.
Pelicans Report
 
Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 308

Thread: Possible Free Agent Targets

  1. #201
    Exhibit C Nola3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    That's my thought. I'm not sure I'm a huge fan of either, just because the contracts on both guys are legitimately absurd (and the Adams one lasts even longer) but at least Adams is (by all reports I've heard) a legitimately decent guy, easy to get along with, good locker room presence. At the same time, Adams is not a selfish player, does the gritty work (boxes out and sets screens like a madman), and is willing to sacrifice his numbers for others. Westbrook's artificially inflated rebounds stats will tell you that much.
    What do you think OKC would want for Adams? Because I'm intrigued for all the reasons you stated, but I wouldn't want to give up that many future assets to get him.

  2. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by Nola3 View Post
    What do you think OKC would want for Adams? Because I'm intrigued for all the reasons you stated, but I wouldn't want to give up that many future assets to get him.
    I'm not too sure, to be honest. Their roster is kind of a hell-hole, it needs so much adding to it, and they're capped out beyond belief. They might just be willing to give him up for something like Moore and a couple of second rounders, just for the sake of cap relief.

    On the other hand, they do seem to think they're in win-now mode when in reality they're in the world's slowest and least efficient rebuild, so maybe they'd want actually good players instead, and I'm not interested in sending them Ball, Jrue, Zion, Hayes, or NAW.
    Basketball.

  3. #203
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    public housing
    Posts
    3,515
    Quote Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN View Post
    It was a much different situation with Rondo and Boogie. We now have a very young locker room that Griffin is looking for the right culture for. Whiteside is not someone you want in your locker room with young guys. The Adams proposal makes much more sense.
    Dwyane Wade and Udonis Haslem Heap Praise on Hassan Whiteside for Growth and Maturity This Season

    https://heatnation.com/media/dwyane-...turity-season/

    I've been doing a whole bunch of probably unnecessary digging into Whiteside. Are we sure it's fair to label him as a "basketcase" or a locker room problem?

  4. #204
    Exhibit C Nola3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    I'm not too sure, to be honest. Their roster is kind of a hell-hole, it needs so much adding to it, and they're capped out beyond belief. They might just be willing to give him up for something like Moore and a couple of second rounders, just for the sake of cap relief.

    On the other hand, they do seem to think they're in win-now mode when in reality they're in the world's slowest and least efficient rebuild, so maybe they'd want actually good players instead, and I'm not interested in sending them Ball, Jrue, Zion, Hayes, or NAW.
    They need shooting in the worst way, so Moore might actually be a decent chip in a trade (although I really like E'Twaun and would love to keep him around). Their cap situation really is an abomination though. What do you think both sides say to Moore, Frank, and a top 20 protected 1st that becomes lottery protected after that?

  5. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by NMThreeMVP View Post
    Dwyane Wade and Udonis Haslem Heap Praise on Hassan Whiteside for Growth and Maturity This Season

    https://heatnation.com/media/dwyane-...turity-season/

    I've been doing a whole bunch of probably unnecessary digging into Whiteside. Are we sure it's fair to label him as a "basketcase" or a locker room problem?
    Whiteside is an extremely limited player who doesn't seem to understand that his role in the NBA is becoming less and less vital, and he's fairly angry about it. He plays a very limited game, under or near the rim, with no ability to (or interest in) expanding his offensive game to include more space. Space is his problem on the other end too, because while we all know he's a very capable rim protector, he's a poor protector in space, can't really switch effectively, and is a non-factor on the perimeter. In a post-Golden State world, that's not nearly as useful as it used to be, and he's upset.

    In 2018, basically a year ago now, he said this: ''Man, it's annoying, you know. Why we matching up? We got one of the best centers in the league. Why we matching up? A lot of teams don't have a good center." Now, you can argue that he's right to an extent, but in reality it's not that he's right, it's that he's looking at the league wrong. What he means is ''why am I not being given 35 minutes a night, nobody else has a center like me anymore''. Which is true, but that's not because he's Shaq, it's because centers like him are increasingly obsolete in today's game.

    He was regularly complaining about his minutes and his usage, whining at almost every opportunity, even to the point where he was walking out of games alone before they were finished (as in the December 2018 loss to Orlando) and complaining to the media about his minutes after games.

    That's not a good look.

  6. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by Nola3 View Post
    They need shooting in the worst way, so Moore might actually be a decent chip in a trade (although I really like E'Twaun and would love to keep him around). Their cap situation really is an abomination though. What do you think both sides say to Moore, Frank, and a top 20 protected 1st that becomes lottery protected after that?
    We'd be sending out the first in this situation?

  7. #207
    Exhibit C Nola3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    We'd be sending out the first in this situation?
    I was thinking so, yea. You think we could get him for less?

  8. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by Nola3 View Post
    I was thinking so, yea. You think we could get him for less?
    Probably, their cap situation is really horrible. They might consider it for Moore and two seconds. I'd be very sceptical about giving up our own first rounder next year (it projects to be a pretty good draft class and we might still be a lottery team) and I wouldn't want to be giving up the Lakers haul to take on bad salary.

  9. #209
    Exhibit C Nola3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Probably, their cap situation is really horrible. They might consider it for Moore and two seconds. I'd be very sceptical about giving up our own first rounder next year (it projects to be a pretty good draft class and we might still be a lottery team) and I wouldn't want to be giving up the Lakers haul to take on bad salary.
    I agree, that's why I was saying top 20, but if we could limit the price to 2 seconds, I do that in a heartbeat.

  10. #210
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    public housing
    Posts
    3,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Whiteside is an extremely limited player who doesn't seem to understand that his role in the NBA is becoming less and less vital, and he's fairly angry about it. He plays a very limited game, under or near the rim, with no ability to (or interest in) expanding his offensive game to include more space. Space is his problem on the other end too, because while we all know he's a very capable rim protector, he's a poor protector in space, can't really switch effectively, and is a non-factor on the perimeter. In a post-Golden State world, that's not nearly as useful as it used to be, and he's upset.

    In 2018, basically a year ago now, he said this: ''Man, it's annoying, you know. Why we matching up? We got one of the best centers in the league. Why we matching up? A lot of teams don't have a good center." Now, you can argue that he's right to an extent, but in reality it's not that he's right, it's that he's looking at the league wrong. What he means is ''why am I not being given 35 minutes a night, nobody else has a center like me anymore''. Which is true, but that's not because he's Shaq, it's because centers like him are increasingly obsolete in today's game.

    He was regularly complaining about his minutes and his usage, whining at almost every opportunity, even to the point where he was walking out of games alone before they were finished (as in the December 2018 loss to Orlando) and complaining to the media about his minutes after games.

    That's not a good look.
    The only quibble I have, is that everything I've read would seem to put the above in the past tense. A lot can change in a year, and for him it seems like it has. He accepted his role coming off the bench the 2nd half of last season and while I have ZERO first hand knowledge (obviously), from blogs and the Miami Herald, it seems like his off court maturity turned the corner this season. One article attributed it to him getting older and having his first kid.

    That aside, I would never suggest taking Whiteside in a vacuum or committing to him long term. I think you only consider it if you're getting an asset(s) in return. And again, it may only need to be a 4 month rental.

    If the Pelicans really want to have as much flexibility as possible, taking on a large expiring is the way to go. Someone like Serge Ibaka would be ideal, if we could get him from Toronto for free. If a star becomes available at the deadline, we need to be able to match salary and I'd bet an expiring contract would be better than a 2 or 3 year deal.

    IF Gentry/Griff believe they can get "good" Hassan, and the Heat are willing to throw in assets (maybe Dragic and a pick), I wouldn't be opposed.

  11. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by NMThreeMVP View Post
    The only quibble I have, is that everything I've read would seem to put the above in the past tense. A lot can change in a year, and for him it seems like it has. He accepted his role coming off the bench the 2nd half of last season and while I have ZERO first hand knowledge (obviously), from blogs and the Miami Herald, it seems like his off court maturity turned the corner this season. One article attributed it to him getting older and having his first kid.

    That aside, I would never suggest taking Whiteside in a vacuum or committing to him long term. I think you only consider it if you're getting an asset(s) in return. And again, it may only need to be a 4 month rental.

    If the Pelicans really want to have as much flexibility as possible, taking on a large expiring is the way to go. Someone like Serge Ibaka would be ideal, if we could get him from Toronto for free. If a star becomes available at the deadline, we need to be able to match salary and I'd bet an expiring contract would be better than a 2 or 3 year deal.

    IF Gentry/Griff believe they can get "good" Hassan, and the Heat are willing to throw in assets (maybe Dragic and a pick), I wouldn't be opposed.
    That's fair. I still don't like his game, but I do admit that it could be more of a past-tense issue.

    I don't view Dragic as an asset. He's yet another guard, he's 33, extremely injury prone, and he's got a contract so big that if we took him and Whiteside on, we'd actually have to give up another asset to make the salaries work. He's a cost we'd be absorbing, not an asset to take on.

    I'd still much rather prefer Steven Adams if we were going down the route of ''offensively limited big men with giant contracts''. Just a much better locker-room presence for his entire career, much more fundamentally sound player who I think is totally happy to take that backseat role and to be a mentor and secondary piece.

  12. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by Nola3 View Post
    I agree, that's why I was saying top 20, but if we could limit the price to 2 seconds, I do that in a heartbeat.
    We have something absurd like 11 second round picks right now, so honestly I wouldn't even mind throwing them three if they really wanted them.

    The more I think about it, the more I think I like the idea of an Adams trade. It's not perfect, by any means, but there's a lot of upsides. He's not even 26 yet, he's efficient, he isn't turnover or foul prone, he's completely unselfish, he's a stupidly good offensive rebounder, his big man fundamentals like screening, handing off, and boxing out are extremely high level, he's a pretty good passer even though he's not a playmaker, etc etc. He'd be a great guy for someone like Hayes to learn from, and his locker-room presence would be good for the young guys given that he's so easy going and so happy to sacrifice his own numbers for wins.

    There are downsides, of course. In a perfect world, we would want a big who could stretch the floor, and Adams doesn't do that whatsoever. He's not a great FT shooter either, and we have so many poor FT shooters already that it's actually painful to look at, in terms of a roster.

    I do like how his contract naturally expires going into the 2021 offseason though, which is the year I wanted to make sure we had cap space for anyway. It would essentially be signing him to an overpaid 2 year deal, which is kind of the scenario we've been talking about with Horford anyway.

  13. #213
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    public housing
    Posts
    3,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    That's fair. I still don't like his game, but I do admit that it could be more of a past-tense issue.

    I don't view Dragic as an asset. He's yet another guard, he's 33, extremely injury prone, and he's got a contract so big that if we took him and Whiteside on, we'd actually have to give up another asset to make the salaries work. He's a cost we'd be absorbing, not an asset to take on.

    I'd still much rather prefer Steven Adams if we were going down the route of ''offensively limited big men with giant contracts''. Just a much better locker-room presence for his entire career, much more fundamentally sound player who I think is totally happy to take that backseat role and to be a mentor and secondary piece.
    I think you get the pick, by taking on Dragic too. That's why I paired them. Otherwise, I think Miami just holds onto both as expiring contracts.

    I'd much rather Adams too. But I'd rather the 1 year commitment on Hassan (or Ibaka, if he becomes available) vs 2 years with Adams. I could argue either way.

    I think it really depends on what we think we're going to do with Ingram, oddly enough. If we plan to commit to him long term, I'd rather not have Adams on the books next year when Ingram is going to be getting his 2nd contract. If we plan on showcasing Ingram the fist 4 months of the season and then likely looking to trade him, I'd rather the massive 1 year expiring that Hassan (or Serge) would give us. Another interesting, and probably preferable option would be Tristan Thompson for 1yr at $18.5m.

  14. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by NMThreeMVP View Post
    I think you get the pick, by taking on Dragic too. That's why I paired them. Otherwise, I think Miami just holds onto both as expiring contracts.

    I'd much rather Adams too. But I'd rather the 1 year commitment on Hassan (or Ibaka, if he becomes available) vs 2 years with Adams. I could argue either way.

    I think it really depends on what we think we're going to do with Ingram, oddly enough. If we plan to commit to him long term, I'd rather not have Adams on the books next year when Ingram is going to be getting his 2nd contract. If we plan on showcasing Ingram the fist 4 months of the season and then likely looking to trade him, I'd rather the massive 1 year expiring that Hassan (or Serge) would give us. Another interesting, and probably preferable option would be Tristan Thompson for 1yr at $18.5m.
    I get what you mean, but what I mean is that we'd have to send out another player to make the salaries work for Dragic and Whiteside, so we'd have to make a choice on who to give up. Maybe you say we just send out Moore or something, but even then we'd be taking on like $38m in guaranteed money for next season. So we'd have to give up something else as well, because we just don't have that cap space. And, unlike the Adams trade which would cost us around $25m (leaving us with around $7m in cap space still, to try and add another piece in FA), the Whiteside/Dragic move would just devour everything and leave us with no room to make any other moves.

    I don't mind the 2 years with Adams because I don't care about having cap space next summer, due to the moribund emptiness of the 2020 FA class.

  15. #215
    Since y'all are talking about taking on Adams... I read this earlier and it brings up pretty decent points. Also points that you guys talked about as well but interesting nonetheless..

    https://www-thebirdwrites-com.cdn.am...angelo-russell

  16. #216
    If not my ideal situation of signing Beverly, Gay, and Lopez then i would like us to take Dennis Schröder and Adams off of the Thunders hands. Still try to sign Gay if the price is right. If not Ariza.

    Ball,/DS/ min
    Holiday,/Hart/Jackson
    Ingram/Gay or Ariza/ Williams
    Zion/Wood/Diallo/Hayes
    Adams/Okafor/Hayes


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by Sleeper View Post
    If not my ideal situation of signing Beverly, Gay, and Lopez then i would like us to take Dennis Schröder and Adams off of the Thunders hands. Still try to sign Gay if the price is right. If not Ariza.

    Ball,/DS/ min
    Holiday,/Hart/Jackson
    Ingram/Gay or Ariza/ Williams
    Zion/Wood/Diallo/Hayes
    Adams/Okafor/Hayes


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    What about NAW?

  18. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by HornetGuru View Post
    What about NAW?
    My bad. Yes indeed include NAW.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #219
    Changing my thought process slightly. Here is my ideal free agency.

    1. Brook Lopez (2 years $36million)- One of the best shooting centers on the market who showed how valuable he was in the playoffs this year. Milwaukee was a top 10 team in pace and this guy kept up and was productive. I don’t think Milwaukee can match an annual salary this big while having to re-sign Middleton and Brogdon.

    2. JaMychal Green (3 years $21million)- A nice value stretch 4 who played for Alabama in college and could be swayed to come back to the south.

    3. Tomas Satoransky (3years $21million)- Very versatile backup guard at 6-7 who can play 1-3.

    I think Elfrid Payton will look to compete for a starting job with a team like the Knicks.

    Lineup

    PG: Ball/Satoransky/Jackson
    SG: Holiday/Hart/Alexander-Walker
    SF: Ingram/Moore/Williams
    PF: Williamson/Green/Wood
    C: Lopez/Okafor/Hayes
    Last edited by Darkhorse985; 06-24-2019 at 12:23 AM.

  20. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse985 View Post
    Changing my thought process slightly. Here is my ideal free agency.

    1. Brook Lopez (2 years $36million)- One of the best shooting centers on the market who showed how valuable he was in the playoffs this year. Milwaukee was a top 10 team in pace and this guy kept up and was productive. I don’t think Milwaukee can match an annual salary this big while having to re-sign Middleton and Brogdon.

    2. JaMychal Green (3 years $21million)- A nice value stretch 4 who played for Alabama in college and could be swayed to come back to the south.

    3. Tomas Satoransky (3years $21million)- Very versatile backup guard at 6-7 who can play 1-3.

    I think Elfrid Payton will look to compete for a starting job with a team like the Knicks.

    Lineup

    PG: Ball/Satoransky/Jackson
    SG: Holiday/Hart/Alexander-Walker
    SF: Ingram/Moore/Williams
    PF: Williamson/Green/Wood
    C: Lopez/Okafor/Hayes
    With a team like that, you'd have to be pretty much trying to win now. It spends all our cap, so we couldn't do the ''spend some, rent some'' tactic that most people on here (including me) seem to prefer, and those three year contracts mean that we won't be flooded with cap space come 2021 free agency, especially if we end up keeping Ingram and Ball long term. It would essentially make us non-buyers in that year.

    Given those restrictions, I don't like this idea. If we're going to tank our long term cap situation, it needs to be with a difference maker. Lopez/Green/Satoransky make sense if you're just trying to win next season, get 45-50 wins, make the playoffs and have a little fun, but if you're setting up to develop the youth and then make a big splash in a few years when you have the cash and the knowledge of team need, then it's a pretty bad idea, imo.

  21. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    With a team like that, you'd have to be pretty much trying to win now. It spends all our cap, so we couldn't do the ''spend some, rent some'' tactic that most people on here (including me) seem to prefer, and those three year contracts mean that we won't be flooded with cap space come 2021 free agency, especially if we end up keeping Ingram and Ball long term. It would essentially make us non-buyers in that year.

    Given those restrictions, I don't like this idea. If we're going to tank our long term cap situation, it needs to be with a difference maker. Lopez/Green/Satoransky make sense if you're just trying to win next season, get 45-50 wins, make the playoffs and have a little fun, but if you're setting up to develop the youth and then make a big splash in a few years when you have the cash and the knowledge of team need, then it's a pretty bad idea, imo.
    We would still have plenty of flexibility. We should not be looking to tank at any point. That mindset runs off superstars and builds a culture of losing. David Griffin is too smart to do that. In my scenario, Lopez and Holiday come off the books in 2021, and both Satoransky and Green would be easily tradable expiring contracts if we needed to make room in 2021 free agency. I don’t think Ingram or Ball will or should re-sign as max contract restricted free agents unless they improve to all star level within the next 1-2 years.
    Last edited by Darkhorse985; 06-24-2019 at 12:38 AM.

  22. #222
    [/I]
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse985 View Post
    We would still have plenty of flexibility. We should not be looking to tank at any point. That mindset runs off superstars and builds a culture of losing. David Griffin is too smart to do that. In my scenario, Lopez and Holiday come off the books in 2021 and both Satoransky and Green would be easily tradable expiring contracts if we needed to make room in 2021 free agency. I don’t think Ingram or Ball will or should re-sign as max contract restricted free agents unless they improve to all star level within the next 1-2 years.
    Yeah, except you probably want to be keeping Jrue in 2021. He'll be 31, which isn't exactly ancient, and he's the kind of player whose game will probably age well because it's not based on speed and burst, but instead on craftiness, touch, and intelligence. Obviously we'll be able to know more accurately closer to the time, but planning your future cap situation around the idea that you'll let a 31 year old all-star caliber player who has shown franchise loyalty go is kinda... weird, to me.

    I agree that we shouldn't be looking to tank. But there's a difference between tanking, and just not being that great.

    The way I see it, we should be aiming to surround our young players next year with good locker-room influences who will be able to help mold their game and aid in their development. The team should play hard, and try to win, but simply because of how much youth we have, combined with certain stylistic issues (can you really roll out a lineup of with all three of Ball, Ingram, and Zion on the floor at once, especially in the clutch? I don't know) we probably won't be a playoff team. That's not tanking. We won't be trying to lose. We'll just not be that great. I could see us winning around 38 games, but not many more, and the playoffs are unlikely. It's a developmental year for a team which will have so many new faces, including multiple rookies. If you go into that year expecting to win, the only way you can guarantee that you'll do so is by following your blueprint: sign multiple vets, and play them a lot. Feel free to do that, but don't be too surprised if it ends up limiting the amount of development you can do.

  23. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    [/I]

    Yeah, except you probably want to be keeping Jrue in 2021. He'll be 31, which isn't exactly ancient, and he's the kind of player whose game will probably age well because it's not based on speed and burst, but instead on craftiness, touch, and intelligence. Obviously we'll be able to know more accurately closer to the time, but planning your future cap situation around the idea that you'll let a 31 year old all-star caliber player who has shown franchise loyalty go is kinda... weird, to me.

    I agree that we shouldn't be looking to tank. But there's a difference between tanking, and just not being that great.

    The way I see it, we should be aiming to surround our young players next year with good locker-room influences who will be able to help mold their game and aid in their development. The team should play hard, and try to win, but simply because of how much youth we have, combined with certain stylistic issues (can you really roll out a lineup of with all three of Ball, Ingram, and Zion on the floor at once, especially in the clutch? I don't know) we probably won't be a playoff team. That's not tanking. We won't be trying to lose. We'll just not be that great. I could see us winning around 38 games, but not many more, and the playoffs are unlikely. It's a developmental year for a team which will have so many new faces, including multiple rookies. If you go into that year expecting to win, the only way you can guarantee that you'll do so is by following your blueprint: sign multiple vets, and play them a lot. Feel free to do that, but don't be too surprised if it ends up limiting the amount of development you can do.
    My plan wouldn’t prevent us from re-signing Jrue in 2021 if we wanted. We could easily get rid of all three of the proposed signed players in 2021 if we needed the room to pursue a max contract. These signings do nothing to prevent that. Brook Lopez would be a great locker room veteran who adds spacing on a short contract. Green and Satoransky are value versatile veteran role players who add shooting. My plan adds depth and flexibility. Your idea appears to be to sign Al Horford on a 2 year deal which he likely won’t accept and completely ignore the other weaknesses our team has right now, mainly shooting, assuring our ability to tank. I also don’t think we make the playoffs this year, but I damn sure want to try.
    Last edited by Darkhorse985; 06-24-2019 at 01:08 AM.

  24. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse985 View Post
    My plan wouldn’t prevent us from re-signing Jrue in 2021 if we wanted. Brook Lopez would be a great locker room veteran who adds spacing on a short contract. Green and Satoransky are value versatile veteran role players who add shooting. My plan adds depth and flexibility. Your idea appears to be to sign Al Horford on a 2 year deal which he likely won’t accept and completely ignore the other weaknesses our team has right now, mainly shooting, assuring our ability to tank. I also don’t think we make the playoffs this year, but I damn sure want to try.
    My idea is to sign one or two guys on short term deals, cutting off at 2 years to ensure that they aren't on the cap come 2021 free agency. Then, to use the rest of the cap space to trade for players who are good, but perhaps overpaid from teams who are in need of salary relief, using this method to both fill out the roster and potentially acquire future assets in the form of extra picks as payment for absorbing that salary.

    We don't even know what weaknesses our team actually has right now. We can speculate, and obviously the most probably issue will be three point shooting, but is that a complete season destroyer? No, it's not. In case you didn't realise, we kinda sucked at three point shooting last season too, being mediocre in terms of both percentage and attempts, and somehow the game was still fun to watch and some of the rookies like Frank Jackson and Kenrich Williams were able to get some good developmental minutes in. Why? Because in Gentry's system, as long as you have guys who will run, pass, and move off-ball, you can manufacture offense even without a massive amount of shooting. There's no need to specifically drive your head into the wall on shooting immediately unless you specifically want to win as many games as possible: that is, unless you want to go win-now.

    And just as a side note, two of the deals I've been talking about throughout this thread, notably Horford and Ibaka, would both add shooting anyway. So would Mythrol's suggestion to try and help Milwaukee by taking on Ilyasova's contract in exchange for a pick. This technique of adding to the roster by accepting overpaid but quality players in exchange for assets still allows you to address roster issues without adding years and years of salary that you don't want.

  25. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    My idea is to sign one or two guys on short term deals, cutting off at 2 years to ensure that they aren't on the cap come 2021 free agency. Then, to use the rest of the cap space to trade for players who are good, but perhaps overpaid from teams who are in need of salary relief, using this method to both fill out the roster and potentially acquire future assets in the form of extra picks as payment for absorbing that salary.

    We don't even know what weaknesses our team actually has right now. We can speculate, and obviously the most probably issue will be three point shooting, but is that a complete season destroyer? No, it's not. In case you didn't realise, we kinda sucked at three point shooting last season too, being mediocre in terms of both percentage and attempts, and somehow the game was still fun to watch and some of the rookies like Frank Jackson and Kenrich Williams were able to get some good developmental minutes in. Why? Because in Gentry's system, as long as you have guys who will run, pass, and move off-ball, you can manufacture offense even without a massive amount of shooting. There's no need to specifically drive your head into the wall on shooting immediately unless you specifically want to win as many games as possible: that is, unless you want to go win-now.

    And just as a side note, two of the deals I've been talking about throughout this thread, notably Horford and Ibaka, would both add shooting anyway. So would Mythrol's suggestion to try and help Milwaukee by taking on Ilyasova's contract in exchange for a pick. This technique of adding to the roster by accepting overpaid but quality players in exchange for assets still allows you to address roster issues without adding years and years of salary that you don't want.
    My plan doesn’t add “years and years” of salary as both Satoransky and Green would be on easily movable $7 million dollar expiring contracts in 2021. We sucked without shooting last year. Our plan should always be to address our weaknesses to win now while maintaining flexibility until we have a championship caliber team. My plan does just that. I would never endorse taking on crap contracts at this time. Why the hell did we just move Solomon Hill (an expiring useless contract) if we wanted to do that. Did we all of sudden become the Phoenix Suns?
    Last edited by Darkhorse985; 06-24-2019 at 01:22 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •