irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Lakers trade for....
Reggie Bullock.
Reggie Bullock.
Lakers News
- Thread starter eyephone
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Warriors did it the right way?? That's definitely recency bias. Look at their team history. They tanked for years and years (even over a decade at one point)
They have been putting on an inferior product and cheating their fans for years until their recent success.
This is the biggest problem with the NBA. We have 5-7 teams tanking every year leading to super teams and noncompetitive games.
I am a Lakers fan and hate the Spurs. But they did it the right way. Mavs to a lesser extend did it the right way too, always trying instead of tanking.
They didn't tank. They were terrible and ran poorly. I have been a Warriors fan since the mid 1980s so I know all about it.
Warriors drafted Steph, Klay, Draymond...signed good FAs in Iggy and Livingston...found good pieces and made good trades.
We are talking about this championship run. NE was terrible was a long time before Belichek.
Inferior product? By what measurement? Go look at the NBA in the 1980s...you had 5-6 great teams..the rest were bad. Same for the 1990s.
Since 1990, there has only been 10 teams that have won the NBA championship.
Spurs were great but let's not play revisionist history...they literally tanked to get Tim Duncan the year that Robinson got hurt.
Mavs? They got one championship and was dumb enough to let Nash walk.
Cohen was a bad owner for a number of reasons and the front office was terrible for many years.
I am not differentiating ownership or whatever...just that the Warriors as constructed was done exactly how one should build a successful team. They drafted well, made good choices in FA and trades, and develop a culture where people want to join and play. They fired Marc Jackson despite the team being somewhat successful because they recognized Jackson's limitations and took a chance hiring Kerr, who never coached previously.
I do not understand your point...who cares who was in charge when Steph was drafted? Warriors drafted him no. 7, Klay was no. 11, Green was no. 35...none of them were super high draft picks. Warriors also traded away Monte Ellis (to get Bogut) and stay committed to Steph despite his ankle injuries.
Did they get lucky on some things? Sure...every championship team does but they made a lot of that luck. For example, the FO planned years ahead that KD was going to be a FA and that the salary cap was going to make a big jump that year. While they could not have foreseen that KD would go to the Warriors that year, they made it possible to do so. Meanwhile, teams were handing out terrible contracts like tic tacs.
Fast forward two years later, teams did not have any cap room to give Cousins a big deal so Cousin decided to maximize his value by going to the Warriors. BTW, Lakers could have had Cousins but they elected to sign Rondo, KCP, Lance Stephenson, and Javale McGee while letting Randle walk.
So yes I have been a Warrior fan for a long time and have a bias toward them but I would recognize the greatness even if it were not the Warriors.
What are you talking about? Steph was pick 7th...how is that tanking? Klay was picked 11th? How is that tanking? You are also incorrect re bad contract...they traded away a lot of the bad contracts. Murphy, Dunleavy, and Monte Ellis were all traded away. Biedrins' contract were still on the books as was David Lee.
You keep mentioning the Spurs but their dynasty started and was maintained with two no. 1 picks: David Robinson and Tim Duncan. Spurs were very bad in the mid-1980s when before they got David Robinson with the no. 1 pick...then they picked Sean Elliot with the no. 3 pick two years later. they got a number of decent players to complement them but never made it past the WCF. Then Robinson got hurt in 1996 and the team openly tanked to get the no. 1 pick to get Tim Duncan. Without those two no. 1 picks, the Spurs dynasty never happens.
Again, I don't understand your point. Warriors were bad and then drafted well and develop their young players while complementing them with good signings and pickups. They managed their money smartly and created a culture that other players wanted to play on. How is that not the way you want to build a team?
Recency bias? How recent is recency bias? You think the Warriors being bad for like 25 years was this longterm plan to get a no. 7 and then a no. 11 so they can pick two of the greatest shooters in NBA history and then used a no. 35 pick to get the prototype hybrid player in Draymond?
Lakers had 3 no. 2 picks for three straight years...shouldn't they be great?
Give credit where it is due...come on seriously. Jealous is not a good look.
What does that happen to do with anything? Best franchise in NBA history would be the Celtics. 17 championships, 59% winning pct, countless great players.
Why are we doing an organization history comparison? I only brought up Spurs' history because you seem to negate what the Warriors have done in the last few years because "they tanked" when the Spurs openly tanked to get Tim Duncan.
And hat does that have to with the Warriors' recent run or whether that is a formula that another team should emulate?
Warriors sucked for a long time...that's because they were badly ran and unlucky. So no..teams should not lose for 25 years before getting good but that has nothing do with the current Warriors run.
We are not talking about "best franchise in NBA history". You are arguing about results and longevity whereas the "did it the right way" discussion is about process.
Again, NE was pretty bad until Belichek go there. Then they won a lot and arguably best franchise in history...even if they are not, what they have done under Belichek/Brady is arguably the best dynasties out there. The fact as to whether the Patriots won or lose after this dynasty is irrelevant.
Warriors were bad for a long time then they got better and improved and are now have one of the best dynasties in NBA history. It doesn't "negate" the terribleness of the prior years but it should not be diminished either.
Assuming they win again this year and check the 3 peat box, the warriors are probably pushing Bird's Celtics in best dynasties. But I would still put MJ's Chicago Bulls, Showtime Lakers, Spurs, and Shaq&Kobe Lakers above this GS dynasty.
None of them has the stain of being the best record setting 73 regular season team and ended up chocking in the playoffs >
Yeah...no one cares about that.
Go ahead and hold on to that...while the Warriors win 4 out of the last 5 championships. Meanwhile, Lakers will be in shambles for the next few years with a diminishing and disinterested Lebron.
Jerry West just trolling Magic now.
Irvinecommuter said:
Warriors did it the right way?? That's definitely recency bias. Look at their team history. They tanked for years and years (even over a decade at one point)
They have been putting on an inferior product and cheating their fans for years until their recent success.
This is the biggest problem with the NBA. We have 5-7 teams tanking every year leading to super teams and noncompetitive games.
I am a Lakers fan and hate the Spurs. But they did it the right way. Mavs to a lesser extend did it the right way too, always trying instead of tanking.
Irvinecommuter
New member
Kenkoko said:
They didn't tank. They were terrible and ran poorly. I have been a Warriors fan since the mid 1980s so I know all about it.
Warriors drafted Steph, Klay, Draymond...signed good FAs in Iggy and Livingston...found good pieces and made good trades.
We are talking about this championship run. NE was terrible was a long time before Belichek.
Inferior product? By what measurement? Go look at the NBA in the 1980s...you had 5-6 great teams..the rest were bad. Same for the 1990s.
Since 1990, there has only been 10 teams that have won the NBA championship.
Spurs were great but let's not play revisionist history...they literally tanked to get Tim Duncan the year that Robinson got hurt.
Mavs? They got one championship and was dumb enough to let Nash walk.
Judging from your comments, you must have not followed the warriors very closely then. Chris Cohan, the warriors owner until 2010, openly talked about tanking after he sold the team.
When NBA fans talk hoops, very rarely do they separate eras by ownership.
If you want to narrow down to the current ownership (took over after 2010), you should not credit them for drafting Steph. That was 2009 done by previous bad ownership. Steph is still the most important player on the team not Klay, not Draymond, not KD.
When NBA fans talk hoops, very rarely do they separate eras by ownership.
If you want to narrow down to the current ownership (took over after 2010), you should not credit them for drafting Steph. That was 2009 done by previous bad ownership. Steph is still the most important player on the team not Klay, not Draymond, not KD.
Irvinecommuter
New member
Kenkoko said:
Cohen was a bad owner for a number of reasons and the front office was terrible for many years.
I am not differentiating ownership or whatever...just that the Warriors as constructed was done exactly how one should build a successful team. They drafted well, made good choices in FA and trades, and develop a culture where people want to join and play. They fired Marc Jackson despite the team being somewhat successful because they recognized Jackson's limitations and took a chance hiring Kerr, who never coached previously.
I do not understand your point...who cares who was in charge when Steph was drafted? Warriors drafted him no. 7, Klay was no. 11, Green was no. 35...none of them were super high draft picks. Warriors also traded away Monte Ellis (to get Bogut) and stay committed to Steph despite his ankle injuries.
Did they get lucky on some things? Sure...every championship team does but they made a lot of that luck. For example, the FO planned years ahead that KD was going to be a FA and that the salary cap was going to make a big jump that year. While they could not have foreseen that KD would go to the Warriors that year, they made it possible to do so. Meanwhile, teams were handing out terrible contracts like tic tacs.
Fast forward two years later, teams did not have any cap room to give Cousins a big deal so Cousin decided to maximize his value by going to the Warriors. BTW, Lakers could have had Cousins but they elected to sign Rondo, KCP, Lance Stephenson, and Javale McGee while letting Randle walk.
So yes I have been a Warrior fan for a long time and have a bias toward them but I would recognize the greatness even if it were not the Warriors.
My point - Claiming the warriors way is the right way is recency bias. They were horrible for a very long time and have for years put out an inferior product on the floor. By that I mean the warriors franchise purposely put a team on the floor to lose at the highest competitive level of basketball. The ex owner even openly talked about doing this. I am a Lakers fan but I am also a fan of competitive basketball. This is not a good model to follow. The new warrior ownership has done a lot better obviously, but they did benefit from the previous ownership tanking (getting Steph, in position to draft Klay, not saddle with too many bad contracts cuz of cheap ex-ownership)
If you want to crown a team for " doing it the right way", It has to be the spurs. The did the least amount of tanking and were competitive almost every single year. They are the best at developing talents. They are the blueprint for small market teams to win or at least stay competitive.They also drafted well (better than the warriors look at where Parker, Ginobli, Kawai, were drafted)
If you want to crown a team for " doing it the right way", It has to be the spurs. The did the least amount of tanking and were competitive almost every single year. They are the best at developing talents. They are the blueprint for small market teams to win or at least stay competitive.They also drafted well (better than the warriors look at where Parker, Ginobli, Kawai, were drafted)
Irvinecommuter
New member
Kenkoko said:
What are you talking about? Steph was pick 7th...how is that tanking? Klay was picked 11th? How is that tanking? You are also incorrect re bad contract...they traded away a lot of the bad contracts. Murphy, Dunleavy, and Monte Ellis were all traded away. Biedrins' contract were still on the books as was David Lee.
You keep mentioning the Spurs but their dynasty started and was maintained with two no. 1 picks: David Robinson and Tim Duncan. Spurs were very bad in the mid-1980s when before they got David Robinson with the no. 1 pick...then they picked Sean Elliot with the no. 3 pick two years later. they got a number of decent players to complement them but never made it past the WCF. Then Robinson got hurt in 1996 and the team openly tanked to get the no. 1 pick to get Tim Duncan. Without those two no. 1 picks, the Spurs dynasty never happens.
Again, I don't understand your point. Warriors were bad and then drafted well and develop their young players while complementing them with good signings and pickups. They managed their money smartly and created a culture that other players wanted to play on. How is that not the way you want to build a team?
Recency bias? How recent is recency bias? You think the Warriors being bad for like 25 years was this longterm plan to get a no. 7 and then a no. 11 so they can pick two of the greatest shooters in NBA history and then used a no. 35 pick to get the prototype hybrid player in Draymond?
Lakers had 3 no. 2 picks for three straight years...shouldn't they be great?
Give credit where it is due...come on seriously. Jealous is not a good look.
Perhaps you should drop your warrior fanboy glasses and look again.
Since you are nitpicking on the spurs being bad in the mid 80s, I would like to point out that the Spurs finished 1st in the west four times in the 80s.
It's fair to do a side by side franchise to franchise comparison since the Warriors and the Spurs were both old franchises.
Warriors, even with their recent success, is not even a .500 team. Spurs have over 62%.
Maybe you don't watch sports talk TV. If you do, you would know that majority Pros/commentators/ex players pick Spurs as the best franchise in NBA.
And I agree.
Since you are nitpicking on the spurs being bad in the mid 80s, I would like to point out that the Spurs finished 1st in the west four times in the 80s.
It's fair to do a side by side franchise to franchise comparison since the Warriors and the Spurs were both old franchises.
Warriors, even with their recent success, is not even a .500 team. Spurs have over 62%.
Maybe you don't watch sports talk TV. If you do, you would know that majority Pros/commentators/ex players pick Spurs as the best franchise in NBA.
And I agree.
Irvinecommuter
New member
Kenkoko said:
What does that happen to do with anything? Best franchise in NBA history would be the Celtics. 17 championships, 59% winning pct, countless great players.
Why are we doing an organization history comparison? I only brought up Spurs' history because you seem to negate what the Warriors have done in the last few years because "they tanked" when the Spurs openly tanked to get Tim Duncan.
And hat does that have to with the Warriors' recent run or whether that is a formula that another team should emulate?
Warriors sucked for a long time...that's because they were badly ran and unlucky. So no..teams should not lose for 25 years before getting good but that has nothing do with the current Warriors run.
There are definitely people who judge best franchise in NBA by championship counts. There's a good argument to be made that Celtics and Lakers are the best franchises in the NBA. The counter argument against that is both Celtics and Lakers have prolong period of non-competitive years. But nothing like the warriors. Prior to 2011, the warriors were the laughing stock of the NBA.
Then there are others who considers other factors like most Pros/commentators/ex players who would pick the Spurs. Because they won championships and were rarely non-competitive.
In baseball, there was " the Cardinal way" not because they won the most or are the most recent dynasty. They are viewed as the best run baseball franchise similarly to how the spurs are viewed in basketball world.
I don't agree that the most recent dynasty team = the " right way " to do it. There's a reason the warriors picked Kerr as their coach. He came from the Spurs system and learned from Pop. The warriors wanted to duplicate that.
If the sixers win next year's championship, does the sixer way become the right way to do it? " Ignore years and years of tanking and sugar coat it " the process" does not fool many people.
Then there are others who considers other factors like most Pros/commentators/ex players who would pick the Spurs. Because they won championships and were rarely non-competitive.
In baseball, there was " the Cardinal way" not because they won the most or are the most recent dynasty. They are viewed as the best run baseball franchise similarly to how the spurs are viewed in basketball world.
I don't agree that the most recent dynasty team = the " right way " to do it. There's a reason the warriors picked Kerr as their coach. He came from the Spurs system and learned from Pop. The warriors wanted to duplicate that.
If the sixers win next year's championship, does the sixer way become the right way to do it? " Ignore years and years of tanking and sugar coat it " the process" does not fool many people.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
I liked the Warriors until they signed Durant. Now they have Boogie.
Cheaters.
Cheaters.
Irvinecommuter
New member
Kenkoko said:
We are not talking about "best franchise in NBA history". You are arguing about results and longevity whereas the "did it the right way" discussion is about process.
Again, NE was pretty bad until Belichek go there. Then they won a lot and arguably best franchise in history...even if they are not, what they have done under Belichek/Brady is arguably the best dynasties out there. The fact as to whether the Patriots won or lose after this dynasty is irrelevant.
Warriors were bad for a long time then they got better and improved and are now have one of the best dynasties in NBA history. It doesn't "negate" the terribleness of the prior years but it should not be diminished either.
Irvinecommuter said:
Assuming they win again this year and check the 3 peat box, the warriors are probably pushing Bird's Celtics in best dynasties. But I would still put MJ's Chicago Bulls, Showtime Lakers, Spurs, and Shaq&Kobe Lakers above this GS dynasty.
None of them has the stain of being the best record setting 73 regular season team and ended up chocking in the playoffs >
Irvinecommuter
New member
Kenkoko said:Irvinecommuter said:
Assuming they win again this year and check the 3 peat box, the warriors are probably pushing Bird's Celtics in best dynasties. But I would still put MJ's Chicago Bulls, Showtime Lakers, Spurs, and Shaq&Kobe Lakers above this GS dynasty.
None of them has the stain of being the best record setting 73 regular season team and ended up chocking in the playoffs >
Yeah...no one cares about that.
Irvinecommuter
New member
Kenkoko said:
Go ahead and hold on to that...while the Warriors win 4 out of the last 5 championships. Meanwhile, Lakers will be in shambles for the next few years with a diminishing and disinterested Lebron.
Irvinecommuter
New member
eyephone said:
Jerry West just trolling Magic now.