Steph Curry showing that of all the aging superstars he would make the best GM?

We've seen a lot of colossal failure come out of "win now" trades. The last time we saw a team win a championship by trading multiple picks/young talents for a star over 30 was...?

I genuinely am not sure. I am tempted to say the 2008 Celtics were the last time someone got that right. The most successful recent example of a trade like that could be Minnesota getting Rudy Gobert, it only got them to the conference Final and there's only one poster on this board that would seriously argue that the Gobert trade was the main reason for that bit of success with things taking a decisive turn for the worse after trading Towns. Meanwhile we have a lot of examples of it going badly.

Brooklyn currently has to put up with Ben Simmons criticizing the front office for tanking. They wouldn't have to listen to him at all if they didn't have to figure out a way to get rid of James Harden, who they brought in because they let Irving and Durant run the team for a few years. This is also due to Harden's specific issues (I think he got sick of the Irving Rollercoaster but that's just a guess) but what happened to Brooklyn is after the all-time blunder of creating the current Celtics foundation they had managed to recover from by giving complete control Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving. They came there claiming to love the culture and then proceeded llto destroy it, getting rid of the coach that is now leading the Cavaliers to the top of the standings. Then they did Cleveland another solid, shipping them Jarrett Allen as part of the franchise-destroying trade that brought in James Harden. Along with Allen the Nets lost Taurean Prince, Chris Levert, 3 first round draft picks and 4 pick swaps.

This would not have been so bad though, if Harden was at least willing to stick it out. As much as they gave up, a few years of near-peak Harden and KD might have gotten a championship with some luck (every champion needs luck) but that wasn't meant to be. Harden demanded a trade, from the outside looking in because he was sick of the bs with Kyrie Irving (a long and well-documented story). So the Nets complied. They did not get anything near 3 firsts and 4 pick swaps. They got Ben Simmons in a trade with Philly that has basically amounted to murder/suicide.

The Sixers had to trade for Harden to get out of the insane situation with Ben Simmons (any team better think about this before they hand him a large deal). Because the Simmons situation was so awful it would have taken a lot for them to lose on their Harden deal. But they can't have been happy with how it went. I believe they got a second round exit and some picks from the Clippers. They could have kept Harden but at a contract they didn't think he was worth.

As bad as all that was the Paul George trade was much worse. I grew up on the idea of the Clippers being the league laughingstock. Never would have guessed that their worst move ever was yet to come. Could you imagine trading the current Thunder team for Paul George? Somehow that's basically what happened...SGA, 4 unprotected firsts, 1 protected first, and 2 pick swaps. Some crazy deals can happen when a team thinks they are just one piece away.

The ultimate culprit may be the idea that ceding control of your franchise's future to someone that only cares about the next June is a good idea. Steph Curry and Draymond Green seem to have taken the unusual stance of advising against the desperate mortgaging of talent to give them a last chance at a ring (that probably ends in the first two rounds).

I think Steph will have a top 10 legacy when its all said and done. He embraced being the Warriors and it worked out well for him, also because of all those other stars that didn't stay around.

Steph is the kind of player you want as a franchise, he has defined the Warriors for 10+ years now, much like Duncan etc.

If they are smart they keep him around.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14969594]We've seen a lot of colossal failure come out of "win now" trades. The last time we saw a team win a championship by trading multiple picks/young talents for a star over 30 was...?

I genuinely am not sure. [B]I am tempted to say the 2008 Celtics were the last time someone got that right.[/B] The most successful recent example of a trade like that could be Minnesota getting Rudy Gobert, it only got them to the conference Final and there's only one poster on this board that would seriously argue that the Gobert trade was the main reason for that bit of success with things taking a decisive turn for the worse after trading Towns. Meanwhile we have a lot of examples of it going badly.

Brooklyn currently has to put up with Ben Simmons criticizing the front office for tanking. They wouldn't have to listen to him at all if they didn't have to figure out a way to get rid of James Harden, who they brought in because they let Irving and Durant run the team for a few years. This is also due to Harden's specific issues (I think he got sick of the Irving Rollercoaster but that's just a guess) but what happened to Brooklyn is after the all-time blunder of creating the current Celtics foundation they had managed to recover from by giving complete control Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving. They came there claiming to love the culture and then proceeded llto destroy it, getting rid of the coach that is now leading the Cavaliers to the top of the standings. Then they did Cleveland another solid, shipping them Jarrett Allen as part of the franchise-destroying trade that brought in James Harden. Along with Allen the Nets lost Taurean Prince, Chris Levert, 3 first round draft picks and 4 pick swaps.

This would not have been so bad though, if Harden was at least willing to stick it out. As much as they gave up, a few years of near-peak Harden and KD might have gotten a championship with some luck (every champion needs luck) but that wasn't meant to be. Harden demanded a trade, from the outside looking in because he was sick of the bs with Kyrie Irving (a long and well-documented story). So the Nets complied. They did not get anything near 3 firsts and 4 pick swaps. They got Ben Simmons in a trade with Philly that has basically amounted to murder/suicide.

The Sixers had to trade for Harden to get out of the insane situation with Ben Simmons (any team better think about this before they hand him a large deal). Because the Simmons situation was so awful it would have taken a lot for them to lose on their Harden deal. But they can't have been happy with how it went. I believe they got a second round exit and some picks from the Clippers. They could have kept Harden but at a contract they didn't think he was worth.

As bad as all that was the Paul George trade was much worse. I grew up on the idea of the Clippers being the league laughingstock. Never would have guessed that their worst move ever was yet to come. Could you imagine trading the current Thunder team for Paul George? Somehow that's basically what happened...SGA, 4 unprotected firsts, 1 protected first, and 2 pick swaps. Some crazy deals can happen when a team thinks they are just one piece away.

The ultimate culprit may be the idea that ceding control of your franchise's future to someone that only cares about the next June is a good idea. Steph Curry and Draymond Green seem to have taken the unusual stance of advising against the desperate mortgaging of talent to give them a last chance at a ring (that probably ends in the first two rounds).[/QUOTE]


Kinda feels like this was probably the whole purpose thread.

[QUOTE=Neal Romer;14969597]Kinda feels like this was probably the whole purpose thread.[/QUOTE]

I am not responsible for your perceptions, especially given the fact that you're an idiot.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14969598]I am not responsible for your perceptions, especially given the fact that you're an idiot.[/QUOTE]

I realize youre hyper defensive because everyone has shit on you so much, deservedly so, over the years, but my post was not an attack. It was just a joke.

[QUOTE=Neal Romer;14969600]I realize youre hyper defensive because everyone has shit on you so much, deservedly so, over the years, but my post was not an attack. It was just a joke.[/QUOTE]

I am aware that you are an idiot troll. Moving on.

Idk but maybe he'll try to get kerr fired for their present shortcomings if that becomes the case.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14969598]I am not responsible for your perceptions, especially given the fact that you're an idiot.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol:

Jarrett Allen was actually a part of two awful win-now trades. The Wizards traded the pick that became Allen for half a season of Bojan Bogdanovich, who walked in free agency that summer.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14969594]We've seen a lot of colossal failure come out of "win now" trades. The last time we saw a team win a championship by trading multiple picks/young talents for a star over 30 was...?

[/QUOTE]
The alternative is not better. The vast vast majority of teams keeping their picks/young talent doesn't win a championship either.

[QUOTE=iamgine;14969715]The alternative is not better. The vast vast majority of teams keeping their picks/young talent doesn't win a championship either.[/QUOTE]

Celtics, Nuggets, Warriors, Bucks. The last 4 NBA Champions built their core around young talent. The team before them, the Lakers, did get AD by shipping out their youth (answered my original question) but overall recent history favors not trading away the kids. You just have to have the right ones. Your response is off. Most "young talent" isn't good enough to compete for a title. The young players on the Nets won't lead them to a title? Well, duh. You can't trade them for a superstar either so the conversation is moot. A more relevant example would be the Thunder. They are a leading contender for now and the foreseeable future because they traded their "superstar" for young talent. Further they could make a deal to get any star they want other than Wembanyama and a select few stars on teams that think they are too close to winning a championship to be tampered with themselves. So should the Thunder trade Jaylen Williams, Chet Holmgren and a few firsts for Kevin Durant?

Because they won't.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14969717]Celtics, Nuggets, Warriors, Bucks. The last 4 NBA Champions built their core around young talent. The team before them, the Lakers, did get AD by shipping out their youth (answered my original question) but overall recent history favors not trading away the kids. You just have to have the right ones. Your response is off. Most "young talent" isn't good enough to compete for a title. The young players on the Nets won't lead them to a title? Well, duh. You can't trade them for a superstar either so the conversation is moot. A more relevant example would be the Thunder. They are a leading contender for now and the foreseeable future because they traded their "superstar" for young talent. Further they could make a deal to get any star they want other than Wembanyama and a select few stars on teams that think they are too close to winning a championship to be tampered with themselves. So should the Thunder trade Jaylen Williams, Chet Holmgren and a few firsts for Kevin Durant?

Because they won't.[/QUOTE]

Well for example Bucks "only" won 1 championship. Quite a lucky one at that. How many would they win by shipping their talents for KD back then? Maybe one or two? What about the other vast majority of teams building around young talents? They don't seem to win. Current Thunder haven't won anything. Maybe they win one in the near future? If they trade Holmgren and 5 picks for 36 yrs old Curry for example, their chance to win one or two titles to me is about equal.

The alternative is not better.

[QUOTE=iamgine;14969725]Well for example Bucks "only" won 1 championship. Quite a lucky one at that. How many would they win by shipping their talents for KD back then? Maybe one or two? What about the other vast majority of teams building around young talents? They don't seem to win. Current Thunder haven't won anything. Maybe they win one in the near future? If they trade Holmgren and 5 picks for 36 yrs old Curry for example, their chance to win one or two titles to me is about equal.

The alternative is not better.[/QUOTE]Again you don't limit your speculation to what is possible. How were the Bucks supposed to trade for Durant when they actually did mortgage every asset they could and it only got them Dame Lillaird? And that trade was built around jrue Holliday, who isn't even a young player. Don't sew where you're going with that.

The Thunder not having a title yet should not be held against them when SGA is only 26. They are built for long term success and that's the result of being smart(er than the Clippers). The Clippers are who followed your ideal of mortgaging the future for the present. And how has that worked out for them?

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14969726]Again you don't limit your speculation to what is possible. How were the Bucks supposed to trade for Durant when they actually did mortgage every asset they could and it only got them Dame Lillaird? And that trade was built around jrue Holliday, who isn't even a young player. Don't sew where you're going with that.

The Thunder not having a title yet should not be held against them when SGA is only 26. They are built for long term success and that's the result of being smart(er than the Clippers). The Clippers are who followed your ideal of mortgaging the future for the present. And how has that worked out for them?[/QUOTE]

Well sometimes only a Dame Lillard was available. But other times teams could get a Garnett for Al Jefferson.

Clippers didn't work out. Like so many teams who built their core around young talent doesn't work out.

[QUOTE=iamgine;14969735]Well sometimes only a Dame Lillard was available. But other times teams could get a Garnett for Al Jefferson.

Clippers didn't work out. Like so many teams who built their core around young talent doesn't work out.[/QUOTE]


Youre right, but hes not smart enough for this conversation.

[QUOTE=iamgine;14969735]Well sometimes only a Dame Lillard was available. But other times teams could get a Garnett for Al Jefferson.

Clippers didn't work out. Like so many teams who built their core around young talent doesn't work out.[/QUOTE]

Your still sick on this trade that the Nets or Suns were never going to do. Please outline what package of young talent and picks the Bucks were going to put together that gets them Kevin Durant.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14969741]Your still sick on this trade that the Nets or Suns were never going to do. Please outline what package of young talent and picks the Bucks were going to put together that gets them Kevin Durant.[/QUOTE]

In trades anything is possible. i.e a team could get a Garnett for Al Jefferson.

[QUOTE=iamgine;14969742]In trades anything is possible. i.e a team could get a Garnett for Al Jefferson.[/QUOTE]

So the Bucks could have traded Grayson Allen and a future first for KD? Do you think that was all it was going to take? You continue to ignore the fact any team that trades a superstar is expecting huge returns. The Nets got Mikal Bridges, Cam Johnson and 4 unprotected future firsts. That's the value the Bucks would have to be coming with. Now show me how they match that value without offering Giannis and are left with a team that makes any sense.