1-Year Later: Who Won The Trade?

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

Who won the trade last February?

Both teams won
1
6%
Golden State Warriors
8
50%
Milwaukee Bucks
4
25%
Both teams lost
3
19%
 
Total votes : 16

User avatar
Starting Lineup
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:29 am
Poster Credit: 14
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:50 pm
so if we're to say a "win" trade is the best option available at the time...

Ellis for Sjax, flip for RJ, sign Kaman (which is no guarantee), keep Udoh, get Barnes, get Ezeli, FA's

vs

Ellis for Bogut, no Kaman, no Udoh, sign Barnes, etc


meh, I'll still take the Bogut trade. FO was going big on this one, they didn't want some Chris Anderson FA type, they wanted a difference maker. I like that mentality.... it's what previous FO's would've never done. Previous FO always took the safe route (or just made flat out head-scratching moves), and the end result was mediocrity. I don't think the fans or the players on the team, would've ever been on board with a Ellis for Sjax move where the big plan was to bring in the Great Chris Kaman. With Bogut, yes it's a gamble -- we all knew that, but it's a gamble worth taking, and it's a trade where the jury is still out on it. But I'll say the move itself was the best option. The gamble was the best option available -- even if Bogut never plays. I wouldn't compare it to Jrich & B Wright trade because that dude was 100% potential, while Bogut is already a proven player.
User avatar
Starting Lineup
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:29 am
Poster Credit: 14
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:57 pm
http://www.mercurynews.com/warriors/ci_ ... at-toronto


Bogut might play tonight vs Raps

\:D/
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13528
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:29 pm
PLEASE, GOD!!!!

PLEASE LET IT BE TRUE!
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13528
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:30 pm
With Bogut in tow, the trade becomes a win. But that statement is entirely contingent upon his not getting hurt for another long extended period of time. If this honeymoon lasts for 13 games, then Bogut gets shut down again, he's not really an asset, no matter how great he is on the floor.

Therefore, I'm gonna say Bogut needs to finish out this year healthy and play at least 60 games next year for the Warriors to have won the trade.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:12 pm
lol Kenny said Davis plays like Randolph. I am convinced he doesn't watch games.
User avatar
Starting Lineup
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:29 am
Poster Credit: 14
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:12 pm
If he retires tomorrow, they still won the trade. It was the best available option at the time, bar none.

Is it even a debate

Monta for S Jackson

or

Monta for Bogut?

You keep saying it's a loss, but your version of a winning trade looks like something the old FO would've done.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13528
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:49 pm
rockyBeli wrote:If he retires tomorrow, they still won the trade. It was the best available option at the time, bar none.

Is it even a debate

Monta for S Jackson

or

Monta for Bogut?

You keep saying it's a loss, but your version of a winning trade looks like something the old FO would've done.

My argument is dependent on the idea that Bogut isn't healthy enough to contribute to this team on a regular basis and I have repeated that condition ample times for you to understand that I'm obviously not comparing the talent of Bogut to anyone else (least of all, Jackson or Ellis). I'm merely remarking on the financial obligations of paying Andrew Bogut $13 million a year, with $12 million a year for RJ, compared to the combined $14 million you paid Udoh and Ellis. My argument was that if Bogut couldn't return to full health, why did we trade for him? To increase our salary? To hamstring the books so we couldn't be in play for anyone else until 2015? If Bogut doesn't play, this deal is awful, for financial reasons alone.

Every step of the way, I have acknowledged that a healthy Bogut makes this trade a win. So I'm curious. Are you disagreeing with my premise? Are you claiming that its better to be paying Bogut to be injured than it is to keep the prospect Udoh and the Kwame Brown expirer? Cause that's the only difference between my proposed trade and reality. And, again, the fact that Bogut has seemingly recovered makes this a completely moot argument. If Andrew finishes the season without a setback, it's an automatic W.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:42 pm
32 wrote:
rockyBeli wrote:If he retires tomorrow, they still won the trade. It was the best available option at the time, bar none.

Is it even a debate

Monta for S Jackson

or

Monta for Bogut?

You keep saying it's a loss, but your version of a winning trade looks like something the old FO would've done.

My argument is dependent on the idea that Bogut isn't healthy enough to contribute to this team on a regular basis and I have repeated that condition ample times for you to understand that I'm obviously not comparing the talent of Bogut to anyone else (least of all, Jackson or Ellis). I'm merely remarking on the financial obligations of paying Andrew Bogut $13 million a year, with $12 million a year for RJ, compared to the combined $14 million you paid Udoh and Ellis. My argument was that if Bogut couldn't return to full health, why did we trade for him? To increase our salary? To hamstring the books so we couldn't be in play for anyone else until 2015? If Bogut doesn't play, this deal is awful, for financial reasons alone.

Every step of the way, I have acknowledged that a healthy Bogut makes this trade a win. So I'm curious. Are you disagreeing with my premise? Are you claiming that its better to be paying Bogut to be injured than it is to keep the prospect Udoh and the Kwame Brown expirer? Cause that's the only difference between my proposed trade and reality. And, again, the fact that Bogut has seemingly recovered makes this a completely moot argument. If Andrew finishes the season without a setback, it's an automatic W.


I think he is saying to not make the trade because you are worried over his health risks is something the front office would do, especially since at the start of this year it is only a two year contract and wouldn't hinder the future at all. The gamble is/was well worth it and not taking it would have been silly.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13528
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:18 pm
Blackfoot wrote:
32 wrote:
rockyBeli wrote:If he retires tomorrow, they still won the trade. It was the best available option at the time, bar none.

Is it even a debate

Monta for S Jackson

or

Monta for Bogut?

You keep saying it's a loss, but your version of a winning trade looks like something the old FO would've done.

My argument is dependent on the idea that Bogut isn't healthy enough to contribute to this team on a regular basis and I have repeated that condition ample times for you to understand that I'm obviously not comparing the talent of Bogut to anyone else (least of all, Jackson or Ellis). I'm merely remarking on the financial obligations of paying Andrew Bogut $13 million a year, with $12 million a year for RJ, compared to the combined $14 million you paid Udoh and Ellis. My argument was that if Bogut couldn't return to full health, why did we trade for him? To increase our salary? To hamstring the books so we couldn't be in play for anyone else until 2015? If Bogut doesn't play, this deal is awful, for financial reasons alone.

Every step of the way, I have acknowledged that a healthy Bogut makes this trade a win. So I'm curious. Are you disagreeing with my premise? Are you claiming that its better to be paying Bogut to be injured than it is to keep the prospect Udoh and the Kwame Brown expirer? Cause that's the only difference between my proposed trade and reality. And, again, the fact that Bogut has seemingly recovered makes this a completely moot argument. If Andrew finishes the season without a setback, it's an automatic W.


I think he is saying to not make the trade because you are worried over his health risks is something the front office would do, especially since at the start of this year it is only a two year contract and wouldn't hinder the future at all. The gamble is/was well worth it and not taking it would have been silly.

Of course; as with the Richardson-Wright trade, you always trade a little scorer for a potentially great big man. But that doesn't change the fact that this trade is potentially a poor decision if Bogut plays 50 or less games in a 2 and a half year span. If, for nothing else, because we turned an $11 million contract into $25 million between two guys. I understand Ellis had worn out his welcome and the idea of keeping him is blinding people to the fiscal implications of what we sacrificed to get Bogut, but rest assured this deal looks a whole lot worse if Bogut goes down again. That's the only point; the guy is some sort of injury prone and he brings so much to the table that he's easily worth his money when he plays, but if he doesn't that's your biggest contract sucking up cap room and giving you nothing and by the way you had to take on Jefferson's Frankenstein deal to get this done. That's all I'm saying. To act like this is still a good deal if Bogut is injured chronically is stubborn and wrong, IMO.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Starting Lineup
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:29 am
Poster Credit: 14
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:23 pm
If Bogut plays, it's a great deal. If Bogut doesn't play, it's still a good deal. In fantasy basketball world, this trade ain't so great. But the FO had to deal with the options they had at the time. The gamble > the alternatives. So does it even matter in retrospect what we think, when 100x out of 100, this is the best deal they could've made? Taken out of context, you can make a case for it, but you gotta deal with the reality of the situation at the time right?

JRich for B Wright is entirely different. One trade is gambling on a top 5 center's health, while the other trade gets rid of a key piece for a raw, unproven, D league prospect for all we knew. One risk pays off big, while the other risk is weaker when 1) it wasn't the best trade on the market 2) B Wright hadn't proven anything and we had no reason to believe he was able to contribute. Why trade for a raw prospect when you're in win-now mode, it makes no sense. In that scenario, there are better options on the table. In the Ellis for Bogut trade, that was the best option available.
User avatar
Starting Lineup
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:29 am
Poster Credit: 14
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:28 pm
32 wrote:My argument is dependent on the idea that Bogut isn't healthy enough to contribute to this team on a regular basis and I have repeated that condition ample times for you to understand that I'm obviously not comparing the talent of Bogut to anyone else (least of all, Jackson or Ellis). I'm merely remarking on the financial obligations of paying Andrew Bogut $13 million a year, with $12 million a year for RJ, compared to the combined $14 million you paid Udoh and Ellis. My argument was that if Bogut couldn't return to full health, why did we trade for him? To increase our salary? To hamstring the books so we couldn't be in play for anyone else until 2015? If Bogut doesn't play, this deal is awful, for financial reasons alone.

Every step of the way, I have acknowledged that a healthy Bogut makes this trade a win. So I'm curious. Are you disagreeing with my premise? Are you claiming that its better to be paying Bogut to be injured than it is to keep the prospect Udoh and the Kwame Brown expirer? Cause that's the only difference between my proposed trade and reality. And, again, the fact that Bogut has seemingly recovered makes this a completely moot argument. If Andrew finishes the season without a setback, it's an automatic W.


Ok so win trade is a) S Jax or b) keep Monta, Udoh, and Kwame expiring. I'll take c) trade Monta and gamble on Bogut. option A is a fail cuz that ain't no plan and the fans and GS players would've hated that deal. Option B is a fail cuz Monta had to go, getting rid of him = win when you think of addition by subtraction and it giving Curry and Klay the room to develop. I'm open to better options, I'm just not seeing a better trade that would or could be better than the Bogut trade, whether healthy or not. To me, the BIGGER gamble would be keeping Monta and that endless mediocrity cycle with no real plan.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21378
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:17 am
rockyBeli wrote:If Bogut plays, it's a great deal. If Bogut doesn't play, it's still a good deal. In fantasy basketball world, this trade ain't so great. But the FO had to deal with the options they had at the time. The gamble > the alternatives. So does it even matter in retrospect what we think, when 100x out of 100, this is the best deal they could've made? Taken out of context, you can make a case for it, but you gotta deal with the reality of the situation at the time right?

JRich for B Wright is entirely different. One trade is gambling on a top 5 center's health, while the other trade gets rid of a key piece for a raw, unproven, D league prospect for all we knew. One risk pays off big, while the other risk is weaker when 1) it wasn't the best trade on the market 2) B Wright hadn't proven anything and we had no reason to believe he was able to contribute. Why trade for a raw prospect when you're in win-now mode, it makes no sense. In that scenario, there are better options on the table. In the Ellis for Bogut trade, that was the best option available.



Totally agree with you rocky. Couldn't have put it better and the team is in the playoffs, pushing for home court advantage.
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13528
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:49 pm
Look. Nobody is saying that a healthy Bogut doesn't make this trade a win: it most certainly does. But you guys saying this trade is great no matter what aren't hitting me. The fact is, we took ourselves out of free agency for at least 3 years making this trade. Jefferson and Bogut have insane deals compared to what Ellis, Udoh, and Brown were owed. Not only that, but Ellis is a better player than you guys are giving him credit for and pretending that having a 20-point scorer for 80 games a year isn't a good thing is just straight wrong. Why would Hammond deal Bogut for Ellis if Ellis is inherently cancerous? You don't think Hammond knew how good Bogut is when healthy? You don't think he's studied film of Monta Ellis? You don't think he knew the damage Bogut had done to his ankle?

When it's all said and done, a healthy Bogut outranks an efficient, 2007 Monta Ellis. That's no doubt. But the likelihood of Bogut suddenly being able to play 70 games is about as fruitful as pretending Ellis might wake back up and average 55% shooting. Even if he played in every remaining game this season, Bogut will only have given us 50 games this year. Does anyone wanna bet me that he'll make it to 70 next year? Ah hell, I'll even give you 65! Unfortunately, taking on Bogut involves some real risk and pretending that 30 games of Bogut will be more helpful than 82 games of Ellis is wrong.

That's all I'm saying. A player who only plays 25% of the season can't be counted on. So long as Bogut gives this team a minimum of 75% of the games on the schedule, no one is mad at this deal. That small, reasonable stipulation means 61.5 games per year. If Bogut gives this team ANYTHING above 60 games, the trade is a win. This season, he won't. All is forgiven if he does it next year, but if not we need to be realistic about what we received for a workhorse like Monta Ellis. I know we have some jaded members with seriously biased venom for Ellis, but let's be real and give the guy his due credit. For everyone pointing out Klay Thompson's advantage in TS%, I'd simply say that Ellis outranks him in PER, wins added, and assist ratio, while playing more minutes. Ellis is an asset. Let's quit this falsehood where we pretend we got Bogut for nobody. Ellis is a good player.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:21 pm
32 wrote:Look. Nobody is saying that a healthy Bogut doesn't make this trade a win: it most certainly does. But you guys saying this trade is great no matter what aren't hitting me. The fact is, we took ourselves out of free agency for at least 3 years making this trade. Jefferson and Bogut have insane deals compared to what Ellis, Udoh, and Brown were owed. Not only that, but Ellis is a better player than you guys are giving him credit for and pretending that having a 20-point scorer for 80 games a year isn't a good thing is just straight wrong. Why would Hammond deal Bogut for Ellis if Ellis is inherently cancerous? You don't think Hammond knew how good Bogut is when healthy? You don't think he's studied film of Monta Ellis? You don't think he knew the damage Bogut had done to his ankle?

When it's all said and done, a healthy Bogut outranks an efficient, 2007 Monta Ellis. That's no doubt. But the likelihood of Bogut suddenly being able to play 70 games is about as fruitful as pretending Ellis might wake back up and average 55% shooting. Even if he played in every remaining game this season, Bogut will only have given us 50 games this year. Does anyone wanna bet me that he'll make it to 70 next year? Ah hell, I'll even give you 65! Unfortunately, taking on Bogut involves some real risk and pretending that 30 games of Bogut will be more helpful than 82 games of Ellis is wrong.

That's all I'm saying. A player who only plays 25% of the season can't be counted on. So long as Bogut gives this team a minimum of 75% of the games on the schedule, no one is mad at this deal. That small, reasonable stipulation means 61.5 games per year. If Bogut gives this team ANYTHING above 60 games, the trade is a win. This season, he won't. All is forgiven if he does it next year, but if not we need to be realistic about what we received for a workhorse like Monta Ellis. I know we have some jaded members with seriously biased venom for Ellis, but let's be real and give the guy his due credit. For everyone pointing out Klay Thompson's advantage in TS%, I'd simply say that Ellis outranks him in PER, wins added, and assist ratio, while playing more minutes. Ellis is an asset. Let's quit this falsehood where we pretend we got Bogut for nobody. Ellis is a good player.


The trade means the front office has a plan. If it doesn't work, that's okay because we are still set up with young talent that's not restricted by these deals. We weren't in a situation where they young talent we had would be lost with bad contracts.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13528
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:08 am
I agree, the team had to make the deal. But that doesn't make it a good trade regardless of whatever consequences result from it. Thompson, Barnes, and Ezeli are good prospects, but they're not taking you to the playoffs without the key free agents this team acquired. Let's not forget; our only all-star in 20 years (David Lee) was a sign-and-trade player we got via free agency.

Without this deal, you could have possibly signed-and-traded for Asik. And he's given the Rockets more than Bogut's given the Warriors this year. Ditto for Kaman, Robin Lopez, Jason Thompson. There were a lot of options that could have addressed the center spot without cashing out Bogut type money and would be playing a whole lot more than 45 games this year.

Is Bogut a top 5 center when healthy? Yeah. Is he healthy for only 30-60% of any given season? So far, yeah, that's the diagnosis. So honestly, a debate could be had for the value a guy like Asik adds versus a talented-but-injury-prone star like Bogut.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
PreviousNext

Return to Warriors Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron