Warriors vs. Rockets @ Houston, Dec. 31, 2005 4pm FSN

Okay this is the last I will say about finances.

Kwan, what is your ideal? I mean, have financial flexibility and let JRich and Murphy have walked after this year? Let Dunleavy walk too? No Foyle and NO Fish either. Pretty soon, what do you have? Three malcontents and Calbert Cheaney starting with Speedy Claxton.

I believe that having seen commitments made to JRich and Murphy has led Baron to think that staying is not such a bad gig. No way he would have rededicated himself with a bunch of rag tags on the team; you know Atlanta Hawks West or Clippers circa 1990-early 2000s.

My 2 cents is, in the current state of the NBA, you must build through your own draft. That's the best way to do so. And the built in advantage you have is the minimum 5 year restrictions on your 1st round picks and the Larry Bird exception. Cohan exercised those advantages and we should be applauding. Instead you are criticizing. Yes, Foyle looks bad but letting him and Damp both go with no alternatives? That would have been simply unworkable.

If the Warriors are to compete, they need to pay$$, not just to the salary cap but over. That's the reality. Pietrus? Biedris? Yes the Warriors are going to have to pay and then its a tax possibly but Mullin knew that last year and Cohan said not a problem (or I would hope so.)

I highly doubt its ever been a zero sum game, either $$$ got to Dunleavy or Pietrus or Biedris.

 

Who said anything about losing our players? In current rookie contract, it doesn't make much difference whether we signed them in 3rd year or 4th year. Even if we didn't sign any of Richardson last year, Murphy or Dunleavy, we wouldn't have lose them at all, since teams always have upper hand when it comes to resiging their restricted FAs. In 4th year, they become restricted FA, meaning we can match any deal other teams are offering. Maybe, we would have to give Richardson a 14 mils per year instead of 12 mils per year if we didn't resign them. But, we could have cut down Murphy's contract or even go with Abdul-Rahim for nearly half of the price, not to mention with new CBA, we didn't have to give them 6 years contract but 5 years. And, the way Dunleavy is playing right now, we could have signed Dunleavy dramatically lower or even elect to go other ways, like current Artest rumor without creating 9 mils bench player. Only franchise players sign their extension in their 3rd year, because you are sure that they will be a cornerstone for a long time. For other non-franchise rookies, teams wait and see for 4 years and make a decision, because you just don't know how they will progress. Again, nobody said about losing Richardson, Dunleavy or Murphy. And, we are talking about just 1 year of extra flexibility. However, in just one year, number of things can happen like we saw last year and early this year. That's why you don't jump on to the 3rd year extension, unless you are sure that you are getting a bargain deal. Clearly, Dunleavy's deal wasn't a bargain, and even in retro respect, we would have done much better if we didn't sign that deal.

Even you mention about 5 years of rookie contract. We didn't take the advantage of those rookie contract, and now we are paying a price for that. I don't know how you should applaud for our current situation.

In terms of signing Fisher and Foyle...

1. We give them long and overpriced contracts
2. We don't sign them at all and save the cash
3. If price seems overpaid and contracts are long, LOOK FOR ALTERNATIVE!

Their contracts are overpriced, but what it really kills is that their contracts are just too long. So, if we don't sign them, we just sit on their money and do nothing? No. If you know that both Fisher and Foyle's contracts will be a burden for your finance, either you sign them and face the consequence in the future or look for somebody else with shorter and smaller contract. We do not know how it would end up. Fisher has been playing very nicely. But for Foyle's case, I can't say it's "simply unworkable", considering how Foyle performed (or lack there of) in last 1+ year. Also, the biggest problem is that ALL our long term contracts end in next 4-6 years, meaning their 6 contracts are like a pyramid shape for our finance. That means, we will have one heck of time at later time, because all 6 contracts inflates at the same time. Mullin should have gave somebody 6 years, while gave somebody 2, 3 or 4 years contracts, so that we can get some sort of relief in next 4-6 years span. Instead, no contract ends in next 4 years, so until then we have to hold our breath.

Again, nobody say don't pay those players. But, if you have to pay them, wait till you exhause all your possible options, instead of finalizing everything at your first opportunity. Nobody should bite the first offer car dealer throw to you when you buy a car, especially when you can afford to wait for one year. Unfortunately, that's basically what we did.

Also, if you believe that paying Pietrus or Biedrins are "tax possible", you are pretty much dead wrong. Barring from big jump of luxury tax line, existing 6 contracts alone will drive our finance deep into luxury tax terriotry.

Current luxury tax line 62 mils

06-07: We committed 6 contracts roughly 53 mils
07-08: We committed 6 contracts roughly 60 mils
08-09: We committed 6 contracts roughly 64 mils
09-10: We committed Richardson, Murphy, Dunleavy and Fisher roughly 41 mils.

Considering that it will take more than 10 mils to filling rest of the roster, our existing contracts alone will drive us deep into luxury tax territory. Grant that luxury tax line can be pushed up, but till now, it never took dramatic push like 5 mils increases in one year. Adding another long and big contract like Pietrus' extension or any other long term contracts without losing any big contracts will make us to pay luxury tax beyond 10 mils luxury tax.

If we can pull Pietrus and Murphy for Artest and Foster, that helps our financial situation somewhat, because Artest' contract ends in 3 years and Foster's contract ends in 4 years, instead of Murphy's 6 years. Of course, I have no clue what we will do in rebounding department or what will we do with Dunleavy, but that's another discussion.

Again, I am not saying we are destined to be doomed or Mullin is a horribly GM beyond any hope of salvation. However, what I am saying is that our current financial situation is not good to say the least, and it will take a lot of work to do. If Mullin can do it, that would be great. And above all...
we need to change in order to take next step...

 

Kwan - I agree that the W's are restricted financially. But, like Phil says, who else is there that we can sign? No one can predict the future so you place you bets on hoping what you have will develop.

You're being a bit too pessimistic that the current W's won't develop into a contender. Do you realize how young the players we have are? Yes, I understand that Foyle and Fisher are the oldest players next to Calbert Cheney, and coincidentally they both have long-term contracts. However, they're role players and if they are able to fit into a system to help the team become a contender, then it is money well-spent. It's just premature to be saying signing those players and others alike were a bad move.

IMO, change is overrated. There's something to be said about building a foundation and watching them develop; that is what Mullin is trying to achieve: development of the young players. That is why these players were drafted. Unfortunately, not every young player you draft (i.e. Pietrus, Biendrins, et al) will be able to stay along for the ride, but you never know. It's all retrospective by thinking, "we should have waited to sign Dunleavy because now we can't sign Pietrus."

I'm sorry, but the W's don't have "a financial problem." They are restricted but with the intent that no change should be made in the future; that the players that we have now are the players that we want later.

Re: Murphy/Pietrus for Artest - DO IT!

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Kwan1031:</div><div class="quote_post">
we need to change in order to take next step...</div>

This is what I mainly argue. Before change, we need to make the next step, which is make the playoffs. Change has already been taken place: the W's are winning. While I agree with you that the current roster isn't Championship material, I will disagree by saying, change is not necessary...at the moment. A good employer will give their employees a fair chance at doing their job. I think Mullin wants to be that good employer and the current roster wants to be good employees.

Re: Murphy/Pietrus for Artest/Foster - DO IT!

 

Again, I am not saying we should have abandoned Richardson, Dunleavy or Murphy and let them go. But, just waiting one more year and sign them at 4th year, we could have signed Abdul Rahim for 6 mils per year instead of Murphy for 10 mils, and we could have saved fortune on Dunleavy. We do not know what is on the horizon, that's why we should have maintained financial flexibility as long as possible to adjust the future, instead of jumping onto the first available chance to lock up players. Also, when I said financial flexibility, it doesn't mean we should have salary cap.

I say we are in finanicial problem, because not only we can't resign any of our own rookies, can't add any big contract without losing any of our big contract, and can't even keep our own roster without a change. Which situation would you say we are in financial problem? And, why do you believe that our current financial situation is not a problem?

I am just wondering... Exactly how much do you believe Cohan will pay luxury tax? I don't believe he is a cheap owner. But, it's also hard to believe that he will completely open up his bank either.

If you believe our front court can grown into one of the better front court in the league, then yeah. We don't need to change. However, I don't believe that combination of Dunleavy, Murphy and Foyle are adaquate at all. Indeed, if they play for long time, there will be improvements, but I don't believe it will be enough. Dunleavy will someday break out from his slump, but I don't think he will be either major contributor in both offense and defense end. As much as I like Murphy, he pretty much capped his upside, and he provides no help defense inside. And, Foyle is pretty much Foyle for the rest of his career. So far, we are dead last at rebounding, 19th at fg% allowed, we have no post up game, and 19th at block. I don't see our front court will reach top 10 level ever...

 

Kwan - point taken...we will see.