A fan and joe lacob emailing eatchother
Check this out LOL
4 months ago
stayedupto
115 comments
2 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Yep, I’m still on board with Lacob. I have to say I like everything he ever says.
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2012 12:28 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I know this isn’t what you REALLY think, but my initial response to you is: So every time the owner talks, you’re fine with the way things are?
by Doctor Kajita on Jan 25, 2012 3:46 PM PST up reply actions
that's not really fair though
because I don’t think Lacob is happy with the way things are going either.
It is still so early in the process to be judging
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 25, 2012 4:14 PM PST up reply actions
Nah, never fine with the way things are. Believe we have a smart owner who’s legit about his desire to build a successful franchise, though. Heck, the dude has barely owned the team for more than a year, now.
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2012 4:53 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Nah, never fine with the way things are. Believe we have a smart owner who’s legit about his desire to build a successful franchise, though. Heck, the dude has barely owned the team for more than a year, now.
I’m not questioning his desire, or whatever, but I do question the results to this point. Is it really unfair to think this team has failed more than it has succeeded since Lacob has joined?
I’m willing to wait it out, I have no choice, but I think it’s absolutely fair to judge the current results for what they are ESPECIALLY when the owner endorses things like “BIG THINGS ARE COMING!!!”
Really? When???
Actually, it seems like he just told us to be patient, which is fine if he didn’t say “BIG THINGS ARE COMING!!!”
What’s the precedent for this kind of thing? If I owned a business, I would not promise something I couldn’t deliver. Or more importantly, I wouldn’t promise something before I know for sure it’s going to be delivered. I guess for Joe Lacob, hiring Jerry West and going after Chandler and DeAndre Jordan were good enough.
Look, I know there’s a lot of things to consider, but I think it’s extremely naive to sit here and be OK with the way things are because the owner says some things that make sense. There’s a difference between knowing what to do and actually doing. It sounds like Lacob is finding this out the hard way.
by Doctor Kajita on Jan 26, 2012 9:39 AM PST up reply actions
Is it really unfair to think this team has failed more than it has succeeded since Lacob has joined?
In my opinion, yes.
The roster is clearly improved. Brandon Rush and Kwame Brown are much better than the guys who were holding down those spots on the roster last year. Klay looks to be equal/upgrade to Reggie, if not better. We have a young big man with potential, now (in Tyler) and we have a serviceable backup point guard. Biedrins has improved from where he was last year.
How is that failure?
ESPECIALLY when the owner endorses things like "BIG THINGS ARE COMING!!!"
How should what the owner said affect your evaluation of the moves the team has made? The team has consistently made good moves with the possible exception of the Bell amnesty. We’re better than we were a year ago. And it doesn’t seem like the team is standing pat.
If I owned a business, I would not promise something I couldn’t deliver.
But you see this all the time. Watched a commercial lately?
I guess for Joe Lacob, hiring Jerry West and going after Chandler and DeAndre Jordan were good enough.
Huh? How can you think this if you actually read what Lacob said in the linked article in this fanshot and the recent Kawakami interview? It’s abundantly clear that Lacob is not happy with the state of things, that he’s still looking to find ways to improve the team.
There’s a difference between knowing what to do and actually doing.
Sure. But you say that as if it was easy to do the right thing if only he knew what it was to do, and this is exactly where I think you’re being completely unfair to him. There is zero evidence that Lacob is satisfied with the state of the team, and that he’s not continuing to explore avenues to improve it. There is, in fact, quite a bit of evidence to the contrary …
And yet you assume because a move hasn’t been made, that the team isn’t trying to make a move. Again, despite the fact that Lacob clearly addresses this point specifically.
How is that failure?
Have you noticed the record? Like I said, I understand the team is trying to improve and has improved despite the record. But when franchise promises playoffs — in a condensed season — a winning record kinda helps. Is it unfair to actually hold them to their promise? So far, so bad.
How should what the owner said affect your evaluation of the moves the team has made? The team has consistently made good moves with the possible exception of the Bell amnesty. We’re better than we were a year ago. And it doesn’t seem like the team is standing pat.
I’m not sure how to respond to that. Part of me agrees and part of me thinks you’re being very naive.
But you see this all the time. Watched a commercial lately?
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make it okay. I don’t know if you’re a season ticket holder — I’m not, but a close friend is — but the Warriors gave them a contract that they’d make the playoffs and have an All-Star. That seems to go beyond normal advertising. That sounds like a guarantee.
Huh? How can you think this if you actually read what Lacob said in the linked article in this fanshot and the recent Kawakami interview? It’s abundantly clear that Lacob is not happy with the state of things, that he’s still looking to find ways to improve the team.
Sorry, I digressed and opined frustration. I was responding more to the discussion than the FanShot content.
And yet you assume because a move hasn’t been made, that the team isn’t trying to make a move. Again, despite the fact that Lacob clearly addresses this point specifically.
Yes, you’re right. I am assuming, based on history, based on reputation, based on a lot of things that don’t favor the Warriors. Trying is one thing, doing is another. It sounds like you’re satisfied with the new owner rhetoric despite the fact that the team is still the same, or worse, as it was under Cohan. The Warriors are losers, and that is the only evidence I need at this time to be unhappy with the way things are.
I get that Lacob is sincere and he’s trying (like the dickens) to right the ship. Is it okay for me to whine and complain until something good actually happens? It seems it is intolerable to some of you guys. Sorry!
by Doctor Kajita on Jan 26, 2012 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
Have you noticed the record?
Sure. But as I’ve said before, I care more about process than I do about short-term results. If the team is implementing a good process and making good moves, you can have confidence that the results will come eventually.
This is especially true because you were clearly making a process-based criticism with your comments about Lacob feeling like he’s “done enough” in trying to get Chandler and Jordan.
If the only measure is short-term results, then the team has failed so far. Although, of course, having two key players (our best player and a player who was expected to play about half of our minutes at the most important position) miss most of the season so far affects results.
And this is why you have to focus on process rather than results. Because Lacob wouldn’t be doing a better job if Curry hadn’t hurt his ankle … but the team’s results would be better. Lacob wouldn’t be doing a better job if Kwame’s shoulder stayed in its socket … but the team’s results would be better.
but the Warriors gave them a contract that they’d make the playoffs and have an All-Star. That seems to go beyond normal advertising. That sounds like a guarantee.
Of course, what’s the other part of that contract? That they’ll do that … or ticket prices won’t go up, right?
Yes, you’re right. I am assuming, based on history, based on reputation, based on a lot of things that don’t favor the Warriors.
Who’s history? Who’s reputation? Lacob’s history in the league suggests that he’s willing to make big moves. Heck, if there’s a reasonable criticism of him at this point it’s that he was too eager to make a big move, and thus overpaid for Lee. That has to be balanced against his involvement in the KG deal.
What about West’s reputation? He has one, too, right? Bob Myers doesn’t really have one yet.
So it seems like you’re judging Lacob based on moves Cohan made or didn’t make. And that’s not fair.
This is especially true because you were clearly making a process-based criticism with your comments about Lacob feeling like he’s "done enough" in trying to get Chandler and Jordan.
I’m not sure I agree. I was criticizing the failure to land a big man. One of them left for a team he’d rather play for less money. That’s part of my “reputation” comment. I don’t think that in particular was a “process.” I would define process as bolstering the bench (check), trading one or more of their core players, and developing their young talent (remains to be seen).
I agree short-term success is not the only measure, but for a new owner who came in with guns blazing, I feel it’s my duty to call him out for shooting blanks.
I can appreciate the process, but this process has yielded, thus far, uncertainty (for me).
Of course, what’s the other part of that contract? That they’ll do that … or ticket prices won’t go up, right?
Correct, but I think you’re deflecting the main point: that Joe Lacob shouldn’t have talked such a big game (same goes with Mark Jackson). I want to be a fan of a humble owner/front office that just gets shit done. At the same time, I appreciate Joe Lacob being forthright and accessible, but I’m not interested in what he has to say any more.
Who’s history? Who’s reputation? Lacob’s history in the league suggests that he’s willing to make big moves. Heck, if there’s a reasonable criticism of him at this point it’s that he was too eager to make a big move, and thus overpaid for Lee. That has to be balanced against his involvement in the KG deal.
What about West’s reputation? He has one, too, right? Bob Myers doesn’t really have one yet.
So it seems like you’re judging Lacob based on moves Cohan made or didn’t make. And that’s not fair.
What does the KG deal have anything to do with the price of tea in China? How do we mitigate or excuse the Warriors based on what Joe Lacob may have done with the Celtics? The Celtics winning a championship doesn’t make overpaying David Lee okay. I don’t follow your logic. I don’t consider the David Lee signing Joe Lacob being a zealous roster manager. I consider it a non-impact move. I guess the process will tell the whole story.
Joe Lacob inherited the Warriors, essentially. Yes, he bought it and made some changes, but the assets are more or less the same. For example, and I cannot prove this, but I would guess that Monta Ellis’ value in the trade market hasn’t changed too much since when Don Nelson was coaching. Yet, he’s still on the team having the same impact he’s always had. Biedrins, well, you can say he’s having a better year, but his reputation precedes him and I think his value is worse than ever. So, how is this process of holding onto non-impact or devalued assets going? I guess hopefully to a top 7 pick.
Maybe I have this crazy idea that coming in as a new owner you’d want to make sweeping changes, like he said he would, but it hasn’t happened. I know it’s still in the infancy of his ownership, but there is evidence he’s had opportunities to be “bold” but hasn’t yet. I think it’s fair to call him out on that.
Anyway, I enjoyed this back and forth. I fully understand your view and don’t disagree with it.
by Doctor Kajita on Jan 26, 2012 12:04 PM PST up reply actions
At the same time, I appreciate Joe Lacob being forthright and accessible, but I’m not interested in what he has to say any more.
This strikes me as a dammed-if-you-do, dammed-if-you-don’t situation.
A ton of fans hated Cohan for being silent all the time, for not seeming to care, for not getting engaged. Mark Cuban was incredibly vocal and engaged, and it eventually seemed to turn into a draw for players. “That Cuban guy, he cares, he’s going to do what it takes to win.” Cuban’s personality helped put Dallas on the map when they were still trying to establish themselves as a legit team.
I think it’s much better to have an owner who’s a little over-talkative than one who’s a little under-talkative.
How do we mitigate or excuse the Warriors based on what Joe Lacob may have done with the Celtics?
You’re the one who brought up reputation and history. If you’re going to judge Lacob based on his reputation and history, you don’t get to cherry pick what parts of the history you use.
Yes, he bought it and made some changes, but the assets are more or less the same.
He hasn’t dramatically changed the starting lineup, you mean. (Well, he has, if you give him credit for Lee. Gotta pick your poison here – you can’t say that the assets are basically the same and then hate on him for Lee.)
So, how is this process of holding onto non-impact or devalued assets going?
But this is exactly the point he addresses. You don’t make a move just to make a move – you make a move because you see it improving your team.
Maybe I have this crazy idea that coming in as a new owner you’d want to make sweeping changes, like he said he would, but it hasn’t happened. I know it’s still in the infancy of his ownership, but there is evidence he’s had opportunities to be "bold" but hasn’t yet. I think it’s fair to call him out on that.
Bold doesn’t mean stupid.
The only “non-bold” thing we have evidence of him doing is his decision not to trade Curry for a one-year rental of Paul. (Rumor has it he was willing to part with Monta – but they didn’t want him).
Is that un-bold, or is that sensible.
There’s a place for being bold. However, the desire to be bold doesn’t mean you should take stupid risks.
I think it’s much better to have an owner who’s a little over-talkative than one who’s a little under-talkative.
I would agree with this.
You’re the one who brought up reputation and history. If you’re going to judge Lacob based on his reputation and history, you don’t get to cherry pick what parts of the history you use.
I brought up reputation and history pointing to what the Warriors organization has done overall over the years, not what Joe Lacob has done specifically, and how history has proven that the Warriors have been the doormat of the league. Nothing has happened to make me change my mind. Now, you’re right, that’s probably unfair to pin Warriors history on Joe Lacob, but he’s in command, and I am chomping at the bits to see what he does. It’s frustrating, sorry, and I think it’s completely fair to feel that way as being a human and all.
He hasn’t dramatically changed the starting lineup, you mean. (Well, he has, if you give him credit for Lee. Gotta pick your poison here – you can’t say that the assets are basically the same and then hate on him for Lee.)
Where exactly did I hate on Lee? I think we both agree that Lee is overpaid. Is that “hating” or just pointing out a fact?
But this is exactly the point he addresses. You don’t make a move just to make a move – you make a move because you see it improving your team.
Yes, to state the obvious. We don’t know if he’s doing a good job of assessing this or if he has struck out on opportunities he should have capitalized on. But in the meantime, the assets he has aren’t doing him any favors. So maybe making a move to make a move is actually the better move. I wish I could be a fly on the wall to see what kind of offers they’re getting for Monta Ellis, for example.
There’s a place for being bold. However, the desire to be bold doesn’t mean you should take stupid risks.
You are a better person than I. I admit, I am pretty worked up over this “bold” propaganda by the Warriors. To the point where I don’t trust them for anything. Despite how much Joe Lacob makes sense.
by Doctor Kajita on Jan 26, 2012 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
re: "BIG THINGS ARE COMING!!!"
I am pretty sure that was an NBA slogan, not specific to the Dubs
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 26, 2012 12:47 PM PST up reply actions
well, it was pretty far from clear
I just saw it on a few banner ads during away games…unless the Dubs have some sort of outrageous advertising team or something
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 26, 2012 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
Wow, I like Joe more and more
Hope he and the staff can pull through and make a great trade.
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
man, I'm so conflicted
on the one hand, I am trying very hard to be patient and give the new ownership group a season or two
Please do not take this the wrong way. But that is a naive observation. Seriously, do you really think that we are not looking at every possible move every day. I don’t think you understand just how hard it is to do a deal in this league. There are 30 teams all trying to do the same thing. We can do bad deals all day long. You would not believe how idiotic and unreasonable most deal proposals are by other GM’s. Everybody wants to steal assets….We have the same starting lineup because we have not been able to deal any of them in a deal that would improve us. Yet!
-Lacob (or his rep)
but on the other hand…I don’t see a clear plan to get better here, other than marginal improvements. You are delusional if you think we are going to do a deal similar to the one that landed the Celtics Allen and KG. They had promising young talent, and good draft picks, AND they got lucky (KG and Allen both available and willing to go to the Cs). We have…Monta
It is deeply troubling to me that fans seem to get this, while the FO does not
You are better off starting from scratch than you are tinkering with a cohan/rowell/riley built team
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
I see some parallels to that Celtics group. Monta isn’t as good as Pierce, but at least somewhat comparable situation-wise. Curry is a trade asset the way on the level of Al Jefferson, at least. Some luck and maybe we hit top 3 in the lottery and all of a sudden…not the worst comparison. Remember KG initially wasn’t very open to the idea of going to the Celtics – it was trading for Ray Allen that really got him on board.
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2012 12:38 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t see a clear plan to get better here, other than marginal improvements.
Sure.
Here’s the question, though:
Why would that plan be something that you – Duby Dub Dubs – or any other fan should expect to be able to see?
What would “being able to see the plan” look like? Would you be able to recognize it?
What would "being able to see the plan" look like? Would you be able to recognize it?
Well, trading Ellis would be quite visible.
J-RIDAH: Its not 1 player in this draft better than Monta or Lee. Anthony Davis is no different than Al Farouq Aminu. Andre Drummond could be good but he is not impressive at this point at all besides his size. This draft is hella overated.
(JaVale) Mcgee is better than anybody in this draft.
by Evanz on Jan 25, 2012 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Sure.
He could make bad trade to get rid of Ellis. Would that have made you jump up and down and say, “Yay, we have a plan?”
Or is the appropriate plan to wait and push and explore until you can make a good trade involving Ellis?
This is exactly my point. The team could be planning to trade Ellis as soon as they could get a fair offer which helped our team … and we wouldn’t know it.
by Ronaldinho on Jan 25, 2012 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
He could make bad trade to get rid of Ellis. Would that have made you jump up and down and say, "Yay, we have a plan?"
I don’t know if I’d literally jump up and down, but yeah, I would see a plan then. We’ve been told this is a playoff team, so I can only assume the plan is to compete for the playoffs, not re-build. How else do you interpret it?
J-RIDAH: Its not 1 player in this draft better than Monta or Lee. Anthony Davis is no different than Al Farouq Aminu. Andre Drummond could be good but he is not impressive at this point at all besides his size. This draft is hella overated.
(JaVale) Mcgee is better than anybody in this draft.
by Evanz on Jan 25, 2012 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
How do you know they haven't explored that option?
Maybe they actually want to try and get something somewhat valuable for him instead of simply giving him away. Sometimes you have to be patient to get a good deal.
good points Ronaldinho and Pippen
I guess I have been judging them based off of moves that were probably pretty far down their chain of preferred options.
but still, the amnesty was a one-time thing, and we burned it on an expiring contract in order to make a soft offer that seemed like a no-brainer for the Clipps to match.
and yeah, I would expect to recognize their plan (if there was one). Because I promise that if we go into a rebuild, ownership will be waging a full-scale PR war.
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 25, 2012 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
I think the amnesty fiasco is one thing most Warriors fans can agree on. That was a stupid move and Riley trying to minimize its importance was ridiculous. I
It's only a fiasco if it cost us something.
But what did it cost us? The right to amnesty Biedrins (who’s now playing too well for it to be a reasonable move) or Lee (who’s took good a player to be amnestied).
Remember that you can only amnesty players under contract at the time of the CBA. That means each year the amnesty is less and less valuable because there are fewer eligible players and those players are one year closer to expiring anyway.
by Ronaldinho on Jan 25, 2012 7:40 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The right to amnesty Biedrins (who’s now playing too well for it to be a reasonable move) or Lee (who’s took good a player to be amnestied).
These are both rights I want to have – even if I don’t plan on exercising them now, I would definitely want to have it down the road. No idea if I’ll ever need it, but there are scenario’s where I might, and there’s no need to use it on Bell.
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2012 9:53 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
These are both rights I want to have – even if I don’t plan on exercising them now, I would definitely want to have it down the road. No idea if I’ll ever need it, but there are scenario’s where I might, and there’s no need to use it on Bell.
I agree with you, by the way, that there’s a chance that we’ll wish we still had it.
On the other hand, there was a chance that we would have gotten Chandler or Jordan.
So if you’re going to talk about hypothetical situations where you wish you still had it, you have to balance that against the chance to get players we ended up not getting.
And that’s a little harder to evaluate, isn’t it?
I can understand someone saying that they don’t think that gamble was worth it. However, people are talking about it like it was a “fiasco” and a “disaster.” It wasn’t. It may prove to have been a bad decision but if so, it was likely a relatively minor one.
Maybe “fiasco” was a slight exaggeration, but I just think we should have kept it in our back pocket in case we need it down the road. If they could have signed Chandler, I would have been fine using the amnesty on Bell. They wouldn’t have had to use on Bell though until they received 100% percent confirmation from Chandler that he was going to sign. As for Jordan, the Clips made it pretty clear they were going to match any reasonable offer for him. It was essentially an exercise in futility.
The thing that really irked me the most was Riley’s dismissive response to questions about using the amnesty on Bell. He just seemed baffled why anyone would place any importance on it. His answer to questions was, “amnesty, in all honesty how important is that?” I think they should have just saved it since it doesn’t expire until the beginning of the 2015-16 season. Maybe it doesn’t make since to use it on Biedrins or Lee right now, but there might be a situation down the road where the Warriors will be kicking themselves they didn’t save it.
If they could have signed Chandler, I would have been fine using the amnesty on Bell. They wouldn’t have had to use on Bell though until they received 100% percent confirmation from Chandler that he was going to sign.
This seems a little, well, like wishful thinking. Things were happening really fast – you wanted to put a contract in front of a player and have him sign it and get him into camp, while there was a real risk of (as really happened!) some other team coming in at the last minute at poaching him.
Remember the time frame this all happened in. It really does sound like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it to, “I would have been happy with the move is some event out of the team’s control happened, but because it didn’t, they suck.”
That’s ex post facto reasoning.
The thing that really irked me the most was Riley’s dismissive response to questions about using the amnesty on Bell.
I have to laugh, really. So your biggest problem is not what the team actually did but how they talked about it? You’re hardly the only person with this attitude, FWIW. (eg, notice how many people are upset, not by the team’s moves, but rather by the fact that Lacob said “Expect big things.”)
You’re right, maybe there is a situation where we would wish we had it. But maybe we would have gotten Chandler.
I’m not trying to have my cake and eat it too. They didn’t even use the amnesty on Bell when they were pursuing Chandler. They didn’t use it until they were out of the running for Chandler and set their sights on Jordan. They were forced to use it because they signed Jordan to an offer sheet.
Yes, I was most upset that they used the amnesty on Bell in order to sign Jordan to a meaningless offer sheet. However, it was insult to injury when Riley insulted everyone’s intelligence by saying the amnesty was completely unimportant. That is an absurd statement and it really bothered me.
I actually agree with you about the people bagging on Lacob for making bold predictions. I didn’t feel like he was trying to BS us, I just think he was a little naive how difficult it is to get it done. I actually like that he has high expectations and is willing to go out on a limb. I can’t say I’m a big Larry Riley fan though.
I have to laugh, really. So your biggest problem is not what the team actually did but how they talked about it? You’re hardly the only person with this attitude, FWIW. (eg, notice how many people are upset, not by the team’s moves, but rather by the fact that Lacob said "Expect big things.")
I am one of those people that mentioned being upset about team’s rhetoric/excuse-making but I refuse to fall into the unintelligent category you’ve created of being upset about it exclusively, marring my judgment of other components in play. It’s far from my “biggest problem,” but it is a problem I have with this team.
by Doctor Kajita on Jan 26, 2012 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t think Jordan is relevant – as a RFA, I don’t think we ever had a real chance at him.
by Missing Barry on Jan 26, 2012 11:44 AM PST up reply actions
The only plan people on here have is to tank.
That is the extent of the plan for most of the amateur GM’s on here.
by Pippen on Jan 25, 2012 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Really? Most teams are built from free agency? I see a lot of teams with their lottery picks leading them ahead of us again, and if it’s a trade, they traded lottery picks for a star.
Just because they built their team through the draft doesn’t mean they intentionally tanked.
*The Bulls had the 9th worst record and got lucky in the lottery to get Rose.
*The Lakers never have to rebuild.
*The Spurs got “lucky” because David Robinson got hurt, and finished with the 3rd worst record and got lucky again by grabbing the #1 pick. They were also lucky that a top 10 all time player was available in the draft. Parker and Ginobili were late picks.
*The Mavericks traded for Dirk who was a #9 pick.
*The Heat drafted Wade with a #5 pick and then acquired Bosh and LeBron
Yes, you definitely need to have good picks, hope there are good players available, and draft wisely. However, I don’t think it as easy as people make it out to be. There is a lot of luck involved and no guarantee that it is going to work. The Warriors won 21 games or fewer between 1997-2002 and look what that did for them. Take a look back at the last 10 drafts and you will see their are far more bust than stars. You are more likely to get a Sheldon Williams or Adam Morrison than you are a LeBron James or Kevin Durant.
Warriors has no luck
Because “luck” is risky for Warriors. Play safe = no luck.
by ILoveWarriorsGirls on Jan 25, 2012 5:15 PM PST up reply actions
No.
Because we got the #1 pick when the concensus #1 players were Jerry Stackhouse and Joe Smith, and then the #3 pick when the concensus choice was Mike Dunleavy Jr.
Because we’ve consistently moved down in the lottery and rarely moved up.
by Ronaldinho on Jan 25, 2012 7:41 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Big ups to Joe Lacob. I support him. Still. LGW.
Two very important things he metioned that I absolutely respect:
1) I am responsible. I and the other owners must be held accountable to our fans. And I am fine with that. I can take the heat. Why? Because I KNOW we WILL succeed.
2) They had no summer, no training camp, no summer league to learn our players and inculcate their system. No excuses here, just obvious facts.
Two things that impatient but yet very passionate warrior fans don’t wanna hear and find difficult to accept:
1) New Ownership is trying and at least when they are “trying” in this process they DO GIVE A DAMN about this Warriors team.
2) You have to remain patient even if you have waited 37 years from today. Persistence always gets rewarded.
Go Warriors. Still.
ROMESdavidWOOD37 has taken over the Ongline. He's cool.
by ROMESdavidWOOD37 on Jan 25, 2012 12:35 PM PST reply actions
Yeah, Lacob’s passion/desire to build a winner is pretty obvious in that exchange, I think.
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2012 12:39 PM PST up reply actions
yeah, there is zero doubt in my mind that Lacob will do his very best to make this team better
he is at least as engaged as Cuban
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 25, 2012 3:04 PM PST up reply actions
Whatever. Every team in the league had “No summer, no training camp, no summer league…”. We’re the ones at the bottom of the Pacific again.
Lacob really hangs his NBA hat on the Garnett acquisition. Every conversation I’ve read about how to build a winner, he brings that up. It’s like GW bringing up 9/11 every time he needed a trump card. There was a lot of serendipity involved when that trade went through, and to expect that to happen again is extremely naive. We don’t have a dozen banners hanging in our rafters.
I would have more patience with a 17 win team full of scrubs and rookies, because I recognize that the best way to land a star is in the draft.
I think he wants to own a winner, I just don’t think he honestly knows how to do it yet. He offers no plan. “Wait! We’ll be good! We really want to be good!” isn’t a plan, nor a particularly deep insight to share.
by Uwe Blog on Jan 25, 2012 12:48 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
He offers no plan. "Wait! We’ll be good! We really want to be good!" isn’t a plan, nor a particularly deep insight to share.
If there was a plan, would it make sense to share it?
As I asked above, what would such a plan look like? Some people obviously were rooting for tanking from day one, but that’s a pretty questionable plan – I’ve done the math in previous posts to show just how likely tanking is to get you an elite player.
This offseason, the plan looked like an attempt to get bigger, stronger, and more athletic inside. It didn’t work out – but that doesn’t mean that it was a bad plan or that there was no plan.
It just seems like a lot of people on this board don’t understand what being process-oriented means.
I know you’re against the rebuild. Do a little more math for me. Find me one team that has had less success than us since the last time we had 50 wins.
We rush our rebuilds. Keep sucking until you have a bonafide star. Not Antawn Jamison or Jason Richardson. Not even Curry. No, it’s better to suck until you have a complete stud. If we bust on an Olowokandi, then the next year we draft Odom. When that doesn’t work, you pick up Brand on a rookie deal. Next thing you know, you have a frontcourt of Kandi, Brand, Odom, and Darius Miles and they’re all on rookie deals. Not exactly Kareem/Worthy/Thompson/Cooper/Rambis… but a lot better than Kwami, Beans, Lee, Udoh, and Barron.
And if it still doesn’t work, you suck again until you get Griffin. Or Duncan. Or James. Or Durant. Or Howard. Or any number of superstuds who turn around a crappy franchise.
Do a little more math for me. Find me one team that has had less success than us since the last time we had 50 wins.
Why is this relevant? We made a series of poor management decisions. If we could go back and do them over, would I do them differently? Sure.
But that option isn’t on the table. Instead, we’re dealing with a new set of problems.
Keep sucking until you have a bonafide star. Not Antawn Jamison or Jason Richardson.
The problem is that it’s actually hard to “keep sucking” unless you keep bleeding talent. You get your Jason Richardsons or your Currys and they make you too good to have much of a shot at the next LeBron.
So yeah, you’ve sucked for years and ended up with your Kandi/Brand/Odom/Miles frontcourt … and no guards to get them the ball, no swingmen. You’re in exactly the situation we’re in now, except for team has big men rather than guards. How is that an improvement?
And if it still doesn’t work, you suck again until you get Griffin. Or Duncan. Or James. Or Durant. Or Howard. Or any number of superstuds who turn around a crappy franchise.
The problem is that there isn’t “any number” of superstuds who can turn around a crappy franchise. There are, rather, like five. Maybe six. (LeBron Howard Durant Paul and who else? Dirk? Griffin isn’t at that level yet, as entertaining as his play is.)
And even if you somehow do find a legitimate superstar, the next Lebron, you have to be able to put enough talent around them in a hurry to make them want to stick around. eg, before we all hail Griffin as the Clippers savior, we should see if he signs a new deal with them.
Meanwhile, you look around the league and you see Utah, Denver, Philly, Atlanta, Indiana and Memphis in nice playoff position without a superstar. Why? Simple.
They applies a simple principle: “get better players, repeat as necessary.”
Meanwhile, teams which went the “do whatever you can to get a superstar, even if it means shedding talent in the short term” – well, that worked for Miami. But how well is it working for New York?
You’re in exactly the situation we’re in now, except for team has big men rather than guards. How is that an improvement?
cause the baskets are nailed up high not just put down on the ground.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2012 9:27 AM PST up reply actions
Well, at least the Garnett acquisition was the right idea and right way to build a team – get a true, HoF level superstar and surround him with a couple other good players. I think that’s a good goal to have.
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2012 1:06 PM PST up reply actions
Sure, but what do you think the best way for our beloved team to get one of these guys is? We don’t have Boston’s history, nor do we have any of Larry Riley’s former teammates GMing for a rebuilding team. I still maintain that the draft is the best way to get talent.
I don’t think Boston’s history had anything to do with it. KG didn’t want to go there until they acquired Ray.
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2012 1:33 PM PST up reply actions
Fair enough, but it doesn’t discount the role of Ainge/McHale’s relationship on the deal. I’d wager that their friendship had more to do with that going through than anything Joe Lacob personally did.
I wouldn't.
A lot of teams were interested in KG, and everyone knew he was on the block.
What you needed to offer was pretty clear: young size and draft picks.
Nobody’s trading for KG without KG’s consent in those circumstances. KG made it clear he wanted to go to Boston, because he felt he could win there. You think there was a clearly better offer on the table from another team KG was happy to go to?
I do appreciate where you're coming from with all of this
but the fact is that with our current approach, we are pretty damn unlikely to acquire either intriguing young talent, or nice draft picks
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 25, 2012 3:08 PM PST up reply actions
Why?
I think you have to stockpile assets, not worry too much about the cap (because teams always seem to be able to find ways around it when they need to) and wait for the right opportunity to pounce.
It’s hard to predict when that opportunity will come, but you’ve got to be ready for it.
If it was easy to build a winner, everyone would do it.
Why?
because of this
I think you have to stockpile assets,
the assets we are currently able to acquire are late lotto picks, and cast-offs from other teams. Sure Steph, Udoh, maybe Klay are interesting, but we need to try and land a top tier talent through the draft, odds are that that is a high (1-3) pick
yeah, when the opportunity comes we gotta be ready for it, I guess we just disagree how best to do that
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 26, 2012 12:53 PM PST up reply actions
Nice to see that Lacob cares
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
To think as a fan you care more about the team than the guy that actually had season tickets for over a decade and spent hundreds of millions on it is a joke.
Wasn’t Mark Cuban just a passionate Mavs fan before he struck it rich? Why would you say that? Owning a team has more to do with how rich you are than how much you care.
Are you sure he had season tickets?
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 25, 2012 5:58 PM PST up reply actions
yes, because it’s not proof of anything. It doesn’t mean he attended 41 home games a year. Lot’s of CEO’s buy season tickets, and use them as perks for business partners. I myself was given courtside seats by a business partner once.
I also know several people who buy season tickets. They are no more passionate than anyone else, and certainly not as passionate about the Warriors as you are, for example. They just have more disposable income than most.
They are no more passionate than anyone else, and certainly not as passionate about the Warriors as you are, for example.
And yet now we’ve seen Lacob’s demeanor on the sideline …
Pretty unambiguous, no?
pretty unambiguous
YESSSS!!! YESSS!!!
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 25, 2012 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
because his gf just told him threesome is okay
by ILoveWarriorsGirls on Jan 25, 2012 3:14 PM PST up reply actions
newt gingritch must love his gf
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
I do not see any joy from Lacob in this moment at all. His reaction looks more like that of a belligerent convict if a blackout hit just before he was about to strapped into an electric chair.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Jan 25, 2012 5:21 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Yet again we have a fan using Ellis as the scapegoat.
Yes Ellis makes bad decisions. He is far from the only one. Ellis certainly can be blamed, as the everyone on the Warriors squad can be blamed. Fact is, mistakes were made / are made, across all positions. We take a look at the breakdown of the 4th quarter vs the Grizzlies, we discover its a problem of team decision making as well as an problem of ability and depth.
Here are a few noteworthy decision making problems:
Ineffective use of pick and roll.
Curry’s weak one handed passes, lazy passes that result in turnovers.
Curry’s weak fouls that result in and 1.
Biedrins fouls in general.
Blown fast breaks.
Monta/Curry reach in fouls.
Monta’s iso at from the top, monta in the air pass into traffic.
Taking a harder 3, instead of the much higher percentage 2 or foul.
Udoh not rolling after picking.
Udoh not boxing out or attempting to rebound.
Nate robinson out of control, trying to split defenders and getting the ball picked.
Dorell Wright, pumpfakilitus.
Noteworthy ability problems:
Curry’s inability to penetrate, forcing him to dribble near the perimeter, does not break down defense.
Curry’s low lateral quickness allows opposing PGs to penetrate with ease.
Dlee’s inability to defend, alter shots, or grab the more difficult rebounds.
Dlee’s lack fo size, allowing opposing centers to dominate when matches up against them.
Udoh’s lack of size, allowing opposing centers to dominate when matched up against them. (Therefore we cannot have Udoh and Dlee in at the same time like we did against Memphis).
Udoh’s inability to grab rebounds.
Monta’s inability to defend the perimeter, due to his height.
Biedrin’s inability to defend without fouling.
Biedrin’s inability to shoot free throws, resulting in a passive, almost non-existent offensive game.
Wright’s inability to get his shot off, inability to make his 3s despite that being the focal point of his offense.
Wright’s inability finish his drives.
Roster/depth problems:
We do not have a legit center aside from Biedrins who is at best a back-up center.
We do not have a legit PG right now.
These are the problems we need to fix, if its a decision making problem, there is a sliver of hope. If its an ability problem, it may be not be solvable because of physical limitations, skill limitations. We need to find a better players at the Center and PG spot plain and simple. Curry still has time to show that he will not repeat his mistakse, but he is limited in what he can do on offense and defense. Biedrins is not a legit starting center and Uh-oh and Lee are not gonna cut it as pseudo-centers.
by MonstaEllis on Jan 25, 2012 2:28 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
I like how biased that is
That you only point out thrice issues with Monta when there are plenty more than that but everyone else has like 5-6 issues each.
by Nith on Jan 25, 2012 3:48 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
did the Ellis fans see the closing comment ?
“we do need an experienced leader on the court” your guy is in his seventh season — still lacking experience ? ah, it must be the coach’s fault for assigning him the wrong role.
Music is the Healing Force of the Universe (a.ayler)
by the.monk on Jan 25, 2012 2:35 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
I've come full circle on the tanking thing
Now I’m not sure I want us to tank because of our draft history.
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
even the Wolves get things right once in a while
why can’t we?
J-RIDAH: Its not 1 player in this draft better than Monta or Lee. Anthony Davis is no different than Al Farouq Aminu. Andre Drummond could be good but he is not impressive at this point at all besides his size. This draft is hella overated.
(JaVale) Mcgee is better than anybody in this draft.
I always thought Kahn had the right ‘plan’ and wrong talent evuators. Whoever were his scouts, should have been fired, but his philosophy, 100% right. He’s picked up a lot of talent simply by showing financial flexibility.
And in process, he did get a couple picks right. I’d trade Monta, Curry, Lee for Love, Rubio, DWill without asking Q’s
well, in the case of Utah, Denver, and Minny
they all had an all-star level talent to trade, we don’t…that’s gonna make our rebuild look a lot more like the Pistons than Utah
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 25, 2012 4:18 PM PST up reply actions
they got that talent through the draft, right?
J-RIDAH: Its not 1 player in this draft better than Monta or Lee. Anthony Davis is no different than Al Farouq Aminu. Andre Drummond could be good but he is not impressive at this point at all besides his size. This draft is hella overated.
(JaVale) Mcgee is better than anybody in this draft.
well..sort of yes, sort of no
I mean, everyone comes from the draft at some point
Utah gets the benefit of the doubt because of Milsap and DWill, but other than that…I don’t see a ton of guys that make me say YES! YES! (a la Lacob)
and look at Denver’s draft history
my point is that both of those teams were able to go through more of a transformation (as opposed to a rebuild) because they were able to cash out on guys like Melo and DWill. Without any sort of premier talent (we’ll toss Melo in that group for now, just because he brought back so much in return) the Dubs could be in for a long slow grind, especially if our plan is to rebuild through the draft alone
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 25, 2012 5:04 PM PST up reply actions
Utah drafted DWill, Denver drafted Melo, Minny drafted Rubio, Love, DWill2
J-RIDAH: Its not 1 player in this draft better than Monta or Lee. Anthony Davis is no different than Al Farouq Aminu. Andre Drummond could be good but he is not impressive at this point at all besides his size. This draft is hella overated.
(JaVale) Mcgee is better than anybody in this draft.
Denver definitely built thru the draft
Drafted Nene, Lawson (both better than anyone on Warriors. I consider Lawson/Curry a dead heat at this moment. Lawson might play better with monta though, since he’s a true PG)
Drafted Melo. Melo= wilson, gallinari, Mozgov, felton
Felton=Miller
Farther back… Traded AI for Chauncey. Got AI by trading picks + Miller. Got Miller by trading guys they drafted.
Point is
When you miss in the draft (like we do QUITE often) you have less of a leg to trade with.
Also when you have poor talent evaluation, you hold onto players too long. I can make a strong case, we hsould have traded Biedrins in 2008-9, when he waso n top. We could have packaged him + other players to get a difference maker. Not that he was a bad player by any means, but he was always a big role player.
Denver, will certainly look at options with Lawson, Gallinari, Nene, Afflalo etc. All very good players but if they can turn 2 + picks into someone elite, you don’t think they will? They are mighty deep, that they could give up 2-3 players and still be deep.
Like Ronaldinho always says, what if something happens in miami, lebron chokes again, you don’t think the idea of nene+ lawson + Chandler would appeal? (for ex.)
One think stuck out to me
You would not believe how idiotic and unreasonable most deal proposals are by other GM’s.
Seems to me, this says no one values our players the way we do. Why should they? They won’t win. Most are overpaid.
This brings up the fundamental issue. WHY do we value them so highly? When is it the right time to give up? When is it right, to just dump and play the draft. Find ways to find picks, get players, find young players, until we find legitimate core pieces. Give them REASONABLE contracts.
I don’t know, these are honest q’s on my part. I just think it seems Lacob has his answer right there, yet he’s too niave to see it. We do not have great assets. Our only great one is Curry. The rest of our ‘good’ players are overpaid, which devalues them.
by tafkasam on Jan 25, 2012 4:04 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
yeah, and why other teams can make good deals, and only Warriors can make bad deal or no deal?
by ILoveWarriorsGirls on Jan 25, 2012 4:07 PM PST up reply actions
because we have no one of good value
other than Stephen ‘Untouchable’ Curry, of course. We have other pieces, but they either have contracts too large or are highly valued by the FO.
That's the excuse Warriors been using for the pass 20 years
So why Portland can get Wallace? LAC got Billups? Dude, even signing Tracy is better than signing KBrown.
by ILoveWarriorsGirls on Jan 25, 2012 4:12 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I really question a lot of our talent evaluation, and I put it on Riley.
He misses a lot. Lacob saying ‘we don’t think Gerald Wallace helps you win games"
Gerald Wallace only rebounds and defends better positionally than anyone on this team. Finishes well and plays comfortably off ball.
It is not even about talent evaluation, I think. I believe Riley and FO people are just too chicken too pull it. I mean Wallace is a freebie, CP3 is a freebie, but Riley said “keeping my job is more important”.
by ILoveWarriorsGirls on Jan 25, 2012 4:17 PM PST up reply actions
re: ‘we don’t think Gerald Wallace helps you win games"
yeah, this was a pretty big warning sign to me when I heard it (then again, we didn’t really have a pick to offer, so…kinda like the hot girl you can’t get: “meh, she’s probably hella stupid and shallow”)
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 25, 2012 4:20 PM PST up reply actions
This is why I'm not sure about tanking now
Can we really expect the FO to pick a good player?
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
by doubleteapot on Jan 25, 2012 4:24 PM PST up reply actions
always a chance they get lucky
"Anthony Davis is no different than Al Farouq Aminu." - J--Ridah
Me: So who (from the 2011 draft class) compares with (Anthony) Davis?
J-Ridah: Biyombo
We got Rush for Amundson. Riley picks Udoh over Monroe and everybody questions his talent evaluation yet ignore all the D-League finds. When Charles Jenkins has a long career who will get the credit for that pick? He’s had 3 drafts and in them he picked Curry,Udoh,Jenkins, Klay was a West move. I dont see how passing on Monroe is a example of bad talent evaluation. Choosing defense over offense is not always a bad thing.
We had D-League finds
because the entire squad got injured and we were basically the D-League All Stars. We had all the best players from the D-League, and some of them turned out to be good. But it wasn’t a talent evaluation thing, we would never have called up D-Leaguers if we hadn’t had so many injuries.
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
by doubleteapot on Jan 25, 2012 10:14 PM PST up reply actions
Eh, where would we be with Gerald Wallace right now? Still stuck in purgatory, with even less flexibility…
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2012 4:59 PM PST up reply actions
Wallace is expiring
I said we got the flex to keep or not to keep, and for sure the team is better than what we have now.
If not Wallace, who we are waiting for? Howard in FA?
by ILoveWarriorsGirls on Jan 25, 2012 5:08 PM PST up reply actions
Wallace would have been a great get if it also coincided with trading for say…Paul or Howard. Kinda like Celtics bringing in Ray to pair with KG and Pierce. Do your best to add as much talent as possible to convince them to re-sign.
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2012 5:17 PM PST up reply actions
Heck, Wallace would have been great if we... traded Monta for anything
I’m not sure what we’d have going at center, but I can make a case Curry, Rush, Wallace, Lee is a much better combo, if we had a rim protector. We’d have great wing defense, a high quality off bal cutter, deep shooters to spread, Curry/Lee could run the PnR. And then Monta could certainly fetch something.
It’d be ok, potentially better than what we have, but still a lot of “stuck in mediocrity” with that group…
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2012 7:23 PM PST up reply actions
sure, but just put that issue aside for now
Portland? It depends whether you’re a fan of Gerald Wallace. We could’ve gotten Gerald Wallace–he’s not somebody we thought would make us better. I really believe that. He just doesn’t fit for us. He’s good defensive player, rebounder, certain things that do fit, certain things that don’t.
I could argue, don’t know whether Portland got better or worse.
NBA exec: Warriors asked about Wallace-for-Andris Biedrins, which Charlotte flatly rejected. GSWs couldn’t come close to Portland’s offer.
Just me attempting to read behind the lines, but I guess we would have done a deal if the price was Biedrens, but they asked for Steph and it was too much
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 25, 2012 5:10 PM PST up reply actions
Bobcats want cap space
So that make sense they don’t want Beans. I think they want Reggie, Bell, and Radman.
Oops… didn’t we give those away anyway? Thank you very much, Riley ’n team.
by ILoveWarriorsGirls on Jan 25, 2012 5:12 PM PST up reply actions
I know and I agree
I would be nice to see some risk-taking once in a while, we always settle for the ‘safe’ trade or pick
Exactly
What can Udoh and Klay get us? I like Klay but at the moment he’s not much. Udoh is nothing but a throw in. Dorell? Throw in/rotation player. Offering Biedrins? Might as well be offering a GM a colonoscopy.
And any team who likes Montaor Lee is inclined to offer less because of the contracts.
no one values our players the way we do
Even if they did, put yourself in a GM’s position. When your job is riding on those decisions, when there’s so much on the line, you’re gonna be a heck of a lot more risk adverse than some internet blogger throwing out an idea on a forum. Do you ever trade/barter in your everyday life, or maybe play board games that involve it? People are often suspicious of what you’re peddling and only willing to pull the trigger when they’re sure it’s a slam dunk. Looking “fair” on initial inspection is rarely even close to enough to get something done.
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2012 4:58 PM PST up reply actions
And he says it later down
You are better off starting from scratch than you are tinkering with a cohan/rowell/riley built team.
And lacob skirts it….
Trust me. Mark needs more time to conclude anything yet. But, we do clearly need an experienced leader on the court. All great teams have that.
Which frustrates me. He wants to find a player like Garnett, but somehow expect him to sign and transform a losing culture.
WHY would that player do thaT?
Why would CP3 do thaT?
Why would dwight do that?
He’s missing the fundamental issue. BUILD YOUR TEAM WITH IN.
Only the Lakers come to mind as a team who signed an all-star player (shaq) without having one developed internally. Knicks too, i guess…
No wade, and lebron/bosh don’t come. No Paul Peirce and Ray Allen, KG doesn’t agree to come to Boston. No Blake in LAC (and chauncey/Caron to be fair), CP3 rejects the clippers.
Point is, outside La/NY no one else is just able to convince someone to ‘come’ to a losing culture with promises. You need to actually show a change internally
Exactly
Overpaid to a star is a good move for a team like Warriors. Trade away a farm (if we have one) for someone like CP3 as rental is a good move for Warriors. There is no other way!!
FO people do not want to do it because it risks their job. So “WAIT” is the best answer.
by ILoveWarriorsGirls on Jan 25, 2012 4:11 PM PST up reply actions
Not really what I was saying
The answer is doing what okc, portland, minnesota and others do.
Truly rebuild. Trade your ‘ok’ players for youth and picks. Keep flexibility and find and develop your own guys.
If we trade for CP3, we get an instant superstar and we cab build around him right away. If CP3 walks, then we got the “tank mode” we want, truly rebuild. It is a win-win, so it does not make sense at all not to do it.
by ILoveWarriorsGirls on Jan 25, 2012 4:14 PM PST up reply actions
OK
I see what you’re saying.
and to be honest, I was on board with this at the time. I like Curry, but we need to role the dice a little.
I think CP3 would have been enough to sway Chandler here. I think CP3 is exactly what we need to get most out of monta and lee. Both are dying for a dominant player to play off of, which would increase production and thus value to move 1 for that legit 2nd option
Trust me. Mark needs more time to conclude anything yet.
This is why he should have fired Smart earlier and brought in the new coach last season when I was calling for it! Also Mark had plenty of time during the lockout to catch up on tapes of last season. To say this now is a LAME excuse.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Jan 25, 2012 5:06 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
