I wrote a few months back that I thought he would be our most likely FA signing- I still think that's true. Here are reasons why:
1. He's a CAA guy and we know he's open to playing in NY.
2. OKC is rebuilding and may want him back but probably won't want to invest in him long-term, so he's gettable. Also, not a lot of fits for him in the open market because most teams with cap space are rebuilding.
3. He can really shoot it, this should really be #1. He's a high volume guy (2.5-3pt made per game) and high percentage (40+%).
4. His versatility allows him to play next to Randle at SF here, or as a stretch-4, which is probably his best role going forward. But he can do either until the front office/Thibs fully sort out the roster and rotation.
5. Wherever he goes, he wins. OKC, LAC, and Denver all exceeded expectations with him being a #1 or #2 option on offense. Clearly he's a highly impactful vet who brings winning to the table.
My feeling is he seems like a very safe bet for these reasons. His obvious negatives are advanced age and injury history, but I think the injuries have lowered his overall mileage in a way that we saw with Grant Hill later in his career. Gallinari can have a role similar to Redick did in Philly and New Orleans, complimenting young talent with shooting and leadership. It obviously comes down to dollars and, most importantly, number of years, but at age 32 he should still have many good years left and may have some all-star upside in the east for the next couple of seasons if things go well.
The main reasons it may not happen would be if we traded for Chris Paul (or another star) and didn't include Randle, we simple absorb a majority of that star's contract. Another reason would be getting FVV (who is far less likely) as we will likely only sign 1 big ticket FA and probably use the rest of the space on short-term pieces. Otherwise I don't see a reason they don't want Gallinari.
