Jeff Chiu - AP
30 days ago: Golden State Warriors point guard Stephen Curry (30) walks on the floor during the fourth quarter of an NBA basketball game against the Memphis Grizzlies in Oakland, Calif., Monday, Jan. 23, 2012. The Grizzlies won 91-90. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)
Digging this up from the archives after last night's debacle. Has anything really changed? Look at the poll. Would you change your vote now?
The draft is over. So, what happens now? Eventually there will be another season, assuming the CBA issues are resolved (I think that will be sooner rather than later, the NBA is near an all-time high in popularity, after all). Today, I'm going to play virtual GM, and give one possible scenario for re-building the team. Many, if not most of you, will not like this vision. Well, I should say, you will not like the immediate future of the vision. But the long-term goal is to build a contender - not just a team that makes it to the first round and quickly exits, but a real contender that is a threat to go deep into the playoffs every year. Keep reading to see what I think it would take, and then take your best shot at me in the comments.
Ok, so here's the deal. As it is currently constructed, our favorite team is squarely mediocre. The front office might look like solid gold right now, but the team is essentially fool's gold. Here's a quick run down of the roster:
And that brings me to the next part of the plan. The starting lineup in 2012:
No, I am not kidding. That is Jeremy Tyler you see at center. Let me explain. Well, let me explain by giving you a list that may or may not look familiar to you (yet):
That list is the top 7 players on Chad Ford's 2012 draft big board. The list goes on...and on...and on...with names that we will be salivating over come this time next year. A list that will be completely meaningless to us unless we retain our first round pick. To do that, we have to finish among the bottom 7 teams in the league. To virtually guarantee that happening, I would start two rookies, each with potentially bright futures. This accomplishes two things. 1) Most rookies suck, and they will help immensely in the tanking process; and 2) Giving them a full-year of starters minutes will be the quickest way to get those players to reach their potential and actually see what that potential is. You have to accept and embrace the fact that most rookies fail. Kevin Durant was horrible his first season. So was John Wall (in my opinion anyway). So was DeMarcus Cousins. But you let them fail. Those failures can (not always, of course) make them better players in the long run. The cream always rises to the top. Kevin Garnett was on a losing team for many years, but he is not a loser. He eventually made a team a winner. I don't believe all that nonsense about losing being contagious. What I believe in is talent.
So, in 2012, the starting lineup is built to tank. Reggie, Udoh, Charles Jenkins (yes) are the first three off the bench. Then Biedrins and Amundson (like I said, if necessary). Ideally, we have 2-3 picks in next year's draft. But at the very least, we keep our protected pick. I'm not going to bother speculating on who we draft with that pick, needless to say, it should be the best player available. As you can see by the board above, it's actually not expected to be a PG-heavy draft, so whoever we get will likely jump into the starting lineup immediately. I said Stephen Curry is an important piece moving forward, and this is part of the reason. I'd love to have Bradley Beal playing next to him (with Klay then moving to the bench). I'd also love to have a shot at Anthony Davis, who actually is projected to be a guy who can turn a franchise around. He looks to be a once-in-a-decade type of talent. Maybe even a "tier 0" (if you remember what that means) type of guy.
I realize all this is painful. You have high hopes for this team. So do I, but my hopes are that the front office has the vision to think long-term and not about "winning immediately". Maybe they have a plan to get Nene or Marc Gasol. Great. If that happens, I'm on board. But short of something major like that taking place, what other alternatives do we have? We must get off the treadmill of mediocrity, the vicious cycle of mid-to-late lottery picks, that has prevented this team for two decades from becoming a serious contender, save one or two magical seasons, that frankly, were like mirages in the desert. We believed, and I still believe, that this team can eventually be a winner. But you have to think like a winner.
What it comes down to is this: There's the short con and the long con. What you've been seeing for the last two decades is the short con. What we need now is the long con. So, let the tanking process commence. The medicine won't taste good now, but it will save us eventually.
Ok, I'm out of cliches. Like I said in the intro. Take your best shots. I can handle it.
2 recs | 214 comments
We are in a tough position
As it stands now, we’re in position to be stuck in NBA mediocrity. I agree that we need to dump some dead weight pieces that will have us stuck and take us nowhere. We’ve been losers for a long time but we finally have a competent managerial team and may have to stick it through a few more terrible seasons.
SD37 - June 25, 2011
Without a multi-player, multi-position trade, ASAP, we stink, both short, and long term. This team is structured wrong, and this draft compounded the problem!
Five 2/3 shooting players, no bonafide point guard except for Lin, no experienced center that can deliver, LEE is also a leader, very thin at the forward.
dinohealth - June 25, 2011
As for the competent managerial team, when I look at the results of this draft, the coaching decision, I whave to wonder who the heck is it that is assessing our needs!
dinohealth - June 25, 2011
All folks that think we NOW have a competent managerial team remind me of an anecdote:
There was a fella who married. His new bride didn’t sweep the house for a year. He divorced, and married, again. His second bride, didn’t sweep the house for a year. Deivorced her, and married again. His third bride didn’t sweep the house for a year. He now had 3 inches of dirt in the house. Divorced again, he brought his 4th bride home. On the first day, she picked up the broom, and started sweeping. Well, sheer apotheosis!
dinohealth - June 25, 2011
Hmm
Not the craziest thing I’ve heard. I wouldnt mind doing thus providing we “try like the dickens” first to get a quality big man this summer. But you’re right, most teams have to be really bad to get the right pieces they need to be really good. Of course, Mark Jackson didn’t do us any favors by proclaiming we’re a playoff team….
bayareaballa - June 25, 2011 via mobile
Conceptually, I agree that that a strong, well-orchestrated tank may be what the doctor ordered. Realistically, I think we have to accept that just ain’t happening.
I’d also note that the tank team you presented is more than capable of finishing outside of the bottom 5. A proper tank would have to all-but-guarantee a bottom 5 finish, as during lotto, a #6 or 7 could easily slip to #8, thereby forcing us to cede that pick — the ultimate nightmare scenario.
I’d actually rate the chances of that team you posted (with a bench of Reggie-Udoh-Jenkins) finishing in the bottom 5 as in the neighborhood of 25%. We’d basically have to break Curry’s knees to increase the chances to the 75-80% range where you might consider it. In other words: not a good plan, even conceptually.
Sleepy Freud - June 25, 2011
I think that team would be much worse than you think
Evanz - June 25, 2011
Well, Tyler could be really, really bad. Problem is, if he were, Jackson would immediately realize he’s bad and start Udoh. Or if forced by the “tank-police” to start Tyler, he’d run zero plays through him. Curry-Klay-Dorell-Lee plus any random big body, plus a nice bench trio of Udoh-Reggie-Jenkins, could easily get you 25 wins, imho. Last year there were six teams with fewer than that.
Basically, Jackson would have to be complicit in the tank plan to guide it properly. And heck, as long as Jackson were complicit, we should probably involve Curry too. With those two in the tank, yeah, you could basically guarantee a Bottom 5 finish.
OK, you’re right: this plan is totally sensible and not the slightest bit cockamamie. ;-P
Sleepy Freud - June 25, 2011
there's fairly good evidence that teams do tank when there are stars at the top
http://weaksideawareness.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/how-to-easily-spot-tanking-and-upside-of-weak-drafts/
So, you have to wonder how they did it. Wouldn’t the coaches have to have been on board?
Evanz - June 25, 2011
Evanz, there something seriously wrong with a team that we pay to see, when the discussion year in, year out, is how and when we can tank effectively! :}
dinohealth - June 25, 2011
Evanz, there something seriously wrong with a team that we pay to see, when the discussion year in, year out, is how and when we can tank effectively! :}
All they gotta do is get it right once, not much to ask.
Skeptic con Urquell - June 25, 2011
No. You just hire Keith Smart and let him do his thing!
Missing Barry - January 25, 2012
We’d basically have to break Curry’s knees to increase the chances to the 75-80% range
at least it’s a plan
Skeptic con Urquell - January 24, 2012
I like the concept too...
…but I don’t think it’s very likely to happen. I think Mark Jackson is going to try very hard to keep his guarantee of playoffs good. Unfortunately, unless a big trade/free agent happens, I think we are likely to be in the same wins range as last year. I do believe that Lacob is going to try very hard to get us a Nene/Gasol type of free agent, and I’m hoping for us to grab that 8th to 6th spot, because it will really bite if we have to give Jersey a late lottery pick.
Hoopachoo - June 25, 2011
I understand what your thought process is
But I also think that getting to the playoffs, which should be our immediate goal, is as important a way as any to build a contender. Players take teams seriously when they can at least make it to the postseason. Otherwise, all the Front Office moves and draft picks don’t mean a thing. If we can build respectability throughout the league on the court, we can attract big name players through free agency (and possible trade with the right moves.) I don’t think I could take the Warriors purposefully tanking , they were already hard to watch last year!
Pearlsofwisdom - June 25, 2011
I'm onboard
I was thinking of something similar this morning. Its the Warrior way to not have a pick, in a lottery year, in a loaded draft. I think this team is closer than people think to being a high playoff team. Steph will make an excellent 2nd option, while I truly believe David Lee can make a great 3rd option. He will never outperform (or up to) his contract, but he brings a versatility to this team, if put into the right offense (hybrid of Princeton, similar to Kings circa 1999).
But we still lack the 1st option, which, from what I’ve researched, can be found this draft (I really, really like Austin Rivers).
Off topic, but a question I have: Evanz, in Steph’s description you said that its a PG driven league, but how so? While I think its a perimeter driven league, why do you feel its more PG driven? Even looking back at the recent Finals, the teams weren’t necessarily driven by their PGs (and in Miami and LAL, at times were greatly hindered by their PG’s.)
dsham001 - June 25, 2011
Well, looking at 3 of the 4 teams, point guards (Rose, Westbrook, Kidd) played huge roles. Miami is an outlier, because they basically broke all the rules. Generally, the 1 and the 5 are the most important positions in the NBA. But you make a good point. In reality, the NBA is a “star-driven” league, so whatever position you can find a star at, that’s what you need, whether it is a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.
Evanz - June 25, 2011
Kidd
Was much more of a role player in his team. Westbrooks role could be argued was the Thunders downfall.
ROARRR - June 25, 2011
That’s the storyline, but I’m inclined to believe that it’s crap.
Reverend_Randy - June 25, 2011
yeah that is crap because you can also flip
and say durant was acting like a no name bench player and ibaka and perkins brought zero defense
harden was the only person who had an effective series
oh and eric maynor doing his best AI impression. i still get cramps from that
starbury_to_s-jaxci2000 - June 25, 2011
I don’t like that storyline, either. Westbrook made some mistakes, no doubt, but pinning their entire downfall on him ignores the positive things he did. It’s essentially saying the Thunder without Westbrook would have been better than with him. I believe better decision-making would have helped Westbrook be more effective, but their team was still better off having him than not.
Missing Barry - January 25, 2012
The Warriors have failed at the all important position of “best player on the team.”
jae - January 25, 2012
i think judging players accurately
(ie their respected roles on a championship contending team) ultimately comes down to hiring the right personnel to do so (budenholzer).
Heres a link of budenholzer dealing spurs younger players (hill/blair) as subsitute coach in a wolves game (i know its a small sample size). What I like about san antonio is the steady progress with which they cultivate their talent.
In contrast, mark jackson’s comments about “not having time to develop players” (im paraphrasing) and “making the playoffs” sound haphazard. I really dont think the warriors get it right with that attitude.
big_p.a.w.z. - June 25, 2011
I don't read 48 minutes of hell as much as I should
this is also a great article on “solving for pattern”, which relates to my post:
http://www.48minutesofhell.com/on-the-spurs-the-2011-nba-draft-and-solving-for-pattern
Evanz - June 25, 2011
All he was saying...
…is that Jeremy will have every opportunity to succeed. If he can play and contribute he will. If not he won’t. That simple. If he is better than all otheroptions why do you sit him? Develop doesn’t mean that you go to the mountains and learn the game from monks for 4 years. It simply means that you get extra focus from coaches on and off court. If you are not playing than you go to the D league to get playing time so that you can continue to learn.
I like Mark Jackson’s approach. Everyone is treated like a man from day 1. If you can take it you have a spot, if not you go to D league and they find somebody that wants to give 100% effort. Period.
friscohoya - June 25, 2011
very well put Evanz
SmittytheCutman - June 25, 2011 via mobile
Glass Half-Full Perspective:
First of all, there is zero chance that they’d bring in Mark Jackson and Jerry West, in likely his last NBA job, to immediately tank the first year. You don’t bring in an unproven coach, who’s two major selling points are locker room credibility and unbridled optimism and then completely undermine it by orchestrating a miserable, unsuccessful season. His boisterous rhetoric would wear very thin around loss #50, and, now you’ve effectively kicked Mark Jackson’s coaching aspirations squarely in the balls. If you’re going to make the decision to tank, your first move is to exercise Kieth Smart’s option for 2011-12.
I’m also fairly certain “The Logo” isn’t going to come out of retirement just to put his very prominent stamp on a 60-loss season.
Second, some good news for those of us who are optimistic defeatists: We’re stuck with David Lee’s contract but the good news is that David Lee does a few things very well and one could reasonably attribute his lower productivity of last year to a freak injury and a coach who refused to utilize his strengths. There is hope that David Lee will be very productive next year because he will be utilized as a high-post facilitator and a pick-and-roll finisher while rebounding at a higher rate than last year. He should also spend more time playing along side Udoh who can help on Lee’s man and require less help defense from Lee.
Also, it is not 100% certain that Andris will continue to suck since he used to not. This at least provides a glimmer of hope that two of the large contracts are tied up in players that have historically contributed rebounding and efficient scoring and neither of them are injured.
Again, I’m looking at this as a glass “half-full” perspective although I realize that my glass may be “half-full” of horrible losing basketball.
Also, tanking completely defeats the purpose of being a sports-fan for me. This isn’t a science project or an economic modeling exercise, it’s an escape from really crappy world events and day-to-day stresses. A lot about being a fan is synthetic hope, rooting for people to succeed even though it has no practical impact on your life. To that end, the idea of tanking entirely contrary to the essence of sports.
bloodsweatndonuts - June 25, 2011
Awesome, BSD. Rec’ed. I especially liked this line:
Sleepy Freud - June 25, 2011
hahahha yup.. im glad u highlighted that one.. i got a nice chuckle out of it
PIRATEWARRIOR - June 25, 2011
I disagree with this. Smart was coaching for his coaching career. In other words, he was coaching to win to keep the job or to impress for his next job. He would not be down for tanking because it would kill his career.
On the other hand, Mark Jackson is a first-time coach with a guaranteed 3-yr contract and would have the backing of the FO (in my scenario). Yes, the first year would be bad, but everyone around the league would “get it”. Byron Scott is on a tanking team, and he now stands to benefit from the addition of two lottery talents (he even got the guy I really wanted for us – Tristan Thompson). I realized their tanking strategy mid-way through the season (maybe before). At the time I thought they had a shot to get Irving and Barnes. Didn’t quite end up that good, but they still got Irving.
As long as Jackson is “in on the plan” there’s no real downside for him as far as I’m concerned. And to be honest, even if he coaches his ass off, I don’t expect his first year to be all that great, anyway. Smart had been an assistant for seven years.
Evanz - June 25, 2011
I was more thinking of Smart as a coach who is desperate enough for the esteem and validation that goes with being an NBA head coach. In other words, someone who would be willing to follow orders to follow your tanking/development program. I agree with you that he would not follow the tanking directive on his own. More importantly though, he is someone who can be blamed for the losing while being identified as part of the old Cohan regime.
While this is technically true, ownership seems to be very big on managing public perception. I’m basing this on the amount of times Lacob has put himself on radio and television. He’s trying to instill confidence in the “true fans” as well as those of us who watch them on TV.
At this point, fans seem to be optimistically skeptical of this first-time coach. Jackson is benefiting right now from our naive hopefulness and his “new coach smell”, both of which will quickly turn to pitchforks and torches if he inexplicably plays Jeremy Tyler 30 minutes a game as the Ws drop five out of every six games. This is why I said that your plan only works in a human-less environment not in a people-infested recession under an owner who made a “contractual” promise to said people that the team will make the playoffs in 2012.
I have no problem deluding myself to this end. It costs me nothing to hope for the unlikely. If it doesn’t work out, there’s always alcohol.
bloodsweatndonuts - June 25, 2011
I think that the fans would support a rebuild if we were open about that as our strategy. I’ve personally had my fill of trying to “win now” when we don’t have the talent to do so. I’m soooo tired of winning 22-40 games a season. I would rather win 15-20 games for the next two seasons and have a chance at some top 3 picks to put with Curry before he’s gone.
Uwe Blog - June 25, 2011 via mobile
Right, but my point is that they’re clearly and loudly saying exactly the opposite. The coach an the owner are publically guaranteeing that the team will make the playoffs next year. It’s not like they’re going to come out and say “psych!” and expect that fans are going to trust that ownership and the FO know what’s best. People would be pissed.
bloodsweatndonuts - June 25, 2011
I agree. The front office has made it clear, both in word and deed, that they have no intention of rebuilding. I think it’s a mistake.
Uwe Blog - June 26, 2011 via mobile
To that end, the idea of tanking entirely contrary to the essence of sports.
but that’s the way the rules are written. To not tank when appropriate is a losers mentality.
Skeptic con Urquell - June 25, 2011
Re: but that’s the way the rules are written.
Except that the rules are written specifically to avoid tanking. That’s why they have the lottery system.
bloodsweatndonuts - June 25, 2011
That’s why they have the lottery system
which gives the teams with worse records more chances at the best players. if they wanted to discourage tanking they’d give teams with the best records the most chances .
The point is a winner analyzes the rules and the structure of the game then plays all out to win and if that involves tanking for a year then that’s what he does.
Skeptic con Urquell - June 25, 2011
re: if they wanted to discourage tanking they’d give teams with the best records the most chances .
The lottery was specifically installed as a reaction to the Rockets tanking to get Akim:
bloodsweatndonuts - June 25, 2011
After the 1984 coin flip, which was won by the Houston Rockets, the NBA introduced the lottery system
they made it harder to tank but they didn’t make it impossible. The worst teams still get more lotto chances so there’s still positive gain from losing games. Some seasons the draft is stronger and some seasons it’s weaker but a skilled player can figure out when to play it for the best reward to risk ratio.
Skeptic con Urquell - June 25, 2011
Right . . .
But climbing back up and out of the rabbit hole reveals that you’re initial argument implied that the rules were written to encourage teams to tank. All I was pointing out was that rules were explicitly written to discourage tanking in reaction to accusations of actual tanking.
bloodsweatndonuts - June 25, 2011
you’re initial argument implied that the rules were written to encourage teams to tank.
no, I said winners use the written rules to their best advantage. If tanking can have a positive effect on the team’s future then it’s managerial negligence to not exploit it. Rules are always tweaked and the best players always adjust .
Skeptic con Urquell - June 25, 2011
Have I mentioned that you're as beautiful as the day I married you?
bloodsweatndonuts - June 25, 2011
you're as beautiful as the day I married you?
in the eye of the beholder?
Skeptic con Urquell - June 25, 2011
please tell me this is real!?!?
BSD and Skep as a married couple?
Duby Dub Dubs - June 27, 2011
BSD
You are my practical escape from impractical escape.
Doctor Kajita - June 25, 2011 via mobile
just adding one more Rec, to get this up into double-digits
Loved your entire last paragraph
Duby Dub Dubs - June 27, 2011
Also, tanking completely defeats the purpose of being a sports-fan for me
you need to broaden your horizons a bit , sometimes it’s a long hard journey to the best places.
Skeptic con Urquell - January 24, 2012
Awesome Point LGW!
dubtown - January 24, 2012
the games I'm watching aren't fun
it isn’t fun watching a loser
it’s called delayed gratification
Evanz - January 24, 2012
I agree with keeping Lee
Versatile players allow you freedom of pursuit when you’re building a franchise.
He’s skilled and a great complementary player if we find ourselves in a situation where we can sign or draft a scoring center.
David doesn’t need to be on the block to be effective. The man can pass and shoot the ball. He’s going to rebound every night.
Granted, he’s overpaid, but that’s the nature of the beast. Go down the other 29 rosters in the league, and I guarantee you’ll find at least 1 or 2 guys who are overpaid 3-5 million a year. I bet you 80% of them aren’t as good as David Lee.
lilboots - January 24, 2012
I should add that . . .
In a vacuum void of human beings and Joe Lacob’s ego, your plan is very sound. I’ve really enjoyed your posts since your promotion. Keep up the great work.
bloodsweatndonuts - June 25, 2011
thanks
much appreciated
Evanz - June 25, 2011
dito!
dinohealth - June 25, 2011
sadly i totally agree with this view.. personally i would tank it up!!!!
next year we would be beasting
PIRATEWARRIOR - June 25, 2011
My thoughts exactly
Great post Evanz, I especially liked the part referring to monta, as i is how I reluctantly feel. Then again I do have the dream that this team will stay together and shock the world next, it’s not impossible, just nearly so.
AHR - June 25, 2011
I still think that starting 5 is too good
Steph and DLee can lead a team to 26-33 wins, which would put us dangerously out of position to still lose our pick. Let’s not forget 2009 where we won 26 games with a lineup of dleague allstars + stepho. We have 3 guys who are good nba players positionally, 2 with borderline allstar production, and 1 rookie who may such defensively but has an nba elite skill
Then you see Charlotte tanking with a lineup of dj, kemba, henderson, tyrus biyumbo…
and teams like minnesota, cleveland not getting better etc. etc. etc.
tafkasam - June 25, 2011
ideally, this would most likely be best
but realistically, we have an FO that is so hell bent on playoffs that they’d never consider it. I like the idea of starting thompson and taylor, the earlier the experience the better.
i think the one player you are underestimating is jenkins. he was the single most underrated player in college, and i see nothing but him turning into a stud. i really want him on the team for the long run
j-spliff415 - June 25, 2011
I'm not underestimating Jenkins
I like him, too
Evanz - June 25, 2011
I've got an alternative vision Ev...
We trade Monta for Iggy. This pains me a bit, but it’s exaclty what we need. We find anyway to dump Biedrins to Minnesota or Houston for cap space. Take back 1 crappy contract, I don’t care. We got 7 mil of cap space. We need to increase it to 12.
With the cap space sign Nene or Gasol.
Now we have a lineup of:
Curry
Iggy
Dorell
Lee
Nene
Bench: Jenkins, Klay, Reggie, Udoh, Tyler. If I had my way we’d actually find a defensive specialist wing and drop Reggie but whatever.
Now that we have some legitimate assets we play the trade market. Be it Nene + Tyler + Bell’s corpse + future picks for Howard of a Curry package centered around CP3.
I feel the best part of our draft was getting 2 very attractive assets (Tyler + Klay) for trade market. To get an elite guy, we need players on rookie deals with upside, picks and expirings. You need all 3.
tafkasam - June 25, 2011
I'm all in favor of getting Dwight Howard
lets be real..,if Nene could get Dwight, Denver would be all over it. If Curry could net CP3, it probably would have happened already. I think that strategy is as unlikely to play out, and we have no control over it.
At least, the moves I have described are pretty much under our control, and could actually happen without relying on other teams acting irrationally.
Evanz - June 25, 2011
Well it's not just one of them getting the elite player
It’s a combination of assets. The reason we couldn’t make a trade last deadline was we had NOTHING interesting to attach to our expirings.
How did NJ get Deron? They had picks and Derrick Favors (promising rookie)
How did NY get Melo? Attached a bunch of young productive low cost players
At the moment, we only have 1. Curry. Monta, Lee, Biedrins make too much to consider an attractive peice to swap for CP3 or Howard. Basically if you are going to trade those players you’re signaling rebuild and you want assets like what you’re speaking out here
If Udoh produces more he might count as 2, but fact is defensive specialist who doesn’t show up in box score rarely garners big trade value until they are playoff proven.
Now we got 2 more Klay (who i’m positive will produce enough his rookie year to be attractive piece), and Jeremy Tyler who has 3 things which will always get him overvalued elite measurements/size, elite athleticism (positionally), and youth.
From the standpoint of trading for an elite player we are in better position. Whether we can, it’s more on orlando or new orleans.
tafkasam - June 25, 2011
like I keep saying
if we can trade for Dwight or CP3, great. But my plan is not mutually exclusive with that, unless you think Monta will be involved in the deal, which it doesn’t sound like you do.
Evanz - June 25, 2011
there is no way we can Dwight or CP3
our team sucks to bad for that. And on top of that we don’t even have any picks.
even if we trade Curry and Monta for CP3 or something like that, the rest of the team is worse than Hornets.
SDtotheBay - June 25, 2011
tell sam
I’m the one who agrees with you
Evanz - June 25, 2011
I know, I was more or less expanding on your point of view.
SDtotheBay - June 25, 2011
I'm just saying
If they want to trade them, they are signalling a rebuild.
What do you want to rebuild? Youthful potential, which we have more of now.
The Lebron situation does have management’s scared of losing stars for nothing. Add the Denver/Utah victories of trading there stars, I would NOT be surprised if one is dealt
tafkasam - June 25, 2011
but so many other teams can give them so much more than we can
you just have to be honest in your assessment of what we have and what other teams have to see that
Evanz - June 25, 2011
That's probably true
Im just saying, if Tyler shows any potential, he’s as attractive a trade chip as anything for Howard. Get back a young center with elite measurements/athleticism/potential on a low contract is basically what a team would covet.
tafkasam - June 25, 2011
Sure, but as of right now, he’s a guy that was passed over 38 different times by these same teams. If he was really an attractive piece, they all could have had him. They chose not to. I think it was a good move for us to pick him up, but we have to be honest with ourselves here – he has to show a lot if he’s gonna have any trade value.
Missing Barry - January 25, 2012
I don't think they'd want Monta
Or maybe if they did, it’d be us taking Hedo or Okafor or someone in return, which again I wouldn’t be opposed to, if it got is cp3 or howard
tafkasam - June 25, 2011
and 12 mil is not going to get Nene
Evanz - June 25, 2011
12 mil escalating will, which of course f's us at the end
But it’s more realistic than 7 mil escalating
tafkasam - June 25, 2011
Unsure
On how Iggy is exactly what we need. Overrated defenders who are being chased out of their team with a pitchfork armed mob this would just be a trade to make a trade.
ROARRR - June 25, 2011
He’s still a very good defender. Why do you think he’s overrated? By Synergy’s opponents points per possession, he was the best high minute perimeter defender in the league. Even if he isn’t actually the best, he’s still very high up there. Probably underrated if anything, given that the All NBA voters thought that Kobe’s defense was better than his.
I don’t know how you can look at what Iguodala does on the court and not think that it’s a perfect fit. He’s an excellent passer and a great defender. He doesn’t take that many shots, which is good when you have a dude like Stephen Curry who should be leading your team in shot attempts. He also would help make guys like Lee, Dorell, and Thompson better.
Sounds like Monta if you replaced overrated defender with overrated scorer. There are a lot of less than flattering things about Monta floating out there right now.
Reverend_Randy - June 25, 2011
Didn't get the memo? We gotta make the playoffs next season.
The problem is the Warriors don’t have the talent to get it done.
To accomplish their goal AND build for the future, they need to get talent, so free agency and trades will be a big part. Teams with great players they may end up dealing are New Jersey, Utah, Orlando and Atlanta. I’m sure there will be others.
I’m not too sure the W’s can get an impact free agent since they don’t have enough cap space, but who knows. They got an expert now.
That said, I hope the team has enough sense to see what they have first and who ends up making the team. We probably won’t see a big trade until the deadline.
callahan - June 25, 2011
Nice. Totally agree. Only hope is a multi-player-position trade for this year, or, the future!
dinohealth - June 25, 2011
I like to have a debate on this
because one of the most frustrating things with this current Warriors franchise is the mixed signals it keeps sending out. On the one hand, Lacob says that Ellis and Curry are the backcourt of the future… but then they draft Klay Thompson. They say that they want to play defense… but they do not try to get the right personnel to play defense. The only thing I’m mildly confident in is that they want to make the playoffs, if only because they signed David Lee to that humongous contract. And even then I don’t know how they expect to get anywhere in the playoffs.
doubleteapot - June 25, 2011
AMEN! Finally, someone speaks the truth!!!!!!!! They do not have a clue, or, are simply, lost! lol
dinohealth - June 25, 2011
Is there a "tier" system for FO management/decision assessment?
dinohealth - June 25, 2011
We don't have a first round pick next year
We owe it to NJ in the Mullen fiasco and don’t believe it is lottery protected so the only thing the Warriors gain by tanking is to make NJ better.
Laoren - June 25, 2011
it is definitely top 7 protected
Evanz - June 25, 2011
You may be right, no sense arguing
but I believe it was lottery protected for only two years and now is the option of New Jersey when they want to exercise the right. In any event what player coming out of next years draft will have enough value to change the team anyway?
Laoren - June 25, 2011
I discussed that in the post
any of those top 7 could easily be our best player
Evanz - June 25, 2011
Nope, now it’s top 7 protected, and if we still keep it a year or two from now, it turns into a second rounder.
Missing Barry - January 25, 2012
i think it's 2 2nd rounders if it keeps going
bigkino217 - January 25, 2012
One 2nd rounder, two second rounders, whatever! I view 2nd rounders as close to worthless anyways…
Missing Barry - January 25, 2012
Somehow I see New Jersey trading this pick to get another all-star.
tafkasam - June 25, 2011
Its actually already Utah’s pick now. It was sent in the Williams trade.
VigilanteSteve - June 25, 2011
Williams?
Well hell, that’s how we get the pick back; trade Reggie Williams for it.
(You know, it was used for Marcus, then Derrick…)
breaker - June 25, 2011
they already did in the deron williams trade
and unless the warriors bomb out next year i can easily see utah attaching paul millsap or devin harris to that pick to move up for one of the guys listed above
starbury_to_s-jaxci2000 - June 25, 2011
Let me propose a FO/Management Tier System::
1. ID Objectives: Short Term, Long Term
2. Conduct Current Capabilities Assessment
3. Conduct Needs Assessment: Short Term, Long Term
4. ID alternatives/plans, by weighted priority, to get you there: Short Term, Long Term
5. Execute alternatives plans, by weighted priority.
6. Assess/measure/critique results.
7. Start over with step #2, refine and execute again
PS: One good ol boy decision wipes the “system” out!
dinohealth - June 25, 2011
Shall we start the “Make Evanz GM for Two Years” Movement?
Prince.Charming - June 25, 2011 via mobile
Ah, but yeah, we should be wary with Curry and Lee still on our team. Not sure if it’s bad enough to be bottom 7 (Tyler at center certainly helps). What we should do is play like no other for the first two quarters, tank the third quarter, then make them fight to try to win the game in the fourth quarter. Hopefully helping them learn how to play in the clutch? Lol.
Prince.Charming - June 25, 2011 via mobile
lol
dinohealth - June 25, 2011
so we can have a team of Kevin Martins and Kevin Loves?
SDtotheBay - June 25, 2011
I wouldn't want or sign either of those players
why would you think I would?
Evanz - June 25, 2011
high TS%, rebounding %, low TOV etc
but yes I know, you are not dumb. I’m just making fun of stats a bit, since they make those players seem better than they are.
SDtotheBay - June 25, 2011
I pay attention to stats on *both* sides of the floor
both are bad defenders, Martin is horrible
Evanz - June 25, 2011
oh yeah 50% I forgot :)
SDtotheBay - June 25, 2011
That, is true.
dinohealth - June 25, 2011
martin has to be in the bottom 5 for worst perimeter defenders
you would think a 6’7 195 guy could move around on defense but he has no lateral quickness and has his head on a swivel every defensive possesion
he cant block anyone with his length because he gets knocked to the ground like a feather
starbury_to_s-jaxci2000 - June 25, 2011
Oooh, strawmen are fun!
Better than SDtotheBay! He’d sign Allen Iverson out of Turkey and trade Curry for Jamal Crawford. hahaha
Reverend_Randy - June 25, 2011
that's completely false
they can’t dunk
SDtotheBay - June 25, 2011
I know
but they can both shoot contested midrange jumpers, which you love.
Reverend_Randy - June 25, 2011
won the last 3 rings doing that, I'd say that's a pretty good strategy
SDtotheBay - June 25, 2011
This has either gotten too meta or one of us is serious.
Reverend_Randy - June 25, 2011
I mean
best players on those teams shot a lot of contested mid range jumpers, but yes I was joking.
or was I
SDtotheBay - June 25, 2011
pretty crappy future is pretty crappy...
nothing changed, draft is lateral, trades are going to be lateral, no FA signings are going to be game changing. We are stuck in mediocrity unless we get a good front court.
SDtotheBay - June 25, 2011
An excellent plan within the realm of reality, but still unlikely to happen. Curry and Lee won’t allow it to happen. Lacob’s ego won’t allow it to happen. This team is built towards being a fringe 8th seed and they’re damn proud of this goal, knowing fully well that the greater part of the fan base would accept even an early exit having been out of the playoffs for so long.
WYK - June 25, 2011
If we ended up with that team, I don’t think Curry/Lee would have a choice. Unless either of them start to play some real D…something neither of them have shown they’re capable of.
Missing Barry - January 25, 2012
scary reality is that
we wont tank.. we will lose our 1st rounder next year..
and our only true hope is that tyler turns into a beast and we add solid mid 1st round pics over the next few years who , through good scouting , beast and we rise to the top rallting behind
curry/ jenkins
klay / reggie
iggy / wright
lee / udoh
tyler/ udoh
PIRATEWARRIOR - June 25, 2011
I'd say our best bet is to position ourselve to land Howard
or tank, but I think both are a long shot.
WestCoastWarrior - June 25, 2011
soo basically we don't have a best bet hah
SDtotheBay - June 25, 2011
Definitely prefer tanking. It’s something we can control- trading for Howard is a difficult prospect. <1%.
Reverend_Randy - June 25, 2011
Tanking may be too
We’re not the only team looking at next years draft and there are actually worse teams than us. 7 or worse will be hard to pull off, and I dont see our FO thinking this way anyways. I’d imagine them buying picks or acquiring pics other ways before they tank a season. Aslo what if this upcoming year doesnt happen or is shortened? How does that play into our tanking success?
WestCoastWarrior - June 25, 2011
let's put it this way
there is less of a chance of us tanking then us getting Dwight. Lacob has made that clear.
SDtotheBay - June 25, 2011
I agree there is probably zero chance of us tanking, but let me put it this way:
If we actually were to try both strategies, one of them would be much easier than the other. I’ll let you decide which.
Evanz - June 25, 2011
I wish we could tank this year
next draft is ridiculous.
SDtotheBay - June 25, 2011
This justy made me think
how funny/sad/upsetting it would be if a lot of teams throughout the league were trying to tank next season in preperation for the draft. Could be a strange season.
But dont you think we would have an even better chance of just acquiring a pick or two if that is what we want, rather than tank? I mean, the players cant throw games and there is a good chance our squad is not a bottom 7 team. Also, this is the part I get confused about. Dont advanced stats suggest that Monta actually doesnt help us win at all?
So logically by removing monta, wouldnt we be adding wins to our total?
WestCoastWarrior - June 25, 2011
Yes, there is some evidence for that. Many people are skeptical. But let’s assume it’s true. Then why the heck wouldn’t you do this, anyway? If our “tanking” strategy actually makes us better than 36 wins (which I doubt), at the very least, we will have dumped $11M of salary. If we can somehow dump Biedrins contract, then we can seriously go after free agents.
At any rate, tanking can be done, if we really want to do it. It’s just a matter of commitment.
Evanz - June 25, 2011
Not necessarily. Just because he’s a negative +/- doesn’t necessarily mean we’d do better without him. Every player brings something to the table, and if removed, you have to replace it. Removing Monta may shift other players roles in a way that makes them less effective. Or whoever we find to take those minutes might be worse than Monta. The stats don’t necessarily give us clear conclusions.
Missing Barry - January 25, 2012
If we want to tank
we can actually tank. You can play guys who suck a lot of minutes.
Reverend_Randy - June 25, 2011
I agree with the strategy. I think tanking the next few seasons by overplaying our youngsters and trading Monta, Lee, and Biedrins for shorter contracts and extra picks is the way to go.
Look at it like a house. It was a pretty decent house 20 years ago. Then a slumlord bought it, and he didn’t take care of it for a decade and a half. It became the worst house in town. Then a new owner bought this house, and says he wants it to be one of the best houses in town.
Now picture the worst house in your respective towns, and think for a moment about what it would take to make it one of the best.
Do you think a paint job and some new landscaping would do it? No, this is the worst house. The tweakers who lived here (before it became a crack house) have cooked meth in the bathrooms and kitchen, so all the plumbing needs to be replaced. Every piece of copper wiring has been ripped from the walls by the squatters who sell it to the recycling center. There’s rats, roaches, termites, and black mold. And the foundation is cracked from the last earthquake.
The best thing to do is tear it down. Then you can build a palace.
Uwe Blog - June 25, 2011 via mobile
good analogy!
the house is built on a shaky foundation, putting it mildly
Evanz - June 25, 2011
Powerful stuff! Sooo True. This team is structured for failure.
dinohealth - June 25, 2011
Nice way of wording it.
I look @ it this way. There’s just no way a team of 30-something wins should be above the cap. Not having the flexibility to add FA is just terrible when the existing roster can’t even get to .500
Players need to be dumped.
srsrs - June 27, 2011
hahaha, nice
lilboots - January 24, 2012
Good analogy
rec up! Yup our team specially our starter is build for Nellie Ball. Before we got Lee, technically Nellie is still our coach. And Riley is Nellie close friend. So whatever defense coaching they try to instill on our team. Are we like 26th still in defense proficiency.
mykelala01 - January 25, 2012
the plan is solid
and should have happened many many years ago. but i just don’t see it happening. lacob’s ego won’t let it. he seems to truly believe that either this team, or this team with a minor tweak or two, can actually make the playoffs. unless he actually comes out an makes some sort of big-ish move (trading monta or beans for starters), it’s just not gonna happen
AJC3317 - June 25, 2011
I think you’ll probably find a lot of fans that will agree with this plan, but the truth of the matter is that GMs are trying to save their job from year to year. Having said that, the fact that Riley knows he is not the future GM and it seems as though the front office is set for the near future, I could see the Warriors possibly implementing a strategy as you’ve described.
One other point: I might be biased, but if Billups can be the best player on a championship team, I think Curry can be the best player on a contender.
ERock386 - June 25, 2011
What about the future? Well i see a team growing a legit 45 win team. Steph and klay fit better together than monta and steph and i do believe that klay can be a good defender, I adore monta, but everybody knows he will be traded, because it’s the right thing to do and because he wants to be traded now,
So we got:
Steph
Klay
D-Wright
Lee
Center from monta trade, if we don’t get one than i’d pick udoh as our starting 5
Bench:
Jenkins
Reggie
Thornton(resigned)
Tyler
Beans – i don’t think he will be traded, simply because nobody wants him and he can be somewhat good coming off the bench
Obviously – if trade iggy-monta happens than iggy is our starting 3 and D-wright comes off the bench
There is also this possibility in that case:
Steph
D-Wright
Iggy
Lee
Udoh
Bench:
Jenkins
Reggie
Klay
Tyler
Beans
AmaruEternal1989 - June 25, 2011
Iggy is a 2, D-Wright is a 3..
but yeah 45 win team is pretty horrible.
SDtotheBay - June 25, 2011
It’s always weird to me when people put the 6’9" dude at the 2 and the 6’7" dude at the 3.
Reverend_Randy - June 25, 2011
It just doesn’t seem like an important detail to me. They’re both wings that can cover most other wings.
Missing Barry - January 25, 2012
erm “45 win team is pretty horrible”
Since when?
AmaruEternal1989 - June 26, 2011
Well, it wouldn’t be enough to make the playoffs in any of the last 4 seasons. And where does the team go from there?
Missing Barry - January 25, 2012
Completely agree with the plan
I just am wondering if Steph will be on board to have another awful year. Also i think we can definitely get a top 7 pick next year if we are willing to part ways with monta. That way we will not only be able to retain our pick, but get another pick in addition.
Back2Believe - June 25, 2011
Few things
1. I don’t think Lacob and the new ownership will do this. Ever. Not with all the front office manoeuvrings and bold stateents of immediate success. It would make them look foolish. And Jerry West ain’t no fool.
2. None of those first 7 picks are Centers. So how long are we supposed to stick Jeremy Tyler out there just to let him “fail and learn”?
3. I still think the Warriors are in contention to land players such as Igoudala, Nene, and so on. Call me crazy, but I still believe.
hankmoody - June 25, 2011
When did Lacob become part owner of the Celtics?
2007 The Celtics were terrible. Then Pierce went down and so did the Celtics towards the race to get Greg Oden or Kevin Durant.
kenntoe - June 26, 2011
who in that draft
looks like a kevin durant franchise changer player you unless we fall into the top 3? which even then is a stretch. just curious
hankmoody - June 26, 2011
i agree that it is in our best interests to tank to keep that top 7 pick in a very strong draft....
But there are a few things i see as potential issues to that.
1) Monta gone would actually make next year’s team better due to the leap that I know Stephen Curry Will make…I think keeping Monta to further slow Curry’s breakout actually makes the team worst. Remember what Curry did when Monta was gone, and he did it with a bunch of D-leaguers
2) I see that you want to keep Lee but then you say that he would be best served as a bench player on a contending team…I don’t see how we can play someone 80 million to come off the bench, so Lee has to go.,,,also, ridding Lee for expirings or a future pick would help us tank for the top 7 pick.
3) Mark Jackson’s declarations and playoff guarantees make this entire tanking scenario very unlikely.
JimBarnett2KevinGarnett - June 25, 2011
play = pay
JimBarnett2KevinGarnett - June 25, 2011
my goal was not to propose what is "likely"
that would be status quo
my proposal is something unlikely, and that’s why it would actually have a chance of working.
And if the worst case outcome is that the team gets better, well, then why wouldn’t you do it anyway?
Evanz - June 25, 2011
i see what you are saying..and i agree it's a smart route to take..
especially with our pick being in “we must suck” limbo….im just stating that I disagree with the notion that keeping Monta makes us better….and I want to know your thoughts on why we should keep Lee for 80 million if he’s a 6th or 7th man off the bench? Isn’ that too much money for that type of player? And if the goal is to tank, doesn’t trading Lee for expirings/picks now make it easier to tank?
JimBarnett2KevinGarnett - June 25, 2011
the first thing I said about Lee is I would try to move him for expirings and/or picks, but I assume that won’t happen. If he can’t be moved, then we have to make the best of it. He would be a cancer on the bench, and I don’t want that. I’d like to keep team chemistry as good as possible, while still implementing the tank strategy.
Evanz - June 25, 2011
I’m torn on your plan. But as much as it makes sense, I’m of the mind of BSD (as is usually the case): I don’t want to watch a team intentionally lose.
One part of your idea does seem imperative: we need a draft pick next year. if they can flip Monta to a lottery team for a pick and cap relief I think it has to be strongly considered.
ivanbe - June 25, 2011
To tank or not to tank?
The thing is you find the age of your core and see if u should add good players or young players with potental. I think tanking could be real nice and we could end up like a thunder team (young talented core) but deeper – but also i wouldnt see us doing anything interesting for about 5 years. And it is hard to guarantee that everyone will pan out. You could keep D lee and have him be our vetrin to keep the young players in line and progressing. Then when the team is ready to take the next leap we use him to upgrade, or unload him so we can upgrade.
Thats my take on ur vision.
Now what i would do is run with this team now. Show the talent, win a playoff series or at least appear in one, and trade our talent for more talent and sign free agents. Good teams always seem to stay good or get better because players want to play here and teams want to play like us (i.e buy our pieces i.e trade.). Our core is basically Steph in my mind – Reggie and Udoh havent proved much beside potental and being inept on one side of the ball. So you have to play with them and decide they are worthy of being part of the core. You must always be able to distinct your core players from the non, and add to them. Smokescreening has left me numb to the actual core of this team but i do see a glub full of talent which means VALUE. This team is mad VALUABLE. better of then most teams.
TooShort2Play - June 25, 2011
Good teams always seem to stay good or get better
then that means we are doomed cause bad teams would hafta stay bad?
Skeptic con Urquell - June 25, 2011
Nice post
I guess if there’s a method of tanking, this would be the way to go, but you wouldn’t call it “tanking.” You’d call it “developing young talent.”
I just don’t think it’s realistic for the Warriors to go into any form of tank mode. They set themselves up to succeed now from this point of mediocrity.
It seems more likely that the Warriors could flip a current asset for a lottery pick than it is to tank and get a top 7 pick. Why not make your own luck through a trade instead of hoping a roster of Curry/Thompson/Wright/Lee/Tyler would fail?
Advanced stats might tell you that that roster would fail accordingly but what if something changes where Steph elevates his game with the absence of Monta?
Which brings me to my next question, wouldn’t the absence of Monta make this team better? You’re proposing the opposite. I’m sure you have some analysis to backup this claim, but it seems a little counteractive to the discussions about Monta’s effect.
Doctor Kajita - June 25, 2011
In theory, you’re right about Monta, but it depends who replaces him. I have to believe that Klay Thompson will not be a better player immediately than Monta. And throw in Jeremy Tyler who is a very raw project, I can’t imagine this team playing that well. And if I’m wrong, then obviously it should have been done anyway to free up the cap room.
I mean, if we can unload Biedrins and Ellis, that will have been a huge step forward. Doesn’t look like it’s going to happen, though.
Evanz - June 26, 2011
Ur asking us to tank a whole year...
so.. NO!
Ro3ert0 - June 26, 2011
Better than tanking half a season
what’s the point in that?
We don’t have enough talent to actually win in this league.
Reverend_Randy - June 26, 2011
Haven't liked the offseason much at the moment. The 2nd round of the draft is all that was good.
Next season without any major free agent signings (We likely can afford only the MLE) and trades, I see us being better offensively, still top 10, and making no progress on D. Hope we do tank and get one of the Heels.
ejdacanay - June 26, 2011
Jeremy Lin
If the team goes down this road (which it clearly won’t given the comments made repeatedly by Jackson and Lacob), they should start Jeremy Lin at PG. Lin will keep fans in the seats and gain the Warriors a lot of Asian fans (in addition to the already existing and strong Asian fan base). I think this plan has a lot of risks, but alienating your fans cannot be understated – people will be pissed if you blow up the team, so you need to mitigate it somehow. Playing Jeremy Lin 35 minutes a game is one way to do that. Having Steph Curry at SG scoring 25 points a game will help too.
TheGhostOfBillyOwens - June 26, 2011
This is a business people
Do you seriously think a new ownership group who paid $450 million for a franchise is going to consider tanking or starting a worse player in place of a better player? Sales at every level would drop off the face of the earth and would be slow to return while the team tries to prove they are done tanking/the plan worked.
Also, how do you talk free agents into coming to a team whose plan is to tank instead of making intelligent moves? Who’s to say they wont tank again in 2 years when all they have is Dwight Howard and a bunch of bench players because the plan didnt work out? You think Dwight wants to spend his prime with a team where he might have losing seasons?
The Warriors cannot do anything crazy like start 3 rookies and bring the talent off the bench. They need to make one or two good trades, maybe a painful trade; utilize the talent they have in the best way possible through solid coaching; demonstrate a dedication to being crafty and player friendly on and off the court; pay the luxury tax for one or two years; and keep the arena packed full of rabid fans every night…Never diminish the impact of having a full house every night regardless of the record. I think all else being equal, a good free agent will come here before a place like Atlanta because of the fan support.
warriorsvictim - June 27, 2011
and keep the arena packed full of rabid fans every night
I think i’d prefer tanking and an arena full of undiseased fans?
Skeptic con Urquell - June 27, 2011
This team is full of potential
Think about it. Curry’Monta.Udoh and the rookies. The stars of are team have yet to fulfill their potential so why get rid of them. a few years of getting More centres in the draft and we’ll be a great team
Monta8mixes - June 27, 2011 via mobile
Monta really doesn't have much potential at this stage in his career
I don’t think any of our players have enough upside that we can stand pat. We don’t have the 09 versions of Kevin Durant and Russel Westbrook who are going to turn us into a playoff team next year.
Reverend_Randy - June 27, 2011
in all likelihood we don’t even have a first round pick next year, and unless we get a top 3 pick, it’s very unlikely we will ever get a franchise-caliber center
Evanz - June 27, 2011
im totally predicting there will be a lockout soon and that it will shake alot of things up and hurt us cuz we are young team
i predict we will try to land cp3 , howard, deandre jordan , and tyson chandler all to no avail, then we will of all ppl pick up kwame brown and he will play great surprisingly for us and fit in well, but then we will probably get hurt with a season ending injury and we will be talking seriously about how to tank properly. oh, and curry will most likey roll his ankle a few times and reduce his value on the trade market..
PIRATEWARRIOR - January 24, 2012
wow
that’s amazing
bigkino217 - January 24, 2012
i know.. i cant believe how im so good..
PIRATEWARRIOR - January 24, 2012
This guy is psychic
We should have listened to him
doubleteapot - January 24, 2012
i never get the respect i deserve ) :
PIRATEWARRIOR - January 24, 2012
We really do give you the respect you deserve, Pirate. At least, I do. I mean, I try real hard to do so!
What we need to change, is to quit using the eyedropper to dispense it to you! :)
dinohealth - January 24, 2012
Ask a season ticket holder if he/she would like the team to tank
I think you’d get a different answer. Especially those in the lower bowl and near or on the floor.
Doctor Kajita - January 24, 2012
The Warriors are tanking anyways
And they’re doing it in the most painful way possible, I’m sure those season ticket holders are thinking about selling their tickets on Stubhub soon
doubleteapot - January 24, 2012
awww yeaaa
courtside tickets for $40 sonnnnnnnn
djfivenine - January 24, 2012
yeah i wonder how cavs fans felt in 2002
oh lets hold on to marginal starters and have another wasted 35 win season
or
blow this ish up to the max and land Lebron James? the gamble was worth it and i think trading off one horrendous season after years of mediocrity for landing a superstar made all of them happy
and if not Lebron they could have still gotten Bosh, Melo, Wade, etc. Or if you are Dumars: Darko
starbury_to_s-jaxci2000 - January 24, 2012
Right, great idea
or you can end up like Boston did when they tanked for Durant or Oden. The fans suffered through a terrible season, and all relished in the fact that they would get Durant, only to watch two teams jump ahead of them in the lottery. People don’t remember this because Kevin McHale then gave Boston Kevin Garnett in return for all of Boston’s failed first round draft picks, but let Boston keep it’s draft pick so that they could trade it to Seattle, who wanted to rebuild and dumped an all star on the Celtics.
I don’t think the Warriors have a former player who is a GM of a bad team looking to get rid of a top ten player. I’m not a big fan of tanking an entire season, just to get assed out of a top pick at the end of it by the lottery. Even when you “win” the lottery, there’s still a chance of ending up with a Kwame, Olawakandi or Eddie Curry.
Ice Watter In His Veins! - January 25, 2012
The choice right now is.
Keep the same team, aim for 7th or 8th seed in the playoff every single year.
Rebuild (not tank) for a few years and hopefully get a SUPERSTAR in the draft.
djfivenine - January 24, 2012
With the way Udoh has rebounded the last couple of games, he’s not the first big off the bench for a championship team. Hopefully, he steps it up again.
Naticus - January 24, 2012
you can't compare any of our players to those of a championship team...
steffun4tw - January 24, 2012
Would not change a thing Evanz! Stagnant quo, I mean, Status quo prevails. You were right on!
None of us foresaw that we would have a weaker team this year than last year! Nor, that we would be 5-11, after a coaching change, and brilliant tactical personnel moves…
dinohealth - January 24, 2012
Trade Monta.
Tank.
Profit.
Anonymous1337 - January 24, 2012
Fixed
dubzfan - January 24, 2012
Draft pick(s).
lilboots - January 24, 2012
Or any other valuable player
dubzfan - January 24, 2012
Lol.
GovernorStephCurry - January 24, 2012
Hey Evanz, if we're looking at previous posts
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2011/10/3/2463251/the-costs-and-benefits-of-amnesty
I basically predicted that Charlie Bell would be amnestied… and sadly I was right
doubleteapot - January 24, 2012
i think a lot of us could see that coming ;)
it was such a warriors thing to do
bigkino217 - January 24, 2012
lol...yep, pure rocket science...
dinohealth - January 24, 2012
One last thought on Were to Next: IT'S BARRON TIME!
dinohealth - January 24, 2012
Watching Moneyball right now
We need a Billy Beane. Someone who can revolutionize how our team approaches assembling and fielding a team.
Right now, we are just complaining to an empty room. Without a significant change in approach, Dubs are doomed
Duby Dub Dubs - January 24, 2012 via mobile
golden state
I’m a foreign visitor. (Blazer fan checking out you guyses web page).
I gather you feel Golden State’s best hope is to lose enough games to get high draft picks.
In light of that it sounds to me like tonight’s Blazer Golden State game could be a win-win proposition for both teams.
LanceS - January 25, 2012
Can’t wait for a lose-lose situation.
Doctor Kajita - January 25, 2012
I gather you feel Golden State’s best hope is to lose enough games to get high draft picks.
yeah ,we’re dying to get our ROY
Skeptic con Urquell - January 25, 2012
nice double entendre
Evanz - January 25, 2012
yeah well
after seeing what you did to Memphis, I think there is a high probability
Duby Dub Dubs - January 25, 2012
I didn't know Andrew Luck played basketball
ayeyoJERM - January 25, 2012
On Tanking...
I don’t think many fans grasp what it means to play on a team in a sport that you’ve been competitive in since you were young.
Players don’t EVER tank to get better draft picks for a team
Players don’t hustle less or commit an extra turnover to bring in competition.
I think the Warriors are suffering in mediocrity for three reasons:
1. Trading competitive pieces i.e (J-Rich) and not getting an improved player in return
2. Drafting Big Men who don’t pan out:
2006: Patrick O’Bryant
2007: Traded for Brandon Wright
2008: Anthony Randolph (look at all the big men we could have had after him!)
http://www.nbadraft.net/nba_draft_history/2008.html
2010: Ekpe Udoh (How many of us wanted to draft Monroe?)
3. Sticking with pieces that don’t work for too long (David Lee) and not dismantling a team and starting over.
We should get rid of as many players as possible for draft picks. This is a great year for college players. If we can add a legitimate SF and PF in this draft, then we have something to build around Klay and Steph.
DoomandGloom - January 25, 2012
The sad reality is based on where we were picking in the draft, we really shouldn’t have expected our players to pan out. That’s the real issue with this team. Always too good to get difference makers, never good enough to be worth watching.
Missing Barry - January 25, 2012
I disagree :)
Hindsight is always 20-20, but with the draft position we had we could have Roy Hibbert and Greg Monroe.
Although neither one is an All-star (Hibbert is coming close) they are far better and talented than David Lee and Udoh/Biedrins…
If we would have drafted those players instead we most likely wouldn’t have traded for Lee and re-signed Biedrins…
DoomandGloom - January 25, 2012
You don’t really seem to be at all addressing what MB is talking about. The 20-20 hindsight of being able to select the best player from all taken after a particular draft spot isn’t really a terribly useful way of looking at what one should expect at a particular draft slot. Most #14 picks don’t wind up being worth much.
jae - January 25, 2012
Kill it.
Kill it with fire.
Spider Jerusalem - January 25, 2012
yes!
Duby Dub Dubs - January 25, 2012
lol
HUNGRY HUNTER - January 26, 2012
By All Star break..
if this team is still under .500 which is very likely..i would trade monta, david lee, andris for expiring contracts and draft picks only..then plug in all young guys to let them get experience while they are losing.. im not a big fan of tanking but this is the only way to do it to be successful in the long run, getting a high draft pick so we can keep and also possibly picking up a player or 2 via free agency with cap space..this is what most good teams do..it sucks but this is the only way to do it.
reppinwarriors - January 25, 2012
Agreed 100%
Further we are in a conference that is full of legit teams and even if we were to eek our way into the playoffs, we still wouldn’t go far.
Also, I don’t think Mark Jackson is the long term answer…
DoomandGloom - January 25, 2012
Do you really expect to find teams eager to take Monta and Lee and Biedrins away in return for nothing but expirings and draft picks?
jae - January 25, 2012
maybe Monta
but I doubt that would be a high lottery pick
Duby Dub Dubs - January 25, 2012
I think the best time to do that is next year, 2013.
Monta and Beans are expiring so more teams will be interested. This means we need to keep Monta and Beans for another year.
ILoveWarriorsGirls - January 25, 2012
Blazer fan here...
Don’t worry…Your team will kick the Blazers’ butt tonight….they always do. I totally expect a train wreck of a game from my Blazers against your Warriors.
jenstcy - January 25, 2012
Dubs are going to come out hungry
after blowing that 20 point loss.
But I have nightmares of LMA and Wallace just going off tonight
Duby Dub Dubs - January 25, 2012
You should just have nightmares about LMA....
He will get his normal 25 pts probably…but Wallace doesn’t show up on the road. Really, LMA is the only player that shows up on the road….that’s why he’s the Blazers go to guy… wish we had another one of thoses…
jenstcy - January 25, 2012
how about Felton?
has he been playing well for you?
In case you haven’t heard, our backcourt defense is….soft
we have had your number lately though….
Duby Dub Dubs - January 25, 2012
Alridge isn’t scary. Let him get his, he’s not particularly efficient about it. Just don’t let it translate into good opportunities for the rest of his teammates.
Missing Barry - January 25, 2012
Boy, Washington is wining 20pts vs Bobcats
Maybe we should not play with Washington neither…
ILoveWarriorsGirls - January 25, 2012
It's the classic
“Play hard for one game because we have a new coach” game
doubleteapot - January 25, 2012
I can see through your reverse psychology. It's alright just say your team is gonna win tonight
ayeyoJERM - January 25, 2012
I stand by my previous statement. This roster is duct taped together. We have a few decent assets, but we need management to realize just how far away from being great we are! Right now, we’re almost an “ok” team, with a little cap space and no draft pick. I’d rather be a completely horrible team with one asset (Curry), lots of cap space and lots of draft picks.
I thought that two offseasons ago would have been a perfect time to rebuild, with fresh ownership taking over and the firing of Nellie. Every game that’s been played since then has been delaying the inevitable.
The ownership needs to be clear in it’s mission, which is to acquire a superstar and a lesser star or two to support him. That is the tried and true recipe for relevance in the NBA. The only way for a crummy team to do that is the draft.
Uwe Blog - January 25, 2012
I'm going to echo something Steinmetz said and it will probably earn me some cynicism.
The Kwame injury hurt. A lot. Say what you want about him, but he was providing something critical thing that the Warriors have traditionally lacked; SIZE. I think now more than most years in the past, the utter lack of any effect at the 5 is glaring.
With Kwame Brown in the lineup as it currently stands, I think thing would be vastly different.
Tremendous Hops - January 25, 2012
Meh – would he have helped? Sure, he was playing solidly before the injury. Would things be vastly different with him? Kwame Brown isn’t the kind of player that completely changes a team. Things would be slightly better. We’re the 15th best offense in the league so far – pretty much exactly league average. More Kwame would make us worse on offense. We suck on defense – he’d make us better, but we’d still be poor. Average to below average offense and weak defense does not make for good results.
Missing Barry - January 25, 2012
If they lose enough games to finish the season in the bottom 7, I don’t think it will be because they tanked, it will be because they genuinely suck that bad.
“We’re gonna tank” …. sheeeeet, they’ve been tanking for going on 20 years now …
bernardking - January 25, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Golden State Of Mind to post a comment.