TPA wrote:chrbal wrote:TPA wrote:OK, maybe I should have phrased that differently in regard to the point I am trying to make. Signing guys as "favors" because of close connections vs. either singing/drafting players with better potential/team fit seems to be confusing and costly.
Is veteran guard depth SO important to this team? I mean, that's what we signed CoJo for, right? We now have eight or nine potential PG/SG players on the roster, most (all?) are better prospects than McGruder, and need development. Assuming that Diallo was always going to be a priority to re-sign, the FO still offered Rodney a deal? We have six potential PF/C's on the roster, and you're probably looking at cutting one of Okafor/Sekou/Jackson if they can't come up with some sort of trade to make space to get the roster to 15. McGruder is the cut I'd make, then probably one of the three aforementioned, but hey, it's Weaver's roster and Gores money.
The FO could have drafted any number of players in 20' with better potential than Sirvydis. He wasn't even expected to be drafted at all, let alone given a two-year guaranteed salary and a roster spot. We even traded a 2021 second-round pick for that bum. He's now dead money and gone from the league.
Then there's Isaiah Livers. He gets a two-year guaranteed deal and a roster spot while injured? Why? Because he was a Michigan guy and Belien is in the fold? That was a little surprising to some in the media. I mean, I really hope he shakes out and proves to be roster-worthy, but should he have gotten that deal immediately, even before SL invites and draftee's got a chance?
I guess my point (even If I haven't made it so eloquently) is that if I were Tom Gores, I'd be wondering why dead money is increasing while we accommodate guys with connections to the FO (if in fact, that is the case).
Ok this is a lot to process, I’ll try.
Basically unless there’s a trade to move someone else we’re probably cutting Okafor or possibly McGruder.
Livers should have been given a two way deal, but it’s not really the worst thing that a rookie is like the 14th man.
In 2019 when we picked devidis, you can argue that we could’ve picked someone at 30 or just not gone after Devidas.
The amount of 1/2s and 4/5s kind of proves why using the spot on McGruder isn’t a big deal. Weavers now had a decent amount of veterans on the roster two seasons in a row.
Basically with McGruders slot we were going to sign some veteran, might as well be the guy you know.
Okafor and Devidas are really the only true pointless signings among the more affordable signings. Unless you believe in my “acquire Okafor in the offseason, get a number one overall pick” conspiracy theory.
My point was more about the perception of good ol' boy moves, and the speculative fall-out of each. Some may have prohibited other (potential) moves or other imaginable alternative outcomes (roster, monetary, draft, etc). It's not anything I feel too strongly about because, in the end, it's not a lot of money, and alternative outcomes can't be known. I'm just speculating out loud. I do appreciate your thoughts though.Obe1ball wrote:It's for The Vets Minimum. Seriously, relax.
Relax?! Eye-roll emoji?! Maybe the tone of my genuine lack of emotional conviction on the matter was lost in my presentation, or perhaps in the way you misinterpreted such from my post. Probably the latter. I'll spare you the eye-roll emoji.
Please, you don't even know who drafted Sirvydis, the vital cog of your "favors" diatribe. Weaver drafted last year, his first year. Let's wait and see how Weaver goes about trimming the roster. If it's Okafor, so be it. Maybe he signed McGruder, to force Diallo's hand/take away some leverage. Maybe it's going to be a 2 for 1 but it won't be as a favor to someone, it'll be to make the roster better.
