it comes from:
a) the fact he won't be contributing to the team anytime soon;
Pruitt last year, and now they love him.
b) that he was taken ahead of walker, a more talented player;
This is really irrelevant, it ignores what would've been the optimal path. You can argue that you might've wanted someone else instead of Giddens, but drafting Walker in the first round would've been a mistake if he could've had him in the second round (which he did).
c) that we could have head more interesting prospects with his pick, especially considering the fact that -- we then drafted walker.
This makes a bit of more sense, but considering that most wanted CDR, who hasn't shown much to me, even though he should have a better opportunity with a lesser team. I know some wanted Chalmers, but that's something else entirely... Danny had to weight some other factors, and improving the wing positions seemed to be his priority, which I agree.
i don't see anything vindictive on here -- nothing like Fatty O'Bryant. he seems like a good kid to me. it's only natural to want something more out of his roster spot.
He's taking
a roster spot, not
the roster spot, he's a project with a ton of potential. I'd rather keep him and trade away a rotational player whose role will be diminished with the inclusion of a better player. That, to me, involves moving Pruitt, Leon, and/or POB (since the concern is improving the PG and PF/C positions).
I really don't care about moving projects from our 14-15th roster spot, those are occupied by the players that are supposed to occupy them... talented projects. Should they be used to in order to make deals work to improve said positions? Sure, but giving them away like some propose here is complete nonesense as far as I'm concerned. The problem is not who's occupying those 2 roster spots, it's with whom they have occupying the 1-12 roster spots (though I'm quite content with the team we have).