It is much more simple and straightforward than people suggest. walker did not play because he is coming back from an injury and was sent to the dleague to rehabilitate and get minutes, He only came back because of the Pierce injury and is probably way off integrating into the rotation unlike Giddens who has been fit and with the team.
Both Giddens and walker should not be written off and should be developed they have got some good basic abilities and I actually like Walker to succeed more than Giddens. That does not mean he was ready for the Toronto game.
Maybe they can, maybe they can't.
To me, it doesn't matter. This is win now mode. If you can't help the team win this season, then you should be replaced with someone who can.
I disagree with this philosophy. With a 15 man roster there's room for 3-4 projects that you hope could develop into rotation players later in the year or in future years. Using the 15th roster spot on some washed up player based on the slight chance he can help the team in the playoffs seems kind of short sighted.
If there where high potential players, yes.
But when the three players are low in the rotation potential players, what's the point?
High potential players? since when would high-potential players be that low on a roster?
There's nothing wrong with having developing players in the 13-15 slots on a roster, even if they aren't projected to be all-stars. If the C's could get these 3 kids to develop into solid bench players to replace the expiring deals this year, all the better. Granted Giddens is one of those expiring deals at this point but if Hudson, Walker and Giddens were able to develop their games to replace House, Scal and TA for next year, all the better for the C's. Less $ against the luxury tax and players that have been exposed to and learning Doc's system so there's less of a learning curve than there would be if FA's were brought in.
It used to happen all the time.
But the point is why use three roster spaces on guys that might one day become a 10th man? How hard is it to sign a 10th man in the NBA? Very easy. It getting the top 6 or 7 spots filled that is hard.
So why not replace some of them (it is ok to have one non playable players) with guys that can be counted on for spot duty.
It's easy to sign those players but they'll cost you a couple of million a pop. Plus it's possible that one of the inexperienced players will turn into a regular rotation player in a couple of years. It's even possible that by the end of the year Hudson will be able to give you more than Lue would. 3-4 regular rotation guys (Sheed, Baby, Daniels and House) with 3 guys that can give you minutes in a pinch (Scal, TA, Shelden) is enough. If you're at the point where you're looking for a contribution from players 13-15 you're screwed to begin with.
Wdleehi -- I'm in complete agreement that the development used to happen with teams. I think it still should.
I'm with BballTim on why it still should-->$. Youth costs less and in some cases, have the possibility of developing into better players than a FA vet. I already know what House and Lue can provide. Not a lot. Hudson could provide more and for less $ than either of them.
I already know what Veal provides. Walker could provide more than Veal and for much less $.
Giddens (not likely to be around next year but just go with the trend here) could provide what TA provides but for less $.
None of the players the youth could replace are major rotation players but are current contributors. If we've already got replacements and exposed them to the system, they're ahead of any FA's we'd bring in and with some potential to improve further.
With the C's out of the FA market until at least the big-3's contracts expire (if not longer), the draft is the only opportunity to restock the roster without having to overpay for vets via full MLE or worse, get crappy vets at the min to fill out the roster.
