I say we should try to win every game until we are forced to go home. A pick that gets you a Lillard is something you can trade for. There's no substitute for playing to win, the f you want a winning culture.
The Nets were foolish - and the Blazers were smart to sacrifice the short-term for the long-term. Actually, I'm not sure what you are arguing here. You've said yourself that capspace has never been worth less. Winning a few extra games isn't going to change that or make FA any more of a realistic option.
Explain to me how the Blazers are going to trade for a lotto pick without giving up worthwhile players and winning fewer games in the short-term? A team that is "trying to win every game" will neither make trades like the one that landed Dame, nor develop the young players they already have. "Win now" is the antithesis of what the team should be doing!
There are too many scenarios to list. One will suffice. Blazers use their cap space and trade a player to a team way over the tax level. For a lotto pick. The Nets did trade a top 10 pick for Gerald Wallace. Irrefutable evidence. Wallace was a worthwhile player? Or just overrated!
We're only 3 games out of the 4 seed. We've played a road heavy schedule with games against all West playoff teams from last year except Dallas and we play them tomorrow. We've played Lakers twice yes, but have yet to play the crappy Kings, Sixers, Nets, or Bucks. We also had to play the home openers of two of the most improved teams in the West this year.
Sacrifice the short term? We had just lost by 40+ points! The team sucked. I had already declared Season Over. There was nothing to sacrifice.
Not true at all. We started that season 7-2 and some people had us going to the NBA Finals. If great play had continued, I don't think we would've traded Crash. But we completely imploded and started trailing by 40 in like three straight games and the team was done. We got crushed at MSG and then Nate got fired, Camby and Crash got traded, and a new era began.
Yep. Take Warriors. Two seasons ago, they were 6th seed and lost in first round. One season later, with no significant roster move or draft pick, they win the championship. It's called growing from within.
well to "grow from within" like that you need the right "talent" to grow to a championship caliber team - this team is FAR away from that
Can you back this up with some numbers or stats? Who on GS was considered a star other than Curry two years ago? How can you say we are far from having talent when most of the roster has not had a full NBA season to even see what they can do? The bulk of our players have star potential upside history. Meaning, They were all at one time highly regarded and/or high lotto picks. Please bring something to reference rather than just saying we aren't talented. You can have all the talent in the world and lose until you learn to play together. Until you learn each other.
so basically you have no grounds to stand on. Thanks for clarifying. For the record, no I don't think we have enough talent yet, but to say that we are far away I think is a stretch... but I provided reasons to my thinking...unlike you.... Step up to the plate or head back to the dugout.
Thompson had a damn good year 2 years ago. 41% from 3 and 46% from 2, with a 53% eFG in 81 games. Also shot 80% from the line. I consider that to be a damn good "2nd fiddle" to Curry that year. And next year his numbers all went up. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompkl01.html
And CJ is playing better than Thompson two years ago.. http://www.basketball-reference.com...ccolcj01&y2=2014&p2=thompkl01&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=
A few things changed that boosted GS to a championship.....Curry and Bogut stayed pretty much out of injury trouble..they signed Iggy and talked him into becoming a 6th man and they hired Steve Kerr...letting Monte Ellis go gets honorable mention as well...Iggy was a difference maker.
