Papagiannis might develop, but...Can anyone explain why Olshey kept Layman, who has consistently failed for 2 years? One is an unknown; the other is a known. He already knows the Stotts system? What kind of reason is that?
Did you not watch the game today? Layman is a player if he ever starts hitting his shot consistently. He's very fluid and athletic, crashes the boards, and plays decent defense. He's on a cheap contract for one more year. I get that he needs to play better in actual games but he's just fine as an end of the bench guy for now.
Why? We would still have to pay him. The roster doesn't have to be paired down till late October so it would be foolish cutting any asset at this stage. Trades can still be made to bring the roster down.
I think Layman will be in the league a long time. Also, when Teery talks about him you can tell he really like his versatility and I think Terry see a younger him type player.
