George Hill traded

[benchmobbin02]

Yes, you will have lots of players that don't make it through the rebuild. That is why you want to collect assets and not aging NBA players. That is the road to continue to stay in the lottery.

Even picking up 2nd round draft picks is worthwhile. Having Shumpert or Randolph on your team just limits your flexibility. It is the basis of a bad plan.

Young players mostly improve by playing and listening to their coaches - not by watching old players play. And if you need an old vet on the bench - pay him the vet minimum.

I think the signings of Carter, Randolf and Hill set the rebuild back a year - but my opinion.

I agree with the exception of Carter or if they fit your team like a glove. Drafting a top 5 PG then signing a 20 million dollar one was a mistake. I'm OK with picking up 1 year, low money experience, or even huge 1 year deals if that's what it takes, but signing players to 12-20 million dollar a year contracts even beyond what their value is to a contender for more than one year just hamstrings your cap, as it did with the Kings. Flexibility is just as important and acquiring assets. Playing them over young players is a coaching issue, not a GM one necessarily unless the GM created a false scenario to get them signed in the first place.

Can't disagree with any of that... I guess to add - it takes the pressure off the coach to play the youngsters if the vets aren't around.

I think the think that your both missing is that this rebuild wasn't meant to happen in 2-3 years. It was planned as a long term thing. All the things you are saying is assuming that they wanted the rebuild to take the shortest route possible. I don't believe that to be the case. I think the vets were meant to provide stablitiy on the court and in the lockerrom while the the kids in their early 20's learn the NBA game and how to be pros. Adding vet minimum guys does get that accomplished in my opinion.

[dckingsfan]

I agree with the exception of Carter or if they fit your team like a glove. Drafting a top 5 PG then signing a 20 million dollar one was a mistake. I'm OK with picking up 1 year, low money experience, or even huge 1 year deals if that's what it takes, but signing players to 12-20 million dollar a year contracts even beyond what their value is to a contender for more than one year just hamstrings your cap, as it did with the Kings. Flexibility is just as important and acquiring assets. Playing them over young players is a coaching issue, not a GM one necessarily unless the GM created a false scenario to get them signed in the first place.

Can't disagree with any of that... I guess to add - it takes the pressure off the coach to play the youngsters if the vets aren't around.

I think the think that your both missing is that this rebuild wasn't meant to happen in 2-3 years. It was planned as a long term thing. All the things you are saying is assuming that they wanted the rebuild to take the shortest route possible. I don't believe that to be the case. I think the vets were meant to provide stablitiy on the court and in the lockerrom while the the kids in their early 20's learn the NBA game and how to be pros. Adding vet minimum guys does get that accomplished in my opinion.

And that is where we disagree. Vets don't help - they just take valuable playing time from the youngsters and impede their development and managements assessment as to their ability to contribute in the future.

And those contracts just inhibit the ability of the team to gather additional assets.

Its really that simple... look at where Philly is, trust the process.

[benchmobbin02]

Can't disagree with any of that... I guess to add - it takes the pressure off the coach to play the youngsters if the vets aren't around.

I think the think that your both missing is that this rebuild wasn't meant to happen in 2-3 years. It was planned as a long term thing. All the things you are saying is assuming that they wanted the rebuild to take the shortest route possible. I don't believe that to be the case. I think the vets were meant to provide stablitiy on the court and in the lockerrom while the the kids in their early 20's learn the NBA game and how to be pros. Adding vet minimum guys does get that accomplished in my opinion.

And that is where we disagree. Vets don't help - they just take valuable playing time from the youngsters and impede their development and managements assessment as to their ability to contribute in the future.

And those contracts just inhibit the ability of the team to gather additional assets.

Its really that simple... look at where Philly is, trust the process.

We have both stated our opinions. Mine is vets do help. Agree to disagree.

[dckingsfan]

I think the think that your both missing is that this rebuild wasn't meant to happen in 2-3 years. It was planned as a long term thing. All the things you are saying is assuming that they wanted the rebuild to take the shortest route possible. I don't believe that to be the case. I think the vets were meant to provide stablitiy on the court and in the lockerrom while the the kids in their early 20's learn the NBA game and how to be pros. Adding vet minimum guys does get that accomplished in my opinion.

And that is where we disagree. Vets don't help - they just take valuable playing time from the youngsters and impede their development and managements assessment as to their ability to contribute in the future.

And those contracts just inhibit the ability of the team to gather additional assets.

Its really that simple... look at where Philly is, trust the process.

We have both stated our opinions. Mine is vets do help. Agree to disagree.

Agreed - and your thoughts about flexibility to gather additional assets? It doesn't matter because you need that veteran leadership?

[SacKingZZZ]

I agree with the exception of Carter or if they fit your team like a glove. Drafting a top 5 PG then signing a 20 million dollar one was a mistake. I'm OK with picking up 1 year, low money experience, or even huge 1 year deals if that's what it takes, but signing players to 12-20 million dollar a year contracts even beyond what their value is to a contender for more than one year just hamstrings your cap, as it did with the Kings. Flexibility is just as important and acquiring assets. Playing them over young players is a coaching issue, not a GM one necessarily unless the GM created a false scenario to get them signed in the first place.

Can't disagree with any of that... I guess to add - it takes the pressure off the coach to play the youngsters if the vets aren't around.

I think the think that your both missing is that this rebuild wasn't meant to happen in 2-3 years. It was planned as a long term thing. All the things you are saying is assuming that they wanted the rebuild to take the shortest route possible. I don't believe that to be the case. I think the vets were meant to provide stablitiy on the court and in the lockerrom while the the kids in their early 20's learn the NBA game and how to be pros. Adding vet minimum guys does get that accomplished in my opinion.

And you're missing the point that in that 2-3 year plan you don't want to lock down any opportunities to be flexible during that time. Cap space in a rebuild can be very important and expedite the process should something arise. Rarely do teams go into a rebuild with a certain group of individuals and stick with them all the way through. Trades are a necessity and the more space the better. I'm good with veteran players, but the contracts, length of time, fit, and role should factor in. If not you end up with another George Hill type of scenario.

[dckingsfan]

Can't disagree with any of that... I guess to add - it takes the pressure off the coach to play the youngsters if the vets aren't around.

I think the think that your both missing is that this rebuild wasn't meant to happen in 2-3 years. It was planned as a long term thing. All the things you are saying is assuming that they wanted the rebuild to take the shortest route possible. I don't believe that to be the case. I think the vets were meant to provide stablitiy on the court and in the lockerrom while the the kids in their early 20's learn the NBA game and how to be pros. Adding vet minimum guys does get that accomplished in my opinion.

And you're missing the point that in that 2-3 year plan you don't want to lock down any opportunities to be flexible during that time. Cap space in a rebuild can be very important and expedite the process should something arise. Rarely do teams go into a rebuild with a certain group of individuals and stick with them all the way through. Trades are a necessity and the more space the better. I'm good with veteran players, but the contracts, length of time, fit, and role should factor in. If not you end up with another George Hill type of scenario.

And Hill turned into Iman Shumpert - not exactly the role model you want. Now Randolph and Shumpert will either get PT from the youngsters or be not so good role models. Ah, those unintended consequence of having a bad plan.

[benchmobbin02]

And that is where we disagree. Vets don't help - they just take valuable playing time from the youngsters and impede their development and managements assessment as to their ability to contribute in the future.

And those contracts just inhibit the ability of the team to gather additional assets.

Its really that simple... look at where Philly is, trust the process.

We have both stated our opinions. Mine is vets do help. Agree to disagree.

Agreed - and your thoughts about flexibility to gather additional assets? It doesn't matter because you need that veteran leadership?

Already addressed as well.

[benchmobbin02]

I think the think that your both missing is that this rebuild wasn't meant to happen in 2-3 years. It was planned as a long term thing. All the things you are saying is assuming that they wanted the rebuild to take the shortest route possible. I don't believe that to be the case. I think the vets were meant to provide stablitiy on the court and in the lockerrom while the the kids in their early 20's learn the NBA game and how to be pros. Adding vet minimum guys does get that accomplished in my opinion.

And you're missing the point that in that 2-3 year plan you don't want to lock down any opportunities to be flexible during that time. Cap space in a rebuild can be very important and expedite the process should something arise. Rarely do teams go into a rebuild with a certain group of individuals and stick with them all the way through. Trades are a necessity and the more space the better. I'm good with veteran players, but the contracts, length of time, fit, and role should factor in. If not you end up with another George Hill type of scenario.

And Hill turned into Iman Shumpert - not exactly the role model you want. Now Randolph and Shumpert will either get PT from the youngsters or be not so good role models. Ah, those unintended consequence of having a bad plan.

It has nothing to do with the plan because yours advocated getting vet minimum guys and any # of them could have the same or different issues. It was and is the people.

[benchmobbin02]

Can't disagree with any of that... I guess to add - it takes the pressure off the coach to play the youngsters if the vets aren't around.

I think the think that your both missing is that this rebuild wasn't meant to happen in 2-3 years. It was planned as a long term thing. All the things you are saying is assuming that they wanted the rebuild to take the shortest route possible. I don't believe that to be the case. I think the vets were meant to provide stablitiy on the court and in the lockerrom while the the kids in their early 20's learn the NBA game and how to be pros. Adding vet minimum guys does get that accomplished in my opinion.

And you're missing the point that in that 2-3 year plan you don't want to lock down any opportunities to be flexible during that time. Cap space in a rebuild can be very important and expedite the process should something arise. Rarely do teams go into a rebuild with a certain group of individuals and stick with them all the way through. Trades are a necessity and the more space the better. I'm good with veteran players, but the contracts, length of time, fit, and role should factor in. If not you end up with another George Hill type of scenario.

No, I'm not missing that. I think we had enough assets at that point. We had 10 1st or 2nd yr players under contract at one point and the majority were 1st rd picks. While having another pick or 2 would of course add to that gambling value, there is a point to diminishing return. I get what you are saying and I don't disagree to a point but I think the team accomplished what they wanted to in this phase in terms of assets collection, financial flexibility and team construction. Now it's about development and asset management going forward.

[dckingsfan]

I think the think that your both missing is that this rebuild wasn't meant to happen in 2-3 years. It was planned as a long term thing. All the things you are saying is assuming that they wanted the rebuild to take the shortest route possible. I don't believe that to be the case. I think the vets were meant to provide stablitiy on the court and in the lockerrom while the the kids in their early 20's learn the NBA game and how to be pros. Adding vet minimum guys does get that accomplished in my opinion.

And you're missing the point that in that 2-3 year plan you don't want to lock down any opportunities to be flexible during that time. Cap space in a rebuild can be very important and expedite the process should something arise. Rarely do teams go into a rebuild with a certain group of individuals and stick with them all the way through. Trades are a necessity and the more space the better. I'm good with veteran players, but the contracts, length of time, fit, and role should factor in. If not you end up with another George Hill type of scenario.

No, I'm not missing that. I think we had enough assets at that point. We had 10 1st or 2nd yr players under contract at one point and the majority were 1st rd picks. While having another pick or 2 would of course add to that gambling value, there is a point to diminishing return. I get what you are saying and I don't disagree to a point but I think the team accomplished what they wanted to in this phase in terms of assets collection, financial flexibility and team construction. Now it's about development and asset management going forward.

But why not collect them for 2020, 2021, 2022, etc. etc. etc.

I don't think they have done a good job being forward looking on this... and development means you don't have the old guys in the way

[benchmobbin02]

And you're missing the point that in that 2-3 year plan you don't want to lock down any opportunities to be flexible during that time. Cap space in a rebuild can be very important and expedite the process should something arise. Rarely do teams go into a rebuild with a certain group of individuals and stick with them all the way through. Trades are a necessity and the more space the better. I'm good with veteran players, but the contracts, length of time, fit, and role should factor in. If not you end up with another George Hill type of scenario.

No, I'm not missing that. I think we had enough assets at that point. We had 10 1st or 2nd yr players under contract at one point and the majority were 1st rd picks. While having another pick or 2 would of course add to that gambling value, there is a point to diminishing return. I get what you are saying and I don't disagree to a point but I think the team accomplished what they wanted to in this phase in terms of assets collection, financial flexibility and team construction. Now it's about development and asset management going forward.

But why not collect them for 2020, 2021, 2022, etc. etc. etc.

I don't think they have done a good job being forward looking on this... and development means you don't have the old guys in the way

I disagree.

[dckingsfan]

No, I'm not missing that. I think we had enough assets at that point. We had 10 1st or 2nd yr players under contract at one point and the majority were 1st rd picks. While having another pick or 2 would of course add to that gambling value, there is a point to diminishing return. I get what you are saying and I don't disagree to a point but I think the team accomplished what they wanted to in this phase in terms of assets collection, financial flexibility and team construction. Now it's about development and asset management going forward.

But why not collect them for 2020, 2021, 2022, etc. etc. etc.

I don't think they have done a good job being forward looking on this... and development means you don't have the old guys in the way

I disagree.

[benchmobbin02]

But why not collect them for 2020, 2021, 2022, etc. etc. etc.

I don't think they have done a good job being forward looking on this... and development means you don't have the old guys in the way

I disagree.

with that too.

[dckingsfan]

I disagree.

with that too.

I totally get it, you are a fan.

a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal - hard to be rational

[benchmobbin02]

with that too.

I totally get it, you are a fan.

a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal - hard to be rational

Wrong, I disagree with your opinion.