ImageImageImageImageImage

Bogut Watch - now with AdonalFoyle4Prez's poll

Moderators: Sleepy51, Chris Porter's Hair, floppymoose

What will eventually become of Bogut this season?

Yes, he will come to play, just not right now. Just give him maybe 1-3 months to fully recover...
72
72%
No, he's damaged goods and will miss the entire season *sigh*
16
16%
Move/trade him. Milwaukee had the better end of the trade.
8
8%
Don't Care.
4
4%
 
Total votes: 100

User avatar
paul
RealGM
Posts: 32,398
And1: 1,038
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
 

Re: Bogut: Yao Ming or Grant Hill? 

Post#361 » by paul » Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:07 pm

If you listened at the time they said that was just an arbitrary number and he'd be back when it improved - they openly said 7-10 days was just a guess from Bogut himself.

Again this isnt a case of him getting injured again and the ankle clearly stood up to game stress, they just want to hold him out until he's 100% which he clearly wasn't. I understand the frustration but they've actually been much more open about it than most teams normally are.

That's not to say he wont get injured again in the future - who knows.
User avatar
Blockedshot
Rookie
Posts: 1,079
And1: 9
Joined: Dec 17, 2009
Location: Near a lake.

Re: Bogut: Yao Ming or Grant Hill? 

Post#362 » by Blockedshot » Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:58 pm

I think the Warriors are handling this better than Milwaukee ever did.

At least the W's have backup, Mil always seemed to be in a rush to get him in whatever the cost because they had no other option.
User avatar
cellomac1212
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,937
And1: 53
Joined: Jan 12, 2011

Re: Bogut Watch - out 7 to 10 days 

Post#363 » by cellomac1212 » Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:32 am

CelloMac1212 wrote:At least Cohan knew how to STFU and stay in the background.


TaylorMonkey wrote:I'll take Lacob's talking to Cohan's do-nothing mismanagement any day.


Me to, but Lacob and Co still need to shut up. If for no other reason because they have been continually wrong.

CelloMac1212 wrote:PS- Monta and Udoh would have netted more than just trash salary filler and a second round pick. I was just providing an extreme example. Secondly, Richard Jefferson could of probably been had for Beans as he was just not working out with the Spurs.


TaylorMonkey wrote:What better deal could we have gotten for Udoh, Kwame, and Ellis? You'll have to do more than just say so without providing realistic examples. The deal has to be better than a gamble at an elite center, RJ, Ezeli, and a good tanking position for Barnes. Go.

I don't think Spurs take Beans for RJ while giving up a pick. Straight up, neither teams would do it, or at least we wouldn't. RJ doesn't help us on contract or need.


I don't know why you continually add all the extra bloat that came from the trade when I have consistently said every post that I am not considering the extra. The trade was not for Barnes and Ezeli, it was for Bogut. Also, remember Barnes was given to us for winning a coin flip. There was a 50% chance we would not of got him. The "ACTUAL" trade has so far returned nothing but a high paid center that can't play. You can try and combine all the circumstances surrounding the trade as part of the trade, but in reality, those circumstances were not part of the trade. The trade matched salaries pretty closely. What was stopping us from making these same moves (Ezeli and Jefferson) with Monta and Udoh still here? Nothing... Now if you don't think we could of got something better than a player who may not play for nearly two years (if ever again), for Monta, Udoh, and Kwame, I don't know what to say. I didn't think I needed to provide an example for something so obvious.
User avatar
r8rrich12
Junior
Posts: 437
And1: 2
Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Re: Bogut: Yao Ming or Grant Hill? 

Post#364 » by r8rrich12 » Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:44 am

-7 footer
-Over 250 pounds
-Nagging lower extremity injuries

The way this entire story has transpired doesn't sit well with me. Bogut rushes back to the court for opening night... plays VERY good minutes contrary to his self-belief, albeit grimacing every time the camera cuts to him. Sits himself & complains of soreness in the ankle. We put a timetable of 7-10 days. The surgeon said that everything w/ the ankle looked normal, but Bogut still felt like something was off. Now Bogut is working out with the surgeon?

No kidding, your first basketball action in about a year, and the way Bogut throws his body around, you're going to be a little sore afterward. He doesn't feel his body isn't at game speed yet. As much as I trust the big Aussie to gauge his own bodily functions; it might be more psychological at this point. If the doctor says everything looks normal, it's a matter of battling through the pain and build up the muscle/ligaments. I'm afraid that we're going to realize that all the rest in the world will not heal his nagging ankle and we have to pick and choose our spots at when to use him sparingly (playoff push?) before he breaks down w/ further damage. That's the worst case scenario, Yao Ming-esque. Please talk me off this ledge, haha.
3-Ball Corner Pocket
User avatar
paul
RealGM
Posts: 32,398
And1: 1,038
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
 

Re: Bogut: Yao Ming or Grant Hill? 

Post#365 » by paul » Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:49 am

Yeah I think you misread why he sat a bit. He didn't sit because of pain, he sat because he couldn't jump off it with any explosion.

Like Bogut or don't, no one would ever suggest he doesn't play through pain. Dude played an entire season with multiple bone fragments floating around his elbow, played 15 games with a fractured back etc. He's not sitting because he's sore.
User avatar
stellation
RealGM
Posts: 15,543
And1: 8,904
Joined: Dec 13, 2005
Location: *inaudible*

Re: Bogut: Yao Ming or Grant Hill? 

Post#366 » by stellation » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:02 am

paul wrote:So no, through his career he's had a lot of injuries but never really taken more time to heal than expected. This injury has been the exception largely because they didn't decide on surgery for four months.

Just on the 4 month wait before surgery, has anyone heard a decent explanation as to why it took so long? I can understand some of the time with Milwaukee, because it was probably too soon/their medical staff have proved themselves inept/may have made him harder to trade, but overall it seems a long wait to go under the knife for something everyone would have known would take ages to heal.
#FreeChuckDiesel
watch1958
General Manager
Posts: 7,842
And1: 1,138
Joined: Aug 03, 2001

Re: Bogut: Yao Ming or Grant Hill? 

Post#367 » by watch1958 » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:09 am

paul wrote:Yeah I think you misread why he sat a bit. He didn't sit because of pain, he sat because he couldn't jump off it with any explosion.

.
+1
They specifically said that the issue he wanted to deal with was the explosiveness, and that Bogut thought that wasn't going to improve practicing and playing games. He wanted to do rehab & conditioning directly on the areas that he thought were affecting his level of performance.

Of course, those answers could be B.S. Maybe this is some chronic degenerative thing. Watching him play, however, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now. His conditioning wasn't at a peak, but I liked the effort, brains, and skillset. What looked to be lacking was some of the oomph. That's what he says he wants to work on.

The other small reason for optimism is that even without that oomph, he was a better center than they have had in years.
This movie is like the Rocky Horror Picture Show where everyone knows all the lines.
User avatar
r8rrich12
Junior
Posts: 437
And1: 2
Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Re: Bogut: Yao Ming or Grant Hill? 

Post#368 » by r8rrich12 » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:16 am

watch1958 wrote:
Of course, those answers could be B.S. Maybe this is some chronic degenerative thing. Watching him play, however, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now. His conditioning wasn't at a peak, but I liked the effort, brains, and skillset. What looked to be lacking was some of the oomph. That's what he says he wants to work on.

The other small reason for optimism is that even without that oomph, he was a better center than they have had in years.


How much time do you think Bogut/doctors/Warriors will take until it's either he plays or busts. Because I agree with you, even without that explosiveness, he's our best bet.
3-Ball Corner Pocket
User avatar
cellomac1212
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,937
And1: 53
Joined: Jan 12, 2011

Re: Bogut: Yao Ming or Grant Hill? 

Post#369 » by cellomac1212 » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:16 am

EvanZ wrote:
A week ago did they really believe it was just a matter of "7-10 days"? If so, they are naive. If not, why did they tell us that?


I actually like the moves the ownership has made in trying to make the team better. But they are extremely annoying due to the need to try and sell us on their ideas. They have not been right about any statement they have made yet. I seriously do not understand why they continue down this same path. If they just shut up, the fans would get over it a lot easier. But these predictions that never come through only build up certain people (not me) and when they don't happen, the fall is a lot worse. Almost everything they say to the public does not need to be said. There is also never a reason an ownership should be out there making predictions.
User avatar
cellomac1212
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,937
And1: 53
Joined: Jan 12, 2011

Re: Bogut: Yao Ming or Grant Hill? 

Post#370 » by cellomac1212 » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:20 am

stellation wrote:
paul wrote:So no, through his career he's had a lot of injuries but never really taken more time to heal than expected. This injury has been the exception largely because they didn't decide on surgery for four months.

Just on the 4 month wait before surgery, has anyone heard a decent explanation as to why it took so long? I can understand some of the time with Milwaukee, because it was probably too soon/their medical staff have proved themselves inept/may have made him harder to trade, but overall it seems a long wait to go under the knife for something everyone would have known would take ages to heal.


It took the Warrior's a long time to get Curry his ankle surgery as well... Maybe misdiagnosis or some other agenda going on...
User avatar
blazza18
RealGM
Posts: 53,212
And1: 26,429
Joined: Dec 02, 2010
       

Re: Bogut: Yao Ming or Grant Hill? 

Post#371 » by blazza18 » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:33 am

paul wrote:Yeah I think you misread why he sat a bit. He didn't sit because of pain, he sat because he couldn't jump off it with any explosion.

Like Bogut or don't, no one would ever suggest he doesn't play through pain. Dude played an entire season with multiple bone fragments floating around his elbow, played 15 games with a fractured back etc. He's not sitting because he's sore.



+1 to all of this.
Baddy Chuck wrote:I want to win but I also love chaos.
User avatar
Mylie10
RealGM
Posts: 41,240
And1: 9,612
Joined: Sep 16, 2005
Location: * Chokers! *
Contact:
     

Re: Bogut Watch - out 7 to 10... years? 

Post#372 » by Mylie10 » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:38 am

EvanZ wrote:
Sleepy51 wrote:I think he's saying that you had already moved to the pessimistic camp when Rush went down. "Starting to move" now vs. already was the laughable part.


Then he misunderstood me or maybe I wasn't clear enough. The "starting to move" was in reference to Bogut's injury (the topic of this thread), not the team as a whole. Also, I said "really pessimistic", which taken on it's own would be different enough from what I was before (just pessimistic).


:lol: The best part is that I picture that face on your avatar, when I read what you have to say. Lighten up Evan it's all just fun around here.
Khoee wrote “
Mav_Carter wrote: my list doesn't matter...I'm pretty much wrong on everything...
watch1958
General Manager
Posts: 7,842
And1: 1,138
Joined: Aug 03, 2001

Re: Bogut: Yao Ming or Grant Hill? 

Post#373 » by watch1958 » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:41 am

r8rrich12 wrote:
How much time do you think Bogut/doctors/Warriors will take until it's either he plays or busts. Because I agree with you, even without that explosiveness, he's our best bet.
Damn, not a clue.
This movie is like the Rocky Horror Picture Show where everyone knows all the lines.
User avatar
marthafokker
General Manager
Posts: 7,827
And1: 828
Joined: Jul 13, 2004

Re: Bogut Watch - out 7 to 10... years? 

Post#374 » by marthafokker » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:23 am

Questioning why Lacob with Bogut injury knowledge is almost like questioning who screwed up with Benghazi.
TB wrote:
We finally have a team for Nellie.... bring the old drunk back.
Franc
Analyst
Posts: 3,587
And1: 95
Joined: Jan 11, 2005

Re: Bogut Watch - out 7 to 10... years? 

Post#375 » by Franc » Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:05 am

Maybe this will help
Regenokine injections,
http://www.hoopsworld.com/andrew-bogut- ... ource=t.co
When you put on that jersey, the name on the front is more important then the name on the back.
User avatar
PowerSteele
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,299
And1: 163
Joined: Jun 22, 2010
Location: D
       

Re: Bogut Watch - out 7 to 10... years? 

Post#376 » by PowerSteele » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:27 pm

He should come to Germany. We fix every injury, Kobe, A-Rod....he can stay at my place.
User avatar
Head Leader
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,885
And1: 17
Joined: Nov 16, 2006
Location: El Cerrito, Ca

Re: Bogut Watch - out 7 to 10... years? 

Post#377 » by Head Leader » Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:03 pm

Is Balco still around?
"I am the Head leader, it all starts with me." - Monta Ellis

www.amuseaudio.com
User avatar
Coxy
RealGM
Posts: 47,900
And1: 14,635
Joined: Jun 17, 2008
   

Re: Bogut Watch - out 7 to 10... years? 

Post#378 » by Coxy » Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:36 pm

GermanStWarrior wrote:He should come to Germany. We fix every injury, Kobe, A-Rod....he can stay at my place.


True.
User avatar
TaylorMonkey
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,576
And1: 1,580
Joined: Nov 30, 2010
 

Re: Bogut Watch - out 7 to 10... years? 

Post#379 » by TaylorMonkey » Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:11 pm

cellomac1212 wrote: I don't know why you continually add all the extra bloat that came from the trade when I have consistently said every post that I am not considering the extra. The trade was not for Barnes and Ezeli, it was for Bogut. Also, remember Barnes was given to us for winning a coin flip. There was a 50% chance we would not of got him. The "ACTUAL" trade has so far returned nothing but a high paid center that can't play. You can try and combine all the circumstances surrounding the trade as part of the trade, but in reality, those circumstances were not part of the trade.

You don't get to criticize management for a trade without considering what they *actually* did a week later with the "bloat" of the trade and how they made the team better. These "circumstances" that put us in tanking position were all considered and it's unfair to ignore them because they inconvenience a hack job on the FO.

Also, we originally got Jackson back. It doesn't make sense to talk about getting RJ for trash as if we actually wanted RJ. We traded Jackson mainly for the 30th pick and RJ was the actual filler.

It's also unfair to say management is horrible and that you could have come up with a better trade without providing a real alternative of your own. What management *actually* did in every move since the trade is a much better measure of their performance than measuring them against a phantom trade that you haven't provided specifics for.

In the end, we're in a much better position now and there's still a decent chance Bogut will be a productive player for us. I know it's difficult to concede that because we lost a player you were attached to, but it is what it is. It's also difficult to take your analysis seriously when you don't seem to care that the Warriors are actually better and are fixated only on the parts of the trade that concern Monta and that you can leverage into an argument against an owner you dislike.

Now if you don't think we could of got something better than a player who may not play for nearly two years (if ever again), for Monta, Udoh, and Kwame, I don't know what to say. I didn't think I needed to provide an example for something so obvious.

If it's so obvious, provide an example. Do it. :)
User avatar
Jester_
General Manager
Posts: 8,881
And1: 1,035
Joined: Mar 25, 2011

Re: Bogut Watch - out 7 to 10... years? 

Post#380 » by Jester_ » Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:00 pm

cellomac1212 wrote: I don't know why you continually add all the extra bloat that came from the trade when I have consistently said every post that I am not considering the extra. The trade was not for Barnes and Ezeli, it was for Bogut. Also, remember Barnes was given to us for winning a coin flip. There was a 50% chance we would not of got him. The "ACTUAL" trade has so far returned nothing but a high paid center that can't play. You can try and combine all the circumstances surrounding the trade as part of the trade, but in reality, those circumstances were not part of the trade.


You really don't think Lacob took tanking into consideration? You really don't think he recognized that the 7th pick in a deep draft could be a huge edge? You don't think he recognized that Stephen Jackson could be flipped into another possible first round pick?

That's just being dense. These guys spend 24 hours a day on this. You can bet they pulled a weeks worth of all-nighters thinking up all the possible outcomes to the trade. Putting them in a position to tank and get extra picks was absolutely a part of the deal. Suggesting otherwise is dumb.
GQ Hot Dog wrote:Kerr has done more with the least talent available of any coach in the history of the game.

Return to Golden State Warriors