Golden State Of Mind

Over the years, the constant debate over Steph v. Monta, has been a mainstay of GSoM. Here's my attempt as a fresh perspective on it-

We've seen many versions of Monta. The popular 07-08 version with Baron Davis who was super efficient, .580 TS%, 53fg% on 19.2 pp36. The not so popular 09-10 Monta who had a poor attitude, struggled with consistency and playing with teammates. And the mixed review 10-11 version who's skill set grew, became a better passer, a more willing passer and a better teammate, but who's scoring efficiency still left something to be desired.

Despite Fitz-hyperbole and the common perception, Monta's a great iso player, Monta’s offensive effectiveness is 100% linked to PG play. This year he may be assisting a lot more, but his assists still come the exact same way, attacking the basket at 100mph. Their is no depth to his passing game, no vision to set up a player 2-3 passes down the line, no 2nd gear. In short, while he's a decisive passer, he's not a PG. Even the likes of Rose and Westbrook can slow it down better than Monta, and can find guys in other ways than drive and kicks. A lot of its linked to his dribbling ability, which doesn't allow him to slow up and switch gears like Chris Paul, for example, who has total command of the ball, and can play at any pace he wants.

Moving forward, that doesn't mean Monta's a bad player, it just means we need to surround him by a better instigator to get the most out of his scoring ability, his creativity, and what he can do to a defense.

If you notice, the three games (chicago, Utah, OKC) this season, where Steph took care of the ball, had low turnovers and sets up his teammates, Monta’s efficiency is at 70.7ts% and we won 2 and the 3rd was lost on a last second shot to the best scorer in the NBA.

The obviously question is sample size. However even if we go with all the games played with Steph and without.…

Monta’s with Steph (12 games)- .549 TS%, 23 pp36, 3.7 rebounds p36, 6.2 assists per36, 3.3 TO per36, 35.3 mpg

Monta’s without Steph (9 games)- .477 TS%, 19.7 pp36, 5.6 assists per 36, 2.3 rebounds per 36, 3.7 TO per game, 41.4 mpg

Pretty telling isn't it? Obviously the sample size, that should be taken into account.

The point it drives at, is when the ball moves and Monta is getting set up infavorable situations, he scores much more efficiently, much more effectively. It sets Monta up in catch and shoots, where he is very effective, it sets him up in driving lines where he can score at the rim or collapse the defense and kick out to a shooter, or it isolates Monta in a favorable situation (slower defender, or with the defense, not in position to collapse on his drive).

That's without touching on the fact, with no Steph, Monta tries to do too much. Tries to balance scoring and distributing and that leds to a net failure to do either. The only thing Monta does better without Steph is get to the free throw line (6.5 v. 4.3 per 36), and that's most likely a function of driving more aggressively and overall more useage.

_________________________________________________

So what does this have to do with trading Steph?

Steph's still not a consistent point guard. Unlike Baron Davis, who was a pure PG and continually would set up Monta in situations where he thrives, Steph struggles and has his good games (Chicago, Utah) and his bad games (Memphis, Sacramento) where he turns it over a lot. If Steph did evolve into a more natural PG, who turned it over less and set up his teammates more consistently, then Monta's effectiveness would only continue to increase on the offensive end and start approaching the numbers we saw with Baron Davis.

This team, as constructed has too many deficiencies. Mainly interior defense. The most valuable asset we have in terms of trading is Steph Curry. The only logic behind moving steph, is if we can get a better player, an elite player, potentially an interior player but eitherway an elite player and then make a free agent or draft move for a more true PG. Perhaps that move is getting someone like Raymond Felton or Andre Miller. Both are good passers, true PGs and low turnover players. Neither score like Steph, but both could set up the rest of our players (who can score, mainly Monta but also Lee and our myriad or shooters, Klay, Dorell, Rush). We'd lose Steph's scoring ability in said move but if that player in return for Steph is a major improvement in an area of deficiency, and we get a good passing PG, it's hard to argue we don't improve as a team.

Finally, the last point to trading Steph, would be the most overlooked one. We do have 2 good offensive players in Monta and Lee. Both's value on the market are lower than their respective talent levels. Trading each would likely give us a negative return.

_____________________________

Concluding point-

Trading our most valuable player (Steph) for something we can't acquire on the open market (quality big man or elite wing player), and signing a replacement who skill set helps the play of our other 'key' players would be a way to improve the teams production and win total without blowing it up. Especially when you consider their are a lot more productive PGs in the NBA than productive big men or elite players.

Otherwise the only other option I see is attempting to trade both Monta and Lee for any sort of youth + picks, and all out tanking to see if we can get the players we need to be a perennial playoff team.