Ghost of Kleine wrote:Saberestar wrote:The players that I listed have been in the league a good amount of years for a reason.
We are contenders, we are not trying to develop players or tryingto to experiment with G-League players. We have enough of that with Jalen Smith and T. Alexander.
I would prefer a known commodity over an unproven guy because we need reliable players with Saric out. We will have only 14 players on our roster and this season will have 82 games...and then tough playoffs.
No, I really get all that man!
But again, we're talking about vet minimum depth players. So it's not like they're a huge risk to our cores' success. The premise is to add further depth around the edges, But at a discount if at all possible to our imminent bloated payroll will otherwise not allow us a broader range of options. These players by the way have played in the league, Maybe not for as long as some of the players that you've mentioned, But to their credit they also don't have as much wear and tear or are as worn down/ washed over the years either. They basically still have much more left in the tank. So in that regard, You get more value on your minimal investment anyways.
I also get what your saying about preferring a known commodity too. But that can also be a double edged sword again in that the NBA's littered with known commodities that at one point had an impact, But have lingered around the league with little to no remaining value due to being washed or extensive wear/ tear and age related deficits. If you're looking to bring in such players in a mentoring capacity, then that makes more sense. But if your looking go add tangible depth and impact throughout your rotation, it's better to take a gamble on upside. This again is especially important for contending teams with bloated contracts and restrictive payroll implications in order to maintain a balance of value throughout the roster.
These "known commodity" players that you've mentioned for comparison are now in their current classification as vet minimum/ still unsigned players because it's known that they can no longer impact games as they previously did due to age , wear and tear, regression over time. This is why their value is diminished so. At least with these younger players, They still maintain their upside, high end athleticism, speed and strength that can impact a game. For a minimal investment, as a 14th player or whatever, it's only good business to invest on these players potential impact and upside as their value can actually increase in terms of being a tradable asset to be included for a more premium returning piece. And their low contractual cost only furthers their percieved value to potential trade suitors.
Also the premise of these known players being reliable or consistent based upon their tenure in the league is obviously not a legitimate guarantee though. Over the years, there have been countless veteran nba players that regardless of their years of experience offered little to no reliability and consistency when it matters most. We've had more than our share of those players already (tenured vets by the way). Players such as Jared Dudley, Chris Andersen, Tyler Johnson, Jamal Crawford, and more recently even in Saric and Kaminsky, Wherrin you have no legitimate idea of what to expect in terms of production and impact from game to game. So using years/ tenure and being a known commodity just isn't a reliable or accurate barometer for impact/ production either.
So for my part, If considering best value on the fringe of the rotation, I'm choosing to bank on potential, upside, durability, athleticism to promote depth, As well as to accumulate ( percieved) higher value tradable assets that can be flipped upon increased value percieved upside for other rotation pieces in a restrictive payroll environment. That's just my preference though.
