What if we never got Anthony Randolph?
by saintdee on Sep 29, 2009 11:06 AM PDT
89 comments
What if we drafted....
Brandon Rush or Jerryd Bayless or someone else.
I don't understand what Mully was doing(if it was Mully). What exactly was the plan for the Warriors. I know we are all excited for Anthony Randolph and rightfully so but we pretty much lucked into him. If we had drafted another Brandan Wright the future would be bleak as hell. We'd have a disgruntled Jackson+overpaid Maggette+moped Ellis sucking up our cap space. The more I think about it the scarier it becomes. Our whole franchise now rests on Anthony Randolph becoming an All Star because if he doesn't we're going to be perpetually rebuilding for another 10000 years.
I know this has been said many times before but really this franchise just doesn't have a clue on how to build a franchise properly. The warrior FO just reacts. Reacts to situations and trade young which has been shown not to work., It also doesn't help that none of our first round picks ever turn out to be All Stars.
In conclusion, this is a Mully flame post. Mully's lack of planning killed this franchise again combined with Rowell's ineptitude is responsible for this mess. The only bright spot is Randolph but that's not cause of any wisdom on our FO's part but pure statistic. Draft 3 skinny tall kids and one of them has to be good right?
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!
0 recs |
89 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Maggette should be traded for a cash dump like what Crawford was
Jackson should be traded for a solid player like Ray Allen, Josh Howard, Battier etc.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
by dubzfan on Sep 29, 2009 11:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately, your idea of what Jack “should” fetch has very little with his actual trade value, which is currently less than zero. Charley Rosen summed it up well:
Why Jackson — with his poor defense, inadequate handle, erratic jumper and shoot-first attitude — believes that any of the NBA’s elite teams would be eager to obtain his services is a mystery.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jackson is a good 3rd or 4th option.
He loves competing, but he sucks if he has to carry a stupid team by himself. It makes him have to do more than he’s supposed to do.
Call Tim Duncan stupid for calling Stephen Jackson the “Ultimate Teammate” when they won a championship and ended the Laker’s dynasty, but Captain Jack would be a great role player on a contending team. The problem is that his contract is toooooooo big, thanks to Warriors management being Warriors management.
by Precise Films Productions on Sep 29, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2009 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not as much big as it is long. I think if he were an expiring this year or next, a lot of teams would be drooling over him.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
by Naticus2 on Sep 29, 2009 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not as much big as it is long.
insert obvious joke statement here
by Dr. Orpheus on Sep 29, 2009 8:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why are Warriors fans such pervs? ha ha
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
by Naticus2 on Sep 29, 2009 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID
am i doing this right?
by Calamity on Oct 1, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think if he were an expiring this year or next, a lot of teams would be drooling over him.
Which makes Rowell’s decision to offer an extension all the more incompetent. It would have been an expiring if they had done nothing. Of course, then they’d have risked the possibility that Jax would have been unhappy. Oh, wait…
by jae on Sep 29, 2009 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True. Rowell is incompetent.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
by Naticus2 on Sep 29, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which makes Rowell’s decision to offer an extension all the more incompetent
Agreed.
Question: Do you, or anyone else for that matter, see this as a clear indicator to Chris Cohan that Rowell is in over his head and needs to be relieved of his duties, or is his devotion (an odd sentiment considering Cohan’s predilection for engaging his “friends” in specious and toxic litigation) to his protege too great?
by fuller over bryant on Sep 30, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It depends heavily on what Rowell’s job is. Is it to try to maximize the value of the franchise? To maximize the franchise earnings? To put together a quality piece of entertainment? Which (or what combination) of these best describes his job determines, in my not-likely-to-get-hired-by-the-Warriors-while-Rowell-works-there opinion, determines whether or not this is clearly a case
I don’t think that Rowell has much of a deeper understanding of how to build a quality team. He appears like most fans to assume that the high point scoring totals must be indicative of the greatest value. This is false, but it can lead to decisions like extending Jax.
The big problem is that extending Jax was that it confounded the job of someone who is supposed to be guarding the financial interests of the Warriors with the basketball interests. Those aren’t always the same, though sometimes they are. It came at the height of there being no real clear person in charge and the decisions made didn’t mesh and the decisions not made seemed to hurt.
If Rowell is making basketball decisions equipped with the sort of basketball knowledge that characterizes many fans (and he’ll likely disagree, but I’ve seen no reason to believe he has more), this sort of thing is predictable. Beyond merely overvaluing Jax, it showed no foresight into how the move would affect future moves. Anyone who advised him that the move was a good idea should be fired.
by jae on Sep 30, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Rowell is making basketball decisions equipped with the sort of basketball knowledge that characterizes many fans
Maybe that’s a sound calculated strategy to build a team that those fans like? From an owners perspective it makes a lot of sense to give’em what they want?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Liking” players doesn’t sell tickets like winning does. If fans picked the players, I suspect they’d hate the teams they created, though may have no idea why.
by jae on Sep 30, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If fans picked the players, I suspect they’d hate the teams they created, though may have no idea why.
But they’d still apparently buy the tickets and be “satisfied” customers.
As long as the Oracle is near full it’s hard to care about these complaining fans. If they are that pissed then don’t buy the tickets?
When someone draws 1000 fans in a 30,000 seat arena then they address the problems.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suspect that if the team started losing, they’d pass the blame to the other fans. Or their favorite players would lose favor in their eyes if they were losing. I doubt they’d be satisfied with a losing team, no matter who was playing.
by belilaugh on Oct 1, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suspect that if the team started losing,
What do you mean “started” this team has been losing for 15 years and is still selling tickets? This must mean the fans enjoy losing?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 1, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or that fans are relatively easy to replace, at least at current ticket prices.
As much as we don’t like the high ticket prices, food prices, etc. at the Oracle, maybe they would be a whole lot higher if the team were winning consistently. There is a lot of money in the Bay Area, with plenty of demand for entertainment. NBA basketball is a very popular form of entertainment generally. It’s not unrealistic to think that Warriors basketball would be even more in demand if they were winning.
by toddaverth on Oct 1, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even Raiders fans had hope at the beginning of the season
Once it starts, reality sets in (or they get lucky for a few games, then reality sets in). Each year begins anew.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 1, 2009 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once it starts, reality sets in
Where’s a Kenny Stabler when we need him?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 1, 2009 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well lets be at least a little fair. it’s not like Rowell just up and decided to offer him an extension. He basically bitched with the unspoken understanding he would probably start getting disgruntled and Rowell kinda got backed into it. Granted, he certainly had a big boo-boo in the length of the extension, but Jackson is as much to blame for the situation as anyone since he pushed and pushed for an extension. So if we can’t trade him he has himself to blame for it. If i’m not mistaken this would have been his contract year if he hadnt recieved an extension right?
by dannyschmanny on Oct 5, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What if the Magic never got Dwight Howard, or the Cavs never got LeBron?
As the saying goes, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. You think Lakers fans care about how they stole Kobe and Gasol while they’re polishing their rings?
Reminds me a bit of the great Mort Sahl line:
Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions.
Conservatives feel they deserve everything they’ve stolen.
By metaphorical extension, Warrior fans = liberals, and Laker fans = conservatives.
[Ducks oncoming debris from Sam and Nat…]
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2009 11:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yea
but those were number 1 picks.
Anthony Randolph is a 14th pick far from a sure thing.
by saintdee on Sep 29, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I am saying is
this franchise never had a plan. This whole randolph marketing they’re doing is based on dumb luck.
by saintdee on Sep 29, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you’re saying “dumb luck” is a worse plan than tanking and having the “dumb luck” to pop the #1 pick?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
how do you not understand what he's saying?
He’s saying the Warriors don’t have a plan. They just make spontanious decisions.
Dwight Howard and LeBron were first round picks. With a first pick, a team pretty much knows that they’re going to rebuild with a future all-star/superstar. A team with a first pick most likely sucks to begin with, hence the first pick to help them out.
This is different with the Warriors, because it begins with them being a Playoff team and then breaking it all up… but what was their plan? I’m pretty sure they weren’t expecting to get a future all-star (AR4) with a very low lottery pick. So what was their plan?
Maybe they were planning on breaking up the We Believe team, rebuilding around Monta/Biedrins and spending huge amounts of money on guys like Corey Maggette and Stephen Jackson. They have enough young guys to start a youth movement, but at the same time their young guys have to stay on the bench because they just wasted a bunch money on veterans and have to make sure they get their money’s worth; or else it would be a waste of cash and cap space.
The point of the OP’s fanpost is that Anthony Randolph is a bonus and lessens the impact of the Warriors’ stupid decisions, because now we at least have something to look forward to with this team but only because we got lucky. There was never a plan in the beginning that predicted the Warriors to have these promising players. It was just a result of luck.
There’s a REASON why we’re never a playoff team. And when we finally did become a Playoff team, we found a way to become a bottom seed again. And this chain reaction of bad moves causes other players like Stephen Jackson (and supposedly Monta) to not want to be on this team anymore. Jackson and Monta aren’t bad people, but for some reason they want to leave Golden State.
by Precise Films Productions on Sep 29, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point of the OP’s fanpost is that Anthony Randolph is a bonus and lessens the impact of the Warriors’ stupid decisions
Sure: just as LeBron and Howard lessened the impact of the stupid personnel decisions that had made Orlando and Cleveland among the worst teams in the league. Even if you’re advocating tanking (which I don’t think you are) you have to admit that that’s pretty poor plannning, giving the crapshoot involved in landing the #1 pick, and the non-zero chances of a #1 pick going bust. And yet, the REASON the Magic and Cavs are currently the up-and-coming championship contenders in the NBA is that they (a) sucked at the right time; and (b) lucked into the two best young players in the league. There’s really not much more to their current success than that.
I understand what he (and you) are saying. You’d like to live in a world where people were punished or rewarded according to their wisdom and goodness. Alas, that’s not the way this world, or the NBA, works. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood (again): “deserve ain’t got nothing to with it.” Maybe you should just be thankful for AR4, the same way you should be thankful that you were born in America and not in some war-and-famine plagued country in Africa?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2009 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I really don't understand why you've been having to defend yourself here...
Oh wait, it’s the general public…
Where’s WS110 to chime in on this? He’d love the tanking idea.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 30, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’d love the tanking idea.
Anyone have any guess as to how many games it will take this year before tanking becomes the smart choice? Last year it was about halfway wasn’t it?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends a lot on how much John Wall blows up, I think. If he’s really some wacky combo of Michael Jordan and Derek Rose, I say we start tanking even if we’re 24-16 and in second place…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 30, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he’s really some wacky combo of Michael Jordan and Derek Rose
If he is really that , we’ll have some stiff tanking competition. I doubt we’d be up to the task?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s not forget what happened to the Kings in this past draft, and they didn’t even tank. They’re just that bad.
by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Sep 30, 2009 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I stole stuff? Also, I don’t think I deserve anything.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
by Naticus2 on Sep 29, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aw.
You deserve something … a swift kick in the ’nads! XD
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Well, we all deserve a good swift kick in the ’nads, deep down. Or at least we seem to think we do, being fans of such a horrendous team.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
by Naticus2 on Sep 29, 2009 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You and I, buddy
Probably should be regular guests on this TV show from the future:
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 30, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I already play that game, whenever I watch a Warriors road game.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
by Naticus2 on Sep 30, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know plenty of conservatives that are well aware that they lucked in to (or were blessed with) a whole lot more than their actions merit. We just just regard typical liberal strategies as roughly akin to the NBA deciding that the top 5 teams in the league each year must release their best player without any salary relief in the name of promoting parity. You might get parity; you won’t get good basketball. The incentives are all wrong. In the end you don’t get what you actually want: a product that NBA fans want to watch. Or, in the case of politics: better living conditions for everyone.
by toddaverth on Sep 29, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know plenty of conservatives that are well aware that they lucked in to (or were blessed with) a whole lot more than their actions merit.
I’m sure you do, Todd. That’s why Mort Sahl was a comedian, not a political scientist. Can I assume your generalizations about liberals and their “strategies” were also meant to be funny? ;-P
To bring this back to sports: would you prefer a system more akin to MLB, where a team like the Yankees can outspend small-market teams 5-to-1, snag the top three big name free agents in a given offseason, and basically guarantee themselves 90-100 wins every year, while teams like the Royals and Pirates basically have zero shot at anything unless a bunch of their kids all blossom into studs at the exact same time? (An honest sports question, not a political parable…)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
generalizations about liberals and their "strategies"
I don’t know about a joke, but certainly overstated to try to make the point. Like sports, I believe there is room in politics for policies that ensure everyone has a chance to succeed (and even and helping hand when they don’t.) I just get really frustrated with the ideas that don’t seem to think about the undesirable or counter-productive motivations they create. I also get frustrated with the ideas that seem wholly calculated to make the rich richer and powerful more powerful.
In other words, I hate the Yankees. I am very uncomfortable with the fact that they enjoy such a huge competitive advantage because of their market, owner’s resources and willingness to spend. The fact that the Royals and Pirates are perennially failing to field an even average team represents a failure of the MLB system. On the other hand, I am not sure how that should be fixed. Does a salary cap really fix the issue? It seems to have helped some in the NFL, maybe in the NBA too. But studies have shown that the league still has a motivation to make sure stars play in big markets. (How exactly did Kobe and Shaq and Kobe and Gasol end up in LA again? How did Garnett end up in Boston? Sure the Spurs put together some incredible teams, but how marketable are they?)
I prefer little to no rules to rule that i know are rigged against me (and the average joe.)
by toddaverth on Sep 29, 2009 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t feel sorry for the Royals or Pirates at all. A small market is certainly a handicap, but to increase their fanbase they have to win, and in those particular cases, they don’t win because they’re bad at their jobs (namely, putting good teams on the field). That said, I think something needs to be done to the top 3-4 teams in baseball (mainly the Yankees). Something like a 2 to 1 luxury tax threshhold at $120M (pay 2 for every one spent) would be a good starting point. All non-luxury tax paying teams split the revenue from the luxury tax. Really punish the Yankees and give it back to their competitors. For most teams it’s a non-issue. That said, it’s ridiculous that MLB shares as much revenue as they do without a salary floor – the Marlins took in more revenue sharing than their expenses last year, how does that fly with any other owners?
by Missing Barry on Sep 29, 2009 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow!
That Marlins example is a great example of an unintended consequence of a policy that doesn’t take in to account the incentives it creates.
by toddaverth on Sep 29, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not sure how that should be fixed. Does a salary cap really fix the issue? It seems to have helped some in the NFL, maybe in the NBA too. But studies have shown that the league still has a motivation to make sure stars play in big markets.
They should do it like fantasy baseball. Put all the players in a pot each year and let the teams draft them all again. They could draft in reverse order of their previous seasons standings. This would certainly let the fans see who the best managers are and would give every city hope for the next year.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2009 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn’t this the same thing as revenue sharing? Which, incidentally, DOES give you good basketball, because it means that half the teams in the league aren’t just annual fodder for the richer teams.
Thing C
by markdash on Sep 29, 2009 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not totally against revenue sharing
I’m not totally against revenue sharing, either politically speaking or in sports. There are clearly benefits to it. But, it isn’t a cure all and it has to be smart or it gets in the way of the actual goal. That is my point.
by toddaverth on Sep 29, 2009 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Laker fans = conservatives.
conservative is good, reactionary is bad.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2009 11:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
We'd
probably be looking for a power forward
by thecity23 on Sep 29, 2009 12:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You mean we would have picked up Hill insted of Curry?
This house is full of m, m, madness!
This house is full of m, m, mistakes!
by qin on Sep 29, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we would have passed on AR you would just be making a post about how Mully passed on a great prospect
This is crazy
by 123707THIZZ on Sep 29, 2009 2:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Exactly. Imagine the hand-wringing around here if we had ended up with Joe Alexander? ;-P
I still don’t see the grand “plan” involved in the Cavs lucking into LeBron, the Magic lucking into Howard, the Lakers swindling Gasol, etc. Even the Celtics’ brilliant “plan” only came to fruition because they had the “bad luck” to drop out of the top two picks. If they end up #1 or #2 in the draft, they’re still stuck with a mediocre team built around overrated Al Jefferson and either overrated/slow developing Durant or perpetually injured Grampa Oden…
A circuitous way of saying: in the NBA, as in the universe, Dumb Luck Rules.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget
They likely would have traded away that mal-content named Paul Pierce if Oden wasn’t working out so well so he could go win a championship while they rebuilt. Also note that there were tons of players, including Garnett, that didn’t want to go to Boston, and that the Boston FO was viewed as terrible before that summer. Just because Amare doesn’t want to come here now doesn’t mean that he won’t later, and just because our FO looks bad now doesn’t mean they won’t look good if we win. Funny how that works, if your team loses you’re doing a bad job, if your team wins you’re doing a good job.
Dug this one up too… there’s a scary correct projection of Brandan Wright next to his picture.
And you can add Duncan, Jordan, and many others to the list of “What if Team X hadn’t lucked into player Y”
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 30, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We would be resting a lot of hope on Wright still. He wasn’t supposed to pan out until this year, when we first drafted him. If he’s a solid PF this year, that’s better than having a redundant, overpaid 2 (not to bash J-Rich. Good player… just overpaid).
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
by Naticus2 on Sep 29, 2009 3:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure where you went from “Warriors don’t have a plan” to “blame Mullin for everything bad that happens”. What was and wasn’t Mullin’s decision seems to be pretty unclear to me, so blaming him specifically doesn’t really make much sense to me? Why not just leave it at “Warriors management” and implicate everyone that had/has a role in it?
(For the record, all 3 skinny lefties we drafted turned out to be good. Not a bad problem to have)
by Missing Barry on Sep 29, 2009 7:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well Mullin
mainly because he was the GM before Riley. I am sure Rowell played some part and Nelly played a part but since Mully was the figurehead of the franchise he is going to take the fall.
by saintdee on Sep 29, 2009 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except he had no actual decision making authority for some ambiguous amount of time the last year he was around. Not to mention things like an extension with Baron that he agreed on that was nixed by higher ups. Make no mistake about it, the Warriors management is a mess, and it starts at the top with Cohan. If anyone’s to blame, it’s the owner who created the messed up environment to begin with (think about the only thing the Warriors had in common from 1995-present).
by Missing Barry on Sep 29, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(think about the only thing the Warriors had in common from 1995-present).
THE ORACLE!
IT MUST HAVE BEEN BUILT ON AN ANCIENT INDIAN BURIAL GROUND!!!
Thing C
by markdash on Sep 29, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Someone forgot about the lost season in SJ….
by Missing Barry on Sep 29, 2009 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Someone forgot about the lost season in SJ….
There’s dead indians down there too.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought it was an evil pet cemetary.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
by Naticus2 on Sep 29, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
An evil Indian pet cemetary?
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 30, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
evil Indian
Racist.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 30, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What are you now?
Fox News?
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 30, 2009 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
their plan this season is the same as it is every season. try to get 30-40 wins & sell lots of tickets. in years they don’t reach 30 wins, they blame it on injuries or youth. lather, rinse, repeat.
by homer simpson on Sep 29, 2009 9:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I trust Nellie and Randolph, personally. We’ll get 40 wins this year, and we’ll get a few more next year.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
by Naticus2 on Sep 29, 2009 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry but this has to be one of the worst posts I've read on GSOM.
How in the world can you try and turn drafting Randolph into a negative, I don’t know.
Randolph was the BPA, and now it looks like we got a flat out stud. That’s why you draft BPA every single time. 13 teams passed on him, we did not. Mully or whoever drafted him deserves credit.
by Bob on Sep 30, 2009 8:34 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
How in the world can you try and turn drafting Randolph into a negative, I don’t know.
Because if we hadn’t drafted Randolph, we might be in a position to be so terrible this season that we could draft somebody really good, like a 19 year old PF/SF with a huge heart who way outrebounds his size and improves with every passing day! Somebody like Anthony Randolph! Wait… that doesn’t make any sense…
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Sep 30, 2009 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Wright would make a fine PF this year. Our real problem is extending Jack and overpaying Maggette. If it weren’t for those two things, we could’ve had the following lineup after trading for something of similar value: Ellis, Morrow, Kirilenko(or someone of similar talent?), Biedrins, Wright. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m a big fan of Wright and think he’ll be very solid, despite slightly shaky rebounding.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
by Naticus2 on Oct 1, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ummm...
How, exactly, would we acquire Kirilenko? You do realize that Jax is a thug, and that wouldn’t really fly in Utah, right? And that we’d have to add some other contracts to that. And where’s Randolph?
I’m not going to touch the Wright issue any more than: “I’ll believe it when I see it, and I’m not holding my breath.”
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 1, 2009 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Three way deal. If Jax were an expiring, he’d be really valuable.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
by Naticus2 on Oct 2, 2009 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In answer to your question, how would we acquire kirilenko, we could’ve let Al Harrington expire, rather than picking up Crawford. Lots of cap space would’ve allowed us to save utah a lot of money. Throw in a first round draft pick and Azubuike, I think utah would’ve been interested.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
by Naticus2 on Oct 2, 2009 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sigh, it makes me sad to think of all the things we could do if we had simply not signed Maggette, then let Harrington and Jack’s contracts expire…
by Missing Barry on Oct 2, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh and NOT traded for Marcus Williams.
by Missing Barry on Oct 2, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, last year was not good. Really not good (except the Anthonys.)
by toddaverth on Oct 2, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How in the world can you try and turn drafting Randolph into a negative,
I don’t think he said that? Didn’t he say more like it was just blind luck that they got Rudolf and they don’t deserve any credit for it?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2009 10:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
By that rationale, no team should get credit for players it drafts.
Was it “blind luck” when San Antonio drafted Manu Ginobili in the second round?
I mean, some picks, sure, the players develop beyond the wildest dreams of the team drafting them. But scouting has to count for something.
Thing C
by markdash on Sep 30, 2009 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s tough to say one way or another because there are so few opportunities to “scout well” or “scout poorly”. Getting lucky a few times is indistinguishable from “good scouting” in most cases.
by jae on Oct 1, 2009 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're absolutely correct in that we cannot judge performance because there isn't a statistically significant sample size as outsiders
But just through my powers of observation, I know that I can choose things better if I know a little bit about them (I like Zachary’s pizza and I don’t like Dominos). By extension, I can infer that it’s possible to choose better draft choices by using scouts, etc.
It is unequivocally blind luck when a team gets the first pick, but it is not inherently blind luck in choosing draft picks. Certainly it’s a lot like gambling, but I’d say it’s much closer to poker than craps:
The player you’ve been targeting could get taken before your turn comes up (the first guy after the blinds could raise, forcing you to fold you AJo)
You could think you’ve found the best player but missed somebody (you put in a raise with your KQs only to be reraised by somebody later with AA)
Some idiots get lucky with the draft picks they make (you can play a crappy hand crappily and still win with a lucky card on the river)
Some GMs get flustered when somebody just took the guy they wanted (somebody may like their KQs so much they’ll call a bet in front of them despite knowing that player is tight and would only play with a better hand than KQs)
There are a lot of choices and decisions that are made on evidence presented at the time, but once the chips are down and draft picks are made, the flop comes and you see how the guys perform in the NBA and how ready they are to compete and improve. Sometimes your Greg Oden turns out not to be the nuts (yeah, probably still too early, I know), sometimes your Paul Milsap turns out to be a winning hand.
The difficulty is that an NBA draft only occurs once a year and the principals change every few “hands” (i.e. GMs get fired), which makes it virtually impossible to quantitatively judge a GM’s ability to make draft picks.
One caveat though, us fans don’t have access to teams’ scouting reports on all players. The teams themselves have a ton more data to judge one of their scouts’ abilities, while we only see the outcome. The teams get to see what the poker players do with their cards, while the fans just get to see what gets turned over at the end. That gives them a lot more data to work with in terms of judging how well to trust a certain scouts’ reports.
It’s definitely more luck than skill (probably close to 90/10), but there is some skill involved… we may just never be able to measure it definitively, so it’s pointless to talk about how so-and-so was or wasn’t a good drafter.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 1, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By extension, I can infer that it’s possible to choose better draft choices by using scouts, etc.
I am not doubting that it’s possible, nor saying that it doesn’t happen. But evaluating it externally, looking at GMs A and B and saying one is better because his picks worked out better? It’s what we have to go on, but it’s going to be wrong often if by that evaluation you are trying to predict who will pick better in the future.
One caveat though, us fans don’t have access to teams’ scouting reports on all players. The teams themselves have a ton more data to judge one of their scouts’ abilities, while we only see the outcome.
This is very important. We don’t know what they know and they do know more. This is one of the reasons I’m impressed with the Kings for picking Jason Thompson last year when some of the ESPNdiots covering it said it was “too high” or “a stretch” at #12. While Thompson still has a ways to go for stardom, he showed real ability and there’s not a whole lot to argue with him at that position any longer.
That said, when I’ve looked at mock drafts, they tend to be reasonably close to actual drafts. Eyeballing it, I don’t think that they do much worse or better than the collective professionals. It’s more study than my now employed self has time for, but a comprehensive comparison of mock drafts vs actuals to see how they perform would be very interesting. Of course, you need a measure of success, something that starts getting subjective soon. If real drafts with all the extra information do not outperform the amateur wisdom, then much of that extra information is irrelevant. Though by no means the only explanation, if luck factored heavily, if it’s real, real hard to know even with all the data in the world, it could lead to such results.
by jae on Oct 1, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not doubting that it’s possible, nor saying that it doesn’t happen.
Sorry if it appeared that I was saying that, I was merely talking about something I’d just realized.
If real drafts with all the extra information do not outperform the amateur wisdom, then much of that extra information is irrelevant.
I don’t know that Mel Kiper, etc. can be considered amateurs anymore. I’m sure ESPN, et. al. have their own scouts and there’s got to be plenty of scouts out there willing to share their “general knowledge” information with these guys, but keeping their “Jason Thompson” info to themselves.
The real problem with the outside view is that there’s so much subjectiveness, as you stated. Once you get past the draft there’s so much mud in the water and everything was a risk/reward scenario. You can’t look back and say “I should have invested in microsoft” because it very well may have folded after a month.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 1, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn’t necessarily thinking about the Kipers of the mock-draft world so much as the “schmo with a website, who, by virtue of the website, becomes a ‘source’”, your NBAdraft.nets of the world. Granted, I suspect that most of them are merely echoing what ESPN and SI and the likes are doing, with minor variations according to taste to make for a not random at all but not cookie-cutter sample, but the tiny tweaks on what experts say seems to be as good as what the experts think.
My guess is that most scouting depts agree most of the time in their “big boards”, but with the uncertainty, you could probably take any draft spot, take the next 3 or 4 guys on the “big board” left, pick one at random and appear as successful much of the time as by sticking with the ‘big board". Obviously it’s clear that Duncan was a better prospect than Dampier. But when they were drafted (in this order consecutively) did anyone really know how Pippen would perform relative to Kenny Smith and Kevin Johnson?
by jae on Oct 1, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But when they were drafted (in this order consecutively) did anyone really know how Pippen would perform relative to Kenny Smith and Kevin Johnson?
But who’s to say that Smith and Johnson wouldn’t have performed better on the Bulls?
I 100% agree with you on the NBAdraft.net stuff. It’s all just looking at the global “big board” and making tweaks based on how much you love or don’t love a certain player. A lot of the time though, the players they like/don’t like are players they follow and know pretty well from watching their games. The rest are just “I don’t know, leave them where they are.”
But somebody still has to come up with the grand big board. And that’s the scouts.
Scouts are not worthless, but trying to evaluate a GM’s performance on a few draft choices is stupid.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 1, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But scouting has to count for something.
Sure scouting counts for something but it’s not really a controllable factor. The guy you’ve scouted might be drafted before your turn.
What is more important is the retention of the good players a team has and getting the most from all the players it has at any given time to field a winning team.
The warriors seem to have a talent for running off the most promising players and getting the worst from the one’s we keep? We are kinda like the anti-spurs :>)
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2009 11:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What if we never got Anthony Randolph?
From the Greatest TV Show Ever:
“Hey Herc, what if your mother and father never met?”
by Learning To Stutter on Oct 11, 2009 8:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
