Ducklett wrote:Def Swami wrote:PrimeThyme wrote:Looks like an ESPN article to me. I took that statement as even if Vuc is offered a 4 yr max by someone we may not have any other choice but to offer him that same contract because he is an asset we just cannot afford to lose.
I just don't see it that way. We are a rebuilding team that just picked a center 6th overall in last years draft. I could just as easily see the FO siding with resigning birch as our starter and grooming Bamba under him if Vuc signs for big money with another team.
Depends on the path that the front office want to take.
I don't anticipate that they or ownership have any intention of wanting to take steps backward. Which is why the expectation is they will do their best to retain Vucevic. If their goal is to continue onward as a playoff team, they will certainly have pressure to bring Vucevic back. UNLESS, there is an alternative plan to acquire another offensive option that makes up for Vucevic's win shares. That would involve more steps and luck and would be more challenging. It's possible, but if it's not probable, then they're going to do their best to bring Vucevic back. They don't have to match that max offer, but there will be some pressure if their intention is to remain competitive. And by all accounts, I believe that is the intent.
I don't think we can make this move without data we as fans just don't have. If working out with Bamba, Fultz, and Isaac and they look like that can be allstars, you resign the boys and run it back. If they don't look to be more than great role players, in 3-4 years we will be back to tanking hard, so what is the point?
It depends on the context you hope to develop your team from. No real right or wrong answer, but every front office has to pick a plan and commit to it.
You can maintain an asset and all-star on your team for the next few years while winning at least 41 games a season and making the playoffs. You give your young players an opportunity to grow in a competitive environment and learn how to play a winning brand of basketball. You improve the quality of your assets over time and hope to remain opportunistic in the trade market and draft wisely. Free agency is usually low yield for small market teams like us, so the cap space isn't much of an asset to begin with. The good examples of teams like this are the Raptors, Bucks, Celtics, Jazz, Nuggets. The examples of bad outcomes are teams that have strapped themselves in cap without much outlet or room for improvement like the current Heat, Pistons, Wizards, or Hornets. The Raptors really are the model for the slow and steady methodical approach. They were able to build their team around a couple of all-stars in Lowry and DeRozan who were always good, but never great, while developing young players on their bench and in the G League and being opportunistic in the trade market. Given that our GM and POBO come from the Bucks and Raptors, I anticipate that this is the strategy.
Or, you can let the all-star walk, hand the keys over to unproven players on their rookie deals and hope for the best. You maintain some flexibility with free agency. If your team is good, then great. That means your players might actually be worth a damn. But if not, then you're looking at a house of chaos that the Magic were prior to Steve Clifford arriving. it's the blind leading the blind. Ownership gets antsy because interest, TV ratings, and attendance plummet. That heat rolls downhill onto Weltman and Hammond. We'll be in play for higher lottery picks, but as seen this year, that game is much more dicey than in year's past; the potential go from pick 6 to 9 is much higher than in year's past. You're really relying on the draft in this scenario, and there's a fair argument for that. The Hawks are an example of a team that is using the draft the right way to build their team while maintaining flexibility in their cap space. That cap space isn't of much use to them though. For whatever reason, Atlanta has never been a free agent destination.
