EvanZ wrote:vvoland wrote:EvanZ wrote:
Disgusting propaganda.
Ouch.
Have you never believed in dame or just post achilles dame? You can't possibly want Pat Spencer or our other back of the roster PGs (chris chiozza, wanamaker, etc.)?
I don't want to talk about Damian Lillard for a year. It's disgusting. In a year if he's amenable to a minimum contract then let's talk about it. I literally despise the concept of talking about this dude playing for us in a year. All morning I'm listenign to 95.7 The Game talk about Damian Lillard. I'm seeing every YouTuber talk about the WArriors acquiring Damian Lillard. It's absolutely disgusting propaganda meant to distract us from the actual issues at hand TODAY.
The positives for letting an injured Lillard take a roster spot is that you can keep an eye on his rehab, get him to learn how to play with his new scheme/teammates and possibly have him for the playoffs this next season even if that's a long shot, the biggest plus is carrying him knowing you may have at least 1 season (on a 2 year deal) where you may get incredible value for him as long as he's cheap to carry those 2+ years. BTW, the assumption is he'd be coming off the bench, you can't have Curry and Lillard starting together unless you think you can just outscore everyone which is a very low possibility with a diminished Lillard.
Personally, I'd go with roster spots 13-15 (unless you only carry 14) to high risk/high reward players (for the future), so if they're a young player with potential, a 2nd draft guy who had potential but it didn't work out with his first team (Kinda like Kuminga in GS) or someone coming off an injury. I really don't think there's that much of a down side to carrying those types of players vs having Spencer, Knox, or even Key eating up roster spots.
