I feel bad for Greg, kind of. Not bad like he’s homeless. But bad that everyone is crowning him the next Wilt Chamberlain. Can he afford a rough start? Will pretty good, or even kind of great, be enough?
This dude is being crowned. People are talking about championships falling out of the Portland skies.
The caliber of center that leads their team to championship is Hall of Fame. Only the greatest of all time have done so. Russell. Wilt. The Dream. Shaq. Seriously, prescendent says you have to be one of the greatest of all time to be a center and lead their team to a title. Wilt, perhaps the greatest ever, won one.
There have been several good to great centers who haven’t — including Patrick Ewing, Alonzo Mourning and Artist Gilmore.
For Oden, to be less than one of the best ever is to be a bust.

Chris Mullin is no dummy. So not for a second did I ever think he was willing to give up Monta for the No. 11. That obviously was just a prelude to other moves. But, the question begs, what would you trade Monta for?
If Atlanta offered No. 3, would you take it? If Milwaukee offers No. 6, do you bite?
I’ve been weighing both options, and I can’t decide.
On one hand, I’m thinking you can’t trade possibly the next Gilbert Arenas, not for an unknown. For KG, sure. For Yi or Horford is another story. Do you sacrifice what you know you have for the hope of something else?
On the other hand, Monta is a project himself. As Nellie said, he’ll only be great as a PG, and he has a lot of work to become a good point guard. And big men are hard to come by, unlike PGs, so why not grab a good one when you have a chance?
I’m very interested in what you all think, but honestly, it’s all moot anyway. I don’t think Monta alone is enough to get the Warriors high enough in the draft to get someone they really covet, whether it’s Yi or Horford or Brandan Wright or Joakim Noah or Jeff Green.
*Atlanta clearly isn’t willing to give up Monta for No. 3.
*Memphis (No. 4) will have a much cheaper option in Conley, who even at this point is a better point guard.
*Boston (No. 5) loves its own young PG in Rajon Rondo
*Milwaukee (No. 6) would much rather draft for size and re-sign Mo Williams
*Minnesota (No. 7) has Randy Foye, so they’re set in the combo guard category
*Charlotte (No. 8) has Raymond Felton
*Chicago (No. 9) has Kirk Hinrich
*No way the Warriors trade Monta to the Kings (No. 10).
So Monta alone doesn’t get the Warriors in the top 10, which means anyone they would really want will not be around anyway.
Monta is a great prospect and all. But he’s got flaws that were broadcast consistently and nationally during the playoffs. Plus, he’s set to make big money next offseason and any team that needs a point is more likely to take one of the good ones in this draft (which they can get for two to four yers for cheap).
What can’t be overstated is that he’s perfect for the Warriors system, which doesn’t emphasize offensive schemes and doesn’t require its point guard to be a true one. Monta fits the Warriors and few other teams (can you imagine him running point for Utah, setting screens for the PF?). Other teams know that. Likewise, few guards fit the Warriors so well. The Warriors certainly know that.

Blog Question:

“If the Lakers pull something off for KG, how much better are they really? Minus Odom, Bynum and possibly Walton the rest of the roster is full of scrubs (Vujacic, Smush, Kwame, Evans, Vlad) and a few good bench guys (Cook, Farmar, Turiaf). I’m not even sure they can get a player with their mid-level that would pose a threat as a #3 option. You can’t even really liken it to Jordan’s Bulls because there are no Steve Kerrs, Ron Harpers, Rodmans, or 3-headed Monsters (Longley, Wennington, Perdue). Granted KG is a GREAT player, but losing Odom AND Bynum AND maybe Walton is a huge loss. Does a line up of Farmar, Kobe, Evans, KG, and Mihm compete with the the Suns or Spurs? After that starting 5, you basically have nothing coming off the bench. What are your thoughts, Marcus?” – EJ

There is some serious truth to what you’re saying, though Laker fans think otherwise. I know some diehard Laker fans who are acting as if Kobe and KG is it. I’m of the belief you need three great players to contend for a title, two great players and a pretty good third to be formidable. They won’t have a third great player or a formidable one with Odom and Bynum gone. Luke Walton would have to take his game to another level, and maybe having KG and Kobe would do the trick but it’s certainly not a lock.
One thing that makes the move to Phoenix so appealing is that he would be going to a loaded squad (Amare would be the third best player on that squad!). The Lakers aren’t loaded. The Warriors — with Baron and Jason and Jackson and Andris — would be more loaded than the Lakers.
But don’t underestimate the Lakers spending power. They can go get a third player who maybe has an undesirable contract. They can afford to also trade for a Stephon Marbury or Jamaal Crawford or Larry Hughes or Jason Terry — players who are overpaid but much better as a team’s third or fourth-best player.

I’ve been fathoming scenarios, talking with people, reading reports, and I just don’t see how the Warriors are going to get the help they need in this draft.
The only way is to move up, but that is far too risky in my eyes. Mickael Pietrus plus No. 18 is not enough to move up. I really doubt Al Harrington or Mr. Untouchable Jason Richardson or Stephen Jackson and No. 18 would do the trick either. True, their might be a team starving for veteran help (Memphis/Charlotte/Boston) that the Warriors can swindle. But, to me, all three make too much money. You’d be better off drafting Jeff Green or Corey Brewer than acquiring either of those guys.
Which leaves Monta and Andris. Is there anybody in the draft worth giving them up? There are a handful, including Oden and Durant, but that’s it. But even if the Warriors decided to give up one of those two to move up, it’s still not a done deal. Neither Monta nor Andris helped their trade value in the layoffs, especially Monta. Plus other teams simply have more to offer.
Portland, who is trying to get a second high pick, can offer several young players, an $8M expiring contract in Jamaal Magloire and an All-Star-caliber PF in Zach Randolph. Phoenix is pedaling Shawn Marion and Boris Diaw plus two first-rounders. Philadelphia has three first-round picks and a couple desirable youngsters. There’s some stiff competition to move up.
So, here’s my solution. Rather than drafting some project to sit on the end of the bench, I say trade down. You can get nearly as good a player, if not just as good, in the late 20s, even early in the second round, as you can at 18. Plus it would be cheaper. And what are the chances they get someone at No. 18 better than Josh Powell?
I’d give up No. 18 for No. 25 and an additional second rounder. I’d send No. 18 and Sarunas to Cleveland for cash and a future pick.
The Warriors might be better off with three or four second round picks, especially considering their second-round history, than getting another project committed for two years. Maybe they find a young jewel. Maybe they find more young talent they can use as trade bait to get what they really need.
Trading down is certainly an option I’d consider it.

Everybody’s talking about how great this year’s crop is going to be, led by Greg Oden and Kevin Durant. The 2007 draft, let experts tell it, is full of can’t miss stars. But can these guys collectively stack up to some of the greatest drafts of all time?
I scoured through NBAdraft.net to look at some of the great drafts in history. Here are the top ones. So, which year was the greatest draft ever?

1970: Bob Lanier (No. 1), Rudy Tomjanovich (No. 2), Pete Maravich (No. 3), Dave Cowens (No. 4)
Second-round jewels: Calvin Murphy (No. 18), Nate Archibald (No. 19)

1976: John Lucas (No. 1), Adrian Dantley (No. 6), Quinn Buckner (No. 7), Robert Parrish (No. 8), Sonny Parker (No. 17)
Second-round jewels: Alex English (No. 23), Dennis Johnson (No. 29)

1984: Hakeem Olajuwon (No. 1), Michael Jordan (No. 3), Sam Perkins (No. 4), Charles Barkley (No. 5), Otis Thorpe (No. 9), Kevin Willis (No. 11), John Stockton (No. 16).
Second round jewels: Jerome Kersey (No. 46)

1985: Patrick Ewing (No. 1), Xavier McDaniel (No. 4), Chris Mullin (No. 7), Detlef Schrempf (No. 8), Charles Oakley (No. 9), Karl Malone (No. 13), Joe Dumars (No. 18), A.C. Green (No. 23), Terry Porter (No. 24).
Second-round jewels: Manute Bol (No. 31), Gerald Wilkins (No. 47)

1996: Allen Iverson (No. 1), Marcus Camby (No. 2), Shareef Abdur-Rahim (No. 3), Stephon Marbury (No. 4), Ray Allen (No. 5), Kobe Bryant (No. 13), Peja Stojakovic (No. 14), Steve Nash (No. 15), Jermaine O’Neal (No. 17), Zydrunas Ilgauskas (No. 20)
Second-round jewels: Malik Rose (No. 44), Shannon Anderson (No. 54)

1999: Elton Brand (No. 1), Steve Francis (No. 2), Baron Davis (No. 3), Lamar Odom (No. 4), Richard Hamilton (No. 7), Andre Miller (No. 8), Shawn Marion (No. 9), Jason Terry (No. 10), Corey Maggette (No. 13), Ron Artest (No. 16), Andrei Kirilenko (No. 24).
Second-round jewels: Manu Ginobili (No. 59)

2003: LeBron James (No. 1), Carmelo Anthony (No. 3), Chris Bosh (No. 4), Dwyane Wade (No. 5), Kirk Hinrich (No. 7), T.J. Ford (No. 8), David West (No. 18), Boris Diaw (No. 21), Leandro Barbosa (No. 28), Josh Howard (No. 29). Second-round jewels: Mo Williams (No. 47), Kyle Korver (No. 51)

I’m going to have to go with 1984. The 1996 draft was super deep, a plethora of great players. But the 1984 first round featured four of the greatest players of all-time (Olajuwon, Jordan, Barkley, Stockton). I can’t go against that crew.
However, I say 20 years from now, the 2003 draft will be the greatest ever. Not only was that draft deep, but it also has four or five potential Hall of Famers.
So, which draft do you say is the best ever?

The two teams are in serious talks. Apparently, Al Jefferson is appealing to Kevin McHale (so, I’m sure, is the opportunity to help his former teammate and to restore his former franchise), and we all know the expiring contract of Theo Ratliff ($11M) will come in handy in future improvements. All it seems to take is one of the Celtics youngsters, and maybe the T’wolves are trying to dump another undesireable salary on Boston, such as Troy Hudson.
This is bad news for the Warriors. They don’t have anything to offer that can compete with Jefferson, a young formidable big man. If Minnesota does trade KG, they will have an immediate canyon inside. Jefferson fills that better than Biedrins, though I love Beans. Monta isn’t as appealing to the Minnesota with Randy Foye in tow. Neither is Richardson since they have Rashad McCants and the No. 7 pick, with which they can get Corey Brewer or Jeff Green. One of those three will be a suitable, cheaper alternative than Richardson.
If Boston is willing to part with Jefferson, I don’t see how the Warriors can get KG. Which begs the question: so then who do they get?

So, the Warriors won’t have to deal with Jackson’s court issues, at least not his Indiana ones. He still has to deal with the allegations that he violated his probation in Michigan stemming from the brawl with the Pistons. Assuming he’ll get some kind of plea deal for that (as they always do), the Jackson will be free and clear of legal issues, which makes him much more tradeable. Though his temper is an issue, he played well enough this season to remind the league that he can be a dominant player. Combine that fact with his relatively small contract, and he’s certainly a much more marketable piece.
Do they want to trade Jax? Probably not. But if Mullin really has taken Richardson off the market, Jackson is the Warriors’ next most valuable asset. Some might say Harrington, but Jackson (three years, $21.4M left) is cheaper and a better overall player in my mind than Harrington (three years, $27.7M left).
The Warriors are much more likely to move up in the draft if they can offer Jackson and the No. 18 than if they offered Pietrus and the pick. Potential trade partners, such as Minnesota, might be more interested in Jackson than Richardson (four years, $51M left).

Since the word on the streets is that Kobe still wants a trade (he reportedly told owner Jerry Buss in Spain that he still wants out), the only natural thing for us Bay Area hoop fans to do is evaluate how that impacts the Warriors.
ESPN’s Ric Bucher said his sources tell him that Kobe narrowed his list down to New York, Chicago and Phoenix (though I am a firm believer he would expand that list if necessary, or if the incentives were right). Not only would the Warriors benefit from not having to deal with Kobe four times a year, but they perhaps could have the door opened for another opportunity if Bryant lands in Chicago.
It’s very unlikely the Lakers would put Kobe in Phoenix. That leaves the Knicks and Bulls. The Warriors are pulling for Chicago for one reason. You guessed it (maybe). Kevin Garnett.
The Bulls – who have highly touted youngsters Luol Deng, Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon, Tyrus Thomas and P.J. Brown’s expiring contract — are the Warriors stiffest competition should the Timberwolves put KG on the market. The Knicks and the Mavericks don’t have as much to offer as the Warriors. The Bulls do.
But if Chicago acquires Kobe, they likely won’t have enough tools to cop KG either. If the Lakers do ship Kobe, they would assuredly keep Bynum and Odom, which means they wouldn’t need KG. If they did want him, they would have to give up the talent they got for Kobe, which means they’ve traded Kobe for KG — not a good deal.
That leaves the Warriors, who have Monta Ellis, Andris Biedrins, three draft picks this year (plus they can afford to part with next year’s pick) and a couple of capable veterans in Richardson and Harrington.
Tell me that’s not better than Jamaal Crawford and Jerome James!

“If you were the Warriors would you do this trade: Gerald Green, Theo Ratliff, Ryan Gomes, Wally Szczerbiak and the Celtics #1 for Adonal Foyle, Monta Ellis, Jason Richardson, Al Harrington?” – Joseph Campbell

No way. The Warriors would become Celtics East, which wouldn’t be good. Green is not that impressive to me. Gomes is solid, and Wally is way too injury prone and one dimensional. The only advantage is that the Warriors would get rid of Foyle’s contract, and get an expiring one in Ratliff.
This deal makes them even younger, and that’s not what they need. They need to get more experience. What this deal does, in essence, is start the Warriors over from scratch with some cap space wiggle room. But that won’t help because free agents won’t come until they win consistently. Right now, they are a piece or two away. Starting from scratch wouldn’t be ideal in my eyes.

“if you are mullin, will you draft for needs (pf/c) or for the best available player/talent? i think the past two years, mullin really screwed up by drafting on needs, ike and pob, instead of the best available players (granger, seflosha, marcus williams). he acutally has done better in the 2nd round because he was drafting the best available talent.”
- manhattanproj

He is definitely an intriguing option for the Warriors’ third pick of the draft. I’m not sure he’s perfect for Nellie. He has lost a lot of weight, but has he lost enough? Is he fit enough for Nellie ball? Harrington wasn’t, and he wasn’t fat like Big Baby.
Plus, Glen is undersized. That may not hinder him on offense, but it certainly will on defense. The Warriors need someone who can protect the basket and guard a post player (preferrably without any help). Can he do that?
I think he’s worth a try. By the time the Warriors pick at No. 46, there will be few as talented. I love his post game, his passion, his versatility. But the Warriors need size and skill down low, in someone who can keep up. I don’t know if he’s that guy.