RealGM

SWedd523 wrote:Or perhaps they've realized that he's gone past "Bad Boy" and into Draymond+ territory without having the game to back it up.

The Grizzlies are in a dangerous position right now culture-wise with their star player devolving into a super-Miles trying to act like a gangbanger, beating up kids, and doing a bunch of other stupid ****.

They need to clean up their locker room quickly before things implode, and I have a suspicion that Brooks' schtick isn't helping matters much.

Like the Hornets, they're in desperate need of veteran leadership. Steven Adams and Tyus Jones are the only vets on the roster, and you can clearly see they're hurting for more

You can also just not resign him without making a public statement haha. Why are we acting like them announcing it publicly is normal.

I am all for not bringing him back, he isn't good but they also got gentlemen swept by team that we weren't sure was making the playin a few weeks ago.

You don't see the Bucks saying they aren't resigning Jae Crowder after they lost.

It's not normal to make a public statement saying that and I never said it was.

They also didn't make a public statement saying that

"The Grizzlies have informed Books" is a lot different from a public press release.

SWedd523 wrote:It's not normal to make a public statement saying that and I never said it was.

They also didn't make a public statement saying that

"The Grizzlies have informed Books" is a lot different from a public press release.

I meannnnn is it different haha. Someone obviously told Shams how to word it.

Definitely different

and if I had to guess, its Brooks' agent leaking that to Shams

We really should've kept Caleb.

JDR720 wrote:We really should've kept Caleb.

The twins were just so redundant, hard to find mins for both of them.
Had Cody played this year, we probably wouldn't really have that feeling on missing on Caleb.

Monk, Biyombo, Zeller, and Caleb have all played important minutes in the playoffs this year. The issues with this organization are leadership, culture, accountability, and knowing how to build an effective roster. We've never been able to fire on all cylinders.

LofJ wrote:Monk, Biyombo, Zeller, and Caleb have all played important minutes in the playoffs this year. The issues with this organization are leadership, culture, accountability, and knowing how to build an effective roster. We've never been able to fire on all cylinders.

You can't keep everyone.

Rozier would probably be contributing on the Heat right now, and people want to trade him. Doesn't mean those were all bad decisions. Those players listed aren't the reason their team is where they are right now, they are just in the right place at the right time on the backs of other guys like Fox/Sabonis, Durant/Booker, Jimmy Butler etc... The NBA is still very much about the the top 2-3 guys on your team.

LofJ wrote:Monk, Biyombo, Zeller, and Caleb have all played important minutes in the playoffs this year. The issues with this organization are leadership, culture, accountability, and knowing how to build an effective roster. We've never been able to fire on all cylinders.

Weird examples. Monk has been talked to death, but I think most would agree that he needed a change of scenery.

Biz left in 2015 and came back in 2018. Not a great example of mismanaging talent and letting guys go.

Cody has played in a total of 42 games the last two seasons. He is a fringe rotation player that would not be impacting us at all.

Caleb is probably the best example to make this argument, but I actually agree with the argument that Cody and Caleb needed to be split. Recall that Caleb was an UDFA and his last season here he shot 37.8% FG and 24.8% 3PT. Recall that this was under JB, so don't blame Cliff. It didn't make sense at the time to keep him, he needed a change of scenery.

I'm not arguing that we should have kept those players. I'm arguing that our players can contribute to winning teams if they are put in a position to be successful. That's something we fail at as an organization. Not with all of our players of course, but overall we fail to optimize our roster so that our players complement one another and play roles suited to their abilities.

LofJ wrote:I'm not arguing that we should have kept those players. I'm arguing that our players can contribute to winning teams if they are put in a position to be successful. That's something we fail at as an organization. Not with all of our players of course, but overall we fail to optimize our roster so that our players complement one another and play roles suited to their abilities.

If that's the argument, then I'm with JMAC - get some transcendent talent (and keep them healthy) and you'll solve that problem.

yosemiteben wrote:

LofJ wrote:I'm not arguing that we should have kept those players. I'm arguing that our players can contribute to winning teams if they are put in a position to be successful. That's something we fail at as an organization. Not with all of our players of course, but overall we fail to optimize our roster so that our players complement one another and play roles suited to their abilities.

If that's the argument, then I'm with JMAC - get some transcendent talent (and keep them healthy) and you'll solve that problem.

which is why I think it's a bad idea to give long term deals to guys like PJ

SWedd523 wrote:

yosemiteben wrote:

LofJ wrote:I'm not arguing that we should have kept those players. I'm arguing that our players can contribute to winning teams if they are put in a position to be successful. That's something we fail at as an organization. Not with all of our players of course, but overall we fail to optimize our roster so that our players complement one another and play roles suited to their abilities.

If that's the argument, then I'm with JMAC - get some transcendent talent (and keep them healthy) and you'll solve that problem.

which is why I think it's a bad idea to give long term deals to guys like PJ

Don't see the relationship

Role players that weren't needle movers so they weren't brought back on long term contracts because what's the point when you don't have transcendent talent to put him around

SWedd523 wrote:Role players that weren't needle movers so they weren't brought back on long term contracts because what's the point when you don't have transcendent talent to put him around

So you're saying PJ this year and any of Caleb, Monk, Biz, and Cody are all in the same category of non-needle movers?

Just doesn't register with me to say "because fringe rotation players look like solid rotation players next to stars, we should dump talent until we have a star."

yes, I'm saying PJ is not a needle mover.

Giving him the contract he probably expects is an instant mistake, the same way it was to lock up Zeller long term, Biz long term, etc etc.

The smart move was to trade him, the less bad move is to move on from him like they did with the other aforementioned non needle movers

SWedd523 wrote:yes, I'm saying PJ is not a needle mover.

Giving him the contract he probably expects is an instant mistake, the same way it was to lock up Zeller long term, Biz long term, etc etc.

The smart move was to trade him, the less bad move is to move on from him like they did with the other aforementioned non needle movers

The smart move was to trade him for a late first? The odds of drafting a player better than PJ in that spot are low in fact. My draft database says here are the odds picks 21-27.

5% will be an allstar
20% will be a starter
35% will be a rotation bench guy
40% will be a straight bust

75% you will get a player worse than PJ with a 5% to get a better player. Those odds don't equate to trading him being a winning move.

JMAC3 wrote:

SWedd523 wrote:yes, I'm saying PJ is not a needle mover.

Giving him the contract he probably expects is an instant mistake, the same way it was to lock up Zeller long term, Biz long term, etc etc.

The smart move was to trade him, the less bad move is to move on from him like they did with the other aforementioned non needle movers

The smart move was to trade him for a late first? The odds of drafting a player better than PJ in that spot are low in fact. My draft database says here are the odds picks 21-27.

5% will be an allstar
20% will be a starter
35% will be a rotation bench guy
40% will be a straight bust

75% you will get a player worse than PJ with a 5% to get a better player. Those odds don't equate to trading him being a winning move.

Whereas paying him 15 million per year is pretty average for NBA Starters.

0% chance to be a star on a $15-20 mil long term contract vs shot in the dark on a cost controlled rookie scale contract.

Playing it safe is what got us into perhaps the least talented cumulative roster since basketball came back to Charlotte, but God forbid we don't keep every mediocre player around because we're scared to make actual roster decisions.

SWedd523 wrote:0% chance to be a star on a $15-20 mil long term contract vs shot in the dark on a cost controlled rookie scale contract.

Playing it safe is what got us into perhaps the least talented cumulative roster since basketball came back to Charlotte, but God forbid we don't keep every mediocre player around because we're scared to make actual roster decisions.

How much do you think NBA non allstar starters should make?