sfam wrote:This whining over "letting Livingston go" is just silly. More than anything, the guy wanted a chance to play. That's what he needs right now, and absent an obscene contract, we weren't going to keep him here. Its cool to be mad a Grunfeld for many of his past moves (I am too), for letting the perennial all-star Gee go, that he likes vanilla milkshakes when he goes to McDonalds, and perhaps some of the moves he's made this year, but deciding that our rebuild is going to be a failure based on letting Livingston go is just tad too bizarre to me.
We don't even know if Leonsis, who is really the guy in charge of our rebuild, is going to keep him after this next year. But regardless whether our rebuild succeeds or fails, I really doubt, like really seriously doubt that anyone will ever point to letting Livingston go as the reason. OK, he gave us a couple of good weeks - I liked him too. I truly hope he does great a Charlotte, but once we got the first pick in the draft (I suppose you can blame Grunfeld for this too) he was never planning to come back here.
Exactly.
I was wondering what this thread was doing hanging around so I decided to take a dip and see what was going on. Are people really getting on EG because Shawn signed somewhere else ?
Only way I can see we would have kept Shawn is if we decided we had our PGs in himself and Kirk, which you can argue. Then we would have traded down from the first to get some assest in the trade down and we picked up something later like Cousins.
But once we decided on Wall, there was no place for Shawn special once we picked up Chicagos pick and Kirk. Hey, I was a big Shawn fan while he was here. I hate to see him go. I think he will be productive in the league and a solid PG. But once we got Wall, it was written that Shawn was gone.