Billl wrote:Timmaytime wrote:ByeByeDre wrote:
Yeah Stanley sucks and I thought about putting "Four Horsemen" and "The rest of the scrubs" but that would start a different argument......
Anyways, I voted "No Deal." My personal opinion - Stan won't be allowed to add more contract years to this team, so that knocks out most upgrades. Plus no one wants our crappy contracts. I suppose that there's a chance Bradley could be traded, but does Van Gundy really want to throw in the towel? I think all of this talk if just that - and behind the scenes the exit plan for Stan is moving along.....
To be fair, Stanley has carved out a role on the bench and been fairly effective there (+1.9, 9/4/1.5 on 52% TS). We just need someone who can actually take his spot in the starting lineup.
I'm not sure it's fair to say SJ has carved out any sort of defined roll. He's had some good games and some horrible games. That's not super unusual for a young player, but if he keeps that up, he'll have a hard time finding a rotation spot on most non-lotto teams. The market for inconsistent bench players isn't that great on the "potential" label starts to fade. eg if the pistons had a quality starting SF playing 35 mpg, do we keep SJ past his rookie deal? Probably not.
When there was all of that Stanley versus Winslow debate, I simply thought that one of them would hit the gym hard and the other would find different ways to blow money. After three years, I'm convinced that both of them went the money route.......
