worst fa/trade signing so far

Post #1 » by **JDR720** » Fri Dec 2, 2016 7:48 pm

who is the worst or most dissatisfying fa/trade signing so far and why is he the worst one?

bravor · Post #2 » by **bravor** » Fri Dec 2, 2016 9:04 pm

As of now, it's nic for me.

His production is not worth his contract, as simple as this. The only good thing for now is that he cut the turnovers to a certain extent (he even had a game without any i think against the Cav's). His shooting is really disappointing, he is particulary bad on catch and shoots (he was much better last year) and not reliable on post up (he was 50% last year, i think he is in the low 30%, i might be wrong though that's from eye test). He has the tools to be a reliable 45/35/80 shooter (at least).
I expect much more free throws - especially if he keeps shooting the technical ft's - and mid range shots (at least when he is struggling with the 3), while keeping a good ratio as/to (with the turnovers limited to 2 or slightly above as his turnovers generally lead to easy buckets for the opponents).

There have been worst contract elsewhere, but he has to step up.. If he had signed a 100M contract, it would be another choice from me (since 5M/y would have help the organization to improve the roster or keep more flexibility for 2017).

Post #3 » by **JDR720** » Fri Dec 2, 2016 10:25 pm

going with marv, his offence is broke

amcoolio · Post #4 » by **amcoolio** » Fri Dec 2, 2016 11:36 pm

Gotta be Marv. We could have Jordan Clarkson or someone with more production and higher upside. Or at the very least saved enough room to be players next season in a very loaded class.

Post #5 » by **fatlever** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 12:44 am

don't give up on Marv. He'll get it figured out. Plus he still plays great defense.

HornetJail · Post #6 » by **HornetJail** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 1:08 am

The Marvin and Batum signings had to happen. This team would suck without them. Neither is off to a great start, but they're still making a big impact on the game. I think Sessions is starting to click for us, Marco has looked good lately (and if he keeps it up, we made a good trade). The worst signing has to be Roberts. He and Aaron Harrison are completely wasted roster spots.

Mystical Apples · Post #7 » by **Mystical Apples** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 1:12 am

Kind of a loaded question. CHA avoided bad multi-year contracts so there was no "worst."

The least awesome was Marco simply cause he wasn't open market and no year 2 TO. It was still good management, however.

Post #8 » by **yosemiteben** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 2:06 am

Mystical Apples wrote:Kind of a loaded question. CHA avoided bad multi-year contracts so there was no "worst."

That's my view.

If our worst move is signing Brian Roberts to a 1 year, $1M deal, that's a damn good offseason.

I think the worst move was not buying in to the second round. No reason GSW should be able to buy McCaw but we didn't.

Eoghan · Post #9 » by **Eoghan** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 4:09 am

I picked Roy simply cos I'm tired of seeing Roy and Hawes lineups.

Post #10 » by **Diop** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 4:53 am

Eoghan wrote:I picked Roy simply cos I'm tired of seeing Roy and Hawes lineups.

but that's more of a Clifford thing isn't it.

Batum, MKG, both would have been fine against Barnes. Heck, I think I would rather Lamb against Barnes than Hawes, but Rainman dont work that way

Eoghan · Post #11 » by **Eoghan** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 5:56 pm

Diop wrote:
Eoghan wrote:I picked Roy simply cos I'm tired of seeing Roy and Hawes lineups.

but that's more of a Clifford thing isn't it.

Batum, MKG, both would have been fine against Barnes. Heck, I think I would rather Lamb against Barnes than Hawes, but Rainman dont work that way

It's all the same though. Marv looks like crap b/c in Clifford's offense he needs to knock down threes but he ain't and Cliff keeps playing him anyway. Brian Roberts was resigned literally b/c he used to play for Clifford, same for Ramon. Nic can't be the worst b/c even on Nic's worst nights he still makes the team function better more often than not. Marco was brought in b/c Cliff's system needs shooters. I'd say Roy still probably brings the least to the equation b/c all he really does is be tall around the basket. This team needs better rim protection but not from a guy that rebounds pathetically and is too slow to guard P&R well or be a good roll/pop threat on offense. He just looks really out of place in terms of how this team plays basketball, even more than Sessions.

Post #12 » by **yosemiteben** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 7:06 pm

I don't think we signed Sessions because he played for Cliff two months before he got traded because he didn't fit.

Vanderbilt_Grad · Post #13 » by **Vanderbilt_Grad** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 8:16 pm

This time when I pretty much agree with Eoghan in regards to PG. I think that the team's brain trust wasn't happy with their PG options for the off-season. I'm betting that opportunity costs were too high for guys they liked better. So, given a pool of 2nd choices, they went after guys who already knew Cliff's system so that the team would be able to get off to a faster start. I can't really fault them for thinking that way.

I'm not really unhappy with any of the off season signing, but I'm going to go with Roy, since he hasn't really shown much here. My memory is that there were better options to be had when the team signed him ... even if his $ did end up being a better fit under the cap.

catch20two · Post #14 » by **catch20two** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 9:00 pm

The fact that we got two more incompetent point guards behind Sessions on the roster in Roberts and Harrison when point guard is the easiest position to find talent in the league disgust me.

Eoghan · Post #15 » by **Eoghan** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 9:02 pm

yosemiteben wrote:I don't think we signed Sessions because he played for Cliff two months before he got traded because he didn't fit.

If he didn't fit then and he doesn't fit now than why else was he signed? His one "WTF, Ramon can still dunk?!" poster per year?