This thread is less about the individual players specifically but about the dynamics surrounding the decisions made on each, though there is some specific things about each player relevant.
We moved Bojan last year for what was obviously a lesser total talent. The rationalization was that we were doing this to better balance the roster, that we needed a reliable big, and that Bojan would be occupying too much of the same space as Lauri, so this move solved a few problems to balance things, and that it would make our team better, despite the total talent reduction. This in what was supposed to be a tanking year where winning was irrelevant, if not outright detrimental to long-term goals, thus somewhat odd that we invoke a balanced roster as a necessity as it paid no significant dividends.
Last summer we moved for Collins in somewhat of a clunky fit under the rationalization that we're being opportunistic about acquiring talent and worrying less about fit. We're entering a year where our incentive is to win but we have a completely unbalanced roster, both in the front court and the guard situation and not having a reliable PG. We say that the balance isn't as important as the talent accumulation and opportunity, despite Collins occupying places where Lauri and Kessler are (one argument against Bogdanovic).
We were supposed to lose last year and took back less talent to "be better." We're supposed to "be better" this year and we're trotting out a wonky roster because we're "accumulating talent."
These ideas don't make sense and are backwards. This isn't to isolate one issue against the other, just that any argument to rationalize either approach will be in direct conflict with the rationalization of the other scenario.
We moved Bojan last year for what was obviously a lesser total talent. The rationalization was that we were doing this to better balance the roster, that we needed a reliable big, and that Bojan would be occupying too much of the same space as Lauri, so this move solved a few problems to balance things, and that it would make our team better, despite the total talent reduction. This in what was supposed to be a tanking year where winning was irrelevant, if not outright detrimental to long-term goals, thus somewhat odd that we invoke a balanced roster as a necessity as it paid no significant dividends.
Last summer we moved for Collins in somewhat of a clunky fit under the rationalization that we're being opportunistic about acquiring talent and worrying less about fit. We're entering a year where our incentive is to win but we have a completely unbalanced roster, both in the front court and the guard situation and not having a reliable PG. We say that the balance isn't as important as the talent accumulation and opportunity, despite Collins occupying places where Lauri and Kessler are (one argument against Bogdanovic).
We were supposed to lose last year and took back less talent to "be better." We're supposed to "be better" this year and we're trotting out a wonky roster because we're "accumulating talent."
These ideas don't make sense and are backwards. This isn't to isolate one issue against the other, just that any argument to rationalize either approach will be in direct conflict with the rationalization of the other scenario.
