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

The Warriors are in flux and the final details of this amnesty provision could dictate the nature of their unfluxing. A big unknown is whether or not an amnesty of one player can follow the acquisition of a different player. Example: We don’t know whether the Warriors could sign Tyson Chandler and make salary room by waiving Biedrins, or, if the Warriors have to waive Andris first and risk not being able to sign Chandler as a replacement. The latter scenario would make an amnesty more fraught, less likely. Golden State could lose Biedrins in the name of cap room they don’t end up using.

And then there is the matter of what Biedrins is worth to other teams. Waive Andris, and the Warriors pay the difference between his current 27 million dollar salary and whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay him. If nobody wants to pay Biedrins, then Lacob picks up a hefty tab.

Here is where it gets weird: Andris Biedrins could be worth roughly nine million dollars per year to someone, especially if amnesty bidding occurs after the Nene/Chandler sweepstakes. In this hypothetical scenario, various teams have missed on a targeted big man and are desperate for an ersatz version–call him a coveted stunt double-double.

Don’t laugh, it might happen. Biedrins is 25 and was once quite good at the league’s priciest position. Tyson Chandler was thought to be washed up as recently as last year. Now he’s flirting with a max contract on the heels of a decent season. Big men get paid.

And while another team’s willingness to pay Andris would spare Lacob’s wallet, it could also represent an immense failure. Why? Because it means the Warriors used the amnesty on a tradeable asset. This is all fine and well if you nab Nene or Chandler in the process. If you don’t? The league just confirmed that they’re willing to pay your guy, which indicates that they’d trade for him too. This scenario saves GSW the most money, but it’s also the scenario that makes them look like terrible poker players.

So when Warriors brass says they don’t plan on amnestying Biedrins, believe them. But know that decision pertains to a very fluid situation.

Follow @SherwoodStrauss

A long time ago, I asked Stephen Curry: “Is there any player who you’d love to play with and love to have on the team? One particular guy?”

Stephen ignored the who’d/whom error and quickly said, “Rudy Gay,” as though the choice was obvious.

I asked, “Rudy Gay?” with a cadence that betrayed holy incredulity.

Curry responded: “Definitely. Leave it at that, Rudy Gay.”

He didn’t exactly leave it at that. There was somesuch about Don Nelson’s system and how Rudy would fit in. Again, it was a long time ago.

Now that the Warriors are reportedly inquiring after Gay, I wonder if there is a possible Curry connection. Gay does not seem like a natural fit for Golden State. They have a size deficiency at the 2, and difficulty defending down low. The Memphis small forward addresses neither concern, unless you plan on playing him or Wright against smaller, quicker competition.There is also the matter of Rudy Gay’s giant salary (He will be making 19.3 million in 2015). RG plays like a younger version of current “amnesty” poster boy Rashard Lewis. The irony is that Washington is unlikely to use the amnesty on Lewis, and perhaps that irony would be heightened if the Warriors amnesty a player in order to nab Rashard 2.0.Trading for Rudy Gay makes little sense–almost none, really.

Unless: This move could help keep Team USA teammate Stephen Curry in the Bay. Gay is friends with Curry and shares the same agent as Curry.In the background, Curry has openly, warmly, courted the possibility of playing in Charlotte, where his father calls Bobcats games. Stephen bought a new house in the Charlotte area, one that he plans to make his primary residence. While it seems bizarre to fret over losing your franchise centerpiece to the Bobcats, the Warriors may be in that strange, unenviable position. And while some small market owners tried mightily to curtail player movement in this new CBA, the climate of star departure has not abated. Yet another hypothetical irony: If small market owners’ failure to restrict player movement allowed a big market star to ditch his team for Charlotte.

A Gay-Ellis trade excises Curry’s rival playmaker while bringing a friend. It is a statement of loyalty and faith. The risky downsides would be a) If Curry leaves anyway or b) If Curry isn’t good enough to warrant such maneuvering. I personally believe that Curry is good enough to build around. If you buy that much, then that blurrs the question of, “How do you improve this team?” If a potential bad move keeps Curry in the Bay, is it a bad move?