First, you put words in my mouth. I was just pointing out that the Laker fans have retired numbers for players who did less than KD, and the post I replied to was hypocritical. I didn't state my opinion on whether they should retire his number or not.TheSouseFamily said:
Leaving aside the Bay Area/SoCal rivalry for a moment, the point really is about whether a three stint with a team, no matter how successful (and no matter the sport, for that matter), should put you in the mix for having your number retired. Obviously the Warriors (and GMP) think it's sufficient. For me, I think longevity is relevant in retiring a guys' number. Three years doesn't do it for me. Not to say that the accomplishment isn't impressive and memorable but for me, the retired jerseys are for guys who have given to the organization over an extended period of time. It's a different type of honor that takes nothing away from those who experienced short term successes with a team. But hey, that's just me.
I now see Woj says the Warriors are re-signing Looney. Wow. They are certainly not going to be favorites again, but anything is possible.ducky23 said:OaktownBear said:1. Yes the Warriors are in a bind on the cap, but they are doing everything they can to free up money to keep Looney. People are making a lot of assumptions about what they can and can't do.ClayK said:
Winning doesn't come cheaply ... in a lot of ways.
The system is purposely designed to bring the leaders back to the pack, and once again, it's working as designed. The Warriors are destined for several years on the margins, at the least. After all, there are 30 teams, and in an ideal world from the league's perspective, 28 teams would in titles before the Warriors and Raptors won again..
Presumably a healthy revenue stream and a well-above-average front office can get the Dubs back in the title hunt sooner than the law of averages suggest, but really, expecting another NBA title before 2030 or so is not only greedy, but really improbable.
2. I have felt all along that the Warriors fans are spoiled by the super team phenomenon. They will have a really good team next year. If they find a way to keep Looney and if Klay is healthy by playoff time, they will challenge for a title next year. The difference is they will be one of 6 or so teams to challenge instead of being the clear favorite. I think there is an overreaction that comes from comparing them with what they were. They are still in good shape. My opinion is they are going to see if the line up works with Russell and if so, he is here long term. If not, they trade him next offseason. Personally, I like the lineup. Kerr needs to get to work.
3. Once I saw the slow motion replay of Durant's injury, I was hoping for a sign and trade. That isn't a tear. That is a complete rupture. He will come back a very good player, but he will not be what he was. His skill will remain, but his mobility won't. Investing in him for 5 years at supermax is a bad investment. I would have hated this move before the injury (or more specifically the necessity of the move) but after the injury, I think the Warriors are much better off than if Durant stayed.
That's exactly right. Getting Russell is just about accumulating as many valuable assets as possible.
It's not like the warriors can just sign a free agent with the money saved from Durant since they're already over the cap (trade exception was an alternative - but not as ideal)
So it's either sign Russell or nothing. Russell was literally the only valuable asset available to the warriors once kd decided to leave.
With Russell, they can get thru the first half of the season until klay gets back and also see how he plays with steph. If it doesn't work out, Russell is still a valuable trade asset that many teams wanted with his new contract. If during the off-season, they can get Covington (for example) that would be huge and allow the dubs to keep competing for titles.
The hard cap is a problem. But I have faith the warriors front office can be creative. I'm actually pretty shocked the warriors found a way to be competitive next year (and possibly be even title contenders again in 2021 - with the right trade or if Russell happens to flourish).
sluggo said:I now see Woj says the Warriors are re-signing Looney. Wow. They are certainly not going to be favorites again, but anything is possible.ducky23 said:OaktownBear said:1. Yes the Warriors are in a bind on the cap, but they are doing everything they can to free up money to keep Looney. People are making a lot of assumptions about what they can and can't do.ClayK said:
Winning doesn't come cheaply ... in a lot of ways.
The system is purposely designed to bring the leaders back to the pack, and once again, it's working as designed. The Warriors are destined for several years on the margins, at the least. After all, there are 30 teams, and in an ideal world from the league's perspective, 28 teams would in titles before the Warriors and Raptors won again..
Presumably a healthy revenue stream and a well-above-average front office can get the Dubs back in the title hunt sooner than the law of averages suggest, but really, expecting another NBA title before 2030 or so is not only greedy, but really improbable.
2. I have felt all along that the Warriors fans are spoiled by the super team phenomenon. They will have a really good team next year. If they find a way to keep Looney and if Klay is healthy by playoff time, they will challenge for a title next year. The difference is they will be one of 6 or so teams to challenge instead of being the clear favorite. I think there is an overreaction that comes from comparing them with what they were. They are still in good shape. My opinion is they are going to see if the line up works with Russell and if so, he is here long term. If not, they trade him next offseason. Personally, I like the lineup. Kerr needs to get to work.
3. Once I saw the slow motion replay of Durant's injury, I was hoping for a sign and trade. That isn't a tear. That is a complete rupture. He will come back a very good player, but he will not be what he was. His skill will remain, but his mobility won't. Investing in him for 5 years at supermax is a bad investment. I would have hated this move before the injury (or more specifically the necessity of the move) but after the injury, I think the Warriors are much better off than if Durant stayed.
That's exactly right. Getting Russell is just about accumulating as many valuable assets as possible.
It's not like the warriors can just sign a free agent with the money saved from Durant since they're already over the cap (trade exception was an alternative - but not as ideal)
So it's either sign Russell or nothing. Russell was literally the only valuable asset available to the warriors once kd decided to leave.
With Russell, they can get thru the first half of the season until klay gets back and also see how he plays with steph. If it doesn't work out, Russell is still a valuable trade asset that many teams wanted with his new contract. If during the off-season, they can get Covington (for example) that would be huge and allow the dubs to keep competing for titles.
The hard cap is a problem. But I have faith the warriors front office can be creative. I'm actually pretty shocked the warriors found a way to be competitive next year (and possibly be even title contenders again in 2021 - with the right trade or if Russell happens to flourish).
I read that Pau Gasol is a free agent. Maybe they could add him for the minimum.
Sluggo
We (Cal) have retired player's jerseys with less service time.TheSouseFamily said:
1). Fair enough. Was an assumption on my part.
2). Of course, that's true. It's not a democracy and only his vote matters. Obviously, I'm speaking of it from a fan's standpoint. That's really the point of forums like this. I would imagine that GSW fans would be split on this.
Do you think three years of service, no matter how solid, warrants having your jersey retired? Just curious.
i said before season's end that the W's needed to get a young ball handler to take pressure off Steph, allow him to play spot up shooter rather than PG.GMP said:Re 2: Before this trade, I wasn't sure if the Warriors had a playoff team next year, let alone a very good team like you argue. On paper, a playoff team, certainly. But, and I say this as a big Curry fan, I was concerned about the load the Klay injury would put on him for 82 games. He's tough, but he is small and he does get tired. And now he needs to carry a team to the playoffs with what other offensive firepower? It would have been bleak. So, I love the Russell move because it allows Curry to give some of that offensive burden to another star.OaktownBear said:1. Yes the Warriors are in a bind on the cap, but they are doing everything they can to free up money to keep Looney. People are making a lot of assumptions about what they can and can't do.ClayK said:
Winning doesn't come cheaply ... in a lot of ways.
The system is purposely designed to bring the leaders back to the pack, and once again, it's working as designed. The Warriors are destined for several years on the margins, at the least. After all, there are 30 teams, and in an ideal world from the league's perspective, 28 teams would in titles before the Warriors and Raptors won again..
Presumably a healthy revenue stream and a well-above-average front office can get the Dubs back in the title hunt sooner than the law of averages suggest, but really, expecting another NBA title before 2030 or so is not only greedy, but really improbable.
2. I have felt all along that the Warriors fans are spoiled by the super team phenomenon. They will have a really good team next year. If they find a way to keep Looney and if Klay is healthy by playoff time, they will challenge for a title next year. The difference is they will be one of 6 or so teams to challenge instead of being the clear favorite. I think there is an overreaction that comes from comparing them with what they were. They are still in good shape. My opinion is they are going to see if the line up works with Russell and if so, he is here long term. If not, they trade him next offseason. Personally, I like the lineup. Kerr needs to get to work.
3. Once I saw the slow motion replay of Durant's injury, I was hoping for a sign and trade. That isn't a tear. That is a complete rupture. He will come back a very good player, but he will not be what he was. His skill will remain, but his mobility won't. Investing in him for 5 years at supermax is a bad investment. I would have hated this move before the injury (or more specifically the necessity of the move) but after the injury, I think the Warriors are much better off than if Durant stayed.
Edit to add: And mannnn, the bench is thin. Assuming Livingston retires, and if they sign Looney, that leaves G: Steph, Russell, F: Looney/Dray, C: Damian Jones. Bench: Jacob Evans and the three draft picks? Is that really all?
Re 3: This is tough to predict. As I read elsewhere today, his game will age nicely, injury or not, and will resemble Dirk at 30+ years old. Now, I wouldn't want to pay a guy the super-max when 2 of the 4 or 5 years are missed to injury or, as many seem to agree, not nearly 100%. But I do think he'll still be a great player in 2 years. Very risky, though.
this is practically sainthood. Apparently, he should get about 2 million per every point he averages in a game. 6.2 ppg x 2 = 12.4 million. After all, if he would have signed elsewhere, he could have had his jersey retired. The injury during the Finals is the big difference here. Ordinarily a player with KD's profile probably doesn't get his number retired by a team (not enough time there), but with the "hero" narrative from trying to play through injury and win another title, he gets the boost.GMP said:We (Cal) have retired player's jerseys with less service time.TheSouseFamily said:
1). Fair enough. Was an assumption on my part.
2). Of course, that's true. It's not a democracy and only his vote matters. Obviously, I'm speaking of it from a fan's standpoint. That's really the point of forums like this. I would imagine that GSW fans would be split on this.
Do you think three years of service, no matter how solid, warrants having your jersey retired? Just curious.
My opinion is that too much is made of the jersey retirement. It should mean a lot to the player and his teammates. But I don't know why fans begrudge this. Personally, I like taking my kids to games and telling them who the players were when they ask about the retired numbers.
As for KD, I think under the circumstances, retiring his number makes sense. Two titles, two Finals MVPs, tears his achilles trying to come back for a third. It's a small token of appreciation. If they had elected not to, I would have understood that, too.
Wow, that's incredible they were able to swing that.philbert said:
I'm surprised they were able to fit him in. Has to be all minimum guys for the rest of the slots.
philbert said:
Once the roster is finalized, Golden State will project to have $138.5M in salary, $430K below the tax apron. The salary factors in the new contract of Kevon Looney, second round picks- Eric Paschall and Alen Smailagic, along with three minimum free agent contracts. Golden State is prohibited from exceeding the $138.92M hard cap.
Bobby Marks, ESPN21m ago
I think you can get cap relief if a player has a season-ending injury, but IIRC you get that only if the player doesn't play at all for the remainder of the season. And, the relief only allows you to sign a player for the remainder of the current season, can't sign the player to a longer term deal.ColoradoBear said:
But in all seriousness, what happens if someone gets injured and brining someone in at the league min would blow through the hard cap?
Big C said:
I believe I heard that they figure this out now (before the next season) based the typical recovery times for the injury in question and it has to be gone-for-the whole-season. So, a Durant (A June Achilles), probably. A Klay Thompson (a June ACL), probably not.
Quote:
DISABLED PLAYER EXCEPTION -- This exception allows a team which is over the cap to replace a disabled player who will be out for the remainder of that season (it can also be granted in the event of a player's death). This exception is granted by the league, based on an application from the team and a determination by an NBA-designated physician or Fitness to Play panel (see question number 62) that the player is substantially more likely than not to be unable to play through the following June 15.
If this exception is granted, the team can acquire one player via free agent signing, trade or waiver claim, to replace the disabled player:Teams can apply for this exception from July 1 through January 15, and cannot apply after January 15. Once granted, the exception expires when a player is acquired, when the disabled player is traded or returns to the team, or on March 10 of that season, whichever comes first. This exception is granted on a season-by-season basis -- if the player will also be out the following season, the team needs to apply for this exception again the following season.
- The team may sign a free agent for one season only, for 50% of the disabled player's salary or the amount of the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, whichever is less.
- The team may trade for a player in the last season of his contract only (including any option years)2, who is making no more than 50% plus $100,000 of the disabled player's salary, or the amount of the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception plus $100,000, whichever is less.
- The team may claim a player on waivers who is in the last season of his contract only (including any option years), who is making no more than 50% of the disabled player's salary, or the amount of the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, whichever is less.
This exception only can be granted to the team for which the player was playing when his injury or illness was known, or reasonably should have become known. A team cannot trade for an injured player and subsequently apply for a Disabled Player exception for that player.
If a team's application for a disabled player exception is denied, the team must wait 90 days before submitting another request related to the same player, and then only for a new injury or aggravation of the same injury. Whether the application was approved or denied, the team can apply again (including for the same injury) the following season.
If the disabled player comes back sooner than expected he may be activated immediately, and the replacement player is not affected.
GMP said:We (Cal) have retired player's jerseys with less service time.TheSouseFamily said:
1). Fair enough. Was an assumption on my part.
2). Of course, that's true. It's not a democracy and only his vote matters. Obviously, I'm speaking of it from a fan's standpoint. That's really the point of forums like this. I would imagine that GSW fans would be split on this.
Do you think three years of service, no matter how solid, warrants having your jersey retired? Just curious.
My opinion is that too much is made of the jersey retirement. It should mean a lot to the player and his teammates. But I don't know why fans begrudge this. Personally, I like taking my kids to games and telling them who the players were when they ask about the retired numbers.
As for KD, I think under the circumstances, retiring his number makes sense. Two titles, two Finals MVPs, tears his achilles trying to come back for a third. It's a small token of appreciation. If they had elected not to, I would have understood that, too.
I agree with this, and that was actually what I thought they are doing - Lacob said no one would wear the number while he remains co-chair, but that's not the same thing as announcing a jersey retirement. But maybe I missed something since his statement.OaktownBear said:GMP said:We (Cal) have retired player's jerseys with less service time.TheSouseFamily said:
1). Fair enough. Was an assumption on my part.
2). Of course, that's true. It's not a democracy and only his vote matters. Obviously, I'm speaking of it from a fan's standpoint. That's really the point of forums like this. I would imagine that GSW fans would be split on this.
Do you think three years of service, no matter how solid, warrants having your jersey retired? Just curious.
My opinion is that too much is made of the jersey retirement. It should mean a lot to the player and his teammates. But I don't know why fans begrudge this. Personally, I like taking my kids to games and telling them who the players were when they ask about the retired numbers.
As for KD, I think under the circumstances, retiring his number makes sense. Two titles, two Finals MVPs, tears his achilles trying to come back for a third. It's a small token of appreciation. If they had elected not to, I would have understood that, too.
My feeling is wait until he retires and see how everyone feels. My guess is that 5 years from now the view will be 80-20 against retiring the jersey.
I'm not sure a team actually would hold an official jersey-retirement ceremony until after the player has retired?GMP said:I agree with this, and that was actually what I thought they are doing - Lacob said no one would wear the number while he remains co-chair, but that's not the same thing as announcing a jersey retirement. But maybe I missed something since his statement.OaktownBear said:GMP said:We (Cal) have retired player's jerseys with less service time.TheSouseFamily said:
1). Fair enough. Was an assumption on my part.
2). Of course, that's true. It's not a democracy and only his vote matters. Obviously, I'm speaking of it from a fan's standpoint. That's really the point of forums like this. I would imagine that GSW fans would be split on this.
Do you think three years of service, no matter how solid, warrants having your jersey retired? Just curious.
My opinion is that too much is made of the jersey retirement. It should mean a lot to the player and his teammates. But I don't know why fans begrudge this. Personally, I like taking my kids to games and telling them who the players were when they ask about the retired numbers.
As for KD, I think under the circumstances, retiring his number makes sense. Two titles, two Finals MVPs, tears his achilles trying to come back for a third. It's a small token of appreciation. If they had elected not to, I would have understood that, too.
My feeling is wait until he retires and see how everyone feels. My guess is that 5 years from now the view will be 80-20 against retiring the jersey.
Agree - Lacob/GSW has never used the word retirement, there doesn't seem to be any intention to.GMP said:
I agree with this, and that was actually what I thought they are doing - Lacob said no one would wear the number while he remains co-chair, but that's not the same thing as announcing a jersey retirement. But maybe I missed something since his statement.
Yeah, I wasn't saying they were about to retire it. I was just talking about having the discussion because these things tend to change as time passes. I remember when Sean Lampley graduated there was a lot of talk of retiring his jersey and most were in favor. No one is clamoring for that now. Not that I would oppose it - Sean had a geat career - just that we tend to get emotional in the moment and if jersey retirement is truly warranted people will still actively seek it 10 years from now.GMP said:I agree with this, and that was actually what I thought they are doing - Lacob said no one would wear the number while he remains co-chair, but that's not the same thing as announcing a jersey retirement. But maybe I missed something since his statement.OaktownBear said:GMP said:We (Cal) have retired player's jerseys with less service time.TheSouseFamily said:
1). Fair enough. Was an assumption on my part.
2). Of course, that's true. It's not a democracy and only his vote matters. Obviously, I'm speaking of it from a fan's standpoint. That's really the point of forums like this. I would imagine that GSW fans would be split on this.
Do you think three years of service, no matter how solid, warrants having your jersey retired? Just curious.
My opinion is that too much is made of the jersey retirement. It should mean a lot to the player and his teammates. But I don't know why fans begrudge this. Personally, I like taking my kids to games and telling them who the players were when they ask about the retired numbers.
As for KD, I think under the circumstances, retiring his number makes sense. Two titles, two Finals MVPs, tears his achilles trying to come back for a third. It's a small token of appreciation. If they had elected not to, I would have understood that, too.
My feeling is wait until he retires and see how everyone feels. My guess is that 5 years from now the view will be 80-20 against retiring the jersey.
Right now the above is speculation.OaktownBear said:
I also think if this talk about him having an issue with never being equal to Steph is actually coming from him,
south bender said:Right now the above is speculation.OaktownBear said:
I also think if this talk about him having an issue with never being equal to Steph is actually coming from him,
My guess is that his decision was based on the potentially greater dollars that can be garnered in the New York (and East Coast) market, and this means all dollars, not just salary received from the team that doles it out.
My impression is that he wants to maximize his earnings, much of which will not be paid by his NBA team.
Why post this??SFCityBear said:
"Pros are punks." -- Brad Duggan, former CCSF coach and former color man on Cal broadcasts
Sigh......SFCityBear said:
"Pros are punks." -- Brad Duggan, former CCSF coach and former color man on Cal broadcasts
Or a Reno fansycasey said:caltagjohnson said:
The NBA is basically a stupid money circus. In the end the fans (or corporations) pick up the tab. The Warriors will bring more congestion to what is already a ****hole city. Besides the NBA is really boring.
Must be a Knicks fan.
