Page 1 of 2

The Truth about the Warriors Depth...

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:37 pm
by ILOVEIT
Warriors HAVE no depth....they have no bench.

Hudson is out for the year...and Austin might as well be. They were both brought on..both had chronic ailments.

And now...we have Barnes, Bukie, Pietrus, Watson (all guards) and several young big guys that Nelson doesn't trust to play anything other than garbage time.

IMO...only Barnes and Bukie are reliable bench players....Pietrus has a "good" game every 4...maybe every 6 when it comes to scoring. Watson may become something...but who knows...

So our team goes 7 deep...maybe 8...

Bottom line here is that Mullin had a very poor off season when it comes to making this team any better than it finished last year. He traded Jason....which makes this team even thinner...then signed two terminally broken down players.

Realistically speaking...there is no way a 7-8 man team gets through the entire season and has anything left for a serious playoff run....

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:50 pm
by Sid the Squid
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic. ... 62&start=0


It's rough to always be ahead of the pack.





BTW..."Nice Story" sucks donkey balls.

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:08 pm
by crzy
LF75 wrote:http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=739562&start=0


It's rough to always be ahead of the pack.





BTW..."Nice Story" sucks donkey balls.


Good call.

Except right now it's like this:

1 great player - Baron (sometimes)

1 very good player - Ellis

4 good players - Jack-Biedrins-Harrington

1 average player - Barnes

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:20 pm
by FNQ
You can almost see the lightbulb go off over I LOVE IT's head...

That TK interview with Mullin made me laugh... "guys that fit our style"...

PF/Cs that can shoot 3s... or else Jax / Baron may get offended :rofl:

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:23 pm
by Sid the Squid
crzyyafrican wrote:-= original quote snipped =-





Except right now it's like this:

1 great player - Baron (sometimes)

1 very good player - Ellis

4 good players - Jack-Biedrins-Harrington

1 average player - Barnes
I agree on the Monta-Jack switch ...Though I think Matt is a good player and a crucial bench player in our system

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:24 pm
by FNQ
My faith in the FO died this offseason... I got suckered in by the excitement of the playoffs too..

Assumed Nellie just didnt have time to get the personnel he wanted for last season... then he brings in Hudson, Croshere and Mbenga.. drafts a PF that doesn't play, drafts a SG that he was so excited about and now wears suits to the games... Warriors FO is just like the the Warriors, disorganized and chaotic...

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:39 pm
by ILOVEIT
510Reggae wrote:You can almost see the lightbulb go off over I LOVE IT's head...



DING!

Actually what made me realize this was knowing the Kings are behind us and they are deeper than we are...and they fricken play their bench down through 10 players....

Then I thought...what good is Marco, Wright, POB, Kosta if they don't get any playing time?

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:40 pm
by ILOVEIT
LF75 wrote:http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=739562&start=0


It's rough to always be ahead of the pack.





BTW..."Nice Story" sucks donkey balls.


LF...credit where credit is due.

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:22 pm
by blizzard
KG with Wright' contract what this team needs right now.

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:50 pm
by Twinkie defense
ILOVEIT wrote:DING!

Actually what made me realize this was knowing the Kings are behind us and they are deeper than we are...and they fricken play their bench down through 10 players....

Then I thought...what good is Marco, Wright, POB, Kosta if they don't get any playing time?


Of course Sacramento is playing more guys than the Warriors... they've had three of their best players (Bibby, Artest, K-Mart) miss extensive time due to injury; they've got a new coach this season who's trying to see what he's got; and they're a pretty bad team, unlikely to make the playoffs, so they've got some incentive to play guys who they might not play if they were battling for the 8th spot.

Seattle has played a lot of guys, too - are they deep?

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:16 am
by bballguy50
Nellie's starting to go beyond senility. If he doesn't give the bench more time in the stretch we're on...

Beyond Buike, Barnes, MP...you just don't know. And you can't really find out in 5 minutes here, and 7 minutes a month later. Guys need consistent minutes per game, even if its 5 a night. Those 5 minutes alone won't dictate whether we win or lose on a nightly basis. If they get consistent minutes and suck, then fine, but at least we found out, as opposed to having them rot on the bench with sporadic PT.

Dam you Nellie.

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:42 am
by CupcakeNoFillin
Cool, now lets give up on this season and tank next year for whoever's good in college.

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:38 am
by Sleepy51
All I can say to this thread is: Duh!

I hated our bench before it was popular.

Of course we have no bench. We have no players outside of the starting 5 on long term contracts (and only two of them.) How complicated is it really? How can anyone expect us to have NBA talent on the bench when we don't pay NBA wages? Good NBA players don't play for one year deals and don't play for league minimum. If you are going to narrow your economic player profile to a guy who is expiring or willing to play for food, then you are going to have a VERY short list of capable players.

Does ANYONE here really believe we would have made the trade for Al and Jack if we'd been the team taking on salary? (obviously the filler's would be different)

Someone is going to say that long term salary would impede our ability to re-sign Monta or Beans because of the Luxury Tax. That's wrong. Long term salary can not in any way impact our ABILITY to resign our own players. It can impact our WILLINGNESS to resign our own players. The only thing the Lux tax impacts is Cohan's villa in Staad.

There are about 14 teams poised to be over this year's Lux tax. (I'm guessing about 68MM based upon the increase last year from 62 to 65MM? - I didn't find an 07/08 number in Google) Amongst them are about 9 playoff teams.

Play the kids? I could enjoy that, but I really don't think Belli or Wright really are ready for Major NBA minutes. They should be getting time to learn, but neither has shown me rotation player skills thus far. Wright is VERY close, and could probably get there by season's end. But that's a lot of pressure to put on a young player's narrow shoulders, to help carry a playoff team to the conference finals at the most physically demanding position on the floor? How many other playoff teams are counting on rookies to round out their 8-9 man rotaions? Why aren't we willing to pay to compete? I like Brandan and Marco (as a PG, not as a Starks clone) but I will like them both more after Brandan reaches 210 pounds and Belli gets his head right.

Right now, we are in a holding pattern because Cohan is shopping the team. In the long run, it's probably good for the fans. Get someone in here who will be willing to pay for winners (and a winner's bench.) The only big risk is that we don't overacheive this season, and Cohan can't get his asking price, and we can't get new money in the front office before the piper comes a calling for the damage that Cohans fiscal juryrigging will lead to. There's going to be a small window to recussitate this thing when the Baron era ends. Do not be fooled into thinking that we're a lock to win a free agent bidding war for any of your favorite players. We're going to have TWO decent players under long term contrat when Baron is out: Monta and Dre. That may not be enough to attract a superstar to forgo the opportunities that will soon be in Miami, LA, or NY. we could very well end up in the same situaiton we're in today, but with only two starters under contract, and a worse record (thus a lower market value for the team.)

When I get irked about the state of the Warriors, Nellie, Mullin, Obee, or the Russell f'ing turner are WAY down on my list. The guy "stealing" your money isn't the "lazy" player who didn't bring it all 1 out of 15 nights. The guy stealing your money is the guy who stand to make 140-170 million in capital gain on the sale of the team if everything goes to plan.

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:52 am
by Sid the Squid
I get 0 props...Oh well...Everybody had it figured out back in September I guess....Here I thought I was ahead of my time...

Let's get back to the Mayo-Yi subjects..They stink....Ive got the props claim on the draft board for Mayo's fall from the top of the draft....I know for a fact I was the 1st to call him a total bust..I love calling it...I don't why..Ego mixed with passion for this game..

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:56 am
by floppymoose
wtf? I count two props on the same page you asked for them on.

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:57 am
by Sleepy51
I always hated Mayo.

He's a boob. Any prep "blue chip" that chooses USC is looking to be a loser. He either wanted access to good crack, or he wanted all the shots by not playing with any other serious players.

But I don't go on the draft board, so that territory is all yours.

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:59 am
by Sid the Squid
floppymoose wrote:wtf? I count two props on the same page you asked for them on.
0 props from 51 though..In fact I think I got a negative prop... which leaves me with 1 prop.

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:16 am
by Twinkie defense
The lux cap threshold this season is $67,865,000.

Warriors were in the running for KG, and I've got to think they'd be up against the tax in that case. So it's hard to say the Warriors would be deeper if only they were willing to open the purse strings.

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:17 am
by Sleepy51
LF75 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

0 props from 51 though..In fact I think I got a negative prop... which leaves me with 1 prop.


Fine, I give you a mercy prop. I'm sure you hated our bench just as long if not longer than me. I might have made one comment about it before you posted a whole thread about it, but obviously you hated them more, so the prop is yours.

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:18 am
by Sleepy51
But then I take one away for begging for it, so now you're back to no props

:p