JonFromVA wrote:jbk1234 wrote:JonFromVA wrote:
Its the GM's job to know when to commit to a player and that's exactly what Altman did with Lauri.
Sexton is still up in the air, and I dont think a Drummond offer was publicized, but we were winning with him until he turned down our offer and we pivoted to Allen.
And then we committed to Allen inspite of not showing evidence it would work.
You're just assuming the LeVert signing was an experiment, but we paid too much for a trial run.
I'm assuming they won't surrender to the sunken cost fallacy if things don't go well between now and the summer. Yes, I assume the front office is rational versus irrational.
What we paid for Caris has nothing to do with the "sunken cost fallacy" and everything to do with Altman's projection for him with the team. Poorly run teams make bad decisions because they're bad at making decisions.
I really don't understand why you'd encourage the Cavs not to take the time to evaluate whether Altman's projections will bear fruit when it's afforded to them by LeVert's present contractual status. There's just nothing rational about it. What's the downside in processing the information that becomes available between now and the summer (he's not extension eligible until then anyway). If what they see with LeVert on the court with Allen, Mobley, and Garland doesn't work, why wouldn't they change course or at least punt into a second season before tying up the cap space?
If the answer is LeVert will be upset, then that's not a good enough answer. If LeVert isn't fitting in as well as hoped, he should want to move on to a team where two bigs aren't operating in the same space he wants to operate. The only reason he'd want the extension at that point is the financial commitment, and only if he believes he might not get the same money in the summer of 2023. Extending a player on a contract that's above his market value, or even just at his perceived market value for a guy who isn't working out, in order to gain favor with the player or his agent, is poor management. There's no two ways about it.