RealGM

We've inked Jordan McRae for next year along with Tarik Phillip (out of U of WVA, undrafted 2017). Non-guaranteed deals for next year.

Tarik Phillip will turn 26 in August. He's played in Europe & the G League

https://www.basketball-reference.com/gleague/players/p/phillta01d.html -- his G League numbers were a lot better than his college numbers. He might be functional at the end of the bench.

Not sure how he's different from Chasson Randle. Cheaper?

Camp bodies!

payitforward wrote:Tarik Phillip will turn 26 in August. He's played in Europe & the G League

https://www.basketball-reference.com/gleague/players/p/phillta01d.html -- his G League numbers were a lot better than his college numbers. He might be functional at the end of the bench.

Not sure how he's different from Chasson Randle. Cheaper?

The signing of McRae makes sense. He certainly looked like a competent player. The only downside is that $200,000 is guaranteed, but I think it's highly unlikely that we're going to find 15 guys so much better than him that we'll cut him and be forced to eat it. The upside is that we lock him in now and won't have to worry about losing him. Also, by signing him now, he will only cost $1.44M next year. If we had waited until next year to sign him, he would have cost $1.54M. (It's the screwy way in which minimum salary contracts are handled.)

I guess the same argument holds for Phillip. By signing him now, he'll cost about $100K cheaper than he would have cost if we signed him in the summer. The main difference is that we have no idea how well he will play here. But at least his contract isn't guaranteed so we can cut him with no consequences (except for the $9000 we paid him to be on the team for one game this year).

Of course, we might be better off still by not signing either guy and instead filling those spots with vet minimum players with 0 years of experience. Those guys only cost $850,000.

So, our interim GM made the deals?

I would have given McRae a 3 year deal at that rate, but that's just me, so I won't complain. I'm guessing Tarik is similar to Randle - honestly, he sounds a bit worse, but with a non-quaranteed contract - like FAH said - he's a camp body - nothing to criticise or congratulate. Yawn-inducing first moves by our GM.

Only weird thing about this is that you would have thought they'd have done that Phillip deal with Devin Robinson instead.

Ruz has Robinson ahead of Dekker in another thread, & I don't agree with that -- but, still, in the few minutes he's had he has looked good. Plus, he's been a 2-way player for two years now. Seems to me he could make a lot more money in Europe; I can't see why he'd come back for that level of deal.

What am I missing?

payitforward wrote:Only weird thing about this is that you would have thought they'd have done that Phillip deal with Devin Robinson instead.

Ruz has Robinson ahead of Dekker in another thread, & I don't agree with that -- but, still, in the few minutes he's had he has looked good. Plus, he's been a 2-way player for two years now. Seems to me he could make a lot more money in Europe; I can't see why he'd come back for that level of deal.

What am I missing?

A lot. Most Euro leagues have a limit of 1 or 2 Americans per team, and very few Americans make big money overseas. Also, Robiinson doesn't strike me as the type of player they typically go for. As for Dekker vs Robinson, Dekker's only above average skill is his energy. He's not a good scorer, rebounder, or defender, and he makes 28% of his 3's with mediocre to worse scoring efficiency numbers - just not good enough to be a rotation player in today's NBA. He's also between positions - not skilled enough or quick enough to be successful in major minutes at the 3, and not strong enough or a good enough rebounder to play extended minutes at the 4. He's probably worth it to keep at the end of the bench as a min salary guy. Robinsson is much longer and more explosive and athletic and has shown in the G League that he can hit the 3.

Ruzious wrote:So, our interim GM made the deals?

I would have given McRae a 3 year deal at that rate, but that's just me, so I won't complain. I'm guessing Tarik is similar to Randle - honestly, he sounds a bit worse, but with a non-quaranteed contract - like FAH said - he's a camp body - nothing to criticise or congratulate. Yawn-inducing first moves by our GM.

Randle was a first year vet and only cost $850,000 this year. He'll cost $1.5M next year if we resign him. Tarik will cost $1.4M. If Tarik isn't substantially better than Randle, I'd prefer to cut Tarik and see if we can find another 1st year player for $850,000.

payitforward wrote:Only weird thing about this is that you would have thought they'd have done that Phillip deal with Devin Robinson instead.

Ruz has Robinson ahead of Dekker in another thread, & I don't agree with that -- but, still, in the few minutes he's had he has looked good. Plus, he's been a 2-way player for two years now. Seems to me he could make a lot more money in Europe; I can't see why he'd come back for that level of deal.

What am I missing?

Maybe it's an indication that they believe there will already be a lot of PF's on the roster. Could they be signaling that they're keeping Parker as well as drafting Clarke? Or maybe they already expect to retain Jeff Green on a vet minimum contract as our 3rd string PF and won't be needing a 4th stringer.

Ruzious wrote:A lot. Most Euro leagues have a limit of 1 or 2 Americans per team, and very few Americans make big money overseas. Also, Robiinson doesn't strike me as the type of player they typically go for. As for Dekker vs Robinson, Dekker's only above average skill is his energy. He's not a good scorer, rebounder, or defender, and he makes 28% of his 3's with mediocre to worse scoring efficiency numbers - just not good enough to be a rotation player in today's NBA. He's also between positions - not skilled enough or quick enough to be successful in major minutes at the 3, and not strong enough or a good enough rebounder to play extended minutes at the 4. He's probably worth it to keep at the end of the bench as a min salary guy. Robinsson is much longer and more explosive and athletic and has shown in the G League that he can hit the 3.

I’ve found both Dekker and Robinson underwhelming when they’ve got extended minutes in recent games. I was on board with keeping Dekker on next season at a vet minimum deal, but I’ve been unimpressed with how he’s played the last 2-3 games. Sam plays extremely hard and has a high bball IQ, but other than that he’s a very unskilled NBA player.

I’ve been looking for a reason to like Devin Robinson given that the Zards have invested two years of development in him. But I’m having a difficult time figuring out what exactly he does well…other than being a highlight show with great hops.

If I had to choose between Dekker and Robinson, I’d go with Devin. He dominated in the G League and can shoot the 3. He also has good length and outstanding athleticism…and, probably most importantly, more upside than Sam.

Ruzious wrote:

payitforward wrote:Only weird thing about this is that you would have thought they'd have done that Phillip deal with Devin Robinson instead.

Ruz has Robinson ahead of Dekker in another thread, & I don't agree with that -- but, still, in the few minutes he's had he has looked good. Plus, he's been a 2-way player for two years now. Seems to me he could make a lot more money in Europe; I can't see why he'd come back for that level of deal.

What am I missing?

A lot. Most Euro leagues have a limit of 1 or 2 Americans per team, and very few Americans make big money overseas. Also, Robiinson doesn't strike me as the type of player they typically go for. As for Dekker vs Robinson, Dekker's only above average skill is his energy. He's not a good scorer, rebounder, or defender, and he makes 28% of his 3's with mediocre to worse scoring efficiency numbers - just not good enough to be a rotation player in today's NBA. He's also between positions - not skilled enough or quick enough to be successful in major minutes at the 3, and not strong enough or a good enough rebounder to play extended minutes at the 4. He's probably worth it to keep at the end of the bench as a min salary guy. Robinsson is much longer and more explosive and athletic and has shown in the G League that he can hit the 3.

Well, you're wrong about Dekker, a solid journeyman 3 who plays at an average or a bit above average level in the NBA & is available cheap. But, because value for dollar is what drives his consideration, I'm not going to put myself in a position where it'll look like I'm saying someone is better than he actually is. He has played extremely well for us this year.

As to Devin Robinson, I can't see him in front of Dekker, as you did, but I didn't mean to suggest they were alternatives -- i.e. decide between them. Not at all.

I would have given Devin a non-guaranteed deal for next season just off his G League minutes & for having shown promise in a few NBA minutes.

If for some reason it's relevant to compare them -- Devin Robinson is all of 10 months younger than Sam Dekker. He played for a worse college team in a less competitive division & played less well than Dekker. Result: he wasn't drafted. If he's worked hard & turned himself into a player... that is great. I admire anyone who does that, I wish he was on the squad to start next year so we could see.

As to my point about "value for dollar" -- that's something obvious a team needs, otherwise it's really hard to field a good team in a league with a cap. & Dekker played quite well for us -- better, for example, than Trevor Ariza. He's no big deal, but he's definitely worth keeping.

DCZards wrote:...I was on board with keeping Dekker on next season at a vet minimum deal, but I’ve been unimpressed with how he’s played the last 2-3 games....

Sore back. He played quite well for us earlier in the season.

DCZards wrote:I'd go with Devin. He dominated in the G League and can shoot the 3. He also has good length and outstanding athleticism…and, probably most importantly, more upside than Sam.

10 months age difference. Don't I recall you telling me that Kieff could still develop even though he was I think 26 or 27? Not Sam, however? At 24?

Sam played for a great college team. Played well for them. Was drafted in R1 after his Sophomore year. Has played 4000 NBA minutes & played reasonably well (nobody had to send him to the G League).

I don't think I'd take Devin Robinson over Sam Dekker, Zards....

edit: ...though, again, it's really not one or the other, as we aren't exactly overloaded for next year.

one more edit:

DCZards wrote:...Devin... can shoot the 3...

30.4% in the G League this year.