I love that we got him over the Lakers. Sure we paid him more than they could have offered, but at least he didn’t just take less and go to LA
Realistically and completely unbiased opinion it is an A. It improves our team without compromising any sort of future financial flexibility the way any other somewhat realistic free agent move would have. Almost none of the players available in free agency were going to slot into the long-term plans of the team and any that you could argue might have would have required a crippling overpay.
I give it a C+. Stylistically he’s a great fit.
But honestly the contract structure is kinda weird.
If he sucks then we can let him go or trade him after a year. If he’s good we have his bird rights after two years and can go over the cap to keep him. I think it’s a great move that gives us flexibility to keep building in lots of different ways. There’s too many unanswered questions with this roster to start handing out big 4-5 year deals to anybody except Haliburton.
B. It’s a good solid move, but not spectacular.
I hope Mathurin can learn a little from him. Defensively and from his all-around offensive game as well.
he will also provide a temporary structure for teaching the young guys what our finished team will eventually play like – like staking a tree so that it grows straight.
Other than that he fills a need defensively as a guy who can guard 1-3. He’s not like Levert who can only contribute when his shot is falling. Hell contribute to this years playoffs. And after that, he’s only 26 so if we want to continue with him we can.
Pretty much my thoughts. I believe there is no such thing as a bad one year deal. Nice to have a great defender and champion on our team for the young guys
I really like it. The fit is good, he knows how to win, and should be an influence on Mathurin’s game. It’s a lot of money but we had money to spend this offseason and there wasn’t a better target in my opinion. I’d say it’s an A-
8 comments
I love that we got him over the Lakers. Sure we paid him more than they could have offered, but at least he didn’t just take less and go to LA
Realistically and completely unbiased opinion it is an A. It improves our team without compromising any sort of future financial flexibility the way any other somewhat realistic free agent move would have. Almost none of the players available in free agency were going to slot into the long-term plans of the team and any that you could argue might have would have required a crippling overpay.
I give it a C+. Stylistically he’s a great fit.
But honestly the contract structure is kinda weird.
If he sucks then we can let him go or trade him after a year. If he’s good we have his bird rights after two years and can go over the cap to keep him. I think it’s a great move that gives us flexibility to keep building in lots of different ways. There’s too many unanswered questions with this roster to start handing out big 4-5 year deals to anybody except Haliburton.
B. It’s a good solid move, but not spectacular.
I hope Mathurin can learn a little from him. Defensively and from his all-around offensive game as well.
he will also provide a temporary structure for teaching the young guys what our finished team will eventually play like – like staking a tree so that it grows straight.
Other than that he fills a need defensively as a guy who can guard 1-3. He’s not like Levert who can only contribute when his shot is falling. Hell contribute to this years playoffs. And after that, he’s only 26 so if we want to continue with him we can.
Pretty much my thoughts. I believe there is no such thing as a bad one year deal. Nice to have a great defender and champion on our team for the young guys
I really like it. The fit is good, he knows how to win, and should be an influence on Mathurin’s game. It’s a lot of money but we had money to spend this offseason and there wasn’t a better target in my opinion. I’d say it’s an A-