Because Jason deserves it, more talk about the Warriors trading Richardson

J-Rich: Still loved

I received tons of feedback regarding my post about how trading Jason Richardson was a mistake. They seem to be running about 60-40 against. More important is that it’s still obvious that J-Rich is missed and respected around here.

I’d like to respond to a few of the criticisms and complaints. And by the way,  the comments were excellent. Just real good stuff.

GENERAL COMMENT OR COMPLAINT: If the Warriors had Richardson last season, Monta Ellis wouldn’t have blown up and become the player he became; Richardson would have halted Ellis’ development.

REBUTTAL:  Some are forgetting that the starting five for the Warriors during the latter half of the 2006-07 season was: Baron Davis, Ellis, Richardson, Stephen Jackson and  Al Harrington.

In other words, you could make a case that Richardson helped Ellis’ development _ by playing the small forward position. Ellis also won the NBA's Most Improved Player award with Richardson on the roster.
 

Monta/J-Rich combo works

GENERAL COMMENT OR COMPLAINT:  Richardson was too limited of a player to be getting the money he was getting.

REBUTTAL: C'mon. Corey Maggette is too limited of a player to be getting what he’s getting; Andris Biedrins is too limited of a player to be getting what he’s getting. You can play that game all day. And who knows? You might be saying it about Ellis.

As I stated in my post, Richardson’s inability to create and handle was a killer. But if you’re going to criticize him for that (and I did) you must acknowledge that he created another way _ by getting double-teamed in the low post. That’s how he went about his creating.

GENERAL COMMENT OR COMPLAINT: Writing “Fair enough” to the idea that trading Richardson “allowed” the Warriors to re-sign Ellis and Biedrins is insufficient analysis and not acknowledging a significant part of the trade.

REBUTTAL:  Let me tell you why I wrote “Fair enough,” and glossed over that particular issue. I was actually doing the other side of the argument a favor by giving you that one. But it is not a strong argument.

By rationalizing that trading Richardson "allowed" you to keep Ellis and Biedrins you’re forgetting why the Warriors said they had to make the deal: Because their cap situation needed fixing and going over the luxury tax has never been an option.

What kind of banana is Brandan?

So, I don’t think you can claim that as a positive aspect of the trade and yet ignore the preceding signings, trades, etc., that put the Warriors in the positon they say they were in.

You can, however, make a case that by trading Richardson it put the Warriors back at Ground Zero financially. Trading Richardson wasn't the only way to get there.

The Warriors might have fans believe that they HAD to trade Richardson to keep Ellis and Biedrins, but I don’t buy that simplicity. There had to be more than that one option.

GENERAL COMMENT OR COMPLAINT: When you get right down to it, Richardson is a third or fourth banana.

REBUTTAL: I don’t disagree with that. But I don’t think Brandan Wright is going to be any better kind of banana.