Justify the non-traditional roster

quote:

---

Is the small-ball lineup actually trending toward becoming the norm

---

Yes and no. You want size if you can get it. But you need flexibility. All of the remaining teams, even Indiana, have gone small at times, often with success.

The bigger issue is limiting the number of guys you roll out whose clear weaknesses can't be hidden or mitigated. In the playoffs, it is increasingly harder to win playing guys like that big minutes.

quote:

---

we are seeing Demps build what we'd call an unconventional roster for the time being

---

Unbalanced is a more accurate term because it suggests there will be a future attempt to rebalance the roster. It's been obvious from the moment they signed Tyreke that Gordon was gone ASAP. Loomis may be new to the NBA, but he should know enough about numbers to see that 1) having 2 $10 million 6th men is a bad idea, and 2) tying up 60% of your salary cap in 3 "starters" that play 2 positions is a bad idea.

The roster he assembled in year 2 AD is not a finished product. He took a calculated risk, "I can get 2 young All Star caliber guards but the backcourt and salary cap will be crowded until I can move Gordon, or I can wait 2 years until I move Gordon and hope I can find as much talent then" As he's done with many of his moves, he chose to trade cap space and uncertain future assets, for certain present assets.

We're all pretty much agreed that if this roster is healthy it's a playoff bubble team, basically what Minnesota was this season, maybe a little better. A 42-45 win team meets expectations, and if that happens then the focus is not on what's wrong with the roster but what's right with it and his seat is a lot cooler and confidence in a long term view is justified.

If we don't turn Gordon's salary slot into a "starting" 3/5 by 2015 FA then obviously Demps is in over his head and should go. And if the team is bad again next year he may not get the chance, but until then I think there's enough evidence to suggest he's being patient and calculated and we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that he's being unconventional just because Gordon was a big mistake that is taking a while to correct.

quote:

---

Is the small-ball lineup actually trending toward becoming the norm or is it just an extension of the exciting Suns teams that can't win when it matters?

---

I think that every team has to be capable of a small ball lineup in some facet in this day and ages NBA. Look at every team in the playoffs currently, all of them can go small. OKC puts durant or jones at the 4 with ibaka at the 5, Spurs throw duncan at the 5 every now and again, obvious situation with the heat, wizards won their last game with gooden playing a lot of the 4 minutes, pacers went small with copeland at the 4 to help with the atlanta series. Brooklyn goes small with peirce at the 4. Portland can stick aldridge at the 5 when needed with batum at the 4. the only real exception is the clippers who stick mainly with blake and deandre or big baby but even they could if they needed to with granger or barnes at the 4.

So i think that most teams, in order to advance far into the playoffs, need to have solid talent in the traditional sense of roster spots, but they also need to have decent enough talent to go small when a high offense approach is needed, or when they need to guard another small ball team thats killing them, ie pacers v hawks.

TLDR; yes and no, teams need to be able to do both

I hope you're not watching the WCF. Even stretches where it was 4 guards and a forward.

Ibaka injury changed things, but even then I bet Ibaka/Durant frontcourt would have been seen often