GSoM Polling: To tank or not to tank...
by olympicmike on Jan 26, 2009 2:55 PM PST
234 comments
Hey guys (and Shells) I just wanted to take the pulse of the community right now on our current situation. Last night we saw an example of a franchise who is truly commited to tanking. That Clippers roster is a classic example of the type of team you put on the floor when you are more concerned with lottery balls than wins. To be fair they have had tons of injuries but without knowing all the details I'm sure they are all being encouraged to "take their time" in coming back.
We've seen a bit of this here. Monta was "held back" a bit. I don't know if it's a coincidence that we've had one of Crawford/Jack/Maggs out with hamstring injuries all year. I'm not saying these guys are faking but they may have also been encouraged to get 100% healthy more than they would have if we were in playoff contention.
Now, with Monta's return and the prospect of a full roster days or weeks ahead (Crawford, Marco, Wright) we stand at a crossroads. This team can either start a real effort to tank or we can try to get some chemistry going for next year and in the process ruin our lottery chances. Let's take a closer look:
Tanking
Pros: Can you say Blake Griffin? Yes, a shot (and not a great one, at best 25%) at a legit PF. Perhaps the kind of player we've been yearning for around here for years. Also some playing time for the young guys probably wouldn't hurt.
Cons: Ugly, ugly basketball. Loss of interest in the team. A good chance that we still won't get a player that makes a difference for us. Reinforcing a losing culture. Possibly alienating some of the vets.
Not Tanking
Pros: Build chemistry and momentum. These guys haven't had a chance to play together yet. Letting them learn each others tendencies this year could help us hit the ground running next season.
Build up trade value in our vets. A late season run with some stat-padding could help drive up interest in some of our players, which could open up options in the off-season.
Cons: We could (and probably will) win just enough to ruin our draft position and still miss the playoffs by a wide margin. Chance of injuries and "wear and tear" on the vets. Could hinder the development of our young players.
So the question for GSoM is:
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
11 recs |
234 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Tank
One of the Warriors biggest problems the last 20 years is they don’t tank at the end of the season. The last 5 years we make “great strides” at the end of the season, thus pushing themselves away from a top 5 pick. Then we draft Brandan Wright’s, POB’s, Diogu, and other journey men or guys who never make a big splash in the league. I hope we can grab a top 5 pick this draft and be really good next year but the fact of the matter is that we will win about 50 percent of the rest of our games and probably grab the 8th pick with a player that will develop in 3 years. Same tune, same front office, same misplaced hope, same season play like crap the 1st half of the season, play ok the last half) MEDIOCRITY
Maverick Fans Just don't get it.... Dirk = Deutshland
by dallaswarrior on Jan 26, 2009 3:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
We can still get someone good without being in the top ten.....
Jeff Teague is good player and a lock down defender and he’s not that highly looked at. If we can get him we get a 6’1 guard who can defend and playmake.
by Richboievans on Jan 27, 2009 3:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, we're not tanking but that does't mean we'll draft a bad player
Granted we’re not that great right now but we’re improving and our players are getting healthy. Essentially, the team is good enough to stay out of the top few picks in the draft, so there’s no point in tanking. Pick 1 is much better than 4 but pick 4 is merely better than pick 7. It’s a crap shoot anyway and Griffin isn’t happening. Let’s just hope that we make one or two good moves before next season.
by T-Money on Jan 27, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Essentially, the team is good enough to stay out of the top few picks in the draft, so there’s no point in tanking.
Sounds like you don’t know what tanking is? The point is to get a top draft pick by playing bad so it don’t matter if the team is" too good" ,they just gotta bear down and try harder to be worse.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 27, 2009 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. The 1 pick is no guarantee of getting a good player. But the difference between the 4 and 7 picks, especially in a draft like this, is a crapshoot. Hell our best players are 2nd rounders. And I fully have confidence that the W’s can totally screw up a high draft pick.
by jmaaan on Jan 27, 2009 10:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I dont think even our front office can screw up the number 1 pick though. I think thats the point of the whole post….we could easily screw up pick 6-10, but Griffin is already kinda a no brainer.
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Jan 28, 2009 2:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if Warriors fans said the same thing about the 1995 draft?
Joe Smith Bandwagon 95! How can we go wrong…final piece to this championship team!
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Jan 28, 2009 3:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Smith wasn’t a consensus #1, but there weren’t many critics of the pick at the time. SI’s evaluation was that he would solidify the PF position in Oakland for years to come.
by jae on Jan 28, 2009 5:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yea and i suppose the Warriors didn’t want to be the first team to take a HS player since Moses Malone.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Jan 28, 2009 6:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
no
Smith was far from a clear number one pick like Griffin is. McDyss, Smith, Big Country, KG, Sheed, and Stack were all discussed as options with the #1 that year.
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Jan 28, 2009 6:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You used the word "merely" so horribly wrong
that it makes your entire post dumb.
Nelly has wet dreams about starting Monta at center.
by StSaints408 on Feb 2, 2009 5:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
BTW...
Please leave your reasoning in the comments, and if you are interested in the results of the poll please rec to assure exposure and a large sample size. Thanks.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jan 26, 2009 3:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Nice self promoting,
it got you a rec : )
Too bad our front office is such a debacle, otherwise we might be good someday...
by warriorsscore110 on Jan 26, 2009 7:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
All in the name of good polling ; ) I really am interested to see what everybody thinks on this one. There have been some really interesting takes so far IMO.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jan 26, 2009 7:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Definetly a good poll,
but the poll I want to see is ‘Would you like to see the same team next year healthy with a full training camp to gel?’
Alot of people here and in the media(fitzgerald) feel that with healthy roster and a full training camp, we could compete for the playoffs next season. Thats the problem as MT2 and Steinmentz have said in thier blogs, that this team healthy might make the playoffs next year but has no real future but a 1 and done scenario. Unfortunely I lack the writing skill to feel comfortable a post like that. My last post, when I tried to convince GSOM that we should trade Harrington, Jackson, and Perovic for Marbury might have had the lowest ‘yes’ vote in the history of GSOM.
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2008/8/29/603894/why-not-marbury
We will probably need to be patient and let this season play out.
-warriorsvictim
by warriorsscore110 on Jan 26, 2009 8:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
‘Would you like to see the same team next year healthy with a full training camp to gel?’
That’s a much better question than should we trade for Marbury. =P
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jan 26, 2009 8:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Would you like to see the same team next year?
absofuckinglutely not
by hardcore on Jan 26, 2009 8:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
‘Would you like to see the same team next year healthy with a full training camp to gel?’
No, We need some new players and a new coach. Just getting to the playoffs happened in 07, next time we want to get to the finals and that can’t happen with Nellie’s 37 shooting guards.
and don’t worry about your writing skills, no one else does. Just toss out your ideas so we can laugh them down.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2009 8:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the support,
For the record, I would of still traded Al, Jack, and Kosta for Marbury, instead of trading Jack for our 37’th shooting guard that shoots alot and doesnt play defense, extend Jack when there was absolutely no need to and destroying his trade value, and buying out Kosta.
We will probably need to be patient and let this season play out.
-warriorsvictim
by warriorsscore110 on Jan 26, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Warriors...
management’s moves make your bad ideas sound like good ideas. =P
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jan 26, 2009 9:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough : )
We will probably need to be patient and let this season play out.
-warriorsvictim
by warriorsscore110 on Jan 26, 2009 9:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Please leave your reasoning in the comments
Are you new here?
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jan 27, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
nice
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jan 27, 2009 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's the only honorable thing to do
A team should do all it possibly can to increase it’s odds of winning. If these players can’t manage a good tanking let’s trade them for some that can.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2009 3:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
i think
top draft picks are overrated -that’s just IMO -and i would never suggest to tank -at least in this part of the season -finally Monta is back and someone say’s team needs to tank?!
this should be a year when team is building but i can’t imagine team which is build on tanking
top draft picks are overrated -team underrated
30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ
by Lat We N Trash on Jan 26, 2009 3:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking Tank but
we already have a lot of young players to develop and let’s face it, we wont get the #1 or #2 pick so that would be one more player to develop and we don’t have the best coach to do that so just play your hearts out for the remainder of the season and look at the future
by Monta08 on Jan 26, 2009 3:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
let’s face it, we wont get the #1 or #2 pick
there’s more than one way to get a #1 or #2 pick – if you don’t land it in the lottery, trade
by hardcore on Jan 26, 2009 8:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What do we have that someone would give up the #1 for? Recall as (*sorry, don’t remember who it was, but you were spot on and I’m not trying to take credit) mentioned recently, when the Warriors traded up for Webber, it cost the #3 (a strong draft class #3 at that) plus 3 future first round picks.
The price for a top pick is steep.
We’ve burned one future #1 on Williams so we don’t have as many to deal with and you can’t deal them in successive years or deal them more than 7 in advance. What exactly can we trade for the #1 overall? I don’t think our garbage and recent #8 and #14 overall picks, no matter how much potential we keep saying they have, gets it done.
by jae on Jan 26, 2009 9:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
first, we’ve burned one future #1 on Williams ONLY if we make the playoffs – otherwise it’s a pair of 2nds (if I’m not mistaken) = yet another reason to tank
second, if we end up with say #4 pick we package that with what the #1-2-3 picking franchise needs (SG? SF? debt relief? whatever) and some futures if necessary to land the right player if he’s there
don’t get me wrong, I get your points re tanking and most are compelling arguments even to me
- and I’m not holding my breath, but every spot up in the lottery is more attractive when teams have players on their draft boards they can target … my take is that the draft is going to be even more important because we are going to have a very difficult time moving these overpaid under-performing vets for any PF that will make us significantly better, that is without letting Monta or Andris go which defeats the purpose … the draft maybe our lone & best “eraser” to this season’s FO F-ups
by hardcore on Jan 26, 2009 9:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We have ‘burned’ the Williams pick in the sense that we do not have it to trade. It isn’t actually conveyed this year in any event (or next year IIRC) and in successive years has different types of protection until, if not conveyed, eventually converts to the second rounders. A number of years exist with a possibility that we won’t have our pick in those years. Any future pick we trade must be conditional since we might have already traded it for Williams in those years. It doesn’t make it impossible to include picks in the years covered by the Williams pick possibilities, but it makes it more complicated as multiple conditions have to be built in. As I figure it, given the rules about not being able to trade successive #1s in the same deal and the rules about how far in advance picks can be traded, with the Williams restrictions, we’ve got less to work with.
How do we trade to take on someone else’s cap baggage (assuming you mean that by “debt relief”) when we will be over the cap and cannot take on salary without also sending out salary? Since we have pretty much zip in the way of contracts coming off the books in the next several years, we’re not a good trading partner for someone hoping to dump contracts. We don’t have the expiring deals to send back.
by jae on Jan 26, 2009 10:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
thank you for reminding me just how badly our FO emasculated our situation
as you were writing I was trying to look up the MW deal, and your memory is quicker than my research skills … regardless I agree that the conditions on any potential trade would be ridiculously complicated and our cap situation makes that look simple in comparison … all of which brings me back to just how important it is to improve our chances of moving up in the lottery by any and all means possible -
short of another Baron-esque trade for a PF, that’s the only way I see us improving markedly
by hardcore on Jan 26, 2009 10:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ill man up,
I said that if Memphis pops the number 1 pick and we pop the 3 pick, I think we might be able to trade Randolph, Buike, and Marco and the #3 and next year’s first for Marko Jaric and the #1.
That was theoretical if it played out like that, and if it does I think Memphis would accept that deal.
We will probably need to be patient and let this season play out.
-warriorsvictim
by warriorsscore110 on Jan 26, 2009 9:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In all honesty...
this team is simply losing games because they are just not very good. They don’t even have to worry about intentionally tanking.
by fuller over bryant on Jan 26, 2009 3:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Since the warriors need to trade away a guard or two before long anyways, they very well could trade up in the draft while finding a way to dump a player or two and maybe even get a decent name back along with a good pick.
by so ill so d0pe on Jan 26, 2009 3:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
dont tank.
the draft has nothing truly amazing like the last draft
anything from 6-14 is about the same
anything from 4-5 is about the same
anything in 1-3…we really have no chance at ever
might as well just play and develop our YOUNG team…win or lose (win for player confidence)
I BELIEVE IN PLAYOFFS!
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawk on Jan 26, 2009 3:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Tanking
That should never be an option if you ask me. Have honor and dignity and play the game the way it’s meant to be played.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jan 26, 2009 3:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
Which brings up the inevitable topic of what Bill Simmons called “fantanking.”
Obviously, no player or coach would ever countenance straight tanking. Even “second-degree tanking,” such as playing your second stringers and sitting your starters due to phantom injuries, would probably make Nellie and team a pariah, and possibly harm us in future dealings with other players and teams.
But as fans, is it kinda sorta OK to root for us to lose? Personally, whether it’s OK or not, I’ve started doing it. I’m not loud about it, ‘cos, as onlxn says, "it’s gross," but I do always fail a vague twinge of disappointment when we win.
The one argument against tanking or fantanking that has been totally discredited is the “it’s bad karma!” one: the most egregious case of fantanking in recent memory was the 06/07 Celtics, whose fans, led by Bill Simmons, were actively pulling for lotto balls and a better shot at Oden or Durant. Yeah, they didn’t quite get their wish, but World Championship #17 was a pretty savory alternative. Lucky tanking bastards.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 26, 2009 3:52 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I disagree
We do not have a former player serving as a GM for an incompetent front office that’s willing to gift a top 5 player in the league for a good player and several busted 1st round picks. That team really deserved to be terrible for years for what they subjected their fans and the rest of the league to.
by Ice Watter In His Veins! on Jan 27, 2009 4:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We do not have a former player serving as a GM for an incompetent front office
Ummm…
Actually, ICIHV, after reading your post a few times, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Or rather, you seem to be saying that the Wolves got reamed in the KG deal, but I don’t see how that relates in any way to what I wrote. Please explain.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 27, 2009 5:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Memphis did the same thing in 07’, same with Miami in 08’.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Jan 28, 2009 3:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm the same way.
Nelly has wet dreams about starting Monta at center.
by StSaints408 on Feb 2, 2009 5:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
id rather intergrate our young guys into the whole game, not just meaningless garbage time
and lose enough for a high draft pick the honerable way
by THIZZ-A-LOT on Jan 26, 2009 3:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
"id rather intergrate our young guys into the whole game, not just meaningless garbage time"
that’s what tanking is.
playing young guys at the expense of veterans so instead of getting 25-30 wins, you only get like 18-23.
by the evil monkey on Jan 26, 2009 6:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hell
no.
First off, we’re the youngest team in the league. Sure Blake Griffin’s good, so was Tyrus Thomas. there is no Greg Oden or Kevin Durant in this draft. no need to waste a season and a draft pic for another young project.
Secondly, We are YOUNG!! We need playing time together! we need chemistry!!! We need our guys to have the next 40 games to play together, and for them to want to play!
Also, we lose our best players if we tank. Do you think veterans like Crawford, Jackson and Maggette want to tank? Do you think Biedrins and Monta, the faces of our franchise, want to watch our team get embarrassed?
negatory.
by bradyk2 on Jan 26, 2009 4:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Tyrus Thomas in college
was half the player Griffin is right now.
by misterjennings on Jan 27, 2009 9:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but with more potential.
My point is, this isn’t a strong draft class, and even if it were, there are no guarantees when you draft a player.
by bradyk2 on Jan 27, 2009 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Technically our season is already in the garbage can.
Griffin is already seen as a sure-fire bet to be at least a solid NBA Starter and has a real good chance to make an All-Star game or two. Tyrus was all about potential coming out of LSU. He also had a great tournament. Griffin has been putting up number for the past year and a half. He led that Oklahoma team to the tournament with a hodge podge group of guards. Now they have the highly touted Willie Warren (who could be a lottery pick himself) and are a top 10 team in the NCAA IMO. Like it or not, Griffin is a top 2 player.
This is a fun topic to debate, but ultimately I think it’s irrelevant. We’re not going to tank. The Warriors always seem to do this. They suck it up for the first half of the season. Then they start playing better in the second half and push us from a high lotto pick to the fringe (8-14). Every F****N year. A part of me screamed inside when we acquired Baron Davis because I was really looking forward to Chris Paul. And to then see that New Orleans drafted him was killer.
Looking at the Warriors roster, and the remaining schedule, we’re not bad (or good) enough to tank. What we can ultimately hope for (if you advocate the tank) is to stay around our current draft slot (5-6). The 5 or 6 spot has a great chance to move up into the Top 3 territory (much like Portland and Seattle did in the 07’ draft).
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Jan 28, 2009 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Great post and and I have to say we
shouldn’t try to tank. There is never any guarantee of getting the 1st pick. Just look at last year. As it is we will be top 7 or 8 so there is always a chance and if not their will be someone like Greg Monrie which wouldn’t be hhalf bad either. So win as many games as possible, you can;t control the ping pong ball anyways!
by dungeness crabdribble on Jan 26, 2009 4:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Monroe
will be a top 3 if he comes out.
by misterjennings on Jan 27, 2009 9:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't tank
we’re actually making progress at this point, once we have BWright and Beli back (JC can stay injured as far as I care) we’ll be a whole new team IMO. With a real PF (sorry, AR ain’t cuttin’ it) and a solid backup PG in Marco, we’ll be far more complete. Why tank if we can use this time to solidify our roster and gain teamwork?
by FishStix on Jan 26, 2009 4:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
And where will this PF come from? Magic Lamp?
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Jan 28, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
tank
but only because I want to see young guys play.
I want to see Crawford, Ellis, Wright, Randolph, and Biedrins
with Magette, Watson Buike and Beli coming off the bench. I also want to see Marcus Williams get a chance to play, we already wasted the draft pick, lets at least see if he can play. He was the top rated PG in the draft when he came out.
"I think people in this state like BOTH teams," proclaims Nick Aliotti, the Ducks' defensive coordinator. "Except for our hard-core fans, I don't think most Duck fans would have been terribly upset to see Oregon State going to the Rose Bowl."
Another reason he needs to go.
by diehardoaklandfan22 on Jan 26, 2009 4:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
actually forget crawford
we’re never going to win as long as he is our starting PG. i say pair him with magette and/or randolph and go after amare/bosh or even tyrus thomas.
"I think people in this state like BOTH teams," proclaims Nick Aliotti, the Ducks' defensive coordinator. "Except for our hard-core fans, I don't think most Duck fans would have been terribly upset to see Oregon State going to the Rose Bowl."
Another reason he needs to go.
by diehardoaklandfan22 on Jan 26, 2009 4:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Last team we had a high draft pick we missed out on Yao and got...
…. MDJ.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jan 26, 2009 4:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
in a roundabout way, it worked really well for the celtics. after tanking, they failed to get oden or durant, BUT did end up trading the #5 for ray allen which paved the way for bring KG there. of course, i can’t think of any occasions where it worked by rewarding the team with the #1 pick (correct me if i’m wrong) and we don’t exactly have the assets to move for a superstar via trade, so we’d just be sitting on the 4 or 5 and some random shaky bet. this isn’t the sort of draft class that hedges your bets if you don’t win the lottery.
not to mention how slimy it makes me feel…
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jan 26, 2009 4:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Far far too much is made of the Celtic “tank”. “Tanking” didn’t really change the Celtics’ draft position. They had a terrible finish to that season, but it is not like they went from a likely #10 to a #5 choice. They were 12 and 29 after 41 games and finished with 24 wins. Their record was no worse in the end of the season (when they are alleged to have ’tanked’) than it was in the first half.
The stretch in the final dozen or so games moved them at most one draft position, though that’s not even clear. Now was the difference between the #5 and #6 pick really the difference between getting Allen and KG there?
by jae on Jan 26, 2009 7:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well
if Milwaukee would of taken Jeff Green instead of Yi if they were at #5 and if Sonics GM Sam Presti weren’t sold on trading Allen for any of the remaining players (next 6 were Yi, Brewer, BW, Noah, Hawes, AC Law…) or if he were sold but could get that player at #8 from the Bobcats along w/ more picks – like a 2nd rounder (Presti seems to love accumulating picks).
either way it’s a never ending argument of “ifs”.
by the evil monkey on Jan 26, 2009 8:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. It’s a long series of ifs. We have no reason to believe that the difference between the #5 and #6 was critical. Since shaving off Allen’s salary seemed to be the key, I am not inclined to believe that the difference was signficant, that the difference between Green and one of the availables was going to hold it up. It’s a real, real stretch to say that ‘tanking’ was a big part of getting Allen and KG, if there’s even any evidence that the Celtics ‘tanked’ and changed positions.
by jae on Jan 26, 2009 9:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the Celtics, even though heavily criticized, had what it took to make the trades work. They had a cost controlled big man who is productive, an expiring contract, cap room, young players on short term contracts, and the 5th pick. No matter if they tanked or not, they had attractive pieces to where they could turn the team around.
Much like the warriors previous to this year. We had Al and Jack on expiring contracts, young players, and a lotto pick.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Jan 28, 2009 3:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also keep in mind that the #5 pick was the Celtics' worst case scenario
If they’d got the #1 or #2 instead, we’d probably be watching PP playing with Jefferson and Oden/Durant right now… who knows what that would translate to. Where would Ray Allen have ended up? Would we have moved Monta/Biedrins for KG? Who knows… when a ping pong ball flaps it’s wings, it can cause an earthquake on the other side of the NBA.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 3, 2009 10:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
i was just pointing out that had all of the ridiculous junk that went along with their tank job not happened, they wouldn’t have kg. the fact that it backfired and DIDN’T give them the 1 or 2 is what made it accidentally successful. they may have grabbed oden or durant, which may be helpful in the long term, but trading kevin garnett for kevin durant or greg oden last last year, certainly would not have made them better. they’d still have a potential playoff team with allen, pierce, and rondo, not to mention jefferson and co around, but not a champion. anyway, you said it before. it’s a long list of ifs. it’s just that those ifs don’t happen if they don’t tank. i’m not condoning tanking, not for this team, not for any team, but if you cross your fingers and get exceptionally lucky, it could work out. i’d just prefer to play real basketball instead.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jan 27, 2009 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
can think of two
02-03 Cavs for LeBron James. Went from a 29 win team in 01-02 to a 17 win team.
the 03-04 Magic got Dwight Howard going from a 42 win playoff team in 02-03 to a 21 win team.
by the evil monkey on Jan 26, 2009 8:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Getting worse doesn’t have to be a result of tanking. Tanking implies deliberately doing things that will inhibit your full potential to win.
The Cavs lost Andre Miller after the 01-02 season. He’s a good point guard, not flashy, but productive and adds to a team’s probability of winning. Not having a real point guard can, it appears, be detrimental to your team’s success.
The Magic aren’t as easy to diagnose, but the 03-04 edition featured many minutes from Juwan Howard, perhaps the most overpaid, over-rated ‘star’ of his day. He’s a big who doesn’t shoot particularly well but shoots enough to look like he can score points. He doesn’t rebound well enough for his position either. That’s a combination that makes your team worse, even if the superficial examination makes it look like he’s not a bad player. He is a bad player. Generally speaking, the more he’s played, the less often his team wins.
by jae on Jan 26, 2009 8:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
just for your information
the cavs didn’t lose miller, they traded him along w/ another vet, Bryant Stith who played 50 g (albeit rather poorly) for 20 yr old Darius Miles and some guy who got cut.
they dumped lamond murray who scored 18 ppg and had 6 rebs and a future second-round draft pick from the Cavs in exchange for centre Michael Stewart and a future first-round draft pick.
there final relevant player, Wesley Person, was traded Grizzlies for Nick Anderson and the draft rights to Matt Barnes on 6/26/02, neither of whom were retained.
this was all done to get LeBron.
the magic started playing bogans, zaza, howard, deshawn stevenson, started playing guys like donnell harvey and reece gaines, had mcgrady sit at the end of the season…
by the evil monkey on Jan 26, 2009 8:45 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
yeah, that seemed very wrong at the time. Obviously going for the home grown star, got the #1 pick, added Lebron. I remember people grumbling they should be penalised for what amounts to breaking unwritten rules. But what can you do? The lottery is designed specifically to try to keep teams from doing that. Otherwise, you just pick according to your record.
by jmaaan on Jan 27, 2009 10:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tanking implies deliberately doing things that will inhibit your full potential to win.
No, proper tanking enhances your ability to win in the future. It’s like saving money now to buy what you want versus spending now on a high interest credit card. The patient discipline wins in the end.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2009 8:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tanking implies doing something that limits your potential to win the games at hand. Being a terrible team is not the same thing as tanking.
by jae on Jan 26, 2009 9:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tanking almost never works.
I agree, but what is the rhyme and reason of grining out our veterans and still losing. Lets play the youngsters and find out how much we got in them, and let them develop a bit. If it costs a few games, so be it.
Too bad our front office is such a debacle, otherwise we might be good someday...
by warriorsscore110 on Jan 26, 2009 7:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Total committal to vets is a mistake. However, tossing 5 guys who are not ready out there is similarly a mistake. It may be important to get some PT to help develop a player, but it’s also important to put the player in a position where, if he does something well, there are rewards for it. A lineup where the other 4 guys are making an abundance of mistakes doesn’t really accomplish this. I’m not a big believer in “veteran leadership” but I am a believer that if you’ve got a lineup where more than half the guys don’t really know what’s going on and are prone to turn the ball over and do something stupid, it’s difficult for anyone else on the court to play a legitimate game and learn. It’s the sort of formula that encourages 5 guys trying to do everything themselves. The myth of the team “growing together” is great. It’s also something that very, very rarely actually happens.
by jae on Jan 26, 2009 7:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To Be Honest...
I’m all for tanking but it is just so hard to get the 1st pick in the draft. If I am not mistaken, only one team in the lottery era with the worst record in the league actually drafted 1st overall and that was Cleveland the year of Lebron.
Additionally, my draftboard may look different than most. I’m hearing that Ricky Rubio is out until next year’s draft so getting the 2nd pick may not be much different than getting the 6th or 7th due to the week draft class and no clear cut picks other than Griffin at number 1.
With that said, I’d be happy with the Warriors in the 6-10 range. If the number 1 pick were to land in the Warriors laps I’d go for Griffen, but after griffen my draft board looks likes this.
1. Blake Griffen.
2. Jeff Teague
3. Brandon Jennings.
4. Greg Monroe/Jrue Holiday
I think the dubs could definitely get one if not all of these players in the 6-10 range therefore I’m not opposed to just letting the young guys play and see what happens.
by JimBarnett2KevinGarnett on Jan 26, 2009 5:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Cleveland getting that 1st pick
Lebron James, who is from a place very near to Cleveland… Hmmmmmmmmmm. I honestly don’t believe that the ping pong balls go on. I mean if it really happens, I think they should broadcast it live for the world to see.
by Golden Boy on Jan 27, 2009 1:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who the hell is Jeff Teague? lol
We Believe
by RunNdGun on Jan 27, 2009 4:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know a George Teague who played for the Dallas Cowboys
He clobbered T.O. when he ran to the Dallas star after scoring the 2nd td of that game.
by Golden Boy on Jan 27, 2009 5:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Classic TO...
I miss that guy. Now he’s just crazy. How long before he starts the “Romo is a [homosexual reference that rhymes with "Romo” omitted]" anti-fan club?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 3, 2009 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s true that we are probably cruising towards that same terrible 8th pick region where we’ve found ourselves so many times. And yes, Blake Griffin is EXACTLY what we need. But I still say no tank. Tanking generally doesn’t work, as jae points out, and I think this particular franchise, at this particular time, needs to prove to its fanbase that it has a pulse.
It’s also worth asking what tanking would entail. The only oft-injured guy we have Maggette; he certainly seems healthy, judging from his awesome January, and his minutes have already been cut. Jack has had a couple injuries but seems to be through them. Guys like Wright and Marco can be brought back slowly, but considering that they’re the young ‘uns, I don’t think that qualifies as tanking.
I’d LOVE to see Jack and Crawford’s minutes cut, but that wouldn’t be tanking so much as sensible coaching. Jack degrades badly when he gets tired; Crawford can play forever, but simply isn’t good enough to deserve to. If those guys got cut back to 30 minutes a game, we’d probably do better. (Frankly, if Crawford got cut back to zero minutes a game, I think we’d improve. But that ain’t happening.)
One possibility nobody’s mentioned: that Nellie is tanking creatively, by playing Maggette at the four and grinding his middling veterans to dust. For all we know, the plan is already working to perfection.
by onlxn on Jan 26, 2009 6:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Nellie is reverse tanking by grinding out his vets, I say lets do some PRO tanking,
meaning we limit Crawford, Jack, and Maggs to 30 mins a game. We give Buike, Morrow, Marco, CJ, BW, and AR some run. And we tell Monta, that he inst going anywhere by resciniding his contract void threat, and ask him to forget his stats for the year and make a consious effort the rest of the season to be a point guard so that he can combine those skills with his explosive scoring ability next season.
That may or may not be tanking, but we develop our youth and whatever happens happens in the game. Plus on the bright side, if we do finish with 25 or less wins AND Crawford is playing 30 or less mins a game, the chance he walks out of his contract are probably increased dramatically.
Too bad our front office is such a debacle, otherwise we might be good someday...
by warriorsscore110 on Jan 26, 2009 7:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
DO NOT TANK
First reason is because I have partial season tickets and can’t bare to see them lose the majority of their games without putting up a fight. This season was already a waste of money, please don’t make it worst than it already is. I don’t think it’s fair to the fans to tank.
Let’s face it-we have never had a dominant 4 and never will. Our roster is fine the way it is, we just need that chemistry that our playoff team had. Blake Griffin would be amazing, but that’s not realistic at all.
by Captain Jack on Jan 26, 2009 7:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Let’s face it-we have never had a dominant 4 and never will.
Your realization is probably true and is the reason the Warriors will not win a championship until that never goes away.
by misterjennings on Jan 27, 2009 9:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Griffin Tonight
In a big conference game against a big-time rival:
26 pts (9-11 fg, 8-13 ft)
19 reb
3 ast
Warriors current lotto position: #6
Chances of us getting Griffin if we stick where we are: 6.3%
Chances of same if we drop three spots: 15.6%
Chances of same if we rise three spots: 1.7%
Again, not advocating tanking, but Ws fans should probably think about what they’re rooting for when they root for us to go on a winning streak.
Let’s go …. hard-fought losses!!!
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 26, 2009 8:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
But
Monta and Jack are still saying we can make the playoffs….
We will probably need to be patient and let this season play out.
-warriorsvictim
by warriorsscore110 on Jan 26, 2009 8:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah well
One can hope Jack believes it enough to want to launch 30 long-range shots a night… ;-P
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 26, 2009 8:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Monta and Jack are still saying we can make the playoffs…
you have any idea what their IQ’s are ?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2009 8:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you have any idea what their IQ’s are ?
did you just tried to insult me? :D
30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ
by Lat We N Trash on Jan 26, 2009 11:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
did you just tried to insult me? :D
If you don’t know then I din’t do a very good job did I?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 27, 2009 10:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you don’t know then I din’t do a very good job did I?
nope
30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ
by Lat We N Trash on Jan 27, 2009 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE!!!
I wouldnt even care if our record was 1-41 right now ILL STILL BELIEVE WE CAN MAKE THE PLAYOFFS
We Believe
by RunNdGun on Jan 27, 2009 4:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
skeptic, you and sleepy crack me up. a lot of funny posts on these boards. gsomers have to have a good sense of humor, I guess, to keep from crying….
by jmaaan on Jan 27, 2009 10:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s go …. hard-fought losses!!!
LGHFL !!
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2009 8:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll try to remember it next game but probably not.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2009 9:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yup
I actually loved that OKC game
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Jan 26, 2009 10:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You liked the Jeff Green shot?
We Believe
by RunNdGun on Jan 27, 2009 4:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It would have stung less for me if Durant made that shot
because Durant is my favorite player.
by Golden Boy on Jan 27, 2009 5:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for sharing.
My favorite pasta shape is spaghetti, fwiw.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 27, 2009 5:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Youre always happy also? We’re learning so much about Golden Boy.
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Jan 27, 2009 8:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Its only 1 game... He might not be that piece we need
We already have Wright and Randolph anyways..
We Believe
by RunNdGun on Jan 27, 2009 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
right. that’s why I’m glad we didn’t try to get Rose with the #1 last year, we already have CJ
by jmaaan on Jan 27, 2009 10:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m glad we didn’t try to get Rose with the #1 last year, we already have CJ
talk about funny!
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 28, 2009 8:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why tank ...
when Don(VITO) Nelson is gonna bench him and just play vets, doesn’t make sense, and plus, tanking is pathetic and is not good basketball.
by AlbinoWhale on Jan 26, 2009 10:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
whatever team the've got this season
is not good basketball already.
Good basketball is winning basketball. If they are not winning, then just lose to have a significantly better shot at a potentially great player.
by misterjennings on Jan 27, 2009 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to tank
I’m one who believes the game should always be played with integrity no matter what.
by Golden Boy on Jan 27, 2009 1:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Nellie can play youngsters more
and they can still play with integrity.
Let them develop in real game situations. If it costs us some games and we end up getting a higher pick as a result of their development, then it’s a win-win.
People who say that the youngsters can develop just in practice and don’t need to play in real game situations obviously have never played any kind of organized ball before. IMO, there is no substitute for learning in a real environment when there is risk and reward.
by misterjennings on Jan 27, 2009 9:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
on practice
i agree with you that you can’t learn everything about the game without playing in game situations, but i will say that there are some things that can be learned in practice even better that don’t require you to hurt the team by playing. things like learning offensive and defensive sets or developing a jump shot come to mind. you can keep running the same plays in practice until they get it, you can require them to shoot over and over again (although many guys do not see radically improved shooting results throughout their careers, that was just an example). these are the things that practice is for. if the things the rooks are doing poorly are the same things that should be worked on in practice, you practice them and make them earn pt. that seems like a good risk reward to me. practice hard, do what you’re supposed to, get rewarded with playing time. if they have those things down well enough and you want to see if they can play, find out. put them in the game. but there’s no reason to play someone before they understand the basics.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jan 27, 2009 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
nah, i played organized ball up to my 2nd yr in college. you don’t “develop” in games… you get experience in games.
experience in understanding plays that are being run against you, experience against the speed of the actual game, experience against players, experience in how to handle situations, etc etc etc.
but you “develop” in practice. you don’t work on your brand new hook shot in games… you hone it in practice until it becomes a move you have confidence in in games. practice is where you improve your shot (for instance, Matt Barnes), work on your defense (Marco Belinelli), work on your position defense and your handwork in the post (Andris), work on rotations, sets, etc etc etc… in each case, it’s all about repetitions and turning thought into instinct.
i can’t believe you’ve played organized ball if you don’t realize something as simple as this.
by the evil monkey on Jan 27, 2009 2:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
my point exactly was the experience from playing in real games
forgive me for not stating that which led you to believe i was talking about developing a jumpshot or learning how to dribble during the course of a game.
I apologize for posting in a matter of seconds which causes me to leave out words that I figure will be included in the gist of things.
I think it’s absolutely wonderful that you’ve played organized hoops up to your 2nd year of college.
by misterjennings on Jan 27, 2009 10:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah im so hurt by your words
they cut like a ginsu knife.
get over yourself.
by misterjennings on Jan 28, 2009 6:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to tank
We don’t absolutely need a high draft pick. And the fact of the matter is, we’re probably a .500 team right now, at best. With our current record, that’s still a mid lottery pick. So we don’t really need to tank.
And there’s the fact that I enjoy watching warriors basketball… as long as they’re trying to win. Tanking is dirty, frowned upon, and no fun. Just go out and play ball, and we’ll deal with the offseason when we get there.
by Run Dubz on Jan 27, 2009 9:20 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
We don’t absolutely need a high draft pick. And the fact of the matter is, we’re probably a .500 team right now
Those are two contradictory statements. If were only a .500 team we definitely need a high draft pick, and another, and another
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 27, 2009 10:09 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
not obligatory
because if youngest team in league can be a .500 team -then pretty possible it can be better and better year after year
30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ
by Lat We N Trash on Jan 27, 2009 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True, but
the Warriors arent winning game’s because of the youngsters, instead they are grinding out Jack, Craw, and Maggs.
We will probably need to be patient and let this season play out.
-warriorsvictim
by warriorsscore110 on Jan 27, 2009 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To Tank or not to tank
I’m sure somebody said it already: This team is not good enough to tank.
For most of the season, that is. We play like we do until we’re officially out of the race or at least the last 10-15 games of the season, whichever one’s longer.
During that last part, we rest the vets and play all the youngster as much as we can.
by lightz0ut on Jan 27, 2009 1:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
No tank you.
1. We wait all summer just so we can get all the way to Novemeber to watch the Warriors. So, we’re about at February, so I would like to enjoy it a little. Kind of the point of being a fan is enjoying watching the team. No fun in tanking.
2. I want to watch them play well under Nelson so I don’t have to listen to people bag on him all off-season. There is a method to his madness and it results and a really fun style of basketball to watch. He wants to see what he’s got and how much he can push them to expand their games and make “basketball” plays. I’m not going to argue the merits of Nelson here.
3. Losing is the absolute opposite of what a team is supposed to do. It defeats the purpose of playing the game. The whole reason for the lottery system is to prevent just this. The purpose of the draft is for the worst teams to get the highest pick so teams won’t suck so badly that they continue miss the playoffs for 13 out of 14 years. . .
4. It would Jim Barnett sad and nobody makes my baby sad.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jan 27, 2009 3:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Tanking makes no sense whatsoever.
Why go into an off-season after tanking and hope we get the #1 pick? What if we don’t? That leaves all the coaches, players, and fans STILL wondering if this current and healthy team can coexist, and perform at a high-level next season. Puts us right back where we started this season.
Why can’t we play hard, win games, and end the season on a positive note? This way we can see what we have and can do with the current roster, make the necessary moves, and beat the JAZZ. CUZ I HATE THE JAZZ!!!!!!!!
by nuttinbutnet on Jan 27, 2009 4:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Why can’t we play hard, win games, and end the season on a positive note?
Like in the Musselman years? or in ‘04-’05? The problem is it’ll give Cohan & Rowell the idea that the status quo is acceptable.
Tanking makes no sense whatsoever.
Tanking makes sense in that you’re giving your young players game experience against good competition which doesn’t always exist at the end of the season when other teams who are mathematically eliminated are also tanking and the best teams are resting their veterans for the playoffs.
by the evil monkey on Jan 27, 2009 10:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dont tank
Monta Ellis = 40th pick and look at him… or if Im wrong correct me
We Believe
by RunNdGun on Jan 27, 2009 4:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely
Even if we get the #1 overall pick, it wouldn’t guarantee he would turn out to be a good player. I think it all falls on not only the skills of the player, but can that player fit into his team’s scheme.
by Golden Boy on Jan 27, 2009 5:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I really like pictures of Calvin peeing on things. A Dodge truck, immigration, the Lakers.
by jmaaan on Jan 27, 2009 10:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
or if Im wrong correct me
Well , he’s got us in almost last place so “look at him?” Is it good?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 27, 2009 9:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tank but don't get Griffin
I will always be your fan JRich. Good Luck
by chili01 on Jan 27, 2009 6:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Get Griffin but don't tank
;-)
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 27, 2009 6:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Griffin is EXACTLY what the Warriors could use. Too bad we have no shot at him without gutting our team
by Pearlsofwisdom on Jan 27, 2009 7:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Hey guys...
Thanks for all the interesting comments. It looks like a pretty big majority wants to see this team make a push and try to find some late season success to build on. I can’t argue with that. As much as I like to dream about getting a franchise player in the draft, I try not to lose sight of the reason I love basketball. It’s fun to watch. Tanking is not fun to watch. Simple really.
I just hope that the team plays well and shows promise and in the process doesn’t win too many games.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jan 27, 2009 10:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I hope the W’s trade for a legit 4, add a backup 5 in the draft, sign a pass first backup 1 in the offseason, develop their youngsters, and get some front office stability.
by jmaaan on Jan 27, 2009 11:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
LOSE WITH AN ADDITUDE
we will try to win , it doesnt matter if we lose.
doesnt matter what pick we get, we just need a veteran from somewhere, no more projects.
We Believe
by RunNdGun on Jan 27, 2009 11:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Hilarious
I find this debate pretty funny. This team does not need to intentionally tank…they are losing anyway, and have we written off B Wright? It wasn’t too long ago that people said this guy was the PF of the future for us, not to mention we gave up J Rich for him
by mbuddtha on Jan 28, 2009 9:50 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
with Monta back we are good enough to keep from having a bottom 7 record
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Jan 28, 2009 6:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the difference is with guys like Maggette, Turiaf & Andris getting heavy minutes we probably end up squeaking out a few more wins than we do if we play guys like Beli, Randolph & Wright heavy minutes.
by the evil monkey on Jan 28, 2009 10:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I dont want the Todd Fuller/O Bryants of the draft at 13 or where ever we land
tank and get a top 5 pick.
by bushido on Jan 28, 2009 10:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
just play the young guys. Don;t have to lose on purpose but start the young guys
by bushido on Jan 28, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
what are the chances that we don't tank but get lucky and get the #1 pick like the bulls did
by GSW9 on Jan 28, 2009 12:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
We have a better chance of making the playoffs this year :)
by nuttinbutnet on Jan 28, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Technically not true.
But with our Warriors luck the past 15 years, yea…might as well be.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Jan 28, 2009 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
fukc tanking
Ellis to the RIM!
Monta for the win?! YES!
by XIAOXIAO on Jan 28, 2009 1:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
They did a great job of looking like they were just crappy
against the Mavericks instead of looking like they were actually trying to lose. If they can keep up the act we’ve got a high lottery pick all sewn up.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 28, 2009 10:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
nellie's a loser
and even that bald-headed, freaky-looking ex-coach van gundy had it right on last night’s game—“only playing small players is fools’ gold” (this was after the play-by-play guy had ticked off how skinny all the w’s are). if only he had added “nellie’s a loser for coaching this style year after year”.
they must be reading my comments.
by nelliehater on Jan 29, 2009 8:40 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Fool's Gold...en State Warriors!
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 29, 2009 7:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
soooo
youre saying you agree with JVG? Because JVG is pretty much an idiot on air most of the time. (example: “Andrew Bynum should be an Eastern Conference All Star, Danny Granger should not be”)
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Jan 29, 2009 9:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
nellie's a loser
and you’re a moron. gundy was a darn good coach, and the fact that he meant to say western conference for bynum is hardly an idiotic comment. and he feels, like many people, that unless you are a on a winning team, you must be a superstar to make the all-star team, so that leaves off granger.
next!
by nelliehater on Feb 2, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
nelliehater is a loser
You should know what youre talking about before hurling insults. Actually JVG did NOT mean to say western conference for Bynum. He said Bynum should be on the East team because he is from New Jersey. Danny Granger IS a superstar……if you dont think so put his numbers up against anyone’s and get back to me. The only difference between him and half the guys who are locks for the all-star game every year is experience and the fact that he doesnt have ESPN drooling over him and broadcasting half his games on national tv yet.
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Feb 2, 2009 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tanking hardly ever works
Most teams that tank don’t even end up getting the #1 pick. And those arguing that the Warrior’s decision not to tank has hurt their draft status in the past are wrong. The stupid draft picks by management have hurt the team, not the position they were picking in. We had chances to draft Paul Milsap and Danny Granger, but passed on both of them.
Ballin' like its '88!
by manutefor3 on Jan 29, 2009 2:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Not to tank
You want the #1 pick? You got it. Andrea BargNANI.
by gswlego on Jan 29, 2009 6:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Lebron jAMES
Dwight hoWARD
Tim duNCAN
Shaquille oNEAL
Magic jOHNSON
Um, yes, I want the #1 pick.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 29, 2009 7:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Overdone.
None of them rhymes with Poonani and he’s cheap to get. Not to mention he’s good in Nelly’s “sYsTeM.”
by gswlego on Jan 29, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah yes, the recurring myth that Nellie has a ‘system’ is one where he seeks out pathetic PFs who can’t rebound to save their lives, that he actually desires incredibly one-dimensional spot up three point shooters with more or less nothing else to offer. Let’s see, he’s done it before with…um…um…um…
Nellie’s ‘system’ if one can call it that, is to try to maximize the pieces he has, largely by using the more versatile parts. One dimensional shooters haven’t really been part of that system.
by jae on Jan 29, 2009 10:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
so far
Nelly’s "sYsTeM" includes guys under 6’8 running the show. Is that what you call versatility? If I were the defensive coach, I’d turn BargNANI into Luc Longley. AND um.. um.. um.. he was the #1 pick.
by gswlego on Jan 29, 2009 11:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Webber
Dirk McGurk
Yeah… those guys are under 6’8"
Nellie may not be the greatest coach ever, but don’t bash him for utilizing the talent available. We have one player over 6’8" who could even remotely be considered a good player. The Warriors, through crappy drafting and crappy trades, have a roster that includes only guys under 6’8" who’re capable of running the show. That’s not Nellie’s fault and look around at the rest of the NBA. Not many of them have multiple great “over 6’8”ers", and that’s because they’re hard to come by.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 3, 2009 10:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
None of them rhymes with Poonani
Ah, that’s what that was all about. Hardy har.
Unfortunately, “Bargnani” doesn’t rhyme with “poonani,” either. Pun fail! :-(
On the other hand, if the famous “pool party” stories are to be believed, Magic certainly got his share…
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 30, 2009 4:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"Bargnani" doesn’t rhyme with "poonani,"
Yet another good sig line. This place is the gift that keeps on giving.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jan 30, 2009 4:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"This place is the gift that keeps on giving"
And the hits just keep on coming.
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Jan 30, 2009 9:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Kwame Brown
Micheal Olowokandi
Joe Smith
Glenn Robinson
…
Um, yes, I don’t really want the #1 pick. Barg-Na-Ni was the #1 pick.
by gswlego on Jan 29, 2009 11:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Er.
A young Joe Smith would actually be pretty welcome on this team, so long as we hadn’t picked him ahead of KG and ’Sheed.
And the larger point, which I’m pretty sure you’re not too obtuse enough to understand, is that your chances of getting a franchise player — the single most important thing we’ve been missing all these years — are better at #1 than at any other draft position. Obviously there are no guarantees, when drafting #1, or anywhere else in life. Are you saying that on lotto night you won’t be rooting for our ping pong ball to pop up?
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 30, 2009 4:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Hell, an OLD Joe Smith would be a very welcome on this team despite the fact that we drafted him ahead of KG and Sheed. But yea, is it really that hard to understand that the #1 pick is better than the #10 pick? Always.
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Jan 30, 2009 9:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yup
see Sleepy’s comment AND would you really be upset if Antrea Bargnani was on our team right now? I sure wouldnt.
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Jan 29, 2009 9:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Kinda?
I admit that it’s nice to see Bargnani produce (at least that’s what Toronto fans are saying, maybe not according to JAE, LOL).
But if you’re picking #1 overall, you’d like that player to be the cornerstone of your offense. But at least he shows he can be a productive NBA player.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Jan 29, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Productive shooter? Yes. Player? Not really. He’s still among the more gigantic rebounding liabilities the league has ever seen. If his shooting cools (and hitting nearly 50% from behind the arc isn’t something that tends to last) he goes back to being complete and total liability as opposed to “intriguing scorer who looks superficially impressive because fans overvalue raw point total, but a player who still doesn’t do that much for his team”.
http://www.82games.com/0809/0809TOR.HTM as of 1/29 has him negative on court, but positive (posiTIVE?) off. Appears that not only does he suck, but he brings everyone else down with him.
by jae on Jan 29, 2009 10:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nani's defensive and rebounding deficiencies
would be even more apparent on the Warriors because he’s got Bosh and Jermaine to lean on right now
by misterjennings on Jan 30, 2009 6:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bargnani ? Bargnani ?? Bargnani ! Bargnani Bargnani
Bargnani Bargnani , The more you say it the less it sounds like a player and the more it sounds like an italian sports car, sorta like a bellinili..
Every have one of those players who you never knew existed? A guy you just don’t give a crap about one way of the other? Who you couldn’t place if he was in a line up of all himselves ? A Bargnani in other words?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 29, 2009 10:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately,
we’re always in the middle of the line.
by gswlego on Jan 29, 2009 11:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
even if we get the #1 pick
do you think we will use it well? The chances are very low considering our current front office situation and recent history.
Dont tank and dont stress about the draft at the fan level.
Let’s just enjoy the games as much as possible and encourage Nellie to play the most entertaining group of guys possible. Maybe we see 3 bad defensive plays in a row, then one spectacular dunk by Randolph. Fine by me at this point in the season.
In between the good and the bad maybe our young guys will pick up some knowledge and learn how to work with Monta
by warriorsvictim on Jan 30, 2009 12:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
#1 pick...
I don’t think you can really mess it up this year. I don’t know if he’ll end up being a great pro or not but it’s pretty clear that Griffin is the only choice at #1 unless things change dramatically. Combine that with the fact that he plays a position of need for us… well if they screw this one up I’ll be surprised (not that they’ll likely even have the chance to).
Besides that I basically agree with you.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jan 30, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I think you can mess up here. Taking the obvious pick, especially at a position of need makes sense, but what if that player doesn’t develop or becomes injury prone? I think Portland may have been OK with Clyde and Jordan playing together in retrospect. Griffen has some of the same concerns about him. There are questions about his knees and his ability to transition his offense in the pro’s because he will no longer have the huge physical advantage.
He’s got a massive size and strength advantage in college, he won’t likely have that in the NBA, so he’ll need polished post moves and a decent face up game to produce offensively. He doesn’t really seem to have that right now. Add that to 60% free throw shooting and he’ll have to continue to improve quite a bit offensively to be more than a good role player. And while he has the body to be a good defender, there are questions about his ability to develop in this area.
by jmaaan on Jan 30, 2009 5:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who would you take?
I’m not a big college basketball guy so I can’t say more than what I’ve read and from what I’ve seen he seems to be the consensus #1. I totally get that there is no such thing as a sure bet in the draft but given the options don’t you think he is clearly the guy at #1?
If he is really the consensus first pick and something goes wrong I don’t see that as management “screwing up”. That’s just crappy luck.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jan 30, 2009 6:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, I think Griffin is a guy who is a 14/10 guy in the league. The biggest factor, though, will be how he develops. I think it’s going to be a very big transition for him, bigger than for a lot of players. And it might take a couple of years. But he’s a ways away, offensively, from what I’ve seen.
But I agree, who else do you take? The thing is, Griffin has perfect size and athleticism and if he develops the offensive game, he’s an all star. And if you pass him up, that will stick with you as a GM for ever. So you’re almost forced to take him. But in terms of other options, I think it depends upon who declares.
I watched tape of BJ Mullens at the McDonalds All American before this year and I was amazed at his skill and athleticism. He hasn’t been able to put it together on the floor yet, but when he does watch out. He should be a real good player, and he’s a 5. Some mocks have him coming out this year and he’d be a good pick, IMO. But if I’m him I’d stay in.
I think Thabeet is more of a “sure thing” than Mullens. He’ll be a very good defender and would excel for a team who wants to stress defense and has perimeter scoring. But in the end, I think Harden is going to be an excellent player. I think he’s a Brandon Roy type of player, with his team game and ability to be the go to guy.
I think this draft is pretty good with wing players and, depending upon who declares, centers. Next year appears to be the year of the point guard…….
by jmaaan on Jan 31, 2009 10:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Great post by someone who actually watches College ball.
My thoughts on Griffin is that he is definitely reliant upon his physicality. I think that even in the NBA, he still possesses elite athleticism for his size. I think he compares best with Amare Stoudamire at a younger stage of his career before the knee surgery.
Another thing is that Griffin is also heavily reliant on his guards to set him up. When he’s faced with isolation situation he’s not as effective cause his post moves aren’t that great. ANd on this Warrior team, a team with shooting guards not passing guards, can Griffin’s talents be maximized if he never gets the ball?
I really, really don’t like BJ Mullins. I think he’s the next POB. A talented bigman, with no passion. Thabeet might be a productive NBA player. But on offense it’s like you’re playing 4-on-5 because he’s so limited. He may make up for that with his defense, but he’s still so raw and has gotten outplayed by younger guys like Greg Monroe.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Feb 1, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mullens has huge bust potential. I’m not sure if he’s a POB, though, because I didn’t think POB had any moves besides the little hook. Mullens can actually hit a fadeaway jumper off the glass. Really impressive. Of course that’s with no one guarding him. Which is huge! He might not be able to put it together, but he’s intriguing at the least. I think the downside might be more like Swift. Swift is very skilled but can’t seem to put it together, although the injuries certainly don’t help. Mihm is a fairly skilled big who can’t seem to play well enough to stay on the court.
I compare him to those guys because he has good size, athleticism, and skill. But also because although he looks passive, the reports I’ve read say he’s not lazy and wants to work to improve. So he has that downside, IMO, and if this year is any indication, he’s got a decent shot at hitting that downside.
On the other hand, how often do you find legit 7’ 260lb guys who are not only athletic but skilled? If you’re picking 6 or 7 and have a chance to land a future all star center, in this draft, it’s hard to pass up.
by jmaaan on Feb 3, 2009 9:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree also with Thabeet, that he’s never going to be much on offense. However, I think most teams don’t need that. In fact, many teams already don’t have much scoring from the 5. I think the Dikembe comparisons may be wishful thinking, he’s not as quick or athletic IMO. But he doesn’t need to be that good to be a stud.
Could you imagine him on a team that stresses defense and gets scoring from their wings? Wow. Look at Wallace, Chandler. I think good defensive centers can be a key ingredient on a very good team, even without scoring. So I think he can be a key piece for a team that eventually could contend. Again, if you can add that in the top 5 of any draft, I think you’ve made a good pick.
by jmaaan on Feb 3, 2009 9:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also....If we tank
we are tankning Monta and Biedrins careers because no one will ever really learn how to play with them at the same time. And if that happens, then what value are they as franchise players?
by warriorsvictim on Jan 30, 2009 12:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
If we tank we are tankning Monta and Biedrins careers because no one will ever really learn how to play with them at the same time
I don’t think you understand the fine points of tanking? We could still play them in whatever combination we want for 30 or 40 minutes, the only thing that matters is to let the other team win in the end, if they know we are superior but let them win then all the better.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 30, 2009 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Finish the season being Possitive
and an Okay record(more than 30 at least)
And see what lottery number we get..
by AlbinoWhale on Jan 31, 2009 12:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
At this point, that's looking like more of a stretch
We’d have to go 15-18 for the rest of the season. That’s gonna be tough. We’re going to be in the #5-#8 range, and we’ll likely be at 26-29 wins, I’d say. Go Thunder! Go Grizz! Go Kings!
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Feb 3, 2009 10:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Kings are
losing a lot. Thunder, I don’t think they need anymore lottery picks, but they’ll get one between 1-10
Grizz, Higher pick than us.
Warriors, If they’re lucky AND pick the RIGHT pick that will fit perfectly and will be coached well by Nellie, then I’d say Try to win most of the games postively, Win at home and lose on the road to have a bad record and good lottery pick.
by AlbinoWhale on Feb 3, 2009 3:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And see what lottery number we get..
That’s the chicken way to do it. Proactive losing is the brave way. If we make getting the number one pick our mission we’ll be in win -win situation, more lottery balls if we win or more W in the win column if we lose.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 31, 2009 3:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Griffin update 2
(As long as this thread is open…)
v. ISU 1/31
23 points (10-13 fg, 3-7 ft)
15 rebounds
3 ast
Sooners win again. Second straight big conf game in which he’s gone off for huge numbers (24.5 pts 17 reb avg) while shooting better than 75% from the floor. Dude seems to totally dominate top level NCAA games while putting up only 10-15 shots a night. Other than the iffy ft pct and vague injury concerns (and the fact that we probably won’t get him) is there anything at all to worry about w/ this kid?
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 31, 2009 5:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
is there anything at all to worry about w/ this kid?
Having to watch our motley collection of front court players face him 3 or 4 times a year?
by jae on Jan 31, 2009 5:09 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
+1
If he’s dominating top level NCAA competition like that with not all that impressive of a squad around him, imagine what he’ll do to the Wright/Randolph/Kurz/Maggette/Jackson revolving PF door when he’s Kevin Durant’s sidekick. Westbrook, Durant, Griffin….. I’m already jealous of Thunder fans.
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Jan 31, 2009 9:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
. I’m already jealous of Thunder fans
Me too, I’m gonna move to oklahoma, where the hell is it? I’ve been up and down the coast and can’t recall seeing it.?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 31, 2009 9:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m gonna move to oklahoma, where the hell is it?
I dunno, the only thing I remember about it from school is that they have some giant bowl of dust there or something.
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Jan 31, 2009 9:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
they have some giant bowl of dust there
I’d greatly prefer pasta
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 31, 2009 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
“Oklahoma” is apparently in this previously uncharted region know as the “midwest”. I read something about it a few years ago.
by jae on Feb 1, 2009 5:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
previously uncharted region know as the "midwest".
I’ve seen that on maps but I thought it was a joke? Once you get 25 miles from the coast the air feels impossible to live in so I always turn back. I guess there a braver men than I ?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 1, 2009 6:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
we aren't braver
just more foolish. i sometimes need to use a space heater to melt ice from my window. that’s not bravery, that’s making a poor choice of cities.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Feb 2, 2009 10:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
?????
the Thunder are actually 4th from the bottom.
by the evil monkey on Feb 1, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is Griffin really that good?
To be honest I haven’t seen him play more than 1 or 2 games (I find college basketball pretty unbearable to watch these days), but is Blake Griffin really that impressive? He seems like your standard combo of modest center skills in a power forward’s body. Yeah he’s athletic, and I could see him developing into a really good NBA defender with average or subpar offensive skills (there are far worse fates). Maybe it’s the resemblance to Kris Humphries that’s bothering me, but he seems like he’s going to have a rude awakening waiting for him in the NBA.
by pmstewar on Jan 31, 2009 7:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think he is gonna be THAT good. I’ve only seen parts of a handful of his games but his offensive game already seems better now than it was when the season began. He isnt putting up Durant/Beasley offensive numbers and his offensive game probably isnt as well developed as theirs were, but he also gets a lot fewer touches. In a way I think his numbers might be more impressive than the ones those guys were putting up when they had the ball in their hands nearly every time down the floor.
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Jan 31, 2009 9:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He is no where close to Durant/Beasley skill level wise. I think the fact that there’s debate about what type of player he’s going to be, as the consensus #1, says a lot. He’s got a long way to go, IMO. Yes, he has the ability to get there and be awesome, but you’re relying on a guy developing a back to basket game. That’s a lot to count on for a #1 pick. I think he could be very, very good, but it’s not going to be next year. He’s not the biggest, fastest, strongest in the NBA. He’ll have a tough time transitioning. See Greg Oden, who has the benefit of being a center.
by jmaaan on Jan 31, 2009 10:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well, in terms of skill Griffin is far more advanced than Oden was in college. I dont really know what “debate about what type of player he’s going to be” youre talking about. Unless youre just talking about how YOU are debating it. Every analyst I’ve seen and heard says he’s about as cant-miss as they come. I think theres less debate about what kind of a pro he’ll be than there was about Durant. His ceiling might be lower than Durant’s but I’d say his floor is higher than Durant’s was before he came out.
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Feb 1, 2009 6:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i agree here too.
His ceiling certainly isn’t higher than Durant’s imo. But he’s a legit bigman with size that is adequate for the modern day NBA 4. He’s also got great, great athleticism that should give him an advantage. He also rebounds the ball which is definitely a need on every team. The saying goes that a good NBA player needs to be good at atleast 2 things. For Griffin: Rebounding? Check. Finishing around the hoop? Check. Now to be an elite PF, he’s going to have to extend his range on his jumpshot to at least 18 feet. This will open up lanes for him on the drive like it does for Amare. He also seems like he could be a beast on the pick-and-roll, which is a staple on every team.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Feb 1, 2009 1:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
apples and oranges? Durant seems more like a very tall SG while Griffin is a legit PF in both size and style …
by hardcore on Feb 1, 2009 8:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Durant’s time at SG last year and early this year indicated that he wasn’t a very tall SG.
by jae on Feb 1, 2009 10:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t have time right now to find more examples, but this is one I’ve had on my desktop. It’s a pretty complete assessment. Of course I may just like this site because they’ve listed John Bryant of SCU to their all underrated team……
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=476
by jmaaan on Feb 2, 2009 5:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
too early for this but what the hell ...
We need to tank, it’s really not that complicated. Sometimes we over analyze, this isn’t one of them.
We aren’t likely to unload the crapcontracts for a quality PF, we have little to offer of value. To make SURE we don’t give up a #1 for Marcus the Invisible Man we need to miss the playoffs – not going to be difficult to do that. But to actually improve we need a high pick, and we need to do everything possible in that effort. We could then parlay that pick in a trade or just take the BPA, either way we need to put ourselves in position to grab the highest pick possible.
So, screw finishing positive and all the other platitudes. At worst, we need the BEST player out of the following, and currently our record would only get us to 5 assuming the ping-pong balls don’t bounce like footballs.
Blake Griffin PF/C, 19, 6’10", 239 lbs.
We only get the Sooner Sophomore if we are in the #1 slot.
James Harden SG, 19, 6’5", 218 lbs.
Another Sophomore from the PAC 10 – do we dare take BPA with our glut? If we get the #2 pick, that would be a trade-able spot to benefit from.
Greg Monroe PF/C, 18, 6’10", 226 lbs.
Gotta wonder if he’ll leave Georgetown as a Freshman – reducing the magic no. to 4.
Jrue Holiday PG/SG; 18, 6’4", 200 lbs.
PG? Combo Guard? another Freshman – we might be able to trade #3-4 for quality.
Jordan Hill PF, 21, 6’10", 235 lbs.
Arizona has been an up-tempo program and he might fit in well and be ready as a Junior to actually play some limited minutes. He’s got more heft than our incumbents already.
== below #5 trade value goes down ===
Jeff Teague PG/SG, 20, 6’2", 180 lbs.
Sophomore from Wake Forest, another combo guard
Hasheem Thabeet C, 21, 7’3", 260 lbs.
UConn Junior would be a potential back up to Andris, allowing us to move Turiaf to PF – we’d be bigger but not sure if we’d be any better.
Earl Clark SF/PF, 21, 6’9", 200 lbs.
Junior Fwd from Louisville – didn’t we just give one of these tweener fwds away to NY?
Brandon Jennings PG, 19, 6’1", 170 lbs.
Lottomatica Roma, International – is he enough of an upgrade and would he play soon enough to help us ???
== below that, it won't matter much =====
tank, it’s not that complicated
by hardcore on Feb 1, 2009 11:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Isnt Earl Clark a defensive specialist? I know he’s a combo forward but from the one game I saw Louisville play and from everything I’ve heard about him, he’s seems much more in the J-Smoove mold than Al Harrington-esque. I wouldnt mind Thabeet simply because he gives he improve the interior D and rebounding. Turiaf could then be a trade-able asset as he isnt really overpriced and lots of win-now type teams could use a piece like him. But mostly I agree, I like a lot of the guys in the draft, but Griffin is the only one I’m really sold on as being able to come in and really help this team.
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Feb 1, 2009 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Earl Clark’s upside is Josh Smith. But he’s much more out of position in the NBA like Julian Wright is or Thaddeus Young is. We have so many young forwards on this team that if its not Griffin, Monroe or even Jordan Hill, it’s not worth it to use that pick on another forward.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Feb 1, 2009 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yea I agree, I was just saying he’s not like Harrington.
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Feb 1, 2009 2:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
if we are discussing Earl Clark as the draft nears, we’re in for another baker’s dozen drought years
by hardcore on Feb 1, 2009 8:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d love a point guard, but Brandon Jennings is so small it worries me. Seems like he could be a decent starter and a good back up, but it’s hard in the NBA when you’re 160. Especially if we’re going to keep Monta. But depending upon who comes out and where we pick, I would be OK with a real back up point guard. Seems like next year is going to be the year of the point guard, I wouldn’t mind seeing us try to position ourselves by trading for another draft pick next year.
In terms of not getting a top 5 pick, I like Thabeet. He gives us something we sorely need, a BIG center to back up Andris. And one with athleticism, which is a must for our team. If he ends up going to a defensive minded team with good perimeter scoring, he’s a potential all star.
by jmaaan on Feb 2, 2009 9:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
why do you think Thabeet wont go top 5? I could see him going 2 overall depending on the team.
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Feb 2, 2009 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, he could easily go top 2. However currently some mocks have him out of the top 5. Draftexpress, for instance currently has him at #7. I wonder if his lack of offensive ability will deter teams. He’s essentially a 8 point 12 rebound guy and teams might just try to get a player with bigger time scoring potential and/or they may have other needs. But as the draft gets closer, he may rise considerably.
by jmaaan on Feb 2, 2009 4:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have to disagree here.
Thabeet’s skillset can definitely be used on this team. But he’s more of a role player if i ever seen one. I see Tyson Chandler in him. His offense has come around since his freshman season, but it’s still nothing to be relied upon. We already have a lot of limited Bigmen (Andris included), what we need is an offensively skilled bigman who (at the least) will not hurt us on the defensive end. If the choice was to draft Thabeet 6th overall, or trade up (using Randolph) for Monroe, it’s a no brainer to me. Monroe all day, every day. His bust potential is definitely higher, but what Monroe brings to a team is much more valuable to this Warrior team than what Thabeet would bring.
To me, Thabeet should go no higher than 10.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Feb 2, 2009 11:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, no higher than 10? I don’t see that at all. If he drops out of the top 5 it’s a mistake, IMO.
On our team, yes I think he’s a role player. Backing up Andris and providing defense and rebounding off the bench. More important, he can actually match up against the big 5’s we see, like Bynum and Oden. We are desperate for that piece. But his true potential is much bigger on another team.
I think he’s a starter for a championship contender. Until I see otherwise, I still think that teams that can play D are the teams that really contend for the title. You do not need scoring from your 5, I think Wallace has proven that. Mutumbo has proven it. And yes, even Chandler. But you do need solid interior defense and he has the ability to be one of the better defenders.
With a focus on defense, wing scoring, a 4 who can score, and some depth, you have the makings of a good playoff team. I’m not sure Washington plays good enough team D, but he’d be a good fit on that team, with Jamison and Butler. Sacramento with Thompson and Martin. OKC with Durant, Green, and Westbrook. I think he’d be a key piece for a lot of teams.
by jmaaan on Feb 3, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just think that it’s unlikely that Thabeet will ever turn into an effective offensive weapon in the NBA. He’s going to need a scoring 4 for his potential to be maximized on the court. So yes, on this team, if we were picking 6 or so, would be a waste of such a high draft pick on a guy who most likely won’t receive minutes from Nellie. I wouldn’t argue with the pick if he was taken, say where Robin Lopez was taken last year. I think he’s a more athletic Lopez, but probably will be able to produce what Tyson Chandler produces as his max.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Feb 4, 2009 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
why do you think he’s that much worse than Oden was when he came out?
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Feb 4, 2009 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oden was younger and produced better in his lone year of college. In fact Oden’s one year at Ohio State is better than any of Thabeet’s years at UConn.
Historically, Thabeet has never been a “great” rebounder. A year ago he only average 9.8 per 40 minutes/pace adjusted. This year it’s better at 13 per 40/pace adjusted. We’ll see as i’ve heard that he needs to condition his lower body so he doesn’t get pushed out of the paint so easily.
Oden also had that right wrist injury so his stats could slightly be supressed because of that.
There is/was question about the intensity in which Thabeet plays at. He could just be so good that it looks like he’s coasting through games, but i don’t think so. He also can get dominated on at times by lesser players (although people may not think Monroe is a lesser player).
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Feb 4, 2009 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also Oden seemed to be a more fluid athlete and have a pretty good feel for the game. His hands and feet are fine for a player his size. So I think the assumption was that he’d be able to develop the offensive game. Thabeet doesn’t have the same hands, fluidity, or feel. So I don’t think his offensive projection coming out of college is as high. Of course, projections aren’t always accurate, so far Dalembert has proven to be a better offensive player than Oden. Better player period. But Oden is still very young.
by jmaaan on Feb 5, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And also in almost all the rookie chats over on ESPN and such, they say that Oden is still at only about 60-70% of his athleticism back. Scary.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Feb 5, 2009 12:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re assessment of his rebounding is right on, too. He’ll need to be able to be an 8 point 12 board guy who defends the rim to be really valuable. And a lot will depend upon how he shows at workouts. But if he looks like that type of player, and I think so far he does, he’s very valuable. An entire defensive scheme can be worked around a player like that. Allowing perimeter players to play tight perimeter defense, contesting an outside shot, and funneling drivers towards the middle. And imagine trying to drive on a 7’3" athletic defensive center, players would be forced to shoot floaters, change their shots at the rim, or try to pass out of the middle. He could be incredibly disruptive.
So the key with Thabeet to me isn’t whether he’ll score, but it’s if he’ll be able to be the defensive and rebounding presence he needs to be.
by jmaaan on Feb 5, 2009 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand that a defensive stalwart is needed here.
Just the 6th overall is where i’d like to hopefully get a little more of a well rounded player. The last few years we’ve picked highly talented and athletic guys, yet unrefined in skill and experience. It’ be nice to get a rookie that Nellie plays and is effective, while at the same time has the potential to be more than just a rotational player (I.E. Watson, Azubuike).
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Feb 5, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think he needs to be much of an offensive weapon if he can play D the way it looks like he’ll be able to. For instance, if I’m OKC I bring him in for a workout and if he shows that type of defensive presence, he’s my pick. Assuming they don’t have the #1 and get Griffin.
That’s a team that could be made around a superstar scorer and good defense. Westbrook will have decent numbers, 16 points 4-5 assists, but he’ll make his mark in this leage on defense. Add Thabeet and you’re getting somewhere.
As far as the W’s. I’d pick him with the #6 pick. Sure, Nelson may not play him, but Nelson will be gone one day. And 5’s are probably the most sought after position. So to have 2 good players at that position would be very valuable. In the short term, I think he could provide something we don’t have, size and rebounding off the bench. In the long term he or Andris could be trade fodder.
I just don’t see any of the combo guards coming out helping us. I’m not sold on a couple of the 4’s, and it looks like the top two spots may be set.
by jmaaan on Feb 4, 2009 5:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
“But Nelson will be gone one day”
I told myself that 2 years ago, a year ago, and before this season…
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Feb 4, 2009 7:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He’s going to need a scoring 4 for his potential to be maximized on the court - ?!
Are we watching the same player – Big guy for UConn, blocks some shots, rebounds, has limited range and short menu of post moves? That’s going to be a scoring 4?
by hardcore on Feb 4, 2009 8:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he’s going to NEED one….not he’s going to need to BE one. As in he’ll need one next to him.
"It’s a hobby of mine. Kind of like collecting your fingernail clippings or pooping in jars." -olympic mike
by sam23 on Feb 4, 2009 8:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I SHALL COME BACK AS A DIFFERENT ACCOUNT.
Nelly has wet dreams about starting Monta at center.
by StSaints408 on Feb 2, 2009 5:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Tank?
You guys are idiots if you think that is a solution to our losing season. If any sign of that takes place, I can never root for this team again. What would be the point of watching any longer and what/who can you trust anymore? YOU GUYS ARE IDIOTS FOR EVEN SUGGESTING SUCH GARBAGE.
by onetwocross on Feb 5, 2009 1:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
the only idiots are those who fail to listen to the ideas of others, and any idea that will help bring our beloved GSWs toward the goal of competing at a championship level are worth listening to – at least.
by hardcore on Feb 5, 2009 4:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tanking won't do shit.
The problem with the Warriors as an organization is that from a player’s perspective the team is undesirable to play for. Ownership doesn’t back the player ( ie..Monta incident/ Baron extension) and there is a lack of a winning culture here. That’s why we have to overpay to get Fisher caliber player. We can have all the young prospects we want but as soon as their contract is up, they’ll just bolt for a real contender. The real way to fix the Warriors is a new management group that is committed to both winning and supporting players.
Instead of losing for a minute chance to get the next Lebron, how about we demand more from a management that just continually fleeces a loyal fanbase?
by ThermoElectro on Feb 9, 2009 1:06 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yes, establish a winning culture by intentionally losing games...
by ThermoElectro on Feb 9, 2009 8:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Right.
And then hanging the losing culture around the necks of the old management. A perfect scheme!
Seriously: I always find the “taking is for losers” argument a bit of a strawman. I don’t think anybody here is actually advocating tanking; and even if they were it wouldn’t matter ‘cos it’s just not in the DNA of NBA execs or players to tank games. What we — or at least I — am advocating is what Bill Simmons called “fantanking:” quietly rooting for our team to “shoot the moon” and be really bad one year (thereby maximizing our lotto balls), rather than perpetually being irritatingly kinda, sorta bad.
Actually, if there were a “generational” Shaq or LeBron coming out this year (I love Griffin, but I don’t think he’s that level) I wouldn’t just be quietly fantanking: I’d be getting in the cyber-faces of all the Ws fans who were rooting for us to win and imploring them to really think about what they were rooting for. Basically, I’d be fan-tank-preaching.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 9, 2009 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And on that note...
this Fanpost will ride off into the sunset.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Feb 9, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
