7 Pistons exit health & safety protocols: Including Cade, Haye, Lee, CoJo, Lyles, Josh Jackson, & McGruder

[440BB]

Joseph's contract with the player option still makes me cringe. However they rationalized it, moving him will be very difficult until next season, at best. I'm afraid that as long as he's on the roster Casey will play him more than he should, to the bitter end. I imagined shipping him to Cleveland after Rubio went down but the Drummond fiasco seems to have cleared their heads.

Of course, Weaver may just continue conjuring up positive tests for Joseph for a couple months, keeping him out of Casey's reach. If the youngsters start winning at a pace to hurt the tank, Joseph can return to dribble us back to the bottom.

[flow]

Looks like Walton has been exiled. That's too bad.

Read on Twitter

[bstein14]

The truth is, we don't have the rights to Walton (he isn't on a two-way contract) so he is going to be best suited to be able to sign with any other team on a 10 day hardship to get more chances right now. Hopefully he gets another chance in the NBA somewhere soon. He was never realistically going to get up there this year with Hayes, Lee, CoJo, etc.

Perhaps next season Weaver learns there may be some value in going into the season with only 14 guys on roster, or 15 guys and just one two way contract.... so we have room to add someone in to the mix without having to cut a player.

[Invictus88]

I agree about Joseph but...

Perhaps next season Weaver learns there may be some value in going into the season with only 14 guys on roster, or 15 guys and just one two way contract.... so we have room to add someone in to the mix without having to cut a player.

This makes no sense. You are implying it's more valuable to actively choose to not utilize a roster spot... just so you can optionally add one later?

The empty void does nothing for your team while it sits empty.

If I'm Weaver and I believe that a guy is better than anything else available and he fits my vision then I should sign him. If I don't then I shouldn't.

I think the real issue here isn't that our roster is full. It's that Weaver decided to use one of those spots on Corey Joseph with the PO second year.

[bstein14]

I agree about Joseph but...

Perhaps next season Weaver learns there may be some value in going into the season with only 14 guys on roster, or 15 guys and just one two way contract.... so we have room to add someone in to the mix without having to cut a player.

This makes no sense. You are implying it's more valuable to actively choose to not utilize a roster spot... just so you can optionally add one later?

The empty void does nothing for your team while it sits empty.

If I'm Weaver and I believe that a guy is better than anything else available and he fits my vision then I should sign him. If I don't then I shouldn't.

I think the real issue here isn't that our roster is full. It's that Weaver decided to use one of those spots on Corey Joseph with the PO second year.

It makes a lot of sense to me. Flexibility on the roster is important, especially if you have a young team and the ability to add a player over time. Maybe someone breaks out on our G League team.... maybe a different player gets cut off another team after making a trade, etc. Chris Smith was basically our very last player signed and he hasn't done anything (not even sure if he's healthy) for us. We could use that two way spot to lock in another young player if we think they have potential.

Before we traded and cut DeAndre Jordan, we were already full and couldn't offer Garza a deal with the team. We had to do a 2 for 1 sending out Oakafor and Sekou and then waive Jordan just to create a spot for Garza.

It just feels like leaving some flexibility with the roster at least into October or November could be beneficial. Especially when you can offfer a G League contract to play in the same city with the carrot being a two way contract possibly available to someone on the G League team that performs well.

What if we end up trading Grant in a deal where we have to take an extra contract back in the deal? That means we end up having to waive someone like a McGruder.... who when we signed him was #16 as it was and we knew we were going to have to waive or trade away a Sekou or Okafor type player.

[Invictus88]

I agree about Joseph but...

Perhaps next season Weaver learns there may be some value in going into the season with only 14 guys on roster, or 15 guys and just one two way contract.... so we have room to add someone in to the mix without having to cut a player.

This makes no sense. You are implying it's more valuable to actively choose to not utilize a roster spot... just so you can optionally add one later?

The empty void does nothing for your team while it sits empty.

If I'm Weaver and I believe that a guy is better than anything else available and he fits my vision then I should sign him. If I don't then I shouldn't.

I think the real issue here isn't that our roster is full. It's that Weaver decided to use one of those spots on Corey Joseph with the PO second year.

It makes a lot of sense to me. Flexibility on the roster is important, especially if you have a young team and the ability to add a player over time. Maybe someone breaks out on our G League team.... maybe a different player gets cut off another team after making a trade, etc. Chris Smith was basically our very last player signed and he hasn't done anything (not even sure if he's healthy) for us. We could use that two way spot to lock in another young player if we think they have potential.

Before we traded and cut DeAndre Jordan, we were already full and couldn't offer Garza a deal with the team. We had to do a 2 for 1 sending out Oakafor and Sekou and then waive Jordan just to create a spot for Garza.

It just feels like leaving some flexibility with the roster at least into October or November could be beneficial. Especially when you can offfer a G League contract to play in the same city with the carrot being a two way contract possibly available to someone on the G League team that performs well.

What if we end up trading Grant in a deal where we have to take an extra contract back in the deal? That means we end up having to waive someone like a McGruder.... who when we signed him was #16 as it was and we knew we were going to have to waive or trade away a Sekou or Okafor type player.

I honestly think we are close and only differ slightly.

I think the signings/contract terms involving McGruder, CoJo, etc are an error in Weaver's vision and/or assessing how those players fit with the future of the team. It's not that the roster spots are used. They are just used poorly.

Your take is that we just shouldn't use the roster spot(s) at all. But then at some point you have to decide to use them? What is the criteria that makes using those spots appropriate? How is that criteria any different if the signings are occurring when Weaver is manipulating the roster in the offseason versus midseason?

I think the error here is not constructing the contracts such that they are relatively painless to unload if you really don't believe the player has a long term future with the team. CoJo's player option is a mistake in this area. Too much leverage given to a player that isn't a long-term solution. And yeah. The very signing of McGruder was a head-scratcher because of where we were at from a capacity standpoint already. Having to do any sort of heavy lifting just to have a guy who doesn't move the needle at all is crazy imo.

Good discussion. Cheers!

[NYPiston]

Has a player ever gotten out of protocol then immediately returned back to protocol? It makes me wonder if he has some pretty bad symptoms.