Trade for Monta Ellis?
by Andy G on Nov 17, 2009 3:55 PM CST
81 comments
The Wolves lack scoring on the perimeter, and David Kahn is most likely on the phones every day, searching for answers to this problem.
ESPN is reporting that Monta Ellis is unhappy, and that his agent is meeting with the Warriors, perhaps to discuss trade possibilities.
While Ellis is far from a perfect player, there are two good reasons for Minnesota to have interest:
1) He's a prolific scorer, which is exactly what we need on the perimeter.
2) You can hardly draw up a better backcourt mate for Ricky Rubio, in an up-tempo offense. Monta is a premier shooter and the best fast-break scorer in the NBA.
The drawbacks, which are significant are the following:
1) Growing reputation as an a**hole, team cancer. Hardly something to sneeze at.
2) Not an ideal backcourt mate for Jonny Flynn. Unless and until Flynn becomes a pass-first, shoot distant-second type of point guard (like Rubio) the two might butt heads.
3) Big contract for a number of years.
What do you guys think?
If we pursue Ellis, who should be on the table? His contract would require us to send back some high-salary player(s).
0 recs |
81 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I think he's exactly the kind of guy
the Wolves should trade for a year or two from now, after they’ve added a wing, developed a serviceable point guard, resolved the Rubio situation, and assuming they can’t add anybody better and/or cheaper in the meantime
But I’m guessing that to trade for him now, the Wolves would have to give up at least two out of three from columns A, B, and C (picks, prospects, expirings), which would handcuff them through like, 2012 (depending on who the Warriors would want).
From an off-court perspective, it’s too much money for too long when the team is giving away tickets to the three biggest games of the season (LAL, Cleveland, and Boston).
by PoorDick on Nov 17, 2009 4:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Really?
I don’t think Kahn will take on a player who can’t drive a scooter.
by PoohRubio on Nov 17, 2009 4:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Not to sound like Liz Lemon (wish that show was still good)
But the contract is a deal breaker. He’s incredibly fast and effective around the hoop but is too one-dimensional.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 17, 2009 5:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure if I want him or not —
The contract and attitude issues are serious. But, if he returns to the improvement rate he was at pre-moped, he’ll become a dynamite scorer. Defense is a whole ‘nother issue, but that’s true for a lot of young players.
I guess the reason why I’m intrigued is the idea of pairing him with Rubio in the backcourt. Given Ricky’s size and the likelihood that he’ll become a versatile defender like Kirk Hinrich and Baron Davis have become, I think they could defend well together. And given Rubio’s style of play and eagerness to set up teammates, I think Monta would be exactly the kind of player to thrive next to him.
In the meantime (before we get Rubio over here) the backcourt play would be much-more fun to watch, even with a less-ideal point guard next to Ellis.
It would be a big risk taking on that contract, but do you expect Kahn to land a free agent that excites you more than Ellis with our cap space?
by Andy G on Nov 17, 2009 5:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No
But I’m generally more in the camp of keeping the cap space to use in a trade. If Theo Ratliff’s deal was valuable a few years ago and LaFrentz’s was last year, wouldn’t cap space and a trade exception be more valuable? The best bet for any team to get a top player that’s not the Lakers, Phoenix, or a Florida team is by trading for one for quarters on the dollar. It’s true that Ellis would fit well with Rubio, but not at that price. I’m dubious as to whether he’s even a top 2 player on a title contender (at least Al rebounds and blocks some shots), and he’s being paid like one, which is why it doesn’t work for me.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 18, 2009 9:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're probably right...
but it’s hard to be patient these days, as a Wolves fan.
by Andy G on Nov 18, 2009 9:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I sympathize with the desire to get better quickly.
But I also think we’d turn on Monta’s BS pretty quickly. I think this is a case of greener grass on the other side of the fence. He’s a solid fit with Rubio, but a pretty crappy fit with Flynn. And as much as I don’t want to believe that Rubio isn’t coming here, I’d say this is doubling down on an already significant risk. If we opt for Ellis now and Rubio doesn’t come, then we’re a little bit screwed.
by TheH on Nov 18, 2009 10:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
30 Rock
It’s still good. I think the new season has been hysterical. I don’t get all the “gone downhill” talk I keep hearing.
Andy G’s comment about not landing a free agent better than Monta is key. A lot of his problems out there are circumstantial. I think he’d be a great pick up. Now, as for what we’d have to give up, I don’t know. They seem pretty set with Anthony Randolph down low, so I don’t know if they’d want Al. Maybe they would though. If not, we’d have no chance.
by museum on Nov 17, 2009 11:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you saying you’d trade Al for Monta???
by John Doe on Nov 18, 2009 2:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not necessarily, just that I think we’d have to for GSW to agree.
by museum on Nov 18, 2009 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i probably wouldn’t do that deal and it’s probably bad for the wolves too. both monta and al are the third best guy on a contender. monta is the more efficient scorer (though he’s been down in that regard this year, way down) and has started to rebound remarkably well. jefferson is a mediocre efficiency, volume scorer who rebounds remarkably well and always has. jefferson is probably a slightly worse defender than monta, who has at least become frisky from time to time on that end. jefferson’s contract is also (i’m going come right out with it) godawful.
as they are now, monta’s probably a little better and cheaper, but harder to fit into a roster. if he can work on his game as a lead guard, that problem is less noticable. in the end, it comes down to weighing the monta ellis variables (ability to run an offense and being a prick) that could swing this trade in either direction.
it makes some sense for the wolves, and almost no sense for the warriors, who are down jack, without azubuike for a while and already have biedrins and randolph to play in the front court. i know biedrins is hurt and randolph isn’t getting many minutes now, but andris is returning soon and randolph will settle down and get plenty of burn as the season progresses.
getting monta at a discount is possible, but the wolves don’t have the right pieces to make it happen unless you guys are willing to take on a bad contract to do it.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Nov 18, 2009 7:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good Breakdown
1. I’m unsure if I’d call Al’s contract Awful. It depends on if he plays like Tonight or the previous 11 games. I’d say it has the potential to be an awful contract. I’m guessing Al’s contract will at least approach to match his production.
2. You’re right on Monta not being a good fit on the Wolves or a whole lot of teams. I tend to think this is why Al might be slighly more valuable.
3. I’m not sure I’d call Monta super efficient as a scorer- it’s looking more than likely that 2007-2008 was a exception rather than a norm.
by Jose Cordoba on Nov 18, 2009 10:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed on Al’s contract. It’s pretty reasonable, though it could be bad in the future if his health really takes him down.
I don’t know what I’d say about 07/08 Monta vs the 50 or so games he’s had since. I’m tempted to just say we won’t know exactly who he is until he gets out of Golden State, or they get a different system in there.
by museum on Nov 19, 2009 12:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
fair point with number 3. it’s hardly a certainty that monta will get back to his 07-08 form coming off his ankle injury derailing him last year. i don’t put any real stock in last season’s numbers for him, but that .580 TS% is far and away his best total. i’d expect him to continue to be above average in that regard, but whether he improves on that, gets back to that level or has totally lost that skill is still up in the air.
moral of the story: both monta and al are damaged goods. monta at his best has been better than jefferson, but the swap would be a PR disaster for the wolves and might make both teams worse. it’s a lose lose for the teams involved here.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Nov 19, 2009 6:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Explain how Jefferson's contract is even remotely approaching
the level of godawful? IF he plays like he is right now for the rest of the contract, it’s a bad contract, yes. If he plays like he did when he signed it, it’s an extremely reasonable one. He’s young, so maybe he will even start playing some defense and continue his current passing and it’s a downright good contract. Am I missing something here or are you just talking based on limited knowledge?
by Mplax on Nov 19, 2009 3:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he’s on the hook for 4 years counting this one. it escalates from $12M to $15 by the last year and coming off of an ACL injury that might keep him from ever being the “good and no better than good” player he was in years past. during his best years, he was the 3rd best guy on a contender and he hasn’t shown that form yet this year. he might get it back, but ACL injuries are tough to judge. i’m not willing to gamble $54M over 4 years on a guy that might get back to 3rd fiddle on a great team. i don’t put much stock in him starting to play d or scoring efficiently in the future. he hasn’t shown an interest in that in the past, why guess that he’ll do it in the future? godawful might have been a bit of an exaggeration, but not much of one. i just don’t think he’s anywhere near a franchise guy.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Nov 19, 2009 6:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Alright cap'n hack
I was prepared to give you a pass to make some strong statements seeing as how your team’s player is taking a bit of a beating in this comments section, but now you’re going too far.
No way is Jefferson worse value than Monta. Monta’s moderately more efficient scoring and moderately less subpar defense aren’t enough to make up for the fact that, beyond the general truth that bigs are always more valuable than smalls, being a non-playmaking PG/majorly undersized SG is a far greater detriment than being a slow PF/undersized C.
Second, what’s all this about Al Jefferson only being good enough to be the 3rd best player on a contender? If we put him on every team in the league, for how many would he be the best or second best player?
Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Golden State, Indiana, LA Clippers, LA Lakers, Memphis, Miami, Milwaukee, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento, San Antonio, Toronto, Utah, Washington
By my count, that’s 23 out of 30 teams. What’s more, on the 7 teams for whom Jefferson would be the 3rd best, look at the salaries of their third highest paid players:
Boston – $16.4 million
Denver – $12.1 million
LAL – $12.5 million
Orlando – $15.2 million
Phoenix – $13.1 million
San Antonio – $12.6 million
Utah – $12.3 million
Al’s average salary: $13.5
From here, it looks like he’s being paid fair money for being an upper echelon (77th percentile) second best guy, or, if he really did have to be the third best player on his team for them to contend, it would be for a team so stacked with talented, highly paid players that his contract would still be right about average.
by John Doe on Nov 19, 2009 11:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
first off, none of those teams in bold are contenders except cleveland and they have lebron james, who might go down as the best player to ever pick up a basketball by the time he’s done. hard to take that as a refutation of the claim “3rd best player on a contender”. (and there are some arguable teams in bold up there. atlanta, new orleans, toronto, and washington come to mind)
that said, i don’t disagree with much of what you wrote. i never said monta was more valuable around the league. i said he was better in terms of actual production when both guys are at their best. neither is right now. if we want to play “who will get closer to 100% of their former selves” we are playing a very speculative game with no way of having a real discussion. i’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, but it’s really the only way to settle the question of who is the better trade target.
as for al, he’s paid reasonably for a 3rd best guy on a contender, but there’s that ACL issue that he hasn’t shown to have beaten as of yet. i know he’s still within the recovery time, but he’s got a long way to go and not every player who suffers that injury gets there. there are more reasonable players to target in that price range who are just as good as al and don’t have an significant injury concern. it might not have been a bad contract when he signed it, but now, it’s not good.
sorry to come on here and start trash talking al, but i think he is incredibly overrated around the league and has some serious holes in his game that get overlooked because of his pretty post moves and being a 20/10 guy. he’s good, but he’s not a franchise guy.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Nov 19, 2009 11:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and just to add to the point about contenders, of the 7 teams you listed, al wouldn’t be the 3rd best guy on all of those teams, the lakers, celtics, magic, nuggets and spurs all have 3 guys who are considerably better. those happen to be the 5 teams on that list who are legitimate threats to win a title and that’s only if you believe in denver. i’ll take bynum (a health risk in his own right,), rondo, carter/nelson, nene or manu/tp over jefferson in a heartbeat.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Nov 20, 2009 1:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
More strong statements
The good teams are better because they have more good players. The players aren’t better because their team is good. At least not to the extent you seem to think.
I would argue that it’s a lot easier to look good on a good team. I have very little faith in the true talent levels of guys who look really good as their team’s third or fourth best player. How good would Bynum look in an offense where he was asked to be the man? How much of a liability would Rondo be were he not surrounded by A+ shooters, in a disciplined team defensive scheme, and asked to score only when the opportunity presents itself? Nene “over Jefferson in a heartbeat”? Really? He is hella efficient, which would count for a lot more if it weren’t on just 8 shots/game. Beyond that, he’s an average defender and a mediocre rebounder. It’s more likely Al could score an efficient 14 ppg on a good team as its third or fourth option than Nene could put up 22 every night as a team’s first option.
Al’s weaknesses are exposed because there is no talent around him to cover up for any of his weaknesses. On a better team, he wouldn’t have defenses keyed in on him and probably wouldn’t have to carry such a major offensive load. A better team defense wouldn’t have penetrating guards flying in at him all night. I could see him going to a good team and becoming a more efficient 18/12 guy who can play either post position like Pau Gasol does for the Lakers, and who could carry the offense for stretches when needed. That’s a pretty good #2, and an excellent #3.
by John Doe on Nov 20, 2009 3:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and unfortunately...
I’m not sure we can really decide this argument until we see Al become a team’s 2nd or 3rd option, and Bynum, Rondo, Nelson, and Nene as a 1st or 2nd option. It might be a while.
by John Doe on Nov 20, 2009 4:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Quick correction: I added Denver as an afterthought, so no, I wouldn’t take Nene in a heartbeat over Al, but I do still prefer him. He’s an above average defender, who scores efficiently and while his rebounding is unspectacular, the defense pushes him over the top.
I’d also say that the Jazz have a top three that are all better than all as well. I left them off the first time, but I’d take, Deron, Boozer, and Millsap over Al.
Don’t put Al in Gasol’s league. Pau was remarkably efficient as the only real basketball player in Memphis. He got a little better in that regard in LA, but not much. He’s always been a phenomenal scorer. Al got a little worse in terms of efficiency when he came to ‘sota, but he was just barely average in Boston when the clear number one scoring option was Pierce. Don’t hold your breath for him to become an efficient scorer at any point in his career. And to beat this dead horse a bit more. Gasol is a much better defender than Jefferson. If the two were swapped, LA would get considerably worse, the Wolves, considerably better.
How much better do you think Al is now than he was in Boston? Has he improved enough to say we’ve never seen him as the number two guy? He filled that role on a crappy Celtics team that (surprise, surprise) couldn’t guard anyone.
And one final thought/question: How many non-contenders would gain contender status if they added Al for nothing (a la the Gasol trade)? I’d say probably none, but with one possible exception: Atlanta. Atlanta would have a weird roster where the whole starting lineup feels like the 3rd best guy on a contender except for Johnson, who might be a number 2 guy. They match-up well enough with Cleveland and Boston after this deal where if they avoided Orlando, they could make the finals where they’d get worked by LA or Denver. But that’s just it, they’d need to avoid Orlando to have a chance, and once they got to the finals, wouldn’t have a prayer. That doesn’t quite qualify as contender for me, but they’re the best I can think of. Can you think of another team who would make that leap?
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Nov 20, 2009 6:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't want to get in the Middle
Since you’re both terrific posters. I tend to side with Cap N Hack on this one to a degree.
As far as Al’s value goes- I tend to think it’s overrated since scoring is generally an overrated commodity. His Defense is so bad at times- that I can see where the Zach Randolph 2.0 Comparsions have some merit. I’d probably lean more to Al being the 3rd best player on a contender than a 2nd for these reasons.
Although John Doe has a point that this is impossible to evaluate considering the terrible surronding talent in Minnesota. You surrond Al with quality outside shooters and playing off Kevin Love- who knows his upside? For example- Monta’s game hasn’t been as deadly with Baron Davis out of the picture.
With this in mind- I’d still trade Al if you get an defensive minded 5 that can be effective without the ball. The players I threw out earlier: Horford (No way Atlanta does this), Noah (Maybe if Al got healthy), or Varejao (No way Cleveland does this). I’d also trade Al if you could get a high-level shooter/scorer such as Kevin Martin.
by Jose Cordoba on Nov 20, 2009 8:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Someone made a fanpost about this on the Cleveland page
At least “most” of the fans would do it in an instant.
by Mplax on Nov 21, 2009 7:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wont say too much as I think most of it has been said
But I would like to point out that Big Al is AT LEAST a third option on a team. And that’s if he doesn’t improve again after injury. I completely agree with the fact that he would be more efficient if he wasnt double and triple teamed, which would be the case if he were not the number 1 option. I’d also like to say well done to John Doe for his nice list on the salary of the “third best players” on those contenders. I’ll take his salary for a guy who has all the tools to be a number one option (though I don’t think he will ever put it together that much). I have said before, his turnover rate is downright impressive. For a guy with Al’s usage rate, his turnover rate is absolutely solid. His passing rate this year has also been something to talk about. If he can get his offensive legs back under him and maintain his current passing that would be nice. If he could do that and add some defense, he is a flat out number one player being paid like a 2 or 3.
by Mplax on Nov 21, 2009 8:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's really refreshing
to be able to have an extended disagreement without either side devolving into “well if you don’t agree with me, you must be an idiot” type comments. A lot of sites are filled with people who seemingly can’t handle this sort of thing.
It’s clear we have significantly differing views of Al’s fundamental value as a player, such that we’ll never fully agree on any of this.
Hopefully you at least think he’s better value than Anderson Varajao, unlike Mr. Cordoba. Not to go on a tangent, but Varajao really sucks. You don’t have to guard him on offense, and his defense is overrated. He’s good against the pick and roll and in the post, but he doesn’t protect the rim, which is the most valuable of the three skills. His stupid bouncing hair makes him look more active than he actually is. His contract is awful. I think he’s a borderline starter.
To answer the questions you posed, Atlanta is one possible answer. If you don’t already consider Denver a legit contender, Jefferson could absolutely put them over the top. Putting him in an offense with Billups/Smith/Anthony/Nene would be absolutely unfair. He would do even better alongside Chris Anderson. He’d be a bad fit on Dallas, but still might put them over the top.
I didn’t mean to to put Al in the same class as Gasol. I only meant he could perform a similar role, albeit less effectively.
Finally, Al’s days in Boston don’t tell us that much. Jefferson was the 2nd option to Pierce, but they missed 13 and 35 games, respectively. Second, the Celtics were 28th in offensive efficiency that year, so it doesn’t tell us how he’d perform in a good offense. Admittedly, the fact that an offense at times featuring him and Pierce could perform so poorly isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of his talents either.
Well, as the quote walls continue to squeeze our posts, we seem to have reached an impasse. I still don’t entirely agree with you, but your arguments have at least moved me closer to your point of view.
by John Doe on Nov 22, 2009 4:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i do consider denver a contender as of today, but hadn’t thought of dallas. i actually think that is the best possible answer, and portland would be possible as well.
sorry if this went on a massive tangent, but i really think the case of al jefferson is one of the more interesting discussion topics in the NBA today. on one end of the spectrum you have PER rankings and bill simmons declaring him one of the best players in basketball and on the other you have folks like me and jose who are much more skeptical of what he brings to the table.
and total agreement about how nice it was to have a debate like this without it degenerating into insults. i’ve been called plenty of nasty names on SBNation boards during drawn out arguments. i always appreciate it when people are able to have real discussions, even from very different viewpoints. i’m sure we’ll have a chance to do this again soon.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Nov 23, 2009 6:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You guys both suck
And Al Jefferson is a stud cuz I said so and for no other reason. Ha! ;-)
by Mplax on Nov 24, 2009 3:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If by "set"
You mean at backup center behind Mikki Moore. Moore shouldn’t even be in the league, let alone starting. Vladimir Radmanovic started instead of Randolph at power forward in his first game with the team, even though he’s Vladimir Radmanovic. Why? Because he shoots 3’s.
This all feeds into my pipe dream of him also becoming disgruntled to the point that he wants a trade. Highly unlikely or not, it’d be nice. I’d take him over all of their other big men. I’d take him over all of their guards too, especially since Monta’s contract is so big for so long. Monta is a great player, but we should never tie that big and long of a contract into our plans for such a bad fit.
by nja700 on Nov 18, 2009 8:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If they wanted to throw Randolph or even Biedrins in, that’d be great. Though Andris has had some health issues.
by museum on Nov 18, 2009 11:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
His contract
is too much for us to take on before 2010. Kahn has been clearing cap space and I don’t think he is going to undo all that for Ellis
by easeus on Nov 17, 2009 6:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Really who could we get better?
Rudy Gay…he’s just about the best we could get and who knows he’s already stated he doesn’t want to play for a losing team, so why not take on his contract and still have some money left for 2010. That’s how you do it!
by RB10 on Nov 17, 2009 6:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't like Ellis' attitude
He’s selfish, cocky, and a tweener to boot.
If we trade with the Warriors, let’s target Steph Curry and Anthony Randolph. And maybe see if we can pry Andris Beidrins from them too.
by Oceanary on Nov 17, 2009 7:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think those are the three guys that GS has no intention of trading.
by Andy G on Nov 17, 2009 8:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You never know
Curry and Randolph are both complaining already, and no one on the team likes Don Nelson. Who knows what the Warriors are doing…
by Oceanary on Nov 17, 2009 8:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Where did you hear that they are both complaining?
I think getting rid of Nellie would fix a TON of their problems.
by Mplax on Nov 17, 2009 8:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They need to utilize there big guns more
Steph playing 2 minutes with no fouls randolph hardly seeing the light of day, if these guys were wolves it’d be 25 30 minutes a game night in and night out, that’s how it needs to be done!
by RB10 on Nov 17, 2009 8:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
curry has been a model citizen by the bay. randolph hasn’t been complaining since midway through last year, was singing nellie’s praises this offseason and hasn’t made a peep during the year. neither one is moving.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Nov 18, 2009 7:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Biedrins is gettable,
but only if the Warriors are upgrading at center. For instance, the Bosh and Stoudamire rumors, they’d want Jefferson back. Pretty much be something like Biedrins and Ellis for Jefferson and Blount. A terrible deal from the Wolves perspective taking on 5 years of 20 mil combined for an expiring deal and Jefferson.
Go Nevada Wolf Pack!
by BacksThePack on Nov 18, 2009 4:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
that deal is terrible for the warriors too.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Nov 18, 2009 7:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
His attitude problems are way overblown. It’s just an inability to get along with a bat shit crazy organization. It goes back to the scooter suspension, but also the drafting of Curry, though he’s probably gotten over that a bit. But as I recall, they just flat out lied to him about their draft plans. Therefore, he got pissed.
I don’t think he’s a perfect fit, but he’s a damn offensive player and I’d take him if the price was right.
by museum on Nov 17, 2009 11:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree.
No doubt the combination of bad management and questionable coaching amplifies it all, but there’s no way you can write it all off. The moped incident is on him; he’s lucky they didn’t void his overgenerous contract. He has badmouthed his teammates to the press more than once, most recently complaining that he’s the only one who plays defense. He doesn’t exactly play a team game on the court either.
by John Doe on Nov 18, 2009 2:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4664192
Less than two weeks ago, representatives for Anthony Randolph met with Riley to discuss the second-year player’s growing discontent.
Randolph, whom many of the league’s coaches and executives view as one of the top young talents in the league, is upset about the lack of consistency regarding his position and role on the team, according to sources.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/13/SPCI1AK3SI.DTL
Curry isn’t exactly sure why he was removed from the starting lineup two games ago and why he’s averaging just 12 minutes a game off the bench. Coach Don Nelson hasn’t addressed the subject with his rookie and avoided the topic with the media.
“It sucks. It sucks. You don’t want to be sitting and watching, especially how the season has started,” he said. “Hopefully, I won’t get used to it, but we’ll see what happens.”
by Oceanary on Nov 17, 2009 8:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Five Points
1. Ellis is not a shooter. He makes his living in transition and ISO’s. Perhaps he’s improved some as a shooter- but his 30% career rate from deep seems like calling him a shooter is a stretch.
2. He’s one of the worst defensive players in the NBA.
3. His contract doesn’t make him an asset. He’s on the Books till 2014.
4. I’d be on board for Curry although the Wolves are pretty PG heavy.
5. I’d make a run at Anthony Randolph. Although as Uber-Warriors Fan Cap N Hack pointed out he’s really more of a 4 than a 3 at this point in his career.
by Jose Cordoba on Nov 17, 2009 8:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'd play Randolph at power forward
He fits the system, and compliments Al better than Love does.
by Oceanary on Nov 17, 2009 9:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Jose
Watch Monta play, sometime. Even if he’s not a great 3-point shooter, you’ll see how pure his midrange and dribble jumper is. In his last healthy season, he shot 53% from the floor, if that eases your mind at all.
by Andy G on Nov 17, 2009 9:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Shaq has a career 58% FG percentage.
Does that make him a “premier shooter” too?
by John Doe on Nov 17, 2009 11:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand what point you're trying to make here
Who ever said that makes Ellis a “premier shooter”? Of course nobody would ever say that FG% from a center makes him a premier shooter either. All he said is that Ellis is so good of a midrange shooter and around-the-hoop player that he shoots over 50%. Which is true and pretty sick. Not $44 million for 4 years sick in my book, but still sick.
by nja700 on Nov 18, 2009 8:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Andy G did.
Point number 2 in the good reasons section:
“2) You can hardly draw up a better backcourt mate for Ricky Rubio, in an up-tempo offense. Monta is a premier shooter and the best fast-break scorer in the NBA. "
Jose Cordoba called him on it, and instead of immediately backing down from such a statement, he attempted to defend it by citing his field goal percentage, an equally ridiculous claim. I’m all for the free exchange of ideas here, but lets not try to build up our lousy ideas by making false claims about them. Monta is a terrible shooter who manages to shoot a high percentage by getting into the lane, which he’s able to do by virtue of how well the floor is spaced by the 2 or 3 three point shooters in the lineup with him, which would not at all be the case here.
by John Doe on Nov 18, 2009 10:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For comparison:
Look at the eFG jumpshot stats listed at 82games for Ellis (39%) and Flynn (46%). Monta’s sick in the lane, but has work to do as a jump-shooter.
by TheH on Nov 18, 2009 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
Monta’s 07-08 eFG on jumpers was 42.5% Carmelo Anthony, who has been hotter than blazes to start this season, is currently at 42.6%. I’m not sure how telling those numbers are, unless the ’08 Monta was stroking it similar to the current Melo, in which case he was a phenomenal jumpshooter inside the 3-line.
by Andy G on Nov 18, 2009 1:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Solid counterexample.
I’m new to 82games info and just figured it was an interesting tidbit. Don’t forget Anthony is killing at the line; there’s something like seven more made free throws per game on his chart.
by TheH on Nov 18, 2009 2:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I haven’t spent too much time on that site, either. When you pointed out those numbers, I just looked a little at it and thought ‘Melo would be a good comparison, since he’s such a good mid-range shooter. Looks from those numbers (from ‘09-10) and the GS fan’s post below that Monta hasn’t been shooting quite as well in the early going this year, though. I’ve just been impressed with his shot in the times I’ve seen him play and figured his numbers from ‘08 couldn’t look too bad. On that website they hold up pretty well.
by Andy G on Nov 18, 2009 3:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he’s really more of a 4 than a 3 at this point in his career.
he’s more of a 5 than a 3 at this point in his career too, and by some models, he’s better as a 5 than a 4.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Nov 18, 2009 9:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd still feel more comfortable having him
at my 3 than my 5. No matter how much GS fans want to maintain that he is a 4 (which he is…). I just dont think he should ever play the 5 over the 3.
by Mplax on Nov 19, 2009 3:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he really doesn’t have the handle to play the 3 and when he plays that spot, he seems to force things a lot more. he’s been better when asked to play the 5 than the 3 by a wide margin and last season, his PER differential was better at the 5 than the 4 (though i can’t find those numbers now, and i last saw it during last year, so it might be different over the course of the entire year).
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Nov 19, 2009 6:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
also be very careful about using the PER differential
It is more than a little subjective as defensive numbers can be skewed positively or negatively for no reason of that player.
by TheEvilProfessor on Nov 20, 2009 11:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
oh yeah, it’s hardly an end all be all sort of thing, just a piece of support for randolph as a 5. i think PER in general is a pretty crappy metric, but at least PER differential bothers to show the difference in performance based on position played.
it’s just a little easier to cite PER differential than it is to say “he looks better at the 5 than he does at the 3, and really, playing center makes him an even bigger matchup problem on the offensive end, because he doesn’t need to use much flash to get past other centers. though he does get pushed around quite a bit…”
anyway, if i were ranking the positions i’d want randolph to play, i’d go 4, 5, then 3.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Nov 21, 2009 12:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And by some models
Chris Paul is better as a 5 than a 4 too
by Mplax on Nov 19, 2009 3:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Morrow
He’s who I hope Ellington becomes. We desperately need someone that can knock down the long ball in volume. Right now our opponents are making 3+ more 3 pointers per game than us and at about a 10% higher clip in terms of accuracy. I feel like our FTA’s and rebounding will come along a bit more once Love is back, but he won’t help the huge hole we have from beyond the arc. You just can’t win in the NBA if you don’t have someone that can hit in volume from long range. Ellis doesn’t solve that problem (who by the way has to have a high FG% to make up for the fact that he doesn’t have a 3-point shot), but Morrow is a guy I’d be willing to overpay to get on our squad if Ellington can’t get his act together.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 17, 2009 10:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
We’ll improve with guys that can get themselves easy baskets. Standing perimeter shooters are less common and expensive than guys that get to the line and shoot a high percentage. That’s my opinion, anyway. Ellington will probably become a Morrow-like player, only better. But he’ll never get paid like Ellis.
by Andy G on Nov 17, 2009 11:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you meant
that slashers/high % shooters are less common and expensive than standing perimeter shooters. Yes, by no means would I want us to pay Monta $ for a guy like Morrow, but I’d be willing to pay low single digit millions per year for the guy purely for his stroke. We have been in desperate need for a gunner for a few years now and he would fit the bill. Like I said, it would be great if Ellington slid into this role because I think he can be a solid defender based on what I’ve seen so far. But the guy has to start making shots at some point to be of value to us.
By the way, it’s amazing how a guy like Morrow plays for four years at GA Tech without making a lot of waves, then comes to the NBA and is more efficient right out of the gate in both his 2-point and 3-point shooting % than he ever was in college. That is almost unheard of with 4-year college players. When will we ever luck into a prospect like this!?
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 18, 2009 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Plus I think Flynn
has the potential to be a nice slashing PG that can get to the line and shoot in the mid to upper 40s. Plus he’s shown potential with the 3-ball. I’m not sure if he’ll ever put up the type of scoring/FG% numbers Monta did a couple of seasons ago, but I think he has solid potential to be an efficient scorer from the PG slot.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 18, 2009 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I get your points...
and I wasn’t really trying to advocate for the trade, with my post. Mostly just looking to guage reaction to the possibility. Personally, I’d be tempted to take Monta in, if I knew that we would have Rubio here in 2011. But with Flynn, I don’t like the idea much at all.
I do think that Ellington can fill a role like Morrow. When I’ve watched Wayne, he just seems a little hesitant on his shot. As he gets more comfortable, he should settle into his role and shoot 40% from 3, I hope. He certainly has the mechanics to be a great shooter and he was always good at UNC in that dept.
by Andy G on Nov 18, 2009 12:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope so
Ellington improved his 3 point accuracy each year in college while also maintaining a solid volume of attempts, meaning he wasn’t just taking them when he had all day to set-up (e.g. Ryan Gomes). Let’s hope he comes around. The pressure a 3-point marksman puts on the defense is tremendously useful to a squad.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 18, 2009 1:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would love if Ellington turned out like Morrow
That guy is an unbelievable shooter. His 3pt/FG/FT percentages have been phenomenal at times. He’s not a great overall player, but he can do a few things in addition to great shooting. If Ellington can shoot like that while being a functional overall player, he’s a steal.
by nja700 on Nov 18, 2009 8:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ellington
I actually consider him one of the bigger disappointments thus far on the squad. All indications were that he was a “safe” pick at #28, being a 3-year standout in a big time program that could at minimum be a nice floor spacer off the bench and understands fundamental basketball. His inability to shoot the ball thus far is extremely disappointing. I’m hopeful that he will adjust as the season wears on like a lot of other rookies, but we really need him to step up.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 18, 2009 11:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There is something to be said
of him not getting enough PT to get in the flow of the game. Rambis has had an extremely tight leash on him so far. Maybe he doesn’t have the greatest work ethic?
by Mplax on Nov 18, 2009 11:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know....
He’s averaged 16 minutes per game. That’s solid stretches of play for a rookie. And I don’t think work ethic is an issue, because he definitely puts out the effort defensively. I think the issue is his shot isn’t falling. Imagine how many minutes he’d be getting if he was knocking down his jump shots. I bet he’d steal some minutes away from Brewer and Pavs. But 6 – 8 minutes per half is plenty of time to get into a flow and I’m sure if he ever got hot, Rambis would leave him in longer. But why leave on the floor someone that can’t shoot when you can get the same shooting incompetence from Brewer, but everything else is done twice as well?
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 18, 2009 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't take Monta for free
He’s overpaid, but it’s so much more than that. I can’t think of a worse fit here of any player in the NBA.
-We need wing size; he’s tiny.
-We need defenders; he wouldn’t defend even if he were capable.
-We need shooters; he can’t.
-We don’t need point guards; that’s what he wants to be.
-We’re trying to build a culture of winners and high character guys. He is neither of those.
Sorry, but I think this is a terrible idea.
by John Doe on Nov 17, 2009 11:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Warriors fan here (looking around SBNation for interest in Ellis)
Prior to the draft, I was absolutely begging for Rubio to drop to the Warriors, because like people above, I saw him as the perfect candidate to team with Ellis.
There was a recent pool on GSoM about whether or not to keep Ellis, 47% want to see him go while 52% want to see him stay. I belong to the former.
Ellis is probably a bad fit for the current Wolves. He is improved defensively, though he has somewhat lost his jumpshot (it used to be automatic – Rip Hamilton-esque). Strangely, he has hit 6 of 9 three pointers this year, though I’m not sure this is more than a fluke.
Monta does NOT want to be a point guard, he consistently claims that he is a “guard” and won’t commit to being the floor general. He played his best basketball with Baron Davis, and although he can create his own shot, he works best paired with a distributor.
The main reason I want Monta gone is stated here:
We’re trying to build a culture of winners and high character guys. He is neither of those.
While he has boat loads of talent, he isn’t the kind of person I want on my team.
As far as Anthony Randolph goes, I can’t imagine the Warriors trading him. They are going to take a big enough hit PR wise from trading Ellis… They wouldn’t sell a single ticket the rest of the season if Randolph was traded for anything less than a superstar.
And for Curry, the kid isn’t unhappy. He might have been disappointed that he didn’t get to play much during the Knicks game, but he’s a smart kid (and our future PG). He might become unhappy out of pure exhaustion after Ellis gets traded and Nellie is forcing him to play 40+ minutes per game every night.
by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Nov 18, 2009 4:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rubio is the key
I’m not sure if I want us to trade for Ellis. But if we do, we had better keep Rubio. That pair would be great for a team that plans to build a running team.
by Andy G on Nov 18, 2009 8:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Response
1. If the expected return for Anthony Randolph is a current Superstar- he’s not going anywhere.
2. If he’s improved on D it’s from horrendous to bad.
3. Great Point by Rascal on his shooting PCT%- although Monta two years ago was an extremely efficient scorer.
4. My main objections are the contract and his defense.
5. Love’s better than Al. Once Love comes back I don’t think this will be all that debateble if you factor in things other than volume scoring.
by Jose Cordoba on Nov 18, 2009 8:09 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Point 5
I have a sneaky suspicion that you are going to be correct on this point. The next couple of months will be interesting because of the storyline that may develop between Al and Love, namely what’s the new pecking order? We’ll see if Love seizes this opportunity (like Brewer has) to try and stake his claim to being the focal point and leader of this squad. Ironically, this might be the best thing for Al too, in this offense, as Love might be able to facilitate Al’s game better than anyone else via spacing, directing, and passing.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Nov 18, 2009 9:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It shouldn't be too difficult...
with the way Al is looking and playing, post-knee surgery.
by Andy G on Nov 18, 2009 9:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
100% agreed on your first point
Randolph, while a promising young talent, is SO overrated by Warriors fans its ridiculous. While I would be willing to give up Big Al for him, it’s only because I don’t really like Big Al long-term, he is coming off an injury, they both play terrible defense, and Randolph makes less money. Big Al with his current passing and slightly improved defense without the injury for Randolph? No thanks.
by Mplax on Nov 18, 2009 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't mean to imply the trade would be Randolph for superstar...
But more along the lines of Randolph + Ellis/Biedrins + (expirings) + 1st rounder for Bosh or something like that.
by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Nov 18, 2009 2:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Who's better....
Monta Ellis or Rudy Gay? That’s how you gotta look at it and is Monta so much better that his contract is worth it…i’m for Ellis
by RB10 on Nov 20, 2009 5:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Watched Portland-GSW tonight. Damn fine performance from Monta.
by museum on Nov 20, 2009 11:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
that defense from him on roy, amazing. i got a little misty eyed… i was just so happy…
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Nov 21, 2009 5:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Minnesota Timberwolves
@
Utah Jazz
Wednesday, Mar 17, 2010, 8:00 PM CDT
EnergySolutions Arena
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
