JMAC3 wrote:yosemiteben wrote:JMAC3 wrote:
Which is the reason I mentioned multiple times in the post that I can not list every single option that could of existed or been available. However I think all 4 options are pretty fair and probably a bit more favorable than they needed to be considering I gave you chance to sign two guys who are playing really well... when we could of spent that money on guys who are not playing well.
The point of asking is for discussion... you know offering up alternatives to what was done instead of just saying I don't like that and I wish we would of done some other mysterious thing. It makes for better content rather than saying "I am not sure what I would of done, but in 12 months I will see which turns out the best and use that hindsight to really hate the Hayward signing".
Except I'm not going to use hindsight to say I hate the Hayward signing, so maybe don't preemptively criticize me for it.
I hate the roster moves required to make the Hayward signing because there wasn't a plan, which is literally the FO's job. I would be more forgiving on that point if it didn't feel exactly like the Kemba situation, where we also made a decision with no apparent backup plan in place and were made completely subject to Kemba's whims.
I'm not saying I hate the Hayward signing, I'm saying I hate stretching Batum and it's (in my view) undeniable evidence of a failure of roster management. I don't think it's fun or interesting to speculate as to the various permutations of deals that may or may not have been feasible based on information I don't have. It's cool if you want to, but I don't enjoy that so don't expect me to join in.
Haven't you pointed out several other players throughout the early season saying "we could of signed this guy if we wanted veteran leadership for way less money". I am not trying to come at you on this I promise. Read my post I just made before you posted this one and maybe my point will come through cleaner. I may have sounded aggressive towards you when I am really not trying to.
I have made those posts, but not because I'm criticizing Gordon myself - it was in response to this sentiment that allocating that salary on Gordon was justifiable if he's just above average and a vet. My point was that he should have higher expectations for the commitment, which I think is clearly what the franchise was hoping for.
I just hate the game of "what other deals could we have done" like it's my job how to figure out how not to waste cap space, even though I don't have anywhere close to enough information (even if I had the time to digest it) to figure out our options. If you want to die on the hill of "$9M in wasted space over three years is fine because it was impossible / impractical to do anything differently", fine then. I'll just point out that it's extremely unusual, and the guy that we're paying $9M to this year (and for the following two years) is now a title favorite's newest favorite toy that we're subsidizing for them. There is no way that I can look at that situation and say, "Yep, that's some excellent roster management."
