It's fair to maintain the belief that we could become a more attractive FA destination if we were to be a 4th or 5th seed this year. However, it's fairly easy to argue that that's less likely than not, and even if it does happen, the FA pool is so weak this coming year that it becomes a moot point.
The primary issue I see is how our logjams are going to affect the team, and specifically, the value of our assets. There are so many factors that could royally screw up our ability to most effectively develop our youth, assist in the rebirth of vets to increase their value, and find a home (presumably elsewhere) for many of these guys. Given the above re: the dried up FA pool, and our lack of success in signing FAs in the past, we could very well be looking at a trade-or-nothing situation.
I know I'm not reinventing the wheel here, these sentiments have been shared by others. I have been thinking about this a lot lately, though, and specifically how our current roster is going to be difficult to manage from both GM and coaching standpoints.
-Who plays? PF is a mess. It's easy to suggest you play who shows up, but is it not plausible that Sully has a career (contract) year? What if KO takes another step forward? And if he doesn't, he still has value in a lot of systems around the league, so benching him would only hurt that. Lee and Amir need mins if we wish to get anything back for them, or even keep them.
-Who headlines a big package? Smart? Don't think so... not unless he makes major strides on the offensive end this year. No real reason to anticipate that as of now..
-Who becomes available this year? We have more superteams than I can recall in recent history, and with so many credible contenders, I don't see any breaking up at any point in the near future. And putting all our eggs in the Boogie Basket is less than exciting...
Honestly, I think the whole concept of 'showcasing' players for the sake of raising trade value is a bit of a myth.
This is the NBA - every team has talent scouts that are paid millions of dollars, to do their job, which is to understand the strengths/weaknesses/abilities of every player out there.
I don't think NBA GM's look at players the same way we do - in terms of PPG and RPG. I think they look at players in terms of what skills they have, what they can do, and how those skills/capabilities fit in with their team needs.
Kelly Olynyk doesn't need to play 30 MPG for opposing teams to know what his skill set is - every body knows that he's a good shooter, a good passer, a passable rebounder, and a good ball handler for his size...with some defensive limitations. If you have a need for a stretch four you can run the offense through and you have a good rim protector, then you have interest in a guy like Kelly.
The only real exception to this I think is with Rookies, because you don't really know what they are going to be capable of until you see them play actual NBA minutes against actual NBA competition. Even sending guys to the D-League isn't the same, because many players dominate that league only to royally suck on the real NBA court.
This is why at the end of the day, I believe that Brad Stevens is going to play the guys who he feels:
1) Offer skills that make sense in the context of what he is trying to achieve
2) Bring the right mentality and work ethic every day
For example if Sully doesn't keep his body in check over the court of the season, and continues his insubordination (missing practices, etc) and in the meantime all of the other bigs work hard and play well...then I can see Sully dropping slowly out of the rotation and eventually being traded.
I do agree that this approach to team building his it's downsides - everybody looks a little big better when they are playing good minutes and putting up good numbers, and I'd like to see our rookies get at least SOME time (even if it's just 5 minutes) on a nightly basis.
But, Danny is an opportunist who always takes talent over need, so if he has the ability to collect talent at a bargain price he's always going to do it. If you have too many talented players at one position, well that's the best type of problem to have - it's certainly better than not having enough talent.
Having so many disposable players only means that Danny has more versatility when negotiating trades because there's so much variety in the assets he possesses that he will almost always have an asset somebody wants.
Is it the PERFECT situation? Certainly not, but it's MUCH better than the position we were in in 2013/14. At least I think so.
Topic: Bob Cousy says he'd rather tank/draft than get stuck in the middle of the pack. (Read 14593 times)