8th ave wrote:

warriorsstepup wrote:

Blackfoot wrote:

warriorsstepup wrote:Lee more than deserved being an all-star, he was the major reason for our record, plus the number he put up was amongst the best. Maybe he didnt deserve if the team wasn't winning. If not Lee then who ? I don't get it.

Curry

Curry didn't start coming along fully until near and after the All-star break. We have that documented in the All-star thread, Curry was not part of the discussion, strictly Lee. But Curry will get his soon.

I am saying if people don't want Lee on the team or like his game, then which other PF would come in and produce ? I am saying their is not many.

I named 3....

I just noticed that, and those are not bad choices, my thought process is no way Blazers give up Aldridge,
Not sure how consistent Gortat is, specially over Lee, and Al Jefferson I wouldn't mind but heard defense is not really his strength.

I'd say Lee is better than Gortat and Jefferson.

And Gortat is a center.

Blackfoot wrote:I'd say Lee is better than Gortat and Jefferson.

Not on the defensive end.

8th ave wrote:

Blackfoot wrote:I'd say Lee is better than Gortat and Jefferson.

Not on the defensive end.

But his offense is so much greater than any of theirs, his defense really doesnt matter.

I don't believe Lee is in the middle of the pack defensively, but I believe he's better than you give him credit for. I think there are 2 or 3 things Lee does on defense that are absolute no-no's and allow for many, many easy hoops. But he's not without his strong points on that end; he rotates well in a zone, he pushes big guys down on the block, and he clears a TON of defensive rebounding (whether or not you believe that's a defensive attribute is subjective). Literally, he just refuses to contest shots and can't move sideways. And that combination allows for a lot of easy baskets against him. Those aren't small problems, but it's not like he's bad at eeeeeverything. Put him in there with a rim protector (like Bogut) and nobody will ever notice his short comings.

And, again, his offense MORE than makes up for what he does on the other end of the floor. Overall, Lee is our most versatile offensive player and the only guy who gives him an argument as far as effectiveness is Curry. Let's not forget what this guy gave us before now that Bogut's healthy and he's not. Lee is a Warrior beyond the franchise moniker.

If you wanna trade him for having no defense, I assume you also want to trade Ezeli and Green for having no offense?

Lee was god awful defensively. But he was elite offensively. A second tier scorer in the league. Equal to Melo in terms of offense. Melo scores just as efficiently with a higher usage, but Lee is a much better passer.

Melo and Lee were basically equals offensively.

32 wrote:

8th ave wrote:

Blackfoot wrote:I'd say Lee is better than Gortat and Jefferson.

Not on the defensive end.

But his offense is so much greater than any of theirs, his defense really doesnt matter.

I don't believe Lee is in the middle of the pack defensively, but I believe he's better than you give him credit for. I think there are 2 or 3 things Lee does on defense that are absolute no-no's and allow for many, many easy hoops. But he's not without his strong points on that end; he rotates well in a zone, he pushes big guys down on the block, and he clears a TON of defensive rebounding (whether or not you believe that's a defensive attribute is subjective). Literally, he just refuses to contest shots and can't move sideways. And that combination allows for a lot of easy baskets against him. Those aren't small problems, but it's not like he's bad at eeeeeverything. Put him in there with a rim protector (like Bogut) and nobody will ever notice his short comings.

And, again, his offense MORE than makes up for what he does on the other end of the floor. Overall, Lee is our most versatile offensive player and the only guy who gives him an argument as far as effectiveness is Curry. Let's not forget what this guy gave us before now that Bogut's healthy and he's not. Lee is a Warrior beyond the franchise moniker.

If you wanna trade him for having no defense, I assume you also want to trade Ezeli and Green for having no offense?

My philosophy is is always defense over offense. That's how I'd run my team if I were to have one. And seriously, comparing Lee to Green and Ezeli is so lazy. First of all they're on their rookie contracts. They're so cheap so that you can afford to give them a couple of years to develop which brings me to my next point: they're young. They can still improve on the weaknesses they have in their game. Also, the both of them are head and shoulders more effective on the defensive side of the ball than Lee.

Here's the thing. Not in this thread, but the other Lee thread asks who I think is the most expendable, and my opinion is Lee. That's all it is. I'm not saying that the guy didn't help us win, that he isn't a lockeroom presence, or that he isn't a good asset to have. I just feel that if there was someone on this team that had to go and it would hurt us the least amount, it would be Lee.

Oh whoops. It was this thread that asked the most expendable question, not the other. Pardon me.

But, overall, Lee is unquestionably superior to Ezeli and Green. And the odds of them becoming as useful to any given team as Lee are extremely slim. So there are certain situations where offense can prove more valuable than sound defense. Chris Mullin was a prime example in the 90's. As a general rule of thumb, yes, I usually value defense over offense too. But not to an extreme where a guy who essentially scores at will is expendable because he can't stop most opposing threats.

Bottom line, pertaining to the expendable thing: the most expendable player with a role on the TEAM is Carl Landry. The most expendable player out of the core-4 is Klay Thompson. The Warriors can replace Thompson's defense and regain a shred of his outside shooting with Rush; but there is nobody on this team that can do what Lee does for our offense. Had he been healthy, I honestly believe they would have bounced the Spurs and faced the Grizzlies and who the hell knows how that might have turned out.

This team's label has evolved from lower-seeded fringe team to legitimate post season contenders IF FULLY HEALTHY. I'm curious to see what they can do if Bogut, Lee, and Curry can squeak through a regular season and be 100% by the playoffs. The Warriors went 6 games in the 2nd round to the best team in the West without arguably their best, most consistent offensive player (I'm talking night-to-night; obviously, Curry trumps when he's hot).

I don't believe Klay is as expendable as Lee because Lee is pretty much peaked out and Klay is very valuable on a rookie contract.

I'm just talking on the floor. We can replace Thompson's production much easier than we can replace Lee's.

I can agree with that.

I'd rank our players as follows, in terms of importance:

Offensively: Curry/Lee (depending on whose hot), Thompson, Jack, Barnes, Landry, Rush, Bogut, Jefferson, Green, Ezeli, Bazemore, Biedrins.

Defensively: Bogut, Rush, Green, Ezeli, Bazemore, Thompson, Jefferson, Jack, Biedrins, Curry, Lee.

Overall: Curry, Bogut, Lee, Thompson, Barnes, Rush, Jack, Landry, Ezeli, Green, Jefferson, Bazemore, Biedrins. ,

Let's switch gears off of Lee - whose definitely not going anywhere.

How does this team replace Carl Landry? Cause Landry is definitely gone.

I see them going with Green as an internal fix, but Landry provided offense to a B-squad whose main problem was that they couldn't score if Jack wasn't hot. Obviously, Brandon Rush fixes a lot of that. But don't the Warriors need a big besides Lee who can score? Ideally, this team needs an athletic stretch 4 who can run the floor and defend, but those guys don't usually come cheap and almost always start. Assuming Jack gets the MLE, a trade might be the best way to deal with that.

And, again, my "Raiding Orlando" idea addresses that without surrendering rotation players. Harrington is a stretch forward, Big Baby is a post-scorer. Afflalo is a veteran defender, which we need. And it would only cost Biedrins and Jefferson, who are big expirers. The Magic trio would expire before Thompson or Barnes need extending, so you don't lose any core players long term. I just think its a match made in heaven. You're gonna lose Landry; why not wheel and deal to get some offensive bigs for the bench? Squad:

C : Andrew Bogut / Glen Davis / Festus Ezeli
PF: David Lee / Draymond Green / Al Harrington
SF: Harrison Barnes / Brandon Rush
SG: Klay Thompson / Aaron Afflalo
PG: Steph Curry / Jarrett Jack

The only guy you lose, long-term, is Rush after next year, but you get a draft pick in 2014 to replace him (late 1st round, but backup swingmen are a dime a dozen). If Bogut or Lee go down, you have Davis who can start either position. Afflalo and Rush are both starters on the bench. Harrington becomes Jefferson; the veteran seldom used, unless you need a scoring change-up. Ezeli still gets minutes, cause Davis and Green can both slide down.

Honestly, that's a championship roster. And it's sustainable. It scores, it defends, it rebounds, it's big, it can go small with either Lee or Davis at center and no shortage of stretch 4's.

Why not raid Orlando? They WANT to tank.

I want to keep Landry, as good bigs are harder to get than good smalls, making Jack easier to let go. In saying that, I wouldn't be against that trade with Orlando, as it addresses the backup big needs short term.