Warriors reported to be looking to trade this year's first round pick...

[azwfan]

Very strange that a contract that would cost less than 2m for several years would be the financial breaking point

I don’t buy it, but if it is true, that doesn’t bode well for keeping Wiggins, Poole, GP2, and Looney

Not really.

I dont skip buying coffee cause i need that money to pay my mortgage, i skip buying coffee cause its not worth it to me.

Punting the pick is basically saying this coffee sucks, ima wait till theres some good coffee to buy.

If they look at this draft and dont think they can find someone who can contribute in 1-2 years at 28, thats even worse tbh. This whole "its not a good draft"... that's bull. Every draft is the best or worst one ever, but that is typically only true about whats at the top. In the middle and end, its all about finding players who fit the scheme of what you're trying to do - at least for winning teams. For losing teams, its just selecting high upside and holding your breath. But there are always quality role players in the late 1st, whole 2nd, and even in UDFA. Waiving a white flag on that pre-draft makes no sense.

But as I said, I don't buy it. I've heard a lot to the contrary. Only thing that would make sense is using it in a deal with a different goal, which I do think is possible. But punting it out a year or more... there's no sense to that at any level

If a team doesnt want to guarantee a roster spot to anyone in the draft for 2 years, punting is viable.

Its an option to weigh, just like draft n stash, trading for a vet, trading up, or trading down.

Of course it makes sense. You just dont agree with it.

[FNQ]

Not really.

I dont skip buying coffee cause i need that money to pay my mortgage, i skip buying coffee cause its not worth it to me.

Punting the pick is basically saying this coffee sucks, ima wait till theres some good coffee to buy.

If they look at this draft and dont think they can find someone who can contribute in 1-2 years at 28, thats even worse tbh. This whole "its not a good draft"... that's bull. Every draft is the best or worst one ever, but that is typically only true about whats at the top. In the middle and end, its all about finding players who fit the scheme of what you're trying to do - at least for winning teams. For losing teams, its just selecting high upside and holding your breath. But there are always quality role players in the late 1st, whole 2nd, and even in UDFA. Waiving a white flag on that pre-draft makes no sense.

But as I said, I don't buy it. I've heard a lot to the contrary. Only thing that would make sense is using it in a deal with a different goal, which I do think is possible. But punting it out a year or more... there's no sense to that at any level

If a team doesnt want to guarantee a roster spot to anyone in the draft for 2 years, punting is viable.

Its an option to weigh, just like draft n stash, trading for a vet, trading up, or trading down.

Of course it makes sense. You just dont agree with it.

And like I said, if they look at this draft and cant find anyone they want to use, that's ridiculous. The logic these bad rumor sites used is bad. Its not about agreeing with it or not, its that there are no savings and pisses away an opportunity to control costs. To imply that well before the draft is just random speculation and requires no special mention more than any other draft.

So no, it doesnt make sense. You are arguing that its a possible move. I'm saying announcing it a week before the draft makes no sense, because its saying that less than 27 players in this draft are roster-worthy, and probably a number way lower than that if they are sure that those players wont be there at 28 and this should punt the pick out further. Not to mention the diminishing returns on the salary value, which peak this year going forward

[azwfan]

If they look at this draft and dont think they can find someone who can contribute in 1-2 years at 28, thats even worse tbh. This whole "its not a good draft"... that's bull. Every draft is the best or worst one ever, but that is typically only true about whats at the top. In the middle and end, its all about finding players who fit the scheme of what you're trying to do - at least for winning teams. For losing teams, its just selecting high upside and holding your breath. But there are always quality role players in the late 1st, whole 2nd, and even in UDFA. Waiving a white flag on that pre-draft makes no sense.

But as I said, I don't buy it. I've heard a lot to the contrary. Only thing that would make sense is using it in a deal with a different goal, which I do think is possible. But punting it out a year or more... there's no sense to that at any level

If a team doesnt want to guarantee a roster spot to anyone in the draft for 2 years, punting is viable.

Its an option to weigh, just like draft n stash, trading for a vet, trading up, or trading down.

Of course it makes sense. You just dont agree with it.

And like I said, if they look at this draft and cant find anyone they want to use, that's ridiculous. The logic these bad rumor sites used is bad. Its not about agreeing with it or not, its that there are no savings and pisses away an opportunity to control costs. To imply that well before the draft is just random speculation and requires no special mention more than any other draft.

So no, it doesnt make sense. You are arguing that its a possible move. I'm saying announcing it a week before the draft makes no sense, because its saying that less than 27 players in this draft are roster-worthy, and probably a number way lower than that if they are sure that those players wont be there at 28 and this should punt the pick out further. Not to mention the diminishing returns on the salary value, which peak this year going forward

The article said:
“IF x then y or z”
Of course it makes sense. Its just overly simplistic without soecifics to mean anything to us without knowing what x is. It could be totally made up, a smokescreen, or an unintended leak.
And the Warriors didnt announce anything nor did the article claim they did.

So its probably a draft fluff piece. But that doesnt have anything to do with the sense of the strategy itself.

[xdrta+]

I dont skip buying coffee cause i need that money to pay my mortgage, i skip buying coffee cause its not worth it to me.

Everyone else pays $9 every single work day for a double cappuccino shot grande mocha latte (AKA a Diabetes Special). Who said you were exempted?

Big_Blue, are you taking the points tonight?

[watch1958]

Very strange that a contract that would cost less than 2m for several years would be the financial breaking point

I don’t buy it, but if it is true, that doesn’t bode well for keeping Wiggins, Poole, GP2, and Looney

Not really.

I dont skip buying coffee cause i need that money to pay my mortgage, i skip buying coffee cause its not worth it to me.

Punting the pick is basically saying this coffee sucks, ima wait till theres some good coffee to buy.

If they look at this draft and dont think they can find someone who can contribute in 1-2 years at 28, thats even worse tbh. This whole "its not a good draft"... that's bull. Every draft is the best or worst one ever, but that is typically only true about whats at the top. In the middle and end, its all about finding players who fit the scheme of what you're trying to do - at least for winning teams. For losing teams, its just selecting high upside and holding your breath. But there are always quality role players in the late 1st, whole 2nd, and even in UDFA. Waiving a white flag on that pre-draft makes no sense.

But as I said, I don't buy it. I've heard a lot to the contrary. Only thing that would make sense is using it in a deal with a different goal, which I do think is possible. But punting it out a year or more... there's no sense to that at any level

If there was a Herb Jones available at 28 to replace JTA, why wouldn't you pick him? Or is the idea that it's impossible to find a Herb Jones except by chance. I dunno, seems like an obvious early second round type of guy. Or is the idea that there isn't even a Herb Jones available this year?

[FNQ]

If a team doesnt want to guarantee a roster spot to anyone in the draft for 2 years, punting is viable.

Its an option to weigh, just like draft n stash, trading for a vet, trading up, or trading down.

Of course it makes sense. You just dont agree with it.

And like I said, if they look at this draft and cant find anyone they want to use, that's ridiculous. The logic these bad rumor sites used is bad. Its not about agreeing with it or not, its that there are no savings and pisses away an opportunity to control costs. To imply that well before the draft is just random speculation and requires no special mention more than any other draft.

So no, it doesnt make sense. You are arguing that its a possible move. I'm saying announcing it a week before the draft makes no sense, because its saying that less than 27 players in this draft are roster-worthy, and probably a number way lower than that if they are sure that those players wont be there at 28 and this should punt the pick out further. Not to mention the diminishing returns on the salary value, which peak this year going forward

The article said:
“IF x then y or z”
Of course it makes sense. Its just overly simplistic without soecifics to mean anything to us without knowing what x is. It could be totally made up, a smokescreen, or an unintended leak.
And the Warriors didnt announce anything nor did the article claim they did.

So its probably a draft fluff piece. But that doesnt have anything to do with the sense of the strategy itself.

So we have specific guys we want at pick 28 and would trade it if those guys don't fall? Of course.

Is that news-worthy? Isn't that the SOP for any team? So why is this BR guy singling out the Mavs and Warriors and citing expensive rosters as the reasoning, when there are no savings for the move? That's what I'm saying doesnt make sense (as well as the timing). That's why I was tongue-in-cheek about us being able to retain our own players, because the savings would be under 7 figures to go from a drafted player to a UDFA, and more expensive otherwise.

So yeah, fluff piece. Warriors willing to draft someone at 28, and barring that, willing to trade it. I mean... yes? What are our alternatives, forfeit the pick? But the fact that they included the salary angle was the news part of it, and that doesn't track at all.

[FNQ]

Not really.

I dont skip buying coffee cause i need that money to pay my mortgage, i skip buying coffee cause its not worth it to me.

Punting the pick is basically saying this coffee sucks, ima wait till theres some good coffee to buy.

If they look at this draft and dont think they can find someone who can contribute in 1-2 years at 28, thats even worse tbh. This whole "its not a good draft"... that's bull. Every draft is the best or worst one ever, but that is typically only true about whats at the top. In the middle and end, its all about finding players who fit the scheme of what you're trying to do - at least for winning teams. For losing teams, its just selecting high upside and holding your breath. But there are always quality role players in the late 1st, whole 2nd, and even in UDFA. Waiving a white flag on that pre-draft makes no sense.

But as I said, I don't buy it. I've heard a lot to the contrary. Only thing that would make sense is using it in a deal with a different goal, which I do think is possible. But punting it out a year or more... there's no sense to that at any level

If there was a Herb Jones available at 28 to replace JTA, why wouldn't you pick him? Or is the idea that it's impossible to find a Herb Jones except by chance. I dunno, seems like an obvious early second round type of guy. Or is the idea that there isn't even a Herb Jones available this year?

Of course

And if they don't like anyone at their pick, they'll trade it. And considering our roster construction and that we have 2 2nds already, trading down is unlikely to begin with

Citing an expensive roster as the reasoning though.. just wildly disingenuous

[The-Power]

Trading a late 1st for a future late 1st can make sense on various levels.

1) You do this if you don't think you have space on the roster and/or could not give the Rookie any minutes. In that case, just wait for another draft where the situation allows for the better development of the Rookie, so you don't lose value and waste a year of the Rookie contract.

2) You at least consider this if you really don't like any particular player, and none of your desired players fell. In that case, just wait for another draft in which this may be the case. No need to draft a Rookie just for the sake of it when the next draft is just around the corner.

3) Perhaps most importantly, a future 1st (especially if it's in the next draft) is a trade asset and stays fairly consistent in value whereas the value of a Rookie can fluctuate dramatically (and most Rookies lose value fairly quickly, not least because the team trading for them loses their choice to select the player they want). If you consider trades during or after the next season to be possible, this is a safe way to keep the value of the initial pick.

That being said, unless there is a very good deal on the table that you'd do regardless of who drops in the draft, this is something to be done during draft night and not before. Otherwise, you run the risk of losing out on a player you really like who happened to drop – and why would you risk it? Also, picks usually increase in value during the draft for that very reason: some team's favorite player is going to drop, and they are almost certainly willing to pay more when that happens as opposed to prior to the draft, when nobody knows who's going to be on the board this late.

[azwfan]

And like I said, if they look at this draft and cant find anyone they want to use, that's ridiculous. The logic these bad rumor sites used is bad. Its not about agreeing with it or not, its that there are no savings and pisses away an opportunity to control costs. To imply that well before the draft is just random speculation and requires no special mention more than any other draft.

So no, it doesnt make sense. You are arguing that its a possible move. I'm saying announcing it a week before the draft makes no sense, because its saying that less than 27 players in this draft are roster-worthy, and probably a number way lower than that if they are sure that those players wont be there at 28 and this should punt the pick out further. Not to mention the diminishing returns on the salary value, which peak this year going forward

The article said:
“IF x then y or z”
Of course it makes sense. Its just overly simplistic without soecifics to mean anything to us without knowing what x is. It could be totally made up, a smokescreen, or an unintended leak.
And the Warriors didnt announce anything nor did the article claim they did.

So its probably a draft fluff piece. But that doesnt have anything to do with the sense of the strategy itself.

So we have specific guys we want at pick 28 and would trade it if those guys don't fall? Of course.

Is that news-worthy? Isn't that the SOP for any team? So why is this BR guy singling out the Mavs and Warriors and citing expensive rosters as the reasoning, when there are no savings for the move? That's what I'm saying doesnt make sense (as well as the timing). That's why I was tongue-in-cheek about us being able to retain our own players, because the savings would be under 7 figures to go from a drafted player to a UDFA, and more expensive otherwise.

So yeah, fluff piece. Warriors willing to draft someone at 28, and barring that, willing to trade it. I mean... yes? What are our alternatives, forfeit the pick? But the fact that they included the salary angle was the news part of it, and that doesn't track at all.

If our standard is what is news worthy theres a bunch of stuff thats not news worthy out there and we certainly dont need to look at draft fluff pieces to find them. Haha

[azwfan]

Not really.

I dont skip buying coffee cause i need that money to pay my mortgage, i skip buying coffee cause its not worth it to me.

Punting the pick is basically saying this coffee sucks, ima wait till theres some good coffee to buy.

If they look at this draft and dont think they can find someone who can contribute in 1-2 years at 28, thats even worse tbh. This whole "its not a good draft"... that's bull. Every draft is the best or worst one ever, but that is typically only true about whats at the top. In the middle and end, its all about finding players who fit the scheme of what you're trying to do - at least for winning teams. For losing teams, its just selecting high upside and holding your breath. But there are always quality role players in the late 1st, whole 2nd, and even in UDFA. Waiving a white flag on that pre-draft makes no sense.

But as I said, I don't buy it. I've heard a lot to the contrary. Only thing that would make sense is using it in a deal with a different goal, which I do think is possible. But punting it out a year or more... there's no sense to that at any level

If there was a Herb Jones available at 28 to replace JTA, why wouldn't you pick him? Or is the idea that it's impossible to find a Herb Jones except by chance. I dunno, seems like an obvious early second round type of guy. Or is the idea that there isn't even a Herb Jones available this year?

I dont think its entirely luck, but when it happens so rarely that it may appear that way.

If the Warriors knew Draymond would be who he turned out to be, they probably take him with the Barnes pick… at minimum they take him with the Ezeli pick.

Likewise, if NO knew what Herb Jones was going to be able to give them they probably take him over Trey Murphy 3.

[FNQ]

The article said:
“IF x then y or z”
Of course it makes sense. Its just overly simplistic without soecifics to mean anything to us without knowing what x is. It could be totally made up, a smokescreen, or an unintended leak.
And the Warriors didnt announce anything nor did the article claim they did.

So its probably a draft fluff piece. But that doesnt have anything to do with the sense of the strategy itself.

So we have specific guys we want at pick 28 and would trade it if those guys don't fall? Of course.

Is that news-worthy? Isn't that the SOP for any team? So why is this BR guy singling out the Mavs and Warriors and citing expensive rosters as the reasoning, when there are no savings for the move? That's what I'm saying doesnt make sense (as well as the timing). That's why I was tongue-in-cheek about us being able to retain our own players, because the savings would be under 7 figures to go from a drafted player to a UDFA, and more expensive otherwise.

So yeah, fluff piece. Warriors willing to draft someone at 28, and barring that, willing to trade it. I mean... yes? What are our alternatives, forfeit the pick? But the fact that they included the salary angle was the news part of it, and that doesn't track at all.

If our standard is what is news worthy theres a bunch of stuff thats not news worthy out there and we certainly dont need to look at draft fluff pieces to find them. Haha

that's a damn fair point

[FNQ]

That being said, unless there is a very good deal on the table that you'd do regardless of who drops in the draft, this is something to be done during draft night and not before. Otherwise, you run the risk of losing out on a player you really like who happened to drop – and why would you risk it? Also, picks usually increase in value during the draft for that very reason: some team's favorite player is going to drop, and they are almost certainly willing to pay more when that happens as opposed to prior to the draft, when nobody knows who's going to be on the board this late.

That's most of the point

The rest is, the way that BR intentionally framed it (using expensive rosters as a lead-in) doesn't track either. But its also the only way it would be newsworthy, so its probably why it was included, which then circles back to... do we buy this bull ****?

[Crazy-Canuck]

BR probably just piggy backed on the chronicle article that this may be wiggs last game as warrior due to $$$.

[Old_Blue]

While everyone else is recovering from a hangover, doing their best The Dude impression, Bob Myers is plotting his next move.

[radtech]

Would rather trade Wiseman for a future 2023 first and use that "saving" to pay Looney. Need the late first to fill the bench.

[and1GS]

If you have followed this warriors team for at least 3 months I think you should know 'saving money' isn't really a priority for Lacob and co......

Forget the roster, we had 3 head coaches on our staff this past season.

EDIT: Some fun facts

When Lacob bought the team, he did so for $450m. We are now valued at $5b.

According to Kawakmi, we made at least $120m solely form box office in the playoffs. We only keep $40m of that, but the merch brings in far more. https://theathletic.com/3312421/2022/05/17/kawakami-warriors-mavericks-luka-doncic/

This team is printing money at this point.

[Old_Blue]

According to Kawakmi, we made at least $120m solely form box office in the playoffs. We only keep $40m of that, but the merch brings in far more.

What is this "We" business?

[Warriorfan]

Warriors have drafted well in early 30s.

[and1GS]

According to Kawakmi, we made at least $120m solely form box office in the playoffs. We only keep $40m of that, but the merch brings in far more.

What is this "We" business?

Says the guy who made thousands betting on the warriors this round........

[Old_Blue]

According to Kawakmi, we made at least $120m solely form box office in the playoffs. We only keep $40m of that, but the merch brings in far more.

What is this "We" business?

Says the guy who made thousands betting on the warriors this round........

I'm sorry. Was I supposed to bet against the Dubs?