PDA

View Full Version : So how many of you hated the Monta/Bogut swap?



Chronz
08-12-2013, 12:52 PM
There was something of an outcry among Monta fans when it happened, do people still feel like the Warriors didn't do what was best? I know it wasn't just Warriors fans either but he was a popular player there, I dont frequent the Dubs forum so I dont know if that street love translates onto the internet.

Guppyfighter
08-12-2013, 12:58 PM
I made this account to talk about how much I loved this trade and how much renewed faith I had in the Warriors brass.

And our forum still has a lot of defenders for him.

WoodsyRaps
08-12-2013, 01:12 PM
Looking back on it now, it definitely would appear the Warriors got the better end of it for sure. The only 2 players remaining from the trade on their respective teams (if im not mistaken) are Bogut on GS and Udoh on Milwaukee. Captain Jack, Kwame Brown and Monta now play on different teams.

Im taking Bogut over Udoh of course. At the time of the trade however I thought it was exactly what both teams needed; Milwaukee made a playoff push with Monta leading the way with some huge games down the stretch, and the Warriors were able to lose enough games without Monta in order to grab Harrison Barnes in the draft.

COOLbeans
08-12-2013, 01:25 PM
As a Warriors fan I've been a fan of the trade since Day 1 and I'm still happy about it.

I get off just thinking about it

asandhu23
08-12-2013, 01:27 PM
Hindsight is 20/20.

Sure, the trade looks absolutely amazing NOW but back then, it was a case of Monta for waaaay too often injured Bogut. Essentially Bucks had decided Bogut was done enough to trade him for a shooting guard.

asandhu23
08-12-2013, 01:37 PM
There was something of an outcry among Monta fans when it happened, do people still feel like the Warriors didn't do what was best? I know it wasn't just Warriors fans either but he was a popular player there, I dont frequent the Dubs forum so I dont know if that street love translates onto the internet.

It wasn't for just Monta. Its the team history.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7714701/how-annoy-fan-base-60-easy-steps


At the moment, the trade was continuation of this all over again. The ownership at the time were still the new owners who hadn't proven **** but talked a big game.

Monta is beast
08-12-2013, 01:40 PM
Curry wouldn't breakout with Monta, neither would Thompson and we wouldn't have Barnes. So yeah I make that trade 10/10

ManRam
08-12-2013, 01:42 PM
Hindsight is 20/20.

Sure, the trade looks absolutely amazing NOW but back then, it was a case of Monta for waaaay too often injured Bogut. Essentially Bucks had decided Bogut was done enough to trade him for a shooting guard.

I'm far far far from a Monta fan, but even at the time I believe I wasn't throwing boatloads of praise at GS for the trade. Bogut's injury issues was the main reason why. I think they absolutely needed to get rid of Monta and that it almost would be a case of addition by subtraction regardless, but it didn't look like a steal at the time to me. I was also big on Udoh.

I get why fans were mad and all, but much like Rudy Gay, getting rid of guys like that isn't gonna hurt 9 times out of 10. Things were looking grim at the time...luckily Steph blossomed. It was absolutely the right move.

asandhu23
08-12-2013, 01:54 PM
I'm far far far from a Monta fan, but even at the time I believe I wasn't throwing boatloads of praise at GS for the trade. Bogut's injury issues was the main reason why. I think they absolutely needed to get rid of Monta and that it almost would be a case of addition by subtraction regardless, but it didn't look like a steal at the time to me. I was also big on Udoh.

I get why fans were mad and all, but much like Rudy Gay, getting rid of guys like that isn't gonna hurt 9 times out of 10. Things were looking grim at the time...luckily Steph blossomed. It was absolutely the right move.


Not just that. We got lucky that Barnes is a very good player, that Klay Thompson also ended up rather good and miraculously Bogut healed well enough and in playoffs nearly went to his pre injury self which was crucial because Lee was injured.


With hindsight and all, the trade gets my full support. But at the time, I had my doubts because people around the league were talking about Bogut never ever playing again.

We Warriors' fans finally have something going for us. If Cohan management was still here, he would have already shipped Curry and Klay out for future draft picks. Lacob management has won us over. Actions over words.

asandhu23
08-12-2013, 01:55 PM
Oh and Curry's ankle wasn't exactly behaving at the time either.

Guppyfighter
08-12-2013, 02:06 PM
Stephen Curry's numbers didn't magically get better over time. He was amazing since his second year. He slightly improved his passing each year, but no crazy gains were to be had.


And of course asandhu is saying hindsight's 20/20. He's still in denial about Monta's production. He stills think Monta is a good player.

And god, that grantland article is infuriating. It conflates old ownership with new ownership and accused the trade of being bad.

I was so excited about the trade I had to find a sports forum just to talk about how good the Warriors were going to be. I made it in the summer I believe.

Guppyfighter
08-12-2013, 02:07 PM
Not just that. We got lucky that Barnes is a very good player, that Klay Thompson also ended up rather good and miraculously Bogut healed well enough and in playoffs nearly went to his pre injury self which was crucial because Lee was injured.


With hindsight and all, the trade gets my full support. But at the time, I had my doubts because Barkley was talking about Bogut never ever playing again.

We Warriors' fans finally have something going for us. If Cohan management was still here, he would have already shipped Curry and Klay out for future draft picks. Lacob management has won us over. Actions over words.

Fixed that for you.

Chronz
08-12-2013, 02:19 PM
Im not sold on hindsight being the deciding factor here. I dont think talented bigs (even injured ones) are so easily had with guys like Monta. Im also convinced that he and Curry could not co-exist (by no fault of Curry), Monta said it from day 1, they wouldn't work together. 2 diminutive guards with little defensive impact have to be in PERFECT harmony offensively in order to command max money to lead the same team. Who else could Monta have fetched?

But honestly the question Im trying to focus on is if you would make the trade or stick with Monta until his contract expired, not if you would make another trade.

Chronz
08-12-2013, 02:21 PM
Oh and Curry's ankle wasn't exactly behaving at the time either.
Thats true, I heard the Warriors were shopping Curry first actually...... wow... come to think of it, this team should have never existed. You guys should be fielding a lineup with Monta and DeAndre Jordan right now.

I guess you guys finally caught a break, interesting that our teams are having this resurgence around the same time.

ManRam
08-12-2013, 02:29 PM
I went and looked. I was just baffled...and Udoh was really the main reason why. But in hindsight it looks like he wasn't an asset at all.

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/search.php?searchid=439964

I was clearly wrong about a lot of things, but I do think hindsight was a deciding factor here. It wasn't a slam dunk at the time :shrug: And this is coming from someone who really doesn't think much of Monta.

It worked out for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with the trade, or resulted from it indirectly. Bogut hasn't been a game changer on the court. He's helped, but he hasn't played a ton either. But getting rid of Monta and "bottoming out" was the best course to take, for sure. I just thought they could have gotten more at the time, especially since they gave away Udoh. So hindsight, for that reason makes it more obvious to me.

Guppyfighter
08-12-2013, 02:33 PM
I don't know why people liked Udoh when his defense was bad, he was undersized, and he wasn't exactly athletic.

If Bogut never played I would do this trade 9/10 times.

ManRam
08-12-2013, 02:43 PM
I don't know why people liked Udoh when his defense was bad, he was undersized, and he wasn't exactly athletic.

If Bogut never played I would do this trade 9/10 times.

I don't buy that he's a bad defender, and I'm not sure 6-10 250 is undersized. He's just terrible offensively and isn't strong enough to cut it down low offensively.

TrueFan420
08-12-2013, 02:53 PM
It was a weird time. New owners promised the warriors the playoffs. We were close although ultimately prob would have fallen short. We were trading one of our better player and a young promising player for an injured center and captain jack who we all knew wanted nothing to do with us. You never trade big for small and I knew at the time if Bogut came back to full strength, hell even 80%, he would solve what our biggest issue has been. I was torn about it. Both teams were getting what we needed. bit that doesnt change that it was a tough pill to take especially when he was hurt for most of the next year and they lied about the actual injury he had. Seemed reminiscent of old ownership. But like i said we had to wait to judge the trade, like most trades and draft picks, and when Bogut came back our d and toughness became much much improved. The trade worked out thankfully and we now have a top center.

TrueFan420
08-12-2013, 02:57 PM
Thats true, I heard the Warriors were shopping Curry first actually...... wow... come to think of it, this team should have never existed. You guys should be fielding a lineup with Monta and DeAndre Jordan right now.

I guess you guys finally caught a break, interesting that our teams are having this resurgence around the same time.

We were linked with chandler before DJ. And yea it could be vastly different. The rumors of moving curry were always false tho. They'd have had to been on a different level of dumb to have given up on curry.

Chronz
08-12-2013, 04:01 PM
I went and looked. I was just baffled...and Udoh was really the main reason why. But in hindsight it looks like he wasn't an asset at all.

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/search.php?searchid=439964

I was clearly wrong about a lot of things, but I do think hindsight was a deciding factor here. It wasn't a slam dunk at the time :shrug: And this is coming from someone who really doesn't think much of Monta.

It worked out for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with the trade, or resulted from it indirectly. Bogut hasn't been a game changer on the court. He's helped, but he hasn't played a ton either. But getting rid of Monta and "bottoming out" was the best course to take, for sure. I just thought they could have gotten more at the time, especially since they gave away Udoh. So hindsight, for that reason makes it more obvious to me.

Search came up blank......

Some people were high on Udoh too IIRC

So you didn't like the package but would you have rather have kept Monta? Prolly not. This deal was prolly not the best deal they could have gotten (seems like lots of teams pass on dumb trades) but it was a fair one.

Wouldn't you take the risk that a talented big becomes available for a playoff run.

lol, please
08-12-2013, 04:08 PM
There was something of an outcry among Monta fans when it happened, do people still feel like the Warriors didn't do what was best? I know it wasn't just Warriors fans either but he was a popular player there, I dont frequent the Dubs forum so I dont know if that street love translates onto the internet.
Obviously long time fans are going to hate to see a fan favorite go, personally, I held my breath on it at the time, now, I like to think we won that trade. The fans who booed Lacob that night during Mullins jersey retirement night should feel pretty stupid now, heck they should have felt stupid then.

Trueblue2
08-12-2013, 04:23 PM
I hated the trade at the time but in retrospect it worked out for the best for GS. I didnt like it because Curry's health was (and somewhat still is) a huge question and trading for a big that also had injury concerns had bad move written all over it. I also still think Monta's value at the time of the trade could have landed them something better than Bogut.

There were talks of ellis to orlando for reddick and ryan anderson, reddick off the bench would have been extremely valuable but it could have blocked klay's developmeny. A front court of anderson/biedrins/lee would have been offensively potent and provided great floot spacing, but would have been a huge defensive liability. But considering the time bogut has missed it wouldnt be that huge of a difference.

The jazz might have moved jefferson + bell for him to create playing time for favors/kanter and get a wing scorer.

After the nets gave up a top 3 protected pick for gerald wallace i remember thinking they should have targeted ellis. GS could have landed Hump, shawne williams, and Either brooks or a 1st with mote protection.

One more trade i also thought made sense at the time was Ellis to MIN for derrick williams, michael beasley, and a protected pick.

In the end the trade worked out, but not necessarily because of bogut's impact on the game but rather the opening of a spot for klay as well as drafting high enough to land harrison barnes. I still think they should have went after reddick/anderson instead in a deal like ellis/beidrins for reddick/anderson/big baby. Assuming all other moves are the same they could have had:

Curry/douglass
Klay/reddick
Iggy/barnes
Anderson/speights
Lee/baby

I don't think Monta is as bad as his time with the Bucks would lead one to believe. I see him having a resurgence in dal and fixing his reputarion. He was in a bad situatoion in MIL.

Sactown
08-12-2013, 04:34 PM
Monte doesn't provide winning basketball.. he's an inefficient scorer who adds nothing else to the game.. as electric and prolific as he is.. it just doesn't help you win

Kashmir13579
08-12-2013, 07:51 PM
Chronz, is this a real question?

I mean, how many Monta fans are there anyway...?

This was the most clean cut case of addition by subtraction i've probably witnessed, leaving Bogut completely out of the conversation.

5ass
08-12-2013, 08:21 PM
Didn't Warriors fans boo their new owner not too long ago? He's built them one of the best teams in the West. Theres no doubt that the Warriors are better off without Monta. Bogut expires next year so its not like he has a long term contract. Anyway, we haven't even seen the best of Bogut yet. The Warriors finally have a very deep and talented team around a healthy Bogut and Curry. That really decreases the risk of further injuries. Also Bogut's in his contract year so he will definitely give it his all.

The West is going to be crazy good this year. The Thunder, Warriors, Rockets, Spurs, and Clippers are all potential finalists.

TrueFan420
08-12-2013, 08:22 PM
Chronz, is this a real question?

I mean, how many Monta fans are there anyway...?

This was the most clean cut case of addition by subtraction i've probably witnessed, leaving Bogut completely out of the conversation.
A lot of warriors fans were happy about losing udoh at the time either we were thin on bigs and he was developing ok at the time. Including him for Bogut who want gonna play for the year and turns out most of the next had fans thinking this is the former ownership all over again.

I think most of us knew the deal hinged on how Bogut came back and if he can stay healthy while letting Klay grow. Curry could have actually come back sooner that year but the owners had him sat so we could tank for Barnes.

abe_froman
08-12-2013, 08:28 PM
Chronz, is this a real question?

I mean, how many Monta fans are there anyway...?

This was the most clean cut case of addition by subtraction i've probably witnessed, leaving Bogut completely out of the conversation.
among w fans? numbered about 90% and they were diehard in their support of ellis.the critics of him were almost all non w fans.and he was pretty popular ,say a strong minority of the nba board who thought he was good

Hawkeye15
08-12-2013, 08:31 PM
I have absolutely never understood the Monta love. As a 3-4 th option who can be hidden on defense, fine. But anyone crying over losing him is being ridiculous. The only angle I understood is W fans hating on Bogut's injury concerns.

beasted86
08-12-2013, 08:49 PM
Lucky for them everything worked out... but don't act like it wasn't a risk. The idea was to have enough cap to go after Dwight Howard and another star, and trading for Bogut pretty much eliminated that chance. If he and Curry were still injured that team would be putrid.

lol, please
08-12-2013, 09:01 PM
I have absolutely never understood the Monta love. As a 3-4 th option who can be hidden on defense, fine. But anyone crying over losing him is being ridiculous. The only angle I understood is W fans hating on Bogut's injury concerns.
Is the idea that there might be a team so bad, that the only consolation is an explosive/exciting player albeit not a productive one, and that the fans got attached to such a player? The average casual fan doesn't analyze the metrics to find out his lack of productivity, they would be more concerned with the jaw dropping highlights, is this concept beyond your grasp? I don't think it's that surprising, it happens all the time in sports, to one degree or another.

asandhu23
08-12-2013, 09:06 PM
Lucky for them everything worked out... but don't act like it wasn't a risk. The idea was to have enough cap to go after Dwight Howard and another star, and trading for Bogut pretty much eliminated that chance. If he and Curry were still injured that team would be putrid.

Exactly, its easy to say now that was an easy choice but the reality is at the time, it looked like we were going to start from scratch again.


Guppy can say that this is just me saying it but it's the reality.


Also that Monta quote about him not wanting to work with Curry is ********. He said what everyone in the media was saying and thinking at the time... that a small backcourt like that would not work which is the truth


OAKLAND, Calif. -- Most everyone came to the Warriors' start of training camp on Monday to hear what forward Stephen Jackson was going to say about that trade demand he made a few weeks back.

But it was Monta Ellis who might have had the most interesting -- and perhaps the most troubling -- thing to say on Day 1.

Ellis was asked a relatively innocuous question about playing alongside rookie Stephen Curry, and responded emphatically that the two smallish guards weren't going to be able to play together.

"Us together? No," Ellis said. "Can't. We just can't. ... Just can't."

Someone then jumped in and said to Ellis: "Do you understand, they (the Warriors and coach Don Nelson) say you can?"

"They say you can?" Ellis repeated. "They say you can ... but you can't. I just want to win and you're not going to win that way."

Nelson had said on Friday that he envisioned Ellis and Curry playing together despite their collective lack of size. Nelson said that the team planned to do a lot of scheming to help Ellis and Curry at the defensive end, but that the Ellis/Curry tandem was going to get a look.

In fact, Nelson had said that the idea to use Jackson more at shooting guard this season, which was his intent at the end of 2008-09, had basically been scrapped.

Follow NBA FanHouseEllis made it very clear why he thinks such a backcourt pairing would fail.

"It's different," Ellis said. "When you're trying to compare Stephen and you're trying to go back with me and Baron (Davis) playing. It's a different situation. You've got a nine-year veteran who has been in the game and understands the game and knows how to play the game and he's got a big body.

"You can't put two small guys out there and play the one and the two. You've got big two-guards in the league. You just can't do it. Yes, you're going to move up and down but eventually the game is going to slow down. You can't do it."


http://www.aolnews.com/2009/09/28/warriors-monta-ellis-says-he-cant-play-alongside-stephen-curry/


Media just went crazy and blew this out of proportion.

Lloyd Christmas
08-12-2013, 09:25 PM
I was all for this trade at the time. Ever since Bob Meyers took over its been nothing but great long term moves instead of these short term moves made to keep season ticket holders happy. It's the best thing to happen to warriors fans in the last 30 years.

Lloyd Christmas
08-12-2013, 09:28 PM
Props to asandhu for coming out and saying he was against the trade. There were quite a few people in that same boat and I doubt we'll hear from many of them.

nastynice
08-12-2013, 09:42 PM
As much as it sucked to see Ellis go, it had to be done. Regardless of what we were getting in return, it just had to be done, everyone knew it. And everyone knew it was going to be Ellis, not Curry, who was gonna go. So I"m not sure where that guy got that from, that Curry was the one we were trying to get rid of.

I wasn't mad at what we got back at the time because #1, I knew Ellis had to go, so that was accomplished, #2 Bogut represented exactly the piece we needed on this team. Obviously there was the injury issue, but along with that was the "potential" of how beautifully he could fit on this team if not injured. So far we've seen both sides, him off the court and him on the court. But with him on the court he's doing as good as any of us hoped for, and that was the potential we knew he would bring, and the reason for the cautious excitement in getting him back for ellis. We were lucky he came back on the court at the right time last year, but his injury issues are far from over, we still know what we're dealing with here. He is still injury prone, and no one can say with any confidence that he will be on the court next year.

Either way, even if Bogut starts having health issues again, the front office has made good move after good move, they are doing great things and making smart decisions. Very happy with how things are going.

asandhu23
08-12-2013, 09:58 PM
Props to asandhu for coming out and saying he was against the trade. There were quite a few people in that same boat and I doubt we'll hear from many of them.

A whole lot more. Nearly everyone was but of course they won't admit it. its a case of "I knew that all this time"

Guppyfighter
08-12-2013, 09:59 PM
It's pretty easy for me to sit and here and say how much I loved the trade at the time and that's because I made my account to talk about how much more awesome I thought the Warriors were in the summer and that I was finally excited for ownership that wasn't drunk on it's own money.


I felt anyone against the trade because they liked Monta was dumb. The only arguments I felt were palatable was there may have been better trade options. Like trading Ellis for Iggy, but I am not sure how possible that was and if the rumor had any credence.

And since I am bragging, I am going to get it out all in this thread. I was one of the few people not thinking the Magic were dumb for what they got and really like Vic in the trade. But I liked that trade for every single side.

beasted86
08-12-2013, 10:36 PM
You know the funny thing is I still think Bogut is going to be injury riddled, just as much as last season.

So did they really win this trade just because the other players got better and Bogut was healthy enough for the playoffs? What if this time he is injured in the playoffs. What if the other guys didn't get better?

Monta wasn't the problem even though everyone likes to use him as the scapegoat. He's like a way better Jarrett Jack, and could have played the same exact role if in some alternate universe everything else remained constant as far as Klay, Barnes, etc... When you are counting on Monta to be your go to scorer is when you have a problem.

lol, please
08-12-2013, 10:42 PM
It's pretty easy for me to sit and here and say how much I loved the trade at the time and that's because I made my account to talk about how much more awesome I thought the Warriors were in the summer and that I was finally excited for ownership that wasn't drunk on it's own money.


I felt anyone against the trade because they liked Monta was dumb. The only arguments I felt were palatable was there may have been better trade options. Like trading Ellis for Iggy, but I am not sure how possible that was and if the rumor had any credence.

And since I am bragging, I am going to get it out all in this thread. I was one of the few people not thinking the Magic were dumb for what they got and really like Vic in the trade. But I liked that trade for every single side.
I hear ya, I wasn't against or for it at the time, I was mainly just glad we did something, I was however, extremely embarassed by any/everyone who booed, or would have booed Lacob that night. Completely uncalled for, I hope they all feel stupid.


While we are bragging though, I was the only one (I know of) who wholeheartedly knew we would have a largely successful season in 2011 (49ers), and I only guessed the amount of wins off by about 2 games. :laugh2: I don't hesitate to throw that in peoples faces, especially all the other "fans" who had zero faith going into 2011. If as a fan you abandon all hope, you aren't a real fan in my book.

I also knew we would beat the Eagles that season in Philly, and rallied my fellow fans during halftime when most thought it was over. :cool:

floater
08-12-2013, 10:54 PM
this was a clear cut great trade from the moment it was announced. they were never going to be able to get a big man like bogut unless he came with some concerns. if bogut never regained his health, oh well, at least they went for it instead of being stuck in the monta ellis treadmill. i felt at the time anyone against the trade had no ability to look at the big picture and no ability to assess ellis' true, lackluster, value.

beasted86
08-12-2013, 11:11 PM
Bogut since joining the Warriors has played 32 games out of a possible 108 games... and in all likelihood this will continue.

People just wanted Monta gone, period. Other players have stepped up, period. But don't act like Bogut is what has put the team over the top. He is essentially the "Mike Miller" of the Warriors. They know he's injured and broken down but hope to preserve him so that he can provide excellent play in the playoffs.

THE MTL
08-12-2013, 11:24 PM
I just think that there was a better trade available for the Warriors. Bogut is just an injured mess and he was even injured during the trade. As of now, no one won the trade because Bogut doesnt play and Ellis did nothing on the bucks and is now a Maverick.

Kyben36
08-12-2013, 11:29 PM
I never thought it was a good trade, I like bogut, but he is sooo injury prone unfortunatly, if he can stay healthy, its a good trade for Wariors, but I allways saw ellis as a more tradeable asset, but now that the Bucks lost him for nothing, you know.

kenzo400
08-12-2013, 11:39 PM
Hindsight is 20/20.

Sure, the trade looks absolutely amazing NOW but back then, it was a case of Monta for waaaay too often injured Bogut. Essentially Bucks had decided Bogut was done enough to trade him for a shooting guard.

Advanced statistics will tell you that Monta was not really helping the Warriors. Every other game he would shoot 7-30. He was too inconsistent on offense and his defense left much to be desired.

kenzo400
08-12-2013, 11:41 PM
I'm far far far from a Monta fan, but even at the time I believe I wasn't throwing boatloads of praise at GS for the trade. Bogut's injury issues was the main reason why. I think they absolutely needed to get rid of Monta and that it almost would be a case of addition by subtraction regardless, but it didn't look like a steal at the time to me. I was also big on Udoh.

I get why fans were mad and all, but much like Rudy Gay, getting rid of guys like that isn't gonna hurt 9 times out of 10. Things were looking grim at the time...luckily Steph blossomed. It was absolutely the right move.

Memphis is not a better team without Rudy Gay. They were better this year because Randolph was healthy. The year before, he was 30% of his normal self. They also played OKC without Westbrook this year.

cubs1st
08-12-2013, 11:46 PM
Thats true, I heard the Warriors were shopping Curry first actually...... wow... come to think of it, this team should have never existed. You guys should be fielding a lineup with Monta and DeAndre Jordan right now.

I guess you guys finally caught a break, interesting that our teams are having this resurgence around the same time.

Please tell me a rumored deal wasn't Curry for Deandre Jordan?

TheMightyHumph
08-12-2013, 11:55 PM
Thought the trade was a brilliant one for Warriors, even if Bogut had never played a game for the Warriors.

Guppyfighter
08-13-2013, 12:25 AM
Memphis is not a better team without Rudy Gay. They were better this year because Randolph was healthy. The year before, he was 30% of his normal self. They also played OKC without Westbrook this year.

They won six percent more games without him and are 3-3 in playoff series without him and 0-1 with him.

They lost to the Clippers largely because of him and then beat the Clippers.

Their offense also got five points better without him.

Guppyfighter
08-13-2013, 12:26 AM
Please tell me a rumored deal wasn't Curry for Deandre Jordan?

No, Curry was in talks with Chris Paul and Rondo. Rondo being offered by the Celtics, which we rejected and we would have done the trade with Chris Paul if he was guaranteed to re-sign, which he wasn't.

cmellofan15
08-13-2013, 12:37 AM
well I actually thought it was gonna work out better than it did :laugh2:

I was the guy that overrated Bogut, and HATED Ellis so I thought it was a great trade for GS but my opinion was completely subjective of how I personally felt about the players

lol, please
08-13-2013, 12:38 AM
No, Curry was in talks with Chris Paul and Rondo. Rondo being offered by the Celtics, which we rejected and we would have done the trade with Chris Paul if he was guaranteed to re-sign, which he wasn't.
That's right, I remember teasing people with "Curry for Paul or Rondo straight up", Klay was also rumor linked to Rondo last season.
:laugh2:

tredigs
08-13-2013, 02:47 AM
It was the moment I had been preaching for here and elsewhere for years, and when I truly started believing in the new management (though I had strong inclinations). The move itself meant a lot more to me than the sum of its parts.

lol, please
08-13-2013, 03:06 AM
It was the moment I had been preaching for here and elsewhere for years, and when I truly started believing in the new management (though I had strong inclinations). The move itself meant a lot more to me than the sum of its parts.

Tell it like it is, tredigs! :clap:

TrueFan420
08-13-2013, 03:18 AM
Please tell me a rumored deal wasn't Curry for Deandre Jordan?

No we freed up enough cap space to sign him and then did... Clippers matched and now their stuck with his bad play and horrid contract... Sorry not sorry

TrueFan420
08-13-2013, 03:21 AM
Thought the trade was a brilliant one for Warriors, even if Bogut had never played a game for the Warriors.

If Bogut never played it would have been a bad deal we were linked to brook Lopez who would have been an interesting fit. As well as al Jefferson which many were against but he would have been a free age now if it didnt work so the savings and offensive post presence would have been better than another year of nothing. But if you looked at boguts injuries they were unlucky ones not a trend so there was a level of hope that some held and it worked out for us.

Monta is beast
08-13-2013, 04:50 AM
No, Curry was in talks with Chris Paul and Rondo. Rondo being offered by the Celtics, which we rejected and we would have done the trade with Chris Paul if he was guaranteed to re-sign, which he wasn't.

Once again your wrong. Warriors never offered Curry for Paul, they offered Ellis, Udoh, and Thompson. They were going to offer Curry for Dwight if the Hornets accepted. Correcting you is like a full time job.

Shlumpledink
08-13-2013, 05:20 AM
The only way i can have intercourse with my wife of 31 years is to think of the trade

asandhu23
08-13-2013, 07:05 AM
Once again your wrong. Warriors never offered Curry for Paul, they offered Ellis, Udoh, and Thompson. They were going to offer Curry for Dwight if the Hornets accepted. Correcting you is like a full time job.


Yes, it is.

Guppyfighter
08-13-2013, 09:25 AM
Once again your wrong. Warriors never offered Curry for Paul, they offered Ellis, Udoh, and Thompson. They were going to offer Curry for Dwight if the Hornets accepted. Correcting you is like a full time job.

You don't know what you are talking about. You are out of your element.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/07/stephen-curry-responds-to-cooling-chris-paul-trade-rumors/

This is why people out of the Warrior forums cringe when you post.

Guppyfighter
08-13-2013, 09:25 AM
Yes, it is.

Okay, Mr. "I think Monta Ellis is a great productive player."

Brevity isn't my strong suit.

TheMightyHumph
08-13-2013, 11:25 AM
If Bogut never played it would have been a bad deal we were linked to brook Lopez who would have been an interesting fit. As well as al Jefferson which many were against but he would have been a free age now if it didnt work so the savings and offensive post presence would have been better than another year of nothing. But if you looked at boguts injuries they were unlucky ones not a trend so there was a level of hope that some held and it worked out for us.

Monta for Brook Lopez? That wasn't going to happen.

And Warriors got better just by dumping Monta. Bogut was just a bonus,

kenzo400
08-13-2013, 12:42 PM
They won six percent more games without him and are 3-3 in playoff series without him and 0-1 with him.

They lost to the Clippers largely because of him and then beat the Clippers.

Their offense also got five points better without him.

That statistic is meaningless unless you take into account other factors. Randolph's injury was the biggest reason of why they lost the year before. Rudy Gay would have helped them tremendously against the Spurs. Once the Spurs shut down Randolph in the paint, it was over. They desperately needed a guy who could create his own shot like Gay. Watching Poindexter try to drive in the paint was painful.

Chronz
08-13-2013, 02:01 PM
Memphis is not a better team without Rudy Gay. They were better this year because Randolph was healthy. The year before, he was 30% of his normal self. They also played OKC without Westbrook this year.
Randolph was healthy all year and the team never played this well with Gay around. He was by far the reason the Clips were able to pull off the upset. His defensive lapses were inexcusable and his isolation offense was EASILY shut down. When they got rid of him is when I began to fear the Grizz again.

Chronz
08-13-2013, 02:02 PM
Please tell me a rumored deal wasn't Curry for Deandre Jordan?
They were going to trade Curry for Bogut instead but I heard the Bucks actually wanted Monta.

DJ was going to GS through Free Agency when he signed that ridiculous offer sheet that the Clippers had to match to appease Blake.

Chronz
08-13-2013, 02:05 PM
That statistic is meaningless unless you take into account other factors. Randolph's injury was the biggest reason of why they lost the year before. Rudy Gay would have helped them tremendously against the Spurs. Once the Spurs shut down Randolph in the paint, it was over. They desperately needed a guy who could create his own shot like Gay. Watching Poindexter try to drive in the paint was painful.

You're not taking into account other factors either. The Clippers were dealing with far more debilitating injuries and still pulled off the upset. That the team has played better without Gay in the regular season is more damning evidence against his contributions. Iso ball turned Conley into a spectator, the minute Gay was gone was the minute Conley started looking like he was a bargain for his contract. The team benefited as aresult and had their most successful run in franchise history.

TrueFan420
08-13-2013, 03:22 PM
the only way i can have intercourse with my wife of 31 years is to think of the trade

tmi

TrueFan420
08-13-2013, 03:25 PM
They were going to trade Curry for Bogut instead but I heard the Bucks actually wanted Monta.



Um what none sense are you utalking about curry for Bogut was never out there.

obie
08-13-2013, 03:30 PM
was much needed and i applauded it when it happened. what i hated was seeing Joe Lacob get booed but idiots who didn't understand the trade. bet their still wishing for Monta because they cried so hard when it happened and feel dumb accepting that it was a good trade....

Chronz
08-13-2013, 03:46 PM
Um what none sense are you utalking about curry for Bogut was never out there.
Thats literally what I said. Then some dude showed me the link. Ill see if I can find it

ILLUSIONIST^248
08-13-2013, 07:06 PM
Chronz is a terrible thread maker.

asandhu23
08-13-2013, 07:06 PM
Okay, Mr. "I think Monta Ellis is a great productive player."

Brevity isn't my strong suit.


Whatever, Mr "Monta is the only reason why Warriors lost since 2007... no matter how many other reason there are".

kenzo400
08-14-2013, 12:03 AM
Randolph was healthy all year and the team never played this well with Gay around. He was by far the reason the Clips were able to pull off the upset. His defensive lapses were inexcusable and his isolation offense was EASILY shut down. When they got rid of him is when I began to fear the Grizz again.

He played pretty good for about 5 games. He didn't shoot well for two games. I wouldn't say he was shut down at any point in the series. It also doesn't help that he was the only player that could drive and Mike Conley isn't the greatest passing point guard.

This year, they took advantage of an injured Clipperss and OKC teams. They might play more consistently without Gay but that is largely because Hollins does not know how to create a more complex offense.

kenzo400
08-14-2013, 12:07 AM
You're not taking into account other factors either. The Clippers were dealing with far more debilitating injuries and still pulled off the upset.

The Clippers were just as injured this year, if not more. Chris Paul was playing injured. The year before, they also had Kenyon Martin and Evans, who were the ones that shut down Randolph in game 6 and 7. If it wasn't for them, Grizzlies would have won.


That the team has played better without Gay in the regular season is more damning evidence against his contributions. Iso ball turned Conley into a spectator, the minute Gay was gone was the minute Conley started looking like he was a bargain for his contract. The team benefited as aresult and had their most successful run in franchise history.

Iso turned Conley into a spectator because he is not that good of a point guard to begin with. If he actually created some plays instead of just dishing it inside to Gasol or Randolph, the team would have fared better.

Guppyfighter
08-14-2013, 12:26 AM
Whatever, Mr "Monta is the only reason why Warriors lost since 2007... no matter how many other reason there are".

No, I said we sucked because we sucked and Monta didn't help the cause as our winning percentage or differential didn't change with him, despite how bad we were. An improvement would have been easy to see.

Guppyfighter
08-14-2013, 12:26 AM
The Clippers were just as injured this year, if not more. Chris Paul was playing injured. The year before, they also had Kenyon Martin and Evans, who were the ones that shut down Randolph in game 6 and 7. If it wasn't for them, Grizzlies would have won.



Iso turned Conley into a spectator because he is not that good of a point guard to begin with. If he actually created some plays instead of just dishing it inside to Gasol or Randolph, the team would have fared better.

This post proves you don't watch basketball. Checkmate.

cmellofan15
08-14-2013, 12:29 AM
Chronz is a terrible thread maker.

he mad

lol, please
08-14-2013, 01:13 AM
Chronz is a terrible thread maker.
:laugh2:

Whatever, Mr "Monta is the only reason why Warriors lost since 2007... no matter how many other reason there are".


Okay, Mr. "I think Monta Ellis is a great productive player."

Brevity isn't my strong suit.
Dang it you guys, couldn't you just keep it in the Dubs forum.. :facepalm: chronz...what have you done!?

This post proves you don't watch basketball. Checkmate.
Guppy is owning people. :box:

Monta is beast
08-14-2013, 01:20 AM
Monta for Brook Lopez? That wasn't going to happen.

And Warriors got better just by dumping Monta. Bogut was just a bonus,

The Nets offered Lopez for Ellis. Warriors turned it down, Lacob & Myers were looking for a more defensive Center prolly. But can't complain cause when healthy Bogut makes more of an impact than Lopez can.

Luke_K77bear
08-14-2013, 01:47 AM
i Still cant believe everyone complaining about that trade at time. You cant Buy size. When you do, and its wrong....It Cripple's Franchise for years=Biendrins, Foyle, Dampier

Chronz
08-14-2013, 03:16 AM
Chronz is a terrible thread maker.

Your obsessed with me babe

Chronz
08-14-2013, 03:21 AM
The Clippers were just as injured this year, if not more.
Nah, just Blake. But yea thats a pretty big loss.


Chris Paul was playing injured.
Not to my knowledge and he was certainly not as injured as he was last year.



The year before, they also had Kenyon Martin and Evans, who were the ones that shut down Randolph in game 6 and 7. If it wasn't for them, Grizzlies would have won.
They shut his *** down all series no? Kenyon also had the pivotal stops against Gay to seal the games. But what is the argument here? The Grizz were still the more talented squad, I mean you're mentioning Reggie Evans of all people.

TheMightyHumph
08-14-2013, 02:56 PM
The Nets offered Lopez for Ellis. Warriors turned it down, Lacob & Myers were looking for a more defensive Center prolly. But can't complain cause when healthy Bogut makes more of an impact than Lopez can.

There is NO WAY Nets offered Lopez for Monta

lol, please
08-14-2013, 03:40 PM
There is NO WAY Nets offered Lopez for Monta

Dubs offered Monta for Lopez and got turned down, well the rumor was reportedly false, but then Lopez was offered for Monta to the Bucks, for what it's worth.

TheMightyHumph
08-14-2013, 04:11 PM
Dubs offered Monta for Lopez and got turned down, well the rumor was reportedly false, but then Lopez was offered for Monta to the Bucks, for what it's worth.

You have a link that states Lopez was offered to Bucks for Monta?

Because that NEVER happened, unless you mean Robin Lopez.

lol, please
08-14-2013, 04:14 PM
You have a link that states Lopez was offered to Bucks for Monta?

Because that NEVER happened, unless you mean Robin Lopez.

Might have been, I got it from this.

http://basketball.******.com/wiretap/219856/Nets-Offered-Lopez-To-Bucks-For-Ellis

TheMightyHumph
08-14-2013, 04:19 PM
Might have been, I got it from this.

http://basketball.******.com/wiretap/219856/Nets-Offered-Lopez-To-Bucks-For-Ellis

Couldn't connect to link

lol, please
08-14-2013, 04:23 PM
Couldn't connect to link

Me either, I think the name is banned from PSD or something, it shows up as ***** when I tried it too, let me PM it to you instead. Sent via PM.

TheMightyHumph
08-14-2013, 04:29 PM
Me either, I think the name is banned from PSD or something, it shows up as ***** when I tried it too, let me PM it to you instead. Sent via PM.

Same problem with link

lol, please
08-14-2013, 04:35 PM
Same problem with link

I don't know then, when I copy paste it into my address bar it works, but PSD won't allow the site to be spelled out.

arlubas
08-14-2013, 05:05 PM
Granted I ain't a Warriors fan, I'd have to say I liked it for both teams, if Bogut stayed healthy (and that was a big if at the time of the trade, let's not forget).

kenzo400
08-14-2013, 07:30 PM
This post proves you don't watch basketball. Checkmate.

I have probably watched basketball longer than you have been alive.

kenzo400
08-14-2013, 07:51 PM
Nah, just Blake. But yea thats a pretty big loss.

Chris Paul played with a knee injury. This is the same injury that caused him to miss season games. He was healthy enough to play, but not 100%, and yes "Blake just happened to be injured too"







They shut his *** down all series no? Kenyon also had the pivotal stops against Gay to seal the games. But what is the argument here? The Grizz were still the more talented squad, I mean you're mentioning Reggie Evans of all people.

Yeah, but game six and seven were the most important. They also played the best defense in those games. I realize that i'm mentioning Reggie Evans. It was just to illustrate that even a role player like that can have a huge impact.


Anyway, i'm not even sure what you are arguing. They were the better squad that year. But that does not discount my point.

smith&wesson
08-14-2013, 08:11 PM
whats going on with bogut. is he returning to the warriors ? i thought he did a great job in the playoffs for them

Colts_4_life
08-14-2013, 08:11 PM
Michael Ruffin is goat

asandhu23
08-14-2013, 08:24 PM
whats going on with bogut. is he returning to the warriors ? i thought he did a great job in the playoffs for them


yes.

TheMightyHumph
08-14-2013, 08:32 PM
I have probably watched basketball longer than you have been alive.

You've been watching basketball since the 40s?

smith&wesson
08-14-2013, 08:41 PM
yes.

thanks for clarifying. i dont know why i thought he was a free agent. he is still under contract for next season. 14.2 million expiring. gives GS some flexibility for next year.

kenzo400
08-14-2013, 08:48 PM
You've been watching basketball since the 40s?

Since the 20's

TheMightyHumph
08-14-2013, 09:21 PM
Since the 20's


And Willard Scott wishes you a Happy 100th Birthday

Chronz
08-14-2013, 09:28 PM
Nah, just Blake. But yea thats a pretty big loss.

Chris Paul played with a knee injury. This is the same injury that caused him to miss season games. He was healthy enough to play, but not 100%, and yes "Blake just happened to be injured too"







They shut his *** down all series no? Kenyon also had the pivotal stops against Gay to seal the games. But what is the argument here? The Grizz were still the more talented squad, I mean you're mentioning Reggie Evans of all people.

Yeah, but game six and seven were the most important. They also played the best defense in those games. I realize that i'm mentioning Reggie Evans. It was just to illustrate that even a role player like that can have a huge impact.


Anyway, i'm not even sure what you are arguing. They were the better squad that year. But that does not discount my point.
Cp3 was far more debilitated the year prior, we were also missing Chauncey and Butler played with a brown hand or something. Those were all key issues that I remember being reported, CP3 was so hobbled that opposing coaches commented on it. I dont recall any such story this year. Can you provide any links?


And you don't think the Grizz losing to an inferior team is a bad sign considering the rest of the evidence we have that shows how much the Grizz improved in his absence? I mean just what exactly would have to happen to realize how much he held them back? A championship?

kenzo400
08-14-2013, 10:09 PM
And Willard Scott wishes you a Happy 100th Birthday

That piece of **** still owes me 20 bucks.

kenzo400
08-14-2013, 10:17 PM
Cp3 was far more debilitated the year prior, we were also missing Chauncey and Butler played with a brown hand or something. Those were all key issues that I remember being reported, CP3 was so hobbled that opposing coaches commented on it. I dont recall any such story this year. Can you provide any links?

He played great all series and hobbled a little in game six. For all we know, he was exactly the same this year. Commentators say random **** without backing it up. I didn't hear a medical opinion on his injury but random assumptions.



And you don't think the Grizz losing to an inferior team is a bad sign considering the rest of the evidence we have that shows how much the Grizz improved in his absence? I mean just what exactly would have to happen to realize how much he held them back? A championship?

Some teams play better one year and get worse the next. The evidence we have is from regular season and slanted. It also doesn't help that the owners were trying to trade Gay 2 months before it actually happened, then the GM has dinner with Gasol and Conley but doesn't invite Zbo or Gay. There are lot of things to take into account, including the distractions I mentioned. It also does not help that Hollins cannot create a more complex offense.

TrueFan420
08-14-2013, 11:08 PM
thanks for clarifying. i dont know why i thought he was a free agent. he is still under contract for next season. 14.2 million expiring. gives GS some flexibility for next year.

He will be resigning with the warriors. Especially if he is healthy. The difference is the salary we resign him too. I'm guessing 7-10 mill a year cause of the injury history.

TheMightyHumph
08-14-2013, 11:13 PM
That piece of **** still owes me 20 bucks.

For a haircut you gave him?

Monta is beast
08-14-2013, 11:43 PM
There is NO WAY Nets offered Lopez for Monta

How you tryna tell me. This was when Brooklyn was tryna get Dwight still.

phoenix_bladen
08-14-2013, 11:52 PM
Looking back on it now, it definitely would appear the Warriors got the better end of it for sure. The only 2 players remaining from the trade on their respective teams (if im not mistaken) are Bogut on GS and Udoh on Milwaukee. Captain Jack, Kwame Brown and Monta now play on different teams.

Im taking Bogut over Udoh of course. At the time of the trade however I thought it was exactly what both teams needed; Milwaukee made a playoff push with Monta leading the way with some huge games down the stretch, and the Warriors were able to lose enough games without Monta in order to grab Harrison Barnes in the draft.


No udoh signed with the Knicks so that leaves the bucks with nothing...

Horrible

Interesting to know bogut was the 1st overall pick of the 2005 draft and monta was I believe 32nd

What a steal for the warriors, traded a second rounder for a first overall pick!

Bogut filled a need for the warriors and they already had curry so they didn't need the extra scoring

TheMightyHumph
08-15-2013, 01:26 AM
No udoh signed with the Knicks so that leaves the bucks with nothing...

Horrible

Interesting to know bogut was the 1st overall pick of the 2005 draft and monta was I believe 32nd

What a steal for the warriors, traded a second rounder for a first overall pick!

Bogut filled a need for the warriors and they already had curry so they didn't need the extra scoring

Warriors deal was great just for getting rid of Monta. He hasn't proven thus far that he has what it takes to be a winner.

Feel the same way about Jennings. Just hasn't shown he cares about winning.

Bucks' backcourt of Mayo, Ridnour, Delfino and Knight doesn't seem bad.

Bucks mistakes were getting rid of Dunleavy and Ayon.

But the season will tell who made the right moves and who made the wrong ones.

Maybe Bucks should take a look a Delonte.

TheMightyHumph
08-15-2013, 01:34 AM
How you tryna tell me. This was when Brooklyn was tryna get Dwight still.

I'm tryna tell ya Nets neva offid Brooks for Monta.

Guppyfighter
08-15-2013, 01:53 AM
I have probably watched basketball longer than you have been alive.

I am going to go ahead and say no on that one and continue positing you have never watched a full 48 minute game in your entire life.

lol, please
08-15-2013, 03:14 AM
I am going to go ahead and say no on that one and continue positing you have never watched a full 48 minute game in your entire life.

:laugh2: Get him Guppy!

Chromehounds
08-15-2013, 12:40 PM
I applauded the trade when it happened, a big for a small, albeit injury prone big. I still believe Jerry West was behind this push. Two small guards with No D was not a successful formula.

Monta is beast
08-15-2013, 12:47 PM
I'm tryna tell ya Nets neva offid Brooks for Monta.

Ur to funny. Nd I'm tellin u your wrong because after Ellis was traded to Milwaukee there were rumors that Brooklyn offered them Lopez.

asandhu23
08-15-2013, 12:52 PM
I am going to go ahead and say no on that one and continue positing you have never watched a full 48 minute game in your entire life.

Come on, Guppy. Are you spying on the man? how can you be sure of this one?

Chronz
08-15-2013, 12:58 PM
He played great all series and hobbled a little in game six.
You talking about the 2013 Series right? So basically he was only injured for the final game? Because he was injured alot longer than that in 2012.



For all we know, he was exactly the same this year.
Definitely not, it was a HUGE story for Clips fans last year, he was dealing with a variety of ailments. This year I couldn't even tell he was injured, he certainly wasn't around limping as badly as he was last year. Last year he was dealing with hand and leg issues IIRC.



Commentators say random **** without backing it up. I didn't hear a medical opinion on his injury but random assumptions.
LOL Popovich doesn't sound like the kind of guy you're portraying.



Some teams play better one year and get worse the next. The evidence we have is from regular season and slanted.
I dont see what you are getting at, in this case, the team in question had its most success whenever Gay wasn't around.

We have the evidence of what the team did without him 1 year (they had their most successful run), then they added him and he was unable to step up and an injury depleted team with less talent and without HCA was able to pull the upset, in large part thanks to his mental lapses.
Then we have the season where they traded him midyear when AGAIN they had their most successful run in franchise history. So again I ask, what would have to happen for you to realize his inadequacies ?



It also doesn't help that the owners were trying to trade Gay 2 months before it actually happened, then the GM has dinner with Gasol and Conley but doesn't invite Zbo or Gay.
That didn't seem to stop Z-Bo from dominating, that it exposed Gay as an emotional wreck doesn't do you any favors here. And you seem to be neglecting this crucial fact, Gay wasn't playing as if he was worthy of that commitment. Why would you commit to a player whos presence has actually stunted the growth of superior players and the team overall?



There are lot of things to take into account, including the distractions I mentioned. It also does not help that Hollins cannot create a more complex offense.It was only after it became glaringly obvious that Gay didn't make them better that these distractions came about. You can only avoid the inevitable for so long, particularly when the team is capped out.
Hollins was a dunce on offense, but that doesn't change the fact that he loved Gay and didn't want him gone, they had a tight knit group and if these distractions do nothing to change the past. They didn't want to trade Gay back when they extended him.

Chronz
08-15-2013, 01:08 PM
Oh and can you provide any links for your CP3 theory?


2012 Playoffs:

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7914475/2012-nba-playoffs-los-angeles-clippers-blake-griffin-chris-paul-hurt-versus-memphis-grizzlies
Los Angeles Clippers forward Blake Griffin sprained his left knee, while guard Chris Paul suffered a strained right hip flexor and jammed the middle finger on his right hand in the Clippers' 92-80 loss to the Memphis Grizzlies on Wednesday night.

"I was trying to go, but I couldn't," Paul said. "I wanted to, tried to."


Straight from the horses mouth bro.


Heres an article detailing the off-season Surgery CP3 had to correct the torn ligament.
http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/8/21/3258629/chris-paul-injury-thumb-los-angeles-clippers


All I can find about CP3 this year was that he has a bruised thumb and I havent heard anything about it needing surgery.




Given that CP3 was visibly limping in 2012 and that he was far less productive against the same team (that wasn't even as strong defensively as they were in 2013), I think its fair to say that we saw a FAR more debilitated CP3 in 2012. Just like we saw a far more debilitated Blake in 2013. But team wise, its clear the 2012 Clippers were less potent due to lesser health. This year we only had Blake limping.


The reason we still lost despite holding HCA, was because Gay was no longer around, his brain farts defensively (particularly in transition) were a godsend for us.

Chronz
08-15-2013, 01:12 PM
Heres what Popovich had to say

http://clippers.blog.ocregister.com/2012/05/19/spurs-popovich-thinks-chris-paul-doesnt-look-right/

Terms like “limited” and “banged up” were tossed around, but finally Spurs coach Gregg Popovich said the thing everyone who saw the Clippers lose, 96-86, on Saturday in Game 3 of the series already knew.

“I’m looking at him, and I know that kid. I know how he can play, and he’s not 100 percent.”
Straight from Pop himself.


From the same article:

Reports also have Paul dealing with a tight groin and sore knees.


I remember that vividly, he went from having the ball on a string like he always does, to struggling with creating plays at all. He was so easily contained that he had to be dealing with tons of injuries. He was FAR quicker and more aggressive this year.



Look man, Im trying to believe you, nothing would make me happier than understanding why we lost even more, but the truth is, CP3 was far healthier this post season.

kenzo400
08-15-2013, 10:35 PM
For a haircut you gave him?

No, I lent him money to buy weed.

kenzo400
08-15-2013, 10:36 PM
I am going to go ahead and say no on that one and continue positing you have never watched a full 48 minute game in your entire life.

Whether or not you believe it does not change the fact that it is true..

kenzo400
08-15-2013, 10:37 PM
:laugh2: Get him Guppy!

Are you guys like homosexuals together? It is totally cool if you are, i'm just wondering.

kenzo400
08-15-2013, 10:44 PM
You talking about the 2013 Series right? So basically he was only injured for the final game? Because he was injured alot longer than that in 2012.

The same can be said about last playoffs. He only came back towards the end of the season from his injury.




Definitely not, it was a HUGE story for Clips fans last year, he was dealing with a variety of ailments. This year I couldn't even tell he was injured, he certainly wasn't around limping as badly as he was last year. Last year he was dealing with hand and leg issues IIRC.

His injury this year was pretty serious. I think you just have selective memory. If his injury last year was as bad as you say, then he wouldn't have played perfectly fine against the Spurs.




LOL Popovich doesn't sound like the kind of guy you're portraying.

I remember hearing this stuff from other commentators.




I dont see what you are getting at, in this case, the team in question had its most success whenever Gay wasn't around.

What i'm getting at is crystal clear. You have already heard my explanation. I understand that you do not agree with it, but don't pretend that I didn't present my argument.




We have the evidence of what the team did without him 1 year (they had their most successful run), then they added him and he was unable to step up and an injury depleted team with less talent and without HCA was able to pull the upset, in large part thanks to his mental lapses.
Then we have the season where they traded him midyear when AGAIN they had their most successful run in franchise history. So again I ask, what would have to happen for you to realize his inadequacies ?



That didn't seem to stop Z-Bo from dominating, that it exposed Gay as an emotional wreck doesn't do you any favors here. And you seem to be neglecting this crucial fact, Gay wasn't playing as if he was worthy of that commitment. Why would you commit to a player whos presence has actually stunted the growth of superior players and the team overall?


It was only after it became glaringly obvious that Gay didn't make them better that these distractions came about. You can only avoid the inevitable for so long, particularly when the team is capped out.
Hollins was a dunce on offense, but that doesn't change the fact that he loved Gay and didn't want him gone, they had a tight knit group and if these distractions do nothing to change the past. They didn't want to trade Gay back when they extended him.

Hollins didn't want him gone for a good reason. He could see the value in Gay. It is just too bad that he wasn't able to utilize his game better.

kenzo400
08-15-2013, 10:45 PM
Heres what Popovich had to say

http://clippers.blog.ocregister.com/2012/05/19/spurs-popovich-thinks-chris-paul-doesnt-look-right/

Terms like “limited” and “banged up” were tossed around, but finally Spurs coach Gregg Popovich said the thing everyone who saw the Clippers lose, 96-86, on Saturday in Game 3 of the series already knew.

“I’m looking at him, and I know that kid. I know how he can play, and he’s not 100 percent.”
Straight from Pop himself.


From the same article:

Reports also have Paul dealing with a tight groin and sore knees.


I remember that vividly, he went from having the ball on a string like he always does, to struggling with creating plays at all. He was so easily contained that he had to be dealing with tons of injuries. He was FAR quicker and more aggressive this year.



Look man, Im trying to believe you, nothing would make me happier than understanding why we lost even more, but the truth is, CP3 was far healthier this post season.


Popovich offered his opinion and its not even a thorough explanation. He basically said "I saw it in his eyes!" lol Come on.. I'm not saying he is wrong but that is not a thorough explanation.

Chronz
08-16-2013, 01:47 AM
The same can be said about last playoffs. He only came back towards the end of the season from his injury.
What?



His injury this year was pretty serious. I think you just have selective memory. If his injury last year was as bad as you say, then he wouldn't have played perfectly fine against the Spurs.
LOL he didn't play perfectly fine against the Spurs. If his injury this year was as bad as you say, wouldn't he need corrective surgery as he did last year? What about the multitude of other sources I provided that detail the other injuries? Could you substantiate your opinion in such a manner or will you continue to waste our time?


I remember hearing this stuff from other commentators.
Point?



What i'm getting at is crystal clear. You have already heard my explanation. I understand that you do not agree with it, but don't pretend that I didn't present my argument.
Can you clarify it for my slow mind?


Hollins didn't want him gone for a good reason. He could see the value in Gay. It is just too bad that he wasn't able to utilize his game better.
What about the rest of that post?

Chronz
08-16-2013, 01:50 AM
Popovich offered his opinion and its not even a thorough explanation. He basically said "I saw it in his eyes!" lol Come on.. I'm not saying he is wrong but that is not a thorough explanation.
In his eyes? He never said any of that, what he DID say was the hes clearly not 100%, it was an opinion backed several onlookers and by medical reports. Or are you arguing he had surgery for fun? Why was he limping around in 2012 and perfectly fine in 2013?

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF FFS


Can you substantiate your opinion as I have by providing links? You do realize Im a Clippers fan right? Why would I believe some outsider without proof?

Goose17
08-16-2013, 05:40 AM
As a dubs fan I always thought it was a good move. Monta is vastly overrated. He refused to buy into defense. He was overpaid. And we needed a big man.

kenzo400
08-16-2013, 10:11 AM
What?



LOL he didn't play perfectly fine against the Spurs. If his injury this year was as bad as you say, wouldn't he need corrective surgery as he did last year? What about the multitude of other sources I provided that detail the other injuries? Could you substantiate your opinion in such a manner or will you continue to waste our time?

He had pretty good offensive games against the Spurs. He could not pass because the Spurs defense was so good against the whole Clippers teams. Also, according to your logic he has to have corrective surgery after every injury in order for it to be deemed serious? or to affect him?

What multitude of sources? I wasn't arguing the fact that he was injured the year before. I was just arguing the seriousness of the injury. Posting Popovichs quote about seeing Chris Paul pain "in his eyes" Is not really evidence lol

Chronz
08-16-2013, 11:41 AM
He had pretty good offensive games against the Spurs.

ur either trollin (hard) or ur in supreme denial.


He could not pass because the Spurs defense was so good against the whole Clippers teams.
Based on what, can you back this one up?
His stats vs Spurs
G1: 6PTS (3-13FG) - 10AST --- Awesome debut, wouldn't you say?
G2: 10PTS (4-9) - 5AST --- Well at least he reached double figures.
G3: 12PTS (5-17) - 11AST --- LMFAO so when is he gonna have this "good game"?
G4: 23PTS (9-18) - 11AST ---- FINALLY a good game, lemme guess, u saw this one game and thought thats how the rest of the games went. LMFAO .

So lets recap, the first 3 games against the Spurs he averaged under double digits in PTS on 30% shooting. He finished the series averaging 12.8PPG, which is 7PPG LOWER than his regular season average, but he did average 9.3 ASSISTS which is .2 HIGHER than his RS average. On top of that, his Offensive efficiency dropped from a robust 126 (ortg) to a pitiful 87. Yet you expect me to believe that CP3 was great individually? And that his passing game suffered the most? LMFAO

R U HIGH???

CP3 sucked every which way that series, his shooting, ball handling and lateral movement all declined, he OVER PASSED because he couldn't create **** for himself. You have proven to me that you're willing to lie about anything for Gay's sake.



Also, according to your logic he has to have corrective surgery after every injury in order for it to be deemed serious? or to affect him?

Not at all, but when comparing the SEVERITY of the injury, that hes noticeable limping from a wide range of spectators (including the opposing teams coach and news outlets) the shear multitude of injuries he was dealing with (hand, knee, hip) and the fact that he needed surgery at all is more than enough in the face of ZERO evidence on your end.


What multitude of sources?
The ones you have failed to provide to support your own opinion.


I wasn't arguing the fact that he was injured the year before. I was just arguing the seriousness of the injury.
Yes, I know the argument. What Im asking for is similar proof in your defense. Why isn't anyone saying CP3 looked bad this post season. Why have all your claims been false?


Posting Popovichs quote about seeing Chris Paul pain "in his eyes" Is not really evidence lol
ur either trolling (hard), or ur in serious denial. You made up that quote like you've made up everything else. Posting a quote of a third party observer. I mean just ask yourself, would you trust what Pop thinks a healthy CP3 looks like over me?

Put it this way, if I were arguing that CP3 was completely healthy and you cited this Pop quote, would you really think I could simply discredit it by misquoting and dismissing his insight entirely? It wasn't JUST Pop, it was EVERYONE. How come nobody but you noticed CP3 was seriously hurting the last playoffs? Where are UR SOURCES?

STOP WASTING TIME AND SHOW ME SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, OF ANY KIND.

kenzo400
08-16-2013, 11:49 AM
ur either trollin (hard) or ur in supreme denial.


Based on what, can you back this one up?
His stats vs Spurs
G1: 6PTS (3-13FG) - 10AST --- Awesome debut, wouldn't you say?
G2: 10PTS (4-9) - 5AST --- Well at least he reached double figures.
G3: 12PTS (5-17) - 11AST --- LMFAO so when is he gonna have this "good game"?
G4: 23PTS (9-18) - 11AST ---- FINALLY a good game, lemme guess, u saw this one game and thought thats how the rest of the games went. LMFAO .

I did not say that his passing game suffered the most. I said that he wasn't able to get his team mates involved because the Spurs did such a good job guarding them. Chris Paul can get 10+ assists every night. If he can't get it by passing to players in the post, he will get it by making the right passes to outside shooters.


So lets recap, the first 3 games against the Spurs he averaged under double digits in PTS on 30% shooting. He finished the series averaging 12.8PPG, which is 7PPG LOWER than his regular season average, but he did average 9.3 ASSISTS which is .2 HIGHER than his RS average. On top of that, his Offensive efficiency dropped from a robust 126 (ortg) to a pitiful 87. Yet you expect me to believe that CP3 was great individually? And that his passing game suffered the most? LMFAO

Ever though about giving some credit to the Spurs team? Just a suggestion.




CP3 sucked every which way that series, his shooting, ball handling and lateral movement all declined, he OVER PASSED because he couldn't create **** for himself. You have proven to me that you're willing to lie about anything for Gay's sake.



Not at all, but when comparing the SEVERITY of the injury, that hes noticeable limping from a wide range of spectators (including the opposing teams coach and news outlets) the shear multitude of injuries he was dealing with (hand, knee, hip) and the fact that he needed surgery at all is more than enough in the face of ZERO evidence on your end.


The ones you have failed to provide to support your own opinion.


Yes, I know the argument. What Im asking for is similar proof in your defense. Why isn't anyone saying CP3 looked bad this post season. Why have all your claims been false?


ur either trolling (hard), or ur in serious denial. You made up that quote like you've made up everything else. Posting a quote of a third party observer. I mean just ask yourself, would you trust what Pop thinks a healthy CP3 looks like over me?

Put it this way, if I were arguing that CP3 was completely healthy and you cited this Pop quote, would you really think I could simply discredit it by misquoting and dismissing his insight entirely? It wasn't JUST Pop, it was EVERYONE. How come nobody but you noticed CP3 was seriously hurting the last playoffs? Where are UR SOURCES?

STOP WASTING TIME AND SHOW ME SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, OF ANY KIND.

Perhaps the Spurs defense had something to do with that. Just food for thought. Also, its not about trusting Pop. He made a vague comment about CP3 not looking like himself. How the hell is that evidence for his injuries?

Also, Chris Paul playing well for a few games and then struggling for a couple does not mean he "must be severely injured" Sometimes good players have bad games and sometimes, just "sometimes" the opposing team has something to do with that.


Also, lets not forget that Blake (like you said before) was injured this year. He dominated the Grizzlies the season before. So to recap, your opinion is that, Grizzlies best player (Randolph) being 30% of his normal self in 2012 had nothing to do with their loss. Also, Blake missing most of the series this year had nothing to do with the Grizzlies win.


I'm sure Westbrook being injured had nothing to do with the Grizzlies win against OKC too.

3baller9
08-16-2013, 12:20 PM
Curry wouldn't breakout with Monta, neither would Thompson and we wouldn't have Barnes. So yeah I make that trade 10/10No, maybe you would have Drummond who went 2 picks after Barnes.

Guppyfighter
08-16-2013, 02:35 PM
No, maybe you would have Drummond who went 2 picks after Barnes.

I'd prefer Drummond I think, even if we are a little worse because of it. Drummond's upside is amazing.