SFC/Ratto: [Nelson returning, he caved]

In article <1189792224.946930.48030.RemoveThis@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
Allen <lonewolfbear.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> But this summer has been a loss leader for him. He is
> already 0-1, at least in trying to determine the depth and breadth of
> his leverage.

Eh, by the time training camp starts, this will have been long-forgotten.

-Ron
 >> Stay informed about: SFC/Ratto: [Nelson returning, he caved] 

Allen wrote:

> The Chronicle Sports Columnist blog
> Sure Hope It Was Worth It
>
> Nelson swung for the center field wall, and depending on your view,
> either punched a base hit over shortstop, or grounded meekly to third.
> The Warriors wasted lots of time in a fight that never should have
> been, one that made everyone look slightly smaller.
>
> Posted By: Ray Ratto (Email) | September 14 2007 at 08:04 AM

Hate to agree with Ratto, but I think he's right on.

Hopefully with the contract behind them, they can get down to the real
business.
 >> Stay informed about: SFC/Ratto: [Nelson returning, he caved] 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:12:39 GMT, Preacher <no RemoveThis @noway.com> wrote:

>Allen wrote:
>
>> The Chronicle Sports Columnist blog
>> Sure Hope It Was Worth It
>>
>> Nelson swung for the center field wall, and depending on your view,
>> either punched a base hit over shortstop, or grounded meekly to third.
>> The Warriors wasted lots of time in a fight that never should have
>> been, one that made everyone look slightly smaller.
>>
>> Posted By: Ray Ratto (Email) | September 14 2007 at 08:04 AM
>
>Hate to agree with Ratto, but I think he's right on.
>
>Hopefully with the contract behind them, they can get down to the real
>business.

To me, this is like winning the battle but losing the war. So the
Warriors saved a couple million on Nellie and save a bit more money if
they decide to fire him at the end of the year. How much goodwill with
their own players and perhaps Chris Mullin did they burn by playing
hardball with the guy who was probably the single biggest reason they
became a playoff team last year?

I'm just glad Nellie is back, but this is almost assuredly his last year.
--
Greg Lentz
 >> Stay informed about: SFC/Ratto: [Nelson returning, he caved] 

Greg Lentz wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:12:39 GMT, Preacher <no DeleteThis @noway.com> wrote:
>
>> Allen wrote:
>>
>>> The Chronicle Sports Columnist blog
>>> Sure Hope It Was Worth It
>>>
>>> Nelson swung for the center field wall, and depending on your view,
>>> either punched a base hit over shortstop, or grounded meekly to third.
>>> The Warriors wasted lots of time in a fight that never should have
>>> been, one that made everyone look slightly smaller.
>>>
>>> Posted By: Ray Ratto (Email) | September 14 2007 at 08:04 AM
>> Hate to agree with Ratto, but I think he's right on.
>>
>> Hopefully with the contract behind them, they can get down to the real
>> business.
>
> To me, this is like winning the battle but losing the war. So the
> Warriors saved a couple million on Nellie and save a bit more money if
> they decide to fire him at the end of the year. How much goodwill with
> their own players and perhaps Chris Mullin did they burn by playing
> hardball with the guy who was probably the single biggest reason they
> became a playoff team last year?
>
> I'm just glad Nellie is back, but this is almost assuredly his last year.

We'll see. What I agreed with is that this "negotiation" made both
parties look worse. How sad after such an exciting run in the spring!
 >> Stay informed about: SFC/Ratto: [Nelson returning, he caved] 

On Sep 14, 4:54 pm, Greg Lentz <nodamns....TakeThisOut@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:33:43 -0000, ausstu <josephbl....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 15, 6:22 am, Greg Lentz <nodamns....TakeThisOut@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:12:39 GMT, Preacher <n....TakeThisOut@noway.com> wrote:
> >> >Allen wrote:
>
> >> >> The Chronicle Sports Columnist blog
> >> >> Sure Hope It Was Worth It
>
> >> >> Nelson swung for the center field wall, and depending on your view,
> >> >> either punched a base hit over shortstop, or grounded meekly to third.
> >> >> The Warriors wasted lots of time in a fight that never should have
> >> >> been, one that made everyone look slightly smaller.
>
> >> >> Posted By: Ray Ratto (Email) | September 14 2007 at 08:04 AM
>
> >> >Hate to agree with Ratto, but I think he's right on.
>
> >> >Hopefully with the contract behind them, they can get down to the real
> >> >business.
>
> >> To me, this is like winning the battle but losing the war. So the
> >> Warriors saved a couple million on Nellie and save a bit more money if
> >> they decide to fire him at the end of the year. How much goodwill with
> >> their own players and perhaps Chris Mullin did they burn by playing
> >> hardball with the guy who was probably the single biggest reason they
> >> became a playoff team last year?
>
> >> I'm just glad Nellie is back, but this is almost assuredly his last year.
>
> >Personally I agree with those who say screw you Nellie, you have a
> >contract that pays you far more than the average person will ever make
> >in a lifetime and Nellie probably couldn't spend the extra millions
> >even if he made it. A team can not be successful if it is made up of
> >prima donna's including the coach.
>
> The team wasn't successful with any of the other coaches it had between
> Nellie's first tenure and his second. I don't know how many of them were
> prima donnas and how many weren't, but even if Nellie is a prima donna
> (and I think it's safe to say he is), he's a prima donna who knows how to
> win. The other guys couldn't win, for whatever reasons.
>
> If that means we have to bend over on principle to appease him, then I
> guess we have to do it. It doesn't make it right, but when you can't hire
> a decent coach in 12 years, you're not really in much of a position to
> tell the one guy who did a good job to get stuffed. Apparently they got
> away with it as Nellie capitulated, but I don't think it will ultimately
> prove to have been worth the three months or so of hardball.
> --
> Greg Lentz

Not sure about that Greg. They saved themselves a couple of million
bucks. I would play hardball for that anytime as long as it doesn't
cause lasting damage to the franchise. In reality though, my guess is
they made some concessions to get Nelson back despite what is said in
the papers. Neither side got exactly what they wanted, but both sides
got a fair deal. That is good business.
 >> Stay informed about: SFC/Ratto: [Nelson returning, he caved] 

On Sep 14, 2:22 pm, Greg Lentz <nodamns... RemoveThis @speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> To me, this is like winning the battle but losing the war. So the
> Warriors saved a couple million on Nellie and save a bit more money if
> they decide to fire him at the end of the year.

I'm not so sure about that when you take the likely outcome into
account. First, I think we can assume 2 things:

1) Nellie will do at least as good this year as last year in the
regular season. The team has come together and they probably won't
have all the injury problems they had last year. I think it's a safe
bet that they'll win more than they lose. Given this, and given that
there's every possibility they'll be able to parlay Monta and ?? into
another roster improvement, ...

2) I think it's highly likely the Warriors will want Nellie back next
year *and* Nellie will probably want to be back on the Warriors. This
last part I think is the most variable, if Nellie's health takes some
kind of major downturn. But absent that, and assuming point 1 above, I
can't see the Warriors NOT wanting Nellie back again.

Which means to me that $5.1 million of the 3rd year is all but
assured. I think it will end up being Nellie's call. I think Mullin
must have convinced Cohan that making the 3rd year the Warriors option
was a victory over Nellie. But realistically I can't see Nellie *not*
getting that money unless it's by his choice (which I suppose could
happen if Nellie cottons more to being a consultant @ $1 million than
being a coach @ $5.1 million).

I don't know... I think Mullin (and maybe Nellie also) may have pulled
a fast one on everyone. It looks like Nellie conceded on the point of
making everything guaranteed, but he totally succeeded in making the
performance bonusses guaranteed, even in the third year if the
Warriors want him back. And if you buy my argument that the Warriors
are likely to want him next year, it's pretty much like getting all 3
years guaranteed. But Cohan gets to save face by claiming that he held
his ground on guarantees. Slick.


> ... How much goodwill with
> their own players and perhaps Chris Mullin did they burn by playing
> hardball with the guy who was probably the single biggest reason they
> became a playoff team last year?

You know, I have to disagree on this as well. I think the players know
this is all a business, this is the kind of thing that goes on all the
time (games about money), they know this is how Nellie operates, and
they'll take it in stride. If this conflict had gone on much longer,
however, I think it might have caused damage if it disrupted the
training camp. But I think they got it resolved just in time -- after
the heat started rising but before things got too hot.


> I'm just glad Nellie is back, but this is almost assuredly his last year.

It's great that Nellie is back. Warrior basketball is back off the
floor, and we're now one of the most interesting teams in the league.
Mystery, suspense, risk, excitement, believing, interesting young
players, drama ... WOO-HOO!
 >> Stay informed about: SFC/Ratto: [Nelson returning, he caved] 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:49:16 -0700, Allen <lonewolfbear RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 14, 2:22 pm, Greg Lentz <nodamns... RemoveThis @speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>> To me, this is like winning the battle but losing the war. So the
>> Warriors saved a couple million on Nellie and save a bit more money if
>> they decide to fire him at the end of the year.
>
>I'm not so sure about that when you take the likely outcome into
>account. First, I think we can assume 2 things:
>
>1) Nellie will do at least as good this year as last year in the
>regular season.

Well, we'll see. I think the bottom of the Western Conference is weaker
for sure. The Trail Blazers lost Randolph (whatever people think of him)
and Oden's out. The Sonics lost Ray Allen and Durant/Green aren't
carrying them anywhere this year. The T-Wolves lost Garnett and Al
Jefferson/Gerald Green is a downgrade. The Clippers don't have Brand. The
Kings are adrift and not really a threat. So it's probably just the
Lakers, Warriors, the Hornets, and maybe the Grizzlies if Gasol plays well
and Darko lives up to some of his potential (and doesn't get convicted for
murder) for the last two spots in the playoffs. Certainly better odds
than they faced last year. Avoiding any major downtime for Baron and
Biedrins is paramount.

>The team has come together and they probably won't
>have all the injury problems they had last year.

Well, it depends on how much you think the absence of Richardson hurt
them, but I think the only truly crippling injury was the amount of time
they played without Baron.

>I think it's a safe bet that they'll win more than they lose.

Seems reasonable, although they only barely accomplished this feat last
year.

>Given this, and given that
>there's every possibility they'll be able to parlay Monta and ?? into
>another roster improvement

Well, what is the ??? and how much improvement does Monta show this year?
If he doesn't show some possibility of playing the point guard, I doubt
he's going to be that much in demand. And if he does, the Warriors
probably will want to keep him to prepare for the after-Baron days (which
are probably not all that far off).

>2) I think it's highly likely the Warriors will want Nellie back next
>year *and* Nellie will probably want to be back on the Warriors.

If I had to guess, I'd say that unless the team really contends for the
Conference Finals this year, he's going to be done.

>This last part I think is the most variable, if Nellie's health takes some
>kind of major downturn. But absent that, and assuming point 1 above, I
>can't see the Warriors NOT wanting Nellie back again.

Agreed. I sure wouldn't want to be in any hurry to start the Keith Smart
era, even though I think he's probably a pretty good coaching prospect.
But I want Nellie to really establish the style of play here even moreso
before we move on to the next unproven coach so that the new guy doesn't
decide to scrap everything and play Jeff Van Gundy ball.

>Which means to me that $5.1 million of the 3rd year is all but
>assured. I think it will end up being Nellie's call. I think Mullin
>must have convinced Cohan that making the 3rd year the Warriors option
>was a victory over Nellie. But realistically I can't see Nellie *not*
>getting that money unless it's by his choice (which I suppose could
>happen if Nellie cottons more to being a consultant @ $1 million than
>being a coach @ $5.1 million).

If any team would be stupid enough not to exercise the option, it would be
the Warriors. The fact that Cohan/Rowell made such a big deal out of it
tells me that they would like to go cheaper in the coaching department at
the first possible time unless the team does so well this year that it
would be a PR disaster not to bring him back.

>I don't know... I think Mullin (and maybe Nellie also) may have pulled
>a fast one on everyone. It looks like Nellie conceded on the point of
>making everything guaranteed

I never understood the guaranteed thing. He had a guaranteed third year
(albeit at less money per year) so long as he didn't retire before he held
out for more cash. That the Warriors want to make it an option year when
it's hard to see any scenario that makes sense for them not to bring him
back tells me that they are thinking of not bringing him back.

>But Cohan gets to save face by claiming that he held
>his ground on guarantees. Slick.

I don't think having that third year at the Warriors' option is just
window dressing for them.

>> ... How much goodwill with
>> their own players and perhaps Chris Mullin did they burn by playing
>> hardball with the guy who was probably the single biggest reason they
>> became a playoff team last year?
>
>You know, I have to disagree on this as well. I think the players know
>this is all a business, this is the kind of thing that goes on all the
>time (games about money), they know this is how Nellie operates, and
>they'll take it in stride.

Players love playing for Nellie (the lone exceptions among guys who are
good is probably just Patrick Ewing and Chris Webber). No matter how much
they like Keith Smart (and I have no idea), they definitely did not want
to lose him. I don't think they are ambivalent about the ownership
potentially letting the first good coach in ten years walk over what is
(for the NBA) chicken feed. It won't affect Biedrins' or Monta's contract
negotiations, but it could be an issue with Baron. And frankly, without
Nellie pushing Baron's buttons, I don't know that I want to pay a ton of
cash for a PG that takes a lot (and misses a lot) of threes and is injury
prone.
--
Greg Lentz
 >> Stay informed about: SFC/Ratto: [Nelson returning, he caved] 

On Sep 14, 10:05 pm, Greg Lentz <nodamns... RemoveThis @speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:49:16 -0700, Allen <lonewolfb... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 14, 2:22 pm, Greg Lentz <nodamns... RemoveThis @speakeasy.net> wrote:

> I don't think having that third year at the Warriors' option is just
> window dressing for them.


I completely agree with this point. Cohan saw the Warriors implode
unexpectedly due to the Webber/Nelson relationship and has probably
talked with Cuban in Dallas. At the time, Cohan was a new owner and
probably thought he was buying a dynasty. Instead, he ended up with
one of the worst franchises in the league. However unfairly, he
probably regards Nelson as a difficult, unmanageable guy who carries a
lot of risk with his talent. Certainly, his contract was structured
in a way that reflects that sort of perspective. It is hard for us to
think the Warriors not wanting Nelson back, but Cohan is probably
traumatized (in a financial and ego sort of way) that makes it
impossible for him to see Nelson in a more reasonable light.
 >> Stay informed about: SFC/Ratto: [Nelson returning, he caved] 

On Sep 15, 6:22 am, Greg Lentz <nodamns....TakeThisOut@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:12:39 GMT, Preacher <n....TakeThisOut@noway.com> wrote:
> >Allen wrote:
>
> >> The Chronicle Sports Columnist blog
> >> Sure Hope It Was Worth It
>
> >> Nelson swung for the center field wall, and depending on your view,
> >> either punched a base hit over shortstop, or grounded meekly to third.
> >> The Warriors wasted lots of time in a fight that never should have
> >> been, one that made everyone look slightly smaller.
>
> >> Posted By: Ray Ratto (Email) | September 14 2007 at 08:04 AM
>
> >Hate to agree with Ratto, but I think he's right on.
>
> >Hopefully with the contract behind them, they can get down to the real
> >business.
>
> To me, this is like winning the battle but losing the war. So the
> Warriors saved a couple million on Nellie and save a bit more money if
> they decide to fire him at the end of the year. How much goodwill with
> their own players and perhaps Chris Mullin did they burn by playing
> hardball with the guy who was probably the single biggest reason they
> became a playoff team last year?
>
> I'm just glad Nellie is back, but this is almost assuredly his last year.

Personally I agree with those who say screw you Nellie, you have a
contract that pays you far more than the average person will ever make
in a lifetime and Nellie probably couldn't spend the extra millions
even if he made it. A team can not be successful if it is made up of
prima donna's including the coach. So Nellie should abide by his
contract and do the best coaching job he can at least that is what he
should do if he were a professional, otherwise he is a loser.
> --
> Greg Lentz- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 >> Stay informed about: SFC/Ratto: [Nelson returning, he caved] 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:33:43 -0000, ausstu <josephblow1 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 15, 6:22 am, Greg Lentz <nodamns... RemoveThis @speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:12:39 GMT, Preacher <n... RemoveThis @noway.com> wrote:
>> >Allen wrote:
>>
>> >> The Chronicle Sports Columnist blog
>> >> Sure Hope It Was Worth It
>>
>> >> Nelson swung for the center field wall, and depending on your view,
>> >> either punched a base hit over shortstop, or grounded meekly to third.
>> >> The Warriors wasted lots of time in a fight that never should have
>> >> been, one that made everyone look slightly smaller.
>>
>> >> Posted By: Ray Ratto (Email) | September 14 2007 at 08:04 AM
>>
>> >Hate to agree with Ratto, but I think he's right on.
>>
>> >Hopefully with the contract behind them, they can get down to the real
>> >business.
>>
>> To me, this is like winning the battle but losing the war. So the
>> Warriors saved a couple million on Nellie and save a bit more money if
>> they decide to fire him at the end of the year. How much goodwill with
>> their own players and perhaps Chris Mullin did they burn by playing
>> hardball with the guy who was probably the single biggest reason they
>> became a playoff team last year?
>>
>> I'm just glad Nellie is back, but this is almost assuredly his last year.
>
>Personally I agree with those who say screw you Nellie, you have a
>contract that pays you far more than the average person will ever make
>in a lifetime and Nellie probably couldn't spend the extra millions
>even if he made it. A team can not be successful if it is made up of
>prima donna's including the coach.

The team wasn't successful with any of the other coaches it had between
Nellie's first tenure and his second. I don't know how many of them were
prima donnas and how many weren't, but even if Nellie is a prima donna
(and I think it's safe to say he is), he's a prima donna who knows how to
win. The other guys couldn't win, for whatever reasons.

If that means we have to bend over on principle to appease him, then I
guess we have to do it. It doesn't make it right, but when you can't hire
a decent coach in 12 years, you're not really in much of a position to
tell the one guy who did a good job to get stuffed. Apparently they got
away with it as Nellie capitulated, but I don't think it will ultimately
prove to have been worth the three months or so of hardball.
--
Greg Lentz
 >> Stay informed about: SFC/Ratto: [Nelson returning, he caved] 

Greg Lentz wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:49:16 -0700, Allen <lonewolfbear.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2) I think it's highly likely the Warriors will want Nellie back next
>> year *and* Nellie will probably want to be back on the Warriors.
>
> If I had to guess, I'd say that unless the team really contends for the
> Conference Finals this year, he's going to be done.

On what do you base that? Barring health or burnout issues, do the
Warriors think they can get someone more qualified to coach this team?

>> This last part I think is the most variable, if Nellie's health takes some
>> kind of major downturn. But absent that, and assuming point 1 above, I
>> can't see the Warriors NOT wanting Nellie back again.
>
> Agreed. I sure wouldn't want to be in any hurry to start the Keith Smart
> era, even though I think he's probably a pretty good coaching prospect.
> But I want Nellie to really establish the style of play here even moreso
> before we move on to the next unproven coach so that the new guy doesn't
> decide to scrap everything and play Jeff Van Gundy ball.
>
>> Which means to me that $5.1 million of the 3rd year is all but
>> assured. I think it will end up being Nellie's call. I think Mullin
>> must have convinced Cohan that making the 3rd year the Warriors option
>> was a victory over Nellie. But realistically I can't see Nellie *not*
>> getting that money unless it's by his choice (which I suppose could
>> happen if Nellie cottons more to being a consultant @ $1 million than
>> being a coach @ $5.1 million).
>
> If any team would be stupid enough not to exercise the option, it would be
> the Warriors. The fact that Cohan/Rowell made such a big deal out of it
> tells me that they would like to go cheaper in the coaching department at
> the first possible time unless the team does so well this year that it
> would be a PR disaster not to bring him back.

I don't know if the issue was price or Cohan's history with Nelson.
Those two just don't mix that well; it's amazing that Mullin was able to
get them to agree to work together.

>> I don't know... I think Mullin (and maybe Nellie also) may have pulled
>> a fast one on everyone. It looks like Nellie conceded on the point of
>> making everything guaranteed
>
> I never understood the guaranteed thing. He had a guaranteed third year
> (albeit at less money per year) so long as he didn't retire before he held
> out for more cash. That the Warriors want to make it an option year when
> it's hard to see any scenario that makes sense for them not to bring him
> back tells me that they are thinking of not bringing him back.

I think Cohan likes the option of ditching Nellie if the drama gets too
annoying.

>> But Cohan gets to save face by claiming that he held
>> his ground on guarantees. Slick.
>
> I don't think having that third year at the Warriors' option is just
> window dressing for them.
>
>>> ... How much goodwill with
>>> their own players and perhaps Chris Mullin did they burn by playing
>>> hardball with the guy who was probably the single biggest reason they
>>> became a playoff team last year?
>> You know, I have to disagree on this as well. I think the players know
>> this is all a business, this is the kind of thing that goes on all the
>> time (games about money), they know this is how Nellie operates, and
>> they'll take it in stride.
>
> Players love playing for Nellie (the lone exceptions among guys who are
> good is probably just Patrick Ewing and Chris Webber). No matter how much
> they like Keith Smart (and I have no idea), they definitely did not want
> to lose him. I don't think they are ambivalent about the ownership
> potentially letting the first good coach in ten years walk over what is
> (for the NBA) chicken feed. It won't affect Biedrins' or Monta's contract
> negotiations, but it could be an issue with Baron. And frankly, without
> Nellie pushing Baron's buttons, I don't know that I want to pay a ton of
> cash for a PG that takes a lot (and misses a lot) of threes and is injury
> prone.

Fair. Who else can really command BD's respect?
 >> Stay informed about: SFC/Ratto: [Nelson returning, he caved] 

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 06:50:22 GMT, Preacher <no.DeleteThis@noway.com> wrote:

>Greg Lentz wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:49:16 -0700, Allen <lonewolfbear.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2) I think it's highly likely the Warriors will want Nellie back next
>>> year *and* Nellie will probably want to be back on the Warriors.
>>
>> If I had to guess, I'd say that unless the team really contends for the
>> Conference Finals this year, he's going to be done.
>
>On what do you base that?

Gut feeling. Nothing scientific.

>Barring health or burnout issues, do the
>Warriors think they can get someone more qualified to coach this team?

No, but Nellie isn't going to want to coach much longer.

>> I never understood the guaranteed thing. He had a guaranteed third year
>> (albeit at less money per year) so long as he didn't retire before he held
>> out for more cash. That the Warriors want to make it an option year when
>> it's hard to see any scenario that makes sense for them not to bring him
>> back tells me that they are thinking of not bringing him back.
>
>I think Cohan likes the option of ditching Nellie if the drama gets too
>annoying.

I agree.

>> Players love playing for Nellie (the lone exceptions among guys who are
>> good is probably just Patrick Ewing and Chris Webber). No matter how much
>> they like Keith Smart (and I have no idea), they definitely did not want
>> to lose him. I don't think they are ambivalent about the ownership
>> potentially letting the first good coach in ten years walk over what is
>> (for the NBA) chicken feed. It won't affect Biedrins' or Monta's contract
>> negotiations, but it could be an issue with Baron. And frankly, without
>> Nellie pushing Baron's buttons, I don't know that I want to pay a ton of
>> cash for a PG that takes a lot (and misses a lot) of threes and is injury
>> prone.
>
>Fair. Who else can really command BD's respect?

The only coach who's come close is Paul Silas and it's not like he's going
to lead us anywhere great.
--
Greg Lentz
 >> Stay informed about: SFC/Ratto: [Nelson returning, he caved]