Rush and Landry to be signed soon?

[CitySushi]

Per Matt Steinmetz and MT2, both reporting that Rush and Landry should both be signed, maybe by the end of today. I wonder what kind of deals will be had by both? At this point I think Landry might be looking for a 1 year deal, hoping to rebound nicely and stay relatively injury free to seek a bigger deal next year. Rush I'm thinking will get a 2 year deal in the 10-12 range. I could see Landry being signed for a 1 year 4M deal as there aren't many other spots open for him to get good playing time. Another option for Landry might be a backloaded multiyear deal.

 

[ChuckDurn]

Per Matt Steinmetz and MT2, both reporting that Rush and Landry should both be signed, maybe by the end of today. I wonder what kind of deals will be had by both? At this point I think Landry might be looking for a 1 year deal, hoping to rebound nicely and stay relatively injury free to seek a bigger deal next year. Rush I'm thinking will get a 2 year deal in the 10-12 range. I could see Landry being signed for a 1 year 4M deal as there aren't many other spots open for him to get good playing time. Another option for Landry might be a backloaded multiyear deal.

I think Rush's deal is going to be a bit lower than you've got..... Rush didn't get any other offers, so my guess is that his deal might be for something in the range of $3-4M/year, probably 2 years and maybe an option on the third year. I think the Warriors really played it right from a contract basis with him, scaring off every other team from making an offer, and by not signing Landry earlier, they retained enough flexibility that they actually could match anybody's front-loaded offer for Rush.

Landry's contract will be curious for me. He made a lot of money last year on a 1-year deal, but he's got to realize his playing time is going to go down this year, playing behind a guy like Lee who is going to get in the range of 35 minutes. Like you, I suspect it's a 1-year deal, more or less a stopgap for him to see what opens up next off-season, probably in the $3-4M/year range as well. I'd be surprised if his is a multi-year deal.

The interesting thing to me is how much belly-aching there is about the Warriors not bringing back McGuire and getting Landry instead. Bottom line, if you went around to 30 GMs + 30 coaches around the league and asked which player they would want, Landry would probably go 60 for 60. He's not a good defender, but he's an offensive threat. McGuire is excellent defensively, but horrible offensively, and his defense can't out-weigh the offensive deficiencies. Give me a legitimate bench threat like Landry to be a 6th man, rather than simply a specialist like McGuire anytime. Now would I like to have McGuire back? Sure - for 5 minutes/game to set a defensive tone, or at the end of the game. But as a guy getting major minutes like I'd hope Landry will? Landry every time. Landry's a 6th man, McGuire's a 12th man, it's as simple as that.

 

[rtiff68]

I think Rush's deal is going to be a bit lower than you've got..... Rush didn't get any other offers, so my guess is that his deal might be for something in the range of $3-4M/year, probably 2 years and maybe an option on the third year. I think the Warriors really played it right from a contract basis with him, scaring off every other team from making an offer, and by not signing Landry earlier, they retained enough flexibility that they actually could match anybody's front-loaded offer for Rush.

Landry's contract will be curious for me. He made a lot of money last year on a 1-year deal, but he's got to realize his playing time is going to go down this year, playing behind a guy like Lee who is going to get in the range of 35 minutes. Like you, I suspect it's a 1-year deal, more or less a stopgap for him to see what opens up next off-season, probably in the $3-4M/year range as well. I'd be surprised if his is a multi-year deal.

The interesting thing to me is how much belly-aching there is about the Warriors not bringing back McGuire and getting Landry instead. Bottom line, if you went around to 30 GMs + 30 coaches around the league and asked which player they would want, Landry would probably go 60 for 60. He's not a good defender, but he's an offensive threat. McGuire is excellent defensively, but horrible offensively, and his defense can't out-weigh the offensive deficiencies. Give me a legitimate bench threat like Landry to be a 6th man, rather than simply a specialist like McGuire anytime. Now would I like to have McGuire back? Sure - for 5 minutes/game to set a defensive tone, or at the end of the game. But as a guy getting major minutes like I'd hope Landry will? Landry every time. Landry's a 6th man, McGuire's a 12th man, it's as simple as that.

I think that you're overstating things a bit here, Chuck. Both McGuire and Landry have been in the NBA for 5 years. Both are undersized PF's who only excel on one end of the court (and are considerably weak on the other end), and both players have played for multiple teams. McGuire has started 74 games in his career, while Landry has started 63. Based upon those facts, it's a bit much to say that "McGuire's a 12th man, <while> Landry is a 6th man," don't you think?

While I'm happy to have Landry, I would have preferred McGuire. David Lee is an all offense/no defense player, and now his back-up is going to be the same thing, more or less. We have a plethora (go ahead and make a "3 Amigos" joke if you wish) of scorers on this team, but really only 3 guys that could be described as above average defensively (Jack, Rush, Bogut). If/when Bogut goes down, we won't have a SINGLE post player who will fit the above description, unless you think Festus Ezeli is ready to play 35+ minutes per night as a rookie.

 

[CitySushi]

I think Rush's deal is going to be a bit lower than you've got..... Rush didn't get any other offers, so my guess is that his deal might be for something in the range of $3-4M/year, probably 2 years and maybe an option on the third year. I think the Warriors really played it right from a contract basis with him, scaring off every other team from making an offer, and by not signing Landry earlier, they retained enough flexibility that they actually could match anybody's front-loaded offer for Rush.

Landry's contract will be curious for me. He made a lot of money last year on a 1-year deal, but he's got to realize his playing time is going to go down this year, playing behind a guy like Lee who is going to get in the range of 35 minutes. Like you, I suspect it's a 1-year deal, more or less a stopgap for him to see what opens up next off-season, probably in the $3-4M/year range as well. I'd be surprised if his is a multi-year deal.

The interesting thing to me is how much belly-aching there is about the Warriors not bringing back McGuire and getting Landry instead. Bottom line, if you went around to 30 GMs + 30 coaches around the league and asked which player they would want, Landry would probably go 60 for 60. He's not a good defender, but he's an offensive threat. McGuire is excellent defensively, but horrible offensively, and his defense can't out-weigh the offensive deficiencies. Give me a legitimate bench threat like Landry to be a 6th man, rather than simply a specialist like McGuire anytime. Now would I like to have McGuire back? Sure - for 5 minutes/game to set a defensive tone, or at the end of the game. But as a guy getting major minutes like I'd hope Landry will? Landry every time. Landry's a 6th man, McGuire's a 12th man, it's as simple as that.

To touch on both of the bolded items, I think you may be right with the Rush numbers. I was going off previous reports of Meyers wanting to have flexible cap space when LaTax and RJ contracts would be off the books. They were said to be offering Rusher a higher cap figure to offset the length of the contract. If they put an offer out there initially, I think they wouldn't be able to go back from that, even with Rush not receiving any real offers. But if Meyers never made that offer, I could definitely see a 2 year 8M deal.

With the acquisitions of Bogut and Ezeli, the need for front court defense has become drastically reduced. McGuire held his own at times last year and definitely earned my respect with his effort, but he still remains extremely limited. Landry knows how to get the ball in the bucket and that's more of a pressing need from a backup big at this point.

 

[CitySushi]

I think that you're overstating things a bit here, Chuck. Both McGuire and Landry have been in the NBA for 5 years. Both are undersized PF's who only excel on one end of the court (and are considerably weak on the other end), and both players have played for multiple teams. McGuire has started 74 games in his career, while Landry has started 63. Based upon those facts, it's a bit much to say that "McGuire's a 12th man, <while> Landry is a 6th man," don't you think?

While I'm happy to have Landry, I would have preferred McGuire. David Lee is an all offense/no defense player, and now his back-up is going to be the same thing, more or less. We have a plethora (go ahead and make a "3 Amigos" joke if you wish) of scorers on this team, but really only 3 guys that could be described as above average defensively (Jack, Rush, Bogut). If/when Bogut goes down, we won't have a SINGLE post player who will fit the above description, unless you think Festus Ezeli is ready to play 35+ minutes per night as a rookie.

If this was to happen the Warriors weren't gonna be in a position to compete with either acquisition. Neither McGuire nor Landry would be able to adequately fill those shoes enough for us to contend. The Warriors can only make moves based on the roster and assumed health. Ezeli is definitely not ready for 35 minutes a game, but if we had to play either Landry or McGuire that many, we weren't going anywhere regardless.

 

[ChuckDurn]

I think that you're overstating things a bit here, Chuck. Both McGuire and Landry have been in the NBA for 5 years. Both are undersized PF's who only excel on one end of the court (and are considerably weak on the other end), and both players have played for multiple teams. McGuire has started 74 games in his career, while Landry has started 63. Based upon those facts, it's a bit much to say that "McGuire's a 12th man, <while> Landry is a 6th man," don't you think?

While I'm happy to have Landry, I would have preferred McGuire. David Lee is an all offense/no defense player, and now his back-up is going to be the same thing, more or less. We have a plethora (go ahead and make a "3 Amigos" joke if you wish) of scorers on this team, but really only 3 guys that could be described as above average defensively (Jack, Rush, Bogut). If/when Bogut goes down, we won't have a SINGLE post player who will fit the above description, unless you think Festus Ezeli is ready to play 35+ minutes per night as a rookie.

rtiff, I don't think I'm over-simplifying it - 57 of McGuire's starts occurred in one season for Washington ('08-09), during which he played 26 mpg. Take that year away, and he's started 17 games and averaged in the range of 10 minutes per game. He got way more minutes last year because of injuries on the Warriors, and almost 15 minutes a game (albeit in only 52 games) the previous season with the pathetic Bobcats.

Landry has averaged 25 minutes/game for his career. His first 2.5 years in the league, he backed up Luis Scola and didn't start, and since then has settled primarily into a 6th man role, even though he was arguably the best PF on New Orleans all year last year.

The numbers bear it out - Landry gets 6th man minutes (and more), McGuire struggles to make teams and get minutes. So maybe that is over-simplification, but simply pointing to the number of games that a guy has started without understanding the circumstances or details would have to be considered even more over-simplification.

Have you heard of any other teams pursuing McGuire this off-season? We heard about several for Landry. Every piece of evidence shows that he's a more valuable player than McGuire. Would I wish Landry's forte was more on defense than it is? Sure. But even so, he's a better player than McGuire.

 

[CitySushi]

It's official:

Carl Landry signs 2 year deal worth 8M. Second year is a player option.

 

[Heathbar012]

It's official:

Carl Landry signs 2 year deal worth 8M. Second year is a player option.

Great depth pick-up. Play-offs.

 

[rtiff68]

rtiff, I don't think I'm over-simplifying it - 57 of McGuire's starts occurred in one season for Washington ('08-09), during which he played 26 mpg. Take that year away, and he's started 17 games and averaged in the range of 10 minutes per game. He got way more minutes last year because of injuries on the Warriors, and almost 15 minutes a game (albeit in only 52 games) the previous season with the pathetic Bobcats.

Landry has averaged 25 minutes/game for his career. His first 2.5 years in the league, he backed up Luis Scola and didn't start, and since then has settled primarily into a 6th man role, even though he was arguably the best PF on New Orleans all year last year.

The numbers bear it out - Landry gets 6th man minutes (and more), McGuire struggles to make teams and get minutes. So maybe that is over-simplification, but simply pointing to the number of games that a guy has started without understanding the circumstances or details would have to be considered even more over-simplification.

Have you heard of any other teams pursuing McGuire this off-season? We heard about several for Landry. Every piece of evidence shows that he's a more valuable player than McGuire. Would I wish Landry's forte was more on defense than it is? Sure. But even so, he's a better player than McGuire.

While 57 of McGuire's starts came for a terrible Washington team in a single season, 28 of Landry's came for a terrible Kings team in a single season as well (and he played 37 mpg that year, inflating his career mpg as well). That said, I do not dispute that, overall, Landry has received more minutes because he is a better player.

My point was only that the discrepancy between the two was not as large as you intimated (6th man to 12th man), and that I feel that McGuire's skill set (versatile, lock down defender; tenacious defender) is more needed on this team than another guy whose primary, and only real NBA skill, is scoring the basketball. Curry, Klay, Barnes, Lee, Jefferson, Jenkins are all scorers first, anything and everything else second. If 4/5 of your starting line-up fit that description, do you really want your 6th man to be that way too?

Thabo Sefalosha is not a better player than James Harden, but he starts ahead of him to balance OKC's roster out-- because they need an athletic, defensive stopper in-between Westbrook and Durant. It's the same reason Ginobili has been coming off of the bench most of his career, and also why Ronnie Brewer will likely start over JR Smith and Avery Bradley will likely start over Jason Terry in New York and Boston, respectively.

I like Landry, but I feel that another "defensive stopper" was a bigger need than another guy who fills it up, and-- while I do acknowledge that Landry is a better player-- I don't think that the discrepancy is large enough to outweigh the fact that McGuire is/was a better fit.

 

[CitySushi]

While 57 of McGuire's starts came for a terrible Washington team in a single season, 28 of Landry's came for a terrible Kings team in a single season as well (and he played 37 mpg that year, inflating his career mpg as well). That said, I do not dispute that, overall, Landry has received more minutes because he is a better player.

My point was only that the discrepancy between the two was not as large as you intimated (6th man to 12th man), and that I feel that McGuire's skill set (versatile, lock down defender; tenacious defender) is more needed on this team than another guy whose primary, and only real NBA skill, is scoring the basketball. Curry, Klay, Barnes, Lee, Jefferson, Jenkins are all scorers first, anything and everything else second. If 4/5 of your starting line-up fit that description, do you really want your 6th man to be that way too?

Thabo Sefalosha is not a better player than James Harden, but he starts ahead of him to balance OKC's roster out-- because they need an athletic, defensive stopper in-between Westbrook and Durant. It's the same reason Ginobili has been coming off of the bench most of his career, and also why Ronnie Brewer will likely start over JR Smith and Avery Bradley will likely start over Jason Terry in New York and Boston, respectively.

I like Landry, but I feel that another "defensive stopper" was a bigger need than another guy who fills it up, and-- while I do acknowledge that Landry is a better player-- I don't think that the discrepancy is large enough to outweigh the fact that McGuire is/was a better fit.

I know this was directed at Chuck but I'd like to interject. The Warriors this off season have been interested in two things: acquiring assets and gaining depth. McGuire filled in admirably at the 4 but Carl Landry has a much better proven track record of production in his time in the league. McGuire is a standard glue guy, but that's not what this team needs. The Warriors are building a squad of talent that will best allow them to make that push into a playoff birth. Having a guy like McGuire is a luxury, one that the Warriors aren't ready to have at this point.

Landry is a guy who not only provides front court depth, but also front court scoring. This was a huge concern in the past for the Warriors who are typically very perimeter oriented. By bringing in guys like Bogut and Landry, who can do work in the post, they add another dimension to their half court offense. McGuire would be beneficial to a team where they had a few superstars who can produce on a nightly basis, but as constructed they cannot afford to give him the necessary playing time to be effective. The Warriors are built to be a team by committee, where everyone will get their shine one game or another. As such they need to acquire as much talent as they can to do this. It's clear, Landry is the far superior player in that aspect.

 

[ChuckDurn]

I know this was directed at Chuck but I'd like to interject. The Warriors this off season have been interested in two things: acquiring assets and gaining depth. McGuire filled in admirably at the 4 but Carl Landry has a much better proven track record of production in his time in the league. McGuire is a standard glue guy, but that's not what this team needs. The Warriors are building a squad of talent that will best allow them to make that push into a playoff birth. Having a guy like McGuire is a luxury, one that the Warriors aren't ready to have at this point.

Landry is a guy who not only provides front court depth, but also front court scoring. This was a huge concern in the past for the Warriors who are typically very perimeter oriented. By bringing in guys like Bogut and Landry, who can do work in the post, they add another dimension to their half court offense. McGuire would be beneficial to a team where they had a few superstars who can produce on a nightly basis, but as constructed they cannot afford to give him the necessary playing time to be effective. The Warriors are built to be a team by committee, where everyone will get their shine one game or another. As such they need to acquire as much talent as they can to do this. It's clear, Landry is the far superior player in that aspect.

Well said. I completely agree - it's about asset accumulation at this point, and Landry's the far better asset. We can fill in the gaps once we've made the next steps. And who knows..... maybe McGuire will be back anyway.

 

[EKmane]

GO Y'ALL Daddy I Miss You - YouTube

Wrong link, I was supposed to post this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el2e_C-vXmk

 

[EKmane]

1278625-golden-state-warriors-why-carl-landry-is-an-absolute-steal
Carl Landry Hornets Highlights - YouTube

Get excited, Fellas! This thing has come together. We're factors now. Probably the strongest bench in the NBA, with starters that'll bust their ass.

HELLO!

 

[ColinCoby]

I'm pumped. If everyone stays healthy, we might finally have a team worth obsessing about.

 

[CitySushi]

Rush numbers are in:

2 Year deal worth 8M. Second year player option. Identical to Landry deal.

 

[vvoland]

both good signings. not only can they help this year but will be attractive cap fillers around the trade deadline if we decide to make a play if someone becomes available. if only we had amnestied beans last year, this team would be set up nicely going forward. at least that **** leecher won't see much of the court this year. hell, even without landry, festus probably would have taken his minutes.

this team does seem to have the necessary players, on paper, to compete for a bottom half playoff spot. two huge question marks, of course, are the chances that both curry and bogut stay healthy. we don't have a real super-star on this squad so we'll need all of our starters to contribute for 82 games.

 

[Yoshi]

Been a long time since the Dubbs have gone 2 deep in every position. Looonggg time.

The Jack trade was a solid move along with the Landry and Rush signings. It'll be interesting to see how Jackson will find adequate PT for everybody but it's obvious, as with any sports franchise, that the push to improve the front office has made the Warriors an organization that is more savvy and more thinking as to how to find the missing pieces. There is no superstar on this team, but they are a deep team as some of you have mentioned.

 

[ChuckDurn]

Been a long time since the Dubbs have gone 2 deep in every position. Looonggg time.

The Jack trade was a solid move along with the Landry and Rush signings. It'll be interesting to see how Jackson will find adequate PT for everybody but it's obvious, as with any sports franchise, that the push to improve the front office has made the Warriors an organization that is more savvy and more thinking as to how to find the missing pieces. There is no superstar on this team, but they are a deep team as some of you have mentioned.

One very minor nit in this..... not sure if we can say that we have a quality back-up at the 5. Ezeli will have to prove himself, and realistically you don't know if you can count on Biedrins for anything anymore. Given the complete anemia that he is offensively, I don't know that his ability to modestly defend or rebound (which has declined) would keep him in the league if he wasn't under contract.

But again, overall it's a great story to say that when we go to the bench, we don't have to cringe or expect a significant decline this year. Long, long time since we could say that.

 

[rtiff68]

One very minor nit in this..... not sure if we can say that we have a quality back-up at the 5. Ezeli will have to prove himself, and realistically you don't know if you can count on Biedrins for anything anymore. Given the complete anemia that he is offensively, I don't know that his ability to modestly defend or rebound (which has declined) would keep him in the league if he wasn't under contract.

But again, overall it's a great story to say that when we go to the bench, we don't have to cringe or expect a significant decline this year. Long, long time since we could say that.

Hell, it's been a long, long time since we didn't have at least one starter that made us cringe!

As far as I'm concerned, I think what I am most excited about is watching a team that does not have GLARING flaws in one area or another-- has there been a single Warriors team from the Run TMC era on that we could say that about? Both the Run TMC teams and the We Believe team, while dramatic and exciting, couldn't rebound, defend, or score in the post at all.

When I look at this team, I don't see any substantial flaws, save perhaps a lack of ball handling (although the acquisition of Jack mitigates this). The Warriors have outstanding outside shooting, size and defense on the perimeter, two double-double big men, including one who is an impact defender; the aforementioned deep, solid bench...

To be clear, I'm not saying this team will be better than Run TMC or We Believe, I am simply saying it's refreshing to see us finally putting a team out there without substantial holes.

 

[EKmane]

Hell, it's been a long, long time since we didn't have at least one starter that made us cringe!

As far as I'm concerned, I think what I am most excited about is watching a team that does not have GLARING flaws in one area or another-- has there been a single Warriors team from the Run TMC era on that we could say that about? Both the Run TMC teams and the We Believe team, while dramatic and exciting, couldn't rebound, defend, or score in the post at all.

When I look at this team, I don't see any substantial flaws, save perhaps a lack of ball handling (although the acquisition of Jack mitigates this). The Warriors have outstanding outside shooting, size and defense on the perimeter, two double-double big men, including one who is an impact defender; the aforementioned deep, solid bench...

To be clear, I'm not saying this team will be better than Run TMC or We Believe, I am simply saying it's refreshing to see us finally putting a team out there without substantial holes.

I fully disagree with the bold statement. Quite frankly I'm appalled that you would say that.

In all honesty, I do think that this team will be better. The other thing that I noticed is that each player will be around for at least two seasons. This front office believes in that rumor called chemistry. I love it!