RealGM

Snakebites wrote:

Pharaoh wrote:Yet in the game thread you're pretty negative about Hayes and what you've seen in those 4 games

Guess as long as we're all being negative and squash any hope around here no one can be disappointed like we have been for the last decade

Snakebites wrote:It’s been 4 games.

Yeah yeah. I know I say that about every player. But it’s true at this stage.

Definitely better than 4 bad games, but I still feel like we shouldn’t have signed him. If he’s traded for assets I’ll gladly eat crow.

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM mobile app

Fair enough- I'll explain myself better.

There's a difference between evaluating performance and evaluating what you think the players' trajectory with the team will be. One can be evaluated fairly quickly, the other needs a broader view.

With Hayes- I dislike how he's played (how could you not?) but am still hopeful that he could still figure it out and eventually be a starter. I think what they're doing right now isn't working and he probably needs to come off the bench. He doesn't look ready in the slightest. I still believe he has the tools, but I don't think starting is the right spot for him right now. I think you can formulate that opinion after 4 games without labeling the player as a bust- and that's all I was doing in that thread.

With Grant, yeah, he's played pretty well so far. I think you can validly question whether the volume is sustainable and there's other things you can pick at, but yeah, he's been solid. My position was always that even if he plays well it still wasn't the right decision- it's additional longterm salary commitment on a guy who's game is built to complement stars, not raise the floor of a bad team. And I think despite his strong start that's still true.

I still see being able to turn him into an asset as the ONLY way to make that signing an eventual positive- and I have my reservations.

Pharaoh wrote:How was my post aggressive?

And if you continue to believe I have blind faith in our FO despite my numerous posts to the contrary that's on you man.

Crymson wrote:

Pharaoh wrote:Yet in the game thread you're pretty negative about Hayes and what you've seen in those 4 games

Guess as long as we're all being negative and squash any hope around here no one can be disappointed like we have been for the last

I think you should stop being so aggressive. People are permitted to have opinions that do not match your own, and I think you should consider why you find those so threatening.

Beyond that, you expressed this same sort of fervor in your support for Van Gundy. I think it's unfortunate that you're doing the same for Weaver even after seeing how that turned out. Sometimes general managers make bad decisions because they're bad at their jobs. It is entirely possible that Weaver belongs to that category. We will see, and whether or not folks here draw negative conclusions won't change what we find out.

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM mobile app

Manocad wrote:Actually, turning Grant into a player that can be flipped for assets is one of the things I do remember from the Rod Beard interview regarding Weaver’s plan.

DET_Athletics wrote:

Manocad wrote:Actually, turning Grant into a player that can be flipped for assets is one of the things I do remember from the Rod Beard interview regarding Weaver’s plan.

When the time comes, near the end of his deal, I hope we can flip him for Myles Turner.

Sent from my SM-G986U using RealGM mobile app

Han Solo wrote:I don’t want to flip Grant for anyone. He’s a stud. Look at Denver since he and Plum left. They are terrible. It’s possible Grant is part of our future.

Manocad wrote:I was just looking up Grant's stats and saw that we have the same birthday. So yeah, great signing.

El Chivo wrote:Grant > Wood

tmorgan wrote:

El Chivo wrote:Grant > Wood

Sadly, that’s just not true. Wood is a far more efficient scorer, and while I’m ok with saying Grant is a better defender, it’s not enough to make up the difference. Once you factor in Wood making 30% or so less money, it’s a tough pill to swallow.

Still, what’s done is done, and i’m glad Grant is playing pretty well in his expanded offensive role.

Han Solo wrote:I don’t want to flip Grant for anyone. He’s a stud. Look at Denver since he and Plum left. They are terrible. It’s possible Grant is part of our future.

skywalker33 wrote:

Han Solo wrote:I don’t want to flip Grant for anyone. He’s a stud. Look at Denver since he and Plum left. They are terrible. It’s possible Grant is part of our future.

Denver is struggling but it has more to do with lineup continuity and injuries rather than Plumlee and Grant leaving. We have 7 new players so we do have to settle on lineups, regain chemistry, learn to play together.....really not uncommon IMO.

As for your stud, his stats are hollow IMO and what, he's led you to a whopping 1-5 record, that's leadership !!

I get wanting to keep him around, he's a good player most DEN fans were disappointed to see him leave. But no need to get self-righteous, cocky or even just snarky, it doesn't work when you're the worst team in the league.