Scoot McGroot wrote:Topofthekey wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:
We could still have signed Bojan after signing Brogdon and trading for Warren, but apparently we just weren’t willing to give Bojan that 4th year. Reports are that the numbers were the same for both teams, but Indy maxed at 3 years and Utah offered a 4th year. It appears we just didn’t want to pay him at 35 years old. 34 appeared to be our line in the sand. And after we got Warren and a 2nd, it was much easier to stand firm on some principle and move on.
You misunderstand me
Notice all the back slashes when I mentioned Brogdon/Domas/Lamb/McConnell
Could we still end up with SOME combination of them if we signed Bogie?
Could we have signed ALL them though, like we did?
Most likely not, not without spending asset to clear Doug's salary anyway
Signing Bogie necessarily means that someone else doesn't get signed, be it Brogdon or Lamb or McConnell - or perhaps Domas doesn't get extended
I'd have taken Bojan over Lamb and McConnell combined. And still extended Domas. That's kind of what I meant. And I think we'd be better, as Bojan could actually play the 3/4 we really need.
But yes. Signing one guy for money means we can't use that money elsewhere. I understand that. I just think that investing it in Bojan (if he would've agreed to a 3 year deal) would've made us better than Lamb and McConnell combined, over all.
Bogie signed for 18m
Salary-wise, that's more like Warren + McConnell + Justin Holiday; and there's the pick that came with Warren
Bogie's ok, but it really isn't much of a decision, I'd take Warren+McConnell+Justin+pick over Bogie 11 out 10 times, especially considering how impactful McConnell has been