Houston Rockets Aquire Rafer Alston

Talk about any other sports here.

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:57 am
There is no comparison between Baron and Alston. The Rockets had the team already to be contenders, they didn't need to change anything. They have further to fall than to climb
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13528
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:58 am
TMC wrote:Not even close, I'd be willing to take some risks for a difference maker like Baron, not for Alston.

That's not the point. The point is that they both caused the same amount of trouble on their former teams and NOBODY was bringing up Baron's attitude when he got to GS. The fact that you two are arguing against Alston's attitude is out of nowhere, as well. He hasn't had such a long list of incidents in his NBA career that need noting. He got frustrated on a losing team in Toronto and ran his mouth at teammates ONCE. Where's the huge controversy that I'm missing?

migya wrote:There is no comparison between Baron and Alston. The Rockets had the team already to be contenders, they didn't need to change anything. They have further to fall than to climb

Are you saying that the Warriors didn't already have the team to become a contender? It's pretty obvious that Golden State had a solid enough team to make a playoff run, but they needed a spark at the point guard position to get them there. Baron's numbers aren't what changed our team; the fact that he sparked our team is what changed it. And I completely, whole-heartedly disagree when you say "the Rockets didn't need to change anything"... if they didn't need to change something, why weren't they NBA champions last year??? There is only ONE NBA team that didn't need to change; the San Antonio Spurs. That's it. If you don't win it all, then something's wrong. You didn't have the best team. End of case.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:56 am
Hey, you were the one that brought up the Baron comparisons. I'm just saying that they had a sure thing with Mike James, and decided to trade for a player with one good season and one bad season as his resume. It's risky, even if we agree that Alston is more talented. That's all.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13528
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:52 am
I don't regret comparing him to Baron; I'm saying they both had one off year. Doesn't everybody deserve a second chance? Mike James was a 100% sure, near average point guard... Rafer Alston is a 80% sure above-average point guard. I'd say Alston's worth it.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:40 am
Player32 wrote:
migya wrote:There is no comparison between Baron and Alston. The Rockets had the team already to be contenders, they didn't need to change anything. They have further to fall than to climb

Are you saying that the Warriors didn't already have the team to become a contender? It's pretty obvious that Golden State had a solid enough team to make a playoff run, but they needed a spark at the point guard position to get them there. Baron's numbers aren't what changed our team; the fact that he sparked our team is what changed it. And I completely, whole-heartedly disagree when you say "the Rockets didn't need to change anything"... if they didn't need to change something, why weren't they NBA champions last year??? There is only ONE NBA team that didn't need to change; the San Antonio Spurs. That's it. If you don't win it all, then something's wrong. You didn't have the best team. End of case.



Are you saying you think the Warriors had a great team capable of making the playoffs? and being successful? NOT REALLY! with baron, this team is much more improved and now has a REAL chance of going to the playoffs AND being successful!

As far as your, why weren't the Rockets the nba champions statement, as if to say that only the nba champions have a team that is capable of being the champions is just wrong! Teams with young, talented players that have the potential to be championship caliber, do not need to change much. The Warriors are an example. If they just allow the young guys like Biedrins to develop, the team will improve much to the point of being championship contenders. Also the Pistons came close and probably don't need tochange anything either.
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13528
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:05 am
migya wrote:Are you saying you think the Warriors had a great team capable of making the playoffs? and being successful? NOT REALLY! with baron, this team is much more improved and now has a REAL chance of going to the playoffs AND being successful!

Obviously they did or they wouldn't be in such a hunt for it now. Baron Davis sparked the talent that was already there; he didn't win any games HIMSELF. Give Speedy Claxton the ability to spark the team, the way Baron Davis did, and you've got the same hungry, rejuvinated, high scoring team (but with a less dynamic point guard). If Speedy could have ran the team the way Baron did, we'd be in the same position right now. It was never a matter of talent; it was a matter of making the talent work together.

migya wrote:As far as your, why weren't the Rockets the nba champions statement, as if to say that only the nba champions have a team that is capable of being the champions is just wrong! Teams with young, talented players that have the potential to be championship caliber, do not need to change much. The Warriors are an example. If they just allow the young guys like Biedrins to develop, the team will improve much to the point of being championship contenders. Also the Pistons came close and probably don't need tochange anything either.

You're saying the Warriors had a great team that only needed to develop, huh? They didn't need to change? Okay, then dump Diogu, Ellis, and Taft away and forget about them. Let D-Fish, Calbert, and Foyle get older and older without moving the team around. And pray Baron's knee holds up because, as of right now, they'd have one backup point guard... and he'd get plenty tired if Baron sat a game. You don't think the Warriors needed any changes from last year? TOTALLY false.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:08 pm
Firstly the Warriros had to waive players like White to make room for the 3 draft picks. Also, without the 3 draft picks, Zarko and Biedrins would undoubtedly have more court time and opportunity to improve and produce on the court. The Warriors now have capable players in the frontline who will all fight for minutes.


SF = Dunleavy, Pietus and Zarko
PF = Murphy, Diogu and Taft. Maybe Zarko a little
C = Foyle, Biedrins and Taft

Without Diogu and Taft, Zarko and Biedrins would get a healthy amount of minutes, whereas now they will be getting far less, especially Zarko. The Warriors almost have a problem of having too many talented players. The spurs never had that problem and always went with the top 8 or 9 players they had
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13528
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:13 am
You said the Warriors didn't need to change from last season; all you said they needed to do was "develop"... so, you should remove Diogu, Taft, and Ellis from your lineup and get back Tskitisvili and White. You honestly think that team was going to make the NBA Finals in just a few years of development?

Also, didn't you say that the Warriors were helpless without Baron Davis? So, theoretically, if your first comment actually happened, wouldn't the Warriors be screwed once an injury hit Baron? Derek Fisher on the floor for 48 minutes is a nightmare for most people on this board; you'd say that team could make the NBA Finals?
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 8:36 am
No I never said that the Warriors were 'helpless' without Baron Davis. You had said that all he did was spark the talent and that Speedy could have done that......... I think there would have been a chance but we all know Baron is much better, especially you.

Yes I do believe that without the 3 rookies that the Warriors could have developed into a championship caliber team. With the development of Biedrins, the team's future center, Pietrus, the team's future SF and Zarko, the team's backup at SF and PF, the Warriors would have had that 8 player deep team that championship teams like the Spurs always had.

I am happy that the 3 rookies are ours! But there will be deficient minutes for some, like Zarko and Taft and that could lead to far slower development of the players individually.
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13528
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 10:48 am
I didn't say Speedy COULD spark them the way Baron did; I said IF Speedy did that, then our talent would have flourished anyway like they did at the end of the season (you made it seem like without Baron Davis, there was no talent on the team). We had a good team before Baron Davis.

But not good enough. Development alone wouldn't have made our team championship caliber. Zarko, Pietrus, and Biedrins will all become good players, but nothing that'll pull us to the finals. Besides, Beidrins is expected to take Foyle's place... so we'd only have one real center. Pietrus is a frequent sub already, so we're not really gaining anything. And Zarko's not going to improve THAT much in his career. He's good, but he'll never be great.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 6:15 pm
Biedrins will be a great player, with increasing court time. He will replace Foyle yes, but Foyle will still be around for some 5 years, so the Warriors would have had plenty of time to get a backup for Biedrins. Pietrus could be real special and a starter at SF if he keeps going the way he has been. Zarko.......... you never know, he might become really good or sort of stay the same.

The Warriors are VERY young and so it is right to say that they would have gotten better with the same players in 4 or 5 years. Much better. Things are the way they are and the team has alot of talent to use as it pleases
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13528
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:09 pm
migya wrote:Biedrins will be a great player, with increasing court time. He will replace Foyle yes, but Foyle will still be around for some 5 years, so the Warriors would have had plenty of time to get a backup for Biedrins.

No you don't get to trade for a backup forward. You said the team AS IT IS. Not to mention Biedrins might not make it to "great" status... He'll be good, sure, but who knows how good.

migya wrote:Pietrus could be real special and a starter at SF if he keeps going the way he has been. Zarko.......... you never know, he might become really good or sort of stay the same.

Very true... those players could go both ways. I have a hard time thinking they'll both be star-caliber players any time soon, but they're good to have, nevertheless.

migya wrote:The Warriors are VERY young and so it is right to say that they would have gotten better with the same players in 4 or 5 years. Much better. Things are the way they are and the team has alot of talent to use as it pleases

Yes, but without ANY changes, things could go wrong. What if Biedrins doesn't turn out to be anything great? Then what? We'll be stuck without a credible big man in the middle. What if Baron got hurt again? Fisher alone can't playmake. And, without Ike's arrival, our inside scoring has already proved to be one of the league's worst! Saying the Warriors team from last year ALONE could develop into a championship team isn't true. We needed inside scoring, defense, and another point guard.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 8:48 pm
Player32 wrote:No you don't get to trade for a backup forward. You said the team AS IT IS. Not to mention Biedrins might not make it to "great" status... He'll be good, sure, but who knows how good.



I stand by what I said about the team as it was being able to be a contender. Things would all have to go to the worst and every player not improving, which just doesn't happen, especially with their young age and what has already been seen from them.


migya wrote:Pietrus could be real special and a starter at SF if he keeps going the way he has been. Zarko.......... you never know, he might become really good or sort of stay the same.

Player32 wrote:Very true... those players could go both ways. I have a hard time thinking they'll both be star-caliber players any time soon, but they're good to have, nevertheless.


The way Pietrus has improved over 2 years, it sure looks near certain that the guy will be very effective very soon, within 1 or 2 years.

migya wrote:The Warriors are VERY young and so it is right to say that they would have gotten better with the same players in 4 or 5 years. Much better. Things are the way they are and the team has alot of talent to use as it pleases

Player32 wrote:Yes, but without ANY changes, things could go wrong. What if Biedrins doesn't turn out to be anything great? Then what? We'll be stuck without a credible big man in the middle. What if Baron got hurt again? Fisher alone can't playmake. And, without Ike's arrival, our inside scoring has already proved to be one of the league's worst! Saying the Warriors team from last year ALONE could develop into a championship team isn't true. We needed inside scoring, defense, and another point guard.


You are sure are right with your Fisher statement............ haha...... he can be real crap and is getting on with age BUT he is capable of being a solid BACKUP. You are really trying to emphasise the negative what ifs (like what if Baron gets injured) and that is not the reality, an attempt to favor your view but not reality. Things could happen but ALL THE TIME. no

The inside scoring, AT THE MOMENT, looks quite bad without Diogu BUT in 2 or 3 years, Biedrins could be a force offensively inside. Not to mention that I'm hearing that Murphy has added a couple of post moves, imagine in 3 years....... Things will only get better with these young an improving players, they will not get worse
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13528
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 10:40 pm
migya wrote:You are really trying to emphasise the negative what ifs (like what if Baron gets injured) and that is not the reality, an attempt to favor your view but not reality. Things could happen but ALL THE TIME. no

Me??? I'm just being realistic; Baron's prone to having injuries (so why not look at what would happen without Monta in the lineup?). That's not emphasising certain things for my points; that's life. Baron Davis playing a full season this year would be a miracle.

I think saying Biedrins and Pietrus are future league stars is stretching the truth more than acknowledging Baron's breakable past. Comparing 19-year-old bench players to guys like Amare and Garnett seems like a huge gap to me. Plus, Pietrus' scoring increases, yes, but overall, he hasn't shown any flashes of league-wide brilliance. He'll score a lot and play aggressive defense, but he can't playmake or rebound (making him an overall liability as a starter).

Warriors lineup last season with no changes at all = future championship caliber squad...? I'm not buying it. Not unless Biedrins becomes a star center, Pietrus wins the 6th man award unanimously because he averages 18 bench points, and Baron Davis' injuries magically evaporate for the rest of his career... very, very unlikely.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 2:00 am
Player32 wrote:Plus, Pietrus' scoring increases, yes, but overall, he hasn't shown any flashes of league-wide brilliance. He'll score a lot and play aggressive defense, but he can't playmake or rebound (making him an overall liability as a starter).


What?, how being a scorer and a good defender (something no one else seems to be in this team) has become an overall liability?
PreviousNext

Return to Sports Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest