Do You Now Trade Draymond, Other Pieces/Picks for Simmons Now?

[Mob Byers]

Why does a “win now “ team (Sixers) , which has been close to the NBA finals want to trade their 1A player?

Patrick, you spend too much time under that rock

[SpreeS]

I think a lot about Green trade....but have only one possible option at the moment - close eyes on Green behaviour and watch his passion play.

[whatisacenter]

Steph is the only Warrior I wouldn't trade because any trade involving him would make the team worse. As much as I appreciate everything Draymond provides and has done for the Dubs he is declining and his antics are wearing thin with me. I don't see a trade with Dray that makes sense so he probably plays out his contract and I will continue to support him but if there was a way to move him in a three way trade with him ending up in Portland, CJ going to the Philly and Simmons ending up in GS without the Dubs having to send out Wiseman and Kuminga, I would do it.

and this is not because of the dumb interview with KD. this is because of his diminishing skills and his occasional on-court flare ups that cost the team wins.

[Impuniti]

Steph is the only Warrior I wouldn't trade because any trade involving him would make the team worse. As much as I appreciate everything Draymond provides and has done for the Dubs he is declining and his antics are wearing thin with me. I don't see a trade with Dray that makes sense so he probably plays out his contract and I will continue to support him but if there was a way to move him in a three way trade with him ending up in Portland, CJ going to the Philly and Simmons ending up in GS without the Dubs having to send out Wiseman and Kuminga, I would do it.

and this is not because of the dumb interview with KD. this is because of his diminishing skills and his occasional on-court flare ups that cost the team wins.

Question also becomes is the guy starting to focus more on his post basketball media career than basketball? I'm not saying he is, but you put that into question. I don't question the media/post basketball career affects guys like Steph, Lebron, KD. Those guys live & breathe basketball and have the ability to multi-task to do it all.

I will say that Simmons would the only one you can see replace Dray due to playstyles, but that trade has a lot of question marks. I hated the idea of replacing Wiggins for him because then you have so many variables.

If you start making a list, you see a lot of arguments being made for both players:
+ won't have to deal with Dray's bull anymore
+ not dealing with another aging 30+ year old on the roster who could lose his athleticism soon. Already isn't an all-star level player in the last 2 years.
+ Simmons won't be a G-level bum when it comes to grabbing more than 5PPG
+ Simmons can guard perimeter players better than Dray, was also a DPTY candidate last season
+ Simmons is a better passer/playmaker than Dray

- he is the defensive anchor of the team, has amazing communication to tell others. Not sure Simmons can communicate that well to tell people where to go defensively like Dray QBs from the back
- Simmons is a mental midget, Dray is reliable in the last few minutes of a playoff game
- Dray can make his FTs at a serviceable level
- losing chemistry Dray has with the Splash brothers
- Dray is probably the best switch defender in NBA history, still has more impact than SImmons overall defensively

[Ilovethebay]

Steph is the only Warrior I wouldn't trade because any trade involving him would make the team worse. As much as I appreciate everything Draymond provides and has done for the Dubs he is declining and his antics are wearing thin with me. I don't see a trade with Dray that makes sense so he probably plays out his contract and I will continue to support him but if there was a way to move him in a three way trade with him ending up in Portland, CJ going to the Philly and Simmons ending up in GS without the Dubs having to send out Wiseman and Kuminga, I would do it.

and this is not because of the dumb interview with KD. this is because of his diminishing skills and his occasional on-court flare ups that cost the team wins.

Question also becomes is the guy starting to focus more on his post basketball media career than basketball? I'm not saying he is, but you put that into question. I don't question the media/post basketball career affects guys like Steph, Lebron, KD. Those guys live & breathe basketball and have the ability to multi-task to do it all.

I will say that Simmons would the only one you can see replace Dray due to playstyles, but that trade has a lot of question marks. I hated the idea of replacing Wiggins for him because then you have so many variables.

If you start making a list, you see a lot of arguments being made for both players:
+ won't have to deal with Dray's bull anymore
+ not dealing with another aging 30+ year old on the roster who could lose his athleticism soon. Already isn't an all-star level player in the last 2 years.
+ Simmons won't be a G-level bum when it comes to grabbing more than 5PPG
+ Simmons can guard perimeter players better than Dray, was also a DPTY candidate last season
+ Simmons is a better passer/playmaker than Dray

- he is the defensive anchor of the team, has amazing communication to tell others. Not sure Simmons can communicate that well to tell people where to go defensively like Dray QBs from the back
- Simmons is a mental midget, Dray is reliable in the last few minutes of a playoff game
- Dray can make his FTs at a serviceable level
- losing chemistry Dray has with the Splash brothers
- Dray is probably the best switch defender in NBA history, still has more impact than SImmons overall defensively

Good breakdown. I don't pretend to know what the outcome of moving Dray and replacing him with Simmons would be. I do think when you weigh it out like you did, the odds are in our favor. Also can we really say that he is still a money player? His game 7 vs Cavs in 2016 (and series for the most part) was legendary but lately no so much. Didn't he miss a layups late in the Lakers play in game that would have helped us pull it out? He scored a measly one point in that game. I can't see that happening with Simmons, even with him avoiding shooting in the 4th quarter.

[shazam_guy]

You can't? You just saw it in the Sixers playoff series.

Draymond was a money player and a leader all last year, in tough circumstances. And "all his bull", whatever that means, seems to bother some of you a lot more than it bothers me. He's a passionate, over the top player. That's part of his game and also his value. Yes, sometimes it has negative effects, but the overall is so much more positive that it seems silly even to try to make it an issue.

Also, let's put it this way -- yes, Draymond should probably shoot more, but every shot he takes -- or that Simmons would be taking -- would be one less shot for Curry, Klay, Wiggins, Poole, and our other new shooters. This is a team largely based around those people's shooting and Green's playmaking, not his shooting. Simmons won't even go to the basket late because of fear of free throws.

Lastly, if Philly would take Draymond for Simmons, that just shows you that you don't want Simmons. Because trading a 25 year old all first team defender for another many years older is a distinct warning sign that his current team knows there's something perhaps unfixably wrong with the younger guy, probably attitudinal.

[floppymoose]

You can't? You just saw it in the Sixers playoff series.

Draymond was a money player and a leader all last year, in tough circumstances. And "all his bull", whatever that means, seems to bother some of you a lot more than it bothers me. He's a passionate, over the top player. That's part of his game and also his value. Yes, sometimes it has negative effects, but the overall is so much more positive that it seems silly even to try to make it an issue.

Also, let's put it this way -- yes, Draymond should probably shoot more, but every shot he takes -- or that Simmons would be taking -- would be one less shot for Curry, Klay, Wiggins, Poole, and our other new shooters. This is a team largely based around those people's shooting and Green's playmaking, not his shooting. Simmons won't even go to the basket late because of fear of free throws.

Lastly, if Philly would take Draymond for Simmons, that just shows you that you don't want Simmons. Because trading a 25 year old all first team defender for another many years older is a distinct warning sign that his current team knows there's something perhaps unfixably wrong with the younger guy, probably attitudinal.

I agree with the spirit of your post, but not the bolded part. NBA is a shot clock game. You might only get one good shot. If Dray could cash in a bit more with his open shots, that would be preferable to Wiggins shooting a contested shot.

I'm not asking for him to turn into a splash brother. I'd just like to see him get back to where he was earlier in his career on shooting.

As for a Dray/Simmons trade.... pass.

[Ilovethebay]

You can't? You just saw it in the Sixers playoff series.

Draymond was a money player and a leader all last year, in tough circumstances. And "all his bull", whatever that means, seems to bother some of you a lot more than it bothers me. He's a passionate, over the top player. That's part of his game and also his value. Yes, sometimes it has negative effects, but the overall is so much more positive that it seems silly even to try to make it an issue.

Also, let's put it this way -- yes, Draymond should probably shoot more, but every shot he takes -- or that Simmons would be taking -- would be one less shot for Curry, Klay, Wiggins, Poole, and our other new shooters. This is a team largely based around those people's shooting and Green's playmaking, not his shooting. Simmons won't even go to the basket late because of fear of free throws.

Lastly, if Philly would take Draymond for Simmons, that just shows you that you don't want Simmons. Because trading a 25 year old all first team defender for another many years older is a distinct warning sign that his current team knows there's something perhaps unfixably wrong with the younger guy, probably attitudinal.

When did Simmons score one point in a playoff game? Also as the title of the thread suggests: It would be Dray and other pieces/picks. Or maybe a 3 way type deal. I actually would prefer to keep Draymond and pair him with Simmons but this ideal is not a bad one either no matter what the majority here may think.

[sonnyhill]

You can't? You just saw it in the Sixers playoff series.

Draymond was a money player and a leader all last year, in tough circumstances. And "all his bull", whatever that means, seems to bother some of you a lot more than it bothers me. He's a passionate, over the top player. That's part of his game and also his value. Yes, sometimes it has negative effects, but the overall is so much more positive that it seems silly even to try to make it an issue.

Also, let's put it this way -- yes, Draymond should probably shoot more, but every shot he takes -- or that Simmons would be taking -- would be one less shot for Curry, Klay, Wiggins, Poole, and our other new shooters. This is a team largely based around those people's shooting and Green's playmaking, not his shooting. Simmons won't even go to the basket late because of fear of free throws.

Lastly, if Philly would take Draymond for Simmons, that just shows you that you don't want Simmons. Because trading a 25 year old all first team defender for another many years older is a distinct warning sign that his current team knows there's something perhaps unfixably wrong with the younger guy, probably attitudinal.

When did Simmons score one point in a playoff game? Also as the title of the thread suggests: It would be Dray and other pieces/picks. Or maybe a 3 way type deal. I actually would prefer to keep Draymond and pair him with Simmons but this ideal is not a bad one either no matter what the majority here may think.

Would you have Simmons play center in this scenario with Simmons paired with Green?

Also, for salaries to match up in a trade without bringing in a third team, the Warriors could send a combination of Wiggins and Poole to Philly for Simmons (Philly would then have two perimeter players to match up with Embiid). In this scenario for the Warriors, would Porter be the starting small forward? Kuminga?

I am not opposed to any trade/transaction/changes, as long as it improves the roster/coaching staff/front office, but would like to get your feedback on how you would make this trade to acquire Simmons.

[xdrta+]

You can't? You just saw it in the Sixers playoff series.

Draymond was a money player and a leader all last year, in tough circumstances. And "all his bull", whatever that means, seems to bother some of you a lot more than it bothers me. He's a passionate, over the top player. That's part of his game and also his value. Yes, sometimes it has negative effects, but the overall is so much more positive that it seems silly even to try to make it an issue.

Also, let's put it this way -- yes, Draymond should probably shoot more, but every shot he takes -- or that Simmons would be taking -- would be one less shot for Curry, Klay, Wiggins, Poole, and our other new shooters. This is a team largely based around those people's shooting and Green's playmaking, not his shooting. Simmons won't even go to the basket late because of fear of free throws.

Lastly, if Philly would take Draymond for Simmons, that just shows you that you don't want Simmons. Because trading a 25 year old all first team defender for another many years older is a distinct warning sign that his current team knows there's something perhaps unfixably wrong with the younger guy, probably attitudinal.

When did Simmons score one point in a playoff game? Also as the title of the thread suggests: It would be Dray and other pieces/picks. Or maybe a 3 way type deal. I actually would prefer to keep Draymond and pair him with Simmons but this ideal is not a bad one either no matter what the majority here may think.

Would you have Simmons play center in this scenario with Simmons paired with Green?

Also, for salaries to match up in a trade without bringing in a third team, the Warriors could send a combination of Wiggins and Poole to Philly for Simmons (Philly would then have two perimeter players to match up with Embiid). In this scenario for the Warriors, would Porter be the starting small forward? Kuminga?

I am not opposed to any trade/transaction/changes, as long as it improves the roster/coaching staff/front office, but would like to get your feedback on how you would make this trade to acquire Simmons.

Why would you have to include Poole? To match salaries, the Warriors have to send out about $26.4M to acquire Simmons.

[sonnyhill]

When did Simmons score one point in a playoff game? Also as the title of the thread suggests: It would be Dray and other pieces/picks. Or maybe a 3 way type deal. I actually would prefer to keep Draymond and pair him with Simmons but this ideal is not a bad one either no matter what the majority here may think.

Would you have Simmons play center in this scenario with Simmons paired with Green?

Also, for salaries to match up in a trade without bringing in a third team, the Warriors could send a combination of Wiggins and Poole to Philly for Simmons (Philly would then have two perimeter players to match up with Embiid). In this scenario for the Warriors, would Porter be the starting small forward? Kuminga?

I am not opposed to any trade/transaction/changes, as long as it improves the roster/coaching staff/front office, but would like to get your feedback on how you would make this trade to acquire Simmons.

Why would you have to include Poole? To match salaries, the Warriors have to send out about $26.4M to acquire Simmons.

Ben Simmons $33,003,936

Andrew Wiggins $31,579,390
Jordan Poole $ 2,161,440

[xdrta+]

Would you have Simmons play center in this scenario with Simmons paired with Green?

Also, for salaries to match up in a trade without bringing in a third team, the Warriors could send a combination of Wiggins and Poole to Philly for Simmons (Philly would then have two perimeter players to match up with Embiid). In this scenario for the Warriors, would Porter be the starting small forward? Kuminga?

I am not opposed to any trade/transaction/changes, as long as it improves the roster/coaching staff/front office, but would like to get your feedback on how you would make this trade to acquire Simmons.

Why would you have to include Poole? To match salaries, the Warriors have to send out about $26.4M to acquire Simmons.

Ben Simmons $33,003,936

Andrew Wiggins $31,579,390
Jordan Poole $ 2,161,440

An over-the-tax team can take back 125% plus $100k of the outgoing salary. Sending out about $26.4M covers Simmons $33M salary.

[Ilovethebay]

You can't? You just saw it in the Sixers playoff series.

Draymond was a money player and a leader all last year, in tough circumstances. And "all his bull", whatever that means, seems to bother some of you a lot more than it bothers me. He's a passionate, over the top player. That's part of his game and also his value. Yes, sometimes it has negative effects, but the overall is so much more positive that it seems silly even to try to make it an issue.

Also, let's put it this way -- yes, Draymond should probably shoot more, but every shot he takes -- or that Simmons would be taking -- would be one less shot for Curry, Klay, Wiggins, Poole, and our other new shooters. This is a team largely based around those people's shooting and Green's playmaking, not his shooting. Simmons won't even go to the basket late because of fear of free throws.

Lastly, if Philly would take Draymond for Simmons, that just shows you that you don't want Simmons. Because trading a 25 year old all first team defender for another many years older is a distinct warning sign that his current team knows there's something perhaps unfixably wrong with the younger guy, probably attitudinal.

When did Simmons score one point in a playoff game? Also as the title of the thread suggests: It would be Dray and other pieces/picks. Or maybe a 3 way type deal. I actually would prefer to keep Draymond and pair him with Simmons but this ideal is not a bad one either no matter what the majority here may think.

Would you have Simmons play center in this scenario with Simmons paired with Green?

Also, for salaries to match up in a trade without bringing in a third team, the Warriors could send a combination of Wiggins and Poole to Philly for Simmons (Philly would then have two perimeter players to match up with Embiid). In this scenario for the Warriors, would Porter be the starting small forward? Kuminga?

I am not opposed to any trade/transaction/changes, as long as it improves the roster/coaching staff/front office, but would like to get your feedback on how you would make this trade to acquire Simmons.

Depending on match ups he could play some center but he isn't as good at it as Draymond is. I could foresee a starting lineup lineup of:

Curry
Thompson
Simmons
Green
Bjelica

Green and Simmons would only have to play at most 20-24 minutes together. The other minutes having just one of those guys on the court at all times would pay huge dividends in my opinion. After the first 7/8 minutes Simmons, Beli, and Klay could make room for whichever 2nd stringers Kerr is feeling at the time. Then they could start of the 2nd Q with those guys well rested until Steph and Dray are ready to return for the last 6 minutes of the 2nd Q.

Our best closing lineup would probably be the same as the starting lineup with the exception of Poole? in place of Beli. There's more than one way to skin a cat though. Just spitballing

[sonnyhill]

Why would you have to include Poole? To match salaries, the Warriors have to send out about $26.4M to acquire Simmons.

Ben Simmons $33,003,936

Andrew Wiggins $31,579,390
Jordan Poole $ 2,161,440

An over-the-tax team can take back 125% plus $100k of the outgoing salary. Sending out about $26.4M covers Simmons $33M salary.

Thank you for clarifying-and-explaining.

Much appreciated.

[ILOVEIT]

I'd love it more for the "Warriors are a legit threat and favorite now for the finals" media and fan takes....
But I'm luke warm on any trade bringing Simmons in from a personality and team chemistry point of view. If he wasn't such a douche looking dude...

The same reason we all love Klay and Curry would be the reasons we probably would get sick of Simmons in a hurry.

[sonnyhill]

I'd love it more for the "Warriors are a legit threat and favorite now for the finals" media and fan takes....
But I'm luke warm on any trade bringing Simmons in from a personality and team chemistry point of view. If he wasn't such a douche looking dude...

The same reason we all love Klay and Curry would be the reasons we probably would get sick of Simmons in a hurry.

I am not opposed to exploring any-and-all options (trading anyone on the roster, firing/hiring coaches and front office), as long as it improves the team.

We Warrior fans, may, however be mistakenly looking in the rearview mirror through "rose-colored glasses" while the league is progressing and evolving.

Along with Curry (aging and paid handsomely), Poole (young and improving) and Wiggins (solid and steady contributor), the team has a lot of question marks:
Thompson having missed two seasons with major injuries.
Green (perhaps, my favorite player on the team), while still highly competitive and contributing, is not giving much with scoring.
Looney is serviceable, but still marginal, at best.
Porter, while skilled at the wing, has shown himself to be injury prone.
Bjelica, who can stretch the floor on the offensive end, has deficiencies in his game both on the defensive end of the floor as well as in the paint.

While the timeline/window may not compliment Curry's productivity window, developing Wiseman, Kuminga and Moody with our above core may be a better option than trading for Simmons.

If it was a straight-up Wiggins for Simmons trade (which the Sixers would never do), would that ensure that the Warriors would compete for another championship? I am intrigued by Simmons; yet, his outside shooting is atrocious (at best) and is he going to be a better third scoring option behind Curry, Thompson/Poole than Wiggins?

While we now see that drafting Wiseman over Ball was a mistake, the Warriors do need production (offensive, defensive, and rebounding) from the center position, and Wiseman may, indeed, become a really good player. Question: Can this coaching staff and Wiseman develop his talent so that we see progression from his 12 pts per game/6 rebounds per game (good numbers) injury-aborted rookie season? Can the kid improve his rebounding? It is still bewildering how Kerr basically threw the kid to the wolves at the beginning of last season (Kerr's "we are not chasing wins" statement should have gotten him minimally put on the coaching hot seat).

We have no idea what the ceiling is on Kuminga, a potential superstar with a whole bunch of upside. The kid is athletic, attacks the basket, can get into passing lanes, blocks shots, and can rebound. Is this something to give up on for an already flawed (and perhaps already plateaued) Simmons?

And, Moody may be needed immediately, as soon as the season starts, with Thompson still recovering from his two injuries.

Lastly, with Simmons, is it just a matter of "fit" where he did not "fit" with Embiid, but would fit better with Curry, Thompson/Poole, Green, Looney, Wiseman, etc.? Unlike Giannis, Simmons looks "afraid" to shoot free throws at the end of a game. I do not see Kerr as a coach who can "unlock" talent. If there is one thing which we learned from the Green-Durant interview, Kerr is "aloof," at best and a sanctimonious "phony" who alienates the most talented player to ever put on a Warrior uniform. Do we really believe that Simmons will become a better player on the Warriors than he was while playing for the Sixers?

Whether the Warriors trade for Simmons or not, Kerr has no more excuses. To not face any scrutiny after missing the playoffs two seasons in a row is remarkable. Kerr has to evolve his offense to better utilize the talent on this roster and his thinking about lineups and rotations.

The Lakers completely revamped its roster, even after making it to the Western Conference finals, and is rolling the dice with its geriatric crew of stars and former stars. Vogel will adapt and adjust accordingly. Can Kerr also adapt, adjust, and evolve by integrating the core veterans with new and young talent and get this Warrior team to again compete for championships?

[a8bil]

I'd love it more for the "Warriors are a legit threat and favorite now for the finals" media and fan takes....
But I'm luke warm on any trade bringing Simmons in from a personality and team chemistry point of view. If he wasn't such a douche looking dude...

The same reason we all love Klay and Curry would be the reasons we probably would get sick of Simmons in a hurry.

I am not opposed to exploring any-and-all options (trading anyone on the roster, firing/hiring coaches and front office), as long as it improves the team.

We Warrior fans, may, however be mistakenly looking in the rearview mirror through "rose-colored glasses" while the league is progressing and evolving.

Along with Curry (aging and paid handsomely), Poole (young and improving) and Wiggins (solid and steady contributor), the team has a lot of question marks:
Thompson having missed two seasons with major injuries.
Green (perhaps, my favorite player on the team), while still highly competitive and contributing, is not giving much with scoring.
Looney is serviceable, but still marginal, at best.
Porter, while skilled at the wing, has shown himself to be injury prone.
Bjelica, who can stretch the floor on the offensive end, has deficiencies in his game both on the defensive end of the floor as well as in the paint.

While the timeline/window may not compliment Curry's productivity window, developing Wiseman, Kuminga and Moody with our above core may be a better option than trading for Simmons.

If it was a straight-up Wiggins for Simmons trade (which the Sixers would never do), would that ensure that the Warriors would compete for another championship? I am intrigued by Simmons; yet, his outside shooting is atrocious (at best) and is he going to be a better third scoring option behind Curry, Thompson/Poole than Wiggins?

While we now see that drafting Wiseman over Ball was a mistake, the Warriors do need production (offensive, defensive, and rebounding) from the center position, and Wiseman may, indeed, become a really good player. Question: Can this coaching staff and Wiseman develop his talent so that we see progression from his 12 pts per game/6 rebounds per game (good numbers) injury-aborted rookie season? Can the kid improve his rebounding? It is still bewildering how Kerr basically threw the kid to the wolves at the beginning of last season (Kerr's "we are not chasing wins" statement should have gotten him minimally put on the coaching hot seat).

We have no idea what the ceiling is on Kuminga, a potential superstar with a whole bunch of upside. The kid is athletic, attacks the basket, can get into passing lanes, blocks shots, and can rebound. Is this something to give up on for already flawed (and perhaps already plateaued) Simmons?

And, Moody may be needed immediately, as soon as the season starts, with Thompson still recovering from his two injuries.

Lastly, with Simmons, is it just a matter of "fit" where he did not "fit" with Embiid, but would fit better with Curry, Thompson/Poole, Green, Looney, Wiseman, etc.? Unlike Giannis, Simmons looks "afraid" to shoot free throws at the end of a game. I do not see Kerr as a coach who can "unlock" talent. If there is one thing which we learned from the Green-Durant interview, Kerr is "aloof," at best and a sanctimonious "phony" who alienates the most talented player to ever put on a Warrior uniform. Do we really believe that Simmons will become a better player on the Warriors than he was while playing for the Sixers?

Whether the Warriors trade for Simmons or not, Kerr has no more excuses. To not face any scrutiny after missing the playoffs two seasons in a row is remarkable. Kerr has to evolve his offense to better utilize the talent on this roster and his thinking about lineups and rotations.

The Lakers completely revamped its roster, even after making it to the Western Conference finals, and is rolling the dice with its geriatric crew of stars and former stars. Vogel will adapt and adjust accordingly. Can Kerr also adapt, adjust, and evolve by integrating the core veterans with new and young talent and get this Warrior team to again compete for championships?

There is literally nothing in this post I agree with. It is not remarkable to miss the playoffs two years in a row when you have your two supermax player sidelined for one year and one the next, while trying to piece together a season with a bunch of G-league journeyman...not even g-league stars. Your expectations are way to high under the circumstances, and your approach reminds me of the silly tinkering that we have seen from Ranadive in Sacramento. Change for the sake of change is a fool's game. Yeah, you qualify your statement by saying "if it will make the team better" but the outcome of most changes is not known until after you make the change. Remember they got Oubre? Turns out to be terrible. We are on the cusp of fielding a team that I have no doubt would have beaten the suns last year and likely dispatched the Bucs. the FO improved the roster immensely in the off season, to add to already known commodities. They need to let this play out before they sell out the roster for a complete overhaul.

[GQ Hot Dog]

The answer to roster uncertainty is to wait and see. We shouldn't be considering revamping anything until we see what Klay can contribute. Which is exactly what Bob Myers has been saying all along. I think the roster is as close to set to win a championship as it's been since KD tore his Achilles.

[shazam_guy]

Just to remind people by calling on another sport, a lot of people would have said before this season that if we SF Giants fans expected much out of Posey, Crawford, Belt, etc. that our glasses must not just be rose-tinted but utterly opaque. But the G's are kicking ass and playing great ball, and it's an amazingly fun team to watch. The young guys are contributing too, but because the vets are playing so well, the youngsters don't have to carry the team yet. And our best prospects are still in the farm system.

That's what the Warriors are trying to do, play for the future while trying to win in the present. I hope it works, but even if it doesn't, it's definitely my favored approach. Because favored, go-for-it-now teams frequently flame out, but when they do they've shot their future, sometimes for a decade.

[Mac1958]

Just to remind people by calling on another sport, a lot of people would have said before this season that if we SF Giants fans expected much out of Posey, Crawford, Belt, etc. that our glasses must not just be rose-tinted but utterly opaque. But the G's are kicking ass and playing great ball, and it's an amazingly fun team to watch. The young guys are contributing too, but because the vets are playing so well, the youngsters don't have to carry the team yet. And our best prospects are still in the farm system.

That's what the Warriors are trying to do, play for the future while trying to win in the present. I hope it works, but even if it doesn't, it's definitely my favored approach. Because favored, go-for-it-now teams frequently flame out, but when they do they've shot their future, sometimes for a decade.

Yeah.

While I do understand the win-now approach, it really does set a team up for a long drought afterwards. Plus, there are no guarantees when you try to win now, other than the fact that you've damaged your future.

As it's built, this team can contend now, AND we have three or four (if you include Poole) exciting young guys to watch grow in an amazing environment for them. I hope we stick with this approach.