NoDopeOnSundays wrote:GONYK wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:
Bringing in DeMar would have given us a pathway to starting IQ, that's one of the major reasons I wanted Lonzo too. The most obvious thing to do with a player like IQ is put him in the off guard spot in terms offensive role, while he gets to guard the opposing PG. We had that sitting right in front of us, instead, they took this convoluted path and took two players who aren't as good as DeMar and make as much money as him, while he and Fournier have the same contract length.
We should have gone inhouse with one of those guard spots, our front office tried to get cute and it looks like a gigantic mistake.
I would have taken Lonzo over Fournier and put him at the 2. I think that 4th year was a little too rich for our plans though.
So in my scenario, I still wasn't starting IQ, but getting a very solid perimeter defender at the 2. Evan needs to shoot much better to offset just the general energy and defense IQ brings, even when his shot is off.
I think you may end up getting your wish in a roundabout way, with Thibs staggering IQ in with the starters earlier and earlier.
I also don't think signing Kemba was bad or detrimental. The actual only downside to it is how much cache he has, so it's hard to not start him. He's a huge upgrade from Elf, but situationally, we're in the same spot where it's either start him or take him out of the rotation completely.
I do wonder if he's as washed as he seems. Things look pretty interesting when we run the offense through him.
If IQ ends up playing more then it's a failure by the front office, because the starting guard was inhouse and they didn't realize it or they let Thibs have too much say in roster moves. The plan should have been to give him the starting job and be supplemented by a veteran guard who can step in if he's having a bad go of it. So many other teams are starting good young players, the Warriors did this with Poole, the Bulls were starting Williams before he got hurt and the Sixers have just discovered that Maxey may be that dude just because they started him.
I think this comparison is happening a bit out of context. It's easier to slot a young guy into your roster, when you have a desire to win, when you have Embiid and Steph Curry, or some other franchise level talent who is doing all of the heavy lifting. It's a little harder for a team in our position to take that risk, IMO, because we have a smaller margin for error.
Also, we start RJ and play him a ton (when he's not sh*tting the bed). I see that as very similar to Patrick Williams in CHI.
I don't think we should have planned for IQ to be our starting 2G, because he's undersized and is a bit inconsistent. I do think we have the structure in place to do what you said though, since Thibs hasn't really shown any hesitation to limit Fournier's minutes. But Fournier has been an 18PPG guy on 45/40/81 splits. I think it was worth it to take the shot on him, knowing IQ was there to mop up rather than thrust IQ into the role if you didn't believe him to be ready.
But that's a question of preference I guess. It probably also comes down to whether or not you think Fournier will get better than he is right now.
Kemba is lower risk, but he was clearly washed if you just went by the last 2 seasons. His knee issues are real, and having a PG rotation as old as ours is another bad look for the front office. The plan by our front office doesn't seem to address short or long term goals much, why sign all these guys after drafting a bunch of guards? Why draft Obi and resign Randle? Nothing they do really makes much sense in regards to a plan, outside of hoping and praying someone will want to come here via trade, at which point we'll have to give up every pick for the next 8 years because nobody under the age of 25 outside of RJ is playing 30 minutes per game.
Obi vs Randle is it's own thing, so I will answer that first. I think Randle was supposed to be traded, point blank. Then he blew up and the rest is history. I also don't think they thought Obi would be that raw his rookie year. He's still developing nicely though. I would love to see his time expanded, but he still makes a ton of mistakes on D. Almost all of those late Chicago 3's were on him. So it's a balance.
I still do wonder about how far Leon and Co. would have leaned into the slide if they did trade Randle.
As for the overall plan, it's more cap management than pure roster building. Forgive me for being repetitive, but I do think things make sense if you always keep two things in mind:
1. Everyone is here to be traded.
2. Thibs has rigid roles and a 10 man rotation.
So the medium term plan is focused on the cap, not the court. It's basically an algorithmic approach to tradable assets. That's what Aller's specialty is.
They made that algorithm fit Thibs' preferences the best they could. That's why the bench replicates the starters in a few areas.
The draft is irrelevant, IMO. We drafted those guys to play
after we clear out the vets via trade. They are essentially cheap FA's who are situational. We didn't draft them to play right now.
That's how I interpret what I see going on. Would I do things differently? In some areas, yes, others no. I just think it's a plan that makes sense in today's NBA where stars are always hitting the market.
Time will tell if they can ultimately execute.