OT: Barkley Says Bogut Done

WRau1 · Post #181 » by **WRau1** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:57 pm

If Monta is a career loser, what is Bogut? Call it like it is, they are both career losers. We traded one bad player for another.

JayMKE · Post #182 » by **JayMKE** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:28 pm

WRau1 wrote:If Monta is a career loser, what is Bogut? Call it like it is, they are both career losers. We traded one bad player for another.

Bogut could of been a contributor on any contending team in the league while most competent GMs wouldn't touch Monta with a 10 foot pole.

Nebula1 · Post #183 » by **Nebula1** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:28 pm

Let the big guy get right. He's in Cali and the Warriors will take extra time getting their new investment right. I'm hoping he has a strong second half of the season and goes into 2013-14 with good health and a renewal of his career.

jeremyd236 · Post #184 » by **jeremyd236** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:29 pm

JayMKE wrote:It doesn't matter what Bogut does after the trade, it has no effect on what already happen on March 13, 2012.

And yea, I am aware that part of trade was dumping Stephen Jackson. I'm so glad that our wonderful GM traded for that turd to begin with, who could of predicted that wouldn't of worked out besides everyone in the universe?

It does matter, because it was entirely predictable. You don't have to be an injury expert to know that Bogut wouldn't be ready by the start of this season. Now it's looking like he might not play this calendar year at all (again not a surprise). GMs knew this.

And what does acquiring Jackson have to do with getting rid of him? An injury prone ("done") Bogut + negative asset Jackson netted us a career fringe All-Star and a big with upside.

Again, I'm not seeing any team in the league offering us a better trade. We basically gave up nothing, especially when you consider that by the time Bogut is fully recovered (if he will ever be healthy again), he's going to be an unrestricted free agent almost right after.

El Duderino · Post #185 » by **El Duderino** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:57 pm

Watching Monta as a Buck, i can now see how he teased and frustrated so many Golden St. fans. He has so much talent and would be an elite PG if he had a basketball brain anywhere near his physical talents.

The guy has incredible quickness and good court vision as a passer. Good size if he was a PG. Yet, he just insists on jacking up to many long two point jumpers to early in the shot clock. He doesn't attack the paint enough given his physical gifts to do so, whether to score or dish off penetration. Defensively, he has the quickness to stay with almost any guard, but his effort on that end is to erratic.

Post #186 » by **paulpressey25** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:03 am

JayMKE wrote:
Bogut could of been a contributor on any contending team in the league while most competent GMs wouldn't touch Monta with a 10 foot pole.

I'm not sure any GM in the league touches Bogut with a ten foot pole. Or would give up any asset package even half of what we got from Golden State.

El Duderino · Post #187 » by **El Duderino** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:07 am

emunney wrote:Does anybody know if the Warriors were able to get insurance for Curry's contract?

Good question.

While i'd certainly rather have Curry as player than Monta, i'd be terrified of the extension Curry got given his ankles situation.

CanadaBucks · Post #188 » by **CanadaBucks** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:09 am

El Duderino wrote:
emunney wrote:Does anybody know if the Warriors were able to get insurance for Curry's contract?

Good question.

While i'd certainly rather have Curry as player than Monta, i'd be terrified of the extension Curry got given his ankles situation.

Way too early to tell but what if Curry was more efficient due to Monta's presence? No evidence to say this but did Monta's speed and penetrating ability allow Curry to get better looks?

Baddy Chuck · Post #189 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:35 am

So our new stance on Monta is "he's pretty awful currently but he makes others better"?

CanadaBucks · Post #190 » by **CanadaBucks** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:48 am

Baddy Chuck wrote:So our new stance on Monta is "he's pretty awful currently but he makes others better"?

I certainly didn't say he was awful

Baddy Chuck · Post #191 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:52 am

CanadaBucks wrote:
Baddy Chuck wrote:So our new stance on Monta is "he's pretty awful currently but he makes others better"?

I certainly didn't say he was awful

Can you say with a straight face that he's been good?

paul · Post #192 » by **paul** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:52 am

Baddy Chuck wrote:So our new stance on Monta is "he's pretty awful currently but he makes others better"?

As his ppg numbers continue to rise so will the various defenses of him. It is what it is.

CanadaBucks · Post #193 » by **CanadaBucks** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:53 am

Baddy Chuck wrote:
CanadaBucks wrote:
Baddy Chuck wrote:So our new stance on Monta is "he's pretty awful currently but he makes others better"?

I certainly didn't say he was awful

Can you say with a straight face that he's been good?

Are those the only two choices?

2 bad games 2 good games and 3 meh games so I'd say average

Baddy Chuck · Post #194 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:02 am

CanadaBucks wrote:Are those the only two choices?

His stats rival a rookie Brandon Jennings since he got here, I think there's really only one choice.

CanadaBucks · Post #195 » by **CanadaBucks** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:03 am

Baddy Chuck wrote:
CanadaBucks wrote:Are those the only two choices?

His stats rival a rookie Brandon Jennings since he got here, I think there's really only one choice.

Actually awful would be Rodney Stuckey who I read on this board was far superior to Monta

ampd · Post #196 » by **ampd** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:57 am

paulpressey25 wrote:
JayMKE wrote:
Bogut could of been a contributor on any contending team in the league while most competent GMs wouldn't touch Monta with a 10 foot pole.

I'm not sure any GM in the league touches Bogut with a ten foot pole. Or would give up any asset package even half of what we got from Golden State.

They are staring at the very real possibility that they traded Monta and Udoh for essentially the corpse of Richard Jefferson and Festus Ezeli

AussieBuck · Post #197 » by **AussieBuck** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:58 am

The obvious better Bogut trade was on-trading Monta.

ampd · Post #198 » by **ampd** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:01 am

AussieBuck wrote:The obvious better Bogut trade was on-trading Monta.

Hard to argue with that. This team with Iguodala would be long and athletic at every position and could play Iggy / Moute together for crazy lockdown defense.

AussieBuck · Post #199 » by **AussieBuck** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:06 am

ampd wrote:
AussieBuck wrote:The obvious better Bogut trade was on-trading Monta.

Hard to argue with that. This team with Iguodala would be long and athletic at every position and could play Iggy / Moute together for crazy lockdown defense.

I'd be using Luc to help move Monta in that scenario. Unless Luc gets a thee ball Udoh has taken his job IMO.

paul · Post #200 » by **paul** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:31 am

ampd wrote:
paulpressey25 wrote:
JayMKE wrote:
Bogut could of been a contributor on any contending team in the league while most competent GMs wouldn't touch Monta with a 10 foot pole.

I'm not sure any GM in the league touches Bogut with a ten foot pole. Or would give up any asset package even half of what we got from Golden State.

They are staring at the very real possibility that they traded Monta and Udoh for essentially the corpse of Richard Jefferson and Festus Ezeli

Nah, and Barnes. They win one more game and Barnes is a Utah player today - or whoever. Depending on your view on Udoh it's entirely possible they still like the new package over the old even if they never get another game out of Bogut.