Vince Carter just signed for the minimum with Atlanta. He's a guy they could've signed who is super well respected by Dame and CJ. Guys like that don't need to take away playing time but can contribute if there are injuries or if the young guys are struggling.
I loved Ed and would still like him on the team, however he did disappoint me against the Pels. You are right in that they left Ed and doubled either Dame or CJ. WE needed more O out of the front line with P&R's during that series.
I'll take Stauskas over a soon to be 41 year old Vince Carter...he's a rental every season....Sac had cap room to keep him and they didn't....I really wanted to see Vince play his last years in Toronto just for the fan base there.
I realize the shooters weren't a direct replacement of Davis, I'm talking about the overall makeup of the roster. I know what Olshey is trying to say but it's all bullshit because he couldn't accomplish what he really wanted and is now trying to save face.
He's just an example of a player who could fit the mold as a veteran but also wouldn't take time away from development if young guys were stepping up. You don't think Stauskas is a rental? We have Curry, Baldwin, and Stauskas who will all be free agents next summer without full bird rights. If Stauskas and Curry both play well we would likely only be able to keep one or maybe neither. If they aren't good enough to want to keep then they'd be bad signings. What's the difference between that type of rental or an experienced veteran?
actually both are veterans with NBA experience..but younger veterans and both great 3 pt shooters...if they build value they are also trade assets if a good deal comes along by the deadline...my thoughts are that they'll bring speed to the bench and scoring without demanding a starting job
But if it's true that having players battle for minutes holds back the development of the younger guys why not just give those minutes to Baldwin, Trent, Layman, and maybe even Simons? Or does that rule only apply when the GM needs a reason for letting a fan favorite (Wes and Ed) walk for nothing in return?
Wes wasn't walking anywhere when we let him go....battling for Ed's minutes isn't going to rookies..it's going to guys who have spent time in Stotts system already
to the OP....we don't know who the 5 were...I'd guess Kawhi...Beasley...Ariza...DeRozan....Beal...maybe Lebron....for what it's worth...pure speculation..why lock the thread...you could add a poll with names you think were in the mix. The OP title also included the Olshey interview...which we were discussing
We got off topic, but there are quite a few “answers” to the question sprinkled in. I’ve seen threads go wayyyyg further of the rails than this one.
1) I'm not sure I agree with NO's assertion there... In life, the cream finds it's way to the top. As such, highly talented players will find ways to get on the court and make impacts. The process may take a bit longer (like 1 season) with the vet in front of them, but I'm don't think that is a bad thing in the least. 2) When I listened to the interview, I was assuming he was referencing Affallo at the vet that was in CJ's way. He mentioned something to the effect of 'we made some moves'.
Agreed. But we did absolutely nothing to get better... In fact, we got worse. The only way someone can possibly argue something different is by HOPING for internal growth of Collins. That will happen regardless of if Ed was here or not.
no...there are several other options one can argue...what you're saying is you don't value those guys..we have 7 front court players
I didn't get the impression that we were going to stop developing our young guys. I got the impression that we were going to look for experienced impact players to add if there were any available. I don't think I've seen us miss out on any of those guys...
