The question about IF a player can move up to be the 5th best player seems silly when you are talking about how much money went off the books.
Jameer Nelson is about to be waived. Doubt anyone claims him. Always been a fan of his. Ideal backup for a contender. Don't see Portland going after him because they already have Napier, but the idea is still a good one.
Dumping Crabbe only to use the TPE makes little sense financially. I wouldn't hold my breath that that's the plan. The odds are high that they'll let it expire. Just look at the players they could potentially target with it. It's not that great. They may as well have just kept Crabbe.
Yeah..like Schilly wrote. If the 15th spot becomes an issue this season will likely be a total fiasco. I think it’s just because people think it’s fun to think of a new Blazer, of course one with name recognition.
With that being the case, the bar for replacing that same vicinity player is pretty low. Doesn't seem like it would take a lot for someone else to step into that place. Gramps...
Ughhhhh. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not at all upset about ditching Crabbe's contract. But his contract has nothing to do with the fact we cut our 5th best player and are hoping our 10th-15th best player can fill his role. I honestly don't think it should be that hard for Pat to do, but typically it would be pretty far fetched. The fact is, this was purely a financial move and is not a case of addition by subtraction - we got worse. Period. Now, because I really do not care that we cut Crabbe, I'm going to do my best not to discuss it any longer.
Which parts of this are necessarily factual? "this was purely a financial move"--Sure, I think we can all agree that is factual. "and is not a case of addition by subtraction"--Debatable. If the team performed worse when he was on the floor than off, addition by subtraction is arguable. Not a fact. "we got worse. Period."--Definitely not a fact. Especially considering what we've seen from Turner this preseason, and how Connaughton seems to be faring in Crabbe's role, the claim that Crabbe's absence makes the team worse is pure speculation.
Go back and look at the chart I posted earlier. We performed better with Crabbe than we performed with the guys (Pat/Jake) who are going to take his role. So, even if Crabbe was a minus, his replacement(s) are/were bigger minuses. Turner was always going to have major rotation minutes - it doesn't matter if he plays better this year, he would have played better even if Crabbe were still on the team. We already had Turner/Pat. We didn't need to cut Crabbe in order to have them. (I'm not doing a good job of extricating myself from this stupid discussion...)
True, but given his contract and position, Crabbe was going to play if he were here, and now he won't. I'm of the opinion that he made the team worse when he came in, and that Turner taking some of his minutes makes the team less-worse. Also, it's fallacious to compare Pat's on-court stats from last year with Crabbe's since Pat never played with real NBA-caliber teammates. We don't have a valid sample of Pat playing in the 1st/2nd quarter with starters and 6th/7th men as Crabbe did. Thus, any conclusions drawn about Pat's ability to effectively replace Crabbe are speculative, not factual.
That's probably true. But a good coach would look past the contract and play the better player. If Pat is a better player than Crabbe, and Tater Totts played Crabbe over Pat, then that's a whole 'nother issue. It boils down to the fact that we had 10 tools to do the job, and now we have 9 tools. (Just using base-10 in my simplified explanation to illustrate what what we did in getting rid of Crabbe.) Crabbe was a specialty tool who would have made the job easier in certain scenarios.
