RealGM

Should they do it? Just to see a poll.

We need players who can play on both ends of the court. I would prefer to save our money to give to someone who can play better defense.

Monroe is a good player, not questions about that, but he is not a pick-and-roll player or a good shooter, so I think he is not the best fit on our team.
If he is signed, I think we need to surround him with shooters, and he has to be the only interior presence.

I prefer other options, he will be very expensive and he is not a real game changer.

No.

No. He would make defense worse and offence probably too (no spacing=no drives). Only thing he might improve is rebounding.
And Suns alreay has top 5 pick C why give a big contract for another?

Yes. We need an offensive presence badly plus he's young still. I think we have a glaring hole up front. Adding Monroe would put us in the playoffs for sure, IMO.

Considering that he's a very skilled post player that has great size, good rebounder and is EXTREMELY durable, I think he deserves and will get the max.

Should that team be us? I don't know...yet.

I think the Pistons would be stupid to let him go. Players that are as durable and good as him don't grow on trees.

He can't shoot or play D but he's still got game and easily max worthy considering the money that's being poured out right now.

If the suns started him at center it's well worth it.
His game is going to develop and he's already a good big.

I can see him putting up 18/10 type numbers at the C position.
If you can surround him with a stretch 4 that's scary.

Goran can still do his pick n pop game but now you can dump it down low.. Scary.
If you keep Bledsoe that would be amazing.


If suns start him at the 4 I'm not for it. I do think he's best utilized as a center defensively and offensively and the stats prove it.

We already have a top 5 pick at center. Monroe is not putting us into contention. Lets find out what we have in Len.

Please dont

I voted no but after thinking about it some more, I'd say yes. We really have nothing better to do with that money and while it will be an overpay, it's not a ridiculous overpay. Besides, worst case scenario, in two or three years it should be an easily movable contract and we're probably that far away from serious contention anyway. He'd improve us enough to be a threat in the playoffs and as long as it's not the impetus to part with Dragic or Bledsoe, it seems to be a step forward to me. A small step perhaps but at least it's in the right direction.

Zelaznyrules wrote:I voted no but after thinking about it some more, I'd say yes. We really have nothing better to do with that money and while it will be an overpay, it's not a ridiculous overpay. Besides, worst case scenario, in two or three years it should be an easily movable contract and we're probably that far away from serious contention anyway. He'd improve us enough to be a threat in the playoffs and as long as it's not the impetus to part with Dragic or Bledsoe, it seems to be a step forward to me. A small step perhaps but at least it's in the right direction.

That's the kind of attitude that got us handcuffed to the contracts of Warrick, Turkeyglu and Childress. Doing something for the hell of doing something is not a good policy.

lilfishi22 wrote:

Zelaznyrules wrote:I voted no but after thinking about it some more, I'd say yes. We really have nothing better to do with that money and while it will be an overpay, it's not a ridiculous overpay. Besides, worst case scenario, in two or three years it should be an easily movable contract and we're probably that far away from serious contention anyway. He'd improve us enough to be a threat in the playoffs and as long as it's not the impetus to part with Dragic or Bledsoe, it seems to be a step forward to me. A small step perhaps but at least it's in the right direction.

That's the kind of attitude that got us handcuffed to the contracts of Warrick, Turkeyglu and Childress. Doing something for the hell of doing something is not a good policy.

I'd agree if we were throwing money at a bad player which is what we did when we tried to fill Amare's shoes with those guys. But we're talking about paying a decent young big man more than he is worth right now. He might actually work his way up to that salary but even if he doesn't, it's not likely to hamper us. I see nothing wrong with moving the needle a little bit. Barring injury he's likely to be less overpaid each year as he improves and the Salary Cap grows.

Zelaznyrules wrote:I'd agree if we were throwing money at a bad player which is what we did when we tried to fill Amare's shoes with those guys. But we're talking about paying a decent young big man more than he is worth right now. He might actually work his way up to that salary but even if he doesn't, it's not likely to hamper us. I see nothing wrong with moving the needle a little bit. Barring injury he's likely to be less overpaid each year as he improves and the Salary Cap grows.

I'm not against signing Monroe because I think he's going to be a bad deal. I'm against signing Monroe because he doesn't fit our system. He's not an athletic up and down player that would fit our system, nor does he put up much resistance in the way of defense. I'm all for trying something different and sign a back to basket big man who can rebound (eg Gasol) but not if it means we're locked into this experiment for 4 years and at the cost of $63m.

lilfishi22 wrote:

Zelaznyrules wrote:I voted no but after thinking about it some more, I'd say yes. We really have nothing better to do with that money and while it will be an overpay, it's not a ridiculous overpay. Besides, worst case scenario, in two or three years it should be an easily movable contract and we're probably that far away from serious contention anyway. He'd improve us enough to be a threat in the playoffs and as long as it's not the impetus to part with Dragic or Bledsoe, it seems to be a step forward to me. A small step perhaps but at least it's in the right direction.

That's the kind of attitude that got us handcuffed to the contracts of Warrick, Turkeyglu and Childress. Doing something for the hell of doing something is not a good policy.

The CBA says you have to spend 58 mil. You cant save the money and roll it into 2016.

Warspite wrote:

lilfishi22 wrote:

Zelaznyrules wrote:I voted no but after thinking about it some more, I'd say yes. We really have nothing better to do with that money and while it will be an overpay, it's not a ridiculous overpay. Besides, worst case scenario, in two or three years it should be an easily movable contract and we're probably that far away from serious contention anyway. He'd improve us enough to be a threat in the playoffs and as long as it's not the impetus to part with Dragic or Bledsoe, it seems to be a step forward to me. A small step perhaps but at least it's in the right direction.

That's the kind of attitude that got us handcuffed to the contracts of Warrick, Turkeyglu and Childress. Doing something for the hell of doing something is not a good policy.

The CBA says you have to spend 58 mil. You cant save the money and roll it into 2016.

The CBA stipulates that teams with a team salary below the minimum are surcharged for their shortfall, with the money distributed among the players on that team. It says nothing about making multi-million dollar, multi-year commitments in order to meet this seasons team salary minimum.

Dr Manute wrote:We need players who can play on both ends of the court. I would prefer to save our money to give to someone who can play better defense.

Like Isaiah Thomas?