whatisacenter wrote:
straightforward to you because that's your opinion.
I disagree with you but for the sake of argument let's say I agreed. Are you on board extending Draymond for 3 years? Do you think Klay would be happy returning without an extension? What ring-chasing "high IQ" vet min free agents would you target and more importantly would they choose the Warriors over other contenders with the days of GS being a ring-chasers first choice appearing to be long gone? Or is there a trade you would make using Poole/JK that would bring in similar players to fill the 6th man roll and a rotation player?
Let's look at last season, the Warriors were basically a .500 team and that was with Curry missing 26 games and Wiggins missing 45. Two of your low IQ guys, Poole and Kuminga, filled in Curry and Wiggins and the team basically performed at the same level as they did when they were at full strength.
Also, the bench excuse doesn't stand out to me as it does to others here. Last year's playoff bench was Poole, GP2, OPJ and Belly. This year's playoff bench was Poole, GP2, DDV and JMG.
To me the biggest difference between the title year and last season was that the starters had trouble closing close games during the regular season and they looked overmatched in the second round vs. a flawed Lakers team after barely squeaking by the Kings on the shoulders of Curry's 50 point game.
no, its straightforward because I've been calling these things well ahead of time and its at this point extremely obvious. This system requires high BBIQ. Mainly because offensively there's a ton of improvising done by Curry and Draymond, and the defense requires high level understanding. When you put low IQ players into the mix, they stick out. Thats why Poole and Oubre stick out as notable negatives, and why younger/less experienced low IQ players like Wiseman and Kuminga never did and never will fit. I dont even think its a credible argument to have at this point if I'm being entirely honest
As for the questions, I've already said - to you - that I would extend Draymond as long as Curry's contract, because they are the 1 & 2 of what makes this work. I've also said in the post you quoted what I'd do about Klay, and I'm not really concerned with their happiness level of it. If they want to pout about it, let them.. they'll find the fanbase less than forgiving and the trade market just as bad, along with a FA market that's going to be rife with bottom-feeders and rebuilders, not contenders
I'm also not going to comb through each FA and each trade option and hitch my wagon to anything like that, I can just call out what is working and what isn't.. but generally, I'd be looking for smart veterans who are finding limited markets for their services. Considering what we've done for other smart veterans, I'd think we'd still be a prime destination. And I'd absolutely trade Poole, Kuminga, and/or 19 + other 1sts to make a trade for a vet as well. Plenty of options to choose from.. are they available? Do they want our guys? No idea and no interest in going that deep, but I like the general idea, and love the recent Kuminga news
As for the starters.. its just factually incorrect. The starters remained excellent, even subbing in DDV for Wiggins was extremely effective. There were 2 players (still on the team) who were consistently in our worst lineups, and thats Poole and Kuminga. Ironically they also were both present in two of our seldom used, but highly positive lineups as well (Poole/DDV/Klay/Kuminga/Dray & Poole/DDV/Lamb/Kuminga/Dray).. worth looking into if we keep them both, but the 2 other consistencies are DDV and Dray, 2 ball-handlers. But overall point being, the starting lineup was again great.
Now if you want to talk postseason, you really need to stop framing it the same way as the regular season. Its not equal at all, nor is
comparing one postseason to another. They are playing specific teams, specific matchups and specific scenarios. The Kings were the best offensive team in the league, on the backs of guys like Fox, Monk and Sabonis. Now a team that doesnt have a credible backup C like OPJ was for us, or doesnt have anyone who can really stick with explosive guards would look vulnerable. More so if offense-only weapons like Poole manage a 46% TS with 25% usage. Then, you go to the Lakers who get by on size, and that whole lack of a capable backup C issue becomes more prevalent, emphasized by the fact that the one game JMG played well in, we won handily. Also doesnt help that Kerr locked into Klay for 78 minutes of 2 close games where he was clearly ineffective, so he obviously shoulders some blame as well. But simply comparing one postseason to another.. that doesnt work. We played 6 different teams across the last 2 playoffs, looking at it as all the same is zooming out too far to be accurate