I still think Matthews would blossom under a non-Nate coach. But trading him isn't the end of the world, for sure. We have so few assets to maneuver around with this offseason, and we would probably be able to give Williams more burn if Matthews isn't there.
How? He's basically a spot-up shooter at this point, and he had less success under Jerry Sloan than he had under Nate. If anything, Nate probably expected too much of Wes by continuing to start him.
Evans is an expiring deal, likely to ask for a good deal more than what wes is being paid. So either you lose him after a year, or you're paying for him. He is better than Wes, and would be happy with the upgrade. I see the difference between him and Wes, and 5 to 6 as another lottery pick at 11. I think that that's fair. I can see an argument, I wouldn't believe it, but can maybe see an argument for the 2nds and a future first. So ok. I think taking on Salmons kills it. The majority of trades never seem to work that way where you attach a bad contract and still get a team to overpay. It's either I overpay for your good assets, or pay a fair price because I have to take on shit. Not I overpay AND get saddled with shit.
Hey, maybe Wes would explode under a new coach. Nate and Sloan are both controlling in their approach to coaching.
At some point I think it's OK to say a player has limitations that they aren't likely to overcome. I mean, Wesley went undrafted probably for some reason right? The fact that he's shown he's at least a rotation quality player is pretty remarkable. Given his age and what I see as pretty insurmountable limits I think moving Matthews should be something the team considers, especially given how much money he makes.
except we can't trade any of our future firsts. UNLESS....we make some deal with CHA either getting our pick back or removing the protections.
