RealGM

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.

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.

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.

-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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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).

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.

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.

Questioning why Lacob with Bogut injury knowledge is almost like questioning who screwed up with Benghazi.

Maybe this will help
Regenokine injections,
http://www.hoopsworld.com/andrew-bogut- ... ource=t.co

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

Is Balco still around?

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

True.

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.

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.