In Vanity Fair, Kurt Anderson controversially writes that we’re stuck in the cultural moment of the 90’s. The damning piece reminded me of Warriors fandom, which often feels like a dreary groundhog day of underwhelmed low expectations, dating back to 94.’ The “We Believe” run was a refreshing day dream, but fans were quickly returned to this grim, repetitive slog.

I naively hoped a big Chris Paul trade could usher in a new cultural moment. Such a move would have announced a serious Lacobian intention to set sights higher than “eighth seed.” But the Warriors wouldn’t part with Curry, the NBAleans Hornets wouldn’t part with Paul, and Paul wanted no part of the Warriors.

It all fell apart so quickly. “Tyson Chandler and Chris Paul?” diminished into “Well what about Deandre Jordan?” Suddenly, the Warriors had lost their amnesty and gained back only Kwame Brown for seven million dollars.

Kwame Brown.

I’m with the howlers on this one. Many smart writers argue that Kwame is underrated on account of his draft-selection punchline status, that Warriors fans are overreacting based on his name. I would argue that the punchline remains hilarious, even divorced from context.

I just flatly disagree that GSW needs Kwame’s defense, because I’m not sure he possesses the relevant skills. The consistent defense of Brown is his “post defense” ability, but I fear that we’re in a post-post-defense world. This is an era where Al Jefferson can’t convert the NBA’s best post moves into genuine stardom, and where the excising of illegal defense has permitted teams to swarm slow drop-steppers.

I would posit that shot-blocking rim-stalkers (Tyson Chandler anyone?) are the biggest defensive impact players, followed by athletic rovers who cover the pick-and-roll (Nene anyone?). Those skills are so paramount to big man defending that crediting Kwame’s “post-defense” might be akin to recommending a doctor on account of penmanship. Kwame’s defensive plus-minus is far from impressive. I don’t think this is coincidental.

And his offensive game? Well, he shoots free throws like Biedrins and plays offense like Biedrins shoots free throws.

I also disagree with the notion that GSW simply had to fill this role, that Kwame was the only man up to the task. Quoting Hollinger’s encyclopedic knowledge of marginal lugs:

“Kyrylo Fesenko is a better defender than Brown and will end up costing about a quarter the price. Reggie Evans is out there, too, for perhaps a third the cost. Shelden Williams, Aaron Gray and Jason Collins signed for the minimum; Darnell Jackson is still hanging out in Europe waiting to get the minimum. Alternatively, Mehmet Okur is eminently acquirable in a trade; I’d imagine Ian Mahinmi is, too. In other words, Kwame Brown and Sam Dalembert were the “only” centers left only if you constrained your thinking to 2010-11 starters who were unrestricted free agents.”

Considering the options, this Kwame Brown consolation prize is little consolation. The dreary day slogs forward, sideways and forever.

Follow @SherwoodStrauss

Look, I get why Stern was against CP3’s intentions. It’s total madness to let players decide team fates. That’s the job of bouncing ping pong balls, obviously.

Then again, what the NBA did on 12/8/2011 was so rash, so aromatically nutty, that it broadened the scope of what could happen. What if Stern wakes up and declares Milwaukee the pre-emptive 2012 NBA Finals winner? What if he announces this to medieval trumpet sounds while wearing a suit made of fruit rollups? And the players…what if they strike? As the philosopher Kevin Maurice Garnett once sagely bellowed, “Anything is possible.”

More is possible in the broader sense, but less is possible for Golden State player prospecting. A hefty Tyson Chandler offer? Nope. Ellis for CP3? Not nearly as enticing as the 8th seed bait offered by Houston via Los Angeles.

Tim Kawakami sees baby steps in yesterday’s feverish futility and I certainly feel that angle. They finally tried to decide Monta vs. Steph. They finally spent big bucks in pursuit of a plan.

But you have to wonder after these missed tries. If GSW had gotten CP3, would Chandler have come to Oakland? Golden State did have the opportunity to swap Steph for Chris before Stern facilitated this Lakers fiasco. Indirectly, GSW spawned what could possibly become the largest controversy in league history.

Why did they miss?

I think it comes down to two choices, likely a combination of both: 1. They were scared to take a Chris Paul rental, for fear of his fleeing and 2. They got cute trying to squeeze an Ellis-centric deal from New Orleans.

For the sake of this team, I hope it’s more the latter than the former. Because, if this league is going to be so governed by location desirability, it is incumbent on this franchise to boldly alter what “Golden State” means. I liked the idea of taking a Chris Paul “rental,” because it was a move of confidence from a team in need of some paradigm shifting. The prospective trade conveyed, “We think Chris Paul will sign here, because we are now a place to be.”

And this is precisely how Lacob should feel had the Warriors gotten a Chandler-Lee-Wright-Ellis-Paul lineup. If you provide a title-contending team in a big market, why should your superstar bail for less cash? If you fret over the possibility of his departure, you’ve already lost. Fortune favors the bold.

Part of what bothered me regarding the Lakers-trade backlash was the lack of respect for LA’s strategy. They risked immensely in trading Pau Gasol for a Chris Paul rental. They bet on themselves in a way others wouldn’t. It’s a smaller risk due to their brand, but it’s also why their brand is their brand. While so much focus is devoted to their “big market” advantage, this move was also a lore leveraging. LA wasn’t offering Chris Paul more money; they were offering an established, attractive tradition. They were offering a history-steeped aura that, say, the Clippers could not touch.

Though the Lakers may have given up too much in this trade, the bold stroke is a good model for Lacob. GSW must “act as if,” as the cliche goes. It need not be an Oscar performance–Northern California is scenic and populous. Moving the team to San Francisco is a step towards a positive self re-invention, too. The task at hand: Wake the slumbering Bay Area market while selling that incredible market to franchise-propelling talent. If you build it…

Follow @SherwoodStrauss

I’m a huge Curry fan for reasons statistical and aesthetic. But if the trade means Chandler and Paul in Oakland, if this is reality and not some toad-licked fantasy from the buzzing brain of a crazed GM: Do it.

Blogging about hoops can be a tricky pose because I often find myself teetering between fan and ersatz journo. When contemplating a Paul-Ellis-Wright-Lee-Chandler lineup, the thermometer swings wildly towards fan. Hell, it is difficult to type that lineup without hopping like a frog on lava lilies and howling at the moon till my soundwaves ebb new craters into that sucker. Holy amnesty, do it! DO IT!

Yes, we all know Chris Paul can leave in a fortnight. Let us set that large risk aside and look at the positives:

The Fit

This team fits together like gharial teeth. Tyson Chandler can compensate for David Lee on defense. Lee can give Chris Paul a pick-and-pop option in the David West mold. Unlike West, Lee also possess an elite dive and finish ability. If Paul once used his front court to bash opponents, these are brass knuckles. Worth noting: Chandler-Lee would be the league’s best rebounding front court.

And then there is Monta Ellis. I have long carped about Monta’s lack of efficiency. Advanced statistics aside, the dull thud of his endless high dribble evokes the feeling of being locked inside a cramped grandfather clock. But Ellis wasn’t always a possession-eating eyesore of a faux point guard. Quoting, from me:

“Curry can penetrate and dish to Ellis, but it’s not Steph’s speciality: It was Baron’s. Curry has court vision but doesn’t attack defenses in the spear-on-jellyfish manner that his PG predecessor mastered. Baron Daviswould launch his chubby body into the fray and Monta would emerged with daylight and a running head start.”

The penetrate-and-dish attack was death for defenses. They had to shift towards Baron’s slashing, and rarely had time to recover once Monta got the rock. If Chris Paul comes to Oracle, he’s bringing this hammer with him. While Monta’s size is a defensive concern, while Monta’s defense is a defensive concern, I’m thrilled to welcome back the proper deployment of his talent.

Oh, and Dorell Wright can shoot threes. Or somebody else can. On to the risk.

The Risk

Like Adam Lauridsen, I’m tired of rooting for a comfortably mediocre basketball team. Chris Paul is better than any Warriors player since B.C. times (Before Cohan). The Warriors are far from bottoming out and drafting high. They are far from improving their way to title contention. The only way for this team to get better is in the manner the Lacob-affiliated-Celtics did: Rapidly, through betting big on big stars. A frightful risk is necessary, today or tomorrow. If they have the will, it’s a matter of when.

More to the point, keeping Curry is a risk. He might well want to flee for Charlotte. Between Stephen’s public flirtation with the Bobcats and his new Charlotte-area house, GSW could be “renting” Curry in the way so many caution against “renting” Chris Paul’s talents.

The Pull

But why would Chris Paul stay? Because a healthy Chandler-Lee-Wright-Ellis-Paul team makes the Knicks look terrible by comparison. I was not there for the infamous blood pact wedding toast, I am not privy to why stars do what they do. But I do know this: They rarely leave for a worse team and less money. New York would certainly present the latter, and I believe they would present the former.

…

So: Yes, there are risks, but the Warriors have little to lose. Do it if you can. Amnesty Biedrins, sign Chandler, exceed the cap in pursuit of Paul. If this proves a disaster, let it at least drop them to the level of awfulness at which teams get great draft picks. The Bay Area is an incredible market, just waiting for an excuse to love basketball again. Prime the pump, get the point.

Follow @SherwoodStrauss

The Warriors are courting Tyson Chandler, which might explain why the string bean was spotted at Sunday’s 49ers game. My convoluted thought on Chandler: If signing him isn’t a mistake, it could make signing David Lee an unmistake.

And signing Tyson Chandler could very well be a mistake. Just a year ago, he was plied off a scrap heap in exchange for Dampier’s expiring contract. Chandler’s best days were thought to be behind him, as his addled legs were caught in an invisible, intractable, bear trap manacle. And magically, playing in Dallas made him healthfully valuable. Tyson reclaimed his old athleticism en route to claiming a championship.

This is what happens on franchises that augment the value of signings. The Warriors have not been one of these teams–far from it. A GSW player is bound to regress, accrue injuries. A Warriors player is destined to go the way of Andris Biedrins.

Two years ago, Biedrins’ value exceeded that of Chandler. The main gripe regarding Dre’s play was lack of minutes–on account of Don Nelson’s small-ball obsession. In the Summer of 2008, Baron Davis left for L.A. There was the collapse at the free throw line (Biedrins’ 08’ FT % is more than his 09’ and 10’ FT % combined). There were the injuries. Worst, there was the gradual avoidance of any contact that could send him towards more free throw embarrassment.

As Tyson Chandler once appeared merely an extension of Chris Paul’s genius, revisionist Biedrins analysis could easily be: The Latvian was only a claymation by film director Baron Davis. With Davis long gone, the Warriors are left with an inanimate seven-foot reminder of those (relative) “We Believe” glories.

Now, Tyson could get the huge salary that prompts Golden State to amnesty or trade Biedrins. “Amnesty” might go both ways here: The Warriors will be saved from a man who lets them down at a crucial position, and that man will be extricated from the rocky crags where his future ran aground.

Could Tyson Chandler cure what ails Golden State? I would say that Tyson Chandler could be illustrative of the cure. If he arrived and thrived, it would speak to a sea change from the top. Injury prone defensive centers could not exist in Cohan Land anymore than you could walk around the moon sans space suit. If Chandler–or Nene for that matter–stayed healthy and productive, it would mean that the Warriors are not the Warriors as we’ve come to understand them.

If Lacob is for real, if the Warriors are reformed, if the medical staff has been overhauled for the better, I say: Go for it. Sign Tyson Chandler for upwards of 11 million per year, part ways with Biedrins. But it will be grimly revealing if Andris succeeds elsewhere and Tyson becomes the new Andris. It will aslo be sadly familiar.

Follow @SherwoodStrauss