I think we need this thread here.

Now, where can I get one of these Oakland 49 Jerseys?

Sure to be a hot item!

We'll get to Wiseman and Curry and all the others soon enough, but I thought this was interesting:

Madam vs Madame

With Kamala Harris' victory as our new Vice President Elect, many are left with a debate around her title. When it comes to Madam vs Madame Vice President, here's why her title matters.

Last week, Kamala Harris became the 46th US Vice President Electthe first woman to ever hold the title. Kamala will also be the first Black Vice President, the first South Asian descent Vice President, and the first Vice President-Elect to do a victory lap to "Work That" by Mary J. Blige, with many more firsts to follow. Kamala's win symbolizes a groundbreaking achievement, many are left with a simple question: what do we call her?
If you're like us, you've already had the "Madam vs Madame" debate with friends or family members which one is correct? This is new territory for us in the history of the office of Vice President. The press, general public, and even Harris' own sister have opted for Madam Vice President but the debate continues between using 'Madam' and 'Madame'. A quick Google search tells us it's "Madam", but we've been conditioned by history (and Hollywood) to think of "Madam" in far from desirable terms.

The History of Madam and Madame
Let's take a step back first why "Madam(e)" and not "Mrs", "Ms", or "Miss"? While Mrs. Vice President (or Ms, or Miss) would be counterpart to Mr. Vice President, Madame carries a different connotation altogether. Its ancestry belongs to the Latin "mea domina" an honorable woman of rank, or "boss lady" to put it into our own terms. The corresponding male term, a "boss man" of sorts, is missing from our lexicon, leaving us with Mr or, sometimes, Sir. However, Madam outranks Mrs and Miss, and as Mrs and the more modern Ms have become normalized, Madam/Madame remains a title of honor one which Kamala most certainly has earned.
When it comes to the 'Madam' vs 'Madame' debate, the words carry more weight than we may realize.
Grammatically, Madam is the correct term. In an English-speaking country, Madam is used in front of a title and denotes authority, while Madame ("ma dame") is typically only used as the French equivalent of Mrs, and was (until recently) reliant on a woman's marital status. Advocates for "Madame", however, argue that the historical context of "Madam" should urge us to use Madame instead. In the 1700's and 1800's, while Madame remained for high society French women, Madam referred to a woman who owned a brothel. In more recent history, the French government stopped making women choose between "Madame" and "Mademoiselle" on official forms in 2012, and adopted "Madame" as the universal equivalent to "Monsieur."
"Madame is much more refined, in my humble opinion," says Armoire member Ruchika Tulshyan, Founder and CEO at Candour. "We know Kamala is already facing so much racism and sexism so I would err on the side of caution".

Madam Vice President vs Madame Vice President
Ultimately, which title to use becomes a question of how we reconcile proper grammar with a discriminatory history. Words matter, but given the importance and future implications of her win, it is even more important that we get this one right. Her title must reflect the strength, determination, and authority that Kamala carries with her into the role, the steps of the women who came before her, and the power of those who will come next. Kamala has faced many hurdles in her journey to Vice President-Elect, and will continue to face many more. Her title shouldn't be one of them.

In accordance with Kamala's speech, we should choose a term that carries us into the future instead of tying us to the past. If it's Madam, let's make the revival of the original "boss lady" definition stick! Just as Kamala has acknowledged the women who came before her, she paves the way for the victories of strong women to come. With the question of what to call the Vice President-Elect, we have the opportunity to play an active role in shaping the future for women to come, and recognizing the accomplishments of those who have made this moment possible. As Kamala herself said, "while I may be the first woman in this office, I won't be the last." Her accomplishment marks a massive crack in that glass ceiling for womankind.

Warriors beat the Lakers recently, which by the transitive property of sports I believe makes them the new NBA Champions.

They are going to soon make the Oakland Forever 49 jersey at my behest.

Primarily because of Wiseman, I've watched every W's preseason and reg season game this year (save last night).

Wiseman came out in his first games shooting 3's and long 2's.
He was very effective at it.
He made next to ZERO back-to-basket post moves (traditional big man plays) in his first 5 games. And since has made less than 5, I'd say, total.

They've cut down on his freedom to pull the trigger on a 3.
They've cut down on his minutes.
He's been fouling.
He's been getting discouraged.

I think it's all a bit much for the young kid. He's very conscientious and I think must be a fantastic teammate. But he's getting down and overwhelmed.

But last night they fed him the ball time and again, for 7 dunks!
I'm sure this is going to lighten his psychological load as they learn to play better together.

It's fun watching the kid grow.

Stanford Jonah said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Primarily because of Wiseman, I've watched every W's preseason and reg season game this year (save last night).

Wiseman came out in his first games shooting 3's and long 2's.
He was very effective at it.
He made next to ZERO back-to-basket post moves (traditional big man plays) in his first 5 games. And since has made less than 5, I'd say, total.

They've cut down on his freedom to pull the trigger on a 3.
They've cut down on his minutes.
He's been fouling.
He's been getting discouraged.

I think it's all a bit much for the young kid. He's very conscientious and I think must be a fantastic teammate. But he's getting down and overwhelmed.

But last night they fed him the ball time and again, for 7 dunks!
I'm sure this is going to lighten his psychological load as they learn to play better together.

It's fun watching the kid grow.

---

Unfortunately, they paid the Warriors back some by tricking Bob Myers into taking Andrew Wiggins' contract back when they didn't need to and that will hamstring them for some time. That said, this is the first year I've ever seen Wiggins actually play defense in his career. But he, Oubre, and Draymond together are probably the worst three point shooting 2-4 in the entire league right now. though they are actually pretty good defensively. I wouldn't be surprised to see them land one of the 7-10 spots and play themselves into the 8 slot if they get the right matchup.

If Klay manages to stay healthy next year (and that's a big if IMO), they probably are good enough to be a bottom tier playoff team in 2022 with no roster changes.

---

Disagree on both of these. Trading Russell for Wiggins straight up has absolutely been a win for the Warriors so far. Wiggins fits far better with the Warriors lineup construction than Russell, especially when considering defense. Throw in the fact that the Wolves also gave the Warriors their first round pick (top-3 protected) in what is projected to be a loaded 2021 draft and the trade has the potential to be an absolute coup for the Warriors.

What you might be thinking of is why the Warriors were in a position to be trading max salary players in the first place. Because of the fluke salary cap spike in 2016, the Warriors have had four max salary slots (Steph, Klay, Draymond, and formerly KD) whereas almost every other team (I actually don't know if there is another one) only has three. The Warriors sought to maintain that competitive advantage by conducting a sign-and-trade for D'Angelo Russell when it became clear that Durant wasn't going to return, thus maintaining that fourth max slot, albeit at the cost of being way over the salary cap. But if the Warriors hadn't done that, then that max slot disappears, and since they would already be over the cap, Russell/Wiggins would have been replaced by a minimum salary player. In other words, the only cost to the Warriors of having Wiggins now is the luxury tax that Joe Lacob has to pay. As long as the owner is willing to pay, why wouldn't the Warriors front office take advantage of that?

That goes into my second argument which is that if Klay is fully healthy next year (agree that is a big if), the Warriors are not only a playoff team but a title contender. I think people forget just how formidable the core trio of Steph/Klay/Draymond really is, possibly because the latter two don't leap off the page as superstar running mates in the way that Lebron/Davis or Kawhi/George or Durant/Irving/Harden do. What I think is particularly unique about Steph/Klay/Draymond is how much greater they are than the sum of their parts. I like to sum it up this way: Steph (shooting/playmaking) + Klay (shooting/defense) + Draymond (defense/playmaking) all perfectly complement each other. On the upside, that makes them a premier championship core. On the downside, like any well-oiled machine/system such as the one that Kerr has installed, if one of those components goes missing, the dropoff is also greater than you'd think. Just look at how the Warriors played in the four games before Draymond rejoined the team this year and how they've looked since. Heck, look at how the Warriors looked before and after Draymond's ejection last night. All this is to say, Warriors missing any of their core 3 = middling playoff team at best. Warriors with their core 3 = title contender.

Well, thanks for breathing some life into the game!

I like Wiggins. And I think he was a steal when you consider the draft pick they are getting!
Before the season, i was thinking it would be a competition between Oubre and Wiggins to see who sticks around next season, because there's no way they can continue to afford both in my mind. And it's been Wiggins far and away who is the better player.

I agree with you that Draymond is a HORRIBLE shooter. I'm surprised he's allowed himself to get that bad. Shame on him.

Yes, if Klay comes back like his own self, the Warriors could be title contenders. But the other teams have gone big time stacked, and so it will be especially tough.

concordtom said:

---

Well, thanks for breathing some life into the game!

I like Wiggins. And I think he was a steal when you consider the draft pick they are getting!
Before the season, i was thinking it would be a competition between Oubre and Wiggins to see who sticks around next season, because there's no way they can continue to afford both in my mind. And it's been Wiggins far and away who is the better player.

I agree with you that Draymond is a HORRIBLE shooter. I'm surprised he's allowed himself to get that bad. Shame on him.

Yes, if Klay comes back like his own self, the Warriors could be title contenders. But the other teams have gone big time stacked, and so it will be especially tough.

---

Title contenders? Not unless they get someone else that's better than Klay on the roster. I love Wiseman, but I would think he's not All Star material until his third year at least - he's just so young.

SFBear92 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Well, thanks for breathing some life into the game!

I like Wiggins. And I think he was a steal when you consider the draft pick they are getting!
Before the season, i was thinking it would be a competition between Oubre and Wiggins to see who sticks around next season, because there's no way they can continue to afford both in my mind. And it's been Wiggins far and away who is the better player.

I agree with you that Draymond is a HORRIBLE shooter. I'm surprised he's allowed himself to get that bad. Shame on him.

Yes, if Klay comes back like his own self, the Warriors could be title contenders. But the other teams have gone big time stacked, and so it will be especially tough.

---

Title contenders? Not unless they get someone else that's better than Klay on the roster. I love Wiseman, but I would think he's not All Star material until his third year at least - he's just so young.

---

Yeah, that would be an aging core that hasn't been healthy and playing at a high level well for a few years unlike the 1998 Bulls who were an aging core but still near the top of their game. They also had a guy named Jordan on the team which, as good as Steph is, he's not comparable to.

Now, maybe if Wiseman emerges into a superstar he and Curry can form a good backbone like Kobe/Gasol, but like you said - I doubt an aging Green or a rusty Klay can be a guy to count on. There are too many other talented teams to overcome.

Best bet is to tank this season to get another lottery pick and hope to get another from Minnesota. Either use those as part of a trade to get an established player (maybe plus Klay or Green for salary purposes) or swing for the fences.

SFBear92 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Well, thanks for breathing some life into the game!

I like Wiggins. And I think he was a steal when you consider the draft pick they are getting!
Before the season, i was thinking it would be a competition between Oubre and Wiggins to see who sticks around next season, because there's no way they can continue to afford both in my mind. And it's been Wiggins far and away who is the better player.

I agree with you that Draymond is a HORRIBLE shooter. I'm surprised he's allowed himself to get that bad. Shame on him.

Yes, if Klay comes back like his own self, the Warriors could be title contenders. But the other teams have gone big time stacked, and so it will be especially tough.

---

Title contenders? Not unless they get someone else that's better than Klay on the roster. I love Wiseman, but I would think he's not All Star material until his third year at least - he's just so young.

---

Yeah. I've been searching for the right words for Wiseman. I think I said "overwhelmed" previously. Today I'm thinking "boy" and "anxious". And no big blame here, because he IS a boy and I, too, would be anxious if I were going up again 270 pound 7 foot tall MEN who've played years in the league.

But he's missing free throws and jumpers with regularity now. He is constantly out of position on help-defense and doesn't have great hands, fumbling many balls. I still really like him, but he needs a month break hanging out at mama's to reflect. I think this season is going to be super long for him, and I don't think he's ever going to have that killer instinct "it" when it comes to competitive fire in basketball. He seems like there might be other things in life that he'd be doing if he wasn't so tall. No personal knock on him at all.

dimitrig said:

---

Best bet is to tank this season to get another lottery pick and hope to get another from Minnesota.

---

I've thought the same. With Oubre and Green shooting as poorly as they are, with Wiseman still 19, this team is going nowhere. 2 new lottery picks could be fun, though.

I could see trading Green, but not Curry or Klay. They need to retire as Warriors. Get some new primary ball handler and park those guys outside as 3 threats.

I don't follow the Warriors but concordtom said that this was the place to be.

Perhaps I should have put it on the Hoops board.

Truth be told, OT is suffering from a politics hangover in general. People have somehow suddenly found other stuff to do, which is a good thing!

concordtom said:

---

Truth be told, OT is suffering from a politics hangover in general. People have somehow suddenly found other stuff to do, which is a good thing!

---

^ hear here

concordtom said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Well, thanks for breathing some life into the game!

I like Wiggins. And I think he was a steal when you consider the draft pick they are getting!
Before the season, i was thinking it would be a competition between Oubre and Wiggins to see who sticks around next season, because there's no way they can continue to afford both in my mind. And it's been Wiggins far and away who is the better player.

I agree with you that Draymond is a HORRIBLE shooter. I'm surprised he's allowed himself to get that bad. Shame on him.

Yes, if Klay comes back like his own self, the Warriors could be title contenders. But the other teams have gone big time stacked, and so it will be especially tough.

---

Title contenders? Not unless they get someone else that's better than Klay on the roster. I love Wiseman, but I would think he's not All Star material until his third year at least - he's just so young.

---

Yeah. I've been searching for the right words for Wiseman. I think I said "overwhelmed" previously. Today I'm thinking "boy" and "anxious". And no big blame here, because he IS a boy and I, too, would be anxious if I were going up again 270 pound 7 foot tall MEN who've played years in the league.

But he's missing free throws and jumpers with regularity now. He is constantly out of position on help-defense and doesn't have great hands, fumbling many balls. I still really like him, but he needs a month break hanging out at mama's to reflect. I think this season is going to be super long for him, and I don't think he's ever going to have that killer instinct "it" when it comes to competitive fire in basketball. He seems like there might be other things in life that he'd be doing if he wasn't so tall. No personal knock on him at all.

---

You and I must be watching different kids. I watch him and I'm amazed that's he's this good at 19.

SFBear92 said:

---

You and I must be watching different kids. I watch him and I'm amazed that's he's this good at 19.

---

And yet, a 19 year old female gymnast is past her prime, right?

No, I realize he's very young and there's so much to learn - psychologically and all else.
But I just think he's not going to be QUITE as good as I had thought after those first 3 games. He's already spent.
5 minutes and 5 points halfway thru the 3rd.

Oh, he just slammed home a steph missed 3.
Go, kid, go!

I just don't see the Warriors trying to tank this season. As long as Curry is playing they can't really tank; with him in the lineup they will be competitive with anyone in any given game. Not that they're a championship team, just competitive, which means you can't tank. You'll just wind up somewhere near the middle. The only way to truly tank is to remove him from the lineup or ask him to play badly. Are you really going to ask a superstar to do that during his limited prime years? After he just missed a whole season due to injury?

No, they've just got to let this play out, hope Wiseman develops, hope maybe one of Minnesota's picks falls to them again, and maybe try to keep maneuvering through trades. I do think once Klay Thompson comes back there's at least a chance they can contend again. It depends on a lot of things, but it's a chance.

Wiseman block, run floor, dunk.
Last night
Wow.

sycasey said:

---

I just don't see the Warriors trying to tank this season. As long as Curry is playing they can't really tank; with him in the lineup they will be competitive with anyone in any given game. Not that they're a championship team, just competitive, which means you can't tank. You'll just wind up somewhere near the middle. The only way to truly tank is to remove him from the lineup or ask him to play badly. Are you really going to ask a superstar to do that during his limited prime years? After he just missed a whole season due to injury?

No, they've just got to let this play out, hope Wiseman develops, hope maybe one of Minnesota's picks falls to them again, and maybe try to keep maneuvering through trades. I do think once Klay Thompson comes back there's at least a chance they can contend again. It depends on a lot of things, but it's a chance.

---

Incredibly, they're fifth in the Western Conference right now. That won't last, but still.

Injuries and COVID restrictions are playing havoc with rosters this year.

Everyone says the Warriors instantly got better once Draymond Green returned from Covid, and I agree.

That said, he is averaging just 4.6 pts, 5 rebs, 6.6 assists per game.
He has the team's worst PER,
He has the team's worst 3FG% at 19.4%,
He has the 2nd worst FG% at 33.3%, ahead of D-Leaguer Rookie Nico Mannion.

Steph is making $43M this year.
Klay: $35.3M
Wiggins: $29.5M
Draymond $22,246,956
Kelly Oubre: $14,375,000
James Wiseman: $8,730,240
Kevon Looney: $4,821,429
Kent Bazemore $2,320,044
Brad Wanamaker $2,250,000
and so on....

Draymond will make $24,026,712 next year.
Draymond will make $25,806,468 after that.
Draymond has player option after that: $27,586,224

It wouldn't be shocking to see Draymond be traded, but I don't think anyone would want to take on his salary!
In other words, he probably won't be traded because nobody would want him.

concordtom said:

---

Everyone says the Warriors instantly got better once Draymond Green returned from Covid, and I agree.

That said, he is averaging just 4.6 pts, 5 rebs, 6.6 assists per game.
He has the team's worst PER,
He has the team's worst 3FG% at 19.4%,
He has the 2nd worst FG% at 33.3%, ahead of D-Leaguer Rookie Nico Mannion.

Steph is making $43M this year.
Klay: $35.3M
Wiggins: $29.5M
Draymond $22,246,956
Kelly Oubre: $14,375,000
James Wiseman: $8,730,240
Kevon Looney: $4,821,429
Kent Bazemore $2,320,044
Brad Wanamaker $2,250,000
and so on....

Draymond will make $24,026,712 next year.
Draymond will make $25,806,468 after that.
Draymond has player option after that: $27,586,224

It wouldn't be shocking to see Draymond be traded, but I don't think anyone would want to take on his salary!
In other words, he probably won't be traded because nobody would want him.

---

I still think you're misstating Draymond's value here. His contributions on the court lie substantially in the way that he quarterbacks both the offense and the defense. With the complex motion offense and switching defense that the Warriors employ, they need somebody like Draymond (quick note: there is almost no one else like Draymond) to make sure everyone is in the proper place, and that's something that is not captured in surface-level numbers (PER is based substantially on counting stats which is why Russell Westbrook has long been a PER monster without being a winning player). As you've acknowledged, the Warriors are clearly much worse without Draymond, a fact that would seem to belie your minimization of him as a player based purely on stats.

Or maybe looking at it from a different perspective: Draymond's extraordinarily high BBIQ is NOS for other elite players. He raises top-level players to greater heights, but alone, he's not particularly useful at raising a team's floor or ceiling unless you're asking him to instill defensive chops in young players. And to that point, if the Warriors have any notion of continuing to be title contenders during Curry's prime years, there is no way they let go of Draymond short of a trade for someone like Giannis who is superlative enough in other areas, including defense, to make up for losing Draymond's uniquely high BBIQ. If you're trading Draymond for draft picks and/or expiring contracts, then you're basically giving up on title contention for at least the next three years and have fun convincing Curry to re-up next year.

JeffBear07 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Everyone says the Warriors instantly got better once Draymond Green returned from Covid, and I agree.

That said, he is averaging just 4.6 pts, 5 rebs, 6.6 assists per game.
He has the team's worst PER,
He has the team's worst 3FG% at 19.4%,
He has the 2nd worst FG% at 33.3%, ahead of D-Leaguer Rookie Nico Mannion.

Steph is making $43M this year.
Klay: $35.3M
Wiggins: $29.5M
Draymond $22,246,956
Kelly Oubre: $14,375,000
James Wiseman: $8,730,240
Kevon Looney: $4,821,429
Kent Bazemore $2,320,044
Brad Wanamaker $2,250,000
and so on....

Draymond will make $24,026,712 next year.
Draymond will make $25,806,468 after that.
Draymond has player option after that: $27,586,224

It wouldn't be shocking to see Draymond be traded, but I don't think anyone would want to take on his salary!
In other words, he probably won't be traded because nobody would want him.

---

I still think you're misstating Draymond's value here. His contributions on the court lie substantially in the way that he quarterbacks both the offense and the defense. With the complex motion offense and switching defense that the Warriors employ, they need somebody like Draymond (quick note: there is almost no one else like Draymond) to make sure everyone is in the proper place, and that's something that is not captured in surface-level numbers (PER is based substantially on counting stats which is why Russell Westbrook has long been a PER monster without being a winning player). As you've acknowledged, the Warriors are clearly much worse without Draymond, a fact that would seem to belie your minimization of him as a player based purely on stats.

---

Correct. He's like a Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman type where the offensive stats didn't suggest a lot of value but anyone who played with them will tell you they had it. (And if you watch the games it's obvious how much better-orchestrated the Warriors are with Draymond on the floor.)

That said, his offensive production has fallen off A LOT since his peak in 2015-16 and I'm not sure why. I don't think you should get that much worse at shooting as you get older. He's still valuable, but it does make you wonder if he could contribute a bit more with personal scoring.

sycasey said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Everyone says the Warriors instantly got better once Draymond Green returned from Covid, and I agree.

That said, he is averaging just 4.6 pts, 5 rebs, 6.6 assists per game.
He has the team's worst PER,
He has the team's worst 3FG% at 19.4%,
He has the 2nd worst FG% at 33.3%, ahead of D-Leaguer Rookie Nico Mannion.

Steph is making $43M this year.
Klay: $35.3M
Wiggins: $29.5M
Draymond $22,246,956
Kelly Oubre: $14,375,000
James Wiseman: $8,730,240
Kevon Looney: $4,821,429
Kent Bazemore $2,320,044
Brad Wanamaker $2,250,000
and so on....

Draymond will make $24,026,712 next year.
Draymond will make $25,806,468 after that.
Draymond has player option after that: $27,586,224

It wouldn't be shocking to see Draymond be traded, but I don't think anyone would want to take on his salary!
In other words, he probably won't be traded because nobody would want him.

---

I still think you're misstating Draymond's value here. His contributions on the court lie substantially in the way that he quarterbacks both the offense and the defense. With the complex motion offense and switching defense that the Warriors employ, they need somebody like Draymond (quick note: there is almost no one else like Draymond) to make sure everyone is in the proper place, and that's something that is not captured in surface-level numbers (PER is based substantially on counting stats which is why Russell Westbrook has long been a PER monster without being a winning player). As you've acknowledged, the Warriors are clearly much worse without Draymond, a fact that would seem to belie your minimization of him as a player based purely on stats.

---

Correct. He's like a Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman type where the offensive stats didn't suggest a lot of value but anyone who played with them will tell you they had it. (And if you watch the games it's obvious how much better-orchestrated the Warriors are with Draymond on the floor.)

That said, his offensive production has fallen off A LOT since his peak in 2015-16 and I'm not sure why. I don't think you should get that much worse at shooting as you get older. He's still valuable, but it does make you wonder if he could contribute a bit more with personal scoring.

---

Yeah I don't think we're ever going to see peak 2015-2016 Draymond on offense again unfortunately. But just in case I've given the impression otherwise, I think it's also fair to criticize Draymond for his atrocious shooting numbers this year. I don't remember which year it was exactly, but it was either the 2016-2017 or 2017-2018 season where Draymond had a nagging shoulder injury all year, and as far as I can recall, he never got it medically fixed. That's about the time when his backpack-wearing shooting form became the norm. I've been wanting to think for at least three years now that he just needed an offseason to rest that shoulder so that he could at least approach his 2015-2016 shooting numbers again, but now I'm starting to wonder if it's such a chronic injury that he's already basically a more mobile Andrew Bogut in terms of career progression.

JeffBear07 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Everyone says the Warriors instantly got better once Draymond Green returned from Covid, and I agree.

That said, he is averaging just 4.6 pts, 5 rebs, 6.6 assists per game.
He has the team's worst PER,
He has the team's worst 3FG% at 19.4%,
He has the 2nd worst FG% at 33.3%, ahead of D-Leaguer Rookie Nico Mannion.

Steph is making $43M this year.
Klay: $35.3M
Wiggins: $29.5M
Draymond $22,246,956
Kelly Oubre: $14,375,000
James Wiseman: $8,730,240
Kevon Looney: $4,821,429
Kent Bazemore $2,320,044
Brad Wanamaker $2,250,000
and so on....

Draymond will make $24,026,712 next year.
Draymond will make $25,806,468 after that.
Draymond has player option after that: $27,586,224

It wouldn't be shocking to see Draymond be traded, but I don't think anyone would want to take on his salary!
In other words, he probably won't be traded because nobody would want him.

---

I still think you're misstating Draymond's value here. His contributions on the court lie substantially in the way that he quarterbacks both the offense and the defense. With the complex motion offense and switching defense that the Warriors employ, they need somebody like Draymond (quick note: there is almost no one else like Draymond) to make sure everyone is in the proper place, and that's something that is not captured in surface-level numbers (PER is based substantially on counting stats which is why Russell Westbrook has long been a PER monster without being a winning player). As you've acknowledged, the Warriors are clearly much worse without Draymond, a fact that would seem to belie your minimization of him as a player based purely on stats.

---

Correct. He's like a Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman type where the offensive stats didn't suggest a lot of value but anyone who played with them will tell you they had it. (And if you watch the games it's obvious how much better-orchestrated the Warriors are with Draymond on the floor.)

That said, his offensive production has fallen off A LOT since his peak in 2015-16 and I'm not sure why. I don't think you should get that much worse at shooting as you get older. He's still valuable, but it does make you wonder if he could contribute a bit more with personal scoring.

---

Yeah I don't think we're ever going to see peak 2015-2016 Draymond on offense again unfortunately. But just in case I've given the impression otherwise, I think it's also fair to criticize Draymond for his atrocious shooting numbers this year. I don't remember which year it was exactly, but it was either the 2016-2017 or 2017-2018 season where Draymond had a nagging shoulder injury all year, and as far as I can recall, he never got it medically fixed. That's about the time when his backpack-wearing shooting form became the norm. I've been wanting to think for at least three years now that he just needed an offseason to rest that shoulder so that he could at least approach his 2015-2016 shooting numbers again, but now I'm starting to wonder if it's such a chronic injury that he's already basically a more mobile Andrew Bogut in terms of career progression.

---

He also had covid and then a foot injury right before the season started. I think he still hasn't reached full fitness/form yet.

I do wonder if not having Klay + Steph on the court for this season and last has hurt his shooting #s significantly. Having both on the court really opens things up.

wraptor347 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Everyone says the Warriors instantly got better once Draymond Green returned from Covid, and I agree.

That said, he is averaging just 4.6 pts, 5 rebs, 6.6 assists per game.
He has the team's worst PER,
He has the team's worst 3FG% at 19.4%,
He has the 2nd worst FG% at 33.3%, ahead of D-Leaguer Rookie Nico Mannion.

Steph is making $43M this year.
Klay: $35.3M
Wiggins: $29.5M
Draymond $22,246,956
Kelly Oubre: $14,375,000
James Wiseman: $8,730,240
Kevon Looney: $4,821,429
Kent Bazemore $2,320,044
Brad Wanamaker $2,250,000
and so on....

Draymond will make $24,026,712 next year.
Draymond will make $25,806,468 after that.
Draymond has player option after that: $27,586,224

It wouldn't be shocking to see Draymond be traded, but I don't think anyone would want to take on his salary!
In other words, he probably won't be traded because nobody would want him.

---

I still think you're misstating Draymond's value here. His contributions on the court lie substantially in the way that he quarterbacks both the offense and the defense. With the complex motion offense and switching defense that the Warriors employ, they need somebody like Draymond (quick note: there is almost no one else like Draymond) to make sure everyone is in the proper place, and that's something that is not captured in surface-level numbers (PER is based substantially on counting stats which is why Russell Westbrook has long been a PER monster without being a winning player). As you've acknowledged, the Warriors are clearly much worse without Draymond, a fact that would seem to belie your minimization of him as a player based purely on stats.

---

Correct. He's like a Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman type where the offensive stats didn't suggest a lot of value but anyone who played with them will tell you they had it. (And if you watch the games it's obvious how much better-orchestrated the Warriors are with Draymond on the floor.)

That said, his offensive production has fallen off A LOT since his peak in 2015-16 and I'm not sure why. I don't think you should get that much worse at shooting as you get older. He's still valuable, but it does make you wonder if he could contribute a bit more with personal scoring.

---

Yeah I don't think we're ever going to see peak 2015-2016 Draymond on offense again unfortunately. But just in case I've given the impression otherwise, I think it's also fair to criticize Draymond for his atrocious shooting numbers this year. I don't remember which year it was exactly, but it was either the 2016-2017 or 2017-2018 season where Draymond had a nagging shoulder injury all year, and as far as I can recall, he never got it medically fixed. That's about the time when his backpack-wearing shooting form became the norm. I've been wanting to think for at least three years now that he just needed an offseason to rest that shoulder so that he could at least approach his 2015-2016 shooting numbers again, but now I'm starting to wonder if it's such a chronic injury that he's already basically a more mobile Andrew Bogut in terms of career progression.

---

He also had covid and then a foot injury right before the season started. I think he still hasn't reached full fitness/form yet.

I do wonder if not having Klay + Steph on the court for this season and last has hurt his shooting #s significantly. Having both on the court really opens things up.

---

This is definitely the glass half full perspective and I hope you're right.

JeffBear07 said:

---

wraptor347 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Everyone says the Warriors instantly got better once Draymond Green returned from Covid, and I agree.

That said, he is averaging just 4.6 pts, 5 rebs, 6.6 assists per game.
He has the team's worst PER,
He has the team's worst 3FG% at 19.4%,
He has the 2nd worst FG% at 33.3%, ahead of D-Leaguer Rookie Nico Mannion.

Steph is making $43M this year.
Klay: $35.3M
Wiggins: $29.5M
Draymond $22,246,956
Kelly Oubre: $14,375,000
James Wiseman: $8,730,240
Kevon Looney: $4,821,429
Kent Bazemore $2,320,044
Brad Wanamaker $2,250,000
and so on....

Draymond will make $24,026,712 next year.
Draymond will make $25,806,468 after that.
Draymond has player option after that: $27,586,224

It wouldn't be shocking to see Draymond be traded, but I don't think anyone would want to take on his salary!
In other words, he probably won't be traded because nobody would want him.

---

I still think you're misstating Draymond's value here. His contributions on the court lie substantially in the way that he quarterbacks both the offense and the defense. With the complex motion offense and switching defense that the Warriors employ, they need somebody like Draymond (quick note: there is almost no one else like Draymond) to make sure everyone is in the proper place, and that's something that is not captured in surface-level numbers (PER is based substantially on counting stats which is why Russell Westbrook has long been a PER monster without being a winning player). As you've acknowledged, the Warriors are clearly much worse without Draymond, a fact that would seem to belie your minimization of him as a player based purely on stats.

---

Correct. He's like a Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman type where the offensive stats didn't suggest a lot of value but anyone who played with them will tell you they had it. (And if you watch the games it's obvious how much better-orchestrated the Warriors are with Draymond on the floor.)

That said, his offensive production has fallen off A LOT since his peak in 2015-16 and I'm not sure why. I don't think you should get that much worse at shooting as you get older. He's still valuable, but it does make you wonder if he could contribute a bit more with personal scoring.

---

Yeah I don't think we're ever going to see peak 2015-2016 Draymond on offense again unfortunately. But just in case I've given the impression otherwise, I think it's also fair to criticize Draymond for his atrocious shooting numbers this year. I don't remember which year it was exactly, but it was either the 2016-2017 or 2017-2018 season where Draymond had a nagging shoulder injury all year, and as far as I can recall, he never got it medically fixed. That's about the time when his backpack-wearing shooting form became the norm. I've been wanting to think for at least three years now that he just needed an offseason to rest that shoulder so that he could at least approach his 2015-2016 shooting numbers again, but now I'm starting to wonder if it's such a chronic injury that he's already basically a more mobile Andrew Bogut in terms of career progression.

---

He also had covid and then a foot injury right before the season started. I think he still hasn't reached full fitness/form yet.

I do wonder if not having Klay + Steph on the court for this season and last has hurt his shooting #s significantly. Having both on the court really opens things up.

---

This is definitely the glass half full perspective and I hope you're right.

---

It is.

IMO his 3 has looked flat for awhile. I certainly would not expect him to ever return to his 2015-16 numbers. ...but I'm optimistic that his numbers for this season (and next) will improve.

That's also contingent on the team not continuing to stack bodies on the IR.

JeffBear07 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Everyone says the Warriors instantly got better once Draymond Green returned from Covid, and I agree.

That said, he is averaging just 4.6 pts, 5 rebs, 6.6 assists per game.
He has the team's worst PER,
He has the team's worst 3FG% at 19.4%,
He has the 2nd worst FG% at 33.3%, ahead of D-Leaguer Rookie Nico Mannion.

Steph is making $43M this year.
Klay: $35.3M
Wiggins: $29.5M
Draymond $22,246,956
Kelly Oubre: $14,375,000
James Wiseman: $8,730,240
Kevon Looney: $4,821,429
Kent Bazemore $2,320,044
Brad Wanamaker $2,250,000
and so on....

Draymond will make $24,026,712 next year.
Draymond will make $25,806,468 after that.
Draymond has player option after that: $27,586,224

It wouldn't be shocking to see Draymond be traded, but I don't think anyone would want to take on his salary!
In other words, he probably won't be traded because nobody would want him.

---

I still think you're misstating Draymond's value here. His contributions on the court lie substantially in the way that he quarterbacks both the offense and the defense. With the complex motion offense and switching defense that the Warriors employ, they need somebody like Draymond (quick note: there is almost no one else like Draymond) to make sure everyone is in the proper place, and that's something that is not captured in surface-level numbers (PER is based substantially on counting stats which is why Russell Westbrook has long been a PER monster without being a winning player). As you've acknowledged, the Warriors are clearly much worse without Draymond, a fact that would seem to belie your minimization of him as a player based purely on stats.

Or maybe looking at it from a different perspective: Draymond's extraordinarily high BBIQ is NOS for other elite players. He raises top-level players to greater heights, but alone, he's not particularly useful at raising a team's floor or ceiling unless you're asking him to instill defensive chops in young players. And to that point, if the Warriors have any notion of continuing to be title contenders during Curry's prime years, there is no way they let go of Draymond short of a trade for someone like Giannis who is superlative enough in other areas, including defense, to make up for losing Draymond's uniquely high BBIQ. If you're trading Draymond for draft picks and/or expiring contracts, then you're basically giving up on title contention for at least the next three years and have fun convincing Curry to re-up next year.

---

That's what I call a Hot Take.
Well done.
I'm just sick of him missing so many shots. As soon as he pulls up I know it's a brick. And it is.

I had to check out his career stats. Wow. Truly unimpressive.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/greendr01.html

No wonder he didn't like Durant - his #'s went down as soon as he arrived!

sycasey said:

---

That said, his offensive production has fallen off A LOT since his peak in 2015-16 and I'm not sure why. I don't think you should get that much worse at shooting as you get older. He's still valuable, but it does make you wonder if he could contribute a bit more with personal scoring.

---

I'd have to think his % is going to improve this year, because it is really atrocious!
But, in general, he is a terrible shooter at this point in his career, and no, it's not going to get much better.
His end is nearing, unlike Klay and Steph. He will absolutely be the first one to be gone, and I'm merely raising the question - like, "oh, gee, he's really starting to suck. We need to do something about that at some point."

The Warriors should have two good draft picks next year, and I think they need to target another young big guy to pair up with Wiseman. Keep Draymond around to tutor and push them!
I pray the MN Timberwolves don't land a top 3 in the lottery draft - that's really all I'm looking for right now.

If you have Curry, Klay and Wiggins as your scorers, that can compete with anyone in the league. They need Wiseman to get older faster and they need another big guy as well. Granted, veteran bigs are always available on the used car market, but....

Basically, we need more players. This year I see Curry and Wiggins (I'm happy with). Those 2 are not enough, and Klay will only push them so far. They still need more roster improvements.

And Mannion should probably go to the G League, then to the Norwegian League. Actually, he speaks Italian - go to Italy and enjoy the good life. That's his ceiling. No way an NBA player.

The Warriors were special pre-KD, no doubt about it.
But a big-time WORSE Draymond Green PLUS no KD means there is no way that that pre-KD dynasty returns. Just getting Klay back next year is not enough.

So, what are the moves they need to make. It will be another interesting offseason. Oubrey is clearly not the answer and will be gone unless he takes a massive pay cut. He's playing himself into the shlitzone for his next contract, which sucks for him. He was a super expensive 1 year rental. I commend the W's bankers for taking a chance on that working out. Maybe it has helped motivate Wiggins, though, and so you get your payback over there.

concordtom said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Everyone says the Warriors instantly got better once Draymond Green returned from Covid, and I agree.

That said, he is averaging just 4.6 pts, 5 rebs, 6.6 assists per game.
He has the team's worst PER,
He has the team's worst 3FG% at 19.4%,
He has the 2nd worst FG% at 33.3%, ahead of D-Leaguer Rookie Nico Mannion.

Steph is making $43M this year.
Klay: $35.3M
Wiggins: $29.5M
Draymond $22,246,956
Kelly Oubre: $14,375,000
James Wiseman: $8,730,240
Kevon Looney: $4,821,429
Kent Bazemore $2,320,044
Brad Wanamaker $2,250,000
and so on....

Draymond will make $24,026,712 next year.
Draymond will make $25,806,468 after that.
Draymond has player option after that: $27,586,224

It wouldn't be shocking to see Draymond be traded, but I don't think anyone would want to take on his salary!
In other words, he probably won't be traded because nobody would want him.

---

I still think you're misstating Draymond's value here. His contributions on the court lie substantially in the way that he quarterbacks both the offense and the defense. With the complex motion offense and switching defense that the Warriors employ, they need somebody like Draymond (quick note: there is almost no one else like Draymond) to make sure everyone is in the proper place, and that's something that is not captured in surface-level numbers (PER is based substantially on counting stats which is why Russell Westbrook has long been a PER monster without being a winning player). As you've acknowledged, the Warriors are clearly much worse without Draymond, a fact that would seem to belie your minimization of him as a player based purely on stats.

Or maybe looking at it from a different perspective: Draymond's extraordinarily high BBIQ is NOS for other elite players. He raises top-level players to greater heights, but alone, he's not particularly useful at raising a team's floor or ceiling unless you're asking him to instill defensive chops in young players. And to that point, if the Warriors have any notion of continuing to be title contenders during Curry's prime years, there is no way they let go of Draymond short of a trade for someone like Giannis who is superlative enough in other areas, including defense, to make up for losing Draymond's uniquely high BBIQ. If you're trading Draymond for draft picks and/or expiring contracts, then you're basically giving up on title contention for at least the next three years and have fun convincing Curry to re-up next year.

---

That's what I call a Hot Take.
Well done.
I'm just sick of him missing so many shots. As soon as he pulls up I know it's a brick. And it is.

I had to check out his career stats. Wow. Truly unimpressive.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/greendr01.html

No wonder he didn't like Durant - his #'s went down as soon as he arrived!

---

Here's what you're missing with your own take though: Even if they were to just straight up dump his salary in a trade without taking any new salary back (which they can't do anyway because of NBA salary matching rules), the Warriors are already so far over the cap that they could only replace him with a veteran minimum or the disabled player exception (~$9 million) they have this year for Klay. So unless you think there's an extraordinary diamond in the rough out there sitting on the couch waiting for a call or languishing in the G League, then you're talking about replacing Draymond Green with, say, a Dragan Bender and expecting the team to improve.

Moreover, to my point earlier in the thread, due to the fortunate timing of the salary cap jump that led to the team signing Kevin Durant in 2015, the Warriors are in a unique position relative to most teams in the league in that they are able to hold four max slots instead of just three. If you trade Draymond for anything less than a fellow max salary player, then the Warriors lose that fourth max slot and the inherent advantage that comes with it, which is why I also said earlier that the only Draymond trade this year that would make sense and keep the Warriors in immediate contention would be in a deal for someone like Giannis (or Gobert, or some other max player who happens to have elite defensive skills).

In other words, trade Draymond this year and maaaaaybe the team gets better this year (when they're not going to be winning the title anyway) only if it turns out that Draymond is really just a fatter Tony Allen nowadays. But then for the Warriors to be title contenders the next three years or so of Steph/Klay's prime, you're basically betting on the team hitting gold in the draft and for that rookie to be immediately ready to contribute and Wiseman to take a huge leap forward, all while reconfiguring their defensive identity around the loss of the player whose been their defensive fulcrum for the past 7 years and all without being able to use free agency to any significant extent. Color me skeptical that all those things happen to come together while Steph and Klay are at the current apex of their abilities.

Hey CT, I think Oubre heard you talking about him. he went off on Dallas for 40 tonight.