Bob8 wrote:Super Cooper wrote:Bob8 wrote:
Gafford was always meant to be traded, even with Nico there. His value is going to go only down with nobody to make plays for him and he never was very good defender.
Huh? They extended him. With DLive's glass skeletal system, Gaff is seen as necessary in the FO. What indicators do you have otherwise?
Because they have too many Cs and no guards and Gafford was the easiest player to be moved. That was reasoning before Nico was fired. Now with season more or less over Mavs shouldn't be concerned about how healthy their Cs are, losing might be even beneficial. Gafford value is not likely going up with how team or he is playing either. Just look how his Fg% dropped. He has the worst FG% of his career.
I was replying to your notion that "Gafford was always meant to be traded". I understand that's your opinion, but there is no indication that is or certainly was their intention.
I look at all of this from two different perspectives: 1. What is realistic with the FO. 2. What makes the most sense.
While your assertion meets #2, it doesn't #1 (especially stating that even with Nico he was meant to be traded).
Lively only works with Gaff or a similar C. To have him on the court, he needs to be platooned. His minutes...
Duke - 20.6mins (52%) in 34 games (94%) = 49%
23/24 - 23.5 (49%) in 54 games (66%) = 32%
24/25 - 23.1mins (48%) in 36 games (44%) = 21%
25/26 - 16.4mins (24%) in 7 games (47%) = 11%
It ain't trending well!
