RealGM

In theory, he is now finally healthy. It's almost as if he hasn't played the last two years and now it isn't clear how good he is. When we signed him, we anticipated him being a starter (starter on a bad team, FWIW). He does seem like an easy trade chip - an expiring deal and a possibly productive player. So if his salary is $6.5M next year, how does that compare to what other backup SGs will getting the crazy FA period? My personal opinion is, until we know who else we can get as a backup SG, we should hang on to Meeks. He could be an even better trade chip at the trade deadline next February as well.

Completely agree with you, if there are not a great trade for us involving him, this is the most logical way.

Well we don't really need him as our backup SG anyway. We already have Stanley, Bullock and Hilliard all capable of playing backup minutes. My approach would be to try and get the best FAs we can for the backup PG/PF spots, and if we need to shed his money to afford them, then do it.

I'm starting to think Stan not playing him was to preserve his trade value or something. He had that great game and showed he was healthy and now should have some trade value, and maybe Stan didn't want to risk a crappy series changing that. Maybe not, but otherwise no real excuse why he didn't play.

What has always confused me is with our need for more shooters/scorers, why guys like Meeks and Bullock didn't get more minutes this year when available. Also wonder if we should even be trading him at all, considering a perimeter shooter is exactly what we need. He could be our JR Smith.

I was hoping he would do what JR Smith was able to do against us. If we could somehow trade him for Smith I would be happy with that. Even though he is a knucklehead the guy can catch and shoot 3s off the bench like few others. Bullock, SJ, and Hilliard are nice, but teams don't really respect their shooting.

Great question.

First off, do we even wanna spend Meeks soon-to-be-meager-looking salary at back up SG? Stanley can certainly cover some of those minutes, and I think Bullock showed he could at least chip in; their salaries combined don't even match Meeks', and that's before we start speculating what a guy like Eric Gordon (an equal injury concern case) is gonna command in the crazy market this summer. More speculation, what if we sign a combo-guard as our back up PG who can also cover some minutes at the 2? IMHO, this isn't just about our needs, but about an allocation of resources. In short, we can't spend big bucks at every position; in fact, we can't even spend medium bucks at every position and are gonna need SOME rotation players who are underpaid (i.e. rookie contracts). Backup SG may be a good slot to target "on the cheap."

I absolutely agree with you that Meeks will have more trade value at the deadline ... UNLESS we've got the chance to absorb long term salary that actually works and fits for us. Trading for Meeks obviously can't provide a team immediate cap space, but he could return value if there's a bigger deal a team wants to get off their books. Purely hypothetically, for example — if PHX wants to dump Brandon Knight, Meeks could account for half of his salary. Otherwise, I think you're right — hold him until February so we can play the same, "Who wants pure expirings?" game that landed us Tobias this year.

I guess where I come down is that Meeks isn't a problem (in role or in salary), but I don't think he's part of the solution for us, either. Therefore, we should trade him if the RETURN is worth it and improves us, but not because we need to dump him.

I personally would just keep him. I don't think we can get much of anything out of a trade. Maybe if he's healthy for longer than a game he could catch a rhythm. Would be nice to have consistent shooting off the bench.

A few mention multiple players that could do backup minutes at SG. Personally, I'd like us two deep at every position, and I'd like those backups to be legit NBA players. I'd slot SJ at backup SF. Third stringers would be more specialty matchup or emergency players. This is sort of what I'm thinking our roster is going into the offseason:

PG: RJ/???/Dinwiddie
SG: KCP/Meeks/Hilliard
SF: Morris/SJ/Bullock
PF: Harris/???/Tolliver
C: Drummond/Baynes/???

There is no real impetus to move him atm and we won't trade him just to trade him. If his salary is needed fine, but if not just keep him. But don't count on him as your primary backup; that's just asking for trouble. If he's healthy and productive that's a bonus, but if not I don't wanna have to rely on a 2nd pick.

No point trading him just for the sake of trading him. Unless a clear upgrade is available, keep him and throw him in the battle for back up SG behind kcp. If he can stay healthy his shooting will be a welcome addition to a bench that couldn't score to save their lives.

if hes actually healthy, keep him as a backup option. One less thing to worry about. Let Hillard beat him out

We could trade him for a point another team wants to dump - Jameer Nelson, Jose Calderon, Devin Harris, etc.

Todd3 wrote:I'm starting to think Stan not playing him was to preserve his trade value or something. He had that great game and showed he was healthy and now should have some trade value, and maybe Stan didn't want to risk a crappy series changing that. Maybe not, but otherwise no real excuse why he didn't play.

What has always confused me is with our need for more shooters/scorers, why guys like Meeks and Bullock didn't get more minutes this year when available. Also wonder if we should even be trading him at all, considering a perimeter shooter is exactly what we need. He could be our JR Smith.

At this point Meeks has Zero value. Pistons would have to add a draft pick to move him. Thus, there was nothing for Stan to preserve. If anything, we need to give Meeks minutes to generate some interest if possible.