so many points could be made here, but let's start with the "we should have kept GG and should have seen this coming from him" undertone.
the career averages for his first 6 years are:
8.3 points/game
2.3 rbds/game
0.9 assists/game
1.2 turnovers/game
and not reflected in the stats are a huge series of poor on court decisions during those 6 years. who wouldnt realistically think GG was a fringe player?
are we to say now that we should have kept him around on the roster for 6 years because in his 7th year he MAYBE finally is playing like a credible nba player? just how far ahead are people supposed to be able to project a player who doesnt perform for years?
and it wasnt just the boston leadership who had doubts about his effectiveness. he was also shown the door by houston, minnesota, dallas, brooklyn, and indiana. and let's toss in all the other teams who did not even give him a try out at all. are they all idiots or blind or amiss in basketball judgement?
honestly, this seem very much like a post hoc analysis reached SIX YEARS after his initial try outs.
finally, what are we to conclude from this? that everyone that is one-dimensional as a rookie and terrible at everything else should be given 6-7 years to mature? heck, the celtics roster would be stuffed with such players were that the case. would they all pan out?
good for GG that he finally is having a good span of games and maybe has finally learned that shooting alone doesnt keep him in the nba. if so, i am happy for him.
but as posted above, this is really a sss and let's see the season play out before making final judgements shall we? doing so might greatly reduce size of the crow-buffet for everyone concerned.