Moderators: Chris Porter's Hair, floppymoose, Sleepy51
AirP. wrote:* GS picks up Horford for the TPMLE (~5.7 mil), adds 2 more vet minimums unless they want to pick up 3 for 15 active players (~3.0-3.4 mil each).
Twinkie defense wrote:whatisacenter wrote:Do you think he will end up taking the current offer?
I would bet money that Kuminga will not sign the QO. That's a bluff. He will take a Warriors two-year deal with a team option in year two. Or outside chance Sacramento or some other team will come through with an acceptable trade offer - but I think that's unlikely.
whatisacenter wrote:EvanZ wrote:whatisacenter wrote:
I was responding to the poster who was saying that he is not that important to the Warriors. I assumed he meant as a player or an asset.
Well it depends what is meant by "not that important". It doesn't mean there is no importance whatsoever. It means to the extent he has some market value left, then the importance is proportional to that value. That is what they are trying to extract. Any Warriors fan should hope they can squeeze as much juice as possible out of this lemon.
Well, they have done pretty much all they can to diminish his value up to this point.
EvanZ wrote:whatisacenter wrote:EvanZ wrote:
They should do exactly what they're doing. They should try to extract the maximum value they can. Why would you not want them to do that? It's weird.
I was responding to the poster who was saying that he is not that important to the Warriors. I assumed he meant as a player or an asset.
Well it depends what is meant by "not that important". It doesn't mean there is no importance whatsoever. It means to the extent he has some market value left, then the importance is proportional to that value. That is what they are trying to extract. Any Warriors fan should hope they can squeeze as much juice as possible out of this lemon.
xdrta+ wrote:AirP. wrote:* GS picks up Horford for the TPMLE (~5.7 mil), adds 2 more vet minimums unless they want to pick up 3 for 15 active players (~3.0-3.4 mil each).
Vet minimums count at the 2 yr experience level against the cap ($2,296,274.) This only applies to one year contracts.
vvoland wrote:EvanZ wrote:whatisacenter wrote:
I was responding to the poster who was saying that he is not that important to the Warriors. I assumed he meant as a player or an asset.
Well it depends what is meant by "not that important". It doesn't mean there is no importance whatsoever. It means to the extent he has some market value left, then the importance is proportional to that value. That is what they are trying to extract. Any Warriors fan should hope they can squeeze as much juice as possible out of this lemon.
I think he's more valuable here vs the market value we're currently getting. We'll need 30+ starts, at minimum, when JB and Dray rest, and that's without injuries to either of them. 40+ games if you want to count Steph. Without JK (assuming we don't get a 6'8" player back), we only have Gui and Moody as backup 3/4s. If that's not bad enough, who plays the other 30+ minutes at those two spots when Moody and Gui start? Jackson Rowe? Maybe GP2, if he's back?
That's a huge achilles' heel and the hatred for JK seems to be enough for the board to ignore this red flag.
Onus wrote:Old_Blue wrote:Onus wrote:It's like a graduating senior dating a sophmore. I'm sure that happens a lot. So when she turns 18 and he's 22 then you're all good with that type of relationship? 18 is such an arbitrary cut off. Like they could've went to high school together whatever there's a lot worst things to be up in arms about.
I'm not having this conversation with you. You're starting to sound like a pervert.
Oh no high school seniors go to school with high school freshmen and sophomores. The outrage!!! Why do we allow this in America? Once you turn 18 you automatically are just different than everyone younger than 18. Once you turn 18 you have to go where it's 18+ so the real pedophiles can legally "date" you, but heaven forbid if you date down now you're a pedophile.
Leo Di Caprio is **** gross. Jay Z grooming Beyonce when she was 18 and he was 30 is **** gross. Those are the real pedophiles and groomers not when you could be in school with them.
xdrta+ wrote:AirP. wrote:* GS picks up Horford for the TPMLE (~5.7 mil), adds 2 more vet minimums unless they want to pick up 3 for 15 active players (~3.0-3.4 mil each).
Vet minimums count at the 2 yr experience level against the cap ($2,296,274.) This only applies to one year contracts.
vvoland wrote:EvanZ wrote:whatisacenter wrote:
I was responding to the poster who was saying that he is not that important to the Warriors. I assumed he meant as a player or an asset.
Well it depends what is meant by "not that important". It doesn't mean there is no importance whatsoever. It means to the extent he has some market value left, then the importance is proportional to that value. That is what they are trying to extract. Any Warriors fan should hope they can squeeze as much juice as possible out of this lemon.
I think he's more valuable here vs the market value we're currently getting. We'll need 30+ starts, at minimum, when JB and Dray rest, and that's without injuries to either of them. 40+ games if you want to count Steph. Without JK (assuming we don't get a 6'8" player back), we only have Gui and Moody as backup 3/4s. If that's not bad enough, who plays the other 30+ minutes at those two spots when Moody and Gui start? Jackson Rowe? Maybe GP2, if he's back?
That's a huge achilles' heel and the hatred for JK seems to be enough for the board to ignore this red flag.
Onus wrote:vvoland wrote:EvanZ wrote:
Well it depends what is meant by "not that important". It doesn't mean there is no importance whatsoever. It means to the extent he has some market value left, then the importance is proportional to that value. That is what they are trying to extract. Any Warriors fan should hope they can squeeze as much juice as possible out of this lemon.
I think he's more valuable here vs the market value we're currently getting. We'll need 30+ starts, at minimum, when JB and Dray rest, and that's without injuries to either of them. 40+ games if you want to count Steph. Without JK (assuming we don't get a 6'8" player back), we only have Gui and Moody as backup 3/4s. If that's not bad enough, who plays the other 30+ minutes at those two spots when Moody and Gui start? Jackson Rowe? Maybe GP2, if he's back?
That's a huge achilles' heel and the hatred for JK seems to be enough for the board to ignore this red flag.
Who do the thunder have at the 4? If Chet and Jdubb go down then you're left with Aaron Wiggins and Kenrich Williams? How many teams can really survive injuries to 2 of their starting forwards?
If both Jimmy and Dray are both out you start Moody at the 4 and then you play Curry/Melton/Podz/Moody/Horford. Then you have Brogdon/Buddy/GP2/Gui/Post as the 2nd rotation. It's really not as dire as you make it seem.
vvoland wrote:Onus wrote:vvoland wrote:
I think he's more valuable here vs the market value we're currently getting. We'll need 30+ starts, at minimum, when JB and Dray rest, and that's without injuries to either of them. 40+ games if you want to count Steph. Without JK (assuming we don't get a 6'8" player back), we only have Gui and Moody as backup 3/4s. If that's not bad enough, who plays the other 30+ minutes at those two spots when Moody and Gui start? Jackson Rowe? Maybe GP2, if he's back?
That's a huge achilles' heel and the hatred for JK seems to be enough for the board to ignore this red flag.
Who do the thunder have at the 4? If Chet and Jdubb go down then you're left with Aaron Wiggins and Kenrich Williams? How many teams can really survive injuries to 2 of their starting forwards?
If both Jimmy and Dray are both out you start Moody at the 4 and then you play Curry/Melton/Podz/Moody/Horford. Then you have Brogdon/Buddy/GP2/Gui/Post as the 2nd rotation. It's really not as dire as you make it seem.
Chet and Jdub aren't likely to miss 30+ games WITHOUT being injured. Jimmy and Dray will rest, AT LEAST, that many games. Additionally, Aaron Wiggins and Kenrich Williams are miles better than Moody and Gui, respectively. They also have a bunch of fire-hydrant built guards that could easily play up to the 4 (dort, caruso, even wallace). We have no such luxuries, unless you want to run Podz at the 4.
My hypothetical was without a single injury to Steph/Dray/Jimmy. I'd venture a guess that if Steph sits, we would like to start JK, for the scoring, if nothing else. So that's probably 40+ starts WITHOUT injury, that we'll need someone to step in/up. I have no such faith in Gui or Moody and, even if you do, we have no one behind those two for the 30+ minutes they'll need backups in those starts. People hated the 3-4 guard lineups in the past 2 or 3 years but that was when we had Klay, who was essentially a stretch 4. We're going to be running out a lot of lineups with steph/melton/podz/moody or buddy and a big. I am not looking forward to that.
Onus wrote:vvoland wrote:Onus wrote:Who do the thunder have at the 4? If Chet and Jdubb go down then you're left with Aaron Wiggins and Kenrich Williams? How many teams can really survive injuries to 2 of their starting forwards?
If both Jimmy and Dray are both out you start Moody at the 4 and then you play Curry/Melton/Podz/Moody/Horford. Then you have Brogdon/Buddy/GP2/Gui/Post as the 2nd rotation. It's really not as dire as you make it seem.
Chet and Jdub aren't likely to miss 30+ games WITHOUT being injured. Jimmy and Dray will rest, AT LEAST, that many games. Additionally, Aaron Wiggins and Kenrich Williams are miles better than Moody and Gui, respectively. They also have a bunch of fire-hydrant built guards that could easily play up to the 4 (dort, caruso, even wallace). We have no such luxuries, unless you want to run Podz at the 4.
My hypothetical was without a single injury to Steph/Dray/Jimmy. I'd venture a guess that if Steph sits, we would like to start JK, for the scoring, if nothing else. So that's probably 40+ starts WITHOUT injury, that we'll need someone to step in/up. I have no such faith in Gui or Moody and, even if you do, we have no one behind those two for the 30+ minutes they'll need backups in those starts. People hated the 3-4 guard lineups in the past 2 or 3 years but that was when we had Klay, who was essentially a stretch 4. We're going to be running out a lot of lineups with steph/melton/podz/moody or buddy and a big. I am not looking forward to that.
Moody and Podz both rebound and hustle which can help make up for their lack of size. We literally just saw the thunder win a title without having a wing sized player on the entire team.
The only reason people don't like 3 guard lineups is because they don't defend, but Steph/Melton/Podz/Moody/GP2/Brogdon would all be + defenders. We're not running out a curry/CP3/Klay lineup where CP3 and Klay would both get picked on.
vvoland wrote:That said, if a 19 year old senior (meaning he got left behind a year?) is dating/f''king a 15 year old sophomore, that is also disgusting, illegal, and pedophilic. If that 15 year old happens to be my daugher or sister, I'm going to jail and the 19 year old is going to the hospital, at best.
HiRez wrote:vvoland wrote:That said, if a 19 year old senior (meaning he got left behind a year?) is dating/f''king a 15 year old sophomore, that is also disgusting, illegal, and pedophilic. If that 15 year old happens to be my daugher or sister, I'm going to jail and the 19 year old is going to the hospital, at best.
She apparently mis-represented her age (and was in a club for 21+), so it does not appear he knew she was 15. Unless you are suggesting he demand to check her ID, which while being legally sound, is not something anyone would realistically do in a social situation. On the other hand, Giddey was in the same club apparently at 19. Nonetheless, you might have a reasonable expectation that meeting someone in a 21+ club would in fact be 21+ (if the club screeners were doing their job) or at least close to 21 (if they were not). When we were in college we snuck into bars underage, but we and everyone else we knew there, boys and girls, were like 18-20, not 15. I certainly wouldn't have expected to find a 15 year old there. And we don't know who this girl is, but some people just look, and comport themselves as, a lot older than their true age when they're young.
We don't have all the facts, but a lot of fault here lays with the parents (what the hell is your 15 year old daughter who presumably lives at home doing at a club?), the club screeners (obviously not doing their job or letting it slide), and the girl herself, who witnesses say mis-represented her age. And Giddey if he knew of course, but there's no evidence he did.
vvoland wrote:I think he's more valuable here vs the market value we're currently getting. We'll need 30+ starts, at minimum, when JB and Dray rest, and that's without injuries to either of them. 40+ games if you want to count Steph. Without JK (assuming we don't get a 6'8" player back), we only have Gui and Moody as backup 3/4s. If that's not bad enough, who plays the other 30+ minutes at those two spots when Moody and Gui start? Jackson Rowe? Maybe GP2, if he's back?
That's a huge achilles' heel and the hatred for JK seems to be enough for the board to ignore this red flag
vvoland wrote:EvanZ wrote:whatisacenter wrote:
I was responding to the poster who was saying that he is not that important to the Warriors. I assumed he meant as a player or an asset.
Well it depends what is meant by "not that important". It doesn't mean there is no importance whatsoever. It means to the extent he has some market value left, then the importance is proportional to that value. That is what they are trying to extract. Any Warriors fan should hope they can squeeze as much juice as possible out of this lemon.
I think he's more valuable here vs the market value we're currently getting. We'll need 30+ starts, at minimum, when JB and Dray rest, and that's without injuries to either of them. 40+ games if you want to count Steph. Without JK (assuming we don't get a 6'8" player back), we only have Gui and Moody as backup 3/4s. If that's not bad enough, who plays the other 30+ minutes at those two spots when Moody and Gui start? Jackson Rowe? Maybe GP2, if he's back?
That's a huge achilles' heel and the hatred for JK seems to be enough for the board to ignore this red flag.
HiRez wrote:She apparently mis-represented her age (and was in a club for 21+), so it does not appear he knew she was 15. Unless you are suggesting he demand to check her ID, which while being legally sound, is not something anyone would realistically do in a social situation. On the other hand, Giddey was in the same club apparently at 19. Nonetheless, you might have a reasonable expectation that meeting someone in a 21+ club would in fact be 21+ (if the club screeners were doing their job) or at least close to 21 (if they were not). When we were in college we snuck into bars underage, but we and everyone else we knew there, boys and girls, were like 18-20, not 15. I certainly wouldn't have expected to find a 15 year old there. And we don't know who this girl is, but some people just look, and comport themselves as, a lot older than their true age when they're young.
We don't have all the facts, but a lot of fault here lays with the parents (what the hell is your 15 year old daughter who presumably lives at home doing at a club?), the club screeners (obviously not doing their job or letting it slide), and the girl herself, who witnesses say mis-represented her age. And Giddey if he knew of course, but there's no evidence he did.
Old_Blue wrote:It's not that they (the parents) aren't interested in pursuing legal action. More than likely they are in contact with Giddey's representatives and lawyers and are attempting to negotiate settlement and non-disclosure agreements. If the facts are as they have been alleged, Giddey would presumably be more than amenable to making this all go away in the manner Kobe did back in the day. The difference here, however, is that the state of California has a vested interest in upholding the well being of its minors - regardless of what their parents want. Parents can and sometimes do act not in the best interest of their own children. At that point, the state has an obligation to intervene. If the state wants to, it can subpoena the electronic files of the minor (and her parents for that matter). The subpoena would go out to the service provider, with notice to the parents - who could try (but almost certainly fail) to quash it. Once those electronic files are obtained by prosecutors, there may well be enough to establish criminal conduct on Giddey's part. There's a lot on the line here - potential prosecution and incarceration followed by possible deportation, since Giddey is still a citizen of Australia. Behind the scenes, of course, is the wealth and power of the NBA. And, all of this is landing on the desk of this man:
https://orangecountyda.org/
Whose stated goal is the following:
The mission of the Office of the Orange County District Attorney is to enhance public safety and welfare and to protect and respect crime victims and to create security in the community through the vigorous enforcement of criminal and civil laws in a just, honest, efficient and ethical manner.
That said, without going into detail, Todd Spitzer might be just the DA the doctor ordered for both Giddey and the NBA.
Jester_ wrote:(Referring to the practice of butt caning) Yeah that's why we (Singapore) have beautiful streets and safe communities while y'all (San Francisco) live in bum-adled squalor and think it's freedom
vvoland wrote:HiRez wrote:vvoland wrote:That said, if a 19 year old senior (meaning he got left behind a year?) is dating/f''king a 15 year old sophomore, that is also disgusting, illegal, and pedophilic. If that 15 year old happens to be my daugher or sister, I'm going to jail and the 19 year old is going to the hospital, at best.
She apparently mis-represented her age (and was in a club for 21+), so it does not appear he knew she was 15. Unless you are suggesting he demand to check her ID, which while being legally sound, is not something anyone would realistically do in a social situation. On the other hand, Giddey was in the same club apparently at 19. Nonetheless, you might have a reasonable expectation that meeting someone in a 21+ club would in fact be 21+ (if the club screeners were doing their job) or at least close to 21 (if they were not). When we were in college we snuck into bars underage, but we and everyone else we knew there, boys and girls, were like 18-20, not 15. I certainly wouldn't have expected to find a 15 year old there. And we don't know who this girl is, but some people just look, and comport themselves as, a lot older than their true age when they're young.
We don't have all the facts, but a lot of fault here lays with the parents (what the hell is your 15 year old daughter who presumably lives at home doing at a club?), the club screeners (obviously not doing their job or letting it slide), and the girl herself, who witnesses say mis-represented her age. And Giddey if he knew of course, but there's no evidence he did.
My response was to Onus's weird defense of a 19yo and 15yo having a relationship because, in theory, one could be a senior and the other a sophomore at the same high school.
The fact that giddey was underage in a 21+ club should have given him some doubts as to the age of the girl he was talking to. I don't remember her looking particularly older, tbh, but that's not particularly relevant. We're not looking to trade for her, her parents, or the club doorman. It's giddey that's being discussed in a trade and his decision making should factor in. as should his, alleged, pedophilia.
Pedophilia is an ongoing sexual attraction to pre-pubertal children.
Old_Blue wrote:HiRez wrote:She apparently mis-represented her age (and was in a club for 21+), so it does not appear he knew she was 15. Unless you are suggesting he demand to check her ID, which while being legally sound, is not something anyone would realistically do in a social situation. On the other hand, Giddey was in the same club apparently at 19. Nonetheless, you might have a reasonable expectation that meeting someone in a 21+ club would in fact be 21+ (if the club screeners were doing their job) or at least close to 21 (if they were not). When we were in college we snuck into bars underage, but we and everyone else we knew there, boys and girls, were like 18-20, not 15. I certainly wouldn't have expected to find a 15 year old there. And we don't know who this girl is, but some people just look, and comport themselves as, a lot older than their true age when they're young.
We don't have all the facts, but a lot of fault here lays with the parents (what the hell is your 15 year old daughter who presumably lives at home doing at a club?), the club screeners (obviously not doing their job or letting it slide), and the girl herself, who witnesses say mis-represented her age. And Giddey if he knew of course, but there's no evidence he did.
Wow. There have been some truly disgusting views and stupid opinions aired here on this matter. Here are the facts...
To begin with, statutory rape is called STATUTORY for a reason. In the U.S., the crime is deemed to be a what is referred to as a "strict liability crime" - meaning that mistake as to the age of the person is not a valid defense. Nor, as has been suggested here, is the parenting of the victim's parents a defense.
While each state's age of consent and the relative ages of the victim and perpetrator are both considered in a prosecutor's decision whether to charge, Section 213.3 of the Model Penal Code relating to the corruption of minors and seduction is very clear:
Under 213.3, a "male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, or any person who engages in deviate sexual intercourse or causes another to engage in deviate sexual intercourse, is guilty of an offense if:
(a) the other person is less than 16 years old and the actor is at least four years older than the other person; or
(b) the other person is less than 21 years old and the actor is his guardian or otherwise responsible for general supervision of his welfare.
An offense under section 213.3(a) is a felony in the third degree whereas an offense under section (b) is a misdemeanor.
The fact that Josh Giddey's victim and her family chose not to cooperate with Orange County authorities does not make what Giddey did not a crime. It merely means that prosecutors faced the impractical obstacle of having to compel the victim to testify at trial. Also of interest in this regard is the troubling history of the Orange County District Attorney, Todd Spitzer - who has previously been found guilty by the Orange County Superior Court of unlawfully concealing prosecutorial data and racial justice act records for years.
https://www.aclusocal.org/en/press-releases/breaking-court-rules-ocda-todd-spitzer-unlawfully-concealed-prosecutorial-data-and
At the time of the incident, 11/29/23, I addressed exactly how I thought everything would play out. As it turns out, I was spot on...Old_Blue wrote:It's not that they (the parents) aren't interested in pursuing legal action. More than likely they are in contact with Giddey's representatives and lawyers and are attempting to negotiate settlement and non-disclosure agreements. If the facts are as they have been alleged, Giddey would presumably be more than amenable to making this all go away in the manner Kobe did back in the day. The difference here, however, is that the state of California has a vested interest in upholding the well being of its minors - regardless of what their parents want. Parents can and sometimes do act not in the best interest of their own children. At that point, the state has an obligation to intervene. If the state wants to, it can subpoena the electronic files of the minor (and her parents for that matter). The subpoena would go out to the service provider, with notice to the parents - who could try (but almost certainly fail) to quash it. Once those electronic files are obtained by prosecutors, there may well be enough to establish criminal conduct on Giddey's part. There's a lot on the line here - potential prosecution and incarceration followed by possible deportation, since Giddey is still a citizen of Australia. Behind the scenes, of course, is the wealth and power of the NBA. And, all of this is landing on the desk of this man:
https://orangecountyda.org/
Whose stated goal is the following:
The mission of the Office of the Orange County District Attorney is to enhance public safety and welfare and to protect and respect crime victims and to create security in the community through the vigorous enforcement of criminal and civil laws in a just, honest, efficient and ethical manner.
That said, without going into detail, Todd Spitzer might be just the DA the doctor ordered for both Giddey and the NBA.
vvoland wrote:Onus wrote:vvoland wrote:
Chet and Jdub aren't likely to miss 30+ games WITHOUT being injured. Jimmy and Dray will rest, AT LEAST, that many games. Additionally, Aaron Wiggins and Kenrich Williams are miles better than Moody and Gui, respectively. They also have a bunch of fire-hydrant built guards that could easily play up to the 4 (dort, caruso, even wallace). We have no such luxuries, unless you want to run Podz at the 4.
My hypothetical was without a single injury to Steph/Dray/Jimmy. I'd venture a guess that if Steph sits, we would like to start JK, for the scoring, if nothing else. So that's probably 40+ starts WITHOUT injury, that we'll need someone to step in/up. I have no such faith in Gui or Moody and, even if you do, we have no one behind those two for the 30+ minutes they'll need backups in those starts. People hated the 3-4 guard lineups in the past 2 or 3 years but that was when we had Klay, who was essentially a stretch 4. We're going to be running out a lot of lineups with steph/melton/podz/moody or buddy and a big. I am not looking forward to that.
Moody and Podz both rebound and hustle which can help make up for their lack of size. We literally just saw the thunder win a title without having a wing sized player on the entire team.
The only reason people don't like 3 guard lineups is because they don't defend, but Steph/Melton/Podz/Moody/GP2/Brogdon would all be + defenders. We're not running out a curry/CP3/Klay lineup where CP3 and Klay would both get picked on.
If you think Podz and Brogdon are + defenders, I can understand your lack of concern. I don't think either are above average defenders, but that's not a debate I'm particularly interested in. Let's just agree to disagree. Melton is recovering from a torn knee and I wouldn't count on him for a lot. GP2's defense was a real disappointment last year, I don't expect it to be better now. Moody is a solid defender but I don't like him matching up against big forwards. He's a good defender on guards and, atm, probably our best POA. Steph can be a + defender but I don't want him exerting that much energy on that end before the playoffs. So yes, in one sense, we have good guard defenders that are better than cp3/klay were. I don't think that means we should go into the season with moody and gui as our backup forwards.
IF Dray, Jimmy, Steph, or Horford are out for any significant period of time, we will really regret not bringing back JK, if that's what happens. It may be the difference between hanging on to a 6 seed or dropping into the play-in.
Edit: if our guards looked like OKC's guards, I would be much more comfortable. OKC has Jdub, Caruso, Dort, Wallace, and Shai as their guards. Wiggins, Kenrich, Jwill, Dieng, and Sorber as F/Cs. We have nothing like that
Return to Golden State Warriors
