Are the Warriors contenders?

Moderators: bisme37, Dirk, ken6199, Domejandro, KingDavid, zimpy27, jamaalstar21, Harry Garris, bwgood77, infinite11285

Are the Warriors contenders?

Yes
94
37%
No
160
63%
 
Total votes: 254

MindState
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,646
And1: 2,108
Joined: Jul 05, 2018

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#81 » by MindState » Sun Oct 10, 2021 7:24 pm

Not this year, next year definitely. They will be the best team in the west by far.
DCasey91
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,325
And1: 2,653
Joined: Dec 15, 2020
   

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#82 » by DCasey91 » Sun Oct 10, 2021 7:54 pm

WarriorGM wrote:
DCasey91 wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:Any team with Curry—the greatest player in the game—is a contender. All the naysayers can go post on the "Curry is going to be exposed" thread from last year and give us more good laughs.


What has he done in the past two years? You love Curry so much you can’t admit he has flaws.


Curry showed he could take a 30th place team and lead them to a 54% win record and the equivalent of a playoffs berth in other years in the Western Conference. In doing so he has provided clear evidence that he is the greatest floor raiser in the league.

I can admit he has flaws but why should I when clearly there are so many who seem to see only that and cannot acknowledge his superior performance?


Curry is the greatest shooter ever and a great scorer in general for a player his size. I outlined my thoughts a couple of comments back as to why the 2015 squad kills this one. Teenagers do two fifths of stuff all in the playoffs and you have multiple ones that need to have important contributions.

There is zero point discussing anything with you when it comes to Curry because your so clearly biased you probably think rainbows come out of his rear end.

If he was that good Grizzlies had no chance of the supposed GOAT in his prime, but they lost.
dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 28,717
And1: 13,152
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#83 » by dhsilv2 » Sun Oct 10, 2021 8:13 pm

righterwriter wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
The411 wrote:I brought this up in the Lakers thread. I think the Warriors have the highest ceiling in the West, but that comes with the injury caveat of course.

A lot will hinge on how Wiseman goes this year. If he's improved to say 15 and 8 and shows decent court awareness the Warriors will be difficult to beat.

If healthy, I would want no part of GS come playoff time.


He was the worst player in the nba last year...


lmao...

11/6 in 20mpg on good percentages for a 19 year old basically out of high school in a pandemic season and without SL or training camp.

If you can't see the talent, that's on you.



What does talent have to do here?
WarriorGM
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,617
And1: 2,201
Joined: Aug 19, 2017

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#84 » by WarriorGM » Sun Oct 10, 2021 8:15 pm

DCasey91 wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:
DCasey91 wrote:
What has he done in the past two years? You love Curry so much you can’t admit he has flaws.


Curry showed he could take a 30th place team and lead them to a 54% win record and the equivalent of a playoffs berth in other years in the Western Conference. In doing so he has provided clear evidence that he is the greatest floor raiser in the league.

I can admit he has flaws but why should I when clearly there are so many who seem to see only that and cannot acknowledge his superior performance?


Curry is the greatest shooter ever and a great scorer in general for a player his size. I outlined my thoughts a couple of comments back as to why the 2015 squad kills this one. Teenagers do two fifths of stuff all in the playoffs and you have multiple ones that need to have important contributions.

There is zero point discussing anything with you when it comes to Curry because your so clearly biased you probably think rainbows come out of his rear end.

If he was that good Grizzlies had no chance of the supposed GOAT in his prime, but they lost.


One-game series. The Grizzlies didn't even win their prior meeting to determine play-in seeding so the Warriors ended up playing the defending champions while the Grizzlies played the Spurs a process that disadvantaged the Warriors in the re-match.
righterwriter
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,110
And1: 4,719
Joined: Apr 30, 2013
     

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#85 » by righterwriter » Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:08 am

dhsilv2 wrote:
righterwriter wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
He was the worst player in the nba last year...


lmao...

11/6 in 20mpg on good percentages for a 19 year old basically out of high school in a pandemic season and without SL or training camp.

If you can't see the talent, that's on you.



What does talent have to do here?


A guy who has the talent to put up 11/6 as a rookie and who can shoot 3's, handle the ball, and run the floor while being 7 feet tall is not someone who is the worst player in the league, or anything close to it.

The people who use the advanced stats tend to get a little loopy sometimes when trying to hammer home a point.
dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 28,717
And1: 13,152
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#86 » by dhsilv2 » Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:21 am

righterwriter wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
righterwriter wrote:
lmao...

11/6 in 20mpg on good percentages for a 19 year old basically out of high school in a pandemic season and without SL or training camp.

If you can't see the talent, that's on you.



What does talent have to do here?


A guy who has the talent to put up 11/6 as a rookie and who can shoot 3's, handle the ball, and run the floor while being 7 feet tall is not someone who is the worst player in the league, or anything close to it.

The people who use the advanced stats tend to get a little loopy sometimes when trying to hammer home a point.


Talent has ZERO to do with being good or not. He was factually KILLING his team every time he was on the floor. Horrible offensive and defensive awareness. You can be the most talented player to ever walk the planet, but if you make the wrong decision nearly every time down the court, you still suck. I swear the people who attack advanced stats are the same people who watch highlight reels and not actual games...

But if you'd like let me change my statement slightly.

Wiseman was the least valuable player in the league last year. Meaning of players who were put in a role/place to impact team success, he was the guy who hurt his team's chances of winning the most significantly. The only reason he might not win that award was thankfully for the warrior's playoff hopes he got hurt which drastically HELPED the team.
righterwriter
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,110
And1: 4,719
Joined: Apr 30, 2013
     

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#87 » by righterwriter » Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:21 pm

dhsilv2 wrote:
righterwriter wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
What does talent have to do here?


A guy who has the talent to put up 11/6 as a rookie and who can shoot 3's, handle the ball, and run the floor while being 7 feet tall is not someone who is the worst player in the league, or anything close to it.

The people who use the advanced stats tend to get a little loopy sometimes when trying to hammer home a point.


Talent has ZERO to do with being good or not. He was factually KILLING his team every time he was on the floor. Horrible offensive and defensive awareness. You can be the most talented player to ever walk the planet, but if you make the wrong decision nearly every time down the court, you still suck. I swear the people who attack advanced stats are the same people who watch highlight reels and not actual games...

But if you'd like let me change my statement slightly.

Wiseman was the least valuable player in the league last year. Meaning of players who were put in a role/place to impact team success, he was the guy who hurt his team's chances of winning the most significantly. The only reason he might not win that award was thankfully for the warrior's playoff hopes he got hurt which drastically HELPED the team.



Nah, he was a talented player who had an impact, but who was a rookie at the same time. It all depends on the framing that people create to get across their point.

The guy who simply stated "he's the worst player in the league" is trying too hard. He was a raw rookie without much preparation due to crazy circumstances. Lots of guys fall in the same boat who ended up having HOF careers.

If RealGM in the 90s existed and looked at the rookie years of guys like Jermaine O'Neal, Kobe, KG, and many others, people with short sighted vision could make a similar point. It would be kind of stupid and shallow though, much like trying to use advanced stats to rip on James Wiseman based on his season as a 20 year old, who clearly has skills and physical attributes to show he can be a real player in the NBA, despite the circumstances of the Warriors going full veteran "win now" after Wiseman got hurt and letting Curry cook rather than giving time to their rookie to develop.

But yeah, go ahead and back up the argument that Wiseman is the worst and least valuable player in the league. We'll see what happens with his career, yeah? I'll bet on the upside along with what he showed as a rookie. You can bet on him being bad.
rtiff68
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,727
And1: 2,148
Joined: May 25, 2019

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#88 » by rtiff68 » Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:35 pm

righterwriter wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
righterwriter wrote:
A guy who has the talent to put up 11/6 as a rookie and who can shoot 3's, handle the ball, and run the floor while being 7 feet tall is not someone who is the worst player in the league, or anything close to it.

The people who use the advanced stats tend to get a little loopy sometimes when trying to hammer home a point.


Talent has ZERO to do with being good or not. He was factually KILLING his team every time he was on the floor. Horrible offensive and defensive awareness. You can be the most talented player to ever walk the planet, but if you make the wrong decision nearly every time down the court, you still suck. I swear the people who attack advanced stats are the same people who watch highlight reels and not actual games...

But if you'd like let me change my statement slightly.

Wiseman was the least valuable player in the league last year. Meaning of players who were put in a role/place to impact team success, he was the guy who hurt his team's chances of winning the most significantly. The only reason he might not win that award was thankfully for the warrior's playoff hopes he got hurt which drastically HELPED the team.



Nah, he was a talented player who had an impact, but who was a rookie at the same time. It all depends on the framing that people create to get across their point.

The guy who simply stated "he's the worst player in the league" is trying too hard. He was a raw rookie without much preparation due to crazy circumstances. Lots of guys fall in the same boat who ended up having HOF careers.

If RealGM in the 90s existed and looked at the rookie years of guys like Jermaine O'Neal, Kobe, KG, and many others, people with short sighted vision could make a similar point. It would be kind of stupid and shallow though, much like trying to use advanced stats to rip on James Wiseman based on his season as a 20 year old, who clearly has skills and physical attributes to show he can be a real player in the NBA, despite the circumstances of the Warriors going full veteran "win now" after Wiseman got hurt and letting Curry cook rather than giving time to their rookie to develop.

But yeah, go ahead and back up the argument that Wiseman is the worst and least valuable player in the league. We'll see what happens with his career, yeah? I'll bet on the upside along with what he showed as a rookie. You can bet on him being bad.


You’re creating a straw man. Nobody is saying that Wiseman doesn’t have talent and potential.

People are saying that as a raw 19 year old who basically came straight out of high school, James Wiseman was terrible last year, and he was.

That doesn’t mean he didn’t show flashes of the tools and talent that got him selected 2nd overall, because he did.
righterwriter
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,110
And1: 4,719
Joined: Apr 30, 2013
     

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#89 » by righterwriter » Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:02 pm

rtiff68 wrote:
righterwriter wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
Talent has ZERO to do with being good or not. He was factually KILLING his team every time he was on the floor. Horrible offensive and defensive awareness. You can be the most talented player to ever walk the planet, but if you make the wrong decision nearly every time down the court, you still suck. I swear the people who attack advanced stats are the same people who watch highlight reels and not actual games...

But if you'd like let me change my statement slightly.

Wiseman was the least valuable player in the league last year. Meaning of players who were put in a role/place to impact team success, he was the guy who hurt his team's chances of winning the most significantly. The only reason he might not win that award was thankfully for the warrior's playoff hopes he got hurt which drastically HELPED the team.



Nah, he was a talented player who had an impact, but who was a rookie at the same time. It all depends on the framing that people create to get across their point.

The guy who simply stated "he's the worst player in the league" is trying too hard. He was a raw rookie without much preparation due to crazy circumstances. Lots of guys fall in the same boat who ended up having HOF careers.

If RealGM in the 90s existed and looked at the rookie years of guys like Jermaine O'Neal, Kobe, KG, and many others, people with short sighted vision could make a similar point. It would be kind of stupid and shallow though, much like trying to use advanced stats to rip on James Wiseman based on his season as a 20 year old, who clearly has skills and physical attributes to show he can be a real player in the NBA, despite the circumstances of the Warriors going full veteran "win now" after Wiseman got hurt and letting Curry cook rather than giving time to their rookie to develop.

But yeah, go ahead and back up the argument that Wiseman is the worst and least valuable player in the league. We'll see what happens with his career, yeah? I'll bet on the upside along with what he showed as a rookie. You can bet on him being bad.


You’re creating a straw man. Nobody is saying that Wiseman doesn’t have talent and potential.

People are saying that as a raw 19 year old who basically came straight out of high school, James Wiseman was terrible last year, and he was.

That doesn’t mean he didn’t show flashes of the tools and talent that got him selected 2nd overall, because he did.


Come on. How many terrible players average 11/6 in 20mpg?

I focused my argument against the person who called Wiseman "the worst player in the nba last year", which is unbelievable hyperbole. Maybe you should focus your attention on that guy rather than the person arguing against him.
dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 28,717
And1: 13,152
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#90 » by dhsilv2 » Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:05 pm

righterwriter wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
righterwriter wrote:
A guy who has the talent to put up 11/6 as a rookie and who can shoot 3's, handle the ball, and run the floor while being 7 feet tall is not someone who is the worst player in the league, or anything close to it.

The people who use the advanced stats tend to get a little loopy sometimes when trying to hammer home a point.


Talent has ZERO to do with being good or not. He was factually KILLING his team every time he was on the floor. Horrible offensive and defensive awareness. You can be the most talented player to ever walk the planet, but if you make the wrong decision nearly every time down the court, you still suck. I swear the people who attack advanced stats are the same people who watch highlight reels and not actual games...

But if you'd like let me change my statement slightly.

Wiseman was the least valuable player in the league last year. Meaning of players who were put in a role/place to impact team success, he was the guy who hurt his team's chances of winning the most significantly. The only reason he might not win that award was thankfully for the warrior's playoff hopes he got hurt which drastically HELPED the team.



Nah, he was a talented player who had an impact, but who was a rookie at the same time. It all depends on the framing that people create to get across their point.

The guy who simply stated "he's the worst player in the league" is trying too hard. He was a raw rookie without much preparation due to crazy circumstances. Lots of guys fall in the same boat who ended up having HOF careers.

If RealGM in the 90s existed and looked at the rookie years of guys like Jermaine O'Neal, Kobe, KG, and many others, people with short sighted vision could make a similar point. It would be kind of stupid and shallow though, much like trying to use advanced stats to rip on James Wiseman based on his season as a 20 year old, who clearly has skills and physical attributes to show he can be a real player in the NBA, despite the circumstances of the Warriors going full veteran "win now" after Wiseman got hurt and letting Curry cook rather than giving time to their rookie to develop.

But yeah, go ahead and back up the argument that Wiseman is the worst and least valuable player in the league. We'll see what happens with his career, yeah? I'll bet on the upside along with what he showed as a rookie. You can bet on him being bad.


Who is claiming he won't become a good player or making any connection between how bad he was and how good he could be?

KD was the worst player in the league as a rookie. He's now an MVP level guy. The two aren't related.

Wiseman cost his team multiple games with his play last year. He was multiple losses worse than a random G leaguer who was ready for the league.
rtiff68
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,727
And1: 2,148
Joined: May 25, 2019

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#91 » by rtiff68 » Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:20 pm

righterwriter wrote:
rtiff68 wrote:
righterwriter wrote:

Nah, he was a talented player who had an impact, but who was a rookie at the same time. It all depends on the framing that people create to get across their point.

The guy who simply stated "he's the worst player in the league" is trying too hard. He was a raw rookie without much preparation due to crazy circumstances. Lots of guys fall in the same boat who ended up having HOF careers.

If RealGM in the 90s existed and looked at the rookie years of guys like Jermaine O'Neal, Kobe, KG, and many others, people with short sighted vision could make a similar point. It would be kind of stupid and shallow though, much like trying to use advanced stats to rip on James Wiseman based on his season as a 20 year old, who clearly has skills and physical attributes to show he can be a real player in the NBA, despite the circumstances of the Warriors going full veteran "win now" after Wiseman got hurt and letting Curry cook rather than giving time to their rookie to develop.

But yeah, go ahead and back up the argument that Wiseman is the worst and least valuable player in the league. We'll see what happens with his career, yeah? I'll bet on the upside along with what he showed as a rookie. You can bet on him being bad.


You’re creating a straw man. Nobody is saying that Wiseman doesn’t have talent and potential.

People are saying that as a raw 19 year old who basically came straight out of high school, James Wiseman was terrible last year, and he was.

That doesn’t mean he didn’t show flashes of the tools and talent that got him selected 2nd overall, because he did.


Come on. How many terrible players average 11/6 in 20mpg?

I focused my argument against the person who called Wiseman "the worst player in the nba last year", which is unbelievable hyperbole. Maybe you should focus your attention on that guy rather than the person arguing against him.


Both of these things can be true at the same time…

1) Wiseman has a rare blend of size and mobility, and displayed solid shooting mechanics. He has the potential to be a very good player.

2) Wiseman was terrible as a teenage rookie last year.

Maybe you should focus your attention on debating what people are actually saying, rather than creating strawmen and setting fire to them?
Tor_Raps
RealGM
Posts: 11,074
And1: 15,942
Joined: Oct 14, 2018

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#92 » by Tor_Raps » Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:24 pm

Yes, once Klay comes back and Warriors management realizes they should trade some of their youth for win now players.
The_Hater
RealGM
Posts: 85,260
And1: 39,803
Joined: May 23, 2001
     

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#93 » by The_Hater » Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:26 pm

I think the Dubs need to make 1-2 youth for vets trades this season to go from solid playoff team to contention. And this still assumes thst we see 85-90% of old Klay when he returns.

Tor_Raps wrote:Yes, once Klay comes back and Warriors management realizes they should trade some of their youth for win now players.


I read your post after I sent mine. Lol.
AthensBucks wrote:Lowry is done.
Nurse is below average at best.
Masai is overrated.
I dont get how so many people believe in the raptors,they have zero to chance to win it all.


April 14th, 2019.
rtiff68
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,727
And1: 2,148
Joined: May 25, 2019

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#94 » by rtiff68 » Mon Oct 11, 2021 11:05 pm

The_Hater wrote:I think the Dubs need to make 1-2 youth for vets trades this season to go from solid playoff team to contention. And this still assumes thst we see 85-90% of old Klay when he returns.

Tor_Raps wrote:Yes, once Klay comes back and Warriors management realizes they should trade some of their youth for win now players.


I read your post after I sent mine. Lol.


I find takes like this frustrating because they live in the abstract.

I want the Warriors to maximize their title window while Curry is still an MVP-caliber player. I also don’t want them to trade two top 10 (IMO) prospects in a loaded draft for the “best veterans they can get.”

Who do you think they should trade for, and what do you think they should offer?
The_Hater
RealGM
Posts: 85,260
And1: 39,803
Joined: May 23, 2001
     

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#95 » by The_Hater » Mon Oct 11, 2021 11:13 pm

rtiff68 wrote:
The_Hater wrote:I think the Dubs need to make 1-2 youth for vets trades this season to go from solid playoff team to contention. And this still assumes thst we see 85-90% of old Klay when he returns.

Tor_Raps wrote:Yes, once Klay comes back and Warriors management realizes they should trade some of their youth for win now players.


I read your post after I sent mine. Lol.


I find takes like this frustrating because they live in the abstract.

I want the Warriors to maximize their title window while Curry is still an MVP-caliber player. I also don’t want them to trade two top 10 (IMO) prospects in a loaded draft for the “best veterans they can get.”

Who do you think they should trade for, and what do you think they should offer?



If you’re going to ride the fence between today and the future with a flawed team, that’s fine, I just don’t see them contending with that approach. And I wouldn’t expect Wiseman, Kuminga or Moody contributing much to a contender. Rookie don’t usually move the needle forward, just the opposite. It’s not exactly a secret that management were shopping Wiseman and those picks all summer in hopes of landing an allstar caliber player because they see the exact same issue.

And I’m not about to search the league for possible trade scenarios. But they will exist. Happens every season without fail. But the strategy behind what we both wrote isn’t really that hard to understand.
AthensBucks wrote:Lowry is done.
Nurse is below average at best.
Masai is overrated.
I dont get how so many people believe in the raptors,they have zero to chance to win it all.


April 14th, 2019.
rtiff68
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,727
And1: 2,148
Joined: May 25, 2019

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#96 » by rtiff68 » Mon Oct 11, 2021 11:17 pm

The_Hater wrote:
rtiff68 wrote:
The_Hater wrote:I think the Dubs need to make 1-2 youth for vets trades this season to go from solid playoff team to contention. And this still assumes thst we see 85-90% of old Klay when he returns.



I read your post after I sent mine. Lol.


I find takes like this frustrating because they live in the abstract.

I want the Warriors to maximize their title window while Curry is still an MVP-caliber player. I also don’t want them to trade two top 10 (IMO) prospects in a loaded draft for the “best veterans they can get.”

Who do you think they should trade for, and what do you think they should offer?



If you’re going to ride the fence between today and the future with a flawed team, that’s fine, I just don’t see them contending with that approach. And I wouldn’t expect Wiseman, Kuminga or Moody contributing much to a contender. Rookie don’t usually move the needle forward, just the opposite. It’s not exactly a secret that management were shopping Wiseman and those picks all summer in hopes of landing an allstar caliber player because they see the exact same issue.

And I’m not about to search the league for possible trade scenarios. But they will exist. Happens every season without fail. But the strategy behind what we both wrote isn’t really that hard to understand.


You basically just repeated what I said. You’re subscribing to an abstract, and not providing anything concrete (actual, realistic trade scenarios).

I’m not “fence sitting,” I’m living in the real world, not one compromised of hypothetical abstracts.

If you can identify a trade that would make sense for all of the parties involved, then please share it. If you can’t, then this conversation is completely pointless.
michaelm
General Manager
Posts: 7,515
And1: 3,263
Joined: Apr 06, 2010
 

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#97 » by michaelm » Mon Oct 11, 2021 11:18 pm

dhsilv2 wrote:
righterwriter wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
Talent has ZERO to do with being good or not. He was factually KILLING his team every time he was on the floor. Horrible offensive and defensive awareness. You can be the most talented player to ever walk the planet, but if you make the wrong decision nearly every time down the court, you still suck. I swear the people who attack advanced stats are the same people who watch highlight reels and not actual games...

But if you'd like let me change my statement slightly.

Wiseman was the least valuable player in the league last year. Meaning of players who were put in a role/place to impact team success, he was the guy who hurt his team's chances of winning the most significantly. The only reason he might not win that award was thankfully for the warrior's playoff hopes he got hurt which drastically HELPED the team.



Nah, he was a talented player who had an impact, but who was a rookie at the same time. It all depends on the framing that people create to get across their point.

The guy who simply stated "he's the worst player in the league" is trying too hard. He was a raw rookie without much preparation due to crazy circumstances. Lots of guys fall in the same boat who ended up having HOF careers.

If RealGM in the 90s existed and looked at the rookie years of guys like Jermaine O'Neal, Kobe, KG, and many others, people with short sighted vision could make a similar point. It would be kind of stupid and shallow though, much like trying to use advanced stats to rip on James Wiseman based on his season as a 20 year old, who clearly has skills and physical attributes to show he can be a real player in the NBA, despite the circumstances of the Warriors going full veteran "win now" after Wiseman got hurt and letting Curry cook rather than giving time to their rookie to develop.

But yeah, go ahead and back up the argument that Wiseman is the worst and least valuable player in the league. We'll see what happens with his career, yeah? I'll bet on the upside along with what he showed as a rookie. You can bet on him being bad.


Who is claiming he won't become a good player or making any connection between how bad he was and how good he could be?

KD was the worst player in the league as a rookie. He's now an MVP level guy. The two aren't related.

Wiseman cost his team multiple games with his play last year. He was multiple losses worse than a random G leaguer who was ready for the league.

He definitely wasn’t ready to be a starting Center on a team with a complex game plan he didn’t understand and for which he wasn’t a good fit as a 19 year old rookie. I am not sure what their plan was last year, they neither maximised their chances of winning nor really developed Wiseman optimally. I even wonder if the ownership who are apparently very high on him wanted him played, but however good he might be eventually might be he was never going to become Kevin Durant in his first season.

Of course they didn’t plan to have Chriss break down, and were in salary cap hell before the injuries anyway.
The_Hater
RealGM
Posts: 85,260
And1: 39,803
Joined: May 23, 2001
     

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#98 » by The_Hater » Mon Oct 11, 2021 11:51 pm

rtiff68 wrote:
The_Hater wrote:
rtiff68 wrote:
I find takes like this frustrating because they live in the abstract.

I want the Warriors to maximize their title window while Curry is still an MVP-caliber player. I also don’t want them to trade two top 10 (IMO) prospects in a loaded draft for the “best veterans they can get.”

Who do you think they should trade for, and what do you think they should offer?



If you’re going to ride the fence between today and the future with a flawed team, that’s fine, I just don’t see them contending with that approach. And I wouldn’t expect Wiseman, Kuminga or Moody contributing much to a contender. Rookie don’t usually move the needle forward, just the opposite. It’s not exactly a secret that management were shopping Wiseman and those picks all summer in hopes of landing an allstar caliber player because they see the exact same issue.

And I’m not about to search the league for possible trade scenarios. But they will exist. Happens every season without fail. But the strategy behind what we both wrote isn’t really that hard to understand.


You basically just repeated what I said. You’re subscribing to an abstract, and not providing anything concrete (actual, realistic trade scenarios).

I’m not “fence sitting,” I’m living in the real world, not one compromised of hypothetical abstracts.

If you can identify a trade that would make sense for all of the parties involved, then please share it. If you can’t, then this conversation is completely pointless.


Why are you still arguing then? It’s the same thing I said in the previous post but I just expanded on it. And go research your own future trades because I don’t really care, there are over 450 players in the league. But trades happen all the time so stop acting like you just started following the NBA last week. Just look at some of the players who have been moved the last few seasons.

Good day.
AthensBucks wrote:Lowry is done.
Nurse is below average at best.
Masai is overrated.
I dont get how so many people believe in the raptors,they have zero to chance to win it all.


April 14th, 2019.
rtiff68
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,727
And1: 2,148
Joined: May 25, 2019

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#99 » by rtiff68 » Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:24 am

The_Hater wrote:
rtiff68 wrote:
The_Hater wrote:

If you’re going to ride the fence between today and the future with a flawed team, that’s fine, I just don’t see them contending with that approach. And I wouldn’t expect Wiseman, Kuminga or Moody contributing much to a contender. Rookie don’t usually move the needle forward, just the opposite. It’s not exactly a secret that management were shopping Wiseman and those picks all summer in hopes of landing an allstar caliber player because they see the exact same issue.

And I’m not about to search the league for possible trade scenarios. But they will exist. Happens every season without fail. But the strategy behind what we both wrote isn’t really that hard to understand.


You basically just repeated what I said. You’re subscribing to an abstract, and not providing anything concrete (actual, realistic trade scenarios).

I’m not “fence sitting,” I’m living in the real world, not one compromised of hypothetical abstracts.

If you can identify a trade that would make sense for all of the parties involved, then please share it. If you can’t, then this conversation is completely pointless.


Why are you still arguing then? It’s the same thing I said in the previous post but I just expanded on it. And go research your own future trades because I don’t really care, there are over 450 players in the league. But trades happen all the time so stop acting like you just started following the NBA last week. Just look at some of the players who have been moved the last few seasons.

Good day.


What the hell are you talking about?

You’re arguing in abstracts without providing anything concrete.

“The Warriors should liquidate their young assets for proven players, period. Trade who, and for what? Do your own research. It should just happen, because.”

That’s literally your take, and it’s completely ridiculous.

Good day to you, as well.
righterwriter
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,110
And1: 4,719
Joined: Apr 30, 2013
     

Re: Are the Warriors contenders? 

Post#100 » by righterwriter » Tue Oct 12, 2021 5:27 am

rtiff68 wrote:
righterwriter wrote:
rtiff68 wrote:
You’re creating a straw man. Nobody is saying that Wiseman doesn’t have talent and potential.

People are saying that as a raw 19 year old who basically came straight out of high school, James Wiseman was terrible last year, and he was.

That doesn’t mean he didn’t show flashes of the tools and talent that got him selected 2nd overall, because he did.


Come on. How many terrible players average 11/6 in 20mpg?

I focused my argument against the person who called Wiseman "the worst player in the nba last year", which is unbelievable hyperbole. Maybe you should focus your attention on that guy rather than the person arguing against him.


Both of these things can be true at the same time…

1) Wiseman has a rare blend of size and mobility, and displayed solid shooting mechanics. He has the potential to be a very good player.

2) Wiseman was terrible as a teenage rookie last year.

Maybe you should focus your attention on debating what people are actually saying, rather than creating strawmen and setting fire to them?


I've already told you, I'm arguing against the point made that he is the worst player in the league by listing his production, posting a nine minute highlight reel and listing the skills he displayed. Do I also need to make a list of the dozens of bench riders and no-namers who he is better than, as well?

So what's the strawman that you keep bringing up?

Return to The General Board