Crymson wrote:I think you're reading a lot into a little.
My inference has literally come from a direct quote from LaRavia himself saying he would be interested in signing with us. So it's not a stretch to say that him and his agent have analyzed the makeup of our team and recognized that there are potential minutes available. Not sure how that fits your definition of "reading a lot into a little".
Crymson wrote:But like I said, if he's willing to come here as 10th man on the BAE with the knowledge that he might not play many minutes, yay!
This is just your determination of what his role would be. Probably not LaRavia's given his quoted interest in signing here.
Crymson wrote:So was Fontecchio last season, then, and he had a far greater shooting pedigree -- from his time playing in Europe -- than LaRavia does. It's a one-season sample size, and we've seen what can happen.
The difference is that LaRavia has proven himself as a better defender, is 23 years old and should continue to get better as he enters his prime. Fontecchio will turn 30 soon after next season starts. That's not to say he will start to decline, but it's a fact that he is a known commodity and there's less room for growth from here.
Crymson wrote:You're arguing things both ways here: he's a genuine three-and-D PF, yet he can be had for cheap and would be cool with possibly not playing many minutes when he could get better opportunity elsewhere.
There is nowhere in this thread where I said he would come cheap ("reasonable contract" does not equal cheap), nor anywhere I said that he would be cool with possibly not playing many minutes. You've made a summation of your own individual interpretation there.
Crymson wrote:Plenty of teams will have the NTP-MLE or the TP-MLE. In the scenario we're discussing -- Beasley and Schroder stay -- the Pistons would operate as an above-the-cap team and wouldn't have the MLE available at all. The best they could offer would be the BAE or an S&T, and a large number of other teams have access to those as well.
I already wrote earlier that in this scenario if the FO wanted LaRavia they could look to trade Fontecchio for pure cap space or minimal salary (probably requiring a second round pick to dump him) and then LaRavia would be signed into our cap space first, likely at a AAV similar or a little less than what Fontecchio is currently on. Then Beasley and Schroder would be re-signed as they would have been if we just kept Fontecchio. The alternative of course is a direct S&T with Sacramento where we send them Fontecchio and a second round pick. The truth is if LaRavia wants to come here and our FO wants him then I'm sure our team capologists can make it work.
Crymson wrote:I think you're also drastically overestimating the size of the average NBA power forward.
I never alluded to the size of an average NBA power forward at all. But I don't see Ausar and Holland's skillsets being well suited for anything beyond playing spot minutes at PF, particularly playing alongside Stew who is considered undersized for a C. There's a reason why they've only played 26% and 23% of their career minutes at that position respectively.
Crymson wrote:How did you feel last offseason about Fontecchio -- with only a single season of NBA data -- slotting in as the team's primary backup forward?
Last offseason I felt hopeful about Fontecchio's outlook as our backup PF based on the limited 16 game sample size where he played well for us. Unfortunately that was followed up by a 75 game sample size of fairly underwhelming play and he was rightly benched for the playoffs. Could he bounce back to his 2023/24 form? Possibly. But if we have a superior option on the table who aligns with our young core and could be had for a similar price then naturally it would make sense to chase that.
I'm not certain this discussion is going to lead anywhere fruitful. You have fairly fixed ideas that you seem to perseverate on, ignore key points that I've stated, and now you're suggesting I've said things that were never actually written.
