Scottie isn't going to be a #1 option superstar in this league

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

He's still going to want max if near healthy, it's a no-win situation. So it's like a year or two of this. Not long term. Even if it works out perfectly.

Maybe. We'll see how his body holds up and how he performs. If he is relatively healthy and performing at his AS level, that becomes a very different conversation than if he remains on the bench most of the season.

In the meantime, that isn't really salient to whether or not he's better than Gradey. It speaks to the potential value difference if he's simply not playing, but if he is, then he's a considerably advanced offensive player relative to Dick.

EDIT: Anyway, we're now into the weeds with another player. Perhaps we should pivot to BI's potential impact on Scottie?

Space, that's why I like both of them on the floor.

[tsherkin]

Space, that's why I like both of them on the floor.

BI and Quick, yes, opening up space. Works best if Scottie is around the key, though, I imagine, because otherwise his defender will just right off of him.

And I think with two other guys on the floor who are quality play initiators, we MIGHT get to see more of Scottie in actions where he isn't handling the ball. Maybe getting set up a little more, which would be nice.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

Space, that's why I like both of them on the floor.

BI and Quick, yes, opening up space. Works best if Scottie is around the key, though, I imagine, because otherwise his defender will just right off of him.

And I think with two other guys on the floor who are quality play initiators, we MIGHT get to see more of Scottie in actions where he isn't handling the ball. Maybe getting set up a little more, which would be nice.

I like Grady's size personally. If that means Barett starting pg, so be it.

[tsherkin]

I like Grady's size personally. If that means Barett starting pg, so be it.

I don't see Gradey starting as a good idea just yet. He is still too limited, and much worse on D.

Quick, RJ, BI, Scottie, Jak, that's probably what we're rolling with.

[Senbonzakura]

Barrett and Ingram are kinda redundant to me, and Ingram is the superior scorer and shooter.

I'd run Quick / Agbaji / Ingram / Scottie / Poeltl if it were up to me.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

I like Grady's size personally. If that means Barett starting pg, so be it.

I don't see Gradey starting as a good idea just yet. He is still too limited, and much worse on D.

Quick, RJ, BI, Scottie, Jak, that's probably what we're rolling with.

He's an asset, the guy making 30M+...not so much.

[tsherkin]

He's an asset, the guy making 30M+...not so much.

So if we're trying to win, deploying our best guys in the starting lineup makes sense.

Quickley is a better player than Gradey right now. he's a better defender, he's a better shooter against defense, he is ALSO a capable off-ball guy, and he is notably more valuable on-ball.

Can't really see a good argument for playing Gradey ahead of him. And Dick being "an asset" compared to IQ's salary really isn't compelling in context.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

He's an asset, the guy making 30M+...not so much.

So if we're trying to win, deploying our best guys in the starting lineup makes sense.

Quickley is a better player than Gradey right now. he's a better defender, he's a better shooter against defense, he is ALSO a capable off-ball guy, and he is notably more valuable on-ball.

Can't really see a good argument for playing Gradey ahead of him. And Dick being "an asset" compared to IQ's salary really isn't compelling in context.

Quicks never going to out play that contract, that's why. Dick will, by a mile.

[YogurtProducer]

He's an asset, the guy making 30M+...not so much.

So if we're trying to win, deploying our best guys in the starting lineup makes sense.

Quickley is a better player than Gradey right now. he's a better defender, he's a better shooter against defense, he is ALSO a capable off-ball guy, and he is notably more valuable on-ball.

Can't really see a good argument for playing Gradey ahead of him. And Dick being "an asset" compared to IQ's salary really isn't compelling in context.

Quicks never going to out play that contract, that's why. Dick will, by a mile.

And Dick won't likely ever be as good as IQ is, so who cares?

Suggesting we bench our best shooter and playmaker so we can start a no defence 3 point specialist who has shot 35.6% from 3 in his career is a horrible idea.

[tsherkin]

Quicks never going to out play that contract, that's why. Dick will, by a mile.

This is both a projection, and super, super irrelevant to what we should be doing to try and win this season. Gradey will get his development time, but that doesn't mean we should force him into the starting lineup for no sensible reason.

[TakeYourHeart]

He's an asset, the guy making 30M+...not so much.

So if we're trying to win, deploying our best guys in the starting lineup makes sense.

Quickley is a better player than Gradey right now. he's a better defender, he's a better shooter against defense, he is ALSO a capable off-ball guy, and he is notably more valuable on-ball.

Can't really see a good argument for playing Gradey ahead of him. And Dick being "an asset" compared to IQ's salary really isn't compelling in context.

Quicks never going to out play that contract, that's why. Dick will, by a mile.

Does the starting line up perform better if their combined salaries are less, I don't get this at all

[tsherkin]

And Dick won't likely ever be as good as IQ is, so who cares?

Suggesting we bench our best shooter and playmaker so we can start a no defence 3 point specialist who has shot 35.6% from 3 in his career is a horrible idea.

Succinctly put.

Gradey has potential, but we're clearly trying to win games. Until Gradey shows us that he can be a neutral defender, he has no business in the starting lineup. And then he'll still have to be able to hit 3s against light contest, and finish when he attacks the close-outs. He has a long way to go. The potential is there, but there's no sense to rushing him.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

Quicks never going to out play that contract, that's why. Dick will, by a mile.

This is both a projection, and super, super irrelevant to what we should be doing to try and win this season. Gradey will get his development time, but that doesn't mean we should force him into the starting lineup for no sensible reason.

Loading up on Neg equity players is what got us here.

[tsherkin]

Loading up on Neg equity players is what got us here.

This is still patently irrelevant to player quality and trying to win. Putting Gradey in the starting lineup because he's cheaper than IQ wouldn't be an intelligent decision by any standard.

I don't know how to articulate that any more clearly. The fact that Gradey is gonna make 5 mil and IQ is gonna make 32 has no bearing on our ability to win games.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

Loading up on Neg equity players is what got us here.

This is still patently irrelevant to player quality and trying to win. Putting Gradey in the starting lineup because he's cheaper than IQ wouldn't be an intelligent decision by any standard.

I don't know how to articulate that any more clearly. The fact that Gradey is gonna make 5 mil and IQ is gonna make 32 has no bearing on our ability to win games.

It's hard to build a winning situation out of under-performers. Somebody has to be out performing their contract.

[YogurtProducer]

Loading up on Neg equity players is what got us here.

This is still patently irrelevant to player quality and trying to win. Putting Gradey in the starting lineup because he's cheaper than IQ wouldn't be an intelligent decision by any standard.

I don't know how to articulate that any more clearly. The fact that Gradey is gonna make 5 mil and IQ is gonna make 32 has no bearing on our ability to win games.

It's hard to build a winning situation out of under-performers. Somebody has to be out performing their contract.

Maybe let IQ play a few healthy games in a non-tank environment before you get all worked up over “under performers”.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

This is still patently irrelevant to player quality and trying to win. Putting Gradey in the starting lineup because he's cheaper than IQ wouldn't be an intelligent decision by any standard.

I don't know how to articulate that any more clearly. The fact that Gradey is gonna make 5 mil and IQ is gonna make 32 has no bearing on our ability to win games.

It's hard to build a winning situation out of under-performers. Somebody has to be out performing their contract.

Maybe let IQ play a few healthy games in a non-tank environment before you get all worked up over “under performers”.

Why wait, is there a market? Probably not at this point.

[YogurtProducer]

It's hard to build a winning situation out of under-performers. Somebody has to be out performing their contract.

Maybe let IQ play a few healthy games in a non-tank environment before you get all worked up over “under performers”.

Why wait, is there a market? Probably not at this point.

What are you even talking about?

[tsherkin]

It's hard to build a winning situation out of under-performers. Somebody has to be out performing their contract.

This remains irrelevant, and you continue to fail to address the large difference in actual on-court value between IQ and Gradey.

Putting a much worse player in the starting lineup because he's cheaper isn't intelligent. It isn't savvy. It undercuts the team's ability to win. It's not as if we wouldn't be giving Gradey minutes off the bench, but yeah. You undercut our defense, you worsen our overall 3pt threat, you weaken our playmaking ability... we literally get worse at EVERY aspect of the game by playing Gradey more minutes than IQ.

In a season where we are obviously trying to win, it would be sinfully foolish to start Dick over Quickley.

[Tripod]

Let Gradey worry about being better than Battle, JKW and Ochai before we need to have any convo about replacing a starter. And this cones from someone who still believes that Gradey can be an important rotation pieces someday.