Suns Offseason Thread 4: Where's Terrence Williams?

[suns91fan]

Markieff's rebounding numbers are also affected by both Bledsoe and Tucker. Their numbers are above average for their respecting positions, so it makes sense. Lower their rebounding numbers to league average, and add them to Kieff, and there you have it, his numbers actually look nice.

I never cared for individual rebounding numbers anyway, it's about team's rebounding overall. Suns have box-out problems, and it's not tied just to Kieff, but every big man on the team. Hopefully Chandler helps with this, and points out what they do wrong.

[AtheJ415]

This was never about who is better, history shows who is better, this is about getting better and becoming a more attractive place to come play. And if there is one guy in the league with a contract more attractive than Kieff's its Gasol. Gasol gets you more wins than Kieff for the next 2-3 years. The trade I proposed also brought back Caboclo from TOR, something that seems to have been ignored in the discussions. He's not a huge piece but a promising one that could grow with the younger core.

Every team that has won the championship has had a mix of veteran, mid-career and young players. That's SA's formula. They keep an experienced core and pair them with youngsters on cheap contracts. When the youngsters get more expensive, they move them and bring in more experienced guys.

In terms of CHI moving Gasol, they will need to do something on that club with all of their front court talent, and lack of depth/ strength at the 3. Suns were rumored to have interested in Gasol when he was in LA. CHI has Gibson, Noah, Mirotic, Gasol, Portis all worthy of minutes in the front court. I think Noah will be back stronger this year, which will give CHI big problems to manage everyone. Someone is getting traded. Hoiberg will bring in a new system, we will see who fits his system the best.

What FA is going to sign up to play with the Suns long-term because we have a 36 year old Pau Gasol? If this is about getting more guys in FA, it doesn't make sense.

[AtheJ415]

Putting aside the Pau versus Markieff debate, you've said this a couple of times now. Who, in your opinion, has the top mid-range game? Just curious. Also, some mid-range shots and especially long-twos are the least efficient shots in the NBA. So, while it's nice to have a top-tier skill, I'd rather have a player who shoots more valuable shots--either at the rim or behind the three-point line. Trevor Ariza is a pretty good example of a fairly limited player who maximizes his scoring by only taking threes or layups/dunks.

Courtesy of Suns91fan in a previous post.

[url]http://bkref.com/tiny/2vfzH
[/url]


It's not my opinion. It's stats. Chris Paul is the only guy shooting the mid-range J better. Not sure why the URL code is looking like that.

Not so cut and dry. The three point line is 22 feet out in the corners and 23.75 feet above the top of the key. So if you arbitrarily call midrange to be 10-16 feet and set the number of attempts at 200 (which limits the field to only 9 players), then Markieff is second in the league. But, if you change the numbers a bit to capture the full midrange game, it changes the outcome. Here's a list from 10-24 feet with three pointers excluded it looks a little bit different. Markieff comes at a very respectable 14th, behind guys like JJ Redick, Chris Paul, Al Horford, Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, Chris Bosh, and David West, all of whom have a better midrange game than Markieff. Pairing these stats with the eye test, and it looks much more realistic. And, somehow, Beno Udrih apparently has a killer midrange game, leading the pack with a .523 FG% with CP3 a distant second at .504 FG%.

There's no real logic to suggest 10-24 feet is any less arbitrary than 10-16. Long 2s aren't really mid range IMO, and you're including some 2s that are further out than some 3s. To each his own definition, but I don't see in the slightest how this isn't arbitrary.

[AtheJ415]

Probably I am wrong, but I think that Pau Gasol is gonna be an overall better player than Markieff the next two years. Just my opinion...if Markieff is in Phoenix next year I really want him to be better than Gasol, but I am not sure about it.

Okay, but that's not what I'm asking. My point was do you think Gasol will be better beyond the next 2 years--not during the next 2 years. I think Gasol will be better than Kieff next year and maybe the year after. I just don't think we'll be legitimate contenders during that time (I think our window starts 3 years from now). Given that, I want the guy who will be better 3, 4, and 5 years down the line. Gasol cannot feasibly be playing at an all-star level at ages 38-40. I think Kieff at 28-30 is better than Gasol at 38-40.

In the NBA 3 years is a TON of years and rosters change in that period a ĺot. Look our team, for example, or other teams (it's the same result) and think about how many players they have on their roster more than three consecutive years? Very few of them.

If we were speaking about a youngster like Booker or Warren I would agree with you. They can be way better in 3 years.
If we were speaking about an All-Star or borderline All Star player I would agree with you. You don't trade great players.

But role players and average starters (like Markieff ) go in and out of teams until you have a really good playoff team or a contender and then you can make a run for a championship for a few years.

I agree and I"m not opposed to trading Kieff, but if he's going to be moved I am opposed to it being for anyone who is over 28 or so. Someone as old as a Gasol can't help us long-term. I do think Kieff has more potential than just average starter though.

[plonden]

There's no real logic to suggest 10-24 feet is any less arbitrary than 10-16. Long 2s aren't really mid range IMO, and you're including some 2s that are further out than some 3s. To each his own definition, but I don't see in the slightest how this isn't arbitrary.

That's the point. The statistics can be manipulated based on arbitrary selections in how you choose to present the data. When you say unequivocally that Markieff has the second best midrange game in the NBA and then cite to only a b-ref shot selection chart, it's frankly not convincing. You have to cross-check the analytics against observations and experience. To say that Markieff has a better midrange game than Dirk Nowitzki doesn't pass the eye test. The shot chart I provided was also arbitrary. But it conformed closer to reality--based on my observations and experience--than the chart you provided.

[Revived]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/status/625402328233852928[/tweet]

A little surprising that Bledsoe didn't get invited last year or this year.

[AtheJ415]

There's no real logic to suggest 10-24 feet is any less arbitrary than 10-16. Long 2s aren't really mid range IMO, and you're including some 2s that are further out than some 3s. To each his own definition, but I don't see in the slightest how this isn't arbitrary.

That's the point. The statistics can be manipulated based on arbitrary selections in how you choose to present the data. When you say unequivocally that Markieff has the second best midrange game in the NBA and then cite to only a b-ref shot selection chart, it's frankly not convincing. You have to cross-check the analytics against observations and experience. To say that Markieff has a better midrange game than Dirk Nowitzki doesn't pass the eye test. The shot chart I provided was also arbitrary. But it conformed closer to reality--based on my observations and experience--than the chart you provided.

The bolded means nothing to me. Your assertion that adding more arbitrary statistics, including some that are clearly irrelevant (because according to you there are no long 2s and some mid-range shots are even further out than 3 point shots), does nothing but decrease the validity of the stat. What you've done is essentially morph mid range with long 2s and combined them into a whole new category that you are now introducing to try to prove a point that statistics don't agree with, but better matches what you individually believe.

Just because a stat is surprising doesn't mean it's proper to tweek it until it matches what you initially believed. It's fine to do so if what you're adding is reasonable, but again, you're entirely eliminating the long 2 as a category.

[plonden]

The bolded means nothing to me. Your assertion that adding more arbitrary statistics, including some that are clearly irrelevant (because according to you there are no long 2s and some mid-range shots are even further out than 3 point shots), does nothing but decrease the validity of the stat. What you've done is essentially morph mid range with long 2s and combined them into a whole new category that you are now introducing to try to prove a point that statistics don't agree with, but better matches what you individually believe.

Just because a stat is surprising doesn't mean it's proper to tweek it until it matches what you initially believed. It's fine to do so if what you're adding is reasonable, but again, you're entirely eliminating the long 2 as a category.

Ugh. Last time and then I'm done with this. Can we agree that selecting statistical cutoffs is somewhat arbitrary? Yours was likely under-inclusive and mine is likely over-inclusive. Can we also agree that you have to combine statistics and analytics with real-world observations and experience (i.e, do not just blindly accept statistics)? Can we also agree that there is no generally accepted way to distinguish between shots? In my mind I divide the court into threes, midrange, and in the paint. You have at least four zones, and maybe more. Who is right? I don't know. None of that seems controversial to me. You may disagree with my observations and experience, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I've never disputed that my selection of what to call midrange was just as arbitrary as yours.

My one--and only--contention is that your assertion that Markieff Morris has the second-best midrange game in the NBA behind only Chris Paul is flat out wrong. And I stand behind that assertion. It is only true based on the narrow statistics you provided. How about a shot chart from 10-19 feet? It includes guys like CP3, Dirk, Bosh, Horford, etc., above Kieff, which passes the eye test too. And one more time, I've never disagreed with the notion that Morris has a very good midrange game. There's just no way he's top 2 in the NBA. That's a lot of words to make a small point.

[suns91fan]

The bolded means nothing to me. Your assertion that adding more arbitrary statistics, including some that are clearly irrelevant (because according to you there are no long 2s and some mid-range shots are even further out than 3 point shots), does nothing but decrease the validity of the stat. What you've done is essentially morph mid range with long 2s and combined them into a whole new category that you are now introducing to try to prove a point that statistics don't agree with, but better matches what you individually believe.

Just because a stat is surprising doesn't mean it's proper to tweek it until it matches what you initially believed. It's fine to do so if what you're adding is reasonable, but again, you're entirely eliminating the long 2 as a category.

Ugh. Last time and then I'm done with this. Can we agree that selecting statistical cutoffs is somewhat arbitrary? Yours was likely under-inclusive and mine is likely over-inclusive. Can we also agree that you have to combine statistics and analytics with real-world observations and experience (i.e, do not just blindly accept statistics)? Can we also agree that there is no generally accepted way to distinguish between shots? In my mind I divide the court into threes, midrange, and in the paint. You have at least four zones, and maybe more. Who is right? I don't know. None of that seems controversial to me. You may disagree with my observations and experience, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I've never disputed that my selection of what to call midrange was just as arbitrary as yours.

My one--and only--contention is that your assertion that Markieff Morris has the second-best midrange game in the NBA behind only Chris Paul is flat out wrong. And I stand behind that assertion. It is only true based on the narrow statistics you provided. How about a shot chart from 10-19 feet? It includes guys like CP3, Dirk, Bosh, Horford, etc., above Kieff, which passes the eye test too. And one more time, I've never disagreed with the notion that Morris has a very good midrange game. There's just no way he's top 2 in the NBA. That's a lot of words to make a small point.

The reason why i included only 10-16 feet range is because that's the area Keef takes most of his shots from. He also takes more and more shots from there with each passing year. There is nothing to suggest that he won't continue to abuse those shots even more in the coming seasons. We can agree that he is not the 2nd best midrange shooter (since not everyone sees midrange shots as the same thing), but i don't think anyone can say he isn't the 2nd best shooter from 10-16 range, because he is (based on the last season statistics and nothing else).

In the end, this whole talk wasn't about Keef being the 2nd best, the 5th best or even the 8th best. It was here to prove that his game from that range is truly elite. And unlike Nowitzki, Garnett or some other guys who will retire in a year or two, he has a plenty of time to work on it and improve it even further.

[AtheJ415]

The bolded means nothing to me. Your assertion that adding more arbitrary statistics, including some that are clearly irrelevant (because according to you there are no long 2s and some mid-range shots are even further out than 3 point shots), does nothing but decrease the validity of the stat. What you've done is essentially morph mid range with long 2s and combined them into a whole new category that you are now introducing to try to prove a point that statistics don't agree with, but better matches what you individually believe.

Just because a stat is surprising doesn't mean it's proper to tweek it until it matches what you initially believed. It's fine to do so if what you're adding is reasonable, but again, you're entirely eliminating the long 2 as a category.

Ugh. Last time and then I'm done with this. Can we agree that selecting statistical cutoffs is somewhat arbitrary? Yours was likely under-inclusive and mine is likely over-inclusive. Can we also agree that you have to combine statistics and analytics with real-world observations and experience (i.e, do not just blindly accept statistics)? Can we also agree that there is no generally accepted way to distinguish between shots? In my mind I divide the court into threes, midrange, and in the paint. You have at least four zones, and maybe more. Who is right? I don't know. None of that seems controversial to me. You may disagree with my observations and experience, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I've never disputed that my selection of what to call midrange was just as arbitrary as yours.

My one--and only--contention is that your assertion that Markieff Morris has the second-best midrange game in the NBA behind only Chris Paul is flat out wrong. And I stand behind that assertion. It is only true based on the narrow statistics you provided. How about a shot chart from 10-19 feet? It includes guys like CP3, Dirk, Bosh, Horford, etc., above Kieff, which passes the eye test too. And one more time, I've never disagreed with the notion that Morris has a very good midrange game. There's just no way he's top 2 in the NBA. That's a lot of words to make a small point.

There you go again though. 10-19 feet essentially makes a long 2 only 20-23 feet. Only 3 feet defines a long 2?! That's crazy to me. 10-16 feet is 6 feet, making a long 2 16-22 feet, and since 3s start at 23 feet, to me that makes a hell of a lot more sense than what you are doing, which is once again (and you admit this) bastardizing a stat until it fits what makes sense to you given your individual opinion of players' shooting abilities. And look, even if you want to knock 10-16 feet, you're underselling his shooting by calling it "very good". It's elite under every definition. There are some very real holes in Markieff's game that people can knock, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore the thing he does as well as all but 1-5 players in the entire league.

[plonden]

The reason why i included only 10-16 feet range is because that's the area Keef takes most of his shots from. He also takes more and more shots from there with each passing year. There is nothing to suggest that he won't continue to abuse those shots even more in the coming seasons. We can agree that he is not the 2nd best midrange shooter (since not everyone sees midrange shots as the same thing), but i don't think anyone can say he isn't the 2nd best shooter from 10-16 range, because he is (based on the last season statistics and nothing else).

In the end, this whole talk wasn't about Keef being the 2nd best, the 5th best or even the 8th best. It was here to prove that his game from that range is truly elite. And unlike Nowitzki, Garnett or some other guys who will retire in a year or two, he has a plenty of time to work on it and improve it even further.

This is a very reasonable response. I can't say I disagree with any of it.

[Mr Puddles]

Markieff's rebounding numbers are also affected by both Bledsoe and Tucker. Their numbers are above average for their respecting positions, so it makes sense. Lower their rebounding numbers to league average, and add them to Kieff, and there you have it, his numbers actually look nice.

We're one of the worst rebounding teams in the league, there are plenty of rebounds to go around for everyone one. Let's not make Bledsoe and Tucker picking up the slack for Markieff's horrendous rebounding into "well he would have been a better rebounder if Bledsoe and PJ weren't grabbing all his boards". This would have been a valid point if Keiff was boxing out opposing players, thus allowing his teammates to grab boards - but this couldn't be farther from the truth.

I never cared for individual rebounding numbers anyway, it's about team's rebounding overall. Suns have box-out problems, and it's not tied just to Kieff, but every big man on the team. Hopefully Chandler helps with this, and points out what they do wrong.

This I agree with, but it should be noted that Keiff was especially terrible at boxing out. The only big on our team who did a good job at it last year though was Len - his biggest problem here was that other centers would outmuscle him at times but that will disappear as he continues to grow into his body.

Let's stop making excuses for Markieff, he's our starting 4 and puts on this whole tough guy facade - it would be nice if he starts to back this attitude up by not letting every opposing big he faces man-handle him on the boards.

[SideSwipe]

This was never about who is better, history shows who is better, this is about getting better and becoming a more attractive place to come play. And if there is one guy in the league with a contract more attractive than Kieff's its Gasol. Gasol gets you more wins than Kieff for the next 2-3 years. The trade I proposed also brought back Caboclo from TOR, something that seems to have been ignored in the discussions. He's not a huge piece but a promising one that could grow with the younger core.

Every team that has won the championship has had a mix of veteran, mid-career and young players. That's SA's formula. They keep an experienced core and pair them with youngsters on cheap contracts. When the youngsters get more expensive, they move them and bring in more experienced guys.

In terms of CHI moving Gasol, they will need to do something on that club with all of their front court talent, and lack of depth/ strength at the 3. Suns were rumored to have interested in Gasol when he was in LA. CHI has Gibson, Noah, Mirotic, Gasol, Portis all worthy of minutes in the front court. I think Noah will be back stronger this year, which will give CHI big problems to manage everyone. Someone is getting traded. Hoiberg will bring in a new system, we will see who fits his system the best.

What FA is going to sign up to play with the Suns long-term because we have a 36 year old Pau Gasol? If this is about getting more guys in FA, it doesn't make sense.

It's about winning and the psychology of it. Ask yourself are you more likely to be happy joining a growing company that is profitable and doing interesting things, or more likely to want to join a company that is on the long-road to rebuilding itself. Success breeds success. People won't necessarily come for Pau on his own, but they will line up to join a winning culture. Right now the Suns do not have a winning culture. We have a rebuilding culture.

[AtheJ415]

This was never about who is better, history shows who is better, this is about getting better and becoming a more attractive place to come play. And if there is one guy in the league with a contract more attractive than Kieff's its Gasol. Gasol gets you more wins than Kieff for the next 2-3 years. The trade I proposed also brought back Caboclo from TOR, something that seems to have been ignored in the discussions. He's not a huge piece but a promising one that could grow with the younger core.

Every team that has won the championship has had a mix of veteran, mid-career and young players. That's SA's formula. They keep an experienced core and pair them with youngsters on cheap contracts. When the youngsters get more expensive, they move them and bring in more experienced guys.

In terms of CHI moving Gasol, they will need to do something on that club with all of their front court talent, and lack of depth/ strength at the 3. Suns were rumored to have interested in Gasol when he was in LA. CHI has Gibson, Noah, Mirotic, Gasol, Portis all worthy of minutes in the front court. I think Noah will be back stronger this year, which will give CHI big problems to manage everyone. Someone is getting traded. Hoiberg will bring in a new system, we will see who fits his system the best.

What FA is going to sign up to play with the Suns long-term because we have a 36 year old Pau Gasol? If this is about getting more guys in FA, it doesn't make sense.

It's about winning and the psychology of it. Ask yourself are you more likely to be happy joining a growing company that is profitable and doing interesting things, or more likely to want to join a company that is on the long-road to rebuilding itself. Success breeds success. People won't necessarily come for Pau on his own, but they will line up to join a winning culture. Right now the Suns do not have a winning culture. We have a rebuilding culture.

And if we adopt your line of thinking, we will have the Brooklyn Nets' culture before we develop a winning culture. That's what happens when you invest in 35 year olds to win now with the hope of getting others to want to ride along to fill in the pieces.

[KLEON]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/status/625402328233852928[/tweet]

A little surprising that Bledsoe didn't get invited last year or this year.

[Moochthemonkey]

What FA is going to sign up to play with the Suns long-term because we have a 36 year old Pau Gasol? If this is about getting more guys in FA, it doesn't make sense.

It's about winning and the psychology of it. Ask yourself are you more likely to be happy joining a growing company that is profitable and doing interesting things, or more likely to want to join a company that is on the long-road to rebuilding itself. Success breeds success. People won't necessarily come for Pau on his own, but they will line up to join a winning culture. Right now the Suns do not have a winning culture. We have a rebuilding culture.

And if we adopt your line of thinking, we will have the Brooklyn Nets' culture before we develop a winning culture. That's what happens when you invest in 35 year olds to win now with the hope of getting others to want to ride along to fill in the pieces.

Gasol's just one player though, and his contract expires in two seasons. Opposed to Joe Johnson's ludicrous contract, add in the shorter ones of Garnett, Pierce, J. Terry and the loss of several draft picks. The Suns still have their draft picks + future Miami's + Boston's iirc and plenty of young talent to develop. So IMO the Brooklyn culture is not really comparable.

It's not like Gasol is going to attract more FAs, but he's better for the locker room and puts the Suns in playoff contention, which the FO is obviously aiming for.

[Revived]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/status/625402328233852928[/tweet]

A little surprising that Bledsoe didn't get invited last year or this year.

MCW isn't better than him.

[AtheJ415]

It's about winning and the psychology of it. Ask yourself are you more likely to be happy joining a growing company that is profitable and doing interesting things, or more likely to want to join a company that is on the long-road to rebuilding itself. Success breeds success. People won't necessarily come for Pau on his own, but they will line up to join a winning culture. Right now the Suns do not have a winning culture. We have a rebuilding culture.

And if we adopt your line of thinking, we will have the Brooklyn Nets' culture before we develop a winning culture. That's what happens when you invest in 35 year olds to win now with the hope of getting others to want to ride along to fill in the pieces.

Gasol's just one player though, and his contract expires in two seasons. Opposed to Joe Johnson's ludicrous contract, add in the shorter ones of Garnett, Pierce, J. Terry and the loss of several draft picks. The Suns still have their draft picks + future Miami's + Boston's iirc and plenty of young talent to develop. So IMO the Brooklyn culture is not really comparable.

It's not like Gasol is going to attract more FAs, but he's better for the locker room and puts the Suns in playoff contention, which the FO is obviously aiming for.

The FO has done nothing to suggest they are willing to trade young assets to get older players on multi-year deals who can't continue playing beyond 2 years. What they've shown is the willingness to sign guys into open cap space with low-risk gambles, or get guys in their primes (like Aldridge) with game-styles that would allow them to continue to play well for another 4-5 years. Gasol fits neither of those categories as a 35 year old. Thankfully, the FO doesn't seem to share your vision of giving up guys like Kief to do that in exchange for 35 year olds. Kief may get traded, but I would be absolutely floored if McDonough was dumb enough to move him for a 35 year old. In fact, he's gone on the record many times to discuss the age of our core and adding pieces who build upon that age range. The guys we added this offseason are 1 year deals or have team options aside from Chandler, who McDonough has said is a guy he believes will age well, and is also 3 years younger than Gasol.

[Moochthemonkey]

And if we adopt your line of thinking, we will have the Brooklyn Nets' culture before we develop a winning culture. That's what happens when you invest in 35 year olds to win now with the hope of getting others to want to ride along to fill in the pieces.

Gasol's just one player though, and his contract expires in two seasons. Opposed to Joe Johnson's ludicrous contract, add in the shorter ones of Garnett, Pierce, J. Terry and the loss of several draft picks. The Suns still have their draft picks + future Miami's + Boston's iirc and plenty of young talent to develop. So IMO the Brooklyn culture is not really comparable.

It's not like Gasol is going to attract more FAs, but he's better for the locker room and puts the Suns in playoff contention, which the FO is obviously aiming for.

The FO has done nothing to suggest they are willing to trade young assets to get older players on multi-year deals who can't continue playing beyond 2 years. What they've shown is the willingness to sign guys into open cap space with low-risk gambles, or get guys in their primes (like Aldridge) with game-styles that would allow them to continue to play well for another 4-5 years. Gasol fits neither of those categories as a 35 year old. Thankfully, the FO doesn't seem to share your vision of giving up guys like Kief to do that in exchange for 35 year olds. Kief may get traded, but I would be absolutely floored if McDonough was dumb enough to move him for a 35 year old. In fact, he's gone on the record many times to discuss the age of our core and adding pieces who build upon that age range. The guys we added this offseason are 1 year deals or have team options aside from Chandler, who McDonough has said is a guy he believes will age well, and is also 3 years younger than Gasol.

They are not willing to trade young assets yet they still gave away Plumlee, Ennis, and perhaps the most valuable pick we had stocked up. I would be against the trade if Markieff's worth to the Suns was the same as a year ago. Gasol's contract ends in 2 years, and he is still playing at a high level. A possible reason why he wasn't acquired from the Lakers in 2014 is because the Lakers were demanding the Washington, or at best for us, the Indiana draft pick. IMO, at this point, with the assault charges and whatnot, Markieff is not worth a first round pick.

[SideSwipe]

And if we adopt your line of thinking, we will have the Brooklyn Nets' culture before we develop a winning culture. That's what happens when you invest in 35 year olds to win now with the hope of getting others to want to ride along to fill in the pieces.

Gasol's just one player though, and his contract expires in two seasons. Opposed to Joe Johnson's ludicrous contract, add in the shorter ones of Garnett, Pierce, J. Terry and the loss of several draft picks. The Suns still have their draft picks + future Miami's + Boston's iirc and plenty of young talent to develop. So IMO the Brooklyn culture is not really comparable.

It's not like Gasol is going to attract more FAs, but he's better for the locker room and puts the Suns in playoff contention, which the FO is obviously aiming for.

The FO has done nothing to suggest they are willing to trade young assets to get older players on multi-year deals who can't continue playing beyond 2 years. What they've shown is the willingness to sign guys into open cap space with low-risk gambles, or get guys in their primes (like Aldridge) with game-styles that would allow them to continue to play well for another 4-5 years. Gasol fits neither of those categories as a 35 year old. Thankfully, the FO doesn't seem to share your vision of giving up guys like Kief to do that in exchange for 35 year olds. Kief may get traded, but I would be absolutely floored if McDonough was dumb enough to move him for a 35 year old. In fact, he's gone on the record many times to discuss the age of our core and adding pieces who build upon that age range. The guys we added this offseason are 1 year deals or have team options aside from Chandler, who McDonough has said is a guy he believes will age well, and is also 3 years younger than Gasol.

Grabbing Gasol adds extra flexibility, not less. It opens up $$ in 2017-2018 to be big players in FA, when the rest of our core has been together and grown together, including our young guys. I don't know why you are so against Gasol, unless you are on of the twins buddies. markieff does bring a lot to the table, but Gasol does as well, and Gasol brings what this team needs in the next two years that Kieff does IMO. Gasol is more obtainable than any other player at the 4 that plays better than Kieff, we also have players in place, who I think could help Gasol thrive.