im wondering if there vet to rookie ratio is to low for what they want to acheive. If you are a club rebuilding, or moving from rebuilding to stage 2, I think its OK to be built with a high % of young guys to build a core
but when you are in the stage of trying to win it--you probably want 10 vets and 3 young guys
right now they have
R-Wayne Simien 6-9 255 R Earl Barron 7-0 268[we shouldve grabbed him!] R Matt Walsh 6-6 215 R Gerald Fitch 6-3 200 1 Dorrell Wright 19 yo 6-7 210 1 Andre Emmitt 6-6 220
they are going with 7 vets as of right now and none of these guys above have played any significant NBA minutes. if rosters are only 13 guys--perhaps 1 goes to the NBDL--they can sign one more guy[maybe Finley?] still they are thin in the vets for trying to win it all IMHO.
RIP Crushalot😞
AUTOADVERT
Caseloads Posts: 27725
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/29/2001
Member: #41
I think they're trying to keep it cheap outside of their core guys, so they don't get a Knicks level payroll.
Adding solid youth is one way to do that. People were talking about Matt Walsh as a potential first rounder. Simien and Wright should be solid. Don't know much about Barron or Fitch.
I think it's not a bad idea, I see what you're saying: they need need some more vets for a playoff run, but they've shown a great ability to add decent guys like Shandon Anderson for very little money. They'll probably add an amnesty guy or two.
¿ △ ?
nyballer Posts: 21019
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 9/4/2001
Member: #108 USA
I think guys like Walsh and Simien are good additions because they are pretty smart, seasoned basketball players - plus they made Walsh a promise before the draft. The real 'rookies', as in the young players they are developing, are wright and maybe barron. I think they expect simien and walsh to be solid role players this season.