Delete.

[daprescription]

Originally Posted by FRANCHISE 55

+!$+ Bosh. He can't carry the Raptors in the weak +#! Eastern Conference. What makes anybody think he will make a difference for the Warriors? He will bounce after one year, then Warriors are out Biedrins/Wright...whatever they trade. Then what? They have a ton of cap space to sign free agents that won't think about coming to the Warriors? Sounds awesome.

Come on now, Biedrins isn't that good people. Just to use stats as an example, (Yes, I know they don't tell the entire story, but still)Troy Murphy averages 14 and 12. Biedrins averages 11 and 11, yet you guys hated Murphy and said he was overpayed. His offensive game is lightyears ahead ofAndris, now please tell me how Andris is untouchable and the future center for this team?

 

[franchise 55]

I am by no means saying Biedrins is untouchable. It's just the fact that they would be trading probably a top 10-15 center plus other pieces for a personthat will only be here for a year. If Bosh made the Warriors contenders then by all means, go for it. He won't do that for this team. So what's thepoint in trading talent just to be left with nothing in a year?

 

[acidicality]

i watch most games that i can watch...if i'm at home and a warriors game is on, i'll be tuned into the game, unless i really, really need to study orfinish something. even so, in most cases i'll just watch it anyway and try to multitask

and good morning.

 

[acidicality]

and as promised, i'd post some pics...this is my small +%+ apartment here

(that's my dad in the background, this is when they were helping me move in). seriously, what u see is basically all i got....

. i think i'll have more interesting photos once i start my job and do someother stuff. the door is to this lame +%+ balcony that isn't even a balcony.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by acidicality

and as promised, i'd post some pics...this is my small +%+ apartment here

(that's my dad in the background, this is when they were helping me move in). seriously, what u see is basically all i got....

. i think i'll have more interesting photos once i start my job and do some other stuff. the door is to this lame +%+ balcony that isn't even a balcony.

What are you doing in Taiwan and how long are you there for?

 

[paul is on tilt]

That's living!

 

[acidicality]

i'm here in taiwan to participate in an internship program, working at some national radiation center thing here as a "research assistant"(it's sponsored by the taiwanese government), basically it's this program that taiwan has that allows taiwanese people around the world (that don'tlive in taiwan) to work here over the summer. i'll be here til like august 20 or something....so after i get back to the bay, i'll have like a month tochill. i wouldn't have done this if i could find an internship in the bay area, but that didn't happen with the bad economy

.

it's actually a pretty cool program and i heard a lotta ppl party all the time, i'll see for myself once orientation begins though.

 

[acidicality]

and when's the draft again? i hope i can find a live stream or something here...since i think it'll be on when it's the morning here.

edit-nvm...won't be able to watch anyway

...i just hope rileydoesn't %@#$ things up.

 

[paul is on tilt]

Argh!

my brother's friend's fantasy baseball league!

I have Alfonso Soriano. I had an Alfonso Soriano for B.J. Upton trade pending and that

gets vetoed.I'm assuming it got vetoed because the team that proposed the trade to me won't even accept the exact same trade to give it another shot. I'massuming since Upton's doing better, the team that I had a trade pending with told his friends in the league to veto the trade because he made a mistake.Yeah I'm assuming but it doesn't make sense why he won't give the trade another shot or when I offer Soriano + Filler for Upton.

I've been playing with the same people for 3 years and I have no intention signing up again next year.

that

. I am done with this league.

 

[TheGodFresco]

Did you guys know that Blake Griffin was training in S.F for about 2 months

 

[balla jigga]

whats a good beach for bbqing and just chilling out in half moon bay??

 

[daprescription]

[h2]Riley and Nelson talk Warriors: On the Monta Ellis visit, the point guard issue, and Jordan Hill[/h2]
Posted by Tim Kawakami on June 22nd, 2009 at 3:08 pm | Categorized as College basketball, NBA, Warriors

Just finished transcribing our pre-draft media sessions with Warriors GM Larry Riley (LONG) and Don Nelson (very, very short).

I'm dizzy from the all the typing, and I've got to write a column now, but some quick highlights before the transcripts (I edited-down Riley's transcript from 45 minutes to probably 35-good for him to sit there and take every question from the 8 or 9 of us):

* Nelson popped in after the Riley session and clearly had no interest in being there. "I'm not talking about the draft," Nelson said several times. Got it.

* Riley was asked about and talked at length about the reasoning behind he and Nelson's trip to Memphis to visit Monta Ellis.

Though it's still not 100% clear what Nelson/Riley wanted to accomplish and why they felt it necessary and what position Ellis is going to play this season, Riley repeated that things were moving "in the right direction."

Sounds like things maybe were moving in the wrong direction for a little while there, but I'm a bad guy.

* Riley acknowledged that potential Warriors picks Tyreke Evans, Jrue Holiday and Stephen Curry, along with unlikely pick Ricky Rubio (won't be there at 7), all have declined to work out for the Warriors and will not be working out before Thursday's draft.

He said that he's comfortable selecting a player he has not worked out, though it sounds like he has enough tape on Curry for such a move, possibly not for Holiday and Evans. (Though it sounds like Riley thinks Evans will be gone by 7.)
-Oops, I asked Riley but snipped it out of this transcript: Forgot to mention that Riley said all of the team's pre-draft workouts were made public and have been documented in reports. No secret workouts.

He said there would be no more workouts conducted and that he was about to go to LA to work out a player but decided not to because it became obvious that the player wouldn't be available at 7; Riley said he will not be flying anywhere for an off-site workout before Thursday's draft.

* MT-2 said it first, and I now am agreeing: The 7 pick could come down to seeing who's left, Curry or Jordan Hill, or picking between them if they're both there. If they're both gone, maybe the pick is DeMar DeRozan. (I'll probably change my mind 3 or 4 more times before Thurs night.)

There's more. Much, much more. (To make it more cohesive, I moved most of the Ellis answers together, even though Riley was asked about Ellis at several different junctures.)

--LARRY RILEY, pre-draft gaggle/

-Q: You've mentioned adding "beef" to the roster with the draft pick and I heard Don say this is a deep draft for power forwards. Is there any PF other than Jordan Hill who is worth the 7 pick?

-RILEY: Could be, but that would be a stretch. There is one scenario where there could be someone other than him if we went the power forward route. He's probably at the top of that list, other than the obvious, you have Blake Griffin, and everybody's got him pegged at No. 1. We all go along with that.

I look at (Hill) as the next power forward in this draft, that would fit our team.

I use the word "beef," I think that's something that's gotten out there. Beef doesn't necessarily mean a fat guy or something like that. But at least a guy with a body that's NBA ready, that's more of what I'm talking about there.

It's not necessarily that I wanted to say… like DeJuan Blair has that wide body and so forth. But Jordan Hill is an NBA-ready guy in terms of his body. Also in terms of his skills. I think he can play in the NBA right away.

-Q: Don hasn't played young PFs like Hill, who don't shoot 3s, very often very early. Do you think Hill could get in there right away for you?

-RILEY: I think he can play some. I do. He does shoot the ball pretty well. He does play on the block and he does rebound. Those are issues that would be helpful to us. The rebounding issue of course being one that would be really helpful to us.

-Q: If not power forward, what other areas are you looking at?

-RILEY: Point guard. And I think those are two areas that would help us as far as getting some balance into our team… It is a heavy draft in terms of point guards. You all have looked at all that kind of stuff, and there are more point guards than anything else.

And there are a number of them that are pretty good. In terms of just who that might be, you just run down through the whole list. I think there's a couple of them that won't get to us, as far as that goes.

But who's to say that the third point guard taken in the draft wouldn't be a good one or even the fourth for that matter or fifth one. There are so many of them that this could be a draft where the point guards do as well as anybody as you look back on it in two years.

-Q: How many of those point guards fit into your system?

-RILEY: I think that, if you estimate that some of them are going to be gone, there's probably still two there that would fit into our plans.

-Q: Would you be looking for size from the point guard?

-RILEY: Not necessarily. That's the one place that you might get by… but I wouldn't want somebody who's really, really short. I would like the point guard to be as tall as you can have it and at least with some length, but more importantly it's the fact that you would want passing skills, the ability to run screen-and-roll, and ability to run a team.

-Q: Of the two guys you're referring to, is there a scenario in which neither is there? In which case, would you trade out of the spot?

-RILEY: No, there is not a scenario in our view. You know how everybody works the draft, so we're pretty comfortable that there would be a couple of point guards there, that we would select one of those two should we decide to go in that direction.

Second part of your question was about trading the pick… We've obviously been on the phone. Everybody is at this time of the year. We're not doing anything nobody else is doing. I've not been intrigued by the things that I've seen in terms of what can be done in a trade with that pick.

Just philosophically, we're a very young team and so why would we want to do something like acquiring maybe two picks in place of No. 7, that are first-round picks, you just get two younger guys again.

So that probably doesn't fit with us right now. That goes along with we don't have a second-round pick. And I'm not searching to go get one right now. I think if we add to our roster beyond this pick at No. 7, it should be somebody with some maturity and some understanding of how to help an NBA team.

-Q: What was the purpose of your and Don's visit with Monta in Memphis?

-RILEY: We started the process of talking with all the players at the end of the season. We did post-season interviews with each other to try to set the tone for the next year. And Monta has spoken to it. I addressed it a little bit that you probably saw with Chad Ford.

I'll just basically repeat what I said but hopefully go far enough to answer your question…

Our point was to put everybody on the same page, as Monta said. It's one of those situations where I thought it was important to sit down and look at Monta across the table and have us have an open conversation. And it went quite well, in our view.

My first conversation with Monta at the end of the season was a good conversation, a solid conversation, I felt it was important to follow that up.

-Q: Why did you feel that?

-RILEY: Because I think we need to follow up with our players throughout the summer. We have intended and have kept up the process of talking to players. And I think that's important from the standpoint, you don't have to talk about the business of basketball, yet talk about being prepared to go into the next season, who's actually going to help us with leadership roles and what is our approach going to be when we hit camp next year and have everybody in shape.

-Q: Monta said you guys were putting the ball in his hands or team on his shoulders or something like that. What does that mean? Does it mean he's going to be the point guard or that's not the point guard?

-RILEY: What it means is he's going to play and we're looking at hopefully something in the range of 40 minutes, and that's something he wants to do. He sat there and told me, he said, 'Coach, I'm a player. I just want to play. That's what's important to me. And if I play at 1, OK, I understand.'

And Nellie talked about that. He said, 'If we play you at 1, you've got to get people more involved. And you've got to run a little bit more as a traditional point guard. If you play at 2, obviously it's a little more of a scoring situation, but you're always going to score whether you're 1 or 2, that's going to be important ot us.'

In going on about that, as we sat there and talked that through, I was thinking back… When we were in our second year here and won the 48 games and missed the playoffs, there was a period, probably the last half of the season, where Monta did handle the ball quite a bit and operated a good bit as a point guard, in spite of the fact that Baron was the point guard.

So we saw enough things in him at that time that we feel like he can do that. Now is he going to be John Stockton? No, we know that. That's not going to happen. But is he going to be an adequate point guard? We want to go look at him in that vein and see exactly what we can accomplish with that.

And I think that our training camp is going to be extremely important for those kinds of things.

-Q: So if you feel that Monta can play the point, why would you draft a point guard?

-RILEY: Just might not. You know, we just might not. Now the reason you would take a point guard there would be is if his ability were to overshadow the other guy that might be there. Then I would go with talent. I think you stockpile talent for your teams.

If you took a point guard, it would give you some stability at that position for quite a few years, assuming you make the right pick and the guy really can play.

So we will take a look at talent, then we'll take a look at positioning, and I can't pin that down for you as to which one is going to dominate. We'll see that on draft day.

-Q: If you draft a point guard, will you worry that Monta won't like it, as he develops as a point guard?

-RILEY: Is what you're saying, Where are we with Monta in regards to having a point guard behind him?

We see Monta being able to play two positions. And if it does turn out that way, it's probably a healthy thing. It probably gets Monta to the point where he's embracing the point guard's role, which he's able to do right now. Then if the guy becomes so good that we've got to get him on the floor, then one of them moves over to the 2 spot.

Now are they going to play 40 minutes together if that's the situation? No, probably not. But there's a lot of minutes to be played in an NBA game. We want Monta on the floor.

-Q: Has Monta told you he wants to be the point guard?

-RILEY: We talked about that. And his inclination was… I didn't ask him directly, do you want to be the point guard. Now Nellie talked to him about it directly, he said, 'If we do play you at the point, you have to get the other guys involved. We still want you to score.' But I didn't actually just sit down and say, 'Do you want to be the point guard? Do you want to be the 2-guard?

Because he prefaced his remarks, when we were getting started with the conversation, 'I just want to play. If I'm on the floor, that's what I want to do.' Then we talked to him about accepting a leadership role.

He's not extremely vocal about much of anything, but as you sit and talk to him, he opens up more and more. And he's definitely wanting to embrace a leadership role and have he and Stephen Jackson take this thing.

Our deal is get those guys to open camp with us and have everybody in shape. We want a good start for the season.

-Q: Why did you fly to see Monta? Did you fly to any other player this summer?

-RILEY: Have not.

-Q: So why Monta?

-RILEY: I thought he was important to us. I thought he was one of the most important ingredients in our team. And that's the reason.

-Q: Has he ever requested to be traded?

-RILEY: No. Now let me say this… I can't speak to what happened before I moved to the front office. But since I've been there, he has never come to me and said, 'I want to be traded.'

-Q: Has he ever expressed unhapppiness?

-RILEY: Yeah, he got mad at me when I wouldn't let him play when he was coming off his injuries. And he wanted to play against… (Washington)… he was very unhappy. And we held him for a few more days. And that might happen again. That kind of stuff can happen.

Yeah, we were probably overly cautious with him. But I don't regret any of that.

-Q: So when you flew to see him, you were trying to show him how important he was to you?

-RILEY: I think that's a fair statement.

-Q: Didn't he know that already?

-RILEY: I didn't want to leave it in question.

-Q: Was it an issue? Was there friction before that?

-RILEY: No, no. There was not. In fact, the meetings that I had with Monta at the end of the season, when we interviewed everybody, went extremely well. I think we're moving down a plan that we want to continue to go in that direction. That's what it was about for me.

I also think that yes, it was good to put Nellie in a situation with Monta. He's the coach. He's the one that needs to express that, 'Hey, Monta, we need you to help us. Be a leader.' And that's the reason for having Nellie with us.

And I thought it was extremely healthy. I think that Monta characterized it the way we did, when we walked away from that meeting.

I wanted to go down there because I thought we were headed down the right road and I wanted to keep it going that way. And I also wanted Monta to hear from Nellie that Nellie wanted him to accept a leadership role.

-Q: If you take a point guard, will you need to make another call to Monta to explain it?

-RILEY: I don't think so. I don't see that as something that's really an issue. I think he's prepared to let us do our job. I think he said that in the other interview, I didn't hear all of it. I think he referred to it, anyway. I may actually be talking to him in a day or two.

We're in a position where we have to go about our business. I'm comfortable that he knows if the best player there happens to be a point guard and the organization needs to go that way, I'm comfortable that he's OK with that.

-Q: When you met with Monta, did you tell him you wouldn't trade him?

-RILEY: I did not say that to him. A trade didn't come into the conversation.

-Q: Speaking of point guards, to my knowledge Tyreke Evans, Jrue Holiday and Stephen Curry have all not worked out for you. Rubio, too.

-RILEY: That is correct.

-Q: Are you comfortable drafting a player you have not worked out?

-RILEY: Yeah. And here's why: You see these guys.. In Curry's situation, I didn't see him a year ago, but our scouts have a broad base of information on players who have been around for a while. Now Evans for example is a one-year guy, so we've only seen him play one year.

But I take the position that really, about 85% of your work is done by the time the college season ends. And in several of these guys' cases, we have collected enough information that we would draft him and feel comfortable about it in spite of the fact that they have not visited.

-Q: To be clear: You've asked all four to come here and they've declined?

-RILEY: In particular, in Holiday's case, there was no communication. I made the call. I think it's been printed even that there was a denial of him visiting. And in Curry's case, I've spoken at length with his agent and he for one reason or another is not coming here. So those things are true.

Now, here's what I do think… I'll have to be careful how I phrase it, I think some of the other players are going ahead of us to where it becomes a moot point. I'm comfortable that we've seen the guys that we need to see. And that makes it better.

Would we take a guy that we really like if he hasn't visited here? If we have that background that I'm talking about where we've seen guys enough, yes. Now we did interview several of those players in Chicago.

-Q: How tough is this draft to evaluate?

-RILEY: I think the goal for us is to get a player who can make us better. Now play some as a rookie, you would hope, and then certainly fit into the plans as we go forward. So that's going to weigh heavily for us as well as what is the level of talent.

The big carrot in all that is if you can pick a young guy who is going to be a star, you do that. But if you pick a young guy who's going to take too much time to train, then it's probably not in our best interests.

I would rather see somebody that we can put in an NBA game, you know, and feel good about it, before this year is over. Now, probably not opening night or something like that. But as we go along.

-Q: Do you see Stephen Curry as a point guard?

-RILEY: Most people feel he's a 2-1. Quite candidly, I feel he's a 1-2. I think his passing skills are really pretty good. It's sometimes hard to evaluate a guy who… I've got to be careful how I say this because I don't want to disrespect the Davidson team… but he didn't have a lot of help on that team this year. The team before, that did so well in the NCAAs, was a little bit better team. And he played more 2 on that team.

I saw him pass the ball, put it on the money. He made long passes, he made short passes and obviously make shots. I do see him as more of a 1-2. But I'll bet that I'm in the minority on that. I'll bet if you talk to most people, they'd say he's a 2-1.

-Q: With Monta being similar to that, probably a 2-1….

-RILEY: Yep.

-Q: Can you draft a guy who'd be so similar to Monta and play them together?

-RILEY: We can. We do think if it came down to where we draft (a guy similar to Monta), they could play together and candidly, whoever has the ball coming up the floor is your point guard. And the other guy's just a heckuva threat.

We look forward to the day that we get our running game down and we cut our turnovers. And Curry is one of those guys who I think will grow into a low-turnover player. Now is that proven? No, that's a projection on my part. But he has a savvy, a certain understanding about the game.

There's no question he feels he belongs. So we are looking for a guy who could be a low-turnover guy. See, in the system that's played here… whether you look back at last year or years gone by, if you have low turnovers and you make your free throws, it's really an issue that helps this style of play rise to the top.

Now do we need more defense? Obviously we do. We can talk about that all night. And we know that we'd be better off if we had a much better defensive field goal percentage ratio than we've been looking at.

But I think taking care of the ball and making free throws are really issues, and then setting other guys up, particuarly when you're talking about the point guard. It seems to all start with the point guard with every team.

-Q: Can you draft another PF with Randolph and Wright still at that spot?

-RILEY: We took power forwards the last three years. So at that point, you throw them out there and let them compete and see who can rise to the top. And then you continue to develop the younger players. I don't know who will come out of that scramble with most of the playing time, but the reality is that if you do that, somebody's probably not going to play much.

-Q: Can you develop a point guard?

-RILEY: There is an element of development at the point guard. I don't see taking a rookie and bringing him in here and turning the ballclub over to him. I don't see that happening. I think it does take some time to develop a point guard. There's a lot for those guys to absorb-Chris Paul, OK. But even Deron Williams took some time, if you recall, it wasn't just an explosion onto the scene where he immediately had it all down.

-Q: Can you say who you like more, Hill or Curry?

-RILEY: I think those are two great names. But I don't want to discuss the ins and outs of those two guys.

-Q: Who can you lock in as for-sure guys that will be drafted ahead of you?

-RILEY: I'm comfortable with four guys that will be drafted ahead of us. That's the way we see it.

-Q: Have you had contact with Jamal Crawford? Do you have an inclincation about his opt-out situation?

-RILEY: I'm not certain. It would be judgment at this time. I had a text from him yesterday. I was more concerned with, did his health continue to improve after the season with his back. He has until the end of this month and we'll see what happens.

-Q: Does the organization still go with what Don told Jamal last year: If he doesn't opt-out, you'll try to trade him?

-RILEY: I didn't say that. And I'm not sure that we will. And I think that, it's one of those situations where a lot of things will be resolved this summer, July 1… We'll be looking at moves this summer. It's hard to say who will be involved in that. I never told Jamal that we would trade him. I think Nellie mentioned it on the radio, didn't he?

-Q: And to us.

-RILEY: OK. So… I know it's out there. But both of them at this stage are at least professional to the point where we can go into camp and we can go into the season and I think that both of them would be professional and continue to go that way.

-Q: Has the decision been made that Crawford isn't good enough to play point?

-RILEY: To me, Crawford's a 2-1.

-Q: Who's untouchable on your current roster?

-RILEY: Frankly, I don't want to go there. I mean, I think you guys can make that, and a lot of times you make good estimates. You look at this roster and say, you know, this guy, this guy and this guy are untouchable.

We love our young kids. We have too many of them to the extent that all of them cannot be untouchable.

-Q: Do you think this pick has a better chance of contributing in Year 1 than Wright, Randolph, etc?

-RILEY: Not necessarily. I don't want to sit here and tell you that I think so. We do know that Randolph and Morrow played over 1,000 minutes. Was there a contributing factor? Injuries helped that. Do I see this guy playing 500 to 700 minutes? It can happen that way.

But you don't know how fast they're going to pick it up and how fast they're going to come. But for us to say this draft pick is going to change our team and lift us up… I think that all we expect is a contribution of some kind in the rookie year and probably more in the second half of the year than the first, just out of learning and the way that people develop.

-Q: How many guys in this draft can transform a team?

-RILEY paraphrase: Griffin. Other than that, nobody else is single-handedly going to lift a team to the playoffs. Everybody else can help, though.

-Q: Stephen Jackson I think said himself that he has put on or plans to put 20-30 pounds weight in muscle. Is that something you like to hear, or does it push him out of the 2-guard spot?

-RILEY: I don't want him to put on 20 or 30 pounds. I haven't seen Stephen. I exchanged texts with him last week over his toe. He went to the doctor. Everything's progressing well.

Do I want him to gain 20 pounds? No.

-Q: Is Jackson the 2-guard?

-RILEY: That's the way we would start the training camp. Those things get adjusted as time goes on. But that's the way we would start the training camp.

-Q: Some GMS are known as big risk-takers. Some are conservative. Where do you think you'll fall in that?

-RILEY: Probably in the conservative side. And if I take a risk, it'll be a big one with a high reward, or it'll fall flat. I don't see doing a lot of that. But there might be one out there that you say hey, this is the piece that turns the frachise. And I would certainly look at that.

It would be slow on my part. Some things I move quickly on, but not often. I would deliberate quite a bit on it then make a decision and then go with it.

-Q: Would you be interested in trading for a guy who can become a free agent next summer?

-RILEY: I think the only way that that could happen is if you were allowed to negotiate beyond that point. It would be difficult for me to bring in a free agent who's contract expires next summer and he walks away. Because you would have to give up a great deal in order to get that person and in doing so you gut your team and the guy walks away. I can't do that.

I've got to know going into the thing that there's some real likelihood that's not going to happen. Does it have to be locked down 100%? Maybe not. But there's got to be strong indications that we can do that.

Let's say in order to get one of those guys you've got to trade one of your best players and maybe one of your draft picks and then that guy walks away… you're toast. And we like our young kids and we like our team as it is. We want to add to it, but I wouldn't want to take that gamble.

-Q: What are two or three qualities you know this team needs?

-RILEY: I think experience of course is really an issue. And we're really not a good passing team. And it's difficult to find guys who pass well and address the rebounding issue. But I think passing, rebounding and defense are really keys to us.

Some guys look at scoring right away. I think our team scores. We find ways to score. I think we could help our team with those issues right there.

-Q: Did Baron bring a lot of those things-and take them away when he left?

-RILEY: Tough guy. He was a tough guy. And we need… absolutely. You'd love to see that. He had some leadership that we didn't have when he left. And he was a tough guy. And he wasn't scared to take a big shot, any of those things. If you had a guy who could bring any of that, it'd be really helpful to us.

--DON NELSON pre-draft gaggle/

-Q: We've talked to Larry about the visit you two made with Monta. Can you talk about why you felt it was necessary to do that?

-NELSON: I don't really want to comment about it. If you don't mind. I went down there privately to talk to Monta. I do that with a lot of my players. Whatever's said about it, I just don't want to make any comments about it.

-Q: Is point guard a need position for you going into this draft or not?

-NELSON: I'm not going to talk about the draft.

-Q: What do you want to talk about?

-NELSON: I'm telling you, I don't want to talk about anything. I try not to lie to you guys, but when it's around the draft, I will.

-Q: What do you think about this draft class?

-NELSON: I think we're going to get a good player.

-Q: Someone who can fit in right away?

-NELSON: I think we're going to get a good player.

-Q: Some say this is the worst draft since 2000…

-NELSON: I don't know how to answer that. I don't think you really know about a draft until a few years after to see how the kids worked out. Every draft's a good draft, as far as I'm concerned.

-Q: Larry said he'd like to get a player who'd contribute by some point this coming season. Do you see that being likely with your 7th pick? Would you like a more mature player than you've drafted recently?

-NELSON: I may look it a little bit different. I feel we're committed to our youth and to growth with them. I think the feeling of our team is to move forward with our young guys and get better as we go along and most of them are young, anyway, so what's another young guy?

If the guy's good, I don't think that matters as much to me, because they're all going to be young, anyway. But I think the skill level and our opinion of the guy has to be high.

-Q: Are you worried about Stephen Jackson's weight?

-NELSON: His weight? I don't know about his weight.

-Q: Apparently he's putting on a lot of weight in muscle.

-NELSON: Oh, I didn't know about that. He hasn't told me about that.

-Q: Would that be a concern for you if he gains too much weight-would that push him away from the 2-guard position?

-NELSON: I liked the body the way it was. I don't know what he's changed. I don't want him to get heavy, no.

-Q: Would you like Monta to be your point guard this season?

-NELSON: Um, that'd be good.

-Q: At times last year, you sounded like you didn't want him as your point guard. Has your thinking on Monta as a point guard changed?

-NELSON: Again, everything seems to get misconstrued. It'd be good because of his size if he could do that. Develop a little bit better passing skills. I think he can do that if he sets his mind to it.

So does that make him a point guard? At his size, it's hard to be a full-time 2-guard at 6-2. Just not many of them around, small 2-guards. To me, it's obvious it'd be better if he could do that job at the point guard position.

-Q: Didn't you say at the end of the season that Monta wasn't a point guard?

-NELSON: I didn't say… I said Monta sees himself as a guard, as a player. I talked to him about becoming a point guard at that particular time, he seems himself as a guard. So there seems to be some reluctance to take that next step in his mind.

I don't think he could be a full-time point guard. No, I think he can be a guard, and I want to steer him in the direction of maybe making more plays for the other guys, understanding that it's more… the approach is more than just to score the ball. You've got to take care of your teammates a little bit more and have a feel for that as a player, doesn't matter of he's a point guard or a 2-guard.

I think that's a good message for everybody, to try to get the team better. So I think he can do that. We'll see.

-Q: How would Monta develop better passing skills?

-NELSON: By court vision, by not concentrating on the rim as much… the awareness of people around you. We've worked on that since we've been here. And he is getting better, he makes more plays now than he did. There's room for growth.

-Q: Given the way this roster is constructed, could you see taking another wing if that's the best guy there?

-NELSON: I'm not going to talk about the draft.

-Q: How much of a priority is getting some more experience?

-NELSON: No, we're committed to our youth. I don't know, whatever happens, I can't predict the future. But we're committed to our youth. I'd think it was obvious from last year.

 

[daprescription]

[h2]Warriors draft: The case for DeMar DeRozan[/h2]
Posted by Tim Kawakami on June 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 pm | Categorized as College basketball, NBA, Warriors

* Second in a series of Warriors logical options for the No. 7 overall pick in Thursday's NBA draft…

There are many reasons why the Warriors could shy away from drafting USC wing DeMar DeRozan.

No. 1, he's sooo duplicative of Stephen Jackson and Kelenna Azubuike and maybe even Marco Belinelli, Anthony Morrow and Anthony Randolph (if he ever gets time at small forward). DeRozan surely doesn't solve the Warriors' huge needs for a playmaker on offense and a defensive rebounder.

Nos. 2-6, the Warriors probably have their sights on Jordan Hill if they're going PF, or Stephen Curry, Jonny Flynn, Brandon Jennings or Tyreke Evans if they're going play-making guard.

There's only one good reason why they should deeply consider it. But it's a really, really good reason:

* DeRozan (6-foot-6) might be the second most physically talented player in this draft, behind only Blake Griffin.

Other than Griffin, I think DeRozan is the only other player you could say has a game, body and mindset that seems to likely project long-term as an NBA starter and possibly a very good one.

That doesn't mean he will be a star, just means you can see it in there, without a lot of caveats. (Stephen Curry and Ricky Rubio would be my other choices, but they've got caveats: Is Curry strong enough and can he play defense? Can Rubio shoot well enough?)

DeRozan's not very risky, and he could be very good, maybe in the Andre Iguodala-Rudy Gay-Mickael Pietrus high-middle-low range, which is a pretty decent range.

And if, for various reasons, the Warriors choose not to go with, say, Hill or Curry, or if Hill and Curry are both surprisingly off the board (along with Evans and a few others), or if there's a stalemate in the Warriors war room and they need to just pick the best guy on their board, regardless of position…

Why wouldn't the Warriors immediately select DeRozan? And maybe he'd turn out to be the best pick, in the long-term, anyway.

Here's one gargantuan supposition by me, that might not be met with great warmth by the Warriors fandom, but oh well, I'm used to it…

* Is it possible that the fan favorite trio of Monta Ellis, Andris Biedrins and Anthony Randolph don't quite perfectly fit Don Nelson's vision? (Elllis is too small for the 2, too much shoot-first for the 1, not enough of a play-maker for Nelson all the way around; Biedrins and Randolph don't shoot outside jumpers.).

And that a projected line-up with Stephen Jackson at the 3, DeRozan at the 2, Anthony Morrow as the main wing back-up, Turiaf at the 5, and somebody like Chris Bosh at the 4 really, really does fit the vision?

(I know, there's still NO POINT GUARD in either line-up. I'm working on that one. Too bad they don't have that ol' No. 5 any more. He REALLY fit the Nellie formula, of course.)

I think there's something to that above-mentioned meta-thought. Something to it. Not 100% right, but something.

I don't know if Nelson is thinking that way, and the three fan favorites I've mentioned also happen to be very good players, and Ellis and Biedrins are making HUGE money and won't be easy to trade. Plus Randolph is so good the Warriors might never want to trade him.

But you've got to realize that the current talent is just a bit off from what Nelson usually loves.

DeRozan (if he can hit jumpers) is a fit for the Nelson system in a way that Ellis, for instance, is not.

Beyond the talent, which many NBA people believe is very high, let's quickly run through some of the DeRozan high points:

* He finished his freshman season at USC on a strong offensive note, after beginning it with more defensive focus than you usually get out of teenagers.

(One good shooting sign: 52.3% from the field, a great number for a Pac-10 guard. Two bad shooting signs: 13.7% from three-point distance, 64.6% FT.)

I'd say his offensive game is trending up, and when you add that to his physical ability to get into the lane… that's a player that might average 18 to 20 points a game relatively fast in his NBA career.

* He's only 19, with clear room for major expansion as a player.

(I realize John Hollinger's respected Draft Rater placed DeRozan way, way way down on this year's list. 54th, in fact,. Jordan Hill, by the way, was 26th. Ty Lawson was 1st, Blake Griffin 2nd.

(As Hollinger puts it, DeRozan just didn't do enough things to register well in any category. That's an issue that certainly makes you wonder about DeRozan-why so few blocks and steals? Why the lousy FT%.

(But one-year collegians are tougher to rate, since they're often put in weird situations. Yeah, safe to believe that the USC situation was weird last year. I'll go ahead and say it: DeRozan is going to be a much better pro than James Harden, who Draft Rater ranks 10th. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.)

* If the Warriors are going to go with Monta Ellis at the point, DeRozan fits in well as a strong defensive-minded 2/3, combining with Stephen Jackson and basically replacing (and upgrading) Azubuike at the other wing spot.

DeRozan would give the Warriors a much better shot at defending tough 2s than anybody they've got, especially if they don't want Jackson chasing quicker players for 42 minutes a game. I think DeRozan probably could take a stab at defending the bigger point guards, too.

* Drafting DeRozan would certainly duplicate their current duplication at the wing, and he's not a point guard and probably couldn't even fake it.

But he'd be a possible replacement for Jackson down the road. He could fit in nicely with Ellis, Morrow, Randolph and Biedrins/Turiaf, with a slashing game that seems to complement Ellis and Morrow.

And if the Warriors wanted to see what they could get for Randolph down the road… and they could get a young veteran, jump-shooting power forward in return… well, they could possibly trade Randolph.

And then DeRozan would turn into their New Young Thing, possibly to play alongside Whoever They Can Trade For.

I'm not saying this is the Warriors' best or most likely option. In fact, it's probably not. But I'm saying DeRozan isn't an option they can swiftly disregard, when the time comes and if things don't break right for them in the war room.

Or maybe my meta-thought is something to consider. (Doubtful.)

-The series so far:

Option 1: The case for Jordan Hill.

Option 2: The case for DeMar DeRozan.

Next… Option 3: The case for Stephen Curry.

 

[enlightened thought]

watching the 97 draft on nbatv. reliving the experience of us drafting adonal again...breathtaking.

 

[paul is on tilt]

Yeah! Adonal! Whoo!

 

[daprescription]

Man.... +$%% Adonal.

 

[paul is on tilt]

Attn GMs in the NT Warriors fantasy baseball league: I want to trade away George Sherrill. Who's interested?

 

[srvballer]

Only 3 players I really want...

1. Harden (if he falls to us I will have tears of joy)

2. Jennings (I think he could be a huge star or a huge bust...but i think its worth the risk)
3. T. Evans (I always liked his game and would be satisfied)

please do NOT draft Holliday, Derozan, or Hill.

 

[franchise 55]

I kind of want Jennings too, although I'm not completely sure why. I definitely don't want Hill.

 

[nothingtol0se]

Originally Posted by srvballer

Only 3 players I really want...

1. Harden (if he falls to us I will have tears of joy)

2. Jennings (I think he could be a huge star or a huge bust...but i think its worth the risk)
3. T. Evans (I always liked his game and would be satisfied)

please do NOT draft Holliday, Derozan, or Hill.

i like your list. I wouldn't mind them drafting holiday either though.

...twill is growing on me.

 

[enlightened thought]

if we pick hill, i'm inclined to think wright is as good as gone.

 

[offbad]

Originally Posted by Enlightened Thought

if we pick hill, i'm inclined to think wright is as good as gone.

hard for me to imagine that guy sticking around regardless

 

[boys noize]

1. Tyreke Evans
2. Jonny Flynn
3. James Harden

Hill, Jennings, DeRozan....

No thanks.

 

[vietsta4o8]

i like evans, holiday, jennings, and flynn.


pass on curry, hill, derozan, lawson, hansborough, williams,

 

[TheGodFresco]

I REALLY want Jennings on this squad