Yeah, I don't think any of Grant/Simons/Ayton need to be removed from this team so any of our young guys can grow. Thats just not an issue, our lack of talent and G Leaguers playing extended minutes is evidence of that. However it doesn't make sense to hold onto those vets when we could instead get an asset for the future, or use their salary space for a future asset. That is the reason it makes no sense to hold onto all 5 of the vets we do. The vets actually have some small benefit in practice and games for our young players. However we can get that benefit from vet minimum guys. So again its a waste of our rebuild to have resources diverting to our vets being here. But agreed, it doesn't hurt any of Scoot/Sharpe/etc growing and taking steps to be a #1 option if they ever have that potential. I hope it becomes a problem where Simons/Grant are preventing the growth of Scoot/Sharpe. Right now I'm much more concerned Scoot/Sharpe will never be good starting level NBA players. LeBron situation was totally different, he was obviously a MUCH better historic prospect. And Ricky Davis, Miles, etc were way worse teammates than anyone on the Blazers.
It is simply an example of when arguably the best player in the history of the NBA needed the runway cleared. This isn't a personal attack on anybody.
The problem with that line of thinking is, there's no way of knowing that LeBron wouldn't have turned out just as good without jettisoning those vets. He was pretty damn good right out of the gates, so you're basing that theory entirely on his coach describing what they did which worked out well. During those early years, LeBron was a lousy closer. Who knows, maybe he would have fared better in 4th quarters and big games if he had more of a veteran presence guiding him?
I'm not making that claim. But the people in charge definitely noticed a difference. They noticed the problems and they noticed a marked improvement in the way he practiced and trained and behaved around the team. Would LeBron have benefited from having a Dame or Tim Duncan as one of his vets? Absolutely. Would he have benefited from Ant? Or Grant? Or Ayton? No. I don't think so.
Mark my words the timeline will come and go with no update. Then a little while after they’ll announce he’s out another 2-3 weeks. After that ends, they’ll be another delay in announcing an update at which point they’ll come out and announce he’s out for pretty much the whole season with a surgery announcement.
This is so not true. LeBron was good right away and the starting lineup was pretty balanced. LeBron/Davis/Miles/Boozer/Z. LeBron didn’t need people traded to become the man. He was the man right away.
It was pretty well know that they didn't want Ricky and Miles to be a negative impact on 'Bron. Don't listen to the self appointed expert.
Boozer was an All Star and All NBA player, much better than what Cleveland had at that position after he left.
This new medication for this little bug that I have is not allowing me to sleep, so I apologize in advance if I come off a little persnickety. But, are some of you fucking kidding me with your horseshit takes? To those this applies to, do us all a favor get to where you’re going with your takes and go fuck yourselves
As far as I remember, they didn't want Boozer to leave. By my recollection, they chose not to exercise his option so they could give him a big raise as a free agent, and he shocked them (and most around the league) by leaving Cleveland and unexpectedly signing with Utah. https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=1848196
After he said that Darius Miles was better than LeBron. Sounds like he was really sold on LeBron's leadership...
