re: What did Griffin do wrong this off season?

quote:

---

It literally happened in the first 2 seasons lol

---

Griffin brought in vets for cultural reasons, not to "win now"

none of those vets hindered the development of any young player. Jax emerged last year with Adams (and he was nowhere ready year 1)

hiring SVG was an issue b/c he mislead Griffin on what "developing the young players" meant to him

I don’t think Griff did bad this off-season. I liked getting Graham, I was the first person to mention Griff should go after him or Rozier instead of chasing and throwing stupid money at Lowry.

I just don’t like giving up the first but the alternative is you’d have to offer more money ala Lonzo to deter them from matching, or pay the first and get a better value contract.

This off-season looks bad because he totally screwed up the last two offseasons. He should have been taking on bloated bad contracts for decent players like OKC did in Zions first couple years for even more assets. And those contracts would be coming up as expiring now and use them in trades for bigger fish. We not attracting fa’s here unless it’s an overpay. We gonna have to trade and the more assets you have the better off we are. Griff has burned through so many already for absolutely nothing when he should have been hoarding them Zion’s first couple years….

OKC ended up with two firsts and seconds for taking on Horford and trading him. We gave up two firsts and a bunch of 2nds for taking on Adams and trading him. Horford would have been a good vet for Jax to learn from.

quote:

---

irrelevant b/c the salary was needed for trades

---

Overpaying Adams is irrelevant? Is that what you are saying?

I think the disconnect is that people remember that Griff said things like we were going to beat people’s asses and that he gave Jrue permission to dominate and win MVP. I really think they thought they could win in year 1 and maybe if Zion would’ve stayed healthy, we would have. As good as Zion has been, he’s still never played anything quite like he did in that preseason before he injured his knee and packed on the extra weight.

Lol, I mean he’s been extremely good but the otherworldly athleticism doesn’t show up nearly as much. You see it here and there. I think he’s picking his spots more than I think he lost it. But he definitely doesn’t play as free as he used to with the dunks and/or overall hustle. And we just saw what it took for Giannis to win. He had to get a bit lucky injury wise during his playoff run and then he had to play like an absolute maniac and utilize every bit of effort, ability and athleticism he had for the Bucks to win the finals.

quote:

---

You don't think part of what we gave up to Memphis was to get off of Adams?

---

No. I think we included Adams and Bledsoe to create a massive salary given to clear room for a Lowry S/T, or, if not, to get a huge TPE. Or, less likely, Memphis wanted him (which would also destroy the "value" argument).

quote:

---

So by your logic bad contracts are easier to move just because they are bigger. That’s asinine. Adams at 17.5 is a bad contract and costs assets to move. Adams at 5 million is a plus contract and could probably net us an asset from a team. Yes I know he wouldn’t sign for 5, it’s just an example.

---

i'd argue that it wasn't adams contract, but actually bledsoe's that costed the asset.

there's a reason why you heard INSTANTLY that bledsoe was going to be rerouted. nobody wants his cancerous arse on the team, not even for his low cost.

quote:

---

Walk us through this....show your work....


cant wait for this.

---

Neither can truly know what Chicago would ultimately have given up for him, so it's moot.

But given how badly Chicago wanted Zo and how much they gave him, it's hard for me to believe they would have let it all go over one 1st round pick had we demanded it.

As I understand it, this is not about the threat of us matching, but given the deals Chicago made they were operating as an over teh cap team so the details of the trade were necessary as I don't think they could just take Zo into cap space.

Chicago knows if they would have been willing to give up more, we don't. Hence, it's all moot.

quote:

---

But they understood we didnt want him, and they could have absolutely frickED us with the way they structured the contract.

---

I don't think they could have because given all the signings they've made, they're operating as an over the cap team, so any way they tried to frick us on the structure would also be fricking themselves since they're over the cap too.

The poison pill stuff is usually thrown in by teams with much better cap flexibility I think.