We have two shooters off the bench in Curry and Trent. One's a combo guard that can play PG or SG, ones a wing that can play SG or SF, and then Layman, who has shooting potential, is another SF as well, with a multi-tooled PG in WBIV in there as well. We literally have those positions covered, player-wise and shooting-wise, so I don't understand why we'd have someone like Stauskas... It's overkill, and he's the worst of the bunch. Jonathan Simmons is a unique player, of a certain mold that isn't present on this team. Even if he falls out of the rotation, is it not worth the small gamble and improved depth? I just don't understand... I'd love to have a conversation with Neil about it.
The only thing I’d use to defend Neil is Paul wouldn’t sign off on spending 20m+ on a jonathon Simmons. But that would only lead me to another question; if you don’t want to financially commit to this group, why don’t you blow it up? What the hell is the plan?
Roster construction isn’t Neil’s forte obviously. You can tell by the fact he has a hardon for undersized combo guards and long/skinny guys who can’t really shoot.
When’s the last time we had a roster that you could’ve said was balanced? LAs last season? Made up of mainly guys Neil inherited?
I think it's just a lack of creativity or a lack of negotiating... I'm not sure. We have to judge on results though, and if results were different, then our judgement would be different as well.
Not even those teams were balanced because we had the worst benches in history back then. I’d say our last truly balanced team would be 2010-11ish.
I don't really care that they didn't use the TPE on a player that would put them further into cap issues, and wouldn't realistically make a lick of difference. The biggest thing is they got out of Crabbes shitty contract. I'm happy. If they traded Meyers for a bucket of cat litter, I'd be happy too.
I think you are missing a very important point. Out sending messages. Sometimes what he says isnt meant for the fans. Maybe he said “we have this big tpe to be agressive with” was for other teams? Maybe he was aggressive with it at first but when the few potential “good move “ choices thst could help the roster now vanished, he backed off? My point is just because a guy dows an interview doesnt mean he is talking to the fans and diesnt have alterior motives. With that said, it would have been nice to see something early on for one of those few roster improving guys.
Bingo. Being a GM is a sales job. More often than not you loose a sale but you always got to keep an aggressive front.
And literally the only reason I can think that we wouldn't do that is if Paul Allen said no. I'm sure Olshey, Stotts, Dame, and CJ would be all over that plan...
