http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12342186/larry-sanders-milwaukee-bucks-close-buyout-agreement Sanders is a pretty big risk (whether drugs, personal problems, etc.) but in going with the "one crazy per good team" rule, he would potentially provide a MUCH bigger impact than, say, Tayshaun Prince or Victor Claver.
Dude just gave up over 20 million dollars to walk away. Don't think he's helping anybody this season.
Really need to know what the "personal issues" are before I'd be comfortable making any kind of recommendation. But, yeah, I've really liked him for a while.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but this was another guy that some wanted to trade LMA for.............
I would sign him. He's the kind of low risk/high reward guy that we need. if he flops, oh well, but if he somehow jumpstarts his career...... could pay off big time.
It's tempting to sign him for the rest of the season as a short term rental and hope that the change of environment would motivate him, but... The guy seems to prefer coasting through life on a few million a year over playing basketball for $15 million a year. Winning doesn't appear to be sufficient motivation as the Bucks are doing pretty well without him and would probably be a top 4 seed in the East if they had him playing at his full potential. So, why would he come here, or anywhere else, to play for a shit ton less than he could be making in Milwaukee if he as willing to honor his current contract? So, long story short: No thanks. Not worth the roster spot. BNM
On talent alone it would be great but I would go so far as to say that if he signs with someone else then that is complete bullshit. He basically said he didnt want to play bball anymore and thats why the Bucks were supposedly buying him out, so why would he want to sign with someone else? If he does you know there is more to the story.
Because sometimes a turn-around at the organizational level isn't enough to reignite interest when you've already mentally checked-out? There are certainly red flags surrounding him, but I agree with Nate that it's low-risk/high-reward...at a position we don't really need much help at (knock on wood).
I don't see how its a simple low risk move at all. Do you sign him and then turn around and say sorry Joel, sorry Meyers, your minutes are going to this hot head because he was good at blocking shots two years ago? I know teams can usually have one idiot. But I don't see how adding that one idiot with 30 games to go with decent players at his position isn't a risk. On top of that, again, he gave up a ton of money. If he was interested in playing basketball at all right now, I don't think he'd be giving that money up. He's someone I'd consider in the offseason, but that seems like a great opportunity to fracture a locker room in what could be a special season
Pacers thought it was a low risk/high reward when they signed Andrew Bynum. Turned out to be a high risk/no reward.
Sounds they would have imploded without that signing. Maybe it didn't help things, but I don't think it's what kicked their legs out from under them either.
He's an artist someone said...now a millionaire and likes to smoke pot..yep, he probably does want to just walk away from the grind of basketball.
