Like others have said, I wouldn't lose sleep over any of them leaving and I certainly don't see any of them being true building block type guys. But I like Vonleh/Connaughton/Napier well enough for their cost/fit that I don't see much point in moving any of them. I'd like to keep one of Harkless/Aminu/Davis since they are decent role players when healthy and are reasonably affordable. I'd probably look to move two of those guys plus picks this summer if we want to have much hope of making an even mildly splashy move (big move ain't gonna happen). Layman and Quarterman don't really seem like NBA quality talent to me, so I'm fine with moving on from them. Turner/Crabbe/Leonard are in a category of their own, and the only albatrosses on the team at the moment. Leonard more so because he virtually played his way out of the league this past season and Turner and Crabbe because they are both simply paid way more than they will ever be worth. These three are the ones you have to look to move almost regardless of the return. Certainly you don't want to dump good assets to move them, or take on similarly awful contracts and/or cancerous players in return. But otherwise, Olshey has to prioritize ridding himself of these three, and rinsing off the poo tint that last summer left behind.
FWIW, I look at the Warriors salaries and it's no wonder they can accumulate the talent they have. They're paying Curry and Thompson, combined, what we pay Dame. Once you get past their top 5, they have one guy making $5M+ and the rest under $3M. They pay Thompson, Curry, Green, and Iggy (combined $44M) less than Dame and CJ combined ($50M). Steph Curry made just $12M last season.
I did, since you said that we aren't just waiving these guys. Leonard's not tradeable. Okay, I'm kidding--I just haven't voted. None of the players I'd want to go do I think we can find reasonable trades for.
I am as far off the Harkless bandwagon as you can get! He's a CTC player and we can do better. And yes, I voted GO!
What, because he refused to shoot threes at the end of the season, he's now a paycheck player? That's not at all an overreaction...
Surprisingly to me, the same two (Meyers and Crabbe) are being voted off the island here as on O-Live. I thought more players would get the boot. Granted, some have more 'Go' votes here percentage wise than on the O-Live polls. I'm still surprised that so far, posters want all but 2 players back off a team that was headed for the mid-Lottery before Nurkic saved the season.
I voted 'go' on Davis, Vonleh and Aminu. The other players I still have faith in or don't mind staying because they're not impact players anyway
Perhaps it says more about the way the question is phrased than anything else. Minstrel's got it pretty well pegged regarding asking how are we making these players "go". Furthermore, there are several players (Aminu, Davis, Layman, Connaughton) about whom I'm basically indifferent. I could easily have voted for all of them as well, but I don't feel strongly enough about them to do so.
@PtldPlatypus ...there can always be endless 'Why' or 'How' issues with moving a player. Fans can justify or rationalize almost anything. But when put to having to decide, given their contract/health/production.....do want them here or want them gone?
And using that binary mode of thinking, I voted for Leonard, Crabbe, and Turner to go. However, as stated, I don't think it's necessarily that simple for all the players. To put it another way, if the question were rephrased as to "Who should stay?" rather than "Who should go?" using this same group of 10 players, I'd be surprised if more than 3 players get 50% or higher. Most of the guys exist in a gray area.
@PtldPlatypus ....I agree with the "gray area" which is where Portland was for the majority of the season. Gray area / basketball purgatory.
For me, it is more about which players will be traded that will both IMPROVE the team, AND, keep the team out of luxury tax hell as much as possible. Not about whom the fans want to stay or go. If both conditions are met, every player on that list is tradable; while the remaining players can sit on the end of the bench if they get beat out at their position by a new player. If Olshey can make trades that both improve the team while staying out of LT hell, it does not matter how much any of those players on this list make, or how well they play, and which ones stay or go. I want Olshey to improve the Blazer’s team, end of story.
It's not a matter of rationalization. Suppose you're broke--looking at your life, you have a crappy apartment, crappy car, crappy job and a crappy computer. So, which of those things do you want to "go?" What does that even mean? You could scrap your car, quit your job, abandon your apartment--and then what? You're broke, you can't get better things--you had those things because they were the best you could afford. You also can't trade them for better things because why would anyone give you better things than what you're trading away? The point is, your locked into those things until your situation changes. Asking, "Which of these crappy assets do I want gone?" is relatively meaningless. Similarly, asking "Which of our bad players do we want gone?" is relatively meaningless. All of them? Except then we don't have a roster, so none of them? We can't trade them for superior players and waiving them doesn't help in any way. I get that it's satisfying to say, "Let's get rid of Leonard, Crabbe, Turner, Layman, etc." But without a mechanism for turning them into better players, all it is is yelling into the wind.
