Amish Mafioso wrote:TaylorMonkey wrote:Amish Mafioso wrote:
You've got to be kidding. That move was made to sacrifice immediate wins for a better future. Tanking isn't losing on purpose, it's strategic management to minimize wins at a time when building for the future takes precedence over winning immediately. That move was textbook tanking 101.
The move was for Bogut. End of story.
Lacob called the trade "trancendental" because the Warriors finally got their real center, and West remarked "but size matters" when asked about Monta well before the trade. It was all about getting bigger, more defensive, and moving away from inefficient tiny small guards. The tank opportunity was just icing on the cake and made the trade make even more sense with Curry out with ankle issues.
And the Warriors didn't destroy the Nuggets and battle the Spurs because of Barnes. They did because of Bogut-- which was their ultimate vision for the trade.
You really think they dumped Monta for a possible shot at a 7 pick and dead weight that they soon signed for 12 million over 3 years after?
Come on. You're a Jazz fan. You should know what an actual prolonged tank-first, I mean player development effort looks like.I know you guys are a bit sore about losing the pick, but regardless of what it might feel like, the trade actually wasn't about you. It was about getting bigger and becoming defensive because that's what makes for true contention. The trade was when they first had the stones to commit to that philosophy and move in that direction over flash and fan favorites. It's worked out pretty well.
You're kind of an idiot. I've already said it was a good move by your management, and I have argued with my fellow Jazz fans in your favor, as to keeping the pick, since before that season even began. You guys would have been stupid to not try and keep the pick, once you were out of the playoff picture. Hell, to this day I still have to argue with my fellow Jazz fans over this. I am not and have never been sore over losing that pick, other than what OUR FO did at the time, chasing an 8th seed instead of going full rebuild.
Seriously, if you think that trade was about a player who played a handful of games in the two years before you traded for him, as opposed to having a legit shot at lottery gold, you're living in a fantasy world. Wake the **** up.
Wow. That escalated quickly.
Nothing to address a detailed argument by someone who might actually know details pertaining to their own franchise like name calling.
And I'm deluded?
The team decided that Bogut's ankle injury was a freak one and given the likelihood of recovery, the trade was well worth the chance. Medium risk, high reward. They've been right about that particular injury so far.
So you really think Bogut being considered the 2nd most important player on the team for three seasons straight is just pure happenstance, and the team committed an additional 36 million to him just because? That they gave up a productive player just for a shot at the pick IF everything worked out, which it barely did?
Screw the pick. We'd still do the trade 10 times out of 10. Every knowledgable fan was in favor of the trade well before the tanking possibilities were remotely in the calculus.
The only part that you have a remote point on is the tankability of the Bogut trade if he DIDN'T work out. If he's everything the front office hoped he'd be, awesome. If he was done, that was tanktastic and allowed the team to get off the treadmill. But the tanking motivations for that season were not primary as much as you want to believe it was-- nor was its impact among all the consequences of the trade since:
1a. Curry's emergence to #1 option superstar out from Monta's ball dominance and shadow.
1b. Bogut's presence as a defensive anchor on a team built on defense and ranked #3 and #1 in seasons both of which he played the majority of.
3. Barnes, the 7th pick, alternating from okay looking rookie, garbage sophomore, to efficient 4th option role player.
I'm not saying the tanking possibilities didn't factor in. It certainly made the choice to dump Monta an absolute no brainer in addition to the team building goal and results. It made what was already a smart decision smart as hell. It's just not the main motivation as much as you want to think it is. You can look at what the ownership's message was, their over exuberance about the trade when it happened, the results since that have been perfectly consistent with their intended philosophy and direction... Or you can just assert things with scant argumentation.
I suppose you can consider all this as part of an actual discussion from someone that might actually know something about their team. Or you can continue to call names.
Now I will say maybe I unnecessarily pushed a button there with the Jazz tank crack, but it was so tempting given how anti-tank your forum was (and to your credit I do remember someone, probably you, disagreeing with at the time).
