TheNetsFan wrote:Prokorov wrote:kamaze wrote:
You said they don't need him because they already had Joe when clearly getting him made the team better giving the team another outside threat. One starts the other comes off the bench last year it was Joe backing up Crabbe both players are inter changeable they do the same things like you brought out.
If we needed another shooter we could have got one alot cheaper... the entire point was your paying crabbe 19 million when guys who do what he does cost 1/4 of that. for example we could have brought in ellington instead.
What exactly did crabbe help us do? we won 28 games... what do we win without him? 25?
Crabbe, Johnson, Porter were all lottery tickets. We had no other means of acquiring talent any time soon, so we made some overpay gambles to try to acquire serviceable talent with upside by any means possible. The hope was that these younger guys could develop into players deserving of those contracts. Thus far, none have panned out, but none have hindered us in any significant way yet. If FAs commit to us in the offseason, and we have to trade a pick to dump Crabbe, then the move became negative. Until that happens, other than costing Prokhorov more than he should have, the Crabbe trade hasn't moved the needle positively or negatively.
More like scratch tickets then lottery tickets, as the upside was always low even if they paid off.
Agree crabbe isnt super likely to hinder us, but we will need to manuever him in the event FAs want our cap space. Porter on the other hand 100% would have hindered us... he would have 3 years left at 28 million preventing us from having even 1 max slot.
its not the end of the world, and still misses the point a bit. your getting the same from harris for fractions of the cost, and could have gotten the same from ellington if you felt you needed even more shooting. Also stauskus we let go but he would have been cheaper as well.
its moot. im long done with arguing, i only really responded because people called me out inaccurately