Shavlik: Today is decision time

[mmmmm]

Interesting that my earlier response seems to have been deleted.   Not sure why since as far as I can tell it had no forum violations.

It contained multiple violations, the most important being its overall tone and the number one guideline of CB, respect each other at all times. Your subsequent response is better though the final line approaches the same sort of thing that got your first post hidden.

Even if you disagree with someone, don't disrespect them.

There seem to be a lot of posts by others that slip by that standard.

But I will try to do my best to stick by it.

[kozlodoev]

Why the snark?

Not on purpose.

But really, tough luck for Randolph that we don't have an open spot for him, even though in essence this was pretty much our own doing (all in all, the Faverani signing is pretty much the difference both between keeping Randolph and staying under the tax).

[mmmmm]

Why the snark?

Not on purpose.

But really, tough luck for Randolph that we don't have an open spot for him, even though in essence this was pretty much our own doing (all in all, the Faverani signing is pretty much the difference both between keeping Randolph and staying under the tax).

Very true.

Though, having 7 bigs on a 15man roster to cover two positions (PF & C) doesn't seem as excessive as having 5 SGs covering one.

So it's not completely clear that Shav should be bumped positionally by adding Faverani.

But certainly his contract is more than the difference financially.

[kozlodoev]

Why the snark?

Not on purpose.

But really, tough luck for Randolph that we don't have an open spot for him, even though in essence this was pretty much our own doing (all in all, the Faverani signing is pretty much the difference both between keeping Randolph and staying under the tax).

Very true.

Though, having 7 bigs on a 15man roster to cover two positions (PF & C) doesn't seem as excessive as having 5 SGs covering one.

So it's not completely clear that Shav should be bumped positionally by adding Faverani.

But certainly his contract is more than the difference financially.

I thought Faverani was signed for $3 million per, but maybe I'm mistaken. In any case, I think Ainge is way more interested in finding a diamond in the rough than staying under the cap. And Shav is pretty much what he is (which is not a diamond ).

[mmmmm]

Why the snark?

Not on purpose.

But really, tough luck for Randolph that we don't have an open spot for him, even though in essence this was pretty much our own doing (all in all, the Faverani signing is pretty much the difference both between keeping Randolph and staying under the tax).

Very true.

Though, having 7 bigs on a 15man roster to cover two positions (PF & C) doesn't seem as excessive as having 5 SGs covering one.

So it's not completely clear that Shav should be bumped positionally by adding Faverani.

But certainly his contract is more than the difference financially.

I thought Faverani was signed for $3 million per, but maybe I'm mistaken. In any case, I think Ainge is way more interested in finding a diamond in the rough than staying under the cap. And Shav is pretty much what he is (which is not a diamond ).

Hoopsworld has Faverani signed at 2M this season.