Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2458990
GS Warriors 1 wrote:Onus wrote:Protections we want an unprotected 2030
Unprotected 1 seems unrealistic. I'd be surprised if they get a lotto protected.
whatisacenter wrote:GS Warriors 1 wrote:Onus wrote:Protections we want an unprotected 2030
Unprotected 1 seems unrealistic. I'd be surprised if they get a lotto protected.
They were offered a lottery protected first and turned it down… Seems unreasonable to me
Twinkie defense wrote:marthafokker wrote:I am 100% on JK camp now. Dubs so disrespectful. 2nd year team option?
I hope JK just take the QO now!
What is it about a team option he doesn't like?
EvanZ wrote:Lottery protection on a Kings pick is worthless. It means the pick won't convey for years and probably become a second round pick.
EvanZ wrote:Lottery protection on a Kings pick is worthless. It means the pick won't convey for years and probably become a second round pick.
EvanZ wrote:Lottery protection on a Kings pick is worthless. It means the pick won't convey for years and probably become a second round pick.
Onus wrote:EvanZ wrote:Lottery protection on a Kings pick is worthless. It means the pick won't convey for years and probably become a second round pick.
We end up with the worst of the spurs or kings pick in 2031 supposedly so still a 1st.
Onus wrote:EvanZ wrote:Lottery protection on a Kings pick is worthless. It means the pick won't convey for years and probably become a second round pick.
We end up with the worst of the spurs or kings pick in 2031 supposedly so still a 1st.
vvoland wrote:Onus wrote:EvanZ wrote:Lottery protection on a Kings pick is worthless. It means the pick won't convey for years and probably become a second round pick.
We end up with the worst of the spurs or kings pick in 2031 supposedly so still a 1st.
It gets worse and worse with every detail
whatisacenter wrote:Onus wrote:EvanZ wrote:Lottery protection on a Kings pick is worthless. It means the pick won't convey for years and probably become a second round pick.
We end up with the worst of the spurs or kings pick in 2031 supposedly so still a 1st.
Yep.
Seems reasonable for a guy Kerr finds unplayable.
marthafokker wrote:Twinkie defense wrote:marthafokker wrote:I am 100% on JK camp now. Dubs so disrespectful. 2nd year team option?
I hope JK just take the QO now!
What is it about a team option he doesn't like?
He lost injury and UFA protection. If you were him, do you want yourself to not get some protect for a short contract like that? And if he does good, he wants his money with player option... not team option with no control again.
Furthermore, Dubs wants him to wave the no trade clause. I saw on ESPN, maybe Slater, said that standard CBA on 1+1 is no trade clause.
So Dubs wants everything, and have JK lose all protection in the negotiation?
As of Friday, sounds like Dubs softening up from JK's threat to take QO?
floppymoose wrote:All this news coverage feels ridiculous. Let the Kings offer 4/90, then match. This whole idea that GSW has no leverage seems wrong.
floppymoose wrote:This whole idea that GSW has no leverage seems wrong.
vvoland wrote:Onus wrote:TB wrote:
We had Pat Spencer playing playoff minutes last year. We have nobody to guard other point guards. We have literally no backup PGs on the roster.
If Horford is in fact a done deal, good guards are absolutely what we need to add most.
Yea I don't get why people think we don't need guards and then complain why podz plays so many minutes. We absolutely need guards and a poa defender.
We currently have:
Steph - no context needed
Podz - guaranteed to start based on Kerr's love for all things podz
Buddy - best player next to steph/dray/jimmy, for my money
Melton - looking to sign
Seth Curry - Looking to sign
Moody - I still think he's more of a guard than a wing, but open to discussion
Even Butler can play some 2 in larger lineups, particularly if he got offended by teams daring him to shoot 3s last year.
That's 6-7. Why do we need to trade JK and Buddy for someone just as likely to start/close as buddy is, for 3x the money? It doesn't even solve our backup PG problem as Monk has proven to not be a point guard. Is he better than a healthy melton? Not so sure. I know buddy can shoot/defend/fit next to steph/jimmy/dray. I know nothing of the sort about Monk. I'd take the gamble if it was just buddy or moody, maybe. For JK and one of them? No thank you.
Beyond Butler, Dray, and JK, we have no one to play the 3 OR 4 other than moody or gui. That's awful depth at both forward spots, even with JK. Without him, it gets bleak.
statsman wrote:floppymoose wrote:All this news coverage feels ridiculous. Let the Kings offer 4/90, then match. This whole idea that GSW has no leverage seems wrong.
I keep hearing the argument that Kuminga would be a distraction if kept on the team. I guess there's something to that. But does Lacob once again want to make a poor-to-mediocre trade with one of his 2nd timeline stars? The Poole trade wasted a future first. The Wiseman trade was embarrassing.
Maybe the outline of this trade can be expanded to include more teams where Monk can be rerouted for one or two players who meet a need for the team (how about some damn size!), especially since the trade, as configured, would require moving Hield or Moody. Now, if someone counters by saying no other team really wants to trade for Monk, then that speaks for itself about the Kings-Warriors proposed S&T.
CS707 wrote:marthafokker wrote:Twinkie defense wrote:What is it about a team option he doesn't like?
He lost injury and UFA protection. If you were him, do you want yourself to not get some protect for a short contract like that? And if he does good, he wants his money with player option... not team option with no control again.
Furthermore, Dubs wants him to wave the no trade clause. I saw on ESPN, maybe Slater, said that standard CBA on 1+1 is no trade clause.
So Dubs wants everything, and have JK lose all protection in the negotiation?
As of Friday, sounds like Dubs softening up from JK's threat to take QO?
A 1+1 with a player option is basically just a more expensive QO. Of course they want the team option.
What exactly is your ideal outcome here?
EvanZ wrote:whatisacenter wrote:Onus wrote:We end up with the worst of the spurs or kings pick in 2031 supposedly so still a 1st.
Yep.
Seems reasonable for a guy Kerr finds unplayable.
Bro why are you negotiating against us lol. Are you a Kings fan?
CS707 wrote:floppymoose wrote:This whole idea that GSW has no leverage seems wrong.
Because it is. The Warriors have all the leverage.
wco81 wrote:statsman wrote:floppymoose wrote:All this news coverage feels ridiculous. Let the Kings offer 4/90, then match. This whole idea that GSW has no leverage seems wrong.
I keep hearing the argument that Kuminga would be a distraction if kept on the team. I guess there's something to that. But does Lacob once again want to make a poor-to-mediocre trade with one of his 2nd timeline stars? The Poole trade wasted a future first. The Wiseman trade was embarrassing.
Maybe the outline of this trade can be expanded to include more teams where Monk can be rerouted for one or two players who meet a need for the team (how about some damn size!), especially since the trade, as configured, would require moving Hield or Moody. Now, if someone counters by saying no other team really wants to trade for Monk, then that speaks for itself about the Kings-Warriors proposed S&T.
Kings are trying to get rid of Monk, bad contract and all.
Warriors should be dismissing the proposal out of hand.
They're not offering any assets in return because the FRP is to eat Monk's contract.