Swopa

I share GS season tickets, and have seen nearly every game the last 5 years either on TV or in person. Losing Dampier is going to be a serious blow to the Warriors. Before last season, I looked up their record in games where Dampier didn't start due to injury, and it was something like 11-71. They may not have been world-beaters with him, but they were abysmal without him. I don't think Foyle is likely to last an 82-game season at starter's minutes, and if he goes down, things will go really bad for GS in a hurry. The things Dampier does best aren't visible to most casual Warriors fans. But they'll learn when the season starts.

Shirley, I imagine, is getting the NBA minimum (around $350K). Long would get the minimum for a longtime NBA veteran (around $1M). The league pays part of the $1M, but not all of it -- and when you add in the luxury tax, it's $2M. Not many teams want to pay that much for an 11th or 12th man.

One of the reasons he got so few offers as a free agent last summer is people noticed he took more shots than any other Clipper, despite a poor FG%.

... to boost his trade value (whether he's aware of that part or not)?

What kind of theory is that? The ship is sinking because it has four holes in it, so why not make it five? Yikes. (Incidentally, why then is Bradley the best fit as the Mavs' center?) If Ratliff can no longer be the player he was before the hip injury, that's one thing. But generally speaking, the Hawks need MORE players that can play D, not fewer. The Hawks team that finished last year was arguably much better balanced in that sense. What I saw in my limited exposure to that team was two effective perimeter defenders (DJ and Newble) at the positions where many teams have their best scorers, and who didn't need much feeding offensively, although Johnson in particular hit just enough 3-pointers to create space for Terry and SAR to be effective. Replacing DJ with Robinson not only hurts the defense, it gives Terry someone else he has to worry about balancing his own scoring with (which may have led to decision-making problems and an inability to find his shooting rhythm).

Actually, a poster on a GS board just this morning suggested trading Richardson for Terry. Don't hold your breath waiting from Warriors management to follow up on that suggestion, though. Yes, Arenas is a free agent this summer, and it will be a huge, huge setback if GS loses him. The most GS can offer is the $4.5M exception, & the scary thing is that his value may be higher than that as he convinces people that he can make the transition to PG. Denver's already made clear that they're going to pursue him. I made the same point you did about Richardson on a GS board a few weeks ago -- he and Arenas are not especially compatible as a backcourt (which is ironic, since they're extremely good friends). Especially with Jamison at SF, there's just not enough ballhandling among the perimeter starters. Hence the drafting of Dunleavy, even if that meant eventually moving Jamison to PF (which he can play in a small lineup, but his better full-time position is SF). But that plan's been delayed not just by Dunleavy needing time to adjust to the league but by Troy Murphy surprising everyone by showing that he could be a legitimate starter at PF. Given Richardson's up-and-down play as teams have started focusing more on him defensively, I wouldn't be stunned if Dunleavy wound up at SG, as you suggest -- he's already been getting time there. But the athleticism discrepancy might prevent that from being a full-time solution, either. And I don't think they're going to give up on Richardson unless he's still struggling next year (or a really good trade offer comes along). The "big guard who can run the offense" is definitely a Holy Grail in the NBA -- it's why Larry Hughes could have a horrific second 1/2 of the season last year and still get the $4.5M exception as a free agent. If one becomes available, the Hawks won't be the only ones pursuing him (the Rockets might want to swap Cuttino Mobley for him, too).

That's a big part of why they drafted guys with both size and ballhandling/decision-making ability (Dunleavy and Welsch).

... the playoff sweep by the Knicks, where Sprewell made the Hawks backcourt look very old. Getting a lottery pick for Mookie was a very good deal on Babcock's parts -- and believe me, many GS fans think it was far too much to give up, though I think it wound up fairly even. As so often happens in trades, both sides got less than they hoped for, and it was clear why both sides were willing to give up what they did (this is true not just of Blaylock-Terry but last summer's Robinson-Kukoc and Van Horn-Mutombo deals.)

... saying "Pete would have blown the pick anyway" isn't much of a defense. Though it is amusing to think that trading away picks for three straight years is Babcock's way of saying, "Stop me before I draft again."

In addition to what Jamil said, in making the Robinson trade, Babcock had to know that he was losing a key ballhandler/playmaker from last year's team (Kukoc) and taking away the starting spot of the defensive player (Newble) who helped energize the second-half run. Apparently it was a gamble he felt he had to make to raise the talent level of the team. But that's not the only gamble Babcock's made. In giving up last year's lottery pick (which could have been Amare Stoudemire) in the Lo Wright deal, the Gasol pick for Abdur-Rahim, and this coming year's lottery pick for Robinson, Babcock consistently and consciously bet the future of the Hawks on the current roster. If it's safe to say he lost that bet, then no matter how good a human being he is, it's fair to say, "Sorry, Pete, but you bet your job's future on this roster, too. Bye."

He just needs to communicate, "These are the things I need you to do, and if you don't do them, you'll spend some time sitting next to me." Then follow through, no matter who the player is.

Unknown players often have a "honeymoon" period where they play well in part because opposing teams have never bothered (or had an opportunity) to scout them. After a while, enough game tape accumulates that teams can break down that player's strengths/weaknesses and incorporate them into the game plan. Marc Jackson a couple of years ago would be the perfect individual example of this. But it happens to teams, too -- which is why the Hawks could get off to a 6-4 start, then go 6-15 as teams adjusted their game plans. (Last season, the Warriors started off 5-3 before the roof fell in. A year or two before that, the Grizzlies started 4-2 but barely managed to win 20 for the season.)

If it's lottery protected, that's usually mentioned at the time of the deal. Given the track record with the Lo Wright pick, though, it would be mind-boggling if Babcock did not include some protection in this deal. So perhaps it's at least protected for the first few picks. P.S. So, is the only remaining question whether the Hawks merely got screwed in the Big Dog trade, or got screwed with no protection?color=red>

... and one of Musselman's small successes has been using that as a carrot-and-stick tactic. Twice this year he's rattled the saber of "we might have to change the starting lineup." Each time, he's gotten the results he wanted and kept the lineup unchanged. There has been a recurring season-long problem of the starters (especially Arenas & Richardson) coming out tentative and falling behind in the 1st quarter. Musselman rattles the saber, specifically noting Sura's return from injury and how well Boykins is playing... and in the last two games, GS has come charging out of the gates, opening up 10- or 15-point leads in the first several minutes. The best thing is, each time he gets results like this, it makes the players buy into what he's preaching that much more.