Golden State Of Mind: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: MLB postseason scores, schedules and blog coverage Bar-right-arrows

Time to admit mistake on Jason Richardson-Brandan Wright trade [SF Examiner]

Props to GSoM friend Matt Steinmetz for this piece. Forgive me if it takes a few years to get over the unfortunate dismantling of We Believe and slipping back to We Got Suck. The Golden State Warriors... where every year's a rebuilding year!

Link 2 months ago Atma-160_tiny Atma Brother ONE Comment 238 comments 0 recs |

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

WHAA WHAA WHAA

Get over it.

Do you post anything that isn’t bashing the dubs or whining about Richardson?

by superk1ng on Jul 30, 2008 10:03 PM PDT   0 recs

oh

So it’s wrong to talk about Jason Richardson nowadays? Everytime someone brings up Jason’s name, another person will respond saying stuff like “GET OVER IT!”. Geez, people gotta be real assholes huh. They act like saying good things about Richardson and missing him on the team is against the law. There’s never a time when you can reminisce about that player without someone getting in the way and criticizing you for doing so.

by Five Ten Entertainment on Jul 30, 2008 11:57 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

ad nauseum.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on Jul 31, 2008 12:15 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It's one thing to reminisce

and it’s another to bring his name up in every post. I swear, every post Atma makes now is either about how the Warriors are going down hill and/or we should have never traded J-rich. We’ve just added a ish load of guys to our roster, why not make a post about that? Why bring up something that’s never going to change?

by superk1ng on Jul 31, 2008 12:59 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Because it was posted in every other post under fan posts!

Why be repetitve when you can speak about a plethora of things on a single board. If you wanna talk about the incoming FA’s, go into those threads.

by Mr. Monday Night on Jul 31, 2008 8:04 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah!

If we’re gonna be losing, we better at least get Adonal back!

Tony.psd = Da Man
http://nbaokc.blogspot.com/
Check Out My New Blog! (Don't Worry, The Warriors are Still #1)

by Zorgon on Jul 30, 2008 10:12 PM PDT   1 recs

XD

Point, Set, and Match.

Tony.psd = Da Man
http://nbaokc.blogspot.com/
Check Out My New Blog! (Don't Worry, The Warriors are Still #1)

by Zorgon on Jul 31, 2008 1:17 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

WORD UP!

We Believe with Adonal and We Got Suck with Adonal. I wouldn’t have it any other way!

by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 30, 2008 10:29 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

word up? wow

I don’t agree with you for the simple reason that you gave props to Mat Steinmetz LOL. Even if he does have a point, he’s WAYYY too late in making his point. It’s still better for us though to have the room for Monta and Andris, but obviously B Wright and losing the 10 M exception was not exactly an even exchange for J-Rich.

by BaronsClipps on Jul 30, 2008 11:19 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Welcome Back Zorgon...

I thought you mighta been gone for good ;)

Stop crying about it alright?!?! GO MULLIN.

by jeppalepala on Aug 1, 2008 9:41 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I thought you mighta been gone for good ;)

Zee’s just slumin, now that he’s uptown with Durant and the Oklahoma hedgehogs he don’t need the old OaktownWarriors crowd?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 1, 2008 9:56 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

are we

still paying him? or does his salary only count against the cap?

by saintdee on Jul 30, 2008 10:17 PM PDT   0 recs

+1!

Love the majority of your work Pree, and this is no exception…

If we didn’t trade J-Rich, Monta wouldn’t have had the breakout season (for the second year in a row) which he had last year. Clearly with Richardson and Davis both playing 82 games, and a great number of minutes, Ellis may have struggled to even have the impact which he had in 06-07.
Trading Richardson was a salary dump that was neccessary to develop our future… the bonus being B-Wright. Sure, we didnt use the trade exception… but tell me, what should we have done with if you see that as a negative? Personally I think that the moves we have made this offseason have been solid towards consolidating our future.. I feel Maggette will give us another edge, and us locking up Beans and Monta allows us to see the future BIG TIME.
Not all bigs are world beaters in their first year… Give Wright another season at best before writing him up as a bust, but thanks for the memories J-Rich… but you’re in the W’s history books now.

J-Smooth to the BAY
Run TMC Appreciation Society

by warriordownunder on Jul 30, 2008 10:47 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m sorry, I just don’t see it. Perhaps that’s because most people want the Warriors to actually win games regardless of who is on the roster

For a sports writer you have a poor understanding of team chemistry and it’s effects on players. Personalities can sometimes be more important than statistics and the present greater than potential.
That playoff team was something that should not have been messed with till it played a whole healthy season together, it only needed fine tuning not a re-build. As the departure of Boom showed there’s no point in worrying about signing someone two years down the road because things usually change before the future gets here. We’ll never know what we lost by not believing still.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 30, 2008 11:07 PM PDT to parent up   1 recs

For a skeptic, you have a poor understanding of winning chemistry.

You’re contending that we should’ve stuck with J-Rich because he had winning chemistry. You’re interpreting that by focusing on twenty-seven games of his and ignoring literally five hundred others.

J-Rich is a dandy guy. His smiles charms women and babies. He can dunk like a mofo. He can drive my car anytime.

But whatever chemistry he brings to the table doesn’t help his teams win games. Open your skeptical Urquellian eyes.

by onlxn on Jul 30, 2008 11:41 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

He has nothing to back him up on "winning chemistry"

You can say whatever you want about Richardson help leading the Warriors to 48 or more wins last year.

But…you still cannot back that up with actual facts. The facts thus far is that we sent Rich East, and statistically got better. You can argue all you want about breaking up the team too early. But the fact is that Mullin had to act early before it was too late. Ever hear about Gilbert Arenas? Yeah, we lost him because we were over cap and couldn’t sign him…all because the Warriors couldn’t clear cap room the summer before GA became an UFA.

So please, stop with this non-sense.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on Jul 31, 2008 12:21 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The Warriors statistically got better after the Dunmurphy/Jackson & Harrington trade!

Why do people overlook this simple fact. 16 and 5 together during the last 21 games of the season is really impressive, especially considering who they beat and how they fared in the playoffs. Don’t just say that we won more games because we traded away Richardson… we won more games because we didn’t have Murphy and Dunleavy. Richardson would have made this 07-08 squad win more games…... simpler than sugar!

by Mr. Monday Night on Jul 31, 2008 12:24 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Simpler than sugar?

I don’t think you can definitively state that Richardson would help us win more games any more than I can definitively state he wouldn’t. What I can say with near certainty is that with Jason Richardson on this squad, we’re trending downwards in talent because we’re losing out on one of or big young FAs.

We just signed a guy in Corey Maggette who has put up extremely similar numbers to J-Rich over the course of his career, and we got him for a vastly better contract. Monta/Jackson/Maggette/Wright/Biedrins is a team with genuine promise, and potential playoff success. I recall Atma posting once that he found it annoying or stupid (paraphrasing here) that people were assessing the worth of the trade on potential, saying that the initial year after a trade like that is just as relevant in a discussion of worth.

Allowing that’s true, I’d appreciate some recognition that the logic works both ways; until we see just what Wright’s ceiling is, it can’t be objectively judged. To say nothing of the fact that we won forty-eight games last year and just missed the playoffs. Any other year we’d have been in. I think that fact has been lost in the self-pity of some of us fans. By no objective measure can you say a forty-eight win team sucks. The attempt to make it seem like, “well, here comes another playoff drought,” is the reasonable expectation is shortsighted, I think. If you watched the team we had last year and compared it with any of the teams we had the years before ‘07 (teams led in part by Jason Richardson) and you come away thinking it’s in any way and equivalent situation, I can do nothing but strongly and starkly disagree.

by Zack Vank on Jul 31, 2008 1:13 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

As I've said in previous posts,

We would have been able to resign Monta & Beans despite having Richardson on this team. Just imagine making the playoffs a second straight season, and only having to face luxury tax cap hell for one season (this), where Foyle’s salary comes off the books at the end of the season. If Davis would have opted out, we would have still had a nice core in Richardson, Ellis, Jax, Beans and Harrington.

As far as the winning more games vs. not winning more games, you’re completely right! We can’t say for sure… but in my opinion, we would have won more games. There’s this little thing called the first six games, in which we saw a little losing streak because one major piece (Stephen Jackson) wasn’t around and we had to rely on a slow starting Pietrus/Barnes and a red hot Azubuike to fill in the void. Unfortunately, slow and hot didn’t mix, hense the reason why we went 0-6. Another thing would be time management. Richardson would have given the Warriors flexibilty to give Baron, Jax & Monta proper rest, as he was a fairly reliable option should one or two of last year’s big three sat out. This is not to say that Pietrus & Barnes (although I doubt that both of them would have been back) as well as Azubuike weren’t adequate, its just to say that they were injured during the most opportune times.

And finally, I don’t believe that Maggette = Richardson because one player plays defense particularlly well and another doesn’t. Richardson is an adequate defensive option, where as Maggette often had defensive lapses in Clipperland. Defense was one of the key reasons why Maggs didn’t get the playing time he wanted and was temporaily ousted out of the starting line up. In conclusion, you say tomato, I say tomahtoe.

by Mr. Monday Night on Jul 31, 2008 8:29 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Jrich, no chemistry??
But whatever chemistry he brings to the table doesn’t help his teams win games. Open your skeptical Urquellian eyes. – onlxn

for those that do not realize the importance of team chemistry…obviously you guys do not play basketball. Simply put, you play better when you like your teamates, you know their style, and you trust them in game time situations. Ive played competitively all the way through junior college and the teams that cant perform together as one unit, always do poorly. Why do you think team USA keeps losing to all these European teams. Its not because of the talent.

Im not saying that jrich’s trade wasnt a bad move. But, i think its pretty evident that we would have won more games with him last year.

First, of all… we could have used a proven 20 point scorer, during stephen jacksons absence…. i have no doubt in my mind that we woulda won one or two of those games that we lost…

2nd, we lost a lot of games where we were up by almost 20 because baron, jax and al decided to go 2 for 30. Jrich woulda been that other option.

3rd, it was pretty evident that we lacked the fire and the intensity that we had the previous year, towards the end of the season. Jrich not only pumped his guys up… he was a leader on and off the court…for those of you who play, u guys know how important that motivator guy is…

Lastly, it must be pretty discouraging when one of your beloved teammates gets traded for the potential of a rookie. Its kind of a buzz kill to the whole playoff run and it the loyalty your team has to offer. It messes up your game, and it throws your teams chemistry off.

i dont really care about the money that could have been used to sign biedrinis and monta. If the team really wanted them, they would make it happen. I would rather have made the playoffs again…then worry about the money later.

Look at our situation now, we have monta, biedrinis, and maggette signed…we wont have enough money to sign a max level player once jax and harrington gets off the books… and were set to be a mediocre team for the next 3-4 years. Theres always the potential of BW and AR… but within the past 13 years…. we said that about all of our draft picks…. just give it 3 years and these guys will be stars. Maybe im just a little bit frustrated that we are in rebuilding mode, but i dont see how the top teams can always bounce back and be good.

by Jollibee415 on Jul 31, 2008 8:59 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It’s easy to say if the team just wanted Ellis and Biedrins they would make it happen, but that is ignoring an entire side of the deal, the financial side. A lot of the pro-J-Rich arguments I see ignore the financial aspects of everything and assume everything will work out great. What about Arenas? Did it work out great with him? Thank god we didn’t let Monta turn into Arenas 2.0.

Also, the answer to #2 (even though I don’t remember many games where we had a 20 point lead and lost, I really only remember 1, the Pistons, and that can happen to many teams) is Monta Ellis.

by belilaugh on Jul 31, 2008 10:20 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Technically

Monta couldn’t have turned into Arenas 2.0 because of the Gilbert Arenas rule implemented by the league. We could have gone into luxury tax land to match any offer to Ellis or Biedrins. Would we have? That depends on the success we would have had last season and the motivation of Cohan.

by racsan on Jul 31, 2008 10:56 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You believe cohan would've payed dearly in taxes?

I’d say that’s a resounding NO. Theoretically, you’re implying that with Jrich we would’ve A. Had a stronger finish to last season and B. Made the playoffs. And thus, Cohan would’ve payed the tax because we made the playoffs and we would retain Monta and AB no matter what the tax hit would’ve been.

Well, I’m not buying any of that. When has Cohan ever gone over the tax? He’s not going to shell out contracts that would cost him into the 30+MM a year for two players.

Oh and BTW, I think Corey Maggette Vs. Jrich is largely a Push.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on Jul 31, 2008 1:15 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

When has Cohan ever gone over the tax?

He hasn’t. On the other hand, he’s never really had a team that came close to justifying such expenditures. In general, the opportunities he’s had to spend more money have largely been through paying more for the players he’s had who, for the most part, haven’t shown as a collective unit that they justify spending more on them. It is not possible to just decide to spend more money, ergo you get better players. Where he has upped expenses on existing players, the results have usually been less than satisfactory, resulting in burdens that have kept the team bad. (And by bad I don’t mean bad meaning good.)

If you believe that spending more money is necessary to win, I can see why this would bother people as they’ll conclude that it’s the lack of spending that results in performance that doesn’t really justify spending more. However, there’s dreadfully little evidence that spending causes a team to improve, though there’s evidence that it can require spending to maintain a high level)

by jae on Jul 31, 2008 2:10 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I totally agree.

I agree also that keeping Rich and re-signing Monta/AB would still not make enough sense to go deep into luxury tax territory.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on Jul 31, 2008 4:50 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Actually, the Warriors got worse after the trade. They went from 2 under .500 to 9 under at their low point. Most fof that fall happened without Baron and Richardson. Then Baron and Richardson came back at about the same time and the team went on a short term but absolutely phenomenal tear. It’s the sort of tear that gives people hope that if they just keep it together, imagine the whole thing for 82 games. It was also the sort of tear that rarely predicts keeping that sort of ungodly pace up for 82 games. The team as constructed at the end of the playoff season was pretty good. But there was no reason to expect that they could play a season of .900 basketball because, well, no one ever does.

Would Richardson have made the team win more? Maybe, but it’s not simple. Statistically, he had his absolute best stretch of basketball when he came back at the end of that season. Yes, you heard that. It was his best basketball of his career. His scoring totals were down because more people were involved, but he was shooting, rebounding, his turnovers were down. He was playing at the level of the best 2 guards in the league. And it was much better than he’d ever done before or after. Some guys get hot for a while. This doesn’t mean they’ll stay hot forever.

Whether he’d help win more games in 0708 depends in large part on whose minutes he’d have taken and whether he’d be the Richardson of old, the unlikely to maintain it elite short season variety, or the not nearly as good one that played in Charlotte.

by jae on Jul 31, 2008 8:59 AM PDT to parent up   1 recs

I'm with you Pree....

I cannot believe that this sideline reporter thinks he is a journalist. He clearly does not understand how the salary cap works. If you add J-Rich’s 12-13-14 mil contract to the books, there is no way we retain monta and ab. Here is another question would you rather pay Rich 39 mil over the next three years or pay Maggs 50 mil over the next five? Maggs is overpaid, but Rich is ridiculously overpaid.
Stienmentz is a moron….

by BeLEGENDelliAllDay on Jul 30, 2008 11:09 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Also it best to not look at..

it like we have Maggs with JRich’s money because remember this trade was done with Baron’s huge contract was on the books. They didn’t think he would be off this soon. So if Baron contract was still there, there would definitely be no way to resign Monta and Ellis if JRich was still here.

And thinking well you cant plan two years ahead. Its better to try and have planned ahead, instead if they would have got stock with every contract and losing one of there young stars.

by The Golden One on Jul 30, 2008 11:15 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

+2

If J-Rich’s intangibles are so impressive, why did we get six games better in his absence, and why did the Bobcats get a game worse with his presence? Why did we only finish over .500 once in his tenure here? What exactly about a 42-40 season and a second-round playoff loss is so irreplaceable, other than the memories of a beautiful end run and first-round upset that weren’t likely to happen again?

The “We Believe” run was the most fun I’ve had watching basketball, but sheer, giddy “belief” is no way to run a basketball team. Yeah, they went 16-5 and beat the Mavs… that was awesome. Bookending that was an extended stretch of crappy basketball and a pretty convincing loss to the Jazz. “They were just getting used to playing together” is a decent excuse for the former, but any objective take on that team would also have to include the caveat that the 16-5 run came primarily against teams who weren’t playing for much, as they were either already lottery-bound or largely settled in their playoff slotting. There are those who contend that if Pietrus had made a free throw, we would’ve beaten the Jazz… I have to ask what series those people were watching, because that team had us under control.

It was a fun team… pretty good team. You don’t go deep into the luxury tax for a team like that. You definitely don’t put yourself in a position to lose a really young good player for a team like that. The Warriors, to their credit, understood that. And when they saw a chance to move an expensive piece, and get another promising player in the process, they did it. The future of this franchise is far brighter for that decision. Would we have made the playoffs if we’d had J-Rich this year? Maybe, but - cover your ears, J-Rich lovers - he would’ve primarily been taking minutes from a superior player in Monta. And even if we’d made the playoffs, we would’ve run into the Lakers, Hornets, Spurs or Jazz. A series with the Hornets would’ve pitted Baron against a guy who’s much, much better than he is… I don’t love our chances there. And I hope no Warriors fans is deluded enough to think we’d have beaten the Lakers, Spurs or Jazz, all of whom have big men who’d destroy us.

The Richardson/Wright trade was good for us. It gave us the flexibility to keep two rising stars, and a possible third one.

Atma, you’re a gentleman and scholar, and I do appreciate your work on the site. All of us here owe you deep thanks for that.

But this is getting crazy.

by onlxn on Jul 30, 2008 11:15 PM PDT to parent up   2 recs

Speaking on the first round upset and the nostalgia of it, I think us Warriors fans need to realize that an absolute majority of that series win was the Don Nelson factor.
Not J-Rich.
Sure, J-Rich contributed to getting this team into the playoffs (as did Jackson and Harrington) but the sheer luck and coincidence that the Warriors got the Mavericks former head coach, the guy who drafted that team’s star, and, arguably, knows his weaknesses and how to exploit that team best, was the real winning factor.
If the Warriors lucked into the 67-win Mavericks with PJ Carlisemo or (to a lesser extent) Rick Adelman as the head coach, “We Believe” would have been thrashed in a sweep.

by so ill so d0pe on Jul 31, 2008 2:14 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

hmmm...

Here’s my take on all this:

1. During their playoff run, the Ws were hanging around the .500 mark (+/- 5 games or so) when they finally had all pieces clicking (BD, JR, Jax, Al, ME, AB…). Then the memorable playoff push. Here’s my point: Had they somehow kept that core for another 82 games, who knows what may have happened. This is all I ask of the Warriors – build on your latest success at whatever cost without losing key players. And yes, JR as a key player then. Of course their fnancial situation made it very difficult to keep them but there must have been a better way. I’ve been a Ws fan way too long to only witness 5 relevant seasons. I’ve had it with this rebuilding crap that we have to take due to bad $$$ management. I wonder if JR’s departure had anything to do with Baron’s?

2. That Jazz playoffs series was closer than you think. If MP made those FTs, the series would have changed DRASTICALLY. If you’ve played organized ball, you know there are advantages and disadvantages even though you refuse to believe in those.

3. When Nellie said they were a better team with JR, I’ve read a lot of comments from almost everywhere saying that was Nellie being a motivator. Do you think he still wanted to motivate the team with only 3 games left with the Nuggets in the driver’s seat?

But in the end this is a business and we have to go on with our lives.

JR...An All-Time Warriors Favorite!

by MANUTEs BOLs on Aug 1, 2008 12:34 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

1. During their playoff run, the Ws were hanging around the .500 mark (+/- 5 games or so) when they finally had all pieces clicking (BD, JR, Jax, Al, ME, AB…). Then the memorable playoff push. Here’s my point: Had they somehow kept that core for another 82 games, who knows what may have happened. This is all I ask of the Warriors – build on your latest success at whatever cost without losing key players. And yes, JR as a key player then. Of course their fnancial situation made it very difficult to keep them but there must have been a better way. I’ve been a Ws fan way too long to only witness 5 relevant seasons. I’ve had it with this rebuilding crap that we have to take due to bad $$$ management.

Actually, more like -9 games. That was their low point. They weren’t really “hanging around .500”. At the time of “the trade” the Warriors were hanging around .500 (2 games under). After the trade, they didn’t play well. It’s tough to say what would have been, because the low point was when Baron and Richardson were out. Both came back at about the same time and both played real, real well for a short stretch, well enough to launch the team +11 over a 21 game stretch. With the whole lineup and Baron at the top of his game and Richardson playing better than he ever had in his career, the team was very, very good. Without the two, the team was more pathetic than the Dun-Murphy edition.

You mention bad $$$ management, but one key argument for the Richardson trade was that it was good money management as it allowed them to unload a good, but overpaid player who played the position most easily replaced both in general terms and with the specific in house solutions. If someone had to go, and someone probably did else at the end of this season we’d be in bad financial shape with some big time talents ready to up their contracts, Richardson was that guy. He was the most replaceable and cleared serious money in a single move.

I’d also argue that the Warriors did build on their latest success. They improved their overall record. They had the misfortune of doing so in a freakish year with unprecedented success at the top of the conference. There is no way you plan for 8 teams hitting 50 wins. In any other year, they’re probably a 6 seed. Luck has a significant impact in some things. That we were on the unlucky end of things doesn’t mean that the strategy was flawed.

2. That Jazz playoffs series was closer than you think. If MP made those FTs, the series would have changed DRASTICALLY.

That’s a very good point, and oft-overlooked. 3 of the four losses were games where the Warriors were in it till very, very late in the game (one went to OT). The “matchup” problems weren’t as pronounced as it seems. A couple of lucky breaks and that series goes 7 games.

3. When Nellie said they were a better team with JR, I’ve read a lot of comments from almost everywhere saying that was Nellie being a motivator. Do you think he still wanted to motivate the team with only 3 games left with the Nuggets in the driver’s seat?

Who knows what that meant. Nellie says lots of things.

by jae on Aug 1, 2008 1:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Rats, JAE beat me to it...

1. We went 18-10 the year BD arrived. Then we got all hyped up about the next season, the end of the drought! And then we shat the bed after a 12-6 start. Who is to say what would have happened this time, but just because they went 16-5 at the end of the previous season doesn’t mean that’ll extrapolate over the following season. It doesn’t. No matter how much you want to believe it. So, the Houston Rockets are gonna go 82-0 if they dump Yao because they had that 22 game win streak? Or do you want to count it as 67-15 because they went 31-7 in the last 38 games? You can’t just cherry pick the best part of the season and extrapolate that over the entire season. Yes, it was the first time with “the whole team” together, but maybe it’s like a rookie pitcher who nobody’s faced before mowing teams down. The team hit its stride and ran a hot streak. Matt Freaking Barnes was on fire. He was a central piece to our playoff run. Have you seen the rest of his NBA career? Are you really expecting that to happen again? I submit this:

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/matt_barnes/career_stats.html

If you’re really going to choose the one year, or the 11 playoff games to extrapolate going forward, I think Mike D’Antoni would like to trade you a Jerome James.

2. I really, really wanted those FTs to go down. I really did. Who knows what would have happened. If we were somehow able to come out with a series victory, I still don’t see us faing well against the Spurs? Or Cleveland? So, we would have gone one round further (at best). How would that have altered anything? There’s a reason the underdogs celebrate getting to the sweet 16 every year. It’s because they’re playing with house money and know their time is coming. One of the more talented teams the face will beat them. In a 7 game series just makes it even more unlikely.

3. In 06-07, Nellie said “There’s no way we’re making the playoffs” after a loss right before 16-5. Maybe he was trying to duplicate that effort. But I really think he just says things sometimes. As many have said before, Nellie seems to like the sound of his voice and doesn’t care what comes out. Both times, I think he sting of a loss got to him a little too much, and he said something a little defeatist. That’s it. Don’t read any more into it than that.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Aug 1, 2008 1:56 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

16-5 + History

The We Believe team played 21 regular season games together, winning 16 of them, and then went on to make playoff history by upsetting the Mavericks. You can’t compare the records of the 06-07 teams and the 07-08 team bc the former had the Murphleavy sisters on the payroll until January.

You may not think much of JRich as a player, but the team had chemistry, they knew their rolls, and they had excellent balance on the roster. Without JRich, the team was slanted heavily towards Baron, Barnes lost his mind (even before he lost his mom) and the team ran out of gas.

It’s a fair question, why (why? Why?!) would you take a team that had just made history and break it up? Why would you pay $170mm for three guys that have like 45 games of playoff experience between them? Why do I get the feeling it’s 2004-5 all over again.

Instead of having one more year of We Believe, we had a year of We Believed and now many more of We Believe We Just Wasted A Lot of Money.

by chacabuco on Jul 30, 2008 11:38 PM PDT to parent up   1 recs

+1

That’s what I just finished talking about in my other comment. I also mentioned that in one of the fanposts.

Not only was it just random 21 games, but it was the last games of the season while the Warriors had the toughest remaining schedule in the league. We had an injury filled season that year and didn’t get our ‘guns’ (Jackson, Harrington, Azubuike etc.) till midseason. Jason Richardson was also out for 2 MONTHS that year because of his freak hand injury.

So just because we won 48 games this season without Jason, it doesn’t mean that we’re soooooooo much better without him. Who knows how many wins that 06-07 team could have accumulated if they played together for a whole year.

And to think, the Warriors got outrebounded by an average of 19.6 rebounds a game in their series against the Jazz, yet all of their games against them were close. All they needed was a low post presence and they could have done some real damage in the postseason.

by Five Ten Entertainment on Jul 31, 2008 12:23 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Nobody’s saying that we were better this season without J-Rich. I’m open to the possibility that we would’ve had the same record with or without him… more likely, we would’ve won another game or two with him. The point isn’t that we’re better off without him, period… the point is that the combo of Brandan Wright and cap space to keep other guys is worth more than J-Rich.

The “toughest remaining schedule in the league” meme is a double-edged sword. We played a lot of good teams… by the same token, we were playing a lot of teams who were no longer playing for much, having long since clinched playoff berths. It was a thrilling 21-game run, but let’s not make it more than it was.

by onlxn on Jul 31, 2008 12:29 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

WORD.

Word. word.

by chacabuco on Jul 30, 2008 11:51 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Jeebus Jeebus Chrikeys

I couldn’t agree with you more! I’ve been saying that for the past year and a half. Jason Richardson gets this team into the playoffs, would have Monta seemingly get less money than $11/yr, would have avoided the signing of Maggette if Davis left, would have done this and done that, but it would have by all means made sense after the remarkable playoff run.

I’m tired of posting reasons, but I’m sure I can archive some of my older stuff under a different screen name (because the switch to SB Nation messed w/ me too much to keep it). It is delusional to think that keeping Jason Richardson in the Bay would be detrimental to this team, especially since the Warriors COULD HAVE resigned Monta w/ the Gilbert Arenas rule & Biedrins and had the Bird rights on both players to match anyways.

I’m just as ready as the next guy to move on, but the post-all star ‘06-07 team will always be one of the memories that will stick with me for decades to come. Even after the Warriors get to the playoffs. Even after the Warriors win their next championship. Even after the W’s retire Tim Hardaway’s number in the rafters. It was just THAT DAMN GOOD!

by Mr. Monday Night on Jul 31, 2008 12:11 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Atma

geez.

You just crept down a level in my book.

You make such a convincing argument the first 80% of your post. You even had me re-thinking some stuff.

But you go and take the moral-friggin-high-ground with Pree, then you go ahead and belittle him the same way. What’s with that?

All of us now your feelings about the Jrich trade. We all need to agree to disagree. We’re all Warrior fans in the end right?

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on Jul 31, 2008 12:31 AM PDT to parent up   1 recs

Werd!

Heh, I finally cracked the code. You crack me up, man. ;-)

Sign ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Aug 2, 2008 12:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Go be a Bobcats fan.

Most of us here in Warrior land are pretty darn sick of this. Seriously, I have a feeling that you live and die by the team. If so then I feel really sorry for you, because you have to reevaluate your priorities.

by joestar on Jul 31, 2008 12:49 AM PDT to parent up   1 recs

he's not living or dying by the team

he’s living and dying by the PLAYERS. for atma, this is becoming a matter of players vs management. Atma more closely associates his loyalty to the team through the players. Other fans associate more with the franchise, ie the organization and management.

both sides are legit and have their right to do so. but it’s annoying when one’s successfuly learned to speak in an enthusiastic, almost adorable manner while saying mean things,

Atma, there might not be a lot of us here, but some of us came here by the way of San JOse Mercury News.com warriors forums… and it’s damn hypocritical for calling out Pree for advertising his work was when you did the same in 2005.

by dso on Jul 31, 2008 2:17 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Building a community

You’re right we did spread the word on other spots to try to build up this community (and for the most part it worked if you look at all the great voices in this community), but let’s be clear- this is our hobby, not our job. We thought it’d more fun with more folks and it has been (see GSoM Nights). No regrets there.

And let me also be clear. Pree’s a good man and I’m happy to have him as part of the community and he can use GSoM to bolster his site’s traffic, ad revenue, etc anytime, any day. That’s not the problem.

But I have no idea why he publicly posted that one of his colleagues Matt Steinmetz (another GSoM friend) should look for work in Charlotte because he expressed a relatively unpopular opinion that Pree disagreed with.

Just like any other media member Pree’s got some good takes and analysis, but by no means does that mean his opinions are any more worthy than an astute follower of the game. A strong journalism background indicates you’re a great writer and interviewer, but that doesn’t mean you know how to run a half million to billion dollar corporation- not that Cohan, Rowell, or Mullin do either.

Don’t forget that the media gets played all the time by GMs and other NBA management. Why do you think 99% of the silly trade rumors, etc you read never go down?

by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 31, 2008 3:50 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Actually
he’s living and dying by the PLAYERS. for atma, this is becoming a matter of players vs management. Atma more closely associates his loyalty to the team through the players. Other fans associate more with the franchise, ie the organization and management.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. You just illuminated my psyche. I’m a “people’s guy”, not a fan of the corporate machines and the cold greedy billionaires that run them.

My loyalty’s with Baron, J-Rich, Arenas, Jamison, Barnes, even CWebb, etc not Cohan and Rowell and a mid-90’s abusive Nellie (although I love the guy now). Don’t get me wrong I love the Warriors because they are the Bay’s hoops squad, but I always root for my favs to stick it to them, especially when I think they were wronged in some way.

I’m a big 49ers fan, but same thing. Loved watching Joe Montana stick it to them as a Chief.

You seem like smart cat once you washed your mouth with soap!

by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 31, 2008 7:15 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't understand how you can be a 49er fan...

While simultaneously rooting for Joe Montana when he plays against them. Or how you can be a Warriors fan while rooting for JRich, Baron, Gilbert, Jamison, and Barnes when they play against the team. In my world, if you’re a fan of a team, you’re rooting for them to win or be successful. If you’re rooting against them because they slighted your favorite player, then you’re really more a fan of the player, not the team. Have you started any JRich fan clubs that I can join?

by Dubs fan in Boston on Aug 1, 2008 6:55 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Who said we people were...
fan of the corporate machines and the cold greedy billionaires that run them.

If I’m correct the point that everyone is trying to make here is that we are for most of the community here are fans of the Warriors… I’m sure you can clearly tell that not many of us care about or are rooting for Cohan at all… We’re just saying that no matter what the team looks like… no matter the what the management does as far as player movement, we still will be fan of the WARRIORS and not the players that come and go. It is an automatic acceptance of what they do even though we may dislike the things that management has done, we still accept the WARRIORS as a whole because it’s our team… it’s our pride and a lot of us have stuck through it thi