got there by sucking horribly and lucking out in the draft, grabbing Melo. So, yes, I’d like to take a stab at that model, and I think that’s what this draft could do for us. I mean, with two picks, that’s that much greater likelihood that we could end up with the 1st pick and nab Davis. We certainly aren’t nabbing Davis, or anyone else of importance, without a draft pick at all.
Lacob's Ladder - February 8, 2012
I did the math on this a few times.
Even if you’re the worst team in the league, you have to be the worst team in the league three or four years to be favored against the field to get the #1 pick.
I also pointed out how some teams had been really bad (under 30 wins) more than 10 times in the past 20 years and stayed mired in the suck.
Ronaldinho - February 8, 2012
Sure, it’s a game of luck. I’d just like our chances better after this move than sticking with Curry, given all the question marks about ability, position, health, and max extensions.
Lacob's Ladder - February 8, 2012
I don’t think so.
Thomas Robinson, Perry Jones, Quincy Miller and Drummond all have elite potential, I think.
Spider Jerusalem - February 8, 2012
I have to admit to not following the college game that closely.
But I think you might be being charitable.
Robinson is an athletic freak, which is great, but hasn’t shown a lot of skills. One website has Jones listed with a comp of Anthony Randolph. Drummond is a center who doesn’t like to play inside on offense, and Miller is a huge wildcard because of the injury.
Which is to say that there’s a lot of space between “elite potential” and “elite.”
Ronaldinho - February 8, 2012
I’d say watch Kansas sometime. He’s got Horford-esque touch out to 17 feet, can handle the ball really well and drive on his man easily, has an array of post moves and counter moves, and finishes extremely well with either hand. He’s very skilled at this point.
I would say never read that site again.
He’s got a ton of issues. All of his potential is based in his body and his age. Also I think he’s going back for a sophomore year anyway.
Sure, but he’s looked really good as of late. He reminds me a lot of Durant offensively. He’s that smooth at times. He doesn’t rebound like him, though.
Well sure. All these guys are kids, who have barely played competitive basketball at a high level. It’s too difficult to say any of them are elite (because I haven’t seen enough yet). I can’t even call Davis a surefire elite player because he needs so much work on his body.
Spider Jerusalem - February 8, 2012
Watched Kansas-Mizzou last weekend. Didn’t know anything about Robinson, definitely came away impressed. Dude has skills.
Missing Barry - February 9, 2012
Yeah, he's an very polished player who is also completely relentless.
I really, really like his potential.
Spider Jerusalem - February 9, 2012
a*
Spider Jerusalem - February 9, 2012
He’s a junior though…so he SHOULD be really good and polished compared to younger guys…
Missing Barry - February 9, 2012
Well, he's only 20. And his level of polish is already really high (and not just for a college player).
Spider Jerusalem - February 9, 2012
j lin is pushing all the fanshots down
Xtremelink - February 7, 2012 via mobile
I'd be game to trade curry for
Augustin and Henderson and a 2nd rounder. I understand the numbers don’t work, but this is best case scenario. Diaw can stay far away
j-spliff415 - February 7, 2012 via mobile
You’re sort of missing the point. Diaw is an expiring contract and helps us keep this year’s pick….by sucking. He also allows us to dump Biedrins. Henderson, Augustin, and a 2nd rounder is a far worse deal, even if the numbers worked.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
here's a fun game:
let’s look at curry’s shooting percentages.
then let’s think of all the reasons why we should trade that for three players who have no business starting in the NBA and a shot in the dark draft pick.
cool.
now let’s trade monta instead.
bradyk2 - February 7, 2012
This is rebuild step #1. Monta's up next.
And, let’s play a different fun game that looks at other things than shooting (Steph is our PG, after all — shooting should be further down the list):
Augustin is an actual point guard: better AST to TO ratio than Steph. AND, he’s an expiring contract.
Mullens: Better, cheaper than Biedrins. WAY cheaper. Backup center that has one year left on his contract. And: BIEDRINS IS GONE. Did you forget that part?
Diaw: expiring $9M contract. ’Nuff said.
And, if you’re following along, that’s TWO “shot in the dark picks”. It’s a crowded, dark room. Should be easy to hit talent if you’ve got two bullets. Even for Riley.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
You don't rebuild by getting rid of cheap young players with elite skills.
The whole idea of rebuilding is to ACQUIRE cheap young players with elite skills.
The draft pick might turn into a better player than Curry. But it might not.
Ronaldinho - February 7, 2012
I see this move as guaranteeing us two top seven 1st round picks, btw. Let’s not overlook that.
While I agree that Steph is an elite shooter, I’m just not convinced he’ll ever be an effective PG at the NBA level. At the end of the day, he’s a SG: a great one, offensively, but won’t be able to effectively guard NBA 2’s. Unfortunately, if we keep him, we’re going to keep futilely jamming the same square peg into the same round hole. I think it’s time to move both our tweeners and start our search for the real thing instead.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
I disagree.
He’s a PG who still has work he needs to do to improve that part of his game. He is NOT a prototypical “shooting guard in a PGs body.”
His dribbling skills are PG quality. His court vision is PG quality. His understanding of how to work with teammates to help them succeed is PG quality. His passing is better than most SG’s passing. It can still improve, sure …
But it’s still good enough that calling him a shooting guard doesn’t make sense.
Ronaldinho - February 7, 2012
So, you’re saying he’s definitely a PG then? Where’s the evidence? He has no ability to penetrate and draw a defense in like a PG should. His AST/TO ratio is only getting worse, not better. His propensity for horrible passes is almost equal to his propensity for outstanding ones (especially late in games). He can’t effectively run the pick and roll. He has difficulty guarding other PGs and constantly gets into foul trouble.
His most valuable skill by far is his shooting ability. At best he can be a two guard in the mold of (a far less skilled) Kobe Bryant or Brandon Roy that brings the ball up and initiates the offense from time to time. But, having him run the point full time for your team just isn’t a recipe for success.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
Lots of successful PGs have had a similar penetrating ability to Curry’s. Nash and Mark Price come to mind.
I think AST/TO ratio is a dumb stat, but in any event, I’m not sure you want to draw conclusions about how well a young PG is learning his position based on any statistical measure in a season when he had almost no camp and has been limited by injuried.
I don’t think we have any evidence for this statement. I haven’t seen him run the pick and roll and fail. Rather, the team simply hasn’t tried. One might have concluded, for example, that Lin couldn’t run a P&R based on his performance here last year … but he’s just showed us that he can. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and we simply don’t have the ability to judge his P&R skills.
The evidence suggests he’s a moderately below average defender in terms of the actual results produced. He was better defensively than Nash, Westbrook and Deron Williams by RAPM last season. So I agree about his fouls (although, again, rust and a bad wheel could be playing a big role there) it’s not clear that he’s unacceptably bad at defense at the PG position.
Furthermore, he largely gets into foul trouble not because of physical limitations, but rather because of mental mistakes. If he eliminated those dumb reaching fouls, his foul rate would be completely acceptable. And that’s exactly the sort of thing you expect a young player to be able to improve.
Ronaldinho - February 7, 2012
You’re crazy. Nash is one of the best penetrators ever.
I’m measuring three seasons of little to no improvement in this area.
Surely they’ve run it. And, they’ve failed plenty. Do you watch the games? Certainly it’s not an offensive mainstay, but Curry has shown an inability to find the roller quickly enough to not get the pass deflected or stolen plenty of times. I’d say this is a very likely reason they don’t run it more with Curry.
How many years of this do we need to endure before we realize that these mental errors aren’t going away!? Not reaching is a simple, simple thing to change.
You can attempt to justify his shortcoming as a PG all you want, but when his contract is up for renewal, he’s asking for a max extension, and he still doesn’t have this stuff figured out, we’re all going to feel pretty silly. We’ll be in a far tougher situation that I’d rather make another team’s problem and get something in return now while we can (and before he reinjures that ankle).
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
Nash is a much more savvy penetrator
than Curry
salary_cap - February 7, 2012
Well, Curry has a similiar skillset, but doesn't use it as well yet.
My point was more to suggest that you don’t need to be a Monta/Paul type penetrator to be a point guard. Nash uses the thread of his shot and his dribbling skills to create space and unbalance the defense. I see no reason to think Curry can’t be a similar type player as he continues to develop.
Price didn’t have great driving skills, either, but used his deadly outside shot to create opportunities for him to get by his man.
Ronaldinho - February 7, 2012
We need to put an end to this Curry/Nash comparison. From a PG perspective, Curry is nowhere close to Nash. Nash gets anywhere he wants on the floor. Curry cannot.
Mark Price is a fairer comparison, though Mark Price started out with a better AST/TO rate than Curry and had a better ability to get to the line than Curry. Price also came up as a PG through college.
But, beyond that, even if these comparisons were closer, Nash and Price are exceptions to the rule. Anomalies. Outliers. Betting the farm on Curry becoming one of them is a bad bet.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
Who's betting the farm?
Again, if we had to make a decision about a max extension this year, well, that’s be a different story. But we don’t.
No, Curry isn’t Nash, and he isn’t likely to become as good as Nash. But he doesn’t need to become as good as Nash to be a highly effective point guard.
Ronaldinho - February 7, 2012
Nash? Agree. Price? Much more realistic, I think.
Missing Barry - February 7, 2012
Even Price has big shoes to fill.
All time leading FT% and 4 time All Star….on mostly garbage teams. Curry’s still got a ways to go.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
Well, I’ll point out that Curry is actually above Price in FT%. Regression towards the mean and all says we should bet Price is better, but it’s pretty clear Curry really is on that level as a shooter. Price also didn’t break out fully as a PG until his 3rd year in the league at age 24. We’re still waiting on Curry to take that step forward, but he’s still only 23, and very similar to Price at that age. I don’t think it’s that big of a reach. If Curry actually starts to show some growth/develop, that’s the kind of player I expect. Been saying it for years now. ;)
Missing Barry - February 7, 2012
Fair enough.
FWIW, I actually think Curry is the better shooter, while Price (even at Curry’s age) was/is the better point guard. Though, that said, Price really did have some spectacular shooting years early on.
So, if his ceiling were “Mark Price”, would you trade him for the above, given the situation at-hand?
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
To be honest, I’m not too interested in anything Charlotte has to offer. I wouldn’t be opposed to trading him in general, though. As we speak, by the way, Curry just made a nice PG move – really showed his understanding of spacing and balance. It’s that stuff that makes me call him a PG. Steph knows how to play the game, he just still makes so many terrible decisions….
Missing Barry - February 7, 2012
Actually, Steph looked more like a competent PG this game than any game in recent memory. He even ran the pick/roll and pick/pop spectacularly tonight. Amazingly, in fact. He was the reason David Lee had such a great scoring night. We finally used him to his strengths. It was shocking. It’s almost like they read this thread and wanted to prove us wrong :)
I still want to trade him, though :)
Lacob's Ladder - February 8, 2012
Steph has a serious flaw in the PnR that I saw time and time again even last night, too. He consistently just doesn’t set up and use the pick correctly. Very coachable flaw, someone needs to get on that.
Missing Barry - February 8, 2012
True. He uses picks to get his shot; it just happened that OKC wanted to defend his shot harder than the roller, so Lee was consistently open. Despite his inability to setup the screen correctly last night, he was able to make the pass when the opportunity presented itself, which is better than usual for him.
Lacob's Ladder - February 8, 2012
Sometimes he doesn’t even use the pick. Leaves so much space between himself and the screener, the defender just defends him normally. Also frequently doesn’t attack the big man and force that guy to commit to something, so he can effectively hedge and recover.
Missing Barry - February 8, 2012
It’s incrementally better than last season. Not as much better as many of us would have hoped, but certainly not “worse.” Depending on how you value the relative value of an assist v. a turnover, you could argue that he has actually improved quite a bit from last season: from 6.2 ast / 3.3 tov per 36 to 7.4 / 3.7.
Check out his assist rates over his career:
year 1: 24.6
year 2: 28.1
year 3: 35.8 (to date)
I dunno: given the three different coaches, the ankle issues, the Monta condundrum, and lack of consistent rotations, I don’t see why anyone would write him off as a PG based on his NBA career to date. I mean, we’re not talking about GPGOAT candidates like Stockton or Nash, but solid NBA stars like Billups and Price.
Sleepy Freud - February 7, 2012
Any improvement is incremental at best and could easily be attributed to having a team of better shooters around him this year than last.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
Or it could not. Dorell was hugely struggling with his shot early in the season. Monta is shooting much WORSE than he did last season. Yes, the bench is much better than last year, but how much is Curry playing with the bench guys?
Actually, I just did a little research, and it turns out that as a team we’re shooting worse than we were last season. That undercuts the argument that Curry’s improved assist numbers are a function of players shooting better, doesn’t it?
If it was a question of giving him a max contract right now or trading him, I’d probably trade him. Rather, I would have traded him for Chris Paul.
However, Curry is not only under contract this year, but he’s RFA the year after that because we’ll surely extend the qualifying offer. In other words, we have at least one and possibly two more years AFTER THIS ONE to make a decision about how much Curry is worth.
So it makes much more sense to me to make moves that help us develop him as a PG than it does to trade him for pennies on the dollar.
Ronaldinho - February 7, 2012
Perhaps. Though, you’d have to remove the games that Curry didn’t play to get an accurate understanding of how well the team shoots while Curry’s playing. Monta certainly shot worse during that time.
Also, Curry’s shooting is also down so far, which also drags the overall team number down a bit.
What was the overall percentage last year and what is it this year?
I’m personally concerned about the long term stability of his ankle. What if we continue to wait, he doesn’t get better, AND we find out this ankle issue is chronic. We can currently sell high. Why not do it?
I’d agree with this if this trade was really “pennies on the dollar”, but you’re drastically overvaluing Steph if you think that’s true. Two top 7 draft picks in a draft this deep, the ability to eliminate Biedrins’ contract, a backup Center, AND tons of cap room certainly isn’t pennies on the dollar for one player. In fact, I’d call it more like Euros on the Dollar.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
Well, you propose trading him for one pick, which may or may not be top 7. I guess you’re suggesting that the trade makes us so clearly worse that our pick becomes a top 7 pick, as well, and so we keep it.
That being said, I’m not anywhere near sold on the concept that a top 7 pick gets us a player better than Curry. People are notoriously bad at evaluating what’s a strong draft – remember how everyone said last year that Irving was a poor top pick … whoops.
(And it’s not a given that we won’t keep our pick anyway, FWIW).
eg, it’d be easy to see those two picks turning into Gilchrist and Sullinger. An athletic wing with a nice all around game but possibly no elite skills and an undersized big man.
I don’t see eliminating Biedrins contract as being something worth jettisoning talent over. That contract isn’t stopping us from making moves, even if we’d rather not have it. (eg, it didn’t stop us from making an offer to Tyson.) Overall, I think cap room is a chimera. It’s only valuable if you can use it to attract a top-tier player, and we can’t.
Ronaldinho - February 7, 2012
I’d definitely be willing to be it is, given the talent exchanged and the current state of the CHA franchise.
I’m absolutely suggesting this.
Well, you know what definitely doesn’t get us a better player than Curry in this draft? Not having a pick at all.
Not sure I agree here, either. Seems like pundits have been pretty accurate at gauging which drafts are talent-heavy and which aren’t. And, it’s also a fact that a lot of lottery-level talent skipped last year’s draft because of the lockout. I don’t think the quality of this draft is really very debatable.
I too had this dream once.
On it’s own, sure. But, as a piece in a larger rebuilding plan, it surely is.
Or take a higher salary back in a trade. Or, buy a serviceable “placeholder” player for one year who then becomes an expiring contract the next year, a-la Kwame brown. Cap room has several uses.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
what is the monta condundrum?
picknpop - February 9, 2012
the Monta conundrum
the only way to get Monta to play better is to play him less
or
an uncontested 21-footer may not be a good shot to take
Duby Dub Dubs - February 9, 2012
you put steph on charlotte and they are instantly much, much better.
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
Much, much? They’re losing two starters and a backup Center, and getting Steph and an equivalent or worse backup Center. I agree they can be better. Hell, they’re the worst team in the league. But, realistically, how high is their ceiling after this move? 5th worst? 7th worst? I’d honestly like to know how much better you think they become.
If you input this into the trade machine WITHOUT BJ Mullens (just because I can’t), here’s your result: http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=76vfl5n
6 less wins for Charlotte. With Mullens added to the trade, they get even fewer wins for sure.
Say what you will about PER, but it’s at least some evidence that what you’re saying about them being “much, much better” probably isn’t valid.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
couple things
1. augustin isn’t good
2. augustin is hurt
3. diaw isn’t good
4. mullens isn’t good
5. steph is really good
how does getting steph in that trade not make them a whole lot better?
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
I guess I don’t agree with any of those assessments other than “Augustin is hurt”. Here’s mine:
1. Augustin is ok, and a better pure-PG than Steph
2. Augustin is out for a couple weeks tops
3. Diaw is serviceable and a good role player on the right team, and CHA doesn’t have a better replacement
4. Mullens is better than Biedrins
5. Steph is good.
In fact, after that, I’m less confident than ever that we’d be able to keep our own top-7 protected pick! Stay hurt, DJ!
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
No, he’s not.
Agustin is a worse distributor, who ends up with fewer assists despite not having a player like Monta dominating possessions on his team. His turnovers are lower, sure, but he’s a worse defensive player.
Ronaldinho - February 7, 2012
They have almost identical per36 and AST% numbers this year. I’d argue that that’s pretty impressive considering who Augustin has on his team to pass to. He also has fewer Turnovers.
I’m certainly not saying that Augustin is a better player, but rather, a better pure-PG. Important distinction.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
Even if you're analysis is correct -
- and Agustin is, in fact, a slightly better point guard (which is about the best you can get to based on their similar assist numbers) in what way does that make up for all the other things that Curry does better?
Because Curry is MUCH better in a variety of areas, and Agustin is only slightly better in one. Curry is also younger, suggesting that he has more room for improvement (and notice how much Agustin’s assist rate improved from this year to last).
Ronaldinho - February 7, 2012
This trade isn't Curry for Augustin
You’re ignoring the big picture. Augustin is a pawn in this. He’s a mediocre starter, a decent backup, or an expiring contract at best. But, more importantly, he is but a small piece of the whole.
The argument is that Charlotte isn’t suddenly far better after this trade. You’ve cherry-picked one piece of the argument and made it the centerpiece. Quit it.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
please explain to me how trading 3 at-best role players for a potential star doesn't improve a team significantly
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
New Jersey Nets with Deron Williams trade.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
do you even remember how bad the nets were before deron?
i’ll tell you it was a lot worse than 8-18, and that was with brook lopez playing
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
It was 17-40, or roughly 30% win percentage
Do you know what 8-18 is? Also ~30%.
And, Brook Lopez isn’t good.
Check your facts first next time.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
and they were 12-70 the year before deron
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
and theyre 8-18 this year replacing brook lopez with shelden williams and johan petro
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
and a constantly hurt mehmet okur
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
So, it is possible. Thanks for proving my point.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
what did i prove?
that deron williams improved the nets to the point that they could replace brook lopez with scrubs and still play just as well? how does that prove your point?
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
Injuries happen. They happened to the Nets. They haven’t improved, regardless. Injuries could certainly happen to Steph.
The point is that there are absolutely possibilities where Steph joins their team and it doesn’t improve.
This year’s NJ team also has more talent than last years, irrespective of the Brook Lopez injury. (But, God am I glad we avoided that Shawne Williams bullet! That guy is having a terrible year!)
And, whether or not Brook Lopez is an improvement over a Petro/Shelden combo is debatable, anyway. Especially when you look at their RAPM numbers.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
have you even watched them play? and if you’re so quick to cite RAPM numbers, why are we ignoring them for steph?
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
I've never ignored Steph's RAPM.
Sure, I’ve watched them all play (Petro on several teams, in fact), though admittedly not a ton. But, coupling that experience with what I can read stat-wise doesn’t show a vast chasm by any stretch between Brook vs. a Petro/Shelden combo.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
well just look at RAPM
augustin is almost surely a negative, mullens is probably a negative, diaw is maybe a 0. steph is pretty far in the positive no? how does that not improve charlotte?
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
Steph is roughly +1.5 this year, which surely isn’t enough to counterbalance the gaping vortex that is the rest of that team’s grouping of negative RAPM scores. Do you know that they have not one player with a positive RAPM? Not one. So, barring injury, does Steph improve their team. Possibly. But surely not enough to drag them out of the bottom 5 in the league from their current standing of dead last.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
So, the team had improved without Deron. This helps your case how?
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
i'm not saying that they improved
im increasing the sample size to give more meaningful results.
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
but they did improve!
and were improving without adding Deron to the team.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
if you can't see that the nets are obviously much better with deron than without him
then i really can’t help you and i see no point in arguing any furhter
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
Haha…seriously? If you can’t see how little impact he’s made on that team, then I think you’re just not looking at facts.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
not that I agree with him
but NY with Melo
Nith - February 7, 2012
Denver has a better record since the trade
while NY can’t even break .500.
Nith - February 7, 2012
but NY didn’t give up “role players at best”
They gave up Chandler/Gallinari
G-State - February 7, 2012
exactly
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
the core that NY sent to denver was better than "at-best role players"
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
Ok, then what about New Jersey?
The point is that it’s not preposterous. Steph is but one man. A fragile one at that. He’d be replacing 2.5 starters on that team. Assuming their bench is worse than their starters (which is a safe assumption looking at their bench), it’s highly possible the addition of Curry is a break-even move at best.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
see above
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
likewise
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
Even if you are right about New Jersey it is still just one example that can be very far away from the mean.
G-State - February 7, 2012
Whoops, I only meant to put one in bold!
G-State - February 7, 2012
You're right.
I just don’t have a lot of examples to draw from, unfortunately. Moves like this are unpopular with fans, so you don’t see teams bold enough to make them all that frequently. I’m sure I could come up with others if I really put my mind and time to it.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
LOLOLOL!!
did you just cite trade machine?
Duby Dub Dubs - February 7, 2012
It was a quick and dirty way to shoot down his hyperbole. And you cited what exactly? Right.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
I LOL'ed too
G-State - February 7, 2012
Keep laughing
people with no evidence to the contrary.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
I would rather have no evidence than cite non-credible resources.
G-State - February 7, 2012
I wouldn’t exactly call PER or John Hollinger “non-credible” sources. I would call an argument with zero evidence brought to the table “non-credible”, however.
PER (which is what the trade machine uses to calculate wins won/lost in trades) is still a metric, despite its shortcomings. If you can provide a better one, I’ll certainly listen.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
meh, I'm still laughing
I’ll put it up there along with Wiki…may be ok for more casual stuff
but I would indeed call PER a non-credible statistic
Duby Dub Dubs - February 8, 2012
Sure.
WP is absolutely, positively better than PER.
They’re very similar. The primary difference is that PER rewards you for shooting unless you shoot an absurdly low percentage (I think it is something in the low 30s for two-point shots), whereas WP only rewards you for shooting if you make shots at a higher-than-average volume.
WP has also incorporated diminishing returns for defensive rebounds.
WP has plenty of flaws, but it’s a much better statistic than PER, and aside from that crucial difference they’re actually pretty similar.
Ronaldinho - February 8, 2012
All of this I understand.
To be more clear, I was merely saying that if you can evaluate this trade using another metric, I’m willing to listen. Do you happen to know what the resulting WP for each team would be after this trade? That’s what I’m interested in.
Lacob's Ladder - February 8, 2012
I don't have time to crunch the numbers based on assumed numbers of minutes.
I also have no idea what minutes assumptions the trade machine uses. My guess is that it just lifts a players stats and assumes they’re the same – but DJ Augustin would play fewer mintues on the Dubs, and Curry would play more minutes (if healthy) on the Cats.
RAPM has the Curry for Augustin swap alone being almost -4 RAPM, which is huge – bigger than the effect of replacing Tyson Chandler with nothing.
THe rest of the trade doesn’t balance that out as Biedrins is a whopping -3.8, Diaw a -.8, and Mullens a -3.2. (WP likes Biedrins more than those two guys, but sees a much smaller gap – about two wins assuming 2500 minutes each – between Agustin and Curry.)
Ronaldinho - February 8, 2012
So, overall, it’s safe to say that any impact this trade would have would be minimal either way in terms of WP.
I have no doubt that the Bobcats get slightly better with Curry (and by not playing Biedrins, most likely), I just took issue with them suddenly becoming “much, much better”, enough to bounce their way out of a top 5 pick. I think the numbers you produced confirm that.
Lacob's Ladder - February 8, 2012
No, actually, that’s not safe to say.
I don’t particularly trust WP when it comes to Biedrins, but WP likes Biedrins and hates those other two guys, so it seens a substantial upgrade there.
Ronaldinho - February 8, 2012
beans would also be gone
getting another draft pick from bobcats would make it more attractive
HUNGRY HUNTER - February 7, 2012
unless the Bobcats feel
Curry and Walker can play together (both are small, scoring PGs), I don’t know why they do this. Walker will be better than both Curry and Monta IMO, but I’d definitely trade Monta first if the Bobcats or any other team would bite. Monta is having a career worst year (since his rookie season, of course) and has shown to be a very predictable player in the half court set (one change of direction at most, then a straight b-line to the hoop no matter how many defenders stand in his way, then leaves his feet to make kick back pass that doesn’t help the offense, i.e., just a bailout). If Monta had more shake-and-bake and some tempo in his game things might be different.
salary_cap - February 7, 2012
I'd give up Curry AND Monta
for Walker and Henderson and a draft pick. Don’t know if the Bobcats would do that. I’d take on a bad contract to do that as well to make salaries match up.
salary_cap - February 7, 2012
wow that is just awful
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
Kemba Walker is so bad at basketball it hurts me. :(
Missing Barry - February 7, 2012
They’d do it because it’s a tremendous opportunity for them. No player of Curry’s caliber, caché, and marketability has ever openly stated a desire to go play for Charlotte. Regardless of what you think about Kemba, he doesn’t have the kind of pull and interest that Curry does in that state. Curry means butts in seats in an otherwise empty arena. If Kemba’s what you think he is, then he’ll become an extremely valuable trade piece by which they can use to continue to build around Curry.
This isn’t a Deron Williams “wait and see” situation. Curry will definitely re-sign in Charlotte. They don’t have to worry about him walking at the end of his contract. The same can’t be said for Kemba if he ends up being any good. For a small market team like Charlotte that’s hemorrhaging money, an opportunity to get a player like Curry is a Godsend.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
Just like the same can’t be said about Curry for the Warriors. There are no guarantees on us keeping Curry.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
there's also no gaurantee
he’ll be worth keeping at the pay rate he will command.
salary_cap - February 7, 2012
Precisely. Make that Charlotte’s problem.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
No.
That Charlotte pick won’t be top 3 with Curry on their team.
GovernorStephCurry - February 7, 2012
lol...But ours might!
And, it’ll take more than Steph to turn that Charlotte tank around.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
first step would be
to make Michael Jordan go as far away as possible. Every franchise he touches (as a non-player) turns to garbage.
salary_cap - February 7, 2012
And, I said Top 5.
Lacob's Ladder - February 7, 2012
No
Everyone has to stop this whole Stephen Curry will walk out on the Warriors and sign for his hometown crap. I know J-Ridah sounds very convincing with his Curry don’t love the bay area deal but name one 25 (Curry’s age when his contract is up) who would turn down a couple extra million dollars to play for his hometown? Who? Would you? Lets face it, Curry is staying atleast another 2-3 years after his rookie contract, enough room for the new regime if they ever get it to build around him. Curry is too young to worry about all of the other crap that goes with aging in the NBA. C’mon guys start thinking beyond the whole J-Ridah argument and realize Curry won’t be able to turn down the money he’s due with the Warriors.
mrorangesoda - February 7, 2012
Steph Curry hasn't proven himself to
be a franchise player. I don’t know why we are viewing Curry’s FA as an automatic “we must sign this guy at all costs”. If another team views him as such, trade him and get that value in return.
salary_cap - February 7, 2012
pretty much
HUNGRY HUNTER - February 7, 2012
I would NOT give Curry a max extension. I love him, and he is my favorite Warrior, but I would never pay him max money at his current level. If he improves by that time, then its a different story.
G-State - February 7, 2012
this to me, is yet another silver lining of our suck this year
hopefully Curry drives down his value a little (not sure I really see it happening to a significant extent)…
Duby Dub Dubs - February 8, 2012
I concede this team has a low ceiling,
but it will probably only take 30-34 wins to make the playoffs. There are 3 or 4 teams ahead of GS for the 8th spot. A few breaks, some luck here, and GS is by no means in position to give up this year. W-L are not entirely dispositive, i.e., the Warriors don’t have to be the 8th “best” team to make the playoffs.
salary_cap - February 7, 2012
no, it will definitely take more
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
I think the 8th seed, right now, is under .500 or at it
salary_cap - February 7, 2012
the 8th seed right now is 14-11
as is the 9th seed. and the 11th seeded memphis is hovering at 12-13 without zbo
bigkino217 - February 7, 2012
LOL
We are in the western conference, not the east.
G-State - February 7, 2012
No.
While I do agree that Curry hasn’t been playing like he used to be, he still has way more potential than Monta. And plus, I feel like Monta has more value as of late in terms of trades. Give Curry his time as a true leader, who demands the ball and swings around and he will give you what he had done in his rookie season, where the offense was efficient and good.
Monta, as much as a I love him, is still handling the ball most of the time. But the huge reason why we suck is because our front-court gets abused ALL the time.
I look at it two ways: if we suck really bad by trade deadline, move for pieces. If we are doing a little better and fighting for playoff spots, move for center. Either way, by the start of next year, i want to see Curry/Lee/Center come back. Dorell has gotz to go too.
bimmercirem3 - February 7, 2012
Why does Dorell have to go?
I’d rather have him than the 3.5 mil in cap space…
dandubz - February 7, 2012
monta doesnt have a whole lot of trade value
Him having higher market value is wishful thinking.
Xtremelink - February 7, 2012 via mobile
I don’t think Charlotte would do the original trade. Maybe something like Diaw, Biyombo, and 1st rounder for Curry, Biedrins and 2nd rounder.In any case we should wait till near the deadline so that their pick will be as high as possible.
polar - February 7, 2012
I was thinking that at first as well, but the more I think about it, I bet we could even ask for future picks for that package as well.
Of any team in the league, Charlotte is the one we can get the most value in return for Curry. They have an even harder time than us getting players who want to play there. Getting a player of Curry’s caliber that does would be monumental for their franchise.
Lacob's Ladder - February 8, 2012
So you want to trade your best player in order to have a chance at getting a player who MIGHT be as good as him?
Explain. Say this deal does happen. What happens when you end up with picks six and seven? You get two players who are likely to be mediocre. Then, the cycle of mediocrity continues. Here’s a thought: deal with the mistakes of the past. Develop the youth (something Warrior fans have been begging for for years). See where it takes us. If in two years or so the team is still bad-mediocre, then you blow it up. By then I believe Monta+Biedrins will be expiring leaving us with all that cap space you desire. Then the front office will overpay someone good because that’s the only way the Warriors can attract free agents. Many will complain about this, and beg for him to be packaged with whatever other young, quality player we have at the time so that we can get more expiring contracts and picks. Repeat until success.
My thoughts are all jumbled but it’s 1 AM and I’m writing a paper, so idgaf.
notEdreese - February 8, 2012
Lacob's Ladder I'm in complete agreement with what you've said. REC'd.
We need a fundamentally sound PG and desperately need a C better than Biedrins. Curry will be closely watched every game from here on to the trade deadline. His phyisical limitations are what they are, so Curry’s only hope is to overcome his mental misjudgments when passing. May be short of miraculous but that’s what it will take to convince everyone that he is the future at the PG spot. Otherwise, we trade Curry and we have a chance of getting both the sound PG and serviceable Center plus, more importantly, picks for the future..
MonstaEllis - February 8, 2012
Thanks man.
Judging by the Poll (for what that’s worth), we’re actually not in the minority, either.
I too am pretty sure that Curry is never going to be a great Point Guard (though last night’s performance obviously makes that tougher to say. If he can be that every night, we’d be golden. The consistency is the issue).
That said, maybe another strategy is to pair him with a normal-sized SG who has some PG skills to help shoulder the burden of initiating offense. A defensive SG who could also slash would be ideal. Basically, Monta Ellis in an actual SG’s body that shoots more judiciously/efficiently, plays better defense, and takes better care of the ball: a Brandon Roy-type comes to mind. Iggy would have been perfect for this. That said, these are harder to find. Just like it’s hard to find a large PG that can guard 2’s to make up for Monta’s deficiencies.
Ah, the challenges of the tweener :)
Lacob's Ladder - February 8, 2012
"Curry is never going to be a great point guard"
he hasn’t even gotten rolling yet and has a higher PER than monta ellis and Baron davis ever had as a warrior…Monta has never hit 20 PER…Baron put up 20 pts, 8 assits, 4.4 boards in his best season as a Warrior and was at 21.04…Curry is not playing nearly his best and his at 21.4…the highest any warrior has had since the stat has been counted….people need to watch the game and realize how great of a floor game Curry plays night in and night out..
JimBarnett2KevinGarnett - February 8, 2012
See discussion above about PER.
Lacob's Ladder - February 8, 2012
what about it?
a stat that has Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Chris Paul , and Kevin Love 1-4 is doing something right.
JimBarnett2KevinGarnett - February 8, 2012
by that logic
we may as well just go with PPG
every stat is “doing something right” …but that’s not really the whole story is it?
Duby Dub Dubs - February 8, 2012
nah because ppg usually has someone like Monta in the top 5...and that is flawed...
you have PER featuring a top 10 with bonafide superstars…LEbron/Durant/Paul/Love/Kobe/Wade/Howard/…no antawn jamison’s coming through the per door.
JimBarnett2KevinGarnett - February 8, 2012
Yes, see the discussion on PER
The #1 problem with PER is that it doesn’t punish inefficent players. And Curry isn’t an inefficient player.
So PER won’t be that far off with him.
Ronaldinho - February 8, 2012
god the curry trades make me want to throw up...
i thought we had an intelligent fanbase? We make Chris Cohan look like a Presti/Morey lovechild. Curry hasn’t even reached half of his potential, is still on a rookie contract, and is just flat out the best player this franchise has seen since C-Webb….Curry isn’t even balling out of control yet but is putting up #‘s and efficiency that only 07 Baron can rival in the past decade +….Curry for Dj augustine, BJ mullins, the shell of Boris Diaw and a draft pick? God that is bad….the draft pick is the obv prize but you really have faith to let Larry Riley try lke the dickens on draft day? Curry will be better than anyone coming out of this year’s draft for at least the next 2-3 years and maybe forever….we are so used to being perennially losers that we finally get a great player and have to trade him to continue the perpetual suck.
JimBarnett2KevinGarnett - February 8, 2012
Again, both draft picks.
But, while I obviously disagree about Curry’s unlimited potential you appear to think he has, your post also ignores:
1. We get rid of Biedrins contract now.
2. $12-13M in Cap space
3. Curry’s forthcoming extension and stated desire to play in CHA
4. Curry’s ankle, softness, and general injury risk
5. The possibility that Curry might never be a good PG
6. Removing tweener players from the team
7. and those two top 7 draft picks in this year’s draft
This is a big picture move. A rebuilding move. It’s about getting rid of a fundamentally flawed player with serious injury risk for the maximum value we can get now before we’re faced with a max extension demand, or worse, a permanently destroyed ankle.
Lacob's Ladder - February 8, 2012
see...that's where I disagree...
I already think he is a very good point guard that will only get better…..I don’t trade young cornerstones for cap space especially with the history this franchise has shown at attracting free agents…why trade curry for cap space when he is the exact type of player I want to open the pocketbook to acquire? You lived through this offseason and want to trade the franchises best player so the front office can waste a valuable asset (amnesty), miss on tyson chandler, miss on Deandre Jordan??? Trading Curry with the hope to sign Dominic Maguire and Kwame Brown 2.0 in 2013?
Monta is the guy that needs to be traded….his value is finally pretty high….there is a seamless replacement in Klay Thompson sitting on the roster….trading him doesn’t create hole anywhere…u get rid of curry, you are stuck with two sg’s and no pg….Thompson is 6’6….I Curry is tall for a pg…I believe he is already a true pg….it’s obv you differ…I’m not going to trade a guy like Steph to get rid of Biedrin’s contract now…they had the opportunity to do that with the amnesty and passed….this team isn’t contending anytime soon…by the time Biedrin’s contract is up, they might just be starting to get it together.
JimBarnett2KevinGarnett - February 8, 2012
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for trading Monta. I’d definitely rather trade him than Steph. I just think that time has shown how little we’ll get in return for him. We need to wait until his contract is shorter in order for him to gain value as both a decent player AND an expiring contract.
So, we can trade Steph now while his value is high (and before he reinjures his ankle or demands a max extension) and we can turn that into two draft picks in a valuable draft and wait on Monta until we get a reasonable return for him.
I do agree about the cap space comment. What happened this offseason left me little faith in our FO when money’s burning a hole in their pocket. I do, however, like the flexibility it gives us to trade for a player (most pointedly, Monta) with a larger salary.
Lacob's Ladder - February 8, 2012
it's incredibly risky to trade steph right now...
you are gambling that you won’t be haunted for the next decade….you can’t gamble that type of move on draft picks and the BJ Mullens executive package….Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, and Deron Williams …sure, let it ride…trade Curry and hope he isn’t the 2nd coming of nash for the next 10+ years……2 top 10 picks = too much of an unknown for a guy like steph…For instance, take the Bobcats, 2 top 10 picks = Kemba Walker and Bismack Biyombo…not close to enough for Steph imo….
We need to see Steph run this team without monta…trading him before we give him the chance is just a tragic mistake…Until we give Steph a season to run the backcourt with a legit orthodox Sg, I’m on the No trade unless for superstar wagon….Got to give Steph the chance to blossom as first fiddle.
JimBarnett2KevinGarnett - February 8, 2012
let me just remind everyone...
steph curry is 23 years old…4 years away from the start of his prime….perspective….think about it
JimBarnett2KevinGarnett - February 8, 2012
Eh, prime age might be more like 25-29…
Missing Barry - February 8, 2012
subjective..i always considered it 27/28-32
32 might be on the high end
JimBarnett2KevinGarnett - February 8, 2012
Yeah, there’s not a definitive answer on the subject, but there seems to be something like a 3-4 year peak that starts sometime around your mid-20’s, and ends before 30. Here’s one example:
http://wagesofwins.com/2009/12/23/a-quick-note-on-aging-in-the-nba/
Missing Barry - February 8, 2012
Curry is already a good PG who contributes a lot to winning while playing that position.
If you don’t think that Curry is already a good player, it’s hard to have a serious discussion about basketball with you. There is very little not to like about Curry’s game. He’s got room for improvement but “room for improvement” does not mean he’s a bad player.
Ronaldinho - February 8, 2012
Nowhere have I said that Curry isn’t a good basketball player. A misfit at his position, yes, a tweener, yes, but never that he was a bad player.
Lacob's Ladder - February 8, 2012
how is he a tweener?
he’s 6’3..definitely not a tweener at pg…if you put him at sg then sure he’s a tweener like Ellis but he’s not a sg…he is a pg
JimBarnett2KevinGarnett - February 8, 2012
Why is he a misfit at his position?
Ronaldinho - February 8, 2012
Get me off this carousel!
I’ve already explained this several times above…..
In summation:
He’s a better SG than he is PG, but he’s too small to be a shooting guard. Therefore, he’s being forced to play PG where he’s showing little to no improvement at that position on offense nor defense.
Lacob's Ladder - February 8, 2012
I guess you just haven't explained it *well*.
Because I’m not buying it.
Ronaldinho - February 8, 2012
Do you have anything to back up this assertion?
Spider Jerusalem - February 8, 2012
is that a joke?
Serious question because I’m pretty sure you can look at other comments and find the answer.
Xtremelink - February 8, 2012 via mobile
That doesn't make their "answers" sufficient.
GovernorStephCurry - February 8, 2012
All I see is people saying he isn't a PG without supplying any evidence that supports their position.
Spider Jerusalem - February 8, 2012
Let's flip the question to you, then if you're too lazy to read the other comments...
Do you think Curry is a good PG? Are you not concerned about his high TO rate, his low AST to TO ratio, his inability to guard PGs effectively, his inability to effectively run the pick and roll and/or even use the screen effectively, his penchant for poor decision making (especially late in games), his lack of leadership skills/qualities, his ineptitude at driving/penetrating and drawing defenders, and his inability to show much improvement on any of these things? Do you not agree that his number one asset as a player is his shooting?
Lacob's Ladder - February 9, 2012
steph guards point guards just fine, he's slightly below average
do you really think he’d be better at guarding shooting guards? i’m not seeing how defense is a reason he is not a PG. if anything, defense is more of a reason that he IS a PG
bigkino217 - February 9, 2012
you can spin it any way you want
the fact is, steph has played PG for his entire NBA career so far, and he has been a consistent plus at the position.
bigkino217 - February 9, 2012
Defense and size are the reasons he has to play PG. There’s almost no choice in the matter. My point is that he’s a SG in a PG’s body, and until he improves on that long list above, I don’t think that’s a crazy assessment.
Lacob's Ladder - February 9, 2012
Yes.
A little, but I expect it to improve.
I’ve explained before why this is a poor statistic to judge Curry with. So you’re just ignoring that response and repeating your complaint?
The team is only slightly worse with Curry in than with other players playing point. Curry looks like a poor PG defensively, but in practice it doesn’t seem to be that big of an issue. So no, I’m not too worried about this.
This is a coaching area where he should be able to improve.
I disagree that this exists in a meaningful way.
I disagree that this exists in a meaningful way.
This is not relevant to his ability as a PG as these are not required PG skills.
He actually has shown quite a bit of improvement, although you have to look around the injury and lockout, which depressed the stats of players around the league.
Sure. But that doesn’t make him a bad fit at PG.
Ronaldinho - February 9, 2012
Dude. Seriously.
You’re not even making points here. It seems like you’re just responding to respond.
Well, it hasn’t. What’s with your unshakable faith that it will?
You are ridiculous. Here’s your exact quote from above:
“I think AST/TO ratio is a dumb stat”
Your. Exact. Quote. Zero evidence or explanation beyond that. Sorry that I ignored that profound explanation! Seriously, what’s the point of discussing things with you? Explain THAT.
Again with your unshakable faith that spits in the face of almost 2.5 seasons of evidence otherwise.
I’m officially convinced you only read stat sheets and box scores.
These are fundamental PG skills.
Got any more excuses? Where has he shown improvement as a PG? Please enlighten me with something other than your baseless opinion.
Lacob's Ladder - February 9, 2012
he has explained this many times before. players that score a lot tend to turn the ball over more when trying to score. a point guard who doesn’t try to score, and just passes, eliminates a lot of those turnovers, leading to a higher AST/TO ratio.
bigkino217 - February 9, 2012
and no, driving and penetrating and being able to draw defenders is not a PG skill. it is a plus if you have a PG that can, but it is not essential.
bigkino217 - February 9, 2012
It’s not essential, but it IS a PG skill.
Missing Barry - February 9, 2012
driving and penetrating and being able to draw defenders is not a PG skill. it is a plus if you have a PG that can, but it is not essential.
in some ways it’s an anti-skill as it leads to point guards like Montay and tyreke who drive and dish to make up for poor perimeter play making skills
Skeptic con Urquell - February 9, 2012
Or you get a Baron Davis type to do it effectively and get Beans 11PPG on easy buckets.
Lacob's Ladder - February 9, 2012
like sleepy said before, when you just dismissed it.
bigkino217 - February 9, 2012
Because mental mistakes are the easiest thing to improve, and he can handle the ball just fine. It’s not like he creates TOs because he’s too slow or too sloppy with the ball or lacks skills or vision.
Furthermore, his TO rate isn’t that high.
Third, the fact that it’s up this year looks a hell of a lot more like a SSS issue than a result of some fundamental shift in his play.
Okay, I actually went into it in another thread. The simple fact is that because CUrry shoots more than other PGs players, he has more shooting turnovers than other players – for example, the 4th quarter travelling call in the last game. A guy who shoots a lot is going to have more of that kind of play, and thus a lower A/TO, than a PG like Rondo who shoots less.
It’s not an apples to apples comparison.
That makes A/TO a bad stat to compare PGs who score a lot with PGs who don’t.
On the other hand, if you look at something like TOV% you notice that Curry turns it over far less often than Rondo as a percentage of total plays. He turns it over less often than Nash. His career TOV% is very similar to Deron Williams’.
You were participating in the other thread, so I assumed you were following it also, since I believe I first raised that issue in a response to you.
2.5 seasons with only two camps, one season with a coach who didn’t know a thing about offense, and another with a coach who didn’t seem that interested in teaching young players. This year, the first we had a fully functional training camp, Curry was injured and camp was very short.
I think handling a pick is a learnable thing because that’s the exact sort of thing you see coaches work with players on all the time.
His assist rate is up. His ast% is WAY up – he’s assisting on over a third of his teammates baskets when he’s on the floor this season.
Or is that evidence that you’re just going to conveniently ignore?
Ronaldinho - February 9, 2012
Um, yes it is. Often those are the exact two reasons he creates TOs. An errant pass at the end of the 4th Tuesday comes to mind just as one recent, painful example.
Must have missed it. So, you’re saying that Curry shoots more, causing him to make more TO’s? I don’t follow the logic. PGs who don’t shoot still get called for traveling and charges. What other “shooting-related TOs” are there?
Apologism.
This went up a full 3/4 of an assist in one game. SSS. Regression to the mean coming.
Again, attributable to better teammates. See above.
Lacob's Ladder - February 9, 2012
I chose my words poorly. He makes poor decisions on passes sometimes, which could be construed as sloppy. I mean in comparison to someone like Monta, who’s dribble is high and very pickable and can be pressured into a TO. Curry’s TOs are mostly “unforced errors,” and thus strike me as more correctable.
This isn’t that complicated.
Every play has a certain chance of creating a turnover. “Distributing type plays” create turnovers. And “scoring type plays” create turnoevers.
Meanwhile, assists are a function ONLY of distributing type plays.
So now take two otherwise identical point guards. They each create one turnover for each three successful “distributing type plays.” They also each create one turnover for every five successfuul “scoring type plays.”
(I’m using these hypothetical numbers to make the point crystal clear. I thought it was obvious, but evidently not).
Player A makes 9 distributing-type-plays, and 5 scoring-type plays. He creates four turnovers, and has an A/TO of 9:4 or 2:25 to 1.
Player B makes 9 distributing-type-plays, and 15-scoring type plays. He creates six turnovers, and has an A:TO ratio of 9:6 or 1.5 to 1.
Do you see how, in comparing these two players, despite the fact that they are both EXACTLY as good as each other at distributing-type plays, the second play has a much worse A/TO because he makes more scoring plays?
This is what’s happening when you compare someone like Curry to a more “pure” or “primarily distributing” point guard.
You don’t think that matters? You don’t think being injured matters?
I agree it’s a small sample size – a fact you seem to ignore when talking about how he’s regressed.
However, you also have a clear trend line in both AST/36 and AST%, which is consistent from the improvement you’d expect to see from an young player. In other words, while perhaps the size of the jump in his AST% is surprising, you would, in fact, expect to see improvement there.
Our FG% is exactly the same this year as it was last year. The “better teammates” you speak of are primarily the bench guys, who Curry doesn’t spend a lot of time playing with as the team tends to run out a whole “second unit.”
If my indisputable comment about the quality of our training camps (and Curry’s participation this year) are “apologism” what is you grasping at straws about teammate quality when they’re mostly teammates that Curry doesn’t play with, while the guys he DOES play with, well, Monta is shooting worse by a large margin. Lee is shooting almost exactly the same. And Dorell is slightly better.
Ronaldinho - February 9, 2012
I think your analysis ignores that “distributing” and “scoring” plays aren’t the only plays PGs make. A player like Rondo, for example, is likely to have the ball in his hands more than a player like Curry. He always initiates the offense. Curry, comparatively, has other players that bring the ball up and get the offense going: Monta, Dorrell, Nate. So, the amount of time Curry spends with the ball in his hands is smaller than another PG (a player like Rondo, for example), and therefore, his TOs are concerning.
In fact, Curry’s inability to consistently take care of the ball is what drives our coaches to run plays through other players. If he were reliable, I think we’d see less of that.
Of course I do. But your myriad other excuses are the problem. You leave no room for Curry’s own accountability for lack of improvement. I wonder if you’d be so quick to defend other players the same way.
Haven’t said he regressed. I’ve said that he’s not improving. This year is ancillary data. I have to take anything this year with a grain of salt. I’m referring to last year, mainly. This year is still TBD, obviously.
As I stated way up above the last time we argued this, our team FG% is a meaningless number in a discussion about Curry. You’d have to eliminate the games he didn’t play to get a better assessment of how well they shot when he was playing with them. While he was away, Monta and Lee shouldered the extra load of his scoring to the detriment of our team’s overall FG%, I’m sure. Monta’s FG% definitely dipped then, as did Lee’s.
Lacob's Ladder - February 9, 2012
Well, I was bringing that up specifically to explain to you why A/TO is a bad stat to use when comparing Curry to some other point guards.
The usage argument is answered by looking at TOV%. This has the number of turnovers in the numerator and the number of shots+asists in the denominator.
Notice that Rondo’s TOV% is higher this season (although his career number is lower).
The event you describe: turnovers caused by bringing the ball up and initiating the offense (where the player gets neither a shot or an assist) would still show up in TOV%. In fact, since the plays when those things happen show up in the numerator of TOV% but never in the denominator, one might suggest they have a disproportionate affect on TOV%. (eg, a made shot shows up in the denominator of TOV%. A successful non-assist-situation offense initiating pass does not).
That being said, turnovers in the normal course of initiating the offense or bringing the ball up are actually pretty rare, I don’t think they make that big a difference one way or the other.
But Curry’s assist rate went up from his rookie year to last year, too.
And you kind of have to make up your mind. You said no improvement with 2.5 years. If you’re not counting this year, then you only have two full years to look at.
But, like I said, Curry assisted on a higher percentage of his teammate’s baskets as a sophomore than as a rookie. His TOV% went down (trivially so, but it did go down).
So that’s not “no improvement,” either.
It’s not any more meaningless than your blanket statement about Curry’s teammates being better as the reason for his improved numbers.
Ronaldinho - February 9, 2012
i’d really like to hear how better teammates = automatic raising of ast%. chris paul’s ast% has dropped with his move to the clippers. steve nash’s highest ast% years have come after amare left. lebron’s ast% dropped considerably with his move to miami. please explain how you can say that steph’s rise in ast% is due to having better teammates, and not improvement in his game.
bigkino217 - February 9, 2012
deron's jumped when he was traded to NJ
wade’s took a nosedive when lebron showed up, darren collison’s fell when he was traded to indiana, tony parker’s have consistently increased as duncan has aged
bigkino217 - February 9, 2012
Perhaps you could make the other argument:
Weaker teammates are less capable of creating shots for themselves so they rely on the PG to create opportunities for them.
Not saying that’s what’s going on, but at least it’s ambiguous.
Ronaldinho - February 9, 2012
that would likely be my guess
it still doesn’t help his argument that steph’s ast% is up because he has better teammates though
bigkino217 - February 9, 2012
I’m very concerned about that last point, but that has nothing to do with the position he plays. Whether he’s a PG or SG, that’s equally concerning. Anyways – Curry is a PG because he understands the little things about being a PG – the stuff that’s hard/impossible to teach. He gets changing speeds, and understands spacing. He has the creativity (see his pass to Lee the other day). He has the vision. He has the ballhandling. He scores more than he passes, but he doesn’t do it selfishly or force shots often – he looks to pass most of the time when that’s the right read. He has things to work on, no doubt, and I would have expected more progress so far…but the thing is, the things he has to work on are all coachable things. They’re all things you expect him to improve on, that just take work and practice. Additionally, stats like assists and assists/TO only tell you so much about how a guy plays. You look at the likes of Rose and Westbrook – those guys aren’t real PG’s at all, even though a guy like Westbrook was putting up pretty big assist numbers early in his career. You have to look at how they run the offense, how they get assists. Driving and kicking is a valuable skill, but it’s not even close to the dominant trait that makes a guy a PG or not.
Missing Barry - February 9, 2012
So, no.
You don’t have anything to back up your claim other than (misguided) notions on what constitutes a point guard in the NBA and your belief that Curry falls short of your personal expectations.
I’m not sure that’s a valid starting point for the strong claims you’re making.
Spider Jerusalem - February 9, 2012
Did you play college ball?
GovernorStephCurry - February 10, 2012
Ok, so let's see
We wouldn’t trade Curry for….Chris Paul, but we’re going to trade him for Augustin, a backup center, and a draft pick?
If Riley ever did something like this, I hope he gets sent to the F-league
DubsDominate - February 9, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Golden State Of Mind to post a comment.