Michael Gbinije keep or release ?

[kellmellus50]

He has shown nothing and he's 25 i say get rid of him?

[tmorgan]

He can't even impose his will on a SL game, let alone a G-League game... so yeah, he's likely toast.

[DETermination]

Hes not an nba player and theres too many shooting guards on this roster already so i say release him.

[Pharaoh]

Release - he was obviously drafted because he was more "mature" & "ready" - hasn't translated

Sent from my SM-J110F using RealGM mobile app

[Kilo]

Definitely released. But I'd wait until the last minute incase his contract can be included in a trade. I could see him get one of our two 2-way contracts but even then I think it would be a waste to burn one on him. Those spots should be pure developmentals - guys that might have come out too early and are not good enough to be rostered but there could be something there still.

I wonder if James Young will slip through the FA cracks and we could get him on one of these deals.

[Moses ShamMoses]

I'll go with keep around for one more year (if we have the roster space). Play him in the d-league and see if he can improve. He might be a decent backup 3 someday which is a position that is thin right now.

[Liqourish]

He's not going play, let him go. Maybe he'll catch on somewhere else.

[BIG BEN'S FRO]

Rather have the cash.

[Kilo]

He's on the books for 1.3M, but we can trade him for upwards of 175% + 100K given he's under $5M in salary so we could look to trade him for a player making 2.3M from a team looking to cut some salary. Just another avenue to consider.

Or we could trade him and $1M to a team with cap space - they cut him with the money we send and make $200K for their troubles and we'd get a $1.3M TPE for a calendar year that could be valuable to make salaries work in a trade.

[coordinator0]

I would say Gbinije probably should be released. Right now he's fifth on the depth chart for minutes at shooting guard behind Bradley, Kennard, Galloway, and Bullock. The latter two are slated to get time at other positions but I can't imagine a scenario (barring a huge string of injuries) where Gbinije actually gets on the floor over them.

To me it would make more sense to bring in what would be a 4th point guard behind Jackson, Smith, and Galloway. Still not great, but better than a fifth shooting guard. I don't think anything more needs to be done to the frontcourt after someone else is signed there.

It doesn't matter a whole lot though. Like I said in another thread a team can only have 13 players active for games and the Pistons already have those guys. Gbinije and the next player (power forward) signed are the inactives.

[Kilo]

I would say Gbinije probably should be released. Right now he's fifth on the depth chart for minutes at shooting guard behind Bradley, Kennard, Galloway, and Bullock. The latter two are slated to get time at other positions but I can't imagine a scenario (barring a huge string of injuries) where Gbinije actually gets on the floor over them.

To me it would make more sense to bring in what would be a 4th point guard behind Jackson, Smith, and Galloway. Still not great, but better than a fifth shooting guard. I don't think anything more needs to be done to the frontcourt after someone else is signed there.

It doesn't matter a whole lot though. Like I said in another thread a team can only have 13 players active for games and the Pistons already have those guys. Gbinije and the next player (power forward) signed are the inactives.

What is the reasoning for 15 man rosters, but only 13 active? Why not allow all to dress? Is it because of intentional fouling (and ejections) or something and having a limited active roster per game dissuades that? Why not allow the 14th and 15th man wear a uniform on the bench instead of a suit?

[Liqourish]

He's on the books for 1.3M, but we can trade him for upwards of 175% + 100K given he's under $5M in salary so we could look to trade him for a player making 2.3M from a team looking to cut some salary. Just another avenue to consider.

Or we could trade him and $1M to a team with cap space - they cut him with the money we send and make $200K for their troubles and we'd get a $1.3M TPE for a calendar year that could be valuable to make salaries work in a trade.

I don't see that happening.

[coordinator0]

What is the reasoning for 15 man rosters, but only 13 active? Why not allow all to dress? Is it because of intentional fouling (and ejections) or something and having a limited active roster per game dissuades that? Why not allow the 14th and 15th man wear a uniform on the bench instead of a suit?

Not sure. I don't really get them either. They have it in the NFL too. Doesn't make a lot of snse to have rostered and paid players automatically inactive for games. If it's a voluntary thing for teams that's different, but this system isn't good in my opinion.

[Kilo]

What is the reasoning for 15 man rosters, but only 13 active? Why not allow all to dress? Is it because of intentional fouling (and ejections) or something and having a limited active roster per game dissuades that? Why not allow the 14th and 15th man wear a uniform on the bench instead of a suit?

Not sure. I don't really get them either. They have it in the NFL too. Doesn't make a lot of snse to have rostered and paid players automatically inactive for games. If it's a voluntary thing for teams that's different, but this system isn't good in my opinion.

Only thing I figure is because the minimum roster is 13. So they'd have to have minimum roster at 15, or teams would potentially be playing 15 vs 13. Like this season, we're likely going to start with 14-man roster by choice, but would we feel pressured to carry a 15th if all 15 could be active?

Also could be for injury purposes. If everybody is carrying a max roster and you lose somebody to injury you're now playing 15 vs 14 whereas under the current system you'd be playing 13 vs 13 still. But with the new two-way contracts, this issue is mitigated with the ability to callup one of these players to fill out your roster for the spell.

I can't imagine any team starting the season with only 13 rostered players. Hell I'd guess the strong majority carry 15.

[BadMofoPimp]

What is the reasoning for 15 man rosters, but only 13 active? Why not allow all to dress? Is it because of intentional fouling (and ejections) or something and having a limited active roster per game dissuades that? Why not allow the 14th and 15th man wear a uniform on the bench instead of a suit?

Not sure. I don't really get them either. They have it in the NFL too. Doesn't make a lot of snse to have rostered and paid players automatically inactive for games. If it's a voluntary thing for teams that's different, but this system isn't good in my opinion.

Only thing I figure is because the minimum roster is 13. So they'd have to have minimum roster at 15, or teams would potentially be playing 15 vs 13. Like this season, we're likely going to start with 14-man roster by choice, but would we feel pressured to carry a 15th if all 15 could be active?

Also could be for injury purposes. If everybody is carrying a max roster and you lose somebody to injury you're now playing 15 vs 14 whereas under the current system you'd be playing 13 vs 13 still. But with the new two-way contracts, this issue is mitigated with the ability to callup one of these players to fill out your roster for the spell.

I can't imagine any team starting the season with only 13 rostered players. Hell I'd guess the strong majority carry 15.

Well, it is good to have extra players for practice, film room and development.

[dVs33]

I'm not seeing a role for him. Let him go

[chrbal]

Release him, then sign him to a 2 way contract. It would be the NBA equivalent of sending a guy to the minors in Baseball.

[GreekAlex]

Not sure. I don't really get them either. They have it in the NFL too. Doesn't make a lot of snse to have rostered and paid players automatically inactive for games. If it's a voluntary thing for teams that's different, but this system isn't good in my opinion.

Only thing I figure is because the minimum roster is 13. So they'd have to have minimum roster at 15, or teams would potentially be playing 15 vs 13. Like this season, we're likely going to start with 14-man roster by choice, but would we feel pressured to carry a 15th if all 15 could be active?

Also could be for injury purposes. If everybody is carrying a max roster and you lose somebody to injury you're now playing 15 vs 14 whereas under the current system you'd be playing 13 vs 13 still. But with the new two-way contracts, this issue is mitigated with the ability to callup one of these players to fill out your roster for the spell.

I can't imagine any team starting the season with only 13 rostered players. Hell I'd guess the strong majority carry 15.

Well, it is good to have extra players for practice, film room and development.

I'd rather have the rights to a player with more potential. He was supposed to be more seasoned as a 4 year college player and really hasn't shown any signs of being a NBA contributor.

[DetroitSho]

Just release him today, no sense in waiting

[kellmellus50]

Tolly signed no place for SF Gbinije (will be released by saturday)